"Piloting the tracking tool for management effectiveness in wetlands protected under the Ramsar Convention." Archna Chatterjee and Jamie Pittock, WWF Background and context With about 1400 Ramsar sites, covering an area of 124 million hectares, barely 9.7% of the total estimated wetland area of 1280 million hectares is protected as Wetlands of International Importance. What percentage of this 9.7 % is achieving the objectives for which these Ramsar sites were established is, however, not very well known. WWFs Global Freshwater Programme has planned, over the next ten years, to champion the protection and management of 250 million hectares of freshwater wetlands, more than trebling the number of protected freshwater wetlands worldwide. To secure long-term conservation benefits, it therefore, becomes imperative, that WWF and Ramsar put in as much effort into achieving sound and effective management of existing Ramsar sites as into designating new wetland protected areas. Measuring this effectiveness is critical for learning, adapting and improving management actions to achieve the objectives set for any area, and to help this process the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has developed a ‘framework’ for assessment. The WCPA framework aims both to provide some overall guidance in the development of assessment systems and to encourage standards for assessment and reporting. The WCPA framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or elements: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. context planning inputs processes outputs outcomes Table 1: Summary of the WCPA framework Elements of evaluation Context Planning Inputs Explanation Where are we now? Assessment of importance, threats and policy environment Where do we want to be? Assessment of protected area design and planning What do we need? Assessment of resources needed to carry out management Process How do we go about it? Assessment of the way in which management is conducted Output What were the results? Assessment of the implementation of management programmes and actions; delivery of products and services Outcome What did we achieve? Assessment of the outcomes and the extent to which they achieved objectives Source Hockings et al. (2002) Criteria that are assessed significance threats vulnerability national context partners protected area legislation and policy protected area system design reserve design management planning Resourcing of agency Resourcing of site Partners Suitability of management processes Focus of evaluation Status Appropriateness Resources Efficiency Appropriateness Results of management actions Services and products Effectiveness Impacts: effects of management in relation to objectives Effectiveness appropriateness WWF has drafted a wetlands protected areas management tracking tool that has been designed to fulfill the elements of evaluation included in the WCPA’s framework. Purpose The Tracking tool has been developed to help track and monitor progress of management effectiveness in wetland protected areas, particularly Ramsar sites, and more generally to help improve management effectiveness. The tool is based on the existing WWFWorld Bank forest alliance tracking tool (http://www.panda.org/downloads/forests/areprotectedareasworking.pdf 2. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/80ByDocName/ReportingProgressInProtectedAreaManagementEffectivenessTracking ToolJuly2002/$FILE/PATrackingToolJune2003.pdf) and the World Bank’s MPA score card http://www.icriforum.org/mpa/SC2_eng_nocover.pdf ). Broadly the tracking tool is: Capable of providing a harmonized reporting system for protected area assessments within WCPA framework Suitable for replication Able to supply consistent data to allow tracking of progress over time Relatively quick and easy to complete by protected area staff, so as not to be reliant on high levels of funding or other resources Capable of providing a ‘score’ if required Based around a system that provides for alternative text answers to each question, strengthening the scoring system Easily understood by non-specialists, and Nested within existing reporting systems to avoid duplication of effort For many of these reasons the tracking tool assesses procedural outputs like preparation of management plans, rather than ecological outcomes that required expensive scientific surveys to collect relevant data on trends. (Source: Reporting progress in protected areas: a site- level management effectiveness tracking tool, Sue Stolton et al, World Bank/WWF alliance for forest conservation and sustainable use, 2003) The Tracking tool is designed as a multipurpose tool that would meet the needs of a variety of users and serve a number of purposes: Individual site managers could use the tool at regular intervals (1-2 years) to track progress of their sites. This also helps maintain continuity in cases where site managers may change (for e.g. in countries like India) Provincial and national governments could employ the tracking tool to assess progress of management programs in suites of sites, thus helping them to identify gaps for corrective action Ramsar, CBD and other multi- lateral processes could effectively use the tool to assess trends in site management and identify gaps at a broader global scale Global NGOs like WWF & multi-lateral institutions like the World Bank-GEF could use it as a handy tool to assess progress of their management programs in suites of sites for identifying gaps for corrective action and to constructively respond to internal and external queries on progress and outcomes of the investment of scarce resources. The tracking tool’s optimal potential would be realized when it rolls up from individual site managers through national governments to provide data through national reports, to feed into a global database. Comparison in trends over time at global, continent, country, province, sites could then be made. It is hoped that the development of this tool may contribute to measurements for the proposed protected areas management effectiveness tracking indicators proposed for adoption by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and Convention on Biological Diversity. In this context, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in partnership with the World Bank and WWF, among others, is considering the establishment of a global database of these tracking tool assessments to monitor global trends in protected areas management. Limitations The tracking tool has been designed to help report progress on management effectiveness and should not replace more detailed methods of assessment of the ecological status of wetland protected areas.. The tracking tool needs to be completed and regularly used by the site manager or other relevant site staff to be useful.. This ‘simple’ approach is useful for prioritization of issues and improving the management process, but tells little about achievement of management objectives. The tool is not designed to allow detailed evaluation of ecological outcomes, but rather serves to provide a quick overview of the status of management steps identified in the WCPA framework. The tracking tool’s ‘ scoring’ system is fraught with difficulties and possibilities for distortion, as it assumes, for example, that all the questions cover issues of equal weight. Limitations of this simple approach should therefore, be recognized. The tracking tool can be completed by the site manager with input from other staff and, ideally, local stakeholders to validate the scoring. It has been designed to be easily answered without any field level research, but by referencing available reports and datasets. Pilot Phase In February 2005, WWF began preparations to field test the ‘tracking tool’ at Ramsar sites where WWF was undertaking a project or providing support to facilitate the process. An email communication went out to the WWF network’s freshwater staff seeking volunteers to test the tool. The official involvement of the Ramsar site manager in the testing of the draft tracking tool was required, so that the management agency’s response to the tool, their comments for its improvement and their ‘comfort’ factor in completing the formats could be judged and adequately incorporated in the revised version. The criteria for selection of sites for field testing were: listed Ramsar site agreement of the managing agency to jointly undertake the assessment; diversity of reserves in terms of number (preferably 3-5), habitats, and tenures (eg. national park, provincial park, private land, etc); The pilot phase ran from April-July 2005. The Ramsar Sites The eight Ramsar sites selected for the field testing were: Reserve/site name Danube-Drava National Park,(DDNP) Hungary, BedaKarapancsa Ramsar site # Area (ha) Land tenure(s) 901/3HU016 1,150 ha Mainly state-owned, small parts owned privately Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia 583/3HR002 17,770 ha A mixture of state and private ownership Habitat type(s) (eg. lake, mangrove, etc) Rivers, oxbow lakes and ponds in the floodplain; marshlands, reedbeds, meadows, willow bushes and gallery forests with ash, elm, alder and oak trees. Extensive Salix, Populus and Quercus woodland which is subject to spring flooding, together with numerous channels, oxbow lakes, Kopacki lake, extensive Phragmites beds and a large complex of fishponds. Kilombero Valley Ramsar Site 1173/ ITZ003 14,400 ha Agriculture land (small scale and Flood plain irrigated farming) – private land Catchment Forest reserves – under the Forest Department Part of the Udzungwa National Park – Under the Tanzania National Parks Game Controlled Area – Kilombero linking with the Selous Game reserve – under the Wildlife Division Livestock keeping – communal land 50,720 ha. National park Forests, lagoons, dunes sands, marshland and wetlands National Park of Doñana (Parque Nacional de Doñana) 234/ 3ES001. Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénegas 734/4MX004 84,347 ha Lake Mikri Prespa 60/3GR008 5,078 ha Small holdings and ejido [??] property (59% -41%). Prespa National Forest (PNF). Despite its being called a “forest” the PNF covers the Greek part of both Micro (=Mikri) and Macro Prespa and its surrounding area. Its total area is 19,470 ha. Inland wetland Hundreds of small, spring-fed, travertinelined pools; and other aquatic habitat as marshes, rivers, barial lakes and channels. Long isolation in specialised habitats (incl. unique gypsum dunes) has given rise to high biological diversity and high endemism, with the site providing habitat for numerous threatened or vulnerable species. Habitats types based on the Ramsar classification listed in descending order of dominance: O - Permanent freshwater lakes (> 8 ha); N Seasonal/intermittent/irregular rivers /streams/creeks, Tp - Permanent freshwater marshes /pools, Ramsar wetland. The Ramsar site called Lake Mikri Prespa forms the core area of absolute protection of the Prespa National Forest Site of Community Importance (EU Habitats Directive) and a Special Protection Area (EU Birds Directive) Both are included within the PNF Prespa Park: The Prespa Lakes have been declared (February 2000) the first transboundary protected area in the Balkans by the prime ministers of Albania, Greece and the FYR of Macedonia. Ts - Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes /pools, 3 – irrigated land (irrigation channels) The site is an inland lake separated from Lake Megali Prespa by a narrow strip of alluvial deposits. Extensive reedbeds occupy the margins of the lake and there are extensive areas of floating and submerged aquatic plants. There are periodically flooded meadows within the site. Landscape of exceptional beauty: according to Greek national legislation Moreover several species of the flora and fauna of Prespa are included in the Annexes of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Public and Private land Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan, India 230/2IN002 2873 ha Provincial/region / state Water storage areas; reservoirs /barrages /dams /impoundments; (generally over 8 ha) Seasonal /intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soil; includes sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; ponds Chilika Lake, Orissa, India 229/ 2IN001 116500 ha Provincial/ region/ state Some parts private owned (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps on inorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes Permanent rivers/streams/creeks; includes waterfalls Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least one relatively narrow connection to the sea Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sandbars, spits and sandy islets; includes dune systems and humid dune slacks (dominant) The process The tracking tool questionnaire (Annex 1) and the format for tracking tool assessment report (Annex 2) sent out to WWF contact persons for each of the Ramsar sites. Field visit (s) were undertaken to the site to meet the site manager. In some cases there was no specific manager, but the area was under a government department, and was managed in general along with area under the jurisdiction of that particular department. The tracking tool questionnaire was completed jointly with the site manager. In all cases the WWF project manager contributed to the assessment. The completed questionnaires and assessment reports were analiysed by WWF, based on which the tracking tool is being revised. This report outlines the major inputs received from the Ramsar site managers, on the practical utility of the tool, its usefulness in management planning and most of all the ease with which the tool could be completed. The ‘Scores’ for the Ramsar Sites Ramsar Sites and their ‘Scores’ Elements Ma xim um pos sibl e sco re DDNP Hungary, BedaKarapancsa Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia Kilombero Valley Tanzania National Park of Doñana, Spain Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénegas, Mexico Lake Mikri Prespa Greece Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan, India Chilika lake, Orissa, India Final score**(%) Adj.max score* Your Score Final score**(%) Adj.max score* Your Score Final score**(%) Adj.max score* Your Score Final score**(%) Adj.max score* Your Score Final score**(%) Adj.max score* Your Score Final score**(%) Adj.max score* Your Score Final score**(%) Adj.max. score* Your Score Final score**(%) Adj.max. score* Your Score 25 96 17 65.4 11 26 20 26 76.9 18 26 69.2 13 26 50 16 61.5 23 Total score for 26 Context (A) 11 92 6 50 2 12 10 12 83.3 9 12 75.0 1 12 8.3 12 100 9 Total score for 12 Planning (B) 12 92 9 69.2 1 13 10 13 76.9 10 15 66.7 4 13 30.8 8 61.5 11 Total score for 13 Inputs (C) 19 79 8 33.3 2 24 14 24 58.3 15 20 75.0 5 20 25 9 37.5 21 Total score for 24 Process (D) 12 92 10 76.9 7 10 70 10 13 76.9 4 7 57.1 8 61.5 9 Total score for 13 Outputs (E) 23 85 9 33.3 13 22 59.1 16 27 59.3 14 27 51.9 16 59.2 17 Total score for 27 Outcomes (F) 115 102 75 107 69.2 78 113 69.0 41 105 39.1 69 90 88.7 59 51.3 16 21.3 74 60 Total (A+B+C+D+E +F) * If some questions are not scored (e.g., not relevant), the maximum score should be changed to an adjusted (adj.) score (maximum possible score minus points for question that are not applicable). **Final score is the percentage of your score over the maximum (if all questions have been scored) or the adjusted maximum score. 88.5 75 84.6 87.5 69.2 62.1 78.3 The ‘score’ results are discussed only briefly, in as much as to show the utility of the tool, as the objective of the report is to analyse the feedback on the tool itself. While the report does not reflect much on the information received from the completed formatssuffices to say that one who has not been to any of these sites would get a good picture of the ground realities at these sites. Some interesting aspects emerge from studying these scores: A wide variation in the final scores of DDNP, Hungary and Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia, both part of the transboundary floodplains of the Danube, clearly shows the differences in management systems and indicate where the improvements are needed. Management on DDNP side is much more efficient compared to Kopacki rit which is recovering from the vicious conflicts of the 1990s and the political challenges which followed, although in terms of biodiversity Kopacki rit is much more diverse. While both are Ramsar sites, Kopacki rit is not a national protected area, while DDNP is a national park, and this is reflected in tracking tool scores. These floodplains represent a single ecological unit and there should be cooperative ecosystem management applying the same high standards. The Middle Danube floodplains, with its different nature protection regimes (Hungary, Croatia and Serbia), can thus potentially benefit greatly from the use of the tracking tool to identify and highlight management issues to be addressed and to track progress over time. Kilombero Valley Ramsar site, Tanzania, scores low, as it is still in the process of management planning. There is no dedicated site manger and staff. Very low scores for the planning, inputs and process sections reflect this and should provide the technical and financial investment avenues for the government and others. Till these are in place outputs and outcomes would always score poorly. As Kilombero prepares its management plan and begins to implement it from 2006, practical tools such as this would help steer the planning and its implementation in the right direction. Considering that Kilombero has a great many organizations both public and private, involved in its management, the tracking tool would be a useful and easy catalyst medium for action. Doñana shows high scores for planning and inputs but the threats (namely illegal groundwater extraction, new highway projects, and new infrastructure for Sevilla’s harbour) have stayed at same levels bringing down the score for outcomes. This could be related to the fact that the wetland protected area is not integrated into the integrated river basin management plan. Mechanisms for stakeholder participation exist and are encouraging but need to be improved for better results. Cuatrociénegas, Mexico, is a federal protected area and a Ramsar site with an average score. Threats from the over exploitation of water, exotic species and timber extraction have stayed at same levels, the unorganised tourism to the protected area has increased, thereby increasing the threat level. An important aspect here is for management to focus on devising strategies for tourism regulation and promoting responsible tourism so it becomes an asset instead of a threat. The site scores well on stakeholder participation in decision making and management activities. Training opportunities could be made available to all staff instead of only for senior managers. Lake Mikri Prespa, Greece, scored surprisingly low, in spite of its prestigious status as part of the transboundary Prespa Park, support by the heads of state of three nations namely, Albania, Macedonia and Greece. The site’s management planning does not meet expectations for such a site. However the management work being done by the NGO Society for Protection of Prespa is noteworthy and should be able to provide crucial support for a proper, long term management plan. The Prespa management body was established in 2003, but it has no personnel, inadequate funding (allocated but not transferred), and no long-term management plan. These elements are priorities for more effective management. Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan, India is a World Heritage site and a National Park in addition to being a Ramsar site. It is also better known as a bird’s paradise. Its scores are average in spite of scoring 100 percent in the planning section of the tool. Being a National Park, it enjoys highest level of protection, which means that resource use by surrounding villages is not legally permitted. Alienation of villagers with park is a long standing issue. The park is also seen as a competitor with agriculture for water from the dam upstream. Drought years have seen worst expressions of public resistance to release of allocated share of water to the park. This problem calls for integrating the wetland into broader scale planning and better communication of the ecosystem services and livelihood security that KNP provides to the local people. Management planning must take into consideration stakeholder views and communication channels need to be strengthened. Chilika lake, Orissa, India scored well, in keeping with the Ramsar Award it received in 2002. A dedicated management authority, a committed site manager at the helm, and progressive State policies have helped Chilika recover from its position on the Montreux Record. To maintain this status over long-term, an effective monitoring and evaluation program, a suite of performance indicators, agreed to by the stakeholders, must be put in place urgently, for measuring the outputs and the outcomes and for the adaptive management. The tracking tool could be an important component in the monitoring and evaluation protocol. Ramsar sites which are also national level protected areas (eg DDNP, Keoladeo) have better scores as compared to sites which are only Ramsar sites (e.g Kopacki rit, Kilombero). One exception is Prespa which in spite being a transboundary protected area shows lower scores. Application of tracking tool on a regular basis could thus help national and provincial authorities in prioritising allocation of funds and personnel, for sites which are not protected areas to improve their standard of management to those sites that are protected areas. Feedback from site managers Comments and suggestions obtained from the site managers have been tabulated, based on the tracking tool assessment reports received. Both DDNP and Kopacki rit assessments were carried out by WWF-Danube Carpathian Programme and thus the comments are common. The tracking tool Ramsar sites DanubeDrava National Park, Hungary, BedaKarapancsa, and Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia Kilombero Valley Ramsar Site Comments/ suggestions from Ramsar site managers and WWF project managers Elements of evaluation Context Planning Inputs Process Outputs Outcomes Clear , Include a comprehensive and useful Question on stakeholder awareness and concern does not differentiate between the larger and more influential stakeholders and the smaller stakeholders, much more numerous question on management plan following intl. criteria (Ramsar, IUCN) Include question on involvement of stakeholders through public hearing Should make clear distinction between wetland protected area and Ramsar site which does not Include a question on inputs and evaluatio ns from independ ent researche rs, NGOs, joint universit y-NP prog. Comprehensi ve Include a question on independent monitoring of management processes A question role of NGOs Communicati on of threats and objectives to stakeholders Include a question on encouraging involvement of volunteers, NGOs, educational facilities Excellent Deal with uneven influence of stakeholders issue General Easy to use Should be conducted on yearly basis Would be excellent if becomes a Ramsar national report requirement Tool does not User-friendly tool, ask for information on the status of species for which the Ramsar site provides a quicker and cheaper method of gathering useful information Comprehensive- it National Park of Doñana (Parque Nacional de Doñana) have legal status as protected area Stakeholder awareness on wetland values and threats should be measured separately instead of clubbing in one statement has been designated The term, ‘Resource’ is not defined clearly covers a range of issues and therefore serves as a reminder of critical issues which might have been overlooked in daily management operations Tool is biased towards Ramsar sites (which are also PAs legally) with site managers, staff & budget but does not seem to apply on Ramsar site with no management team, staff, budget and legal status Include Necessary to Tracking tool and question(s) to evaluate the risk/threats/ situation in the surroundings of the Ramsar site establish a temporal reference point for the evaluation e.g. Have resource conditions improved- but ‘since when’ is not clear the assessment are very useful, because the tool is simple to use and gives a complete view about the national park In addition to the score, commentaries of the assessor(s) are valuable for analysis and reflection Emphasis on Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociéneg as stakeholders participation and community welfare are strong aspects of the tool which would help the manager to adopt best practices to meet conservation goals by involving all stakeholders and at same time improve the standards of living of the communities Easy tool that Lake Mikri Prespa Address the whole wetland Does not clarify who is Under staff training The term ‘resource’ More objective allows us to keep track of the activities and programmes developed in the PA It does not require extra workload for the manager as it can be completed in 1-2 days Would be useful if can be made mandatory to be used regularly over long period of time Recommend to have a second part of the tool- which is more specific and is capable of providing detailed information on the management of the site Recommend the involvement of some stakeholders in the development of the tool Considered useful as it helps to protected area, not just the Ramsar site Add question to distinguish situation in Ramsar site and the surrounding wetland PA Not clear whether percentages mentioned for stakeholder awareness and concern refer to groups (1 out of 4) or absolute numbers Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan, India Legal status as a National Park might prevent involvement of local stakeholders in the planning process, tool provides a constant reminder to the manager setting management objectives and who is implementing mgmt. measures Agreed objectives may not necessarily be SMART, fine tune the question shouldn’t include options 0 and 1 (i.e no training or insufficient training should be defined in guidance notes Reference point for ‘ outcomes’ need to be explained in guidance notes quantification of ‘somewhat’ or ‘significantly’ required clearly show differences between plans, implementation and results Needs fine tuning for harmonized reporting system and be suitable for replication Tracking tool Assessment gave a provides opportunity for obtaining periodic comments from the stakeholders/ local community, which can then be used as a feedback loop by the manager for the management plan quick view of the status of management Chilika Lake, Orissa, India Measurement of stakeholder awareness does not differentiate between the immediate stakeholders (fishermen, villagers) and the other stakeholders like tourists, students etc. Along with the adequate no. of staff, the capacity of staff must also be recorded Tool helps to bring out the importance of immediate stakeholders for management as compared to stakeholders as tourists, students Format is user- friendly, not cumbersome to complete and does not take much time Well-structured to cover most of the aspects of management Helps to identify management issues and to some extent quantify them The ‘revised’ tracking tool Field testing the tool provided useful insights into the gaps and areas requiring clarification. The tool is now being revised based on tool assessment reports from field testing sites. The revised tool would soon be available for wider application on Ramsar sites specifically and other wetland protected areas in general. The tracking tool and Ramsar At a time when the importance of good management of Ramsar sites is being emphasized, WWF is of the view that the application of the tracking tool to gauge the management effectiveness at Ramsar sites could be a catalyst for more resources and support for better site management. The tracking tool would complement the management planning guide being developed for the Ramsar site managers. The tool is capable of assessing each step of the management planning, and if used at regular intervals of 1-3 years, provides crucial information to the manager, national policymakers, and Ramsar Convention on the conservation and management trends in the Ramsar sites. The tool can help identify the bottlenecks for remedial action. The ‘tool’ does not specifically track the ecological character of the sites, but indirectly addresses this through questions on ‘threats’, ‘meeting objectives’, ‘outputs ‘ , ‘outcomes’ and the monitoring and evaluation plan of the site. The tool could also be used to track any improvements in the management of the sites under Montreux Record. ‘Wise use of wetlands’ - the guiding principle of Ramsar Convention is reflected aptly in the tracking tool with its emphasis on involving the stakeholders, communities and indigenous people in the various steps of management planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The data generated from the use of tracking tool on an annual basis at Ramsar sites would contribute to the Ramsar sites database and this would also help in updating the Ramsar information sheets. The tool and the data generated through it would provide important inputs to the development of the indicator on Wetland management, currently being developed with a suite of indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of Ramsar Convention. More over, the tool is not static but an evolving one – responding to the emerging issues and concerns. The Future Steps Completion of the field testing phase is an important milestone in the development of this tracking tool. Linking it with Ramsar processes and approaches is the next logical step. Ramsar is in the process of development of the Indicators of effectiveness of the Convention. This is an aspect on which Ramsar STRP will be tasked to do further development work as a priority in the 2006-2008 triennium. The utility of the tool as a mechanism for acquiring information in relation to these indicators has already been recognized. The coordinated approach for application of the tracking tool on the Ramsar sites, thus assumes great significance, as well as developing linkages to similar assessments, e’g IBA monitoring by Birdlife International, Medwet qualitative assessment and the WHSRN site assessment approach, becomes important. WWF, Ramsar and other IOPs could play a crucial role in these assessments and developing the linkages by pooling together resources and technical expertise. WWF could play a central role in coordination while Wetlands International could provide expertise on creation of the database and Ramsar could host the database. The development of the proposed ‘headline indicator’ for Ramsar sites could also be facilitated by data gathered from these assessments. This data could also be used as an indicator of wetland protected area management effectiveness by both the Ramsar Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity. Some key components of the analysis rolling up from site-level assessments could be: Status of the Ramsar sites worldwide-correlation with factors like legal status, staff numbers, training, involvement of stakeholders in planning and other factors Trends in management of Ramsar sites over time Identifying the most crucial threats to Ramsar sites globally and how to tackle these problems Identifying key success factors for management activities Analysing the success factors for maintaining the ecological character Identifying a minimum or core set of requirements for an effectively managed Ramsar site Key questions for the Ramsar Convention contracting parties to consider: 1. Is the tracking tool going to be helpful to the site managers in assessing progress and issues in the management planning for the Ramsar sites and other wetlands protected areas? 2. Should the tracking tool be formally endorsed by the Convention in some form? COP9 DR2 will mandate the STRP to develop the mechanisms for Effectiveness indicator data acquisition and analysis, could the tracking tool be formally endorsed by the Convention as one of these mechanisms? WWF would welcome feedback and advice from interested parties on the further revision and application of the tracking tool. Contacts for feedback or more information: Archana Chatterjee, Coordinator, Freshwater and wetlands Programme, WWF-India. Email achatterjee@wwfindia.net Jamie Pittock, Director, Global Freshwater Programme, WWF International, Email: JPittock@wwf.org.au