United Nations Distr. restricted
Environment Programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
1st May 2002
Global Environment Facility
Original: ENGLISH
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
REPORT
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Mangrove Sub-component
Phuket, Thailand, 29 April 1 May 2002
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, April 2002
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Table of Contents
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING ....................................................................................................1
1.1 WELCOME ADDRESS.............................................................................................................1
1.2 INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS .................................................................................................1
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING..........................................................................................1
2.1 DESIGNATION OF OFFICERS ...................................................................................................1
2.2 ORGANISATION OF WORK ......................................................................................................2
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA...................................................................................2
4.
TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR
THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR MANGROVES (RWG-M) ...........................................2
4.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE WORKING GROUP ....................................................................2
4.2 MEMBERSHIP OF THE WORKING GROUP ...................................................................................3
4.3 RULES OF PROCEDURE .........................................................................................................3
5.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT..........................4
5.1 REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
AND ITS ROLE IN ACHIEVING PROJECT OBJECTIVES.....................................................................4
5.2 FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES (RECORDING & REPORTING) OF THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS OF
EACH SPECIALISED EXECUTING AGENCY .................................................................................5
6.
OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION
AND LOSS" AND MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT ...................................................................5
6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT BRIEF ....................................5
6.2 OTHER RELEVANT ACTIVITIES IN THE REGION............................................................................7
7.
DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT ........................8
7.1 REVIEW OF THE MANGROVE RELATED SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTS AND THE
TRANSBOUNDARY DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS, PRODUCED DURING THE PREPARATORY PHASE OF THE
PROJECT ............................................................................................................................8
7.2 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION..................................................9
8.
DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003................................................................9
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................9
10. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
FOR MANGROVES .................................................................................................................10
11. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING ....................................................................10
12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING..................................................................................................10
i
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
List of Annexes
Annex 1
List of Participants
Annex 2
List of Documents
Annex 3
Agenda
Annex 4
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for National Focal Points
Operating in the Framework of the UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
Annex 5
Flow Chart of Actions for the Mangrove Sub-component of the UNEP GEF
South China Sea Project
Annex 6
Details of Parameters, Data and Information Requirements for Mangrove Site
Characterisation
Annex 7
Examples of Causal Chain Analysis to be used in analysing threats and causes
at specific sites
Annex 8
Schedule of Meetings and Workplan for 2002
ii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
Welcome address
1.1.1 The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta, opened the meeting on behalf of Dr. Klaus Töpfer,
the Executive Director of UNEP, and Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, the Director, Division of GEF Co-ordination
(UNEP/DGEF). He welcomed participants to the first meeting of the Regional Working Group for
Mangroves (RWG-M) and noted the high importance accorded this project by UNEP and the GEF.
This importance is reflected in the substantial size of the GEF grant (16.4 million US $). He informed
the meeting of the strong desire of UNEP's Executive Director that the project stimulate renewed
interest in regional, co-operative management of the most biologically diverse, shallow-water area of
the marine environment in the world.
1.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted further that, the project was large and although it appeared complex it was in
reality comparatively simple once the framework was clearly understood. This Working Group is central
to the regional level co-ordination and management of the national contributions to the Mangroves sub-
component of the Habitat loss and degradation component of the project. He expressed the wish that by
the end of the meeting everyone would have a clear idea of the overall scope of the project, and in
particular the activities envisaged within the framework of the mangrove sub-component.
1.1.3 The first meeting of the Regional Working Group is of critical importance in providing guidance
to the Focal Points for the mangroves sub-component in each country and through them to the National
Committees regarding the work to be undertaken and in ensuring that the data and information
assembled at the national level are comparable and compatible between all participating countries. It will
be important to ensure that the scientific and technical guidance provided by the Regional Working
Group is collective, not only at the regional, but also equally importantly, at the national level. Dr.
Pernetta expressed his personal best wishes and those of the Executive Director of UNEP and Director
of UNEP/DGEF for a successful meeting.
1.2
Introduction of members
1.2.1 The participants and members of the Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) introduced
themselves, and provided the meeting with a brief outline of their roles in the project, and their
expertise and experience relevant to the mangrove activities. The list of participants is attached as
Annex 1 to this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Designation of officers
2.1.1 In accordance with the rules of procedure for the Project Steering Committee, participants
were invited to nominate a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Rapporteur for the meeting.
2.1.2 Professor Ong Jin-Eong, invited expert from Malaysia, nominated Dr. Sonjai Havanond, focal
point for mangroves in Thailand, as Chairperson of the meeting. Dr. Havanond was duly elected by
acclamation.
2.1.3 Professor Hoang Tri, invited expert from Viet Nam, nominated Dr. Hangqing Fan, Focal Point
for Mangroves in China, as Vice-Chairperson of the meeting. Dr. Fan was duly elected by acclamation.
2.1.4 Professor Ong Jin-Eong and Mr. Florendo Barangan were nominated and appointed by the
meeting as co-rapporteurs.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 2
2.2
Organisation of work
2.2.1 Dr. Pernetta, the Project Director, briefed participants on the list of documents available to the
meeting and noted that a number of the information documents were provided in both hard and
electronic form. Participants noted with appreciation the extensive preparation for the meeting and the
quality of the discussion documents prepared by the Secretariat. The list of documents available to the
meeting is attached as Annex 2 to this report.
2.2.2 It was noted that the meeting would be conducted in English and would work in plenary
although it might be necessary to form small working groups for consideration of the detail of some
agenda items.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
Dr. Havanond, the Chairperson, introduced the provisional agenda, prepared by the
Secretariat as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/1, and invited participants to propose any
amendments or additional items for consideration.
3.2
Following some clarification of the agenda it was adopted by the meeting, and is attached as
Annex 3 to this report.
4.
TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE
REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR MANGROVES (RWG-M)
4.1
Terms of reference for the working group
4.1.1 The Project Director introduced document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3 and in particular the
Terms of Reference for the Regional Working Group for Mangroves for the project entitled "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand" contained in Annex
VIII of that document, and reproduced as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M/INF.6. He noted that, the
Project Steering Committee, at its first meeting in October, had approved these Terms of Reference but
that the working group could, either during this meeting or, during any subsequent meeting, propose
amendments to the Project Steering Committee.
4.1.2 The Chairperson invited the meeting to comment on the document and in particular the 14 items
that constitute the Terms of Reference for the working group.
4.1.3 Professor Sanit Aksornkoae, invited expert from Thailand, noted that Thailand already had a
National Mangrove Committee, which was extremely large and queried whether it was a requirement
to create another committee. In response the Project Director informed the meeting that where
National Committees already existed it would be preferable to use that committee rather than create a
new entity specifically for the project. Given the large size of the National Mangrove Committee in
Thailand for which Professor Aksornkoae serves as Vice-Chair, and of which Dr. Sonjai is a member,
it was suggested that a smaller working group or sub-committee be formed to oversee and guide
project activities, reporting to the National Committee.
4.1.4 During the discussion it was noted that some countries already have National Mangrove
Committees (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines) but that the Malaysian Committee had not
met for several years, whilst some countries, in particular those not involved in the UNESCO
mangroves project did not have committees. Some new ones may be needed, or existing ones
revived. It was noted for example that Vietnam had no National Mangrove Committee but that it had a
National Mangrove Working Group that would take responsibility for co-ordinating the mangrove
activities under this project.
4.1.5 It was noted further that in the case of China a sub-committee of the National Technical
Working Group had been formed in place of a National Committee due to the internal difficulties in
creating National Committees as evidenced by attempts in the past to create a National Mangrove
Committee.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 3
4.1.6 Mr. Barangan noted that in the case of the Philippines there was a National Mangrove
Committee but as in the case of Malaysia it had not met for some time and that responsibility for the
Committee had been transferred to the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). He indicated that perhaps the
Committee will have to be reorganised and strengthened to work on the South China Sea. On his
return, he undertook to contact the research unit to convene and revive the Committee.
4.1.7 Mr. Vongwattana noted that in the case of Cambodia a National Committee had already been
formed to co-ordinate the work under the mangroves and wetlands sub-components of the project.
4.1.8 The Project Director noted that the Regional Working Group has responsibility for deciding on
the activities, the workplan and timetable, and that, it is the focal points responsibility to ensure
deadlines and activities are carried out by their National Committees. During discussion it was noted
that the 14 items in the TOR were the collective responsibility of all members of the group and that,
they would be assisted in this task, by the Project Co-ordinating Unit.
4.1.9 A query was raised regarding the necessity for convening national committee meetings every
month and it was clarified that this schedule, although approved by the Project Steering Committee
could be altered according to the requirements of each national committee. It was noted further
however that the government in-kind co-financing of the project had been calculated on the basis of
the time contributed by members of the national committees and that any reduction in the total length
of time devoted to meetings of the committee would result in reduction of the in-kind co-financing
contribution. It was possible that smaller groups might be convened on a regular basis with less
frequent meetings of the larger National Committees, or that longer meetings of less frequent duration
could be convened.
4.1.10 Following this discussion the items under the terms of reference were considered and
adopted without change.
4.2
Membership of the working group
4.2.1 The membership of the Working Group as detailed in the Terms of Reference for the Regional
Working Group for Mangroves was then considered by the meeting, which noted that, the National Focal
Points for Mangroves were automatically members of the RWG-M. The Committee noted with regret
that Malaysia had yet to designate a National Focal Point for the Mangrove sub-component of the
project and expressed the hope that a Focal Point would be designated in the near future.
4.2.2 The Project Director informed the group that he would serve as the PCU designated member of
the Regional Working Group and that he looked forward with pleasure to working closely with the
members during project execution.
4.2.3 The meeting noted that four experts from the region could be added to the Committee, and
noted further that, Professors Sanit Aksornkoae, Ong Jin-Eong and Hoang Tri had been invited to
participate in the first meeting of the Regional Working Group. It was agreed that the group needed to
strengthen the economic expertise of the membership. Members agreed to consider both the necessary
expertise and possible experts and to advise the PCU of suitable candidates. The working group noted
that the limit of four invited expert members was based on meetings costs.
4.2.4 The RWG-M noted that the possibility existed to invite additional experts to meetings or parts of
meetings, as required by the business of the group and the items under discussion.
4.3
Rules of procedure
4.3.1 The rules of procedure of the Project Steering Committee contained in Annex XIII of document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3 were then considered by the working group, which adopted the rules
regarding the conduct of committee business subject to necessary changes including the replacement of
references to the Project Steering Committee by RWG-M.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 4
5.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT
5.1
Reporting relationships and responsibilities of the Regional Working Group and its role
in achieving project objectives
5.1.1 The Project Director explained the relationship between the National Committees, the
Regional Working Group and the Regional Scientific & Technical Committee via document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/INF.4, "Management Framework and Reporting Structures for the
UNEP/GEF Project entitled: Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand." He noted that, the views, and data and information collated by the National
Committees, would be transmitted to the regional Working Group by the National Focal Points. The
views of the RWG-M would be transmitted to the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee
(RSTC) via the Chairperson of the RWG-M. The RSTC in turn would advise the regional working
group on the integration of the mangroves sub-component activities with those undertaken within the
other habitat sub-components of the project.
5.1.2 The participants considered the management framework and raised various queries and
questions regarding the relationships between the committees and working groups. They noted that
the over-riding decision making authority, within the framework of the project, was the Project Steering
Committee, which consisted solely of two representatives of each of the participating countries with
UNEP serving as the Secretariat.
5.1.3 A question was raised concerning the establishment of the committees at the national level
and the inter-relationships between the regional and national structures. It was clarified that the
Regional Working Group would co-ordinate and consolidate national inputs across each component
and sub-component and the RSTC would serve the purpose of consolidating both the inputs from the
component and sub-components, and from the National Technical Working Groups. At a national
level the IMC was responsible for the policy level decisions, the NTWG for the scientific and technical
decisions, and the National Committees for the activities within each sub-component.
5.1.4 In the case of Thailand it was noted that all committees had been established but that, the
National Mangrove Committee referred to in the MoU had not met due to slow transfer of funds
between banks. Since the funds had now been received the project sub-committee of the National
Mangrove Committee would now be convened. In Vietnam and Cambodia it was noted that all
committees had now been formed.
5.1.5 A query was raised regarding the potential for overlap between the Regional Working Group
for Mangroves and the Regional Working Group for Wetlands. The attention of the working group was
drawn to the report of the first meeting of the Regional Working Group for Wetlands, which had
decided to focus its work on coastal saltwater wetlands in three categories, namely estuaries
(including deltas), tidal flats and lagoons. The working group noted with concern the absence of a
consideration of freshwater wetlands since it was felt that freshwater swamp forest and peatlands
were extremely important habitats on the landward side of the mangrove system, which needed to be
reviewed. The working group also noted that it would be difficult to separate estuaries and tidal flats
from any consideration of areas under the responsibility of the mangrove committees and regional
working group.
5.1.6 Mr. Barangan noted that, this issue would be discussed with the National Focal Point for
Wetlands in the Philippines and that at the national level they would adjust their work to ensure
coverage of all relevant coastal wetlands. The Working group also noted that the wetlands group had
not included man-made wetlands within their mandate and that much of the converted mangrove had
been changed to shrimp ponds which constituted man-made wetlands.
5.1.7 The working group requested that the issue of potential overlap and absence of freshwater
swamps within the mandate of the RWG-W be reconsidered by that group and that they be urged to
broaden their scope of work. It was also noted that the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee
would need to resolve this matter. In addition, it was agreed that the RWG-M should liase with the
wetlands group (RWG-W).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 5
5.1.8 The Project Director noted that the focus of attention within this project on Mangroves,
Seagrasses and Coral Reefs, which constitute "wetlands" in the context of the RAMSAR definition,
reflected the regional and global significance of these habitats and that the inclusion of a "wetlands"
sub-component had been intended to cover all coastal wetland habitats both fresh and saline
excluding the three sub-components detailed above.
5.1.9 Participants also noted the key role of the regional working groups in providing a link between
the work of the national committees and the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee at the
regional level and the National Level Inter-Ministry Committees (IMC).
5.2
Fiscal responsibilities (recording & reporting) of the National Focal Points of each
Specialised Executing Agency
5.2.1 The Project Director provided an overview of the contents of document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/INF.5 on financial rules and financial reporting requirements to secure
anticipated cash flows in accordance with the budgets contained in the MoUs. This document is
appended as Annex 4 to this report.
5.2.2 Participants commended the Secretariat on the clarity and simplicity of the document and the
reporting requirements, which they felt were a considerable improvement on the rules normally
applied by other United Nations organizations.
5.2.3 A query was raised regarding the timing for budgetary revisions and it was noted that
revisions to the budgets of the MoUs could be made at any time in consultation with the Project Co-
ordinating Unit since the Project Director had delegated authority over the budget within the limits
imposed by the project document and the agreements of the project Steering Committee. It was noted
that this would be extremely valuable since it would prevent cessation of work due to the need for
budget revisions.
5.2.4 During discussion it was clarified that the first six month reports were required at the end of
June 2002 but that, due to delays in transfer of funds not all the money in the first tranche would be
spent by that time. It was noted that funds could be carried forward for the next six months in
accordance with the workplan and timetable to be agreed during the course of this meeting. During
discussion it was noted that, the initial evaluation of the six monthly reports was undertaken, by the
Project Co-ordinating Unit, but that UNEP headquarters in Nairobi would also, through its internal
audit system ensure that, the GEF was getting "value for money".
5.2.5 Regarding the contracting of services the Project Director noted that members of the National
Committee should not be paid for attending meetings but that they could be contracted to provide
services additional to those considered within the responsibilities of a member of the committee.
5.2.6 Queries were raised regarding any limits or standards that must be adhered to by the National
Focal Points. The Project Director noted that the costs of individual activities such as meetings would
vary between countries hence there were not "standard" costs applicable to all countries and that,
what UNEP expected was that the Focal Points would make wise use of the resources and attempt to
maximize the potential outputs from the budget.
6.
OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION
AND LOSS" AND MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT
6.1
General description of activities contained in the Project Brief
6.1.1 The Project Director introduced document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/4, outlining the
expectations of the GEF with respect to project execution, and reviewed the constraints and limitations
imposed by the terms of the GEF grant in supporting activities in the different project components.
Participants noted that although there existed some constraints resulting from the requirements of the
GEF, the opportunities provided by this Project were potentially of great significance for the region.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 6
6.1.2 The Project Director then outlined the activities listed in the project brief as summarised in the
discussion document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/4; document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/5 presenting
a proposed draft flow-chart of immediate activities for the National Committees and Regional Working
Group, and document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/6 which presents the outcome of deliberations of the
first meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee with respect to activities in the habitat
sub-components of the project.
6.1.3 Mr. Santoso noted the high importance of stakeholder involvement in on-the-ground activities if
they were to be successful and in response the Project Director indicated that one member of the PCU,
Dr Annadel Cabanban had been appointed on the basis of her extensive experience in community
based management since it was recognised that demonstration activities in all components of the
project would need to involve all stakeholders from the level of the National Governments down to the
level of the communities living in and deriving their livelihoods from the resources contained in potential
demonstration sites.
6.1.4 The flow chart of activities at the national and regional level was discussed in some detail and it
was agreed by the working group that this presented a clear "road-map" for the activities. The chart is
included in Annex 5 to this report.
6.1.5 The Chairperson raised the possibility of including activities relating to carbon fixation in the
demonstration sites and it was noted that whilst the focus of the demonstration activities was intended to
be biological diversity conservation and sustainable use the "value" of demonstration sites might also
need to take into account their value, as sinks of carbon, since it was likely that trade in carbon credits
might occur in the future. He further indicated his willingness to assist individuals in preparing
submissions to the GEF or other potential sources of funding for activities, which were considered
outside the mainstream of the project.
6.1.6 A detailed discussion took place regarding the use of the term "sustainable use" rather than
protected areas in the various documents prepared for the project and it was suggested that in this
region not only, was no area "untouched" but also, it would be virtually impossible for most governments
in the region to designate no-use areas in the face of traditional patterns of ownership and use of coastal
resources.
6.1.7 A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the nature and purpose of the demonstration sites to be
funded through the project in years 3 to 5. It was noted that there was not a lot of money for individual
demonstration sites and that consequently there existed the need to build upon existing mangrove
projects at the national level. This had the added advantage of providing existing co-financing and it was
noted that a government might wish to propose a particular area as a demonstration site at no cost to
the project.
6.1.8 Regarding the purpose of the demonstration sites it was noted that at this stage the budget for
demonstration sites had not been allocated to individual activities since this could not be done before the
sites had been selected and agreed. However it was noted that a substantial body of funds had been
allocated for support to transfer of individuals from one country to the country of the regionally adopted
demonstration sites in order to transfer practical experience from one country to another.
6.1.9. It was agreed that demonstration sites could have one or more purposes and that, for example,
the longest record of sustainable forest use of mangrove was to be found in Malaysia whilst
management regimes in southern Thailand focussed on education and ecotourism. It was noted that the
purpose of the demonstration sites needed to be discussed further during a subsequent meeting of the
group when, some of the site characterisation had been completed, by the National Committees.
6.1.10 It was further agreed that, the focus should be on "true" mangroves since associated mangrove
species may be difficult to agree upon in detail. In the case of "true" mangroves there was a general
agreement on the species concerned although it was noted during a subsequent discussion that China,
Philippines and Thailand had approved official lists of mangrove species. Whilst it was agreed that
Tomlinson, 1986 provided a good basis for work, it was also agreed that the focal points from China,
Thailand and Philippines would send to the Project Director their official list of mangrove species and
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 7
that he would consolidate these into a proposed list for use within the framework of the project and
circulate it to all members of the RWG-M for comment and approval.
6.2
Other relevant activities in the region
6.2.1 The Chairman invited participants to provide information on regional and national activities
involving mangrove ecosystems. Dr. Aksornkoae provided some background information on ISME, a
global society for which he was the treasurer and it was noted that, the next ISME meeting will be in
Vietnam in August. He also brought the attention of the meeting to the Global Mangrove Information
System (www. GLOMIS.com website), which contained information on the distribution and information
sources relating to mangroves. It was also noted that FAO and IUCN have both produced mangrove
publications and data and information reviews, which should be consulted by the group.
6.2.2 The Chairman gave a brief background on the Thailand National Mangrove Committee, which
meets every 2 yrs and noted that Thailand also has a National Mangrove Information Network, and that
Thailand was in the process of identifying a suitable Ramsar site.
6.2.3 Dr. Jin-Eong told the meeting that in Malaysia, the Forest Research Institute conducts research
on mangroves, whilst there is considerable additional research being undertaken by some of the
Universities.
6.2.4 Dr. Sam, stated that Vietnam has a significant coastal wetland world bank project. Viet Nam
has received funding assistance in the past from DANIDA for mangrove plantations, and more recently
Japan has provided assistance.
6.2.5 Mr. Barangan gave a brief review of the status of mangroves in the Philippines. Of an estimated
450,000 hectares at the beginning of the 20th century only about one third is left, but some rehabilitation
projects are in progress. They are currently mapping mangroves, as well as potential areas for
establishment of mangrove. He noted that In the vicinity of the South China Sea, there are only some
small mangrove areas. Palawan in the South has the largest area. Some plantations have been
initiated by, NGOs, some by Government, and some by individual communities. Mangrove plantations in
the Philippines are now gaining momentum, and those initiated by communities are observed to be
successful. The Government may provide materials, but labour is provided by the community.
6.2.6 Mr. Santoso stated that, there are many problems in Indonesia and that accuracy of data is one
problem. He cited the fact that in 1982 there were reportedly 4.25 million ha of mangrove which had
declined by 1993 to 3.9 million ha, but that in 1999 the figure was reported as being, 8.6 million ha. He
explained that this resulted from improper interpretation of satellite imagery, which had resulted in
inclusion of non-mangrove vegetation within the overall total.
6.2.7 Mr. Santoso noted further that, fish and shrimp pond development was another problem, with
large areas utilised, approximately 1 million hectares. Local communities with no money cut mangroves
to make fish ponds. There is a National Draft Strategy to address the issue, but this is still not declared.
He noted also that ecotourism is starting in some areas, whilst in West Kalimantan, a project involving
local community management of the ecosystem had commenced in 1997 and that potentially this might
be a suitable demonstration site within the context of the South China Sea Project.
6.2.8 Mr. Vongwattana noted that in Cambodia two ministries are responsible for mangroves, the
Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, and the Ministry of Environment. Mangrove related
activities are focused on 3 provinces. DANIDA has provided assistance in the area of mangrove
forestry.
6.2.9 China has two departments responsible for mangroves, the National Forest Bureau, and the
State Oceanic Administration (SOA). Other departments and local government authorities also have
some control and responsibility. He noted that there are extensive publications in China on mangroves,
but these are largely pure science and academic research. Even now, China does not know exactly the
total area of mangrove. In China remote sensing was not of much use, as small areas of mangroves are
missed, but at the same time a lot of mangrove areas are not accessible by road. China therefore will
have no problem to collect data for larger mangrove areas, but smaller areas are likely to be overlooked.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 8
China has done some work on economics, but very limited. There is also a large gap on relevant data
for management. It is estimated that China has 15,000 hectares total, which is only 30% of original.
Recent degradation of Pearl culture is due to the loss of mangroves in this area.
6.2.10 In Hong Kong, 80% of mangroves have been removed, and now there is an ecological reserve
for mangroves. Last year China mainland started a 10 year action plan of planting mangroves, but so far
a lot of money has been wasted in some places by planting in the wrong environment. All mangrove
forest in China is Government owned, not private. Although private companies are interested in
investing, for sustainable profit, in managing mangroves on behalf of the government, to date this has
not been allowed. In some villages, local people are objecting to conversion of mangroves to ponds.
China has no choice, they must protect mangroves for a better future.
6.2.11 Drs. Sam and Hoang Tri noted that, in Viet Nam 5 million hectares of forest, including
mangrove, were included in a, rehabilitation programme. Many foreign experts had provided advice and
partnerships are developing. It was noted that local people can reserve the land and establish some
mangrove fishery, with a percentage of the area (20%) being used for shrimp ponds, whilst the
remainder is left as mangrove stand.
6.2.12 The Chairman commented that only 10% of the original mangroves are left in the Gulf of
Thailand area. As a result, coastal erosion is now a major problem. Most of the area was converted to
fish-ponds, and now there are less fishermen as less fish than before. The shrimp farms now suffer from
disease. Along the Andaman coast of Thailand 90% of mangroves remain.
7.
DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT
7.1
Review of the Mangrove related sections of the National Reports and the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis, produced during the preparatory phase of the project
7.1.1 The Chairperson noted that under the previous agenda item an update of mangrove related
activities at the national level had been provided, by the meeting participants. Participants agreed to
supply the PCU with metadata relating to sources of data and information, not contained in the
published national reports.
7.1.2 The Chairperson suggested, and participants agreed that, they consider in detail the guidance
provided by the Regional Scientific & Technical Committee in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/6
regarding the data and information required to characterise sites at the national level. The listing
provided in this document was discussed at considerable length during which a number of points were
raised, a key issue being the extent to which this site characterisation should be applied to all
mangroves within each country. It was noted that many small areas of mangrove existed which were
probably of too low a significance to merit attention in China, for example. It was agreed that each
National Committee would try to make this characterisation as comprehensive as possible and that at
the very least all major types of mangroves must be characterised.
7.1.3 Clarification was sought regarding what was intended by "Ecotone" and the Chairperson
indicated that this was the area of mixed vegetation, containing true mangroves and species from the
neighbouring landward vegetation.
7.1.4 During consideration of the data and information needed to characterize the root causes of
problems occurring at specific sites a discussion of causal chain analysis took place during which Dr.
Pernetta, and Professor Ong discussed two simple examples of the use of this form of analysis to
distinguish between problems which were easily soluble and those which required solutions at a
political level. Professor Tri presented two concrete examples and these examples are contained in
Annex 6 to this report.
7.1.5 Discussion of issues surrounding economic valuation included problems relating to direct use
values, which varied within countries according to the proximity of the site to urban centers of
population, difficulties of transferring valuations between countries and the members agreed that they
needed an overall framework for economic valuation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 9
7.1.6 Following initial amendment of the tabulation the meeting agreed to designate a small group to
work further on the table during the evening to clarify the units of measurement and provide examples
as guidance for the national committees.
7.1.7 The small group presented a revised and expanded tabulation during the morning session,
which was further discussed, amended and agreed, as contained in Annex 7 to this report.
7.2
National and regional sources of data and information
7.2.1 The Project Director presented the regional GIS database being developed by the SEA-START
Regional Centre in Chulalongkorn University and noted that this would be made available free of charge
to all Specialised Executing Agencies contracted within the framework of the UNEP/GEF Project. The
meeting accepted the offer of collaboration with enthusiasm and requested the PCU to make
arrangements for copies of the GIS database and software on CD ROM to be made available as soon
as possible. In this context it was noted that the database that would be made available was in fact, only
a sub-set of the entire database and that individual National Focal Points could request specific
additional datasets. It was proposed that the PCU liaise with Dr. Snidvongs, Director of the SEA-START
Regional Centre, and request a listing of the currently available datasets in order that the National Focal
Points could specify those sub-sets that were required.
7.2.2 The Project Director noted that a regional data set regarding coral reef and mangrove habitat
distribution in the South China Sea, was contained in the recently released, Reefs at Risk publication
and noted that discussions were on-going regarding the incorporation of these data into the GIS
database.
7.2.3 It was suggested that the national committees might wish to identify and make available to the
PCU and SEA-START RC, publicly available datasets for inclusion in the regional GIS database and
noted further that, Dr. Snidvongs had agreed to make arrangements for digitising appropriate datasets
where these were available to the National Committees only in hard copy form. The meeting was
informed that the South China Sea database was intended as an open access data set based on
publicly available materials.
7.2.4 The meeting was informed that the regional meta-database being developed by Chulalongkorn
University with financial support from various sources, including the EAS/RCU of UNEP, would contain
information regarding the nature of regional datasets, their location, ownership and conditions of access.
7.2.5 The Project Director also informed the meeting that UNEP had recently acquired full global
coverage of a one time series of landsat images and that if the National Committees required access to
such images they should write to the PCU specifying their requirements and he would facilitate the
provision of these images where-ever possible.
8.
DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003
8.1
The Project Director noted that the working group had agreed, the flow-chart of activities to be
undertaken by the national committees and had finalised the details of the site characterisation which
constituted the initial key activity for the National Committees.
8.2
He then introduced the draft workplan for the National Committees and Regional Working
Group for 2002-2003 (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/6) which was discussed and amended and is
attached as Annex 8 to this report.
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1
No additional items of business were raised.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
page 10
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
MANGROVES
10.1
The Committee discussed the length of time for the next meeting and agreed that it should be
extended to four days and should be convened in the vicinity of a mangrove area that represented a
potential suitable demonstration site.
10.2
The dates of the meeting were agreed as 10th to 13th September 2002 inclusive. Following a
lengthy discussion of possible locations for the meeting it was agreed that the meeting would be
convened in Viet Nam and that the National Focal Point for mangroves, Dr. Sam would liaise with the
PCU regarding the administrative arrangements including those for a half day field visit which would be
incorporated into the programme for the meeting.
11.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
11.1
The Chairperson presented the draft report of the meeting on behalf of the co-rapporteurs. The
draft report prepared by the Secretariat was considered amended and approved, with the exception of
item 7.1 as contained in this document.
11.2
The meeting authorised the Secretariat to finalise section 7.1 of the report in consultation with
the Chairman. Mr. Barangan moved a formal motion for adoption of the report subject to the additions
referred to above. The motion was seconded, by Professor Ong Jin-Eong, and the report was adopted,
by the meeting.
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
12.1
The Project Director expressed his appreciation both personally and on behalf of UNEP for the
successful outcome of the meeting and the hard, enthuisiastic way in which all members had
participated in the work of the meeting.
12.2
Professor Ong Jin-Eong proposed on behalf of the participants his appreciation for the hard
work of the Secretariat and excellent preparation and support, which they had provided to the meeting.
12.3
The Chairman expressed his appreciation to all concerned for their hard work and support to
the successful outcome of the meeting. He declared the meeting formally closed at 1630 on 1st May
2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 1
page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Ke VONGWATTANA, Assistant
Dr. Hangqing FAN, Professor
Minister in charge of Mangrove and Wetland
Guangxi Mangrove Research Centre
Department of Nature Conservation and Protection 92 East Changqing Road
Ministry of Environment
Beihai City 536000
48 Samdech Preah Sihanouk
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon, Cambodia
China
Tel: (855 23) 213908, 855 12 855 990
Tel: (86 779) 205 5294; 13006992303
Fax: (855 23) 212540, 215925
Fax: (86 779) 205 8417
E-mail: moe-cabinet@camnet.com.kh
E-mail: fanhq@ppp.nn.gx.cn
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Nyoto SANTOSO
National Focal Point not yet designated
Lembaga Pengkajian dan Pengembangan
Mangrove
(Institute of Mangrove Research & Development)
Multi Piranti Graha It 3 JL. Radin Inten II No. 2
Jakarta 13440, Indonesia
Tel:
(62 21) 861 1710
Fax: (62 21) 861 1710
E-mail: imred@indo.net.id
Philippines
Thailand
Mr. Florendo BARANGAN, Executive Director
Dr. Sonjai HAVANOND, Director
Coastal & Marine Management Office
Mangrove Other Wetlands Management Division
Department of Environment and Natural
Royal Forest Department
Resources (CMMO-DENR)
61 Phaholyothin Road
DENR Compound Visayas Avenue
Bangkhen, Bangkok 10900
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
Thailand
Tel: (632) 926 1004, 09 1 78337413
Tel: (66 2) 579 8626, 561 4292-3 ext. 420
Fax: (632) 926 1004/426 3851
Fax: (66 2) 579 8626
E-mail: cmmo26@yahoo.com
E-mail: sonjai_h@hotmail.com
Viet Nam
Dr. Do Dinh SAM, Professor
Director General
Forest Science Institute of Vietnam
Dong Ngac, Tu Liem
Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel: (844) 838 9815
Fax: (844) 838 9722
E-mail: ddsam@netnam.vn
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 1
page 2
Invited Regional Experts
Professor Dr. Sanit AKSORNKOAE
Professor ONG Jin-Eong
Department of Silviculture Faculty of Forestry
Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies
Kasetsart University
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Chatujak, Bangkok 10900
11800 Penang
Thailand
Malaysia
Tel:
(66 2) 579-0171, 942-8112
Tel:
(604) 657 7888 ext. 2371/2375
Fax:
(66 2) 942-8112
Fax: (604) 657 2960
E-mail: fforsna@nontri.ku.ac.th
E-mail: jeong@usm.my
Dr. Nguyen Hoang TRI, Director
Center for Environmental Research and Education
(CERE)
Hanoi University of Education
7 Ngo 115 Nguyen Khuyen
Hanoi, VIET NAM
Tel:
(844) 733 5625
Fax:
(844) 733 5624
E-mail: nguyenhoangtri@hn.vnn.vn
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Dr. John PERNETTA, Project Director
Mr. Kelvin PASSFIELD, Expert - Fisheries
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Tel: (66 2) 288 1116
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
E-mail: passfield@un.org
Ms. Unchalee KATTACHAN
Secretary, UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: (66 2) 288 1670
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 2
page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Working documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/1
Provisional agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/2
Annotated provisional agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Draft report of the meeting (to be prepared during the
meeting).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/4
Outline of Mangrove Related Activities Described in the
UNEP/GEF Project Brief and Project Document entitled:
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/5
Flow Chart of Actions for the Mangrove Sub-Component in
the UNEP GEF South China Sea Project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/6
Elements for consideration by the Regional Working Groups
for habitats in developing criteria for prioritising areas of
intervention.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/7
Workplan for calendar year 2002.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/INF.1
Provisional list of documents.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/INF.2
Provisional list of participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/INF.3
Draft programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/INF.4
Management Framework and Reporting Structures for the
UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand".
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/INF.5
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for
National Focal Points Operating in the Framework of the
UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand".
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/INF.6
Terms of Reference for the Regional Working Group on
Mangroves (as approved by the First project Steering
Committee, Bangkok, Thailand, October 22-23rd 2001).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3
First Meeting of the Project Steering Committee for the
UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental Degradation
Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report
of the First Meeting. UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3. UNEP,
Bangkok, Thailand, 2000.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand" Report of the First Meeting. UNEP/
GEF/SCS/ RSTC.1/3 Pattaya, Thailand, 14-16 March 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/4
Expectations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with
Respect to Project Execution; Constraints and Opportunities.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 2
page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Wetland
Sub-component of the UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand" Report of the First Meeting.
UNEP/GEF/ SCS/RWG-W.1/3 Phuket, Thailand, 24-26 April
2002.
The following documents are available to participants as both hard copies and on CD Rom
Talaue-McManus, L.
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the South China Sea.
EAS/RCU Technical Reports Series No. 14. UNEP,
Bangkok, Thailand, 2000.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Cambodia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of China on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Indonesia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Malaysia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of the Philippines on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Thailand on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Viet Nam on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 3
page 1
ANNEX 3
Agenda
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
Welcome address
1.2
Introduction of members
2. ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Designation of officers
2.2
Organisation of work
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4. TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE
REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR MANGROVES (RWG-M)
4.1
Terms of reference for the working group
4.2
Membership of the working group
4.3
Rules of procedure
5. MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT
5.1
Reporting relationships and responsibilities of the Regional Working Group and
its role in achieving project objectives
5.2
Fiscal responsibilities (recording & reporting) of the National Focal Points of each
Specialised Executing Agency
6. OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION
AND LOSS" AND MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT
6.1
General description of activities contained in the Project Brief
6.2
Other relevant activities in the region
7. DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT
7.1
Review of the Mangrove related sections of the National Reports and the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, produced during the preparatory phase of
the project
7.2
National and regional sources of data and information
8. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003
9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
10. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
MANGROVES
11. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 1
ANNEX 4
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for National Focal Points
Operating in the Framework of the UNEP/GEF Project entitled:
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand"
Background
During the first meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee held in Pattaya, March 22-25
2002 members requested that the Project Co-ordinating Unit provide some notes for guidance of the
individuals in the Ministries and Specialised Executing Agencies regarding the management of the funds
and reporting requirements. This document has been produced by the PCU in response to that request.
What follows therefore is a simple outline of the budgetary constraints and reporting requirements, rather
than a full detailed listing of the United Nations financial rules and regulations.
Budget Planning and approval
The overall project budget was estimated by UNEP on the basis of planned activities approved by
COBSEA and the participating Governments. These estimates were summarised in the Project Brief at
the time of submission to the GEF Council for approval as total costs for each component and
subcomponent of the Project. Hence variations in allocation between components of the Project can only
be made with authority of the GEF Council.
Subsequently, during the appraisal phase from December 2000 to October 2001 extensive negotiations
were undertaken between UNEP and the Focal Point Ministries in each participating country regarding
the allocation of resources to activities within each component. The overall project budget, broken down
by object of expenditure in UNEP format was approved by the first Project Steering Committee meeting,
held in Bangkok, Thailand, October 22-23rd 2001. This meeting also approved the government
commitments of in-kind contributions to the project.
Overall Budget Control
The body with over-riding authority with respect to the entire project budget is the Project Steering
Committee, which approves on an annual basis the workplans and budgets for the project. In practical
terms what this means is that, at the end of each year the Project Steering Committee decides how any
unspent balance should be reallocated, and makes decisions regarding the budget allocations for
demonstration sites. The Project Steering Committee must however operate within the framework budget
presented in the Project Brief by component and approved by the Global Environment Facility Council at
the time of submission of the Project Brief. Effectively this means that the Project Steering Committee
has authority to move funds between activities in each component but not to transfer funds from one
component to another.
For example: money approved by the GEF as grant support to activities in the coral reef component
cannot be transferred to the mangrove component.
The Project Steering Committee has approved the initial budgetary allocations to the Specialised
Executing Agencies at National level for the first two years on the basis of which the first instalment of
funds has been transferred to all Specialised Executing Agencies with which UNEP has signed
Memoranda of Understanding.
Responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies
The responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies are detailed in each Memorandum of
Understanding and include inter alia responsibility for Chairing and convening meetings of the National
Committees, for producing the national inputs to the regional level activities and for advising at the
national level, the National Technical Focal Point and National Technical Working Group of priorities
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 2
activities which should be undertaken within the framework of the Project. In addition the Specialised
Agencies are responsible for presenting the national perspective at the Regional Working Groups and
providing to the Regional Working Groups and Regional Scientific and Technical Committee the data
and information required to make decisions and recommendations at the regional level. The
substantive needs will be more closely defined during the first sets of meetings of the Regional
Working Groups.
Disbursement by UNEP to the SEAs
In order to undertake the substantive work described in the MoU's the GEF has provided grant funds
for project execution. These monies will be disbursed by ESCAP on behalf of UNEP at six monthly
intervals according to the terms given in the MoU. As noted above the first instalment of funds has
been disbursed as a cash advance following joint signature by UNEP and each SEA, of the MoUs.
In terms of fiscal responsibility within the United Nations System the Project Director authorises financial
expenditures including disbursement of funds to the SEAs, in accordance with the project document, and
the workplans and budget approved by the Project Steering Committee. The Senior Expert certifies that
adequate funds exist to support the payments authorised. These authorities are delegated from the Head
of the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON), and UNEP headquarters, Nairobi.
Each MoU contains a budget in UNEP format, which indicates the purpose for which the funds are
provided by UNEP to the Specialised Executing Agencies. Funds have been allocated in these
budgets to the production of the required national level information, for the convening of meetings, for
translation and for other purposes as indicated by the UNEP budget code; for example the extract
below is taken from the budget table for a National Specialised Agency serving as the Focal Point for
Land Based Pollution and represents the anticipated reporting costs. No expenditures on publications
are foreseen during 2002 hence these funds will be transferred in 2003 in two separate allotments
around January and June 2003.
Table 1.
Example extract from the budget for a Specialised Executing Agency acting at National
level as the Focal Point for the Mangrove component of the Project (US$ thousands)
2002
2003
TOTAL
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
5200
Reporting costs - publications,
maps, newsletters, printing.
5201
Translation
2.00
2.00
4.00
Publication of National Metadatabase
3.00
3.00
5202
& Review
5203
Publication of National Management
3.00
3.00
Plan
5299
Total
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
Expenditures by the SEAs
Each SEA is authorised under the terms of the MoUs to spend the cash advances in accordance with the
detailed budget, which forms part of each MoU. Since the money in the budgets of the MoUs is provided
to the SEAs by UNEP in advance of the SEAs incurring any expenditures, UNEP will not reimburse
expenditures for items not detailed in the approved budget.
Unplanned costs
In undertaking the work agreed by the Regional Working Groups Specialised Executing Agency may find
that they need to spend money on items not currently listed in the budgets of the MoUs. Under such
circumstances the Focal Point in the SEA must contact the Project Director to seek changes in the
budget to accommodate these un-planned expenditures.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 3
Over-expenditures
Where an item or an activity costs more than originally estimated then the Specialised Executing Agency
would need to examine the budget and see whether cost savings can be achieved in other parts of the
budget. Any such savings could then be transferred between lines to prevent an over-expenditure
occurring. In cases where quotations are obtained which exceed the allocations the Focal Point should
contact the PCU to arrange for a revision of the budget. Such a revision should be completed before the
over-expenditure is incurred. Focal Points should note that reallocation of funds between lines, which fall
into the same component (i.e. 5000 numbers) is generally accepted automatically, but reallocation of
funds from 2000 to 3000 lines for example should only be done with the agreement in writing of the
Project Director.
Under-expenditures
At the end of a six-month period the Specialised Executing Agency might find that the anticipated costs
of a particular activity have been less than originally planned. For example in the Table presented above
the SEA might find that only 1,800 US$ had been spent on translation by June 30th 2003, hence 200 US
$ would remain unspent in budget line #5216. This money can be carried forward on the same budget
line if for example it was expected that the costs of translating of the second publication would be more
than the planned 2,000 US$. Alternatively the unspent funds can be reallocated internally, for example to
produce more copies of the publication, subject to the approval in writing of the Project Director. In this
case the funds would be removed from budget line #5216 and reassigned to budget line #5217 or #5218
as appropriate.
Revising the budget
In the event that unplanned expenditures, under-expenditures or over-expenditures are foreseen the
Focal Point in the Specialised Executing Agency is advised to contact the Project Co-ordinating Unit
promptly to seek a budget revision, since as noted above UNEP cannot reimburse expenditures which
are not part of the approved budget contained in the MoU.
Reporting requirements
At the end of each six-month period the SEA is required under the terms of the MoU to provide three
documents to the Project Co-ordinating Unit as follows:
· Six Monthly expenditure statement
· Cash advance request.
· Six monthly progress report
Without these three documents the Project Co-ordinating Unit cannot authorise the cash advance for the
next six months.
The six monthly expenditure statement should report the actual expenditures which have occurred
up to the 30th June and 30th December in the form provided in an Annex to the MoU and reproduced
here as Table 2. At this time any under expenditures will become apparent and a revision of the budget
may be undertaken as necessary.
At the same time that the SEA reports the actual expenditures for the previous six months it completes a
cash advance request in the form annexed to the MoUs and reproduced here as Table 3. This
constitutes a request from the SEA to UNEP to advance monies against the expenditures anticipated in
the next six months.
Supporting documentation for expenditures
If an item of equipment has been purchased, then the original receipt for payment must be dispatched
with the six monthly expenditure statement, since until the time of completion of the project the
equipment remains the property of the United Nations (Transfer to the partner institution is normally
automatic on completion of the project).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 4
If a consultancy contract has been issued for a specified piece of work then a copy of the signed
contract should also be supplied with the expenditure statement, together with a copy of the original
product produced by the consultant.
If expenditures are incurred in organising a meeting then a copy of the report of the meeting and any
substantive outputs must be supplied to UNEP.
If travel by air has been paid for then an original receipt must be supplied with the expenditure statement.
Whilst UNEP does not require that original receipts for all expenditures be submitted at the time the
expenditure report is dispatched they must be retained by the Specialised Executing Agency until
such time as the external audit report of the organisation has been submitted to, and receipt
acknowledged by, the PCU. Ideally receipts should be retained on file until completion of the project and
financial closure of the MoU. In the event of an audit the Specialised Executing Agency may be required
to produce the original receipts by the United Nations auditors.
It is strongly recommended therefore that each SEA retain original documentation demonstrating the
nature of each expenditure until such time as the terms of the MoU have been fulfilled.
Substantive Reporting
One further report is required from each SEA on a six monthly basis. This is the Six Monthly Progress
Report in the form as annexed to the MoUs and attached here as Table 3. In this report the substantive
activities and outputs of the SEA and National Committees are detailed and it is on the basis of this
report together with the substantive outputs (copies of which should be sent to the PCU) that UNEP
judges whether or not the terms of the Memorandum have been met in a satisfactory manner.
Without the six monthly expenditure report, the six monthly progress report and cash advance
request the PCU cannot authorise any subsequent cash advances. It is important therefore that the
Focal Points adhere as closely as possible to the reporting requirements in order to ensure a steady flow
of funds and smooth operation of the project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 5
Table 2
FORMAT OF SIX MONTHLY PROJECT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Project statement of allocation (budget), expenditure and balance (Expressed in US$) covering the period
from............................to................................
Project No.:...........................................
Supporting organization...............................................................................
Project title:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
Project commencing:...............................
(date)
Project ending:.................................... (date)
Object of expenditure in accordance with UNEP Project budget allocation for the half Expenditure incurred for the half ye ar Unspent balance of budget for the half year
budget codes
year ending .......
ending .....
ending ............
Amount (1)
Amount (2)
Amount (1-2)
1100 Project personnel
1101
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
1200 Consultants
1201
Consultants
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
etc. etc. etc.
(USE OBJECTS OF EXPENDITURE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGNED
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING)
99 GRAND TOTAL
Signed
_______________________________________________________
Designation:
______________________________________________
Duly authorised official
NB: The expenditures should be reported in line with the specific object of expenditures as per project budget.
File ID: K:\FORMATS\APP4SOQE.WQ1 me\ag
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 6
Table 3
CASH ADVANCE REQUEST
Statement of cash advance as at
______________________________________
And cash requirements for the six month period ending
______________________________
Name of co-operating agency/ Supporting organization __________________________________
Project No.
______________________________________________________________
Project title:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf
of Thailand
I
Cash Statement:
1. Opening Cash Balance as at _________________________US$___________________
2. Add: cash advances received
Date: ________________ US$___________________
Date: ________________ US$___________________
Date: ________________ US$___________________
Date: ________________ US$___________________
3. Total cash advanced to date
US$______________________
4. Less: total cumulative expenditures incurred
US$ ___________________
5. Closing cash balance as at________________
US$ ___________________
II Cash requirements forecast
1.
Estimated disbursements for period ending
2.
Less: closing cash balance (item 5, above)
3.
Total cash requirements for the period ending
Prepared by
_______________________ Request approved by:___________________________
Name:
_______________________
______________________________
Duly authorized official of co-operating
agency/ supporting organization
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 7
Table 4
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
SIX MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1
Project Title: Reversing Environmental degradation in the South China Sea and Gulf
of Thailand.
1.2
MOU Number:___________________________________________________
1.3
Responsible Office: South China Sea Project Co-ordination Unit, Bangkok
1.4
Specialised Executing Agency (Supporting Organization):
_________________________________________________________________________________
1.5
Reporting Period: (the six months covered by this report) ___________________________
1.6
Focal Point Name: ___________________________
SECTION 2 - PROJECT STATUS
2.1
Status of the Implementation of the Activities and Outputs Listed Under the Workplan
in the Memorandum of Understanding (check appropriate box)
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project workplan for the reporting period have been materially
completed and the responsible Office is satisfied that the project will be fully completed on time
(give reasons for minor variations as Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have been altered
(give reasons for alterations: lack of finance; project reformulated; project revisions; other at
Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have not been fully
completed and delays in project delivery are expected (give reasons for variations in Section 3.1
and new completion date in Section 3.2 below).
Insufficient detail provided in the Project Workplan.
2.2
List Actual Activities/Outputs Achieved in the Reporting period: (check appropriate box)
(a) MEETINGS (Duplicate this box for each meeting individually)
Inter-Ministry mtg
Expert Group Mtg.
Training Seminar/Workshop
Others
Title:_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
Venue and
dates____________________________________________________________________________
Convened by ____________________________ Organized by ____________________________
Report issued as doc. No/Symbol_______________ Languages _____________Dated __________
For Training Seminar/Workshop, please indicate: No. of participants _____________and attach
annex giving names and nationalities of participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 8
(b) PRINTED MATERIALS (Duplicate this box for each printed item)
Report to IG Mtg.
Technical Publication
Technical Report
Others
Title: ____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Author(s)/Editor(s)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Publisher
_________________________________________________________________________________
Symbol (UN/UNEP/ISBN/ISSN)
_______________________________________________________________________
Date of publication
_________________________________________________________________________________
(When technical reports/publications have been distributed, attach distribution list)
(c) TECHNICAL INFORMATION PUBLIC INFORMATION (posters, leaflets, broadcasts etc.)
Description
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Dates
_________________________________________________________________________________
(d) SERVICES
Description
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Dates _____________________
(e) OTHER OUTPUTS
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 4
page 9
SECTION 3 - PROJECT DELIVERY
3.1
Summary of the Problems Encountered in Project Delivery (if any)
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.2
Actions Taken or Required to Solve the Problems (identified in Section 3.1 above)
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Signed:
_____________________________
Name:
_____________________________
Designation: _____________________________
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 5
page 1
ANNEX 5
Flow chart of Actions for the Mangrove Sub-component of the UNEP GEF South China Sea Project
Establish National
Committees
Review National
Review site specific
Develop & agree
Data & Information
characteristics
selection criteria
Geographic distribution
at habitat level
Cluster nationally by
Assemble Regional set
geomorphic class
of site specific data
Geographic distribution
of species &/or
Determine national
formations
priority Rank within
Cluster regionally on basis
class
of similarity indices
Environmental state
Define site specific
Social, Use &
management regime
Determine transboundary regional
ownership data
and global significance
Threats, present &
future
Review National
Select sites for
Management & Inst'l &
demonstration activities
legal frameworks
Improved Strategic Action
Provide inputs to regional meta-database;
Programme Targets, cost estimates
Regional GIS system; economic valuation
timeframes and targets
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 6
page 1
ANNEX 6
Details of Parameters, Data and Information requirements for Mangrove Site characterisation
Mangrove: location name
Parameter
Data & Information needed
Remarks
Geographic
Latitude & Longitude central position of areas <50 Ha;
Include a map if available
Co-ordinates
information
GPS Boundary or number (min 4) of paired co-ordinates
for larger areas; end points for linear strips.
Area
(Units Km2 or Ha)
Physical Environment
Substrate (soil)
Proportion of sand, silt, clay
Bulk Density
Freshwater regime
Mean monthly rainfall (mm)
Specify length of records
Mean monthly River discharge (m3sec-1)
Specify length of records
Tidal regime
Range (m)
Diurnal, semi-diurnal, mixed
Slope
Degrees (tangent)
Temperature
Mean, max, min, monthly (oC)
Specify length of records
Soil Salinity
Range (psu)
Landward and seaward edges
Water quality
Total suspended solids
Contaminant concentration/flux
Other parameters as available
Geomorphic class
Description, lagoon, tidal flats, estuaries, islands etc.
Environmental state information
Present status
Vegetation Canopy Cover (% area)
Pressure (threats) present
% loss of species or area or canopy cover in last five
Provide maps if available
years
Pressure (threats) future
Estimated future losses from known development plans
Social & use
Ownership
Description: Federal, State, Community, private
information
Management regime
Description: Land-use planning, Institutional framework,
Description
stakeholder co-ordination, forestry practices, restoration
replanting, stakeholder investment, fishery practices.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 6
page 2
Current use
Description: Commercial, subsistence
Quantitative description of current
uses e.g. fisheries (annual
weights); forest products (annual
coup);
Potential use
Alternative livelihoods
Significance/national importance
Use designation in national/state master plans
Biological data
Natural/Managed
Proportions of total area natural and replanted
Species diversity
(True) Mangrove1 tree species Density (no ha-1)
Crustacea Crab genera, density
Molluscs Bivalve genera, density
Molluscs gastropods genera, density
Fish Residents, species abundance
Fish Transient for breeding, species abundance
Mammals, resident
Birds, resident species
Birds, migratory species
Reptiles, resident species
List others as available (eg mud lobster)
Genetic diversity
Unlikely to be available
Heterogeneity
Formations number of canopy layers (strata)
Regeneration
Average and range Height m, by species
Average and range Girth, cm by species
Zonation number of zones by dominant species
Ecotones average width m, major species
SCS Endemic species
List species and abundance
Endangered or threatened
List species and abundance if data available
species (IUCN criteria)
Stress-pressure
Intrinsic/internal sources of
resident human population
Information
change
Natural e.g. frequency of typhoon throw, change in
allocthonous sediment inputs, marine based flooding
1 Tomlinson, P.P.. 1986 Botany of Mangroves, Cambridge University Press.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 6
page 3
Extrinsic/external sources of
Changes in catchment basin e.g. dam construction
change
water diversion etc.
Rates of change, historical
Rates of loss of cover and/or species over the period
Longer period if available
review
1990-2000
Social and economic drivers
Description, quantitative if possible e.g. pop'n growth,
of change in environmental
immigration, income/livelihood, demand/ consumption,
state
management regime)
Economic valuation2
Values of direct use
Timber, charcoal, living marine resource extraction Yr
Provide median 2000 US$
2000 local currency total
exchange rate
Values of indirect use
Carbon sequestration, ecotourism, nursery areas for
shrimps Yr 2000 local currency total
Values from environmental
Coastal protection, sediment stabilisation, water
Shadow valuation, Avoided
services
quality enhancement, contaminant sink, reduction of
costs
wave energy & erosion,
Value of investment
Restoration, replanting
Values of potential
(commercial) sustainable use
Total Economic Value
Yr 2000 local currency total
Causal Chain analysis
See Annex 7
2 Barbier, E.B. 1997. Economic Valuation of wetland: A guide for policy makers and planners. RAMSAR Convention Bureau, IUCN.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 7
page 1
ANNEX 7
Examples of Causal Chain Analysis to be used in analysing threats and causes
at specific sites
Background to Causal Chain Analysis
A causal chain analysis is a linear approach to analysing the proximate and ultimate or, root causes of
observed environmental issues or problems in a specific location. Whilst such an analysis can be
conducted for a wide geographic area the end results do little more than identify general areas of
intervention either at the level of issue or problem or at the level of cause.
When such an analysis is conducted at the scale of a specific intervention it provides information
regarding the best point of intervention along the chain, and at which point maximum benefit can be
derived for minimum cost.
Example 1
Algal blooms in the Adriatic Sea
The first example involves algal blooms in the Adriatic Sea, which result in unsightly algal deposits on
tourist beaches which in turn result in reduced tourist income. A secondary effect resulting from
increased nutrients is eutrophication, increased BOD and reduced availability of dissolved oxygen in
the water column, which results in wide-spread fish and invertebrate kills resulting in loss of fisheries
income and changes in biological diversity.
The immediate cause of the problem is increased nutrient availability in the water column derived from
two sources, agricultural fertiliser run-off and discharge of untreated domestic wastes including
sewage. Of the two run-off of fertiliser from the intensive rice production of the Po valley is the
dominant source of nutrient input. This in turn reflects excessive fertiliser use, poor agricultural
practices and the artificially low price of fertiliser due to government subsidy and the common
agricultural policy of the European Union. Whilst some environmental improvement could be effected
via changes in fertiliser use and agricultural practices the key to effecting change in this instance
involves a change in government policies, which remove the subsidy on fertilisers, which in turn
requires a change to the common agricultural policy of the European Union. Effecting change at the
level of policy within the European Union requires changes involving all member states of the Union
not merely the ones impacted by the observed loss of environmental quality.
The discharge of untreated sewage whilst it represents a significant source of nutrient input which is
widespread along the coast of the Adriatic is less significant than agricultural run-off hence
intervention in this chain of cause and effect will have less impact in terms of reducing nutrient loads
than intervention in the agricultural sector.
This example illustrates three significant points:
· firstly the need to identify the primary causes and rank their importance where more than one
source is involved;
· secondly the need to identify the precise points of intervention that will have the greatest
effect; and,
· thirdly, that some causes may be beyond the capacity of the involved countries to address,
since they involve countries outside the area of impact, i.e. they are transboundary at the
policy level.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 7
page 2
Table 1
Examples of causal chain analysis from the Mediterranean and Sabah, Malaysia
Environmental domain
Socio-Economic Domain
Environmental
Causes of observed environmental problem
Issue or
Immediate
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Ultimate or
Problem
Cause
Cause
root cause
Algal blooms
Increased
Agricultural Excessive Poor
Low
Govt.
Common
(Adriatic sea)
nutrients
runoff (Po
fertiliser
agricultural price
subsidy Agricultural
River)
use
practices
policy of the
EU
Discharge
No
Lack of
Political
of sewage
treatment
capital
will
Loss of
Clear felling Demand for Export
Mangroves
Wood chips income
(Sabah)
Forestry
Policy
Example 2
Mangrove loss in Sabah
The second example concerns the loss of mangrove in Sabah, Malaysia due to clear felling for the
production of wood chips used in Rayon production in Japan. Clear felling is permitted under the
governments forestry policy hence changes in forestry policy limiting coup size might result in a
reduction in the scale of overall impact. The licensing agreements permitted under the government's
foresty policy are driven by a government desire for export income in hard currency which in turn is
used to support government development objectives in the social services sector, but are also driven
by the private sector profit motive. In this particular example the political consequence of the
environmental impacts was a change in government resulting in a cessation of the felling operation.
Example 3
Conservation of Coastal Wetlands in the Red River Delta, Viet Nam
The form of presentation of this example is somewhat different from the first two since the purpose of
the analysis in this case is specifically to identify the types and form of possible interventions. The
direct threats are linked to the underlying causes, which in turn are linked to the form of possible
interventions. The overall environmental problem is the loss of biological diversity in the Red River
delta a system of regional and global significance. Five direct causes for loss of biological diversity are
identified: excessive hunting and fishing; contamination and pollution from aquaculture; inappropriate
plantation policies; and enclosure of mangrove areas for aquaculture. The underlying causes of these
include information and policy failures at the local and central government levels.
Example 4
Conservation of Upland Biological Diversity in Yunnan, Miyanmar
As in example 3 the form of this analysis is designed to identify and link the proposed interventions
with the causes both direct and underlying, of loss of biological diversity in the Yunnan Upland areas.
In this case the absence of a policy framework and adequate mechanisms for enforcement are the
predominant causes of the observed losses of biological diversity.
Conclusion:
Once the site characterisation has been completed a causal chain analysis needs to be completed for
each site that identifies the key environmental issues, problems or threats and their causes prior to
conducting a cost benefit analysis for each potential intervention. A clear identification of the relative
importance of each identified problem and the comparativeimportance of each cause in the case of
problems with multiple causes choices regarding the priority interventions can be made.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 7
page 3
CONSERVATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS IN THE RED RIVER DELTA: CONCEPTUAL MODEL
INTERVENTIONS
UNDERLYING THREATS
DIRECT THREATS
ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
1. Lack of ecological information
Uncontrolled hunting
Direct population losses;
2. Lack of conservation infrastructure
habitat disturbance
(2,4,7,9,10)
Limited capacity
Strengthen the conservation
for conservation at
capacity of existing core
declared
reserve areas
3. No sustainable management systems
protected areas
Mangrove die-off; loss of
4. Low levels of awareness and human
Enclosure of
breeding habitat for fish
capacities
mangrove areas for
and other marine life; loss
aquaculture
of food supply for globally
(1,3,4,5,7)
significant biodiversity
5. Inadequate systems of land-use
Unsustainable
development
planning
Ensure sustainable
within buffer
development within coastal
zones, with cross-
buffer zones
6. Fixed reserve boundaries in a
over impacts on
geographically and economically
Mangrove
core areas
dynamic environment
afforestation efforts
LOSS OF
Resulting loss of mudflat
not taking
BIODIVERSITY
reduces habitat available
biodiversity into
OF RED RIVER
for globally significant
account
Existing protected
biodiversity
DELTA
7. Lack of resources and expertise
(1,2,3,4,5,8)
area network is
Assess / implement
needed to establish effective new
fragmented and
extensions to protected area
reserves
insufficient to
network, while increasing
ensure
linkages
conservation of
8. Lack of technical or other exchanges
Harvest above maximum
globally
between managers of different sites
Excessive harvest
sustainable yield reduces
significant
of marine resources
long-term productivity,
biodiversity
(2,3,4,7,9,10,11)
threatens ecosystem
9. Local communities lack awareness
stability
Local
and capacity to manage wetland areas
Raise awareness, capacity
communities lack
and participation of local
awareness and
10. Local communities lack sustainable
Release of aquatic
communities while
alternatives and
alternative livelihoods
contaminants due to
Various potential
encouraging a shift to
are not involved in
aquaculture
alternative sustainable
decision-making
biological impacts
(1,4,5,9,10)
livelihoods
regarding
11. Limited participation by local
resources
communities
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 7
page 4
CONSERVATION OF UPLAND BIODIVERSITY IN YUNNAN: CONCEPTUAL MODEL
INTERVENTIONS
UNDERLYING THREATS
IMMEDIATE THREATS
CORE PROBLEM
Creation of inter-
sectoral planning
Inadequate enforcement
Grazing/browzing
and management
of existing regulations
in the forest
mechanism
Inadequate food
Capacity building for
production systems
Illegal logging and
protected area
and income generation
poaching of wildlife
management
options
Community-based
LOSS OF
Conversion of forest to
BIODIVERSITY IN
conservation and
agricultural uses
YUNNAN
management
UPLANDS
Biodiversity
Inadequate policies
Lack of sound forest
Forest fires and
inventory,
to promote SFM
management and
monitoring and
protection mechanism
disease
targeted research
Information,
Legal extraction of
education &
Lack of public
Lack of alternative
timber, fuelwood
and non-timber
communication
awareness
sources of fuel
forest products
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 8
page 1
ANNEX 8
Schedule of Meetings and Workplan for 2002
Table 1
Schedule of Meetings for 2002
M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
January
N.Y.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
February
ChnN.Y.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
March
RSTC-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
April
RWG-LbP-
Thai N.Y.
RWG-W-1
RWG-M-1
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
May
RWG-S-1 RWG-Cr-1
RWG-F-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
June
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
July
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
August
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
September
RWG-W-2
RWG-M-2
RWG-LbP-2
GEF-IW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
GEF Assembly
October
RWG-F-2
RWG-Cr-2
RWG-S-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
November
Ramadan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
December
Ramadan
RSTC-2
PSC-2
Xmas
Official United Nations Holidays in Thailand
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 8
page 2
Table 2
Workplan and Timetable for completion of agreed activities in the Mangroves Sub-component: 2002
2002
2003
April
May
June
July
August Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
National Committee meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NTWG Meetings
X
X
Review National Reports
Review Regional database and respond
National Activities
Review of past & ongoing projects
1st
Final
draft
draft
Review National Data & Information
Creation of National Meta-database
Identification & characterisation of "sites"
1st
Final
draft
draft
Review National Criteria & priorities
Review economic valuation data & information
Review threats at site level
Review National legislation
1st
Final
draft
draft
Review National level management regimes
Identify proximate to ultimate cause by source
National Prioritisation
Identify priority points of intervention
Evaluate barriers to action & possible solutions
Preparation/revision of National Action Plan
Regional Co-ordination
Regional Criteria development
Second meeting RWG-M
x
Development of Regional Priorities
Finalisation of elements of the SAP
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
Annex 8
page 3
Table 3
Workplan and Timetable for completion of agreed activities in the Mangroves Sub-component: 2002 - 2003
Year
2002
2003
Quarter
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
National Committee meetings
NTWG Meetings
X
X
X
X
Review National Reports
Review Regional database and respond
Review of ongoing projects & activities
Creation of National metadatabase
Identification & characterisation of "sites"
1st draft
Final draft
Review National Criteria & priorities
Review economic valuation data &
information
Review threats at site level & prepare
causal chain analyses
Review National legislation
Review national level management
regimes
Identify proximate to ultimate cause by
source
National Prioritisation
Identify priority points of intervention
Evaluate barriers and possible solutions
Finalisation of elements of the SAP
Preparation/revision of the National Action
Plan
Regional Criteria development
Development of Regional Priorities
2nd, 3rd & 4th meetings RWG-M
X
x
x
Finalisation of the Regional SAP