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
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Fisheries Component
Sabah, Malaysia, 5th 8th September 2005
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, September 2005
UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-F.6/3
First published in Thailand in 2006 by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Copyright © 2006, 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, 2nd Floor Block B, Rajdamnern Avenue,
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel.
+66 2 288 1886
Fax.
+66 2 288 1094
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:
Commercial fishing vessels, Ang Sila, Chonburi Province, Thailand, by
Mr. Christopher Paterson.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2006. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries. UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-F.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-F.6/3
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 ELECTION OF OFFICERS .......................................................................................................... 1
2.2 DOCUMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ......................................................... 2
2.3 ORGANISATION OF WORK........................................................................................................ 2
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA ................................................................................... 2
4.
REPORTS REGARDING OVERALL PROGRESS TO DATE...................................................... 2
4.1 STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS FOR 2004 AND 1ST HALF 2005: PROGRESS
REPORTS; EXPENDITURE REPORTS; AUDIT REPORTS; AND MOU AMENDMENTS ....................... 2
5.
STATUS OF NATIONAL SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS.................................................................. 3
5.1 STATUS OF NATIONAL REPORTS: ENGLISH EDITING AND PCU PREPARATION FOR
PUBLICATION .......................................................................................................................... 3
5.2 STATUS OF THE PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL REPORTS AND AWARENESS MATERIALS IN
NATIONAL LANGUAGES............................................................................................................ 3
6.
UPDATE OF NATIONAL DATA FOR THE REGIONAL SOUTH CHINA SEA GIS
DATABASE AND META-DATABASE FOR THE FISHERIES COMPONENT ............................ 4
7.
TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAINING
PROGRAMME DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE OF THE PROJECT .............................. 5
8.
STATUS OF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE TRIAL OF A BLAST FISHING DETECTION
DEVICE.......................................................................................................................................... 6
9.
A SYSTEM OF REFUGIA FOR FISH STOCKS OF TRANSBOUNDARY SIGNIFICANCE
IN THE GULF OF THAILAND....................................................................................................... 8
10. PROMOTION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES.................................... 9
11. CURRENT STATUS OF DEMONSTRATION SITE PROPOSALS FROM THE HABITAT
COMPONENT.............................................................................................................................. 11
12. REVISION OF THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME ................................... 12
13. PREPARATION OF INPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON FISHERIES
TO THE SECOND REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE.................................................... 12
14. REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON FISHERIES .............................................................................................................13
15. DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON FISHERIES .............................................................................................................14
16. ANY OTHER BUSINESS ............................................................................................................ 14
17. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING.................................................................... 14
18. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING.................................................................................................... 14
i
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Capacity Building and Training Needs Assessment
ANNEX 5
Strategic Approach to the Establishment of a System of Fisheries Refugia for
the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
ANNEX 6
Work Plan (2004-2007) and Schedule of Meetings for 2006
ii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-F.6/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
Address
1.1.1 Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director opened the meeting, at 08.30 am on 5th September 2005,
and welcomed participants on behalf of the Executive Director of UNEP, Dr. Klaus Töpfer; and the
Assistant Executive Director, and Director of the UNEP Division of Global Environment Facility
Co-ordination, Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf.
1.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that the agenda was very full and contained a number of important items
requiring discussion and decision during the meeting. Of these he noted that he had been working
with Dr. George Woodman and Professor Ridzwan Bin Abdul Rahman to further elaborate the
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the execution of the blast fishing trials in the Tun Mustapha
Park and this was an important item for discussion by the group. In this connection he noted that
representatives of the Sabah Parks and Department of Fisheries would participate in this section of
the meeting.
1.1.3 Dr. Pernetta noted that an important matter before the group was a consideration of the
further elaboration and implementation of the system of refugia for transboundary fish stocks which
constituted an important action item during the operational phase of the project.
1.1.4 In conclusion, Dr. Pernetta expressed the hope that the working group would be able to
complete the business of the meeting and that although the meeting would involve hard work on the
part of the participants it would still be an enjoyable experience. Dr. Pernetta invited Professor
Ridzwan to say a few words on behalf of the hosts, including the Universiti Malaysia Sabah and the
Sabah Parks and Department of Fisheries.
1.1.5 Professor Ridzwan welcomed participants to Kudat, Sabah on behalf of the Sabah State
authorities and the Universiti Malaysia, Sabah, and expressed his pleasure at the opportunity of
hosting this meeting. He noted that the Sabah authorities were pleased that the Regional Working
Group had decided to convene the meeting in Sabah since they had great interest in the conduct of
blast fishing trials planned for execution in the Tun Mustapha Park. He wished the members well in
their deliberations.
1.2 Introduction
of
Members
1.2.1 The Project Director welcomed Ir. Parlin Tambunan, Director of Fisheries Resources, and
fisheries focal point for Indonesia to his first meeting of the RWG-F and noted with pleasure that once
again SEAFDEC was well represented in the meeting. He invited members to introduce themselves to
the meeting and the list of participants is attached as Annex 1 to this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1 Election
of
Officers
2.1.1
Members recalled that at the fifth meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Fisheries
Component (RWG-F) held on Phu Quoc Island, 11-14 October 2004, Mr. Noel Barut, Focal Point from
Philippines, Dr. Dao Manh Son, Focal Point from Viet Nam, and Mr. Pirochana Saikliang, Focal Point
from Thailand were elected as, Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur respectively.
2.1.2 Members recalled further that the Rules of Procedure state that, the Regional Working Group
shall elect, from amongst the members, a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur to serve for
one year. The rules state further that, officers shall be eligible for re-election no more than once. The
working group noted that since Mr. Noel Barut and Dr. Dao Manh Son have served the Regional
Working Group for more than one year and have been re-elected once, they were ineligible for
re-election to the same office.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 2
2.1.3 Mr. Pirochana Saikliang, nominated Ir. Parlin as Chairperson. Ir. Parlin declined on the
grounds that this was his first meeting but expressed his willingness to serve as Vice-Chairperson.
Dr. Son proposed Mr. Pirochana as Chairperson and Ir Parlin as Vice-Chairperson and there being no
further nominations these officers were elected by acclamation. Dr. Dao Manh Son, was nominated
and elected as Rapporteur for the meeting.
2.2
Documentation and Administrative Arrangements
2.2.1 The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to introduce the documentation available to the
meeting and Mr. Christopher Paterson reviewed the documents listed in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-F.6/Inf.2, noting that these had been lodged on the project website. Members were invited to
table any additional documents including copies of new national publications if any. The list of
documents available to the meeting is contained in Annex 2 of this report.
2.3
Organisation of Work
2.3.1
Mr. Pirochana invited the Secretariat to introduce the draft programme for the conduct of
business contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/Inf.3. Mr. Paterson noted that the agenda
was very full and would require intensive work to ensure it was completed in the time available. He
noted that administratively there were a number of complications due to the number of items, which
necessitated a full schedule without the opportunity for the PCU to complete and duplicate the
meeting report in advance of agenda item 17.
2.3.2
Mr. Paterson noted that the field visit to the Tun Mustapha Park was scheduled for the
morning of the 7th September and the representatives of the Department of Fisheries, Sabah, and
Sabah Parks would be present during the afternoon session of that day for discussion of the agenda
item dealing with the blast fishing trials. This would necessitate moving agenda item 8 from the
afternoon of the 6th to the afternoon of the 7th September.
2.3.3
Dr. Yasuhisa Kato noted that regrettably the representatives from SEAFDEC would have to
leave on the evening of the 7th to participate in another meeting in Kota Kinabalu the following day
and expressed the hope that it might be possible to re-schedule agenda item 10 at an earlier time. It
was suggested and agreed that agenda item 8 be re-scheduled to the afternoon of 7th September and
agenda item 10 be rescheduled to the afternoon of the 6th September.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson introduced the Provisional Agenda prepared for the meeting as document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/1, and the Annotated Provisional Agenda, document UNEP/GEF/SCS
RWG-F.6/2 and invited the members to propose any amendments or additional items for discussion.
3.2
No additional items were proposed for inclusion on the agenda and since no amendments
were suggested the agenda was adopted as it appears in Annex 3 of this report.
4. REPORTS
REGARDING
OVERALL PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of the Administrative Reports for 2004 and 1st half 2005: Progress Reports;
Expenditure Reports; Audit Reports; and MoU Amendments
4.1.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/4,
"Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the participating
countries" and draw to the attention of the meeting any outstanding issues or matters requiring the
attention of the RWG-F.
4.1.2
Mr. Paterson noted that the submission of progress and expenditure reports continued to
be a problem with substantial delays on the part of some focal points. He noted that audit reports for
2004 remained outstanding from Cambodia and Thailand and that the six-month reports for the period
June to December 2004 had all been received after the due date. In the case of the reports for the
period January to June 2005 only Cambodia and Viet Nam had submitted reports and Mr. Paterson
sought clarification from the group concerning when the outstanding reports could be expected.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 3
4.1.3
Mr. Paterson drew the attention of members to Table 4 in the document regarding
co-finance realised to date and noted that even though the figures for the first half of 2005 were
incomplete the total, actual co-financing was very close (96%) to the estimated total.
4.1.4
Ir. Parlin noted that no funds had been received from UNEP during 2005 but his reports for
2004 had been submitted. During subsequent discussion it was noted that the 2004 progress report
was incomplete hence the PCU had been unable to release the next cash advance. Mr. Barut noted
that he had some difficulty in following the new format for the reports and in determining what
co-financing should be recorded in the 6 month progress reports.
4.1.5
The Project Director provided clarification stating that he was aware that some focal points
had received cash from supporting organisations for the convening of meetings hence space was now
provided to include this in the reports. He noted that personnel costs associated with participation in
national level meetings had been calculated in the past on the basis of the number of days and the
numbers of people participating in each meeting. These calculations would continue to be made in
this way and the only change was the provision of space for reporting additional co-financing if any.
4.1.6
There followed a review of the co-financing estimates that had been approved by the
Project Steering Committee for the second phase of the project. Following some clarification the
Regional Working Group agreed that these seemed reasonable in the light of the tasks detailed in the
amended MoU.
5.
STATUS OF NATIONAL SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS
5.1
Status of National Reports: English Editing and PCU Preparation for Publication
5.1.1 The Chairperson invited the PCU member to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
F.6/5, "Status of the substantive reports and other outputs from the Specialised Executing Agencies
defined in the work plan for the fisheries component in the participating countries" and to draw to the
attention of the meeting the status of the National Reports, including the English language editing and
preparation by the PCU for publication.
5.1.2 Mr. Paterson noted that the English versions of the national reports had all been edited and
reviewed at the national level and were now being formatted and finalised by the PCU for publication.
He noted further that no new national language publications or outputs had been received by the PCU
since the last meeting.
5.2
Status of the Publication of National Reports and Awareness Materials in National
Languages
5.2.1 The members noted that public awareness materials had been presented by Cambodia,
Thailand and Viet Nam during the previous meeting and the Chairperson invited the focal points to
brief the meeting on recent developments with respect to the publication of national reports and
development of public awareness materials.
5.2.2 Mr. Barut outlined developments in the case of Philippines and presented an A4 version of a
flip chart intended for use in all coastal municipalities as a teaching aid, regarding important coastal
habitats and systems, their use and threats to their sustainability. This had been produced in both
English and Philipino and would be distributed to all coastal municipalities. He noted that 15 posters
(3 x 7 feet) had been produced for display in markets and landing ports, together with stickers and
1,000 T-shirts for community fishers. He informed the RWG-F that he planned to produce a calendar
in 2006, which was presently being printed. He noted further that the SCS project was presented in all
fisheries related meetings in the Philippines and would be presented in a Philippines regional level
scientific conference later this month.
5.2.3 In the case of Indonesia it was noted that although no public awareness materials had been
developed to date, money remained in the budget for this purpose. Mr. Pirochana noted that the
national report was currently in press in Thai and that, CDs had been reproduced and were available
for distribution, he noted that some budget for producing such materials remained and would be used
during 2006.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 4
5.2.4 Dr. Son noted that no further public awareness materials had been developed in Viet Nam,
subsequent to those presented during the previous meeting.
5.2.5 There followed a discussion of the regional dissemination of these materials during which it
was agreed that following publication of the national reports in English the full text would be loaded on
the project website; that the reports in national language would be placed on the websites of the SEAs
and that the Project website would carry an image of the national reports with a link to the appropriate
SEA website.
5.2.6 It was agreed that the public awareness materials should also be loaded to the SEA and
project websites and members recalled that during the previous meetings focal points had agreed to
provide English translations of the text of these materials in order to determine whether they might be
more widely used than merely in the country of origin. The Project Director noted that no such
translations had been received to date.
5.2.7 Dr. Kato noted that a number of the national reports were extremely lengthy and that perhaps
it would be worthwhile considering the production of a short summary for wide dissemination. There
followed an extensive and detailed discussion regarding the purpose of such summaries, the target
audience and the potential value.
5.2.8 The Regional Working Group agreed that short (10 page) summaries should be produced,
highlighting the issues of importance to each country. These short summary papers should be based
on the table of contents of the national reports and pinpoint the significant contents of each section. It
was further agreed that the text of these reports would be provided to the PCU by the 15th October so
that they could be formatted and printed for distribution during the Regional Scientific Conference in
mid-November.
6.
UPDATE OF NATIONAL DATA FOR THE REGIONAL SOUTH CHINA SEA GIS
DATABASE AND META-DATABASE FOR THE FISHERIES COMPONENT
6.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to review the present status of the South China Sea
Regional GIS database and the existing fisheries GIS and metadata sets. Mr. Paterson highlighted
the information contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.6/6 "Development of the Regional
South China Sea GIS Database and Metadata for the Fisheries Component". He reminded Focal
Points that it is their responsibility under the Memoranda of Understanding, to ensure that they
present new fisheries related GIS and metadata sets to the PCU as they become available at the
national level.
6.2
Mr. Paterson noted that the PCU was working closely with the SEA START RC in the
development of regional databases based on submissions from the focal points. He noted further that
the data sets were being reconciled and that actions were being taken to enable the national focal
points to up-date the databases directly. The intention was to provide a regional GIS database that
could be searched and summarised in table or map form by members and others having interests in
the environmental state of the South China Sea.
6.3
The Focal Points were invited to comment on the completeness of the national level GIS and
metadata sets being used in the South China Sea GIS and meta-database, and highlight any fisheries
data sets that are emerging at the national level that may be available for use in the regional
databases.
6.4
During discussion clarification was provided regarding the format for submissions and the
meta-data and GIS database forms were briefly reviewed. Mr. Barut noted that in the case of the
Philippines meta-data, more recent datasets exist and he had hard copies with him but would provide
electronic files to the PCU next week, he noted also that there was no change to the GIS data. In the
case of Indonesia it was noted that no data were yet filed with the PCU and Ir. Parlin indicated that he
needed copies of the formats and would ensure that his staff commenced work on this matter as soon
as practical and that he envisaged making submissions by the end of October.
6.5
Dr. Kato noted that SEAFDEC was working with FAO to streamline the process of data
submission by the governments including definition of parameters and minimum requirements. He
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 5
noted that SEAFDEC would be convening a workshop in mid-October regarding fisheries statistics
data and suggested that the project may wish to participate in that meeting. He suggested further that
the issues of fisheries data and GIS-data represented a potentially fruitful area for future co-operation
and suggested that Mr. Paterson contact SEAFDEC with a view to establishing linkages between the
South China Sea and SEAFDEC GIS databases.
6.6
Dr. Son noted that Viet Nam had new GIS data base files available which he had brought in
electronic format to the meeting and that he would be submitting additional meta-data information by
the end of the month. Copies were lodged with the meeting Secretary for inclusion in the regional
databases. Mr. Pirochana noted that he had up-dated GIS data for Thailand that would be submitted
to the PCU by the end of October.
6.7
There followed a discussion of the potential uses and value of the regional database in terms
of the types of information that could be used by the focal points at a national level. Mr. Pirochana
indicated that information relating to spawning and nursery areas, feeding and fishing grounds should
be included in the system and proposed that where maps of such information existed at the national
level these should be digitised and entered into the regional GIS database.
6.8
In this connection Dr. Kato noted that following the discussions of the fourth Regional
Working Group meeting in Manila regarding the issue of fisheries refugia and noting the importance of
spawning and nursery grounds, SEAFDEC now routinely included the collection of information
regarding juvenile fish distribution during their oceanographic cruises that might be useful in this
context. It was noted during discussion however that, identifying spawning and nursery areas was far
from easy on the basis of limited cruise samples.
6.9
It was noted during the final discussion that there might be value in collecting and collating
data for commercially endangered species such as swordfish; or data relating to destructive gear
distribution; or indicators. Dr. Kato noted in this connection that it was extremely difficult to obtain data
for most endangered species and that he would welcome the opportunity of exploring further the
possibility of including the SEAFDEC indicators amongst the data being collected.
7.
TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAINING PROGRAMME
DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE OF THE PROJECT
7.1
Mr. Pirochana invited the PCU Member to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F6/7
concerning the development of the training and capacity building programme to be operated during
the operational phase of the project. Mr. Paterson reminded members that during the preparatory
phase of the project each SEA had been responsible for a set of activities, which had been
undertaken either from within the resources of the SEA itself or, through partnerships with other
organisations and institutions in each country. During the operational phase of the project new and
additional tasks had been added to the MoU, and the questionnaire developed by the PCU was
designed to ascertain the extent to which capacity had already been strengthened in the SEAs and
the areas where further capacity building was required.
7.2
Mr. Paterson proceeded to review the questionnaire and provided information regarding the
required responses from the focal points. There followed some discussion and it was agreed that all
members would complete the questionnaire overnight and the PCU would collate the responses for
further discussion by the Working Group.
7.3
The responses were subsequently combined into single tables that were duplicated and
distributed to members for their consideration and discussion. These were amended slightly and the
finally agreed outcomes are presented in Annex 4 of this report.
7.4
Dr. Pernetta noted that training opportunities in the framework of the project could be of three
types: individual training primarily focussed on the individuals working at the demonstrations sites of 2
to 6 months duration; or group training in terms of short periods for whole groups of people; and
thirdly more formal group training through workshops and courses.
7.5
Dr. Pernetta noted for example that the mangrove working group was recommending that the
Trat Province mangrove demonstration site would be the base for groups of community leaders to
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 6
learn from the Trat communities their experiences in the community based management of
mangroves. He noted that perhaps the group might wish to consider a training course in blast fishing
detection or a seminar/workshop on the development of fisheries refugia in 2007.
7.6
Mr. Barut noted that the Philippines would be extremely interested in some form of training
regarding blast fishing detection, based on the outcome of the pilot activity planned for the Tun
Mustapha Park. Mr. Parlin indicated that he felt a critical need was for training of fisheries officers in
habitat maintenance in support of fisheries.
7.7
Dr. Son and Mr. Pirochana noted the urgent need for training in community based
management of fisheries habitats and resources. Dr. Worawit felt that there were few, good examples
of community based or co-management of fisheries in the region. He felt that once the regional
"Guidelines for using group user rights in co-management of small-scale fisheries in the ASEAN
member countries" were finalised these would form a solid basis for the development of training in
community based management of fisheries.
7.8
Mr. Pirochana noted that study visits for groups of community leaders to areas or sites with
successful community based management would be very useful and Mr. Somsak noted that there
was an ASEAN SEAFDEC project on community based management operated jointly by Malaysia
and Thailand, while Mr. Barut noted some successes in the Visayas and Bicol in the Philippines in
community based management of fisheries. He noted that in the case of Bicol Bay considerable time
had been spent in persuading the Mayors to jointly manage the fisheries resources of the Bay.
Another example of a success was in the case of whale hunters who had been supported in
developing tourist activities focussing on whale watching with the result that the family incomes had
been improved.
7.9
Mr. Paterson noted that perhaps the group should consider study tours in 2007 to the
demonstration sites to examine first hand the successes of different types of fisheries management
approaches, or workshops focussing on the spatial zoning and other aspects of the fisheries refugia.
8.
STATUS OF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE TRIAL OF A BLAST FISHING DETECTION
DEVICE
8.1
In opening this agenda item the Project Director welcomed the representatives of the Sabah
State authorities and Blast Fishing Committee members to the meeting of the Regional Working
Group on Fisheries. He explained that the Regional Working Group on Fisheries was established by
the participating countries to review aspects of fisheries management in the region, and in particular
to develop a regional system of fisheries refugia. He noted that at the time of approval of the entire
South China Sea project, which encompassed six sub-components in seven countries, the proposed
testing of a blast fishing detection device had been included in the project document which was
endorsed by the GEF Operational Focal Point for Malaysia, the Ministry of Science, Technology, and
Environment on behalf of the Government, on 25 March, 1999.
8.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that during previous meetings, the RWG-F had discussed the draft
proposal for the trial of a blast fishing detection device in the Tun Mustapha Park and the purpose of
this session was to review the proposed work plan for the activities. The Memorandum of
Understanding between the Teng Hoi Conservation Organisation, the Department of Fisheries,
Sabah, and the SCS Project on behalf of UNEP was under finalisation and it was hoped that activities
would commence next year.
8.3
Mr. Pirochana invited Professor Ridzwan to introduce the members of the Blast fishing
Committee and the list of the members is included in Annex 1 of this report. Professor Ridzwan
invited Mr. Daim Basrun Deputy Director of the Fisheries Department of Sabah, to say a view words
on behalf of the State Government authorities, Mr. Basrun welcomed the RWG-F participants to
Sabah and noted the interest and support of the Sabah authorities for this pilot activity. He expressed
interest in learning more regarding the management and execution of this important activity.
8.4
Dr. George Woodman reviewed the previous work on the detection device and outlined the
technical elements of the present proposal including the development of buoys and the use of three
such buoys to triangulate the position of bomb blasts. He noted that during the present trial, buoys
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 7
would be deployed daily and retrieved for downloading data and that remote communication between
the buoys and the boats would not be direct. He noted that the task for Teng Hoi would be to develop
and construct the three buoys including the development of the software required to run the system.
He noted that the State authorities with scientific support from the Universiti Malaysia Sabah would
undertake site assessment and identify suitable areas for deployment of the system; undertake a
review of the legal instruments; a review of various aspects of the economics of blast fishing and its'
detection; and a public awareness programme.
8.5
He expressed the hope that the project would result in: the demonstration of the functionality
of the equipment; trained staff in Sabah; improved awareness of the legal requirements for successful
prosecution; improved enforcement of existing regulations banning blast fishing; and improved public
awareness. Professor Ridzwan indicated that the Park encompasses some 50 islands, and that blast
fishing used to be common in areas adjacent to the main islands, but that now it was apparently more
common further away. He noted that the intention was to locate areas during the site assessment, in
which significant bombing was continuing in order to conduct the trials.
8.6
Professor Ridzwan and Dr. Woodman outlined the work plan of activities over the next two
years following signature of the MoU. These would commence with a project briefing of all
stakeholders in Sabah, following which the Universiti Malaysia Sabah, would conduct activities under
the guidance of the Blast Fishing Detection Committee and the State Security Committee. The
Fisheries Department would liaise with the federal authorities. It was noted that activities included
legal, economic and public awareness activities between January to June 2006 and that the Regional
Task Force on Economics and the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters of the South China Sea
project might assist in these aspects of the work plan.
8.7
During 2006 the procurement and development of the software and hardware (submersible
Buoys) should be completed prior to October 2006 with field trials and training (one month) being
undertaken in 2007. The trials would assist in making the device more user friendly on the basis of
experience during the trials. The timing of the trials is constrained by the bad weather period hence
commencement of field trials is likely to be at the end of the first quarter of 2007. Human listeners will
keep logs of noise events for comparison with the electronic records, noise filtering will be added
during the second set of trials, reducing the volumes of data stored in the system.
8.8
Mr. Basrun queried whether the activity would result in an operational system or a proto-type
and in response Dr. Woodman noted that by the end of the activity the system would be operational in
the sense that it would be possible to locate bomb blasts to within 30 metres, but it would not be
operational in real time since this would necessitate the development of the filtering software which
would be developed under the activity and the development of communications software and
hardware that would enable the signals from the detection device to be read in real time.
8.9
A number of queries were raised regarding the ownership of the activity and it was noted that
the activity was a partnership between UNEP, the GEF, the Teng Hoi Conservation Organisation, and
the Sabah Government. At the end of the project the Sabah Government would have the equipment,
the executable software files and trained personnel while Teng Hoi remained the owner of the
intellectual property represented by the software programmes.
8.10
Various technical issues were raised including the area of coverage of the system; whether
the magnitude of the individual blasts could be determined; whether the device could be on board
ship or permanently anchored; and the length of life of the batteries. In response it was noted that the
range of detection was of the order of 30 kilometers resulting in a detection area of around 900 km2;
that the magnitude of the blast could not be determined; that the system could be permanently
moored in suitable locations where protection was afforded by activities such as the seaweed farming,
but it could not be placed on board ship; and the battery life was designed to be in excess of 24
hours.
8.11
It was noted during discussion that the use of three detection arrays meant that triangulation
and pin-pointing the blast location would be more accurate but that in the absence of real time
communication with the boat, the device would be of little practical use for enforcement. In response
Dr. Woodman noted that if surveillance vessels could be deployed in the area where blasts were
occurring it might be possible to pin-point the location and use the blast detection evidence as
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 8
supporting evidence in a prosecution case. Following completion of these trials it would be possible to
up-grade the system such that the buoys could communicate with a remote station and provide data
regarding bomb blasts in real time. This required however additional investment in communications
technology and the requisite software.
9.
A SYSTEM OF REFUGIA FOR FISH STOCKS OF TRANSBOUNDARY SIGNIFICANCE IN
THE GULF OF THAILAND
9.1
The Chairperson invited the PCU Member to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
F.6/8 concerning the development of a strategy for the establishment of a system of fisheries refugia
for the Gulf of Thailand.
9.2
Members noted that the document referred specifically to the development of a system of
refugia in the Gulf of Thailand and noted further that this did not preclude countries outside the Gulf of
Thailand from developing refugia thus contributing to the development of a broader regional system of
refugia. The Project Director noted that the South China Sea project has as an objective the
development of a system of refugia for the Gulf of Thailand as a consequence of several factors
including the non-participation of China in this component of the overall project.
9.3
Dr. Somsak noted that the availability of information for the Gulf of Thailand was perhaps
better than for some other areas in the South China Sea, hence it might be easier to use the Gulf of
Thailand as a "pilot" activity in the development of a regional system of refugia. Dr. Kato noted that
such a pilot could be expanded as the opportunity arose and that all countries should promote the
concept and hence the regional system could be built from national contributions.
9.4
There followed a lengthy discussion of the nature of refugia and the types of refugia that may
relate to species of transboundary significance in the Gulf of Thailand during which it was agreed that
three scenarios were applicable:
1. A large population with seasonal or ontogenetic (spawning) migrations between fishing
grounds and reproductive refugia.
2. A metapopulation (series of sub-populations) with some local populations located in fishing
grounds and others in refugia. Populations located in unexploited areas provide larval
subsidies to the exploited populations.
3. In situ behavioural refugia (behaviour determines the seasonal unavailability of part of the
stock in the fishing ground). This type of refugia is probably the most familiar to fisheries
scientists because catchability and fishing gear selectivity has been a key fisheries research
area.
9.5
During discussion it was noted that detailed data were not available concerning the life-cycles
and movements of many fish stocks, nevertheless development of a system of refugia should
proceed, during the course of which the lack of data would become apparent and would identify future
areas for fisheries research. Dr. Kato noted that SEAFDEC was attempting to address this problem
through the inclusion of fish larval sampling in their cruises although there were many difficulties
associated with this work including problems of identification of larvae. He noted also that SEAFDEC
was involved in a programme of DNA analysis of round scad and mackerel to determine the
population characteristics.
9.6
The Regional Working Group noted that despite the lack of detailed data the national reports
contained clear information regarding the location of spawning and nursery areas for many species,
which could serve as the starting point for development of a system of refugia. It was agreed that the
PCU member would extract this information and prepare a summary of potential refugia sites for
review by the working group.
9.7
The working group proceeded to consider the draft framework for the development of the
regional system of refugia and agreed that overall this provided a reasonable starting point for the
development of both the strategy and the system itself. Concerning the goals, objectives, guiding
principles and expected outcomes for the regional Fisheries Refugia Strategy there was agreement
that the overall goal was to improve the use of spatial approaches in fisheries management in order to
make the exploitation of fish stocks more sustainable and to maintain habitat integrity. Specific
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 9
objectives might include: the protection of spawning and nursery areas; integrating fisheries
management into protected area management, that would necessitate coordination between fisheries
and environmental agencies; preventing degradation of habitats and consequent loss of important
species; and wider use of zoning within fisheries management measures.
9.8
There followed a discussion of the priorities, problems, challenges and performance
indicators for a regional refugia system. The working group recognised that the concept of refugia was
not well understood by fisheries managers in the countries and there was a need to disseminate the
concept more widely. In this connection Mr. Paterson suggested that he draft an article on behalf of
the Working Group for publication in the SEAFDEC magazine regarding the concept and its
development by the working group. He proposed to prepare a draft for circulation to all members who
could then comment and add to the draft as appropriate. Dr. Kato not only indicated his interest in
supporting this idea but further suggested that the PCU should draft a short concept note that could
be provided through SEAFDEC to the ASEAN working group dealing with the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries.
9.9
The priorities, problems, challenges, and performance indicators were discussed and agreed
and are presented in Table 2 of Annex 5 of this report. Table 3 of Annex 5 presents the outcome of
discussions regarding the procedures and processes that would need to be undertaken in order to
establish refugia at the national level. Whilst three steps were identified for the further elaboration of
the regional system the processes at the national level were discussed in more detail based on the
experiences of the Philippines who have now included the concept in their national fisheries
management plan and were in the process of formally establishing a number of such refugia.
9.10
During discussion it was noted by Dr. Kato that there might be a need to develop a national
policy regarding the establishment of refugia and in this connection it was noted that in the Philippines
the principle had been incorporated into the national fisheries management plans without the need for
a separate policy paper. It was suggested that the mechanisms for establishing refugia would be
different in each country, reflecting differences in the fisheries laws and regulations and their
relationships to the laws and regulations governing marine protected areas.
9.11
Dr. Kato highlighted the need for the community to be directly involved in management of the
refugia and the need for monitoring the outcome of the establishment of the refugia. Monitoring was
essential if the benefits of the system were to be widely appreciated both inside and outside the
fisheries management community. Mr. Somsak noted that the monitoring needed to cover not merely
the fish stocks but also the use of gear and changes in technology over time.
9.12
The Regional Working Group agreed that all countries should further promote the concept
and Mr. Paterson agreed to further develop the strategy in close consultation with the members of the
regional working group. He requested that those members who had not already done so, provide any
notes and suggestions on the matters discussed that he could then incorporate into a revision of the
strategy by the end of October.
10.
PROMOTION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES
10.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce this agenda item. Mr. Paterson noted that
a feature of the South China Sea project was the integration of fisheries management into habitat
management, the key issues being how to manage habitats for the benefit of fisheries and how to
manage fisheries to minimise habitat impacts. Mr. Paterson suggested, and the Chairperson agreed
that, each focal point briefly outline their actions at the national level to promote the code of conduct.
10.2
Mr. Barut noted that there were several activities ongoing in the Philippines in collaboration
with SEAFDEC, including improvement of fisheries statistics, development of indicators, and catch per
unit of effort, designed to improve the ability of the Philippine fisheries authorities to promote the code
of conduct. Mr. Parlin noted that the guidelines had been translated and the principles of the CCRF
had been incorporated in the new Fisheries Law, workshops conducted in many provinces and
districts to familiarise stakeholders with the code. In terms of implementing the code, he noted that
Indonesia was now in the process of developing three pilot areas for implementation of the code.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 10
10.3
Dr. Son noted that in Viet Nam, the guidelines for responsible fisheries were being promoted
through workshops with fishing communities and other stakeholders, and considerable efforts were
being directed towards public education and awareness concerning the protection of marine
resources and environment. In the case of Thailand, Mr. Pirochana noted that there were many
activities promoting the regional guidelines, and a recent focus was the anchovy fishery in Pattani
Province where zoning had been adopted as a conflict resolution mechanism. He noted that Thailand
was collaborating with SEAFDEC in activities similar to those being conducted in the Philippines and
with FAO in organising a series of seminars focussing on a reduction in fishing capacity particularly
trawlers and push nets. Each Seminar involves 30 representatives from the fishing community and
twenty from the Government Fisheries Department and other organisations. The outcome of these
seminars would result in concrete proposals for high-level government consideration by the middle of
next year.
10.4
Mr. Paterson noted that: the habitat demonstration sites provide an opportunity to integrate
fisheries management into the site based activities; many of the demonstration sites identify key
threats from fisheries; and he requested guidance from the group regarding how the RWG-F could
assist in addressing these threats. Dr. Kato noted that the majority of the fishing related threats were
in fact covered by the Code and that the easiest starting point would be to extract the relevant
portions of the regional guidelines and promote these amongst stakeholders.
10.5
During discussion it was noted that the South China Sea Project had financially supported the
participation of the Thai focal points for the habitat sub-components in "The National Workshop on
Human Resource Development for Coastal Fisheries Management", a SEAFDEC meeting, convened
in August 2005 in Koh Chang to encourage discussion between fisheries managers and
environmental managers.
10.6
Dr. Kato outlined the process for the development of the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries and the Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, and the roles that SEAFDEC and
ASEAN have played in this to date. He noted that one major fisheries issue in this region that is not
covered in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is the management of small scale fisheries.
He stated that ASEAN and SEAFDEC are working together to develop guidelines for responsible
small scale fisheries that are designed to assist member countries in improving the use of
co-management, collection of fisheries statistics and fisheries indicators. Guidelines on each of these
topics are now being prepared and it is intended that they will become part of the regional guidelines
for the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. He noted further that FAO was also intending to
prepare guidance on the management of small-scale fisheries and that it was the intention of ASEAN
and SEAFDEC that the regional guidelines be used by FAO.
10.7
Dr. Kato proposed that guidelines for fisheries refugia be added as an additional set of
guidelines, based on, the fisheries refugia document tabled during the meeting, and associated
discussions. He suggested that the PCU member prepare an overview of the fisheries refugia activity
of the South China Sea Project, and send this to him during October for review. He stated that if the
PCU member prepares this overview for inclusion in the guidelines, that the South China Sea Project
logo could be added to the document.
10.8
Mr. Somsak asked whether SEAFDEC or the countries fund the translation of the Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the regional guidelines and Dr. Kato responded that both
SEAFDEC and the countries share the costs. He noted however that simple translation of the code
and guidelines did not address fully the member countries needs and that there was a need to
prepare materials in a more appropriate format for use by fishermen and other stakeholders. He was
particularly interested in the flip chart approach developed under the South China Sea Project in the
Philippines, as a suitable model for the development of materials on the code of conduct for use with
stakeholders.
10.9 Dr. Worawit outlined the Human Resource Development and Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries components of the SIDA-SEAFDEC Project. He explained that one of the key
activities was the design of materials for extending the guidelines at both national and regional levels,
and highlighted the difficulties of preparing materials that met the needs of the intended audience. He
informed the working group that a CD-ROM had been prepared by SEAFDEC for promotion of the
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries at the regional level. Dr. Worawit noted that SEAFDEC was
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 11
currently implementing a pilot activity in four countries in the region regarding the wider dissemination
of the Code of Conduct and noted with appreciation the support of the SCS project to the Koh Chang
workshop. He concluded that it was the intention of SEAFDEC, following the completion of the Human
Resource Development Programme to share the outcome with other countries regionally. It was
suggested that perhaps the South China Sea Project could financially support the extension of this
project to other countries in the region.
10.10 Mr. Somsak noted that the South China Sea Project had supported the participation of a
number of members of the RWG-F in an FAO workshop in Viet Nam on low value fish, which had
been very useful but that he was concerned at the lack of follow-up at the national level from such
activities. There followed a discussion concerning the use of juvenile fish and low value exclusion
devices in use in the trawl industry and it was noted that the Philippines was participating in another
GEF funded project implemented by SEAFDEC, looking at the application of such devices. It was
further noted that trawling had major impacts on habitats such as seagrass and algal beds and on fish
stocks due to the generally unselective nature of the gear, thus if trawling cannot be eliminated then
fishermen should be encouraged to use more selective gear.
11.
CURRENT STATUS OF DEMONSTRATION SITE PROPOSALS FROM THE HABITAT
COMPONENT
11.1 The Project Director briefed the meeting on the current status of activities at the
demonstration sites under the habitat component of the project. He noted that the majority of these
were currently operational and that the remainder would become operational before the Regional
Scientific Conference in November. Operational activities included two in China (Fangchenggang,
mangroves; Hepu, seagrass) one in Philippines (Masinloc, coral reefs) two in Thailand (Trat
mangrove; and Koh Chang coral reefs) and one in Viet Nam (Phu Quoc, seagrass and coral reefs).
The two Indonesian sites were near final as were one site in Philippines and two sites in Cambodia. In
addition, two Medium sized projects had been submitted to the GEF Secretariat for initial review
(Thale Noi wetlands, East Bintan seagrass) and it was anticipated that these would become
operational in the first quarter of 2006.
11.2
Mr. Barut noted that, the staff of his office were members of the habitat committees in the
Philippines and there had been good discussion with mangroves and wetlands, some discussion with
coral reefs, but no discussion with the seagrass focal point to date. The intention of fisheries was to
operate mini-fisheries management activities at each Philippines demonstration site.
11.3
Mr. Parlin, noted that some meetings of the Indonesian NTWG had been held but that co-
operation between the fisheries and habitat components needed to be strengthened. Following
discussion it was agreed that the PCU would write to the National Focal Point and habitat focal points
to urge that greater co-operation between the fisheries focal points and the demonstration sites be
fostered. In this connection it was noted that Dr. Son would like to organise a public meeting in the
Viet Nam coral reef and seagrass site of Phu Quoc, in November/December 2005, to promote the
guidelines for the Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries and to raise public awareness of
fisheries issues. The Project Director would write to the Phu Quoc demonstration site manager
proposing that such a meeting take place.
11.4
Mr. Pirochana noted that in Thailand many meetings had been held between the focal points
for the components and that the NTWG met between three and four times per year. He noted that the
demonstration site proposals had been developed through the NTWG so that there had been a good
exchange of information and collaboration between the project components at the national level.
11.5 Mr. Somsak supported the idea of strengthening co-operation between the habitat and
fisheries related agencies and individuals and noted the importance of establishing personal linkages
as the basis for strengthening institutional co-operation. He also noted the importance of involving the
private sector in fisheries management. It was noted that the focal points from the habitat sub-
components were invited to participate in fisheries stakeholder meetings convened in the Philippines
and Thailand.
11.6
Dr. Worawit noted that the need for co-operation was two directional requiring involvement of
fisheries focal points in the habitat demonstration sites and inputs from the habitat sub-components in
the further development of the regional system of refugia.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 12
12.
REVISION OF THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
12.1
Members recalled that a lengthy discussion had been held during the Fourth Meeting of the
RWG-F regarding the revision and updating of the regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP), goals,
targets, and activities. The summary of these discussions is contained in paragraphs 10.2 to 10.8 of
the report of the meeting, (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.4/3) and was reproduced for distribution to
members.
12.2
The Project Director noted that the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee during its
fifth meeting had reviewed the revised goals and targets proposed by the working groups and had
directed that the two milestone dates be adjusted to 2012 and 2017 such that they were uniform
throughout the Strategic Action Programme. He noted further that the RSTC had requested the
RWG-F to define: the relationships between refugia and Marine Protected Areas and to consider how
the latter could be used as refugia; to define "chosen areas", and "appropriate sustainable
management systems".
12.3
There was unanimous agreement that the target dates should be changed from 2010 to 2012
and the working group agreed that perhaps the wording of the second target was unclear, what was
intended by "chosen areas" was in fact the refugia themselves.
12.4 The working group discussed what was intended by the term "appropriate sustainable
management systems" and Mr. Parlin indicated that for him, and he suspected, other fisheries
managers the term meant simply production that does not exceed the sustainable yield of a particular
stock. Several alternative forms of wording were discussed and it was finally agreed that the following
represented the best possible wording at the present time:
By 2012 to have prepared and implemented fisheries management systems in the
identified refugia based on, and consistent with, the guidelines for the implementation of
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
12.5
Regarding the first revised target Dr. Worawit pointed out that, what was being discussed
were transboundary species regardless of whether or not they were fished commercially or, via the
small-scale fisheries sector, whilst Mr. Pirochana and Mr. Somsak expressed reservations regarding
other aspects of the wording. Noting that the RWG-F had identified the key transboundary species
and their priority during the second meeting, it was agreed that the first target would be revised to
read as follows:
By 2012 to have established a regional system of refugia for the management of priority,
transboundary, fish stocks1 and endangered species
12.6
During discussion it was noted that neither of these targets were "hard" in a quantitative
sense since they did not enumerate how many refugia involving what size of area were to be included
in the system. It was noted that this was difficult at the present time since the actual areas of the
refugia both in terms of location and extent had not been defined. It was agreed therefore that these
targets would be reviewed in the light of the subsequent development of the strategy for development
of the regional system of refugia.
12.7
Mr. Somsak sought clarification of what was meant by the third regional activity concerning
identification of fish stocks and areas requiring bilateral, multi-lateral or regional management
collaboration. It was noted that in fact the stocks had already been identified and hence only areas
should be included and in terms of the work of the group these corresponded at least in part to the
refugia.
13.
PREPARATION OF INPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON FISHERIES
TO THE SECOND REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE
13.1
The Project Director briefly reviewed the outcome of the second meeting of the Executive
Committee of the RSTC regarding the proposed programme for the Regional Scientific Conference to
be held 14 16 November 2005. He noted that day one would be devoted to issues relating to the
demonstration sites; day two would focus on science for management with the morning devoted to
1 Priority transboundary stocks are identified in Annex 4 of the report of the second meeting of the RWG-F.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 13
natural sciences and the afternoon to social sciences; day three would focus on partnerships and
meetings of the Regional Working Groups and Regional Task Forces.
13.2
In response to a query from the working group the Project Director indicated that the letter of
invitation would be sent out in the next two weeks and would include a short questionnaire for
completion concerning display space requirements of the focal points.
13.3
The RWG-F proposed to prepare a presentation for day one that highlights the fisheries
related issues and threats at the demonstration sites and how the guidelines for the code of conduct
for responsible fisheries could be applied to their resolution. This would require the finalisation of the
background paper for inclusion in the documentation for the conference and the development of a
presentation.
13.4
It was agreed that the final deadline for completion of the background document would be the
same as that for the preparation of the National Report summaries, namely 15th October. It was
further agreed that Mr. Paterson would prepare the draft by 23rd September and circulate to the
RWG-F for comments by 30th September. Following receipt of comments Mr. Paterson would revise
the document and circulate the final draft by 7th October for clearance on a no objections basis by 14th
October, following which the document would be formatted and reproduced for the conference. It was
also agreed that the Chairperson would make this presentation on behalf of working group. The
presentation would be completed and cleared by the end of October.
13.5
There followed a discussion of a possible presentation in the scientific session and it was
agreed that a paper on fisheries refugia should be prepared covering inter alia the scientific basis for
defining refugia, the work of the RWG-F and the experiences of the Philippines in incorporating the
concept into fisheries management plans. Mr. Barut agreed to draft the Philippines section by 27th
September and Mr. Paterson would further develop the remainder by the same date. Mr. Barut,
Mr. Paterson, Mr. Somsak and Mr. Pirochana would meet on the evening of 27th to discuss these
materials prior to their dispatch to the RWG-F on 30th September for comments by 7th October and
finalisation by Mr. Paterson for distribution on 10th October for final clearance by 14th October.
Mr. Barut will make the presentation on behalf of the group.
13.6
The working group discussed possible modes of fostering interaction with the habitat working
groups and following an examination of various modes of managing such interactions it was agreed
that the group would split and that individual members would participate in the first part of each of the
habitat working group meetings in order to discuss and reinforce the contents of the presentation from
day one and to try to secure agreement on actions to be undertaken at the demonstration sites. The
PCU would communicate with the regional working groups and adjust the programme accordingly. It
was agreed that Mr. Parlin would participate in the RWG-M, Mr. Pirochana in the RWG-CR, Dr. Son in
the RWG-SG and Mr. Barut in the wetlands meeting.
14.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON FISHERIES
14.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce this agenda item and based on the
discussion and agreements reached under the previous agenda items, and document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/9 "Draft work plan and timetable for the Regional Working Group on
Fisheries 2005 to 2007" the Regional Working Group considered its work plan for the period 2006
2007.
14.2
Particular attention was given to the delivery of national level inputs to the working group
materials for the Regional Scientific Conference and it was noted that this conference would provide
an opportunity for working group discussion of the refugia documents and actions required as a
follow-up during 2006.
14.3
The work plan was reviewed in detail, amended, and agreed as it appears in Annex 6 of this
report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Page 14
15.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON FISHERIES
15.1 The Project Director reminded members that, according to the decision of the Project
Steering Committee, all regional working group meetings would be convened at one of the
demonstration sites.
15.2
The Chairperson opened the agenda item and recalled that previous meetings had been held
in Thailand, Cambodia, Philippines, and Viet Nam, and invited members to propose a suitable venue.
Mr. Parlin invited the working group to meet in Indonesia and proposed that the meeting be held in
Tanjung Pandan, Bangka Belitung Province, which is a fishing port near to the coral reef
demonstration site.
15.3
The working group gratefully accepted this invitation and agreed to convene the meeting from
27-30th June 2006 since it was likely that developments with regard to the regional system of refugia
would necessitate a meeting earlier rather than later in 2006.
16.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
16.1
Members of the RWG-F were invited by the Chairman to raise any other matters requiring
consideration by the RWG-F at this time. No further items of business were proposed.
17.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
17.1
The Rapporteur, Dr. Son presented the draft report of the meeting, which was considered,
amended, and adopted as it appears in this document.
18.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
18.1 The Chairperson thanked all members for their hard word and sharing of ideas and
recommendations, which are of value to everyone's work in the future. He noted that co-operation
between all focal points should be encouraged in the country and the region.
18.2
He invited members to make any closing comments and Dr Son thanked the secretary for
preparing the report and Mr. Somsak reiterated his thanks to the Secretariat for their hard work before
and during the meeting and expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the
meeting. The Chairperson formally closed the meeting at 15:30 on 8th September 2005.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Indonesia
Philippines
Ir. Parlin Tambunan, Director of Fisheries
Mr. Noel Barut, Chief
Resources, DGF Capture Fisheries
National Fisheries Research and Development
Jln. Harsono RM No. 3, Gd. B, Lt VI
Institute, Department of Agriculture
Ragunan Pasar Minggu
940 Kayumonggi, Press Building
Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia
Quezon Avenue
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel:
(62 21) 781 167; (62) 81 698 1032
Fax: (62 21) 781 1672
Tel: (63 2) 373 6336; (63) 917 8385701
E-mail: dfrmdgf@indosat.net.id;
Fax: (63 2) 372 5063
dgcfstat@indosat.net.id
E-mail: noel_barut@hotmail.com
Thailand
Viet Nam
Mr. Pirochana Saikliang, Senior Fishery Biologist
Dr. Dao Manh Son, Vice Director
Upper Gulf Marine Fisheries Research and
Research Institute for Marine Fisheries
Development Center
170 Le Lai Street
49 Soi Phrarachveriyaporn 16
Haiphong City
Phrarachveriyaporn Road
Viet Nam
Bangphueng Sub-district, Phrapradeang District
Samut Prakan 10130, Thailand
Tel: (84 31) 837 898, 836 135
Fax: (84 31) 836 812
Tel:
(66 2) 816 7635-8 ext. 15; 01 843 9887
E-mail: daoson@hn.vnn.vn
Fax:
(66 2) 816 7634
E-mail: pirochas@fisheries.go.th
Regional Expert
Mr. Somsak Chullasorn
45, Soi Watthana Niwet 4
Sutisan Rd, Huay Kwang
Bangkok 10320, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 277 5015
Mobile: (66) 09 3872375
Fax:
(66 2) 6931828
Email: papasomsak@hotmail.com
Observers
Dr. George Woodman, Director
Dr. Yasuhisa Kato, Special Advisor
Teng Hoi Conservation Organization
SEAFDEC Secretariat, Suraswadi Building
Flat B, 22/F Mai Wah Industrial Building
Kasesart University Campus
1-7 Wah Sing Street
P.O. Box 1046 Kasetsart Post Office
Kwai Chung, N.T., Hong Kong
Bangkok 10903, Thailand
Tel:
(852) 3106 4960; 852 6102 3109
Tel:
(66 2) 940 6335; 940 6326; 01 8255637
Fax: (852) 3015 3182
Fax:
(66 2) 940 6336
E-mail: george@tenghoi.org
E-mail: kato@seafdec.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Dr. Worawit Wanchana
Ms. Rujarek Bumrasarinpai
SEAFDEC/SIDA Project Assistant
Program Administrative Officer
SEAFDEC Secretariat, Suraswadi Building
SEAFDEC Secretariat, Suraswadi Building
Kasesart University Campus
Kasesart University Campus
P.O. Box 1046 Kasetsart Post Office
P.O. Box 1046 Kasetsart Post Office
Bangkok 10903, Thailand
Bangkok 10903, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 940 6326;
Tel:
(66 2) 955 1602; 940 6326; 01 9147714
Fax:
(66 2) 940 6336
Fax:
(66 2) 940 6336
E-mail: worawit@seafdec.org
E-mail: rujarek@seafdec.org
Dr. Ridzwan Bin Abdul Rahman, Professor
Borneo Marine Research Institute
Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS)
Locked Bag 2073
88999 Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
Tel: (60 88) 320121, 320266; (60) 13 8644011
Fax: (6088)
320261
E-mail: ridzwan@ums.edu.my; bmru@ums.edu.my
Sabah Government Representatives
Mr Daim Basron, Deputy Director
Mr Eric Wong, Assistant Director
Department of Fisheries, Sabah
Sabah Parks
Mr Sapli Muloic, Fisheries Officer
Suhaimi Hj. Safar, Assistant Superintendent
Department of Fisheries, Sabah
Royal Police (Marine), Sabah
Mohd. Rafie Hj Jubarah,
Science and Technology Unit
Chief Ministers Department
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Mr. Christopher Paterson, Expert - Fisheries
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1116
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: patersonc@un.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
Ms. Unchalee Pernetta, Programme Assistant
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Tel: (66 2) 288 1670
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
Fax: (66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/1 Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/2 Annotated
Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Report of the Meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/4 Current
Status of Budgets and Reports from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/5
Status of the Substantive Reports and Other Outputs from
the Specialised Executing Agency Activities Defined in the
Work Plan for the Fisheries Component in the Participating
Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/6 Development
of the Regional South China Sea GIS
Database and Metadata for the Fisheries Component.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/7
Training Needs in the Framework of the Project Entitled:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/8 Strategic Approach to the Development of a System of
Fisheries refugia for the Gulf of Thailand.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/9
Draft Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working
Group on Mangroves 2005 to 2007.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/Inf.1
List of Participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/Inf.2
List of Documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/Inf.3 Programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/Inf.4 Framework
for
Regional Co-ordination, Dissemination of
Experiences, and Personnel Exchange between Sites.
[ANNEX 8 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3]
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC/ExComm.2/3 Second
Meeting
of the Executive Committee of the Regional
Scientific and Technical Committee. Report of the Meeting.
Bangkok, Thailand 21st 22nd February 2005 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RSTC/ExComm.2/3.
The following documents are supplied in published form.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.5/3
Fifth 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.
Bintan, Indonesia, 24th 27th August 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-SG.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Fifth 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. Koh Chang,
Thailand, 13th 16th September 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-CR.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3 Fifth
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. Trat
Province, Thailand, 26th 30th September 2004 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-M.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 2
Page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.5/3 Fifth
Meeting
of
the Regional Working Group on the Wetland
Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Ha Long City,
Viet Nam, 5th 8th October 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-W.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.5/3
Fifth 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. Phu Quoc
Island, Viet Nam, 11th 14th October 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-F.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.5/3
Fifth 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.
Shenzhen, China, 24th 27th November 2004 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-LbP.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.5/3
Fifth Meeting of the 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. Pattaya,
Thailand, 9th 11th December 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RSTC.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.4/3
Fourth Meeting of the 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 Meeting. Guilin, China,
13th 15th December 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.3/3
Third 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. Alongpo City, Philippines,
28th February 3rd March 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.3/3
Third 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.
Fangchenggang, China, 18th 21st April 2005 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RTF-E.3/3.
Document received during the Sixth RWG-Fisheries meeting.
Philippines:
1. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand "Executive Summary of the National Report Philippines" (Fisheries
Component), Manila, Philippines, December 2004. 22pp. hard copy 6 copies.
2. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand "Metadata Reference Collection Fisheries Component" National
Meta-database, Manila, Philippines, December 2004. 117pp. hard copy 6 copies.
3. "General Information on Coastal Resource Management" UNEP GEF Project:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand Fisheries Component (original flip chart for RSC) 65pp. hard copy
4. Three stickers difference styles 3 each.
5. Small Poster 3 difference styles 1 set.
6. T-shirt with logo's UNEP, SCS, GEF, NFRDI-BFAR (distributed to participants)
Thailand
CD in Thai
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
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 Election of Officers
2.2 Documentation and Administrative Arrangements
2.3
Organisation
of
Work
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4. REPORTS
REGARDING
OVERALL PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1 Status of the Administrative Reports for 2004 and 1st half 2005: Progress Reports;
Expenditure Reports; Audit Reports; and MoU Amendments
5.
STATUS OF THE NATIONAL SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS
5.1 Status of National Reports: English Editing and PCU Preparation for Publication
5.2 Status of the Publication of National Reports and Awareness Materials in National
Languages
6.
UPDATE OF NATIONAL DATA FOR THE REGIONAL SOUTH CHINA SEA GIS
DATABASE AND METADATA FOR THE FISHERIES COMPONENT
7.
TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAINING PROGRAMME
DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE OF THE PROJECT
8.
STATUS OF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE TRIAL OF A BLAST FISHING DETECTION
DEVICE
9.
A SYSTEM OF REFUGIA FOR FISH STOCKS OF TRANSBOUNDARY SIGNIFICANCE IN
THE GULF OF THAILAND
10.
PROMOTION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES
11.
CURRENT STATUS OF DEMONSTRATION SITE PROPOSALS FROM THE HABITAT
COMPONENT
12.
REVISION OF THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
13.
PREPARATION OF INPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON FISHERIES
TO THE SECOND REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE
14.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON FISHERIES
15.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON FISHERIES
16.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
17.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
18.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Training and Capacity Building Needs Assessment
BACKGROUND
Training and capacity building were originally envisaged, by the Project Brief of the UNEP/GEF South
China Sea Project, as an important part of the project. Part of the overall goals of the project is "to
enhance the capacity of the participating governments to integrate environmental considerations into
national development planning."2 Therefore, funds were allocated to a variety of activities designed to
build capacity and effect the training required to achieve the goals and objectives of the project.
The training and capacity building activities were originally conceived as being undertaken within each
component and sub-component of the project, and in support of the substantive activities. Regarding
demonstration sites, training and capacity building have been always foreseen as being integrated
into the operation of the demonstration site and pilot activities. It was originally envisaged that the
demonstration sites would have become operational early in 2004, however it became apparent in
late 2003 and early 2004 that the capacity within the Specialised Executing Agencies with respect to
budgeting and financial planning was limited. Consequently, considerable effort has been expended
by, the limited staff of the PCU in working individually with project proponents in developing budgets
and financial plans that are sufficiently rigorous and accurate to be acceptable within the framework of
the project. Since it is envisaged that all demonstration sites will become operational prior to the
second regional scientific conference in November 2005, it is also envisaged that the training and
capacity building activities should commence simultaneously.
To ensure maximum benefits achieved with limited funding for capacity building in this region, the
PCU designed a questionnaire to assess the situation and needs of training and capacity building
related to the needs of managing the project activities, and marine environmental management in
general for this region.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The purpose of the questionnaire survey was to elicit the opinions of Regional Working Group
members individually and collectively regarding:
· The key areas in which:
(a)
Capacity development has occurred at the national and regional level through the
participation of Specialised Executing Agencies (SEAs) (and partner organisations) in
the Project,
(b)
Needs for capacity development exist in terms of fulfilling project objectives and
outcomes, and which
(c)
SEAs are most dependent on stakeholder involvement (or sub-contracting of partner
organisations) to complete project tasks.
· The types of tasks that:
(a)
SEAs are most capable of performing,
(b)
SEAs can most readily obtain support from other organisations at the national level to
assist in the successful completion of, and that,
(c)
SEAs are most capable of assisting other SEAs/organisations at both the national
and regional level complete.
· The main outcomes which have been achieved by the project to date, and which of the
lessons learned merit reinforcing at both national and regional levels; and
· How the available training allocation can be used in developing a training programme that
will best assist in fulfilling project objectives and outcomes, which include successful
execution of the demonstration sites, completion of the National Action Plans and regional
Strategic Action Programme, and developing the longer-term sustainability of the project;
· How the experiences of the demonstration projects and pilot activities can be best
disseminated throughout the region in order to foster best-practice in habitat management.
2 UNEP. 2001. Project Brief for the UNEP/GEF Project entitled: Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. pp. 4.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 2
The questionnaire included fourteen questions. Based on the tasks included in the original MOU and
amendments to the MOU, questions 1-3 attempted to seek information regarding capacity needs to
carry out activities in the original MOU, including 1) capacity built, 2) capacity needs, 3) partnerships.
Questions 4-6 were aimed at assessing institutional capacity for the completion of activities included
in the amended MOU. Questions 7-14 were designed to assess SEAs' views regarding the: 7) value
of the use of memorandum of understanding, 8) site selection process, 9) national benefits from the
project management framework, 10) regional outcomes from the project management framework, 11)
long-term sustainability needs, 12) use of the training budget, 13) fisheries capacity building needs,
and 14) existing capacity building/training initiatives.
RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire was distributed to members of the RWG-F prior to the Sixth Meeting of the
Regional Working Group on Fisheries. Members were requested to fill in the questionnaire during the
meeting. The results of the questionnaire are included in Table 1-14 in this annex.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 3
Table 1
Tasks in the Original Memoranda of Understanding for which Capacity has been Built.
Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam Regional
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
No
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
Built
Built
Built
Built
Countries
Chair and convene National Fisheries
Yes 1 Yes 9 Yes 10 Yes 10 4 30
Committee (NFC)
Serve as a member of the National Technical
Yes 2 Yes 8 Yes 6 Yes 8 4 24
Working Group
Act as member of the Regional Working
Yes 3 Yes 7 Yes 3 Yes 7 4 20
Group
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective
Yes 4 Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 6 4 20
source of Scientific and Technical advice to
the NTWG (to PSC)
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective
Yes 6 Yes 4 Yes 4 Yes 2 4 16
source of Scientific and Technical advice to
the RWG (to RSTC)
Provide data and information to the RWG
Yes 9 Yes Yes 7 Yes 5 4 21
and/or the RSTC
Review and update existing information
Yes 8 Yes
10 Yes 9 Yes 9 4 36
relating to the component
Assemble a national meta-database
Yes
5
Yes
6
No
Yes
3
11
Summarise all existing national legislation
Yes
7
Yes
3
No
Yes
1
3
11
Review criteria in use for decision making with
Yes No No No 1
0
respect to future uses
Prepare criteria for use in site selection
Yes
No
No
No
1
0
Assist the RWG in preparing a regional
Yes 10
Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 4 14
synthesis of data and information, together
with a review of threats
Develop a National Fisheries Action Plan
Yes
No
Yes
8
Yes
3
3
11
Guide
IMC
re
SAP
implementation
No No No No 0
0
Promote the National Action Plan among
Yes No No Yes 4 2 4
stakeholders
Prepare and submit proposals for fisheries
No No No Yes 1 0
pilot projects
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 4
Table 2
Tasks in the Original Memoranda of Understanding for which Capacity was Needed from Outside the SEA.
Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam Regional
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
No
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
Built
Built
Built
Built
Countries
Chair and convene National Fisheries
No No No No 0
0
Committee (NFC)
Serve as a member of the National Technical
No No No Yes 1 0
Working Group
Act as member of the Regional Working
No No No Yes 2 1 2
Group
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective
No Yes
7 No Yes 9 2
16
source of Scientific and Technical advice to
the NTWG (to PSC)
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective
No Yes
6 No Yes 2
6
source of Scientific and Technical advice to
the RWG (to RSTC)
Provide data and information to the RWG
No Yes 3 Yes 8 Yes 7 3 18
and/or the RSTC
Review and update existing information
No Yes 4 Yes 9 Yes 3 3 16
relating to the component
Assemble a national meta-database
No
No
Yes
3
Yes
4
2
7
Summarise all existing national legislation
No
Yes
8
Yes
6
No
1
2
15
Review criteria in use for decision making with
No Yes 9 Yes 5 Yes 10 3 24
respect to future uses
Prepare criteria for use in site selection
No
Yes
5
No
Yes
8
2
13
Assist the RWG in preparing a regional
No Yes 2 Yes 4 Yes 6 3 12
synthesis of data and information, together
with a review of threats
Develop a National Fisheries Action Plan
No
Yes
10
Yes
10
Yes
5
3
25
Guide
IMC
re
SAP
implementation
No N/A No No 0
0
Promote the National Action Plan among
No N/A Yes 7 Yes 2 7
stakeholders
Prepare and submit proposals for fisheries
No N/A No 6 Yes 1 6
pilot projects
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 5
Table 3
Tasks in the Original Memoranda of Understanding for which your SEA/Institution Depended upon a Network of National Level Partners.
Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam Regional
Partner
Partner
Partner
Partner
No
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
Dependent
Dependent
Dependent
Dependent
Countries
Chair and convene National Fisheries
No No No No 0 0
Committee (NFC)
Serve as a member of the National Technical
No No No Yes 1 0
Working Group
Act as member of the Regional Working
No No No No 0 0
Group
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective
No Yes
8 No Yes 9 2
17
source of Scientific and Technical advice to
the NTWG (to PSC)
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective
No Yes
6 No No 1
6
source of Scientific and Technical advice to
the RWG (to RSTC)
Provide data and information to the RWG
No Yes 4 Yes 7 Yes 7 3 18
and/or the RSTC
Review and update existing information
Yes 10 Yes 10 Yes 10 No 3 30
relating to the component
Assemble a national meta-database
No
No
No
Yes
4
1
4
Summarise all existing national legislation
No
Yes
9
Yes
9
No
2
18
Review criteria in use for decision making
No Yes
7 No No 1
7
with respect to future uses
Prepare criteria for use in site selection
No
N/A
No
Yes
10
1
10
Assist the RWG in preparing a regional
No Yes
5 No Yes 8 2
13
synthesis of data and information, together
with a review of threats
Develop a National Fisheries Action Plan
No
N/A
Yes
8
Yes
6
2
14
Guide IMC re SAP implementation
No
N/A
No
No
0
0
Promote the National Action Plan among
No N/A Yes 6 Yes 5 2
11
stakeholders
Prepare and submit proposals for fisheries
No N/A No Yes 3 1 3
pilot projects
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 6
Table 4
Existing Capability of your SEA/Institution with Respect to Completing the Tasks in the Amended Memoranda of Understanding.
(10 = greatest need)
Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam Regional
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Partner
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Dependent
Chair and convene National Fisheries Committee (NFC)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
Serve as a member of the National Technical Working Group (NTWG)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
Act as member of the Regional Working Group (RWG)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective source of Scientific and Technical advice to
Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0
the NTWG (to PSC)
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective source of Scientific and Technical advice to
Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0
the RWG (to RSTC)
Provide data and information to the RWG and/or the RSTC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
Maintain the national meta-database
Yes
Yes
No
7
Yes
1
7
Update criteria used for decision making with respect to future uses
Yes
No
7
Yes
Yes
1
7
Update data contained in the Regional GIS
Yes
Yes
No
8
No
9
2
17
Work with the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters regarding national legislation and
Yes No 9 No 9 No 8 3 26
the preparation of a regional directory of legislation and best practices
Work with the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation regarding national level
Yes No 10 No
10 No 7 3 27
economic valuation
Advise SEAs regarding educational and awareness materials produced for the benefit
Yes Yes No 6 Yes 1 6
of fisheries communities in demonstration sites
Further develop the preliminary National Fisheries Action Plans to establish a regional
Yes Yes No 5 Yes 1 5
system of refugia
Critically review targets and goals set by the draft SAP and prepare concrete proposals
No 10 No 8 No 4 Yes
3 22
concerning actions at the national level
Prepare and submit proposals to the competent national authorities for the
Yes N/A No 2 No 6 2 8
establishment of refugia
Guide IMC re SAP implementation
Yes
N/A
No
3
No
5
2
8
Promote the NAP and SAP among stakeholders
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
Facilitate the process of formal government approval of the NAPs
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
Participate in oversight of the trials of a blast fishing detection device and advise
Yes No 6 No 10 2 16
national and local authorities on the practicality of its wider adoption
Assist through the RWG in the preparation of a regional synthesis of data and
Yes N/A Yes 0 0
information
Complete the tasks, listed in articles 5.i to 5.xv of the original MoU, which have been
Yes N/A Yes 0 0
delayed as a consequence of initial delays in fund transfer
Finalise translation, publication and distribution of 200 copies of the national reports in
Yes Yes No 1 Yes 1 1
local language
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 7
Table 5
National Network's Capacity to Support your SEA/Institution with Respect to the Tasks in the Amended Memoranda of Understanding.
Indonesia Philippines Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Partner-
Partner-
Partner-
Partner-
No
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
ship
ship
ship
ship
Countries
Chair and convene National Fisheries Committee
(NFC)
No No No No
0
Serve as a member of the National Technical Working
Group
(NTWG)
No No No Yes 2
2
Act as member of the Regional Working Group
(RWG)
No No No No
0
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective source of Scientific and Technical advice to the
NTWG
(to
PSC)
No No No Yes 3
3
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective source of Scientific and Technical advice to the
RWG
(to
RSTC)
No No No No
0
Provide data and information to the RWG and/or the RSTC
Yes
2
No
No
Yes
5
7
Maintain the national meta-database
No No No Yes 4
4
Update criteria used for decision making with respect to future uses
Yes
9
Yes
8
No
Yes
1
18
Update data contained in the Regional GIS
Yes No Yes
8 Yes 6
14
Work with the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters regarding national legislation and the preparation of a
Yes Yes
9 No Yes 7
16
regional directory of legislation and best practices
Work with the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation regarding national level economic valuation
Yes
8
Yes
10
No
Yes
10
28
Advise SEAs regarding educational and awareness materials produced for the benefit of fisheries communities
Yes 3 Yes 5 No No
8
in demonstration sites
Further develop the preliminary National Fisheries Action Plans to establish a regional system of refugia Yes
4
Yes
7
Yes
10
Yes
21
Critically review targets and goals set by the draft SAP and prepare concrete proposals concerning actions at the
Yes 10
N/A No Yes
10
national level
Prepare and submit proposals to the competent national authorities for the establishment of refugia No
N/A
Yes
9
Yes
9
18
Guide IMC re SAP implementation
Yes N/A No Yes
0
Promote the NAP and SAP among stakeholders
Yes
7
N/A
No
Yes
7
Facilitate the process of formal government approval of the NAPs
No
N/A
No
Yes
0
Participate in oversight of the trials of a blast fishing detection device and advise national and local authorities on
Yes 5 Yes 6 Yes 8
19
the practicality of its wider adoption
Assist through the RWG in the preparation of a regional synthesis of data and information
Yes
6
No
No
Yes
6
Complete the tasks, listed in articles 5.i to 5.xv of the original MoU, which have been delayed as a consequence
Yes No No No
0
of initial delays in fund transfer
Finalise translation, publication and distribution of 200 copies of the national reports in local language
Yes
1
No
No
No
1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 8
Table 6
Capacity of your SEA/Institution to Assist Other SEAs/organisations at the National and Regional Level with Respect to the Tasks in
the Amended Memoranda of Understanding.
Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam Regional
Capability
Capability
Capability
Capability
No
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
to assist
to assist
to assist
to assist
Countries
Chair and convene National Fisheries Committee
(NFC)
Yes 10 Yes Yes 3 Yes
10 3 23
Serve as a member of the National Technical Working
Group
(NTWG)
Yes 7 Yes Yes 9 Yes 2 16
Act as member of the Regional Working Group (RWG)
Yes
8
Yes
Yes
5
Yes
9
3
22
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective source of Scientific and Technical advice to the NTWG
Yes 9 Yes 3 Yes 6 Yes 3 18
(to PSC)
Ensure that the NFC serves as an effective source of Scientific and Technical advice to the RWG
Yes 6 Yes 2 Yes Yes 8 3 16
(to RSTC)
Provide data and information to the RWG and/or the RSTC
Yes
5
Yes
4
Yes
Yes
7
3
16
Maintain the national meta-database
Yes
3
Yes
10
No
No
2
13
Update criteria used for decision making with respect to future uses
Yes
Yes
1
Yes
4
Yes
5
3
10
Update data contained in the Regional GIS
Yes
Yes
9
No
No
1
9
Work with the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters regarding national legislation and the
Yes 4 No Yes 2
Yes
1 2 7
preparation of a regional directory of legislation and best practices
Work with the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation regarding national level economic
Yes 2 No No No 1 2
valuation
Advise SEAs regarding educational and awareness materials produced for the benefit of fisheries
Yes Yes
5
Yes
1
Yes
6 3 12
communities in demonstration sites
Further develop the preliminary National Fisheries Action Plans to establish a regional system of
Yes Yes
7
Yes
10
Yes
3 3 20
refugia
Critically review targets and goals set by the draft SAP and prepare concrete proposals concerning
Yes N/A Yes
8
Yes 1 8
actions at the national level
Prepare and submit proposals to the competent national authorities for the establishment of refugia Yes N/A Yes 7
Yes
2 2 9
Guide IMC re SAP implementation
Yes
N/A
No
No
0
0
Promote the NAP and SAP among stakeholders
Yes
Yes
8
No
Yes
4
2
12
Facilitate the process of formal government approval of the NAPs
Yes
Yes
6
No
No
1
6
Participate in oversight of the trials of a blast fishing detection device and advise national and local
Yes N/A No No 0 0
authorities on the practicality of its wider adoption
Assist through the RWG in the preparation of a regional synthesis of data and information
Yes
1
N/A
No
No
0
1
Complete the tasks, listed in articles 5.i to 5.xv of the original MOU, which have been delayed as a
Yes N/A No No 0 0
consequence of initial delays in fund transfer
Finalise translation, publication and distribution of 200 copies of the national reports in local
Yes Yes No No 0 0
language
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 9
Table 7
Outcomes Derived from Use of Memoranda of Understanding.
Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
YES/
YES/
YES/
YES/
No.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
NO
NO
NO
NO
Countries
Increased stakeholder involvement at National level
Yes
5
Yes
5
Yes
5
Yes
5
4
20
More stakeholder participation through meetings
and
dialogue
Views of as many stakeholders were heard and support to the project was ensured.
Consultation process from planning to
evaluation
Stakeholders are involved in many activities of project such as:
- Giving comments to the preparation of the National Action Plan
- Attending the preparing materials for raising public awareness of community
- Giving the opinions for the mechanism of establishing fisheries refugia
Better Project Planning, Financial and Task Management
Yes
2
Yes
2
Yes
4
Yes
3
4
11
Strengthened the capacity of the SEA in project planning, financial and task management
All project activities are managed and implemented followed the MoU
Project is planned and organised better by PSC and component
Development
of
Databases
and
Information
Sharing
Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2
4
10
Better coordination with the other Institutions having data/information
Sharing of information was promoted and possible collaboration in the future
- Databases are developed but still limited by some reasons
-
Good
information
sharing
-
Good
experiences
changing
Improved Coordination of Institutions at the National Level
Yes
4
Yes
3
Yes
3
Yes
4
4
14
Better collaboration and opened the possibility of collaboration in future undertakings
Among all stakeholder concerned
- Coordination of Institutions at the National Level is improved and developed
- Experience changes among institutions happen often
Increased Capacity for NAP and SAP development
Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
3
4
7
It is anticipated but still to be accomplished in the life of the project.
In particular to fill the gap of capacity building
- Capacity for preparing NAP increased and SAP developed
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 10
Table 8
Achievements Associated with the Site Selection Process Used.
Indonesia Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
YES/
YES/
YES/
YES/
No.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
NO
NO
NO
NO
Countries
Establishment of a Scientifically Sound and Transparent Process for Site Selection
Yes
3
Yes
3
Yes
5
Yes
5
4
16
Sites determined were acceptable to the participating
countries
Regional Agreement on the Process for Determining Priorities objectively
Yes
4
Yes
2
Yes
1
Yes
4
4
11
Democratic process of determining demonstration
sites
was
promoted
Stakeholder Involvement in Decision-Making and Information Sharing
Yes
5
Yes
5
Yes
4
Yes
3
4
17
Their involvement is very important especially in attaining the success of the demonstration sites activities in particular
and the overall success of the project in general
Stakeholder Support of Outcomes and Selected Demonstration Sites
Yes
2
Yes
4
Yes
3
Yes
2
4
11
Very important to attain the objectives of the project
Process suitable for application in other situations including national ranking
Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
2
Yes
1
4
5
Table 9
Outcomes of the Management Framework at the National Level.
Indonesia Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
YES/
YES/
YES/
YES/
No.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
NO
NO
NO
NO
Countries
Collaboration
between
national
specialist
Institutions
Yes 3 Yes 3 Yes 5 Yes 5
4
16
Strengthened the collaboration and more support from each other could be attained in future activities
-Collaboration between national specialist institutions
are
setting
up
Collaboration between Institutions with different specialisations (other than fisheries)
Yes
1
Yes
5
Yes
4
Yes
4
4
14
Better coordination and understanding the mandates of
each
Institutions
Inter-ministry, government department and sector co-operation
Yes
2
Yes
2
Yes
3
Yes
3
4
10
More inter-action thus promoting the spirit of
cooperation
and
understanding
Wider stakeholder involvement in-country
Yes 4 Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2
4
12
Promote the participation of all stakeholders whether direct
or
indirect
beneficiaries
Increased frequency of communication between the SEA and Environment Ministry
Yes
5
Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
1
4
8
More dialogue and support from each was promoted and further strengthened
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 11
Table 10
Outcomes of the management framework at the regional level
Indonesia Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
YES/
YES/
YES/
YES/
No.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
NO
NO
NO
NO
Countries
Collaboration
between
Institutions
in
different
countries
Yes 1 Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5
4
16
More coordination even outside of the project
activities
Clear separation of Science from Policy in decision making
Yes
2
No
Yes
4
Yes
3
3
9
Teamwork and participatory decision making
Yes 5 Yes 3 Yes 3 Yes 2
4
13
Comparison of results
Sense of Project Ownership among participating countries
Yes
4
Yes
4
Yes
2
Yes
1
4
11
Better implementation of the project activities thus
attaining
good
results
Transparency of Management
Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 1 Yes 4
4
10
Can learn from other countries management
strategies
Table 11
List of Long-term Sustainability Needs of the Project.
Indonesia Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
YES/
YES/
YES/
YES/
No.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
NO
NO
NO
NO
Countries
Maintenance of national and regional consultative network
Yes
5
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
5
4
19
In terms of human resource and financial aspect
Maintenance of demonstration site activities
Yes 2 Yes 5 Yes 1 Yes 4
12
Continue the support because difficult to assess the achievements of the project in just one year especially that we are
looking into the habitat aspect which requires longer observation to determine the success of the project
Capacity Development for Demonstration Site Planning and Management
Yes
3
Yes
3
Yes
2
Yes
2
10
Training
Strengthened
Mechanism
for
Sharing
of
Experiences/Information
Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 3 Yes 3
12
Maybe established a mechanism for information sharing
Strengthened Project and Financial Planning Management Capabilities
Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
4
Yes
1
7
Training
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 12
Table 12
Use of the Training Budget.
Indonesia Philippines
Thailand Vietnam
Regional
YES/
YES/
YES/
YES/
No.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Total
NO
NO
NO
NO
Countries
Build Capacity to Preserve the Regional Consultative Mechanism
Yes
5
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
4
18
Disseminate project outcomes and experiences throughout the region
Yes
3
Yes
3
Yes
1
Yes
5
12
web page and hard copy
Specific Group Training courses (please provide details)
Yes
2
Yes
5
Yes
3
Yes
3
13
Training on the content of the CCRF
Trainers training on issues identification and preparation of proposals for submission to donors
Individual Training (please provide details of who is to be trained and in what)
Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
2
4
Training local government officers on appropriate
livelihood
activities
Building Capacity within Demonstration Sites for Income Generation
Yes
4
Yes
2
Yes
4
Yes
10
UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 13
Table 13
National and Regional Prioritisation of the Fisheries Pilot Project Activities
Needed to Provide Examples of Best Practice in Fisheries and Habitat
Management for the Region.
Fisheries pilot project activities needed to provide examples of best
National Regional
practice in fisheries and habitat management
Priority
Priority
Indonesia
Implementation of CCRF in the Fisheries Management
5
4
Habitat Management of Fisheries
4
5
Strengthening of Coastal Community Development
3
1
The Need of data for Sustainable Development
2
2
Fisheries Management Plan
1
3
Philippines
Community ownership of the project
5
3
Formation of a management group/team for projects bordered by several
4 5
local communities to achieve habitat management and sustainable
fisheries utilization
Collection of data/information needed in habitat and fisheries
3 4
management by the local communities
Thailand
Reduction of Fishing Capacity
4
5
Establishment and Monitoring Refugia 3
3
Establishment of Artificial reef
2
2
Prohibition and restrictions on certain types and size of fishing gear
5
4
Viet Nam
Monitoring the CPUE of achovy fishing fleet in Phu Quoc areas
5 4
(Kien Giang province, Viet Nam Cambodia)
Tuna fishes tagging project in central part of South China Sea (Viet Nam,
3 5
Philippine, China)
Monitoring and controlling the push net fishery in south west seawaters
4 3
areas (Viet Nam)
Fish refugia pilot project in Con Dao Island (Vn)
2
2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 4
Page 14
Table 14 Existing Capacity Building and Training Initiatives for (a) Coral Reef Management
(MM) and (b) General Coastal and Marine Resource Management (CMRM) at Both
National and Regional Levels.
Indonesia
Focus on CRM or
National (N) or
Capacity building/training initiative
Lead Organisation
CMRM
Regional (R)
Improvement on Statistics
MMF
FM
N
Socialisation of the CCRF
Ministry of Marine &
FM N
Fisheries
CMRM
Ministry of Marine &
CMRM N
Fisheries
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
Ministry of Marine &
FM N
Fisheries
Note: MMF=Ministry of Marine & Fisheries
Philippines
Focus on CRM or
National (N) or
Capacity building/training initiative
Lead Organisation
CMRM
Regional (R)
Community based fisheries law enforcement
BFAR
FM and CMRM
N
training
Fisheries management
BFAR
FM and CMRM
N
Participatory coastal resources assessment
BFAR
FM and CMRM
N
Coastal Habitat enhancement training
BFAR
FM and CMRM
N
Training on feature writing on coastal fisheries
BFAR
FM and CMRM
N
management experience
Note: BFAR=Bureau of Fisheries, Agriculture and Resources
Thailand
Focus on CRM or
National (N) or
Capacity building/training initiative
Lead Organisation
CMRM
Regional (R)
Fishery Resource Management
DOF FM
N
General Procedure for Marine Fishery Research
DOF FM
N
Basic Data Analysis in Marine Fishery Biology
DOF CMRM
N
Resource Evaluation and Stock Assessment
DOF FM
N
Negotiation Technique for Solving Fishery
DOF CMRM
N
Related Conflicts
Public Presentation Techniques for Effective
DOF CMRM
N
Negotiation and Communication
Fisheries Statistic Survey
DOF CMRM
N
Locally Base Fishery Management
DOF/SEAFDEC CMRM
N/R
Note: DOF=Department of Fisheries, Thailand; SEAFDEC=Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
Viet Nam
Focus on CRM or
National (N) or
Capacity building/training initiative
Lead Organisation
CMRM
Regional (R)
Improving the capacity for fishing boats
MOFI
FM
N
management in Vietnam
Strengthening the research capacity of RIMF
RIMF FM
N
MOFI=Ministry of Fisheries, Vietnam; RIMF=research Institute of Marine Fisheries, Vietnam
UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-F.6/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Strategic Approach to the Establishment of a System of Fisheries Refugia for the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
BACKGROUND
The Regional Working Group for the Fisheries Component (RWG-F) is responsible for developing
sub-regional, and national management plans for the spawning and nursery areas of regional and
transboundary significance in the Gulf of Thailand. Specifically, the RWG-F is responsible for:
· Development of criteria to determine the national, sub-regional and transboundary
significance of spawning and nursery areas; and
· The application of these criteria to determine priorities for management action within the Gulf
of Thailand.
These activities will result in the establishment of a system of refugia to maintain important
transboundary fish stocks in the Gulf of Thailand. These refugia will be based on areas identified as
critical habitats for fish stock conservation and protection.
The original Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the Specialised Executing Agencies
(SEAs) for the fisheries component and UNEP included a number of tasks of relevance to the
development of the system of fisheries refugia.
The key substantive output associated with the completion of these tasks has been the National
Reports on "Fish Stocks and Habitats of Regional, Global and Transboundary Significance in the
South China Sea". These reports have consolidated national level information regarding:
· The fisheries sector, including community dependence,
· Species of regional, global and/or transboundary significance,
· The importance of species in terms of landings, value, status and food security,
· The biology and ecology of the priority species,
· Fishery status and threats,
· Habitats and areas of importance in the maintenance of exploited fish stocks, and
· Current management regimes.
The countries participating in the project now have a useful foundation for the identification and
evaluation of approaches to fisheries management at both the national and regional level. The
process has also built the institutional capacity of individual SEAs to contribute to the development of
the REGIONAL system of refugia in the Gulf of Thailand, as well as to lead the necessary planning
and administrative tasks required for the establishment of refugia in national waters.
The amended MoU covering the operational phase of the Project have clearly defined the
responsibilities of SEAs for the Fisheries Component regarding the refugia activity. Specifically, SEAs
are required by the MoU to: Further develop the preliminary national fisheries action plans to establish
a regional system of refugia, to meet the targets provisionally agreed in the regional SAP; based on
agreed criteria and the recommendations of the National Reports produced during the Preparatory
Phase of the project, prepare and submit proposal(s) to the competent national authorities for the
establishment of refugia for fish stocks of transboundary and regional significance to be adopted by
the governments; and facilitate the process of formal government approval of national action plans
(i.e. action plans for the system of refugia).
FISHERIES REFUGIA
Most common approaches to fisheries management have not effectively integrated spatial
considerations. The success or failure of management has largely been determined by the ability of
the management system to control fishing effort so as not to exceed predetermined catch limits that
are based on biological and, to a lesser extent, economic attributes of fisheries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 5
Page 2
Many fisheries management arrangements focus on achieving maximum sustainable exploitation of
resources but often fail to address the complexity inherent in fisheries systems. Fisheries systems
involve the interrelationships of such dynamics as environmental variability, multispecies interactions
and unpredictable effects of fishing on fish stocks. Such complexity not only influences the
effectiveness of policy intervention, but also the accuracy of indicators used to assess the
effectiveness of such intervention.
It is also now clear that many of the data used in the assessment of fisheries resources and fisheries
management measures contain errors, and that many common assessment models grossly simplify
fisheries systems3. It is inevitable that fisheries management will continue to take place in situations
where there is irreducible uncertainty due to the massive and difficult information problems associated
with describing and understanding most multi-species fisheries. This is especially true in the case of
the Gulf of Thailand, where fisheries management must balance the interests of multiple jurisdictions,
coastal community dependence on fisheries for food security, the problem of overfishing, destructive
fishing practices, and the inherently complex nature of the tropical multispecies fisheries in the region.
Numerous fisheries observers, including Walters4 and Caddy5, have recently reviewed natural refugia
and their role in the sustainability of fisheries. It appears that in many cases the long-term success of
fisheries is due to the existence of large-scale natural refuges for substantial segments of populations
of fished species, and not the effectiveness of the assessment and management in use. Examples
exist of fisheries governance systems using the "best" scientific information and management
approaches that have failed to sustain fisheries, except in cases when natural refugia are present. It is
well accepted that natural refugia constitute a mechanism of long-term resilience in exploited marine
populations.
The activity of establishing a system of fisheries refugia for the Gulf of Thailand is based upon the
emerging body of evidence that the existence of natural refugia is a basic element explaining the
resilience of fishery stocks to exploitation. Gulf of Thailand fish stocks are subjected to high levels of
fishing effort, such that stocks of most commercially important species are considered fully fished or
overexploited. Maintenance of natural refugia, or creation of refugia in cases were natural refugia no
longer exist, should be important priorities for the management of fisheries in this area, and may act
as effective buffers against uncertainty and recruitment failure, of which the latter is especially
relevant in terms of food security.
Natural refugia arise from the interaction of the spatial dynamics of the population, oceanographic
features, fish behaviour, and fishing effort dynamics. Three general types of refugia scenarios are
readily identifiable:
1. A large population with seasonal or ontogenetic (spawning) migrations between fishing
grounds and reproductive refugia.
2. A metapopulation with some local populations located in fishing grounds and others in
refugia. Populations located in unexploited areas provide larval subsidies to the exploited
populations.
3. In situ behavioural refugia (behaviour determines the seasonal unavailability of part of the
stock in the fishing ground). This type of refugia is probably the most familiar to fisheries
scientists because fishing gear selectivity has been a key research area.
Fisheries refugia have often been used as a fisheries management tool when more conventional
techniques, such as effort or gear restrictions, have failed to achieve the desired management
objectives, particularly in regions where fisheries are subject to intense and unmanageable fishing
pressure, such as in the Gulf of Thailand. In other cases, such as Australia's Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park, fisheries refugia have been used to separate potentially conflicting uses of coral reef
environments and their limited resources. However, the effectiveness of fisheries refugia in most
instances largely depends on the selection and appropriate use of fisheries management measures
3 Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. and Walters, C.J. (1993) Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History.
Science, 36: p.260.
4 Walters, C. (1998) Designing fisheries management systems that do not depend on accurate stock assessment. In
Reinventing Fisheries Management (eds T.J. Pitcher, P.J.B. Hart and D. Pauly). Chapman and Hall, London, pp.279-288.
5 Caddy, J.F. (1999) Fisheries management in the twenty-first century: will new paradigms apply? Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries, 9: 1-43.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 5
Page 3
within the refugia area, and at the most general level, any Gulf of Thailand fisheries refugia strategy
must consider the:
· Life-cycle of the species for which refugia are being developed,
· Type(s) of refugia scenario(s) that relate to the species for which refugia are being developed,
· Location of natural refugia and appropriate sites for the establishment of [artificial] refugia,
· National and regional level competencies in the use of fisheries management measures and
spatial approaches to resource management and planning.
THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP DEFINITION OF FISHERIES REFUGIA
During the Fifth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Fisheries Component, a definition and
explanatory notes for the term refugia were prepared in the context of the UNEP/GEF Project Entitled
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand".
Refugia:
"A spatially and geographically defined, marine or coastal area in which specific management
measures are applied to sustain important species [fisheries resources] during critical stages of their
lifecycle, for their sustainable use."
Explanatory Notes
· Should not be a "no take zone".
· Have the objective of sustainable use for the benefit of present and future generations.
· Some areas within a refugia might be permanently closed due to their critical importance
[essential contribution] to the life cycle of a species or group of species.
· Critical areas of importance in the life cycle include spawning, and nursery grounds, or areas
of habitat required for the maintenance of broodstock.
· Refugia will have different characteristics according to their purpose and the species or
species groups for which they are established and within which different management
measures will apply.
· Refugia may be sub-divided reflecting the differing importance of sub-areas to the species or
species group. A management plan for the refugia will reflect different measures for the
subdivisions.
Management measures that may be applied would be drawn from the following [non-exhaustive] list:
· Exclusion of a fishing method (e.g. light fishing).
· Restricted gears (e.g. mesh size).
· Prohibited gears (e.g. push nets, bottom trawl).
· Vessel size /motorization.
· Seasonal closures during critical periods.
· Seasonal restrictions (specific gears that may trap larvae).
· Limit access.
During that meeting, members discussed their understanding of the concept of refugia. There was a
general commonality of understanding that refugia related to specific areas of significance to the life-
cycle of particular species. Discussion of the kinds of fisheries management approaches that could be
applied in such areas included recognition of the importance of closing areas during critical periods of
the life-cycle such as peak spawning periods, regulating the use of types of gear in sensitive habitats
and/or nursery grounds and other classical fisheries management techniques.
The representative from IUCN noted that refugia could be defined in either space or time, and serve
to protect spawning aggregations, nursery grounds and migratory routes. This participant highlighted
that although refugia might not be recognised in legal terms, various fishery management techniques
could be applied and responsibilities executed to achieve the objectives of the refugia. A review
identified a lack of data, management, technical and financial resources, and poor enforcement as
constraints to their use. It was concluded that clear goals need to be defined for refugia together with
explanations of why they are to be located in a particular place and what benefits will be derived from
their designation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 5
Page 4
STRATEGIC APPROACHES TO ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF FISHERIES REFUGIA FOR THE
GULF OF THAILAND
Possible directions for establishing and implementing a system of fisheries refugia involving the
countries participating in this Project are suggested by the legislative, policy and administrative
options and approaches taken by these countries for coastal and marine planning, including for
instance the designation of areas closed to fishing and the establishment of marine protected areas. It
is likely that there will be differences in the primary planning objectives, design and implementation
(i.e. legislative, policy and administrative approaches) of spatial approaches to natural resource and
environmental management.
It is likely that the countries will reflect differences in:
· Their strategic policy and planning objectives, including the:
Type of planning (e.g. protection v. multiple use);
Area of planning (e.g. administrative boundaries v. geo-ecological (coastal zone));
Designated management agencies (e.g. environment v. resource agency).
· Establishment and administration of spatial management approaches, including:
The spatial planning process (e.g. administrative steps involved);
Identification of sites;
Selection and prioritisation of sites;
Socio-economic assessment of the impacts of management measures;
Consultation, community participation.
These differences will need to be identified and reflected in a regional strategy for the establishment
of a system of fisheries refugia. Figure 1 provides a framework of the strategic steps proposed for the
establishment of such a system.
Nevertheless, there is a number of information needs for the development of the system of refugia.
These relate to the:
· Life-cycle of the species for which refugia are being developed,
· Type(s) of refugia scenario(s) that relate to the species for which refugia are being developed,
· Location of natural refugia and appropriate sites for the establishment of [artificial] refugia,
· National and regional level competencies in the use of fisheries management measures and
spatial approaches to resource management and planning that may be applied to the system,
· Goals, objectives, guiding principles and expected outcomes for the system of refugia from
both national and regional perspectives,
· Refugia priorities, the actual fisheries problems that the refugia will assist in resolving, the
anticipated challenges in the establishment of fisheries refugia, and complementary activities
in the region,
· Criteria for refugia identification and selection, and
· The actions required at the national level to establish fisheries refugia, including identification
of the differences in legislative, policy and administrative approaches between participating
countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 5
Page 5
Figure 1 Proposed Framework for the Establishment of a Regional System of Fisheries
refugia.
Process/Agency
Components
· Goals, Objectives, Principles
Development of a Gulf of Thailand Fisheries
· Criteria & Guidelines for Identification &
Refugia Strategy
Selection of Fisheries Refugia
(Regional Working Group Fisheries)
· Regional Fisheries Refugia Priorities
Fishing Community and Government Consultation on Gulf of Thailand Fisheries
Refugia Strategy
· Background Information on Each Potential
Identification of Candidate Fisheries Refugia
Fisheries Refugia site
(Specialised Executing Agencies for the
· Application of Criteria and Guidelines for
Fisheries Component)
Identification of Sites of Fisheries Refugia
· Identify Potential Fisheries Refugia,
Potential Fisheries Refugia Objectives
Fishing Community and Government Consultation on
Sites Identified as Potential Fisheries Refugia
& promotion at the fishing village level
· Application of Selection Criteria
Selection of Fisheries Refugia
·
(Specialised Executing Agencies for the
Select Refugia for Regional System
Fisheries Component)
· Prioritise Refugia for Regional System
(based on Regional Refugia Priorities)
Fishing Community and Government Consultation on Recommended Refugia
and their Potential Socio-Economic Impacts
& identification of alternative income generation activities for affected fishers
· Assess Feasibility of Fisheries Refugia
Finalise Fisheries Refugia System
· Integrate Socio-economic Considerations in
(Specialised Executing Agencies for the
Making Recommendations on Fisheries
Fisheries Component)
Refugia
Government Approval of Recommendation
Establishment & Management of System of
· Establishment of Individual Refugia
Fisheries Refugia
· Undertake Management Planning
(Relevant National Authority)
· Undertake Day-to-Day Management
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 5
Page 6
Table 1
Goals, Objectives, Guiding Principles and Expected Outcomes for the regional Fisheries Refugia Strategy.
Goals
Objectives
Guiding Principles
Expected Outcomes
Improved use of
· Protecting spawning and nursery areas
· Clear demarcation between different users of the
· Fisheries resources can continue to
spatial approaches to
· Integrating fisheries management into protected area
water body
be used by current and future
fisheries management
management (coordination between fisheries and
· Ensure that socio-economic impacts of establishing
generations
for sustainable use of
environmental agencies
refugia are addressed
· Increase in size of fish populations
fish stocks and
· Enhancing fisheries resources and their habitats
· Collaboration between relevant government agencies · Provision of suitable locations for
maintenance of
· Prevent degradation of habitats and loss of important species
and other stakeholders
fish resource enhancement through
habitats
· Wider use of zoning within fisheries management measures
· Ensure preservation of habitat integrity
re-stocking
· Build awareness amongst fishers of the ecosystem-fisheries
· Clarification of definitions with existing similar
· Improved socio-economic conditions
links
systems, such as MPA, closed seasons and areas
of fishing communities
· Identification of life history
etc
· Enhanced Food security
· Promote the role of sub-populations in stock resilience
· Local community must participate in management
Table 2
Priorities, Problems, Challenges and Performance Indicators for a Regional Refugia System.
Refugia Priorities
Key fisheries problems the
Anticipated challenges in the establishment of fisheries refugia
Indicators that can be used to
Refugia will assist in resolving
measure the effectiveness of
fisheries refugia
Refugia aimed at
· The capture of juveniles
· Overcapacity
· Management responsibility
Protecting spawning
· The capture of broodstock in
· Resistance from fishers/fishing communities (stakeholders)
delegated to the community
stock/broodstock in
areas (and at times) of spawning
· Lack of scientific data and experience
· Enhancement of the ownership
spawning areas and
· The use of inappropriate fishing
· Difficulty and costs associated with research, data and information collection
over the fish resources by the
at times of spawning
gear and practices
· Poor collaboration between the responsible national level agency and the local
community
· The poor management of fish
government
· Acceptance of the refugia system
habitats, particularly in spawning
· Encroachment during periods in which fishers are excluded
at the regional level
and nursery areas
· The size of the refugia
· Density of pelagic species
· Conflicts among resource users
· Enforcement of management measures and regulations prohibiting use of illegal or
eggs/larvae in the area of refugia
destructive fishing gear, in order to prevent the unnecessary capture of juveniles
at the time of spawning
from the refugia areas in inshore waters
· Mean length at first maturity
CRITERIA FOR REFUGIA IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION
Areas important to species with heavily depleted stocks
The use of the area as spawning, nursery or feeding grounds
UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-F.6/3
Annex 5
Page 7
STEPS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH FISHERIES REFUGIA IN PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
Table 3
Steps Required to Establish Fisheries Refugia in the Participating Countries.
Step-by-Step Actions
1. Develop regional strategy.
2. Develop national policy and action plan for fisheries refugia.
3. Collate and review fish, habitat and social information contained in the national reports and
available at the national/regional level, including research.
PHILIPPINES (The following procedures are those adopted in the Philippines in
developing refugia)
1. Conduct of a "multidisciplinary survey" to identify and evaluate candidate sites, if not
feasible proceed to the next step.
2. Conduct desk study to determine the use/importance of the site/area to the life cycle of the
resource.
3. Conduct of public meetings to present survey results, secure agreement to proceed with the
establishment, and cultivate participatory mechanisms:
4. Detailed mapping of the proposed fisheries refugia showing potential size, resource
attributes, and possible zone delineations, applying participatory techniques.
5. Conduct of community meetings and small workshops to initiate the formulation of
management plans, including discussions on allowable resource uses, prohibitions, zoning
system, user fees, administrative mechanisms, physical design and engineering, training
requirements, enforcement procedures, IEC (information, education, communication)
campaign, recommendations for supporting measures, and budgetary plans.
National Government
Responsible agency to come up with a Fisheries Management or Administrative Order for final
review and government approval
"Establishment of an appropriate law for the establishment of the site"
Local Government
Concurrence/acceptance by the majority members of the communities shall be manifested
through signatures on the proposal and formally endorsed to the local legislative body for
consideration and approval by the Mayor.
Implementation of a management plan
6. Work shop for presentation of outcomes of desktop study attended by NGOs, academics
7. Community consultation, including presentation of results of study
8. Mapping of proposed area, showing potential sites
Zone delineation, including consultation with the community
SMALL COMMUNITY MEETINGS Conduct of community workshops to Formulate of
management plans, aimed at obtaining fisher feedback on proposed plans
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Work Plan (2004-2007) and Schedule of Meetings for 2006
Table 1
Work Plan and Time Table for the Fisheries Component to 20076 as agreed during the 6th Regional Working Group meeting.
2004 2005
2006
2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J- F M A M -J J A -S O- N D J F M A M -J J A- S O N- D
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
National Committee meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
National Technical Working Group
X
X
X
X
X
X
RWG-F meetings
X X
X X
Provide information to RWG-F and RSTC
Maintain National Metadata base (Phi&Viecomplete)
Cambodia (not represented)
X
Indonesia
X (15/10)
Philippines (update)
X (27/9)
Thailand
X (31/10)
Vietnam (update metadata)
X (31/10)
Regional Database
Publication of National Reports in local language
Philippines and Vietnam Completed
Cambodia (not represented)
X
Indonesia
X (23/9)
Thailand
X (15/10)
Provide guidance to IMC on the fisheries component input
to SAP
With stakeholders, review/revise plan implement the
Dependent on Strategic Action Programme Development
Strategic Action Programme
Develop awareness materials for stakeholders with RWG-F
Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam completed
Cambodia (not represented)
X
Indonesia
X (31/10)
Develop and implement awareness programmes among
fishing communities (all countries)
Translate into English the awareness raising materials, for
information exchange with other countries
Philippines and Viet Nam completed
Cambodia (not represented)
6 Acronyms used in this table: Cam-Cambodia, Ind-Indonesia, Phi-Philippines, Tha-Thailand, Vie-Viet Nam.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 1 cont. Work Plan and Time Table for the Fisheries Component to 20077 as agreed during the 6th Regional Working Group meeting.
2004 2005
2006
2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J- F M A M -J J A -S O- N D J F M A M -J J A- S O N- D
Indonesia
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
Evaluation of a prototype blast fishing detection system
Promote guidelines for Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries
Provide to the PCU information on current status of promotion of
guidelines for CCRF in each country
Provide information to site managers on fisheries regulations
relevant to the CCRF issues in the habitat demonstration sites
Preparation of relevant information for promoting the CCRF in
the habitat demonstration sites
Promote aspects of the CCRF relevant to the habitat
demonstration sites
Develop national and regional action plans for a regional
system of refugia
Collaboration with national institutions and stakeholders to
determine mechanisms to establish refugia
Identify refugia (from habitat demonstration site proposals and/or
X
other areas of significance)
Extraction of information from National Reports and other
X
sources (CP)
Begin consultations with local fisheries community and other
stakeholders to develop refugia
Contribute to education and awareness campaign in relation to
fisheries issues in proposed sites (CCRF)
Identify possible alternative income generation activities for
affected fishers in the refugia
Prepare and submit proposal(s) to the competent national
authorities for the establishment of refugia for fish stocks of
transboundary and regional significance to be adopted by the
governments
Provide input to habitat demonstration site proposal finalisation
(send initial comments to PCU, and attend meetings in country
on demonstration site proposals)
Inputs
to
the
Regional
Scientific
Conference
National Report Short Version sent to PCU
X (14/10)
Fisheries threats; demonstration sites; CCRF (comments)
X (14/10)
Fisheries refugia (comments)
X (14/10)
7 Acronyms used in this table: Cam-Cambodia, Ind-Indonesia, Phi-Philippines, Tha-Thailand, Vie-Viet Nam.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Annex 6
Page 3
Table 2
Schedule of Meetings for 2006. (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -CR = Coral reefs; -SG = 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) (H = United Nations Holidays)
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
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
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
RTF-E-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
H
H
RTF-L-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
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
RWG-W-7
RWG-F-7
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
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
RWG-CR-7
RWG-SG-7
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
RWG-LbP-7
H
September
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30
RWG-M-7
Ramadan
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
Ramadan
H
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
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
H