United Nations Distr. restricted
Environment Programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
22nd May 2002
Global Environment Facility
Original: ENGLISH
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
REPORT
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Fisheries Component
Bangkok, Thailand, 20 22 May 2002
________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, May 2002
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
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 DESIGNATION OF OFFICERS................................................................................................ 1
2.2 ORGANISATION OF WORK.................................................................................................. 2
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA................................................................................ 2
4. TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE REGIONAL
WORKING GROUP FOR FISHERIES (RWG-F) ....................................................................... 2
4.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP..................................................... 2
4.2 MEMBERSHIP OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP.................................................................. 3
4.3 RULES OF PROCEDURE..................................................................................................... 4
5. MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
AND GULF OF THAILAND" .................................................................................................. 4
5.1 REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP AND ITS ROLE
IN ACHIEVING PROJECT OBJECTIVES...................................................................................... 4
5.2 FINANCIAL RULES AND FINANCIAL REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS OF
EACH SPECIALISED EXECUTING AGENCY ............................................................................... 4
6. OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FISHERIES COMPONENT .............................. 6
6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT BRIEF...................................... 6
6.2 OTHER RELEVANT ACTIVITIES IN THE REGION .......................................................................... 7
7. DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE FISHERIES COMPONENT................................. 7
7.1 REVIEW OF THE FISHERIES RELATED SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTS AND THE TRANSBOUNDARY
DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS, PRODUCED DURING THE PREPARATORY PHASE OF THE PROJECT ....... 7
7.2 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION................................................ 7
8. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003.............................................................. 8
9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS........................................................................................................ 9
10. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
FISHERIES........................................................................................................................... 9
11. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING ................................................................. 10
12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING.............................................................................................. 10
List of Annexes
ii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 1
List of Participants
Annex 2
List of Documents
Annex 3
Agenda
Annex 4
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for National Focal Points
Operating in the Framework of the UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
Annex 5
Flow Chart of Activities under Component 2, Over Exploitation of Fisheries in the
Gulf of Thailand
Annex 6
Shared and Transboundary Fish Stocks in the Gulf of Thailand and South China
Sea
Annex 7
Outline of the National Reports for the Fisheries Component of the UNEP/GEF
Project: "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and
Gulf of Thailand"
Annex 8
Overview of Current National Activities of Relevance to the Fisheries Component of
the UNEP/GEF Project: "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
Annex 9
Generic Causal Chain Analysis of problems Relating to the Reduction of
Transboundary Fish Stocks in the Gulf of Thailand
Annex 10 Workplan, Timetable and Schedule of Meetings for the Regional Working Group
on Fisheries, 2002-2003
iii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
Welcome address
1.1.1 The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta, opened the meeting on behalf of Dr. Klaus Töpfer, the
Executive Director of UNEP and Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, the Director, Division of GEF Co-ordination. He
welcomed participants to the first meeting of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries (RWG-F) and
noted the high importance accorded this project by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). He informed the meeting of the strong desire of the
Executive Director that the project stimulate renewed interest in regional, co-operative management of
the most biologically diverse shallow water marine area in the world. In addition, Dr. Pernetta noted that,
the importance accorded this project by the GEF was reflected in the size of the GEF grant (16.4 million
US$).
1.1.2 Dr. Pernetta briefly reviewed the process of project development from the initial approval of the
project concept by the 12th meeting of the Co-ordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) in
1996. He noted that, the project was large and complex and that this working group was central to the
regional level co-ordination and management of national contributions to the fisheries sub-component.
He noted further that the focus of the activities envisaged in this component of the project was directed
towards the habitats that served as important nursery, spawning and feeding grounds for migratory or
shared fish stocks. He noted further that this initial meeting is important in providing guidance to the
National Focal Points and through them to the National Committees regarding the work to be undertaken
and in ensuring that the data and information assembled at the national level are comparable and
compatible between all participating countries. It will be important to ensure that this scientific and
technical guidance is collective, not only at the regional, but also equally importantly, at the national
level.
1.1.3 He informed the meeting that the Regional Working Group on Fisheries was composed of six
participating countries, since China will not participate in this sub-component during the initial stages of
the project. He expressed the hope that with the implementation of the project and demonstration of its
benefits, China would participate in this sub-component at a later stage.
1.1.4 On behalf of the Executive Director, the Project Director reiterated the strong support of UNEP
for this initiative and to assisting the countries of the region in developing more regionally co-ordinated
approaches to addressing the problems of the marine environment. He noted that this project was
viewed in many quarters as being both significant and well designed and expressed the hope that the
meeting would be successful in providing the necessary scientific and technical guidance required for
successful execution of the fisheries component.
1.2
Introduction of members
1.2.1 The participants were invited to introduce themselves and to provide the meeting with a brief
outline of their expertise and experience, and their roles in the project. Participants noted with regret the
absence of the Malaysian Focal Point and expressed the hope that Malaysia would participate in this
important activity in the future. The list of participants is attached as Annex 1 to this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Designation of officers
2.1.1 In accordance with the rules of procedure for the Project Steering Committee, participants were
invited to nominate a Chairperson, Vice-chairperson, and Rapporteur for the meeting.
2.1.2 Mr. Noel Barut, Focal Point for Fisheries in the Philippines nominated Mr. Wannakiat
Thubthimsang, Focal Point for Fisheries for Thailand as Chairperson and Mr. Wannakiat was duly
elected.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 2
2.1.3 Mr. Wannakiat nominated Mr. Ing Try, Focal Point for fisheries from Cambodia, as Vice-
Chairperson and Mr. Try was duly elected.
2.1.4 Dr. Dao Manh Son nominated Mr. Noel Barut, as Rapporteur for the meeting and Mr. Barut was
duly elected.
2.2
Organisation of work
2.2.1 The Project Director introduced the list of documents (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/INF.1), and
informed the meeting that the documents in front of the working group included the National Reports,
and Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis prepared during the PDF-B phase in both hard copy and
electronic form; the report of the First Meeting of the Project Steering Committee held in October 2001;
and the reports of the First Meetings of the Wetlands, Mangroves, Seagrass and Coral Reef, Regional
Working Groups. He introduced the discussion documents prepared by the Secretariat for the meeting.
The list of documents available to the meeting is attached as Annex 2 to this report.
2.2.2 He noted that the meeting would be conducted in plenary as far as possible, although sessional
working groups could be formed as deemed necessary. The meeting would be conducted in English.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
Mr. Wannakiat invited participants to consider the draft agenda prepared by the Secretariat and
to propose any amendments or additions that they might wish.
3.2
There being no proposals for change Mr. Barut proposed, and Ir. H. Suharyadi Salim, Focal
Point for Fisheries in Indonesia seconded a motion to adopt the agenda as proposed. The meeting
agreed, to adopt the agenda as attached in Annex 3 to this report.
4.
TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE
REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR FISHERIES (RWG-F)
4.1
Terms of reference for the Regional Working Group
4.1.1 The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3
and in particular the Terms of Reference for the Regional Working Group on Fisheries of the project
entitled "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
contained in Annex VIII of that document, and reproduced for this meeting as document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F/INF.7. In introducing this document the Project Director noted that, the Terms
of Reference had been approved by, the Project Steering Committee, and that any proposals for
amendment would need to be referred back to that committee.
4.1.2 The Chairperson proposed and the meeting agreed to consider the Terms of Reference, item by
item. During discussion of the first three items in the Terms of Reference clarification was sought by
several members regarding the formation, membership, and responsibilities of the National Committees.
It was noted that the National Committees should already have been formed and that the National Focal
Points were responsible for ensuring that agreements reached during the Regional Working Group
meetings were communicated to the members of the committees.
4.1.3 Mr. Ing Try requested clarification regarding the composition and membership of the National
Committees since in his view they should be restricted to government entities directly involved in matters
of relevance to fisheries. In response the Project Director noted the need to form a committee that
contained a range of expertise and as a wide a range of stakeholders as possible. The reason being that
it was important to ensure wide dissemination of information regarding the project and wide acceptance
of the outcomes. Mr. Try further noted the financial constraints in involving representatives of all
Provincial Governments in Cambodia in the meetings of the Committee as well as other stakeholders
and fisheries researchers.
4.1.4 During the subsequent discussion participants informed the meeting of progress in forming the
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 3
national committees and their composition. Dr. Dao Manh Son noted that the Vietnamese Committee
consisted of 10 members and included representatives from both the research and management
communities but that due to the budgetary constraints it would not be possible for the committee to
meet physically once a month, since the committee was composed of individuals from all over Viet
Nam.
4.1.5 Ir. Salim noted that in the case of Indonesia, Provincial Governments were being involved in the
Project. He noted that the proposed membership of the committee was awaiting Government approval,
and agreed with the Project Director that the composition, and mode of functioning of the National
Committees should be decided at the National level. He noted further that it was preferable in the case of
Indonesia to list the Institutions represented on the Committee rather than individuals who were subject
to reassignment.
4.1.6 Mr. Wannakiat noted that in the case of Thailand a National Fisheries Committee already
existed, that it was a high level committee chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and that it was
extremely large comprising a wide range of stakeholders. He informed the meeting that he had formed a
committee specifically for this project and that it would report to the National Fisheries Committee,
which would also consider any recommendations proposed within the framework of the project.
4.1.7 Mr. Barut shared his experiences in forming the National Committee in the Philippines and
informed the meeting that as in the case of Philippines it was limited to 10 members involved in fisheries
along the coastline bordering the South China Sea and included national and regional government
officers, local government officers, academicians, NGOs and researchers. He noted that it was the
intention of the Committee to invite additional participants to meetings when the need arose.
4.1.8 Finally it was noted that the Focal Points should inform their National Technical Focal Point of
the composition of the committee once formed and that they should send a copy of the membership to
the Project Co-ordinating Unit as soon as possible. Technically this should have been done within thirty
days of final signature of the MoUs.
4.1.9 During discussion of the subsequent items in the Terms of Reference issues were raised and
discussed regarding the boundaries of the Gulf of Thailand; the nature of transboundary issues eligible
for funding within the project; the required format for the meta-database; and the fact that the initial
activities during the first two years were to be based on existing data and information and not original
research.
4.1.10 Regarding the creation of the national meta-databases it was noted that if these were to be
compatible and capable of aggregation into a regional meta-database then identical formats would need
to be used by each National Committee. The Project Director informed the meeting that the PCU was in
discussion with Dr. Anond Snidvongs, Director of the Southeast Asian Regional Centre for the System
for Analysis, Research and Training of the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (SEA-START
RC) and that a standard format would be developed and dispatched to all National Focal Points within
the next two weeks.
4.1.11 Concerning refugia or fish sanctuaries, Mr. Barut informed the meeting that criteria for the
designation of such areas had been established in the Philippines which might be of value to the project
when considering the need for such areas elsewhere. Mr. Barut also informed the meeting that materials
for public awareness amongst artisanal fishing communities had been developed in the Philippines,
which might be suitable for use within this project.
4.1.12 Reference was made to the work of ASEAN on a code of conduct for the South China Sea and
the meeting noted the need to build on this work rather than duplicate it. The group also agreed on the
need to establish regular e-mail contact to co-ordinate the work inter-sessionally and it was noted that
Mr. Kelvin Passfield of the PCU would serve as the focal point for intersessional activities of the group.
4.2
Membership of the Regional Working Group
4.2.1 The meeting noted that, the membership of the RWG-F as detailed in the Terms of Reference
for the Regional Working Group on Fisheries, included the National Focal Points for Fisheries from the
six participating countries, one member of the Project Co-ordinating Unit, and up to four regional experts
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 4
nominated by the Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) in consultation with the National Technical Focal
Points.
4.2.2 The Project Director informed the meeting that, Mr. Kelvin Passfield, expert in the Project Co-
ordinating Unit would serve as the PCU designated member of the working group, and that China would
not participate in this component of the Project during the initial phase of the work.
4.2.3 The meeting noted the need to add expertise in the field of resource economics and it was
agreed that members would consider and agree on the fields of expertise, which need to be added to the
group prior to the next meeting. It was agreed that members would provide nominations to the PCU for
further consideration and subsequent approval by the National Focal Points. It was agreed that such
nominations would be provided in the form of the expert roster entries prepared by the PCU. The full list
of experts for all the working groups of the project components and sub-components will be circulated to
the National Technical Focal Points for comment.
4.2.4 Participants noted the possibility of inviting additional observers to subsequent meetings as the
need arises.
4.3
Rules of Procedure
4.3.1 The RWG-F noted that the Project Steering Committee had, at its first meeting in October 2001,
adopted rules of procedure for the conduct of its meetings. The Rules of Procedure of the Project
Steering Committee are contained in Annex XIII of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3. The RWG-F
noted further that the other regional working groups had adopted these rules subject to replacement of
references to the Project Steering Committee with references to the Regional Working Group.
4.3.2 The RWG-F agreed to adopt, subject to the replacement of references to the Project Steering
Committee with Regional Working Group, the Rules of Procedure for the PSC contained in sections IV,
V, VI, and VII as rules for the conduct of its sessions.
5.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
AND GULF OF THAILAND"
5.1
Reporting relationships and responsibilities of the Regional Working Group and its role
in achieving project objectives
5.1.1 The Project Director was invited to introduce the management framework of the project outlined
in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/INF.4. He explained that the primary purpose of the RWG-F was
to ensure that the National Committees for the Fisheries sub-component conducted their work in a
comparable manner such that the outputs could be synthesised at a regional level.
5.1.2 In addition, it was noted that the Chairperson of the RWG-F would serve as a member of the
Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC) and would therefore be responsible for ensuring
that the recommendations of the group were presented to the RSTC. During discussion the Chairperson
sought clarification regarding his responsibilities in reporting to the RSTC and it was noted that he would
be responsible for presenting the reports of the meetings and outputs to the RSTC but that he would be
assisted in discharging this responsibility by the Project Co-ordinating Unit.
5.1.3 During the discussion it was noted that the MOUs signed between the Specialised Executing
Agencies (SEAs) and UNEP, represent institutional agreements such that in the event of a Focal Point
leaving the Institution, the SEA has a responsibility to identify a replacement.
5.2
Financial rules and financial reporting responsibilities of the National Focal Points of
each Specialised Executing Agency
5.2.1 The Project Director was invited to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/INF.5 on
financial rules and financial reporting requirements to secure anticipated cash flows in accordance with
the budgets contained in the MOUs. This document is included as Annex 4 to this report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 5
5.2.2 The Project Director outlined the process of budget approval and fund disbursement and noted
that the Project Steering Committee had overall responsibility for budget allocations and planning within
the framework approved by the GEF Council in the Project Brief. He further noted that the responsibility
for authorizing and certifying project expenditures and disbursements lay with the PCU, operating under
the guidance and decisions of the PSC. He noted that initially project activities had been approved by
COBSEA and on the basis of that approval, an estimated budget was prepared by UNEP, submitted and
approved by the GEF Council, which determined the allocations by project component. The Project
Steering Committee had approved the overall framework budget for the five years of the project and the
detailed budget including allocations to the Specialised Executing Agencies (SEAs) for the first two
years.
5.2.3 Disbursement of funds by UNEP is facilitated by ESCAP under authorisation from the PCU and
takes place in advance of the SEAs incurring expenditures in line with the budgets attached to the
MOUs. These budgets clearly indicate the purpose for which the funds are provided by UNEP, on behalf
of the GEF, to the Specialised Executing Agencies. The SEAs are authorised to spend the cash
advances in accordance with the detailed budget, and the meeting noted that UNEP will not reimburse
expenditures for items not detailed in the approved budget. It was noted further that, during project
execution there might be unplanned costs, over-expenditures and/or under-expenditures that would
require revision of the budget, in these cases, the Focal Points in the SEAs should contact the PCU to
seek a budget revision.
5.2.4 Regarding meeting costs it was noted that per diem allowances and other expenses involving
travel could be paid to members but that a sitting allowance or fee should not be paid. The itemised list
of expenditures was not required but a copy of the meeting report together with an informal translation
into English was acceptable as justification for the expenditure. In this regard it was noted that although
original receipts for most expenditures did not need to be submitted by the SEAs at the time of
submission of the 6 monthly expenditure statement these should be retained on record by the SEA for
the duration of the project such that they can be produced if an audit is required.
5.2.5 Cambodia requested whether they could use unspent funds from one budget line for items of
equipment in advance of receipt of the second tranche of funds and it was agreed that this would be
possible for this initial start up phase but allocations for the subsequent year could not be brought
forward to the current year.
5.2.6 It was noted that expenditure statements, cash advance requests and substantive six monthly
reports were required at 30th June and 31st December and that the first reports were due on 30th June
2002 even though the cash had only been advanced at the end of the first quarter of the year. These
dates reflect the financial years for the GEF (30th June) and UNEP (31st December).
5.2.7 During discussion of the process of budget revision it was noted that no MoU to date contained
allocations for consultants or for project personnel and that where such assistance was required by the
National Focal Points for Fisheries they should write to the Project Director requesting a budget revision
transferring funds from the sub-contracts budget line 2100 to the appropriate line in the personnel
component of the budget.
5.2.8 In respect of contracts for consultancy and other individual services it was noted that at the time
of submission of the six monthly reports a copy of the signed contract in the original language should be
submitted to the PCU together with an informal translation into English.
5.2.9 Concerning the mode of reporting the Chairperson asked whether documents can be sent by
email and the Project Director informed the meeting that supporting documents can be sent by email,
but that the 3 formal reports need to be signed, and faxed, and the originals should be mailed to the
PCU. The PCU will act on the basis of the faxed copy but a signature is required from the signatory of
the MoU as validation of the reports.
5.2.10 Clarification was sought as to whether all reports have to go through the National Focal Point for
the Project to the PCU and the Project Director informed the meeting that there was no requirement on
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 6
the part of UNEP that reports be submitted through the NFP rather there is a contractual obligation for
the signatory to the MoUs to submit the reports directly to the PCU. In the event that a Focal Point for
Fisheries is changed the PCU requires an official notification from the National Focal Point for the
Project, informing UNEP of the change of Fisheries Focal Point.
5.2.11 Discussion ensued regarding the substantive outputs of the National Committees and it was
noted that the Regional Working Group would decide how and when the national outputs would be
published and disseminated. It was noted in this context that approval at National Level would be
required prior to public dissemination of the outputs according to the national requirements in each
country.
5.2.12 Finally it was noted that budget revisions could be undertaken at any time since they required
only a request and justification from the Focal Point for Fisheries, followed by written authorization from
the Project Director. In this context it was noted that on the basis of the points raised members might
wish to propose revisions prior to the end of the meeting, in which case revised budgets could be
approved immediately.
6.
OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FISHERIES COMPONENT
6.1
General description of activities contained in the Project Brief
6.1.1 The Project Director introduced document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/4, in which the
expectations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with respect to project execution, the constraints
and limitations imposed by the terms of the GEF grant in supporting activities in the different project
components, and the opportunities provided by the project for improving the national and regional
capacities for sustainably managing the South China Sea marine environment, were outlined.
6.1.2 A query was raised, concerning the criteria to be used by the GEF in measuring the success of
the project. In response the Project Director noted that sustainability of the management frameworks
and structures beyond the life of the project would be one criterion of overall project success. More
importantly however the "environmental state" criteria that could be used to judge the environmental
outcomes cannot be defined until such time as the concrete activities are designed. He also noted that
various indicators of success were in fact outlined in the logical framework matrix in terms of outputs
and verifiable indicators but that the GEF used three classes of indicator to measure project success:
namely environmental state indicators; process indicators; and threat reduction indicators. Of these
changes in environmental state were likely to be measured only over the long-term and therefore might
be less important within the time frame of project execution.
6.1.3 The chairman invited Mr. Passfield to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/4, Outline
of Fisheries Related Activities. Mr. Passfield presented an overview of the document, and the attached
flow chart and invited participants to critically review the contents of the document as this was a
preliminary draft for them to amend during the meeting.
6.1.4 The flow-chart of national, site specific and regional activities was reviewed and discussed and
participants agreed to adopt this as an overall framework for the work of the National Committees and
RWG-F for the next two years. The chart is attached as Annex 5 to this report.
6.1.5 During discussion a question was raised regarding the activity involving the testing of a blast
fishing device and the Project Director informed the meeting that this would be an item for the agenda of
the next meeting at which a presentation would be made and the RWG-F could determine how best to
trial the devise.
6.1.6 An extensive discussion of which stocks were to be considered within the framework of the
project took place during which it was noted that some demersal stocks could be considered
transboundary under some circumstances. Guidance regarding regional agreements on what constitute
shared, transboundary stocks in the South China Sea was introduced by the Chairman and is attached
as Annex 6 to this report. This listing is to be used as the basis for the preparation of the National
Reports.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 7
6.1.7 There followed an extensive and intensive discussion of the nature and contents of the national
reviews, which were to be completed during the first two years of the project and on which the National
Action Plans and subsequent activities would depend. It was agreed that in order to ensure the
comparability of information reviewed in each country a format would be devised and agreed by the
working group, for the national reports.
6.1.8 A draft outline of the contents of the national report was prepared by the Secretariat overnight,
which was discussed expanded and approved as contained in Annex 7 of this report. It was noted that
all outputs produced through the project should carry the logos of the GEF, of UNEP, of the SEA
responsible and of any other organisation, which had contributed substantively to the product. In this
context it was noted that a logo for the project as a whole should be designed and also included on the
project products.
6.1.9 The RWG-F agreed that the first draft of these reports would be made available for review at the
second meeting of the RWG-F and that the reports would be finalised by the end of the first quarter of
2003.
6.2
Other relevant activities in the region
6.2.1 The Chairperson invited members to brief the meeting on projects and activities currently on-
going in their countries with relevance to the project objectives. There followed a series of presentations
by the members listing relevant activities a summary of which is attached as Annex 8 to this report.
6.2.2 The meeting noted the need to build upon these activities and where possible to initiate co-
operation and collaboration in order to complement their actions and ensure that duplication did not
occur.
7.
DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE FISHERIES COMPONENT
7.1
Review of the Fisheries related sections of the National Reports and the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis, produced during the preparatory phase of the project
7.1.1 The RWG-F noted the data and information contained in the National Reports was not up-to-
date and was in some instances incomplete. They agreed that the preparation of the National and
Regional meta-databases and the National Reports would rectify this problem.
7.1.2 In the light of this it was agreed that there existed no need to undertake a formal review of the
contents of these documents since they would be superseded by the activities agreed to under agenda
item 6.
7.2
National and regional sources of data and information
7.2.1 Dr. Anond Snidvongs, Director SEA-START RC presented the GIS database being developed by
the centre, for the South China Sea and informed the meeting that this would be made available in an
abbreviated form to all participants in the meeting for their review and suggestions regarding data and
information which might be added to the existing sets. It was agreed that the PCU would distribute these
CDs following the meeting and that the National Focal Points for Fisheries would contribute any
additional data and information sets which they felt would add to the value of the system.
7.2.2 During discussion it was noted that SEAFDEC has a number of relevant data sets that could be
incorporated into the Regional GIS database and that discussion was underway between Dr. Anond and
SEAFDEC regarding acquisition of these data.
7.2.3 Mr. Passfield presented document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/5 regarding the data and
information needs, which included an example of a causal chain analysis. Following an initial discussion
the RWG-F discussed and prepared a generic causal chain analysis of the causes underlying the
reduction in transboundary fish stocks in the Gulf of Thailand. It was noted that where individual fish
stocks were considered the causal chain could be made much more precise and could also be
quantified such that it would be possible to identify appropriate points of intervention. The example
generic causal chains are attached as Annex 9 to this report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 8
8.
DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003
8.1
Mr. Barut presented the draft workplan prepared by the National Committee for the Philippines
as a basis for discussion of the overall workplan for all committees. During discussion it was agreed that
the Secretariat would work with this and amend the document to reflect the various components of the
national reports as activities to be completed by the National Committees. During discussion various
amendments were proposed based on the delays in fund transfer for the first quarter of 2002.
8.2
The Secretariat prepared a draft based on the discussions of the previous days and taking into
account the Philippines workplan as modified during discussion. Mr. Passfield presented the draft
prepared, which was extensively discussed.
8.3
During discussion it was noted that the Secretariat should receive the first draft of the report by
30th September in order to duplicate and distribute this to the members prior to the next meeting. It was
noted that the first draft would not be complete but would consist largely of the data and information that
would be used to determine the necessary actions to be included in the National Action Programmes.
Some discussion followed regarding the timing of activities involved in developing the National Action
Programmes and it was agreed that this should form a major agenda item for the next meeting.
8.4
In discussing the nature of the National Action Programme it was noted that this was not
intended to be an action plan for the entire fisheries sector in each country, rather the focus of the
project was on transboundary stocks and on the management of the habitats on which these stocks
depend. Any recommendations regarding these aspects would need to be integrated in wider national
plans and hence would need to be submitted to, and approved by, the appropriate bodies within each
country.
8.5
The draft workplan was amended, approved, and is attached as Annex 10 to this report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 9
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1
The Chairperson, Mr. Wannakiat, invited participants to make presentations or raise any other
items, which they might wish to bring to the attention of the meeting.
9.2
Dr. Son presented an overview of the fisheries sector in Viet Nam which has a long coastline
and an EEZ of more than 1 million Km2. He noted that although the annual catch was increasing the
CPUE was reducing from more than 1mt/hp/year in the eighties to 0.36mt/hp/yr in 2001. Fish catch by
Province is available including number of boats, fishing gear and total catch although the catch statistics
are not differentiated by species. Fisheries policy was designed to enhance capacity, develop the
technology and infrastructure and focuses on off-shore fisheries for export.
9.3
Recognising the decline in fisheries resources, national policies focussed on optimising
productivity; ensuring more equitable distribution of benefits; strengthening institutions; whilst at the
same time minimising environmental damage. Problems included over fishing, use of inappropriate
technology; post harvest losses; conflicts between small and large-scale fisheries and destruction of
coastal habitats for aquaculture.
9.4
Dr. Son, presented an overview of some joint cruises in the Gulf of Thailand in 1997 and 1998;
he noted that similar cruises focussing on oceanographic measurements, phytoplankton surveys, and
fish resources were conducted bi-annually in the Gulf of Tonkin. Survey cruises for mackerel, yellowfin
and skipjack tunas are conducted twice yearly in the Eastern off-shore area of Viet Nam and had been
ongoing for three years. The results of these surveys would provide valuable data for use in the present
project. He noted that surveys of shrimp resources were also conducted in the Gulf of Thailand, and that
a joint cruise in conjunction with SEAFDEC had been carried out recently. He further noted that closed
seasons had been declared in Viet Nam to provide protection at spawning and nursery grounds in Viet
Nam waters.
9.5
Dr. Son also advised the group that during the period 2002 to 2010 a National Fisheries
programme for conservation and management of living marine resources was planned and the investment
in this programme was valued at 350 billion dong. The sub-programme concerned with habitat protection
included development and management of marine protected areas to a value of 200 billion dong and Dr.
Son informed the meeting that he hoped that part of these funds would be available to co-finance
activities in the framework of this project.
9.6
In response to a question regarding fisheries management in Viet Nam, Dr. Son noted that
areas had been designated as closed to fishing for some parts of the year, that regulations regarding
gear were in place, and that in some Provinces regulations existed regarding areas within which large
scale gear could not be used. He noted further that there was no prior history of community based
management of fisheries in Viet Nam and that Viet Nam would be interested in developing pilot activities
in this field.
9.7
Mr. Try requested clarification regarding the budget and in particular whether or not prior
approval from the PCU was required in order to hire assistants and/or consultants. In response the
Project Director informed participants that once a budget revision was approved prior approval for
expenditure in accordance with the budget allocations was not required.
9.8
Ir. Salim asked whether or not standard fees or contracts had been developed by UNEP for use
within the framework of the project and in response the Project Director informed the group that standard
fees had not been developed since this would disadvantage some countries. Consequently any sub-
contracts or consultancy contracts issued by the SEA should be constructed in accordance with
national regulations and standards. It was noted that in the case of Indonesia there might be a need for
the NTWG to meet and agree on the standard fees to be paid to consultants such that government
employees were not disadvantaged in comparison with those hired from the private sector and NGOs.
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
FISHERIES
10.1
The Project Director informed the meeting that the other Regional Working Groups had
extended the length of their meetings by one day and included a field trip to an appropriate site of
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
page 10
relevance to the work of the Project. He suggested that due to the fact that the RWG-F would need to
present and discuss the draft National Reports it would be necessary to extend the length of the
meeting by at least a full day. During subsequent discussion it was agreed that the meeting should be
extended by one full day and that an additional day should be added to ensure the possibility of
conducting a field visit to an appropriate Community based management project.
10.2
The RWG-F agreed to extend the duration of the meeting such that it would run from Monday 7th
October to Friday 11th October (five days) and the programme would be developed to include a full days
field trip.
10.3
The Project Director informed the meeting that for the next round of meetings four would be
convened in Viet Nam including the next meetings of the Regional Scientific & Technical Committee and
Project Steering Committee; the RWG-LbP would meet in Indonesia; the Wetlands group in China and
the Coral Reef group in Cambodia. Following some discussion regarding alternative venues the
Chairperson offered and the meeting accepted to host the second meeting in Phuket to take advantage
of a well-developed fishery under community based management. It was agreed that Mr. Wannakiat
would liaise with the PCU regarding the logistic arrangements for the meeting and field visit.
10.4
Mr. Barut offered to host the third meeting in the Philippines and to arrange for a field visit to an
appropriate site where community based management was well developed. The working group accepted
this offer.
10.5
The Chairperson extended his apologies to the group that he would have to leave at this point
and he invited the Vice-Chairperson to Chair the afternoon session. He thanked the Secretariat for their
support to the meeting and the participants for their hard and constructive work. On behalf of the
Secretariat and participants, Dr. Pernetta thanked the Chairperson for guiding the meeting to a
successful conclusion.
11.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
11.1
Mr. Try opened the session by inviting the Rapporteur, Mr. Barut to present the draft report of
the meeting prepared by the Secretariat on behalf of the group.
11.2
The report was considered paragraph-by-paragraph and adopted as contained in this document.
11.3
Mr. Barut moved the formal motion for the adoption of the report of the first meeting of the
Regional Working Group for Fisheries which was passed by acclamation.
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
12.1
Dr. Pernetta thanked the Vice-Chairperson, Rapporteur, and participants for their hard and
constructive work over the last three days which had resulted in the meeting being successfully
completed in the three days allotted.
12.2
Mr. Try thanked the Secretariat for their support to the preparation of the meeting and noted the
importance of the fisheries sector to the countries participating in this component of the Project. He
expressed his hope that the meeting in Phuket would be as successful as this one and looked forward
to working with the members during the next meeting.
12.3
The meeting was formally closed at 1530, May 22nd 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 1
page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
Indonesia
Mr. Ing TRY, Deputy Director
Ir. H. Suharyadi SALIM, M.Sc
Department of Fisheries
Director of Fisheries Resources, DGF Capture
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Jln. Harsono RM No. 3
186 Norodom Blvd.
Gd. B, Lt VI
P.O. Box 582
Ragunan - Pasar Minggu
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia
Tel:
(855 23) 219256; (855) 11 957 884
Tel:
(62 21) 781 1672; 0811902036
Fax: (855 23) 219256; 427048; 215470
Fax:
(62 21) 781 1672
E-mail: tmmp.cam@bigpond.com.kh
E-mail: dfrmdgf@indosat.net.id
Philippines
Thailand
Mr. Noel BARUT, Chief
Mr. Wannakiat THUBTHIMSANG, Senior Fisheries
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Biologist, Department of Fisheries
Department Agriculture
Kasetsart, Chatujak
Arcadia Building, Quezon Avenue
Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel:
(662) 940 6130-45 ext. 4621; 562 0543
Tel: (632) 372 5063; (639) 17 8385701
Fax: (662) 562 0543
Fax: (632) 372 5063
Mobile: (661) 842 7508
E-mail: noel_barut@hotmail.com
E-mail: wannakiat@yahoo.com
Viet Nam
Dr. Dao Manh SON, Vice Director
Research Institute for Marine Fisheries
170 Le Lai Street
Haiphong City, Viet Nam
Tel: (84 31) 837 898, 836 135
Fax: (84 31) 836 812
E-mail: daoson@hn.vnn.vn
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Mr. Kelvin PASSFIELD, Expert
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: (66 2) 288 1116
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: passfield@un.org
Invited Regional Expert
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 1
page 2
Dr. Anond SNIDVONGS, Director
Southeast Asia START Regional Centre
SWU Pathumwan 5 Building, 5th Floor
Henri Dunant Road
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 218 9464-7
Fax: (66 2) 251 9416
E-mail: anond@start.or.th
Observer
Mr. Pirochana SAIKLIANG
Senior Fishery Biologist
Upper Gulf Marine Fisheries Development Center
49 Soi Phrarachaviriyaporn 16
Phrarachaviriyaporn Road
Bangphoung Sub-district, Phrapradaeng District
Samut Prakarn 10130, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 816 7635-8 ext. 15, 16
01 8439887
Fax:
(66 2) 816 7634
E-mail: pirochas@fisheries.go.th
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Dr. John PERNETTA, Project Director
Ms. Charuvan KALYANGKURA
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
Administrative Assistant, EAS/RCU
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Tel: (66 2) 288 1894
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
E-mail: kalyangkura@un.org
Ms. Unchalee KATTACHAN
Secretary, UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: (66 2) 288 1670
Fax: (66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 2
page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Working documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/1
Provisional agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/2
Annotated provisional agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Draft report of the meeting (prepared during the meeting).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/4
Outline of Fishery Related Activities Described in the
UNEP/GEF Project Brief and Project Document entitled:
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand".
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/5
Initial Data & Information Needs for the Fisheries Component.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/6
Workplan for calendar year 2002.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/INF.1
Provisional list of documents.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/INF.2
Provisional list of participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/INF.3
Draft programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/INF.4
Management Framework and Reporting Structures for the
UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand".
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/INF.5
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for
National Focal Points Operating in the Framework of the
UNEP/GEF Project entitled: "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand".
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/INF.6
Terms of Reference for the Regional Working Group on
Fisheries (as approved by the First project Steering
Committee, Bangkok, Thailand, October 22-23rd 2001).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3
First 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 First Meeting. UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3. UNEP,
Bangkok Thailand, 2000.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/3
First 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 First Meeting. UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RSTC.1/3 Pattaya, Thailand, 14-16 March 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/4
Expectations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with
Respect to Project Execution; Constraints and Opportunities.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 2
page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Mangrove
Sub-component of the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and
Gulf of Thailand" Report of the First Meeting. UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-M.1/3. Phuket, Thailand, 29th April 1st May 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Seagrass
Sub-component of the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and
Gulf of Thailand" Report of the First Meeting. UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-SG.1/3. Bangkok, Thailand, 6 - 8th May 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Coral Reef
Sub-component of the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and
Gulf of Thailand" Report of the First Meeting. UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-CR.1/3. Bangkok, Thailand, 9 11th May 2002.
The following documents are available to participants as both hard copies and on CD Rom
Talaue-McManus, L.
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the South China Sea.
EAS/RCU Technical Report Series No. 14. UNEP,
Bangkok, Thailand, 2000.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Cambodia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of China on the formulation of a Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary Framework of a Strategic
Action Programme for the South China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok,
Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Indonesia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Malaysia on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of the Philippines on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Thailand on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/EAS/RCU
National report of Viet Nam on the formulation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and preliminary
Framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
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 Designation of officers
2.2 Organisation of work
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4.
TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE REGIONAL
WORKING GROUP FOR FISHERIES (RWG-F)
4.1 Terms of reference for the working group
4.2 Membership of the working group
4.3 Rules of procedure
5.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND
GULF OF THAILAND"
5.1 Reporting relationships and responsibilities of the Regional Working Group and its
role in achieving project objectives
5.2 Financial rules and financial reporting responsibilities of the National Focal Points
of each Specialised Executing Agency
6.
OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FISHERIES COMPONENT
6.1 General description of activities contained in the Project Brief
6.2 Other relevant activities in the region
7.
DATA AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE FISHERIES COMPONENT
7.1 Review of the Fisheries related sections of the National Reports and the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, produced during the preparatory phase of the
project
7.2 National and regional sources of data and information
8.
DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE WORKPLANS FOR THE NATIONAL COMMITTEES
AND REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR 2002-2003
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
10. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
FISHERIES
11. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 1
ANNEX 4
Financial Rules and Financial Reporting Requirements for National Focal Points
Operating in the Framework of the UNEP/GEF Project entitled:
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
Background
During the first meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee held in Pattaya, March 22-
25 2002 members requested that the Project Co-ordinating Unit provide some notes for guidance of the
individuals in the Ministries and Specialised Executing Agencies regarding the management of the funds
and reporting requirements. This document has been produced by the PCU in response to that request.
What follows therefore is a simple outline of the budgetary constraints and reporting requirements, rather
than a full detailed listing of the United Nations financial rules and regulations.
Budget Planning and approval
The overall project budget was estimated by UNEP on the basis of planned activities approved by
COBSEA and the participating Governments. These estimates were summarised in the Project Brief at
the time of submission to the GEF Council for approval as total costs for each component and
subcomponent of the Project. Hence variations in allocation between components of the Project can
only be made with authority of the GEF Council.
Subsequently, during the appraisal phase from December 2000 to October 2001 extensive negotiations
were undertaken between UNEP and the Focal Point Ministries in each participating country regarding
the allocation of resources to activities within each component. The overall project budget, broken down
by object of expenditure in UNEP format was approved by the first Project Steering Committee meeting,
held in Bangkok, Thailand, October 22-23rd 2001. This meeting also approved the government
commitments of in-kind contributions to the project.
Overall Budget Control
The body with over-riding authority with respect to the entire project budget is the Project Steering
Committee, which approves on an annual basis the workplans and budgets for the project. In practical
terms what this means is that, at the end of each year the Project Steering Committee decides how any
unspent balance should be reallocated, and makes decisions regarding the budget allocations for
demonstration sites. The Project Steering Committee must however operate within the framework budget
presented in the Project Brief by component and approved by the Global Environment Facility Council at
the time of submission of the Project Brief. Effectively this means that the Project Steering Committee
has authority to move funds between activities in each component but not to transfer funds from one
component to another.
For example: money approved by the GEF as grant support to activities in the coral reef component
cannot be transferred to the mangrove component, for example.
The Project Steering Committee has approved the initial budgetary allocations to the Specialised
Executing Agencies at National level for the first two years on the basis of which the first instalment of
funds has been transferred to all Specialised Executing Agencies with which UNEP has signed
Memoranda of Understanding.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 2
Responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies
The responsibilities of the Specialised Executing Agencies are detailed in each Memorandum of
Understanding and include inter alia responsibility for Chairing and convening meetings of the National
Committees, for producing the national inputs to the regional level activities and for advising at the
national level, the National Technical Focal Point and National Technical Working Group of priorities
activities which should be undertaken within the framework of the Project. In addition the Specialised
Agencies are responsible for presenting the national perspective at the Regional Working Groups and
providing to the Regional Working Groups and Regional Scientific and Technical Committee the data and
information required to make decisions and recommendations at the regional level. The substantive
needs will be more closely defined during the first sets of meetings of the Regional Working Groups.
Disbursement by UNEP to the SEAs
In order to undertake the substantive work described in the MoU's the GEF has provided grant funds for
project execution. These monies will be disbursed by ESCAP on behalf of UNEP at six monthly intervals
according to the terms given in the MoU. As noted above the first instalment of funds has been
disbursed as a cash advance following joint signature by UNEP and each SEA, of the MoUs.
In terms of fiscal responsibility within the United Nations System the Project Director authorises
financial expenditures including disbursement of funds to the SEAs, in accordance with the project
document, and the workplans and budget approved by the Project Steering Committee. The Senior
Expert certifies that adequate funds exist to support the payments authorised. These authorities are
delegated from the Head of the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON), and UNEP headquarters,
Nairobi.
Each MoU contains a budget in UNEP format, which indicates the purpose for which the funds are
provided by UNEP to the Specialised Executing Agencies. Funds have been allocated in these budgets
to the production of the required national level information, for the convening of meetings, for translation
and for other purposes as indicated by the UNEP budget code; for example the extract below is taken
from the budget table for a National Specialised Agency serving as the Focal Point for Land Based
Pollution and represents the anticipated reporting costs. No expenditures on publications are foreseen
during 2002 hence these funds will be transferred in 2003 in two separate allotments around January and
June 2003.
Table 1.
Example extract from the budget for a Specialised Executing Agency acting at National
level as the Focal Point for the Coral Reef sub-component of the Project (US$ thousands)
2002
2003
TOTAL
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
5200
Reporting costs - publications,
maps, newsletters, printing
5216
Translation
2.00
2.00
4.00
Publication of National Review of Water
3.00
3.00
5217
Quality data
5218
Publication of evaluation of costs and
3.00
3.00
benefits of alternative courses of action
and pre-feasibility studies
5299
Total
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
Expenditures by the SEAs
Each SEA is authorised under the terms of the MoUs to spend the cash advances in accordance with
the detailed budget, which forms part of each MoU. Since the money in the budgets of the MoUs is
provided to the SEAs by UNEP in advance of the SEAs incurring any expenditures, UNEP will not
reimburse expenditures for items not detailed in the approved budget.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 3
Unplanned costs
In undertaking the work agreed by the Regional Working Groups the Specialised Executing Agency may
find that it needs to spend money on items not currently listed in the budgets of the MoU. Under such
circumstances the Focal Point in the SEA must contact the Project Director to seek changes in the
budget to accommodate these un-planned expenditures.
Over-expenditures
Where an item or an activity costs more than originally estimated then the Specialised Executing
Agency would need to examine the budget and see whether cost savings can be achieved in other parts
of the budget. Any such savings could then be transferred between lines to prevent an over-expenditure
occurring. In cases where quotations are obtained which exceed the allocations the Focal Point should
contact the PCU to arrange for a revision of the budget. Such a revision should be completed before the
over-expenditure is incurred. Focal Points should note that reallocation of funds between lines, which fall
into the same component (i.e. 5000 numbers) is generally accepted automatically, but reallocation of
funds from 2000 to 3000 lines for example should only be done with the agreement in writing of the
Project Director.
Under-expenditures
At the end of a six-month period the Specialised Executing Agency might find that the anticipated costs
of a particular activity have been less than originally planned. For example in the Table presented above
the SEA might find that only 1,800 US$ had been spent on translation by June 30th 2003, hence 200 US
$ would remain unspent in budget line #5216. This money can be carried forward on the same budget
line if for example it was expected that the costs of translating of the second publication would be more
than the planned 2,000 US$. Alternatively the unspent funds can be reallocated internally, for example to
produce more copies of the publication, subject to the approval in writing of the Project Director. In this
case the funds would be removed from budget line #5216 and reassigned to budget line #5217 or #5218
as appropriate.
Revising the budget
In the event that unplanned expenditures, under-expenditures or over-expenditures are foreseen the
Focal Point in the Specialised Executing Agency is advised to contact the Project Co-ordinating Unit
promptly to seek a budget revision, since as noted above UNEP cannot reimburse expenditures which
are not part of the approved budget contained in the MoU.
Reporting requirements
At the end of each six-month period the SEA is required under the terms of the MoU to provide three
documents to the Project Co-ordinating Unit as follows:
· Six Monthly expenditure statement
· Cash advance request.
· Six monthly progress report
Without these three documents the Project Co-ordinating Unit cannot authorise the cash advance for the
next six months.
The six monthly expenditure statement should report the actual expenditures which have
occurred up to the 30th June and 30th December in the form provided in an Annex to the MoU and
reproduced here as Table 2. At this time any under expenditures will become apparent and a revision of
the budget may be undertaken as necessary.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 4
At the same time that the SEA reports the actual expenditures for the previous six months it completes
a cash advance request in the form annexed to the MoUs and reproduced here as Table 3. This
constitutes a request from the SEA to UNEP to advance monies against the expenditures anticipated in
the next six months.
Supporting documentation for expenditures
If an item of equipment has been purchased, then the original receipt for payment must be
dispatched with the six monthly expenditure statement, since until the time of completion of the project
the equipment remains the property of the United Nations (Transfer to the partner institution is normally
automatic on completion of the project).
If a consultancy contract has been issued for a specified piece of work then a copy of the signed
contract should also be supplied with the expenditure statement, together with a copy of the original
product produced by the consultant.
If expenditures are incurred in organising a meeting then a copy of the report of the meeting and any
substantive outputs must be supplied to UNEP.
If travel by air has been paid for then an original receipt must be supplied with the expenditure
statement.
Whilst UNEP does not require that original receipts for all expenditures be submitted at the time the
expenditure report is dispatched they must be retained by the Specialise d Executing Agency until
such time as the external audit report of the organisation has been submitted to, and receipt
acknowledged by, the PCU. Ideally receipts should be retained on file until completion of the project and
financial closure of the MoU. In the event of an audit the Specialised Executing Agency may be required
to produce the original receipts by the United Nations auditors.
It is strongly recommended therefore that each SEA retain original documentation demonstrating the
nature of each expenditure until such time as the terms of the MoU have been fulfilled.
Substantive Reporting
One further report is required from each SEA on a six monthly basis. This is the Six Monthly Progress
Report in the form as annexed to the MoUs and attached here as Table 3. In this report the substantive
activities and outputs of the SEA and National Committees are detailed and it is on the basis of this
report together with the substantive outputs (copies of which should be sent to the PCU) that UNEP
judges whether or not the terms of the Memorandum have been met in a satisfactory manner.
Without the six monthly expenditure report, the six monthly progress report and cash advance
request the PCU cannot authorise any subsequent cash advances. It is important therefore that the
Focal Points adhere as closely as possible to the reporting requirements in order to ensure a steady
flow of funds and smooth operation of the project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 5
Table 2
FORMAT OF SIX MONTHLY PROJECT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Project statement of allocation (budget), expenditure and balance (Expressed in US$) covering the period
from............................to................................
Project No.:...........................................
Supporting organization...............................................................................
Project title:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
Project commencing:...............................
(date)
Project ending:.................................... (date)
Object of expenditure in accordance with UNEP budget
Project budget allocation for the half year ending .......
Expenditure incurred for the half Unspent balance of budget for
codes
year ending .....
the half year ending ............
Amount (1)
Amount (2)
Amount (1-2)
1100 Project personnel
1101
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
1200 Consultants
1201
Consultants .....
.....
.....
.....
.....
etc. etc. etc.
(USE OBJECTS OF EXPENDITURE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGNED
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING)
99 GRAND TOTAL
Signed
_______________________________________________________
Designation:
______________________________________________
Duly authorised official
NB: The expenditures should be reported in line with the specific object of expenditureas as per project budget.
File ID: K:\FORMATS\APP4SOQE.WQ1 me\ag
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 6
Table 3
CASH ADVANCE REQUEST
Statement of cash advance as at
____________________________________________________
And cash requirements for the six month period ending _______________________________________
Name of co-operating agency/
Supporting organization
__________________________________________________________
Project No.
____________________________________________________________________
Project title:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand
I
Cash Statement:
1.
Opening Cash Balance as at ________________US$__________________
2.
Add: cash advances received
Date:
________________US$___________________
Date:
________________US$___________________
Date:
________________US$___________________
Date:
________________US$___________________
3.
Total cash advanced to date
US$___________________
4.
Less: total cumulative expenditures incurred US$___________________
5.
Closing cash balance as at__________________US$___________________
II Cash requirements forecast
6.
Estimated disbursements for period ending
7.
Less: closing cash balance (item 5, above)
8.
Total cash requirements for the period ending
Prepared by ________________________ Request approved by: __________________________
Name: ________________________
__________________________
Duly authorized official of co-
operating agency/ supporting
organization
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 7
Table 4
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
SIX MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1
Project Title: Reversing Environmental degradation in the South China Sea and Gulf
of Thailand
1.2
MOU Number:___________________________________________________
1.3
Responsible Office:
South China Sea Project Co-ordination Unit, Bangkok
1.4
Specialised Executing Agency (Supporting Organization):
_________________________________________________________________________________
1.5
Reporting Period: (the six months covered by this report) ___________________________
1.6
Focal Point Name: ___________________________________
SECTION 2 - PROJECT STATUS
2.1
Status of the Implementation of the Activities and Outputs Listed Under the Workplan in
the Memorandum of Understanding (check appropriate box)
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project workplan for the reporting period have been material
completed and the responsible Office is satisfied that the project will be fully completed on
time (give reasons for minor variations as Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have been altered
(give reasons for alterations: lack of finance; project reformulated; project revisions; other at
Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have not been fully
completed and delays in project delivery are expected (give reasons for variations in Section
3.1 and new completion date in Section 3.2 below).
Insufficient detail provided in the Project Workplan.
2.2
List Actual Activities/Outputs Achieved in the Reporting period: (check appropriate box)
(a) MEETINGS (Duplicate this box for each meeting individually)
Inter-Ministry mtg
Expert Group Mtg.
Training Seminar/Workshop
Others
Title:__________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________
Venue and
dates____________________________________________________________________________
Convened by ____________________________ Organized by ____________________________
Report issued as doc. No/Symbol_______________ Languages _____________Dated __________
For Training Seminar/Workshop, please indicate: No. of participants _____________and attach annex
giving names and nationalities of participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 8
(b) PRINTED MATERIALS (Duplicate this box for each printed item)
Report to IG Mtg.
Technical Publication
Technical Report
Others
Title:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Author(s)/Editor(s)
________________________________________________________________________________
Publisher
________________________________________________________________________________
Symbol (UN/UNEP/ISBN/ISSN)
_______________________________________________________________________
Date of publication
________________________________________________________________________________
(When technical reports/publications have been distributed, attach distribution list)
(c) TECHNICAL INFORMATION
PUBLIC INFORMATION (posters, leaflets, broadcasts
etc.)
Description
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Dates ________________________________________________________________________________
(d) SERVICES
Description
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Dates _____________________
(e) OTHER OUTPUTS
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 4
page 9
SECTION 3 - PROJECT DELIVERY
3.1
Summary of the Problems Encountered in Project Delivery (if any)
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
3.2
Actions Taken or Required to Solve the Problems (identified in Section 3.1 above)
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Signed:
_____________________________
Name:
_____________________________
Designation: _____________________________
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 5
page 1
ANNEX 5
Flow Chart of Activities under Component 2, Over Exploitation of Fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand
Establish
National
Review site specific
Develop criteria to determine
Review national report
information for areas of
and prioritise significance of
for TDA & tabulate
significance to
areas to transboundary fish
national data &
transboundary fish stocks
stocks
Develop national
meta-database
Review resource
ownership and use,
Develop guidelines for
Review institutions
regional, sub regional,
current management
management and
and national management
practices
legislation
plans for subsistence
and commercial fisheries
to maintain these
Compile available data
transboundary stocks
on economic
evaluation of fishery
Activities impacting,
resources
current and potential
threats
Identify priority areas for
management action for
Identify endangered
these areas, including
and commercially
identifying a regional
endangered species.
system of refugia.
Develop, with stakeholder input,
appropriate site specific
Promote the regionalised
management approach, including
FAO Code of Conduct for
public awareness programme
Responsible Fisheries
Provide inputs to regional meta-
and promotion of regionalised
through regional
database; Regional GIS system;
FAO Code of Conduct
workshops
economic valuation
Improved Strategic Action
Evaluate prototype
Programme Targets, cost estimates
blast fishing detection
device
timeframes and targets
Note: Shaded areas are regional activities, and unshaded are national activities
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 6
page 1
ANNEX 6
Shared and Transboundary Fish Stocks in the Gulf of Thailand and South China Sea
There have been at least five regional and international meetings held regarding the Shared/
Transboundary Fish Stocks in the region. The first of these meetings was the Seminar on Stock
Assessment of Pelagic Resources with Emphasis on Shared Stocks held in Bangkok from August
10th to the 14th, 1981. This was a collaborative effort between the SEAFDEC training Department and
UNDP/FAO South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Programme (SCSP). Included in
the discussions was the subject of establishing a list of stocks of the various fish groups that are
considered to be shared or transboundary fish stocks in the region. A tagging program was proposed in
order to enable the identification of the various fish stocks.
A second meeting was held at the Ambassador Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand from the 18th to the 22nd
of February 1985, where list of shared stocks was prepared. The table below is based on this list1.
Species
Common name
IUCN Red List
Rastrelliger kanagurta.
Indian mackerel
No
Rastrelliger brachysoma
Short mackerel
No
Decapterus spp.
Round scad, Indian Scad
No
Sardinella spp.
Sardines
Sardinella albella
White sardinella
No
Sardinella fimbriata
Fringescale sardinella
No
Sardinella gibbosa
Goldstripe sardinella
No
Sardinella lemuru
Bali sardinella
No
Stolephorus spp.
Anchovies
No
Stolephorus baganensis
Bagan anchovy
No
Stolephorus chinensis
Chinese anchovy
No
Stolephorus commersonii
Commerson's anchovy
No
Stolephorus dubiosus
Thai anchovy
No
Stolephorus indicus
Indian anchovy
No
Stolephorus insularis
Hardenberg's anchovy
No
Caranx spp.
Trevallies
Caranx heberi
Blacktip trevally
No
Caranx ignobilis
Giant trevally
No
Caranx melampygus
Bluefin trevally
No
Caranx sexfasciatus
Bigeye trevally
No
Carangoides spp.
Trevallies (14 species listed)
No
Alectis indicus
Indian threadfish
No
Alectis ciliaris
African pompano
No
Selaroides spp.
Selaroides leptolepis
Yellowstripe scad
No
Meglaspis spp.
Hardtail scad
No
Megalaspis cordyla
Torpedo scad
No
Somberomorus commerson.
Spanish mackerel
No
Somberomorus guttatus
King mackerel
No
Somberomorus lineolatus
Streaked seerfish
No
Auxis rochei.
Bullet tuna
No
Auxis thazard
Frigate tuna
No
Euthynnus affinis
Kawakawa
No
Thunnus tonggol
Longtail tuna
No
The list of transboundary stocks in the Gulf of Thailand would also include:
1 The original list of pelagic fishes was grouped into generic groups. This list has been tabulated and expanded to the
specie level where possible using FISHBASE as a source of information on species distribution. A column has been
added to identify whether the species is listed on the IUCN Red list of threatened species.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 6
page 2
· Demersal fish Transboundary Shared Stocks
· Shrimps and Prawns, Penaeidae Migratory Shared Stocks
· Cephalopods
* Octopus Transboundary Shared Stocks
* Small species of cuttlefish and squid Transboundary Shared Stocks
The mobility of the smaller species of cuttlefishes and smaller species of squid are
similar to that of the demersal fish with which they live and are caught. They are
therefore included in with the transboundary shared stocks of demersal fish.
* Large species of cuttlefish and squid Transboundary Shared Stocks
The larger squids and some larger cuttlefishes are pelagic and undertake
considerable migration.
Information on the following 9 biological subjects was considered to be essential for shared/
transboundary fish stocks
1. identification of the species included in the stock
2. geographical limits to the stock
3. migration pattern
4. size composition for growth studies and monitoring the stock
5. spawning time (season)
6. spawning areas
7. nursery grounds (areas)
8. growth rate
9. food etc.
There was a SEAFDEC Regional Workshop on Data Collection and Management Related to
Shared Stock in South Asian Region held in Kuala Terrengganu, Malaysia in 1994 (28-30 March).
One of the aims of the workshop was to establish an information exchange system regarding the data
collection of catch-effort statistics and fishery biology of shared stocks among the countries concerned.
Another major aim was to formulate the framework for the collaborative research work on shared stocks
among the countries in the region. Furthermore, the Workshop aimed to specify the characters and
factors for the study on the fishery resources.
The Second Regional Workshop on Shared Stock in South China Sea Area was held in Kuala
Terrengganu, Malaysia in 1995. (18-20 July) and concluded that in order to prove the possibility of
interactions between the shared/straddling/transboundary stocks of some species of round scads,
mackerels, neritic tunas and other pelagic groups between and among coastal countries in the
Southeast Asia (SEA) region, there was a need for collaboration to determine similarity/dissimilarity in
stocks and structure of their populations through tagging, electrophoretic and mitochondrial DNA
studies, morphology or any other available means. Collaborative research work on shared stocks of
round scads, mackerels and tuna should be organized and conducted among the countries in the
Southeast Asia region.
The Third Regional Workshop on Shared Stock in South China Sea Area was held in Kuala
Terrengganu, Malaysia, 6-8 October 1997. This workshop concluded that there is still very limited
information on the hydrodynamics of the South China Sea in most SEAFDEC member countries. It was
recommended that more efforts and studies were needed to accurately map the various natural
phenomena occurring in these waters. Moreover, there is a strong need to comprehend the biological
and physical processes working in the South China Sea. For the short term, priority should be given to
the study on the shared stocks of mackerels, round scads and small tunas. The study should focus on
stock identification through various means (morphometric, meristics, DNA analysis, tagging).
There is still very limited information on the shared or transboundary fish stocks in this region. Despite
the tuna tagging programmes in the Philippines and Malaysia. The workshop was also informed of the
tuna tagging activities implemented by BFAR in 1992, in collaboration with the South Pacific
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 6
page 3
Commission (SPC)2. Preliminary analysis of the tag recapture data indicates very little movement.
2 Now renamed as the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 7
page 1
ANNEX 7
Outline of the National Reports for the Fisheries Component of the UNEP/GEF Project:
"Reversing Environmental degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
Title: Fish Stocks & Habitats of Regional, Global and Transboundary Significance in the South China Sea
1.
Background
1.1
Overview of the fisheries sector3
1.1.1 Total catch by fishing area, port of landing or province (by species/species
group, 1990 onwards)
1.1.2 Fishing effort by gear (no. of fishing days, or no. of boats)
1.1.2.1 Trawl
1.1.2.2 Purse seine/ ring net
1.1.2.3 Gill net
1.1.2.4 Others (e.g. push nets, trolling, hand line, long line, trap)
1.1.3 Economic value of catch (estimated or actual)
1.1.4 Importance of the fisheries sector in terms of employment & dependence
2.
Species of Regional, Global and/or Transboundary significance
2.1
Ranking of importance in terms of
2.1.1 Landings (by site or province) (mt);
2.1.2 Local Market Value (local currency, note year)
2.1.3 Status (endangered, threatened, rare etc. IUCN criteria)
2.1.4 Food security (locally)
2.2
Biology & ecology of the priority species (from available information)
2.2.1 Large pelagic fishes (FAO definition)
2.2.2 Small pelagic fish species
2.2.3 Demersal fish species
2.2.4 Commercially exploited invertebrates (shrimp, lobster etc.)
3.
Current Status & threats
3.1
Status of the fishery in terms of CPUE
3.2
Status of the fish stocks based on historical review of landings and CPUE where
possible
3.3
Threats
3.3.1 Current (e.g. destructive fishing practices, overfishing)
3.3.2 Potential (projected market demand, increased coastal population)
4.
Habitats & Areas of importance in the maintenance of exploited fish stocks
4.1
Describe the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of:
4.1.1 Known spawning grounds
4.1.2 Known nursery areas
4.1.3 Known feeding grounds
4.1.4 Known fishing grounds
4.2
Highlight unknown issues such as stocks with undefined spawning grounds
4.3
Threats, current and potential (e.g. coastal developments, pollution, oil spills)
4.4
Ranking of habitats
4.4.1 Association with species of importance to food security
4.4.2 Association with high value species
4.4.3 Association with endangered, rare, threatened species
3 Data for the South China Sea coastline only
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 7
page 2
5.
Current management regime(s)
5.1
Legal instruments
5.2
Institutional arrangements (research monitoring control & enforcement)
5.3
Overview of patterns of resources ownership and traditional utilisation
5.4
Capacity Human & institutional (include location of research and MCS institutions.)
5.5
Review of stakeholders (eg, fishers, National and/or provincial/local management bodies,
NGOs)
6.
Recommended Actions
A number of recommended management actions at a national and regional level should be
determined after a review of the above information.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 8
page 1
ANNEX 8
Overview of Current National Activities of Relevance to the Fisheries Component of the
UNEP/GEF Project: "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand"
Cambodia
1.
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (DANIDA)
2.
Marine Biodiversity (DANIDA/AIT)
3.
Fisheries Community (IDRC)
4.
Distribution of Marine Mamals (WCS)
Indonesia
1.
Review "Law & Regulation" through FAO assistance
2.
COREMAP Project (Coral Reef Management)
Location : Riau; Biak; Takabone rate (Sulawesi Selatan)
3.
ADB's Project "COFISH Project"
Location : in Tegal (Central Java); Banyuwanqi & Priqi (in East Java); Nusa Tenqqara Barat;
Benqkalis (Riau Province)
4.
Routine Monitoring and Evaluation carried out by National Committee on Stock Assessment
5.
Biological Research Survey conducted by Marine Fisheries Research Institute (RIMF)
6.
SEAFDEC Activities
7.
Fisheries Management assisted by FAO "Fish Code"
8.
National Coordination Forum Consultation among the Fisheries Provincial. Regarding the
license issued
9.
Monitoring and Evaluation on the resources carried out by Directorate General of Capture
Fisheries.
Philippines
1.
National Stock Assessment Program (NSAP)
-
The program collects catch and effort data, biological information, length measurements,
etc. in selected landing centers nationwide.
-
The NSAP aims to assess the status of the marine fisheries resources by fishing grounds
of the country and recommends measures to achieve sustainable fisheries through the
determination of MSY and TAC.
-
It also aims to describe the biology of commercially important finfish and invertebrates
2.
Fisheries Resources Management Project (FRMP)
The FRMP is a six-year project (1998-2004) under the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR) formulated in response to the issues of fisheries depletion
and persistent poverty among municipal fisherfolk.
The Project is the second phase of the Fisheries Sector Program (FSP) recognized as the first
comprehensive fisheries program in the country. The FRMP aims to continue the policy and sectoral
reforms accomplished under FSP, but focuses primarily on the municipal fisheries sub-sector. It is
designed to foster municipal fisherfolk participation in resource management and enhance government
capability, both at the national and local levels, to fulfill its mandate to manage the resources.
The FRMP is implemented throughout the Philippines, covering 10 regions, 23 provinces, 100
municipalities and the following 18 bays Calauag Bay, San Miguel Bay, Tayabas Ormoc Bay, Sogod
Bay, Panguil Bay, Honda Bay, Puerto Princesa Bay, Davao Gulf, Lingayen Gulf, Gingoog Bay, Butuan
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 8
page 2
Bay and Sapian Bay. Although direct financial investments are initially intended only for 100
municipalities, other municipalities around the bays are expected to benefit from specific Project
activities such as resource rehabilitation, IEC, training, and law enforcement.
With BFAR and its Regional Offices and local government units (LGUs) as implementing arms,
coastal communities, Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Councils (FARMCs), fishermen's
associations, people's organizations, non-government organizations, and research and academic
institutions, and the private sector are also involved in project undertakings.
The Project has three (3) major components, namely:
(i)
Fisheries Resource Management,
(ii)
Income Diversification, and
(iii)
Capacity-building.
Fisheries Resource Management has the following sub-components:
(i)
Fisheries data management,
(ii)
Coastal resources management (CRM),
(iii)
Fisheries legislation and regulations,
(iv)
Community-based law enforcement, and
(v)
Nearshore monitoring, control and surveillance.
The sub-components under Income Diversification include:
(i)
Community organizing,
(ii)
Microenterprise development, and
(iii)
Mariculture and other enterprise development.
Capacity building has as its sub-component:
(i)
Training,
(ii)
On-site coaching,
(iii)
Project management.
The FRMP represents the Philippine government's efforts to shift the sector focus from
increasing capture fisheries production to fisheries resource protection, conservation and sustainable
management. It reflects the demand of municipal fisherfolk for public assistance to protect their basic
livelihood, and the national and local governments' concern over poverty and environmental degradation.
3.
DA/BFAR Training and Research Vessel
The DA/BFAR Training and Research Vessel conducts oceanographic investigation in the
Philippine EEZ. Resource assessment survey using acoustic instruments is also one of the major
activities of the DA/BFAR. Experimental fishing to validate the acoustic data collected is also being
done. The vessel is equipped with purse seine, mid-water trawl, longline, and squid jigger.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 8
page 3
Thailand
1.
Routine monitoring survey
1.1 Monitoring survey by Research vessel in the Gulf of Thailand every year.
1.2 Sampling of Landing at fishing ports along the coastline every month.
2.
Joint project on the migration path of sea turtle between Thailand and Malaysia supported by
Kyoto University and University of Tokyo.
3.
Joint project on the pilot project of Communities-based Fisheries Management with SEAFDEC.
4.
Joint project on the Coastal habitat and Resources Management with emphasis on mangrove,
mari-culture and small scale capture fisheries.
Viet Nam
1.
Joint Viet Nam Thailand research on assessment and management of marine resources in the
Gulf of Thailand by using R/V "BIEN DONG" of Viet Nam and R/V "CHULABHORN" of Thailand
in the period from 1997 to 1998:
- 1st survey cruise from 15 November 18 December 1997;
- 2nd survey cruise from 11 August 02 September 1998.
2.
Project on assessment of the living marine resources in Viet Nam sponsored by Denmark
Government (DANIDA Project) including a fisheries statistic system in 28 provinces along the
coast.
3.
Project "Investigation of marine living resources in nearshore areas and study on ban areas and
closed season in order to protect the marine resources "including sea turtle resources",
sponsored by Viet Nam government in the period from 1998 up to now.
4.
ADB RETA 5766 Project on "Sustainable Management of Coastal Fish Stock in Asia"
sponsored by ICLARM, Phase I from 1998 2000 and Phase II should be implemented in near
future.
5.
Topic "Study on status of environmental condition and shrimp resources by bottom trawler in the
southeast and southwest seawaters of Viet Nam" in the years 2001 and 2002.
6.
Routine work: Monitoring and Analysing status of marine environment in southwest seawater
area and Con Son island by Station of Monitoring and Analysing for marine environment under
RIMF (sponsored by NEA MOSTE).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 9
page 1
ANNEX 9
Generic Causal Chain Analysis of Problems Relating to the Reduction of Transboundary
Fish Stocks in the Gulf of Thailand
Causal Chain Analysis
Table 1 provides an example of a causal chain analysis. This form of analysis is directional in the sense
that the environmental issue or problem is identified and the chain of cause and effect is elaborated
leading from the natural environment to the social and economic domain.
This example involves algal blooms in the Adriatic Sea, which result in unsightly algal deposits on tourist
beaches that in turn result in reduced tourist income. A secondary effect resulting from increased
nutrients is eutrophication, increased BOD and reduced availability of dissolved oxygen in the water
column, which results in wide-spread fish and invertebrate kills resulting in loss of fisheries income and
changes in biological diversity.
The immediate cause of the problem is increased nutrient availability in the water column derived from
two sources, agricultural fertiliser run-off and discharge of untreated domestic wastes including sewage.
Of the two, run-off of fertiliser from the intensive rice production of the Po valley is the dominant source of
nutrient input. This in turn reflects excessive fertiliser use, poor agricultural practices and the artificially
low price of fertiliser due to government subsidy and the common agricultural policy of the European
Union. Whilst some environmental improvement could be effected via changes in fertiliser use and
agricultural practices the key to effecting change in this instance involves a change in government
policies, which remove the subsidy on fertilisers, which in turn requires a change to the common
agricultural policy of the European Union. Effecting change at the level of policy within the European
Union requires changes involving all member states of the Union not merely the ones impacted by the
observed loss of environmental quality.
The discharge of untreated sewage whilst it represents a significant source of nutrient input which is
widespread along the coast of the Adriatic is less significant than agricultural run-off hence intervention
in this chain of cause and effect will have less impact in terms of reducing nutrient loads than
intervention in the agricultural sector.
This example illustrates three significant points:
· firstly the need to identify the primary causes and rank their importance where more than one
source is involved;
· secondly the need to identify the precise points of intervention that will have the greatest effect;
and,
· thirdly, that some causes may be beyond the capacity of the involved countries to address,
since they involve countries outside the area of impact, i.e. they are transboundary at the policy
level.
Table 2 shows the generic causal chain analysis undertaken as an exercise during the meeting. In this
case, the primary problem to be addressed is the reduction of transboundary fish stocks in the Gulf of
Thailand. The immediate cause of the problem is excessive fishing effort by commercial fishers.
Although there are regulations controlling effort, there is effectively unrestricted access as there is little
or no enforcement of regulations. This is because of a lack of political will, and also because of the
power that the commercial fishing sector has as a lobby group. There are also problems with the
licensing legislation that make it difficult to enforce the regulations, as well as infrastructure and
manpower limitations in the enforcement agencies. Market demand for particular items also drives
prices up, increasing the motivation of fishers to fish illegally. An increase of investment by
Governments in the enforcement agencies may improve the situation. However, this requires
considerable political will on the part of governments.
By going through the causal chain analysis, the root cause of the problem was found to be a lack of the
political will required to regulate the fishery.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 9
page 2
Table 1.
Causal chain analysis of algal blooms in the Adriatic Sea
Problem
Immediate Cause
Ultimate or Root
cause
Algal blooms
Increased nutrients Agricultural
Excessive
Poor agricultural
Low price of
Government. Common
(Adriatic sea)
runoff (Po River) fertiliser use
practices
fertiliser
Subsidy
Agricultural policy of
the EU
Discharge of
No treatment
Lack of capital
Political will
sewage
Table 2
Generic causal chain analysis of problems relating to the reduction of transboundary fish stocks in the Gulf of Thailand.
Problem
Immediate Cause
Ultimate or Root
cause
Reduction of
Excess commercial Unrestricted
Insufficient
Law says must
Inappropriate
transboundary fishing effort.
access
enforcement
apprehend at
legislation
fish stocks in
Increased boats
of existing
sea.
GOT
and improved
regulations
technology.
Inadequate
Insufficient
Lack of political will
surveillance
allocation of
capacity
investment
No regional
Lack of
Lack of scientific Lack of human
management
political will
information
resources
framework
Lobby and
Profit motivation
market demand Consumer
interest
preference
groups
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 10
page 1
ANNEX 10
Workplan, Timetable and schedule of meetings for the Regional Working Group on Fisheries, 2002-2003
Table 1
Schedule of Meetings for 2002
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 T
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
January
N.Y.
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
February
ChnN.Y.
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
March
RSTC-1
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
April
RWG-LbP-1
Thai N.Y.
RWG-W-1
RWG-M-1
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
May
RWG-SG-1 RWG-Cr-1
RWG-F-1
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
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 31
July
1
2 3 4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
August
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
September
RWG-W-2
RWG-M-2
RWG-LbP-2
GEF-IW
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
October
RWG-F-2
GEF Assembly
RWG-Cr-2
RWG-SG-2
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
November
Ramadan
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
December
Ramadan
RSTC-2
PSC-2
Xmas
Official United Nations Holidays in Thailand
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Annex 10
page 2
Table 2
Workplan and Timetable for completion of agreed activities in the fisheries component: 2002 - 2003
Year
2002
2003
Quarter
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
National Committee meetings (i)
NTWG Meetings (ii)
X
X
X
X
RWG-F meetings (iii)
Provide data to RWG-F and RSTC (vi)
Preparation of National Reports4 (vii, xii)
D1
FD
Identification of spawning, nursery, feeding, and fishing grounds
for transboundary stocks
Develop criteria for ranking of protected areas (xi)
Review threats at site level (xii)
Review national criteria for zoning fisheries use (x)
Review national level management regimes and legislation (ix)
Create and maintain of National metadatabase (viii)
Development of NAPs to Implement the SAP (xiii)
Provide guidance to IMC on the SAP(xiv)
Develop awareness materials for stakeholders with RWG-F.
Prepare proposals for fishery pilot activities (xvi)
REGIONAL COORDINATION
Regional Criteria development for significant sites (iii)
Assemble regional metadatabase (iv)
Develop awareness raising materials with NFCs (v)
Compile syntheses of national reports (vi)
Recommend to RSTC sites for refugia and examples of effective
management. (vii, viii)
Promote the SEAFDEC code of conduct for fisheries(ix)
Provide input to the RSTC for SAP (x)
The national activities in this workplan are based on the tasks designated for the SEAs and contained in the MOU, where more detailed information is
available. Roman numerals in parentheses indicate the number of the task in the MOU. Regional coordination is based on the terms of reference (TOR) for
the RWG-F. Roman numerals refer to the TOR number.
4 The outline of the proposed contents of the National Reports is appended as Annex 6 to the meeting report