Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) -- Work Plan 2003-2005

STRP Work Plan 2003-2005

as agreed by STRP11, April 2003, and approved by Standing Committee by correspondence, May 2003

Background

1. The 11th meeting of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel, held on 8-11 April 2003, reviewed the tasks allocated to it by COP8 and previous COPs, and the priorities established for these tasks by the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee.

2. The STRP established six Expert Working Groups to undertake the substantive work for each of the six high priority areas of work identified to the Panel by the Standing Committee. Two co-leads for each Working Group were appointed by the Chair of the STRP.

3. In the course of the meeting, each Expert Working Group established the scope of, and mechanisms for, each of its requested tasks, identified timeframes and lead persons for undertaking these tasks for delivery to the Standing Committee and COP9, established whether a mid-term workshop or workshops would be needed to progress its work, and identified for which tasks it will need additional expertise and/or resources.

4. The STRP also established mechanisms for addressing high priority cross-cutting issues of Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) and agriculture in the work of each of the six Working Groups.

5. The STRP also agreed ways and means for progressing most areas of work indicated by the Standing Committee as lower priority, with the exception of Incentives, through the identification of a lead organization or organizational representative to develop the work requested; agreed mechanisms for delivering the ongoing tasks of the Panel; identified several key strategic issues for the Convention in the future; and identified tasks which it proposed to defer until the 2005-2008 triennium.

6. It should be noted that an early task of the Working Groups and other mechanisms established for areas of work will be to further define the terms of reference, scope, contents and timeframes for some tasks.

7. The Expert Working Groups will work largely through electronic discussion mechanisms. To facilitate this, the STRP Support Service is establishing a mini-Web site, with separate pages of resource materials and a discussion forum with associated e-mail listserver for each Working Group. Similar mechanisms are being established by the STRP Support Service for other work areas in the STRP's proposed work plan.

8. In each section of the STRP's proposed Work Plan, a tabular summary of each task and how it will be undertaken is provided, followed where necessary by further details of the proposed scope and mechanisms for the work.

9. The proposed STRP Work Plan that follows presents:

A. HIGH PRIORITY AREAS OF WORK - ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY EXPERT WORKING GROUPS:

1. Working Group 1: Wetland inventory and assessment
2. Working Group 2: Wise use concept
3. Working Group 3: Water resource management
4. Working Group 4: Ramsar site designation
5. Working Group 5: Wetland management
6. Working Group 6: Assessing the effectiveness of implementation of the Convention

B. CROSS-CUTTING AREAS OF WORK:

7. Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA)
8. Agriculture

C. LOWER PRIORITY AREAS OF WORK - ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH LEAD ORGANISATIONS:

9. Environmental and strategic impact assessment
10. Peatlands
11. Climate change
12. Restoration and rehabilitation
13. Invasive alien species
14. Participation of local communities and indigenous peoples in wetland management
15. Further guidance for designating wetland types in the Ramsar List
16. Sharing of information and expertise

D. ON-GOING TASKS OF THE STRP

17. STRP National Focal Points
18. Regional categorization advice
19. Ramsar Small Grant Fund projects
20. Wetland project development and evaluation
21. Ramsar Sites Database
22. Montreux Record
23. Collaboration with other Conventions and agreements
24. Drafting technical Resolutions

E. KEY ADDITIONAL STRATEGIC ISSUES

F. WORK PROPOSED FOR DEFERRAL TO THE 2005-2008 TRIENNIUM

10. For those tasks in the Work Plan for which additional resourcing is indicated as required, the Bureau, with the assistance of the STRP Support Service, will develop a fundraising document.

A. High priority areas of work

Working Group 1: Wetland inventory and assessment

Membership

Co-leads: Max Finlayson & Lijuan Cui (China)
Francisco Contreras
Dick Ho
Jorge Jimenez
Najam Khurshid
Eckhart Kuijken
Tatiana Minaeva
Stephen Njuguna
Manichand Puttoo
David Stroud
BirdLife (David Pritchard)
IUCN (Jean-Yves Pirot)
Wetlands International (Ward Hagermeijer)
Randy Milton (Canada) IWMI (Rebecca Tharme)
WRI (Carmen Revenga)
TNC (Mary Lammert - tbc)
UNEP-WCMC (Christoph Zöckler)
CIESIN (Alex de Sherbenin - tbc)
SWS (Glenn Guntenspergen - tbc)
CBD Secretariat (Robert Hoft)
LakeNet (David Read Barker)
IMCG (Andreas Grünig)
IAIA (Andrea Athanas)
MedWet Initiative (tbc)
Bureau support: Nick Davidson

Tasks

11. Tasks and the mechanisms established by the Expert Working Group for their delivery are summarized below. All tasks except task 1.10 have been indicated by the Standing Committee as high priority. Although task 1.10 was indicated by the Standing Committee as a lower priority, the Working Group considers that initial work on this topic (wetlands and fisheries) can be undertaken during this triennium, drawing upon on-going work of other organizations. Working Group 1's work plan also includes tasks concerning monitoring and assessment of status and trends of Ramsar sites, so as to avoid duplication of work with other Working Groups.

12. Workshops suggested for tasks 1.3.ii, 1.4.i, and 1.8, for early 2004, should be held concurrently if possible. Detailed work plans for each task follow the tabular summary.

A. Wetland Inventory

Task 1.1: Contribution to an update of the Global Review of Wetland Resources and Priorities for Wetland Inventory (GRoWI), reporting to COP9 [1.1.5]

1.1.1 The Working Group requests the Bureau and Wetlands International to develop a costed project proposal to take forward this work, and recognizes that the resources and timeframes required to produce a full update are likely to be substantial (as a measure of the effort, the updates of the European component of GRoWI carried out by Wetlands International took c. 18 months).

1.1.2 The Working Group considers it doubtful that a full global update can be completed in time for COP9, especially regarding the progress on inventory at the national level. However, a summary of progress to date, as well as information on existing regional and global inventories could be submitted to COP9, while the full report and update, including for national inventories should be submitted to COP10.

1.1.3 Advice from the Working Group on the scope and approach to the GRoWI update is as follows:

i) The updates should use the 1998-99 GRoWI databases as the starting point and draw on other existing and ongoing regional inventories (Europe, MedWet, Central and East Asia, Southeast Asia).

ii) Information compiled on existing inventories should follow the wetland inventory metadata structure developed by the STRP in the previous triennium. The European inventory is already in this format; other existing inventory information would need to be adapted to this framework and entered into the inventory metadatabase (already developed by eriss, Australia and Wetlands International).

iii) Information on the status of national wetland inventory provided by Parties in COP8 and COP9 National Reports should be used as source material and as the basis for follow-up with each Party for the full GRoWI update.

iv) the updated review should include specific information on the contents of each inventory with respect to spatial data, raw data or interpreted/derived information (if this is not already included in the inventory metadata fields).

v) In recognition of the large scope of the work, the project should be a collaboration between several regional and international institutions, with assistance of the STRP Support Service.

1.1.4 Actions and timeframes:

1. Draft project proposal, including proposed collaborating organizations and potential sources of funding, developed by Bureau and Wetlands International, by July 2003

2. Review of project proposal by Working Group 1, by end of July 2003

3. Subsequent full project implementation dependent on identification of funding sources.

4. Progress report for STRP12, by September 2004

5. Information paper (resources permitting) on status of regional/global wetland inventories for possible COP9 consideration, by September 2004, for STRP12.

Task 1.2: Further review of the application of remote sensing data, low-cost GIS, and classification systems in wetland inventory

1.2.1 The Working Group noted that the term "low-cost GIS" is potentially misleading and recommends that an alternative be found to reflect the issue of distinguishing between different GIS software packages, some of which require less investment and less training than others (e.g., ArcView vs ArcInfo). Special attention should be paid to providing guidance on simple and accessible tools that can be used by developing countries.

1.2.2 There is not the necessary expertise within the STRP to carry out this task in full: it should be contracted out to a research institution, drawing on what has already been done (or is under development) by European Space Agency (ESA), Japan Space Agency (NASDA), WRI, and Africa GIS (an Africa-based NGO specializing in the application of GIS for natural resources management in Africa).

1.2.3 The output for COP9 should be guidelines for the use of remote sensing and GIS methods in wetland inventory. The guidelines should, if possible, include information on sources of training and software at low costs. The guidelines should not be a detailed "how to use GIS and remote sensing" guide, but rather should focus on providing a catalogue of tools, with a description of the utility of each for wetland inventory.

1.2.4 Actions and timeframes:

1. An initial outline of the scope and costing of the work by July 2003: by Max Finlayson, in association with IWMI, who have offered to contribute to the task from their ongoing work using GIS and remote sensing.

2. A preliminary assessment to identify the tools and approaches that have already been used and which may be of use, as well to as distinguish different scales of application, will be undertaken by Max Finlayson, with input from IWMI, by September 2003.

3. Further work (by consultant) to follow-up on the preliminary assessment and prepare draft guidance should be completed by early 2004, for review by the Working Group.

4. Final draft guidance by August 2004, for review by STRP12.

1.2.5 Additional assistance and resources required

Additional funding is required to engage a consultant or organization to carry out this task. Resources permitting, the STRP Support Service will assist in identifying a suitable contractor.

B. Wetland Assessment

Task 1.3: Consolidation of guidelines on Ramsar Wetlands Classification System and biogeographic regionalization

1.3.1 The work will involve three elements:

i) Review of existing wetland classification systems. The review will identify what are the different methodologies in use and for what purpose. Experts to be invited to contribute to this task are: Mark Brinsan, ECU (US), Vic Semeniuk (Consultant), and Max Finlayson. The IUCN SSC-Specialist Group working on habitat classification for the Species Information System will also contribute. Lead: Vic Semeniuk.

ii) Ramsar Wetlands Classification System. Once the wetland classification systems review is completed, its findings will be used to revise and harmonize the Ramsar Wetland Classification System (RCS). Modifications to the RCS system may need to be made to inter alia include mountain wetlands and other types of wetlands identified in Resolution VIII.12. David Stroud and the IUCN-SSC Specialist Group working on habitat classification system for the SIS will contribute to this task. Lead: to be identified with assistance of the Support Service.

iii) Biogeographic regionalization in the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS). The Working Group is concerned that establishing guidelines on biogeographic regionalization risks might become an endless task with little applicability, given the likelihood of difficulty in reaching global agreement on biogeographic regionalization. Before considering any guidance development, the Working Group requests the Bureau and Wetlands International to make a review of the application of the two new biogeography fields in RISs submitted by Parties since COP8, and to present this review for consideration by STRP12. If the results of this review demonstrate that the biogeographic classification fields are not being used, or are causing difficulty for Parties, the Panel should consider recommending that the biogeographic regionalization concept should be dropped from the Ramsar Criteria for site designation, through work in the next triennium. Lead: tbc.

1.3.2 Actions and timeframes:

1. Identification of leads for wetland classification review and Ramsar Wetland Classification System revision, by end of May 2003.

2. Draft wetland classification review, circulated to Working Group, by end of September 2003.

3. Draft proposals for revisions to Ramsar Wetland Classification System, circulated to Working Group, by end of February 2004.

4. Final draft classification review (as possible Information Paper for COP9 or earlier circulation to Parties) and revised Ramsar Wetland Classification System, by August 2004, for STRP12.

5. Review of application of biogeography fields in RIS, by September 2004, for STRP12. {Note. This analysis should be undertaken as late as possible before STRP12 so as to permit inclusion of maximum number of RISs prepared since COP8.]

1.3.3 Additional resources/assistance required:

STRP Support Service assistance to identify lead for tasks 1.3.1 i) and 1.3.1 ii). If an identified lead needs to work on a consultancy basis, additional funding may be required for this work.

Task 1.4: Determination of the ecological character of Ramsar sites and other wetlands, including techniques for delineating and mapping wetlands and for evaluating their values and functions and goods and services

1.4.1 Work by the Working Group will cover three 'sub-tasks', each resulting in guidelines for Parties, as follows:

i) Guidelines for defining the "ecological character" of Ramsar sites and other wetlands. Lead: Max Finlayson, with Bill Phillips invited to assist, with input also from LakeNet.

ii) Guidelines on techniques for delineating and mapping wetlands. Lead: UNEP-WCMC and Wetlands International, with contribution from IMCG and LakeNet.

iii) Guidelines for evaluating the values and functions, goods and services provided by wetlands. Lead: Lijuan Cui, with input from IUCN

1.4.2 The actions and timeframes to produce the Guidelines for defining the "ecological character" of Ramsar sites and other wetlands (task 1.4.1 i) are as follows:

1. Prepare a catalogue of biological, physical, chemical and ecosystem services data fields (not at this stage data fields for ecological processes), by September 2003. This work will draw on the Asian Wetland Inventory and an Australian government report on ecological character definition.

2. Identify key features and data sets that specifically determine the character of individual wetland types. First draft by early 2004. (Note. This approach and its recommended features and datasets needs to be harmonized with the information required for site designation in the RIS (Working Group 4, task 4.2 c) and monitoring. Given the relevance of this work on ecological character to other STRP tasks, the drafts should be circulated for comment to all STRP Working Groups.)

3. Review and revise the concepts/data fields through a small workshop (6-10 technical experts) (early 2004 - date tbc).

4. Final draft guidelines, for STRP12, by August 2004.

1.4.3 Additional resources required

Funding for the workshop will be required.

1.4.4 The actions and timeframes to prepare the Guidelines on techniques for delineating and mapping wetlands (task 1.4.1 ii) are as follows:

1. First draft for review by Working Group, by early 2004.

2. Revised draft, for STRP12, by August 2004.

1.4.5 The actions and timeframe to produce the Guidelines for evaluating the values and functions, goods and services provided by wetlands (task 1.4.1 iii) are as follows:

1. Develop scope and outline contents of guidelines (Lijuan Cui, with assistance from STRP Support Service), for circulation and agreement by Working Group, by July 2003.

2. First draft guidelines, for Working Group review, by early 2004. (Note. It may be appropriate to convene a small expert workshop to review and revise the guidance, in mid 2004.)

3. Final draft guidelines, for STRP12, by August 2004.

Note: The guidelines should draw upon materials and information on valuation from IUCN, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), and others. IUCN (Lucy Emerton) will contribute the following:
· guidelines for the economic valuation of wetlands (with particular attention to the biophysical data required for valuation; integration of economic valuation with other decision-support methods; and how to address poverty concerns in wetland valuation.
· a practical toolkit for integrating wetlands economic values into river basin management;
· case study applications of wetland valuation techniques including: Muthurajawela (Sri Lanka), That Luang (Lao PDR), lower Mekong (Cambodia/Lao), Terraba-Sierpe (Costa Rica), Pangani (Tanzania), Ruhuna/Kala Oya (Sri Lanka), Djoudj (Senegal), and Diawling (Mauritania); and
· Policy briefs and technical papers on wetland valuation methods and applications.

Task 1.5: Incorporation of assessment and management processes and practical methods (including multi-scalar methods for wetland assessment and monitoring) developed by other programmes, including the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), into the series of Ramsar Handbooks for the Wise Use of Wetlands.

1.5.1 Since the outputs needed from the MA will not be available in time for STRP to consider them for COP9, the Working Group recommends that this task be deferred to STRP work in the 2005-2008 triennium, once the relevant MA products are available, for COP10 consideration.

Task 1.6: Practical methods, including indicators, for monitoring wetlands and for the rapid assessment of wetland biodiversity, including both inland waters and coastal and marine systems

1.6.1 Work by the Working Group will be undertaken through two 'sub-tasks':

i) development of practical indicators for monitoring inland and coastal/marine wetlands. Lead: IUCN (SSC) and UNEP-WCMC, with input from WRI, CBD and Najam Khurshid

ii) Guidelines for rapid assessment of wetland biodiversity (both inland and coastal/marine systems). Lead: IUCN (SSC) and UNEP-WCMC, with input on the application and adaptation of existing guidance to Ramsar sites from Steven Njuguna, Francisco Rilla, CBD and David Stroud.

1.6.2 For the sub-task 1.6.1 i), already developed indicators (global, regional and national level) should be presented and reviewed with respect to their applicability and use in the Ramsar context. The work will draw on previously developed indicators from CBD and IUCN-SSC (biodiversity), UNEP-WCMC (specifically coastal marine ecosystems), WRI (coastal/marine, freshwater, wetlands in drylands, agriculture and poverty mapping), and MA (all ecosystems).

1.6.3 The indicators should provide information on the condition of Ramsar sites and other wetlands, and in the longer term should become indicators that can contribute towards measuring the effectiveness of the Convention (see also task 6.2).

1.6.4 There is a close linkage with the work of Working Group 6 on indicators of Convention implementation effectiveness, and also with that of Working Group 3 on water resource management indicators. Close collaboration between these three related tasks will be essential, so as to ensure consistency (taking into account the different specific purposes for each set of indicators) of the proposed indicator sets.

1.6.5 Actions and timeframes will be as follows:

[to be advised by task Leads]

1.6.6 Additional resources required for sub-task 1.6.1 i):

Some funding may be required to develop specific indicators for Ramsar sites, and to carry out cross-links with agriculture and other land uses in relation to wetland condition (WRI and IWMI).

1.6.7 For sub-taks 1.6.1 ii) ( Guidelines for rapid assessment of wetland biodiversity, both inland and coastal/marine systems), the CBD guidelines for rapid assessment of inland waters (recommended by CBD SBSTTA8 to CBD COP7) and marine and coastal biodiversity (in draft, to be considered by SBSTTA9, November 2003) will form the starting point of the work. The Working Group will review these guidelines, advise on their applicability to the Ramsar context, and make recommendations for any modifications which may be appropriate.

[Bureau note. It is recognized that the current CBD guidelines focus on assessment of species / communities, and that further work on provision of assessment guidance at the habitat / ecosystem level is needed. In its review, the Working Group should also consider to what extent it could develop such additional guidance during this triennium, and/or make recommendations for how such guidance might be subsequently developed.]

1.6.8 The actions and timeframes for sub-task 1.6.1 ii) are as follows:

1. Review of CBD guidelines and recommendations for adaptation to the Ramsar context for comment by Working Group, by end of 2003. Note. It would be appropriate for the Working Group to first review the inland waters guidelines, since these are already finalized, and then the marine/coastal guidelines once they are prepared as a CBD SBSTTA Information Paper later in 2003.

2. Final draft guidelines, adapted to the Ramsar context, and recommendations for further work needed, for STRP12 consideration, by July 2004.

Task 1.7: Incorporation of environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment into wetland risk assessment procedures

1.7.1 The Working Group recommends that this task be consolidated with the work under Section 9 of this Work Plan on environmental and strategic impact assessment.

Task 1.8: Consolidation of existing Convention guidance and development of an integrated framework for wetland inventory, assessment and monitoring,
-- and --
Harmonization of definitions and terms throughout the suite of Ramsar guidance on inventory, assessment, monitoring and management of the ecological character of wetlands

Lead: Max Finlayson, Peter Bayliss (eriss, Australia), and Wetlands International

1.8.1 The framework will be developed from the outline integrated framework prepared by STRP for COP8 (COP8 DOC. 16) and relevant materials from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and other published papers.

1.8.2 The framework will include identification of links to the suite of tools and guidance already approved by Ramsar COPs, and new tools and guidance being developed under this STRP work plan for COP9. It will link biodiversity, ecosystem services, and wise use concepts.

1.8.3 Once the framework is completed and the draft reviewed, an assessment of harmonization issues with existing tools/guidelines and their language will be undertaken. This will form a report for COP9 in which cross-referencing to previous documents will be included, but no attempt will be made to rewrite existing documents. However, recommendations in the report may, if appropriate, include suggestions for revised definitions and terms in existing Convention documents.

1.8.4 The actions and timeframes are as follows:

1. First draft integrated framework, by early 2004, for circulation to all STRP Working Groups for comment (since this task is relevant to areas of work covered by each Working Group).

2. A small workshop (6-10 technical experts) to review and revise the framework, in the light of comments from all STRP Working Groups, will be needed, early 2004 (date tbc). This could be held in conjunction with the ecological character workshop proposed under 1.4.3 (action 3) above.

3. Final draft guidelines, for STRP12, by July 2004.

4. Draft harmonization review and recommendations on definitions and terms, by September 2004, for review by STRP12.

1.8.5 Additional resources required:

Funding for the workshop will be required (action 2).

Task 1.9: Contribute to, review, and utilize the work of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in reporting to COP9 on wetland status and trends

1.9.1 The STRP (all Working Groups) will be circulated relevant draft products specifically relevant to wetlands from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) for review. In particular, the STRP will be requested to review the draft synthesis report for the Ramsar Convention (draft expected late 2004).

1.9.2 The STRP will provide a report to the MA on links and collaboration possible through the STRP work plan.

1.9.3 If possible, information on the status and trends of wetlands in MA reports will be utilized by Working Group 1 in its task 1.13 below.

Task 1.10: Contribute to assessment of contribution of Ramsar sites and other wetlands to fisheries maintenance, and recommend sustainable management practices

Lead: [further information to be provided by Working Group 1]

1.10.1 Although indicated by the Standing Committee for deferral to the 2005-2008 triennium, the Working Group considers that initial work on this important topic (see also Section E Key Additional Strategic Issues) can be undertaken during this triennium, given the current work being done at the international level by several IOPs and STRP observer organizations.

1.10.2 Outputs for consideration by Standing Committee and COP9 will be:

i) a summary assessing the role of inland and coastal Ramsar sites and other wetlands is sustaining healthy fisheries
ii) a short guidance (not detailed guidelines) on how to implement, foster, maintain, and support sustainable management practices (old or new), for inland and inshore coastal fisheries. This guidance will not cover offshore fisheries.

1.10.3 The outputs will be prepared within the context of current ongoing work led by the WorldFish Center. Contributions will also be made by IUCN, WWF, IWMI, WRI, and MA. FAO will also be approached to provide input from their work in Southeast Asia and Africa.

Note. A draft Resolution concerning wetlands and fisheries was prepared during the 2000-2002 triennium and can form the basis of a draft COP9 Resolution prepared by STRP12 to accompany the above outputs.

1.10.4 The actions and and timeframes are as follows:

1. Draft summary of Ramsar sites' role in fisheries, and short guidance, prepared by August 2004, for review by STRP12.

2. Expert workshop (provisional) to finalise documents, early 2005.

1.10.5 Additional resources required:

Availability of funds would allow for more focus specifically on the contribution to fisheries of Ramsar sites. A small workshop of experts to review and finalise documents, following guidance received from the 12th STRP meeting, may be needed (for which funding would be required). [Timing of workshop will be advised to the STRP Support Service - anticipated early 2005]

Task 1.11: Develop methodologies for vulnerability assessment of wetlands to change in ecological character (including to impacts of climate change, alien species invasion, and agricultural practices)

Lead: UNEP-WCMC [subject to confirmation of lead person] for vulnerability assessment methodologies report.

1.11.1 Outputs for COP9 will be a report on vulnerability assessment methodologies, with a summary report identifying areas with early warning systems in place for monitoring wetlands, highlighting case studies where these systems have been used successfully.

1.11.2 On vulnerability assessments, other contributors will be Manichand Puttoo, Najam Khurshid, and IWMI and IMCG on agriculture cross-links. Other groups suggested to be approached by UNEP-WCMC for input include IGBP, MA, UNEP-GRID Sioux Falls (Ashbindu Singh), and UNDP and GEF on their recently completed work on adaptation to vulnerability.

1.11.3 This task also covers work carried over from the previous triennium concerning compilation of a report on cases where early warning systems for wetlands are in place or are being established and of the experience in maintaining these systems (Resolution VII.10, paragraph 14). Working Group members (Max Finlayson and Lijuan Cui), the Bureau and the STRP Support Service will identify case studies and catalog places where Early Warning Systems for wetland monitoring are in place, including from information provided by Parties in their COP8 National Reports. A summary report will be included in the report on vulnerability assessment methodologies.

1.11.4 Actions and timeframes will be as follows:

[to be advised by the Working Group and task lead]

Final draft vulnerability assessment report by August 2004, for STRP12 review.

C. Monitoring Ramsar sites

Task 1.12: Prepare further consolidated guidance on the overall process of detecting, reporting and responding to change in ecological character, including guidelines for determining when such a change is too trivial to require reporting, having regard to the reasons why a given site is important, and the conservation objectives set for it

1.12.1 Working Group 5 is addressing the issue of whether further guidance is needed concerning responding (through management processes) to change in ecological character (task 5.4).

1.12.2 Working Group 1 requests the Bureau and the STRP Support Services to take the lead on establishing a mechanism to provide any supplementary information necessary on how to apply the integrated framework (task 1.8) to fully cover the requirements of Article 3.2 of the Convention.

1.12.3 BirdLife International (David Pritchard), David Stroud and IMCG have offered, in collaboration with Max Finlayson (Lead: task 1.8), to contribute to any repackaging of relevant information for incorporation into the proposed integrated framework. IMCG has an existing methodology that may serve as an example.

1.12.4 The Working Group strongly recommends that in preparing guidance on these matters, the term "trivial" is interpreted to mean "minor or transitory."

1.12.5 Actions and timeframes will be as follows:

1. Establish mechanism (Bureau, STRP Support Service) for incorporating Article 3.2 procedures into the integrated framework for wetland inventory, assessment and monitoring, by July 2003

2. Review draft integrated framework (available early 2004), and draft supplementary guidance as necessary, by June 2004, for Working Group review.

3. Final draft supplementary guidance, by August 2004, for STRP12.

Task 1.13: Prepare an analysis and report of the status and trends in the ecological character of sites in the Ramsar List, within the wider context of the status and trends of marine, coastal and inland wetlands

Lead: [organization or consultant to be identified]

1.13.1 The Working Group recognizes that the extent to which this work can be undertaken during the current triennium is constrained by a) limited availability of Ramsar site status and trends information and b) the absence of a clear definition of ecological character (to be developed this triennium by Working Group 1, task 1.4) which would provide the baseline for status and trends assessment.

1.13.2 The Working Group therefore proposes to prepare the following outputs to inform COP9 discussion on this topic:

i) an analysis of how little can be said about the ecological character of Ramsar sites given the current level of information available from the national reports and Ramsar Information Sheets; and
ii) a pilot test of status and trends information for a selected number of Ramsar sites for which better information exists.

1.13.3 Work for output ii) will draw on the ESA TESEO and proposed 'GlobWetlands' project outputs and other sources (including through consultation with Parties to identify for which Ramsar sites they have status and trends information) to determine which data are useful for assessing the condition and trends of Ramsar sites, and to use this knowledge to modify, as appropriate, the information which should be provided by Parties. Results from this work can also help to inform the STRP work on determining the ecological character (task 1.4).

1.13.4 Actions and timeframes will be as follows:

[Terms of Reference, including scope and estimated costing, and timeframes, to be developed by Bureau and STRP Support Service, in consultation with Working Group co-leads.]

1.13.5 Additional resources required: The Working Group recommends that these tasks be contracted out to an organization or consultant, because of the scale of the work required, for which additional funds will be required. WRI have expressed an interest in leading on undertaking this work.

Working Group 2: Wise use concept

Membership

Co-leads: Steve Edwards (IUCN - CEM) & Randy Milton (Canada)
Teresita Borges
Lijuan Cui
Heather MacKay
Max Finlayson
Tatiana Minaeva
Stephen Njuguna
Francisco Rilla
David Stroud
Wetlands International (Kevin Erwin)
IWMI
Habiba Gitay (MA)
CBD secretariat (Paola Deda)
IPS (Jack Rieley)
IMCG
Bureau support: Tobias Salathé

Tasks

The tasks indicated by the Standing Committee as high priority, and the mechanisms established by the Working Group for their delivery, are summarized below. Detailed work plans for each high priority task follow the tabular summary.

Task 2.1: Wise use concept review

2.1.1 The wise use concept is synonymous with the Convention and is one of the three pillars or obligations of Contracting Parities. The wise use provisions apply to all wetlands and their support systems (not just wetlands designated as Wetlands of International Importance under the Convention) within the territory of a Contracting Party.

2.1.2 Resolutions 4.10 (1990) and 5.6 (1993) adopted guidelines for the implementation of the wise use concept. Guidance for implementing wise use has been provided to Contracting Parties in the form of guidelines published in a series of handbooks.

2.1.3 The Working Group will undertake a review of the wise use concept and guidelines and if necessary update them to reflect recent developments related to the concepts of sustainable development and the ecosystem approach. While it is one of the pillars of the Convention, it is recognized that there is a need to revisit the applicability and consistency of the wise use concept, in the context of the relevant approaches being developed by other MEAs and outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

2.1.4 To examine this, the Working Group will undertake a review highlighting the comparability and harmonization of the wise use concept with other international systems. This review will relate the Ramsar wise use concept and guidelines to the CBD Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Use Principles, comparable systems associated with other global conventions, WSSD goals, sustainable development principles, Integrated Coastal Zone Management, and Integrated Water Resource Management. Case studies that may be used as examples to illustrate the comparability of these approaches will be reviewed.

2.1.5 Actions and timeframes will be as follows:

1. IUCN - Commission on Ecosystem Management/Ecosystem Management Programme (IUCN-CEM/EMP) will lead in preparing a first draft of this review report, by August 2003.

2. On the basis of this draft review, the Working Group will determine if further work is required to update and/or reformulate the Ramsar guidance on wise use, and propose a work plan and timeframes to prepare material for COP9.

Tasks 2.2 & 2.3: Wise Use methods, best practice studies and new tools

2.2/2.3.1 In addressing Tasks 2.2 and 2.3, the Working Group will use a complementary approach. The development of any new tools to assist Parties with the implementation of the wise use concept needs to be based on identified need, using a "bottom-up" approach. If Contracting Parties are experiencing difficulty in implementing the wise use concept with the guidance provided in Ramsar Handbook 1, the additional thematic guidance available in the other Ramsar Handbooks and further guidance adopted by COP8, assistance or guidance may be required to identify the "necessary conditions" which are lacking and must first be established.

2.2/2.3.2 The work plan reflects the role and importance of the wise use concept in the implementation of the Ramsar Convention, and the fact that tools must be relevant to the intended user, whether it is the national authority or site manager within a Contracting Party.

2.2/2.3.3 Actions and timeframes will be as follows:

1a) The identification of "necessary conditions" or "NCs" is a multi-step process. Initially, a consultant will need to be identified (through the STRP Support Service) and contracted to compile and review a series of case studies reflective of the Ramsar regions on the implementation of the wise use concept.

1b) The consultant will revisit the case studies contained in the booklet "Towards the Wise Use of Wetlands" and the wetland case studies included in a publication being prepared for the CBD SBSTTA on the ecosystem approach. The case studies will be analyzed for the underlying foundation or "NCs" upon which to build the necessary framework to implement the wise use concept. This work should be completed by August 2003.

2. The preliminary assessment of "NCs" produced by the consultant will then be used to structure a small workshop (early October 2003) of invited Ramsar national authorities and local site managers from the Ramsar regions. This facilitated workshop (Ramsar Support Service and Working Group) will further refine the "NCs" based on the operational needs of Contracting Parties. (Note: Dr. MacKay has offered the facilities of the Water Research Commission, South Africa, as a location to hold the workshop.)

3. A synthesis of "NCs" and identification of needed tools for successful implementation will be prepared by the Working Group, a consultant, and Ramsar Bureau staff. This should be completed by mid-November 2003. Note. Tools may require input from CEPA experts and processes.

4. The results of the synthesis will be used to develop a framework of tools to be used by workshop participants to assess whether wise use is being implemented at the national or site scale. The framework of tools will be prepared by a consultant and structured to allow a comparative analysis on the effectiveness of existing or new tools to provide or build on the NCs. This framework of tools will be sent to workshop participants by the end of December 2003 for their assessment.

5. Completed assessment reports should be returned by June 2004.

6. The Working Group will make an analysis of the reports and refine and/or generalize the tools, supporting documentation and resolutions for review by STRP12, by September 2004.

2.4 Additional resources required:

a) To be fully implemented, additional financial resources will be required for the engagement of expert consultants to prepare materials for Tasks 2.2 and 2.3, and to prepare, hold, and follow up the workshop on "necessary conditions" for implementation of the wise use concept. A reduced work plan addressing tasks 2.2 and 2.3 could be accomplished with minimal expenditure of funds.

b) If further work to revise and update the wise use guidance (Task 2.1) proves necessary, additional funds for consultancy work may also be required for this.

2.5 Cross-cutting issues: Evaluation by CEPA experts of the prepared texts will be required, since it will be essential to ensure that this fundamental guidance for Convention implementation will be easy to understand, use and transmit to others. There should also be a cross-link between the work of WG2 of evaluating "necessary conditions" and managers' needs and issues for 'tools', and that of WG5 in evaluating its 'field guide' to the Convention's management planning guidelines.

Working Group 3: Water resource management

Membership

Co-leads: Heather MacKay (South Africa) & Rebecca Tharme (IWMI)
Max Finlayson
Jorge Jimenez
Najam Khurshid
Francisco Rilla
IUCN - CEH/CEM (Mike Acreman) UNEP-WCMC (Christoph Zöckler)
WRI (Carmen Revenga)
CBD Secretariat (Robert Hoft)
RIZA (Frank Alberts)
Bureau support: Anada Tiega

Note. The Working Group co-lead has identified the following who should be invited to participate in the work of the Group: Member of IUCN Water Resources & Wetlands programme, environmental flows group; FAO water resources lead person and/or Ramsar focal point (Nico van Leeuwen?); MedWet member of wetlands centre (e.g. Greek Biotope Centre); GWP; WorldFish Center; Dialogue Knowledge Base Coordinator (Domitille Vallee); SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute); Dams & Development Group member

Tasks

Tasks and the mechanisms established by the Expert Working Group for their delivery, are summarized below. Tasks 3.1, 3.3 and 3.6 have been indicated by the Standing Committee as high priority, and tasks 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 as a lower priority and/or appropriate for deferral to the 2005-2008 triennium pending other precursal steps. Detailed work plans for the high priority tasks follow.

Task 3.1: River basin management case studies and further guidance

3.1.1 The task concerns a review of case studies, specifically those compiled through the Ramsar/CBD River Basin Initiative (RBI), and on the basis of the review to prepare further guidance, if considered necessary, to supplement that adopted by COP7 Resolution VIII.18.

3.1.2 Some case studies are already available through the RBI's Web portal, but full implementation of the RBI has been delayed and so may not yield further case study information on the timescales needed: the Working Group should not rely solely on the RBI for providing case studies. Other initiatives related to IWRM may yield some case studies, though the biodiversity component of these might not be very strong in projects or initiatives being driven from within the water sector. IHE is currently collating case studies and information/training material related to IWRM, as are several other groups, which should be accessed.

3.1.3 Furthermore, case studies of successful incorporation of biodiversity and wetland issues into river basin management are likely to be very difficult to find, since there are currently very few initiatives at river basin scale which have progressed beyond their early stages. Most available case studies reflect implementation at site scale rather than basin scale. Nevertheless, it should be possible to source information from which to draw some lessons from current initiatives, even if these initiatives are still in early stages. There is a need to ensure that duplication with work of other initiatives e.g. IUCN/Dialogue on Water, Food & Environment, is avoided.

3.1.4 If the case studies are not available or adequate, or if resources are not available, then tasks 1 and 3 below fall away, leaving tasks 2, 4 and 5 to be completed by the Working Group members.

3.1.5 Actions and timeframes will be as follows:

1. Review existing Ramsar guidelines on IWRM with respect to integrating wetlands, biodiversity and river basin management. Address gaps, if present, to see if necessary to extend; identify further guidance which may be required to assist Parties in advancing integration of biodiversity and wetlands issues into river basin management. Prepare brief recommendations related to needs for further guidance. Heather MacKay (with Working Group), by August 2003

2. Develop detailed terms of reference for complete programme of work related to this item, recognizing that resources may not be available in this triennium to do all the work which is indicated in the terms of reference. Jorge Jimenez & Heather MacKay, mid-May 2003

3. Develop brief for STRP Support Service on criteria for identifying relevant case studies (represent different interests, regional priorities, etc.) Lead: Jorge Jimenez

4. Collate (STRP Support Service) and analyze relevant case studies to identify success criteria and potential obstacles for integration of biodiversity and wetlands issues into river basin management. Draw out lessons learned and recommendations. Prepare a technical paper which includes synthesis of lessons learned from case studies.

Notes: Initiatives that may yield such case study information include: Chilika Lake (India), Lake Chad, Niger Basin, RBI SE Asia project (13-15 cases), China - restoration studies, and European Centre for River Restoration. STRP members, Bureau Regional Coordinators, KB of Dialogue, IWMI should also be approached to identify potential case studies.

The Water Research Commission (South Africa) is managing a project funded by WWF Living Waters Programme to develop "Guidelines for integrating the protection, conservation and management of wetlands into catchment management planning". This project should be completed by January 2004. Although the work is intended specifically to support implementation of the South African national water policy, the results are likely to have general applicability and could serve as the basis for a set of less comprehensive guidelines under task 1, if resources are not available to undertake the work set out in tasks 2 and 3 during the 2003-05 triennium. Heather MacKay

5. Critical analysis by consultant:
Option 1 - workshop-based process
Option 2 - desktop process (consultant)

6. Compile report: synthesis of lessons learnt (consultant)

7. The case studies and synthesis of lessons learned could potentially be taken up by CEPA activities in the next triennium, as this is considered to be an important area for CEPA to focus on, especially in terms of informing and influencing the water sector (see also Section E, Key additional strategic issues). WI CEPA Specialist Group

8. Develop a document which builds on existing Ramsar guidelines from COP7 and COP8, plus new information derived from tasks 2 and 3, and which provides guidance on river basin planning and management that incorporates biodiversity and wetlands issues. Guidance document prepared for consideration by STRP12. Consultant to draft, under guidance from Jorge Jimenez and Heather MacKay, by July 2004

Note: Some guidance for planning for dams and mitigating their potential impacts will be included, but only in the context of strategic river basin planning, not at project-specific level. The guidance must be practical and explanatory, indicating how to do things on the ground. Since most Ramsar administrative authorities and focal points probably do not have the responsibility or authority for river basin planning, the guidelines would be intended to help them to advance the integration of biodiversity and wetland issues into river basin management, in order to raise the level of debate at national level, particularly in the water sector. The guidelines should include clarification of terminology regarding ecosystem approach, wise use, sustainable development, etc. (cross-reference to Working Group 2 paper on wise use, since this should provide much of the general information needed). The guidelines should also preferably meet the needs of other conventions, including CBD, CCD, and UNFCCC, regarding river basin management.

Task 3.2: Environmental, social and economic impacts of dams

3.2.1 Lower priority task. The Working Group considered that a significant amount of guidance, in addition to the report of the World Commission on Dams, is already available. This includes: International Energy Agency, national guidelines, HydroQuebec and other groups, ICOLD, IAIA, International Hydropower Association, UNEP DDP, and others.

3.2.2 Some additional guidance on the issue of dams would be provided in any guidelines developed under task 3.1, but only in the river basin planning and management context.

Task 3.3: Report on environmental flow methodologies to assist in management of dam-related impacts

3.3.1 The Working Group agreed that "dam-related impacts" is too narrow, since determination and implementation of environmental flows are often more challenging in unregulated systems than in regulated systems, and hence that guidance for Parties should be provided for both kinds of situations. Therefore the issue of environmental flow methodologies will be addressed from a more general point of view, but ensuring that dams are included in order to meet the needs indicated by this COP8 task.

3.3.2. The Working Group recognizes that, while more detailed guidance on determination of environmental flows is needed, the implementation of such determination and the delivery of environmental flows is a particularly challenging area. High-confidence determinations of environmental water requirements are of little value unless effective implementation is feasible.

3.3.3. The Working Group considers that guidance is definitely required in relation to the implementation of environmental flow determinations, but intends this aspect of work be deferred to the next triennium, due to the capacity and resources limitations of the Working Group, so as to focus on the task elements below.

3.3.4 Work proposed under this task also covers the requirements of task 3.5 in relation to review of Resolution VIII.1.

3.3.5 Actions and timeframes in relation to the Review of methodologies for determination will be as follows:

IWMI (Rebecca Tharme) is preparing a detailed review of available methodologies for determination of environmental flows, though without substantial funding. The review of methodologies for rivers is nearly complete (Volume 1), but the review of methodologies for other systems, such as floodplains, estuaries, groundwater systems (Volume 2) requires input from other specialists in the relevant fields. This review would be of great value as an information resource for Ramsar focal points and implementing agencies, as well as for other conventions, if it can be completed.

Sub-tasks:

i) Complete review on environmental flow methodologies for rivers
ii) Develop and complete review on environmental flow methodologies for other systems, with input from specialists
iii) Prepare summary, in the form of a short technical paper

Lead: Rebecca Tharme. Draft complete: March 2004; review by Working Group: April-July 2004; finalise text for STRP12: September 2004

3.3.6 Actions and timeframes in relation to the Guidelines for determination of environmental flows will be as follows:

i) Guidelines should address both regulated and unregulated systems, dams and other flow control structures, and all wetland types.

ii) The primary source material for development of guidelines will be the summary of the review of methodologies (task 3.3.5 i) above), Several sources are also available, including: the IUCN/World Bank initiative (contact: Ger Berkamp IUCN), which should produce two books in June 2004; and the relevant chapter of the SADC book on water resources management (Hirji et al, 2002). The Working Group recommends that the authors of the SADC book chapter (Jackie King and Cate Brown, South Africa) be invited to draft the guidelines, with inputs from WG3 members, and with Jorge Jimenez and Najam Khurshid providing STRP Working Group links for the task.

iii) While some guidance can probably be drafted without task 3.3.5 i) above having been done, such guidelines would focus on rivers and would be relatively weak in the area of systems other than rivers, such as floodplains and estuaries. Therefore, further guidance on systems other than rivers might need to be developed during the 2005-2008 triennium.

Lead: consultants. Preliminary draft: March 2004; review by Working Group: April-July 2004; finalise text for STRP12: September 2004

3.3.7 Actions and timeframes in relation to the Guidance for implementation of environmental flows will be as follows:

i) To a large degree, this task covers that requested as task 3.4 below. Although the Standing Committee indicated that this task 3.4 should be deferred to the 2005-08 triennium, depending on the provision of case studies, the Working Group considered that this issue was of sufficient importance that it should at least be raised at COP9, in order to alert Parties to its significance, but with detailed guidance developed in the 2005-2008 triennium.

ii) In this triennium, only a brief issues paper (5 pages) will be prepared to introduce the key aspects and provide an overview of the subject and its relevance to maintenance of wetland ecosystem functions and biodiversity.

iii) Subsequent detailed guidance should address issues such as the decision-making process, supporting legal, policy, administrative and institutional frameworks, and daily operating rules for river basins, etc. By the next triennium, additional source information should also be available through the IUCN work and the World Bank's Environmental Flows Window.

Lead: Heather MacKay. Preliminary draft issues paper: July 2003; review by Working Group and preparation of revised draft: July 2004.

Task 3.4: Successes achieved and lessons learned in water allocation and management

3.4.1 Addressed under task 3.3.3 above - substantial work deferred till the 2005-08 triennium.

Task 3.5: Review of Resolutions VIII.1 & VIII.2

3.5.1 Further guidance concerning water allocation and management is addressed through task 3.3 above. A significant amount of guidance on dams is already available - see task 3.2 above.

As indicated by the Standing Committee, further work to link this with guidance on dams, and a joint review of Resolutions VIII.1 and VIII.2, will be deferred to the 2005-2008 triennium. This will permit the review to be informed by Parties' responses on implementation in their National Reports to COP9.

Task 3.6: Groundwater

3.6.1 Existing information and guidelines on the linkages between groundwater and wetlands are based on conceptual understanding that is largely outdated. Although this is still an area which is poorly understood, there has been new research in the last 20 years which could provide more relevant and accurate technical guidance on the role of groundwater in maintaining wetland character and functions, the role of wetlands in groundwater recharge and discharge, and management of the impacts on wetlands of changes in groundwater quality and quantity. For this reason, limiting the work to another superficial review of existing high-level guidelines will probably not help to advance the understanding of Ramsar's Parties or lead to improved management of groundwater in relation to wetlands.

3.6.2 The Working Group developed an outline and contents for two supporting technical papers:

i) a substantive technical review of the interactions between groundwater and wetlands; and

ii) practical guidance for use and management of groundwater resources/aquifers so as to maintain wetland ecosystem functions.

3.6.3 Guidelines for Contracting Parties would then be developed drawing upon the information in these two technical papers.

3.6.4 It was noted that IMCG would like to be involved in this task, and their representative should be involved in the proposed activities as appropriate.

3.6.5 The suggested outline of the conceptual relationships between groundwater and wetlands includes:

i) hydrological functions of wetlands linked to groundwater and groundwater-surface water interaction (Mike Acreman's wetland hydrological functions review; IWMI database on hydrological functions of wetlands);
ii) types of groundwater-dependent or groundwater-linked wetland ecosystems;
iii) role of groundwater in maintaining ecological character;
iv) dynamics of groundwater-surface water interaction for each wetland type including its role in recharge;
v) impacts of abstraction, sensitivity of different wetland types to groundwater abstraction and changes in groundwater quality; and
vi) land use and infrastructure (hydraulic, irrigation, urban areas, etc.) effects on groundwater dynamics.

3.6.6 The suggested outline of the management guidance (avoid term guidelines) document includes:

i) catchment perspective (what to do - identify groundwater-surface water resources and links, aquifers and whether or not transboundary);
ii) how to establish the link between wetland and groundwater: recognition (geology, topography, hydrology);
iii) establish current status and trends in groundwater use and implications for wetland;
iv) determining groundwater requirements of wetland (groundwater allocation) before going into basin water allocation procedure - cross reference to environmental flows guidelines for information;
v) allocation of groundwater/surface water from wetland;
vi) protection of aquifers (quality, quantity) and consideration as protected areas

3.6.7 Agricultural issues will feature strongly in the reports and other work of this Working Group (see also section 8 on Agriculture as a crosscutting issue). The Working Group recognized that the task relevant to Working Group 5 (but recommended for deferral pending preliminary work by IOPs and other interested organizations) concerning preparation of wetland type-specific guidelines on agricultural practices for minimization of adverse impacts on wetlands is, and should remain, a high priority. Such guidelines would draw on information emerging from the work of other working groups (WG1 and WG2) as well as a significant amount of work outside the STRP, in combination with FAO, IWMI, RIZA, CBD and IUCN. The Working Group 3 representatives from IWMI, RIZA and CBD agreed to draft a short (half a page) outline of the desired product, in consultation with members of other Working Groups, which could be circulated amongst potential lead organizations.

3.6.8 Actions and timeframes will be as follows:

1. Working group to prepare detailed terms of reference for the technical aspects of the work. With assistance of STRP Support Service, Working Group to identify a consultant to undertake drafting work, and a broader group of experts who can act as a reference group for this work, by July 2003. Lead: Heather MacKay

2. Collate existing relevant literature, including any Ramsar guidance relevant to groundwater as well as new scientific literature. STRP Support Service

3. Review available literature and prepare two technical papers: one on conceptual relationships between groundwater and wetlands; and one on management of groundwater/aquifers to maintain wetland ecosystem functions. Consultant to undertake review and prepare preliminary draft documents for review by WG and reference group (who should meet in a small specialist workshop), followed by revision.

Lead: consultant. Preliminary draft: by March 2004; Review by reference group: April 2004; Revised draft ready for review by Working Group: June 2004; Workshop: June/July 2004; Final draft ready for STRP12, September 2004.

4. Prepare guidance for Contracting Parties on the basis of the two technical papers. Preliminary draft to be prepared for review by the Working Group and reference group of experts, at the same time as the two technical papers in task 3.6.2 above.

Lead: consultant. Preliminary draft: by March 2004; Review by reference group: April 2004; Revised draft ready for review by Working Group: June 2004; Workshop: June/July 2004, Final draft ready for STRP12, September 2004.

3.6.9 Additional expertise and resources would be required, as follows:

i) consultants will need to identified, and their work resourced, to fully undertake tasks in 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 above; and

ii) Resources will be also needed for the costs of a workshop (June/July 2004) involving Working Group reference group members to review draft reports and guidance prepared under task 3.6.

Working Group 4: Ramsar site designation

Membership

Co-leads: Dick Ho & David Stroud
Lijuan Cui
Eckhart Kuijken
Stephen Njuguna
Manichand Puttoo
Maria Jose Vinals
David Pritchard (BirdLife International)
IUCN
WI (Marcel Silvius, Stefan Pihl)
Randy Milton (Canada)
UNEP-WCMC
WRI
WWF
CBD Secretariat (Marjo Vierros)
IMCG
Bureau support: Margarita Astralaga

Tasks

The tasks indicated by the Standing Committee as high priority, and the mechanisms established by the Expert Working Group for their delivery, are summarized below. A detailed work plan for task 4.4 (socio-economic and cultural criteria) follows the tabular summary.