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
Second Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Mangrove Sub-component
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 10th 13th September 2002
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, September 2002
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Table of Contents
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING ...........................................................................................................................1
1.1
WELCOME ADDRESS ..................................................................................................................................................1
1.2
INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS...................................................................................................................................1
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING .............................................................................................................1
2.1
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE MEETING ............................................................................................................1
2.2
ORGANISATION OF WORK .........................................................................................................................................1
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEET ING AGENDA....................................................................................................2
4.
REPORT OF THE SECRET ARIAT CONCERNING THE MID- YEAR REVIEWS AND
REPORTS FROM PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES ....................................................................................2
5.
REPORTS FROM THE FOCAL POINTS ON INTER-S ESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AT
THE NATIONAL LEVEL ......................................................................................................................................3
5.1
REVIEW OF PAST AND ON-GOING ACTIVITIES INCLUDING ECONOMIC VALUATION .........................................3
5.2
OVERVIEW OF DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE AND STATE OF MANGROVES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL...........5
5.3
REVIEW OF NATIONAL DATA AND INFORMATION AND CREATION OF NATIONAL META-DATABASE...............7
5.4
REVIEW OF NATIONAL CRITERIA , MANAGEMENT REGIMES , INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ....8
6.
DISCUSSION AND AGREEMENT OF THE FINAL LISTING OF `TRUE' MANGROVES
TO BE USED IN SITE CHARACTERISATION............................................................................................9
7.
DISCUSSION OF ON-GOING ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE CHARACTERISATION
OF NATIONAL MANGROVE SITES AND THEIR REGIONAL PRIORITISATION.....................10
7.1
IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OF SITES FOR REGIONAL PRIORITISATION ............................... 10
7.2
REVIEWS OF THREATS AT SITE LEVEL AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE
CAUSES OF DEGRADATION .................................................................................................................................... 10
7.3
REVIEW OF SITE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT REGIMES INCLUDING NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND
POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS..................................................................................................................................... 12
8.
PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE GIS WORKSHOP
JOINTLY CONVENED BY THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT AND SOUTHEAST
ASIA START REGIONAL CENTRE IN AUGUST 2002 ........................................................................ 13
8.1
OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP...........................................................................................................................13
8.2
SITE CHARACTERISATION QUESTIONNAIRES DEVELOPED BY THE SEA START RC
AND WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................................... 13
9.
REVISION OF THE WORKPLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES .............................................................................................................................13
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH MEETINGS OF THE REGIONAL
WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES ......................................................................................................16
11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS.................................................................................................................................. 17
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING................................................................................17
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING .......................................................................................................................17
ii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
List of Annexes
Annex 1
List of Participants
Annex 2
List of Documents
Annex 3
Agenda
Annex 4
Members of the National Mangrove Committees and Sub-committees in the
Participating Countries
Annex 5
Format for Country Reviews of Past and Ongoing Mangrove Activities
Annex 6
List of True and Associate Mangrove Species for the Participating Countries
Bordering the South China Sea
Annex 7
An Example of an Analysis of Institutional and Legal Arrangements from
Vietnam
Annex 8
Workplan and Timetable for Mangrove Related Activities 2002-2003
iii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
Welcome address
1.1.1 The Project Director, Dr. John Pernetta, opened the meeting on behalf of Dr. Klaus Töpfer,
the Executive Director of UNEP and Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, Director, Division of GEF Co-ordination. He
noted that the agenda was very extensive and that there were numerous items requiring discussion and
decision during the course of the meeting. He noted further that this was a critical meeting in the
development of the project, as it would determine whether or not the overall workplan for the first two
years could be completed on time or if any adjustments to the work plan would be required.
1.1.2
Dr. Pernetta also noted that an important task before the meeting was to initiate discussion on
the regional basis for prioritising sites. Since the GEF funds can only be applied to activities with
demonstrated regional (transboundary) and/or global significance, it was vital that this meeting consider
a regional approach to prioritising mangrove sites for management intervention within the region. While
some sites would be funded under this project, other sites may also be funded through co-financing that
will be raised by the Project Co-ordinating Unit from bilateral donors.
1.1.3 Dr. Pernetta noted that the documentation in front of the participants was extensive and noted
with pleasure that much of this had come from the participants. He welcomed all members of the
committee to the meeting and expressed the wish that the second meeting of the RWG-M would be
as successful and enjoyable as the first.
1.2
Introduction of members
1.2.1
Dr. Pernetta noted that in accordance with the rules of procedure the Chairperson, Dr. Sonjai
Havanond; the Vice chairperson, Dr . Hanqing Fan, and the Rapporteur, Mr. Florendo Barangan
continued to hold office for a full calendar year, and invited the officers of the group to assume
responsibility for the further conduct of the meeting.
1.2.2 The Chairperson, Dr. Sonjai invited members to introduce themselves to the meeting and
there followed a tour de table during which each member introduced themselves and noted their
positions within the project framework. The list of participants is contained in Annex 1 of this report.
1.2.3 Dr. Pernetta also advised the meeting that in the absence of objections from the National
Technical Focal Points in each country the regional experts present, namely Dr. Gong Wooi Khoon,
Dr. Sanit Aksornkoae and Dr. Nguyen Hoang Tri, should be considered as full members of the
Regional Working Group from this point onwards.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Documents available to the meeting
2.1.1
Dr. Pernetta introduced the documentation available to the meeting noting the individual
discussion documents and information documents and their relationship to the various agenda items.
The list of documents available to the meeting is contained in Annex 2 of this report.
2.2
Organisation of work
2.2.1
The Project Director briefed participants on the administrative arrangements for the conduct
of the meeting, noting the proposed organisation of work contained in document,
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/INF.3. He noted that the meeting would be conducted in English and in
plenary as far as possible, although sessional working groups could be formed as deemed necessary.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 2
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson invited members to consider the provisional agenda prepared by the
Secretariat as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/1, and to propose any amendments or additional
items for consideration. There were no objections, and the agenda was adopted with no changes, as
contained in Annex 3 of this report.
4.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT CONCERNING THE MID-YEAR REVIEWS AND
REPORTS FROM PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
4.1
The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to present document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/4
containing a summary of the findings of the PCU following receipt of the 6 monthly progress reports,
expenditure statements and cash advance requests from the Specialised Executing Agencies. The 6
monthly progress reports from each Focal Point, which had been received by the time the meeting
documents were prepared, were available in document (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/5).
4.2
Dr. Pernetta explained that most of the problems with the reports received, appeared to be
based on misunderstandings, rather than anything more serious. He did however, emphasise that in
future all expenditures should follow the approved budget, in order to eliminate the need for budget
revisions half yearly. If money is to be spent on a budget line, for which no allocation had been
approved, it is necessary to seek prior approval from the Project Director before committing the funds.
Failure to advise the PCU of required adjustments in advance of incurring expenditures might, in the
future, result in the Institution and/or individual becoming liable for unauthorised expenditures.
4.3
Dr. Pernetta provided an overview of the summary of problems contained in document
(UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/5), highlighting the issues, which had arisen most frequently. He
explained that it had taken considerable time on the part of the PCU to review these reports, as most
of them required extensive modification before they could be accepted. He expressed the hope that
following the lessons learned in this first round of reporting, the second round of reports would require
less attention from the PCU. He noted that no further cash advances could be dispersed until the
reports had been cleared as being acceptable to the PCU.
4.4
Mr. Kelvin Passfield added that pro-forma forms for the six-month reports are despatched
from the PCU as electronic files. If Focal Points (NFPs) could ensure that these were then submitted
as initial drafts to the PCU in the same format, i.e. electronically, this would reduce the time taken in
finalising them, since the PCU could insert suggested changes or modifications electronically for
consideration by the Focal Points.
4.5
Dr. Pernetta noted that for some focal points e-mail communication was not easy due to size
limitations imposed by the server and advised the meeting that in future, all documents for meetings
would be made available on the project website, as had been done for this meeting.
4.6
There followed a general discussion on the limitations of certain email services available to
participants. Mr. Santoso informed the meeting that he had had difficulty in accessing the SCS
website, and it was agreed that the meeting would convene an after hours session to look at the
website using the internet. Other participants noted that they had no such difficulties.
4.7
Mr. Barangan informed the meeting that he would attempt to obtain authorisation from the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to sign the six-month reports on
his behalf as this would facilitate reporting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 3
5.
REPORTS FROM THE FOCAL POINTS ON INTER-SESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL
5.1
Review of past and on-going activities including economic valuation
5.1.1
Prior to considering the reports of past and ongoing activities the Chairperson invited the Focal
Points to provide a general report of the work of the National Committees with respect to activities
conducted during the inter -sessional period, in accordance with the agreed workplan and timetable.
Members were also referred to the individual national committee meeting reports contained in document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/5.
5.1.2
Thailand reported that it had held a number of workshops and meetings, including a
workshop on a Mangrove Management Strategy Action plan in Phuket from April 22 -25, which had
involved 85 participants, including a number of high level officials, who attended the workshop to
discuss strategies. Other meetings and activities are included in the document
(UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/5).
5.1.3
Dr. Gong noted that it was impressive that so many people, including high-level officials, had
attended the workshop.
5.1.4
Dr. Sanit asked what the expectations of the PCU were with regard to the number of
meetings to be held in each reporting period. Dr. Pernetta explained that generally it was expected
that one meeting of the National Mangrove Committee would be held each month, and that some
countries such as Vietnam had followed that schedule. This meeting schedule had formed the basis
for the calculation of in-kind cofinancing by the governments, which had been agreed by the Project
Steering Committee. This schedule can however be modified to suit a particular country's situation
and requirements. For example, less meetings of longer duration, or with more participants, could be
held, that would still provide the same level of co-financing required to fulfil the country's agreements.
5.1.5
Dr. Gong asked what would happen if a country fell short of the required commitment in
person-hours . Dr. Pernetta explained that there is no direct penalty, such as reducing future fund
allocations. However, indirect repercussions could result based on the assumption that commitment to
the goals of the project had dropped, and this might be taken into consideration when determining the
location of the demonstration sites. He further explained that the 6 month report provides an indication
of the commitment of the country.
5.1.6
Dr. Sam noted that a National Working Group on Mangroves had been establishe d with a
number of sub-groups concerning environmental, biodiversity and economic valuation issues. Four
main mangrove sites: Quang Ninh, RAMSAR Xuan Thuy, Can Gio and Ca Mau had been identified
and considered for data and information collection and site characterisation. Of these Ca Mau and the
RAMSAR site at Xuan Thuy are considered potentially most suitable for selection as demonstration
sites. Dr. Sam also noted that a number of reports for the mentioned mangrove sites had been
produced, totalling 200 p ages, in Vietnamese.
5.1.7 Dr. Sonjai said that section 3 of the 6 month reports, on the problems experienced and how
the countries had addressed the problems, was very important and asked Dr. Sam how they had
handled their problems. Mr. Phuong replied that they would like to reallocate some funds through a
budget revision including use of funds earmarked for translation in 2003 to translating national
meeting reports to meet the six-monthly reporting requirements.
5.1.8
Dr. Pernetta explained that the translation funds in 2003 were for translation of regional
outputs into local languages rather than for translating national outputs into English which was
expected to be done under the Memoranda of Understanding. Funds for translation of local reports
into English could be made available through a budget revision approved by the Project Director
within the overall budget allocation to each Specialised Executing Agency.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 4
5.1.9
Mr. Barangan from the Philippines noted that they have not convened a national man grove
committee rather they were attempting to revive the 1986/87 committee, for this project. He had
however convened a sub-committee for the region around the South China Sea but it was difficult,
given the archipelagic nature of the Philippines, to convene a meeting with representation from the
various regions and provinces, which support mangroves within the archipelago. The committee
members are from regions in the North although some experts were also included from other regions.
He noted that to date NGOs and Academics were not yet included on the committee but expressed
the hope that they would be added in the near future.
5.1.10 Mr. Barangan noted some internal administrative problems had delayed fund utilization but
these were now solved and he hoped that progress in the implementation of the project would
improve during the second half of the year.
5.1.11 Mr. Nyoto presented the six-month progress report for Indonesia included in document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/5, and provided a brief introduction to the draft reports produced to date,
and included as UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2.7.Ind. Dr. Pernetta noted with appreciation the content and
detail covered in the reports from Indonesia.
5.1.12 Dr. Fan, from China noted that he had established a National Mangrove sub-committee, but
that funds had only been received from SEPA in July. Nevertheless his Institute had advanced
funding and he had been concentrating on GIS related tasks. The report is included as
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2.7.Chi. He noted that the sub -committee had convened 2 expert meetings
on site selection, and GIS operations and noted that they did not yet know exactly how much
mangrove was located on the South China Sea coast. To date GIS mapping had been completed
based on remote sensing for one province, and that he hoped to complete a second province by the
end of this year.
5.1.13 Dr. Fan further noted that on the border with Vietnam is a very important mangrove area and
that he had conducted discussions with local government officials, of the Fangchanggang municipal
government of Guangxi, bordering North Vietnam which has responsibility for the richest and best
mangrove resources along China mainland coast. The municipal government had decided to invest
30,000 US$ in the period from September 2002 to August 2003, to be used to establish a local GIS
for mangrove management; to support a mangrove coordinating committee consisting of government
officials, mangrove reserve administration, companies and local community; and to perfect their
information through ground survey and study referring to UNEP/GEF site criteria. These activities are
not only for GEF demonstration site application, but also, to meet the demands of local sustainable
development ,supported by the China National Policy of "Great Exploitation of West Parts" that has a
highlight on wise management of environments and resources during economic constructions.
5.1.14 Dr. Fan concluded by stating that China had experienced some difficulties during this first
reporting period, but hoped that these had been overcome and that the next report should indicate more
progress.
5.1.15 Mr. Vongwattana reported that the Cambodia committee had so far held 2 meetings, and had
undertaken a field visit. He tabled the report of the Cambodia Committee, with respect to activities
conducted during the inter-sessional period.
5.1.16 Focal Points were invited to supply the Secretariat with a full listing of the members of their
National Committees and these lists are attached as Annex 4 to the report of this meeting. Following
some discussion it was agreed that the full listing would be posted on the mangrove page of the South
China Sea website, together with the e-mail addresses where available. Members agreed to provide e-
mail addresses for committee members to the Project Co-ordinating Unit within 10 days of the end of the
meeting.
5.1.17 Dr. Pernetta requested that the expertise of the committee members be included where it
was missing and the Chairperson and Dr. Sanit duly completed the expertise column for Thailand.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 5
Cambodia agreed to supply the information regarding expertise within a week of the close of the
meeting.
5.1.18 Dr. Pernetta noted that it would be very useful to compile a list of members and their
expertise together with their institutions since around 400 institutions are currently involved in the
project. He noted that if the GEF Secretariat logs onto the project website, this would allow them to
see the linkages that are being developed under the project. In this connection Dr. Fan noted that it
would be necessary to up-date this listing as membership of the committee changes. Dr. Pernetta
replied that the website will be updated regularly, based on information supplied by the Focal Points
and that the listings would contain the dates of compilation.
5.1.19 The Chairperson noted that Annex 8 of the first meeting report UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
lists the following outputs that were to have been prepared by the Focal Points in advance of this
meeting:
Review of past & ongoing projects:
1st draft June; final draft September 2002
Identification & characterisation of "sites"
1st draft September, Final draft due December, 2002
Review National legislation
1st draft September, Final draft due December, 2002
5.1.20 Dr. Sonjai noted that documentation received by the Secretariat from the Focal Points in
advance of the meeting had been duplicated and distributed to all members as
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7. At the time of preparing the documents for this meeting, reports were
available from: Indonesia UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.Ind; Thailand UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.2/7.Tha; China UNEP/GEF/ SCS/RWG- M.2/7.Chi; and Vietnam UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.Viet.
5.1.21 Members were invited to present their draft reports on past and ongoing projects and
activities and Dr. Fan, advised the meeting that the first draft document from China might be finished by
next month.
5.1.22 Mr. Nyoto presented a summary of the content of the draft reports for Indonesia completed to
date, and the data and information that is still required to complete these reports. It was noted that
Indonesia was the country with the most comprehensive series of draft reports to date, and the
greatest area of mangroves in the world of perhaps 3,700,000 hectares. Dr. Sonjai asked about
national parks in Indonesia and Mr. Nyoto noted that Indonesia has national mangrove reserves, and
major mangroves are a part of some conservation areas, national parks, recreation forest, or wildlife
reserves. Indonesia has one Natural Forest Park (National Park) in Bali Island the majority of which is
mangrove.
5.1.23 It was suggested from the floor that a simple format should be developed for the report,
dealing with activities since 1990. Following extensive discussion, a basic format for this report was
agreed and is contained in Annex 5 of this report. In completing the table each separate activity would
be entered into an independent cell in the appropriate line.
5.2
Overview of distribution, abundance and state of mangroves at the national level
5.2.1 Members were invited by the Chairperson to review the required actions concerned with the
completion of the National Baseline information for inputting to the Regional GIS system, and discuss
and agree on:
·
the further actions necessary to complete this task; and,
·
the tim etable for their completion.
5.2.2 Dr. Pernetta reminded members of their previous recommendation to the Regional Working
Group on Wetlands contained in paragraph 5.1.5, on page 4, of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.1/3 that the Wetlands working group reconsider their scope of work to include significant freshwater
wetlands on the landward side of the mangrove habitats. A summary document concerned with
exchange of views via electronic means during the inter-sessional period was provided as document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.2/5. Dr. Pernetta briefed the meeting on the outcome of discussions during
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 6
the second meeting of the Regional Working Group on Wetlands, which had resulted in the group
agreeing to extend their scope of work to encompass all coastal wetlands excluding mangrove, coral
reef and seagrass habitats. He noted that the mangrove focal points should liaise with their counterpart
wetlands focal points on matters regarding potential overlap in tasks such as GIS mapping.
5.2.3 In preparing the national baseline regarding distribution of major habitats on the margins of
the South China Sea it had been decided to convene a technical meeting of GIS specialists from each
country to discuss and agree on the base-maps to be used for the regional system, the format for the
questionnaires required for site characterisation and the formats for metadata entry. He noted that in
supporting two GIS specialists from each country to attend this workshop, jointly organised by the
project co-ordinating Unit and the SEA START RC, the National Focal Points had agreed that these
individuals would provide GIS support to the Focal Points for each component of the project.
5.2.4
Dr. Pernetta noted that the representatives at the GIS meeting had agreed during the
meeting to contact all Focal Points on their return home and prior to this meeting, in order to assist in
preparation of the distributional baseline maps such that, members would be in a position to
determine the time required to complete this exercise. He noted further that, the existing base maps
included regional shorelines, administrative units, and rivers and catchments and that, the GIS
specialists had been asked to liaise with the focal points in country to determine what, if any,
modifications needed to be made to these base maps before distributional data relating to the key
habitats was overlaid. He noted that any data already in GIS format would be easy to overlay but that
where data were available in the form of paper maps these would need to be digitised. Where
information is not available, it will be left blank.
5.2.5 At this meeting it would be important to obtain an estimate of how long it will take to get an
overview of the distribution and extent of the mangroves around the South China Sea that could be
presented to the Project Steering Committee meeting in December. Data would need to be passed to
the SEA START RC no later than the end of October to ensure its incorporation into the GIS system
before the 16th December 2002.
5.2.6 During discussion it was noted that for some areas such as Bandon Bay, in Thailand an
extensive GIS database already existed (Microbrian) It was noted that in such cases these existing
databases could be linked with the regional system but that the level of detail contained in them was
generally far greater than was required for the purposes of a regional overview.
5.2.7 Mr. Barangan noted that he had held discussions with the Philippines representatives, and
the baseline information in GIS format was already available in hard copy and electronic formats. Dr.
Pernetta commended the Philippines on their progress, and the hard copy information was copied
and circulated to members as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/12.
5.2.8 Mr. Vongwattana noted that he had been in contact with the Cambodi an representatives who
had agreed to assist with the production of GIS infromation, however, he was unable to put a time
frame on production at this stage. Dr. Pernetta requested, and Mr. Vongwattana agreed, to do his
utmost to provide the information by October 15th, 2002.
5.2.9 Dr. Pernetta noted that there is money in the budget for the establishment of a GIS database,
under the existing MOUs and that it was clear from the GIS workshop, that a lot of information is
already available at the national level. Accessing this information can be facilitated via an institutional
contract with the relevant institution. Mr. Nyoto noted that he had met with the GIS representatives
and other Focal Points last week and noted that the task was quite large in the case of Indonesia
given the great extent of this habitat in his country. He asked whether additional funds might be made
available to assist in the GIS development. In response Dr. Pernetta noted that if the case was well
made, a modest additional allocation might be made since he recognised that for Indonesia the work
involved was quite extensive.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 7
5.2.10 During the subsequent discussion it was noted that the representatives at the GIS meeting
from China, Thailand and Vietnam had not made contact prior to this meeting and it was agreed that
the focal points would contact the GIS specialists immediately following this meeting.
5.2.11 The members agreed that:
· All Focal Points would contact their GIS representatives to discuss the requirements for
completing this task;
· Focal points would report on the outcome of these discussions to the Project Co-ordinating
Unit within 10 days of closure of the meeting (24th September, 2002);
· Focal Points would attempt to make the information available in GIS format by October 15th
2002, but if this proved impossible they would advise the Project Director as soon as
practicable.
5.3
Review of national data and information and creation of national meta-database
5.3.1 Dr. Pernetta referred the meeting to the report of the GIS workshop held in Bangkok, 7-9
August, 2002 (UNEP/GEF/SCS/E.M.1/3) and to the discussions of the first meeting of the Regional
Working Group on Mangroves regarding the establishment of the regional meta-database which are
summarised in paragraphs 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG- M.1/3.
5.3.2 Dr. Pernetta informed the meeting that the SEA START RCU had put considerable effort into
producing the draft format for the site characterisation questionnaires for input to the regional GIS
database and that these formats could be used for national level GIS systems. He noted that
participants in the GIS workshop had received copies of a CD containing all the GIS formats for
distribution to the Focal Point for each component in-country. It had become apparent during previous
discussions that a number of these individuals had not distributed the CDs as agreed and hence the
initial inputs required for this meeting were not available.
5.3.3 Dr. Pernetta went through Annex 8 of the GIS meeting report (UNEP/GEF/SCS/EW.1/3),
containing the questionnaires for the Mangrove component, which were based on Annex 6 of the report
of the first regional mangrove meeting (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3). He explained in more detail what
was expected in answering these questionnaires, and asked whether the meeting was comfortable with
what was agreed as the information requirements at the first meeting of the RWG-M, or whether they
now considered these to be too ambitious.
5.3.4 Meeting participants raised a number of questions regarding discrepancies between the
mangrove section of the questionnaires and the information requirements as agreed at the first meeting
of the Regional Working Group. After close scrutiny, a number of inconsistencies were identified, and it
was agreed that the meeting should request SEA START RCU to re-construct the questionnaires,
based strictly on the agreements reached at the first meeting of the Regional Working Group, and
documented in Annex 6 of the report of that meeting. If SEA START RCU had any difficulties, they
should contact the Chairperson of the RWG-M for assistance.
5.3.5 It was further agreed that all factors considered important should be included in the
questionnaires, but that if no data were available, then a "no data" entry should be inserted when
completing the questionnaires.
5.3.6 The following discussion concentrated on Annex 6 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3.
Dr. Tri raised the issue of discrepancies in GIS projections compared with reality and Dr. Pernetta
offered some clarification regarding different projections and issues of scale which resulted in differing
levels of accuracy and precision in any mapping system. He noted that the initial requirements
regarding mangrove distribution at national scales for combination into a regional system were not as
detailed as those that would be required for subsequent management at the site level. He further
noted that, the base-maps contained shorelines, catchments and river basins and administrative
units, which the GIS representatives were supposed to have discussed with the Focal Points and to
which any required amendments need to be made immediately.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 8
5.3.7 Dr. Pernetta indicated that at this stage site specific data collected via the questionnaires
could be incorporated into the GIS database and accessed via pull down menus. Other layers in the
GIS system will include temperature, rainfall, sea surface temperature, wind and current, on a basin
scale, and whilst these may not be sufficient for site management purposes they were adequate for
analysing distribution patterns of a regional scale.
5.3.8 The Chairperson invited the meeting to consider the actions required to develop the national
meta-databases and to discuss and agree upon the timetable for provision of data and information to
the Regional GIS and meta-databases. In this connection members were asked to take note of the
timetable agreed during the GIS workshop and contained in Annex 10 of document
(UNEP/GEF/SCS/EW.1/3).
5.3.9 Dr. Pernetta referred the meeting to the document UNEP/GEF/SCS /RWG-M.2/8, containing
the Meta-data format, which was attached as Annex 9 to the GIS workshop report
(UNEP/GEF/SCS/EW.1/3). Dr. Gong noted that the format covers two sensitive areas namely access
and ownership rights and also deals with issues of data quality. Mr. Nyoto asked how borderline areas
and boundaries were to be addressed, for example what would be considered as the border between
coast and inland. Dr. Pernetta replied that defining the boundaries was not that important. Although
with mangroves we are generally dealing with areas close to the coast, information regarding other
potentially relevant data sets from inland areas may be entered using geographic co-ordinates, if they
are thought to have a possible impact on mangrove areas.
5.3.10 Dr. Pernetta further stated there were some explanatory notes associated with each field to
assist with data entry, and that if any problems were encountered, focal points should write to the
Project Director, or for problems specifically with GIS, write to Dr. Anond and copy to the Project
Director. Mr. Barangan asked about gaining access to the data that is already held by SEA START
RC and Dr. Pernetta replied that a simple request to SEA START should be all that was required, as
any data currently held by SEA START RCU was publicly available. He also referred to paragraph
7.2.1 of the report of the first RWG-M meeting (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3) 7.2.1, where it was
stated that information would be freely available to all SEAs.
5.4
Review of national criteria, management regimes, institutional and legal frameworks
5.4.1 The Chairperson asked members to note that during the first meeting of the Regional Working
Group for Mangroves it was agreed that a draft review of national legislation would be produced by
September in time for consideration during this meeting (Annex 8 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-M.1/3).
5.4.2 In addition a number of the tasks listed in that same Annex involve initiation of activities
relating to this agenda item. Members were invited to present their draft reports.
5.4.3 Dr. Sam and Mr. Phuong made a presentation on the two potential, demonstration site
characterisations of the four site characterisations that they had completed to date, i.e. for Ca Mau
and Xuan Thuy, part of which is designated as a RAMSAR site. Dr. Pernetta expressed some concern
on the approach taken by Vietnam, and noted that the key purpose of the demonstration sites will be
to conserve biodiversity, and these sites might not qualify according to that criterion since they
focussed more on restoration.
5.4.4 Dr. Pernetta noted that there was a listing 24 species of flora, but there was no indication of
whether these were true mangrove species, which are the focus of the agreed site characterisation.
By focussing so narrowly there is a possibility that Vietnam will end up with a detailed site
characterisation for 2 sites that do not meet the selection criteria to be developed for the
demonstration sites. Vietnam should not limit the sites at this stage, but keep options open by
including a wide selection of possible locations until the site selection criteria are developed during the
next meeting of the RWG. At this stage, national criteria should be used in determining site
significance.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 9
5.4.5 Mr. Nyoto said that the approach taken by Indonesia was more to follow the flow chart agreed
at the first meeting. He hoped that some joint policy could be developed with Malaysia, regarding
sustainable mangrove forest production as in some places this was a problem. Another problem they
were facing was conversion for shrimp farming.
5.4.6 Mr. Barangan, said that the Philippines had identified 13 regions under the GIS format, but
most of the mangroves are concentrated in the Palawan area. He referred the meeting to the map
developed for the collection of GIS data in the Philippines that was distributed on the previous day.
Palawan is already a biosphere reserve. He believes potential demonstration sites from Philippines
will be selected in this area, but it was also possible that a site could be selected in the northern area.
They are also considering working with NGOs.
5.4.7 Dr. Fan said that in China they have small mangrove areas, and more than 50% are
concentrated around Beibu Gulf, and 30% around Hainan. The area along the Guangxi coast is also
of transboundary significance, because it is adjacent to Vietnam, and has a lot of birds and shared a
pelagic community of organisms. It is likely that this area will have some influence on Ha Long Bay in
Vietnam, which is known for its high biodiversity. Pearl Bay has the most significant mangroves of the
area and China is considering selecting a demonstration site in this area. There are already some
initiatives in Fangchenggang City (see para 5.1.13).
5.4.8 Dr. Sanit, on behalf of the Chairperson, made a presentation on mangroves in Thailand with a
focus on the Gulf of Thailand. He said that a successful project in the South China Sea would assist in
improving fishery production in the region. He asked what participants wanted to show with the
demonstration sites that would be selected for mangroves. In the last 30 years, approximately half the
mangroves of the Gulf of Thailand have been lost, mainly to shrimp ponds. He gave some examples
of sustainable use of mangroves for charcoal production, as well as where some restoration of
abandoned shrimp ponds was being undertaken, and where ecotourism and education had been
introduced as alternative sources of livelihood. He also noted that public cooperation was usually
forthcoming for any Royal Projects in Thailand, and there had been a number of these initiated. He
concluded with a brief description of the International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems (ISME) and
the Global Mangrove Information System (GLOMIS) database and website, and advised that there is
a CD free of charge from the ISME office. Dr. Sanit invited the members of the RWG- M to become
members of ISME.
5.4.9
Mr. Vongwattana made a presentation, based on the report, which was tabled for this
meeting as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG- M.2/7.Cam. He also gave a brief introduction to the
Excel database that was being developed. He noted that an area of Koh Kong Province is the likely
site to be proposed as a demonstration site for Cambodia.
6.
DISCUSSION AND AGREEMENT OF THE FINAL LISTING OF `TRUE' MANGROVES TO
BE USED IN SITE CHARACTERISATION
6.1
Dr. Pernetta reminded members that during the first meeting, the issue of "true" mangroves
was raised in connection with the site characterisation process and it was noted that at least three
countries had legally designated lists of species constituting mangroves.
6.2
After some discussion of what constitutes a true mangrove or an associate, members went
through the lists provided by the Focal Points to date, as well as the lists from Tomlinson, 1986, and
Watson 1928, and agreed on a list of true mangroves and associates to be used during site
characterisation, which is attached as Annex 6 to this report.
6.3
This listing serves not merely as a listing of true and associate species of flora for use in
determining the comparative species richness of different areas but also as an indication of regional
distributions since it identifies those species, which are recorded from each country.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 10
7.
DISCUSSION OF ON- GOING ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE CHARACTERISATION OF
NATIONAL MANGROVE SITES AND THEIR REGIONAL PRIORITISATION
7.1
Identification and characterisation of sites for regional prioritisation
7.1.1 The meeting agreed that this agenda item had been adequately covered under Agenda item 5
and reaffirmed that the original set of parameters, data and information requirements listed in Annex 6
of the report of the first meeting of the Regional Working Group were the parameters required for
characterisation of the sites.
7.1.2 The meeting reaffirmed its prior agreement that each national committee would attempt to
make this characterisation as comprehensive as possible (paragraph 7.1.2 of document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3) and that a concrete timetable for development of this process would be
set later in the meeting.
7.1.3 In this connection members noted that, the questionnaires prepared and presented for
discussion under agenda item 8, would need to be completed and corrected by the SEA START RC
before this process of collating information in a uniform format could commence.
7.2
Reviews of threats at site level and identification of the proximate and ultimate causes
of degradation
7.2.1 In the course of inter-sessional work at the national level designed to characterise sites,
threats and their causes were to have been identified and evaluated. The attention of members was
drawn to Annex 7 of the report of the first meeting (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3) where examples of
causal chain analyses were presented. Members were invited to present their findings under this
agenda item and to discuss and agree on the approaches that will be used in identifying threats and
underlying causes.
7.2.2 Dr. Sonjai reported that in Thailand, the main causes of mangrove degradation have been:
human stress, including:
· conversion to shrimp farms;
· salt production;
· over exploitation of forest resources;
· agriculture (mainly coconuts); and
· road construction (resulting in decreased flow of freshwater into mangroves).
Natural stresses, including:
· Coastal erosion.
· Typhoons and strong winds.
· Barnacles destroying seedlings.
· Defoliation by the moth, Hypblae puera, of some mangroves.
7.2.3 Dr. Sonjai noted however, that the focus is now on trying to conserve the existing mangroves,
particularly those around the river mouths. The Royal projects are also assisting to preserve and
restore, degraded areas.
7.2.4 Mr. Nyoto noted that in Indonesia, there were a number of causes of mangrove degradation,
including:
· Conversion to shrimp farms. Areas include Lampung, North Java, and South Sulawesi.
· Conversion of mangrove for human settlements, e.g. in Cilacap, Jakarta
· Sand mining, especially in Riau Island, which is causing erosion in Bengkalis Island. This
sand is exported to Singapore for land reclamation projects there.
· Cutting for firewood and charcoal production, were also threats to mangroves, especially in
Riau Province of West Kalimantan, where it is an ongoing problem.
He noted further that in some locations in Indonesia there were rehabilitation projects. The policy of
Forestry Department and the Marine and Fishery Department is to support all stakeholders in
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 11
rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems. The total area rehabilitated in Indonesia is 35,000 hectares,
and the priority areas have been on Java Island.
7.2.5 Mr. Barangan noted that the Philippines had 450,000 hectares of mangroves at the start of
the last century, but there was now only about 33% remaining. The major causes of mangrove
degradation were:
· Conversion of mangrove areas to fishponds and shrimp farms for food production.
· Population pressure and resulting settlements in mangrove areas, construction of ports and
harbours, and encroachment of industries in mangrove areas.
· Inadequate manpower and logistics for mangrove plantation establishment and for protection
of mangroves
· Inefficient reforestation/restoration techniques, including replanting with inappropriate species
not suited to the site.
· Low awareness of the importance of mangroves resulting in unsustainable use.
7.2.6 Dr. Fan said they have many problems in China. The major causes are conversion for shrimp
ponds, and local people collecting seafood and damaging the roots of mangroves. People were
seeking short-term gains, at the expense of the environment. There were too many government
agencies with overlapping authority pertaining to mangroves. At the political level, senior local
government officials need to demonstrate an improvement in the economy of an area in order to
qualify for promotion, and this sometimes encouraged promotion of short-term gains at the expense of
the environment. There was also a lack of community participation in mangrove management.
7.2.7 China was attempting to overcome these problems by raising awareness on the issues,
reforming the management system, and encouraging sustainable development and rational uses of
mangroves. Some areas of mangroves were being opened up to management by private enterprise.
Dr. Fan also suggested returning some power over mangrove areas to local communities to manage,
for planting, restoration, and ecotourism.
7.2.8 Mr. Vongwattana said the main causes of mangrove degradation in Cambodia were:
· Conversion for shrimp farm and fish farms.
· Salt production,
· Firewood and charcoal.
· Expanding human settlement
· Income generation for local people
He said that the approach to solving these problems was through trying to collaborate with NGO
groups and other agencies to undertake projects to make local people more aware of the importance
of the mangroves. He gave two examples: the Project on Participatory Methods of Mangrove
Resources (PMMR)the main activity of which is to develop participatory methods in community-based
management in a part of Koh Kong area; andthe project on coastal zone management (CZM). The
main activities of this project are focussed on provincial capacity building, producing natural resources
data profiles, and collecting socio-economic data on selected coastal areas. He also noted that,
regulations, decrees, and sub-decrees had been formulated, by Government and that, these defined
relevant organisations in forestry management.
7.2.9 Mr. Sam from Vietnam said that the root causes of the problems with mangroves in Vietnam
were similar to those already described by other countries, and included:
· Conversion for agricultural purposes, mainly from 1978 to 1985
· Conversion to shrimp ponds. This is the current major cause of mangrove degradation.
The productivity of the mangrove forests is decreasing because of degradation, and the soil becomes
more acidic. In order to address the problems, they have begun replanting of Rhizophora apiculata,
Kandelia candel , and other species. However, forest restoration was very difficult after an area has
been used for shrimp farming.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 12
7.3
Review of site specific management regimes including national priorities and possible
interventions
7.3.1 Dr. Pernetta referred to the report of the first meeting of the Regional Working Group, Annex
5. Members were invited to present their findings under this agenda item and to discuss and agree on
the formats in which such data and information should be presented.
7.3.2 Mr. Nyoto presented the draft report on the review of National Legislation in Indonesia. The
full draft of the Indonesian report is included in the meeting documents as UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.2.7.Ind. In response to a question from Dr. Sonjai, Mr. Santoso explained that at present it was very
easy to gain a permit for shrimp farming, and this was a problem. In addition, monitoring capability is
very low, and illegal activities such as cutting of mangroves are common.
7.3.3 Mr. Sam informed the meeting of the existing institutional and legal framework in Vietnam,
which is summarised in the following diagram.
Vietnam Institutional Structure related to Mangrove Management
MARD
National Level
DFD
FPD
Provincial level
PDFD
PFPD
Mgt. Board
DFPU
MARD:
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
DFD:
Department for Forestry Development.
FPD:
Forest Protection Department
PPFD:
Provincial Dept for Forestry Development
PFPD:
Provincial forest protection dept
Mgt Board:. Management board for protection forest
DFPU:
District Forest Protection Unit
7.3.4 He also informed the meeting that there is a National Environment Action Plan, which was
prepared by the Ministry of Science and Technology, not by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development.
7.3.5 Mr. Barangan informed the meeting of the institutional arrangement in the Philippines. The
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has field offices at the regional, provincial
and community (composed of municipalities which sometimes corresponds to congressional districts)
level. Institutionally, the DENR has the mandate in the management of mangroves but other national
agencies, the academe, and non-government organizations, also contribute to the establishment and
managem ent of mangrove areas. Observations show however that mangrove management by the
communities is more successful than management from outside.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 13
7.3.6 Dr. Sanit noted that all countries seem to agree that Governments cannot effectively manage
mangroves without community participation. In Thailand they are trying to determine through research
the sort of community participation that works most effectively to manage mangrove areas.
7.3.7 Mr. Vongwattana informed the meeting that there are two ministries that are responsible for
mangroves in Cambodia. These are the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, and Fisheries.
7.3.8 Dr. Sonjai informed the meeting of the institutional arrangements in Thailand. His presentation
was extracted from the draft Thailand report, contained in meeting document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.2.7.Tha. Dr. Sanit stated that the new Department of Marine and Coastal Resources in Thailand
brings mangrove management under one department, which should assist in coordination in future.
Support from the Royal family is also very beneficial to mangrove management in Thailand.
7.3.9 Mr. Barangan informed the meeting that the USAID funded Coastal Resource Management
Project in the Philippines does not provide money to communities, but encourages local government
to allocate a portion of their regular annual budget to mangrove establishment and management
interventions/activities.
8.
PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE GIS WORKSHOP JOINTLY
CONVENED BY THE PROJ ECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT AND SOUTHEAST ASIA START 1
REGIONAL CENTRE IN AUGUST 2002
8.1
Outcomes of the workshop
8.1.1 The meeting noted that discussion of the outcomes of the GIS workshop had been
substantively completed under agenda item 5. Participants noted further that the required follow-up by
participants with the National Focal Points had been inadequate. They noted the urgent need to
revise the format for the Mangrove GIS questionnaires relating to site selection and requested the
PCU to facilitate the distribution of corrected formats
8.1.2 During discussion of the preparation of regional scale distribution maps it was noted that for
Thailand and Vietnam, paper maps exist from 1996, Cambodia has maps from 1997, Philippines
maps are from 2000, Indonesia maps from 1997. China has a detailed map of one province only, but
a low-resolution map for the whole country. They hope to have a detailed map for the whole country
by the end of the year, based on information collected in the year 2001. Whatever is available from
each country is to be provided to the PCU by 30th September 2002.
8.2
Site Characterisation questionnaires developed by the SEA START RC and workshop
participants
8.2.1 Participants noted that the site characterisation questionnaires developed by SEA START RC
had been extensively reviewed under agenda item 7 and no further discussion was undertaken at this
point.
9.
REVISION OF THE W ORKPLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES
9.1
During the first meeting of the Regional Working Group a flow chart of activities and a
workplan and timetable were developed and agreed and were reported in Annexes 5 and 6 of the
meeting report UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3.
9.2
In the light of the discussion and agreements reached under agenda items 5, 6, 7 and 8, the
meeting was invited to review the flow-chart and workplan and agree a new workplan and timetable
extending to at least January 2004.
1 START = the Global Change SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 14
9.3
Dr. Pernetta reminded participants of the outstanding reports which the Focal Points had
agreed to produce by June, and September 2002, in time for consideration in full by this meeting and
asked when the countries who had not produced draft reports to date would be able to do so. He
noted that not having these reports in draft form for the meeting had resulted in duplication and
associated loss of time. He noted with appreciation the level of detail provided in the reports from
Thailand and Indonesia but noted that it would have been valuable to be able to compare the
substantive contents of these reports across countries in order to derive commonalities regarding best
practices and other aspects of mangrove management.
9.4
Dr. Sanit noted with appreciation the preparation and publication of the published reports from
the first round of meetings, which he felt would serve as an interim product representing progress but
that, by the time of the next (third meeting of the RWG-M), more substantial reports would be needed
to justify the continuation of activities.
9.5
It was suggested that the meeting develop formats for the preparation of the various reports in
order to simplify and streamline the work and ensure that they were produced in the fastest possible
time. It was also noted that better networking was required such that communications from members
of the RWG-M would serve as mutual stimulants to action. It was recognised by all concerned that
considerable effort would need to be expended to catch up with the delivery of outputs shown in Table
2, of the workplan and timetable contained in Annex 8 of UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3, and that a
revised schedule that relates to all activities would need to be presented to the PSC.
9.6
Habitat distribution maps should be incorporated by SEA START RC into the GIS for
presentation to the Project Steering Committee provided that, countries provide all the necessary
information on time. It was noted that the intention had been that this would have been completed in
advance of this meeting. Similarly species distributions based on existing information could be
completed by December 2002.
9.7
Dr. Tri presented a tabular format used in some locations in Vietnam as an example of a
method for reviewing institutional arrangements, which is attached as Annex 7 to this report. Dr. Sanit
provided the GLOMIS CD and the meeting reviewed the information contained on it that was of direct
relevance to the work of the group.
9.8
Dr. Sanit then produced a framework outline for the Review of National Data & Information,
based on the contents of the flow chart contained in Annex 5 of report UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3,
which was discussed and expanded by the group and agreed as contained in Table 2.
Table 2. Outline contents of: Review of National Data & Information, and preparation of national meta
database2
1. Geographical Distribution at habitat level.
1.1 Maps 3
1.2 Area distribution (by province, by region, or whatever)
2. Geographical Distribution of species &/or formations
2.1 Species Distribution
2.2 Formation4
3. Environmental State
3.1 Physical
3.2 Chemical
3.3 Biological
2 The format for the meta-database is contained in the meeting documents UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M M2/8
3 For Thailand and Vietnam, paper maps exist from 1996, Cambodia has maps from 1997, Philippines maps are from 2000,
Indonesia maps from 1997. China has a detailed map of one province only, but low-resolution map for the whole country.
They hope to have a detailed map for the whole country by the end of the year, based on information collected in the year
2001. Whatever is available from each country is to be provided to PCU by 30 Sept
4 Communities with same dominant species are in the same formation
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 15
4. Social use and ownership data.
4.1 Ownership
4,2 Present use
4.3 Potential use
4.4 Current management regime
5. Economic valuation
5.1 Direct use values
5.2 Indirect use values
5.3 Environmental service values
6. Threats, present and future
6.1 Human pressure
6.2 Natural phenomena
9.9
It was further agreed that this review should be prepared and completed in time for
presentation to the December 2002, Project Steering Committee meeting. It was noted that in order to
meet the requirements of the Rules of Procedure of the Steering Committee all documentation must
be dispatched to members 6 weeks in advance of the meeting, hence this report would need to be
finalised by the first week of November at the latest.
9.10
Focal Points agreed that th e review would be submitted to the Project Co-ordinating Unit and
the Chairperson of the RWG-M no later that October 25, 2002. Following receipt, the Project Co-
ordinating Unit and the Chairperson would compile, by November 1, 2002, a single report from the
RWG-M, for presentation to the PSC meeting December 16th-18th. 2002.
9.11
Dr. Gong assisted the meeting in preparing a schedule for some outstanding tasks based on
Table 2, in Annex 8 of the report of the first meeting (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3). The following
deadlines were agreed:
· Review of past and ongoing activities, following the format in Annex 5 of this meeting report
October 25th 2002, to be sent to the Chairperson and Project Co-ordinating Unit.
· Identification and characterisation of sites. November 30th 2002 first draft containing as many
sites as possible for entry into the Regional GIS and presentation to the Project Steering
Committee. A revised complete and final listing needs to be prepared no later that January
31st, 2003 for distribution by the PCU in advance of the third meeting of the RWG-M.
· Review of National Legislation:
November 30th, first draft for review by the PCU and presentation to the RSTC & PSC.
Revised draft January 31st, 2003 for finalisation at the third meeting of RWG-M.
9.12
Following discussion it was agreed that the review of national legislation would consist of
sections encompassing the following issues:
1. Laws
2. Regulations
3. Cabinet resolutions
4. National criteria used in designating sites for specific purposes such as: national park,
biosphere reserve, conservation area, production forest, or commercial activity
9.13
The meeting sought clarification, from the Secretariat, regarding the deadlines for the GIS
related tasks. The Secretariat made reference to Annex 10, of the GIS technical meeting report, which
had become outdated since a number of the initial steps still needed to be taken in some countries. It
was agreed that the timetable to be followed would be as follows:
·
Tables M.1.1 to M1.3 of the GIS questi onnaires need to be completed by the Focal Points
no later that October 15 2002 and dispatched to the PCU and to the SEA START RC
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 16
·
Questionnaires contained in M2 need to be corrected by the SEA START RC no later
than October 15 2002;
·
By the end of November 2002, a first draft of completed questionnaires for sites should
be submitted to the PCU (see paragraph 9.11 above). These questionnaires should be
submitted as they are completed, and not retained by the Focal Points up to the deadline.
9.14
After extended discussion on the nature and content of the various reports, Dr. Sam asked for
clarification on the number of reports required. The meeting determined that five reports are required
by the end of the year.
9.15
In responding to a query from Dr. Gong, Dr. Pernetta informed the meeting that ideally the
RWG-M should develop a work plan extending to January 2004, as indicated in the annotated
agenda. This would ensure that all Focal Points were clear regarding the critical decision making
points leading up to and culminating in the third Project Steering Committee meeting that would make
decisions regarding the selection of demonstration sites.
9.16
Dr. Pernetta indicated that in order to make decisions regarding the choice of demonstration
sites the Steering Committee would need extremely detailed project documents including budgets and
individual work plans, which provided details regarding the nature of the work to be undertaken at
each demonstration sites. Such demonstration site profiles would be developed following the third
meeting of the Regional Working Group when some decisions based on the application of regional
criteria had been made regarding the priority of each site entered into the system. Dr. Pernetta
reminded members that a cash commitment from the Government involved would be a pre-requisite
for selection as a demonstration site.
9.17
Dr. Pernetta agreed to draft a workplan overnight for the consideration of the meeting the
following morning. The draft was presented, discussed, amended and adopted as contained in Annex
8 of this report.
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH MEETINGS OF THE REGIONAL
WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES
10.1
The Chairperson invited the meeting to consider and agree upon the time and place for the third
and fourth meetings of the RWG-M. Dr. Sanit noted the value of convening these meetings in the
different countries participating in the project, as it was a good opportunity for people to see and learn
about mangrove management, utilisation, and problems in other locations, which may be beneficial in
the organisation and execution of demonstration sites.
10.2
Mr. Nyoto offered to host the next meeting in Bali, Indonesia. This offer was accepted by the
meeting, and Mr. Nyoto agreed to liaise with the PCU concerning logistic arrangements.
10.3
Dr. Pernetta advised the members that the next meeting would be held in parallel with the third
meeting of the Regional Working Group on Wetlands in order to share a joint session during which
consideration of the sites considered of priority to the Wetlands Group could be considered and
incorporated into the discussions of the mangrove group. He noted with relief that Bali was also a
recommended location from the wetlands group. The dates for the RWG-M meeting were the 3rd to 6th
March, 2003, and those for the Wetland group were 4th to 7th March 2003.
10.4
The meeting also agreed that 14th-17th October, 2003 would be the dates of the fourth meeting,
but agreed to leave the decision regarding a venue open at this time.
10.5
Dr. Pernetta also advised the meeting that a Regional Scientific & Technical meeting would be
convened within the framework of the project from 4th to 7th December 2003 and that this was intended
as an opportunity for the various working groups and their members to display the outputs of the first two
years. The meeting would also serve as an opportunity for donors to be introduced to the project and to
consider sponsoring selected demonstration sites.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Page 17
11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
11.1
The Chairperson invited members to consider and discuss any further items of business under
this agenda item. No additional items were raised.
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12.1
The Rapporteur, Mr. Barangan presented the draft report of the meeting, which was considered,
amended and adopted by the members, as contained in this document.
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
13.1
The Chairperson expressed his thanks to the regional experts for their contributions to the
work of the meeting; the Secretariat for their preparation of the meeting; and all participants for their
hard work and contributions to a successful meeting outcome. He noted particularly the excellent
presentations made by Mr. Nyoto.
13.2
The Project Director expressed his appreciation to all concerned for their hard and
constructive work towards the successful outcome of the meeting and hoped that it would be possible
to present a solid report to the Project Steering Committee in December 2002.
13.3
Dr. Sam expressed his appreciation for the opportunity of hos ting the meeting and expressed
the wish that the meeting would be successfully concluded with the field trip that he had organised for
all participants following closure of the meeting.
13.4
Mr. Barangan expressed appreciation, on behalf of all participants to the Secretariat for their
support in the preparation, organisation and execution of the meeting. Mr. Nyoto, Dr. Fan and Mr.
Vongwattana joined Mr. Barangan in reiterating their thanks for the organisation and successful
execution of the meeting.
13.5
The Chairperson, Dr. Sonjai closed the meeting at 10.30 am on Friday, 13 th September,
2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Ke VONGWATTANA, Assistant
Dr. Hangqing FAN, Professor
Minister in charge of Mangrove and Wetland
Guangxi Mangrove Research Centre
Department of Nature Conservation and
92 East Changqing Road
Protection, Ministry of Environment
Beihai City 536000
48 Samdech Preah Sihanouk
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon, Cambodia
China
Tel: (855 23) 213908, 855 16 703030
Tel: (86 779) 205 5294; 206 5609
Fax: (855 23) 212540, 215925
Fax: (86 779) 205 8417; 206 5609
E-mail: moe-cabinet@camnet.com.kh
E-mail: fanhq@ppp.nn.gx.cn
kewattana@yahoo.com
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Nyoto SANTOSO
No National Focal Point designated
Lembaga Pengkajian dan Pengembangan
Mangrove
(Institute of Mangrove Research & Development)
Multi Pir anti Graha It 3 JL. Radin Inten II No. 2
Jakarta 13440, Indonesia
Tel:
(62 21) 861 1710; 62 251 628 165
Fax: (62 21) 861 1710
E-mail: imred@indo.net.id; puryanti@indo.net.id
Philippines
Thailand
Mr. Florendo BARANGAN, Executive Director
Dr. Sonjai HAVANOND
Coastal & Marine Management Office
Mangrove and Wetlands Management Division
Department of Environment and Natural
Royal Forest Department
Resources (CMMO/DENR)
61 Phaholyothin Road, Bangkhen
DENR Compound Visayas Avenue
Bangkok 10900
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
Thailand
Tel: (632) 926 1004, 09 1 7873 3558
Tel: (662) 579 8626, 561 4292-3 ext. 420
Fax: (632) 926 1004/426 3851
Fax: (662) 579 8626
E-mail: cmmo26@yahoo.com
E-mail: sonjai_h@hotmail.com
Vietnam
Dr. Do Dinh SAM, Professor
Director General
Forest Science Institute of Vietnam
Dong Ngac, Tu Liem
Hanoi, Vietnam
Tel: (844) 838 9815
Fax: (844) 838 9722
E-mail: ddsam@netnam.vn
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Regional Experts
Dr. Sanit AKSORNKOAE
Dr. GONG Wooi Khoon, Professor
Professor Emeritus
Centre for Marine & Coastal Studies
Department of Silviculture Faculty of Forestry
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Kasetsart University
11800 Penang, Malaysia
Chatujak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Tel:
(604) 6577888 ext. 2371
Tel:
(66 2) 579-0171 ext. 113, 942-8112
Fax:
(604) 6572960; 6565125
Fax:
(66 2) 942-8112
E-mail: wkgong@usm.my; gongwk@yahoo.com
E-mail: fforsna@nontri.ku.ac.th
Dr. Nguyen Hoang TRI, Director
Center for Environmental Research and Education
(CERE), Hanoi University of Education
7 Ngo 115 Nguyen Khuyen
Hanoi, Vietnam
Tel:
(844) 733 5625
Fax:
(844) 733 5624
E-mail: nguyenhoangtri@hn.vnn.vn
Observer
Mr. Vu Tan Phuong
Land Use and Management Division
Research Centre for Forest Ecology and
Environment (RCFEE)
Forest Science Institute of Vietnam
Dong Ngac, Tu Liem
Hanoi, Vietnam
Tel: (844) 838 9434; 84 0913 541480
Fax: (844) 838 9434
E-mail: ttsinhthai@hn,vnn.vn
Project Coordinating Unit Member
Dr. John PERNETTA, Project Director
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Fax:
(66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
Secretariat
Mr. Kelvin PASSFIELD, Expert Fisheries
Ms. Unchalee KATTACHAN
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
Secretary, UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
9th Floor, Block A, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Avenue
Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1116
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1670
Fax:
(66 2) 281 2428
Fax:
(66 2) 281 2428
E-mail: passfield@un.org
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/1
Provisional agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/2
Provisional annotated agenda
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Report of the meeting
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/4
Report of the Project Co-ordinating Unit concerning the
mid-year reviews and reports from the Specialised
Executing Agencies
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/5
Six month progress reports from the participating
countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/6
Members of the National Mangrove Committees and
sub-committees in the participating countries
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.Cam
Cambodia Report from the Focal Points on the Inter-
sessional Activities at the National Level
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.China
China Data and Information Needs for the Mangrove
Component
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.Ind
Progress Report of South China Sea (SCS) Project for
Indonesian Mangrove Component.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.Mal
Not available
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.Phil
Not available
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.Tha
Draft of Thai Mangrove Data and Information
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/7.Viet
Vietnam Report on Mangrove Sub -component of
UNEP/GEF Project
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/8
Meta-data formats for entries in the South China Sea
Regional Meta-database
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/9
List of "True" Mangroves for which data and information
regarding distribution are required in the framework of
the site characterisation process
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M2/10
Questionnaires for data and information entry into the
Regional GIS database of mangrove sites
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/INF.1
Provisional List of Documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/INF.2
Provisional List of Participants
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/INF.3
Draft Programme
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.2/5
Summary of the E- Discussion and Recommendation
Regarding the Scope of Work of the Regional Working
Group on Wetlands (RWG-W).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/EW.1/3
UNEP/GEF/SCS and SEA START RC, GIS Workshop in
support of the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China
Sea and Gulf of Th ailand", Report of the meeting ,
UNEP/GEF/SCS/EW.1/3, Bangkok, Thailand, 7-9 August
2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 2
Page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3
First Meeting of the Project Steering Committee for the
UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". Report of the meeting. UNEP/GEF/SCS/
PSC.1/3. UNEP, Bangkok Thailand.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Scientific & Technical
Committee for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China
Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting.
UNEP/GEF/ SCS/RSTC.1/3 Pattaya, Thailand, 14 - 16
March 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Land-
based Pollution Component of the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.1/3
Bangkok,
Thailand, 3 - 5 April 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the
Wetland Sub -component of the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
meeting. UNEP/GEF/ SCS/RWG-W.1/3 Phuket, Thailand,
24 - 26 April 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the
Mangrove Component of the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
meeting. UNEP/GEF/ SCS/RWG-M.1/3 Phuket, Thailand,
29 April - 1 May 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the
Seagrass Sub-component of the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.1/3
Bangk ok,
Thailand, 6 - 8 May 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Coral
Reef Sub -component of the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.1/3
Bangkok,
Thailand, 9 - 11May 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
First Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the
Fisheries Component of the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the
meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.1/3
Bangkok ,
Thailand, 20 -22 May 2002.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 3
Page 1
ANNEX 3
Agenda
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome address
1.2 Introduction of members
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1 Documents available to the meeting
2.2 Organisation of work
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4.
REPORT OF THE SECRET ARIAT CONCERNING THE MID-YEAR REVIEWS AND REPORTS
FROM PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
5.
REPORTS FROM THE FOCAL POINTS ON INTER-SESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL
5.1 Review of past and on-going activities including economic valuation
5.2 Overview of distribution, abundance and state of mangroves at the national level
5.3 Review of national data and information and creation of national meta-database
5.4 Review of national criteria, management regimes, institutional and legal frameworks
6.
DISCUSSION AND AGREEMENT OF THE FINAL LISTING OF `TRUE' MANGROVES TO BE
USED IN SITE CHARACT ERISATION
7.
DISCUSSION OF ON-GOING ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE CHARACTERISATION OF
NATIONAL MANGROVE SITES AND THEIR REGIONAL PRIORITISATION
7.1 Identification and characterisation of sites for regional prioritisation
7.2 Reviews of threats at site level and identification of the proximate and ultimate
causes of degradation
7.3 Review of site specific management regimes including national priorities and
possible interventions
8.
PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE GIS WORKSHOP JOINTLY
CONVENED BY THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATING UNIT AND SOUTHEAST ASIA START5
REGIONAL CENTRE IN AUGUST 2002
8.1 Outcomes of the workshop
8.2 Site Characterisation Questionnaires developed by the SEA START RC and
workshop participants
9.
REVISION OF THE WORKPLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON MANGROVES
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH MEETINGS OF THE REGIONAL
WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES
11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
5 START = the Global Change SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Members of the National Mangrove Committees and
Sub-committees in the Participating Countries
Members of Cambodia's National Mangrove & Wetland Committee6
Name
Expertise
Office
Mr. Ke Vongwattana
Mangrove wetland
Ministry of Environment
ecology
Mr. Neam Synouk
Planning
Chief, Kampot Tourism Unit
Mr. Khem Bunheng
Forestry
Chief, Kampot Environmental. Unit
Mr. Kev Neam
Agronomy
Vice Chief Kampot Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishery Unit
Mr. Leum Sambo
Planning
Chief Kampot Public Work and Transport Unit
Mr. Chhun Hin
Chemistry
Vive Chief Kampot Industry, Mine and Energy
Unit
Mr. Pang Bunnareth
Technology and civil
Chief Kampot Land Management, Urbanization
construction
and Construction Unit
Mr. Hem Saroeun
Environmentalist
Chief Kompong Som Environmental Unit
Mr. Buoy Rottana
Fishery science
Chief Kompong Som Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishery Unit
Mr. So Chunhou
Planning
Chief Komponh Som Transport and Public Work
Unit
Mr. Pra Chanroeun
Economy
Vice Chief Kompong Som Industry, Mine and
Energy Unit
Mr. Teng Yuy
Psychology and
Chief Kompong Som Tourism Unit
pedagogy
Mr. So Sok
Lang Planning
Chief Kompong Som land Management,
Urbanization and Construction Unit
Mr. Chourb Kao
Mangrove ecology
Chief Kep Environmental Unit
Mr. Chum Khem
Forest management
Chief Kep Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Unit
Mr. Hang Samuon
Planning
Chief Kep Transport and Public Work Unit
Mr. Oum Kimsun
Law legislation
Vice Chief Kep Industry, Mine and Energy Unit
Mr. Sok Cheav
Planning
Chief Kep Tourism Unit
Mr. Va Sokha
Land use management
Chief Kep Land Management, Urbanization and
Construction Unit
Mr. Sao Sinthuon
Resource conservation
Chief Koh Kong Environmental Unit
Mr. Hak Hoeun
Forestry management
Chief Koh Kong Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishery Unit
Mr. Ley Sareth
Road and bridge
Chief Koh Kong Transport and Public Work Unit
construction
Mr. Yeun Saroum
Planning
Chief Koh Kong Industry, Mine and Energy Unit
Mr. Duong Sovathara
Resource conservation
Vice Chief Koh Kong Tourism Unit
Mr. Bou Sophan
Urban planning
Chief Koh Kong Land Management,
Urbanization and Construction Unit
6 The Cambodian Government decided to convene a joint committee encompassing responsibilities for wetlands and
mangroves, rather than to establish two independent national committees.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 4
Page 2
Members of China's National Mangrove Sub-Committee
(as of September 2 002)
Name
Expertise
Office
FAN Hangqing
Mangrove ecology aquaculture Professor & Director, of Guangxi Mangrove
Research Center
Zhang Qiaoming
Mangrove coastal geology
Professor of Oceanography Institute of
South Sea, China Science Academy,
Guangdong
Cheng Guizhu
Mangrove pollution and
Professor of Zhongshan University,
environment
Guangdong
Song Jianjun
Economy
Professor of Institute of National Land
Exploitation and Regional Economy, Beijing
Li Cungang
Mangrove GIS
Professor of Guangxi Forestry Survey &
Planning Institute,Guangxi
Li Guangzao
Mangrove coastal resources
Professor of Guangxi Oceanography
and landform
Institute, Guangxi
Jin Daijun
Mangrove associated plants
Professor of Guangxi Institute of Botany,
China Science Academy
Han Weidong
Mangrove ecology
Vice-professor of Zhangjiang Marine
University, Guangdong
Huang Zhongqi
Mangrove protection
Senior Researcher & Vice-director of
Dongzaigang Mangrove Natural Reserve,
Hainan
Liu Jinfa
Management of mangrove and Senior Researcher & Director of
ecotone resources
Fangchenggang Municipal Bureau of Land
and natural resources, Guangxi
He Bingyuan
Mangrove benthos
Vice-professor of Guangxi mangrove
Research Center
Mo Zhucheng
Mangrove plantation
Vice-professor of Guangxi mangrove
Research Center
Note: According to decision of the Guangxi Government the Guangxi Mangrove Research Center
and Guangxi Oceanography Institute were separated into two completely independent
agencies in June 2002 as part of the reform of the science and technology sector.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 4
Page 3
Members of Indonesia's National Mangrove Sub-Committee
Name
Expertise
Office
Nyoto SANTOSO
Biodiversity ecology and
Executive Director, Indonesia Mangrove
management
Research & Development (IMRED)
Hadi S. Alikodra
Wildlife Management
Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agriculture
University
Cecep Kusmana
Policy Analysis and
Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agriculture
Institutional Capacity
University
Building
Dedi Sudharma
Water Quality
Faculty of Fishery, Bogor Agriculture
University
Sukristiono Sudkardjo Mangrove Ecology and
Indonesian Institute of Science
Legislation
Yunius
Environmental Economic
Ministry of Environment
Rinekso Sukmadi
Environmental Economic
Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agriculture
And Valuation
University
Agus Priyono
Aquatic Ecology
Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agriculture
University
Ahmad Faisal Siregar
BS in Resource
Indonesia Mangrove Research ^&
Conservation
Development (IMRED)
Bayu Catur Nurcahya
BS in Resource
Indonesia Mangrove Research ^&
Conservation
Development (IMRED)
Taju Solihin
BS in Resource
Indonesia Mangrove Research ^&
Conservation
Development (IMRED)
Rismunandar
BS in Forest Management Indonesia Mangrove Research &
Development (IMRED)
Khumaedi
BS in Forest Management Indonesia Mangrove Research &
Development (IMRED)
Rinawaty Suwandi
BS in Economic
Indonesia Mangrove Research &
Development (IMRED)
Eny Naryanti
BS in Law
Indonesia Mangrove Research &
Development (IMRED)
Reza Maulana
BS in Computer
Indonesia Mangrove Research &
Development (IMRED)
Toto Supartono
BS in Resource
Indonesia Mangrove Research &
Conservation
Development (IMRED)
Bugiono
BS in Resource
Indonesia Mangrove Research &
Conservation
Development (IMRED)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 4
Page 4
Members of Malaysia's National Mangrove Committee7
Name
Expertise
Office
7 Membership of the committee responsible for management of this sub-component is not yet complete, although a National
Mangroves Committee continues to exist in Malaysia operating at a rather low level since the closure of the UNESCO
COMAR Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 4
Page 5
Members of Philippines' National Mangrove Committee
Name
Expertise
Office
Florendo Barangan
Mangrove management and
Executive Director , Coastal and Marine
ecology
Management Office, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources,
Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City
Cesar A. Orallo
Mangrove identification,
Division Chief, CMMD DENR Region I, San
physiology, management and
Fernando City, La Union
ecology
Emma E. Melana
Mangrove identification,
Chief, Coastal and Marine Management
ecology, rehabilitation and
Division DENR-Region VII, Banilad,
management
Mandaue City, Cebu
Elvero Eusebio
Mangrove rehabilitation and
Assistant Regional Executive Director for
management
Technical Services, DENR Region IV-B,
1515 Roxas Blvd, Metro Manila
Apollo Regalo
Mangrove ecology,
Forester, Palawan Council for Sustainable
rehabilitation and
Development, Puerto Princesa, Palawan
management
Honorato Palis
Mangrove identification,
Supervising Science Research
ecology, rehabilitation and
Specialist/Chief, Mangrove Section,
management
Ecosystems Research and Development
Bureau, DENR, College, Laguna
Jimmy Aberin
Mangrove rehabilitation and
Technical Staff, Coastal and Marine
management
Management Division, DENR-Region III San
Fernando City, Pampanga
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 4
Page 6
Members of Thailand's National Mangrove Sub-Committee8
Name
Expertise
Office
Dr. Sonjai Havanond
Mangrove ecology,
Director, Mangrove & Wetland Management
CZM
Division, Royal Forest Department
Prof. Sanit Aksornkoae
Mangrove Ecology
Professor, Kasetsart University
Associate Prof. Pipat
Physiology
Chulalongkorn University
Patanaponpaiboon
Dr. Noparat
Silviculture Plantation Prince of Songkla University
Banroongrugsa
Mr. Pipop
Natural Parks
Royal Forest Department
Chantanawarangkool
Ass. Prof. Sunanta
Socio-economics
Chulalongkorn University
Suwannadom
Associate Prof.
Marine Fauna
Chulalongkorn University
Nittharatana Paphavasit
Dr. Tanuwong Sangtiean
Microbiology
Royal Forest Department (Secretary)
Dr. Gullaya Wattayakorn
Marine chemistry
Professor, Chulalongkorn University
Ms. Wanida Pornpaiboon Law Legislation
Royal Forest Department
8 Thailand's National Mangrove Committee is a large and high-level body, which meets biennially. The present committee is
constituted as a sub-committee of this National Committee.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 4
Page 7
Members of Vietnam's National Mangrove Committee
Name
Expertise
Office
Do Dinh Sam
Mangrove ecology
Vice-Director & Director, Forest Science
Institute of Vietnam
Ngo Dinh Que
Silviculture of
Research Centre for Forest Ecology and
mangroves
Environment
Nguyen Hoang Tri
Ecosystem ecology & Director Centre for Environmental Research &
valuation
Education, Hanoi University of Education
Nguyen Ngoc Binh
Forestry Expert
Vietnam Soil Association
Nguyen Thi Yen
Forestry Expert
Director Project Protection and Development of
Wetland of Coastal Areas
Nguyen Van Trong
Forestry Expert
Fishery Research Institute
Nguyen Huu Ninh
Economic expert
Director Centre for Environment Research,
Education and Development
Dang Trung Tan
Silviculture and
Director Research Centre and Application of
biodiversity of
Mangrove Forest Minh Hai
mangroves
Phan Nguyen Hong
Ecology & Biodiversity Centre for Natural Resources and Environment
Studies
Vu Trung Tang
Fishery Expert
National University Hanoi
Nguyen Thi Thanh
Planner on Wetland
Vice Director Forest Inventory and Planning
Sub-Institute
Nguyen Ngoc Sinh
Policy maker
Director general Environment Department
Bui Dinh Chung
Fishery expert
Fishery Research Institute, Hai Phong City
Tran Hong Ha
Policy Maker
Deputy Director General Environment
Department
Dang Kim Khanh
Secretary
International Co-operation Division FSIV
Vu Tan Phuong
Secretary
Forest Science Institute of Vietnam
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Format for Country Reviews of Past and Ongoing Mangrove Activities
Activities
1990-1994
1995-2000
2001-2005
Sub-activity
1 Data and information management
1.1 Mapping (area, distribution)
1.2 Remote Sensing
1.3 GIS
1.4 Database
2 Research
2.1 Environmental (phys/chem.)
2.2 Forestry
2.3 Fisheries
2.4 Socio-economic
2.5 Policy research
2.6 Others
3 Training/Seminar/workshop (Natl/Intnl)
3.1 Seminars
3.2 Workshop
3.3 Training
4 Management
4.1 production
4.1.1 timber
4.1.2 fisheries
4.1.3 other
4.2 protection
4.2.1 tourism/education/research
4.2.2 coastal protection
4.2.3 biodiversity conservation
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 5
Page 2
5. Reafforestation/restoration
5.1 Site selection
5.2 Nursery technique
5.3 Planting technique
5.4 Maintenance
6. Policy
6.1 Legislation
6.2 Organisation/Institution
6.3 Land Use
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
List of True and Associate Mangrove Species for the Participating Countries
Bordering the South China Sea
Table 1.
List of "True" mangrove species recorded from the countries bordering the South
China Sea. XX = dominant elements of the Flora; X = known to occur.
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Vietnam
Acanthus ebracteatus
X
X
X
X
X
X
Acanthus ilicifolius
X
X
X
X
X
X
Acanthus xiamenensis
X
Acrostichum aureum
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Acrostichum Speciosum
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aegialitis rotundifolia
X
?
Aegiceras corniculatum
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aegiceras floridum
X
X
?
X
--
X
Avicennia alba
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Avicennia eucalyptifolia
XX
--
Avicennia marina
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Avicennia marina var
XX
XX
--
rumphiana
Avicennia officinalis
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Brownlowia tersa9
X
X
X
Bruguiera cylindrical
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Bruguiera hainesii
?
X
Bruguiera parviflora
XX
X
XX
X
Bruguiera sexangula
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Bruguiera sexangula Var
XX
--
Rhyncopetala
Camptostemon philippinense
X
X
--
Ceriops decandra
X
XX
?
XX
X
X
Ceriops tagal
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Excoecaria agallocha
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
Heritiera littoralis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kandelia candel
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lumnitzera littorea
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Lumnitzera racemosa
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Nypa fruticans
X
N
XX
X
XX
X
X
Osbornia octodonta
X
?
X
--
Pemphis acidula
X
?
X
Peltophorum pterocarpum
?
X
Phoenix paludosa
X
X
X
X
Rhizophora apiculata
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Rhizophora mucronata
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Phizophora stylosa
X
XX
?
XX
--
X
Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sonneratia alba
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Sonneratia caseolaris
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
Sonneratia griffithi
X
X
X10
X
Sonneratia hainanensis
X
--
--
Sonneratia ovata
X
X
XX
X
X
X
Sueda maritime
?
X
Xylocarpus granatum
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xylocarpus moluccensis
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xylocarpus corniculatum
X
9 Based on the IUCN Plant Red Data Book, Brownlowia tersa and Bruguiera hainesii are considered endangered.
10 Some question exists regarding the validity of this species designation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 2.
Associate Mangrove species known to occur in the countries bordering the South
China Sea.
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Vietnam
Allophyllus cobbe
X
?
X
Amoora cucllata
?
X
Ardisia littoralis
X
?
X
Barringtonia asiatica
Barringtonia asiatica
X
X
X
Barringtonia racemosa
X
X
X
X
Cerbera manghas
X
X
X
X
C. odollam
X
X
X
X
Clerodendrum inerme
X
X
X
Cynometra ramiflora
X
X
X
Cycas rumphii
X
X
X
Dendrolobium umbellatem
X
?
X
Derris indica
X
X
X
Diospyros ferrea
X
X
Dolichandrone spathacea
X
X
X
X
X
Ficus microcarpa
X
X
X
Glochidion littoral
?
X
Guettarda speciosa
?
X
Hernandia Sonora
X
?
--
Hibiscus tiliaceus
X
X
X
X
X
Horsfieldia inva
X
?
X
Intsia bijuga
X
X
X
X
Melaleuca leucadendra
X
?
X
Melastoma villosum
X
??
X
Oncosperma tigillaria
X
X
X
Pandanus odoratissimus
X
X
X
Planchonella obovata
X
?
X
Pluchea indica
X
X
?
X
Pongamia pinnata
X
X
X
--
Premna obtusifolia
X
X
X
?
X
Rapanea porteriana
?
X
Sapium indicum
X
?
X
Scolopia macrophylla
X
?
X
Thespesia populnea
X
X
X
X
Xylocarpus gangeticus
?
X
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 7
Page 1
ANNEX 7
An Example of an Analysis of Institutional and Legal Arrangements from Vietnam
Table 1. Eco-Institutional Space Analysis for Shrimp Industry and Mangrove Management in Ca Mau Province, South Vietnam
Institutional
Mangrove Forests
Shrimp Ponds
Political and technical
arrangement
Interventions
Protected
Forests
Forests
Forests
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds managed Ponds
areas
New -planted in
managed
managed by
by HHs signed
managed
Launching
Special
managed by Districts
private
by state
local
contracts with
by owned-
Regulations
Functions
Forests
by FEs
communes
lands
enterprises associations
FEs
HHs
National
Assembly
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Law of Land-
use
Approved
PM Bureau/
Provincial
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ordinances and Implementation
Decisions
Guidance
Administration
District/Com.
*
*
Red Books
Direct
Adm.
management
MARD/
DARD/ FEs
*
*
*
*
*
*
Green Books
Direct Monitor
MoF/
DoF
*
*
*
*
Disease control
Technical guides
*
*
*
*
Product quality
*
*
*
*
Hatchery control
MoF/PFs
*
*
*
*
Product quality
Product
*
*
*
*
Market guides
, market guides
*
*
*
*
Collection
and extension
network
Feeding
Companies
*
*
*
*
Extension and
investment
Pond promotion
Trading
companies
*
*
*
*
Extension and
investment
Pond promotion
Private trades
*
*
*
*
Local relation &
confidence
Direct collection
Nat. banks and
*
*
*
*
Credit
Pond promotion
credits
regulations
HHs: Households: PM: Prime Minister: MARD: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: DARD: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at
Province level: MoF: Ministry of Fishery: DoF: Department of Fishery at Province level: FEs: Forestry Enterprises: PFs: Processing Factories.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 7
Page 2
Table 2. Eco-Institutional Space Analysis for Shrimp Industry and Mangrove Management in Quang Ninh Province, North Vietnam
Institutional
Mangrove Forests
Shrimp Ponds
Politic and technical Interventions
arrangement
Forests New -
Forests in
Ponds managed
Ponds
State owned
planted by
by HHs signed
Forests
Districts/
private
contacts with Dist.
managed by Launching Regulations
Functions
communes
lands
Adm.
owned-HHs
National Assembly
X
X
X
X
X
Law of Land-use
Approved
PM Bureau/
Provincial
X
X
X
X
X
Ordinances and
Implementation
Decisions
Guidance
Administration
District/
X
Red Books
Direct
Commune
management
Administration
X
Contracts
X
X
X
Administrative
management
Direct control
MARD/
X
X
X
Protection and
DARD
Extension
Monitor
MoF/
X
X
Disease control
Technical guides
DoF
X
X
Product quality
X
X
Hatchery control
MoF/
X
X
PFs
Product quality
Product,
X
X
Market guides
market guides
X
X
Collection network
and extension
Feeding Companies
X
X
Extension and
Pond promotion
investment
Trading companies
X
X
Extension and
investment
Pond promotion
Private trades
X
X
Local relation &
Direct collection
confidence
Nat. banks and credits
X
X
Credit regulations
Pond promotion
HHs: Households: PM: Prime Minister: MARD: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: DARD: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at
Province level: MoF: Ministry of Fishery: DoF: Department of Fishery at Province level: PFs: Processing Factories:
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 7
Page 3
Table 3. Eco-Institutional Space Analysis for Shrimp Industry and Mangrove Management in Nam Dinh and Thai Binh Provinces in the Red River
Delta, North Vietnam
Institutional
Mangrove Forests
Shrimp Ponds and Clam Beds
Politic and technical Interventions
arrangement
Forests in
State
Forests New -
Ponds managed
Ponds
Clam beds
Launching
Functions
Protected
owned
planted by
by HHs signed
managed by managed by HHs
Regulations
Areas
Forests Districts/
contacts with Dist.
owned-HHs signed contacts
communes
Adm.
with Dist. Adm.
National Assembly
X
X
X
X
X
X
Law of Land-use
Approved
PM Bureau/
Ordinances and
Implementation
Provincial
X
X
X
X
X
X
Decisions
Guidance
Administration
District/
X
Red Books
Direct
Commune
management
Administration
X
X
Contracts
X
X
X
Administrative
Dir ect control
management
MARD/
X
X
X
Protection and
Direct control &
DARD
Extension
Monitor
MoF/
X
X
X
Disease control
Technical guides
DoF
X
X
X
Product quality
X
X
X
Hatchery control
MoF/
X
X
X
Product quality
Product,
PFs
X
X
X
Market guides
market guides
X
X
X
Collection network
and extension
Feeding Companies
X
X
X
Extension and
Pond promotion
investment
Trading companies
X
X
X
Extension and
Pond promotion
investment
Private trades
X
X
X
Local relation &
Direct collection
confidence
Nat. banks and credits
X
X
X
Credit regulations
Pond promotion
HHs: Households: PM: Prime Minister: MARD: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: DARD: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at
Province level: MoF: Ministry of Fishery: DoF: Department of Fishery at Province level: PFs: Processing Factories.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 7
Page 4
Renovation policy (Doi Moi) The law of land
Project 327: Decision No. 327/CT date: 15 Sept.1992
Forest protection and reforestation on bare lands in up-land areas
§ Bare lands should be reforested every year 1992- 2000
§ Allocation of forestry lands for households to manage in collaboration with collective and state
enterprises
§ Stopping immigration and mobilization of fixed cultivation and residence
§ State investing for reforestation through households, communities and collectives
1993 the law of land was approved by the Vietnam National Assembly to mark a big change for
right to use lands in Vietnam.
The land is still owned by the government, but the law recognized five rights for those people are
allocated the land. They are:
· The right to use
· The right to transfer
· The right to inherit
· The right to rent
· The right to mortgage
During the period of 20 years for annual crop and 50 years for perennial crops
Benefits and responsibility of the land owners
Benefits
·
Receive the certification of the right to use lands
·
Receive all policy of government incentives, technology transfer, and compensation...
·
Harvest all products on the used lands
Responsibility
·
Charged of implementation of all laws and regulations launched by the government
·
Pay tax as regulations of the government
Resolution 08/QH date 15-12-1997
Afforestation of 5 millions ha during 1998 - 2010
§ Mobilization of financial investment for afforesttation 5 million ha
§ Innovation, regulation and accomplishment of land and forest allocation policy for forestation
§ Tax reduction for all economic sectors in /or related reforestation
§ Implementation planning for all sectors and public awareness
Decision 661/QD.TTG 29 July 1998
Implementation planning for Project of afforestation 5 million ha
§ Long-term use of forestry lands for households allocating forestry lands
§ Credit mobilization for forestation households
§ State assists individuals, economic sectors to loan without benefit rates for forestation
§ Plantation planters have all benefits from forestry products as mentioned in forestry law
Un-charge of land use for households of forestation
AQUACULTURE
Decision of Chairman of Ministry Council 169-CT date 26-3-1983
Giving responsibilities on giving permits of quality of aquatic products before exports
Chi thi of Chairman of Ministry Council 124-CT date 4-5-1983
Promotion of aquaculture development
Decision of Minister of Ministry of Fishery 347-TS/QD date 31-5-1984
Launching the regulations of organization and activities of center for Control and Giving Permits
on Quality of Aquatic Products for Exports.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 7
Page 5
(Launch accompanying with Decision of Minister of Ministry of Fishery 347-TS/QD dates 31-5-1984)
Decision of Chairman of Ministry Council 349-CP date 17-12-1987
Giving permits of establishment of Vietnam association of people rearing shrimp for export
Thong tu 02/TT/LB date 24-5-1996 of Inter-Ministries of Ministry of Science, Technology and
Environment, Ministry of Fishery
Implementation guide of Resolution, Government 86/CP dates 8-12-1995
Resolution, Government 86/CP dates 8-12-1995
Distribution of responsibilities on state management of good/commodity quality
Chi thi of Chairman of Ministry Council 96-CT date 28-3-1987
Promotion of production exports of aquatic products and encourage to meet beyond the plan level for
1987 and five-years plan 1986-1990
Law of water resources National Assembly dates 20-5-1998
Decision of Chairman of Ministry Council 10-HDBT date 30-1-1989
Regulations on function, responsibility, limit power and organization of Seprodex company, within
Ministry of Fishery
Legal orders for protection and development of aquatic resources, Minister of Ministry
Council, date 25-4-1989
Decision of Prime Minister 988/TTg date 30 -12-1996
Approval of master plan for socio-economic development of Quang Ninh Province, period 1996-2010
Decision of Prime Minister 116/1999/QD.TTg date 3 -5-1999
Approval of plan of zonation of mangrove rehabilitation (project area) in Ca Mau, Soc Trang, Bac Lieu
and Tra Vinh (44 000 ha): Ca Mau (25 262), Soc Trang (8 441), Bac Lieu (4 172) and Tra Vinh (6
525) 66% area for productive forests 40 % area for development of aquatic products, agriculture and
other purposes
Resolution, Government 179/1999/ND-CP date 30-12-1999
Regulations in implementing the Law of water resources
Decision of Minister of Ministry Council of Fishery 01/2000/QD-BTS date 3-1-2000
Regulations for controlling and giving permits on meeting standards of food security and hygienic of
production and business units on aquatic products
Decision of Minister of Ministry of Fishery 09/2000/QD-BTS date 17-12-2000
Giving permits on meeting standards of food security and hygienic of production and business units
on aquatic products
Regulations
Policies related
Land
Input
Credit
Export
Processing Coastal Research
Other
reform policy policy
policy
policy
planning policy
policies
policy
policy
Efficiency
Equity
(economic
(income
optimum
distribution)
use)
-
Efficiency: in neoclassical economics efficiency refers to making the economic optimum use of
a given set of national resources, i.e. achieving the highest level of material welfare for the
consumer of society as a whole for a given set of prices in resources and output markets.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 8
Page 4
Growth can occur either by moving from a less efficient to a more efficient use of existing
resources, or by increasing the productivity of resources so that more output can be obtained
from a given level of resources.
-
Equity, by contrast, refers to the distribution of this total output between individuals or social
groups within the society. It is a standard finding of welfare economics that whereas efficiency
is an objective phenomenon - a unique most efficiency outcome can be specified for a given
initial income distribution. Equity is a subjective phenomenon - decisions about income
distribution require value judgement about the 'fairness' or otherwise of the outcome for
different groups of people.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 8
Page 1
ANNEX 8
Workplan and Timetable for Mangrove Related Activities 2002-2003
Table 1.
Provisional Schedule of meetings for 2003
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
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
Chinese N.Y.
RWG-F-3
RWG-LbP-3
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 -M-3
RWG -S-3
RWG-W-3
RWG-C-3
April
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Thai N.Y.
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
RSTC-3
June
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
July
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
August
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
RWG-LbP-4
September
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
RWG -F-4
RWG -S-4
RWG-C-4
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
Cont.
RWG -W-4
RWG -M -4
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
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
Regional Sci.
Mtg.
RSTC-4
PSC-3
Xmas
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 8
Page 2
Table 2.
Workplan and Timetable for completion of agreed activities in the Mangroves Sub-component: 2002 - 2003 Numbers refer to specific
outputs listed in the accompanying key. Cells highlighted in red indicate time of production of national outputs. Cells highlighted in green
indicate regional deadlines.
Year
2002
2003
Quarter
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Month 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
National Committee meetings
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NTWG Meetings
x
x
x
1
x
x
x
x
x
Review National Reports
Review of past and ongoing projects
2
Review of national data and information
3
Creation of National metadatabase
Identification & characterisation of "sites"
4
5
Review National Criteria & priorities
Review economic valuation data &
information
Review threats at site level & prepare
causal chain analyses
Review National legislation
6
7
8
Review National level management
regimes
x
x
Identify proximate to ultimate cause by
source
National Prioritisation
Identify priority points of intervention
Evaluate barriers and possible solutions
Finalisation of elements of the SAP
Preparation/revision of the National Action
Plan
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
Regional GIS database related tasks
9
10
Regional Criteria development
x
Development of Regional Priorities
2nd, 3rd & 4th meetings RWG-M
X
11
12
Finalisation of the Regional SAP
REGIONAL DEADLINES
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.2/3
Annex 8
Page 3
Key to numbered outputs scheduled in Table 2 of the workplan and timetable of agreed
activities in the Mangroves sub-component.
1.
E-mail addresses of National Committee members to be supplied to PCU by 24th September
2002.
2.
Review of past and on-going projects to be submitted to Chairperson and Project Co-ordinating
UnitedNations by October 25th 2002 in the format contained in Annex 5 of this d ocument.
3.
Review of national data and information to be sent to the PCU by October 25th 2002for onward
transmission to the RSTC and PSC.
4.
First drafts of identification and characterisation of sites to be submitted to Chairman and PCU
by 30th November 2002.
5.
Revised complete and final listing of sites to be sent to the PCU by January 31st 2003.
6.
First drafts of the Reviews of National Legislation to be sent to the PCU by November 30th for
review and presentation to the RSTC and PSC.
7.
Revised draft of the Reviews of National Legislation for finalisation at the 3rd RWG-M to be sent
to PCU by January 31 st 2003.
8.
Final draft for publication and dissemination March 10th 2003.
9.
Complete and return tables M1.1 to M1.3 to the PCU and SEA START RC no later that October
15th 2002.
10. Questionnaires to be revised by SEA START RC and returned to Focal Points no later than
October 15th 2002.
11
First drafts of completed questionnaires to be completed and submitted to PCU and SEA
START RC no later than November 30 th.
12. Third meeting of the RWG-M, 3rd - 6th March 2003.
13. Fourth meeting of the RWG- M, 14th - 17th October 2003.