From the Ramsar Forum

(posted to the Ramsar Forum, 2 July 2008)

Views on application of Montreux Record

I am interested to hear the views of Forum members on the issue of when a Party should exercise its voluntary option to place a site on the Montreux Record.

The situation where this has arisen relates to a large Ramsar site in Australia (the Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert) which has undergone significant change in ecological character over the past decade in particular, this having been documented in a 250+ page ecological character description I was involved in preparing in 2006. For those interested, you will find the link for this report below. In the report we recommended the government fulfill its obligations under Article 3.2 of the Convention and communicate the findings to the Secretariat, which we understand it has done. However, the government has chosen not to go the next step and place the site on the Montreux Record. The national Minister for Water and Climate Change, when asked about this in our Senate last week, is reported to have replied that the Australian government would only Montreux List a site if “all locally generated remedial actions have been exhausted and where there is high probability that such a listing would assist in achieving improvements in the on-ground condition of the Ramsar site”. 

While I can appreciate that Australia does have available to it the technical and financial resources to address the problems at this particular site, I am interested to know if other Parties are pursuing a similar policy position to Australia with respect to Montreux Record.

A quick review of the Ramsar web site tells me there are at present 57 Montreux-listed sites, with another 25 that have been removed following rehabilitation activities (I assume). From among those sites listed on Montreux at present it may be notable that there are sites in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, the UK and USA. I say notable because one assumes that these countries, like Australia, should have at their disposal the technical and financial resources to address Ramsar site management problems. So, does this suggest different interpretations by Parties of the guidance COPs have adopted relating to the Montreux Record ? If so, does the forthcoming COP need to revisit this guidance to seek some consistency of approach ? Or, because Montreux Record listing is voluntary doesn’t it matter ? 

Examining past COP decisions would seem to raise some questions about Australia’s recently stated policy position here. For example, Recommendation C.4.8 which established the Montreux Record in 1990 noted it should be applied “...where the Contracting Party has indicated its intention to take preventive or remedial action or has already intiated such action”. Also, Resolutions VI.1 of 1996 and VIII.8 1999, which established guidelines for operations of the Montreux Record, and then re-affirmed them, indicated that the “...Montreux Record is a useful tool available to Contracting Parties in circumstances where: a) demonstrating national commitment to resolve adverse changes would assist in their resolution; b) highlighting particularly serious cases would be beneficial at national and/or international level;...”.

I know from my own time representing the Australian government on Ramsar matters, and then in the Ramsar secretariat, that COPs have repeatedly raised the issue of the value of the Montreux Record, and that a perception of it being a ‘black list’ was working counter to the intention. If the Montreux Record is to have a continuing role under Ramsar then it would seem timely to ask the Parties at COP 10 how they are applying the guidance.

I look forward to hearing views on this subject,

Bill Phillips
(Former Deputy Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention, 1997-2000)

Link to ecological character report http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/wetlands.html#ramsar 

posted on the Forum 6 July 2008

From one former Deputy Secretary General to another!

The Montreux Record was originally established at the request of the Conference of the Parties, which wished to ensure that the two of the fundamental undertakings accepted by State Parties (i.e. the undertakings to maintain the ecological character of wetlands designated for the Ramsar List, and to inform the Ramsar Bureau of any changes in the ecological character, past, actual or potential) were being fulfilled.  The Conference requested the Bureau to prepare a note identifying sites where there was a risk of change to ecological for the third CoP at Regina, Canada 1987, and as a result of this report, established the Montreux Record at the 4th CoP in Montreux, Switzerland in 1990.  The Bureau was always acutely aware that the Record might be viewed as a Red List, Black List or a List of sites in danger, hence the careful choice of name (the “Record”) and the insistence that the Record represents simply a number of priority sites for action (and which as a result may attract funding for remedial measures).

It is interesting to compare the Montreux Record with the similar mechanism of the World Heritage Convention, which has a “List of World Heritage sites in Danger”, a title that does not seem to scare anyone, and which is given great prominence at the annual meetings of the World Heritage Committee (currently meeting in Quebec, Canada).  If a World Heritage site is included (naturally with the full approval of the State Party concerned) on the List of World Heritage sites in Danger), the Party provides a full report before each annual meeting of the World Heritage Committee, and the World Heritage Committee may arrange for technical missions to visit the site concerned and to make recommendations on whether the site should be maintained on the Danger list or removed, the final decision remaining of course with the State Parties.

I have personally been involved recently with two World Heritage sites (both coincidentally also listed under Ramsar), where the World Heritage Centre together with IUCN has arranged a technical mission to review the situation and to advise on removal from the List in Danger.  In both cases, the sites were given extremely serious consideration at the highest level by the Government of the State Party concerned, and the profile of the sites themselves was raised considerably in national governmental thinking.

I am afraid that I am not familiar with current Ramsar practice on the Montreux Record.  If it is to operate as originally proposed by the CoP, I would say that the Ramsar Bureau needs to request details from each Party on the status of Montreux Record sites, and then to present a report to each meeting of the CoP on the status of sites on the Record, and on measures taken since the last CoP to remedy the problems causing actual or potential change in ecological character.  Between meetings of the Conference, there would be a major role for the Bureau in advising Contracting Parties on sites included on the Record, and in identifying sources of funding for remedial measures.

Mike Smart

Deputy Secretary General (or some such title) 1988-1997

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Ramsar Forum is an unmoderated mailing list maintained as a service to the public by the Ramsar Convention Secretariat in Gland, Switzerland. Facts or opinions posted here do not represent the views of the Convention Secretariat or Contracting Parties. To unsubscribe, send a blank message to ramsar-forum-leave@indaba.iucn.org. For help, contact the list manager (ramsar@ramsar.org).

The services and facilities to support this list are provided by The Information Management Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

To join the Ramsar Forum, send a blank message to ramsar-forum-join@indaba.iucn.org.   For more information on the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, please contact the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland (tel +41 22 999 0170, fax +41 22 999 0169, e-mail ). Posted 4-6 July 2008, Dwight Peck, Ramsar.