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 Wetlands Sub-component
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 15th 18th December 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, December 2003
First published in Thailand in 2003 by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Copyright © 2003, 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: Professor Chen Guizhu, Aquaculture in Wetlands Area, Pearl River, China.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2003. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Wetlands.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.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. STATUS OF OVERALL PROGRESS OF NATIONAL ACTIVITIES............................................... 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 AGREEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL WORK PLANS AND BUDGETS FOR COMPLETION OF PREPARATORY
REPORTS AND OUTPUTS ........................................................................................................... 6
5. REGIONAL CLUSTER ANALYSIS AND DEMONSTRATION SITES PROPOSALS .................... 6
6. REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF WETLANDS BORDERING THE SOUTH CHINA SEA .................. 13
7. REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON WETLANDS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD DECEMBER 2003 TO JUNE 2004........ 13
8. DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
WETLANDS .................................................................................................................................. 14
9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................... 15
10. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING ...................................................................... 15
11. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING ...................................................................................................... 15
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Recommended Content for National Wetlands Reports by Independent Reviewer
ANNEX 5
Regional Cluster Analysis Conducted During the Fourth Meeting of the RWG-W
ANNEX 6
Environmental and Socio-economic Ranking of Proposed Demonstration Sites
ANNEX 7
Schedule of Meetings, Work Plan and Timetable for the Wetlands Focal Points,
2003
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta, welcomed members and regional experts to the
fourth meeting of the Regional Working Group on Wetlands (RWG-W) 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 point in implementation, and that
substantial work was before the participants for consideration and decision during the meeting. He
noted that, as the operational phase of the project will start in 2004, it is imperative that outputs of the
first phase were finalized, published and distributed prior to the commencement of the operational
phase.
1.3
He informed participants that during this meeting, current MoUs, expiring on 31 December
2003, would need to be amended to extend their duration to June 30th 2004 to take account of initial
delays in fund transfer and start-up activities at the national level. During the fourth meeting of the
RWG-W, members should work out pragmatic and realistic work plans in order to ensure that the
anticipated outputs would be produced on time, and budgets should be revised based on the revised
work plan with realistic estimates of anticipated cash requirements. Dr. Pernetta informed the meeting
that the newly appointed fund officer, Ms. Nita Tangsujaritvichit would be available to assist each focal
point in revising their budgets based on the revised work plan and realistic estimates of requirements.
1.4
The Project Director recalled that some problems still exist in the data used in the regional
cluster analysis conducted subsequent to the third RWG-W meeting. The third RSTC meeting had
provided some advice on the revision of the cluster analysis, which required substantial work in terms
of verification, correction and finalization of the data sets for final cluster analysis. It was noted that
demonstration site proposals had not been received until a few days before the commencement of the
meeting, so it had not been possible for the PCU to provide concrete comments on the proposals. The
demonstration site proposals with the highest regional priority should be reviewed collectively by the
RWG-W.
1.5
It was further noted that the review of national data and information, conducted by the SEAs
during the preparatory phase of the project, should provide a sound basis for countries to develop a
national wetlands action plan, which should serve as an important input to the revised Strategic Action
Programme (SAP). As of today, no country has submitted a national wetlands action plan to the PCU.
The Project Director stated that the development and adoption of a national wetlands action plan
required intensive consultations with various stakeholders, including the government, which will form a
major task during the operational phase of the project. In conclusion Dr. Pernetta expressed the hope
that the group would be able to complete the agenda and wished the participants a successful
meeting.
1.6
The Chairperson of the RWG-W, Ms. Marlynn Mendoza, formally opened the meeting and
welcomed members to the meeting. She noted that the Vietnamese focal point, Dr. Mai Trong Nhuan
would join the meeting during the afternoon. She invited the meeting participants to introduce
themselves to the meeting. The list of participants, is attached as Annex 1 to this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
The Chairperson invited Ms. Sulan Chen of the Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) to introduce
the documentation available to the meeting in both hard copy and on CD-ROM. Ms. Chen referred to the
document, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/Inf.2, and briefed the participants regarding the discussion and
information documents. It was pointed out that, although not listed in this document due to their late
submission, the demonstration site proposals submitted to the PCU were also included in the folder.
The CD-ROM contains all the meeting documents in hard copy, substantive wetlands reports, and
demonstration site proposals received by the PCU, together with the meeting reports of other
components, RSTC and PCU in 2002 and 2003. The document list, is attached as Annex 2 to this
report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 2
2.2
Ms. Chen briefed participants on the administrative arrangements for the conduct of the
meeting, and the proposed organisation of work (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.3/Inf.3). The meeting will
commence at 8:00am and run until 5.00pm or until such time as the members decided. She indicated
that night sessions might be required to complete the heavy meeting agenda, and noted that formal
sessions of the meeting would be conducted in plenary although time had been allotted in the agenda
for breakout sessions. Additionally, it was noted that time has to be set aside for finalisation of
individual work plans, budgets and amendments to the MoUs.
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-W.3/1, and invited members to consider proposals for
any amendments or additional items for consideration, prior to the adoption of the agenda.
3.2
Ms. Mendoza proposed an additional item concerning the development of national action
plans and the revised Strategic Action Programme under Agenda Item 9, and proposed that the
elements of the national action plan and its relationship to the Strategic Action Programme should be
outlined under this agenda item.
3.3
The Project Director suggested that, under Agenda Item 9, the PCU brief members on the
draft programme for the Regional Scientific Conference (RSC) to be held 11-13, February 2003, in
Bangkok, Thailand.
3.4
The RWG-W agreed to include these two additional items under Agenda Item 9. With these
additions, the revised draft agenda, as contained in Annex 3 of this report, was adopted by the
meeting.
4.
STATUS OF OVERALL PROGRESS OF NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
4.1
Status of mid-year progress reports, expenditure reports, and budgets
4.1.1
The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
W.4/4, entitled "Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the
participating countries," that contained a summary of the current status of budgets and administrative
reports, including audit reports, received by the Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) from the Specialised
Executing Agencies (SEAs) in the participating countries.
4.1.2 In introducing this document the Project Director noted that the document outlined the
considerable operational difficulties faced by the PCU in respect of the implementation of the
individual MoUs, specifically the delays of the SEAs in submitting the required financial and
administrative reports and the large cash balances currently held by the SEAs.
4.1.3 Attention was drawn to Table 2 of the document and to the generic problem of under-
expenditure of SEAs of all components, with a total of US$128, 204 being currently held by the SEAs.
It was noted that large unspent cash balances, to some extent, indicated that SEAs were not planning
their activities well, or were not actually undertaking the planned activities, causing delays and
unspent monies.
4.1.4
The Project Director took note of the implications of the under-expenditures, as follows:
· Under-expenditures could not be carried beyond the 31st December 2003 without extension of
the existing MoUs;
· Any unspent balances should be refunded to UNEP within 30 days after completion of the final
task;
· Large, unspent sums of money deposited in the bank account of an SEA, would yield interest
on the savings. The SEAs should report any interest earned and this should be used for
legitimate project activities.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 3
4.1.5 The Project Director concluded that the existing MoU's with termination dates of 31st
December 2003 should be extended to June 30th 2004 to permit the finalisation and publication of the
substantive reports and continuation of national committee and sub-committee activities whilst the
second memoranda to March 2007 are negotiated and signed. It was noted that 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, i.e. 31 December 2003.
4.1.6
It is therefore imperative that, during this meeting, each SEA should carefully plan its activities
from now till June 2004, work out a realistic and feasible individual work plan with matching budgets to
complete the assigned tasks. The Project Director pointed out that individual work plan and budgeting
must be designed to ensure that, no large cash balances are held by the SEAs as of 30th June 2004.
It was noted that the progress of the wetlands sub-component had been slow compared with other
components and sub-components.
4.1.7
The RWG-W agreed that each SEA would make individual appointments with Ms. Nita to
finalise their budgets based on individual work plans and planned activities, which will provide inputs
for the Project Director to amend the MoUs. It was noted that SEAs would be in a better position to
revise their work plans and financial budgeting after reviewing the status of the substantive reports on
wetlands from SEAs and considering the comments from the PCU and independent reviewers. The
RWG-W decided to proceed to next Agenda Item.
4.2
Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities
4.2.1 The Chairperson invited Ms. Chen, to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/5,
"Current status of substantive reports on Wetlands from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the
Participating Countries", and outlined the recommendations regarding finalisation and/or publication of
these outputs, via print and electronic media.
4.2.2
Ms. Chen noted that MoUs signed between UNEP and the SEAs stipulated the following
tasks to be conducted at the national level:
1. Review of past and ongoing activities;
2. Review of national data and information;
3. Creation of national meta database;
4. Identification
and
characterisation of sites;
5. Review of economic valuation;
6. Review of national legislation and institutional arrangements;
7. National wetland action plan.
4.2.3
As the project is about to enter the operational phase, it is imperative that the reports be
finalised and published by June 2004. It was noted that not all required outputs and reports have been
produced by the SEAs, and the content, format and quality of the reports received by the PCU vary
greatly among countries. In order to ensure the international quality of the reports for international
distribution, the PSC decided at the second meeting to introduce a peer review process for the
substantive outputs resulting from project activities. It was further agreed by the PSC during their
meeting that the reports on national legislation and economic valuation should be submitted for review
to the Regional Task Forces on Economic Valuation (RTF-E) and Legal Matters (RTF-L). It was noted
that comments and reviews on reports of economic valuation and national legislations were sent via
emails and faxes to the SEAs.
4.2.4 Other substantive reports were dispatched by the PCU to an independent reviewer with
expertise on wetlands. The comments and review, together with the PCU comments, were compiled
into document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/6. It should be noted that since the PCU had not received a
complete set of reports, reviews are still incomplete. The following general recommendations were
raised by, the independent reviewer:
· Different levels of comprehensiveness of data and information exist among countries' reports;
· Most reports need to be revised, amplified or extended before final publication;
· Certain reporting formats for compiling the main report should be adopted by the RWG-W to
finalize the report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 4
4.2.5 The independent review had suggested that the elements included in the Table of Content of
China's national report form a good model for the main wetlands report from each country. At the
request of some of the SEAs, the content and format was extracted from document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/6 for the reference and consideration of the SEAs in revising their final
reports and is attached as Annex 4 to this report.
4.2.6 It was noted by the focal points that some reports submitted to the PCU were not included in
the list of national substantive reports. The PCU requested that the reports in electronic file be
submitted to the PCU during the fourth meeting of the RWG-W. It was noted that email
communications had not worked efficiently between the PCU and SEAs due to failures of the system
within the UN and restrictions applied by various servers used by the SEAs. The PCU will try to
improve communication and requested that the SEAs routinely acknowledge receipt of e-mail
communications. The Project Director also indicated that the PCU remains under staffed, and would
welcome nominations of young graduate students with good command of English to work for the PCU
as a consultant on a 3-6 months' basis.
4.2.7 The RWG-W took note that the reports should be published at both regional and national
levels in English and the national language:
· At the national level, the reports produced for national distribution and use should be
coordinated by the focal points, and the costs of these should be included in the SEAs revised
budget. At the national level, no constraints had been set on what and how to publish the
national reports for distribution and use at national level. Countries should consider the nature
of their final publications based on individual countries' needs and the use to which the report
will be put nationally. It was requested by the PCU that the standard UN disclaimer, as well as
the logos of the project, UNEP and the GEF, be included in the report;
· At the regional level, the PCU will take the responsibility to review, edit, and coordinate
publication of the reports in English, and will bear the cost of final publication for regional use
and distribution. In cases where English versions, e.g. Philippines, will be published at the
national level, the PCU will pay the national Focal Points for additional copies provided that
the cost of publication is lower than that available to the PCU in Bangkok.
4.2.8 A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the final publications of reports produced by the SEAs.
In reviewing the form and content of the national substantive reports produced by the SEAs, the
RWG-W noted the following points with regard to finalisation and publication:
· Review of Past & Ongoing Activities. The RWG-W recollected that, a format of reporting
was agreed by the SEAs in identifying past and ongoing activities as the baseline for future
actions. Many countries have submitted existing projects and activities following the agreed
format, resulting in long lists of past and ongoing activities, which may or may not have direct
relevance to the protection and sustainable use of wetlands. Little substantive description or
analysis is included in these reports. It was further noted that these reports became outdated
as soon as they are published since new activities are continuously initiated. Therefore, the
report should not be published separately, but could be included as an annex to the main
wetlands report. It was further suggested an interactive database be developed for inclusion on
the project website to publish the reviews of past and ongoing activities and to permit updating
of new initiatives as they came on line.
· Review of National Legislation. The Project Director reminded the meeting that the first
RTF-L meeting was held in Phuket, Thailand September 2003, and noted that the Task Force
reviewed and commented on each individual report on legislation related to wetlands. The
RTF-L has within its mandate the responsibility to make available access to information on
environmental legislation, with a focus on identification of regional best practices. The Task
Force will build a web-based collection of relevant websites on national legislation related to
the marine environment. It was noted that some countries may wish to publish the national
legislation reports separately, depending on the status of the reports and national needs.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 5
· Review of Economic Valuation. The Project Director briefed the participants on the first
meeting of RTF-E and noted that regionally applicable economic valuation of habitats and
resources was a very important element to be incorporated in the revised Strategic Action
Programme. It was noted that most governments make decisions based on cost and benefit
analysis; therefore the revised SAP should be costed with respect to specific targets, but more
importantly should include an estimated cost of non-action. A pragmatic SAP should provide
hard economic arguments as to why governments should take some actions to protect the
marine environment, and what will be the costs of non-intervention if the likelihood of adoption
by the governments is to be enhanced. In order to provide inputs to the revised SAP, it is
therefore important that the SEAs assemble existing data and information on economic
valuation as background resources for the consideration of the RTF-E.
4.2.9 In response to a query about the elements of the National Action Plans and the process of
developing them, the Project Director noted that many existing action plans represented rather general
policy statements of general principles with no provisions regarding the operational implementation of
these principles or policies. The NAPs to be developed within the framework of this project should be
operational and pragmatic, and should specifically identify who is going to do what, where, when and
how. It was suggested by the Project Director that each country in developing such a NAP should
conduct extensive consultation process, involving expertises from within or without the project.
4.2.10 The Regional Expert, Dr. Chen Liwei noted that the WWF has a different approach to develop
national action plans by first developing a transboundary action plan, based on which the national
action plans are then formulated. He further queried the flow chart of activities leading to the
development of the NAP and requested clarification regarding the stage at which the project presently
stood. The meeting recalled and reviewed Annex 6, of the first meeting report (UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-W.1/3) Flow Chart of Actions for the Wetland Sub-component of the UNEP/GEF South China
Sea Project. It was noted that this Flow Chart represents a logical flow of actions leading ultimately to
the development of the NAP and SAP. The activities conducted in the preparatory phase of the project
form the fundamental basis on which the SEAs can develop the NAPs, and provide inputs to the
revised SAPs.
4.2.11 In summary, it was agreed that all countries will publish a national wetlands report, based on
the review of national data and information, including past & ongoing activities, site characterization,
national legislation and economic valuation. In the case of Cambodia, Malaysia, and the Philippines,
national reports on legislation will be published as a separate document. The plans for publication of
the national outputs are summarised in Table1.
Table 1 Decisions regarding the structure of the final publications at national level of
preparatory phase outputs. (P1, P2, etc refer to independent hard copy publications; other forms
of publication such as GIS CD-ROMs and web-based publications are also indicated; Add to 2
indicates that the specified output is combined with the second hard copy publication e.g. P2+3+4+7
indicates that the National Report will have annexed to it the analysis of "Past and Ongoing projects"
(output 3), the site characterisations (output 4) and the report on economic valuation (output 7)
Output
National
National Reports
Past &
Site
National
Review of
Economic
Action
Data &
Ongoing
characterisations
Meta-
Legislation
evaluation
Country
Plan (1)
Information (2)
activities (3)
(4)
database (5)
(6)
(7)
Cambodia
P1
P2+3+4+ 7
Add to 2
Add to 2
CD-ROM
P3
Add 2
China
P1
P2+3+4+6+7
Add to 2
Add to 2
Web-based
Add to 2
Add to 2
Indonesia
P1
P2+3+4+6+7
Add to 2
Add to 2
Web-based
Add to 2
Add to 2
Malaysia
P1
P2+3+4+5+7
Add to 2
Add to 2
Add to 2
P3/S.
Add to 2
Philippines
P1
P2+3+4+6+7
Add to 2
[Prioritisation] P3
Web-based
P4
Add to 2
Thailand
P1
P2 +3+5+6+7
Add to 2
P3/GIS CD ROM +
Add to 2
Add to 2
Add to 2
Hard Copy (Thai)
Vietnam
P1
P2+3+4+6+7
Add to 2
Add to 2
Web-based
Add to 2
Add to 2
4.2.12 The meeting noted that the languages in which the countries will publish the national reports
for national purposes are as follows: Cambodia (English/Khmer), China (Chinese), Indonesia (Bahasa
Indonesia/English), Malaysia (English), Philippines (English), Thailand (Thai), and Vietnam
(Vietnamese). The PCU would be responsible for publication and distribution of English versions to the
other countries in the project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 6
4.3
Agreement of individual work plans and budgets for completion of preparatory reports
and outputs
4.3.1 The meeting took note of the recommendation of the PCU that, existing MoU's with termination
dates of 31st December 2003 be extended to at least June 30th 2004 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 are negotiated and signed. In cases where the
Focal Point is not the authorised signatory then the Focal Point should be prepared to finalise the
document for signature by the authorised signatory upon their return home.
4.3.2 Considering the status of the national reports and the final deadlines for the publication of
these reports the meeting agreed to this proposal and worked individually in producing individual work
plans incorporating the agreements reached under agenda item 4. Following revision and agreement
of the work plans corresponding budget revisions reflecting individual cash requirements were
discussed and finalised with the assistance of Ms. Tangsujaritvichit from the PCU.
5.
REGIONAL CLUSTER ANALYSIS AND DEMONSTRATION SITES PROPOSALS
5.1
The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
W.4/7 entitled "Status of regional cluster analysis and ranking of potential demonstration sites" that
outlines the background and current status of the analysis required as the first of three steps in the
selection of demonstration sites by the Project Steering Committee.
5.2
Members were invited to note that the basic data set to be used in the cluster analysis contains
a number of "problems" that needed to be discussed and resolved by the Regional Working Group
prior to proceeding with the final cluster analysis, ranking and subsequent recommendations regarding
prioritisation of sites on a regional basis. The following problems were noted by the Project Director:
· Different types of wetlands sites were lumped together for analysis;
· A number of sites have exceedingly large sizes, which skew the results of cluster analysis;
· Some anomalous data, such as the numbers of endemic and endangered species require
clarification and verification.
5.3
It was also noted that, data and information from most of the countries, are not substantiated
by, documented information or lists of species. The RWG-W agreed that supporting data should be
provided during the meeting or within 5 days of the completion of the meeting. It was further agreed
that there are two ways to provide supporting documentation:
· Lists of species provided to verify the numbers used for the regional cluster analysis and
ranking;
· References and preferably copies of publications from which the numbers used had been
derived.
5.4
It was agreed that the definition of the parameters in the data set should be discussed,
considered and agreed to ensure the compatibility, comparability, and consistency of data among
countries. Each country was requested to provide clarification on its understanding of each parameter
so that disparate understandings of the same parameter could be reconciled and the data adjusted
accordingly. The following clarifications and definitions were agreed:
·
Number of Fish. The total number of fish refers to the total number of fish recorded from a
site, including endangered, migratory, and endemic species. The RWG-W noted that there is
possible overlap of measurement, but considered it justifiable to multiple count a fish species,
which has such multiple characteristics.
·
Number of Birds. Following the approach to record the number of fish, the RWG-W agreed
that the total number of birds should include all birds recorded from a site, including
endangered, migratory, and endemic species.
·
Number of Plants. The number of higher plant species, not including lower plants or algae.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 7
·
Number of Mammals. It was agreed that marine mammals, which are not dependent on the
wetlands habitats, should not be counted, and that only resident mammals should be
included in the data set.
·
Number of Wetland types. The meeting recalled the decision by the RWG-W in its previous
meeting, and the third RSTC meeting that only five types of wetlands should be considered
under the framework of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project, i.e. estuaries (including
deltas), inter-tidal flats, peat swamps, non-peat swamps, and coastal lagoons. It was further
agreed that the key/dominant wetland type and associated wetland types should be
distinguished for each site.
·
Number of Migratory Species. It was agreed that "migratory species" should include both
species that migrate within a country between freshwater and the marine environment or
species that migrate across national borders.
·
Number of Endemic Species. It was noted that countries have used different standards in
defining "endemic species." China and Philippines defined endemicity in relation to national-
level endemic species, i.e. including species found at the site, elsewhere in the country but
not known to occur outside the country concerned. All other countries' had restricted their use
of "endemic species" to species restricted in their distribution to the site under consideration.
The meeting decided that China and Philippines should modify their data to conform to this
definition.
·
Number of Endangered Species. It was noted that countries had used different standards
in defining endangered species. The meeting noted that in order to ensure the regional
consistency and comparability of data, the RWG-W had previously agreed that "endangered
species" should be identified based on the list of endangered species defined by the Red List
of the IUCN.
5.5
It was noted that the Indonesian and some Vietnamese sites have exceedingly large area and
that this not only influenced the outcome of the cluster analysis but would also pose difficulties for
management. Indonesia confirmed that management regimes already existed in the proposed sites,
for example, Sembilang was declared as a National Park by the government. In the case of Vietnam,
the exceedingly large size of the Cau Mau mud flats was queried. Following a lengthy discussion the
RWG-W agreed that the data should be retained where this could be verified.
5.6
In the light of the agreed definitions and standards for each of the parameters, members of the
RWG-W carefully checked, revised, and verified the raw data set. The final data set for the cluster
analysis is contained as Table 1 in Annex 5 of this report.
5.7
A cluster analysis was conducted on the revised data set and it was noted that the resulting
clusters were basically divided by country, i.e. each country's sites tended to remain in one cluster. A
proposal was made to split the sites by the key/dominant wetland type and run separate cluster
analysis. The data were divided into four wetland types, i.e. estuary, tidal flat, lagoons, and peat
swamps, and individual cluster analyses conducted. The outcome of the cluster analyses of all sites is
presented as Figure 1 in Annex 5 of this report.
5.8
The RWG-W noted that the resulting clusters were not well-integrated and noted that ideally,
more parameters should be added and a further set of analyses conducted. Due to the lack of data
and information, the RWG-W decided that recognising the deficiencies of the analysis a decision
should be taken regarding whether division of the sites into groups should be based on wetland type
or on the groupings resulting from a cluster analysis of all data combined. Following a review of the
purposes of the cluster analysis and considering the time constraints, the RWG-W agreed that the first
approach to the cluster analysis should be used.
5.9
It was noted that the number of sites were not evenly distributed among the six clusters in the
cluster analysis; the first cluster has many more sites (17) than any other cluster. It was decided
therefore that three clusters should be considered with the second and third clusters being grouped as
one and the fourth, fifth, and sixth groups being combined as a third cluster. The RWG-W was
reminded that priority should be given to the development of proposals for sites with higher ranking in
each of these clusters.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 8
5.10 Attention was then drawn to the observed range of values for the environmental criteria and
indicators used in the ranking process. It was noted that the range of environmental indicators had
been decided during the third RWG-W meeting, when data and information were not complete or
finalized and that these ranges did not reflect the empirical results demonstrated by the revised data.
For some parameters the distribution of sites within the different classes was highly skewed either to
the lower of the upper end of the range.
5.11 Based on the revised data, and the proposals of the PCU regarding revised ranges the
RWG-W reconsidered the ranges of the environmental indicators and varied them resulting in a more
even distribution of sites amongst the various classes. The revised scores for the environmental
criteria and indicators are presented as Table 1 of Annex 6 to this report. Members were provided with
a hard copy of the newly revised environmental indicator scoring system, and requested to score their
sites by the following morning for further consideration.
5.12 In response to a query regarding the socio-economic ranking it was noted that the socio-
economic indicators include a series of data and information sets, which are not available for most
sites and consequently it had been agreed to score only demonstration site proposals using these
criteria. For example, the level of stakeholder involvement and co-financing cannot be defined without
developing site proposals.
5.13
Based on the agreed environmental criteria, each country scored their sites overnight and the
data were consolidated and presented to the meeting. Some final revisions and changes were made
and the raw data, and environmental rank scores by cluster are presented in Table 3 of Annex 6 of
this report. It was noted that the demonstration site proposals did not fully encompass the top regional
priority sites in each of these groups.
5.14
It was agreed that even though most of the demonstration site proposals had not been
finalised, the RWG-W should still proceed to rank the sites by socio-economic indicators for those
sites that demonstration site proposals have been submitted. Attention was drawn to Table 8 of the
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/7 for the table of "Socio-economic Indicators and Scores for wetlands
bordering the South China Sea."
5.15
It was noted that the indicator, potential for co-financing is defined as "% of potential project
budget." It was considered that the ranges were not appropriately defined, considering that 100% of
the potential project budget means that the total cost of the project will be financed entirely by the
co-financing, and GEF funding is not required. It was agreed that potential for co-financing should be
defined as the ratio of "co-financing" to "GEF funding". The criteria was divided into three classes
namely, <1:1, 1:1, and >1:1.
5.16
It was pointed out by The Chairperson that since co-financing in-cash implied stronger
commitment from the government or other stakeholders; it should not be lumped with co-financing in
kind. After a lengthy discussion, the meeting noted that if a 1:1 ratio applies to the ratio of co-financing
in cash to GEF funding, and co-financing in kind to GEF funding, the ratio of the total co-financing to
GEF funding would be 2:1. The RWG-W agreed to consider co-financing in kind and in cash together.
The final agreed table of socio-economic indicators and scores is included in Table 2 of Annex 6 of
this report.
5.17
Mr. Narong reminded participants that they had previously agreed that in determining final
rank score the individual site scores for the environmental and socio-economic criteria and indicators
should be combined in the ratio of 7:3. The combined scores are presented in Table 3 of Annex 6.
5.18
In introducing discussion of the individual proposals the Chairperson noted that due to time
constraints the RWG-W could not review all the demonstration site proposals presented and that due
to delays in their receipt the PCU had been unable to review these in detail prior to the meeting. It was
therefore decided that the proposal with the highest priority from each country would be reviewed by
the RWG-W.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 9
5.19
CAMBODIA Koh Kapik Ramsar Site
· It was noted that proposal has not closely followed the Guidelines, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
W.4/6, agreed by the third RWG-W meeting. Section 3, the last two points are irrelevant to the
Section.
· Section 4. The relationships of the national strategies or national action plan to the proposed
project, and how activities relate to national priorities should be specified. That is the relevance
of the site to the plans should be clear and the way in which the proposed activities would
contribute to meeting the objectives of the plans and national strategies should also be
explained. It was noted that no co-financing from either central government or local government
has been committed to date. The last bullet point is not relevant to the section.
· Section 5. Irrelevant information was provided since this requires the "date of national technical
working group, which considered the proposal and recommendation", not the date of the
RWG-W meeting. If the proposal has not been discussed, it should state the date of submission
of the proposal for consideration.
· Section 6. Comments from National Focal Point should reflect national priorities of the site
proposed.
· Section 7. It should indicate the sources of the Criteria 1(b) and 1 (c) and 2(c). Whose criteria
are referred to here? Environmental data and information are inadequate. Information should be
provided according to the Guidelines. There is no description of dominant habitats in the
proposed area, and there is no information on the key or unique biological features in the area.
It is therefore unclear to the readers what the proposed activities will protect or maintain in the
area. The analysis of the existing management regime should specify who is responsible for
managing the area at the present time and in particular the local level management regime
should be more specifically described.
· Section 8. It includes only a very general description on the stakeholders. The proposal should
specify who the stakeholders are, what is at stake, and how to engage them. No stakeholder
involvement plan is included in any of the proposals. Suggestions were made that a local
government approval letter may raise the confidence of potential donors that key stakeholders
have been consulted.
· Section 9. Threat analysis is too general; there is no analysis on the optimum points for
intervention. It was noted that immigration has been identified as a threat to the site, and it was
questioned whether it was possible to address this issue within the scope of a GEF
demonstration site.
· Section 10. It was noted that the goals and purposes are too ambitious, and unrealistic.
· Section 11, 12, 13. Planned activities under Section 13 should be clearly aimed to addressed
the threats identified in Section 9, and achieve the goals, objectives and outcomes in Section
10, 11 and Section 12. It should be noted that activities under Section 13 should be substantive
activities, which are eligible for funding, by the GEF.
· Section 14. Sustainability and risks was missing from the proposal.
· Section 15. Budgets should be planned and presented by both object of expenditure and
planned activities and should include co-financing and preferably also be presented on an
annual basis.
· Section 16. should contain an work plan and timetable in the form of a Gant diagram whilst
Section 17 should clearly specify who is going to manage the activities.
5.20
PHILIPPINES Malampaya Sound and Estuary
· Section 1. The co-ordinates should be those of the site and not those of a wider area.
· Section 3. date of local government approval is missing.
· Section 4. Paragraph 2 introduces some confusion since it is not apparent who identified the 412
priority areas and where Malampaya sound stands on this prioritised listing of 412.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 10
· Section 3 & 4. There is no cash co-financing from local or central government. This may weaken
the confidence of readers in the support of local and central governments. As Philippines is
relatively rapidly developing country compared with many developing countries, the donors may
expect in-cash co-financing. The donors will question the priority of the country in the site if no
co-financing in cash is committed from governments. The focal point should note that the GEF
requires at least 1:1 co-financing ratio to be eligible for GEF funding.
· Section 5 & 6. Information should be provided.
· Section 7. should emphasize the key or unique biological features of the proposed area. The
proposal can be improved by including some description on the site being a habitat to some
migratory species or endangered species in the region. Sites that support populations of
endangered species, endemic species, and migratory species can be included in the proposal.
Annex 1 should added information to the text in this section, but is not required where the site
description is comprehensive. Data should be accurate. 26.5% local birth rate stated in the
proposal was noted as being exceedingly high. It was noted that the existing management
regime is complicated, and a diagram illustrating the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of
the management regime to the site such as that in a later section of the proposal could be
amplified by explanatory text regarding the relationships between the institutions for the benefit of
non-Philippines readers.
· Section 8. includes description of the goals and activities of some NGOs and POs as the
stakeholders. Other key stakeholders are not included, such as local government, and the private
fishermen etc. The proposal should state clearly how it will engage the stakeholders in the
proposed activities. Differences between stakeholders and organizations and NGOs and
institutions were discussed in relation to the list provided. Stakeholder involvement should be
clarified via a full stakeholder involvement plan attached as an annex.
· Section 9. the analysis of threats needs to be more specific an detailed rather than aggregated
and generalised as in the attached causal chain diagram. The last sentence of the section is
neither realistic nor achievable. The Goals and Purpose and Rationale and Objectives should be
written clearly and concisely and should not establish impossible achievements.
· Section 13. The planned activities provide no details of how activities are to be effected nor who
will be responsible for their execution. A cursory examination suggests that this project will
achieve no impacts on the ground since its focus is on middle level management activities and
actions removed by at least one level from the site itself. Even if environmental awareness is
increased and the legal basis for action strengthened this will not result in any change in
environmental state of reduction of stressors. Concrete actions to achieve measurable change
are required in the project is to be fundable. For example how many fishermen you are going to
take out fishing? Activity is to provide alternative livelihoods encourage fishermen to take up
other livelihoods take them out of the fishing business and success is easily measured.
· Section 14. The proposal states that the Management Board will have increased capacity but
the activities do not reflect this and more importantly this does not imply sustainability of project
benefits alone. The tables under Section 12 and 14 were clear and provided models which could
be followed by other countries.
· Section 16 and 17. The first paragraph and the diagram of "Schematic Implementation Plan" in
16 should be moved to Section 17. The diagram should also include the proposed project
management entities where these are different. In principle it was suggested that new entities
should not be introduced rather existing entities should be given the mandate to play roles within
the project.
· Section 18. DENR was proposed as executing agency of the project, which introduces many
administrative layers between UNEP and the executors on site. When funding is transferred to
DENR, internal political and administrative structures may delay transfer of funds to the local
executing agency. It was noted that since there exists local management regime in the site,
transaction cost could be largely reduced by proposing a local entity as the Executing Agency
with DENR playing a supervisory or directorial role. When a local management unit is proposed
as an executing agency, UNEP signs an agreement with the local entity (legal entity), endorsed
by the central government.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 11
5.21 CHINA Pearl River. It was noted that much information was misplaced or irrelevant
information was included in the sections.
· Section 1. The unit of area measurement should be changed to hectares.
· Section 2. It was suggested that the paragraph should be deleted; the name of the country
should be inserted.
· Section 3. Information on the approval and involvement of local government with regard to the
project was not included.
· Section 4. Linkage of the site to the national priorities, action plans or programmes should be
discussed.
· Section 5. Date of National Technical Working Group Meeting was not included.
· Section 6. No information is provided.
· Section 7. More emphasis should be given to the key and unique biological features that would
attract potential donors. Information provided under "present use" is general, and some is not
relevant. The patterns of present use of the habitats should be identified and included in this
section, i.e. who is doing what in terms of utilizing the site. "Management regime" included some
general information on the existing regimes, but no discussion on the responsibilities and roles.
Emphasis should be given to the local management regimes, which are directly related to the
proposed site.
· Section 8. The stakeholders listed under this section are very general; the relationships of the
stakeholders to the site should be explained. Specific stakeholder involvement plan should be
included in an Annex.
· Section 9. The threats identified are very general. Question was raised on the reversibility of
the threats.
· Sections 10, 11, 12, 13. are noted to be general statements without much linkage between
them.
· Section 10. is general, and the goal is not achievable.
· Section 11. Professor Chen pointed out there are many existing activities in the Pearl River
Estuary, and she pointed out the potential to raise co-financing tends to be high. Arguments
should be given why additional GEF funding is still in needed for the project, and how the
proposed project will make additional contribution to the existing activities.
· Section 12. It was noted that the five outcomes listed are actually project objectives.
· Section 13. It was noted that project activities should be specific, achievable and feasible,
considering the time and funding available.
· Section 14. The risks are general risks in managing and protecting wetlands, which may not be
directly related to the project or could be addressed by the project. For example, "fail to enforce
the law" is a general risk that needs a countrywide or at least provincial-wide arrangement. This
again reflects the fact that the project activities in the proposal are general and ambitious.
· Section 15. No measurement unit is included in the budgets.
· Section 17. This section should specifically point out which agency is managing the
demonstration site, and what the relationships between the responsible agency and other
management regimes existing in the site.
· Section 18. No information on the proposed executing agency is included. It was reiterated that
the proposed site should be executed by an existing agency at the local level if possible.
5.22 THAILAND Thale Noi
· Section 3. It was noted that no government approval or involvement are included in the
proposal. It was further pointed out that co-financing from Thailand is only in-kind co-financing,
which may indicate that the government commitment to the site is not high.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 12
· Section 4. Linkages to national action plans and programmes should be discussed to illustrate
the national priority of the site.
· Section 7. It was noted that 7.2 is a little long, which contains some irrelevant information that
may not interest potential donors. Emphasis should be given to the 7.3, which should describe
the dominant habitats in the area and any key or unique biological features. 7.4 should reduce
the description on the demography, and detailed information should be given on the current use
patterns of the habitat. Paragraph 1 of section 7.5 is not relevant information under the section.
Other information provided under this section tends to be general. No specific information on the
roles and relationships of the institutions and organizations involved in managing the site is
included.
· Section 8. The stakeholders listed in this section included a variety of departments of the central
government, but did not explain the relationships of these agencies to the proposed site. Annex 2
contained a long list of possible stakeholders. It should be noted that only the major stakeholder
groups that are directly relevant to the project should be included in this section.
· Section 9. Contains very general information on a list of threats. It was pointed out that the
threats should be analysed in such a detailed way that the optimum points for intervention could
be identified.
· Section 11. The first paragraph is not relevant to this section.
· Section 13. It was noted that activities are ambitious for a three-year project, with limited funding
resources.
· Section 14. Some irrelevant information is included in this section. Some risks have been
identified, but no strategy has been included in the section.
5.23 VIETNAM Balat Estuary
· Section 1. Only one coordinate should be included.
· Section 6. According to the proposal, the proposed site is a second priority, which may reduce
the interest of the potential donors in the proposed site.
· Section 7. Content included in the habitat part is not related to the habitat. Information should be
included on the unique or dominant biological features of the habitat, such as endangered and
threatened species existing in the habitat and describe the dependency of the species on the
habitat. Section of "management regime" should include specific information on who is managing
what, with their specific responsibilities and roles.
· Section 8. The meeting suggested the focal point to delete the first paragraph.
· Section 9. Immigration was identified as a threat to the site, which was considered as difficult to
address. Specific threats that can be addressed by activities should be included.
· Section 11. It stated that the project aims to examine current situation of the site. The RWG-W
noted that from the first phase of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea project, the country should
have collected adequate information about the current situation of the proposed site.
· Section 12.5. Some of the outcomes are very ambitious, which require substantial work beyond
the capacity of the proposed demonstration activities.
· Section 15. is missing, no budget is included.
5.24 After reviewing the proposals, the Project Director noted some general issues related to the
following two proposals:
· China Pearl River Estuary Proposal. It has been noted that there is a difficulty on the part of
Institutions in Mainland China in accessing data and information from Hong Kong. In the Land-
based pollution component, hotspots of pollution in Pearl River could not be identified,
because of the difficulties in accessing the data and information in Hong Kong. Since Hong
Kong is an important part of the Pearl River Estuary, the proposed project may incur some
operational difficulties during execution the project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 13
· Cambodia Koh Kapik Proposal. It was pointed out by the Project Director that Koh Kapik site
is geographically close to the Thailand mangrove site, so it would be beneficial from a regional
perspectives that the Thai mangrove site co-operate with the Cambodia Koh Kapik wetlands
site in developing linked proposals. It was suggested by the Project Director that meetings
should be held between Cambodia and Thailand to develop their project activities so that
co-operation can be furthered between the two countries in protecting shared ecosystems. In
this respect it was noted that there existed a joint agreement between Trad Province and Koh
Kong regarding development and this agreement might be used to facilitate such a joint
activity. The Project Director noted that Cambodia has limited resources in developing extra
site proposals, and therefore recommended Cambodia to rewrite the proposal to focus more
on mangrove, rather than broader management of the wetland. He further noted that
Dr. Sonjai Havanond, the focal point for mangroves in Thailand had indicated his intention to
co-operate in this regard and to include reference to Cambodia in the Thai proposal.
5.25 Following the suggestions of the Project Director, Professor Guizhu Chen agreed that the
Shantou proposal will replace the Pearl River Estuary as China's first priority for development, and
Mr. Sok Vong supported the suggestion to cooperate with the Thai mangrove site.
6.
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF WETLANDS BORDERING THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
6.1 The Chairperson invited Ms. Sulan Chen, Associate Expert to introduce document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/8 that contained a proposed timetable, format, and contents for a regional
overview of wetlands bordering the South China Sea. The RWG-W was informed that each Regional
Working Group of components and subcomponents agreed to produce a regional review outlining the
present environmental status bordering the South China Sea and background regarding the manner in
which demonstration sites had been prioritised in the region. This document is intended as a
background document for participants, and in particular potential partners and donors in the Regional
Scientific Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 11-13 February, 2004.
6.2
The RWG-W should collectively produce the Regional Overview of the State of Wetlands in the
South China Sea. Each SEA and members were requested to provide substantive inputs based on
their national reports. The meeting agreed to produce a draft regional overview following the proposed
format and contents during the course of the meeting. The regional Experts, Dr. Sansanee Choowaew
and Dr. Chen volunteered to take responsibility for consolidating the information provided by the
members into a draft for review by the RWG-W during the meeting.
6.3
Data and information provided by the SEAs, were subsequently consolidated by Dr. Sansanee
and Dr. Chen, and the draft regional overview of wetlands was collectively reviewed by the RWG-W
prior to the closure of the meeting.
7.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON WETLANDS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD DECEMBER 2003 TO JUNE
2004
7.1
The Chairperson invited Ms. Chen to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/8,
"Proposals for a revised, work plan and timetable for the RWG-W with details of outputs and milestones
between December 2003 and June 2004," which contained a discussion of the required deadlines and
milestones that must be met if the preparatory activities are to be successfully completed by 30th June
2004. It was noted that the timetable for production of the substantive national reports had been
discussed under Agenda item 4 and that these had been finalised as the work plans for the
amendment to the Memoranda of Understanding. It was agreed that the PCU would incorporate the
deadlines for these reports into the overall consolidated work plan for the project that would be
attached as an annex to the meeting report.
7.2
The meeting considered the fate of demonstration site proposals which could not be
completed satisfactorily by 31st December and noted that to conform with the overall project work plan
these could be submitted any time between the second week of March and the end of September.
This would ensure their review by the second meetings of the RSTC and PSC in 2004. There followed
a discussion during which each country indicated what additional proposals would be submitted and
by when during the course of 2004. These agreements are tabulated in Table 2 of Annex 7 of this
report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 14
7.3
Bearing in mind that no Malaysian and no Indonesian sites had been included in the present
round of cluster analysis it was agreed that the site characterisations for all Malaysian sites would be
submitted during March 2004. Immediately thereafter the PCU would conduct a further cluster analysis
in order to determine the regional priority of the individual Malaysian sites. This would be circulated to
all members for comments and would be used by the Malaysian Focal point in determining which sites
would be developed as demonstration site proposals. In this context it was noted that individual quality
was more important than quantity of proposals.
7.4
During discussion it was agreed that given problems of e-mail communication all Emails with
attachment of documents should be acknowledged both by the PCU and Focal Points. If no
acknowledgement was received then the Focal Point should call the PCU at the expiry of 10 working
days, or vice versa.
7.5
A question was raised concerning limitations to the budget for demonstration site proposals.
In response it was noted that budgets should be realistic, should reflect real costs and should be kept
as small as possible. The Project Director noted that for other working groups, large projects in excess
of 3 million dollars had been proposed but it was the opinion of the PCU that the institutions concerned
did not have the capacity or experience to manage budgets of this magnitude. It was noted that for
some European donors funding for individual projects was 30 percent less than five years ago.
7.6
During the review of the status of the MoU revisions it was noted that all outstanding reports
except for those of Vietnam had now been received hence the MoU amendment once signed could
release the next tranche of funds. The problems of the audit of the Cambodian accounts was noted
and it was further noted that the Project director would not allow the delays resulting from the
Company's delays to interfere with the smooth flow of funds.
7.7
In discussing activities to be undertaken by the RWG prior to the Regional Scientific
Conference the Chairperson requested Dr. Pernetta to brief the meeting on the status of the
arrangements for the meeting. Dr. Pernetta informed the meeting that the Conference would be
convened in the Amari Watergate Hotel in Bangkok, that around 120 people from the project would be
supported to attend and in addition some 30 regional organisation and 30 potential partner agencies
and donors had been invited. He noted that the conference was intended to provide a platform for the
convening of the partnership workshop and to bring together all individuals involved in the project
components together for the first time.
7.8
He noted that the draft programme had been arranged around themes which were cross-
cutting rather than organised along component lines, nevertheless a session was included during
which the Chairpersons of the Regional Working Groups would be given the opportunity to present the
accomplishments of the groups during the preparatory phase.
7.9
There followed a discussion of the modus operandi for preparing the Chairperson's
presentation and it was agreed that focal points would send to her points for inclusion before the end
of December following which she would prepare a draft, circulated it for comment and amendment
prior to sending the final version to the PCU during the week commencing 26th January.
8.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
WETLANDS
8.1
Members were invited to note that the Project Steering Committee had decided at its second
meeting, convened in Hanoi, Viet Nam in December 2002 that future meetings of the RWGs should
only be convened at demonstration sites. Since the prioritisation and final decisions of the PSC
regarding priority demonstration sites will not be made until February 2004 it was suggested that the
RWG-W make recommendations based on the prioritisation of sites concluded under agenda item 5.
8.2
A discussion on possible venues followed during which Vietnam kindly offered to host the
meeting at the Balat Estuary potential demonstration site. Dr. Ebil proposed and Dr. Pernetta
seconded the proposal that Vietnam be designated as the location for the next meeting. Following a
short discussion on the need for an alternate location the Chairperson offered and the meeting
accepted the Philippines as the alternate location.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Page 15
8.3
It was noted that the host institution is responsible for co-ordination of local administrative
arrangements, for issuing letters of invitation in support of visa applications and in providing technical
and logistic support to the conduct of the meeting and the successful field visit.
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1
The meeting noted that three items had been proposed for consideration under this agenda
item namely discussion of the National Action Plans, the Strategic Action Programme, and the
Regional Scientific Conference. It was further noted that the first two of these items had been
extensively discussed under agenda item 4 and that the RSC had been discussed under Agenda item
7. It was agreed that no further clarification of these issues was required at this time.
10.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
10.1
Dr. Mai, the Rapporteur presented the draft report of the meeting, which was considered
amended and adopted by the members as it appears in this document.
11.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
11.1
In closing the meeting the Chairperson thanked the members for their hard work, support and
constructive discussions. The formal session of the meeting was closed at 16:45 on 18th December
2004, noting that participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Sok Vong
Professor Chen Guizhu
Mangrove and Wetland
Institute of Environmental Sciences
Department of Nature Conservation and
Zhongshan University
Protection, Ministry of Environment
135 West Xingang Road
48 Samdech Preah Sihanouk
Guangzhou 510275
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon, Cambodia
Guangdong Province, China
Tel: (855 23) 213908; 12 852904; 12 855990
Tel: (86 20) 8411 2293
Fax: (855 23) 212540; 215925
Fax: (86 20) 8411 0692
E-mail: sok_vong@camintel.com;
E-mail: chenguizhu@yeah.net
sokvong@yahoo.com
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Dibyo Sartono
Dr. Ebil Bin Yusof
Wetland International Indonesia Programme
Department of Wildlife and National Parks
JL Jend A Yani 53 BOGOR 16161
Peninsular Malaysia
P.O. Box 254/BOGOR 16002
KM10, Jalan Cheras
Indonesia
56100 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
Tel: (62 251) 312 189
Fax: (62 251) 325 755
Tel:
(603) 9075 2872; 16 3807344
E-mail: wi-ip@indo.net.id; Awb@indo.net.id
Fax: (603) 9075 2873
dibyo@wetlands.or.id
E-mail: ebil@wildlife.gov.my
Philippines
Thailand
Ms. Marlynn M. Mendoza
Mr. Narong Veeravaitaya
Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
Department of Fisheries Biology
NAPWNC Compound
Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
North Avenue, Diliman
50 Paholyothin Road, Bangkhen
Quezon City, Philippines 1101
Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Tel:
(632) 925 8950; 9246031; 0919 3247846
Tel: (66 2) 579 5575 ext. 422; 01 741 0024
Fax: (632) 924 0109
Fax: (66 2) 940 5016
E-mail: pacman@pawb.gov.ph
E-mail: ffisnrv@ku.ac.th
mmmendozapawb@netscape.net;
mmendoza@i-manila.com
Viet Nam
Dr. Mai Trong Nhuan
Vietnam National University, Hanoi
165 Khuong Trung Street
Thanh Xuan, Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel:
(844) 834 2015; 853 1142
Fax:
(844) 834 0724
E-mail: nhuanmt@vnu.edu.vn;
mnhuan@yahoo.com
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Regional Experts
Dr. Sansanee Choowaew
Dr. Chen Liwei, Program Officer
Associate Dean
Freshwater and Marine Programme
(Research and International Relations)
WWF-China Program Office
Mahidol University
Room 901, The Gateway
Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies
No. 10 Yabao Road
Salaya, Nakhonpathom 73170
Chaoyang District, Beijing 100020
Thailand
China
Tel:
(66 2) 441 5000 ext. 151
Tel:
(86 10) 6522 7100 ext 238
Mobile: (66 1) 645 1673
Mobile: (86) 13 6510 46407
Fax: (66 2) 441 9509-10
Fax: (86 10) 6522 7300; 65915731
E-mail: enscw@mucc.mahidol.ac.th
E-mail: lwchen@wwfchina.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
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 1886
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Ms. Sulan Chen
Ms. Unchalee Kattachan
Associate Expert
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 2279
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1670
Fax: (66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: chens@un.org
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
Resource Person - Finance
Ms. Nita Tangsujaritvichit
Fund Management and Administration
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 2167
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: tangsujaritvichitn@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/1 Provisional
agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/2 Provisional annotated agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3 Report of the meeting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/4
Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised
Executing Agencies in the participating countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/5
Current status of substantive reports on Wetlands from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/6 Independent reviews of draft substantive reports produced
by the Specialised Executing Agencies in the participating
countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/7
Status of regional cluster analysis and ranking of potential
demonstration sites.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/8
Proposed timetable, contents and responsibilities for the
production of a regional overview of wetlands bordering the
South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/9
Proposals for a revised, work plan and timetable for the
RWG-W with details of outputs and milestones between
December 2003 and June 2004.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/Inf.1 Provisional list of participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/Inf.2
Provisional list of documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/Inf.3 Draft
programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.3/6 Guidelines
for
the preparation of demonstration site
proposals and format for use in their presentation.
The following documents are supplied on CD-ROM and published copies have been dispatched by
mail. Participants are kindly requested to bring these copies with them to the meeting.
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-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-W.4/3
Annex 2
Page 2
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-W.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.
STATUS OF OVERALL PROGRESS OF NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
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 Agreement of individual work plans and budgets for completion of preparatory
reports and outputs
5.
REGIONAL CLUSTER ANALYSIS AND DEMONSTRATION SITES PROPOSALS
6.
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF WETLANDS BORDERING THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
7.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON WETLANDS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD DECEMBER 2003 TO JUNE
2004
8.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
WETLANDS
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
10.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
11.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Recommended Content for National Wetlands Reports by Independent Reviewer
(Extracted from UNEP/GEF/RWG-W.4/6)
Introduction
· Project background;
· Relevance, roles and importance of wetland ecosystems to the overall environment of the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand;
· Objectives;
· Wetland definition, wetland classification system;
· Scoping framework, coverage areas, and regionally agreed wetland types under review;
· Criteria for sites selection and number of wetland sites under review;
· Methodologies for collecting data/information and key sources of information.
Main Contents
· Overview of the country's wetlands, types, areas and distribution;
· Functions and values;
· Threats to wetlands;
· Management regime, national wetland policy and action plans, legal and institutional aspects;
· International cooperation;
· Wetlands of international importance;
· Detailed information of important wetland sites covering all aspects according to the regional
agreed outline (Annex 7, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3), including key information on: wetland
name, geographical location, type, size, wetland biodiversity, uses and socio-economic values,
threats and causes, wetland management aspects, etc.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Reference
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Regional Cluster Analysis Conducted During the Fourth Meeting of the RWG-W
Background
To maximize the range of biological diversity covered by a limited number of demonstration sites,
selected sites should represent as wide a range of conditions present in the region as possible. The
purpose of the cluster analysis is to group sites on the basis of their similarities, thus selection of sites
from different groups could possibly represent the widest diversities of the ecological systems and
their features.
Results
Sites were characterized on the basis of criteria agreed in the first and second meetings of the
RWG-W. Nine indicators were selected to characterize the sites, i.e. area, number of fish, number of
plants, number of mammals, number of wetland types, number of migratory species, number of
endemic species, and number of endangered species. A preliminary cluster analysis was conducted
during the third RWG-G meeting, although there still existed much missing data and information and
some of the data used were estimates.
During the intersessional period between the third meeting and fourth meeting of the RWG-W, further
data and information were collected. During the fourth meeting of the RWG-W, in order to ensure the
compatibility, comparability, and consistency of data among countries, the RWG-W discussed,
considered and agreed on the definition of the parameters used in the data set. It was further agreed
that data and information that do not have supporting documentation should not be included. Based
on these agreements, the original data set was revised, and is presented in Table 1.
The Clustan Graphic 6 software programme was used to conduct the cluster analysis, the results of
which are shown in Figure 1. The RWG-W noted that the sites were not evenly distributed among the
six clusters in the cluster analysis; the first cluster having many more sites (18) than any other cluster.
It was decided therefore that three major groups should be considered, with the second and third
clusters being grouped as one, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth groups being combined as a third
cluster.
Figure 1
Dendrogram of 43 wetland sites bordering the South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 5
Page 2
Table 1
Raw data set used for the final cluster analysis.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Site specific
Area
Total no. Total no.
resident
Site
vascular
wetland migratory endemic
(ha)
fish
birds
mammal
plant spp.
types
spp.
spp.
spp.
Waru River Estuary
25,000
59
22
32
8
2
M M
Mu Koh Chang National Park Tidal Flat
65,000
12
74
78
29
1 13
M
Don Hoi Lord Tidal Flat
2,420
4
18
6
1
2
M M
Ban Dong Bay Estuary
13,932
50
75
26
M
2 18
M
Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park
freshwater marsh
13,000
36
157
150
16
3 23
M
Thale Noi Wildlife Non-hunting Area
Peat swamp
45,700
30
205
260
8
2 62
M
Thale Sap Song Khla Non- hunting Area
Peat swamp
36,466
88
131
12
M
2 78
M
Phru To Daeng Wildlife Sanctuary Peat
Swamp
34,636
62
217
23
59
1 23
M
Mu Koh Ang Thong Marine National
Park Tidal Flat
10,200
75
53
16
16
1 9 M
Thung Kha Bay-Savi Bay Estaury
4,816
51
100
7
19
2 37
M
Pattani Bay Estuary
5,000
32
28
25
M
2 3 M
Pak Phanang Bay Estuary
15,000
50
13
13
2
2
M M
Phru Kan Tulee Peat swamp
140
29
50
36
16
1
M M
Sambilang Estuary
205,700
142
318
42
46
5 28
4
Berbak NP Peat Swamp
162,700
116
337
282
57
4 12
4
Muara Kendawangan Tidal Flats
150,000
87
96
29
11
4 0
2
Balayan Bay Tidal flats
75,000
262
25
41
10
2 20
15
Malampaya Sound Estuary
24,500
156
26
30
9
3 10
12
Pansipit River Estuary
64,400
242
24
26
2
2 76
37
Manila Bay Tidal Flat
30,000
171
25
25
8
3 20
10
Taal Lake freshwater
65,720
242
24
26
2
1 76
6
El Nido, Palawan mudflats
54,303
197
26
10
6
2 10
1
Balat Estuary
26,397
130
181
122
17
2 136
6
Tam Giang-Cau Lagoon
21,600
171
73
427
20
3 35
5
Tien River Estuary
151,500
155
41
387
20
3 20
2
Ca Mau Southwest Tidal Flat
134,151
147
171
454
28
2 27
3
Dong Nai River Estuary
160,000
155
130
213
19
2 22
5
Kim Son Tidal Flat
12,620
132
140
50
15
2 54
5
Van Uc Estuary
6,990
123
118
167
8
2 90
2
Bach Dang Estuary
80,358
117
153
302
5
2 25
5
Tien Yen Estuary
24,738
82
57
187
20
2 31
5
Tra O Lagoon
2,000
67
55
104
10
3 25
3
Degi Lagoon (Bin Dinh Province
1,600
105
40
321
15
2 25
2
Thi Nai lagoon (Binh Dinh Province)
5,000
119
37
211
15
3 25
2
Dan zhou lingao Intertidal Flat
806
149
157
365
19
4 101
3
Beilun Estuary
1,083
145
133
277
20
4 93
5
Hepu Intertidal
3,951
227
193
329
27
4 137
14
Pearl River Estuary
12,783
302
227
420
32
5 141
12
Shantou Intertidal
1,435
213
179
233
12
4 100
5
Wenchang Lagoon
218
227
193
338
27
3 137
6
Koh Kapik Estuary
13,482
M
30
M
3
2
6
4
Beung Kachhang Lagoon
4,503
17
M
13
M
2
M M
Russey Srok-Tourl Sragnam Tidal flat
4,890
10
9
19
M
3
M M
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Environmental and Socio-economic Ranking of Proposed Demonstration Sites
The Fourth meeting of RWG-W reviewed and revised the two sets of indicators, developed by the third
RWG-W meeting, to rank proposed demonstration sites, i.e. environmental and biological criteria and
indicators (Table 1) and socio-economic criteria and indicators (Table 2). Wetlands were scored
based on the agreed environmental and socio-economic indicators. The final scoring of proposed
wetlands sites is included in Table 3 of this Annex.
Table 1
Environmental Indicators and Scores for the Ranking of Wetlands Sites.
Environmental Indicators
1. Area (ha) 10%
4,001 -
15,001 -
50,001 -
Area 10%
100-4,000
>100,000
15,000
50,000
100,000
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2. Biological diversity 60%
2.1 No. of Fish species 18%
1 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 150
151-200
> 200
4%
7%
11%
15%
18%
2.2 No. of bird species 18%
1-25
26 - 50
51 - 100
101 -200
>200
4%
7%
11%
15%
18%
2.3 No. of plant species 6%
1-20
21 - 30
31 - 150
151 - 300
>300
1%
2%
3%
5%
6%
2.4 No. of mammal species 6%
1-8
9 - 15
16 - 20
21 - 30
>30
1%
2%
3%
5%
6%
2.5 Wetland types 12%
1
2
3
4
5
2% 4% 6% 10% 12%
3. Transboundary Significance 15%
3.1 No. of migratory species 15%
1-12
13 - 25
26 - 39
40- 90
>90
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
4. Regional/Global Significance 15%
4.1 No. of endemic species 7%
1-2
3-4
5-6
>6
1%
3%
5%
7%
4.2 No. of endangered species 8%
1 - 4
5 - 10
11 - 22
>22
2%
4%
6%
8%
Table 2
Socio-economic Indicators and Scores for Wetlands Bordering the South China Sea.
Socio-Economic indicators
1. Threats 20%
1.1 Reversibility of External sources of change, 10%
Low
Medium
High
2%
6%
10%
1.2 1 Reversibility of Internal source of change, 10%
Low
Medium
High
2%
6%
10%
2. National significance 40%
2.1 Identified as a national priority, 25%
1
2
3
25% 15% 10%
2.2 Level of direct stakeholder involvement in management, 10%
Low
Medium
High
2%
6%
10%
2.3 Commitments to RAMSAR, 5%
no
planned
yes
0 3% 5%
3. Financial considerations 20%
3.1 Potential for co-financing (% of potential project budget), 20%
25
50
100
5%
10%
20%
4. Local stakeholder involvement 20%
4.1 Local stakeholder/community involvement
Low Medium
High
2% 12% 20%
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 3
Results of Environmental and Scoio-economic Scoring of Proposed Demonstration Sites Bordering the South China Sea.
Environmental and Biological Indicators (70%)
Socio-economic Indicators
Weighted
No.
No.
No.
No.
Total
Area No.
No.
No.
No.
Sub- External Internal Nat'l
Stake
Co-
Sub-
wetland migratory endemic endangered
Ramsar
Community
(ha) fish birds plants mammals
total change change priority holder
finance
total
types
spp.
spp.
spp.
Cluster 1
Phru To Daeng
6
7
18
2
6
2
6
0
8
55
Tien Yen Estuary
6
7
11
5
3
4
9
5
4
54
Khao Sam Roi Yot
4
4
15
3
3
6
6
0
6
47
Muara Kendawangan
10
7
11
2
2
10
0
1
4
47
Tra O Lagoon
2
7
11
3
2
6
6
3
6
46
10
10
10
10
0
10
12
62 51
Mu Koh Chang
8
4
11
3
5
2
6
0
6
45
El Nido, Palawan
8
15
7
1
1
2
3
3
4
44
Thung Kha Bay-Savi Bay
4
7
11
1
3
4
9
0
4
43
Mu Koh Ang Thong Marine
4 7 11 1
3
2
3
0
4
35
National park
Ban Don Bay
4
4
11
2
0
4
6
0
2
33
Pattani bay
4
4
7
2
0
4
3
0
4
28
Waru River
6
4
4
3
1
4
0
0
4
26
Koh Kapik
4
0
7
0
1
4
3
3
4
26
2
2
25
10
5
5
20
69 39
Phru Kan Tulee
2
4
7
3
3
2
0
0
4
25
Russey Srok-Tourl
4 4 4 1
0
6
0
0
2
21
Sragnam
Pak Phanang Bay
4
4
4
1
1
4
0
0
2
20
Don Hoi Lord Tidal Flat
2
4
4
1
1
4
0
0
2
18
Beung
Kachhang
4 4 0 1
0
4
0
0
2
15
2
2
15
6
0
5
20
50 26
Cluster 2
Balat
Estuary
6 11 15
3
3
4
15
5
6
68
10
10
25
10
5
10
20
90 75
Bach Dang Estuary
8
11
15
6
1
4
6
5
6
62
Kim Son Tidal Flat
4
11
15
3
2
4
12
5
6
62
Van Uc Estuary
4
11
15
5
1
4
12
1
6
59
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 6
Page 3
Table 3 continued
Results of Environmental and Scoio-economic Scoring of Proposed Demonstration Sites Bordering the South China Sea.
Environmental and Biological Indicators (70%)
Socio-economic Indicators
Weighted
No.
No.
No.
No.
Total
Area No.
No.
No.
No.
Sub- External Internal Nat'l
Stake
Co-
Sub-
wetland migratory endemic endangered
Ramsar
Community
(ha) fish birds plants mammals
total change change priority holder
finance
total
types
spp.
spp.
spp.
Thale Noi Non-hunting
6 4 18 5
1
4
12
0
6
56
6
6
25
6
5
10
12
70 60
Area Peat swamp
Thale Sap Song Khla Non-
6 7 15 1
0
4
12
0
8
53
hunting Area
Balayan Bay
8
18
4
3
2
6
6
M
4
51
Taal Lake
8
18
4
2
1
2
12
1
2
50
Malampaya Sound
6
15
7
2
2
6
2
4
2
46
6
10
25
10
0
5
20
76 55
Manila Bay
6
15
4
2
1
6
6
M
4
44
Pansipit River Estuary
8
7
4
2
1
6
12
M
2
42
6
10
15
10
0
5
20
66 49
Cluster 3
Pearl
River
4 18 18
6
6
12
15
7
8
94
6
6
25
10
5
10
20
82 90
Hepu
2 18 15
6
5
10
15
7
8
86
6
6
10
6
3
5
12
48 75
Shantou
2 18 15
5
2
10
15
5
8
80
6
6
15
10
5
10
20
72 78
Wenchang
2 18 15
6
5
6
15
5
8
80
Sambilang
10 11 18
3
6
12
9
3
6
78
Dan zhou lingao
2
11
15
6
3
10
15
3
8
73
Beilun
2 11 15
5
3
10
15
5
6
72
Berbak
NP
10 11 18
5
6
10
3
3
6
72
Dong Nai River Estuary
10
15
15
5
3
4
6
5
8
71
Ca Mau Southwest Tidal
10 11 15
6
5
4
9
3
6
69
10
10
15
10
0
10
12
67 68
Flat
Tam
Giang-Cau
Lagoon
6 15 11
6
3
6
9
5
8
69
Tien River Estuary
10
15
7
6
3
6
6
1
6
60
Thi Nai lagoon
4
11
7
5
2
6
6
1
6
48
Degi Lagoon
2
11
7
6
2
4
6
1
6
45
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 7
Page 1
ANNEX 7
Schedule of Meetings, Work Plan and Timetable for the Wetlands Focal Points, 2003
Table 1
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
H
Thai NY
RWG-F-4
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
Septembe
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
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3
Annex 7
Page 2
Table 2
Timetable for Regional Activities in the Wetlands Sub-component for 20041.
Year 2003
2004
Month December January
February
Week Starting Day
22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9
16 23 Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct
Publications of National
X
Reports
Regional and National
X
Meta Databases
National Wetlands Action
Plan
Demonstration site
First Proposal
Second
Proposal
proposals
Cambodia
Proposal Koh Kapik with Thailand Mangrove
Shan
Pearl
China
tou
River
Draft
Final
Malaysia
(2 sites)
(2 sites)
Indonesia
Draft 1
Draft 2
Malam-
2nd Site
Philippines
paya
Final
Thale
2nd Site
Thailand
Noi
Final
Camau
Vietnam
Balat
Final
Preparation for RSC
Wetlands Booklet
X
Final to
Presentation
1st
2nd
PCU
Administrative Reports
1st
2nd MOU Negotiation
Final
Sig
draft
Outstanding 6 mth. rpts
X
2003
X
Outstanding audit rpts.
X
2003
Budget Rev. & Approval
X
Work plan
X
MOU 1st amendment
X
1
Individual work plans and timetables have been developed for each of the country in conducting activities at the national level. Countries have individual work plans and timetables to publish
national wetlands reports and establish the national meta databases. It was agreed that the activities should be completed before the end of June 2004, when the first phase of the project will
be completed.