The articles of each convention together with the decisions and other documents relating to implementation were reviewed and the information requirements documented. This covered not only the information required in national reporting, but all the information required to implement the convention. A detailed table of the information requirements of each convention is given in Appendix III, and a summary is given below (Table 1).

CBD has broad information requirements. Ramsar has a focus on wetlands of international importance but its promotion of the wise use concept implies broad information requirements. Each of the other three conventions has a particular focus: CITES and CMS are clearly targeted at species while World Heritage is directed at sites. Commonalities would be expected between these pairs, and are indeed apparent. Table 1 illustrates that successful implementation of each convention relies upon a wide range of fundamental data sets. Certain data are unique to one convention, for example the permit details and trade data required for CITES. However, there are a number of fundamental data sets that are required by more than one convention and also a number required by all five conventions.

CBD requires information on the full spectrum of biodiversity: ecosystems and habitats, species and communities and described genomes and genes of social, scientific or economic importance. Of these, only species data are significantly required by the other conventions, although the habitat present at sites is also important for Ramsar and World Heritage.

CITES and CMS require species information and they share approximately 445 species. For CMS this represents approximately 25% of the species listed. Details are required by both conventions on the scientific name, conservation and protection status, range, distribution, population data (including size and trends), habitat requirements, threats and in situ conservation/management activities. The main area of difference concerns use of species, especially relating to trade. This is an important data set for CITES, but is less relevant to CMS.

CMS is implemented to a large extent through Agreements concluded under its auspices for large taxonomic groups, or in some case, individual species. Each of these Agreements has its own information requirements which may be much more specific than the more general requirements of the parent convention. (These Agreements were not included in the Feasibility Study, although two are treated in Appendix III. A full listing of active agreements can be found on the CMS web site at http://www.wcmc.org.uk/cms

Key:
#1 fauna and flora listed in the Appendices of CITES
#2 migratory species listed in Appendices of CMS
#3 waterfowl and waders and any threatened/notable species of fauna or flora that occur on Ramsar sites
#4 any threatened/notable species of fauna and flora that occur on World Heritage sites
#5 protected sites for certain species (eg. Tiger)
#6 internationally important wetlands
#7 sites of cultural or natural importance

Sites can be designated using a range of criteria, including the occurrence of notable/threatened species or significant numbers of waterbirds. The most important species related data for Ramsar and World Heritage are range, distribution, population size (including size and trends) and habitat requirements. One of the key links shared by all the conventions relates to the status of species.

Ramsar and World Heritage require very similar information on sites. For example, each site must be described in a certain level of detail, its geographic location must be known, its social and cultural value must be understood, the occurrence of notable and/or threatened fauna and flora known, and threats (current and potential) must be documented. Furthermore, as with species, sites may be listed on both conventions. Much the same information is also required by CBD but in a more general sense - particularly what actions and legislation are in place.

There is no apparent requirement for site-related data for CMS (there is however a requirement for site-related data under a number of the CMS-related Agreements, but these were beyond the scope of this study) and only limited requirement for CITES with regard to particular species. However, the designation of suitable sites based on species criteria could form part of the in situand legislative activities undertaken by Parties as part of their implementation. This implies that certain conservation-related activities, encouraged by the articles of one convention, could be significant for the others.

Information on the threats to species and sites is important. In many cases, the threats may be linked. For example, threat to a species through increased trade activities would raise concerns of the CITES community. Equally, the activities of traders could lead to significant habitat damage, localised pollution and general degradation of a fragile ecosystem present at a nationally/internationally designated site.

Between them, the five biodiversity-related conventions require a broad array of information. Although the requirements of all are different in certain respects, there are data sets that are fundamental to all five conventions. The opportunities to share these at appropriate levels, generating efficiency savings and synergies are worth exploring.

The primary source of information for each secretariat is the convention's contracting Parties. Each convention requires some form of reporting to its CoP (or equivalent) through its secretariat. The timing and frequency of reporting varies from annual to every six years (summarised in Table 2). In addition to periodic reports, Parties provide information on initial accession to certain of the treaties, in submissions for designation of sites, and in support of amendments to the treaty articles or annexes - especially with regard to listing of species.

With all reporting regimes, careful attention needs to be given to what is to be achieved and how the content of such reports will enable activities to be assessed and priorities for the future determined. Reporting guidelines are an important element of such processes and provide a framework to assist Parties with their submission. In addition, information received in a standard format will be easier to review and will facilitate the production of a report considering the efforts of all contracting Parties.

Guidance is provided to Parties on the form and content of the required information through the convention articles, decisions and resolutions of CoPs and operational guidelines of various kinds. Some of this guidance is very specific and requests quantitative information (e.g. the CITES annual report on trade statistics), or may be specific in terms of structure and general content, as in Ramsar site descriptions. In general, however, guidance to Parties is rather general; specific quantitative indicators or time-series attributes (such as species populations, areas under protection, etc.) are not mandatory, although they may be implied or required for successful implementation.

The fulfilment by contracting Parties of their reporting requirements is variable. For example, Ramsar indicated that they receive a high return of national reports and CITES also indicated that they receive a good number of annual reports. However, CITES has much lower rates of submission for its biennial report (legislative, regulatory and administrative measures to enforce the provisions of the convention) and CMS have encountered non-response rates of as much as 40%. Both the Ramsar national report and CITES annual report have clear guidelines, while the guidelines and conditions for submission of the CITES biennial report are less clear. This suggests that clear guidelines can encourage and contribute to high levels of compliance with regards to reporting. Although the reporting requirements differ between the conventions, as already illustrated, some of the information required is common to all conventions. By harmonising the reporting requirements and timing where possible, and encouraging a standard approach to data collection, the conventions may encourage national level coordination.

National level coordination is needed because information flow is not simply country-to-convention secretariat, but is between responsible national authorities and the convention secretariats. The national authorities for a given Party may be vested in different government departments for each of the treaties. Thus countries may have up to five different lines of communication with the biodiversity treaties. Currently, 37 countries are party to all five biodiversity-related treaties. Further analysis would be required of the national implementing agencies across the 185 countries that are party to one or more of the treaties (see Appendix IV).

Description	Frequency/ Timing	Reference1
CBD
Measures countries have taken to implement the provisions of the convention. Timing and content of reports to be decided by CoP.	to be decided by CoP	Article 26
Report on the implementation of Article 6 General Issues. General measures for conservation and sustainable use.	CoP4 (May 1998)	Decision II/17
CITES
Annual report containing a summary of permits and trade in species included in Appendices I, II and III of the Convention	Annual; by 31st October of the following year	Article VIII and Notif. No. 788
Biennial report on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures taken to enforce the provisions of the Convention	Biennial; no set rule or recommendation about timing, although the first report of a Party is expected to be submitted two years after the entry into force of the Convention and subsequent reports to be submitted every 2 years.	Article VIII
CMS
Parties to provide the Secretariat with details of the migratory species listed in Appendices I and II the Parties consider themselves to be Range States.	On-going	Article VI
Parties to inform the Secretariat of measures they are taking to conserve migratory species in Appendices I and II.	Each CoP; next CoP in 1999	Article VI
Initial comprehensive report by Parties on accession to the convention	Upon signature	Article VI and Res. 4.1
Updating report by Parties	Each CoP; next CoP in 1999	Article VI and Res. 4.1
RAMSAR
Completed Ramsar datasheet should be submitted to Bureau upon designation of site	Upon designation of each site. Updates every 6 years.	Article 2, Rec. 4.7 and Res. 5.3
Change in ecological character of a site Monitoring of sites on Montreux Record	As necessary As necessary	Article 3 Res. 5.4
Report for CoP 7	to Bureau by 1/9/1998; next CoP May, 1999	Notif. 1998/1
WORLD HERITAGE
Every Party shall submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage.	next meeting of the World Heritage Committee, Dec. 1998	Article 11-12 and Operational Guidelines
Parties shall in the reports they submit to the General Conference of UNESCO on dates and in a manner to be determined by it, give information on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted and other action which they have taken for the application of this Convention		Article 29 and Operational Guidelines Currently under review WHC-98/CONF.201/2

¹ Please see Appendix III for details of information requirements

The convention secretariats also receive information from a range of NGOs and international agencies. In some cases these are specifically designated supporting or advisory bodies, or data managers. In other cases the arrangements are more informal. The information that flows by this means is primarily scientific - for instance in support of taxonomies, reviews of species lists, species population statistics, site descriptions, etc. The flow is directed from these agencies to the separate secretariats, subsidiary bodies, committees and in some cases, direct to the Parties.

All five convention secretariats within the scope of this study meet regularly (hosted by UNEP) to discuss issues of common interest. In addition, officials of secretariats routinely attend each others' CoPs and other major meetings, and exchange principal documents. At present, there is very little flow of scientific information between the conventions, apart from some exchange between Ramsar and WHC regarding sites common to both conventions.

During the Feasibility Study, secretariats expressed the need for improved inter-convention exchange, and a number of examples were given of information known to be held by one which would be of value to others and where there would be benefits of sharing scientific expertise. Information flow is hampered by lack of knowledge about the respective data holdings (metadata) of the conventions. An improved understanding of this should lead to a number of benefits.

Bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) on cooperation exist between the CBD and each of Ramsar, CMS and CITES. There is also a bilateral MoU between Ramsar and CMS. None of these requires or implies information flow.

All of the secretariats are charged to provide assessments of the state of implementation of the convention, and to support Parties in implementing the convention. This is achieved in part by synthesising national reports (as undertaken by CITES and Ramsar routinely for each CoP, and by CBD for CoP4). CMS and WHC do not routinely summarise or synthesise national reports for CoPs. However, apart from administrative information, relatively little information flows from the secretariats to Parties.

All of the conventions recognised during the Feasibility Studythe need to improve feedback of information to Parties, and to find methods to disseminate case studies (successes and failures) and good practices to Parties to support implementation of the provisions of the treaties. See Appendix V for comments from the secretariats on information management issues and needs.