United Nations
UNEP/GEF South China Sea
Global Environment
Environment Programme
Project
Facility
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
REPORT
Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Mangroves Sub-component
Beihai, China, 14th 17th October 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, October 2003
First published in Thailand in 2003 by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Copyright © 2003, United Nations Environment Programme
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication
as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose without prior
permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP/GEF
Project Co-ordinating Unit,
United Nations Environment Programme,
UN Building, 9th Floor Block A, Rajdamnern Avenue,
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel.
+66 2 288 1886
Fax.
+66 2 288 1094; 281 2428
http://www.unepscs.org
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the GEF. The
designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNEP, of the GEF, or of any cooperating organisation concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the delineation of its territories or boundaries.
Cover Photo: Dr. John Pernetta; Mangrove propagules ready for replanting, Trad Province, Thailand.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2003. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Table of Contents
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING........................................................................................................1
1.1
WELCOME ADDRESS ..............................................................................................................1
2. ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING ............................................................................................1
2.1
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE MEETING ...............................................................................1
2.2
ORGANISATION OF WORK .......................................................................................................1
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA.....................................................................................2
4. REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE ...................................................................................................................2
4.1
STATUS OF MID-YEAR PROGRESS REPORTS, EXPENDITURE REPORTS, AND BUDGETS ................2
4.2
STATUS OF PLANNED SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUTS FROM THE NATIONAL LEVEL ACTIVITIES ................3
4.3
STATUS OF PLANNED SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL LEVEL ................................5
5. REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS ........................................................................6
5.1
SITE CHARACTERISATION; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
RANKING; AND AVAILABLE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ........................................................ 6
5.2
CRITICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSALS FOR DEMONSTRATION SITES.................................................8
6. REVISION OF THE WORKPLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON MANGROVES WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO JUNE 2004 ........8
7. DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON MANGROVES ..........................................................................................................................8
8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................9
9. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING .......................................................................9
10. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING.......................................................................................................9
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Agreed Preliminary Draft Contents for the Regional Overview on Mangroves
ANNEX 5
Final Cluster Analysis and Ranking of Potential Mangrove Demonstration Sites
ANNEX
6
Final Ranking of Potential Mangrove Demonstration Sites Based on
Environmental and Socio-Economic Indicators
ANNEX 7
Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Mangroves with
Emphasis on the Period October 2003 to June 2004
ii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
address
1.1.1
The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta, welcomed participants to the fourth meeting of the
Regional Working Group on mangroves, on behalf of Dr. Klaus Töpfer, the Executive Director of
UNEP and Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, Assistant Executive Director and Director, Division of Global
Environment Facility (GEF) Co-ordination.
1.1.2
He noted that this is an important meeting, which occurs at a critical point in the development
of the project, where decisions are to be made regarding recommendations to the Project Steering
Committee on the choice of demonstration sites that are to be funded from GEF grant funds. He
noted that, the agenda was extensive in relation to the time allotted and that, therefore, the
participants would have to work hard to complete all the items before them for consideration.
1.1.3
He welcomed the National Focal Point from China, Mr. Chen Mingjian and the National
Technical Focal Point, Professor Huang Zhengguang and informed the meeting that due to their busy
schedules they would not participate in the entire meeting.
1.1.4 The Chairperson of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves (RWG-M), Dr. Sonjai
Havanond, welcomed the members and observers to the meeting. He noted with regret that one of
the Regional Expert Members Dr. Sanit Aksornkoae, and one of the Focal Points, Mr. Ke
Vongwattana, from Cambodia were unable to be present in this meeting. He welcomed Mr. Sok Vong,
Focal Point for wetlands in Cambodia as the alternate representative for Mr. Ke Vongwattana. The list
of participants is contained in Annex 1 of this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Documents available to the meeting
2.1.1
Dr. Pernetta introduced the documentation available to the meeting noting the individual
discussion and information documents and their relationship to the various agenda items. The full list
of documents available to the meeting is contained in Annex 2 of this report.
2.1.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that one of the tasks for this meeting was to discuss the finalisation of the
National Reports and in this context he noted that the reports had not been reproduced since they
had been distributed to the members during the last meeting, and were available on the CD-ROMs
included in the document package for all participants. He noted that independent reviews of these
reports were available and that the meeting needed to finalise agreements regarding the completion
of the reports.
2.1.3
He further noted that the reports of the third meetings of the regional working groups and the
Regional Scientific and Technical Committee were available in electronic versions on the CD, in hard
copy and that, they had been distributed via e-mail and via the project website in advance of the
meeting. He drew the attention of participants to the reports of the Regional Task Forces on Economic
Valuation (RTF-E) and on Legal Matters (RTF-L) that contained specific advice, regarding the
finalisation of the national reports on legal and institutional frameworks and economic valuation.
2.2
Organisation of work
2.2.1
The Project Director briefed participants on the administrative arrangements for the conduct
of the meeting, noting the proposed organisation of work contained in document,
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/Inf.3. He noted that the meeting would be conducted in English and in
plenary as far as possible, although he noted that; due to the volume of work some evening sessions
and/or preparatory work by members might be necessary if the full business of the session was to be
completed in a satisfactory manner.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 2
2.2.2 He noted that Dr. Fan had kindly made arrangements for a field trip to the potential
demonstration site of Fangchenggang on the 17th and that this would necessitate expeditious
processing of the report if it was to be adopted by the members prior to the closure of the formal
sessions of the meeting.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson invited members to consider the provisional agenda prepared by the
Secretariat as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/1, and to propose any amendments or additional
items for consideration. There were no objections, or amendments, and the agenda was adopted as
contained in Annex 3 of this report.
4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of mid-year progress reports, expenditure reports, and budgets
4.1.1 The Project Director introduced this agenda item and document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/4,
"Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the participating
countries" that contains a summary of the current status of budgets and administrative reports,
including audit reports, received by the Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) from the Specialised
Executing Agencies (SEAs) of the participating countries.
4.1.2 Dr. Pernetta drew the attention of the participants to the fact that to date, no funds for the last
6 months had yet been disbursed, due to the late receipt and finalisation of the financial reports. As
the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) terminate at the end of this year, it would be irresponsible for
the PCU to distribute significant cash advances when many of the SEAs have substantial funds still in
hand. What was now required was a detailed cost estimate from each SEA for the actions required to
complete the activities outlined in the MoUs, in particular the substantive reports.
4.1.3 Dr. Pernetta went on to explain that the funds allocated by the Project Steering Committee
(PSC) in the budget were the maximum available to each SEA, and that this allocation did not
necessarily mean that the funds would be transferred in their entirety to the SEAs by the end of the
first two years. He referred the participants to Table 2 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/4,
which showed the total expenditures and cash advances to date.
4.1.4 He noted that it had been anticipated that the SEAs would continue to be involved in the
second phase of the project particularly in the development of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). He
proposed and the meeting accepted that, the current MoUs be extended to June 30th 2004, in order to
complete the agreed activities of the first phase, and that new and different MoUs would be prepared
for each of the SEAs for the continuation of the project beyond June 2004. These new MoUs would
reflect the new tasks including the execution of demonstration activities, and would be different for
each SEA, reflecting the activities that are agreed as the most appropriate for each country. He noted
for example, that in the case of Cambodia, where available data has been found to be minimal, the
MoU might support capacity building for collection of information, rather than implementation of a
demonstration site.
4.1.5 In response to a question from the Chairperson, Dr. Pernetta stated that each demonstration
site would have an individual budget that would be part of the new MoUs.
4.1.6 Mr. Barangan asked whether the unspent funds needed to be returned to the PCU for
reallocation. Dr. Pernetta pointed out that, at the end of the first 18 months of the project, the SEAs
currently held $385,000 of unaccounted funds, and that a further $436,482 had not yet been
advanced. Dr. Pernetta noted that expenditures for the first half of the year had not yet been reported
and that the cash balances held by the SEAs were likely to be considerably less than the total
indicated in this document.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 3
4.1.7 The Chairman asked the participants to briefly provide information on the situation in each
country.
4.1.8 Mr. Barangan noted that only $3,727.28 is in hand, and that it was his understating that the
audit reports have been sent to the PCU. He noted that there was still some clarification that had to
be undertaken with the relevant department holding the funds. Dr. Pernetta confirmed that the audit
report had been received by the PCU on the 8th October, but the expenditure report was still
outstanding.
4.1.9 Mr. Santoso informed the meeting of the overall activities, some of which had utilised GEF
funds and some of which had been supported by government co-financing, noting that this had
delayed submission of his report.
4.1.10 Mr. Vong said that the audit report has been delayed due to ongoing discussions with the
audit firm. The expenditure report has been drafted but not finalised, due to the illness of
Mr. Vongwattana.
4.1.11 Dr. Do Dinh Sam noted that his reports had been filed with the PCU and that the cash in-hand
was not substantial.
4.1.12 Dr. Fan noted that they have completed the reports, but delays in financial transfers between
Beijing and Beihai had meant that his centre had advanced the cash in advance of receipt of the GEF
funds. Reconciliation of the finances was now complete and the reports had been submitted in
September.
4.1.13 Dr. Sonjai noted that the transfer of the project to the new Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment had delayed the utilisation of funds, but that the work had been completed in advance of
payments which were now being effected. Government funds had been used for many of the activities
and the reports have now been finalised and submitted.
4.1.14 In relation to the unspent balance of funds originally allocated to Malaysia, Dr. Gong asked
whether the non-participation of Malaysia would affect the development of the SAP. Dr. Pernetta
noted that Malaysia had endorsed the draft framework for the SAP, but that their non-participation in
the mangrove component could result in some reluctance on the part of Malaysia to commit to the
targets established in the SAP.
4.1.15 Dr. Gong noted that there were several issues, resulting from the non-participation of
Malaysia including the lack of information from Malaysia for inclusion in the regional database and the
potential difficulties in the future relating to the SAP. She noted that there are groups of scientists in
Malaysia that have information on South China Sea mangroves that could be incorporated into any
regional database.
4.1.16 Dr. Pernetta stated that a contract could be used to gather information, but that Malaysia
might not accept this approach. Dr. Tri noted that it was important to include information from
Malaysia, and that he believed any approach that might produce results was worth pursuing.
Dr. Gong agreed to contact officials and colleagues to help gain the needed support to facilitate the
participation of Malaysia in the mangrove component.
4.2
Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities
4.2.1 The Project Director introduced document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/5, "Current status of
substantive reports on mangroves from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
Countries" that, contained a summary of the current status of the substantive reports received to date,
by the PCU, and noted that documentation received from the Focal Points up to the end of September,
2003 has been circulated by e-mail.
4.2.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that the agreed deadlines for these documents are well past, and that
finalisation and publication were a priority. He noted that unless these reports were finalised there could
be no further advance of funds.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 4
4.2.3 In reference to the report on legislation he noted that the Regional Task Force on Legal matters
had reviewed the reports and agreed upon the minimal contents expected of the reviews. He noted
further that the individual members of the RTF-L had agreed to work with the focal points on the
finalisation of these drafts. He also noted that the Regional Task Force on Economic valuation had
reviewed the economic valuation information presented in the national reports and had developed a
conceptual framework for the compilation of such data on a regional basis. He highlighted the
responsibility of the RTF-E to develop regionally accepted valuations that can be used in the SAP and
further noted that the individual members would be contacting the SEAs regarding the finalisation of
such data and information.
4.2.4
The Project Director drew the attention of the meeting to the independent reviews of the reports
on past and ongoing activities and the reviews of national data. He noted that draft reviews from three
regional experts, together with the review of the PCU have been consolidated in document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/6 and proposed that the meeting go through this document, and discuss
the reports, country by country.
4.2.5 Mr. Santoso accepted the comments in the review of the Indonesian reports, along with the
shortcomings of the reports. He noted that the reports had been originally written in Bahasa Indonesia,
and that translation was not completed. Dr. Pernetta said that there needed to be some agreement on
how to get the documentation translated into English and Mr. Santoso agreed that the information from
13 provinces, contained in separate documents in Bahasa Indonesia, would be translated in full. He
agreed to have the translations completed and to finalise the reports based on the comments contained
in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/6, by December 1st 2003.
4.2.6 Dr. Tri noted that in order to produce a regional overview, it was important for the reviews to be
completed in the agreed format, so that comparisons can be easily made. Dr. Sam noted that everyone
had agreed to the format for the reports at the previous meetings, and these should be followed.
4.2.7 Other focal points then considered the contents of the reviews of their country reports, and
agreed on deadlines for finalisation of the amendments and submission to the PCU. Mr. Barangan
apologised for his lack of progress on these reports, and said that he had some reports for submission
to this meeting. He agreed to finalise the reports in draft by the end of December, 2003 and it was
agreed that a finalisation date of March 31st 2004 was practical, and that the report would follow the
format of the Thai report. A detailed work plan with costed activities for the finalisation of these reports
would need to be formulated and agreed prior to the closure of this meeting and Mr. Barangan agreed to
this suggestion.
4.2.8 Dr. Tri commented that there is a very comprehensive report containing extensive information
on mangroves compiled under an EU project on mangroves and seagrass in Ulugan Bay. This
information should be included in the national review, which should not be limited to selected sites.
4.2.9 Dr. Sam accepted the comments of the reviewers, and said he would check the data and add
information as suggested. Some further examples of economic valuation could be included. He also
informed the meeting that the priority site for Vietnam as a demonstration site was Ca Mau in the south.
He agreed to finalise the reports by 31st December 2003.
4.2.10 Dr. Pernetta suggested that, for all countries, the table on past and ongoing activities be
appended to the Review of National Data. In addition, SEA-START RC could be approached to put this
into a database, which would be posted on the project web site and to which additional information could
be added as it became available. Dr. Tri suggested further that, an analysis of the tables of past and on-
going activities would be useful as an indicator of the extent of government and external support for
sustainable use of mangroves. These suggestions were discussed and agreed by the participants.
4.2.11 Mr. Vong noted that the projects listed under past and ongoing activities in Cambodia are
primarily directed towards development activities rather than mangrove management. He said the
comments of the reviewers were most useful and noted that all the references provided on page 7 had
already been used in preparing the review. Regarding the economic valuation he noted that Cambodia
does not have data on economic values, except for one small study, which could be used as an
example. He noted that they would improve the reports, as much as possible, by the end of December.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 5
4.2.12 Dr. Pernetta noted that the references should be properly cited in the text and that data,
information and text should not be cut from other documents without proper referencing in the reports.
Dr. Gong thought that given the comments of the reviewers, and the need for extensive revision
finalisation by 31st December was perhaps too ambitious. Taking these comments into account,
Mr. Vong agreed that 31st March 2004 would be the final deadline, with 31st December 2003 being the
date for submission of the revised draft to the PCU for review.
4.2.13 Dr. Fan appreciated the comments of the reviewers and noted that detailed maps were
available, but could not be reproduced clearly on A-4 size paper. Regarding economic valuation, he
noted that there are only 3 papers for the whole of China, and that the intention was to do more work on
this at the Fangchenggang site. Regarding the information from Hong Kong, although it is a part of
China, there are some political issues preventing access to data for inclusion in the reports. He agreed
to finalise the reports by December 1st 2003.
4.2.14 Dr. Pernetta drew the attention of the meeting to the innovative way that the economic valuation
of mangrove services with respect to improving water quality had been made in China based on
productivity of pearl farms and noted that the RTF-E had expressed interest in this approach.
4.2.15 Dr. Sonjai also stated that he found the comments of the reviewers most helpful, and agreed to
address the issues they had raised, where possible, and amend the report. More detailed maps can be
provided, and additional data can easily be collected to fill in the identified gaps. The final reports from
Thailand will be sent to the PCU by December 1st, 2003.
4.3
Status of planned substantive outputs from the regional level
4.3.1 The Project Director reminded members of their agreement that a regional over-view of the
status of mangroves in the South China Sea was to have been produced by the PCU and officers of the
committee prior to this meeting, for review during the meeting. Regrettably delays in submission of
national inputs including submission of GIS based data and metadata, combined with the staffing
situation in the PCU during the first half of 2003, had delayed the preparation of this overview, which
must be printed in time for the Regional Scientific Conference in February 2004.
4.3.2 The Project Director presented Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/7, "Proposed timetable,
contents and responsibilities for the production of the regional overview of mangroves bordering the
South China Sea", which showed the possible modalities through which such an overview could be
produced, and a suggested framework for its contents. This publication would provide an overview of
the mangroves of the South China Sea, and show the donors attending the Regional Scientific
Conference, that the proposed demonstration sites have been selected through a defined and balanced
process.
4.3.3 Dr. Pernetta then invited the members to consider, amend and agree on the contents of the
booklet. It was agreed that Dr. Sanit Aksornkoae be approached to write the foreword for the booklet.
He also asked that members provide relevant photographs for inclusion in the overview. Members
agreed that by 25th October, 2003 they would send photos that could be used, with captions and the
name of the photographer. After some discussion, during which various amendments and additions
were made, the contents were agreed and are attached to this report as Annex 4.
4.3.4
Dr. Pernetta then asked for volunteers to draft some sections of the report. Dr. Gong and Dr. Tri
agreed to draft the section on Mangrove Distribution and Diversity. Dr. Pernetta agreed to draft the
section on the demonstration sites. Dr. Pernetta suggested that, each of the six members draft, by this
Friday morning, 17th October, 100 words each on current threats in their country, and 100 words on the
use and value of mangroves, and pass these to him. Dr. Pernetta would then use these to compile the
first draft of the required sections of the booklet.
4.3.5 Dr. Pernetta reminded the participants that the PCU needs an electronic copy of their
institutional logos, for inclusion on the front cover of the report. Members agreed that they would ensure
the PCU received these by Friday morning, 24th October 2003.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 6
4.3.6 Dr. Pernetta referred the members to page 2 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/7,
containing the timetable for production of the report. He informed the meeting that the deadline for a
camera-ready copy is the end of November, and draft text would therefore need to be ready by the end
of October. Strict attention needed to be paid to the length of the text, which needed to be around 1000
words per page, and less where pictures were to be included.
5.
REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS
5.1
Site characterisation; cluster analysis; environmental and socio-economic ranking;
and available supporting documentation
5.1.1 Dr. Pernetta informed the members that the clustering and ranking of sites based on the
agreed data and information would only be accepted internationally if the numbers used were
substantiated by lists of species. He referred members to document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/8,
"Cluster analysis and environmental and socio-economic ranking, of potential mangrove demonstration
sites bordering the South China Sea", which showed the situation to date with respect to the agreed
clusters and ranks.
5.1.2 Dr. Pernetta referred members to Tables 1 to 5 of the document, where Table 5 listed, by
country, the top six sites identified in each cluster and noted that these selections were based on the
information contained in Table 1. An important task for this meeting was to verify these data and he
noted that Table 2 contained a frequency analysis of the individual data sets that highlighted some
anomalous data points.
5.1.3 Dr. Pernetta pointed out that some of the scores accorded to numbers in some categories of
the ranking needed to be reassessed, based on the empirical data now available. In some instances
the divisions were obviously inappropriate. He then referred members to page 13 of document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/9, and noted that members had been asked to bring species lists with
them to this meeting to clarify any discrepancies and fill any gaps.
5.1.4 Dr. Sonjai noted some problems and in clarification Dr. Pernetta pointed out that the cluster
and ranking did not use the same parameters. Associate mangrove species and number of trophic
levels were used in the ranking but not in the cluster analysis. Dr. Sam noted that they had consulted
national experts regarding the occurrence of species but that even these experts did not always agree
on the number of species in some categories.
5.1.5 Dr. Gong asked whether there are lists of species associated with each site for Thailand, to
which Dr. Sonjai replied these had been provided with the site characterisations. Dr. Gong asked
whether these lists were available with the site characterisations for some of the other sites, for
example in Vietnam. Dr. Sam said that he had lists for the top 3 sites for Vietnam, but not species lists
for all individual sites.
5.1.6 Dr. Gong noted that the information available for Thailand and Indonesia appeared to be in
order, and that apparently information from China had some problems with grouped data for birds.
Dr. Fan said that for one site they had some problems with numbers of species of birds and fish,
where they do not know which are definitely associated with mangroves, and therefore estimates
were used. Philippines had supporting data for 2 of the sites.
5.1.7 Mr. Vong said that they are trying to get the data, as they have some groups like Birdlife
International and Wildlife Conservation Society, who are identifying birds and animals, and the
Ministry of Environment and CZM-DANIDA project identifying plants, for some sites, but that in
general Cambodia had many gaps in the data.
5.1.8 Dr. Gong suggested that cluster analysis be conducted only on those sites, around 26 in total,
that have species lists. Dr. Pernetta expressed disappointment that some countries had not brought
the lists to the meeting since this resulted in a collective problem for the RWG-M regarding how to
proceed.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 7
5.1.9 Dr. Fan noted that each list should be accompanied by the scientific reference for the data,
and/or information regarding its collection, when this had been specifically collected for the purposes
of the project.
5.1.10 The members then considered the lists of species prepared by each member in support of the
characterisation of the sites and finalised the table of data for cluster analysis. In total, data for twenty
six sites compared with the original forty four were considered to have sufficient supporting
documentation to merit their inclusion in the final analysis. Sites with insufficient supporting data were
not considered further.
5.1.11 The final set of data covering a total of twelve parameters for twenty-six sites accepted by the
participants for inclusion in the cluster analysis is presented in Table 1 of Annex 5. The results of the
analysis are included in Annex 5 of this report.
5.1.12 The meeting noted that in order to finalise the ranking of sites based on environmental criteria
and indicators it was necessary to revise the originally agreed rank scores to reflect the empirical data
relating to the sites. Some of the original ranges for numbers of species greatly exceeded the observed
values whilst in other instances the rank scores failed to adequately separate the sites due to the
similarity in observed values. A detailed discussion ensued during which it was agreed to lower the
upper limits for the numbers of true mangrove species, and fish species, and to raise the upper limits for
the numbers of crustacean and bird species.
5.1.13 Following a detailed discussion of the merits or otherwise of including the indicator "number of
trophic levels below the top carnivore in the terrestrial food chain" and in recognition of the fact that this
indicator was fairly consistent across sites, it was agreed to delete this class of indicator and to reassign
the points across other elements of the indicators of biological diversity. The finally agreed ranking
scheme is included as Table 1 of Annex 6.
5.1.14 In accordance with the agreed three-step process for ranking sites and recommending the
choice of demonstration sites to the Project Steering Committee the meeting proceeded to assign and
discuss rank scores for those potential sites which were supported by detailed proposals submitted in
advance of the meeting and for which species listings had been provided. A total of fourteen such
proposals were before the meeting and on the basis of information contained in the supporting
documents a discussion of rank scores to be assigned for the socio-economic indicators ensued.
5.1.15 Some discussion occurred regarding the indicator of "population stress" as to whether human
population density should be related to the area around the mangroves, or to a larger area such as the
whole province. It was agreed that where possible the smaller scale should be used. Other socio-
economic indicators were also extensively discussed during the process of scoring the demonstration
sites. This resulted in a socio-economic ranking table agreed by all members, which is included in
Annex 6 of this report.
5.1.16 Dr. Pernetta questioned the very high scores accorded the stakeholder support categories, by
all members. He suggested that on the basis of the apparently high level of central government, local
government, civil society and private sector support for these demonstration sites, it would appear that in
fact GEF and or external donor support was not required. He suggested that these scores should be
reviewed and there followed an extensive discussion and review of the scores assigned.
5.1.17 During discussion it was agreed that the ranking table contained in Annex 6 should be further
amended to include a column highlighting the key purpose of the activities at each of the demonstration
sites. Table 4 of Annex 6 presents the final rank scores for the individual socio-economic indicators
together with the total for the environmental indicators and the grand total representing the summation of
these two values.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 8
5.2
Critical review of proposals for demonstration sites
5.2.1 Dr.
Pernetta
introduced
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/9, "Reviews of the proposed
mangrove demonstration site proposals bordering the South China Sea" containing the reviews of the
demonstration site proposals prepared by the PCU and highlighted some of the problems with these, in
particular those relating to sections 14 "Threats", and 15, "Budgets".
5.2.2 In relation to the section on budgets, Dr. Pernetta presented an example of how to construct a
budget by activity, and also the same budget broken down by object of expenditure. He noted that the
budgets for the demonstration site proposals would need to re constructed, as demonstrated.
5.2.3 Dr. Sam asked whether research and monitoring activities could be supported with GEF funds
and Dr. Pernetta responded that monitoring was in the view of the GEF a baseline activity that should be
funded by the government. Research activities were fundable only where the research was vital to the
achievement of the goals of the primary activities.
5.2.4 There followed an extensive discussion of the individual proposals during which it was noted
that there was money in the core budget for training, and it was not necessary to include these costs in
the demonstration site budgets.
5.2.5 Dr. Pernetta then discussed at some length the method by which a budget could be constructed
based, on activity and object of expenditure using examples from the proposals presented to the
meeting. He noted that budgets containing a high proportion of funds in the sub-contracts component
would not be considered favourably since this implied that the Executing Agency was not the
appropriate body to execute the activity.
5.2.6 Dr. Tri commented on the Indonesian causal chain analysis, and noted that it was important to
link the activities of the proposal to the problems identified in the causal chain analysis.
6.
REVISION OF THE WORKPLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO JUNE
2004
6.1
The participants noted that during the first and second meetings of the Regional Working
Group a flow chart of activities and work plan and timetable had been developed and agreed. The
meeting noted that as a consequence of the sequential delays in production of national level outputs it
was necessary to revise the work plan and timetable.
6.2
In the light of the discussion and agreements reached under prior agenda items, the meeting
discussed and reviewed the contents of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/10 "Proposals for a
revised work plan and timetable for the RWG-M with details of outputs and milestones between October
2003 and June 2004" and agreed upon the final timetable for production of the required outputs. The
agreed work plan and timetable are attached as Annex 7 of this report.
7.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
MANGROVES
7.1
In discussion of this matter, members noted the proposed dates of the Regional Scientific
Conference in February 2004 and agreed on the proposed dates for the next meeting of the RWG-M,
September 27th to 30th 2004.
7.2
It was noted that the PSC had decided that future meetings could only be convened at
demonstration sites and that on the basis of the recommendations from this meeting regarding the
ranking of potential demonstration sites the next meeting should be held in Trad Province, Thailand.
In the event that Trad was not selected by the PSC as a demonstration site, it was agreed that the
location of the next meeting would be discussed and agreed via e-mail.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Page 9
8.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
8.1
Under this agenda item the situation regarding Cambodia was extensively discussed. Dr. Sonjai
asked whether, if Thailand were fortunate enough to gain a demonstration site in Trad, it would be
possible to include an arrangement with Cambodia to include activities in mangroves on the
Cambodian side of the border that could enhance the demonstration site outcomes and benefit both
countries. In response the Project Director noted that this was indeed possible and that a letter from
Cambodia would assist in facilitating this sort of co-operation. He further noted that Thailand should
include mention of the intention of involving Cambodia in their demonstration site proposal.
8.2
In addition it was agreed that Cambodia should develop a proposal for extending their
information base and developing capacity with respect to the sustainable management of mangroves
that should be financially supported by the project outside the budget line for demonstration activities.
9.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
9.1
The Rapporteur presented the draft report of the meeting prepared by the PCU, which was
considered, amended and adopted as it appears in this document.
10.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
10.1
In closing the meeting the Chairperson thanked the PCU for their support in the preparation
and conduct of the meeting, the members for their support and constructive discussions and Dr. Fan
for his excellent support to the local organisation and arrangements.
10.2
The formal session of the meeting was closed at 18:45 on 16th October, noting that
participants would visit the Fanchangang potential demonstration site on the following day.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Sok Vong
Dr. Hangqing Fan, Professor
Department of Nature Conservation and
Guangxi Mangrove Research Centre
Protection, Ministry of Environment
92 East Changqing Road
48 Samdech Preah Sihanouk
Beihai City 536000
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon, Cambodia
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
China
Tel: (855 23) 213 908
Fax: (855 23) 212 540; 215925
Tel: (86 779) 205 5294; 206 5609
E-mail: sok_vong@camintel.com;
Mobile: (86) 13 367798181
sokvong@yahoo.com
Fax: (86 779) 205 8417; 206 5609
E-mail: fanhq@ppp.nn.gx.cn; fanghq@china.com
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Nyoto Santoso
No National Focal Point designated
Lembaga Pengkajian dan Pengembangan
Mangrove (LPP-Mangrove)
(Institute of Mangrove Research & Development)
Komplex IPB II, Jl. Mercurius Blok C No. 4
Sindang Barang - Bogor 16680
Indonesia
Tel:
(62 251) 621 672; (62 21) 861 1710
Fax: (62 251) 621 672; (62 21) 861 1710
E-mail: imred@indo.net.id; imred@cbn.net.id
puryanti@indo.net.id
Philippines
Thailand
Mr. Florendo Barangan, Executive Director
Dr. Sonjai Havanond
Coastal and Marine Management Office
Coastal & Mangrove Resources Management
Department of Environment and Natural
Expert
Resources (CMMO/DENR)
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
DENR Compound Visayas Avenue
92 Soi Paholyothin 7 (Ari)
Diliman, Quezon City 1100
Paholyothin Road, Phayathai
Philippines
Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel: (632) 926 1004, 63 917 8405614
Tel: (662) 298 2591; 298 2058; 01 8114917
Fax: (632) 926 1004; 426 3851
Fax: (662) 298 2059
E-mail: cmmo26@yahoo.com
E-mail: sonjai_h@hotmail.com
Viet Nam
Dr. Do Dinh Sam, Professor
Forest Science Institute of Viet Nam
Dong Ngac, Tu Liem
Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel: (844) 838 9815
Fax: (844) 838 9722
E-mail: ddsam@netnam.vn
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Regional Experts
Dr. Gong Wooi Khoon
Dr. Nguyen Hoang Tri, Director
Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies
Center for Environmental Research and Education
Universiti Sains Malaysia
(CERE)
11800 Penang
Hanoi University of Education
Malaysia
136 Xuan Thuy, Quan Hoa, Cau Giay
Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel:
(604) 653 2371
Fax:
(604) 657 2960; 656 5125
Tel:
(844) 733 5625; 768 3502
E-mail: wkgong@usm.my; gongwk@yahoo.com
Mobile: (84) 9 13527629
Fax:
(844) 733 5624; 762 7908
E-mail: CERE@hn.vnn.vn
Observer
Mr. Huang Zhengguang, Senior Engineer
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences
7 West Street
Yuancun Guangzhou 510655
Guangdong Province
China
Tel:
(86 20) 8552 8748
Fax:
(86 20) 8552 4451; 8552 8748
E-mail: georgehuang@scies.com.cn
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Mr. Kelvin Passfield
Ms. Unchalee Kattachan
Expert - Fisheries
Programme Assistant
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit United
United Nations Environment Programme
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 1116
Tel: (66 2) 288 1670
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
Fax: (66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: passfield@un.org
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/1 Provisional
agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/2
Provisional annotated agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3 Report of the meeting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/4.Amend.1 Current
status of budgets and reports from the Specialised
Executing Agencies in the participating countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/5
Current status of substantive reports on mangroves from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/6
Reviews from three regional experts, and the PCU of the
drafts of the substantive reports produced by the Specialised
Executing Agencies in the participating countries. [Individual
reports for each country have been produced with the same
document number together with the first letters of the country
name appended.]
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/7
Proposed timetable, contents and responsibilities for the
production of the regional overview of mangroves bordering
the South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/8
Cluster analysis; and environmental and socio-economic
ranking; of potential mangrove demonstration sites
conducted following the third Regional Scientific and
Technical Committee meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/9 Critical
reviews
of the proposed mangrove demonstration
sites bordering the South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/10
Proposals for a revised, work plan and timetable for the
RWG-M with details of outputs and milestones between
October 2003 and June 2004.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/11 Demonstration
site
proposals from the participating countries.
[These twelve documents are not individually numbered,
rather they are printed as received with minimal formatting.
They have been distributed by e-mail and are contained on
the CD-ROM together with all other meeting documents.]
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/Inf.1
List of participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/Inf.2
List of documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/Inf.3 Draft
programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.3/6 Guidelines
for
the preparation of demonstration site
proposals and format for use in their presentation.
The following documents are supplied on CD-ROM and in published form.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.3/3 Third
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Mangroves Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Bali,
Indonesia, 3rd 6th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 2
Page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.3/3 Third
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Wetlands Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Bali,
Indonesia, 4th 7th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.3/3 Third
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the Land-
based Pollution Component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting.
Phuket, Thailand, 7th- 10th July 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
LbP.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.3/3 Third
Meeting
of the Regional Working Group on the
Fisheries Component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Siem Reap,
Cambodia, 29thApril 2nd May 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
F.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.3/3
Third Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Coral
Reefs Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Kota Kinabalu,
Malaysia, 24th 27th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
CR.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.3/3 Third
Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Seagrass Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Kota
Kinabalu, Malaysia, 25th 28th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-SG.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.3/3
Third Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket,
Thailand, 16th 18th June 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic
Valuation for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket,
Thailand, 11th 13th September 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-
E.1/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters for
the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket, Thailand, 15th 17th
September 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 3
Page 1
ANNEX 3
Agenda
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
Welcome
address
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Documents available to the meeting
2.2 Organisation
of
work
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of mid-year progress reports, expenditure reports, and budgets
4.2
Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities
4.3
Status of planned substantive outputs from the regional level
5.
REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS
5.1
Site characterisation; cluster analysis; environmental and socio-economic
ranking; and available supporting documentation
5.2
Critical review of proposals for demonstration sites
6.
REVISION OF THE WORKPLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO JUNE
2004
7.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
MANGROVES
8.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
10.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Agreed Preliminary Draft Contents for the Regional Overview on Mangroves
Foreword - 1 page - Dr. Sanit Aksornkoae to be approached.
Introduction - 1 spread, 2 pages Broad introduction at global to regional scales
Text covering:
· Global distribution of mangroves,
· Biological diversity cf Atlantic Province and sub-regions of the Indo-West Pacific,
· Rates of loss in area over the 20th Century, globally and regionally,
· Global importance of SCS mangrove.
Box bottom left covering the purpose and objectives of the South China Sea Project.
Box top right GIS map of mangrove distribution bordering the South China Sea.
Mangrove distribution & diversity in SCS - 2 spreads, 4 pages
Text covering:
· Ecology of mangroves,
· Geographic and abiotic limits to mangrove habitats,
· True mangrove spp, community structure,
· Production, density, and ecosystem functions,
· Services provided (carbon sequestration) water quality, coastal protection, nursery areas,
· Environmental impacts/consequences of habitat loss,
· Social & economic consequences of habitat loss.
Box giving details of past and present areas of mangrove in SCS countries cf. global totals
2 photos from countries illustrating typical undisturbed mangrove habitats. (Indonesia & China/Viet
Nam?)
State of mangroves & present threats - 1 spread 2 pages
Text covering:
· Socio-economic context of SCS countries GDP growth development, population,
· Country based reviews of status, threats and actions to protect mangrove,
· Shrimp farming economic benefits cf environmental impacts on water quality and habitat
loss/degradation.
Use & value of mangrove systems bordering the South China Sea - 1 spread 2 pages
Text covering:
· Range of present direct uses,
· Indirect uses,
· Economic valuation.
Photo, mangrove molluscs in market, (column width)
Mud crabs,
Photo, mangrove fishing, (column width)
Box on value of mangroves for pearl production in China.
Purpose of the demonstration sites - 1 spread 2 pages
Text covering:
· Types of demonstration sites illustrating sustainable use,
· Demonstrating what?
· And for whom?
· Value of regional co-ordination and networking,
· Anticipated outcomes.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 4
Page 2
Process of selecting sites - 2 spreads 4 pages
Text covering:
· Data and information; criteria and indicators, selection and agreement,
· Cluster analysis and the purpose of the clustering procedures,
· Ranking, environmental and socio-economic indicators,
· Priority listing and proposals.
End page 1 page - Photo and details of the Regional Working Group on mangroves
Total No of pages 18
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Final Cluster Analysis and Ranking of Potential Mangrove Demonstration Sites
Background
During the third meeting of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves a preliminary cluster analysis
was undertaken on available data for forty-four sites bordering the South China Sea. Subsequently,
these data were checked, evaluated and corrected and a semi-final analysis prepared by the Project
Co-ordinating Unit and dispatched via e-mail to all members of the working group in July. This data
set still contained some anomalous points requiring clarification and/or justification and focal points
were requested to compile and bring with them lists of species from each site, for verification during
the fourth meeting of the working group.
Available data and results
During the fourth meeting members reviewed the data available in support of each site and accepted
that of the original forty-four sites considered during the preliminary analysis, twenty-six were
sufficiently well documented to merit inclusion in the final analysis. These data are presented in Table
1, where it can be seen that a total of seventeen cells (5.4%) lack entries.
The data were transformed to z scores (Table 2) and a cluster analysis performed using the Clustan
Graphic6 software programme. The resulting cluster diagram is presented in Figure 1, whilst the
proximity matrix based on dissimilarity is presented in Table 3.
It can be seen from Figure 1 that the sites fall into three clusters two of which are comparatively small
(four sites each). These two small clusters encompass sites in China, Thailand and Viet Nam
representing the northern and north-western margins of the South China Sea. The larger central
cluster of 18 sites, is more heterogenous, encompassing both insular and mainland sites generally
lying in the Southern and Eastern portions of the region.
Figure 1 Cluster diagram of twenty-six mangrove sites bordering the South China Sea
based on Euclidean distance and mean proximity.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 5
Page 2
Table 1
Final agreed data set for mangrove potential demonstration sites.
True
Density
No.
No.
No.
Present Zones spp % Change
No.
No. fish
No. bird
Site
mangrove
>1.5m
% Cover crustacean.
gastropod
migratory
area
assoc
in area
bivalve
spp.
spp.
spp.
high /ha
spp.
spp.
bird spp.
Trad Province
7,031
5
2
33
1,100
90
32
M M 55 98 24
Thung Kha Bay - Savi Bay
3,543
4
34
23
1,628
90
58
M M 36 13 8
Pak Phanang Bay
8,832
3
2
25
1,282
56
36
M M 85 72 45
Kung Kraben Bay
640
2
0
27
6,100
80
19
M M 35 75 16
Welu River Estuary
5,478
3
31
33
1,400
60
25
M M 52 69 15
Tien Yen
2,537
2
-25
13
7,000
60
51
M M 79
M M
Xuan Thuy
1,775
3
98
11
9,500
75
61
25
30
90
31
62
Can Gio
8,958
3
100
32
6,000
80
28
17
32
103
96
34
Ca Mau
5,239
3
60
30
7,500
85
12
6
15
36
18
53
Shangkou 812
4
11
9
11,980
90
65
40
33
95
28
76
Quinglangang 1,189
6
-56
25
10,183
80
60
50
62
90
39
32
DongXhaiGang 1,513
5
-14
16
8,433
80
32
24
27
84
43
35
Futien 82
3
-26
7
10,233
80
29
16
21
11
58
99
Fangchenggang 1,415
4
-10
10
12,300
90
67
62
40
71
42
145
Busuanga 1,298
5
-5
24
7,550
90
6
15
36
9
45
27
Coron 1,296
5
-50
26
7,080
M
7 15
37
13
42
34
San Vicente
133
5
-15
14
3,780
80
6
15
36
13
36
40
Ulugan 790
4
-10
16
5,100
85
8
15
36
13
42
39
San Jose
483
4
-80
25
3,180
60
7
13
34
7
48
37
Subic 148
3
-20
23
1,420
90
8
14
35
16
44
57
Quezon 1,939
5
-40
32
4,000
80
5
14
37
11
44
37
Belitung Island
22,457
5
0
8
467
100
5
26
43
71
M M
Angke
Kaput
328
9
-2
12 569
70 29 21 4 22 40 4
Batu Ampar
65,585
5
0
21
2,391
100
11
15
17
51
19
27
Ngurah Rai
1,374
6
27
25
660
100
38
10
32
34
38
42
Bengkalis 42,459
7
-15
18
490
99
12
8
9
3
16
15
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 5
Page 3
Table 2
Data transformed to z scores for cluster analysis.
No.
Present
Zones spp,
% Change
Spp. true
No. spp.
No. spp,
No. spp.
No. spp
No. spp.
Density %
Cover
migratory
area
associations
in area
mangrove
crustacea
bivalve
gast
fish
bird
spp.
Trad Province
-0.012 0.416
0.050
1.478
-1.027
0.619
0.209
Missing Missing 0.285 2.314
-0.580
Thung Kha Bay - Savi Bay
-0.246 -0.220
0.827
0.277
-0.890
0.619
1.436
Missing Missing -0.289 -1.445
-1.102
Pak Phanang Bay
0.109 -0.856
0.050
0.517
-0.980
-2.005
0.398
Missing Missing 1.192 1.165
0.105
Kung Kraben Bay
-0.440 -1.491
0.002
0.757
0.273
-0.155
-0.405
Missing Missing -0.320 1.297
-0.841
Welu River Estuary
-0.116 -0.856
0.754
1.478
-0.949
-1.703
-0.122
Missing Missing 0.194 1.032
-0.874
Tien Yen
-0.313 -1.491
-0.605
-0.924
0.507
-1.703
1.105
Missing Missing 1.010
Missing Missing
Xuan Thuy
-0.364
-0.856 2.380
-1.164 1.157 -0.542 1.577 0.278 -0.062 1.343 -0.649
0.659
Can Gio
0.118
-0.856 2.429
1.358 0.247 -0.155 0.020 -0.285 0.093 1.736 2.226
-0.254
Ca Mau
-0.132
-0.856 1.458
1.118 0.637 0.232 -0.735 -1.060 -1.228
-0.289 -1.223
0.366
Shangkou
-0.429
-0.220 0.275 -1.404 1.802 0.619 1.766 1.335 0.171
1.494 -0.781
1.116
Quinglangang
-0.403
1.051 -1.365
0.517 1.335 -0.155 1.530 2.039 2.425
1.343 -0.295
-0.319
DongXhaiGang
-0.382
0.416 -0.339
-0.563 0.880 -0.155 0.209 0.208 -0.295 1.161 -0.118
-0.222
Futien
-0.478
-0.856 -0.632
-1.644 1.348 -0.155 0.067 -0.356 -0.762
-1.045 0.545
1.866
Fangchenggang
-0.388
-0.220 -0.233 -1.284 1.885 0.619 1.861 2.884 0.715
0.768 -0.162
3.367
Busuanga
-0.396
0.416 -0.119
0.397 0.650 0.619 -1.018 -0.426 0.404
-1.106 -0.029
-0.482
Coron
-0.396 0.416
-1.212
0.637
0.528
Missing
-0.971 -0.426 0.482
-0.985 -0.162
-0.254
San Vicente
-0.474
0.416 -0.362
-0.804 -0.331 -0.155 -1.018 -0.426 0.404
-0.985 -0.427
-0.058
Ulugan
-0.430
-0.220 -0.241 -0.563 0.013 0.232 -0.924 -0.426 0.404
-0.985 -0.162
-0.091
San Jose
-0.451
-0.220 -1.940
0.517 -0.487 -1.703 -0.971 -0.567 0.249
-1.166 0.103
-0.156
Subic
-0.473
-0.856 -0.483
0.277 -0.944 0.619 -0.924 -0.496 0.326
-0.894 -0.074
0.496
Quezon
-0.353
0.416 -0.969
1.358 -0.273 -0.155 -1.066 -0.496 0.482
-1.045 -0.074
-0.156
Belitung Island
1.022
0.416 0.002 -1.524 -1.192 1.393 -1.066 0.349 0.948
0.768
Missing Missing
Angke Kaput
-0.461
2.958 -0.047
-1.044 -1.166 -0.929 0.067 -0.004 -2.083
-0.713 -0.251
-1.233
Batu Ampar
3.914
0.416 0.011
0.037 -0.692 1.393 -0.782 -0.426 -1.073 0.164 -1.179
-0.482
Ngurah Rai
-0.391
1.051 0.664
0.517 -1.142 1.393 0.492 -0.778 0.093
-0.350 -0.339
0.007
Bengkalis
2.363
1.687 -0.356
-0.323 -1.186 1.315 -0.735 -0.919 -1.694
-1.287 -1.312
-0.874
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 5
Page 4
Table 3
Proximity matrix for twenty-six potential mangrove demonstration sites bordering the South China Sea and included in the cluster
analysis presented in Figure 1.
Case
Trad
Thung Pak
Kung
Welu
Tien
Xuan
Can Gio Ca Mau Shangkou Quin
Dong
Futien
Fanchen Busuang Coron
San
Ulugan San
Subic Quezon
Belitung
Angke Batu Ngurah
Bengalis
Province
Kha
Bay
Phanang
Kraben
River
Yen
Thuy
langang
Xhaigang
ggang
Vicente
Jose
Kaput
Ampar
Rai
Trad Province
0.0000
Thung Kha Bay
0.4331 0.0000
Pak Phanang Bay
0.3477 0.4429 0.0000
Kung
Kraben
Bay 0.2911 0.3936 0.3098 0.0000
Welu
River
Estuary 0.3061 0.4013 0.1950 0.2429 0.0000
Tien
Yen
0.5449 0.4719 0.3043 0.3895 0.4393 0.0000
Xuan
Thuy
0.5794 0.4107 0.4494 0.4839 0.4985 0.4235 0.0000
Can
Gio
0.3432 0.5144 0.3603 0.3547 0.3303 0.5473 0.3688 0.0000
Ca
Mau
0.4614 0.3305 0.4389 0.3309 0.3757 0.5259 0.3590 0.3788 0.0000
Shangkou
0.5770 0.4366 0.5083 0.5045 0.5874 0.4026 0.2374 0.4761 0.4381 0.0000
Quinglangang
0.4405 0.4082 0.4278 0.4340 0.4781 0.4419 0.4643 0.5259 0.5575 0.3413 0.0000
DongXhaiGang
0.3938 0.3517 0.3442 0.3290 0.3948 0.3355 0.2961 0.3715 0.3226 0.2527 0.3271 0.0000
Futien
0.5403 0.5206 0.4788 0.4047 0.5366 0.3824 0.3843 0.4982 0.3734 0.3484 0.5141 0.3041 0.0000
Fangchenggang
0.6435 0.5848 0.5813 0.5932 0.6795 0.3915 0.4124 0.5985 0.5781 0.2495 0.4144 0.4289 0.4042 0.0000
Busuanga
0.3619 0.3575 0.4529 0.2721 0.3918 0.5593 0.4333 0.4122 0.2739 0.4242 0.4232 0.2533 0.3284 0.5430 0.0000
Coron
0.4173 0.4355 0.4194 0.3225 0.3908 0.5485 0.5137 0.4978 0.3453 0.4767 0.4326 0.2777 0.3575 0.5899 0.1059 0.0000
San
Vicente
0.4193 0.3547 0.4125 0.3313 0.3996 0.4893 0.4173 0.4597 0.3148 0.4156 0.4417 0.2452 0.2935 0.5296 0.1541 0.1739 0.0000
Ulugan
0.3915 0.3401 0.4027 0.2654 0.3795 0.4673 0.3973 0.4238 0.2828 0.3970 0.4379 0.2374 0.2680 0.5138 0.1206 0.1598 0.0758 0.0000
San
Jose
0.4442 0.4813 0.3693 0.3369 0.3586 0.4926 0.5322 0.5101 0.3970 0.5258 0.4708 0.3350 0.3632 0.6098 0.2712 0.1338 0.2271 0.2387 0.0000
Subic
0.3619 0.3542 0.3918 0.2687 0.3663 0.5173 0.4443 0.4231 0.2852 0.4453 0.4775 0.3026 0.3122 0.5353 0.1925 0.2045 0.1715 0.1346 0.2462 0.0000
Quezon
0.3408 0.3923 0.4030 0.2925 0.3417 0.5717 0.4998 0.4414 0.3130 0.4897 0.4296 0.3007 0.3792 0.5830 0.1496 0.1019 0.1902 0.1847 0.1791 0.1783 0.0000
Belitung
Island
0.4432 0.4678 0.5664 0.5176 0.6041 0.6045 0.5189 0.4934 0.4969 0.4720 0.5418 0.3611 0.4596 0.5255 0.3758 0.4306 0.3163 0.3207 0.5067 0.3446 0.4313 0.0000
Angke
Kaput
0.4844 0.4315 0.5102 0.5351 0.4994 0.6565 0.5297 0.5730 0.4740 0.5398 0.5674 0.3669 0.4886 0.6700 0.3957 0.4302 0.3430 0.3894 0.4208 0.4488 0.4073 0.5204 0.0000
Batu
Ampar
0.5604 0.4964 0.6020 0.5751 0.5968 0.7716 0.5540 0.5467 0.4226 0.5518 0.6097 0.4408 0.5366 0.6734 0.4273 0.4704 0.4324 0.4269 0.5166 0.4339 0.4470 0.4022 0.5035 0.0000
Ngurah
Rai
0.3214 0.2394 0.4526 0.3945 0.4194 0.6210 0.4095 0.4040 0.3056 0.4220 0.4570 0.2964 0.4116 0.5507 0.2393 0.2823 0.2525 0.2494 0.3865 0.2415 0.2657 0.3562 0.3648 0.4092 0.0000
Bengkalis
0.5270 0.4307 0.6164 0.5603 0.5858 0.7739 0.5904 0.6039 0.4194 0.5845 0.6314 0.4378 0.5122 0.7100 0.3747 0.4132 0.3638 0.3803 0.4629 0.4022 0.3937 0.4233 0.3581 0.2273 0.3442 0.0000
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Final Ranking of Potential Mangrove Demonstration Sites Based on Environmental
and Socio-Economic Indicators
Background
During the third meeting of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves (RWG-M) a preliminary
ranking of sites using both environmental and socio-economic indicators was undertaken for forty-four
sites bordering the South China Sea. At that time it was recognised that the scores for the socio-
economic indicators, particularly those relating to stakeholder involvement and co-financing support,
could not be adequately gauged until such time as full demonstration site proposals had been
prepared. Subsequently, following amendment and correction of the data a revised ranking based on
the environmental and biological diversity indicators was prepared by the Project Co-ordinating Unit
and circulated to the RWG-M by e-mail, together with the revised cluster analysis.
Given the questions and uncertainties regarding some of the data, and the need to further verify the
information, a final cluster analysis was conducted during the fourth meeting, using only information
for those sites where all parties agreed that, adequate data and supporting documentation were
available (Annex 5).
Finalisation of the Rank scores and indicators
In reviewing the empirical data the Regional Working Group noted that the ranges of values for a
number of the environmental indicators were inappropriate given the actual observed numbers and
ranges.
Table 1
Revised indicators and weight for mangrove systems of biological diversity,
transboundary, regional and global significance.
Class of Indicator
Indicator scale
Score
1. Area maximum 35 points
1.1 Total existing natural mangrove area (ha)
< 500
500-1,000
1,001-5,000
5,001-15,000
>15,000
Score 7
14
21
28
35
2. Biological diversity 50 points
2.1 Species diversity Score maximum 38 points
2.1.1 True mangrove species
< 12
13-18
19-24
25-30
>30
Score Maximum 15 points
3
6
9
12
15
2.1.2 Associate mangrove species
<10
11-20
>20
Score Maximum 5 points
1
3
5
2.1.3 Total fish species
<50
51-100
>100
Score Maximum 6 points
2
4
6
2.1.4 Crustacean
<30
31-60
>60
Score Maximum 6 points
2
4
6
2.1.5 Resident bird species
< 45
46-90
>90
Score Maximum 6 points
2
4
6
2.2 Community diversity 12 points
2.2.1 Number of zones or associations
1-2
3-4
>4
Score Maximum 12 points
4
8
12
3. Transboundary significance 10 points
3.2 No migratory bird species include seasonal
<15 16-40 41-65
66-90 >90
migratory spp. and long distance migrators
Score Maximum 10 points
2
4
6
8
10
4. Regional/Global significance 5 points
4.1 Number of associate and true mangrove
0.5 points for each endemic to a maximum of 2.5
species found only in the South China Sea
Score Maximum 2.5 points
4.2 Number of endangered & threatened species
0.5 points for each endangered species to a maximum of 2.5
Score Maximum 2.5 points
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Some of the original ranges for numbers of species greatly exceeded the observed values, whilst in
other instances the rank scores failed to adequately separate the sites due to the similarity in observed
values. Following a detailed discussion it was agreed to lower the upper limits for the number of true
mangrove and fish species, and to raise the upper limits for the numbers of crustacean and bird species.
The indicator "number of trophic levels below the top carnivore in the terrestrial food chain" was
discussed at length. In recognition of the fact that, this indicator was fairly consistent across sites, (i.e. it
did not discriminate between sites) it was agreed to delete this class of indicator and to reassign the
points across other elements of the indicators of biological diversity. The finally agreed ranking scheme
is presented in Table 1.
Table 2
Indicators for socio-economic considerations to be used in the ranking of
mangrove sites bordering the South China Sea.
Indicator scale
Class of Indicator
Score
1. Reversibility of Threats
1. Change of area (% Lost over ten years)
<5
6-10
11-25
>25
Score max 20
20
15
10
5
2.
Human population stress
(population density, people/Km2) in
<40 40-199
200-400 >400
the site 10
Score max 10
10
6
4
2
2. National significance/priority-Government support
1. National priority
Low
Medium
High
Score max 20
2
10
20
3. Financial considerations /co-financing
1. Project cost ($US)
<150,000
150,000
>150,000
Score max 10
10
5
0
2. Co-financing commitment 10
<1/1
1/1
>1/1
Score max 10
0
5
10
4. Stakeholders involvement 30
Local government (in cash/in-kind) Low
Medium
High
Score max 8
2
5
8
Central government (in cash/in-kind)
Low
Medium
High
Score max 8
2
5
8
NGOs/Civil Society (in cash/in-kind) Low
Medium
High
Score max 8
2
5
8
Private Sector (in cash/in-kind)
Low
Medium
High
Score max 6
1
3
6
Ranking of the mangrove potential demonstration sites
Following revision and finalisation of the environmental and biodiversity indicators, and agreement on
the rank scoring system, rank scores were determined in respect of each of the twenty-six potential
demonstration sites for which agreed data and supporting documentation were available. The
outcome of this exercise is presented in Table 3, which also presents the results in descending order
of priority. The top six ranked sites are highlighted in bold typeface. It should be noted that of the top
twelve priority sites in this listing, demonstration site proposals had been prepared for eleven, since
they were also ranked highly on the basis of environmental and biodiversity indices in the previous
cluster and ranking exercises.
The RWG-M reiterated its previous decision that determination of rank with respect to the socio-
economic indicators should be confined to the fourteen demonstration site proposals, since the
validity of measures of support in-kind and in-cash can only be estimated in broad terms without a
defined set of actions such as those contained in the proposals. Table 4 presents the outcome of the
rank scoring of the socio-economic indicators for these fourteen sites. Again, sites have been ranked
in this table in descending order of priority.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 6
Page 3
Table 3
Values of agreed environmental parameters and rank score for twenty-six, potential mangrove demonstration sites. M = missing
values.
True
Associate
No.
No. resident
Resident Zones spp.
Migratory
Endangered &
Present area mangrove
mangrove
crustacean.
Total
fish spp.
bird spp.
associations
bird spp.
threatened spp.
Rank
spp.
spp.
spp.
score
Ha score no. score no. score no. score no. score no. score no. score no. score no. score
Trad
Province
7,031 28 33 15 36 5 55 4 32 4 98 6 5 12 24 4.0 0 0.0 78.0 1
Can
Gio
8,958 28 32 15 42 5 103
6 28 2 96 6 3 8 34 4
0 0.0 74.0 2
Pak
Phanang
Bay
8,832 28 25 12 13 3 85 4 36 4 72 4 3 8 45 6
0 0.0 69.0 3
Batu
Ampar
65,585 35 21 9 5 1 51 4 11 2 19 2 5 12 27 4
M 0.0 69.0 3
Ca
Mau
5,239 28 30 15 40 5 36 2 12 2 18 2 3 8 53 6
2 1.0 68.5 5
Quinglangang
1,189 21 25 12 5 1 90 4 60 4 39 2 6 12 32 12 2 1.0 68.5 5
Welu
River
Estuary
5,478 28 33 15 28 5 52 4 25 2 69 4 3 8 15 2
0 0.0 68.0
7
Quezon
1,939 21 32 15 7 1 11 2 5 2 81 4 5 12 43 4
3 1.5 62.5
8
DongXhaiGang
1,513 21 16 6 6 1 84 4 32 4 43 2 5 12 35 12 0 0.0 62.0
9
Bengkalis
42,459 35 18 6 7 1 3 2 12 2 16 2 7 12 15 2
M
0.0
62.0
9
Ngurah
Rai
1,374 21 25 12 6 1 34 2 38 4 38 2 6 12 42 6
M
0.0
60.0
11
Coron
1,296 21 26 12 1 1 13 2 7 2 42 4 5 12 34 4
1 0.5 58.5
12
Belitung
Island
22,457 35 8 3 5 1 71 4 5 2 M
0 5 12 M
0
M
0.0
57.0
13
Xuan
Thuy
1,775 21 11 3 30 5 90 4 61 6 31 2 3 8 62 6
2 1.0 56.0
14
Fangchenggang
1,415 21 10 3 8 1 71 4 67 6 42 2 4 8 145
8
5 2.5 55.5
15
Busuanga
1,298 21
24 9 4 1 9 2 6 2 72 4 5 12 32 4 1 0.5 55.5
15
Thung Kha Bay - Savi Bay
3,543
21
23
9
15
3
36
2
58
4
13
2
4
8
8
2
0
0.0
51.0
17
San
Vicente
133 21 14 6 1 1 13 2 6 2 36 2 5 12 40 2
0 0.0 48.0
18
Shangkou
812 14 9 3 7 1 95 4 65 6 28 2 4 8 76 8
0 0.0 46.0
19
Kung
Kraben
Bay
640 14 27 12 15 3 35 2 19 2 75 4 2 4 16 4.0 2 1.0 45.5
20
Tien
Yen
2,537 21 13 6 31 5 79 4 51 4 M
0 2 4 M
0 0 0.0
44.0
21
Subic
148 7 23 9 3 1 16 2 8 2 44 6 3 8 57 6
2 0.5 41.5
22
Ulugan
790 14 16 6 1 1 13 2 8 2 42 4 4 8 39 4
1 0.0 41.0
23
San
Jose
483 7 25
12 3 1 7 2 7 2 48 4 4 8 37 4 1 0.5 40.5
24
Futien
82 7 7 3 4 1 11 2 29 2 58 4 3 8 99 8
0 0.0 35.0
25
Angke
Kaput
328 7 12 3 7 1 22 2 29 2 40 2 7 12 4 2
M
0.0
31.0
26
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 6
Page 4
Table 4
Rank score for agreed socio-economic parameters in respect of fourteen potential,
mangrove demonstration sites, bordering the South China Sea.
Local
Central NGOs Private
Change Pop'n National Project Co-financing
gov.
gov.
civil
sector
Total
Rank
in area stress priority
cost commitment support support society support
Trad Province
20 10 20 0
10
5
8 8
3 84 1
Batu Ampar
20 10 20 0
5
5
8 8
6 82 2
Fangchenggang
15 6 20 0
10
8 8 8 6 81 3
Busuanga
20 10 20 0
10
5
5 8
1 79 4
Welu River Estuary
20 6 10 0
10
5 8 5 1 65 5
Ca Mau
20 2 20 0
0
5 8 2 3 60 6
Angke Kaput
20 2 2 0
5
8 5 8 6 56 7
Xuan Thuy
20 2 10 0
0
2 8 8 3 53 8
Quinglangang
5 4 10 0
10
5 8 5 3 50 9
Can Gio
20 6 2 0
0
8 2 5 6 49 10
Bengkalis
10 6 10 0
5
8 2 5 3 49 10
Ngurah Rai
20 2 2 0
5
8 8 2 1 48 12
Quezon
5 6 10 10
0
5 5 5 1 47 13
Pak Phanang Bay
20 2 2 0
10
2 5 2 3 46 14
Table 5 presents the combined outcome of the ranking of the fourteen sites, using both environmental
and socio-economic indicators. It should be noted that this combination involves equal weighting to
both classes of indicator, a weighting which was not discussed and which requires agreement prior to
finalisation of the recommended priority listing for intervention.
Table 5
Priority ranking of the fourteen potential demonstration site proposals based on
the environmental and socio-economic indicators individually and collectively.
Socio-economic
Environmental
Indicators
Overall
Indicators
Grand total
Total
score
Rank1 Total
score Rank2
Overall rank
score
Trad Province
78 1
84
1
162 1
Batu Ampar
69 3
82
2
151 2
Fangchenggang
56 11 81 3
137 3
Busuanga
56 11 79 4
135 4
Welu River Estuary
68 7
65
5
133 5
Ca Mau
69 3
60
6
129 6
Can Gio
74 2
49
10
123 7
Quinglangang
69 3
50
9
119 8
Pak Phanang Bay
69 3
46
14
115 9
Bengkalis
62 8
49
10
111 10
Xuan Thuy
56 14 53 8
109 11
Quezon
61 9
47
13
108 12
Ngurah Rai
60 10 48
12
108 12
Angke Kaput
31 14 56 7 87 14
Table 6 presents a comparison of the rank scores for each of the fourteen sites with respect to the
environmental and socio-economic indicators individually and combined. Sites are ranked in
descending order in this table within each of the three clusters identified in Figure 1. Table 6 also
provides information regarding the primary purpose of the proposed activities at each demonstration
site.
1 Based on the twenty-six sites ranked in table 3.
2 Based on the fourteen sites ranked in table 4.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 6
Page 5
Table 6
Rank scores for agreed parameters for mangrove, potential demonstration sites,
arranged according to the clusters illustrated in Figure 1 of Annex 5.
Total score
Total score Grand Overall
socio-
Demonstration purpose
environmental total
rank
economic
Cluster 1
Trad Province
84 78
162 1
Community based- management for restoration
Welu River Estuary
65 68
133 5
Reversing degradation
Can Gio
46 74
120 7
Management for eco-tourism
Pak Phanang Bay
46 69
115 9
Management for coastline protection
Cluster 2
Batu Ampar
82 69
151 2
Management for multiple uses
Busuanga
79 56
135 4
Multiple management through tenurial instruments
Ca Mau
63 69
132 6
Management for ecological services
Quinglangang
48 69
117 8
Protection of endangered species
Bengkalis
49 62
111 10
Management for charcoal production and restoration
Quezon
47 61
108 12
Participatory management for aqua-silviculture
Ngurah Rai
48 60
108 12
Management for training and public awareness
Angke Kaput
56 31
87 14
Management for environmental education
Cluster 3
Fangchenggang
81 56
137 3
Cross-sectoral management
Xuan Thuy
53 56
109 11
Management for biodiversity conservation
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 7
Page 1
ANNEX 7
Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Mangroves with Emphasis on the Period October 2003 to June 2004
Table 1
Agreed work plan for delivery of the required substantive outputs of the preparatory phase from the mangrove SEAs; administrative
and financial reports; and for amendment of the Memoranda of Understanding.
Year
2003
2004
Month
October November
December
January February
March
April
May
June
Week
starting 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29
5 12 19 26 2 9
16 23 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14
Nt'l Com. Mtgs
x
x
x
x
x
x
NTWG Mtg
X
IMC mtg
X
RWG mtgs
RSTC Mtg
X
PSC mtg
X
Demo-sites
X
Printing
SEA 2nd draft
31s
PCU review
12th
Administrative
Rpts
Outstanding 6 mth.
C-I-P
rpts
24th
Outstanding audit
rpts.
Budget Rev.
Country
Budget approval
x
PCU
Work plan final
country
Work plan approv.
PCU
MoU Rev. PCU
MoU Sig. Country
x
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 7
Page 2
Table 1 continued
Agreed work plan for delivery of the required substantive outputs of the preparatory phase from the mangrove SEAs;
administrative and financial reports; and for amendment of the Memoranda of Understanding.
Year
2003
2004
Month
October November
December
January February
March
April
May
June
Week
starting 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29
5 12 19 26 2 9
16 23 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14
National Rpts
Nat'l meta-
SEAs to submit entries to SEA START RC no later than 31st December
database
Nat'l Legislation
SEAs to liaise with National legal expert and finalise drafts no later than 30th Jan.
2004
National reviews
China, Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam to finalise by
China, Philippines
1st December
finalise major revisions
PCU edits
x x
SEA clearance
x
x
Camera ready
x
x
Publication
x x
Regional
Overview
Inputs from SEA
24th
PCU compile &
31st
dispatch
SEA review
7th
PCU camera ready
x
Publication
x
MoU revision must be signed by 30/11/2003
Regional Scientific Conference
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3
Annex 7
Page 3
Table 2
Schedule of meetings for 2004 (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -C = Coral reefs; -S = Seagrass; -W = Wetlands; -F= Fisheries; LbP = Land-based
Pollution; RTF-E = Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation; RTF-L = Regional Task Force on Legal Matters.)
S
M T W
T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M
January
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31
H
Chinese NY
February
1
2
3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
Regional
H
Science
RSTC-4
PSC-3
Conference
March
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30 31
RWG-
H
Ad
hoc
LbP-4
April
1 2 3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30
LbP-4
H
Thai NY
RWG-F-4
May
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31
RTF-L-2
ExComm
June
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29 30
RTF-E-2
July
1 2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31
August
1
2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
30 31
H
RWG- S-5
Septembe
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30
RWG-C-5
RWG-M-5
October
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31
RWG-W-5
RWG- F-5
Ramadan
November
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30
Ramadan
H
RWG-LbP-5
December
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30 31
H
RSTC-5
PSC-4
Xmas
H