1. 996 UNTS 245. For further text location references and full status information regarding this treaty, see Bowman, M.J. and Harris, D.J., Multilateral Treaties: Index and Current Status (1984Google Scholar and annual cumulative supplements—hereafter MTICS), Tr. 575. All references in this article to Ramsar debates, documents, resolutions and recommendations can be found in the reports of the various meetings of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, prepared and published by the Ramsar Convention Bureau, rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland. Ordinary meetings of the Conference have been held in Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy 24–29 November 1980; Groningen, the Netherlands 7–12 May 1984; Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada 27 May — 5 June 1987; Montreux, Switzerland 27 June — 4 July 1990; and Kushiro, Hokkaido, Japan 9–16 June 1993. Extraordinary meetings took place in Paris, France 2–3 December 1982 and Regina 28 May-3 June 1987.

2. Misc. 3 (1993), Cm 2127; MTICS Tr. 1008.

3. See generally Lyster, S., International Wildlife Law (1985).Google Scholar

4. See Birnie, P.W. and Boyle, A.E., International Law and the Environment (1992) Chs. 3(esp. pp. 112–127),Google Scholar 11, 12 and 13.

5. Biodiversity Convention, Art. 2.

6. See generally McNeely, J.A. et al. , Conserving the World's Biological Diversity (1990);Google Scholar World Resources Institute, Global Biodiversity Strategy (1992).

7. For other (arguable) examples, see the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 21 ILM 1261, MTICS Tr. 825, especially Part XII, and the 1991 Protocol to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, 30 ILM 1461, MTICS Tr. 992.

8. The Law of the Sea Convention will enter into force one year after the 60th acceptance (Art. 308), which was achieved on 16 November 1993, while the Antarctic Environmental Protocol requires for its entry into force the acceptance of all those States which were Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties on the date of its adoption.

9. Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, state at p. 421 that the ‘first relevant treaty was the 1885 Convention for the Uniform Regulation of Fishing on the Rhine’.

10. For an illustration of this point see the Chronological Table in Kiss, A.C. and Shelton, D., International Environmental Law (1990).Google Scholar

11. See the interview with Daniel Navid, Secretary-General of the Ramsar Bureau, 17 Env. Pol. & Law (1987) no. 5, p. 181. It does appear, however, that earlier drafts of the Convention had the benefit of significant legal input: see generally Matthews, G.V.T., The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: Its History and Development (1993)Google Scholar especially Ch. 3.

12. Comment attributed to an unnamed World Bank official in Dugan, P.J., ed., Wetland Conservation: a Review of Current Issues and Required Action (1990) p. 5.Google Scholar

13. For a sample of the now vast literature on this topic, see Maltby, E., Waterlogged Wealth (1986);Google Scholar Dugan, op. cit. n. 12; Williams, M., ed., Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape (1990);Google ScholarFinlayson, M. and Moser, M., eds., Wetlands (1991).Google Scholar Note also that some of these works contain extensive bibliographies.

14. Finlayson and Moser, op. cit. n. 13, p. 22. At the same time, it must be recognized that wetlands are themselves a source of other greenhouse gases, such as dinitrogen oxide and methane: ibid. Recent research suggests that methane output from rice paddies in India may have been substantially overestimated in the past, however: New Scientist (27 August 1994).

15. Art. 2(2) establishes that wetlands should be designated for the Ramsar List ‘on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology’. Their importance to waterfowl is then singled out for special mention. Generalized references to the ‘flora and fauna’ of wetlands can be found in Arts. 3(3), 5, 6(2)(d) and 6(3).

16. ‘The Need for International Cooperation in Wetland Conservation’, Ramsar Doc. C2.8. See also the same author, op. cit. n. 11, Ch. 3, where the reference to waterfowl in the title of the Convention is attributed to Soviet insistence.

17. See Matthews, ibid. For further accounts, see Boardman, R., International Organization and the Conservation of Nature (1981)Google Scholar Ch. 9, and C. de Klemm and I. Creteaux, ‘The Legal Development of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as ‘Waterfowl Habitat’, INF. C.5.19.

18. Boardman, ibid., p. 168.

19. See in particular the discussion of the evolution of the listing criteria in the section on the Designation of Sites of International Importance, infra.

20. Note in this context the discussion at the Fourth Plenary Session of the Groningen Conference of the views of the Chilean delegation that the Convention required adaptation for South American countries, and the statement that the ‘thrust of the Convention should be towards wetlands and not birds': Plen. C2.4 (Rev.) at p. 21.

21. M.W. Holdgate, ‘Wetlands in a Changing World’, the Keynote Address at the Fourth Meeting of the Conference, INF. C.4.7. For earlier attempts at the 1987 Montreux Conference to encourage wider adherence to the Convention by developing countries, see recommendations REC. C.3.6 (Rev.), 3.7 (Rev.) and 3.10 (Rev.).

22. E.g., Polish — see Sommer, J., ‘Legal Protection of Wetlands in Poland’, in Legal Aspects of the Conservation of Wetlands, IUCN Environmental Policy & Law Paper No. 25 (1991) p. 107.Google Scholar

23. Dugan, op. cit. n. 12, p. 9.

24. Lyster, op. cit. n. 3, p. 184. A detailed coding and classification system of wetland types, dividing them into three main categories (coastal/marine, inland and man-made) and then progressively sub-dividing these categories (e.g., inland into riverine, lacustrine, palustrine and geothermal, etc.) has been developed: see REC. C.4.7 (Rev.), Annex II. At Kushiro the Australian delegation suggested that this model be further refined to include subterranean karst systems: see PLEN. C.5.2 (Rev.), p. 8.

25. Loc. cit. n. 21.

26. Lyster, op. cit. n. 3, passim.

27. See the discussion of Art. 6 in the section on Implementation Mechanisms, infra.

28. These deficiencies were discussed as Agenda Item 9 at the plenary session of the Cagliari Conference and are listed in REC. 1.8.

29. Extraordinary Conference of the Contracting Parties, Paris 2–3 12 1982.Google Scholar The text of the Protocol can be found at Misc. 1 (1984), Cmnd. 9113.

30. See the discussion of the testimonium clause in the section on Final Clauses, infra.

31. Rec. 1.8 para. 2. For the text and current status of the Bonn Convention, see Misc. 11 (1980), Cmnd. 7888; MTICS Tr. 752.

32. Since the Art. 10 bis procedures envisage the adoption of amendments at an extraordinary, rather than an ordinary, meeting, this was held in parallel with the Third meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

33. For the text of these amendments, see Misc. 6 (1990), Cm. 983. For a discussion, see the section on Implementation Mechanisms, infra.

34. Resolution on the Provisional Implementation of Amendments to the Convention (resolutions adopted at Regina were not numbered). Information obtained informally from the Ramsar Bureau suggests that the requisite number of acceptances for entry into force was achieved during 1994.

35. This can be seen in the arrangements for the holding both of ordinary and extraordinary meetings of the Conference, the establishment of Rules of Procedure to govern such meetings and of financial regulations to determine the Convention's budget, and the practice of adopting resolutions, as well as recommendations, at such meetings. Note that the depositary's application of the rules governing the entry into force of amendments has been questioned: see M.J. Bowman, ‘Amendment Procedures under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance’, University of Nottingham Research Papers in Law, No. 12, November 1993 and, by the same author, ‘The Multilateral Treaty Amendment Process — A Case Study’, ICLQ (forthcoming).

36. Although the parties have always contributed to the Ramsar budget, the effect of the new para. 6 to Art. 6 is that such contributions become compulsory. The United States formulated a declaration on this point at the 1987 Extraordinary Meeting.

37. See Bowman, op. cit. n. 35.

38. Section 15, para. 3. The Ramsar Convention in fact came in for specific sharp criticism in para. 5 of that section on a variety of grounds. Although the Secretary-General of the Ramsar Bureau has described this criticism as ‘a bit harsh’ (Navid, ‘The Ramsar Convention Today’, IUCN, op. cit. n. 22, p. 37), it is difficult to disagree with its tenor, and much of the subsequent history of the Convention has constituted an attempt to address the points raised.

39. International Conference on the Conservation of Wetlands and Waterfowl, Final Act Summary Record (Ramsar, 1971) pp. 5–6.Google Scholar For discussion, seeBoardman, op. cit. n. 17, pp. 164–168.

40. Lyster, op. cit. n. 3, p. 206.

41. ‘Donana — the Last Resort’, Fragile Earth series, Central Independent Television, 1992; ‘The Desert and the Deep Blue Sea’, Anglia Television—Channel Four, 1994. See also the Summary Report of Kushiro Workshop C: ‘Establishment of Wetland Reserves’, W.G. C.5.3 (Rev.).

42. REC. C.3.3 (Rev.) and Annex to the Regina Recommendations.

43. PLEN. C.5.4 (Rev.) p. 3. See also PLEN. C.5.3 (Rev.) Annex 3.

44. REC. C.4.10 (Rev.).

45. RES. C.5.6, Annex.

46. See Dugan, op. cit. n. 12.

47. W.G. C.5.2 (Rev.).

48. The extension of financial assistance to countries whose economies were in transition had been controversial — see the section on Financial Aspects, infra.

49. Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, p. 435.

50. Section 1, para. 4.

51. Note that A.S. Timoshenko, ‘Protection of Wetlands in International Law’, in IUCN, op. cit. n. 22, p. 69 appears to suggest that there is a significant difference, if not incompatibility, between these two terms, but offers no supporting argumentation. For a discussion of the wise use concept, see note 42 and accompanying text.

52. In particular, the so-called principle of effectiveness, ut res magis valeat quampereat: see McNair, Lord, The Law of Treaties (1961) pp. 383–385;Google ScholarCayuga Indians Claims case, A.D. 1925–26, No. 271.

53. Cf., Art. 3(2), which requires each party to arrange to be informed of any changes in the ecological character of ‘any wetland in its territory and included in the List’ (emphasis added).

54. Art. 2(3).

55. For a helpful analysis of this term, and a comparison with other concepts such as common property and common heritage, see A.E. Boyle, ‘International Law and the Protection of the Global Atmosphere: Concepts, Categories and Principles’, in Churchill, R. and Freestone, D., International Law and Global Climate Change (1991).Google Scholar

56. For example, the Montreux Conference expressed concern that the building of dams in Afghanistan was leading to ecological changes at Hamoun Lake in Iran, though in that context it should be noted that Afghanistan was not, and still is not a party to the Convention: see REC. C.4.9 (Rev.).

57. Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n.4,pp. 89–112,136–160; Kiss and Shelton, op. cit. n. 10, Chs. 5 and 8.

58. The Trail Smelter Arbitration, 33 AJIL (1939) p. 182; 35 AJIL (1941) p. 684 remains the principal example.

59. Plen. C2.4 (Rev.), Agenda item 9.

60. UKTS 57 (1983), Cmnd. 9034; 18 ILM 1442; MTICS Tr. 764.

61. Matthews, loc. cit. n. 16.

62. See respectively (i) UN Doc. ECE/EB.AIR/12; 27 ILM 707; MTICS Tr. 868; (ii) Misc. 16 (1989), Cm. 885; MTICS Tr. 930; and (iii) UN Doc. ECE/EB.AIR/30; 31 ILM 573; MTICS Tr. 994. Note also the 1993 Preliminary Draft Second Sulphur Protocol, 24 Env. Pol. & Law (1994) p. 122. It is fair to point out that by no means all the parties to the Convention have also accepted these Protocols.

63. Op. cit. n. 3, p. 95.

64. At Kushiro, Dr. J.-Y. Pirot, Co-ordinator of IUCN's Wetlands Programme, pointed out that development assistance was the ‘single most important source of wetland loss in the developing world’: W.G. C.5.4 (Rev.) p. 2.

65. REC. C.3.4 (Rev.).

66. REC. C.4.13 (Rev.). See also Rec. C.5.5.

67. REC. C.4.3.

68. For discussion, see the section on Financial Aspects, infra.

69. This point has been made repeatedly in the Overview Reports prepared by the Bureau for successive Conferences: see, e.g., Vol. III of the Proceedings of the Montreux Conference, para. 154.

70. Ibid., para. 158.

71. RES. C.5.4. Annex.

72. Ibid., para. 2. Note that it is not specified by what means this issue has come to the Bureau's attention.

73. See the text accompanying notes 125–127 infra.

74. REC. C.5.2.

75. For example, the Monitoring Procedure: see the section on Implementation Mechanisms, infra.

76. Plen. C2.3 (Rev.), Agenda item 9. De Klemm and Creteaux, op. cit. n. 17, state more cautiously that Art. 3(2) ‘in essence … requires Parties to attempt to prevent such changes’ emphasis added).

77. Op. cit. n. 3, p. 191.

78. The ‘Heiligenhafen criteria’: see Lyster, op. cit. n. 3, p. 188. The Conference, organized by IWRB in West Germany in December 1974, had originally been intended to be the first meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, but, unfortunately, the Convention had by that time attracted insufficient acceptances for entry into force: Matthews, op. cit. n. 11, p. 48.

79. For successive versions, see Annex II to the Report of the Cagliari Conference; REC. C.3.1 (Rev.) and the Annex to the Regina Recommendations; and REC. C.4.2 (Rev.) and Annex I.

80. REC. C.4.2 (Rev.).

81. REC. C.5.9.

82. Plen. C.5.2 (Rev.) p. 2. The List of Wetlands of International Importance is maintained by IWRB as part of the Ramsar database.

83. See Finlayson and Moser, op. cit. n. 13, pp. 39, 122; Lyster, op. cit. n. 3, p. 186.

84. Holdgate, loc.cit. n. 21. For an indication of intentions to list further sites, seeREC. C.5.1, preamble.

85. Overview Report, Vol. III of the Proceedings of the Montreux Conference, para. 104. The sites are Malugul Dhand, Tanda Dam, Kandar Dam and Kheshki Reservoir.

86. RES. C.5.3 and Annex. Cf., in this context, the procedures established under Art. 11 of the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972 UNJYB 89; MTICS Tr. 605.

87. See, e.g., the recommendations cited at note 21 supra.

88. RES. C.5.3.

89. Art. 11(2).

90. The present author has been interested to learn that a proposal to establish a period of notice before the withdrawal of a wetland from the List had originally been made by the Deputy Director of IUCN in 1970, together with a number of other proposals to strengthen the Convention. The Dutch Government, which had been heavily involved in the drafting process, had apparently advised that there was no prospect of any of these proposals being accepted by sovereign governments: Matthews, op. cit. n. 11, p. 26.

91. The Committee had met on 11 occasions by the time of the Kushiro Conference, and had also established a number of sub-groups: see the Report of the Standing Committee, DOC. C.5.4. The possible involvement of the newly established Scientific and Technical Review Panel would also need to be considered in this context.

92. At Montreux it was stated that ‘… no Contracting Party has ever deleted a wetland from the List’: loc. cit. n. 85, para. 102. At Kushiro it was again stated that ‘No deletions of sites from the List had been recorded’: PLEN. C.5.2 (Rev.) p. 2. The deletion of sites, e.g., in Pakistan, which might never have satisfied the listing criteria was mooted as a possibility, however.

93. At Montreux, for example, the Netherlands reported the removal of 2 ha. from its 250,000 ha. Wadden Sea site for the construction of a car park; the UK also deleted a 274 ha. section of its North Norfolk site, but increased its overall area from 5,559 to 7,700 ha. Potentially more disturbing changes were reported in respect of certain other sites, however: see generally the Overview Report cited at n. 85, paras. 105–119.

94. ‘International Law Requirements’, DOC. C.4.7, Section II.

95. On the interpretation of the World Heritage Convention, and in particular the question as to whether obligations to ‘endeavour’ to do something can amount to binding legal obligations, or are merely statements of aspiration, see Commonwealth of Australia v. The State of Tasmania, 57 ALJR (1983) 450, esp. Brennan J. at pp. 527–534; Mason J. at pp. 489–491; Murphy J. at pp. 506– 509; Deane J. at pp. 545–549; and for the minority view Gibbs CJ. at pp. 466–473; Wilson J. at pp. 513–517.

96. DOC. C.5.5, p. 10.

97. W.G. C.5.4 (Rev.), p. 5.

98. For details, see PLEN. C.5.2 (Rev.), pp. 3–8.

99. Ibid., p. 7. See also W.G. C.5.4 (Rev.) and REC. C.5.14.

100. See the Footnote to the Regina Resolution on the Establishment of a Standing Committee.

101. This conclusion had previously been reached at a meeting between members of the two European regions held during September 1992 at Lelystad and was said to be based on ‘ongoing changes in Eastern Europe’. PLEN. C.5.2 (Rev.), p. 6.

102. Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, pp. 102–109.

103. Lac Lanoux Arbitration, 24 ILR (1957) 101; International Law Commission, Arts. 11–19, 1991 Draft Articles on the Law of the Non–Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, UN Doc. A/46/10 (1991) and, for the completion of the ILC's work on this topic, see 24 Env. Pol. & Law (1994) no. 6, pp. 294–296, 335–368. See also Bourne, C.B., ‘Procedure in the Development of International Drainage Basins: the Duty to Consult and Negotiate’, 10 Can. YBIL (1972) p. 212.Google Scholar Note that Art. 29 of the International Law Association's 1966 Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers only ‘recommends’ such consultations, but cf., Art. 1 of the 1974 28 Articles on the Maintenance and Improvement of Naturally Navigable Waterways, etc.; Art. 7 of the 1980 Articles on Regulation of the Flow of International Watercourses; Arts. 5 and 6 of the 1982 Articles on Water Pollution in an International Drainage Basin and Art. 3 of the 1986 Complementary Rules Applicable to International Water Resources: see generally Manner, E.J. and Metsalampi, V.-M., eds., The Work of the International Law Associationon the Law of International Water Resources (1988).Google Scholar

104. W.G. C.5.4 (Rev.), pp. 4–6.

105. RES. C.4.4 (Rev.), paras. (a),(b). At Kushiro, a draft recommendation on ‘Guidelines for the implementation of Article 5’ was withdrawn after discussion, and the matter referred back to the Bureau for further consideration: W.G. C.5.4 (Rev.), p. 6.

106. Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, pp. 448–452. Note that the preamble to the Ramsar Convention recognizes ‘that waterfowl in their seasonal migrations may transcend frontiers and so should be regarded as an international resource’.

107. RES. C.4.4 (Rev.), para. (c).

108. W.G. C.5.4 (Rev.), pp. 5–6 and PLEN. C.5.2 (Rev.), pp. 5–6. For further discussion of such arrangements, see de Klemm, C., ‘The Problem of Migratory Species in International Law’, Green Globe Yearbook (1994) p. 67.Google Scholar

109. See n. 31 supra.

110. DOC. C.5.5, p. 11.

111. This practice appears to have begun at Regina, where the amendments were adopted.

112. See RES. C.4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 and RES. C.5.3, 5.6, 5.7 and 5.9.

113. This was one of four unnumbered resolutions adopted at the Conference. An earlier, embryonic version of this framework had appeared as an annex to Rec. 2.3 at Groningen.

114. RES. C.5.1.

115. See the discussion of Art. 3(2) in the Section on Additional Obligations attaching to Listed Wetlands, supra.

116. Lyster, op. cit. n. 3, p. 205; De Klemm and Creteaux, loc. cit. n. 17, p. 32.

117. For a record of submission rates in this regard up to the Montreux Conference, see DOC. C.4.18, National Reports.

118. Rec. 2.1.

119. PLEN. C.5.2, p. 1.

120. This point was made by the Hungarian delegation, and also by the WWF: see W.G. C.5.1 (Rev.), p. 5 and PLEN. C.5.4 (Rev.), p. 1.

121. This point was made by the delegations both of China and of Trinidad and Tobago: PLEN. C.5.2 (Rev.), p. 9 and PLEN. C.5.5 (Rev.), p. 2.

122. DOC. C.5.5, p. 5.

123. REC. C.5.1.

124. See PLEN. C.5.2 (Rev.), p. 2 and W.G. C.5.1 (Rev.), p. 2.

125. This fact may well help to explain the discrepancy between the Bureau's estimate and that of Friends of the Earth, who are likely to have relied also upon information from other sources.

126. PLEN. C.5.5 (Rev.), p. 3.

127. This issue was a recurrent focus of discussion: see PLEN. C.5.3 (Rev.), p. 6; PLEN. C.5.4 (Rev.), pp. 1–2; W.G. C.5.1 (Rev.), pp. 1–2; PLEN. C.5.8 (Rev.), pp. 1–2.

128. Rec. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8.

129. REC. C.3.8 (Rev.)

130. REC. C.3.9 (Rev.)

131. See REC. C.4.9 (Rev.) and C.4.9.1–5 (Rev.); REC. C.5.1 and C.5.1.1–3.

132. This right has been recognized in numerous international instruments: see in particular the 1962 Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, UNGA Res. 1803 (XVII); the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/CONF. 48A/14; the 1974 Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, UNGA Res. 3201 (S–VI); the 1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, UNGA Res. 3281 (XXIX); the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. AA/CONF. 151A/5. For a discussion of the relationship between this principle and conservation obligations, see Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, pp. 112–127.

133. REC. C.4.7 (Rev.) and Annex 1.

134. Fora fuller account, seethe Report of the Bureau to the Kushiro Conference, DOC. C.5.5, p. 6.

135. Ibid.

136. Ibid.

137. See the Conclusions of the Siena Forum on the International Law of the Environment, 20 Env. Pol. & Law (1990) no. 6, p. 232, esp. paras. ll(g) and 12(b); Boyle, A.E., ‘Saving the World? The Implementation and Enforcement of International Law through International Institutions ‘, 3 J Env. L (1991) p. 229;Google ScholarSand, P.H., ed., The Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (1992).Google Scholar

138. Although fishing and whaling treaties commonly incorporated institutional arrangements, these were often omitted from other kinds of environmental conventions: see, e.g., the 1969 Bonn Agreement concerning Pollution of the North Sea by Oil, 704 UNTS 3; MTICS Tr. 539. This was eventually replaced by the 1983 Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances, Misc. 26 (1983), Cmnd. 9104; MTICS Tr. 834, which does incorporate institutional arrangements.

139. See Bowman, loc. cit. n. 37.

140. The NGOs were IUCN, ICBP, IWRB, WWF and the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation. The IGOs were UNESCO, UNEP, FAO, the Council of Europe and the EEC Commission: see the List of Participants in the Report of the Cagliari Conference. To compare the attendance at Kushiro, see PART. C.5.1 (Rev.), which includes a list of 15 international NGOs and some 15 pages of representatives of national organizations.

141. Rule 2, Rules of Procedure, DOC. C.5.3.

142. E.g., REC. C. 5.6, concerning the role of NGOs, appears to have been based on a proposal by Birdlife International, with the support of Malta and other delegations: W.G. C.5.1 (Rev.), p. 4.

143. Lyster, op. cit. n. 3, p. 203.

144. Plen. C2.6 (Annex).

145. DOC. C.3.5, para. 4(a)(i).

146. Regina Resolution on Secretariat Matters.

147. Montreux Resolution on Secretariat Matters, Annex to DOC. 4.15 (Rev.).

148. DOC. C.5.5, p. 18.

149. See the Section on Financial Aspects, infra.

150. For the latest version, see RES. C.5.1, Annex 2, Section 5.

151. Namely, to assist the parties to meet their obligations to conserve wetlands, to promote international cooperation in wetland conservation, to foster communication about wetland conservation and to administer the convention.

152. RES. C.5.1, Annex 3.

153. Each meeting of the Conference is given over in part to the meetings of working groups on particular issues, and a Credentials Committee is also established.

154. Regina Resolution on the Establishment of a Standing Committee.

155. For the Report of the Standing Committee, see DOC. C.5.4.

156. Ibid., Section III. See also DOC. C.4.4, Section III.

157. REC. C.4.7 (Rev.).

158. RES. C.5.5.

159. E.g., the l973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 993 UNTS 243; MTICS Tr. 613.

160. Rec. C.5.7.

161. W.G. C2.3 (Rev.).

162. See DOC. C2.6, ‘Voluntary Contributions towards Interim Secretariat Costs’. It is interesting to note that early drafts of the Convention prepared by the Dutch Government had made provision for financial matters, but that these clauses had become casualties of the negotiating process: Matthews, op. cit. n. 11, p. 73.

163. Regina Resolutions on Financial and Budgetary Matters and on the Establishment of a Standing Committee.

164. Montreux Resolution on Financial and Budgetary Matters, DOC. C. 4.13 (Rev.), Annex.

165. DOC. C.4.13 (Rev.), para. 6.

166. DOC. C.5.13 (Rev.).

167. PLEN. C.5.4 (Rev.), p. 5.

168. Ibid., pp. 6–8. This discussion led to the establishment of a Conference Finance Committee, which met throughout the day on Friday 11 June and again on the Saturday afternoon and Monday morning. It produced a report offering three budgetary options: see PLEN. C.5.6 (Rev.).

169. RES. C.5.2, which endorsed the Finance Committee's Option 1, which was described as ‘virtually as provided in Conference Document C.5.13 (Rev. 1) with a slightly amended presentation’: PLEN. C.5.6 (Rev.), Annex, p. 3.

170. RES. C.5.2., Annex 2, pp. 2–3.

171. Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1991 Annual Report. The figure for core income appears to have risen still further to SFr 1,118,010 by the time of the Bureau's Triennial Report, DOC. C.5.5, p. 19.

172. RES. C.4.3 (Rev.).

173. RES. C.5.8.

174. W.G. C.5.4 (Rev.), pp. 3–4; PLEN. C.5.5 (Rev.), p. 4.

175. See the footnote to the Budget for 1991–93, RES. C.4.3 (Rev.) Annex, Attachment 1. Voluntary contributions amounted to around SFr 250,000 in 1991 and SFr 310,000 in 1992.

176. SFr 10,000 per annum in the triennium 1991–93, though this figure was increased to SFr 100,000 per annum for 1994–96.

177. DOC. C.5.5, pp. 8–9.

178. Up to about SFr 40,000: RES. C.5.8, preamble.

179. Ibid.

180. PLEN. C.5.3(Rev.), p.3.

181. Ibid., pp.5–6.

182. W.G. C.5.1 (Rev.), p. 3; REC. C.5.1.

183. DOC. C.5.5, p. 11.

184. See ‘Open to’ entries, MTICS, passim. The Soviet Union had objected to this formula during drafting negotiations, but had ultimately not pressed the point, apparently in return for reciprocal concessions on other clauses: see Matthews, op. cit. n. 11, Ch. 3.

185. DOC. C.4.18, para. 13.

186. Cf., 10 for CITES, Art. 22(1), 15 for the Bonn Convention, Art. 18(1), and 20 for the World Heritage Convention, Art. 33.

187. Art. 10(1).

188. DOC. C.5.5, p. 5. REC.C. 5.1.1 requests theGreek Government‘to take urgent measures to fulfil its obligations under the Ramsar Convention’, in particular by submitting definitive maps of two sites and making definitive delimitations of the other nine, preparing management plans for these sites and ensuring their wise use. For a discussion of the implementation of the Convention by Greece, see Samiotis, G., ‘The Legal Protection of Wetlands and the Ramsar Convention’, 23 Env. Pol. & Law (1993) nos. 3–4, p. 214.Google Scholar

189. The term ‘depository’ is usually employed to indicate a place where something is left for safe keeping, whereas ‘depositary’ usually refers to the person or institution with whom something is deposited: Oxford English Dictionary (where it is, however, conceded that the terms are sometimes used interchangeably). The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, MTICS Tr. 538, uses the term ‘depositary’ in the present context: see Arts. 76–80.

190. See ‘Authentic Texts’ entries, MTICS,passim. For other examples note the 1973 and 1982 International Telecommunications Conventions, MTICS Trs. 632, 824; certain treaties concerning international carriage by air adopted within the Warsaw Convention system, MTICS Trs. 124, 320, 418, 579, 671–674; and the Kuwait Regional Marine Environment Convention, MTICS Tr. 730. In all but the last of these (where the relevant language is English), it is the French text which is to prevail in the event of divergency.

191. Paris Protocol, Art. 2.

192. DOC. C.4.7.

193. PLEN. 4.5. See also de Klemm and Creteaux, loc. cit. n. 17, p. 41.

194. Matthews, op. cit. n. 11, Ch. 3.

195. Such declarations have been formulated by the Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK, and formerly by West Germany with respect to the Land Berlin. For full details, see MTICS Tr. 575.

196. Examples include Hosnie's Spring, Christmas Island (listed by Australia), Het Spaans Lagoen in Aruba and various sites in the Netherlands Antilles (the Netherlands), and North, Middle and East Caicos Islands (UK). Denmark and Norway have designated various sites in Greenland and Spitzbergen respectively. For an interesting RSPB study of possible Ramsar sites in UK territories in the Caribbean, see Pritchard, D., The Ramsar Convention in the Caribbean (1990)Google Scholar, which appears to have prompted the UK's extension of the Convention to Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands in February 1991.

197. REC. C.5.1.

198. Collated in the Overview Reports prepared by the Bureau and published as Volume III of the proceedings of recent meetings of the Conference.

199. At Kushiro, reference was made by India to ‘landmark public interest litigation preventing further encroachment’ on the wetlands of East Calcutta: PLEN. C.5.3 (Rev.), p. 5; and by Trinidad and Tobago to the fact that ‘national courts had prohibited further clearance’ of Nariva Swamp by local rice farmers, though the latter were appealing against this decision: W.G. C.5.1 (Rev.), p. 2. The Montreux Conference had applauded the ‘current and unprecedented legal action instituted by the United States Government in regard to preventing further degradation of the Everglades: REC. C.4. 9.2 (Rev.); and for later developments in this context, see ‘Everglades Plan Agreed’, 23 Env. Pol. & Law (1993) no. 5, p. 226. For a discussion of Greek litigation concerning wetland conservation, see Samiotis, loc. cit. n. 188. Note also the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of European Commission v. Germany, ECJ Case 57/89, 28 February 1991, concerning the lawfulness of the construction of dykes in the Leybucht Ramsar site. Although decided upon the basis of compliance with the Community's Birds Directive, this case raised very similar issues to those that would have been relevant in the context of compliance with the Ramsar Convention.

200. DOC. C.4.18. For further examples, see paras. 337–351.

201. Cagliari Doc. CONF/4, discussed by Lyster, op. cit. n. 3, p. 190.

202. W.G. C.5.1 (Rev.), p. 5. REC. C.5.1 duly called upon the Mauritanian authorities to ensure that the highway did not pass through or adversely affect the national park. It is interesting to note that the head of the Mauritanian delegation is the park's director: PART. C.5.1 (Rev.), p. 15.

203. Sand, op. cit. n. 137.