United Nations
UNEP/GEF South China Sea
Global Environment
Environment Programme
Project
Facility





Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand











REPORT

Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Seagrass Sub-component

Guangzhou, China, 29th November ­ 2nd December 2003
















__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, December 2003

---

First published in Thailand in 2003 by the United Nations Environment Programme.

Copyright © 2003, United Nations Environment Programme

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication
as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose without prior
permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

UNEP/GEF
Project Co-ordinating Unit,
United Nations Environment Programme,
UN Building, 9th Floor Block A, Rajdamnern Avenue,
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel.
+66 2 288 1886
Fax.
+66 2 288 1094; 281 2428
http://www.unepscs.org


DISCLAIMER:

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the GEF. The
designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNEP, of the GEF, or of any cooperating organisation concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the delineation of its territories or boundaries.

Cover Photo: Dr. Suvaluck Satumanatpan, Halophila ovalis, Pattani Bay, Thailand.


For citation purposes this document may be cited as:

UNEP, 2003. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Seagrass.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Table of Contents

1. OPENING OF THE MEETING.........................................................................................................1
2. ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING .............................................................................................1
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA......................................................................................2
4. REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE ...................................................................................................................2
4.1 STATUS OF MID-YEAR PROGRESS REPORTS, EXPENDITURE REPORTS, AND BUDGETS ..................2
4.2 STATUS OF PLANNED SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUTS FROM THE NATIONAL LEVEL ACTIVITIES ..................3
4.3 STATUS OF PLANNED SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL LEVEL ..................................5
5. REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS .........................................................................7
5.1 SITE CHARACTERISATION; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
RANKING; AND AVAILABLE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION .......................................................... 7
5.2 CRITICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSALS FOR DEMONSTRATION SITES...................................................9
6. REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON SEAGRASS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO JUNE 2004..........12
7. DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON SEAGRASS............................................................................................................................12
8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS..............................................................................................................12
8.1 CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME FOR THE REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE,
BANGKOK, FEBRUARY 2004...................................................................................................12
8.2 CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUS OF RUPPIA MARITIMA ............................................................13
9. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING .....................................................................13
10. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING.....................................................................................................13


List of Annexes


ANNEX 1
List of Participants

ANNEX 2
List of Documents

ANNEX 3
Agenda

ANNEX 4
Minimum Content for the National Seagrass Reports

ANNEX 5
Final Cluster Analysis of Potential Seagrass Demonstration Sites

ANNEX 6
Final Ranking of Potential Seagrass Demonstration Sites Based on
Environmental and Socio-Economic Indicators

ANNEX 7
Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Seagrass

ANNEX 8
Email from Dr. M.D. Fortes circulated to the Regional Working Group on
Seagrass on 26th November 2003, concerning the classification of Ruppia
maritima

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting

1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING

1.1
The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta formally opened the fourth meeting of the Regional
Working Group on Seagrass (RWG-SG). He welcomed participants to the meeting on behalf of Dr.
Klaus Töpfer, the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Dr.
Ahmed Djoghlaf, Assistant Executive Director, and Director, Division of Global Environment Facility
Co-ordination (UNEP/DGEF). Dr. Pernetta informed the meeting, that the fourth RWG-CR meeting
was being held in another conference room on the same floor of the hotel.

1.2
The Project Director noted that the project had reached a critical point in implementation, and
that substantial work was before the participants for consideration and decision during the meeting.
He noted that, as the operational phase of the project will start in 2004, it is imperative that outputs of
the first phase were finalized, published and distributed prior to the commencement of the operational
phase. During this meeting, current MoUs, expiring on 31 December 2003, would need to be
amended to extend their duration to June 30th 2004 to take account of initial delays in fund transfer
and start-up activities at the national level. Members should work out their individual work plans in
order to ensure that the anticipated outputs would be produced on time, and budgets should be
revised based on the revised work plan with realistic estimates of anticipated cash advances.
Dr. Pernetta informed the meeting that the newly appointed fund management officer, Ms. Nita
Tangsujaritvichit would be available to assist each focal point in revising their budgets based on the
revised work plan and realistic estimates of requirements.

1.3
The Project Director further indicated that, an item requiring substantial discussion and input
during the meeting was the finalisation of the demonstration site proposals. He indicated that Mr. Boon
Tiong Tay, would join the meeting to assist focal points in finalising the financial sections of the
proposals. He wished the participants, on behalf of the Executive Director, a very productive and
enjoyable meeting.

1.4
The meeting noted that Dr. Miguel Fortes had left the University of the Philippines, which was
the Special Executing Agency for the seagrass sub-component in the Philippines, and taken a
position with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. He had been replaced
as the Philippines focal point by, Dr. Marco Nemesio E. Montaño, also of the University of the
Philippines. Dr. Fortes had been invited to join the RWG-SG as an expert member of international
standing. The list of participants is contained in Annex 1 of this report.

2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING

2.1
Members recalled that Dr. Fortes was previously elected as Chairperson of the RWG-SG.
Since he was no longer the Philippines Focal Point, he could no longer serve as Chairperson.
Consequently, under the rules of procedure, the Vice-Chairperson of the RWG-SG, Mr. Tri Edi
Kuriandewa would assume responsibility as Acting Chairperson for the remainder of Dr. Fortes' term.
Mr. Kuriandewa expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to act as Chairperson for this important
meeting, and welcomed Dr. Montaño as the newly appointed Philippines focal point.

2.2
The Chairperson invited Mr. Kelvin Passfield, Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) member, to
introduce the documentation available to the meeting in both hard copy and on CD-ROM. Referring to
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/Inf.2, Mr. Passfield briefly introduced each of the documents
listed. He informed the participants that the documents were included on the CD-ROM. In addition,
the Philippines had brought hard copies of their national reports, and Indonesia had brought the latest
revision of their demonstration site proposal. The list of documents available to the meeting is attached
as Annex 2 to this report.

2.3
Mr. Passfield briefed participants on the administrative arrangements for the conduct of the
meeting, and the proposed organisation of work (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.3/Inf.3). Formal sessions
of the meeting would be conducted in English and in plenary although it is envisaged that, breakout
sessions and night sessions, might be required in order to complete the various reviews and analyses
of the substantive reports and demonstration site proposals.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 2

3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA

3.1
The Chairperson introduced the provisional agenda prepared by the Project Co-ordinating
Unit as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.3/1, and invited members to consider proposals for any
amendments or additional items for consideration prior to the adoption of the agenda.

3.2
The Project Director proposed an additional item for consideration under Agenda Item 8, Any
Other Business. He suggested that, under this agenda item, the PCU brief members on the draft
programme for the Regional Scientific Conference (RSC) to be held 11-13, February 2003, in
Bangkok, Thailand. He asked if members could provide inputs and suggestions regarding the draft
programme and planning arrangements. A hard copy of the draft programme for the Conference
would be distributed during a later stage of the meeting. The RWG-SG agreed to include this
additional item under Agenda Item 8.

3.3
A query was raised as to whether it would be possible to visit a seagrass site close to
Guangzhou. The meeting recognised collectively that the tight schedule of the meeting might not
allow for a site visit. The Project Director, however, informed the meeting that Professor Xiaoping
Huang, on behalf of the South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, had kindly offered to host an
excursion on the Pearl River on the night of 30 November 2003.

3.4
With the addition of the item regarding the draft programme of the RSC, the revised agenda,
as contained in Annex 3 of this report, was adopted by the meeting.

4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE

4.1
Status of mid-year progress reports, expenditure reports, and budgets

4.1.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Passfield to introduce this agenda item and document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/4, "Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing
Agencies in the participating countries", that contained a summary of the current status of budgets
and administrative reports, including audit reports, received by the Project Co-ordinating Unit from the
Specialised Executing Agencies (SEAs) in the participating countries.

4.1.2
Mr. Passfield highlighted the difficulties of the PCU in respect of the implementation of the
individual MoUs. One particular problem was the inadequate costing of activities at the national level,
resulting in under-expenditure and carry-forward of unspent monies from the cash advances.
Members were requested to note that under-expenditures could not be carried beyond the 31st
December 2003 without extension of the existing MoUs. Such an extension can only be justified in
terms of initial start-up delays including inter alia delays in receipt of the first tranche of funds in 2002,
and subsequent documented delays at the national level. Any such extension must be signed before
the expiry of the current MoU.

4.1.3
It was noted that, the existing MoU's with termination dates of 31st December 2003 should be
extended to at least June 30th 2004 to permit finalisation and publication of the substantive reports
and continuation of national committee and sub-committee activities whilst the second memoranda to
March 2007 are negotiated and signed.

4.1.4
Attention was drawn to Table 1 of the document and the problems and issues involving the
status of each country's progress reports, expenditure statements, cash advance requests and audit
reports. No audit reports have been received from Cambodia and Philippines. Members should take
note of the fact that, an audit report is a necessity before any further transfers of money are
authorised.

4.1.5 Malaysia outlined the problems encountered in transferring money from the Ministry of
Agriculture to the SEA since money was transferred from UNEP to the bank account of the Ministry of
Agriculture, and the SEA did not have direct access to the money. Arrangements have now been
made to transfer money from the bank account of the Ministry to the SEA account. He expected that
money would be transferred in the next few weeks, after which the SEA would expedite its
implementation of project activities. Mr. Passfield requested an expenditure report from Malaysia even

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 3

though no money was spent. It was suggested that money should be transferred to the SEA directly in
order to expedite the process of the implementation of project activities at national level.

4.1.6
Mr. Passfield noted that unspent cash balances are a serious problem both for the SEAs and
for UNEP. Attention was drawn to the provisions of the MoUs regarding unspent cash balances upon
completion of MoUs. He further noted that a letter from the Project Director was facsimiled and mailed
on 15 August 2003, pointing out the existence of the problem and potential solutions. In paragraph 8
of the MoUs, it was stipulated that "the Designated Institutions 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."

4.1.7
It was noted that large unspent cash balances, to some extent, indicated that SEAs were not
planning their activities well, or not actually undertaking the planned activities, causing delayed
activities and unspent monies. No further money would be transferred until justification of further
expenditures is considered adequate, and persuasive that the requested money would be really spent.
It is therefore imperative that, during this meeting, each SEA works out its individual work plan, and
cash advance requirements to complete the assigned tasks. The RWG agreed that each SEA would
make individual appointments with Ms. Tangsujaritvichit to finalise the budgets based on individual
work plans and planned activities.

4.1.8
Following the presentation, the situation regarding the financial and administrative matters
was discussed and considered. The RWG-SG collectively agreed that MoUs should be extended to
June 30th, 2004. The RWG-SG further agreed that each SEA would plan realistic activities, with
matching work plan and budget planning. Mr. Passfield noted that the work plan should be well
planned and activities, implemented immediately after the meeting, in order to avoid trying to rush to
implement all activities and spend all unspent cash balances during the last months of the MoUs.

4.1.9
The RWG took note of issues and decisions as follows:

· Publication of national reports in English and national languages. It was agreed that the
SEAs should include the cost of publishing national reports in their budgets. The PCU
would bear the cost of publishing or printing English versions of the reports for regional
distribution.
· Audit costs were not included in the previous budget estimates. For the next budget
revision, the cost of auditing should be taken into account and be included in the revised
budget. It was further noted that audits were an annual requirement hence the present
revisions should include allocations for the costs of the audit of 2003 expenditures.
· Large, unspent sums of money deposited in the bank account of the SEA, would yield
interest on the savings. The SEAs should report any interest earned and this could then
be applied to legitimate project related costs. The Philippines focal point informed the
meeting that the money was deposited in a foundation, and therefore did not earn any
interest.

4.1.10 Taking note of the existing financial and administrative problems, the meeting collectively
agreed that, the following tasks would be completed during the fourth RWG-SG meeting:
· Amendments to the MoUs to extend their duration to June 30th 2004;
· A realistic and feasible work plan for national level activities;
· A matching revised budget consistent with activities under this work plan.

4.2
Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities

4.2.1 The Chairperson invited the PCU member to introduce this agenda item and document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/5, "Current status of substantive reports on Seagrass from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating Countries" containing a summary of the current
status of the substantive reports received to date, by the PCU.

4.2.2
Documentation received by the Secretariat from the Focal Points up to the end of October,
2003 had been circulated by e-mail and electronic copies of all reports and documents received from the
national level were provided to the meeting on CD-ROM, together with hard copies of the demonstration
site proposals, for the reference of each member during discussion under agenda item 5.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 4

4.2.3
In introducing document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/5, Mr. Passfield pointed out that the
MoUs obligated the SEAs to produce outputs as follows:
· Reviews of national data and information;
· National meta-database;
· Reviews of past and ongoing projects;
· Summary of existing national legislation;
· A review of existing national criteria and preparation of objective criteria; and,
· National seagrass action plan.

4.2.4
It was noted that deadlines to finalise these reports had been modified twice during the past
three RWG-SG meetings, and that the latest agreed deadlines had already passed. The RWG-SG has
now reached a critical time when the group as a whole should decide when the end results would be
published, how they would be published, and in what form.

4.2.5 The RWG-SG recalled that the Project Steering Committee, at its second meeting, in
December 2002, Hanoi, Vietnam, decided to introduce the process of independent review to ensure the
international quality of the final publications. Mr. Passfield noted that, not all reports had been received
in draft; hence the process of external independent review had been delayed. Draft reviews from
independent reviewers, together with the review of the PCU, have been consolidated in document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/6.

4.2.6
Members of the RWG-SG accepted that the comments of the independent reviewers and the
PCU are valid and helpful, and would be taken fully into consideration in the finalisation of the reports.

4.2.7
Regarding the reports on legislation and economic valuation, the first meetings of the Regional
Task Force on Legal Matters (RTF-L) and the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation (RTF-E) had
reviewed the reports and provided advice and recommendations for their finalisation. Comments of the
Task Forces on the national reports were sent to each individual SEA upon the completion of the RTF
meetings. It was agreed that the minimum content for legislation reports and the regional framework for
economic valuation should be followed by the SEAs in revising and finalising their reports. Some
countries informed the meeting, that they had contacted and discussed the comments with their national
legal experts, and had revised their legislation reports following the recommendations made by the
Regional Task Force on Legal Matters.

4.2.8
In deciding what reports should be published, and in what format, some countries noted that
the minimum content of the legislation report and regional framework for economic valuation, worked out
by the RTF-L and RTF-E, provided very useful guidelines for the SEAs in revising and finalising the
reports. The RWG-SG therefore agreed that it would work out a minimum content for the final
publication of the seagrass national reports that synthesised the data and information collected by the
SEAs.

4.2.9
Following this decision a lengthy discussion ensued during which the meeting agreed that two
separate reports should be published by June 2004:
1) National Seagrass Report, combining review of past and ongoing activities, review of data
and information, national legislation and economic valuation;
2) National Action Plan.

4.2.10 In considering the format and content of the National Seagrass Report, Annex 7 of the first
meeting report, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3, was reconsidered, based on which, a minimum
content of the final National Seagrass Report was agreed by the RWG-SG. This minimum content is
contained as Annex 4 to this report. It was agreed that the report will be compiled according to the
format, and submitted to the PCU by the end of March for Malaysia, and the end January 2004 for
other countries. It was also agreed that the references of the reports would be numbered, and
appended to each chapter.

4.2.11 In the case of Cambodia, there is a serious lack of data and information on seagrass.
Suggestions were solicited from members to assist in addressing this lack of information from
Cambodia. Mr. Seriwath noted that most of the surveys conducted in Cambodia are socio-economic
surveys, rather than ecological ones. Dr. Fortes and Dr. Chittima agreed that they would provide

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 5

some information to Cambodia and Dr. Chittima also agreed to provide some sources of information
for Malaysia.

4.2.12 With regard to the status of the national seagrass action plans, it was noted that different
countries are at different stages of development of the national seagrass action plans. Mr. Passfield
noted that, national action plans are very important anticipated outputs that will provide inputs to the
Strategic Action Programme.

4.2.13 Indonesia informed the RWG-SG that the national action plan was completed and had been
adopted by the government. Each country considered carefully their individual work plans and the
status of their national action plan, and proposed their timetables to submit the draft national action
plans, as follows: Cambodia, China, Thailand, Vietnam, March 31st 2004; Malaysia, April 30th 2004;
Philippines, 31st January 2004.

4.2.14 In response to a query from the floor on the National Action Plans (NAPs), the Project
Director requested permission of the Chairperson to provide some clarification. He informed the
meeting that drafts of these plans were a required output by the end of the first phase of the project.
He emphasized the importance of finalising these during the second phase of the UNEP/GEF South
China Sea Project, and they would be included in the MoUs, which would need to be negotiated by
March 2004 for the second phase. He recalled that during the PDF-B phase of the UNEP/GEF South
China Sea Project, a draft Strategic Action Programme (SAP) had been prepared and adopted by the
seven participating countries. He emphasized that NAPs should be operational and implementable
with defined, realistic and specific goals and actions.

4.2.15 An important element to be included in the revised SAP will be a regional economic valuation,
such that the costs of intervention or non-intervention with regard to environmental degradation could
be determined at regional rather than national or local scales. He noted that NAPs were a
fundamental element contributing to the finalisation of the SAP. NAPs should provide justification for
government intervention by evaluating the cost of the intervention and the cost of non-intervention.

4.2.16 The Project Director indicated that the draft NAPs developed during the preparatory phase
should serve as a starting point for the development of the final NAP to be adopted formally by
governments before December 2007. He indicated that one of the main goals during the second
phase of the project is to provide inputs from the national level to the elaboration of the SAP. He
noted that this process might take a considerable time, as it was necessary to involve various
stakeholders and to go through a sometimes, lengthy process of government approval and adoption.
He encouraged the focal points to consult with various levels of government and other stakeholders in
the near future to determine the most appropriate way in which to develop and secure approval for the
National Action Plans.

4.2.17 The Project Director reminded members of the RWG-SG that the MoUs must be amended to
permit extension to June 2004. Accordingly, he requested the SEAs to work on their work plans
overnight, and to submit individual work plans to the PCU to consolidate on the following morning.

4.3
Status of planned substantive outputs from the regional level

4.3.1
The Chairperson invited the PCU member to introduce this item. Members recalled their
agreement that a regional over-view of the status of Seagrass in the South China Sea was to have been
produced by the PCU and officers of the committee prior to this meeting, for review during the meeting.
Regrettably delays in submission of national inputs including submission of GIS based data and
metadata, combined with the staffing situation in the PCU during the first half of 2003, have delayed the
preparation of this overview, which must be printed in time for the Regional Scientific Conference in
February 2004.

4.3.2 Mr. Passfield presented document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/7, "Proposed timetable,
contents and responsibilities for the production of the regional overview of Seagrass bordering the South
China Sea," which suggested a format and framework for the content of the regional overview, that was
consistent with those for the other components and sub-components. The main content of the regional
overview should include: foreword; introduction; seagrass distribution & diversity in SCS; state of
seagrass beds & present threats; use & value of seagrass systems bordering the South China Sea;

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 6

purpose of the demonstration sites; process of selection of sites; and end page. An example of text
formatting and cover for the regional review were also presented to the meeting.

4.3.3
The participants were reminded that an email was circulated to the group by Mr. Passfield,
seeking inputs and volunteers to assist in the publication of this regional overview. He informed the
meeting that some information had been received from individual countries: Vietnam has provided
information on the use of and threats to seagrass, Cambodia information on threats, Thailand
information on threats and Professor Huang on threats and uses of seagrass in China. Dr. Fortes
accepted the suggestion of the PCU to write the "Foreword," which had been electronically circulated to
the group.

4.3.4
The following members agreed to take responsibility for portions of the booklet as follows:
· Dr. Fortes -"Introduction". He indicated that it would be difficult to write text on "rates of loss
in area over the 20th Century, globally and regionally," so he sought some inputs and
information for this part. It was suggested that the information on the rates of loss could be
possibly deduced from some national reports.
· Dr. Chittima - co-ordinate the production of the part on "seagrass distribution & diversity in
SCS," with inputs of national focal points.
· Dr. Hutomo - "the state of seagrass beds and present threats."
· Dr. Suvaluck Satumanatpan "the use & value of seagrass systems bordering the South
China Sea."

4.3.5
Mr. Passfield indicated that he had received some inputs from focal points that would enable
him to assist Mr. Hutomo and Dr. Suvaluck on those parts for which they had assumed responsibility.

4.3.6
It was further suggested that the purpose of the demonstration sites and process of selecting
sites would be similar across sub-components. Therefore this section would be coordinated by the PCU.
It was agreed that a draft of the regional overview should be completed during this meeting. A case
study of dugongs around Phu Quoc in Vietnam will be included and another case study on cookies
made from seagrass seeds in the Philippines.

4.3.7 The meeting noted the extreme urgency to develop the regional overview of seagrass, and
discussed the information needs for certain parts of the review. In order to assist the PCU in the
writing of the part "purposes of proposed demonstration sites proposals," the meeting decided that
countries should identify the main purpose of each proposed demonstration site. This was duly
completed, and is presented in the table below.

Table 1
Focus of interventions at the proposed demonstration sites.

Cambodia
Community Based Management
China-Hepu
Community Based Management
China-Lian
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
China-Liusha
Community Based Management
Malaysia
Rehabilitating degraded seagrass ecosystem
Indonesia
Community Based Management of a seagrass sanctuary
Philippines-Bolinao
Benefits of research institute involvement in seagrass management
Philippines-Puerto Galera Benefits of Govt/private/academic input into seagrass conservation and
management
Phi-Ulugan Bay
Linkage between seagrass, mangrove, and coral reef habitats -developing
partnerships among stakeholders
Thailand-Pattani Co-management
Government/community
Surat Thani
Creation of public awareness to improve conservation of seagrass beds.
Vietnam Bai Bon
Maintaining seagrass beds for biodiversity, particularly endangered species
Vietnam-Thuy Trieu
Community Based Management

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 7

5.
REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS

5.1
Site characterisation; cluster analysis; environmental and socio-economic ranking;
and available supporting documentation

5.1.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Passfield to present the document, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
SG.4/8, "Cluster analysis and environmental and socio-economic ranking, of potential seagrass
demonstration sites bordering the South China Sea". He noted that a cluster analysis had been
conducted based on data and information submitted after the third RWG-SG meeting. A revised
version of the clustering was dispatched on 1 August 2003.

5.1.2
Members were invited to note that, the clustering and ranking of sites is based on the agreed
environmental criteria and in particular criteria and indicators relating to biological diversity. In order to
ensure international acceptability of this process, the indicators must be substantiated by the lists of
species known to occur at each site.

5.1.3
In discussing the cluster analysis and data on which it was based the attention of members
was drawn to some anomalous values highlighted by the regional expert members. It was further
noted that missing data skew the results of the clustering. The RWG-SG decided that those sites,
which have 5, or more than 5 parameters, without data, would be deleted from the data set for cluster
analysis. Based on this agreed principle, 13 sites were eliminated from the data set, and 26 sites
remained for cluster analysis.

5.1.4
Some anomalous data values were questioned during the checking of the final dataset. One
of these was the coverage of seagrass in the site of Trikora Beach of Indonesia (99% coverage). It
was suggested by Dr. Fortes, that the highest coverage of seagrass may not exceed 95%, according
to the Global Seagrass Research Methods (Short, F. T. and R.G. Coles, eds. 2001)1. The regional
working group noted that the area of Cambodia KAMPSG1 site of 25,240 ha was enormous, making it
an outlier from all clusters. Mr. Suy Serywath clarified that the area was measured using remote
sensing and GIS.

5.1.5
Dr. Tien requested that the site of Con Dao should be eliminated from the data set, because
Con Dao is already being financed by the GEF and UNEP under another project. In order to avoid
duplicating activities and efforts, Vietnam will not propose this site as a demonstration site. Mr.
Passfield suggested that a demonstration site may not necessarily require financing from the
UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project. Visits could, however, be financed to ensure parallel learning
from the Con Dao site. Mr. Passfield suggested that, further discussion should be conducted between
Dr. Tien, Dr. Vo Si Tuan, as the Chairman of the Vietnam National Technical Working Group, and Dr.
Pernetta, with regard to this site.

5.1.6
It was also noted that some data used in the ranking process were unsupported by detailed
lists of species or references to original sources. It should be noted that the information included in
the regional cluster analysis should be substantiated by such listings where these had not been
already presented. Data and information were added, checked, revised, and verified for the raw data
set of the cluster analysis.

5.1.7 Following a very lengthy discussion about the difference between the two parameters,
"endangered and threatened species" and "migratory species" and recalling their previous decision
that turtles would be included as migratory and dugongs as endangered species only, the RWG-SG
agreed to reconsider this issue since countries have treated these parameters differently. For species
that are both endangered and migratory, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam had counted the species
in both parameters, but China and Thailand counted the species only in one parameter. In order to
make the data consistent between countries, it was decided that species, which are endangered and
migratory, should be counted in both parameters. Data were therefore revised by countries to make
the methodology consistent.


1 Short, F. T., and Coles, R.G. eds. 2001, the Global Seagrass Research Methods, Elsevier.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 8

5.1.8 There followed a discussion on whether the parameter "range of depth" should be included in
the cluster analysis since the importance of this parameter was questioned. Since the RWG-SG was
unable to resolve these differences of opinion, it was decided that two sets of cluster analyses should
be conducted, one with, and one without the parameter included.

5.1.9 The results of the two sets of analyses were presented to the RWG-SG and members were
requested to consider which cluster analysis best represented the overall relationships between sites
in their professional opinion. It was noted that, the results of the two sets of analysis were very similar
to one another. The cluster analysis including the depth range, resulted in clusters that were more
tightly aligned than those where the depth range was excluded, since in the former case there was
apparently greater similarity among sites within clusters. After some discussion it was agreed that the
most appropriate cluster analysis to use was the one, which included the depth range.

5.1.10 The issue of outliers was discussed in the meeting and a question was raised regarding how
these individual cases should be dealt with. It was suggested that the two outliers in the cluster
analysis (Con Dau, Viet Nam, and KAMPSG1, Cambodia) resulted from the data divergence between
the data provided, and the median condition or status of the majority of seagrass beds in the region.
The results of the cluster analysis suggest that the two outlying sites do not fit well within the clusters
based on the agreed parameters. From the perspective of selecting demonstration sites these
locations could only be considered as falling outside the normal range and therefore they would be
unlikely to be selected as representative demonstration sites. The cluster analyses results are
presented as Annex 5 of this report.

5.1.11 Based on the most recently updated data set, the meeting considered, discussed and revised
the environmental indicators and weight for the ranking of sites (Table 1 of Annex 6). Rank scores
were modified for the area, and for the number of seagrass, gastropod, penaeid shrimp, and siganids,
based on the most up-to-date information available to the meeting. The revised, and finally agreed
table of rank scores for environmental indicators is attached as Table 2 of Annex 6 to this report.

5.1.12 Following the assignment of rank scores for the environmental indicators, there ensued a
lengthy discussion on the indicators to be used for the ranking of the socio-economic aspects of the
sites. The meeting reconsidered the relevance of each of the indicators and revised them as follows:

· Potential for reversibility of threats. The original scale contains only three classes "low,"
medium," and "high." It was considered that this was too simple to reflect the real
complexity, since some sites will fall between "low" and "medium" or between "medium"
and "high". The meeting agreed that "low/medium" and "medium/high" be added to the
scale.
· Financial considerations/co-financing. It was noted that the "Project Cost GEF" was the
annual cost of the proposed project in the original table. Since most countries had
planned their budget with total project cost, the meeting agreed that the scaling of the
"Project Cost GEF" be revised to reflect the total project cost.
· Co-financing. It was noted by the meeting that co-financing includes both cash and in-kind
co-financing. It was further noted that different countries may have different methods or
standards for calculating in-kind co-financing, making it a less objective measurement
than the cash co-financing. The meeting decided that these two types of co-financing
should be separated and weighted differently. Therefore, the meeting decided that from
the total 12 points assigned to financial considerations/co-financing, 8 points were to be
assigned to cash co-financing, and 4 points to in-kind co-financing.
· Management potential. It was noted by the meeting that "management potential" is a
general indicator, which to some extent has been covered by the previous indicators. The
term "Other management considerations" was therefore suggested to replace
"management potential". Indicators under this category, however, were not changed.

5.1.13 The table of revised socio-economic indicators is presented as Table 3 of Annex 6 of this
report. Having agreed upon the indicators and weight assigned to each of the socio-economic
indicators, each country was provided with a hard copy of the revised socio-economic indicators, and
requested to score their sites.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 9

5.1.14 The Project Director noted that total project costs proposed by countries vary greatly among
sites. Some countries have proposed exceedingly high total costs for the proposed activities.
He pointed out that experience in the preparatory phase shows that there is limited capacity in
countries to manage large amounts of money. Considering the realistic absorptive capacity for
external funding of the countries in the region, he suggested that countries should make more realistic
financial plans based on actual costs. He further reminded members that, the greater the value of the
co-financing the more likely the proposal will be selected for GEF funding.

5.1.15 Malaysia informed the meeting that no proposal has been completed, however,
Mr. Kamarruddin bin Ibrahim stated that Malaysia is planning to propose Tanjung Adang Laut Shoal
as a demonstration site. He noted two reasons for this proposal. Firstly, this area is an example of a
threatened ecosystem due to intensive land reclamation and dredging activities being conducted in
the area associated with rapid coastal development. Second, the site is considered as the highest
priority by the government, which expects to reverse the impacts of degradation. Furthermore, it was
noted that a RAMSAR site is close to the proposed seagrass site, which provides an opportunity for
integrated management of wetland and seagrass.

5.1.16 The rank scores for the socio-economic indicators were collected and compiled by the PCU,
the result of which is presented in Table 4 of Annex 6 of this report. It was noted that the scores for
the socio-economic indicators were considerable greater than those for the environmental indicators,
hence simple addition of these two would result in the final rank being dominated by the social and
economic parameters. It was noted that each site has a higher socio-economic than environmental
score, and that the average socio-economic score (65.3) is about one and half times the average of
the environmental score (43.6).

5.1.17 The meeting noted that the Philippines sites and the Chinese Hepu site had high rank scores
for private sector involvement. In the Philippines case the meeting was informed that a foundation has
committed some co-financing to the proposed sites. China briefed the meeting that small fishing
businessmen have learnt the importance of seagrass for increasing fishery productivity during the
preparatory phase of the project, and had made commitments in changing their current fishing
practices.

5.1.18 The meeting took note of the fact that, socio-economic indicators are, to some extent, subject
to personal judgement and evaluation, which may inevitably result in less comparability of data among
countries. The meeting further noted that, socio-economic rank scores largely depended upon
personal evaluation and expectation, resulting in unavoidable subjectivity.

5.1.19 Whilst recognizing the importance of socio-economic indicators, the meeting considered that
environmental indicators and socio-economic indicators, should not be scored equally in determining
final rank score, since the environmental scores were based on more objective measures that were
comparable across all sites than the socio-economic scores. The meeting collectively acknowledged
that the environmental indicators should therefore be more heavily weighted. After a lengthy
discussion, the meeting agreed that the environmental indicators should be weighted at 60%, and the
socio-economic indicators at forty percent (40%). The final weighted rank scores arranged by cluster
are provided in Table 5 of Annex 6.

5.2
Critical review of proposals for demonstration sites

5.2.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Boon Tiong Tay to brief the meeting on the examples provided
relating to Sections 12-15 of the demonstration sites proposals. Mr. Tay noted that budgets and
expenditures should be carefully planned to cover specific activities, and therefore the budgets and
expenditures for each proposed demonstration site must be different from one another to reflect different
activities among sites. He noted that some countries had submitted exactly the same budgets and
expenditures for completely different demonstration sites, which suggests that some countries have not
carefully considered their budgets and expenditures.

5.2.2 He noted that sections 12-15 are very important parts of the proposals, and they are closely
related to one another. Section 12 presents the outcome of the activities at each proposed
demonstration site, which must be in line with the objectives and goals of the proposed site. Section 13
has to be well-planned activities, with the aim of achieving the outcomes specified in section 12.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 10

In Section 15, budget and expenditure should be carefully planned to cover the activities in Section 13,
while section 14 should discuss risks associated with the proposed activities specified in section 13,
together with a discussion of how to sustain the benefits of the proposed project.

5.2.3 It was noted that the ratio of government co-financing to GEF funding should be at least 1:1 for
a proposed project to be eligible for GEF grant funds. Mr. Tay emphasized that co-financing in-kind
should be very carefully calculated, and be included in the total cost of the proposed project cost.
Mr. Tay offered to assist each of the members during the meeting, or through emails, in revising and
finalising the financial parts of proposals.

5.2.4 Taking the opportunity of his presence in the meeting, Mr. Tay informed participants that the
first meeting of the RTF-E was convened in September 2003, and an economic framework for
economic valuation of seagrass, resulting from the meeting, had been produced and was distributed
to the RWG-SG. Comments were solicited from the members of the RWG-SG regarding this
economic framework.

5.2.5 The Chairperson invited Mr. Passfield to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/9,
"Reviews of the seagrass demonstration site proposals for sites bordering the South China Sea". It
was noted that the document contains critical comments on demonstration site proposals. Mr. Passfield
noted that the comments of the PCU were sent to each of the countries prior to the meeting, and
informed the RWG-SG that revised proposals from Indonesia and Philippines had been brought to the
meeting. Copies of the revised proposals were provided to the members.

5.2.6
Attention was drawn to the general, editorial and substantive comments, contained in document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/9, which should be considered by all SEAs in revising their proposals. The
meeting took note of the following common problems existing in the proposals:
· Proposals should follow the format agreed in the third meeting of the RWG-SG, provided in
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.3/6.
· Linkages between the parts of proposals should be laid out and illustrated. Goals of the
proposed projects should be tangible, realistic and measurable, and should be achieved by
a series of well-planned activities with expected outputs and outcomes. Budgets and
expenditures should be categorized under planned activities.
· Indicators of success should be included to monitor and evaluate proposed project
activities.
· Infrastructure such as office buildings, or major equipment items such as cars or boats will
not be financed by the GEF.

5.2.7 The RWG-SG considered, discussed and exchanged ideas on some important concepts such
as indicators, and the distinction between outputs and outcomes. Outputs are defined as tangible
products created by the project activities, such as meeting reports, posters, booklets, guidelines or
other publications. Outcomes are less tangible results achieved by project activities. An example was
given to illustrate the differences between the two concepts. During the fourth RWG-CR meeting,
several countries had decided to prepare joint demonstration site proposals, which is one of the
outcomes achieved by the meeting. The meeting report is considered as an output.

5.2.8 It was noted that indicators should be measurable and tangible. For example, an acceptable
indicator for "reduction of pressure from over fishing" could be the number of fishermen who left
fishing for alternative livelihoods. The indicator of the success of establishing a management
committee could be the government decree, which announced the establishment of the committee.

5.2.9 Due to time constraints, the RWG-SG decided not to review each of the 12 proposals
submitted to the PCU, but to critically review one proposal, considered as the highest priority, from
each country. The RWG-SG noted that the Philippines and Indonesian proposals are helpful for other
countries in revising their proposals, since they have already been revised based on the PCU
comments. Specific comments from the RWG-SG are as follows:
· CAMBODIA. It was suggested that specific site related goals and objectives should be defined
in section 10, rather than copy those of the overall project. The area of the proposed
demonstration site is too big to be managed; therefore Cambodia should narrow down its
geographic coverage.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 11

· CHINA HEPU. Outcomes in section 12 should be categorized and numbered so that they could
be easily identified by readers. Goals and purposes in section 10 should also be itemized.
Indicators to measure the success of the project should be included, such as the numbers of
pamphlets published and distributed, as well as the results of, for example, comparative
questionnaire surveys before or after the proposed interventions.
· INDONESIA TRIKORA BEACH. Mr. Kuriandewa accepted that the budget is high for the
project, but the expense is expected to be reduced. It was noted that the four proposed activities
should be clearly linked to the five outcomes in the proposal. It was pointed out that the
implementation plan under section 16 looks the same as the goals and purposes of section 10.
Supporting information for local community participation should be included. Linkages and
relationships with other components of the project or other existing projects in the proposed site
should be explored and included in the proposal. In section 8, stakeholder's names should be
spelled out. Financial commitments from various stakeholders, if any, should be included to
make the proposal more attractive to potential donors. It was clarified by Indonesia that two
organizations had made commitments to financially support the activities. In section 14, it was
pointed out that the GEF funding cannot buy a car or a boat. Indonesia clarified that this is a
proposal for the government. It was suggested that the establishment of the database should be
put under planned activities, section 13, rather than elsewhere.
· PHILIPPINES CAPE BOLINAO. It was noted that a stakeholder involvement plan should be
included in the proposal. Rationale and objectives (section 11) should be expanded, and the last
sentence of the second paragraph should be rewritten. This section should convince potential
donors that the site is suitable as a demonstration site, and how it will be related to the objectives
of the GEF. If there is another GEF project existing in the site, this section should explain why
additional money is needed, and how the proposed project is related to the existing GEF funded
project. It was noted that outcomes are too normative and general, and should be made more
tangible and specific. It was suggested that the budget should be revised. Section 17 should
include the project's linkage with other components or other GEF projects, and explain how the
proposed activities are complementary to the existing activities. The implementation plan under
section 16 is exactly the same as Annex 4. It is suggested that another table should be made for
the purpose of monitoring and evaluation, as in Annex 4. Under section 13, no management
intervention, such as patrolling, was included. Under section 14, risks were analysed and
included, but no proposed interventions were suggested to minimize the risks. Similarly, a causal
chain analysis was included in the proposal, but no proposed actions were included to address
the root causes.
· THAILAND, PATTANI BAY. Under section 13, the activity of establishing a Pattani Bay
Committee should include an indicator of success, such as a government decree. It was noted
that there are six proposed interventions for this bay. Components 1-4 are the priorities.
Component 5 and 6 will be future activities, not during the project phase. It was suggested that it
is not necessary to delete component 5 and 6 from the proposal, since the two components
show some future direction for the proposed site. It was noted that the proposed project has
ambitious goals, with sixty activities proposed within a period of three-years. The meeting noted
that the more activities proposed, the higher the risks will be involved. It was suggested that
activities should be developed and planned, which can be reasonably achieved during a three-
year period, and that some activities should be cut down, or be put under section 14 as future
activities in the discussion on sustainability. Under section 10, a defined goal is "reduction of
sedimentation in seagrass bed". Activities should be clearly designed to achieve this goal. Under
section 13, the "establishment of a master plan for 2007-2012" was included as an activity. It was
further noted, that it is good to have long-term vision of the proposed site. Under financial
sustainability and risk assessment, discussion should be included on how to achieve the
outcome and sustain the benefits. It was pointed out that benefits for local people or alternative
livelihood such as ecotourism should be included in discussing financial sustainability. Strategy
or plans for sustaining the benefits should be included.
· VIETNAM, BAI BON. Under section 12, it was noted that a 20% increase in fish catch would be
very difficult to achieve even in ten years. Therefore it was considered too risky to put this as an
outcome. It was suggested the goals and purposes should be simple, risk-controllable and
feasible. Participatory management should be included as part of the activities in section 13.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 12

Mr. Passfield informed the meeting that the list of endangered species may need to be checked
to ensure that it included only internationally recognized endangered species. Dr. Tien promised
to check the species list.

6.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON SEAGRASS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO JUNE
2004

6.1
During the first and second meetings of the Regional Working Group a flow chart of activities
and work plan and timetable were developed and agreed. It is clear from the sequential delays in
production of national level outputs that insufficient attention has been given in past meetings to the
time required to produce substantive outputs at the national level. The attention of members was
respectfully drawn to the need for full understanding of what outputs are required, by when, and for
what purpose prior to their agreeing on the work plan and timetable for the group.

6.2
In the light of the discussion and agreements reached under prior agenda items, the meeting
was invited to review and discuss the contents of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/10 "Proposals
for a revised work plan and timetable for the RWG-SG with details of outputs and milestones between
October 2003 and June 2004".

6.3
In revising the work plan for the Regional Working Group on Seagrass, the meeting took into
consideration the deadlines for national outputs, as agree under agenda item 4.2, as well as a number
of important milestones with respect to requirements for the Regional Scientific Conference in February,
2004. The final agreed work plan and timetable is contained as Annex 7 of this report.

7.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
SEAGRASS

7.1
Members were invited to consider and agree upon the proposed time and place for the fifth
meeting of the RWG-SG. It was noted that the PSC decided at its last meeting that future RWG
meetings could only be convened at demonstration sites. The overall schedule of meetings as
approved by the third meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee
(UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.3/3) currently has the fourth meeting scheduled for October 11th to 14th,
2004. No member expressed conflict of schedule during those dates.

7.2
While considering the fact that final demonstration sites would only be decided at the next
PSC, and would be based on the recommendation of the RSTC meeting in February, the meeting
proposed that, Trikora Beach in Indonesia will be the first priority venue for the fifth meeting of the
RWG-SG, and Pattani Bay, Thailand was proposed as an alternative venue. Hepu and Cape Bolinao
were both not considered suitable, as the respective focal points indicated that the weather conditions
in October may cause difficulty in convening the meeting at these sites. In the event that neither of
these sites was selected for a demonstration site, it was agreed that the venue could then be decided
through email discussion.

8.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1
Consideration of the draft programme for the Regional Scientific Conference,
Bangkok, February 2004

8.1.1 A draft programme for the Regional Scientific Conference (RSC) was distributed to the
meeting for consideration and discussion. The meeting agreed that Dr. Fortes should present the
regional overview of seagrass, based on his international reputation as a seagrass expert.

8.1.2
Mr. Passfield noted that there are two main goals of the RSC. Firstly, it was an opportunity to
convene a meeting with members of the regional working groups from all components and
subcomponents of the South China Sea Project, which would allow for a review of progress and
achievements made by the project to date, particularly in regard to the data available regionally for the
important marine habitats. Secondly, this will be an important event for the whole project community in
engaging potential partners, and seeking external funding for 15 additional demonstration site
proposals.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Page 13

8.1.3
It was noted by the Project Director, that a wide of variety of potential partners, including
government development agencies, foundations and private sector organisations, would be invited to
the Conference. He informed the meeting that numerous communications had already been sent to a
variety of potential partners by the PCU. It is estimated that 30 agencies will be represented at the
Conference and he noted that concrete demonstration site proposals should be finalized and made
available well in advance of the conference if co-financing from external partners was to be realised.
The Project Director requested that the focal points work diligently to ensure final proposals were
received by the PCU by the deadline of 15th December. Otherwise it would be impossible for the PCU
to prepare the compilation of proposals that needed to be presented at the RSC.

8.1.4
Dr. Fortes suggested that related projects and programmes should be also invited to the
RSC in order to ensure regional exchange of information and sharing of knowledge. Dr. Pernetta
informed members that a series of agencies would be invited for the Conference. It was also noted by
Mr. Kuriandewa that this event could provide opportunity for regional networking that may benefit
countries beyond the life of the project. It was noted that countries could consider bringing in
additional publications produced under the project for information during the Conference. It was noted
with regret that Dr. Tien still could not confirm his availability to attend the meeting. All other members
confirmed their participation.

8.2
Consideration of the status of Ruppia maritima

8.2.1 Dr. Fortes reminded the meeting of the email distributed to all members prior to the meeting,
on the discussion of whether Ruppia maritima should be considered a seagrass species, as there was
some dispute among international experts on its taxonomic status. Members advised that they had
considered the information contained in that email, and decided that the RWG-SG would consider the
species as a seagrass. The email on the subject is attached as Annex 8.

8.2.2
Dr. Fortes briefed the RWG-SG about a joint workshop to be held in Puerto Galera Biosphere
Reserve, Philippines. In the context of the UNEP/GEF project, the joint workshop is collaboratively
funded by IOC WESTPAC, UNESCO, and the Census of Marine Life. National outputs with regard to
seagrass management would be the focus of the support provided under the Philippines seagrass
sub-component of South China Sea Project. He briefed the meeting about the objectives of the
workshop, and noted its relevance to the goals of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project. He invited
members to attend the joint workshop at their own cost, and informed the meeting that the proposed
dates for the workshop will be in either March or May 2004.

8.2.3
Prof. Huang noted with regret that there was no time for a site visit during this fourth meeting
of the RWG. As compensation, he showed a video of seagrass beds in Hepu and Lian, for which the
RWG-SG expressed their appreciation.

9.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING

9.1
The Rapporteur presented the draft report of the meeting for consideration and adoption by the
members. The meeting report was considered, amended and adopted as it appears in this document.

10.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING

10.1
The Project Director expressed his appreciation for the hard work of members during the
four-day meeting. The Chairperson thanked the members for their kindness and diligence, Professor
Huang for his hospitability as the host and PCU members for their work on behalf of all members of
the RWG-SG. The being no further business the Chairperson closed the meeting at 1630 on
2nd December 2003.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1

List of Participants

Focal Points

Cambodia
People's Republic of China


Mr. Suy Serywath (alternate)
Dr. Xiaoping Huang
Department of Fisheries
South China Sea Institute of Oceanology
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Chinese Academy of Sciences
186 Norodom Boulevard
164 West Xingang Road
P.O. Box 852
Guangzhou 510301
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Guangdong Province, China


Tel:
(855 23) 215796
Tel:
(86 20) 8902 3210
Fax: (855 23) 215796
Fax: (86 20) 8445 1672
E-mail: catfish@camnet.com.kh
E-mail: xphuang@scsio.ac.cn

Indonesia
Malaysia


Mr. Tri Edi Kuriandewa
Mr. Kamarruddin bin Ibrahim
Puslit Oseanografi, LIPI
Department of Fisheries
Pasir Putih 1
Turtle and Marine Ecosystem Center (TUMEC)
Ancol Timur
23050 Rantau Abang, Dungun
Jakarta, Indonesia
Terengganu, Malaysia


Tel:
(62 251) 6471 3850; 316 9288;
Tel:
(609) 845 8169; 845 3169 (direct)
08129005737
Fax: (609) 845 8017
Fax: (62 251) 6471 1948
E-mail: kdin55@yahoo.com
E-mail: indo-seagrass@centrin.net.id

Philippines
Thailand


Dr. Marco Nemesio E. Montaño
Dr. Suvaluck Satumanatpan
Marine Science Institute
Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies
University of the Philippines
Mahidol University, Salaya Campus
Diliman, Quezon City 1101
Nakorn Pathom 73170, Thailand
Philippines


Tel:
(66 2) 441 5000 ext. 187; (01) 700 7512
Tel: (63-2) 922-3944
Fax:
(66 2) 441 9509-10
Fax: (63-2) 927-2693
E-mail: ensnt@mahidol.ac.th
Email: coke@upmsi.ph


Viet Nam

Dr. Nguyen Van Tien
Haiphong Institute of Oceanology
246 Da Nang Street
Hai Phong City, Viet Nam

Tel:
(84 31) 760 599, 761 523
Fax:
(84 31) 761 521
E-mail: nvtien@hio.ac.vn

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 1
Page 2

Regional Experts
Dr. Chittima Aryuthaka
Dr. Hutomo Malikusworo
Department of Marine Science
Indonesian Institute of Science
Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
Pasir Putih 1, Ancol Timur
Bangkhen, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Jakarta 14330, Indonesia


Tel:
(66 2) 579 7610; 561 3469
Tel:
(62 21) 6471 3850
Fax: (66 2) 561 4287
Fax: (62 21) 6471 1948
E-mail: ffiscta@ku.ac.th
E-mail: indo-seagrass@centrin.net.id

Dr. Miguel Fortes

IOC Sub-Commission for Western Pacific
(WESTPAC)
196 Phaholyothin Rd., Chatujak
Bangkok 10900, Thailand

Tel:
(66 2) 561 5118
Fax: (66 2) 561 5119
E-mail: mdfortes138@yahoo.com

Project Co-ordinating Unit Member

Mr. Kelvin Passfield

Expert (Fisheries)
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand

Tel:
(66 2) 288 1116
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: passfield@un.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
Ms. Sulan Chen, Associate Expert
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand


Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Tel:
(662) 288 2279
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
Fax: (662) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
E-mail: chens@un.org

Ms. Sriskun Watanasab

Secretary
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand

Tel:
(66 2) 288 2608
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
E-mail: watanasab@un.org

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 1
Page 3


Resource Persons ­ Finance

Ms. Nita Tangsujaritvichit
Mr. Boon Tiong Tay
Fund Management and Administration
Manager, Project Financing
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand


Tel:
(66 2) 288 2167
Tel:
(662) 288 2609
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094; 281 2428
Fax: (662) 281 2428; 288 1094
E-mail: tangsujaritvichitn@un.org
E-mail: tayb@un.org

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2

List of Documents

Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/1 Provisional
agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/2
Provisional annotated agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Report of the meeting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/4
Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised
Executing Agencies in the participating countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/5 Current status of substantive reports on seagrass from the
Specialised Executing Agencies in the Participating
Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/6
Reviews of the drafts of the substantive reports produced by
the Specialised Executing Agencies in the participating
countries. [Individual reports for each country have been
produced with the same document number together with the
first letters of the country name appended.]
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/7
Proposed timetable, contents and responsibilities for the
production of the regional overview of seagrass bordering the
South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/8
Cluster analysis; and environmental and socio-economic
ranking; of potential seagrass demonstration sites conducted
following the third Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/9 Critical
reviews of the proposed seagrass demonstration
sites bordering the South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/10
Proposals for a revised, work plan and timetable for the
RWG-SG with details of outputs and milestones between
October 2003 and June 2004.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/11 Demonstration
site
proposals from the participating countries.
[These twelve documents are not individually numbered,
rather they are printed as received with minimal formatting.
They have been distributed by e-mail and are contained on
the CD-ROM together with all other meeting documents.]
Revisions of the proposals from Indonesia and the Philippines
were tabled at the meeting.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/Inf.1 Provisional list of participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/Inf.2 Provisional list of documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/Inf.3 Draft
programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSC.1 Regional
Scientific Conference, Draft Programme No. 1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.3/6 Guidelines
for
the preparation of demonstration site
proposals and format for use in their presentation.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 2
Page 2


The following documents are supplied on CD-ROM and in published form.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.3/3
Third 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. Bali,
Indonesia, 3rd ­ 6th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.3/3 Third
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. Bali,
Indonesia, 4th ­ 7th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.3/3 Third Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Land-
based Pollution Component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting.
Phuket, Thailand, 7th - 10th July 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
LbP.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.3/3 Third
Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Fisheries
Component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Siem Reap,
Cambodia, 29thApril ­ 2nd May 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
F.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.3/3 Third
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. Kota Kinabalu,
Malaysia, 24th ­ 27th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
CR.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.3/3
Third 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. Kota
Kinabalu, Malaysia, 25th ­ 28th March 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-SG.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.3/3
Third 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. Phuket,
Thailand, 16th ­ 18th June 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic
Valuation for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket,
Thailand, 11th ­ 13th September 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-
E.1/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters for
the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". Report of the meeting. Phuket, Thailand, 15th ­ 17th
September 2003 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.1/3.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 3
Page 1
ANNEX 3

Agenda


1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING

2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING

3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA

4.
REPORTS FROM THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT REGARDING OVERALL
PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1 Status of mid-year progress reports, expenditure reports, and budgets
4.2 Status of planned substantive outputs from the national level activities
4.3 Status of planned substantive outputs from the regional level

5.
REVIEW OF THE SITE RELATED DOCUMENTS
5.1 Site characterisation; cluster analysis; environmental and socio-economic
ranking; and available supporting documentation
5.2 Critical review of proposals for demonstration sites

6.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON SEAGRASS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2003 TO JUNE
2004

7.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON
SEAGRASS

8.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
8.1 Consideration of the draft programme for the Regional Scientific Conference,
Bangkok, February 2004
8.2 Consideration of the status of Ruppia maritima

9.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING

10.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4

Minimum Content for the National Seagrass Reports


I.
INTRODUCTION

II.
REVIEW OF PAST AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES

III. REVIEW OF NATIONAL DATA AND INFORMATION

1. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SEAGRASS

2. BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS

--SEAGRASS
--ASSOCIATED MARINE BIOTA
--MARINE ENDANGERED SPECIES

3. PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS

4. THREATS TO SEAGRASS

4.1 NATURE OF THREATS

4.2 CAUSAL CHAIN ANAYLYIS, including constraints in addressing the threats

IV. ECONOMIC VALUATION

V.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND NATIONAL LEGISLATION

VI. MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES - THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SEAGRASS
ACTION PLAN


REFERENCES WILL BE NUMBERED

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5

Final Cluster Analysis of Potential Seagrass Demonstration Sites

Background
Following the initial clustering conducted by the Regional Working Group on Seagrass the Regional
Scientific and Technical Committee reviewed the outputs and made specific recommendations to the
Regional Working Group regarding their finalisation. On August 1st, 2003, the PCU dispatched a
revised version of the clustering based on up-dated information provided by the focal points. The
results of this cluster analysis were discussed during the 4th meeting of the Regional Working Group
on Seagrass, and participants were asked to provide any final changes to the data, as well as to
substantiate the numbers of species quoted for the demonstration sites, through provision of species
lists and/or published references.

Available data and results
During the fourth meeting of the Regional Working Group on Seagrass, the members therefore
reviewed more carefully the data used in the cluster analysis. Table 1 lists the complete data set
initially agreed for the cluster analysis of seagrass. In accordance with the discussions and
agreements during the meeting, as recorded in the main body of this report, cluster analyses were
performed on (i) the complete data set of eleven parameters, and (ii) the same data set minus the
depth range indicator.
Based on a review and discussion of these results, the meeting agreed to include the depth range in
the data set used for the final cluster analysis of seagrass potential demonstration sites (Table 1).
The data set was then transformed into z scores (Table 2) and a cluster analysis performed using the
Clustan Graphic6 software programme. The resulting dendrogram is presented in Figure 1, and the
proximity matrix based on which this figure is presented in Table 3.
Figure 1 clearly shows three distinct clusters with two outlying sites, Con Dau in Viet Nam and
KAMPSG1 in Cambodia. The latter site has an anomalously large area in excess of 25,000 hectares,
which even following transformation isolates this site from the remainder in the set. In the case of Con
Dau the high number of migratory aquatic species (4) is twice that of the next highest sites and may
contribute to the isolation of this site from the remainder of the set.

Figure 1
Cluster diagram for seagrass sites, based on Euclidean distance and mean
proximity.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 5
Page 2

Table 1
Final agreed data set for cluster analysis of seagrass potential demonstration sites.
No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of No. of
No. of
No. of
Area
% Depth
No. of other
Site Name
Seagrass Penaeid gastropod Siganid Urchin threatened
migratory
(ha) cover range
ecosystems
spp.
spp.
spp.
spp.
spp.
spp.
species
Thailand
Kung Krabane Bay
700
80
4
5
4
5
2
M
2 1
1
Surat Thani
500
65
3
6
2
73
3
1
2
1
2
Pattani Bay
273
80
3
4
8
35
5
M
2 1
2
Indonesia
Trikora Beach
280
95
2
9
3
16
3
4
6
2
3
Mapur 275
85
3
9
3
11
3
4
5
2
3
Malaysia
Tanjung Adang Laut Shoal
40
80
1.2
9
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
Tanjung Adang Darat Shoal
42
80
0.7
9
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
Merambong Shoal
30
80
0.7
10
2
2
2
M
2 1
2
Sungal Paka Shoal
43
M
4
2
M
2
M
2
1
1
1
Pulau Tinggi Mersing
3
70
3
6
M
M
2
2
2
1
2
Setiu Terengganu
3
70
6
3
M
3
2
M
1 1
1
Pulau Besar Mersing
3
70
4
5
M
1
2
M
2 1
2
Philippines
Cape Bolinao
2,500
75
1.7
9
7
23
6
4
3
2
1
Puerto Galera
114
95
4.5
9
3
11
2
3
3
2
1
Ulugan Bay
11
90
2.5
8
3
10
2
5
4
2
0
Puerto Princesa/Honda Bay
670
90
4
8
4
18
4
5
3
2
1
China
Hepu
540
85
4
5
5
10
1
3
3
1
2
Liusha
900
90
3
2
5
11
1
1
2
2
2
LiAn 320
82
3.2
5
4
17
1
1
3
2
2
Xincun
200
87
2
4
4
6
1
1
2
2
1
Vietnam
Bai Bon, Phu Quoc Is
2,000
70
6
7
3
46
1
3
5
2
2
Rach Vem, Phu Quoc Is
900
65
6
6
3
30
1
3
3
2
2
Con Dao Island
200
25
9.6
10
8
45
1
3
4
2
4
Phu Qui Island
300
50
2.5
6
2
35
3
3
3
2
2
Thuy Trieu (Khan Hoa)
800
60
1
7
4
10
3
2
4
2
0
Cambodia











KAMPSG1 25,240
45
2
6
M
M
M
M
2 2
2
Table 2
Data transformed to z scores for cluster analysis.
No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of No. of
No. of
No. of
Area
%
Depth
No. of other
Case
Seagrass Penaeid gastropod Siganid Urchin threatened
migratory
(ha) cover range
ecosystems
spp.
spp.
spp.
spp.
spp.
spp.
spp.
Kung Krabane Bay
-0.15
0.33 0.338
-0.63
0.077
-0.7
-0.15 Missing
-0.66
-1.24
-0.84
Surat Thani
-0.19
-0.58
-0.17
-0.21
-1
3.069
0.586
-1.18
-0.66 -1.24
0.308
Pattani Bay
-0.23
0.33
-0.17
-1.05
2.237
0.961
2.067 Missing
-0.66 -1.24
0.308
Trikora Beach
-0.23
1.238
-0.67
1.047
-0.46
-0.09
0.586
1.034
2.588 0.775
1.452
Mapur -0.23
0.633
-0.17
1.047
-0.46
-0.37
0.586
1.034
1.777 0.775
1.452
Tanjung Adang Laut Shoal
-0.28
0.33
-1.08 1.047
-1
-0.87
-0.9
-1.18
-0.66 0.775
0.308
Tanjung Adang Darat Shoal
-0.28
0.33
-1.33 1.047
-1
-0.87
-0.9
-1.18
-0.66
-1.24
0.308
Merambong Shoal
-0.28
0.33
-1.33
1.466
-1
-0.87
-0.15 Missing
-0.66 -1.24
0.308
Sungal Paka Shoal
-0.28 Missing
0.338
-1.89 Missing -0.87 Missing
-0.44
-1.47 -1.24
-0.84
Pulau Tinggi Mersing
-0.29
-0.28
-0.17
-0.21 Missing
Missing
-0.15
-0.44
-0.66
-1.24
0.308
Setiu Terengganu
-0.29
-0.28 1.348
-1.47 Missing
-0.81
-0.15 Missing
-1.47
-1.24
-0.84
Pulau Besar Mersing
-0.29
-0.28 0.338
-0.63 Missing
-0.92
-0.15 Missing
-0.66
-1.24
0.308
Cape Bolinao
0.221
0.027
-0.82
1.047
1.697
0.296
2.807
1.034
0.156 0.775
-0.84
Puerto Galera
-0.27
1.238 0.591
1.047
-0.46
-0.37
-0.15
0.296
0.156 0.775
-0.84
Ulugan Bay
-0.29
0.935
-0.42
0.628
-0.46
-0.43
-0.15
1.773
0.967 0.775
-1.98
Puerto Princesa/Honda Bay
-0.15
0.935 0.338 0.628
0.077
0.018
1.327
1.773
0.156 0.775
-0.84
Hepu
-0.18
0.633 0.338
-0.63
0.617
-0.43
-0.9
0.296
0.156 -1.24
0.308
Liusha
-0.11
0.935
-0.17
-1.89
0.617
-0.37
-0.9
-1.18
-0.66 0.775
0.308
LiAn -0.22
0.451
-0.07
-0.63
0.077
-0.04
-0.9
-1.18
0.156 0.775
0.308
Xincun
-0.25
0.754
-0.67
-1.05
0.077
-0.65
-0.9
-1.18
-0.66 0.775
-0.84
Bai Bon, Phu Quoc Is
0.119
-0.28 1.348 0.209
-0.46
1.571
-0.9
0.296
1.777 0.775
0.308
Rach Vem, Phu Quoc Is
-0.11
-0.58 1.348 -0.21
-0.46
0.684
-0.9
0.296
0.156 0.775
0.308
Con Dao Island
-0.25
-3 3.166
1.466
2.237
1.516
-0.9
0.296
0.967 0.775
2.595
Phu Qui Island
-0.23
-1.49
-0.42
-0.21
-1
0.961
0.586
0.296
0.156 0.775
0.308
Thuy Trieu (Khan Hoa)
-0.13
-0.88
-1.18
0.209
0.077
-0.43
0.586
-0.44
0.967 0.775
-1.98
KAMPSG1 4.866
-1.79
-0.67
-0.21 Missing
Missing Missing
Missing
-0.66
0.775
0.308

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 5
Page 3

Table 3
Proximity matrix for sites included in the final cluster analysis presented in Figure 1.

s

I
s

a)
ut
a
t
o
l

H
a
y
s
i
ng
B
r
s
ing
Quoc I
sa/Honda
Quoc

d
han
ang La
ang Dar
Shoa
ra
d
d
r

Me
ce
le
s
l
a
nd
lan
abane
li
nao
ay
i
n
Phu
Beach
nggi Mer
r
e
ngganu
esa
i
Is
i
e
u (K

Paka
o


Ga
on,
a
o I
a
t Thani
ung A
ung A
a
mbong Shoal
to Pr

a
u Ti
u Te
a
u B
Qu
erto
n
usha
A
ncun
u

ung Kr
a
pe B
l
ugan B
e
pu
a
i B
ach Vem, Phu
on D
K
Sur
Pattani Bay
Trikora
Mapur
Tanj
Shoal
Tanj
Shoal
Mer
Sungal
Pul
Seti
Pul
C
Pu
U
Puer
Bay
H
Li
Li
Xi
B
R
C
Ph
Thuy Tr
KampSG1
Kung
Krabane
Bay
0

Surat Thani
0.43
0























Pattani
Bay
0.376
0.432 0

Trikora
Beach
0.507
0.547
0.565 0
Mapur
0.44
0.509
0.52
0.106
0
Tanjung
Adang
Laut
Shoal
0.346
0.455
0.565
0.415 0.361
0
Tanjung
Adang
Darat
Shoal 0.294
0.421
0.533
0.456
0.41 0.185
0
Merambong
Shoal
0.311
0.459
0.514
0.433 0.374
0.22 0.085
0
Sungal
Paka
Shoal
0.216
0.574
0.358
0.772 0.697 0.518 0.466 0.571
0
Pulau
Tinggi
Mersing 0.182
0.122
0.306
0.53
0.45 0.313 0.233 0.266
0.32
0
Setiu
Terengganu
0.185
0.516
0.399
0.698 0.609 0.486
0.45 0.473 0.156 0.302
0
Pulau
Besar
Mersing 0.147
0.459
0.339
0.536 0.445 0.348 0.283 0.305 0.269 0.082 0.214
0
Cape
Bolinao
0.464
0.525
0.353
0.432 0.395 0.495 0.529 0.492 0.565 0.489 0.589 0.507
0

Puerto
Galera
0.297
0.467
0.508
0.339 0.286
0.27 0.338 0.336 0.502 0.369 0.446 0.377 0.387
0
Ulugan
Bay
0.33
0.551
0.541
0.363 0.338 0.392 0.437 0.378 0.603 0.485 0.502 0.442 0.385
0.212
0
Puerto
Princesa/Honda
Bay 0.306
0.49
0.395
0.338 0.286 0.408 0.454 0.375 0.541 0.439 0.451 0.388 0.256
0.207 0.208
0
Hepu

0.173
0.424
0.381
0.401 0.352 0.348 0.306 0.336 0.313 0.193 0.298 0.168 0.464
0.292 0.365 0.348
0
Liusha

0.292
0.462
0.428
0.491 0.447 0.324 0.378 0.452 0.333 0.342 0.364 0.319 0.516
0.354 0.452 0.433
0.27
0
LiAn
0.268
0.396
0.44
0.39 0.344 0.229 0.302 0.362 0.414 0.284 0.391 0.289 0.467
0.262 0.381 0.374 0.239 0.155
0
Xincun

0.245
0.457
0.467
0.482 0.439 0.245 0.309 0.375 0.332 0.324 0.362 0.319 0.481
0.287 0.369 0.393 0.284 0.149 0.157
0
Bai Bon, Phu Quoc Is
0.441 0.402 0.555 0.348 0.312 0.421 0.471
0.51 0.661 0.411 0.557
0.48 0.498 0.315 0.381 0.369 0.346 0.419 0.302 0.421
0




Rach Vem, Phu Quoc Is
0.329 0.379 0.497 0.402
0.33 0.338 0.398 0.434 0.481 0.319 0.393 0.337 0.474 0.264 0.364
0.33 0.275 0.322 0.227 0.325 0.176
0
Con Dao Island
0.722 0.636 0.704 0.639 0.575 0.677 0.715 0.774 0.859 0.651 0.762 0.687 0.668 0.634 0.726 0.647 0.589 0.669 0.589 0.711
0.46 0.463
0


Phu Qui Island
0.382 0.318 0.464 0.388 0.324 0.337 0.387 0.394 0.489 0.301
0.47 0.369 0.394 0.34 0.379 0.331 0.364 0.388 0.296 0.362 0.293 0.232 0.552
0

Thuy Trieu (Khan Hoa)
0.362 0.474 0.498 0.431 0.396 0.342 0.388 0.412 0.533 0.417 0.516 0.446
0.34 0.311 0.285 0.333 0.389 0.403 0.321 0.305 0.404 0.373 0.687 0.297 0

KampSG1
0.859 0.8 0.851 0.996 0.914 0.817
0.87 0.884 1.005 0.823
0.91 0.835 0.762 0.911 0.933 0.861 0.872 0.848
0.81 0.841 0.845 0.794
1.04 0.739 0.833

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 6
Page 1

ANNEX 6

Final Ranking of Potential Seagrass Demonstration Sites Based on Environmental and
Socio-Economic Indicators

Background

During the third meeting of the Regional Working Group on Seagrass (RWG-S), the ranking criteria
and the weights for environmental and socio economic indicators were discussed and agreed by the
Regional Working Group (Annex 7, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-S.3/3). A preliminary ranking of sites using
both environmental and socio-economic indicators was undertaken to determine the priority of
potential seagrass demonstration sites bordering the South China Sea.

Finalisation of Ranking Scores and Indicators

Based on the discussions and agreements during the fourth RWG-S meeting, the indicators and
weights for the environmental characteristics were revised and are presented in Table 1. At the same
meeting, the social and economic indicators and scores were also reviewed and discussed, and the
agreed revised indicators and scores are provided in the Table 2. The ranking results for the 26
proposed seagrass demonstration sites, based on the agreed revised scores for environmental criteria
and indicators, are presented in Table 3. The rank scores with respect to the socio-economic
indicators, for those sites for which focal points had prepared proposals (and hence had the relevant
data) are presented in Table 4.

Table 1 Environmental criteria (biological diversity, transboundary, regional and global
significance), indicators and associated scores as revised by the 4th meeting of the
Regional Working Group on Seagrass.

Indicator scale
Class of Indicator
Score
1. Area maximum 25 points
1.1 Total area (ha) maximum 15 points
<20 21-200 201-500 501-1,000 >1,000

Score 3
6
9
12
15
1.2 Percent coverage maximum 10 points
<20 21-40 41-60 61-80
>80

Score 2
4
6
8
10
2. Biological diversity 60 points
2.1 Species diversity Score maximum 52 points

2.1.1 Seagrass species
<4
4-5
6-8
9
>9


Score Maximum 15 points
3
6
9
12
15
2.1.2

Gastropods
<3 3-10 11-20
21-40
>40


Score Maximum 5 points
1
2
3
4
5

2.1.3 Penaeid shrimps
0
1-3
4-5
6-7
>7


Score Maximum 8 points
0
2
4
6
8

2.1.4 Sea Urchins
0
1-2
>2




Score Maximum 4 points
0
2
4



2.1.5 Siganids
0
1
2
3-4
>4


Score Maximum 8 points
0
2
4
6
8

2.1.6 Holothurians
0
1-5
>5




Score Maximum 8 points
0
4
8



2.1.7 Starfish
0
1-3
>3




Score Maximum 4 points
0
2
4


2.2 Community diversity Score maximum 8 points

2.2.1 Number of other aquatic ecosystems
1
2
>2



Score Maximum 8 points
3
5
8


3. Transboundary significance 5 points
3.1 Number of migratory aquatic species

Score Maximum 5 points
score 1 point per species
4. Regional/Global significance 10 points
4.1 Number of endangered & critically endangered aquatic species

Score Maximum 10 points
score 1 point per species

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 6
Page 2

Whilst recognizing the importance of socio-economic indicators, the meeting considered that
environmental indicators and socio-economic indicators, should not be scored equally in determining
final rank score, since the environmental scores were based on more objective measures that were
comparable across all sites than were the socio-economic scores. The meeting collectively
acknowledged that the environmental indicators should therefore be more heavily weighted. After a
lengthy discussion, the meeting agreed that the environmental indicators should be weighted at 60%,
and the socio-economic indicators at forty percent (40%). The final ranking of the sites within the three
clusters, using the final total scores, and the environmental and socio economic indicators weighted at
60:40, is given in Table 5.


Table 2 Socio-economic criteria, indicators and associated scores, as revised at the
4th meeting of the Regional Working Group on Seagrass.

Indicator scale
Class of Indicator
Score
1. Potential for reversibility of threats maximum 10 points
Low
Low/Med
Medium
Med/High
High
1.1 From destructive fishing






Score ­ max 5
1
2
3
4
5
1.2 From pollution






Score ­ max 5
1
2
3
4
5
2. National significance/priority-Government support maximum 16 points
2.1 National priority
Low

Medium

High

Score ­ max 16
5

10

16
3. Financial considerations /co-financing maximum 22 points
300,000-
200,000-
150,000-
3.1 Project cost GEF ($US)
>400,000
<150,000
400,000
300,000
200,000

Score ­ max 10
2
4
6
8
10
3.2 Co-financing commitment (ratio CoFin:GEF)
0
<1:1
1:1
>1/1


Score ­ max 8
0
2
4
8

3.3 Co financing in kind
Low

Medium

High

Score ­ max 4
1

2

4
4. Stakeholders involvement maximum 22 points
4.1 Local government (in cash/in-kind/commitment)
Low

Medium

High

Score ­ max 6
2

4

6
4.2 Central government (in cash/in-kind commitment)
Low

Medium

High

Score ­ max 4
1

2

4
4.3 NGOs/Civil Society (in cash/in-kind/commitment)
Low

Medium

High

Score ­ max 6
2

4

6
4.4 Private Sector (in cash/in-kind/commitment) Low
Medium
High

Score ­ max 6
2

4

6
5. Other management considerations maximum 30 points
5.1 Accessibility for management
Low

Medium

High

Score ­ max 10
3

6

10
5.2 Existing institutional framework Low


Medium

High

Score ­ max 10
3

6

10
5.3 Existing information
Low

Medium

High

Score ­ max 10
3

6

10

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 6
Page 3
Table 3
Ranking scores for agreed environmental indicators applied to proposed seagrass demonstration sites.

No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of
endangered
No. of other
Site Name
Area (ha)
% cover
Depth range
Seagrass
gastropod Siganid spp. Urchin spp.
migratory
Penaeid spp.
and threatened ecosystems
Total
spp.
spp.
species
spp.

data
score
data
score
data score data score data
score
data score data score data
score
data
score data score data
score
First Cluster
Pattani Bay
273
9
80
8
3
4
6
8
8
35
4
5
8
M

2
2
1
3
2
2
50
Hepu
540
12
85
10
4
5
6
5
4
12
3
1
2
3
4
3
3
1
3
2
2
49
Surat Thani
500
9
65
8
3
6
9
2
2
73
5
3
6
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
48
Kung Krabane Bay
700
12
80
8
4
5
6
4
4
5
2
2
4
M

2
2
1
3
1
1
42
Pulau Tinggi Mersing
3
3
70
8
3
6
9
M

M

2
4
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
33
Pulau Besar Mersing
3
3
70
8
4
5
6
M

1
1
2
4
M

2
2
1
3
2
2
29
Setiu Terengganu
3
3
70
8
6
3
3
M

3
2
2
4
M
1
1
1
3
1
1
25
Sungal Paka Shoal
43
6
M

4
2
3
M

2
1
M

2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
17
Second Cluster
Cape Bolinao
2,500
15
75
8
1.7
9
12
7
6
23
4
6
8
4
4
3
3
2
5
1
1
66
Trikora Beach
280
9
95
10
2
9
12
3
2
16
3
3
6
4
4
6
6
2
5
3
3
60
Mapur
275
9
85
10
3
9
12
3
2
11
3
3
6
4
4
5
5
2
5
3
3
59
Puerto Princesa Honda Bay
670
12
90
10
4
8
9
4
4
18
3
4
6
5
4
3
3
2
5
1
1
57
Puerto Galera
114
6
95
10
4.5
9
12
3
2
11
3
2
4
3
4
3
3
2
5
1
1
50
Ulugan Bay
11
3
90
10
2.5
8
9
3
2
10
2
2
4
5
4
4
4
2
5
0
43
Third Cluster
Bai Bon, Phu Quoc Is
2,000
15
70
8
6
7
9
3
2
46
5
1
2
3
4
5
5
2
5
2
2
57
Rach Vem, Phu Quoc Is
900
12
65
8
6
6
9
3
2
30
4
1
2
3
4
3
3
2
5
2
2
51
Thuy Trieu (Khan Hoa)
800
12
60
6
1
7
9
4
4
10
2
3
6
2
2
4
4
2
5
0
50
Phu Qui Island
300
9
50
6
2.5
6
9
2
2
35
4
3
6
3
4
3
3
2
5
2
2
50
LiAn
320
9
82
10
3.2
5
6
4
4
17
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
5
2
2
46
Liusha
900
12
90
10
3
2
3
5
4
11
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
45
Merambong Shoal
30
6
80
8
0.7
10
15
2
2
2
1
2
4
M

2
2
1
3
2
2
43
Tanjung Adang Laut Shoal
40
6
80
8
1.2
9
12
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
42
Tanjung Adang Darat Shoal
42
6
80
8
0.7
9
12
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
40
Xincun
200
6
87
10
2
4
6
4
4
6
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
5
1
1
40
Outliers
Con Dao Island
200
6
25
4
9.6
10
15
8
8
45
5
1
2
3
4
4
4
2
5
4
4
57
KAMPSG1
25,240
15
45
6
2

6
9
M

M

M

M

2
2
2
5
2
2
39

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 6
Page 4

Table 4
Final ranking scores for social economic indicators, for potential seagrass demonstration site proposals received, or where focal points
could provide data.
Existing
Destruct
Project cost
NGO/civil
Private
Existing
Co-finance

Pollution Nat
Priority
Co-finance
Local Govt Central Govt
Accessibility Institutional
Total
fishing
(GEF)
Society
sector
information
in-kind
Framework
Data
Score
Data
Score Data Score Data
Score Data
Score Data Score Data Score Data Score Data Score Data Score Data Score Data Score Data Score
Cluster 1

Kung Krabane Bay
M/H 4 M/H
4 M 10










Pulau Tinggi Mersing
L/M 2
2 10
8 M
2 L
2 H
4 L 2 L
2
6
6
6
52
Pulau Besar Mersing
L/M 2
2 10
8 M
2 L
2 H
4 L 2 L
2
6
6
6
52
Hepu
H
5 H
5 H 16 4k
4 5k
8 H
6 H
4 H 6 H
6 H 10 H 10 H 10 H
4 94
Sungal Paka Shoal
M
3 L/M 2 L
5 <150 10 M
2 L
2 M 2 L 2 L
2



30
Setiu Terengganu
L/M 2 M/H 3 L
5 <150 10 M
2 L
2 M 2 L 2 L
2



30
Pattani Bay
M/H 4 M/H 3 H 16
2 >1:1 8 H
6 H
4 H 6 M
4 H 10 H 10 M
6 M
2 81
Surat Thani
M/H 4 M/H 3 H 16
4 >1:1 8 L
2 L
1 L 2 M
4 M
6 H 10 M
6 L
1 67
Cluster 2
0
Trikora Beach
H 5
M/H 4
H 16
3.5K 4
4K 8
H 6
M 3
M 4
L 2
H 10
M 6
M 6
M 2
76
Mapur


























0
Puerto Galera
M/H 4 M/H 3 M 10
<1.5K 10 <1:1 2 H
6 M
2 H 6 H
6 H 10 M 6 M
6 M
2 73
Puerto Princesa/Honda Bay


























0
Ulugan Bay
M/H 4 H
5 H 16 <1.5 10 <1:1
2 H
6 M
2 H
6 L
2 H 10 H 10 H
10 M
2 85
Cape Bolinao
M
3 H
5 H 16 <1.5 10 <1:1
2 M
4 H
4 M 4 M
4 H 10 H 10 H
10
82
Cluster 3
0
Tanjung Adang Laut Shoal
L/M 2 M/H 4 H 10
1.5-2K
8 H
4 L
2 H
4 L 2 L
2 H 10 M 6 M
6
60
Tanjung Adang Darat Shoal

2
4 10
8
4
2
4 2
2 10 6
6

60
Merambong Shoal

2
4 10
8
4
2
4 2
2 10 6
6

60
Liusha
M/H 4
M/H 4
M 10
3.8k 4 4K
8 M
6 M
2 M 4 M
4 M
4 M 6 M
6 H
4 66
Xincun
M/H 4 M/H 3 L
5 3K
4 3K
8 M 4 M 2 M 4 M
4 H 10 M 6 M
6 H 4 64
LiAn
H
5 H
5 M 10 3.8K 4 4K
8 H
6 H
4 M 4 H
6 H 10 M 6 M
6 H
4 78
Thuy Trieu (Khan Hoa)
H 5 H 5
M 10
4
2
M 4
M 2
L 2
L 2 H 10
H 10
H 10
H 4 70
Bai Bon, Phu Quoc Is
M/H 5
M/H 4
H 16
4
2
M 4
H 4
H 6
M 4 H 10
H 10
H 10
H 4 83
Rach Vem, Phu Quoc Is


























0
Phu Qui Island


























0
Outliers
0
Con Dao Island


























0
KAMPSG1
H
5 M/H 3 H 16 H
2 0
0 L
2 L
1 L 2 L
2 L
3 L 3 L
3 L
1 43

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 6
Page 5

Table 5
Final ranking score for potential seagrass demonstration sites. Combined scores
of environmental indicators (60%) and social economic indicators (40%).

Total
Socio-
Rank
Environment
Total
weighted
Overall
Site Name
economic
within
score
score
60% env
rank
score
cluster
40% soc
First Cluster
Hepu
49
94
143
86.6
1
4
Pattani Bay
50
81
131
82.4
2
5
Surat Thani
48
67
115
74.8
3
10
Pulau Tinggi Mersing
33
52
85
53.8
4
17
Pulau Besar Mersing
29
52
81
49.8
5
18
Setiu Terengganu
25
30
55
37
6
19
Sungal Paka Shoal
17
30
47
29
7
20
Second Cluster
Cape Bolinao
66
82
148
98.8
1
1
Trikora Beach
60
76
136
90.4
2
2
Puerto Galera
50
73
123
79.2
3
6
Ulugan Bay
43
85
128
77
4
9
Third Cluster
Bai Bon, Phu Quoc Is
57
83
140
90.2
1
3
Thuy Trieu (Khan Hoa)
50
70
120
78
2
7
LiAn 46
78
124
77.2
3
8
Liusha
45
66
111
71.4
4
11
Merambong Shoal
43
60
103
67
5
12
Tanjung Adang Laut Shoal
42
60
102
66
6
13
Xincun
40
64
104
65.6
7
14
Tanjung Adang Darat Shoal
40
60
100
64
8
15
Outliers
KAMPSG1 39
43
82
56.2

16

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 7
Page 1
ANNEX 7
Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Seagrass, as Revised at the 4th Meeting in Guangzhou
Table 1
Work plan and timetable to June 2004 indicating agreed deadlines.
Year
2003
2004
Month
October November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Week
starting 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29
5 12 19 26 2 9
16 23 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14
Nt'l Com. Mtgs



x


x


x



x



x



x












NTWG Mtg











x
























IMC mtg













x






















RWG mtgs




































RSTC Mtg

















X

















PSC mtg



















x
















National Action Plan




































Cambodia
























x











China
























x











Indonesia







x



























Malaysia




























x







Philippines
















x


















Thailand
























x











Vietnam
























x











National Reports




































Cambodia
















x


















China
















x


















Indonesia
















x


















Malaysia
























x











Philippines
















x


















Thailand
















x


















Vietnam
















x


















Regional Overview




































Inputs from SEA




































PCU compile & dispatch



































SEA review




































PCU camera ready










x

























Publication















x




















MoU revision must be signed by 30/11/2003
Regional Scientific Conference

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 7
Page 2

Table 2
Schedule of meetings for 2004 (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -C = Coral reefs; -S = Seagrass; -W = Wetlands; -F= Fisheries; LbP = Land-based


Pollution; RTF-E = Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation; RTF-L = Regional Task Force on Legal Matters.)
S M T W
T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M
January




1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31




H




















Chinese NY









February







1
2
3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29

Regional








H








Science

RSTC-4







PSC-3



Conference
March

1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30 31




RWG-





H









Ad
hoc














LbP-4
April




1 2 3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30






LbP-4


RWG-F-4




Thai NY



















May






1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31








RTF-L-2












ExComm











June


1
2
3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29 30






RTF-E-2

































July




1 2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31







































August
1
2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
30 31
















H











RWG- S-5










September



1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30


















RWG-C-5










RWG-M-5




October





1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31










RWG-W-5


RWG- F-5



Ramadan










November

1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29 30













Ramadan


H








RWG-LbP-5









December



1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30 31










H


RSTC-5

PSC-4









Xmas
H

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 8
Page 1
ANNEX 8

Email from Dr. M.D. Fortes circulated to the Regional Working Group on Seagrass on
26th November 2003, concerning the classification of Ruppia maritima

Dear Kelvin and friends:

As before, I am a little concerned by the question you raised, i.e. is Ruppia maritima a seagrass or
not? But let me give you some background which, way back, helped me to decide that, indeed,
Ruppia maritima L. `is' a seagrass. I take this from three perspectives, taxonomic/evolutionary,
ecological and practical. Let me briefly explain. I hope this will help clear up the matter and finally
allow the project to `officially' decide.

The taxonomic/evolutionary aspect concerns the following facts:
1. Hutchinson (1959) placed the genus Ruppia in the family Ruppiaceae (THIS IS
FRESHWATER). Kartesz and Kartesz (1980) place the genus in the family Zosteraceae
(THIS IS MARINE). They recognize three North American (including Greenland) species of
Ruppia, (R. anomala, R. cirrhosa and R. maritima) and list nine varieties of R. maritima. Older
North American floras, phytogeographical studies, and waterfowl food habit studies often
differentiated R. occidentalis ("western wigeongrass") from R. maritima. Many taxonomists
now consider the plant a variety of R. maritima. Morphological variations of the plant caused
by the environment may impose taxonomic problems in interior North America (Hammer and
Heseltine 1988). In Europe, the genus is considered a member of the family
Potamogetonaceae and two species (R. cirrhosa and R. maritima) are recognized
(Verhoeven 1975, 1979). These species are separated by morphology and chromosome
number (Reese 1962) and the salinity, depth, and water permanence of the wetlands they
inhabit (Verhoeven 1975, Verhoeven and Van Vierssen 1978b). Australia has four species (R.
maritima, R. megacarpa, R. polycarpa and R. tuberosa) that are also placed in the
Potamogetonaceae (Bayly and Williams 1973; Brock 1982a; Jacobs and Brock 1982). Other
species, varieties and forms of this taxonomically and nomenclaturally confused genus are
recognized from similar habitats in other parts of the world (Verhoeven 1979). Van Vierssen
et al. (1981) urges taxonomic study of the genus on a global scale.

2. Worldwide distributional records for Ruppia taxa show that representatives of the genus occur
on all continents of the world and on many islands. The northern limit is about 69 degrees N,
the southern limit is at least 55 degrees S, and the altitudinal limit is as at least 3800 m above
sea level (Verhoeven 1979).

The ecological aspect concerns some facts, which are common in the literature. Hence, I mention the
following:

1. Although often found with the seagrasses, wigeongrass is not a true marine plant, but
considered a freshwater species with a pronounced salinity tolerance (Zieman 1982).
Verhoeven (1979) considers Ruppia to have little competitive strength outside its rather well
defined ecological niche and states that its survival is inhibited by competition in certain
freshwater and marine habitats that would otherwise be physically suitable. Even in suitable
habitats, frequency and biomass of wigeongrass varies greatly, both temporally and areally
(Davis et al. 1985).

2. Ruppia maritima s.l. occurs mostly in coastal bays (temporarily to permanently flooded and
mesohaline to hypersaline); estuaries, fjords, lagoons, ponds, pannes, and sounds; and in
bayous, creeks, ditches, flats, and rivers subject to tidal influence (Olsen 1945; Millard and
Scott 1953; Thorne 1954; Ferguson Wood 1959; Kornas et al. 1960; Phillips 1960b; Hyer
1963; Joanen 1964; Joanen and Glasgow 1965; Verhoeven 1979, 1980a; Richardson 1980;
Thorne-Miller et al. 1983; Ferren 1985). Verhoeven (1979) defined temporary water bodies for
wigeongrass as those where physical conditions do not allow survival of vegetative plant parts
during certain periods of the year.

---

UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.4/3
Annex 8
Page 2

3. The species also mixes with true seagrasses up to at least 1.5 km offshore in large oceanic
bays. (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico; Zimmerman and Livingston 1979) (ALSO IN THE
PHILIPPINES, THAILAND)

4. R. maritima s.l., despite its otherwise rather narrow ecological niche, occupies wetlands
having a greater range of salinity than is tolerated by any other submersed angiosperm.
Optimum salinity for wigeongrass growth in Cl-dominated wetlands is about 5-20 g/L, but
somewhat lower salinities earlier in the growing season may enhance rapid germination and
drupelet production. Salinities for best growth in inland, SO4-dominated waters are about
twice as high as in Cl-dominated waters. The effects of salinity fluctuations on wigeongrass
are unclear. Wigeongrass does poorly in fresh, soft, or even slightly acidic waters. Nutrients
are readily absorbed from the water column and can stimulate growth, but in eutrophic waters
growth is often severely limited by phytoplankton and epiphytes.

The academic/practical is, for me, the deciding factor. I look at this aspect not primarily from the point
of view of a scientist, but that of a scientist from a developing region. The question I pose is:
WHICH IS BETTER FOR OUR PURPOSE, INCLUDING AN OTHERWISE NEGLECTED AND
UNKNOWN SPECIES OR NOT, IN OUR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE HABITATS WHERE THIS
THRIVES?

In Southeast Asia and the world, seagrass science is in a sad state and in general lagging behind the
other `component' sciences. In the region, scientific research is `led by the nose' by international
funding agencies and their thrusts, so that many fascinating species are neglected and set aside, in
favor of those which are, of course, of more economic importance, or simply important from their own
points of view, or they are merely relegated in the background of more popular highly funded projects
on biotechnology, management, IT. Ruppia maritima is an example of a species that has been
suffering this fate for decades. Practically nobody is studying the species, despite the fact that in
some countries in the US and Europe, it has received so much scientific attention due to the fact that
it has been a very useful species ­economically and ecologically.

As is being recommended globally, we should spend more effort in understanding this virtually
unknown species. And the way to do is first and foremost, include it in our investigations of the
habitats where our primary concerns are likewise focused. But in so doing, let us be reminded that the
question is far from being answered satisfactorily and our efforts are contributing to our own search
for the answer. There is no harm including it in our collections and ecological assessments. In fact we
benefit because we know more, and understand how, in relation to the other components, they
function in our coastal and marine environment. .

For the above reasons, Ruppia maritima is very much a seagrass!


Miguel D. Fortes

---