United Nations
UNEP/GEF South China Sea
Global Environment
Environment Programme
Project
Facility






Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand











REPORT

Fifth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Coral Reefs Sub-component

Koh Chang, Thailand, 13th ­ 16th September 2004














__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, September 2004

---

First published in Thailand in 2005 by the United Nations Environment Programme.

Copyright © 2005, United Nations Environment Programme

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication
as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose without prior
permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

UNEP/GEF
Project Co-ordinating Unit,
United Nations Environment Programme,
UN Building, 2nd Floor Block B, Rajdamnern Avenue,
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel.
+66 2 288 1886
Fax.
+66 2 288 1094
http://www.unepscs.org


DISCLAIMER:

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the GEF. The
designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNEP, of the GEF, or of any cooperating organisation concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the delineation of its territories or boundaries.

Cover Photo: Giant Clam, in coral reserve, Masinloc, Philippines, by Mr. Kelvin Passfield.


For citation purposes this document may be cited as:

UNEP, 2005. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs. UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-CR.5/3.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3

Table of Contents

1. OPENING OF THE MEETING........................................................................................................1
1.1 WELCOME ADDRESS................................................................................................................1
1.2 INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS ...................................................................................................1
2. ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING ............................................................................................1
2.1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS...........................................................................................................1
2.2 DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE TO THE MEETING .........................................................................2
2.3 ORGANISATION OF WORK ........................................................................................................2
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA.....................................................................................2
4. BRIEF REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS ON THE STATUS OF THE
PREPARATORY PHASE OUTPUTS DUE 30TH JUNE 2004 ........................................................2
5. STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA
OF UNDERSTANDING...................................................................................................................3
5.1 STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OF THE SPECIALISED EXECUTING AGENCIES (SEAS)
FROM THE PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES, FOR THE CORAL REEF SUB-COMPONENT ....................... 3
5.2 EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SPECIALISED EXECUTING
AGENCIES WITHOUT APPROVED DEMONSTRATION SITES (CAMBODIA AND VIET NAM) .................4
5.3 EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SPECIALISED EXECUTING
AGENCIES WITH APPROVED DEMONSTRATION SITES .................................................................4
6. PROJECT EVALUATION...............................................................................................................6
6.1 REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT...................................6
6.2 SPECIALLY MANAGED PROJECT REVIEW (SMPR) BY THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION UNIT
OF THE GEF SECRETARIAT...................................................................................................... 6
7. REVIEW OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING INPUTS
TO THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME.........................................................8
7.1 REVIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT NATIONAL ACTION PLANS WITH A VIEW TO
IDENTIFYING COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES......................................................................8
7.2 DISCUSSION ON THE INPUTS FROM THE CORAL REEF SUB-COMPONENT TO THE REGIONAL
STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME (SAP), REVIEW OF THE SAP TARGETS AND GOALS AND
DISCUSSION OF THE PROCESS OF INTEGRATING NAP AND SAP DEVELOPMENT.......................10
8. IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES AT THE DEMONSTRATION SITES ................................12
8.1 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES...............................................12
8.2 REGIONAL CO-ORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES IN THE APPROVED DEMONSTRATION SITES..............12
9. WORK PLAN OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON CORAL REEFS FOR
THE PERIOD 2004-2007 ..............................................................................................................13
10. DATES AND PLACE OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP.....13
11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS..............................................................................................................13
12. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING .....................................................................14
13. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING.....................................................................................................14

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3



List of Annexes


ANNEX 1
List of Participants

ANNEX 2
List of Documents

ANNEX 3
Agenda

ANNEX 4
Tasks of Specialised Executing Agencies Included in the Second Amendment
to the Memorandum of Understanding

ANNEX 5
Comparative Analysis of Actions in the National Action Plans on Coral Reefs

ANNEX 6
Work Plan (2004-2007) and Schedule of Meetings for 2005

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 1


Report of the Meeting

1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING

1.1 Welcome
Address

1.1.1
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director opened the meeting, at 08:30am on 13 September 2004
and welcomed participants on behalf of the Executive Director of UNEP, Dr. Klaus Töpfer; and the
Assistant Executive Director, and Director of the UNEP Division of Global Environment Facility
Co-ordination, Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf.

1.1.2
Dr. Pernetta noted with regret that Professor Chou Loke Ming and Professor Ridzwan Abdul
Rahman, the two regional experts for the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs (RWG-CR), were
unable to attend the meeting, and further noted that the dates of the fifth meeting had been discussed
and considered during the fourth meeting. He drew the attention of members to the fact that since
there was only one meeting each year during this phase of the project it was important that members
blocked the dates for future meetings once the RWG-CR had decided on them.

1.1.3
The Project Director noted that the agenda for this meeting was extensive including the
review of the draft national action plans and consideration of ways to finalise and adopt the national
action plans. Key issues during this meeting were to consider ways of making the national action
plans comparable across the participating countries; and integrating the national action plans of the
four habitat sub-components. As the Project entered the second phase, the RWG-CR should also
consider possible mechanisms for sharing experience gained and exchanging information.

1.1.4 The Project Director informed the meeting that, the independent mid-term evaluation was now
completed and that the two evaluators had rated project implementation quite highly. Dr. Pernetta
congratulated the members of the Working Group for their hard work, which had contributed both to
project success to date and the high rating of the evaluation.

1.1.5 Finally the Project Director noted with regret, that Mr. Yihang Jiang, the senior expert
member of the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) would leave the project to take the management
responsibility for the Yellow Sea Project, funded by the Global Environment Facility. He expressed his
appreciation for Mr. Jiang's contributions to the project, and expressed on behalf of the group, his best
wishes for Mr. Jiang's future work in the Yellow Sea Project.

1.2 Introduction
of
Members

1.2.1
There being no new member of the Working Group, it was noted that there was no need to
conduct a tour de table self-introduction. It was noted however that Mr. Ouk Vibol, from Cambodia
would join the group the next day. The List of Participants is attached to this report as Annex 1.

2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING

2.1 Election
of
Officers

2.1.1 Members recalled that at the third meeting of the RWG-CR held in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
from 24th to 27th March 2003, Mr. Abdul Khalil bin Abdul Karim, Dr. Vo Si Tuan, and Dr. Thamasak
Yeemin were elected as, Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur respectively.

2.1.2 The meeting recollected, that the Rules of Procedure state, the Regional Working Group
should elect, from amongst the members, a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur to serve
for one year. The rules state further that, officers were eligible for re-election no more than once and
the Project Director noted that the extended interval from the time of election of the present officers to
this meeting meant that the present officers had served for eighteen months. It was left to the
discretion of the RWG-CR to decide whether they were eligible for re-election.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 2


2.1.3
Members were invited to nominate candidates for the officers during the year 2004-2005.
Mr. Abdul Khalil bin Abdul Karim nominated and Dr. Porfirio M. Aliño seconded Dr. Thamasak Yeemin
as the Chairperson. Dr. Tuan nominated Dr. Aliño as the Vice-Chairperson, and this was seconded by
Mr. Khalil. Dr. Suharsono nominated Mr. Kim Sour as Rapporteur to the meeting. There being no
objection, Dr. Yeemin, Dr. Aliño and Mr. Kim were duly elected as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and
rapporteur for the working group.

2.2
Documentation Available to the Meeting

2.2.1 The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce the documentation available to the
meeting. The list of documents is contained in Annex 2 of this report.

2.2.2 The Project Director provided an overview of the meeting documents prepared by the PCU.
During the meeting, the working group should review the MoU for the second phase of the project,
finalise the MoUs, and where possible sign the MoU amendments during the meeting. An important
task in the second phase of the project is the development of the national action plans, and the
Project Director noted, with compliments to the group, that all countries had submitted the NAPs for
the consideration of the Working Group.

2.2.3 The review of these action plans should form the basis for inputs to the updating of the
Strategic Action Programme which was included in the documents presented to the meeting.

2.3
Organisation of Work

2.3.1 The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to introduce the draft programme for the conduct of
business contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/Inf.3. The Project Director briefed the
meeting on the proposed administrative arrangements for the meeting. He proposed that the Working
Group might wish to set aside some time for MoU amendments, and resolution of some outstanding
issues for the finalisation of the demonstration site proposals.

2.3.2 Members inquired about the possibility of undertaking a field trip in Koh Chang and
Dr. Yeemin informed the meeting that since it was the rainy season in Koh Chang, it was not a good
time to dive or snorkel since the water was very turbid.

3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA

3.1
The Chairperson introduced the Provisional Agenda prepared for the meeting as document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/1, and invited members to consider any amendments or additional items to
be included in the proposed agenda.

3.2
There were no amendments or additional items proposed although the meeting noted that the
order of the items might need to be changed during the course of discussion. Mr. Khalil proposed, and
the meeting agreed, to adopt the agenda, as contained in Annex 3 of this report.

4.
BRIEF REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS ON THE STATUS OF THE
PREPARATORY PHASE OUTPUTS DUE 30TH JUNE 2004

4.1
The Chairperson invited the Focal Points for the Coral Reef Sub-component from the
participating countries to provide a brief report to the meeting regarding the status of the preparatory
phase outputs, including national reports and national action plans. Members' attention was drawn to
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/4 "Status of the Substantive Reports of the Specialised
Executing Agencies (SEAs) for the Coral Reef Sub-component from the Participating Countries",
which provided an overview of the current situation with regard to these outputs from the perspective
of the Project Co-ordinating Unit.

4.2
Mr. Kim noted that Cambodia had submitted all the required outputs to the PCU, and that the
latest version of the national report on coral reefs had been submitted to the PCU last week. The
national action plan on coral reefs had been drafted in combination with seagrass and Mr. Kim noted,
a workshop to develop the national action plan had been convened in May 2004 in Sihanoukville,
Cambodia, and a draft sent to the PCU. He noted further that this draft would require substantial

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 3


revision before its finalisation. He reported that the meta-database and GIS data were submitted in
September 2003 to both PCU and SEA START RC. During the fifth meeting of the Regional Working
Group on Seagrass, he noted, that the map for seagrass in Cambodia did not include all the data and
information provided by Cambodia. He expressed his willingness to resend the meta-database and
GIS data, if necessary, to the SEA START RC and the PCU.

4.3
Dr. Suharsono informed the meeting that Indonesia had submitted all the required reports,
copies of which were distributed during the meeting. He further informed the meeting that the review
of data and information had been combined with the review of economic valuation. Additionally, a
map of coral reefs along the Indonesian coast of the South China Sea had been produced. He stated
that he would send the CD containing the electronic version of the report, meta-database, and GIS
database to the PCU.

4.4
Mr. Khalil noted that following the election in February 2004 in Malaysia, the government had
undertaken a restructuring of government agencies. As a result, the Marine Parks Unit had been
moved from the Fisheries Department to the newly established Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment and that this had caused some disruption to project activities. He noted further that he
was remaining in the Department of Fisheries hence this was likely the last meeting that he would
attend. Currently, the draft national report is still in the writing stage, but the draft national action plan
had been distributed to the Working Group. However, he noted, it was difficult to identify the
responsible agencies for various activities under the action plan following the government
restructuring.

4.5
Dr. Aliño distributed some printed materials to the Working Group, which included a Philippine
Marine Sanctuary Strategy, and various national reports on coral reefs. The RWG-CR complimented
Dr. Aliño on the quality of these reports although it was noted that the Philippine Marine Sanctuary
Strategy did not include the date of publication.

4.6
Dr. Yeemin informed the meeting that the GIS data, national action plan and the national
report would be published at national level and would be available by the end of next month.
Furthermore, updating of data and information would be finished by the end of this month.

4.7
Dr. Tuan informed the meeting that Viet Nam had submitted the required outputs to the PCU,
and noted that the reason for delays in the publication of the national report in Viet Nam resulted from
the plan to publish a book on coral reefs in Vietnamese, which would include data and information on
coral reefs, and the summary of site characterisation. A draft national action plan was finished six
months ago but the Inter-Ministry Committee and the National Technical Working Group had decided
to agree on a uniform format for the national action plans across all sub-components prior to
publication.

4.8
Dr. Pernetta requested the committee to provide the PCU with a list of publications and other
outputs that had been produced to date. He further proposed to publicise the materials through linking
the Specialised Executing Agencies' websites, with the project website thus forming a network of sites
that would provide easier access to all materials at the national level.

5.
STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA
OF UNDERSTANDING

5.1
Status of the Administrative Reports of the Specialised Executing Agencies (SEAs)
from the Participating Countries, for the Coral Reef Sub-component

5.1.1 The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-CR.5/5, "Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the
participating countries" and draw to the attention of the meeting any outstanding issues or matters
requiring the attention of the working group.

5.1.2
The Project Director drew members' attention to Table 1 of the document, which outlined the
status of the six-monthly progress reports, expenditure statements, cash advance requests and audit
reports from the SEAs, as of the 3rd of September. He noted audit reports for year 2003 had been
received by the PCU from five out of the six countries and noted further an improvement in the

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 4


timeliness of submission of the six-monthly reports for the period July to December 2003. For the first
half of 2004, there was a delay as Malaysia, Philippines, and Viet Nam had not submitted their draft
six-monthly reports to the PCU.

5.1.3 The Project Director noted that Table 2 provides details of cash expenditures and balances
held by the coral reef SEAs. The Project Director noted, Malaysia, Philippines and Viet Nam had not
submitted their real expenditure as of June 2004, which would make the budget revision through June
2007 impossible as the volume of funds available for carry-forward into the next period could not be
determined. He further noted the failure of many SEAs to report interest earned from the unspent
money held in their bank accounts. In cases where the fund was managed through a government
ministry account, he encouraged the SEAs to attempt to secure details of the interest and ensure that
it was spent on project activities. In cases where no interest was reported, the SEAs should provide
reasons why interest had not been earned.

5.1.4
Table 3 provides information on the calculated in-kind government co-financing for the coral
reef sub-component from January 2002 ­ June 2004, derived from meeting participation at the
national level using the agreed cost coefficient of US$ 70 per person per day. He noted, the project
was perhaps the only GEF project that had attempted to track the in-kind contribution from
governments. He noted in this regard that during 2003, the GEF Council had adopted a policy that
required accounting of co-financing with the same due diligence applied to GEF grant funds. Hence, it
was important for the SEAs to deliver the six-monthly reports on time, so that the PCU could monitor
and report government co-financing on a regular basis. The Project Director noted, that the coefficient
of US$70/day per person was applied to all people involved in the project regardless of their level,
and to all countries since calculations involving assessment based on level for seven different
countries would be difficult.

5.1.5
The focal points of Malaysia, Philippines and Viet Nam were invited to clarify the status of the
six-monthly reports in each country, and to indicate when these would be submitted. Dr. Aliño
indicated he had brought with him the six-monthly reports of the Philippines. Dr. Tuan would send the
progress reports of Viet Nam for coral reefs sub-component this month and Mr. Khalil agreed to send
the six-monthly reports as soon as possible to the PCU.

5.2
Extension of the Memoranda of Understanding for the Specialised Executing Agencies
without Approved Demonstration Sites (Cambodia and Viet Nam)

5.3
Extension of the Memoranda of Understanding for the Specialised Executing Agencies
with Approved Demonstration Sites

5.3.1 Discussion of these two agenda sub-items was taken together.

5.3.2 The Project Director briefed the meeting on the process of extension of the MOUs between
UNEP and the SEAs. For countries without demonstration sites, such as Cambodia and Viet Nam, the
MoU amendments might be relatively easier to finalise for signature. Regarding the MoU amendments
for countries with demonstration sites funded through the project grant, each country should consider
carefully the process and contracting parties to the MoUs. From the perspective of the PCU, it would
prefer to contract directly the SEA, which in turn would subcontract local executing agencies at the
demonstration sites. This reflected the volume of work associated with processing the regular
administrative reports for each MoU, and noted that since the SEAs had gained experience in
producing administrative and financial reports it would be better if they remained responsible for their
production for the demonstration sites.

5.3.3 In some countries, such as Viet Nam, a tripartite MoU involving three contracting parties, i.e.
UNEP, the SEA and the local implementing agency of the demonstration site, would be signed. The
demonstration sites funded under the Medium-sized Projects would be handled through completely
separate MoUs. In any case, the SEA would retain primary responsibility for national coordination and
oversight of the demonstration sites and for the timeliness of administrative reporting.

5.3.4 Dr. Suharsono raised a query regarding the development of Medium-sized Projects (MSPs).
The Project Director noted, the development of the MSPs was different from that for demonstration
sites funded under the project grant. Ms. Sulan Chen from the PCU was liaising with Mr. Takashi

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 5


Otsuka, Task Manager for UNEP/DGEF in reviewing and putting the proposals into the new MSP
format. The responsible person for the finalisation of MSPs had promised to give the comments of
UNEP/DGEF by next week.

5.3.5 Dr. Aliño informed the meeting, that the demonstration site proposal for the Philippines was
proposed to be implemented by local government, and operated fully independently from the SEA. He
proposed the cost of the oversight, and financial and administrative reporting provided by the SEA
should be funded, and budgets should be allocated for such administrative costs in the proposal of
the demonstration site.

5.3.6 The attention of members was drawn to the decisions of the Project Steering Committee with
respect to the budgets for national co-ordination under the extension of the MoUs as follows:
8.2.7 Mr. Manuel D. Gerochi stated that he was of the view that the costs for
national co-ordination should be switched from the GEF grant funds to government re-
current budgets, as this is an appropriate step towards achieving sustainability of
project benefits following expenditure of the GEF grant funds. He proposed, and the
meeting agreed with this principle.
8.2.8 Regarding the progressive percentages to be used in phasing out the GEF
support to national co-ordination, he further suggested that the committee could
agree on the proposed percentage on a trial basis and review the situation at its next
meeting in December 2004. Should it prove necessary the committee could make
any necessary adjustments once the government departments had reviewed both
the costs and the frequency of meetings. The meeting agreed with the suggestion
made by Mr. Gerochi and decided that:
(i)
A combination of scenarios 2 and 3, as proposed by the PCU in the
document UNEP/GEF/SCS.3/9, should be used in calculating allocations;
(ii)
The overall level of support from the GEF grant should be 100% in 2004-
2005: 50% in 2005-2006; and 25% in 2006-2007.

5.3.7 These conditions would apply to all future MoU extensions regardless of whether or not the
focal point and Specialised Executing Agency were responsible for a demonstration site.

5.3.8 Members were then invited to review the draft MoU amendment, and discuss the tasks to be
completed during the second phase of the project. An extensive discussion ensued and some
amendments to the wording of the tasks were proposed and accepted by the group. The revised list
of tasks is attached as Annex 4 to this report.

5.3.9 The major points of discussion were as follows.
·
Regarding the new membership of national committee. Considering the implementation
of demonstration sites, Dr. Suharsono noted the necessity to extend membership of the
national committees to selected key persons in the implementation of demonstration site.
Furthermore, a national subcommittee might also be established for the implementation of
the demonstration sites given the geographic separation between the members of the
national committee and the demonstration sites.
·
Regional synthesis of data and information. Dr. Pernetta noted that extensive data and
information had been generated at the national level during the first phase of the project,
and RWG-CR should consider ways to synthesise the data and information for the benefit of
the next generation of marine scientists in the region. One possible way might be to produce
an atlas of the South China Sea, based on outputs from all project components.
·
Economic valuation of coral reefs. Dr. Suharsono noted the importance of economic
valuation, and suggested the need for funding to conduct economic valuation on coral reefs.
Dr. Pernetta supported this proposal, and informed the meeting that certain actions had
already been taken by the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation (RTF-E) including
the preparation of guidelines for the conduct of such evaluations. In addition at the
demonstration site business plans should be developed to ensure the sustainability of the
demonstration sites, including sources of revenues, evaluation of resources and cost of

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 6


actions. One of the major tasks for the RTF-E was to develop regionally applicable values,
as opposed to nationally derived values in order to determine at a regional level the costs
and values of regional co-ordination. The Project Steering Committee would need to review
and approve the values once developed for further use in the justification of the Regional
Strategic Action Programme.
·
Cost of management or other related actions. In connection with the discussion on
economic valuation of habitats, Dr. Aliño noted the analysis of cost of management or other
related actions should be also carefully analysed and based on actual experience.
·
The meeting agreed to give full consideration to the National Biodiversity Action Plan,
developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which all the
participating countries were Contracting Parties. It was noted that the National Biodiversity
Action Plans mainly focused on terrestrial biological diversity, rather than marine biological
diversity or marine habitats. The meeting noted the complicated nature of the national
networking, and the ineffectiveness of many of the national committees under the CBD.
·
Differing status of the national action plans in the participating countries, with some
nearing the stage of adoption one adopted and others at earlier stages of preparation. In the
case of Viet Nam, the action plans were developed for six components and sub-
components. Six national action plans would be consolidated into one national action plan
for marine habitats in the South China Sea. Dr. Tuan informed the meeting that Viet Nam
might approve its national action plan by the end of this year, and made a query regarding
future activities after the approval of national action plan. It was proposed and agreed by the
meeting to conduct activities to increase public awareness and acceptance of the approved
national action plan.

5.3.10 It was proposed that the draft amendments to the existing MoUs contained in
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/6 be finalised and signed during the meeting. Members were invited to
note that these amendments serve as bridging documents allowing continuity of fund transfer until
such time as the demonstration site documents are finalised, approved by Nairobi, and signed.

5.3.11 To date only the Thailand demonstration site proposal has been extensively reviewed, revised
and is in near final form, a copy is provided as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/Inf.4 for
information of the focal points responsible for the remaining three demonstration sites.

6. PROJECT
EVALUATION
6.1
Report of the Independent Mid-term Evaluation of the Project

6.1.1 The Project Director informed the meeting that the independent mid-term evaluation of the
project was conducted from February to July 2004 by two independent evaluators Dr. Mike Bewers
and Professor Su Jilan. Their report had been finalised and accepted by the Monitoring and
Evaluation Unit of the Office of the Executive Director of UNEP and was in the process of being
formally published. A copy of the final Mid-Term Evaluation Report had been lodged on the Project
Website and was included in the documents for the meeting. Members' attention was drawn to
extracts relating directly to the Coral Reef sub-component and the work of the Regional Working
Group. Dr. Pernetta noted the excellent rating that the independent evaluators had given to the
project. The meeting accepted the contents of the paragraphs related to coral reefs.

6.2
Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR) by the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of
the GEF Secretariat

6.2.1 The Project Director informed the meeting that the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit in
consultation with the GEF Secretariat had selected the UNEP/GEF South China Sea project as one of
two International Waters projects from the GEF portfolio, to be included in the Specially Managed
Project Review for 2004. He drew the attention of members to document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG.CR.5/Inf.5 entitled "Specially Managed Project Reviews (SMPR) 2004" which contained
information of the process and purpose of these reviews. The outputs from this process would be
reported directly to the GEF Council, hence this process was of significance from the perspective of
the profile of the South China Sea project within the GEF, but perhaps more importantly it will provide

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 7


country focal points with an opportunity to provide more directly, their views regarding the GEF, in
general and this project in particular.

6.2.2 It was noted, that the SMPR has a dual objective: (1) to assess whether projects are
implemented in conformity with project objectives and GEF policies, standards and procedures; and
(2) to provide lessons on project design and implementation. The scope of the SMPR is to review
GEF project conformity with: GEF policies, operational strategy, and programs established by the
GEF, especially those issues related to project progress towards achieving results and impacts
related to global environmental objectives. GEF project review criteria, relate to: country ownership,
sustainability, replicability, stakeholder involvement, monitoring and evaluation, cost-effectiveness,
financial plans ("GEF SMPR Review Criteria"); required project response and follow-up to comments
by the GEF entities at the design stage; policies of coordination among GEF partner agencies.

6.2.3 The SMPR process involved both desk reviews of documentation and field visits for
consultations with participating stakeholders and governments. The evaluators would complete a
specifically designed questionnaire, which had been lodged on the project web site together with the
implementation plan for the SMPR process in 2004.

6.2.4 The Project Director drew members' attention to the SMPR questionnaire, and requested
members to consider the answers to the questionnaire since the team might conduct telephone
interviews with the focal points during the period 21st to 25th September 2004. It was noted by the
members that many of the questions included in the questionnaire were too difficult to answer, and in
some cases, impossible to comprehend.

6.2.5 In the light of the forthcoming SMPR team visit, members were invited to reflect on the
strengths and weaknesses of the project in its implementation of the first phase. The strengths of the
project noted by the meeting included:

·
MoUs between UNEP and 45 executing agencies. UNEP contracts directly the SEAs
hence reducing the transaction cost incurred for third parties. This maximises the amount of
money that directly to the countries.
·
The South China Sea Project management framework. This provides a model of regional
management arrangements for multi-country international waters projects, that passes has
proved to work well.
·
Membership and operation of the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The Committee
members are two representatives only from each country, and no external agencies were
members of the committee resulting in a strong sense of country ownership.
·
Transparency of financial management of the project. All budget allocations and
financial reports were made available and easily accessed by the public through the project
website.
·
Continuity of representation on various committees and working groups. It was noted that
the continuity of the Regional Working Groups' membership resulted in greater coherence
and facilitated co-operation, and ease of joint working compared with other groups where
representation was changed for each meeting.
·
Capacity building. All members of the RWG-CR recognised that they had benefited both
technically and in terms of administrative and financial management from involvement in the
project.
·
Wide representation in the IMC and NTWG and national committees of the
components and sub-components from various government agencies and institutions,
which provided a forum to address cross-cutting issues and resulted in wider recognition of
the South China Sea Project, nationally.
·
Division of the project into two phases: The first phase collected the fundamental data
and information, based on which actions were proposed and would be implemented in the
second phase, resulting in a more balanced and sound series of decisions regarding future
actions.
·
Regional professional networking established through the various Working Groups under
the project.
·
The strong involvement of local authorities in implementing demonstration sites.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 8


6.2.6 Weaknesses of the project or areas needing improvement, noted by the meeting, were:

·
Malaysia's weak involvement and implementation of the project.
·
Problems at the national level involving inter-agency confusion and conflict.
·
Confusion regarding the definition and coverage of the wetlands sub-component,
resulting from the broad and ambiguous definition of wetlands in the RAMSAR
Convention.
·
Limited interaction between different Regional Working Groups.
·
Overlapping of sub-components of the habitat component, which required stronger
integration across the sub-components from the RSTC.
·
Communications between members of the Regional Working Group during the inter-
sessional periods of the meeting.

6.2.7 Regarding the integration of the different habitat sub-components, Dr. Pernetta noted the
possibility of convening a second Regional Scientific Conference during Year 2005, using savings
from the budget for the first conference and proposed to include Working Group meetings as joint
parallel sessions, and plenary sessions focusing on common issues such as legal instruments in the
region.

6.2.8 With respect to exchange of information and experience between demonstration sites, the
Project Director referred to a later agenda item and he assured the meeting that local government
officials should have the opportunity to participate in this exchange programme.

7.
REVIEW OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING INPUTS TO
THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME

7.1
Review of the Contents of the Draft National Action Plans with a View to Identifying
Commonalities and Differences

7.1.1 The Chairperson noted that draft National Action Plans (NAPs) had been received from all
participating countries and that a preliminary review of these had been completed by the PCU. The
Chairperson invited the Project Director to present document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/7, "Review
of the National Action Plans for coral reefs". The draft NAPs were provided in documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/8.Cam; 8.Ind; 8.Mal; et sequitor.

7.1.2 In introducing this agenda item, the Project Director requested members to consider the
reasons why past action plans had not resulted in action and noted that, a major failing of many
existing action plans was that they lacked specificity regarding the areas where interventions would
be undertaken, they failed to identify the specific actions, and the costs and often failed to set realistic
or achievable management goals. Therefore, national action plans often represented little more than
sets of principles or policies and were rarely operational. He drew examples from other regions were
action plans were based on impractical or unrealistic goals and targets.

7.1.3 A concrete and operational national action plan should state clearly "what is to be done,
where it will be done, why it is to be done, and when it is to be done, who will do it and how much the
costs will be." It should produce enough detail for operational managers regarding what to do, while
allowing certain flexibility to the decision-makers for future changes. He further noted the importance
of economic justification for the actions in order to convince the governments of the necessity for
action. He invited members to present their national action plans and identify common elements and
differences between NAPs, and consider their implications for the regional Strategic Action
Programme (SAP).

7.1.4 Mr. Kim presented the Cambodian national action plan on coral reefs and seagrass noting
there were five main categories of actions, i.e. research and monitoring; national policy, legal and
administration framework; public awareness, communication and education; capacity building and
sustainability; resource and habitat management. Responsible agencies were identified for each of
the actions. He noted the national action plan remain largely without detail.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 9


7.1.5 It was suggested that more specific actions should be identified for the Cambodian national
action plan, and activities should be divided into long-term and short-term activities. Furthermore,
Cambodia should prioritise actions included in the NAP, and capacity building was proposed as a
priority action to be undertaken.

7.1.6 Dr. Suharsono noted that the Indonesian NAP included nine strategies and 34 programmes.
The strategies included empowerment of coastal communities; reduction of the rate of coral reef
degradation; management of coral reefs based on ecosystem characteristics, utilisation models, their
legal status and existing community wisdom; formulation and coordination of programmes of different
stakeholders; strengthening capabilities, commitments and capacity to implement the management of
coral reefs; community-based management; legal and institutional development; building partnerships
among various stakeholders, and commitment to international agreements. He noted the Indonesian
NAP stated general principles and actions, and then translated the general principles into specific
actions at community and village level. He pointed out the importance of public awareness at the
community level.

7.1.7 Dr. Aliño noted that local government codes in the Philippines had empowered the local
governments in managing marine resources, including coral reefs. The central government agencies'
role mainly focused on the provision of technical support functions. The Philippines NAP outlined
vision, mission, goals, principles and approaches to achieve sustainable management of coral reefs.
Operationally, the Philippines NAP had three major programmes, i.e. policy, strategic planning and
implementation programmes; adaptive management programmes; and sustainable financing.

7.1.8 Dr. Yeemin noted, that Thailand's national action plan included detailed activities to achieve
the objectives, and identified responsible agencies for the specific activities, against which budgets
had been proposed. There were six major policies and each policy contained measures, strategies,
projects and activities, and main responsible agencies. Under the UNEP/GEF project, a National
Technical Working Group meeting was convened to review the national action plans produced by
Thailand. During the meeting, senior government officials indicated the intention to submit the plan to
the Cabinet for adoption by the government at the end of 2004. However, Dr. Yeemin anticipated
some delays and considered it would be mostly likely that the government would adopt the NAP by
the end of 2005.

7.1.9 That was noted by the meeting that there were no priority sites included in the Thai NAP,
which meant each site had equal opportunity to apply for the government funding proposed in the
NAP. Noting that government financial sectors would lack information on the priority sites, this would
reduce the effectiveness of the NAP, Dr. Pernetta urged Thailand to include prioritisation of sites. An
approach to prioritise the sites could follow the regional approach of prioritisation of sites. As the
funding resources changed yearly, it was suggested that the Thai NAP should include a section on
the process of revising and updating the NAP in the longer term.

7.1.10 A query was raised regarding the ways by which the costs of activities were calculated. In
response, Dr. Yeemin noted that the budget was an educated estimate based on prior experience in
conducting similar activities to those proposed in the NAP. It was noted there was a need to include a
section on the process of revising and updating the NAPs over the longer timeframe after the
completion of the first five year period. Under the Thai system the main executing agencies apply for
money from the government on the basis of the plan and can sub-contract the supporting agencies.
Other funding sources from the private sector, environmental or user fees and other sources of
revenue for financial sustainability had not been considered in the plan to date.

7.1.11 Dr. Tuan briefed the meeting regarding the process of drafting the NAP in Viet Nam, and
summarised the main content of the coral reef action plan. He informed the meeting that an Inter-
ministerial Committee meeting had been convened to agree on the format of six national action plans
produced under the framework of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project. During that meeting, it
was agreed that all the NAPs would follow a similar format, and would be integrated into a single NAP
for coastal marine habitats in Viet Nam that would be approved by the national government at the end
of 2004.

7.1.12 There were six objectives in the Viet Nam NAP, including the establishment of a scientific
basis for sustainable use and management of priority coral reef areas; establishment of a coral reef

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 10


monitoring system and improving management effectiveness; increasing awareness of coral reefs;
developing and improving legislation and institutional arrangements for coral reef management;
building capacity; establishing management models for sustainable use of coral reefs. Dr. Tuan
emphasized the importance of engaging the private sector in implementing the NAP, and indicated
that a private tourist agency was in consultation with the Viet Nam coral reefs SEA to discuss the
development of eco-tourism in Phu Quoc Island.

7.1.13 Mr. Khalil informed the meeting that management plans existed for marine parks in Malaysia.
The draft national action plan outlined the current status of coral reefs, threats to coral reefs, causes
of degradation, issues in the conservation of coral reefs, and recommendations for short-term and
long-term actions. As for the financial management for the national action plan, Mr. Khalil noted a
trust fund for marine parks could be used to manage or finance any activities under the action plan.
He took note of the fact that the NAP was still generic in nature, and that it could be adapted to the
local and community level.

7.1.14 It was noted by the meeting that the Malaysian NAP mainly focused on coral reefs within the
marine parks or potential marine parks, and that there was no reference to existing management
plans or action plans for areas outside the parks system.

7.1.15 Following the presentation of each national action plan, the Working Group proceeded to
compare the actions proposed in each NAP in order to identify common elements and differences
between them, for the purpose of integration at regional level in an up-dated regional SAP. The
comparison of the contents of the NAPs is attached as Table 1 of Annex 5 to this report.

7.1.16 Noting the weaknesses of the draft national action plans, the meeting discussed and agreed
that each NAP should include the basic elements, proposed in UNEP/GEF/RWG-CR.5/7: goals,
objectives; justification for the objectives; targets and necessary actions to meet the targets;
timeframes for the actions to be taken; prioritisation of the actions; milestones to measure the success
or otherwise of the action plan; Costs of the actions; institutional and other responsibilities for the
actions. The revision of the next draft NAPs should be based on the basic elements outlined above. It
was further agreed that the revised NAPs should be submitted to the PCU by the end of June 2005,
prior to the convening of the sixth meeting of the Working Group. It was further noted that where an
action plan had already been submitted for approval then the additional elements could be produced
as supporting documentation and did not have to be incorporated into the NAP.

7.2
Discussion on the Inputs from the Coral Reef Sub-component to the Regional
Strategic Action Programme (SAP), Review of the SAP Targets and Goals and
Discussion of the Process of Integrating NAP and SAP Development

7.2.1 The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce the agenda item on the updating of
the Regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP). Dr. Pernetta drew members' attention to the regional
draft Strategic Action Programme for the South China Sea prepared in 1998 and published in 1999, a
copy of which was provided in the meeting documents. He noted that the targets and goals
established in this document were now outdated and it would be necessary to revise the goals,
targets, and the contents of the draft SAP in the light of more recent information including inter alia
that contained in the National Reports and in documents such as the GCRMN Status of the Coral
Reefs of the World.

7.2.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that a large portion of the SAP was devoted to a discussion of the costs of
actions and the benefits from action as opposed to non-action. In terms of justifying the actions he
drew members' attention to Table 4.1, valuation of ecosystems derived from the work of Costanza,
and noted that the values of mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass, and wetlands were based on studies
from outside the region. It was important to conduct economic valuation of ecosystems in the region,
and obtain regional values of these ecosystems. The most important activity of the Regional Task
Force on Economic Valuation was to develop regional values that were more applicable to the region.

7.2.3 The original target for coral reefs in the SAP, was to maintain the area of coral reef with more
than 50% live cover at the 1998 level. Members were invited to discuss and consider the applicability
of the goals, targets and activities at national and regional levels related to coral reefs, taking into
account the activities undertaken and experiences gained in the first phase of the project.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 11



7.2.4 It was agreed unanimously that the target was neither realistic, nor was it appropriate.
Dr. Suharsono pointed out the maintenance and the recovery of coral reefs largely depended on the
locations of the areas. He noted the recovery rate of coral reefs in Indonesia Senayang-Lingga was
only 11%, while in Pulau Gunuang Api, Banda Islands in Indonesia, recovery had reached 100% in 7
years, after a complete destruction of the live coral cover.

7.2.5 Dr. Tuan noted that different coral reefs had different percentages of live coral cover and that
percentage cover alone was not a good indicator of coral reef health. Similarly the rates of recovery of
degraded reefs were highly variable due to such variables as water quality, current patterns, algal
growth rates and the nature of the remaining substratum. Therefore it was proposed to examine the
rates of change of reef state so that, the SAP targets could be set more realistically.

7.2.6 Dr. Aliño noted that the target of the Philippines was to put 30% of the good reef, which
represented 3% of the total area of coral reefs, under certain forms of sustainable management by the
year 2015. It was suggested that each country determine the total area of coral reefs, area of coral
reefs under current management, and the target of increased area under management, based on the
data and information collected in the first phase. Table 1 provides these data for all countries.


Table 1 Total area of coral reefs, area under management, and area for future management
along the coastline of the participating countries (km2) bordering the South China
Sea.


Cambodia Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam
Total
%
Total Area Km2
28 371.7
3,805.7
4,640 900
1,100
10,845.44

Area under current
0 18.59
2,230 397 540 22
3,207.6
29.58
Management
Target area to be
added for
8.4 55.8
1,332 76 180 33
1,685.16
15.54%
management by 2015

7.2.7 The meeting debated extensively what would be appropriate targets and noted that over the
last ten years the percentage of reefs in Southeast Asian countries that had declined in state from one
quartile category to a lower one in the GCRMN system was around 16%. It was noted that setting a
target for the total area under management did not represent a target for the state of the reef although
it could be assumed that those under management would, depending on the management regime, be
more likely to sustain their biological diversity than those that were not under management.

7.2.8 Following a lengthy discussion on realistic targets, based on existing data and information,
the Working Group proposed two targets in place of the single original target, as follows:
Target 1: By 2015, at least 50% of the existing area of coral reefs would be put under an
appropriate form of sustainable management.
Target 2: By 2015, reduce the regional rate of degradation in live coral cover from the
present rate of 16% to 5%.

7.2.9 From Table 1, it was noted that around 45% of the total coral reef area would be under some
form of management by 2015 if all national targets were met. The RWG-CR decided to set a higher
target (50%) for the consideration of Regional Scientific and Technical Committee and Project
Steering Committee.

7.2.10 Following discussion the paragraph relating to the goal of the SAP was amended as follows:

The goal of the Strategic Action Programme is to foster regional cooperation and
collaboration in order to halt or slow the current rate of environmental degradation
and assist participating states in taking actions within their respective policies,
priorities and resources, thereby contributing to human well-being; promotion of the
sustainable use of marine living resources; and contributing to the maintenance of
globally significant biological diversity, for the benefit of present and future
generations.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 12


7.2.11 The Working Group took note of the necessity to revisit the proposed targets and goal during
the inter-sessional periods, as more data and information were reviewed and as consideration of
national actions to meet the targets were defined and refined. In this context it was noted that the
process of developing the SAP and revising the National Action Plans would be an iterative process
with both processes feeding into the other. The first step in this process had already been started in
reviewing the comparability of the NAPs.

8.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES AT THE DEMONSTRATION SITES

8.1
Progress Report on the Demonstration Site Activities

8.1.1 The Chairperson invited the Project Director to provide relevant information on the progress of
operationalising the demonstration site activities. Dr. Pernetta reminded the working group that the
Project Steering Committee had approved the following demonstration sites for the coral reef sub-
component: (i) Mu Koh Chang, Thailand (ii) Belitung, Indonesia, (iii) Masinloc, Philippines, (iv) Tun
Mustapha Park, Sabah, (Malaysia).

8.1.2 He noted that the PCU had worked with some of the focal points on the improvement of these
proposals and put them into a format and condition to satisfy the requirements of UNEP/GEF before
the funding could be provided. Members' attention was drawn to the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-CR.5/Inf.4, Mu Koh Chang revised operational project document. It was noted, that the revised
proposal had a very detailed breakdown of budgets, and activities were specified for the purpose of
financial management and budgeting and in order to meet the UNEP and GEF requirements.

8.1.3 Dr. Pernetta then presented an example of the process of revising a proposal using the
mangrove demonstration site in Trat, Thailand. He illustrated to the meeting the process of analysing
the proposal by aligning in a single spreadsheet, goals, components, and activities taken from the
proposal. He urged the SEAs to make efforts to work on the proposals' activities to ensure they were
synchronous with the goals and budgets.

8.1.4 Ms. Sulan Chen also presented an initial analysis of the Philippines proposal in Masinloc, and
it was noted in the meeting that the activities were not well specified or organised, and some were not
eligible for GEF funding. It was agreed that the PCU members would work with the focal points
individually to review these proposals.

8.2
Regional Co-ordination of Activities in the Approved Demonstration Sites

8.2.1 Regarding the co-ordination of regional activities associated with the execution of the
demonstration sites the Regional Working Group was reminded that the Project Steering Committee
had decided that:

"the concerned Regional Working Group be given responsibility for co-ordination of
activities at all demonstration sites within each component and that the RWG continue
to report to, and be advised by the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee
regarding overlap, potential collaboration and/or synergy that might be foreseen
between the demonstration sites in each component".

8.2.2 This decision is based on the recommendation contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
PSC.3/11 and as amended in Annex 8 of UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3 "Report of the third meeting of the
Project Steering Committee". The Chairperson invited Dr. Tuan, the Chairperson of the Project
Steering Committee, to introduce the document and brief the meeting regarding the decisions made
by the PSC on regional coordination, exchange of experiences and personnel between sites.

8.2.3 Dr. Tuan noted that the document outlined three possible modes of exchanging information
and experience: 1) exchange of personnel between sites; 2) training courses and/or workshops based
on the demonstration sites, and; 3) publication and dissemination of technical reports and/or public
awareness materials. Additionally, he noted the document also provided some guidance to those
countries with approved demonstration sites on the selection and terms of reference of a site
manager and the establishment and functions of a management board.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 13


8.2.4 The meeting expressed concern regarding the requirement of English as local government
officials might not speak any English. It was noted by the meeting, that if a qualified candidate
commanded a certain level of the language of the country to which he or she would be sent, then the
requirement of English might not be necessary. It was further noted that where necessary, a second
person should be sent to act as interpreter.

8.2.5 Mr. Khalil suggested the length of the time proposed for on-site training was probably too
long, and he suggested perhaps only 2-3 weeks would be adequate. Dr. Pernetta noted that the
length of time required would depend on the nature of the programme and the degree to which the
exchange personnel were expected to view an entire process. From the experience of the project
Intern Programme, six months seemed a reasonable period enabling the individual to acquire a range
of skills and experience a wider range of activities than would be possible in a shorter period.

8.2.6 Dr. Aliño noted the importance of considering the purpose of demonstration sites, and the
need of personnel training and capacity building. Dr. Pernetta noted that in the personnel exchange
programme and the study tours, the SEAs and site managers would first need to work out a
programme of activities and suitable timetable which could then be presented to the Regional
Working Group. At the same time each site would need to evaluate their training and capacity building
needs and see whether such training could be provided at another site. This Working Group will need
to decide which programmes and which individuals should be supported in which order.

8.2.7 The meeting agreed the principles and frameworks for regional coordination, exchange of
information and personnel outlined in document, and agreed further to consider at the national level
the ways to implement the proposed programmes in the National Technical Working Group meetings.

9.
WORK PLAN OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON CORAL REEFS FOR THE
PERIOD 2004-2007

9.1
Members' attention was drawn to the proposed work plan for the Regional Working Group for
the period 2004 ­ 2007, contained as Figure 1 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/5. Based on
the discussion and agreements reached under the previous agenda items, and the review of the draft
second amendment to the MoUs, the Regional Working Group considered and proposed additional
activities for the work plan. The work plan includes the timetable to finalise and print the national
reports, preparation, and adoption of the national action plans, and provision of inputs to the Strategic
Action Programme. The adopted work plan, along with the schedule of meetings for 2005, is included
as Annex 6 of this report.

10.
DATES AND PLACE OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP

10.1
Members of the Regional Working Group were reminded that according to the decision of the
PSC, regional working group meetings are to be organised at the demonstration sites. It was noted
further that each regional working group would have only one meeting each year from 2004 to 2007.

10.2
The Chairperson invited members to consider the dates and place of the sixth meeting of the
Regional Working Group. Dr. Aliño offered to host the meeting in Masinloc in the Philippines, and
Dr. Suharsono also indicated his willingness to host the meeting in Indonesia. However
Dr. Suharsono noted that August was not a good month for convening a meeting at Belitung since the
strong winds resulted in rough seas making a field visit difficult.

10.3
Following discussion the meeting agreed to accept the invitation from Dr. Aliño. Logistics and
transportation of the meeting were briefly discussed and Dr. Aliño indicated his intention to facilitate
the successful convening of the meeting. Following discussion it was agreed to convene the meeting
from 22nd to 25th August 2005 in Masinloc, Philippines.

11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS

11.1 Members were invited to raise any other matters that needed to be considered by the
Regional Working Group under this agenda item.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Page 14


11.2
Mr. Khalil informed the meeting that as a consequence of the movement of the Marine Parks
Unit to a new Ministry he would no longer serve as the coral reef focal point for Malaysia and a
replacement would be formally nominated in due course.

11.3 No further matters were raised.

12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING

12.1
The Rapporteur, presented the draft report of the meeting, prepared by the secretariat. The
report was considered, amended and adopted as it appears in this document.

13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING

13.1
Mr. Khalil proposed on behalf of the members a vote of thanks to the Secretariat for their
support to the smooth functioning of the meeting and to Dr. Yeemin for hosting the meeting in Mu Koh
Chang.

13.2
The Chairperson invited Dr. Pernetta to say a few words. Dr. Pernetta thanked all members
for their hard and constructive work that had enabled the meeting to complete its agenda, and
reminded those focal points who had not completed their expenditure reports to submit them as
rapidly as possible.

13.3
The Chairperson expressed his appreciation to members for their support and formally closed
the meeting at 16:30 on 16th September 2004.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 1
Page 1

ANNEX 1

List of Participants

Focal Points

Cambodia
Indonesia


Mr. Kim Sour
Dr. Suharsono
Department of Fisheries
Research Center for Oceanography ­ LIPI
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
Puslit OSEANOGRAFI - LIPI
186 Norodom Boulevard
Pasir Putih 1 Ancol Timur
PO Box 582, Phnom Penh
Jakarta UTARA
Cambodia
Indonesia


Tel: (855) 12 942 640
Tel: (62 21) 64713850 ext. 202; 3143080: 102
Fax: (855 23) 210 565
Fax: (62 21) 64711948; 327 958
E-mail: sourkim@hotmail.com
E-mail: shar@indo.net.id;
harsono@coremap.or.id

Malaysia
Philippines


Mr. Abdul Khalil bin Abdul Karim
Dr. Porfirio M. Aliño
Marine Parks Branch
Marine Science Institute
Department of Fisheries, Malaysia
University of the Philippines
Jalan Sultan Salahuddin
Diliman, Quezon City 1101
50628 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Philippines


Tel:
(60 3) 2698 2500; DL: 2698 2700
Tel: (63 2) 922 3949; 922 3921
Fax: (60 3) 2691 3199
Fax: (63 2) 924 7678
E-mail: abkhalil@hotmail.com;
E-mail: pmalino@upmsi.ph
abkhalil@yahoo.com

Thailand
Viet Nam


Dr. Thamasak Yeemin
Dr. Vo Si Tuan
Marine Biodiversity Research Group
Institute of Oceanography
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science
01 Cau Da Street
Ramkhamhaeng University
Nha Trang City
Huamark, Bangkok 10240, Thailand
Viet Nam


Tel: (66 2) 319 5219 ext. 240, 310 8415
Tel: (84 58) 590 205; 871134; 0914017058
Fax: (66 2) 310 8415
Fax: (84 58) 590 034
E-mail: thamsakyeemin@yahoo.com
E-mail: thuysinh@dng.vnn.vn


Observer
Mr. Ouk Vibol

Department of Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
186 Norodom Boulevard
PO Box 582, Phnom Penh
Cambodia

Tel: (855) 12 836 376
Fax: (855 23) 210 565
E-mail: aims1@online.com.kh

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 1
Page 2

Project Co-ordinating Unit Member

Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director

UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand

Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: pernetta@un.org

Project Co-ordinating Unit

Ms. Sulan Chen, Associate Expert
Ms. Sriskun Watanasab, Secretary
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand


Tel:
(66 2) 288 2279
Tel:
(66 2) 288 2608
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: chens@un.org
E-mail: watanasab@un.org

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 2
Page 1

ANNEX 2

List of Documents

Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/1 Agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/2 Annotated
Agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Report of the Meeting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/4
Status of the Substantive Reports of the Specialised
Executing Agencies (SEAs) from the Participating
Countries for the Coral Reef Sub-component.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/5 Current
Status of Budgets and Reports from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/6 Draft
Amendments
to the Memoranda of Understanding
to Cover the Period July 2004 to June 30th 2007.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/7
Review of the National Action Plans for Coral Reefs
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/8.Cam National Action Plan of Cambodia
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/8.Ind National Action Plan of Indonesia
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/8.Mal
National Action Plan of Malaysia
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/8.Phi
National Action Plan of Philippines
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/8.Tha
National Action Plan of Thailand
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/8.Vie
National Action Plan of Viet Nam
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/9
Extracts from Draft SAP, Feb 1999, Relevant to Habitats
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/Inf.1
List of Participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/Inf.2
List of Documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/Inf.3 Draft
Programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/Inf.4
Mu Koh Chang revised operational project document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/Inf.5 Specially
Managed Project Reviews (SMPR) 2004
J. Michael Bewers and Su Jilan
Mid-Term Evaluation of GEF Project No. GF/2730-02-
4340 Entitled "Reversing Environmental Degradation
Trends In The South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
July 2004.
The following documents are supplied on CD-ROM and in published form.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3 Fourth
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Mangroves Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
Meeting. Beihai, China, 14th ­ 17th October 2003
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3 Fourth
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Coral Reefs Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
Meeting. Guangzhou, China, 27th - 30th November 2003
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 2
Page 2

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3 Fourth
Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Seagrass Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
Meeting. Guangzhou, China, 29th November ­ 2nd
December 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3 Fourth
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Wetlands Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
Meeting. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 15th ­ 18th December
2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.4/3
Fourth Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China
Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Pattaya,
Thailand, 15th - 17th February 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RSTC.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3
Third Meeting of the Project Steering Committee for the
UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Manila, Philippines,
25th - 27th February 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3 Fourth
Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Land-based Pollution Component for the UNEP/GEF
Project "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in
the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
Meeting. Guangzhou, China, 30th March ­ 2nd April 2004
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.4/3 Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Fisheries Component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
Meeting. Manila, Philippines, 26th ­ 29th April 2004
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.2/3
Second Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Legal
Matters for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China
Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Phu
Quoc Island, Viet Nam, 3rd - 6th May 2004 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RTF-L.2/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.2/3
Second Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic
Valuation for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China
Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Siem
Reap, Cambodia, 31st May ­ 2nd June 2004 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/ RTF-E.2/3.
UNEP SCS/SAP Ver. 3
Strategic Action Programme for the South China Sea
(Draft Version 3, 24 February 1999).

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 3
Page 1

ANNEX 3

Agenda
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
Address
1.2
Introduction of Members

2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Election of Officers
2.2
Documentation Available to the Meeting
2.3 Organisation
of
Work

3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA

4.
BRIEF REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS ON THE STATUS OF THE
PREPARATORY PHASE OUTPUTS DUE 30TH JUNE 2004

5.
STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA
OF UNDERSTANDING
5.1
Status of the Administrative Reports of the Specialised Executing Agencies (SEAs)
from the Participating Countries, for the Coral Reef Sub-component
5.2 Extension of the Memoranda of Understanding for the Specialised Executing
Agencies without Approved Demonstration Sites (Cambodia and Viet Nam)
5.3 Extension of the Memoranda of Understanding for the Specialised Executing
Agencies with Approved Demonstration Sites

6. PROJECT
EVALUATION
6.1
Report of the Independent Mid-term Evaluation of the Project
6.2
Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR) by the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of
the GEF Secretariat

7.
REVIEW OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING INPUTS TO
THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
7.1
Review of the Contents of the Draft National Action Plans with a View to Identifying
Commonalities and Differences
7.2
Discussion on the Inputs from the Coral Reef Sub-component to the Regional
Strategic Action Programme (SAP), Review of the SAP Targets and Goals and
Discussion of the Process of Integrating NAP and SAP Development

8.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES AT THE DEMONSTRATION SITES
8.1
Progress Report on the Demonstration Site Activities
8.2
Regional Co-ordination of Activities in the Approved Demonstration Sites

9.
WORK PLAN OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON CORAL REEFS FOR THE
PERIOD 2004-2007

10.
DATES AND PLACE OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP

11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS

12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING

13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 4
Page 1

ANNEX 4

Tasks of Specialised Executing Agencies Included in the Second Amendment to the
Memorandum of Understanding

This amendment is drafted under the terms of Article 9 of Annex 1 of the original Memorandum
of Understanding, dated 21st January 2002, between the United Nations Environment
Programme, and the [INSERT NAME OF THE SEA], [Insert Country name]. The following
amended articles (5, 6, 8 and 10) shall be deemed to replace, and/or, add to, (as specified in
each article) the corresponding articles contained in the original memorandum and the
amendments contained in the first Amendment. All the remaining articles of the original
memorandum, together with the contents of Annex 1 shall be deemed to remain in effect.

5.
TASKS BY DESIGNATED INSTITUTION. The Coral Reef Focal Point on behalf of the
Specialised Executing Agency, in close collaboration with the members of the National Coral Reef
Committee and in accordance with the amended workplan, (Figure 1) agrees to the following:

i. The
[INSERT COMPONENT NAME] Focal Point shall continue to chair and convene
meetings of the national committee or sub-committee [insert NC acronym] composed of
individuals from various organisations and institutions that represent a wide spectrum of
expertise and interests in [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] issues including inter alia
academics, managers, government officials, and marine park managers. The terms of
reference for this committee are contained in the project document and annexed to the report
of the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee1;
ii. The
[INSERT COMPONENT NAME] Focal Point will serve as a member of [Insert Country
name]'s National Technical Working Group (NTWG) established under the Project, to ensure
linkage with the other national components of the project (Figure 3). The terms of reference
for the NTWG are contained in the project document and annexed to the report of the first
meeting of the Project Steering Committee;
iii. The [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] Focal Point will also represent the National [INSERT
COMPONENT NAME] Committee on the Regional Working Group on [INSERT
COMPONENT NAME] (Insert RWG Acronym)2, to ensure input and exchange at the
regional level, between the participating countries. The terms of reference for the [Insert
RWG Acronym] are contained in the project document and annexed to the report of the first
meeting of the Project Steering Committee;
iv. Ensure that the [insert NC acronym] serves as an effective source of scientific and technical
advice to the National Technical Working Group established under the project, and thence to
the country members of the Project Steering Committee;
v. Ensure that the [insert NC acronym] serves as an effective source of scientific and technical
advice regarding [Insert Country name]'s [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] systems to the
Regional Working Group for [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] established under the Project,
and thence to the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee;
vi. Provide in a format to be agreed by the Regional Working Group on [INSERT COMPONENT
NAME] and the RSTC, such data and information as may be required from time to time by
the Regional Working Group on [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] and/or the RSTC;
vii. Maintain the national meta-database developed during the preparatory phase of the project
containing information on [Insert Country name]'s [INSERT COMPONENT NAME];
viii. Update as required the criteria currently in use at the national level for decision making with
respect to future use of [INSERT COMPONENT NAME];
ix. Update as required the data contained in the Regional GIS database relating to site
characterisation;
x. Continue to work with the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters regarding national legislation
and the preparation of a regional directory of legislation and best practices;

1
UNEP, 2002. First Meeting of the Project Steering Committee For the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting, UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3, 110
pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
2
If the focal point from the SEA happens to be elected as chairperson of the Insert RWG Acronym, he/she will become a
member of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC) which is the highest technical and scientific
committee of the project.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 4
Page 2

xi. Continue to work with the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation regarding national
level economic valuation of [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] resources and the preparation of
regionally applicable valuations that can be used in the cost benefit analysis of actions and
non-actions proposed in the Strategic Action Programme;
xii. Assist, through the Regional Working Group on [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] in the
preparation of a comprehensive regional synthesis of data and information regarding the
distribution, extent and state of [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] ecosystems bordering the
South China Sea; together with an ongoing review of threats to sustainable management of
such systems for publication in early 2007;
xiii. Further develop the preliminary national [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] action plan to meet
the targets provisionally agreed in the regional SAP; (according to the timetable and workplan
attached to this memorandum);
xiv. Critically review from the national perspective, the targets and goals set by the draft SAP
adopted by the XIIIth meeting of COBSEA3 (November 1998) and prepare concrete proposals
concerning actions at the national level, required to meet these targets;
xv. Based on the criteria and ranking processes for the selection of sites of national and regional
significance, prepare and submit proposal(s) for the [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] specific
site(s) to the government for sequential intervention;
xvi. Provide guidance to the national Inter-Ministry Committee on how the goals and targets of the
regional Strategic Action Programme may be met in [Insert Country name] through a cost
benefit or cost effectiveness consideration of alternative courses of action;
xvii. The national [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] action plan and regional Strategic Action
programme will be presented to workshops and public meetings as appropriate, for
consideration and input from as wide as possible, a cross section of the involved
stakeholders; and,
xviii. Facilitate the process of formal government approval of the national action plans and the
process of increasing public awareness and acceptance of the plans;

xix. Co-ordinate national involvement in the regional programme for co-ordination, dissemination
of experiences, and personnel exchange between sites; and

THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS WILL BE VARIED ACCORDING TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE SEA WITH RESPECT TO THE EXECUTION OF DEMONSTRATE SITE
ACTIVITIES

xx. Undertake to execute the activities at the [INSERT NAME OF SPECIFIC SITE] as approved
in the business plan for the [INSERT NAME OF SPECIFIC SITE] as contained in Annex 2 of
this document.


3 UNEP, 1998. Report of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Co-ordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) on the East
Asian Seas Action Plan. UNEP(WATER)/EAS IG.9/3.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 5
Page 1

ANNEX 5

Comparative Analysis of Actions in the National Action Plans on Coral Reefs4


Cambodia Indonesia Malaysia
Philippines Thailand Viet Nam
1. Research and Monitoring
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
1.1 Resource assessment
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
1.2 Mapping
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.3 Socio-economic and cultural
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.4 Database management
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Information system (database
management, GIS system and web
development) Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.5 Decision support system
Yes


Yes
Implicit
Yes
Environment impact assessment

Yes
Yes

Yes

2. National Policy, Legal and
Institutional Arrangement and
Coordination
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Integration of research programmes with
management and policy-making



Yes
Yes
Yes
Monitoring the NAPs
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Review and improve existing laws and
policies Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Integration of government agencies Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.2 Stakeholder analysis and involvement
Yes
Implicit

Yes
Yes
Yes
2.3 Community empowerment Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
2.4 Strengthening traditional value and
management systems

Yes

Implicit
Implicit

2.5 Establish an incentive system for good
governance

Yes


Linkage to regional and international
obligations

Yes

Yes
International and regional cooperation

Yes

Yes

Yes
3. Public Awareness, Communication
and Education
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Improve government services

Yes

Yes
Yes

Development, improvement, and
dissemination of awareness materials
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes

4 . "Yes" indicates national action plans contain the actions identified in the first column of the table. "Implicit" means that the
actions are not stated directly, but implied in the action plans.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 6
Page 1

ANNEX 6

Work Plan (2004-2007) and Schedule of Meetings for 2005

Table 1
Work Plan and Time Table for Coral Reef Sub-component to June 30th 20075.

2004 2005
2006
2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J- F M A M -J J A -S O- N D J F M A M -J J A- S O N- D
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES














National Committee meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


National Technical Working Group

X

X

X

X

X

X

RWG-CR meetings
X

X

X



Provide information to RWG-CR and RSTC














Maintain national metadata base














Publication of National Reports in local language

D
P










Regional synthesis of data and information regarding the
distribution and status of coral reefs



X



X




Complete second draft of NAP

X











Final draft of NAP



X









Cam
Submission for adoption of Nap (contributing to SAP
Ind
Phi
targets)



Vie
Mal
Tha







Ind
Mal
Cam
Cam
Tha
Cam
Phi
Mal
Mal
Cam
National public meetings and workshops for NAP
Vie

Vie
Ind
Vie Tha
Phi
Ind
Mal
Phi Ind
Update data to regional GIS Database
X












Provide guidance to IMC on the Coral Reef component
input to SAP














Prepare concrete proposals to IMC concerning actions at
national level, to meet SAP targets








X







5 . Acronyms used in this table: D--Draft, P-Printing, Cam-Cambodia, Ind-Indonesia, Mal-Malaysia, Phi-Philippines, Tha-Thailand, Vie-Viet Nam.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Annex 6
Page 2

Table 2
Schedule of Meetings for 2005. (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -CR = Coral reefs; -SG = Seagrass; -W = Wetlands; -F= Fisheries;
LbP = Land-based Pollution; RTF-E = Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation; RTF-L = Regional Task Force on Legal Matters) (H = United Nations Holidays)

S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M
January

1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31




H

















H










February


1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28







RSTC











Chinese NY









H










EXCOM
March


1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29 30 31






RTF-L-3





























April





1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30













H






H




RTF-E-3











May
1
2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
30 31























H








June



1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30









































July





1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31
























RWG-LbP-6











August

1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30 31






RWG-M-6






H









RWG-CR-6











September




1 2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30











RWG-F-6



RWG-W-6











RWG-SG-6



October






1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31











Ramadan
November


1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29 30







Ramadan
H









RSC-2



















December




1 2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31











H


RSTC-6

PSC-5









Xmas
H

---