United Nations Distr. restricted
Environment Programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
26th April 2002
Global Environment Facility
Original: ENGLISH
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
REPORT
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Wetland Sub-component
Phuket, Thailand, 24 26 April 2002
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, April 2002
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
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 DESIGNATION OF OFFICERS .................................................................................................1
2.2 ORGANISATION OF WORK...................................................................................................2
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA ................................................................................2
4. TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE REGIONAL
WORKING GROUP FOR WETLANDS (RWG-W) ....................................................................2
4.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE WORKING GROUP .....................................................................2
4.2 MEMBERSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUP...................................................................................2
4.3 RULES OF PROCEDURE.......................................................................................................3
5. MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND
GULF OF THAILAND" ..........................................................................................................3
5.1 REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP AND ITS ROLE IN
ACHIEVING PROJECT OBJECTIVES..........................................................................................3
5.2 FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES (RECORDING & REPORTING) OF THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS OF EACH
SPECIALISED EXECUTING AGENCY ........................................................................................3
6. OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION AND
LOSS" AND THE WETLANDS SUB-COMPONENT.................................................................4
6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT BRIEF .......................................5
6.2 OTHER RELEVANT ACTIVITIES IN THE REGION............................................................................5
7. DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE WETLAND SUB-COMPONENT...........................6
7.1 REVIEW OF THE WETLAND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTS AND THE TRANSBOUNDARY
DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS, PRODUCED DURING THE PREPARATORY PHASE OF THE PROJECT...................7
7.2 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION.................................................7
8. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES AND
REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003 .....................................................................7
9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS ........................................................................................................8
10. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
WETLANDS .........................................................................................................................8
11. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING....................................................................8
12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING ................................................................................................8
ii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
List of Annexes
Annex 1
List of Participants
Annex 2
List of Documents
Annex 3
Agenda
Annex 4
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for National Focal Points
Operating in the Framework of the UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand"
Annex 5
Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands
Annex 6
Flow Chart of Actions for the Wetland Sub-component of the UNEP GEF South
China Sea Project
Annex 7
Criteria, Indicators, Data and Information Requirements for National Reviews
Annex 8
Schedule of Meetings and Workplan for 2002
iii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
Welcome address
1.1.1 The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta, opened the meeting on behalf of Dr. Klaus Töpfer, the
Executive Director of UNEP, and Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, the Director, Division of GEF Co-ordination
(UNEP/DGEF). He welcomed participants to the first meeting of the Regional Working Group for
Wetlands (RWG-W) and noted the high importance accorded this project by UNEP and the GEF. He
informed the meeting of the strong desire of the Executive Director that the project stimulate renewed
interest in regional, co-operative management of the most biologically diverse, shallow-water area of the
marine environment in the world.
1.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted further that, the project was large and complex and that, this Working Group
was central to the regional level co-ordination and management of the national contributions to the
Wetland sub-component. He expressed the wish that by the end of the meeting everyone would have a
clear idea of the overall scope of the project, and in particular the activities envisaged within the
framework of the wetlands sub-component.
1.1.3 The first meeting of the Regional Working Group is of critical importance in providing guidance to
the Focal Points for the wetlands sub-component in each country and through them to the National
Committees regarding the work to be undertaken and in ensuring that the data and information
assembled at the national level are comparable and compatible between all participating countries. It will
be important to ensure that the scientific and technical guidance provided by the Regional Working
Group is collective, not only at the regional, but also equally importantly, at the national level. Dr.
Pernetta expressed the best wishes of the Executive Director of UNEP and Director of UNEP/DGEF for
a successful meeting.
1.2
Introduction of members
1.2.1 The participants and members of the Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) introduced themselves,
and provided the meeting with a brief outline of their roles in the project, and their expertise and
experience relevant to the wetland activities. The list of participants is attached as Annex 1 to this
report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Designation of officers
2.1.1 In accordance with the rules of procedure for the Project Steering Committee, participants were
invited to nominate a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Rapporteur for the meeting.
2.1.2 Dr. Annadel Cabanban nominated Mr. Dibyo Sartono, focal point for wetlands in Indonesia, as
Chairperson of the meeting. The nomination was seconded by, Mr. Sivanesan Pillai, focal point for
wetlands in Malaysia. Mr. Dibyo Sartono was duly elected by acclamation.
2.1.3 Mr. Sartono nominated Ms. Marlynn M. Mendoza, Focal Point for Wetlands for Philippines as
Vice-Chairperson of the meeting. The nomination was seconded by, Mr. Narong Veeravaitaya, focal
point for wetlands in Thailand. Ms. Mendoza was duly elected by acclamation.
2.1.4 Dr. Mai Trong Nhuan, focal point for wetlands in Vietnam, nominated Mr. Narong Veeravaitaya,
focal point for wetlands for Thailand, as Rapporteur of the meeting. The nomination was seconded by,
Mr. Sartono. Mr. Veeravaitaya was duly elected by acclamation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
page 2
2.2
Organisation of work
2.2.1 The Project Director introduced the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/INF.1, listing the
discussion documents prepared by the Secretariat for the meeting, together with additional information
documents available to participants. He informed the meeting that the documents produced during the
preparation phase of the project have been provided in both printed and electronic forms, the latter
contained in a CD-ROM. The list of documents available to the meeting is attached as Annex 2 to this
report. He expressed his apologies to the meeting that some of the documents had been distributed at a
rather late date due to the work load of the Project Co-ordinating Unit and the fact that two of the staff of
the Unit had only joined during the previous week. He further informed participants that for future
meetings, the documents would be sent to participants at least four weeks in advance of the meeting
date.
2.2.2 The Chairperson noted that the meeting would be conducted in English and in plenary as far as
possible, although sessional working groups might need to be formed.
2.2.3 The Chairperson suggested that due to the small size of the working group the meeting should
be conducted in an informal manner and this suggestion was accepted by the meeting.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson presented the draft agenda prepared by the Secretariat as document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/1, and invited discussion and proposals for any amendments or additions
that members might wish to make.
3.2
Some minor corrections were made in the provisional Annotated Agenda, and the meeting
agreed to adopt the agenda as drafted by the Secretariat, with the suggested corrections. The agenda of
the meeting is attached as Annex 3 to this report.
4.
TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE
REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR WETLANDS (RWG-W)
4.1
Terms of reference for the working group
4.1.1 The Project Director was invited to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3 and in
particular the Terms of Reference for the Regional Working Group for Wetlands for the project entitled
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand" contained in
Annex VIII of that document. These Terms of Reference had also been made available as document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W/INF.6. The Project Director informed the meeting that the Terms of Reference,
had been approved, by the Project Steering Committee and that, any proposals for amendment would
need to be referred back to that committee for their approval.
4.1.2 The meeting noted the issue regarding the definition of wetlands and its relation to the other
sub-components of the habitat component, i.e. mangroves, coral reefs and seagrass. The Working
Group felt strongly that the scope and types of "wetlands" encompassed by this sub-component should
be prepared to guide the discussions of the RWG-W and for subsequent use by the National
Committees. Agreement regarding the scope of the wetlands component would ensure that, the national
committees worked in a comparable and compatible manner.
4.1.3 There followed an extensive discussion of what types of wetland habitat needed to be covered
by the activities of the National Committees and Regional Working Group. The meeting considered the
RAMSAR definitions and noted that the RAMSAR definition of "wetland" encompassed the coral reef,
seagrass and mangrove habitats, which were treated as separate sub-components within the framework
of the project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
page 3
4.1.4 The members agreed that the focus of the project should be restricted to coastal, salt water
environments and habitats. In this context it was agreed that the primary focus would encompass,
estuaries (including deltas), tidal flats and lagoons, and that the definitions of these habitats used by the
RAMSAR Convention would be those used in the framework of this Project.
4.1.5 Based on an understanding of the agreements reached during the preparation of the project, the
meeting reviewed and agreed to adopt the TOR for the RWG-W.
4.2
Membership of the working group
4.2.1 The meeting noted the membership of the Working Group as detailed in the Terms of Reference.
In particular, participants noted that full members of the Working Group include the National Focal
Points for Wetlands in each of the participating countries, and one member of the Project Co-ordinating
Unit. The Project Director informed the meeting that Dr. Annadel Cabanban, would serve as the PCU
member of the RWG-W.
4.2.2 The meeting noted that the PCU in consultation with the National Technical Focal Points shall
nominate no more than four regional experts as members of the Working Group. The Project Director
suggested that the group might wish to consider the fields of expertise that are not represented amongst
the existing members and it was agreed that the group would consider the matter further once the
activities had been agreed upon. During discussion it was noted that there might need to be experts
added to the membership that reflected the specific habitats identified in paragraph 4.1.4 and in addition
to add some economic expertise, particularly in the area of resource valuation.
4.3
Rules of procedure
4.3.1 The Working Group considered the rules of procedure adopted by the Project Steering
Committee and contained in Annex XIII of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3. The Working Group
reviewed in detail the rules of procedure for the conduct of meetings contained in section VII of the
document and agreed to adopt them, subject to appropriate changes such that "RWG-W" would be
substituted throughout the text for "PSC".
5.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND
GULF OF THAILAND"
5.1
Reporting relationships and responsibilities of the Regional Working Group and its role
in achieving project objectives
5.1.1 The Project Director explained the relationship between the National Committees the Regional
Working Group and the Regional Scientific & Technical Committee via document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/INF.4, "Management Framework and Reporting Structures for the UNEP/GEF
Project entitled: Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand." He noted that, the Focal Points in each country would transmit the views and data and
information collated by the National Committees, to the regional Working Group. The views of the RWG-
W would be transmitted to the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC) via the Chairperson
of the RWG-W. The RSTC in turn would advise the regional working group on the integration of the
wetlands sub-component activities with those undertaken within the other habitat sub-components of the
project.
5.1.2 The participants raised various queries and questions regarding the relationships between the
committees and working groups and noted that the over-riding decision making authority within the
framework of the project was the Project Steering Committee which consisted solely of two
representatives of each of the participating countries with UNEP serving as the Secretariat.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
page 4
5.1.3 Participants also noted the key role of the regional working groups in providing a link between
the work of the national committees and the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee at the regional
level and the National Level Inter-Ministry Committees (IMC).
5.2
Fiscal responsibilities (recording & reporting) of the National Focal Points of each
Specialised Executing Agency
5.2.1 The Project Director introduced document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/INF.5 concerning the
financial rules and financial reporting requirements under the UNEP internal Project Document and its
associated Memoranda of Understanding. This document is attached as Annex 4 to this report.
5.2.2 There followed an extensive and intensive discussion of the various requirements during which
participants sought clarification regarding various reporting and budgetary requirements. These included
whether or not funds existed to support wetlands activities in years 3, 4 & 5; whether it is possible to
shift money from one component to another; and/or from one budget line to another; and whether it is
possible to hire temporary personnel and which budget line should be used for this.
5.2.3 In response the Project Director noted that funds did exist to support wetland related activities
during years 3-5 but that these had not been programmed at this point by the Project Steering
Committee and that funds to support demonstration activities were not available for this sub-component
of the project. He noted further that since the GEF Council had approved the budgetary allocations on
the basis of components and sub-components it was not possible to transfer funds between
components without reference to the GEF Council. Regarding transfers between individual budget lines
within components it was noted that such transfers were subject to the approval of the Project Steering
Committee (PSC). In the case of funds already allocated by the PSC under the existing MoUs, transfers
between budget lines, can be made via a simple budget revision. Such a budget revision would be
initiated by a request from the National Focal Point to the PCU and approval by the authorizing officer
within the Project Co-ordinating Unit. He stressed the importance of prior consultation when unplanned
expenditures or potential areas of over-expenditure were foreseen, since UNEP was not in a position to
reimburse unapproved expenses.
5.2.4 The Project Director noted further that temporary assistance could be paid for under the budget
but that individuals such as the National Focal Points or members of the National Committees could not
be paid a salary without this seriously impacting the agreed in-kind co-financing from the Governments.
In response to a query concerning whether it is possible to give honoraria to members of the national
committees it was noted that this would be difficult since technically such honoraria could be considered
as payment for actions, which had been included in the calculation of government in-kind contributions.
The attention of the meeting was drawn to Annex XII of the Report of the first Project Steering Committee
meeting in which the calculations of agreed in-kind contributions were detailed. He also noted that
additional expert contributions, which were made without cost to the project budget would be counted as
an additional in-kind contribution on the part of the country and should be reported periodically to the
PCU in order that they could be included in subsequent budget revisions and reports to the GEF
Secretariat and through them to the GEF Council.
5.2.5 It was noted that the payment of costs associated with travel to meetings was a legitimate
reimbursable cost, but that the PCU did not require a detailed breakdown of the expenditures associated
with convening meetings. For the purposes of justifying meeting related expenditures a copy of the
report of the meeting and any substantive outputs would be sufficient to justify the expenditure
statement. In this regard it was further noted that National Focal Points should retain all original receipts
for project expenditures since they might be required to produce these in the event of an external audit
being required by either UNEP or the GEF. Receipts should be retained until final closure of the project.
5.2.6 During discussion it was clarified that unspent funds allocated under an MoU against a specific
budget line during one half year, could be carried forward to the subsequent period and or transferred to
another budget line following revision of the budget and approval by the Project Director.
5.2.7 Differences in costs for comparable activities amongst the participating countries were raised
and it was noted that the initial appropriations were equal amongst the participating countries. In this
context it was noted that differentials resulting from differences in cost would be absorbed by, the
countries concerned. Participants noted that, besides the seagrass mangrove and coral reef habitats the
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
page 5
other types of wetland habitats were large and important for the South Chin Sea marine basin but the
funds available for wetland related activities were limited, and it was therefore necessary to clearly define
and limit the scope of the activities at the national level.
5.2.8 It was suggested and agreed that, different levels of funding should be provided for Years 3-5
reflecting the real costs, based on activities that will be defined at a site-specific level. It was noted that
the ends of the financial reporting periods were fixed at 30th June and 31st December to coincide with the
end of the financial years of the GEF and UNEP respectively.
5.2.9 Various issues were raised regarding the release of subsequent tranches of funds under the
individual MoUs, and the Project Director clarified that since the initial starting point was some weeks
later than originally envisaged he did not envisage that the National Focal Points would need to spend
the entirety of the initial cash advance by 30th June 2002. He further noted that this would not constitute
a problem but that funds could be carried forward in accordance with the workplan and timetable to be
agreed under agenda item 8. In response to a query regarding the period during which funds could be
carried forward Dr. Pernetta explained that the existing MoUs were due to expire on 31st December 2003
at which time unspent funds would have to be reallocated by the Project Steering Committee, he also
noted that funds would not be advanced in instances where the actions and outputs were considered
insufficient or inadequate.
6.
OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION
AND LOSS" AND THE WETLANDS SUB-COMPONENT
6.1
General description of activities contained in the Project Brief
6.1.1 The Project Director introduced document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/4, in which the
expectations of the GEF with respect to project execution were outlined. He noted that the constraints
imposed by the GEF grant included the need to define environmental benefits in a semi-quantitative
manner; the need to distinguish between national, regional and global benefits; the difficulties of valuing
these benefits even if they can be defined and quantified; and the need to raise co-financing both
internally and externally in support of the demonstration sites. The opportunities provided by the project
include the opportunity for strengthening regional co-operation in the management of the marine
environment; the opportunity for strengthening regional and national environmental management
capacity; enhanced understanding of the economic benefits of improved environmental management;
and the opportunity for strengthening the scientific basis of environmental decision making. If the
constraints are successfully overcome and the opportunities fully realised then the overall goals of the
project should be achieved.
6.1.2 Dr. Pernetta then presented the outline of the activities listed in the project brief contained in the
discussion document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/4. The meeting noted that activities relating to the
habitat degradation and loss component of the project were generic and contained no specific guidance
related to the wetlands sub-component. The Project Director noted that this should be viewed as an
opportunity for the RWG-W and the National Committees, to define more precisely what should be
undertaken under this sub-component.
6.1.3 In presenting document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/5 the Project Director noted that this had
been drafted by the PCU to stimulate discussion and it should not be considered in any way a final
product. He invited participants to discuss and amend the chart as guidance for the national
committees, on the specific activities that would need to be incorporated into the workplan and
timetable. During discussion it was noted that a number of activities specified in the MoUs with the
SEAs were not included in the flow-chart, as drafted. An initial revision of the document in which these
activities were included was prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with members of the Working
Group, and circulated for further discussion.
6.1.4 Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/6 was presented to the meeting, which contains the
outcome of the deliberations of the first meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee with
respect to activities in the habitat sub-components of the project. Following an extensive discussion of
these documents and the presentation of an initial draft workplan and timetable it was agreed that a
small working group would be convened following the closure of the session that, would be charged with
reviewing and revising the flow-chart of activities and the workplan and timetable.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
page 6
6.1.5 The revised flow-chart was presented to the meeting by Ms. Mendoza on behalf of the sessional
working group. During the presentation Ms Mendoza highlighted the national level activities and related
outputs that would culminate in the finalisation of a National Wetland Action Plan. She noted that the
national outputs would need to be collated at a regional level resulting ultimately in revision of the
relevant sections of the Strategic Action Programme.
6.1.6 A question was raised concerning the need for formats of the national products e.g. reports,
required under the MoU and TOR. It was agreed that there is a need to develop a similar format for use
at the national level to facilitate data compilation at the regional level. Due to time constraints it was
decided that the PCU would prepare relevant draft formats for consideration by the working group.
6.1.7 The meeting agreed that the outputs of their deliberations should be circulated to the seagrass,
mangrove and coral reef regional working groups and that the outputs of the other regional working
groups should be circulated to the members of the RWG-W. This would provide the opportunity for
revision and modification of the data and information tabulation in the light of the tabulations developed
by the other regional working groups.
6.1.8 A further query was raised regarding the need to produce an up-dated national report and the
meeting accepted that such a task would require agreement by all Regional Working Groups since it
involved areas other than wetlands. It was suggested that in fact what was intended by the term
"updating national reports" implied updating the data and information content rather than production of a
new physical document. Following these clarifications the flow-chart of activities was adopted by the
meeting as contained in Annex 6 of this report.
6.2
Other relevant activities in the region
6.2.1 Mr. Yihang Jiang, the Senior Expert introduced this agenda item, and indicated that information
on the existing and planned activities in the region could serve as a basis for establishing regional co-
operation and co-ordination between this project and other relevant activities in the region. Such
collaboration should be initiated to provide maximum benefits to the participating countries and to avoid
the duplication of efforts in different interventions.
6.2.2 The National Focal Points were invited to provide information on relevant national activities.
Following a brief discussion the meeting agreed that, the National Focal Points would consult with their
national committees and provide the necessary information on existing and planned wetland project
activities in-country, to the Project Co-ordinating Unit as promptly as possible. The PCU would
consolidate the information and circulate the synopsis to all participating countries as the basis for
establishing a regional data set regarding ongoing activities. Such a synthesis of information relating to
existing activities would also be required within the context of the review of national data and information.
6.2.3 The meeting instructed the PCU to collect all necessary information on relevant activities at the
regional level, and to ensure the establishment of appropriate mechanisms for co-operation and co-
ordination with those project activities whenever deemed necessary.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
page 7
7.
DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE WETLAND SUB-COMPONENT
7.1
Review of the Wetland related sections of the National Reports and the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis, produced during the preparatory phase of the project
7.1.1 The National Focal Points briefly highlighted the relevant information provided in the National
Reports, and noted that, with respect to the habitats defined in paragraph 4.1.4 (estuaries including
deltas; tidal flats and lagoons) the available information contained in the National Reports was rather
sparse or none at all. The attention of the meeting was drawn to the tabulation of wetlands contained in
Table 3.70 on page 77 et sequitor of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, and it was agreed that this
would need to be reviewed for completeness by the national committees.
7.2
National and regional sources of data and information
7.2.1 Mr. Yihang Jiang, Senior Expert presented the regional GIS database being developed by the
SEA-START Regional Centre in Chulalongkorn University and noted that this would be made available
free of charge to all Specialised Executing Agencies contracted within the framework of the UNEP/GEF
Project. The meeting accepted the offer of collaboration with enthusiasm and requested the PCU to
make arrangements for copies of the GIS database on CD Rom to be made available as soon as
possible. In this context it was noted that the database that would be made available was in fact, only a
sub-set of the entire database and that individual National Focal Points could request specific additional
datasets. It was proposed that the PCU liaise with Dr. Snidvongs, Director of the SEA-START Regional
Centre, and request a listing of the currently available datasets in order that the National Focal Points
could specify those sub-sets that were required.
7.2.2 Mr. Jiang, presented the regional data set regarding coral reef and mangrove habitat distribution
in the South China Sea, as contained in the recently released, Reefs at Risk publication and noted that
discussions were on-going regarding the incorporation of these data into the GIS database.
7.2.3 It was suggested that the national committees might wish to identify and make available to the
PCU and SEA-START RC, publicly available datasets for inclusion in the regional GIS database and
noted further that, Dr. Snidvongs had agreed to make arrangements for digitising appropriate datasets
where these were available to the National Committees only in hard copy form. During the ensuing
discussion it was noted that certain data were subject to security clearance in the countries of the
region and that these data would not be readily available to the project participants. In this context the
meeting was informed that the South China Sea database was intended as an open access data set
based on publicly available materials.
7.2.4 The meeting was informed that the regional meta-database being developed by Chulalongkorn
University with financial support from various sources, including the EAS/RCU of UNEP, would contain
information regarding the nature of regional datasets, their location, ownership and conditions of access.
7.2.5 A tabulation of data and information needs was prepared by the sessional working group
overnight and presented to the meeting by Dr. Cabanban. During discussion it was noted that this was
an extensive and detailed list and it was agreed that whilst every attempt should be made to quantify the
data relating to each field in the table it was recognized that for many sites in the region quantitative
data would not be available. It was noted that there would be a need to ensure conformity between the
data sets assembled under each component and sub-component of the project if the regional meta-
database was to be of value.
7.2.6 In response to a request from Mr. Nhuan the Project Director informed the meeting that UNEP
was currently in possession of a set of landsat images with full global coverage that could be made
available to the National Committees. He indicated that he would request images on behalf of the
National Focal Points for use by the National Committees in completing the analysis of coastal wetland
sites surrounding the South China Sea marine basin. He would also ascertain what restrictions would
apply to their use within the project.
7.2.7 The contents of the data and information table were compared with the required information and
criteria used by RAMSAR. Following extensive discussion and amendment the table of data and
information needs was adopted as contained in Annex 7 of this report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
page 8
8.
DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003
8.1
The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce the draft workplan for the National
Committees and Regional Working Group for 2002-2003 (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/6). The
participants noted that the document provided in advance of the meeting constituted a meeting schedule
only and that the draft workplan prepared by the Secretariat during the course of the meeting constituted
a more detailed workplan that reflected the contents of the flow chart and the tabulation of data and
information requirements prepared by the sessional working group over-night.
8.2
Following adoption of the flow-chart of activities and the tabulation of data and information
requirements the workplan and timetable as drafted by the Secretariat was presented to the meeting,
considered, amended and approved as contained in Annex 8 to this report. The meeting agreed that the
second meeting would be held 4th to 7th September 2002.
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1
No additional matters were raised under this agenda item.
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
WETLANDS
10.1
The Chairperson suggested that following adoption of the workplan and timetable, which
included an agreement regarding the dates for the next meeting of the working group, the working group
should agree upon the venue of the meeting. It was noted that the next meetings of the PSC, RSTC and
RWG-LbP would take place in Viet Nam and Indonesia respectively.
10.2
During the course of discussion it was noted that if the meeting were to be convened physically
in HongKong it would be difficult for the National Focal Point for Wetlands in China to provide direct
assistance to the Secretariat in making local arrangements for the meeting. Alternatively it was
suggested that the meeting could be convened in Shen Zhen, which is close to HongKong and a major
shared wetland area. It was agreed that the PCU would liaise with Professor Chen to organise the next
meeting in Shen Zhen.
10.3
Mr. Sartono offered to host the meeting in Indonesia in the event that it proved impossible to
convene the meeting in China. This offer was gratefully accepted by the meeting.
11.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
11.1
The Rapporteur presented the draft report of the meeting, which was considered, discussed,
amended and approved as contained in this document. A formal motion for approval of the report of the
meeting was put by Ms Mendoza and seconded by Mr. Pillai. The report was adopted without objection,
as a record of the meeting.
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
12.1
Following an exchange of courtesies the Chairperson closed the meeting at 16.15 hrs. on 26th
April 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 1
page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Ke VONGWATTANA, Assistant
Ms. CHEN Guizhu, Professor
Minister in charge of Mangrove and Wetland
Institute of Environmental Sciences
Department of Nature Conservation and Protection Zhongshan University
Ministry of Environment
135 West Xingang Road
48 Samdech Preah Sihanouk
Guangzhou 510275
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon, Cambodia
Guangdong Province, China
Tel: (855 23) 213908; 855 12 855 990
Tel: (86 20) 8411 2293
(855) 11 747459
Fax: (86 20) 8411 0692
Fax: (855 23) 212540; 215925
E-mail: chenguizhu@yeah.net
E-mail: moe-cabinet@camnet.com.kh
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Dibyo SARTONO, Programme Director
Mr. Sivanesam PILLAI
Wetland International Asia Pacific Indonesia
Conservation and Environmental Management
Programme
Division, Ministry of Science, Technology and the
JL Jend A Yani BOGOR 16161
Environment, Block C5, Parcel C
P.O. Box 254/BOGOR 16002
Federal Administration Centre
Indonesia
62662 Putrajaya, Malaysia
Tel: (62 251) 312 189
Tel:
(603) 8885 8030; (60) 012 300 5034
Fax: (62 251) 325 755
Fax: (603) 8889 2973
E-mail: wi-ip@indo.net.id; Awb@indo.net.id
E-mail: pillai@mastic.gov.my
Philippines
Thailand
Ms. Marlynn M. MENDOZA
Mr. Narong VEERAVAITAYA, Lecturer
Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
Department of Fisheries Biology
NAPWNC Compound,
Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
North Avenue, Diliman
50 Phanolyothin Road, Bangkhen
Quezon City, Philippines 1101
Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Tel:
(632) 925 8950; 9246031; 0919 3247846
Tel: (66 2) 579 5575 ext. 315; 01 741 0024
Fax: (632) 924 0109
Fax: (66 2) 940 5016
E-mail: mendoza@psdn.org.ph
E-mail: ffisnrv@ku.ac.th; vnarong@hotmail.com
Viet Nam
Dr. Mai Trong NHUAN, Professor, Vice-President
Vietnam National University, Hanoi
165 Khuong Trung Street
Thanh Xuan, Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel:
(844) 834 2015; 853 1142
Fax:
(844) 834 0724
E-mail: nhuanmt@vnu.edu.vn;
mnhuan@yahoo.com
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 1
page 2
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Dr. John PERNETTA, Project Director
Mr. Yihang JIANG, Senior Expert
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Tel: (66 2) 288 2084
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
E-mail: jiang.unescap@un.org
Dr. Annadel CABANBAN
Ms. Unchalee KATTACHAN
Expert Community Based Management
Secretary, UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: (66 2) 288 1670
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1670
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
E-mail: cabanban@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 2
page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Working documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/1
Provisional agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/2
Annotated provisional agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Draft report of the meeting (to be prepared during the meeting).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/4
Outline of Wetland Related Activities Described in the
UNEP/GEF Project Brief and Project Document entitled:
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/5
Flow Chart of Actions for the Wetland Sub-Component in the
UNEP GEF South China Sea Project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/6
Elements for consideration by the Regional Working Groups
for habitats in developing criteria for prioritising areas of
intervention.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/7
Workplan for calendar year 2002.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/INF.1
Provisional list of documents.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/INF.2
Provisional list of participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/INF.3
Draft programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/INF.4
Management Framework and Reporting Structures for the
UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand".
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/INF.5
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for
National Focal Points Operating in the Framework of the
UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand".
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/INF.6
Terms of Reference for the Regional Working Group on
Wetlands (as approved by the First project Steering
Committee, Bangkok, Thailand, October 22-23rd 2001).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3
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 First Meeting. UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3. UNEP,
Bangkok Thailand, 2000.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Scientific & Technical Committee
for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand" Report of the First Meeting. UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RSTC.1/3 Pattaya, Thailand, 14-16 March 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/4
Expectations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with
Respect to Project Execution; Constraints and Opportunities.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 2
page 2
The following documents are available to participants as both hard copies and on CD Rom
Talaue-McManus, L.
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the South China Sea.
EAS/RCU Technical Reports Series No. 14. UNEP,
Bangkok, Thailand, 2000.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Cambodia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of China on the formulation of a Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary Framework of a Strategic
Action Programme for the South China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok,
Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Indonesia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Malaysia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of the Philippines on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Thailand on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Viet Nam on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
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
Designation of officers
2.2
Organisation of work
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4.
TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE
REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR WETLANDS (RWG-W)
4.1
Terms of reference for the working group
4.2
Membership of the working group
4.3
Rules of procedure
5.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
AND GULF OF THAILAND"
5.1
Reporting relationships and responsibilities of the Regional Working Group and
its role in achieving project objectives
5.2
Fiscal responsibilities (recording & reporting) of the National Focal Points of
each Specialised Executing Agency
6.
OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION
AND LOSS" AND THE "WETLANDS" SUB-COMPONENT
6.1
General description of activities contained in the Project Brief
6.2
Other relevant activities in the region
7.
DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE WETLAND SUB-COMPONENT
7.1
Review of the Wetlands related sections of the National Reports and the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, produced during the preparatory phase of
the project
7.2
National and regional sources of data and information
8.
DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
WETLANDS
11.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 1
ANNEX 4
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for National Focal Points
Operating in the Framework of the UNEP/GEF Project entitled:
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand"
Executive Summary1
Budget Planning and approval
· Activities approved by COBSEA (1998).
· Project budget estimated by UNEP (1999).
· Estimates summarised in the Project Brief (1999).
· GEF Council approved costs for each component and sub-component of the Project (2000).
· Overall project budget, in UNEP format approved first Project Steering Committee (October 22-
23rd 2001).
Overall Budget Control
Project Steering Committee:
· approves annual workplans and budgets;
· decides how unspent balance should be reallocated;
· decides on budget allocations for demonstration sites;
· operates within the framework budget approved by the GEF Council.
Project Steering Committee has authority to: move funds in each component; but not to: transfer funds
from one component to another.
Project Steering Committee has approved budgetary allocations to the Specialised Executing Agencies
for the first two years.
First instalment of funds transferred to Specialised Executing Agencies with signed Memoranda of
Understanding.
Responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies
Detailed in each Memorandum of Understanding and include:
· Chairing and convening meetings of the National Committees;
· Providing national inputs at regional level Advising the NTFP and NTWG;
· Presenting the national perspective at the Regional Working Groups;
· Providing to the RWG and RSTC data and information required to make decisions at the
regional level.
Disbursement by UNEP to the SEAs
· GEF provides grant funds to the SEAs;
· Monies disbursed by ESCAP on behalf of UNEP at six monthly intervals;
· First instalment disbursed as a cash advance following signature of the MoUs.
Fiscal responsibility
· Project Director authorises disbursement to the SEAs, in accordance with the project
document, and the workplans and budget approved by the Project Steering Committee.
· Senior Expert certifies that adequate funds exist.
These authorities are delegated from the Head of the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON), and
UNEP headquarters, Nairobi.
1 Presentation provided to the 1st meeting of the Regional Working Groups.
1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 2
Each MoU budget in UNEP format
Indicates the purpose for which the funds are provided by UNEP to the Specialised Executing Agencies.
Expenditures by the SEAs
· SEA authorised to spend the cash advances in accordance with the detailed budget;
· The money is provided to the SEAs by UNEP in advance of the SEAs incurring any
expenditures;
· UNEP will not reimburse expenditures for items not detailed in the approved budget.
Expenditures by the SEAs
· Unplanned costs
· Over-expenditures
· Under-expenditures
Revising the budget
When unplanned expenditures, under-expenditures or over-expenditures are foreseen the Focal Point in
the SEA should contact the PCU to seek a budget revision.
Reporting requirements
Every six-months the SEA is required to provide three documents to the PCU as follows:
· Six monthly expenditure statement
· Cash advance request
· Six montly progress report
The six monthly expenditure statement should report the actual expenditures to 30th June and 31st
December in the form provided.
Supporting documentation for expenditures
· Items of equipment original receipt.
· Consultancy contract copy of the signed contract & copy of the original product.
· Meeting costs copy of the report of the meeting & any substantive outputs.
· Travel by air original receipt.
Each SEA should retain original Documentation for each expenditure until the end of the project.
Substantive Reporting
The Six Monthly Progress Report in the form provided should contain details of:
· Substantive activities and outputs of the SEA and National Committees
On the basis of this report and the substantive outputs UNEP judges whether the terms of the MoU
have been met in a satisfactory manner.
_____________________________________
Background
During the first meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee held in Pattaya, March 22-
25 2002 members requested that the Project Co-ordinating Unit provide some notes for guidance of the
individuals in the Ministries and Specialised Executing Agencies regarding the management of the funds
and reporting requirements. This document has been produced by the PCU in response to that request.
What follows therefore is a simple outline of the budgetary constraints and reporting requirements, rather
than a full detailed listing of the United Nations financial rules and regulations.
Budget Planning and approval
The overall project budget was estimated by UNEP on the basis of planned activities approved by
COBSEA and the participating Governments. These estimates were summarised in the Project Brief at
the time of submission to the GEF Council for approval as total costs for each component and
subcomponent of the Project. Hence variations in allocation between components of the Project can
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 3
only be made with authority of the GEF Council.
Subsequently, during the appraisal phase from December 2000 to October 2001 extensive negotiations
were undertaken between UNEP and the Focal Point Ministries in each participating country regarding
the allocation of resources to activities within each component. The overall project budget, broken down
by object of expenditure in UNEP format was approved by the first Project Steering Committee meeting,
held in Bangkok, Thailand, October 22-23rd 2001. This meeting also approved the government
commitments of in-kind contributions to the project.
Overall Budget Control
The body with over-riding authority with respect to the entire project budget is the Project Steering
Committee, which approves on an annual basis the workplans and budgets for the project. In practical
terms what this means is that, at the end of each year the Project Steering Committee decides how any
unspent balance should be reallocated, and makes decisions regarding the budget allocations for
demonstration sites. The Project Steering Committee must however operate within the framework budget
presented in the Project Brief by component and approved by the Global Environment Facility Council at
the time of submission of the Project Brief. Effectively this means that the Project Steering Committee
has authority to move funds between activities in each component but not to transfer funds from one
component to another.
For example: money approved by the GEF as grant support to activities in the coral reef component
cannot be transferred to the mangrove component, for example.
The Project Steering Committee has approved the initial budgetary allocations to the Specialised
Executing Agencies at National level for the first two years on the basis of which the first instalment of
funds has been transferred to all Specialised Executing Agencies with which UNEP has signed
Memoranda of Understanding.
Responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies
The responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies are detailed in each Memorandum of
Understanding and include inter alia responsibility for Chairing and convening meetings of the National
Committees, for producing the national inputs to the regional level activities and for advising at the
national level, the National Technical Focal Point and National Technical Working Group of priorities
activities which should be undertaken within the framework of the Project. In addition the Specialised
Agencies are responsible for presenting the national perspective at the Regional Working Groups and
providing to the Regional Working Groups and Regional Scientific and Technical Committee the data and
information required to make decisions and recommendations at the regional level. The substantive
needs will be more closely defined during the first sets of meetings of the Regional Working Groups.
Disbursement by UNEP to the SEAs
In order to undertake the substantive work described in the MoU's the GEF has provided grant funds for
project execution. These monies will be disbursed by ESCAP on behalf of UNEP at six monthly intervals
according to the terms given in the MoU. As noted above the first instalment of funds has been
disbursed as a cash advance following joint signature by UNEP and each SEA, of the MoUs.
In terms of fiscal responsibility within the United Nations System the Project Director authorises
financial expenditures including disbursement of funds to the SEAs, in accordance with the project
document, and the workplans and budget approved by the Project Steering Committee. The Senior
Expert certifies that adequate funds exist to support the payments authorised. These authorities are
delegated from the Head of the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON), and UNEP headquarters,
Nairobi.
Each MoU contains a budget in UNEP format, which indicates the purpose for which the funds are
provided by UNEP to the Specialised Executing Agencies. Funds have been allocated in these budgets
to the production of the required national level information, for the convening of meetings, for translation
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 4
and for other purposes as indicated by the UNEP budget code; for example the extract below is taken
from the budget table for a National Specialised Agency serving as the Focal Point for Land Based
Pollution and represents the anticipated reporting costs. No expenditures on publications are foreseen
during 2002 hence these funds will be transferred in 2003 in two separate allotments around January and
June 2003.
Table 1. Example extract from the budget for a Specialised Executing Agency acting at National level as
the Focal Point for the Wetland component of the Project (US$ thousands)
2002
2003
TOTAL
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
5200
Reporting costs - publications,
maps, newsletters, printing.
5216
Translation
2.00
2.00
4.00
Publication of National Review of Water
3.00
3.00
5217
Quality data
5218
Publication of evaluation of costs and
3.00
3.00
benefits of alternative courses of action
and pre-feasibility studies
5299
Total
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
Expenditures by the SEAs
Each SEA is authorised under the terms of the MoUs to spend the cash advances in accordance with
the detailed budget, which forms part of each MoU. Since the money in the budgets of the MoUs is
provided to the SEAs by UNEP in advance of the SEAs incurring any expenditures, UNEP will not
reimburse expenditures for items not detailed in the approved budget.
Unplanned costs
In undertaking the work agreed by the Regional Working Groups Specialised Executing Agency may
find that they need to spend money on items not currently listed in the budgets of the MoUs. Under
such circumstances the Focal Point in the SEA must contact the Project Director to seek changes in
the budget to accommodate these un-planned expenditures.
Over-expenditures
Where an item or an activity costs more than originally estimated then the Specialised Executing
Agency would need to examine the budget and see whether cost savings can be achieved in other parts
of the budget. Any such savings could then be transferred between lines to prevent an over-expenditure
occurring. In cases where quotations are obtained which exceed the allocations the Focal Point should
contact the PCU to arrange for a revision of the budget. Such a revision should be completed before the
over-expenditure is incurred. Focal Points should note that reallocation of funds between lines, which fall
into the same component (i.e. 5000 numbers) is generally accepted automatically, but reallocation of
funds from 2000 to 3000 lines for example should only be done with the agreement in writing of the
Project Director.
Under-expenditures
At the end of a six-month period the Specialised Executing Agency might find that the anticipated costs
of a particular activity have been less than originally planned. For example in the Table presented above
the SEA might find that only 1,800 US$ had been spent on translation by June 30th 2003, hence 200 US
$ would remain unspent in budget line #5216. This money can be carried forward on the same budget
line if for example it was expected that the costs of translating of the second publication would be more
than the planned 2,000 US$. Alternatively the unspent funds can be reallocated internally, for example to
produce more copies of the publication, subject to the approval in writing of the Project Director. In this
case the funds would be removed from budget line #5216 and reassigned to budget line #5217 or #5218
as appropriate.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 5
Revising the budget
In the event that unplanned expenditures, under-expenditures or over-expenditures are foreseen the
Focal Point in the Specialised Executing Agency is advised to contact the Project Co-ordinating Unit
promptly to seek a budget revision, since as noted above UNEP cannot reimburse expenditures which
are not part of the approved budget contained in the MoU.
Reporting requirements
At the end of each six-month period the SEA is required under the terms of the MoU to provide three
documents to the Project Co-ordinating Unit as follows:
· Six Monthly expenditure statement
· Cash advance request.
· Six monthly progress report
Without these three documents the Project Co-ordinating Unit cannot authorise the cash advance for the
next six months.
The six monthly expenditure statement should report the actual expenditures which have
occurred up to the 30th June and 30th December in the form provided in an Annex to the MoU and
reproduced here as Table 2. At this time any under expenditures will become apparent and a revision of
the budget may be undertaken as necessary.
At the same time that the SEA reports the actual expenditures for the previous six months it completes
a cash advance request in the form annexed to the MoUs and reproduced here as Table 3. This
constitutes a request from the SEA to UNEP to advance monies against the expenditures anticipated in
the next six months.
Supporting documentation for expenditures
If an item of equipment has been purchased, then the original receipt for payment must be
dispatched with the six monthly expenditure statement, since until the time of completion of the project
the equipment remains the property of the United Nations (Transfer to the partner institution is normally
automatic on completion of the project).
If a consultancy contract has been issued for a specified piece of work then a copy of the signed
contract should also be supplied with the expenditure statement, together with a copy of the original
product produced by the consultant.
If expenditures are incurred in organising a meeting then a copy of the report of the meeting and any
substantive outputs must be supplied to UNEP.
If travel by air has been paid for then an original receipt must be supplied with the expenditure
statement.
Whilst UNEP does not require that original receipts for all expenditures be submitted at the time the
expenditure report is dispatched they must be retained by the Specialised Executing Agency until
such time as the external audit report of the organisation has been submitted to, and receipt
acknowledged by, the PCU. Ideally receipts should be retained on file until completion of the project and
financial closure of the MoU. In the event of an audit the Specialised Executing Agency may be required
to produce the original receipts by the United Nations auditors.
It is strongly recommended therefore that each SEA retain original documentation demonstrating the
nature of each expenditure until such time as the terms of the MoU have been fulfilled.
Substantive Reporting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 6
One further report is required from each SEA on a six monthly basis. This is the Six Monthly Progress
Report in the form as annexed to the MoUs and attached here as Table 3. In this report the substantive
activities and outputs of the SEA and National Committees are detailed and it is on the basis of this
report together with the substantive outputs (copies of which should be sent to the PCU) that UNEP
judges whether or not the terms of the Memorandum have been met in a satisfactory manner.
Without the six monthly expenditure report, the six monthly progress report and cash advance
request the PCU cannot authorise any subsequent cash advances. It is important therefore that the
Focal Points adhere as closely as possible to the reporting requirements in order to ensure a steady
flow of funds and smooth operation of the project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 7
Table 2
FORMAT OF SIX MONTHLY PROJECT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Project statement of allocation (budget), expenditure and balance (Expressed in US$) covering the period
from............................to................................
Project No.:...........................................
Supporting organization...............................................................................
Project title:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
Project commencing:...............................
(date)
Project ending:.................................... (date)
Object of expenditure in accordance with UNEP budget
Project budget allocation for the half year ending .......
Expenditure incurred for the half Unspent balance of budget for
codes
year ending .....
the half year ending ............
Amount (1)
Amount (2)
Amount (1-2)
1100 Project personnel
1101
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
1200 Consultants
1201
Consultants .....
.....
.....
.....
.....
etc. etc. etc.
(USE OBJECTS OF EXPENDITURE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGNED
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING)
99 GRAND TOTAL
Signed
_______________________________________________________
Designation:
______________________________________________
Duly authorised official
NB: The expenditures should be reported in line with the specific object of expenditures as per project budget.
File ID: K:\FORMATS\APP4SOQE.WQ1 me\ag
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 8
Table 3
CASH ADVANCE REQUEST
Statement of cash advance as at
____________________________________________________
And cash requirements for the six month period ending _______________________________________
Name of co-operating agency/
Supporting organization
__________________________________________________________
Project No.
______________________________________________________________________
Project title:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf
of Thailand
I
Cash Statement:
1.
Opening Cash Balance as at ________________US$__________________
2.
Add: cash advances received
Date:
________________US$___________________
Date:
________________US$___________________
Date:
________________US$___________________
Date:
________________US$___________________
3.
Total cash advanced to date US$___________________
4.
Less: total cumulative expenditures incurred US$___________________
5.
Closing cash balance as at___________________US$___________________
II Cash requirements forecast
6.
Estimated disbursements for period ending
7.
Less: closing cash balance (item 5, above)
8.
Total cash requirements for the period ending
Prepared by
_______________________ Request approved by:
__________________________
Name: ______________________________
__________________________
Duly authorized official of co-
operating agency/ supporting
organization
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 9
Table 4
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
SIX MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1
Project Title: Reversing Environmental degradation in the South China Sea and Gulf
of Thailand.
1.2
MOU Number:___________________________________________________
1.3
Responsible Office:
South China Sea Project Co-ordination Unit, Bangkok
1.4
Specialised Executing Agency (Supporting Organization):
_________________________________________________________________________________
1.5
Reporting Period: (the six months covered by this report) ___________________________
1.6
Focal Point Name: ___________________________
SECTION 2 - PROJECT STATUS
2.1
Status of the Implementation of the Activities and Outputs Listed Under the Workplan in
the Memorandum of Understanding (check appropriate box)
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project workplan for the reporting period have been material
completed and the responsible Office is satisfied that the project will be fully completed on
time (give reasons for minor variations as Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have been altere
(give reasons for alterations: lack of finance; project reformulated; project revisions; other at
Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have not been fully
completed and delays in project delivery are expected (give reasons for variations in Section
3.1 and new completion date in Section 3.2 below).
Insufficient detail provided in the Project Workplan.
2.2
List Actual Activities/Outputs Achieved in the Reporting period: (check appropriate box)
(a) MEETINGS (Duplicate this box for each meeting individually)
Inter-Ministry mtg
Expert Group Mtg.
Training Seminar/Workshop
Others
Title:__________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________
Venue and
dates_____________________________________________________________________________
Convened by ____________________________ Organized by ____________________________
Report issued as doc. No/Symbol_______________ Languages _____________Dated __________
For Training Seminar/Workshop, please indicate: No. of participants _____________and attach annex
giving names and nationalities of participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 10
(b) PRINTED MATERIALS (Duplicate this box for each printed item)
Report to IG Mtg.
Technical Publication
Technical Report
Others
Title:
_________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________
Author(s)/Editor(s)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Publisher
_________________________________________________________________________________
Symbol (UN/UNEP/ISBN/ISSN)
_______________________________________________________________________
Date of publication
_________________________________________________________________________________
(When technical reports/publications have been distributed, attach distribution list)
(c) TECHNICAL INFORMATION
PUBLIC INFORMATION (posters, leaflets, broadcasts
etc.)
Description
_________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Dates
_________________________________________________________________________________
(d) SERVICES
Description
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Dates _____________________
(e) OTHER OUTPUTS
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 4
page 11
SECTION 3 - PROJECT DELIVERY
3.1
Summary of the Problems Encountered in Project Delivery (if any)
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.2
Actions Taken or Required to Solve the Problems (identified in Section 3.1 above)
_________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Signed:
_____________________________
Name:
_____________________________
Designation: _____________________________
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 5
page 1
ANNEX 5
Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands
Categories approved by Recommendation 4.7 of the
Conference of the Contracting Parties
[Note: This appendix embodies the text of the Ramsar Information Sheet but is not a replica of the
layout of the RIS itself.]
1.
Date this sheet was completed/updated:
2.
Country:
3.
Name of wetland:
4.
Geographical coordinates:
5.
Altitude: (average and/or max. & min)
6.
Area: (in hectares)
7.
Overview: (general summary, in two or three sentences, of the wetlands principal
characteristics)
8.
Wetland Type: (please circle the applicable codes for wetland types as listed in Appendix 8 of
the Explanatory Note and Guidelines document.)
marine-coastal:
A · B · C · D · E · F · G · H · I · J · K
inland:
L · M · N · O · P · Q · R · Sp · Ss · Tp · Ts
· U · Va · Vt · W · Xf · Xp · Y · Zg · Zk
man-made:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9
Please now rank these wetland types by listing them from the most to the least dominant:
9.
Ramsar Criteria: (please circle the applicable criteria; see point 12, next page.)
1a · 1b · 1c · 1d | 2a · 2b · 2c · 2d | 3a · 3b · 3c | 4a · 4b
Please specify the most significant criterion applicable to the site: __________________________
10.
Map of site included? Please tick yes -or- no (Please refer to the Explanatory Note and
Guidelines document for information regarding desirable map traits).
11.
Name and address of the compiler of this form:
Please provide additional information on each of the following categories by attaching extra
pages (please limit extra pages to no more than 10):
12.
Justification of the criteria selected under point 9, on previous page.
13.
General location: (include the nearest large town and its administrative region)
14.
Physical features: (e.g., geology, geomorphology; origins natural or artificial; hydrology; soil
type; water quality; water depth water permanence; fluctuations in water level; tidal variations;
catchment area; downstream area; climate)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 5
page 2
15.
Hydrological values: (groundwater recharge, flood control, sediment trapping, shoreline
stabilisation etc.)
16.
Ecological features: (main habitats and vegetation types)
17.
Noteworthy flora: (indicating, e.g., which species/communities are unique, rare, endangered or
biogeographically important, etc.
18.
Noteworthy fauna: (indicating, e.g., which species are unique, rare, endangered, abundant or
biogeographically important; include count data, etc.)
19.
Social and cultural values: (e.g., fisheries production, forestry, religious importance,
archaeological site etc.)
20.
Land tenure/ownership of: (a) site (b) surrounding area
21.
Current land use: (a) site (b) surroundings/catchment
22.
Factors (past, present or potential) adversely affecting the site's ecological character,
including changes in land use and development projects: (a) at the site (b) around the
site
23.
Conservation measures taken: (national category and legal status of protected areas-
including any boundary changes which have been made: management practices; whether an
officially approved management plan exists and whether it has been implemented).
24.
Conservation measures proposed but not yet implemented: (e.g., management plan in
preparation, officially proposed as a protected area, etc.)
25.
Current scientific research and facilities: (e.g., details of current projects; existence of field
station, etc.)
26.
Current conservation education: (e.g., visitors centre, hides, information booklet, facilities for
school visits, etc.)
27.
Current recreation and tourism: (state if wetland is used for recreation/tourism; indicate type
and frequency/intensity)
28.
Jurisdiction: (territorial e.g., state/region and functional e.g., Dept of Agriculture/Dept. of
Environment, etc.)
29.
Management authority: (name and address of local body directly responsible for managing
the wetland)
30.
Bibliographical references: (scientific/technical only)
Please return to:
Ramsar Convention Bureau, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 GLAND, Switzerland
Telephone: +41 22 999 0170 · Fax: +41 22 999 0169 · e-mail: ramsar@hq.iucn.org
______________________________________________________________________
Explanatory Note and Guidelines for the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands
Recommendation 4.7 of the Conference of Contracting Parties established that the "data sheet
developed for the description of Ramsar sites ... be used by Contracting Parties and the Bureau in
presenting information for the Ramsar database". The recommendation listed the information categories
covered by the "data sheet". Furthermore, Resolution 5.3 reaffirmed that a completed "Ramsar
datasheet" and site map should be provided upon designation of a wetland to the Ramsar List. This was
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 5
page 3
subsequent6ly reiterated in Resolutions VI.13 and VI.16. The data sheet, which is formally entitled the
Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands, provides a standardized format for recording Ramsar site
data. Resolution 5.3 underscored that information concerning conservation measures, the functions
and values (hydrological, biophysical, floral, faunal, social and cultural) of the site, and criteria for
inclusion (i.e., Ramsar criteria) were particularly important categories. This resolution also restated the
value of using the Ramsar classification for wetland type when completing the data sheet.
In the case of wetland which has been well-studied and well-documented, or which is the subject of
special field investigations, far more information may be available than can be accommodated on the
Information Sheet (including the maximum 10-page annex of additional attachment sheets). Whenever
possible, copies of published papers or photocopied reports on the site should be appended to the
Information Sheet. Slides or photographs of the wetland are also especially valuable. It is essential that
the source providing any such additional information be noted.
In the cased of very large and complex wetland systems, two levels of approach may be advisable: a
broad approach for the system as a whole, and a more detailed approach for key localities within the
system. Thus for a particularly large wetland complex it may be appropriate to complete an Information
Sheet for the site as a whole and a series of Information Sheets for key areas within the complex.
Resolution VI.1 highlights the importance of monitoring of wetlands to help maintain their ecological
character. The annex to the resolution notes the there is a need to increase the value of the information
collected for describing and assessing ecological character of listed sites, and that emphasis must be
given to:
· Establishing a baseline by describing the functions, products and attributes of the site that give it
benefits and values of international importance (necessary because the existing Ramsar criteria do
not cover the full range of wetland benefits and values which should be considered when assessing
the possible impact of changes at a site); sections 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 below apply.
· Providing information on human-induced factors that have affected or could significantly affect the
benefits and values of international importance; section 22 below applies.
· Providing information on monitoring and survey methods in place (or planned) at the site; sections
23 and 24 below apply.
· Providing information on the natural variability and amplitude of seasonal and/or long-term "natural"
changes (e.g., vegetation succession, episodic/catastrophic ecological events such as hurricanes)
that have affected or could affect the ecological character of the site. Sections 16 and 22 below
apply.
The following notes relate to the individual sections of the Ramsar Information Sheet
1.
Date: The date on which the Information Sheet was completed (or updated).
2.
Country: the name of the country.
3.
Name of wetland: The name of the designated site in one of the three official languages
(English, French or Spanish) of the Convention (alternative names should be given in brackets).
4.
Geographical coordinates: The geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude) of the
approximate centre of the wetland, expressed in degrees and minutes. If the site consists of
two or more discrete units, the coordinates of the centres of each of these units should be
given.
5.
Altitude: The average and/or minimum and maximum elevation of the wetland in metres above
mean sea level.
6.
Area: The area of the designated site, in hectares.
7.
Overview: A brief summary of the wetland (limited to not more than three sentences), mentioning
principal physical and ecological features, and most significant values and benefits provided.
8.
Wetland Type: Please first specify the position of the Ramsar site as a Marine or coastal
wetland and/or an Inland wetland. Also note if the site includes or is a Man-made wetland.
Circle the codes representing all of the wetland habitat types, which are present within the site.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 5
page 4
Refer to the Ramsar Classification of "Wetland Type" in Annex I. Then list the selected wetland
types from the most to the least dominant. It is recognised that this may be difficult for large
sites with a variety of habitats, but a general indication of dominance is important for properly
managing information on the site.
9.
Reasons for inclusion: Circle the Ramsar criteria for identifying wetlands of international
importance, as adopted by the Conference of the Parties, which are applicable to the site.
Refer to Annex II for the list of Ramsar criteria and associated guidelines for their use. Note the
criterion, which most significantly characterizes the site's international importance. (See also
point 12 below).
10.
Outline map of site: The most detailed and up-to-date map of the wetland available should be
appended to the Information Sheet. Indicate whether or not a map accompanies the Information
Sheet by ticking the appropriate yes or no box.
The "ideal" Ramsar site map will clearly show the area boundaries of the Ramsar site. Scale,
latitude, longitude and compass bearing, administrative boundaries (e.g., province, district, etc.),
and display basic topographical information, the distribution of the main wetland habitat types
and notable hydrological features. It will also show major landmarks (towns, roads, etc.).
Indications of land use activities are especially useful.
Experience has shown that even moderately-opaque hand-drawn site boundaries or cross-
hatching (to indicate zonation) often obscure other map features. While coloured annotations
may appear distinguishable from the underlying map features on the map on which they were
applied, it is important to remember that most colours cannot be differentiated in black & white
photocopies. These potential drawbacks to otherwise useful annotations should be avoided.
The optimum scale for a map depends on the actual area of the site depicted. Generally the
map should have a 1:25,000 or 1:50,000 scale for areas up to 10,000 ha; 1:100,000 scale for
larger areas up to 100,000 ha; 1:250,000 for areas exceeding 100,000 ha. In simplest terms,
the site should be depicted in some detail. For moderate to larger sites, it is often difficult to
show detail on an A4 or 8.5" x 11" sheet at the desired scale, so generally a sheet larger than
this is more appropriate. While an original map is not absolutely necessary, a very clear image
is highly desirable. A map exhibiting the above attributes will be easier to scan for
computerization, should this aspiration prove feasible.
11.
Name and address of compiler: The full name, address and institution/agency of the person who
compiled the Information Sheet, together with any telephone, fax, telex and e-mail numbers.
12.
Justification of criteria: Criteria codes (point 9 above) alone do not convey information on the
precise way in, which the criteria apply to a given site. It is therefore imperative that detailed
written text in support of the circled Ramsar criteria be supplied, in addition to the criteria
codes.
13.
General Location: A description of the general location of the wetland. This should include the
site's distance (in a straight line) and compass bearing from the nearest "provincial", "district" or
other significant administrative centre, town or city. The population of the listed centre and its
administrative region should also be stated.
14.
Physical features: A short description of the principal physical characteristics of the site,
covering the following points where relevant:
· geology and geomorphology
· origins (natural or artificial)
· hydrology (including seasonal water balance, inflow and outflow)
· soil type and chemistry
· water quality (physico-chemical characteristics)
· depth, fluctuations and permanence of water
· tidal variations
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 5
page 5
· catchment area
· downstream area (especially in the case of wetlands that are important in flood control)
· climate (only the most significant climatic features, e.g., annual rainfall and average
temperature range, distinct seasons, and any other major factors affecting the wetland).
15.
Hydrological values: A description of the principal hydrological values of the wetland, e.g., its
role in the recharge and discharge of groundwater, flood control, sediment trapping, prevention of
coastal erosion, and maintenance of water quality.
16.
Ecological features: A description of the main habitats and vegetation types, listing the
dominant plant communities and species, and describing any zonation, seasonal variations and
long-term changes. Mention plant species that have been introduced (accidentally or on
purpose) and species which are invasive. Include a brief note on the native natural plant
communities in adjacent areas, as well as the present plant communities (including cultivation)
if different from the native vegetation. Information on food chains should be included in this
section.
17.
Noteworthy flora: Information on any plant species or communities for which the wetland is
particularly important (e.g., endemic species, threatened species or particularly good examples
of native plant communities). Be sure to specify why each species listed is noteworthy.
18.
Noteworthy fauna: A general account of the noteworthy fauna of the wetland, with details of
population sizes whenever possible. Particular emphasis should be given to endemic and
threatened species, economically important species and species occurring in internationally
significant numbers. Be sure to specify why each species listed is noteworthy. Lists of
species and/or census data should not be quoted in full as part of the Information Sheet, but
should be appended to this form when available.
19.
Social and cultural values: An account (more detail can be given in sections 25-27 below) of the
principal social values (e.g., tourism, outdoor recreation, education and scientific research,
agricultural production, grazing, water supply, fisheries production) and cultural values (e.g.,
historical associations and religious significance). Whenever possible, indicate which of these
values are consistent with the maintenance of natural wetland processes and ecological
character, and which values are derived from non-sustainable exploitation or which result in
detrimental ecological changes.
20.
Land tenure/ownership: Details of ownership of the wetland and ownership of surrounding areas
(e.g., state, provincial, private, etc.). Explain terms, which have a special meaning in the
country or region concerned.
21.
Current land used: Principal human activities in (s) the Ramsar site itself and (b) in the
surroundings and catchment. Give information on the human population in the area, with a
description o the principal human activities and main forms of land use at the wetland, e.g.,
water supply for domestic and industrial use, irrigation, agriculture, livestock grazing, forestry,
fishing, aquaculture and hunting. Some indication of the relative importance of each form of land
use should be given whenever possible. In section (b) summarize land use in the catchment,
which might have a direct bearing on the wetland, and land use in any downstream areas likely
to be affected by the wetland.
22.
Adverse factors affecting the ecological character of the site: This could include changes in
activities, land uses and major development projects at the site or in the catchment or
elsewhere which have had, are having, or may have a detrimental effect on the natural ecological
character of the wetland (e.g., diversion of water supplies, siltation, drainage, reclamation,
pollution, over-grazing, excessive human disturbance, and excessive hunting and fishing).
When reporting on pollution, special notice should be taken of toxic chemical pollutants and
their sources. These should include industrial and agricultural-based chemical effluents and
other emissions. Natural events including vegetative succession which have had, are having or
are likely to have an impact on the ecological character of the site should be detailed, so as to
facilitate monitoring. Please distinguish between potential and existing adverse factors and
where possible, between adverse factors occurring in the site and those exter5nal to, but
(possibly) affecting, the site. List introduced exotic species and give information on why and
how they were introduced. In all cases, where such data exist, supply measurable/quantifiable
information to enable more precise monitoring of ecological character.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 5
page 6
23.
Conservation measures taken: Details of any protected areas established at or around the
wetland, and any other conservation measures taken at the site, such as restrictions on
development, management practices beneficial to wildlife, closures of hunting, etc. Include
information on any monitoring and survey methods and regimens in place at the site. Describe
any application of the Ramsar wise use guidelines (Recommendation 4.2) and additional
guidance on wise use (Resolution 5.6) at the site. If a reserve has been established, please
give the date of establishment and size of the protected area. State whether a management
plan exists, if it is officially approved and whether it has been implemented. (The Conference of
the Parties has called for the development of management plans for all Ramsar sites). Any
application of "catchment" integrated site management principles, or in a coastal site, of
integrated coastal zone management, should be noted. If only a part of the wetland is included
within a protected area, the area of wetland habitat, which is protected, should be noted. An
assessment of the enforcement of legislation and effectiveness of any protected areas should be
given whenever possible. Involvement of local communities and indigenous people in the
management of the site should also be described. Details of inclusion on the Montreux Record
and/or visits under the Ramsar Management Guidance Procedure should be described.
24.
Conservation measures proposed but not yet implemented: Details of any conservation
measures, which have been proposed for the site, including any proposals for legislation,
protection and management. Summarize the history of any long-standing proposals which have
not yet been implemented, and make a clear distinction between those proposals which have
already been officially submitted to the appropriate government authorities, and those proposals
which have not as yet received official government endorsement, e.g., recommendations in
published reports and resolutions from specialist meetings. Also mention any management
plan, which exists (or is in preparation) but has not yet been implemented.
25.
Current scientific research and facilities: Details of any current scientific research and
information on any special facilities for research.
26
Current conservation education: Details of any existing programmes and facilities for
conservation education and training and comments on the educational potential of the wetland.
27.
Current recreation and tourism: Details of the present use of the wetland for recreation and
tourism, with details of existing or planned facilities. Please state t6he annual number of
tourists. Indicate if tourism is seasonal, and of what type.
28.
Jurisdiction: The name of the government authority with a) territorial jurisdiction over the wetland,
e.g., state, region or municipality, etc., and the name of the authority with b) functional
jurisdiction for conservation purposes, e.g., Department of Environment, Department of
Fisheries, etc.
29.
Management authority: The name and address of the body responsible for the direct local
conservation and management of the wetland.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 5
page 7
30.
References: A list of key references relevant to the wetland, including management plans,
major scientific reports and bibliographies. When a large body of published material is available
on the site, only the most important references need be cited, with priority being given to recent
literature containing extensive bibliographies. Reprints or copies of the most important literature
should be appended whenever possible.
__________________________________________
Appendix 8
Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Type
The Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Type as adopted by Recommendation 4.7 and amended
by Resolution VI.5 of the Conference of the Contracting Parties. The categories listed herein are
intended to provide only a very broad framework to aid rapid identification of the main wetland habitats
represented at each sit. The codes before each type are intended for use with the Information Sheet for
Ramsar Wetlands.
Marine and Coastal Wetlands
A -- Permanent shallow marine waters less than six metres deep at low tide; includes sea bays
and straits.
B -- Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes kelp beds, seagrass beds, tropical marine meadows.
C -- Coral reefs.
D -- Rocky marine shores; includes rocky offshore islands, sea cliffs.
E -- Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and sandy islets; includes dune
systems.
F -- Estuarine waters; permanent water of estuaries and estuarine systems of deltas.
G -- Intertidal mud, sand or slat flats.
H -- Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings, raised salt marshes;
includes tidal brackish and freshwater marshes.
I -- Intertidal forested wetlands; includes mangrove swamps, nipah swamps and tidal freshwater
swamp forests.
J -- Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least one relatively narrow
connection to the sea.
K -- Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons.
Inland Wetlands
L -- Permanent inland deltas.
M -- Permanent rivers/streams/creeks; includes waterfalls.
N -- Seasonal/intermittent/irregular rivers/streams/creeks.
O -- Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes large oxbow lakes.
P -- Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes.
Q -- Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes.
R -- Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes and flats.
Sp -- Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools.
Ss -- Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 5
page 8
Tp -- Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps on
inorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season.
Ts -- Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soil; includes sloughs,
potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes.
U -- Non-forested peatlands; includes shrub or open bogs, swamps, fens.
Va -- Alpine wetlands; includes alpine meadows, temporary waters from snowmelt.
Vt -- Tundra wetlands; includes tundra pools, temporary waters from snowmelt.
W -- Shrub-dominated wetlands; Shrub swamps, shrub-dominated freshwater marsh, shrub carr,
alder thicket; on inorganic soils.
Xf -- Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands; includes freshwater swamp forest, seasonally flooded
forest, wooded swamps; on inorganic soils.
Xp -- Forested peatlands; peatswamp forest.
Y -- Freshwater springs; oases.
Zg -- Geothermal wetlands.
Zk -- Subterranean karst and cave hydrological systems.
Note: "floodplain" is a broad term used to refer to one or more wetland types, which may include examples
from the R, Ss, Ts, W, Xf, Xp, or other wetland types. Some examples of floodplain wetlands are
seasonally inundated grassland (including natural wet meadows), shrublands, woodlands and forest.
Floodplain wetlands are not listed as a specific wetland type herein.
"Man-made" wetlands
1 -- Aquaculture (e.g., fish/shrimp) ponds.
2 -- Ponds; includes farm ponds, stock ponds, small tanks; (generally below 8 ha).
3 -- Irrigated land; includes irrigation channels and rice fields.
4 -- Seasonally flooded agricultural land.*
5 -- Salt exploitation sites; salt pans, salines, etc.
6 -- Water storage areas; reservoirs/barrages/dams/impoundments; (generally over 8 ha).
7 -- Excavations; gravel/brick/clay pits; borrow pits, mining pools.
8 Wastewater treatment areas; sewage farms, settling ponds, oxidation basins, etc.
9 -- Canals and drainage channels, ditches.
*To include intensively managed or grazed wet meadow or pasture.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 6
page 1
ANNEX 6
Flow chart of Actions for the Wetland Sub-component of the UNEP GEF South China Sea Project
National
Committees
Identify & Characterise
"sites"
Review National Data &
Information
Review site specific
Assemble Regional
characteristics
set of site-specific
Assembly of national
data
database
Cluster nationally by
wetland type
Geographic distribution
Cluster regionally on basis
of species &/or
of similarity indices
Determine national
formations at habitat
priority rank within
level
class
Determine transboundary regional
Environmental state
and global significance
Define site-specific
Social, Use &
management regime
ownership data
Threats, present &
Select priority sites for
future
management intervention
National Management &
Inst'l & legal
frameworks
National Wetland Action Plan
Assess Economic
Synthesis of the
Review National
value
information
criteria
Improved Strategic Action
Provide inputs to regional meta-database;
Programme Targets, cost estimates
Regional GIS system; economic valuation
timeframes and targets
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 7
page 1
ANNEX 7
Criteria, Indicators, Data and Information Requirements for National Reviews
General Information:
Wetland: name
Location: lat. Long.
Size:
Criteria
Indicators
Data & Information needed
Remarks
1. Biological diversity
Species diversity
No. of species of plants and animals in the
See Ramsar Annexes
wetland area; No. of individuals per unit area
Genetic diversity
Ecosystem diversity
No. of wetland types and diversity of
adjacent habitat/ecosystem
2. Transboundary significance
Spawning ground
Species, number of species
Feeding ground/Roosting ground
Species, number of species
Migratory pathway
Species
Transboundary human activities (tourism,
fishing)
Number of visitors, type of activities
International trade of goods
Product/s, volume/value of export,
destination
3. Significance (Regional and/or Endemism
Species, number of species
global)
Endangered and threatened species
Species, number of species
Indigenous species
Species, number of species
Rare species
Species, number of species
4. Extent of threats
Intrinsic/internal sources of change
Types/Number of factors
(measurement/quantification)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 7
page 2
External sources of change
Types/number of factors
Historical review (where possible)
Over 10 years
Rate of change
In 5 to 10 years
Area/unit time
Socio-economic drivers of change in
Population growth, migration, development
environmental state
5. Scale
Availability of information (for criteria 1-4)
e.g., 10 has., 100 has; 10 spp. of
migratory birds in 10 has.;
Manageability of site
size
should be sufficiently large to be
manageable, whilst at the same
time maintaining ecosystem
integrity
Accessibility of sites
YES/NO
Provide details
6. National significance /priority Existing national plans
Yes/No
Provide details; what, when, who,
government support
how
Long-term/medium/short-term
Yes/No
Provide details
General or specific plans Level of plan:
Yes/No; identify
Provide details
village; district; province; national
Commitment with international
Yes/No
Provide details
agreements/ issues
Existing investments
YES/NO
Real activities on site
Yes/No
Trend of investment
Yes/No
Existing status of legislations
Provide information
e.g., proposed, tabled, passed
Conservation status
Protected/Unprotected
Existing support to institutional
Yes/No
management
Level and quality of site management
Low, medium, high
Assess application of wise-use
management
Long-term sustainability including
Yes/No
Provide details; how revenue is
prospects for revenue generation
generated; how much revenue/time
Potential aspects that can be developed Yes/No; identify potential aspects
wisely in the site
Variety and level of activities
Identify activities; high, medium, low
Provide details
Estimated revenue for the activities
Income
Level of local revenue generation
High, medium, low over a period of time
Provide details
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 7
page 3
(e.g., 5 years)
Level of direct stakeholder involvement
High, medium, low
Provide details and examples
in management
Long term environmental perspective
Yes/No
Provide details
Existing international recognition of
YES/NO
Provide details (e.g., Ramsar site;
importance of the site
WHA listed)
7. Financial considerations
Level of stakeholder support
High, medium, low
Provide details
Cost-benefit ratio of investment versus
ratio
Provide figures
non-investment
Potential for external investment
Yes/No
Provide details
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 8
page 1
ANNEX 8
Schedule of Meetings and Workplan for 2002
Table 1 Schedule of Meetings for 2002
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 T
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
January
N.Y.
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
February
ChnN.Y.
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
March
RSTC-1
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
April
RWG-LbP-
Thai N.Y.
RWG-W-1
RWG-M-1
1
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
May
RWG-S-1 RWG-Cr-1
RWG-F-1
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
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 31
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
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
September
RWG-W-2
RWG-M-2
RWG-LbP-2
GEF-IW
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
GEF Assembly
October
RWG-F-2
RWG-Cr-2
RWG-S-2
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
November
Ramadan
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
December
Ramadan
RSTC-2
PSC-2
Xmas
Official United Nations Holidays in Thailand
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
Annex 8
page 2
Table 2 Workplan and Timetable for completion of agreed activities in the Wetlands Sub-component: 2002
2002
2003
April
May
June
July
August Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
National Committee meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NTWG Meetings
X
X
Review National Reports
Review Regional database and respond
Task 1 National Baseline
Review of past & ongoing projects
1st
Final
draft
draft
Review National Data & Information
Creation of National database
Identification & characterisation of "sites"
1st
Final
draft
draft
Review National Criteria
Review economic valuation data & information
Task 2 National Management
Review threats at site level
Review National legislation
1st
Final
draft
draft
Review National level management regimes
Identify proximate to ultimate cause by source
National Prioritisation
Identify priority points of intervention
Evaluate barriers to action & possible solutions
Preparation/revision of National Action Plan
Task 3 Regional Co-ordination
Regional Criteria development
Second meeting RWG-W
X
Development of Regional Priorities
Finalisation of elements of the SAP