The
Ramsar Convention
on WetlandsThe
Ramsar Convention
on Wetlands
31st Meeting of the Ramsar Standing Committee
| CONVENTION
ON WETLANDS (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) 31st Meeting of the Standing Committee Gland, Switzerland, 6-10 June 2005 |
|
DOC.
SC31-15
|
Agenda item 8.10
Ecological "outcome-oriented" indicators for assessing the implementation effectiveness of the Ramsar Convention
| Action requested: The Standing Committee is requested to consider the progress achieved by STRP's Working Group 6 and invited to endorse the proposed approach and list of indicators, as well as to approve a process for the finalisation of this work for consideration by COP9 as an Annex to COP9 DR1 "Additional scientific and technical guidance for implementing the Ramsar wise use concept". |
Note by STRP Working Group 6 and the Ramsar Secretariat
"prepare a series of key indicators in relation to the effective implementation of the Strategic Plan in the next triennium, to be used as part of the National Report Format. These indicators should be adopted by the Standing Committee at its annual meeting in 2004, so that Parties may use them to complement their National Reports when they are finalised in preparation for COP9 in 2005".
2. The STRP established its Working Group 6, co-led by David Pritchard (BirdLife International) and Teresita Borges (Cuba) to undertake this work, which was identified by the Standing Committee as a priority for the 2003-2005 triennium.
3. It should be recognised that the task has proved to be a particularly challenging one for the STRP and its Working Group, and it has not been possible to progress this work as rapidly as was anticipated by Resolution VIII.26.
4. The particular challenge faced by the Working Group has been to identify indicators which go beyond just the assessment of status and trends (such as is being done by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to assess achievement of the 2010 biodiversity target) and which could be formulated in such a way as to yield insights into the Convention's effectiveness, in conjunction with analysis of certain 'process-oriented indicators' such as those in the COP9 National Report Format.
5. Nevertheless the Working Group has made significant progress in preparing the rationale and basis for such indicators, has identified a set of seven indicators for immediate implementation and others which could be developed subsequently, and is currently, with the assistance of consultant Val Kapos of UNEP-WCMC, preparing indicator 'factsheets' for this first tranche of indicators using a standard template.
6. For a number of the indicators it will be appropriate to collect and analyse information as a set of more than one 'sub-indicator' on the indicator topic. For some indicators, a first sub-indicator has been identified which can be applied now, with other sub-indicators being identified for subsequent development.
7. In undertaking its work, the STRP and the Secretariat have worked closely with, and contributed to, the CBD work in developing indicators to assess the achievement of the 2010 biodiversity target, and they have drawn upon this work in order to harmonise and link with the CBD indicators as much as possible.
8. It should be noted that for some of the proposed effectiveness indicators, global datasets are available from which to form the basis of assessments, but for other indicators there will be a need for Contracting Parties and other Convention mechanisms such as STRP National Focal Points to assist with data collection at site and national levels.
9. The Working Group has also prepared some test analyses of certain of the indicators so as to test how assessment of the effectiveness indicators might be best presented.
10. The STRP and its Working Group 6 have concluded that it is clear that even with considerable input of voluntary time on the part of STRP members and others, only a very restricted basis for feasible measurement and assessment of Ramsar effectiveness is available at the present time. They consider that this is partly a function of the complexity of some of the issues involved - genuinely getting to the heart of the effectiveness question is a challenging matter. But it is also a function of the limited existence of usable datasets on which to base relevant measures. Key amongst these are data which fall to Parties to provide through, for example, Ramsar Information Sheets and their updates and National Reports. The work on effectiveness indicators so far delivers a clear message that for the Convention to have an adequate story to tell about its effectiveness (and the cost-effectiveness of the investment made in it by its Parties and others), much more efficient and complete information management and systematic information provision by all, particularly at national level, will be required.
11. The STRP and its Working Group 6 have also recognised that there will a need to establish a process and mechanism for the data collection, compilation, analysis and preparation of assessments for each effectiveness indicator, and for reporting timeframes.
12. This document is presented to the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee for consideration in the form of:
i) a draft Annex to COP9 DR1 which provides the list of proposed indicators for immediate implementation and subsequent development, and draft factsheets for the first tranche of proposed indicators; and
ii) a draft COP9 Information Paper prepared by STRP Working Group 6 which sets out the rationale, approach and issues identified in the development and implementation of such 'indicators of Convention effectiveness'.
13. The Standing Committee may wish to consider the following:
i) approving the list of first tranche indicators and those to be subsequently developed, for consideration by COP9;
ii) requesting STRP and its Working Group 6, with the assistance of the Secretariat, to complete factsheet preparation for the first tranche of indicators and to circulate these to the Standing Committee for its approval for their inclusion in COP9 DR1 - Annex E;
iii) discussing a process for developing and agreeing the mechanism for applying, analysing and reporting assessment of the indicators of effectiveness;
iv) requesting the STRP and Secretariat to develop further the draft Information Paper for provision to Parties at COP9 and to include the test demonstration analyses for the first tranche of indicators.
COP9 DR1 - Annex E
Ecological "outcome-oriented" indicators for assessing the implementation effectiveness of the Ramsar Convention
1. The following seven indicators of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Convention are available for implementation during the 2006-2008 triennium:
|
Indicator theme |
Indicator title |
|
Wetland resource - status |
A. The overall conservation status of wetlands |
|
Ramsar sites – status |
B. The status of the ecological character of Ramsar sites |
Water resources - status |
C. Water-related indicator(s) |
|
Ramsar sites – threats |
D. The frequency of threats affecting Ramsar sites |
|
Wetland management |
E. Wetland sites with successfully implemented conservation or wise use management plans |
|
Species/populations status |
F. Overall population trends of wetland taxa |
|
Threatened Species |
G. Changes in threat status of wetland taxa |
|
Ramsar Site designation progress |
H. The proportion of candidate Ramsar sites designated so far |
2. Factsheets providing guidance for the application of each of these indicators are provided below. For most indicators an initial sub-indicator or sub-indicators are provided which can be implemented from existing data and information sources. The factsheets identify additional sub-indicators which have the potential for future development.
3. The following four indicators are recommended for further consideration and future development by the STRP:
|
Indicator theme |
Indicator title |
|
Ramsar sites – designation progress |
I. Coverage of wetland–dependent bird populations by Ramsar sites |
Wetland services |
J. The economic costs of unwanted floods and droughts |
Legislative & policy responses |
K. Legislative amendments implemented to reflect Ramsar provisions |
Legislative & policy responses |
L. Wise use policy |
[Note to the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee: the draft factsheets provided below will undergo further review and development for finalisation by STRP's Working Group 6, with the advice of the Standing Committee.]
Indicator A. The overall conservation status of wetlands
Two sub-indicators have
been developed for application:
- Status and trends in ecosystem extent
- Trends in conservation status - qualitative assessment
|
Indicator theme |
Wetland resource - status |
|
Indicator Code |
A |
|
Indicator title |
The overall conservation status of wetlands |
|
Sub-indicator |
Status and trends in ecosystem extent |
|
Purpose (summary for decision-makers of what the indicator shows including relation to Convention effectiveness (hypotheses) and assumptions about surrogacy) |
The indicator shows how the area of particular wetland types has changed through time. Because the Ramsar Convention aims to ‘stem the progressive encroachment on and loss of wetlands’, its effective implementation should have reduced the loss of wetland area. Strictly, this should be assessed relative what would have happened without the Convention, both since convention implementation and through time. Thus, maintenance or expansion of ecosystem area indicate that ecosystem loss has been stemmed. Although the area of a particular wetland type may have declined, the Convention’s impact could be seen in a rate of loss that is lower than previously or than projected, or in areas not affected by the Convention. Increasing rates of loss of ecosystem area imply that the Convention is not effective. For some wetland ecosystem types, area reflects both the persistence of the ecosystem and its viability as habitat for wetland species. However, not all wetland types can appropriately be assessed in area terms. Some are relatively little subject to area change per se (e.g. rivers) and many present technical challenges in the detection of area change. It will also be necessary screen out wetland types (e.g. manmade types) whose increase may be at expense of natural ones or be undesirable for other reasons. |
|
Relationship to other Ramsar indicators, and to any sub-indicators |
Area and its maintenance are only one aspect of the conservation status of even those wetlands for which area assessment is appropriate. The pressures on these ecosystems and the measures in place to reduce them are other key components. Species-based indicators (F & G) can provide information on changes in ecosystem condition and are particularly useful for ecosystems not subject to area assessment. For some ecosystems indicators on water quality provide a useful complement. The baseline information on different wetland types compiled for this sub-indicator are also relevant to the analysis of indicator H (The proportion of candidate Ramsar sites designated so far). |
|
Relevance to 2010 targets and other indicator processes |
Ecosystem extent is one of the global indicators of progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target identified by the CBD.
|
|
Broad types of data required |
Quantitative data on ecosystem extent. These are most likely to be derived from mapped data, especially from remote sensing or aerial photography. Combining remotely sensed data with other data sources, e.g. on topography, hydrology and climate, and seasonality, can increase their usefulness for assessing the extent of specific wetland types. The indicator will only be truly useful for assessment of effectiveness of the Convention if several re-assessments are (or become) available so that rates of change can be calculated. Qualitative or semi-quantitative assessments of change in ecosystem area. If generated in a consistent manner, these can potentially be weighted by ecosystem area to provide an index of area change. If the above datasets are not available, a cruder level of information still could be acquired by documenting instances of loss - e.g. every time a planning regime sanctions another instance of afforestation, infilling, drainage etc of a wetland. The Ramsar wetland types for which these data types are most relevant include the following (those indicated with an * have been identified within the CBD’s 2010 indicator as having current availability of relevant datasets): *Coral reefs Intertidal marshes *Interidal forested wetlands (Mangroves) Permanent inland deltas Permanent and seasonal marshes, both fresh and saline *Non-forested peatlands Alpine wetlands Tundra wetlands Shrub-dominated wetlands Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands *Forested Peatlands However, area changes are more difficult to detect in some of these wetland types than in others. Wetland types not listed are either unlikely to change in area over the time frames normally measured or present severe difficulties for quantifying area and/or detecting area changes, including those which are “lost” when they change qualitatively into a different wetland type, while remaining wetland. |
|
Role of Contracting Parties, including relationship of indicator to Ramsar National Reports process |
National landcover and resource assessments potentially provide relevant data for this indicator, and CPs should both harness such relevant data for their own purposes and ensure that it is available and contributes to regional and global assessments. In addition, the COP9 National Report Format includes fields for national information on extent and status of coastal wetlands and peatlands. |
|
Scale(s) - Global, regional, national, sub-national/site or combination of these |
Global, regional, national and sub-national assessments are all appropriate for some ecosystem types |
|
Periodicity and timing, of (a) data-collation and analysis (b) presentation of results |
In order to assess Convention effectiveness, it is necessary to have at least three assessments of ecosystem area or two evaluations of the rate of area change. Realistic time scales for reassessment are likely to be periods of 5-10 years for change detection. |
|
Baseline |
Most likely baseline is 1995-2000 for remote sensing-based data sources. Some national and regional data sets may have earlier and even historical baselines (e.g. Dahl 1990, 2000). |
|
Data sources (following Res VIII.6 standard record for meta-inventory) and acquisition (including accessibility and costs) |
Global data sources include: Regional
sources include: |
|
Data custodians and coordinators (following Res VIII.6 standard record for meta-inventory) |
Dependent on which wetland types are being assessed [to be added] |
|
Data collators and analysts |
Dependent on which wetland types are being assessed [to be added] |
|
Type of statistics generated and units |
Total current area of the ecosystem type - km2 or ha Change in area of the ecosystem type per time period km2 or ha per year For analysis and presentation it is likely to be appropriate to generate statistics for different regions or sub-regions, and to include country-scale assessments where datasets have patchy geographical coverage. It is vital that these statistics be presented in absolute terms alongside any presentation of percentage losses. |
|
Presentation of results (described in summary here, and if possible illustrated by some worked examples, eg of graphics, in an annex to the factsheet) |
Results can usefully be presented as maps or as graphs (and statistics). The former have visual impact, the latter provide a more straightforward quantitative view. Sets of maps would at minimum show distribution of the ecosystem type at different points in time, or a single map would show locations of ecosystem area change. Flood-filled maps of change magnitude can also be useful. Ideally a graph would show wetland ecosystem area for three or more points in time. More meaningfully still, in relation to Convention effectiveness it would show the average rate of change of wetland ecosystem area for at least two time periods. |
|
Limitations, and assumptions caveats to interpretation and minimum requirements for validity |
[to be added] |
|
Action steps required for development and implementation of the indicator |
[to be added] |
|
Costs and sources of support |
[to be added] |
|
Future possible enhancements of the indicator and/or its use |
[to be added] |
|
Indicator theme |
Wetland resource - status |
|
Indicator Code |
A |
|
Indicator title |
The overall conservation status of wetlands |
|
Sub-indicator |
Trends in conservation status – qualitative assessment |
|
Purpose (summary for decision-makers of what the indicator shows including relation to Convention effectiveness (hypotheses) and assumptions about surrogacy) |
The indicator shows how the conservation status of wetlands at large is changing. Conservation status is a combination of the state of the ecosystem, the pressures acting on it and the responses or actions that reduce or mitigate the effects of those pressures. This indicator is therefore not merely about “intactness of ecological character”. Trends in conservation status can be determined by assessing trends in each of these components qualitatively. Effective implementation of the Ramsar Convention should mean that the overall conservation status of wetlands at large is improving through time; that is, their state is improving, the actual pressures on them are being reduced and response measures in place are improving. The reasons for broad patterns of improvement or decline would need to be investigated through more detailed analysis in relation to particular aspects of the Convention and components of the indicator. |
|
Relationship to other Ramsar indicators, and to any sub-indicators |
Where they exist, quantitative indicators such as trends in ecosystem extent, in species populations and in water quality contribute to the assessment of conservation status. The assessment process is also analogous to a scoring system that would evaluate the maintenance of ecological character in Ramsar sites and as such provides an additional perspective on the role of site designation as a mechanism to improve conservation status. In respect specifically of Ramsar sites, the data collected under indicator E will follow the same approach, and taken together th two indicators may be used to assess the relative trends in conservation status of designated sites and other wetlands. Likewise data collected under indicator D will also be relevant to the assessment of this indicator. |
|
Relevance to 2010 targets and other indicator processes |
Improving conservation status should in theory be related to declining loss in biodiversity, but this approach has not yet emerged within the discussions of monitoring progress towards the 2010 target or in other indicator processes. Furthermore, since the 2010 target is a measure of absolute outcome, it will not directly address the pressure and response parts of conservation status assessment. |
|
Broad types of data required |
Qualitative assessments of trends in pressures, states and response measures on a site-by-site basis according to clearly developed criteria and guidelines accompanied by a simple scoring system. Such a system might include categories for stable, improving (slightly or strongly) and declining (slightly or strongly). The factors assessed would include broad concepts such as ecosystem health or habitat quality and more specific parameters such as agricultural encroachment, effect of alien invasive species and enforcement actions. The use of qualitative assessment means that wetlands can be assessed by experts with appropriate local knowledge even in the absence of quantitative data on the parameters that make up the index. |
|
Role of Contracting Parties, including relationship of indicator to Ramsar National Reports process |
CPs should contribute to the development of criteria and guidelines, identify appropriate experts to participate in wetland assessments, and implement assessments of national wetland resources using this approach. There is also a need to have in place a wetland inventory or at least an inventory of wetlands which will be assessed fro this indicator. There are also links with specific National Report Format fields and to the information provided in the “conservation status” field of RISs when they are updated are updated. |
|
Scale(s) - Global, regional, national, sub-national/site or combination of these |
On the whole, this approach may be best suited to initial application of data acquisition at sub-national and national scales. Portions of assessments done at these scales could be aggregated to provide regional, and in some cases global overviews. The assessments will be more robust and convincing if they are based on as nearly site-scale assessment as possible. |
|
Periodicity and timing, of (a) data-collation and analysis (b) presentation of results |
There is some question about how robust this approach is through repeated reassessments, how sensitive it is to different magnitudes of real change, and how this relates to the intervals between assessments and changes in the experts involved. A four or five year assessment and analysis cycle might optimise both robustness and sensitivity, as well as providing a policy-relevant perspective. |
|
Baseline |
Application of criteria and scoring would need to be relative to some fixed baseline in the recent past to which evaluators are able to refer, at least in qualitative terms. A reasonable baseline in many cases will be 2000 or the year of the most recent wetland assessment. Potentially, baselines could be set at a Convention-related milestone, such as national ratification or initiation of a regional process. This would provide the greatest potential for demonstrating convention effectiveness. However, there is a danger that qualitative trends assessed over very long periods might become less credible. It might be possible for initial application of the approach to cover both a standard recent shorter time period (see above) and change since a more distant baseline (as has been successfully done for a recent assessment of the status of Mediterranean wetlands (Stark, Davidson & Kouvelis 2004). |
|
Data sources (following Res VIII.6 standard record for meta-inventory) and acquisition (including accessibility and costs) |
Important Bird Area monitoring programmes have already provided pilot application of this approach (see http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/indicators/iba_indices.html ), and these will continue to develop and deliver data regularly over the course of the next few years. A similar approach was piloted in 2004 as part of the MedWet assessment process, using a standard qualitative assessment questionnaire, which could be developed for global application. Harmonisation among these approaches and applying the resulting method to wetlands that are not IBAs will require a separate process and data management. These could be national or regional assessment initiatives, which also contribute to a centrally-managed database forming the basis ofr assessment analyses. |
|
Data custodians and coordinators (following Res VIII.6 standard record for meta-inventory) |
Birdlife International coordinates IBA monitoring, and its national partner organisations are the primary custodians of the data. Other appropriate custodians will need to be identified as the process develops. |
|
Data collators and analysts |
[to be added] |
|
Type of statistics generated and units |
Average trend scores among wetland sites for component factors and (potentially) for pressure, state and response measures over all. Numbers and areas of wetland sites with improving and declining components of conservation status. |
|
Analysis and presentation of results (described in summary here, and if possible illustrated by some worked examples, eg of graphics, in an annex to the factsheet) |
Once the scoring system has been applied to a set of wetland sites, the results can be combined to give a picture of overall trends in terms of average pressure, state and response scores across the sites (see example below for Kenya’s IBAs). If the Convention is fully effective, then the average trend scores should be positive, or at least zero. Alternatively, the average should be increasing through time.
Summary of trends in Kenya’s IBAs 1999-2003 (n=49) (from Otieno et al. 2004. Kenya’s Important Bird Areas Status and Trends 2004. Nature Kenya, Nairobi; http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/indicators/iba_indices.html) Alternatively, trends can be expressed in terms of proportion of sites with improving or declining status with respect to each criterion. An added use and presentation of such a system is in the analysis of the components of the scorecard to determine the prevalence of trends in particular factors affecting the conservation status of wetlands (e.g. agricultural encroachment) – see Stark, Davidson & Kouvelis 2004 for an example. These can in turn be analysed in relation to different components of convention implementation, with links here to information from indicator D. Analysis can also be carried out by wetland type. |
|
Limitations, and assumptions caveats to interpretation and minimum requirements for validity |
There are potential problems associated with equivalencies in aggregating data and interpreting aggregated indices. There are questions about how an improvement in a badly degraded site should be weighted relative to an equivalent improvement in conservation status in a site whose conservation status was relatively good to begin with. It is also unclear as yet how sensitive this approach will be in detecting changes in trends over time, or what is the effect of changing expert assessors, and/or indeed supplying assessors (changed or consistent) with information about previous assessments.
|
|
Action steps required for development and implementation of the indicator |
Criteria and guidance for the scoring system need to be developed based on the previously existing efforts and further consultation about weightings and factors.
|
|
Costs and sources of support |
[to be added] |
|
Future possible enhancements of the indicator and/or its use |
[to be added] |
Indicator
B. The status of the ecological character of Ramsar sites
[under development - a qualitative approach as for indicator A above will
provide a first sub-indicator]
Indicator C. Water-related indicator(s)
Two sub-indicators have
been developed for application:
- Trends in dissolved nitrate (or nitrogen) concentration; and
- Trends in Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
|
Indicator theme |
Water-related Indicator |
|||
Indicator Code |
C |
|||
Indicator title |
Trends in Water Quality |
|||
Sub-indicator |
Trends in dissolved nitrate (or nitrogen) concentration |
|||
|
Purpose (summary for decision-makers of what the indicator shows including relation to convention effectiveness (hypotheses) and assumptions about surrogacy) |
The indicator shows how levels of nitrogen in inland waters are changing over time, and reflects both pollution and trophic changes in the ecosystem. The principal contributor to dissolved nitrogen concentration is nitrate from fertiliser run off and other sources of pollution. It is a standard component of water quality monitoring. While absolute levels of dissolved nitrogen vary with water body type and (to a lesser degree) seasonal conditions, increasing average nitrogen concentration in a given water body shows increasing nitrogen inputs. These are most likely to come from run off or other source of pollution (or, in the case of remote locations, airborne pollutants deposited in rainfall). At site level, trends in dissolved nitrogen concentration are a component of site status and a reflection of how well a site’s immediate catchment and the wider basin are managed for the health of the ecosystem. The connection with Convention effectiveness is clear for Ramsar-designated sites – if designation has been effective in promoting their conservation and wise use, then a high proportion of Ramsar sites should have either stable or declining nitrogen concentrations. For other sites and for aggregate measures, the connection is with the health of freshwater ecosystems generally. In some cases this measure could be related to the role of Ramsar sites by expressing the nitrogen trend in relation to the numbers and areas of Ramsar designated sites within the basins for which the trends are measured. |
|||
Relationship to other Ramsar indicators, and to any sub-indicators |
This sub-indicator is complemented by sub-indicators on trends in Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), as well as potential sub-indicators on trends in suspended sediments and persistent organic pollutants. It informs indicators A and B in its role as a component of ecosystem health or ecological character. It is also closely related to indicator D (threats to wetlands) by its close relation to water pollution, land cover change and land management practises within catchments and basins. |
|||
Relevance to 2010 targets and other indicator processes |
Water quality in aquatic ecosystems is one of the indicators identified by the CBD for monitoring progress towards the 2010 target. Nitrate concentration is one component of the CBD’s indicator. Total nitrogen concentration (of which the vast majority is from nitrate and only a tiny fraction from nitrite) is an important indicator in the World Water Development Report process and for GEMS. The European Environment Agency uses trends in nitrate concentrations in rivers of different sizes as a key water indicator. The indicator makes a clear link between terrestrial and aquatic systems and to delivery of fresh water as an ecosystem service. |
|||
Broad types of data required |
Time series of standardised measures of nitrate (or nitrogen) concentration from fixed monitoring stations. The location of the stations in relation to the catchment geography, downstream and upstream Ramsar sites should be fully specified. The data need to be quality controlled and to take account of seasonal patterns of variation. They should to be interpreted in the context of the presence and extent of Ramsar sites within the basin and of the rates of human population increase and/or urbanisation within the basin. Process-related data in addition to site designation will include implementation of sectoral policies and measures taken to achieve water quality targets. |
|||
Role of Contracting Parties, including relationship of indicator to Ramsar National Reports process |
Many of the relevant data are collected by national monitoring programmes. CPs will need to maintain and/or enhance water quality monitoring programmes and to mobilise the resulting data and metadata |
|||
|
Scale(s) - Global, regional, national, sub-national/site or combination of these |
Although much monitoring is done at the site scale, the indicator is of most interest at scales that take account of wider influences. Thus, its site scale application should, where possible, be associated with measurements from the wider basin. The indicator can meaningfully be aggregated at national, regional and global scales by presenting summary information on trends at many sites. |
|||
|
Periodicity and timing, of (a) data-collation and analysis (b) presentation of results |
Trends should be expressed over five or ten year intervals and should therefore be re-assessed and re-presented with this frequency. |
|||
|
Baseline |
For at least some major water bodies, baseline BOD data were established in the mid-1970s and therefore baseline trend data can beestablished for the period between then and 1990. |
|||
Data sources (following Resolution VIII.6 standard record for meta-inventory) and acquisition (including accessibility and costs) |
Data area available from the UNEP GEMS Water Programme, which regularly receives data from participating countries, and provides data quality assessment. At the national level, the data sources include national water authorities, water supply utilities, ministries of health or environment, and research institutions; many are not fully linked to GEMS as yet. Regional assessments such as the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and EUROWATERNET can also provide useful data. |
|||
Data custodians and coordinators (following Resolution VIII.6 standard record for meta-inventory) |
UNEP GEMS Water Programme, European Environment Agency and other regional programmes, National water authorities. |
|||
Data collators and analysts |
[provisionally] UNEP-GEMS Water, WWDR, European Environment Agency |
|||
Type of statistics generated and units |
Numbers of water bodies with declining, stable and increasing average nitrate (or nitrogen) concentrations (measured in mg/L), relative to human population density and/or urbanisation and number and area of Ramsar sites in the Basin. A further possibility is to use geometric means (in a process analogous to species population trend indexing) to average the trends in individual water bodies thus giving an overall average trend with both a direction and magnitude (this is distinct from a trend in average concentrations) |
|||
|
Presentation of results: (described in summary here, and if possible illustrated by some worked examples, eg of graphics, in an annex to the factsheet) |
It is possible to examine average nitrogen concentration across a wide range of water bodies at different time periods, and this will show broad patterns of change over time. For example, the EEA has produced the following analysis of regional average nitrogen concentrations in rivers of different sizes. However, because datasets are not always consistent in their coverage over time, it may be more meaningful to analyse trends on a per-water-body basis. These can then be summarised as numbers of trends of particular directions (and magnitudes) or as an index
of average trends (as opposed to trends in averages). Presentation needs to be in relation to measures of Ramsar implementation (e.g. number and area of sites upstream, time since Convention ratification, degree of national sectoral policy development, other process - measures of convention implementation). |
|||
|
Limitations, and assumptions (caveats to interpretation and minimum requirements for validity) |
Although methods of measuring nitrate or nitrogen concentration are accepted and standardised, monitoring is unevenly distributed and patchy in time and space. Therefore care needs to be taken that trends reported are representative of real trends rather than seasonal variation or anomalies in the data set. Interpreting trends at site level needs to be done in relation to both site management and land management in the wider basin. |
|||
|
Action steps required for development and implementation of the indicator |
· Development of guidance on appropriate temporal and spatial aggregation of water quality data.· Mobilisation of data from the water supply sector and linkage to data on population density, urbanisation and Ramsar site distribution. |
|||
|
Costs and sources of support |
[not available] |
|||
|
Future possible enhancements of the indicator and/or its use |
· Development of additional sub-indicators, including trends in suspended sediments, and occurrence of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in surface water through the reporting mechanisms under the Stockholm Convention, which will begin working in 2006. |
|
Indicator theme |
Water-related Indicator |
Indicator Code |
C |
Indicator title |
Trends in Water Quality |
Sub-indicator |
Trends in Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) |
|
Purpose (summary for decision-makers of what the indicator shows including relation to convention effectiveness (hypotheses) and assumptions about surrogacy) |
The indicator shows how levels of organic pollution in inland waters are changing over time. Biological Oxygen Demand is the amount of oxygen required by aerobic micro-organisms to decompose the organic matter in a sample of water, such as that polluted by sewage. It is a standard component of water quality monitoring. While absolute levels of BOD vary with water body type and (to a lesser degree) seasonal conditions, increasing average BOD in a given water body shows that there is an increase in organic matter inputs, which are most likely to come from effluent, run off or other source of pollution. At site level, trends in BOD are a component of site status and a reflection of how well a site’s immediate catchment and the wider basin are managed for the health of the ecosystem. The connection with Convention effectiveness is clear for Ramsar-designated sites – if designation has been effective in promoting their conservation and wise use, then a high proportion of Ramsar sites should have trends in BOD that are either stable or declining over time. For other sites and for aggregate measures, the connection is with the health of freshwater ecosystems generally. In some cases this measure could be related to the role of Ramsar sites by expressing the BOD trend in relation to the numbers and areas of Ramsar designated sites within the basins for which BOD trends are measured. |
Relationship to other Ramsar indicators, and to any sub-indicators |
This sub-indicator is complemented by the sub-indicator on trends in nitrogen concentration and, as well as a potential sub-indicators on trends in suspended sediments and persistent organic pollutants. It informs indicators A and B in its role as a component of ecosystem health or ecological character. It is also closely related to indicator D (threats to wetlands) by its close relation to water pollution and catchment land cover change. |
Relevance to 2010 targets and other indicator processes |
Water quality in aquatic ecosystems is one of the indicators identified by the CBD for monitoring progress towards the 2010 target. BOD is one component of the CBD’s indicator. BOD is an indicator of water quality in the UN CSD Thematic Indicator Framework. It is also an important indicator in the World Water Development Report process and for GEMS. The European Environment Agency uses BOD as a regional indicator in the form of % of stations with BOD in a given range. An indicator based on BOD makes a key link to delivery of fresh water as an ecosystem service. |
Broad types of data required |
Time series of standardised measures of BOD from fixed monitoring stations. The data need to be quality controlled and to take account of seasonal patterns of variation. They need to be interpreted in the context of the presence and extent of Ramsar sites within the basin and of the rates of human population increase and/or urbanisation within the basin. Process-related data in addition to site designation will include implementation of sectoral policies and measures taken to achieve water quality targets. |
Role of Contracting Parties, including relationship of indicator to Ramsar National Reports process |
Many of the relevant data are collected by national monitoring programmes. CPs will need to maintain and/or enhance water quality monitoring programmes and to mobilise the attendant data and metadata |
|
Scale(s) - Global, regional, national, sub-national/site or combination of these |
Although much monitoring is done at the site scale, the indicator is of most interest at scales that take account of wider influences. Thus, its site scale application should, where possible, be associated with measurements from the wider basin. The indicator can meaningfully be aggregated at national, regional and global scales by presenting summary information on trends at many sites. |
|
Periodicity and timing, of (a) data-collation and analysis (b) presentation of results |
Trends should be expressed over five or ten year intervals and should therefore be re-assessed and re-presented with this frequency. |
|
Baseline |
For at least some major water bodies, baseline BOD data were established in the mid-1970s and therefore baseline trend data can beestablished for the period between then and 1990. |
|
Data sources (following Resolution VIII.6 standard record for meta-inventory) and acquisition (including accessibility and costs) |
Data area available from the UNEP GEMS Water Programme, which regularly receives data from participating countries, and provides data quality assessment. At the national level, the data sources include national water authorities, water supply utilities, ministries of health or environment, and research institutions; many are not fully linked to GEMS as yet. Regional assessments such as the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme can also provide useful data. |
Data custodians and coordinators (following Resolution VIII.6 standard record for meta-inventory) |
UNEP GEMS Water Programme, National water authorities. |
Data collators and analysts |
[provisionally: UNEP-GEMS Water, WWDR] |
Type of statistics generated and units |
Numbers of water bodies with declining, stable and increasing average BOD (mg O2/L), relative to human population density and/or urbanisation and number and area of Ramsar sites in the Basin. |
|
Presentation of results: (described in summary here, and if possible illustrated by some worked examples, eg of graphics, in an annex to the factsheet) |
It is possible to examine average BOD across a wide range of water bodies at different time periods, and this will show broad patterns of change over time. For example, the CBD has produced the following analysis of regional average BOD in major water bodies (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/INF/19):
However, it is more meaningful to analyse trends on a per-water-body basis and present these relative to measures of Ramsar implementation (e.g. number and area of sites upstream, time since Convention ratification, degree of national sectoral policy development, other process - measures of Convention implementation). |
|
Limitations, and assumptions (caveats to interpretation and minimum requirements for validity) |
Although BOD measurement methods are accepted and standardised, monitoring is usually only in those water bodies most important for water supply or of most concern with respect to effluent and other sources of pollution. The data sets are often interrupted by changes in support for monitoring programmes and other factors. Therefore care needs to be taken that trends reported are representative of real trends rather than seasonal variation or anaomalies in the data set. |
|
Action steps require |
