Exploring Governance in Canadian Ramsar Sites to Ensure Their Sustainability

Exploring Governance in Canadian Ramsar Sites to Ensure their Sustainability

Jocelyn Baker

A Major Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Sustainability in The Faculty of Social Sciences

Brock University St Catharines, Ontario, Canada

November 2019

The Ramsar Convention came into effect in 1975, in response to global losses of wetland habitats and their ecological services. Canada joined the Convention in 1981. As essential elements of sustainability, this research examined the types of governance and management activities used in the 37 Canadian Ramsar sites. How ecosystem governance could further support environmental sustainability was also explored. Ramsar sites were assessed using sustainability indicators, looking at the 14 priority areas of focus such as presence of co-management structures, management plans, and monitoring programs under the three commitment criteria (wise use, management, cooperation). The results showed a large variation in terms of management plans, governance structures and reporting procedures with some sites, such as Old Crow Flats, having high sustainability scores while others, such as Southern James Bay, with low scores. Reasons for variation related to the lack of updated management plans and inadequate monitoring and reporting programs. Sustainability science provides linkages between ecological and social systems, underpinned by participatory and collaborative governance structures. Canadian

Ramsar sites provide a living example of how social-ecological characteristics should be integrated to ensure sustainability.

Keywords: Ramsar, wetlands, ecosystem services, environmental sustainability, governance

Acknowledgement

My Masters candidacy experience can be summarized by a pivotal conversation, a life- changing reading and an iconic diagram. First, I would like to thank Dr. Ryan Plummer for a conversation that changed the trajectory of not only my career, but my life. Without your confidence in my abilities, and a nudge, I would have never contemplated the idea of graduate school. To my supervisor, Dr. Liette Vasseur, your work ethic, high determination and discipline is something to behold. I knew we were a good match when you sent me your paper ‘slow down the pace’. Thank you for pushing me beyond what I thought was possible, and for always being available no matter what time of day or country you were in. A special thank you to Dr. Diane Dupont, who not only likes to measure things, but is brilliant at it. You taught me the value of a well-placed diagram, and how less really can be more. You were always so generous with your time, and I fully enjoyed rolling up my sleeves and digging into the numbers with you. And finally, to all my friends and family, especially my husband Darcy and my two sons Leeland and Jack. Thank you for your patience and understanding and for not thinking the idea of going back to school was totally crazy. Its never too late to pursue a dream, even the ones you didn’t quite fully realized you had.

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1

Wetlands & Ecological Services……………………………………………………..……3

Wetlands & The Ramsar Convention……………………………………………………..5

Enhancing Social-Ecological Sustainability...………………………………………...…14

Methodology Framework: Analyzing Ramsar Site Sustainability………………………19

Analytical Approach……………………………………………………………………..23

Results……………………………………………………………………………………24

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………..…36

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….43

References…………………………………………………………………………….….46

Appendix A: Ramsar Designation Criteria………………………………………………53

Appendix B: Priority Areas of Focus Analysis for Ramsar Sites ……………………………55

List of Tables

Table 1: Canadian Ramsar Site Summary…………………………………………...……7

Table 2: Priority Areas of Focus Elements for Analysis………………………………...21

Table 3: Canadian Ramsar Site Sustainability Metric Score & Ranking by Category…..25

Table 4: Analysis for priority areas of focus: Ramsar Convention Commitment

Criterion I: Wise-use (maintenance of ecological character) at Ramsar site level………29

Table 5: Analysis for priority areas of focus: Ramsar Convention Commitment

Criterion II: Effective management at Ramsar site level………………………………...30

Table 6: Analysis for priority areas of focus: Ramsar Convention Commitment

Criterion III: Enhanced cooperation and engagement at Ramsar site level………...……31

List of Figures

Figure 1: Ramsar Site Sensitivity Analysis: Standard Score Verses Weighted Score…..32

Figure 2: Ramsar Convention Criterion: I – III Sensitivity Analysis……………………33

INTRODUCTION

The Ramsar Convention provides a framework for international, national and local wetland conservation action. My major research paper (MRP) aimed to examine, through the analysis of Canadian Ramsar sites, how wetlands could be conserved using principles of ecosystem governance and sustainability science. The questions asked during my research were: Did Ramsar sites play an important role in protecting ecological systems? Did they integrate social threats and needs into their management? Did they use principles, such as participatory approaches and adaptive governance to enhance their sustainability?

Wetlands and people form interconnected social-ecological systems of environmental, economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational values (De Groot et al., 2012). Wetlands are specific ecosystems that are controlled by water regimes, soils, and other characteristic features such as aquatic flora (Keddy, 2010). Definitions of wetlands and wetland types vary globally. The worldwide definition of wetlands comes from the Ramsar Convention (1971) and refers to: “areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres, areas where water is the primary factor controlling the environment and the associated plant and animal life” (Matthews, 2013, p. 38).

The value of wetland ecosystems and their interconnections to humanity through their cultural and ecological functions has become increasingly studied and understood in recent years. However, these collaborations between people and nature, the patterns of relationship and their interconnections have not always been understood or valued (Clare & Creed, 2013). Conflicts between humans and wetland areas have been well documented, dating back to Roman times, where coastal fringe environments were drained and cleared for agriculture. In the 1900’s, in North America, wetlands were cleared for extensive agriculture (Davidson et al., 1991). In southern Canada, many

1 wetlands were drained in the late 1800’s to accommodate settlements and farming (Government of Canada, 2018).

In order to protect wetlands across the world, the Ramsar Convention came into effect in 1975. The Ramsar Convention is a voluntary global wetland framework signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. The purpose of the Convention is to promote the conservation and wise-use of water-based ecosystems, including wetlands, lakes, and rivers. The wise- use conservation of water ecosystems is promoted through the designation of qualifying sites as Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance. The Ramsar Convention includes 170 member nations with 2,355 designated Ramsar sites, totalling over 253 million hectares of Wetlands of International Importance. Ramsar sites form the largest network of designated areas globally.

Signatory countries to the Ramsar Convention agree to the three core Ramsar commitments: encourage the wise-use conservation of water-based ecosystems and their resources; ensure effective management; and engage in enhanced cooperation. The Ramsar Convention commitments are implemented through a series of strategic plans. The 4th Strategic Plan, 2016-2024 is the current plan and focuses on fourteen priority areas as the mechanism for Convention implementation. The fourteen priority areas of focus are: decrease and stop the loss of wetlands, promote science-based advice and guidance, understand climate change and wetland interactions, promote ecosystem function, communicate ecosystem services, enhance cooperation, implement the Convention, designate Ramsar sites, ensure wise-use conservation, understand invasive species and wetland impacts, promote full participation, increase synergies, encourage wetland financing and promote the role the Ramsar site plays within the larger wetland basin.

Canada entered the Ramsar Convention in 1981. It has currently 37 Ramsar sites, covering an area of 13 million hectares. Although 37 wetlands have been designated under the Ramsar Convention, few studies on their status and governance, and what they have been able to accomplish have been completed until now in Canada. It appears that

2 only one study has examined the national status of Canadian sites since their existence (Lynch-Stewart & Associates, 2008). The deficiency of data and understanding on how sites can be managed and the types of governance structures that are used, make it difficult to assess their sustainability and define which structures can be effective for future site designation in Canada. Further research is required to assess, through the lens of sustainability science, the governance structures and management types that have been used in Canadian Ramsar sites for wetland conservation and to ensure their sustainability.

Governance structures and management activities are key factors in determining the sustainability of social-ecological systems (Vasseur et al., 2017). The aim of this MRP was to examine the types of governance structures and management activities used in all 37 Canadian Ramsar sites. Further analysis explored how ecosystem governance can be further supporting environmental sustainability at each site. This research paper includes first a review of the literature on the importance of wetlands and the various components that can make them sustainable as Ramsar sites. Followed by the methodological approach, the elements used to analyze the sustainability of the Canadian sites; this is followed by the results section and finally a discussion in which the implications of these results are presented and how they relate to sustainability science.

WETLANDS & ECOLOGICAL SERVICES

Wetlands are vulnerable ecosystems, yet vital lifelines of nature. Their position as links between aquatic and terrestrial habitats have made them one of the world’s most productive and biologically diverse systems, providing food and habitat for a variety of species (Azous & Horner, 2001). Wetlands are important contributors of the global water cycle and play a key role in climate change adaptation (Erwin, 2008). They are recognized worldwide for their ability to purify and filter nutrients, sediments and other pollutants from water (Verhoeven et al., 2006). Many studies have shown that wetlands have a high capacity to improve water quality. Natural wetlands, including riparian buffers, can significantly reduce the nutrient load of surface runoff, by removing nitrogen and phosphorus (Verhoeven et al., 2006). Wetlands play important ecological roles, such

3 as providing habitat for fish and wildlife, plants for medicinal purposes, buffers for storm mitigation, and carbon sequestration and storage (Zedler and Kercher, 2005).

Globally, wetlands provide many of the ecosystem services that support humans and wildlife. Ecosystem services are the benefits obtained from natural habitats (Diaz et al., 2018). They include food crops, improved water quality, materials and supplies such as wood and plant fibers. Wetlands support over 100,000 freshwater species globally (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The livelihood and survival of many cultures depend on the functions and benefits of wetlands for food provision (Silvius et al., 2000). For example, rice is grown in wetland complexes and is the staple diet of nearly half of all humanity (Fairhurst, 2000). Most commercial fish and invertebrates including crabs, and shrimp depend on wetlands for part of their lifecycle (Gedan et al. 2010). Fish provide almost half of humanity with a significant portion of their dietary protein needs, humans consume an average of 20 kilograms of fish per year (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016). In 2007 it was estimated that ecosystems provide $46 trillion US annually ($57.5 trillion in 2019) to the economy, with coastal marine wetlands and terrestrial wetlands composing two-thirds of the global total value (Costanza et al., 2014).

Access to clean, healthy water is critical for life. Over 50% of the global population lives within 3 kilometres of a surface freshwater source (Kummu, 2011). Throughout history, the human relationship between water and wetlands has been complex, yet most advanced human civilizations were developed within or in immediate proximity to wetlands (Mathews, 1993). Wetlands and their proximity to water is highly desirable for settlement, desirable because of their rich organic soils and low-lying topography. Wetland ecosystems are susceptible to land conversion, notably for agriculture (Dugan, 1993), according to Davidson, the global long-term loss of wetlands is likely as high as 87% since the 18th century. The rate of wetland loss has been almost 4 times higher during the 20th and early 21st centuries, corresponding with resource exploitation and population expansion and movement of communities into wetland and coastal fringe areas (Davidson, 2014).

Wetlands do not function as separate ecosystems; nor are they static, their boundaries are forever changing as well as the species they support. Wide-spread global wetland losses, due to land conversion, for agriculture and urbanization have raised a concern since the 1920’s, including its impact on hunting and associated waterfowl populations (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2014a). Wetlands provide a wide range of ecosystem services and play a key role in economic prosperity. Wetlands continue to face severe pressures, despite their contributions to biodiversity and ecosystem services they provide to humans on the global scale.

WETLANDS & THE RAMSAR CONVENTION

As the world population continues to rise, natural areas are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the threats of land conversion, invasive species and the consequences of climate change (Wittemyer et al., 2008). With 15% of the global land-base and 10% of its water under protection (Protected Planet, 2019), protected areas world-wide are becoming increasingly important for conservation, preserving biodiversity, providing ecosystem services, while enhancing human well-being (DeFries et al., 2007). Under the current Convention on Biological Diversity, through the Aichi targets, parties are required to increase protected areas to 17% of their territory by 2020 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2019). It is, however, important to note that a protected designation cannot be an end in itself (Debarbieux & Price, 2008). Achieving a designation should include or immediately lead to the development of ecosystem governance and management plans to achieve desired site goals and sustain the social-ecological system and their ecosystem services (Debarbieux & Price, 2008).

The Ramsar Convention is the oldest intergovernmental environmental protection agreement, negotiated through the 1960’s by several countries and conservation groups concerned about losses of wetland habitats and associated declines in waterfowl populations and adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971, coming into effect in 1975 (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2014). The Ramsar Convention provides a

5 framework for international, national and local wetland conservation action. It is a voluntary, non-regulatory global convention for action on the wise-use conservation of water-based ecosystems: Wetlands of International Importance, known as Ramsar sites. In order to qualify for Ramsar designation, at least one of nine possible designation criteria must be met (Appendix A). Designation criteria recognize the global biodiversity contribution of the proposed Ramsar site, with most criteria centered around the importance of ecological characteristics contributing to global species populations of mainly birds and fish. This protected area designation (Ramsar Secretariat Convention, 2014b), can be an effective conservation tool, by incorporating sustainability into ecosystem governance structures (Ramsar Convention Handbook 5th Addition, 2018).

The Ramsar Convention has provided a framework to assist 170 nations protect and conserve their most significant wetlands for many decades. The global extent of wetlands is estimated to be over 12.8 million km2, constituting 6-7% of the world’s land base (Lehner & Döll, 2004). However, it is unclear as to whether the Ramsar Convention has had any impact on reducing wetland loss globally (Davidson, 2014). Although a comprehensive assessment of the state of the world’s remaining wetlands is lacking, in 2012, 127 governments reporting to the Ramsar Convention indicated that the overall status of their country’s wetlands are deteriorating (Ramsar Convention Handbook 5th Addition, 2018). Unfortunately, the scholarly literature on Ramsar site assessment is sparse. Few studies on Ramsar site governance, and what they have been able to accomplish have been completed.

With more surface water than any other country in the world, Canada is also home to 25 percent of the world's wetlands, representing over 150 million hectares (Government of Canada, 2016). Canadian wetlands provide vital ecological goods and services to numerous sectors and support a number of Canadian industries and municipalities, including municipal water treatment plants, and over 2.5 million square kilometers of natural areas for recreational usage (Kennedy & Mayer, 2002). With over 2300 sites designated globally, Ramsar sites form the largest network of officially

6 recognized, internationally important, protected areas in the world (Ramsar Secretariat Convention, 2014).

Since 1981, Canada has designated 37 wetlands as Ramsar sites, totalling 13 million hectares or 9% of all Canada’s wetlands. There is at least one Ramsar site in every province and territory in Canada, with Ontario having the most at eight sites, followed by Nunavut with 5 sites, Quebec with 4 sites, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia and Alberta with 3 sites each, Manitoba and Saskatchewan with 2 sites each and the Yukon, Northwest Territories, PEI and Newfoundland with 1 site each. Table 1 lists the 37 Canadian Ramsar sites geographically by province and territory moving from western to eastern Canada. The first Ramsar site designation was Cap Tourmente (Quebec) in 1982, with the most recent Ramsar site, Columbia Wetlands (British Columbia) designated in 2005. The Fraser River Delta (British Columbia) Ramsar site was expanded in 2012 through the designation of additional wetland areas.

Table 1: Canadian Ramsar Site Summary

Ramsar Site Location Designated Site Manager Site Summary

Old Crow Flats Yukon 1982 Environment Notable species: Tundra Canada, First Swan, White-fronted Nations Goose

Whooping Crane Northwest 1982 Environment Canada Northern Wood Buffalo Summer Range Territories National Park. Notable species: Whooping Crane,

Polar Bear Pass Nunavut 1982 Environment Notable species: Peary Canada, Inuit Caribou, Polar Bear

Rasmussen Nunavut 1982 Environment Canada Notable species: Tundra Lowlands Swan, Snow Goose,

Queen Maud Gulf Nunavut 1982 Environment Notable species: Ross' Canada, Inuit Goose, King Eiders

Ramsar Site Location Designated Site Manager Site Summary

Dewey Soper Nunavut 1982 Environment Notable species: Lesser Canada, Inuit Snow Goose, Atlantic Brent

McConnell River Nunavut 1982 Environment Notable species: Lesser Canada, Inuit Snow Goose, Ross’s Goose

Fraser River Delta British 1982, 2012 British Columbia Notable species: Chinook, Columbia Chum, Sockeye, Pink, Coho

Creston Valley British 1994 British Columbia, Notable species: Highest Columbia Environment Canada density of Osprey in Canada Columbia British 2005 British Columbia, Notable species: Bull Wetlands Columbia Environment Canada Trout, Peregrine Falcon, Badger Hay-Zama Lakes Alberta 1982 Alberta, First Notable species: Lesser Nations Snow Goose, Common Tern

Beaverhill Lake Alberta 1987 Alberta Notable species: Piping Plover, Sandhill Crane

Peace-Athabasca Alberta 1982 Environment Canada Notable species: Delta Whooping Crane,

Peregrine Falcon Last Mountain Saskatchewan 1982 Saskatchewan Notable species: Lake Whooping Crane, Sandhill Crane, Piping Plover, Burrowing Owl

Quills Lakes Saskatchewan 1987 Saskatchewan Notable species: Whooping Crane, Piping Plover

Ramsar Site Location Designated Site Manager Site Summary

Delta Marsh Manitoba 1982 Manitoba Notable species: Ruddy Turnstone, Semipalmated Plover

Oak Hammock Manitoba 1987 Manitoba Notable species: Buff- Marsh breasted Sandpiper, Black-crowned Night Heron

Polar Bear Ontario 1987 Ontario Notable species: King Provincial Park Eider, Snow Goose, Tundra Swan

Southern James Ontario 1987 Environment Canada Notable species: Lesser Bay Snow Goose, Marbled

Godwit Minesing Marsh Ontario 1996 Nottawasaga Notable species: Conservation Prothonotary Warbler, Authority Prairie White-fringed Orchid

Matchedash Bay Ontario 1996 Ontario Notable species: Least Bittern, King Rail

Point Pelee Ontario 1987 Environment Canada Notable species: Prothonotary Warbler, Henslows Sparrow

St. Clair Ontario 1985 Environment Canada Notable species: Northern Bobwhite, Black-bellied Plover, Yellow-breasted Chat

Long Point Ontario 1982 Environment Notable species: King Canada, Ontario, Rail, Least Bittern, Long Point Prothonotary Warbler Conservation

Authority

Ramsar Site Location Designated Site Manager Site Summary

Mer Bleue Ontario 1995 National Capital Notable species: Conservation Area Commission Cottongrass, 9 species of Orchids

Lac Saint- Quebec 1987 Environment Canada Notable species: Sedge François Wren, Common Tern, Sandhill Crane

Lac Saint-Pierre Quebec 1998 Quebec Notable species: Great Blue Heron, Goldeneye

Baie de l'Isle- Quebec 1987 Environment Canada Notable species: Great Verte Snow Goose, Short-eared Owl

Cap Tourmente Quebec 1981 Environment Canada Notable species: Snow Goose, Peregrine Falcon

Tabusintac New 1993 New Brunswick Notable species: Piping Lagoon Brunswick Plover, Common Tern

Shepody Bay New 1987 New Brunswick Notable species: Mud Brunswick Shrimp Semipalmated

Sandpiper, Mary's Point New 1982 Environment Canada Notable species: Brunswick Harlequin Duck, Common Murre

Chignecto Nova Scotia 1985 Environment Canada Notable species: Mud Shrimp, Semipalmated Sandpiper

Southern Bight- Nova Scotia 1987 Environment Canada Notable species: Mud Minas Basin Shrimp, Black-bellied Plover

Ramsar Site Location Designated Site Manager Site Summary

Musquodoboit Nova Scotia 1987 Nova Scotia Notable species: Canada Harbour Goose, Black Duck Grand Codroy Newfoundland 1987 Newfoundland & Notable species: Red Estuary Labrador Crossbill, Bobolink

Malpeque Bay Prince Edward 1987 Prince Edward Notable species: Piping Island Island Plover, Double-crested Cormorant

As an early adopter of the world’s first environmental Convention, Canada’s inclusion to the Ramsar Convention has seen the nation’s commitment to wetland conservation and management increase significantly, including adoption of complementary wetland policies by the provinces, territories and the country (Rubec & Hanson, 2008). This includes species and habitat initiatives administered by the Government of Canada, through the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Rubec & Hanson, 2008).

Despite Canada’s commitment to wetland conservation, it remains unclear whether Canadian Ramsar sites have sustained or enhanced wetland conservation. The only study completed on behalf of Canadian Wildlife Services (Lynch-Stewart & Associates, 2008) has examined the economic benefits related to the designation through a Canadian Ramsar site Manager survey. It was completed to assist with the development of Canada’s Report for the Convention’s Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2008. The survey profiled the Ramsar sites and associated wetlands and provided an update on Ramsar site management and a review of the effects of designating wetlands as Ramsar sites in Canada. From this report, a few elements are underlined: vagueness of action once a site is designated and limited information regarding how sites are managed and thus their governance (Lynch-Stewart & Associates, 2008).

At the Summary of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (22-29 October 2018), the Secretary-General identified

11 global governance, management and reporting issues at the local Ramsar site level, with over half of Ramsar sites missing updated reports. Efforts to improve implementation, particularly in management, governance, wetland restoration and capacity building of Ramsar sites are therefore strongly recommended (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016).

At the global intergovernmental level, the Ramsar Secretariat recognizes the need for international synergies and embraces a collaborative governance approach through extensive partnerships (Earth Negotiation Bulletin, 2018). Conservation and the wise-use of wetland resources requires cooperative governance to bring a more sustainable local system (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016) and therefore should involve various local actors. Governance is therefore an important concept that has been evolving over time in sustainability science. One major aspect that has been increasingly promoted is the importance of inclusive action. As Newig & Fritsch (2009, p. 197) state “current political trends and scholarly research increasingly promote collaborative and participatory governance in multi-level systems as a way to more sustainable and effective environmental policy”. They suggest that governance structures consisting of many levels and organizations yield higher environmental effectiveness than monocentric governance systems.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines ecosystem governance as ‘‘the interactions among structures, processes, and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say in the management of natural resources—including biodiversity conservation’’ (IUCN, 2004). It therefore supports the idea of Newig & Fritsch (2009) that there is a need for a diversity of actors but at the same time a devolution strategy to ensure that local actions are effective and adaptive management can support these actions (Vasseur et al., 2017).

The distinction of ecosystem governance from other types of governance is the means by which society determines and acts on goals and priorities related to the

12 management of natural resources, their services and functions, in an integrative and inclusive manner (Vasseur, 2016). Ecosystem governance looks at the way humans can protect the environment and maintain socio-economic activities in a sustainable way. It is an inclusive and adaptive approach that better connects the social system with the ecological system (social-ecological systems) to improve conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem health for human well-being (Vasseur, 2016). The range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage natural resources, at different levels of society are considered.

The IUCN (2019) further elaborates on the concept of ecosystem governance as an approach that merges different disciplines to explore ways that humans can protect the environment and maintain activities in a sustainable manner. Ecosystem governance is essential to ensuring continued access to vital ecosystem services to support human well- being at Canadian Ramsar sites while also supporting their sustainability.

Different discourses tend to use the idea of sustainability in different and competing ways depending on the desired results (Hulme, 2009). Although the value of sustainability is widely acknowledged as a means for “achieving a viable future for humankind” definition challenges remain (Stock & Burton, 2011, p. 1092). “These definitional issues highlight the inherent epistemological problem of sustainability that hampers transdisciplinary work in sustainability, while studying it, you are also trying to define it” (Stock & Burton, 2011, p. 1092). There is no consensus on how to define environmental sustainability and many definitions exist (Moldan et al., 2012). However, it is widely agreed that the concept is based on the principles and consideration of social- ecological systems (Poveda & Lipsett, 2011). Moldan et al. (2012) define environmental sustainability as the activities required to balance social, economic and environmental needs to maintain ecosystem services at a suitable level. It is generally accepted, the goals of environmental sustainability are related to the need for the conservation of natural capital and ecosystem services, and the shift to a less resource-intensive future (Bassi, Becic, & Lombardi, 2014).

Conservation and wise-use of wetland resources will require cooperative ecosystem governance and adaptive management to bring a more sustainable future of these systems (Vasseur, 2016). As Debarbieux & Price (2008) argue, although receiving protected area designation is an important accomplishment, designation needs to lead into a second systems phase of governance and management. In order to ensure the sustainability of protected areas, long-term social and institutional commitments between local communities and governments, and ecological systems need to be managed in an open and adaptive way (Vasseur, 2016).

ENHANCING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY

The Mission of the Ramsar Convention Conservation is the “wise-use of all wetlands through local, national, and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world” (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016, p. 1). The vision of the Ramsar Convention sees to ensure wetlands are conserved, wisely used, restored and their benefits are recognized and valued by all (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). With over 2 million square kilometers of designated wetlands globally, Ramsar sites are the foundation of a global wetland network that helps maintain biodiversity and provide ecosystem services for both humans and non-humans. The core purpose of the Convention is the designation and subsequent management of Ramsar sites to ensure their long-term conservation and sustainability.

As previously mentioned, signatories to the Ramsar Convention have three primary obligations known as Convention Commitments: 1) employing the conservation wise-use of designated wetlands through national and local actions; 2) ensuring their effective management, and; 3) promoting enhanced engagement, including collaboration between site managers, stakeholders, and Indigenous Peoples (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2014). The wise-use of wetlands is the main concept governing the work of the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2014). The Convention defines wise-use of wetlands as “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable

14 development. Wise-use, therefore is at the heart of the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources, for the benefit of people and nature” (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016 p. 2).

Since the ratification of the Ramsar Convention, four strategic plans have been completed, with the 4th and current Strategic Plan cycle covering the time period 2016- 2024. Building on the work of the 3rd Strategic Plan, the development and updating of management plans, and site monitoring continue to be the focus of attention at the Ramsar site level (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). In addition, enhanced engagement and cooperative measures have been identified as needing to be strengthened to stop and further prevent the global losses of wetlands (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). In the 4th Strategic Plan, the experts acknowledge that the wise-use conservation of wetlands and their resources will require a range of “actors well beyond those responsible for the management and maintenance of Ramsar sites and other wetlands” (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2019 p. 7). This range of actors will be required to extend from local to global, with existing partnerships and the forging of new ones. All levels of society, including business, government and communities is required to work together in order to enhance Convention implementation (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). The 4th Strategic Plan includes the following practices to be promoted to ensure the sustainability, governance and management of any Ramsar site (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016):

• Engage the local community; • Raise awareness of the importance of the site; • Gain support and ensure involvement in site designation, management and monitoring; • Establish a broad-based site management committee; • Activity based implementation at the Ramsar site level; • Periodic assessments of the management effectiveness; • Focus on the effectiveness of conservation, but also on the benefits to the local community.

To further ensure the wise-use of wetlands and the maintenance of their ecological character, the 4th Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016) has developed, with expert and citizen input, the following fourteen areas of priority focus:

1. Preventing, stopping and reversing the loss and degradation of wetlands: Realization of this fact and its consideration in planning and decision-making requires that wetland resources and wetland ecosystem benefits are measured, valued and understood widely within societies.

2. Science-based advice and guidance: Enhancing the generation and delivery of science-based advice and guidance to practitioners and policy makers.

3. Climate change and wetlands: The critical importance of wetlands for climate change mitigation and adaptation is understood.

4. Information about ecosystem functions and the ecosystem services they provide to people and nature: The services, benefits, values, functions, goods and products wetlands provide are integrated in national development plans.

5. Communicating ecosystem functions and the ecosystem services they provide to people and nature

6. Enhancing cooperation: Participating in cooperation platforms, site level to national level to promote bringing together site managers, key private and public stakeholders.

7. Implementing the Convention: Improving compliance with Ramsar provisions concerning Ramsar Site updates, inventories of all wetlands and Wetlands of International Importance, maintenance of ecological character and management of

sites, the preparation of management planning processes for all Ramsar Sites, and implementation of such management planning on the ground through the presence of staff, appropriate infrastructure and other resources. 8. Identifying and designating wetlands as Ramsar Sites and transboundary Ramsar Sites, based on national inventories to ensure their protection for the future and the inclusion of underrepresented wetland types in the Ramsar Site network.

9. Wise use of wetlands: Wetlands that are providing local, basin-level, national, regional and global benefits, are well and actively managed to ensure that the ecological functions are maintained.

10. Invasive alien species: Acting to limit and eradicate invasive species in wetlands.

11. Strengthen and support the full and effective participation and the collective actions of stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, for the existence of sustainable, comprehensive and wise use of wetlands.

12. Synergies: Enhancing efforts to streamline procedures and processes including reporting and to facilitate data sharing amongst parties responsible for the implementation.

13. Financing: Financing is needed to manage wetlands. The cost for non-action may be severe. Adequate financing is a particular challenge in many countries, especially developing countries.

14. Basin perspective: Analyzing and expressing wetland functions and the ecosystem services they provide to people and nature at river, lake and groundwater basin level, engaging with the stakeholders is necessary to recognize wetlands as part of a wider water cycle.

To achieve these visions and mission, the Ramsar Convention acknowledges that “it is essential that vital ecosystem functions and the ecosystem services wetlands provide to people and nature are fully recognized, maintained, restored and wisely used” (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016, p. 1). The Ramsar 4th Strategic Plan Priority Areas of Focus have been developed by building on the strengths and addressing the weaknesses of the previous strategic plans (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). The Ramsar Secretariat urges Contracting Parties to implement the 4th Strategic Plan at the regional site level by mobilizing actions that support the Priority Areas of Focus, recognizing these components are needed to ensure the sustainability of Ramsar wetlands (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016).

The data deficiency of how Canadian Ramsar sites are governed and managed makes it difficult to assess which actions are being done well and which ones need to be improved to ensure the maintenance of ecological character and therefore their sustainability. Critical questions remain as to what types of governance structures and management activities have been used at Canadian Ramsar sites to maintain ecological character to ensure sustainable ecosystems. As mentioned, Moldan et al. (2012) define environmental sustainability as the activities required to balance social, economic and environmental needs. It is recognized that sustainability supports all three pillars: society; environment; and economic, but not in the same way, at the same time. Therefore, these questions were addressed by evaluating how ecosystem governance and management activities could be supporting relative environmental sustainability at Canadian Ramsar sites, looking at what components needed to be in place to ensure their wise-use conservation in the long-term (over 50 years).

In this analysis, the types of governance structures currently used in Canadian Ramsar sites were examined as well as the management activities taking place in those sites. Finally, the components that needed to be in place to support environmental sustainability, ensuring Canadian Ramsar sites continue to maintain, for future generations, the ecological characteristics that afforded the designation initially were identified. As Sutton (2004) notes, achieving environmental sustainability looks at what

18 systems are required to be in place to “maintain the qualities that are valued in the physical environment” (p. i). This statement has been further supported by Molden (2012) who defines environmental sustainability “as maintaining nature’s services at a suitable level” well into the future (p. 7).

METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK: ANALYZING RAMSAR SITE SUSTAINABILITY

Can we actually measure sustainability? This question has been raised by Turcu (2012), noting that academics and policy makers have been debating ways to measure sustainability since its popularization in the 1980’s. Although there is a growing number of indices relating to sustainability, including the human well-being index (Kaivo- oja, Panula-Ontto, Vehmas, & Luukkanen, 2013), the environmental performance index (Hsu et al., 2014), and the sustainable development index (Barrera-Roldán, & Saldı́var- Valdés, 2002), it is widely agreed that a multi-criteria approach is appropriate for environmental sustainability assessment and natural resource management (Maness & Farrell, 2004). Poveda & Lipsett (2011) define sustainability assessments and indicators as tools that can help decide which actions should or should not be taken in order to achieve sustainability. Indicators are commonly integrated as part of multi-criteria decision making, effectively combining qualitative and quantitative information into a single measurement (McCartney & Houghton, 2009). Indicators are measures that can help not only with environmental sustainability assessment including governance aspects, but also the long-term monitoring of management actions to ensure sustainability (Kaivo- oja, Panula-Ontto, Vehmas, & Luukkanen, 2013).

Once sustainability indicators are defined, they must be measured. The application of environmental sustainability indicators is often limited by their selection and interpretation (Moldan, Janouskova & Hak, 2012). Generating a numeric value for sustainability measurement provides context for the indicator, and an indication of how far away the target or goal is (Moldan, Janouskova & Hak, 2012). Turcu (2012) recommends utilizing existing data when selecting indicators, and further advises that

19 preference should be given to data that are produced by experts with input from citizens to ensure a higher level of credibility.

In the case of wetland assessment, for this MRP, the Working Wetland Potential (McCartney & Houghton, 2009) was selected after a review of the existing literature. It is an appropriate expert derived analytical framework that analyzes the factors linking people and wetland ecosystems together. The method is based on a form of multi-criteria decision analysis that integrates biophysical and socio-economic aspects of wetland utilization (McCartney & Houghton, 2009). The Working Wetland Potential builds on the work of the Healthy River model (McCartney & Houghton, 2009). Both recognize ecosystem health, as an important management concept, which can be measured with a list of credible indicators (Jones et al., 2001).

From the existing literature, the development of environmental sustainability indicators for the assessment of the Canadian Ramsar sites was undertaken. With expert input from Vasseur & Dupont, sustainable governance and management activity analysis of Canadian Ramsar sites was measured by looking at the Ramsar Convention fourteen priority areas of focus from the 4th Strategic Plan (Table 2). For each priority area, a specific element to analyze was targeted. As Turcu (2012) recommends, existing and credible data should be utilized in such an analysis and several documents pertaining to the 37 sites were consulted to complete this analysis.

Table 2 shows the 14 priority areas and then links each to a specific research question that can be answered using an ordinal scale. Possible responses within each research question are assigned a numerical value (from highest value, is the response most compatible with sustainability outcomes to the lowest value, is the response least compatible). The table also shows the minimum and maximum values that were assigned for each possible response. So, for example in priority area 1, three possible responses were as follows: yes, increased over time (assigned a value of 2), no change over time (assigned a value of 1) and no, decreased over time (assigned a value of 0). Priority area 9, on the other hand, could have many possible responses. This is shown by the range of

20 possible score values from 0 (no, wise use has not been maintained) to 10 (where all of the following are in. place to ensure wise use: updated management plan in the last 10 years, legislated monitoring requirements and community monitoring, as well as use enhanced through regulatory and non-regulatory designations such as National Wildlife Management Area as an example). Appendix B provides both the sources for responses to these questions, as well as the assigned values for each of the priority areas for each of the sites. It also shows the total sustainability score possible for each of the 37 Ramsar sites. As Table 2 notes, however, two priority areas cannot be measured and so the subsequent analysis is based on responses to the research questions identified for 12 of the 14 priority areas. As Table 2 also notes, the highest possible score for a site is 30.

Table: 2 Priority Areas of Focus Elements for Analysis Priority Areas of Focus for Elements to Analyze (Research Score the Ramsar Convention Questions) / 30

1. Preventing, stopping and Have wetlands increased overtime? 0 - 2 reversing the loss and (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). degradation of wetlands 2. Science-based advice and Who is advising the site manager? (National 0 - 3 guidance Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015; Fiske & Dupree, 2014; Karmarkar & Tormala, 2010). 3. Climate change and The critical importance of wetlands for 0 - 1 wetlands climate change mitigation and adaptation is understood? (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). 4. Information about Has a management plan been produced 0 - 2 ecosystem functions and the providing information about ecosystem ecosystem services they functions/ services? (Ramsar Convention provide to people and nature Strategic Plan, 2016). 5. Communicating ecosystem Do they update their site ecological 0 - 1 functions and the ecosystem information through the updating of the services they provide to Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS) every 6 people and nature years as required? (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016).

Priority Areas of Focus Elements to Analyze (Research Score for the Ramsar Questions) / 30 Convention

6. Enhancing cooperation Do they have initiatives to promote wetland 0 - 1 value and importance, bringing together site and other managers, key private and public stakeholders? (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). 7. Implementing the Is the site manager actively involved in site 0 - 2 Convention level activities? (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). 8. Identifying and designating (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). * wetlands as Ramsar and transboundary Ramsar Sites 9. Wise-use of wetlands Has the maintenance of the wetlands 0 - 10 ecological character been maintained since designation? (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016; Ramsar Canada, 2019a). 10. Invasive alien species With respect to invasive species, has the 0 - 2 original flora and fauna state been maintained since designation? (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). 11. Strengthen and support the Is there stakeholder and partnership 0 - 3 full and effective engagement? (Ramsar Convention Strategic participation Plan, 2016). 12. Synergies. Enhancing (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). * efforts to streamline processes and procedures

13. Financing Has a budget been established since 0 - 1 designation? (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). 14. Basin perspective Does the community understand and 0 - 2 recognize the role the Ramsar site plays within the larger context? (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). * Note: Cannot be measured at the site level, Obligation of the Contracting Party. (Ramsar Canada, 2019a).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

This research was informed by a quantitative assessment to generate an environmental sustainability score that could vary from 30 points at the maximum to zero at the minimum. “The key measure is centered on the questions, if we have all these things the experts say are needed then the system will be sustainable” (Jones et al., 2001, p. 18). The Ramsar Convention fourteen priority areas of focus served as the research questions, with each question assigned a possible score ranging from 0-10. Two of the fourteen priority area of focus questions, synergies and designating wetlands as Ramsar sites / transboundary sites could not be answered at the regional site level. As national implementation responsibilities, these questions were not used as part of the assessment (Ramsar Canada, 2019a). Values were assigned to possible responses to each of the 12 questions noted in Table 2 with information being obtained using document analysis coming mainly from government reports, the Canadian Ramsar Federal Program Audit (2004), Canadian National Wildlife Area Sites Audit (2008), Canadian Ramsar national reports (1999-2018), Ramsar site information sheets, nomination documents, designation documents, site management plans, conservation plans, and supporting websites. A targeted literature search was also completed with the following keywords: Ramsar and Canada; Ramsar and Canada and assessment; Ramsar and sustain*; Ramsar and Canada and govern*; Ramsar and Canada and manage*; Ramsar and ecosystem services. Search engines and databases utilized included Brock SuperSearch, Google Scholar and Web of Science between August 7, 2019 and December 1, 2019.

Following the analysis and subsequent scoring of each of the Ramsar sites, each score was subsequently transformed into a value that took as its maximum 100%. Thus, a site with a score of 27 out of 30 points received a transformed score of 90%. An examination of the data suggested that three clusters of similar types of sites were identifiable. These were sites that scored relatively highly on the sustainable index with a cut off identified as 75%; sites that scored somewhat in the middle on the sustainability index with scores between 51% and 75% and sites with relatively low sustainability scores (50% and below). Using these three categories, the sites were then analyzed for

23 patterns and trends including looking at any differences between mean averages for scores and weighted averages. The rational for weighing the different averages was to take into account the uneven maximum scores from each criterion category, as wise-use has a possible score of 18 points whereas effective management and enhanced engagement both have a high possible point score of 6. A weighted average smooths out data and allows for better data accuracy.

To further determine patterns and trends for possible comparison purposes, the fourteen Priority Areas of Focus research questions were assigned to one of the three criteria within the Ramsar Convention Commitment Areas: Criterion I for wise-use, Criterion II for effective management, and Criterion III for enhanced cooperation. This division allowed to determine which components, if any, could take a lesser role in terms of defining relative sustainability, and to determine what needed to be in place to ensure these sites continued to function in the capacity for what they were designated for. This research further compared the highest scoring site, the mean average scoring site and the lowest scoring site to determine what actions were working well and areas for improvement to ensure the sustainability of these systems.

RESULTS

Scoring of the Canadian Ramsar sites

From the analysis of Canadian Ramsar sites using the 14 questions, all 37 Canadian Ramsar sites were assessed for evidence of sustainable governance and management activities (Appendix B). The analysis generated an environmental sustainability score for each site. The highest score of 27/30 was achieved by Peace- Athabasca Delta Ramsar site, located in the southern portion of Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta. The lowest score of 8/30 was obtained by Rasmussen Lowlands Ramsar site, located in Nunavut. Of the 37 Ramsar sites, 14 sites scored above 75%, 15 sites scored between 51 % - 75% and 8 sites scored 50% or below. The mean score and also the median of all 37 Ramsar sites is 20/30 or 67% (Table 3).

Table 3: Canadian Ramsar Site Sustainability Metric Score and Ranking by Category Ramsar Site Total Score Total Score Ranking /30 (%)

Peace-Athabasca Delta, AB 27 90 1 Category 1: > 75% Old Crow Flats, YT 26 87 2

Whooping Crane Summer Range, NT 26 87 2

Point Pelee, ON 26 87 2

Columbia Wetlands, BC 25 83 3

Minesing Swamp, ON 25 83 3

St. Clair, ON 25 83 3

Long Point, ON 25 83 3

Hay-Zama Lakes, AB 24 80 4

Lac Saint-Pierre, QC 23 77 5

Baie de l'Isle-Verte, QC 23 77 5

Cap Tourmente, QC 23 77 5

Last Mountain Lake, BC 23 77 5

Fraser River Delta, BC 23 77 5

Creston Valley, BC 22 73 6 Category 2: 51% - 75% Mer Bleue Conservation Area, ON 22 73 6

Lac Saint-François, QC 22 73 6

Matchedash Bay, ON 21 70 7

Malpeque Bay, PE 21 70 7

Queen Maud Gulf, NU 20 67 8

Dewey Soper, NU 20 67 8

McConnell River, NU 20 67 8

Oak Hammock Marsh, NU 20 67 8

Mary's Point, NB 20 67 8

Chignecto, NS 20 67 8

Tabusintac Lagoon, NB 19 63 9

Grand Codroy Estuary, NL 19 63 9

Ramsar Site Total Score Total Score Ranking /30 (%)

Southern Bight-Minas Basin, NS 18 60 10

Delta Marsh, MB 16 53 11

Musquodoboit Harbour, NS 15 50 12 Category 3: 50% & < Polar Bear Pass, NU 14 47 13

Southern James Bay, ON 14 47 13

Shepody Bay, NB 14 47 13

Quill Lakes, SK 14 47 13

Polar Bear Provincial Park, ON 13 43 14

Beaverhill Lake, AB 13 43 14

Rasmussen Lowlands, NU 8 27 15

The 14 Ramsar sites scoring in the 1st category (above 75% sustainability score) had the following components in place:

• All sites had a completed management plan; • All but 1 site (Fraser River Delta) had an updated management plan completed in the last 10 years; • All sites undertook monitoring and reporting programs; • All sites had established budgets through various programs; • All but 2 sites (Hay-Zama Lakes & St. Clair) had on-site education and community engagement programming; • All sites had at least 1 or more regulatory site designations; • Many sites (9/14) had a co-management committee structure in place; • Many sites (9/14) had seen an increase in their wetland area since designation; • Some sites (8/14) had seen the flora & fauna maintained since designation; • Half the sites had the site manager located regionally at the site level.

The 15 Ramsar sites scoring in the 2nd category between 51% - 75% sustainability score had some of the same components in place as the top scoring sites but were deficient in some areas:

Components consistent with category #1 sites:

• All sites undertook monitoring and reporting programs; • All sites had at least 1 or more regulatory site designations; • All but 1 site (Delta Marsh) had established budgets through various programs; • All but 3 sites had on-site education and community engagement programming; • Many sites (12/15) had the flora & fauna maintained since designation; • Many sites (9/15) had a completed management plan.

Components lacking when compared to category # 1 sites:

• Some sites (7/15) had a co-management committee structure in place; • Some sites (7/15) had an increase in their wetland area since designation; • Few sites (4/15) had the site manager located regionally at the site level; • Only 2 sites (Mary’s Point & Chignecto) had an updated management plan completed in the last 10 years.

The 8 Ramsar sites scoring in the 3rd category 50% and below, had some of the same components in place as the top scoring sites but were deficient in many areas:

Components consistent with category #1 sites:

• All but 1 site (Musquodoboit Harbour) had the flora & fauna maintained since designation; • Many of the sites (6/8) had at least 1 or more regulatory site designations; • Many of the sites (5/8) undertook monitoring and reporting programs.

Components lacking when compared to category # 1 sites:

• Half of the sites (4/8) had established budgets through various programs; • Half of the sites (4/8) had on-site education and engagement programming; • Few of the sites (2/8) had a completed management plan;

• Only 2 sites had an increase in their wetland area since designation; • Only 1 site had a co-management committee structure in place; • Only 1 site had the site manager located regionally at the site level. • None of the sites had an updated management plan completed in the last 10 years.

Analysis of the Canadian Ramsar site per commitment criterion

To determine patterns and trends related to the Ramsar Convention Commitment Areas, each of the three criteria were examined separately to detail more specifically the characteristics that contributed to assessing a site as more sustainable than another one. Tables 4,5, and 6 summarize the findings. As each table shows, the 12 research questions/priority areas that could be measured were assigned to each of the three criteria. Criterion I for wise-use and maintenance of ecological character (Table 4 which includes priority areas 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10) showed that all Ramsar sites scoring over 75% were maintaining their wise-use and ecological character of their wetlands through current management targets and objectives, polycentric governance and management structures, climate change awareness and invasive species management and intervention programs. Ramsar sites scoring between 51 – 75% were deficient in some areas in terms of supporting the wise-use maintenance of ecological character including the lack of updated management targets and objectives, and the lack of community participation in site management and governance activities. Ramsar sites scoring 50% and below were deficient in many areas in terms of supporting the wise-use maintenance of ecological character including the lack of current management targets and objectives, inadequate monitoring programs and monocentric governance and management structures. It was interesting to note that Priority Area of Focus #10 was the only area where percentages increased for the lower ranking sites. The majority of these sites in the top category were located in southern Canada and therefore had high level of invasive species threats to flora and fauna, meaning that they had challenges to deal with the protection of native species (Appendix B).

Table 4: Analysis for priority areas of focus: Ramsar Convention Commitment Criterion I: Wise-use (maintenance of ecological character) at Ramsar site level. Results represent in percent the number of sites by category grouping achieving the corresponding priority area of focus. Priority Areas of Focus for Criterion 1: Wise-use the Ramsar Convention 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 Percentage of sites per category achieving Maximum possible Score: 18 Each priority areas of focus Category 75%+ Category 51-75% Category <50% 1) Have wetlands increased 64 47 25 overtime? 2) Who is advising the site 64 47 13 manager? 3) The critical importance of 100 100 100 wetlands for climate change mitigation and adaptation is understood? 9) Has the maintenance of the 93 47 0 wetlands ecological character been maintained since designation? 10) With respect to invasive 57 80 88 species, has the original flora and fauna state been maintained since designation?

Criterion II for effective management (Table 5) showed that all Ramsar sites scoring over 75% were undertaking effective management through current management plans, established financing for management implementation and community education programs. Ramsar sites scoring between 51 – 75% were deficient in some areas of effective management including the lack of updated management plans, financing to support management activities and community education programs. Ramsar sites scoring 50% and below were deficient in many areas in terms of supporting effective management with over 2/3 of the sites lacking management plans and financing to support management and education activities. All Ramsar sites were deficient in the area of communicating ecosystem services through regular community reporting.

Table 5: Analysis for priority areas of focus: Ramsar Convention Commitment Criterion II: Effective management at Ramsar site level. Results represent in percent the number of sites by category grouping achieving the corresponding priority area of focus. Priority Areas of Focus for the Criterion 2: Effective Management Ramsar Convention 4, 5, 13, 14. Percentage of sites per category achieving Maximum possible Score: 6 Each priority area of focus Category 75%+ Category 51-75% Category <50% 4) Has a management plan been 100 60 25 produced providing information about ecosystem functions/ services? 5) Do they update their Ramsar 0 0 0 Information Sheet every 6 years as required? 13) Has a budget been 100 93 50 established since designation? 14) Does the community 93 80 50 understand and recognize the role the Ramsar site plays within the larger context?

Criterion III for enhanced cooperation (Table 6) showed that all Ramsar sites were undertaking initiatives to promote wetland value and collaboration. However, all Ramsar sites showed deficiencies in terms of on-site management activities with only 12 of the 37 Ramsar sites having regional level site management representation.

Table 6: Analysis for priority areas of focus: Ramsar Convention Commitment Criterion III: Enhanced cooperation and engagement at Ramsar site level. Results represent in percent the number of sites by category grouping achieving the corresponding priority area of focus. Priority Areas of Focus for Criterion 3: Enhanced Cooperation & Engagement the Ramsar Convention 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 Percentage of sites per category achieving Maximum possible Score: 6 Each priority area of focus Category 75%+ Category 51-75% Category <50%

6) Do they have initiatives to 100 100 100 promote wetland value and importance? 7) Is the site manager actively 50 27 13 involved in site level activities? 8) Identifying and designing n/a n/a n/a wetlands as Ramsar Sites and transboundary Ramsar Sites. 11) Is there full stakeholder 50 20 0 and partnership engagement?

12) Synergies (Enhancing n/a n/a n/a efforts to streamline processes and procedures)

The standard score and the weighted score for each site considering the fourteen priority areas of focus grouped within the Ramsar Convention commitment criterion I-III were mapped on a web system to explore whether there was obvious variance between these two types of scores. This was to ensure that Ramsar Convention commitment criterion I (wise-use) with a possible score of 18 points might have had more influence than criterion II (effective management) and criterion III (enhanced engagement), which had a possible score of 6 points each. Therefore; in order to ensure the standard score was not biased due to the uneven point value allotment by criterion category, the weighted mean of each criterion was compared against the mean score for all sites. Weighted averages were calculated by taking the scored percentage value of each Ramsar

31 site criterion (wise-use, effective management, enhanced cooperation) and then multiplying by 33.33 to provide even representation and equal interpretation of the data from each of the three criterion categories. The standard score refers to the scoring of each Ramsar site out of a possible 30 points and transforming the score into a value with the maximum of 100% possible. When comparing the standard score to the weighted score the ordinal ranking of the sites did not change (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Ramsar site total standard score from highest to lowest out of a possible 30 points shown as a percentage compared against the weighted mean for each site shows the ranking of each site did not notably change.

The division of the fourteen priority areas of focus grouped within each Ramsar Convention Commitment criterion area also allowed for sensitivity analysis. This analysis determined what criterion, if any could be lacking or have a lessor score allowed an overall higher-ranking score thereby indicating the possibility of achieving a sustainable system (Moldan, Janouskova & Hak, 2012). For example, would it be

32 possible for a site to score low in one criterion theme area but still achieved a high overall score? The mean and weighted mean for the sites by criterion category were graphed and no discernible differences were noted (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Weighted Averages for Ramsar sites grouped by Ramsar Convention Commitment Areas: Criterion I: wise-use, Criterion II: effective management, and Criterion III; enhanced cooperation to determine which components, if any, could take a lesser role in terms of defining relative sustainability.

Analysis of three Ramsar Sites from the three score categories

To further assess what governance and management components were working well and where improvement could be made to ensure the sustainability of Ramsar site ecosystems, one representative site from each ranking category was chosen for closer analysis. The following sites were selected: Category 1 (sites scoring over 75%), Peace Athabasca Delta; Category 2 (sites scoring between 51 – 75%), Oak Hammock Marsh; and, Category 3 (sites scoring 50% and below), Rasmussen Lowlands.

The highest-ranking score of 27/30 was achieved by Peace Athabasca Delta (PAD). Located in north-west Alberta, Peace-Athabasca Delta was designated as a Ramsar site in 1982 and is one of the largest freshwater deltas in the world. The majority of the Ramsar site is contained within the southern portion of Wood Buffalo National Park. The world's entire wild, self reproducing, migratory population of the endangered Whooping Crane nests in the northern part of the park and migrates through this site. The only known breeding population in central Canada of the vulnerable Peregrine Falcon nests in the delta area. The site also contains the largest undisturbed grass and sedge meadow in North America, which is the prime range for the wood and plains buffalo Bison. The Delta is also an important fish spawning area for regional populations of goldeneye and walleye.

From Category 2, Oak Hammock Marsh (OHM) achieved a score at the median value for the group (20/30). The Marsh is situated 32 km north of Winnipeg and east of Stonewall, Manitoba and was designated as a Ramsar site in 1987. The site is owned by the Government of Manitoba and is protected under provincial legislation as a Heritage Marsh. The International Wetlands and Waterfowl Research Institute and the National Headquarters for Ducks Unlimited Canada are located on-site at the Oak Hammock Marsh Conservation Centre. The site attracts thousands of visitors every year and is promoted as a major regional ecotourism asset. Over 260 species of migratory birds have been recorded, with 71 confirmed and 46 suspected as breeding in the area. The site supports significant global populations of Canada Geese and Snow Geese.

Rasmussen Lowlands (RL) Ramsar site represented category 3 with a score of 8/30. Located in Nunavut, adjacent to Rae Strait to the east of King William Island, Rasmussen Lowlands is situated on federal Crown land, with adjacent title held by the Inuit of Nunavut as per Nunavut Land Claim Agreements. Rasmussen Lowlands was designated as Ramsar site in 1982. Several birds use the site in globally significant numbers including Tundra Swans, White-fronted Geese, and Lesser Snow Geese. Rasmussen Lowlands was designated as a Ramsar site in 1982. At the time, the area was proposed to be designated as a National Wildlife Management Area (Rasmussen

Lowlands Ramsar Information Sheet, 2001). To date, the Wildlife Management Area designation has not been realized (Ramsar Canada, 2019a).

When comparing in terms of management, PAD had a Ramsar site management plan in place with specific targets and objectives, while OHM had components of a management plan, it was not specific to the Ramsar site activities. RL did not have a management plan, nor any components including targets and objectives. Both PAD and OHM had a polycentric governance through a co-management committee structure and on-site manager, while this was lacking at RL. PAD had full and effective participation from the broad community including partners, stakeholders and the Indigenous Peoples. Both OHM and RL were missing full partner and stakeholder participation and engagement by not including the Indigenous Peoples into management decision making. PAD had an established long-term funded monitoring program through the Peace- Athabasca Delta Ecological Monitoring Program (PADEMP). Although OHM and RL undertook some monitoring, it was mainly administered through volunteers and research specific initiatives. Both PAD and OHM had established outreach education centers to promote the wise-use conservation of the site, while RL was lacking this component. Both PAD and OHM had regulatory site designations providing additional wetland wise- use conservation protection. PAD is a National Park and a UNESCO World Heritage Site; OHM is a Provincial Wildlife Management Area. RL has no regulatory site protection.

The critical aspects which appear to be preventing Oak Hammock Marsh and Rasmussen Lowlands from achieving a higher sustainability score would be the presence of a current management plan with relevant conservation objectives and targets with a clear implementation strategy for conservation targets. Site monitoring and reporting are also needed components with site management oversight also required.

DISCUSSION

The analysis of the Canadian Ramsar sites using the three commitment criteria and 14 questions related to the priority focus areas suggested that 38% of Canadian Ramsar sites had sustainability scores in the top 25 percentile; category #1 of over 75%. These sites generally had updated management plans, co-management structures, available financial resources, regional site level management and multilevel decision- making structures, thereby indicting an acceptable score to ensure sustainability would be 75% and above. The presence or lack of current management plans and full stakeholder and community engagement are the main governance and management components that are needed to be in place to result in a higher sustainability score. If these components were missing, sites generally scored below 75%.

As the Canadian Ramsar site nomination procedure and requirements have not changed since Canada’s inclusion into the Ramsar Convention (Government of Canada, 2004), there were no notable differences among the sites of various designation dates. For example, sites designated within the last decade did not have an advantage over sites designated earlier in the process. In addition, there were no notable trends regarding where the sites were located geographically with the exception of 4/5 sites located in Nunavut, where site co-management was a requirement through Nunavut Land Claim Agreements (Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, 2018). Some Ramsar sites were seen to be trending upwards, such as Baie de l'Isle-Verte, Quebec, that was criticized in the 2008 Canadian Federal National Site Audit due to the lack of an approved management plan. The management plan has been updated and approved in 2018 resulting in an increased score of 3 points or 10% compared to what it would have been in 2008.

Some limitations should be noted in relation to this study. First, available documentation including government reports formed the basis for analysis and inquiry. From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada report on the status of protected areas in Canada, shortcomings have been noted with respect to deficiencies in management plan reporting including outdated targets and conservation objectives (Government of

Canada, 2008). While substantial effort was made in this analysis to ensure the use of the most relevant available documents, they might not all fully and accurately reflect the current management regime in a given Ramsar site area. This also included the lack of updated Ramsar Information Sheets (RIS) for all sites. It would be also worth noting that sustainability scores reflected a snap-shot, or baseline in time, relative to available information. The sustainability of these sites is fluid and may change as new components are added or are potentially lost. This analysis represents the first comprehensive one that examines both governance and management in the light of ensuring sustainability of these Ramsar sites. In the following subsections, the major components that are important to consider when analyzing the sustainability and governance of the Ramsar sites are further discussed.

What is working well at all sites

Enhanced Cooperation. All Ramsar sites showed evidence of enhanced cooperation at the site level, therefore all sites received full points in this priority area. A recommendation from Lynch-Stewart & Associates (2008) was the establishment of a Canadian Ramsar Site Managers network in order to share information and improve collaboration. Environment Canada launched in 2012 the WetlandNetwork (www.wetlandnetwork.ca) with the goal of connecting people, sharing resources, and raising the profile of wetlands-related work and information across Canada and internationally. Ramsar site activities can be communicated through the Ramsar Site Managers Network portal (Ramsar Canada, 2019a). The website also provides a mechanism for the communication of current guidelines related to invasive species management, land use issues, and climate change. The Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention including Canada have identified the effective conservation and management of the Ramsar Site Network as one of the three strategic goals of the Fourth Ramsar Strategic Plan for 2016-2024 (Ramsar Canada, 2019a). The Ramsar Site Managers Network provides a key mechanism for enhanced cooperation at the site level, therefore all sites scored well in this priority area. Canada is well positioned to continue to strengthen the collaboration and cooperation structures already in place.

Climate Change Awareness. The critical importance of wetlands for climate change mitigation and adaptation is effectively understood by all Ramsar site managers. The Government of Canada has launched in 2014, the Canadian National Conservation Plan offering expanded opportunities for partnerships including municipalities, environmental interest groups, hunters and anglers, landowners and community groups, to take practical actions to safeguard Canadian land and water (Government of Canada, 2016). The three priority areas include conserving Canada's lands and waters; restoring Canada's ecosystems; and, connecting Canadians to nature. The Conservation Plan focuses on Climate Change actions and is one of the tools included in the Ramsar Site Manager Network toolkit (Ramsar Canada, 2019a).

What all sites are missing

Communicating Ecosystem Functions. None of the Canadian Ramsar sites had updated Ramsar Information Sheets (RIS) available to the public. Updating the RIS every six years is an important component in communicating ecosystem functions and services to stakeholders, partners and the public (Ramsar Secretariat Convention 54th Meeting, 2018). The Ramsar Secretariat calls for Contracting Parties to provide updated Ramsar Information Sheets for each designated Ramsar site at intervals of not more than six years, “and urges Contracting Parties to renew their efforts to provide such updated Ramsar Information Sheets in a timely manner” (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 8th Meeting of Contracting Parties, 2002, p. 3). The Convention also recognizes that the RIS is not only used for the designation of Wetlands of International Importance, they also form a statement of the ecological character of those wetland sites and serve as a baseline for assessing future changes to site ecological character should a circumstance arise. Efforts such as increased human and financial resources to improve management planning processes including the routine updating of information sheets in all Ramsar sites would greatly improve the identification and reporting of changes in the site’s ecological character (Hockings, Stolton, & Dudley, 2004).

What site components need improvement

Wise-use and Maintenance of Ecological Character through Management Plans. Two-thirds, or 68% of all Canadian Ramsar sites had management plans. All sites ranked in category 1, scoring above 75% had management plans, with only one of those sites (Fraser River Delta) not having an updated plan in the past 10 years. Only 2/8 sites scoring 50% or below had management plans, with none being updated in the past 10 years. The absence or presence of a management plan and whether it is current is the most important priority area of focus of the Ramsar convention. Outcomes from the 8th Ramsar Conference of the Parties have called for the development of management plans for all Ramsar Sites, with appropriate financial support for implementation, including monitoring programs and ecological character indicators (Ramsar Canada, 2019b).

Completing a management plan where it does not exist or updating a plan that is no longer current is one of the most important components determining the relative sustainability and resulting score of each site, and is recommend for sites as a priority action where this component is missing. One third of Canadian Ramsar sites are lacking management plans with half of those dating back to the 1980’s with generic conservation objectives and few identifying measurable performance or results expectations (Office of the Auditor General, 2008). Management plan objectives of maintenance of the ecological character of the site provides a basis for implementation, and is therefore strongly recommended (Ramsar Canada, 2019a).

Science-based Advice, Guidance and Full and Effective participation. Looking at who is advising the site manager, 17/37 or 46% of Canadian Ramsar sites had co- management or committee structured management systems, with the majority of these in the sites scoring above 75%. Of the 17 sites with co-management structures, only 10 or 27% had full participation from Indigenous Peoples, scientists, non-government, and local communities. Implementing a co-management or community-based site manager advisory structure is recommend at sites where this structure is lacking (Lynch & Associates, 2008; North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 2019).

The Fourth Ramsar Strategic Plan for 2016-2024 calls for efforts to enable the participation of stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities. In order to achieve full and effective participation, the importance of respectful engagement of all communities, non-indigenous and Indigenous should be realized (Vasseur, 2019). Ramsar advocates for the integration of local stakeholders into decision making processes, recognizing the people who own and rely on wetlands have deep knowledge that can be valuable to wetland conservation efforts (Ramsar Factsheet 2, 2018).

In Nunavut, 4 of the 5 Ramsar sites are co-managed through Inuit Impact Agreements between the government of Canada and the Inuit Peoples (Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, 2018). These sites serve as a model for environmental sustainability where wise-use conservation is achieved through collaborative governance and management structures. Whooping Crane Summer Range, the northern portion of Wood Buffalo National Park in the Northwest Territories is another example of a sustainable structure in terms of looking at who is advising the site manager. When Parks Canada staff proposed an ecotourism opportunity of viewing nesting Whooping Crane chicks as a revenue generating initiative, the local Indigenous People were swift to remind the site manager that they were to be consulted on decisions affecting their traditional territories. As a result, the program was cancelled due to a lack of proper consultation (CBC, 2019).

Implementing the Convention at the Site Level. Only 32% or 12 Canadian Ramsar sites had the site manager located regionally, with seven sites scoring above 75% having local site management and implementation. Few sites, 4/15 within the 51 – 75% range had local site management and only 1/8 in the 50% and below range, with a local site manager. Having the site manager actively involved at the site level improves compliance with Ramsar criteria including the maintenance of ecological character according to the 4th Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan. Although it is not possible to have local site management at all Ramsar sites, this priority area of focus complements the need for co- management structures, where local communities serve in partial management capacities such as at Hay-Zama Lakes and Old Crow Flats (Lynch & Associates, 2008).

Developing ways to engage all community members including Indigenous Peoples, to assist with informed decision making, is an important component for collaborative governance structures (Holmes et al., 2016). It can be seen as disrespectful if non-residents are put forth as community representatives or spokespersons. With regards to Indigenous communities, this can also cause interference with self- determination and authority for land governance (Holmes et al., 2016).

Preventing, Stopping and Reversing the Loss and Degradation of Wetlands. All Ramsar sites score in the low 60% range for this priority area of focus. Although many sites have increased their wetland boundaries since designation, most have seen declines in the quality of their flora and fauna (Appendix B). The largest loss of Ramsar wetlands continue to be from unsustainable agriculture, forestry and extractive industries, especially oil, gas and mining (Ramsar Canada, 2019a). To support the wise-use conservation and minimize wetland losses of Ramsar sites, monitoring programs can provide data and tools to assist in the communication of wetland importance (Geijzendorffer et al., 2019). Although the Ramsar Convention recognizes the importance of monitoring activities at the Ramsar site level, ecological site characteristics are not monitored in the majority of Ramsar sites and therefore ecological change is poorly understood and communicated (Geijzendorffer et al., 2019). Most countries have reported the lack of resources as the reason why monitoring programs and reporting are lacking (Geijzendorffer et al., 2019). By utilizing Ramsar Convention resources including site manager toolkits, and networks, awareness, expertise and capacity can be increased (Ramsar Canada, 2019a). In Canada, all sites can benefit from increased monitoring and reporting to prevent the losses of wetlands. The work through the Ramsar Site Manager Network and other federal wetland conservation actions are increasingly addressing this priority area (Ramsar Briefing Note 7, 2015).

Basin perspective. Numerous studies show wetlands continue to decline in most areas in the world, compromising the ecosystem services they provide (Ramsar Briefing Note 7, 2015). The Ramsar Convention calls on member countries to avoid negative impacts on Ramsar site ecological character to prevent and minimize the losses of

41 wetlands. (Ramsar Briefing Note 7, 2015). Country specific, regional strategies are needed to engage stakeholders at the basin level to help recognize the role wetlands play in the larger global context (Ramsar Briefing Note 7, 2014).

With 78% of Canadian Ramsar Sites actively involved with on-site education and engagement opportunities, communities understand and recognize the role the Ramsar site plays within the larger context (Ramsar Canada, 2019a). With half of the sites scoring 50% or below, missing this component, there remains opportunity to improve sustainability by developing either on-site engagement programs or providing information through updated websites. The wise-use of all wetlands requires promoting the importance of ecosystem functions, services and benefits into a wide range of sectors, with a broad reach of people to ensure big-picture thinking (Ramsar, 2019a).

CONCLUSIONS

Conservation and wise-use of wetland resources require cooperative ecosystem governance and effective management to bring a more sustainable global system. Effective wetland conservation must consider cultural aspects, economic development and environmental complexities at the global and local level to be effective. The Ramsar Convention provides a framework for international, national and local wetland conservation action. Sustainability science provides linkages between natural and social systems, focusing on problems while seeking solutions to deal with the complexities of environmental issues and pressures at the local and global scale (Kates et al., 2001). The Ramsar Secretariat recognizes the need for international synergies to bring local action, and embraces an interdisciplinary governance approach through collaborations, utilizing a modern social-ecological governance structure (Earth Negotiation bulletin, 2018).

Habitat loss and degradation are recognized as the single greatest threats to plants and animals in Canada (Government of Canada, 2008). Protected areas are internationally recognized for the ecosystem services they provide and as an effective tool for the conservation of biodiversity (Government of Canada, 2008). Ramsar site designation can be an effective local wetland conservation tool, by incorporating the principles of sustainability into governance and management structures but as shown cannot be the end in itself (Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan, 2016). Achieving a designation is not the final step in ecosystem protection, rather, it should be viewed as the first step in the long- term development of ecosystem governance structures and management plans to sustain ecosystem services (Debarbieux & Price, 2008). When considering all research findings together, current management plans and full stakeholder and partner participation are required to achieve the ecological sustainability of Canadian Ramsar sites (Government of Canada, 2008).

Conservation management has evolved considerably over time, moving towards ecological and economic integration and ecosystem-based regimes, with the goal of providing sustainable benefits for people through ecosystem goods and services (Mace,

2014). Over the past decade, conservation has transitioned from natural resource protection to ecosystem management and the integration of nature and people, in the context of socio-ecological systems (Mace, 2014). Contemporary wetland conservation approaches require the integration of people into conservation efforts through participatory approaches. Updated management plans with relevant and site-specific objectives are required components of current sustainable ecosystem management and governance systems and should be a continued priority for all National protected areas including Ramsar sites. The introduction of the Ramsar Site Managers Network in 2012 is an effective way to promote the conservation and wise-use of wetland resources through a cooperative conservation platform, promoting the sharing of resources and is a step in the right direction.

The Ramsar Convention, the first international collaboration for the protection of wetlands, was perhaps ahead of its time by recognizing the role of participatory resource management (Ramsar Factsheet 2, 2018). Through Convention negotiations, Ramsar administrators acknowledged wetlands are dynamic areas, responsive to natural and human influences. The Convention continues to balance protecting wetland ecosystems, while sustaining biodiversity and still contributing to human well-being. Ramsar should be viewed as a great example of the value of multilevel, participatory decision-making structures. As Newig & Fritsch (2009) confirm, collaborative and participatory governance is a way to more sustainable and effective environmental systems.

Finally, important avenues for future research include building on the work of Stewart-Lynch & Associates (2008). Through updating the Ramsar site manager survey and including the broader wetland site community and stakeholders, a better understanding of the basin perspectives related to enhanced cooperation and engagement can be achieved. For future Canadian Ramsar site designations, including the on-going designation work for the Niagara River, recommendations include the establishment of an oversight committee to continue to govern the wise-use, effective management and enhanced engagement commitments of the Ramsar convention into the post-designation phase. On the Canadian side, it also means ensuring that free and prior informed consent

44 is achieved with the Indigenous Peoples who are the first on this land. Co-management with them will be essential in ensuring the sustainability of this new Ramsar site. Lessons learned from this research emphasizes the importance of governance and management through collaboration and participatory structures to ensure all voices are heard and all members of the broader wetland community have an opportunity to benefit from the ecosystem services these sites provide.

A key part of sustainability science is the inclusion of stakeholders from all knowledge areas, to achieve real solutions to problems; solutions that can be effectively implemented and are appropriate to the circumstance (Lang et al., 2012). With the increasing importance of integrating people into conservation efforts through participatory and sustainable approaches, Ramsar can be an effective local wetland conservation tool, by incorporating the principals of sustainability science into existing management and governance structures.

REFERENCES

Azous, A.L., & Horner, R.R. (2001). Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the future. The Society of Wetland Scientists 23(1), 205-211.

Barrera-Roldán, A., & Saldıvaŕ -Valdés, A. (2002). Proposal and application of a Sustainable Development Index. Ecological Indicators, 2(3), 251-256.

Bassi, A., Becic, E., & Lombardi, N. (2014). An Introduction to the Assessment of Sustainable Paths, Models and Metrics. Asian Social Science, 10(11), 17-27.

CBC. (2019). Whooping Crane Tours Cancelled. Retrieved from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/parks-canada-cancels-whooping-crane- tours-in-wood-buffalo-national-park-1.3085386

Clare, S., & Creed, I. F. (2013). Tracking wetland loss to improve evidence-based wetland policy learning and decision making. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 22(3), 235-245. doi:10.1007/s11273-013-9326-2

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2019). Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Retrieved from: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/.

Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., … Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Davidson, N. C. (2014). How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65(10), 934. doi:10.1071/mf14173

Davidson, N. C., Laffoley, D. d’A., Doody, J. P., Way, L. S., Gordon, J., Key, R., Pienkowski, M. W., Mitchell, R. & Duff, K. L. (1991) Nature Conservation and Estuaries in Great Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK, 422 pp.

Debarbieux, B., & Price, M. F. (2008). Representing Mountains: From Local and National to Global Common Good. Geopolitics, 13(1), 148-168. doi:10.1080/14650040701783375

DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Turner, B. L., Reid, R., & Liu, J. (2007). Land Use Change Around Protected Areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications, 17(4), 1031-1038.

De Groot, R., Brander, L., Van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., … Van Beukering, P. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 50-61. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005

Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.; Molnár, Z.; Hill, R.; Chan, K.M.; Baste, I.A.; Brauman, K.A.; et al., (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, 359, 270–272.

Dugan, P. (1983). Wetlands in Danger: A World Conservation Atlas, In Association with IUCN: The World Conservation Union, Oxford University Press, New York

Earth Negotiation Bulletin. (2018). Retrieved From: http://enb.iisd.org/ramsar/cop13/

Erwin, K. L. (2008). Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17(1), 71-84. doi:10.1007/s11273-v008-9119-1

Fairhurst, T.H., & Dobermann, A. (2016). Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome. 200 pp.

Fiske, S.T. and C. Dupree. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences 111, suppl. 4, 13593–13597.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/cofi/29401-083ff934c3ccfd8576005d8d0c19b04d6.pdf

Gedan, K. B., Kirwan, M. L., Wolanski, E., Barbier, E. B., & Silliman, B. R. (2010). The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Climatic Change, 106(1), 7-29. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-0003-7

Geijzendorffer, I. R., Beltrame, C., Chazee, L., Gaget, E., Galewski, T., Guelmami, A., Perennou C., Popoff, N., Guerra, C.A., Leberger, R., Jalbert, J., Grillas, P. (2019). A More Effective Ramsar Convention for the Conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7. doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00021

Government of Canada. (2004). Canadian Ramsar Site Nomination Procedural Document. Retrieved from: ollectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp- archive/100/200/301/environment_can/cws- scf/occasional_paper- e/n110/html/publications/AbstractTemplate.cfm@lang=e&id=1029

Government of Canada. (2008). Auditor General of Canada Protected Area Audit. Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/bvg- oag/FA1-2-2013-1-4- eng.pdf

Government of Canada. (2016). 2020 biodiversity goals & targets for Canada. Retrieved from: http://biodivcanada.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=9B5793F6-1

Government of Canada. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment- climate-change/services/water-overview/sources/wetlands.html

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., & Dudley, N. (2004). Management Effectiveness: Assessing Management of Protected Areas? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 6(2), 157-174.

Holmes, A., Grimwood, B. S. R., King, L., & the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation. (2016). Creating an indigenized visitor code of ethics: The development of Denesoline self-determination for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8-9), 1177-1193.

Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

IUCN. (2004). Resolution 3.012 (Governance of natural resources for conservation and sustainable development), adopted by the members at the 3rd World Conservation Congress, Bangkok, Thailand 17–25 November 2004.

ICUN. (2019). Ecosystem Governance. Retrieved from: https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-ecosystem- management/our- work/cems-thematic-groups/ecosystem-governance

Jones, G., T. Hillman, R. Kingsford, T. McMahon, K. Walker, A. Arthington, J. Whittington, and S. Cartwright. (2001). Independent report of the Expert Reference Panel on environmental flows and water quality requirements for the River Murray system. Report to the Murray-Darling Ministerial Council. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra, Australia.

Kaivo-oja, J., Panula-Ontto, J., Vehmas, J., & Luukkanen, J. (2013). Relationships of the dimensions of sustainability as measured by the sustainable society index framework. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 21(1), 39-45.

Karmarkar, U. R., & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). Believe Me, I Have No Idea What I’m Talking About: The Effects of Source Certainty on Consumer Involvement and Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 1033-1049.

Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., … Jager, J. (2001). Sustainability Science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

Keddy, P.A. (2010). Wetland ecology: principles and conservation (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521519403.

Kennedy, G., & Mayer, T. (2002). Natural and Constructed Wetlands in Canada: An Overview. Water Quality Research Journal, 37(2), 295-325. doi:10.2166/wqrj.2002.020

Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Ward, P. J., & Varis, O. (2011). How Close Do We Live to Water? A Global Analysis of Population Distance to Freshwater Bodies. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e20578. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020578

Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., … Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(S1), 25-43. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lehner, B., & Döll, P. (2004). Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology, 296(1-4), 1-22. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028

Lynch-Stewart & Associates. (2008). Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar Sites) In Canada. Survey of Ramsar Site Managers, 2007. Prepared for Canadian Wildlife Services.

Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science, 345(6204), 1558-1560. doi:10.1126/science.1254704

Maness, T., & Farrell, R. (2004). A multi-objective scenario evaluation model for sustainable forest management using criteria and indicators. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34(10), 2004-2017.

Matthews, G.V.T. (1993). The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: its History and Development. Published by the Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.

McCartney, M. P., & Houghton-Carr, H. A. (2009). Working Wetland Potential: An index to guide the sustainable development of African wetlands. Natural Resources Forum, 33(2), 99-110. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2009.01214.x

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., & Hák, T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, 17, 4- 13. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Does the Public Trust Science? Trust and Confidence at the Intersections of the Life Sciences and Society. A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Newig, J., & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 197-214. doi:10.1002/eet.509

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. (2019). Strategic Overview of the Canadian Ramsar Program. Retrieved from: http://www.wetlandnetwork.ca/pg_ ResourceDetails.php?int_ResourceId=251, accessed 17/10/19

Nunavut Land Claim Agreement. (2018) Retrieved from: https://nlca.tunngavik.com/?page_id=931

Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2004) International Environmental Agreements Audit. Retrieved from: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_ 200410_01_e_14914.html

Poveda, C. A., & Lipsett, M. G. (2012). Wa-Pa-Su project sustainability rating system: assessing sustainability in oil sands and heavy oil projects. Environmental Impact. doi:10.2495/eid120111

Protected Planet. (2019) Protected Planet Report 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/protected-planet-report-2016

Ramsar Briefing Note 7. (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/cop12_doc23_bn7_s owws_e_0.pdf

Ramsar Canada. (2019a). National Report 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/importftp/COP13NR_Canad a_e.pdf , accessed 17/10/2019.

Ramsar Canada. (2019b). National Report 2002. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/canada_nr2002_1_2. pdf, accessed, 23/10/2019.

Ramsar Convention Handbook 5th Addition. (2018). Introduction to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Handbook, 5th addition. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ handbook1_5ed_introductiontoconvention_e.pdf

Ramsar Convention Secretariat. (2014a). Overview of the Ramsar Convention. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/about-the-ramsar-convention

Ramsar Convention Secretariat. (2014b). Ramsar site & protected area systems. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/sc/35/ key_sc35_doc15.pdf

Ramsar Convention Secretariat 8th Meeting of Contracting Parties. (2002). Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/res/key_res_viii _08_e.pdf

Ramsar Convention Secretariat 54th Meeting. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/sc54- 19_status_ramsar_list_e.pdf

Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan. (2016). Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2024. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/4th_strategic_ Plan_2016_2024_e.pdf

Ramsar Factsheet 2. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/resources/ramsar- fact-sheets

Rasmussen Lowlands Ramsar Information Sheet. (2001). Retrieved from: https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/RISrep/CA247RIS.pdf

Rubec, C. D., & Hanson, A. R. (2008). Wetland mitigation and compensation: Canadian experience. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17(1), 3-14. doi:10.1007/s11273-008- 9078-6 Silvius, M., Oneka, M., & Verhagen, A. (2000). Wetlands: Lifeline for people at the edge. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 25(7-8), 645-652. doi:10.1016/s1464-1909(00)00079-4

Stock, P., & Burton, R. J. (2011). Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans- Disciplinary) Sustainability Research. Sustainability, 3(8), 1090-1113.

Sutton, P. A. (2004). Perspective on environmental sustainability. In Paper on the Victorian Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability; RSTI Publications, Inc.: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, pp. 1–32.

Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695- 719. doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.698984

Vasseur L (2016) Looking at ecosystem governance as a way to achieve environmental sustainability and tackling “wicked” problems. In: Kurissery S, Turvey R, Pendea IF (eds) Environmental sustainability. Wiley Publisher, pp 114–125

Vasseur, L. (2019). Embracing cultures in ecosystem governance in biosphere reserves: slowing down the pace. In Reed, M. and M. Price (Eds.). UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: Supporting Biocultural Diversity, Sustainability and Society. Routledge, UK, 309-320.

Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., … Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731- 742. doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6

Verhoeven, J., Arheimer, B., Yin, C., & Hefting, M. (2006). Regional and global concerns over wetlands and water quality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(2), 96-103. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.11.015

Wittemyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W. T., Burton, A. C., & Brashares, J. S. (2008). Accelerated Human Population Growth at Protected Area Edges. Science, 321(5885), 123-126.

Zedler, J.B. (2000). Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 402–407.

Zedler, J. B., & Kercher, S. (2005). WETLAND RESOURCES: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 39-74. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248

APPENDIX A: RAMSAR DESIGNATION CRITERIA

Ramsar Designation Criteria One of the nine following criteria needs to be met to qualify for Ramsar site designation.

Ramsar Designation Criteria 1. Is representative, rare, or unique. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare, or unique example of a natural or near- natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region. 2. Supports vulnerable, endangered or threatened species. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities. 3. Supports keystone or endemic species. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region.

4. Supports species at a critical stage in their life cycles (migration, breeding). A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles or provides refuge during adverse conditions. 5. Supports 20,000 or more waterbirds. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds. 6. Supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species of waterbird. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird. 7. Supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish species. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish subspecies, species or families, life-history stages, species interactions and/or populations that are representative of wetland benefits and/or values and thereby contributes to global biological diversity. 8. An important food source, spawning area, nursery or migration path for fish. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is an important source of food for fishes, spawning ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, depend. 9. Supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species (something that is not a bird or a fish). A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of wetland- dependent non-avian animal species.

APPENDIX B: PRIORITY AREAS OF FOCUS ANALYSIS FOR RAMSAR SITES

Table 1: Priority Areas of Focus Analysis for Ramsar Sites scoring above 75%, Categorized by Ramsar Convention Commitment Criterion 1- 3. Superscript numbers represent the

reference numbers listed after the tables.

Criterion I – Wise-use

(maintenance of ecological character)

Priority Areas of Focus for the Ramsar Convention

Pierre

1, 2, 3, 9, 10

1,3 1,44 49 39 50,51 50,51 3ountain

Zama Lakes

Superscript numbers represent the -

Peace Athabasca Delta OldCrow Flats Whooping Crane Summer Range Point Pelee Columbia Wetlands Minesing Marsh St. Clair Long Point Hay Lac Saint Baie de l'Isle Verte CapTourmente Last Mountain Lake Fraser River Delta 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 Lake

1 - Preventing, stopping and Yes=2 2 10 26 11 11 29 25 112 211 27 214 11 11 11 21 reversing the loss and Same=1 degradation of wetlands Decreased=0 (Have wetlands increased overtime?)

2 -Science-based advice and Co-management (Indigenous, 31,44 31,15,16,17 31,15,18 3 1,2,15,32 31,2,15,21 21,2,15,30 31,2,15,33 21,2,15,34 31,2,15,22 21,2,15,37 21,2,15,38 21,2,15,39 21,2,15,25 21,2,15,19 guidance (Who is advising scientists, NGO, public) =3 the site manager?) Co-management (Scientists, NGO, public) =2 Only NGO or scientists or Indigenous or public = 1 None = 0 3 - Climate change and Yes = 1 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 wetlands (The critical No = 0 importance of wetlands for climate change mitigation and adaptation is understood?) 9 – Wise-use of wetlands Yes, through updated management 31,2,15,24 3 1,44 31,44 31,44 31,44 345 31,44 31,44 01 347 31,44 31,44 31,44 31,44 (Has the maintenance of the plan in last 10 years = 3 249 2 49 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 049 wetlands ecological character Yes, through legislated site 115,24 1 16,17 118 12 12 12 12 12 122 137 138 139 12 115,2 been maintained since monitoring requirements = 2 designation?) Yes, through community monitoring program = 1 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 No = 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Enhanced through regulatory designations Yes: 2 or more regulatory designations = 2 Yes: 1 regulatory designation = 1 No = 0 150,51 150,51 150,51 250,51 050,51 150,51 250,51 250,51 150,51 250,51 150,51 150,51 250,51 250,51 Enhanced through non- regulatory designations

Yes: 2 or more non-regulatory designation = 2 Yes: 1 additional non-regulatory designation = 1 No = 0 10 - Invasive alien species Improved = 2 13 02 11 02 12 13 02 02 22 02 13 13 02 13 (Has the original flora and Remained same = 1 fauna state been maintained Degraded = 0 since designation ?)

Total Score for wise-use / 18 16 15 15 15 15 15 16 15 14 14 14 14 14 14

Criterion II – Effective Management

Priority Areas of Focus for the

Pierre

Ramsar Convention: 4, 5, 13, 14

1,3 1,44 49 39 50,51 50,51 3ountain

Zama Lakes

4 – Information about Yes = 2 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 ecosystem functions and the Preparation in progress = 1 ecosystem services they No = 0 provide to people and nature (Has a management plan been produced providing information about ecosystem functions / services?)

5 – Communicating Yes = 1 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 ecosystem functions and the No = 0 ecosystem services they provide to people and nature (Do they update their RIS every 6 years as required?)

13 – Financing (Has a budget Yes = 1 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 been established since No = 0 designation?)

14 – Basin perspective (Does Yes, engaged 21 21 21 21 221 255 256 257 252 21 21 21 21 21 the community understand (On-site Education Programs) = 2 and recognize the role the Yes, aware through websites = 1 Ramsar site plays within the No = 0 larger context?)

Total Score for Effective Management /6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5

Criterion III – Enhanced Engagement

Priority Areas of Focus for the Ramsar

Pierre

Convention: 6, 7, 8, 11, 12

1,3 1,44 49 39 50,51 50,51 3ountain

Zama Lakes

6 – Enhancing cooperation Yes = 1 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 (Do they have initiatives to No = 0 promote wetland value and importance, bringing together site and other managers, key private and public stakeholders?)

7 – Implementing the Yes, site manager located at Ramsar 252 252 252 252 152 252 152 252 252 152 152 152 152 152 Convention (Is the site site = 2 manager actively involved in Yes, site manager located within site level activities?) province or territory = 1 No, site manager located out of province or territory = 0

8 – Identifying & designating Cannot be measured at the site level wetlands as Ramsar & transboundary Ramsar sites

11 – Strengthen and support Yes, with all (Indigenous, scientists, 31,2,15,24 31,15,16,17 31,15,18 31,2,15,32 31,2,15,21 21,2,15,30 31,2,15,33 21,2,15,34 31,2,15,22 21,2,15,37 21,2,15,38 21,2,15,39 21,2,15,25 21,2,15,19 the full and effective NGO, public) =3 participation (Is there Yes, with (Scientists, NGO, public) stakeholder and partnership = 2 engagement?) Yes, only NGO or scientists or Indigenous or public = 1 No = 0

12 – Synergies (Enhancing Cannot be measured at the site level efforts to streamline processes and procedures)

Total Score for Enhanced Engagement /6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 4 4 4 4 4

Total Sustainability Analysis Score /30 27 26 26 26 25 25 25 25 24 23 23 23 23 23

Table 2: Priority Areas of Focus Analysis for Ramsar Sites scoring between 51-75%, Categorized by Ramsar Convention Commitment Criterion 1- 3

Criterion 1 – Wise-use

(maintenance of ecological character)

Gulf

Priority Areas of Focus for the Ramsar Convention

1, 2, 3, 9, 10 François

CrestonValley Mer Bleue Lac Saint Matchedash Bay Malpeque Bay Queen Maud Dewey Soper McConnellRiver OakHammock Marsh Mary's Point Chignecto Tabusintac Lagoon, NB Grand Codroy Estuary, NL SouthernBight Minas Basin Delta Marsh

1 - Preventing, stopping and Yes=2 28 23 11 11 22 11 11 11 11 22 11 22 213 11 24 reversing the loss and Same=1 degradation of wetlands Decreased=0 (Have wetlands increased overtime?) 2 -Science-based advice and Co-management (Indigenous, 11,2,15,20 11,2,15,35 21,2,15,36 21,2,15,31 11,2,15,43 31,2,15 31,2,15 31,2,15 21,2,15,28 11,2,15,41 11,2,15 21,2,15,40 11,2,15,42 11,2,15 21,2,15,27 guidance (Who is advising scientists, NGO, public) =3 the site manager?) Co-management (Scientists, NGO, public) =2 Only NGO or scientists or Indigenous or public = 1 None = 0 3 - Climate change and Yes = 1 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 wetlands (The critical No = 0 importance of wetlands for climate change mitigation and adaptation is understood?) 9 – Wise-use of wetlands Yes, through updated management 31,44 346 31,44 01 348 01 01 01 01 31,44 31,44 01 01 31,44 01 (Has the maintenance of the plan in last 10 years = 3 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 049 wetlands ecological character Yes, through legislated site 115,20 135 136 131 143 12 12 12 12 02 02 140 12 02 12 been maintained since monitoring requirements = 2 designation?) Yes, through community monitoring program = 1 No = 0 Enhanced through regulatory designations Yes: 2 or more regulatory designations = 2 150,51 250,51 250,51 250,51 250,51 250,51 250,51 250,51 250,51 150,51 250,51 150,51 250,51 150,51 250,51 Yes: 1 regulatory designation = 1 No = 0 Enhanced through non- regulatory designations Yes: 2 or more non-regulatory designation = 2 Yes: 1 additional non-regulatory 250,51 150,51 150,51 250,51 150,51 150,51 150,51 150,51 250,51 250,51 250,51 150,51 150,51 250,51 150,51 designation = 1 No = 0 10 - Invasive alien species Improved = 2 13 13 02 13 13 13 13 13 02 13 13 13 13 13 02 (Has the original flora and Remained same = 1 fauna state been maintained Degraded = 0 since designation ?)

Total Score for Wise-use / 18 14 14 13 12 14 12 12 12 11 13 13 11 11 12 9

Criterion 2 – Effective Management

Priority Areas of Focus for the -

Ramsar Convention: 4,5,13,14

CrestonValley Mer Bleue Lac Saint François Matchedash Bay Malpeque Bay Queen Maud Gulf Dewey Soper McConnell River OakHammock Marsh Mary's Point Chignecto Tabusintac Lagoon, NB Grand Codroy Estuary, NL SouthernBight Minas Basin Delta Marsh

4 – Information about Yes=2 21 21 21 21 11 11 11 11 11 21 21 21 21 21 11 ecosystem functions and the Preparation in progress =1 ecosystem services they No = 0 provide to people and nature (Has a management plan been produced providing information about ecosystem functions / services?)

5 – Communicating Yes = 1 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 ecosystem functions and the No = 0 ecosystem services they provide to people and nature (Do they update their RIS every 6 years as required?)

13 – Financing (Has a budget Yes = 1 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 11,49 01,49 been established since No = 0 designation?)

14 – Basin perspective (Does Yes, engaged 21 258 21 21 260 01 01 01 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 the community understand (On-site Education Programs) = 2 and recognize the role the Yes, aware through websites = 1 Ramsar site plays within the No = 0 larger context?)

Total Score for Effective Management /6 5 5 5 5 4 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 3

Criterion 3 – Enhanced Engagement

Priority Areas of Focus for the Ramsar -

Convention: 6,7,8, 11,12

6 – Enhancing cooperation Yes=1 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 (Do they have initiatives to No =0 promote wetland value and importance, bringing together site and other managers, key private and public stakeholders?)

7 – Implementing the Yes, site manager located at 152 152 152 152 152 252 252 252 252 052 052 052 152 052 152 Convention (Is the site Ramsar site = 2 manager actively involved in Yes, site manager located within site level activities?) province or territory = 1 No, site manager located out of province or territory = 0

8 – Identifying & designating Cannot be measured at the site wetlands as Ramsar & level transboundary Ramsar sites

11 – Strengthen and support Yes, with all (Indigenous, 11,2,15,20 11,2,15,35 21,2,15,36 21,2,15,36 11,2,15,43 31,2,15 31,2,15 31,2,15 21,2,15,28 11,2,15,41 11,2,15 21,2,15,40 11,2,15,42 01,2,15 21,2,15,27 the full and effective scientists, NGO, public) =3 participation (Is there Yes, with (Scientists, NGO, stakeholder and partnership public) =2 engagement?) Yes, only NGO or scientists or Indigenous or public = 1 No = 0

12 – Synergies (Enhancing Cannot be measured at the site efforts to streamline processes level and procedures)

Total Score for Enhanced Engagement /6 3 3 4 4 3 6 6 6 5 2 2 3 3 1 4

Total Sustainability Analysis Score /30 22 22 22 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 18 16

Table 3: Priority Areas of Focus Analysis for Ramsar Sites scoring 50% and below, Categorized by Ramsar Convention Commitment Criterion 1- 3

Criterion 1 – Wise-use

(maintenance of ecological character)

Priority Areas of Focus for the Ramsar Convention

1, 2, 3, 9,10

Musquodoboit Harbour Polar Bear Pass SouthernJames Bay, ON Shepody Bay Lakes Quill Polar Bear ProvincialPark BeaverhillLake Rasmussen Lowlands

1 - Preventing, stopping and Yes=2 22 11 11 22,3 11 11 11 11 reversing the loss and Same=1 degradation of wetlands Decreased=0 (Have wetlands increased overtime?)

2 -Science-based advice and Co-management (Indigenous, scientists, NGO, public) =3 11,2 11,2,15 21,2,15,29 11,2,15,41 11,2,15,26 11 11,2,15,23 11 guidance (Who is advising Co-management (Scientists, NGO, public) =2 the site manager?) Only NGO or scientists or Indigenous or public = 1 None = 0

3 - Climate change and Yes = 1 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 11,3 wetlands (The critical No = 0 importance of wetlands for climate change mitigation and adaptation is understood?) 9 – Wise-use of wetlands Yes, through updated management plan in last 10 years = 3 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 (Has the maintenance of the Yes, through legislated site monitoring requirements = 2 249 249 249 049 049 249 049 249 wetlands ecological character Yes, through community / monitoring program = 1 02 02 12 141 126 01 123 02 been maintained since No = 0 designation?) Enhanced through regulatory designations Yes: 2 or more regulatory designations = 2 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 50,51 Yes: 1 regulatory designation = 1 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 No = 0 Enhanced through non- regulatory designations Yes: 2 or more non-regulatory designation = 2 Yes: 1 additional non-regulatory designation = 1 No = 0 150,51 050,51 150,51 250,51 250,51 150,51 250,51 150,51

10 - Invasive alien species Improved = 2 02 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 (Has the original flora and Remained same = 1 fauna state been maintained Degraded = 0 since designation ?)

Total Score for wise-use / 18 9 8 10 8 9 8 8 7

Criterion 2 – Effective Management

Priority Areas of Focus for the

Ramsar Convention: 4,5,13,14

Musquodoboit Harbour Polar Bear Pass SouthernJames Bay, ON Shepody Bay Lakes Quill Polar Bear ProvincialPark BeaverhillLake Rasmussen Lowlands

4 – Information about Yes=2 11 11 01 21 01 21 01 01 ecosystem functions and the Preparation in progress =1 ecosystem services they No = 0 provide to people and nature (Has a management plan been produced providing information about ecosystem functions / services?)

5 – Communicating Yes = 1 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 ecosystem functions and the No = 0 ecosystem services they provide to people and nature (Do they update their RIS every 6 years as required?)

13 – Financing (Has a budget Yes = 1 11,49 11,49 11,49 01,49 01,49 11,49 01,49 01,49 been established since No = 0 designation?)

14 – Basin perspective (Does Yes, engaged 259 01 01 21 21 01 254 01 the community understand (On-site Education Programs) = 2 and recognize the role the Yes, aware through websites = 1 Ramsar site plays within the No = 0 larger context?)

Total Score for Effective Management /6 4 2 1 4 2 3 2 0

Criterion 3 – Enhanced Engagement

Priority Areas of Focus for the Ramsar Convention: 6,7,8,

11,12

Musquodoboit Harbour Polar Bear Pass SouthernJames Bay, ON Shepody Bay Lakes Quill Polar Bear ProvincialPark BeaverhillLake Rasmussen Lowlands

6 – Enhancing cooperation Yes=1 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 11,2,3 (Do they have initiatives to No =0 promote wetland value and importance, bringing together site and other managers, key private and public stakeholders?)

7 – Implementing the Yes, site manager located at Ramsar site = 2 152 252 152 052 152 152 152 052 Convention (Is the site Yes, site manager located within province or manager actively involved in territory = 1 site level activities?) No, site manager located out of province or territory = 0

8 – Identifying & designating Cannot be measured at the site level wetlands as Ramsar & transboundary Ramsar sites

11 – Strengthen and support Yes, with all (Indigenous, scientists, NGO, 01,2 11,2,15 11,2,15,29 11,2,15,41 11,2,15,26 01 11,2,15,23 01 the full and effective public) =3 participation (Is there Yes, with (Scientists, NGO, public) =2 stakeholder and partnership Yes, only NGO or scientists or Indigenous or engagement?) public = 1 No = 0

12 – Synergies (Enhancing Cannot be measured at the site level efforts to streamline processes and procedures)

Total Score for Enhanced Engagement /6 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 1

Total Sustainability Analysis Score /30 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 8

REFERENCES

1. Canada Ramsar. (2019). National Report 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/importftp/COP13NR_Canada_e.pdf, accessed 17/10/2019.

2. Canada Ramsar. (2019). National Report 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/cop12_national_report_canada_ e.pdf, accessed 17/10/2019.

3. Canada Ramsar. (2019). National Report 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/cop11/nr/cop11-nr-canada-e.pdf, accessed 17/10/2019.

4. Government of Manitoba. (2019). Delta Marsh Ramsar site Expansion. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/pai/mb_network/pdf/2011_06_17_delta_marsh_backgrounder_final.pdf, accessed 17/10/2019.

5. Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2019). Minesing Wetlands Expansion. Retrieved from: http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-work/ontario/stories/treasure-hunting-in-the.html, accessed 17/10/2019.

6. Government of Yukon. (2019). Old Crow Flats Management Plan, 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/publications-maps/documents/old_crow_flats.pdf, accessed 17/10/2019.

7. Canadian Parks Council. (2019). Hay-Zama Case Study. Retrieved from: http://www.parks-parcs.ca/english/pdf/aboriginal/21AB%20CPC%20CaseStudies.pdf, accessed 17/10/2019.

8. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. (2019). Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area Expansion. Retrieved from: https://y2y.net/news/updates-from-the-field/safe-passage-for-grizzlies-95-percent-complete, accessed 17/10/2019.

9. Columbia Valley Pioneer. (2019). Columbia Wetlands Expansion. Retrieved from: https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/423-acre-edgewater-property-enters-nature-trust-of- bc-ownership/, accessed 17/10/2019.

10. Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2019). Peace Athabasca Delta Expansion. Retrieved from: http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-work/alberta/stories/expand-boreal-protected- area.html, accessed 17/10/2019.

11. Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2019). Long Point Wetlands Expansion. Retrieved from: http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-work/ontario/featured-projects/pelee-island.html, accessed 18/10/2019.

12. Government of Canada. (2019). St. Clair National Wildlife Area Management Plan. Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/eccc/CW66-503-2018-eng.pdf, accessed on 18/10/2019.

13. Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2019). Grand Codroy Wetland Expansion. Retrieved from: http://naturedestinations.ca/story/grand-codroy-estuary/, accessed 18/10/2019.

14. Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2019). Lac Saint Pierre Wetland Expansion. Retrieved from: http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-work/quebec/news/world-wetlands-day-lac-saint- pierre.html, accessed 8/10/2019.

15. Government of Canada. (2019). National Wildlife Areas & Parks Management Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/national-wildlife-areas/site- selection/management-plans-activities.html, accessed on 24/10/2019

16. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. (2019). Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Lifestyle Project. Retrieved from: https://www.vgfn.ca/pdf/VTGHLP%20Interim%2017.10.12-3%20smfl.pdf, accessed on 19/10/2019

17. Government of Canada. (2019). Yukon Land Claim Report (2009). Retrieved from: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1326228168513/1542809223932?wbdisable=true, accessed on 19/10/2019

18. Friends of the Wild Whoopers. (2019). Ramsar Site Manager Support. Retrieved from: https://friendsofthewildwhoopers.org/, accessed on 19/10/2019

19. Friends of the Bay. (2019). Fraser River Delta Site Management Support. Retrieved from: https://www.birdsonthebay.ca/, accessed 19/10/2019

20. Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www.crestonwildlife.ca/habitat/stewardship, accessed 19/10/2019

21. Columbia Wetlands Stewardship Partners. (2019). Retrieved from: https://wetlandstewards.eco/, accessed on 19/10/2019

22. Prairie Conservation Forum. (2019). Hay-Zama Ramsar Site Twinning Project. Retrieved from: http://www.albertapcf.org/rsu_docs/PCF_Newsletter-Volume_3.pdf, accessed 19/10/2019

23. Beaverhill Lake Conservation Plan. (2001). Retrieved from: http://beaverhillbirds.com/media/1187/beaverhillakeibaconservationplan.pdf, accessed on 19/10/2019

24. Last Mountain Lake Stewardship Group. (2018). Retrieved from: http://www.lmlsg.ca/, accessed 19/10/2019

25. Peace-Athabasca Delta Monitoring Program. (2019). Retrieved from: http://www.pademp.com/about-pademp/, accessed on 19/10/2019

26. Quills Lakes Watershed Association. (2019). Retrieved from: https://quilllakeswatershed.com/, accessed on 19/10/2019

27. Government of Manitoba News. (2009). Provincial Funding Announced for Delta Marsh. Retrieved from: https://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-09-01&item=6794, accessed on 19/10/2019

28. Oak Hammock Marsh Interpretative Center (2019). Ducks Unlimited National Headquarters. Retrieved from: https://www.oakhammockmarsh.ca/join/, accessed on 19/10/2019

29. James Bay Shorebird Project. (2009). Research Collaboration. Retrieved from: https://www.jamesbayshorebirdproject.com/, accessed on 18/10/2019

30. Friends of Minesing Wetlands. (2019). Retrieved from: https://minesingwetlands.ca/, accessed 19/10/2019

31. Matchedash Bay Conservation Association. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.mtmconservation.org/index.php/matchedash-bay, accessed 19/10/2019

32. Friends of Point Pelee. (2019). Stewardship Group. Retrieved from: http://friendsofpointpelee.com/, accessed 19/10/2019

33. St. Clair Conservation Plan. (2001). Retrieved from: https://www.ibacanada.ca/documents/conservationplans/oneasternlakestclair.pdf, accessed 19/10/2019

34. Long Point IBA Summary. (2001). Partnership Collaboration. Retrieved from: https://www.ibacanada.org/site.jsp?siteID=ON001, accessed on 19/10/2019

35. Friends of Mer Bleue. (2019). Stewardship Collaboration. Retrieved from: https://fomb.ca/, accessed on 19/10/2019

36. Lac Saint Francois Community Association. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www.legrandlacstfrancois.org/qui-nous-sommes/le-regroupement-pour-la-protection-du- glsf/, accessed on 19/10/2019

37. Lake Saint Pierre Community Foundation. (2019). Retrieved from: http://www.fondationdelafaune.qc.ca/en/ , accessed on 19/10/2019

38. Government of Canada. (2019). Baie de l'Isle-Vertehttp Management Plan 2018. Retrieved from: https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/eccc/CW66-573-2018-1-eng.pdf., accessed on 19/10/2019

39. Government of Canada. (2019). Quebec Snow Goose Management Plan including Cap Tourmente, 2005-2010. Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/ec/CW66-262-2006-eng.pdf, accessed on 19/10/2019

40. Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2019). Tabusintac Lagoon Stewardship Partnership. Retrieved from: http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-work/new-brunswick/featured- projects/acadian-peninsula/tabusintac_estuary.html, accessed on 19/10/2019

41. Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership. (2019). Retrieved form: http://www.bofep.org/wpbofep/, accessed on 19/10/2019

42. Stewardship Association of Municipalities. (2019). Grand Codroy Estuary. Retrieved from: https://www.samnl.org/codroy-valley, accessed on 19/10/2019

43. P.E.I. Wetland Conservation Fund. (2019). Malpeque Bay Stewardship. Retrieved from: http://www.peiwcf.ca/category/years/2018/, accessed on 19/10/2019

44. Government of Canada. (2019). National Wildlife Area Management Plans. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/national-wildlife- areas/locations.html, accessed on 19/09/2019

45. Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2011). Minesing Marsh Management Plan. Retrieved from: https://minesingwetlandsfriends.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/minesing-wetlands-2014-pmp- abbreviated-version-for-sharing.pdf, accessed 18/09/2019

46. Government of Canada. (2019). Mer Bleue Management and Master plan. Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/ccn-ncc/W93-32-2013-eng.pdf, accessed on 18/09/2019.

47. Government of Quebec. (2019). Lac Saint Pierre Intervention Strategy. Retrieved from: http://www.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/eau/lac-st-pierre/, accessed on 18/09/2019.

48. Malpeque Bay Community Council. (2019). Malpeque Bay Watershed Management Plan & Official Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.malpequebay.ca/pdfs/Malpeque%20Bay%20Document.pdf

49. Canada Ramsar. (2019). National Report 2005. Retrieved from: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/cop9/cop9_nr_canada.pdf, accessed 17/10/2019.

50. Lynch-Stewart & Associates. (2008). Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar Sites) In Canada. Survey of Ramsar Site Managers, 2007. Prepared for Canadian Wildlife Services.

51. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. (2019). Management of Canadian Ramsar Sites. Retrieved from: http://nawcc.wetlandnetwork.ca/Management%20of%20Can%20Ramar.pdf, accessed 18/09/2019

52. Alberta Wilderness Association. (2019). Hay-zama Ramsar Site Information. Retrieved from: https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlands/areas-of-concern/hay-zama/, accessed 15/10/2019.

53. Biodiversity Heritage Library. (2019). Hay-Zama Wildland Park Management plan, 2002. Retrieved from: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/201483#page/1/mode/1up, accessed 15/10/2019.

54. Beaverhill Bird Observatory. (2019). Observatory Information. Retrieved from: http://beaverhillbirds.com/welcome/beaverhill-lake/, accessed 15/10/2019.

55. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. (2019). Minesign Wetlands Site Information. Retrieved from: https://www.nvca.on.ca/recreation/ConservationAreas/MinesingWetlands, accessed 15/10/2019.

56. Tourism Windsor Essex. (2019). St. Clair Ramsar Site Information. Retrieved from: https://visitwindsoressex.com/places/st-clair-national-wildlife-area/, accessed 15/10/2019.

57. Bird Studies Canada. (2019). Long Point Bird Observatory. Retrieved from: https://www.birdscanada.org/longpoint/?targetpg=lpbovisit, accessed 15/10/2019

58. Ontario Trails. (2019). Mer Bleue Conservation Area Ramsar Information. Retrieved from: https://www.ontariotrails.on.ca/index.php?url=trails/view/mer-bleue-bog-boardwalk, accessed 15/10/2019.

59. Nova Scotia Canada. (2019). Musquodoboit Natural Resources Education Centre. Retrieved from: https://novascotia.ca/natr/education/nrec/, accessed 15/10/2019.

60. The Community of Malpeque Bay. (2019). Malpeque Bay Ramsar Site Information. Retrieved from: https://www.malpequebay.ca, accessed 15/10/2019.