GEF
Regional Working Group Report
BIODIVERSITY
UNDP/GEF Project Entitled "Reducing
Environmental Stress
in the Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem"
Report of Second Meeting
Jeju, ROK, 9~12 November 2005
GEF
About this publication:
This publication contains the report of the Second Meeting of the Regional Working Group
for the Biodiversity Component, under the UNDP/GEF Project, "Reducing Environmental
Stress in the Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem." The report includes a summary of the
discussions and agreements from the Meeting. The meeting reviewed and synthesized
biodiversity data and information for the Yellow Sea acquired during extensive data
collection exercises, analyzing the gaps in the data and discussing the difficulties in data and
information collection. Members also discussed the preparation of data and information for
input to the final Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the YSLME Project.
For reference purposes, this report may be cited as:
UNDP/GEF 2006. Reducing Environmental Stress in the Yellow Sea Large Marine
Ecosystem, Report of the Second Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the
Biodiversity Component (9th-12th November 2005). UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B2/3.
Cover design:
Ms. YUN Euidea
Photo credits:
Mariculture in the Yellow Sea, Courtesy of Dr. JIN Xianshi from Yellow
Sea Fisheries Research Institute.
REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS
IN THE YELLOW SEA
LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM
Report of the Second Meeting of the
Regional Working Group for the Biodiversity Component
UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea Project
Jeju, Republic of Korea, 9th to 12th November 2005
GEF
UNDP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED "REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS IN THE
YELLOW SEA LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM"
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Date: 12 October 2005
English only
Second Regional Working Group Meeting
For the Biodiversity Component of
The UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea Project
Jeju, Korea, 9th to 12th November 2005
Meeting Report
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 1
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
addresses
1.1.1 Mr. Jeffrey Archer on behalf of the United Nations Development Programme
UNDP/ Global Environment Facility (GEF) Yellow Sea Large Marine
Ecosystem (YSLME) Project Management Office (PMO) opened the meeting,
welcoming all participants to Jeju Island. He thanked the Cheju National
University International Centre for the splendid venue and for the meeting
arrangements, and noted especially the attendance of a large number of
observers.
1.1.2 Mr. LEE Yoon, the Chairperson of the Regional Working Group for
Biodiversity, welcomed the group to Jeju. He briefly presented the agenda for
the meeting and summarized the objectives of the meeting.
1.2
Introduction of the members
1.2.1 Participants of the Regional Working Group (RWG) for Biodiversity were
invited to introduce themselves and each gave a description of their
background and involvement in the project. Observers also introduced
themselves, describing their areas of potential input to the project. The list of
participants is attached to this report as Annex I.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Documentation Available to the Meeting
2.1.1 The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to introduce the documents prepared
for the meeting.
2.1.2 Mr. Archer from the PMO introduced the list of documents (Document
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/inf.1) and informed the meeting that the documents
in front of them included the discussion documents (Expected Outcomes and
Outputs of the 2nd RWG-B meeting, Activities to be Implemented 2005 to
2006, A Brief Description of the Governance Analysis, and Workplan for the
Biodiversity Component 2005 to 2006), and the informational documents,
Report of the 1st RWG-B Meeting, Report of the 1st RSTP Meeting, and the
Report for the Technical Meeting for the Cooperative Study Cruises (October,
2005) provided as background documents for the discussion. The Secretariat
made special mention that the document UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/5 was
missing from the documentation, as this relied on the data and information
collection reports from the participating countries, which had not been
received prior to the meeting.
2.2
Organisation of Work
2.2.1 The Secretariat introduced the document UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/inf.3
describing the Provisional Working Programme for the meeting and noted that
the meeting would be conducted in plenary as best as possible, but
suggested that some aspects be addressed in sessional working groups
where necessary.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 2
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1 The Secretariat briefly explained each agenda item, referring to the
Provisional Agenda (Document UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/1) and Provisional
Working Programme (Document UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/inf.3).
3.2
Participants were then asked to consider the documents prepared by the
Secretariat, and to propose any amendments or additions that they might
wish.
3.3
The meeting adopted the agenda with no modification, which is
attached as Annex II to this report.
4.
EXPECTED OUTPUTS FROM THE SECOND RWG-B MEETING
4.1 The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to introduce Document
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/4, and explain the expected outputs from this
Meeting.
4.2
Mr. Archer presented the outcomes and outputs anticipated from the meeting,
stating that the main objectives were: the review and synthesis of biodiversity
data and information for the Yellow Sea acquired through the recent data
collection exercise; to analyse gaps in this data; identify the difficulties and
barriers to data and information collection; and to discuss the preparation of
data and information for input to the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
(TDA).
4.3
He reported that the major outcomes of the meeting were expected to be:
· An awareness of the quality, gaps, difficulties and barriers to collecting
data and information on Biodiversity, and an understanding of
mechanisms to address these issues.
· An awareness of the region-wide status and patterns-of-change in
biodiversity, habitats and vulnerable species, and their protection in the
Yellow Sea;
· A revised list of `perceived problems' and Causal Chain Analysis agreed
at the first RWG-Biodiversity (RWG-B) meeting.
· An improved state-of-knowledge of the existing national laws and
regulations on biodiversity, habitat protection and vulnerable species and
how these may contribute to potential governance issues.
· An agreement on Biodiversity Component inputs for the preparation of the
Draft TDA.
· Understanding of the Biodiversity Component's role in the upcoming
Cooperative Surveys of the Yellow Sea Marine Basin.
· Agreement on activities to be implemented during 2005 to 2006 including
the objectives of the body-of-work that is required to be implemented prior
to the next RWG-B meeting, the role of consultants and members of the
RWG-B in the process.
· Agreement on list and schedule of activities for the RWG-B for 2005 to
2006.
4.4
Mr. Archer then informed the group of what tangible outputs were expected
from the meeting. These were:
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 3
· A set of mechanisms to address the gaps, data issues and the barriers
and difficulties to collection of data and information, etc.
· A listing of the format and presentation of data for input to the final TDA
document.
· An updated causal chain and governance analysis based on
contemporary biodiversity information, finalized for input to the Draft TDA.
· A workplan for the Regional Working Group Biodiversity showing
activities for 2005 to 2006, to submit for approval to the 2nd PSC Meeting.
· Approved statements of works for each of the impending consultant
activities and proposals for suitable candidates.
· A workplan and list of responsibilities for activities leading up to, during,
and after the co-operative cruise for the Biodiversity component.
4.5
Participants were then asked to consider the expected outcomes and outputs
from the meeting, and to propose any amendments or additions that they
might wish.
4.6
There were no further issues or modifications to the list of outputs.
5.
CONSIDERATION OF THE ON-GOING ACTIVITIES UNDER THE BIODIVERSITY
COMPONENT
5.1
REVIEW OF COLLECTED BIODIVERSITY DATA AND INFORMATION
5.1.1
The Chairman invited the Secretariat to introduce the expected outputs for
this agenda item.
5.1.2
Mr. Archer briefly described the outputs expected from the collected
biodiversity data and information and the actions required from the working
group after considering the presentations from each country. These were
to: discuss the results of the reports; review the data table (agreed at the
First RWG-B Meeting); identify gaps in the data; discuss and agree upon
the format of data to be analysed; and consider the presentation of data in
the TDA, and later, in the GIS database.
5.1.3
Mr. Archer also mentioned that the group should relate the findings back to
the original table of `Perceived Problems of the Yellow Sea' to check for
validity and, if possible, provide a diagnoses of the state of the Yellow Sea
as it relates to Biodiversity issues.
5.1.4
Mr. Lee Yoon of the National Fisheries Research and Development
Institute (NFRDI) and Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF,
Korea, gave a presentation describing the status of data collection for
Republic of Korea.
5.1.5
He stated that data for `Habitat Loss: Changes in area and length of
selected habitats' was available in Korea, with `actions of reclamation' data
from 1963 to the present (40 years) being available; Reclamation area data
is also `available' although no temporal scale was given, and habitat type
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 4
(using RAMSAR Classification) was also available but with only less than
20 years worth of data.
5.1.6
With regard to `Habitat Loss: Percentage Change of Habitats Under
Protection', Mr. Lee reported that number and total area information was
`available', and that there was a lack of GIS information, however maps
were available depicting this information.
5.1.7
For `Percentage Change of Habitats Utilized for Sustainable Use' - zoning
plans, number and total area data were `available', although there was no
definition of temporal scale.
5.1.8
Data for `Habitat Conservation: Change in selected habitats before and
after utilization and non-utilization' was also available, with the number and
size of area being available for only the last 2-3 years. Data on the
conversion of areas to saltpans activities is available, but there exits no
official version of aquaculture data.
5.1.9
For `Introduced Species for Culture', number of species introduced for
culture was available for the last 50 years, but for species accidentally
introduced to the wild through culture activities, data is only available for
some species (e.g the bivalve Mytilus edulis, but not for fishes), but date of
introduction cannot be determined (not even to year, or decade). For
Abundance of introduced species, data for number and abundance still
requires further consultation but Mr. Lee noted that most-likely Korea does
not possess this data.
5.1.10
For `Loss of Species' data on number of endemic species is available, 20
years for fishes. 30 years for dominant phytoplankton and 20 years for
zooplankton. Data is also available on other taxonomic groups, vulnerable
species, listing and IUCN threat categories. No temporal scale was given
for the latter.
5.1.11
For `Degradation of Biodiversity: Changes in genetic diversity of important
bio-resources tested by gene pool analysis', Mr. Lee stated that data on
`genes per selected species' was `undefined at present'. Mr. Lee mentioned
that he believes that Korea may have genetic information on more than 5
species.
5.1.12 The Chairman invited the First Institute of Oceanography (FIO), State
Oceanic Administration (SOA), China to present the Biodiversity-related
data and information collected for China during the past collection exercise.
5.1.13
Mr. Chen Shang of the FIO described the activities that the China group
has undertaken for the data & information collection. He introduced the
members of the data-collection group and described the contents of the
planning meetings held for the exercise. Mr. Chen provided a view of
some data in spreadsheet form.
5.1.14 For `Habitat Loss' China has located information and reports for
reclamation data but is not available now. China will acquire some remote
sensing images to identify the information on this.
5.1.15
Mr. Chen also reported that there were different types of protected area
recognised in China relating to different types of use of the zones, and their
targets of protection.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 5
5.1.16
China was only able to locate information and reports for `marine functional
zoning' of the Shandong Information from Jiangsu Province will be
available in December, 2005 and information for Liaoning is not available
as it is still being reviewed.
5.1.17
Mr. Chen further stated that only general information on `Endemic Species'
existed and that there was information on 10 taxonomic groups for
`Vulnerable Species'. For Genetic Diversity, information was available for
more than 10 species. He also indicated that there were `many' laws and
regulations related to Biodiversity referring to an extensive list in the
dataset.
5.1.18 Mr. Chen reported that they possessed data and information regarding
distribution of important organisms (vulnerable, endemic, etc) and the
population trend (plus causes of trends), however the data was still in the
process of being translated.
5.1.19
He described the data for `Introduced species' showing that they had data
on the `origin country' and `first place of introduction', plus the references
for each point of information. He stated that the data is only concerned with
`established species in aquaculture' and that there was no data to describe
`establishment of species in the wild', with the exception of the invasive
plant Spartina.
5.1.20 He presented to the group some of the data and information he has
collected on laws and regulations related to Biodiversity in China, showing
details in the spreadsheet such as the issue date and approval department.
5.1.21
Mr. Chen proposed that a survey of coastal area be conducted to obtain
more information on the status of exotic species and habitat loss, and he
felt that this was more important to pursue than `gene pool analysis'. He
also stated that as they only possessed general information on endemic
species and some vulnerable species, there is not much known of
abundance and distribution therefore highlighted the need for a coastal
survey.
5.1.22 He remarked in summary that the data and information that is currently
available in China is `not enough' to determine the status of biodiversity in
the yellow Sea.
5.1.23
Mr. Chen stated that three data gaps existed: (1) lack of information on
exotic Species, and the impacts from exotic species on native species; (2)
lack of data and information on genetic diversity of aqua-cultured
populations and wild populations; and (3) no current information on habitat
loss.
5.1.24
Mr. Lee Tae Won noted an absence in both reports of data and information
on species used in the `restocking' of populations of native species, and
suggested that this information be included if possible.
5.1.25 Both China and Korea reported that there is currently no data and
information on re-stocking and suggested that re-stocking information
should be considered by Fisheries in the mariculture section.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 6
5.1.26
The PMO agreed to discuss the `re-stocking' issue at the next RWG-
Fisheries meeting on the 17th November, 2005.
5.1.27 Mr. Tobai Sadayosi of the WWF/KORDI/KEI Yellow Sea Ecoregion
Planning Programme (YSEPP) described some of the issues relating to
same-species introduction citing the following examples: The Manila Clam
where introduction of the same species from China/Korea to Japan to
augment wild populations has introduced foreign parasites in some
populations; Also the importation of an octopus, thought to be the same
species, from Korea (Jeju Island) to Japan, and introduction into the wild,
has resulted in some identifiable ecological and biological changes, such
as shift in the spawning season of the wild population.
5.1.28
Both China and Korea reported that they possessed that type of data
and agreed to include it in their data collection.
5.1.29
Mr. Tobai also informed members that the YSEPP possesses a database
of endangered species for the Yellow Sea region that may be useful to
backup the data and information collected by the group.
5.1.30
YSEPP agreed to distribute this information to the Chairs of each
country's working group after the meeting.
5.1.31
Mr. Archer asked both countries to agree on the national level that data
would be collected to for each country.
5.1.32
China agreed to collect habitat data at the `city' level, explaining that in
China, the `city' level may actually include several counties, for example,
the City of Qingdao includes eight `counties'.
5.1.33
Korea agreed to collect habitat data at the `do' level, which is
approximately equal to the Chinese `city' level.
5.1.34
At the completion of the data and information reports, the group was invited
to discuss the data presentation requirements for the RWG-B. The
Secretariat described the requirements for presentation of the data and
information for both the TDA in the immediacy and for GIS and public
Awareness activities in the future.
5.1.35
The Chairman requested Mr. Tobai to give a brief overview of the data and
GIS information developed by their programme and that is available for use
by the YSLME.
5.1.36
Mr Tobai together with representatives from the GIS systems development
company, Sundosoft, Inc, gave an overview of the data and information
products from the YSEPP and explained for the benefit of new members
and observers, how their designations of Ecologically Important Areas can
contribute critical elements of the RWG-B data requirements for the TDA,
and for use in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP).
5.1.37
Mr. Cho Woo Ik showed the GIS overlay maps and described some of the
difficulties in defining the areas (polygon shapes) on the maps, and also
how to integrate the data from both countries, and made suggestions for a
coordinated GIS system (such as the Lambert Conformal Coordinate
System) to record longitude and latitude information for both countries.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 7
They recommended that the database software Microsoft Access be used
as preferred data management software because of its usefulness and
user-friendliness, although they stated, that Microsoft Excel was also
suitable.
5.1.38 Mr. Cho offered to the group for Sundosoft to review the data and
information provided by the RWG and standardise the format of certain
data so that it could be used in the development of GIS, and noted that
Sundosoft would discuss the GIS requirements of the RWG-B (and the
other RWGs) at an upcoming meeting with a representative of the China-
Korea Joint Ocean Research Centre, currently being arranged by the PMO.
5.1.39
The group discussed in detail the requirements for visual presentation of
the data and information.
5.1.40
In the light of the new data and information gathered during the collection
exercise, the Chairperson invited the group to re-examine the table listing
the parameters for `data and information collection' and the list of
`perceived problems' which were identified at the first RWG-B meeting, and
make any modifications to this list as necessary.
5.1.41
Mr Tobai noted that `reclamation data' for China is available in a reference
that he can provide it to the relevant parties at a later date.
5.1.42
Mr. Lee Yoon queried the definition of `artificial' coastal line and suggested
that the definition should include `reclamated coastal line' utilising the
reclamation data that is being collected.
5.1.43
After discussion, members agreed that the term `artificial' coastline
would comprise of a number of different information types including
the construction of concrete structures, reclamation of land,
development of extensive erosion barriers, sea dykes, and coastal
dam, etc.
5.1.44 Participants entered into detailed discussions and made further
modifications to the data table, adding information on the availability of
each data item for both China and Korea. The final `parameters for
collection' data and information table showing the updated terms and
temporal availability of data is attached in Annex III..
5.1.45
The Chairperson asked the group to consider the format of raw data to be
presented to the PMO at the end of the data and information collection
exercise and invited the Secretariat to present an example of a dataset
table for both countries to use.
5.1.46
Mr. Cornish posed two recommendations to the group:
1) To utilise the existing YSEPP ecologically important areas in the data
table in order to ensure data from YSEPP was directly comparable in
terms of location and scale, and
2) To utilise the basic `causal chain columns' in the dataset spreadsheet
to facilitate the causal chain analysis at a later date.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 8
5.1.47
The group discussed the recommendations and will consider to use
the YSEPP ecologically important areas in the data table although
anthropogenic data is already collated at city level in China (refer
5.1.32), Mr. Tobai was satisfied this scale was sufficiently detailed for
a direct comparison. And will consider to utilise the basic `causal
chain columns' in the dataset spreadsheet in their analysis if it is
appropriate.
5.1.48
Members completed reviewing the data-entry templates and after making
various comments and modifications finalised the spreadsheets. The
agreed spreadsheets are attached in Annex IV.
5.1.49
The group recognised the new data table format, and understood that
completion of this table is not a necessary requirement for the signed
data collection contracts, but a mechanism to synthesise the data and
information between both countries. The group will try their best to
collect data according to the new table format.
6.
CONSIDERATION OF THE COOPERATIVE STUDY CRUISE
6.1
The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to present a summary of the
Technical Meeting for the Co-operative Study Cruises (17-18 October 2005)
(Document UNDP/GEF/YS/JC.1/3).
6.2
Mr. Archer presented the outcomes and agreements of the Technical Meeting
for the Co-operative Study Cruises (17-18 October 2005), describing the
agreements on cruise dates, survey route, sampling stations and transect
locations, and the personnel allocations made for each working group that will
be onboard during the survey. He also described the discussions and
agreements on transportation of equipment and personnel, the role of
Scientists and their responsibilities, the preparation of equipment and the
research vessel, sample and data sharing and follow-up work.
6.3
He discussed the fact that the Biodiversity Component has since decided to
send two scientists on the winter and summer cruises to survey seabirds and
marine mammals, and provided an overview of the decisions made relating to
this. He noted that the Chinese researcher has been chosen, but are waiting
for the nomination from Korea.
6.4
Mr. Archer also noted that the Chief Scientist for China and Chief Scientist for
Korea have both been selected for the cruise, and both have the appropriate
authority and responsibility for the cruise. He also stated that the Captain of
the ship was ultimately responsible for the safety of the ship and personnel
and would make the relevant decisions based on this.
6.5
The Chairperson invited members to consider necessary technical details of
the joint cruise, and to decide on the workplan and responsibilities to finalise
the preparation of the Biodiversity component of the co-operative study
cruise.
6.6
Mr. Lee Yoon suggested that participants on the cruise should include an
expert on birds and one on mammals, and that Korea and China should work
together to select a complementary specialist (seabird or marine mammal
specialist) fomr their country.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 9
6.7
The members discussed this suggestion and the group agreed that the
Chinese side would provide an expert on marine mammals and that the
Korean side would try to provide an expert on seabirds. Both countries
agreed to reassess the situation if Korea could not locate a suitable
person.
6.8
Ms. Choi Young Rae informed that there is a recommendation for one more
expert from each field to attend the cruise to fully cover both sides of the ship,
and also to develop a policy for the purchase and disposal of equipment for
the survey.
6.9
Mr. Archer replied that the number of scientists on board was limited and
allocation had already been made. The number of scientist participating on
behalf of the Ecosystem Component had been reduced by 2 to accommodate
the recent wishes of the RWG-B to send 2 scientist on the cruise. It would be
difficult for the RWG-B to seek an additional 2 slots for more people at this
time. However if the group agreed to it, the PMO would raise the issue with
the relevant parties to request that the wishes of the RWG-B are
accommodated. He also noted that the PMO are currently developing a policy
paper to deal with the issue ownership and disposal of equipment from the
Cooperative Cruise, and for the Project. He stated however, that it is the
policy of the UNDP/GEF that all equipment purchased with project funds will
remain the property of the GEF until such time as an agreement on its
disposal was made.
6.10 The group discussed this recommendation and agreed to not change
the original number of scientists to represent the RWG-B on the cruise,
but will consider this at a later date for the spring cruise later next year.
6.11 Mr. Seo Kyung Suk raised the issue about the financial support to purchase a
few items such as a telescope and digital video recording system for the
Cooperative Study Cruise. And also mentioned that we need time to discuss
about which item we are going to purchase. They would let the PMO know
about this in two weeks. The amount of money will not \be dramatically
different from that of the Chinese budget proposal.
6.12 China has already supplied the name of the nominated marine mammal
specialist and the Secretariat urged Korea to provide their nomination as soon
as possible so that they could initiate the visa application process. He also
urged the two countries to collaborate and finalise the budgets for the cruise
to provide to the PMO as soon as possible.
6.13 Korea agreed to provide the name and passport details of the Korean
specialist to attend the cruise, to the PMO by the 19th November, 2005.
6.14 Mr. Tobai informed the group that an `on-ship manual for seabird
observation', developed by a North American Seabird Group and adopted by
a Japanese Seabird Group for on-vessel observations of seabirds at sea that
potentially could be adopted for this cruise.
6.15 The Biodiversity group agreed to obtain copies of these guidelines and
work with the biodiversity scientist participating in the study cruise to
develop a manual and methodology for the observation of birds and
marine mammals for use in this survey. Members agreed to submit this
to PMO by December 10, 2005.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 10
6.16 Mr. Cornish pointed out that `genetic information' is not included in the list of
data to be collected during the cooperative cruise, and suggested that this
may be a good opportunity to collect such information.
6.17 Mr. Archer replied that it might be too late to include the collection of Gene
Pool data during the winter cruise; however, there is an opportunity for that
analysis in the spring cruise should we decide to pursue gene pool analysis in
the future, and pending approval by the Project Steering Committee (PSC).
He stated that the PMO would discuss the acquisition and storage of
samples with the other groups to determine whether the RWG-B could
retroactively undertake genetic analysis should they decide to pursue
this topic.
6.18 The Chairperson invited the members to examine the workplan of the
Cooperative Study Cruise (Document UNDP/GEF/YS/JC.1/3) and consider
the activities of Biodiversity Component leading up to the cruise and after the
cruise.
6.19 After some discussion, members agreed to work with the seabird and
marine mammal specialist on the development of the workplan when
they are selected, with full consideration of the time constraints.
Members agreed to finalise the workplan for the cruise and submit it to
PMO by November 20, 2005.
7.
ACTIVITIES TO BE IMPLEMENTED DURING 2005 TO 2006
7.1 The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to introduce Document
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/6 and describe the body of work that is required to
be implemented prior to the 3rd RWG-B meeting.
7.2
Mr. Archer summarized the tasks of this agenda item and asked the members
to familiarise themselves with the upcoming activities, the input required by
both the members of the RWG-B and external consultants, the schedule of
implementation of the work, and asked the members to propose appropriate
candidates to undertake the consultant tasks.
7.1
He described the immediate activities of the RWG-B in lieu of the recent data
and information exercise and considering the approaching deadline for inputs
to the TDA.
7.2
Mr. Archer then described the mid-term activities that following these
describing the discrete actions for the various sub-components:
· Habitat Conservation, Restoration, and Protection of Vulnerable Species.
· Conservation of Genetic Diversity
· Introduced Species, Impacts and Controls.
7.3
The Chairperson invited members to consider the activities of the RWG-B for
2005 to 2006, make any comments necessary and propose appropriate
candidates for the required consultant activity.
7.4
Mr. Chen drew attention to the lack of exotic species data in the Yellow Sea
and suggested that the RWG should undertake a survey on species diversity
and habitat loss in coastal waters, referring to his proposal submitted to the
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 11
Chairperson in June, 2005. He added that the cooperative cruises do not
include the coastal areas and will only yield information about basin-located
species. He enquired to the PMO whether a survey of this nature was
possible from a project point of view.
7.5
Mr. Archer replied that if it serves the purposes of the project, and a detailed
proposal, workplan and budget for the survey were produced soon enough,
then PMO could seek approval at the next PSC meeting. However, a full
justification for the survey would be required and an assessment of the quality
of existing data would need to be made to see if there is a lack of data to
justify the survey. Without the above, it would be impossible.
7.6
After much discussion members agreed that the reviewing of the
existing data and information, and the identifying of data gaps should
be completed first, before the issue of an additional coastal survey is
discussed (at the next RWG-B meeting).
7.7
Both Korea and China agreed to provide proposals for candidates for
the Biodiversity consultant contract by the 18th November, 2005.
7.8
Mr. Tobai suggested the following items for possible inclusion in the Terms of
Reference for the consultant contract for the regional strategy for biodiversity.
These were:
1.
To develop a procedure for the prioritization of demonstration sites for
biodiversity conservation, especially for MPAs.
2.
To produce a draft result of prioritized demonstration sites based on
the proposed procedure with datasets collected by the RWG-B and
YSEPP.
3.
He also recommended that this should take place in the form of a
training workshop.
7.9
The PMO thanked Mr. Tobai for this critical input and agreed to discuss
how the consultant TOR may be modified with WWF, to include this
important element.
7.10 The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to introduce Document
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/7 and provide a brief description of governance
analysis and the process that will be employed by the Investment Component
to facilitate the overall governance analysis for the project.
7.11 Mr. Endo Isao, Environmental Economics Officer for the PMO, presented the
process of Governance analysis for the Project describing the background,
the components and a suggested implementation structure of governance
analysis. He stated that during the reviewing of the implementation plan and
discussions with experts, there is a need for a consultant to undertake a full
governance analysis integrating the outcomes from each component. He
noted that there is currently no budget allocation for this consultant activity
and was seeking an agreement from all the component groups to present the
proposal to the PSC meeting for approval so that funds for the consultant
activity may be sought.
7.12 The Chairman invited comments from the group in response to Mr. Endo's
presentation.
7.13 Mr. Chen recommended to the PMO to examine the possibility of a training
workshop on governance analysis.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 12
7.14 Mr. Huh Sik on behalf of KORDI offered to host and support this workshop at
their institute.
7.15 Mr. Chen, on behalf of FIO also offered to support the workshop in Qingdao.
7.16 The group agreed with the recommendation and requested that the PMO
examine the possibility of a training workshop on governance analysis
to be held before the next RWG meeting.
7.17 Mr. Kim Jong Deog made a number of suggestions regarding the governance
analysis:
· That the scope of work might be too large to be complete in a proposed
study period and that collecting data at the provincial level would be
difficult and time-consuming, though he recognized the importance of the
Governance Analysis for developing a strategy or a policy in the TDA/SAP
process.
· That the analysis should focus on country level and not at finer resolutions
in order to complete the analysis in time for the TDA. The time and scope
of work need to be considered to determine whether the work is feasible.
· That local government, in addition to the public, should be informed about
the YSLME Project before conducting a consultation for governance
analysis with them.
· Moreover, while agreeing with the proposed plan, pointed out the capacity
of consultants (who would conduct the analysis) as a potential challenge
for the actual implementation.
7.18 Korea provided several suggestions for Korean institutions that are capable of
conducting such an analysis, such as the Korea Maritime Institute (KMI), the
Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute (KORDI), the Korea
Environment Institute (KEI), and the Seoul National University as well as
other universities. He recommended that the KMI should be involved in this
project, and that KORDI should also be considered as they have strong
marine policy teams. They also mentioned that many of these institutions
have commitments to complete before end of year, so that we should work
fast to initiate any plans with these organisations.
7.19 China suggested the First Institute of Oceanography and the Ocean
University of China (Qingdao) as potential candidates for the Governance
Analysis, reporting that both organizations have extensive expertise and
experience in this field.
7.20 The PMO replied that it would follow up on these suggestions and will
eventually select an appropriate consultant to undertake the consultant for
this task based on the rules and regulations of the UNOPS. The evaluation of
the consultant will depend on their abilities to be able to complete the contract
within the given amount of time. The PMO emphasized the due date for the
finalization of the TDA and noted that we must be prepared to compromise on
the outcome of the Governance Analysis due to the time constraint.
7.21 Mr. Chen emphasized the importance of hiring two consultants, one from
each country (China/Korea) for the governance analysis.
7.22 Mr. Huh Sik recommended forming a `governance analysis group' consisting
of one designated member from each project component (5) as well as the
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 13
contracted consultant(s) who would be in charge of overall analysis and
integration.
7.23 The PMO agreed to consider these recommendations during the
consultation process.
7.24 The PMO agreed to consider, if necessary, to reduce the scope of work,
manage the schedule to produce the results in time, and discuss the
challenges with the Investment Group at the next meeting.
7.25 Mr Archer noted that there are some implications to the RWG-B should there
be an agreement, stating that there may be an additional data requirement
from the Biodiversity Component to provide data and information for the
governance analysis to assist the consultant and expedite the consultant
activity to meet the deadline.
7.26 The group agreed on the proposed governance analysis presented by
the PMO, and expressed a continuous commitment and willingness to
support the PMO and the consultants in the process of the analysis by
providing additional relevant data if necessary. Both agreed to begin
identifying the location of data after the meeting to be handed over to
the consultant when they are selected.
7.27 With the agreements made, the Chairperson further invited the members to
consider possible data items for the Governance Analysis.
7.28 After careful consideration, members prepared a list of suggested data items
relating to Biodiversity for the Governance Analysis. The agreed list is
attached in Annex V.
7.29 The Chairman invited the PMO to introduce the original Causal Chain
Analysis table finalized at the last RWG-B meeting and asked members to
review it based on contemporary conservation and vulnerable species
information and finalize the Causal Chain Analysis for input to the Draft TDA.
7.30 Mr. Chen Shang recommended that the term "Introduced Species" was
changed to "Exotic Species" to cover a larger subset of organisms that are
`foreign' to the Yellow Sea, including: organisms intentionally introduced by
man (for culture, aquariums, pets, ornamental, etc); organisms non-
intentionally introduced by man (ballast-water and bio-fouling organisms) and;
naturally invasive organisms (via currents, rafting and climate change).
7.31 The members agreed that the term `Introduced Species' should be
replaced with `Exotic Species'. The PMO agreed to go through all
documentation at a later date and make the necessary adjustments.
7.32 The updated causal chain analysis is attached in Annex VI.
8.
WORKPLAN FOR 2005 TO 2006
8.1 The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to introduce Document
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/8, the project workplan.
8.2
Mr. Archer presented the schedule format of the current workplan for the
Regional Working Group Biodiversity, stating that some changes have been
made to reflect the current situation. He invited members to review and revise
the workplan for the RWG-B, for submission and approval at the 2nd PSC
Meeting in December 2005.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 14
8.3
The updated Schedule for the Biodiversity Working Group for 2005 to
2006 is attached in Annex VII.
8.4
The group recommended that a joint meeting with Pollution and Ecosystem
(and any other necessary working group) be arranged to discuss tropic
linkages, and other cross-component issues.
8.5
The PMO agreed to examine the budget and logistics for the additional
separate meeting sometime around October, 2006.
8.6
The PMO also agreed to examine the agenda for the 3rd RWG-B meeting
and determine whether there was time to hold a special meeting on
Genetic Diversity during the RWG meeting, or whether an extra one-day
meeting should be held after it.
9. OTHER
BUSINESS
9.1
The Chairperson invited Members to raise any other issues to be considered
by this meeting.
9.2
Mr Archer raised the issue of gene pool analysis and stated that an
agreement on whether this group still wanted to pursue this as part of
activities of this component was still required. If an agreement to proceed was
reached then the PMO would need to present this requirement to the PSC to
seek funding for these activities during the budget revision at that meeting.
9.3
The group recommended to continue collecting existing data for the genetic
diversity and agreed to address the subject of gene pool analysis and
produce an agreement on this subject at the 1 day workshop.
9.4
Mr. Chen suggested that two members participate in the next Regional
Science and Technical Panel (RSTP) meeting to improve communications.
9.5
The PMO replied that the membership to the RSTP has been already been
agreed and that we would need to seek approval for this. He stated that
observers may be allowed at the RSTP meeting, and that this may
adequately satisfy the request.
9.6
Mr. Archer encouraged better communications between members of working
groups and between countries participating in the working groups, and
emphasized that the mutual understanding and cooperative environment is a
major desired outcome of the project.
9.7
Mr. Archer briefly introduced the UNOPS/PMO contracting procedure for the
benefit of the group, describing the different contract modalities, contract
types, the general contractual processes and procurement system,
emphasizing the time it takes to complete the process and the urgency for
expedient actions by members of the working group.
9.8
Members took the overview into consideration, appreciating the
complexity of the process and agreeing to follow the UNOPS
procedures in order to facilitate the process.
10.
VENUE FOR THE NEXT REGIONAL WORKING GROUP MEETING
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Page 15
10.1 The Chairperson invited members to consider the venue for the third RWG-B
meeting.
10.2 Mr. Archer noted that during the organisation of the 2nd round of RWG
meetings for the different components many changes to the previously
agreed meeting schedule. He emphasized that this had created a significant
load of additional work for the PMO, and produced `downstream' effects that
may lead to the delay in other meetings and activities of the project. He
requested that members consider their schedules when selecting a meeting
date and venue.
10.3 Members of the group agreed to have the 3rd RWG-B meeting in
Chengdu, China, from the 24th to 27th July, 2006.
11.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING REPORT
11.1 The report was considered paragraph by paragraph and adopted as
contained in this document.
11.2 The Chairman moved the formal motion for the adoption of the report of the
second Meeting for the regional Working Group for the Biodiversity of the
YSLME Project which was passed by acclamation.
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
12.1 Mr. Archer, on behalf of the PMO, thanked all the participants for their hard
work and dedication to producing a good final-product. He remarked that he
was impressed by the broad spectrum of input in this meeting, due in part to
the large number of observers, and also to the diverse range of expertise
exhibited by the members of the group. He noted, that although some topics
had to be repeated and issues had to be revisited during the meeting due to
the attendance by many new members, he felt that the meeting had benefited
from this overall by a greater range of input. He voiced his hope that the
RWG-B membership would remain consistent in the future, and that
observers would continue to participate in future meetings.
12.2 On behalf of Korea, Mr. Seo Kyung Suk gave thanks to the Chairman for his
duty of managing the long meeting, gave thanks to his counterparts in China
and the PMO for their hard work.
12.3 Mr. Chen Shang also gave thanks to the Chairman on behalf of the Chinese
delegation and to the participants for their hard work.
12.4 The Chairperson thanked the participants of the meeting, the Project
Manager, PMO staff and observers for their hard and constructive work, and
formally closed the meeting at 20:00 hrs, November 12th, 2005.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex I
Page 1
Annex I
List of Participants
PARTICIPANTS OF THE MEETING
People's Republic of China
Dr. CHEN Shang
Dr. WANG Zongling
Research Professor
Research Professor
First Institute of Oceanography. S.O.A.
First Institute of Oceanography. S.O.A.
6 Xianxialing, Qingdao, Shangdong Province, 6 Xianxialing, Qingdao, Shangdong
2660061, P.R. China
Province, 2660061, P.R. China
Tel: 86-532-8896-7476
Tel: 86-532-8896-7447
Fax: 86-532-8896-7548
Fax: 86-532-8896-7548
Email: schen@fio.org.cn
Email: wangzl@fio.org.cn
Dr LI Ruixiang
Research Professor
First Institute of Oceanography. S.O.A.
6 Xianxialing, Qingdao, Shangdong Province,
2660061, P.R. China
Tel: 86-532-8896-7451
Fax: 86-532-8896-7548
Email: liruixiang@fio.org.cn
Republic of Korea
Dr. LEE Yoon
Prof. LEE Tae Won
Senior Researcher
Professor
Plankton Ecology Division
Department of Oceanography
National Fisheries Research & Development
Colleage of Natural Science
Institute (NFRDI)
Chungnam National University
408-1, Sirang-Ri, Gijang-eup, Gijang-gun
Taejon 305-764, Korea
Busan, 619-902, Republic of KOREA
phone: +82 42 821-6433,
Tel: 82-51-720-2240
fax: +82 42 822-8173,
Fax: 82-51-720-2266
email: twlee@cnu.ac.kr
Email: yoonlee@nfrdi.re.kr
Dr. KIM Jong Deog
Dr. KANG Hyung-Ku
Head of Coastal Management Team
Senior Research Scientist
Marine Environment and Coastal
Marine Environment Research Dept.
Management Research Division
Korean Ocean Research and Development
Korea Maritime Institute
Institute (KORDI)
1027-4, Bangbae 3-Dong, Seochu-Gu, Seoul, 1270 Sa-dong Sangnok-gu Ansan-si
137-851
Gyeonggi-do 426-744, Republic of KOREA
Tel: 82-2-2105-2770
Tel: 82-31-400-7723
Fax: 82-2-2105-2779
Fax: 82-31-408-5934
Email: jdkim65@kmi.re.kr
Email: kanghk@kordi.re.kr
PARTNERS
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex I
Page 2
Mr. TOBAI Sadayosi
Mr. CORNISH Andy
Yellow Sea Ecoregion Planning Programme
Director of Conservation
Ecoregion Coordinator
WWF Hong Kong
WWF Japan
No.1 Tramway Path, Central
Nihonseimei Akabanebashi Bldg., 6Fl.
Hong Kong
3-1-14 Shiba Minto-ku,
Tel: +85-2-25254499
Tokyo 105-0014
Fax: +85-2-25300864
Japan
Email: wwf@wwf.org.hk
Tel: 81-3-3769-1783
Fax: 81-3-3769-1717
Email: tobai@wwf.or.jp
OBSERVERS
Mr. CHO Woo Ik
Mr. OH Jung Hee
FM & Natural Resource Dept.
Team Manager
Sundosoft, Inc.
FM & Natural Resource Dept.
World Meridian Venture Center
Sundosoft, Inc.
II 15F, 426-5, Gasan-Dong
World Meridian Venture Center
Geumcheon-Gu, Seoul
II 15F, 426-5, Gasan-Dong
Korea
Geumcheon-Gu, Seoul
Tel: +82-2-2025-6800
Korea
Fax: +82-2-2025-6511
Tel: +82-2-2025-6800
Email: wicho@sundosoft.com
Fax: +82-2-2025-6511
Email: jhoh@sundosoft.com
Mr. Sik Huh
Ms. Young Rae Choi
Director
Researcher
International Cooperation Division
International Cooperation Division
Ocean Policy Center
Ocean Policy Center
Korea Ocean Research and Development
Korea Ocean Research and Development
Institute (KORDI)
Institute (KORDI)
Ansan P.O. Box 29, 425-600
Ansan P.O. Box 29, 425-600
Korea
Korea
Tel: 82-31-400-7750
Tel: 82-31-400-7757
Fax: 82-31-406-6925
Fax: 82-31-406-6925
Email: sikhuh@kordi.re.kr
Email: yrchoi@kordi.re.kr
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex I
Page 3
Mr. Li Lifeng
Dr. PARK Hong Sik
WWF China
Senior Scientist
Room 1609
Korean Ocean Research and Development
Wen Hua Gong
Institute(KORDI)
Beijing Working People's Culture Palace
1270 Sa-dong Sangnok-gu Ansan-si
Beijing 100006
Gyeonggi-do 426-744, Republic of KOREA
China
Tel: 82-31-400-6228
Tel: +86-10-65227100 ext.3266
Fax: 82-31-406-6925
Fax: +86-10-65227300
Email: hspark@kordi.re.kr
Email: lfli@wwfchina.org
Dr. SEO Kyung Suk
Researcher
National Fisheries Research & Development
Institute (NFRDI)
408-1, Sirang-Ri, Gijang-eup, Gijang-gun
Busan, 619-902, Republic of KOREA
Tel: 82-51-720-2550
Fax: 82-51-720-2266
Email: dino_seo@hotmail.net
UNDP/GEF Project Management Office
(PMO)
Mr. ARCHER Jeffrey
Mr. ENDO Isao
Fisheries Officer
Environmental Economics Officer
UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea Project
UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea Project
Korea Ocean Research and Development
Korea Ocean Research and
Institute
Development Institute
1270 Sa-dong Sangnok-gu Ansan-si
1270 Sa-dong Sangnok-gu Ansan-si
Gyeonggi-do 426-744
Gyeonggi-do 426-744
Republic of Korea
Republic of Korea
Tel: (82-31) 400 7832
Tel: (82-31) 400 7793
Fax: (82-31) 400 7826
Fax: (82-31) 400 7826
Email: jeff@yslme.org
Email: isao@yslme.org
Mr. PARK Sungjun
Finance and Administration Officer
UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea Project
Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute
1270 Sa-dong Sangnok-gu Ansan-si
Gyeonggi-do 426-744
Republic of Korea
Tel: (82-31) 400 7828
Fax: (82-31) 400 7826
Email: sungjun@yslme.org
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex II
Page 1
Annex II
Agenda
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
addresses
1.2
Introduction of the members
2. ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Documentation Available to the Meeting
2.2
Organisation of Work
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4. EXPECTED OUTPUTS FROM THE 2ND RWG-B MEETING
5. CONSIDERATION OF THE ON-GOING ACTIVITIES UNDER THE BIODIVERSITY
COMPONENT
5.1
Review of collected Biodiversity data and information
6. CONSIDERATION OF THE COOPERATIVE STUDY CRUISE
7. ACTIVITIES TO BE IMPLEMENTED DURING 2005 TO 2006
7.1
Regional Data and Information Synthesis
7.2
Data and Information Input for TDA
7.3
Habitat Conservation, Restoration and Protection of Vulnerable Species
7.4
Conservation of Genetic Diversity
7.5
Introduced Species, Impacts and Controls
8. WORKPLAN FOR 2005 TO 2006
9. OTHER BUSINESS
10. VENUE FOR NEXT REGIONAL WORKING GROUP MEETING
11. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING REPORT
12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex III
Page 1
Annex III
Updated `Parameters for Collection' Table
Indicators/Informa
Type:
Unit:
Temporal
Spatial
Availability:
Priority:
Trans
Problem
tion Needed to
Requirements:
Requirements:
ROK
CHINA
boundary?:
Detect Problem:
Habitat Loss Change in extent
Reclamation Data
Area, %
20 - 30 Years
Coastal Areas of
For last 30
For last 20
H Y
(Area and Length)
(includes
Yellow Sea
years (since years (only
of selected marine
developing and
1963)
have 10 years
and coastal
approved)
data)
habitats
Artificial vs. Natural
Length, %
20 - 30 Years
Coastal Areas of
Yes (more
Yes (only have
Coastline (artificial
Yellow Sea
than 40
10 years data)
= concrete
years)
structures,
reclamation,
erosion barriers,
sea dyke, coastal
dam)
Habitat Type (e.g
Area, %
20 - 30 Years
Coastal Areas of
Yes, less
Yes (only have
using RAMSAR
Yellow Sea
than 20
10 years data)
Classification
years (have
System for Wetland
15 years)
types)
Percentage change International
Number,
30 Years
Coastal Areas of
National,
National,
H Y
in marine and
Registered,
Total Area
Yellow Sea
Provincial,
Provincial,
coastal habitats
National (all
and map
County
County (local),
under protection
relevant
and GIS
(local), 20
more than 10
departments),
info where
years (20
years (No
Provincial, County
possible
years for
County info, 10
(local), by
each
years only)
protection type.
category)
Percentage change Zoning Plans,
Number,
NA Coastal
Areas
of
National,
National,
H
in marine and
National (all
Total Area
Yellow Sea
Provincial,
Provincial,
coastal habitats
relevant
County
County (local),
utilised for
departments),
(local), 10
10 years (No
sustainable use
Provincial, County
years (10
County Info)
(e.g. to encourage
(local).
years for
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex III
Page 2
Ecotourism)*
each
category)
Habitat
Change in extent
Habitat Type before Number,
20-30 Years
Coastal Areas of
Y
Y (10 years) H
Y
Conversion
(Area) of selected
and after, by
Area,
Yellow Sea
(mariculture
marine and coastal
utlilisation (salt pan, number of
2 years,
habitats. e.g
mariculture, estuary barrages
saltpan est.
mariculture, salt
barrages, etc) and
and size
10 years)
pans
by non-utilisation
Introduced
List of all species
Species, Origin and Number of
30 Years
Y (50 years) Y
(A few
H Y
Species
introduced for
date of introduction
species
species 30
(includes
culture
years, most 10
natural and
years)
human-
related)
All species
Species, location,
Number of
20 Years for
Yellow Sea
Info for
Info for some
H Y
introduced to the
date of introduction
species,
some
some
species (a few
wild through culture
date.
species, but species,
cannot
mostly
determine
Spartina and
date (not
some fishes
have -
from fisherman
except
only)
mussel M.
edulis)
Abundance of
Species,
No.
20 Years for
Yellow Sea
Need
Info for some
H Y
introduced species
abundance and
Species,
some
consultation species (only
distribution
abundance
(none)
Spartina)
and
distribution
Loss of
Endemic Species
Species
Number
50 Years
Yellow Sea
Need
Need
H Y
Species
Consultatio
Consultation
n (only
(only name list,
name list,
found site)
found site)
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex III
Page 3
Y (20 years,
IUCN Threat
mainly fish
Categories, IUCN
Number
and marine
Red List, National
species in
mammals
Vulnerable Species each threat
and
Y (some fish
Vulnerable Species Listings
category
20 Years
Yellow Sea
seabirds)
20 years) H Y
Changes in genetic
Degradation
diversity of
Genes per
Y (some
of Bio-
important bio-
selected
Undefined at
Y (many
papers on
Diversity
resources
Gene Pool Analysis species
present
Undefined at present
species)
some species) M
Y
* Recommend to
refer this issue to
relevant RWG
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex IV
Page 1
Annex IV
Agreed Data Format Tables
The following are the agreed parameters for data and information collection and data entry.
Protected Area
Site
Location (range)
Area (ha)
Site
Objectives of
Name
City or
Protection
Experiment
Map of
(or ID)
Province
Description Long
Lat
Total
Core Area
Buffer Area
County
Area
Distribution
Habitat
Community type
Management institution
Human
Date of
Monitoring
Important
Major
Responsible
Active
References
Remark
Type
Area
Trend
Activities
Level
Establishment
Staff No.
Activities
Species
Communities
Department
Management
s
(Approval Date)
(Y/N)
Reclamation
Name of Reclamated
Site
Location (Range)
Date
Reclamation Rtatus
Region
Province
City or County
Description
Long
Lat
Natural Coastal Habitat
Artificial Coastal Habitat
Impact by Human Activities
References
habitat type
area km^2
length km
habitat type
area km^2
length km
rank 1
rank 2
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex IV
Page 2
Habitat Conversion
Site Name (or ID)
Site
Location (range)
Date
Province
City or County
Description
Long
Lat
Habitat Area
Habitat Type
Major Utilization
Human Activity
References
Remarks
km^2
rank 1
rank 2
rank 3
Functional Zoning
Location
Site
(Range)
Major
Current
Approval
Approval
Area
References
Site Name
City or
Function
Utilization
Year
Government
Province
Description Long Lat
(or ID)
County
Vulnerable Species
Distribution in
Quantity or catch
Group
Latin
English
Chinese
Korean
YS
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Date of Lowest
(Description)
Date of Peak Catch
Catch
Trend
IUCN Threatened
China Red List
Korean Listing (To
Major Causes
IUCN Red List
Categories
or
Category
be defined)
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex IV
Page 3
Endemic Species
Group
Latin
English
Korean
Chinese
Found
Distribution in YS
High-level Year
Low-level Year
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
Date
Major
Threatened Categories
Trend
China Red List
Korean List (to be defined)
IUCN Red List
References
Causes
Exotic Species
Pathway of
Objective of
Date of
Latin Name
English Name Chinese Name
Korean Name
Origin of Import
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Wild
Rearing Site (Place or Facility
Date of First Record Site of First Record Wild Population
Population
References
Remarks
Broodstock Held or Raised)
in Wild
in Wild
Yes or Not
Distribution
Genetic Diversity
Group Name
Latin Name
English Name
Chinese Name
Korean Name
Genetic Information
References
Remarks
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex IV
Page 4
Laws and Regulations
Group Name
Name
Issued Date
Issued By
References
Remarks
Biodiversity-related laws
Biodiversity-related regulations
Biodiversity-related standards
Biodiversity-related international
agreements
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex V
Page 1
Annex V
List of Recommended Data and Information to be Included in
Governance Analysis
I. List of stakeholders of the Yellow Sea
II. List of management related departments (e.g. government structure, including
county level)
III. List of biodiversity related laws and regulations and standards, etc
IV. List of current and planned developments (e.g., Marine Protected Areas -
MPAs)
V. Current and planned relevant national and provincial budgets, systems, legal
basis, and person in charge of each responsible entity (government
organizations which are responsible for the conservation efforts). Focus on
identifying the budget allocation, rather than suggesting the specific revision
on the budgets.
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex VI
Page 1
Annex VI
Causal Chain Analysis after the 2nd RWG-B Meeting
Priority
Problem
Impact
Immediate cause
Underlying cause
Root cause
Governance analysis
rank
Reduction in habitat area, Reclamation, erosion, sand increased demand for Requirement for
Inadequate planning, management
quality and community
extraction, ocean dumping, coastal land resources, more land for rapidly practices, and coastal development
construction activities.
building materials,
growing population
systems, lack of knowledge and or
waste disposal field,
infrastructure base, weak
natural change
enforcement
Change in extent (Area Extensive reclamation,
increased demand for requirement for more Development-oriented policies in
and Length) of selected development of Mariculture, coastal land resources land for rapidly coastal and marine areas,
marine and coastal
construction of estuary between 1970's and growing population
Inadequate planning, management
habitats
barrage
early 1990's
practices, and coastal development
systems, lack of knowledge and or
infrastructure base, stakeholders
interests,
legislative loop-holes
Habitat Loss
encourage reclamation, inadequate
laws, weak enforcement
Change in marine and Designation of protected Decreased coastal and Extended knowledge Lack of an integrated coastal and
coastal habitats under areas, Development of marine development
for the importance of marine management authority,
protection
habitat management plan
pressure since late coastal and marine International agreement, treaties
1990's
habitats
and conventions for environment
and living resources
Change in marine and Demand for sustainable New demand for multi-
Improved standard of Intentions for sustainable use for
coastal habitats utilised coastal development
purpose use in coastal living
marine resources and conservation
for sustainable use (e.g.
and marine areas
of marine ecosystem
to encourage Ecotourism)
Change of habitat
Reclamation for culture and Increased demand for Requirement for
Inadequate planning, weak
Habitat
structure
salt production, and food and salt
more food and salt enforcement for marine function
Conversion
recreational activities
for rapidly growing zoning practice (especially local
population
government)
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex VI
Page 2
Exotic
Impact on native species
Increased
demand
for Demand for food,
Requirement for
No or weak management practice,
Species
culture, and from ballast increased shipping
more food and salt inadequate regulations, weak
(includes
water, climate change
transportation
(deleted) for rapidly controls on greenhouse gases
natural and
growing population,
human-
inadequate
related)
knowledge
Reduction in Species Improper use of bio-
Improperly utilisation, Inadequate
Inadequate management practice,
Diversity
resources, Over-exploitation, pollution, dumping,
knowledge
weak enforcement, poor policy for
habitat degradation and loss
habitats and living resources
of spawning and nursery
grounds, introduced species,
change of community
structure and food web
Improperly
managed
Lack of basic
Inadequate planning, management
Loss of
and controlled fisheries knowledge of
practices, and coastal development
Species
systems, lack of
function and
systems, lack of knowledge and or
knowledge of
mechanism for
infrastructure base. Lack of
intentionally introduced ecosystem
integrated inter-ministerial
spp. (physiology,
approaches
ecology etc), and poor
education of importance
of species diversity.
Degradation Changes in genetic Release of cultured species Inadequate
None, or weak management
of Bio-
diversity of important bio-
to the natural environment
knowledge
practice, inadequate regulations
Diversity
resources
UNDP/GEF/YS/RWG-B.2/3
Annex VII
Page 1
Annex VII
Updated Biodiversity Workplan
After the 2nd RWG-B Meeting
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
1
OBJECTIVE II: BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION COMPONENT
1155 days?
Tue 05-04-19
Tue 09-09-15
2
IIA: HABITAT CONSERVATION AND VULNERABLE SPECIES
986 days?
Tue 05-04-19
Wed 09-01-21
3
ACT 1: Review existing national practices of coastal habitat use, co
394 days?
Tue 05-04-19
Mon 06-10-16
4
WG Meeting 1 (Qingdao)
4 days
Tue 05-04-19
Fri 05-04-22
5
Contract to relevant national institution(s) (Contract)
155 days
Tue 05-08-30
Fri 06-03-31
6
WG Meeting 2
4 days
Wed 05-11-09
Sat 05-11-12
7
Finalise national outputs and synthesis
23 days
Mon 06-05-01
Wed 06-05-31
8
Consider cross- component meeting with other WGs to discuss troph
2 days?
Sun 06-10-15
Mon 06-10-16
9
Prepare a regional synthesis (consultant)
113 days
Wed 06-03-01
Fri 06-08-04
10
Present outcomes of national assessment in WG Meeting 3
4 days
Tue 06-08-08
Fri 06-08-11
11
Publish the outcomes (printing)
44 days?
Sat 06-08-12
Tue 06-10-10
12
Inputs to final TDA
4 days
Fri 06-09-01
Wed 06-09-06
13
ACT 2: Develop regionally coordinated strategies of conservation a
397 days?
Mon 06-05-01
Thu 07-11-01
14
Prepare draft regional strategy (Consultant)
66 days?
Mon 06-05-01
Mon 06-07-31
15
Discuss and modify the draft (WG Meeting 3)
4 days
Tue 06-08-08
Fri 06-08-11
16
Revise the draft accordingly
90 days
Sat 06-08-12
Tue 06-12-12
17
Finalise strategy (WG Meeting 4)
4 days
Mon 07-09-03
Thu 07-09-06
18
Inputs to regional SAP
4 days
Mon 07-10-29
Thu 07-11-01
19
ACT 3: Implement regional strategy for conservation areas and the
30 days
Fri 07-09-07
Thu 07-10-18
20
Prepare draft implementation plan (consultant)
30 days
Fri 07-09-07
Thu 07-10-18
21
ACT 4: Implement regional strategy for conservation areas
4 days
Fri 08-08-01
Wed 08-08-06
22
Adopt implementation plan (WG Meeting 5)
4 days
Fri 08-08-01
Wed 08-08-06
23
ACT 5: Implentation of regionally coordinated strategies for protect
120 days
Thu 08-08-07
Wed 09-01-21
24
Implement the strategy (contract to national focal points)
120 days
Thu 08-08-07
Wed 09-01-21
25
IIB: GENETIC DIVERSITY
538 days
Mon 05-12-19
Fri 08-01-04
26
ACT 1: Determine situations of genetic degradation of important bi
89 days
Mon 06-05-08
Wed 06-09-06
27
Meeting to discuss Genetic Diversity at end of RWG3
1 day
Sat 06-08-12
Sat 06-08-12
28
Prepare draft of current status of genetic degradation of important bi
70 days
Mon 06-05-08
Fri 06-08-11
29
Discuss and finalise current status (WG Meeting 3)
4 days
Tue 06-08-08
Fri 06-08-11
30
Inputs to TDA
4 days
Fri 06-09-01
Wed 06-09-06
31
ACT 2: Develop regional concensus on the requirements for conse
443 days
Mon 06-05-01
Fri 08-01-04
32
Prepare draft list on conservation of genetic diversity (consultants)
23 days
Mon 06-05-01
Wed 06-05-31
33
Training course on genetic techniques [delete this]
44 days
Thu 06-06-01
Tue 06-08-01
34
Agree list on genes (WG Meeting 2 delete) (during addition working
1 day
Wed 06-06-14
Wed 06-06-14
35
Prepare a plan for the conservation (consultant)
140 days
Thu 06-06-15
Fri 06-12-22
36
Finalise the plan (WG Meeting 3)
4 days
Mon 06-12-25
Thu 06-12-28
37
Input to SAP
4 days
Tue 08-01-01
Fri 08-01-04
38
ACT 3: Prepare recommendations for conservation measures
25 days
Mon 05-12-19
Fri 06-01-20
39
The activities will be incorporated into activity 2
25 days
Mon 05-12-19
Fri 06-01-20
40
IIC: EXOTIC (INTRODUCED) SPECIES
768 days?
Tue 05-04-19
Fri 08-03-21
41
ACT 1: Document introduced exotic species and their pathways, as
364 days
Tue 05-04-19
Wed 06-09-06
42
WG Meeting 1
4 days
Tue 05-04-19
Fri 05-04-22
43
Contract to relevant national institution(s) (Contract)
155 days
Tue 05-08-30
Fri 06-03-31
44
Discuss and modify the draft (WG Meeting 2)
4 days
Mon 06-04-03
Thu 06-04-06
45
Revise the draft accordingly
80 days
Fri 06-04-07
Thu 06-07-27
46
Finalise the strategy (WG Meeting 3)
4 days
Tue 06-08-08
Fri 06-08-11
47
Inputs to TDA
4 days
Fri 06-09-01
Wed 06-09-06
48
ACT 2: Develop proposals for regulation and control of exotic spec
378 days?
Fri 06-07-28
Thu 08-01-03
49
Prepare draft regulation to control exotic species (consultant)
60 days
Fri 06-07-28
Mon 06-10-16
50
Discuss the draft (WG Meeting 3)
4 days
Tue 06-10-17
Fri 06-10-20
51
Training course on the implementation of the regulation
105 days
Mon 06-10-23
Fri 07-03-16
52
Revise the draft accordingly
120 days?
Mon 06-10-23
Fri 07-04-06
53
Finalise strategy (WG Meeting 4)
4 days
Wed 07-08-08
Mon 07-08-13
54
Submit for approval of governments
99 days
Tue 07-08-14
Fri 07-12-28
55
Inputs to regional SAP
4 days
Mon 07-12-31
Thu 08-01-03
56
ACT 3: Implement strategies for regulation and control of introduct
60 days?
Mon 07-12-31
Fri 08-03-21
57
Upon approval, prepare an implementation plan (consultant)
30 days
Mon 07-12-31
Fri 08-02-08
58
Implement the regulation
30 days?
Mon 08-02-11
Fri 08-03-21
59
Inputs to regional SAP
30 days
Mon 08-02-11
Fri 08-03-21
60
IID: SYNTHESIS OF REVIEWS AND DEVELOPMENT OF COORDINATED
387 days
Mon 08-03-24
Tue 09-09-15
61
ACT 1: Synthsize reviews from IIA, B and C
34 days
Mon 08-03-24
Thu 08-05-08
62
Consultant to synthesize output from activity HIGH of IIA, IIB, IIC (co
30 days
Mon 08-03-24
Fri 08-05-02
63
Inputs to final TDA
4 days
Mon 08-05-05
Thu 08-05-08
64
ACT 2: Develop coordinated strategy for biodiversity protection
387 days
Mon 08-03-24
Tue 09-09-15
65
Synthesize 3 regional strategies and 3 implementation plans to prep
65 days
Mon 08-03-24
Fri 08-06-20
66
Discuss and prioritise actions in regional SAP (WG Meeting 5)
4 days
Fri 08-08-01
Wed 08-08-06
67
Revsie the draft accordingly
30 days
Thu 08-08-07
Wed 08-09-17
68
Finalize strategy (WG Meeting 6?)
4 days
Fri 09-05-01
Wed 09-05-06
69
Inputs to regional SAP
30 days
Thu 09-05-07
Wed 09-06-17
70
Accept the Regional SAP
30 days
Thu 09-06-18
Wed 09-07-29
71
Submit for approval of governments
30 days
Thu 09-07-30
Wed 09-09-09
72
73
TDA COMPLETE
4 days
Fri 08-05-09
Wed 08-05-14
74
SAP COMPLETE
4 days
Thu 09-09-10
Tue 09-09-15