acknowledgements - ramsarcriterion... · web view13/04/2005 · david a. stroud. joint nature...

DRAFT20 November 2005

Selecting Ramsar sites: the development of the criteria for the designation of Wetlands of International Importance — 1971-2005

David A. Stroud

Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough PE1 1JY, United Kingdom

Ramsar Technical Report No. #

Ramsar Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland2006

1


CONTENTS

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................31. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................42. HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF RAMSAR SITE-SELECTION CRITERIA.............................................................4

2.1 The early development of the Ramsar criteria (1971-1989)...................................................................42.2 CoP 6, Brisbane, Australia......................................................................................................................92.3 CoP 7, San José, Costa Rica.................................................................................................................102.4 CoP 8, Valencia, Spain to CoP 9, Kampala, Uganda...........................................................................102.5 General trends.......................................................................................................................................11

3. DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES FOR NON-AVIAN TAXA........................................183.1 Mandate.................................................................................................................................................183.2 International consultation.....................................................................................................................183.3 Other examples of quantitative approaches to protected site selection................................................213.4 Some taxa where a quantitative approach to site-selection may be useful...........................................213.5 STRP conclusions..................................................................................................................................223.6 Recommended process...........................................................................................................................23

4. DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR RELEVANT CULTURAL AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRITERIA. .244.1 Background............................................................................................................................................244.2 Proposals for CoP 9..............................................................................................................................244.3 Criterion 1 and highly modified landscapes..........................................................................................27

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................................276. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................28

APPENDIX 1. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE (1980).....................................................................................................................................................................48

ANNEX A. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CRITERIA OF THE EVALUATION OF WETLANDS.......................................63ANNEX B. THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 1% CRITERION AND THE CONCEPT OF BIOGEOGRAPHICAL POPULATIONS...........................................................................................................................................................................64

APPENDIX 2. DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF SITES QUALIFYING FOR RAMSAR DESIGNATION — NCC (1987)...............................................67

APPENDIX 3. COP3 CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE — IUCN (1987)........................................................................................................................78

APPENDIX 4. CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANT PROPOSED AT RAMSAR COP3 — RAMSAR BUREAU (1987)................................................................81

APPENDIX 5. APPLYING THE RAMSAR CRITERIA FOR SPECIES OTHER THAN BIRDS (1990)................................................................................................................................................................................85

APPENDIX 6. THE RAMSAR CONVENTION AND THE CONSERVATION OF NON-WATERFOWL SPECIES (1993)....................................................................................................................................................88

Appendix 7. Estimating international waterfowl populations: current activity and future directions (1994)......99

Editorial note:

The appendices include a number of historical documents relevant to this report, many of which were presented as information papers to previous Ramsar Conferences, and are now accordingly longer widely available. They are included here as originally drafted other than for some minor stylistic editing for overall consistency, and with the updating of a few citations where some sources were cited as 'in press' at the time of the original publication.

2


Selecting Ramsar sites: the development of the criteria for the designation of Wetlands of International Importance — 1971-2005Summary

The designation of wetlands of international importance is one of the key obligations assumed by Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Accordingly, the criteria through which such sites are identified have been the subject of detailed consideration, especially in the early years of the Convention. This report summarises the history of the development of the criteria from 1971 to the present.

The criteria have progressively evolved and associated guidance for their application has developed significantly. Through this process, a number of trends are apparent:

a conceptual broadening of the scope of the site-selection criteria from an initial focus on waterbirds and their habitats;

a progressive simplification of criteria related to waterbirds in order to encourage Ramsar sites designations other wetland biodiversity; and

regular consideration of the potential for quantitative approaches to criteria for non-avian taxa (notably at CoP 4 and CoP 5).

This review focuses especially on the background to two issues that will be considered at Ramsar's ninth Conference of Parties:

a possible additional (quantitative) criterion related to the selection of wetlands of international importance for non-avian taxa; and

development of means of identifying wetlands of international importance for their relevant cultural values and sustainable socio-economic importance.

Both these issues have been debated by previous Conferences of the Parties (CoPs) and to aid their further consideration, this report brings together also a range of previous information and other supporting papers, given that some of this material is no longer widely available.

A quantitative criterion from non-avian taxaSTRP's assessment concluded that a 1% criterion for certain non-avian taxa would be a feasible, and useful, addition to Ramsar's site selection criteria.

A key element to the success of Criterion 6 for waterbirds has been the availability of peer-reviewed assessment of the size of biogeographic populations. As for the waterbird 1% thresholds, it is important that for greatest cost-effectiveness any process established to support a new Criterion 9 should capitalise on existing international data collection and collation mechanisms for the relevant taxa. Any newly established processes should follow general principles already established with respect to update processes for Criterion 6, 1% thresholds (e.g. the importance of consultation and peer-review prior to adoption, audit trails for data sources, and frequency of update).

Wetlands with relevant cultural values and sustainable socio-economic importance

3


1. Introduction

One of the three 'pillars' of the Convention on wetlands (Ramsar, 1971) is the designation of wetlands of international importance. The Convention has evolved from an early focus on largely the conservation of waterbirds and their wetland habitats to its current, more holistic vision of the value of wetland conservation for the full range of ecosystem services1, including all aspects of biodiversity (Hails 1996).

Over this time, the Convention's criteria for the selection of Ramsar sites have progressively evolved and associated guidance for their application has developed significantly. During the early Conferences of the Parties (CoPs) of the Convention, major agenda items related to the reviews of criteria, but in more recent years, perhaps as the implementation of the other pillars of the Convention have developed alongside site-related activity, the criteria have become more stable.

This review outlines the history of the development of the Convention's site-selection criteria, building on Geoffrey Matthews' history from 1971-1989 which is reprinted in section 2.1 below. The review focuses especially on the background to two issues that will be considered at Ramsar's ninth Conference of Parties to be held in Uganda (November 2005):

a possible additional (quantitative) criterion related to the selection of wetlands of international importance for non-avian taxa; and

means of identifying wetlands of international importance for their relevant cultural values and sustainable socio-economic importance.

Both these issues have been debated by previous CoPs and to aid debate, this report brings together also a range of previous information and other supporting papers, given that some of this material is no longer widely available.

2. History of development of Ramsar site-selection criteria

Matthews (1993) summarised the history of the development of Ramsar's site selection criteria from earliest days to CoP 6 in 1996 and his review is reprinted below with acknowledgement. The changes to criteria over that period and subsequently are shown in Table1.

2.1 The early development of the Ramsar criteria (1971-1989)

Wetlands of international importance2

"Under the Ramsar Convention, all wetlands are recognized to be of value, but some are more important to conserve than others. The Convention Text (Article 2.1) requires each Contracting Party to "designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of International Importance." Article 2.2 specifies that such "Wetlands should be selected ... in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology. In the first instance wetlands of international importance to waterfowl at any season should be included". No further guidance is offered, but it is clearly essential for an agreed set of criteria to be used in deciding whether a wetland is of international importance.

1 e.g. Ramsar CoP 9 DOC. 16. Information paper: Rationale for proposals for A Conceptual Framework for the wise use of wetlands and the updating of wise use and ecological character definitions (CoP9 DR1 Annex A).

2 This section is reproduced with acknowledgement from Geoffrey Matthews's history of the Convention (Matthews, G.V.T. 1993. The Ramsar Convention on wetlands: its history and development. Pp. 47-52. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Switzerland).

4


A start was made at Ramsar in the paper "Some suggested criteria for determining the international importance of wetlands in the Western Palaearctic", produced on behalf of IWRB (Szijj3). This proposed that an internationally important wetland should meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) hold more than 0.2% of the total waterfowl population using a particular migration flyway, this

being 10,000 or 20,000 birds in the Western Palearctic, 2) hold more than 1% of the flyway population of a waterfowl species, 3) be used regularly by an endangered species of waterfowl, 4) provide an important staging point on a main migration route, 5) be representative of a vanishing type of wetland, 6) be an essential complement to a wetland of international importance, and 7) have a general educational importance transcending national requirements.

Wetlands which lie astride State borders should be conserved as an entity. The International Waterfowl Counts (see Chapter 4 [of Matthews 1993]) already provided a lot of the data required for the first four criteria.

The Heiligenhafen Criteria

The Conference organized by IWRB at Heiligenhafen, German Federal Republic, in 1974 was intended to be the First Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties. Unfortunately, only four States had become Parties to the Convention by then, whereas seven were required to trigger it into action (achieved eight months later). Despite this shortfall, progress was made. In the present context, a criteria committee worked throughout the conference and took into account a number of technical papers which were presented. The conference accepted the committee's recommendations and annexed them to the conference report. Four main groups of criteria for "International Importance" were proposed.

The first concerned the wetland's importance to populations and species, requiring it to support (i) 1% of the biogeographical population of one species of waterfowl or (ii) 10,000 ducks geese, swans or coots or 20,000 waders or (iii) an appreciable number of an endangered species. It could also (iv) be of special value in maintaining genetic and ecological diversity or (v) play a major role as habitat for species of scientific or economic importance.

The second group was concerned with the selection of representative or unique wetlands. Such a wetland should (i) be a representative sample of a characteristic wetland community or (ii) exemplify a critical or extreme stage in biological or hydromorphological processes or (iii) be an integral part of a peculiar physical feature.

The third group of criteria was concerned with research, education and recreation. The wetland should (i) be outstandingly important for scientific research and for education or (ii) be well studied and documented over many years, with a continuing programme of research of high value or (iii) offer especial opportunities for promoting public understanding and appreciation of wetlands, open to people of several countries.

The fourth group was concerned with the feasibility of conservation and management. The wetland should only be designated for the Ramsar List if it was (i) physically and administratively capable of being effectively conserved and managed and was (ii) free from the threat of major external pollution, hydrological interferences and land use or industrial practices. A wetland of national importance only

3 Szijj, J. 1972. Some suggested criteria for determining the international importance of wetlands in the western Palearctic. Proceedings of the international conference on conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, Ramsar, Iran, 30 January - 3 February 1971: 111-119.

5


could be considered to be of international importance if it formed a complex with an adjacent wetland of similar value on the other side of an international border.

The Heiligenhafen Criteria were discussed at the next international conference, organized by the IWRB at Alushta, Crimea, in 1976. It was felt that a special conference solely on this subject was needed. A "technical meeting on the evaluation of wetlands from a conservation point of view" took place at Bad Godesberg in the Federal Republic of Germany the following year, under the auspices of the IWRB and ICBP. The meeting stressed4 that criteria should be concerned with the scientific basis of selection between sites and not with the feasibility of conservation. The fourth group of the Heiligenhafen Criteria formed a virtual escape clause for unenthusiastic bureaucrats or obstructive developers. It should be deleted.

The Bad-Godesberg meeting also hoped that concepts such as diversity, rarity and naturalness could be given quantitative bases. The criteria should be expanded to allow a more comprehensive evaluation of wetlands. The size of individual sites was less important than their viability as hydrological units. The amended criteria should be formally associated with the Convention, and guidelines produced for applying the criteria. The forum for implementing these suggestions would be the First Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, whose convening was, for many reasons, a matter of urgency.

The Cagliari Criteria

It was not until 1980, however, that the First Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties assembled in Cagliari, Sardinia. The Bad Godesberg suggestions were discussed and note taken of a long, detailed report "Criteria for selecting wetlands of international importance: proposed amendments and guidelines on use" prepared by IWRB (Atkinson-Willes, Scott and Prater5). A working group was established and reported back to the Conference, which accepted Recommendation 1.4, the revised set of criteria. These were recorded as an Annex (II) to the report of the Conference. There were three groups of criteria by which a wetland should be considered internationally important:

1. Quantitative criteria for importance to waterfowl. The wetland should regularly support 10,000 ducks, geese, swans; or 10,000 coots or 20,000 waders; or 1% of the individuals or 1% of the breeding pairs in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.

2. General criteria for importance to plants or animals. The wetland should support an appreciable number of a rare, vulnerable or endangered species or sub-species; or be of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality or peculiarities of its fauna and flora or as the habitat for species at a critical stage of their biological cycles or for endemic species or communities.

3. Criteria for assessing representative or unique wetlands. The wetland should be a particularly good example of a specific type of wetland characteristic of its region.

The meaning of the various terms used was explained in the IWRB paper and, of course, should be included in a set of guidelines. However, the Conference, rather than issue these itself, called on the IUCN and IWRB to develop them.

The Conference had thus eliminated the Heiligenhafen Group 4 criteria on feasibility. These, it recognized, had blurred the distinction between the evaluation/identification process and the political

4 The conference conclusions are included at Annex A of Atkinson-Willes et al. (1982) — Appendix 1 of this report.

5 Reproduced at Appendix 2 of this report.

6


decision needed to designate a site for the Ramsar List, which was the prerogative of the State. For this reason, too, the Conference did not favour an accredited body of experts to approve a site offered for designation (as for the World Heritage Convention). It did accept the argument that Group 3 of the Heiligenhafen Criteria, concerning education and research, should be omitted, since such matters were not mentioned in the Article (2.2) of the Convention setting out the aspects to be considered in selecting wetlands. The value of education and research should be explained in the proposed guidelines, and taken into consideration when a State is making its decision to designate.

Contributions from Groningen

The Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Groningen, Netherlands, 1984) asked (Recommendation 2.3) for the "expansion of the existing Cagliari Criteria to cover also ecological factors concerning life other than waterfowl". In addition, there was general acceptance for an amendment to the Convention text, which would set up an "Annex to the Convention, which forms an integral part thereof, which shall list criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance and such other criteria, standards, and procedures as may be subsequently listed by the Conference of the Contracting Parties". A Task Force was established which was, among other things, to elaborate proposed amendments to the text and report to the next Conference.

The Regina Criteria

The Task Force, meeting in the Hague, Netherlands, in 1985, agreed upon a minimal package of crucial amendments, but not including the placing of an annex of criteria and guidelines in an Annex to the Convention. This was therefore not discussed at the Extraordinary Conference of the Contracting Parties (Regina, Canada, 1987) at which certain amendments were accepted.

However, the Third (Ordinary) Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties; held concurrently at the same place, did have a workshop on "Criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance". This considered a number of closely-argued papers concerning the situation in northern countries and peatlands, and criteria concerning plants, amphibians, reptiles, fish and insects. Only minor changes to the wording of the Cagliari Criteria finally emerged, while a proposal to introduce a group of socio-economical criteria was rejected. It was another workshop, on "Flyways and reserve networks", which proposed that the order of the three groups of the Cagliari Criteria be reversed, so that representative or unique wetlands came first and the waterfowl came last. This deliberately shifted the emphasis on to the wetlands themselves, the words in the Convention title "especially as Waterfowl Habitat", inserted at Soviet insistence, now being recognized by all as unnecessarily limiting the Convention's scope.

The Conference (Recommendation C.3.1) required that the revised and re-ordered criteria be included in an Annex to its Recommendations. They were:

1. Criteria for assessing representative or unique wetlands. The wording was precisely as for Cagliari.

2. General criteria using plants or animals. The wording was but little changed from Cagliari.

3. Specific criteria using waterfowl. A round figure of 20,000 waterfowl was substituted; the 1% level for breeding pairs was omitted; an added criterion was the regular support of substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity.

The wording of the revised criteria thus departed little from the Cagliari formulation. Five guidelines were offered in connection with Criterion 1. The most novel suggested that developing countries could designate a wetland which "because of its outstanding hydrological, biological or ecological role, is of substantial socio-economic and cultural value within the framework of sustainable use and

7


habitat conservation". The Conference did not take a final position on criteria and guidelines; instead it established yet another working group to consider them.

The Montreux Criteria

The working group met in Costa Rica in 1988, and their report was circulated to Contracting Parties in 1989 and revised according to comments received. This revision was adopted in 1990 by the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (Montreux, Switzerland). The following "Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance" formed Annex I to Recommendation C.4.2.

The wetland identified must meet at least one of criteria below:

1. Criteria for representative or unique wetlands

A wetland should be considered internationally important if:

(a) it is a particularly good representative example of a natural or near-natural wetland, characteristic of the appropriate biogeographical region; or

(b) it is a particularly good representative example of a natural or near-natural wetland, common to more than one biogeographical region; or

(c) it is a particularly good representative example of a wetland, which plays a substantial hydrological, biological or ecological role in the natural functioning of a major river basin or coastal system, especially when it is located in a transborder position; or

(d) it is an example of a specific type of wetland, rare or unusual in the appropriate biogeographical region.

2. General criteria based on plants or animals


(a) it supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or sub-species of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one or more of these species; or

(b) it is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna; or

(c) it is of special value as the habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycle; or

(d) it is of special value for one or more endemic plant or animal species or communities.

3. Specific criteria based on waterfowl


(a) it regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl; or

(b) it regularly supports substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity; or

(c) where data on populations are available, it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or sub-species of waterfowl.

8


Guidelines for application of the criteria

Somewhat condensed, these were:

(a) Under Criterion 1(c) the wetland could also be of substantial value in supporting human communities by the provision of food, fibre or fuel; maintaining cultural values; supporting food chains, water quality, flood control or climate stability. Such support should not undermine sustainable use and habitat conservation or change the ecological character.

(b) For all criteria, conformation with special regional guidelines would be acceptable where particular groups of species other than waterfowl were a suitable basis or where animals do not occur in large concentrations (northern latitudes) or where collection of data is difficult (very large countries).

(c) The attempt to define "particular groups of waterfowl" in Criterion 3 (b) has been criticized earlier in this chapter.

(d) It was not possible to define the size of the area in which given numbers of waterfowl should occur to qualify under Criteria 3. The wetland should form an ecological unit, which may be one large area or a group of smaller ones. The turnover of waterfowl on a migration should also be considered so that a cumulative total of birds supported annually can be reached.

The Conference further recommended "that, as far as possible, further amendments to these criteria be avoided so as to facilitate a definite basis for uniform application of the Convention". The reader of this chapter will, no doubt, agree."

Geoffrey Matthews' desire for stability of criteria has been largely realised, in that subsequent to CoP 6, modifications to the criteria have generally related either to whole additions (e.g. two new criteria related to fish and fisheries adopted at CoP 6) and re-ordering, rather than minor changes of wording (and thus definition). Changes since 1989 are summarised below.

2.2 CoP 6, Brisbane, AustraliaThe sixth Conference of the Parties saw no further modifications to the existing Criteria agreed at Montreux. However, CoP 5 (Kushiro, 1993) had recommended6:

"… that criteria and guidelines be developed on the importance of wetlands for fishes, both as regards biodiversity and fishery yields, and taking into account the wise use principle so that fisheries shall have no negative impact on the wetlands;

INSTRUCTS the Convention Bureau, in cooperation with appropriate experts from the Contracting Parties, partner organisations and the Scientific and Technical Review Panel, to formulate proposals on criteria to be used when identifying wetlands of international importance as fish habitats or as a nursery for fisheries, including offshore fisheries, and to develop guidelines for the application of such criteria;"

The results of this work were presented to CoP 6 (Brisbane, 1996) which agreed (Resolution 6.2) two further Criteria (4a and 4b) and associated guidelines. At the same time CoP 6 felt the time had come for a more comprehensive review of the criteria and accordingly (Resolution 6.3) requested:

"… the STRP, in cooperation with relevant experts and partner organizations, and with the assistance of the Bureau, to review the existing criteria and revise the guidelines in the light of Operational Objective 6.3 of the Strategic Plan, of

6 Recommendation 5.9. Recommendation on the establishment of Ramsar guidelines on wetlands of international importance as fish habitat.

9


discussions at Technical Session E, and of recommendations on wetland types currently under-represented on the Ramsar List;

CALLS ON the STRP in their work to take into account cultural values and/or benefits derived from wetlands;

FURTHER REQUESTS that the results of this review be presented to the Standing Committee and submitted for consideration and possible approval to the 7th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties; and

DIRECTS the STRP to consider the feasibility of designating Ramsar sites on the basis of important natural hydrological functions, such as groundwater recharge or water quality improvement."

2.3 CoP 7, San José, Costa RicaThe results of STRP's review were presented to CoP 7 as a 'Strategic Framework for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance' (Resolution 7.11). In this document, the Convention expounded a clear long-term vision for the development of the Ramsar List for the first time, with objectives and short-term targets. Revised criteria were presented alongside comprehensively updated guidance for their application (Ramsar Bureau 2000).

The STRP proposals were to quite radically re-arrange (and simplify) the criteria into two groups as follows:

Criteria post-CoP 6 CoP 7 proposals

Group A Sites containing representative, rare or unique wetland types

Criterion 1 Criterion for representative, rare or unique wetland types

Criterion 1 Criterion for representative, rare or unique wetland types

Group B Sites of importance for conserving global biological diversity

Criterion 2 General criteria based on plants or animals

Criterion 3 Specific criteria based on waterfowl

Criterion 4 Specific criteria based on fish

Criteria 2, 3 & 4 Criteria based on species and ecological communities

Criteria 5 & 6 Specific criteria based on waterbirds

Criteria 7 & 8 Specific criteria based on fish

The CoP 7 changes saw a simplification of the wording of the criteria, with some conceptual material moved from within individual criteria to the guidelines. In particular, Criterion 1 was markedly simplified (Table 1).

2.4 CoP 8, Valencia, Spain to CoP 9, Kampala, UgandaNo changes were made to the Criteria at CoP 8, although many Contracting Parties expressed a wish to push forward the development of criteria related to wetlands of relevant cultural values and sustainable socio-economic importance. Others were more hesitant, especially given uncertainties as to the policy implications of adopting such proposals. Accordingly, Resolution 8.10 instructed STRP:

"… with the assistance of the Ramsar Bureau, interested Contracting Parties, and other relevant organizations to develop, for consideration at COP9, additional criteria and guidelines for the identification and designation of Ramsar sites concerning socio-economic and cultural values and functions that are relevant to biological

10


diversity, as listed in Annex 1 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which would be applied on each occasion in conjunction with one or more existing criteria for the identification and designation of Ramsar sites; and to include in this work a full analysis of the implications for Contracting Parties of the implementation of such criteria for the management of Ramsar sites, including Contracting Party obligations and responsibilities for maintaining the ecological character of any such sites so selected;"

In a further development, and subsequent to Ramsar's CoP 8, CoP 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (February 2004, The Hague), in Decision VII/4 (paragraph 29) inter alia invited:

"… the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention and the Scientific and Technical Review Panel of the Ramsar Convention, in collaboration with the Executive Secretary and the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, respectively, and in line with paragraph 30 of Resolution VIII.10 of the Conference of the Parties to the Ramsar Convention, and with a view to achieving a more comprehensive coverage of components of biological diversity through the designation of Ramsar sites:

(a) To further elaborate the guidelines on existing criteria for the following features:

(i) wetlands supporting wild relatives of domesticated or cultivated species;

(ii) wetlands that support species or communities and genomes or genes of economic, social, scientific or cultural importance;

(iii) wetlands supporting species or communities that are important for research into the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity including indicators of ecosystem health and integrity; and

(iv) wetlands that support important populations of taxonomic groups with wetland-dependent species, including, inter alia, amphibians;

(b) To consider the development of additional criteria, including, as appropriate, quantitative criteria;

(c) To develop guidelines on the geographical scale at which criteria should be applied."

2.5 General trendsReviewing this history and the background papers discussed by the earlier Ramsar Conference of Parties (CoPs) (especially those reproduced in Appendices 1-6) highlights a number of trends:

1. a conceptual broadening of the site-selection criteria away from an initial focus on waterbirds;

2. a progressive simplification of criteria related to waterbirds in order to encourage Ramsar site designations for other wetland biodiversity; and

3. regular consideration of the potential for quantitative approaches to criteria for non-avian taxa (notably at CoP 4 and CoP 5), including the request from CBD to this end.

11

DRAFT20 November 2005Table 1. A chronological summary of the evolution of Ramsar's site selection criteria. Criteria are arranged according to their conceptual similarity, rather than their published sequence.

Heiligenhafen Conference, 1974 (not a formal CoP)

CoP 1 Cagliari, 1980

CoP 3, Regina, 1986 CoP 4, Montreux, 1989 Additions made at CoP 6, Brisbane, 1996

Revisions made at CoP 7, San José, 1999

Changes proposed at CoP 9, Uganda, 2005

1. Criteria pertaining to a wetland's importance to populations and species.


1. Quantitative criteria for identifying wetlands of importance to waterfowl.

A wetland should be considered internationally important if it:

3. Specific criteria for using waterfowl to identify wetlands of international importance.

A wetland should be considered inter-nationally important if:


A wetland should be considered inter-nationally important if:

(ii) regularly supports either 10,000 ducks, geese and swans; or 10,000 coots; or 20,000 waders, or

a. regularly supports either 10,000 ducks, geese and swans; or 10,000 coots; or 20,000 waders;

(a) it regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl;

(a) it regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl; or

Criterion 5: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds.

(b) it regularly supports substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity;

(b) it regularly supports substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity; or

(i) regularly supports 1% (being at least 100 individuals) of the flyway or biogeographical population of one species of waterfowl, or

b. regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl;



Criterion 6: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird.

12

DRAFT20 November 2005Heiligenhafen Conference,

1974 (not a formal CoP)CoP 1 Cagliari,

1980CoP 3, Regina, 1986 CoP 4, Montreux, 1989 Additions made at

CoP 6, Brisbane, 1996Revisions made at CoP 7,

San José, 1999Changes proposed at CoP 9, Uganda, 2005

c. regularly supports 1% of the breeding pairs in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.

Criterion 9: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species.

2. General criteria for identifying wetlands of importance to plants or animals.


2. General criteria for using plants or animals to identify wetlands of importance.




((ii) supports an appreciable number of an endangered species of plant or animal, or

a. supports an appreciable number of a rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal;

(a) it supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one or more of these species; or

(a) it supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or sub-species of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one or more of these species; or

Criterion 2: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.

(iv) is of special value for maintaining genetic and ecological diversity because of the quality and

b. is of special value for maintaining the genetic and

(b) it is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity

(b) it is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of

Criterion 3: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports populations of plant and/or

13






peculiarities of its flora and fauna, or

ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna;

of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna; or

the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna; or

animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region.

c. is of special value as the habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycles;



Criterion 4: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions.

d. is of special value for its endemic plant or animal species or communities.



(v) plays a major rôle in its region as the habitat of plants and of aquatic and other animals of scientific or economic importance.

Criterion 4: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it:

Criterion 7: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish subspecies, species or families, life-history stages, species interactions and/or populations that are representative of wetland benefits and/or values and thereby contributes to global biological diversity.

a) supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish subspecies, species or families, life-history stages, species interactions and/or populations that are representative of wetland benefits and/or values and thereby contributes to global biological diversity.

b) if it is an important source of food for fishes, spawning

Criterion 8: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is an

14






ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, depend.

important source of food for fishes, spawning ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, depend.

2. Criteria concerned with the selection of representative or unique wetlands


(i) is a representative example of a wetland community characteristic of its biogeographic region, or

3. Criteria for assessing the value of representative or unique wetlands.

A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is a particularly good example of a specific type of wetland characteristic of its region.





(a) it is a particularly good representative example of a natural or near-natural wetland, characteristic of the appropriate biogeographical region; or

Criterion 1: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare, or unique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region.

Criterion 1. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare, or unique example of a natural or most-natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region.

(b) it is a particularly good representative example of a natural or near-natural wetland, common to more than one biogeographical region; or

(c) it is a particularly good representative example of a wetland, which plays a substantial hydrological, biological or ecological role in the natural functioning of a major river basin or coastal system, especially when it is located in a transborder position; or

(d) it is an example of a specific type of wetland, rare or unusual in the appropriate

15






biogeographical region.

(ii) exemplifies a critical stage or extreme in biological or hydromorphological processes, or

(iii) is an integral part of a peculiar physical feature.

3. Criteria concerned with the research, educational or recreational values of wetlands


(i) is outstandingly important, well-situated and well-equipped for scientific research and for education, or

(ii) is well-studied and documented over many years, with a continuing programme of research of high value, regularly published and contributed to by the scientific community, or

(iii) offers especial opportunities for promoting public understanding and appreciation of wetlands, open to people from several countries.

16






4. Criteria concerned with the practicality of conservation and management

Notwithstanding its fitness to be considered as internationally important on one of the Criteria set out under 1, 2 and 3 above, a wetland should only be designated for inclusion in the List of the Ramsar Convention if it:

(i) is physically and administratively capable of being effectively conserved and managed, or

(ii) is free from the threat of a major impact of external pollution, hydrological interferences and land use or industrial practises.

A wetland of national value only may nevertheless be considered of international importance if it forms a complex with another adjacent wetland of similar value across an international border.

17


3. Development of future quantitative approaches for non-avian taxa

3.1 MandateRamsar's "1%" criterion (Criterion 6) has been an effective and widely adopted means of identifying wetlands of international importance for waterbirds since its adoption early (1974) in the life of the Convention (Atkinson-Willes et al. 1980; Appendix 1). There is, however, no fundamental biological reason to take 1% of a population of waterbirds as the threshold level for establishing the international importance of a site. However, this percentage has been found by long experience and evaluation to give an appropriate degree of protection to waterbird populations and to assist in the definition of ecologically sensible sites As well as formal adoption by Ramsar's Contracting Parties, the criterion has gained wide acceptance throughout the world notably through BirdLife International's adoption of it as a criterion for the selection of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) (e.g. Grimmett & Jones 1989 and other subsequent IBA reviews), as well as in a wide range of other conservation science contexts.

The criterion works only for those waterbirds that tend to concentrate (Atkinson-Willes et al. 1980; pp. [56-58] below). This is also a desirable feature because those species that congregate will, by definition, be those dependent on a relatively small proportion of the total territory and therefore be vulnerable to changes on that limited area. Aggregating species tend to be those with specialised ecological requirements which will usually be met at a limited number of locations that are traditionally (regularly) used.

The application of this criterion depends both on having data on numbers of waterbirds using a particular site, and on being able to calculate the proportion that this comprises of an overall biogeographic (international) population.

Noting in particular the application of similar quantitative approaches elsewhere, (e.g. in Europe by the CORINE inventory of sites of European importance7 (Moss et al. 1995) and PlantLife International (REF), and in Australia8 (Environment Australia 2001), the question has been posed: if such an approach has clearly been an effective tool in the identification and designation of sites of importance for waterbirds, could it not be similarly effective for non-avian aquatic taxa??

Following a request from CBD CoP 7 for Ramsar to further elaborate criteria and guidelines for non-avian tax " with a view to achieving a more comprehensive coverage of components of biological diversity through the designation of Ramsar sites" (see section 3.4 above), STRP undertook to explore in its work programme for 2003-2005 whether it is feasible to extend the potential for quantitative (e.g. 1%) criterion to other taxa, probably in the first instance to large wetland animals. This also followed from previous reviews of the potential for non-avian quantitative criteria at Ramsar’s CoP 3 in 1986 (UK Nature Conservancy Council 1987 - Appendix 2), CoP 4 in 1990 (Stuart 1990 - Appendix 3) and CoP5 in 1993 (Giménez-Dixon 1993 - Appendix 6).

3.2 International consultationAccordingly, in July 2004, STRP undertook an international consultation on issues that might be raised by the development of such a quantitative criterion for non-avian taxa, in particular, seeking views on the following issues:

The feasibility of such a site selection criterion for large wetland animals? Any reasons why it might not work as effectively as for waterbirds? Possible pitfalls in application?

What taxa might be suitable/unsuitable for inclusion? (and why?)

What is the availability of data to support such a criterion? Do sufficient data exist at site and population scales to make the application of such a criterion effective? Any particular issues in data interpretation?

7 where sites of importance for species at a Community level were defined as those holding "at least 1% of the Community population of a threatened species."

8 where a wetland is considered nationally important if, inter alia, it "supports 1% or more of the national populations of any native plant or animal taxa."

18


What sort of guidance might be necessary to accompany a criterion such as this and to aid its application?

This consultation raised a number of issues which are summarised in Table 1.

Table 2. A summary of issues related to the development of a quantitative criterion for non-avian wetland animals.

Issue ObservationIt is important that Ramsar sites should be selected for non-avian taxa

This is already possible under Criteria 2-4. The issue is whether these give sufficient flexibility to identify internationally important wetlands for individual species.

Data are not likely to be available on population sizes for all non-avian taxa

Such estimates are also unavailable for many waterbird populations – but this does not invalidate the quantitative approach of Criterion 6 where such data are available.

Many non-avian wetland species are non-congregatory

In these cases, few/no sites would be selected by a quantitative approach. Any criterion would only select ‘top’ sites in highly congregatory situations. Many waterbirds are also non-congregatory.

Criterion 5 & 6 only favours selection of sites for large, iconic species to the detriment of recognition of other wetland values

If a key element of conservation is influencing decision-makers and the public, then maybe selection of sites for iconic (‘flagship’) species is a positive rather than negative factor – as long as conservationists remain aware of a wetland's other values (and these are always fully integrated within a site's management planning).

There is no need for quantitative non-avian criterion since the presence if important waterbird concentrations (Criteria 5 & 6) already identifies ‘top’ wetlands for other wetland taxa

Has this ever been formally shown? How robust is this assumption?

Almost certainly there are some wetland types important for non-avian taxa that are unimportant for waterbirds (or at least would not qualify under Criteria 5 or 6) such as turtle nesting beaches and some rivers.

Definition of ‘regular support’ might be difficult given the diverse range of life-history strategies exhibited by different non-avian taxa (also related to the issue of variable climate resulting in intermittent use of some wetlands by mobile species)

This could be addressed through additional associated guidance.

Abundance estimation for some non-avian species is typically through population indices (based e.g. on standardised encounter rates) rather than absolute population assessment

It may not be possible to apply a 1% threshold in these contexts.

Population estimates for many non-avian taxa are not precise and it is only possible to estimate abundance within a range of values.

This is equally true for waterbirds. In such circumstances 1% thresholds are typically set either on the mid-point of the range where these are based on more precise means of estimation, or more conservatively on the upper range value, where the

19


Issue Observationunderlying data are of poorer quality.

For some non-avian taxa (e.g. crocodiles) juveniles are difficult to see/count and population estimates generally relate to mature/reproductively active adults only

Doesn’t invalidate a quantitative criterion as long as the same units are used throughout (i.e. site assessments are made in terms of ‘mature adults’ as also is estimation of the respective biogeographic population).

Why restrict to the larger fauna? Is this a new culturally centred Criterion?

The rationale for suggesting a restriction to large species is that it is more likely that there will be quantitative data for these species. It is less likely that there are good site and population assessment for smaller species (although of course this is not always true!). It clearly does not imply any lesser importance of smaller species. If formally developed, this would be an additional biodiversity criterion.

Such a criterion would not apply in country X which has no large aquatic fauna

This would not negate its application in other countries where it large aquatic animals did occur.

Many non-avian taxa are non migratory Criterion 6 applies equally to non-migratory waterbirds.

Difficult to apply in coastal areas or large embayments as populations of marine mammals are not ‘closed’ in these areas

Site selection under Ramsar is probably not the best approach in these areas in any case. Indeed, the Convention is only really applicable in shallow and inshore marine areas.

1% thresholds for different species would need to be carefully evaluated and quality-controlled

An analogous process exists with Wetlands International’s production of the global review of Waterbird Population Estimates for every Ramsar CoP. Something similar could be developed (possibly led by IUCN’s Specialist Groups) for non-avian taxa learning from this experience.

Sites qualifying under Criterion 6 should also qualify under other biodiversity criteria (notably Criterion 3: “...supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region” and Criterion 4: “...if it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions.”) – and are therefore logically redundant

This is possibly true, but the benefit of Criterion 6 is that, through its quantitative approach, it is easy to apply to existing datasets on waterbirds and accordingly gives high profile to qualifying sites — encouraging their ready inclusion in inventories of qualifying sites (such as the Directories of Internationally Important Wetlands and inventories of Important Bird Areas).

It also readily identifies features (species) of international importance on sites and thus aids management planning processes (particularly objective setting), and the encouragement of wise-use policies.

Some of the issues raise highlighted that understanding of the application of Criterion 6 is often poor, since the application of that criterion is often constrained in identical ways to problems raised related to a potential quantitative criterion for non-avian taxa.

It will work effectively in some circumstances (for some species) and be ineffective in others (certainly for similar reasons, but probably others as well). However, its lack of complete efficiency is not a

20


fundamental problem: complete efficiency for all non-avian species would not be expected, as similarly, Criterion 6 is not effective for all waterbirds (Table 3).

The key question is – would a quantitative criterion be useful in identifying sites otherwise not effectively selected under other criteria? Is it a useful addition to the Ramsar site-selection tool-kit?

To recall – its basic requirements are:

Site-related data on abundance

Assessment of biogeographic population sizes (but not necessarily to very high levels of precision – which is impossible in most cases, other than for very rare species).

One approach that might be explored for non-avian taxa is a general quantitative criterion linked to an Annex listing those species/populations to which the criteria relates and giving estimates of respective population sizes and derived 1% thresholds. Such an Annex would be administratively simple to update at each CoP both in terms of revision of data on species already listed, as well as the addition of new species and populations for which new information has become available.

In the first instance, the Annex – which would define the taxonomic scope of any new criterion – might be restricted to non-avian taxa with high conservation status (i.e. those species or populations listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered by IUCN9 and possibly other appropriate listings such as CMS Appendices).

3.3 Other examples of quantitative approaches to protected site selectionAustrialia

UK SSSI

SA

CORINE

3.4 Some taxa where a quantitative approach to site-selection may be useful

Table 4 (placed at the end of the main text) summarises population estimates and sources for a number of wetland taxa where the application of a quantitative criteria for identification of internationally important wetlands may be appropriate. In particular, this includes groups such as wetland antelopes, river dolphins, some turtle populations and hippopotamus species.

9 In this context, such a new criterion might be seen as a logical adjunct to existing Criterion 2.

21

DRAFT13 April 2005

Table 3. Limits to the effectiveness of Criterion 6.

Criterion 6 “works well for some waterbird species in some circumstances”. It is not universally applicable.

Circumstances where Criterion 6 is effective in identifying wetlands of importance for waterbirds include:

where species are congregatory (year-round); and

where seasonal concentrations occur (typically, as aggregations in the non-breeding season).

Circumstances where Criterion 6 is ineffective in identifying wetlands of importance for waterbirds include for:

dispersed species which occur at low-density (sea-ducks, rocky-shore shorebirds); and at times of year when congregatory species are dispersed (typically breeding seasons e.g. on

breeding grounds where birds can be widely dispersed at low densities)

In circumstances where Criterion 6 is ineffective, conservation of waterbird habitats can be undertaken either through use of other site-selection criteria to select sites of importance (Criteria 2-4), or conservation can be delivered through other national or international conservation policies (e.g. ‘wider countryside’ policies aimed at encouraging appropriate land-uses).

Two other features of the use of Criterion 6 have also been recognised:

Because of differing ecological requirements of sites selected for individual species of waterbirds, collectively a network of sites so identified can hold a high proportion of the total waterbird resource (i.e. often sites holding >1% of one species will also hold significant numbers of several other species albeit at less than 1% on each site).

There seems a widespread mis-understanding that Criterion 6 (and 5) are the only site selection criteria applicable to waterbirds (also that these relate only to migratory waterbirds). However, other criteria can and should be used to identify important wetlands for those waterbirds of conservation importance occurring at low densities or in low numbers (as indeed is stressed by Ramsar’s Strategic Framework, see para. 38).

3.5 STRP conclusionsSTRP's assessment concluded that a 1% criterion for certain non-avian taxa would be a feasible, and useful, addition to Ramsar's site selection criteria.

A key element to the success of Criterion 6 for waterbirds has been the availability of peer-reviewed assessment of the size of biogeographic populations. These reviews were considered in an ad hoc way at early Ramsar CoPs. An international workshop in 1995 made recommendations as to the formalization of the review process, and these were endorsed by CoP6 in 1996 (Resolution VI.4). The Waterbird Population Estimates series published in 1994, 1997 and 2002 by Wetlands International, have since provided a global collation of waterbird population sizes and recommended 1% thresholds for use in the application of Criterion 6. Waterbird Population Estimates is proposed to be updated for each CoP as a standing report in the context of Article 6.2(e) of the Convention.

Two important principles are that:

as for the waterbird 1% thresholds, it is important that for greatest cost-effectiveness any process established to support a new Criterion 9 should capitalise on existing international data collection and collation mechanisms for the relevant taxa; and that

22

DRAFT13 April 2005

any newly established processes should follow general principles already established with respect to update processes for Criterion 6 1% thresholds (e.g. the importance of consultation and peer-review prior to adoption, audit trails for data sources, and frequency of update).

3.6 Recommended process

1. Adoption at CoP9 of a new Criterion 9 for the selection of wetlands of international importance on the basis of their importance for 1% of a biogeographical population of certain non-avian taxa which are listed in a new appendix of the Strategic Framework. The content of the Appendix will accordingly be restricted to a selection of wetland dependent fauna.

2. For CoP 10, the production (by IUCN-Species Survival Commission's Specialist Groups and co-ordinated by STRP) of a significantly expanded Appendix.

a. The content of the Appendix will thus define the taxonomic scope of the proposed new criterion.

b. This Appendix would be updated at each future CoP both in terms of revision of data on species and populations already listed, as well as the addition of new species and populations for which new data and information has become available. As for Waterbird Population Estimates, this update process would include international consultation as to the best available estimates for the taxa concerned - and thus be internationally peer-reviewed.

c. It is envisaged that IUCN-SSC and its Specialist Groups would take a leading rôle in this triennial update process as follows:

i. Where new data become available, there are now annual updates of the IUCN Red-List using evaluations undertaken by IUCN-SSC SGs. There is a decadal process to systematically review and update status information on major taxonomic groups (e.g. mammals, amphibians). This update frequency is similar to the nine year update cycle established by Ramsar for waterbird 1% thresholds.

ii. Information supporting IUCN's review process should be available via its Species Information Service, which will represent an internationally peer-reviewed source of 'best-estimates' derived from relevant Specialist Groups.

iii. Although currently under development, IUCN's SIS will be in a position to output relevant estimates in advance of Ramsar CoPs for the CoP10 update of Criterion 9's Appendix.

iv. A small amount of time will be required to handle co-ordination of the update process for the Appendix in terms of receiving and publishing outputs already collated by the SIS a suitable period in advance of a CoP. This can be assumed as an ongoing STRP task.

v. There are a range of options for the publication of population data to support Criterion 9 ranging from minimal cost (a web-published pdf list) to more expensive hard-copy publication (c.f. Waterbird Population Estimates). Dissemination of supporting estimates and thresholds via a web-published, minimally formatted Ramsar Technical Report is recommended so as to ensure operational support costs and minimised.

23

DRAFT13 April 2005

4. Development of criteria for relevant cultural and sustainable socio-economic criteria

4.1 BackgroundThe potential development of criteria for the selection of Ramsar sites on ground of cultural and/or socio-economic importance has been historically contentious for the Convention. The issue has been raised at most Conferences of the Parties, since at least CoP 3 (Regina, 1987), but most notably at CoP 6 in Brisbane, CoP 7 in San José and most recently at CoP 8 in Valencia. The STRP considered the issue in the triennium 1996-1999 but were unable to reach a conclusion.

With the broadening of the agenda of the Convention in the early 1990s towards more holistic approaches to wetland conservation, and most recently (late 1990s to the present) into the arena of sustainable development, selection of Ramsar sites on the basis of their cultural and/or sustainable socio-economic importance has been seen as important to highlight the ecological support (values and functions) that wetlands give to the human communities dependent upon them, or vice versa. The maintenance of the ecological interest of many wetlands depends also on the maintenance of traditional forms of management, often closely linked to local or traditional cultures (e.g. salinas, low-intensity pastoralism; traditional reed-cutting etc.). It is desirable that such management should be maintained as an important element of the wise-use of the site.

CoP 8 had the benefit of a detailed information paper on culture and wetlands (CoP 8 Doc 15) and a discussion paper on the issues (CoP 8 Doc 31) which had been prepared following a decision of the Standing Committee in December 2001 “to have a broad-ranging discussion on the role of cultural and socio-economic issues in the Convention, and on how to enhance that role, and requested the preparation of a discussion document to facilitate talks at COP8.” (Decision SC26-14).

4.2 Drivers for development of cultural and socio-economic criteriaSome of the issues concerning the development of cultural and socio-economic criteria for Ramsar sites have been:

Perceived benefits: With the broadening of the agenda of the Convention in the early 1990s towards more holistic

approaches to wetland conservation, and most recently (late 1990s to the present) into the arena of sustainable development, selection of Ramsar sites on the basis of their cultural and/or (traditional) socio-economic importance has been seen as important to highlight the ecological support (values and functions) that wetlands give to the human communities dependent upon them.

Maintenance of the ecological interest of many wetlands depends also on the maintenance of traditional forms of management, often closely linked to local or traditional cultures (e.g. salinas, low-intensity pastoralism; traditional reed-cutting etc.). It is desirable that such management should be maintained as an important element of the wise-use of the site.

“The importance of the cultural values of wetlands may broaden their appeal to significant sectors of society not initially concerned with nature conservation. These include not only specialists in the various forms of culture, from archaeology to music, but also the considerable segment of the wider public interested in culture. In this way, powerful alliances can be created, which would be of benefit to both sides.” (CoP8, Doc. 15)

“Culture is part of their tradition and social identity of local communities, and more particularly indigenous people. A fuller recognition of the significance, and sometimes the uniqueness, of the cultural values of wetlands should increase their self-esteem and their readiness to safeguard particular sites, and especially Ramsar sites. Experience throughout the world has shown that the conservation and wise use of wetlands depends to a considerable degree on the links of local populations to them. Enhancement of the cultural values, wherever they still exist, and efforts to preserve them where they are at risk of disappearing, can become a powerful tool in strengthening the links of local populations to their wetlands, their ‘sense of place’, and thus involve them actively in their conservation.” (CoP8, Doc.15)

24

DRAFT13 April 2005

Perceived concernsCultural criteria That the Wetlands Convention should maintain its primary focus on the delivery of biodiversity

conservation — albeit that where this can act a vehicle for delivery of sustainable development it should do. There are other international treaty mechanisms for protection of culturally important sites, notably the World Heritage Convention, and accordingly Ramsar should avoid re-inventing systems already adequately provided for elsewhere. There is risk of attention being spread too thinly with consequent loss of focus on delivery.

State (Contracting Party) obligations for a ‘cultural’ Ramsar site are unclear. How might the state intervene to maintain aspects of culture at a site that are essentially locally determined or maintained? This is especially of concern regarding the strict obligations assumed by Contracting Parties under Article 3.2 of the Convention (below).

Socio-economic criteria Similar concerns as to possible Contracting Party obligations also have been raised as to

‘socio-economic’ Ramsar sites – with uncertainty as to what these might entail.

“That such a socio-economic Criterion could allow room for abuse of the intent of designating a wetland as internationally important, for instance through claiming that a development causing damage to the ecological character of a wetland made the wetland internationally important because of the income and employment of people which it would generate.” (The view of the 1996-1999 STRP as reported in CoP8 Doc. 31)

“Concerns that criteria on socio-economic importance could lead to designation of sites which would not have any biodiversity features of international importance; and that such sites designated only for certain features of socio-economic importance could be highly degraded wetlands used solely, for example, for industrial purposes or where unsustainable exploitation of the wetland resources are occurring (e.g. excessive water abstraction leading to degradation of the ecological character of the wetland).” (CoP8 Doc. 31)

Resolution VIII.10 of CoP 8 achieved an uneasy consensus between these concerns and desires.

The consequence of that decision is that cultural and socio-economic criteria are proposed to be an adjunct to existing 'natural sciences' criteria and not a replacement of them. It is not expressed as such, but logically they might be viewed as a sort of ‘second tier’ of site-selection criteria, since it is envisaged that they cannot be applied in isolation.

4.2 Proposals for CoP 9In response to Resolution VIII.10, in the last three years, the STRP:

a) reviewed the potential for establishing new site selection criteria and guidelines related to the selection of Wetlands of International Importance on the basis of their cultural and socio-economic importance;

b) reviewed the obligations for Contracting Parties that might arise from such criteria; and

c) considered the issue of defining thresholds of international importance in this context.

The STRP assessed the potential for the development of an additional criterion or additional criteria for the identification and designation of Wetlands of International Importance, based upon their cultural and socio-economic importance.

This issue is complicated by the fact that many designated wetlands exist within landscapes in which people’s activities are influenced by the wetlands and their delivery of ecosystem services

25

DRAFT13 April 2005

(supporting, provisioning, regulating and/or cultural), and in which the wetlands themselves are influenced by the use of such services by dependent local communities (e.g., by forms of traditional management) at varying spatial and temporal scales, such that:

a) the ecological character of the wetland for which the site is selected as internationally important has developed as a result of cultural features or legacies; and

b) the maintenance of the ecological character of the wetland depends upon, or is influenced by, the interaction between human activities and the wetland’s biological, chemical, and physical components (for examples see Box 1).

BOX 1. Examples of Ramsar sites whose ecological character is dependent of the maintenance of cultural and related services

Algeria: Oasis de Ouled Saïd (Ramsar Site 1060; designated under Criterion 1 only). This oasis is a type of wetland rarely designated to the List of Wetlands of International Importance. Ouled Saïd Oasis, with its foggara channels and rational use of water, its ancestral social organization and its ancient ksar (medieval fortresses), is an example of the application of wise water management.

Australia: Narran Lake Nature Reserve (Ramsar site 995; designated under Criteria 1, 4 and 6).The Narran Lakes area has a very high traditional, as well as contemporary, social and spiritual significance to the Aboriginal people. Traditionally, the area was a common meeting place for a number of Aboriginal peoples. In present times, the lake area is used by local Aboriginal communities for educational purposes. There is widespread evidence of Aboriginal people’s long-term use of the area, with the traditional status of the lakes as a meeting place for the peoples in this region; “dreaming” paths which lead to the lakes; and Aboriginal people’s need for involvement with land which has largely unspoilt areas. A large number and variety of Aboriginal sites exist within the Narran Lake Nature Reserve, including shell middens, shell mounds, hearth sites with clay ovens, quarries, artefact scatters and scarred trees in a relatively natural environmental context.

Colombia: Laguna de la Cocha (Ramsar Site 1047; designated under Criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5).Largely made up of a volcanic lake and the surrounding highland Andean peatlands and forest, the site supports a diverse range of associated flora and fauna. Human uses include agriculture and aquaculture. The site has an important cultural value for the indigenous groups of the area, which consider it sacred and use it for purification and fertility. The archaeological values of the site are also considerable, as it was inhabited by Precolombian communities.

France: Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin, Baie des Veys (Ramsar Site 516 ; designated under Criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6). This is an exceptional wetland in terms of size and ecological diversity. It is a good representative example of a western European coastal wetland, with its wet meadows along the coast. Many habitats have maintained much of the ecological integrity they inherited from centuries of balancing between a natural environment and human activities

Sri Lanka: Annaiwilundawa Tanks Sanctuary (Ramsar Site 1078; designated under Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8). As an ancient cascading tank system that dates back to the 12th century, the site is a unique wetland to the Indian region. The ancient traditional rice fields that surround it also contribute to the maintenance of wetland biodiversity.

USA: Kawainui and Hamakua Marsh Complex (Ramsar Site 1460, designated under Criteria 1, 2, 3 and 8). Sacred to Hawaiians, Kawainui Marsh, the largest remaining emergent wetland in Hawaii and Hawaii’s largest ancient freshwater fishpond, is located in what was once the centre of a caldera of the Koolau shield volcano. The marsh contains archaeological and cultural resources, including ancient walled taro water gardens (lo’i) where fish were also cultivated. Kawainui Marsh stores surface water, providing flood protection for adjacent Kailua town.

26

DRAFT13 April 2005

The proposed updated definition of ‘ecological character’10 [CoP 9 Draft Resolution 1 Annex A] and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment synthesis report to the Ramsar Convention11 both highlight the rôle that wetlands play in providing a range of services to human populations. Ecosystems are complexes of living communities (including humans as an integral part) and the non-living environment (Ecosystem Components), interacting (through Ecological Processes) as a functional unit to provide various benefits to people (Ecological Services).

Ecosystem services include provisioning, regulating and cultural services that directly affect both people and the supporting services needed to maintain the other services (see Box 2). The current application of Criterion 1 recognizes this, through its specific guidance for the selection of wetlands of importance for hydrology — a response to Article 2.2 of the Convention which states that “wetlands should be selected for the List on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology.”

Thus Criterion 1 already encourages the selection of sites on the basis of ecosystem services, notably regulating services (hydrology) and supporting services (biodiversity), but the guidelines for the application of Criterion 1 adopted in the Annex to Resolution VII.11 do not cover consistently all types of ecosystem service listed in Box 2.

BOX 2. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) classification of ecosystem services in relation to wetlands (from MA Synthesis report. Wetlands and water: ecosystem service and human

well-being).

Ecosystem services include:

Provisioning services (including, for example, food, freshwater, biochemical products, genetic sources, fibre and fuel);

Regulating services (including, for example, climate regulation, hydrological regimes, reduction of natural hazard risks, pollution control and detoxification processes, and erosion protection);

Cultural services (including, for example, educational, aesthetic, recreational, spiritual and inspirational). Note that cultural services may include both material and non-material values, benefits and functions as described in Ramsar CoP 8 DOC. 15 (Cultural aspects of wetlands); and

Supporting services (including, for example, primary production, soil formation, pollination and nutrient cycling).

Note that the above terms include elements previously defined by the Ramsar Convention as either ‘values’, ‘functions’ or ‘services’, and that the use of the term ‘services’ are taken throughout this paper to include these other descriptors.

STRP considered that the selection of sites for their cultural and other services was already possible in the context of the application of Criterion 1, and guidance to explain this was been developed

It is worth recalling that these and related issues have been considered in relation to the application of Criterion 1 by previous Conferences of the Contracting Parties. Indeed, at CoP 4 in 1990 (Recommendation 4.2) the Parties adopted guidance concerning the application of Criterion 1 which explicitly refers to types of provisioning, cultural and regulating services, as follows:

“(a) A wetland could be considered of international importance under Criterion 1 if, because of its outstanding role in natural, biological, ecological or hydrological systems, it is of substantial value in supporting human communities dependent on the wetland. In this context, such support would include:

10 STRP and Standing Committee proposed to CoP 9 that “Ecological Character” is redefined as:“the combination of the ecosystem components, processes and services that characterize the wetland at a given point in time.” [COP 9 DR1 Annex A]

11 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. 68 pp.

27

DRAFT13 April 2005

- provision of food, fibre or fuel;

- or maintenance of cultural values;

- or support of food chains, water quality, flood control or climatic stability.

The support, in all its aspects, should remain within the framework of sustainable use and habitat conservation, and should not change the ecological character of the wetland.”

However, as part of the review by STRP of the criteria and revision of the guidelines called for in CoP 6 Resolution VI.3, which also called upon the STRP to take into account cultural values and/or benefits derived from wetlands, and which led to those adopted by CoP 7 as the Strategic Framework and guidelines for the further development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance (Resolution VII.11), this specific language was not retained.

Additional guidance was, however, provided (in paragraph 169 – Ramsar Handbook 7, 2nd edition) on hydrological importance (i.e. hydrological provisioning and regulating services sensu MA), picking up on some aspects of the Recommendation 4.2 guidance above.

Issues of cultural values and socio-economic activities are also implicitly recognized in Ramsar’s existing site selection guideline concerning the application of Criterion 1 (paragraph 168), particularly as it relates to the ecological rôle of wetlands:

“168. Objective 1 and, in particular 1.2 (paragraph 10 above), indicates that another consideration under this Criterion [1] is to give priority to those wetlands which play a substantial hydrological, biological or ecological role12 in the natural functioning of a major river basin or coastal system.”

Accordingly, STRP considered that there was benefit from more explicitly and consistently highlighting the existing possibilities for the selection of Ramsar sites for the full range of ecosystem services (which may include cultural values and sustainable socio-economic activities) through the application of Criterion 1. This would better reflect (for some wetlands) the mutual dependencies between ecosystem components, processes and services (including cultural values and socio-economic activities) that occur at wetlands without the need to develop a new site selection criterion.

Expanded guidance for application of Criterion 1 in this context was thus proposed in CoP 9 Draft Resolution 1 Annex B, notably in paragraphs A2 and A4.

4.3 Criterion 1 and highly modified landscapesCurrently, Criterion 1 uses the term “natural or near-natural wetland type” as the basis for selecting sites for designation. However, some countries now have only highly modified landscapes as a result of historical anthropogenic impacts. In these situations, there may be few, or no, natural or near-natural wetlands.

STRP are proposing to change the reference in Criterion 1 from “near-natural” to “most-natural” as follows:

Criterion 1: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare, or unique example of a natural or near- [most]-natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region.

This change emphasizes that Criterion 1 may still be applied within modified landscapes, but that its application should still be such as to select the ‘best’ available sites within any national area/biogeographic region of search, irrespective of absolute degree of naturalness (in the sense of

12 Bold emphasis added. Note that in this context the hydrological, biological, or ecological rôle referred to includes ecosystem components, processes and services amongst which are sustainable socio-economic activities and cultural values.

28

DRAFT13 April 2005

guideline paragraph 167.iii: “for each wetland type within each biogeographic region, identify for designation under the Convention those sites which provide the best examples”).

4.3 Outcome of CoP 9Discussion of cultural criteria at CoP 9 was, as at previous CoPs, intense, with a working group considering the issue throughout the conference. The conference conclusions were twofold:

to reject STRP proposals to modify Criterion 1 and new guidelines which would have stressed its potential scope for use as a means of highlighting the cultural importance of sites; and

to adopt a specific Resolution (IX.22) concerning cultural issues (Appendix Z) with compromise language agreed between Contracting Parties with differing views on this issue.

5. Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to all members of STRP's Working Group 4 (2002-2005) in developing much of the material presented here.

In particularly, I am most grateful to each of the following for their various inputs, data and advice: Isabel Beasley, Vincent van den Berk, the late Colin Bibby, John Bothwell, Peter Bridgewater, Montse Carbonell, Jane Claricoates, Nick Davidson, Brendan Edgar, Max Finlayson, Mariano Giménez-Dixon, Philippe Gerbeaux, Bruce Gray, Andy Green, Martin Harper, Ian Hepburn, Meinrad Kuettel, Geoff Larmour, Torsten Larsson, Rebecca Lewison, Trixi Madon, Randy Milton, Taej Mundkur, Tunde Ojei, William Oliver, Nick Pilcher, Christian Perennou, David Pritchard, Randall Reeves, Carmen Revenga, Chris Richmond, Paul Rose, Perran Ross, Tobias Salathe, Derek Scott, Matt Shardlow, Jean-Luc Solandt, the Steering Committee of the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group, Michelle Stevens, Doug Taylor, Huw Thomas and Maria José Viñals.

All provided help, information and comments, which I have attempted to summarise above, although any errors are mine.

6. References

Atkinson-Willes, G.L. 1976. The numerical distribution of ducks, swans and coots as a guide in assessing the importance of wetlands in midwinter. In: Proceedings of the international conference on the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, 2-6 December 1974, 199-254. Heiligenhafen, Federal Republic of Germany.

Atkinson-Willes, G.L., Scott, D.A. & Prater, A.J. 1982. Criteria for selecting wetlands of international importance. In: Proceedings of the conference on the conservation of wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat. Cagliari, Italy, 24-29 November 1980, pp. 1017-1042. Supplemento alle Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina, 81 (1). [Reprinted as Appendix 1 of this report]

Delany, S. & Scott, D. 2002. Waterbird population estimates. Third Edition. Wetlands International Global Series No. 12. 226 pp. {hyperlink}

Environment Australia 2001. A Directory of important wetlands in Australia. Environment Australia. Third edition. {hyperlink}

Giménez-Dixon, M. 1993. The Ramsar Convention and the conservation of non-waterfowl species. In: Proceedings of the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, Volume II, Annex 17; Pp. 449-467. Ramsar Bureau, Switzerland. [Reprinted as Appendix 6 of this report]

Grimmett, R.F.A. & Jones, T.A. 1989. Important bird areas in Europe. ICBP Technical Publication No. 9, Cambridge.

29

DRAFT13 April 2005

Hails, A.J. (ed.) Wetlands, biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention. The role of the Convention on Wetlands in the conservation and wise use of biodiversity. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland Switzerland. 196 pp. {hyperlink?}

Matthews, G.V.T. 1993. The Ramsar Convention on wetlands: its history and development. Pp. 47-52. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Switzerland. {www.ramsar.org/lib_hist_index.htm}

Moss, D., Wyatt, B., Cornaert, M.-H. & Roekaerts, M. 1991. CORINE biotopes. The design, compilation and use of an inventory of sites of major importance for nature conservation in the European Community. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 132 pp.

Ramsar Bureau 2000. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, Handbook 7. Designating Ramsar sites. Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance. Ramsar Bureau, Switzerland. XXX pp. {hyperlink?}

Rose, P.M. & Scott, D.A. 1994. Waterfowl population estimates. IWRB Special Publication 29. 102 pp. {hyperlink?}

Rose, P.M. & Scott, D.A. 1997. Waterfowl population estimates. Second Edition. IWRB Special Publication 44. 106 pp. {hyperlink?}

Stroud, D.A. 1996. Estimating international waterbird populations: use of Criterion 3(c). Pp. 37-44. In: Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands. Brisbane, Australia, 19-27 March 1996. Technical Sessions E and F. Ramsar Bureau, Switzerland.

Stuart, S. 1990. Applying the Ramsar criteria for species other than birds. In: Proceedings of the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, Volume II, Annex 4; Pp. 124-126. Ramsar Bureau, Switzerland. [Reprinted as Appendix 5 of this report]

Szijj, J. 1972. Some suggested criteria for determining the international importance of wetlands in the western Palearctic. In: Proceedings of the international conference on the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, Ramsar, Iran, 30 January – 3 February 1971, 111-119.

UK Nature Conservancy Council 1987. Development of criteria and guidelines for the identification of sites qualifying for Ramsar designation. In: Proceedings of the third meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention. Inf. C.3.7, Pp. 318-332. Ramsar Bureau, Switzerland. [Reprinted as Appendix 2 of this report]

30

DRAFT13 April 2005

Table 4. A preliminary list of population estimates and 1% thresholds for selected wetland-dependent fauna.

Population estimates for this initial list are available largely/only for globally-threatened species. It is intended that progressively, as information becomes available, the list will be extended to include population estimates for other wetland-dependent non-avian species, whether or not they are globally-threatened.

Where population ranges are given, 1% thresholds are derived from the mid-point of the range, other than for globally threatened species where they are derived, on a precautionary basis, from the range minimum.

Order Family Species Common name Population name Population estimate

Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Alligator mississippiensis

American Alligator Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Alligator sinensis Chinese Alligator World population 800-1,000 8 CR Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Caiman crocodilus Common Caiman Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

Common Caiman Orinoco, Ilanos, Amazon from Colombia through Brazil, N & E of Bolivia to Peru

Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Caiman crocodilus fuscus

Common Caiman Atlantic coastal drainage of Colombia to W Venezuela

Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Caiman crocodilus chiapasius

Common Caiman C America, Mexico to Pacific Colombia to Gulf of Uruba

Ross (1998) Possibly synonymous with C. c. fuscus?

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Caiman crocodilus apaporiensis

Common Caiman Upper Apaporis river of Colombia Ross (1998) Very restricted range

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Caiman crocodilus yacare

Common Caiman S Brazil through Bolovia, Peru & Argentina

Ross (1998) (? = C. yacare)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Caiman latirostris Broad-snouted Caiman

Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Caiman yacare Yacare Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Melanosuchus niger

Black Caiman LR-CD Ross (1998); IUCN 2000

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Paleosuchus palpebrosus

Dwarf Caiman EN Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Alligatoridae Paleosuchus trigonatus

Smooth-fronted Caiman

Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile VU Ross (1998)

31

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus cataphractus

Slender-snouted Crocodile/ African Gavial

DD Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus intermedius

Orinoco Crocodile CR Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus johnsoni

Australian Freshwater Crocodile/Freshie

Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus johnsoni

Australian Freshwater Crocodile/Freshie

North Western Territories 30,000-60,000

450 Webb et al. (1987)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus mindorensis

Philippine Crocodile 500-1,000 5 CR Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus moreletii

Morelet's Crocodile/Belize Crocodile

LR-CD Ross (1998); IUCN 2000

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus nioticus

Nile Crocodile Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus novaeguineae

New Guinea Crocodile Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus palustris

Mugger World population VU Ross (1998)


Mugger Sri Lanka 2,000 20 VU Ross (1998)


Mugger India 3,000-5,000 30 VU Anon. 1993

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus porosus

Saltwater Crocodile World population Ross (1998)


Saltwater Crocodile India 1,000 10 Anon. 1993


Saltwater Crocodile Myanmar <4,000 40 Ross (1998)


Saltwater Crocodile S. Vietman & Mekong Delta <100 1 Ross (1998)


Saltwater Crocodile Palau (Caroline Islands) <150 1 Messel & King (1992)


Saltwater Crocodile Solomon Islands 200 2 Messel & King (1990)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus rhombifer

Cuban Crocodile World population 3,000-6,000 3 EN Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodylus siamensis

Siamese Crocodile CR Ross (1998)

32

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Osteolaemus tetraspis

Dwarf Crocodile VU Ross (1998); IUCN (2000)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Osteolaemus tetraspis osborni

Dwarf Crocodile VU Ross (1998); IUCN (2000)

Crocodylia Crocodylidae Tomistoma schlegelii

Tomistoma DD Ross (1998)

Crocodylia Gavialidae Gavialis gangeticus

Gharial EN Ross (1998)


Gharial India >1,500 15 EN Anon. (1993)


Gharial Nepal 130 1 EN Maskey & Percival (1994)

Testudines Pelomedusidae Podocnemis expansa

Arrau/Giant South American Turtle

LR-CD IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Morenia petersi Indian Eyed Turtle VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Heosemys grandis Giant Asian Pond Turtle

VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Malayemys subtrijuga

VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Siebenrockiella crassicollis

VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Rhinoclemmys rubida

Mexican Spotted Terrapin

VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Notochelys platynota

Malayan Flat-shelled Turtle

VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Morenia ocellata Bengal Eyed Terrapin VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Cuora amboinensis South Asian Box Turtle VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Geoclemys hamiltonii

Black Pond Turtle VU IUCN (2000)

Testudines Bataguridae Hardella thurjii Crowned River Turtle VU IUCN (2000)

33

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear World population [22,000-27,000]

MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear East Greenland 2,000 1997 20 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Barents Sea 2,000-5,000 1982 35 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Kara Sea IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Laptev Sea 800-1,200 1993 10 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Chukchi Sea >2,000 1997 20 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Southern Beaufort Sea 1,800 2001 18 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Northern Beaufort Sea 1,200 1987 12 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Queen Elizabeth Islands 200 1995 2 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Viscount Melville Sound 230 1992 2 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Norwegian Bay 100 1979 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

34

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Lancaster Sound 1,700 1996 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear M'Clintock Channel 350 2001 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Gulf of Boothia 900 1986 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Foxe Basin 2,300 1996 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Western Hudson Bay 1,200 1997 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Southern Hudson Bay 1,000 1986 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Kane Basin 200 1996 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Baffin Bay 2,200 1996 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Davis Strait 1,400 1996 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus maritimus Polar Bear Arctic Basin IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2001)

Carnivora Felidae Felis (Prionailurus) bengalensis

Leopard Cat MacDonald (2001)

35

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Carnivora Felidae Felis (Prionailurus) iriomotensis

Iriomote Cat EN MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Felidae Felis (Prionailurus) planiceps

Flat-headed Cat VU MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Felidae Felis (Prionailurus) viverrinus

Fishing Cat LR MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Mustela vision American Mink [14 races] MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Mustela lutreola European Mink [seven races] EN MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Lontra canadensis North American River Otter

MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Lontra felina Marine Otter EN MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Lontra provocax Southern River Otter EN MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Lontra longicaudis Neotropical River Otter MacDonald (2001)

includes L. anectens, L. plantensis, L. incarum, L. enudris, L. insularis, L. repanda & L. latidens

Carnivora Mustelidae Lutra lutra European River Otter VU MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Lutra sumatrana Hairy-nosed Otter VU MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Lutra maculicollis Spot-nosed Otter VU MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Lutrogale perspicillata

Smooth-coated Otter VU MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Amblonyx cinereus Short-clawed Otter LR MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Aonyx capensis Cape clawless Otter MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Aonyx congicus Congo clawless Otter MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Pteronura brasiliensis

Giant Otter EN MacDonald (2001)

Carnivora Mustelidae Enhydra lutris Sea Otter EN MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Callorhinus ursinus Northern Fur Seal Pribilof Island, East Bering Sea 900,000 1993 9,000 VU MacDonald

36

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

(2001)Pinnipedia Otariidae Callorhinus ursinus Northern Fur Seal Commander island, West Bering Sea 225,000-

230,0001993 2,300 VU MacDonald

(2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Callorhinus ursinus Northern Fur Seal Robben Island, Sea of Okhotsk 55,000-65,000

1993 550 VU MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Callorhinus ursinus Northern Fur Seal Kuril Island, West Pacific 50,000-55,000

1993 500 VU MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Callorhinus ursinus Northern Fur Seal San Miguel Island, California 4,000 1993 40 VU MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus gazella

Antarctic Fur Sea World population 1,300,000 - 1,700,000

1990-91 15,000 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus townsendi

Guadalupe Fur Sea World population 6,000 1987 60 VU MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus philippi

Juan Fernández Fur Seal

World population 12,000 1990-91 120 VU MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus galapagoensis

Galápagos Fur Seal World population 40,000 1978-1988/89

400 VU MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus australis

South American Fur Seal

MacDonald (2001)



Arctocephalus australis australis (Falklands/Malvinas)

15,000-16,000

1993 155 MacDonald (2001)



Arctocephalus australis gracilis (mainland South America)

307,000 1993 3,070 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus pusillus

Cape Fur Seal MacDonald (2001)


Cape or South African Fur Seal

Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus 2,000,000 early 1990s

20,000 MacDonald (2001)


Australian Fur Seal Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus 30,000-50,000

1991 400 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus forsteri

New Zealand Fur Seal South coast of Australia 27,200 1989-90 270 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus forsteri

New Zealand Fur Seal New Zealand 30,000-50,000

400 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Arctocephalus tropicalis

Subantarctic Fur Seal World population 310,000 1987-1990


Pinnipedia Otariidae Eumetopias jubatus

Steller's Sea Lion World population 110,000 1989 1,100 EN MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Zalophus Callifornian Sea Lion MacDonald

37

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

californianus (2001)Pinnipedia Otariidae Zalophus

californianusCallifornian Sea Lion Zalophus californianus wollebaeki 30,000 1979 300 MacDonald

(2001)

Pinnipedia Otariidae Zalophus californianus

Callifornian Sea Lion Zalophus californianus japonicus 0 EXTINCT MacDonald (2001)


Callifornian Sea Lion Zalophus californianus californianus (Pacific Coast)


Combined populations = 204,000-214,000


Callifornian Sea Lion Zalophus californianus californianus (Gulf of California)


Combined populations = 204,000-214,001

Pinnipedia Otariidae Otaria flavescens South American Sea Lion

World population 155,000 1973-1982

1,550 MacDonald (2001)

Probably under-estimate of population

Pinnipedia Otariidae Neophoca cinerea Australian Sea Lion World population 10,000-12,000


Pinnipedia Otariidae Phocarctis hookeri New Zealand Sea Lion World population 10,000-15,000

1992 100 VU MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Odobenidae Odobenus rosmarus

Walrus MacDonald (2001)


Atlantic Walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus MacDonald (2001)


Pacific Walrus Odobenus rosmarus divergens 200,000-250,000



Laptev Walrus Odobenus rosmarus laptevi MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Monachus schauinslandi

Hawaiian Monk Seal World population 1,400 14 EN MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Monachus monachus

Mediterranean Monk Seal

World population 400-500 4 CR MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Miriunga angustirostris

Northern Elephant Seal

World population 125,000 1250 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Miriunga leonina Southern Elephant Seal

World population 700,000-800,000



S. Georgia; Falkland, Gough & S. Shetland Islands; mainland Antarctic Peninsula; Patagonia N. to Valdes Peninsula

MacDonald (2001)


Kerguelen, Heard, Marion and Crozet Islands

MacDonald (2001)

38

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes


Macquarie and Cambell Islands MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Lobodon carcinophagus

Crabeater Seal World population 11,000,000-12,000,000

115,000 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Leptonychotes weddellii

Weddell Seal World population >750,000 7500 MacDonald (2001)

Poor quality estimate

Pinnipedia Phocidae Hydrurga leptonyx Leopard Seal World population 300,000-500,000

1968-1983


Pinnipedia Phocidae Ommatophoca rossii

Ross Seal World population 200,000 1984 2000 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Erignathus barbatus

Bearded Seal Erignathus barbatus barbatus (Atlantic basin)

MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Erignathus barbatus

Bearded Seal Erignathus barbatus nauticus (W. Canadian arctic to central Siberia)

450,000 early 1980s


Incomplete estimate for the Pacific

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca vitulina Harbor Seal World population 500,000 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca vitulina Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina vitulina MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca vitulina Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina richardsi MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca vitulina Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina stejnegeri MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca vitulina Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina mellonae MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca vitulina Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina concolor MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca largha Spotted Seal World population c. 400,000 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca largha Spotted Seal Gulf of Laotung, Peter the Great Bay MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca largha Spotted Seal Tatarskiy Strait MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca largha Spotted Seal Sakhalin Island to N Hokkaido MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca largha Spotted Seal N Sea of Okhotsk MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca largha Spotted Seal Karaginskiy Island in Kamchatka MacDonald (2001)

39

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca largha Spotted Seal NW Bering Sea MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Phoca largha Spotted Seal SE Bering Sea MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Pusa (Phoca) hispida

Ringed Seal World population 6,000,000 - 7,000,000

MacDonald (2001)


Ringed Seal Pusa hispida hispida (Arctic Ocean) MacDonald (2001)


Baltic Ringed Seal Pusa hispida botnica (Baltic Sea) MacDonald (2001)


Ringed Seal Pusa hispida ochotensis (Sea of Okhotsk)

MacDonald (2001)


Ladoga Ringed Seal Pusa hispida ladogensis (Lake Ladoga, Russia)

MacDonald (2001)


Saimaa Ringed Seal Pusa hispida saimensis (Lake Saimaa, Finland)

MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Pusa (Phoca) sibirica

Baikal Seal World population 60,000-70,000

1990 650 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Pusa (Phoca) caspica

Caspian Seal World population 500,000 - 600,000

5,500 VU MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Halichoerus grypus Gray Seal World population 300,000 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Halichoerus grypus Gray Seal NW Atlantic (Labrador - Nantucket) MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Halichoerus grypus Gray Seal NE Atlantic (France - Kola Peninsula) MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Halichoerus grypus Gray Seal Baltic MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Pagophilus groenlandicus

Harp Seal World population 7,000,000 2000 MacDonald (2001)


Harp Seal NE Newfoundland & Gulf of St Lawrence

MacDonald (2001)


Harp Seal E Greenland/Jan Mayen MacDonald (2001)

40

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes


Harp Seal White Sea MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Histriophoca (Phoca) fasciata

Ribbon Seal World population 193,000 - 240,000

1979 & 1982

MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Cystophora cristata Hooded Seal World population 500,000 - 700,000

c. 2000 MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Cystophora cristata Hooded Seal NW Atlantic MacDonald (2001)

Pinnipedia Phocidae Cystophora cristata Hooded Seal Greenland Sea MacDonald (2001)

Cetacea Iniidae Inia geoffrensis Orinoco Dolphin (Boto) Inia geoffrensis humboldtiana n/a NE Reeves et al. (2003)

Cetacea Iniidae Inia geoffrensis Amazon Dolphin (Boto)

Inia geoffrensis geoffrensis n/a NE Reeves et al. (2003)

Cetacea Iniidae Inia geoffrensis Bolivian Dolphin (Boto) Inia geoffrensis boliviensis n/a NE Reeves et al. (2003)

Cetacea Lipotidae Lipotes vexillifer Baiji or Yangtze Dolphin

<30 1 CR Reeves et al. (2003)

Cetacea Platanistidae Plantanista ganetica

Ganges Dolphin Plantanista ganetica genetica <2,000 20 EN Reeves et al. (2003)

"There is no meaningful estimate of range-wide abundance, but at least a few hundreds and probably a few thousand."

Cetacea Platanistidae Plantanista ganetica

Indus Dolphin Plantanista ganetica minor c. 1,000 10 EN Reeves et al. (2003)

Cetacea Pontoporiidae Pontoporia blainvillei

Franiscana or La Plata Dolphin

Rio Grande do Sul & Uruguay 42,000 420 DD Reeves et al. (2003)

Sirenia Trichechus manatus

West Indian Manatee VU

Sirenia Trichechus senegalensis

West African Manatee VU

Sirenia Trichechus inunguis

Amazonian Manatee VU

Sirenia Dugong dugong Dugong VU

41

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Primates Cebidae Pithecia albicans Buffy Saki MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cebidae Pithecia aequatorialis

Equatorial Saki MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cebidae Chiropotes satanas Bearded Saki EN MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cebidae Chiropotes albinasus

White-nosed Saki MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cebidae Cacajao calvus Red Uakari VU MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cebidae Cacajao melanocephalus

Black Uakari MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Chlorocebus aethiops

Vervet MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Miopithecus talapoin

Talapoin Monkey MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Macaca fascicularis

Long-tailed Macaque LR MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Macaca nemestrina

Pig-tailed Macaque VU MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Macaca silenus Lion-tailed Macaque EN MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Macaca sinica Toque Macaque VU MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Masalis larvatus Proboscis Monkey EN MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Nasalis (Simias) concolor

Simakobu EN MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Presbytis potenziani

Mentawai Sureli VU MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Presbytis femoralis Banded Sureli LR MacDonald (2001)

Primates Cercopithecidae Presbytis siamensis

Pale-thighed Sureli MacDonald (2001)

Primates Hominidae Pongo pygmaeus Borneo Orang-utan EN MacDonald (2001)

Primates Hominidae Pongo abeli Sumatrian Orang-utan CR MacDonald (2001)

Perissodactyla Tapiridae Tapirus indicus Malayan Tapir VU MacDonald (2001)

Perissodactyla Tapiridae Tapirus bairdii Baird's Tapir Mexico: Sierra Madrede Chiapas & Tehuantepec

400-1,950 4 VU Matola et al. (1997)

Matola et al. recommend use of lower population estimates for

42

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

conservation planning.

Perissodactyla Tapiridae Tapirus bairdii Baird's Tapir Mexico, Belize & Guatemala 2,930 - 11,800

29 VU Matola et al. (1997)

Matola et al. recommend use of lower population estimates for conservation planning.

Perissodactyla Tapiridae Tapirus bairdii Baird's Tapir Costa Rica & Panama 1,200- 1,500 12 VU Matola et al. (1997)

Matola et al. recommend use of lower population estimates for conservation planning.

Artiodactyla Hippopotamidae Hippopotamus amphibius

Hippopotamus Eltringham (1993a)


Hippopotamus Western Africa 7,700 1988-89 77 Eltringham (1993a); MacDonald (2001)


Hippopotamus Eastern Africa 79,500 1988-89 795 Eltringham (1993a); MacDonald (2001)


Hippopotamus Southern Africa 86,400 1988-89 864 Eltringham (1993a); MacDonald (2001)

Artiodactyla Hippopotamidae Hexaprotodon liberiensis

Pygmy Hippopotamus VU Eltringham (1993b)


Pygmy Hippopotamus Hexaprotodon liberiensis liberiensis (Sierra Leone)

70-90 7 VU Eltringham (1993b)


Pygmy Hippopotamus Hexaprotodon liberiensis heslopi (Niger Delta)

CR Eltringham (1993b)

Artiodactyla Bovidae Kobus vardonii Puku LR-CD MacDonald (2001)

Artiodactyla Bovidae Kobus vardonii vardonii

Puku LR-CD MacDonald (2001)

Artiodactyla Bovidae Kobus vardonii senganus

Senga Kob LR-CD MacDonald (2001)

Artiodactyla Bovidae Kobus ellipsiprymnus

Common Waterbuck [four sub-species] LR-CD MacDonald (2001)

Artiodactyla Bovidae [Kobus Defassa Waterbuck [nine sub-species] LR-CD MacDonald ??relationship to Kobus

43

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

ellipsiprymnus] (2001) ellipsiprymnusArtiodactyla Bovidae Kobus leche Lechwe MacDonald

(2001)Artiodactyla Bovidae Kobus leche leche Red Lechwe Botswana & Zambia VU MacDonald

(2001)Artiodactyla Bovidae Kobus leche

smithemaniBlack Lechwe NE Zambia & SE Democratic Republic

of CongoVU MacDonald

(2001)

Artiodactyla Bovidae Kobus leche kafuensis

KafueLechwe Kafue River, Zambia VU MacDonald (2001)

Artiodactyla Bovidae Kobus megaceros Nile Lechwe LR-NT MacDonald (2001)

Artiodactyla Bovidae Bubalus arnee Wild Water Buffalo EN MacDonald (2001)

Artiodactyla Tragulidae Hyemoschus aquaticus

Water Chevrotain DD III Wemmer (1998)

Artiodactyla Cervidae Cervus duvauceli Swamp Deer/Barasingha

VU Wemmer (1998)


Cervus duvauceli duvauceli (India/Nepal)

5,400-6,400 1995 54 VU Wemmer (1998)


Cervus duvauceli branderi (India) 450-550 1986 45 EN Wemmer (1998)


Cervus duvauceli ranjitsinhi (India) 350-400 1994 35 CR Wemmer (1998)

Artiodactyla Cervidae Hydropotes inermis Chinese Water Deer LR-NT Wemmer (1998)

Artiodactyla Cervidae Hydropotes inermis Chinese Water Deer Hydropotes inermis inermis (China) LR-NT Wemmer (1998)

Artiodactyla Cervidae Hydropotes inermis Chinese Water Deer Hydropotes inermis argyropus (Korea) DD Wemmer (1998)

Artiodactyla Cervidae Blastocerus dichotomus

Marsh Deer VU I Wemmer (1998)


Marsh Deer Brazil 41,000 ?1995 410 VU I Wemmer (1998); Pinder (1995)


Marsh Deer <2,000 20 VU I Wemmer (1998)

Rodentia Heteromyidae Hydrochaeris Capybara MacDonald

44

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

hydrochaeris (2001)Rodentia Heteromyidae Myocastor coypus Coypu MacDonald

(2001)Rodentia Muridae Hydromys

chrysogasterAustralian/Golden-bellied Water Rat

MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Muridae Hydromys habbema

Mountain Water Rat MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Muridae Hydromys hussoni Western Water Rat MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Muridae Hydromys neobrittanicus

New Britain Water Rat MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Muridae Hydromys shawmayeri

Shaw Mayer's Water Rat

MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Ichthyomys 4 spp. MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Chibchanomys 2 spp MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Anotomys leander Ecuador Fish-eating Rat

MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Neusticomys 4 spp. MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Rheomys 5 spp. MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Bibimys 3 spp. MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Scapteromys tumidus

Argentinian Water Rat MacDonald (2001)

Rodentia Kunsia 2 spp. MacDonald (2001)

Insectivora Scoricidae Neomys fodiens Eurasian Water Shrew LR-LC Stone (1995)

Insectivora Scoricidae Neomys anomalus Southern Water Shew LR-LC Stone (1995)

Insectivora Scoricidae Neomys schelkovnikovi

Transcauscasian Water Shrew

LR-LC Stone (1995)

Insectivora Scoricidae Sorex palustris America Water Shew MacDonald (2001)

Insectivora Scoricidae Chimarrogale himalayica

Himalayan Water Shew

LR-LC Stone (1995)

45

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Insectivora Scoricidae Chimarrogale platycephala

LR-LC Stone (1995) Sometimes included in C. himalayica

Insectivora Scoricidae Chimarrogale hantu

Malayan Water Shew CR Stone (1995)

Insectivora Scoricidae Chimarrogale sumatrana

Sumatra Water Shew CR Stone (1995)

Insectivora Scoricidae Chimarrogale phaeura

Borneo Water Shrew EN Stone (1995)

Insectivora Scoricidae Chimarrogale styani

Styan's Water Shrew LR-LC Stone (1995)

Insectivora Scoricidae Nectogale elegans Elegant/Tibetan Water Shrew

LR-LC Stone (1995)

Insectivora Tenrecidae Geogale aurita Large-eared Tenrec MacDonald (2001)

Insectivora Tenrecidae Limnogale mergulus

Aquatic Tenrec MacDonald (2001)

Insectivora Tenrecidae Oryzorictes MacDonald (2001)

Insectivora Talpidae Desmana moschata

Russian Desman VU Stone (1995)


Russian Desman River Volga Basin 23,000 ?1990 230 VU Stone (1995)


Russian Desman River Don Basin 12,000 ?1990 120 VU Stone (1995)


Russian Desman River Dnieper Basin 2,000-3,000 ?1990 20 VU Stone (1995)


Russian Desman Ural 2,000 ?1990 20 VU Stone (1995)


Russian Desman Uj & Tobal Rivers 2,500 ?1990 25 VU Stone (1995)

Insectivora Talpidae Galemys pyrenaicus

Pyrenean Desman VU Stone (1995)

Chiroptera Noctilionidae Noctilio leporinus Greater Bulldog Bat/ Fisherman Bat

MacDonald (2001)

Chiroptera Noctilionidae Noctilio albiventris Lesser Bulldog Bat MacDonald (2001)

Chiroptera Daubenton's Bat

Monotremata Ornithorhynchidae Ornithorhynchus anatinus

Duck-billed Platypus MacDonald (2001)

46

DRAFT13 April 2005


Date of estimate

1% threshold

IUCN status

CMS status

CITES status

Source Notes

Anura Discoglossidae Bombina bombina European Fire-bellied Toad

LR-CD IUCN (2000)

Caudata Salamandridae Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt LR-CD IUCN (2000)

Caudata Ambystomatidae Ambystoma cingulatum

VU IUCN (2000)

Caudata Ambystomatidae Ambystoma mexicanum

Axolotl VU IUCN (2000)

Sources:Anon. 1993. Crocodile conservation and management in India. Report of a Crocodile Specialist Group Workshop, Madras, India; 1-3 March 1993. J. Hutton (compiler). 27 pp.

Eltringham, S.K. 1993a. The Common Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius). Pp. 43-55. In: Pigs, Peccaries and Hippos. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Pigs and Peccaries Specialist Group and Hippo Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. 202 pp.

Eltringham, S.K. 1993b. The Pygmy Hippopotamus (Hexaprotodon liberiensis). Pp. 55-60. In: Pigs, Peccaries and Hippos. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Pigs and Peccaries Specialist Group and Hippo Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. 202 pp.

IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group 2001. Global review of Polar Bear status. [http://pbsg.npolar.no/new-status.htm]

MacDonald, D. (ed.) 2001. The New Encyclopaedia of Mammals. Oxford University Press.

Masskey, T.M. & Percival, H.F. 1994. Status and conservation of Gharial in Nepal. In: Crocodiles, Proceedings of the 12th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group. 1: 77-83. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Matola, S., Cuarn, A.D. & Rubio-Torgler, H. 1997. Status and Action Plan of Baird's Tapir (Tapirus bairdii). Pp. 29-45. In: Brooks, D.M., Bodmer, R.E. & Matola, S. 1997. Tapirs. IUCN Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Switzerland.

Messel, H. & King, F.W. 1990. The status of Crocodylus porosus in the Solomon Islands. In: Crocodiles, Proceedings of the 10th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group. 2: 39-69. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Messel, H. & King, F.W. 1992. Survey of the crocodile populations of the Republic of Palau, Caroline Islands, Pacific Ocean. In: Crocodiles, Proceedings of the 10th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group. 1: 302-351. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Pinder, L. (1995). III Workshop on the conservation of marsh deer. Deer Specialist Group News 13: 3-4.

Reeves, R.R., Smith, B.D., Crespo, E.A. & di Sciara, G.N. 2003. Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises. 2002-2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World's Cetaceans. IUCN, Switzerland.

Ross, J.P. (ed.) 1998. Crocodiles. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. 2nd edition. IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. 96 pp.

Stone, R.D. (comp.) 1995. Eurasian Insectivores and Tree Shrews. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Insectivore, Tree Shrew and Elephant Shrew Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 108 pp.

47

DRAFT13 April 2005

Webb, G.J.W., Whitehead, P.J. & Manolis, S.C. 1987. Crocodile management in the Northern Territory of Australia. Pp. 102-124. In: Wildlife Management: Crocodile and Alligators. Webb, G.J.W., Manolis, S.C. & Whitehead, P.J. (eds.). Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia.

Wemmer, C. (ed.) 1998. Deer. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Deer Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 106 pp.

48

DRAFT13 April 2005

Appendix 1. Criteria for selecting wetlands of international importance (1980)

Reprinted from: Atkinson-Willes, G.L., Scott, D.A. & Prater, A.J. 1982. Criteria for selecting wetlands of international importance. Proposed amendments and guidelines on use. In: Proceedings of the conference on the conservation of wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat. Cagliari, Italy, 24-29 November 1980, pp. 1017-1042. Supplemento alle Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina, 81 (1).

INF/1

(ENG)Conference on theConvention on Wetlands of International ImportanceEspecially as Waterfowl HabitatCagliari, Italy, 24 - 29 November 1980

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Proposed amendments and guidelines on use

Prepared for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) by the International Waterfowl Research Bureau (IWRB)

49

DRAFT13 April 2005

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE*

Proposed amendments and guidelines on use

This text was prepared by G.L. Atkinson-Willes, D.A. Scott and A.J. Prater

CONTENTS ParagraphsI Introduction 1-2

- Summary of proposals 3-4II Reasons for proposing a two-phase system of selection 5-8

III Proposed inventory of wetlands of international importance 9-11IV Criteria for the Identification of Wetlands of International Importance

— criteria contained in the text of the Convention 12— the Heiligenhafen criteria 13-16— proposed amendments to the Heiligenhafen criteria 17-18

Table 1. The text of the Heiligenhafen criteria and the proposed new textV Reasons for amending the criteria, and guidelines on their use

— Title and lay-out of Section 1 (new text) 19-20— Criterion la (new text) ex Heiligenhafen 1 (ii) 21-23— Criterion lb1(i) ex Heiligenhafen 1 (i) 24-29— Criterion lc : proposed addition 30-32— Title and lay-out of Section 2 (new text) 33 33— Criterion 2a (new text) ex Heiligenhafen 1(iii) 34-40— Criterion 2b (new text) ex Heiligenhafen 1(iv) 41-43— Criterion 2c (new text) ex Heiligenhafen 1(v) 44-45— Title of Section 3 (new text) 46— Criterion 3a (new text) ex Heiligenhafen 2(i) 47-48— Criterion 3b (new text) ex Heiligenhafen 2(ii) 49— Heiligenhafen criterion 2(iii) proposed deletion 50-51— Heiligenhafen criteria 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iii) proposed transfer to an Annex 52-54— Heiligenhafen criteria 4(i) and 4(ii) proposed deletion 55— Note following Heiligenhafen criterion 4(ii) 56

VI Summary of proposed new text 57VII Selection of wetlands for designation in the Ramsar List 58

— Proposed annex of guidelines 59VIII Acknowledgements

IX ReferencesAnnexesA Recommendations of the IWRB Technical Meeting on evaluation of

wetlands from a conservation point of view, Bonn/Bad Godesberg, Federal Republic of Germany, October 1977

B The philosophy of the 1% Criterion and the concept of biogeographical populations

50

DRAFT13 April 2005

I INTRODUCTION

1. The Ramsar Convention us essentially a statement of intent. The Contracting Parties accept the ethics expressed in the preamble, and confirm their good intentions by subscribing to the conditions set out in Articles 2-5. Most of the undertakings are couched in general terms, their purpose being to guide the Parties towards a common policy of wetland conservation and research. A more precise requirement is that “each Party shall designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of International Importance” (Article 2.1) and shall promote the conservation of the sites concerned (Article 3.1).

2. The purpose of this paper is to expound upon the methods of identifying wetlands of international importance, and of selecting ones which are suitable for inclusion in the List.

3. Summary of proposals

a) Quantitative criteria should be used, wherever possible, to determine whether or not a wetland is of international importance. (These are not at present available for interests other than waterfowl).

b) The current criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance to waterfowl require some amendment and expansion, but are otherwise effective.

c) The subjective criteria used to evaluate the importance of wetlands for interests other than waterfowl need to be defined more strictly and precisely.

d) The qualifications of a wetland selected by subjective criteria should be approved by an accredited body of experts, before the site is accepted as internationally important.

e) All criteria should be accompanied by guidelines on their application, and by an explanation of the terms used.

4. In particular we recommend that:

a) ALL wetlands which qualify as internationally important under the agreed criteria should be listed with full supporting details in an inventory, compiled quite separately from the Ramsar List.

b) Only the sites which qualify for inclusion in the inventory should be deemed eligible for designation in the List attaching to the Convention.

c) Additional considerations of a more subjective nature should be used to determine whether a wetland which has been identified as internationally important is in fact suitable for designation in the List attaching to the Convention.

II THE REASONS FOR PROPOSING A TWO-PHASE SYSTEM OF SELECTION

5. The selection of a wetland for designation in the Ramsar List involves two distinct processes.

6. The first is concerned with the scientific evaluation of the site, beginning with the collection of data, and finishing with the application of appropriate criteria. If the latter are satisfied, the wetland is identified as internationally important, and becomes eligible for designation in the List.

7. The second phase is concerned with the eventual selection of sites suitable for designation. The

51

DRAFT13 April 2005

decisions in this case are likely to be influenced by a number of other considerations, the majority of which will have no real scientific basis (for example the administrative practicalities; the amount of protection already afforded; the economic, aesthetic, educational and recreational aspects, and the viability of the sites concerned). A choice between sites of similar interest and importance may also have to be made.

8. The existing Heiligenhafen criteria fail to distinguish between these two processes, and this has resulted in some confusion. In our opinion the criteria should, by definition, be concerned solely with the scientific evaluation of wetlands; all other considerations should be removed to a separate section. The former would then become mandatory in character, the latter advisory.

III PROPOSED INVENTORY OF WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

9. The scientific evaluations undertaken during the first phase (see para 6) afford an excellent opportunity for compiling a comprehensive inventory of all the wetlands which have been identified as internationally important. The inventory would be compiled as a separate project, and would have no formal connection with the Ramsar List; it would nevertheless provide essential background information in a readily accessible form.

10. A great deal of preliminary work has already been completed, in IUCN’s Directory of Wetlands of International Importance [Carp 1908] and in IWRB’s Provisional Inventory of Wetlands of International Importance for Waterfowl in west Europe and north west Africa [Scott 1980]. These documents could be used as the nucleus for an expanded version, containing details of all sites, not just the present selection. The work would need to be up-dated from time to time.

11. The functions and advantages of such an inventory would be as follows:

a) it would provide an index of all the sites eligible for inclusion in the Ramsar List, and would indicate how many of them had in fact been designated.

b) it would show the degree of protection currently afforded to each site; it would also show whether the site appeared in any other classifications such as the UN list of National Parks, the UNESCO list of Biosphere reserves, IBP’s Project Aqua, etc.

c) a classification of habitat types could be incorporated, either initially or at a later date: this would be an invaluable aid in determining the representativeness or scarcity value of the various sites and types of habitat, and would indicate the balance of the Ramsar List in this respect.

d) the inclusion of a site in the inventory would draw attention to its importance, and would confer a certain status, which could be quoted as reason for conservation.

IV CRITERIA FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

12. The following preliminary criteria are contained in the text of the Convention:

a) The types of wetland which are eligible for consideration under the Convention are defined as areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres” (Article 1.1).

52

DRAFT13 April 2005

b) The boundaries of such wetlands “may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands, especially where these have importance as waterfowl habitat” (Article 2.1).

c) “Wetlands should be selected on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology. In the first instance wetlands of international importance to waterfowl at any season should be included” (Article 2.2).

d) For the purpose of the Convention waterfowl are defined as “birds ecologically dependent on wetlands” (Article 1.2).

A further definition is contained in the Final Act of the Ramsar Conference, 1971. “The waterfowl referred to in the Convention include the following groups of birds:Gaviiformes (Divers)Podicipediformes (Grebes)Pelicaniformes (Pelicans, Cormorants, Darters)Ciconiiformes (Herons, Bitterns, Storks, Ibises, Flamingos)Anseriformes (Screamers, Swans, Geese, Ducks)Gruiformes (Cranes)Ralliformes (Coots, Rails)Charadriiformes (Waders, Gulls, Terns)"

The Heiligenhafen Criteria

13. The criteria currently being used for the identification of important wetlands were adopted by the International Conference on the Conservation of Wetlands and Waterfowl, Heiligenhafen, FRG, 2-6 December 1974. The text of these criteria is contained in the left hand column of Table 1.

14. They were developed partly from the recommendations by Szijj (1972) and Atkinson-Willes (1976), and partly from the similar sets of criteria devised for Project Telma, Project Aqua and the IUCN Directory of Wetlands.

15. The practicalities of the Heiligenhafen criteria were the main subject; of discussion at the Technical Meeting on evaluation of wetlands from a conservation point of view, held at Bonn/Bad Godesberg, 8-9 October 1977. A copy of the recommendations of the meeting is attached at Annex A.

16. In framing our proposed amendments to the Heiligenhafen criteria we have paid especial attention to the recommendations of the Bonn/Bad Godesberg meeting, and have also re-examined the earlier sets of criteria mentioned in para 14.

Proposed amendments to the Heiligenhafen Criteria

17. The text of our proposed amendments is contained in the right hand column of Table 1; the original wording is on the left. If no amendment has been made the same wording occurs in both columns. A note is included in brackets in places where criteria have been added, omitted or placed in a different order. The revised criteria are numbered, and referred to as 1(a), (b), (c) etc. to distinguish them from 1(i), (ii), (iii) etc. in the original.

18. The reasons for our proposals, and some suggested guidelines on the use of the criteria are contained in Section V.

53

DRAFT13 April 2005

Table 1. Recommendations for Criteria to be used in identifying wetlands of international importance: on the left, the text of the Heiligenhafen criteria; on the right the proposed new text.

HEILIGENHAFEN TEXT PROPOSED TEXT

1. Criteria pertaining to a wetland’s importance to populations and species.




(see 1 (ii) below) a) regularly supports either 10,000 ducks, geese and swans; or 10,000 coots; or 20,000 waders, or

i) regularly supports 1% (being at least 100 individuals) of the flyway or biogeographical population of one species of waterfowl, or

b) regularly supports 1% of the individuals (being at lease 100) in a biogeographical population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.

ii) regularly supports either 10,000 ducks, geese and swans; or 10,000 coots; or 20,000 waders. (non existing criterion)

(See 1(a) above)

or c)regularly supports 1% of the breeding pairs in a bio-geographical population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.

(heading not previously used) 2. General criteria of identifying wetland of importance to plants or animals.


or iii) supports an appreciable number of an endangered species of plant or animal, or

a) supports an appreciable number of a rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal, or

iv) is of special value for maintaining genetic and ecological diversity because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna, or

b) is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna, or

v) plays a major role in its region as the habitat of plants and of aquatic and other animals of scientific or economic importance.

c) is of special value as the habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycles.

2. Criteria concerned with the selection of representative or unique wetlands.



i) is a representative example of a wetland community characteristic of its biogeographical region, or


a) is a particularly good example of a specific type of wetland community characteristic of the climatic zone in which it lies, or

ii) exemplifies a critical stage or extreme in biological or hydromorphological processes, or

b) exemplifies an extreme stage, in a hydromorphological process

iii) is an integral part of a peculiar physical feature.

(Omitted see paras 50, 51)

54

DRAFT13 April 2005

HEILIGENHAFEN TEXT PROPOSED TEXT

3. Criteria concerned with the research, educational or recreational values of wetlands.


(Omitted see paras 52-54)

i) is outstandingly important, well-situated and well equipped for scientific research or for education, or


ii) is well studied and documented over many years, with a continuing programme of research of high value, regularly published and contributed to by the scientific community, or


iii) offers special opportunities for promoting public understanding and appreciation of wetlands, open to people from several countries.


4. Criteria concerned with the practicality of conservation and management.

Notwithstanding its fitness to be considered as internationally important on one of the criteria set out under 1, 2 and 3 above, a wetland should only be designated for inclusion in the List of the Ramsar Convention it is:

(Omitted see para 55)

i) is physically and administratively capable of being effectively conserved and managed, and


ii) is free from the threat of a major impact of external pollution, hydrological interferences and land use or industrial practices.


A wetland of national value only may nevertheless be considered of international importance if it forms part of a complex with another adjacent wetland of similar value across an international border.


V REASONS FOR AMENDING THE CRITERIA, AND GUIDELINES ON THEIR USE

Title and lay-out of Section 1

19. The Heiligenhafen text has five criteria in Section 1; in the proposed new text we have divided these into two separate groups, each with its own heading.The first contains the quantitative criteria, relating specifically to waterfowl. These provide a direct and positive means of evaluation, and any site meeting their requirements may forthwith be accepted as internationally important.Section 2 of the new text contains the general criteria relating to plants and animals. These are

55

DRAFT13 April 2005

much less definitive, and the qualifications of each site ought to be examined and approved by an appropriate body of experts, before it is accepted as important.

20. The wording of the new headings distinguishes between the quantitative criteria in Section 1, and the qualitative ones in Section 2.The use of the word “identifying” follows on from our contentions in paras 6 - 8 above.The inclusion of “waterfowl” in the heading of Section 1 is in keeping with the emphasis expressed in Article 2.2 of the Ramsar Convention (see para 12c).

21. Criterion 1(a) is the easiest of the criteria to understand and apply, and should therefore come first. It is intended primarily for use in regions where the numbers and requirements of the individual species are not yet known, or where the observers are largely untrained. In this situation it provides a crude but effective method of evaluation; the great advantage being that each wetland can be assessed independently, as soon as the supporting data are available.

22. The qualifying levels defined in Criterion 1(a) are appropriate for use with the populations of Palearctic waterfowl wintering in Europe, South west Asia and the northern half of Africa. Experience has shown that, within these regions, the great majority of the wetlands selected on the basis of this criterion will also qualify under Criterion 1(b), and similarly the sites which fail to qualify under 1(b) are likely to he rejected by 1(a) as well. Other regions may well require other levels.

23. The main disadvantage of Criterion 1(a) is the strong bias in favour of the species which are most abundant; the less numerous species, whose conservation often poses special problems, are virtually ignored. This is not the case in Criterion 1(b): the latter should therefore be used, wherever the data permit.

24. Criteria 1(b). The philosophy of the 1% criterion, and the concept of a biogeographical population, is discussed at length in Annex B. The criterion can be used only in cases where a population has been defined and studied in sufficient detail to permit at least a provisional estimate of total numbers. The ranges of the populations for which adequate data are available, and estimates of the numbers of individuals involved, are discussed in IWRB’s Provisional Inventory of Wetlands of International Importance for Waterfowl in west Europe and north west Africa (Scott 1980).

25. The following amendments to the wording of the criterion have been made for the reasons shown:

— “1% of the individuals (being at least 100)” is preferred because it emphasises the distinction between “individuals” in this criterion and “breeding pairs in 1(c).

— the word “flyway” has been omitted to avoid unnecessary confusion; the meaning of the term “biogeographical population” is defined in Annex B.

— “or subspecies” has been added in order to define the scope of the criterion more precisely. Examples of biogeographical populations of subspecies are quoted in Annex B.

26. We propose that the term “regularly”, as used in Criteria 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) should be defined as follows:

A wetland regularly supports a population of given size if:

a) the requisite number of birds is known to have occurred in at least three-quarters of the seasons for which adequate data are available, the total number of seasons being not less than three.

or b) the mean of the seasonal maxima, taken over at least five years, amounts to the required

56

DRAFT13 April 2005

level: (means based on 3 or 4 years may be quoted in provisional assessments only).

The records on which the assessment is based should not be more than ten years old, unless they belong to a continuing series or are confirmed by recent data; the months to which they refer are immaterial.

Low counts, resulting from prolonged periods of drought or frost, should be included; if the value of a wetland is apt to be affected by adverse conditions, this ought to be reflected in the assessment.

The application of numerical criteria to wetlands of varying size

27. The sole purpose of the criteria in 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) is to identify the wetlands in which the numbers of waterfowl are sufficiently large to qualify as internationally important. The eventual definition of the boundaries of the sites designated for the Ramsar List is a different process altogether. In the latter instance there are no limitations on area, except those imposed by administrative practicalities; ideally the boundary should follow the line of the watershed.

28. The following comments relate only to the initial process of site identification, and are concerned mainly with the period outside the breeding season.

29. If the numerical criteria are to achieve their purpose and be properly selective, the requisite numbers of waterfowl must, by implication, be contained in an area of reasonable size. The problem is how best to apply the criteria to very large areas of lake or marsh, or to long stretches of coast or river. We cannot at present define an “area of reasonable size”, and offer the following guidelines instead:

a) Many European wetlands of international importance for waterfowl have areas of less than 10,000 ha; we have therefore a basis for comparison. Larger waters should be expected to support proportionately more birds.

b) A continuum of habitat, such as the Rhine or Wadden Sea is correctly regarded as an entity, but it may also contain a number of distinct ecological units, each capable of supporting an independent population. For example, the Dollart, the Jade Basin, the Knechtsand and other similar sites all form part of the Wadden complex, but each is important in its own right, for its own particular interests. Such units ought to be assessed individually, as well as in conjunction. This subdivision into units of more reasonable size would draw attention to the sections of prime importance, would facilitate comparison with other, finite areas of habitat, and would also have administrative advantages. The boundaries of the units ought to be defined on a strictly ecological basis.

c) On most large lakes the populations of waterfowl are usually concentrated within 500 m of the shore, and have, in effect, a linear distribution around the perimeter. The principles in b) above may therefore be applied.

d) Large areas of marsh and shallow water are difficult to subdivide, and in most cases there is no real need to do so. This type of ecosystem occurs mainly in the semi-arid regions of Africa and Asia, and often provides the only waterfowl habitat in an otherwise barren area. In such cases the size of the population, and the fact of its presence is much more relevant than its density and distribution within the site. The extent of the habitat and the usefulness of the component sections is often critically dependent on the ambient water regime, — much more so than in other types of wetland, — and the need to conserve the site in its entirety is correspondingly greater. The same applies to deltaic marshes.

e) Compact groups of lakes and marshes, as in Les Dombes, may be treated as a unit, with a single population. The size of the unit is immaterial, so long as the distance between adjacent lakes is nowhere more than a few kilometres.

57

DRAFT13 April 2005

30. Criterion 1(c). This proposed addition to the Heiligenhafen criteria is an attempt to broaden their scope by introducing special provisions for breeding populations. Although similar in concept to 1(b), it differs in two respects:

a) it refers to breeding pairs (rather than individuals);

b) the 1% qualifying level applies to all species, regardless of their population size; the lower limit of 100 is omitted.

31. Criterion 1(c) is especially applicable to colonial and semi-colonial breeding species; in most cases the location of the main colonies is well known, and the total number of pairs can be estimated without much difficulty from observations at a relatively small number of sites. The number of non-breeding individuals in the population is immaterial.

32. Another criterion will have to be developed for species whose breeding populations are widely dispersed.

Criteria in Section 2 of the new text

33. The sub-division of Section 1 of the Heiligenhafen criteria, and the wording of the new headings is discussed in paras 19, 20.

34. Criterion 2(a) The wording has been amended to include rare and vulnerable species as well as endangered ones, and subspecies as well as species, (thus bringing the categories into line with those used in the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book, vol. 2; Birds).

35. The definitions of the categories in the Red Data Book are as follows.

Endangered: species or sub-species in danger of extinction, whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors continue operating.

Vulnerable: species or sub-species believed likely to move into the endangered category in the near future if the causal factors continue operating.

Rare: species or sub-species with small world populations, that are not at present endangered or vulnerable, but are at risk.

A fourth category “Indeterminate” refers to species or subspecies that are suspected of belonging to one of the above categories, but for which insufficient information is currently available.

36. The application of criterion 2(a) depends upon the interpretation placed on “an appreciable number”. The word “rare” may also need amplification in the present context: although the Red Data Book provides the obvious standard, it may not always be infallible, and provision should be made for extending the scope of the criterion to other species.

37. As a first step we recommend that:

a) all the species listed in the Red Data Book as rare, vulnerable or endangered should be eligible for consideration under criterion 2(a);

b) any site which regularly supports 1% of the population of one of the eligible species should forthwith be considered internationally important, even though the 1% level amounts to less than 100.

38. We further recommend that appropriate bodies of experts be appointed to consider the application of the criterion to their particular interests.

39. For waterfowl it would be necessary to:

58

DRAFT13 April 2005

a) review the status of the species considered in para 37 and decide whether a qualifying level of less than 1% would be appropriate;

b) fix a provisional qualifying level for the species whose total population is unknown;

c) give guidance on the frequency with which a species should occur in order for a site to qualify;

d) decide which of the species listed as “indeterminate” in the Red Data Book should be considered under this criterion;

e) consider the status of any other species which may from time to time be proposed (the proposal to be accompanied by a summary of all available information).

40. Pending this review we suggest that all species and sub-species of waterfowl with a total population of less than 10,000 individuals (or 2,500 pairs) be considered eligible, and that criterion 1(b) (or 1(c)) be applied, without the lower limit of 100 on the qualifying level.

41. Criterion 2(b) The wording of the Heiligenhafen text in l(iv) implies that the quality and peculiarities of the flora and fauna are not, in themselves, the prime consideration: the value of the wetland depends on the contribution which it makes to the genetic and ecological diversity of the surrounding region.

42. If this interpretation is correct, we suggest that the point be made clear by inserting “the” before genetic, and “of a region” after diversity. The significance of “maintaining” is then explained.

43. The diversity of species and habitat should also be considered in the narrower context of the site itself; the appropriate criterion is 3(a) of the new text. (See para 48c).

44. Criterion 2(c) The wording of 1(v) of the Heiligenhafen text is imprecise, and in places, probably misleading. We suggest a complete re-wording, our reasons being as follows:

a) “plays a major role”. This introduces a new measure of importance, less stringent apparently than “is of special value”, and certainly less definite. We prefer “is of special value” which is easier to interpret, and which requires the same high standard as the one set in 2(b) above.

b) “in its region”. In contrast to 2(b), the emphasis here is on the value of the site itself, as the habitat of plants and animals. The inclusion of “in its region” tends to obscure this distinction, and is in any case unnecessary. We recommend that the words be deleted.

c) there is no need to specify “aquatic and other animals”: “animals” is sufficient.

d) the “economic importance” of a species is irrelevant in the context of the Convention, and should be omitted (c.f. Article 2.2).

e) all plants and animals are “of scientific importance”, so this may also be omitted.

f) the proposed phrase “at a critical stage of their biological cycles” is adapted from Heiligenhafen criterion 2(ii), which attempts to amalgamate two quite different themes. We suggest that the reference to “biological processes” should be transferred to this criterion (2(c) new text) where it seems to belong, and where it helps to define the meaning of “special value”.

45. In its amended form the criterion is applicable to a wide range of interests, such as fish spawning grounds, seal nurseries and desert watering-holes. It may also be applied to small discrete populations of breeding, moulting or wintering waterfowl, for example the Svalbard populations of, Branta leucopsis and B. bernicla hrota, and the North African populations of Anthropoides virgo, Oxyura leucocephala and Tadorna ferruginea.

59

DRAFT13 April 2005

Criteria in Section 3 of the new text

46. The heading of the section is reworded to bring it into line with the other headings.

47. Criterion 3(a) The proposed wording is adapted from one of the criteria devised by IUCN for the Directory of Wetlands of International Importance.

We prefer it to the Heiligenhafen text because:

a) The wetland has to be more than just a “representative example”, it has to be a “particularly good example”.

b) It also has to exemplify “a specific type of wetland community”, which introduces further stringency.

c) “Climatic” is more appropriate than “biogeographical” in the mainly botanical context of the criterion.

48. The aspects to be taken into account in applying criterion 3(a) include

a) the naturalness of the site: a wetland which has not been unduly modified by man is likely to provide a better example than one which has suffered exploitation.

b) diversity of habitat and species: wetlands with a wide diversity of species and communities are usually a better choice than those with fewer interests. The wetlands most likely to qualify are large sites with marked ecological gradients arising from variations in the topography and the chemistry of the water and substrate.

c) the presence of rare communities adds to the value of the site, and may be the prime reason for its importance. The occurrence of a single rare species is much less relevant in the present context; a more appropriate method of assessment is provided in criteria 1(b), 1(c), 2(a) or 2(b).

49. Criterion 3(b) is concerned more with the ‘uniqueness’ of a wetland than its ‘representativeness’ This is emphasized by the removal of the biological theme to criterion 2(c) (see para 44f), and the purpose of the criterion is now more readily apparent. ‘Critical’ has been omitted because it seems to have referred only to ‘biological processes'.

So. Criterion 2(iii) in the Heiligenhafen text. The wording implies that the interest here attaches primarily to the physical feature, and that this is transferable to the associated water. We have considered numerous examples of the types of wetland to which this might apply, such as Niagara Falls, the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, hot springs, crater lakes and subterranean rivers, but cannot accept that any of these deserve inclusion in the Ramsar List solely on account of their physical peculiarities.

51. Subject to correction, we recommend that the criterion be deleted.

Criteria in Section 3 of the Heiligenhafen text

52. Criteria 3(i), (ii) and (iii) seem to have stemmed from the classification proposed by IBP for Project Aqua, which is concerned specifically with the value of wetlands for research education and training. These interests are also considered Biosphere Reserves (MAB/UNESCO) but are much less relevant in the present context no mention is made of them in Article 2.2 which defines in some detail the aspects to be considered in selecting wetlands for the List. Although agreeing that the existence of research and educational programmes and facilities may greatly enhance the value of a wetland, we do not think that these interests alone provide a sufficient reason for regarding a wetland as internationally important, in the context of the Convention.

60

DRAFT13 April 2005

53. We therefore recommend that criteria 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iii) of the Heiligenhafen text be transferred to the Annex proposed in Section VII below.

54. The implications of this would be as follows:

a) The wetland would first have to satisfy one of the criteria set out in sections 1, 2 or 3 of the new text, in order to establish its international importance.

b) The educational and research interests would then come as an additional consideration to be taken into account in deciding whether the wetland should be designated for the List.

Criteria in Section 4 of the Heiligenhafen text

55. We agree with the recommendation of the IWRB Technical Meeting at Bonn/Bad Godesberg in October 1977 that Criteria 4(i) and 4(ii) be deleted (Annex A: 3d). The choice of suitable wetlands for designation in the List is the prerogative of the Contracting Party, and its Governmental Agencies should be free to make their own decisions on the practicalities of conservation and management.

56. The note following criterion 4ii) of the Heiligenhafen text is advisory in character, and does not in itself constitute a criterion. We recommend that the note be transferred to the Guidelines proposed in para 59, where it seems to belong, and that the wording be expanded to make it clear that:

a) the provisions apply only when the wetland as a whole is internationally important;

b) the importance of the constituent national sections is immaterial; a section might contribute nothing to the importance of the wetland, but adverse factors stemming from it, such as pollution or restriction of the inflow, could endanger the entire system.

VI SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED NEW TEXT

57. Subject to the approval of the International Conference on the Conservation of Wetlands and Waterfowl to be held at Cagliari, Italy, on 24-29 November 1980 the amended text would read as follows:

Criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance



(a) regularly supports either l0,000 ducks, geese and swans; or 10,000 coots; or 20,000 waders

or (b) regularly supports 1% of the individuals (being at least 100) in a biogeographical population or one species or sub-species of waterfowl

or (c) regularly supports 1% of the breeding pairs in a biogeographical population of one species or sub-species of waterfowl.



(a) supports an appreciable number of a rare, vulnerable or endangered species or sub-species of plant or animal

61

DRAFT13 April 2005

or (b) is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna

or (c) is of special value as the habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycles.

3. Criteria for assessing the value at representative or unique wetlands


(a) Is a particularly good example of a specific type of wetland community characteristic of the climatic zone in which it lies

or (b) exemplifies an extreme stage in a hydromorphological process.

VII SELECTION OF WETLANDS FOR DESIGNATION IN THE RAMSAR LIST

58. The purpose of the criteria in para 57 above is to identify all the wetlands which are internationally important, and therefore eligible for inclusion in the Ramsar List. Having completed this initial process, it must be decided which of the eligible sites are most suitable for designation under Article 3.1 of the Convention. In reaching this decision there are many further considerations which ought to be taken into account.

59. Subject to approval by the Conference, we recommend that the following guidelines be attached as an annex to the proposed criteria:

Guidelines on the selection of wetlands for designation in the Ramsar list

1. The wetland must satisfy one of the criteria set out in 1, 2, or 3 above.

2. Aspects relating to the scientific importance of the wetland. Special consideration should be given to a wetland if it:

a) satisfies Criterion 2(a)

or b) satisfies more than one criterion

or c) is internationally important for more than one species or subspecies of plant or animal.

3. Aspects relating to the type of habitat, and the current condition of the site

Added consideration should be given to a wetland if it:

a) comprises a type of ecosystem which is regarded as more fragile than others

or b) belongs to a type of habitat which has suffered substantial damage elsewhere in the region because of drainage or other developments

or c) has not been unduly modified by man.

4. The value of the site for research, education and recreation. Added consideration should be given to a wetland if it:

a) is outstandingly important for scientific research or for education, and is well-situated and well-equipped for the purpose (adapted from Heiligenhafen criterion 3(i))

or b) has been well-studied and documented over many years and has a continuing programme c.f. research of high value, regularly published and contributed to by the scientific community (from Heiligenhafen criterion 3(ii))

62

DRAFT13 April 2005

or c) offers especial opportunities for promoting public understanding and appreciation of wetlands (adapted from Heiligenhafen criterion 3(iii))

or d) lies in an area of outstanding natural beauty

or e) is capable of accommodating various recreational activities, without detracting from its importance to science and conservation.

5. Special consideration should be given to an internationally important wetland or water system which spans the boundary between two or more States: the wetland should be considered as an entity, and the States should consult and collaborate with each other to ensure that each of the national sections is adequately safeguarded. The individual sections should each be regarded as internationally important, regardless of their individual merits. (See para 56).

VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank our colleagues in many countries, with whom we have had consultations and discussions while evolving the proposals set forth in this paper.

We are also grateful for the financial support which has enabled us to contribute to this paper.

G.L. Atkinson-Willes occupies a post at the Wildfowl Trust, grant-aided by the Nature Conservancy Council.

D.A. Scott has acted as a consultant to IWRB in connection with contracts established by IWRB with the Commission of the European Communities and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

A.J. Prater occupied a post at the British Trust for Ornithology, grant-aided by the Nature Conservancy Council, during which time he completed the greater part of his contribution; he is now employed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

IX REFERENCES

Atkinson-Willes, G.L. 1976. The numerical distribution of ducks, swans and coats as a guide in assessing the importance of wetlands in midwinter. Proceedings of the international conference on conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, Heiligenhafen, Federal Republic of Germany, 2-6 December 1974: 199-254.

Carp, E. (ed) 1980. A Directory of Western Palearctic Wetlands. 506 pages. IUCN—UNEP, Gland, Switzerland.

Scott, D.A. 1980. A Preliminary Inventory of wetlands of international importance for Waterfowl in West Europe and Northwest Africa. IWRB Special Publication 2, Slimbridge, UK 127 pp.

Shevareva, T. 1970. Geographical distribution of the main dabbling duck populations in the USSR and the main directions of their migrations. Proceedings of the international regional meeting on conservation of wildfowl resources, Leningrad, USSR, 25-10 September 1968: 46-55.

Szijj, J. 1972. Some suggested criteria for determining the international importance of wetlands in the western Palearctic. Proceedings of the international conference on conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, Ramsar, Iran, 30 January - 3 February 1971: 111-119.

63

DRAFT13 April 2005

Annex A. Recommendations for criteria of the evaluation of wetlands

1. The "Technical Meeting on evaluation of wetlands from a conservation point of view" was held as Bonn/Bad Godesberg on 8 and 9 October 1977 discussed the general question of wetland criteria and their particular reference to the Ramsar Convention.

2. Throughout the discussions "wetland” was taken in its broadest sense following the Ramsar definition (which is quite different from North American usage).

3. With respect to the general aspects of wetland evaluation, the following suggestions emerged:

a) The first step in evaluation is survey (which may of necessity be cursory at the initial stage); the second step is classification of the systems present; the third is evaluation of quality of sites, within the geographical context.

b) An international wetland classification, into which national classifications fit, is required. It should be simple and should take account of the main physical, chemical and biological factors which influence the field of variation in wetlands throughout the world. This classification should take account of existing partial system (e.g. the Isakow/Eber classification, peatland classifications, the IBP system and various national classifications).

c) For evaluation purposes, criteria should be concerned with the scientific basis of selection between sites and should not include the feasibility of conservation for a particular area. Wherever possible, criteria such as diversity, rarity and naturalness should be applied on a quantitative basis, whether they apply to biomes, ecosystems or species. It is, however, recognised that this is not possible for all evaluation criteria. At international level, representativeness of major biomes is of overriding priority. The size of individual areas is less important than their viability as hydrological units. The potential conservation value of a site should also be taken into account.

d) The criteria developed at Heiligenhafen meet the requirements for selection of international sites insofar as waterfowl habitats are concerned, though some modifications are required to take account of para 3 (c) above. In particular criterion 4 should be deleted. There is a need for some expansion of the Heiligenhafen criteria to allow a more comprehensive evaluation of wetlands of all types.

4. With respect to the Ramsar Convention, the following suggestions emerged:

a) The amended Heiligenhafen criteria need to be formally associated with the Ramsar Convention, though they should be applied with flexibility: for countries where surveys from a conservation point of view are in early stages of development, application of the criteria need not be too rigorous, but countries where survey and classifications is well advanced (e.g. those covered by the IUCN Directory of Wetlands of International Importance) will be expected to adhere closely to the requirements set out in 3 (c) above.

b) It would be profitable to produce guidelines for countries applying the criteria to aid the interpretation of their application in varying situations.

c) IUCN (as the body responsible for continuing bureau duties under the Convention) and states which are a party to the Convention should consider ways in which the suggestions of this Technical Meeting could be implemented. A suitable forum for such consideration would be the first Conference of parties to the Convention. Further reason for convening such a Conference have already been set out in a paper to IWRB’s XXIIIrd Board Meeting held at Gwatt, Switzerland in September 1977.

64

DRAFT13 April 2005

Annex B. The philosophy of the 1% criterion and the concept of biogeographical populations

The 1% criterion is a device to ensure that all species receive proper consideration, irrespective of their relative abundance. It also takes into account their individual habitats and requirements.

The species most in need of conservation are those with specialised requirements which force them to concentrate onto a few traditional resorts. The populations of those species are often quite small, and the loss of even one major resort might prove disastrous. In this situation the 1% criterion selects the majority of the sites in current use. The more numerous and more adaptable species are normally dispersed over a wide range of habitats, and are much less threatened by the loss of individual resorts. In this case the criterion selects only the sites with the very largest concentrations. The sites concerned normally represent only a tiny proportion of the available habitat, but the proportion of the population occurring on them is often substantial, making the creation of reserves a practical and economic proposition. A few species, notably Anas platyrhynchos and Gallinago gallinago, are seldom found in large concentrations, and relatively few sites are selected on their account. The species concerned have large populations and are widely dispersed, which in itself affords some measure of protection. They are also likely to benefit substantially from reserves created for other species.

The 1% criterion is dependent on estimates of total population, and this can lead to problems. Even in north west Europe, where the data are extensive, it is sometimes difficult to arrive at convincing figures. The populations, will, in any case, be reduced by natural mortality and in some cases hunting over the course of each season, and will also vary in size from year to year, depending on breeding success. In practice, these problems are not as serious as they seem. The only reason for introducing the percentage is to determine, in round numbers, the level at which a population begins to become important. If the level is set too high, a few deserving sites may possibly fail to be selected, but these will be the ones with minimum qualifications; all the major centres are certain to qualify. Conversely, if the level is too low, the criterion may select rather too many sites of marginal importance. This is an error in the right direction, and is almost certainly the more common of the two.

The definition of a biogeographical population

In its simplest form, a population comprises a discrete entity with a clearly defined Flyway linking the breeding and moulting grounds to the terminal winter quarters. In some cases the unit will comprise the entire population of a species or subspecies, as in Branta ruficollis, Anser albifrons flavirostris, Branta bernicla bernicla and Limosa limosa islandica.

A number of other species and subspecies are known, from ringing and migration studies, to have two or more distinct populations, each of which should be treated separately. The conditions with which these various populations have to contend are likely to be quite different; it is therefore reasonable to suppose that each of the will, in isolation, have evolved its own particular adaptations. The West Palearctic provides several examples of these discrete units, probably the two populations of Anser brachyrhynchus and three populations of Branta leucopsis, the two populations of Calidris canutus canutus, and the isolated west Mediterranean populations of Phoenicopterus ruber, Marmaronetta angustirostris and Oxyura leucocephala.

The use of biogeographical regions

This division of a population into discrete units is often impracticable, especially amongst the common and widespread species. In most of the Palearctic ducks there is clear-cut relationship between the various breeding and wintering grounds; the flocks wintering in any given area are likely to contain individuals from several of the main breeding grounds, and similarly birds from the same breeding areas may often occur in a number of widely separated winter quarters. An alternative

65

DRAFT13 April 2005

method of sub-dividing populations into convenient units must therefore be devised; otherwise the total numbers would be so large, that the 1% criterion would cease to be relevant. In such cases, it seems best to abandon the Flyway concept, and to treat the individuals wintering in a given region as a single population, regardless of their distribution at other times of year. During the period of their stay they form, in fact, a unit, subject throughout to the same climatic conditions, the same food shortages and the same human pressures and hazards. By the same token it should be possible to divide the breeding and moulting populations into a series of geographical units, similar to those defined by Shevareva (1970).

This concept has already been applied to the Palearctic ducks wintering in western Eurasia and the northern half of Africa. Within this area a total of five biogeographical regions have been defined: North-west Europe, Black Sea-Mediterranean, Caspian-Gulf, Turkistan-Pakistan, and Tropical West Africa (Szijj 1972; Atkinson-Willes 1976). The principles evolved in defining these particular winter regions are as follows:

a. a region must be large enough, and have a sufficiently wide range of habitat and climate, to enable the population to remain within its boundaries in all normal winters;

b. it should, so far as possible, be bounded by physical barriers sufficient to prevent the easy movement of birds from one region to another, or by zones in which the species under review is either scarce or absent;

c. the boundaries of the regions should preferably be uniform for all species; the alignment may, however, be varied to take into account specific peculiarities in distribution;

d. the boundaries of the winter regions should include the migration routes leading into them.

The biogeographical regions adopted for breeding and wintering Anatidae will certainly be unsuitable for other groups and species of waterfowl, many of which have quite different habitat requirements and migration strategies. Studies of the coastal waders in the West Palearctic have shown that several species have an almost linear distribution outside the breeding seasons, being largely confined to the Atlantic coast of Europe and North-west Africa. In such cases the flyway divisions are easy to define. It is also relatively easy to identify discrete or almost discrete units of population for a variety of breeding waterfowl. The widespread inland species cannot be treated in this way, and biogeographical regions will have to be defined for their breeding, passage and wintering populations. Some proposals for the regions to be used in Europe, and the relevant 1% levels for various species of waterfowl are contained in the paper on biogeographical populations presented by D.A. Scott at this conference13.

Marginal populations, and other problems

The arbitrary selection of biogeographical regions can at times introduce anomalies. The main problem arises in cases where a species is abundant in one region, but scarce and at the edge of its range in the next. If the populations in the two regions are treated separately, the 1% criterion will place undue emphasis on sites in the region of minimal importance. This is not our intention: we accept the marginal populations may be of great local and national interest, but we do not regard them as internationally important.

The obvious solution is to combine the two regions, or to amend the boundary between them, so that the marginal overspill is included in the main population.

13 Scott, D.A. 1982. Biogeographical populations and numerical criteria for selected waterfowl species in the Western Palearctic. In: Proceedings of the conference on the conservation of wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat. Cagliari, Italy, 24-29 November 1980, pp. 1135-1150. Supplemento alle Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina, 81(1).

66

DRAFT13 April 2005

In applying this recommendation it is important to distinguish between small relict populations, which are genetically and geographically isolated from all other populations of the species, and those which comprise no more than a minor extension of the normal distribution. The former should be treated separately, the latter as part of the main population.

A similar problem arises were the number of individuals wintering in a region is very much smaller than the number passing through on migration. It has been suggested that two 1% levels should be adopted in this situation, one based on the number occurring on passage, for use in autumn and spring, the other on the number remaining in winter. We regard this as an unnecessary complication: the small winter remnant should be lumped with the main population with which it is associated; the same 1% level should then be used throughout. For example, the small numbers of Philomachus pugnax, Numenius phaeopus and Tringa erythropus which winter in Europe should be regarded as part of the main populations wintering in West Africa. This would in no way affect the selection of sites of important to the species during migration, and in the main wintering areas; it would also obviate the placing of undue emphasis on the small European remnant.

An exception to this can be made in the rare instances in which two populations from distinct breeding areas are present during the migration season, but only one of them remains in winter. In this situation a separate winter criterion might be justifiable. Calidris alba is a good example. The breeding populations from Siberia and Greenland intermingle in northwest Europe during migration, but only the Siberian population remains to winter; the other continues on to Africa. The 1% levels have in this case been set provisionally at 500 for the combined population, at 150 for the European wintering group, and at 350 for the one in Africa.

The only other difficulty is this: in cases where two subspecies are linked by clinal variation, it is normally impossible to define a boundary between them. This problem is further complicated when extensive over-laps occur in the passage or winter ranges, as in Pluvialis apricaria apricaria and P. a. albifrons; and Calidris alpina alpina and C. a. schinzii. Our proposed solution has the merit of simplicity: if the two subspecies can be separated satisfactorily they should be treated as a single population; the combined population may then be sub-divided on a regional basis, if that seems appropriate.

67

DRAFT13 April 2005

Appendix 2. Development of criteria and guidelines for the identification of sites qualifying for Ramsar designation — NCC (1987)

INF. C.3.7

DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA AND GUIDEINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF SITES QUALIFYING FOR RAMSAR DESIGNATION

Contribution to Workshop A(English only)

A report by the Nature Conservancy Council Working Group

CONTENTSSummaryIntroduction and contextPopulation and habitat characteristics considered under RamsarProposals and guidelines for application of Criteria 2 and 3Proposals for new criteriaExamples of the application of the Cagliari criteria

Identification of sites for amphibians and reptilesIdentification of sites for fishIdentification of sites for insectsExamples of sites

Acknowledgements

Summary

This paper the result of a working group convened by the Nature Conservancy Council, examined the Cagliari criteria and found them to be ready for further development and wider application.

Cagliari criterion 1 concerned with waterfowl, is not reviewed in depth.

Cagliari criterion 2 is reviewed in detail and a number of proposals are made for discussion. This general criterion, comprising four parts relating to plants and animals, may be widely applied in identifying sites of international importance. In the Report, applications of this criterion to amphibians, reptiles, fish and insects are given.

Cagliari Criterion 3 is reviewed and guidelines developed. It is concluded that marine areas below 6m should not be excluded where these fall within enclosed inlets or include coral reefs. Separate guidelines for the identification of marine areas of international importance should be developed.

Two new criteria are proposed. They recognize the international importance of wetlands as resources for human benefit and welfare.

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance for designation under the Ramsar Convention up to now have placed heavy emphasis on birds. This is partly because waterfowl are easier to count than for example waterplants, dragonflies or fish, and partly because ornithologists

68

DRAFT13 April 2005

have taken the lead in defining criteria. There is now a widely felt need to develop criteria applicable to other groups. It was always intended that Cagliari criteria 2 and 3 should be progressively refined at future Conferences as information becomes available to facilitate this.

The development of these criteria for groups other than birds may have two results. Firstly, entirely new potential Ramsar sites fly be identified. Secondly, new interests in sites already identified as important for waterfowl may require changes in management. It should not be forgotten however, that even for birds further development work on criteria is needed, particularly for dispersed species.

This paper is written with the intention of providing a contribution to the development of the international criteria, and gives examples to illustrate how these criteria would be applied in Britain, within the Western European context. It is the product of four meetings organised by the NCC in 1986/87 with members of NCC staff and various experts from other governmental and non-governmental organisations.

The Ramsar Convention is concerned with wetlands of international importance and the criteria, either for birds or for other sorts of wildlife, must be interpretable anywhere in the world. However, the practical application and success of the Convention rely to a large extent on the ease with which the international criteria can be given a local, regional or biogeographic interpretation. It is only within these contexts that the necessary comparisons between wetland sites can be made, with a view to deciding on sites qualifying for the “List of Wetlands of International Importance’. The importance of regional interpretation of global principles is already emphasised in Cagliari criterion 3, which requires Parties to consider a wetland as internationally important if it is a particularly good example of a specific type of wetland characteristic of its region.

The members of the working group were drawn from the UK and, whilst being broadly familiar with issues in other parts of the world, they are concerned primarily with the protection of wetlands in Europe. Whilst this paper is structured to take account of global needs in wetland conservation, the examples used to illustrate guidelines for the practical application of criteria refer mainly to Western Europe.

Our reasons for selecting examples mainly from within Europe are not only based on our physical location and geographical expertise. There are, in addition, sound biogeographical and practical reasons for treating Western Europe as a unit for the application c.f. Ramsar criteria. However, for different groups and habitats the boundaries of the unit will vary. Some examples will serve to illustrate this assertion.

1. The bird population of most significance in Britain’s wetlands uses the Western European flyway. This is the population which passes through Western Europe, but which may breed in Scandinavia or Siberia or the most north easterly part of the Nearctic and winters as far south as Africa.

2. The most suitable marine area for assessing "British" sites is the north-east Atlantic, comprising the area between the Arctic Circle and the Straits of Gibraltar, including the Atlantic and the North Sea coasts but excluding the Baltic Sea. This zone includes parts of three major biogeographical oceanic regions: the Mediterranean Atlantic, Atlantic Boreal and Arctic.

3. For invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians and some plants, Western Europe is not so much a biogeographical entity as a practical one because data become less readily available to the east, where these faunas may include other biogeographical elements.

Peatlands do not easily fit in to this Western European unit because they vary significantly both with latitude and distance from the sea. Southern European peatlands are markedly different from the northerly bog-dominated regions, and mire types show a distinct gradient from North-Western Europe to North-Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, inclusion of such important habitats must be addressed in the assessment of new criteria.

The coastal region of Western Europe includes the UK and Republic of Ireland, together with the Western seaboard of continental Europe and the northern Mediterranean coast. Coastal habitats, particularly sand dunes and saltmarshes show a complete gradient in vegetation types from the

69

DRAFT13 April 2005

thermophilous communities of the south to the arctic and subarctic communities in the north. Superimposed on this geographical gradient are ecological gradients, the most important being exposure to sea water from the tides or spray.

Each country will need to determine its own appropriate region as a basis for selecting sites, and this may be different when considering different habitats or groups.

POPULATION AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS CONSIDERED UNDER RAMSAR

The thrust of Ramsar work in Britain has hitherto concentrated on the conservation of populations and habitats. For populations, the objectives of conservation include the maintenance of the present distribution and abundance of species and subspecies, and of important assemblages of species. For terrestrial and freshwater species, importance is placed on a) endemics (Cagliari criterion 2d), b) large concentrations of individual species, especially those which are scarce in the region (criterion 2a), c) relict and edge of range populations, d) outstanding or unusual assemblages of species (criterion 2b). It is most important to expand these Cagliari criteria and develop guidelines for their application.

In the case of the marine environment all these types of populations are also considered important except for certain edge of range populations. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between edge of range end relict populations. Species with long planktonic larval stages which occur on the edge of their range due to occasional recruitment from their main centres of population are not considered to be of great importance because of the continuous nature of the marine environment. For example crayfish, with a planktonic larval stage of up to six months. may become established at sites at the edge of their range when conditions are favourable, but adult populations established in this way are unlikely to reproduce and conservation of the site will certainly not guarantee conservation of the species in that locality. In contrast, many anthozoa (sea anemones and corals) only reproduce by brooding their young to an advanced stage of development or by fission and thus have extremely limited powers of dispersal. Relict populations are assumed to be self-sustaining, although recruitment may be very infrequent with no possibility of the populations becoming re-established once the site is lost.

The importance of habitat characteristics has been recognised already in Cagliari criterion 3 but to date guidelines for their application have been substantially lacking. Development of suitable criteria will necessitate the compiling of national inventories, which will be based on such features as naturalness, rarity and representativeness.

Although the preamble to the Convention recognises the importance of ecological and hydrological processes, these have yet to be addressed in terms of criteria. Such criteria night recognise the importance of wetlands in the production of important natural resources such as fisheries and the maintenance of international water supplies. They may also provide special opportunities for education and research.

PROPOSALS AND GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF CRITERIA 2 AND 3

The Cagliari criteria used for the identification of wetlands of international importance, including Ramsar sites are:

1abc Quantitative criteria relating to waterfowl.

2abcd General criteria relating to plant and animal species or subspecies.

3 Criteria for assessing the value of unique or representative wetlands.

This section of the paper sets out firm proposals for the application of criteria 2 and 3 to wetland habitats. At present the quantitative criteria (1abc) refer only to birds Lot which they should continue to be used.

70

DRAFT13 April 2005

Proposals and guidelines for the application of Criteria 2

Citation 2a. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports an appreciable number of a rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal.

This concentration on counts of a single species or subspecies has limited application outside birds. It is however useful for some other vertebrate populations, for instance seals and turtles, for which counts are possible. In the case of Grey Seals Halichoerus grypus, the total population of an area may be best estimated from, a census of pups. Turtle densities are estimated from tracks leading to nest pits on beaches. Criterion 2a would be more helpful if expanded by being written without the "a" before “rare”.

Proposal 1 Criterion 2a is changed to read:

A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one or more of these species.

This criterion requires a knowledge of the status and distribution of plant and animal species. For Western Europe the best studied and therefore most useful freshwater groups are vascular plants. Amphibia, fish, dragonflies (Odonata), water beetles (Coleoptera), leeches (Hirudinea), molluscs (Gastropoda and Bivalvia) and to a lesser extent water bugs (Hemiptera) and stoneworts (Characeae). For peatlands, in addition to birds, the most useful groups are mosses (Musci), vascular plants (especially the Carex genus), liverworts (Hepaticae), dragonflies, water beetles and spiders (Araneae). Of the marine groups, the best studied in Great Britain are seals, fish, molluscs, crustaceans (particularly crabs). echinoderms, polychaetes, anthozoans, sponges and algae. Although it is usually an assemblage of several rare or unusual species which makes a site important, the following marine species would also do so, as they are believed to be found at only a few locations in the region, and are known from coastal lagoon sites in Britain: the stonewort Lamprothamnion papulosum, and the anthozoans Edwardsia ivelli and Nematostella vectensis. These two anthozoans are not known from elsewhere in the region. The stonewort is found in brackish pools and coastal areas in the Baltic and elsewhere in the region, but its status is unclear outside Britain. In Britain it has been found in only 5 x 10km squares since 1960.

Red Data lists are a valuable source of data for identifying Sites under this criterion. Three groups: vascular plants, fish and dragonflies, are chosen to illustrate the type of data of use in applying criterion 2a. There are 17 species of freshwater plants included in the British Red Data book for vascular plants of which four species (Apium repens, Najas marina, Potamogeton epihydrus and Potamogeton rutilus) are rare or vulnerable in Europe. In addition, there are two species (Luronium natans and Pilularia globulifera) not on the British Red Data list which are vulnerable in Europe as a whole. Four species of fish (Burbot Lota lota, Vendace Coregonus albula, Whitefish Coregonus laveratus and Allis Shad Alosa alosa) are under consideration for Red Data listing in Britain but none of these is rare in the region as a whole. A Red Data list exists for British dragonflies (see identification of sites for insects, [p. 12]). This comprises nine species, including three thought to be extinct. Five British species are included in the Council of Europe list of vulnerable and endangered species, but two of these are not rare enough in Britain to be included in our Red Data list.

For amphibians and reptiles, the Societas Europaea Herpetologica has developed criteria for identifying the degree of threat to each species in Europe. These species have been given a rating of 1-4 on the basis of a nominal 10 rating for the most common and unthreatened species. The factors considered were total distribution, range, endemism, rarity, population status (i.e. declining/ stable/ increasing). vulnerability to threats or potential threats, and importance (scientifically/ ecologically/ taxonomically/ genetically).

Subspecies are included and an additional suffix of IS or B refers respectively to isolated endemics and marine turtle nesting beaches. Some examples of priorities for identifying wetlands of international importance for amphibians and reptiles in Europe are given in the examples of the application of criteria on [p. 10 & 11].

Proposal 2 When applying the new Cagliari criterion 2a the minimum requirement for a site

71

DRAFT13 April 2005

to qualify for international importance under the Ramsar designation should be the presence of a self-sustaining population of a rare species, or the existence of vulnerable or endangered populations. The species under consideration should be rare, vulnerable or endangered in the region as a whole or in a country, if that country accounts for more than 10% of the region’s population or area of distribution, or is of significance in maintaining the full geographical range of the species;

either from at least two of the four divisions: lower plants, higher plants, invertebrates or vertebrates (for the marine environment however, the presence of a rarity from two or more of the larger invertebrate phyla should be sufficient. if there is no candidate from the other marine groups);

or from a single group if the site is also of special value for the species at a critical stage in the life cycle (see Cagliari criterion 2c - proposal 4 below):

or from a single group where the site is a particularly good example of a type of wetland characteristic of its region (see Cagliari criterion 3).

The quantitative aspects of proposal 2 are not easily applied to plants and invertebrates because of the difficulty of assessing numbers of individuals.

Criterion 2b (unchanged) A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna.

Both species-rich sites and sites with rare associations of species can contribute to the maintenance of diversity.

Proposal 3 A wetland should be considered internationally important where there are outstanding assemblages, or rare communities of plants or animals if:

either the assemblages or communities include at least two of the four divisions: lower plants, higher plants, invertebrates or vertebrates. For the marine environment however, the assemblages or communities could be from two or more of the larger invertebrate phyla;

or there is an outstanding assemblage or rare community from a single group and the site is a particularly good example of a type of wetland characteristic of its region (see Cagliari criterion 3).

Criterion 2c (unchanged) A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is of special value as the habitat of plants and animals at a critical stage of their biological cycles.

Apart from birds this criterion is probably most suitably applied to fish and amphibians (spawning sites), turtles (nesting beaches), seals (pupping grounds) or animals of the tundra and northern boreal tones.

The quantitative aspects of the following proposal 4 are not easily applied to invertebrates and plants because of the difficulty of assessing numbers of individuals.

Proposal 4 A wetland should be considered internationally important as the habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycles, only if:

either the species concerned is rare, vulnerable or endangered in a region (or a country, if that country accounts for more than 10% of the regions population or area of distribution. or the country is of significance in maintaining the full geographical range of that species);

or the species concerned is not rare, vulnerable or endangered but has a restricted number of such sites serving a large proportion of the population.

Criterion 2d (unchanged) A wetland should be considered internationally important if It is of special value for its endemic plant or animal species or communities.

72

DRAFT13 April 2005

This criterion is of particular value on remote islands or in areas where endemism is frequent.

Proposal 5 All endemic wetland species and communities should be accommodated within Ramsar sites. Wherever possible, the sites chosen should contain the strongest populations of endemic species. or represent the best expression of endemic communities.

Proposals and Guidelines for the application of Criterion 3

Criterion 3. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is a particularly good example of a specific type of wetland characteristic of its region.

Site selection is facilitated once a classification of types is produced. The Nature Conservancy Council has classified rivers and standing waters throughout Great Britain. The uncommon types in Britain are now known. Until a regional classification is completed the international significance of these types will remain unclear. For British standing waters, the broad classification is as follows:

Eutrophic — commonMesotrophic — uncommonOligotrophic — common in uplands, rare in lowlandsSites with oligotrophic and eutrophic features combined — rare (e.g. machair lochs)Ultra-oligotrophic (high altitude) — rare Dystrophic — common in uplands, rare in lowlands.

A major consideration in the selection of rivers and standing waters as Ramsar sites should be naturalness. Thus, a highly modified river channel or a dam on a lake would detract from the importance of a site, whereas the existence of an intact physiographical feature, such as a corrie lake, would weigh in favour. The presence of a complex of wetland habitats (e.g. lake, bog, fen, river) would also add importance to a site. An artificial change in the water chemistry for instance eutrophication, detracts from a site’s importance.

Coastal habitats which should be included either as representative examples of geographically distinctive plant communities or as rare types in their own right are saltmarshes, coastal grazing marshes, sand dunes (because of dune slacks), shingle structures, strandlines and sea cliffs as far as they are influenced by sea spray.

Several classifications of marine habitat are available and applicable on an international or regional basis. Individual countries may also have their own more detailed classifications which highlight marine habitats and sites of particular importance in their area. Marine habitats and communities with a relatively restricted British distribution and a potentially fragile nature are coastal saline lagoons, tidal rapids systems, sponge/anthozoan communities, habitats occurring within sheltered marine inlets and maerl beds. The last, which comprise collections of calcareous species of algae are often commercially exploited. The best examples of these should be identified and ideally 10% (by area and number) of these sites in the North East Atlantic included. Other interesting British marine habitats are widespread and common throughout the world (e.g. kelp forests and seagrass beds) and only an outstanding example of this habitat-type should be protected under an international agreement.

Proposal 6 When selecting a site for Ramsar designation using Cagliari criterion 3, a wetland should be:

either an example of a type rare or unusual in the appropriate region;

or a particularly good representative example of a wetland characteristic of the appropriate region;

or a particularly good representative of a common type where the site also qualifies for consideration under criteria 2a, 1b or 2c (see Proposals 2. 3 and 4);

or a particularly good representative of a type by virtue of being part of a complex

73

DRAFT13 April 2005

of high quality wetland habitats. A wetland of national value only could be considered of international importance, if it forms a complex with another adjacent wetland of similar value across an international border, or can be shown to be linked to this by ecological, biological or hydrological processes.

Coral reefs deserve special consideration since they are not protected adequately under other international conventions, and are most important both functionally and economically in the marine environment. They are also fragile and vulnerable to great pressure as a result of direct exploitation, and the impact of land based activities. It is suggested that special guidelines are drawn up. An example of an existing Ramsar site that includes coral reefs in the St Lucia System (including the St Lucia Marine Reserve) is Maputaland, South Africa. Marine areas below a depth of 6m should not necessarily be excluded from Ramsar designation.

Proposal 7 The selection of marine areas below a depth of 6 a, where these fall within enclosed marine inlets or include coral reefs, should not be excluded from consideration for Ramsar designation. Special guidelines for the identification of marine areas of international importance should be developed.

PROPOSALS AND GUIDELINES FOR NEW CRITERIA

1. Wetlands producing sustainable resources

This criterion would not only have special relevance to the conservation of wetland sites in developing countries, but it could also be used in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, where there is some sustainable exploitation of wetland systems, such as grazing marshes and osier beds.

Proposal 8 Criterion 4 should be added:

A wetland should be considered internationally important if it provides

either a substantial resource which is exploited by a human population sustainably and without damage to the ecosystem:

or is a significant water reservoir for more than one country.

An example of how the wetland resource could be assessed, might involve estimating the contribution that site makes to the country's GNP for that resource, or its contribution to international trade in that product.

2. Wetlands with educational and/or research value

Proposal 9 Criterion 5 should be added:

A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is both a good example of a type characteristic of its region and

either offers special opportunities for promoting research, understanding and appreciation of wetlands, open to people from several countries;

or is the source of past environmental or archaeological information of international significance.

EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CAGLIARI CRITERIA

The application of Cagliari criteria 2 and 3 is illustrated by reference to amphibians and reptiles, fish, dragonflies, butterflies, water beetles and citations recently drawn up for two sites, one in the United Kingdom and one in Bermuda.

Identification of sites for amphibians and reptiles

Amphibians and reptiles use terrestrial habitats as well as aquatic ones. and a wide zone around the

74

DRAFT13 April 2005

wetland should be included in the designation. Some examples of the application of Ramsar criteria to amphibians and reptiles follow.

1. Natterjack toad Bufo calamita. This species is not a European priority, but is included on Bern Appendix II. It is endangered in Britain and confined to a few sites. Certain coastal areas hold more than 10% of the British population. Where these occur near sites that have been or will be designated as Ramsar sites (for other reasons), they should be included in the Ramsar site. This approach might be considered for species in other groups and/or in other countries.

2. Marine turtles breeding beaches in the Mediterranean. These areas are under extreme threat from disturbance. If the current practice of treating these turtle populations as quite discrete subspecies is accepted, they merit even higher priority conservation action. The species are Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas. Nesting beaches and their offshore female assembly areas in Italy (Sardinia, Sicily. Lampedusa), Greece (Crete, Zanto, Cephalonia), Cyprus, and Turkey, need protection and designating under criterion 2c.

3. The world range of the Olm Proteus anguinus is a few interconnected limestone cave systems in north-east Italy and north-west Yugoslavia. Parts of these caves still hold important numbers and need identifying and designating under criteria 2a, 2c, and 2d.

4. The Italian Agile Frog, Rana latastei survives in remnant riverine forests of the Po Valley (NE Italy), S Switzerland and NW Yugoslavia. These need designating under criteria 2a, 2c, and 2d.

5. The Golden Salamander Salamandra aurora was recently discovered/identified only in one small area near Florence which is therefore of international importance under criteria 2a, 2c and 2d.

6. The world population of Rana holtzi is in one mountain lake in SW Turkey which is therefore of international importance under criteria 2a, 2c and 2d.

7. The Balearic Midwife toad Alytes (Balaephryne) muletensis is confined to small limestone mountain gorges in NE Mallorca. These need mapping and consideration for designating because of their international importance under criteria 2a, 2c, and 2d.

8. Fire bellied Toad Bombina bombina. This is a rapidly declining species in North-Western Europe. A proposal has been made to extend the boundaries of a site in Lower Saxony, Federal Republic of Germany, under criteria 2a and 2c.

Similar types of action may be needed in other regions.

Identification of sites for fish

Examples of threatened fish species that would benefit from protection in sites designated under the Ramsar Convention are as follows:

1. Aristotle’s Catfish Silurus aristotelis is known only from the River Akheloos-Aspropotamos in Greece (criteria 2a, 2b).

2. Spanish Toothcarp Valencia hispanica is one of Europe’s most threatened fish, vulnerable to alteration of its lagoon habitats on the Mediterranean coast of Spain near Valencia and Seville, and to the introduction of exotic species (criteria 2a, 2b).

3. Barbus peleponesius is endangered in the EEC area, where it only occurs in the upper Danube. It is more widespread to the east and south-east, but threatened by habitat deterioration (criterion 2a).

4. Striped Ruffe Gymnocephalus schraetzer is known only from parts of the catchment of the Danube and Kamchia Rivers in Bulgaria, and is declining in distribution and numbers (criteria 2a, 2b).

5. Zingel (Zingel zingel). Streber (Z. streber) and Asper (Z. asper) are three fish found in running

75

DRAFT13 April 2005

waters in the catchment areas of the Danube, Dniester, and Rhone Rivers. Populations are all in decline as a result of habitat modification and pollution (criteria 2a, 2b).

6. Asprete Romanichthvs valsanicola was found in 1957 in Romania, where it is confined to a few upper tributaries of the Arges in the Danube system. This is possibly Europe’s most endangered fish species, now near extinction because of extensive habitat modification and pollution (criteria 2a, 2b, 2d).

7. Dalmatian Babel Gudgeon Aulopyge hugeli is endemic to rivers in Bosnia and Dalmatia, Yugoslavia, where protection is needed (criteria 2a, 2b, 2d).

8. Slovakian Lamprey Endontomvzon gracilis is a non-parasitic lamprey found in the Tina River system, eastern Slovakia. It is vulnerable to pollution, barriers and other habitat modifications (criteria 2a, 2b, 2d).

9. Ohrid Salmon Salmo ohridanus is found only in Lake Ohrid and associated waters in Yugoslavia and is susceptible to pollution and habitat modifications (criteria 2a, 2b, 2d).

Identification of sites for insects

1. Dragonflies

Twelve species of dragonflies are endangered in Europe and require protection of critical habitats. Two examples of species that could be used to identify wetlands of international importance under Cagliari criterion 2a are:

Frey’s Damselfly Coenagrion freyi (= C. hylas freyi), reduced to tiny populations in alpine lakes in Austria and possibly Switzerland. Almost certainly extinct in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Shining Macromia Dragonfly Macromia spendens, confined to south-west France and northern Iberian peninsula. This is a species from a genus better known from S-E Asia.

Several areas in Britain which are of prime importance for their dragonfly fauna have been selected as possible Ramsar sites (see table below). They were chosen because each holds a substantial proportion of the breeding species which occur in Britain, and together they accommodate all the British species which are vulnerable, endangered or endemic in Europe, also the British Red Data List species which are not vulnerable or endangered in Europe, but are on the edge of their range. The areas include a wide range of biotopes — streams, rivets, bog pools, lakes, heath pools and grazing marsh ditches — all good examples of their type.

British dragonflies included in Red Data Lists for Britain and Europe

British Red Data category, etc.

European category Location of possible Ramsar sites

Aeshna isosceles Endangered N edge of range

Threatened in part of range E England (Norfolk Broadland)

Ceriagrion14 tenellum — VulnerableEndemic

SW Wales (Pembrokeshire)S England (New Forest)

Coenagrion armatum Extinct Threatened in part of range —

Coenagrion hastulatum Vulnerable

W edge of range

Threatened in part of range NE Scotland (Muir of Dinnet National Nature Reserve)

Coenagrion mercuriale Rare Endangered SW Wales (Pembrokeshire) S England (New Forest)

14 DAS - CHECK THAT THIS ISN'T A TYPO FOR Coenagrion

76

DRAFT13 April 2005

British Red Data category, etc.

European category Location of possible Ramsar sites

Coenagrion scitulum Extinct Vulnerable —

Gomphus vulgatissimus — Vulnerable S England (Sussex)

*Lestes dryas Vulnerable Threatened in part of range —

Libellula fulva Rare W edge of range

Threatened in part of range S England (Dorset/Hampshire and Sussex)E England (N Norflok Broadland)

Oxygastra curtisii Extinct Endangered endemic **

Somatochora arctica Rare W edge of range

Threatened in part of range NW Scotland (West Ross)

* This species does not qualify for consideration under the Ramsar criteria, as it is not on the edge of its range, being widespread between 40o and 60o latitude N.

** The Dorset/Hampshire site for Libellula fulva is the last known site for this species.

Several of the areas selected for dragonflies include or comprise existing or proposed Ramsar sites chosen for other reasons. Sites in the series for dragonflies meet Cagliari criteria 2a (rare species) and 2b (genetic diversity), in combination with criterion 3 (representative wetlands).

2. Butterflies

Of 15 species listed as endangered by the Council of Europe no fewer than 8 are wetland species. The following five wetland species are candidates for Appendix II of the Berne Convention and are in particular need of habitat protection. They could be used to identify Ramsar sites under criterion 2a.

Large Copper Lycaena disparDusky Large Blue Maculinea nausithousScarce Large Blue Maculinea teleiusFalse Ringlet Coenonympha oedippusScarce Fritillary Hvpodryas maturna.

3. Water beetles

Two species of water beetles have been identified as highly endangered throughout Europe and are candidates for Appendix II of the Berne Convention. Under criterion 2a of the Ramsar Convention, both could be used as indicators of wetlands of international importance, and suitable areas may be set aside for protection.

Dystiscus latissimusGraphoderus bilineatus

Examples of sites

Llvn Idwal — United KingdomThis site is a very good, intact example of a lake type (oligotrophic) common in the uplands of Britain. It contains one species of plant vulnerable in Europe (Pilularia globulifera). It therefore qualifies as a Ramsar site by complying with a combination of Cagliari criteria 2a and 3 (see Proposals 2 and 6).

Paget Marsh — BermudaA complex of swamp forest, marshy savanna and mangrove swamp with a perimeter drainage ditch. The water level rises and falls slightly with the tides and heavy rainfall. This is the largest surviving remnant of Bermuda’s pre-colonial swamp forest, it is of primary Importance for native

77

DRAFT13 April 2005

marsh flora and the most important locality for the endemic Bermuda sedge Carex bermudiana; it is also rich in fungi. The endemic Bermuda palmetto Sabul bermudana is also found in the swamp forest. It is one of Bermuda's larger undisturbed peat basins with a complete representation of all stages of marshland, ranging from land-locked, non tidal, mangrove swamp to peat marsh forest. The site qualifies under criteria 2a, 2b, 2d and 3.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was produced by the NCC Working Group for the Development of Criteria for the Identification of Sites Qualifying for Ramsar Designation.

Members of the Group:

Dr L A Batten (Chairman) Nature Conservancy CouncilDr N M Collins Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Insects and IUCN

Conservation Monitoring CentreMiss S Fowler NCCDr S Gubbay Marine Conservation SocietyMr R Lindsay NCCDr E Maltby Exeter University and IUCN Wetlands Advisory GroupDr I McLean NCCMrs M Palmer NCCMr M Smart International Waterfowl Research BureauMr N Stewart Conservation Association of Botanical SocietiesDr C Tydeman World Wildlife Fund

Miss B Brown (Joint Secretary) NCCMr P Clement (Joint Secretary) NCC

Comments and help were also received from the following:

Dr A Cooke NCCDr K Corbett British Herpetological SocietyDr J P Doody NCCMr J Harrison IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

Dr K Hiscock Field Studies Council now with NCC

Dr D Jefferies NCCDr D Langslow NCCDr M Pienkowski NCCDr P Whalley Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Insects.

78

DRAFT13 April 2005

Appendix 3. CoP3 criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance — IUCN (1987)

IMP. C.3.9

CONVENTION OF WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCEESPECIALLY AS WATERFOWL HABITAT

Third Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties27 May to 5 June 1987

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF WETLANDS OFINTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Prepared by the Wetlands Office15 of the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)

Contribution to Workshop A

1. INTRODUCTION

The overview prepared by the Convention Bureau (DOC. C.3.10) on the question of Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance, provides a thorough presentation of the background to the adoption of the Cagliari criteria as well as the limitations which have been perceived by the Contracting Parties in the application of these criteria.

The need to devote further attention to the criteria was recognised by the Second Conference of the Contracting Parties (Groningen, 1984). Recommendation 2.3 of that Conference called among other points for; development of common criteria for evaluating the importance of wetlands at local, national or international level; and, in particular, expansion of the existing Cagliari criteria to cover also ecological factors concerning life other than waterfowl’.

2. REVISED CRITERIA

In response to the concerns expressed, a major effort has been made during the course of 1986 to review and revise the Cagliari criteria. In particular the Bureau has, through the Wetlands Programme Advisory Committee of IUCN, sought advice on how the criteria might be expanded to take account of a wider range of wetland values than are considered by the Cagliari criteria.

In doing so a major concern has been to ensure that the revised criteria are of wider international relevance. Thus, while the basic content of the Cagliari criteria is retained and modified in order to maintain emphasis upon floral and faunal values, especially migratory waterbirds, the revised criteria stress both the socio-economic importance of wetlands, and the value of the ecological and hydrological processes which take place in wetlands. By doing so it is intended that the attention of

15 The proposals presented in this paper were prepared by a drafting committee consisting of: G.E. Hollis, Univ. College London, U.K.; J.S. Larson, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA; E. Maltby, Univ. of Exeter, U.K.; R.E. Stewart, Jr., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Slidell, Louisiana, USA; P.J. Dugan, IUCN Wetlands Officer, Switzerland.

79

DRAFT13 April 2005

governments be drawn to the fact that there are many wetland sites which are of international importance because of their direct benefit to the national economy and to people, rather than simply to wildlife. By listing these sites it is hoped that the Convention will expand in significance from promoting conservation of wildlife habitat to promoting sound environmental management and sustainable development. The revised criteria are presented in the Annex to this paper.

One criticism of the Cagliari criteria was that they are extremely vague, and difficult to use in a rigorous manner. Yet in seeking to identify criteria which can be used by all countries wishing to join the Convention, it has become clear that these criteria must be sufficiently general to be truly international, and must not seek to achieve a precision which can only be applied in very few countries. Accordingly, none of the new criteria proposed refer to specific limits, e.g. 1%, and the Cagliari criteria have been modified such that they are now applicable to any biogeographical zone.

3. APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA

In proposing broad criteria which are truly international, rather than highly specific, we recognise that the Bureau should provide additional guidance to Parties in the application of the criteria. However, as the Convention seeks to become more relevant to Africa, Asia and Latin America, this is a logical evolution of the role of the Bureau. Under such a system it is proposed that the Bureau would advise Parties what sites would qualify under each criterion and work with them to identify priorities. And in due course, as the new criteria were applied, general guidelines on their application in each region would evolve. Indeed the figures of 1% and numbers of waterfowl referred to in the Cagliari criteria will continue to serve as such a guide to applying these faunal criteria in the Palearctic and Nearctic regions.

A similar system to that proposed above already operates for the World Heritage Convention. And while the goals of nominating sites under Ramsar are much broader, the experience of World Heritage indicates that such a system can work effectively.

4. CONCLUSION

This paper proposes that the Criteria for Identification of Wetlands of International Importance be modified to include a broader range of wetland values, thus allowing more effective identification of such sites, an the basis of socio-economic, hydrological and ecological criteria. In doing so, emphasis has been placed upon criteria which are applicable in all regions of the world, and are not dependent upon extensive collection of data. It is recognised that application of these criteria will require that initially, additional guidance be provided to the Parties.

Annex

REVISED CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

1. Criteria concerned with the socio-economic value of wetland products, including fish.

A wetland or wetland system should be considered internationally important if it:

a) yields or supports fish, forest, agricultural or wildlife products, which make a significant contribution to the country's international trade in these products;or

b) supports activities, including tourism, whose role is of outstanding importance to the country's Gross National Product; or

c) borders an international river that now has or historically did have anadromous fish runs.

80

DRAFT13 April 2005

2. Criteria concerned with ecological and hydrological processes.


a) has a substantial hydrological or ecological role in the functioning of an international river basin or coastal system; or

b) recharges water resources in an aquifer that underlies an international boundary;or

c) forms a significant proportion of the total wetland surface within an international river basin;or

d) exceeds 100,000 ha in total surface area or is a significant proportion of that wetland type remaining.

3. Criteria concerned with the selection of representative or unique wetlands.


a) is a representative example of a wetland community characteristic of, or rare or endangered in, its biogeographical region;or

b) exemplifies a critical stage or extreme in ecological or hydrological processes;or

c) is an integral part of a peculiar or unique feature.

4. Criteria pertaining to a wetlands importance to populations and species.


a) regularly supports a substantial proportion of the flyway or biogeographical population of one species of waterfowl:or

b) supports an appreciable number of an endangered species of plant or animal;or

c) is of special value for maintaining genetic and ecological diversity because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna.

5. Criteria concerned with the research or educational values of wetlands.


a) is outstandingly well-suited or well—equipped for scientific research and education, or is regularly visited by substantial numbers of foreign visitors, researchers or students; or

b) is well—studied and documented over many years and with a continuing programme of research of high value, regularly published and contributed to by the scientific community; or

c) offers special opportunities for promoting public understanding and appreciation of wetlands, open to people from several countries;or

d) preserves important archaeological remains or evidence of past environments.

81

DRAFT13 April 2005

Appendix 4. Criteria for identifying wetlands of international important proposed at Ramsar CoP3 — Ramsar Bureau (1987)

DOC. C.3.10

CONVENTION OF WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCEESPECIALLY AS WATERFOWL HABITAT

Third Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties27 May to 5 June 1987

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING WETLANDS OFINTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Overview Paper for Workshop Aby the Convention Bureau

1. INTRODUCTION

Three principal commitments are made by States which are Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention:

i. “To designate suitable wetlands within their territory for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance” (Article 2).

ii. “To formulate and implement their planning so as to promote the conservation of wetlands included in the List, and as far as possible the wise use of wetlands in their territory” (Article 3).

iii. “To promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by establishing nature reserves on wetlands, whether they are included in the List or not, and provide adequately for their wardening” (Article 4).

Since the Convention was adopted in 1971, most Contracting Parties have laid the greatest emphasis of their action under the Convention on designating sites for the List. Indeed, most Contracting Parties have gone well beyond the minimum requirement of listing a single wetland and many have indicated their intention of adding further sites. Today the 43 Contracting Parties have listed 357 sites covering some 22 million hectares, thus conferring special status and protection to these wetlands.

Despite this spectacular success, the definition of wetland sites of international importance has become a source of confusion. In particular, many governments that wish to join the Convention have had difficultly in identifying and listing sites of international importance using existing criteria. Accordingly, it has been suggested that the Parties re-examine these criteria in Workshop A of this Conference and consider the development of new ones. The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to this process by reviewing the origin of current criteria and discussing their revision. Other papers for Workshop A suggest ideas for expanding the present criteria, and proposing a system to facilitate their effective application.

82

DRAFT13 April 2005

2. THE HEILIGENHAFEN CRITERIA

Since the early days of the Convention, Contracting Parties have concerned themselves with defining criteria for identifying sites of international importance. A first set of criteria was drawn up at the Heiligenhafen conference held in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1974 before the Convention came into force. These criteria fell into four groups:

- quantitative criteria;- qualitative criteria;- criteria based on the research, educational or recreative values of wetlands;- criteria based on the practicality of conservation.

The general conception behind the distinction between quantitative and qualitative criteria was that, whenever possible, some form of quantitative criteria based on scientific data was preferable to rather vague general criteria (“appreciable” number; being “of special value”), which tend to be very subjective. In this way the 1% criterion was given prominence. Sites regularly holding 1% of the total numbers of a population of migratory animals were considered to be of international importance. This concept can be applied most easily to waterfowl, thanks to the work of ornithologists all over the world who have co-operated to gather data. However, progress has been slow in applying this to other groups. And the paper to be presented at this workshop of UK’s Nature Conservancy Council represents a first step in this direction16. In addition to the 1% criterion, the Heiligenhafen criteria introduced the concept that a given mass of waterfowl (10,000 individuals in the case of ducks, geese and swans combined; 10,000 coots, or 20,000 waders) is also a suitable qualification for international importance.

The Heiligenhafen criteria also suggested that research or educational values were sufficient to qualify a wetland as being of international importance. Thus a site which had been studied over a long period and was a reference area, or a site which was particularly well equipped to provide educational insights into wetlands and their functioning could qualify for the List. The final Heiligenhafen category on practicability was intended to be a pragmatic recognition of the difficulties of listing sites and suggested that sites should not be listed if they were in immediate danger of undergoing modification, or if factors outside the boundaries of the listed wetland might affect them.

3. THE CAGLIARI CRITERIA

In the years between the 1974 Heiligenhafen Conference and the first Conference of the Parties in Cagliari in 1980, the Heiligenhafen criteria were tested. The general concept of the quantitative criteria applying to waterfowl were found – in the Western Palearctic region at least – to be effective, and were largely retained. The qualitative criteria were also (though with some exceptions) maintained, though they were divided into General Criteria for wetlands of importance to plants or animals and Criteria for assessing the value of representative or unique wetlands. An important distinction made in Cagliari was that the criteria should be used – on an objective, scientific bases, to identify wetlands for listing. The selection of which qualifying wetlands should be designated was clearly stated to be a matter for individual Contracting Parties.

The Cagliari Conference rejected sections of the Heiligenhafen criteria based on research/ education and on practicability. In particular it was argued that compliance with research/ education criteria alone was not adequate to confer international importance on a wetland. It was questioned whether a site whose intrinsic merits were relatively insignificant should be given international status, simply because it had been studied over a long period or because it had good education facilities. The Cagliari meeting felt a site should qualify on its own merits; research or educational facilities would then be an additional reason for designation.

16 See Appendix X

83

DRAFT13 April 2005

The “pragmatic” criterion was felt to be counter-productive. So many wetland sites are under threat from potential action outside their immediate borders, e.g. pollution or eutrophication by agricultural chemicals flowing in from outside, erosion caused by deforestation higher in the watershed, interruption of water supplies upstream of the wetland, that this criterion was in fact seen as a strong disincentive to listing.

On the basis of the concerns cited here, the old Heiligenhafen criteria were modified and the Cagliari criteria (see Annex) were adopted.

As was pointed out during the Cagliari meeting the 28 Contracting Parties to the Convention at that time were situated mainly in the western Palearctic region, particularly in Europe. Very few were in the tropics. Consequently, while the Cagliari criteria have proved effective in guiding Parties situated in Europe and the developed world, they have proved to be much more difficult to apply in the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Some expansion of the criteria now seems required to cover these areas. The following issues deserve attention:

- A criterion based upon the presence of 10,000 ducks, geese and swans; or 10,000 costs; or 20,000 waders, is difficult to apply in tropical sites which may support smaller, but equally important populations of other species of waterbird, in particular herons, storks, spoonbills, flamingos and pelicans.

- In high altitude breeding areas, the waterfowl criterion is difficult to apply because in these areas breeding waterbirds are normally widely dispersed across numerous small wetlands.

- In most parts of the tropics the total population size of most waterbird species is not known. Criteria based upon a percentage of a population cannot therefore be applied effectively in the tropics.

- Some guidance is required on quantitative criteria for groups other than waterfowl, e.g. amphibians, turtles, dragonflies.

Perhaps more important than any of these issues is the concern that the existing criteria are very heavily biased in favour of a traditional, largely European and North American perception of the importance of wetlands as habitats for fauna and flora of particular interest. Yet as wetlands conservation efforts intensity throughout the world, there is an increasing realisation not only that the importance of wetlands stretches far beyond their value as wildlife habitats, but that it is other wider wetland benefits which are of particular interest to the countries of the developing world. Accordingly, as the conservation community seeks to increase the number of developing countries which are party to the Convention, there has been an increasing call to the Bureau to consider how the criteria might be revised to take account of these considerations.

The Criteria Workshop will hear a series of papers on criteria. The IUCN Wetlands Advisory Committee will present a draft for Revised Criteria. The NCC (UK) will present a paper on criteria for species other than birds17. Contributions from the Nordic Countries, Australia and Chile will demonstrate problems and solutions in applying criteria in these Contracting Parties.

17 Appendix X of this report.

84

DRAFT13 April 2005

ANNEX

CAGLIARI CRITERIA

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE



a. regularly supports either 10,000 ducks, geese and swans; or 10,000 coots; or 20,000 waders;

b. regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl;

c. regularly supports 1% of the breeding pairs in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.



a. supports an appreciable number of a rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant to animal;

b. is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna;

c. is of special value as the habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycles;

d. is of special value for its endemic plant or animal species or communities.



85

DRAFT13 April 2005

Appendix 5. Applying the Ramsar criteria for species other than birds (1990)

W.G. C.4.4 (Rev.)Annex 4(Anglais seulement)

APPLYING THE RAMSAR CRITERIA FOR SPECIES OTHER THAN BIRDS

presented by Mr S. Stuart, Species Survival Commission, IUCN,Gland, Switzerland

Introduction

One of the criteria used under the Ramsar Convention to list Ramsar sites is the so-called 1% criterion for waterfowl. Any site which contains 1% or more of a species of waterfowl can be considered as worthy of consideration for listing as a Ramsar site. It has been widely assumed that such a quantitative means of assessing the importance of various sites for species is only really feasible for waterfowl. Most other taxa, it is assumed, are simply too difficult to count, and therefore it is necessary to resort to more subjective assessments of the relative importance populations of such species. Obviously there is some truth in this assumption (clearly, most species of waterfowl are “relatively” easy to count, though I would defy anyone to come up with a 1% population estimate for the African Black Duck Anas sparsa!). However, as part of the effort to expand the scope of the Convention to cover broader issues than birds (and here I should make it clear that I speak as an ornithologist), the Secretary General and the Conservation Coordinator asked me whether the IUCN Species Survival Commission might be able to assess the feasibility of applying the 1% criterion to a broader array of species. This brief presentation gives some initial results of our investigations.

Invertebrates

Not surprisingly, it is generally not feasible to carry out population studies of wetland invertebrates over large regions, and so, in most cases, it is not possible to determine whether or not a site contains 1% or more of a species. However, the IUCN/SSC Odonata Specialist Group has pointed out that for certain very rare species this can be possible. For instance, the damselfly Coenagrion freyi is restricted to just two sites in Europe, both of which meet the 1% criterion; the same is true for the dragonfly Libellula angelina which is restricted to two sites in Japan.

Fish

For fish the same principles apply, and the IUCN/SSC Freshwater Fish Specialist Group is confident that over the next few years it will be able to identify numerous sites that meet the 1% criterion for rare species (mainly species that are restricted just to a very small number of sites). It is already clear that the existing Ramsar site in New Zealand, Whangamarino Swamp, meets the 1% criterion for the Black mudfish Neochanna diversus.

Amphibians

Once again, it is normally only possible to assess amphibian populations for the 1% criterion with species of very limited ranges. Nevertheless, it is clear that a number of species fall into this category. For instance, the IUCN/SSC European Reptile and Amphibian Specialist Group has studied the very rare Italian agile frog Rana latastei in some detail, and certain sites in the Po Valley clearly meet the 1% criterion for this species. These include Bosca della Fontana and Le Bine, neither of which is yet listed as a Ramsar site as far as I know. Another species that has been studied by this Specialist

86

DRAFT13 April 2005Group is the frog Rana holtzi which is restricted to just two small lakes in Turkey, both of which clearly satisfy the 1% criterion.

Freshwater Turtles

It is unclear at this stage the extent to which various freshwater turtle populations can be counted over large regions. It is possible that for some species large-scale counts could be made. However, for others this is unlikely to be the case, unless they are restricted to a very small number of sites. The artificial pond at the shrine of the Islamic Saint Byazid Bostami (at Nasirabad, near Chittagong, Bangladesh) contains 100% of the world population of the Black softshell turtle Aspideretes nigricans. If Bangladesh were to join the Convention, the listing of this site would surely be an unusual bonus to the Ramsar List! There are a large number of highly restricted freshwater turtle species in Mexico, and sites that meet the 1% criterion for these species can probably be assessed quite easily.

Crocodiles

Some species of crocodiles are much easier to count than others. For instance, the highly secretive African dwarf crocodile Osteolaemus tetraspis, is almost impossible to census. However, many others, in particular those of high commercial value, occur in more open areas and can be counted from the air. Examples include the Nile crocodile Crocodilus niloticus, the Estuarine crocodile C. porosus and several species of caiman in Latin America. It is anticipated that the global Action Plan currently being prepared by the IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, will identify a large number of sites around the world that meet the 1% criterion for various crocodilians.

Mammals in general

For many wetland mammal species, the assessment of populations for the 1% criterion is very difficult. For instance, with the otters it is essentially impossible for the time being. For some, such as the manatees, it is possible that aerial surveys might help, though this remains to be assessed. For the hippos, estimation of population sizes ought to be very easy for the common hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius, and the IUCN/SSC Hippo Specialist Group is now carrying out an Africa-wide survey aimed at estimating the population and management of this species. They are doing the same for the Pygmy hippo Choeropsis liberiensis, but this species is so secretive that it is unlikely that it will be possible to estimate how many animals are needed to make up 1% of the population. Mammals for which it will almost certainly prove to be possible to estimate for the 1% criterion are the Asian species of river dolphins (in the Indus, Ganges, and Yantgtze Rivers), and the various wetland species of deer. However, it is with the antelopes that we are most advanced in our assessments of populations and identification of sites that meet the 1% criterion.

Antelopes

Wetland antelopes are easily counted by air, and this has enabled the IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group to make population estimates for six taxa, as follows:

Red lechwe Kobus leche leche 35,000-45,000Sites that meet the 1% criterion are: Okovango and Linyanti (Botswana); Caprivi (Namibia); Busanga plain (Zambia); possibly Lukanga swamp (Zambia); possibly a few sites in southern Zaire and eastern Angola).

Black lechwe Kobus leche smithemani c. 39,000Site that meets the 1% criterion is: Bangweulu floodplain, to which the species is endemic (Zambia).

Kafue lechwe Kobus leche kafuensis c. 47,000Site that meets the 1% criterion is: Kafue Flats, to which the species is endemic (Zambia).

87

DRAFT13 April 2005Nile lechwe Kobus meaceros 31,000-41,000

Sites that meet the 1% criterion are: Sudd swamps and Machar marshes (Sudan).

Sitatunga Tragelahus spekii 500,000Sites that meet the 1% criterion are: Bangweulu (Zambia); Okavango (Botswana); Likouala swamp forests (Congo); Cuvette centrale swamp forests (Zaire); probably Lake Victoria swamps (Uganda and Tanzania); Moyowosi (Tanzania); and the Sudd (Sudan).

Tssessebe Damaliscus lunatus lunatus 20,000-25,000 Sites that meet the 1% criterion are: Bangweulu (Zambia); Okavango (Botswana) (note that this species uses wetlands, but is not restricted to them).

The telling point is that although these sites meet the 1% criterion, none of them is yet included within the Ramsar List. As the countries concerned join the Ramsar Convention, it is to be hoped that they will give high priority to considering the above-mentioned sites for listing.

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated above that in certain cases, it is possible to demonstrate that wetland sites can meet the 1% criterion for species other than birds. It is significant that very often, this can be done for species of particular economic importance, especially for rural people who use wetlands. Obtaining a clearer idea of the relative importance of different wetlands for species of high economic importance is essential in the further elaboration of the wise use concept. It should also provide further advice to the Parties to the Ramsar Convention on sites within their own territories which qualify for listing on account of their importance for species other than birds. By the time of the next Conference of the Ramsar Parties, the IUCN Species Survival Commission hopes to present a fuller analysis of sites which qualify for listing for a wider array of wetland species.

88

DRAFT13 April 2005

Appendix 6. The Ramsar Convention and the conservation of non-waterfowl species (1993)

Reprinted from:

The Ramsar Convention and the conservation of non-waterfowl species

Mariano Giménez Dixon, Programme Officer, Species Survival Programme, IUCN, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196, Gland, Switzerland

Abstract

Species conservation must always bear in mind that no species can be maintained if suitable habitat is not also maintained. Wetlands constitute habitat for a large variety of species. Many invertebrates and most amphibians depend on wetlands, at least, in some stage of their life cycle. This paper gives a brief overview of the importance of the applying the Ramsar Convention to all animal species. Though the Convention is on "wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat" it can and should be applied to the conservation of wide range of species. Likewise, non-waterfowl species can, and should be included in the criteria set for evaluating the international importance of wetlands to a greater extent than they are now.

Introduction

Species conservation must always bear in mind that no species can be maintained if suitable habitat is not also maintained. Wetlands constitute essential habitat for a large variety of species. Many invertebrates and most amphibians depend on wetlands, at least, in some stage of their life cycle. Many mammals and reptiles, even birds not usually considered "waterfowl," are highly dependent on wetlands. The Convention's definition of "wetland" is so wide that virtually all species of freshwater fish and many coastal marine species are dependent on wetlands. In turn all these species are a food source of many other species including, in many areas, humankind. With this paper I will try to give a brief overview of the importance of the applying the Ramsar Convention to all animal species. Though the Convention is on "wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat" it can and should be applied to the conservation of wide range of species. Likewise, I believe that non-waterfowl species can, and should be included in the criteria for evaluating the international importance of wetlands to a greater extent than they are now. None the less, the existing criteria, set at the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties held in Montreux in 1990 (Ramsar, 1990), already allow ample space for non-waterfowl species conservation, as well as for the use of non-waterfowl species as indicators of internationally important wetlands that merit inclusion in the List of the Convention.

The document approved in Montreux, setting the criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance (Annex 1) provides these in three broad groups. The first refers to "Criteria for representative or unique wetlands" and the third to "Specific criteria based on waterfowl". Though these are not the main focus on my presentation, and can be discussed separately, it should be mentioned that during the Montreux Conference it was discussed how some of the criteria used for waterfowl could also be used for a fair amount of non-waterfowl species. Stuart (1990) demonstrated how the, so-called, "1% criteria" could be applied to a variety of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, turtles, crocodiles and mammals.

Here I will go through the second set of criteria, i.e. "General criteria based on plants or animals". These criteria, in my view, not only indicate the frame by which a wetland should be considered important by using plant and animal species as references, but they also indicate the conceptual reasons for which wetlands should be maintained and managed for species conservation. In other words they "should be considered internationally important," both "if..." and "because" they fulfil these

89

DRAFT13 April 2005criteria (as well as any other that may be seen as adequate). Let us look into each of them with examples of animal species.

The first criteria in this set, "2.a: it supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one or more of these species". We can find an example of this18 in the coast of the Samborombón Bay in the Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. This area comprises a mosaic of tidal-marsh habitats that has been considered in Scott & Carbonell's (1986) "Directory of Neotropical Wetlands" as of international importance (though it has not been listed as a Ramsar site). This area one of the two remaining habitats of the Pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer), a critically endangered species. In the last full surveys of this species, done in 1988, the total population was estimated around 350 individuals and probably comprises more than half the total population of this subspecies (Giménez Dixon 1987a,b; 1991). Surveys carried out in the coastal area (Myers & Myers 1979; Jackson 1980; Piantanida 1982; Beade 1985; Morrison et al. 1985; Blanco et al. 1988; Morrison & Ross 1989) allow the assertion that there are more than 41 mammal species and 130 bird species (including waterfowl). Approximately 16 of these species are considered "threatened species" (SAG y P 1986; CITES 1987)19 . Thus this area is of special value as habitat, often "critical habitat" (sensu Ghiselin 1980 and Bean 1983) for various threatened species.

Criteria "2.b: it is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna". Here again the coast of the Samborombón bay is an example. If we consider that this area is one of last remaining natural or near-natural remnants of the "Pampa Deprimida" (a subregion of the Pampas), and one of the largest temperate salt marshes in South America. Also, this area is rich in autochthonous species due to the scant anthropic modifications it has had; the variety of existing habitats and the convergence and influence of life forms (terrestrial, from the continent; freshwater, from the rivers, streams and canals that go through it; and estuarine, from the Río de la Plata; to the south, marine influence is added, due to the proximity to the Atlantic Ocean). This mixture of elements gives this area a richness of habitats, and species, that is quite unique for the pampas of Argentina. Not only is it of value because of its natural qualities per se, but also, because it serves as a refuge for many species once abundant in all the Pampas region (or even further), but whose numbers and range elsewhere has diminished due to habitat exploitation and modification.

Criteria "2.c: It is of special value as habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycle". Since we cannot expect any species to survive without suitable habitat, this criteria could apply to practically all wetlands where we can find species such as crocodiles, hippos, manatees, beavers, coypus, swamp deer, amphibians, molluscs, aquatic larvae of insects and many other species that require a moist habitat. More so when they are habitats of threatened or rare species, as well as if they are of human social or economic importance. Under this criteria we should also take into account a variety of other species that may not be "aquatic" or "wetland" species, or even may not use a wetland as their "normal" habitat, but that may well depend on it. This is especially true of those wetlands that may provide a source of water, food or refuge during prolonged or seasonal periods of drought for many species in the surrounding areas. Examples of this can be seen in the African savannas and in tropical Asia and South America were there are distinctly wet and dry seasons.

Criteria "2.d: It is of special value for one or more endemic plant or animal species or communities". What has been said in the previous paragraphs would also apply for endemic species, in which case we fall under this criterion. In the abundant literature on endemisms we can find many examples in which this criterion applies. Allow me to give some examples with molluscs, which I choose to use, not because they are special as regards other groups of species, they have been used, exploited and threatened as much as many other groups, but because this group, like probably all invertebrates, are not readily recognized when expressing conservation needs of wildlife.

18 ? This is just one example that I know well through having worked there for over 10 years. Many other examples can be quickly drawn-up from all over the world. The Ramsar Convention Bureau, has compiled and published a large amount of information that is available to those that may wish to consult it.

19 ? To date there are no complete and reliable lists of other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates of the area.

90

DRAFT13 April 2005Wells &Chatfield (1991) have mentioned that many freshwater molluscs, as well as land snails that are adapted to wetland habitats in Europe are at risk. Some 200 non-marine molluscs endemic to single countries are considered threatened in Europe. Some 25 endemic hidrobiid molluscs are considered to be at some level of risk in France. Examples of threatened endemisms can be extracted from most, if not all, European countries, including the islands of the Mediterranean and east Atlantic (e.g. Pseudamnicola melitensis, an endemic hidrobiid of Malta). Many relict mollusc faunas of lakes, such as Baikal (in Russia) and Ohrid (in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) are also at risk. Some species are considered near endemics, e.g. species that cover a single river basin are threatened due to pollution from development activities and alteration of current flow. An example of this is the Danube basin in which species such as Fagotia esperi, Theodoxus transversalis and Viviparus aerosus, are all threatened in many of the countries along which the river flows and have even disappeared from some areas. In Europe a further 28 species have been identified as widespread but declining and thus threatened or of regional concern. They are now often restricted to remnant habitats, although these may be scattered throughout several countries.

Likewise we could also look at another example regarding dragonflies. As we all know, wetlands are prime importance to many insect species. This is true, not only for purely aquatic species, but also for many species that depend on an aquatic environment at some stage of their life cycle. Virtually all dragonfly species have aquatic larvae. Because of this (with exception of those species that breed in the axile of epiphytic plants), they are largely dependent on wetlands of one kind or another. According to Norman Moore, Chair of the Odonata Specialist Group (in litt.) all tropical wetlands are either known to be, or are likely to be important for these insects. Among these are sites like the Okavango Swamp (Botswana), which is known to support several endemic dragonfly species. Some areas outside the tropics are also important. In a recent letter, Dr Moore mentioned as an example the Kushiro-shitsugen marshes, near where this Conference is taking place. In South Africa, of 162 described species, 30 are endemics (Samways & Calwell 1988), which renders importance to a variety if wetland sites in this country. Many species breed on biotopes that are of low productivity, climax ecosystems, can be easily disturbed and are unmakeable. The most effective conservation approach for species in these biotopes is protection and proper management of the biotopes as a whole.

In general, invertebrate conservation has not been considered as an important issue until recently. Yet Speight et al. (1991) (Annex 2) during a seminar on Conserving and managing wetlands for invertebrates in 1991 proposed criteria for recognizing internationally important sites for invertebrate conservation in the sphere of the EEC. With adequate revision and corresponding amendments, this proposal could easily serve as a basis for consideration of criteria for invertebrates within the Ramsar Convention. At this same meeting many other interesting and pertinent paper were presented.

How can species conservation aid in wetland conservation?

Up to now I have talked on how important wetland conservation is to species conservation and how the existing criteria could be used to achieve this. Now let me turn the view point and talk a little on how knowledge, management and conservation efforts on different species can aid us in wetland conservation. This can be done with a large variety of species. A detailed list of examples goes beyond the scope of this presentation, so I will only refer to three examples.

Diurnal Butterflies

There are various species of Papilionoidea that are adapted to wetland habitats (Meyer 1991). This group is:

a- Easy to monitor as they are a relatively small insect group (approx. 400 species in Europe).

b- They can be identified in the field, and at day time!.

c- There is a relatively large number of active lepidopterologists (professional and amateur) that would allow to have rapid knowledge of distribution and (partially) of ecological needs of the species.

91

DRAFT13 April 2005

d- The biology of the Papilionoidea is representative of a large number of other invertebrates, thus they could be considered bioindicators.

e- One of the few invertebrate groups well known by the public.

f- Given the inoffensiveness and beauty of butterflies, they are well regarded by the public with a positive attitude.

g- Some national and international campaigns have (specially in Europe) have made awareness of butterfly conservation grow in the general public as well as at political and administrative levels.

Crocodiles:

Crocodilians occur entirely in wetlands and comprise some 23 species occurring in more than 70 countries (J. Perran Ross & H. Messel in lit.).

Crocodilians are traditionally a key component of tropical and some subtropical wetland systems. Prior to extensive human occupation crocodilians achieved high densities. The ecological effect of dense crocodilian populations is thought to be profound due, among others, to:

a- Crocodilians consume a wide variety of prey that is considered poor quality for people and excrete the nutrients derived from these into the aquatic system. This nutrient enrichment function is thought to benefit high quality food species and account for the widely reported observation that human fisheries are more productive when crocodile populations are high.

b- Many crocodilians have a physical effect on the wetland environment, creating pools and burrows that serve as refugia in times of low water for many species.

c- The reduction of crocodilian populations is therefore likely to have unexpected ecological effects on wetland ecology and function.

d- Many species are relatively easy to survey, thus enhancing some monitoring of wetlands.

e- They also have a clear "flagship' function, as large top predators, their continued presence is a good indication that a wetland remains functional and their absence is a signal that the effect of people is becoming oppressive. Crocodilians are not, however, particularly good "indicator species" as they are robust, long lived, adaptable and can hold out in the face of considerable indirect human pressure (such as pollution).

It is true that crocodiles are frequently perceived as dangerous vermin and are usually not loved; for example they will occasionally pursue researchers, even ornithologists, who enter their wetland habitats (J. Perran Ross & H. Messel in litt.); and their conservation in the face of rising human population pressures and human competition for wetland resources is a difficult task. Yet the economic benefits from sustainable use are thought to provide alternative incentives to local people and to wetland users to maintain wetlands as a source of valuable crocodilians, rather than convert them to some other (often non sustainable) use like agriculture or housing. Thus:

f- Crocodilians can contribute a significant component to "Value Added" of natural wetland use.

g- Sustainable crocodilian use is compatible with other non invasive and sustainable uses like ecotourism, watershed protection, fisheries management, waterfowl production. Significant examples are seen in Papua New Guinea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the United States where sustainable use of crocodilians pays for their own management and conservation and provides dividends for other wetland species as a spin off.

Some management conflicts may arise, for example conflicts with net fisheries or conflicts with human safety, however careful management and judicious manipulation has been shown to minimize such problems were they have been applied. As examples, human-crocodile conflicts are controlled in both Florida and Northern Australia with programs of controlled removal of identified dangerous animals, without compromising crocodilian population growth or human safety.

92

DRAFT13 April 2005Otters

Otters can likewise serve as a visible symbol for the preservation of wetlands worldwide for the following reasons:

a- Except for Australia, New Zealand, small islands and polar areas, otters live in wetlands worldwide.

b- Otters are important indicators of healthy, uncontaminated wetlands and waterways. They are among the first conspicuous species to disappear in the presence of PCBs, heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides.

c- Otters are easily identifiable and, in large part of the world, have public appeal.

d- Otters can be easily surveyed using well established techniques requiring no specialized equipment. These techniques can be easily taught to volunteers and support staff, and can be used to increase public participation in conservation efforts. By monitoring the presence or absence of otters in an area over time, the overall quality of the habitat can also be assessed.

Summarizing, each of the above three examples differs from each other in specific points. But they do illustrate how many species, as different as insects are from reptiles and mammals, can aid in wetland conservation by:

Creating and/or maintaining habitat conditions that benefit other species, as well as itself.

Providing means to monitor wetland type and quality and indicate changes.

Enhance positive public attitudes and appreciation of wetland conservation needs.

Enhance the socio-economic value of wetlands, providing benefits, income and incentives to local people and wetland users.

The IUCN/Species Survival Commission (SSC) and its work with the Ramsar Convention.

Up to now I have mentioned how wetland conservation can aid in species conservation and vice versa. Let us now have a brief look at the SSC and at the ways in which our work can enhance the mutual relationship with the Ramsar Convention regarding wetland conservation.

The Species Survival Commission (SSC) is the largest and most active of the six commissions of the IUCN-The World Conservation Union. At present SSC has more than 5,000 members in 179 countries. The structure of SSC involves the Chair and Steering Committee, Regional Members, Specialist Groups, Cooperating Organizations, and Members Emeritus, and the staff provided by IUCN. By far, the bulk of SSC are the Specialist Groups. SSC includes 100 Specialist Groups (36 on mammals, 16 on birds (shared with BirdLife International and IWRB), ten on reptiles and amphibians, five on fish, six on invertebrates, 21 on plants and six inter-disciplinary (covering captive breeding, trade, re-introductions, sustainable use of wild species, veterinary matters, and invasive species)). SSC also has three task forces linking the work of the various taxonomic groups: plants; invertebrates; and amphibians.

The following mission and purpose (or goals) for the IUCN Species Survival Commission were approved by the IUCN General Assembly, as part of its mandates20, for the Triennium 1991-1993.

Mission

To conserve biological diversity by developing and executing programmes to save, restore and manage wisely species and their habitats.

Purpose

IUCN's Species Survival Commission (SSC) serves as the principal source of advice to the Union and its members on the technical aspects of species conservation. It seeks to mobilize action by the world

20 ? The IUCN Commissions and their mandates are reviewed at each General Assembly every three years.

93

DRAFT13 April 2005conservation community on behalf of species, in particular those threatened with extinction and those of importance for human welfare. It achieves this by providing leadership with the following four goals:

(a) To assess the conservation priorities for species and their habitats;

(b) To develop plans for their conservation;

(c) To initiate actions needed for, the survival of species;

(d) To provide an expert resource network on the conservation of biodiversity.

In essence, the SSC provides the expertise and the framework needed by the world conservation community, to target available resources to the most urgent and important priorities for the maintenance of biological diversity globally.

The whole of SSC, and very specially the Specialist Group network is available to assist and advice on a wide range of species related issues, such as conservation, management, trade and sustainable use. The Ramsar Convention's goals are fully compatible with those of SSC. At the moment both the SSC and the Ramsar Bureau (as well as many of the Contracting Parties that are also members of SSC and IUCN) benefit from a close working relationship. Yet this relationship can be enhanced by the Parties if they so wish. SSC could assist the Parties in many fields of species conservation and management, such as:

1. Catalyse, catalogue and coordinate efforts to gain information and data on species.

2. Identify target populations, species and regions which merit immediate attention.

3. Gather and critically examine evidence concerning causal factors contributing to species declines or habitat reductions and identify remedial action.

4. Promote data collection on species populations on a long term basis.

5. Enlist the support of appropriate scientific disciplines needed to address issues.

6. Disseminate information on species, habitats, conservation and sustainable use to the scientific community, and promote public awareness.

7. Advise IUCN, other conservation organizations and appropriate governmental bodies on necessary and immediate action.

Work with SSC is possible in different ways, among them:

a. Anyone can contact the SSC/Specialist Groups or its individual members, requesting advice or information on specific issues of their concern (i.e. we encourage direct links with and among members of the SSC network).

b. Use of the SSC Action Plans and implementation of its recommendations is also widely encouraged (Annex 3 gives a list of Action Plans published so far, and of those that will be published in the near future). Action Planning is a major activity of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC). Action Plans were conceived as a means of providing government agencies and non-governmental organizations with an authoritative reference work on the status of the different species in a taxonomic group, a review of the existing information on those species, identification of conservation priorities, and recommendations on the principal actions that are needed to address these priorities and ensure their long-term recovery and survival, as well a means to catalyze specific actions to this purpose. The process does not stop with the publication of an Action Plan; the plans must be implemented. Implementation is not considered to be the domain of the SSC nor a Specialist Group, some government agencies and non-governmental organizations have been known to use recommendations in the Action Plans as a guide in planning their own conservation work.

c. More formally, either through the IUCN Secretariat and SSC (in the case of members), or with any interested Party, through the Ramsar Convention Bureau. By this means specific

94

DRAFT13 April 2005

technical assistance, formation of research and consultancy groups on species related issues, etc. can be agreed on and special activities and projects be developed.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge and thank Pat Foster-Turley (Otter Specialist Group), Sue Wells (Mollusc Specialist Group), Michael Klemmens (Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group), Michael Samways (Odonata Specialist Group), James Perran Ross (Crocodile Specialist Group), Jean-Yves Pirot (IUCN Wetlands Programme), Mike Moser (IWRB), Simon Stuart, Linette Humphrey (both IUCN Species Survival Programme), Mónica Herzig and Mike Smart (both Ramsar Bureau) for their contributions, either in valuable information, or as comments and corrections of my first (terrible) drafts.

Agradecimientos

El autor desea expresar su reconicimiento y gratitud a Pat Foster-Turley (Grupo Especialista en Nutrias), Sue Wells (Grupo Especialista en Moluscos), Michael Klemmens (Grupo Especialista en Tortugas Terrestres y de Agua Dulce), Michael Samways (Grupo Especialista en Odonatos), James Perran Ross (Grupo Especialista en Cocodrilos), Jean-Yves Pirot (Programa de Humedales de UICN), Mike Moser (IWRB), Simon Stuart, Linette Humphrey (ambos Programa de Especies de UICN), Mónica Herzig and Mike Smart (ambos Officina Ramsar) por sus contribuciones, ya sea en información de mucho valor para este trabajo, o en forma de comentarios y correcciones a mis primeros (y desastrosos) borradores.

Cited literature

Beade, M. 1985. Proyecto Venado -Actividades y resultados obtenidos durante los anos 1983 y 1984. Informe interno Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, mecanografiado. 13 pp.

Bean, M. 1983. Questions and answers about the Endangered Species Act. Pp. 114-116. In: Nilsson, G., The endangered species handbook. Animal Welfare Institute, Washington, D.C., xii-245 pp.

Blanco, D., Pugnali, G.D. & Rodriguez Goñi, H. 1988. Punta Rasa: su importancia en la conservación de aves migratorias. Informe CIPA - PACS, mecanografiado. 78 pp.

CITES 1987. Apéndices I y II adoptados por la Conferencia de las Partes y validos a partir del 22 de Noviembre de 1987. CITES Secretariat, Switzerland.

Ghiselin, J., 1980. Preparing and evaluating environmental assessments and related documents. Pp. 473-487. In: Schemnitz, S.D. (ed.), Wildlife Management Techniques Manual. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 686 pp.

Giménez Dixon, M. 1987a. Estrategia para la conservación de la zona costera de Bahía de Samborombón. Informe interno Dir. Recursos Naturales y Ecología, 27 pp. y anexos.

Giménez Dixon, M. 1987b. La conservación del venado de las pampas. Pcia. Buenos Aires, Min. As. Agr., Dir. Rec. Nat. y Ecología, 35 pp.

Giménez Dixon, M. 1991. Estimación de parámetros poblacionales del venado de las pampas (Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer; Cabr. 1943 -Cervidea-) en la costa de la Bahía de Samborombón (Prov. Buenos Aires) a partir de datos obtenidos mediante censos aéreos. Tesis Doctoral; Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 165 pp. 1 mapa.

95

DRAFT13 April 2005Jackson, J.E. 1980. Campos del Tuyú Reserve; An ecological approach. Unpublished manuscript for

Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, 43 pp.

Meyer, M.M. 1991. Les papillons diurnes des zones humides européens: biogéographie, menaces, mesures de protection. Pp. 52-61. Conserving and Managing Wetlands. Council of Europe.

Morrison, R.I.G., Ross, R.K., Canevari, P., de Tarzo Zuquim Antas, P., de Jong, B., Randail, B., Espinosa, F., Madriz Teperino, M. & Mago de Perez, J. 1985. Aerial surveys of shorebirds and other wildlife in South America: some preliminary results. Canadian Wildlife Service, Progress Notes 148: 1-22.

Morrison, R.I.G. & Ross, R.K. (eds.) 1989. Atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South America. Two volumes. Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication; Ottawa; Vol. I: 1-28; Vol. II: 129-325.

Myers, J.P. & Myers, L.P. 1979. Shorebirds of coastal Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Ibis 121(2): 186-200.

Piantanida, M.(Dir.) y colab. 1982. Estudio ecológico de las poblaciones de mamíferos en un área de reserva de la zona costera de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Informe a la SubCYT.

Ramsar Convention 1990. Criteria for identifying Wetlands of international importance. Pp. 150-154 in: Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Montreux, Switzerland, 27.VI - 04.VII; Vol. II: Conference Workshops.

S.A.G. y P. 1986. Resolución 144/86. Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca de la Nación, Argentina, mecanografiado, 214 folios.

Samways, M.J. & Calwell, P. 1988. Glistening Wings. Quagga 23: 20-21.

Scott, D.A. & Carbonell, M. (comp.) 1986. Inventario de humedales de la región neotropical. IWRB, Slimbridge & IUCN, Cambridge. 714 pp.

Speight, M.C.D., McLean, I.F.G. & Goeldin de Tiefenau, P. 1991. The recognition of sites of international importance for protection of invertebrates. Pp 39-42. Conserving and Managing Wetlands. Council of Europe.

Stuart, S.N. 1990. Applying the Ramsar criteria for species other than birds. Pp. 124-126 in: Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Montreux, Switzerland, 27.VI - 04.VII; Vol. I.

Wells, S. & Chatfield, J. 1991. Conservation needs of threatened European non-marine molluscs with special reference to wetland species. Pp. 62-68. Conserving and Managing Wetlands. Council of Europe.

96

DRAFT13 April 2005Annex 1

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE (Extracted from Ramsar, 1990)

The Criteria set out below, which have been approved by the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Montreux, 1990, are for identifying wetlands of international importance.

Criteria

A wetland is identified as being of international importance if it meets at least one of the criteria set out below:



(a) it is a particularly good representative example of a natural or near-natural wetland, characteristic of the appropriate biogeographical region;

or (b) it is a particularly good representative example of a natural or near-natural wetland, common to more than one biogeographical region;

or (c) it is a particularly good representative example of a wetland, which plays a substantial hydrological, biological or ecological role in the natural functioning of a major river basin or coastal system, especially where it is located in a trans-border position;

or (d) it is an example of a specific type of wetland, rare or unusual in the appropriate biogeographical region.



(a) it supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one or more of these species;

or (b) it is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna;

or (c) it is of special value as the habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycle;

or (d) it is of special value for one or more endemic plant or animal species or communities.



(a) it regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl;

or (b) it regularly supports substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity;

or (c) where data on populations are available, it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.

97


A proposed basis for recognition of sites as internationally important for protection of invertebrates

Considering for purposes of this proposal a European invertebrate to be any invertebrate species whose world range is predominantly or entirely within the area of [Europe] [the Member States of the Council of Europe] and a site is an area of not usually less than 100 ha;

Considering also any European invertebrate to be threatened if it is so designated by any Europe-wide study which has been set up to identify threatened species, and whose results have been scrutinised and accepted by an international group set up for the purpose by some body recognized by the Council of Europe as competent in this field:

1. Any site in a Member State known to support either/or

a. two or more invertebrate species threatened in Europe and a good representation of the nationally recorded species associated with the biotopes present,

b. one of the five most important European populations of a threatened European species, taking into consideration the need to protect as wide a range as possible, both ecologically and geographically, of the sites supporting the species.

should be regarded as of international importance for protection of invertebrates and as a candidate site for inclusion on lists of sites recommended for protection.

Considering also any threatened European invertebrate to be regarded as endangered within a Council of Europe Member State from which it is recorded until and unless a minimum of 500 ha of appropriate habitat on sites supporting the species have achieved protected status within that State and are being managed in a fashion consistent with the needs of the species;

Considering also that extinction of a threatened European invertebrate species, which is the only known species in the world representative of some particular genus or higher taxonomic grouping, would represent a more serious evolutionary loss than would extinction of a representative of a polytypic genus or higher taxonomic grouping;

2. Any site in a Member State known to support either/or

a. a population of any threatened European species not known from protected sites in that State totalling more than 500 ha of appropriate habitat,

b. a population of a threatened European species which is the only known species of its genus or of some higher taxonomic grouping,

c. a population of a threatened European species which is known from five or less sites in Europe.

should be regarded as of international importance for protection of invertebrates and as a priority site for inclusion on lists of sites recommended for protection.

Extracted from: Speight et al. (1991).

98


SSC Action Plans

The list below gives the current status of Action Plans produced and in preparation (including SSC Occasional Papers) as of June 1993.

Completed

1. African Primates - John Oates2. Asian Primates - Ardith Eudey3. East and Northeast African Antelopes - Rod East4. Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales - Bill Perrin5. The Kouprey - John MacKinnon and Simon Stuart6. Weasels, Civets, Mongooses and their Relatives - Arnd Schreiber, Roland Wirth, Michael Riffel

and Harry van Rompaey7. Southern and South-central African Antelopes - Rod East8. Asian Rhinos - Mohd Khan bin Momin Khan9. Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles - David Stubbs10. African Elephants and Rhinos - D.H.M. Cumming, R.F. du Toit, and S.N. Stuart11. Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs - J.R. Ginsberg, D.W. Macdonald and L.D. Mech12. Asian Elephant - Charles Santiapillai and Peter Jackson13. West and Central African Antelopes - Rod East14. Otters - Pat Foster-Turley, Sheila Macdonald and Chris Mason15. Rabbits, Hares and Pikas - Joe Chapman and John Flux16. African Insectivora and Elephant Shrews - Martin Nicoll and Galen Rathbun17. Swallowtail Butterflies - Tim New and Mark Collins18. Crocodiles - John Thorbjarnarson, Harry Messel, Wayne King and Perran Ross19. South American Camelids - Hernan Torres20. Australasian Marsupials and Monotremes - Michael Kennedy21. Lemurs of Madagascar - Russ Mittermeier Bill Konstant, Martin Nicoll and Oliver Langrand.22. Equids - Patrick Duncan23. Fruit Bats - Simon Mickleburgh, Paul Racey and Tony Hutson

99

DRAFT13 April 2005

Appendix 7. Estimating international waterfowl populations: current activity and future directions (1994)

Rose, P. & Stroud, D.A. 1994. Estimating international waterfowl populations: current activity and future directions. Wader Study Group Bulletin 73: 19-26.

A small international workshop was recently organised by the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau (IWRB) and the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) which considered current activity and future needs for the estimation of international waterfowl population sizes in the Western Palearctic and the uses of these data, especially with respect to the requirements of the Ramsar Convention. The workshop was held at Kalø, Denmark from 11-13 January by the kind invitation of the Danish National Environmental Research Institute. It had two principal objectives.

First, it considered the current mechanisms for the co-ordination of information necessary to assess international population sizes of waterfowl. This concentrated especially on the identification of the different uses of these data and the basic requirements of the different groups of data 'users' (e.g. researchers, national and international NGOs, government conservation bodies, conventions and ministries). The meeting made recommendations for further improvements to current mechanisms, especially in the light of the Ramsar Convention's recent recommendation that international waterfowl population estimates be updated every three years in line with meetings of the Contracting Parties.

Second, the workshop considered comments made on the draft report prepared in 1993 by IWRB, Asian Wetland Bureau (AWB) and Wetlands for the Americas (WA) which aimed to summarise current estimates for waterfowl populations world-wide. Since there was a need to finalise these waterfowl estimates for the Western Palearctic, the meeting considered outstanding issues. The meeting also addressed options for further improvements in the future reporting of international waterfowl estimates in the light of this first report, and made recommendations for such improvements.

The meeting recommended two cycles of review to be undertaken: a three year cycle of revision of population estimates for Western Palearctic waterfowl (i.e. for

every Ramsar Conference); and a nine year cycle of revision of 1% thresholds for Western Palearctic waterfowl (every third

Ramsar meeting), unless major population change occurs.

In undertaking these reviews, a two stage model is proposed: first, published taxa-related reviews (produced e.g. by IWRB Research Groups/Database co-

ordinators and others to an agreed forward plan); and second, a global summary report drawing on review papers (produced by IWRB/AWB/WA).

The meeting noted the great importance of ensuring that one internationally-agreed set of officially reported population levels were available for use by the Ramsar and Bonn Conventions, and other international treaties. IWRB should co-ordinate the establishment of common protocols on the use and revision of these data.

The meeting focused on the issues surrounding waterfowl population estimates in the Western Palearctic, but throughout the meeting it became clear that many of the points under discussion were relevant also to other parts of the world, and that future discussions should include representatives from other regions. The outcome of the meeting will be taken forward in the planning of the March 1996 meeting of Ramsar Contracting Parties in Brisbane, Australia.

Rose, P., IWRB, Slimbridge, Gloucester GL2 7BX, UK.Stroud, D.A., JNCC, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough PE1 1JY, UK.

100

DRAFT13 April 2005INTRODUCTION

The 1% criterion has for many years been used to identify wetlands of international importance for their waterfowl populations, especially those which should be brought within the list of sites conserved under the Ramsar Convention.

The criterion identifies sites as of international importance if 1% of the waterfowl of a particular migratory flyway or population regularly make use of a wet land at any time during their annual cycle. This simple, and globally applicable criterion, to which other criteria have more recently been added, has played a major rôle in the identification and listing of sites under the Ramsar Convention.

There is no fundamental biological reason to take 1% of a population as the threshold level for establishing international importance of a site. However, this percentage has been found by long experience and evaluation to be useful in giving an appropriate degree of protection to many populations except when widespread and dispersed, and in the definition of ecologically appropriate sites. The criterion has, therefore, gained worldwide acceptance.

The wide use of this numerical criterion in site selection depends crucially however, on the establishment of the size of the international waterfowl populations concerned. This provides the necessary baseline from which the 1% threshold is derived for any species or population.

The long-term collection of baseline data has been undertaken through the International Waterfowl Census (IWC) of IWRB - itself working with and alongside other national (e.g. WeBS in the UK) or international counting schemes, and specialist surveys for particular taxa.

The revision of international population estimates has, until now, been undertaken previously on an ad hoc basis, with the last major reviews of Western Palearctic waders and Anatidae being presented at the 1987 Ramsar meeting in Regina (Smit & Piersma 1989; Pirot et al. 1989). There has formerly been no internationally agreed timetable for the revision of population estimates and 1% thresholds.

The meeting noted the great importance of ensuring that one internationally agreed set of officially reported population levels were available for use by the Ramsar and Bonn Conventions, and other international treaties, as well as other users such as national conservation agencies and non-governmental organisations.

CURRENT REVISION OF INTERNATIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATES

A report was prepared by IWRB, AWB and WA for the Kushiro Ramsar Conference in June 1993. This consultation draft brought together for the first time all data on waterfowl population estimates from all over the world and has now been published (Rose & Scott 1994). The report suggested 1% thresholds for some populations, and where possible, indicated trends in the development of populations. It also updated population levels and 1% thresholds where these exist.

There was an urgent need to finalise these estimates for waterfowl populations occurring in the Western Palearctic, as well as to consider the comments made on their presentation by interested parties. There was also a need to consider in detail the future co-ordination and timetable for the preparation and revision of international waterfowl population estimates, involving strategic consideration of data collection, analysis and use by a variety of partner organisations and bodies. The meeting considered the current and future development of this key area of conservation science, drawing on the expertise developed in north-western Europe and especially in those countries with sophisticated systems for waterfowl monitoring and conservation delivery.

COMMON DIRECTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATION

The collation of data for the draft report highlighted a number of areas where review was necessary. This follows experience in some countries active in the designation of large numbers of Ramsar sites

101

DRAFT13 April 2005and their subsequent defence through complex legislation and legal planning processes.

In some European countries (as well as other areas outside the Western Palearctic), the Ramsar designation gives an additional level of strict protection for a wetland over and above that provided by domestic legislation. In this regard, the designation attracts particular attention from developers and others whose activities may be damaging to the site. There are often challenges to the designation, not only at the time it is made, but on a continuing basis. This may involve the legal defence of the site through courts, planning inquiries and other procedures. The consequence of this is that population estimates used in site selection must be defensible to the greatest degree possible, and their derivation must have involved the highest possible scientific standards.

In other parts of the world, lack of adequate domestic legislation places a heavy reliance on site protection through international designations such as Ramsar listing. In some areas, the quality and quantity of data may be such that only 'best estimates' are available for some waterfowl populations. Even these data provide a vital basis throughout much of the world for providing a basis for flyway site safeguard and for driving nature conservation forward.

The workshop considered the development and use of population data specifically as related to the Western Palearctic region. It was noted that although many of the issues related to data were especially acute in NW Europe (from where workshop participants came), population estimation had to relate to appropriate biogeographical units - in this case the Western Palearctic or East Atlantic Flyway. It was also noted that issues involved were often common throughout the world and there would be benefits for other regions in undertaking similar review exercises.

The challenge faced in deriving one global report is to ensure that both situations with a well developed information base and those areas where detailed extensive counts were not available can be catered for, bearing in mind that the current experience of the former situation may be useful in guiding the development and growth of counting in the latter.

Underpinning the collection and interpretation of waterfowl population data is the need for a common and agreed terminology. In the light of confusion over the taxonomic scope of the terms "waterbird" and "waterfowl", the meeting considered these, and other definitions, as outlined in the Appendix.

Data collection and collation

The workshop addressed the processes involved in waterfowl population estimation in the Western Palearctic, especially with regard to the uses and users of information generated.

For the Western Palearctic, the meeting reviewed the structures for current collection of data on waterfowl population size, and the adequacy of present collection procedures. Particular attention was given to seabirds as some of these species are now classified (in some definitions - see Appendix) as waterbirds. It was noted that principal population census was through breeding season census, especially of colonial species, and that there were currently only weak structures for the regular collation of such data at an international level.

Most data for most non-breeding waterfowl are collated through the International Waterfowl Census. There is sometimes interpretation of this information by IWRB's Research Groups (e.g. for seaducks, geese and waders).

Regularity of revision of totals

Resolution 5.9 of the 1993 Kushiro Ramsar meeting requested IWRB to update population figures used to derive 1% thresholds on a three year cycle in line with meetings of the Contracting Parties.

Concerns were expressed that full revision of international 1% thresholds every three years is too frequent. The value of the 1% thresholds is that they provide a medium term, consistent base-line

102

DRAFT13 April 2005against which to evaluate sites in an international context, set priorities for species planning etc. If they change too frequently, this stability is lost and no sooner have one set of criteria been produced, and disseminated through governmental systems to a local level, than another revision is due. This could cause considerable practical problems in a number of countries, for example, with the constant need to revise national lists of sites qualifying as of international importance, and with sites coming on or off shadow lists of qualifying sites as populations alter in size through the effects of natural changes in productivity and mortality.

Many waterfowl undergo substantial natural year-to-year population change, owing to variations in breeding success and/or winter survival. A too frequent revision of 1% thresholds is especially a problem for these populations since changed 1% thresholds may only reflect short-term natural variation rather than real population change.

There is generally an inverse relationship between frequency of population revision and geographical scale. At the level of the individual site, at least annual, if not more frequent, assessments are necessary in order to fine-tune site-management. At national and international levels, the currency used by conservation practitioners (the population estimate) needs to change less frequently to be most useful. At a national level, we probably need to review populations about every 3-5 years, and at the scale of the international population estimate and for 1% thresholds, a frequency of change in the order of nine years has been suggested.

This is obviously something for the Ramsar Parties themselves to consider in due course, but the meeting considered it desirable in future revisions of the report to update international population levels (where necessary/appropriate) every three years, but to aim to avoid changing 1% thresholds on this timetable unless there has been a change of significant magnitude (c. 20% - guidelines to be agreed) that makes this likely to be a real change and thus really necessary.

The process has two separate elements:

a) the desirable frequency of revision of 'true' population totals; and

b) the desirable frequency of revision of 1% thresholds (i.e. the nominal totals which may vary slightly from time to time from the true total).

This in turn led to a consideration of the use of these two elements by a variety of parties. There are a number of potential user-groups, including:

international conservation agencies (e.g. IWRB, BirdLife International, IUCN etc.);

Convention and international bureaux (e.g. Ramsar Bureau, Bonn Convention Secretariat, European Commission etc.);

academics and specialist research groups (e.g. Wader Study Group);

government ministries responsible for the designation and protection of sites and species; and

governmental and non-governmental conservation bodies involved in the identification of sites and their management for species.

Different users have different needs from the population totals. The system of revision must be flexible enough to satisfy most users most of the time (recognising that it may not be possible to please all users, all of the time!).

For conservation scientists, knowledge of annual year-on-year population changes is important to monitor the health of populations (and to give data for modelling etc.). For advising governments and conservation practitioners there is no need for a full new set of published international population levels to be made each year.

TIMETABLING AND PLANNING OF FUTURE POPULATION REVISIONS

103

DRAFT13 April 2005The meeting agreed a parallel programme of scientific dissemination of population estimates (detailed taxa reviews e.g. for geese, waders, seaducks) slightly ahead of the timetable for the global summary report. These reviews will be published in advance of their use in a global summary.

Such dual dissemination (review papers and global report) would not only show how data were derived (the review papers for particular taxa), but at the same time give a global vehicle for presenting 'best-estimate' information where these are the only sources (much of the world). The workshop gave consideration as to how such planning might take place, and how to integrate with other groups (e.g. those concerned with seabirds) for maximum effectiveness.

The result is a system which gives a scientifically sound international benchmark, especially inasmuch as this ensures that all international data ultimately used to underpin site selection at a national level are clear, published and open to critical inspection by third parties.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanisms for future revisions of international waterbird population levels

OBJECTIVE

To prepare one agreed, and recognised, source of information in the world, documenting waterbird population levels to a regular reporting timetable, whilst accommodating, to the greatest extent possible, the requirements of international conservation bureaux, and governmental and non-governmental users.

TIMETABLE

The meeting recommended that two cycles of review would be most appropriate:

a three year cycle of revision of population estimates for Western Palearctic waterfowl (i.e. for every Ramsar Conference);

a nine year cycle of revision of 1% thresholds for Western Palearctic waterfowl (every third Ramsar meeting), unless there has been a change of significant magnitude (c. 20% - guidelines to be agreed) within a three year period. (The separation of revision of population estimates from 1% thresholds and their use in applying the 1% criterion is important to avoid rapid changes of lists of qualifying sites consequential on short-term population changes.)

It was understood that other regions may wish (or need) to change 1% thresholds every three years as in other parts of the world there is a much more dynamic rate of change of information.

A timetable for next decade was agreed (Table 1).

FORMAT

In undertaking these reviews, a two stage model was suggested:

firstly, published taxa related reviews (produced to an agreed forward plan - Table 1); and

secondly, a global summary report drawing on review papers (produced by IWRB/AWB/WA for Ramsar Convention).

Published global summary reports on waterfowl population levels should have the following format:

All primary estimates will be directly sourced or have a clear audit trail.

Wherever possible, estimates will be derived from published or other reviewed data - not taken direct from databases (i.e. databases help to form the basis of the taxa related reviews).

104

DRAFT13 April 2005 It would be useful to include maps showing the geographic extent of estimates; however this

will need further investigation.

PROCESS

Revision of the global report will be undertaken every three years for meetings of Ramsar Contracting Parties.

Official 1% thresholds for the Western Palearctic species in the global report will normally be updated every nine years, although with 'emergency' revision of 1% thresholds possible at three yearly intervals if rapid changes of population occur (i.e. population levels are changed every three years, but 1% thresholds are changed only every nine years unless they change by greater than a specific magnitude (yet to be defined)).

There is a need to define rules of change. What are the natural limits within which a population can fluctuate before there is a need to revise 1% threshold? A change of >20% was discussed as a rule of thumb. This will need to be discussed at next workshop meeting. [Note that there are conceptual links to the framework of 'alert limits' currently being developed in the UK for waterfowl species].

It was agreed that there would be no changes of 'official' international population levels or 1% thresholds within three year periods except in an emergency.

The Workshop recommended that the Ramsar Bureau disseminate 'official' 1% thresholds for use in application of Criterion 3c, possibly as a booklet, and adopt a resolution at the next Ramsar Convention meeting to confirm use of these official 1% population thresholds. This will require the 1996 draft report to be circulated as a Conference paper to Contracting Parties in advance of the next meeting to allow endorsement at the meeting., as was the 1993 report (Resolution C.5.9).

Future workshops/activity

The need for advances in ecology and conservation science to be feed into the process of data collation, interpretation and use at national and international levels was highlighted. There are current scientific advances that should be fed into the future conservation agendas. The desirability of a review outlining the scope and possible use of recent ecological advances to this field of waterfowl conservation was noted.

It was noted that although the present workshop considered the Western Palearctic, this experience may be useful to other global regions in establishing similar and forward-linked programmes of activity. The outcome of this meeting, especially underlying principles, should be disseminated more widely by IWRB (to its global partners) and Ramsar Bureau. There would be merits in Ramsar Bureau convening a wider group to encourage and endorse international co-ordination at a global level.

Achieving necessary coverage

For waders, existing datasets are limited by two types of gaps - restricted geographical coverage in some parts of the flyway, and lack of information for non-coastal areas. WSG would need to work to enhance coverage in both these situations. (For the former, and probably the latter, there is a major role for WIWO type expeditions).

Conservation

Future meetings need to assess how information can best be used and what other sorts of data would enhance information on waterfowl populations and their conservation. For example, there is little knowledge of the proportion of populations using protected sites on a flyway basis (but see Davidson & Piersma 1992 for an example). IWRB and its Research Groups could

105

DRAFT13 April 2005

derive and disseminate such information, although the process should be detached from the timetable of international population review and reporting.

There is a need to define nature conservation targets and processes for waterbird species especially with respect to advances in the theory of metapopulations and the application of this to conservation, as well as the importance of turnover, the significance of the loss of sites along a flyway chain, distance between protected sites for species with different migratory patterns etc.. This could be a theme for a future international workshop.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support for the workshop was provided by the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, other support and facilities were provided by the Danish National Environmental Research Institute at Kalø, and arrangements and organisation was undertaken by IWRB, Slimbridge.

The meeting was attended by Nick Davidson (WSG/IWRB liaison), Tony Fox (Danish National Environmental Research Institute - NERI), Colin Galbraith (JNCC), Karsten Laursen (NERI: IWRB Seaducks Research Group), Jesper Madsen (NERI: IWRB Goose Research Group), Stefan Pihl (NERI: IWRB goose and seaducks databases), Marc van Roomen (SOVON), Paul Rose (IWRB), Derek Scott (IWRB consultant), David Stroud (JNCC), Cor Smit (IWRB wader database), Mark Tasker (JNCC/ Seabird Group), and Janine van Vessem (IWRB). Although unfortunately not able to be present, Birdlife International (Colin Bibby, Melanie Heath, Graham Tucker and Zoltan Waliczky), and the Ramsar Bureau (Mike Smart) sent written submissions which were considered by the workshop and aided deliberations.

APPENDIX: DEFINITIONS

Terms used are fundamental in the process of designation and conservation of wetlands and their waterfowl. The meanings of the following terms were discussed and agreed.

Population

Biogeographic populations are normally defined as a more or less discrete group of birds which live in a particular area or group of areas, which interbreed freely within the group and rarely breed or exchange individuals with other groups (Mayr 1970).

Sub-species/races

Biogeographical populations defined above, sufficiently discrete in time and space to facilitate morphological or other distinguishing features as determined by taxonomists.

The flyway concept

A 'flyway' is a concept developed to describe areas of the world used by migratory animals such as waders. Flyways can be defined as the migration route(s) and areas used by wader populations in moving between their breeding and wintering grounds. Each wader species and population migrates in a different way and uses a different suite of breeding, migration staging and wintering sites. Hence a single flyway is composed of many overlapping migration systems of individual wader populations and species, each of which has different habitat preferences and migration strategies. From knowledge of these various migration systems it is possible to group the migration routes used by waders into broad flyways, each of which is used by many species, often in a similar way, during their annual migrations.

There are no hard and fast separations between flyways, and their use is not intended to imply any major biological significance. Rather the use of the flyway concept is valuable for the convenience of its approach in permitting the biology and conservation of waders, as with other migratory species to

106

DRAFT13 April 2005be considered in broad geographical units into which the migrations of species and populations can be more or less readily grouped.

Recent research into the migrations of many wader species throughout Europe and Asia indicates that in this part of the world the migrations of waders can broadly be grouped into five flyways: from west to east being the East Atlantic Flyway, the Mediterranean/Black Sea Flyway, the West Asia/Africa Flyway, the Central Asia/Indian sub-continent Flyway, and the East Asia/Australasia Flyway (source: Odessa Protocol Wader Study Group Bull. 65: 12).

Waterfowl/waterbirds/wildfowl

A long discussion was held as to the different legal and vernacular definitions of these terms. The conclusion was that such confusion now existed over the different forms of national and international usage (especially with respect of the term 'waterfowl') that it was best to taxonomically define the scope of use of these terms every time they are adopted (especially for quasi-legal documents).

Regularity

The Conference of Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention has defined the term "regularly" as used in the Ramsar site selection criteria. A wetland regularly supports a population of a given size if:

a. the requisite number of birds is known to have occurred in at least three quarters of the seasons for which adequate data are available, the total number of seasons being not less than three; or

b. the mean of the seasonal maxima, taken over at least five years, amounts to the required level (means based on three or four years may be quoted in provisional assessments only).

However, in establishing long-term 'use' of a site by birds, there needs to be a full awareness of the ecological needs of the populations protected at that site. Thus in some situations (e.g. sites of importance as cold weather refuges), the arithmetical average number of birds using a site over several years may not adequately reflect the importance of the site. In these instances, a site may be of crucial importance at certain times ('ecological bottlenecks'), but hold lesser numbers at other times. Thus, as always, there is a need for interpretation of data by qualified conservation scientists in order to ensure that the importance of sites is fully assessed (Stroud et al. 1990).

There is a need to further refine our definition of 'regular use' of a site with respect to currently available datasets - especially with respect to our better understanding of cold weather needs in northwest Europe.

Seasonality

Population estimation at the level of the sub-species may be valid for populations that are assumed to be discrete in both summer and winter (e.g. for sedentary species, and some well known migratory species(especially e.g. geese)). However, many separate breeding populations mix in the non-breeding season, making year-round population distinction difficult, if not impossible.

The meeting agreed that in presenting population estimates, the provenance of data should always clearly be stated. With mixed, non-breeding populations, there would usually be a need to clearly indicate the areas and seasons for which a 1% criterion would be valid.

Site

The last semi-formal definition of 'site' was that of Atkinson-Willes (1976) who presented a study "based on the general rule that a 'site' should not cover more than 25 km of coast, shore or river". Atkinson-Willes et al. (1982) provided greater elaboration and stressed also the key importance of the continuum of habitat (as also reflected in the definitions of Grimmett & Jones 1989 - below). Thus many major estuaries have a shoreline of more than 25 km, but clearly should be considered one site

107

DRAFT13 April 2005on ecological grounds, linked not only hydrologically but also by the movements of birds within the site.

Grimmett & Jones (1989), in their review of important bird areas in Europe defined a site:

"... so that, as far as possible, it should:

1. be different in character or habitat or ornithological importance from the surrounding land or sea; and

2. exist as an actual or potential protected area, with or without buffer zones, or be an area which can be managed in some way for nature conservation; and

3. alone or with other sites, be a self-sufficient area which provides all the requirements of the birds (that it is important for) which use it during the time they are present.

Important areas in which the habitat is protected for bird conservation should be large enough to provide all the requirements of the birds using them, while they area present." (Grimmett & Jones (1989) modified to incorporate marine sites).

In the identification of marine 'sites' information on relative densities over the sea surface is more important for the identification of important sites than selection approaches based on 1% population thresholds.

1% criterion

The Ramsar Convention established site selection criteria. One such criterion (currently numbered Criterion 3c indicates that a site is identified as of international importance if it holds 1% or more of a population of waterfowl. A change in the 1% criterion would be if the selection threshold changes to, say, 2% of a population (= the 2% criterion) or 0.5% of a population (= the 0.5% criterion). The term thus relates to the proportion (1%) that is used as a criterion of internationally important site selection.

1% threshold

This logically derives from the above and relates to the number of birds that are used as the nominal 1% of the population for the purposes of site selection. Thus, an international population of 75,000 Knot Calidris canutus has a derived 1% threshold of 750.

REFERENCES

Atkinson-Willes, G.L. 1976. The numerical distribution of ducks, swans and coots as a guide in assessing the importance of wetlands in midwinter. In: Proceedings of the international conference on the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, 2-6 December 1974, 199-254. Heiligenhafen, Federal Republic of Germany.

Atkinson-Willes, G.L., Scott, D.A., & Prater, A.J. 1982. Criteria for selecting wetlands of international importance. In: Proceedings of the conference on the conservation of wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat. Cagliari, Italy, 24-29 November 1980, 1017-1042. Supplemento alle Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina, 81 (1).

Davidson, N.C. & Piersma, T. 1992. The migration of Knots: conservation needs and implications. Wader Study Group Bull. 64, Suppl.: 198-209.

Grimmett, R.F.A. & Jones, T.A. 1989. Important bird areas in Europe. ICBP Technical Publication No. 9, Cambridge.

Mayr, E. 1970. Populations, species and evolution. Harvard University Press.

108

DRAFT13 April 2005Pirot, J. -Y., Laursen, K., Madsen, J., & Monval, J. -Y. 1989. Population estimates of swans, geese,

ducks, and Eurasian Coot (Fulica atra) in the Western Palearctic and Sahelian Africa. In: Boyd, H. & Pirot, J. -Y. (Eds.) Flyways and reserve networks for water birds. IWRB Special Publication No. 9: 14-23.

Rose, P.M. & Scott, D.A. 1994. Waterfowl population estimates. IWRB Special Publication 29. 102 pp.

Smit, C. & Piersma, T. 1989. Numbers, midwinter distribution, and migration of wader populations using the East Atlantic Flyway. In: Boyd, H. & Pirot, J. -Y. (Eds.) Flyways and reserve networks for water birds. IWRB Special Publication No. 9: 24-63.

Stroud, D.A., Mudge, G.P., & Pienkowski, M.W. 1990. Protecting internationally important bird sites: a review of the EEC Special Protection Area network in Great Britain. NCC, Peterborough. 230 pp.

109

Table 1. Forward plan of activity relating to international estimation of waterfowl population levels, and reporting to Ramsar Convention.

Year Activity for Ramsar Convention and Ramsar Bureau

Actions for individual countries Action for IWRB, its Research Groups, database co-ordinators, and others

Action for IWRB HQ (with AWB & WA)

1994 Full taxa reviews for Western Palearctic prepared by IWRB Research Groups

Kushiro report published.

1995 September/October: circulate draft global report to Contracting Parties as Conference paper

Provide advice and data as required. Meeting of Steering Group - summer/early autumn 1995

Full taxa reviews finalised: deadline for submission to IWRB HQ - May 1995

May-August: prepare second global report and transmit to Ramsar Bureau in September (for Western Palearctic: first full nine yearly review of population levels and 1% thresholds)

1996 March: endorse global report at 6th Ramsar meeting and disseminate 'official' 1% levels

Implement revised 1% thresholds in selection of Ramsar sites for all species

1997 Provide advice and data as required Limited taxa reviews for Western Palearctic prepared

1998 Taxa updates finalised and published Prepare third global report and transmit to Ramsar Bureau (for Western Palearctic: only population levels changed)

1999 Circulate draft global report to Contracting Parties as Conference paperEndorse global report at 7th Ramsar meeting and disseminate 'official' 1% levels

Implement any revised 1% thresholds in the selection of Ramsar sites

2000 Provide advice and data as required Limited taxa reviews for Western Palearctic prepared

2001 Taxa updates finalised and published Prepare fourth global report and transmit to Ramsar Bureau (for Western Palearctic: only population levels changed)


Implement any revised 1% thresholds in selection of Ramsar sites

2002-3 Ensure co-ordination of adequate species/geographic coverage e.g. single species surveys, seabird surveys, seabird colony counts, rocky shore counts etc.

Co-ordination of period for major survey work to ensure complete international coverage of flyway populations for the Research Group reviews (e.g. expeditions to Western Sahara for waders), and also occasional extensive surveys (e.g. some seabird studies/rocky shorebird counts etc.)

2003 Full taxa reviews for Western Palearctic prepared by IWRB Research Groups

2004 Provide advice and data as required Full taxa reviews finalised and published

Prepare fifth global report and transmit to Ramsar Bureau (for Western Palearctic: second full nine yearly review of population levels and 1% thresholds)


Implement revised 1% thresholds in selection of Ramsar sites for all species

acknowledgements - ramsarcriterion... · web view13/04/2005 · david a. stroud. joint nature...

Documents