India's Ramsar network has expanded nearly fourfold since 2014. Does the number of designations reflect real ecological protection? Critically examine.

India's Ramsar sites have grown from 26 in 2014 [1] to 103 by October 2026 [2]. However, a Ramsar listing is an international recognition of a wetland's value. It is not a protection order. So the count shows commitment, but it is a weak measure of how healthy the wetlands are.

Where designation does deliver protection

• International accountability: if a listed site gets worse, it can be put on the Montreux Record, the Convention's "danger list," where the Parties watch it [3].
• Proven recovery: Chilika was removed from the Montreux Record in 2002 after restoration [4]. Keoladeo, listed in 1990, has improved, and India is assessing its removal [5].
• Legal and financial support: the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, made under the EPA, 1986, ban conversion and dumping [6]. NPCA (National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems), a cost-shared Centrally Sponsored Scheme, funds management plans [7].

Where the numbers overstate protection

• Value is not the same as management: the 9 Ramsar criteria test a wetland's ecological importance when it is listed. They do not test whether anyone can manage it.
• Long-term degradation: Loktak Lake has been on the Montreux Record since 1993 and is still there [3]. More than 30 years of listing has not removed the causes of its decline.
• Gaps in implementation: CAG's audit of Gujarat's wetlands (2015), which covered the Ramsar site Nal Sarovar, found no State budget provision, no baseline data on migratory birds, and no State Wetland Authority [8]. Without baseline bird counts, nobody can tell when a site loses the waterbird value it was listed for.
• Uneven federal capacity: states propose sites and share NPCA costs [7]. States with weak administrations therefore write poorer plans and get less funding.
• Global warning: about 22% of the world's wetlands have been lost since 1970, and the loss continues [9].

Designation is a necessary first step. It brings visibility, scrutiny and funding. But real protection should be judged by how many sites leave, or never enter, the Montreux Record. Way forward:

• a fixed minimum water allocation for each site
• a baseline bird count with every nomination
• states budgeting their NPCA share before seeking central funds
• a time-bound recovery plan for Loktak
• publishing site-health reports alongside new listings

These steps would move India from counting wetlands to conserving them, in line with SDG 15 and the Kunming-Montreal 30x30 target.