The
Ramsar LibraryThe Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: its History and Development
by G. V. T. Matthews (Ramsar, 1993)
[Editor's note to this edition.]
THE RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS:
ITS HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
by G. V. T. Matthews
(Ramsar, 1993)
Published by the Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland,
Switzerland.
© Copyright: 1993 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as
Waterfowl Habitat.
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior permission from the copyright holder. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.
ISBN No.2-940073-00-7
Edited by: Erika Luthi, Ramsar
Printed by: Imprimerie Dupuis SA, CH-1348 Le Brassus,
Switzerland.
Cover and centre part: Apple Fields, CH-1147 Montricher, Switzerland.
Available from: Ramsar Bureau, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-l 196 Gland, Switzerland.
The designations of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Ramsar Convention Bureau concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
THE RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS:
ITS HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1 The Ramsar Convention
Chapter 2 Arousing public interest in wetlands
Chapter 3 The evolution of the text up to signature at Ramsar
Chapter 5 Classification and evaluation
Chapter 6 Wise use, management and monitoring
Chapter 7 Funding the operation of the Convention
Chapter 9 Legal and moral aspects of joining the Convention
Addenda
(a) The amended text of the Ramsar Convention [updated version]
(b) List of Contracting Parties and number and area of wetlands designated [updated version]
(c) Model instrument of accession and model designation of a site for the List [not reproduced here]
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands was adopted over twenty years ago as the first of the modern global nature conservation conventions. The period when the treaty was being developed was a time of greatly increased environmental awareness. Looking back, we can see that the Convention was able to break important new ground in global efforts for nature conservation and sustainable development. Indeed, much of the philosophy behind the Ramsar Convention, including the need for a network of protected areas and the wise use principle for the management of wetlands, has since been adopted in other international arrangements and in national law.
Over the years following its adoption, there have been tremendous changes in the Convention. A protocol was adopted in 1982, followed by amendments in 1987. Presently there are some 75 member States to the Convention throughout the world which have designated almost 600 wetland sites onto the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. The Convention has a vibrant programme, a well-endowed budget and a sizeable permanent secretariat, the Ramsar Bureau, which serves to assist in the day-to-day operation of the treaty. [Mid-2005 figures are 145 member States and 1435 Ramsar sites.]
In light of these many developments, the Ramsar Convention Bureau has considered that it is now timely to provide a concise history of the Ramsar Convention, both for students and for professionals responsible for the present day application of the Convention. We have been delighted that Professor G. V. T. Matthews has agreed to undertake this task. As will be immediately evident in the following pages, there is no one better placed than Professor Matthews to recount this history. While the views expressed in this publication are those of the author alone, the study is based upon official documentation and records available to the author and to the Ramsar Bureau.
We are most grateful to Professor Matthews for his continued contribution to the Ramsar Convention.
Daniel Navid
Secretary General
Ramsar Convention Bureau
Since prehistoric times the relations between Man and Wetlands have been marked by conflict. Wetlands were considered disastrous realms, sources of disease, obstacles to any form of positive development. People who lived in them were held in contempt as pariahs. The fact that many of the most advanced human civilizations developed within or in immediate proximity to wetlands is thus quite astonishing. Mesopotamia, the Nile delta in Egypt, Alexander's Macedonia in the Axios marshes, Rome by the Pontine marshes, the Netherlands, London, and the German Hanseatic towns situated in the flood plains of vast deltas are but a few examples. In distant continents the Mekong delta, the marshes in Central Mexico, and the inner Niger delta in Mali should be mentioned.
It would be an interesting task for ecology-oriented cultural heritage historians to study the possible cause and effect connections between advanced civilizations and wetlands. One can guess that the latter's extraordinary biodiversity and natural productivity played an important role. Nonetheless, throughout the whole of human history, wetlands have remained in disrepute. Drainage and reclamation have always been considered civilized actions. Thus over thousands of years, and especially over the past few centuries and far into the twentieth century, most and the vastest wetlands have disappeared. Psilovikos proved that between 1930 and 1985, in Macedonia alone, 94.3 per cent of the peat and marshlands and over one third of all lakes were drained.
The great importance of wetlands for the conservation of the natural environment has gradually become known only over the past decades. Ornithologists were the first to support wetland conservation, because they wished to maintain the diversity of migratory waterfowl. Thus the proposal for an international treaty to conserve wetlands first emanated from ornithological circles. The name of the Ramsar Convention to this day bears the appendage "especially as waterfowl habitats," although, even in those days, twenty years ago, ornithologists looked much further ahead.
In the meantime, it became more and more recognized that wetlands have a far greater importance for ground water protection, regulation of the water cycle, water storage, water purification, and as an ecological basis for many forms of life, especially for fish. In the Third World entire populations depend essentially upon wetlands. Thousands of millions, probably hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars, are spent each year in the industrialized world in order to restore the hydrological and biological functions - functions which would be free of charge if wet-lands had been conserved. Ground water protection and water purification measures, in particular, swallow enormous sums. The re-establishment of formerly drained wetlands is therefore becoming more and more discussed. This is often considered an "expensive joke", but actually it is a very wise step towards a better economy in the future.
Ramsar has already achieved a great deal in its first twenty years. This book bears witness to that. Yet the treaty will have to adapt itself continually in order to do justice to the wetlands' vital importance in today's world. To this end this book will also provide an important stimulus.
Dr Luc Hoffmann
Director Emeritus, IWRB
Vice-President Emeritus, WWF
Acknowledgements
The author is very grateful to the Ramsar Convention Bureau for its encouragement and support for the production of this book. He is also appreciative to Dr Gerald Dick, Dr Luc Hoffmann, Mr Cyrille de Klemm, Professor M.F. Mörzer Bruyns and Dr Jan Rooth, who have read and made helpful suggestions on the preliminary text of the book. Finally a note of gratitude is due to Ms Françoise Dagon, Ms Erika Luthi and Ms Mireille Katz of the Bureau for their considerable editorial assistance.
Note on this publication of the book (October 1997):
1. Readers should be reminded that Prof. Matthew's manuscript was completed in 1993 and therefore does not take into account the considerable advances made at the later Conferences of the Parties. Some of these are merely name changes (e.g., Wetland Conservation Fund to Small Grants Fund) but others are more substantial (e.g., the organization of the Bureau's work programme, now superseded by the adoption of the Strategic Plan 1997-2002). No attempt has been made to update the material of the book for this reprint, so the reader must be aware that the analysis holds good only up to 1993.
The Ramsar Convention
The need for a Convention on Wetlands
On February 3rd 1971, in the little Iranian town of Ramsar, nestling between the Alborz moun-tains and the Caspian coast, the representatives of 18 nations put their signatures to the text of a remarkable treaty. The Ramsar Convention was the first of the modern instruments seeking to conserve natural resources on a global scale. It is still the only world-wide treaty which restrains the countries joining it from the unthinking, selfish exploitation of their sovereign natural patrimony. It is concerned with that most threatened group of habitats, the wetlands. These are shallow open waters - lakes, ponds, rivers and coastal fringes - and any land which is regularly or intermittently covered or saturated by water - marshes, bogs, swamps, flood plains and the like.
For centuries mankind had viewed wetlands as places to drain and convert to more obvious uses, such as agriculture. But the process had gone so far in the developed countries that the disappea-rance of wetlands was leading to undesirable consequences - to the loss of groundwater reserves and the consequent need for irrigation, to flash floods, to shoreline destruction, to the accumula-tion of pollutants and to other subtle disturbances. Many useful plants and animals dependent on wetlands were disappearing with them. People interested in the conservation of waterfowl and fish were taking the lead in calling for a halt to wetland destruction in the developed countries. Losses were accelerating as extremely efficient machinery and techniques for draining wetlands were invented. The developing countries needed help to avoid making the same mistakes, to treat their resources wisely.
International action was necessary for several reasons. Many wetlands lay athwart national boundaries or derived their water supplies from neighbouring countries. The circulation of water in the atmosphere was truly international. Fish hatched in the wetlands of one country might be caught as adults in those of another, or on the high seas. Water birds, migrating over thousands of kilometres twice a year, also ignored boundaries and needed the wetlands of many countries in which to rest, feed and breed. Finally, if the developing countries were to be helped to use their wetlands wisely, there must be international arrangements for the provision of technical and financial aid.
The Convention as it is now
The Ramsar Convention is a fully-fledged and very active organization with a well-staffed secretariat, the Convention Bureau. This is based in Gland, Switzerland, and funded by the subscriptions of the Convention's Parties. By the beginning of 1993 there were 75 of these [154 by January 2007], and if the States which have recently become independent in eastern Europe all confirm their acceptance of the Convention, joined on their behalf by disintegrated federations, there will be 95. While this is still only about half the United Nations, far more important, where a treaty to conserve habitat is concerned, is the area that the territories of its Parties cover. The Ramsar writ now runs in 108 million square kilometres. Leaving aside Antarctica (protected by another treaty), this is 75% of the world's lands.
From the map in the centre of this book, it will readily be seen that this coverage is not uniform. North America and Europe are virtually completely Ramsar-orientated. Oceania (93% coverage) and Central and South America (89%) are approaching that condition. It is in Asia (61%) and, especially, Africa (42%) where the gaps remain and the greatest effort is needed to recruit more countries into the Ramsar family.
Besides the general undertakings made by Parties to the Convention - wise use of wetlands, undertaking environmental impact assessments, making wetland inventories, establishing nature reserves, training wetland managers, consulting with other Parties, assisting in the operations of the Convention - there is a specific requirement. This is to designate at least one, and preferably many more, wetlands of international importance for the Convention List. Wetlands so designa-ted are, in effect, set aside from destruction in perpetuity. Their well-being is assured by the monitoring activity of the Bureau and the peer review of the other Parties. By the beginning of 1993 the Parties had so designated 590 wetlands covering over 36.7 million hectares - an area greater than the whole of Germany [1,641 sites covering 146 million hectares, January 2007]. This is again a magnificent achievement, but not one on which the Parties can yet rest content.
At their triennial meetings, the Parties not only review their conservation achievements, monitor the well-being of wetlands on the List, and exchange research and management information, they also agree on interpretations of the Convention text and decide upon budgetary matters, including the disbursement of the Wetland Conservation Fund which has been set up to assist developing countries.
A history of the Convention
Now that the Convention is so well established and active and has extended its operations over such a huge area, it was thought a good time to provide a short history of the events that led to the formulation of the Convention and to its subsequent development. This should be helpful to those already involved in the work of the Convention and, especially, to those working to encourage their country to become a new Party.
Treaties are essentially made between governments, and it is governments who, in various ways, control land use within their borders. It is therefore surprising how much of the movement towards a convention, and its subsequent improvement and expansion, was due, as will become clear, to the activities of a few non-governmental international organizations. In the lead position was the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), now called the World Conservation Union, but keeping the same acronym. This is based in Switzerland, initially at Morges and now at Gland. It also has an Environmental Law Centre in Bonn, Germany, and it has launched a World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, United Kingdom. IUCN's smaller, but remarkably active, partner was the International Wildfowl Research Bureau (IWRB). This was based successively in London, United Kingdom, at La Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, France and, since 1969, at Slimbridge, United Kingdom. It too has modified its name, to International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau, but it has likewise kept the original acronym [now called Wetlands International]. Both organizations benefited from financial support provided by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), with its international headquarters in Gland and national organiza-tions in many countries. It is now called the World Wide Fund for Nature but has also conserved its acronym.
These non-governmental bodies still provide services to the Ramsar Bureau and assist the operation of the Convention. However, the Bureau, although hosted by IUCN, is an entirely independent body directly responsible to, and at the service of, the Parties. It is to the Bureau that any question regarding the Convention should now be addressed, and it is the Bureau that should, in the first instance, be approached by any country interested in joining the Convention.
Proclaiming the values of wetlands
There would have been little hope of setting up the mechanism of a Convention until a substantial body of politicians, administrators, engineers, scientists and members of the public had been convinced of the value of wetlands and the need to conserve the remaining ones. This history therefore starts in Chapter 2 with an account of the efforts that have been made since the 1930's to dispel the hitherto popular image of wetlands as inimical places to be got rid of, as wastelands to be converted to more productive use. The early lead established in North America is made clear. In the Old World there was little movement until, at the start of the 1960's, IUCN established the MAR Project for the conservation and management of wetlands. This began with a seminal international conference organized by IWRB near its headquarters in France. From then on a series of initiatives, national as well as international, have led to the production of a plethora of books, pamphlets, audio-visual presentations and films. All these, in their different ways, boost the image of wetlands and enlarge upon the many benefits they afford mankind if only they are maintained and used with discretion. Certainly there is now no excuse for ignorance regarding the value of wetlands.
The evolution of a text
It took just over eight years of conferences, technical meetings and behind-the-scenes discussions to develop a convention text that had any hope of being accepted widely in the political climate of the time. This is followed in detail in the next chapter because an understanding of the changes and compromises forced upon the drafters is essential for a proper understanding of why the Convention has the form that it does. The Government of the Netherlands played a central role, and, later, the Soviet Government became helpful. In a period of history dominated by the Iron Curtain and the Cold War, the Convention was almost lost when Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1968. However, there was recognition that the long-term future of the environment should not be set aside because of passing ideological struggles, however unpleasant their effects at the time. Helped by the determination of the IWRB, the countries of both sides of the divide finally carne together and agreed the text of the Convention at the historic Conference hosted by Iran.
Listing, classifying and evaluating wetlands
Although it had become widely accepted that at least the most important wetlands should be conserved, it was only in North America that systematic information on the whereabouts and characteristics of the wetlands had been accumulated. The MAR Conference stimulated the drawing together of wetland inventories, first for Europe and the Mediterranean region, then for the whole of the Western Palearctic. Later came inventories for Central and South America, for Asia and for Oceania. Again it was IUCN and IWRB that made the running. Although thousands of informants were involved, the drawing together of the tangled mass of data devolved on a few dedicated individuals. Waterfowl played a critical role in that IWRB used many years of international counts to pinpoint the most important wetlands. With these inventories, whose compilation is summarized in Chapter 4, governments now know what they have to conserve, though more detailed, national, inventories are needed to underpin a country's wetland conservation programme.
Classification is a dull subject for the layman, but it is essential if we are to know which animalsl and which type of wetlands are being conserved. Chapter 5 reviews the development of agreed systems of classification and also sets out the basis on which wetlands of international importance, suitable for designation for the Ramsar List, are separated from those of lesser importance. Again, although the present criteria appear straightforward, they can only be fully appreciated in the light of the arguments that have preceded their acceptance.
Wise use, management and monitoring of wetlands
In allowing the wise use of wetlands, even those on the Ramsar List, instead of their complete protection, the Convention was well ahead of its time. Chapter 6 describes how the concept of wise use became a central point of the Convention, particularly for the developing countries. The management of wetlands and, in particular, of waterfowl stocks, was also discussed at the conferences before and after the completion of the Convention's text. The many sources of information now available are set out, though it is emphasized that wetland management is not yet an exact science, but a pragmatic application of experience. Finally, this chapter describes how the monitoring of wetlands and their waterfowl stocks has been developed to give warning of any departures from the norm. The Bureau, with expert assistance if needed, has a detailed procedure for monitoring the well-being of wetlands on the List.
How the Convention is funded and operated
The economic climate at the time of the Ramsar Conference was such that very few countries were prepared to accept a Convention to which they would have to make a financial contribution. No provision for financing the operation of the Convention was therefore included, and it was left to IUCN and IWRB to keep the Convention active, using their limited sources. Chapter 7 records their struggles and the eventual move to proper financing by the Parties. This necessitated amendments to the Convention. The securing of approval by the legislatures of a majority of Parties has proved a lengthy and tedious business. However, the legal procedures are almost complete [the amendments came into force on 1 May 1994], and in a heartening display of unity, most Parties are contributing the necessary sums on a voluntary basis.
Upon signing the Convention text, delegates of the 1971 Conference visit an ab-bandan (water impoundment) near Ramsar. (Photo: P. F. Harrison) |
Joining the Convention, the commitments and the benefits
The final chapter briefly reviews the legal basis of the Convention, recalls matters of interpretation and the making of amendments described in previous chapters, and sets out remaining points that may require legal consideration. It is emphasized, however, that the undertaking of moral obligations and the acceptance of peer review are really the essential basis for making the Convention an active, effective and forward-looking entity. The steps needed for joining the Convention are described, along with a summary of the commitments undertaken, and the bene-fits that accrue.
In addenda are (a) the text of the amended Convention, (b) the Parties and the number and area of wetlands each has designated for the List of Wetlands of International Importance, and (c) models of the documents needed for accession to the Convention and for designation of a site for the Ramsar List.
Chapter 2
Arousing public interest in wetlands
The primordial fear of wetlands
Since time immemorial people had viewed wetlands with apprehension. They were seen as trackless wastes in which the traveller could easily be lost and sucked into bottomless mires. To the superstitious they were the haunts of demons, imagined or made real as strange dancing lights. Dwellers on their margins lived in fear of devastating floods. They were considered to be disease-ridden places, their "bad air" blamed for malaria.
Only the relatively few people that had become adapted to living in wetlands had an appreciation of the varied and abundant harvests that they could provide. Not many had any conception of the vital roles of wetlands in hydrological regulation or as essential habitat to a wide range of species. To most people wetlands were something to be confined by embankments or got rid of by drainage - especially where fertile plains were created for agriculture. Such transformations were irresistible to ambitious politicians. Draining the Pontine Marshes had been an objective of dictators, from the Caesars to Mussolini. Even in democracies the "reclamation" of wetlands could be a vote-winner.
Pioneer efforts to inform the public
To persuade people that wetlands were not wastelands needed informed and sustained propaganda drives. These were first undertaken in North America. The 1930s' "dust bowls" of the Midwest made the perils of ill-considered drainage easier to appreciate. President Franklin D. Roosevelt not only laid out vast amounts of public money in his New Deal programmes, but picked a journalist to run the re-vamped Biological Survey. J.N. Darling was not only competent in the corridors of power, but also a gifted cartoonist. As "Ding" he had for years been lampooning despoilers of wetlands. The combination of money and publicity was very powerful. The brilliant idea of a "Duck Stamp", which hunters bought with their license and so contributed to the purchase of wetlands, caught the public fancy.
Within three decades so much progress had been made that the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to tell "all thinking people" what had been achieved in the USA and Canada. In 1964 they published "Waterfowl Tomorrow", a 770-page, multi-authored, illustrated book. Much of the information in it was available to the general public for the first time. The waterfowl (ducks, geese and swans) provided a primary focus because their decline and the consequent loss of quarry for hunters had had a particularly wide public impact. But the conservation and management of the wetlands that provide the essential habitats for waterfowl occupied fully half the book. Natural controlling factors were examined, but Man was shown to be overwhelmingly powerful and often extremely destructive through drainage, pollution and excessive hunting. However, agricultural crops could provide a rich living for adaptable birds. Man could also make positive contributions by setting aside reserves and by manipulating habitat in many and varied ways.
A companion publication which should have preceded "Waterfowl Tomorrow" did not, for various reasons, appear until 1984. This was "Flyways: pioneering waterfowl management in North America", another substantial, well-illustrated book. Its purpose was to tell the individual stories of field workers and administrators that together had brought about the evolution of waterfowl and wetland conservation in North America. These two books together provided readily available documentation, which, like the projects they described, were the envy of the rest of the world.
Project MAR
In 1960, IUCN received and approved a proposal from L. Hoffmann which called for an international programme on the conservation and management of marshes, bogs and other wetlands. It was designated Project MAR since these are the first three letters of the word for wetlands in several languages - MARshes, MARecages, MARismas. IUCN asked that the International Council for Bird Protection (ICBP) as well as IWRB should be asked to participate, and appointed L. Hoffmann as Coordinator. At the beginning of 1962 he became the honorary Director of IWRB, which from then onwards played a central role.
L. Hoffmann organized a MAR Conference in the French Camargue, at Stes-Maries-de-la-Mer, from 12 to 16 November 1962. This was attended by some 80 experts from 12 European countries and from Australia, Canada, Morocco and the United States. Nearly 60 papers were presented on the economic, scientific and moral considerations; the criteria for defining wetland areas and reserves; the legal and administrative devices; the management, utilization and restoration of wetlands; the role of man-made aquatic habitats; the international efforts needed for the conservation of wetlands and their fauna. The impressive Conference Proceedings appeared in 1964, in English and French.
The participants of the conference, well aware that conference proceedings, however seminal, tend to gather dust on library shelves, made 13 recommendations for action. Very appropriately the first was "that IUCN publish an educational leaflet in which the educational, scientific, economic, recreational and other values of wetlands are clearly set forth and further recommends that UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) or other appropriate international agency be requested to help finance this leaflet for mass circulation in order to present, in unequivocal terms, the values of wetlands to mankind".
Liquid Assets
The preparation of such a document was assigned to the Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge, United Kingdom. The elegantly designed booklet was given a singularly apt title - "Liquid Assets". It had only 18 pages of text, but in these were distilled the current knowledge about wetlands and the arguments for their conservation. The language was straightforward, the message direct, for the aim was to influence those whose work affected policy towards drainage -- politicians, administrators, engineers and agriculturists. After a careful definition of wetlands (the basis for that used in the Ramsar Convention), their value for recreation, science and education were explained; the economics and dangers of drainage discussed; the constructive use, conservation and management of wetlands outlined.
The whole thrust of the message was summarized in the words of Count Leon Lippens of Belgium in the preface: "it is as stupid to drain the last of our great marshes, with their wealth of wildlife, as it would be to demolish the Cathedral of Chartres to plant potatoes". Also very pertinent was the end quotation, from Shakespeare: "You take my life when you do take the means whereby I live
'Liquid Assets" was published in 1964, in a large, horizontal format, 30.5 cm wide by 22.5 cm deep, chosen as one unlikely to be overlooked in an administrator's filing tray. It was illustrated with photographs and line drawings. With the help of a grant from UNESCO and private donations, 14,000 copies were distributed through national conservation agencies, mainly in northwestern Europe. Later a French version, "Ressources meconnues", was distributed throu-ghout the Mediterranean region and to other francophone countries.
There was a demand for copies long after the print runs were exhausted. As there had been many changes in the wetland conservation scene, advances such as the enactment of the Ramsar Convention, as well as new threats such as increased pollution by pesticides, it was decided that a revised edition was needed. This was published by IWRB in 1979, in A4-format, again with a grant from UNESCO.
Further international efforts to arouse interest in wetlands
In 1976 the Council of Europe launched a European Wetlands Campaign. Many articles drawing attention to the value of wetlands in the European context were published, mainly through its Information Centre for Nature Conservation and its publication "Naturopa". The campaign was renewed in 1983 under the title "The Water's Edge", with material produced by the Council's member States. Thus the British Nature Conservancy Council produced a set of six 10-page pamphlets, each concerned with a particular type of wetland - rivers, farm ponds and ditches, lakes, fens and marshes, coastal shingle and estuaries.
IUCN, together with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), began a major campaign in 1985 called "Life at the Water's Edge". A 16-page booklet of that name, explaining the need for wetland conservation, was distributed widely. So too was a 28-page booklet setting out the Wetlands Conservation Programme 1985-87. The first element of that programme was the subject of this present chapter, "Spreading the Message". Six informational Wetland Packs were published, designed to provide IUCN and WWF national organizations with a comprehensive source of wetlands publicity material. Together they provided a mass of highly relevant data. Three audio-visual packages were also published, each consisting of 60 or 80 carefully selected 35mm slides, a booklet explaining them and an audio-cassette with a timed lecture. The first was a general presentation, bearing the programme's name. The second and third, at a more scientific level, were entitled "Understanding Wetland Ecosystems" and "Understanding Mangrove Ecosystems". The recognition that visual images can be even more important than the written word led also to the production of specialist films on wetlands, but these were, because of cost, generally made by national organizations.
In 1987 the European Economic Community (EEC) entered the scene and a booklet was published by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), with the aid of Dutch organizations. This was entitled "Wetlands: the Community's Wealth". In 24 pages, the by now well-known arguments in favour of wetlands were rehearsed and their characteristics explained. The responsibilities of the developed countries towards those of the Third World were especially stressed. Cases of destructive "development" there with the aid of European funds and expertise were cited. There was a need for impact assessment studies to be made before funding and for the sustained use of the resource to be ensured. The needs of developed countries could also have indirect impacts on the Third World, such as the conversion of wetlands to pasture for the production of exportable beef.
The EEB booklet was presented at the Third Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention held in Regina, Canada, in 1987. It therefore also summarized the structure and functioning of the Convention. The Ramsar Bureau itself has since produced two editions of a 16-page pamphlet summarizing the nature and aims of the Convention and explaining how countries can join and take advantage of it. A new 24-page booklet was published in 1992 and is available in English, French, German and Spanish.
Following on its Wetlands Campaign, IUCN published in 1990 a booklet "Wetland Conservation: a Review of Current Issues and Required Action". This was very readable for laymen as well as experts. Part II - "Wetlands: what they are and why they are important" - provided a succint review, in 20 pages, serving well the purpose of public information. Part III - "Wetland loss" - added, in 14 pages, a neat presentation of the threats facing these habitats.
The peak of presentation was reached in 1991 when IWRB published its multi-authored book "Wetlands". This was in a large format (coincidently that of "Liquid Assets", but in the orthodox, vertical orientation), ran to 224 pages, and was illustrated with a like number of stunningly beautiful photographs of the world's wetlands. First it described the various types -marshes, swamps, peatlands, flood plains, mangroves, freshwater swamp forests, lakes, estuaries, lagoons, and artificial wetlands. Animal and plant adaptations were enumerated as were the many harvests that they provide. Then came other values of wetlands to mankind - flood control, shore stabilization and accretion, ground water recharge and discharge, deposition of nutrient-rich silt, filtration of pollutants, storage of organic matter. The vulnerability of wetlands and the many threats that they face were set out. It was stressed that modern thinking required "the valuable resources of wetlands to be used in order to realize their fullest economic return, whilst at the same time retaining their ecological and environmental integrity".
There follows a review of the world's wetlands, continent by continent. In Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, 200 major wetlands were selected and described in general and, for seven examples, in detail. Conservation needs and problems relevant to the region were then discussed. A similar treatment was accorded to North America (137 selected wetlands); Latin America and the Caribbean (117); Africa (44); Asia and the Middle East (154); Australasia and Oceania (84). The 527 wetlands, covering 31,933,543 hectares, listed under the Ramsar Convention by its 62 Parties as of mid-1991, were set out. A guide to further reading was provided.
Surely no publication could better inform, interest and intrigue people who know little about wetlands (and astonish the specialists by its completeness). Such a beautiful book cannot, of course, be distributed freely, but the price is modest. It should be kept in print indefinitely.
National activities
We have been concerned so far with the international efforts that have been made to bring wetlands and their conservation before the people, who, one way or another, will decide their fate. Sight must not be lost of the efforts which have been made with the same aim but within countries or locally. Space forbids a complete review of what is available, so only a selection of recent texts, which have received wide distribution and are still available, will be given.
In the United States, the Environmental Law Institute published "Our National Wetland Heritage" in 1983 (168 pp) and the Office of Technology Assessment "Wetlands: their Use and Regulation" in 1984 (208 pp, with a separate 30-page summary). "Freshwater Marshes" by M.W. Weller (1981, 150 pp) provided a useful introduction, while W.J. Mitsch & J.G. Gosslink in 1987 have given us a massive (539 pp) tome simply entitled "Wetlands". Other American publications have concentrated on particular wetland types or areas, and there have been many published proceedings of specialist conferences.
In the United Kingdom, E. Maltby's book "Waterlogged Wealth - Why Waste the World's Wet Places?" (1986, 200 pp) set out the whole case for wetland conservation. So did J. Purseglove with his "Taming the Flood" (1989, 307 pp), but against a fascinating historical background, with beautiful illustrations.
From France came "Marais, Vasieres, Estuaires", a booklet of 62 pages issued by the Ministere de l'Environnement in 1983. A wide-ranging but brief review of "Water in the Netherlands" was the product of the National Organization for Applied Scientific Research in 1989. At the other end of the world, A.J. McComb & P.S. Lake published a 258-page book "Australian Wetlands" in 1990.
Films about wetlands have a strong impact on the public both through the beauty they reveal and the message contained in the commentary. Production is generally at national level, though they often deal with wetlands outside their country of origin. The IUCN Wetlands Pack 5 gave details of no less than 25 films, with a total running time of 18 hours. Many are general expositions such as the National Geographic's "Wetlands", the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds' (RSPB) "Silver Meadows", the National Film Board of Canada's "Freshwater World" and the New Zealand National Film Unit's "Water Cycle". Others are built around a particular wetland such as the Pantanal, Brazil (Partridge), Ichkeul, Tunisia (BBC), and Bharatpur, India (Survival Anglia).
Many pamphlets, booklets and posters have also been produced by national and local organiza-tions with the aim of eliciting public support for the conservation of specific wetlands. For example, such material, mostly with beautiful illustrations, is available for the Everglades, Florida; for Mai Po, Hong Kong; for the Volga Delta, Russia; for the Sultan Marshes, Anatolia; for Molentargius, Sardinia; for the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea, Germany; for La Brenne, France; for the Thames, Dee and Severn Estuaries, United Kingdom; and this is but a short, ran-dom selection of such literature.
An abundance of information
There is now no need for those whose work affects the future of wetlands to be ignorant of their values or of the vital part they play in the environment. If there are any difficulties in obtaining access to such information, the Ramsar Bureau, and the headquarters of IUCN and of IWRB, are ready to help an enquirer to reach appropriate material.
The evolution of the text up to signature at Ramsar
Project MAR, 1962
The Proceedings of the MAR Conference organized by L. Hoffmann in 1962 (see Chapter 2) include notes of the discussions that took place, but do not record that Baron Le Roy, representing the Association Nationale des Chasseurs de Gibier d'Eau (ANCGE), remarked that an international convention was needed to conserve wetlands. However, Recommendation IX, mainly concerned with the compilation of a list of wetlands of international importance (see Chapter 4), ended "and further recommends that this list may be considered as a foundation for an international convention on wetlands". Thus was the Ramsar Convention conceived. A lengthy gestation was to follow.
St Andrews, 1963
E.M. Nicholson (Director General of the Nature Conservancy of Great Britain, a governmental body), who with Professor F. Bourlière of France had helped L. Hoffmann to elaborate the concept of the MAR programme, addressed the IWRB at its Annual Meeting in Knokke, Belgium in September 1962. He was convinced that effective international cooperation would only come about if governments were directly involved in the conferences, along with experts and the representatives of international organizations. IWRB accepted his proposals and set about organizing the First European Meeting on Wildfowl Conservation, held at St Andrews, United Kingdom, from 16 to 18 October 1963, at the invitation of the Nature Conservancy. Ten of the countries attending had governmental delegates, seven had less formal representation. Seven international organizations, two of them intergovernmental, were also represented.
The St Andrews Meeting provided data on movements and ecology; information on the use of the wildfowl resource for food, sport, amenity, scientific and other purposes; and a review of the legal and administrative status of wildfowl. The meeting also marked the first real cooperation, on a Europe-wide scale, between the three main interests in wildfowl - scientific, sporting and governmental. It thus set the scene for later conferences.
The subject of general wetland conservation received rather little attention. The first Recommendation, however, requested "the Council of Europe and IUCN to seek the agreement of all governments and other authorities concerned for the establishment so far as practicable by 1966 of a European network of wildfowl refuges generally in accordance with MAR recommendations, and the conclusion in due course of a convention to ensure the effective and coordinated operation and maintenance of this network". Thus at this stage the envisaged convention was directed at the conservation of wildfowl, rather than of wetlands as such.
IWRB Proposals, 1965
The balance was redressed in favour of wetland habitat (rather than species) conservation by IWRB, in October 1965, in a document setting out:
"Proposed subjects for an international Agreement or Convention on Wetlands
The document was sent to the appropriate authorities in 35 countries and comments were received from 20 of them. IWRB also circulated a first draft text for the Convention, in August 1965. Following a preamble, this consisted of six articles. Article 1 defined the types of wetlands to be covered. Article 2 emphasized the priority of wetlands on the MAR List and required that they be not modified. Article 3 provided for exceptions in the higher national or international interest and for compensatory measures. Article 4 called for the establishment of wildfowl reserves in the MAR List areas. Article 5 required environmental assessments to be made before approval of any plans to drain areas not on the MAR List. Article 6 required that artificial wetlands constructed with government aid should be made productive for wildfowl and a third of their area managed as undisturbed wildfowl reserves. Finally, there were provisions for joining and denouncing the Convention. Thus for the first time an international convention for the conservation of habitats had been proposed.
Noordwijk, 1966
The Second European Meeting on Wildfowl Conservation was convened at Noordwijk aan Zee in the Netherlands, from 9 to 14 May 1966. It was organized by IWRB and the relevant Dutch bodies, namely the State Institute for Nature Conservation Research (RIVON) and the Department of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Recreation and Social Welfare. Twenty-three countries were represented, 17 of them by government delegates. A major enlargement of the scope of these meetings was provided by the attendance of a delegate and an expert from the Soviet Union. It is difficult to realize, in the 1990s, how politically remarkable this was. In bio-geographical terms, it meant that the major breeding grounds of the wildfowl wintering in Europe could now be included in the scope of the Convention. Since many other Soviet breeders migrated to South and East Asia, the whole Palearctic could now logically be considered covered. The Nearctic, in the shape of Canada and the United States, had been represented from the start.
The meeting reviewed the wetland situation in each country, following the framework of the MAR List. All too often deterioration was reported, emphasizing the need to press forward with the Convention and other measures. A new development was a review by IWRB of the populations, movements and hunting of waders (shorebirds) in Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor. This again enlarged the scope of the proposed Convention which had hitherto been concerned only with ducks, geese and swans (wildfowl).
The proposals put forward by the IWRB on the form and structure of the proposed Convention were examined. There was a general acceptance, the Soviet Union being especially supportive. There was insistence on the laying down of general positive principles, rather than detailed negative restrictions, such as had rendered ineffective the 1950 Paris Convention on Bird Protection. The need to modify national legislations to implement the provisions of a convention was emphasized. This might be more difficult in countries with a federal structure. The more widely the objectives of a convention had been achieved before it was submitted to governments, the more readily it would be acceptable by them. The convention would need a permanent body to supervise its implementation and to convene regular meetings of the Parties. The form of the convention should be settled at diplomatic level, one government elaborating a text for consideration by the other countries.
The MAR List was recognizably incomplete and should be extended. Wetlands on the List should be precisely described, using maps. A general embargo on drainage would be unacceptable as would be international restrictions on the land-use policies of sovereign States; the development of national plans for wetland conservation should, however, be encouraged. The proposals for the conservation of artificial wetlands were thought to be impractical. Some countries wanted international regulation of hunting to be included in the Convention. The need for chains of adequate wildfowl reserves in the wetlands conserved by the Convention was more widely accepted.
It was concluded that the drafting of the Convention would be a difficult undertaking. It should, however, be worked out quickly and efficiently. Recommendation lC of the meeting therefore requested "the Government of the Netherlands to explore the possibilities of drafting such a convention and inviting other governments to discuss the terms thereof". The Dutch Government accepted to undertake the task.
In July 1966, it was reported to the Annual Meeting of the IWRB in Slimbridge, United Kingdom, that final decisions as to drafting responsibilities had yet to be made by the Dutch Government. While urging that Government to accept the task, the countries represented at the meeting felt that, should the Netherlands decline, the matter should be placed in the hands of another government, rather than in those of one of the intergovernmental organizations.
A Technical Meeting on Wetland Conservation, jointly organized by the Commission on Ecology of the IUCN and by the IWRB, took place in Turkey (Ankara-Bursa-Istanbul), from 9 to 16 October 1967, with representatives from 13 countries. Its main remit was to extend Project MAR to the Middle East. However, no discussion took place on the Convention, the meeting merely being informed that work on it was in hand.
First Dutch Draft
Indeed, while that meeting was in progress, the Dutch Ministry of Culture, Education and Social Welfare circulated, on 12 October, a first draft of a "Wetlands Convention". This had 21 articles. It nominated the Commission on Ecology of IUCN to operate the Convention. Parties would undertake to protect the wetlands listed in an Annex (which would in effect be the MAR List) and to consult with the Commission before making any fundamental changes (eight categories and a general one being given) in the ecological character of these wetlands. The Commission was to draw up recommendations and if these required the complete or partial preservation of flora or fauna, with or without construction work, or the creation of new wetlands, the government of the State concerned could apply for a contribution from a Convention Fund to offset the additional costs.
The Fund would be formed from voluntary contributions and from annual contributions of the States Party to the Convention at the rate of one US cent per head of population (a rate which could be varied with the agreement of the Parties). Various conditions were laid down under which the Commission could make distributions from the Fund, if two-thirds of the Parties were in agreement. A Governing Council, comprising one representative from each Party, would approve the budget for the Fund.
Any State could join the Convention unless three-quarters of the existing Parties objected. If a new Party had no wetlands in the Annex, it must list the wetlands in its territory, for addition to the Annex. The Government of the Netherlands would act as Depositary for signatures, ratifications or accessions. At least ten instruments of ratification had to be deposited before the Convention entered into force. Provision was made for Parties to withdraw.
Within the month a document entitled "Comments on the first draft of a Wetlands Convention" had been prepared for IUCN. The draft was criticized for not taking into account the relatively low appreciation of wetlands then current. Instead far-reaching obligations were imposed and wetland protection was made paramount. An international authority was to have final judgement on national affairs. It was felt that few States would become Parties to such a Convention, and considered that a much more modest approach might be more fruitful
There were a number of legal problems with the wording of the draft which need not be detailed here. Of more general interest was the point that the definition of "ecological change" was too sketchy and did not, for instance, even mention alteration of water levels. There would be difficulties in an organ of the IUCN becoming the Convention's Commission. The curtailment of national sovereignty would be unacceptable, as would the prevention of any planned changes considered undesirable by nature conservancy experts. The proposed administration of the Fund was unsatisfactory, and the annual contributions were very large compared with what countries were now spending on wetland conservation. A more finely graded system of contributions would be desirable. Also provision must be made for the disposal of the Fund if the Convention should cease to be operative.
Mr Cyril de Klemm, a legal consultant of IUCN, prepared a paper entitled "Wetlands Conservation or Wildfowl Preservation as the subject of an international convention". This argued that a wetland convention, being essentially a commitment to protect one's own wetlands, would work satisfactorily with a small number of Parties. On the other hand, a convention to protect migratory wildfowl would need to cover all the countries through which the various species ranged. He therefore suggested that two, complementary, conventions should be considered, the wetlands being dealt with first. The wildfowl convention, it can now be seen, fitted better with the concepts of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals drawn up in Bonn, Germany, in 1979. However, the first Agreement under that Convention was not made until 1991 (see Chapter 6).
As to the Wetland Convention, C. de Klemm set out some very cogent points for the drafters. In the preamble, the values of wetlands should be clearly set out and the types of wetlands defined. National wetland policies should be developed. Artificial wetlands should be considered and measures taken to increase their biological productivity. Nature reserves should be established within wetlands. Wetlands of international importance (decided upon stated criteria) should be listed in an annex, considered primarily from the nature conservation point of view, and appropriate measures taken to ensure their integrity. Animals and plants dependent on wetlands and threatened with extinction should be listed in a separate annex and measures taken to ensure their survival. The international commission for the Convention should collect and disseminate information, initiate and coordinate research, make recommendations, and amend the annexes.
Morges, 1967
The first draft, together with the two commentaries, was considered at a meeting in Morges, Switzerland, then headquarters of IUCN, on 3 November 1967. It preceded the annual meeting of the IWRB's Executive Board, whose Director was in the chair, together with a representative of the Netherlands Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Welfare, the President and Secretary of the IUCN Commission on Legislation, the Secretary General of ICBP and C. de Klemm. No minutes were taken, but draft conclusions were presented to the IWRB Board, which was attended by the Chief of Hunting and Nature Conservation in the USSR Ministry of Agriculture and the Secretary of the IUCN Commission on Ecology. The Board slightly amended the draft conclusions and then approved them for circulation as follows:
1. The main aim of the Convention should be conservation of wetlands in the widest sense but using the preservation of wildfowl as one of the strong arguments to achieve this aim.
2. The preamble should state that wetlands are very important from cultural, scientific, economic and social points of view.
3. The definition of wetlands should be given and that used in Liquid Assets (see Chapter 2) should be considered as a basis.
4. The main provisions of the Convention should include:
(i) a) The contracting governments should have a general policy for the conservation and management of their wetlands; b) this policy should form an integral part of regional or land-use planning, taking into particular account the needs for conservation of wildfowl habitats.
(ii) a) The contracting governments should undertake to preserve and manage the areas listed in the Annex to the Convention (MAR List), which may be revised; b) the habitat of any animal or plant species threatened with extinction should be included.
(iii) An intergovernmental commission should be set up to promote the implementation of the Convention and its functions should be to: a) make recommendations to contracting governments on all matters pertaining to the implementation of the Convention; b) amend the lists annexed to the Convention according to an agreed procedure.
(iv) The IUCN should be consulted in an advisory capacity by the Intergovernmental Commission on all technical matters and in particular on the initiation and coordination of research activities. IUCN may refer all specific matters to competent organizations (such as IWRB).
(v) The necessary finance for the work of the intergovernmental commission should be contributed by the contracting States.
It was agreed that these conclusions should be forwarded to the Netherlands Ministry with the request that they should be taken into account when elaborating a new draft, which should be ready in time for discussion at the next European Meeting on Wildfowl Conservation. This was being organized, at the invitation of the Soviet authorities, to take place in Leningrad from 25 September to 1 October 1968.
Leningrad, 1968
In June 1968, IWRB was able to send out to the proposed participants in the Leningrad Meeting the second draft of a Convention on Wildfowl and Wetlands and an Introduction, elaborated by the experts of the Dutch Government. IWRB indicated that, after discussion at Leningrad, it was hoped to sign the Convention at a diplomatic conference in 1969. It was emphasized that the draft only committed Parties to a general acceptance of responsibility for the conservation of wetlands and wildfowl. Even such a "weak" text would give administrators, parliaments and conservationists legal support for their actions, at present lacking in many countries. A parallel was drawn with the extraordinarily successful Migratory Birds Convention between Canada and the USA (and later Mexico) which was likewise based on a general aim, outlining measures that might be taken without committing the Parties to them.
The Introduction stressed that the wetlands of the MAR List were the ones the Convention sought to protect, though the Parties themselves would decide which wetlands should actually be inscribed on the Convention List. There was no intention to insist on general wetland conservation, other than through the encouragement of national plans. There was to be as little interference as possible with national sovereignty. No provision was made for any kind of sanctions, which would be unrealistic and unenforceable. For similar reasons no kind of compensation for wetlands sacrificed in the national interest were laid down. The periodical Conferences of the Parties would be the main instrument for encouraging international wetland conservation as well as eliciting research and other activity from their specialist committees and from organizations such as IUCN and IWRB already active in the field.
A curious statement came near the end of the Introduction - "The area covered by the Convention, which by its very nature cannot be world-wide, will have to be decided by specialists from the European, North and Central African and South-West and Central Asian regions". Such a myopic viewpoint is now difficult to comprehend.
The Convention text itself had 15 articles, following a short preamble. The first paragraph (despite the title) referred to waterfowl rather than wildfowl, a welcome progression to a more widely understandable term. Article 1 sought to define wetlands but did not adopt the admirably concise and inclusive "Liquid Assets" definition. Articles 2 to 4 indicated ways and means to national wetland conservation policies. Article 5 encouraged consultation between Parties. Article 6 was concerned with the designation by the Parties themselves of wetlands for the Convention List, and their possible removal therefrom. Articles 7 and 8 indicated how the Parties would care jointly for wetlands inscribed on the List through the medium of the Conferences. Articles 9 and 10 indicated how the Conferences would be run. Article 11 gave a formula for the Parties to pay for Conferences and other expenses incurred, by annual contributions in four categories, to be paid in guilders. Article 12 allowed any State in an area to be specified to join the Convention, by various procedures. Articles 13 to 15 described how the Convention would come into force (after 10 States had become Parties), how any Party could leave the Convention, and how the Kingdom of the Netherlands would act as Depositary. The text was to be done in the English and French languages.
On 21 August the invasion of Czechoslovakia took place. On 23 August L. Hoffmann had to inform all ministries and government services which had received the draft Convention that: "As a consequence of the penetration of the army of five Warsaw pact countries into Czechoslovakia, the Dutch Government has cancelled its official participation at the Third International Regional Meeting on the Conservation of Wildfowl Resources, Leningrad, 25th September to 1st October 1968. The Ministry concerned has asked the IWRB to inform you of this position. Under these circumstances, the discussion of the draft will have to be postponed to a later date, of which you will be informed in due course".
Whether the Conference itself should go ahead was the next problem. L. Hoffmann consulted the Executive Board of the IWRB and received 32 votes for postponement, two for proceeding and three abstentions. He informed the Soviet authorities accordingly and, on 9 September met B.N. Bogdanov of the USSR Ministry of Agriculture (and prime mover of the Conference) in Paris. After discussion both agreed that the meeting should be postponed and that IWRB should so inform the registered participants. This was done and a letter from B.N. Bogdanov confirmed the agreement. However, on 14 September, participants received a telegram from the Soviet Steering Committee saying that the meeting would take place as planned. Despite a further meeting between Hoffmann and Bogdanov, at which postponement was again confirmed, a further telegram from the Steering Committee indicated that they believed that the IWRB had, for political reasons, taken a unilateral decision to postpone the meeting. This was not the case. However, where governments were concerned, politics were, of course, paramount. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, positively forbade their nationals to attend. Others, like the United Kingdom, did not encourage attendance but left the final decision to the individual citizen.
In the event a meeting was held in Leningrad but only a dozen countries were represented. No discussion of the Wetlands Convention was recorded, although several papers considered the international control of waterfowl hunting. V.A. Chichvarin presented a paper on "Certain theoretical aspects of the international legal conservation of avifauna resources" which, while mainly concerned with hunting control, contained some general considerations of relevance to any ecological convention. Thus, "agreements admitting the so-called compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice or arbitration in settling disputes relating to their interpretation or application are not acceptable to a number of States including the USSR". Again, "the international treaty in the broad meaning of this term as a legal source of rules in distinction from international usage, is of paramount importance for the establishment and improvement of international bird preservation. The international treaty would be a great success if it is based on the correct combination of formulae 'what should be done' and 'what should not be done'. Otherwise there is a risk of drafting one more mere 'declaration of good intent' or an abortive convention containing provisions which simply cannot be and will not be observed even by the signatory powers".
The single, portmanteau, Resolution stated that the participants of the meeting "consider it expedient to hasten adoption of a convention concerning wetlands conservation, and to provide for a strict protection of those wetlands that have an international importance".
Morges, 1968
In view of increased executive responsibilities that were being proposed for him in IUCN, and later WWF, L. Hoffmann had decided, in the spring of 1968, that he would have to resign from the directorship of IWRB at the end of that year. After consultations he proposed that G.V.T. Matthews, Director of Research and Conservation at the Wildfowl Trust, Slimbridge, United Kingdom, should succeed him. G.V.T. Matthews, who had played an increasingly important role in the development of IWRB since 1956, went to IWRB's headquarters in the Camargue, France, for discussions from 12 to 15 August. He accepted the task, subject to the Executive Board's approval. The election was to be held at the next annual meeting, on 24 September in Leningrad.
Only a week after these discussions, the invasion of Czechoslovakia took place. L. Hoffmann's resignation was, at the time, widely but wrongly interpreted as being due to that event. In fact, the decision had already been taken and the election procedure initiated. A substitute venue for the annual Board meeting was found, in Morges, Switzerland. There, on 29 September, G.V.T. Matthews was elected unanimously by those present or voting by postal ballot. He was to take up office as honorary (unpaid) Director of IWRB from 1 January 1969.
The Board requested that steps should be taken to restore cooperative work with colleagues in the Soviet Union and countries allied to it; that the 61 papers already processed by IWRB for the Leningrad Meeting should be brought to publication; that every effort should be made to expedite the Convention.
Vienna, 1969
Rather unexpectedly, on 11 February 1969, IWRB received from the USSR Ministry of Agriculture another text for "An International Convention on Wildfowl and Wetlands". Of its 13 articles, a number were rather similar to those of the Dutch text, but others differed quite substantially. In general the emphasis on wildfowl rather than wetlands was stronger. Although a conference was to meet when necessary, there were no details as to how or if its secretariat would function between conferences and no provision made for that secretariat's funding. Any State could become a Party to the Convention.
At the IWRB's annual Board meeting, from 17 to 21 May 1969, in Vienna, with G.V.T. Matthews now in the chair, there was a point by point discussion of the two rival convention texts. Twelve countries were represented as well as IUCN, ICBP, the International Union for Game Biologists (IUGB) and the Netherlands Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Services (W. A. Panis, responsible for the Dutch texts). The following recommendations were made:
The national delegates of IWRB were asked to send any further comments they might have, or could elicit from their governments, to IWRB as quickly as possible. W.A. Panis undertook to proceed immediately to draw up a compromise text, to be circulated by IWRB to governments in July 1969, if not before.
In June 1969, Eskander Firouz, Under Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Director of the Game and Fish Department of Iran (and that country's national delegate to IWRB) visited IWRB headquarters at Slimbridge. Mr Firouz was informed that, though the Wetland Convention text was nearing finality, no country had yet offered to host the major international conference needed to bring the Convention into being. He said that he could arrange for Iran to issue such an invitation, and thought that a conference could be organized by early 1971in Babolsar, on the south Caspian coast.
The Netherlands Ministry had not produced the promised text by mid-August. As an opportunity for discussions with the Soviets was being presented by a Moscow Conference of IUGB in September, IWRB headquarters therefore had to produce a compromise text by itself. This was entitled "Convention on Wetlands" and dispatched to the Netherlands Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Welfare on 28 August.
IWRB also edited and corrected the English version of the Proceedings of the Leningrad Meeting. The papers, sent out by IWRB before the meeting, had now been put into print by the Soviet authorities. These printed texts arrived at Slimbridge only ten days before the start of IUGB's Moscow Conference. Nevertheless G.V.T. Matthews was able to take the completed text (423 printed pages) with him.
Moscow, 1969
The IUGB was holding its 9th biennial Conference in Moscow from 12 to 19 September 1969. This gathering of some two hundred scientists and technicians provided an excellent opportunity for restoring cooperation between IWRB and the Soviets. The latter went out of their way to demonstrate their respect for the IWRB Director, placing him in positions of honour at the opening and closing sessions. He was also asked to chair a plenary session and report to the final session.
The rapid turnaround of the Leningrad Proceedings was very well received and served to get discussions off to a positive start. V.A. Borisoff, who had been the Secretary General of the Leningrad Meeting and responsible for the preparation for publication of the Proceedings (Professor Yu. A. Isakov being the editor), was especially helpful to G.V.T. Matthews in arranging informal discussions and generally smoothing his path.
Professor Isakov arranged a special meeting, outside the general programme, for the morning of 18 October. Besides four representatives from Western Europe, there were researchers from the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Mongolia and 16 from various regions of the Soviet Union, mostly of the younger generation. G.V.T. Matthews was asked to take the chair. The functions and structure of IWRB were explained and arrangements made for increased Soviet participation.
The bringing into being of the Wetland Convention was agreed to be a priority matter and the compromise text put together by IWRB was generally accepted, subject to consideration by a technical and legal conference to be called together in Finland early the following year. The Soviet position, as presented by Professor Isakov, was that the title was too broad and it was suggested that it should be the Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands as Wildfowl Habitat.
The whole tone of this meeting was friendly and forward-looking, and it set the scene for a small but highly significant working dinner given for G.V.T. Matthews that evening. Despite a fall, that very morning, which had broken his arm, Mr Bogdanov was host. Also present were the Soviet Chief of Protocol Didyk, Professor Isakov, and Professor P.A. Grenquist from Finland.
Mr Bogdanov (who revealed he had suffered a heart attack at the time of Leningrad) made it clear that he felt that he had been badly let down by the international organizations over that meeting. He had considered that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was a matter for the politicians, not for scientists. G.V.T. Matthews endeavoured to explain the views of the western democracies. Acknowledging the major differences in outlook, Mr Bogdanov said there was an old Russian proverb that time heals all wounds, and he did not intend to rub salt into them.
The discussions then became very positive and pragmatic. All agreed on the necessity for pushing ahead with the Wetland Convention; the Soviets would attend the technical meeting in Finland and looked forward to the Conference in Iran at which the text would be finally agreed. The idea of a technical secretariat for IWRB in the Soviet Union or elsewhere in Eastern Europe was favourably received (it took twenty years for this to come about!). Soviet cooperation was promised in the future research work of IWRB, Professor Isakov being particularly supportive. He was surprised by the ambitious nature of the programme, but Chief of Protocol Didyk remarked that enthusiasm was the most important thing.
At the closing plenary session the next day, G.V.T. Matthews reported on the outcome of the large wildfowl meeting in some detail and mentioned that he had had other more intimate conversations with Soviet colleagues. He felt that the Game Biologists' Conference in Moscow would long be remembered with gratitude by those working towards a truly international system of research and conservation.
Espoo, 1970
On 1 December 1969, the Netherlands Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Welfare circulated an official draft proposal for a Convention on Wetlands as Wildfowl Habitat. This was very nearly identical with the compromise draft drawn up by IWRB and sent to that Ministry in August.
There was a preamble, setting out the need for conserving wetlands, their use by migratory wildfowl being mentioned in the third paragraph. There followed 14 articles. The first defined wetlands (supported by an addendum setting out eight main types) and wildfowl. Article 2 set up the List of Wetlands of International Importance and explained how the Parties themselves would insert wetlands into the List. Article 3 required Parties to undertake the conservation of wetlands within their territory, using their own legislation. Article 4 required the conservation of wetlands whether or not they were included in the List. Article 5 provided for consultation and coordination between Parties. Article 6 set out the need for periodical Conferences on wildfowl and wetlands convened with the assistance of IUCN, IWRB or other competent international bodies. The Conferences would review progress with the Convention, make recommendations and proposals regarding individual wetlands or conservation measures and request the drawing up of reports and statistics. The Parties would give serious consideration to the results of the Conference. Article 7 specified how Parties should be represented at the Conferences (including experts) and specified voting and other procedures. Article 8 specified that Parties would be responsible for the expenses of their delegation and that expenses of the Conference would be borne by the host Party. The need for a Secretariat was set out in Article 9. "The Conference shall, in consultation with the competent international bodies, make recommendations concerning the composition, location and financial support of a Secretariat to provide continuity between Conferences". The Secretariat would reconvene the Conference and provide draft agenda. It would maintain the List and be informed of and notify any changes in it or in the ecological character of wetlands included therein. It would ensure that Parties were informed of opinions, recommendations and proposals of a Conference.
Article 10 specified how countries could become Parties to the Convention Here the IWRB text had been: "Any State having wetlands within its territory and wishing to share in the conservation of the migratory stocks of wildfowl may become a Party to the Convention". The Dutch version used the so-called Vienna Formula (conceived at an earlier conference in that city - not IWRB's), "Any Member of the United Nations or of one of the Specialized Agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency or Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice having wetlands within its territory and wishing to share in the conservation of the stock of wildfowl may become a Party to this Convention". This was to cause major problems. The Dutch version also indicated that the Convention would only be open for signature until a certain date. Article 11 specified that the Convention would come into force after 10 States had become Parties and specified when the adherence of subsequent Parties would become effective. Article 12 provided for Parties withdrawing from the Convention. Article 13 was an addition from the Dutch side, making provision for the Convention to apply to a territory for whose international relations a Party was responsible. This "colonial" provision was also to cause problems. Article 14 specified a Government which would act as Depositary for signatures, ratifications and accessions to the Convention, and the actions it should take. It also specified that the Convention should be done in the English, French, German and Russian languages.
This then was the draft which was to be considered by a small technical meeting. Before that it was circulated widely and 79 comments were received by IWRB and compiled into a consultation document. The technical meeting was organized by IWRB and took place under the patronage of the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture at Espoo, near Helsinki, from 17 to 19 March 1970. The invited participants comprised four ministerial representatives from Finland, Iran, the Netherlands and the USSR; five legal experts from Czechoslovakia, Finland, Iran, the Netherlands and Sweden; five ecological experts from Finland (2), France, the Netherlands and Sweden; a representative of the Food and Agriculture Organization; one from IUCN and the International Biological Programme; and the President of the Conseil International de la Chasse. IWRB was represented by G.V.T. Matthews (who was asked to chair the meetings), by two of its research group Coordinators and by its Administrator.
After general discussion, the title, preamble and articles were examined paragraph by paragraph in the light of the suggestions contained in the consultation document and others raised by the participants. Many were of a semantic nature, concerned with tightening up of the language or necessary to avoid obscurity. However, there were instances where a change of emphasis was agreed or where particular difficulties arose. These were:
Title This should read "Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat". The last four words were insisted upon by the Soviet delegate. They did not, as has sometimes been alleged, derive from IWRB parochialism.
Preamble A more general introduction was needed which would stress the ecological function of wetlands.
Article 1 Definitions should be included in the body of the Convention itself; inclusion in the Final Act would have no legal consequences, but definitions could be expanded in a covering note. The term "waterfowl" was preferable to "wildfowl" as being more widely understood, and comprehensive.
Article 2 Waters and peatlands not primarily of significance for waterfowl should not be excluded.
Article 3 The word "pollution" should be included.
Article 6 Initially the tasks of the Secretariat could be carried out by the Depositary countries, the Netherlands and the USSR (being particularly concerned with the evolution of the Convention) and Iran (host of the forthcoming Conference and representing Asian nations). The regular meetings convened by IWRB could be the basis for the proposed Conferences and thus avoid additional expense. Eventually the IWRB, either by itself or acting in association with IUCN, FAO or UNESCO could be charged with continuing bureau duties.
Article 10 The meeting did not find itself competent to decide whether and in what manner States able to sign the Convention should be defined. In general, no State having wetlands and waterfowl within its borders should be unable to sign.
Article 11 The Convention should enter into force when seven countries had signed, instead of 10.
Article 14 The official languages of the Convention should be English, French, German and Russian.
The meeting requested that IWRB should produce a final draft, incorporating the above matters of substance and also the various drafting points discussed and agreed. This task was completed by 29 April, when the draft was sent out to all countries likely to attend the conference in Iran. With it was sent a 7-page covering note summarizing the history and intention of the Convention.
Knokke, 1970
The annual Executive Board meeting of IWRB was held at Knokke, Belgium, from 13 to 15 September 1970. On his way, on 12 September, G.V.T. Matthews had a meeting at Amsterdam airport with F.G. Nicholls, newly-appointed Deputy Director of IUCN. Their meeting lasted several hours and enabled Mr Nicholls to explain IUCN's present thinking on the Wetland Convention. Previously, under the influence of its former Legislation Commission, IUCN had been unenthusiastic about the Convention, on the grounds that it was not precise enough as regards undertakings nor strong enough in castigating transgressions.
Mr Nicholls indicated that this attitude was now modified and that IUCN was keen to see the Convention finalized. He said that there were four ways in which the Convention could be strengthened
G.V.T. Matthews, after reporting on the Espoo Meeting and the circulation of the final draft, drew the meeting's attention to Mr Nicholls' points. Professor M.F. Mörzer Bruyns said that each of these points had been carefully considered in the original drafting by the Dutch Ministry of Culture and in subsequent discussions. No way had been found of incorporating them into a convention which stood any chance of being accepted by sovereign governments. It appeared that the final draft form of the Convention was acceptable to and would be signed by 16 countries. The only negative response was from Cyprus. Thus more than twice the number of countries were prepared to sign as were required to trigger the Convention into action.
The representatives of the Belgian and the Danish Ministries of Agriculture, present at the meeting, both indicated that any last-minute revision of the Convention text, necessitating as it would a reconvening of the Espoo Meeting, would be disastrous. The Board therefore decided that there could not be any revision before the Conference in Iran. They did however appreciate the spirit in which Mr Nicholls' advice had been offered and hoped that any disagreements could be resolved. Professor Mörzer Bruyns undertook to bring this desire before the IUCN Board, of which he was a member, and to arrange appropriate meetings with IUCN officials.
Ramsar, 1971
On 2 March 1970, an official invitation was extended, on behalf of the Imperial Iranian Government, to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the countries of Europe, North Africa and Asia, to participate in the International Conference on the Conservation of Wildfowl and Wetlands to be held at Babolsar, Iran, in January 1971. A preliminary notice, prepared by IWRB, set out the major functions of the Conference. One was the presentation of a final draft of the Wetland Convention and its signature by many of the countries represented. The List of Wetlands of International Importance would also be considered, along with the criteria to be applied in the selection of wetlands for inclusion. Papers would also be presented on developments in wetland management and on reconciling technological advances with wetland conservation. The other main activity would be directed towards developing international agreement on the rationalization of waterfowl hunting.
At the end of April, IWRB was informed that Iran had decided to move the venue of the Conference from Babolsar. In view of its better accessibility and accommodation, a town some 175 kilometres west had been selected. Its name was Ramsar.
In preparation for the Conference, IWRB drew up and circulated a set of Rules of Procedure. It also distributed such proposed amendments to the final draft as it received. These came from the Federal Republic of Germany (1), Sweden (4), France (15), USSR (15). Rather surprisingly, the Netherlands, having been intimately concerned with the evolution to the final draft, had the most proposals for amendments. Twelve actual proposals were put forward. Further amendments were consequential on the remarks made in their commentary and it was proposed to offer further suggestions of a purely drafting nature to the Conference itself. They also had four proposals for modifying the Rules of Procedure.
The participants foregathered in Teheran and were then conveyed by road to Ramsar on 29 January 1971. The Conference was opened on 30 January by Prince Abdorreza reading a message from his brother, R.I.M. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Shanshah Aryamehr, then Head of State. This ended with a remarkable statement that Iran was prepared to place one of its wetland ecosystems of special global significance in joint trust with a suitable international agency, such as the United Nations Organization, to conserve and administer for all mankind. Speeches of welcome were also made by the Minister of Natural Resources, by the Under Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources (Mr Eskander Firouz) and by G.V.T. Matthews.
Eighteen countries were represented by governmental delegates. These were Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Iran, Ireland, Jordan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom. Five other countries sent observers, namely Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Romania. There were also delegates from the intergovernmental agencies, FAO and UNESCO; and from the non-governmental organizations CIC, IBP, ICBP, IUCN, IWRB and WWF.
The Conference elected E. Firouz as President, with V. D. Denisov (USSR) and Professor Mörzer Bruyns (Netherlands) as Vice-Presidents. G.V.T. Matthews was appointed Rapporteur-General. L E Esping (Sweden) was rapporteur of the Credentials Committee - which also had delegates from India, Jordan and Switzerland. Sir Hugh Elliott (IBP) and F.G. Nicholls (IUCN) were rapporteurs for the Drafting Committee - which also had delegates from Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iran, the Netherlands and the USSR.
The Rules of Procedure were slightly modified in accordance with the proposals of the Dutch delegation The official language of the Conference being English, and documents and summary records being available in that language alone, it was agreed that the English text would be the working one. Then two papers on waterfowl and refuges in western Asia were presented. They drew attention to the catastrophic decline in waterfowl in the Caspian area, discussed migratory "green routes", and debated the appropriate distances between refuges.
On the second day, after the Credentials Committee had reported, the Conference began to consider the Convention text that had resulted from the Espoo Meeting. The pre-circulated suggestions from several countries were formally tabled. The Preamble and first three articles were dealt with in the morning session. A French amendment, to move one paragraph of an article to the preamble was, at the request of the Belgian delegation, put to the vote. It was rejected by 14 votes to two, with two abstentions. This weighty matter proved, remarkably enough, to be the only one in the whole Conference which needed a formal vote for its resolution. To give more time for the discussion of amendments of substance, it was agreed to extract further textual amendments and leave these to be dealt with by the Drafting Committee.
In the afternoon the Conference discussed amendments of substance. Under Article 9, it was decided that it would be better for an international organization concerned with conservation to be charged with the continuing bureau duties, rather than one country. Although IWRB had played such a central role in bringing the Convention into being, it was not until 1973 that it finally achieved the full "legal personality" which would have enabled it to be officially charged with such duties. It was therefore proposed by the Netherlands, supported by the United Kingdom and Sweden, that IUCN should carry out the continuing bureau duties until such time as another organization or government was appointed by a majority of Contracting Parties. Mr Nicholls declared that IUCN was willing to assume these duties. Close cooperation would be maintained with IWRB.
Under Article 10, it was agreed that the Convention should remain open for signature indefinitely. Under Article 11, it was agreed that the Convention should come into force four months after seven States had become Parties. Similarly, any denunciation would take effect four months from the serving of notice. Under Article 14, it was agreed that Convention texts in English, French, German and Russian would be prepared. It was also agreed that in the event of differences in interpretation arising later, the English text approved by the Conference would prevail. Interestingly, the French delegation was in full accord with this provision.
Two major points of dissention arose. One concerned Article 10 and the requirement for a definition of the States which could sign the Convention. The USSR were strongly in favour of the Espoo proposal that any State with wetlands within its borders should be able to sign. They were wholly opposed to the so-called Vienna formula which would exclude, for instance, the German Democratic Republic and the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Vietnam. The Dutch and some other delegations were as strongly in favour of the Vienna formula, because they needed to know with whom they would become co-Parties. The other problem was provided by Article 13. This enabled Contracting Parties to take appropriate measures in respect of any territories for whose external relations they were responsible. This provision required, for instance, by the Netherlands in respect of the Dutch Antilles, was strongly opposed by the USSR and some other countries. It was agreed that consideration of both articles should be postponed for the time being.
On the third day the Convention text, as revised by the Drafting Committee, working through the night, was tabled. Further formal discussion was postponed until the following day, to give delegates time to study the textual changes which had been made. Papers were then read on the criteria needed to establish the international importance of specific wetlands. Eleven of the national reports on the status of wetlands in their countries were then presented.
In the afternoon, delegates were taken on a field study tour. Social events followed, establishing an amicable atmosphere for very serious discussions that continued until the early hours. Telephonic communication was recorded between delegations and their capitals.
On the fourth day, 2 February, Sir Hugh Elliott explained the textual changes that the Drafting Committee had made to the Espoo text. With little discussion, the Conference adopted the complete revised text and then turned to the remaining two points of substance. The Dutch delegation then stated that, although it had opposed a Soviet proposal to delete Article 13, concerned with territorial application, it now, in the spirit of collaboration, withdrew its opposition, on condition that the Final Act should contain a suitable covering statement. The motion of the Netherlands was approved and the clause deleted. It was agreed that the Final Act would incorporate the statement that "whilst the final text of the Convention does not include an article concerning territorial application, this will not preclude Parties to the Convention indicating at any time to which territories constitutionally associated with them the Convention shall apply".
The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany then proposed that the "Vienna formula" should be used in Article 10 concerning the definition of States able to sign the Convention. The motion was seconded by the delegation of the Netherlands. The Soviet delegation then stated that, if the proposal was approved, it, like the Dutch delegation, would require that its attitude be expressed in the Final Act. The proposal was then passed, with the Soviet delegation abstaining. In the Final Act this abstention was recorded, with the statement that the Head of the delegation of the USSR "believed that all countries should have the right to become Parties to the Convention, since this would contribute to the cause of conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, and he noted that birds recognized no boundaries He expressed the hope that these views would be taken into consideration by governments at the time the Convention was opened for signature".
There remained only the matter of the Depositary for the Convention. The three States suggested by the Espoo Meeting did not agree to a troika arrangement, nor did any one of them wish to become sole Depositary. The Conference was therefore happy to be informed by K. Curry Lindahl, delegate for UNESCO, that his organization had agreed in principle to be the Depositary for the Convention.
The President then asked the Conference to confirm that the text of the Convention was finally approved This having been done, he expressed his deep emotions of pleasure and satisfaction at this achievement of the Conference. He anticipated that the Ramsar Convention, as he hoped it would become known, was just the beginning of an expansion of activity in the field with which the Conference was concerned. Professor Mörzer Bruyns, on behalf of all the participants, expressed gratitude to the President for his great skill and energy in the difficult task of leading the Conference through its complicated discussions on the Convention text. There was prolonged applause
In the afternoon, six more national reports were discussed and another five delegations undertook to send their reports for inclusion in the proceedings. The Conference then discussed the situation in certain endangered wetlands of international importance and general threats, such as oil and pesticide pollution. It was also agreed that lists of wetlands of international importance in Asia and Africa should be drawn up as a matter of urgency. A paper on the management of wetlands in semi-arid zones was read.
On the morning of the 5th day, 3 February, papers on hunting rationalization were read. Then F.G. Nicholls, on behalf of the Drafting Committee, read and explained the draft of the Final Act. With minor changes this was approved. In the afternoon, he read the 11 Recommendations drawn up by the Drafting Committee and, after discussion and amendment, they were approved.
The Head of each delegation was then asked formally to sign the text of the Convention as an indication of approval without committing his country to acceptance. However, all indicated that they would strongly recommend its acceptance to their governments, and most were hopeful that it would be signed without delay. Each delegation expressed its pleasure at the success of the Conference. L. Hoffmann spoke on behalf of the international organizations and Salim Ali on behalf of the unofficial observers present. A formal Vote of Thanks to the host country and to those who had organized the Conference was then agreed. The President then declared the Conference closed.
The Vote of Thanks included this statement from the delegates and observers. "They express their particular appreciation of the International Wildfowl Research Bureau, especially its Director, Professor G.V.T. Matthews, and staff for the original conception, for the vast preparatory work and for the outstanding organization and execution of all phrases of the Conference programme. They recall with appreciation the preceding activity of the former Director of the IWRB, Dr L. Hoffmann, in working for the establishment of the Convention and record their thanks to all those who have contributed so much to earlier drafts of this vital document".
Listing of Wetlands
The need for wetland inventories
Even when the message that wetlands are not wastelands has been put over to the public, and those professionals who can destroy wetlands have been made to see that there is sense in retaining them, an essential question remains - where are the remaining wetlands located? The further question - what are the relative values and importance of the individual wetlands - is dealt with in Chapter 5. Both must be considered by a country which has joined the Ramsar Convention or is considering joining it.
Article 2.1 of the Convention requires that "Each Contracting Party shall designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of International Importance. . . . The boundaries of each wetland shall be precisely described and also delimited on a map". Article 2.4 requires that "Each Contracting Party shall designate at least one wetland to be included in the List when signing the Convention". Article 3.1 requires that "The Contracting Parties shall formulate and implement their planning so as to promote the conservation of the wetlands included on the List, and as far as possible the wise use of wetlands on their territory". It is quite clear therefore that, to meet its obligations under the Convention or indeed to have a coherent wetland conservation programme, a country must be provided with an inventory of at least its major wetlands.
Pioneer wetland inventories
Long before the Ramsar Convention was conceived, attempts had begun in North America to assess the continental waterfowl populations and to map their habitats. Aerial survey became accepted as a useful tool in the 1930s and as an essential one after World War II. The activities of these pioneers and their achievements are fully retold in the two Fish & Wildlife Survey (FWS) books described in Chapter 2.
As early as 1956 the FWS was able to publish their Circular 39, a booklet of 69 pages, entitled "Wetlands of the United States". This was particularly concerned with wetlands as essential habitat for all waterfowl, most fur-bearing animals, and many species of farm game, forest game and warm-water fish. It was calculated that of some 51 million hectares thought to have been in existence in the 48 States a century earlier, 35 per cent had already been drained.
The wetlands inventory which had been carried out in 1954 had revealed the location, classification, and evaluation of some 30 million hectares of wetlands as waterfowl habitat. It was considered that the inventory was 90% complete. Certainly it was a remarkable achievement and laid the basis for the formulation of overall habitat management. Thus 3.9 million hectares were to be of high value (to waterfowl) and 5.5 million to be of moderate value. The FWS estimated that public agencies should eventually administer 5 million hectares as permanent wildlife habitat, and that this objective was already 40% realized. The locations of the wetlands were indicated as dots on maps of the four main north/south flyways used by migratory waterfowl. More detail and precision were provided in the supporting booklets published for the individual States.
Project MAR
The 1962 MAR Conference (see Chapter 2), fired by the example of North America reported to it, and made aware of the lamentable lack of information in the Old World, made a recommendation (No. IX): "that IUCN compile a list, in accordance with an internationally agreed classification, of European and North African wetlands of international importance, together with detailed information on these areas; recommends that the list be placed at the disposal of conservationists and those responsible for development schemes; and further recommends that this list may be considered as a foundation for an international convention on wetlands".
The task was assigned to the IWRB Headquarters in the Camargue, the team being led by P.J.S. Olney, seconded from the Wildfowl Trust, Slimbridge. It was decided that this list should be based primarily on ornithological data, a rich and varied bird population being an indication of high ecological value. More controversial was the decision to restrict the number of wetlands listed to about 200. This was on the grounds that "to include all wetlands in need of protection would have increased the list to a level which no longer allowed efficient action by the international bodies". This was manifestly incorrect in that the action needed would