Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, administered by UNEP, advises the Global Environment Facility
(Version 5)
STAP Scientific and Technical screening of the Project Identification Form (PIF)
Date of screening: 12 March 2008

Screener: Guadalupe Duron

Panel member validation by: Meryl Williams
I. PIF Information
GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3522
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: PIMS NO. 3879
COUNTRY(IES): Regional: Indonesia, Timor Leste, (Papua New Guinea) plus Australia
PROJECT TITLE: Arafura and Timor Seas Ecosystem Action Programme (ATSEA)
GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP,
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNERS: Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research (BRKP) Ministry of Marine Affairs and
Fisheries (Indonesia), in cooperation with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) (Timor
Leste), Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEW) (Australia) in collaboration with UNOPS
GEF FOCAL AREA (S): International Waters,
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): IW SO-1, SP1: Restoring and Sustaining Coastal and Marine Fish Stocks and
Associated Biological Diversity
NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: ASIA CORAL TRIANGLE
Full size project
GEF Trust Fund

II. STAP Advisory Response (see table below for explanation)

1. Based on this PIF screening, STAP's advisory response to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Agency(ies):
Consent


III. Further guidance from STAP

2. STAP believes this proposal is an important initiative for promoting improved understanding and
management of marine ecosystems in the Arafura and Timor Seas. At present the PIF deals only in
general terms with the possible pilot projects that would respond to the findings of the TDA, therefore
from a scientific perspective it is not possible to assess them at this time. It is important that risk
assessment and analysis of mitigation measures be considered in the TDA work, that respond to the
threat identified of pollution including from, potentially, the oil and gas industry, plus the issue of illegal
fishing by foreign and domestic fleets and controlling the development of foreign joint ventures in the
ATS region.
3. STAP also suggests that the proposal is strengthened by the time of CEO endorsement to reflect more
clearly stated global environment benefits (at the moment these are merely implied in the proposal - PIF
submission date 15 October 2007), as well as how the project intends to measure and monitor the likely
environmental and social benefits resulting from the pilot demonstrations on fisheries conservation, and
coastal habitat management.
4. STAP also suggests that the TDA process inlcude relevant agricultural experts with knowledge of the
land-based agricultural systems in Indonesia and East Timor.



STAP advisory
Brief explanation of advisory response and action proposed
response
1.
Consent
STAP acknowledges that on scientific/technical grounds the concept has merit. However, STAP may state its views on the
concept emphasising any issues that could be improved and the proponent is invited to approach STAP for advice at any time
during the development of the project brief prior to submission for CEO endorsement.
2.
Minor revision
STAP has identified specific scientific/technical suggestions or opportunities that should be discussed with the proponent as
required.
early as possible during development of the project brief. One or more options that remain open to STAP include:
(i)
Opening a dialogue between STAP and the proponent to clarify issues
(i ) Setting a review point during early stage project development and agreeing terms of reference for an independent
expert to be appointed to conduct this review
The proponent should provide a report of the action agreed and taken, at the time of submission of the ful project brief for
CEO endorsement.
3.
Major revision
STAP proposes significant improvements or has concerns on the grounds of specified major scientific/technical omissions in
required
the concept. If STAP provides this advisory response, a ful explanation would also be provided. Normal y, a STAP approved

1

---

review wil be mandatory prior to submission of the project brief for CEO endorsement.
The proponent should provide a report of the action agreed and taken, at the time of submission of the ful project brief for
CEO endorsement.

2

---