United Nations Distr. restricted
Environment Programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
8th 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 Seagrass Sub-component
Bangkok, Thailand, 6 8 May 2002
________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, May 2002
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.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 SEAGRASS (RWG-SG)...................................................................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 ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND
GULF OF THAILAND"..........................................................................................................3
5.1
REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP AND ITS
ROLE IN ACHIEVING PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................3
5.2
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES (RECORDING & REPORTING) OF THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS OF
EACH SPECIALISED EXECUTING AGENCY .............................................................................4
6. OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION AND
LOSS" AND THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT.................................................................5
6.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT BRIEF....................................5
6.2
OTHER RELEVANT ACTIVITIES IN THE REGION ........................................................................6
7. DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT........................7
7.1
REVIEW OF THE SEAGRASS RELATED SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTS AND THE
TRANSBOUNDARY DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS, PRODUCED DURING THE PREPARATORY PHASE OF
THE PROJECT................................................................................................................7
7.2
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION..............................................8
8. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003 .............................................................9
9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................9
9.1
REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL SEAGRASS COMMITTEES........................................................9
10. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
SEAGRASS .......................................................................................................................10
11. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING.................................................................10
12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING .............................................................................................10
ii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.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 Seagrass Sub-component of the UNEP/GEF Project
Annex 6
Selection Criteria for Demonstration Sites Prepared by the National Seagrass
Committee of Indonesia
Annex 7
Parameters, Indicators, Data and Information Requirements for Characterising,
Seagrass Sites for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental Degradation
Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
Annex 8
Review of the Seagrass Sections in the National Reports prepared for the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the South China Sea
Annex 9
Workplan, Timetable and Schedule of Meetings for the Regional Working
Group on Seagrass, 2002-2003
iii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.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 on
Seagrass (RWG-SG) 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 Seagrass sub-
component of the habitat loss and degradation component of the project. He noted that whilst coral reefs
and mangroves tended to receive greater attention than seagrasses from the conservation and
management communities, seagrasses were nevertheless an important habitat with their centre of
diversity at the species level being located in the Southeast Asian region. Although less well studied
than coral reefs and mangroves, seagrasses are a significant and widespread habitat that supports
important communities of organisms, a significant number of which were important fisheries resources
particularly for the artisanal fishing communities.
1.1.3 The first meeting of the Regional Working Group is of critical importance in providing guidance to
the National Focal Points for the seagrass sub-component 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 therefore for all participants to fully understand the project objectives and approaches and
the agenda for this meeting had been prepared with this objective in mind. He noted that it was 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 seagrass 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 Mr. Kim Sour, Focal Point for seagrass for Cambodia, nominated Professor Xiaoping Huang,
Focal Point for seagrass in China, as Chairperson of the meeting. The nomination was seconded by,
Drs. Tri Edi Kuriandewa, Focal Point for seagrass from Indonesia and Professor Huang was duly elected
as Chairperson.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 2
2.1.3 Drs. Kuriandewa, Focal Point for seagrass from Indonesia, nominated Dr. Suvaluck
Satumanatpan, Focal Point for seagrass in Thailand, as Vice-Chairperson of the meeting, there being no
further nominations Dr. Suvaluck was duly elected.
2.1.4 Drs. Kuriandewa, nominated Dr. Hugh Kirkman, representative of the Project Co-ordinating Unit,
as Rapporteur of the meeting. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Kamarruddin bin Ibrahim, Focal
Point for seagrass from Malaysia and Dr. Kirkman was duly elected.
2.2
Organisation of work
2.2.1 Dr. Pernetta, the Project Director, briefed participants on the documents available to the
meeting, which included discussion documents prepared by the Secretariat, together with a number of
information documents prepared during the preparatory (PDF-B) phase of the project. The latter were
provided in both hard copy and electronic form. In addition, copies of the reports of the first meetings of
the Regional Working Groups for Wetlands and Mangroves were also made available to participants for
information. 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,
as had been done by the previous working groups. The draft programme prepared by the Secretariat as
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/INF.3 was outlined and it was agreed that the meeting would
follow this proposed programme, but that sessions would be extended at the discretion of the
Chairperson and members.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
Professor Huang, the Chairperson, introduced the provisional agenda, prepared by the
Secretariat as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/1, and invited participants to propose any
amendments or additional items for consideration.
3.2
Drs. Kuriandewa, Focal Point for seagrass from Indonesia, proposed, and the meeting accepted
to amend the agenda through inclusion of an item under "Any Other Business" entitled "Reports from the
National Seagrass Committees."
3.3
Following this amendment, the agenda 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 SEAGRASS (RWG-SG)
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 on Seagrass 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 for the meeting, as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/INF.6. He
explained that, these Terms of Reference had been approved, by the Project Steering Committee in
October 2002 prior to the final clearance of the project document by the GEF Secretariat. Any changes
to these Terms of Reference (TOR) would therefore have to be approved by the Project Steering
Committee.
4.1.2 During discussion several members sought clarification regarding the role of the Regional
Working Group in ensuring that timetables were met by the National Committees and noted the
difficulties resulting from the delay in receipt of funds for the initial six months. In response it was noted
that one important purpose of the present meeting was to agree upon the workplan and timetable for the
initial activities and that it would be the responsibility of the individual Focal Points to ensure that the
national inputs were produced according to the agreed schedule. The Regional Working Group's
responsibility was to ensure that inputs from the seagrass sub-component were provided to the RSTC
and PSC as planned.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 3
4.1.3 Several questions were raised regarding the meta-database referred to in the TOR and it was
explained that the intention was not to duplicate existing databases rather to build on existing initiatives
such as the coral reef meta-database developed by the Southeast Asian Regional Centre for the System
for Analysis Research and Training of the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (SEA-START
RC), with financial support from UNEP. The intention was to provide information on the sources of data,
their quality, location and required conditions for access.
4.1.4 The meeting agreed to accept the Terms of Reference, noting that any changes could be
proposed at a later date, if found necessary.
4.2
Membership of the working group
4.2.1 Participants noted that under the Terms of Reference, full members of the working group include
the National Focal Points for Seagrass and one member of the Project Co-ordinating Unit.
4.2.2 The Project Director informed the meeting that Dr. Hugh Kirkman would serve as the PCU
designated member of the working group in recognition of his extensive experience and knowledge of
seagrasses and seagrass ecology.
4.2.3 Participants noted that up to four additional members of the working group could be nominated
by the PCU in consultation with the National Focal Points for the project, in the participating countries.
The Project Director informed participants that this was to provide the opportunity to strengthen the
group through the addition of individuals with expertise in areas such as resource economics that might
not be well represented amongst the existing members.
4.2.4 The Project Director invited members to propose any areas of expertise and regional experts
that they might wish to see added to the working group. He explained that following a review of the
expertise of the members of all working groups and receipt of such proposals, the PCU would
consolidate this list and forward it, together with their proposals to the National Focal Points. It was
therefore intended that the second meeting of the working group would be convened with full
membership.
4.2.5 Drs. Kuriandewa nominated, Dr. Malikusworo Hutomo, as one of the experts and it was agreed
that all members would forward nominations using the roster of experts form, to ensure that details of
the expertise and experience were available for consideration.
4.3
Rules of procedure
4.3.1 The Rules of Procedure of the Project Steering Committee as contained in Annex XIII of
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3 were briefly introduced by the Project Director, who indicated that
the working group might wish to adopt the rules contained in Section VII of that document as the rules
for conduct of meetings. Rules 21 30 were considered item, by item and adopted subject to the
required substitution of "Regional Working Group on Seagrass" for Project Steering Committee and
RWG-SG for PSC throughout.
4.3.2 A query was raised regarding the need for rules governing the attendance of alternates and Dr.
Pernetta informed the group that alternates could and would be funded, where it was impossible for the
Focal Point to attend, but that it was obviously in the interests of the project that the Focal Points attend
all meetings in order to provide continuity throughout the life of the project.
5.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
AND GULF OF THAILAND"
5.1
Reporting relationships and responsibilities of the Regional Working Group and its role
in achieving project objectives
5.1.1 The Project Director explained the relationship between the National Committees, the Regional
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 4
Working Groups, and the Regional Scientific & Technical Committee via document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/INF.4. He noted that, the views, data and information, collated by, the National
Committees, would be transmitted to the Regional Working Group on Seagrass, by the Focal Points
from each country. The views of the RWG-SG would be transmitted to the Regional Scientific and
Technical Committee (RSTC) via the Chairperson of the RWG-SG. The RSTC in turn would advise the
Regional Working Group on the integration of the seagrass sub-component activities with those
undertaken within the other habitat sub-components of the project. He noted that the RSTC served as
the source of scientific and technical advice to the Project Steering Committee, which was composed
solely of two representatives of each participating country, with UNEP serving as the Secretariat.
5.1.2 No questions were raised following this presentation since participants noted that they were
familiar with the structure and functioning of the various bodies within the management framework of the
project.
5.2
Fiscal responsibilities (recording & reporting) of the National Focal Points of each
Specialised Executing Agency
5.2.1 The Project Director introduced document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/INF.5 on financial rules
and financial reporting requirements to secure anticipated cash flows in accordance with the budgets
contained in the MoUs. He noted that these rules had been designed to minimise the administrative
reporting but that nevertheless it was necessary that the Focal Points provide the PCU with the three
required reports on time, in order to secure release of the subsequent tranche of funds. The financial
rules and regulations are attached as Annex 4 to this report.
5.2.2 During discussion it was noted that unspent funds could be carried forward to the following
period provided that, the activities, workplan and timetable for the following period justified the additional
expenditure.
5.2.3 Clarification was sought regarding whether or not the project had established standard costs to
be used by the National Focal Points. In response Dr. Pernetta noted that standard costs had not been
established within the framework of the project since actual costs varied from country to country.
Establishing standard costs would seriously disadvantage some countries whilst resulting in
overpayments in others.
5.2.4 Drs. Kuriandewa noted that, this caused some difficulties in Indonesia since when government
auditors audited project expenditure accounts they would expect that expenditures were paid in
accordance with government, established standards. For those focal points located in NGOs and where
external audits were conducted, these Focal Points would not be subject to this restriction. Dr. Pernetta
suggested that the Indonesian NTWG should establish cost norms for the project to be applied by all
national committees in Indonesia, and that if such cost norms were agreed then these could then be
approved by the PCU and used as Indonesian standard cost norms.
5.2.5 Mr. Kamarruddin, asked about the fate of interest on funds disbursement to SEAs, and the
Project Director responded that interest accrued should be retained for expenditure on project activities
and reported six monthly to the PCU.
5.2.6 Clarification was sought regarding the budget line items covering "sub-contracts" and it was
noted that this budget line was for use in paying agency or institutional contracts. If consultants or
experts were to be contracted as individuals, then these should be paid from the consultant budget line
under the personnel component of the budget. Since no MoU budget at the present time contains a
budget allocation for consultants or individual contracts, any Focal Point wishing to issue an individual
sub-contract would need to seek a budget revision to transfer monies from the contracts component to
the personnel component of the budget.
5.2.7 During discussion it was noted that, budgetary revisions could be made at the request of the
Focal Points to cover anticipated over-expenditures, accommodate unplanned expenditures and
reallocate unspent funds. It was noted that the process of budget revision was comparatively simple
since the Project Director was authorized to approve such budget revisions within the limits imposed by
the project document and the Project Steering Committee agreements.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 5
6.
OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION
AND LOSS" AND THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT
6.1
General description of activities contained in the Project Brief
6.1.1 The Project Director introduced document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/4, in which the
expectations of the Global Envi ronment Facility (GEF) with respect to project execution, the constraints
and limitations imposed by the terms of the GEF grant in supporting activities in the different project
components, and the opportunities provided by the project for improving the national and regional
capacities for sustainably managing the South China Sea marine environment, were outlined.
6.1.2 Following this presentation two queries were raised, the first concerning the criteria to be used
by the GEF in measuring the success of the project. In response the Project Director noted that
sustainability of the management frameworks and structures beyond the life of the project would be one
criterion of overall project success. More importantly however the "environmental state" criteria that could
be used to judge the environmental outcomes cannot be defined until such time as the demonstration
sites have been chosen. He also noted that various indicators of success were in fact outlined in the
logical framework matrix in terms of outputs and verifiable indicators.
6.1.3 Mr. Kamarruddin, Focal Point from Malaysia sought clarification as to whether or not activities
directed towards conserving endangered and/or migratory species such as turtles, and dugong will be
included in the project. It was noted that the GEF focus was on sustainable habitat use, rather than
single species interventions. The presence or absence of dugong and or turtles in seagrass areas might
be included as one of the criteria in choosing the demonstration sites.
6.1.4 A number of discussion documents were then introduced by the Secretariat including: the
summary of activities taken from the project brief (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/4); a proposed draft flow-
chart of immediate activities for the National Committees and Regional Working Group
(UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/5); and document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/6 which presented the
deliberations of the first meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee with respect to
activities in the habitat sub-components of the project.
6.1.5 In initiating the discussion of the workplan and flow-chart, the Chairperson sought information
from the National Focal Points regarding the status of the National Seagrass Committees. Mr. Kim Sour
Focal Point for seagrass for Cambodia, noted that a listing of potential members had been prepared but
the committee had yet to meet. In the case of Malaysia, Mr. Kamarruddin noted that, since the MoUs
had not yet been signed the committee had not been formed. Dr. Suvaluck, from Thailand noted that the
NC-SG has been established but the membership is not yet complete since various expertise needs to
be added to the current membership. Professor Huang from China informed the meeting that the
National Seagrass Sub-committee had been established and that it had already had a preliminary
discussion of the workplan and timetable. Drs. Kuriandewa informed the meeting that the Indonesian
National Seagrass Committee had been formed that it had met, and had already commenced work using
financial advances from the Indonesian Institute of Science due to delays in receipt of the GEF funds.
6.1.6 During discussion it was noted that the scope of review of national data and information
focussed on the South China Sea sections of the coastlines of participating countries. Various queries
were raised regarding the meaning of items listed in the RSTC criteria, which were clarified by Dr.
Chittima during discussion.
6.1.7 An extensive discussion took place regarding the components of the flow chart and the need to
amend this to encompass items such as economic valuation, and stakeholder involvement. This led to a
consideration of the process through which the National Action Programmes were to be developed and
the need to actively involve stakeholders at all levels in the country, in both the development and
approval of these programmes. It was agreed that a draft National Action Programme needed to be
subject to stakeholder review before finalisation and approval,
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 6
6.1.8 It was agreed that each participant would annotate their copy of the draft flow-chart over night,
and that these amendments would be consolidated into a revised version for consideration and approval
by the meeting during the morning session.
6.1.9 Dr. Chittima and Dr. Pernetta consolidated the inputs from all participants and re-drafted the
flow-chart which was discussed, further amended, and approved as contained in Annex 5 to this report.
6.1.10 The participants agreed to classify seagrass beds according to a geomorphic classification:
namely: sandy coralline (exposed); muddy (non-exposed); transition (mixed; sandy-muddy); as studies
show that productivity and resilience of seagrass beds are different in these different substrates.
6.1.11 The meeting then considered the advice provided by the RSTC in document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/6 and agreed to work on the development of the criteria and data and
information needs in the form of a table, comparable to that produced by the Regional Working Group for
Mangroves. In this connection Drs. Kuriandewa presented a tabulation of criteria prepared by his national
committee, which is attached as Annex 6 to this report.
6.1.12 An initial draft tabulation was prepared in plenary. Subsequently it was agreed that a small
group would work on this overnight, for presentation to the meeting and adoption in the morning. The
outcome of the deliberations of the small group was considered, and agreed as contained in Annex 7 of
this report.
6.2
Other relevant activities in the region
6.2.1 Following a brief discussion of various initiatives at the national and regional level involving
seagrass, it was agreed that participants would prepare, as part of their review of national data and
information a review of ongoing projects and activities for consolidation and distribution by the Project
Co-ordinating Unit.
6.2.2 Dr. Fortes informed the meeting of the initiation of Seagrassnet (www.seagrassnet.org) and
encouraged countries that were not currently involved to join and take advantage of the support network
during the site characterisation phase of activities.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 7
7.
DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT
7.1
Review of the Seagrass related sections of the National Reports and the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysi s, produced during the preparatory phase of the project
7.1.1 Dr. Kirkman, presented a table providing an analysis of the information regarding seagrasses
contained in the national reports prepared during the preparatory phase of the project which was
discussed and amended and is attached as Annex 8 to this report.
7.1.2 Professor Huang, Chairperson invited participants to make a brief presentation regarding the
contents of the national reports highlighting the inadequacies and any new information which might have
become available since their finalisation in 1998.
7.1.3 Mr. Sour noted that in Cambodia, there were laws under the responsibility of two different
Ministries; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (Fisheries Law of the Department of Fisheries)
and Ministry of Environment (Environmental Law). These two sets oflaws deal with living aquatic
resource management and conservation. The new Fisheries Law deals more specifically with seagrass.
In terms of institutional infrastructure, financial support (for management), and human resources the
overall capacity is limited. Therefore, capacity building on seagrass management and conservation is
urgently required. The root cause of loss and degradation are poverty of local people, lack of capacity for
sustainable management among all stakeholders including local government and the local community,
and the use of destructive fishing gear (such as trawl and push nets); explosive fishery, and
encroachment of foreign fishing vessels.
7.1.4 Professor Huang noted that there are about 10 species of seagrass in Southern China, the most
common species being Zostera japonica, Halophila beccarii, Halophila ovalis and Halodule uninervis.
The majority of the species are found in Hainan and Guangxi Provinces. He suggested that, there might
be transboundary issues regarding seagrasses between China and Viet Nam. He noted that there is no
specific legislation relating to seagrasses in China, but there are Marine Environmental Laws, that may
provide protection to seagrass habitats. There is little information regarding the economic value of
seagrass in China. According to some sources there were dugong associated with seagrass in Guangxi
and Hainan.
7.1.5 Drs. Kuriandewa presented an overview of the present state of seagrass research, management
and conservation in Indonesia. He noted: the need for capacity building; the scarcity of information
particularly for seagrass beds in the remote areas; the need for training on seagrass monitoring and
management; the importance of the project in providing financial support to work on seagrasses given
the small contributions of his government to work on seagrass ecosystems; and, the lack of
understanding of the importance of seagrass ecosystems at the community level.
7.1.6 Mr. Kamarruddin noted that there was no specific legislation in Malaysia, regarding the
management and/or protection of seagrass beds and that they are under direct management through
existing mechanisms such the Malaysian Marine Parks and the non-trawl zone within 5 km of the shore.
Turtles were an important transboundary species in the marine area bordering Malaysia and Philippines.
7.1.7 Dr. Fortes informed the meeting that there are now 16 species of seagrass recorded from the
Philippines whilst dugong and four species of turtle, and 55 species of fish from 25 families were
recorded from seagrass meadows in the country. Studies in the Kalayan Islands suggest that these
islands could be a "sink" for seagrass propagules and a "source" for H. uninervis. Concerning legislation
there is no specific seagrass legislation and protection is through coastal user consensus, but "Bantay
Isay" (Seagrass Watch) is implemented under an Executive Order from the Mayor of Puerto Galera
Biosphere Reserve and this represents the first ever legislation on seagrass in the Philippines.
7.1.8 Regarding ongoing activities Dr. Fortes noted the Coastal Environment Program of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); others are mostly inter-related, regional and
bilateral projects e.g. EU, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Packard Foundation,
some local projects on integrated coastal management, Diversitas International Western Pacific Area
(DIWPA). Regarding Economic Valuation it was noted that in the valuation of a coastal habitat affected
by oil from a stranded tanker the estimated damage to a 65 x 25 m seagrass area was $29,400 US.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 8
Finally it was noted that the latest estimate for the area of seagrass beds in 96 sites in the Philippines
was 978 km2.
7.1.9 Dr. Suvaluck noted that at the present time, 10 species of seagrass were recorded from the
South China Sea coast of Thailand. Transboundary issues include encroachment of fishing vessels;
international trade in goods such as sea horses, and sea cucumbers. Relevant legislation includes the
Fisheries Act B.E. 2490; the Environmental Quality Promotion and Control Act B.E. 2535; National
Policy and Plan for Promoting and Protecting the Environment B.E. 2540 2559; Pattani Province
Declaration; Financial Support (for management); established action plan for seagrass in the East coast
2546 (support from government); Fisher folk Network in the South (from NGOs). It was noted that no
information was available regarding economic valuation in Thai seagrass areas.
7.1.10 Dr. Nguyen Van Tien noted that in Viet Nam, the Can Dao area supports significant seagrass
meadows recognized by the World Bank and IUCN as being of regional significance and that these are
also of transboundary significance. From this island dugongs and seagrass residents may move back
and forth to Cambodia. There are 14 species of seagrass including Ruppia maritima and 120 species of
seaweed; >100 fish species and > 150 invertebrates recorded from Vietnamese seagrass communities.
There is no specific legislation but legislation for marine resources provides indirect protection. There is
a great need for capacity building on all aspects of seagrass.
7.2
National and regional sources of data and information
7.2.1 Mr. Yihang Jiang, Senior Expert presented the regional GIS database being developed by the
Southeast Asian Regional Centre for the System for Analysis Research and Training of the International
Geosphere Biosphere Programme (SEA-START RC) 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. He noted that this was under construction and that numerous
datasets had yet to be entered into the database. He noted further that no data regarding habitat
distribution in the South China Sea had been entered into the system and that; the information provided
by the National Committees would provide a basis for developing habitat layers within the system. In this
connection Dr. Fortes informed the meeting that a global seagrass atlas would be published before the
end of 2002.
7.2.2 The meeting requested the PCU to make arrangements for copies of the GIS database on CD
ROM to be made available as soon as possible. In this context it was noted that the database that
would be made available was in fact, only a sub-set of the entire database and that individual National
Focal Points could request specific additional datasets. It was proposed that the PCU liaise with Dr.
Snidvongs, Director of the SEA-START Regional Centre, and request a listing of the currently available
datasets in order that the National Focal Points could specify those sub-sets that were required.
7.2.3 Mr. Jiang, also presented the regional data set regarding coral reef and mangrove habitat
distribution in the South China Sea, as contained in the recently released, Reefs at Risk publication and
noted that discussions were on-going regarding the incorporation of these data into the GIS database.
7.2.4 It was suggested that the national committees might wish to identify and make available to the
PCU and SEA-START RC, publicly available datasets for inclusion in the regional GIS database and
noted further that, Dr. Snidvongs had agreed to make arrangements for digitising appropriate datasets
where these were available to the National Committees only in hard copy form. During the ensuing
discussion it was noted that certain data were subject to security clearance in the countries of the
region and that these data would not be readily available to the project participants. In this context the
meeting was informed that the South China Sea database was intended as an open access data set
based on publicly available materials.
7.2.5 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.
7.2.6 Mr. Jiang, further informed the meeting that UNEP was currently in possession of a set of
Landsat images with full global coverage that could be made available to the National Committees on
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 9
request. He indicated that arrangements would be made for appropriate images to be included within the
SEA-START, SCS database.
8.
DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003
8.1
The draft workplan prepared by the Secretariat was presented and considered by the meeting.
During the course of discussion clarification was sought regarding what was intended by the term
"National criteria". This was discussed and an explanatory footnote added to the table.
8.2
Drs. Kuriandewa and Mr. Sour indicated that given the absence of extensive data regarding
seagrass distribution in their countries it would be necessary to conduct rapid surveys of sites in order
to complete the site characterisation process. The Project Director indicated that this was possible
using the funds transferred to the SEAs. It was agreed that Dr. Fortes would provide details of the rapid
survey techniques that would be applicable for this purpose, to the PCU for distribution to all National
Focal Points.
8.3
Dr. Fortes informed the meeting that the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge
had an extensive database, which would be of value in initiating the process of national database
creation.
8.4
The workplan was amended and approved as contained in Annex 9 of this report.
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1
Reports from the National Seagrass Committees
9.1.1 Dr. Tien reported that the National Committee had been formed and was composed at present of
8 members and had commenced work. He noted that of the total of 14 species of seagrasses found in
Vietnam 6 were found in Hue lagoon, which also has a high diversity of associated biota. He informed
the meeting that two species of Zostera, Z. japonica and an unidentified Zostera species were to be
found in Vietnamese waters, which must represent the southernmost limit of distribution.
9.1.2 Dr. Fortes informed the meeting that the Philippines National Seagrass Committee consisted of
9 members including a lawyer, a natural products chemist, ecophysiologist, a member of the
Department of Foreign Affairs, and a representative of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development,
and representatives of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Fisheries
Department. An initial meeting had been held to develop a concept paper for the activities of the sub-
component but it was the intention of the group to communicate on a regular basis via electronic
meetings. He reported on the formation of the seagrass network in the region and expressed the hope
that the project would assist in strengthening this network. He noted that the Marine Science Institute of
the University of the Philippines was designated by JSPS as the repository centre for Southeast Asia in
the framework of SSINEA Seaweed Seagrass Information Network for East Asia. He noted that the
National Committee had selected 6 sites in conjunction with the Coral Reef Committee for initial
characterisation within the framework of project activities.
9.1.3 Drs. Kuriandewa noted that he had reported on the activities of his committee under other
agenda items and that he had provided a CD ROM to the Project Director containing a full report of the
activities to date, which included the development of criteria, development of a brochure on Indonesian
seagrasses and a poster for increasing public awareness of the importance of seagrass habitats. He
noted further that most of the coastal projects and activities in Indonesia focussed on Coral Reefs and
that whilst seagrasses were covered by such activities they were not the primary focus. He informed the
meeting that it was the intention of the committee to establish a structure for management of seagrass
in Indonesia that would continue to exist beyond the life of the project.
9.1.4 Dr. Suvaluck noted that in the South of Thailand there was a strong network of 14 NGO's
working on habitat conservation encompassing a broad approach to mangroves, coral reefs and
seagrass systems. She noted the importance of developing simple but reliable indicators of the impact
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 10
of management activities and coastal development and noted that she had personally participated in
provision of training for this purpose.
9.1.5 Mr. Kamarruddin reported that he was aware of a number of academic studies of seagrasses in
Malaysia and that his committee would attempt to assemble this information. Regarding threats he
noted that port construction, and pollution were the main threats. He noted further that, seagrasses
received less attention nationally than coral reefs or mangroves and that there were fewer seagrass
experts in Malaysia compared with coral reef specialists. He noted however that some individuals in
Malaysia were involved in regional and global seagrass initiatives. He informed the meeting of the
Southeast Asia Sea Turtle Associative Research (SEASTAR) project on marine turtle migration and
movements in the region and indicated that following tagging at breeding beaches in Malaysia, Thailand
and the Philippines, this project had identified three areas of feeding concentration of turtles (Sulu Sea,
Natuna, and Batam Islands) which were probably seagrass beds.
9.1.6 Professor Huang reported that the Chinese National Seagrass Sub-committee consists of 7
members including experts in marine ecology, marine environment, nature conservation, economics, and
a representative of the National Planning Committee. They also invited seagrass experts from Hongkong
to take part in this sub-component.
9.1.7 Mr. Sour noted that seagrass was first surveyed in Cambodia in 1997, via a project entitled
"Environmental Coastal Zone Management" funded by the Danish International Development Agency
(DANIDA). This included a baseline survey, when project counterparts from various agencies were asked
to collect baseline information not only on seagrass but also on coral reefs and mangroves. Seagrass
beds were mapped and plotted in GIS format. Some field visits were conducted and samples collected
for species identification.
9.1.8 Dr. Pernetta requested the National Focal Points to provide him with a list of the committee
members, together with their contact details.
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
SEAGRASS
10.1
Offers to host the next meeting of the RWG-SG were made by the Focal Points from Indonesia,
Philippines and Viet Nam. The Malaysian Focal Point noted that it would be difficult for him to offer to
host the next meeting, but hoped that by that time the MoU would be signed and he would like to offer to
host the third meeting.
10.2
Following an extensive discussion of the merits of the alternative proposed locations it was
agreed that the meeting would be convened in Hue, Viet Nam and that it would be extended by one day
to enable a field visit to be included in the programme. The dates of the meeting would thus run from 28th
to 31st October 2002, inclusive. Dr. Tien would liaise with the Project Co-ordinating Unit regarding the
logistics for the meeting.
11.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
11.1 Dr. Kirkman, rapporteur presented the report of the meeting, which was considered, amended,
and adopted as contained in this document.
11.2 Drs. Kuriandewa proposed and Dr. Chittima seconded the motion for adoption of the report, which
was passed unopposed.
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
12.1 On behalf of the Executive Director of UNEP and in his personal capacity Dr. Pernetta thanked
the participants for their hard and constructive work during the meeting, which had been very productive
and had been conducted in a friendly and pleasant atmosphere. Dr. Pernetta assured participants that
he would be in regular contact with the Focal Points regarding the progress of the work and he looked
forward to meeting everyone again in Viet Nam.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
page 11
12.2 Professor Huang, the Chairperson thanked the participants for their hard work and support during
the course of the meeting. He declared the meeting closed at 1500hrs on 8th May 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 1
page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Kim SOUR
Mr. Xiaoping HUANG, Professor
Department of Fisheries
South China Sea Institute of Oceanology
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Chinese Academy of Sciences
186 Norodom Blvd.
164 West Xingang Road
P.O. Box 582
Guangzhou 510301
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Guangdong Province, China
Tel:
(855 23) 215796
Tel: (86 20) 8445 1335 ext. 627
Fax: (855 23) 215796
Fax: (86 20) 8445 1672
E-mail: catfish@camnet.com.kh;
E-mail: xphuang@scsio.ac.cn
sourkim@hotmail.com
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Tri Edi KURIANDEWA
Mr. Kamarruddin Bin IBRAHIM
Puslit OSEANOGRAFI, LIPI
Head
Pasir Putih 1
Department of Fisheries Malaysia
Ancol Timur
Turtle and Marine Ecosystem Center (TUMEC)
Jakarta
23050 Rantau Abang, Dungun
Indonesia
Terengganu, Malaysia
Tel: (62 21) 683 850; 316 9288; 08129005737
Tel:
(609) 845 8169; 09 845 3169 (direct)
Fax: (62 21) 681 948
013 9812500
E-mail: kuriandewa@yahoo.com
Fax:
(609) 845 8017
indo-seagrass@centrin.net.id
E-mail: kamarruddini@yahoo.com
Philippines
Thailand
Dr. Miguel FORTES, Professor
Dr. Suvaluck SATUMANATPAN
Marine Science Institute
Assistant Professor
University of the Philippines (MSI/UP)
Faculty of Environment & Resource Studies
Diliman, Quezon City
Mahidol University, Salaya Campus
Philippines
Nakorn Pathom 73170, Thailand
Tel: (632) 922 3959, 922 3958
Tel:
(66 2) 441 5000 ext. 187
Fax: (632) 924 7678
01 700 7512
E-mail: fortesm@upmsi.ph,
Fax: (66 2) 441 9509-10
mdfortes@pacific.net.ph
E-mail: ensnt@mahidol.ac.th
Viet Nam
Dr. Nguyen Van TIEN, Vice Director
Haiphong Institute of Oceanology
246 Da nang Street
Hai Phong City, Viet Nam
Tel:
(84 31) 760 599, 761 523
Fax: (84 31) 761 521
E-mail: nvtien@hio.ac.vn
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 1
page 2
Invited Regional Experts
Dr. Chittima ARYUTHAKA
Department of Marine Science
Faculty of Fisheries
Kasetsart University
Bangkhen, Bangkok 10900, THAILAND
Tel:
(66 2) 579 7610; 561 3469
Fax:
(66 2) 561 4287
E-mail: ffiscta@ku.ac.th
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Dr. Hugh KIRKMAN
Coordinator (EAS/RCU)
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Building, 9th Floor, Block A
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: (662) 288 1860
Fax: (662) 281 2428
E-mail: kirkman.unescap@un.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Dr. John PERNETTA, Project Director
Mr. Yihang JIANG, Senior Expert
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Tel: (66 2) 288 2084
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
E-mail: jiang.unescap@un.org
Dr. Annadel CABANBAN
Ms. Charuvan KALYANGKURA
Expert Community Based Management
Administrative Assistant, EAS/RCU
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 2279
Tel: (66 2) 288 1894
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: cabanban@un.org
E-mail: kalyangkura@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-SG.1/3
Annex 2
page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Working documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/1
Provisional agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/2
Annotated provisional agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Draft report of the meeting (to be prepared during the meeting).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/4
Outline of Seagrass 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-SG.1/5
Flow Chart of Actions for the Seagrass Sub-Component in the
UNEP GEF South China Sea Project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/6
Elements for consideration by the Regional Working Groups
for habitats in developing criteria for prioritising areas of
intervention.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/7
Workplan for calendar year 2002.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/INF.1
Provisional list of documents.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/INF.2
Provisional list of participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/INF.3
Draft programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.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-SG.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-SG.1/INF.6
Terms of Reference for the Regional Working Group on
Seagrass (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-W.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Wetland
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 2
page 2
Sub-component of 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/ RWG-W.1/3 Phuket, Thailand, 24-26th April 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Mangrove
Sub-component of 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/ RWG-M.1/3 Phuket, Thailand, 29th April 1st May 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-SG.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 ON SEAGRASS (RWG-SG)
4.1
Terms of reference for the working group
4.2
Membership of the working group
4.3
Rules of procedure
5.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND
GULF OF THAILAND"
5.1
Reporting relationships and responsibilities of the Regional Working Group and
its role in achieving project objectives
5.2
Fiscal responsibilities (recording & reporting) of the National Focal Points of
each Specialised Executing Agency
6.
OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPONENT "HABITAT DEGRADATION
AND LOSS" AND THE "SEAGRASS" 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 SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT
7.1
Review of the Seagrass 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
9.1
Reports from the National Seagrass Committees
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
SEAGRASS
11.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.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, for example.
The Project Steering Committee has approved the initial budgetary allocations to the Specialised
Executing Agencies at National level for the first two years on the basis of which the first instalment of
funds has been transferred to all Specialised Executing Agencies with which UNEP has signed
Memoranda of Understanding.
Responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies
The responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies are detailed in each Memorandum of
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 4
page 2
Understanding and include inter alia responsibility for Chairing and convening meetings of the National
Committees, for producing the national inputs to the regional level activities and for advising at the
national level, the National Technical Focal Point and National Technical Working Group of priorities
activities which should be undertaken within the framework of the Project. In addition the Specialised
Agencies are responsible for presenting the national perspective at the Regional Working Groups and
providing to the Regional Working Groups and Regional Scientific and Technical Committee the data and
information required to make decisions and recommendations at the regional level. The substantive
needs will be more closely defined during the first sets of meetings of the Regional Working Groups.
Disbursement by UNEP to the SEAs
In order to undertake the substantive work described in the MoU's the GEF has provided grant funds for
project execution. These monies will be disbursed by ESCAP on behalf of UNEP at six monthly intervals
according to the terms given in the MoU. As noted above the first instalment of funds has been disbursed
as a cash advance following joint signature by UNEP and each SEA, of the MoUs.
In terms of fiscal responsibility within the United Nations System the Project Director authorises financial
expenditures including disbursement of funds to the SEAs, in accordance with the project document, and
the workplans and budget approved by the Project Steering Committee. The Senior Expert certifies that
adequate funds exist to support the payments authorised. These authorities are delegated from the Head
of the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON), and UNEP headquarters, Nairobi.
Each MoU contains a budget in UNEP format, which indicates the purpose for which the funds are
provided by UNEP to the Specialised Executing Agencies. Funds have been allocated in these budgets
to the production of the required national level information, for the convening of meetings, for translation
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 Seagrass sub-component of the Project (US$ thousands)
2002
2003
TOTAL
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
5200
Reporting costs - publications,
maps, newsletters, printing.
5216
Translation
2.00
2.00
4.00
Publication of National Review of Water
3.00
3.00
5217
Quality data
5218
Publication of evaluation of costs and
3.00
3.00
benefits of alternative courses of action
and pre-feasibility studies
5299
Total
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
Expenditures by the SEAs
Each SEA is authorised under the terms of the MoUs to spend the cash advances in accordance with
the detailed budget, which forms part of each MoU. Since the money in the budgets of the MoUs is
provided to the SEAs by UNEP in advance of the SEAs incurring any expenditure, 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-SG.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).
If a consultancy contract has been issued for a specified piece of work then a copy of the signed
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 4
page 4
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-SG.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 budget
Project budget allocation for the half year ending .......
Expenditure incurred for the half Unspent balance of budget for
codes
year ending .....
the half year ending ............
Amount (1)
Amount (2)
Amount (1-2)
1100 Project personnel
1101
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
1200 Consultants
1201
Consultants .....
.....
.....
.....
.....
etc. etc. etc.
(USE OBJECTS OF EXPENDITURE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGNED
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING)
99 GRAND TOTAL
Signed
_______________________________________________________
Designation:
______________________________________________
Duly authorised official
NB: The expenditures should be reported in line with the specific object of expenditures as per project budge t.
File ID: K:\FORMATS\APP4SOQE.WQ1 me\ag
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.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
6.
Estimated disbursements for period ending
7.
Less: closing cash balance (item 5, above)
8.
Total cash requirements for the period ending
Prepared by
________________________Request approved by:
__________________________
Name:
________________________
__________________________
Duly authorized official of co-
operating agency/ supporting
organization
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.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 material
completed and the responsible Office is satisfied that the project will be fully completed on
time (give reasons for minor variations as Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have been altere
(give reasons for alterations: lack of finance; project reformulated; project revisions; other at
Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have not been fully
completed and delays in project delivery are expected (give reasons for variations in Section
3.1 and new completion date in Section 3.2 below).
Insufficient detail provided in the Project Workplan.
2.2
List Actual Activities/Outputs Achieved in the Reporting period: (check appropriate box)
(a) MEETINGS (Duplicate this box for each meeting individually)
Inter-Ministry mtg
Expert Group Mtg.
Training Seminar/Workshop
Others
Title:__________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________
Venue and
dates_____________________________________________________________________________
Convened by ____________________________ Organized by ______________________________
Report issued as doc. No/Symbol_______________ Languages _____________Dated __________
For Training Seminar/Workshop, please indicate: No. of participants _____________and attach annex
giving names and nationalities of participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.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-SG.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-SG.1/3
Annex 5
page 1
ANNEX 5
Flow Chart of Actions for the Seagrass Sub-component of the UNEP/GEF Project
Establish National
Review Nat'l data
Committees
& Information
Geographic Distrib'tn
at habitat level
Geographic Distribt'n
of species
Environmental state
Inputs to regional meta-
database; regional GIS
Social, stakeholders,
and Economic valuation
use, ownership
Threats: present &
future
Economic valuation
National Management &
Regional Guidelines
Inst'l legal frameworks
for legislation
National Action
Strategic Action
Programme
Programme
Review site-
Develop Regional
specific
Criteria for site
characteristics
selection
Cluster nationally by:
Assemble Regional set of
muddy; sandy-
Site-specific data
coralline; sandy-
Select sites for
muddy
demonstration
Cluster regionally on basis
activities
Determine National
of similarity indices
Priority/rank within
class
Determine regional global
& transboundary
Define site-specific
significance
management regime
NATIONAL ACTIONS
REGIONAL ACTIONS
National Seagrass Committee
Regional Working Group for
Seagrass
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 6
page 1
ANNEX 6
Selection Criteria for Demonstration Sites
Prepared by the National Seagrass Committee of Indonesia
Ecological Criteria
1.
Diversity -
variety or richness of ecosystems, habitats, communities and species. Areas
having the greatest variety should receive higher ratings. However, this criterion may not be applied to
simplified ecosystems, such as some pioneers or climax communities, or areas subject to disruptive
forces, such as shores exposed to high-energy wave action.
2.
Area Extent - extended of seagrass coverage, a large area with a dense bed, a large area
with a patchy bed.
3.
Naturalness - the lack of disturbance or degradation. Degraded systems will have little value
for fisheries or tourism and will give little biological contribution. A high degree of naturalness scores
highly. If restoring the degraded habitats is a priority, a high degree of degradation may scores highly.
4.
Representativeness - the degree to which an area represents a habitat type, ecological
process, biological community, physiographical feature or other natural characteristic.
5.
Associated Ecosystems - variety of surrounding ecosystems (mangrove, estuarine, coral reef).
6.
Importance to Endangered Species - the area, which gives supports to the habitat or
feeding ground of endangered species (dugong and sea turtles).
Socio-economic Criteria
Social Criteria
1.
Social Acceptance - the degree to which the support of local people is assures. Every effort
should be made to canvass local support. When the area is already protected by local tradition or
practice, it should be encouraged, and the area should receive a higher rating. An "official" protected
area designation may not be necessary if local support is high, to ensure government recognition of the
area.
2.
Accessibility - the ease of access across both land and sea (the distance from the
international airport, nearest city, hotel). Areas to be used by visitors, students, researchers and
fishermen must be accessible to them. The more accessibility, the greater the value; but the greater the
level of use, the greater the like hood of conflicting interests and the greater the impact of users.
Accessibility weights height for a demo site with predominantly social objectives, fairly for those with
economic goals and low for those meeting ecological criteria.
3.
Research and Education the degree to which an area represents various ecological
characteristics and can serve for research and demonstration of scientific methods. Areas that clearly
demonstrate different habitat types and ecological relationships and area sufficiently large both to serve
conservation and accommodate teaching should receive a higher rating.
4.
Safety - the degree of danger to people from strong currents, surf, submerged obstacles, waves
and other hazards. The principle users will often be swimmers, snorkellers, divers and boaters. It is
important that they are able to pursue their activities safety.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 6
page 2
5.
Conflict and Compatibility -
the degree to which an area may help to resolve conflicts
between natural resource values and human activities, or the degree to which compatibilities between
them may be enhanced. If an area can be used to exemplify the resolution of conflicts in the region, it
should receive a higher rating.
Economic-Criteria
1.
Importance to Species - the degree to which certain commercially important species depend
on the area.
2.
Importance to Fisheries - the number of dependent fishermen and the size of fishery yield.
The greater the dependence of fishermen on an area and the greater its yield of fish, the more important
it becomes to manage the area correctly and to ensure sustainable harvest.
3.
Nature of Threats - the extent to which changes in use patterns threaten the overall value to
people. Habitats may be threatened directly by destructive practices, such as fishing with explosives
and certain bottom trawls, or by overexploitation of resources. Areas traditionally harvest by local
fishermen become important to manage. The number of fishermen on these grounds may increase,
bringing extra pressure to bear on stocks and habitats. Even if the numbers do not change, the capture
methods that yield more catches per unit effort may replace the traditional capture methods. The
stocks of some species may not capable of withstanding such increased exploitation of their breeding
population. In this way whole species have disappeared from fishing ground or have become
exceedingly rare.
4.
Economic Benefit - the degree to which protection will affect the local economy in economic
affect local economy in long term.
Practical Criteria
1.
Existing Infrastructure - availability of supporting facilities for field works, sample and data
analysis, literatures, identification books and accommodation.
2.
Effectiveness - the feasibility of implementing biological and ecological study of seagrass
ecosystem.
3.
Existing Scientific Information - availability of scientific results to support the biological and
ecological study of seagrass ecosystem.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 7
page 1
ANNEX 7
Parameters, Indicators, Data and Information Requirements for Characterising, Seagrass Sites for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
Parameters
Indicators
Data & Information Requirements
Units
Remarks
Geographical
Location
Seagrass bed
Central position of areas<10 ha
Lats and longs
Provide location map
GPS boundary or number (min. 4) paired
coordinates for larger areas; end points for
linear strips
Area - extent
Seagrass bed
> 1ha
ha
Large scale map
Physical/chemical
Substrate type
Substrate
Particle size
Micron-cm
Class of seagrass1
class
3 categories
Sediment Quality
Organic matter
Historic & available data
mg/g
Heavy Metals
mg/l, µg/l
Nitrate
mg/l, µg/l
Exposure
Fetch, current
Typhoons, wind speed, direction,
Km, km/h
frequency
Monsoon exposure
Tidal regime
Range; type (diurnal, semi-diurnal, mixed)
m
Depth
Tape measure
m
light
Light meter
µE/ m2/sec
Salinity
Distance to freshwater inflow,
GPS
km
hyper salinity
Refractometer
Salinity meter
ppt
Water Quality
Heavy metals, POPs, nutrients,
Historic & available data
mg/l, µg/l
Algal blooms
Historic & available data
mg/l
Dredging and
Suspended sediment
Sediment traps
g/ m2/d
reclamation,
Secchi disks
m
1 Seagrass classes are based on substrate type namely: sandy coralline (exposed); muddy (non-exposed); transition (mixed; sandy-muddy).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 7
page 2
Parameters
Indicators
Data & Information Requirements
Units
Remarks
Biological
Diversity
Seagrass
Number of species
#
Seagrass
Density of each species
g/m2
Penaeids
Number of species
#/ m2
Gastropods
Number of species
#/ m2
Seahorses
Number of species
#/ m2
urchins
Number of species
#/ m2
Siganids
Number of species
#/ m2
holothurians
Number of species
#/ m2
starfish
Number of species
#/ m2
Presence of endangered2 and/or
Provide details of presence or absence
#/ha
threatened species e.g. Dugong,
and abundance where possible.
turtles, seahorses, giant clams
Productivity
seagrass
mg/ g/ d
Associated habitats Mangrove, coral & assoc. habitats,
Km to nearest associated habitat
estuaries, freshwater
Socio economic
poverty
Low standard of living
statistics
Income/person/yr
pop'n pressure
Population size
Density
No.people/km2
Population growth
Growth rate
Increase per annum
Distance
km of Seagrass bed to centre of nearest
km
coastal centre of population
fishing damage
Damaged seagrass
Seagrass Density
shoots/m2
biomass
g/ m2
area
m2
over fishing
Declining resource catch
Resource statistics
cpue
Trampling, gleaning Seagrass damage
Density shoots/m2
Density of gleaned organisms
# / h
#/ m2
Parameters
Indicators
Data & Information Requirements
Units
Remarks
Management status managed
Yes or No
Describe management
2 Use the IUCN criteria for endangered, threatened, and commercially threatened species.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 7
page 3
regime
Transboundary
Shared
Yes or No
Provide map
Biodiversity,
Migratory species or shared stocks
Number and kind species
List species
Cross border
Impacts on seagrass
Area of impact
m2 , ha
List species lost
impacts
Change is species composition or
nos species nos.
abundance
individuals
Overfishing
Declining catch
cpue
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 8
page 1
ANNEX 8
Review of the Seagrass Sections in the National Reports prepared for the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the South China Sea
The following tabulation indicates the presence or absence of data and/or information on five key elements required for the revision of the Regional Strategic
Action Programme and the determination of criteria for priority ranking of regional demonstration sites.
Diversity
Transboundary
Specific
Financial support for
Economic value
Remarks
Pp in
Significance
Legislation
management
report
Cambodia
6 species dugong, Cambodia and Viet Nam
no
Needs to be updated
N/a
Root cause of loss: poverty,
57-58
turtle
but no information
data/information from
lack of capacity, overfishing,
69-70
Foreign fishing fleet
international projects (incl.
destructive fishing trawl and
97
SIF, ADB, DANIDA -ICZM)
pushnet; Low education; L-b
pollution,
China
10 species
China and Viet Nam
Law on the Marine
Needs capacity building Govt.
N/a
Dugong, juvenile fish habitat,
29
Environment but not
spent $10 million US to protect
36-37
specific to seagrass
sg
Indonesia
13 species
Frequent visits from
No direct
COREMAP Needs experts on
S.g included in cost
No Root cause analysis but
93-94
including Ruppia;
foreign fishers
conservation areas
seagrass
of $20 billion for
poverty mentioned; Lack of
129
list of assoc
containing seagrass
degradation
capacity. Area turtle breeding,
species
feeding resting area (Derawan
Is)
Malaysia
13 species
Oil spills, Possible
MPA legislation non
Indirect support - IRPA Project
N/a
Dugong, feeding, breeding and
24
dugong and turtle
trawling zones to 5km
Seagrass, dugong and
nursery grounds for
(dugong
feeding grounds (Philip off coast
Fisheries Interaction (UMS &
commercial fish. Poverty, lack
)
& Borneo)
stakeholders)
of capacity
36-37
Philippines
16species; 7
Kalayaan Is sink and
Non-specific,
Coastal Environment
Not specific P54 for
MECS, capacity building
37-39
species prawn; 4
source. Unsustainable
Seagrasswatch
Programme of DENR Bilateral
oil spill 65m x 25m
Area estimate in Philip. 978 sq
MECS
spp. turtles; 55
and damaging fishing
(batay Isay in Puerto.
regional and national projects
cost US$29,400
km
P78
spp. fish; Dugong.
Galera Biosphere
Reserve
Thailand
10 species
Fishing, International
Direct-Fisheries Act
Monitoring of spawning
Thesis being
Trawling, pushnetting, land
29-33
trade seahorse,
B.E.2490 & indirect
grounds, and eliminate
prepared for Surat
development, suspended solids action
holothurians
pushnet
Thani
dugong
P86
Establish MPA
Viet Nam
N/a
Lacking P 89
Fertiliser, animal
Dugong, pushnettting, root
76-79
food, nursery area
cause poverty hence
reclamation public awareness
low P89
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 9
page 1
ANNEX 9
Workplan Timetable and schedule of meetings for the Regional Working Group on Seagrass, 2002-2003
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
Chn 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 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-SG-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-SG-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-SG.1/3
Annex 9
page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 9
page 3
Table 2
Workplan and Timetable for completion of agreed activities in the Seagrass 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
draft
Final
draft
Review National Data & Information
Creation of National database
Identification & characterisation of "sites"
1st
2nd
draft
draft
Review National Criteria3
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 of sites
Identify priority points of intervention
Evaluate barriers to action & possible solutions
Preparation/revision of National Action Programme
Regional Co-ordination
Regional Criteria development
Second meeting RWG-SG
x
Development of Regional Priorities
Finalisation of elements of the SAP
3 Criteria for assigning conservation and or management status and/or zoning and importance given to seagrass meadows in coastal zone management plans.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Annex 9
page 4
Table 3
Workplan and Timetable for completion of agreed activities in the Seagrass 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 meta-database
Identification & characterisation of "sites"
1st
Final
draft
draft
Regional Criteria development
Development of Regional Priorities
2nd, 3rd & 4th meetings RWG-M
x
x
x
Review threats at site level
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
Development of NAPs to Implement the SAP