13th STRP meeting, 2006

CONVENTION ON WETLANDS (Ramsar, Iran, 1971)
13^th Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel,
Gland, Switzerland, 30 May - 2 June 2006

Report

Decisions

Participants

Contacts

Photos

Report of the meeting

30 May 2006

Agenda item 1: Opening remarks

1. Paul Mafabi, Chair of the Standing Committee (SC), welcomed the participants on behalf of the SC and said that he and John Bowleg, the Vice Chair, would be participating all week to listen and hopefully to offer advice. He noted that the Convention has always been at the forefront with its scientific and technical foundations and that the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP), with the wealth of guidelines and review it has provided for the Parties, has been the key to that success. He invited the participants to focus on the tasks that the Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP) has identified as immediate and high priorities before considering lower priority items on the shopping list. He asked them to ensure that the style and form of the products would be "fit for purpose" and stressed the cross-cutting importance of communications, education, and public awareness (CEPA) issues. He noted the STRP's heavy workload but pointed out that the COP has approved some funding for this triennium. He expressed his satisfaction at seeing representatives from so many MEA secretariats and other organizations.

2. Peter Bridgewater, the Secretary General (SG), welcomed the participants and noted that, because good policy must be informed by good science, the STRP is at the core of the Convention's processes. The number of Parties to the Convention is growing fast and, as most are at the developing stage, there is an increasing need for sound advice. He noted that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) painted a gloomy picture of wetlands declining at a faster rate than other ecosystems and said that it is important to consider practicalities for implementation, including rehabilitation and restoration. He stressed the continuing importance of groundwater issues, as half the world now depends primarily upon that source of water and it is being used faster than it can be replenished. He said that much of the public thinks of wetlands as isolated spots and needs to be brought to see the broader interconnections, and he emphasized the key role of CEPA in getting that message out more effectively. The message must be made intelligible to the wider community. He observed that, when it comes to promoting an integrated approach to managing terrestrial and coastal ecosystems, the Ramsar Convention, with its "mountains to the seas" coverage, is uniquely placed among the MEAs.

3. Heather MacKay, Chair of the STRP, welcomed the strong group of appointed members and members from the five International Organization Partners (IOPs), as well as the representatives of many MEA secretariats and other organizations. She recalled that STRP meetings are scientific meetings, not political processes, and that all insights and inputs are welcomed.

Agenda item 2: Adoption of the agenda

4. Several minor adjustments were suggested to the draft agenda, and it was adopted by consensus.

Agenda item 3: Admission of observers

5. The Chair welcomed the two invited experts, Eleni Fitoka and George P. Lukacs, and all observer organizations were admitted by consensus.

Agenda item 4: Introductions of members and observers

6. At the Chair's invitation, each of the participants - the regional, thematic, and IOP STRP members and the representatives of observer MEAs and organizations - introduced him- or herself, noting institutional affiliation and principal areas of interest.

Agenda item 5: Induction and briefing on the Convention

7. Nick Davidson, the Deputy Secretary General (DSG), provided a PowerPoint introduction to the Convention, its structures and processes, and the role of the STRP among these. He outlined the STRP tasks to be considered and the Working Papers that have been provided.

8. Sebastià Semene provided a demonstration of the STRP Support Service, which was developed in the last triennium by Wetlands International to provide Web-based interactive communications on the development of STRP work and is still hosted on a WI Web site, but which is presently being maintained by the Secretariat. He invited participants to see him to be signed up for the appropriate Working Group fora and resolve any problems they might have. The SG expressed appreciation to WI for having developed the Service, which has been an extremely effective aid to the work of the STRP, but lamented that some past STRP members never used it. He urged everyone to become fully involved and use the Service regularly. The Chair noted that the Support Service fora make an important permanent record of the development of STRP thinking on various issues.

9. Beatriz Torres (Global Biodiversity Information Facility, GBIF) noted the importance of allowing participants to use their own native languages and drew attention to the possible usefulness of the European Commission's work on machine translation. The DSG noted that in general the language issue is driven by the costs of translation and interpretation and by the nature of the give and take of the work. He thanked everyone for making the effort to speak in English. He urged everyone to contribute to the Support Service fora, including their developing half-thoughts, and reminded that the Service is a closed site, available only to others in the fora and not to the public. He also explained that, with the approval of the Chair, others can be added to the fora, including STRP National Focal Points (NFPs) and any of the participants' colleagues who may wish to be involved - he urged everyone to give additional names and e-mail addresses to Sebastià Semene, specifying the appropriate areas of work.

Agenda item 6: STRP National Focal Points networking

10. The Chair noted the importance of mobilizing the regional networks and the Parties' disappointment about the lack of progress in the last triennium.

11. Rebecca D'Cruz, the Vice-Chair, drew attention to the Terms of Reference for the NFPs found in Working Paper 11, which were developed by STRP8 in 1999.

12. The DSG clarified that it is the STRP NFPs that are under discussion - Ramsar also has government and non-government NFPs for CEPA as well as "daily contacts" from the Administrative Authorities (AAs), who are sometimes referred to as NFPs, too. Not all Parties have named their STRP NFPs.

13. Paul Mafabi stressed the desirability of national networks - or "mini-STRPs" - within each Party and of linkages between the NFPs and the National Ramsar or National Wetland Committees (NRCs). The Vice-Chair noted that there is a lack of clarity about Ramsar links within each Party that is not articulated in the NFP TOR, and she suggested that the TOR should spell out how we envisage the process working.

14. Doug Taylor, Wetlands International, distinguished between some NFPs, for example in Europe, who make contacts and set up meetings and others, for example in Africa, who are unaware of their ability to link up with others to develop capacity within their countries. No real effort has yet been made to develop a capacity building orientation for the NFPs on how to call in support when needed. The Vice-Chair added the need for capacity building at regional level as well.

15. Margarita Astrálaga, Senior Advisor for the Americas, explained that in the Neotropics the designated STRP NFP is frequently a high level official who is too busy, and she noted a need to get across the message that the NFP needs to be the right person, ready to work. She suggested that the STRP regional members could take the lead in delivering that message. Philippe Gerbeaux agreed that the regional members should mentor the NFPs in their regions, taking advantage of scientific workshops in the region to raise STRP issues. He suggested that the Support Service fora are too restricted and that the material posted there is too difficult to distribute onward in-country or in the region. The DSG noted that it is envisaged that the Support Service will offer national fora or e-mail lists to assist in developing national networks through the NFPs. He urged that the regional STRP members should consult with the NFPs to explore where we are, and to make use of the NRCs where they exist - he suggested that members review the list of NFPs and identify who are the right and wrong people for the function, in light of expectations about what characteristics the NFPs should possess in those countries. The DSG noted, though, that a level of frustration is to be expected among the NFPs, as they have largely been ignored for the past six years.

16. Lucia Scodanibbio, Assistant Advisor for Africa, reported that many Ramsar-related officials in Africa do not know what their roles are and what they should be doing. She noted that Abou Bamba, the Senior Advisor, foresees using Swiss Grant for Africa funds to develop a manual for the Administrative Authorities in Africa, towards the end of this year, and suggested that an orientation for the STRP NFPs could be included in that, thus linking capacity building for the STRP NFP with that for the AAs.

17. Teresita Borges suggested that, to combat the notion that the NFP should be a high-level dignitary, we could promote the idea that the NFP should be a concept rather than just a name, and that a group or institution could fulfill the needs as well as a person. In Cuba, for example, Ramsar issues are frequently handled by a number of different groups, and all of them could be part of the NFP. Karén Jenderedjian suggested that, since STRP NFPs are appointed by the AAs, the Secretariat should provide the AAs with more information about what is really needed. Archana Chatterjee (WWF) pointed out that in some countries the NFPs have to get clearance from the foreign affairs office to make public comments about the Convention.

18. Philippe Gerbeaux suggested that the NFP TOR should be produced in a simpler, more attractive presentation, highlighting the key points. Dave Pritchard (BirdLife International) suggested that the chief limiting factors on the NFPs are timidity and lack of familiarity with the process. He said that frequency of contacts and the visibility of NFP interactions should help. He suggested that NFPs should be able to exchange experience laterally as well as vertically, back and forth with the STRP. Dave Pritchard noted that the NFP TOR are very general and should better highlight what they can help with - the NFPs can be an important test bed for the STRP's work, particularly with the near-final versions of the documents, as we don't presently have a trial stage in the Panel's products (e.g., how well the guidance in English would translate into other languages).

19. Tunde Ojei (Wetlands International) pointed out that the Support Service does include regionally targeted platforms to help cater for each region's own needs from the NFPs.

20. María Rivera reiterated the need for National Ramsar or Wetland Committee (NRC) involvement with the NFPs, though the best mechanism would depend upon the country and region, and she noted the potential role of the CREHO regional centre in assisting the NFPs.

21. Jo Mulongoy (CBD Secretariat) reported that the CBD has the same problems with the NFPs of its Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), and that new TOR have been developed, stressing the need for commitment. The CBD is beginning to get real scientific expertise, sometimes by institutions rather than individuals. An effort is being made, associated with some meetings, to provide some training for NFPs, and the Parties are being encouraged to develop their infrastructure capacities through the CBD's Clearing-House Mechanism and by working with their GEF coordinator. He said that CBD does not have an interactive forum as advanced as the STRP Support Service but hopes to be moving in that direction.

22. Bruce Gray (Global Water Partnership (GWP)) noted that Australia is grappling with this complex issue - the STRP NFPs are an important part of the Convention's work, but there is no single answer for all countries and regions. He observed that we debate what we expect from the NFPs but have not considered what the NFPs should expect from Ramsar - what value would the NFP see in committing spare time to the role, what incentives are there? He suggested that the Contracting Parties should be brought to consider their engagement with the STRP NFP process as one of their obligations under the Convention.

23. Max Finlayson remarked that members and NFPs should not be expected to contribute their spare time; their STRP commitments have to be incorporated into their job responsibilities. He noted that STRP members are meant to be independent experts who are not representing their governments, but NFPs are normally appointed from within the AAs. He suggested that it might be more valuable if we asked for NFPs to be chosen from outside the AA, on the basis of expertise and ability to contribute, but in that case we should not expect ever to have one from every Party. He noted that if we really were to have NFPs from 150 Parties providing input, it would be too much to assimilate anyway.

24. Heather MacKay said that the AA in South Africa had been under the impression that the NFP had to come from within the government, and that after discussions they now begin to see a way to bring expertise in from outside government, both to the STRP and to the AA as well. Eleni Fitoka (EKBY) reported that the MedWet Inventory Working Group has had a difficult time identifying the right persons or organizations to benefit from training.

25. Paul Mafabi agreed that the NFP need not come from the AA and suggested the possibility of Parties designating an alternate NFP, in order to open up the process. Heather MacKay reported that South Africa was presently considering appointing a team comprising a younger person to do the bulk of the work and build his or her capacity, with a more experienced person to provide advice and oversight.

26. Sandra Hails, CEPA Programme Officer, agreed that we need to be realistic in expectations, noting that many Parties are reluctant to name their CEPA NFPs from outside the AAs; they rarely have CEPA experts on-board within the AA but are reluctant to relinquish control by nominating someone from the outside. It will always be true that some Parties will insist upon designating some overloaded person on the staff. She said that the CEPA Oversight Panel is going over the CEPA NFP TOR carefully to urge Parties to think outside the AA. She noted that the Support Service regional fora will be a powerful instrument if the regional people here use it to encourage the NFPs, chiefly by sitting in the middle between the STRP and the NFPs, summarizing and simplifying a little and reducing the volume of material - she urged that the regional members should use the regional fora to reach out and focus the contacts with the NFPs.

27. Margarita Astrálaga noted that the attributes for STRP members in the STRP modus operandi (Resolution IX.11) would be appropriate for the NFPs as well. She suggested that it should be possible for the regional members to select a person or organization to serve as a contact for networking within the regions - identifying three or four regional wetland centres would be more valuable than relying only upon nominal appointees from the AAs. Beatriz Torres (GBIF) agreed that it is a perennial problem to find the "right person" and suggested that the NFP nomination TOR should spell out that "this is a working position", not just an honorary one, and that nominees should set aside one day a month for it. Rebecca Tharme (IWMI) suggested that the relationships among the three kinds of Ramsar NFPs (AAs, CEPA, and STRP) should be spelt out more clearly.

28. Ndegwa Ndiang'ui (UNCCD Secretariat) described the UNCCD's experience in getting Parties to appoint a "science correspondent" under each of the Convention's NFPs to work with the Committee on Science and Technology (CST). The response has been rather slow, and there has been a reluctance in some Parties; he noted that the intricacies at country level can be difficult to get round, and the Secretariat often needs to intervene within the Parties. He noted that some Parties are sending representatives who are not scientists, which can have the effect of setting up a parallel decision-making process. Rebecca D'Cruz agreed that in the Asia region there can be a worry, when appointing an STRP NFP, about establishing a line of communication outside the main agency.

29. Tom de Meulenaer (CITES Secretariat) noted that, though science is brought into the Conventions differently, CITES experiences similar problems. Parties are legally required to appoint both a contact body and a science body. The Secretariat tries to provide support for some countries, where possible, and there have been capacity building workshops; there is an interactive communications mechanism, though it is not yet as sophisticated as the STRP Support Service fora. He felt that the idea of a brief manual for NFPs is a good one.

30. Karén Jenderedjian urged that the importance of working in English should be stressed in the TOR for NFPs. Philippe Gerbeaux pointed to a need for regular coordination between the STRP regional members and the Senior Regional Advisors (SRAs) in the Secretariat. He identified key points (2, 6, 7, 8, and 9) in the NFP TOR and said that these are the ones being given priority in Oceania. Maria Rivera suggested that the attributes of STRP members listed in the STRP modus operandi should be included in the NFP TOR and agreed that it might be desirable to try to bring a larger group of people to the NFPs, perhaps by selecting a person from each country for each Working Group.

31. The Vice-Chair, Rebecca D'Cruz, noted that in the list of NFPs in Asia quite a few come from within the AAs and recalled the issue of AAs feeling a need for control. She urged further thought on the idea of the STRP working more with institutions, even if they are not the formal NFPs. Teresita Borges suggested that the TOR should emphasize the need for the person/institution to have the capacity to establish synergies at national level. Max Finlayson noted that good ideas had been proposed but dissuaded from devoting too much time to the issue of NFPs; he felt that the NFP process has not worked so far, and the COP may have to rethink the approach.

32. Christine Prietto observed that the Support Service is a great service but cannot replace the value of personal interactions. She felt that institutions probably work better as NFPs than individuals, since they can bounce ideas around, and urged that we should encourage people-to-people contacts. Robert McInnes (Society of Wetland Scientists) reported that SWS Europe is trying to get people to talk to one another and share knowledge, but in some cases institutions that may be in competition for grants are reluctant to engage fully; it is important to find the right institutions. Doug Taylor (Wetlands International) raised the value of "mentoring," whereby experienced individuals can work directly with NFPs to help them join the process.

33. Dave Pritchard expressed sympathy with Max Finlayson's pessimism but noted that the concept of STRP NFPs has heavy political resonance within the COP. He cautioned that identifying institutions as NFPs might bring a loss of focus, of accountability, in the reponse. He noted that the issue of addressing incentives for NFPs might be a two-edged sword and might, without the right incentives, make matters worse.

34. Tom de Meulenaer reported that by October the CITES Secretariat will produce a comparative study of how the different conventions deal with science (though not at the level of NFPs).

35. Ndegwa Ndiang'ui emphasized the importance of the NFPs of each convention developing synergies and communication with the NFPs of the other conventions in each country, through workshops, etc. He said that the only country in which that is working well is Uganda. Paul Mafabi reported that in Uganda's experience the key is personal contacts, and he urged the STRP regional members and the Secretariat's SRAs to spend time calling people in the Parties and developing contacts. Viorel Blujdea, Chair of the UNCCD's Committee on Science and Technology (CST), reported on Romania's experience with bringing committees together.

36. The SG applauded the very useful discussion and recalled that at Ramsar COP9 there was a great deal of enthusiasm for energizing the NFP network. He noted that we have always thought in terms of individuals as NFPs but that the idea of a "tag team" or institution is worth considering. He noted the need to take cultural differences into account when considering whether the NFP should be internal or external to the AA ministry, for there is no one solution. The aim of the NFP process is not a list of names but rather a two-way interpretation mechanism. The NFPs could be particularly helpful in assessing the suitability of the language used in the STRP's documents.

37. The Chair and Vice-Chair noted that there is more energy now to try to engage the NFPs, but that we should have realistic expectations. They felt that we do not need to have active NFPs in all Parties and need not strive for that, but rather that there is enough interest out there that we should be able to get additional feedback and input from the Parties on the Panel's work.

38. The Chair said that it was instructive to hear the different challenges experienced by the other conventions. She urged that a contact group meet in a break-out session to study these ideas further and report back, and she offered to write up a list of bullet points from the present discussion to assist in that. The DSG suggested that the break-out group on regional networking could review the TOR and discuss linkages among the different NFP processes, how to work with the NFPs to identify experts in thematic areas, the issue of NFP independence within the formal AA mechanism, and the question of NFPs as individuals and/or institutions such as wetland research centres.

Agenda item 7: Thematic work areas.

Agenda item 7.7: Resolution VIII.45 and ongoing functions of the STRP

39. The Chair, Heather MacKay, addressed task 2 in the Draft STRP Work Plan 2006-2008 and explained the evolution of the increased emphasis on the "review" function of the STRP. She drew attention to the value of "blue sky thinking" about emerging issues 20 or 30 years in the future, which sometimes is done more fruitfully in informal gatherings than in formal sessions of the Panel. The SG said that it would be good not to miss this opportunity, and the DSG pointed to various times during the week when informal discussions might be held. Jo Mulongoy described the CBD's efforts to encourage thinking about emerging issues among chairs of the SBSTTA.

40. The Chair turned to task 3 on maintaining an overview of progress in the implementation of the COP Resolutions, noting that the work on effectiveness indicators is ongoing. She saw a need to look at how effective our guidance has been and whether it could be made better, especially by greater attention to the target audiences. She noted that not all Parties implement all the Resolutions. She proposed a process involving 1) a desk-based study of the information to be found in the National Reports by the Parties, to give a basis to work from, followed by 2) a survey questionnaire and/or interviews to get input from the Parties, and then by 3) a descriptive product and 4) a report to the STRP and possibly a report to Ramsar COP10 as well. A consultant would be needed to design the questionnaire. Part of the purpose would be to learn, where the guidance is not useful, why it is not.

41. Maria Rivera noted that the USA, as chair of the SC's Subgroup on Resolution VIII.45, has executed a questionnaire that could be useful. The DSG replied that the response to that was disappointing and that the USA felt it was inadequate for analysis. He noted that the USA has expressed a willingness to follow up with a questionnaire to a more limited number of sites, and he recalled the range of potential targets, such as wetland managers, policy-makers, etc. He raised the issue that if implementation of the guidance is found to be inadequate, we need to learn whether the problem is with the guidance or with the mechanisms for getting it into the right hands. We would also need to ask whether the Parties are calling for guidance on the right things.

42. Paul Mafabi recalled that the SC, as well as recognizing the STRP's role in progressing this work (Decision SC34-4), is proposing to pursue this question with selected pilot countries, and he suggested that regional centres such as CREHO and Ramsar Iran and others might play a role. The DSG strressed that there is a need to ensure that all such work is well-coordinated in order to avoid confusing and multiple requests to Parties. Jo Mulongoy cautioned that distributing a questionnaire poses an additional task of reporting on the Parties; he noted that the respondents are unlikely to be able to report fully on everything that is going on, but if the purpose is merely to get examples of progress it might be more feasible.

43. Mike Acreman felt that questionnaires can be blunt instruments and that we may need assistance from beyond Ramsar. The questions should be better targeted rather than broad, and perhaps directed not just to the AAs. It would be helpful to go back to the Parties that raised the Resolutions in the first place. The Chair agreed with the need to stratify the types of guidance products and ask different questions about them. The DSG noted that some Ramsar guidance was intended to help our AAs to engage other sectors, which may not be happening; thus it would be useful to ask those other sectors, too. He stressed that we need to look at each part of the guidance to determine for whom and for what it was intended, and it might be that direct telephone calls would be a better mechanism. Mike Acreman suggested that we try to learn what have been the obstacles to achieving the purpose of the guidance, in order to establish the steps in the chain to useful guidance. Bruce Gray suggested that the task as proposed is too broad and some key aspects of the guidance should be selected for investigation.

44. Ndegwa Ndiang'ui reported that the UNCCD has been grappling with how to get the Parties to respond to questionnaires on time, with no significant success. He noted the need for close targeting, so that the questioning should not be too broad, and he suggested picking key areas out of the National Reports and going back to the people who compiled the NRs, as a follow-up challenge.

45. Dave Pritchard cautioned that when designing a questionnaire to test an hypothesis it is necessary to determine what proposition is being tested. Is it just whether or not the guidance is being used? Suggestions for improving the guidance could be independent of the proposition. Mark Spalding (The Nature Conservancy) noted that the task talks about "maintaining" an overview of implementation, and yet the discussion seems to be focusing on a one-off snapshot. The SG recalled that the task was put forward without much thought, with more of a feeling, but he believed that if some Parties feel that some of the Convention's work is not being used as intended, it is important to address that issue, even if it is only a perceptual one. He felt that we do need to know whether the STRP products are valuable to their intended users, but it is not evident how best to discover that, and he urged the STRP to reflect further upon it. The questions should be how much the guidance is used, but more importantly, how can it be improved? The SG urged a less hurried and more thoughtful consideration, not driven by deadlines, and not just another questionnaire.

46. The Chair noted that the idea of a questionnaire is not locked in, and she urged that the dialogue continue on the Support Service fora. The idea of beginning with a desk-study of the NRs should be kept in mind.

47. The Chair turned to task 5 concerning the review of the Ramsar guidance, identification of possible gaps, and possible repackaging of older guidance into updated documents. She noted that this is based on the premise that the guidance is being used, and that should be tested first, perhaps by a limited, open-ended interview process which could lead to ideas about the best style and shape of guidance to move towards.

48. The DSG reported that the third edition of the Ramsar Toolkit, the Handbooks, is presently being prepared following COP9, and that the elements are being reorganized and titled under broad rubrics in a new sequence. Sandra Hails noted that the CEPA Oversight Panel had suggested some changes in the publication plan and promised to circulate the present list of planned volumes.

49. It was agreed that the way forward on reviewing and possibly repackaging guidance would be considered further using the Support Service fora, with a number of participants volunteering to participate in that.

50. Concerning task 161 on an overall strategy and framework for dealing with sector-based guidance and issues, the Chair noted the way in which wetlands and agriculture has evolved from a cross-cutting issue into a key work area, and she drew attention to the method employed by Nick Davidson in Working Paper 6 in laying out the background and a suggested way forward concerning the sector-based issue of wetlands and human health. She suggested that in future, when emerging issues are identified as likely to become prominent, someone should be tasked to do some homework on the issue and write it up and bring it forward with suggestions for development.

Agenda item 7.4: Ramsar site designation and management

72. David Stroud, thematic lead for Working Group 3, described task 109 on making the new Criterion 9 operational, and he proposed a schedule for working with the IUCN Specialist Groups for data for the 1% threshold, awareness-raising about the Criterion and disseminating that widely, developing an ongoing, rolling update process with the Specialist Groups, and finalizing the publication of an RTR history of the Ramsar site selection process.

73. Concerning task 104 on under-represented wetland types, David Stroud proposed contracting a consultant to prepare the review using the TOR agreed in 2004. For task 107, concerning a review of existing guidance on designating specific types of wetlands, he suggested using a questionnaire targeted to those responsible for site selection from a representative sample of Ramsar sites. Concerning task 112 on keeping the Criteria and designation guidelines under review, he noted that that is largely an ongoing task but suggested that a consultant should be engaged to prepare additional guidance on the designation of human-made wetlands.

74. David Stroud continued with a review of lower-priority tasks 105 on biogeographical regionalization, 106 on a revised RIS, 108 on the ecological roles played by reservoirs and other human-made wetlands, 110 on the fish Criteria and guidance, 126 on wetland restoration guidelines, 127 on restoration methodologies, and 128 on guidance on compensation for wetland losses.

75. The Chair noted that task 107 on reviewing guidance on site designations of specific types could be combined with the Resolution VIII.45 work on the effectiveness of guidance generally. The DSG, concerning task 110, reported that the Secretariat is finding that Parties are having difficulty in applying the fish Criteria and suggested that a questionnaire for the relevant RIS compilers might lead to improvements in the RIS guidance. Max Finlayson felt that Criterion 8 on fisheries needs to be updated.

76. Max Finlayson described a project proposal by IWMI and partners, "Global Wetland Mapping and Inventory", part of the purpose of which is to make the IWRB/IUCN/WWF regional wetland directories of the 1980s and '90s available on-line and allow plotting Ramsar sites against WWF biomes, etc.

77. The DSG called this a tremendous step forward which shows the increased utility of Ramsar sites information. He suggested that the directories could be thought of as lists of candidate Ramsar sites. Rebecca D'Cruz noted that some of the sites listed in the 1989 Directory of Asian Wetlands no longer exist. The DSG suggested asking the Parties to look at the Directories on-line and report on the present status of those wetlands in their National Reports. That could help to gauge whether Ramsar designation itself has been a useful tool to ensuring the continuance of the wetlands.

78. Mark Spalding reported that TNC have adopted WWF's system of realms, ecoregions, and biomes, but that there is no accepted global map of coastal and ocean biogeographies. The first draft of TNC's Marine Ecoregions of the World (MEOW) is already available, and WWF is developing a scheme of freshwater ecoregions of the world. He drew a distinction between regional schemes based upon habitats and upon taxonomies, both of which are important.

79. Dave Pritchard observed, concerning under-represented wetland types, that there is presently no way of (or targets for) determining under-representation in species, though some indicators of effectiveness mention that. He felt that that might be an area for future work. Beatriz Torres and the DSG noted that collaboration with the GBIF interactive database, with its taxonomic focus, could be useful. Mark Spalding cautioned that when discussing regionally representative wetlands, protected areas are often protected precisely because they stand out from the surrounding region and are not representative.

80. Paul Mafabi inquired about progress in establishing and showing the boundaries of Ramsar sites. The DSG acknowledged the difficulty of getting digital boundaries from the Parties and noted that Wetlands International is working on that in discussions with the European Environment Agency and UNEP-WCMC. So far, he said, the Ramsar Sites Information Service (RSIS) has digital boundaries for only two countries.

81. Alan Wentz (Ducks Unlimited USA) reported on DU's mapping intended for landscape-scale management and noted the problem of compatibility of data sets.

82. Ndegwa Ndiang'ui observed that when there are boundary changes during times of drought, politics may come into play.

83. Roy Gardner offered to assist in the parts of the tasks dealing with "no net loss" and mitigation policies. Mark Smith offered IUCN's help to the Working Group.

Agenda item 7.2: Inventory, assessment, monitoring, and indicators

84. Teresita Borges, thematic expert for this group, listed the several key tasks and identified the task force leads for each of them.

85. Doug Taylor (WI) provided a demonstration of the Ramsar Sites Information Service (RSIS) and described the ongoing discussions on a joint IOPs' proposal for collaborative site monitoring (Working Paper 3, annex 1). The DSG and Doug Taylor described the difficult time sequencing of the various parts of task 52, all of which are of immediate priority but which all depend one upon another. They must begin with an assessment of what data/information is needed and the possible revision of the Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS). It was noted that going back to the Parties on their data needs would be time-consuming. The DSG observed that if fundamental changes to the RIS are to be proposed, it would be valuable to alert the Parties sooner rather than later.

86. Bruce Gray alluded to the forthcoming results of an Australia-New Zealand workshop on description of ecological character and noted that Australia will soon be finalizing site mapping specifications as well. He said that Australia is quite comfortable with the RIS in its present form and would prefer to append more detailed information on ecological character to the present RIS. David Stroud noted that different bodies within the Parties have different data needs, which must be considered as well.

87. The DSG said that one option, first discussed by STRP in the last triennium, could be to think of the RIS and the description of ecological character as an hierarchical, two-phase process, i.e. that the RIS provides the basis for the justification of the Criteria - currently much of the other RIS information has to do with management issues rather than the designation itself. With this approach, one would look at the RIS as the designation document, so that we could reduce the information needed on the RIS, making it shorter and focused on designation only. The other fields could be removed to a second document, not required for designation, but which could be submitted at the same time or as soon as possible thereafter. There are various options to this which could be trialed with the Parties.

88. Doug Taylor drew attention to other data needs on wetlands more generally and the RIS's role in that. He stressed the need for more debate before consultations with the Parties.

89. It should be noted that the RISs are presently the principal information documents for the public on each Ramsar site, especially now that WI has made them available on the RSIS, and that reducing the RISs to Criteria justifications would undermine that function; reliance upon second-phase descriptive documents that would not be required for designation would not contribute to that public purpose, as history shows that Parties would not normally submit additional information promptly unless it is required for getting a Ramsar site listed.

90. The DSG agreed that we shouldn't rush the process, as they are very complex tasks. If the changes to the RIS process are to be big and significant enough, they cannot be fully developed in a short space of time - there is an option to see this as an ongoing task to be initiated now and continued as a work in progress into the next triennium if necessary.

91. Beatriz Torres noted that a lot of resources have gone into the development of the RSIS and asked how it was connected to the world database of protected areas. She offered a number of other specific questions about the experience of the RSIS, and the Chair invited her to consult with Doug Taylor bilaterally on those issues.

92. The SG noted the option for considering this as an ongoing task, but, since it is so central to the work of the Convention, he dissuaded from putting it off to COP11 in 2011. He said that if the problem is just one of resources, they could be mobilized before COP10.

93. The Chair called for a break-out session to continue consideration of these issues and report back to the plenary.

94. Teresita Borges introduced task 59 on effectiveness indicators, and Eleni Fitoka (EKBY) provided a thorough presentation on the MedWet / CODDE project.

95. Dave Pritchard provided a update on the ongoing STRP development of effectiveness indicators and reviewed the types of products expected. He noted that national reporting for COP10 needs to speak to the indicators and urged the need for a collaborative link with the SC's work on the National Report Format. He observed that we need a plan for the reports and statements expected from the assessment of indicators, an indication of what the expected end point should be. He invited comments via the STRP Support Service fora on the proposed second tranche of five indicators. Mark Spalding inquired whether the indicators are meant to be measured at site or global scales, and Dave Pritchard replied that the suite of indicators is intended to be a mix of scales.

96. Teresita Borges introduced task 53 on delineating and mapping of wetlands, and Max Finlayson, the task leader, explained that tasks 53 and 54 are encompassed in the partnership proposed by FAO. Lucilla Spini explained that the FAO, through the Coastal Panel of the Global Terrestrial Observing System (C-GTOS), and IWMI are proposing a WSSD-Type II Partnership on wetland mapping and inventory for monitoring and assessment on global, regional and national scales, in support of Ramsar and other biodiversity-related conventions. The collaboration would address task 53 but also tasks 49 and 50, and it is foreseen that the partnership's work would emerge both in Ramsar draft Resolutions and in the work of other MEAs, in the Biodiversity Liaison Group, and in 2010 target issues.

97. Max Finlayson called for a break-out group to itemize leads and timetables, and the DSG stressed the need for the specific STRP tasks to be addressed within the work of the partnership.

98. Concerning task 55 on a review of MAB procedures for Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring (BRIM), the DSG noted that the BRIM work is still in progress, and Dave Pritchard suggested that where the BRIM might be most helpful would be in the areas of socio-economic factors and integrated monitoring, rather than in ecological concerns. It was agreed that the DSG and Dave Pritchard would review with the MAB Secretariat the state of progress and suggest a way forward at the midterm workshops.

99. The DSG put forward an additional task concerning environmental impact assessment that grows out of the CBD's work. The CBD has now adopted new guidelines that supersede the former ones and has added guidance on Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA), and has requested the STRP to review these. He felt that it would be appropriate, as the CBD's lead partner on inland waters, to bring such a review forward to COP10. He noted that both Ramsar and CBD Secretariats are represented on the steering committee of the IAIA's Dutch-financed project (CBBIA) for incorporating biodiversity in impact assessments in developing countries.

100. Dave Pritchard reported that he has identified a colleague to assist with this work but this needs to be confirmed. He foresaw a single exercise to review the guidelines for both CMS and Ramsar.

Agenda item 7.3: Water resources management

101. Mike Acreman, thematic expert for Working Group 4, addressed tasks 81 and 82 on the development of more detailed guidance and case studies on River Basin Management (RBM) and the critical path approach, and he indicated that the target audience should be wetland specialists and managers, to arm them for discussions with RBM people, and not the RBM people themselves. There could also be Ramsar input and collaboration with, for example, the Global Water Partnership and its Technical Advisory Committee to produce RBM planning and management materials with a wetlands focus.

102. On task 91 on wetlands and water quality, Mike Acreman said that this is a long process and suggested a background review followed by a plan for future work on a longer time scale. Several people noted that a review on water quality would overlap slightly with work on water quality indicators of effectiveness, and that collaboration would be needed. George Lukacs, Mark Smith, and Karén Jenderedjian volunteered to assist. Jo Mulongoy pointed out the relevance of the first CBD/Ramsar technical report, which is now available on the CBD Web site [and was subsequently handed out in hard copies]. Rebecca Tharme brought up a number of additional issues, and it was urged that the scoping exercise should continue on the Support Service fora.

103. Ndegwa Ndiang'ui reported that the CCD's Africa programme has a thematic area that is relevant and could collaborate. Heather MacKay noted that the low-priority task 86 on wetlands in drylands could possibly be addressed in collaboration with the CCD, and the DSG recommended that all STRP work on water quality and quantity should pay attention to drylands. Heather MacKay urged that the water resources team should work with the CCD to see if they have any material that would be directly useful in relation to Task 86.

104. Heather MacKay reviewed the critical path method as applied to river basin management and the role of the Ramsar guidance within that. Mike Acreman said that the objective is to provide additional information for managers to adapt the diagram and process for their own situations, to develop a generic approach with the means to tailor it to specific situations.

105. George Lukacs noted that the method described covered surface waters but not groundwater. Mike Acreman and Heather MacKay agreed that RBM naturally looks first at surface waters and the treatment will have to be cross-referenced to the groundwater framework guidance.

106. Mike Acreman took up task 89 and provided background on the progress of the reports on environmental flow requirements intended as Ramsar Technical Reports (RTRs) and the recommendations for the subsequent preparation of guidelines for the Parties. The task lead, Rebecca Tharme (IWMI), suggested that some of the work could begin straightaway, as some case studies and other materials are already available. She noted that The Nature Conservancy has extensive materials, and Mark Smith reported that IUCN has a number of case studies as well.

107. Rebecca Tharme reported that the group recommended that the product should be an RTR rather than formal guidance, given the sensitivity of the subject. She noted that some of the context-specific advice would be based upon the obstacles that have been found in some of the Parties. The DSG recalled that the COP adopted the task specifically calling for "guidelines" and that the Parties had the opportunity to protest about sensitivities at that time. He urged that the group go ahead and develop guidelines for the COP, casting them in politically sensitive language as far as possible, and let the Parties decide whether to take that advice or not. He called attention to IUCN's 2003 publication "Flow", which could be helpful as a base.

108. Archana Chatterjee (WWF) noted that different Parties are at different stages of development concerning environmental flows and wondered whether one set of guidelines would be sufficient for all countries. Rebecca Tharme responded that one set of guidance is foreseen, taking account of varying conditions and contexts within it. The DSG noted that a decision-tree structure can help readers place themselves according to their own situations.

109. Mike Acreman reported that on task 85 concerning ICZM the group recommended splitting the task into a review of the present COP8 guidelines on ICZM in light of other organizations and the lessons of the tsunami, and then deciding whether and how to proceed to developing further guidance. It would be determined at that time whether any new guidance would complement and update the existing guidance or replace it. Following the review, it can be decided whether additional case studies would be needed, and if so, that would be coordinated with the clearinghouse for case studies for other tasks.

110. Doug Taylor (Wetlands International) noted that the Green Coast project of WI, WWF, IUCN, and Oxfam could provide peer review. Lucilla Spini offered to put the group in touch with the appropriate people in the FAO's programmes. Mark Spalding reported that TNC has a database of some 800 ICZM projects. Teresita Borges noted that there are thousands of ICZM projects and it might be more interesting for Ramsar to find cases of the integration of the terrestrial and coastal zones.

111. Mike Acreman turned to task 90 on groundwater issues and recommended producing the technical report by the midterm workshops and then the further guidance on groundwater management strategies, with consultancy help. Mark Smith (IUCN) indicated willingness to be involved.

112. Mike Acreman noted the lower priority task 87 on a review of water and environmental law with respect to environmental flows and suggested that the part concerning implementation could be covered under task 89. As to the review of water law, he offered to discuss with contacts at the International Water Law Programme at the University of Dundee whether a student could get that started. The DSG noted that the task is also relevant to the existing guidelines on Laws and Institutions and on National Wetland Policies, both of which need looking at to see whether updates or new guidance are needed.

113. On further low priority tasks, Mike Acreman indicated that for task 83 on consolidated guidance on River Basin Management Heather MacKay will review Handbook 4 in light of the results of COP9 and report back. For task 84 on a bibliography on impacts of dams on wetland and river systems, he suggested looking at the products of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) to see if that would be sufficient. David Stroud noted that that could be linked with task 108 on reservoirs. Rebecca Tharme recalled that the task originally included the positive side of the ecosystem services of dams and wondered whether it might not be time to begin that work. Mike Acreman noted that Matthew McCartney of IWMI may have progressed this and that Max Finlayson will consult with him. The DSG urged him to see whether there is anything available that can be put together quickly. Max Finlayson noted the need to be aware of Latin American sensitivities to artificial wetlands being used as an excuse to permit degradation of natural wetlands.

114. Mike Acreman proposed a two-stage process, with the review first and then a decision about whether guidance is needed. Heather MacKay recalled that the annotated bibliography on impacts of dams was proposed as a response to a call from the COP for still more guidance on this issue after initial reluctance to fully adopt the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams. The DSG proposed that we scope out the work now and then seek someone who would do it at no cost, and otherwise, let it go.

115. Viorel Blujdea (UNCCD CST) reported that the Parties to the UNCCD have decided upon improving synergies with the other MEAs and plan a scientific meeting in Arusha on climate change, the results of which may be useful. He offered his collaboration and input to this work.

116. Mike Acreman noted that task 88 is largely covered in the other tasks requiring case studies.

Agenda item 7.5: Wetlands and agriculture

117. Max Finlayson, WG5 lead, drew attention to task 150 calling for guidelines on good agriculture practices for different wetland types, and noted that IWMI's CA will cover much of the needed material. He reported that a consortium has been formed, including Ramsar, FAO, IWMI, Wageningen University, MedWet, and Wetlands International, to undertake a project called "Guidelines on Agriculture, Wetlands and Water Resources International Project", and he suggested that a small team isolate the most important questions from those prepared by the STRP in the last triennium and listed in Working Paper 8. He said that experts would be invited to prepare a discussion paper and workshop.

118. Rebecca Tharme noted that the consortium proposal was presented at the Fourth World Water Forum and that some funding has already been secured, enough for Wageningen University to begin and FAO to develop a framework. Slovenia has offered to host the workshop, for which funding is being sought. After that, a small writing team will begin. She urged that the project should be tracked on the Support Service forum for feedback from the STRP. If funding can be found, the guidance can be prepared and tested in 5-10 countries and then proposed to COP10.

119. The DSG recalled that Resolution VIII.34 foresaw a review preceding the development of guidance. Rebecca Tharme explained that there is now momentum and funding for developing the framework, but not yet for reviewing existing work; she noted, however, that the CA partially fulfills that need, and part of the framework will include a short review. She said that FAO and Wageningen University would be encouraged to ensure that that is included.

120. Jo Mulongoy described the CBD's programme of work on agricultural biodiversity.

Agenda item 7.8: CEPA

121. Christine Prietto, thematic group lead, explained that no set tasks have been outlined for Working Group 8 in advance and that the group will try to build onto others' tasks by contributing advice on target audiences, formats, etc. She went through a list of 18 areas where CEPA advice would seem beneficial but cautioned on the need for prioritization. These included networking with the NFPs; presentation of guidance, national reporting, and questionnaires; needs assessment of on-line resources; application of the critical path method; tools for talking to different sectors, such as industry; summaries of technical papers; and databases available to the Parties. She noted that she thought that a lot of the products being discussed by the STRP are not very well targeted, and that the target group often should be the group making the most impact on wetlands. The DSG added the desirability of CEPA advice on completing the wetland managers' field guide from last triennium.

122. Chris Prietto said she plans to go to the Wetlands International CEPA Specialist Group and seek volunteers to join the STRP Working Groups. She described the background of the Specialist Group and its 17 members, who have been briefed on what is involved in assisting the STRP. She noted that when Specialist Group members join each WG, they will need a WG member to familiarize them with the process.

123. Dave Pritchard suggested that the STRP would also welcome any general advice on the Panel's products, such as footnotes, indexes, key messages, and use of jargon. Heather MacKay suggested a generic CEPA training manual for STRP members, but Chris Prietto suggested that a live exercise would be better.

124. Paul Mafabi urged the importance of assessing the need for guidance to ensure that it is demand-driven. The DSG said that perhaps there should be a CEPA training guide for the Parties' representatives; when they ask for guidelines it should be assumed that they really mean it, but do they? Something may be wrong with that part of the process.

125. The Chair, Heather MacKay, summarized that the top priority for the CEPA group should be assisting in getting responses for task 5 on the review of existing Ramsar guidance, which might require funding; preparing a training manual for the STRP; and going through the remaining tasks arising from CEPA links in the thematic work areas, to select additional immediate priorities.

1 June 2006

Agenda item 9: Current and emerging issues

Agenda item 9.1: Avian influenza

126. The Chair outlined COP9 Resolution IX.23 and the background paper on the avian flu epidemic.

127. David Stroud, the thematic group lead, made a PowerPoint presentation on the spread of the avian flu epidemic, its economic consequences, and the relative role of migratory waterbirds in its spread. He explained that he is representing the STRP on the Scientific Task Force on Avian Influenza, which is sponsored by CMS, AEWA, FAO, WHO, OIE, Ramsar, BLI, WI, etc., and is intended to agree common positions on the issues. He drew attention to the CMS seminar in Nairobi in April and Nick Davidson's presentation to CBD COP8 in March. He suggested that the Ramsar Web site and Forum e-mail list should be used to disseminate relevant information better, including EFSA risk assessment, the CMS Nairobi conclusions, and the European Commission guidance on surveillance standards, and he urged a wider role for other STRP members. He said that he intends to post a monthly update on the Support Service.

128. The DSG agreed that we should use the Web site and e-lists more for this purpose; he reported that the Secretariat has received questions from the Parties, especially about surveillance, and he stressed that the EU standards for surveillance should be made more widely available. He saw a potential role for STRP regional members to keep the NFPs up to date. David Stroud noted that the EU approach to measuring the presence of avian flu is to look for dead birds rather than to sample living flocks, the latter being unhelpful since the percentage of affected birds is so low.

129. Sergey Dereliev (CMS and AEWA) said that the CMS/AEWA Task Force information, like minutes, would be useful for the STRP but not for the public. Other products, however, could be valuable on the Ramsar Web site. A common set of consolidated advice on behalf of CMS, AEWA and Ramsar on sampling techniques for HPAI in wild birds requested by the Government of Georgia is being prepared and consulted within the Scientific Task Force on Avian Influenza. The consolidated advice will be ready in early June and sent to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia. The DSG proposed that a short summary of the internal minutes of the Task Force telephone conferences could be prepared for the public.

130. Sergey Dereliev reported that four months of help is available to the CMS Secretariat to assist Marco Barbieri in preparing a common Web site for the public, with UNEP, and with input from all other bodies through the Secretariat.

131. Alan Wentz (Ducks Unlimited USA) noted that in North America some 100,000 birds have been sampled, as well as some 50,000 sites, though no instances of the disease have been found there. There are several Web sites on the subject. Sergey Dereliev noted that the Wildlife Conservation Society is a North American member of the Scientific Task Force.

132. David Stroud, referring to COP9 Resolution IX.23, noted that there have been instances of lethal actions and that Ramsar interventions have been helpful in some cases. The DSG noted that the Standing Committee had affirmed this role in Decision SC34-15. Rebecca D'Cruz noted that the COP Resolution is not known to many people working with this problem and its message needs to be better disseminated.

133. David Stroud observed that several organizations have FAQs Web sites and suggested that the Ramsar Web site provide links to them. Maria Rivera stressed the need for reliable information for the countries, as the media are frequently supplying bad information; she felt that we need to ensure that the AAs and NFPs are made aware of the sources of the Scientific Task Force and Ducks Unlimited and others. Karén Jenderedjian noted that the advice coming from various kinds of organizations (veterinary, agriculture, environment, health, etc.) is often contradictory and suggested the need for a digest of the best advice on the Ramsar Web site.

134. Dave Pritchard noted that the strong feature of the various COP decisions is the unanimity of the scientific positions and advice, and he urged that we should continue to reflect and emphasize that unanimity. Thus, he said, all pronouncements should best be made on a joint basis or emphasize other agreements that concur. STRP comments and concensus could be made via the Support Service and communicated by David Stroud to the Task Force.

135. Beatriz Torres (GBIF) said that the question is what kinds of data are needed right now and how can we get it? What plans are there to integrate the data on the 26 high-risk species with other kinds of data? David Stroud indicated that there is a lot of data already but a lack of funding to work with it; he noted that the WI methodology is very useful.

136. The Chair noted agreement that we need to increase the flow of information to the Parties, backed by the credibility of the STRP, and that we need a place on the Ramsar Web site where people can go for links and updates. Sergey Dereliev noted that the Web site being developed by CMS is meant to do just that, and it would be better to have one go-to place for all of the MEAs. David Stroud said that the Ramsar Web site is extraordinarily well known and can highlight news on the What's New section, but it would be best to point readers to a common dedicated Web site, i.e., the CMS-sponsored site, for authoritative information.

137. Paul Mafabi recalled the SC decision and noted a need to develop a mechanism for long-term monitoring, rather than just a one-off, and saw a role for the STRP in that. He said that the STRP NFPs could help in integrating national efforts but would need to be better informed.

138. Sergey Dereliev alluded to the massive culling of wild birds in one country, which is a Ramsar Party but not a party to CMS or AEWA, and said that in such cases it is better to respond individually rather than to all Parties. An official response from the Secretariat, drawing upon Ramsar Resolution IX.23 and with STRP advice, could be helpful. The DSG promised that the Secretariat would follow up on this issue with the Contracting Party concerned. The DSG reminded the meeting of the terms of Resolution IX.23, recalled that the Standing Committee has recently reaffirmed that killing is not the solution, and suggested that the STRP reaffirm that position again through a Decision. David Stroud pointed to the need for more attention to how countries share experience and said that the Task Force needs lessons learnt from national responses.

139. Tobias Salathé, Senior Advisor for Europe, said that it would be urgent and valuable for David Stroud to relate back to Ramsar the latest in what advice we can give, the same advice across all the MEAs with the Task Force as the common point; he felt that we should rely upon David Stroud as our authority for forthcoming developments.

140. Lei Guangchun, Senior Advisor for the Asia/Pacific, reported that the East Asian-Australasian Flyway has set up a working group or partnership, which is being finalized within the flyway countries, and it would be good to link up with that.

141. Sergey Dereliev noted that often environment ministers are ignored and not in the loop of national responses, so that communicating with the AAs may often be useless. He urged that the Convention communicate to the Parties through the diplomatic channel as well. The DSG agreed.

Agenda item 9.2: ESA GlobWetlands update

142. Diego Fernandez (European Space Agency-ESRIN) made a PowerPoint presentation of the GlobWetlands project and its focus on wetland assessment and monitoring. Some 50 wetlands (mostly Ramsar sites) in 21 countries have been chosen as pilot studies in gathering data called for in needs assessments from the countries, and the project is now in its final stages of production and validation of the products, hopefully to be completed by the end of the summer. He requested STRP advice in the definition and preparation of user manuals for the products and future work, and he invited STRP participation in the GlobWetland Symposium set for 19-20 October 2006 at the ESA headquarters in Frascati near Rome.

143. Mike Acreman asked about the time series for the earth observations, and Diego Fernandez indicated that they could be two-weekly, according to satellite passages over the site, but are presently seasonal. Eleni Fitoka asked whether there are plans to extend site-based observations to regional scales, and he explained that the method is intended for use on many scales, but the users in the pilot projects were more interested in site- than basin-scales. It can be extended later, even to global scales. He said that all products are intended to be freely available, both on the interactive Web site and as downloadable products. Archana Chatterjee asked whether the software will be included, and he indicated that essential software to use the products will be freely downloadable, but will not be competitive with sophisticated commercial software.

144. The Chair and the DSG pointed out a number of other areas of the STRP's work programme that could benefit directly from the GlobWetland project, particularly those on mapping and delineation of sites. Diego Fernandez indicated that the user manuals can be anything we want them to be and urged STRP input through Doug Taylor, who is part of the project. It was agreed that he, Lucilla Spini, and Max Finlayson would meet to discuss the kinds of information needed for the user manual, the relevance of the products for the STRP's tasks, and the possibility of GlobWetland becoming involved in the FAO/IWMI Type II partnership on mapping and delineation.

145. Philippe Gerbeaux noted the continuing need for ground-truthing the earth observation data with local people. He suggested that the STRP regional members should network and identify the key people who should attend the GlobWetland Symposium.

146. Dave Pritchard observed that in the work on effectiveness indicators on change in ecological character the GlobWetland project has already been identified as useful, both for its products and for its methodologies (e.g., matching CORINE land cover/use data with Ramsar sites).

147. Doug Taylor (WI) noted that the key to the afterlife of the GlobWetland project is its connection with Ramsar and the building of an education and support network. He felt that it is important for the STRP NFPs to connect with the user groups, and he noted that the symposium will consider subsequent regional extensions.

148. There was discussion of what kinds of people could benefit from the Symposium in October and who from the Ramsar community should be encouraged to attend. Diego Fernandez indicated that the symposium could accommodate 150-300 participants and that resources could be found to support some key people. Teresita Borges suggested that the symposium be preceded by a capacity-building workshop, and he replied that ESA has the facilities for that if resources could be found. It was agreed to follow up on that suggestion. The DSG noted that it is the intention to publish the outputs of the Symposium as an article in a scientific journal.

149. The SG wished to put on record his appreciation for the cooperation of the ESA and its contribution to the work of the Convention and to the pilot sites. He gratefully acknowledged the ESA's efforts.

Agenda item 9.3: CBD COP8 and Inland Waters, and harmonized reporting issues

150. The DSG noted the close working relationship between Ramsar and the CBD, which serves as a model for other MEAs. He reported that at CBD COP8 a number of decisions mention Ramsar and take the relationship to a new phase. He said that the Third Ramsar/CBD Joint Work Plan (JWP3) ends in 2006 and that he and Jo Mulongoy would welcome the STRP's ideas on what scientific and technical issues should be included in the next one. He described CBD Decision VIII/20 in detail and noted the requests for Ramsar collaboration or leading, particularly with regards to poverty reduction, a national reporting framework, status and trends of inland waters, impact assessment, island biodiversity, and biodiversity and climate change, many of them in relation to the 2010 target.

151. Jo Mulongoy agreed that the Ramsar/CBD relationship is a model for others and drew attention to the MOU signed by the heads of MEA secretariats in Brazil. He said that the CBD relies heavily upon Ramsar in several areas of work and other thematic areas. He particularly urged increased collaboration in case studies and CEPA efforts, and he noted that the STRP's work on indicators would be important for measuring the 2010 target. He indicated that the JWP4 to be developed should include more attention to emerging issues and to promoting communication between the NFPs of the two conventions. He suggested that the Clearing-House Mechanism and the GEF focal points could be useful to the STRP NFPs as well.

152. Dave Pritchard reported that the STRP's work on indicators has kept abreast of the CBD's work on 2010 indicators but has not been designed specifically to deliver the CBD's indicators for wetlands - although a number of the Ramsar indicators will do so. He noted several other areas of potential congruence, including those concerning cultural issues and on what Ramsar COP10 could consider as a way to move forward if there is agreement that the 2010 target will not be met.

153. Teresita Borges stressed the need for consultations with the Parties and a mandate from the concerned conventions as progress is made in the harmonization of national reporting. Concerning the planned programme of work on island biodiversity, she suggested contacting the Alliance of Small Island States and a review of the new Mauritius Strategy, which deals with impacts of climate change and biodiversity.

154. Robert Pople (UNEP-WCMC) welcomed joint reporting on inland waters and noted that UNEP-WCMC has been involved in work on MEA joint reporting issues. He reported that UNEP is convening a workshop on harmonized reporting, to be hosted by UNEP-WCMC, in mid-June 2006.

155. The SG noted that the 2010 targets are an important part of the work of the CBD and others related to biodiversity, but have not been as explicitly an important part of Ramsar's agenda, though much of our work relates to the achievement of the biodiversity target. He suggested that we should report to Ramsar COP10 on how our work is contributing. He foresaw problems in meeting the 2010 targets and suggested looking further into the future. Paul Mafabi said that the SC would welcome any contribution to defining the role of wetlands in achieving the 2010 targets and suggested demonstrating that contribution in a few pilot areas.

156. Beatriz Torres provided an update on recent GBIF progress and described a UK-funded project on how best the GBIF can support the measurement of the targets. She welcomed input on what biodiversity data needs to be mobilized in order to measure progress towards the targets. Karén Jenderedjian stressed the importance of Countdown 2010 and described a recent conference for the Caucasus region held in Georgia. Ndegwa Ndiang'ui (UNCCD) reported that a CST group of experts is dealing with benchmark measurements and noted that continued land degradation and soil erosion will negatively impact upon biodiversity and the 2010 target.

157. Jo Mulongoy (CBD) noted that, in terms of the three levels of biodiversity (ecosystem and biome, species, and genetic), we are not going to meet the targets globally, but we need to stress the very positive news in some ecosystems and sites. He seconded the idea of demonstrating contributions in a few pilot areas.

158. The Chair suggested that the indicators task force should try to build a response to the CBD into the group's work plan, and she urged that Margarita Astrálaga, Mike Acreman, and Jo Mulongoy consult about assisting the CBD's need for best practice case studies for the marine/coastal zone, to see how we can help the CBD and whether a consultant could take that on within the scope of the water group's proposed work programme. The DSG asked everyone to review the current JWP and mention any key issues that should be included in the next one.

159. Jo Mulongoy indicated that the CBD's COP9 (in 2008) will review the programmes of work on forests, agriculture, the ecosystem approach, and invasive species, and that COP10 will review other areas, such as inland and marine/coastal waters and mountain biodiversity. Beatriz Torres suggested a joint Ramsar/CBD side event at the next SBSTTA meeting, and the DSG indicated that Ramsar will be participating in that meeting.

Agenda item 9.4: Issues arising from the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee

160. The DSG indicated that most of these issues have been covered already. In addition, the Standing Committee agreed that Dave Pritchard should work on the possible consolidation of COP Resolutions, with support from the Secretariat; that the theme of World Wetlands Day 2007 will be "wetlands and fisheries"; and that investigation should continue into a consortium approach to enhancing the Ramsar Sites Information Service.

161. Paul Mafabi noted that the SC also initiated the planning process for the Strategic Plan 2009-2014 and said that the STRP should play a key role in that. He suggested that the STRP should request the SC to invite the Chair of the STRP to be involved in the Subgroup on that matter.

172. On other issues from the sector-based guidance tasks, the Chair noted that task 163 on human health has been dealt with and that, for task 161 on a strategy for sector-based guidance, it was decided that the method used for human health should provide the model. On task 162 on fisheries, the DSG suggested that the Panel look at the implications of Resolution IX.4 over the triennium and make a recommendation to COP10 on what should be done next. On task 164 on tourism, Sandra Hails was asked to report on the resource page she is now testing for the Ramsar Web site, and it was agreed that the STRP will not pursue that task directly but will refer to that page in the CEPA section of the Ramsar Web site.

173. Max Finlayson initiated a discussion of the numbers of past tasks that have been given low priorities but carried over from one triennium to the next, suggesting that some may need to be cleared off the books. The DSG recalled that the immediate and high priorities are for this triennium but the overall work plan is meant to roll over on a six-year cycle, and so for some tasks the Panel could recommend that they have a higher priority in the next term. Teresita Borges cautioned that some tasks might remain on the list forever, and suggested that the whole list should be reviewed rationally. The DSG suggested that the STRP's recommendations to the COP for the next triennium's work plan would be the time to do that, and that for the moment we are just reminding ourselves of the entire list. Margarita Astrálaga felt that it would be valuable to keep all of the past and present tasks on the list, especially for the new members; she noted that some are important issues that are presently being worked on through other processes but for which the STRP's attention is not needed at this time. Paul Mafabi noted that the next Strategic Plan might raise the profile of some issues, and that for some we might be able to draw on our partner organizations' work and thus benefit ourselves whilst building synergies at the same time. Max Finlayson urged that there should be some record kept of why the Panel has not addressed some tasks.

174. Dave Pritchard observed that the tasks at the bottom of the list tend to be the ones most generally framed and that it is the more precise ones that tend to get done. He suggested that the STRP should feed back to the SC and try to pin down the general tasks more precisely.

175. The Chair offered that she and the DSG will make a table of all of the tasks and show where each has come from and when. It will be posted on the Support Service with a request for input on other relevant work as well, and the list can be considered at the midterm workshops and the results reported to SC35.

176. Concerning task 165 on forestry, Lucilla Spini (FAO) noted on behalf of the FAO Forestry Department that the Global Forest Resource Assessment 2005 has been made available, and she said that there will be a meeting 12-16 June 2006 on the Forest Resource Assessment for 2010, which will have a remote-sensing component. She invited informal suggestions and inputs, also taking into account the work on mangroves carried out by FAO.

Agenda item 10: The Ramsar Technical Reports series

177. The DSG reported on the purpose and present progress of the RTR series. He noted that there is a lot of valuable material, mainly from the STRP, which in the past has been presented to the COP only as Information Papers and then filed away or buried somewhere on the Ramsar Web site. The purpose of the series is to make this kind of material publicly available in a low-cost peer-reviewed downloadable series, one which is not tied to the timetable of seeking COP approval for formal guidelines. The authors will primarily be the STRP but other relevant papers will be welcome as well, to be reviewed by the STRP. The editors are the past and present Chairs of the Panel and the DSG, and the editing and layout is being done within the Secretariat. Present plans and resources allow for PDF versions for the Web, in English. Hardcopy publication and translations into the three Convnetion languages will be done when resources can be found; in fact, Swedish SIDA has already indicated that they will put some funds toward this purpose in 2006.

178. The DSG noted that RTR-1, the first volume of the Ramsar series, was actually published by the CBD as a joint contribution to its own series as well, and that RTR-2, on low-cost GIS applications, has just been finalized by the Secretariat and can be viewed, and is only awaiting better versions of the images before publication. He went on to list the other volumes which are already planned for the series. He noted that the views expressed will be the authors' own, and that that has been agreed by both the COP and the SC.

179. David Stroud urged that guidance for potential authors should be produced, and it was agreed that this was foreseen. Dave Pritchard reminded that there is no need to peer-review the republication of earlier STRP papers that were presented to the COP, unless they are being substantially updated. He also asked about the criteria used to decide whether something is best published as an RTR or by some other means. The DSG responded that, in general, anything that would have gone to the COP as an Information Paper, rather than as proposed guidance, would be eligible for the series, but it will be up to the STRP to decide in each case. He and the Chair noted that it is also important to develop guidance for the Ramsar guidelines, and it was observed that some rules for the preparation of guidance were developed for the additional guidance on the designation of under-represented wetland types prepared for COP8.

2 June 2006

Agenda item 11: Finalization of the STRP work programme and task-based budget

180. The Chair explained that the leads of each of the Working Groups and task forces have, over the course of the week, prepared "pro formas" which define the tasks and outline the intended products and outputs, list the lead people as well as additional task force members and suggestions for invited experts, indicate the necessity or not of additional paid help and provide cost estimates of that, and project a timetable for the progress of the work. She invited each task leader to explain his or her pro forma and asked the participants to comment and advise, volunteer to assist, and eventually to formally adopt the pro forma as amended for inclusion in the proposed STRP Work Plan 2006-2008 for Standing Committee approval. She noted that at the same time the DSG would keep a running record of the cost estimates of each task so that the entire Work Plan can be costed relative to the priorities assigned to each of the tasks.

181. The DSG pointed out that the Secretariat is not permitted to co-lead on any of the tasks, but that technical staff members will be identified to help with each task and monitor its progress.

182. For Working Group 2 on the Wise Use and Ecological Character of Wetlands, thematic lead Randy Milton summarized task 14 on wise use case studies, recommending that the output should be published as an RTR with a later determination whether any guidance would be appropriate. Heather MacKay noted that some of the case studies may overlap with those on water-related issues, and the midterm workshops would be a good time to collate them if possible.

183. For task 15 on harmonization of terms and definitions (and the use of "ecosystem benefits/services"), Randy Milton proposed outputs of a review document for the STRP and an Information Paper for COP10. He noted that Royal Gardner has identified a graduate student who will prepare the preliminary document. The DSG recalled the chief purpose of the task, which is to learn how widely the MA terminology is coming to be used, i.e., whether or not it is becoming the standard. Margarita Astrálaga urged that the terminology used in national legislations should be surveyed as well, and David Stroud suggested that the terms used in the other Ramsar languages should be kept in mind. It was noted that Royal Gardner's assistant works in both English and Spanish.

184. On task 13 on the use of the MA Conceptual Framework, with Rebecca D'Cruz leading, Randy Milton said that the group recommended an information document for the STRP midterms, with a possible guidance document and Resolution for COP10. The DSG noted that this is a low-priority task with cost implications, but fol