Status of Mediterranean Wetlands

6th meeting of the Mediterranean Wetlands Committee, Tipaza, Algeria, 12-14 December 2004

Introduction

The Mediterranean Wetlands Initiative (MedWet) grew out of a 1991 conference in Grado, Italy called in the light of concerns about major and rapid deterioration of Mediterranean wetlands. Thirteen years on, the MedWet Team and Ramsar Secretariat considered that it would be valuable to establish what has changed in terms of the status of Mediterranean wetlands, their current trends and present status. As well providing analyses which can help to raising awareness amongst decision-makers of the challenges faced by Mediterranean countries in responding to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)/World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) biodiversity target of “a significant reduction in the rate of loss of biological diversity”, the assessment could also be used to inform the establishment of priorities for the MedWet Initiative for future implementation activities for the conservation and wise use of Mediterranean wetlands.

Although wetland inventory has been at the core of the MedWet Initiative agenda since its inception, and such inventory applying the MedWet Inventory methodology and data management software has been undertaken in a number of different parts of the Mediterranean, its findings are not yet readily accessible or comparable on a pan-Mediterranean scale (see Conclusions of the MedWet/Com6 Technical Session). Therefore, the approach chosen was to seek the opinions of as many people as possible knowledgeable about Mediterranean wetlands throughout the Mediterranean Basin. This form of ‘knowledge-based’ rapid and cost-effective assessment is complementary to quantitative assessment of the extent and condition of wetlands derived from more detailed analyses through baseline inventory, surveillance and monitoring. It is consistent with scientific ecosystem assessments as defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA): a policy-relevant scientific assessment “applies the judgment of experts to existing knowledge to provide scientifically credible answers to policy relevant questions.” Important in this approach, which has been endorsed and supported by a wide range of governmental and intergovernmental organizations including the Ramsar Convention, is that in contrast to baseline inventory, scientific assessment a) involves expert judgments based on available information; and b) must present its expert opinions in a style and format which is clear and useful to those making policy-relevant decisions.

Methods

A simple questionnaire was developed, which asked respondents to report, at a geographical scale of their choice, on the current status, trend in status of over the last 13 years (i.e. since the 1991 Grado conference), current trend, and the major positive and negative drivers of change to the wetlands known to them. The questionnaire also asked for how long the respondent had known these wetlands. Additional, optional, questions asked whether the designation of wetlands as Ramsar sites had led to the better maintenance of their ecological health compared with non-Ramsar wetlands , whether the respondent knew of, or had access to, additional quantitative data on the wetlands, and whether the respondent wished to express any further views, or provide additional information on the status of wetland(s) in the area they were referring to. The questionnaire was designed to be as short and simple as possible, so that it could be readily filled in and returned by as many people as possible. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1.

The questionnaire was circulated in July 2004, with responses being requested by October 2004. All responses received by the end of November 2004 were included in this analysis. The questionnaire was circulated electronically to approximately 570 people involved in some way with the MedWet Initiative. It was also publicized and made available for download on the MedWet and Ramsar Convention web-sites.

Characteristics of assessment reports received

A total of 171 sets of data or 134 questionnaires from 23 countries were received by the time this analysis was made - a response rate of approximately 30% (24%, but I sent the Q out several times, asked it to be forward and received replies from people I had never sent it to, therefore I think we can not give a response rate). Given that the survey was conducted mostly during the northern summer break, and that the questionnaires were circulated without prior contact with potential respondees, this is a most encouraging response. Furthermore, most respondees fully completed the questionnaire, including supplying a wealth of additional information to optional questions. This suggests that this type of approach to wetland assessment has considerable potential as a low-cost and rapid assessment technique. Indeed, the questionnaire has already been adapted and used by Wetlands International as part of its wetland status and indicators work for the European Environment Agency, and is also being considered by the Ramsar Convention’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel for recommendation for global use as part of a suite of ecological outcome-oriented indicators of the effectiveness of the Convention.

The geographical distribution of questionnaire responses is shown in Figure 1, which shows that there is coverage in the responses of almost all parts of the Mediterranean Basin, although there were more (123 replies, 72%) from the north Mediterranean than the south (33 replies, 19%). More reports were received for coastal (56%, purely coastal replies: 44%) than inland (44%, purely inland replies: 28%) wetlands. Some (28%) covered both inland and coastal wetlands.

Most responses concern individual wetland sites (62%), with others reporting on regions covering several wetlands (12%), nationally (19%) and the whole Mediterranean Basin (4%). 3% did not specify the scale of coverage. The analyses summarized here include all reports submitted, regardless of the geographical scale on which they reported. However, from the analyses below it is apparent that, owing to the considerable differences in the status and trends reported for different individual wetlands, reports provided at larger scales are likely to average out and mask this variability and so give a potentially misleading impression of stability. Further analyses will be made using only those reports covering individual wetlands or wetland complexes.

Figure 2. Types of organization from which questionnaire responses were received.

Respondents came from a wide range of different types of organizations (Figure 2). Overall, there were a similar number of responses from three main groups: NGOs, national and regional government ministries, departments if you add agencies (GA plus GDM), then that is quite a bit more than the number of replies from research and academic institutes and research and academic institutes. There were smaller numbers of responses from intergovernmental organizations, site managers and private individuals. The small number of responses from wetland site managers is disappointing, since it is such people who might be expected to have the clearest understanding of what is happening to specific wetlands. This may be because the questionnaire circulation did not reach many such people, and seeking such assessment information should be a future priority.

On average, the respondents described 13 years of experience of the area they covered in the questionnaire.

Current status of Mediterranean wetlands

65% of reports described the current status of Mediterranean wetlands as good, with 35% reporting a poor status (Figure 3a). There was only a slight difference between the current status of wetlands in the northern and southern parts of the Basin (Figure 3b), with 68 % reported as having good status in the north compared with 64% in the south.

Figure 3. Current status of Mediterranean wetlands. a). the whole Mediterranean Basin (n=156); and b). comparison between the northern (dark grey; n=123) and southern (light grey; n=33) parts of the Basin.

However, there is a major difference in the current status of inland and coastal wetlands (Figure 4). 80% of reports for inland wetlands indicated a good status, whilst less than 60% of coastal reports were of wetlands in a good status. This means that over twice the percentage of coastal wetlands were reported as being in poor status as for inland wetlands. Overall it appears that coastal wetlands are regarded as in a considerably worse status than are inland wetlands.

Figure 4. Current status of inland and coastal Mediterranean wetlands. Inland wetlands (dark grey; n=70) and coastal (light grey; n=86) parts of the Basin.

Overall change in status of wetlands over the past 13 years

This period was chosen as that since the 1991 Grado conference which led to the development of the MedWet Initiative.

Figure 5. Past recent trends in the status of Mediterranean wetlands. a). the whole Mediterranean Basin (n=156); and b). comparison between the northern (dark grey; n=123) and southern (light grey; n=33) parts of the Basin.

For the Mediterranean Basin overall, respondents indicated a considerable variability in trend of status over the past 13 years, with just under 40% describe an improvement, and just over 40% describing a deterioration, with the remaining 20% indicating no significant change in status (Figure 4). So although the overall picture is of an equal balance between improvement and deterioration, there is a considerable proportion of Mediterranean wetlands which have been deterioriating.

However, this overall picture masks considerable regional differences. Figure 5 b shows that deterioration has taken place on a much higher proportion of wetlands in the northern Mediterranean (almost 45% 43%of reports) than in the south (21% of reports). Conversely a higher proportion of southern Mediterranean wetlands (almost 60%(59%)) than northern Mediterranean wetlands (36%) were reported as having improved in status over the last 13 years. So there is a pattern of more deterioration than improvement in the north, and conversely more improvement than deterioration in the south. Thus northern Mediterranean wetlands appear to have been under more pressure than those in the south.

Figure 6. Comparison between past recent trends in the status of inland and coastal Mediterranean wetlands. Inland wetlands (dark grey; n=70) and coastal (light grey; n=86) parts of the Basin

There are also some indications that a higher proportion of reports of inland wetlands are of past improvement that for coastal wetlands (Figure 6), but for around 40% of both coastal and inland wetlands, respondents reported deterioration over the past 13 years.

Current trends in the status of Mediterranean wetlands

There is a clear pattern of continuing deterioration in the status of many Mediterranean wetlands (Figure 7a), with almost twice as many respondents reporting deterioration as improvement, although overall over 50% reported a stable or improving trend. Again, there are differences in the current trends in status of wetlands in the northern compared with the southern Mediterranean (Figure 7b): over twice as many reports were received for the northern Mediterranean of wetlands which are currently deteriorating as are improving, and only 22% were reported as improving. Conversely, 46% of reports for southern Mediterranean wetlands were of improvement, with less than 30% deteriorating.

Figure 7. Current trends in the status of Mediterranean wetlands. a) the whole Mediterranean Basin (n=156).

More strongly than for past trends, there are some considerable differences in current trends between inland and coastal wetlands, especially in the southern part of the Mediterranean Basin (Figure 8 b). There, few inland wetlands were reported as currently deteriorating, compared with 35% of reports of coastal wetlands being of current deterioration. However, 50% of reports for inland wetlands from this part of the region indicated stable status, whereas stability of status was reported for less than 20% of coastal wetlands, and almost 50% of reports of coastal wetlands from the southern Mediterranean were of current improvement. This pattern was much less marked for the northern part of the Basin.

Figure 8 a). Comparison between current trends in the status of inland and coastal Mediterranean wetlands. Inland wetlands (dark grey; n=70) and coastal (light grey; n=86) parts of the Basin.

Figure 8 b). Comparison between current trends in the status of inland and coastal wetlands of the southern Mediterranean basin. Inland wetlands (dark grey; n=10) and coastal (light grey; n=23) parts of the Basin. 8 c) Comparison between current trends in the status of inland and coastal wetlands of the northern Mediterranean basin. Inland wetlands (dark grey; n=60) and coastal (light grey; n=63) parts of the Basin.

Figure 9 provides a summary comparison between past and present trends in status of the same wetlands for the whole Mediterranean Basin. This suggests an overall pattern of continuing deteriorating status of Mediterranean wetlands, with indications that an increasing proportion of now deteriorating than have done so in the recent past, and with a considerably smaller proportion now improving than was the case over the last 13 years.

Figure 9. Comparion of past trends (light grey) with current trends (dark grey) for wetlands in the whole Mediterranean basin.

Drivers of change to the status of Mediterranean wetlands

Respondents were asked to identify the major drivers of change, both positive and negative, for the wetlands on which they were reporting. In addition they were asked whether they considered that each of the drivers they identified was either intensifying, not changing in intensity, or diminishing. 21 potential direct drivers of change were listed (Table 1) and respondents could identify additional drivers if they so wished.

Table 1. Direct drivers of change to Mediterranean wetlands listed in the questionnaire.

1. The implementation of conservation management measures	12. Drainage
2. Local community awareness	13. Damming / water regulation
3. Cultural values / traditions	14. Changing salinity
4. Industrial development and infrastructure	15. Erosion / siltation
5. Urban development and infrastructure	16. Natural resource extraction
6. Tourism	17. Drought / desertification
7. Deforestation	18. Aquaculture
8. Increase in agricultural intensity	19. Fishing
9. Agricultural run-off	20. Hunting
10. Urban/industrial pollution	21. Species introduction/ invasion
11. Water abstraction

Major drivers of positive change

Four drivers of positive change stand out as being most frequently reported by respondents to the questionnaire (Figure 10). Of these, implementation of conservation management measures, and local community awareness were each reported as positive drivers of change to the status of wetlands in the region by 59-60% of respondents. In addition, the existence of cultural values or traditions linked to the wetlands featured as a positive driver in 38% of responses. Each of these three drivers was reported as a positive influence on wetland status more frequently in the northern Mediterranean than in the southern part of the region: 63% northern versus 51% southern responses for conservation management measures; 62% northern vs. 51% southern for local community awareness; and 43% northern vs. only 22% southern for cultural values or traditions. However for all three drivers and in both northern and southern parts of the Mediterranean, most reports were of intensification of the positive effects of the driver, with smaller percentages reported the driver as not changing, and none reporting the driver as diminishing.

Figure 10. Positive drivers of change to Mediterranean wetlands. Note. Drivers reported by <6% of respondents have been omitted for clarity.

The fourth driver frequently reported as being positive was tourism, with 18% of responses. However, the pattern of tourism as an influence on the status of Mediterranean wetlands is complex. Figure 11 shows that although tourism is frequently regarded as a positive driver, especially for inland wetlands, it is more frequently considered a negative driver, and that this is especially so for coastal wetlands.

Figure 11. The percentage of responses which reported “tourism” as a positive (pale grey) and a negative (dark grey) driver of change to wetland status of inland and coastal wetlands in the Mediterranean Basin.

Major drivers of negative change

Considerably more drivers were reported as frequently being a major negative influence on wetland status that were positive drivers. Fourteen of the 21 drivers of change listed (see Table 1) were reported in over 25% of reports as being negative (Figure 12). The most widespread and frequent major negative drivers were urban development/infrastructure (57%) and urban/industrial pollution (50%). Other major negative drivers include tourism (see above), water abstraction (43%), increase in agricultural intensity (43%), agricultural run-off (40%) and hunting (42%).

Some differences emerge in the importance of these negative drivers between inland and coastal wetlands and between northern and southern parts of the Basin. For example, urban and infrastructure development was reported as a more frequent negative driver for coastal (64%) than inland wetlands (48%), whereas water abstraction was a more frequent negative driver in inland (56%) than coastal wetlands (33%). Agricultural intensity was reported as a more frequent problem for northern Mediterranean wetlands (46%) than in southern Mediterranean wetlands (29%).

Other regional difference in geographical patterns of negative drivers were also apparent. For example, although species introduction/invasion was reported as a major driver by only 30% for the overall Mediterranean Basin, it was much more frequently considered a problem in the north-west part of the Basin: 50% for inland wetlands, and especially 68% for coastal wetlands – and was also reported as intensifying in both inland and coastal wetlands in this part of the region. For industrial development, 38% overall reported this as a major negative driver, but for the southern part of the Basin it appears as a much more frequent driver of deteriorating wetland status: 50% for coastal wetlands and 56% for inland wetlands, again with the pressure intensifying, especially in coastal wetlands, in this part of the region.

Most negative drivers were reported as intensifying in at least some parts of the Mediterranean Basin. Agricultural run-off was reported as intensifying for coastal wetlands, but for inland wetlands was about equally reported as intensifying or diminishing. Overall, no major driver of negative change was described as diminishing, but some, including agricultural intensity, urban and industrial pollution, hunting and fishing were described as having diminishing trends in some places, although for each driver this was for less than 20% of reports for the overall Mediterranean basin. Perhaps surprisingly, drought and desertification was reported by only 13% as being a major negative driver, and only 12% described it as intensifying.

Figure 12. Major negative drivers of change to Mediterranean wetlands.

Has the designation of Mediterranean wetlands as Ramsar sites led to the better maintenance of their ecological character compared with non-Ramsar wetlands?

Responses to this optional question indicated that the great majority of respondents (72%) consider that designation of Ramsar sites has contributed to the maintenance of their ecological character in comparison with non-designated wetlands. However, 23% reporting that such designation had made no difference, and a small number (5%) considered that Ramsar designation had not helped to better maintain ecological character.

Conclusions

Conclusions – the status of Mediterranean wetlands

On the basis of this assessment, the following main conclusions can be drawn about the past and present state of wetlands in the Mediterranean Basin:

More detailed analyses and reports are in preparation, and will be circulated widely to all MedWet/Com members and others. Consideration will be given to the publication of the full results in the Ramsar Technical Report series now being established.

Consideration should also be given to establishing the approach as a periodic assessment survey to assist the MedWet Initiative in a) raising more effectively the issues and priorities for Mediterranean wetland conservation and wise use to decision-makers; and b) assisting governments in reporting on changes in wetland status, especially in relation to the 2010 WSSD/CBD target of a significant reduction in the rate of loss of biodiversity.

Acknowledgements

We are particularly grateful to all those people who took the time and trouble to fill in and return the questionnaire.

Appendix 1 - Questionnaire sent to Mediterranean wetland experts

MedWet Initiative

Assessment of the Status of Mediterranean Wetlands

With the opportunity of the upcoming 6th meeting of the Mediterranean Wetlands Committee (Algeria, December 2004), MedWet is carrying out an assessment of the current status and trends of Mediterranean wetlands, 13 years after the Grado Symposium. Understanding the status and trends as well as the pattern of pressures upon Mediterranean wetlands will allow MedWet to better plan its strategy and actions, and to provide more efficient assistance to the countries in implementing the Ramsar Convention. We seek the views from as wide a range of stakeholders as possible throughout the Mediterranean region. We would like to thank you in advance for spending the few minutes it takes to fill it in – your assistance is invaluable!

Please answer the questions on the basis of your own personal knowledge and opinion. All respondents are kindly requested to answer questions 1 to 4. Questions 5 to 7 are optional – if you wish to provide us with any additional information.

We anticipate that the questions will take at most 20 minutes of your time to complete.

Your answers will be treated anonymously.

Please select a particular geographical area or wetland of your knowledge, which your answers refer to.

If you wish to respond separately for more than one wetland, please complete a copy of the questionnaire for each wetland you have chosen.

Please also pass on a copy of this questionnaire to any of your colleagues or contacts you think would be interested in contributing to this knowledge assessment.

Please return this form, preferably in electronic format by 20th September 2004 to stark@ramsar.org

Geographical area chosen

Please name the area you have selected, which your answers will refer to:

Supra-national region:
OR Country:
OR Region/State in country:
OR Wetland site(s):
OR Other (please define):

If you have chosen ‘Wetland site(s)’ or ‘Region/State in country’ (above), please name the country (and possibly region) in which this area occurs:

Wetland type
Inland wetland(s), Coastal wetland(s) OR Both

Please indicate for how long you have been familiar with the wetland(s) in the area you have chosen to report on: years

Your name*:
*for record purposes only, will be treated anonymously

Name of Organisation:

Type of organisation (select one)
Academic/Research Institute
National/Regional Government Department/Ministry
National/Regional Government (Conservation/Environment) Agency
Local Government Department
NGO (Non-governmental Organisation)
IGO (Inter-governmental Organisation)
Site Manager
Landowner
Other (please state):

Question 1.
In your opinion; what is the current state of health of wetlands in the area you have selected? (Please tick one box only per wetland type)

Inland wetland(s)
Good / improving, Good / stable Good / deteriorating
Poor / improving, Poor / stable Poor / deteriorating

Coastal wetland(s)
Good / improving, Good / stable Good / deteriorating
Poor / improving, Poor / stable Poor / deteriorating

Question 2.
In your opinion; what has been the overall change in the state of health of wetlands in the area you have selected since 1991 (i.e. since the Grado symposium, which led to the establishment of the MedWet Initiative)? (Please tick one box only per wetland type)

Inland wetland(s)
Major improvement, Improvement, No significant change, Deterioration, Serious deterioration

Coastal wetland(s)
Major improvement, Improvement, No significant change, Deterioration, Serious deterioration

Question 3.
In your opinion; what are the major direct causes (direct drivers) of the positive or negative changes in the health of the wetlands you have described in Question 2? (Multiple choice; Please tick as many boxes as necessary, but restrict to major causes affecting your area)

Inland wetlands		Major direct causes	Coastal wetlands
+ ve change	- ve change		+ ve change	- ve change
		Implementation of conservation management measures
		Local community awareness
		Cultural values / traditions
		Industrial development/infrastructure
		Urban development/infrastructure
		Tourism
		Afforestation / deforestation
		Increase/decrease in agricultural intensity
		Agricultural run-off
		Urban/industrial pollution
		Water abstraction
		Drainage
		Damming / water regulation
		Changing salinity
		Erosion / siltation
		Natural resource extraction (sand, silt)
		Drought / desertification
		Aquaculture
		Fishing
		Hunting
		Species introduction/invasion
		Other:

Comments:

Question 4.
In your opinion; are the major direct causes (direct drivers) which are affecting the health of the area you have selected, changing? (Multiple choice; Please tick as many boxes as necessary, but restrict to major causes affecting your area)

Inland wetlands			Major direct causes	Coastal wetlands
Intensifying	Not changing	Diminishing		Intensifying	Not changing	Diminishing
			Implementation of conservation management measures
			Local community awareness
			Cultural values / traditions
			Industrial development/infrastructure
			Urban development/infrastructure
			Tourism
			Afforestation / deforestation
			Increase/decrease in agricultural intensity
			Agricultural run-off
			Urban/industrial pollution
			Water abstraction
			Drainage
			Damming / water regulation
			Changing salinity
			Erosion / siltation
			Natural resource extraction (sand, silt)
			Drought / desertification
			Aquaculture
			Fishing
			Hunting
			Species introduction/invasion
			Other:

Comments:

Question 5 (optional: Please answer this question if the area you are reporting on includes both Ramsar sites and other wetlands).
In your opinion; has the designation of wetlands as Ramsar sites led to the better maintenance of their ecological health compared with non-Ramsar wetlands?

Yes

no difference

Comments:

Question 6 (optional).
If you have access to quantitative information on the status of the wetland(s) you are referring to, can you provide a brief summary and the source(s) of the information here? (Who could be contacted for further detail?)

Summary:

Source of information:

Contact details:

Question 7 (optional).
Do you wish to express any further views, or provide additional information on the status of wetland(s) in the area you are referring to?

Thank you!

Please return the questionnaire by 20th September 2004 to stark@ramsar.org or Fax: (+41) 22 999 0169 or

Michèle Stark, Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland

For further information about MedWet/Com, please contact the MedWet Coordination Unit, info@medwet.org. For information about the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, please contact the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland (tel +41 22 999 0170, fax +41 22 999 0169, e-mail

). Posted 5 September 2005, Dwight Peck, Ramsar.