COP5: DOC C.5.16, Review of National Reports and of Implementation of the Convention

5th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties
Kushiro, Japan
9-16 June 1993

REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION SINCE THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE IN MONTREUX, SWITZERLAND IN JUNE/JULY 1990

1. Article 6.2 of the Ramsar Convention states that the Conference of the Contracting Parties shall be competent:

2. The purpose of the present document is to provide basic information enabling participants in the Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to carry out these requirements. It follows the lines of papers presented to the previous four meetings:

3. In order to reflect the views of the Contracting Parties in the present document, and to promote discussion and exchange of views, each Contracting Party is requested to submit a written report to the Ramsar Bureau before an ordinary meeting of the Conference. This practice has now become well established, and indeed is included among the commitments of Contracting Parties in the "Framework for the implementation of the Ramsar Convention" adopted at Montreux (Proceedings, Vol. I, pages 255-262: "Commitments by Contracting Parties: VIII To produce national reports for Conferences of the Parties").

4. National reports are published in full in the Proceedings of each meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, in the Conference working language in which they were submitted. They provide by far the most detailed and authoritative body of information on the Convention and its operation within individual Contracting Parties, as well as providing a framework for discussion at the meeting. This was recognised in the first Recommendation adopted at the 1984 Groningen meeting (Recommendation 2.1) which noted that "submission of timely and detailed national reports is of vital importance for the purpose of monitoring implementation of the Convention and for the purpose of sharing information on wetland conservation", and recommended that "all parties should submit detailed national reports to the Bureau at least six months prior to each ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties".

5. The same Groningen Recommendation called on the Bureau to draft a questionnaire for national reports, so as to simplify and standardize reporting procedures. A questionnaire of this kind was drawn up in consultation with the Standing Committee and, with minor modifications to reflect the particular preoccupations of each meeting of the Conference, has been used since then. The questionnaire produced for the present meeting lays special stress on the four principal obligations recognised in the Montreux Framework document (Listed Sites; Wise Use; Establishment of Wetland Nature Reserves; and International Cooperation), all of which are to be addressed at workshops at Kushiro. Since there will not be time to present and discuss each national report at Kushiro, it is intended that the present document C. 5.16 should be used to summarize information for discussion in plenary session under Agenda Item X "Review of Implementation of the Convention" and at the workshops.

6. The questionnaire was sent (under the title "Outline for national reports") to all Contracting Parties, under cover of Bureau Notification 1992/10 dated 28 April 1992, and is appended as Annex I to the present document. Contracting Parties were requested to submit their national reports to the Bureau six months before the opening of the meeting, i.e. by 9 December 1992. By that date, seven Contracting Parties had submitted a national report to the Bureau; at the time of compilation of this review (April 1993), 38 national reports had been received from the following Contracting Parties: Algeria; Austria; Belgium; Bolivia; Bulgaria; Canada; Chad; Chile; Costa Rica; Czech Republic; Denmark; France; Gabon; Germany; Guatemala; Hungary; Iceland; Italy; Japan; Jordan (partial); Morocco; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Pakistan; Peru; Poland; Romania (provisional); Russian Federation; Slovak Republic; South Africa; Suriname; Sweden; Switzerland (provisional); Tunisia; United Kingdom; United States and Venezuela. In addition a report had been received from Ukraine which was not a Contracting Party at the time of submission. The Bureau has compiled the present document on the basis of these national reports, and has used other information previously submitted by the other Contracting Parties as appropriate.

7. As far as possible, the Bureau will incorporate data from any additional reports received between April and June into a revised version of this document and into the version to be published in the Kushiro Proceedings. However, the Bureau takes this opportunity of reminding Contracting Parties of the need to comply with submission dates for national reports, so that reviews like the present document may give a full and authoritative picture of the implementation of the Convention.

8. In general, the reports submitted follow the format of the Outline very closely, though some Contracting Parties (e.g. Canada, Italy) have presented their information in more narrative fashion. The degree of detail provided, as in previous years, varies considerably from one report to another. Some Contracting Parties (e.g. Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom) have provided very detailed reports, sometimes based on wide consultations carried out through national Ramsar Committees; the Danish report indeed has been produced in the form of a coloured booklet, including detailed maps and tables, which acts as an attractive vehicle for promotion of the Convention; a special edition of the Netherlands report is to be prepared for Kushiro. Other Contracting Parties (e.g. Algeria, Canada, New Zealand) have provided briefer documents which highlight the main features of their implementation of the Convention in the last three years.

9. The format of the present Review follows the headings of the "Outline for national reports".

10. INTRODUCTION: Section 1.1 of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to indicate the "Date when the country concerned became a Contracting Party to the Convention". The present section draws on information in the national reports and on other documents submitted to the Bureau, in particular by the Depositary, UNESCO.

11. As of April 1993, 76 States have deposited with UNESCO instruments of signature without reservation as to ratification, of ratification, of accession or of acceptance. These are presented in Kushiro document INF. C.5.2. This figure compares with 60 on 4 July 1990 (at the end of the Montreux meeting), for 54 of which the Convention, taking account of the four-month waiting period stipulated in Article 10.2, was actually in force. Since Montreux the Convention has come into force for the following 25 States: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Chad, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guinea, Indonesia, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Niger, Panama, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Trinidad & Tobago, and Zambia. It will come into force for Papua New Guinea when the four-month waiting period is completed. Three former States which were Contracting Parties at the time of Montreux - the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (CSFR), the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the former Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR) -are no longer Parties. Thus, to the 54 parties at the time of Montreux, 25 have to be added and three subtracted, giving the present figure of 76.

12. Document INF. C.5.2 also gives the date when the Convention came into force for each Contracting Party. Some States (e.g. Panama and Peru) have deposited with UNESCO an instrument of ratification of, or accession to, the Convention and Paris Protocol, rather than an instrument of accession to the Convention as amended by the Paris Protocol. UNESCO has advised the Bureau that this procedure enables States to become Contracting Parties with immediate effect, without the waiting period of four months.

13. A number of Contracting Parties indicate in their national reports the date on which their national legislative body approved accession to the Convention. Thus the Algerian report points out that Algeria approved accession to the Convention on 11 December 1982, but that it came into force for Algeria, after deposit of an instrument with UNESCO, on 4 March 1984. Similarly, Decree No. 448 was signed by the President of the Republic of Italy on 13 March 1976 and published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale on 3 July 1976, but Italy became a Contracting Party on 14 April 1977, after deposit of an instrument with UNESCO. These examples illustrate the importance of depositing an instrument with UNESCO as soon as possible, and the delay which occurs if the instrument is not formally deposited.

14. The constitutional changes affecting the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, Germany, the former USSR and Yugoslavia since Montreux have of course affected their status under Ramsar. Details of the situation of these States and former States vis-a-vis the Convention are given in paragraphs 15-18 below.

15. FORMER CSFR: The former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic became a Contracting Party to Ramsar on 2 July 1990, by deposit with UNESCO of an instrument of acceptance of the Convention and Paris Protocol. On 1 January 1993, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic became separate States. UNESCO has informed the Ramsar Bureau that each has submitted a declaration of succession to the CSFR, so that each State is now a Contracting Party. The territories and wetlands over which the jurisdiction of the CSFR formerly extended are thus still covered by the Convention.

16. GERMANY: As noted in the German national report, both the former German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany were Contracting Parties at the time of Montreux; with the unification of Germany under the name of the Federal Republic of Germany since Montreux, the number of Contracting Parties decreased by one. The territories and wetlands over which the jurisdiction of the GDR formerly extended are of course still covered by the Convention.

17. FORMER USSR: At the time of the Montreux meeting, the former USSR was a Contracting Party to Ramsar. Since then, the Russian Federation has formally indicated to UNESCO that it continues to exercise the rights and obligations of the former USSR under the Ramsar Convention. Indeed, the report of the Russian Federation specifically states that the "Russian Federation continues to exercise the rights and carry out the obligations resulting from the Ramsar Convention signed by the USSR in 1974 and ratified by the decree of the Supreme Soviet on 26 December 1975". That part of the territory of the former USSR which is included in the territory of the Russian Federation therefore continues to be covered by the Ramsar Convention. Some other constituent republics of the former USSR (e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine) have informed the Bureau that they intend to become Contracting Parties to the Convention. Those republics of the former USSR which are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan - approved the Alma-Ata Declaration of 21 December 1991 by which they undertook to uphold obligations contracted by the former USSR through enumerated international agreements. Among these members of the CIS, the Russian Federation has already confirmed it continues to exercise the rights and obligations of the former USSR; Tajikistan has deposited a declaration of succession with UNESCO, but has not yet designated a wetland for the List, so is not yet a Contracting Party. While it is therefore likely that the constituent republics of the former USSR will become Contracting Parties to Ramsar, the position as of April 1993 is that only the Russian Federation continues to exercise the rights and obligations of the former USSR.

18. YUGOSLAVIA: Yugoslavia became a Contracting Party to the Convention in 1977 and designated two wetlands in Vojvodina, in the present territory of Yugoslavia, for the List. Both Croatia and Slovenia, formerly constituent republics of Yugoslavia, have deposited an instrument of succession to Yugoslavia, and have designated wetlands for the List. They are therefore Contracting Parties to the Convention. UNESCO has advised that the date when their declarations of succession came into force is the date of independence.

19. REVIEW BY REGIONS: The increase in the number of Contracting Parties since Montreux, from 53 to 75 (i.e. an increase of over 40%), is an indication of the sharply increasing interest in the Convention. This increase has occurred in the following regions: six new parties in Africa, six in Eastern Europe (where the accession of "new" Contracting Parties is often due to changes in constitutional status), four in Asia (plus Papua New Guinea which will formally become a party in July 1993), eight in the Neotropics and one in Western Europe. It should be added that, according to information provided to the Bureau, it is likely that several more States will become Contracting Parties in the period before the Kushiro Conference. In particular it should be mentioned that Brazil has deposited an instrument of accession with UNESCO, and needs only to name a wetland for the List in order to become a Contracting Party. Paraguay has signed the Convention and named a site for the List, and now only needs to deposit an instrument of ratification. Furthermore, Tajikistan has deposited a declaration of succession to the former USSR with UNESCO, and needs only to name a site in order to become a Contracting Party. In paragraphs 20 to 39 an overview of the coverage of the Convention by Ramsar regions is presented. (It is perhaps worth recalling that the Regina meeting approved three recommendations welcoming the participation of delegates and observers from Asia (Recommendation 3.10), Africa (Recommendation 3.6) and the Neotropics (Recommendation 3.7). These three recommendations may have contributed to the increase in Contracting Parties from these regions, and the Kushiro meeting may wish to adopt similar recommendations, perhaps even with references to specific States).

20. AFRICA: In Africa there are currently 18 Contracting Parties: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia. (The Convention has come into force since the Montreux meeting for: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Kenya, Niger and Zambia). The African Regional Representative on the Standing Committee since 1987 has been Tunisia, with Kenya as Alternate Representative since 1990.

21. The Bureau understands that several other African countries are likely to become Contracting Parties in the near future, in particular Congo and Tanzania (which have received grants from the Ramsar Wetland Conservation Fund in order to assist them in completing the formalities of accession), and C�te d’Ivoire and Namibia, where the two Ministerial Councils have approved the principle of accession.

22. In the period since the Montreux meeting the Bureau has participated in a number of regional meetings in Africa in order to consult with Contracting Parties and to promote the Convention; among these, the following should be mentioned:

A sub-regional meeting for North and West Africa (the sub-region with most Contracting Parties) was organized in Senegal in late March 1993, with financial support provided from the Wetland Conservation Fund at the request of Tunisia. This meeting was attended by representatives of Burkina Faso, Chad, Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal and Tunisia, and apologies were received from Algeria, Benin, Cameroon, C�te d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Morocco, Niger and Zaire. The participation of Mediterranean African parties (Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia) in the Mediterranean wetland meeting organized jointly by the Ramsar and Berne Conventions and the Government of Portugal at Ria Formosa in November 1992 should also be mentioned. It is also intended that the MedWet initiative (see paragraph 39) should pay great attention to the African states of the Mediterranean. Promotion of the Convention has been greatly helped by these regional meetings and by support from IUCN’s Regional Offices in Africa, notably those in Dakar (Senegal), Nairobi (Kenya) and Harare (Zimbabwe).

23. ASIA: There are currently 11 Contracting Parties in Asia: Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam, while Papua New Guinea will become a party as soon as the four-month waiting period is completed. In addition, much of the territory of the Russian Federation is in Asia, and Hong Kong is covered by United Kingdom’s membership. (Of Asian States, Bangladesh, China and Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka have completed the formalities for accession since Montreux). The Asian Regional Representative on the Standing Committee since 1987 has been Pakistan (Chairman of the Committee from 1987 to 1990), with Iran as Alternate Representative since 1990; in addition, Japan, as host of the Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, has been a member of the committee since 1990.

24. It is understood that several more Asian States are poised to join, given the emphasis placed on Asian matters by the holding, for the first time, of a meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Asia, and the support for promotion of the Convention provided by the Japanese authorities. Among States which have indicated that they are likely to join soon are Malaysia, Philippines, Tajikistan and Turkey. The former USSR designated wetlands in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan for the List of Wetlands of International Importance in 1976, so the accession of these four states would be of particular importance.

25. Much attention has also been devoted to regional meetings in Asia in the period since Montreux. With the support of Pakistan’s federal and provincial authorities, a first Ramsar Asian regional meeting was held in December 1991 in Karachi, in conjunction with the regional wetland meeting for southwest Asia organized by Pakistan’s National Council for Conservation of Wildlife, the Asian Wetland Bureau (AWB) and the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau (IWRB); a second regional meeting was held in Islamabad, Pakistan, in May 1992 (with financial support from the Ramsar Wetland Conservation Fund), and a third in Otsu, Japan, in October 1992, in conjunction with the eleventh meeting of the Ramsar Standing Committee, held in Kushiro. Among those taking part in these regional meetings were participants from: Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Viet Nam and Yemen. Participation in these regional meetings and the secondment of a Technical Officer from the City of Kushiro in Japan to Bureau Headquarters to deal with Ramsar matters in Asia are undoubtedly among the reasons for this increase in the number of Contracting Parties in the region. Other major contributory factors are the support received from the AWB and the IUCN Regional Office in Bangkok, Thailand.

26. The Standing Committee in October 1992 approved a grant from the Wetland Conservation Fund towards a regional meeting for southeast Asia, organized along the lines of the December 1991 Karachi meeting, to be held in Indonesia after the Kushiro meeting. The Standing Committee also approved a contribution towards a training course in Papua New Guinea.

27. EASTERN EUROPE: The Standing Committee includes regional representatives of both Eastern and Western Europe. The Montreux Conference suggested that Contracting Parties and the Standing Committee should investigate whether two separate regions should be maintained. A joint meeting of the Eastern and Western European Regions, convened by the Netherlands and Poland and held in Lelystad, Netherlands, in September-October 1992 (see paragraph 39) recommended that for the moment the two regions should be maintained.

28. The following ten States of Eastern Europe are at present Contracting Parties to the Convention: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Yugoslavia. Of these, the Convention has come into force since the Montreux meeting for: Croatia, Czech Republic, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic and Slovenia. The Regional Representative since 1987 has been Poland, with Hungary as Alternate Representative since 1990.

29. The Bureau understands that Albania has decided in principle to join the Convention and that several republics of the former USSR are likely to join the Convention in the near future, notably Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine. Ukraine, although not formally a Contracting Party, has indeed forwarded a national report to the Ramsar Bureau; this "confirms the Government of the Ukraine’s response to Ramsar" and states that an instrument of confirmation will soon be deposited with UNESCO. The former USSR designated wetlands in Estonia and Ukraine for the List of Wetlands of International Importance in 1976, so the accession of these States would be of particular importance. Furthermore, Turkey, whose territory covers parts of Asia and Europe, has also indicated that it is likely to become a Contracting Party in the near future.

30. The Bureau is to be represented at the "Environment for Europe" conference in Luzern, Switzerland from 28-30 April 1993, to which environment ministers from all European states are invited. This conference will investigate possibilities of cooperation between Eastern and Western Europe, and will pay special attention to the application of existing conventions, in particular Ramsar. The Bureau has already investigated ways of promoting such cooperation, notably through encouraging bilateral initiatives between parties in Eastern and Western Europe. The French authorities have given particular support to these initiatives, and the cooperation developed between Bulgaria and France (to be reviewed in a presentation to Workshop D on 12 June) is an excellent example of this type of activity; the Bureau is already involved in promoting this type of approach with Poland and Romania, and hopes to promote it in other states too.

31. NEOTROPICAL REGION: The Ramsar Neotropical region covers the Caribbean, Central America and South America. There are currently twelve Contracting Parties: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela. In addition, territories under the jurisdiction of France, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States are located in the region; both Netherlands and United Kingdom have designated wetlands in the Caribbean for the Ramsar List. The Convention has come into force for eight of these twelve Contracting Parties since the Montreux meeting: Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru and Trinidad & Tobago - the latter being the first Caribbean Contracting Party. The Regional Representative is Venezuela and the Alternate Representative is Uruguay, both since 1990.

32. Several other States of the region have indicated their intention of becoming Contracting Parties in the near future, in particular Brazil (which has already deposited an instrument of accession with UNESCO and only needs to name a wetland for the Ramsar List) and Paraguay (which has signed the Convention subject to ratification and deposited details of its designated wetland with UNESCO, and now only needs to deposit an instrument of ratification). The greatest potential for other new Contracting Parties clearly lies in the Caribbean where the regional Ramsar meeting, to be held at Cayenne in French Guyana in early May 1993 with financial support from France, Netherlands and United Kingdom, and in collaboration with a UNEP regional meeting, should prove a powerful stimulus. Delegates from Honduras and Jamaica at the Cayenne meeting indicated that the procedure for accession was well advanced in both countries.

33. As in other regions, regional Ramsar meetings have been a feature of the last triennium in the Neotropics. A meeting of Ramsar Administrative Authorities was held in Venezuela in August 1992, with participants from: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela; apologies were received from Brazil. In January 1993 a technical meeting for managers of Ramsar sites in the Neotropics was held in Bolivia, with the participation of experts from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela; apologies were received from Panama. In addition to these Ramsar meetings, Bureau staff have taken part in a regional IUCN meeting held in Santa Marta, Colombia in September 1991 and in the World Parks Congress in Venezuela in February 1992. The sharp increase in Ramsar membership in the Neotropical region may be attributed to a number of factors: the organization of regional meetings; the recruitment of a Technical Officer at Bureau Headquarters with special responsibility for the Neotropics; the greatly increased use of Spanish in the Bureau; and the support provided by the regional offices of partner organizations, in particular the IUCN Regional Office for Central America in Costa Rica, and the "Wetlands for the Americas" office in Argentina.

34. NORTH AMERICA: All three states of the North American Ramsar region (Canada, Mexico and United States) had already become Contracting Parties to the Convention before the Montreux meeting. USA has been the North American representative and the Chairman of the Standing Committee since 1990, with Canada (Vice Chairman from 1987-1990) as Alternate Representative.

35. OCEANIA: There are at present two Contracting Parties in the Ramsar region of Oceania, Australia and New Zealand, both of which were already parties at the time of the Montreux meeting. Australia has been Regional Representative on the Standing Committee since 1990, with New Zealand as Alternate Representative.

36. Although there have been no new Contracting Parties in this region in the last triennium, Papua New Guinea (included in the Asian region) will become a Contracting Party when the four-month waiting period is complete, and work has progressed on the Directory of Ocean Wetlands, to be published in 1993. In the course of this work, the opportunity has been taken to promote the Convention, and it is likely that there will be a number of new Contracting Parties in the region as a result. Another factor which should contribute to the accession of other States of the region is the plan to hold a training workshop in the second half of 1993 for wetland managers of southeast Asia and the Pacific in Papua New Guinea, with a financial contribution from the Wetland Conservation Fund approved by the Ramsar Standing Committee at its meeting in Kushiro in October 1992.

37. WESTERN EUROPE: As noted in paragraph 27, there are two Ramsar regions in Europe, and for the moment it is proposed by the European Contracting Parties to maintain them. The Western European region currently includes the following 19 Contracting Parties: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. The only one to have become a Contracting Party since Montreux is Liechtenstein. The Netherlands has been Regional Representative since 1987, and Spain has been Alternate Representative since 1990. In addition, Switzerland, as host of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, has been a member of the committee since 1987.

38. Most countries of Western Europe are already Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention. Of the few that are not, Luxembourg has indicated its intention of joining and indeed already makes a regular financial contribution to the Convention’s budget.

39. In order to improve coordination within the region, a number of regional meetings have been held in the last triennium. Among these, special mention should be made of the joint meeting of the Ramsar regions of Eastern and Western Europe, held in Lelystad (Netherlands) in September-October 1992, at the invitation of the two regional representatives on the Standing Committee, Poland and the Netherlands, and with generous financial support from the Netherlands. Participants came from: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom. Reference should also be made to the Mediterranean wetland meeting, held in Ria Formosa (Portugal) in November 1992 in cooperation with the Portuguese Government and the Berne Convention. In addition to the African participants mentioned in paragraph 22, participants from the following European States took part: Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Turkey. The MedWet initiative (to be presented in Workshop D on 12 June) was established in 1992 with the support of the Bureau and financial input from the Commission of the European Communities, and aims to promote conservation of Mediterranean wetlands.

40. Section 1.2 (a) of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to indicate the date when the State concerned accepted the Paris Protocol. The present section draws on information in the national reports and on other documents submitted to the Bureau, in particular by the Depositary, UNESCO. Details of the dates on which the Paris Protocol entered into force for each Contracting Party are included in Annex II.

41. The Paris Protocol was approved at an Extraordinary Conference of the Contracting Parties, held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris in December 1982. The Protocol confirms that all language versions of the Convention are of equal value, and establishes a process for amending the Convention, previously lacking. The Protocol stipulates that the amendments shall come into force when accepted by two-thirds of the Contracting Parties. At the time of the approval of the Paris Protocol there were 31 Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Protocol therefore came into force four months after its acceptance by the 21st of these 31 Contracting Parties, on 1 October 1986. Its entry into force allowed the holding of a second Extraordinary Conference in Regina, Canada in 1987, which adopted the Regina amendments.

42. Since 1 October 1986, new Contracting Parties automatically accept the Paris Protocol (either by acceding to the Convention as amended by the Paris Protocol, or by acceding to the Convention and Paris Protocol under the process mentioned in paragraph 12) unless they specifically state that they do not wish to do so. None have made such a statement, and it is difficult to see why they should wish to do so. In addition to Panama and Peru (which have become Contracting Parties to the Convention by depositing an instrument of accession to the Convention and Paris Protocol), Austria and the Russian Federation have, since the Montreux meeting, deposited an instrument of acceptance of the Paris Protocol. The Paris Protocol is therefore in force for nearly all of the 75 Contracting Parties, the exceptions being Algeria, Belgium, Croatia, Slovenia, Suriname, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. Since Croatia and Slovenia have each become Contracting Parties by making a declaration of succession to Yugoslavia, and since Yugoslavia has not accepted the Paris Protocol, Croatia and Slovenia are not covered by the Paris Protocol. The Belgian national report notes that the draft bill for approving the Paris Protocol was approved by the Council of Ministers on 20 November 1992, and has been forwarded to parliament; it adds that Belgium in any case already applies the amendments. The Suriname national report indicates that the process for acceptance of the Paris Protocol has already begun, and that formalization must follow.

43. INTRODUCTION: Section 1.2 (b) of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to indicate the date when the country concerned accepted the Regina amendments. The present section draws on information in the national reports and on other documents submitted to the Bureau, in particular by the Depositary, UNESCO. Details of the date of acceptance of the Regina amendments by individual Contracting Parties are included in document INF. C.5.2.

44. The Regina amendments are not yet in force. They will come into force when accepted by two-thirds (i.e. 21) of the 31 Contracting Parties which had accepted the Paris Protocol at the time of the Regina Conference. At present 16 of the required 21 have done so. In addition, another 8 Contracting Parties which had not accepted the Paris Protocol at the time of the Regina Conference have accepted the Regina Amendments, although this does not help to bring them into force.

45. PROVISIONS OF THE REGINA AMENDMENTS: Following the entry into force of the Paris Protocol in 1986, the way was open for the adoption of amendments to the machinery of the Convention, as suggested at the first meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Cagliari in 1980 (Recommendation 1.8). The Extraordinary Conference held in Regina in 1987, in parallel with the fourth Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties, adopted amendments to Articles 6 and 7; these amendments deal essentially with the powers of the Conference, the establishment of a financial mechanism, and with voting arrangements. Neither the Paris Protocol nor the Regina amendments affect the basic wetland provisions of the Convention. The drafters of the Regina amendments worked with the conviction that the Regina amendments would suffice to ensure efficient functioning of the Convention in future; necessary decisions could henceforth be taken by the Conference of the Contracting Parties (or by the Standing Committee between meetings of the Conference) and further amendments to the text would be unnecessary, unless major changes were to be made to the mechanisms or to the substantive provisions of the Convention.

46. PROGRESS TOWARDS ENTRY INTO FORCE: By coincidence, 31 Contracting Parties had also accepted the Paris Protocol at the time of the adoption of the Regina amendments. They were: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom and United States. The Regina amendments therefore come into force when adopted by two-thirds (i.e. 21) of those 31 Contracting Parties. (Acceptance is effected, like acceptance of the Paris Protocol or accession to the Convention, by deposit with UNESCO of a formal instrument). The Regina Conference approved a "Resolution on Provisional Implementation of the Amendments to the Convention" (Proceedings, page 113) which "urged Contracting Parties to implement on a provisional basis the measures and procedures adopted by the Extraordinary Conference......until such time as they come into force", and in fact the Contracting Parties have done so.

47. By the time of the Montreux meeting in 1990, the Regina amendments had been accepted by 9 of the 31 Contracting Parties named in paragraph 46: Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. Japan had also accepted the Regina amendments, but had not accepted the Paris Protocol at the time of the Regina meeting. The Regina amendments were not therefore in force at the time of the Montreux meeting and the "Resolution on financial and budgetary matters" (Proceedings, Vol. I, page 276) "urged Contracting Parties to deposit as soon as possible an instrument of acceptance of the amendment of 28 May 1987".

48. Since Montreux, another seven Contracting Parties of those mentioned in paragraph 46 have formally accepted the Regina amendments: Australia, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa and Tunisia. In all therefore, 16 of the required 21 Contracting Parties have accepted the Regina amendments. Unless five more of the 31 mentioned in paragraph 46 deposit an instrument of acceptance with UNESCO before the Kushiro meeting, it will be necessary to adopt another resolution on this subject at Kushiro. The entry into force of the Regina amendments is of the greatest importance to the operation of the Convention, since it will mean that the Convention’s situation is confirmed and formalized. Furthermore, the sooner the Regina amendments enter into force, the easier the situation will be for new Contracting Parties, who will be able to join the "Convention as amended by the Paris Protocol and the Regina Amendments" and will not need to accede to the Convention and Regina amendments separately.

49. Eight further Contracting Parties which had not accepted the Paris Protocol at the time of the Regina meeting have also accepted the Regina amendments. They are: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Greece, Indonesia, Liechtenstein, Russian Federation and Trinidad & Tobago. In all therefore, 24 Contracting Parties have formally accepted the Regina Amendments (see document INF. C.5.2 for details).

50. The national reports give further details of progress in acceptance of the Regina amendments. Of the 15 Parties which could help bring the Regina amendments into force, Chile notes that the authorities "are trying to make their acceptance effective". France notes that they are "being ratified". Morocco notes that the procedure for acceptance is "under way". New Zealand notes that they have "not yet" been accepted. The Polish report states that the Regina amendments were accepted by Poland on 27 November 1992; UNESCO has not as yet received a Polish instrument of acceptance.

51. Of the Parties which had not accepted the Paris Protocol at the time of the Regina meeting, Belgium notes that the Regina amendments, like the Paris Protocol, have been approved by the Council of Ministers and are now under consideration by Parliament; the report adds that Belgium is applying these amendments even though they are not in force. The Czech report says that acceptance is being prepared for Kushiro. The report from Guatemala notes that they are currently being processed by the Foreign Ministry. The Suriname report notes that the process for acceptance has been started.

Administrative Authorities responsible for implementing the Convention in each Contracting Party

52. INTRODUCTION: Section 1.3 of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to indicate the "name and address of Administrative Authorities responsible for implementing the Convention in each Contracting Party". The present section draws on information in the national reports and on other documents submitted to the Bureau. Details of the Administrative Authorities in each Contracting Party are given in document INF. C.5.4.

53. It would be difficult to over-emphasize the importance of the accuracy of document INF. C.5.4 for promoting contacts between Contracting Parties and between Parties and the Bureau. Contracting Parties are therefore asked to scrutinize the entry for their own state with particular care and to inform the Bureau of any errors or omissions. Up-to-date details of telephone and fax numbers are particularly valuable.

54. It should be noted that accession to the Convention is normally effected through a country’s Foreign Ministry. Formal contacts between the Ramsar Bureau and Contracting Parties are maintained through diplomatic channels; copies of diplomatic notes are sent to the formally designated administrative authority, with whom the Ramsar Bureau maintains close contact on the day-to-day running of the Convention’s business. It is vital for the Bureau to be notified formally (preferably through diplomatic channels, to avoid any uncertainty) of any changes in the administrative authority. In countries where implementation of the Convention may be carried out by several ministries or agencies, it is again important - in order to avoid delays or loss of contact - for the Bureau to have clear instructions.

55. Federal States often devolve the administration of the Convention to provincial administrations. The reports of Austria, Belgium and Germany all give details of the provincial bodies responsible. The Italian national report notes that between 1977 and 1984 a massive decentralization of the administrative management and structures to the regional authorities took place; this reorganization, of great political and historical importance, has changed the institutional character of Italy and decentralized the organization of land management, implementation of nature protection and planning of new protected areas.

56. Some national reports not only indicate the central administrative body responsible for implementation of the Convention, but comment on the body responsible for management of listed sites. Thus the South African report notes that the management of a wetland may be undertaken by any of a number of departments or one of the four provincial governments of the National Parks Board. The Romanian report states that the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority is the Administrative Authority for implementation of the Convention. The Suriname report distinguishes between the management and scientific authorities.

57. NATIONAL RAMSAR COMMITTEES: While there is a clear need to appoint a government authority with central responsibility for implementing the Convention in each party, there is also a need for coordination of Ramsar activities with other government departments and non-governmental bodies. This is particularly the case for implementation of the Ramsar concept of wise use and the consequent establishment of national wetland policies. The Bureau has been informed of the establishment of national Ramsar Committees, with varying structures and responsibilities, in a number of Contracting parties, notably: Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, UK, USA and Venezuela. As part of the cooperative effort with Bulgaria mentioned in paragraph 30, a Bulgarian national committee is to be established. The Bureau would welcome information from any other Contracting Parties which may have established national Ramsar committees.

58. The Italian report notes that a National Ramsar Secretariat, made up of a Technical Secretariat and a Technical-Scientific Committee, has been established by Ministerial Decree.

59. With a view to promoting exchanges between different national committees and to providing guidance on the best practice for such committees, the UK delegation proposes to call an informal meeting on the subject of national Ramsar committees during the Kushiro meeting on the evening of Friday 11 June and to propose a draft recommendation for consideration in plenary session.

60. INTRODUCTION: Section 1.4 of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to indicate the "Name, size (in hectares) and geographical coordinates of the centre of wetlands designated for the List of Wetlands of International Importance". Contracting Parties were requested to correct any inaccuracies in the List, the latest version of which is presented as document INF. C.5.3.

61. As of April 1993, the 75 Contracting Parties plus Papua New Guinea have designated 594 wetlands for the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance, with a total area of over 37.5 million hectares or 375,000 square kilometres (roughly equivalent to the total surface area of Japan, Germany or Zimbabwe).

62. DATABASE AND INFORMATION SHEETS: The Bureau maintains the List through its database, located since the Montreux meeting with IWRB in Slimbridge, UK, for which special funding is provided in the Convention budget. The Ramsar database has close links with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), based in Cambridge, UK. The List and the present section draw on the national reports and on other documents submitted by the Contracting Parties to the Bureau and database, notably the "Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands" completed by Parties for inclusion in the database. These information sheets on Ramsar sites have also been the basis for the Directory of Wetlands of International Importance, a new and authoritative version of which has been prepared for the present meeting of the Conference. The use of these information sheets and of the related "classification system for wetland type" (both formally approved by Montreux Recommendation 4.7) has been a major feature of the work of Contracting Parties and the Ramsar database in the last triennium. Revision by the Contracting Parties of earlier data sheets for designated sites, so that they conform to a new format, is time-consuming and a major task; however, it should be a once-and-for-all operation which will allow the database to be more widely used in analysis of situations and measures taken at Ramsar sites. Contracting Parties which have not already done so are particularly requested to submit details of existing Ramsar sites in the revised format. Information on any new sites, whether designated by states that are already Contracting Parties or by new parties, should be provided in the selfsame format, which is likely to be more and more widely used in wetland inventory work, whether at national, regional or local level. (The request for geographical coordinates of the "centre" of Ramsar sites is simply to facilitate recording in very large sites).

63. MAPS OF DESIGNATED SITES: As noted in the Montreux Review (Proceedings, Vol. III, page 306), most Contracting Parties have been scrupulous in submitting maps showing the boundaries of designated wetlands. Such maps are clearly essential for identification of sites and for monitoring of change in ecological character. Since Montreux, the Moroccan authorities have submitted detailed maps of their four listed sites. The Greek authorities have not yet established definitive boundaries for their eleven declared sites, as recommended in Montreux Recommendation 4.9.5, and have not therefore submitted definitive maps; however, the Bureau understands that the Greek Supreme Court has recognised the validity of the provisional maps already submitted. The Bureau has not yet received detailed maps of the six sites in the Netherlands Antilles.

64. In order to simplify the procedure of accession, the Montreux meeting adopted a "Resolution on Accession Requirements" (Proceedings, Vol. I, page 145). This states that new Contracting Parties must name at least one wetland for the List at the time of accession, and can provide documentation (description and map) later. On accession, the Chinese authorities named six sites; the Bureau looks forward to receiving maps showing their exact boundaries. Similarly, the Bureau awaits detailed maps of the five new Ghanaian sites.

65. NEW RAMSAR SITES SINCE MONTREUX: At the end of the Montreux meeting on 4 July 1990, the number of sites designated for the Ramsar List by States for whom the Convention was already in force was 497; statements of intention made at the meeting by existing and prospective Contracting Parties brought the number of sites past the 500 mark. As of April 1993 the number of sites in 75 parties plus Papua New Guinea is 603. The milestone of 600 Ramsar sites has therefore been passed before Kushiro, and a number of parties (among them Australia, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Japan, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation and United Kingdom) have already indicated their intention (either in their national reports or in communications to the Bureau) of listing additional sites, before or on the occasion of the Kushiro meeting.

66. There have therefore been some 106 new designations covering over 6 million hectares so far in the present triennium. This figure of 106 includes:

Of these 106 new Ramsar sites, 44 (covering 5,905,725 hectares) were designated by new Contracting Parties and 62 (covering 970,074 hectares) were designated by existing Contracting Parties.

67. The 44 Ramsar sites designated by new Contracting Parties are as follows (the designated wetlands in the Czech Republic, the Russian Federation, and the Slovak Republic had already been designated by the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the ex-USSR, so are not included):

Argentina:	3 wetlands covering	82,474 ha
Bangladesh:	1 wetland covering	59,600 ha
Bolivia:	1 wetland covering	5,240 ha
Burkina Faso:	3 wetlands covering	299,200 ha
Chad:	1 wetland covering	195,000 ha
China:	6 wetlands covering	* 529,457 ha
Costa Rica:	2 wetlands covering	29,769 ha
Croatia:	4 wetlands covering	80,455 ha
Ecuador:	2 wetlands covering	90,000 ha
Guatemala:	1 wetland covering	48,372 ha
Guinea	5 wetlands covering	225,001 ha
Indonesia:	1 wetland covering	162,700 ha
Kenya:	1 wetland covering	18,800 ha
Liechtenstein:	1 wetland covering	101 ha
Panama:	1 wetland covering	80,765 ha
Papua New Guinea:	1 wetland covering	590,000 ha
Peru:	3 wetlands covering	2,415,691 ha
Romania:	1 wetland covering	647,000 ha
Slovenia:	1 wetland covering	650 ha
Sri Lanka:	1 wetland covering	6,216 ha
Trinidad & Tobago:	1 wetland covering	* 6,234 ha
Zambia:	2 wetlands covering	333,000 ha
Total:		5,905,725 ha

Australia (Christmas Island):	1 wetland covering 1 ha
Austria:	2 wetlands covering	162 ha
France:	7 wetlands covering	338,585 ha
Germany:	3 wetlands covering	311,375 ha
Ghana:	5 wetlands covering	171,150 ha
Italy:	1 wetland covering	2,500 ha
Japan:	1 wetland covering	510 ha
Netherlands:	4 wetlands covering	6,570 ha
Spain:	9 wetlands covering	20,293 ha
South Africa:	5 wetlands covering	20,300 ha
Switzerland:	6 wetlands covering	5,233 ha
United Kingdom:	15 wetlands covering	15,174 ha
USA:	4 wetlands covering	78,221 ha
Total:	970,074 ha

In addition to the above 970,074 hectares, the following parties extended existing Ramsar sites as follows:

The French national report indicates that it is intended to extend the existing Morbihan and Lac L�man sites.

69. A comparison between the designation of new sites in the periods 1987-1990 and 1991-1993 reveals some interesting tendencies. Between Regina and Montreux, the great majority of the 134 new sites (with a total area of over six million hectares) designated by 25 parties were listed by existing parties (some 117 sites covering over six million hectares listed by 16 parties). Of the 97 new sites listed by 34 parties since Montreux (total area again over six million hectares), 53 covering just under a million hectares were designated by 12 existing parties, while 44 sites covering over six million sites were designated by the 22 new parties and Papua New Guinea. In the last triennium therefore, the increase in the List has come to a much greater extent from new parties than from additions by existing parties.

70. At both the Regina and Montreux meetings the tendency for existing parties to add sites to the List at an increasing pace was remarked upon. The Kushiro meeting may wish to reflect on the reasons for this apparent slowing down. Is this a real slowing down, or - as comments in national reports seem to suggest - just an accident of statistics? If it is real, have existing parties listed all their potential sites? Is it becoming more difficult to list new sites? Are the difficulties in maintaining ecological character of existing sites discouraging parties from listing new sites? Do parties prefer to carry out management measures at existing sites rather than to list new ones? Are parties concentrating on other aspects of the Convention (wise use, international cooperation) rather than listing sites?

71. The following 25 parties have now designated additional sites for the List after the sites originally designated at the time of accession:

72. Rather few of the sites mentioned in Montreux Recommendation 4.9 (which welcomed statements made at Montreux by a number of delegations, and urged several Contracting Parties to designate additional sites) have as yet been listed; the recommendation called for: year-round listing for Lake Balaton and Lake Tata (Hungary); the listing of the middle reaches of the River Vistula (Poland); of 16 new sites in the former USSR; of the Melaleuca forests of U Minh district (Viet Nam); and of two coastal and eight inland sites in former Yugoslavia. Of these, the four sites listed by Croatia and the coastal site listed by Slovenia may be included in the sites mentioned for former Yugoslavia. The authorities of the Russian Federation have indicated to the Bureau that they hope to designate over 20 new Ramsar sites.

73. ALGERIA: The national report does not mention listing of Garaet Mekhada and the Macta Marshes, both of which were noted as intended sites in the Algerian reports to the Groningen and Regina meetings. The Ramsar Monitoring Procedure mission in November 1990 recommended that measures, including designation, were urgently needed at Garaet Mekhada.

74. CANADA: The national report to the Montreux meeting indicated that discussions were under way to designate four additional sites in Canada. No new sites have been listed since Montreux, but the national report states that nomination is being considered for Tabusintac Lagoon and River Estuary in New Brunswick, and Creston Valley in British Columbia in 1993.

75. CHAD: The national report indicates that, while Chad has for the moment designated only one site for the List, other possible sites exist and will be added when the time is right.

76. COSTA RICA: The national report indicates that there are plans to enlarge the existing Ca�o Negro site, with a view to linking it with the neighbouring wetlands of Los Guatusos in Nicaragua. Studies are also under way for the inclusion in the Ramsar List of Gandoca y Manzanillo, Tortuguero and T�rraba-Sierpe.

77. CZECH REPUBLIC: The national report notes that, following consultations with the Ramsar Bureau, the Czech Ramsar Committee proposed enlargement of two previously listed sites; the Czech authorities have subsequently announced extensions to the existing Sumava peatlands and Lednice fishponds Ramsar sites. Appended to the report are details of five proposed additional Ramsar sites in the Czech Republic.

78. FINLAND: The national report to the Regina meeting indicated that Finland was considering addition of 30 new areas to the Ramsar List, but these sites have not yet been listed.

79. GERMANY: The national report comments that the proposal to designate Lampertheimer Altrhein, included in the report of the Federal Republic to the Montreux meeting, has been withdrawn as the site did not meet the Ramsar criteria. The national report does not refer to K�hkopf-Knoblauchsaue (Hessen), mentioned in the report to the Groningen meeting as being under consideration for listing.

80. GHANA: The Ghanaian representative at the subregional meeting for North and West Africa in March 1993 indicated that the Global Environment Facility (GEF) had agreed to provide financial support for the five new Ghanaian sites, on condition that they were included in the Ramsar List. At the same meeting the representative of Congo (not yet a Contracting Party) explained that GEF had also requested assurances from the Government of Congo about the inclusion of Lake T�l� on the Ramsar List.

81. HUNGARY: The national report indicates that the process of revising the data sheet for Hortob�gy (see paragraph 62) showed the area had previously been under-estimated by 5,000 hectares.

The report also gives details of proposals to designate another 27 sites covering over 70,000 hectares for the Ramsar List, once questions of ownership rights (see paragraph 197) are settled. As the report comments, this will be a significant step in wetland conservation in Hungary.

82. IRAN: Iranian reports to previous meetings of the Conference have referred to the Government’s intention to designate Gandoman and Chogakhor Marshes (Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province) for the Ramsar List. So far, the Bureau has not received formal notification of this addition.

83. MAURITANIA: The Mauritanian report to the Montreux meeting noted that other potential Ramsar sites in Mauritania included Diawling (where a national park has been established since Montreux), Lake Aleg, Lake of M�l, the dam on the Gorgol Noir, Tamourt-en-Naj and the Aftout-es-Sahel. That report cautioned however that socio-economic difficulties related to their exploitation would have to be overcome. At the sub-regional meeting for North and West Africa in Senegal in March 1993, the representative of Mauritania expressed the hope that Diawling could be listed under Ramsar and could benefit from a grant made by the Ramsar Wetland Conservation Fund.

84. NETHERLANDS: The national report does not refer specifically to the Verdroenkene Land van Saeftinghe, on the border with Belgium, which was mentioned as a possible Ramsar site in a 1988 Monitoring Procedure report and in a communication to the Bureau by the Netherlands authorities (see Montreux Proceedings, Vol. III, page 304). The report does however refer to the ecological interdependence between the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany and to a project aiming at the realization of trans-boundary nature areas.

85. PAKISTAN: The national report notes that the Monitoring Procedure mission to Pakistan in May 1990 recommended the immediate listing of 15 named wetlands, and that formalities are being completed for the notification of these sites.

86. POLAND: The national report indicates that plans are in hand for extension of the Siedem Wysp Ramsar site (where the Monitoring Procedure was applied in 1989) and for designation of additional Ramsar sites, including the Biebrza River National Park. The "International Conference on the protection and management of wetlands and waterfowl", held in Gdansk in September 1989 and mentioned in the Polish report to Montreux, recommended the listing of Biebrza, the Slowinski National Park and Milicz ponds.

87. PORTUGAL: At the Mediterranean wetland meeting held in Portugal in November 1992 (see paragraphs 22 and 39), the Portuguese hosts announced their intention of listing nine new Ramsar sites.

88. SURINAME: The national report notes that Coppename River Mouth, Suriname’s first Ramsar site, is also listed as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve and as a "twinsister reserve" with Mary’s Point and Shepody Bay in New Brunswick, Canada (both Ramsar sites).

89. UKRAINE: The report recalls that at the time of designation for the Ramsar List by the former USSR in 1977, the Danube Delta and Yagorlits & Tendrov Bays were considered to be a single site. They have now been separated into two sites, the Dounaiski Plavni (the Danube Delta) and Chernomorsk (the Black Sea) Reserves, as suggested by the Ramsar Monitoring mission in 1990. (Confirmation of Ukraine’s status as a Contracting Party, and of the designation of these sites is awaited - see paragraphs 17 and 29).

90. UNITED KINGDOM: National reports to previous meetings have indicated that the UK has actively pursued a policy of identifying potential Ramsar sites and of subsequent designation. The report to the present meeting notes that this programme is being continued and that further designations may be expected in the near future, including further sites in dependent territories, following the designation at Montreux of the North, Middle and East Caicos Islands. The report specifically mentions that extension of the existing Ramsar sites of Derwent Ings and Upper Severn Estuary (the latter to cover a much larger site, the Severn Estuary) are under consideration.

91. INTRODUCTION: Section 1.5 of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to indicate "Contributions made to the Ramsar budget (core budget, support in kind, project support, or support for the Wetland Conservation Fund)". Since this financial information is presented in other Kushiro meeting papers, in particular DOC. C.5.13, it is not covered in detail here. Simply the main comments in the national reports are summarized in the following paragraphs.

92. CORE BUDGET: It should be emphasized that the Contracting Parties have applied the Regina and Montreux resolutions, calling on them to make financial contributions to the core budget as though the Regina amendments were already in force, in a very thoroughgoing manner. In 1991, 98% of the core budget was received. At the time of writing in April 1993, with more 1992 contributions still expected, 72% of the core budget has been received. Most national reports give details of their contributions to the core budget. The US report notes that funds were made available both by the Fish and Wildlife Service and by the State Department. The Belgian report notes that an extra contribution was made by the Walloon regional authorities.

93. WETLAND CONSERVATION FUND: Most national reports give details of any additional voluntary contributions made to the Wetland Conservation Fund.

94. PROJECT SUPPORT: In addition to comments on their contributions to the core budget and the Wetland Conservation Fund, national reports refer to special contributions made for particular projects, and these are summarized in the following paragraphs.

95. The Convention budget does not provide for funding of the triennial meetings of the Conference of the Contracting Parties. The Swiss report recalls that the Swiss authorities covered practically all the costs of the 1990 Montreux meeting. The Japanese report points out that a grant was made in 1992 for preparatory work for the 1993 Kushiro meeting, and modestly omits to mention the major support to be provided in 1993 for the meeting itself. Several Contracting Parties make grants for the participation of delegates from developing countries at the Conference, and these are mentioned by Norway and UK.

96. The US report points out that the 1991 meeting of the Standing Commitee in St. Petersburg, Florida, was hosted by the US authorities, and the Japanese report mentions the grant made for the holding of the 1992 Standing Committee meeting in Kushiro. The US also hosted an ad hoc meeting on wise use in Washington in February 1993. The Pakistan report notes its financial support for the second regional meeting for Asia in Islamabad.

97. Both the French and US reports give details of major grants made to the Bureau in response to portfolios of project concepts presented to them. The French report gives details of the payments to the core budget of FF. 287,000 per annum, plus supplementary grants of FF. 480,000 (= SFr. 120,000) in 1991 and FF. 1,275,000 (= SFr. 340,000) in 1992. Some of these French grants have been used to promote a programmatic approach to certain countries such as Bulgaria. The US report notes total voluntary contributions of US$ 350,000 (= SFr. 525,000) in 1991, US$ 531,500 (= nearly SFr. 800,000) in 1992 and US$ 917,500 (= Sfr. 1,375,000) in 1993. The Netherlands additional grant of one million guilders (= about SFr. 825,000) for the three-year wise use project should also be mentioned in this context. As a result of this project, an "Action Plan" including a series of wise use projects for funding is being presented to the Netherlands Government.

98. The Austrian and German reports record their contribution for production of German language information material. Norway made a special grant to allow production of an extended Asian version of the Ramsar Newsletter in 1993.

99. The Swiss report mentions its annual grant to the Bureau for work in countries, especially Africa, on bird migration routes passing through Switzerland. The UK also makes an annual grant covering developing country delegates to the Conference, the Fund and the Monitoring Procedure.

100. The Czech report notes a grant made to the Bureau for scientific expertise, while the Polish report, noting the financial difficulties recently experienced, gives details of projects funded at the Siedem Wysp Ramsar site following application of the Monitoring Procedure. The US report also refers to monetary support for a number of Ramsar related bilateral activities.

III. FURTHER INFORMATION ON WETLANDS DESIGNATED FOR THE "LIST OF WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE"

101. Section 2 of the "Outline for national reports" requests "Further information on wetlands designated for the List of wetlands of international importance", under the following headings:

Listed sites will be discussed in detail in Conference Workshop A ("Conservation of listed sites") on Friday 11 June. A background paper for this workshop (DOC. C.5.6) has already been distributed. The following paragraphs of the present document will provide further background for discussion, both in Workshop A and in Item XI of the agenda in plenary session.

102. Section 2.1 of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to indicate the "name of any wetland which, because of urgent national interest, has been deleted from the List or had its boundaries reduced". The Convention text provides that "Any Contracting Party shall have the right ..... because of its urgent national interests, to delete or restrict the boundaries of wetlands already included by it in the List"; if it does so, it shall "at the earliest possible time, inform the organization or government responsible for the continuing bureau duties ..... of any such changes" (Article 2.5). Furthermore, "Where a Contracting Party in its urgent national interest, deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the List, it should as far as possible compensate for any loss of wetland resources, and in particular it should create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same area or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of the original habitat" (Article 4.2). Workshop B of the Montreux meeting discussed the definition of "compensation", and requested the Standing Committee to prepare a Resolution on interpretation of Article 4.2 for discussion at Kushiro (Montreux Proceedings, Vol. I, pages 113-114).

103. DELETIONS: As at all previous meetings of the Conference, it can once again be stated that no wetlands have been deleted from the Ramsar List. The Bureau has received no notification of deletions and all national reports state that no deletions have taken place. Some reports indeed react in a lively fashion to this entry in the questionnaire: thus the Costa Rican report notes that "there is no interest in the country in suppressing or reducing the boundaries of wetlands on the List; on the contrary, extensions are under consideration", while the Polish report comments that "there is no intention to delete any of the five Polish Ramsar sites from the List, neither to reduce their areas".

104. The Standing Committee has given considerable attention to the question, raised at Regina (Proceedings, page 199) and Montreux (Proceedings, Vol. III, page 309), of action to be taken if it appears that a site did not, at the time of designation, meet the Ramsar "Criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance". This matter will be discussed in Workshop A at Kushiro, and the Standing Committee has proposed a "Review Procedure" for listed sites (draft Recommendation 5.2 and Annex, attached to document DOC.C.5.6). The essence of this procedure is that the Bureau, through use of the Ramsar database and in close cooperation with the party concerned, should review the List (and in particular those sites designated before criteria were first approved in 1980) and identify any sites which may not have met the criteria. An important element of the Standing Committee’s proposal is that Contracting Parties "enter into informal consultations with the Convention Bureau and its technical advisors prior to listing new sites". Without establishing a vetting procedure like that operated by the World Heritage Committee, such a procedure would ensure that wetlands designated for the List in future do meet the criteria approved by the Conference of the Contracting Parties through Montreux Recommendation 4.2.

105. PAKISTAN: Four listed wetlands in Pakistan, already mentioned at Regina and Montreux, illustrate the above point. The Pakistan report to the present meeting notes that the Monitoring Procedure carried out in May 1990 recommended the deletion of four listed sites (Malugal Dhand, Kandar Dam, Tanda Dam and Kheshki Reservoir), all designated in 1976. The Pakistan report notes that the provincial authorities feel the status of Tanda Dam has significantly changed in the positive direction, and that it should therefore not be denotified. It adds that formalities for notification of 15 other sites, recommended for designation by the Monitoring Procedure mission, are being completed. (A grant for this purpose was made from Monitoring Procedure funds in early 1992).

106. BOUNDARY RESTRICTIONS: The vast majority of national reports indicate that there have been no restrictions to the boundaries of designated sites. Details of the few sites where possible restrictions are mentioned are given in paragraphs 107-109, while paragraphs 110-118 give updated information on possible restrictions mentioned in the Montreux Review (Proceedings, Vol. III, page 310-312). In general, the few boundary restrictions proposed, with the exception of Ba�ados del Este in Uruguay, appear to be of minor importance; some of the restrictions previously proposed have been cancelled.

107. AUSTRALIA: The Australian authorities informed the Bureau in 1992 that the state of Victoria was considering a proposal which might involve deletion of a part of a Ramsar site, and requested information from the Bureau on the implications of any such deletion.

108. DENMARK: As in its report at Montreux, the report from Denmark remarks that there has been no reduction of the List of 27 wetlands designated. However, the boundaries of some areas will have to be adjusted in order to make a more appropriate demarcation in the field, and to make Ramsar sites conform in area with sites designated under the European Community’s "Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds". As a consequence there will be a number of minor changes in Ramsar sites, which will be notified in the next national report.

109. SOUTH AFRICA: The national report refers to the proposal to revise the boundary between South Africa and Namibia at the Orange River mouth. When this occurs, the boundaries of the Orange River Mouth Ramsar site will be restricted. However, South Africa hopes that Namibia will become a Contracting Party in the near future and that this entire wetland will be jointly designated for the Ramsar List.

110. BOUNDARY RESTRICTIONS NOTED AT MONTREUX: The Montreux Review (Proceedings, Vol. III, page 310-312), gave details of all boundary restrictions - in almost all cases with larger areas designated in compensation - that have been notified in the past. These were as follows:

Paragraphs 112-118 update information on the sites mentioned in the previous two paragraphs.

112. DENMARK: The detailed submission about Nakskov and Inner Fiords in the national report mentions a number of improved conservation measures, but makes no reference to possible restriction of boundaries.

113. GREECE: As mentioned in paragraph 63, the Government of Greece has submitted documents showing provisional boundaries for its eleven Ramsar sites to the Ramsar Bureau, but has not established definitive boundaries. The question of possible restrictions is therefore still in suspense.

114. IRAN: The Iranian report to the Groningen meeting indicated that it was proposed to reduce the area of the Miankaleh Ramsar site from 100,000 ha to 40,000 ha The Ramsar Monitoring Procedure mission which visited Miankaleh in January 1992 was delighted to find that the original limits of the site have in fact been maintained and that there is no need to speak of any restriction of boundaries for this site.

115. Similarly, at the Neiriz Lakes and Kamjan Marshes Ramsar site, the Monitoring Procedure mission, while recognising that some ecological change had occurred as a result of attempted drainage for agriculture, concluded "that Kamjan Marshes retain sufficient wetland values to justify their continued status as part of the Ramsar site and therefore recommends that they be maintained on the List". The mission suggested that restoration work be carried out.

116. The mission was unable to visit Yadegarlu and Shadegan Marshes but suggested that the Bureau, together with Iranian experts, visit these areas (and also the two Ramsar sites of Alagol, Ulmigol & Ajigol Lakes; and of Khuran Straits) with a view to investigating whether problems exist and, if so, what measures might be taken to restore the wetlands to their former condition.

117. UNITED KINGDOM: The UK report notes that consent has been given for the construction of a nuclear reactor at Hinckley Point, in the Bridgwater Bay Ramsar site. Conditions were included in the consent to protect the Ramsar site. A final decision on whether to proceed with construction has not yet been taken. The UK report does not refer to possible restrictions of boundaries at Lough Neagh, but indicates additional statutory conservation measures at the site and the possibility of its declaration as a National Nature Reserve.

118. URUGUAY: The Ramsar Bureau has been in close contact with the authorities of Uruguay in connection with proposed realignments of the boundaries of the Ba�ados del Este Ramsar site (also included in UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserve network). An international team is to visit Uruguay in the framework of the Monitoring Procedure in early May 1993 and its findings will be available, at least in a preliminary version, at the time of the Kushiro meeting.

119. The Convention text states that "each Contracting Party shall designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of wetlands of international importance" (Article 2.1) and "shall formulate and implement its planning so as to promote the conservation of wetlands included in the List" (Article 3.1). The Convention does not stipulate that listed wetlands should have any particular legal status or degree of protection; it is up to each Contracting Party to use its own legislative tools to achieve the general goals stated in the Convention. Thus some Contracting Parties have designated areas, often of considerable size, which have no other protected status and may be privately owned, with the intention of achieving stronger control over land use in the future. This approach is likely to promote conservation of hitherto unsecured sites and, if successful, will in the long term produce improvements in legal status and degree of protection. Regina Recommendation 3.9 "applauded Contracting Parties which have employed Ramsar listing as a means of securing protection of previously unprotected sites".

120. On the other hand, some Contracting Parties consider it inappropriate to list any site which does not already enjoy some statutory protection at national level, and at which they can therefore control land use. In such cases designation of a wetland for the Ramsar List means that its importance is recognised not only at national but also at international level.

121. Section 2.2 of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to indicate "any change in legal status, degree of protection, or ownership of listed wetlands since the Montreux Conference". Such changes are naturally more likely to occur in parties adopting the approach to listing described in paragraph 119, since sites in parties adopting the approach of paragraph 120 by definition already have some statutory recognition.

122. Reports from the following Contracting Parties indicate that there has been no change in the legal status, degree of protection or ownership of listed sites: Algeria, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, France, Gabon, Guatemala, Iceland, Morocco, Pakistan, Romania, South Africa, Suriname, Tunisia and USA. Changes, nearly always favourable, are indicated in reports summarized in paragraphs 123-150.

123. ALGERIA: The national report indicates that, while no change in the status of listed sites has occurred, a proposal to examine the present wetland legislation is being studied.

124. AUSTRIA: The national report indicates that the Regelsbrunner Au section of the Donau-March-Auen has been acquired by WWF. A national park was established in November 1992 at Neusiedler-See, which is contiguous with the Hungarian Ramsar site of Fert�, where a national park has also been created in the last triennium (see paragraph 139).

125. BELGIUM: The national report indicates that the level of protection at the "Ijzerbroeken te Diksmuide en Lo-Reninge" Ramsar site (also designated by Belgium as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under EC Directive 79/409 on conservation of wild birds) has been queried by the European Commission. Consultation between Belgium and the Commission on this matter is under way.

126. The Belgian report also refers to several specific measures, affecting all Ramsar sites and SPAs, taken in the Flemish region: prohibition of hunting after nightfall; prohibition of shooting of two duck species Anas penelope and A. crecca; requirement of a permit before any change to semi-natural vegetation (particularly conversion to arable land). Further protection measures are planned.

127. Management of part of the Marais d’Harchies Ramsar site has been transferred from the national authorities to the Walloon regional authorities.

128. BULGARIA: Management of the Srebarna reserve, formerly the responsibility of the regional council of the city of Silistra, is now in the hands of the Ministry of the Environment.

129. CANADA: The only significant change in tenure of Canadian Ramsar sites is that Last Mountain Lake in Saskatchewan (visited by participants to the Regina Meeting in 1987) is now fully under federal ownership.

130. CHILE: Strengthening of conservation measures at the country’s single Ramsar site, the Carlos Anwandter sanctuary on the Rio Cruces (already indicated in the report to the Montreux meeting), is to be developed. The sanctuary is to become part of the national system of protected areas, administered by CONAF, the National Forestry Corporation.

131. CZECH REPUBLIC: Legal protection of the Sumava peatlands was greatly improved after the establishment of the Sumava national park in 1991; all peat bogs in the Ramsar site are situated in the core area of the park.

132. The Trebon and Lednice fishponds (both Ramsar sites), formerly in State ownership, have both been privatized.

133. DENMARK: The national report presents an overview of general policies affecting the status of Ramsar sites, as well as an update of the situation at each individual site. It notes that the State has purchased a number of meadows and freshwater habitats in the 27 Ramsar sites in mainland Denmark, which has made a relatively small change in the ratio of State to privately owned property. No changes in status of any of the 11 Greenland sites are mentioned.

134. By a Ministerial Order which came into force in 1987, hunting from motor boats was prohibited in certain inner marine waters in Denmark (many of them Ramsar sites), to reduce disturbance and hunting pressure on waterfowl. In 1990 the order was prolonged until a revised Game and Wildlife Management Act is adopted, probably in 1994. In August 1986 use of lead pellets for hunting was forbidden in Danish Ramsar sites, and in 1990 the Danish Wadden Sea was included in these provisos by a renewed Ministerial Order. Consideration is being given to a countrywide ban on the use of lead pellets, with the exception of forestry areas. As noted in the Danish report to Montreux, experimental wildlife reserves were established from 1989-1992 at Ulvedybet (Nibe Bredning) and Ulvshale Ramsar sites, with areas of no hunting and no access varying from season to season. These experiments will now be used as a basis for permanent reserves.

135. The establishment of wind turbines and windmill-parks will not be allowed in most Ramsar areas, in accordance with county regional plans. As a follow-up to the European Community’s "set-aside" policy and in accordance with the Physical Planning Act, some areas have been selected for receipt of financial support to encourage agricultural uses better adapted to ecological considerations. In both cases, Ramsar sites have been used for the selection of areas. Afforestation will not be allowed in Ramsar sites.

136. The existing Ministerial Order for nature conservation of Ringk�bing Fjord is to be renewed in 1993, with further restrictions on hunting and public access. There are proposals for a wildlife reserve, partly to protect Light-bellied Brent Geese Branta bernicla hrota at Mariager Fjord. The proposal to establish a seal reserve at Totten and adjacent waters in the Anholt Ramsar site, mentioned in the Montreux report, was carried out in 1990. In the Danish Wadden Sea, the existing Wildlife Reserve provisions have been integrated into the Wadden Sea Nature and Wildlife Reserve Scheme since 1992.

137. GERMANY: The national report indicates that the following Ramsar sites are now incorporated into national parks: R�gen- Hiddensee-Zingst; M�ritz See; Odertal, Schwedt (provisional); Hamburg Wadden Sea; Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea. Legal protection through the establishment of additional nature reserves covering 9,415 hectares has been strengthened at the following Ramsar sites since 1990: Elbaue, Schnackenburg-Lauenburg; D�mmersee; Diepholzer Moorniederung; Steinhuder Meer; Donauauen & Donaumoos; Unterer Inn; Untere Havel; Peitzer Teichgebiet; Unterer Niederrhein.

138. Federal funds have been used under the "Programme for establishing and safeguarding of natural and landscape areas of representative importance" to purchase several hundred hectares of land in the following Ramsar sites: Elbaue; D�mmersee; Diepholzer Moorniederung; Steinhuder Meer; Odertal; Untere Havel; Unterer Niederrhein.

139. HUNGARY: The status of Lake Fert� has been improved from Landscape Protection Area to National Park (as noted in paragraph 124; one was also set up at the cross-border Austrian site of Neusiedler-See). Further changes are likely as several listed sites are to be owned and managed by the State nature conservation authorities.

140. JAPAN: Lake Utonai, designated in 1991, is a Special Protection Zone under the Wildlife Protection and Hunting Law. At Izu-numa and Uchi-numa, the local prefecture has purchased 52 hectares since 1991.

141. NETHERLANDS: Groote Peel and large parts of the Oosterschelde were designated as Nature Monuments under the Nature Conservation Act in 1990, as foreshadowed in the Montreux report. A further 35% of the Netherlands Wadden Sea is short-listed for inclusion under this act. The Montreux report recorded the decision to establish national parks involving three Ramsar sites; Weerribben received the status of national park in 1992, and it is expected that Biesbosch and Groote Peel will be designated as national parks in 1993.

142. NEW ZEALAND: The national report notes that there have been no detrimental changes, and that measures are in hand for improving the protected status of Whangamarino, Kopuatai Peat Dome and Firth of Thames.

143. NORWAY: All Ramsar sites are legally protected, and no changes in legal status have occurred. The Government has purchased some islands, previously in private ownership, at �ra.

144. PERU: All protected sites in the country, including wetlands of international importance, are affected by changes to the Environment Code introduced in 1991. These simplify the procedures for exploitation of resources in protected areas.

145. RUSSIAN FEDERATION: The Kandalaksha Bay reserve was transferred to the authority of the Russian Federation Ministry, which will provide financial resources, in 1992. A reserve has been established at Lake Khanka. A new federal law on nature protection was adopted in 1991 and two new federal laws, on specially protected areas and ecological safety, will be submitted to parliament in 1993.

146. SLOVAK REPUBLIC: The legal status and degree of protection of the four listed sites have not changed since Montreux. Currently, within the framework of reprivatization of land, parts of the wetlands are being returned to their original owners.

147. SWEDEN: The Environmental Protection Agency contiues to acquire land in several Ramsar sites, notably Hornborga where it now holds about 60% of the total area (compared with 25% reported at Montreux). A marine nature reserve covering about 10,000 hectares, has been established at Falsterbo, and reserves have also been set up at Helge�n and Hovran. Plans for new or additional reserves exist at five other Ramsar sites, while Tavvavuoma is likely to become a national park.

148. SWITZERLAND: The new Order on Reserves of International Importance for Waterfowl and Migrants (OROEM) came into force in 1991, and applies to six of the Ramsar sites designated in 1990 at the time of Montreux.

149. UNITED KINGDOM: The national report presents a detailed account of changes in status, protection or ownership - in all cases positive - at 19 of UK’s 60 Ramsar sites. Several sites or parts of sites have been included in National Nature Reserves, National Parks or Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In a number of cases, land has been acquired by statutory bodies through purchase or lease. The Wash and North Norfolk Coast have been twinned with the Wadden Sea, in 1991.

150. VENEZUELA: Following approval of a general decree on expropriation, a decree specifically referring to the Ramsar site of Cuare is to be published in the Official Newspaper. This will concern expropriation of 75 hectares for a model town planning project to the west of the Ramsar site, to which people currently living inside the designated area in the villages of El Taparito, El Bagre and Flamenco will be relocated. Other decrees deal with extension of the reserve. In this way the legal and physical problems will, it is hoped, be overcome.

Change in ecological character of listed wetlands, including the "Montreux Record" and the "Monitoring Procedure"

151. INTRODUCTION: Section 2.3 of the "Outline for national reports" asks Contracting Parties to provide information as to whether, since the Montreux meeting, the ecological character of any listed wetland "has changed, is changing or is likely to change as a result of technological developments, pollution, or other human interference" (Article 3.2); it asks for details of information sent to the Ramsar Bureau on any such changes, and any comments on the application of the Ramsar Monitori

I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION	paragraphs
Background to national reports	1 - 4
National reports to the present meeting	5 - 9
II. BASIC INFORMATION ON MEASURES TAKEN BY CONTRACTING PARTIES
Current Contracting Parties to the Convention	10 - 39
Acceptance of the Paris Protocol	40 - 42
Acceptance of the Regina Amendments	43 - 51
Administrative Authorities responsible for implementing the Convention	52 - 59
Wetlands designated for the "List of Wetlands of International Importance"	60 - 90
Contributions to the Ramsar budget	91 - 100
III. FURTHER INFORMATION ON WETLANDS DESIGNATED FOR THE "LIST OF WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE"
General introduction	101
Deletions from the List and boundary restrictions at listed sites	102 - 118
Changes in legal status, degree of protection or ownership	119 - 150
Change in ecological character of listed wetlands, including the "Montreux Record" and the "Monitoring Procedure"	151 - 264
Action, notably management, at listed wetlands	265 - 283
IV. NATIONAL WETLAND POLICIES
General statements on the current national wetland situation	284 - 326
Progress towards establishment of national wetland policies	327 - 387
Progress towards establishment of national scientific inventories of potential Ramsar sites	388 - 428
Progress towards priority actions at particular wetlands, especially establishment and wardening of nature reserves in non-listed wetlands	429 - 455
V. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CONVENTION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
General comments on the implementation of the Convention and difficulties experienced	456 - 485
Instances where the Convention has facilitated conservation of particular sites or species	486 - 511
Consultations about implementing Article 5, especially on wetlands extending over the territory of more than one party	512 - 544
Role of Development Agencies, both bilateral and international, in wetland conservation	545 - 572
Action taken on Montreux recommendations	573 - 577
VI. SOME TENTATIVE FINAL REMARKS	578 - 583

Czech Republic:	extension of 2 sites	2,853 ha
UK:	extension of 4 sites	28,989 ha
Total:		31,842 ha