RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS
54th Meeting of the Standing Committee
Gland, Switzerland, 23–27 April 2018

Doc. SC54-21.1
Draft resolution on the rapid assessment of wetland ecosystem services
Submitted by the Republic of Korea
Action requested:•

The Standing Committee is invited to review the attached draft resolution for consideration at
the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

Draft Resolution XIII.xx
The rapid assessment of wetland ecosystem services
1.

RECALLING that Annex A to Resolution IX. 1 Additional scientific and technical guidance for
implementing the Ramsar wise use concept defined the ecological character of wetlands as the
combination of the ecosystem components, processes and benefits/services that characterise
the wetland at a given point in time;2.

RECOGNIZING that to achieve the Mission of the Ramsar Convention it is essential that vital
ecosystem functions and the ecosystem services that wetlands provide to people and nature
are fully recognized, maintained, restored and wisely used;

3.

NOTING that a priority area of focus for the Convention under the Ramsar Strategic Plan 20162024 is to enhance the information about ecosystem functions and the ecosystem services
wetlands provide to people and nature;

4.

FURTHER recognizing that under Resolution XII. 3 Enhancing the languages of the Convention
and its visibility and stature, and increasing synergies with other multilateral environmental
agreements and other international institutions, Parties and other stakeholders are encouraged
to increase their efforts to communicate on the values of ecosystem services of wetlands inother sectors’ strategies, plans and regulations, and integrate them into a basin approach toland-use plans and other relevant local, national and global decisions;

5.

ACKNOWLEDGING that the important ecosystem services that wetlands provide have direct
relevance to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals which are related topoverty eradication, food and nutrition, healthy living, gender equality, water quality andsupply, water security, energy supply, reduction of natural disasters, innovation and thedevelopment of appropriate infrastructure, sustainable human settlements, adaptation toclimate change, oceans, seas and marine resources, biodiversity and sustainable use of
ecosystems;

6.

RECOGNIZING the requirement to indicate the presence or absence of all relevant ecosystemservices/benefits currently provided by each Ramsar Site when completing or updating theRamsar Information Sheet and RECALLING the invitation to Contracting Parties to work with the
Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) to develop a more thorough understanding of thenature and extent of ecosystem benefits/services provided by Ramsar Sites individually and at
national and global network scales and to report the outcomes of that work to the Standing
Committee and the Conference of Parties;

7.

FURTHER recognizing the STRP priority thematic work area for 2016-2018 which requested thedevelopment of methodologies for the economic and non-economic valuation of the values of
the goods and services of wetlands; and the importance of integrating multiple wetland values
into decision-making as described in Ramsar Policy Brief 2;

8.

CONCERNED that only 17% of Contracting Parties reported to COP12 in their National Reportsthat they have made an assessment of the ecosystem benefits/services provided by Ramsar
Sites;

9.

ALSO CONCERNED that without the application of appropriate methodologies that the multiple
values of wetlands will continue to be poorly recognized and integrated into decision-making;and10. EXPRESSING appreciation to the Government of the Republic of Korea, Suncheon City (Republicof Korea), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Ramsar Regional
Center – East Asia (RRC-EA) for their generous sponsorship and organization of workshops thatlaid the foundation for this Resolution;
THE CONFERENCE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
11. WELCOMES the approach to the Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services annexed tothis Resolution; and RECOGNIZES that it can be applied by Contracting Parties to assist theirdelivery on the targets of the Strategic Plan 2016-2024;
12. APPROVES the Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services annexed to this Resolution as avoluntary assessment approach for evaluating the ecosystem services of Ramsar Sites and otherwetlands; ENCOURAGES Contracting Parties that do not already have effective approaches inplace for the recognition and evaluation of ecosystem services provided by their Ramsar Sites
and other wetlands to use the Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services approach; andCONFIRMS that this Resolution does not create additional reporting obligations for Parties;
13. ENCOURAGES Ramsar Site management authorities to apply the approach of the Rapid
Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services in order to assess the ecosystem services that their
Site provides, to contribute to the description of the ecological character of their Site and toensure the maintenance of these services in their management processes; and ENCOURAGES
Parties to use the data and information gathered to update the relevant sections of theInformation Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands for the Site;
14. REAFFIRMS the long-term value of taking a participatory approach, involving indigenous
peoples and local communities, subject to the respective national laws of the Contracting
Parties when recognizing and understanding the ecosystem services provided by wetlands;

SC54-21.1

2

15. INVITES Contracting Parties to support the translation of the Rapid Assessment of Wetland
Ecosystem Services annexed to this Resolution into languages which are not official languages of
the Ramsar Convention;
16. URGES Contracting Parties to encourage Ramsar Site management authorities to use Ramsar
communication tools including websites and social media to highlight more widely the
ecosystem services provided by wetlands;
17. ENCOURAGES those who use the approach to the Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem
Services to also refer to other relevant Ramsar guidelines, when making these assessments; and
18. ALSO ENCOURAGES Contracting Parties, where appropriate, to utilize the Rapid Assessment of
Wetland Ecosystem Services when preparing their National Reports and describing the status ofSites on the List.

SC54-21.1

3

Annex 1
The Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services
Introduction
1.

To achieve wise use, and for wetlands to contribute fully to sustainable development, policymakers and practitioners (such as site managers) need to recognize the multiple values of
wetlands, and reflect them in their decisions, policies and actions 1. Without wetlands, the water
cycle, carbon cycle and nutrient cycle would be significantly altered, mostly detrimentally. Yet,often due to a failure to recognise these multiple, interconnected values, policies and decisions
do not sufficiently take into account these interconnections and interdependencies 2.

2.

The Ramsar Convention has recognised the need to integrate the multiple values of wetlands
into decision making and has produced policy briefs1, technical reports 3 and wider guidance toaddress the importance of this issue. However, a review published in 2016 concluded that there
is an urgent need to ensure that the requirement to assess a broad range of ecosystem services
is achieved in accordance with the reporting obligations under the Ramsar Convention 4. This
improved awareness of and reporting on a comprehensive range of ecosystem services isrequired for both Ramsar Sites and other wetlands.

3.

However, there are inherent limitations, including resourcing, access, cooperation and capacity,which have acted as barriers to more extensive attempts to recognise the multiple benefits thatwetlands provide. Therefore, the development of procedures for assessing wetland ecosystemservices should be targeted and pragmatic in their approach and involve local participation andindigenous knowledge.

4.

Many wetland managers are limited with regards to both time and resources. Therefore, thedevelopment of approaches to assessing wetland ecosystem services needs to satisfy thedefinition of ‘rapid’ insofar that no more than two people should spend more than half a day inthe field and another half day of preparation and analysis 5.

The Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES)5.

The development of the Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES) approach
has considered the requirements of the Ramsar Convention, and particularly the need for
qualitative assessments which are not resource intensive and which can be applied within the1

Kumar, R., McInnes, R.J., Everard, M., Gardner, R.C., Kulindwa, K.A.A., Wittmer, H. and Infante Mata, D. (2017).
Integrating multiple wetland values into decision-making. Ramsar Policy Brief No. 2. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar
Convention Secretariat.
2

Russi D., ten Brink P., Farmer A., Badura T., Coates D., Förster J., Kumar R. and Davidson N. (2013). The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. IEEP, London and Brussels; Ramsar Secretariat, Gland.
3

De Groot, R.S., Stuip, M.A.M., Finlayson, C.M. and Davidson, N. (2006). Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing thebenefits derived from wetland ecosystem services, Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar
Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. ISBN
2-940073-31-7.
4

McInnes, R.J., Simpson, M., Lopez, B., Hawkins, R. and Shore, R. (2016). Wetland ecosystem services and the Ramsar
Convention: An assessment of needs. Wetlands. 37(1), 1-12.
5Fennessy, M.S., Jacobs, A.D. and Kentula, M.E. (2007). An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecologicalcondition of wetlands. Wetlands 27 (3), 543–560.

SC54-21.1

4

context of Ramsar Convention-related reporting. However, consideration has also been given todeveloping an approach which would have wider utility as part of a broader suite of assessment
approaches. Consequently, the objective of the RAWES approach is to facilitate acomprehensive assessment of the plurality of benefits provided by a wetland which can beconsidered genuinely rapid involving limited resources.
6.

Based on an understanding of what is required by a specific, but global, wetland audience, theapproach has at its core the realisation that in many situations the access to time, money anddetailed information will be limited and such barriers need to be overcome if the full range ofvalues is to be recognised. Furthermore, the development of the RAWES approach recognisesthat less time-intensive methods can be more applied at a range of scales, from the site to thelandscape or catchment. Too often, assessments of ecosystem services are limited in theirscope and fail to identify the multiplicity of benefits provided by wetlands, focussing on a few
easy to recognise benefits, and consequently inherently assigning a default value of zero tothese services and thereby excluding them from decision-making fora 6.

7.

The RAWES approach builds on similar techniques applied elsewhere 7. A checklist of services
grouped into functional categories as defined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, namely
provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services, acts as an initial structured
framework. The category of supporting services is retained in RAWES as it recognises thefunctioning and resilience of productive ecosystems rather than valuation. Supporting services
therefore constitute important considerations in terms of the resilience and capacity of
ecosystems to provide wider benefits, and are therefore important considerations inmanagement decision-making.

8.

The list of ecosystem services in RAWES can be modified and adapted to the local context
through dialogue and consultation with local stakeholders who are familiar with the wetland.
Delimitation of the exact area to be assessed is defined objectively by the assessor dependingon the purpose or scope of the assessment. The RAWES approach is flexible, allowing
assessments to be made on different habitat units within a larger wetland complex or on an
entire wetland site. The onus is on the assessor to define the ‘wetland’ and record the rationale
behind the boundaries set and limits used. Since wetland ecosystems can be dynamic or can be
subject to change or degradation, an important issue to be addressed is the definition of thecondition at the time of the assessment. In some cases, the ‘natural’ condition will vary overtime, and it will be necessary to ensure this temporal pattern is considered in the assessment of
ecosystem services. For instance, the assessment could return different outcomes if it isconducted during a drought or when the area is subjected to flooding, both of which may
represent natural phenomena within the broader tolerances of the system. In othercircumstances, a wetland may be subject to on-going degradation, such as through pollution of
surface water or infilling. Therefore, it cannot be safely assumed that the current situationreflects a ‘natural’ condition, and that service delivery is not already influenced by the prevailingconditions. The key issues are to ensure that a comprehensive range of ecosystem services isassessed, that the evidence used to achieve the assessment outcome is transparent and clear,and that the prevailing temporal context is recorded.

6

McInnes, R.J. and Everard, M. (2017). Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from
Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ecosystem Services. 25, 89-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.024.
7

Defra. (2007). An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services [online]. Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra), pp. 68. Available from: www.defra.gov.uk.

SC54-21.1

5

Applying the RAWES approach
9.

RAWES is designed as a simple and rapid site assessment system that may obtain input fromexisting studies but does not rely on detailed, quantitative assessments. As such, it is genuinely
rapid approach that may typically take less than two hours per site with trained assessors
working in pairs for cross-referencing. Significantly, the RAWES approach is also systemic,
addressing all ecosystem services as a connected set rather than selecting only the most readily
evaluated or exploited services, and thereby overlooking other services. The RAWES Field
Assessment Sheet is included in Appendix 1, with an accompanying explanatory table to guideassessor thinking included at Appendix 2. The method has been used widely in Asia, Australia,
Europe and Africa, with a database of sites and informing a number of scientific publications
and site reports about the range and likely importance of ecosystem services provided bywetland sites.

10. RAWES can be used across a range of scales from whole-wetland to localised zones of large andcomplex wetlands; it is also in principle also relevant to other habitat types. The RAWES
assessment form is a simple table with cells into which assessors record the importance of eachecosystem service produced at the wetland site, with space for free text descriptions of key
features supporting that assessment. Assessors are encouraged to interact with stakeholders
so that assessments are informed by local perspectives and indigenous knowledge, ensuringthat all services are recognised. Early interaction is recommended in order to refine the list ofservices to be assessed.
11. The RAWES Field Assessment Sheet (Appendix 1) comprises the following sections:• Wetland name with GPS coordinates• Assessment date
• Assessor name(s)• Table cells to record: (1) the importance of the service assessed using the following
relative scale (adapted from Defra 2007, see Table 1 below); (2) free text box to describe
the benefit; and (3) record of benefit realised at Local, Regional or Global scales.
Table 1. Defra (2007) scale of likely significance of ecosystem services
Score

Assessment of ecosystem service

++
+
0
-?

Potential significant positive contribution
Potential positive contribution
Negligible contribution
Potential negative contribution
Potential significant negative contribution
Gaps in evidence

12. The assessment sheet provides an initial list of ecosystem services under the four maincategories of provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. This initial list should act
as a starting point for considering the multiple benefits provided by a wetland. Assessors areencouraged to consider whether this list needs to be expanded or made more site/context
specific in order to address specific services. For instance, ‘food’ is provided as a catch-all but
could be sub-divided into more detail such as ‘harvested crops’, ‘fish and shellfish’ or ‘collectionof fruit and berries’ if significant differences are experienced in the wetland under assessment.

SC54-21.1

6

Table 2. Linking services to beneficiaries at different scales.
• Local benefits: Those experienced by individuals, households or communities living andworking in the immediate vicinity of the wetland.
• Regional benefits: Those delivered to individuals, households or communities living andworking in the wider catchment of the wetland.
• Global benefits: Those that extend beyond national boundaries.
13. Scores are thus allocated semi-quantitatively, using assessor knowledge and other local andtechnical input. A more quantitative approach would be more resource-intensive, far fromrapid, and would risk overlooking services not initially considered but potentially locallyimportant, as well as skewing assessment towards the more readily exploited, marketable andtherefore quantified services to the detriment to other important maintaining processes andwider benefits. The RAWES rapid method thus serves an operational need to incorporate
ecosystem service assessment routinely into Ramsar site assessments and plans.
14. Training in rapid assessment methods has been highlighted as being essential if subjectivity is tobe reduced and repeatability of results is to be enhanced8. Typically, a one-day training course
mixing classroom and field sessions on the RAWES method suffices, with trained assessors
undertaking independent surveys following the course for verification by the trainers and also
to start building a local site database.
15. The outputs from applying the RAWES approach can be used to inform subsequent quantitative
assessments of targeted ecosystem services, by effectively providing an initial screening, or inmore general local or national policy frameworks and decision-making process such asenvironmental impact assessments.
16. The process for applying the RAWES approach comprises three principle activities: preparation,
field assessment and information management. Simple graphics are provided in Figure 3 to
inform this process.
Table 3. Process for applying the RAWES approach.
Stage

Information

Preparation – Key Considerations
Who will undertake theassessment?

• The assessment should be conducted by a minimum of two
individuals working together.
• The pair should be knowledgeable about the site and the type of
wetland being assessed.

Where will theassessment be
undertaken?

• The assessment should cover a defined area.
• Ideally the area should be of a relative homogeneous habitat typebut if it covers several different habitats this needs to be noted.

8Herlihy, A.T., Sifneos, J., Bason, C., Jacobs, A., Kentula, M.E., Fennessy, M.S. (2009). An approach for evaluating therepeatability of rapid wetland assessment methods: the effects of training and experience. Environ. Manage. 44 (2), 369–
377.

SC54-21.1

7

• Health and safety considerations must be taken into account.
What is needed toundertake theassessment?

•
•
•
•

Ensure that plenty of assessment sheets are available.
Use a clipboard and take several pens/pencils.
Take a camera and a GPS to record an image and the location.
Take appropriate personal protective equipment.

Field assessment – Key Considerations
Observations• Use field indicators to help recognise ecosystem services (seeAppendix 2).
• Understand the wider context of the site and the surroundingsocial and natural environment.
• Think about the scale at which the service may be providing
benefits.
• Record actual services not potential. If there is no evidence do notrecord the service but make a note for future reference.

Local / indigenous
knowledge• Use local knowledge of how the site functions and how local
communities interact with it.

Discussions• Ensure that the assessors discuss issues between themselves andmake reasoned conclusions.

Stakeholder engagement• Wherever possible engage with local stakeholders to understandbetter the relationship between people and the wetland.
• Think about a hierarchy of stakeholders from local (living/working
in an immediately around the wetland), regional (those
downstream and upstream of the wetland or in the wider region)and global (stakeholders and beneficiaries beyond nationalboundaries).

Recording information• Ensure that as much information as possible is recorded so that
others can understand the rationale for any assessments made.

Information management – Key Considerations
Data checking• Before leaving the field, check that all the required information has
been recorded.

Data entry

•
•
•
•

Summarising for futureuse• Make a summary of the any key issues recorded such as
constraints, uncertainties, impacts, threats, etc..

SC54-21.1

Ensure all data are entered onto Excel spreadsheets.
Use one spreadsheet for each assessment location.
Work in pairs to enter data.
If necessary check latitude/longitude on Google Earth8

Appendix 1. RAWES Field assessment sheet
RAPID ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESFIELD ASSESSMENT SHEETKeyHow important?

Wetland name:++Potential significant positive benefit

GPS co-ordinates+

Potential positive benefit

0

Negligible benefit-

Potential negative benefit-?

Potential significant negative benefit

Date:
Assessors:

Gaps in evidence
Scale of benefit
How important?

Describe benefit

Local

Regional

GlobalFresh water
Food

Provisioning services

Fuel
Fibre
Genetic resources
Natural medicines or pharmaceuticals
Ornamental resources
Clay, mineral, aggregate harvesting
Waste disposal
Energy harvesting from natural air and water flows

Air quality regulation
Local climate regulation
Global climate regulation
Water regulation
Flood hazard regulation

Regulatory services

Storm hazard regulation
Pest regulation
Disease regulation - human
Disease regulation - livestock
Erosion regulation
Water purification
Pollination
Salinity regulation
Fire regulation
Noise and visual buffering

Cultural heritage

Cultural services

Recreation and tourism
Aesthetic value
Spiritual and religious value
Inspiration value
Social relations

Supporting services

Educational and research

Soil formation
Primary production
Nutrient cycling
Water recycling
Provision of habitat

Notes:

SC54-21.1

9

Appendix 2. The initial list of wetland ecosystem services considered by the RAWES approach andexamples of the indicator questions considered.
Ecosystem service
Provision of fresh
water

Provisioning services

Provision of food

Examples of questions assessors can ask about this service
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Provision of fibre

Timber for building, wool
for clothing, etc.

Provision of fuelFuelwood, peat, etc.

•

Provision of genetic
resources

Rare breeds used for
crop/stock breeding, etc.

•

Provision of natural
medicines andpharmaceuticals
Provision ofornamental
resources
Clay, mineral,aggregate
harvesting

Plants used as traditional
medicines, etc.

•

Collection of shells,
flowers, etc.

•

Sand and gravel extracted
for building use, clay
extracted for brickmaking, etc.
Dumping of solid waste,discharge of waste water,
etc.
Water wheels driven byflowing water, windmills
driven by the wind, etc.
Removal of airborne
particles from the exhaustof cars, chimneys ofindustry, dust fromagricultural land, etc.
Regulation of the local
microclimate, throughshading, reducing air
temperature, etc.

•

Regulation of the global
climate through control ingreenhouse gas
emissions, thesequestration of carbon,
etc.
Regulation of flows of
surface water during highand low flows, regulationof recharge ofgroundwater, etc.

••

Waste disposal
Energy harvestingfrom natural air
and water flows
Air quality
regulation

Local climate
regulation
Regulating services

ExampleWater used for domestic
drinking supply, forirrigation, for livestock,etc.
Crops, fruit, fish, etc.

Global climate
regulation

Water regulation

SC54-21.1

Does the wetland provide a source of fresh water?
Does the wetland store fresh water for human use?
Is the wetland a net source of pollution, degrading fresh
water provision?
What is grown in the wetland, either formally or frominformal harvesting?
Are animals are harvested from the wetland?
Are livestock using the wetland?
Are any natural materials such as wood, fibre, straw,
animal fibre (wool/hide/sinew/antler/other) taken fromthe wetland?
Is any material taken from the wetland and used as fuelfor domestic or other uses?
Are any native or rare strains of plants and animals, wildand domesticated, which could contribute genetic
diversity for human uses (for instance for drug
manufacture, improving resilience of domestic animals
and plants, horticultural trade, etc.)
Are there any plants, animals or their parts derived fromthe wetland which are harvested and used for their
medicinal properties?
Are there any plants, animals or their parts are derived
from wetland that are collected and used/sold for theirornamental properties?
What substances are extracted or dug up from thewetland for construction or other human uses?

•

Does the wetland provide a location for the disposal ofliquid, solid or other waste materials?

•

Are any technologies (water wheels, wind turbines, etc.)
used to capture natural flows of energy through or acrossthe wetland?
Is there a source for airborne pollutants?
Does the wetland habitat structure help to settle out
airborne pollutants?
Does the state of the wetland make it a source of air
pollutants (microbial, particulate or chemical)?
Does the wetland habitat structure provide shade forhumans?
Does the wetland have areas of standing water with orwithout vegetation that will be generating
evapotranspiration and consequently reducing air
temperatures?
Does the wetland store and/or sequester carbon?
Does this balance with generation of methane and othergreenhouse gases?

•
•
•
•
•

•

•

Do the topography, permeability and roughness of thewetland enable it to store water during highrainfall/discharge and top slowly release it back to surface
waters or to groundwater?
Does the wetland regulate discharges during dry periods
to buffer low flows during dry weather?

10

Ecosystem service
Flood hazard
regulation

Storm hazard
regulation

Pest regulation

Regulation ofhuman diseases

Regulation of
diseases affecting
livestock

Erosion regulation

Water purification

ExampleRegulation and storage offlood water, regulation of
intense rainfall events,
etc.
Regulation of tidal orstorm surges, regulationof extreme winds, etc.

Examples of questions assessors can ask about this service•••

Control of pest species
such as mosquitoes, rats,
flies, etc.

•

Presence of species that
control the species(vectors) that transmit
human diseases such as
malaria, West Nile fever,dengue fever, Zika virus,
leptospirosis,
schistosomiasis, etc.

•

Presence of species that
control the species(vectors) that transmit
diseases to livestock suchas leptospirosis,
schistosomiasis, duckvirus enteritis, highly
pathogenic avian
influenza, tick-borne
diseases, etc.
Regulation of energy
environment to reducerisk of erosion, presenceof dense vegetation
protecting soils, etc.
Cleaning of water,
improvement of water
quality, deposition of silts,
trapping of contaminants
and pollutants, etc.

•

•

•
•

•
•

•
•
•

•
•
Pollination

Salinity regulation

Fire regulation

SC54-21.1

Pollination of plants andcrops by pollinators suchas bees, butterflies,
wasps, etc.

•

Freshwater in the wetland
provides a barrier tosaline waters.

•

Providing physical barriers
to the spread of fire,
maintaining wet
conditions to prevent fires
spreading, etc.

•

•

•

•
•

Does the wetland regulate, store and retain floodwaters?
Does the wetland store rainfall and surface water thatmight contribute to flooding and damage to property or
ecosystems downstream?
Does the complexity of habitat, particularly trees, tallreeds and other vegetation and surface topography,
absorb energy from extreme events such as storms andwaves that might otherwise damage property or adjacentecosystems?
Do natural predation and other ecological processes in thewetland regulate and control pest organisms?
Is the wetland a source of pests (for example rats thriving
in dirty water systems)?
Do natural predation and other ecological processes in thewetland regulate organisms that may cause humandiseases?
Are faecal deposits, bacteria or other potentiallypathogenic microbes immobilised by processes in thewetland?
Is the condition of the wetland contributing to thenegative spread of populations of disease vectors (such as
mosquitoes)?
Do natural predation and other ecological processes in thewetland regulate organisms that may cause diseases inlivestock?
Are faecal deposits, bacteria or other potentiallypathogenic microbes immobilised by processes in thewetland?
Is the condition of the wetland contributing to thenegative spread of populations of disease vectors (such as
mosquitoes or snails)?
Does the wetland vegetation provide protection from
erosion for the soils?
Are there any signs of erosion, such as bare earth, in thewetland?
Do physico-chemical (sunlight exposure in shallow waters,
detention of water in aerobic and anaerobic
microhabitats) and biological processes in the wetland
result in the breakdown of organic, microbial and otherpollutants in the water passing though?
Are suspended solids deposited?
Is there a noticeable change in the quality, such as theturbidity, of water entering and leaving the wetland?
Do populations of pollinating organisms (butterflies,
wasps, bees, bats, etc.) in the wetland contribute topollination within the wetland?
Do pollinators using the wetland also help to pollinate
nearby crops, gardens, allotments, etc.?
Does the hydrology of the wetland help prevent saline
water contaminating freshwaters?
Doe the presence of freshwater in the wetland prevent thesalinisation of soils?
Does the configuration of waterbodies (ditches, streams,etc.) help to prevent the spread of fires?
Is there water at or near the soil surface that restricts the
spread of fire?
Are organic rich or peat soils drained and susceptible tofire and burning?

11

Ecosystem service
Noise and visual
buffering

Cultural heritage

Recreation andtourism

Aesthetic value

Cultural services

Spiritual andreligious value

Inspirational value

Social relations

Educational andresearch

ExampleWetland trees or tallreeds absorbing andbuffering the impact ofnoise.

Examples of questions assessors can ask about this service••

Importance of thewetland for historical orarchaeological value, as
an example of traditional
uses or management
practices, as a culturallandscape, etc.
Importance of thewetland for providing alocation for recreationsuch as fishing,watersports or swimming,or as a tourism
destination, etc.
The wetland is overlookedby properties, is part of anof known area of natural
beauty, is used as a
subject for painters andartists, etc.
The wetland holds plays arole in local religious
festivals, the wetland isconsidered as a sacredsite, the wetland forms
part of a traditional belief
system, etc.

•

Presence of local myths orstories relating to thewetland, traditional oral
or written histories about
the wetland or wetland
animals, creation ofdifferent art forms
associated with thewetland, development ofdistinct architecture
based on the wetland, etc.
Presence of fishing,grazing or cropping
communities which havedeveloped within andaround the wetland.
Use of the wetland by
local school children for
education, site of longterm research andmonitoring, site visited byorganised educational
study tours, etc.

•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

•
•

Is there a source (busy road, industry, construction, etc.)
and receptor (houses, wildlife, etc.) for noise pollution?
Does wetland ecosystem structure, particularly tall trees
and reeds, provide visual screening as well as suppress
noise transmission?
Does the wetland system have cultural importance, either
due to its natural character or traditional uses?

Is the wetland used for organised or informal recreational
purposes?
Is there infrastructure provided for access and recreation?
Are their wider tourism/ecotourism benefits flowing fromthese uses?
Does the wetland provide aesthetic benefits through thedesirability of siting houses of commercial development
adjacent to it?
Does the presence of a wetland have a significant impact
on property prices?
Is the wetland depicted in many works of art?
What spiritual and/or religious values do people derivefrom the wetland?
Does the wetland hold any important spiritual or culturalvalue to people?
Does the wetland play any part in traditional religious
ceremonies?
Are there any traditional wetland management practices(such as the timing of planting and cropping of rice to
Buddhist or other traditions and teachings) associatedwith the wetland?
Are there any particular myths or other folklore associatedwith the wetland?
Do any wetland animals appear or are featured in local
stories and myths?
Does the wetland inspire people to create music or otherforms of art?
Have particularly ways of designing and building
developed which reflect the wetland?

Have communities formed around the wetland and its
uses, including for example fishing (subsistence,commercial and recreational), cropping or stock
management, walking and jogging, birdwatching andphotography, etc?
Is the wetland used for any educational purposes,
organised or informal, ranging from school-level visits touniversity research and teaching?
Are there any public awareness or educational materials
present?

•

SC54-21.1

12

Ecosystem service
Soil formation

Primary production

Supporting services

Nutrient cycling

Water recycling

Provision of habitat

SC54-21.1

ExampleDeposition of sediment,
accumulation of organic
matter, etc.
Presence of primary
producers such as plants,
algae, etc.
Source of nutrients
present from inputs fromagricultural land, internal
cycling of plant material,
inputs of nutrients fromfloodwaters, presence of
fauna to recycling
nutrients, etc.
Presence of wetland
vegetation and open
water result in
evapotranspiration andlocal recycling of water,
relatively closed canopies
and low exposure towinds retains water inlocal cycles, sandy orcoarse substrates allow
exchange withgroundwaters, etc.
Presence of locallyimportant habitats andspecies, presence ofspecies and habitats ofconservation concern, etc.

Examples of questions assessors can ask about this service
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•

Do accretion processes (both sedimentation of mineralmaterial and the build up of organic material) on thewetland result in the formation of soils?
Do photosynthetic processes on the wetland produce
organic matter and store energy in biochemical form?
Do wetland processes biochemically transform nutrients(for example nitrification/denitrification)?
Are nutrients settled out in particulate forms, changing thecharacteristics of water passing through the system?
Are there abundant invertebrates and detritivores that aredecomposing and cycling organic material?
Does the structure of the wetland retain water in tightcycles (for example recapture of vapour produced byevapotranspiration)?
Does the wetland enable exchanges with groundwater(either discharge or recharge)?

Does the wetland support a diversity of locally
representative biodiversity (plants and animals)?
Does the wetland support species which humans considerof conservation concern or as charismatic interests?

13