The draft GAPP having been adopted by COP7 on the understanding that a re-drafting process would produce the final version of this document, it is clear that a mandate has been given by COP7 to those parties willing to complete the work of drawing up the formal GAPP document. What follows is an outline of what is likely to be the process by which this is achieved.

1.) The draft, in its present form, was largely put together by Clayton Rubec. As part of the Canadian delegation to COP7, Clayton was also responsible for presenting the document to COP7. The Secretariat of the Ramsar Bureau was responsible for noting proposed changes to the wording arising from debate in Plenary Session, but is not responsible for development of the draft into the final GAPP document. It would therefore seem clear that Clayton Rubec remains the focal point for production of the final document — and indeed Clayton has offered to chair the re-drafting group.

2.) Several Contracting Parties (CPs)made it clear during Plenary debate that they wished to see parts of the wording changed. Several other CPs and International Partner Organisations (IPOs)also indicated their desire to be part of the re-drafting process. The document will outline actions and obligations for both CPs and IPOs to the Ramsar Convention. It is thus clear that all such interested parties wishing to take part in the re-drafting process should be given the opportunity to do so.

3.) If all such CPs, IPOs and other relevant bodies wishing to take part were to be represented on a steering committee for the re-drafting, it is a real possibility that such a committee would be too large to be capable of working effectively (it is not clear that this would be the case, but there is this potential). It may therefore be desirable to consider establishment of a relatively small "drafting committee", who then act on behalf of a (potentially)much larger "GAPP Discussion Group". In practice, it would seem quite possible to have an effective discussion involving as wide a constituency as possible, but also to identify the key elements for the Steering Committee then to take forward.

4.) Gapp Discussion Group

As soon as the final draft wording (i.e. following amendment as a result of Plenary discussion)is available from the Ramsar Bureau Secretariat, this wording should be distributed to all CPs and IPOs and other relevant organisations, inviting them to indicate any changes they would wish to see incorporated into the final text. Part of the purpose of this exercise is obviously to ensure that all parties affected by the final GAPP document have had an opportunity to comment, but also it begins the more fundamentally important process of drawing all involved parties into the GAPP programme. One of the key elements identified during the GBF Peatland Workshop was that the GAPP will only succeed if all affected parties feel involved and make an active contribution; the GAPP will not succeed if it is regarded as something promoted and acted upon by individual or limited sectoral interests.

5.) An Internet/e-mail GAPP Discussion Group is probably the most effective way of ensuring as wide a participation as possible during this comments stage, though there is of course the problem that this excludes those not on e-mail — and involvement of tropical and under-developed countries (where access to e-mail may not be so easy)is seen as vital to the long-term success of the GAPP. Some consideration will need to be given to this point.

6.) The question of who stimulates and hosts such a Discussion Group was not formally debated at Ramsar COP7. If any CP or IPO is willing to host such a facility, this would be fine, but in the absence of any clear offer so far, the IMCG is willing to begin by hosting it. If some better-resourced organisation wishes to take it on later, the web-site address can be re-directed to the new location relatively easily.

7.) It is proposed that this GAPP Discussion Group urgently consider the wording of the current draft, and make proposals for amendments. Those wishing to take part in this process must be prepared to check out the various documents posted on the web-site as they come in, and then respond via e-mail to the IMCG Secretariat. The web-site is:

GAPP Discussion Forum currently closed)

The e-mail address to send comments — ideally in [.rtf] format — is:

imcg@uel.ac.uk (or, if this fails for any reason):

r.lindsay@uel.ac.uk

The purpose of this exercise would be to try and reach consensus about most issues, and have identified any critical, unresolved issues, by early November. The process of debate needs to be focused on a particular end-point with a clear deadline because otherwise things have a tendency to go round and round and never reach a conclusion. It is thus proposed that the Discussion Group work towards achieving as near a complete result by early November, to permit the 1^st Meeting of the GAPP Steering Committee to meet in late November.

8.) GAPP Steering Committee

No clear guidance on the composition of any form of steering group was given by COP7, but there does seem to be at least a certain degree of self-selection in terms of those parties who expressed particular interest in, and willingness to work to promote, the GAPP programme. It is going to be important to ensure that there is representation from the Asian, African Neotropical and Oceania regions. Almost certainly these regions contain mire resources which are in most need of study and appreciation, being probably some of the least-well known elements of these regions’ natural resources, yet at the same time potentially representing some of the most important keys to developing long-term sustainability of landscapes, communities and economies in significant parts of these regions. By making this note widely available, it is hoped that this will act as a stimulus to such involvement.

9.) For such a Committee to work, it is clearly important that it does not become too unwealdy. There is thus a need to ensure that representation is appropriately channelled through a limited number of agreed representatives.

10.) The objectives of the GAPP Steering Committee (it is proposed)would be to:

10.1) collate comments from the GAPP Discussion Group;

10.2) draft the final wording of the GAPP;

10.3) ensure that GAPP activities are as co-ordinated and optimised as they reasonably can be, given the range of actors, actions, and local conditions;

10.4) provide a general overview of progress for reporting to CoPs.

11.) There is to be a joint meeting of the IMCG and International Peat Society (IPS)in Munich toward the end of November (see below under Specific Actions), and Clayton Rubec will be acting as facilitator for this meeting. Following an offer from IUCN, there is a proposal that, subsequent to this bilateral meeting, Clayton and representatives from both IMCG and IPS would travel to Gland to meet with other members of the GAPP Steering Committee and take part in the 1^st GAPP Steering Committee, with IUCN as the host. The provisional dates for this have been proposed as either 23^rd/24^th November or 30^th November/1^st December.

12.) Once dates have been confirmed, it is proposed that IUCN will send invitations to those who have expressed a desire to be represented on the GAPP Steering Committee. Bearing in mind Point 9 (above), it would be desirable to ensure that those attending this Committee are able to reach prior agreement with partner CPs or organisations to maximise their representational status — i.e. represent as wide a constituency as possible.

13.) After (hopefully)reaching an agreed form of wording for the GAPP by the end of this 1^st Meeting of the Steering Committee, it is worth looking forward to identify further potential milestones for activities. In the summer of 2000, there will be the Millennial Wetland Event, hosted by Quebec City. This major event represents a valuable opportunity to review progress on a number of fronts, particularly as both IPS and the IMCG will be holding major conferences as part of the overall Millennial Event. It is worth considering what might constitute a convenient milestone in 2001, but then in 2002 there is of course COP8, in Spain.

14.)Specific Actions

As well as re-drafting the final wording of the GAPP programme, there are several other activities which are already ongoing, and are worth highlighting here because they may well form (indeed will hopefully be agreed as)part of the specific actions which can translate the GAPP programme into substantial progress and real changes on the ground.

15.) Those listed here are specifically IMCG or IMCG/IPS actions, mainly because the present draft GAPP grew partly from a range of joint discussions between, and proposed initiatives from, these two organisations. Most are either in the late planning stage or have already begun, though most are also constrained by a lack of funding. It would be useful to make a catalogue of other specific current or planned actions which can form part of the GAPP programme. Details of these could, for the moment, be e-mailed to IMCG, who can begin collating these on the IMCG web-site until such time as agreement is reached about the most suitable location for the GAPP web-site.

15.1) IMCG/IPS Wise Use Guidelines for Mires and Peatlands

These Guidelines are at an early drafting stage, with agreement reached on the framework and content. The next stage requires extensive discussion about the detailed substance of the text, first within the two organisations, then across as wide a constituency as possible.

Contact: Hans Joosten : joosten@mail.uni-greifswald.de


15.2) IMCG European Mires book

Started as an update of the Council of Europe "European Peatlands" publication by Roger Goodwillie (1980) , this has since grown to cover the whole of geographical Europe and is in a rough-draft stage. The next phase requires extensive editing and correspondence with the original contributors. It is hoped that, if funds were to become available, this would be produced as a final text for the Quebec 2000 meeting, with publication shortly afterwards. The intention is that this should form the first of a series of regional publications — the next region proposed being the Americas.

Contact: Hans Joosten : joosten@mail.uni-greifswald.de


15.3) Mire Classification & Terminology

IMCG has established a project which is examining the whole question of mire classification and terminology. Two workshops have already been held — one in Greifswald, northern Germany, the other in Sumava, Czech Republic — to review ways of improving the current lamentable situation. Sub-groups have been established for 7 topics, covering water-relations, animal diversity, plant diversity, regionality, terminology, conservation/functional values, and muti-level issues. The next meeting will be in Poland in March, 2000. The individual sub-groups will spend the intervening period engaged in electronic discussion — ideally involving as wide a range of consultees as possible — with a view to presenting a reasonable draft for the sub-group at the Poland Workshop. The success of this will depend, to a large extent, on the degree to which these sub-groups can be supported by active participation and funding for co-ordination and travel.

Contact: Richard Lindsay : r.lindsay@uel.ac.uk


15.4) Holarctic Mire Species List

This is an Excel spreadsheet compiled by Philippe Julve, and provides a synthesis of information about species of the Holarctic Realm which are typically found in mire ecosystems. Philippe is keen to have as much comment on the list as possible, and also to receive any relevant data, no matter how large, small or complex. The primary requirement for completion of this work is that people should comment and contribute information. There are already plans to compile similar lists for other floral realms, with an ultimate objective of generating a Global Mire Species List.

Contact: Philippe Julve : philippe.julve@wanadoo.fr


15.5) Wetlands International Central & East European Project

This is a major project for mire systems in Central and Eastern Europe, funded by the Danish and Dutch Governments and the World Bank. Embracing eight countries — Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Ukraine — the project will work through the governments concerned, and in partnership with organisations such as IMCG, to produce a catalogue of important mire sites and a set of conservation measures to ensure their long-term survival.

Contact: Henk Zingstra : ZINGSTRA@wetlands.agro.nl