United Nations
UNEP/GEF South China Sea
Global Environment
Environment Programme
Project
Facility
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
REPORT
Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Land-Based Pollution Component
Guangzhou, China, 30th March 2nd April 2004
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, April 2004
First published in Thailand in 2004 by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Copyright © 2004, United Nations Environment Programme
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication
as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose without prior
permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP/GEF
Project Co-ordinating Unit,
United Nations Environment Programme,
UN Building, 9th Floor Block A, Rajdamnern Avenue,
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel.
+66 2 288 1886
Fax.
+66 2 288 1094; 281 2428
http://www.unepscs.org
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the GEF. The
designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNEP, of the GEF, or of any cooperating organisation concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the delineation of its territories or boundaries.
Cover Photo: Solid waste remains underwater, Van Phong Bay, by Dr. Vo Si Tuan.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2004. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Land-Based Pollution.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Table of Contents
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 WELCOME ADDRESS ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS............................................................................................... 1
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING .............................................................................................. 1
2.1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS ............................................................................................................ 1
2.2 ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS.............................................................................................. 2
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA....................................................................................... 2
4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT (PCU) REGARDING
OVERALL PROGRESS TO DATE .................................................................................................. 2
4.1 STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS FOR 2003: PROGRESS REPORTS; EXPENDITURE
REPORTS; AUDIT REPORTS; AND MOU AMENDMENTS .................................................................. 2
4.2 STATUS OF PLANNED SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUTS FROM THE NATIONAL LEVEL ACTIVITIES.................... 3
4.3 CONSIDERATION OF SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL LEVEL ACTIVITIES ..................... 4
5.
REVIEW AND FINALISATION OF THE PROCEDURES USED IN RANKING HOT SPOTS
AND CONTAMINANTS.................................................................................................................... 4
6.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FOR PILOT ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC) ..................................................................... 5
7.
WORLD BANK INVESTMENT FUND CONCEPT ........................................................................... 7
8.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON LAND-BASED POLLUTION 2004 - 2007 ................................................................... 8
9.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON LAND-BASED POLLUTION...................................................................................................... 8
10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS ................................................................................................................. 9
11. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING ......................................................................... 9
12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING......................................................................................................... 9
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Regional Overview of Land-Based Pollution in the South China Sea Outline of
Contents
ANNEX 5
Discussion and Agreement on Criteria, Indicators and Ranking Scores for
Evaluating Priorities amongst Pilot Activities
ANNEX 6
Revised Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Land-
based Pollution 2004-2007
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
Address
1.1.1 The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta, welcomed participants and observers on behalf of
Dr. Klaus Töpfer, the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, Assistant Executive Director, and Director, Division of Global Environment Facility
Co-ordination (UNEP/DGEF). The Project Director noted that this fourth meeting had been deferred
twice and as a consequence it would be necessary to convene a special meeting of the Executive
Committee of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee to review the recommendations of the
Regional Working Group regarding pilot activities. He noted that this has financial consequences and
that the Project Steering Committee had decided that in future no regional meeting should be deferred
as a result of failure to submit reports from the national level.
1.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that a major item of business for this meeting was to prepare
recommendations to the RSTC and Project Steering Committee concerning the pilot activities to be
undertaken during the operational phase of the project and expressed the hope that the meeting would
be both productive and enjoyable.
1.1.3 The National Focal Point for China, Mr. Mingjiang Chen welcomed participants on behalf of the
Government of China and the State Environmental Protection Administration. He noted with
appreciation the great efforts from the PCU and national focal projects to finalise the national inputs
including past and ongoing activities, reviews of legislation, GIS database, national and regional meta-
database and the pilot activity proposals. He noted that the Government of China places great
importance on the issue of pollution and has now required all cities with populations greater than 5
million people to build treatment facilities during the next 25 year plan period.
1.1.4 He noted further that coastal waters covering 142,000 square kilometres do not meet accepted
water quality standards although this was less than last year. He noted that Red Tide events in Chinese
coastal waters totalled 119 last year involving 15,000 sq km of coastal ocean. Land based pollution was
therefore still a major problem for the Chinese Government consequently if pilot activities were selected
for China the Provincial Government would provide co-financing from the fund for Urban Wastewater
Management. He noted that the Guandong Government had already agreed in principle to co-finance
pilot activities in the area.
1.2 Introduction
of
Participants
1.2.1 Participants were invited to introduce themselves and there followed a "tour de table" during
which individual members and observers introduced themselves by providing a brief statement
regarding their involvement in the project and a brief outline of their experience, expertise, and
institutional affiliation. The list of participants is contained in Annex 1 of this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1 Election
of
Officers
2.1.1 Dr. Pernetta noted that the rules of procedure state that, the regional working group shall elect,
from amongst the members, a chairperson, vice-chairperson and rapporteur to serve for one year. He
also noted that Mr. Han Baoxin, Mr. Vicente Diaz and Mr. Mohammad bin Jaafar had been elected
Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur respectively for the year 2003. He noted further that
they were all therefore eligible for re-election, although Mr. Jaafar was unfortunately not able to be
present.
2.1.2 Members were invited to nominate individuals as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and
Rapporteur for 2004. Mr. Heru Waluyo Koesworo, the focal point from Indonesia proposed and the
meeting agreed that Mr. Han Boaxin and Mr. Vicente Diaz continue to serve as Chair and Vice-Chair
respectively for 2004.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 2
2.1.3 Dr. Pornsook Chongprasith, focal point from Thailand proposed that Ms. Carol Hoh Mui Ling,
alternate for the focal point for Land-based Pollution from Malaysia serve as the Rapporteur for the
meeting. This proposal was accepted by the meeting and Ms. Hoh was duly elected Rapporteur.
2.2 Administrative
Arrangements
2.2.1
The Chairperson of the RWG-LbP, Dr. Han Baoxin invited the Senior Expert, Mr. Yihang Jiang,
to introduce the documentation available to the meeting in both hard copy and on CD-ROM. The list of
documents is contained in Annex 2 of this report.
2.2.2 Mr. Jiang briefed participants on the administrative arrangements for the conduct of the
meeting, and the proposed programme of work contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
LbP.4/Inf.3. He noted that formal sessions of the meeting would be conducted in English and in plenary
although it might prove necessary to form sessional working groups to complete the various reviews
and analyses of the substantive reports and the proposals for the pilot activities.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson introduced the provisional agenda prepared by the Project Co-ordinating Unit
(PCU) as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/1, and invited members to make proposals for any
amendments or additional items, prior to adopting the agenda. The agenda was adopted by the
meeting without modification, and is attached as Annex 3 to this report.
4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT (PCU) REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of the administrative reports for 2003: progress reports; expenditure reports;
audit reports; and MoU amendments
4.1.1 Mr. Han invited the secretariat to introduce this agenda item and document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/4, "Current status of administrative reports for 2003: progress reports;
expenditure reports; audit reports and MoU amendments from the Specialised Executing Agencies in
the participating countries".
4.1.2
Mr. Jiang noted that, delays in submission of routine administrative reports continued to be a
problem and that the delays in 2003, had in fact been longer than those in 2002. This was somewhat
surprising since the focal points were familiar with the procedures and formats for these routine reports.
He noted that reports for the second half of 2003 had still not been received from Cambodia and China
and that no reports at all had been received from Malaysia. The focal points concerned assured the
meeting that these reports would be forth coming in the immediate future.
4.1.3
During discussion it was noted that the SEAs were currently holding substantial balances of
funds but that none had reported interest earned from these sums. It was noted that funds not
transferred to the SEAs had been re-phased by the Project Steering Committee to cover costs of SEA
participation during the second phase of the project.
4.1.4
Mr. Jiang noted further that many of the audit reports had been received very late and that this
had resulted in delays in release of the fourth tranche of funds during the second half of 2003. Mr. Jiang
drew the attention of the meeting to the fact that in the absence of the routine administrative reports,
and in particular the progress reports it was not possible to calculate the in-kind government
co-financing. Despite this problem and the absence of some reports calculations of in-kind co-financing
presented in the document showed that total co-financing of US$50,820 in 2002 and US$56,280 in
2003 exceeded the annual estimates of 35,280.
4.1.5
Dr. Pham Van Ninh, focal point from Viet Nam queried whether the audit report for 2003 could
be extended to cover the eighteen months ending June 30th 2004 given the extension of the
Memoranda of Understanding. In response Dr. Pernetta, noted that it was always the intention that the
Specialised Executing Agencies would be involved in project execution throughout the life of the project
to June 2007. Consequently new memoranda would be drafted for implementation from 1st July 2004
and hence the audit report for 2004 would cover funds transferred during both the first and second
halves of the year.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 3
4.1.6 Dr. Pernetta noted further that it was a requirement of the United Nations Environment
Programme that annual audit reports be produced and hence in accordance with the MoUs an audit
report for 2003 was required. He further reiterated, that the financial reporting requirements for this
project had been streamlined and were considerably simpler than those normally applied by UNDP and
UNEP.
4.1.7 Participants
were
reminded
of the agreement of the Project Steering Committee that routine
administrative reports should be produced by the SEAs within ten days of the end of the reporting
period.
4.2
Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities
4.2.1 The Chairperson invited the Senior Expert to introduce this agenda item and document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/5, "Current status of substantive reports on land-based pollution from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating Countries" containing a summary of the current
status of the substantive reports received by the PCU, to date. Electronic copies of all reports and
documents received from the national level were provided during the meeting on CD-ROM, together with
hard copies of the proposals for the pilot activities for reference of each member during discussion under
agenda item 5. Reviews of these reports from the regional experts were summarised in document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/6.
4.2.2 The meeting was informed of the discussion and outcomes of the first meeting of the Regional
Task Force on Economic Valuation (RTF-E) (Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.1/3)"; and the first
meeting of the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters (RTF-L) (Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3),
regarding the reviews of national legislation and economic valuation.
4.2.3
Mr. Jiang noted that there had been substantial delays in submission of the reports anticipated
from the Preparatory Phase and that it had been anticipated that these would include: reviews of
national data and information; preparation of a national meta-database; reviews of past and ongoing
projects; summary of existing national legislation pertaining to the management of land-based pollution;
review of the criteria currently in use for national decision making; and development of a national land-
based pollution action plan.
4.2.4
He noted that the consequences of delays in submitting reports by some focal points had been
delays in finalising reviews by the independent reviewers and hence overall delays in final publication.
He noted further that all reports should be published by the end of the preparatory phase, i.e. June 30th
2004.
4.2.5
During discussion it was noted that focal points were responsible for producing their reports in
the national languages and that the PCU would take responsibility for editing and publication of the
reports in English for regional distribution. Dr. Pernetta noted that all national reports should carry the
logos of the GEF, UNEP and the Project and should include the standard disclaimer that was found on
the inside cover of all reports produced from the project.
4.2.6 It was further noted that some reports had not been submitted in draft and hence had not yet
been reviewed by an independent reviewer. Such reports would need to be submitted in draft,
reviewed, revised, then edited and published. It was agreed that two deadlines were needed in such
cases, a deadline for submission of the draft to the PCU for independent review, and the deadline for
submission of the revised (final) draft for editing and publication.
4.2.7 Ms. Hoh indicated that the Malaysian report was near final and would be submitted in the near
future. Following some discussion it was agreed that the deadline for submission of drafts of any
missing reports would be 15th April and that the deadline for publication at the national level was 30th
June 2004. The latter date means that the final draft for English Editing would need to be made
available to the PCU by the end of May 2004.
4.2.8 During discussion it became apparent that some focal points were not aware of the format for
the meta-database and additional electronic copies were made available by the Secretariat during the
meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 4
4.2.9
The meeting noted that the preparation of the national action plans was a requirement under the
original Memoranda of Understanding but these could not be finalised before June since the process of
finalisation must go hand in hand with the development of the regional Strategic Action Programme. It
was noted that the original framework SAP had been approved by an intergovernmental meeting of the
Co-ordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) in 1998, which had also agreed that this would
be revised, updated and expanded during the operational phase of the project.
4.3
Consideration of substantive outputs from the regional level activities
4.3.1 The Senior Expert noted that regional overviews had been produced for the habitat sub-
components of the project in advance of the Regional Scientific Conference in order to provide potential
partners with an understanding of the nature of the problems and the preparatory activities that had
been completed to date. He noted that these were largely based on the content of the draft national
reports and that perhaps the RWG-LbP should consider the content and form of a similar regional
overview publication on land based pollution.
4.3.2 Dr. Pornsook, suggested that Mr. Jiang prepare a draft table of contents for consideration by
the meeting. Mr. Jiang responded that since the national reports had focussed on only a few hot spots
in each country it was difficult to prepare a regional overview of the status of land-based pollution.
4.3.3 Following discussion it was agreed that the regional experts would review the content of the
national reports and prepare a draft table of contents for subsequent consideration by the meeting.
4.3.4 Dr. Gullaya Wattayakorn introduced the proposed contents of the Regional Overview of Land-
based Pollution in the South China Sea, prepared by the two regional experts and Mr. Jiang. The
meeting discussed the proposed contents, made minor modifications to the proposed text, and agreed
the contents of the regional overview, which are attached as Annex 4 to this report.
4.3.5 The meeting further discussed the responsibilities of members for drafting each section of the
regional overview, and the schedule for production of inputs and final editing of the regional overview.
Dr. Gullaya was invited, and kindly agreed, to co-ordinate production of the text of the regional
overview. It was agreed the draft texts should be prepared and sent to Dr. Gullaya before 30 May 2004.
Participants accepted the kind offer of Ms. Hoh to edit the final text prior for publication. The final
version should be completed before 30 June 2004.
5.
REVIEW AND FINALISATION OF THE PROCEDURES USED IN RANKING HOT SPOTS
AND CONTAMINANTS
5.1
The Chairperson invited the Senior Expert to introduce this agenda item and the document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.3/3 Annex 5 containing the data assembled to date. Members of the group
reviewed the data and information to be used in the characterisation and ranking of hot spots and
contaminant impacts, in particular the data relating to Cadmium in sediment, Lead and Zinc in biological
samples since the mid-term evaluator had raised questions concerning these values.
5.2
Members noted that the values used were based on published information and reputable
analyses and agreed to accept these data for the purposes of the ranking and evaluation of the pilot
activities. It was agreed that the quality of the data and analysis for these three parameters would be
evaluated by the focal points on their return and they would advise the PCU of the outcome.
5.3
The meeting noted that they had reviewed these data at some length during the third meeting
and that they had revised, amended and accepted the data at that time. It was agreed therefore that the
existing data regarding the ranking of hotspots and contaminants would be accepted for the purpose of
evaluating the pilot activity proposals.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 5
6.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FOR PILOT ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC)
6.1
The Chairperson invited the Senior Expert to introduce the proposed process for evaluating the
proposals for the pilot activities prepared by the PCU and contained in document, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
LbP.4/7, "Technical considerations for the Review and ranking of proposals for pilot activities in the land-
based pollution component".
6.2
There followed a detailed review of the proposed ranking scores element by element. It was
agreed that: the hotspot ranking score would be divided by 10 and that the contaminants with scores of
15 to 117 would be ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 respectively.
6.3
Dr. Pernetta reminded the participants of the three classes of GEF indicator that included
process indicators, stress reduction indicators and environmental state indicators he expressed the
view that expecting to change environmental state in a three-year project was perhaps unrealistic and
there followed a discussion of alternative ways of evaluating the proposals in this regard.
6.4
It was agreed that outcomes would be evaluated on the basis of process and stress reduction
indicators since it was unlikely that a three-year intervention on the scale proposed would result in a
change in environmental state. Dr. Pham Van Ninh, noted that the budgets were extremely limited and
that realistically the only areas that could be effectively tackled lay in the fields of improved legislation
and enhanced public awareness.
6.5
The meeting agreed to amend the proposed ranking of the relationship between root causes
and identified intervention by adding a zero category for those proposals, which had no root cause
analysis. The proposed mechanism for ranking the relationship between the intervention and the costs
was agreed in principle by the meeting, which also agreed to consider this in more detail when the
individual proposals were reviewed.
6.6
Regarding the evaluation of the financial aspects of the proposals it was agreed that the
commitment to co-financing would be evaluated on the basis of evidence of commitment and that the
ratio of co-financing to GEF grant resources would also be used.
6.7
Following agreement of the individual scores for each set of criteria a discussion was held
regarding the weighting that should be applied to the seven criteria. It was agreed that the hot spot and
contaminant ranking should be weighted at 20% each; the financial criteria should each be 15%; and,
the remaining three at 10% each. The finally agreed ranking and evaluation criteria and scores are
presented in Table 1 of Annex 5 of this report.
6.8
Based on these agreements the Regional Working Group considered each proposal individually,
discussed and agreed on the rank scores for each criterion for each proposal. The final agreed tabulation
of evaluation scores is included in Table 3 of Annex 5 of this report.
6.9
There followed a detailed review of the proposals for pilot activities individually. Several general
comments were applicable to all proposals namely the failure to link activities clearly with individual
budget lines; a lack of proper costing of activities; over-ambitious goals and objectives; undue repetition
between sections of the proposals; weak or missing risk analysis and inadequate discussion of the
financial sustainability of project benefits.
6.10
A further issue was raised regarding the overall costs for the activities which in general required
substantial GEF grant funding and in some instances carried no guarantee of co-financing. It was pointed
out that, the GEF grant could not be used to finance buildings/offices, vehicles or boats, and that
individual contracts should be detailed in terms of their purpose and the institutions to be sub-contracted
by the SEA.
6.11 The proposal from China for the Pearl River, Lingdingyang catchment, was reviewed and
questions were raised regarding the various tables in the budget section and their relationship to the
contents of the tables in Section 13. Some concerns were expressed regarding duplication of information
between the various sections and the fact that the goals were too broad and did not in fact clearly indicate
the nature of the activity as a pilot for replication within the catchment. Discrepancies were noted between
the costs for activities in the various tables.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 6
6.12
The Project Director noted that, the monitoring activities unless they were specifically focussed
on assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention should be paid for from the co-financing budget
since a GEF policy decision taken by the GEF Council specifically ruled ineligible, monitoring activities
unless they were necessary to achieve successful implementation of project activities or were
implemented for GEF programmatic purposes. He noted that in this instance monitoring the
effectiveness of the intervention was a legitimate cost to the GEF but the monitoring of estuarine and
coastal waters on a broader scale was not. He noted that the monitoring proposals and GIS based
decision-making system were not well linked with the key intervention of constructing a wetland sewage
treatment system.
6.13
It was agreed that the Senior Expert would work during the evening with Dr. Han to try and clarify
the various budgetary issues for later consideration by the group.
6.14 Dr. Pornsook introduced the proposal for construction of pilot scale wastewater treatment
systems to be developed on the basis of a study of carrying capacity of Ko Chang Island in Trat Province,
Thailand. Some concerns were expressed regarding the budget which requests a total of US$709,000
from the GEF but total co-financing of only 307,000 in cash and in-kind. It was noted that except for
exceptional cases, co-financing should reach at least a ratio of 1:1 in order for the activity to be eligible.
Dr. Pornsook noted that cash co-financing for years 2 and 3 had not been included in the draft budget
since such financing could not be guaranteed at this time.
6.15
Apparent duplications between different sections of the budget were noted and some items were
noted as being located in inappropriate sections of the itemised budget. It was noted however, that the
budget clearly conformed more closely to the required format than did that of the Chinese proposal
previously reviewed.
6.16
The Project Director pointed out that in his view the proposal was weak because it clearly did not
address the primary or root cause of water quality decline in the area, as it focussed on the small resident
population of around 3,500 people rather than the increasing numbers of tourists who were visiting the
island. Numbers that were anticipated to rise under the Government's development plan for the island. He
noted that the per capita value for water consumption on the part of the resident population was extremely
high and Mr. Boonyong Lohwongwatana further noted that water consumption was not uniform but rather
peaked during the weekends reflecting the high numbers of local visitors during the weekend period.
6.17 Mr. Koesworo introduced the proposed activity from Indonesia for pilot activities in Batam
indicating that there were a large number of water quality problems in the area, of which nutrient
enrichment was clearly a major problem. The proposal notes that a major requirement for the area was
the introduction of some form of integrated coastal zone management that strengthened the capacity of
local stakeholders to take action in addressing environmental issues and problems, and that a major issue
was heavy metal pollution resulting from the rapid industrialisation of the area.
6.18
The Project Director noted that the causal chain analysis needed improvement since some
confusion was apparent in the arrangement of the immediate, intermediate and root causes. He noted
further the need to improve the budget, which lacked detail and was not in the correct format. Dr. Gul aya
noted that Section 13 listed three components but the budget table contained four components and noted
also discrepancies between the contents of Tables 1 and 2 and the Implementation Plan. It was
suggested that Section 13 should contain a clear statement regarding the individual components and their
activities that should be replicated in the budget tables and the implementation plan.
6.19
Mr. Pak Sokharavuth, focal point for Land-based Pollution in Cambodia introduced the proposal
for Sihanoukville and the meeting noted the considerable overlap and replication between this proposal
and that for Koh Kong. The stated goals are to prevent and reduce pollution but the activities focus on
capacity building and monitoring activities with some strengthening of enforcement.
6.20 During discussion some overlap in content between sections was noted, as was the
inappropriate location of some information (objectives listed under activities for example). The Project
Director noted considerable problems with the budget, which was presented in an inappropriate manner
and not according to the format and guidance previously provided. He noted that the activities section
contained seven objectives (components?) each of which had a subsidiary list of individual activities yet
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 7
the budget contained only four components with lists of activities that did not correspond to those
contained in section 13.
6.21
The Project Director further noted that the proposal was difficult to support in its present form
since no co-financing was listed in the budget despite the fact that Sihanoukville had been selected as
a PEMSEA demonstration site and was further in receipt of financial support for coastal zone
management through a project financed by DANIDA. The proposal made no mention of these initiatives
nor, the linkage between the present proposal and these on-going efforts. He noted that had these
been adequately described in the proposal document, and efforts made to link the present activity with
those that were on going, then clearly additional co-financing would have been identified.
6.22
There followed a discussion regarding whether or not the late submissions should be ranked
according to the agreed ranking scheme. Dr. Pham Van Ninh, indicated to the meeting that he had not
been informed in writing of the agreement on the final date for submission of the end of February and that
he did not wish the meeting to consider the two Vietnamese proposals, which would likely receive funding
through other sources.
6.23
Dr. Pernetta expressed regret and indicated that in his view ranking the proposals in the manner
agreed would provide evidence to potential donors of the regional significance of the issues addressed by
a proposal, thereby strengthening the case for support of the proposal. He further noted that no proposals
could be further developed or submitted to potential donors by the PCU unless they had been considered
and reviewed by the Regional Working Group on Land-based Pollution, and the Regional Scientific and
Technical Committee.
6.24
He further noted that the Regional Working Groups on the habitat sub-components had ranked
large numbers of sites and developed numerous proposals in the expectation that additional funding
would be raised to support additional demonstration sites. These proposals had been presented to the
partnership workshop during the Regional Scientific Conference and the GEF Secretariat representative
had indicated that the GEF would provide additional financial support for up to seven additional
demonstration sites. He indicated that if the PCU were not in receipt of additional, sound proposals that
had been reviewed and ranked by the Regional Working Group then the PCU would not be in a position
to approach donors to raise additional financial support.
6.25
Mr. Han requested, and the group agreed to rank the proposal for pilot activities in Beihai and the
outcome is included in Table 2 of Annex 5.
6.26
There followed a consideration of which proposals should be recommended to the RSTC and
PSC for financial support from the project budget. It was agreed that the proposals for the Pearl River,
Tha Chin, and Batam would be recommended to the RSTC for support. It was further noted that the total
budgets for these three proposals greatly exceeded the total available financial resources. The RWG-LbP
agreed that the remaining proposals should not be recommended in their present form.
6.27 The Project Director indicated that he intended to convene the meeting of the Executive
Committee of the RSTC before the end of April and therefore urged the responsible SEAs to proceed with
a revision of the documents as rapidly as possible.
7.
WORLD BANK INVESTMENT FUND CONCEPT
7.1
The Senior Expert introduced a concept prepared by the World Bank entitled: Strategic
Partnership for a Land-based Pollution Reduction Investment Fund for the LMEs of East Asia Phase 1
International Water. (Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/Inf. 4). He noted that this was modelled
on the GEF Fund for nutrient reduction in the Black Sea and that the Bank proposal included 40-45
million US$ to be used for co-financing a series of large-scale World Bank land based pollution
reduction projects or programmes together with a 30-35 million US$ pool of World Bank administered
GEF resources that would finance either a regional "revolving fund" and/or several sub-regional
revolving funds.
7.2
Members requested clarification as to why this proposal had been provided to the group, and
what relationship it bore to the two proposals considered during a previous meeting. The Project
Director explained that the Livestock Waste Reduction proposal had been approved by the GEF as an
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 8
independent project that was now under appraisal and that the Pearl River Pollution Reduction
proposal that had been previously considered had led to the development of this concept. He noted that
the investment Fund concept focussed on large-scale interventions in the urban environment and that
the GEF funds were to be used in conjunction with several, large-scale (250 million plus) loans. He
noted further that the World Bank/GEF Guangdong/Pearl River Delta Urban Environment Project had
recently entered the GEF pipeline and that the proposal for the Lindyinggang catchment considered by
this meeting, complemented this initiative in focussing on smaller population centres.
7.3
Dr. Pernetta further noted that the reason for presenting this proposal to the meeting was to
alert members to the initiative in order that they could brief their Ministers of Environment and ensure
connectivity at the national level between activities that might be developed under this concept and the
activities planned in the framework of the present project. He noted further that proposals developed by
members that included high quality business plans could be submitted to the revolving fund once
established and that therefore members should seriously consider possible proposals for development
and consideration under this fund.
7.4
During discussion it was noted that the GEF Secretariat representative had made reference to
the Pearl River project during his address to the Regional Scientific Conference as being an outcome of
the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis conducted during the PDF-B phase of the South China Sea
project.
8.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON LAND-BASED POLLUTION 2004 - 2007
8.1
The Chairperson invited the Senior Expert to introduce the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
LbP.4/10 "Proposals for a revised work plan and timetable for the Regional Working Group on Land-
based Pollution". Mr. Jiang informed the meeting that the draft work plan for the Regional Working
Group 2004-2007 was prepared by the PCU, and presented in the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
LbP.4/9. He reminded the meeting of the deadlines agreed under previous agenda items and the fact
that all anticipated outputs from the preparatory phase must be produced prior to June 30th. He then
presented the draft work plan, and the meeting schedule for 2004.
8.2
The meeting took note of the draft Memorandum of Understanding tabled by the Project
Director, that had been presented to and approved by the RSTC and PSC to cover the regional level
activities anticipated to be executed during the operational phase of the project. The RWG noted further
the invitation of the Project Director to propose any amendments or modifications as required. It was
further noted that this draft did not encompass the pilot activities, and once these were approved the
details of the SEA actions in implementing pilot activities would be included in the individual
memoranda as appropriate.
8.3
The meeting discussed the proposed work plan and meeting schedule and agreed the work
plan as presented in Annex 6 of this report.
9.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
LAND-BASED POLLUTION
9.1
The Regional Working Group noted the overall schedule of meetings as approved by the fourth
meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.4/3), and third
meeting of the Project Steering Committee (UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3). Participants further noted the
decision of the Project Steering Committee, that future meetings of the Regional Working Groups
should be convened at one of the demonstration sites or pilot activities.
9.2
The RWG changed the dates of the next meeting to 22-25 November 2004 due to difficulties
raised by one member. The RWG further confirmed that the meeting dates should not be changed due
to delays in receiving national inputs to the project.
9.3
Regarding the venue of the next meeting the RWG noted that since decisions had not been
taken regarding the pilot activities it was difficult for the meeting to agree on a location and agreed to
defer this decision pending the decisions of the RSTC and Project Steering Committee on the pilot
activities.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Page 9
10.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
10.1
The Chairperson invited members to raise any further items of business. No additional items
were raised under this agenda item.
11.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
11.1
The Rapporteur Ms. Hoh presented the draft report of the meeting prepared by the PCU, which
was considered, amended and adopted as it appears in this document.
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
12.1
The Chairperson thanked the members of the working group for their hard work in completing
the business on the agenda and in particular in completing the review and ranking of proposals for
consideration by the RSTC and PSC.
12.2
Dr Pornsook thanked the Officers of the Committee and in particular the Chairperson for the
conduct of the meeting and for the administrative arrangements.
12.3 The
Chairperson
closed
the meeting at 14:30 on 2nd April 2004.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Pak Sokharavuth, Deputy Director
Mr. Han Baoxin, Deputy Director
Department of Pollution Control
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences,
Ministry of Environment
SEPA
48 Samdech Preah Sihanouk
7 West Street, Yuancun
Sangkat Tonle Bassac, Khan Chamkarmon
Guangzhou, 510655
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Guangdong Province, China
Tel: (855 23) 222 439; 855 12962103
Tel: (86 20) 8552 5658; 86 13902408273
Fax: (855 23) 987 880
Fax: (86 20) 8552 5658; 8553 8243
E-mail: sokharavuth@online.com.kh
E-mail: hbx@scies.com.cn; bxhan@21cn.com
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Heru Waluyo Koesworo
Ms. Carol Hoh Mui Ling
Assistant the Deputy Minister of Environment
Department of Environment
On Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Affairs
Level 3-7, Block C4, Parcel C
Ministry of Environment
Federal Government Administrative Centre
JL D.I. Panjaitan Kav 24, Gd A
62662 Putrajaya, Malaysia
Jakarta 13410, Indonesia
Tel:
(603) 8885 8262
Tel: (62 21) 8590 5638; 0812 9261652
Fax: (603) 8888 4070
Fax: (62 21) 8590 4929
E-mail: chml@jas.sains.my
E-mail:
heruw_k@menlh.go.id;
heruw_k@yahoo.com
Philippines
Thailand
Mr. Vicente R. Diaz
Dr. Pornsook Chongprasith, Director
Section Chief, Pollution Research Section
Marine Environment Division
Research and Development Division
Water Quality Management Bureau
Environmental Management Bureau
Pollution Control Department
(EMB), DENR Compound Visayas Avenue
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Dilman, Quezon City
92 Soi Pahonyothin 7, Samsen Nai, Phaya Thai
Philippines
Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel: (632) 426 4332; 426 4337
Tel:
(66 2) 298 2239
Fax: (632) 426 4340
Fax:
(66 2) 298 2240
E-mail: vr_diaz@hotmail.com;
E-mail: marinepollution_pcd@yahoo.com
vdzv@icqmail.com
Pornsook_chongprasith@yahoo.com
Viet Nam
Dr. Pham Van Ninh, Director
Center for Marine Environment Survey
Research and Consultation
Institute of Mechanics, NCST
264 Dai Can Street
Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel:
(844) 832 6136; 832 6195
Fax: (844) 832 7903
E-mail: pvninh@im01.ac.vn
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Expert Members
Dr. Gullaya Wattayakorn
Mr. Boonyong Lohwongwatana
Marine Science Department
Assistant Professor, Head of Department
Chulalongkorn University
Department of Environmental Engineering
Phayathai Road
Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 218 5407; 218 5409
Tel:
(66 2) 218 6665; 218 6667
Fax:
(66 2) 255 0780
Fax:
(66 2) 218 6666
E-mail: gullaya@chula.ac.th
E-mail: fenblw@kankrow.eng.chula.ac.th
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Mr. Yihang Jiang, Senior 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 2084
Fax: (66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: jiang.unescap@un.org
Observers
Mr. Ekachai Praekulvanich
Ms. Peng Haijun
Environmental Scientist
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences,
Marine Environment Division
SEPA
Water Quality Management Bureau
7 West Street, Yuancun
Pollution Control Department
Guangzhou, 510655
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Guangdong Province, China
92 Soi Pahon Yothin 7, Pahon Yothin Rd.
Sam Sen Nai, Phaya Thai
Tel: (86 20) 8553 8220
Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Fax: (86 20) 8552 4439
E-mail: hjpeng@scies.com.cn
Tel:
(662) 298 2246
Fax:
(662) 298 2240
E-mail: marinepollution_pcd@yahoo.com
Ms. Yang Jing
Mr. Xu Lianfeng
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences, South China Institute of Environmental Sciences,
SEPA, 7 West Street, Yuancun
SEPA, 7 West Street, Yuancun
Guangzhou, 510655
Guangzhou, 510655
Guangdong Province, China
Guangdong Province, China
Tel: (86 20) 8555 7930
Tel: (86 20) 8555 7930
Fax: (86 20) 8552 5658; 8553 8243
Fax: (86 20) 8552 5658; 8553 8243
E-mail: yangjing@scies.com.cn
E-mail: lfxu@scies.com.cn
Ms. Guo Hao
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences,
SEPA
7 West Street, Yuancun
Guangzhou, 510655
Guangdong Province, China
Tel: (86 20) 8553 8222
Fax: (86 20) 8552 4439
E-mail: haoguo@scies.com.cn
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 1
Page 3
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
Mr. Mingqing Liu, Intern
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
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 2607
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
E-mail: lium@un.org
Ms. Unchalee Kattachan, Programme Assistant
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) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion Working Documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/1
Provisional agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/2
Provisional annotated agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3 Report of the meeting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/4
Current status of administrative reports 2003 from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the participating
countries: progress reports; expenditure reports; audit
reports; and MOU amendments.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/5 Current
status of substantive reports on Land-based
Pollution from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the
Participating Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/6
Reviews from regional expert, and the PCU of the drafts of the
substantive reports produced by the Specialised Executing
Agencies in the participating countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/7 Technical
considerations for the reviewing proposals of pilot
activities for Land-based Pollution component.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/8 Proposals
of
Pilot Activities for the Land-based Pollution
component from the participating countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/9 Proposed
Work
plan and timetable for the Regional Working
Group on Land-based Pollution 2004 2007.
Information Documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/Inf.1 Provisional list of participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/Inf.2 Provisional list of documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/Inf.3 Draft
programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/Inf.4
World Bank/GEF concept paper entitled: Strategic
Partnership for a Land-based Pollution Reduction
Investment Fund for the LMEs of East AsiaPhase 1
International Water.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.4/5 Annex 2
Status of the Memoranda of Understanding between UNEP
and the Specialised Executing Agencies as of January 2004.
The following documents are supplied on CD-ROM and in published form.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3
Third Meeting of the Project Steering Committee for the
UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental Degradation
Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report
of the meeting. Manila, Philippines, 25th 27th February 2004
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.4/3
Fourth Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Pattaya,
Thailand, 15th - 17th February 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RSTC.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 2
Page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.4/3 Fourth
Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Wetlands Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 15th 18th December 2003 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-W.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3 Fourth
Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Seagrass Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting.
Guangzhou, China, 29th November 2nd December 2003
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.4/3
Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Coral
Reefs Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Guangzhou,
China, 27th 30th November 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
CR.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.4/3 Fourth
Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Mangroves Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting.
Beihai, China, 14th 17th October 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-M.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters for
the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket, Thailand, 15th 17th
September 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic
Valuation for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket,
Thailand, 11th 13th September 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RTF-E.1/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.3/3 Third Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Land-
based Pollution Component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting.
Phuket, Thailand, 7th - 10th July 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-LbP.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.3/3 Third
Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Fisheries
Component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting Siem Reap,
Cambodia, 29thApril 2nd May 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-F.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 3
Page 1
ANNEX 3
Agenda
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
Address
1.2 Introduction
of
Participants
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1 Election
of
Officers
2.2 Administrative
Arrangements
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT (PCU) REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of the administrative reports for 2003: progress reports; expenditure
reports; audit reports; and MoU amendments
4.2
Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities
4.3
Consideration of substantive outputs from the regional level activities
5.
REVIEW AND FINALISATION OF THE PROCEDURES USED IN RANKING HOT SPOTS
AND CONTAMINANTS
6.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FOR PILOT ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC)
7.
WORLD BANK INVESTMENT FUND CONCEPT
8.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON LAND-BASED POLLUTION 2004 - 2007
9.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
LAND-BASED POLLUTION
10.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
11.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Regional Overview of Land-Based Pollution in the South China Sea
Outline of Contents
1.
General Information on LandBased Pollution in the South China Sea (Dr. Pham Van
Ninh)
· Geographic setting;
· Pollution source: domestic, agriculture, industry; definition (impact of the LbP of what this
project is concerned).
2.
Regional Problems of Land-Based Pollution and Priorities (Dr. Pornsook Chongprasith
+ Mr. Pak Sokharavuth)
·
Pollution problems and priorities identified by TDA;
·
National reviews on data and information.
3.
Efforts in addressing the Problems and Priorities (Existing Gaps) (Mr. Han Baoxin +
Mr. Heru Waluyo Koesworo)
·
Reviews of past and ongoing projects (including other programmes and projects in the
region);
·
Synthesize the experience and gaps.
4.
Regional Actions required (Mr. Vicente Diaz)
·
Legal (Including Regional Criteria and Standard) (Reviews of National Legislation);
·
Economic valuation;
·
Monitoring;
·
Public awareness;
·
Alternative solutions;
·
Regional co-operation.
5.
Roles of the South China Sea Project (Mr. Jiang Yihang + Dr. Gullaya Wattayakorn)
·
Regional and national network;
·
Regional Information network (GIS database, meta database);
·
Hot spot characterisation and priority ranking;
·
Pilot activities (procedure for selection, and result);
·
Expected outcomes from the pilot activities.
6. Potential
Benefits
(Mr. Boonyong Lohwongwatana)
·
Water quality;
·
Marine habitats (coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves, etc.);
·
Coastal fishery resource;
·
Human health.
Co-ordinator of the overview: Dr. Gullaya Wattayakorn
English Editor: Ms. Carol Hoh Mui Ling
Working schedule:
Draft: 30 May 2004
Final: end June 2004
Send to: Dr. Gullaya by email: gullaya@chula.ac.th
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Discussion and Agreement on Criteria, Indicators and Ranking Scores
for Evaluating Priorities amongst Pilot Activities
BACKGROUND
During the third meeting of the Regional Working Group on Land-based Pollution (RWG-LbP), the
Regional Working Group agreed on the "Results of Characterisation and Ranking of Hot Spots and
Contaminant Impacts" (Annex 5 of the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.3/3). The process
resulted in two major outcomes: (i) scores of significance of hot spots, as shown in Fig. 1; and (ii)
scores of contaminants ranking, as shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 1
Scores of significance of hot spots.
Figure 2 Scores of contaminants ranking.
OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS DURING THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON LAND-BASED POLLUTION
In order to prioritise the pilot activities amongst the proposals received, the Regional Working Group
discussed and agreed on the criteria, indicators and rank scores, as shown in Table 1. The major
considerations and agreements were:
(i)
Hot Spot ranking in the proposed pilot activities. On the basis of the results in Figure 1,
the Regional Working Group agreed that the scores of significance of the hot spots should be
divided by 10 to give a final ranking score;
(ii)
Contaminant ranking in the proposed pilot activities. The final ranking score of each
contaminant was aligned along a ten point arithmetic scale as indicated in Table 1.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 5
Page 2
Table 1
Agreed criteria, indicators and rank scores for evaluating priorities amongst pilot
activity proposals.
Weighting
Hot spot ranking scores
Rank Score
x20%
Scores of significance (S) previously determined
(S)/10
Contaminant ranking in the proposed pilot activities
Scores agreed Ranking points
x20%
(previously determined)
Nutrient (in sea water)
117
10
Heavy metals (in sea water)
112
9
Heavy metal (Cd in Sediment)
25
6
Heavy metal (Pb in biological samples)
24
5
Faecal Coli (in sea water)
21
4
Heavy metal (Zn in biological samples)
19
3
Heavy metal (Cd in biological samples)
17
2
Heavy metal (Pb in Sediment)
15
1
Outcome evaluation
Process
Indicators
Public
awareness
increased
2
Local stakeholders/government involvement
leading roles
2
Legislation/enforcement
in
place/better
2
Stress reduction indicators
Reduction in contaminant input
reduced
4
Relationship between root cause and identified intervention
Rank Points
10%
Very
good
10
Good
7
Need
improve
3
none
0
Relationship between intervention and Activity cost
Ranking Points
10%
2.5y 2
2y 4
1.5y 6
1y 8
0.5y 10
Government/other sources, Level of co-financing commitment
Rank Score
15%
Guaranteed
10
Highly
Likely
7
Proposed
3
Ratio of GEF grant funds to co-financing
Rank Score
15%
>
1:2
10
1:1.01 to 1:2
7
1:1
5
<1:1
3
1:0
0
(iii) Outcome
evaluation. It was agreed by the Regional Working Group that the Evaluation of
outcomes should be considered in two parts: Process Indicators and Stress Reduction
Indicators. It was further agreed that for the Process Indicators, the evaluation of the
proposals should focus on whether the proposals included activities directed towards public
awareness, local stakeholder/government involvement, and legislation/ enforcement. Two
ranking points were assigned to each of these sets of activities for a possible total of 6 points.
(iv)
Relationship between root cause and identified intervention. The Regional Working
Group recognised that the proposed interventions in managing and controlling contaminants
should address the root cause(s) identified in the causal chain analysis, and agreed on rank
scores that reflected the quality of the analysis.
(v)
Relationship between intervention and activity cost. Considering the limited budget
available for the pilot activities within the project, and the cost efficiency of the proposed
actions, the Regional Working Group agreed to evaluate the relationship between the
proposed interventions and activity costs. It was further agreed that the evaluation should
focus on the cost per unit of COD removal in the proposals.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 5
Page 3
Relationship between Intervention and Activity Cost
With regard to evaluation of the relationship between the proposed intervention and activity cost, the
meeting agreed to use cost-per-unit for removing COD in the proposals, and the calculation is show in
the Table 2.
In Table 2:
· The values in columns (1) and (2) were obtained from the pilot activity proposals
prepared by the focal points;
· Column (3), cost per unit, was calculated as Column (2) divided by (1);
· Column (4) indicated the levels of unit for ranking points; and
· Column (5) indicated the ranking points from Column (4) according to the agreed criteria
shown in Table 1.
Table 2 Calculation of the relationship between intervention and activity costs.
COD removed
(ton/year)
BUDGET
cost per unit
(y=1000 t/y)
RANKING POINTS
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Koh Kong
n/a
Sihanoukville n/a
Pearl River
620.5
1,066,000
1,717.97
1.7
6
Batum 23
697,820
30,340.00
30
2
Ko
Chang
82.4 1,015,717 12,326.66 12.3
2
Tha Chin R.
1,236
742,083
600.39
0.6
10
Red
tide,
GoT
n/a
Beihai 1,456
683,000
469.09
0.5
10
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS OF PILOT ACTIVITIES
Following the agreements regarding criteria, indicators and ranking scores, the Regional Working
Group evaluated in detail the proposals prepared by the focal points for land-based pollution from the
participating countries, and final results of the evaluation and ranking are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Ranking for Individual Consideration Evaluation of Proposals for pilot activities.
Hot spot Problem
Total
Intervention Intervention Govern/other
Co -
Total
Sites
rank
rank
Outcomes
weighted
Rank
-root cause
- Cost
sources
financing
scores
score
score
score
Koh Kong
3.7
0
4
0
0
3
0
10.7
1.59
7
Sihanoukville 7.4
0
6
0
0
3
0
16.4 2.53 6
Pearl River
9.4
10
8
10
6
10
10
63.4
9.28
1
Batam 5.2
4
6 3 2 10 7
37.2
5.49
4
Ko Chang
6.2
10
8
10
2
10
3
49.2
7.19
3
Tha Chin R.
6.2
10
8
10
10
10
3
57.2
7.99
2
Red tide, GoT
6.2
0
4
0
0
10
3
23.2
3.59
5
LATE SUBMISSION
Bei Hai
4.3
6
8
7
7
10
5
47.3
6.51
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Revised Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Land-based Pollution 2004-2007
Table 1
Work Plan for the Regional Working Group on Land-based Pollution, 2004-2007.
2004 2005 2006 2007
Q 1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q 1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q 1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q 1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Regional Co-ordination
RWG meetings
RSTC meetings
PSC meetings
Co-ordination of National Activities
Nat'l Com. Meetings
NTWG meetings
IMC meetings
Draft nat'L data &info
Rev Past & Ongoing
Review on Legislation
Review on econ. Valuation
SEA clearance
PCU edits
Finalised for printing
Publication
Draft Nat'l Act Plan
Finalisation of Pilot Activities
RWG review
Special meeting of RSTC
Approval of PSC
Preparation of implementation plan
Improvement of proposals
Preparation of implement. Plan
Approval by NTWG & IMC
Finalisation of arrangement
Implementation of pilot activities
Pilot activities
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 2
Schedule of meetings for 2004. (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -C = Coral reefs; -S = Seagrass; -W = Wetlands; -F= Fisheries; LbP = Land-based Pollution;
RTF-E = Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation; RTF-L = Regional Task Force on Legal Matters.) (H = United Nations holidays)
S
M T W
T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M
January
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31
H
Chinese NY
February
1
2
3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
Regional
H
Science
RSTC-4
PSC-3
Conference
March
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30 31
RWG-
H
Ad
hoc
LbP-4
April
1 2 3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30
LbP-4
H
Thai NY
RWG-F-4
May
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31
RTF-L-2
ExComm
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
RTF-E-2
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 31
H
RWG- S-5
September
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30
RWG-C-5
RWG-M-5
October
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31
RWG-W-5
RWG- F-5
Ramadan
November
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30
Ramadan
H
RWG-LbP-5
December
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30 31
H
RSTC-5
PSC-4
Xmas
H