United Nations
UNEP/GEF South China Sea
Global Environment
Environment Programme
Project
Facility
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
REPORT
Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Coral Reefs Sub-component
Guangzhou, China, 27th 30th November 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, November 2003
First published in Thailand in 2004 by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Copyright © 2004, United Nations Environment Programme
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication
as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose without prior
permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP/GEF
Project Co-ordinating Unit,
United Nations Environment Programme,
UN Building, 9th Floor Block A, Rajdamnern Avenue,
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel.
+66 2 288 1886
Fax.
+66 2 288 1094; 281 2428
http://www.unepscs.org
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the GEF. The
designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNEP, of the GEF, or of any cooperating organisation concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the delineation of its territories or boundaries.
Cover Photo: Abandoned net overgrown with other organisms, by Badrul Huzaimi.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2004. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3.
Table of Contents
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING........................................................................................................1
2. ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING ............................................................................................1
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA.....................................................................................2
4. REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE ...................................................................................................................2
4.1 STATUS OF MID-YEAR PROGRESS REPORTS, EXPENDITURE REPORTS, AND BUDGETS ..................2
4.2 STATUS OF PLANNED SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUTS FROM THE NATIONAL LEVEL ACTIVITIES ..................3
4.3 STATUS OF PLANNED SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL LEVEL ..................................5
5. REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS ........................................................................6
5.1 SITE CHARACTERISATION; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
RANKING; AND AVAILABLE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION .......................................................... 6
5.2 CRITICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSALS FOR DEMONSTRATION SITES...................................................8
5.3 POSSIBILITIES FOR EXTENSION OF THE NETWORK OF DEMONSTRATION SITES THROUGH
COLLABORATION WITH ICRAN SITES AND THE GEF PROJECT "BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
IN THE COASTAL AREA OF CHINA'S SOUTH SEA....................................................................... 11
6. REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON CORAL REEFS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO JUNE 2004 ....12
7. DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON CORAL REEFS ......................................................................................................................13
8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS..............................................................................................................13
8.1 REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE ......................................................................................13
9. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING .....................................................................13
10. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING.....................................................................................................13
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Outline of "Coral Reefs in the South China Sea"
ANNEX 5
Final Cluster Analysis of Potential Coral Reef Demonstration Sites
ANNEX
6
Final Ranking of Potential Coral Reef Demonstration Sites Based on
Environmental and Socio-Economic Indicators
ANNEX 7
Suggested Model for Preparation of Section 13 and Section 15 of the
Demonstration Site Proposals
ANNEX 8
Revised Work Plan for the Regional Working Group for Coral Reefs
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta welcomed participants on behalf of Dr. Klaus Töpfer,
the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Dr. Ahmed
Djoghlaf, Assistant Executive Director, and Director, Division of Global Environment Facility
Co-ordination (UNEP/DGEF).
1.2
Dr. Pernetta, noted that the project had reached a critical watershed in its development and
that this meeting had before it a number of items regarding the finalisation of anticipated outputs from
the preparatory phase. These activities must be completed before proceeding to the operational
phase of the project during which demonstration activities would be initiated. He noted further that
funds had already been approved by the GEF for the demonstration sites as a single allocation
without the sites having been identified in advance. Since this was an unusual procedure it was vital
that the process of site selection be fully transparent and that the data and information used as the
basis for decisions be scientifically credible and that the criteria used meet the GEF requirements.
1.3
Dr. Pernetta reminded participants that the existing Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs)
were due to expire on December 31st 2003 and that to ensure continuity of action it was necessary to
extend these until June 2004 to take account of initial delays in fund transfer and start-up of activities
at the national level. In this connection he noted that MoUs for the second phase of the project would
be different for each Specialised Executing Agency (SEA) reflecting the nature of individual
demonstration sites and the varying responsibilities of individual SEAs in their execution. It was
imperative that any amendments to the existing MoUs be drafted and finalised before members left
Guangzhou if the project was to transit smoothly from the preparatory to the operational phase. To
assist the Focal Points Ms. Nita Tangsujaritvichit was present in the meeting and would work with
each Focal Point on the necessary revisions to the budget to conform with the revised work plan.
1.4
Dr. Pernetta indicated that a further item requiring substantive discussion and input was the
finalisation of the demonstration site proposals themselves and indicated that Mr. Boon Tiong Tay
would join the meeting to assist focal points in finalisation of the financial sections of the
demonstration site proposals.
1.5
In conclusion Dr. Pernetta noted further that an important element of the next phase of the
project was the further elaboration of the Strategic Action Programme, a regional document that had
been endorsed by the participating governments. Consequently the meeting had a substantial volume
of work before it, and he wished participants a successful, productive, and enjoyable four days.
1.6
The Chairperson of the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs (RWG-CR), Mr. Abdul Khalil
bin Abdul Karim, opened the formal session of the meeting and welcomed members and observers to
the meeting. The list of participants is contained in Annex 1 of this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
The Chairperson of the RWG-CR, invited Mr. Yihang Jiang to introduce the documentation
available to the meeting in both hard copy and on CD-ROM. Mr. Jiang briefly introduced each of the
documents indicating in general terms the expected outcome of their consideration. The list of
documents is attached as Annex 2 of this report.
2.2
Mr. Jiang briefed participants on the administrative arrangements for the conduct of the
meeting, and the proposed organisation of work (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.3/Inf.3). He noted that
formal sessions of the meeting would be conducted in English and in plenary although it was
envisaged that, a breakout session would need to be scheduled in order to allow the focal points to
finalise the amendments to their existing MoUs with Ms. Nita Tangsujaritvichit.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 2
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson introduced the provisional agenda prepared by the Project Co-ordinating
Unit (PCU) as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.3/1, and invited members to propose any
amendments or additional items for consideration.
3.2
The Project Director proposed an additional agenda item for consideration under any other
business. He suggested that the PCU brief members on the draft programme for the Regional
Scientific Conference and that members provide inputs and suggestions regarding the programme
and planning arrangements. The RWG-CR agreed to consider this matter under agenda Item 8, Any
other Business.
3.3
With the addition of this item the regional working group adopted the agenda as contained in
Annex 3 of this report.
4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of mid-year progress reports, expenditure reports, and budgets
4.1.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Jiang to introduce this agenda item and document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/4, "Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing
Agencies in the participating countries". Mr. Jiang noted that this document presents a summary of
the current status of budgets and administrative reports, including audit reports, received by the PCU
from the SEAs in the participating countries.
4.1.2 Mr. Jiang highlighted the difficulties of the PCU in respect of the implementation of the
individual MoUs due to delays in receipt of administrative reports. He noted that under-expenditure
and carry-forward of unspent monies from the cash advances constituted a problem. Members are
requested to note that under-expenditures cannot be carried beyond the 31st December 2003 without
extension of the existing MoUs. Such an extension can only be justified in terms of initial start-up
delays including inter alia delays in receipt of the first tranche of funds in 2002, and subsequent
documented delays at the national level. Any such extension must be signed before the expiry of the
current MoU.
4.1.3
Mr. Khalil noted that new rules issued by the Malaysian Ministry of Finance precluded his
engagement of certain sub-contractors, which had caused delays. Vietnam noted that some
difficulties of an administrative and procedural nature had prevented smooth flow of funds and that a
request had been made to audit the two years 2002 and 2003 together. Professor Ridzwan Abdul
Rahman, noted that some difficulties in Malaysia could potentially be overcome through transfer of
funds via a third party such as a University, which had greater flexibility.
4.1.4 It was agreed that administrative difficulties encountered during this preparatory phase
should be taken into consideration when drafting the new Memoranda that would become operational
on 1st July 2004.
4.1.5 Professor Porfirio Alino noted that administrative problems interfered with the smooth
delivery of outputs and that he foresaw potential difficulties could arise in instances where the present
institutions involved in preparatory activities simply handed over responsibility for implementing
demonstration sites to another entity without retaining some active involvement.
4.1.6
In response Dr. Pernetta noted that the intention had always been that the focal points for the
preparatory phase would remain the focal points for the second phase but that they might not take a
direct role in execution of the demonstration site activities, rather they would have a supervisory or
directorial responsibility.
4.1.7 Following brief interventions from all members it was agreed that all MoUs would be
extended to June 30th 2004 and that each focal point would produce a specific work plan following
completion of discussion of agenda item 4. Subsequently these would be considered as the basis for
formulating the budget revision and completing a revision to the MoU prior to closure of the meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 3
The meeting agreed that, this was necessary to permit finalisation and publication of the substantive
reports and continuation of national committee and sub-committee activities whilst the second
memoranda to March 2007 were negotiated and signed.
4.2
Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities
4.2.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Jiang to introduce this agenda item and document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/5, "Current status of substantive reports on coral reefs from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating Countries" that, contains a summary of the
current status of the substantive reports received to date, by the PCU.
4.2.2
Documentation received by the Secretariat from the Focal Points up to the end of September,
2003 had been circulated by e-mail and electronic copies of all reports and documents received from the
national level were provided to the meeting on CD-ROM, together with hard copies of the demonstration
site proposals for reference of each member during discussion under agenda item 5. Mr. Jiang noted
that, not all reports had been received in draft, hence the process of external independent review had
been delayed. Draft reviews from one regional expert, together with the review of the PCU had been
consolidated in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/6.
4.2.3
During discussion it was noted that major outputs anticipated during the preparatory phase
included a review of the national data and information; a review of national legislation and
management infrastructure; a review of past and ongoing projects; and, a national action plan. During
discussion numerous issues were raised regarding the nature of the publications, which should be
produced; the language of the outputs; the audience and the modes of publication.
4.2.4
Opinion was divided regarding whether the national outputs should be published nationally or
whether they should be aggregated by topic and published as regional syntheses; or both. It was also
noted that different countries had different expectations and needs regarding publication of the
preparatory phase outputs. There was an overall consensus however that national outputs were
needed, in the national language in some instances, but that there was an equal need for regional
products that presented a regional as opposed to a purely national perspective.
4.2.5
The meeting agreed that a national substantive report on the status of coral reefs should be
produced by all countries but different views were expressed regarding the manner in which the
outputs should be aggregated.
4.2.6
Dr. Pernetta noted that the mangrove working group had decided that rather than publishing
the reviews of past and ongoing projects as separate documents these would be incorporated into the
country reports on the status of mangroves. He reminded the meeting that one purpose of this output
had been to assemble the background information regarding current investments in order to avoid
duplication when selecting the demonstration sites.
4.2.7
Regarding the reviews of national legislation and management infrastructure the working
group noted that these had been reviewed by the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters (RTF-L) and
that a primary task for this task force was to provide access to existing legislation and advice
regarding best practices based on experience in each of the participating countries. It was noted that
the list of expected "contents" produced by the RTF-L was exactly that, a list of expected contents and
not, a required format that needed to be replicated in each report. A number of focal points noted that
they had already edited and revised their reports in the light of comments from the RTF-L and their
own national members.
4.2.8
It was noted that if any, or all, of the reports were to be combined into a single regional
publication then this would have to wait until the last country contribution had been completed.
Discussion included consideration of alternative modes of publication including via the web and
internet.
4.2.9
The discussion resulted in a consensus view of the need for both national and regional level
outputs reflecting the regional nature of the project and the national inputs. The production of the
regional outputs would require substantial work and it was generally agreed that these would
necessitate hiring assistants to work with the national reports in producing a regional syntheses.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 4
4.2.10 The view was expressed that the review of past and ongoing projects could be satisfactorily
published via a web-based database. This had the added advantage that the outputs from the project
components could be compiled as a complete, single, output and also that if the database was
interactive then new projects could be added as they came on stream. The database should be
searchable either geographically or by topic/discipline.
4.2.11 It was noted that numerous alternatives had been raised and discussed and therefore it was
agreed that each country would indicate their own intentions with respect to national level publication
and dissemination following which the regional level outputs would be considered. These views are
summarised in the following table, which indicates the manner in which the reviews are to be
combined for publication at the national level.
No.
Output Title
Cambodia Indonesia Malaysia Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Regional
Regional
Review of Data &
Separate
publication and
Separate + Separate +
Separate + Separate + Separate +
1
Information
+ 2,3, 4,
distribution of
2, 4, 5
4, 5
5
2, 3, 4, 5
2, 4, 5
[Status/country report]
5
national reports
Regional synthesis
Regional web-
Past & Ongoing
2
add to 1
add to 6
add to 1
add to 6
add to 1
add to 1
based Database
Activities
Interactive
Regional overview
3
National Legislation
Separate
Separate add to 1
add to 6
add to 1
add to 6
and best practice
database
RTF-E reg.
4
Economic Valuation
add to 1
add to 1
add to 1
add to 6
add to 1
add to 1
valuation
add to 1
Separate
Regional GIS
5
Site Characterisation
add to 1
add to 1
add to 1
1
add to 1
GIS
database
database
Strategic Action
6
National Action Plan
Separate
Separate Separate Separate Separate Separate+3 Programme
4.2.12 The language of publication at the national level would be at the discretion of focal points but
all national level reports would be published in English by the country concerned for distribution in the
region. In cases where the reports are published in English the PCU could decide not to undertake a
separate publication but pay for additional copies that would be subsequently dispatched to the PCU
for regional distribution.
4.2.13 During the subsequent discussion it was noted that the Strategic Action Plan would address
only the South China Sea and that for those countries with coastlines bordering other seas or oceans
(Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines) the national action plan would cover a broader
geographic area. Dr. Pernetta briefly outlined the distinctions between a SAP and a traditional action
plan. The SAP consists of targeted and budgeted actions, defines who is responsible for which action
and target dates for completion of the actions. In addition it contains an economic analysis of the
costs of action and non-action. The national action plans are similarly constructed since achieving the
goals and targets of the regional Strategic Action Plan will require collective actions at the national
level.
4.2.14 Mr. Kim Sour raised the issue of how the National Action Plan should be prepared in those
countries with no prior experience, and whether or not guidelines for their preparation existed. In
response Dr. Pernetta suggested that existing national plans such as the national environment action
plan and national biodiversity action plan be analysed to see what references they might contain to
coral reefs. Then on the basis of the national committee's identification of the needs for action the
plan could be drafted to build upon the elements contained in existing national plans. Mr. Sour stated
that in his view Cambodia would require external advice and assistance and it was suggested that the
members of the Regional Working Group and other regional experts could be invited to contribute and
assist and that either national funds could be used or the costs could be borne by the project's
regional co-ordination budget.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 5
4.2.15 Dr. Alino noted that a strategy for the seas of East Asia, was to be adopted during the up-
coming PEMSEA organised meeting to be held in Kuala Lumpur and that elements of this could also
be used for guidance in drafting national action plans. During the subsequent discussion it was noted
that the East Asian Seas document was more of a policy level statement rather than an operational
document detailing the actions to be taken and that its geographic scope was extremely broad.
National coral reef action plans needed to be consistent with this broader regional strategy but
needed to be much more "operational" in their approach and content.
4.2.16 Concerning the finalisation of the National Action Plans it was noted that drafts were
expected to be produced prior to the completion of the preparatory phase but that the finalisation of
these would be a lengthy process involving iteration between the national and regional level to ensure
compatibility of the objectives and targets and to ensure high level political support and acceptance of
the document. Dr. Pernetta noted that one needed to consider what can be delivered by June 2004 in
the first instance and then the longer-term work plan would indicate when the action plan is to be
endorsed by the governments.
4.2.17 During subsequent discussion it was proposed that Cambodia build into its short term work
plan a working meeting involving experts from the Regional Working Group to prepare an initial draft.
4.2.18 Participants
agreed
that
following the completion of agenda item 4 individual focal points
would draft specific work plans detailing the timetable for the production of the national level outputs.
These would then constitute the first element of the amendment to the Memoranda of Understanding,
and the basis for creating the overall work plan for the regional working group as a whole.
4.3
Status of planned substantive outputs from the regional level
4.3.1
In introducing this agenda item the Chairperson noted that this was a proposal regarding the
production of a regional overview on Coral Reefs as a background document for the Regional Scientific
Conference. He invited Mr. Jiang to introduce the document.
4.3.2
Mr. Jiang introduced the draft outline, contents, and format for the proposed document and
invited the meeting to discuss the general format and contents. He noted that individuals needed to be
identified who would be willing to contribute specific sections of the document. He stated that members
should note that the overview must be printed in time for the Regional Scientific Conference in February
2004 and this would necessitate finalisation of the document by December 15th.
4.3.3
The outline was then considered section-by-section, and agreed as it appears in Annex 4 of
this report. Following a discussion of possible authors for the foreword and agreeing that, this should be
written by a prominent coral reef specialist with international standing, who was from the region
Professors Ridzwan and Chou were proposed as co-authors of the foreword. In accepting this
responsibility they also offered to write section 2, jointly.
4.3.4
It was agreed that each member would write national inputs to each section and that individual
members would take responsibility for co-ordinating inputs to specific sections. It was agreed that
Dr. Alino and Dr. Yeemin would consolidate inputs to section 3 Coral reef distribution & biodiversity;
Dr. Suharsono and Mr. Sour, inputs to section 4 State of coral reefs & present threats; Dr. Vo Si Tuan
and Mr. Khalil inputs to section 5, Use and value. The PCU would take responsibility for the remaining
sections, basing the text upon the outputs from the present meeting.
4.3.5
Following these agreements members agreed that they would write their individual inputs to
each section overnight and pass them to the individual's responsible for each section. These individuals
would then consolidate text for inputting by the Secretariat such that drafts of the text would be made
available prior to the end of the meeting. At this time recommendations would be put forward by the
responsible individuals concerning tables, diagrams, and photographs to be included in each section.
Once the nature of these had been decided the RWG-CR would identify suitable sources.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 6
5.
REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS
5.1
Site characterisation; cluster analysis; environmental and socio-economic ranking; and
available supporting documentation
5.1.1 The Chairperson introduced this agenda item by reminding members that, the clustering and
ranking of sites is based on agreed environmental criteria developed during the third meeting of the
Regional Working Group. He advised members that during the third meeting of the Regional Scientific
and Technical Committee (RSTC), the preliminary results of the cluster analysis and ranking of the
proposed coral reef sites had been discussed, and that the RSTC had decided to remove the
parameter of "number of mammal species" from the data used to cluster sites.
5.1.2 In addition the RSTC had recommended the removal of one parameter from each of the highly
correlated pairs resulting in 8 parameters being used in the final cluster analysis.
5.1.3 The Senior Expert, Mr. Jiang advised the members that, some numbers used in the ranking
process were not supported by detailed lists of species, or references to original sources. Hence the
numbers used in the ranking are open to question. He noted that the meeting would need to validate
the numbers, add any new data and re-run the cluster analysis, following which they would need to
examine and agree on the revised rank scores, before finalising the ranking of the potential
demonstration sites.
5.1.4 The meeting discussed the revised listing of parameters used in the most recent cluster
analysis and agreed to accept the recommendations of the RSTC. During the discussion of the raw
data used in the cluster analysis it became apparent that not all members had provided species lists
or references in support of the numbers claimed at certain sites. Following a review of those data that
had been received, members noted that for those sites lacking species lists at the present time, such
lists were available and would be dispatched to the PCU immediately upon the return of members
following closure of the meeting.
5.1.5 The data were then reviewed and a number of amendments and revisions proposed by
various members. The situation with regard to Cambodia was discussed at length and it was noted
that the numbers quoted for each site were not all based on site-specific observations but had been
derived from a listing of all species recorded from Cambodian coral reefs. It was noted that inclusion
of such data biased the cluster analysis since it effectively weighted these sites in the analysis.
Following discussion it was agreed to remove two of the Cambodian sites, for which most data were
derived from the national list rather than site-specific lists.
5.1.6 Dr. Alino indicated that during local level discussions, potential management at one site,
El Nido, had withdrawn in favour of a neighbouring district Calamianes. Hence he had prepared a
demonstration site proposal for the Calamianes Islands whilst the site data in the cluster analysis
were for El Nido. There followed a discussion on whether or not this was acceptable given that the
RSTC had advised that no new sites should be added to the analysis initiated during the third meeting
of the Regional Working Groups. Following a detailed consideration of this issue the working group
agreed that Calamianes should not be included in the cluster analysis, nor considered as a potential
demonstration site at this stage.
5.1.7 Mr. Khalil, noted that following extensive field surveys sufficient data were now available for
one of the Malaysian sites originally excluded from the cluster analysis through lack of data. He
provided the data and the proposed Tun Mustapha Park (originally listed as Banggi) was added to the
current list for clustering.
5.1.8 It was noted that the listing of endangered and threatened species should be based on the
IUCN listings and definitions and not on national lists. Data based on national lists were removed from
the table. An extensive discussion ensued regarding whether or not marine mammals should be
included in the listing of endangered and threatened species at each site and it was agreed that these
should be removed such that, the lists of endangered and threatened species would be based upon
turtles, fish and marine invertebrates only. The data were revised to conform to, this agreement, and
the final table of data is included in Annex 5 of this report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 7
5.1.9 In reviewing the data relating to crustaceans and echinoderms the very high numbers from the
Thai sites were noted and it was further noted that these reflected intensive work by Thai specialists.
It was clear therefore that the Thai data were not directly comparable to those from the other sites
since such detailed listings had not been compiled in other countries.
5.1.10 A cluster analysis was then run on the full data set of eight parameters; on the data set
without crustaceans; and, on the data set with crustaceans and echinoderms removed. Following an
extensive discussion of these results, which are presented in Annex 5, it was agreed that the cluster
to be used in the first step of demonstration site selection would be the one prepared using 6
parameters, that is with the crustacean and echinoderm data removed.
5.1.11 Following completion of the clustering the working group considered the ranking table, noting
that, the removal of the parameter "number of marine mammals" had necessitated some adjustment
to the rank scores. The meeting agreed to accept the rank scoring system recommended by the
RSTC.
5.1.12 The Senior expert noted that when the actual data were reviewed in relation to the numerical
classes for the indicators originally used in scoring environmental criteria and indicators they failed to
separate sites in a number of the indicators. The PCU upon reviewing these data had recommended
in Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/5 that, some adjustments be made to the ranges for a
number of the classes of indicator. The meeting discussed these at length and agreed to accept a
number of the recommendations regarding alterations to the ranges. The finally agreed ranking
criteria, indicators, and scores for the environmental parameters are presented in Table 1 of Annex 6.
5.1.13 Members then prepared a tabulation of revised rank scores for the environmental criteria and
indicators for all forty-three coral reef sites. These data are presented in Table 2 of Annex 6.
5.1.14 A preliminary tabulation of rank scores for the social and economic criteria and indicators was
then prepared, based on the originally agreed scoring system. These data were extensively discussed
and the meeting recognised that some indicators and ranking scores needed to be modified in order
to reflect more correctly the objectives of the activities at the proposed demonstration sites and the
overall goals of the project.
5.1.15 With regard to the threats, the meeting considered the discussions and decisions of the third
meeting of the RSTC and agreed to use the approach recommended by the RSTC, that is the higher
the reversibility of the threat the higher the score, rather than higher levels of threat receiving a higher
score. This was viewed as being consistent with the general goal on the project, i.e. to reverse
environment degradation in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
5.1.16 Dr. Pernetta drew the attention of the meeting to the higher weight assigned to the three
criteria: potential co-financing; stakeholder involvement; and potential for transboundary management,
which together totalled 60 percent of the total 100 score. He expressed concern regarding the
differences in interpretation of these criteria and questioned the scores of 20 points for potential
transboundary management to numerous sites. In response, Professor Ridzwan indicated that in the
case of the Tun Mustapha Park the potential for transboundary management in association with the
Philippines authorities was high, and that discussions on such a possibility had already occurred.
Similarly in the case of Phu Quoc this site was located on the Vietnamese, Cambodian border and
contacts had been initiated to establish joint management of the reef systems in this area, while in the
case of Koh Chang the area was within an existing joint development agreement between Cambodia
and Thailand. The remaining Thai sites had been ranked for transboundary management potential on
the basis of their accessibility and demonstration value.
5.1.17 The meeting agreed that transboundary management referred to the potential for joint (i.e.
two country) actions and activities to manage ecosystems, shared between the two countries. The
meeting understood that the stakeholder involvement under the category of "National significance"
indicates the involvement of national government. The local stakeholder/community involvement
criterion refers to the involvement of all other stakeholders and communities apart from the national
government. The classes of rank scores were amended to include "potential" transboundary
management and actual transboundary management.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 8
5.1.18 The meeting considered that it would be more reasonable if the environmental indicators were
to have more weight in the overall ranking of potential demonstration sites than the indicators for
socio-economic criteria. As initially applied the two scores were accorded equal weight.
5.1.19 The rank scores for the socio-economic indicators were therefore adjusted downwards to a
total of 85 and the finally agreed indicators and weight are presented in Table 3, and final ranking
scores are shown in Table 4 of Annex 6.
5.2
Critical review of proposals for demonstration sites
5.2.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Boon-Tiong Tay, Manager Project Financing, to introduce the
discussion on the critical review of the demonstration site proposals. Mr. Tay referred to meeting
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/9 and indicated that his discussion would focus on the
financial elements of the demonstration site proposals, specifically, Sections 12, 13, 14 and 15; and
that Mr. Jiang would later lead the discussion on the non-financial, technical elements of the
proposals.
5.2.2 Mr. Tay explained that the four sections pertaining to the financial aspects of the
demonstrations sites are very important because the demonstration site proposals will be central to
the resource mobilization business plan, which he intends to present to potential donors to seek
additional co-financing. Consequently, well reasoned, discussed, and prepared, Sections 12 to 15 are
critical and necessary to support the operational and financial arguments for funding the additional
demonstration sites; and to substantiate the contention that the demonstration site proposals were
prepared diligently and in an acceptable manner.
5.2.3 He further explained how these sections are very closely related. The outcome of the
demonstration site activities discussed in Section 12 (Outcome) should clearly support the South
China Sea Project objectives and should be realistic for the site and the activities. Section 13
(Activities) should identify the demonstration site activities that would deliver the Outcomes discussed
in Section 12; all activities should result in some output or contribute to some outcome. Section 15
(Estimated Budget) would detail the estimated costs of implementing the activities identified in Section
13; ensuring that the activities are co-financed and fully funded, and that the costs involved are
appropriate. Section 14 (Financial Sustainability and Risk Assessment) would present details of how
the demonstration site intends to sustain the beneficial outcome of its activities after the project
funding has been expended; and how the risks involved, if any, will be addressed.
5.2.4
Mr. Tay presented a model of Sections 13 and 15 that illustrates the relationship between
these sections and properly analyses the estimated budget by activities and object of expenditures
over the life of the demonstration site activities. This model was made available to the RWG members
in hard and electronic form and is attached as Annex 7 to this report.
5.2.5 Mr. Tay requested that the RWG members revisit Sections 12 to 15 of their proposals and
amend them in accordance with the discussion. He also offered to assist them in person over the next
few days and through email thereafter, with the preparations of their Sections 12 to 15; and to review
and comment on their drafts, if they wished.
5.2.6 Acknowledging the usefulness of this offer, Professor Ridzwan enquired as to the deadlines
for the delivery of the revised demonstration proposals and if this would allow sufficient time for a
proper consultative revision of the proposals. Mr. Yihang responded that this would be discussed
during the agenda item on the work plan, but the proposals were already overdue and had to be
available in advance of the partnership workshop to be convened in conjunction with the Regional
Scientific Conference in February next year.
5.2.7 In response to an earlier query from Professor Ridzwan, Dr. Pernetta confirmed that country
co-financing could be provided both in-cash and in-kind but that these two types of support had to be
distinguished and accounted separately. He also discussed and clarified the issue of "associated
financing" in relation to co-financing for the demonstration sites, associated financing was financing to
other projects or programmes which contributed towards the achievement of the same goals as the
demonstration site, whereas co-financing was financial and other contributions by partner agencies
including governments, directed towards the activities of the project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 9
5.2.8 Responding to a query from Dr. Suharsono, Mr. Tay indicated that typically project
management/administration costs and capital equipment acquisition, such as cars and boats, cannot
be covered by GEF funds but should be provided by the government as co-financing or through
alternative co-financing sources. Dr. Pernetta further clarified UNEP's rules pertaining to these
expenditures items; that, for example, while capital acquisitions of facilities and transportation
equipment would not be supported by the GEF grant, the project would cover the reasonable rental
and operating costs of obtaining these services or could cover costs of modest traditional modes of
transport.
5.2.9 The Chairperson invited Mr. Jiang to introduce the reviews of the demonstration site proposals
prepared by the PCU and contained in document, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/9, "Reviews of the
proposed coral reef demonstration site proposals bordering the South China Sea".
5.2.10 Mr. Jiang informed the meeting that the demonstration site proposals received by the PCU well
in advance of the meeting had been reviewed by the PCU, and comments on individual proposals were
provided in the document. However, due to the late receipt of some of the proposals, it was not possible
for the PCU to review all the proposals prior to the meeting. He then introduced the general comments
based on the proposals received.
5.2.11 He suggested to the meeting that the best way to consider the draft proposals was to provide
comments collectively as a group, for the improvement of the proposals, and to review the proposals
country by country; providing suggestions for modification and improvement.
5.2.12 The Chairperson invited the focal point from Cambodia to introduce the two demonstration site
proposals. Mr. Sour informed the meeting that the two proposals prepared by Cambodia, were for Koh
Tunsay (KEPCR1) and Koh Sdach (KKCR2). He informed the meeting that:
· Capacity building is an important element for Cambodia in all demonstration sites proposed;
· Monitoring of coral reef status will be essential for understanding coral reef status in
Cambodia as there is presently very limited data and information available;
· Public awareness on the significance of coral reef needs to be raised amongst the fishing
community; and
· Law enforcement is weak in Cambodia, and considerable effort is needed to improve law
enforcement.
5.2.13 Professor Chou commented that replenishment of fish stocks in coral reef areas is not really a
realistic target for demonstration activities. It would be better if the proposed activities could focus on
the establishment of infrastructure for protection and sustainable use of coral reef resources, thus
public awareness would be an important activity.
5.2.14 The meeting realised that the outcomes of the proposed demonstration sites should be
measurable. If the outcomes included in the proposal could not be achieved, it would be better to
change them to more realistic and measurable ones.
5.2.15 Dr. Tuan commented that as the establishment of a marine protected area would take a long
time, with a lot of effort, it would not be wise to expect the establishment up MPA in the proposal, in
particular if there was a lack of government co-financing.
5.2.16 Following clarification of the difference between outputs and outcomes, Dr. Pernetta noted
that in the demonstration site proposals, there was a need to include indicators of success. Indicators
can be process-oriented, such as the management committee meets regularly as planned in the
proposals, and agrees to the actions planned. Environmental indicators, are more difficult and
measuring change in environmental state is difficult if not impossible within the time frames of the
project. Environmental stress reduction is less difficult to identify and perhaps indicators should focus
on stress reduction, rather than change in environmental state. He suggested that it was important not
to set a goal if it is not achievable.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 10
5.2.17 Dr. Suharsono introduced the demonstration site proposal prepared by Indonesia. He
informed the meeting that the name of the potential demonstration site was Banka-Belitung. Since this
area is close to Kalimantan, the impacts from developments have been a major concern for protection
of coral reefs in the area. He then introduced the proposal in detail.
5.2.18 It was noted by both Dr. Ridzwan and Mr. Jiang that the stakeholders' involvement in the
demonstration proposal focussed only on the users of coastal resources. The proposal should identify
the roles of the stakeholders in the management of coastal resources and include other stakeholders,
such as the national and local governments.
5.2.19 Dr. Yeemin introduced the four demonstration proposals prepared by Thailand. He informed
the meeting that the national committee for coral reefs in Thailand decided to prepare 4 demonstration
site proposals, with the clear understanding that not all of them will be supported by the GEF grant.
He informed the meeting that the first priority coral reef site at national level is Koh Chang. The main
objective of the proposal is to set up an eco-tourism area and he informed the meeting that the
necessary infrastructure has been set up by the government. Tourism education and public
awareness are the main objectives for the proposal.
5.2.20 Koh Chumporn is the second priority as it is a new marine park, the major challenge is how
the new marine park can manage the coral reef to avoid resource degradation, and activities include
livelihood development and public awareness. The project will encourage multi-agency management
in the demonstration site.
5.2.21 Koh Samui, as the third priority, covers a large area, but only 10% of the marine park is coral
reefs. The challenge for the demonstration site, when approved, will be how to improve the coral
status to that of 20 years ago. He also informed the meeting that the main objective of the proposal in
Koh Angthong, as the fourth priority, is to provide a good model of coral reef management, as the
marine park has been long established with 20 years of management experience.
5.2.22 Dr. Ridzwan suggested to add indicators to measure the outputs and outcomes of the
proposed demonstration site activities and suggested that monitoring of coral reefs should be one of
activities.
5.2.23 Dr. Pernetta expressed appreciation for the well prepared proposals, and indicated that in the
proposal of Koh Chang there is no indication of the potential joint management project with
Cambodia. He further indicated that if this aspect were to be included, it would be appropriate to
include assessment of the relevant risks associated with the geopolitical interactions between the two
countries.
5.2.24 Dr. Tuan introduced the two demonstration site proposals prepared by Viet Nam; Ninh Hai
and Phu Quoc. He informed the meeting that the main objectives of the proposed demonstration site
in Ninh Hai are to manage coral reef for sustainable fishery and eco-tourism. Co-ordination and
co-operation with the relevant existing WWF and ICRAN projects in the region will definitely ensure
the success of the proposed demonstration activities.
5.2.25 The proposed activities in Phu Quoc will focus on the joint management of coral reef
resources with Cambodia, as the site is located on the border of the two countries. He informed the
meeting that discussions have been held with the National Technical Focal Point from Cambodia, and
he promised that such discussion would continue with respective partners in Cambodia, when the
new government is fully functioning. This demonstration site encompasses not only coral reefs but
also seagrass, and mangroves.
5.2.26 Dr. Pernetta commented that one should not under estimate the difficulties of joint
management, involving two countries, both politically and technically. He noted that apart from the
agreement between the national governments, it is nice to know there is also provincial level
agreement for co-operation between the two countries.
5.2.27 Dr. Alino introduced the demonstration sites proposals prepared by the Philippines. He
informed the meeting that:
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 11
· The proposed activities in Calamianes will focus on eco-tourism, and the provincial council is
the co-ordinating body for the management of relevant activities.
· The major threat for coral reefs in Batangas is the discharge from the power plant. The
private companies, together with local communities, are engaged in protection of coral reefs.
The activities proposed in the demonstration site will focus on environment education and
setting up a sanctuary for protection of coral reefs.
· There is established infrastructure in Masinloc in protecting and managing coral reefs in that
area. The main activity will be the regular monitoring of the impacts of the power plant. The
major task in Masinloc is to engage private companies in the management of the coastal
resources.
· In Bolinao, the demonstration activities will focus on how all users should and can work
together, and setting up the monitoring system to understand changes of coral reefs. There is
a Dutch project in that area, which could be co-ordinated with the activities in the
demonstration site.
5.2.28 Dr. Pernetta raised a general point. He informed the meeting that instead of using the concept
of marine protected area, it would be more appropriate to use the concept of sustainable use, as it
more closely matches the GEF goals and objectives.
5.2.29 Mr. Khalil introduced the three demonstration site proposals prepared by Malaysia. He
Informed the meeting that two of the sites are in Peninsula Malaysia, and another one, in Sabah,
which has significant potential for transboundary management.
5.2.30 Dr. Ridzwan informed the meeting that for the proposed demonstration site located in Sabah,
the commitments from state, local and national governments are high. The area is under high threats
from fishing activities and there is substantial funding supporting existing activities, including
alternative livelihoods.
5.2.31 The meeting agreed that all demonstration site proposals prepared by the participating
countries need to be modified according to the comments received from the Regional Working Group,
and the proposals should be finalised before the deadlines agreed by the group. It was also agreed
that the deadline for finalisation of the proposals would be discussed under agenda item 6. The
meeting fully understood that the demonstration site proposals are a major outcome of the project
during the last two years that need to be finalised, edited and printed, for use during the Regional
Scientific Conference, in particular in the partnership workshop.
5.3
Possibilities for extension of the network of demonstration sites through collaboration
with ICRAN sites and the GEF Project "Biodiversity Management in the Coastal Area
of China's South Sea
5.3.1 Ms. Yue Chen was invited by the Chairperson to introduce the UNDP/GEF/SOA1 biodiversity
project entitled "Biodiversity Management in the Coastal Area of China's South Sea". She outlined the
proposed activities, which would take place at four sites one of which (Sanya Island) was focussed on
coral reefs and involved, monitoring, capacity building, and restoration. A second demonstration site
involved mangroves and the project also includes activities addressing land-based pollution.
5.3.2 Ms. Chen Informed the meeting that the project will be 4-8 year, in which GEF supports the
first 4 years of demonstration activities, and the last 4 years will focus on the transfer of the
experience from the demonstration sites to other relevant sites. The total GEF grant supporting the
activities of this project is US$ 3.195 million.
5.3.3 She informed the meeting that within the framework of this project, the main activities at the
Sanya coral reef demonstration site would include:
· long term survey and monitoring of coral reefs;
· coral reef baseline studies;
· enhance law enforcement in the Marine Protected area;
· build up a GIS map; and
· a pilot study on coral reef transplantation.
1 SOA = State Oceanic Administration
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 12
5.3.4 It was noted that the Project Steering Committee had decided that the PCU explore possible
linkages between the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project and other GEF projects bordering the South
China Sea. As a consequence Ms Chen had been invited to this meeting to present the
UNDP/GEF/SOA project and to explore possible ways of co-operation. It was noted that the
UNDP/GEF/SOA project was not yet operational and that the organisation and management was
planned to operate at three levels: national; provincial and local.
5.3.5 The members of the Regional Working Group expressed their strong interests in the project. Mr.
Jiang asked a question on the management structure of the project, in particular for the operational
phase to which Ms. Chen responded that the project would be mainly implemented by the provincial
governments, with local project offices.
5.3.6 Dr. Tuan stated that as a network of coral reef demonstration sites would be established
within the framework of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea project. It would be beneficial for the region
if the coral reef demonstration site within this project could be involved in the network.
5.3.7 There followed a discussion of possible ways in which collaboration between the UNEP/GEF
project and this activity could be established. The RWG-CR recommended that a representative of the
National Executing Agency for the project be invited to become a member of the Regional Working
Group in order to establish a mechanism for overall co-ordination and co-operation and to ensure that
when the project become operational, regular exchange of information would be secured. At the
practical technical level it was agreed that the local management of the project would be kept
informed of developments in the network of demonstration sites.
5.3.8 Ms Chen expressed the view that these proposals were very welcome and she would convey
the recommendation of the group to the Project Manager in SOA. It was agreed that the Project Director
would also follow-up the meeting recommendation with SOA.
5.3.9 Mr Jiang outlined the activities of the International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) in
general, and provided information related to the sites located in the South China Sea marine basin in
particular. He informed the meeting that some achievements have resulted from the ICRAN
demonstration and/or target sites, in particular in the area of community based management. He
emphasised that co-ordination and co-operation should be ensured at site level.
5.3.10 Dr. Tuan briefed the meeting on the outcomes at the ICRAN demonstration site in Ninh Tuan,
Viet Nam, which was paired with Apo Island in Philippines. These included the management plan of the
site, local agreements on protection of coral reefs, and volunteer programmes at the site level.
5.3.11 The meeting agreed that close linkage between the coral reef sub-component of the South
China Sea project and ICRAN demonstration sites should be established. Representatives from the
ICRAN project should be invited to the next meeting of RWG-CR. The meeting further agreed that the
experiences obtained from the ICRAN demonstration sites should be take into consideration in planning
and executing the demonstration site activities in the South China Sea project.
6.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON CORAL REEFS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO
JUNE 2004
6.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Jiang to introduce this agenda item with reference to the document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/10 "Proposals for a revised work plan and timetable for the RWG-CR with
details of outputs and milestones between November 2003 and June 2004".
6.2
Mr Jiang reminded the participants that during the first and second meetings of the Regional
Working Group a flow chart of activities and work plan and timetable had been developed and agreed.
The meeting noted that as a consequence of the sequential delays in production of national level
outputs it was necessary to revise the regional work plan and timetable.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Page 13
6.3
Following extensive discussion of the work plan, and a full consideration of the required
deadlines for provision of national outputs, the meeting agreed the revised work plan for the Regional
Working Group, which is attached as Annex 8 to this report.
7.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
CORAL REEFS
7.1
Mr. Jiang informed the meeting that in the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/10, the
proposed dates for the fifth meeting of the RWG-CR, are 22-25 November 2004. The meeting noted that
the decision of the Project Steering Committee that future meetings of the regional working group should
be organised at a demonstration site.
7.2
The meeting agreed the dates for the fifth meeting of RWG-CR, proposed by the PCU and
agreed that selection of the venue would be made only following selection of the demonstration sites.
8.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
8.1 Regional
Scientific
Conference
8.1.1 Dr. Pernetta provided members with the provisional outline of the programme for the Regional
Scientific Conference and noted that there are two major purposes for the conference:
(i)
to get all focal points from different countries and different components together to
exchange information and share experiences of the implementation during last two
years; and
(ii)
to organise a partnership workshop to provide donors with information regarding the
proposed demonstration site proposals, and solicit their involvement in co-financing
these sites.
8.1.2 To achieve these two purposes, the programme of the conference needs to be attractive to
both potential donor agencies and South China Sea project family.
8.1.3 Following clarification of the detailed elements of the conference programme, the meeting felt
that the conference would provide a good opportunity to exchange views with experts from other
countries and other components. More importantly, the conference will provide a good chance for the
national experts to meet potential donors directly.
8.1.4 The meeting agreed the draft programme for the conference and further agreed that they
would provide details of any potential contributions upon their return.
9.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
9.1
The Rapporteur, Dr Yeemin, presented the draft report of the meeting, which was considered,
amended, and adopted as it appears in this document.
10.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
10.1
The Chairperson expressed appreciation to the South China Sea Institute of Oceanology for
their organisation of the meeting venue, and administrative and technical support to the meeting.
10.2
The Project Director expressed appreciation on behalf of UNEP for the hard and constructive
work that all members had invested in the meeting. The Chairman also expressed his appreciation for
the hard work and support of all members.
10.3
The being no further business the meeting was closed at 1430 on 30th November 2003.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
Indonesia
Mr. Kim Sour
Dr. Suharsono
Department of Fisheries
Research Center for Oceanography LIPI
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
Puslit OSEANOGRAFI - LIPI
186 Norodom Boulevard
Pasir Putih 1 Ancol Timur
PO Box 582, Phnom Penh
Jakarta UTARA
Cambodia
Indonesia
Tel: (855 23) 210 565
Tel: (62 21) 64713850 ext 202; 3143080: 102
Fax: (855 23) 216 829
Fax: (62 21) 64711948; 327 958
E-mail: sourkim@hotmail.com;
E-mail: shar@indo.net.id;
catfish@camnet.com.kh
harsono@coremap.or.id
Malaysia
Philippines
Mr. Abdul Khalil bin Abdul Karim
Dr. Porfirio M. Alino
Marine Parks Branch
Marine Science Institute
Department of Fisheries, Malaysia
University of the Philippines
Jalan Sultan Salahuddin
Diliman, Quezon City 1101
50628 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Philippines
Tel:
(60 3) 2698 2500; DL: 26982700
Tel: (63 2) 922 3949; 922 3921
Fax: (60 3) 2691 3199
Fax: (63 2) 924 7678
E-mail: abkhalil@hotmail.com;
E-mail: pmalino@upmsi.ph
abkhalil@yahoo.com
Thailand
Viet Nam
Dr. Thamasak Yeemin
Dr. Vo Si Tuan
Marine Biodiversity Research Group
Institute of Oceanography
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science
01 Cau Da Street
Ramkhamhaeng University
Nha Trang City
Huamark, Bangkok 10240, Thailand
Viet Nam
Tel: (66 2) 319 5219 ext. 240, 3108415
Tel: (84 58) 590 205; 871134; 0914017058
Fax: (66 2) 310 8415
Fax: (84 58) 590 034
E-mail: thamsakyeemin@yahoo.com
E-mail: thuysinh@dng.vnn.vn
Regional Experts
Dr. Chou Loke Ming
Dr. Ridzwan Abdul Rahman
Department of Biological Sciences
Borneo Marine Research Institute
Faculty of Science
Universiti Malaysia Sabah
National University of Singapore
Sepangar Bay, Locked Bag 2073
14 Science Drive 4
88999 Kota Kinabalu
Singapore
Sabah, Malaysia
Tel:
(65) 6874 2696
Tel:
(60 88) 320 266; 320 121
Fax:
(65) 6779 2486
Fax: (60 88) 320 261
E-mail: dbsclm@nus.edu.sg
E-mail: ridzwan@ums.edu.my
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Mr. Yihang Jiang
Senior Expert
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 2084
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: jiang.unescap@un.org
Observers
Ms. Chen Yue
Ms. Yehui Tan
Director, Division of International Organizations
Marine Environment and Ecology Research Lab
Department of International Cooperation
South China Sea Institute of Oceanology
State Oceanic Administration
Chinese Academy of Sciences
1 Fuxingmenwai Avenue
164 West Xingang Road
Beijing, 100860
Guangzhou 510301, Guangdong Province
China
China
Tel:
(86 10) 6801 9791
Tel: (86 20) 8902 3202
Fax: (86 10) 6804 8051
Fax: (86 20) 8445 1672
Email: zzh@soa.gov.cn
E-mail: tanyh@scsio.ac.cn
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
Ms. Unchalee Kattachan, Programme Assistant
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 Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1670
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
Resource Persons - Finance
Ms. Nita Tangsujaritvichit
Mr. Boon Tiong Tay
Fund Management and Administration
Manager, Project Financing
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 Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 2167
Tel:
(662) 288 2609
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
Fax: (662) 281 2428; 288 1094
E-mail: tangsujaritvichitn@un.org
E-mail: tayb@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/1 Amend.1 Provisional agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/2 Amend.1 Provisional annotated agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Report of the meeting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/4 Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised
Executing Agencies in the participating countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/5 Current
status of substantive reports on coral reefs from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/6
Reviews from a regional expert, and the PCU of the drafts of
the substantive reports produced by the Specialised
Executing Agencies in the participating countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/7
Proposed timetable, contents and responsibilities for the
production of the regional overview of coral reefs bordering
the South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/8 Cluster
analysis; and environmental and socio-economic
ranking; of potential coral reef demonstration sites
conducted following the third Regional Scientific and
Technical Committee meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/9 Critical
reviews
of the proposed coral reef demonstration
sites bordering the South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/10
Proposals for a revised, work plan and timetable for the
RWG-CR with details of outputs and milestones between
October 2003 and June 2004.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/11 Demonstration
site proposals from the participating
countries.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/Inf.1 Provisional list of participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/Inf.2 Provisional list of documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/Inf.3 Draft
programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.3/6
Guidelines for the preparation of demonstration site
proposals and format for use in their presentation.
The following documents were supplied on CD-ROM and via published copies previously
dispatched by mail.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.3/3 Third
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Mangroves Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Bali,
Indonesia, 3rd 6th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 2
Page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.3/3 Third
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Wetlands Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Bali,
Indonesia, 4th 7th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
W.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.3/3
Third Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Land-
based Pollution Component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting.
Phuket, Thailand, 7th - 10th July 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-LbP.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.3/3 Third
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Fisheries Component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Siem Reap,
Cambodia, 29thApril 2nd May 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
F.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.3/3
Third Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Coral
Reefs Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Kota Kinabalu,
Malaysia, 24th 27th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
CR.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.3/3 Third
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Seagrass Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting.
Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 25th 28th March 2003
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.3/3
Third Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting Phuket,
Thailand, 16th 18th June 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic
Valuation for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket,
Thailand, 11th 13th September 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-
E.1/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters
for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket, Thailand, 15th
17th September 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 3
Page 1
ANNEX 3
Agenda
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1 Status of mid-year progress reports, expenditure reports, and budgets
4.2 Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities
4.3 Status of planned substantive outputs from the regional level
5.
REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS
5.1 Site characterisation; cluster analysis; environmental and socio-economic
ranking; and available supporting documentation
5.2 Critical review of proposals for demonstration sites
5.3 Possibilities for extension of the network of demonstration sites through
collaboration with ICRAN sites and the GEF Project "Biodiversity Management in
the Coastal Area of China's South Sea.
6.
REVISION OF THE WORKPLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON CORAL REEFS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO
JUNE 2004
7.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
CORAL REEFS
8.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
8.1 Regional
Scientific
Conference
9.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
10.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Outline of "Coral Reefs in the South China Sea"
Background
The Regional Working Groups decided during the third round of meetings that a regional overview of
the habitats covered by each sub-component of the project would be produced as background
material for the Regional Scientific Conference to be held in February 2004. The intention was that, a
draft would be put together for review by, the fourth meeting of each regional working group. In the
event this proved impossible, hence the fourth meeting discussed and agreed the following outline
and responsibilities and prepared draft sections of the text during the course of the meeting.
CONTENTS
Foreword - 1 page (Responsible persons: Professors Dr. Ridzwan Abdul Rahman and Dr. Chou
Loke Ming)
Introduction - 1 spread, [2 pages] Broad introduction at global to regional scales (Responsible
persons: Professors Dr. Ridzwan Abdul Rahman and Dr. Chou Loke Ming)
Text covering:
·
Global distribution of coral reefs,
·
Biological diversity compare with other regions of world wide distribution,
·
Rates of loss in area over the 20th Century, globally and regionally,
·
Global importance of SCS coral reefs.
Box bottom left covering the purpose and objectives of the South China Sea Project.
Box top right GIS map of coral reef distribution bordering the South China Sea.
Coral reef distribution & diversity in SCS - 2 spreads, 4 pages (Responsible persons: Dr. Porfirio M.
Alino and Dr. Thamasak Yeemin)
Text covering:
·
Ecology of coral reefs and services provided,
·
Environmental impacts/consequences of habitat loss,
·
Social & economic consequences of habitat loss.
Box giving details of past and present areas of coral reefs in SCS countries cf. global totals.
2 photos from countries illustrating typical undisturbed coral reef habitats.
State of coral reefs & present threats - 1 spread 2 pages (Responsible persons: Dr. Suharsono and
Mr. Kim Sour)
Text covering:
·
Country based reviews of status, threats and actions to protect coral reef,
·
Destructive fishing and tourism impacts on coral reef habitat loss/degradation.
Use & value of coral reef systems bordering the South China Sea - 1 spread 2 pages (Responsible
persons: Dr. Vo Si Tuan and Mr. Abdul Khalil bin Abdul Karim)
Text covering:
·
Range of present direct uses,
·
Indirect uses,
·
Economic valuation.
Photo, divers in coral reef area, (column width)
Box on aquarium fish trade.
Purpose of the demonstration sites - 1 spread 2 pages (Responsible person: PCU)
Text covering:
·
Types of demonstration sites illustrating sustainable use,
·
Demonstrating what?
·
And for whom?
·
Value of regional co-ordination and networking,
·
Anticipated outcomes.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 4
Page 2
Process of selecting sites - 2 spreads 4 pages (Responsible person: PCU)
Text covering:
·
Data and information; criteria and indicators, selection and agreement,
·
Cluster analysis and the purpose of the clustering procedures,
·
Ranking, environmental and socio-economic indicators,
·
Priority listing and proposals.
End page 1 page - Photo and details of the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs (Responsible
person: PCU)
Format
Cover: Folded, single colour background with
Front cover layout as per the draft above
Back cover Further information - contact details for RWG-CR and PCU
Inside Front Cover UNEP standard
Pages: A4 centre stapled, full colour, 18 to 24 pages maximum
Two columns text with boxes, photos, maps and diagrams occupying column, full text, or full
spread width
Margins: top, bottom, right, and left: 1 inch (2.54 cm), gutter margin
Headers 1.27 from top margin Alternating headers
Even pages: "page #" and "title" left hand aligned
Odd pages: "page #", "chapter name" right hand aligned
Text justified, Font Arial 9 pt.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Final Cluster Analysis of Potential Coral Reef Demonstration Sites
Background
Subsequent to an initial review of the data set used, and the cluster analysis conducted, by the
Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs during its third meeting, the Regional Scientific and
Technical Committee (RSTC) made specific recommendations regarding the finalisation of the cluster
analysis and the ranking criteria and indicators. At its fourth meeting, the Regional Working Group on
Coral Reefs discussed these recommendations from the RSTC, and agreed to follow them in
finalising the cluster analysis of potential coral reef demonstration sites.
Available data and results
During the fourth meeting of the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs, the members reviewed
more carefully the data used in the previous cluster analyses. Table 1 lists the complete data set
initially agreed for inclusion in the cluster analysis of coral reefs. In accordance with the discussions
and agreements during the meeting, as recorded in the main body of this report, cluster analyses
were performed on (i) the complete data set of eight parameters (resulting in a missing data
percentage value of 16%); (ii) the data set excluding crustaceans as a parameter (resulting in a
missing data percentage value of 12%; and, (iii) the data set excluding crustaceans and echinoderms
(resulting in a missing data percentage value of 8%).
Based on a review and discussion of these results, the meeting agreed to adopt the data set without
crustaceans and echinoderms for the final cluster analysis for coral reefs (Table 2). The data were
transformed using z scores (Table 3) and a cluster analysis was performed using the Clustan
Graphic6 software programme. The resulting dendrogram is presented in Figure 1, and the proximity
matrix based is presented in Table 4.
Figure 1
Dendrogram of potential coral reef demonstration sites based on Euclidean
distance and mean proximity, using the data presented in Table 2.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 5
Page 2
Table 1 Data set for cluster analysis of potential coral reef demonstration sites agreed
during the third meeting of the RWG-CR.
No. of
Live
No. of
Hard
No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of
endangered
coral
coral
Site Name
coral
algal
crustacean echinoderm
other
and
cover
reef fish
species
spp.
species
species
ecosystem threatened
(%)
species
species
Cu Lao Cham
131
33.9
122
84
4
178
1
4
Nha Trang bay
351
26.4
55
69
27
222
2
3
Con Dao
250
23.3
84
110
44
202
2
4
Phu Quoc
89
42.2
98
9
32
135
2
3
Ninh Hai
197
36.9
190
24
13
147
1
4
Ca Na bay
134
40.5
163
46
26
211
1
3
Ha Long - Cat Ba
170
43
94
25
7
34
2
4
Hai Van - Son Tra
129
50.5
103
60
12
132
1
4
Bach Long Vi
99
21.7
46
16
8
46
M
2
Batanes, Basco
M
55.00
41
M M
86 1 3
Bolinao/Lingayen Gulf
199
40.00
224
M M
328 2 4
Masinloc, Zambales
M
33.00
57
M M
249 2 4
Batangas bay/Maricaban
290
48.00
141
M M
155 2 4
Puerto Galera, Mindoro
267
33.00
75
M M
333 2 5
El Nido, Palawan
305
40.00
129
M M
480 2 5
Mu Koh Chumporn
120
55
M
304 21
106 4 5
Mu Koh Chang
130
40
43
250
20
113
4
6
Mu Koh Ang Thong
110
55
7
136
21
106
4
1
Mu Koh Samui
140
40
7
136
21
106
4
5
Mu Koh Samet
41
35
38
134
11
74
4
5
Sichang Group
90
20
40
304
11
86
4
2
Sattaheep Group
90
33
40
304
15
75
4
2
Lan and Phai Group
72
18
40
304
15
75
2
2
Chao Lao
80
30
33
123
12
105
2
3
Prachuab 74
40
18
106
16
162
2
4
Koh Tao Group
79
45
7
136
21
106
2
4
Song Khla
12
20
2
M M
30 2 2
Koh Kra
80
40
M
M
M
80 1 2
Losin 90
40
M
M
M
90 1 2
Anambas 206
M
26
24 25
128 3 2
Bangka 126
M
M
25 23
169 3 2
Belitung 164
38.46
M
10 35
170 3 2
Karimata 192
M
M
15 15
200 3 2
Batu Malang, Pulau Tioman
96
62.6
3.8
M M
123 1 4
Pulau Lang Tengah
86
41.3
3.1
M M
117 2 4
Pulau Lima, Pulau Redang
96
46.3
10
M M
113 1 4
Teluk Jawa, Palau Dayang
80
38.4
11.9
M M
156 1 4
Tun Mustapha, Sabah
252
M
69
M
45 375
4
4
KKCR2 67
29.3
M
M
1 51
2
M
SHVCR1 34
23.1
M
M
14 6
3
M
SHVCR2 23
58.1
3
M M
51 3 M
SHVCR3 70
M
M
M
14 42
3
M
KEPCR1 67
41
M
M
14 51
3
M
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 5
Page 3
Table 2
Final agreed data set for coral reef cluster analysis.
No. of
No. of coral
No. of
endangered
Hard coral
Live coral
No. of algae
Site Name
reef fish
other
and
species
cover (%)
spp.
species
ecosystem threatened
species
Cu Lao Cham
131
33.9
122
178
1
4
Nha Trang bay
351
26.4
55
222
2
3
Con Dao
250
23.3
84
202
2
4
Phu Quoc
89
42.2
98
135
2
3
Ninh Hai
197
36.9
190
147
1
4
Ca Na bay
134
40.5
163
211
1
3
Ha Long - Cat Ba
170
43
94
34
2
4
Hai Van - Son Tra
129
50.5
103
132
1
4
Bach Long Vi
99
21.7
46
46
M
2
Batanes, Basco
M
55.00 41 86 1 3
Bolinao/Lingayen Gulf
199
40.00
224
328
2
4
Masinloc, Zambales
M
33.00 57 249 2 4
Batangas bay/Maricaban
290
48.00
141
155
2
4
Puerto Galera, Mindoro
267
33.00
75
333
2
5
El Nido, Palawan
305
40.00
129
480
2
5
Mu Koh Chumporn
120
55
M
106 4 5
Mu Koh Chang
130
40
43
113
4
6
Mu Koh Ang Thong
110
55
7
106
4
1
Mu Koh Samui
140
40
7
106
4
5
Mu Koh Samet
41
35
38
74
4
5
Sichang Group
90
20
40
86
4
2
Sattaheep Group
90
33
40
75
4
2
Lan and Phai Group
72
18
40
75
2
2
Chao Lao
80
30
33
105
2
3
Prachuab 74
40
18
162
2
4
Koh Tao Group
79
45
7
106
2
4
Song Khla
12
20
2
30
2
2
Koh Kra
80
40
M
80 1 2
Losin 90
40
M
90 1 2
Anambas 206
M
26 128 3 2
Bangka 126
M M 169 3 2
Belitung 164
38.46
M
170 3 2
Karimata 192
M M 200 3 2
Batu Malang, Pulau Tioman
96
62.6
3.8
123
1
4
Pulau Lang Tengah
86
41.3
3.1
117
2
4
Pulau Lima, Pulau Redang
96
46.3
10
113
1
4
Teluk Jawa, Palau Dayang
80
38.4
11.9
156
1
4
Tun Mustapha, Sabah
252
M
69 375 4 4
KKCR2 67
29.3
M
51 2 M
SHVCR1 34
23.1
M
6 3 M
SHVCR2 23
58.1
3
51
3
M
SHVCR3 70
M M 42 3 M
KEPCR1 67
41
M
51 3 M
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 5
Page 4
Table 3
Data transformed to z scores for cluster analysis.
No. of
No. of
Hard coral Live coral No. of algae coral reef No. of other endangered
Site Name
species
cover (%)
spp.
fish
ecosystem and threatened
species
species
Cu Lao Cham
-0.002
-0.404
1.048
0.396
-1.268 0.505
Nha Trang bay
2.739
-1.086
-0.109
0.849
-0.317 -0.33
Con Dao
1.481
-1.368
0.392
0.643
-0.317 0.505
Phu Quoc
-0.525
0.351
0.633
-0.048
-0.317 -0.33
Ninh Hai
0.82
-0.131
2.222
0.076
-1.268 0.505
Ca Na bay
0.035
0.196
1.756
0.736
-1.268 -0.33
Ha Long - Cat Ba
0.484
0.424
0.564
-1.089
-0.317 0.505
Hai Van - Son Tra
-0.027
1.106
0.72
-0.079
-1.268 0.505
Bach Long Vi
-0.401
-1.514
-0.265
-0.965
Missing -1.164
Batanes, Basco
Missing 1.515
-0.351
-0.553
-1.268 -0.33
Bolinao/Lingayen Gulf
0.845
0.151
2.809
1.942
-0.317 0.505
Masinloc, Zambales
Missing -0.486
-0.075
1.127
-0.317 0.505
Batangas bay/Maricaban
1.979
0.879
1.376
0.158
-0.317 0.505
Puerto Galera, Mindoro
1.692
-0.486
0.236
1.993
-0.317 1.34
El Nido, Palawan
2.166
0.151
1.169
3.508
-0.317 1.34
Mu Koh Chumporn
-0.139
1.515
Missing -0.347
1.585
1.34
Mu Koh Chang
-0.015
0.151
-0.316
-0.274
1.585 2.175
Mu Koh Ang Thong
-0.264
1.515
-0.938
-0.347
1.585 -1.999
Mu Koh Samui
0.11
0.151
-0.938
-0.347
1.585 1.34
Mu Koh Samet
-1.123
-0.304
-0.403
-0.676
1.585 1.34
Sichang Group
-0.513
-1.668
-0.368
-0.553
1.585 -1.164
Sattaheep Group
-0.513
-0.486
-0.368
-0.666
1.585 -1.164
Lan and Phai Group
-0.737
-1.85
-0.368
-0.666
-0.317 -1.164
Chao Lao
-0.638
-0.759
-0.489
-0.357
-0.317 -0.33
Prachuab
-0.712
0.151
-0.748
0.231
-0.317 0.505
Koh Tao Group
-0.65
0.606
-0.938
-0.347
-0.317 0.505
Song Khla
-1.485
-1.668
-1.025
-1.13
-0.317 -1.164
Koh Kra
-0.638
0.151
Missing -0.615
-1.268 -1.164
Losin
-0.513
0.151
Missing -0.512
-1.268 -1.164
Anambas
0.932
Missing -0.61
-0.12
0.634 -1.164
Bangka
-0.064
Missing Missing
0.303
0.634
-1.164
Belitung
0.409
0.011
Missing 0.313
0.634 -1.164
Karimata
0.758
Missing Missing
0.622
0.634
-1.164
Batu Malang, Pulau Tioman
-0.438
2.207
-0.993
-0.171
-1.268 0.505
Pulau Lang Tengah
-0.563
0.269
-1.006
-0.233
-0.317 0.505
Pulau Lima, Pulau Redang
-0.438
0.724
-0.886
-0.274
-1.268 0.505
Teluk Jawa, Palau Dayang
-0.638
0.005
-0.854
0.169
-1.268 0.505
Tun Mustapha, Sabah
1.505
Missing 0.132
2.426
1.585 0.505
KKCR2
-0.8
-0.822
Missing -0.914
-0.317
Missing
SHVCR1
-1.211
-1.386
Missing -1.377
0.634
Missing
SHVCR2
-1.348
1.797
-1.007
-0.914
0.634 Missing
SHVCR3
-0.762
Missing Missing -1.006
0.634 Missing
KEPCR1
-0.8
0.242
Missing -0.914
0.634
Missing
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 5
Page 5
Table 4
Proximity matrix of potential coral reef demonstration sites included in the dendrogram presented in Figure 1.
y
o
en
,
g
i
a
a
t Ba
n
an
a
wan
u
e
t
oup
,
a,
la
an
g
o
up
oup
an
,
ng
ham
y
C
n
gay
hai
ng
a
a
,
Case
g b
i
So
n
d
ang
ya
aph
-
ng Vi
Basc
P
a
ng
/Li
c,
es
s
i
c
ab
,
Pa
An
Sam
Sam
ep Gr
s
la
om
m
e
a
st
1
2
3
1
o C
an
ao
ba
ng -
lo
ga
ar
Galer
o
o
por
h Ch
g Gr
d
ab
ao Gr
a
g
t
a
u
R
R
R
R
Ha
Lo
b
a
nes,
a
o
Ti
La
Li
R
D
bal
to
o
g
Khl
n
ka
ah
La
h
Na
Lo
Van
i
n
f
s
in
K
Koh
Koh
ahe
g
g
i
t
un
au
au
au
au
uk Jaw
au
ah
CR2
VC
VC
VC
u
ha Tr
on D
a
ai
t
an
rima
t
u Ma
ra
ol
ul
a
am
a
ay/M
uer
i
ndor
l
Nid
u Koh
hum
u Koh
hon
u
u
chan
an an
r
oup
hao Lao
achu
a
a
ul
ul
eng
ul
ul
el
al
un M
ab
K
C
N
C
Phu Quoc
Nin
Ca
H
H
T
Bach
Bata
B
G
M
Z
B
b
P
M
E
M
C
Mu
M
T
M
M
Si
Satt
L
G
C
Pr
Koh T
Son
Koh Kr
Losi
Anam
Ban
Bel
K
B
P
P
T
P
P
T
P
T
S
K
SH
SH
SH
KEPC
Cu Lao Cham
0.00
Nha Trang bay
0.56 0.00
Con Dao
0.35 0.27 0.00
Phu
Quoc
0.28 0.63 0.48
0.00
Ninh
Hai
0.25 0.58 0.43
0.41
0.00
Ca
Na
bay
0.22 0.61 0.47
0.29
0.24
0.00
Ha
Long
-
Cat
Ba
0.34 0.58 0.45
0.28
0.39
0.43
0.00
Hai
Van
-
Son
Tra
0.27 0.66 0.53
0.26
0.35
0.30
0.27 0.00
Bach
Long
Vi
0.56 0.75 0.61
0.48
0.73
0.66
0.57 0.68 0.00
Batanes,
Basco
0.54 0.62 0.69
0.37
0.65
0.56
0.40 0.30 0.79 0.00
Bolinao/Lingayen
Gulf
0.45 0.66 0.53
0.56
0.37
0.37
0.63 0.55 1.00 0.89 0.00
Masinloc,
Zambales
0.33 0.21 0.22
0.36
0.54
0.47
0.50 0.47 0.72 0.58 0.61 0.00
Batangas
bay/Maricaban 0.43 0.47 0.42
0.47
0.33
0.42
0.36 0.39 0.85 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.00
Puerto
Galera,
Mindoro 0.46 0.40 0.31
0.59
0.53
0.55
0.59 0.57 0.91 0.76 0.48 0.25 0.45 0.00
El
Nido,
Palawan
0.67 0.61 0.58
0.80
0.67
0.67
0.84 0.75 1.23 0.99 0.46 0.58 0.59 0.32 0.00
Mu
Koh
Chumporn
0.72 0.96 0.81
0.57
0.71
0.74
0.51 0.60 1.00 0.83 0.70 0.81 0.62 0.81 1.01 0.00
Mu Koh Chang
0.61 0.75 0.58 0.56 0.71 0.74 0.48 0.60 0.76 0.81 0.78 0.59 0.62 0.60 0.84 0.32 0.00
Mu Koh Ang Thong
0.79 0.82 0.82 0.54 0.89 0.77 0.63 0.70 0.66 0.67 0.95 0.82 0.76 0.90 1.08 0.67 0.74 0.00
Mu Koh Samui
0.62 0.69 0.56 0.51 0.74 0.73 0.45 0.59 0.64 0.73 0.82 0.55 0.62 0.61 0.87 0.28 0.18 0.60 0.00
Mu Koh Samet
0.61 0.82 0.64 0.49 0.75 0.73 0.49 0.62 0.58 0.76 0.84 0.56 0.73 0.73 0.98 0.42 0.25 0.66 0.24 0.00
Sichang Group
0.66 0.69 0.59 0.52 0.78 0.72 0.60 0.75 0.09 0.87 0.88 0.65 0.79 0.80 1.04 0.81 0.64 0.56 0.54 0.49 0.00
Sattaheep Group
0.63 0.70 0.61 0.42 0.75 0.67 0.51 0.65 0.22 0.72 0.84 0.62 0.71 0.79 1.02 0.65 0.58 0.38 0.46 0.43 0.20 0.00
Lan and Phai Group
0.51 0.66 0.53 0.44 0.67 0.60 0.54 0.63 0.11 0.72 0.85 0.56 0.77 0.77 1.03 0.93 0.74 0.67 0.65 0.59 0.32 0.39
0.00
Chao Lao
0.37 0.60 0.45 0.27 0.57 0.49 0.37 0.44 0.26 0.50 0.74 0.35 0.62 0.63 0.90 0.69 0.56 0.58 0.47 0.44 0.38 0.35
0.24
0.00
Prachuab
0.37 0.64 0.49 0.28 0.58 0.49 0.37 0.36 0.54 0.41 0.71 0.26 0.58 0.55 0.81 0.52 0.45 0.59 0.39 0.40 0.54 0.47
0.46
0.23 0.00
Koh Tao Group
0.44 0.69 0.56 0.30 0.62 0.54 0.34 0.35 0.57 0.34 0.78 0.41 0.59 0.63 0.88 0.46 0.45 0.55 0.38 0.40 0.58 0.47 0.51 0.28 0.13 0.00
Song Khla
0.63 0.81 0.68 0.52 0.81 0.72 0.61 0.70 0.27 0.71 1.00 0.64 0.89 0.90 1.17 0.95 0.77 0.68 0.67 0.59 0.38 0.43 0.19 0.29 0.49 0.51 0.00
Koh Kra
0.43 0.82 0.69 0.28 0.47 0.35 0.46 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.71 0.67 0.68 0.89 1.13 0.81 0.89 0.66 0.78 0.77 0.68 0.59 0.44 0.32 0.42 0.40 0.46 0.00
Losin
0.41 0.79 0.67 0.27 0.45 0.32 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.40 0.68 0.65 0.66 0.87 1.10 0.81 0.89 0.66 0.77 0.78 0.68 0.59 0.45 0.31 0.41 0.40 0.47 0.03 0.00
Anambas
0.64 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.76 0.68 0.50 0.60 0.40 0.53 0.89 0.59 0.59 0.72 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.36 0.57 0.69 0.36 0.37 0.40 0.41 0.51 0.50 0.56 0.63 0.61 0.00
Bangka
0.63 0.78 0.62 0.35 0.67 0.53 0.61 0.64 0.44 0.75 0.67 0.70 0.70 0.91 1.18 0.69 0.88 0.36 0.69 0.76 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.27 0.00
Belitung
0.52 0.58 0.52 0.33 0.52 0.43 0.48 0.56 0.54 0.68 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.69 0.91 0.64 0.71 0.44 0.56 0.65 0.46 0.34 0.52 0.39 0.45 0.47 0.61 0.47 0.45 0.17 0.12 0.00
Karimata
0.66 0.59 0.51 0.48 0.65 0.55 0.65 0.69 0.66 0.80 0.58 0.66 0.58 0.79 1.05 0.75 0.92 0.47 0.73 0.88 0.49 0.51 0.55 0.53 0.61 0.64 0.75 0.67 0.64 0.19 0.22 0.12 0.00
Batu Malang, Pulau Tioman 0.57 0.82 0.74 0.46 0.70 0.61 0.48 0.35 0.84 0.26 0.85 0.65 0.63 0.74 0.93 0.61 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.67 0.86 0.72 0.76 0.55 0.39 0.31 0.76 0.54 0.53 0.58 0.65 0.70 0.73 0.00
Pulau Lang Tengah
0.42 0.65 0.52 0.31 0.61 0.54 0.35 0.37 0.53 0.38 0.77 0.36 0.59 0.60 0.86 0.49 0.45 0.57 0.37 0.39 0.54 0.46 0.47 0.24 0.09 0.06 0.48 0.39 0.39 0.49 0.51 0.45 0.62 0.36 0.00
Pulau Lima, Pulau Redang 0.40 0.68 0.56 0.34 0.58 0.51 0.36 0.29 0.59 0.26 0.77 0.45 0.58 0.62 0.87 0.62 0.57 0.65 0.51 0.55 0.69 0.60 0.55 0.33 0.21 0.16 0.56 0.36 0.36 0.58 0.66 0.56 0.73 0.25 0.18 0.00
Teluk Jawa, Palau Dayang
0.34 0.65 0.50 0.33 0.57 0.48 0.41 0.34 0.52 0.39 0.74 0.33 0.61 0.57 0.83 0.68 0.57 0.69 0.52 0.53 0.63 0.58 0.47 0.27 0.16 0.21 0.50 0.37 0.36 0.60 0.65 0.55 0.73 0.37 0.18 0.14 0.00
Tun Mustapha, Sabah
0.78 0.58 0.52 0.77 0.86 0.81 0.83 0.83 1.06 1.06 0.68 0.58 0.65 0.43 0.53 0.83 0.71 0.85 0.68 0.84 0.80 0.82 0.92 0.83 0.75 0.83 1.08 1.24 1.22 0.67 0.82 0.76 0.68 0.89 0.81 0.90 0.87 0.00
KKCR2
0.46 0.99 0.70 0.37 0.56 0.58 0.45 0.61 0.27 0.85 0.86 0.69 0.86 0.96 1.35 0.78 0.59 0.78 0.60 0.50 0.53 0.49 0.26 0.15 0.38 0.39 0.28 0.35 0.36 0.71 0.57 0.53 0.80 0.82 0.33 0.49 0.42 1.49 0.00
SHVCR1
0.76 1.16 0.87 0.62 0.85 0.87 0.67 0.90 0.31 1.19 1.08 0.94 1.08 1.16 1.55 0.85 0.61 0.84 0.62 0.40 0.37 0.41 0.34 0.41 0.62 0.63 0.26 0.66 0.67 0.83 0.68 0.68 0.94 1.08 0.58 0.79 0.72 1.59 0.32 0.00
SHVCR2
0.81 1.09 0.97 0.53 0.97 0.86 0.59 0.62 0.88 0.52 1.12 0.83 0.89 1.01 1.27 0.42 0.50 0.32 0.49 0.48 0.75 0.54 0.78 0.58 0.46 0.35 0.72 0.66 0.67 0.61 0.59 0.70 0.87 0.45 0.42 0.49 0.58 1.16 0.71 0.81 0.00
SHVCR3
0.83 1.36 0.98 0.46 0.90 0.90 0.52 0.75 0.18 0.98 1.16 1.17 1.04 1.33 1.82 0.44 0.47 0.42 0.48 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.39 0.52 0.39 0.40 0.65 0.66 0.64 0.49 0.59 0.74 0.70 0.41 0.69 0.75 1.41 0.32 0.19 0.20 0.00
KEPCR1
0.63 1.07 0.83 0.33 0.68 0.66 0.40 0.59 0.60 0.77 0.86 0.79 0.80 1.00 1.35 0.45 0.35 0.44 0.36 0.29 0.55 0.31 0.58 0.37 0.37 0.29 0.56 0.48 0.49 0.64 0.47 0.43 0.73 0.71 0.30 0.52 0.55 1.39 0.36 0.44 0.41 0.03 0.00
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Final Ranking of Potential Coral Reef Demonstration Sites Based on Environmental
and Socio-Economic Indicators
Background
During the third meeting of the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs (RWG-CR), the ranking criteria
and the weights for environmental and socio economic indicators were discussed and agreed by the
Regional Working Group (Annex 6, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.3/3). A preliminary ranking of priority
sites using both environmental and socio-economic indicators was undertaken of the potential coral reef
demonstration sites bordering the South China Sea. Subsequent to this meeting, the Regional Scientific
and Technical Committee (RSTC), reviewed the preliminary cluster analysis and ranking that had been
carried out by the RWG-CR, and agreed that the parameter "number of mammal species" should be
removed from the cluster analysis and ranking.
Finalisation of ranking scores and indicators
Based on the discussions and agreements during the fourth RWG-CR meeting, the indicators and
weights for the environmental characteristics were revised. (Table 1). The ranking results for the 43
proposed coral reef demonstration sites, based on the agreed revised scores for environmental
characteristics, are presented in Table 2. At the same meeting, the socio-economic indicators and
weights were also reviewed and discussed, and the agreed revised indicators and weights are provided
in the Table 3. Based on these revised weights for socio-economic indicators, the ranking scores of the
proposed demonstration sites are presented in the Table 4.
Table 1
Agreed scores for environmental criteria and indicators of coral reefs.
Indicators
Scale of Indicators
1 2 3 4 5
Biological diversity, 60 points
No. Hard coral Genera
< 30
31-40
41-50
51-60
> 60
Maximum score, 10
1
4
6
8
10
No. Hard coral species
< 100
101-150
151-200
201-300
> 300
Maximum score, 10
2
4
6
8
10
Percentage live coral cover
0-10
11-25
26-50
51-75
>75
Maximum score, 8
1
2
4
6
8
Percentage algal cover
>40
10-40
<10
Maximum score, 3
1
2
3
Number of coral reef fish genera
< 20
21-30
31-50
51-60
>60
Maximum score, 9
1
3
5
7
9
Number of coral reef fish species
<100
101-250
251-400
401-600
>600
Maximum score, 10
2
4
6
8
10
Number of other ecosystems
1
2
3
4
Maximum score, 10
2.5
5
7.5
10
Transboundary Significance, 20 points
No. of Migratory Species
<5
5-10
> 10
Maximum score, 10
3
6
10
Tourism (yes or no)
no
yes
Maximum score, 5
0
5
Cross-boundary Fishing (yes or no)
no
yes
Maximum score, 5
0
5
Regional/Global Significance, 10 points
Number of endangered and threatened
<5 5-10 >10
species
Maximum score, 10
3
6
10
Area, 10 points
Area of coral reefs (ha)
< 100
101- 500
> 500
Maximum score, 10
3
6
10
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 2
Ranking scores for agreed environmental indicators.
No. of coral
No. of
No. of
No. of
Trans
No. of endangered
Hard coral Hard coral Live coral
Algae
Ranking
Site Name
reef fish
coral reef
other
migratory Tourism boundary
and threatened
Area
genera
species
cover (%) cover (%)
scores
genera
fish spp. ecosystem species
fishing
species
First Cluster
Ninh
Hai
6 8 4
3
7 4 5 3 5 5
10
20
80
Mu Koh Chang
6
4
4
3
9
4
10
10
5
5
6
10
76
Mu Koh Chumporn
4
4
6
3
9
4
10
10
5
0
6
10
71
Mu Koh Samui
6
4
4
3
9
4
10
10
5
0
6
10
71
Ca Na bay
6
4
4
3
7
4
2.5
3
5
5
7.5
10
61
Batangas
8 10 4
2
9 4 5 6 5 0
3
3
59
Cu Lao Cham
4
6
4
3
5
4
2.5
3
5
5
10
6
57.5
Koh Tao Group
6
2
4
3
9
4
5
10
5
0
3
6
57
Mu Koh Samet
1
2
4
3
7
2
10
10
5
0
6
6
56
Phu
Quoc
4 2 6
3
5 4 5 3 5 5
7.5
6
55.5
Prachuab 4
2
4
3
9
4
5
10
5
0
3
6
55
Ha Long - Cat Ba
6
6
6
3
3
2
5
3
5
5
10
54
Bolinao/Lingayan
8 6 2
1
9 6 5 3 5 0
3
4
52
Hai Van - Son Tra
6
6
8
3
9
4
2.5
3
0
0
10
51.5
Batu Malang, Pulau Tioman
6
2
6
3
9
4
2.5
3
5
5
3
3
51.5
Pulau Lang Tengah
6
2
4
3
9
4
5
3
5
0
3
3
47
Teluk Jawa, Palau Dayang
4
2
4
2
9
4
2.5
3
5
5
3
3
46.5
SHVCR2
2
6
3
2
7.5
10
5
5
6
46.5
Pulau Lima, Pulau Redang
6
2
4
2
9
4
2.5
3
5
0
3
3
43.5
Losin
4 2 4
3
7 2
2.5 6 5 0
3
3
41.5
Batanes, Basco
1
6
2
5 2
2.5 6 5 5
3
3
40.5
Koh
Kra
4 2 4
3
5 2
2.5 6 5 0
3
3
39.5
KEPCR1
2
4
2
2
7.5
10
0
5
3
35.5
SHVCR3
2
2
2
2.5
10
5
5
28.5
Second Cluster
Mu Koh Ang Thong
4
4
6
3
9
4
10
10
5
0
3
6
64
Belitung
8 6 4
5 4
7.5 3 5 0
3
10
55.5
Anambas
8 8
3
5 4
7.5 3 0 5
3
6
52.5
Karimata
8 6
5 4
7.5 3 0 5
3
10
51.5
Chao Lao
6
2
4
3
5
4
5
10
5
0
3
3
50
Sichang
Group
4 2 2
3
5 2 10 6 5 0
3
6
48
SHVCR1
2
2
3
2
7.5
10
5
5
10
46.5
Sattaheep
Group
4 2 4
3
5 2 10 6 0 0
3
6
45
KKCR2
2
4
2
2
5
10
5
5
10
45
Bangka
6 4
5 4
7.5 3 5 0
3
6
43.5
Lan and Phai Group
1
2
2
3
5
2
5
6
5
0
3
6
40
Song
Khla
1 2 2
3
1 2 5 6 0 0
3
3
28
Bach Long Vi
4
2
2
3
1
2
0
3
0
5
5
0
27
Third Cluster
El Nido, Palawan
10
8
4
2
9
8
7.5
6
5
5
6
10
80.5
Tun
Mustapha,
Sabah 10 8
2
7 6
7.5 6 5 5
3
10
69.5
Nha
Trang
bay
8 10 2
3
9 4 5 3 5 5
7.5
6
67.5
Con
Dao
6 8 2
3
5 4 5 3 5 5
10
10
66
Puerto
Galera
10 8 4
2
9 6
2.5 6 5 0
6
3
61.5
Masinloc
3
2
2
9 4 5 6 5 5
3
6
50
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 6
Page 3
Table 3
Agreed scores for socio-economic criteria and indicators of coral reefs to be used in
the ranking of coral reef sites bordering the South China Sea.
Indicators
Scale of Indicators
1 2 3
Reversibility of threats, 25 points
Reversibility of fishing impact
Low
Medium
High
Maximum score, 5
1
3
5
Reversibility of development impact
Low
Medium
High
Maximum score, 5
1
3
5
Reversibility of coral mining
Low
Medium
High
Maximum score, 5
1
3
5
Reversibility of land-based pollution Low
Medium
High
Maximum score, 5
1
3
5
Natural impact (typhoon, bleaching and COT star fish)
Low
Medium
High
Maximum score, 5
1
3
5
National significance, 15 points
Identified as a national priority
Rest
3
2
1
Maximum score, 5
0
1
3
5
Level of direct stakeholder involvement in
Low
Medium
High
management
Maximum score, 5
1
3
5
socio-economic value
Low
Medium
High
Maximum score, 5
1 3 5
Finance consideration - co financing, 15 points
Potential for co financing
< 1:1
1:1
> 1:1
Maximum score, 15
5
10
15
Local stakeholder/ community involvement, 15 points
Local stakeholder/ community involvement
Low
Medium
High
Maximum score, 15
5
10
15
Transboundary management, 15 points
Potential transboundary management
no
Potential
yes
Maximum score, 15
0
5
15
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 6
Page 4
Table 4
Final ranking scores for socio-economic indicators, for those potential demonstration sites for which proposals were received.
Land-
Socio-
Stakeholder
Potential
Fishing Development Coral
Natural National Stakeholder
based
economic Co-financing
community
transboundary
Rank Score
impact
impact
mining
impact
priority
involvement
pollution
value
involvement
management
First Cluster
Nihn
Hai
3 3
3 5
3 0
5 3 15
15
0 55
Mu Koh Chang
1
1
5
1
1
5
5
5
15
15
15
69
Mu Koh Chumporn
1
1
5
1
1
3
5
5
15
15
0
52
Samui
1 1
5 1
1 1
5 5 15
15
0 50
Batangas
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
5
15
0 44
Phu
Quoc
1 3
5 3
3 1
1 5 10
10
15 57
Anda
bolinao-bani-Alaminos
3 3
3 3
3 3
5 5
5
15
0 48
Batu Malang, Pulau Tioman,
Pahang
3 1
3 3
3 3
3 5
5
10
0 39
Pulau Lang Tengah
5
5
5
5
3
1
3
3
5
15
0
50
KEPCR1
1 5
3 3
5 5
5 5
5
15
5 57
Second Cluster
Mo Koh Angthong
3
3
5
3
1
0
3
5
15
10
0
48
Belitung
5 3
5 3
5 3
3 5
5
10
0 47
KKCR2
3 5
3 5
5 5
3 3
5
10
5 52
Third Cluster
Tun Mustapha
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
5
10
15
15
70
Masinloc,
Zambales
3 3
5 3
2 3
5 3 15
15
0 57
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 6
Page 5
Following the meeting the Regional Working Group agreed, through an electronic discussion to a
weighting ratio between the environmental and socio-economic indicators. Considering the importance
of the environmental indicators in the ranking process, it was agreed that environmental indicators
should be weighted to 70%, and socio-economic indicators, to 30% of the total rank score. Table 5
presents the final result of the ranking of potential demonstration sites in the three clusters.
Table 5
Final rank score for the weighted, combined scores of environmental indicators
(70%) and socio-economic indicators (30%).
Environmental
Socio-economic
Overall
Site Name
indicators rank
Total score 2
indicators rank score
Rank
score
Cluster 1
Mu Koh Chang
76
69
73.9
1
Ninh Hai
80
55
72.5
2
Mu Koh Chumporn
71
52
65.3
4
Mu Koh Samui
71
50
64.7
5
Phu Quoc
55.5
57
55.95
7
Batangas 59
44
54.5
8
Bolinao/Lingayan 52
48
50.8
11
Pulau Lang Tengah
47
50
47.9
12
Batu Malang, Pulau Tioman
51.5
39
47.75
13
KEPCR1 35.5
57
41.95
15
Cluster 2
Mu Koh Ang Thong
64
48
59.2
6
Belitung 55.5
47
52.95
9
KKCR2 45
52
47.1
14
Cluster 3
Tun Mustapha, Sabah
69.5
70
69.65
3
Masinloc 50
57
52.1
10
2 70% Environmental Indicators. and 30% Social .Economic .Indicators.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 7
Page 1
ANNEX 7
Suggested Model for Preparation of Section 13 and Section 15
of the Demonstration Site Proposals
Section 13. PLANNED ACTIVITIES TO ACHIEVE OUTCOMES. (The activities are to be undertaken
and state, indicators can be used to measure the extent to which planned activities have been
implemented.)
The planned activities to achieve the desired outcomes are as follows:
1. Sustainable tourism development and management
1. Promotion of responsible tourism activities.
2. Regulation of tourism.
3. Systemization of marine tourism.
4. Development of diving activities.
2. Effective law enforcement
1. Patrol, inspection, protection, law enforcement.
2. Eradication of illegal activities.
3. Providing knowledge and building public awareness in order to raise their understanding
on coral reefs and other marine ecosystems and sustainable utilization of marine
resources
1. Training and seminars for students.
2. Training and seminars for tourism operators.
3. Training
and
seminars for government staff.
4. Training and seminars for local people.
4. Community organizing multi-sectoral coral reef conservation
1. Encourage coordination among government agencies, private sector, NGOs, and local
communities during planning, operation and evaluation phases to strengthen co-
management of all activities in the area and to reduce any obstacles of project
implementation.
2. Increase numbers of researchers, site managers and experienced NGOs through
research fund raising, training, seminars, and study visits.
5. Monitoring
programs
1. Modelling of eco-tourism development project design, preparation and implementation.
2. Studies on socio-economic tools for management of all tourism and fisheries activities.
3. Ecological and socio-economic monitoring programs and project evaluation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 7
Page 2
Section 15. ESTIMATED BUDGET
Table 1
Estimated Budget (in US$) by Activities (columns) and by Objects of Expenditure (rows).
Component 1:
Component 2:
Component 3:
Component 4:
Component 5:
Total
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
Act.
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
Salary
0
0
14,400 0
109,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
123,900
Allowances
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-profit supporting
organizations
75,000
0
0 69,000
0 41,250
0 25,000
0 25,000
0
0 75,000 75,000 37,500 422,750
Commercial organizations
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Training
Travel
0
1,875
7,500 0 0 0
4,500 0
2,250 0
2,700 0 0 0 0
18,825
Subsistence
0
6,375
17,100 0 0 0
22,500 0
20,250 0
16,200 0 0 0 0
82,425
Equipment
Computer
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15,000 0 0 0
15,000
Office
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7,500 0 0 0
7,500
Instrument
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15,000 0 0 0
15,000
Travel
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Evaluation
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reporting costs
0
0
16,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16,500
TOTAL
75,000 8,250 55,500 69,000 109,500 41,250 27,000 25,000 22,500 25,000 18,900 37,500 75,000 75,000 37,500 701,900
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 7
Page 3
Table 2
Estimated Budget (in US$) by Object of Expenditure by Years.
2004
2005
2006
OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
GEF
Gov.
GEF
Gov.
GEF
Gov.
1000 PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT
1100
Project Personnel
20,650
20,650
41,300
20,650 20,650 41,300
20,650 20,650 41,300
1999
Component Total
20,650
20,650
41,300
20,650
20,650
41,300
20,650
20,650
41,300
2000 SUB-CONTRACT
COMPONENT
2100
Sub-contracts-non-profit organizations
70,875 70,875 141,750
70,875 70,875 141,750
69,625 69,625 139,250
2999
Component Total
70,875 70,875 141,750 70,875 70,875 141,750 69,625 69,625 139,250
3000 TRAINING COMPONENT
3100
Travel Costs
3,137.5
3,137.5
6,275
3,137.5 3,137.5 6,275
3,137.5 3,137.5
6,275
3200
Subsistence Costs
13,737.5 13,737.5
27,475
13,737.5 13,737.5 27,475
13,737.5 13,737.5
27,475
3999
Component Total
16,875
16,875
33,750
16,875
16,875
33,750
16,875
16,875
33,750
4000 EQUIPMENT & PREMISES COMPONENT
4100
Computer
2,500 2,500 5,000
2,500 2,500 5,000
2,500 2,500 5,000
4200
Office Equipment
1,250 1,250 2,500
1,250 1,250 2,500
1,250 1,250 2,500
4300
Instrument
2,500 2,500 5,000
2,500 2,500 5,000
2,500 2,500 5,000
4999
Component Total
6,250
6,250
12,500
6,250
6,250
12,500
6,250
6,250
12,500
5000 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT
5100
Reporting Cost
2,750 2,750 5,500
2,750 2,750 5,500
2,750 2,750 5,500
5999
Component Total
2,750
2,750
5,500
2,750
2,750
5,500
2,750
2,750
5,500
9999 Grand Total
117,400
117,400
234,800
117,400
117,400
234,800
116,150
116,150
232,300
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 8
Page 1
ANNEX 8
Revised Work plan for the Regional Working Group for Coral Reefs
Table 1
Work Plan for the Regional Working Group for Coral Reefs.
Year 2003
2004
Month
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
Week starting
24 1 8
15
22
29
5 12 19
26
2
9
16
23 1 8 15
22
29
5
12
19
26
3 10 17 24 31
7 14
21
28
Nat'l Com. Mtgs
X
X
X
X
X
NTWG Mtg.
X
IMC
mtg.
X
RWG
mtgs.
RSTC
Mtg.
X
PSC
mtg.
X
Administrative Rpts.
Outstanding 6 mth. rpts.
Outstanding audit rpts.
Budget Rev. Country
Budget approval PCU
X
Work plan final country
Work plan approval PCU
MoU Rev. PCU
MoU Sig. Country
X
National Rpts.
Draft Nat'l data &info
Ind, Phi, Thai & VN
Cam
Mal
Rev. Past & Ongoing
Ind, Phi, Thai & VN
Cam
Mal
Rev. on Legisl.
Cam
Ind, Phi, Thai & VN
Mal
Rev. econ. Valuation
Phi, Thai & VN
Cam & Ind
Mal
Draft Nat'l Act Plan
Ind, Phi, Thai & VN
Cam & Mal
PCU edits
SEA clearance
Camera
ready
Publication
Regional Overview
Inputs from SEA
PCU compile & dispatch
SEA review
PCU camera ready
Publication
Demo Proposals
RWG review
Final by SEAs
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Annex 8
Page 2
Table 2
Schedule of meetings for 2004. (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -C = Coral reefs; -S = Seagrass; -W = Wetlands; -F= Fisheries; LbP = Land-based
Pollution; RTF-E = Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation; RTF-L = Regional Task Force on Legal Matters.)
S M
T W T F S
S M
T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M
January
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31
H
Chinese NY
February
1
2
3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
Regional
H
Science
RSTC-4
PSC-3
Conference
March
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30 31
RWG-
H
Ad
hoc
LbP-4
April
1 2 3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30
LbP-4
RWG-F-4
Thai NY
May
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
RTF-L-2
ExComm
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
RTF-E-2
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
H
RWG- S-5
September
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30
RWG-C-5
RWG-M-5
October
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31
RWG-W-5
RWG- F-5
Ramadan
November
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30
Ramadan
H
RWG-LbP-5
December
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30 31
H
RSTC-5
PSC-4
Xmas
H