The Ramsar Convention's Outreach Programme - Reviewing & Action Planning II

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ramsarnewEPA.jpg (12642 bytes)

The Convention’s CEPA Programme

Additional Guidance on Reviewing and Action Planning for Wetland Communication, Education and Public Awareness

Chapter 3 Who should be involved in CEPA reviewing and action planning?

3.1 Introduction

29. When considering who should be involved in the review and action planning processes the two exercises should be considered as two parts of a whole to ensure continuity and coordination between them. This chapter highlights some of the matters to be considered and offers some suggestions, based on examples and ideas from a range of countries. It looks at the range of people that will need to be involved and considers in detail the roles and responsibilities of Focal Points and Task Forces as well as how they should operate. It also considers some of the administrative challenges that will have to be met in developing this very specialised area of the Convention’s work.

30. Box 6 clarifies the precise meanings of some terms used in this chapter to describe who should be involved.

Box 6 Defining some terms used in this chapter
Focal Point (FP)	The National CEPA Government (Govt FP) or non-governmental (NGO FP) Focal Point nominated by a Contracting Party in accordance with Resolution VIII.31 paragraph 20.
Task Force (TF)	The group established by a Contracting Party as its CEPA Task Force in accordance with Resolution VIII.31 paragraph 20, to undertake the CEPA review and formulate its national CEPA action plan. It is assumed that a Task Force will include both FPs.
Reviewer	A person who is not an FP or a member of the Task Force, but who participates in the planning of the review and the collection of review information. It is likely that a larger group than the Task Force alone will be needed to plan and complete a comprehensive review and action plan. Depending on the precise arrangements made, it is likely that the reviewers will also be involved in the action planning exercise.
Working Group	The group of people charged with undertaking the planning and execution of the review and / or action plan. A working group consists of the Task Force and any reviewers.
Participant	(Upper case initial) A person who provides information to the reviewers, but has no other involvement in the organisation or execution of the review or action plan.
participant	(lower case initial) A general term to describe anyone taking part in the review or action planning exercises.

3.2 What the CEPA guidelines tell us

31. Resolution VIII.31 and its CEPA Guidelines provide direction either directly, or implicitly, on the participants for the review and action planning tasks. They are summarised in Box 7. To this list should be added local and national NGOs recognised as having particularly well-developed and relevant expertise. They should participate to the maximum extent possible and not only as a single NGO FP.

Box 7 Review and Action plan participants as identified by the Resolution and CEPA Guidelines
Suggested participant	Review task	Action Plan task
Govt FP
NGO FP
National Ramsar Committee
Appropriately constituted TF (where no National Ramsar Committee exists)
Ramsar Admin. Authority
NGOs
Local stakeholders
Convention Secretariat
International Organisation Partners of the Convention
Donor agencies and sponsors
Ministries and other participants reflecting primary threats to wetlands
Educators in the formal education sector
Trainers
Curriculum planners
Staff of environmental education centres
Key individuals in environment, biodiversity, wetland and water policy instruments and programmes
IT specialists
Ramsar site managers

3.3 Administrative arrangements

32. CEPA activities will need to operate alongside and as part of other approaches to implementation of the Convention. Some Contracting Parties already operate administrative arrangements that support an integrated approach to CEPA-based implementation. Where this is not so, consideration of the administrative arrangements by which the Convention is currently implemented will help to decide how the organisation and management of CEPA reviewing and action planning can most effectively be achieved. All Contracting Parties should identify who will:

lead
be responsible for planning
manage
coordinate
be responsible for implementation
be otherwise involved in the review and action planning exercises.

Location of necessary expertise and its consequences for CEPA-related working practices

33. Implementation of the Convention through CEPA activities requires some significantly different knowledge, skills and expertise from those traditionally required for the more technical aspects of implementation which have been the dominant focus of the Convention to date. This raises two problem areas that need attention:

(i) Responsibility for implementation generally resides within government departments of land-use planning, natural resource management, environmental protection, or international affairs, for example, and not within those such as education, health or local government.
(ii) In many cases much of the expertise required for CEPA approaches has not been built in to the current national and local administrative arrangements established to implement the Convention.

Integration of CEPA functions into existing administrative arrangements

34. The different range of skills required for CEPA, and their location, suggests several solutions:

broaden the responsibility for implementation of the Convention across more than one government department (practically, if not officially);
increase the occurrence and effectiveness of inter-departmental government working practices;
ensure that relevant expertise located outside existing Ramsar networks and systems is brought within them.

35. Where Ramsar Administrative Authorities or National Ramsar Committees lack the appropriate scope or level of CEPA expertise, personnel from a government education department or from an NGO with relevant CEPA competencies should be seconded. This will bring access to expertise and relevant networks and organisations.

36. Some National Ramsar Committees (or their equivalent) will need to extend their competencies by amending composition, terms of reference and agenda, to accommodate CEPA activities. Establishing a CEPA subcommittee is an alternative approach, allowing a wider CEPA representation than might be possible as part of the National Committee.

37. In those countries which lack a National Ramsar Committee or equivalent, CEPA may be more effectively applied to wetland issues via existing systems and mechanisms serving education, health, protected area management, water management and landuse planning, for example. Such an arrangement may be more difficult to plan, coordinate and monitor, but programmes and achievements could be well distributed across a range of sectors.

Inclusion of different levels and sectors

38 The ultimate purpose of all this activity is to improve the effectiveness of wetland CEPA at all levels. Many different operational levels and sectors have a claim to participate in a review and planning process that affects them fundamentally and it may be more effective to organise the review or action plan at different levels, or within various sectors. For example, where an NGO has particular motivation and expertise in this field, it may be appropriate for that organisation to take a (joint) lead in the exercise, with the national government providing necessary support. However organised, the process should finally produce a national picture of wetland CEPA activity and priority needs incorporating all relevant levels and sectors of operation.

3.4 Roles and tasks in reviewing and action planning

39. In deciding who should take what role in the process, it is essential to clarify the many tasks and associated skills involved (see Box 8) and then locate the required expertise. The following paragraphs provide some comments in relation to likely roles and tasks in action planning.

Box 8. A range of tasks and skills associated with action planning.

Tasks

Skills / competencies

Collection of data
Storage of information
Analysis of data
Presentation of findings
Management of exercise
Support and facilitation
Interpretation of review findings
Identification and prioritisation of actions
Drafting of action plan
Production of action plan
Dissemination of action plan

Knowledge of relevance of:

Different sectors
Different operational levels
Different CEPA approaches
Wetland issues

Scientific data collection techniques
Questionnaire design and administration
Workshop facilitation
Networking
Computer or other data-storage know-how
Statistical analysis / data handling
Presentation skills, including

Selection and summarising of information
Production of visual aids
Public speaking

Project management
Work at different levels and with different sectors
Different communication methods
Access to different levels and sectors
Knowledge of, and access to, levels and sectors
Experience of drafting and formatting action plan documents
Understanding of the identities and needs of the implementers
Understanding of Convention modus operandi
Publication know-how
Document design ability
Experience of action planning
Project coordination

3.5 CEPA Focal points

Roles and Responsibilities

40. Focal Points are appointed:

to undertake the functions within the Ramsar CEPA Programme;
to provide leadership and a single point of contact for wetland CEPA activities at the national, regional and international level.

41. It is the task of each Contracting Party to agree precise roles and responsibilities for their appointed FPs. However, since the CEPA review and action plan are only two elements of the CEPA Programme, the possibility of an FP being able to execute both the above roles seems impractical. The role of the FPs is perhaps better formulated as supportive facilitators rather than as executives. Of course, depending on the relevant capacities and expertise in each Contracting Party, and the identity of appointed FPs, their roles can be as executive, facilitator, or a mix of the two. It is also sensible to arrange the roles of government and NGO FPs to best reflect their respective strengths. For example, it may be appropriate for the government FP to facilitate and support the CEPA review and action plan, and for the NGO FP to be a lead executive.

42. With these considerations in mind, it is suggested that the collective role of the two FPs, however practically arranged, can be two-fold:

to take an active lead in securing a supportive environment in which wetland CEPA planners and practitioners can develop their work;
to act as a central point of contact for information on associated structural and procedural matters, and – when available – on the findings of the review and the content of the action plan.

43. The roles translate into Focal Point responsibilities along the following lines:

to ensure a high, positive public profile for the Ramsar Convention and its conservation and wise use goals;

to give visible legitimacy to wetland CEPA programmes and actions;

o establish and maintain any contacts, structures and mechanisms necessary to ensure the efficient communication of information between relevant actors at all levels and in all sectors;

to maintain an up-to-date knowledge of strategic wetland CEPA activities and programmes, administrative structures and networks;

to clarify, confirm, and help to guide and coordinate, the strategic direction of CEPA programmes and actions;

to provide procedural guidance to those participating in CEPA programmes and actions;

to be active in securing the necessary resources for wetland CEPA activities.

Identification of Focal Points

44. CEPA is considered to be an essential element of the Convention’s implementation and is known to be a diffuse, varied and demanding field in which to operate. The nominated FPs should be individuals from departments, agencies or organisations that have competency, respect and influence in the field. They should be able to operate effectively over a wide range of interest areas and levels to accommodate the cross-sectoral and multilevel operational requirements. In the case of NGOs, it is those which can sustain their operations equally readily at national or international levels, and at the practical, community level, which are potentially the most effective in the present context.

45. In some countries the voluntary sector will be poorly developed and the government FP will be the primary CEPA executive. The choice of government appointment may be even more difficult than that of NGO because of the poorly-integrated departmental working arrangements that often predominate. It will be important to identify the appropriate competencies and capacity in making the appointment.

How will the Focal Points operate?

46. Operational matters need to be clarified. For example, it could be agreed that FPs are appointed:

to work with the National Ramsar Committee and others to establish a National CEPA Task Force;

to be a permanent member of the CEPA Task Force;

to initiate and contribute to the operation of the CEPA Task Force;

to be a major conduit of information relevant to the goals and objectives of the Task Force between the Task Force and others.

(This reflects a facilitator role. However, if roles were divided along facilitation and executive lines, a separate list of responsibilities would need to be drawn up for each.)

3.6 CEPA Task Forces

Roles and responsibilities

47. In accordance with Resolution VIII.31 paragraph 20, it falls to the CEPA Task Force to undertake he national review and action plan. In line with the model being suggested here, the Task Force will plan, coordinate, oversee and ensure completion of the national review and action plan.

48. It is important to establish roles and responsibilities for the National Task Force from the outset, and perhaps for its individual members, to avoid duplication and confusion of effort. Depending on the exact review and action planning process envisaged, they might include:

to identify key reviewers and generate their terms of reference;

to set the detailed objectives of the review and action planning exercise;

to agree appropriate strategies for data collection and agree the review research questions;

to agree a timetabled plan of action, with allocated responsibilities for all stages of the reviewing and action planning

to coordinate the national review and action planning exercise, integrating local CEPA reviews where applicable;

to maintain communication with the key reviewers about tasks, organisation, progress, findings and production of the final report(s);

to organise and attend planning meetings, workshops or training seminars at a national level;

to support or organise planning meetings, workshops or training seminars at a local level, as required;

to produce and distribute review and action planning guidance materials;

to collate, analyse and report on review findings;

to distribute findings to reviewers and other interested parties;

to prepare review findings appropriately for subsequent action planning;

to assist with the identification of, and agree upon, the strengths and weaknesses in current CEPA activity and opportunities for future improvements;

to consult with key implementers, formulate priority action points, and draft national action plan;

to participate in securing the necessary resources to undertake the review and action plan.

Composition of Task Forces

49. As envisaged here, compared with the FPs, the roles of the Task Force will involve its members in a more detailed engagement with the subject-matter of wetland CEPA. Its composition should therefore reflect the range of CEPA provision to be addressed in the review and action plan. Ideally, the Task Force will comprise individuals with a collective knowledge of:

the necessary range of CEPA provision;
the sectors in which wetland issues are being addressed;
relevant structures and procedures;
the goals, objectives and operation of the Ramsar Convention in their country and region.

50. The Task Force must also have the capacity to handle the information. That is, to systematically explore and record the complexities of the CEPA field and to use the findings to identify, prioritise and plan future national wetland CEPA activity.

51. [2nd Edition Editor's note: the original contents of this paragraph referred to certain paragraphs of the original CEPA guidelines.To avoid re-numbering the paragraphs of this present document, this paragraph is retained while its contents have been deleted].

52. There is considerable variation in the sectoral composition of National Ramsar Committees or their equivalent between Contracting Parties. Once the roles of a CEPA Task Force are determined it is necessary to decide if a new CEPA-dedicated Task Force is to be established, or whether the existing National Committee has the breadth and depth of competency required. Alternatively, the National Committee’s composition might be adjusted if this is considered a better administrative, or more practicable, arrangement. Section 3.3 discusses administrative arrangements that integrate a more active CEPA component into existing Ramsar structures and procedures.

Operation of the Task Force

53. The Task Force will ultimately be responsible via the government FP to the Ramsar Administrative Authority for the completion of the review and action plan. The Task Force might be established permanently, or for a fixed or renewable term.

54. When deciding appropriate operational arrangements it may help to look for other national programmes where there is a need for considerable local effort, but also for a national coordination and integration of results and national-level action planning. Practical Tool 8 is helpful here: it outlines the terms of reference, procedures and timetable by which a national environmental education review and strategy was conducted. Such a comprehensive approach will not be possible in all countries but it is a useful example of a completed, comprehensive process.

55. A comprehensive wetland CEPA review and action plan will require time and opportunities to attend planning meetings and to work with those who will assist with the practical implementation of the review and the plan, at national and perhaps local levels. If available, the use of list-servers and video-conferencing for communication between Task Force members can save time and resources.

56. To ensure that the task remains practicable for those involved each member of the Task Force can be charged with a particular area of responsibility. Such ‘division of labour’ might be arranged, for example, along one or more of the following lines:

by geographical area;
by categories of CEPA provision (formal education, campaigns, World Wetlands Day, education centres etc.);
by sector (water provision, wildlife conservation, etc.);
by operational level (local community, county, state, national, regional, international);
by individual review or action plan task (convene planning meetings, edit drafts, run consultation events or workshops, analyse data etc.);
by context of learning (formal education, workplace, home, community, recreation, etc.);
by reviewers’ own networks (conservation, development, utility companies, local government, international conventions etc.);
by time periods (focus on a different aspect of CEPA provision for a given period of time).

57. Task Forces are strongly encouraged to record the procedures they adopt. The information is valuable when a review is repeated, and to other Task Forces for reference purposes. A summary of the procedure should, in any case, be included in the final action plan. If possible a copy should be forwarded to the Ramsar Secretariat in its clearing-house capacity. An example of Task Force operation is described in Box 9.

Box 9 An example of Task Force operation

The Task Force is the primary means by which the action plan is effected. A small Task Force (with up to 15 members, say) is very unlikely to be able to meet the demands of a comprehensive national review of CEPA because of the wide range of activities and its diffuse distribution. It is unlikely that a small group of people would be able to make recommendations that are well informed, sufficiently wide-ranging and appropriately strategic.

One solution to this issue that has emerged in practice is as follows:

A small group is formed (Task Force) to organise, direct and drive the process to completion. This group consults widely, both formally or informally, with a range of experienced actors in CEPA fields (reviewers and Participants). The group also ultimately drafts the final document, although there is variation amongst examples as to the contribution made by the wider group of Participants or reviewers to early drafts.

A key element of comprehensive reviews and action plan processes has been meetings, conferences and seminars for the wider group of participant experts. Such meetings have served to gather expert opinion on particular areas of provision, to stimulate and learn from cross-sectoral exchanges of expert opinion, to gather comments on drafts, and to consult on draft recommendations. In all cases, attendance at the meetings is by invitation.

A comprehensive review and action planning exercise takes 18 months and may extend to two years or more. At the end of such a comprehensive process, consistently positive comments are made about the value of the meetings and wide consultation at the review and action planning stages. This is especially the case with cross-sectoral meetings, which are so rare in normal working practices and which lead to gains for future cross-sectoral and other partnership working. The participation of experts is genuinely interactive and is organised and constructively targeted.

3.7 Other participants

58. The Participants - those individuals and bodies who provide information to the working group - are potentially situated at quite a distance from the central motivating Task Force. It is necessary to place their contribution in a local or a national context, in order to elicit the most helpful responses.

59. Participants need a realistic amount of time to prepare a response so that consultation within their organisation or community is feasible and this should be encouraged as an approach. Of course, it has implications for review and action planning timetables.

60. There will be a lag-time between the investment of time Participants make and the returns to them. Furthermore, such returns may be difficult for them to see, since they are likely to be long-term, appearing initially as a national action plan remote from their day-to-day operations and pre-occupations. The plan may also prioritise actions differently from their own priorities. It is therefore important to ensure good communication with the Participants, via the working party. Consultation conferences, provision of information on progress and dissemination of review results can be used to keep the Participants informed and included.

Chapter 4 Reviewing wetland CEPA activity

4.1 Introduction

61. This chapter focuses on the CEPA review. It will help participants develop a practical, strategic approach to their CEPA review and ensure that it is tailored to local needs. Its generic content should support people working at international, regional, national or local levels, in a range of sectors and circumstances. The chapter highlights points for discussion and decision at the review planning stage. Because the review and action planning (Chapter 5) processes are so closely interrelated, it is important at the review planning stage to have a clear picture of both processes and of their practical relationships.

62. This chapter sets out ideals, some of which will not be attainable in the short or even middle-term planning scales. However, a shared vision of the future will improve and help direct present activities even if at this stage the ideal is unattainable.

63. The chapter is arranged to answer the following questions:

Why do a CEPA review? (Aims and purpose)

How should a CEPA review be done? (The process)

When should a CEPA review be done and how long will it take? (Timetables and timescales)

64. No CEPA review can be undertaken by one individual or even by one agency: although answers may be obvious to each member of the review working group, it is unlikely that their answers will be the same. Planning the review must initially identify agreed aims and purposes before moving to content and process and a major decision to be taken is whether to adopt a descriptive or strategic approach to the review.

65. Despite the most detailed planning, once a group disperses and is involved in implementation of the review between meetings, there will be many times when an individual has to interpret elements of the review plan in their own situation. Having agreed the reason why a particular element of the plan has been designed in a particular way will help greatly in keeping the review on course. It is important that from the outset all those involved share the same goals and the same vision of how to achieve them.

4.2 Why carry out a CEPA review?

The aims of the review

66. Identified aims of the wetland CEPA review should reflect requirements in three areas:

formal requirements of the Ramsar Convention;

requirements of the wetland CEPA cause per se;

individual and institutional responsibilities.

67. The task, under Resolution VIII.31 of the Convention, is

"to undertake a review of national needs, capacities and opportunities in the field of wetland CEPA" (paragraph 20).

68. This requires the following operational aims:

Completion of a national audit of existing wetland CEPA activity.

Identification of gaps in CEPA provision where activity and resources are lacking.

Identification of untapped opportunities, including resources, personnel, funding, mechanisms and structures that offer potential to advance effective wetland CEPA programmes.

69. These in turn define a wide range of more specific aims relating to the rationale of the CEPA review. These include:

Principal aim

to gather the information needed to design and implement an effective wetland CEPA action plan;

Subordinate aims

to determine the extent and effectiveness of existing wetland CEPA activity (including its aims, successes, failures and difficulties; the identity, location and status of the providers; the location of resources; and so on);

to identify needs, that is, conceptual, strategic or resource gaps, where activity or resources are reduced or lacking;

to identify potential future actors, target groups or strategic directions;

to initiate a continuing process of strategic planning for wetland CEPA;

Potential aims

to produce a document that can be disseminated at a number of levels, to form the basis of a series of coherent action plans to be developed at each level;

to establish a central database of tried-and-tested, transferable, CEPA-related resources;

to initiate improvements in inter-sectoral working in wetland education fields.

70. Aims relating to the commitments and responsibilities of the individuals and organisations represented in the review working group should also be considered in terms of principles (respective organisational objectives and policies) and resources (such as time commitment to the review and subsequent action planning).

71. Each member of the review working group must be able to contribute to the joint effort whilst at the same time working towards their own organisational responsibilities and aims. The aims of any review (or action plan) should be compatible with the individual aims of all those involved and should be commonly understood and accepted by all.

72. A final, supplementary, aim should be to identify CEPA-related aims that are compatible with those of other Conventions or work plans. This will encouraging synergy and reduce duplication of effort.

73. It will be very easy to lose sight of the ultimate purpose of the review. The review is being undertaken in order to inform an action plan. In turn, this is being produced to guide and prioritise further action, which in turn is aimed at achieving rather complex and often long-term changes. Clarification of precise aims will help to keep the review appropriately focused and directed.

The purpose of the review

74. The purpose of the review i.e. the practical use to which it will be put, has two elements: (a) the rationale for undertaking the review and (b) the format of the review output.

75. A clear rationale will be useful for the individual, organisation and working group as a whole and may help to secure the necessary resources or cooperation. As with the aims, there are likely to be elements of the rationale relating to the Convention, to the purpose of the review itself and to the involvement of each participant. The rationale must explain and defend the role of the review in the action planning process, the improvement of wetland CEPA and the agreed purpose of wetland CEPA activity itself. In short, it should rationalise the place of the review in an expanded wetland CEPA context.

76. The review will generate a significant amount of information to be used to inform a CEPA action plan. The planning of the review needs to consider this aspect of its purpose directly, and early on, to avoid difficult consequences later in the process. For example, who will own the information, store it, process it, analyse it, publish it, have access to it? Is the full set of data collected to be made available to all participants, or will it simply be the analysed results that will be published and disseminated more widely? Such practical matters will have an impact on the way that the data are collected and in what format. They also impact on the resources that will be needed before it will be possible to move on to the action planning stage.

77. Hence, the review rationale will ideally include all levels of planning, from "What is the link with the ultimate purpose of wetland CEPA activity?" to "What will be needed to ensure the results can be used?"

4.3 The review process

Introduction

78. This section focuses on how the review might be approached. It presents important themes which will require decisions. Who should be involved and the roles of the Focal Point(s) and Task Force have been dealt with in Chapter 3.

79. The CEPA review should be organised as either (a) a single event or (b) part of a rolling planning cycle. The decision will affect the way the review proceeds, for example its scope, timing and the advocacy attached to securing the necessary resources.

Descriptive or strategic?

80. Moving wetland CEPA forward requires:

description of existing provision

identification of its achievements

determination of gaps in provision

location of further potential

81. CEPA achievements, gaps and potential can only be determined in relation to agreed goals. In short, there is a need to review existing provision in both descriptive and aspirational terms if the information is to be used to inform strategic action planning for the future.

82. The more descriptive approach will identify the quantity of actors, target groups and forms of CEPA activity found. While this is an important component of any review, a strategic enquiry method will link the descriptive information to the processes and mechanisms implicated by the issue; it will allow a more evaluative analysis. This more powerful approach rests on a clear understanding of wetland issues and the role that CEPA can play in them.

83. The remainder of this section considers the more strategic approach. However, it incorporates the collection of descriptive information so what follows is still relevant to those not deciding to take up the challenge of a strategic approach to their national wetland CEPA review. It will help them identify the location of CEPA actors and activities and identify gaps and weaknesses in CEPA provision.

Practical approaches

The descriptive approach

84. For the descriptive element of the review, the three-way ‘actors – target groups – forms of CEPA provision’ framework can be applied (see Box 10). Box 10 also includes other useful, practical tools for the descriptive review.

Box 10 The "actors – target groups – forms of CEPA" framework

Actors: those bodies who provide, deliver, initiate or facilitate a CEPA programme. These might include government departments and agencies; NGOs and commercial companies. Activity is focused at local, national and international levels and may be found in many different spheres of operation. The review process will need to locate these actors. Practical Tool 3 may be used to record, display and undertake simple analysis of CEPA provision according to the actors involved.

Target groups: the learners, or target groups, of CEPA activity. Target groups cover a wide social range: local, national and international policy-makers, professionals in different sectors, local wetland stakeholders, schoolchildren and community leaders, amongst many others. The CEPA Guidelines summarise a range of relevant target groups (Appendix II). Breaking these down into more tightly-defined, functional target groups relevant to the issues being addressed is essential.

Identification of the target groups and their characteristics is a key element in evaluating and planning CEPA activities. It will assist with decisions about the level at which CEPA is being introduced, the most appropriate actors and mechanisms to use and the form of CEPA to be applied. When functional target groups are clearly located in an issues web, gaps in CEPA provision may be identified. Again, Practical Tool 3 can help with analysis of target groups, or with planning CEPA to reach the target groups in most need.

Target groups are not mutually exclusive groups of people. An individual belongs to many different social groups. This is important because when ‘a group’ is targeted, we are in fact reaching into other, non-target groups. There may be advantages and disadvantages to this, but there is a benefit to recognising the advantages. These include spreading our message, recruiting new types of specialist help, or increasing understanding of the issues-web.

There is no such thing as ‘the (general) public’. Rather than thinking of ‘the public’ being a target group, we can think of each individual within ‘the public’ as representing a group – of different interests. When an individual is contacted via a particular social system or particular organisation a singular identity is imposed on them. This is convenient, indeed essential in the practical implementation of a CEPA programme. But it is an artefact: an individual has many different group identities. It helps to remember that the individual is the target, not the group, system or organisation.

Forms of CEPA. Different forms of CEPA have been developed to suit an unlimited range of aims, conditions and situations. Identification of the forms of CEPA employed can provide an enlightening framework with which to work. This is particularly so when coupled with an understanding of the aims and the location of the activity in the ‘Awareness-to-Action’ chain (see Box 11). Forms of CEPA include:

production and distribution of printed, audio-visual and electronic information;
formal education curriculum modules;
training in environmental education and sustainable business practices;
public meetings;
awareness and action campaigns;
establishment of wetland education centres;
educative recreational and tourism activities;
development of non-formal education programmes in museums;

and many more.

The strategic approach

85. Thinking strategically from the beginning of the review planning process will ensure that the most relevant information in the most appropriate form will be located for later use in action planning. The focus should be on important wetland issues, describing and understanding them in social (including political), economic and environmental terms. In other words, wetland issues must be understood within the many contexts that make them relevant to people. Boxes 1 and 2 (pages 9-10) give an example of an issues-based analysis of CEPA activity and there are several other analytical tools to assist in analysing and presenting CEPA activity: Box 11 below describes the use of the Awareness-to-Action chain; the Matrix analysis (Practical Tool 4) is a relatively simple method for presenting and quickly analysing provision; and the SWOT analysis Practical Tool 5) is useful for analysing provision strategically to locate strengths, weaknesses and opportunities.

Box 11 The Awareness-to-Action chain

Awareness Knowledge Understanding Concern Action

Essentially, if information is provided, awareness will be raised, knowledge will be gained, understanding will be achieved, concern will be prompted and action will be taken. The ‘Awareness-to-Action’ chain is potentially a very helpful tool for organising thoughts, especially towards a functional analysis of CEPA activity. It may be employed in questionnaires, or generally where a simple categorisation or analysis of CEPA provision is needed.

Stage 1: Provision of information raises awareness

The provision of information does not necessarily result in raised awareness. If the information is not accessible to the target audience, or if the target audience is incorrectly identified or characterised, any amount of information will not achieve the desired result. Examples of inaccessibility include: information boards placed where no one goes; leaflets distributed to inappropriate locations; use of inaccessible language; information being held in official documents and not distributed to where it could be most useful. Each represents a potential breaking of the ‘Awareness-to-Action’ chain at an early stage.

Stage 2: Awareness will foster knowledge

For knowledge to be acquired the recipient must assimilate and process the information. An awareness campaign provides information but the acquisition and retention of knowledge requires assimilation. This is beyond a passive exposure to the information. Knowledge acquisition is more likely to require two-way communication by which manipulation and processing of the information takes place. Opportunities for such processing must be provided, for example via meetings with the target group, or by ensuring that the information can be followed up and explored in other ways, such as through a school discussion.

Stage 3: Knowledge will lead to an understanding of the issue

Knowledge is developed into understanding when it is connected to significance. Placing the knowledge into a familiar context allows connections to be made with familiar situations, conditions, facts, events, relationships and so on. The knowledge thus becomes part of a whole framework of understanding against which individuals can formulate new ideas, predict outcomes and make informed decisions. Another common approach to achieving understanding is ‘learning by doing’. In both cases the knowledge acquisition is being linked to personal experience in one form or another.

Stage 4: Understanding will prompt concern

This connection is not infallible. The lives of adults and children are full of their own pre-occupations and priorities. Making the shift from understanding an issue to concern for finding its solution generally requires that the issue be connected personally to the individual. Concern may be intellectual or emotional. Emotional concern, in which the concern is internalised and becomes a part of an individual’s make-up, is fundamentally more powerful.

Stage 5: Concern will mobilise action

Again, the link is often sound, but is not assured. Lack of action may be because of a lack of know-how, a lack of opportunity, reduced priority or lack of time. It may be simply because of an overwhelming sense of helplessness: "The problem is too big; what difference can I make?". CEPA has a very important role in ensuring that know-how (including procedural knowledge) and opportunities are provided and confidence is built. These elements are all part of ‘capacity-building’, although the term encompasses many more elements too.

The ‘Awareness-to-Action’ model is a useful tool, helping to analyse CEPA activity, to question where in the chain the activity is located and its goals lie. An activity and its goals may be differently located, prompting a search for a different approach. Perhaps non-achievement of a goal can be more clearly characterised using this model and can be addressed more effectively. The overall process will be a long and complex one and each CEPA programme will not always aim to progress along the entire chain. (Refer to Practical Tool 2 for further details of this technique.)

86. The wetland issues can be placed in a CEPA frame in order to focus on CEPA operational matters. The review can then be used to assemble such a CEPA frame using the following questions:

Which wetland issues are perceived to be important, and to which social groups? (Consider different spheres of interest and authority, and different levels.)		This will identify the most relevant sectors, groups and levels in society at which to direct CEPA in relation to a particular issue. It will also guide the CEPA form.
What is the significance of each issue to each group?		This will guide the choice of CEPA content.
How are the perceived wetland issues framed?		This will decide on the approach: should it be ecological, economic, social or procedural, for example?
How are the perceived wetland issues linked?		This will determine where the most effective and efficient entry points are likely to be located in society.
Is the analysis of the perceived issues wide enough and deep enough?		This will guide the choice of CEPA form and content.

87. Gaps that need to be addressed in the action plan can be identified by comparing the strategic priority CEPA needs with the information gathered about current provision. There is, of course, a need to remain practical, working within acceptable scales of time and cost. The important thing is to focus on the relationship of CEPA to the wetland issues and not simply on CEPA in its own right. The broader and deeper the understanding of the issues, the less likely it is that key target groups, actors, messages and approaches will be missed.

Procedural principles

88. The question of precisely how to conduct the review will depend on local circumstances. Practical tool 8 describes one comprehensive national (environmental education) review procedure, which can help with planning an appropriate procedure. Independent of the precise procedure adopted, there are some general principles (see Box 12) that need to be considered.

Box 12 Principles to adopt when planning the review and action plan
Integrate the planning of the review and action planning processes	Plan review and action planning processes in tandem: their ultimate goals are shared and one process affects the other. The review planning should involve at least careful consideration of how the data are to be manipulated and analysed for use in the action planning, because there will be consequences at the data collection stage, for example. (See also paragraphs 89-94 and 110-112.)
Secure resources	Review and action planning should include objectives to secure resources and contingency plans for scaling down, or non-completion of the exercise. With such plans in place, much can be salvaged if things go wrong, in terms of use of existing information and future working relationships, for example. A Voluntary Fund was established through Resolution VII.28 to support the Convention’s Outreach Programme. (Secretariat note: so far no contributions have been received.)
Agree clear goals	In relation to the wise use and conservation of wetlands, Convention texts, the CEPA Programme, wetland CEPA, the review process and its outcomes, the action plan.
Agree clear objectives	Objectives should be in relation to practice and Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timed (SMART).
Agree roles and responsibilities	To help ensure that the review process proceeds smoothly and efficiently.
Keep all goals in sight	Attention to goals at all levels will help direct decisions during planning and implementation.
Involve participants as early as possible	In the absence of a statutory or other such compelling basis for participants’ involvement, the fostering of a shared mission, ownership and benefits will be worthwhile. The Participatory Management Guidelines (annex to Resolution VII.8) documents the benefits of early full participation by those who will be part of the solution.
Plan for feedback	Feedback about progress and information gained will be important for building support and ownership, and in developing effective practice. It should be a two-way process. Formalised feedback points should be planned into the review process and should be arranged as personal feedback whenever possible.
Provide participants with practical support	It will be beneficial, sometimes essential, to support the involvement of participants as far as possible in material terms, for example by funding necessary travel, conducting training sessions, providing materials and so on.
Personal contact is better than impersonal	Personal contacts are likely to foster stronger working relations than impersonal contacts. They will be especially important in the early stages, when potential participants are being introduced to the proposals and invited to take part.
Use local and professional experience where possible.	The subject of the review and action plan, and some of the tasks involved, are specialised. Wherever possible, specialist expertise should be utilised. Companies can have helpful strategic planning skills and techniques to offer. Community development or practising social scientists can often help with participatory methods.
More detailed planning is better	Most time will be required at the planning and final data collation and analysis stages but will be repaid in efficiency, clarity of direction and in the quality of the resultant information. Flexibility should be formally built in, for example, by making modification of the plan a standing agenda item, so that changes are discussed and addressed by all and the decisions effectively communicated.
Arrange planning and progress meetings	Training workshops, consultation meetings, seminars, progress and planning meetings may all be necessary to keep the review or action plan on-track and all participants constructively involved.

Collection and management of information

89. Review planning should cover arrangements for the collection and management of the review information. This can be usefully sub-divided into the four areas shown below; the following sections look at each of these in turn.

Data collection.

Data storage, retrieval, manipulation and analysis.

Agreement on review outputs.

Use of review results.

Data collection

90. Review planners need to agree:

what data are to be collected;

by what method(s);

in what format(s).

91. Decisions on data collection will be affected by the resources available, the detail of enquiry required, the intended methods of analysis and the ways in which the information is to be used subsequently. In particular, methods of data collection impact directly on the form and quality of the data set, and hence on the scope for analysis and enquiry (see Box 13).

Box 13 Comments on data collection
Quantitative or qualitative data?

Quantitative or semi-quantitative data must be collected in a standardised format. Closed questions (can only be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’) are used, but often restrict the depth, scope and value of responses. Quantitative data are relatively quick to analyse, but if the data sets are small they can result in very simplistic results that can be ambiguous to interpret.

Qualitative data may be collected in non- or less standardised formats. Participatory workshops, some questionnaire formats and other forms of enquiry, where the questions are presented in open form (cannot be answered by ‘yes’ or ‘no’), will result in qualitative data that can be very time-consuming and ambiguous to interpret and analyse. Qualitative data collection allows a wider and deeper spectrum of responses and can elicit unexpected responses.

Use questionnaires?

Questionnaires can produce a large amount of data relatively simply and quickly in standardised format and therefore offer the potential for quantitative analysis. However, questionnaires made up of, or containing, open questions, will give the same problems of interpretation as noted above.
The quality of the information generated by the use of questionnaires will be significantly improved if an experienced person helps with the formulation of questions and the design and presentation of a questionnaire. It is a very skilled task to design questionnaires that successfully collect sufficiently detailed and unambiguous responses that enable answers to specific research questions.

For best results, questionnaires must be piloted (by undertaking a trial run) before being used for the research-proper. This will highlight ambiguities, unhelpful and leading questions, for example, and will help to achieve the most effective ordering of the questions.

Data storage, retrieval, manipulation and analysis

92. The review will require the organisation of a considerable amount of data. This may lend itself, at least in part, to computer storage, analysis and presentation. However, where this is not the desired approach, where the necessary resources are not available, or where data sets are small, simpler tools may help. Practical Tools 1, 2, 3 and 4 provide simple methods that help with the organisation, manipulation and presentation of information gathered, and for subsequent analysis and planning purposes.

Agreement on review outputs

93. Participants may have their own requirements for the data and their needs are likely to be different. Specific outputs will require attention as part of data collection planning since the range of possibilities for output content and formats will be affected by data collection factors. If a statistical analysis is to be undertaken, specialist expertise will also be required. The working party should meet once the raw data have been collated and summarised so that there is agreement about what is needed from the analysis.

Use of review results

94. Given the significant resources required for a national review, it makes sense to ensure that as much value as possible is derived from the exercise. Some reviewers may only take part in the process if their organisation has access to the raw data or the findings. Some questions concerning use of the review findings need to be answered early on to avoid later difficulties. Whose property is the information? Who should have access to it and under what conditions? Where will it be held and in what format? How may it be used? For how long do these arrangements stand? Are all participants aware of these conditions and outcomes? Who will disseminate the results?

4.4 Timetables and timescales

(See also Chapter 5.5)

95. Planning the review timetable with the business calendars of relevant bodies in mind will associate the review process more readily with potentially useful mechanisms and events, and thus begin a stronger association on which the action plan will build. Business meetings of the National Ramsar Committee, regional Ramsar meetings, World Wetlands Day, school terms and meetings of relevant international conventions or educational conferences offer the opportunity to raise awareness of the review and action planning initiative. They also offer opportunities to identify important reviewers, participants or future actors and to build useful working relationships for future CEPA endeavours.

96. Some Contracting Parties may wish to undertake a descriptive review to ensure that the review and action plan are completed before the next Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP9, November 2005). Practical and visible steps can then be taken more quickly towards the actions agreed in Resolution VIII.31.

97. Other Contracting Parties may prefer a more comprehensive and strategic review and initiate a rolling process of wetland CEPA review and action planning. In either case, the framework adopted and the results of the CEPA review will provide an essential baseline assessment of the current status of wetland CEPA activity. This will in turn facilitate the reporting of CEPA activity via triennial Ramsar National Reports and, subsequently, the assessment and reporting of future CEPA progress. The requirements of Ramsar National Reports should therefore be accommodated within the review plan.

98. The comprehensive national environmental education review described in Practical Tool 8 was conducted intensively over a long period (over 24 months). It involved a working group (equivalent to a CEPA Task Force) of 12 people as well as 8 sub-groups containing a total of 71 members and each sub-group will have contacted many more key practitioners and planners (‘Participants’). This is not intended to discourage Contracting Parties but does demonstrate the length of time that may be necessary for a comprehensive review process in some countries.

Chapter 5 Developing and implementing an action plan for
wetland CEPA

5.1 Introduction

99. The general points made in the introduction to Chapter 3 in relation to the CEPA review are also directly relevant to the planning and production of the action plan. Readers are encouraged to re-read this.

100. Despite the significant efforts being invested in wetland CEPA worldwide, there is ample evidence of misused wetlands and poor understanding about wetland values and functions. CEPA activities aim to redress this situation and a carefully designed action plan for wetland CEPA will contribute to this goal.

101. This chapter considers the formulation of a CEPA action plan, based on the findings of the preceding CEPA review. Like other chapters, it contains generic guidance and suggestions applicable to all participants and all levels of wetland CEPA action planning. It is arranged to answer the following questions:

Why produce a CEPA action plan? (Aims and purpose).
What should the action plan contain? (Contents).
What approach should be used? (Strategic approach).
When should it be done? (Timetables and timescales).

(Note: the question, "Who should be involved?" is addressed in Chapter 3)

102. Conceptually the review and action plan processes share the same ultimate goals and represent two essential components of a single process. Practically, many of the same people will be involved in both processes and implicated in the recommendations for implementation.

5.2 Why develop an action plan?

103. In parallel with the CEPA review, aims for the action plan will be multiple and will reflect the requirements of:

the Ramsar Convention;
the rationale for undertaking the action plan itself;
the responsibilities and objectives of the participating bodies.

104. The CEPA Guidelines set out the Convention’s aims in this context:

I In undertaking the CEPA action plan the primary aim should be to produce an action plan that is:

precise in its explanation of how CEPA can be used to progress wetland wise use goals;

clear and precise in its recommendations for where priority action should be taken and by whom.

Where the more strategic approach to CEPA has been used, it should also be:

focused on the priority wetland issues identified;

strategic in its approach.

II In formulating such an action plan the aim should be to:

ensure that the CEPA programmes are fully tailored to all local contexts (environmental, social and economic);

ensure that the CEPA programmes respond effectively to local needs;

adopt participatory approaches, including the fully informed involvement of local and indigenous people and their knowledge in decision-making and implementation;

recognise the benefits of involving skilled personnel from educational fields of practice;

make full use of the existing wealth of relevant CEPA expertise located worldwide in different sectors and at different levels of social networks;

identify new opportunities for the application of CEPA;

develop improved CEPA approaches and techniques applicable to wetland wise use goals.

III. The practical purpose of wetland CEPA action plans is to:

disseminate information about priority wetland CEPA actions widely;

encourage a wider range of actors to engage in wetland CEPA activities;

provide direction and support to a more strategic wetland CEPA endeavour;

provide a unifying context and rationale for disparate wetland CEPA actors.

105. The CEPA Guidelines makes clear that action plans should be developed for use at all levels from the international to the local. Therefore, the National CEPA Action Plan will be an important document for setting priorities and for establishing guidelines by which others may develop integrated CEPA action plans for their own needs. The identity of the recipients of a National Action Plan and their intended way of using it will affect the format(s) in which it is to be produced. A National Action Plan may be intended for use by local government to guide wetland CEPA planning and prioritisation of actions at that level right down to community level. The precise aims and purpose of each CEPA action plan will, therefore, need careful thought and planning.

106. For an action plan to identify the most appropriate approach to its task, there is a need for clarification and agreement of its precise aims and purpose. An effective CEPA action plan will require a collective understanding of the fields of wise use, communication, education and public awareness. Without an understanding of their respective goals, tools and implementation frameworks, it will be difficult to design a realistic action plan that is acceptable and practicable to those who will be the implementers. Key potential implementers need to be involved in the planning. It will be important for all those involved to share an agreed meaning of terms used (see Glossary) and to ensure that the aims of the action plan and the final document are unambiguous.

107. The benefits of action planning outlined in Box 14 require investment in the process. Without appropriate levels of resources there is a danger of a less inclusive planning approach predominating, with the real potential for heightened difficulties, or reduced effectiveness, during implementation. The action plan should be seen as the beginning of a continuing process of planning, implementation and review.

108. Box 14 reviews some general points about action planning for the benefit of those whose experience lies in different areas of practice. Selected benefits may be incorporated as procedural aims of CEPA action planning, as appropriate, to help guide it. The comments are most closely allied to a strategic approach (see Chapter 4.3).

Box 14 A well-constructed action plan that is realistic and has been produced by inclusive procedures will serve as a useful management tool and bring benefits to the organisation and its cause.

I. A well-constructed action plan should aim to show clearly:

What is to be done – this aids efficiency by:
requiring prioritisation of actions
minimising inappropriate interpretation of goals
reducing inappropriate use of resources
avoiding the need for repeated referral to the action planners during implementation

When it should be done – defining this:

requires prioritisation of actions
encourages detailed planning
highlights any need for project phasing
helps manage deadlines and detect timetable slippage
helps identify problems at an early stage of their development
helps monitor progress
facilitates the smooth and punctual running of the programme

Who should do it - defining this:

reminds implementers of their priority activities at any time
enables managers to locate a problem or its solution more efficiently

Who is responsible for ensuring completion - defining this:

identifies key people to address problems
increases the efficiency of project management

II. As a management tool, an action plan can help to:

prioritise actions
allocate resources
monitor progress
prepare for reporting

III. The benefits of an action plan formulated by a fully inclusive and participative process are likely to be:

a shared understanding of the project goals
early reconciliation of potentially troublesome differences in understanding or approach
agreement as what goals are to be achieved, who will achieve them and when
an integrated understanding of the whole project by each key actor
an understanding by each individual of the need for their action, and its timely completion
the motivation of each individual involved
the establishment of a broader supportive constituency for the project
the identification of a pool of relevant resources
optimisation of the action plan content in relation to key actors and important external factors
reduction in longer-term implementation costs, such as personnel, material resources and political time

5.3 What should be included?

Topics to address

109. (a) The final action plan document should:

Set out the purpose, aims and audience for which it has been produced.
Place the document and its subject matter in context.
Explain what recipients are expected to do with it.
Explain the process and methods which led to its production.
Include a list of the people involved in its generation and formulation.
Incorporate the review findings, including:
a description of the status quo of wetland CEPA
an assessment of what changes are needed in the future and why
an assessment of the capacity that exists for wetland CEPA applications
the opportunities that exist but are not yet being realised.

Recommend priority actions required to move wetland CEPA forward.
Ascribe potential implementers to each recommended action and, if appropriate, timescales.

(b) Three of the above aspects of content are considered in more detail: (I) incorporation of the review findings, (II) recommendations for priority actions and (III) assigning potential implementers.

(I) Incorporation of review findings (See also paragraphs 89-94 on planning for data collection and its use.)

110. Review data may have been categorised differently from the arrangement required in the action plan. If the purpose and focus of the action plan has altered as a result of the review findings, a change in arrangement will be necessary. Achieving this will depend on an ability to manipulate the original review data into different arrangements. This is where careful early planning concerning the design of questionnaires and databases, for example, will begin to pay off.

111. Review findings may be incorporated according to the same organisation as their collection. If by sector provision, for example, this will readily enable readers to find the most appropriate entry point for their own interests. However, if the document is to be strategic rather than descriptive, the arrangement may need to change in subsequent sections. For example, the review may have highlighted particular wetland issues and actions that require priority attention. It may be appropriate to arrange the action plan and associated recommendations according to priority issues (including both positive, such as particular values and functions of wetlands, and negative issues, such as mis-use of wetlands), in order to begin to tune readers’ minds to a more strategic approach to their future contributions.

112. The account of CEPA status quo should be more than a catalogue of provision. For example, a section describing the status quo of CEPA provision might explain the different groups of actors, interpret their existing roles in contributing to the wise use of wetlands (or other context of relevance to readers and potential implementers), explain their achievements in those roles, and describe the existing obstacles and challenges that they encounter. This is in essence a descriptive treatment of the review findings, but leads naturally to a subsequent section that develops strategic recommendations for the future. Practical Tool 5 on SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats), or Practical Tool 2 on the ‘Awareness-to-Action’ chain (Box 11), may be helpful when interpreting the review findings.

(II) Recommendations for priority actions

113. Using the information from the review process, key areas for future action and potential implementers must be identified. This will require identifying wetland issues; identifying - and as far as possible evaluating - existing provision according to level, approach, sector, issue and so on; identifying necessary future actions; and prioritising the actions identified. The action plan will need to make clear to whom the recommendations are targeted and a rationale for their prioritisation and urgency.

114. A key factor in deciding what actions will be appropriate for the future is to agree where ‘the future’ is (five, ten, or fifty years ahead, for example) and what it is to look like! If this is not discussed and agreed, it will be likely to generate disagreements as to solutions. Practical Tool 6 provides a potentially useful technique by which this discussion might be approached.

115. Practical Tool 4 is a useful way to present a summary of final recommendations and in this respect has the advantage of being very quick to use and understand. Readers will be able to locate their own areas of interest or potential and so be directed efficiently to the relevant part of the accompanying explanatory text.

116. When wishing to analyse provision strategically in order to locate strengths, weaknesses and opportunities, again, a SWOT analysis may be helpful (Practical Tool 5).

117. Once the analysis of the review data has identified gaps in provision or areas where there is potential for further activity, the action plan will need to identify and prioritise future activity. A help in this respect might be to adopt a form of ‘stakeholder analysis’, in which key stakeholders, their interests, procedural knowledge and expertise can be identified. In the present context it is suggested that the technique be applied from the perspective of identified wetland issues, rather than by location or type of provision. More detailed descriptions of stakeholder analysis will be found in texts dealing with participatory approaches to environment and development, for example.

118. A group of practising social scientists in the UK has combined stakeholder analysis with another common technique known as ‘multi-criteria analysis’ (MCA). Their resultant technique (‘stakeholder decision analysis’) has been successfully used for the prioritisation of water-related issues by local people. The technique is described in outline as Practical Tool 7.

III Assigning potential implementers

119. To maximise the probability of the action plan being implemented, implementers must be assigned to each recommendation. Presenting the information in a clear and easily-accessible format is important and this can be done using a matrix (Practical Tool 4). In the absence of a statutory authority with responsibility for implementation, this is critical, especially given the major role that the NGO sector often plays in wetland CEPA provision and their considerable expertise in this area.

120. A second way in which implementation can be assured is to consult with the likely implementers at the stage that priority actions are being identified and recommendations formulated.

121. It is a good idea to include different types and levels of recommendation so that the capacity and area of interest of the range of potential implementers can be engaged. Recommendations might be presented in three ways. The first might be a set of general, strategic, recommendations ("Provision of wetland education must be adapted and strengthened for use by local community leaders."). The second might be targeted at specific sectors ("Provision of wetland education must be strengthened and adapted for use by leaders of fisher communities"). The third might be targeted at key organisations ("The Fishers’ Union should undertake to provide their members with educational opportunities aimed at the wise use of coastal fisheries.") This identifies a strategic point at which any level of operator, in any sector, may contribute. It represents a method by which provision at more local levels is facilitated and by which diffuse, ad hoc, provision can be harnessed into a directional, coherent, wetland CEPA effort. Recommendations for priority CEPA actions by the Ramsar Administrative Authority itself might also be made, thus assisting the Authority with integration of CEPA activity into established Ramsar systems and mechanisms.

5.4 Strategy

122. In developing the action plan, it is useful to decide between two practical strategies: ‘branded’ or ‘integrated’. These are briefly described below. It should be noted that Resolution VIII.31 encourages an integrated approach to the CEPA action plan. Readers are referred to Huckle and Sterling (1996) for a more detailed discussion of strategic frameworks and ideas.

Branded strategies

123. ‘Branded’ strategies here means those that are explicitly associated with a Ramsar Convention ‘tag’. The programmes and activities implementing such a strategy will be identifiable as being of that brand and may have objectives relating to the brand itself (the Convention), as well as to the brand’s cause (wetland conservation and wise use) For example, World Wetlands Day is a ‘branded’ CEPA activity.

124. A branded Ramsar CEPA programme is most likely to be effective where the Convention is understood, enjoys a positive image, and is perceived by actors and target groups to be effecting changes for good. Such an approach can still be effective in situations where the Convention may not be well understood but does not command a negative image. There should also be realistic opportunities for, and benefits to be gained by, the target groups from promoting the Convention and its activities.

125. The decision that a branded programme is appropriate does not imply that the burden of planning and implementation of the programme need be carried solely by the Ramsar Administrative Authority. The question of who will be most appropriately involved in the programme is a separate decision to be made.

Integrated strategies

126. Integrated strategies are less easily identified as belonging to a particular brand because they are played out via existing mechanisms and structures, which can be viewed as ‘hosts’ of the strategy’s programmes. An integrated wetland CEPA programme would not exclusively, or necessarily explicitly, be associated with the goals or name of the Ramsar Convention per se. It would, nevertheless, share those goals and work purposefully towards them. Such programmes and frameworks should include those addressing formal, informal and non-formal education; coastal and freshwater protection; health and welfare; local community concerns; biodiversity protection and management; water management; land use planning; policy-making, and so on. These frameworks and structures are characterised by their functions and not by their specific identities, sectors or levels of operation. In deciding on an appropriate strategy it is most helpful to focus on functions initially. These may then be translated into specific institutional identities within the relevant sectors and at appropriate levels for each function identified.

127. The advantages of an integrated approach are listed below. (Of course, in certain situations at least some of these benefits may not be realised and it should be remembered that there will inevitably be some disadvantages attached to an integrated strategy.)

Increased speed of programme implementation by utilising existing, recognised frameworks, mechanisms, programmes and institutions.
Effort needed on constituency building is reduced.
Programme becomes associated with any existing positive image of the ‘host’ framework, mechanism, programme or institution.
The status and level of authority of the host can be reflected onto the programme with relatively little effort.
An integrated approach can be used to diffuse or avoid an existing negative image associated with a branded programme.
An integrated programme will involve a wide range of approaches, messages and targets, with the advantage that it is likely to reach a wider audience and find a greater degree of acceptability since it will be delivered ostensibly via its hosts.
The planning and implementation processes result in closer and more effective working relations between the hosts and thus potentially between sectors and different levels of operation.
An integrated approach may be more readily perceived as appropriate and realistic, reflecting a more natural, integrated relationship between wetland and water management issues, and policy-making and managing agencies.
An integrated strategy maximises opportunities for drawing on expertise, insights and resources that may not otherwise be available to the respective hosts.

5.5 Timetables and timescales
(See also Chapter 4.4)

128. The review and action plan offer useful frameworks for the establishment of a baseline and for monitoring change in provision. The preparation of triennial National Reports represents a structured and on-going process through which to maintain vigilance. Like the review, the action plan should be seen as an initial exercise in a cyclical programme of planning and reviewing CEPA provision, rather than as a one-off product. Seen as such, and appropriately resourced, it will be set to become a significant contribution to the implementation of the Convention.

129. Each Contracting Party must decide its own timetable for reviewing and action planning and the period of currency of its action plan. A comprehensive national review (See Practical Tool 8) could take 18-24 months and production of the action plan from that, 6–18 months. These timescales should not in any way deter those Contracting Parties in favour of a less comprehensive approach that will move their CEPA programme forward more quickly.

130. The timing will need to reflect the business calendars of the Ramsar Convention at the appropriate level. For example, the national action plan is to be submitted to the appropriate Ramsar Administrative Authority before publication. Action planning at the regional level may be progressed via regional Ramsar meetings and may therefore be a slower process than at national level.

131. Timing of CEPA-related planning meetings will also depend to a varying degree on the timing of National Ramsar Committee meetings, or their equivalent, and those of other relevant international conventions, for example, as discussed for the review (Chapter 4.4).

132. Contracting Parties are requested through the CEPA Guidelines to submit their national CEPA action plans to the Ramsar Secretariat. They should also aim to report progress on their CEPA reviewing and action planning at each Conference of the Contracting Parties. The triennial Meeting could also be used to progress the goals of the Outreach Programme, through Technical Sessions, exchange or training workshops.

133. Contracting Parties could decide a timed, rolling programme of wetland CEPA planning and review to suit the triennial Convention Meetings and regional meetings. Given the long lag-times of many educational approaches, a 10-year timescale is not unreasonable for a long-term strategy, within which action plans would be reviewed and modified at shorter intervals. A comprehensive review and modification to an existing action plan might be planned every third or sixth year, to enable the new CEPA action plan to be presented as part of the National Report. Such decisions can be made at the time of the initial review and action plan processes.

Go to Chapter 6

Return to Chapters 1 and 2

Return to the CEPA Programme index page

For further information about the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, please contact the Ramsar Convention Bureau, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland (tel +41 22 999 0170, fax +41 22 999 0169, e-mail ramsar@ramsar.org). Posted 16 April 2001, updated 10 May, 2004, Sandra Hails, Ramsar.