RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS
57th Meeting of the Standing Committee
Gland, Switzerland, 24 – 28 June 2019

Report and Decisions of the 57th Meetingof the Standing Committee
Tuesday 25 June 201910:00 – 13:00 Plenary Session of the Standing Committee
Agenda item 1: Opening statements
1.

Opening statements were made by:• H.E. Eng. Mohamed Al Afkham, Chair of the Standing Committee;• Dr Grethel Aguilar, Acting Director General of IUCN;• Mr Richard Holland, Director of Operations and Network Development, Wetlands
International, on behalf of the six International Organization Partners (IOPs); and• Ms Martha Rojas Urrego, Secretary General of the Convention.

Agenda item 2: Adoption of the provisional agenda
2.

The Secretariat drew attention to document SC57 Doc.2 Rev.1, Provisional agenda, andproposed three modifications, namely:• the amendment of agenda item 12, to make the existing item Terms of reference of the
Executive Team a sub-item under the Report of the Executive Team;• the addition of an agenda item to follow item 15.2, concerning the implementation of
Resolution XIII.1 on World Wetlands Day; and• the addition of an agenda item to follow item 21.1 Report of the Secretariat on COP13, to
include an oral report by the Secretariat on the Ramsar Award on Innovation.

3.

A proposal was made by France to include an item on potential contributions of theConvention to the forthcoming IUCN World Conservation Congress, to be held in Marseille in2020. It was suggested to include this as a separate item after agenda item 17 on Enhancing
the Convention’s visibility and synergies with other multilateral environmental agreements andother international institutions.

Decision SC57-01: The Standing Committee adopted the provisional agenda with the proposed
amendments, as included in document SC57 Doc.2 Rev.2.
Agenda item 3: Adoption of the provisional working programme
4.

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.3, Provisional working programme, andfollowing a suggestion of the Subgroup on Finance, proposed moving discussion of agenda
item 7 on Financial and budgetary matters to the morning of Friday 28 June. The Secretariat
proposed moving items 11 (Final reports of the Chairs of retired working groups) and 12(Report of the Executive Team) forward to Tuesday 25 June.

5.

An intervention was made by the Republic of Korea to bring forward to Tuesday 25 June thediscussion of Agenda item 26 on Wetland City Accreditation: Guidance for the 2019-2021
triennium.

Decision SC57-02: The Standing Committee adopted the provisional working programme with theproposed amendments, as included in document SC57 Doc.3 Rev.1.
Agenda item 4: Admission of observers
6.

The Secretariat outlined the key paragraphs of document SC57 Doc.4 Admission of observers.

Decision SC57-03: The Standing Committee admitted the observers listed in document SC57 Doc.4.
Agenda item 5: Report of the Secretary General
7.

The Secretary General summarized the work of the Secretariat for the period from 29 October
2018 to 15 April 2019, set out in document SC57 Doc.5, under five thematic areas:• strengthening service to Contacting Parties’ decision-making and accountability;• increasing the relevance of wetlands and the Convention to global sustainable
development policy objectives;• strengthening support and enabling implementation;• enhancing the visibility of wetlands and the Convention; and• strengthening the Secretariat’s efficiency and effectiveness.

8.

Participants congratulated the United Arab Emirates on its successful hosting of the 13th
Meeting of the Conference of Contracting Parties (COP13), and the Secretary General on her
excellent work in putting the Convention on a sound financial and operational footing. Several
Parties noted that they believed that Ramsar Secretariat had made considerable
improvements in effectiveness and accountability over the past two years and was now in amuch stronger position to enable Parties to implement the Convention.

9.

Interventions were made by Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria on behalf of the European
Contracting Parties, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, China, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Sweden, Uganda, theUnited States of America and Uruguay.

Agenda item 6: Report of the Management Working Group10.

The Chair of the Standing Committee, as Chair of the Management Working Group,
introduced the report of the Management Working Group, which had been shared as
document SC57 Com.3 1. He summarized the process undertaken to establish the Scientific andTechnical Review Panel (STRP).

11.

The Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee (Sweden) as Chair of the CEPA Oversight Panel,outlined the process undertaken in the establishment of the Panel, as summarized in the same
document.

1

As annexed to the present report at Annex 1.

SC57 Report and Decisions

2

12.

The Secretary General drew attention to the inconsistency in existing Resolutions regarding
the establishment of the CEPA Oversight Panel and the complexity of the process of theappointment of the STRP, noting the desirability of establishing new Panels at COP meetings
with the nominations processes carried out before that, and sought the guidance of theStanding Committee as to how this might be achieved.

Decision SC57-04: The Standing Committee approved the nomination of the following as membersof the CEPA Oversight Panel:•
Chair: Sweden (as the Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee);•Vice-Chair: Vice-Chair of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel;•
Australia;•
Honduras;•
Nepal;•
Uganda;•Ukraine;•United States of America;•
CEPA NGO Focal Points from Iraq and Sudan; and•Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT) as International Organization Partner.
Decision SC57-05: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to liaise with appropriate
bodies to develop revised processes for appointing both the CEPA Oversight Panel and the STRP.
Agenda item 8: Urgent challenges to the wise use of wetlands to receive enhanced attention
13.

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.8, which synthesized information extracted
from a number of sources, including:• the Global Wetland Outlook;• document COP13 Doc.11.1, the Global implementation report reviewing National Reports
submitted to COP13;• United Nations assessments including the World Water Development Report and the
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction; and• The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report.

14.

Participants commended the work of the Secretariat, noting the scale of the challenges faced
and the need for priority-setting and leveraging of resources. The importance of climatechange and wetland restoration, and the need for comprehensive and reliable wetland
inventories were emphasized. The continuing need to raise awareness, and the fundamental
importance of the capacity of Contracting Parties and their human and technical resources,were underlined.

15.

Interventions were made by Armenia, Australia, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Uganda on behalf of Parties in the Africa
region, the United States of America and Uruguay.

16.

Contracting Parties considered how best to apply this information, for example in updating
guidance and identifying gaps in it, and invited the Chair of the STRP to consider how theseurgent challenges might be reflected in discussions to follow regarding the STRP work plan for
the triennium.

17.

The Chair of the Standing Committee appointed an informal group, comprising Austria,
Australia, Algeria, Bhutan, Japan, the United States of America and Uruguay, to review theSC57 Report and Decisions

3

document further and make suggestions for further prioritization, to be presented at a later
session.
Agenda item 9: Report of the Working Group on the Review of the Strategic Plan of the Ramsar
Convention
18.

Uganda, as the newly-elected Chair of the Working Group, summarized the report of theGroup, which had been shared as document SC57 Com.4 2. He recalled the tasks outlined for
the Working Group in Annex 1 of Resolution XIII.5 on Review of the fourth Strategic Plan of theRamsar Convention, which are intended to culminate in the submission of a proposal for adraft resolution to the 59th meeting of the Standing Committee (SC59) in early 2021.

19.

The need for transparency and speed in completing the appointment of a consultant wasunderlined, in order to enable a well-developed submission to SC58. Attention was drawn to
the low rate of response from Contracting Parties to the questionnaire evaluating theimplementation of the current Strategic Plan.

Decision SC57-06: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to share the shortlistingassessment of the candidates with the members of the Group, and include the Chair of theWorking Group in panel interviews of the shortlisted candidates for the consultancy.
Decision SC57-07: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to proceed expeditiouslywith the appointment of the consultant and inception of the project work plan, in order that it
might be well advanced before the end of 2019, to enable the submission of an advanced draft
report to SC58 in 2020.
Decision SC57-08: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to organize an inception
meeting with the selected consultant on their appointment, to define detailed timelines andoutputs, in light of existing processes such as the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) in October 2020 and the post-2020 global biodiversity
framework.
Decision SC57-09: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to seek further responses
from Contracting Parties to the survey on implementation of the current Strategic Plan, andinvited regional representatives of the Standing Committee to encourage Parties in theirrespective regions to respond.
Decision SC57-10: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to finalize the work plan of
the Working Group to reflect the discussions of its meeting of 24 June 2019.
15:00 – 17:40 Plenary Session of the Standing Committee
Agenda item 25: Report of the Secretariat on the Ramsar Regional Initiatives in 2018 and 2019, andestablishment of the Ramsar Regional Initiatives Working Group20.

2

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.25, 2019 Update on the Ramsar Regional
Initiatives, noting that annual reports received from the various Ramsar Regional Initiatives

As annexed to the present report at Annex 2.

SC57 Report and Decisions

4

(RRIs) were summarized in Annex 1 of the document and that the full reports were available
on the Ramsar website and accessible through a link in the document.
21.

Participants emphasized the value of the RRIs, in particular in their ability to leverage funding
and their potential role in capacity building.

22.

The Secretary General drew attention to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the document concerning
the lack of consistency in reports received from RRIs, their sometimes unclear legal status andchallenges for the Secretariat in determining how to interact most appropriately with them.

23.

Interventions were made by Algeria, Australia, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Colombia,
Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Mexico, Uganda and the United States of America.

24.

Mexico as chair of the Subgroup on Finance clarified that the Subgroup would address the
allocation of funds for RRIs.

25.

The Chair of the Standing Committee established an informal working group, comprising
Algeria, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, Costa Rica, Iran (Islamic Republic of),Japan, Kenya, Panama, Sweden, Togo and Ukraine, to address the concerns raised by the
Secretary General on the need to have clear guidance on the role of the Secretariat in the
Regional Initiatives and standard reports for RRIs, and report back to a later session.

Decision SC57-11: The Standing Committee requested the Secretariat to review the reporting
format and process to prepare the summary assessment requested in paragraph 28 of Resolution
XIII.9 and to submit a proposal to the 58th meeting of the Standing Committee.
Agenda item 26: Wetland City Accreditation: Guidance for the 2019-2021 triennium
26.

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.26, Wetland City Accreditation: Guidance forthe 2019-2021 triennium, noting that Resolution XII.10 on Wetland City Accreditation of theRamsar Convention did not provide clear operational guidelines to the Secretariat. It drewattention to paragraph 19 of the document on the role of the Secretariat, indicating thatprovision of some core budget funds had been identified as necessary for the Secretariat tofulfil its responsibilities.

27.

Several participants praised the Wetland City Accreditation as a very successful venture,noting that the Accreditation ceremony at COP13 had gained the highest media profile of any
event at the meeting. They stressed the potential role of the Accreditation as a flagship for
Ramsar, and stated that they considered it appropriate that some of the identified budget
surplus be devoted to furthering its development.

28.

Other participants raised concerns about the potentially growing financial implications of theprocess, particularly if the number of cities applying for accreditation were to increasesignificantly. They noted that they had raised similar concerns in discussions at COP12, andhad not opposed Resolution XII.10 on the understanding that its implementation would becost-neutral to the Secretariat. Some Parties pointed out that it was problematic procedure toapprove the use of core resources when it was explicitly prohibited in Resolution XII.10 andwithout conducting the review that was mandated in the same Resolution, presenting a lackof discipline and setting a problematic procedure and precedent.

SC57 Report and Decisions

5

29.

Interventions were made by Austria, Australia, Chad, China, France, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States of America,
the Ramsar Regional Centre – East Asia, and Wetlands International.

30.

The Chair of the Standing Committee established an informal working group, comprising
Austria, Chad, China, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, South Africa and the United States ofAmerica, to elaborate on the role of the Secretariat and the timeline and report back at a later
session.

Agenda item 11: Final reports of the Chairs of retired working groups
31.

The Secretariat introduced documents SC57 Doc.11.1, SC57 Doc.11.2, SC57 Doc.11.3, SC57
Doc.11.4, SC57 Doc.11.5 and SC57 Doc.11.6, these being the final reports of the Transition
Committee, the Resource Mobilization Working Group, the Working Group on CEPA
Implementation, the Facilitation Working Group, the Language Strategy Working Group andthe Staffing Working Group respectively, provided in accordance with paragraph 10 of
Resolution XIII.3 on Governance of the Convention.

32.

Interventions were made by Sweden, the United States of America and Uruguay.

Decision SC57-12: The Standing Committee took note of the final reports of the six retired working
groups.
Agenda item 12.1: Report of the Executive Team – Terms of reference of the Executive Team33.

The Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee introduced document SC57 Doc.12 containing
draft terms of reference for the Executive Team, which had been drafted by the Executive
Team in accordance with paragraph 16 of Resolution XIII.4 Responsibilities, roles andcomposition of the Standing Committee and regional categorization of countries under theConvention.

34.

Interventions were made by Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland on behalf of the European Contracting Parties suggesting
amendments to the draft terms of reference, and the United States of America.

35.

The Chair of the Standing Committee asked all those with comments on the draft terms ofreference to forward these for consideration by the Executive Team, which would produce arevised version for consideration and discussion at a later session.

Agenda item 13: Review of the Rules of Procedure
36.

The Legal Adviser to the Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.13, Review of the Rules ofProcedure, noting that this was a work in progress.

37.

Participants appreciated the work undertaken and supported its continuation, noting that thework was essentially a two-stage process, one identifying gaps and inconsistencies thatneeded to be addressed prior to COP14, and the other responding to other processes
regarding the roles and responsibilities of subsidiary bodies of the Convention.

38.

Interventions were made by Dominican Republic, France, Japan, Switzerland, the United
Kingdom and the United States of America.

SC57 Report and Decisions

6

39.

The Chair of the Standing Committee asked all interested Contracting Parties to send theircomments and observations to the Secretariat for incorporation into a revised document tobe considered at SC58.

Decision SC57-13: The Standing Committee took note of the progress in the review of the Rules ofProcedure and instructed the Secretariat to prepare a revised document with the comments
received, to be presented at SC58.
Wednesday 26 June 201910:00 – 13:00 Plenary Session of the Standing Committee
Agenda item 20: Report of the Chair of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel, including work
plan for 2019-2021
40.

The Chair of the STRP presented document SC57 Doc.20 Rev.1, detailing the process forappointing STRP members and containing the draft STRP work plan for the 2019-2021
triennium. He sought guidance from the Standing Committee on:• direction for any follow-up to the Global Wetland Outlook;• direction on the approach to sequencing the delivery of prioritized work;• possible ways of sourcing funding for the implementation of tasks contained in theapproved STRP work plan (2019-2021), if necessary; and• guidance as to how the preliminary draft terms of reference for the Ramsar Culture
Network set out in Annex 3 to the document should be taken forward.

41.

Participants recognized the success of the Global Wetland Outlook and its value as a branding
tool for Ramsar. Some advocated periodic updates covering areas where there was rapid
environmental change; others believed that care should be taken not to dilute the brand by
producing updates before significant new information was available. The suggestion wasmade that the forthcoming 50th anniversary of the Convention could serve as an opportunity
to focus attention on the Outlook. Regarding priorities, some participants believed that aflexible approach could be adopted to allow the STRP to take advantage of funding
opportunities that might arise while others indicated some of their priorities. Some urged that
inputs to STRP work by National Focal Points be enhanced, and opportunities to that end be
given attention, while others indicated that previously submitted comments had not been
fully taken into account and questioned the appropriateness of the STRP developing terms ofreference for the Ramsar Culture Network. They believed that proposed budget allocations forsome activities were high.

42.

Interventions were made by Algeria, Austria, Australia, Bolivia (Plurinational State of),
Colombia, Dominican Republic, France, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Panama,
Switzerland, Uganda and the United States of America.

43.

The Chair of the Standing Committee asked all interested Contacting Parties to submit
comments so that a revised work plan could be produced for consideration at a later session.

SC57 Report and Decisions

7

Agenda item 18: Observer status in the United Nations General Assembly
44.

The Secretary General noted that, in Decision SC55-12, the Standing Committee had
instructed the Secretariat, with support from an informal group of interested Contracting
Parties, to bring forward a structured proposal regarding the possibility of the Convention
obtaining observer status at the United Nations General Assembly, taking into account thevarious options, for consideration at SC57.

45.

The Secretariat had contacted all Parties to determine if any were interested in pursuing theprocess. As a result a small informal group had been convened, comprising Bolivia(Plurinational State of), Chad, Colombia, Guinea, the United States of America and Uruguay.
Four of the members had participated in a teleconference on 17 May 2019.

46.

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) presented the report of the informal group, which is included
as Annex 3 to the present report, with three recommendations for Standing Committee
consideration for the way forward on the observer status.

47.

During interventions, participants noted that the question of the legal status of the Secretariat
had been addressed at length in document Ramsar COP10 DOC.20 Addendum 1. In view of the
difficulties likely to be encountered in obtaining observer status for the Secretariat, several
participants advocated undertaking a creative approach, including working through the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and permanent missions at the United Nations
headquarters. It was noted that observer status would be of particular value in helping theConvention engage effectively in global fora and processes such as UN-Water, the High-level
Political Forum on Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals;
however concerns were expressed regarding the financial implications of pursuing theprocess.

48.

Interventions were made by Argentina, Austria, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil,
Colombia, Dominican Republic, France, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Mexico, Switzerland,
Uganda and the United States of America.

Decision SC57-14: The Standing Committee agreed the following way forward on the observer
status:a.
Endorsement by SC57 of the continuity of the Observer Status Working Group (previously
informal group) with the inclusion of Mexico, the Russian Federation and Switzerland;b.
Analysis of the different options and other options that might not yet have been addressed
including the inputs from the Legal Adviser and the ones received from Parties during themeeting;c.
Allocation of funds from the surplus for the independent analysis to be presented at the58th meeting of the Standing Committee. 3
Agenda item 21.1: Follow up to COP13 and preparation of COP14 – Report of the Secretariat on
COP13
49.

The Secretariat summarized document SC57 Doc.21.1 and noted key findings from the review
of COP13 and its preparation and implementation, observing that the Secretariat had
benefited from and continued to benefit from:Through Decision SC57-47 below, the Standing Committee subsequently approved the allocation of CHF
15,000 from the 2018 core budget surplus to “Legal status analysis consultancy”.
3

SC57 Report and Decisions

8

•
•
•

a better Secretariat structure to manage meetings, both of the Conference of Contracting
Parties and of subsidiary bodies;more formal procedures and working groups to plan for COP13, and follow-up actions
such as a review of the model hosting agreement, and the ongoing update of theSecretariat’s COP handbook; andthe new customer relationship management (CRM) system to manage contacts andregistration processes.

50.

The Secretariat highlighted new processes applied and results achieved during COP13.

51.

Relevant findings included that:• the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Convention provides an opportunity for
coordinated messaging at COP14 and World Wetlands Day in 2021;• holding COP14 in July 2021 would enable timely preparation and follow-up, and better
sequencing of lead-up events, so as not to concentrate the demands on funders and theSecretariat in the COP year;• the deadlines for Contracting Parties to submit proposals for draft resolutions to the final
full Standing Committee meeting of the triennium, and for the Secretariat to publish
documents for that meeting, could be more coherent;• COP14 could be extended by one day, which could possibly be dedicated to production of
final draft resolution texts.

52.

Participants welcomed the progress of the Secretariat and the achievements noted above tofacilitate a successful meeting, while underlining the need to limit the number of draft
resolutions and ensure faster sharing of inputs on draft resolutions. Protocols for including
commitments for third parties in resolution texts, such as those used for Global Environment
Facility (GEF) resolutions, could be considered in advance. The added cost of an extra day was
noted, but its potential value recognized. Engagement with STRP members, events related to
the 50th anniversary and youth events were noted as possible opportunities.

53.

The significance and awareness-raising potential of the 50th anniversary were acknowledged
along with the need for a robust and structured response.

54.

It was noted that the sequencing and mandate of pre-COP regional meetings fell within the
mandate of the Effectiveness Working Group.

55.

Interventions were made by Australia, France, the United Kingdom on behalf of theContracting Parties in Europe, and the United States of America.

Decision SC57-15: The Standing Committee requested that the Subgroup on COP14 include in its
remit the identification of effective actions to mark the 50th anniversary of the Convention, andengage with other Contracting Parties as appropriate to achieve this.
Agenda item 21.1 Bis: Follow up to COP13 and preparation of COP14 – Oral report of the Secretariat
on the Ramsar Award on Innovation
56.

The Secretariat recalled that through Decision SC55-15, the Standing Committee had
confirmed that presentation of the Ramsar Award for Wetland Innovation should be deferred
for six months, pending clarification of legal issues affecting the recipient. The legal issues had
not been resolved in the interim period.

SC57 Report and Decisions

9

Decision SC57-16: The Standing Committee decided that the Ramsar Award for Wetland
Innovation for 2018 should not be presented.
Agenda item 21.2: Follow up to COP13 and preparation of COP14 – COP14 Host and establishmentof the Subgroup on COP14
57.

The Secretary General outlined that, as no formal offer to host COP14 had been received by
COP13, the Conference had set a new deadline for offers, of one month before SC57. The
Secretariat had received two formal offers by 24 May 2019; one had been withdrawn, leaving
an offer by China.

58.

China informed the Standing Committee that its offer had been confirmed by the StateCouncil on 6 May 2019, and, after reading the letter of invitation from the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, formally passed it to the Secretary General. A video and a presentation introducing the
proposed host city, Wuhan in Hubei Province, were presented.

Decision SC57-17: The Standing Committee accepted by acclamation the offer of China to host the
14th Meeting of the Conference of Contracting Parties in Wuhan.
15:00 – 18:00 Plenary Session of the Standing Committee
Agenda item 21.2: Follow up to COP13 and preparation of COP14 – COP14 Host and establishmentof the Subgroup on COP14 (continued)
59.

The Standing Committee considered the establishment of the Subgroup on COP14,
comprising one representative from each of the six Ramsar regions. The Committee agreed
that the remit of the Subgroup could be extended to include the development of initial ideas
for the 50th anniversary of the Convention in 2021, and that a larger Subgroup composition
might support this.

Decision SC57-18: The Standing Committee established the Subgroup on COP14, chaired by China
and also comprising Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Costa Rica, France, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
and the United States of America, to oversee the COP14 planning process and to develop ideas
regarding the celebration of the Convention’s 50th anniversary in 2021, seeking the support ofother Contracting Parties as required.
Agenda item 14: Review of all previous Resolutions and decisions
60.

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.14, presenting a preliminary response to
paragraphs 24 and 25 of Resolution XIII.4 on Responsibilities, roles and composition of theStanding Committee and regional categorization of countries under the Convention.

61.

Participants recognized the scale of the task faced by the Secretariat in attempting to review
all previous Resolutions and decisions, and agreed that any comprehensive work to classify
them and identify protocols for their eventual retirement or consolidation would require
financial resources. It was suggested that, as a first step, a preliminary classification of existing
Resolutions into major thematic areas could be undertaken by the Secretariat. This would
serve as a basis for the selection of priority areas for further action, the identification of which

SC57 Report and Decisions

10

would take into account the priorities identified under Agenda item 8 on Urgent challenges tothe wise use of wetlands to receive enhanced attention.
62.

The importance of building on earlier work within the Convention and by other multilateralenvironmental agreements and organizations was emphasized.

63.

Interventions were made by Australia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Japan, theNetherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Decision SC57-19: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to carry out a preliminarygrouping of existing Resolutions into major thematic areas, identifying possible priority areas forfurther action in line with the prioritization of urgent challenges under Agenda item 8, to submit
intersessionally to a group comprising the Netherlands, Sweden, the United States of America andthe Chair of the STRP for their consideration, along with advice on the capacity that would beneeded to take the process further. 4
Agenda item 10: Report of the Effectiveness Working Group and approval of the terms of referenceof the Group64.

The United Kingdom presented an update of the Group’s activities to date, drawing attention
to the Group’s terms of reference proposed in document SC57 Com.1 5 and noting that a
consultant had been appointed. The Group had appointed the United Kingdom and Zambia as
Co-Chairs.

Decision SC57-20: The Standing Committee approved the terms of reference of the EffectivenessWorking Group in document SC57 Com.1 and took note of the appointment of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Zambia as Co-Chairs of the Group.
Agenda item 16: Work plan of the Secretariat for 2019-2021
65.

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.16, Workplan for the Secretariat for 20192021, noting the integration of the annual plan for 2019, the triennial plan for 2019-2021 andthe CEPA Action Plan, in line with Standing Committee Decision SC53-07.

66.

Interventions were made by Australia, France and the United States of America, commending
the plan’s content and structure while drawing attention to some minor editorial
amendments and underlining the importance they attached to actions towards genderequality.

Decision SC57-21: The Standing Committee approved the Workplan for the Secretariat for 20192021, with the addition of minor editorial amendments to be submitted by Parties to theSecretariat.

Through Decision SC57-47 below, the Standing Committee subsequently approved the allocation of CHF
20,000 from the 2018 core budget surplus to “Resolutions review (resolution XIII.4)”.
5
As annexed to the present report at Annex 4.
4SC57 Report and Decisions

11

Agenda item 15.1: Communication, capacity building, education, participation and awareness (CEPA)– Establishment of the CEPA Oversight Panel67.

The Chair of the CEPA Oversight Panel provided an update on work carried out by the newly
constituted Panel, noting that its mandate was not very clear. The chair noted that a first task
might be a small survey of Contracting Parties to identify their successful CEPA-related
activities and outstanding needs. It was proposed to hold a teleconference of the Panel in
September.

Agenda item 15.2: Communication, capacity building, education, participation and awareness (CEPA)– Report of the Secretariat on World Wetlands Day
68.

The Secretariat provided an update on World Wetlands Day 2019, the theme of which had
been “wetlands and climate change”, noting that nearly 1,500 events in 108 countries had
been registered, with nearly 500 million people reached through social media.

69.

Participants congratulated the Contracting Parties (and notably France) which had beensuccessful in holding a large number of events and commended the materials produced by the
Secretariat.

70.

Interventions were made by Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Agenda item 15.3: Communication, capacity building, education, participation and awareness (CEPA)– Implementation of Resolution XIII.1 on World Wetlands Day (UN request)
71.

The United Arab Emirates provided an oral update on efforts to have 2 February designatedas World Wetlands Day by the UN General Assembly. The Party had, with Secretariat support,
been preparing a submission including draft resolution text, to be submitted for considerationby the next session of the General Assembly before the 25 July 2019 deadline. Contracting
Parties were encouraged to engage their permanent missions in support of the initiative, andinvited to consider co-sponsoring the draft resolution.

72.

Interventions were made by France, Uganda, and the United States of America.

Decision SC57-22: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to draft talking points andshare them with Contracting Parties to enable consistent messaging in support of the initiative.
Agenda item 19: Ramsar Convention Resource Mobilization Work Plan
73.

The Secretariat introduced Document SC57 Doc.19, noting that a database of potential
funding organizations was now available on the Ramsar website 6.

74.

Australia and the United States of America thanked the Secretariat for its work and stressed
the importance of support to build the resource mobilization capacities of Contracting Parties.

Decision SC57-23: The Standing Committee took note of the Ramsar Convention Resource
Mobilization Work Plan.

6

See https://www.ramsar.org/activity/funding-organization-database

SC57 Report and Decisions

12

Agenda item 26: Wetland City Accreditation: Guidance for the 2019-2021 triennium (continued)
75.

The Republic of Korea reported that the informal working group had met on 26 June, andprovided an update of its work on the timeline for the Wetland City Accreditation process inthe 2019-2021 triennium. 7 The delegate encouraged Contracting Parties from each region tonominate candidates to serve on the Independent Advisory Committee for the 2019-2021
triennium, so that the composition of the Group could be finalized during SC57.

Decision SC57-24: The Standing Committee approved the timeline for the process in the 2019-2021
triennium for the City Accreditation.
Agenda item 23: Update on the status of Sites on the List of Wetlands of International Importance76.

The Secretariat presented its report on the status of Sites on the Ramsar List, document SC57
Doc.23 Rev.1, and sought the advice of the Contracting Parties regarding the instruction in
Resolution XIII.10 on database-to-database transfer of information.

77.

Participants welcomed the positive news within the report which stands in contrast to thefindings of the Global Wetland Outlook.

78.

The Chair of the STRP drew attention to the European Environment Agency’s database-todatabase protocols and guidance regarding Birds Directive information. Some countries
expressed concerns on the complexity and difficulties on the database-to-database transfer of
information.

79.

Algeria reported that, since the end of the reporting period of the document, the updating of
47 of its 50 Ramsar Sites had been completed, and that all 50 Sites would be up to dateshortly.

80.

Interventions were made by Algeria, Dominican Republic, France, Sweden, and the Chair of
the STRP.

Agenda item 24: Ramsar Advisory Missions: Operational guidance
81.

The Secretariat presented the draft operational guidance for Ramsar Advisory Missions which
was annexed to document SC57 Doc.24, noting the input of the STRP to its preparation.

82.

Interventions were made by France, Japan and the United States of America.

83.

The Chair of the Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to revise the document
according to comments submitted by Contracting Parties, and publish it for consideration in alater session.

Agenda item 22: National Reports for COP14
84.

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.22 Draft format for National Reports to
COP14, drawing attention to updates and proposed changes in the report format.

For details of the timeline, see the final report of the informal working group at Annex 5 of the present
report.

7

SC57 Report and Decisions

13

85.

Participants drew attention to problems in reconciling information from different legislative
regimes within one country; they stressed the importance of maintaining continuity so that
historical information was not lost. Attention was drawn to the large number of indicators in
the current format and the relative complexity of the wetlands classification system used
under the Convention. Some participants had editorial comments.

86.

Interventions were made by Armenia, Austria, Australia, Colombia, Japan, Panama, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

87.

The Chair of the Standing Committee asked all those with comments to submit them to theSecretariat so that a revised version could be produced for consideration at a later session.

Agenda item 27.1: Implications of joint meetings of the Standing Committee and the Scientific andTechnical Review Panel
88.

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.27.1, noting that this was a response to
paragraph 16 of Resolution XIII.8 on Future implementation of scientific and technical aspectsof the Convention for 2019-2021.

89.

The Secretariat had examined two scenarios regarding the implications of back-to-back andoverlapping meetings of the STRP and Standing Committee, one in which the meetings ran
one after the other and the other with a two-day overlap. It had noted capacity and cost
implications for the two scenarios.

90.

Participants questioned the value of holding overlapping meetings in achieving the objectiveof fostering communication and synergies, particularly in view of the implications, noting that
there was normally relatively little overlap in the agendas of the two meetings.

91.

The Chair of the STRP suggested that one or more STRP members could be invited toparticipate in discussions during Standing Committee meetings, addressing important
emerging issues or those for which significant new information had become available. This
received widespread support. Participants also recalled the possible inclusion of time in the
COP14 schedule during which delegations might engage with STRP members on identified
priority issues.

92.

Interventions were made by Argentina, Australia, France, Japan, Switzerland, the United
Kingdom and the United States of America.

Decision SC57-25: The Standing Committee agreed on the suggestion that one or more STRP
members could be invited to participate in discussions during Standing Committee meetings
addressing important emerging issues or those for which significant new information had become
available.

SC57 Report and Decisions

14

Thursday 27 June 201910:00 – 11:30 Plenary Session of the Standing Committee
Agenda item 17: Enhancing the Convention’s visibility and synergies with other multilateralenvironmental agreements and other international institutions
93.

The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Doc.17, summarizing the Secretariat’s recent
activities and drawing particular attention to the Consultation Workshop of Biodiversityrelated Conventions on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework held in Bern, Switzerlandfrom 10 to 12 June 2019, at which a number of Contracting Parties had been present.

94.

Participants commended the Secretariat’s efforts in enhancing synergies and noted thatRamsar had been well represented at the Bern workshop and the outstanding results in termsof visibility. They further commended the efforts of the Secretariat in providing support tothose present. The United States of America introduced for consideration by the Committee adraft decision on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework .

95.

Austria summarized the outcomes of an international expert workshop entitled “Exploring
Synergies for Peatlands - Detecting and enhancing the global importance of peatlands inachieving the Sutstainable Development Goals” held in Vilm, Germany, from 21 to 24 May
2019. The Party drew attention to the valuable coordinating role of Ramsar in the Global
Peatland Initiative.

96.

The Secretariat was encouraged to cooperate with the Convention on the Protection and Useof Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, serviced by the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe, based in Geneva.

97.

Interventions were made by Austria, Australia, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,
France, Japan, Kuwait, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America,
Uruguay, and a representative of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Decision SC57-26: The Standing Committee encouraged Contracting Parties, through their Ramsar
National Focal Points, to liaise and engage with their counterparts in the Convention on Biological
Diversity and to participate in the development of their national positions related to the CBD’s
post-2020 global biodiversity framework process, in order to seek to ensure that Ramsar-relevant
elements are included within country positions and submissions to the CBD process to develop the
post-2020 biodiversity framework. The Standing Committee also encouraged Contracting Parties,
again through their National Focal Points, to liaise and engage with their counterparts responsible
for other biodiversity-related conventions so as to foster synergies at the national level.
Decision SC57-27: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat:a.

to share with Ramsar National Focal Points all relevant notices it receives from the CBD
Secretariat regarding opportunities to make submissions or otherwise contribute to thepost-2020 process, and to accompany these notices with a reminder of the encouragement
to engage in their national processes contained in Decision SC57-26.

b.

to develop and share with all National Focal Points talking points that they could opt todraw from to help them articulate the importance of wetlands and the relevance ofRamsar’s work to biodiversity, the relevance of wetlands and Ramsar’s work and data to

SC57 Report and Decisions

15

various Aichi Biodiversity Targets, gaps in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets where wetlands are
currently overlooked (e.g., marine and coastal work in the Aichi Targets largely omits
consideration of coastal wetlands) and the opportunities to share knowledge and data
available on Ramsar Sites and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) toaddress efforts outside protected areas.
c.

to develop and share with all National Focal Points talking points that NFPs could opt todraw from to help them articulate the importance of wetlands and the relevance ofRamsar’s work and data to their implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

d.

to share with all National Focal Points the document it created that maps the Ramsar
Strategic Plan 2016-2024 to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development
Goals in support of their efforts to highlight the work and data of Ramsar in their country’s
efforts to implement their relevant commitments in CBD and SDG processes.

Agenda item 17 Bis: Contributions of the Convention to the IUCN World Conservation Congress 202098.

France, as host of the forthcoming IUCN World Conservation Congress to be held in Marseillefrom 11 to 19 June 2020 8, provided an update on preparations, drawing attention to aregistration deadline of 17 July 2019 for all those interested in submitting proposals for theforum element of the Congress (to be held from 12 to 15 June) and urging all interested
Contracting Parties to submit proposals in good time. France encouraged the Secretariat toliaise with IUCN as a matter of urgency, given the deadline, to consider how the Convention
might take part in the forum beyond the contributions of individual Contracting Parties, tomake wetlands and wetland issues visible under the different Congress themes, and to reportback to the Parties.

99.

Australia expressed its intention to play an active role in the Congress.

15:30 – 16:45 Plenary Session of the Standing Committee
Agenda item 25: Report of the Secretariat on the Ramsar Regional Initiatives in 2018 and 2019, andestablishment of the Ramsar Regional Initiatives Working Group (continued)
100. Costa Rica presented the report of the meeting that had been held regarding implementationof Resolution XIII.9 on Ramsar Regional Initiatives 2019-2021 9, noting that representatives often Ramsar Regional Initiatives (RRIs) had met, along with nine other Contracting Parties.
101. The group had determined that the Working Group on the Ramsar Regional Initiatives should
be made up of the coordinators of each of the RRIs and the regional representatives on theStanding Committee. Preliminary discussion on operational guidelines had focused on:
identifying specific characteristics of each of the RRIs; the allocation of funds, administrationand implementation of individual projects; and mobilization of resources.
102. The group had stressed that work should focus on identifying successful experiences for the
implementation of RRIs in all regions, and on how they might support their effective

See https://www.ramsar.org/document/iucn-2020-world-congress-information-note-to-ramsar-contractingparties-and-secretariat
9
As annexed to the present report at Annex 6.
8SC57 Report and Decisions

16

implementation of the Convention. The Group expected to present its terms of reference andwork programme to SC58.
103. Australia noted that the financial implications of the Group’s work had been addressed by the
Sub-Group on Finance and would be discussed under agenda item 7.
Decision SC57-28: The Standing Committee recognized the Working Group on Ramsar Regional
Initiatives comprising the coordinators of each of the Initiatives and the regional representatives
on the Standing Committee. It asked the Group to develop its terms of reference and work
programme options for addressing Resolution XIII.9, and present these at SC58. 10
Decision SC57-29: The Standing Committee asked the Secretariat to seek further guidance fromthe Ramsar Legal Adviser on the legal status of Ramsar Regional Initiatives and report back to
SC58.
Agenda item 12.1: Report of the Executive Team - Terms of reference of the Executive Team(continued)
104. The Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee introduced amendments to the terms of reference
which the Executive Team had compiled following comments received.
105. Switzerland, Uganda, the United Kingdom and the United States of America made further
comments on the presented text, including regarding the need to avoid inappropriate use offormal treaty language.
106. The Chair of the Standing Committee deferred further discussion to the following plenary
session.
Agenda item 20: Report of the Chair of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel, including work
plan for 2019-2021 (continued)
107. The United States of America presented changes proposed by the discussion group tasked by
the Chair of the Standing Committee to consider amendments to the draft work plan for 20192021 of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (document SC57 Doc.20 Rev.1). The group
had inter alia refined the titles of some of the tasks.
108. Regarding the selection of priority tasks, the group had further recommended that the STRP
be allowed flexibility to take advantage of funding opportunities for lower priority tasks on theunderstanding that this would not interfere with the successful completion of high-priority
tasks.
109. Regarding possible updates to the Global Wetland Outlook, the group had agreed that it
would be premature to produce a comprehensive revised version in the immediate future but
strongly supported the production of a special edition linked to the Convention’s 50th
anniversary. The group had considered that the STRP should be invited to advise on an
appropriate theme or themes.
Through Decision SC57-49 below, the Standing Committee subsequently approved the use of CHF 21K
carried forward from the 2018 budget line “Support to Regional Initiatives – General” for the operation of theWorking Group on Ramsar Regional Initiatives as per paragraph 9 of Resolution XIII.9 on Ramsar Regional
Initiatives 2019-2021.

10

SC57 Report and Decisions

17110. The group considered the draft terms of reference for the Ramsar Culture Network (annex 3of the same document) well crafted, and commended the STRP on its efforts. They proposedthat these be forwarded directly to the Network.
Decision SC57-30: The Standing Committee approved the draft work plan of the Scientific andTechnical Review Panel, with the amendments agreed by the discussion group. 11
Agenda item 21.2: Follow up to COP13 and preparation of COP14 - COP14 Host and establishment of
the Subgroup on COP14 (continued)
111. China, as Chair of the Subgroup on COP14, presented an oral summary of the first meeting of
the Subgroup. Two separate workstreams had been identified, one focusing on the logisticaltasks ahead, and the other on possible activities for the 50th anniversary of the Convention.
112. Regarding the 50th anniversary, initial ideas mooted had included: a high-level segment at
COP14; a special award; 2021 as a year of wetlands, running from World Wetlands Day to the
COP; and key concepts of water, youth, future responsibility, and value. Wider consultation
would follow.
113. In logistical terms, the need to define the event dates quickly was underlined, to avoid clashes
and synchronize with other related processes.
114. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization offered, as the current Vice-Chair of UN-Water, tosupport efforts to promote partnership with Ramsar and its COP14 messages. The
representative recalled that the period from 2018 to 2028 has been identified as the Water
Action Decade, drew attention to major New York events upcoming in 2021 and 2023, andencouraged joint action to make Ramsar more visible on the decennial website.
115. Uganda noted that the most recent Ramsar high-level segment had been held at COP9 in
Kampala, and offered to share experience as needed.
Friday 28 June 201910:00 – 12:00 Plenary Session of the Standing Committee
Agenda item 26: Wetland City Accreditation: Guidance for the 2019-2021 triennium (continued)
116. The Republic of Korea presented the final report of the informal group established under
Agenda item 26 (which is annexed to the present report as Annex 5) and asked the Standing
Committee to agree members to serve on the Independent Advisory Committee for the next
triennium.
117. The Republic of Korea also noted that:• the Secretariat had been asked to provide an estimate of staff time spent on the process,to guide the IAC in shaping its ongoing role;11

The final work plan is annexed to the present report at Annex 7.

SC57 Report and Decisions

18

•
•
•

funds would be required in the triennium for the first face-to-face meeting of the IAC,
and that the Ramsar Regional Center – East Asia (RRC-EA) would contribute USD 40K to
host the meeting;the IAC would report on the meeting to SC58, including on steps to ensure thesustainability of the Accreditation; anda round-table meeting of mayors of accredited cities was planned for 2019 at the RRC-EA,
and other potential hosts had expressed interest in hosting such meetings in 2020 and
2021.

118. Interventions were made by Australia, Chad, Dominican Republic on behalf of the Parties of
the Caribbean, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay on behalf of the Parties of Latin
America.
Decision SC57-31: The Standing Committee agreed the following regional representatives on the
Independent Advisory Committee of the Wetland City Accreditation:•
North America: no nomination;•
Oceania: Australia;•
Africa: Chad;•
Europe: Austria;•
Latin America and The Caribbean: nomination to follow.
Agenda item 12.1: Report of the Executive Team – Terms of reference of the Executive Team(continued)
119. The Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee introduced document SC57 Com.11 with amended
terms of reference for the Executive Team, which are annexed to the present report, without
tracked changes, as Annex 8.
Decision SC57-32: The Standing Committee adopted the terms of reference for the Executive Teamas annexed to the present report at Annex 8.
Agenda item 7: Financial and budgetary matters – Report of the Subgroup on Finance120. Mexico, as Chair of the Subgroup on Finance, introduced documents SC57 Com.6 and SC57
Com.9, these being parts I and II of the report of the meeting of the Subgroup on Finance. 12
121. Zambia, on behalf of the Africa group, drew attention to the budget allocation for capacity
building and stressed the importance of this activity to African Contracting Parties, noting thatmany of them were limited in their capacity to use webinars and other types of technologies
and stressing the importance of a needs assessment.
122. The Standing Committee took the following decisions, listed below in the order in which they
are addressed in parts I and II of the report of the Subgroup on Finance.
Decision SC57-33: The Standing Committee accepted the 2018 audited financial statements as of
31 December 2018.
Decision SC57-34: The Standing Committee took note of the core budget results for 2018 andcarry-forward of 2018 surplus.
12

Parts I and II of the report of the Subgroup are annexed to the present report as Annex 9.1 and Annex 9.2.

SC57 Report and Decisions

19

Decision SC57-35: The Standing Committee took note of the status of non-core funding andvoluntary contributions for 2018.
Decision SC57-36: The Standing Committee took note of and approved the Secretariat’s
adjustments to the COP13-approved core budget for 2019 (see Annex 1 of Annex 9.1 of thepresent report), which make no changes but show for transparency and clarity the approved useof surplus from the previous triennium.
Decision SC57-37: The Standing Committee took note of the non-core balances.
Decision SC57-38: The Standing Committee took note of the progress in implementing therecommendations of the IUCN Financial Management Review of Non-core (Restricted) Fund
Accounts and approved the following actions:a.

to adopt the use of the standard terms “core” and “non-core” to describe Ramsar funds;b.

to agree to engage with the auditor in its annual meetings, looking at the most costeffective way, including virtual participation, or by sharing the auditor’s report at least threemonths in advance of the meeting (or earlier), in accordance with the Rules of Procedure on
meeting documents; andc.

to request the Secretariat to collect and share questions from members of the Subgroup by
email in advance and collect answers from the auditor in time for the meeting.

Decision SC57-39: The Standing Committee approved the external auditor’s proposed modification
for the calculation of the provision for outstanding Contracting Party contributions (document
SC57 Doc.7.1, paragraph 42, option a.) and accordingly to increase the provision for 2019. The
source of funding is detailed in the Report of the meeting of the Subgroup on Finance, Part II(Annex 9.2 to the present report), paragraph 1.b viii.
Decision SC57-40: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to explore the practicality ofa group approach or other creative solutions for confirmation of outstanding Contracting Partybalances for the 2019 audit.
Decision SC57-41: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to include a note regarding
the existence or lack thereof of other potential large provision items, such as future pension
obligations, that are not required to be disclosed under Swiss Law, and disclose any accounting
policies and information related to such potential liabilities in future financial statements.
Decision SC57-42: The Standing Committee encouraged the Secretariat to provide input to IUCN
and invited Parties to work with their counterparts responsible for IUCN to provide feedback on
any IUCN consideration of options for future auditing contracts.
Decision SC57-43: The Standing Committee took note of the requests of Panama and Switzerland
to join the Subgroup on Finance for the current triennium.
Decision SC57-44: The Standing Committee took note of the status of annual contributions and theactions taken to encourage payment of outstanding contributions, and instructed the Secretariat
to continue encouraging timely payments of annual contributions.

SC57 Report and Decisions

20

Decision SC57-45: The Standing Committee took note of the change in annual contributions
receivable and in the annual provision against contributions receivable.
Decision SC57-46: The Standing Committee took note of the current status of a balance of CHF 91Kof the voluntary contributions from Contracting Parties in the Africa region.
Decision SC57-47: The Standing Committee approved the allocation of 2018 surplus as per Table 1of Annex 9.2 of the present report.
Decision SC57-48: The Standing Committee approved the allocation CHF 100K from the corebudget to Ramsar Regional Initiatives as per Table 2 of Annex 9.2 of the present report, andinstructed the Secretariat:a.

to contact SenegalWet regarding the unspent balance from previous years and its capacity
to implement an additional contribution for 2019;b.

if this additional allocation of CHF25K was not needed by SenegalWet or the Initiative's
representatives do not respond by the Secretariat's deadline, to allocate then the amountequally between the remaining three initiatives listed in Table 2; andc.

to report to the Subgroup on Finance inter-sessionally on the outcome of this situation.

Decision SC57-49: The Standing Committee approved the use of CHF 21K carried forward from the2018 budget line “Support to Regional Initiatives – General” for the operation of the Working
Group on Ramsar Regional Initiatives as per paragraph 9 of Resolution XIII.9 on Ramsar Regional
Initiatives 2019-2021.
Decision SC57-50: In accordance with the responsibilities defined in Resolution 5.2 on Financial
and budgetary matters, Annex, 3, paragraph 8, the Standing Committee agreed that
uncommitted/unexpended balances for budget lines can be carried forward to the next year
within the triennium and presented to the following meeting of the Subgroup on Finance. 13
Decision SC57-51: The Standing Committee took note of the actions taken by the Secretariat tophase out the Small Grants Fund programme, approved the selection of recipients to receive
funding from the Small Grants Fund proposed at Table 4 of Annex 9.2 of the present report, andapproved the use by the Secretariat of the remaining Small Grants Fund balance of CHF 2.8K forthe development of updated guidance for Contracting Parties on preparing and writing project
proposals.
Agenda item 22: National Reports for COP14 (continued)
123. The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Com.10 14, comprising a revised version of thedraft format for National Reports to COP14 drawing attention to the changes that had been
made.

The Contracting Parties decided at COP13, in paragraph 11 of Resolution XIII.2, that the Terms of Reference
for the Financial Administration of the Convention contained in Annex 3 to Resolution 5.2 on Financial andbudgetary matters (1993), shall be applied in toto to the 2019-2021 triennium.
14
As annexed to the present report at Annex 10.
13SC57 Report and Decisions

21

124. Participants stressed the importance of national targets in implementation of the Convention,
also pointing out some minor editorial amendments.
125. Interventions were made by Costa Rica, Japan and the United States of America.
Decision SC57-52: The Standing Committee approved the format for National Reports as presented
in Annex 10 to the present report, subject to the inclusion of the editorial amendments noted.
Agenda item 8: Urgent challenges to the wise use of wetlands to receive enhanced attention(continued)
126. The United States of America introduced the outcomes of the informal group established to
examine this agenda item 15 and presented two draft decisions accompanied by an explanatory
outline for consideration by the Committee.
Decision SC57-53: The Standing Committee decided to focus on the topic of inventories for thecurrent triennium in order to allow Parties to focus on measures to address this urgent challenge,
potentially resulting in a draft resolution or resolutions for consideration at COP14, and to use theoutline attached to guide this work.
Decision SC57-54: The Standing Committee decided to allocate time on the agenda of SC58 fordiscussions on current best practices in the development of wetland inventories and to create an
opportunity for an engagement between Parties, STRP representatives, the CEPA Oversight Panel,
IOPs, the Ramsar Secretariat, and others on tools and approaches to address the challenges formany Parties in developing, improving, finalizing, and maintaining wetland inventories.
Agenda item 24: Ramsar Advisory Missions: Operational guidance (continued)
127. The Secretariat introduced document SC57 Com.7, containing an amended version of theoperational guidance to Ramsar Advisory Missions.
128. One participant drew attention to a current circumstance whereby the report of a Ramsar
Advisory Mission had been submitted by a Contracting Party as relevant documentation to aboundary dispute currently being heard at the International Court of justice in the Hague, theNetherlands.
129. The Secretary General explained that the work of the Secretariat, including Ramsar Advisory
Missions, was restricted to the mandate and scope laid down by the Convention Text and thedecisions of the Contracting Parties.
130. Interventions were made by Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Chile.
Decision SC57-55: The Standing Committee adopted the amended version of the operationalguidelines for Ramsar Advisory Missions as annexed to the present report at Annex 12.

15

See the group’s report at Annex 11 of the present report.

SC57 Report and Decisions

22

Agenda item 28: Adoption of the report of the meeting131. Amendments to parts of the report were made by Japan, Sweden, the United States ofAmerica, Uruguay, the Chair of the STRP and the Secretary General, to be incorporated into a
final version to be made available on the Ramsar website.
Decision SC57-56: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to submit the draft report of
the final day to Standing Committee members for review and approval, and approved the draft
daily reports of the previous days, subject to the amendments submitted.
Agenda item 27.2: 58th meeting of the Standing Committee - Dates of the 58th meeting132. The Standing Committee noted that following consultation with IUCN regarding theavailability of suitable meeting space and avoidance of clashes with other relevant meetings,
three possible dates were identified for SC58: from 4 to 8 May 2020; from 22 to 26 June 2020;and from 29 June to 3 July 2020. It was noted with regret that two of these dates followed the
IUCN World Conservation Congress in Marseille, from 11 to 19 June 2020.
133. Interventions were made by Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bhutan, Congo, Dominican
Republic, France, Japan, Kuwait, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Republic of Korea,
Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Uruguay.
Decision SC57-57: The Standing Committee decided to hold its next meeting from 22 to 26 June
2020.
Agenda item 30: Closing remarks
134. Participants thanked the Chair for his guidance, and the Secretary General and the Secretariat
team for their support. They acknowledged the excellent spirit of negotiations, which had
enabled the compromises necessary for progress in implementation of the Convention.
135. The Secretary General thanked the Chair for his guidance and able management of themeeting; the Vice Chair and the Chair of the Subgroup on Finance; and the participating
Contracting Parties for their commitment to an effective meeting, and for the clear guidance
which they had given the Secretariat. She also thanked the rapporteur; the interpreters; IUCN
for all its logistical support; the catering staff; the legal adviser; and the Deputy Secretary
General and the Secretariat team.
136. The Chair expressed his thanks to the Secretariat and to the Contracting Parties for theirefforts in negotiating in the best interests of the Convention. He wished all the participants asafe homeward journey.
The Chair closed the meeting at 12:00.

SC57 Report and Decisions

23

Annex 1
Report of the Management Working Group(published as SC57 Com.3)
Report on the process of selection of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel for the 2019-2021
triennium in accordance with Resolution XII.5
1.
The Secretariat outlined the process of selection of the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel, indicating that a diplomatic note had been sent to all Contracting Parties in November 2018seeking nominations. A total of 51 nominations were received. The final group comprised 35
members: eight representatives from Africa, seven from Asia, ten from Europe, six from Latin
America and the Caribbean, three from North America and one from Oceania, with a gender balanceof nine women and 26 men.
2.
The work of the Secretariat in supporting the establishment of the Panel was noted byAustralia but concern was expressed with the complexity of the process and the difficulties inengaging faced by some Contracting Parties and regional groups, given the very tight timelines
imposed.
3.
The Secretariat expressed concerns on the complexity of the process and suggested that it
could be reviewed towards COP14.
Report on the establishment of the CEPA Oversight Panel
4.
Sweden, as Chair, outlined the progress to date in establishing the Panel. The Secretariat had
sent out a call for nominations through regional representatives on the Standing Committee. In
addition to the Chair (Sweden, as the Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee) and the Vice-Chair of
the Panel (Lisa Rebelo, the Vice-Chair of the STRP), the following Contracting Parties had been
nominated, comprising one member from each region:• Australia;• Honduras;• Nepal;• Uganda;• Ukraine; and• the United States.
5.

••

Also included as members of the Panel were:
CEPA NGO Focal Points from Iraq and Sudan; andthe Wildfowl &Wetlands Trust as International Organization Partner.

6.
It was noted that instructions in existing Resolutions for establishing the Panel wereinconsistent and outdated. Further guidance had been sought from the Standing Committee toenable a new structure and process.
7.
The importance was noted of streamlining and expediting the process for the next triennium
to ensure that the Panel might be established at COP14.
8.

An intervention was made by Australia.

9.
The Management Working Group took note of the composition of the Panel, andrecommended that the Standing Committee instruct the Secretariat to implement a process to

SC57 Report and Decisions

24

establish the Panel for the 2021-2024 triennium prior to COP14, so that the Parties might agree on a
final composition at that meeting.

SC57 Report and Decisions

25

Annex 2
Report of the Working Group on the Review of the Strategic Plan of the Ramsar
Convention(published as SC57 Com.4)
1.

The Secretariat outlined the tasks agreed for the Working Group listed at Annex 1, paragraph
9, of Resolution XIII.5 on Review of the fourth Strategic Plan of the Ramsar Convention, which
are intended to culminate in the submission of a proposal for a draft resolution to the 59th
meeting of the Standing Committee (SC59) in early 2021.

2.

Uganda was unanimously elected as Chair of the Working Group.

3.

The Secretariat provided an update on progress to date, particularly with reference to theappointment of a consultant called for in Annex.1, paragraph 11, of Resolution XIII.5. Ten
proposals had been received, and the Secretariat had drawn up a shortlist of four based on
the criteria included in the terms of reference provided by the Working Group.

4.

During discussions the need for transparency and speed in completing the appointment of theconsultant was underlined. It was recommended that the consultancy result in a welldeveloped submission to SC58. Attention was drawn to the low rate of response fromContracting Parties to the questionnaire evaluating the implementation of the current
Strategic Plan.

5.

Interventions were made by Australia, Dominican Republic, South Africa, Switzerland, Uganda,
the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America.

6.

The Working Group recommended that the Standing Committee instruct the Secretariat toshare the shortlisting assessment with the members of the Group, and include the Chair of theWorking Group in panel interviews of the shortlisted candidates for the consultancy.

7.

The Working Group recommended that the Standing Committee instruct the Secretariat toproceed expeditiously with the appointment of the consultant and inception of the projectwork plan, in order that it might be well advanced before the end of 2019, to enable thesubmission of an advanced draft report to SC58 in 2020.

8.

The Working Group recommended that the Standing Committee instruct the Secretariat toorganize an inception meeting with the selected consultant on their appointment, to define
detailed timelines and outputs, in light of existing processes such as the Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) in October 2020 and the post2020 global biodiversity framework.

9.

The Working Group recommended that the Standing Committee instruct the Secretariat toseek further responses from Contracting Parties to the survey on implementation of thecurrent Strategic Plan, and invite regional representatives of the Standing Committee toencourage Parties in their respective regions to respond.

10.

The Working Group recommended that the Standing Committee instruct the Secretariat to
finalize the work plan of the Working Group to reflect the discussions of its meeting of 24 June
2019.

SC57 Report and Decisions

26

Annex 3
Report of the informal group of interested Contracting Parties on the observer status in
the United Nations bodies to SC57
The Standing Committee discussed the issue of the Observer Status at its 54th and 55th meetings(SC54, April 2018 and SC55, Dubai October 2018). At these meetings, several Contracting Parties
stressed the importance of better engagement for the Convention in the environment-related
processes that take place within fora of the United Nations.
At SC55 the Chair reported on the steps taken so far and noted that this matter had been further
postponed for consideration at the 74th session of the UNGA, in 2019, since there was still noconsensus among Member States. The Secretariat recalled the various options that had been
pursued to try to raise the visibility of the Convention within the UNGA.
Following a discussion, SC55 adopted the following decision:
Decision SC55-12: The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat, with support from an informalgroup of interested Contracting Parties, to bring forward a structured proposal, taking into accountthe various options, for consideration at SC57.
Pursuant to Decision SC55-12, the Secretariat sent a message to all Contracting Parties on the 3rd
April in order to identify which Parties would be interested to liaise with the Ramsar Secretariat tobring forward a structured proposal and explore the various options for gaining access to relevant
meetings of the UNGA and related high-level fora.
Six Parties, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Chad, Colombia, Guinea, United States of America and
Uruguay expressed interest on this matter. The Secretariat set a conference call with them on the
17th May.
Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Colombia, United States of America and Uruguay participated in theconference call and discussed the following issues:1) Observer Status under the General AssemblyThis matter has been differed to the 74th Session of the UN General Assembly that will take placefrom 17-30 September 2019.
2) Other options
Participants discussed options to address the issues regarding the status of the Secretariat to enablegaining access to relevant meetings of the UNGA and related high-level fora. These drew fromprevious decisions of the Standing Committee.
a) ECOSOC- in order to seek guidance regarding the process for requesting observer statusspecifically in this forum of the United Nations as per SC54 discussions, the Secretary
General has written on the 1 April to the President of ECOSOC but a response has not been
received yet.
b) Legal personality-the Secretary General has requested the views of the host country on theConvention´s legal personality.

SC57 Report and Decisions273) Some limitations experienced by the Secretariat due to the lack of legal personality such as:a) Visibility of the Convention on UN process and meetings,b) Difficulties in the management of projects in particular when donors do not accept thedelegation of authority to the Secretary General and request projects to be signed by
IUCN,c) PWC auditors has expressed concern on the risk that Contracting Parties’ arrears represent
for the Convention andd) In terms of recruitment of staff, the Convention is not competitive compared with UN
conditions and benefits (salary scales, pensions, education allowance).
The interested Contracting Parties agreed to recommend to SC57 the following way forward on theobserver status:a) Endorsement by SC57 of the continuity of the observer status informal groupb) Analysis of the different options and other options that might have not yet been addressed
including the inputs from the legal advisor.
c) Recommendation to allocate funds from the surplus for the independent analysis to bepresented to Standing Committee 58.

SC57 Report and Decisions

28

Annex 4
Effectiveness Working Group – Terms of Reference(published as SC57 Com.1)
1. Introduction
The 13th Conference of the Parties in adopting Resolution XIII.3:• Acknowledged the importance of providing an adequate institutional set-up for
Ramsar, a global convention with 170 Parties.
• Established the Effectiveness Working Group (EWG) to review the governancestructure of the Convention with the assistance of an independent consultant.
• Established that the EWG be composed of one Standing Committee representativefrom each Ramsar region as well as any other interested Contracting Parties,
keeping in mind the desirability of equitable participation and keeping the group toa manageable size. 16
2. Scope
Resolution XIII.3 directs the EWG to:i.
Review the governance structure of the Convention with the assistance of an
independent consultant, as that structure exists at the close of the 13th meeting of
the Conference of the Contracting Parties (CPs), for the purpose of:a. recommending revisions (as necessary) that further enhance theeffectiveness, including cost effectiveness, and efficiency of the Convention
in order to reduce administrative burden and speed up the processes toachieve the mission of the Ramsar Convention; andb. proposing a process to implement its recommendations;ii.
Define its terms of reference (ToR) for presentation to the Standing Committee (SC)at its 57th meeting and to report at each SC meeting thereafter, with final
recommendations at its 59th meeting, which should include a draft resolution for
consideration by the Standing Committee;
iii.
Complete the above outlined work by the 59th meeting of the Standing Committee.
3. EWG Terms of Reference
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

EWG Chair/Co-Chair Vice-Chair
The EWG Chair and Co-Chair will be appointed by group consensus following
voluntary nominations by EWG members;
The Chair/Co-Chair will co-ordinate tasks in preparation for EWG meetings and/or
EWG members’ contributions. All EWG members will be encouraged to support thework of the Chair and Co/Vice Chair;
The Chair/Co-Chair will set out relevant tasks for the group with a clear deadline
for completion. Wherever possible (aside from any urgent, absolutely unavoidable
deadline), members will be afforded at least 10 working days to provide theircontributions; for complex and/or far-reaching decisions that warrant broader
consultation, members will be afforded at least 20 working days to provide theircontributions, with the expectation that EWG SC members from each Ramsar

The membership of the Effectiveness Working Group comprises, at present, the following members of the
SC: Australia (SC), Bhutan (SC), the Dominican Republic (SC), Japan (SC), the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland (SC), the United States of America (SC), Sweden (SC), Uruguay (SC) and Zambia (SC) andthe following other interested parties: Austria, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Ecuador, France, Kenya, Lesotho,
the Netherlands, Senegal, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.
16

SC57 Report and Decisions

29

v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.

region will seek further contributions from other members/Parties within theirregions, as appropriate;
The group will work by consensus;
The Chair/Co-Chair may facilitate consensus through individual discussions withmembers to reach an agreement in a timely manner;
The Chair/Co-Chair will act as the focal point for the Consultant and will be therecipient of all output produced by the Consultant to be promptly shared with thegroup;The Chair/Co-Chair will submit a written report on work progress to the Secretariat
three months in advance of SC meetings;
The Chair/Co-Chair will report on the group work at each Standing Committee
meeting until COP14.

3.2 EWGi.
The EWG will carry out its work via written electronic exchange (either email
and/or share-point). Internet meetings may be organised if needed in urgent, timesensitive situations, on a time-zone rota system ensuring participation of at least
one representative from each Ramsar region.
ii.
EWG members should notify the Chair/Co-Chair of any alternative (primarycontact for the EWG ;iii.
The rapporteur for EWG meetings will ensure minutes of the meeting are sent to
the Chair/Co-Chair within 5 working days from the meeting occurring to be
distributed to the group;iv.
The EWG will work according to the time-line set out in (provisional) section 6.ii
work table. However the schedule may be revised if EWG members determine it isnecessary to do so;v.
The EWG will assess each output provided by the Consultant and whereappropriate it may direct the Consultant to carry out further research on any
specific topic;vi.
The EWG may request the Secretariat to provide information or other assistance insupport of the EWG’s work.
4. Work Schedulei.
The review will commence by July 2019. The Consultant will report to the EWG
Chair/Co-Chair according to benchmarks set in the Consultancy ToR document once
agreed with the EWG.
ii.

EWG Work Table

TimingJune 2019 – at SC57
By 16th August 2019
By 30th September
2019
January/ February2020
3 months before
SC58

SC57 Report and Decisions

PurposeEWG meeting (23.06) - to finalise EWG ToR + review topics (face to facemeeting)
Appointment of Consultant and initial scoping meeting between Consultant
and EWG – to discuss review topics and timeline of work (via
teleconference)
Submission of full project plan received from Consultant following on basisof agreed review topics and scoping discussion
EWG meeting with Consultant – to discuss 1st interim report + next steps(via teleconference)
Submission by EWG of report to Secretariat for SC, including identification of
topics still needing resolution

30

TBD 2020 – at SC58

EWG meeting – to discuss progress of work (face to face meeting)

4/5 months before
SC59
3 months before
SC59
Date TBD 2021

EWG meeting with Consultant – to discuss final report and the preparationof a draft resolution (TBC – face to face meeting)
Submission by EWG of final report to Secretariat for SC, including
identification of topics for further future consideration
SC59

SC57 Report and Decisions

31

Annex 5
Report of the Contact Group on Item 26
Wetland City Accreditation: Guidance for the 2019-2021 triennium
Submitted by Republic of Korea
Co-chair of IAC for WCA
The contact group on the agenda item 26, ‘Wetland City Accreditation: Guidance for the 2019-2021
triennium’ met after the plenary meeting on 26 June to discuss issues raised by several Parties.
The first issue was the procedural matter that there was no process “to review implementation
progress and financing of the framework and the voluntary accreditation system at COP13,” which
was decided in Resolution XII.10. While a report on the progress of the WCA was shared to the thenStanding Committee members at the SC54, it was suggested that the IAC should briefly report to thisStanding Committee on the aforementioned progress. As a Co-chair of the IAC, the Republic of Korea
agreed to do so before the closure of this Standing Committee meeting. It was also agreed that the
IAC would undertake the review during its 2019 face-to-face meeting and report back to SC58 and it
was reflected in the timeline table accordingly.
The second issue was the role of the Secretariat in the WCA process. Resolution XII.10 specifies that“Any costs for preparing and approving the Wetland City accreditation shall not be borne by the corebudget of the Secretariat,” which also includes staff time, and Decision SC53-14 states that theadministrative role of the Secretariat should be minimal, limited to receiving applications andforwarding them to the IAC. The Parties, while appreciating the Secretariat’s assistance during theprevious triennium as the IAC was in a formative stage, note that some of the activities conducted by
the Secretariat listed in Doc.26 para 10 should be borne by the IAC from the second round of theWCA, such as checking Parties’ endorsement of applications, replying to queries, and coordinatingwith local governments for the accreditation ceremony, to reduce the Secretariat’s workload. The
group agreed that detailed guidance on the Secretariat’s role will be developed by the IAC at its firstmeeting to be held in September 2019, and will keep the Secretariat’s involvement at a minimum as
decided in Resolution XII.10 and Decision SC53-14.
There was also a comment on the necessity to improve the website of the WCA that it does notreach the level of what was expected in accordance with Resolution XII.10 Paragraph 16 that
“INSTRUCTS the Ramsar Secretariat to develop a global online network of cities which have obtained
the Wetland City accreditation of the Ramsar Convention.” A suggestion was made to use materials
developed by accredited cities to make the website more appealing rather than leave it as a simple
introduction page. The IAC will discuss how to do this in a way that does not burden the Secretariat.
The group shared the same view on the positive impacts that the WCA scheme has brought and willbring to the Convention and agreed that, depending on the scale and the amount of work required
for the future process, potential allocation of core budget funds could be considered by the
Subgroup on Finance at a future COP to enable the Secretariat to be more involved but that for theforeseeable future this support would come from sources outside the Convention and/or from noncore contributions that could include secondments to the Secretariat.
The third issue was the timeline for the 2019-2021 triennium. The main changes made by the group
include; a) removing the conference call on updating the application form allocated on July 2019, as
the existing form will be used for this triennium while an updated version will be used for the next
triennium; b) advancing the date for launching the call for applications from September to 15 July
2019 to allow local governments to begin the preparation earlier, since they could be time-

SC57 Report and Decisions

32

consuming; and c) postponing the deadline for heads of AA to submit the applications to theSecretariat from 15 January to 15 March 2020 to ensure AAs of Parties to have enough time toreview the applications and select their finalists. The group also made it explicit that SC59 will review
and approve the cities recommended by the IAC to avoid the uncertainty experienced at COP13, theembargo will be imposed by SC59, and a certificate awarding ceremony will be held at COP14.
Table 1 in Doc.26 with the changes mentioned above is as follows:
Dates

Actions

15 July 2019

Secretariat to launch the call for applications

15 July 2019 to
31 December 2019

Interested cities to prepare and send applications to Head ofRamsar Administrative Authority (AA)

September 2019
(tentative)

Face-to-face meeting of IAC in Republic of Korea(hosted by RRC-EA)
IAC to review implementation progress and financing as required in
Resolution XII.10 para 11

October 2019
(tentative)

Meeting of the COP13 accredited cities in Republic of Korea(hosted by RRC-EA)

By 15 March 2020

Heads of AA to submit applications to the Ramsar Secretariat
through the online submission

By 15 April 2020

Ramsar Secretariat to forward applications to the IAC

By SC58 (2020)

IAC to provide the results of its review of implementation to SC58

By 2 months before
SC59 (2021)

IAC to review applications and determine which cities toaccredit

At SC59 (2021)

IAC to report its decision to SC59
SC59 to review and approve the IAC recommended cities and impose amedia embargo to be lifted at COP14

After SC59 (2021)

The Secretariat to invite the approved cities to the certificate awarding
ceremony at COP14 and prepare the ceremony with support from the
IAC

COP14 (2021)

COP14 to recognize accredited cities through the certificate awarding
ceremony at COP14

The group agreed on the composition of the IAC proposed in Paragraph 18 of Doc.26 and welcomed
the Republic of Korea’s proposal to continue to engage in the IAC as an observer to share its
experience from the last triennium and to coordinate the work of the IAC until the new chair isselected. The group also recognized the necessity of the IAC meeting and expects detailed work to
be done through the meeting including conducting the review of implementation progress andfinancing, development of the guidance for the Secretariat’s role, reflection of the feedback from the
STRP on the assessment criteria, and considerations of sustainable operation of the scheme.

SC57 Report and Decisions

33

Annex 6
Report of the meeting held regarding implementation of Resolution XIII.9 on Ramsar
Regional Initiatives 2019-2021
June, 27. GlandPlenary Session of the Standing Committee 57.
Costa Rica facilitates the meeting and the group considers that the presidency of the working groupshould be defined in future TORs that specify the working format of the group.
The working group to be formed for regional initiatives should be composed of each of thecoordinators of regional initiatives and regional representatives.
The participation of:Panama (Center of training), Colombia, Kenya, Bolivia (Plurinational State of) (High Andean
Wetlands), Uruguay (Cuenca del Plata), Costa Rica (part of 2 regional initiatives East Asia Regional
Center, Japan, Sweden (north-val green regional initiative) , Algeria, South Africa, Uganda (Regional
Center of East Africa), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (represents the regional initiative based in Ramsar),Ukraine (member of 2 initiatives - coordinate Black-see wet initiative), Kazakhstan (regional initiativeof Asia central), Butan and Dominican Republic.
The following topics that the representatives consider important to develop the recommendations
presented at the next meeting of the CP58 related to SC57 Doc.25, on the Update on the Ramsar
regional initiatives for 2019 and the actions requested of the Standing Committee, were discussed;
Resolution XIII.9. Regional Ramsar initiatives for 2019-2021• The evident need to improve the form and content of the IRR reports, which will be worked by thesecretary of the Convention.
• It is emphasized that regional initiatives currently have to comply with some guidelines - according
to (paragraph 8 of resolution XIII.9) and this adds to the objective of improving their evaluation.
• And with regard to the review of the Operational Guidelines, the following topics were considered.
1. Institutional particularities of each of the parties for the implementation of each of the IRR
2. Aspects of implementation and administration of projects
3. Mobilization of resources and use of available funds
Therefore, the Standing Committee is asked to approve the formation of the working group on IRR
so that it can move forward with the purpose of the order made in Resolution XIII.9
The group will work on its recommendations in view of the meeting of the Permanent Committee
58, and will present the TORs that specify the working format of the same.
It is important to highlight that the work focus is directed at identifying successful experiences forthe implementation of IRR in all regions and how they can support the efficiency of theimplementation of the Convention. Also keeping the integrity and consistency of it. This approach
supports the effective and synergistic work that is recommended for the implementation of IRRs.

SC57 Report and Decisions

34

Future work to improve operational guidelines should be based on inclusive principles that
contribute to the overall implementation of the initiatives, and thus improve the identification of
impacts, transparency and efficiency of IRR.
The positive particularities identified in the implementation of the IRR will benefit all of them andthe particularities to improve will have to be resolved in order to support the global implementation.
As the Contracting Parties request in Resolution XIII.9. the Standing Committee is recommended torequest the Secretariat to prepare the legal analysis of the relevant resolutions by the legal adviserof the Convention and to submit its report to the 58th meeting of the Standing Committee; besides
being an input for this work group.
In the same way, the Secretariat is requested to provide the coordination of this group with thecontacts of the representatives of the region and regional initiatives and to remind them that this is
an open-ended group.

SC57 Report and Decisions

35

Annex 7
Work plan of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel for 2019-2021
Introduction
Development of this draft
The STRP developed this draft work plan for the 2019-2021 triennium at its 22nd meeting (18-22
March 2019). The Standing Committee at its 57th meeting (24-28 June 2019) approved the work
plan.
The draft work plan was drafted pursuant to the process outlined in Resolution XII.5: Newframework for delivery of scientific and technical advice and guidance on the Convention (Annex 1,
paragraphs 49-51), and taking into account the five priority thematic work areas approved byContracting Parties at COP13 in Annex 2 of Resolution XIII.8: Future implementation of scientific andtechnical aspects of the Convention for 2019-2021.
In accordance with Resolution XII.5, the draft work plan was revised after a broad consultation
process with Heads of Administrative Authorities, National Focal Points and STRP National Focal
Points.
Costs
The indicative budget for the tasks generally assumes that the costs for layout, design, review,translation, and publication are: up to CHF 1,240 for a Factsheet, up to CHF 2,960 for a Policy Brief,
up to CHF 6,400 for a Briefing Note and up to CHF 22,600 for a Ramsar Technical Report.
Consultancy reports (up to 40 pages) have been estimated at up to CHF 30,600, drafting workshops
at up to CHF 10,000 and web design at up to CHF 4,000 17 (based on financial information from theSecretariat).
Note that the cost implications for engagement, as required, with international processes (such asother Conventions, IPBES and possibly technical work related to monitoring the Sustainable
Development Goals), are largely unknown at this stage as this will depend on the nature and type of
input requested, for example whether travel costs will be required.
Priorities
In developing this draft work plan and consistent with Resolution XIII.8, the STRP attempted to apply
a consistent and explicit approach to priority setting. High-priority tasks were those that had severalof the following characteristics (not listed in rank order), namely those which:
•
•
•
•
•

closely align with the objectives of Ramsar’s Strategic Plan (2016-2024);align with priority thematic work areas established by the COP per Resolution XIII.8;
are of significant policy relevance to other international legislative or policy frameworks in thecontext of Resolution XIII.7;
have high potential for communication and outreach, especially to influential audiences;address pressing conservation needs;

Web design costs clearly depend on the scope and complexity of the work. This is an average and indicative
cost based on five days of work at 700 CHF/day

17

SC57 Report and Decisions36

•

involve novel activities not significantly overlapping with initiatives undertaken by others;
and/oraddress elements of the Strategic Plan which Parties are struggling to implement 18, to theextent possible.

•

The STRP then identified highest priority tasks from the initial list of high priority tasks, as indicatedin Table 1 below.
Table 1: Highest priority tasks
Task title
Global Wetland Outlook special
edition for the 50th anniversary of
the Ramsar Convention
Compiling and reviewing positive
and negative impacts of agricultural
practises on wetlands including
extent of changes in area fromagricultural land conversion since
1970s, and how adverse impacts
can be avoided in the future
Elaborating on practical experiencesof restoration methods for tropicalpeatlands
Desktop study of coastal blue carbon
ecosystems in Ramsar Sites(consistent with relevant IPCC
guidelines)

Task no.

Target audience(s)Contracting Parties,
International community

Estimated cost
(CHF)
To be
determined

1.2

Practitioners (wetland
managers); policymakers(governments-agriculture
sector especially)

64,2002.2

Practitioners (Ramsar Sitemanagers) / policymakers(high level)
Policy-makers within
Contracting Parties(especially those
responsible for the coastalzone); Researchcommunity and IOPs

55,000-65,000

5.1

31,600Priorities relate to the entire work plan rather than established within each of the priority thematic
work areas.
Advisory functions
Note that in addition to the specific priority thematic work areas and tasks outlined below, it isimportant to recall that, within the framework of Resolution XII.5, the STRP has a number of core adhoc advisory functions (summarized below). These support other Convention processes and actors.
Audiences
The outputs proposed in this draft work plan are aimed at two target audiences, in line with
Resolution XII.5, Annex 1, paragraph 54, as follows:•

Policy-makers, including those from the environment and water sectors and other related
sectors such as energy, health and sanitation, agriculture, infrastructure; andAs outlined in the Secretary General’s review of the implementation of the Convention for COP13:https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/cop13doc.11.1_global_implementation_e.pdf
18

SC57 Report and Decisions

37

•

Practitioners, in particular wetland managers and stakeholders, and others from related fields,such as protected area managers and staff of wetland education centres.

For clarity purposes, for outputs seeking to target Ramsar Site managers, the target audience is
specified as “Practitioners (Ramsar Site Managers)”. However, for outputs aimed at wetland
managers in general, the target audience is specified as “Practitioners (wetland managers)”.
Capacity building
Resolution XIII.8, paragraph 18, urged that scientific and technical capacity-building activities (forNational Focal Points, and STRP and CEPA Focal Points) be undertaken subject to the availability offunding “including inter alia through regional capacity-building workshops and other training
opportunities, including in the margins of STRP meetings held in regions, to further enhance theeffectiveness of the Convention… ”.
The potential for such opportunities will be explored with the Secretariat, as any agreed programmeof work is developed, subject always to resource availability.
Prioritization of STRP engagement with other international processes
A significant number of other international processes are relevant to Ramsar’s mission. The STRP, in
consultation with the Secretariat, considers that the following processes are those where there isgreatest opportunity to influence and engage in support of Contracting Parties, noting resource andcapacity constraints. In particular, we see support of assessment processes as being particularly
important.
Any such engagement will be in in line with Resolution XII.5 19, in support of the Secretariat and inline with a plan being developed for SC58 by the Secretariat to strengthen synergies with other
MEAs and contributions to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (as requested by Resolution
XIII.7).
• IPBES• IPCC (and UNFCCC)• UNCCD• Convention on Biological Diversity especially in the context of the development of the post2020 development agenda• Technical support to relevant SDG monitoring• Convention on Migratory Species and relevant daughter Agreements• Global Coastal Forum – when established• Global Peatlands Initiative
Engagement will be largely through either members and/or STRP NFPs who will otherwise beattending meetings, although engagement needs will be assessed for each meeting bearing in mind
also the important need for consistency of involvement in work streams. Working with theSecretariat, an engagement strategy will be develop for each process identifying opportunities tosupport Contracting Parties with relevant technical inputs.

19

See Resolution XII.5: paragraph 51 and Annex 1, paragraph 13(ix).

SC57 Report and Decisions

38Abbreviations
CEPA
CSAB
GPI
GWO
IKI
IMCG
IPBES
IPCC
MEA
MEP
NFP
RAM
RAWES
RCN
RSIS
RTR
SC
SDG
SP
ToR
TWA
UNCCD
UNFCCCWEDO

Communication, capacity building, education, participation and awareness
Chairs of the Scientific Advisory Bodies of the biodiversity-related conventions
Global Peatland Initiative
Global Wetland Outlook
International Climate Initiative
International Mire Conservation GroupIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Multilateral environmental agreement
Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (IPBES)National Focal Point
Ramsar Advisory Mission
Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services
Ramsar Culture Network
Ramsar Sites Information Service
Ramsar technical report
Standing Committee
Sustainable Development Goal(s)Strategic Plan
Terms of reference
Thematic work area
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Women’s Environment and Development Organisation

SC57 Report and Decisions

39

Thematic Work Areas and their constituent tasks
Ad-hoc advisory functions and collaboration with other International bodies and processes
Task

Res.

SP 20 goal
& targetDescription and task leads

Priority

Process andoutcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

Ramsar Convention Processes
Reporting toStanding
Committee

XIII.4,
Annex 1,¶¶, 13;19 (h)

4.14

STRP Chair will participate at
meetings of SC as an observer, andwill present the draft work plan for
approval, reporting on progresswith its implementation, andproviding guidance for its future
development.

Core

Reporting andadvice to theStanding
Committee

STRP Chair’s
reportContracting
Parties

Included in Chair’s
travel budget

Responding torequests foradvice or input
from theSecretariat andStanding
Committee

XII.5,
Annex 1,¶¶ 1-2;12 (iii),(v); 15(ii);
XIII.5, ¶¶20, 26

4.14

Requests may include, inter alia:• advice on Strategic Plan and
CEPA matters;• input into the effectiveness
review process on request;• advice on the consolidation of
past scientific and technical
Resolutions, on request;• simplifying and repackaging
existing guidance on Ramsar
Sites management for the
production of a simplified
manual;• update Ramsar Sites
Management Toolkit;• Engagement with IPCC/ UNFCC;
and/ orCore

Responsive advice
to Contracting
Parties via
Secretariat andStanding
Committee

AdviceContracting
Parties andSecretariat

No cost implications for
STRP budget: advice
provided on a voluntarybasis (unless travel isinvolved)

20

Strategic Plan (SP): https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/cop12_res02_strategic_plan_e_0.pdf

SC57 Report and Decisions40• Provide scientific and technicalguidance on priority global
processes (above), including
IPBES (see also below), CMS, CBD(see also below), UNCCD, etc.).
Support to
Secretariat andStanding
Committee in
relation to
Sustainable
Development
Goals (SDGs)

XII.3, ¶52; XII.5,
Annex 1,¶¶ 1-2;12 (iii),(v); 15

3.11,
4.14,
4.18

Ad-hoc review and advice tosupport reporting, development of
guidance and toolkit (and capacity
building) for national wetland
inventories being developed bySecretariat.

Core

Secretariat toprovide the STRP
with a summary ofdeliverables andwork to be done
and request STRP
to review andprovide advice

WrittenadviceContracting
Parties

Costs implication for
STRP budget dependent
on nature and scale ofrequest especially if
additional products
prepared or travel
required

Drafting orproviding input
on Draft
Resolutions

XII.5,
Annex 1,¶¶ 1-2,12 (iii)

4.14

The STRP may draft, at the requestof the Standing Committee, a Draft
Resolution or it may provide (onrequest) input to Draft Resolutions
submitted to the COP by
Contracting Parties.

Core

Responsive advice
to Parties

Advice/Draft
Resolutions

Contracting
Parties

No cost implications for
STRP budget: advice
provided on a voluntarybasis

Responding tonational orregional relevant
requests foradvice fromContracting
Parties, as
capacity allows

XII.5,
Annex 1,¶¶ 2, 59

4.14

The STRP may provide advice, as
appropriate, to requests from any
Contracting Party coming via the
Secretariat, as capacity andexpertise allow.

Core

Responsive advice
to Contracting
Parties

AdviceContracting
Parties

No cost implications for
STRP budget: advice
provided on a voluntarybasis.

SC57 Report and Decisions

41

Advising on
Removals ofRamsar Sites from
the Montreux
RecordXII.5,
Annex 1,¶¶ 1- 2,12 (v) ;XIII.11,¶¶19, 21

2.5, 2.7,
4.14

Advising on
Ramsar Advisory
Missions (RAMs)

XII.5,
Annex 1,
12 , (v);
XIII.11,¶15,

2.5, 2.7,
4.14

XII.10,Annex, ¶16 (e)

3.11,
4.14

Wetland City
Accreditation
Independent
Advisory
Committee

SC57 Report and Decisions

STRP to advice, as requested byParties on removals from theMontreux Record.

Core

Responsive advice
to Contracting
Parties

AdviceContracting
Parties andSecretariat

No cost implications for
STRP budget: advice
provided on a voluntarybasis

The STRP may assist the Ramsar
Secretariat with Ramsar Advisory
Missions, as appropriate andsubject to the availability ofresources, including:• advising the Secretariat in the
preparation of RAMs operational
guidance for adoption at SC57;
and• on request advising on
appropriate scientific andtechnical expertise to include in
RAM teams.

Core

Responsive advice
to Contracting
Parties

Draft for
SC57

Contracting
Parties andSecretariat

No cost implications for
STRP budget: advice
provided on a voluntarybasis

An STRP expert will serve in the
Wetland City Accreditation
Independent Advisory Committee.

CoreWork with the Secretariat in its
efforts to advise Contracting
Parties in their efforts to manage
Sites on the Montreux Record andSites for which reports on adversechange in ecological character havebeen received, engaging Regional
Centres in such efforts asappropriate.

Advice to
Secretariat

Responsive advice
to Contracting
Parties

AdviceNo cost implications for
STRP budget: advice
provided on a voluntary
basis

42

Providing advice
on emerging
issuesXII.5,
Annex 1,¶¶2, 15(ii), 38

4.14

The STRP will keep under review
emerging and strategic issues of
relevance for the Convention,
which may require action or advice
in the future and will advise theStanding Committee accordingly.

Core

Responsive advice
to Contracting
Parties

AdviceContracting
Parties andSecretariat

No cost implications for
STRP budget: advice
provided on a voluntary
basis

Other international processes of relevance to the Convention and that contribute to implementation of the Convention’s Strategic PlanEngagement withIPBES and CSAB

XII.3, ¶48; XII.5,
Annex 1,
¶ 13 (ix),51;
XIII.8, ¶
13

4.14,
4.18

Continue engaging in the work of
IPBES through: participation of the
STRP Chair in IPBES and MEP
meetings, participation of STRP
members and other Ramsar
experts in global and regional
assessments, review of requests to
IPBES for thematic assessments,
pursuant to Res. XIII.8.

Core

As they arise (inthe case of IPBES,
a Ramsarsponsoredassessment may
be agreed as an
IPBES priority inthe future)Core

Responsive advice
to Contracting
Parties

Input asrequiredInternational
community

Potential travel costs
dependent on natureand scale ofengagement in futureassessments. STRP
Chair travel costs
covered separately.

Contracting
Parties

Unclear costs
implications as depends
on the nature of advice
sought. Potential travel
costs

Engagement with meetings ofChairs of the Scientific Advisory
Bodies of the biodiversity-related
conventions (CSAB), asappropriate.
Support to
Secretariat andStanding
Committee in
relation to post2020 Biodiversity
Framework

XII.5,
Annex 1,¶¶ 1-2;12 (iii),(v); 15 ; ¶22

SC57 Report and Decisions

3.11,
4.14,
4.18

Provide inputs, as appropriate andon request, to the post-2020
Biodiversity Framework

43Future updates of Global Wetland Outlook (GWO): State of the World’s Wetlands and their Services to people
Working Group lead(s) andparticipants:

Lisa-Maria Rebelo (lead), David Stroud (co-lead), Hugh Robertson, Guangchun Lei, Reda Fishar, Robert Hendricks (STRP NFPNetherlands)

Contributing organizations:[IOPs/observers/others]

Relevant organizations within environment and water, energy, health, sanitation, agriculture, or infrastructure sectors andothers to be confirmed

Task
Global Wetland
Outlook special
edition for the 50th
anniversary of theRamsarConvention
Summarizing theextent of new
intertidal wetland
Ramsar Site
designations for
succeeding COPs
and include theinformation in
future updates of
the GWO

Res.

XIII.
20, ¶
42

SP goal& targetSupports
SP

2.5, 2.6,
4.14

Description

Priority

Process and outcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

Special edition, linked to
the 50th anniversary
themeHighestTo be further elaborated
by STRP immediately after
SC57

To be further
elaborated by STRP
immediately after
SC57

To be further
elaborated by
STRP
immediately
after SC57

To be further
elaborated by
STRP
immediately
after SC57

Prepare a status reportsummarizing the number
and extent of inter-tidal
Ramsar site designations,on a regional scale.

Lower(outputfrom
Task 1.6)

Extract and analyse datafrom the RSIS to assess
the number and extent ofdesignations annually
since 1971. Potentiallyreport findings in future
updates of the GWO

Paper (Short status
report); data available
for GWO

Contracting
Parties

6,400

Contracting
Parties

See Thematic
Work Area 5
for details

Contracting
Parties

6,400

Integrate data on
the global extentof blue carbon
ecosystems,
potentiallythrough the GWO

XIII.
14, ¶¶
11(c)2.5, 2.6,
4.14

Present best evidence ofthe extent of blue carbon
ecosystems

Highest(outputfrom
Task 5.1)

See Thematic Work Area
5 for details

Global assessmentof gaps in Ramsarsite network

XII.5,
Annex

2.5, 2.6,
4.14

Collate and analyse
comprehensiveness,
adequacy andMedium(output

Undertake analysis of RSIS
data on representation ofdifferent wetland types in

SC57 Report and Decisions

Timeline: to be
determined
Uptake/Objective
Provides direction to
CPs on progress sinceRes. VI.21
Data for the GWO
Objective is to inform
internationalawareness about
these ecosystems andtheir services.
Paper presenting asummary of analysis.
Data may contribute

44

Task

Res.
1, ¶¶
1-2

SC57 Report and Decisions

SP goal& targetDescription

Priority

Process and outcomes

OutputAudience

representativeness of theRamsar site network andidentify priority regions
and wetland types for
future designation.

from
Task 1.7)

different bioregions
within the Ramsar Sites
network. Provide
comments on
improvements as well as
areas of focus. Assess
whether guidance onunder-represented
wetland types will need to
be updated.

to GWO if agreed by
SC (COP14).

(policymakers)

Costs CHF

Objective is toprovide direction toParties to review
findings andpotentially set targets
for future
designations

45

Thematic Work Area 1: Best practice methodologies / tools to identify and monitor Ramsar Sites and other wetlands, including surveying, mapping, inventorying, andglobal and regional analysis of the priorities for enhancing the Ramsar site network
Working Group lead(s) andparticipants:

Hugh Robertson (lead), Laura Martinez, Reda Fishar, Sangdon Lee, Edson Junqueira, Siobhan Fenessy, Guangchun Lei, Lisa-Maria
Rebelo, Andrei Sirin, Dulce Infante, Ritesh Kumar, Eduardo Mansur (FAO), Marlos de Souza (FAO), Amani Alfarra (FAO), Lammert
Hilarides (GEO-Wetlands), Christian Perennou (TDV), Lisa Ingwall-King (UNEP-WCMC), James Robinson/Tomos Avent (WWT), Matthew
Simpson (SWS), Priyani Amerasinghe (IWMI), Hans Joosten (GMC), Martina Eiseltova (STRP NFP Czech Republic), Obaid Al Shamsi (STRP
NFP UAE), Janine van Vessem (STRP NFP Belgium), Rob Hendricks (STRP NFP Netherlands), Anne van Dam (IHE Delft Institute for Water
Education), and Max Finlayson (IHE Delft Institute for Water Education)

Contributing organizations:[IOPs/observers/others]

FAO, Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS), Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT), GEO-Wetlands, Tour du Valat (TDV), UNEP-WCMC,
Greifswald Mire Center (GMC), International Water Management Institute (IWMI), IHE Delft Institute for Water Education

Task

Res.

SP

Description

Priority

Process and outcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

1.1 Sharing
information fromthe review andcompilation of
outputs from the
Rapid assessmentof wetland
ecosystem
services (RAWES)
approach

XIII.
17, ¶¶
22, 23

3.11,
4.14

Working with IOPs,
compile information on
the application of the
RAWES methodology indifferent Ramsar Regions
as well as its application
to Ramsar Reporting andSite management. If
limited data (since RAWES
only recently adopted),then as a minimum
undertake an inventory/compilation of groups
applying RAWES

Lower

Compile inventory ofwetland sites andParties that haveapplied the RAWES
approach and review its
effectiveness toevaluate ecosystemservices, including
whether it addresses
negative implications ofpromoting particularservices. Review
application in RIS
updates andmanagement planning.

Short status report.

Contracting
Parties (NFPs,
STRP NFPs),
Practitioners(Ramsar Sites
managers), IOPs

Translation(120 CHF per
A4 page)

1.2 Compiling andreviewing
positive andnegative impactsof agricultural
practises on

XIII.19,¶¶ 28,
29

Review information on thepositive and negative
impacts of agriculture
on/near wetlands,
including biodiversity andHighestCompile case studies onsustainable agriculture
practices in wetlands
and evaluate them in
relation to wise use andmaintaining and

RTR with key
messages or derived
outputs forpolicymakers. Policy
Brief and infographic

Case studies:
Practitioners(wetlandmanagers);
Policy makers(governments-

64,200 [22,600
RTR production& translation;
10,000workshop; 9,000
consultancy,

SC57 Report and Decisions

1.1,4.14,
4.18

Timelines: to be
determined.
Uptake: Enhanced
through training andlinking RAWES to
National Report
indicators

46

Task

Res.

wetlands
including extent
of changes inarea fromagricultural land
conversion since
1970s, and how
adverse impacts
can be avoided in
the future

SP

Description
ecosystem services, incontext of climate change.
Evaluate the extent of
wetland loss (since 1970)
due to conversion of landto agriculturaldevelopment.
Potential scope also forsynthesis of related key
messages drawn fromrecent FAO and IPBES
assessments, and TEEB,
packaged for Ramsar
audience.
Collaboration with IOPs
and FAO will be crucial toincrease sharing offindings

Priority

Process and outcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

enhancing theecological character ofwetlands, liaising with
IOPs, Parties and FAO.

Policy Brief andinfographic

agriculture
sectorespecially)

based on a rateof 700 for 14
days]

Literature
review: Policy
makers(governmentsagriculture
sectorespecially);
practitioners(wetlandmanagers)[if with Policy
Brief add: 2,000(layout), 960
translation)]

Compile and review
data on RSIS on Ramsar
sites that haveagricultural practices
within them andsummarise bestpractice examples.
Providerecommendations forpromoting sustainableagricultural practices inand adjacent towetlands.
Consider gains fromrestoration fromagriculture back towetlands.
Literature review:
Building on the GWO
and data collated forSDG 6.6.1, undertake aliterature review ofexisting assessments ofwetland loss that havebeen attributed toSC57 Report and Decisions

Timeline: Initiate
project in 2019;
Products delivered inearly 2021
Uptake/Objective
Overall aim is tosupport CPs todevelop sustainableagricultural practices
and conserve
wetlands.

22,600 for
literature review
of losses
Seek FAO in-kind
supportSpecific objective is amore detailed
understanding on
causes andconsequences of
wetland loss toagriculture including
any lessons learnt on
how to prevent
furtherdegradation/loss of
wetlands.

47

Task

Res.

SP

Description

Priority

Process and outcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

Policy Brief on theimportance of small
wetlands with
infographic

Policy Brief:
Policy makers(in environment
and planningsectors
especially)

9,360 and costfor infographic

agriculturaldevelopment.
Complete meta-analysis
using that data.
1.3 Prepare
guidance oninventories andmonitoring of
small wetlands,
and their multiple
values forbiodiversity
conservation,
especially in thecontexts oflandscapemanagement andclimate change

XIII.21,¶ 23

2.5, 2.6,
4.14

Summarise technicalknowledge on thesignificance of small
wetlands for biodiversity
conservation and otherecosystem services andthreats to them andprepare guidance on bestpractice approaches totheir inventory andmonitoring, highlighting a
range of different
legislation, policy andother best practice
approaches.

MediumDevelop definition of“small wetlands”
building on Res. XIII.21.
Summarise literatureon their significance,
including forlivelihoods.
Summarise threats toprovide clear
recommendations fortheir protection andwise use.
Review and supplement
existing guidance forwetland inventory andmonitoring to describe
best-practices
approaches (including
eDNA) for small
wetlands in different
Ramsar regions.
Link to SDG 6.6.1
guidance review
produced by Secretariat

SC57 Report and Decisions

Briefing Note on
guidance for small
wetlands inventory
and monitoring
Timeline: to be
determined

Briefing note:
Practitioners(scientists,
wetlandmanagers)

Uptake/Objective
Aim to ensure Parties
and others understandthe critical importanceof small wetlands inplanning and otherprocesses. Provide
practitioners with bestpractice guidance forsmall wetland
inventory andmonitoring.

48

Task

Res.

SP

Description

Priority

Process and outcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

1.4 Complete
Ramsar Technical
Report and atoolkit on
assessing multiple
values ofwetlands andapplying them tointegrated
management

XIII.8 ¶
14

3.11,
4.14

RTR complements the
Policy Brief on integrating
multiple values of
wetlands into decisionmaking.

Lower

Build on the Policy Briefand existing toolkit,
integrating RAWES andother suite of tools(available within
Ramsar and external).

RTR

Practitioners(wetlandmanagers)

22,6001.5 Complete
Ramsar Technical
Report 10: The
use of Earth
Observation for
wetlandinventory,
assessment andmonitoring.

XIII.8,¶ 14

Practitioners(wetlandmanagers,
practitioners
mapping),
Contracting
Parties

CHF 120 per A4
page;

1.6 Summarizing
the extent of new
intertidal wetland
Ramsar Site
designations for
succeeding COPs
and include theinformation in
future updates of
the GWO

XIII.
20, ¶

Contracting
Parties

6,400

Integrate relevant
IPBES and Values
outcomes

42

SC57 Report and Decisions

4.14

2.5, 2.6,
4.14

Ramsar Technical Report
10: The use of Earth
Observation for wetland
inventory, assessment andmonitoring.

MediumPrepare a status reportsummarizing the number
and extent of inter-tidal
Ramsar site designations,on a regional scale.

Lower

Timeline: to be
determined
Uptake/Objective:
Aim to assist wetlands
managers in assessing
and integrating
multiple values in sitemanagement andother wetland wise
use responses

Complete subject tofinal editorial checking
and translation.

RTR

Extract and analyse
data from the RSIS toassess the number andextent of designations
annually since 1971.
Potentially reportfindings in future
updates of the GWO

Paper (Short status
report); data available
for GWO

Timeline: to be
determined

Costs foramendments toexisting layout
TBD;

Timeline: to be
determined
Uptake/Objective
Provides direction to
CPs on progress sinceRes. VI.21

49

Task

Res.

SP

Description

Priority

Process and outcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

1.7 Global
assessment ofgaps in Ramsarsite network

XII.5,
Annex
1, ¶¶
1-2

2.5, 2.6,
4.14

Collate and analyse
comprehensiveness,
adequacy andrepresentativeness of theRamsar site network andidentify priority regions
and wetland types for
future designation.

MediumUndertake analysis of
RSIS data on
representation ofdifferent wetland types
in different bioregions
within the Ramsar Sites
network. Provide
comments on
improvements as well
as areas of focus.
Assess whether
guidance on underrepresented wetland
types will need to be
updated.

Paper presenting asummary of analysis.
Data may contribute
to GWO if agreed by
SC (COP14).

Contracting
Parties (policy
makers)

6,400

SC57 Report and Decisions

Objective is to provide
direction to Parties toreview findings andpotentially set targets
for future designations

50

Thematic Work Area 2: Best practices for developing and implementing tools for Ramsar Sites and other wetlands, recognizing traditional practices of indigenous
peoples and local communities
Working Group lead(s) andparticipants:

Lars Dinesen (lead), Dulce Infante, Georgina Castillo, Kassim Kulindwa, Andrei Sirin, David Stroud, Laura Martinez, Ritesh Kumar, Tomos
Avent/ James Robinson (WWT), Priyanie Amerasinghe (IWMI), Hans Joosten (GMC), Jack Rieley (IPS), Nick Davidson (SWS), Mathew
Simpson (SWS), Tatiana Minayeva (WWF), Bettina Hedden-Dunkhorst (STRP NFP Germany) [and others to be confirmed]

Contributing organizations:[IOPs/observers/others]

Global Peatland Initiative (GPI), International Peat Society (IPS), Greifswald Mire Centre (GMC), International Water Management
Institute (IWMI), Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS)

Task

Res.

SP goal &targetDescription

Priority

Process andoutcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

2.1. Publish RTR
on Peatland
restoration andrewettingmethodologies innorthern bogs

XIII.13,¶25

2.5, 2.6,
3.12,4.14

Finalize draft RTR, whichcurrently focuses on acidbog restoration, considering
a global compilation ofexperiences on peatland
restoration and rewetting
methods, which CPs will
provide, and which can beadapted to local or national
contexts. Will complement
global guidelines on
peatland restoration to be
developed (Task 2.2. below)

MediumDraft well advanced inlast triennium but
peer-review, editing
and publicationneededRTR
Enhanced content on
peatland pages ofRamsar website

Practitioners(wetlandmanagers)

22,600[web design costs
starting at 4,000]

Related to current SP,
elaborate on practicalexperiences of restoration
methods for peatland types
not yet covered by Ramsar
guidance, such as tropicalpeatlands. Provide rationale
for choosing of restoration
methods and an overview
rationale for different

HighestPractitioners(Ramsar Sitemanagers)/
policymakers(high level)

Contract out
update: [3040,000 CHF]
Website set up
15.000 CHF)
Video teaser
10.000 CHF: STRP
to develop
concept;

2.2. Elaboratingon practicalexperiences ofrestoration
methods fortropical peatlands

XIII.13,¶33

SC57 Report and Decisions

2.5, 2.6,
3.12,4.14

Uptake/Objective:
Technical guidance
for wetland managers
Timeline: to be
determined

Update existing IMCG
manual on peatland
restoration
techniques. (ToR andlist of content
drafted);Ramsar guidelines on
peatland restoration;

High level Policy Briefon setting objectives

Policy Brief and video
Comms product onwhat is a peatland?

Enhanced content on
peatland pages ofRamsar website.

51

Task

Res.

SP goal &targetDescription

Priority

restoration approaches
depending on peatland typeand setting.

2.3. Assessing
implementation
status of Res.
VIII.17: Guidelinesfor Global Action
on Peatlands

XIII.13,¶34

4.14

Assess progress since Res.
VIII.17 by critical review
including: any overlaps with
Global Peatland Initiative;
gaps; relevance; and in
relation to developments inother MEAs andinternational processes.
Seek guidance on what
Parties needs with respect
to a strategic document on
peatlands
Consider development of
national indicators related
to peatland conservation
and restoration

Process andoutcomesin rewetting/restoration projects;
Prepare contents for a
Communication
infographic – what isa peatland?

MediumPrepare a draft
assessment of issues
to be discussed at
STRP23, including
policy issues, incontext of COP 14
preparations.

OutputAudience

Costs CHF
professional
design needed

Timeline: ToRdeveloped by July
2019
Uptake/Objective: A
range of products asoutlined
Assessment report
drafted by STRP
containing a
spreadsheet with theassessment andupdated issues andrecommendations

Contracting
Parties32, 600 (report
22,600 +workshop
10,000)Timeline: to be
determined
Uptake: Liaison with
GPI

2.4. Developing guidance for the cost-benefit analysis, a cost-effectiveness analysis and multiple-criteria analysis of peatland restoration projects, and templates toassist parties to report on peatland restoration
2.4.(a) Assess
national peatland
restoration
experiences

XIII.13,¶34

SC57 Report and Decisions

2.5,
3.12,4.14

Assess any relevant national
peatland restoration
experiences. Request
information on approaches
from Parties (cost-benefit
depends on carbon market

Lower

Call for case studies/
experiences byParties, IOPs andothers.
Consultant to prepare
draft review for

Policy Brief
Timeline: to be
determined

Policymakers(inenvironmentand climate
sectors
especially)

5,000
consultancy

52

Task

Res.

SP goal &targetDescription

Priority

values and otherassumptions). Assessments
to include cost of inaction.
2.4.(b) Developing
templates fornational reportingon peatland
restoration

XIII.13,¶34

2.5, 3.12,
4.14

Assess existing reporting
structures and templates forrestoration of peatlands

Lower

Process andoutcomes

Outputconsideration at
STRP23.

Uptake: Summary
review of experiences

Check with UNFCCC
and other relevant
conventions

Internal assessment
report withrecommendations.
Next step depends on
the assessment
results.

Possibly request to
Parties and IOPs forrelevant templatesAudience

Costs CHF

Contracting
Parties andPractitioners(Ramsar Sitemanagers) as
applicable

No costimplications for
STRP budget

Contracting
Parties

No costimplications for
STRP budget

Practitioners(wetlandmanagers)

6,400 andinfographic costs

Timeline to be
determined
Uptake: GPI is a key
partner

2.5. ToR for theRamsar Culture
Network (RCN)

XIII.15,
¶18

3.10,
4.14

With interested Contracting
Parties develop Terms ofReference for the Ramsar
Culture Network

Medium

2.6. Reviewing
and revising the
Rapid Cultural
Inventories for
Wetlands
guidance

XIII.15,
¶19

3.10,
4.14

Develop updated briefing
note (working with RCN)
reviewing the application
and uptake of the guidance
together with
supplementary guidance as
required.

MediumThe review and BN drafting
would include a mechanism
for incorporating indigenous
communities’ inputs.

SC57 Report and Decisions

Initial draft ToRdeveloped at
STRP22. Yet to be
circulated toContracting Parties.

Draft for SC57

Note will provide
examples and bestpractices for
integrating culturalvalues in wetlands
management policies,
practices andgovernance. Drafting
will be aligned withthe task related towetlands and gender(TWA 3).

Briefing Note

Timelines: completed
at SC57

Infographic that
illustrates culturalvalues and theirimportance forwetland wise use
Timeline: to be
determined.

53

Task

Res.

SP goal &targetDescription

Priority

Process andoutcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

City
regulators;
investors andfinancial actors
Possibly
general publicGroupsseeking
wetland city
accreditation

To bedetermined,
depending onwhether updateto the Briefing
Note is needed
and extent of it,
there may bedesign andtranslation costs
involved

Practitioners(wetlandmanagers);
Contracting
Parties

No costs
implications for
STRP budget

Uptake: IOP input willbe crucial
2.7. Updated
urban wetland
guidance as
required

2.8. Additional
content for
Ramsar wetland
Sites management
toolkit

XIII.
16,
¶18

XIII.8,¶ 14

SC57 Report and Decisions

1.1, 2.5,
4.14

2.5, 4.14

Review existing Briefing
Note 6: Towards the wiseuse of urban and peri-urban
wetlands and assess
whether update needed,considering:• Challenges, opportunities
and risks – featurescommon to urban wetlands• Role of wetlands forclimate change adaptationin urban environments• New sources of existing
information especially any
case studies on economic
valuation and cultural
significanceMediumInput further content asopportunities allow

Lower

Review existing
Briefing Note 6 as wellas other important
wetlands
Produce infographic
on key messages
accessible to target
audiences.
Integrate into Ramsar
online management
toolkit information on
urban/peri-urban
wetland issues,
capturing past WWD
materials. Organizedby potential users(regulators;architects; ecologists;
health sector)

Existing urban andperi-urban guidance
will be integrated
within 2019

Revised Briefing Note
& Infographic
Integrate existingguidance into Ramsar
online management
toolkit
Timeline:
Revised Briefing Note
& infographic: to be
determined
Online toolkit
integration: to be
determined.
Uptake: Raisevisibility of existing
Ramsar and externalguidance on urban
and peri-urban
wetlands.
Updated webpage
Timeline: To be
determined

54

Task

Res.

SP goal &targetDescription

Priority

2.9. Complete
Briefing Note 10:
Wetland
Restoration
for Climate
Change Resilience

XIII.8,¶ 14

2.5, 3.12,
4.14

Report needs a further
round of edits by authors
and layout/translation by
Secretariat.

MediumProcess andoutcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

Briefing Note

Practitioners(wetlandmanagers)

Layout costs to
be determined,
depending on
extent ofamendments toexisting layout;translation costs:
CHF 1,200 per A4
page;

Infographic
Timeline: To be
determined

Infographic costs
to be determined

SC57 Report and Decisions

55

Thematic Work Area 3: Methodologies for the economic and non-economic valuation of the values of the functions and services of wetlands, and improved
methodologies and knowledge exchange on current and future drivers of wetland loss and degradation
Working Group lead(s) andparticipants:

Kassim Kulindwa (lead), Ritesh Kumar (co-lead), David Stroud, Reda Fishar, Hari Bhadra Acharya, Priyanie Amerasinghe (IWMI),
Tomos Avent/ James Robinson (WWT), Mathew Simpson (SWS), Janine van Vessem (STRP NFP Belgium) [and others to be
confirmed]

Contributing organizations:[IOPs/observers/others]

Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT), Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS), International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
BirdLife

Task

Res.

3.1. Participate in the
Global Coastal Forum

XIII.20,¶ 37

3.2. Develop guidance on
the conservation, wise use
and management ofsustainable “working
coastal habitats” incoordination with thescientific subsidiary bodies
of other MEAs under the
proposed coastal forum

XIII.20,¶45

SC57 Report and Decisions

SP goal& target

1.2, 2.5,
4.14,
4.18

Description

Priority

Process andoutcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

Consider actively
participating in the Global
Coastal Forum topromote the restorationof coastal wetlands andother relevant habitats

Medium(once GCF isestablished)

Engage when the
Global Coastal
Forum is created

ToR

GlobalCoastalForum.
Actorsinterested inblue carbon

No costs implicationsfor STRP budget until
the GFC is establishedwhen possible travel
costs would occur
depending on natureof input

In preparation for Global
Coastal Forum formation,
develop TOR for possible
work that might beundertaken on possible
guidance related to theconservation, wise use
and the management ofsustainable “working
coastal habitats”

Lower

Review
Handbook 12 on
Coastalmanagement for
relevant content.
Establish a
subgroup to
develop concept
further and TOR
for guidance.
Uptake: In
consultation
with otherrelevant actors

ToR to be
developed

GlobalCoastalForum

No costs implicationsfor STRP budget

Timeline: To
bedetermined

56

Thematic Work Area 4: Promoting wetland conservation within sustainable development frameworks and other relevant development initiatives
Working Group lead(s) and participants:

Laura Martinez (lead), David Stroud, Rebecca Welling (IUCN) [and others to be confirmed]

Contributing organizations: [IOPs/observers/others]

IUCN (Global Water Programme)

Task

Res.

SP goal &targetDescription

Priority

Process andoutcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

4.1. Develop
guidance on
integrating genderissues in theimplementation of
the Convention

XIII.18,¶15

4.14

Carry out a global analysis (including a
range of case studies) on the genderdimensions of wetland management andwise use.

MediumInitial scoping
to advice on
future ToR
undertaken at
STRP22.
Engage aconsultant toundertake thereport.
Engageorganizations
such as UN
Women, IUCN,
and WEDO with
relevant
expertise.

Report and derived
comms products

Contracting
Parties

20,000 (report
andconsultancy)

SC57 Report and Decisions

Build on existing literature from a rangeof sources on wetland management, butalso more broadly to include land andwater resources management to informthe wetland community about women inwetland management and wise use. Will
include information on: women’s
participation in wetland management;
impacts of wetland mismanagement on
women; governance and women’s rights
related to wetland wise use; women’s
technical, socio-cultural and innovativeknowledge about wetlands; the value of
their leadership in wetland wise use andrestoration activities; include examples(cases studies) of successful participation
in wetland management and wise use

Timeline: to be
determined
Uptake: tomainstream
gender issues inwetlandmanagement andimplementation of
the Convention.

57

Thematic Work Area 5 : Climate change and wetlands: innovative methodologies for carbon accounting/assessments related to wetlands
Working Group lead(s) andparticipants:

Siobhan Fenessy (lead), Sangdon Lee (co-lead), Hugh Robertson, David Stroud, Edson Junqueira, Christian Perennou (TDV), Max
Finlayson (IHE Delft Institute for Water Education), Leanne Wilkinson (STRP NFP Australia) [and others to be confirmed]

Contributing organizations:[IOPs/observers/others]

Tour du Valat; IHE Delft Institute for Water Education [and others to be confirmed]

Task

Res.

SP
goal &
targetDescription

Priority

Process andoutcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF

5.1. Desktop studyof coastal blue
carbon ecosystems
in Ramsar Sites(consistent with
relevant IPCC
guidelines)

XIII.14,¶¶15(a)(d);
11(c)

3.11,
4.14

Undertake a desk review togive a high-level summary of
the state of knowledge ofblue carbon ecosystems ineach Ramsar Region, theavailability of data andinformation; and addressing
issues highlighted in para
15(a) of Res. XIII.14.

Highest5.1(a) Produce
ToR for thedesktop review by
July 2019 (after
adoption of workplan);RTR (early 2021 atlatest)Policy makers
within Contracting
Parties (especiallythose responsible
for the coastalzone); Researchcommunity andIOPs

31, 600 (RTR
22,600 and 9,000
consultancy).
Infographic cost to
be determined

Review will also consider
and provide advice on how
best to undertake tasks
specified in para 15 (b), (c),and (d) of Res. XIII.14 in
relation review findings,
including development ToRfor future such work to
actually address thoseissues.
Present best evidence of theextent of blue carbon
ecosystems

SC57 Report and Decisions

Engageconsultant by Fall
2019;
Product delivered
early 2021 atlatest;Work to actuallycomplete thetasks in paras
15(b), (c) and (d)will be reviewed
in 2020

Infographic
concepts on Blue
Carbon fordevelopment bySecretariat
Uptake:Work to informfuture development
of GWO, and to raiseinternationalawareness about
blue carbon
ecosystems andtheir services.

Data for GWO

58

Task

Res.

5.2 Develop
methods to rapidly
assess climate
vulnerability ofwetlands,
particularly thoseimportant as
habitats for marine
turtles

XIII. 24,
¶ 23

SPgoal &
targetDescription

Priority

Process andoutcomes

OutputAudience

Costs CHF(a) In relation to marine
Turtles. Significant work
being undertaken by other
MEAs and Parties. STRP totake supporting roledeveloping understanding ofextent of current work,
particular promoting goodcase studies of wider utility.

Lower

Potential collationof case studies.
Development of
ToR only in thistriennium.

AdviceContracting Parties;
Practitioners(wetlandmanagers)

No costimplications for
STRP budget

ToR for task
Timeline: to be
determined(b) In relation to wetland
climate vulnerability.
Review existing guidance(RTR 5) and project by IKI
and develop ToR for
potential future work.

SC57 Report and Decisions

59Annex 8
Terms of reference of the Executive Team
Members of the Executive Team
1.

Chair and Vice Chair of the Standing Committee, and Chair of the Subgroup on Finance.

Role and functions
2.

The Standing Committee’s oversight of the Secretariat is conducted on its behalf between
meetings of the Standing Committee by its Executive Team (Chair, Vice Chair, and Chair of the
Subgroup on Finance) with the Secretary General” (Resolution XIII.4, paragraph 4).

3.

For any matter that arises intersessionally and for which the Standing Committee has notalready taken a decision, or where the matter falls outside the policies and guidance alreadyprovided by the Conference of the Parties and the Standing Committee, the Executive Team isto request the Secretariat to contact the Standing Committee to ask for a decision to be taken
through electronic communication regarding that matter as soon as practicable.

4.

Within this context, specific functions to be carried out by the Executive Team as may benecessary between meetings of the Standing Committee are the following:

5.

a.

provide guidance and advice to the Secretariat on the execution of the Secretariat’sbudget and the conduct of the Secretariat’s work programmes; andb.

provide guidance and advice to the Secretariat on the preparation of meetings, and on
any other matters relating to the exercise of its functions brought to it by the Secretariat.

In carrying out function a. above and, in particular, regarding the guidance and advice on theexecution of the Secretariat’s budget, the Executive Team will take into account the roles andresponsibilities of the Subgroup on Finance specified in Resolution VI.17, on Financial andbudgetary matters, paragraph 11, in particular, that “the Subgroup Chair, in consultation as
appropriate with the Chair of the Standing Committee and, when so required, the Subgroup asa whole, shall provide guidance and advice to the Secretary General in the discharge of his/herduties in connection with the administration of the finances of the Convention…”. These
responsibilities are reaffirmed in Resolution XIII.2 on Financial and budgetary matters,
paragraph 12. To implement this, if there are budgetary implications, the Executive Team
must inform the broader Sub-group on Finance through its Chair.

Operation
6.

As the Executive Team functions as a subsidiary body of the Conference of the Contracting
Parties, the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Conference of the Parties apply to its
operations mutatis mutandis within the context of the “Delegation of Authority to theSecretary General of the Convention on Wetlands and its Supplementary Note”.

Reporting7.

At each meeting of the Standing Committee in between COPs, the Executive Team will provide
a written report to the Standing Committee on the activities it has carried out since theprevious meeting.

SC57 Report and Decisions

60Annex 9.1
Report of the Meeting of the Subgroup on FinancePart IThis Report includes the recommendations for the Standing Committee consideration made during
the first meeting of the Subgroup on Finance on 24 June 2019. Pending items are scheduled to beconsidered by the Subgroup and a report Part II will be issued.
The Subgroup on Finance discussed and recommended the following:
1.a Report on financial matters for 2018 (DOC SC57-7.1)
i.

The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee accept the 2018 audited
financial statements as of 31 December 2018.

ii. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee note the core budget
results for 2018 and carry-forward of 2018 surplus.
•

The Secretariat explained that the presentation of the core budget line categories
changed from the previous triennium to the current triennium and will remain thesame for the current triennium (Annex 2 and Annex 4).

iii. The Subgroup on Finance recognize the surplus (as per Table 1, Item III below).
Table 1: 2018 core surplus to be allocated (in ‘000 CHF)
Fund balance at 31 December 2018 per audited statement (I)2,196Approved and pre-committed
Reserve fund at 15% (Resolution XIII.2, para 33)762

Pre-committed balances of CHF 437K

437

Complement to voluntary funding for COP13 delegate support (Resolution XIII.2, para 13)

94

Approved use of 2016-2018 triennium surplus for the 2019-2021 triennium (Resolution
XIII.2, paragraph 15) to supplement the 2019-2021 budget

228

Approved use of 2016-2018 triennium surplus for the 2019-2021 triennium to support thework of the Effectiveness Working Group (Resolution XIII.2, para 16)

70

Correction for the Ramsar Regional Initiative (RRI) for the Amazon River Basin

28

Total approved and pre-committed (II) 21

1,619

2018 core surplus after approved and pre-committed (III = I – II)

577

1.b Non-core funding status and voluntary contributions for 2018 (DOC SC57-7.1)
iv. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee note the status of noncore funding and voluntary contributions for 2018.
•

The Subgroup on Finance acknowledges all Contracting Parties who have provided
voluntary funding and encourages the Secretariat to continue fundraising efforts.

Note the typo correction of the total approved and pre-committed per Table 2 DOC SC57-7.1. This
does not change 2018 core surplus after approved and pre-committed of CHF 577K
21

SC57 Report and Decisions

61

•

The Subgroup noted that DOC SC57-7.1 paragraph 37 should read “Pre-2016 Swiss
Grants for Africa (SGA)” in place of “Pre-2016 Small Grants for Africa (SGA)”. This
correction will be taken into account in all future documents.

v. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee note and approve theSecretariat’s adjustments to the COP13-approved core budget for 2019, which make no changes
but show for transparency and clarity the approved use of surplus from the previous triennium(Annex 1 to the report).
vi. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee note the non-corebalances.
•

The Subgroup appreciates the generosity of donors to non-core activities and theefforts taken by the Secretariat to clean up and adjust non-core balances to ensure
accurate accountability.

vii. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee note the progress in
implementing the recommendations from the IUCN Financial Management Review of Non-core(Restricted) Fund Accounts and recommends the Standing Committee approve the following
actions:
1. to adopt the use of the standard terms “core” and “non-core” to describe Ramsar funds;
and
2. to agree to engage with the auditor in its annual meetings, looking at the most costeffective way, including virtual participation, or by sharing the auditor’s report at least
three months in advance of the meeting (or earlier), in accordance with the Rules ofProcedure on meeting documents
3. to request the Secretariat to collect and share questions from members of the Subgroupby email in advance and collect answers from the auditor in time for the meeting.
•Contracting Parties emphasised that the engagement of the external auditor at annual
meetings was a fiduciary duty and should be reflected in the contract for their services.

viii. External auditor’s related items:
1. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee approve theexternal auditor’s proposed modification for the calculation of the provision foroutstanding Contracting Party contributions (DOC SC57-7.1, paragraph 42, option a.) andaccordingly to increase the provision for 2019.
•

In order for Ramsar to continue to be audited in accordance with Swiss law, the annual
calculation for the provision against dues receivable from Contracting Parties must be
expanded. To more accurately reflect the requirement of the Swiss Law, the change will
be to increase the provision to 100% for balances outstanding for less than five years,
for Contracting Parties who have not made a contribution payment in the past four
years. At 31 December 2018 this would represent an increase of CHF 178K.

•

The proposed source of funding for CHF 178K is CHF 57K of 2018 carry forward and CHF
121K use of 2018 core surplus to be discussed and recommended during the meetingon 27 June 2019.

•

Alternatives were discussed and Subgroup on Finance supported increasing theprovision in order to avoid a qualified audit opinion in non-compliance with Swiss law,as this would risk the reputation of the Convention, thereby making donor
contributions and fundraising from the private sector significantly more difficult.

SC57 Report and Decisions62•

In addition to the options presented in DOC SC57-7.1, paragraph 42, the alternative ofusing International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) was discussed, as other
Conventions use this standard. This would need further analysis before any future
decisions could be taken. The external auditor indicated that their interpretation ofprovision for outstanding contributions would be a more realistic and accurate
reflection of credit risks in compliance with Swiss law. This interpretation of Swiss Law
would also apply under any accounting standard, including IPSAS. It was recognized bymembers of the Subgroup that any transitions to a new accounting standard may be
costly and very time consuming, requiring a separate decision from the Conference of
the Parties, in consultation with the Subgroup on Finance and IUCN.

2. Regarding confirmation letters; the standard individual confirmation letters sent byexternal auditors are not suitable to be sent to Contracting Parties. The Subgroup on
Finance invites the Secretariat to explore the practicality of a group approach for
confirmation of outstanding Contracting Party balances along with other forms ofestablishing an audit-confirmation proof. To be further discussed during the meeting on
27 June 2019. The external auditors expressed willingness to consider the above
mentioned group approach.
1.c Other matters discussed (DOC SC57-7.1)
1. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee instruct the
Secretariat to include a note regarding the existence or lack thereof of other potential
large provision items, such as future pension obligations that are not required to bedisclosed under Swiss Law and disclose any such accounting policies and information
related to such potential liabilities in future financial statements. The Chief Finance
Officer of IUCN confirmed that the pension plan is a defined contribution plan, implyingthat there are no unreported liabilities.
2. Considering the fact that Ramsar necessarily uses the same auditors as IUCN, theSubgroup on Finance encouraged the Secretariat to provide input to IUCN and invites
Parties to work with their counterparts responsible for IUCN to provide feedback on any
IUCN consideration of options for future auditing contracts.
•

Note regarding Document 7.2. Report of the auditor on the financial statements 2018 isincluded in DOC SC57-7.1.

•

The Subgroup on Finance recommended the Standing Committee take note of therequest from Panama and Switzerland to join the SubGroup for the current triennium.

2. Report on status of annual contributions (DOC SC57-7.3)
i.

The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee take note of the status ofannual contributions.

ii. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee note the actions taken toencourage payment of outstanding contributions and instruct the Secretariat to continue
encouraging timely payments of annual contributions.
1. The Subgroup instruct the Secretariat to explore different solutions in order to improve
payments of outstanding Contracting Parties contributions. In addition, the Subgrouprequested Contracting Parties to share their best practice experiences in resolving
outstanding contributions in Ramsar and other Conventions and organisations.

SC57 Report and Decisions63

2. The Subgroup on Finance recommended the regions to consider the status ofoutstanding balances when making regional nominations, while taking into accountnational circumstances.
•

The Subgroup on Finance discussed the possibility of “sanctions” for Contracting Parties
with outstanding contributions, and while not explicitly recommending this action, it
discussed reflecting divergent opinions on this matter, including considering measurestaken by other international bodies/Multilateral Environmental Agreements -in order tofoster prompt payment of outstanding contributions. There was broad agreement,
however, that other measures that highlight the benefit and opportunities of being amember of the Ramsar family should be reinforced.

iii. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee note the change inannual contributions receivable and in the annual provision against contributions receivable.
iv. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee note the current statusof a balance of CHF 91K of the voluntary contributions from Contracting Parties in the Africa
region.
•In accordance with Resolution XIII.2, paragraph 24, the Secretariat will inform Ramsar
Regional Initiatives in Africa of this balance after SC57. In the same Resolution, Regional
Initiatives in Africa are invited to submit requests to the Secretariat to access available
funds in accordance with the provisions of Resolution XIII.9 on Ramsar Regional
Initiatives 2019-2021 and accordingly those Regional Initiatives are invited to submit
requests to access the available funds by 31 December 2019. Regional Representatives
at the 58th meeting of the Standing Committee (SC58) will be invited to decide on therequests submitted and inform the Secretariat accordingly (Resolution XIII.2, paragraph
25).

•

The Subgroup on Finance recommended to change the order of columns in Annex 2
DOC SC57-7.3 Voluntary Contributions from Contracting Parties in the Africa region, tomove the last column to become the second column.

SC57 Report and Decisions

64

Annex 1 (SC57-7.1 Annex 4)
Proposed Core Budget 2019Ramsar Budget 2019
CHF 000'S

Budget2019(COP13approved)(A)

INCOME
Parties’ Contributions
Voluntary contributions
Income Tax
Income Interest
TOTAL INCOME
EXPENDITURES
A. Secretariat Senior
Management
Salaries and social costs
Other employment benefits
Travel
B. Resource Mobilization andOutreach
Salaries and social costs
Other employment benefits
CEPA Program
Comms, Translations,Publications and Reporting
Implementation
Web/IT support andDevelopment
Travel
C. Regional Advice andSupportSalaries and social costs
Other employment benefits
TravelRamsar Advisory Missions
D. Support to Regional
Initiatives
Regional networks and centers
E. Science and Policy
Salaries and social costs
Other employment benefits
STRP implementation
Travel STRP Chair
STRP meetings

SC57 Report and Decisions

AuthorizedCommitted
PreProposed
use of 2016from 2018
committed
budget 20192018 surplus budget (carry from 2017
after
in 2019-2021 over to 2019) (carry over to reallocation
2019)
(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)=(A)+(B)+(C)
+(D)

3,779
1,065
225
12
5,081

0

0

0

3,779
1,065
225
12
5,081

1,009

15

0

0

1,024

0

918
51
55
773

918
51
40
638
450
5
30
60

15
135

0

450
5
30
180

120

84
10
1,325
1,178
72
75
0
100
100
754
559
4
35
5
50

84
15
30

0

25
1,421

0

66
36

28

1,178
72
105
66
164

15

36
114

28
0

66

30

15

164
883
559
4
50
5
50

65

Ramsar Budget 2019
CHF 000'S

Budget2019(COP13approved)(A)

Ramsar Sites Information
Service (maintenance anddevelopment)
TravelStrategic Plan (2019 - 2021)
SDG 6.61
G. Administration
Salaries and social costs
Other employment benefits
Staff hiring and departure costs
Secretariat Staff Travel
Operating Costs including
equipment
Planning and Capacity building
H. Standing Committee
ServicesStanding Committee delegates’
supportStanding Committee meetings
SC translation
Simultaneous interpretation at
SC meetings
Effectiveness Working GroupI. IUCN Administrative Service
Charges
Administration, Human
Resources, Finance & IT
services
J. Miscellaneous - Reserve
Fund
Provisions
Legal Services

AuthorizedCommitted
PreProposed
use of 2016from 2018
committed
budget 20192018 surplus budget (carry from 2017
after
in 2019-2021 over to 2019) (carry over to reallocation
2019)
(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)=(A)+(B)+(C)
+(D)

91

10
0
0
436
315
1
25
0
95
0
150

91

33

44
70
133

0

52

33
70

81
0

0

114
220

45

45

10
60
35

10
60
35

0
560

70
0

0

0

560

109
50
59

70
560
560

0

88

0

57
31

TOTAL EXPENDITURES
5,081
298
437
28
Notes:
Column B – Resolution XIII.2 use of CHF 228K plus up to CHF 70K for 2019-2021 triennium
Column C – Committed from 2018 budget (see Table 1 and Paragraph 11)
Column D - Pre-committed from 2017

SC57 Report and Decisions

10
44
70
602
315
1
77
0
95

197
107
90

5,844

66

Annex 9.2
Report of the Meeting of the Subgroup on FinancePart II
This Report includes the recommendations for the Standing Committee consideration made during
the second meeting of the Subgroup on Finance on 27 June 2019.
This Report addresses the remaining issues that were not covered in the Part I report. Both Report
Part I and Part II of the Subgroup on Finance should be considered together in order to cover all
Subgroup on Finance issues.
1.a Report on financial matters for 2018 (DOC SC57-7.1) (cont’d)iii. The Subgroup on Finance recommended the Standing Committee to approve the allocation of2018 surplus (as per Table 1 below).
Table 1: Allocation of 2018 core surplus (in ‘000 CHF)
Allocation of core surplus
Complement amount needed to increase the reserve for outstanding contributions

121

Net amount to replenish the non-core AVC project (IUCN oversight review)(DOC SC57-7.3,
paragraph 18)

33

Resolutions review (resolution XIII.4)

20

Ramsar advisory missions (a RAM has been requested by Malawi to the Lake Chilwa Site)

30

Project proposal writing capacity building RRI

52020 Planning (facilitator for development of annual work plan)

10

Legal status analysis consultancy

15

Capacity building related to triennium challenges

20

50th Anniversary – campaign development

15

WWD 2021 (year 2021 budget shortfall due to decrease in Danone funding)

30

Inventories (support to CPs in the completion of wetlands inventories)

50

Operational reserve (Resolution XIII.2, paragraph 15)

228

Total proposed use 2018 surplus

577

Core surplus balance remaining

0

1.b Non-core funding status and voluntary contributions for 2018 (DOC SC57-7.1) (cont’d)v.bis. The Subgroup on Finance invited the Standing Committee to approve the allocation ofRamsar Regional Initiatives Resources core budget as follows:
1. 2019 Budget line “Support to Regional Initiative” of CHF 100K allocated as per Table 2,
noting that given that no information had been received yet from SenegalWet regarding
the unspent balance from previous years and their capacity to implement an additional
contribution for 2019, the Subgroup requested the Secretariat to contact this initiative
to seek this information. If this additional allocation of CHF25K was not needed by
SenegalWet or the initiative's representatives do not respond by the Secretariat's
deadline, then the amount should be allocated equally between the remaining three
initiatives listed below in Table 2.

SC57 Report and Decisions67

2. The Secretariat was asked to report to the Subgroup on Finance inter-sessionally on theoutcome of this situation.
Table 2: Allocation of 2019 core budget “Support to Regional Initiatives” (in ‘000 CHF)
Description
Senegal Basin Regional Initiative
Amazon River Basin Regional Initiative
Central Asia Regional InitiativeIndo-Burma Regional Initiative

25
25
25
25

Total allocation

100

3. The Subgroup on Finance noted the carry forward from 2018 budget line “Support toRegional Initiatives –General” of CHF 21K and invited the Standing Committee toapprove that the amount should be used for the operation of the Working Group on
Regional Initiatives as per Resolution XIII.9, paragraph 9.
viii. In Part I Report the Subgroup on Finance invited the Standing Committee to approve theexternal auditor’s proposed modification for the calculation of the provision for outstanding
Contracting Party contributions (DOC SC57-7.1, paragraph 42, option a.) and accordingly toincrease the provision. The source of funding for this increase of CHF 178K is CHF 57K of 2018
carry forward resulting from the reduction in the provision for 2018 and CHF 121K use of 2018
core surplus (see Table 1 above).
viii. 2. The Subgroup on Finance recommended the Standing Committee to request the Secretariat
to explore the practicality of a group approach or other creative solutions for confirmationof outstanding Contracting Party balances for the 2019 audit.
3. Other matters discussed (DOC SC57-7.1) (cont’d)• In accordance with the responsibilities defined in Resolution 5.2: Financial andbudgetary matters, Annex 3, paragraph 8, the Subgroup on Finance agreed that
uncommitted/unexpended balances for budget lines can be carried forward to the next
year within the triennium and presented to the following meeting of the Subgroup on
Finance.
4. Report on “Small Grants Fund – Proposal for final beneficiaries” (DOC SC57-7.4)
i. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee take note of the actions
taken by the Secretariat to phase out the Small Grants Fund programme.
ii. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee review and approve theproposed selection of recipients to receive funding from the Small Grants Fund, as per Table 4
below.

SC57 Report and Decisions

68

Table 4: Proposed grant recipient for endorsement of Small Grants Fund (in ‘000 CHF)
Description

Tanzania: Adapting indigenous/traditional knowledge and innovations tomaintain wetland dependent lifestyles (CHF 34,876)
Cambodia: Strengthen Cambodia’s wetland conservation through enhancing
Ramsar site management effectiveness and improving site legal status (CHF
35,000)
Mexico: Integración en la planificación y estrategia de comunicación deRamsar MX (CHF 29,526)
Paraguay: Strengthening Paraguay’s capacity of conservation and wise use of
wetlands (CHF 34,818)
Subtotal allocation to Recipients

Remaining balance
Total balance

34.9

35.0
29.5
34.8
134.2
2.8
137.0

iii. The Subgroup on Finance recommended that the Standing Committee approve the use by the
Secretariat of the remaining Small Grants Fund balance of CHF 2.8K (CHF 2,779) for thedevelopment of updated guidance for Parties on how to prepare and write project proposals.

SC57 Report and Decisions

69

Annex 10
Revised draft format for National Reports to COP14(published as SC57 Com 10, updating SC57 Doc.22)

NATIONAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS
National Reports to be submitted to the 14th Meetingof the Conference of the Contracting Parties,
2021

The purpose of this Microsoft Word form is to help Contracting Parties tocollect data for the National Report. However, the data collected throughthis form must be transferred to the online national reporting system athttps://reports.ramsar.org, or the Word form must be sent by email tonationalreports@ramsar.org, by 21 January 2021 for the official submissionof the National Report. If you have any questions or problems, pleasecontact the Ramsar Secretariat for advice (nationalreports@ramsar.org).
Please note that for Contracting Parties wishing to provide information in the
online reporting system on national targets (optional Section 4 of the
National Report Format or on the Word form), the deadline is249 January November 2019.

SC57 Report and Decisions

70Ramsar COP14 National Report Format (NRF)
Background information
1.

The COP14 National Report Format (NRF) has been approved by the Standing Committee at its
57th meeting (SC57) for the Ramsar Convention’s Contracting Parties to complete as theirnational reporting to the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties of theConvention (Information on the host country of COP14 will be updated after SC57).

2.

The NRF is being issued by the Secretariat in 2019 to facilitate Contracting Parties’
implementation planning and preparations for completing the Report. The deadline forsubmission of national targets is 29 November 2019 and the deadline for submission ofcompleted National Reports is 21 January 2021 (final dates will be updated once the dates for
COP14 are agreed).

3.

This COP14 NRF closely follows that used for COP13, to permit continuity of reporting andanalysis of implementation progress by ensuring that indicator questions are as far as possible
consistent with previous NRFs (and especially the COP13 NRF). It is also structured in terms of
the Goals and Strategies of the 2016-2024 Ramsar Strategic Plan adopted at COP12 throughResolution XII.2.

4.

This COP14 NRF includes 95 indicator questions. In addition, Section 4 is provided as an
optional annex in order to facilitate the task of preparing the Party’s national targets andactions for the implementation of each of the Targets of the Strategic Plan 2016-2024 inaccordance with Resolution XII.2.

5.

As was the case for previous NRFs, the COP14 NRF includes an optional section (Section 5) topermit a Contracting Party to provide additional information on indicators relevant to eachindividual Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar Site) within its territory.

6.

Note that, for the purposes of this national reporting to the Ramsar Convention, the scope ofthe term “wetland” is that of the Convention text, i.e. all inland wetlands (including lakes andrivers), all nearshore coastal wetlands (including tidal marshes, mangroves and coral reefs) andhuman-made wetlands (e.g. rice paddy and reservoirs), even if a national definition of“wetland” may differ from that adopted by the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention.

The purposes and uses of national reporting to the Conference of the Contracting Parties
7.

National Reports from Contracting Parties are official documents of the Convention and aremade publicly available on the Convention’s website.

8.

There are seven main purposes for the Convention’s National Reports. These are:i)to provide data and information on how, and to what extent, the Convention is being
implemented;ii) to provide tools for countries for their national planning;iii) to capture lessons and experience to help Parties plan future action;iv) to identify emerging issues and implementation challenges faced by Parties that may
require further attention from the Conference of the Parties;v) to provide a means for Parties to account for their commitments under the Convention;

SC57 Report and Decisions

71vi) to provide each Party with a tool to help it assess and monitor its progress in implementing
the Convention, and to plan its future priorities; andvii) to provide an opportunity for Parties to draw attention to their achievements during thetriennium.
9.

The data and information provided by Parties in their National Reports have another valuablepurpose as well, since a number of the indicators in the National Reports on Parties’
implementation provide key sources of information for the analysis and assessment of the“ecological outcome-oriented indicators of effectiveness of the implementation of theConvention”.

10. To facilitate the analysis and subsequent use of the data and information provided byContracting Parties in their National Reports, the Ramsar Secretariat holds in a database all theinformation it has received and verified. As for COP13, the COP14 reports will be in an online
national reporting system.
11. The Convention’s National Reports are used in a number of ways. These include:i)providing an opportunity to compile and analyze information that contracting parties canuse to inform their national planning and programming;ii)

providing the basis for reporting by the Secretariat to each meeting of the Conference of
the Parties on the global, national and regional implementation, and the progress in
implementation, of the Convention. This is provided to Parties at the COP as a series ofInformation Papers, including:• the Report of the Secretary General on the implementation of the Convention at the
global level; and• the Report of the Secretary General pursuant to Article 8.2 (b), (c), and (d) concerning
the List of Wetlands of International Importance);iii) providing information on specific implementation issues in support of the provision ofadvice and decisions by Parties at the COP;iv) providing the source data for time-series assessments of progress on specific aspects in theimplementation of the Convention included in other Convention products. An example isthe summary of progress since COP3 (Regina, 1997) in the development of National
Wetland Policies, included as Table 1 in Ramsar Wise Use Handbook 2 (4th edition, 2010);
andv)

providing information for reporting to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on thenational implementation of the CBD/Ramsar Joint Work Plan and the Ramsar Convention’s
lead implementation role on wetlands for the CBD. In particular, the Ramsar Secretariat
and STRP used the COP10 NRF indicators extensively in 2009 to prepare contributions to
the in-depth review of the CBD programme of work on the biological diversity of inland
water ecosystems for consideration by CBD SBSTTA14 and COP10 during 2010 (seeUNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/3). Similar use of COP13 NRF indicators is anticipated for the CBD’s
post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

The structure of the COP14 National Report Format
12. The COP14 National Report Format (NRF) is in five sections:

SC57 Report and Decisions

72Section 1 provides the institutional information about the Administrative Authority andNational Focal Points for the national implementation of the Convention.
Section 2 is a ‘free-text’ section in which the Party is invited to provide a summary of various
aspects of national implementation progress and recommendations for the future.
Section 3 provides the 95 implementation indicator questions, grouped under each Convention
implementation Goals and Targets in the Strategic Plan 2016-2024, and with an optional ‘freetext’ section under each indicator question in which the Contracting Party may, if it wishes, add
further information on national implementation of that activity.
Section 4 is an optional annex to allow any Contracting Party that has developed nationaltargets to provide information on the targets and actions for the implementation of each of thetargets of the Strategic Plan 2016-2024.
In line with Resolution XII.2, which encourages Contracting Parties “to develop and submit to
the Secretariat on or before December 2016, and according to their national priorities,
capabilities and resources, their own quantifiable and time-bound national and regional targets
in line with the targets set in the Strategic Plan”, all Parties are encouraged to consider using
this comprehensive national planning tool as soon as possible, in order to identify the areas ofhighest priority for action and the relevant national targets and actions for each target.
The planning of national targets offers, for each of them, the possibility of indicating thenational priority for that area of activity as well as the level of resourcing available, or that could
be made available during the triennium, for its implementation. In addition, there are specificboxes to indicate the National Targets for implementation by 2021 and the planned national
activities that are designed to deliver these targets.
Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2024 shows the synergies between CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets
and Ramsar Targets. Therefore, the NRF provide an opportunity that Contracting Parties
indicate as appropriate how the actions they undertake for the implementation of the Ramsar
Convention contribute to achievement of the Aichi Targets according to paragraph 51 of
Resolution XII.3.
Section 5 is an optional annex to allow any Contracting Party that so wishes to provide
additional information regarding any or all of its Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar
Sites).
General guidance for completing and submitting the COP14 National Report Format
Important – please read this guidance section before starting to complete the National Reportformat13. All Sections of the COP14 NRF should be completed in one of the Convention’s official
languages (English, French, Spanish).
14. The deadline for submission of the completed NRF is January 21st 2021. It will not be possible
to include information from National Reports received after that date in the analysis andreporting on Convention implementation to COP14.

SC57 Report and Decisions7315. The deadline for submission of national targets is by 29 November 2019.
16. All fields with a pale yellow backgroundmust be filled in.

Fields with a pale green backgroundare free-text fields in which to provide
additional information, if the Contracting Party so wishes. Although providing informationin these fields is optional, Contracting Parties are encouraged to provide such additional
information wherever possible and relevant, as it helps us understand Parties’ progress andactivity more fully, to prepare the best possible global and regional implementation reports
to COP.
17. To help Contracting Parties refer to relevant information they provided in their National Report
to COP13, for each appropriate indicator a cross-reference is provided to the equivalent
indicator(s) in the COP13 NRF or previous NRF, shown thus: {x.x.x}
18. For follow up and where appropriate, a cross-reference is also provided to the relevant Key
Result Area (KRA) relating to Contracting Parties implementation in the Strategic Plan 20092015.
19. Only Strategic Plan 2016-2024 Targets for which there are implementation actions forContracting Parties are included in this reporting format. Those targets of the Strategic Plan that
do not refer directly to Parties are omitted in the National Report Format as the information isprovided through the Ramsar Sites Data Base or the Work Plan of the Scientific and Technical
Review Panel (e.g. targets 6 and 14).
20. The Format is created as a form in Microsoft Word to collect the data. You will be able to enter
replies and information in the yellow or green boxes.
For each of the ‘indicator questions’ in Section 3, a legend of answer options is provided. Thesevary between indicators, depending on the question, but are generally of the form: ‘A - Yes’, ‘B No’, ‘C - Partially’, ‘D - In progress’. This is necessary so that statistical comparisons can be madeof the replies. Please indicate the relevant letter (A, B etc.) in the yellow field.
For each indicator question you can choose only one answer. If you wish to provide further
information or clarification, do so in the green additional information box below the relevant
indicator question. Please be as concise as possible (maximum of 500 words in each free-textbox).
21. In Section 4 (Optional) for each target the planning of national targets section looks as follows(in the example of Target 8 on inventory):
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):

SC57 Report and Decisions

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer[Example text] To have comprehensive inventory of all wetlands by
2021[Example text] To update the existing inventory so as to cover all thenational territory, and to incorporate relevant information about
wetlands, including digital information, when possible74Outcomes achieved by 2021
and how they contribute toachievement of the Aichi
Targets and Sustainable
Development Goals[Example text] A comprehensive inventory of all wetlands

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
The input has to be made only in the yellow boxes. For PRIORITY and RESOURCING, the coded
answers are given in the right part of the table (always in italics). The answer chosen should betyped inside the yellow box at the left side of the coded options. TARGETS and PLANNEDACTIVITIES are text boxes; here, Contracting Parties are invited to provide more detailed
information in the respective box on their National Targets for achievement in implementation
by 2021 and the planned national activities that are designed to deliver these targets.
Please note that only ONE coded option –the one that better represents the situation in theContracting Party– should be chosen. Blanks will be coded in COP14 National Reports
Database as “No answer”.
22. The NRF should ideally be completed by the principal compiler in consultation with relevantcolleagues in their agency and others within the government and, as appropriate, with NGOs
and other stakeholders who might have fuller knowledge of aspects of the Party’s overall
implementation of the Convention. The principal compiler can save the document at any point
and return to it later to continue or to amend answers. Compilers should refer back to the
National Report submitted for COP13 to ensure the continuity and consistency of information
provided. In the online system there is an option to allow consultation with others.
23. After each session, remember to save the file. A recommended filename structure is:
COP14NRF [Country] [date], for example: COP14NRFSpain13January 2021.doc
24. After the NRF has been completed using the word version (offline), please enter the data in the
NR online system at this link: https://reports.ramsar.org or send it by email(nationalreports@ramsar.org) by January 21st 2021. If you have any questions or problems,
please contact the Ramsar Secretariat for advice at (nationalreports@ramsar.org).
25. The completed NRF must be accompanied by a letter that can be uploaded in the online
system or send by email (nationalreports@ramsar.org) in the name of the Head of
Administrative Authority, confirming that this is the Contracting Party’s official submission of
its COP14 National Report.
If you have any questions or problems, please contact the Ramsar Secretariat for advice(nationalreports@ramsar.org).

SC57 Report and Decisions

75

National Report to Ramsar COP14
Section 1: Institutional information

Important note: the responses below will be considered by the Ramsar Secretariat as thedefinitive list of your focal points, and will be used to update the information it holds. The
Secretariat’s current information about your focal points is available athttps://www.ramsar.org/search?f%5B0%5D=type%3Aperson#search-contacts.
Name of Contracting Party:
Designated Ramsar Administrative Authority
Name of Administrative
Authority:
Head of Administrative
Authority - name and title:
Mailing address:
Telephone/Fax:
Email:
Designated National Focal Point for Ramsar Convention Matters
Name and title:
Mailing address:
Telephone/Fax:
Email:
Designated National Focal Point for Matters Relating to The Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP)
Name and title:
Name of organisation:
Mailing address:
Telephone/Fax:
Email:
Designated Government National Focal Point for Matters Relating to The Programme on
Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness (CEPA)
Name and title:
Name of organisation:
Mailing address:
Telephone/Fax:
Email:
Designated Non-Government National Focal Point for Matters Relating to The Programme on
Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness (CEPA)
Name and title:
Name of organisation:
Mailing address:
Telephone/Fax:
Email:

SC57 Report and Decisions

76Section 2: General summary of national implementation progress andchallenges
In your country, in the past triennium (i.e., since COP13 reporting):
A. What have been the five most successful aspects of implementation of the Convention?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
B. What have been the five greatest difficulties in implementing the Convention?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
C. What are the five priorities for future implementation of the Convention?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
D.

Do you (AA) have any recommendations concerning priorities for implementation assistanceand requirements for such assistance from the Ramsar Secretariat?

E.

Do you (AA) have any recommendations concerning implementation assistance from theConvention’s International Organisation Partners (IOPs)? (including ongoing partnerships andpartnerships to develop)

F.

How can national implementation of the Ramsar Convention be better linked with
implementation of other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), especially those in the‘biodiversity cluster’ (Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on Migratory Species(CMS), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), World Heritage
Convention (WHC), and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?

G.

How is the Ramsar Convention linked with the can implementation of water policy/strategy the
Ramsar Convention be better linked with the implementation of water policy/strategy andother strategies in the country (e.g., on sustainable development, energy, extractive industries,
poverty reduction, sanitation, food security, biodiversity) and how this could be improved?

SC57 Report and Decisions

77

H.

According to paragraph 21 of Resolution XIII.18 on Gender and wetlands, please provide a short
description about the balance between men and women participating in wetland-related
decisions, programmes and researchdiscussions, and to highlight areas where change isnecessary for achieving gender equality, and lessons learned when trying to improve equality
between genders.

I.

Do you (AA) have any other general comments on the implementation of the Convention?

J.

Please list the names of the organisations which have been consulted on or have contributed tothe information provided in this report:

SC57 Report and Decisions

78Section 3: Indicator questions and further implementation information
Goal 1. Addressing the drivers of wetland loss and degradation[Reference to Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15]Target 1. Wetland benefits are featured in national/ local policy strategies and plans relating to key
sectors such as water, energy, mining, agriculture, tourism, urban development, infrastructure,industry, forestry, aquaculture, fisheries at the national and local level.
[Reference to Aichi Target 2]
1.1 Have wetland conservation and the identification of issues/ wetlands benefits been
integrated incorporated into sustainable approaches to the following other national
strategies and planning processes, including: {1.3.2} {1.3.3} KRA 1.3.i
A=Yes; B=No; C=Partially; D=Planned; X= Unknown; Y= Not Relevanta) National Policy or strategy for wetland management:b) Poverty eradication strategies:c) Water resource management and water efficiency plans:d) Coastal and marine resource management plans:e) Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan:f) National forest programmes:g) National policies or measures on agriculture:h) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans drawn up under the CBD:i) National policies on energy and mining:j) National policies on tourism:k) National policies on urban development:l) National policies on infrastructure:m) National policies on industry:n) National policies on aquaculture and fisheries {1.3.3} KRA 1.3.i:o) National plans of actions (NPAs) for pollution control and management:p) National policies on wastewater management and water quality:
1.1 Additional information:

Target 2. Water use respects wetland ecosystem needs for them to fulfil their functions and provide
services at the appropriate scale inter alia at the basin level or along a coastal zone.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 7 and 8], [Sustainable Development Goal 6, Indicator 6.3.1]
2.1

Has the quantity and quality of water available to, and requiredby, wetlands been assessed to support the implementation of the
Guidelines for the allocation and management of water for
maintaining the ecological functions of wetlands (Resolution
VIII.1, VIII.2) ? 1.24.
2.1 Additional information:

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

79

2.2

Have assessments of environmental flow been undertaken in
relation to mitigation of impacts on the ecological character ofwetlands (Action r3.4.iv)

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

2.2 Additional information:
2.3
What, if any, initiatives been taken to improve the sustainabilityof water use (or allocation of water resources) in the context of
ecosystem requirements across major river basins (Resolutions VIII.1
and XII.12 )? (Action 3.4.6.)
Have Ramsar Sites improved the sustainability of water use in thecontext of ecosystem requirements?
2.3 Additional information:

2.4

Have the Guidelines for allocation and management of water for
maintaining ecological functions of wetlands (Resolutions VIII.1
and XII.12 ) been used/applied in decision-making processes.
(Action 3.4.6.)

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

2.4 Additional information:

2.5

Have projects that promote and demonstrate good practice inwater allocation and management for maintaining the ecological
functions of wetlands been developed (Action r3.4.ix. )2.5 Additional information:

2.6

Percentage How manyof households/municipalities arelinked to sewage system ?
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.6 Additional information:

2.7 What is the percentage of sewerage coverage in the country?
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.7 Additional information:

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned; O= No
Change; X= Unknown

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned%E=#household/municipalities;
F= Less than #;G=More than #;X= Unknown;
Y= Not Relevant

E=# percent;
F= Less than # percent;
G= More Than # percent;
X= Unknown;
Y= Not Relevant

80

2.8

What is the percentage of users of septic tank/pit latrine if
relevant to your country?
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.8 Additional information:

2.9

Does the country use constructed wetlands/ponds aswastewater treatment technology?
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.9 Additional information:

2.10 How do the country use constructed wetlands/ponds aswastewater treatment technology perform?
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.10 Additional information:

2.11 Number of How many centralised wastewater treatment
plants (or volume treated exist at national level)?
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.11 Additional information:

2.12 How is the functional status of the wastewater treatment
plants? If relevant to your country
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.12 Additional information:

SC57 Report and Decisions

E=# percent;
F=Less Than # percent;
G= More Than # percent;
X= Unknown;
Y= Not Relevant

A= Yes, B= No; C=
Partially, D=Planned X=
Unknown; Y= Not
Relevant

A=Good; C=Functioning;
B=Not Functioning;
Q=Obsolete;
X= Unknown
Y= Not Relevant

E= # plants;
F= Less than #;G=More than #;X= Unknown;
Y= Not Relevant

A=Good; B=Not
Functioning;
C=Functioning;
Q=Obsolete; X=
Unknown; Y= Not
Relevant

81

2.13 The percentage of decentralized wastewater treatment
technology, including constructed wetlands/ponds is?
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.13 Additional information:

2.14 number of Is there a wastewater reuse systems (or volume reused) and purpose?
SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.
2.14 Additional information:

A=Good; B=Not
Functioning
C=Functioning;
Q=Obsolete; X=
Unknown; Y= Not
Relevant

A=Yes; B=No; C=Partially;
D=Planned; X= Unknown;
Y=Not Relevant

R=Agriculture;
S=Landscape;
T=Industrial; U=Drinking;
X= Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
2.15 Additional information: Please indicate if the wastewater reuse system is for free or taxed
or add any additional information.
2.15 What is the purpose of the wastewater reuse system if
relevant to your country ? SDG 6 Target 6.3.1.

2.15 bis. Does your country use a wastewater treatment processthat utilizes wetlands as a natural filter while preserving thewetland ecosystem?
2.15 Additional information: If Yes, please provide an example

A=Yes; B=No; C=Partially;
D=Planned; X= Unknown;
Y=Not Relevant

Target 3. Public and private sectors have increased their efforts to apply guidelines and good practices
for the wise use of water and wetlands. {1.10}[Reference to Aichi Targets 3, 4, 7 and 8]
3.1

Is the private sector encouraged to apply the Ramsar wise use
principle and guidance (Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of
wetlands) in its activities and investments concerning wetlands?
{1.10.1} KRA 1.10.i

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned823.1 Additional information:

3.2

Has the private sector undertaken activities or actions for theconservation, wise use and management of? {1.10.2} KRA 1.10.ii:a) Ramsar Sitesb) Wetlands in general

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially; D=Planned;
X= Unknown; Y= Not
Relevanta)b)

3.2 Additional information:

3.3

Have actions been taken to implement incentive measures which
encourage the conservation and wise use of wetlands? {1.11.1}
KRA 1.11.i

3.3 Additional information:

3.4

Have actions been taken to remove perverse incentive measures
which discourage conservation and wise use of wetlands? {1.11.2}
KRA 1.11.i

3.4 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially; D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned; Z=Not
ApplicableTarget 4. Invasive alien species and pathways of introduction and expansion are identified andprioritized, priority invasive alien species are controlled or eradicated, and management responses areprepared and implemented to prevent their introduction and establishment.
{Reference to Aichi Target 9]
4.1

Does your country have a national inventory of invasive alien
species that currently or potentially impact the ecologicalcharacter of wetlands? {1.9.1} KRA 1.9.i

4.1 Additional information:

4.2

Have national policies or guidelines on invasive species control
and management been established or reviewed for wetlands?
{1.9.2} KRA 1.9.iii

4.2 Additional information:

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned83E= # species; F=Lessthan #; G=More than#; X= Unknown;
Y=Not Relevant
4.3 Additional information: (If ‘Yes’, please indicate the year of assessment and the source of
the information):
4.3

How many invasive species are being controlled throughmanagement actions?.

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned; X=
Unknown
4.3 Additional information: (If ‘Yes’, please provide examples, including the species name andthe successful management actions
4.3. 1 Has your country successfully controlled through management
actions invasive species of high risk to wetland ecosystems?

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned; X=
Unknown
4.3.2 Additional information: (If ‘Yes’, please provide examples, including the species name andthe successful management actions
4.3. 2 Are there invasive species of high risk to wetland ecosystems thathave not been successfully controlled through management
actions?

4.4

Have the effectiveness of wetland invasive alien species control
programmes been assessed?

4.4 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant

Goal 2. Effectively conserving and managing the Ramsar Site network[Reference to Sustainable Development Goals 6, 11, 13, 14, 15]Target 5. The ecological character of Ramsar Sites is maintained or restored through effective, planningand integrated management {2.1.}[Reference to Aichi Targets 6,11, 12]
5.1

Have a national strategy and priorities been established for thefurther designation of Ramsar Sites, using the Strategic
Framework for the Ramsar List? {2.1.1} KRA 2.1.i

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned845.1 Additional information:

5.2

Are the Ramsar Sites Information Service and its tools being
used in national identification of further Ramsar Sites todesignate? {2.2.1} KRA 2.2.ii

5.2 Additional information:

5.3

How many Ramsar Sites have a formal an effective management
plan? {2.4.1} KRA 2.4.i

5.4

Of For how many of the Ramsar Sites with a formal management
plan,for how many of these is the plan being implemented ?
{2.4.2} KRA 2.4.i

5.5

Of the Ramsar sites without a formal management plan, fFor
how many is there Ramsar Sites is effective management
planning currently being implemented through other relevantmeans e.g. through existing actions for appropriate wetland
management? (outside of formal management plans)? {2.4.3}
KRA 2.4.i
5.3 – 5.5 Additional information:
Have all Ramsar sites been assessed regarding the effectivenessof their management (i.e. sites with either a through formal
management plan or management via other relevant meanss
where they exist e.g or otherwise through existing actions forappropriate wetland management ? {1.6.2} KRA 1.6.ii
5.6 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned

E= # sites; F=Less than# sites; G=More than# sites; X=Unknown;
Y=Not Relevant
E= # sites; F=Less than# sites; G=More than# sites; X= Unknown;
Y=Not Relevant
E= # sites; F=Less than# sites; G=More than# sites; X= Unknown;
Y=Not Relevant

5.6

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

E= # sites; F=Less than# sites; G=More than# sites; X=Unknown,
Y=Not Relevant;
5.7 Additional information (If at least 1 site, please give the name and official number of the siteor sites):
5.7

How many Ramsar Sites have a cross-sectoral management
committee? {2.4.4} {2.4.6} KRA 2.4.iv

5.8

For how many Ramsar Sites has an ecological character
description been prepared (see Resolution X.15)? {2.4.5}{2.4.7}
KRA 2.4.v

SC57 Report and Decisions

E=# sites; F=Less than# sites; G=More than# sites; X= Unknown;
Y=Not Relevant855.8 Additional information (If at least 1 site, please give the name and official number of the siteor sites):

5.9

Have any assessments of the effectiveness of Ramsar Sitemanagement been made? {2.5.1} KRA 2.5.i

A=Yes; B=No; C=Some
Sites
5.9 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Some sites’, please indicate the year of assessment, whichassessment tool did you use (e.g. METT, Resolution XII.15, and the source of the information):Target 7. Sites that are at risk of change of ecological character have threats addressed {2.6.}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 5, 7, 11, 12]
7.1

Are mechanisms in place for the Administrative Authority to be
informed of negative human-induced changes or likely changes inthe ecological character of Ramsar Sites, pursuant to Article 3.2?
{2.6.1} KRA 2.6.i

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Some Sites;
D=Planned
7.1 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Some sites’, please summarise the mechanism ormechanisms established):

7.2

Have all cases of negative human-induced change or likely change
in the ecological character of Ramsar Sites been reported to theRamsar Secretariat, pursuant to Article 3.2? {2.6.2} KRA 2.6.i

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Some Cases;
O=No Negative
Change
7.2 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Some cases’, please indicate for which Ramsar Sites the
Administrative Authority has made Article 3.2 reports to the Secretariat, and for which sites suchreports of change or likely change have not yet been made):
7.3

If applicable, have actions been taken to address the issues forwhich Ramsar Sites have been listed on the Montreux Record, suchas including requesting a Ramsar Advisory Mission? {2.6.3} KRA
2.6.ii
7.3 Additional information (If ‘Yes’, please indicate the actions taken):

A=Yes; B=No; Z=Not
Applicable

Goal 3. Wisely using all wetlands[Reference to Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]

SC57 Report and Decisions

86

Target 8. National wetland inventories have been either initiated, completed or updated anddisseminated and used for promoting the conservation and effective management of all wetlands{1.1.1} KRA 1.1.i[Reference to Aichi Targets 12, 14, 18, 19]

8.1

Does your country have a complete National Wetland Inventory?
{1.1.1} KRA 1.1.i

8.1 Additional information:

8.2

Has your country updated a National Wetland Inventory in the last
decade?

8.2 Additional information:

8.3

Is wetland inventory data and information maintained? {1.1.2} KRA
1.1.ii

8.3 Additional information:

8.4

Is wetland inventory data and information made accessible to all
stakeholders? {1.1.2} KRA 1.1.ii

8.4 Additional information:
8.5

Has the condition* of wetlands in your country, overall, changed
during the last triennium? {1.1.3}a) Ramsar Sitesb) wetlands generally
Please describe on the sources of the information on which youranswer is based in the green free- text box below. If there is adifference between inland and coastal wetland situations, please
describe. If you are able to, please describe the principal driver(s) of
the change(s).
* ‘Condition’ corresponds to ecological character, as defined by theConvention
8.5 Additional information on a) and/or b):

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Progress;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Progress; C1=
Partially;
D=Planned; X=
Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

N=Status
Deteriorated;
O=No Change;
P=Status
Improved
a)
b)

87

8.6

Based upon the National Wetland Inventory if available pleaseprovide a figure in square kilometres for the extent of
wetlands (according to the Ramsar definition) for the year
2020 and provide the relevant disaggregated information in
the box below. This Information will also be used to report on
SDG 6, Target 6.6, Indicator 6.6.1, for which the Ramsar
Convention is a co-custodian.

E= # Km 2 ; F=Less than #Km 2 ; G=More than #Km 2; X= Unknown

8.6
According to the Ramsar definition and classification of wetlands, the disaggregated information
on wetland extent is as follows:
Area by type of wetland
Marine/Coastale.g Coral Reefs:
xx Km2e.g Estuarine
watersxx Km2Inlande.g Permanent
freshwater
marshes/swamps:
xx Km2e.g Non-forested
peatlands(includes shrub or
open bogs,
swamps, fens):
xx Km2

Human-madeTotal
Date of the inventory:e.g Coastal
brackish/saline
lagoons:
xx Km2e.g Permanent
freshwater lakes:
xx Km2

Total area by
category ofwetlandxx Km2

Reference or link:
Note:
The minimum information that should be provided is the total area of wetlands for each of thethree major categories; “marine/coastal”, “inland” and “human-made”.
If the data on inventories are partial or not complete, use the information that is available.
Additional information: If the information is available please indicate the % of change in theextent of wetlands over the last three years. Please note: For the % of change in the extent of
wetlands, if the period of data covers more than three years, provide the available information,and indicate the period of the change.
Guidance on information on national wetland extent, to be provided in Target 8 “National
Wetlands Inventory” of the National Report Form can be consulted at:https://www.ramsar.org/document/guidance-on-information-on-national-wetland-extent

SC57 Report and Decisions

88Additional information: If the information is available please indicate the % of change in theextent of wetlands over the last three years. Please note: For the % of change in the extent of
wetlands, if the period of data covers more than three years, provide the available information,and indicate the period of the change.

8.7

Please indicate your needs (in terms of technical, financial or governance challenges) todevelop, update or complete a National Wetland Inventory

Target 9. The wise use of wetlands is strengthened through integrated resource management at theappropriate scale, inter alia, within a river basin or along a coastal zone {1.3.}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 4, 6, 7].

9.1

Is a Wetland Policy (or equivalent instrument) that promotes thewise use of wetlands in place? {1.3.1} KRA 1.3.i(If ‘Yes’, please give the title and date of the policy in the green
text box)

9.1 Additional information:

9.2

Have any amendments to existing legislation been made to reflect
Ramsar commitments? {1.3.5}{1.3.6}

9.2 Additional information:
Do your country’s water governance and management systems aretreat wetlands treated as natural water infrastructure integral towater resource management at the scale of river basins? {1.7.1}{1.7.2} KRA 1.7.ii
9.3 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Preparation;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Progress; D=Planned

9.3

Have Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness(CEPA) expertise and tools been incorporated into catchment/river
basin planning and management (see Resolution X.19)?
{1.7.2}{1.7.3}
9.4 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned

9.4

9.5

Has your country established policies or guidelines for enhancing
the role of wetlands in mitigating or adapting to climate change?
{1.7.3} {1.7.5} KRA 1.7.iii

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

899.5 Additional information:

9.6

Has your country formulated plans or projects to sustain andenhance the role of wetlands in supporting and maintaining viable
farming systems? {1.7.4} {1.7.6} KRA 1.7.v

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

9.6 Additional information:

9.7

Has research to inform wetland policies and plans been
undertaken in your country on:a) agriculture-wetland interactionsb) climate changec) valuation of ecoystem services{1.6.1} KRA 1.6.i

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planneda)b)c)

9.7 Additional information:

9.8

Has your country submitted a request for Wetland City
Accreditation of the Ramsar Convention, Resolution XII.10 ?

9.9

Has your country made efforts to conserve small wetlands in linewith Resolution XIII. 21?

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned
9.8 Additional information: (If ‘Yes’, please indicate How many request have been submitted):

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned
9.9 Additional information: (If ‘Yes’, please indicate what actions have been implemented):

Target 10. The traditional knowledge innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local
communities relevant for the wise use of wetlands and their customary use of wetland resources, aredocumented, respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations and fully
integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with a full and effective participationof indigenous and local communities at all relevant levels.
[Reference to Aichi Target 18]

10.1 Combined with 11.4 Have the guiding principles for taking into
account the cultural values of wetlands including traditional
knowledge for the effective management of sites (Resolution
VIII.19) been used or applied?.(Action 6.1.2/ 6.1.6)

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Preparation; C1=
Partially; D=
Planned; X=
Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant90

10.1 Additional information:

10.2 Have case studies, participation in projects or successful
experiences on cultural aspects of wetlands been compiled.
Resolution VIII.19 and Resolution IX.21? (Action 6.1.6)

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Preparation;
D=Planned
10.2 Additional information: (If yes please indicate the case studies or projects documenting
information and experiences concerning culture and wetlands).
10.3 Have the guidelines for establishing and strengthening local
communities’ and indigenous people’s participation in the
management of wetlands been used or applied such asa)b)

stakeholders, including local communities and indigenous people
are represented on National Ramsar Committees or similar bodies
involvement and assistance of indigenous people’s andcommunity-based groups, wetland education centres and nongovernmental organizations with the necessary expertise tofacilitate the establishment of participatory approaches;

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Preparation;
D=Planned. (Resolution VII. 8) (Action 6.1.5)
10.3 Additional information: (If the answer is “yes” please indicate the use or aplication of theguidelines)

10.4 Traditional knowledge and management practices relevant for thewise use of wetlands have been documented and theirapplication encouraged (Action 6.1.2 )10.4 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Preparation;
D=Planned

Target 11. Wetland functions, services and benefits are widely demonstrated, documented anddisseminated. {1.4.}[Reference to Aichi Targets 1, 2, 13, 14]11.1 Have s an assessment been made of the ecosystembenefits/services provided by Ramsar Sites and other wetlands
been researched in your country, recorded in documents like Stateof the Environment reporting, and the results promoted? {1.4.1}
KRA 1.4.ii

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Preparation;
C1=Partially;
D=Planned; X=
Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
11.1 Additional information: (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please indicate, how many Ramsar Sites andtheir names):

SC57 Report and Decisions9111.2 Have wetland programmes or projects that contribute to poverty
alleviation objectives or food and water security plans been
implemented? {1.4.2} KRA 1.4.i
11.2 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned; X=
Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant

11.3 Have socio-economic values of wetlands been included in the
management planning for Ramsar Sites and other wetlands?
{1.4.3}{1.4.4} KRA 1.4.iii

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned
11.3 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please indicate, if known, how many Ramsar
Sites and their names):
11.4 Have cultural values of wetlands been included in the
management planning for Ramsar Sites and other wetlands
including traditional knowledge for the effective management ofsites (Resolution VIII.19)? {1.4.3}{1.4.4} KRA 1.4.iii

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

11.4 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please indicate, if known, how many Ramsar
Sites and their names):

Target 12. Restoration is in progress in degraded wetlands, with priority to wetlands that are relevant
for biodiversity conservation, disaster risk reduction, livelihoods and/or climate change mitigation andadaptation. {1.8.}[Reference to Aichi Targets 14 and 15].

12.1 Have priority sites for wetland restoration been identified? {1.8.1}
KRA 1.8.i
12.1 Additional information:

12.2 Have wetland restoration/rehabilitation programmes, plans or
projects been effectively implemented? {1.8.2} KRA 1.8.i

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially; D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially; D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant

9212.2 Additional information: (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please indicate, if available the extent of
wetlands restored ):12.3 Have the Guidelines for Global Action on Peatlands and on
Peatlands, climate change and wise use (Resolutions VIII.1 andXII.11) been implemented including?
a) Knowledge of global resources

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially; D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially; D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
A=Yes; B=No; C=c). Policy and legislative instruments
Partially; D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
A=Yes; B=No; C=d). Wise use of peatlands
Partially; D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
A=Yes; B=No; C=e). Research networks, regional centres of expertise, and institutional
Partially; D=Planned;
capacity
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially; D=Planned;f). International cooperation
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
A=Yes; B=No; C=g). Implementation and support
Partially; D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
12.3 Additional information: (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please indicate, the progress in
implementation:b). Education and public awareness on peatlands

Target 13. Enhanced sustainability of key sectors such as water, energy, mining, agriculture, tourism,
urban development, infrastructure, industry, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries when they affectwetlands, contributing to biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 6 and 7].
13.1 Have actions been taken to enhance sustainability of key sectors
such as water, energy, mining, agriculture, tourism, urban
development, infrastructure, industry, forestry, aquaculture andfisheries when they affect wetlands?

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned9313.1. Additional information: (If ‘Yes’, please indicate the actions taken):

13.2 Are Strategic Environmental Assessment practices applied whenreviewing policies, programmes and plans that may impact upon
wetlands? {1.3.3} {1.3.4} KRA 1.3.ii
13.2 Additional information:
13.3 Are Environmental Impact Assessments made for any
development projects (such as new buildings, new roads,
extractive industry) from key sectors such as water, energy,
mining, agriculture, tourism, urban development, infrastructure,industry, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries that may affectwetlands? {1.3.4} {1.3.5} KRA 1.3.iii
13.3 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Some Cases

Goal 4. Enhancing implementation[Reference to Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17]Target 15. Ramsar Regional Initiatives with the active involvement and support of the Parties in eachregion are reinforced and developed into effective tools to assist in the full implementation of theConvention. {3.2.}
15.1 Have you (AA) been involved in the development andimplementation of a Regional Initiative under the framework of theConvention? {3.2.1} KRA 3.2.i

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned
15.1 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Planned’, please indicate the regional initiative(s) and thecollaborating countries of each initiative):15.2 Has your country supported or participated in the development ofother regional (i.e., covering more than one country) wetland
training and research centres? {3.2.2}

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned
15.2 Additional information (If ‘Yes’, please indicate the name(s) of the centre(s):Target 16. Wetlands conservation and wise use are mainstreamed through communication, capacity
development, education, participation and awareness {4.1}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 1 and 18].

SC57 Report and Decisions9416.1 Has an action plan (or plans) for wetland CEPA been established?
{4.1.1} KRA 4.1.i

A=Yes; B=No; C=In
Progress;
D=Planneda) At the national levelb) Sub-national levela)c) Catchment/basin levelb)d) Local/site levelc)(Even if no CEPA plans have been developed, if broad CEPAd)objectives for CEPA actions have been established, please indicate
this in the Additional information section below)
16.1 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘In progress’ to one or more of the four questions above,for each please describe the mechanism, who is responsible and identify if it has involved CEPA
NFPs):

E= # centres; F=Lessthan #; G=More
16.2 How many centres (visitor centres, interpretation centres,
than #;
education centres) have been established? {4.1.2} KRA 4.1.ii
X=Unknown; y=Nota) at Ramsar Sites
Relevant;b) at other wetlandsa)b)
16.2 Additional information (If centres are part of national or international networks, please
describe the networks):

16.3 Does the Contracting Party:a) promote stakeholder participation in decision-making on wetland
planning and managementb) specifically involve local stakeholders in the selection of new
Ramsar Sites and in Ramsar Site management?
{4.1.3} KRA 4.1.iii

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planneda)b)16.3 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please provide information about the ways inwhich stakeholders are involved):

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially;
D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
16.4 Additional information (If ‘Yes’, indicate a) its membership; b) number of meetings since
COP13; and c) what responsibilities the Committee has):
16.4 Do you have an operational cross-sectoral National
Ramsar/Wetlands Committee? {4.1.6} KRA 4.3.v

SC57 Report and Decisions

95

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially;
D=Planned;
X=Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
16.5 Additional information (If ‘Yes’, indicate a) its membership; b) number of meetings since
COP13; and c) what responsibilities the Committee has):
16.5 Do you have an operational cross-sectoral body equivalent to a
National Ramsar/Wetlands Committee? {4.1.6} KRA 4.3.v

A=Yes; B=No;
16.6 Are other communication mechanisms (apart from a national
C=Partially;
committee) in place to share Ramsar implementation guidelines
D=Planned
and other information between the Administrative Authority and:a) Ramsar Site managersb) other MEA national focal pointsa)c) other ministries, departments and agenciesb){4.1.7} KRA 4.1.vi
c)
16.6 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please describe what mechanisms are in place):
16.7 Have Ramsar-branded World Wetlands Day activities (whether on 2
February or at another time of year), either government and NGOled or both, been carried out in the country since COP13? {4.1.8}
16.7 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No

16.8 Have campaigns, programmes, and projects (other than for World
Wetlands Day-related activities) been carried out since COP13 toraise awareness of the importance of wetlands to people and
A=Yes; B=No;
wildlife and the ecosystem benefits/services provided by wetlands?
D=Planned{4.1.9}16.8 Additional information (If these and other CEPA activities have been undertaken by otherorganizations, please indicate this):Target 17. Financial and other resources for effectively implementing the fourth Ramsar Strategic Plan
2016 – 2024 from all sources are made available. {4.2.}[Reference to Aichi Target 20]
17.1a) Have Ramsar contributions been paid in full for 2018, 2019 and 2020?
{4.2.1} KRA 4.2.i

A=Yes; B=No; Z=Not
Applicableb) If ‘No’ in 17.1 a), please clarify what plan is in place to ensure future prompt payment:

17.2 Has any additional financial support been provided throughvoluntary contributions to non-core funded Convention activities?
{4.2.2} KRA 4.2.i
SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No96

17.2 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ please state the amounts, and for which activities):
17.3 [For Contracting Parties with a development assistance agency
only (‘donor countries’)]: Has the agency provided funding to
A=Yes; B=No; Z=Not
support wetland conservation and management in other
Applicablecountries? {3.3.1} KRA 3.3.i
17.3 Additional information (If ‘Yes’, please indicate the countries supported since COP12):

17.4 [For Contracting Parties with a development assistance agency
only (‘donor countries’)]: Have environmental safeguards andassessments been included in development proposals proposedby the agency? {3.3.2} KRA 3.3.ii
17.4 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No; C=
Partially; X=
Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant; Z=Not
Applicable17.5 [For Contracting Parties that have received development
assistance only (‘recipient countries’)]: Has funding support been
received from development assistance agencies specifically for in- A=Yes; B=No; Z=Not
Applicablecountry wetland conservation and management? {3.3.3}
17.5 Additional information (If ‘Yes’, please indicate from which countries/agencies since
COP12):

17.6 Has any financial support been provided by your country to theimplementation of the Strategic Plan?

A=Yes; B=No; Z=Not
Applicable17.6 Additional information (If “Yes” please state the amounts, and for which activities):

Target 18. International cooperation is strengthened at all levels {3.1}
18.1 Are the national focal points of other MEAs invited to participate
in the National Ramsar/Wetland Committee? {3.1.1} {3.1.2} KRAs
3.1.i & 3.1.iv
18.1 Additional information:

18.2 Are mechanisms in place at the national level for collaboration
between the Ramsar Administrative Authority and the focal pointsof UN and other global and regional bodies and agencies (e.g.
UNEP, UNDP, WHO, FAO, UNECE, ITTO)? {3.1.2} {3.1.3} KRA 3.1.iv
18.2 Additional information:

SC57 Report and Decisions

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned9718.3 Has your country received assistance from one or more UN andother global and regional bodies and agencies (e.g. UNEP, UNDP,
WHO, FAO, UNECE, ITTO) or the Convention’s IOPs in its
A=Yes; B=No;
implementation of the Convention? {4.4.1} KRA 4.4.ii.
C=Partially;
The IOPs are: BirdLife International, the International Water
D=Planned; X=
Management Institute (IWMI), IUCN (International Union for
Unknown; Y=Not
Conservation of Nature), Wetlands International, WWF and
Relevant
Wildfowl & Wetland Trust (WWT).
18.3 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ please name the agency (es) or IOP (s) and the type ofassistance received):

18.4 Have networks, including twinning arrangements, been
established, nationally or internationally, for knowledge sharing
and training for wetlands that share common features? {3.4.1}

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned
18.4 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please indicate the networks and wetlands
involved):

18.5 Has information about your country’s wetlands and/or Ramsar
Sites and their status been made public (e.g., through publications
or a website)? {3.4.2} KRA 3.4.iv
18.5 Additional information:

18.6 Has information about your country’s wetlands and/or Ramsar
Sites been transmitted to the Ramsar Secretariat for
dissemination? {3.4.3} KRA 3.4.ii
18.6 Additional information:

18.7 Have all transboundary wetland systems been identified? {3.5.1}
KRA 3.5.i
18.7 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned; Z=Not
Applicable

18.8 Is effective cooperative management in place for shared wetland
systems (for example, in shared river basins and coastal zones)?
{3.5.2} KRA 3.5.ii

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned; Y=Not
Relevant
18.8 Additional information (If ‘Yes’ or ‘Partially’, please indicate for which wetland systems suchmanagement is in place):

SC57 Report and Decisions98

18.9 Does your country participate in regional networks or initiatives forwetland-dependent migratory species? {3.5.3} KRA 3.5.iii
18.9 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned; Z=Not
ApplicableTarget 19. Capacity building for implementation of the Convention and the 4th Ramsar Strategic Plan
2016 – 2024 is enhanced.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 1 and 17]19.1 Has an assessment of national and local training needs for the
implementation of the Convention been made? {4.1.4} KRAs 4.1.iv& 4.1.viii
19.1 Additional information:

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned

19.2 Are wetland conservation and wise-use issues included in formal
education programmes?.

A=Yes; B=No;
C=Partially;
D=Planned
19.2 Additional information: If you answer yes to the above please provide information on whichmechanisms and materials:a)b)
19.3 How many opportunities for wetland site manager training have
E=# opportunities;
been provided since COP13? {4.1.5} KRA 4.1.iv
F=Less than #; G=a) at Ramsar Sites
More than #; X=b) at other wetlands
Unknown; Y=Not
Relevant
19.3 Additional information (including whether the Ramsar Wise Use Handbooks were used in
the training):

19.4 Have you (AA) used your previous Ramsar National Reports inmonitoring implementation of the Convention? {4.3.1} KRA 4.3.ii

A=Yes; B=No;
D=Planned; Z=Not
Applicable
19.4 Additional information (If ‘Yes’, please indicate how the Reports have been used formonitoring):

SC57 Report and Decisions

99Section 4. Optional annex to allow any Contracting Party that has developed
national targets to provide information on those
Goal 1. Addressing the drivers of wetland loss and degradation[Reference to Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15]Target 1. Wetland benefits are featured in national/ local policy strategies and plans relating to key
sectors such as water, energy, mining, agriculture, tourism, urban development, infrastructure,industry, forestry, aquaculture, fisheries at the national and local level.
[Reference to Aichi Target 2]
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 2. Water use respects wetland ecosystem needs for them to fulfil their functions and provide
services at the appropriate scale inter alia at the basin level or along a coastal zone.
{Reference to Aichi Targets 7 and 8], [Sustainable Development Goal 6, Indicator 6.3.1]
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
SC57 Report and Decisions

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

100

contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals
Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 3. Public and private sectors have increased their efforts to apply guidelines and good practices
for the wise use of water and wetlands. {1.10}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 3, 4, 7 and 8]
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 4. Invasive alien species and pathways of introduction and expansion are identified andprioritized, priority invasive alien species are controlled or eradicated, and management responses areprepared and implemented to prevent their introduction and establishment.
[Reference to Aichi Target 9]
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:

SC57 Report and Decisions

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer
101

National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals
Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Goal 2. Effectively conserving and managing the Ramsar Site network[Reference to Sustainable Development Goals 6,11,13,14, 15]Target 5. The ecological character of Ramsar Sites is maintained or restored through effective, planningand integrated management {2.1.}.
[Reference to Aichi Target 6,11, 12]
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

SC57 Report and Decisions

102

Target 7. Sites that are at risk of change of ecological character have threats addressed {2.6.}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 5, 7, 11, 12]
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Goal 3. Wisely Using All Wetlands[Reference to Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]Target 8. National wetland inventories have been either initiated, completed or updated anddisseminated and used for promoting the conservation and effective management of all wetlands{1.1.1} KRA 1.1.i.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 12, 14, 18, 19].
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSC57 Report and Decisions

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

103

Sustainable Development
Goals
Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 9. The wise use of wetlands is strengthened through integrated resource management at theappropriate scale, inter alia, within a river basin or along a coastal zone {1.3.}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 4, 6, 7].
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 10. The traditional knowledge innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local
communities relevant for the wise use of wetlands and their customary use of wetland resources, aredocumented, respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations and fully
integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with a full and effective participationof indigenous and local communities at all relevant levels.
[Reference to Aichi Target 18].
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:

SC57 Report and Decisions

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer
104

National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals
Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 11. Wetland functions, services and benefits are widely demonstrated, documented anddisseminated. {1.4.}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 1, 2, 13, 14].
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answerNote: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 12. Restoration is in progress in degraded wetlands, with priority to wetlands that are relevant
for biodiversity conservation, disaster risk reduction, livelihoods and/or climate change mitigation andadaptation. {1.8.}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 14 and 15].

SC57 Report and Decisions

105Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target :Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 13. Enhanced sustainability of key sectors such as water, energy, mining, agriculture, tourism,
urban development, infrastructure, industry, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries when they affectwetlands, contributing to biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 6 and 7].
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021

SC57 Report and Decisions

106Additional information:

Goal 4. Enhancing implementation[Reference to Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17]Target 15. Ramsar Regional Initiatives with the active involvement and support of the Parties in eachregion are reinforced and developed into effective tools to assist in the full implementation of theConvention. {3.2.}
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 16. Wetlands conservation and wise use are mainstreamed through communication, capacity
development, education, participation and awareness {4.1}.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 1 and 18].
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they

SC57 Report and Decisions

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

107

contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals
Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 17. Financial and other resources for effectively implementing the fourth Ramsar Strategic Plan
2016 – 2024 from all sources are made available. {4.2.}.
[Reference to Aichi Target 20].
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 18. International cooperation is strengthened at all levels {3.1}
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):

SC57 Report and Decisions

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

108

Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals
Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

Target 19. Capacity building for implementation of the Convention and the 4th Ramsar Strategic Plan
2016 – 2024 is enhanced.
[Reference to Aichi Targets 1 and 17].
Planning of National Targets
Priority of the target:
Resourcing:
National Targets (Text
Answer):Planned Activities(Text Answer):
Outcomes achieved by2021 and how they
contribute to achievementof the Aichi Targets andSustainable Development
Goals

A= High; B= Medium; C= Low; D= Not relevant; E= No
answer
A= Good; B= Adequate; C= Limiting; D= Severely
limiting; E= No answer

Note: this field has to becompleted when the fullreport is submitted in
January 2021
Additional information:

SC57 Report and Decisions

109Section 5: Optional annex to enable Contracting Parties to provide additional
voluntary information on designated Wetlands of International Importance(Ramsar Sites)
Guidance for filling in this section
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Contracting Parties can opt to provide additional information specific to any or all of theirdesignated Ramsar Sites.
The only indicator questions included in this section are those from Section 3 of the COP14 NRF
which directly concern Ramsar Sites.
In some cases, to make them meaningful in the context of reporting on each Ramsar Site
separately, some of these indicator questions and/or their answer options have been adjusted
from their formulation in Section 3 of the COP14 NRF.
Please include information on only one site in each row. In the appropriate columns please add
the name and official site number (from the Ramsar Sites Information Service).
For each ‘indicator question’, please select one answer from the legend.
A final column of this Annex is provided as a ‘free text’ box for the inclusion of any additional
information concerning the Ramsar Site.

SC57 Report and Decisions

110Name of Contracting Party:
List of indicator questions:5.7

Has a cross-sectoral site management committee been established for the site?

5.9

If an assessment of the effectiveness of Ramsar Site management has been made pleaseindicate the year of assessment, which assessment tool did you use (e.g. METT, Resolution
XII.15), the result (score) of the assessment and the source of the information in the box for
additional information.

11.1

Has an assessment been made of the ecosystem benefits/services provided by the Ramsar
Site?

11.3

Have socio-economic values of wetlands been included in the management planning for theRamsar Site?

11.4 Have cultural values of wetlands been included in the management planning for the Ramsar
Site?
16.3a Is stakeholder participation in decision-making promoted, especially with local stakeholder
involvement in the management of the Ramsar Site?
16.6a Have communication mechanisms been established to share information between the
Ramsar Administrative Authority and the Ramsar Site manager(s)?

SC57 Report and Decisions

111RamsarSitenumber
Ex:1603

Ramsar Site
name

5.7

5.9

11.1

11.3

11.4

16.3a 16.6a

Lake White

AYes

AYes

AYes

AYes

AYes

B - No

D–
Plan
ned











Any additionalcomments/information
about the site

 A=Yes; B=No; D=Planned A=Yes; B=No; C=Partially; D=Planned A=Yes; B=No; C=Partially; Z=No Management Plan

SC57 Report and Decisions

112

Annex 11
Recommendations from the group working on challenges
Recommended draft SC57 decisions:
1) Decides to focus on the topic of inventories for the current triennium in order to allow Parties tofocus on measures to address this urgent challenge, potentially resulting in a draft resolution or
resolutions for consideration at COP-14, and to use the outline attached to guide this work.
2) Decides to allocate time on the agenda of SC58 for discussions on current best practices in thedevelopment of wetland inventories and to create an opportunity for an engagement between
Parties, STRP representatives, CEPA Oversight Panel, IOPs, the Ramsar Secretariat, and others on
tools and approaches to address the challenges for many Parties in developing, improving, finalizing,and maintaining wetland inventories.
1. Main topic: Inventories
a. Inventories themselvesb. Their role in policy formulation, planning, and managementc. Their use in avoiding loss and fostering restorationd. Matters related to SDG 6.6.1
2. Key question: There is lots of STRP guidance, so why are we still struggling withinventories?
a. There are too many wetland typesi. What are the key wetland types that are the most critical to inventory?
b. Lack of datai. What tools, techniques, and data sets are already out there?
ii. How to prioritize filling in gaps in data?
c. Special challenges
i. Forest coverii. Marshlands
iii. Cloud coverage
iv. Ephemeral and seasonal systems
v. Karsts and groundwater
3. Capacity building will be vitala. Simple measuring techniques that people with a range of levels of expertise can use
b. Using existing databasesc. Ground truthing data
4. Secretariat support in partnership with the STRP and CEPA Oversight Panela. Messaging for policymakers about the importance of inventories
i. Why should staff time and other resources be spent on them?
ii. How can they be used to benefit the country?

SC57 Report and Decisions

113

Annex 12
Operational Guidance for Ramsar Advisory Missions
A.
B.
C.

Context and process to initiate a Ramsar Advisory Mission
Preparing a RAM
Implementing and following up a RAM

A.

Context and process to initiate a Ramsar Advisory Mission

1.
This section provides guidance on the context in which to initiate a Ramsar Advisory Mission(RAM), and describes what a RAM is, who can request one, and how it links with other Convention
tools. It addresses how the RAMs are undertaken, and whether a RAM can address several Wetlandsof International Importance (Ramsar Sites) or wetlands that are not designated as Ramsar Sites.
Circumstances that trigger the proposed use of a RAM
2.
Contracting Parties are encouraged to maintain the ecological character of all wetlands andare required by Article 3.2 of the Convention to report any actual or potential adverse humaninduced changes in a Ramsar Site, notably as the result of technological developments, pollution orother human interference, to the Secretariat. The RAM is an independent technical advisory
mechanism through which a Contracting Party may request expert advice on how to respond to suchchanges and associated wetland issues (as explained in paragraphs 1 and 9 of Resolution XIII.11 on
Ramsar Advisory Missions).
3.
The procedure was established by the Standing Committee in 1988 and later endorsed by
the Conference of Contracting Parties in 1990 in Recommendation 4.7 Mechanisms for improved
application of the Ramsar Convention, which instructs the Secretariat to continue to operate RAMs
(originally named the “Monitoring Procedure”) when it receives information on adverse or likely
adverse changes in ecological character at Ramsar Sites. In order to implement the mechanism, theContracting Party concerned has to report any such change and officially request that the Secretariat
implement a RAM. When such information comes to the attention of the Secretariat, it may suggest
to the Party concerned to consider using the RAM mechanism.
RAMs to candidate Ramsar Sites and other undesignated wetlands
4.
Priority is given to address change in the ecological character of one or more designatedRamsar Sites including Sites on the Montreux Record (pursuant to Recommendation 4.8 on Change
in ecological character of Ramsar sites). However, a RAM may also address such issues at candidate
Ramsar Sites but should generally not be used for other non-urgent purposes, such as initial scopingof sites for future designations. COP13 instructed the Secretariat (Resolution XIII.11, paragraph 11),
to prioritize the application of a RAM:i.
for sites that are facing problems similar to those at many other Ramsar Sites;ii.
where the RAM report may be of use for many other wetlands; oriii.
where the RAM can add value to existing knowledge on how to address thedescribed challenges.

SC57 Report and Decisions

114

Nature of the RAM tool and its links with Article 3.2
5.
The RAM is an operational and advisory mechanism. It is not a compliance mechanism or inany sense a “negative” or disciplinary procedure. On the contrary, the RAM offers significant
opportunities to find sustainable solutions to the problems that cause change in the ecologicalcharacter of a Ramsar Site.
6.
In Resolution XIII.10 on Status of Sites in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International
Importance, Contracting Parties are requested to submit information to the Secretariat in responseto reports of change or likely change in ecological character, and submit as appropriate information
to the Standing Committee on the steps taken or to be taken to address such changes. Contracting
Parties should also provide such an “Article 3.2 report” if they do not intend to request a RAM.
However, their efforts to respond to threats to the ecological character of a Ramsar Site may wellinclude the application of the RAM tool where this is considered useful, feasible and effective.
Links with the Montreux Record
7.
According to the Annex to Resolution VI.1 on Working definitions of ecological character,guidelines for describing and maintaining the ecological character of listed Sites, and guidelines for
operation of the Montreux Record, “The Montreux Record is the principal tool of the Convention forhighlighting those Ramsar Sites where an adverse change in ecological character has occurred, isoccurring, or is likely to occur, and which are therefore in need of priority conservation attention. It
shall be maintained as part of the Ramsar Database and shall be subject to continuous review.”
8.
A Site can only be included in the Montreux Record with the approval of the Contracting
Party concerned. To do so, the Party must submit relevant information to the Secretariat, according
to the format provided in Annex 1 of Resolution XIII.10. This gives the Site increased international
visibility and signals firstly that the Party accepts that the ecological character of a Site is changing or
likely to change, and secondly that the situation needs to be addressed through involvement ofinternational expertise to find a sustainable solution for the issues highlighted in the Party’s Article
3.2 report.
9.
Listing the Ramsar Site in the Montreux Record is not a precondition for requesting a RAM.
However, when a RAM covers a Site that is listed in the Record, the Mission report must spell out
the conditions or recommended actions required to remove the Site from the Record. A wetland
may be removed from the Record following a request of the Contracting Party using the format
provided in Annex 1 of Resolution XIII.10, and after consideration of advice and/or comment fromthe Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). The final decision will be made by the Contracting
Party.
Initiating a RAM and approving its terms of reference
10.
The Ramsar Administrative Authority (AA) of the Contracting Party concerned initiates theprocess by sending a letter requesting a RAM to the Secretariat, which works with the AA todetermine the terms of reference (TORs) and the expertise needed for the mission. Without anofficial request and the approval by the AA of its TORs, a RAM cannot take place.
Application in a transboundary context
11.
The RAM procedure can be applied to a wetland ecosystem shared between two or more
Contracting Parties, which may consist of several Ramsar Sites in neighbouring countries that

SC57 Report and Decisions

115

together form a Transboundary Ramsar Site. In this case, the Secretariat interacts with the AAs of all
the Contracting Parties concerned and seeks their common approval for the TORs and other aspectsof the RAM.
Role of the Secretariat
12.
The Secretariat plays a critical role prior to, during and after the RAM. Its functions include
initial consultations with the Contracting Party and regular interaction with its AA on all aspects ofthe mission; compiling background information; preparing the TORs; and coordinating the Mission.
The Secretariat also hires independent consultant experts needed for the Mission, as agreed with
the AA; participates in the Mission; contributes to and coordinates the preparation and submissionof the report to the AA for approval; publishes the approved report on the Convention’s website(Resolution XIII.11 paragraph 14); and liaises with the Contracting Party during the implementation
phase and when following up to collect information on progress in implementing therecommendations formulated in the Mission report.
13.
The Secretariat reviews and reports progress to the Standing Committee on theconservation status of Sites to which its attention has been drawn through a Ramsar Advisory
Mission, and maintains a register of activities undertaken in this regard (Recommendation 4.7).
Role of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel
14.
Paragraph 12 v) of Annex 1 of Resolution XII.5 on Proposed new framework for delivery ofscientific and technical advice and guidance on the Convention cites among the main collective
responsibilities of the STRP to assist the Secretariat with scientific and technical issues upon request
and on Ramsar Advisory Missions, as appropriate and subject to the availability of resources.
15.
The STRP through its work plan for 2016-2018 conducted a comprehensive review andanalysis of RAM reports, and with the Secretariat produced Briefing Note No.8 Ramsar Advisory
Missions: Technical advice on Ramsar Sites to help Ramsar Site managers understand the use of theRAM process and to highlight selected case studies, and Policy Brief No.3 Ramsar Advisory Missions A mechanism to respond to change in ecological character of Ramsar Sites to help policy makers
within AAs understand the RAM concept, the values of RAMs, and lessons learned on their effective
application. Both usefully complement the present Operational Guidance. They are available at:https://www.ramsar.org/resources/publications. The STRP is also a source of scientific and technicalexpertise that may be useful in the context of developing and implementing a RAM.
Role of International Organization Partners and other stakeholders
16.
With the agreement of the concerned Contracting Party, stakeholders includingInternational Organization Partners (IOPs), and national or local NGOs which have expressed aninterest in issues to be addressed by a RAM, may have an opportunity to meet the Mission team andpresent their views. It is the prerogative of the AA to organize meetings and consultations withstakeholders, and lead press conferences and interactions with media.
17.
Experts from IOPs, other international organizations or UN agencies may be considered as
appropriate on issues to be addressed by the RAM.
18.
In the past, IOPs have provided substantial support to specific RAMs, including financial
support, which has been highly appreciated. Financial support is welcome, as long as it is not

SC57 Report and Decisions

116

conditional and does not limit in any way the independence of the Mission team and the preparationof its advice.
Joint Missions with mechanisms of other international agreements
19.
Where a Ramsar Site is also designated under another multilateral environmental
agreement (MEA) such as the World Heritage Convention or the Convention on Migratory Species
and its Agreements, or another international agreement (e.g. the European Union’s Natura 2000
network, the Council of Europe’s Emerald Network) the Secretariat will seek to organize a joint
Mission, particularly in situations where the other agreements have established similar procedures,such as the Reactive Monitoring Missions of the World Heritage Convention, or the On-the-Spot
Appraisal of the Bern Convention. Undertaking joint Missions based on common TORs, andproducing a common report, is cost-effective and ensures coordinated advice to the Contracting
Party concerned.
B.

Preparing a RAM

20.
Once the context has been clarified, and the Secretariat has received a written request fromthe AA to organize a RAM, it prepares the full RAM operational cycle, taking the following points into
account.
Pre-RAM investigations and advice
21.
The Secretariat compiles the background information needed to analyse and address single
or multiple issues related to actual or potential change in the ecological character of the Ramsar Site
to make relevant recommendations as part the RAM report. The AA and National Focal Points may
provide the relevant information on the Site. STRP members and other experts may also be invited
to provide relevant information as appropriate.
Developing terms of reference
22.
The Secretariat prepares TORs for the RAM to guide the Mission and to enable theassessment of progress during the Mission and its follow-up phase. The TORs need to be agreed
between the Secretariat and the AA prior to the RAM and the possible hiring of Mission experts. The
agreed TORs are published as part of the Mission report.
23.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RAM TORs should cover the following aspects:
An introduction, summarizing the RAM mechanism;
The objective and scope of the Mission, including the list of the issues to be addressed;
A description of the local situation that triggered the RAM;
Basic information about the Ramsar Site concerned;
The composition of the RAM team;The planned timetable and schedule of the RAM and its meetings (on-site, field visits),
including the list of the stakeholders to be met ; andAn outline of the Mission follow-up, including the process of finalizing the Mission report
and the implementation of its recommendations.

SC57 Report and Decisions

117

Scope of the RAM
24.
The scope of the RAM, including the objectives and the list of the concrete issues to beaddressed by the RAM team during the Mission and in its subsequent report, needs to be agreed
beforehand between the Secretariat and the AA. The list of issues will be included in the TORs andthe Mission report. The scope of the RAM also makes reference to the need to implement theConvention at all levels, as outlined in its Strategic Plan.
Coordination and composition of the Mission team
25.
The Ramsar Secretariat leads and coordinates the RAM. The Secretariat ensures complete
neutrality and transparency of all experts participating in the Mission, in accordance with its
competencies and mandates, and guarantees that rules, decisions and Resolutions adopted by theConvention are applied. The Secretariat is independent from the AA or any other stakeholder
position.
26.
The Mission team includes, besides a coordinator designated by the Secretariat, one or more
additional experts as needed to address the issues to be covered. The Secretariat will liaise with the
STRP, Intergovernmental and International Organizations, and the scientific bodies and networks of
MEAs to identify technically qualified and independent experts. The AA also appoints national
experts to be part of the Mission.
27.
The expert(s) need to be qualified to assess the issues listed in the TORs. They have todevelop recommendations based on their own assessment, independent of possible positions of the
AA or any other stakeholder, as an important function of the RAM is to provide a neutral, external
and independent perspective.
28.
The experts hired by the Secretariat must be fluent in writing and speaking the official
languages of the Convention used in the country where the RAM is taking place.
29.
Expert members of the Mission team, other than the Secretariat and AA representatives, arehired by the Secretariat through a process that ensures their technical expertise and independence.
COP13 through Resolution XIII.11 paragraph 16 instructed the Secretariat to ensure that regional
expertise is included in RAM teams in order to leverage the knowledge and experience of nationaland regional experts, including from IOPs, research and educational institutions, and civil society
where relevant.
Timeframe considerations
30.
Once the preparation for a RAM has started, the dates and timing of the Mission are set with
the AA. In order to contain costs, the average duration of the on-site Mission is approximately six
days including international travel.
31.
After the Mission, the draft report is prepared and coordinated by the Secretariat with theexperts, normally within three months.
32.
A draft of the report will be submitted by the Secretariat to the AA for comment andapproval. This may require further exchanges between the Secretariat and the AA. However, thereport should be approved within three months of its submission. After its approval by the AA, theMission report will be published by the Secretariat on the Convention website (Resolution XIII.11
paragraph 14).

SC57 Report and Decisions

118

Resourcing the RAM
33.
The cost of a RAM usually includes transport, accommodation and subsistence of theMission team and the fees of the consultant experts hired. As indicated in Resolution XIII.11, there
has since COP7 in 1999 been no allocation from the core budget to support implementation of theRAM process. If a Contracting Party is unable to cover the costs of a RAM itself it will fall within thepriorities of the non-core budget of the Convention for the triennium, as agreed by the COP (Annex
3 of Resolution XIII.2 Financial and budgetary matters) or the Standing Committee. The Secretariat
aims to raise necessary funds from specific donors with the help of the AA.
C.

Implementing and following up a RAM

34.
The points listed above allow a structured and straightforward planning for a RAM and its
implementation. During and after the RAM, the following issues need to be considered
Structure and contents of RAM reports
35.
RAM reports are structured according to a common concept, as outlined below. When joint
Missions with other Conventions or institutions result in a common report, it may be necessary toadapt the structure slightly. However, it is important that Mission reports contain all the elements
listed.
36.
As a general rule, RAM reports should be as short as possible (and as long as necessary) withan average length of 12 pages (ranging from two to 46 pages). RAM reports are written in one of theConvention’s official languages and should contain a concise executive summary. The AA is
encouraged to translate the executive summary into its national language, where this is different.
37.

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

RAM reports should be structured as follows:
An executive summary, providing a brief overview of the objectives of the Mission, issues
addressed and the ecological character of the Ramsar Site concerned, date and duration of
the RAM, composition of the Mission team, principal conclusions and recommendations of
the RAM, and a statement how they should be followed up;
An introduction to the Convention and the Mission, with a brief summary of the official
request by the AA and the threats to the ecological character of a Ramsar Site, objectives,
programme and composition of the Mission.
A brief description of the wetland site, including a location and site map; baseline (former
and current ecological character) with technical descriptions of direct relevance to thespecific issues being addressed by the RAM (e.g Ramsar Information Sheet).
A description of the current situation of the site as assessed by the RAM team, focusing on
findings on changes in the ecological character and conclusions that apply to the core
issues of the Mission;
A list of recommendations and conclusions;
A bibliography; andAnnexes covering:
the terms of reference for the RAM;the composition of the RAM team;the programme of the on-site Mission; andthe list of stakeholders consulted and other contributors.

SC57 Report and Decisions

119

38.
The members of the Mission team draw up the RAM report and its recommendations, basedon their independent assessment of the situation and the issues at stake. Advice provided by the
RAM team will support well-informed processes to prepare the best possible decisions by the AA or
by any other part of the government of the Contracting Party concerned.
39.
Recommendations listed in the RAM report should be linked to the findings and conclusions of
the Mission team, and these in turn should be linked to the issues listed in the terms of reference for
the Mission. Related recommendations may be grouped under corresponding sub-headings. Each
recommendation should clearly identify the action to be taken; it may be helpful to distinguishbetween short-term, medium-term and long-term actions to be undertaken.
The process for following up a RAM report
40.
COP13 urged diligent follow-up by Contracting Parties hosting RAMs, to foster
implementation of the recommendations made in the RAM report and to evaluate and report on theoutcomes (Resolution XIII.11 paragraph 13). The report is not an end in itself, but should be a step ina longer-term process. For example, the recommendations, if implemented, could facilitate a Site´sremoval from the Montreux Record or the submission of an updated Ramsar Information Sheet for
the Site concerned. It is ultimately the responsibility of the Contracting Party to follow up and decide
whether and how to implement recommendations addressed to it. An effective response to RAM
reports depends on engendering national-level ownership of that response and engaging
stakeholders. One means of achieving this might be for the Contracting Party involved to follow up
with a national workshop or process that might still have participation from international Ramsar
experts, to translate RAM recommendations into an action plan within the country.
41.
As part of the regular reporting process to Standing Committee and the COP on the status ofRamsar Sites, after the RAM the Secretariat asks the Party concerned to provide a short update on
progress in implementing the recommendations. Through this process, Ramsar Sites subject to a
RAM will remain in the list of Sites with an “open Article 3.2 file” until the AA reports to theSecretariat that the Mission Recommendations have been satisfactorily implemented, or for Sites
that are on the Montreux Record that the process to remove the Ramsar Site from the Record(according to Annex 1 of Resolution XIII.10) was successfully completed.
Reporting on the activities of the RAM including a review of outcomes
42.
The Secretariat reports regularly to the Standing Committee and the COP on the status ofRamsar Sites in accordance with Article 8.2 of the Convention, Recommendation 4.7 and Standing
Committee Decision SC35-28. The reports include the status of Article 3.2 cases, and an update on
RAMs and Sites in the Montreux Record.
43.
The Secretariat and AA may opt to publish news articles before, during, or after the RAM as
they deem appropriate, noting that any such articles published by the Secretariat would be donewith the agreement of the AA, and the main outcomes included in the Ramsar Newsletter.
44.
The Secretariat then follows up with the AA on the recommendations of the RAM and willreport accordingly to the Standing Committee and the COP on the status of the site.

SC57 Report and Decisions

120