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
Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Fisheries Component
Bangkok, Thailand, 16th 18th May 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, May 2006
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:
Community Consultation on the Identification and Establishment of Fish refugia in
Masinloc, Zambales, Philippines on 30th June 2006 by Mr. Noel C. Barut.
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 Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries. UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-F.7/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
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 2005: PROGRESS REPORTS; EXPENDITURE
REPORTS; AUDIT REPORTS; AND MOU AMENDMENTS ............................................................2
4.2 STATUS OF THE REGIONAL SOUTH CHINA SEA META-DATABASE AND GIS, THE PROJECT
WEBSITE, AND INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FISHERIES COMPONENT
OF THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 3
5.
MATTERS RELATING TO THE ACTIVITY OF ESTABLISHING A REGIONAL SYSTEM
OF FISHERIES REFUGIA ............................................................................................................4
5.1 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND FISHERIES REFUGIA, PARTICULARLY
AS THEY RELATE TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND GULF OF
THAILAND..............................................................................................................................4
5.2 DEVELOPING AN INVENTORY OF CANDIDATE FISHERIES REFUGIA SITES AND THE ROLE OF
NATIONAL FISHERIES COMMITTEES AND COASTAL COMMUNITIES IN ESTABLISHING A
REGIONAL SYSTEM OF FISHERIES REFUGIA ............................................................................6
5.3 DEVELOPING AN ONLINE META-DATABASE OF INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF A REGIONAL
SYSTEM OF FISHERIES REFUGIA ............................................................................................8
6.
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED SOUTH CHINA SEA PROJECT TRAINING
ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL SYSTEM OF
FISHERIES REFUGIA ..................................................................................................................8
7.
REVIEW OF A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF
FISHING IN THE HABITAT DEMONSTRATION SITES..............................................................9
8.
FINALISATION OF FISHERIES COMPONENT INPUTS TO THE STRATEGIC ACTION
PROGRAMME ..............................................................................................................................9
9.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON FISHERIES.............................................................................................................10
10. DATES AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON FISHERIES.............................................................................................................10
11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................10
12. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING ...................................................................11
13. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING ...................................................................................................11
iii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Formats for Reporting Information Regarding Various Categories of Sites for
Consideration as Potential Fisheries Refugia
ANNEX 5
Elements for Inclusion in a Revised Strategic Action Programme
ANNEX 6
Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Fisheries 2006 to
2007
iv
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
Address
1.1.1 Dr. John Pernetta, the Project Director opened the meeting, at 08:30 am on 16th May 2006,
and welcomed participants on behalf of the Executive Director of UNEP, Mr. Achim Steiner; and the
Officer-in-Charge of the UNEP Division of Global Environment Facility Co-ordination, Mr. Olivier
Deleuze. He extended a warm welcome to Ms. Chee Phaik Ean the representative of the Department
of Fisheries Malaysia, noting that this was the first meeting at which Malaysia was represented.
1.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that significant progress had been made in a number of areas of the work
of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries (RWG-F) since the last meeting including: further
development of the theoretical basis for the concept of fisheries refugia; publication of guidelines for
their establishment as part of the ASEAN SEAFDEC guidelines for the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia; and preparation of a number of publications designed to
increase dissemination of information regarding the work of the RWG-F.
1.1.3 Dr. Pernetta noted further that the agenda was quite extensive and that due to the anticipated
volume of work in 2006 the Project Steering Committee had agreed that two meetings of the group
would be convened in 2006. He expressed the hope that despite the heavy workload the meeting
would be both enjoyable and productive.
.
1.2 Introduction
of
Members
1.2.1 Dr. Pernetta noted once again the strong support from SEAFDEC to the meeting and the
presence of a number of observers. He invited participants to introduce themselves to the meeting,
and there followed a tour de table during which participants introduced themselves and indicated their
respective roles in the project. The list of participants is provided in Annex 1 of this report.
1.2.2 Dr. Pernetta proposed and the meeting agreed that Ms. Chee Phaik Ean should be accorded
the status of a full member of the meeting rather than merely that of observer.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1 Election
of
Officers
2.1.1
Members were reminded that during the fifth meeting of the Regional Working Group on
Fisheries (RWG-F) held on Phu Quoc Island, 11-14 October 2004, Mr. Noel Barut, Focal Point from
the 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.
Members recalled that at the last meeting of the regional working group held in Kudat, Sabah,
Malaysia 5-8 September 2005, Mr. Pirochana Saikliang, Focal Point from Thailand, Mr. Parlin
Tambunan, Focal Point from Indonesia, and Dr. Dao Manh Son, Focal Point from Viet Nam were
elected as, Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur respectively.
2.1.2
Members recalled 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, and
therefore Mr. Pirochana, Mr. Parlin and Dr. Son were all eligible for re-election.
2.1.3
The Project Director proposed that in order to facilitate consistency between the seventh
and eighth meetings of the Regional Working Group, both of which will take place during 2006, the
group elect officers who are available to serve during both the seventh and eighth meetings.
Dr. Pernetta then called for nominations for Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur.
2.1.4
Mr. Barut nominated Mr. Parlin as Chairperson, and Mr. Pirochana seconded the
nomination. Dr. Son nominated Mr. Ing Try as Vice-Chairperson and Mr. Pirochana nominated
Mr. Barut as Rapporteur. Mr. Parlin, Mr. Try, and Mr. Barut were duly elected by acclamation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 2
2.2
Documentation and Administrative Arrangements
2.2.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson, the Project Co-ordinating Unit Member of the Working
Group to introduce the documentation available to the meeting. Mr. Paterson reviewed the documents
listed in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/Inf.2 and noted that these had been lodged on the
project website and were also available to participants on CD-ROM. He briefly highlighted the
contents of the discussion documents indicating the key issues requiring discussion and decision by
the Regional Working Group. Members were invited to table any additional documents including
copies of new national outputs if any, and the full list of documents available to the meeting is
contained in Annex 2 of this report.
2.3
Organisation of Work
2.3.1 The Chairperson then invited Mr. Paterson to introduce the draft programme for the conduct
of business contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/Inf.3. Mr. Paterson noted that the
meeting was scheduled to take place over three days and that the working group could form small
working groups to deliberate on matters overnight should the need arise. He noted that formal
sessions of the meeting would be conducted in English and in Plenary.
2.3.2 Mr. Barut proposed and it was agreed that during the period when the Secretariat was
preparing the report Ms. Nita Tangsujarivitchit would be available to assist individual members in
clarifying issues regarding the budgets and financial reports and in finalising any outstanding reports.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson introduced the Provisional Agenda prepared by the PCU for the meeting as
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/1, and the Annotated Provisional Agenda, document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/2 and invited members to propose any amendments or additional items for
consideration.
3.2
There being no proposals for amendment or additions to the agenda the draft as prepared by
the PCU was adopted by the meeting and is presented in Annex 3 of this report.
4. REPORTS
REGARDING
OVERALL PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of the Administrative Reports for 2005: Progress Reports; Expenditure Reports;
Audit Reports; and MoU Amendments
4.1.1 The Chairperson, Mr. Parlin invited the PCU Member to introduce document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/4, "Current Status of Budgets and Reports from the Specialised Executing
Agencies in the Participating Countries" and highlight recent developments in relation to the fisheries
refugia activity of the project that will require each member to discuss individually their administrative
reports and budgets with the PCU member on the evenings of the 16th and 17th May.
4.1.2
Mr. Paterson noted that given the plans for further development of the refugia concept and
identification of a regional system of refugia and in identifying the approaches to be used in
addressing fisheries threats at the demonstration sites there might be a need to revise the budgets in
order to ensure that national level activities involved in developing the refugia could be conducted
according to the agreed work plan and timetable.
4.1.3
Mr. Barut noted that a major constraint in the Philippines was the finalisation of financial
reports that had been previously prepared by an assistant hired through the project. Subsequently
following the departure of this assistant it had been difficult to meet the deadlines. Mr. Pirochana
noted that he had faced similar difficulties, particularly since he had just been transferred from
Bangkok, as Acting Director of Chumphon Marine Fisheries Research and Development Centre in
Chumphon Province.
4.1.4
Mr. Parlin noted that following the previous meeting Indonesia had made significant progress
and that all the required outputs had now been produced.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 3
4.1.5
Mr. Try suggested that there had been inadequate guidance from the PCU regarding the
convening of national meetings, that the concept of refugia was not clear and that it was effectively
covered by fisheries management areas, closed seasons and marine protected areas. In response
Dr. Pernetta noted that the PCU provided generic guidance regarding the tasks of the Focal Points
and National Committees, through the Memoranda of Understanding but that it was not appropriate
for the PCU to dictate the way in which national activities were conducted, since this was dependent
upon the cultural and government context. He noted that the RWG-F was clear on the distinctions
between fisheries management areas, MPAs and refugia and that the latter reflected management
areas that were of importance to critical stages of the life history of commercially important species.
4.1.6
Dr. Yashuhisa Kato, from the SEAFDEC Secretariat noted that there was a need to adapt the
regional guidelines on refugia as appropriate to each national context and to ensure that fisheries
issues were taken into consideration during the development of MPAs. Mr. Paterson noted that it
would be necessary to identify and select sites as potential refugia through a process of consultations
at national and community level, and that there was also a need to consider whether existing MPAs
could function as refugia.
4.1.7
Mr. Parlin noted that there has been a strong focus in Indonesia on protected areas and that
the involvement of fisheries authorities in their identification and adoption was critical to ensuring
incorporation of fisheries related issues into MPA management systems.
4.1.8
Dr. Kato informed the meeting about recent activities in Viet Nam that had been initiated by
the Prime Minister in an attempt to improve co-ordination between fisheries management and marine
protected area management.
4.1.9
Mr. Barut noted that recent conflicts in the fisheries sector in the Visayan Sea had resulted in
proposals for total closure of the fishery from NGOs, compared with the existing four month closure
(15th November to 15th March). One regional office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
is in favour of extending the closure to 6 months whilst a second office is opposed to changing the
existing situation. Mr. Barut noted that he had introduced the refugia concept as an alternative
approach, which seemed to be acceptable to all parties. Hence the focus would now be to identify
critical areas of habitat that would be regulated and managed rather than adopting a total closure
approach to the entire Gulf.
4.2
Status of the Regional South China Sea Meta-Database and GIS, the Project Website,
and Initiatives to Promote the Activities of the Fisheries Component of the Project
4.2.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/5,
"Status of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project Website, Online Tools, and Activities to Promote
the Fisheries Component of the Project".
4.2.2
Mr. Paterson noted that there are currently in excess of one hundred institutions directly
involved in the project, and more than four hundred institutions indirectly involved through individual
participation in National Committees and Sub-committees and Regional Working Groups. It is
anticipated that this network will continue to grow as the demonstration sites and pilot activities
become fully operational. Consequently the PCU had decided to develop a new website with greater
potential for use in enhancing co-ordination of this network and dissemination of outputs.
4.2.3
He noted that the project has developed a wide range of outputs, including:
· Knowledge documents,
· An online Geographical Information System and Meta-database,
· English and national-language reviews of the science and management of marine habitats
and fisheries,
· A nutrient carrying capacity model for the South China Sea,
· National Action Plans for key marine habitats, and
· 59 meeting reports and numerous discussion documents for these meetings.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 4
4.2.4
Mr. Paterson noted further that, the implementation of demonstration site interventions and
pilot activities will see the number of project outputs grow considerably over the next 2 years. There
have been a number of key lessons learned in the project, especially in relation to the procedures
used for the selection of demonstration sites and the management framework adopted for project
implementation. Similarly, the project will continue to promote and support the sharing of lessons
learned associated with the demonstration sites and pilot activities during the operational phase of the
project.
4.2.5
In attempting to demonstrate the meta-database function on-line during the meeting it was
noted that significant amounts of data had been removed and the meeting was informed that SEA
START RC had removed all the data due to errors in some entries and that these were being
re-entered. Members felt that this was an inappropriate way of addressing the problems and that the
database should have been left on line, and the errors corrected in an off-line copy for subsequent
up loading.
4.2.6
Members were invited to discuss how the project web site could be used to foster enhanced
communication amongst the members of the working group and the wider South China Sea network. It
was suggested that a monthly up-date of activities from members could be consolidated by,
Mr. Paterson and a link provided in the monthly e-newsletter, to this entry on the fisheries page of the
web site.
4.2.7
Dr. Son noted that the level of national activities in the fisheries component was lower in 2006
than in the past and that perhaps monthly inputs would be too frequent. Mr. Pirochana and Mr. Try
agreed with this view and suggested that submissions should be made as and when activities had taken
place. Mr. Barut noted that numerous stakeholder consultations had been scheduled for the remainder
of this year in support of the development of fisheries refugia at the local level in the Philippines and felt
therefore that monthly submissions were practical in the case of the Philippines.
4.2.8
There followed an extensive discussion of the practicality of making regular submissions and
the frequency with which the members could make such submissions. It was suggested, and the
meeting agreed that not every country necessarily needed to submit items for inclusion each month but
that Mr. Paterson would simply assemble whatever information was submitted and ensure that links to
this were provided in the project's monthly e-newsletter.
4.2.9
Dr. Pernetta drew to the attention of the meeting the fact that the Regional Task Force on Legal
Matters had agreed to establish four e-fora discussion groups to elaborate on views regarding aspects
of the work of the Task Force in order to clarify the common position of members in advance of the next
meeting. He suggested and Dr. Kato agreed that perhaps as other agenda items were discussed, topics
needing further clarification might become apparent and that these could then be taken up as topics for
discussion via such e-fora.
4.2.10 Mr. Parlin invited Mr. Paterson to introduce the two fisheries component papers that had been
drafted as "popular" articles to enhance understanding in the region of the concept of fisheries refugia.
He noted that one addressed the issue of whether Marine Protected Areas could be included in a
regional system of fisheries refugia and the second on managing the effects of fishing on coastal
habitats of the South China Sea and the Gulf of Thailand.
4.2.11 The group was unanimous in agreeing that the production of such articles was extremely
valuable as a means of enhancing understanding of the work of the group amongst the wider South
China Sea network and the fisheries and environment officers in the region. It was further agreed that
following the discussion of agenda item five the main areas of these papers requiring modification and
elaboration would become apparent and the group could discuss how and when the modifications could
be completed and where the articles should be submitted for publication.
5.
MATTERS RELATING TO THE ACTIVITY OF ESTABLISHING A REGIONAL SYSTEM OF
FISHERIES REFUGIA
5.1
Difference between Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Refugia, particularly as they
relate to fisheries management in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
5.1.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/6,
"Marine Protected Areas and the Concept of Fisheries Refugia Developed by the Regional Working
Group on Fisheries", and noted that this document once reviewed by the RWG-F will be used by the
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 5
PCU member during the FAO Workshop on the Use of Marine Protected Areas in Fisheries
Management in June 2006.
5.1.2
Mr. Paterson noted the need to identify candidate refugia sites and consequently the need to
consider whether existing MPAs and or current fisheries management areas could be adopted as part
of a regional system of refugia. He noted that links between habitats and critical stages in fish life
cycles were often not considered in the context of establishing MPAs that tended to focus on broader
biodiversity goals but at the same time often used the presumed benefits to fisheries as a justification
for their establishment. Where an MPA is merely a "no-take area" then it would not necessarily qualify
as, a refugia, since it would need to be demonstrated that the area was of importance to a critical
stage of the life history of the species under consideration.
5.1.3 Mr. Paterson noted that closures whether seasonal, spot or, area-related were classical
fisheries management practices that were applied to fishing grounds, regardless of whether or not the
fishing ground was of critical importance to the life history of the exploited species.
5.1.4
Mr. Parlin invited the RWG-F to initially consider whether the definition of refugia developed
during the fifth meeting of the RWG-F was adequate for the purposes of the working group. Mr. Somsak
suggested that in order to review the definition of refugia the definition of Marine Protected Areas should
be reviewed and in response Dr. Pernetta suggested that this had been done during the fifth meeting
when the IUCN classification system of marine protected areas had been considered in some detail.
During that discussion it had been noted that the IUCN system had categories ranging from full
protection, no take areas, through to management areas in which certain fisheries activities took place
under a well-controlled regime.
5.1.5
Dr. Kato was of the view that it was less productive to discuss the definitions than to consider
how the concept of fisheries refugia could be used as a tool in the dialogue between marine fisheries
managers and agencies and individuals concerned with the establishment of marine protected areas.
He noted in this regard that he was aware that there were ongoing discussions in various countries
concerning the designation of, for example 10% of national marine areas as MPAs, through to proposals
that all coastal waters to three nautical miles offshore should be designated as marine protected areas.
He noted that the present work of the RWG-F provided a basis for fisheries managers in the countries to
become engaged in a dialogue with the environment ministries regarding the establishment of such
MPAs that took into account fisheries objectives and benefits for the fish stocks.
5.1.6
There followed a wide-ranging discussion regarding the relationships between MPAs, fisheries
refugia, and fisheries management areas during which Mr. Barut pointed out that in one case in the
Philippines an MPA was being designated, the main purpose of which was to protect mangrove habitat
as a nursery area for demersal fish stocks. Dr. Pernetta noted that the key purpose of fisheries refugia
was to focus on management areas that were important to the critical stages of the life cycle of the
exploited stocks. He noted that for example inshore seagrass beds often served as nursery areas for
offshore demersal fish stocks and that if the habitats were severely degraded by in-shore fishing, then
the offshore stock was likely to be dramatically reduced in size.
5.1.7
Mr. Try noted that in the case of Marine Fish Sanctuaries in Cambodia these were normally
divided into core, buffer and transition zones of which the core zone would serve as a refugium. In
response it was noted that this would be true only in a case where the core zone encompassed habitat
critical to the fish stock or stocks concerned.
5.1.8
Ms. Chee noted that the Malaysia Marine Parks had been originally established with the
objective of conserving fisheries resources and that no fishing was allowed within 2 nautical miles. She
noted that the management plans for each marine park included conservation of biodiversity and noted
further that recent studies had shown that grouper populations in the Marine Parks were dependent
upon mangrove habitats on the mainland as nursery habitat for the juveniles.
5.1.9
Mr. Barut noted that in Table 1 he would like to see the addition of a shorter-term objective
under the institutional related goal "enhanced communication between government authorities and local
stakeholders". This proposal was accepted by the meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 6
5.1.10 Mr. Pirochana noted that in the case of classical fisheries management measures in Prachuap
Khiri Khan, Chumphon, and Surat Thani, Provinces, Thailand, small pelagic fishing grounds were closed
to fishing from 15th February to the end of March to prevent capture of spawning individuals, and from 1st
April to 15th May they were closed to prevent over fishing of the juveniles. He noted therefore that in his
view this area could potentially be identified as, a fisheries refugia. Mr. Barut noted that in the Visayan
Sea fisheries, a closed season for sardines operated for four months under a Fisheries administrative
order and that this also constituted a pelagic nursery refugia.
5.1.11 Mr. Parlin noted that marine protected areas in Indonesia were under the jurisdiction of a
different government agency from fisheries but that this might change in the future. He invited members
to review and revise the preliminary checklist for evaluating if fisheries management areas qualify as
fisheries refugia.
5.1.12 Members were in general agreement with the checklist presented in Information Box 2 although
some views were presented regarding the need to expand these further. Dr. Kato felt that the
preliminary checklist was adequate at the regional level but might require amplification if applied in a
national context. The meeting agreed with this view and accepted the list as follows:
·
Has the site been selected in terms of achieving one or more of the resource-related
objectives of the regional system of fisheries refugia?
· Can the site be managed in the context of achieving one or more of the institutional goals and
objectives for the regional system of fisheries refugia?
· Does the management of the area focus on the concept of sustainable use rather than the
prohibition of fishing?
· Will the use of the area as a fisheries refugium ensure that any required reduction in fishing
effort does not lead to an increase in fishing effort or use of inappropriate fishing gears and
practices in areas adjacent to the site that are more critical to the life-cycle of the species for
which the refugium is managed?
· Have the potential benefits and costs to the community of managing the area as a fisheries
refugium been considered and communicated to fishers?
5.2
Developing an Inventory of Candidate Fisheries Refugia Sites and the role of National
Fisheries Committees and Coastal Communities in Establishing a Regional System of
Fisheries Refugia
5.2.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/7,
"A Preliminary Inventory of Sites for Consideration as Candidate Fisheries Refugia and the Role of
National Committees and Coastal Community Consultations in Establishing a Regional System of
Fisheries Refugia".
5.2.2
Mr. Paterson noted that the framework for the development of a system of refugia in the Gulf
of Thailand had been approved at the previous meeting and that at this point in time the group was
concerned with the identification of candidate fisheries refugia and the present document outlined the
next steps in the process.
5.2.3
The attention of the group was drawn to the proposed two-track approach for the initial
identification of some fisheries refugia, i.e., identification of candidate spawning refugia for pelagic
species and candidate inshore nursery refugia for demersal species. Mr. Paterson highlighted the
outcome of his review of the national reports, which had resulted in the compilation of data from the
national reports regarding spawning areas for key transboundary species.
5.2.4 The Chairperson invited members to consider, and amend as appropriate the format for
reporting information about managed and unmanaged areas that qualify as candidate fisheries
refugia; a timeline for reporting information about managed and unmanaged areas that qualify as
candidate fisheries refugia for inclusion in a regional system; and, the role of the National Fisheries
Committees and Coastal Community Consultations in selecting sites for inclusion in a regional system
of fisheries refugia from a preliminary list of candidate sites.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 7
5.2.5
The group considered the proposed changes in wording contained in bold in Tables 1 and 3
and agreed to accept these in preference to the original. At the same time it was agreed to drop the
words "through restocking" from the amendment proposed to bullet three in column 3 of table 1, and
to change "sectors" to "users" in bullet 1 of column 1 in Table 3. The amended wording was thus
agreed as follows:
· Increase the use of zoning as a fisheries management tool.
· There will be effectively managed areas that can be used for fish resource enhancement.
· Clear demarcation between different fishing areas for different users (e.g. commercial
operators and small scale fishers).
5.2.6
The Proposed format for reporting information about fisheries management areas that may
qualify as candidate sites of fisheries refugia was then considered by the meeting. Mr. Paterson noted
that following an informal meeting over the last weekend Mr. Somsak and Mr. Pirochana had
commenced compilation of relevant information for a number of fisheries management areas in
Thailand.
5.2.7
Mr. Pirochana introduced this compilation to the meeting which agreed that this served as a
useful model for members to identify the kinds of information that could be assembled comparatively
easily in order to evaluate whether or not existing management areas were actually refugia. He
outlined various stakeholder conflicts that were associated with the Prachuap Khiri Khan, Chumphon,
Surat Thani area of fisheries management.
5.2.8 Following some initial consideration of the format and resulting contents it was agreed that Mr.
Paterson would work overnight in consultation with members to prepare comparable formats for
unmanaged areas that might qualify as candidate fisheries refugia for consideration by the group in
the morning.
5.2.9
Mr. Paterson presented the two new tabulations covering the SCS habitat demonstration
sites and pelagic spawning areas. These were considered and discussed at some length, amended
and are attached as Annex 4 of this report.
5.2.10 The Chairperson invited members to consider the time required to compile this information
and Mr. Paterson suggested that if the information were compiled during the inter-sessional period
then the outputs could be consolidated into a single list in advance of, and for consideration by, the
eighth meeting in November 2006. He suggested further that a date in early August might be a
suitable time for submission of inputs to the PCU. It was noted during discussion that there would be
a need for consultations with the local communities in identifying candidate sites for inclusion in the
regional system of refugia.
5.2.11 Following agreement from the individual members it was agreed that submissions would be
made by 18th August following which Mr. Paterson would produce and circulate a synthesis of the
inputs by 1st September. By Friday 22nd September members would review and send comments back
to the PCU in order that the document could be finalised for consideration by the eighth meeting.
5.2.12 During discussion of the conduct of community consultations Mr. Barut noted that two
consultations in the context of the wetlands and mangrove demonstration sites in Palawan had
already taken place and that follow-up activities were to be funded through the demonstration site
budgets. A further consultation was planned for 2006. He noted the importance of being selective in
the choice of communities since it was important not to waste scarce resources by conducting such
consultations in areas where local government support was lacking.
5.2.13 Mr. Pirochana noted that ongoing consultations in the context of existing fisheries
management areas could be used to consider candidate refugia. Dr. Son noted that an initial
stakeholder consultation had already taken place in Viet Nam and that further activities would be
undertaken during the year. Mr. Parlin noted that an initial discussion in the national committee
meeting would be undertaken before the end of May.
5.2.14 Ms. Chee indicated that in Malaysia an initial review of information relevant to refugia would
need to be undertaken prior to consultations with stakeholders.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 8
5.3
Developing an Online Meta-Database of Information in Support of a Regional System
of Fisheries Refugia
5.3.1
In introducing this agenda item Mr. Paterson noted that the entire process of identifying
candidate refugia would involve the compilation of extensive data and information encompassing a
number of areas for which the present regional database was perhaps inadequate. He suggested that
the substantive work of the RWG-F could be supported through establishment of a specialised meta-
database of information relating to: fish early-life history science; the use of area-based approaches to
fisheries management; and, the management of fisheries refugia in national waters.
5.3.2 There was unanimous agreement regarding the need for, and value of, such a meta-
database and Mr. Paterson indicated that he would commence preparation of a list of specific fields
applicable to refugia. During discussion it was noted that some of the existing reports and meta-data
entries were relevant for inclusion in the new meta-database.
5.3.3 Following completion of this discussion the need for revision of the popular article relating to
Marine Protected Areas and refugia was considered and the need for a number of minor amendments
was noted. It was agreed that all members would provide comments and proposals for change to Mr.
Paterson by the end of June. He would revise the document and circulate it for approval on a no
objections basis, prior to submitting it to "Fish for the People". It was further suggested that the article
could be published in national fisheries journals, in English or in national languages, with cross
citation.
6.
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED SOUTH CHINA SEA PROJECT TRAINING
ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL SYSTEM OF
FISHERIES REFUGIA
6.1
Mr. Parlin invited the PCU Member to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/8 "The
South China Sea Project Training Programme: Supporting the Establishment of a Regional System of
Fisheries Refugia". Mr. Paterson outlined: the process of development; the aim and modus operandi
of the South China Sea Project training programme; as well as the procedures proposed for the
selection of Implementing Entities and the conduct of training courses. He reviewed the desired
content for the two fisheries refugia related training courses as identified by the Regional Scientific
and Technical Committee, and highlighted the optimum types of trainees and their background. He
noted further that SEAFDEC had been identified as the only potential implementing agency for these
two courses.
6.2
In discussion of the nature of the trainees Mr. Barut suggested that for the general training on
refugia the focus should be on local government officials who would be responsible for establishing
and managing in-shore refugia, whilst training on egg and larval identification should focus on
technical personnel in the specialised executing agencies or research institutions. During discussion it
was noted that junior officers were appointed in many fisheries departments with responsibility for
larval fish identification and that these individuals might be the targets for training.
6.3
Dr. Kato suggested that in his view: the training should focus on training trainers; that one
week was probably too limited; and that course materials such as species identification sheets for
eggs and larvae would need to be prepared in advance of the implementation of the course; that the
training should be linked with the national programmes of SEAFDEC cruises that involved the
collection of eggs and larvae. Dr. Kato noted that the egg and larval identification sheets could be
produced as an output of the SCS Project.
6.4
Mr. Barut asked whether it would be possible to include a cruise to collect samples and it was
indicated that this would need to be decided by the Executing Agency in relation to overall costs of the
training activity. It was noted that in principle additional participants beyond those supported through
the project grant could be supported by the governments up to whatever limits were set by the
facilities available in the Executing Agency.
6.5
During discussion it was noted that numerous publications containing information on larval
and juvenile morphology could be used to "cut and paste" and produce identification sheets for a
number of important species up to say 100 plus species whilst the training course might focus on a
more limited number of important species.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 9
6.6
Mr. Pirochana noted that he felt that training on the refugia concept including selection
criteria, and methods of evaluating effectiveness was particularly important and that perhaps more
senior people should participate in this course in order to deliver training seminars in each country. It
was also noted that the SIDA-SEAFDEC training programme on fisheries refugia could be integrated
closely with this proposed training course.
6.7
It was further agreed that Mr. Paterson would contact appropriate staff in SEAFDEC to
discuss these courses and the Project Director would write an initial letter to the Secretary General of
SEAFDEC regarding the implementation of these courses.
7.
REVIEW OF A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF
FISHING IN THE HABITAT DEMONSTRATION SITES
7.1
The Chairperson invited the PCU Member to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
F.7/9 "Preliminary Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing in the Habitat Demonstration Sites".
Mr. Paterson reviewed the previous deliberations of the RWG-F, the Regional Working Groups for the
Habitat Sub-Components, and the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee regarding this matter.
He noted that nearly all habitat demonstration sites had highlighted fisheries as a threat and that
following discussions during the Regional Scientific Conference a consensus view had emerged of
the need for a clearer definition of the difference between the "threats from fisheries" and the "threats
to fisheries".
7.2
Mr. Paterson presented the preliminary framework for assessing the effects of fishing on the
environment; the effects of the environment on fisheries; and key issues in the study and
management of fisheries and habitat linkages.
7.3
During discussion of Figure 1 it was suggested and agreed that "reduced water quality"
should be reworded as "change in water quality". There followed an extensive and somewhat
inconclusive discussion regarding the distinction between target and non-target species as an
outcome of which it was agreed that these should be combined.
7.4
During a discussion of the changes in water quality it was noted that the present diagram
included both aquaculture and fish processing activities, whilst in contrast for example the
components of habitat change did not include aquaculture. It was agreed that the approach should be
consistent across all sub-components and that perhaps aquaculture should be separated as a
separate diagram, and/or the "Effects of Fishing ......" should be reworded as "Effects of Fishing and
related activities on .....".
7.5
In discussing Figure 2 it was noted that an important area of concern was the impact of social
conditions on both the environment and the fisheries sector and vice versa. It was agreed that figures
1 and 2 should be thoroughly revised to clearly distinguish the effects of fishing from those of
aquaculture on the environment and these revised figures would be sent to members for their review
and comment.
7.6
The meeting agreed that a first draft of guidelines for assessing the effects of fishing in the
habitat demonstration sites would be completed by the end of August. Members would provide
comments by the end of September together with case studies of the effects of fishing on the
environment. The second draft will be completed for consideration by, the eighth meeting of the
working group.
7.7
In considering the revision of the popular article on managing the impacts of fishing on the
environment it was agreed that a revised draft would be completed and dispatched to members by
16th June. Members would respond to the PCU by the end of July and the article would be submitted
for publication both in Fish for the People and in national journals as appropriate.
8.
FINALISATION OF FISHERIES COMPONENT INPUTS TO THE STRATEGIC ACTION
PROGRAMME
8.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/10
"Regional Working Group for the Fisheries Component Inputs to the Regional Strategic Action
Programme". Mr. Paterson reviewed the development of the fisheries component goals, targets, and
regional and national level activities to date. He highlighted the advice of the Regional Scientific and
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 10
Technical Committee, which had indicated at its' last meeting that the RWG-F should evaluate the
wording of all proposed regional and national activities in relation to the revised goals and targets.
8.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that for clarity it might be better to make reference to the ASEAN
SEAFDEC Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia rather than simply the Code of
Conduct. The meeting agreed with this proposal.
8.3
There followed an extensive and detailed consideration of the wording of the national and
regional level activities during which they were amended and the list expanded. The agreed list of
activities is contained in Annex 7 to this report.
8.4
In closing this agenda item it was agreed that each member would need to develop a national
programme of specific costed activities that would implement the broad programme of actions
proposed in Annex 7, at the national level. It was noted that this would need to be related to specific
sites and that the costings should be realistic and reflect the actual sites of proposed interventions. It
was agreed that members would put together such national level programmes for discussion and
consideration during the eighth meeting of the working group.
9.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON FISHERIES
9.1
The Chairperson invited the PCU Member to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
F.7/11, "Work Plan for the Regional Working Group on Fisheries for 2006 and 2007". Mr. Paterson
informed the meeting that he had revised the activities table overnight to take into account prior
agreements regarding the submission of outputs and finalisation of various documents.
9.2
The revised work plan was projected and items considered and discussed in detail by the
members taking into account discussions under earlier agenda items. The amended tables and
agreed work plan and schedule are contained in Annex 6 of this report.
10.
DATES AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON FISHERIES
10.1
The Chairperson reminded the RWG-F that during the sixth meeting it had been decided
that, the meeting in 2006 would be convened in Tanjung Pandan, Bangka Belitung Province,
Indonesia, which is a fishing port adjacent to the Indonesian coral reef demonstration site.
Subsequently it had been agreed by the RSTC that a second meeting would be required given the
anticipated workload of the working group.
10.2
Subsequent to this decision it had been decided by the working group to convene the first
meeting in 2006 in Bangkok, Thailand. Mr. Parlin informed the meeting that he would be happy to
host the next meeting in Belitung as originally planned.
10.3
The members thanked the Chairperson for his offer to host the eighth meeting in Belitung
and following discussion of the difficulties of internal travel in Indonesia at the end of Ramadan it was
agreed to alter the dates to 1st to 4th November inclusive, subject to clarification from the Chairperson
regarding travel arrangements.
11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
11.1
Mr. Parlin invited members to raise any other matters for consideration by the meeting.
11.2
Mr. Barut raised the issue of the expert members of the group noting Mr. Geronimo Silvestre
had been unable to attend the last three meetings due to his other commitments and that he would
not be available for the remainder of the project. He proposed that Professor Nygiel Armada be
invited to join the group as an expert member in place of Mr. Silvestre. The group accepted this
proposal and the Project Director advised the meeting that he would inform the National Technical
Focal Points accordingly.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Page 11
11.3
Ms. Chee noted that upon her return to Malaysia she would talk to senior management
regarding the administrative arrangements necessary to formalise the position of Malaysia in the
fisheries component of the project.
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12.1
The Rapporteur, Mr. Noel Barut presented the draft report of the meeting, prepared by the
Secretary during the meeting. The draft report was considered, amended and adopted as it appears
in this document.
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
13.1
The Chairperson invited participants to make any closing remarks. Ms. Chee expressed her
appreciation to UNEP and the members of the Regional Working Group for inviting Malaysia to attend
this meeting. Mr. Ing Try expressed appreciation to the PCU for the good organisation of the meeting,
and Dr. Dao Man Son thanked all participants for their collegial approach to the meeting and noted
that he looked forward to meeting everyone again in Belitung. Mr. Pirochana noted with appreciation
the hard work of all members and thanked Mr. Paterson for his ongoing support to the work of the
group.
13.2
Mr. Somsak noted that the cordial atmosphere had contributed to making the meeting very
productive. He echoed the welcome expressed to Ms. Chee and looked forward to the ongoing
participation of Malaysia in the work of the group. Mr. Nasuri expressed his thanks for the opportunity
to participate in this meeting which he felt would be of direct value in his day-to-day work. The
Rapportuer expressed thanks to the RSTC in recognising the need for two meetings in 2006 and to
the PCU for their continuing support to the meeting.
13.2
In closing the meeting the Chairperson expressed, on behalf of the working group, his thanks
to the PCU for their assistance and support to the work of the group. He noted that in Indonesia the
idea of refugia was a new concept, which he hoped would receive wider support in the country in the
future. He thanked Khun Unchalee and Khun Nita for their administrative support to ensuring that all
preparations were made efficiently and in time. He wished all participants a safe return and urged
members to disseminate the work of the group at the national level.
13.2
The Chairperson formally closed the meeting at 1610 on Thursday 18th May, 2006.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
Indonesia
Mr. Ing Try, Deputy Director
Ir. Parlin Tambunan, Director of Fisheries Resources
Department of Fisheries
Director General of Capture Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Jln. Harsono RM No. 3, Gd. B, Lt VI
186 Norodom Blvd.
Ragunan Pasar Minggu
P.O. Box 582
Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Tel:
(62 21) 781 1672; Mobile: (62) 81 698 1032
Tel:
(855 23) 219256; Mobile: 855 11 957 884
Fax: (62 21) 781 1672
Fax:
(855 23) 219256, 427048, 215470
E-mail: dfrmdgf@indosat.net.id;
E-mail: tmmp.cam@online.com.kh
dgcfstat@indosat.net.id
Malaysia
Philippines
Ms. Chee Phaik Ean, Senior Research Officer
Mr. Noel Barut
Head of Aquatic Ecosystems Section
National Fisheries Research and Development
Fisheries Research Institute
Institute, Department of Agriculture
11960 Batu Maung
940 Kayumanggi, Press Building I
Penang, Malaysia
Quezon Avenue
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel:
(60 4) 626 5824; 626 3925
Fax:
(60 4) 626 2210
Tel: (63 2) 373 6336; Mobile: (63) 917 8385701
E-mail: chee@fri.gov.my
Fax: (63 2) 372 5063
E-mail: noel_barut@hotmail.com
Thailand
Viet Nam
Mr. Pirochana Saikliang, Senior Fishery Biologist
Dr. Dao Manh Son, Vice Director
Chumphon Marine Fisheries Research and
Research Institute for Marine Fisheries
Development Center
170 Le Lai Street
408 Moo 8, Paknum Sub-district
Haiphong City
Muang District, Chumphon 86120, Thailand
Viet Nam
Tel:
(66 77) 522 006; 522 007
Tel: (84 31) 837 898, 836 135
Mobile: (66) 01 843 9887
Mobile: (84) 91 3329782
Fax:
(66 77) 522 006; 522 007
Fax: (84 31) 836 812
E-mail: pirochas@fisheries.go.th
E-mail: daoson@hn.vnn.vn
Regional Experts
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) 693 1828
Email: papasomsak@hotmail.com
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Observers
Dr. Yasuhisa Kato, Special Advisor
Dr. Magnus Torell, Senior Advisor
SEAFDEC Secretariat
SEAFDEC Secretariat
Suraswadi Building
Suraswadi Building
Kasetsart University Campus
Kasetsart 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 6335; 940 6326
Tel:
(66 2) 955 1557; 940 6326 ext. 103
Mobile: (66) 1 825 5636
Mobile: (66) 9 962 1819
Fax:
(66 2) 940 6336
Fax:
(66 2) 940 6336
E-mail: kato@seafdec.org
E-mail: magnus@seafdec.org
Mr. Martin Bjerner
Mr. Nazori Djazuli
Associate Expert Fisheries Management
Head of Planning Division
SEAFDEC Secretariat, Suraswadi Building
Secretariat Directorate General of Capture
Kasetsart University Campus
Fisheries
P.O. Box 1046 Kasetsart Post Office
MOMAF Building 12th Floor
Bangkok 10903, Thailand
JI. Medan Merdeka Timur No.16
Jakarta Pusat 10110, Indonesia
Tel:
(66 2) 940 6326 ext. 132
Mobile: (66) 9 022 1989
Tel:
(62 21) 351 9113, 352 1781
Fax:
(66 2) 940 6336
Fax:
(62 21) 351 9113, 352 1781
E-mail: martin@seafdec.org
E-mail: nozoryfish@hotmail.com
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.7/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/1 Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/2 Annotated
Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Report of the Meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/4 Current
Status of Budgets and Reports from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/5
Status of the Project Website, Online Tools, and Activities
to Promote the Fisheries Component of the Project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/6 Marine
Protected Areas and the Concept of Fisheries
Refugia developed by the Regional Working Group for
Fisheries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/7
A Preliminary Inventory of Sites for Consideration as
Candidate Fisheries Refugia and the Role of National
Committees and Coastal Community Consultations in
Establishing a Regional System of Fisheries Refugia.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/8
The South China Sea Project Training Programme:
Supporting the Establishment of a Regional System of
Fisheries Refugia.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/9
Preliminary Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing
in the Habitat Demonstration Sites.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/10 Regional
Working Group for the Fisheries Component
Inputs to the Regional Strategic Action Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/11
Work Plan for the Regional Working Group on Fisheries for
2006 and 2007.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/Inf.1
List of Participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/Inf.2
List of Documents.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/Inf.3 Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.6-Sub-Comm
First Meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Sixth 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. Bangkok, Thailand, 6th 10th February, 2006
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.6-Sub-Comm.
Published Reports supplied in hard copy (available on the Project Website www.unepscs.org)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.6/3
Sixth 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. Report of the
Meeting. Batam, Indonesia, 8th 10th December, 2005
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 2
Page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.5/3
Fifth 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. Batam, Indonesia, 12th 14th December,
2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.6/3
Sixth 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.
Bolinao, Philippines, 27th 30th September 2005
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.6/3 Sixth 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. Masinloc,
Philippines, 22nd 25th August 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-CR.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3 Sixth
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.
Busuanga, Philippines, 1st 5th August 2005 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-M.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.6/3
Sixth 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.
Sihanoukville, Cambodia, 12th 15th September 2005
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Sixth 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. Kudat, Sabah,
Malaysia, 5th 8th September 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-
F.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.6/3
Sixth 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.
Ninh Hai, Ninh Thuan, Viet Nam, 18th 21st July 2005
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 2
Page 3
Documents tabled during the meeting:
Popular Articles
1. "Can Marine Protected Areas be Included in a Regional System of Fisheries Refugia?" [Draft]
2. "Managing the Effects of Fishing on Coastal Habitats of the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand" [Draft]
CD-ROM
1*CD-ROM containing:
Package of the SCS Meta-Database Template files
SCS Meta-Database Template Installation Guide
SCS Meta-Database Updating Guide
SCS Nutrient Carrying Capacity Model User Manual
SCS Project Website User Manual
RWG-F-7 Meeting Documents
Reports of the RWG-F meetings (1-6)
Thailand:
"Thai Fishery Laws", by Coastal Habitats and Resources Management Project:
CHARM, November 2005, 106pp. in hard copy.
Philippines: Flipchart:
"General Information of Coastal Resource Management", 34pp.
SEAFDEC:
"Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia
Supplementary Guidelines on Co-management Using Group User Rights,
Fishery Statistics, Indicators and Fisheries Refugia", March 2006, in hard copy.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
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 2005: Progress Reports; Expenditure Reports;
Audit Reports; and MoU Amendments
4.2 Status of Regional South China Sea Meta-Database and GIS, the Project Website, and
Initiatives to Promote the Activities of the Fisheries Component of the Project
5.
MATTERS RELATING TO THE ACTIVITY OF ESTABLISHING A REGIONAL SYSTEM OF
FISHERIES REFUGIA
5.1 Difference between Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Refugia, particularly as they
relate to fisheries management in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
5.2 Developing an Inventory of Candidate Fisheries Refugia Sites and the role of National
Fisheries Committees and Coastal Communities in Establishing a Regional System of
Fisheries Refugia
5.3 Developing an Online Meta-Database of Information in Support of a Regional System
of Fisheries Refugia
6.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SOUTH CHINA SEA PROJECT TRAINING ACTIVITIES
IN SUPPORT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL SYSTEM OF FISHERIES
REFUGIA
7.
REVIEW OF A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF
FISHING IN THE HABITAT DEMONSTRATION SITES
8.
FINALISATION OF FISHERIES COMPONENT INPUTS TO THE STRATEGIC ACTION
PROGRAMME
9.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON FISHERIES
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON FISHERIES
11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Formats for Reporting Information Regarding Various Categories of Sites for
Consideration as Potential Fisheries Refugia
BACKGROUND
During the sixth meeting of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries it was agreed that the overall
goal of the regional system of fisheries refugia 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. There was further agreement that specific objectives might include: the
protection of spawning, nursery and feeding areas of critical importance to the maintenance of fish
stocks and the integration of fisheries management objectives into protected area management
objectives. The latter will necessitate close co-ordination between fisheries and environmental
agencies; preventing degradation of habitats and consequent loss of important species; and wider
use of zoning as a fisheries management tool (Table 1).
Table 1
Goal, objectives and expected outcomes for a regional system of fisheries refugia.
Goal Objectives
Expected
Outcomes
The goal is to:
The objectives are to:
The expected outcomes are that:
· Improve the use of
· Protect spawning and nursery areas,
· Fisheries resources can
spatial approaches to
· Integrate fisheries management into protected
continue to be used by current
fisheries management
area management (coordination between
and future generations,
for sustainable use of
fisheries and environmental agencies),
· Fish population size will
fish stocks and
· Enhance fisheries resources and their habitats,
increase,
maintenance of habitats.
· Prevent degradation of habitats and loss of
· There will be effectively
important species,
managed areas that can be
· Increase the use of zoning as a fisheries
used for fish resource
management tool,
enhancement;
· Build awareness amongst fishers of ecosystem-
· Socio-economic conditions of
fisheries links,
fishing communities will
· Identify life history of fishes, and to
improve, and that
· Promote the role of sub-populations in stock
· Food security will be enhanced.
resilience.
The priorities, fisheries problems, and anticipated challenges associated with establishment of a
regional system of refugia were reviewed, and it was generally concluded that the concept of refugia
is not well understood by fisheries managers in participating countries, and that there is a need to
disseminate information concerning this concept more widely (Table 2).
Table 2
Priority refugia types, key fisheries problems that refugia may assist in resolving,
and the challenges that are anticipated in developing a system of refugia.
Priority Refugia Types
Key Fisheries Problems Refugia may
Anticipated Challenges in the Establishment
Assist in Resolving
of Refugia
The priority refugia types are: Refugia may assist in resolving the
It is anticipated that the following challenges
· Areas important to
following fisheries problems:
will be encountered in the establishment of a
spawning stock/broodstock
· The capture of juveniles,
system of fisheries refugia:
at times of spawning,
· The capture of broodstock in areas
· Overcapacity, especially in the small-scale
· Areas important to species
(and at times) of spawning,
sector,
with heavily depleted
· The use of inappropriate fishing gear
· Resistance from fishers/fishing communities
stocks, and
and practices,
(stakeholders),
· Areas used as spawning,
· The poor management of fish habitats, · Lack of scientific data and experience,
nursery, and/or feeding
particularly in spawning and nursery
· Difficulty and costs associated with
grounds.
areas, and
research, data and information collection,
· Conflicts among resource users.
· Poor collaboration between the responsible
national level agency and the local
government,
· Encroachment during periods in which
fishers are excluded,
· Identifying the appropriate size of the
refugia, and
· Enforcement of management measures and
regulations prohibiting use of illegal or
destructive fishing gear, in order to prevent
the unnecessary capture of juveniles
sourced from the refugia areas.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 4
Page 2
The guiding principles for the refugia system, criteria for refugia identification and selection, and
indicators for use in assessing the effectiveness of refugia were also reviewed (Table 3).
Table 3
Guiding principles for the refugia system, criteria for refugia identification and
selection, and indicators that can be used to evaluate refugia performance.
Guiding Principles
Refugia Identification
Indicators that can be used to
and Selection Criteria
evaluate refugia effectiveness
The following principles should be used to
The following criteria should
The following indicators could be used to
guide refugia development:
be used to identify and
evaluate refugia performance:
· Clear demarcation between different
select refugia:
1. Management
related
fishing areas for different sectors (e.g.
· Areas important to
· Management responsibility
commercial operators and small-scale
species with heavily
delegated to the community,
fishers],
depleted stocks, and
· Enhancement of the ownership
· Ensure that socio-economic impacts of
· The use of the area as
over the fish resources by the
establishing refugia are addressed,
spawning, nursery or
community,
· Collaboration between relevant
feeding grounds.
· Acceptance of the refugia system
government agencies and other
at the regional level,
stakeholders,
2. Resource
related
· Ensure preservation of habitat integrity,
· Density of pelagic species
· Clarification of definitions with existing
eggs/larvae in the area of refugia at
similar systems, such as MPA, closed
the time of spawning, and
seasons and areas etc, and
· Mean length at first maturity for the
· Local community must participate in
species for which the refugia were
management.
established.
Based on the outcomes of the Sixth Meeting of the RWG-F, the Secretariat of the Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) invited the Project Co-ordinating Unit to develop
guidelines on fisheries refugia for inclusion in the ASEAN-SEAFDEC Regional Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia. These guidelines have now been published as part of the
ASEAN-SEAFDEC Regional Guidelines on Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia.
Fisheries Refugia in the Context of the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
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 where 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.
At the most general level, the identification of fisheries refugia in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand 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,
and
· Location of natural refugia and appropriate sites for the establishment of [artificial] refugia.
Juvenile and Spawning Refugia
The two main life history events for fished species are reproduction and recruitment. Often, these events
involve movement between areas, and some species often pelagic fishes, migrate to particular
spawning areas. Many species also utilise specific coastal habitats such as coral reefs, seagrass, and
mangroves as nursery areas. In terms of the effects of fishing, most populations of fished species are
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of high levels of fishing effort in areas and at times where there are
high abundances of (a) stock in spawning condition, or (b) juveniles and pre-recruits. These impacts are
intensified in instances where small-scale fishers and commercial fishers share the same stock, leading
to disputes of the relative impacts of each group. An example is where juveniles and pre-recruits are
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 4
Page 3
caught in inshore areas by small-scale fisheries, and commercial fishers catch adults of the same
species offshore. In this instance, high levels of fishing effort in inshore waters may drive growth over-
fishing1, while the same circumstances in offshore areas may cause recruitment over-fishing of the
same stock2. The use of juvenile refugia to protect fish during the juvenile and pre-recruit phases of their
life-cycle can assist in the prevention of growth over-fishing. Whereas spawning refugia, may assist in
the prevention of recruitment over-fishing.
It was agreed during the Sixth Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee in
December 2006 that the RWG-F should take a two-track approach to the identification of fisheries
refugia. The first track would involve a review of known spawning areas for pelagic and invertebrate
species, with the aim of evaluating these sites as candidate spawning refugia. Information regarding
the spatial dynamics of pelagic fish and invertebrate populations, oceanographic features, fish
behaviour, and fishing effort dynamics will be used to determine the optimum locations and sizes of
spawning refugia in the Gulf of Thailand. The second track is the evaluation of each of the project's
habitat demonstration sites as potential juvenile/pre-recruit refugia for significant demersal species.
These juvenile refugia will be aimed at reducing the impact of growth over-fishing and will be identified
using information regarding the catch and size composition of small-scale and commercial fisheries
operating in or adjacent to habitat demonstration sites.
Deliberations of the seventh meeting of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries
Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/6 "Marine Protected Areas and the Concept of Fisheries
Refugia Developed by the Regional Working Group on Fisheries" containing a preliminary checklist
for evaluating if fisheries management areas qualify as fisheries refugia was considered during the
seventh meeting of the RWG-F which recognised that a number of existing fisheries management
areas in the region could potentially be included in a regional system of fisheries refugia, and a draft
table for use in collating such information was provided in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/7.
This table (Table 4) was reviewed and a preliminary data set from Thailand was used to test the utility
of the format (Table 5). On the basis of the review of these materials it was agreed to adopt the format
for use by all countries in tabulating data relating to existing fisheries management areas.
In addition two additional formats were developed and agreed during the meeting, one relating to the
existing South China Sea habitat demonstration sites (Table 6) and the second relating to spawning
areas for important pelagic species (Table 7).
1 Growth over-fishing is caused by levels of fishing beyond that required to maximise yield per recruit, and typically involves a
size at first capture in the fishery that involves an unsustainably high percentage of juveniles and pre-recruits being captured.
2 Recruitment over-fishing is "a level of fishing in which the adult stock is reduced to the extent that recruits produced are
insufficient to maintain the population".
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 4
Page 4
Table 4
Proposed format for reporting information about fisheries management areas that may qualify as candidate sites of fisheries refugia.
Objective of the
Importance of the
Management
Area to the Life-
Geographical
Type of Management
Species for which the
Area4 and
Country Province/State
Cycle of the
Location
Area3
Area is Managed
Associated
Species for which
Management
it is Managed
Measures
3 Enter SC for Spot Closure (short-term closure), CS for Closed Season, or FMZ for a Fisheries Management Zone of a Marine Protected Area.
4 Enter JN for Juvenile Nursery, SA for Spawning Area, and MR for areas used to safeguard Migratory Routes.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 4
Page 5
Table 5
Fisheries management areas that may qualify as candidate sites of fisheries refugia in Thai waters of the Gulf of Thailand.
Objective of the
Importance of the Area to
Management
Species for
the Life-Cycle of the
Area5 and
Country
Province/State
Geographical Location
Type of Management Area
which the Area
Species for which it is
Associated
is Managed
Managed
Management
Measures
Thailand Prachuap Khiri Khan,
A conservation area of
CS : 15 February 15 May (15 February
Several
According to the study of
To protect the
Chumphon and Surat
approximately 26,400 km2
31 March : spawning and breeding
commercially
life cycles of some aquatic
spawner and
Thani provinces
offshore of Prachuap Khiri
seasons); (1 April - 15 May : nursery
important fish
animals, they spawn,
juvenile fish
(September 24, B.E.
Khan, Chumphon and Surat
season)
species.
breeding and their larvae
species
2542)
Thani provinces
· All kind of trawls used with motor
nurture in this area
vessels except trawls used with only
one motor vessel of which the length is
not more than 16 meters and fishing
only on night time
· Gill nets and entangling nets used with
a motor vessels in fishing by method of
entangling for catching mackerel or by
other similar method
· All kind of surrounding nets used with
motor vessels
· Push nets used with a motor vessel of
more than 16 meters in length
Gulf of Thailand (July 20,
Within a distance 3,000 m
Trawler, push net and dredge with any
Several
nursery grounds
Maintaining the
B.E. 2515 and February
from the shore line and of 400
motor vessels by any method
commercially
productivity of near
18, B.E. 2517)
meters surrounding a place of
importance fishes
shore waters
all kinds of stationary gear
species
permitted for fishing in the
sea or Gulf or bay in any
province
Gulf of Thailand
Gulf of Thailand
To prohibit the use of all purse seine which
Several
Attract a juvenile fishes
To minimize the
(November 14, B.E. 2534)
the mesh less than 2.5 centimetre
commercially
catch of small fish
operated in night time
importance fishes
species
5 Enter JN for Juvenile Nursery, SA for Spawning Area, and MR for areas used to safeguard Migratory Routes.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 4
Page 6
Table 5 cont.
Fisheries management areas that may qualify as candidate sites of fisheries refugia in Thai waters of the Gulf of Thailand.
Objective of the
Importance of the Area
Species for
Management Area6
to the Life-Cycle of the
Country
Province/State
Geographical Location
Type of Management Area
which the Area is
and Associated
Species for which it is
Managed
Management
Managed
Measures
Chonburi province (June
Sattahip Bay, Chonburi
Used any kind and any size of fishing
Department of
Diving and searching for
To prevent such
26, B.E. 2518)
province
appliance in fishing by any method
Fine Arts shall, on
ancient objects or objects
precious remains of
the next occasion,
of art
ancient boat or
bring them as well
ancient object sunk in
as an ancient boat
that area from being
out of the water for
damaged by the
national education
fishing
Chonburi province (June
Koh Loi in Sriracha district,
Used any kind and any size of trawls,
Several
This area are shelters and
To conserve such
26, B.E. 2518)
running straight to Sampayue
push nets, La-wa, Chip, Shrimp push
commercially
habitats of young aquatic
aquatic animal
Rock and passing Luem
nets, Krill push nets and all kinds of bag-
importance fishes
animals
varieties from being
Island, Maravichai Island, Rin
nets, with motor vessels
species.
caught or destroyed
Island, back sides of Lai
September 1 to the end of February
in an inappropriate
Kram Island, Chuang Island
amount and for the
and Chan Island, Chang Klua
efficient and
Island and Rade Island, until
sustainable utilization
meeting with Chong Same
of marine resources
San lighthouse in the locality
Sattahip District, Chonburi
province
Songkhla, Southern Gulf
Offshore of Songkhla
FMZ : Zone management (0-3 nautical
Anchovy fisheries
Fisheries management
To reduce the conflict
of Thailand
mile from shore line is a zone for small
and small scale
zone for anchovy fisheries
between small scale
scale fisheries, 5-12 nautical mile,
fisheries or
fisheries and anchovy
operating zone for anchovy light fishing
artisanal fisheries
fisheries with light
boat which the length less than 14 meter
luring ( Anchovy lift
and more than 15 nautical mile is
net, falling net and
operating zone for anchovy light fishing
scoop net with light
boat which the length 14-16 meter and
luring)
3-5 and 12-15 nautical mile are buffer
zone)
Samut Sakhon Province
Gulf of Thailand, in the
Use all kinds and all sizes of shellfish
Bivalves (Short
To protect habitat or
(June 17, B.E. 2518)
locality of Tambol Pantai
dredges or other similar appliances of
neck clam)
nursery ground of
Norasing, Tambol Kokkham
similar use, with motor vessels, in fishing
bivalves
and Tambol Bang Ya Praek,
of bivalves by any method whatsoever
Samut Sakhon Province
6 Enter JN for Juvenile Nursery, SA for Spawning Area, and MR for areas used to safeguard Migratory Routes.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 4
Page 7
Table 6
Proposed format for reporting information regarding the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project's Habitat Demonstration Sites that are
critical inshore nursery refugia for important demersal species.
Important Demersal Species
Habitat Demonstration
Fishing Gears and Practices
Existing Fisheries Management
Country
for which the Site is Critical
Site
Used in the Area of the Site
Measures in the Area of the Site
Inshore Nursery Habitat
Table 7
Proposed format for reporting information regarding locations in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand that are utilised by
important pelagic species for spawning.
Important Pelagic Species
Fishing Gears and Practices
Existing Fisheries Management
Country Geographical
Location that Utilise the Area for
Used in the Area
Measures in the Area
Spawning
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Elements for Inclusion in a Revised Strategic Action Programme
BACKGROUND TO THE STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME GOALS & TARGETS
The Regional Working Groups have a defined responsibility over the next two years to further
elaborate those portions of the regional SAP that relate to the mandate of each working group. This
task is to be executed in conjunction with the further elaboration and high-level approval of National
Action Plans addressing the major issues and concerns of Fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand, Land-
based Pollution and the critical habitats of mangroves, seagrass, coral reefs and coastal wetlands.
This process of elaborating the SAP goals and targets was initiated during the fifth meetings of the
working groups in 2004 when the first review of draft national action plans was undertaken and the
specific targets and goals of the regional SAP were reviewed in the light of work completed during the
preparatory phase. During the fifth meeting, the RSTC considered and reviewed the goals and targets
established by the regional working groups and provided advice and comment regarding their further
elaboration and development in order to improve the goals and targets. The Regional Working
Groups subsequently revised their goals and targets, and a summary of developments in relation to
the fisheries component to date is provided in Table 1.
Outcomes of the Sixth Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee
During the Sixth Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee, Mr. Pirochana
Saikliang, Chairperson of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries, outlined the Regional and
National-level activities identified for the achievement of the goals and targets for fisheries, but noted
various difficulties with the wording of some of these, including the use of the terms "common
resources" and in collaboration with other relevant institutions promote the "standardisation of
fisheries related statistics" and "information exchange" which was unclear.
It was noted by the RSTC that the actions had in fact been identified in the fourth meeting of the
RWG-F and the standardisation of fisheries related statistics had been the topic of a number of recent
SEAFDEC meetings. It was agreed that the RWG-F should evaluate the wording of all activities in
relation to the revised targets and target dates since it had been some time since these were initially
discussed by the RWG-F.
Discussions during the Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries
An important task for the Seventh Meeting of the RWG-F was this evaluation of the identified actions
in order to ensure that these were consonant with recent developments resulting from the work of the
RWG-F. Following a detailed and exhaustive consideration of the original list of actions these were
revised and amended and are presented below.
In addition the RWG-F agreed that members would proceed to develop a programme of national level
actions that were site specific and costed for consideration during the Eighth Meeting of the working
group in November 2006.
Targets7
·
By 2012 to have established a regional system of refugia for the management of priority,
transboundary, fish stocks and endangered species.
·
By 2012 to have prepared and implemented fisheries management systems in the identified
refugia based on, and consistent with, the ASEAN SEAFDEC Regional Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia.
7 Extracted from document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 5
Page 2
Regional Level Activities8
· Review the compatibility of existing national policy frameworks against existing
international/regional instruments (with emphasis on the ASEAN SEAFDEC Regional Guidelines
for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia). This should lead to identification of gaps and
directions for improvement of the national policy frameworks to harmonize them with
international/regional instruments.
· Designate fish refugia in addition to, or in conjunction with managed coastal habitat areas. These
refugia should be developed by fisheries related agencies to promote their impacts on
rehabilitating resources and in achieving the objectives of fisheries management. Build
Information and Education Campaign (IEC) and alternative livelihood programs as necessary for
affected fishing communities. Draw lessons from these activities/experiences to define protocols
for establishment of a wider system of refugia for fisheries management purposes.
· Identify fish stocks or areas requiring bilateral, multilateral, and regional management
collaboration.
· Identify regionally important areas requiring special protection and appropriate fishing technology
to reduce impacts on endangered/threatened species (e.g. marine turtles, dugong) in the region.
· Identify, develop and establish joint fisheries management frameworks between and among
neighbouring countries utilising shared stock through dialogues and consultations.
· Develop criteria for selection of marine habitats and areas (refugia) critical to the maintenance of
regionally important fish stocks, particularly those of transboundary importance.
· Identify and prioritise specific areas for future management and protection and develop regional
and national action plans to develop a regional system of refugia for maintenance of regionally
important fish stock.
· In collaboration with other relevant institutions promote the standardisation of fisheries related
statistics and information exchange.
National Level Activities (the activities should be consistent with related activities proposed at the
regional level) 9
· Evaluate the effectiveness of fisheries management systems.
· Evaluate the status and trends of fisheries resources in relation to catch efforts and availability of
resources in defined areas.
· Reduce the use of fishing gear and practices that damage ecologically sensitive areas with the
long term aim of removing and replacing them with more environmentally acceptable fishing gear
and practices.
· Review compliance with international and regional fisheries agreements and guidelines.
· Promote the application of the Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia
through workshops, awareness building, translation into national languages and education of
people.
· Develop educational and public awareness materials on sustainable fishery practices.
· Implement programmes to provide information on sustainable fishery practices among small and
artisanal fishing communities, and commercial fisheries operators as appropriate.
· Train technical fisheries staff in the identification of fish eggs and larvae.
· Design and establish a programme for identifying important spawning and nursery areas.
· Establish refugia in areas identified as critical habitats for the life cycle of fisheries resources.
· Establish in selected refugia sound management systems, which can be tested to determine if
they are leading to sustainable exploitation of resources and reduction of conflicts between
groups of fishermen.
8 Extracted from document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.4/3.
9 Extracted from document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Fisheries
2006 to 2007
BACKGROUND
The work plan and timetable as approved during the Sixth Meeting of the RWG-F was considered and
revised during the course of the Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries to take
account of recent progress in the following areas:
· The establishment of a regional system of fisheries refugia,
· Development of guidelines for assessing and managing the effects of fishing in the context of
the habitat demonstration sites,
· Promotion of fisheries component activities at regional and international levels.
Table 1 places the tasks of the group into clear and easily understood task areas. The task
completion dates are aimed at ensuring that the necessary outputs from the national and regional
levels are available for consideration at the eighth meeting.
Table 2 presents the schedule of meetings for 2006 including the proposed changes to the timing of
the eighth meeting of the RWG-F.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 1
Revised Work Plan and Time Table for Consideration of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries.
2006 2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2
Month
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL MEETINGS
National Committee Meetings
X
X
X
X
National Technical Working Group
X
X
X
X
RWG-F Meetings
X
Prepare information for the RWG-F and RSTC
DATABASES
Maintain SCS Meta-database (all countries)
Maintain Regional GIS Database (all countries)
NATIONAL
REPORTS
Publication of National Reports in Local Language
Philippines and Vietnam completed
Other countries
X
STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
Provide guidance to IMC on the fisheries component input to SAP
Develop national programme of activities for implementing the Strategic Action
X
Programme in specific areas, including costing of activities, for review at RWG-F-8
With stakeholders, review/revise plan to implement the Strategic Action
Dependent on Strategic Action Programme Development
Programme
AWARENESS MATERIALS AND PROGRAMMES
Develop awareness materials for stakeholders with RWG-F
Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam completed
Other countries
Develop and implement awareness programmes among fishing
communities (all countries)
Translate awareness raising materials into English for information exchange
with other countries
Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam completed
Other countries
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 6
Page 3
Table 1 cont. Tentative Revised Work Plan and Time Table for Consideration of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries.
2006 2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2
Month
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
REGIONAL COMMUNICATION
Provide regular input to monthly update on fisheries activities
Review and provide input to article on MPAs and refugia
X (30/6)
Review and provide input to article on the effects of fishing
X (31/7)
Participate in e-fora discussions as appropriate
GUIDELINES ON MANAGING THE EFFECTS OF FISHING
CP to finalise framework figures for review by the RWG-F
X (14/6)
RWG-F to comment on framework figures
X (14/7)
Review first draft and provide management case studies to CP
X (30/9)
Review final draft of guidelines and agree final version
X (2/11)
Promote use of the guidelines in managing fisheries issues in the habitat
demonstration sites
REGIONAL SYSTEM OF FISHERIES REFUGIA
Consult national experts and communities to identify areas that qualify as
candidate fisheries refugia
Prepare list of candidate fisheries refugia sites in agreed format and send to PCU
X
(18/8)
Review and provide feedback on the preliminary inventory of candidate fisheries
X (22/9)
refugia prepared by the PCU member
Consult national experts to identify process for gaining recognition of candidate
sites as fisheries refugia and send overview to PCU for discussion at RWG-F-8
Consult national experts and communities to select preliminary fisheries refugia
sites for inclusion in the regional system, and report on the outcome of such
consultations at RWG-F-8
Prepare and submit proposal(s) to the competent national authorities for the
establishment and management of refugia
REGIONAL FISHERIES REFUGIA META-DATABASE
CP to prepare list of specific fields that are applicable to refugia
X
(18/8)
CP to prepare draft database for review at RWG-F-8
X(30/10)
Contribute country level information relating to (a) fish early-life history science,
(b) the use of area-based approaches to fisheries management, and (c) the
management of fisheries refugia for inclusion in a regional database as required
FISHERIES REFUGIA TRAINING ACTIVITIES
Nominate suitable participants for training courses on establishing refugia and
larval fish identification
Provide inputs to Implementing Agencies and Host Organisations for National
Seminars as required
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.7/3
Annex 6
Page 4
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)
(RSTC = Regional Scientific and Technical Committee; RSTC-SC = RSTC Sub-Committee; PSC = Project Steering Committee).
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
RSTC-SC-1
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
H
RWG-F-7
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
Mayor's
RWG-W-7
Forum
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
RTF-E-5
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
RTF-L-5
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
RWG-F-8
RSTC-7
PSC-6
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
H