Towards Ramsar COP9: losing opportunities or fixing the process

by Tatiana Minaeva

IMCG entered into the Ramsar Convention process through the diplomatic skills and strong will of Richard Lindsay. For IMCG the Ramsar Convention is a political mechanism to promote and sustain the results of our activities within the IMCG Strategy. The history of mires within the Ramsar process is well known (see http://www.ramsar.org/ types_peatlands.htm). The result of all the activities was Resolution VIII.17, which gave the Contracting Parties a framework for peatland conservation (Guidelines Global for Action on Peatlands, GGAP) and led to the instalment of a permanent “peatland” group under the Convention umbrella (CoCo-GAP, the Coordnating Commitee for Global Action on Peatlands). The CoCo-GAP was established in 2003, when nineteen experts, drawn from the bodies listed in the Resolution, met in Wageningen (Netherlands) on 5-6 November 2003. Funding for this initial meeting was provided through the Global Peatland Initiative (GPI) with a grant from the Government of the Netherlands (DGIS). A second meeting of the CoCo-GAP took place in Tampere (Finland) on 6 June 2004 where 16 experts met in conjunction with the 12th International Peat Congress. Funding and administrative support was provided by IPS and the GPI secretariat. The Committee, 27 experts this time, met for a third time, again in Wageningen, on 29-30 October 2004. Funding and administrative support was provided by IPS, the Dutch Government (through Alterra) and the GPI secretariat.

During this time, CoCo-GAP has been drafting the Implementation Plan of the GAP, as it was designated in the Resolution. It was expected that there would be a Resolution to endorse the Implementation Plan by the countries. The decision on that was expected from the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) to the Ramsar Convention.

The document, which was still very fresh, was presented during the STRP Meeting in February 2005 by the Russian representative in STRP and IMCG EC member Tatiana Minaeva. Below the relevant portion of the meeting report:

Agenda item 13: Recommendations for future technical priorities: Global Action on Peatlands

125. Tatiana Minaeva made a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the tasks mandated by Resolution VIII.17 and reported that the Coordinating Committee for Global Action on Peatlands (CC-GAP) has now been established, comprising a broad range of representatives from industry, conservation groups, governments, academics, etc. She noted that Tobias Salathé is the chair and conveyed her thanks for his and the Secretariat’s assistance. She introduced the Committee’s draft “Implementation Plan for Global Action on Peatlands” and noted that proposed annexes will be updated based upon information to be gleaned from the National Reports when they are submitted. She suggested that priorities for the future to be recommended to COP9 include peatlands and climate change, peatlands and water, peatlands and biodiversity, and peatlands and human well-being/poverty reduction.

126. Tatiana Minaeva continued that the CC-GAP process has provided a good model for emulation for other wetlands types, because it included intersectoral partnerships, involvement of the private sector, information transfer, leveraged fundraising (e.g., the Global Peatland Initiative), and the involvement of development agencies in project funding. She suggested that a draft Resolution for COP9 should include a recognition of the value of this partnership approach, information for the Parties about priorities identified by the CC-GAP, a request for the Parties to review how well their policy frameworks implement those priorities, and thanks to the Secretariat with a request for continued involvement in the CC-GAP. She said that tasks for the Secretariat in the next triennium might include providing a constant follow-up of information, monitoring GAP implementation by the Parties, identifying gaps, and assisting with fundraising.

127. The Deputy Secretary General (DSG) suggested that the review of implementation and the importance of the consortium approach could be more effectively highlighted in the Secretary General’s Report to the COP and the regional overview reports than in a Resolution, supplemented by additional information to be made available via the Web site. He noted that the Committee’s recommendations regarding priorities for the future will go into the STRP’s advice to the COP on future priorities. He noted that the Secretariat has committed a lot of Dr Salathé’s time as chairperson in order to assist the Committee in getting going, and that priority will have to be reviewed for the next triennium.

Decision STRP12-27: The STRP expressed its appreciation to the Coordinating Committee’s hard work and substantial progress; the Panel urged that reports of the CC-GAP’s achievements should be embodied in various reporting mechanisms to the COP and that its recommendations for future priorities should be included in the STRP’s recommendations to the COP.

There were informal meetings with Tobias Salathe, Jaako Sippola (the new IPS secretary-general, who attended the meeting for 2 days), Randy Milton, and Douglas Taylor. The last 1,5 days also Andreas Grünig joined the discussions.

The way in which we had planned things differed much from what the Secretariat had envisaged. Our idea was 1) to prepare a Resolution on peatlands 2) to attach to this resolution a technical paper, originally developed as “Implementation plan.”

Unfortunately, the document we finally presented to the STRP and which was distributed to all MB members shortly before the STRP meeting, was far from being a final product. It was more a sketch on global peatland problems and an analysis of the capacity for peatland conservation. It was a good report on what was done till now, yet far from being the implementation plan demanded by Resolution 8.17.

Another point of critique was that the document contained too many statements not supported by publications (lack of references). It was decided not to ask STRP to recommend the document be brought to the CoP as Resolution. In the likely event of STRP declining, it would have caused many future problems. Moreover, the Standing Commitee and STRP had decided to have very few resolutions for the Conference of Parties this time. Plans are to have two resolutions one “resuming” and one “planning” ahead. Of course countries are free to suggest more Resolutions via the Standing Committee.

It was suggested to initiate a so called “Ramsar Technical Report Series,” which could be used for publishing background documents. In order to present our results to the COP 9, such an approach was worked out. The main accent in my presentation was on CoCo-GGAP being a perfect example of wide partnership focusing on conservation problems of one type of wetland. We suggested to include statements on the achievements in peatland conservation in the joint “resuming” Ramsar Resolution, and a list of hot-spots and priorities in the “planning” Resolution. We suggested to go on with the preparation of the Implementation Plan and present it on the Ramsar website as a technical paper and to publish it if funds are available.

Some people, including the IPS partners, were very unsatisfied with the result, bemoaning the loss of opportunity. At first I was also disappointed that there will not be a Resolution on peatlands. But is it really needed if it merely serves to analyse the situation? In Russia we say “shouting “sugar” all the time will not make it sweet.” What more do we want to say about peatlands on behalf of the contracting parties? We have a very comprehensive section in the National Report Format, which can be improved upon if needed. We raised awareness of all parties on peatland conservation during the last COP and a number of side events. Much work was done by Richard Lindsay, Jack Rieley, and the team years before, which culminated by Resolution VIII.17. Our job now is to uphold the important place of peatlands within the Ramsar Convention. This can be done mainly by strenghtening the CoCo GGAP further through a number of commitments and rights. CoCo GGAP should keep an eye on the input of CPs with respect to peatland conservation and should report to each COP. First, the Implementation Plan needs to be finished in time and be presented. Then one line in the “planning” Ramsar Resolution like “…CPs recommend the Implementation Plan for Global Action on Peatlands as a framework for planning and reporting to Ramsar on peatlands conservation…” would be sufficient.

IMCG should now focus on wider and official representation in Ramsar during COP meetings. IMCG should develop and print promotional materials for distribution to parties, etc. COP 9 in Uganda will be very soon! A good preconference excursion, presence in the press, leaflets, and posters on IMCG activity will involve more people in mire conservation and will contribute to peatland conservation also outside of the Ramsar framework.