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
Fifth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Mangroves Sub-component
Trat Province, Thailand, 26th 30th September 2004
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, September 2004
First published in Thailand in 2005 by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Copyright © 2005, United Nations Environment Programme
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication
as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose without prior
permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP/GEF
Project Co-ordinating Unit,
United Nations Environment Programme,
UN Building, 2nd Floor Block B, Rajdamnern Avenue,
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel.
+66 2 288 1886
Fax.
+66 2 288 1094
http://www.unepscs.org
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the GEF. The
designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNEP, of the GEF, or of any cooperating organisation concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the delineation of its territories or boundaries.
Cover Photo: Banpu Resort built in mixed Phizophara, Avicennia mangrove forest, Nongkansong,
Trat Province, Thailand, by Dr. John C. Pernetta.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2005. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves. UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-M.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Table of Contents
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING ......................................................................................................1
1.1 WELCOME ADDRESS..............................................................................................................1
1.2 INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS .................................................................................................1
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING ..........................................................................................1
2.1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS.........................................................................................................1
2.2 DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE TO THE MEETING .......................................................................2
2.3 ORGANISATION OF WORK ......................................................................................................2
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA...................................................................................2
4.
BRIEF REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS ON THE STATUS OF THE
PREPARATORY PHASE OUTPUTS DUE 30TH JUNE 2004 ......................................................2
5.
STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA
OF UNDERSTANDING.................................................................................................................3
5.1 STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OF THE SPECIALISED EXECUTING AGENCIES (SEAS)
FROM THE PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES, FOR THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT ....................... 3
5.2 EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SPECIALISED EXECUTING
AGENCIES WITHOUT APPROVED DEMONSTRATION SITES (CAMBODIA AND VIET NAM) ...............4
5.3 EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SPECIALISED EXECUTING
AGENCIES WITH APPROVED DEMONSTRATION SITES ...............................................................5
6.
PROJECT EVALUATION.............................................................................................................6
6.1 REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT.................................6
6.2 SPECIALLY MANAGED PROJECT REVIEW (SMPR) BY THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION UNIT
OF THE GEF SECRETARIAT.................................................................................................... 8
7.
REVIEW OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING INPUTS
TO THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME.....................................................12
7.1 REVIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT NATIONAL ACTION PLANS WITH A VIEW TO
IDENTIFYING COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES..................................................................12
7.2 DISCUSSION ON THE INPUTS FROM THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT TO THE REGIONAL
STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME (SAP), REVIEW OF THE SAP TARGETS AND GOALS AND
DISCUSSION OF THE PROCESS OF INTEGRATING NAP AND SAP DEVELOPMENT.....................16
8.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES AT THE DEMONSTRATION SITES ..............................18
8.1 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES.............................................18
8.2 REGIONAL CO-ORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES IN THE APPROVED DEMONSTRATION SITES............19
9.
WORK PLAN OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES FOR
THE PERIOD 2004-2007 ............................................................................................................19
10. DATES AND PLACE OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP...20
11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................20
12. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING ...................................................................20
13. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING ...................................................................................................20
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Draft Second Amendment of the Memorandum of Understanding
ANNEX 5
Analysis of the Contents of the National Action Plans for Mangroves
ANNEX 6
Analysis of National Action Plans with Respect to Targets, Timeframes, Costs
and Implementing Agency Information
ANNEX 7
Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Component to June 30th
2007
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
Address
1.1.1
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director opened the meeting, at 08:30 am on 27th September 2004
and welcomed participants on behalf of the Executive Director of UNEP, Dr. Klaus Töpfer; and the
Assistant Executive Director, and Director of the UNEP Division of Global Environment Facility Co-
ordination, Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf. He noted that since this was the first meeting to be convened during
the full operational phase of the project there were a number of important items on the agenda not
least of which was the finalisation of the MoUs and demonstration site proposals. Completion of these
would necessitate setting some time aside for working individually and in small groups.
1.1.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that this was an important meeting with a very full agenda, and one critical
item was the review of the draft National Action Plans (NAPs). Members needed to consider how
these might be modified, based on the discussion of contents during the meeting where a comparison
of the contents of the NAPs from the various countries would be undertaken. The revision and
expansion of the draft Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the South China Sea would also need to
be considered during this meeting, and the relationship between the process for NAP and SAP
development and finalisation would need to be elaborated.
1.1.3
The Project Director expressed the hope that, even though a considerable amount of work
was before the working group, the meeting would be enjoyable and successful in completing the
agenda and meeting its objectives.
1.2 Introduction
of
Members
1.2.1
Dr. Pernetta noted that there were a number of observers at the meeting, including the GEF
Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR) team consisting of Mr. Jarle Harstad, Dr. Sara Graslund,
Mr. Takashi Otsuka and Dr. Juha Uitto; and the wetlands focal point from Cambodia Mr. Sok Vong.
Consequently he proposed that participants briefly introduce themselves to the meeting.
1.2.2 There followed a tour de table during which members and observers provided a brief
description of their involvement with the project. The SMPR panel members also provided some
background to the monitoring and evaluation activities in which they were involved and Mr. Vong
noted that he had been invited to assist in finalising the Peam Krasop portion of the co-managed
Cambodian and Thai transboundary mangrove and wetland site. The List of Participants is attached
as Annex 1 to this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1 Election
of
Officers
2.1.1 Dr. Pernetta noted that, at the first meeting of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves
(RWG-M) held in Phuket, Thailand, 29 April 1 May 2002, Dr. Sonjai Havanond, Focal Point from
Thailand, Dr. Hangqing Fan, Focal Point from China, and Mr. Florendo Barangan were elected as,
Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur respectively. It was further 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, and that, officers shall be
eligible for re-election no more than once.
2.1.2 The third meeting of the RWG-M convened in Bali, Indonesia, 3rd 6th March 2003 had re-
elected the same officers who had served to the present time. The present meeting is the fifth meeting
convened, two years three months after the first meeting, the extended interval between the fourth
and fifth meetings results from the reduced frequency of RWG meetings during the second phase of
the project. The meeting recognised that the present officers, had served in excess of two years and
were therefore not eligible for re-election to the same posts, though they were eligible for election to
different positions. It was noted that both the Focal Points for mangroves and the regional experts
were eligible for election.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 2
2.1.3 Dr. Pernetta called for nominations for the positions of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and
Rapporteur of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves. Dr. Sonjai nominated Mr. Nyoto Santoso
as Chairperson, and Professor Gong Wooi Khoon seconded this nomination. Dr. Nguyen Hoang Tri
nominated Dr. Gong as Vice-Chairperson, and Dr. Do Dinh Sam seconded the nomination.
Mr. Florendo Barangan nominated Dr. Tri as Rapporteur. Mr. Santoso, Professor Gong, and Dr. Tri
were duly elected by acclamation, as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Rapporteur respectively.
Mr. Santoso assumed the Chair, and expressed his appreciation to the group for their confidence in
his abilities.
2.2
Documentation Available to the Meeting
2.2.1 Dr. Pernetta provided a brief introduction to the documentation available for the meeting,
contained in the document folder, and also available on the project website. He noted that the
documents included a number of information documents including the full text of the mid-term review
and the near final text for two of the demonstration sites. Included in the discussion documents are
the drafts of the national action plans, which would be an important item for discussion and for
inclusion in the further development of the Strategic Action Programme. The full list of documents is
attached as Annex 2 to this report, which also includes a list of documents tabled during the meeting.
2.3
Organisation of Work
2.3.1 Dr. Pernetta introduced the draft programme for the conduct of business contained in
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.3 and noted that the meeting would be conducted in English
and in plenary although he hoped that sufficient time could be set aside to work in small groups or
individually on the revision of the Memoranda of Understanding and the demonstration site proposals.
2.3.2 He noted that the PCU was proposing in the programme that item 6.2 be taken immediately
following agenda item 3, in order to fit in with the schedule of the SMPR team, two of whom were
leaving on Monday afternoon, and two of whom would leave on Tuesday afternoon.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson introduced the Provisional Agenda (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/1) prepared
by the Project Co-ordinating Unit, for the meeting and the Annotated Provisional Agenda, document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/2. He invited members to propose any amendments or additional items
for consideration, and to adopt the agenda.
3.2
Members agreed with the earlier suggestion to reschedule item 6.2, immediately following
Agenda item 3, and the agenda was adopted with no substantive additions or amendments. The
agenda is attached as Annex 3 to this report.
4.
BRIEF REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS ON THE STATUS OF THE
PREPARATORY PHASE OUTPUTS DUE 30TH JUNE 2004
4.1
Dr. Pernetta requested members to refer to Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/4 "Status
of the Substantive Reports of the Specialised Executing Agencies (SEAs) for the Mangrove Sub-
component from the Participating Countries", which provides an overview of the current situation with
regard to these outputs from the perspective of the Project Co-ordinating Unit.
4.2
Dr. Pernetta asked the National Focal Points to provide the meeting with a brief report
regarding the status of the outputs, including national reports, national action plans, GIS data, and
metadata. He also asked for clarification from participants on whether the documents listed as being
held by the PCU were the latest versions available of these outputs. He further noted that these
outputs were to have been finalised before June 30, 2004.
4.3
Dr. Fan informed the meeting that the 4th December 2003 version of the National Report was
the latest version available. He also said that the report on National Legislation was to be combined
with those for the wetland, and seagrass sub-components and that this would be formally published
by SEPA in China. He further informed the meeting that the versions of the GIS data and metadata
held by the PCU were the latest available.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 3
4.4
Mr. Vongwattana and Mr. Vong, from Cambodia, informed the meeting that the National
Report, including Past and Ongoing Activities, Data and Information, and National Legislation, had
been completed, and had been submitted together with the National Action Plan at the end of June.
The GIS data and metadata had also been updated, and had been submitted, though apparently had
not been received by the PCU. Electronic copies were submitted to the PCU during the meeting.
4.5
They noted further that the National Report was considered final, and had been agreed by the
inter-ministry committee. Publication was waiting for the final English editing, that would be conducted
through the PCU, as it was proposed to publish the report initially in English in Cambodia, and later on
in Khmer.
4.6
Mr. Santoso noted that the 13 individual Provincial reports from Indonesia had been published
in both English and Bahasa Indonesia. The report on legislation may not be compatible with the
format required by the project, and therefore some revision was required. The draft NAP has not yet
been cleared by all stakeholders, in particular the 4 Government agencies involved in mangrove
management. Metadata and GIS data had not yet been finalised, and Mr. Santoso sought further
clarification on exactly what was required. Dr. Pernetta, and Mr. Passfield referred Mr. Santoso to the
original formats provided for the GIS database, and metadata, developed at the GIS workshop in
2002, and presented on several subsequent occasions electronically. It was also suggested that he
look at the Indonesian Seagrass Metadata publication for further guidance on producing the meta-
database.
4.7
Mr. Barangan said that the Philippines National Report should be ready within two months
while the report on legislation was awaiting comment from Mr. Conception, and clearance by the
Philippines National Technical Working Group. It was hoped this would be published by December.
The draft NAP still required some modification before finalisation while no changes had been made to
the meta-database. The GIS data may be up-dated based on more recent satellite data in the near
future.
4.8
Dr. Sonjai indicated that the Thai National Report and National Legislation Report had been
checked through carefully, and finalised approximately 3 months ago. The GIS data has been
completed in Thai, though translation to English had not yet been finalised.
4.9
Dr. Sam noted that there were two small changes to be made to the Viet Nam National
Report, which were required following careful checking by two experts. It was now his intention to
publish the National Report and NAP at the same time. The National Legislation report needed some
changes based on comments from the legal task force and the NAP has been completed, and
presented at a National Workshop. The NAP for all 6 components will be summarised into a single
NAP document in Viet Nam.
4.10
Dr. Pernetta noted that delaying publication of the national report to produce it simultaneously
with the NAP could result in excessive delay and noted further that the NAP was an evolving
document, and it may be a considerable time before it received final Government approval. The
National Reports on the other hand were outputs from the first phase of the project, and these should
be published as soon as possible.
4.11
Dr. Pernetta reminded participants that the NAP was to have been produced as a draft by 30th
June, for initial discussion at the regional level. As an evolving document, they were likely to be
modified and revised several times over the next 3 years. He noted for example, that the draft NAPs
submitted so far generally lacked concrete proposals for action that had been costed and prioritised.
5.
STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA
OF UNDERSTANDING
5.1
Status of the Administrative Reports of the Specialised Executing Agencies (SEAs)
from the Participating Countries, for the Mangrove Sub-component
5.1.1 Mr. Santoso invited the Project Director, to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.5/5, "Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the
participating countries". Dr. Pernetta referred participants to Table 1 on page 2, which detailed dates
of submission of the audit reports and administrative and financial reports from the participating
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 4
countries. He noted that all 2002 audit reports had been received, but that the 2003 reports, due
March 31 2004, were still outstanding from China and Thailand. He informed the focal points from
these countries that no further funds could be dispersed to them until these reports had been
received.
5.1.2
Regarding the 6 month progress reports, Dr. Pernetta noted that only 3 had been received
and that one of these was incomplete. Those from Cambodia, China and Thailand remained
outstanding and it was noted that these were due by 31st July.
5.1.3
The Project Director then drew the attention of the meeting to the contents of Table 2 of the
document, which detailed the disbursements and cash still currently held by the Specialised
Executing Agencies. He noted that the figures for cash in-hand were probably over-estimates since
they included unaccounted cash advances much of which had probably been spent during the first
half of the year. Dr. Pernetta noted that interest on funds held should also be reported, and
encouraged focal points to submit their outstanding reports as soon as possible in order that the
actual situation with respect to cash on hand was reflected in the project records.
5.1.4
The Project Director went on to note that the progress and expenditure reports served more
than one purpose and that in addition to the regular financial information, which they provided, the
reports were also used to compare estimates and actual co-financing in-kind through meeting
participation at the national level. He noted that Table 3 indicated that in-kind co-financing based on
information from the six-month reports, showed that several countries had exceeded the co-financing
estimates by a considerable amount. Overall co-financing for the mangrove component had reached
236% of the original estimate, despite the fact that three six month reports were still outstanding and
hence the corresponding co-financing figures could not be included. He requested all members to
provide outstanding 6-month reports before the closure of the meeting.
5.1.5
Mr. Santoso subsequently provided a hard copy of the required 6-month progress report and
Dr. Sonjai provided the reports for Thailand in both hard and electronic copy. Dr. Fan noted that his
institute was having some internal administrative difficulties, which had made it very hard to complete
the reports on time. He noted that these difficulties were currently being resolved, and it was expected
that the reports would be available by the end of October. Mr. Vong informed the meeting that he had
the required reports with him, and would submit them to the Secretariat.
5.2
Extension of the Memoranda of Understanding for the Specialised Executing Agencies
without Approved Demonstration Sites (Cambodia and Viet Nam)
5.2.1
The Chairperson invited the Project Director to inform the meeting about the process of
extension of the MoUs between UNEP and the SEAs. In regard to those that currently do not have
approved demonstration sites, Dr. Pernetta referred members to document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.5/6. Dr. Pernetta noted that the preference of the PCU was to extend the existing MoUs rather than
closing the existing ones and opening new ones due to the amount of work involved. New MoUs
would need to be cleared through Nairobi, and the balance of funds from the existing MoUs would
have to be returned to UNEP. The meeting agreed that the second amendment was preferable to a
new MoU.
5.2.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that regardless of whether or not an SEA was responsible for, or
executing, a demonstration site during the second phase of the project there were a set of actions at
the national level that would be carried out by all SEAs. These focussed essentially on national level
co-ordination actions that were defined in the tasks listed as (i) to (xix) in the draft amendment
attached to the discussion document.
5.2.3 The Project Director drew the attention of the meeting to the report of the Project Steering
Committee contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3 and specifically the decisions of the
Project Steering Committee with respect to the budgets for national co-ordination under the extension
of the MoUs. He noted that the decision had been taken to phase out the GEF grant support and
replace this with government re-current funding over the period to December 2007. The operative
paragraph of the Project Steering Committee report is as follows:
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 5
8.2.8 Regarding the progressive percentages to be used in phasing out the GEF
support to national co-ordination, he further suggested that the committee could
agree on the proposed percentage on a trial basis and review the situation at its
next meeting in December 2004. Should it prove necessary the committee could
make any necessary adjustments once the government departments had reviewed
both the costs and the frequency of meetings. The meeting agreed with the
suggestion made by Mr. Gerochi and decided that:
(i)
A combination of scenarios 2 and 3, as proposed by the PCU in the
document UNEP/GEF/SCS.3/9, should be used in calculating allocations;
(ii)
The overall level of support from the GEF grant should be 100% in 2004-
2005: 50% in 2005-2006; and 25% in 2006-2007.
5.2.4
These conditions apply to all future MoU extensions regardless of whether or not the focal
point and Specialised Executing Agency are responsible for a demonstration site and the implication
is that each focal point should approach the focal Ministry for the balance of funds required to
complete the meetings and co-ordination activities. Dr. Pernetta noted that the reduction in GEF
budget allocation for meetings of the National Mangrove committees does not mean that committees
meet less often, but that the participating governments assume an increasing responsibility for the
costs of meetings, as the GEF funds are decreased. From July 2005 to June 2006 the governments
should provide funds equivalent to the GEF grant and three times the GEF grant should be provided
to the SEA during the subsequent year.
5.2.5 In the light of these discussions the Chairperson proposed, and the meeting agreed, to review
the tasks of the SEAs listed in the draft MoU. The Chairperson therefore went through the text of the
draft second amendment, paragraph by paragraph. The paragraphs were discussed individually and
clarification sought on several points.
5.2.6 Dr. Gong asked why SEAs would agree to provide the data as indicated in paragraph (vi)
considering that the funds would be transferred to a third party as executing agency of the
demonstration sites. Dr. Pernetta noted that as clarified above some funds would continue to be made
available to the SEAs to cover co-ordination and NAP development costs but that the costs to the
SEAs consequent upon their involvement in the demonstration sites should be funded through the
demonstration site budget. It was not unreasonable to expect that the original SEA would continue to
maintain the databases that they had established under the first phase of the project, as these were of
obvious benefit to the country, which is why they were initiated under the project in the first place.
5.2.7 Mr. Barangan pointed out a minor omission from the text of the second amendment, where
paragraph (xv) was missing, and this was duly added. Despite substantial discussion on how some of
the tasks related to particular paragraphs may best be executed, no substantive changes to the intent
of the MoU were suggested, and the draft second amendment to the MoU was agreed by all
members as it appears in Annex 4 of this report.
5.2.8 It was noted that some of the points raised during discussion regarding the mode of execution
of the tasks would need to be re-visited under agenda item 9 when the work plan and timetable for the
Regional Working Group was discussed and agreed. Following acceptance of the tasks by the SEAs
a corrected electronic version was made available to all members for their finalisation.
5.3
Extension of the Memoranda of Understanding for the Specialised Executing Agencies
with Approved Demonstration Sites
5.3.1 Dr. Pernetta noted that the amendments to the MoU discussed under the previous agenda
item contained generic paragraphs that would need to be finalised individually according to the
arrangements for the execution of each individual demonstration site. Again he noted that it would be
simpler, from the point of view of administration for the PCU, to issue amendments to the MoUs with
the existing MoU's with the SEAs rather than negotiate entirely new MoUs with an independent third
party. If an SEA did not wish to be responsible for transferring funds to a third party under a sub-
contract then the MoUs would need to be tri-partite, with the local executing agency undertaking the
work and UNEP transferring funds to them. The current SEA, would then have responsibility for
ensuring the proper execution of activities and prompt reporting to the PCU.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 6
5.3.2 Mr. Barangan indicated that at a meeting of the NTWG on this issue in the Philippines, all
parties had agreed that the existing SEAs would remain the "prime contractors" since monitoring the
activities of local Government executing agencies would be very difficult for UNEP. Funds would be
transferred from the existing SEAs to the local or provincial government, as required in an agreed
budget associated with the MoU.
5.3.3 The Project Director proposed that the draft amendments to the existing MoUs contained in
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/6 be finalised and signed, if possible, during the meeting. To date only the
Fangchenggang and Trat Province demonstration sites had been reviewed, revised and were in near
final form. Copies were provided as documents UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.4 and UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.5 for information of the focal points responsible for the remaining mangrove
demonstration sites and these would be discussed further under a subsequent agenda item.
6. PROJECT
EVALUATION
6.1
Report of the Independent Mid-term Evaluation of the Project
6.1.1 The meeting took note of the fact that the mid-term evaluation of the project had been
conducted between February and July 2004 by two independent evaluators Dr. Mike Bewers and
Professor Su Jilan. Their report had been finalised and accepted by the Monitoring and Evaluation
Unit of the Office of the Executive Director of UNEP and a copy was included in the documents for the
meeting.
6.1.2 Referring to the annotated agenda, Dr. Pernetta drew the attention of the meeting to the
report, and to extracts contained in the annotated agenda that related directly to the Mangrove
component and the work of the Regional Working Group. Dr. Pernetta asked for reactions or
comments on the evaluation, and also invited members to discuss the section relating to co-financing.
6.1.3 Dr. Uitto informed the meeting that all GEF funded projects are required to have a mid-term
evaluation and a final evaluation, which are carried out by independent consultants. The mid-term
evaluation is a management tool, weighted towards assessing whether the project is on track to
achieving its objectives. He noted that very well qualified personnel had undertaken this evaluation,
and that the report was of very high quality. He noted further that the project had been ranked very
highly on all the GEF criteria, and he congratulated the project management and all participants on
the results of the mid-term evaluation.
6.1.4 Dr. Pernetta supported the point raised by Dr. Uitto that the high rating for the project in the
mid-term evaluation reflected the strong commitment of everyone involved in the project, and that all
members should be very proud of this result. Dr. Uitto added that evaluations are submitted to the
Monitoring and Evaluation unit of the GEF, in Washington, and this is very valuable for the project, as
the ratings would not go unnoticed by the GEF Council. He added that of course this puts added
pressure on the project to work hard in order to maintain these ratings during the next three years.
6.1.5 Mr. Takashi added that the limited number of personnel working at the PCU made the ranking
even more creditable. Dr. Gong agreed, and asked what were the intentions of the Project Director
with regard to the filling of vacant posts in the PCU.
6.1.6 Dr. Pernetta provided background information regarding the two current professional
vacancies. He noted that during 2003 when both the associate expert positions had been advertised
UNEP had been successful in filling the associate expert Social Sciences post, but that it had not
been possible to fill the Natural Sciences post. He explained that the process of recruitment within the
UN system was not simple and that an immediate re-advertisement was unlikely to attract suitably
qualified personnel. He felt that sufficient time had now elapsed to make such a re-advertisement
worthwhile.
6.1.7 Dr. Pernetta noted that following the resignation of the Senior Expert, Mr. Jiang to take up the
post of Chief Technical Advisor to the UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea Project, he had initiated procedures to
fill the post as soon as possible. He noted further that the Division of GEF Co-ordination in UNEP had
agreed to provide half of the salary for this position such that the Senior Expert would now work full
time on the South China Sea Project rather than half time for the East Asian Seas Action Plan and
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 7
half time for the South China Sea. He also invited any members who had suggestions for a senior
scientist who could assume responsibility in the short-term for managing the editing of the national
reports or who would be interested in the post to provide him with their contact details as soon as
possible.
6.1.8 Dr. Pernetta requested guidance from the group regarding tracking co-financing in each
country, and in particular how much cash co-financing had been received by the SEAs over the first
two years of project implementation. He cited the China mangrove sub-component as an example
where cash co-financing had been provided by the Central and local governments and formally
reported by Dr. Fan to meetings of the Regional Working Group. In other cases no such reports had
been made and consequently it was not possible to quantify the extent of additional support to the
project. He asked if there was a simple, informal way in which countries could report cash co-
financing to the PCU.
6.1.9 The Chairperson then requested that each focal point provide information regarding cash co-
financing provided to the SEAs to date. Dr. Sam stated that cash co-financing in Viet Nam was not
large but totalled US$5,741 from the Central Government for coordination meetings and for field visits
to potential demonstration sites in the north and south of Viet Nam.
6.1.10 Mr. Vong stated that the government of Cambodia had supported fieldwork financially, but
that it was difficult for him to provide exact figures retroactively.
6.1.11 Dr. Fan stated that co-financing received between January 2002 and September 2004 totalled
920,000 Yuan from the central government; 330,000 Yuan from Guanxi Provincial Government; and
250,000 Yuan from Fangchenggang Municipal Government.
6.1.12 Mr. Santoso noted that from 2000 to 2003, there had been money from the Forestry
Department and the Coastal and Marine department, in support of the development of NAPs and the
demonstration site proposals totalling approximately US$100,000. For 2004, 500 million rupiah was
committed to co-financing in the demonstration site and the Home Affairs Department had also
committed money in 2004, approximately 250 million rupiah were expected. Financial support from
the Coastal and Marine department for public awareness of the NAP is expected, though he was
unsure of the amount. Private sector support to date was limited, though some was being received for
support to research in silviculture. In 2003, 100 million rupiah were received from the department of
co-operatives as capital for development of the charcoal industry at the demonstration site. JICA has
also provided funds, perhaps more than 250 million rupiah in support of workshops associated with
development of the National Action Plan. Co-financing from local government had also been received,
and more can be expected, but he could not give exact figures.
6.1.13 Dr. Sonjai indicated that most of the co-financing budget in Thailand was from the Department
of Coastal and Marine Resources. Estimates for what had been received as co-financing to June
2004 were not high, and he could not give exact figures at this time. He would provide information to
the PCU in the near future.
6.1.14 Mr. Barangan said that for the Philippines cash co-financing was very limited but that there
had been significant co-financing in kind received from various entities along the SCS coastline,
including Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and local government units. He
promised to try and keep track of any cash co-financing in future, as it was obviously of some
significance to the project. Mr. Barangan added that the financial difficulties faced by the Philippines
may make it difficult for his SEA to increase financial commitment to the project, as recommended by
Mr. Gerochi to the PSC, but they would certainly do their best to fulfil this commitment.
6.1.15 Dr. Pernetta concluded by saying that he believed that cash co-financing to the project was
being significantly under reported, though in-kind co-financing estimates were probably reasonable.
He expressed the view that Focal Points should start recording the cash expended on activities
reported in the 6 monthly progress reports such as for example, cash support to convening large
stakeholder meetings to discuss the NAPs.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 8
6.1.16 It was proposed, and the meeting agreed that, the 6-month report format should be modified
to include in each box relating to meetings or outputs, space for recording cash co-financing and the
source.
6.2
Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR) by the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of
the GEF Secretariat
6.2.1 The meeting took note of the fact that the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit in consultation
with the GEF Secretariat has selected the UNEP/GEF South China Sea project as one of two
International Waters projects from the GEF portfolio, to be included in the Specially Managed Project
Review for 2004; that the outputs from this process are reported directly to the GEF Council; that the
SMPR is a specific GEF Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) modality, which is complementary to the
existing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in the GEF.
6.2.2 The Chairperson welcomed the SMPR team to the meeting and invited Mr. Harstad to inform
the members of the information requirements of the SMPR panel for undertaking their review. Mr.
Harstad expressed his appreciation to the group for the invitation to attend this meeting, and said it
was a great opportunity to see a project in action in the field, rather than from behind a desk. He was
particularly impressed with the documentation available to this meeting.
6.2.3 Mr. Harstad provided some background on the Monitoring and Evaluation unit of the GEF and
noted that it was important to pass information on important lessons learned from successful, or less
than successful projects, to other projects as soon as possible, in order to learn from past practice
and avoid repetition of mistakes. He referred participants to the questionnaire which had been
distributed, entitled "Interview Guide for National Representatives", and outlined to the meeting the
background to the questions listed under the 5 categories in the questionnaire.
6.2.4 Mr. Harstad then invited Mr. Uitto to introduce the initial set of questions. Mr. Uitto said that
the team hoped to learn lessons, through gaining an appreciation of the problems and successes
experienced by this project to date, and invited very frank discussions on any project related issues.
He further explained what kinds of issues they hoped to review under the 5 categories of question, in
relation to the whole project, but with particular regard to the Mangrove sub-component. He noted that
threats to mangroves come from a wide range of sources, and they would like to know how cross-
sectoral issues are incorporated into a project such as this, which is headed, by environment
Ministries and Departments. He hoped they might hear from each country on the issues included in
the questionnaire.
6.2.5 Mr. Santoso stated that in Indonesia this project was considered to be very important. There
are four government departments, Environmental Office, Forestry, Marine and Fisheries, and Home
Affairs, which are directly involved with mangrove resources and they had worked out how each
department could be involved. He noted the differences associated with state forests and non-state
forests; protected areas and production forests under forestry department control, while other forests
are under the jurisdiction of the Marine and Fisheries department. He provided further information on
the issues involved with sourcing co-financing from local government and the departments of Forestry
and Marine and Fisheries, for the Batu Ampar demonstration site, and also input from the private
sector, particularly with regard to black and white charcoal production, in the demonstration site.
6.2.6 Dr. Sonjai then proceeded to provide an historical overview of Thailand's efforts at mangrove
conservation, noting there had been a shift from the conversion of mangroves for shrimp farming
which had dominated the seventies and eighties such that mangrove in the Gulf of Thailand was
reduced to a mere 20% by 1991. Efforts at management included land use planning, but as so much
land was private land, it was hard to manage. Re-forestation efforts concentrated around river mouths
and abandoned shrimp farms following the King's policy statements of around 15 years ago,
regarding the national importance and significance of the mangrove ecosystems. From the year 2000,
no further concessions to cut mangroves have been issued, community and NGO participation in
mangrove conservation has increased, as has public participation in mangrove replanting. He noted
the importance of the dialogue initiated through this project between Cambodia and Thailand on the
transboundary management of mangrove resources near the border. It is hoped that similar dialogue
may start with Myanmar.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 9
6.2.7 Mr. Barangan then provided the Philippines perspective noting that the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources is responsible for natural forests, including mangroves and that
this project is considered to be an important supporting effort for these responsibilities. The
demonstration site in Palawan, occurs in the areas of richest remaining mangrove in the Philippines,
which is now a National Mangrove Reserve area. Some authority for mangrove management has
been transferred to the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. He noted that: lobbying has been
going on to reverse the amendment to the law, which bans the cutting of mangroves; the present
Secretary for DENR is very interested in mangrove resources; and, that recent satellite data suggests
that mangrove area has increased, in the Philippines but ground truthing is required to verify this
information.
6.2.8 Dr. Fan proceeded to provide the Chinese perspective noting that from around 10 years ago,
at a meeting on biodiversity conservation, mangrove protection had become increasingly important to
the Chinese government, and funding had increased accordingly. The Chinese Government has co-
financed this project by nearly 2 million US$ and Fangchenggang Local Government has provided an
additional US$30,000. They have selected the demonstration site according to criteria determined by
the Regional Working Group on mangroves and local government inputs had been utilised, although
this was not always easy. Local government participation has been found to be very useful in gaining
local support for the demonstration site proposal and the project activities in Fangchenggang are very
well known at both the Central and local Government levels, as well as among universities and other
institutions. People have become aware that mangrove resources in China are limited, in comparison
with other countries of the region, and important to the livelihood of many people.
6.2.9 Dr. Sam provided his views regarding some of the issues in the questionnaire from the
perspective of Viet Nam. He noted that the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources is
responsible for the project and has established a National Committee that includes a number of
ministries. This committee meets regularly to discuss all components covered under this project,
including the 4 marine habitat sub-components, land based pollution, and fisheries. He said that one
action plan covering the 6 components will be prepared for Viet Nam, and this will be presented to the
Government for endorsement. Dr. Sam noted that Viet Nam has declared 2 national parks, and some
national reserves for mangroves and numerous civil society groups are involved in mangrove
replanting. He considered that the project had benefited Viet Nam in a number of ways including in
stimulating cross-sectoral approaches to marine and coastal habitat management.
6.2.10 Mr. Vongwattana provided the Cambodian perspective noting that Cambodia is attempting to
increase allocation to the environment sector. He noted that the International Monetary Fund and
Asian Development Bank have provided some financial resources, but that generally funds are not
available for cash co-financing, but in kind co financing is available. He noted that the demonstration
site selection process has been strongly supported by the national mangrove committee and local
government. He noted that the project provides a good opportunity for Cambodia to be involved in a
regional network from which they can learn much on mangrove management. Mr. Vong, added that
the project provides an opportunity in Cambodia for country ownership of the in country activities and
facilitates vertical and horizontal communication within government departments, and also with NGOs,
down to the community level. He noted that there are 6 protected areas along the coast, but the
Government has limited funds for their effective management.
6.2.11 Mr. Harstad then asked Dr. Grasland if she could introduce the question on sustainability and
invite those members who had not yet commented on sustainability to address this question, and in
particular how regional cooperation might be continued following the completion of project activities.
6.2.12 Mr. Santoso noted that the inclusion of local government, private sector, and communities in
project activities and capacity building of local expertise through the period of the project would help
with the sustainability of the demonstration site and other project activities in the longer term.
6.2.13 Dr. Sonjai informed the meeting that the support of the Royal Family for mangrove related
projects serves as an important cornerstone in maintaining the momentum of the activities initiated
under this project. A National Mangrove Ecosystem Seminar on mangrove research and management
involving four to five hundred people will be convened next year, and proposals for sustainability will
be developed at this meeting for submission to Cabinet. Other habitat sub-component representatives
will also be invited to this meeting, to facilitate cross-sectoral communication. Information on the
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 10
demonstration site will also be posted on GLOMIS ensuring wider appreciation of the activities and
hence potentially attracting additional external support.
6.2.14 Mr. Barangan provided some information on support for mangrove activities in the Philippines,
which could also be utilised in ensuring sustainability. Other government agencies, local
governments, and universities are involved in mangrove and coastal area management, and NGOs,
all of which should facilitate sustainability of project activities.
6.2.15 Dr. Fan informed the meeting that sustainability in China was supported by annual budget
allocations from central government. He noted that the budget for the Beilun Estuary protected area
was for salaries only, and not for activities. Therefore to sustain activities, additional funds would need
to be raised from the local government who had already provided 600,000 Yuan to construct an
educational and awareness centre in Fangchenggang. He noted further the possibility of securing part
of the sea use fees as regular income for sustaining project activities at the site.
6.2.16 Dr. Fan further noted that natural shrimp from mangroves was increasing in price, and
therefore some of this increased value should be incorporated into the valuations of mangrove lands.
Increases in land value due to the appreciation of natural environment and resources could result in
increased government financial allocation to the management of mangroves in the future. He noted
further potential sources of revenue including companies making donations to conservation initiatives,
which is being encouraged by government through certain preferential considerations being provided
to such companies. He noted that these ideas regarding sustainability would need to be explored
more fully during the next three years.
6.2.17 Mr. Vongwattana informed the meeting that there is growing Government support in
Cambodia for mangrove activities, which should assist in sustainability. Mr. Vong added that user
rights should be provided to the community through sub-decree and commune council decisions,
although no direct funding would be available in support of these decrees a development plan
prepared in conjunction with these rights could result in generation of income for future management.
There is also an environmental trust fund, which can be used in future support whilst ecotourism
activities may also generate income in the future.
6.2.18 Dr. Sam stated that in Viet Nam a decision to provide support from Government had been
taken and the activities of institutions in research on mangrove management should assist in future
sustainability. A growing awareness of the damage caused to mangroves from shrimp pond
conversion should also assist since there were moves towards imposing sustainable management
systems for mangroves. Policy and planning for future benefit in Viet Nam is starting to take into
consideration the value of the ecosystem, rather than the merely the value of the timber products.
6.2.19 Dr. Gong provided her personal impressions of the project, noting that the approaches
adopted were novel for a regional project and were developed through group discussions. She noted
that issues regarding sustainability are very relevant at this point in project execution and that some
answers to these questions will probably be forthcoming under agenda items 7 and 8.
6.2.20 Using the Matang sustainable mangrove forestry site in Malaysia as an example of a tropical
forest where sustainable use has been ongoing, for the past 100 years, she noted that this
management regime was self sustaining, and could be a useful demonstration site for this project.
Regarding sustainability, Dr. Gong noted that Kung Kraben Bay would also be a useful demonstration
site, which did not require GEF funding. This site is guaranteed sustainability, as it is supported as a
royal project.
6.2.21 Finally she noted that some of the remaining questions could probably be better answered
later, as the project continues. She noted that: the causal chain analysis conducted under this project
has been useful in identifying the root causes of the problems; regional cooperation under this project
has helped at levelling the playing field in regard to the state of knowledge of the different habitats in
each country; and that the management system of the project, facilitates communication between
scientists and policy makers at the national level.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 11
6.2.22 Mr. Barangan added that the Philippines is introducing tenurial instruments for up to 25 years,
renewable for a further twenty five years, and it is hoped that this will help communities to sustainably
use mangrove resources through provision of legal rights to resource users.
6.2.23 Dr. Tri noted that before this project commenced, not all countries had a national mangrove
committee or an action plan and that now all countries have at least a draft NAP and a functioning
national committee. He noted that many of the issues are common to each country, but that each had
different policies and procedures for addressing them. He noted further that efforts at conducting
economic valuation were of considerable benefit to the countries in justifying the NAPs, and that there
had been good progress to date but there that there were still some constraints to be overcome.
6.2.24 The Chairperson then invited the representative from the Trat demonstration site to make a
presentation on the demonstration site at Trat. In response to a question on the view of the local
people he stated that the local communities welcomed the wider participation of people from other
countries in learning from their experiences and that the people would be proud and happy to show
the site activities to other people. Transboundary activities should enhance the overall success of the
project, as Peam Krasop was very close to Trat, though he was unsure of the logistics involved in
day-to-day liaison between the sites. Dr. Sonjai indicated that the logistics were being taken care of
under a ministerial declaration to be signed between the 2 countries.
6.2.25 In concluding the discussions Mr. Harstad said that he was impressed by the obvious
commitment and enthusiasm for the project among the members, and thanked them for their valuable
inputs.
6.2.26 Dr. Pernetta took the opportunity of this discussion to inform the meeting that the SMPR was
the third Monitoring and Evaluation exercise that the project had been subjected to this year. These
reviews consumed considerable staff resources within the PCU. He noted that only on Friday last had
the outputs of one of these reviews been brought to his attention. This was the output from the 2004
programme study of the IW portfolio. He noted that the evaluator Dr. Laurence Mee had visited
Bangkok for three days and that the PCU had organised the meeting of the Executive Committee of
the RSTC to coincide with this visit to provide the evaluator with an opportunity to talk to
representatives of some of the participating countries.
6.2.27 Dr. Pernetta noted that the second draft of the report had been acquired by the PCU only
recently, and only by indirect means; that the PCU had not had a chance to review the text of the first
draft, despite the fact that a number of project initiatives had been cited in the report. This second
draft had been distributed quite widely, and there were some inaccuracies that should have been
corrected before the second draft was produced.
6.2.28 Dr. Uitto informed the meeting that the first draft of the evaluation had been received by
UNDP and UNEP in Nairobi approximately 2 months ago, and they had been given approximately
one month to solicit comments and submit them to the evaluators. Comments made by UNDP had
been incorporated into the second draft.
6.2.29 Dr. Fan studied the text of the box concerning the Fangchenggang site, and noted some
serious inaccuracies and misunderstandings that if they received wide circulation in China would be
politically damaging. For example, the reasons quoted for stopping the 1994 plans to remove the
urban mangroves in 1998 was incorrect as was the timing; the US$ 30,000 co-financing from the
Fangchenggang municipality was not for a GIS system as reported in the review, but for preliminary
baseline investigations on biological, socio-economic, and other aspects of the site and establishment
of a management committee, support for the GIS had come from Central Government. Thirdly, the
urban mangroves are only a small part of the total site, which includes the Beilun Natural Reserve, a
large area established for biodiversity conservation purposes rather than ecotourism. The main
reason for establishing the urban mangrove management area was not for ecotourism, but as an
urban marine park and educational centre. He noted further that the company had no ownership
rights over the mangroves, but did have management responsibility for them. The text in the box
implies that the site was established for economic reasons, and not for conservation, which is also not
correct. The purpose of the site is to determine how to use mangroves wisely, and the main purpose
of the reserve is for conservation, restoration, and for the improvement of management capacity.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 12
6.2.30 Dr. Pernetta suggested that Dr. Fan correct and rewrite the text for the box, and that this
would be transmitted to the author by facsimile and e-mail as rapidly as possible to ensure that the
corrections could be made before the text was finalised and published.
6.2.31 In the light of this discussion Dr. Pernetta noted that it was very difficult to "quality control" the
accuracy of the contents of second hand reports regarding the project and its outcomes. He was
aware for example that newspaper articles are published in participating countries concerning project
activities and cited the example of an English language article published in Viet Nam regarding the
Mangrove National Action Plan.
6.2.32 Dr. Pernetta proposed, and the meeting agreed that, focal points would scan electronically
any newspaper articles, provide a few words of brief translation if the article was not in English, and
send these to the PCU so they can be included on the project website. It was further agreed that focal
points would send a note to the PCU advising of any other media coverage of the project, such as
television or radio interviews.
6.2.33 With regard to increasing the media coverage of the project in the region, and hence the
profile of the project, Dr. Sonjai suggested that a press conference should be held at the launch of
each demonstration site, followed by another 1 year later to report on the progress. Mr. Santoso
suggested that all future RWG meetings should be publicised through convening a press conference
in conjunction with the meeting. Members discussed these recommendations with respect to the
possibilities in their own countries, and unanimously supported the recommendations for immediate
implementation.
7.
REVIEW OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING INPUTS TO
THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
7.1
Review of the Contents of the Draft National Action Plans with a View to Identifying
Commonalities and Differences
7.1.1 Dr. Pernetta informed the meeting that updated drafts of the NAPs had been received only
recently, and there had therefore been insufficient time for the PCU to undertake an in depth review of
their contents. A brief review was included as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/7, which includes
a tabulated review of the contents of the coral reef action plans as a potential model for consideration
by the meeting.
7.1.2 Dr. Pernetta suggested that it might be helpful to review the reasons why the large number of
NAPs prepared in many parts of the world in the past had not resulted in sufficient action on the
ground to reverse environmental degradation trends. He stated that from his perspective the major
reasons why many plans had not resulted in action was that they did not provide adequate guidance
to operational level managers on what should be done, where it should be done, who should do it
when it should be done, what the costs would be and what were the priorities for intervention. He
noted that most "Action Plans" were in fact little more that statements of policy and principle, without
the necessary guidance as to how the plan should be implemented.
7.1.3 Dr. Pernetta pointed out that a SAP prepared with funding support from the GEF needs to
include a targeted and costed set of prioritised actions and if the NAPs were in fact to be consonant
with the SAP then it was necessary that the NAPs should include an indication of the prioritised
actions, targets and timeframes if these were to be used as the basis for action at the regional level.
He stressed that a regional SAP must be based upon a set of targeted and costed NAPs if it were to
be an effective instrument for change.
7.1.4 Dr. Pernetta outlined the ideal overall contents of the document, in terms of the background
information that should be included in, or be made available in supporting documentation to the NAP,
noting that much of this information had been assembled by the focal points during the last two years.
In addition to information on the overall distribution of mangroves nationally, there should be detailed
information as to where actions should take place, why they should be implemented in those
locations, when they should be executed, who is responsible for the various actions, and the costs of
alternative forms of intervention.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 13
7.1.5 Dr. Pernetta added that the value of mangroves as carbon sinks may be an additional reason
for both conserving and restoring them and that potentially the value of the carbon credits could be
used to establish a regional trust fund in support of the regional co-ordination and implementation of
the SAP. A mangrove based carbon credit fund may be a good idea for the region. Some discussion
followed and there was obvious interest in the concept, though there was insufficient time to develop
the idea further during the meeting.
7.1.6 Dr. Pernetta proposed, and the meeting agreed, to undertake an analysis of the content of the
draft NAPs, and develop a table similar to that completed during the Coral Reef working group
meeting two weeks earlier. It was agreed that as an introduction to this analysis each focal point
would briefly present their own NAPs to the meeting, so that the group could see what were the
similarities and differences between them.
7.1.7 Mr. Santoso proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation of the NAP for Indonesia. The first
draft had been developed before the SCS project commenced, back in the period from 1993-1996.
This was revised in 1997, and further revised in 2003 and 2004, when responsibility and a timetable
for actions, greater stakeholder consultation, and provincial level support were included in the actions
at site level. Mr. Santoso said he could foresee that it would be difficult to determine the costs of the
actions associated with the NAP in Indonesia. He added that provincial level action plans are easier to
develop in a country as diverse and of such geographic dispersion as Indonesia. Dr. Pernetta said he
was aware of the difficulties faced by Indonesia, but a generic set of actions without indicating the
location of the actions would not achieve a great deal.
7.1.8 Mr. Santoso followed this with a brief presentation of the contents of a publication containing
information on the Mangrove Ecosystem in Indonesia, which was essentially the Indonesian National
Report.
7.1.9 Dr. Pernetta requested that focal points provide some indication of the legal status of the NAP
and whether it had already started going through the approval process within the government, as this
would dictate how to proceed with a revision of the documents. Mr. Santoso replied that the plan has
not yet passed through the approval stage, and can still be modified before final approval. There were
many steps still required before the NAP can be approved.
7.1.10 Mr. Santoso noted that Indonesia wanted the NAP to emphasise potential multiple use of
mangroves, including fisheries, charcoal production, and eco-tourism. Dr. Gong asked whether due to
limited funds, activities under the NAP would be restricted to only one site, or several sites, in the
initial period. Mr. Santoso indicated that they would need to prioritise the sites for more immediate
action.
7.1.11 Dr. Fan then presented the outline of the Chinese NAP, which had been completed in
Chinese, and was being translated into English. Following the presentation, and in reply to a question
from Dr. Tri, Dr. Fan stated there were some issues to be dealt with regarding who will finally approve
the National Action Plan, since use of the term "National" means that very high level approval from
Central Government would be required. The fact that mangroves come under Forestry in Forestry law
and the Marine Department in Marine law means that some arguments over jurisdiction occur
between these departments, and these would probably have to be resolved at a higher level. Thus the
NAP has not yet moved into the final approval stage.
7.1.12 Dr. Sam then presented the Vietnamese NAP, based on the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-M.5/8 Vie. Again the issue of who would approve the NAP had been raised at the national level
and it had been decided that the NAP would come under the Wetland Management Strategy, and
would be approved by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, together with the NAPs for
the other 5 components or sub-components under the SCS project. This linking with the other
components would also contribute to delays in the approval process, as it must wait until all NAPs
have been completed. Dr. Tri added that the Vietnamese NAP has been developed in four priority
areas for intervention in Viet Nam, i.e. Northern Viet Nam, Can Gio, Mekong Delta, and Minh Hai.
7.1.13 Dr. Sonjai added that the Biosphere Reserve in Can Gio is a very good example of
management in Viet Nam, and this could be a good example for the other sites, as it included core
zone, buffer zone, and transition zone in the management strategy.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 14
7.1.14 Dr. Uitta thanked the meeting for allowing the SMPR team to participate, and apologised they
now had to leave for their flight to Bangkok, and on to Indonesia tomorrow. Mr. Takashi added his
appreciation for the opportunity to learn about the project through observing the meeting and added
that his main role at present in Nairobi was in the development of the MSP demonstration projects.
7.1.15 Mr. Barangan made a PowerPoint presentation of the NAP for the Philippines. He pointed out
that all the information he was presenting was included in expanded form in the NAP included in the
meeting documents. Dr. Tri asked if the sites had been prioritised, and in reply, Mr. Barangan said
they would like to prioritise the sites, but this had not yet been done. Most areas identified were in
southern and central Philippines, with Palawan having the most mangrove forests. There followed
some discussion on disputes between people occupying the land, around abandoned shrimp and
fishponds for example. Mr. Barangan said they hoped that the issue of tenurial agreements for people
with a historical presence in the area would help minimise these disputes, but at the same time did
not want this to encourage more people to move into the area, making the problem worse.
7.1.16 Mr. Barangan added that this NAP as presented was extracted from the larger forest
management plan, and that the approval process had been going on for a considerable period for this
wider document. The mangrove portion of that plan can still be modified, based on deliberations in the
Regional Working Group meeting, and to conform with the priority programme of the new Secretary of
the DENR.
7.1.17 Mr. Vongwattana then presented the NAP for Cambodia, as included in the meeting
documents. Mr. Vong said that funding was not available at the moment to prepare a costed action
plan, and therefore this document was more in the form of a strategy. The document had been
screened and agreed in principle by the Committee and there were some funds available for
enforcement and conflict resolution in the protected areas. It was possible that site level action plans
would be scaled up to the National Level.
7.1.18 Dr. Sonjai presented the NAP for Thailand. Population increase, particularly in the coastal
areas, has led to an increase in mangrove destruction, as mangroves have been cleared for timber,
salt production, and shrimp farms. Only 20% of the mangroves in 1961 were still present in 1991. The
intervention of the King in 1991 had led to an increase in mangrove conservation and restoration.
Included in the NAP for Thailand were specific targets for increasing the area of mangroves within 5
years, and also for increasing areas as non-hunting areas and mangrove reserves.
7.1.19 Dr. Tri asked whether it would be an easy process to integrate the King's project and other
projects into the NAP and in response Dr. Sonjai noted that the Biosphere Reserve project and the
King's project were quite similar in concept, and could easily be integrated into the NAP. If other
projects followed a similar strategy as the King's project and Biosphere Reserve, there should be no
problem with integration into the NAP. Dr. Sonjai provided an historical overview of a community
based mangrove rehabilitation project at Sawi Bay, Chumporn Province that he had been involved in,
which was very successful with a budget that was very small. However, the success was not
maintained in the longer term since after several years, some of the people had accepted money from
developers to take over the replanted areas for shrimp farm development.
7.1.20 Mr. Barangan asked Dr. Sonjai about plans to train resource personnel, and whether this had
been done before. Dr. Sonjai stated that previous experience with training had involved only limited
numbers of people, mainly government officials. In reply to a further question, Dr. Sonjai added that
many of the people trained had left the mangrove area, and gone to work elsewhere. He hoped that,
by training people from the community rather than Government officials, these people would remain in
the mangrove area.
7.1.21 Following all the NAP presentations, Dr. Sam asked the Project Director, whether they all
satisfy the requirements of the project, or should they be re written following an agreed format. Dr.
Pernetta stated that the requirement of the project was that there would be an approved NAP in each
country, the format was not critical, and should be one that is acceptable and appropriate for the
country concerned. It was important however to ensure that the agreed contents were all present in
the document or in supporting documents related to the Action Plan.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 15
7.1.22 Dr. Pernetta suggested however that a more in depth analysis was required to see whether
the information suggested in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/7 was included in each of the
NAPs, and if not, was this a deliberate omission based on some National requirements, or just an
oversight. Dr. Gong and Dr. Tri volunteered to prepare an initial tabulation of the contents of several
of the NAPs, and then each country could inform the meeting which of these are included in their own
NAP.
7.1.23 Dr. Gong noted that financial considerations might be a limiting factor for some countries in
realistically being able to achieve the targets of their NAPs. Dr. Pernetta stated that financial
limitations would definitely play an important role in executing the NAPs, and this was one reason for
prioritisation of the sites and the interventions included in the NAP. A NAP should be achievable, and
should not therefore be overly ambitious. One type of activity that should be the first to be culled from
NAPs where funding was limited would be research activities, unless these were critical to answering
questions required for management interventions. Priority actions should be those that address the
problems identified.
7.1.24 In order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the actions included in the NAPs from
each country Professor Gong and Dr. Tri presented two tables they had prepared overnight. The first
was based on the Thailand NAP, and the second adapted from the table prepared at the 5th meeting
of the Coral Reef Working Group, and included in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/7. It was left
to the group to decide which one they preferred to proceed with. Dr. Pernetta pointed out that this
exercise would help countries determine what expertise one country might be able to offer to others in
areas where capacity was lacking. It would also prove useful in determining how the national actions
could contribute to a regional SAP. Referring to the table based on the Thai NAP, he pointed out that
many of the actions listed for Thailand were not actually specific actions, but more generic in nature
hence it might be difficult for other members to identify whether or not such actions were included in
their own plans.
7.1.25 The table prepared by China was also presented by Dr. Fan as a possible framework.
Following extensive discussion it was finally agreed that an adaptation of the table prepared at the
coral reef meeting would be the most appropriate to use in this exercise. Rather than simply providing
a yes or no answer as to whether the action was included in their own NAP, each country was asked
to rank the actions with a code indicating the priority of those actions in their country. If an action was
not included in the country's NAP, then an X would be entered into the cell.
7.1.26 Dr. Pernetta pointed out that this exercise did not necessarily mean that any existing NAPs
that were well on their way towards government approval would need to be changed. Where these
NAPs were found to be deficient in any important aspect, then the relevant focal point could prepare
additional supporting documents for the NAP which could be used in executing the plan.
7.1.27 Commencing with Cambodia, focal points proceeded to provide the required information,
which was entered into the table. During discussion Focal Points indicated where in their NAPs the
information was contained that, supported the assignment of the priority code to each action. Mr.
Santoso provided the information from the revised Indonesian NAP, which was unfortunately only
available to the meeting in Bahasa Indonesia, resulting in other members not being able to contribute
to the analysis of the document.
7.1.28 The table was completed in draft, and subsequently revised after members scrutinised their
NAPs more closely in relation to their initial responses. The finalised version of the table is attached
as Annex 5 to this report (see paragraph 7.1.31 below).
7.1.29 Having completed the analysis of the NAPs, the Chairperson asked what members felt was
the next step in developing the NAPs. Dr. Pernetta pointed out that there were a number of cells in
the completed table that did not have a priority code, indicating they were not included in the NAP. He
suggested members may like to consider whether there were components of other NAPs that they
would like to include in their draft NAPs.
7.1.30 Mr. Vong said that while there may be components of the other NAPs that should be included
in their NAP, the Cambodian focal point could not unilaterally commit to those modifications, but
would need to take the suggestions for change back to the National Committee. Dr. Gong noted that
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 16
this was likely the case for many countries but suggested that some other countries may be able to
commit now to changes they wished to make to their NAPs or would be recommending to their
National Committees.
7.1.31 The Chairperson invited other focal points to comment and Mr. Barangan noted that he had
found the discussion very helpful and that where Xs were present, indicating those actions were not
included in the draft NAP for the Philippines, he would like to amend the plan to include each of these
items, as he considered these were useful in the context of the Philippines NAP. He said he would
present these proposed changes to the National Mangrove Committee in the Philippines.
7.1.32 Focal points agreed to take a copy of the table containing the actions analysed previously as
rows and columns relating to the implementing agency, timeframes, finances etc and complete the
cells overnight with a yes or no depending on whether the required information was included in their
own NAPs. These tables are presented in Annex 6 of this report.
7.1.33 Dr. Tri projected the review of contents of the NAPs, in which the priority scores had been
included by each country. Following a brief discussion, all focal points agreed that they would be
undertaking some modifications to the existing drafts and agreed a timeframe for completing second
drafts and final drafts of the NAPs. It was further agreed that these deadlines would be incorporated
into the work plan and timetable to be discussed under agenda item 9 and that this table would be
followed to develop the targets for the SAP, although the formats for individual country NAPs would
not necessarily be the same.
7.2
Discussion on the Inputs from the Mangrove Sub-component to the Regional Strategic
Action Programme (SAP), Review of the SAP Targets and Goals and Discussion of the
Process of Integrating NAP and SAP Development
7.2.1 The Chairperson invited Dr. Pernetta to introduce this agenda item and Dr. Pernetta referred
participants to the Strategic Action Programme for the South China Sea (Draft Version 3, 24 February
1999) included in the meeting documents. He stated that the document was originally produced in
1998 and it provided justification for taking action to reverse the environmental degradation in the
region, resulting in this project being approved by the GEF.
7.2.2 He further stated that the targets and goals established in this document, based on
information available in 1999, are now out-dated. It will be necessary to review the contents of the
SAP in the light of more current and up-to-date information including that contained in the National
Reports. In particular a review of the target for mangroves set in that draft SAP, i.e. To maintain the
area of mangroves in the region at not less than 90% of the 1998 level, needed to be undertaken, and
modified if it was now deemed unrealistic, indeterminable, or unachievable.
7.2.3 The Chairperson stated that at the present time in Indonesia 67% of mangroves are
contained in state forests. He invited input from the other members in reviewing the target of the SAP.
Professor Gong asked whether the information that had been included in the booklet "Mangroves in
the South China Sea" produced by the RWG mangroves earlier this year might be of use. Dr. Pernetta
provided the figures on mangroves for each country from that booklet, which he said were from the
FAO based on information supplied by the Governments of each country. These figures indicate that
the total area of mangroves in the countries participating in the Project had declined from 30% to 27%
of the worldwide total over the last decade.
7.2.4 Dr. Gong stated that the target of maintaining the percentage of mangroves at 90% of the
1998 level was probably not realistic. She thought that setting a target area to be under sustainable
use may be more appropriate. Dr. Pernetta presented the relevant section from the draft RWG-CR
meeting report to show how the revised targets for the coral reef group were developed. The coral
reef targets included a quality as well as a quantity related target. The meeting agreed that this was a
useful approach and Dr. Tri proceeded to prepare the table for input of the relevant information.
Members provided the most recent information on the total mangrove area in their country, and the
percentage of this currently under management for sustainable use.
7.2.5 Dr. Gong noted that, if officially a number of countries had 100% of their mangroves under
management for sustainable use, and yet mangroves were still decreasing, it was apparent that the
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 17
management was not always effective. Dr. Pernetta stated it was obvious that there could not be
100% of mangroves under management for sustainable use, as the coverage was still decreasing.
While it may be that there was a ban on cutting, he asked whether there was a management body
that managed each of the mangrove areas. Mr. Barangan said that although there was a
management body for all areas in the Philippines, the management was not always effective, and
bans on cutting were not always enforced.
7.2.6 There followed extensive discussion about management for sustainable use, management for
multiple uses, and the obvious lack of enforcement of current management regulations. Based on this
discussion, it was agreed to add another row to the table, for the percentage of mangroves effectively
managed at the present time. The National targets were then revised to be 90% of the total
mangroves for all countries to be placed under effective management, except for Indonesia, which
proposed 60%. When these National targets were totalled and compared to the regional total area of
mangroves, it was determined that the regional target would be that 64% of mangroves in the
participating countries would be placed under effective management regimes by the year 2010.
7.2.7 Mr. Vong stated that in line with the coral reef group, a target concerning the quality of the
mangroves should also be set. Professor Gong agreed with the suggestion, though the group had
difficulties in determining measurable quality criteria for mangroves.
7.2.8 It was realised by the group that the figures they were working with were total areas of
mangrove for the whole country, and these would have to be replaced, in the cases of Indonesia,
Philippines, and Thailand, with the areas of Mangrove bordering the South China Sea. Dr. Pernetta
also asked for the areas that were currently under protection in the South China Sea. Focal Points
then provided these data and it was calculated that 27% of mangroves were currently under
protection, 52% under management for production, and 13% were designated for conversion, leaving
8% with no stated purpose or management regime. Dr. Pernetta asked whether it was possible to
target this 8% for protection?
7.2.9 Mr. Santoso explained that the situation in Indonesia was quite complicated, with the
production forest consisting of fixed production and non-fixed production forests. The total area
covered by fixed production forests could be expected to remain the same, while the non-fixed
production forest areas may decrease depending on the uses to which they were subject. Dr. Gong
noted that the group had had some informal discussions on the issue of biodiversity, and asked
whether this was also considered in areas of mangroves under protection. It was also important to
know how much of the production forests was sustainable production, i.e. not resulting in a loss of
overall area.
7.2.10 The definition of "effectively managed at the present time" was questioned. Since no clear
definition could be provided, and based on the fact that the group had now included the areas under
protection in the table, it was agreed that this row was redundant and could be deleted. The table
indicates that 27% of the current mangrove area bordering the South China Sea is under protection.
The individual percentages currently under protection in each country were calculated, and a target
percentage was then set for each country. Some discussion followed as to how each country thought
they might be able to achieve these targets, and whether they were in fact realistic. For example, how
much could Indonesia realistically move out of production and conversion forests, and place under
protection. Mr. Santoso said it was very difficult for him to make a statement committing his
Government to a target at this meeting.
7.2.11 Dr. Tri stated that Indonesia had already made a commitment under the CBD, and Mr.
Santoso may be able to use this to help establish a target. Dr. Pernetta pointed out that Indonesia had
a higher area designated for conversion than for protection, and this would not be viewed favourably
internationally.
7.2.12 There followed a discussion of the targets during which Dr. Sonjai said that targets should be
established, as this provides something to aim for, even though they may not be achieved. Dr.
Pernetta said that in his opinion, targets that are not achievable should never be set and added that
the targets set here should be based on science, rather than political considerations. If the targets are
set with sufficient justification, this may help convince the politicians that the targets should be
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 18
adopted. Mr. Santoso stated that based on scientific considerations he would set a target of 60% to
be protected.
7.2.13 It was finally agreed that national targets be set, for the purpose of arriving at a provisional
target for the SAP, with the concession that they may be changed in the future if required. The
provisional target for the SAP was that 66% of the present area should be brought under protection by
the year 2010. It was also agreed that an email discussion would be required after this meeting to
further refine the targets, if any progress was to be made before the next meeting.
Table 1
Areas of Mangrove under different forms of management and potential targets for
mangrove protection to be included in the SAP.
Cambodia
China
Indonesia Philippines Thailand
Viet
Nam
Total
Percent
Total area (ha)
72,350
23,446
934,000
24,783
34,677
156,608 1,245,864
Production 0
0
610,800
0
0
40,000
650,800
52
Protection
13,558 15,772
158,200
23,143
11,520
115,000 337,193
27
% 19
67
17
93
33
73
27
Target (%)
90
90
60
95
70
80 66
Area (ha)
65,115
21,101
560,400
23,544
24,274
125,286 819,721
Conversion area
0
0
165,000
0
0
0
165,000
13
Under-management
13,558 15,772
769,000
23,143
11,520
155,000
(Regulated in laws)
Fixed production
343,800
Non-fixed production
267,000
8.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES AT THE DEMONSTRATION SITES
8.1
Progress Report on the Demonstration Site Activities
8.1.1 The Project Director introduced this agenda item, drawing the attention of members to the
revised proposals for Fangchenggang and Trat contained in documents UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M/
Inf.4 and UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M/Inf.5 of the meeting documents. He noted that to date no
demonstration site operational document had been approved but that in the case of Fangchenggang
activities were proceeding using the available co-financing.
8.1.2 In order to show what was required in finalising the other proposals, Dr. Pernetta presented to
the meeting the steps that the PCU had undertaken in order to develop the latest version of the Trat
proposal for Thailand. He said that there were a number of problems with the initial Trat proposal,
which had to be addressed, for example, some objectives had no activities, and there were some
activities that did not relate to the objectives. Following re-organisation and rewording of the activities
these had been individually costed using defined parameters such as numbers and size of meetings,
costs of travel, equipment etc. Sufficient detail was provided to permit an external observer to see
exactly where the funds from Government and the GEF would be spent. The budget was present in
two formats by component and activity, and by object of expenditure (UNEP format).
8.1.3 The PCU had worked with the focal points for China, Thailand, and Cambodia on the
improvement of the proposals and put them into a format and condition to satisfy the requirements of
UNEP/GEF before the funding could be provided. Dr. Pernetta urged focal points working on other
demonstration site proposals to take note of the amount of work, which had been undertaken in
getting these proposals into an acceptable condition, and to immediately work on their own proposals.
He further added that he would be in Nairobi on 24th October, where he intended to seek approval for
any proposals that were in the final acceptable format by that time.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 19
8.2
Regional Co-ordination of Activities in the Approved Demonstration Sites
8.2.1 The Chairperson introduced this agenda item by informing members of the decision taken at
the Third Meeting of the Project Steering Committee, regarding the co-ordination of regional activities
associated with the execution of the demonstration sites, namely that:
"the concerned Regional Working Group be given responsibility for co-ordination of
activities at all demonstration sites within each component and that the RWG continue
to report to, and be advised by the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee
regarding overlap, potential collaboration and/or synergy that might be foreseen
between the demonstration sites in each component".
8.2.2 The Project Director provided a summary of the contents of Annex 8 of document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3 "Report of the third meeting of the Project Steering Committee", which was
included in the documents for this meeting. He noted that the Regional Working Group should discuss
and agree on how they wished to proceed, based on the relevant recommendations contained in that
document. He further noted that there was a budget included in Table 1 of annex 8 of the report of the
third meeting of the Project Steering Committee, which covered the costs associated with the
exchange programme and therefore the RWG need not concern themselves with financial matters.
8.2.3 Prompted by a comment from Dr. Pernetta, Dr. Tri said that language difficulties associated
with exchange visits need to be carefully considered. He added that it was also very important to
consider what was to be demonstrated at the demonstration site, so that the appropriate personnel
could be sent. Dr. Pernetta added that a list of what can be demonstrated at each site should be
generated, which included an estimate of how long would be required for exchange personnel to
adequately benefit from the learning exercise. Also important was information on the expertise lacking
in demonstration sites, so that this could be matched against expertise available at other sites.
8.2.4 Dr. Tri said that after these lists are developed, they should be consolidated into a single
document, and translated into each language for dissemination to the demonstration sites, so that
people at the site level can see what is available.
8.2.5 Dr. Fan stated that English language was likely to be a significant problem for staff at
Fangchenggang. He suggested that, as he has access to some students who can speak English, they
may be able to assist in translating for people who visit the site. He also said that in future, when they
graduated, these students would probably be working at the demonstration site, and therefore these
individuals may be selected to go on the exchange programme.
8.2.6 Discussion continued on the possible language difficulties that may be faced, and it was
agreed that although the issue was important, each country would need to find their own way to
ensure the difficulties were overcome. Dr. Pernetta pointed out that there was group training and
individual training covered under the budget, and in the case of group training it might be possible to
include translators/interpreters in the group.
8.2.7
A table was prepared of the potential "demonstration elements" at each site and it was noted
that these broad categories were not sufficiently well defined to provide clear guidance regarding
exactly what was to be demonstrated through exchange visits study tours and other mechanisms and
what was the potential value to potential candidates. It was agreed that members would prepare a
brief statement regarding what could be offered by each demonstration site, what the needs were for
personnel training at the site, and details of optimum timing and duration of visits by exchange
personnel at the site. It was agreed that this would be done within one month of the closure of the
meeting.
9.
WORK PLAN OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES FOR THE
PERIOD 2004-2007
9.1
Based on the discussion and agreements reached under the previous agenda items, the
Regional Working Group considered its work plan for the period 2004 2007. This includes the
timetable for finalising and securing high level government approval of the National Action Plans, and
the publication of national reports in local language in those cases where the SEAs have not
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Page 20
completed them. The plan also considered the further development of the NAPs, and contributions to
the regional SAP, as well as the finalisation of demonstration site proposals.
9.2
The work plan was discussed, revised, and agreed, as contained in Annex 7 of this report. It
was noted that this work plan would be appended to each amendment to the Memoranda of
Understanding.
10.
DATES AND PLACE OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
10.1
Members of the Regional Working Group were reminded that, according to the decision of the
Project Steering Committee, all future Regional Working Group meetings will be convened at one or
other of the demonstration sites. They were also reminded that each Regional Working Group will
have only one meeting each year from 2004 to 2007.
10.2
Mr. Santoso suggested that the sixth meeting could be held at the Batu Ampar demonstration
site in Indonesia. The meeting accepted this offer, and following consideration of the dates already set
for the Coral Reef and Seagrass meetings in 2005, and their other commitments, decided that the
meeting would be convened between August 1st to 5th. Dr. Pernetta requested that all members
ensure that they keep those dates free when planning their activities for the next 12 months.
10.3
It was further agreed that in the unfortunate event that it proved impossible to convene the
meeting in Batu Ampar it would be convened in Busuanga, in the Philippines.
10.4
The Project Director drew to the attention of members the fact that, in addition to the decision
regarding the location of future meetings the Project Steering Committee had also agreed that no
meeting could be convened in a country which had failed to deliver its agreed outputs by the due
date.
11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
11.1
No additional items were raised by members for consideration of the meeting.
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12.1
The Rapporteur presented the draft report of the meeting, prepared by the PCU during the
meeting, for consideration and adoption by the members. The report was discussed, amended and
approved as it appears in this document.
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
13.1
In calling for a motion of closure the Chairperson thanked participants for their hard work, the
PCU staff for their support and Dr. Sonjai for his excellent arrangements for the boat trip to Trat and
visit to the demonstration site.
13.2
Dr. Sonjai invited all participants to visit the demonstration site again in the future and thanked
participants for their support. Mr. Barangan thanked the hosts and remarked on the excellent visit to
the King's project in Kung Kraben. Dr. Fan thanked everyone for the congenial atmosphere and Mr.
Vong expressed appreciation for the opportunity to work with the members of the Regional Working
Group on Mangroves.
13.3 Dr. Tri thanked Khun Unchalee for the excellent social arrangements and Dr. Gong for
assistance in preparing inputs to the meeting.
13.4 There being no further matters the Chairperson closed the meeting at 18:50 on 30th
September 2004.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Ke Vongwattana, Assistant to Minister
Dr. Hangqing Fan, Professor
In charge of Mangrove and Wetland
Guangxi Mangrove Research Centre
Nature Conservation and Protection Department
92 East Changqing Road
Ministry of Environment
Beihai City 536000
48 Samdech Preah Sihanouk
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon, Cambodia
China
Tel: (855 23) 213 908
Tel:
(86 779) 206 5609; 205 5294
Mobile: (855) 12 855 990
Mobile: (86) 13 367798181
Fax: (855 23) 212 540, 215 925
Fax:
(86 779) 205 8417; 206 5609
E-mail: kewattana@yahoo.com
E-mail: fanhq@ppp.nn.gx.cn;
13367798181@gx165.com
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Nyoto Santoso
No National Focal Point designated
Lembaga Pengkajian dan Pengembangan
Mangrove Indonesia
(Indonesian of Institute Mangrove Research &
Development)
Multi Piranti Graha It 3 JL. Radin Inten II No. 2
Jakarta 13440, Indonesia
Tel:
(62 251) 621 672; (62 21) 861 1710
Mobile: (62) 081 111 0764
Fax: (62 251) 621 672; (62 21) 861 1710
E-mail: imred@indo.net.id; imred@cbn.net.id
Philippines
Thailand
Mr. Florendo Barangan, Executive Director
Dr. Sonjai Havanond
Coastal and Marine Management Office
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
Department of Environment and Natural
92 Pollution Control Building
Resources (CMMO/DENR)
Phaholyothin 7 (Soi Aree)
DENR Compound Visayas Avenue
Phayathai, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Diliman, Quezon City 1100, Philippines
Tel:
(66 2) 298 2166; 298 2591
Tel: (632) 926 1004; 926 0550
Mobile: (66) 01 811 4917; 01 173 1161
Mobile: (63) 917 840 5616
Fax:
(66 2) 298 2591-2; 298 2166; 298 2058
Fax: (632) 926 1004
E-mail: sonjai_h@hotmail.com;
E-mail: cmmo26@yahoo.com
sonjai_h@yahoo.com
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Viet Nam
Dr. Do Dinh Sam, Professor
Forest Science Institute of Viet Nam
Dong Ngac, Tu Liem
Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel:
(844) 838 9815; 755 0801; 854 2044
Fax:
(844) 838 9722
E-mail: ddsam@netnam.vn; fuongvt@hn.vnn.vn
Regional Experts
Professor Gong Wooi Khoon
Ass. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Hoang Tri, Director
Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies
Center for Environmental Research and
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Education (CERE)
11800 Penang
Hanoi University of Education
Malaysia
136 Xuan thuy, Quan Hoa
Cau Giay, Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel:
(604) 653 2371
Fax:
(604) 656 5125
Tel:
(844) 768 3502
E-mail: wkgong@usm.my; gongwk@yahoo.com
Mobile: (84) 09 1352 7629
Fax:
(844) 733 5624; 768 3502
E-mail: CERE@hn.vnn.vn
Observer
Mr. Sok Vong
(Wetlands Focal Point)
Ministry of Environment
Department of Nature Conservation & Protection
48, Samdach Preah Sihanouk
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Tel:
(855 23) 213 908; 987 740
Mobile: (855) 12 852904
Fax: (855 23) 215 925; 212 540; 987 740
E-mail: sok_vong@camintel.com;
sokvong@yahoo.com
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 1
Page 3
Global Environment Facility
Specially Managed Project Review Panel
Team Leader
Mr. Jarle Harstad, Senior M & E Coordinator
GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Global Environment Facility
1818 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
Tel:
(1 202) 458 4619
Fax:
(1 202) 552 3240; 552 3245
E-mail: jharstad@TheGEF.org
GEF Secretariat member
Ms. Sara Graslund, International Waters Specialist
Global Environment Facility
1818 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
Tel: (1 202) 458 7335
Fax: (1 202) 552 3240/3245
E-mail: sgraslund@TheGEF.org
Implementing Agency Representative
Dr. Juha Uitto, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator
Global Environment Facility
United Nations Development Programme
New York, USA
Tel:
(1 212) 906 5723
Fax:
(1 212) 906 6998
E-mail: juha.uitto@undp.org
UNEP Observer
Mr. Takashi Otsuka, Task Manager, Asia and Pacific
UNEP/Division of GEF Coordination
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Tel:
(254 20) 624380
Fax: (254 20) 624041 / 624042
E-mail: Takashi.Otsuka@unep.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Mr. Kelvin Passfield
Ms. Unchalee Rodsomchit
Expert - Fisheries
Programme Assistant
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1116
Tel: (66 2) 288 1670
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
Fax: (66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: passfield@un.org
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/1 Agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/2 Annotated
Agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3 Report of the Meeting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/4
Status of the Substantive Reports of the Specialised
Executing Agencies (SEAs) from the Participating
Countries for the Mangrove Sub-component.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/5 Current
Status of Budgets and Reports from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/6 Draft
Amendments
to the Memoranda of Understanding
to Cover the Period July 2004 to June 30th 2007.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/7
Review of the National Action Plans for Mangroves
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Cam
National Action Plan of Cambodia
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Chi
National Action Plan of China
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Ind National Action Plan of Indonesia
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Phi
National Action Plan of Philippines
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Tha
National Action Plan of Thailand
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Vie
National Action Plan of Viet Nam
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.1
List of Participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.2
List of Documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.3 Draft
Programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.4 Fangchenggang
revised operational project document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.5 Trat
Province revised operational project document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/Inf.6 Specially
Managed Project Reviews (SMPR) 2004
J. Michael Bewers and Su Jilan
Mid-Term Evaluation of GEF Project No. GF/2730-02-
4340 Entitled "Reversing Environmental Degradation
Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"
July 2004.
UNEP SCS/SAP Ver. 3
Strategic Action Programme for the South China Sea
(Draft Version 3, 24 February 1999).
The following documents are supplied in published form.
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/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 2
Page 2
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-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-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/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/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/RWG-LbP.4/3 Fourth
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. Guangzhou, China, 30th March 2nd April 2004
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.4/3 Fourth 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. Manila, Philippines, 26th 29th April 2004
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.2/3
Second 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. Phu
Quoc Island, Viet Nam, 3rd - 6th May 2004 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RTF-L.2/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.2/3
Second 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. Siem
Reap, Cambodia, 31st May 2nd June 2004 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/ RTF-E.2/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 2
Page 3
List of Documents received during the RWG-M-5 in Trat Province, Thailand 27- 30 September
2004
Cambodia
Report on National Management Regimes and Legislations, 25pp. electronic copy
Cambodia National Report: Report on National Data and Information, 175pp.
electronic copy
Mangrove Strategy and Action Plan, 30pp. electronic copy
Cambodia Wetland Component: National Legislation and Management Regime,
38pp. electronic copy
Cambodia Wetland Component: Final National Report: Data and Information of
Cambodia Wetland, March 2004, 180pp. electronic copy
Cambodia Wetland Component: Final National Report: Cambodia Coastal
Wetlands Strategy and Action Plan, 57pp. electronic copy
Mangrove_Wetland GIS electronic copy
Maps electronic copy
Cam-M&W Budget revision Jun 04Dec 07 excel file electronic copy and hard copy
MoU Cam Man-Wet Meas electronic copy and hard copy
MoU Cam Man-Wet SV-Wattana electronic copy and hard copy
China
Technical Criteria of Mangrove Afforestation at Demo Site, China Mangrove
Executing Agency, Gaungxi Mangrove Research Center 2004, 14pp. hard copy in
Chinese Language
Indonesia
Progress Report Activities, June 2004,26pp. hard copy 2 copies
Cash Advance Request, 13pp.hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (Central Java Province), 38pp.hard copy 1 copy
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (Central Kalimantan Province), 30pp.hard copy 3 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (Jambi Province), 19pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (South Sumatra Province), 30pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (Lampung Province), 24pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (Bangka Belitung Province), 30pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (West Kalimantan Province), 45pp.hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (South Kalimantan Province), 32pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (East Java Province), 56pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (West Java Province), 68pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (Banten Province), 32pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (DKI Jakarta), 49pp. hard copy 2 copies
Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South
China Sea (Riau Province), 70pp. hard copy 2 copies
Flora and Fauna of Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China Sea,
222pp. hard copy 2 copies
Economic Valuation of the Mangrove Ecosystem in Indonesia, 21pp. hard copy 2
copies
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 2
Page 4
Philippines
Cash Advance Request 30 June 31 Dec 2004 1pp. hard copy
Six Monthly Project Expenditure Jan-Jun 04 3pp. hard copy
Philippines Sub-contractor Summary 1pp. hard copy
Management Letter on the Audit of the State of Expenditure (SOE) of the Project
20pp. hard copy
IMC Cash Advance Request 1pp.hard copy
IMC Six Monthly Expenditure Jan-June 04 1pp.electronic copy
Monthly Progress Report (mangrove) Jan-Jun 04 16pp. hard copy
Philippines Budget Proposed for 2005-2007 Excel file electronic copy
Philippines MoU Second Amendment 4pp. electronic copy
Thailand
Contents No.1 (3/8/04) 21KB ELECTRONIC COPY
Contents No.2 (3/8/04) 22kb electronic copy
Final No.1 (26/07/04) 1,675kb electronic copy
Final No.2 (3/8/04) 1,916kb electronic copy
Forward for Mangrove Database (28/7/04) 20kb electronic copy
Mangrove Database (28/7/04) 1,521kb electronic copy
Six Monthly Progress Report, 8pp. electronic copy and hard copy
Action Plan for Mangrove Management in the Gulf of Thailand under the
UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project, 9pp. electronic copy and hard copy
Five Year Action Plan for Managing Mangrove Resources in the Gulf of
Thailand (2004-2008), 4pp. electronic copy and hard copy
Viet Nam
Six Monthly Expenditure Mangrove Jan June 04 1pp. hard copy
Six Monthly Progress Report Jan-June 04 7pp. hard copy
Cash Advance Request 1pp. hard copy
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 3
Page 1
ANNEX 3
Agenda
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome
Address
1.2
Introduction of Members
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Election of Officers
2.2
Documentation Available to the Meeting
2.3 Organisation
of
Work
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4.
BRIEF REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS ON THE STATUS OF THE
PREPARATORY PHASE OUTPUTS DUE 30TH JUNE 2004
5.
STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDA
OF UNDERSTANDING
5.1
Status of the Administrative Reports of the Specialised Executing Agencies (SEAs)
from the Participating Countries, for the Mangrove Sub-component
5.2
Extension of the Memoranda of Understanding for the Specialised Executing
Agencies without Approved Demonstration Sites (Cambodia and Viet Nam)
5.3
Extension of the Memoranda of Understanding for the Specialised Executing
Agencies with Approved Demonstration Sites
6. PROJECT
EVALUATION
6.1
Report of the Independent Mid-term Evaluation of the Project
6.2
Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR) by the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of
the GEF Secretariat
7.
REVIEW OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING INPUTS TO
THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
7.1
Review of the Contents of the Draft National Action Plans with a View to Identifying
Commonalities and Differences
7.2
Discussion on the Inputs from the Mangrove Sub-component to the Regional
Strategic Action Programme (SAP), Review of the SAP Targets and Goals and
Discussion of the Process of Integrating NAP and SAP Development
8.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES AT THE DEMONSTRATION SITES
8.1
Progress Report on the Demonstration Site Activities
8.2
Regional Co-ordination of Activities in the Approved Demonstration Sites
9.
WORK PLAN OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES FOR THE
PERIOD 2004-2007
10.
DATES AND PLACE OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
DRAFT SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
AND
THE [INSERT NAME OF THE SEA], IN IT'S CAPACITY AS THE SPECIALISED EXECUTING
AGENCY FOR [Insert Country name] [INSERT COMPONENT NAME] OF THE UNEP/GEF
PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND
GULF OF THAILAND"
(Ref.: UNEP GEF/SCS/Ind/MoU 2c)
This amendment is drafted under the terms of Article 9 of Annex 1 of the original Memorandum
of Understanding, dated 21st January 2002, between the United Nations Environment
Programme, and the [INSERT NAME OF THE SEA], [Insert Country name]. The following
amended articles (5, 6, 8 and 10) shall be deemed to replace, and/or, add to, (as specified in
each article) the corresponding articles contained in the original memorandum and the
amendments contained in the first Amendment. All the remaining articles of the original
memorandum, together with the contents of Annex 1 shall be deemed to remain in effect.
5.
TASKS BY DESIGNATED INSTITUTION. The Mangrove Focal Point on behalf of the
Specialised Executing Agency, in close collaboration with the members of the National Mangrove
Committee and in accordance with the amended workplan, (Figure 1) agrees to the following:
i.
The Mangrove Focal Point shall continue to chair and convene meetings of the National
Mangrove Committee (NMC), composed of individuals from various organisations and
institutions that represent a wide spectrum of expertise and interests in Mangrove issues
including inter alia academics, managers, government officials, and marine park
managers. The terms of reference for this committee are contained in the project
document and annexed to the report of the first meeting of the Project Steering
Committee1;
ii.
The Mangrove Focal Point will serve as a member of [Insert Country name]'s National
Technical Working Group (NTWG) established under the Project, to ensure linkage with
the other national components of the project. The terms of reference for the NTWG are
contained in the project document and annexed to the report of the first meeting of the
Project Steering Committee;
iii.
The Mangrove Focal Point will also represent the National Mangrove Committee on the
Regional Working Group on Mangroves (RWG-M)2, to ensure input and exchange at the
regional level, between the participating countries. The terms of reference for the (RWG-
M) are contained in the project document and annexed to the report of the first meeting of
the Project Steering Committee;
iv.
Ensure that the NMC serves as an effective source of scientific and technical advice to
the National Technical Working Group established under the project, and thence to the
country members of the Project Steering Committee;
1
UNEP, 2002. 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 meeting, UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3, 110
pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
2
If the focal point from the SEA happens to be elected as chairperson of the RWG-M, he/she will become a member of the
Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC) which is the highest technical and scientific committee of the project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 4
Page 2
v.
Ensure that the NMC serves as an effective source of scientific and technical advice
regarding [Insert Country name]'s Mangrove systems to the Regional Working Group
for Mangroves established under the Project, and thence to the Regional Scientific and
Technical Committee;
vi.
Provide in a format to be agreed by the Regional Working Group on Mangrove and the
RSTC, such data and information as may be required from time to time by the Regional
Working Group on Mangroves and/or the RSTC;
vii. Maintain the national meta-database developed during the preparatory phase of the
project containing information on [Insert Country name]'s Mangrove;
viii. Update as required the criteria currently in use at the national level for decision making
with respect to future use of marine habitats;
ix. Update as required the data contained in the Regional GIS database relating to
Mangroves;
x.
Continue to work with the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters regarding national
legislation and the preparation of a regional directory of legislation and best practices;
xi.
Continue to work with the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation regarding national
level economic valuation of Mangrove resources and the preparation of regionally
applicable valuations that can be used in the cost benefit analysis of actions and non-
actions proposed in the Strategic Action Programme;
xii. Assist, through the Regional Working Group on Mangrove in the preparation of a
comprehensive regional synthesis of data and information regarding the distribution,
extent and state of Mangrove ecosystems bordering the South China Sea; together with
an ongoing review of threats to sustainable management of such systems for publication
in early 2007;
xiii. Further develop the preliminary national Mangrove action plan to meet the targets
provisionally agreed in the regional SAP;
xiv. Critically review from the national perspective, the targets and goals set by the draft SAP
adopted by the XIIIth meeting of COBSEA3 (November 1998) and prepare concrete
proposals concerning actions at the national level, required to meet these targets;
xiv. Based on the criteria and ranking processes for the selection of sites of national and
regional significance, prepare and submit proposal(s) for the [INSERT COMPONENT
NAME] specific site(s) to be adopted by the government for sequential intervention;
xv.
Provide guidance to the national Inter-Ministry Committee on how the goals and targets
of the regional Strategic Action Programme may be met in [Insert Country name]
through a cost benefit or cost effectiveness consideration of alternative courses of action;
xvi. Present the national Mangrove action plan and regional Strategic Action programme to
workshops and public meetings as appropriate, for consideration and input from as wide
as possible, a cross section of the involved stakeholders;
xvii. Facilitate the process of formal government approval of the national action plans;
xviii. Complete any outstanding tasks, listed in articles 5.i to 5.xvi of the original memorandum,
which have been delayed as a consequence of initial delays in fund transfer;
THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS WILL BE VARIED ACCORDING TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE SEA WITH RESPECT TO THE EXECUTION OF
DEMONSTRATE SITE ACTIVITIES
xix. Undertake to execute the activities at the insert name of demonstration site as approved
in the operational plan4 for the site, being developed by insert name of focal point in
conjunction with the PCU; and to,
xxi. Co-ordinate national involvement in the regional programme for co-ordination,
dissemination of experiences, and personnel exchange between demonstration sites.
3 UNEP, 1998. Report of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Co-ordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) on the East
Asian Seas Action Plan. UNEP(WATER)/EAS IG.9/3.
4 Once developed and agreed by both parties the full document will be attached to this amendment as Annex 1 and become
an integral part of the amendment.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 4
Page 3
6.
TASKS BY UNITED NATIONS. UNEP agrees to perform the following tasks:
i.
Provide the financial resources according, to the agreed revised schedule, detailed in the
budget attached as Table 1 to this amendment; and,
ii.
Provide financial support to enable the National Mangrove Focal Point to travel to such
regional meetings as may be agreed from time to time.
8.
REFUND OF UNSPENT BALANCE. The Designated Institution will refund to UNEP in US
dollars any unspent balance of the funds provided by UNEP within 30 days after completion of the
final task. Such refund should be wired to:
Name of account holder:
ESCAP
Account
number: 485-002051
Name of bank:
Chase Manhattan Bank
Address of bank:
New York
ABA
number:
021000021
10. EFFECTIVE
DATE. This amendment to the existing Memorandum of Understanding shall
enter into effect when signed in duplicate by the authorised persons below, and shall expire on 30th
June 2007. Three months prior to the expiry of this amendment (i.e. by March 31st 2007) a new
agreement may be negotiated taking into account any decisions of the Project Steering Committee
regarding activities to be executed during the remainder of the project period.
______________________________
___________________________
Insert Focal Point name and address
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
UNEP/DGEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
Bangkok, Thailand
Date:__________________________
Date:________________________
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 4
Page 4
Figure 1
Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Component to June 30th 2007.
This will be amended according to agreements reached during the fifth meeting of the RWG-M.
2004 2005
2006
2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
National Committee meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
National Technical Working Group
X
X
X
X
X
X
RWG-M meetings
X
X
X
Provide information to RWG-M and RSTC
Maintain national metadata base
Publication of National Reports in local language
X
Complete second draft of NAP
X
Adoption of Nap (contributing to SAP targets)
Update data to regional GIS Database
X
Provide guidance to IMC on the Mangrove component
input to SAP
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Analysis of the Contents of the National Action Plans for Mangroves
ACTIONS (Mangroves)
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
1. Research and Monitoring
1.1 Resource assessment
Vh
Vh
Vh
Vh
Vh
Vh
1.2 Mapping
H
M
Vh
X
Vh
Vh
1.3 Socio-economic and cultural
M
H
H
X
H
H
1.4 Database management
H
Vh
H
Vh
Vh
H
1.5 Information system (database
management, GIS system and
web development)
H
Vh
H
H
Vh
H
1.6 Decision support system
X
X
M
X
Vh
H
Environment impact assessment
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Coordination
2.1 Integration of research
programmes with management
and policy-making
Vh Vh Vh
H
Vh H
2.2 Monitoring the NAPs
Vl
M
M
X
Vh
H
2.3 Review and improve existing
laws and policies
H
H
Vh
H
L
Vh
2.4 Integration of government
agencies H
Vh
H
H
H
Vh
2.5 Stakeholder analysis and
involvement M
M
M
H
H
H
2.6 Community empowerment
H
L
Vh
Vh
H
H
2.7 Strengthening traditional value
and management systems
M M M
M Vh X
2.8 Establish an incentive system
for good governance
X X M
H
X X
2.9 Linkage to regional and
international obligations
X H H
H
X Vh
2.10 International and regional
cooperation
X H H
H
X Vh
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education
3.1 Improve government services
Vh
X
Vh
X
X
Vh
3.2 Development, improvement,
and dissemination of awareness
materials H
H
Vh
Vh
Vh
Vh
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability
4.1 Human resource development
Vh
X
Vh
H
Vh
Vh
4.2 Immediate training activities
Vh
H
Vh
H
Vh
Vh
4.3 Law enforcement
H
H
H
X
X
Vh
4.4 Monitoring, Controlling and
Surveillance
H Vh H
X
Vh X
4.5 Financial sustainability
X
H
M
X
X
M
4.6 Infrastructure development
X
X
M
M
H
H
4.7 Institutional building and
strengthening
H X Vh
H
H Vh
4.8 Network establishment and
strengthening
M X H
X Vh Vh
5. Resource and Habitat Management
5.1 Develop guidelines for
sustainable use
Vh Vh Vh
H
Vh H
5.2 Strengthen management
components
Vh M H
H
Vh Vh
5.3 Establish/enhance mangrove
system
H Vh H
Vh Vh Vh
5.4 Community-based
management
H M H
Vh Vh H
5.5 Sustainable use of coastal
systems
L Vh H
H Vh Vh
5.6 Environmentally friendly
technologies
X H H
X
M H
5.7 Types of management
regimes, development of models
X X Vh
H M H
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Analysis of National Action Plans with Respect to Targets, Timeframes, Costs and
Implementing Agency Information
Table 1
Analysis of national action plan contents for Cambodia.
ACTIONS Target
Timeframe
Financing
Responsibility
1. Research and Monitoring
1.1 Resource assessment
Yes
No
No
No
1.2 Mapping
Yes
No
No
No
1.3 Socio-economic and cultural
No
No
No
No
1.4 Database management
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
1.5 Information system (database management, GIS system and
Yes Yes No Yes
web
development)
1.6 Decision support system
No
No
No
No
1.7 Environment impact assessment
No
No
No
No
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Coordination
2.1 Integration of research programmes with management and policy-
No No No No
making
2.2 Monitoring the NAPs
No
No
No
No
2.3 Review and improve existing laws and policies
Yes
No
No
Yes
2.4 Integration of government agencies
Yes
No
No
Yes
2.5 Stakeholder analysis and involvement
Yes
No
No
No
2.6 Community empowerment
No
No
No
No
2.7 Strengthening traditional value and management systems
No
No
No
No
2.8 Establish an incentive system for good governance
No
No
No
No
2.9 Linkage to regional and international obligations
No
No
No
No
2.10 International and regional cooperation
No
No
No
No
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education
3.1 Improve government services
No
No
No
No
3.2 Development, improvement, and dissemination of awareness materials
Yes
No
No
No
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability
4.1 Human resource development
Yes
No
No
No
4.2 Immediate training activities
Yes
No
No
No
4.3 Law enforcement
Yes
No
No
No
4.4 Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance
Yes
No
No
No
4.5 Financial sustainability
No
No
No
No
4.6 Infrastructure development
No
No
No
No
4.7 Institutional building and strengthening
No
No
No
No
4.8 Network establishment and strengthening
Yes
No
No
No
5. Resource and Habitat Management
5.1 Develop guidelines for sustainable use
No
No
No
No
5.2 Strengthen management components
No
No
No
No
5.3 Establish/enhance mangrove system
Yes
No
No
Yes
5.4 Community-based management
No
No
No
Yes
5.5 Sustainable use of coastal systems
No
No
No
No
5.6 Environmentally friendly technologies
No
No
No
No
5.7 Types of management regimes, development of models
No
No
No
No
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 2
Analysis of National Action Plan contents for China.
ACTIONS Target
Timeframe
Financing
(RMB)
Responsibility
1. Research and Monitoring
1.1 Resource assessment
Yes
2005~2007
10,000,000 SEP/SOA/SFB
1.2 Mapping
Yes
2007~2008
3,000,000 SOA
1.3 Socio-economic and cultural
Yes
2006~2007
2,500,000 SEP
1.4 Database management
1.5 Information system (database management, GIS system
Yes 2007~2009
5,000,000
SOA
and web development)
1.6 Decision support system
Yes
2006~2008
2,000,000 SEP
1.7 Environment impact assessment
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Coordination
2.1 Integration of research programmes with management
Yes 2005~2006
4,000,000
SEP
and policy-making
2.2 Monitoring the NAPs
Yes
2004~2010
6,000,000 SEP
2.3 Review and improve existing laws and policies
Yes
2005~2006
3,000,000 SEP
2.4 Integration of government agencies
No
2005~2008
5,000,000 State Department
2.5 Stakeholder analysis and involvement
Yes
2006~2007
1,500,000 SEP
2.6 Community empowerment
No
2.7 Strengthening traditional value and management systems
Yes
2006~2008
5,000,000 SEP
2.8 Establish an incentive system for good governance
No
2.9 Linkage to regional and international obligations
Yes
2005~2010
3,000,000 SEP
2.10 International and regional cooperation
Yes
2004~2010
5,000,000 SEP/SOA/SFB
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education
3.1 Improve government services
Yes
2004~2010
3,000,000 State Department
3.2 Development, improvement, and dissemination of
Yes 2004 2010 7,000,000
SEP
awareness materials
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability
State Personnel
4.1 Human resource development
Yes
2005~2010
2,000,000 Bureau
4.2 Immediate training activities Yes
2005~2010
6,000,000
SEP/SOA/SFB
4.3 Law enforcement
Yes
2005~2010
5,000,000 SEP/SOA/SFB
4.4 Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance
Yes
2005~2010
15,000,000 SEP
4.5 Financial sustainability
Yes
2005~2010
3,000,000 State Monetary Dept
4.6 Infrastructure development
Yes
2005~2010
15,000,000 State Monetary Dept
4.7 Institutional building and strengthening
Yes
2005~2010
20,000,000 SEP/SOA/SFB
4.8 Network establishment and strengthening
Yes
2005~2010
10,000,000 SEP
5. Resource and Habitat Management
5.1 Develop guidelines for sustainable use
Yes
2005~2008
5,000,000 SEP
5.2 Strengthen management components
No
5.3 Establish/enhance mangrove system
Yes
2005~2010
10,000,000 SFB
5.4 Community-based management
No
5.5 Sustainable use of coastal systems
Yes
2006~2010
15,000,000 SEP/SOA
5.6 Environmentally friendly technologies
Yes
2006~2010
5,000,000 SEP
5.7 Types of management regimes, development of models
Yes
2005~2008
4,000,000 SEP
State Environment Protection Bureau (SEP)
State Oceanic Administration (SOA)
State Forestry Bureau (SFB)
State Monetary Dept (SMD)
State Personnel Bureau (SPB)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 6
Page 3
Table 3
Analysis of National Action Plan contents for Indonesia.
ACTIONS Target
Timeframe
Financing
Responsibility
1. Research and Monitoring
1.1 Resource assessment
Yes
2005-2008 Yes
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF
1.2 Mapping
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF
1.3 Socio-economic and cultural
Yes
2005-2007 Yes, 200,000,000 Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI, MoEnv
1.4 Database management
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI, MoEnv
1.5 Information system (database management,
GIS system and web development)
1.6 Decision support system
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI, MoEnv
1.7 Environment impact assessment
-
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Coordination
2.1 Integration of research programmes with
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, Dept.HomeA,
Yes 2005-2010
Yes
management and policy-making
MoEnv
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, Dept.HomeA,
2.2 Monitoring the NAPs
Yes
2005-2010 Yes, 100,000,000 MoEnvLIPI
2.3 Review and improve existing laws and
Yes
2005-2008 Yes
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI, MoEnv
policies
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI,
2.4 Integration of government agencies
Yes
2005-2008 Yes
MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
2.5 Stakeholder analysis and involvement
Yes
2005-2008 Yes
LIPI,Dep.HomeA
2.6 Community empowerment
Yes
2005-2010 Yes, 200,000,000 Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, Dept.HomeA
2.7 Strengthening traditional value and
Yes
2005-2007 Yes, 200,000,000 Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, Dept.HomeA
management systems
2.8 Establish an incentive system for good
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
Yes 2005-2010
Yes
governance
Dept.HomeA,MoEnv
2.9 Linkage to regional and international
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI, MoEnv
obligations
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
2.10 International and regional cooperation
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, MoEnv,
3.1 Improve government services
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
Dept.HomeA
3.2 Development, improvement, and
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI,
Yes 2005-2008
Yes
dissemination of awareness materials
Dept.HomeA, MoEnv
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
4.1 Human resource development
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
4.2 Immediate training activities
Yes
2005-2007 Yes, 200,000,000 LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
4.3 Law enforcement
Yes
2005-2008 Yes
LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
4.4 Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
4.5 Financial sustainability
2005-2010 Yes
MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
4.6 Infrastructure development
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
4.7 Institutional building and strengthening
Yes
2005-2010 Yes, 200,000,000 MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
4.8 Network establishment and strengthening
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
5. Resource and Habitat Management
5.1 Develop guidelines for sustainable use
Yes
2005-2008 Yes, 500,000,000 Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI,MoEnv
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
5.2 Strengthen management components
Yes
2005-2007 Yes
LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
5.3 Establish/enhance mangrove system
Yes
2005-2008 Yes
LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Yes,
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF,
5.4 Community-based management
Yes
2005-2007 1,000,000,000
LIPI,MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI,
5.5 Sustainable use of coastal systems
Yes
2005-2010 Yes
MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI,
5.6 Environmentally friendly technologies
Yes
2005-2008 Yes, 200,000,000 MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
5.7 Types of management regimes, development
Yes,
Dept.Forestry; Dept.MarineF, LIPI,
Yes 2005-2007
of models
1,000,000,000
MoEnv,Dept.HomeA
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 6
Page 4
Table 4
Analysis of National Action Plan Contents for Philippines.
ACTIONS
Target5
Timeframe Financing (US$ '000)
Responsibility
1. Research and Monitoring
1.1 Resource assessment
SCS Coast
2005
20,000 CMMO-NAMRIA
1.2 Mapping
SCS Coast
2005
10,000 CMMO-NAMRIA
1.3 Socio-economic and cultural
SCS Coast
2005
5,000 CMMO/CMMD
1.4 Database management
SCS Coast
2005
5,000 CMMO/CMMD
1.5 Information system (database management GIS
system and web development)
1.6 Decision support system
1.7 Environment impact assessment
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Coordination
2.1 Integration of research programmes with
National Continuing
1,000
CMMO/PPSO/ERDB
management and policy making
2.2 Monitoring the NAPs
Nationwide
Continuing
1,000 Focal Point
2.3 Review and improve existing laws and policies
National
Continuing
3,000 CMMO
2.4 Integration of government agencies SCS
Coast
Continuing 1,000
CMMO
2.5 Stakeholder analysis and involvement
SCS Coast
2005
1,000 CMMO
CMMO/Local
2.6 Community empowerment
SCS Coast
2005-2007
5,000 Governments (LGUs)
2.7 Strengthening traditional value and mgmt systems
2.8 Establish an incentive system for good governance SCS
Coast 2005-2007
2,000
DENR/LGUs
2.9 Linkage to regional and international obligations Nationwide
Continuing
2,000
DENR/DFA
2.10 International and regional cooperation Nationwide
Continuing
2,000
DENR/DFA
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education
3.1 Improve government services
Nationwide Continuing
5,000
Executive
Branch
3.2 Development, improvement, and dissemination of
Nationwide Continuing
5,000
DENR/DPI/Academe,
etc.
awareness materials
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability
4.1 Human resource development
SCS Coastal
2005-2007
2,000 CMMO/NGO/Academe
4.2 Immediate training activities (Mangrove Mgmt)
SCS Coastal
2005
2,000 CMMO/NGO/Academe
4.3 Law enforcement
SCS Coastal
2005-2007
20,000 DENR/DA/PCG/LGU, etc
4.4 Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance
4.5 Financial sustainability
SCS Coastal
2005-2007
50,000 LGU
4.6 Infrastructure development
DENR, DA, LGUs,
4.7 Institutional building and strengthening
SCS Coastal
2005-2007
20,000 Academe
4.8 Network establishment and strengthening
Nationwide
Continuing
10,000 DENR
5. Resource and Habitat Management
DENR, NGA, NGO &
5.1 Develop guidelines for sustainable use
SCS Coastal
2005
1,000 Academe
DENR, NGA, NGO &
5.2 Strengthen management components
SCS Coastal
2005-2007
1,000 Academe
DENR, NGA, NGO &
5.3 Establish/enhance mangrove system
SCS Coastal
2005-2007
50,000 Academe
DENR, LGUs, NGO &
5.4 Community-based management
SCS Coastal
2005-2007
50,000 Academe
5.5 Sustainable use of coastal systems Nationwide
Continuing 50,000
LGUs
5.6 Environmentally friendly technologies
SCS Coastal
2005
20,000 LGUs
5.7 Types of mgmt regimes, dev't of models
Nationwide
Continuing
5,000 DENR
Total
349,000
CMMO = Coastal and Marine Management Office; NAMRIA = National Mapping and Resource Inventory Authority; CMMD =
Coastal and Marine Management Division; PPSO = Policy & Planning Service Office; ERDB = Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau; LGU = Local Government Units; DPI = Department of Public Information; DA = Department of
Agriculture; NGA = National Government Agencies; DFA = Department of Foreign Affairs.
5 The targets are not quantified due to inavailability of information on the number of coastal municipalities and cities in the SCS
and these be supplied upon my return to office. To be emailed soonest.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 6
Page 5
Table 5
Analysis of National Action Plan Contents Thailand.
ACTIONS Target
Timeframe
Financing
Responsibility
1. Research and Monitoring
1.1 Resource assessment
Yes
2005-2008 1,200,000 DMCR
1.2 Mapping
Yes
2005-2008 250,000
DMCR
1.3 Socio-economic and cultural
Yes
No
No
No
1.4 Database management
Yes
2005-2008 500,000
DMCR
1.5 Information system (database management, GIS system and
Yes 2005-2008
500,000
DMCR
web development)
1.6 Decision support system
No
No
No
No
1.7 Environment impact assessment
Yes
2005-2008 511,500
DMCR
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Coordination
2.1 Integration of research programmes with management and
Yes No
No No
policy-making
2.2 Monitoring the NAPs
Yes
2005-2008 -
DMCR
2.3 Review and improve existing laws and policies
Yes
No
No
No
2.4 Integration of government agencies
Yes
No
No
No
2.5 Stakeholder analysis and involvement
Yes
No
No
No
2.6 Community empowerment
Yes
2005-2008 440,750
DMCR
2.7 Strengthening traditional value and management systems
Yes
2005-2008 200,000
DMCR
2.8 Establish an incentive system for good governance
No
No
No
No
2.9 Linkage to regional and international obligations
No
No
No
No
2.10 International and regional cooperation
Yes
2005-2008 150,000
DMCR
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education
3.1 Improve government services
Yes
2005-2008 125,000
DMCR
3.2 Development, improvement, and dissemination of awareness
Yes 2005-2008
750,000
DMCR
materials
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability
4.1 Human resource development
Yes
2005-2008 1,500,000 DMCR
4.2 Immediate training activities
Yes
No
No
No
4.3 Law enforcement
Yes
2005-2008 440,750
DMCR
4.4 Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance
Yes
No
No
No
4.5 Financial sustainability
Yes
2005-2008 60,000
DMCR
4.6 Infrastructure development
Yes
2005-2008 2,000,000 DMCR
4.7 Institutional building and strengthening
Yes
2005-2008 600,000
DMCR
4.8 Network establishment and strengthening
Yes
2005-2008 900,000
DMCR
5. Resource and Habitat Management
5.1 Develop guidelines for sustainable use
Yes
2005-2008 500,000
DMCR
5.2 Strengthen management components
Yes
2005-2008 3,925,000 DMCR
5.3 Establish/enhance mangrove system
Yes
2005-2008 39,534,000 DMCR
5.4 Community-based management
Yes
2005-2008 750,000
DMCR
5.5 Sustainable use of coastal systems
Yes
No
No
No
5.6 Environmentally friendly technologies
Yes
No
No
No
5.7 Types of management regimes, development of models
No
No
No
No
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 6
Page 6
Table 6
Analysis of National Action Plan Contents Viet Nam.
ACTIONS Target
Duration
Finance
Responsibility
1. Research and Monitoring
1.1 Resource assessment
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
1.2 Mapping
Inplicit
Yes
No
Yes
1.3 Socio-economic and cultural
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
1.4 Database management
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
1.5 Information system (database management, GIS system and web
Yes Yes
No Yes
development)
1.6 Decision support system
No
No
No
No
1.7 Environment impact assessment
Limited
Yes
No
Yes
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Coordination
2.1 Integration of research programmes with management and policy-making
Inplicit
No
No
No
2.2 Monitoring the NAPs
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
2.3 Review and improve existing laws and policies
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
2.4 Integration of government agencies
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
2.5 Stakeholder analysis and involvement Limited
No
No
Limited
2.6 Community empowerment
Inplicit
No
No
No
2.7 Strengthening traditional value and management systems
No
No
No
No
2.8 Establish an incentive system for good governance
Inplicit
No
No
No
2.9 Linkage to regional and international obligations
Inplicit
No
No
No
2.10 International and regional cooperation
Yes
No
No
Yes
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education
3.1 Improve government services
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
3.2 Development, improvement, and dissemination of awareness materials
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability
4.1 Human resource development
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
4.2 Immediate training activities Limited
No
No
Limited
4.3 Law enforcement
Yes
Yes
No
Limited
4.4 Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
4.5 Financial sustainability
Limited
No
No
Yes
4.6 Infrastructure development
Inplicit (N. Park)
No
No
Yes
4.7 Institutional building and strengthening
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
4.8 Network establishment and strengthening
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
5. Resource and Habitat Management
5.1 Develop guidelines for sustainable use
No
No
No
No
5.2 Strengthen management components
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
5.3 Establish/enhance mangrove system
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
5.4 Community-based management
Inplicit
No
No
Yes
5.5 Sustainable use of coastal systems
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
5.6 Environmentally friendly technologies
No
No
No
No
5.7 Types of management regimes, development of models
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 7
Page 1
ANNEX 7
Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Component to June 30th 2007
Figure 1
Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Component to June 30th 2007. (S=submit, P = PCU comment, R = resubmit, F = final)
2004
2005 2006 2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
J A S O N D
J F M
A M J J A S O N D
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
National Committee meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
National Technical Working Group
X
X
X
X
X
X
RWG-M meetings
X
X
X
Provide information to RWG-M and RSTC
Maintain national metadata base
Publication of National Reports in local language
Cambodia, China, Philippines, Thailand, Viet Nam
X
Indonesia
X
Complete second draft and final draft of NAP
Cambodia, Thailand, Viet Nam
2
F
China
2
F
Indonesia
2
F
Philippines
2
F
Adoption of NAP (contributing to SAP targets) All countries
X
Refine
targets
for
SAP
1
2
3
Definition of actions for SAP
1
2
Update data to regional GIS Database
X
Provide guidance to IMC on the Mangrove component input to SAP
Implement
demo
site
exchange
programme
SEAs provide information to the PCU on activities and timing that can be
demonstrated at the demonstration sites, and expertise lacking in
X
demonstration site personnel
PCU consolidates information into a single document
X
SEAs to translate this document (after consolidated by PCU
X
SEAs to submit nominations for exchange to PCU
X
Decisions taken at RWG-M6
X
Finalise
demonstration
site
proposals
Peam Krasop (Cambodia)
?
Trat (Thailand)
X
Batu Ampar (Indonesia)
X
Fangchenggang (China)
X
Busuanga (Philippines)
S
P R F
Balat- Xuan Thuy (Viet Nam, Mangrove/wetland)
S
P R F
Audit report (Thailand)
X
Audit report (China)
X
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3
Annex 7
Page 2
Table 2
Schedule of Meetings for 2005. (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -CR = Coral reefs; -SG = Seagrass; -W = Wetlands; -F= Fisheries;
LbP = Land-based Pollution; RTF-E = Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation; RTF-L = Regional Task Force on Legal Matters) (H = United Nations Holidays)
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M
January
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31
H
H
February
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28
RSTC
Chinese NY
H
EXCOM
March
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29 30 31
RTF-L-3
April
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30
H
H
RTF-E-3
May
1
2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
30 31
H
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
July
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31
RWG-LbP-6
August
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10
11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30 31
RWG-M-6
H
RWG-CR-6
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-F-6
RWG-W-6
RWG-SG-6
October
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31
Ramadan
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
RSC-2
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-6
PSC-5
Xmas
H