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
Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Mangrove Sub-component
Pontianak, West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, 4th 8th September 2006
_________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, September 2006
First published in Thailand in 2006 by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Copyright © 2006, United Nations Environment Programme
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication
as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose without prior
permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP/GEF
Project Co-ordinating Unit,
United Nations Environment Programme,
UN Building, 2nd Floor Block B, Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel.
+66 2 288 1886
Fax.
+66 2 288 1094
http://www.unepscs.org
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the GEF. The
designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNEP, of the GEF, or of any cooperating organisation concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the delineation of its territories or boundaries.
Cover Photo: Mud Lobster (Thalassina anomala) mounds in mangrove forest, Batu Ampar, West
Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, by Dr. John C. Pernetta, 8th September 2006.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2006. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand. Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Mangroves.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Table of Contents
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING ........................................................................................................1
1.1 WELCOME ADDRESSES ON BEHALF OF UNEP AND THE WEST KALIMANTAN PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT .........................................................................................................................1
1.2 INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................1
2. ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING.............................................................................................2
2.1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS ...........................................................................................................2
2.2 DOCUMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ..........................................................2
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA .....................................................................................2
4. STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS FOR 2005 AND 1ST HALF 2006:
PROGRESS REPORTS; EXPENDITURE REPORTS; AND AUDIT REPORTS...........................2
5. STATUS OF SUBSTANTIVE NATIONAL REPORTS ...................................................................3
6. PROGRESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES ........5
7. STATUS OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ............................................................................9
8. FINALISATION OF INPUTS FROM THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT TO
THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME .............................................................10
8.1 ELABORATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE MANGROVE RELATED INPUTS ............................................10
8.2 ECONOMIC VALUATION OF MANGROVE GOODS AND SERVICES...................................................14
9. UPDATING OF THE REGIONAL GIS-DATABASE AND META-DATABASE AND
EFFICIENT USE OF THE PROJECT WEBSITE..........................................................................15
10. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SOUTH CHINA SEA PROJECT TRAINING
ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT............................................16
11. REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES 2006 2008......................................................................................17
12. DATE AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON MANGROVES .........................................................................................................................17
13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS ..............................................................................................................18
14. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING......................................................................18
15. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING .....................................................................................................18
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Draft Inputs to the revised SAP from the RWG-M
ANNEX 5
Work Plan (2006-2007) and Schedule of Meetings for 2007
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome addresses on behalf of UNEP and the West Kalimantan Provincial
Government
1.1.1 The Chief of the Environmental Office of West Kalimantan Province, Ir. Tri Budiarto welcomed
participants to West Kalimantan and noted that the Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group
on Mangroves of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project was an important occasion for the Province
since the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the execution of the demonstration site activities
at Batu Ampar would be signed during the opening session.
1.1.2 The Project Director, Dr. Pernetta; welcomed participants and observers on behalf of UNEP
and expressed his personal pleasure at being present for the signing of the MoU regarding the Batu
Ampar demonstration site. He noted that an important feature of the South China Sea project was the
exchange and sharing of experiences between the various demonstration sites and the importance
given to sustainable use of the mangrove resources for the benefit of all stakeholders, rather than
simply environmental protection. He noted in this regard that the planned activities included the
development of alternative livelihoods for local people and the development of sources of revenue to
ensure longer-term sustainable management of the mangrove eco-system.
1.1.3 The Vice-Governor of West Kalimantan Province, Drs. H.L. Kadir welcomed participants and
observers to the meeting and to West Kalimantan and expressed appreciation on behalf of the
Provincial Government for the fact that the mangrove area of Batu Ampar in Pontianak Regency,
West Kalimantan had been selected as one of the demonstration sites within the framework of the
South China Sea Project. He noted that the area of mangrove was more than 150,000 hectares of
which some 65 thousand hectares represented the demonstration site within the Batu Ampar district.
The Vice-Governor noted that the growth of the coastal population in the area was resulting in an
increase in stress on the mangrove habitat and that the project was therefore timely in providing an
opportunity to develop more sustainable ways of utilising the mangrove resources for the benefit of
the local people.
1.1.4 Fol owing these opening statements a short signing ceremony was held, during which the
Project Director, Dr. John C. Pernetta, and Mr. Nyoto Santoso, Indonesian Focal Point for Mangroves
and Director of the Indonesian of Institute Mangrove Research and Development, co-signed the
addendum to the MoU covering the operational plan for activities at the Batu Ampar site. The
signatures were witnessed by the Vice-Governor of West Kalimantan Province, Drs. H.L. Kadir.
1.1.5 Fol owing the signing and the commencement of the business of the meeting Dr. Pernetta,
noted that regrettably the Philippines Focal Point, Mr. Florendo Barangan was unable to attend the
meeting due to health problems that prevented him from flying and noted that, he would convey the
best wishes of the group to Mr. Barangan for a speedy recovery. The Project Director took the
opportunity to warmly welcome Mr. Koh Hock Lye, Director of Silviculture and Forest Protection of the
Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia to the Seventh Meeting, of the Regional Working Group
on Mangroves and noted that this was the First meeting at which Malaysia was represented. He noted
that he was looking forward to working with Mr. Koh in the future.
1.1.6 Dr. Pernetta noted that the main item of business before the group was a consideration of the
mangrove elements to be included in the Strategic Action Programme and in particular, elaboration of
the actions and their associated costs. He noted further in this regard that the working group had the
advantage of being the last one to meet during 2006 and it could therefore take advantage of the
experiences of the others in formulating actions for inclusion in the SAP.
1.2
Introduction of Participants
1.2.1 The Project Director noted that there were a number of observers from the local university
and government of West Kalimantan Province and invited all participants to introduce themselves to
the meeting. The followed a tour de table, during which participants introduced themselves and
indicated their respective roles in the project. The list of participants is attached as Annex 1 to this
report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 2
2. ORGANISATION
OF
THE
MEETING
2.1
Election of Officers
2.1.1 Members recal ed that during the fifth meeting Mr. Nyoto Santoso, Focal Point for Indonesia,
Dr. Gong Wooi Khoon, expert member from Malaysia and Dr. Nguyen Hoang Tri, expert member from
Viet Nam, had been elected as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Rapporteur respectively. During
the sixth meeting Mr. Santoso was re-elected as Chairperson, and Mr. Florendo Barangan and Mr. Ke
Vongwattana were elected as Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur respectively.
2.1.2 Dr. Pernetta reminded participants that the Rules of Procedure state that the Regional
Working Group shall elect from amongst the members a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and
Rapporteur and that, members may be re-elected no more than once. Since Mr. Santoso has served
as Chairperson for two years he was no longer eligible for re-election.
2.1.3 The Project Director cal ed for nominations of individuals as officers of the Regional Working
Group on Mangroves. Dr. Sonjai Havanond, the Mangrove Focal Point for Thailand nominated
Dr. Hangqing Fan, the Focal Point for Mangroves in China, as Chairperson, and Dr. Do Dinh Sam, the
Focal Point for Mangroves in Viet Nam, seconded this nomination. Dr. Gong and Dr. Tri nominated
Dr. Sonjai as Vice-chairperson and Dr. Sam volunteered to serve as Rapporteur for the meeting.
There being no further nominations; Dr. Fan, Dr. Sonjai, and Dr. Sam were elected as Chairperson,
Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur respectively by acclamation.
2.2
Documentation and Administrative Arrangements
2.2.1 The Chairperson invited Dr. Pernetta, to introduce the documents available to the meeting, a
list of which was contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/Inf.2. Dr. Pernetta briefly
introduced the documents and highlighted the main substantive items for consideration and decision
by the Working Group, which included consideration of progress in execution of the demonstration
sites; inputs from the mangrove Sub-component to the Strategic Action Programme; the
administrative reports; national substantive reports; finalisation, adoption and implementation of the
National Action Plans; the project website and databases; the training activities; economic valuation of
mangrove goods and services; and revision of the work plan and activities of the Working Group. The
list of documents is contained in Annex 2 of this report.
2.2.2 Dr. Pernetta briefed participants on the administrative arrangements and the proposed
organisation of work as contained in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-M.7/Inf.3.
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson introduced the Provisional Agenda prepared by the Project Co-ordinating Unit
(PCU) as document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/1, and the amended Annotated Provisional Agenda
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/2.Amend.2; and invited members to propose any amendments or
additional items for consideration prior to the adoption of the agenda. There being no proposals for
amendment or addition the agenda was adopted as it appears in Annex 3 of this report.
4.
STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS FOR 2005 AND 1ST HALF 2006:
PROGRESS REPORTS; EXPENDITURE REPORTS; AND AUDIT REPORTS
4.1
The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.7/4, "Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing Agencies in the
participating countries"; which outlined the current status of the administrative reports, including the
six-month progress reports, expenditure reports, audit reports, and MoU amendments.
4.2
Dr. Pernetta drew the attention of members to the current situation with respect to the receipt
of routine six-month progress and expenditure reports and the annual audit reports for expenditures
during 2005. He noted that progress and expenditure reports for the period 1st January 30th June
2006, had been received by the Project Co-ordinating Unit only from Cambodia, resulting in the
RWG-M having the worst record of al the working groups for this reporting period. He noted further
that no reports had been received from the Philippines since the first half of 2005 and that the reports
for the second half of 2005 from China had not yet been finalised.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 3
4.3
Regarding the audit reports for 2005 expenditures, the Project Director noted that none had
been received to date although these were due by 31st March 2006. He noted further that, no further
cash advances could be made until these were received. Dr. Pernetta noted that currently Thailand
held a considerable unaccounted cash balance and had done so for an extended period that would
undoubtedly result in questions being asked regarding the fate of the interest earned.
4.4
The Chairperson invited the focal points to brief the meeting on the situation with respect to
the outstanding reports and problems, and expressed the hope that any problems could be resolved
during the meeting.
4.5
Mr. Santoso noted that the administrative reports for the Indonesian Mangrove
Sub-component were currently being finalised and would be submitted by the end of September.
4.6
Mr. Vongwattana informed the meeting that the progress and expenditure reports for
Cambodia were up to date and that the auditors were currently finalising the audit report for 2005,
which would be available during September.
4.7
Dr. Fan informed the meeting that there had been some minor difficulties in the
implementation of the Fangchenggang demonstration site, which had delayed the finalisation of the
reports and there had been delays in the transfer of funds from the central government in Beijing to
the Specialised Executing Agency. He noted that the Chinese reports for 2006 would be finalised
during this month and noted that the outstanding reports for 2005 would be signed during this
meeting.
4.8
Dr. Sonjai noted that the reason for the delays in implementation of the Trat demonstration
site activities was the difficulty encountered in developing a sub-contract, which required approval
from the Department of Comptrol er General, Ministry of Finance as the budget exceeds two mil ion
baht. This had now been received and a sub-contract between the DCMR and the Thailand
Environment Foundation was currently under negotiation. Dr. Sonjai noted further that the audit report
for 2005 was finalised and would be sent to the PCU in the immediate future.
4.9
Dr. Sam informed the meeting that the Balat/Xuan Thuy Estuary demonstration site has
not yet been approved. With regard to the administrative reports of the Viet Nam Mangrove
Sub-component, he informed the meeting that his secretary had prepared the reports, which he
would check and send to the PCU following his return to Viet Nam.
4.10
Dr. Pernetta noted that the Project Steering Committee had instructed the SEAs to report
within 15 days of the end of each financial period, whilst the MoU stated that such reports should be
provided within one month, i.e., no later than 31st January and 31st July each year. Where an SEA
encountered problems they should inform the PCU immediately otherwise the assumption was that
the budget was being misused. He noted that in the case of Thailand it was quite unacceptable that
not one single report regarding the Trat demonstration site had been received following the transfer of
the first tranche of funds in March 2005.
4.11
Dr. Sonjai noted that expenditures had to be in line with the financial rules and regulations of
the government to which Dr. Pernetta responded that originally Dr. Sonjai had signed the MoU
addendum in a form that did not involve the drafting of a Sub-contract and that the absence of reports
for in excess of 18 months was unacceptable to UNEP. Dr. Sonjai noted that work had been on going
in Trat using budget al ocations from the government, and Thailand Environment Foundation and that
draft reports for July to December 2005 had been delivered during this meeting.
5.
STATUS OF SUBSTANTIVE NATIONAL REPORTS
5.1
Dr. Pernetta reminded participants of their prior agreements as documented under agenda
item 4 on pages 2 and 3 of the report of the fifth meeting of the RWG-M regarding the preparatory
phase outputs. During the sixth meeting of the RWG-M held in Busuanga, Philippines from 1st 5th
August 2005 it was noted that Indonesia, China and Viet Nam had published their national reports and
that the PCU had copies. Members recalled that national reports were to have been published
original y by the focal points in national languages for distribution in each country by June 30th 2004
and that following this UNEP would publish the English versions for regional distribution.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 4
5.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that Cambodia was to have published their national report in Khmer by
August 2005 and that Thailand and Philippines were to have published their reports by the end of
2005. The PCU had received copies of the published national report from Cambodia following the
sixth meeting. The Project Director wished to draw to the attention of members that copies of the
national reports from Thailand and the Philippines had not been received to date, and that consequently
publication of the entire set in English has been delayed. The status of these reports was presented in
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/5.
5.3
The Chairperson invited each focal point to provide the meeting with a brief report on the
status of all national level publications including the national reports. Each member was requested to
bring 20 copies of any new publications to the meeting for the information of members and the
records of the PCU; and to discuss and agree on the final timetable for publication of these reports in
English.
5.4
Dr. Sonjai tabled the Thai mangrove report, which had recently been published and
Mr. Vongwattana provided Cambodia`s report, which had been published in August 2005. Dr. Sonjai
noted that the delays in publishing the Thai report resulted from the desire to include recently
acquired data regarding mangrove areas derived from remote sensing. The programme to acquire
such data had resulted from questions being raised in the country regarding the increase in mangrove
area.
5.5
Dr. Tri queried the figures provided in the Thai report and Dr. Gong noted that this
represented a significant increase in the mangrove area compared with previous estimates. Dr. Sonjai
noted that previous figures had not included mangrove areas on private land and therefore much of
the apparent increase was due to the manner in which the figures had been derived. The current
estimates provided in the Thai language version of the national report were derived from interpretation
of remotely sensed images with ground truthing. Dr. Sonjai noted that of the total 1.5 mil ion rai1, only
0.4 mil ion rai were found along the South China Sea coast of Thailand, he noted further that in some
areas of private land, selective cutting for charcoal production had been carried on for around
100 years, and could therefore be considered sustainable.
5.6
In response to a query from Dr. Tri, regarding the use of Satel ite imagery Dr. Sonjai noted
that not only could the mangrove habitat be identified but also in some instances individual species
associations could be recognised. Dr. Sonjai noted further that where shrimp farms were abandoned
on government land and reserved areas they would be replanted with mangrove but this was not
necessarily the case with private land.
5.7
Dr. Pernetta noted that as a consequence of the changes to the figures contained in the
Thai version of the report the figures in the English version were incorrect. Dr. Sonjai promised to
provide a translation of the new tables by the end of the meeting.
5.8
The Project Director requested guidance from the Working Group regarding what they wished
the PCU to do regarding the regional publications in the absence of the Philippines report. During
discussion it was noted by Dr. Sam that the English and local language versions should contain the
same data since if different data were used it would be confusing for future analyses. It was noted that
for Cambodia, China, Indonesia and Viet Nam the data were the same in both versions.
5.9
In response to a query regarding whether or not a Malaysian report could be produced
Mr. Koh noted that at the present he had no mandate to make such a commitment and that he would
be recommending to the Director General an appropriate course of action fol owing the meeting.
5.10
Dr. Gong sought clarification from Dr. Pernetta regarding publication of the reports from the
other groups and Dr. Pernetta stated that the reports from three groups were ready for publication.
Dr. Gong had no strong feelings but felt that if the Philippines report was not available then the PCU
should proceed with publication of the other reports. The meeting agreed with this recommendation.
5.11 Dr. Gong requested information regarding whether or not there were funds to support
Malaysia's participation in the Mangrove Sub-component and Dr. Pernetta indicated that the Project
1 6.25 Rai is equivalent to 1 hectare.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 5
Steering Committee had approved the retention of an allocation for this purpose, however there was
little point in signing the original Memorandum developed in 2002 since circumstances were no longer
the same and should Malaysia decide to participate then a specific MoU would be drafted
encompassing those tasks which it would be appropriate for Malaysia to undertake in the time
remaining.
5.12
In response to a question regarding the benefits to a country of participating in the Project,
Dr. Fan and Dr. Pernetta pointed out that participation, had certainly resulted in better co-ordination at
the national level between the sectors involved in coastal resource use and between central,
provincial and local government agencies in China as evidenced by the additional cash and in-kind
co-financing that had been provided from diverse sources beyond that originally estimated and
committed by the central Government of China.
5.13
Dr. Sonjai noted that one benefit for Thailand had been the production of new and improved
data regarding the mangroves of the Gulf of Thailand and that the project had promoted international
activities and exchange which were of benefit to the countries. He noted that in the case of the
demonstration sites the local and provincial governments were also pleased that their areas had been
selected and looked forward to exchange and replication of activities in other areas. Dr. Pernetta
noted that the development of the demonstration sites had involved the exchange of experiences
between local government officials, managers and scientists, which had broadened the perspectives
of each group with respect to the problems faced by the others.
5.14
Mr. Santoso noted that the project had influenced the policy position and commitment of the
Indonesian government towards sustainable use of mangrove resources and the National Action Plan
had been influential in drawing together various sectoral interests in the country and strengthening
their interactions. Mr. Vongwattana noted that the SCS project had been valuable in sensitising and
influencing high-ranking officials to the value and functions of mangroves and in involving local
communities. Dr. Sam noted that as a consequence of the project the Ministry of Agriculture and the
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources had enhanced their co-operation in Viet Nam, in
terms of the development and sustainable use of mangroves including co-operation in maintaining
mangroves as a protection against storm surges and typhoon damage.
6.
PROGRESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES
6.1
The Chairperson invited the relevant focal points to make presentations regarding the status
of activities at the mangrove demonstration sites and copies of the presentations were provided to the
PCU for lodging on the project website. Focal points were requested to highlight any lessons learned
to date during their presentations.
6.2
In the case of the Fangchenggang demonstration site in China, Dr. Fan's presentation
focussed on progress to date in the areas of:
·
GIS development;
·
Organisation of the management framework, including: establishment of the Management
Board; recruitment of the site manager; letting of the sub-contract for GIS development;
conduct of periodic self-evaluation meetings; establishment of the Mangrove Friendship
Association; publication of 5 editions of the newsletter; and organisation of volunteers in
mangrove planting);
·
Training with a significant number of workshops, training courses, and field trips organised;
·
Survey and planning activities including investigation of traditional uses; identification of the
distribution and abundance of endangered species; and some work on migratory birds;
·
Major outputs to date include: 12 notice boards; construction of the learning centre at the
Beilun Reserve; reports on the biodiversity of marine animals and vegetation; establishment
of a mangrove website; GIS information on the distribution of Heritiera littoralis; production of
the first DVD for mangrove education; two posters, two brochures, highlighting biodiversity
conservation and two scientific papers published;
·
Several postgraduate students were now working at the Fangchenggang site and the first
Msc. Student had now graduated;
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 6
·
Dr. Fan noted that the Provincial and Central Governments were more aware and concerned
about mangrove as a result of SCS Project, and this had resulted in further financial support
from the provincial government, under the marine 908 project.
6.3
Dr. Tri commented that the Fangchenggang site was a very good example of the linking of
central and lower levels of government with the private sector and civil society and noted that this was
generally less effective in most other countries.
6.4
Dr. Sam asked whether the co-financing would have been invested in the absence of the
South China Sea Project. Dr. Fan responded that the visitor centre for example would probably have
been constructed even if the SCS project had not been involved but that it would probably not have
been constructed for another five to ten years. He felt that the SCS project had been influential in
mobilising government support for sustainable use of mangroves that would have been significantly
less without the project.
6.5
Mr. Koh sought clarification regarding the co-financing and Dr. Pernetta noted that the GEF
did not provide grant financing without a co-financing commitment on the part of the government. He
noted that in the case of the South China Sea Project a detailed evaluation of the co-financing in cash
and in kind that would be provided by the governments was made prior to the commencement of the
project. The first meeting of the Project Steering Committee had approved the co-financing estimates,
and it was perhaps significant to note that these original estimates had been greatly exceeded to
date. It had also been agreed prior to the approval of the demonstration sites that, the local and
central governments would provide cash co-financing in a ratio of 1:1.
6.6
Dr. Fan noted that China had benefited from the project not merely in terms of experience in
mangrove management from outside but in other areas such as project management and methods of
organising and running complex projects and activities. Dr. Pernetta noted that he had been informed
by the National Focal Point of China that the project served as a model for managing other projects
within the State Environment Protection Administration and Dr. Fan noted that after 3 years of
participation in the SCS project, the government, local communities and scientists had all gained new
ideas and experiences.
6.7
Mr. Koh asked about the size of the Fangchenggang demonstration site and Dr. Fan
responded that it was only 1,400 ha, which was small in comparison with many mangrove areas in
Indonesia but very significant for China since many Mangrove areas had been lost in the past and the
mangrove was far less extensive than further South. Dr. Tri suggested that it would be beneficial to
Viet Nam if the activities in Fangchenggang could be linked to those in the Red River delta area of
northern Viet Nam, particularly in the light of the fact that sipunculid worms were now being harvested
in Viet Nam and exported to China. Dr. Fan noted that this was a very good suggestion since many of
the mangrove and seagrass resources were shared in the sense that the populations were distributed
on both sides of the border.
6.8
Dr. Pernetta noted that there were already two transboundary demonstration sites in the
South China Sea project, one between Cambodia and Viet Nam, and the second between Cambodia
and Thailand. He noted that a joint meeting held in May between the Phu Quoc and Kampot
management teams had identified a large number of transboundary resource issues, which they
agreed to work towards resolving through joint management of resources. He noted that one intention
of approving the Tun Mustapha Park in Sabah had been that it would encourage the Philippines and
Malaysia to expand their co-operation in joint resource management.
6.9
Dr. Pernetta noted that sipunculid worms were not exploited in most areas bordering the
South China Sea and that potential y these could serve as a source of alternative income for local
communities in Batu Ampar for example, particularly if there were good air connections.
6.10
Mr. Vongwattana made a presentation of the activities at the Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary
demonstration site. The presentation encompassed information regarding:
·
The background to the site, vegetation types, land use and population demography;
·
Problems including il egal charcoal production, illegal fishing, land encroachment, over-
fishing, and management related challenges;
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 7
·
Goal, purpose, rationale, objectives, expected outputs, activities of the demonstration site;
·
Progress to date, which included the organisation and conduct of: national and local
meetings; office establishment; survey of socio-economic issues; agreement on mangrove
research methods; development of posters; a joint meeting between Peam Krasop Wildlife
Sanctuary and Trat demonstration sites; public awareness activities on environment;
mangrove planting; workshop on mangrove resources; field survey on mangrove species and
distribution; and basic training for project staff and local communities.
6.11
Mr. Vongwattana noted that activities had commenced only in March 2006 and in response to
a question regarding problems with monkeys and the success rate of propagules planted in mud-flat
areas he noted that monkeys had not been a problem to date and that since the mud-flat areas had
previously been mangrove the success rate of planted propagules was high. Dr. Fan asked how many
propagules were planted per square meter and Mr. Vongwattana noted that were planted at a density
of 1 per square meter.
6.12
In response to a question regarding the level of poverty in the area Mr. Vongwattana noted
that 85% of the local population depended on fishing and therefore indirectly at least on mangrove
resources. Dr. Tri noted that this would make it difficult to improve the mangrove condition.
6.13 Dr. Sonjai made a presentation regarding the activities and progress in the Trat
demonstration site, noting that some areas were state owned and some privately owned. He noted
that mangroves had been progressively removed up to 1996 and that substantial areas of abandoned
shrimp farms were to be re-planted with mangrove as part of the demonstration site activities. He
noted that the focus of the demonstration activities was on community based restoration and
management centred on the existing activities of Pred Nai vil age. Regarding ongoing activities he
noted the fol owing:
·
Development of a business plan was commencing with economic resource surveys;
·
Replanting had been undertaken involving the public, local people and volunteers and was
financial y supported by the government;
·
Training, Education, and Awareness activities had involved school children and local vil agers;
·
The Thai Environment Foundation was to be sub-contracted to conduct the bulk of the work;
·
The Green Power project had been initiated by the Thai Environment Foundation relating to
mangrove.
6.14
Mr. Koh asked for clarification regarding the budget from GEF and Dr. Sonjai noted that the
GEF funds and co-financing were complementary but the work plan was integrated with the funds
being used in parallel for joint activities.
6.15
In response to a question from Dr. Tri regarding how the activity would reverse degradation
trends Dr. Sonjai noted that the focus was on community-based management, that built upon the
activities of the chief of Pred Nai village, some 15 years ago, who proposed to the Provincial Governor
that the spread of shrimp farming in mangrove areas be halted and who organised a campaign based
on the slogan for mangrove conservation "If you keep one crab now, it wil be one million in the
future". The activities focussed on building an understanding of the functions and values of mangrove
ecosystems.
6.16
Dr. Sonjai noted that in Southern Thailand, where mangrove was planted low down in the
inter-tidal zone Sonneratia was attacked by a smal crustacean (Sphaeroma terebrans) that burrowed
into the trunk weakening it and resulting in breakage and death. Dr. Fan noted that many species
planted low in the inter-tidal zone failed to grow well, hence it was not a good idea to plant mangrove
in the mud-flat areas in front of existing mangrove. He noted however that in China the possibilities of
replanting on the landward side were smal due to alternative land uses, hence most replanting took
place on the seaward edge with the result that substantial areas failed to establish themselves.
6.17
Dr. Fan asked about the release of animals in new mangrove plantations and Dr. Sonjai
responded that crabs purchased in the local markets were released in mangrove plantations to
enhance production of these areas. Dr. Fan queried whether or not there was any scientific evidence
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 8
to suggest that such activities resulted in increased population levels. Dr. Sonjai responded that
although hard scientific data were not available local peoples' experience regarding the levels of
subsequent crab catches suggested that such activities were in fact beneficial to the local community.
6.18 Both Dr. Fan and Mr. Santoso noted that in some areas, insect attack could result in
defoliation of mangroves particularly Avicennia marina but Dr. Tri noted that often following such
events the trees recovered and appeared to grow more vigorously. Dr. Fan noted that apparently the
occurrence of such events had only been noticed over the last forty years and wondered whether this
was correlated with increasing surface temperatures.
6.19 Dr. Pernetta noted that one aspect of the Trat demonstration project was that it would
undertake multi-species planting rather than simply replanting Rhizophora and asked what other
species had been planted to date. Dr. Sonjai responded that at present no other species had been
planted but that the Department of Coastal and Marine Resources had now agreed to focus on
replanting of 5 species to enhance the biodiversity of replanted mangrove stands. Dr. Tri noted that it
was possible to leave patches of un-planted land to allow natural regeneration of other species and
hence increase biodiversity, provided that a source of propagules was available.
6.20
Dr. Pernetta, noted that clearly the investment of the government of Thailand in the Trat
mangroves meant that the GEF involvement was not necessary to ensure action and asked Dr. Sonjai
why, in this case they were interested in serving as a demonstration site for the South China Sea
Project? Dr. Sonjai noted that the primary purpose of proposing the Trat Province as a demonstration
site was to provide an opportunity to share experiences in community based mangrove restoration
with the other countries in the region.
6.21
For the Batu Ampar demonstration site in Indonesia, Mr. Ahmad Faisal Siregar presented
information regarding the Batu Ampar mangrove area including:
·
Mangrove status, species distribution, noting the presence of 21 true mangrove species, and
17 associate species in four types of association;
·
Objectives and activities which included enhancing local incomes and improving the efficiency
of mangrove resource use and building a strong management framework involving the local
communities, which was new for Indonesia;
·
Some activities involve the collection of basic data and information, and the publication of
information for the local community, school children and the general public. He noted that the
programme involved central and local government, private sector, local people, and NGOs.
6.22
Mr. Santoso noted that the mangrove was essentially divided into two areas, one of primary
forest, which contained the protection forest areas and the other of secondary forest, which contained
the production forest areas. There followed a discussion of what constituted conversion forest and it
was noted that this was mangrove land that had been designated by the central government for use
for another purpose other than mangrove production, including infrastructure development, land
reclamation etc.
6.23
Mr. Koh, requested information regarding the forest concession and Mr. Santoso noted that in
Indonesia any concession greater than 5,000 ha, required an Environmental Impact Assessment prior
to cutting and that in the Batu Ampar there were two concessionaires.
6.24
In response to a question from Dr. Tri, Mr. Santoso noted that the project intended to develop
a full management plan for the area that would include different use zones and involve discussion
with all stakeholders in an attempt to reduce the stakeholder conflicts.
6.25
Dr. Pernetta queried the age of the secondary regrowth and Mr. Santoso noted that this had
been logged since 1985; the primary forest area had never been logged. Dr. Tri asked whether or not
there was any protected area and Mr. Santoso noted that there was at present no formally declared
Park or Protected area but that part of the primary forest areas had been designated as a forest
reserve.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 9
6.26
There followed a discussion regarding the certification of timber and other mangrove products
during which the members felt that a certification scheme for shrimps produced without impacts on the
mangrove systems would be of benefit to mangrove conservation in the region.
6.27
In the case of the Balat/Xuan Thuy Estuary joint mangrove and wetland demonstration site
in Viet Nam, Dr. Sam noted that the proposal had been developed by the Viet Nam's Wetland Sub-
component and commented upon by the mangrove committee. At present this had been approved by
UNEP and submitted to the GEF Secretariat for funding but a decision had not yet been made.
6.28
Dr. Pernetta noted that he had received in the last fortnight the final draft of the proposal for
Busuanga from Mr. Barangan that he would review prior to its dispatch to Nairobi. He noted however
that at the present time the new CEO had called a moratorium on the funding of new projects until
such time as the situation with regard to the funding of GEF phase 4 was clarified.
6.29
Final y Dr. Pernetta requested members of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves to
note that, not only do the Focal Points have responsibility for periodically reporting on the status of
these sites to the RWG-M, but also, the RWG-M has a collective responsibility to ensure successful
implementation through the provision of oversight and guidance. Dr. Pernetta suggested that although
interesting the presentations were not adequate for this purpose and suggested that in future full
written reports should be provided on the activities and outcomes six weeks in advance of the
meeting of the Working Group.
6.30
Dr. Gong supported this suggestion noting that it was difficult to hold al the information in
one's head during a presentation and that a written report would make evaluation of the performance
considerably easier. Dr. Tri noted the importance to the project of seeing the outputs and making
these as widely available as possible, not just in terms of routine progress reports but more detailed
reports of lessons learned regarding what has and has not worked.
7.
STATUS OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLANS
7.1
Members recalled that during the fifth meeting of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves
it was agreed that, second drafts of the National Action Plans (NAPs) would be produced no later than
January 2005, and that final drafts were to have been produced no later that June 30th 2005, i.e., in
advance of the sixth meeting.
7.2
The Project Director reminded members that prior to the sixth meeting in August 2005 revised
NAPs had been received only from Cambodia, China and Viet Nam. The revised Indonesian NAP was
tabled in hard copy during the meeting, however no revisions of the Thai and Philippines Action Plans
were provided. It was agreed that second revisions of the National Action Plans of Thailand and the
Philippines would be circulated by December 2005. Regrettably, second revisions of these NAPs
have not yet been received by the PCU.
7.3
Dr. Pernetta noted that the meeting had been informed by the respective focal points that the
NAPs would be approved according to the following timetable: China, December 2005; Cambodia and
Indonesia, January 2006; Philippines and Thailand July 2006; Viet Nam, May 2006.
7.4
The Chairperson invited the focal points to present any further revisions completed to date
and to report in detail concerning the situation with regard to publication and formal approval of these
plans.
7.5
Dr. Sam tabled the published NAP for Viet Nam noting that although the approval process
had not yet been completed the plan was before the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
and was being used as the basis for further actions.
7.6
In the case of Indonesia Mr. Santoso reported that as a result of a meeting between the
concerned Ministries requests for some modification had been made but these were not major and it
was anticipated that final approval for signature by presidential decree would be granted in the near
future.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 10
7.7
Mr. Vongwattana noted that the content of the Cambodian NAP had been extensively
reviewed and accepted by the National Coastal Zone Committee, and that since this was initial y
drafted in English it had been translated into Khmer, for use in public consultations at the national and
local level. The final Khmer version will be available at the end of September following these
consultations and subsequently the English version wil be revised.
7.8
Dr. Fan noted that the NAP in China had been considered by an Inter-ministry Committee
meeting but was to be adopted at the Provincial rather than the National Level since adoption of a
National Action Plan in China was a lengthy and complicated process.
7.9
Dr. Sonjai tabled the draft NAP of Thailand, prepared in 2004 noting that this focussed on the
Gulf of Thailand and noting further that discussions were ongoing regarding the inclusion of actions to
limit shrimp faming to closed systems. He noted that unfortunately due to the political situation in
Thailand it had not been possible to approve the NAP this year but it was anticipated that a large
national meeting would be convened in 2007 to consider and recommend the NAP to the government
for approval.
7.10 Mr. Koh queried whether or not the development of the National Action Plan was a
requirement under the MoU and whether there was an agreed format and content for such a plan.
Dr. Pernetta noted that at the outset of the project it had been agreed that NAPs would be developed
as an integral basis for developing the regional Strategic Action Programme it was therefore an
agreed output but not a requirement in the sense that a penalty clause would be invoked if a NAP
were not developed. The optimum contents of the NAP had been agreed but the format was not
defined since this should reflect the different requirements and procedures of the countries
concerned.
7.11
Mr. Koh asked whether these were National Action Plans or plans that related only to the
South China Sea coastline of countries that had coasts in more than one sea, and what was the
timeline for such plans? Dr. Pernetta noted that for countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia
Philippines and China, which had coastlines outside the South China Sea the action plan covered
only those states or provinces bordering the South China Sea. With respect to the time frame
Dr. Pernetta noted that there was an agreement that five and ten year time frames would be adopted
both for the NAPs and for the SAP and that assuming the SAP was approved in 2007 the milestone
dates would be 2012 and 2017.
7.12
Dr. Gong added that since the national Government of Malaysia is a member of the Project
Steering Committee the SAP, if approved, would represent a regional consensus regarding action.
Dr. Pernetta noted that the actual status of the SAP was yet to be decided by the PSC but it was
unlikely that this would take the form of a legally binding agreement.
7.13
Final y Mr. Koh requested clarification regarding the relationship between the national report
and the National Action Plan and Dr. Pernetta noted that the national reports had been intended to be
a review of the status of mangroves in each country prepared as the basis for developing the national
action plan.
8.
FINALISATION OF INPUTS FROM THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT TO THE
REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
8.1
Elaboration of the substantive mangrove related inputs
8.1.1 The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.7/6 "Inputs from the Mangrove Sub-component for Updating the Regional Strategic Action
Programme". Dr. Pernetta reviewed the contents of the document and the Annex containing the
inputs drafted to date, and summarised the major elements related to the Mangrove Sub-component
that needed to be discussed during the meeting.
8.1.2 The Project Director reminded members that the goal and targets had been initially discussed
during the fifth meeting and draft targets prepared, which had been reviewed by the Regional
Scientific and Technical Committee. The RSTC had recommended that the group clarify what was
meant by the term "protection" since this was subject to widely differing interpretations in different
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 11
disciplines. Subsequently the group had, at its sixth meeting refined the targets and identified four
types of mangrove forest: production forest, used for the production of timber and or wood chips;
conversion forest (a category confined to Indonesia, representing mangrove land identified in land use
plans for conversion to other purposes); Parks and Protected Areas; and areas not subject to use for
mangrove timber but subject to extractive use of other non-timber resources such as crabs and fish.
Three categories of targets were identified: areas to be added to National Parks and Protected Areas;
areas for which the land use designation of conversion was to be changed to either production or non-
extractive use; and increase in the areas under sustainable management.
8.1.3 In addition to reviewing the targets and ensuring consistency in the figures for areas used in
the various tables the group was invited to consider in greater detail the proposed activities and their
associated costs. It was noted in this regard that the group had spent little time in drafting these
during the sixth meeting since considerable effort had been expended in developing rational targets.
The activities in the various components required further elaboration and clarification such that it was
clear to the reader exactly what was to be undertaken, how it was to be done, and the time frame for
completion.
8.1.4 The group took note of the redefined goal of the Strategic Action Plan as proposed by the
Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs and considered that this adequately reflected the overal
intent and direction of the mangrove sub-component.
8.1.5 The group then proceeded to discuss the figures for the areas of mangrove in each category
and those contained in Table 1 of the document showing the rates of decline. The figures were
carefully reviewed and an extensive discussion took place during which members noted that: the
latest FAO estimates were based on national data that had been collected in different years, and in
different ways; the figures represent national totals and not merely the area bordering the South
China Sea; and the South China Sea figures were those contained in the national reports prepared
under this project and represented areas of mangrove forest, not mangrove land.
8.1.6 Dr. Fan expressed the view that the FAO figures for China were likely an over-estimate that
included areas of replanted land where the survival rate was very low. Members noted that the FAO
figures for most countries included estimates of areas of "mangrove land" regardless of whether or not
the area currently contained mangroves, for example areas of shrimp ponds in mangrove could stil be
classified as mangrove land and might have been included in some estimates. The group noted that
the FAO definition of forested land was land where 10% was covered by trees.
8.1.7 Mr. Santoso noted that forest lands in Indonesia were classified as being "good", medium or
poor and the area of mangrove provided in Table 1 was for the categories good and medium only.
Mr. Koh noted that the FAO figure in 2003 for Malaysia was correct and Dr. Gong noted that in
Malaysia the areas of mangrove outside the South China Sea were somewhat limited totalling
approximately 50,000 hectares hence it was possible to derive a rough estimate for the mangrove
area bordering the South China Sea coastline of Malaysia.
8.1.8 Dr. Sonjai provided new figures for the area of mangrove in Thailand that had been revised in
accordance with the latest figures available from the recently completed programme of satellite image
interpretation. It was noted that previous figures for mangrove land in Thailand had not included
privately owned mangrove land whereas the present figure included 10,000 hectares of privately
owned mangrove lands, around 1,600 hectares of which had been sustainably harvested for charcoal
production for over 100 years. It was further noted that the amendments to the figures for the
Philippines had not been provided following the sixth meeting of the group.
8.1.9 There fol owed a consideration of the targets outlined in Table 4 of document UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-M.7/7. It was noted that two increasingly important types of activity being undertaken in
the region had not been adequately reflected in the targets, namely replanting of deforested
mangrove land, and enrichment planting. There followed a discussion of possible targets for areas to
be replanted and those to be subject to enrichment planting to increase the mangrove species
biodiversity. In this context it was noted that in Thailand there was now agreement that rather than
planting single species stands of Rhizophora multi-species stands of up to five species should be
re-planted in future. These two categories of target were added to the table and the finally agreed
figures are presented in Table 1.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 12
Table 1
Areas of Mangrove currently under different forms of land-use designation and
management and potential targets for future mangrove management to be
included in the SAP.
Cambodia
China Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet Nam
Total
%
PRESENT SITUATION
Total area (ha)
72,350
23,446
934,000
27,251
62,618
156,608 1,276,273
100
Production 0
0
610,800
0
1,600
18,000
650,800 49.39
Conversion 0
0
165,000
5002
0
0
166,500 12.97
Parks & Protected Areas
13,558
15,772
158,200
[4,776}3
11,520
20,000
223,826 17.54
(Conservation) non-extractive use
Non-use of mangrove but
extractive resource use
58,792
7,674
0
26,751
39,496
118,608
251,323 19.69
(fish, crabs etc.)
Private land, unregulated use
0
0
0
0
10,000
0
10,000 0.78
Area currently under management
13,558
15,772
768,800
23,143
11,520
155,000
987,793 77.40
Regulated in laws/regulations
Areas estimated as currently
20,000
13,558
15,772
158,200
[MPAs?]
11,520
18,000
432,078 32.6
under sustainable management4
8,820
+1,0005
100,000
15,0006
1,600
46,608
TARGETS 2012
[Proposed areas to be subject to changes in designation and management regime.]
Area to be transferred to
National Parks and Protected
0
5,330
20,000
0
1,400
30,000
56,730 4.44
Area status
Non-conversion of mangrove
0
0
165,0007
0
1,600
0
166,600 13.05
but sustainable use
Improved management relating
49,972
0
490,8008
11,7519
10,000
50,000
to sustainable use
602,523 47.21
Replanting of deforested
2,500
500
0
?
8,000
8,000
19,000 1.49
mangrove land
Enrichment planting to increase
0
5,000
0
?
3,200
2,000
mangrove biodiversity
10,200 0.80
8.1.10 Having revised the targets the group proceeded to consider what was meant by sustainable
use of mangrove areas, and in this context reviewed the indicators of sustainability that had been
developed by the coral reef group to assess whether or not a management regime was likely to result
in sustainable harvests.
8.1.11 Members agreed that the management indicators were reasonable for mangrove areas and
that one would anticipate a greater degree of sustainability in the management when al conditions in
each category were met. For example if an area has only a formal management framework it is less
likely to be sustainably managed that one which has a framework, trained manpower, necessary
facilities and a sustainable source of financing.
8.1.12 The ecological indicators proposed by the coral reef working group were not considered
suitable for application to mangrove areas and the working group discussed and agreed five
indicators covering the mangroves themselves and mud-crabs as an indicator of secondary
production.
8.1.13 In the case of the socio-economic indicators the group felt that tourism was a less important
source of income in mangrove areas compared with coral reefs and that indicators for the forest
sector should be included. The group replaced the category of "other alternative income" used by the
coral reef group and included a more generic indicator namely the numbers of people, (and their per
capita income) involved in activities other than fishing, tourism and forestry, in order to reflect the
2
Conversion for Infrastructure development and other uses.
3
Area is for the entire Philippines, area for South China Sea to be supplied later.
4 Areas considered as being sustainably managed at the present time include al lands designated as production forest since it
is a legal requirement that these be replanted; all mangrove lands contained within National Parks and Protected Areas; and
a proportion of the mangrove area subject to extractive use of non-timber resources.
5
Area outside the protected area for which some form of management plans exist estimated.
6
Estimate of total area with local government or community based management plans.
7
Represents re-classification of conversion forest to other forms of use.
8
This represents areas that are used both for forest production and non-timber uses.
9
By 2010.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 13
diversity of alternative sources of income generated by mangrove habitats. The agreed set of
indicators of sustainability is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Sustainable Management Indicator Matrix.
Ecological/Environmental
Management Indicators
Socio-Economic Indicators
Indicators
Management Capacity:
Fisheries:
· Formal Management
·
Catch per unit effort
framework
·
Total landing
· Trained Man-power
·
Income
(No./levels)
·
Forest Cover
Tourism:
· Facilities and equipment
·
Number of visitors
· Sustainable Financing
·
Population structure of the
·
Number of tourism operators
dominant mangrove species
·
Income
Management Approach:
Forestry:
·
·
Tree density
Sectoral
·
Volume of timber
(tree of over 1.5 meters high)
· Integrated
·
Weight of charcoal product
· Community-based
·
Income
·
Number of True Mangrove
· Multiple-use
species
Management Tools:
Activities Other than Fisheries,
· Licensing and permits
Tourism and Forestry:
·
Scyl a serrata
· Seasonal closure
(size and abundance)
·
Numbers of people involved
· Zoning
·
Per capita income
Overall Living Standard:
·
Level of education
·
Health of the community
8.1.14 The members agreed to complete the details of the management status of the mangrove
areas that had been considered as potential demonstration sites overnight as a check on the contents
of Table 1 above. These entries were consolidated and are presented in Table 6 of Annex 4 of this
report.
8.1.15 Fol owing agreement regarding the revised and expanded targets and the indicators for
sustainable management the group proceeded to reconsider the threats as outlined in Table 2 of
Annex 1 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/7. The group was of the opinion that the threat of
mangrove conversion to shrimp ponds was no longer significant in the region and that perhaps the
most significant threat for the future would be the continued conversion of mangrove lands due to
increasing infrastructure development along the coast and associated land reclamation. It was noted
that, in general, the economic values of mangroves were considered by planners and economists as
being so low that, any form of development resulted in an increase in the economic value of the area.
8.1.16 Dr. Fan expressed the view that one of the most serious threats to the survival of mangroves
in China was sea level rise, which along the Southern coast of China had reached approximately 6 to
8 centimetres over the last 40 years. The development of land behind the mangroves restricted the
extent to which mangroves could respond to rising sea level by colonising areas further inland. A
similar problem was noted in Viet Nam where the construction of dykes along the coast restricted
mangroves to areas on the seaward side.
8.1.17 Mr. Santoso noted that sea level rise was not only a problem in areas where the back
mangroves had been developed but also in areas such as smal islands where inputs of sediment
were extremely low. Dr. Pernetta noted that he had published a paper contrasting the potential
response of mangroves in tidal estuaries in the Kikori area of the Gulf of Papua with those occurring
in river dominated systems such as the Purari delta. The former lack sediment inputs whereas the
suspended sediment load of the Purari was extremely high.
8.1.18 Dr. Fan voiced concerns about future threats from changes in temperature resulting in
increased frequency of defoliation. Dr. Tri suggested that in Viet Nam at least, defoliation appeared to
be a cyclic event occurring every 4 to 5 years. Dr. Sonjai noted that the introduction of Penaeus
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 14
vannamei shrimps to China and their subsequent introduction to Thailand and Indonesia posed a
threat to native shrimp species since this species was fast growing and reproduced rapidly.
8.1.19 Dr. Gong concluded that regional threats could be divided into two main categories natural or
environmental such as defoliation and sea level rise, and human threats such as conversion, and that
these should be clearly separated in the table.
8.1.20 Mr. Santoso was of the opinion that some of the threats could be addressed through a
regional y agreed certification procedure, which certified mangrove products as having been produced
in a sustainable manner without, impact on mangrove eco-systems.
8.1.21 The group then turned to a consideration of Table 5 of the document concerning challenges
to sustainable mangrove management in the region. Dr Fan was of the opinion that the lack of
permanent mechanisms for fostering regional and international co-operation remained a major
constraint, which Dr. Tri felt was mirrored at the national level with a lack of co-ordination between
sectoral interests and stakeholder groups. Dr. Pernetta noted in this regard that each focal point was
supposed to chair a national committee or sub-committee of stakeholders with involvement in
mangroves to address exactly this problem whilst in theory at least the South China Sea's Regional
Working Group on Mangroves provided a forum for regional co-operation.
8.1.22 It was agreed that in general governments needed to modify their management perspectives
with respect to mangrove areas and to consider mangrove services such as coastal protection when
deciding on the development of mangroves in coastal areas. An ecosystem approach to management
should be more widely adopted. Dr. Pernetta noted that whilst the international system was
increasingly using the term "ecosystem management" this was in fact impossible since ecosystems
themselves could not be managed, the only thing that could be managed was human activities.
8.1.23 There followed a lengthy discussion in plenary of the contents of Table 7. It was agreed that
the meeting would break into small groups to consider firstly the elaboration of the activities and
secondly the approximate costings. Initial results from these small working groups were then
projected and considered in plenary. The outcome of these discussions is presented in Table 7 of
Annex 4 of this report.
8.2
Economic valuation of mangrove goods and services
8.2.1 The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.7/10 "Economic Valuation of Mangrove Goods and Services". The Project Director noted the
previous agreement of the group that various data regarding the economic valuation of mangrove
goods and services would be provided from the demonstration sites since this information was
required to develop the business plans and explore alternative livelihoods as outlined in the
operational plans for each site. Members recalled that they had agreed during the sixth meeting of the
Regional Working Group to provide data in the agreed format, relating to the economic values of
mangrove goods and services at the demonstration sites according to the following schedule: Batu
Ampar, Peam Krasop, Busuanga, and Fangchenggang by December 2005; Trat Province by January
2006 and the Balat Xuan Thuy estuary within three months of commencement of work.
8.2.2 The Project Director noted with regret that none of these data had been supplied in advance
of the fourth and fifth meetings of the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation (March and August
2006 respectively). He noted further that the fifth meeting of the RTF-E had taken place before the
RWG-M hence the document contained the outcome of their deliberations and the data they had
assembled and presented during the meeting (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.5/3).
8.2.3 The Chairperson invited members of the RWG-M to: present any economic valuation data
that had become available from the demonstration sites; consider the data assembled by the RTF-E;
and, to make any suggestions and/or recommendations regarding the need for further values prior to
calculation of regional values.
8.2.4 A question was raised regarding the meaning of the abbreviation CPI and Dr. Pernetta
responded that this was the Consumer Price Index a standard economic measure used in national
accounting. The CPI was to be used by the RTF-E in standardising values in US$ between countries
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 15
thus permitting comparisons and statistical treatment of the data. Dr. Pernetta noted that the data for
each good or service would be standardised within countries by determining a weighted market price
that reflected the volume of supply. The weighted national values would then be weighted a second
time according to the areas of habitat in each country and a regional weighted market price
determined from which the economic value of each item would be determined. By summing the
values per hectare for all goods and services a total economic value for mangrove habitat could be
determined and used in evaluating the costs and benefits of action and non-action.
8.2.5 During discussion various anomalies were discussed and Dr. Fan noted that what had been
valued as timber in Fangchenggang was not the standing stock, but the annual production and that he
would examine the data and provide the PCU and Dr. Li Kaiming with corrections and amendments
as soon as possible.
8.2.6 Mr. Vongwattana noted that in the case of the Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary old, and in
some cases inappropriate data were presented in the table, and that new work on economic values
through field research would result in data being provided in a standardised format by 15th October
2006. Dr. Pernetta requested that these data be provided both to the PCU and to Mr. Sy Ramony the
member of the RTF-E from Cambodia.
8.2.7 Mr. Santoso noted that the economic data from Batu Ampar had been compiled and sent to
the Indonesian RTF-E member. He noted further that these values were not based on the entire area
of the site rather on a sub-set of some 10,000 hectares and that a more accurate set of values would
be provided once the demonstration site became fully operational.
8.2.8 Dr. Sonjai noted that work on the economic valuation of mangrove goods and services in Trat
Province, had not yet commenced, although it was pointed out that these activities were included in
the operational plan for the site.
9.
UPDATING OF THE REGIONAL GIS-DATABASE AND META-DATABASE AND
EFFICIENT USE OF THE PROJECT WEBSITE
9.1
The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.7/7, "Status of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project Website, Online Tools, and Activities to
Promote the Mangrove Sub-component of the Project". Dr. Pernetta noted that there are currently in
excess of one hundred institutions directly involved in the project, and more than four hundred
institutions indirectly involved through individual participation in National Committees, Sub-committees
and Regional Working Groups. It is anticipated that this network wil continue to grow as the
demonstration sites and pilot activities become fully operational and as more outputs are produced at
both the national and regional levels.
9.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that the project had developed a wide range of outputs, including:
knowledge documents; national reports; over sixty meeting reports; an online Geographical
Information System (GIS) and meta-database; a nutrient carrying capacity model for the South China
Sea; National Action Plans for key marine habitats; and regional guidelines on the use of fisheries
refugia for capture fisheries management.
9.3
The Focal Points were reminded that it was their responsibility under the Memoranda of
Understanding to ensure that any new mangrove related GIS and meta-data sets were made
available to the Project Co-ordinating Unit for inclusion in the regional databases as they became
available at the national level. Dr. Pernetta reminded them further of their prior agreements during the
sixth meeting regarding revision and up dating of national data for inclusion in the regional databases.
9.4
The Project Director noted that to date meta-data entries had been provided by Cambodia,
Philippines and Viet Nam and included in the regional meta-database. He noted that Mr. Santoso had
supplied the Indonesian entries in "PDF" format, which prevented them from being uploaded to the
database, and that the CD supplied by Dr. Sonjai was so heavily infected with viruses as to be
unreadable. Mr. Santoso supplied the database entries in word format during the meeting and Dr. Fan
noted that the Chinese meta-data entries had been provided to the PCU on Friday last. Dr. Sonjai
agreed to provide clean sets of the data from Thailand upon his return to Bangkok.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 16
9.5
Dr. Pernetta noted that the PCU has conducted an evaluation of each meta-data entry and
has prepared guidance for the focal points concerning how the existing meta-data entries could be
revised to make them more, user-friendly. The results of this evaluation were attached as Annex 2 to
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/7 it was agreed that the focal points would correct these entries
according to the dates agreed in the work plan (Annex 5). Dr. Pernetta noted that it was now possible
for members to log onto the site and to amend the entries directly, without having to submit data to
the PCU.
9.6
A customised CD-ROM was provided to each member having the user names and passwords
attached, and a full user manual for the website, which was also supplied in hard copy. Members may
now log on to the website and enter information on the demonstration site pages, participate in any
e-fora, and amend the pages relating to the RWG-M, and their own meta-data entries.
9.7
The Chairperson noted that the document also contained details of proposed initiatives
developed by the PCU to support the substantive work of the regional working groups in using the
website for exchange of information and experiences through new functions including the use of
e-fora. He invited members to discuss and agree on how the project website could be used to improve
communication between members of the RWG-M between meetings.
9.8
There followed a discussion regarding the use of the website for enhancing communication and
exchange of information between meetings. Dr. Tri noted that in his experience e-fora discussion groups
only worked when people were motivated and when they agreed in advance to contribute to the
discussion. It was suggested that each member would undertake to post something in the discussion
forum once a week. Various topics were proposed for discussion including sustainable charcoal
production, timber production, and mangrove foods.
9.9
It was agreed that each member of the RWG-M would take sequential responsibility for
stimulating the discussion for one month, starting with Dr. Tri, in October, followed by Mr. Santoso,
November, and then proceeding in reverse alphabetical order starting with Viet Nam. Each member
would, as the moderator for the month, post no more than two topics and initiate and encourage
discussion. Dr. Pernetta noted that the e-fora were established in such a way that each time a posting
was made an e-mail was automatically distributed to al members of the group.
10.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SOUTH CHINA SEA PROJECT TRAINING ACTIVITIES
REGARDING THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT
10.1
The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.7/8, "The South China Sea Project Training Programme". The Project Director outlined: the
background to the development of this programme; the aim and modus operandi of the training
programme; the procedures proposed for the selection of Implementing Entities; and the procedures
for the conduct of training courses.
10.2
Dr. Pernetta drew members' attention to Table 1 of the document, which listed the major
topics identified by the Sub-Committee of the RSTC that should be included in a course on
mechanisms for sustainable production/use of mangroves and other coastal wetlands. He reviewed
the proposed elements that had been identified for inclusion by the RWG-W and were presented in
the annex to the document.
10.3
The Chairperson invited members of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves to: discuss
the contents of this document; provide comment on appropriate participants for the training courses;
consider suitable training topics for inclusion in each course; provide advice on possible implementing
entities, and how materials developed for regional training could be utilised in national level training
activities.
10.4
Dr. Fan noted that the requirement for English would limit participation from China and
Dr. Pernetta responded that participants in the regional training courses need to know sufficient
English to be able to translate key materials for delivery during the national echo seminars, He noted
that the level of education of participants would generally be high, probably at least first degree level.
10.5
Dr. Gong sought further information regarding the trainees' responsibilities and Dr. Pernetta
indicated that they would be expected to organise and run the echo seminars, probably in
collaboration with the Specialised Executing Agencies and that participants could be nominated by
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 17
the focal points but the final selection would be the responsibility of the National Technical Focal
Points. Given that each course was expected to cater for up to 25 participants and there were seven
countries involved each country could expect to secure at least three places in the course.
10.6
The Chairperson asked for comments on the proposed contents of the course as outlined by
the Sub-Committee and presented in Table 1. Dr. Gong noted that this content was in her opinion
suitable but that the inclusion of the contents elaborated by the wetland group might result in a
considerable dilution of the substance making it not worthwhile for mangrove managers to participate.
She sought clarification regarding which wetlands were to be the subject of this course and
Dr. Pernetta indicated that the wetlands other than mangroves were, coastal lagoons, estuaries, inter-
tidal mudflats, peat swamp and non-peat swamp coastal forests.
10.7
Dr. Pernetta responded that the Wetlands and Mangrove Sub-components were combined in
a joint course for financial and time related reasons and it was really up to the group to indicate what
was the course content that they felt was needed by mangrove practitioners. He noted that many of
the topics proposed by the wetlands group for inclusion could be dealt with in a short period of time
depending upon how the timetable and curriculum were arranged. The group agreed that the content
as laid out in Table 1 was more appropriate than that listed by the wetlands working group.
10.8
Dr. Pernetta noted further that whichever institution expressed an interest in running the
course would be responsible for determining the course content and developing the materials but
clearly the members of the regional working group could provide inputs to the curriculum and
materials, and/or participate as resource persons. Dr. Gong expressed an interest in participating as a
resource person for the section on carbon storage and Dr. Tri indicated his interest in presenting
aspects of the economic valuation.
10.9
During discussion it was agreed that whoever had materials that could be used or translated
for use in such a course would provide details of these, together with copies to the Project
Co-ordinating Unit who would pass them to the Institution selected as the Implementing Agency.
Dr. Gong noted that some years ago UNESCO/Universiti Sains Malaysia had run a mangrove training
course and that some of the materials might be suitable for use in this course and Mr. Santoso noted
that materials were available from the JICA centre in Bali that he would try to obtain copies for use in
this course. It was noted that some of the materials from the RWG-M such as the national reports
would be suitable as reference materials for trainees and that once completed the training materials
developed for the course should be made widely available through the project website.
10.10 Dr. Gong noted that possibly the Universiti Sains Malaysia might be interested in running
such a course and undertook to discuss this with the appropriate persons upon her return to Penang.
11.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES 2006 2008
11.1
Mr. Sour, Secretary to the working group presented document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/9
"Draft Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Mangroves 2006 to 2008". The
draft work plan was projected and amended by the members in the light of decisions made under
earlier agenda items and to reflect the commitments of individual members with respect to overdue
outputs from the national level.
11.2
The amended work plan was finalised and approved as it appears in Annex 5 of this report.
12.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON MANGROVES
12.1
The Project Director reminded members that previous meetings of the working group had
been convened in China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam and noted that to date no
meeting had been convened in Cambodia.
12.2
Members of the Regional Working Group were also reminded that, in accordance with the
decision of the Project Steering Committee, al Regional Working Group meetings are to be convened
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Page 18
at the demonstration sites. The Project Director noted in this context that the Peam Krasop
demonstration site in Koh Kong Province, Cambodia, was reputed to be one of the best remaining
stands of mangrove in the Gulf of Thailand.
12.3 Mr. Vongwattana invited the group to convene the Eighth Meeting at Peam Krasop in
Cambodia and there followed a discussion of suitable dates with respect to the wet season since the
road from Phnom Penh was not an al weather road. It was agreed that the meeting would be
convened from 19th to 22nd April inclusive, since this was the end of the dry season in the area.
13.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
13.1
Members recal ed that during the sixth meeting, the working group had held a preliminary
discussion regarding the production of a mangrove cook-book, and Mr. Santoso had provided copies
to the members during this meeting. Mr. Santoso suggested that members should attempt to
complete this cook-book during the inter-sessional period.
13.2
It was agreed that individual members would provide recipes, including lists of ingredients for
dishes containing mangrove products, and that photographs would be lodged on the project website
to avoid overloading e-mail inboxes.
13.3
The Chairperson then invited members of the Regional Working Group to raise any further
matters needing consideration at this time. No additional items were raised by members for
consideration of the meeting.
14.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
14.1
The Chairperson invited, Dr. Sam, the Rapporteur to present the draft report of the meeting,
prepared by the secretariat during the meeting, for consideration and adoption by the members.
14.2
Dr. Sam presented the report, which was discussed, amended, and approved as it appears
in this document. Hard copies of the text of Annex 4 of the report were provided to members who
agreed to provide the Project Director with any amendments or corrections prior to their departure
from Pontianak.
15.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
15.1
The Chairperson thanked participants for their very hard work, the PCU staff for their support
to the running of the meeting and Mr. Santoso for his assistance in organising the logistics of the
meeting.
15.2
The Project Director thanked participants for their hard work during the course of the meeting
and the Indonesian hosts for assistance with the administrative arrangement and for organising the
field visit to Batu Ampar.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Ke Vongwattana
Dr. Hangqing Fan, Professor
Assistant to Minister in charge of Mangrove
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, China
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon, Cambodia
Tel:
(86 779) 206 5609; 205 5294
Tel:
(855 23) 213 908
Mobile: (86) 13 9779 39731
Mobile: (855) 12 654 350
Fax:
(86 779) 206 5609; 209 5566
Fax:
(855 23) 212 540, 215 925
E-mail: fanhq@ppp.nn.gx.cn;
E-mail: kewattana@yahoo.com
fanhq666@126.com
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Nyoto Santoso
Mr. Koh Hock Lye, Director,
Lembaga Pengkajian dan Pengembangan
Silviculture and Forest Protection Unit,
Mangrove Indonesia
Forestry Department Headquarters Peninsular
(Indonesian of Institute Mangrove Research &
Malaysia,
Development)
Jalan Sultan Salahuddin,
Multi Piranti Graha It 3 JL. Radin Inten II No. 2
50660, Kuala Lumpur
Jakarta 13440, Indonesia
Malaysia
Tel:
(62 251) 621 672; (62 21) 861 1710
Tel: (603)
2616
4570
Mobile: (62) 081 111 0764
Fax: (603)
2692
5657
Fax:
(62 251) 621 672; (62 21) 861 1710
E-mail: koh@forestry.gov.my
E-mail: imred@indo.net.id
Thailand
Viet Nam
Dr. Sonjai Havanond
Dr. Do Dinh Sam, Professor
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
Forest Science Institute of Viet Nam
92 Pollution Control Building
Dong Ngac, Tu Liem
Phaholyothin 7 (Soi Aree)
Hanoi, Viet Nam
Phayathai, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel:
(844) 838 9815; 755 0801; 854 2044
Tel:
(66 2) 298 2166; 298 2591
Fax:
(844) 838 9722
Mobile: (66) 081 811 4917; 081 173 1161
E-mail: ddsam@netnam.vn; fuongvt@hn.vnn.vn
Fax:
(66 2) 298 2591-2; 298 2166; 298 2058
dodinhsam@yahoo.com
E-mail: sonjai_h@hotmail.com;
sonjai_h@yahoo.com
Expert Members
Dr. Gong Wooi Khoon
Ass. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Hoang Tri, Director
11 Lintang Delima 13
Centre for Environmental Research and Education
Island Glades
(CERE), Hanoi University of Education
11700 Penang, Malaysia
136 Xuan Thuy, Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel:
(604) 658 6319
Tel/Fax: (844) 754 7502
Mobile: (60) 16 271 9418
Mobile: (84)
09
13527629
E-mail: gongwk@yahoo.com
E-mail: hoangtri51@fpt.vn
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Observers and Local Government
Mr. Henk Uktolseya, Expert
Mr. Ahmad Faisal Siregar
Assistant Deputy for Marine and Coastal
Demonstration Site Manager of Batu Ampar
Destruction Control
Kompleks IPB 2, Jl. Merkurious Blok C No. 4
Ministry for Environment, Indonesia
Sindangbarang, Bogor, Propines
Jalan DI. Panjaitan Kav.24
Jawa Barat, Indonesia
A Building, 5th Floor, Kebon Nanas
Jakarta 13410, Indonesia
Tel:
(62 251) 621672; (62 21) 861 1710;
Mobile: (62) 08128151790; 0811110764
Tel:
(62 21) 8590 5638; (62) 0811 936261
Fax: (62 251) 621672; (62 21) 861 1710
Fax:
(62 21) 8590 4929
E-mail: imred@indo.net.id; marucok@yahoo.com
E-mail: pkepl@menlh.go.id
Drs. H.L. Kadir
Ir. Tri Budiarto
Vice-Governor of West Kalimantan Province
Jl. Ahmad Yani, Komp. Kantor Gubernur
Jalan Ahmad Yani, Pontianak
West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia
West Kalimantan Province
Indonesia
Tel:
(62 0561) 730658
Fax:
(62 0561) 764 616
Tel: (62
0561)
732245
E-mail: poskokar@yahoo.com
Mr. Gatot Sudiono
Mr. Eri Risaldi
Dinas Kesautan Dan Perikanan Prov. Kal Bar.
Dishutbun Kab. Pontianak
(Marine and Fisheries Service of West
(Forestry & Estate Service of Pontianak District)
Kalimantan Province)
Jl. R. Kusno 62 Mempawah
Jl Sutan Syahrir, Pontianak, Indonesia
Indonesia
Tel:
(62 561) 732 521
Tel:
(62 561) 691 032
Mobile (62) 0813 4525 1001
Mobile: (62) 0852 4517 5987
Mr. Johnny Darmawan S.
Ms. Wuyi Bardini
Dinas Lingkungan Hidup, Energi Sumber Daya
Bapedalda Prop. Kalbar
Mineral Kabupaten Pontianak
(Board of Impact Environmental Province West
(Environmental, Energy and Mineral Resources
Kalimantan)
Service of Pontianak District)
Jl. A Yani Pontianak
Jl. Daeng Menambon KM 64.7 Mempawan
Indonesia
Indonesia
Mobile: (62) 0813 4550 5121
Tel:
(62 561) 692 121
Mobile: (62) 0812 570 8210
Mr. Vandra Syah
IMReD (Institute Mangrove Research and
Development)
Kompleks IPB 2, Jl. Merkurious Block C No. 4
Bogor, West Java 16680, Indonesia
Mobile: (62) 0812 822 7780
E-mail: candra_lppm@yahoo.com
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 1
Page 3
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Mr. Kim Sour
Ms. Unchalee Pernetta
Associate Expert
Programme Assistant
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 2609
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1670
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: kims@un.org
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/1 Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/2 Annotated
Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Report of the Meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/4
Current Status of Budgets and Reports from the Specialised
Executing Agencies in the Participating Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/5
Status of Substantive Reports from the Specialised
Executing Agencies for the Mangrove Sub-component of the
UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/6
Inputs from the Mangrove Sub-component for Updating the
Regional Strategic Action Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/7
Status of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project Website,
Online Tools, and Activities to Promote the Mangrove Sub-
component of the Project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/8
The South China Sea Project Training Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/9
Draft Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working
Group on Mangroves 2006 to 2008.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/10
Economic Valuation of Mangrove Goods and Services [Data
Relating to the Economic Value of Mangrove Goods and
Services Extracted from the Report of the fifth meeting of the
RTF-E].
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/Inf.1
List of Participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/Inf.2
List of Documents.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/Inf.3 Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.6/Sub-Comm
First Meeting of the Sub-committee of the Sixth Meeting of
the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee for the
UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental Degradation
Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report
of the Meeting. Bangkok, Thailand, 6th 10th February 2006
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.6/Sub-Comm.
Published Reports supplied in hard copy (available on the Project Website www.unepscs.org)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.5/3
Fifth 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. Batam, Indonesia, 12th 14th December
2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.6/3
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Batam,
Indonesia, 8th 10th December 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RSTC.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.6/3
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Seagrass Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting.
Bolinao, Philippines, 27th 30th September 2005 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-SG.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 2
Page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.6/3
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Wetlands
Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Sihanoukvil e,
Cambodia, 12th 15th September 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-W.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.6/3
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Fisheries
Component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Kudat, Sabah,
Malaysia, 5th 8th September 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-F.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.6/3
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Coral
Reefs Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Masinloc,
Philippines, 22nd 25th August 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-CR.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the
Mangroves Sub-component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting.
Busuanga Island, Palawan, Philippines, 1st 5th August 2005
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.6/3
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Land-
based Pollution Component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting.
Ninh Hai, Ninh Thuan, Viet Nam, 18th 21st July 2005
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.4/3
Fourth Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic
Valuation for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Xuan Thuy,
Nam Dinh Province, Viet Nam, 27th 30th March 2006
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.4/3
Fourth Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters
for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing Environmental
Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". Report of the Meeting. Shantou, China, 24th 27th
April 2006 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.4/3.
Document received during the RWG-M-7 meeting in Pontianak, West Kalimantan Province,
Indonesia, 4-8 September 2006.
Cambodia:
Cash Advance Request period ending in year 2006.
Six Monthly Project Expenditure from January June 2006.
Six Monthly Progress Report period July December 2005.
National Report of Mangrove, Phnom Penh, August 2005, 186 pps. Publish in
Cambodian Language, 2 copies.
China:
Newsletter, GEF FCG Mangrove Demo Site Project, Issue 5, May 2006, Chinese
Language, 1 copy.
Education Mangrove Book, Chinese Language, 4 copies.
Poster Mangrove different photos in Chinese Language.
2 different leaflets in Chinese Language, 10 copies each
1 DVD about Mangrove 1 CD
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 2
Page 3
Indonesia:
CD Metadata and GIS Database of Indonesia Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea, Bogor, 2005.
Thailand:
Mangrove Sub-component, Final Report, July 2004, 126 pps. English Language,
1 copy.
Document part 3 Book 1/6 Mangrove, 60 pps., in Thai Language, 2 copies.
Mangrove Strategic Action Plan in the Gulf of Thailand, print document, 49 pps. In
Thai Language, 1 copy.
Future Mangrove Management in the Gulf of Thailand, print document, 7 pps.
English Language, 1 copy.
Viet Nam:
National Action Plan for Protection and Development of Vietnam's Mangrove Forests
Until 2015, Hanoi 2005 publish in Viet Nam and English Language, 3 copies.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 3
Page 1
ANNEX 3
Agenda
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
Welcome Addresses on behalf of UNEP and the West Kalimantan Provincial
Government
1.2
Introduction of Participants
2. ORGANISATION
OF
THE
MEETING
2.1
Election of Officers
2.2
Documentation and Administrative Arrangements
3. ADOPTION
OF
THE
MEETING
AGENDA
4.
STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS FOR 2005 AND 1ST HALF 2006:
PROGRESS REPORTS; EXPENDITURE REPORTS; AND AUDIT REPORTS
5.
STATUS OF SUBSTANTIVE NATIONAL REPORTS
6.
PROGRESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES
7.
STATUS OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLANS
8.
FINALISATION OF INPUTS FROM THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT TO THE
REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
8.1
Elaboration of the Substantive Mangrove Related Inputs
8.2
Economic Valuation of Mangrove Goods and Services
9.
UPDATING OF THE REGIONAL GIS-DATABASE AND META-DATABASE AND
EFFICIENT USE OF THE PROJECT WEBSITE
10.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SOUTH CHINA SEA PROJECT TRAINING
ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT
11.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES 2006 - 2008
12.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON MANGROVES
13. ANY
OTHER
BUSINESS
14.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
15.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Draft Inputs to the revised SAP from the RWG-M
THREATS TO MANGROVES AND PRIORITIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
Around 30% of the world's remaining mangrove is found in the countries participating in this project and
8% of the World's total is found along the margins of the South China Sea marine basin. Rates of loss
are general y higher along the South China Sea coastlines than elsewhere in the seven countries
participating in the UNEP GEF project. For example around 80% of the mangrove bordering the Gulf of
Thailand has been lost compared with only around 20% on the Andaman coast of Thailand. The annual
rates of loss in the seven countries, between 1990 and 2000, were greater than the world average
(Table 110). Such losses represent a loss of global biological diversity that must be a matter of global
concern (UNEP, 2004). The total area of mangrove lost in the participating countries over different time
spans (70 years for the Philippines) was estimated in 1998 at 4.2 mil ion ha suggesting that over half of
the original mangrove bordering the South China Sea had been lost during the last century.
Table 1 Estimates of area (Ha) and rates of loss of mangrove habitat in seven countries
bordering the South China Sea, compared with the world totals. [Most recent data from
FAO, 2003]
Most recent Date of
National Estimates of total
Current
% Rates of loss per year
estimate
FAO
mangrove area
South China
FAO
estimate
1980 1990 2000 Sea area
1980 - 1990
1990-2000
Cambodia
72,835 1997
83,000
74,600
63,700 72,350 -1.01 -1.46
China
36,882 1994
65,900
44,800
23,700 23,446 -3.20 -4.71
Indonesia
3,493,110 1988 4,254,000
3,530,700
2,930,000 934,000 -1.70
-1.70
Malaysia
587,269 1995
669,000
620,500
572,100 532,100 -0.72
-0.78
Philippines
127,610 1990
206,500
123,400
109,700 27,251 -4.02 -1.11
Thailand
244,085 2000
285,500
262,000
244,000 62,618 -0.82 -0.69
Viet Nam
252,500 1983
227,000
165,000
156,608 156,608 -2.73
-0.51
Total
4,814,291
5,790,900
4,821,000
4,099,808 1,798,373
-1.67
-1.61
World
15,763,000 1992 19,809,000 16,361,000 14,653,000 15,763,000
-1.74
-1.04
% world total
30.54
29.23
29.47
27.62 11.41
The causes of mangrove destruction identified in the TDA (UNEP, 1998) along the coastlines bordering
the South China Sea, included conversion to pond aquaculture, particularly for shrimp, clear fel ing of
timber for woodchip production, land clearance for urban and port development and human settlements;
and harvest of timber products for domestic use (UNEP, 2004). Present causes of loss of mangrove
habitat are no longer dominated by shrimp culture although this remains one cause of conversion in
China, Indonesia and Viet Nam (Table 2). Conversion of mangrove to land for industrial purposes
(including harbour construction) has grown over the last ten years, and is now significant in China, but
of low importance in Indonesia, the Philippines and Viet Nam, and not important in Thailand and
Cambodia. Degradation of mangrove habitats as a consequence of chronic pollution from shrimp
farming operations is now more prevalent in China, Indonesia and Thailand, whilst charcoal production
continues to degrade mangrove in Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines despite legislation banning
all harvesting of mangroves in Cambodia and the Philippines.
Transboundary influences are seen through the operation of the world markets and global trade for
example, in shrimp. The high global level of demand for shrimp is itself driven by demand in Japan,
North America and Europe which sets the world price such that, economic incentives for the conversion
of "non-productive" mangrove habitats operate at both the individual and national levels in producing
countries. Hard currency income and economic development fuel the motives at the national level whilst
individual producers, at least in the short-term, derive considerable cash income from cutting mangrove
and converting to shrimp ponds.
10 This table is based on that contained in UNEP, 2004. Mangroves in the South China Sea. UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical
Publication No. 1.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 2
Table 2
Threats to Mangroves Outlined in Each of the National Action Plans and at the Regional Level.
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Regional
1. Fast population growth since
1. Coastal reclamation
1. Domestic
1. The conversion of
1. Culture of marine animals,
1. Extensive application of chemicals
1. Reclamation and infrastructure
after the civil war, and
for rice farming(P);
exploitation;
mangroves into fishponds
in particular the farming
(ecocide) by Americans in 10 years
development*;
associated issues: poverty,
2. Coastal aquaculture,
2. Salt production(P);
or shrimp farms(P);
of black tiger shrimp;
1962 1972(P);
2. Shrimp farming-Pollution-
settlement and urgent survival
mangrove areas
3. Rice cultivation(P); 2. Unregulated and destructive 2. Increase in population and
2. So called "Reclaiming marginalized
Th, Ch, In;
needs of local people;
converted for fishponds
4. Aquaculture;
tanbark tapping;
development has resulted
lands" that converted large
3. Industrial conversion-Ch-High;
2. Increased demands in
and shrimp farming;
5. Oil pollution;
3. Indiscriminate cutting for fuel
in mangrove areas being
segments of mangrove into arable
Ph, In, VN-Small; Th, Ca-NI11;
mangrove charcoals and
3. Mangroves converted
6. Industrialization,
and charcoal production;
converted (P);
lands in 1980 1985 (P);
4. Charcoal production-In, Ph, Ca;
shrimp culture leading to the
for port, urban expansion
settlement and
4. Conversion into
3. Agricultural production and
3. Repeated clearing mangrove for
5. Conversion-to shrimp culture
degradation and destruction of
and industry;
urbanization;
harbours/ports and
salt pans(P);
aquaculture, particularly for shrimp
potential long term threat in
mangrove forests/unsustainable 4. Mangrove biodiversity
7. Agriculture
settlement areas;
4. Mining in mangrove areas(P);
rearing, was extremely extensive
Viet Nam.
uses of mangroves (P);
are threatened by animal
pesticides etc.;
5. Certain past policies and
5. Tree felling exceeding
during 1988 1995;
Natural Threats:
3. Growing needs for National
collecting, hunting,
8. Coastal erosion;
regulations tended to
mangrove productivity (P);
4. Seaward embankment and
· Sea level rise.
Economic Development/foreign
exotic species, pest
and
encourage the destruction
6. Land-based pollution-
expansion of urban areas conducted
investments (P).
and diseases.
9. Perception of the
of the rich mangrove
garbage industry;
in the North has led to the reduction
· Episodic events tsunami,
public.
resources (P).
7. Coastal erosion (small).
of mangrove cover.
typhoon.
*Note for abbreviations: Ca-Cambodia, Ch-China, In-Indonesia, Ph-Philippines, Th-Thailand, VN-Viet Nam.
11 Not important.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 3
On a smaller scale, trade in charcoal derived from mangrove in Cambodia to Thailand was a major
cause of mangrove loss in the areas of Cambodia close to the Thai border, in the recent past. This
market appears to have declined somewhat over the last five years under the influence of more
widespread use of cheap and convenient, liquid gas in Thailand.
When mangrove forests are destroyed and replaced by alternative forms of land use, not only are the
species of plants and animals lost but also many services provided by mangrove systems are lost as
well. This is wel known in Viet Nam where the function of coastal vegetation, particularly mangroves is
considered a vital service with measurable economic benefits as a protection against hurricane damage
and marine based flooding. Mangrove degradation causes losses in direct and indirect economic values
that support socio-economic development at both local and national scales.
GOAL12
During the fifth meeting of the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs (RWG-CR), there was a
discussion regarding the wording of the overall goal of the SAP, and the group recommended
amendment to the original wording as follows:
"The goal of the Strategic Action Programme is to foster regional cooperation and
collaboration in order to halt or slow the current rate of environmental degradation
and assist participating states in taking actions within their respective policies,
priorities and resources, thereby contributing to human well-being; promotion of
the sustainable use of marine living resources; and contributing to the
maintenance of globally significant biological diversity, for the benefit of present
and future generations." UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3 para 7.2.10
PROPOSED TARGETS13
Table 3 presents information relating to the management of mangrove areas in six of the seven
countries bordering the South China Sea. Four categories of mangrove forest are recognised in the
region: production forest, used on a sustainable basis for timber and wood chip production; conversion
forest, a category in Indonesia representing areas of mangrove land designated for alternative land use
under current plans; Parks and Protected Areas; and areas in which timber extraction is not permitted
but extractive use of other resources is permitted. In the case of Thailand, another category is
recognised namely "Private land, unregulated use", which accounts for 10,000 hectares.
This table il ustrates the complexity of management regimes in six of the seven countries concerned but
does not provide a mechanism for objectively determining the effectiveness of the management regime.
For example in Cambodia 13,558 hectares of mangrove are contained within Parks and Protected
areas for which there is no legal extractive use of either the mangrove trees or other resources, this
area is also listed as being under a management regime regulated in law, and again within the areas
listed as being sustainably managed at the present time. The assumption is that since access to and
use of this area is restricted the management is sustainable. In contrast, 58,792 hectares in Cambodia
are currently not regulated under the law, and are subject to extractive resource use other than
mangrove and of this area only 8,820 are considered as being exploited in a sustainable manner. The
target for Cambodia is therefore to ensure that al 49,972 hectares of mangrove outside the legal y
protected Parks and protected areas are used in a sustainable manner by 2012.
12 The RWG-M had not specifical y discussed the goal of the SAP in both the fifth and sixth meetings.
13 These targets were accepted by the sixth meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 4
Table 3
Areas of Mangrove currently under different forms of land-use designation and management
and potential targets for future mangrove management to be included in the SAP.
Cambodia
China Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet Nam
Total
%
PRESENT SITUATION
Total area (ha)
72,350
23,446
934,000
27,251
62,618
156,608 1,276,273
100
Production 0
0
610,800
0
1,600
18,000
650,800 49.39
Conversion 0
0
165,000
50014
0
0
166,500 12.97
Parks & Protected Areas
13,558
15,772
158,200
[4,776}15
11,520
20,000
223,826 17.54
(Conservation) non-extractive use
Non-use of mangrove but
extractive resource use
58,792
7,674
0
26,751
39,496
118,608
251,323 19.69
(fish, crabs etc.)
Private land, unregulated use
0
0
0
0
10,000
0
10,000 0.78
Area currently under management
13,558
15,772
768,800
23,143
11,520
155,000
987,793 77.40
Regulated in laws/regulations
Areas estimated as currently
20,000
13,558
15,772
158,200
[MPAs?]
11,520
18,000
432,078 32.6
under sustainable management16
8,820 +1,00017
100,000
15,00018
1,600
46,608
TARGETS 2012
[Proposed areas to be subject to changes in designation and management regime.]
Area to be transferred to
National Parks and Protected
0
5,330
20,000
0
1,400
30,000
56,730 4.44
Area status
Non-conversion of mangrove
0
0
165,000
0
1,600
0
but sustainable use
166,600 13.05
Improved management relating
49,972
0
490,80019
11,75120
10,000
50,000
602,523 47.21
to sustainable use
Replanting of deforested
2,500
500
0
?
8,000
8,000
mangrove land
19,000 1.49
Enrichment planting to increase
0
5,000
0
?
3,200
2,000
10,200 0.80
mangrove biodiversity
Recognising that the existence of a management regime and legal protection did not necessarily reflect
the effectiveness of the management regime the RWG-M fol owed the RWG-CR and developed a set of
indicators of the sustainability of current management. Table 4 presents the indicators of sustainability
discussed and agreed during the seventh meeting of the Regional Working Group.
Table 4
Sustainable Management Indicator Matrix.
Management Indicators
Ecological/Environmental Indicators
Socio-Economic Indicators
Management Capacity:
Fisheries:
·
Formal Management
·
Catch per unit effort
framework
·
Total landing
·
Trained Man-power
·
Income
(No./levels)
·
Forest Cover
Tourism:
·
Facilities and equipment
·
Number of visitors
·
Sustainable Financing
·
Population structure of the
·
Number of tourism operators
dominant mangrove species
·
Income
Management Approach:
Forestry:
·
·
Tree density
Sectoral
·
Volume of timber
·
(tree of over 1.5 meters high)
Integrated
·
Weight of charcoal product
·
Community-based
·
Income
·
Number of True Mangrove
·
Multiple-use
species
Management Tools:
Activities Other than Fisheries,
·
Licensing and permits
Tourism and Forestry:
·
Scylla serrata
·
Seasonal closure
(size and abundance)
·
Numbers of people involved
·
Zoning
·
Per capita income
Overall Living Standard:
·
Level of education
·
Health of the community
14 Conversion for Infrastructure development and other uses.
15
Area is for the entire Philippines, area for South China Sea to be supplied later.
16 Areas considered as being sustainably managed at the present time include all lands designated as production forest since it
is a legal requirement that these be replanted; all mangrove lands contained within National Parks and Protected Areas; and
a proportion of the mangrove area subject to extractive use of non-timber resources.
17 Area outside the protected area for which some form of management plans exist estimated.
18 Estimate of total area with local government or community based management plans.
19 This represents areas that are used both for forest production and non-timber uses.
20
By 2010.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 5
THE MANAGEMENT STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
Challenges for Mangrove Management
Table 5 provides information derived from the revised National Action Plans, regarding the challenges
for Mangrove management at the national level which centre on: lack of sustainable financing, China,
Cambodia, Philippines, and Indonesia less so in Thailand and Viet Nam; weak or non-existent law
enforcement, and coastal poverty in all six of the seven countries; and, inadequacies and weaknesses
in the management systems in Viet Nam and Indonesia.
The Management Status of Mangroves in the South China Sea
Table 6 lists the 45 mangrove sites bordering the South China Sea that were used in the initial cluster
analysis for selection of demonstration sites. It is suggested that one way of improving the clarity of the
targets would be to complete the columns in this table and ensure that there were in fact congruent with
the targets established in the previous meeting.
OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
The proposed regional activities to promote sustainable management of Mangroves were categorised
during the sixth meeting into five main components; namely:
Component 1 Research and Monitoring
Component 2 National Policy, Legislation, Legal and Institutional Arrangements and Co-ordination
Component 3 Public awareness, Communication and Education
Component 4 Capacity Building and Sustainability
Component 5 Resource and Habitat Management.
The specific objectives and activities were elaborated during the seventh meeting and the revised listing
of activities by component and sub-component is presented in Table 7.
COSTINGS
Preliminary costings were prepared during the seventh meeting and are included in Table 7.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 6
Table 5
Challenges for Mangrove Management Outlined in each of the National Action Plans.
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Regional
1. Low awareness among
1. No specific legislation 1. More than 50% of total mangrove area in
1. Non-delineation of the
1. Authority and
1. Mangrove eco-systems are
1. Finance-Ch, Cam,
local people on mangrove
on mangroves in
Indonesia is damage and lead to the decreasing
boundaries of the mangrove
responsibility for
improperly managed;
Ph, In; partial-VN&Th;
importance and their
China, cross-sectoral
its ecological function;
forests;
mangrove
2. Lack of policy tools and
2. Effective Management
conservation and
management and
2. Conservation and rehabilitation of mangrove
2. Absence of firm efforts towards
management in the
specific regulations guiding
system & Land use
sustainable
poor coordination;
eco-system is considering as a problem not
reversion of abandoned,
past has rested with
the fishery and other
planning- VN, In;
management needs;
2. Single ownership
responsibility;
undeveloped and
the government;
economic sectors in utilization 3. Law enforcement-all;
2. Absence of specific legal,
of mangroves and
3. The mangrove rehabilitation efforts still can not
unproductive fishponds;
2. Limited public and
of mangrove forests;
4. Coastal rural
regulatory and managerial
existing management
easing the level of damaged;
3. Lack of public awareness on
local participation;
3. Most of policy makers have
poverty-all;
tools, and Law
regime hinder the
4. Policy maker and community have different
the importance of the mangrove 3. Lack of laws
a vague perception on
5. Lack of long term
Enforcement weakness;
inflow of investment;
perception on value and function of mangrove
forests and their resources;
supporting
mangrove eco-systems;
regional and
3. Lack of political wills
3. Lack of rational use
eco-system;
4. Overlapping functions and
enforcement action; 4. Lack of a sound and
international
among and abuses
technology and mode; 5. Local community participation on planting and
conflicting policies and
4. Limited co-operation
empowered inter-sectoral
co-ordination;
by high rank people;
4. Lack of national
implementation of mangrove eco-system
legislation of different
between mangrove
land-use planning, including
6. Lack of technical
4. Lack of funds/insufficient
norms and criteria of
management is not optimal;
national government agencies
management
mangrove land-use, at local
method and policy
supports from
mangrove forestation, 6. Largest part of the community who live around
and the Local Government
agencies;
levels (province and district);
for replanting of
external sources;
monitoring, and
the mangrove area is poor;
Units (LGUs);
5. Lack of systematic
5. Personnel staff assigned
multi-species of
5. Low capacity among
evaluation;
7. The utilization of mangrove eco-system that
5. The non-appropriateness
and co-ordinated
to take care of mangrove
mangroves?
government staff for
5. Short of funds for
environmentally friendly is not well develops;
of the existing CBFMA
monitoring;
forests in different locations
7. To educate the public
mangrove sustainable
mangrove protection
8. Ineffective coordination related institution;
or mangrove forests;
6. Dissemination of
are insufficient and lacking
and policy makers
management;
and research;
9. There is no synergies regulation between sectors 6. Institutional constraints
information and
knowledge;
on the function and
6. Difficult accesses and
6. No platform to
on mangrove eco-system management;
in the management and
publicity material
6. Gaps and weaknesses
value; of mangrove
facility shortage to the
improve mangrove
10. Key government institution and its role in
administration of the
is limited and does
are found in mangrove
eco-system
target localities;
education, information
mangrove management are not agreed yet;
mangrove forests;
not reach its target.
eco-system studies.
8. Need more Scientific
7. Poor conditions of
share, and public
11. Ineffective of law enforcement on mangrove
7. The lack of a comprehensive
research on mangroves
responsible staff.
involvement.
management;
research and development
at national level.
12. There is no legal umbrella of National Action
programmes.
Plan on Mangrove Eco-system management.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 7
Table 6
Status of Mangrove Management at Country and Site Levels in the South China Sea.
Areas
Areas
Areas to be
Status of Areas
Parks &
Improve
Replanting
Enrichment
Non-use of
currently
estimated as
transferred
to be changed
Protected
management
of
planting to
timber but
under
currently
to National
from production
Country/Site
Area
Production
Conversion
Areas non-
relating to
deforested
increase
extractive
management
under
Parks and
forest to some
extractive
sustainable
mangrove
mangrove
resource use
regulated in
sustainable
Protected
other form of
use
use
land
biodiversity
law
management
Areas
sustainable use
Cambodia
Peam Krasop
25,897
0
0
25,897
800
25,897
19,600
0
0
4,197
1,300
0
Dong Peng-
198,970
0
0
198,970
8,970
198,970
103,900
0
0
85,000
1,100
0
Botum Sakor
Ream-Veal Rinh
15,000
0
0
15,000
900
15,000
11,200
0
0
2,000
900
0
China
Shangkou
776
0
0
776
0
776
776
0
0
0
10
50
Quinglangang
2,722
0
0
2,722
0
2,722
2,722
0
0
0
20
30
DongXhaiGang
1,760
0
0
1,760
0
1,760
1,760
0
0
0
100
20
Futien
111
0
0
111
0
111
111
0
0
0
2
10
Fangchenggang
1,337
0
0
1,337
0
1,337
1,337
0
0
0
20
60
Indonesia
Belitung Island
22,457
Angke Kaput
328
0
0
169
0
159
144
0
0
0
0
0
Batu Ampar
15,000
30,000
6,000
29,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ngurah Rai
1,374
0
0
1,374
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bengkalis
42,459
23,000
3,100
0
0
21,000
17,000
0
0
20,000
0
0
Philippines
0
Dumaran
1,421
0
0
Pasuquin
37.5
0
0
Coron
1,295
0
0
San Vicente
1,338
0
0
Ulugan
790
0
0
Busuanga
1,298
0
0
Taytay
3,657
0
0
San Jose
483
0
0
Subic
148
0
0
Quezon
1,939
0
0
Thailand
Trat Province
9,232
0
0
0
9,232
9,232
0
0
1,600
3,000
1,500
2,000
Thung Kha Bay -
4,816
0
0
3,716
1,100
4,816
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
Savi Bay
Pak Phanang
6,987
0
0
6,986
0
6,986
0
0
0
0
1,200
0
Bay
Samut Songkram
2,553
1,500
0
0
1,053
1,053
0
0
0
0
900
0
Kung Kraben
640
0
0
0
640
640
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bay
Pattani Bay
3,700
0
0
0
3,700
3,700
0
0
0
0
400
0
Ban Don Bay
3,700
0
0
0
3,700
3,700
0
0
0
0
500
0
Welu River
25,000
0
0
0
25,000
25,000
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
Estuary
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 8
Table 6 cont.
Status of Mangrove Management at Country and Site Levels in the South China Sea.
Areas
Areas
Areas to be
Status of Areas
Parks &
Improve
Replanting
Enrichment
Non-use of
currently
estimated as
transferred
to be changed
Protected
management
of
planting to
timber but
under
currently
to National
from production
Country/Site
Area
Production
Conversion
Areas non-
relating to
deforested
increase
extractive
management
under
Parks and
forest to some
extractive
sustainable
mangrove
mangrove
resource use
regulated in
sustainable
Protected
other form of
use
use
land
biodiversity
law
management
Areas
sustainable use
Viet Nam
Hai Ninh
1,260
0
0
0
1,260
1,260
800
0
0
460
600
200
Tien Yen
2,537
0
0
0
2,537
2,537
2,000
0
0
537
800
300
Yen Hung
5,736
0
0
0
5,736
5,736
4,500
0
0
786
1,200
500
Cat Ba
396
0
0
396
0
396
396
0
0
0
0
0
Xuan Thuy
1,775
0
0
1,775
0
1,776
1,776
0
0
0
150
50
Can Gio
8,958
0
0
8,958
0
8,958
8,958
0
0
0
0
0
Thanh Phu
4,510
0
0
4,510
0
4,510
4,510
0
0
0
0
0
Soc Trang
598
300
0
0
298
498
0
0
0
100
100
0
Ca Mau
5,239
1,000
0
4,239
0
5,239
5,239
4,239
4,239
0
50
0
Sao Luoi
305
250
0
100
0
305
305
100
100
0
60
0
FE184
211
211
0
0
0
211
211
0
0
0
0
0
Kien Giang
2,775
1,000
0
0
1,775
2,775
2,000
0
1,775
775
800
0
Con Dao
52
0
0
52
0
52
52
0
0
0
0
0
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 9
Table 7
Proposed Regional Actions for the Mangrove Sub-component of the regional Strategic Action Programme.
Components
Estimated Costs
Sub-components
Regional Activities
Objectives
(US$)
1. Research and Monitoring
To provide scientific baseline
1.1 Resource Assessment
1.1.1 Develop and design the standardized methodology
(1 consultant x 1 month x 12,000) + (1st Mtg. x
for sustainable management
and guideline for inventory and assessment.
15,000) + (2nd Mtg. x 18,000) = 45,000
of mangrove ecosystem
1.1.2 Establish a system to Periodically Monitor the state
(1 consultant x 2 months x 12,000) +
at regional level.
of Mangrove Eco-system in the region.
(3 Mtgs. x 15,000) = 69,000
1.1.3 Study on the potential of impacts of sea level rise, climate
(2 months co-ordination x cost) + (3 Mtgs. x
change, and episode events on mangrove eco-system.
15,000) + (1 data collection x 20,000) +
(14 pers. x 7 trips x 200) = 84,600 + C
1.1.4 Quantification of mangrove as a carbon sink.
(1 consultant x 2 months x 12,000) +
(3 Mtgs. x 15,000) + (1 data col ection x
20,000) + (14 pers. x 14 trips x 200) +
(7 NFP co-ordinating x 4,000) = 156,200
1.2 Mapping
1.2.1 Develop algorithms for interpretation of remotely sense
(1 consultant x 2 months x 12,000) + (3 Mtgs.
images of mangrove association and zonation.
x 15,000) + (7 pers. x 7 days x 200) = 78,800
1.3 Socio-economic and
1.3.1 Build on the work of the RTF-E of economic value of
?
Cultural Assessment
mangrove goods and services in order to determine
total economic value of mangrove eco-systems.
1.4 Database Management
1.4.1 To establish a mechanism for collection and exchange
(1 month co-ordination x cost) + (3 Mtgs. x
of regional mangrove data and information.
15,000) + (1 software x 2,000) = 45,000+C
1.5 Information System
1.5.1 Establish a web-based regional mangrove
(1 month co-ordination x cost) +
information centre.
(2 Mtgs. x 15,000) = 30,000 + C
1.6 Decision Support System
1.6.1 Test and elaborate the criteria and indicators of
(Co-ordination, meetings, NFP cost) = 127,000
sustainable mangrove management.
1.6.2 Develop and test guidelines to strengthen community
(Co-ordination, meetings, NFP cost) = 127,000
participation in mangrove management.
1.7 Environmental Impact
1.7.1 Develop and test specific guidelines for the conduct of
(Co-ordination, meetings, NFP cost) = 127,000
Assessment
environmental impact assessment in mangrove areas.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 10
Table 7 cont. Proposed Regional Actions for the Mangrove Sub-component of the regional Strategic Action Programme.
Components
Estimated Costs
Sub-components
Regional Activities
Objectives
(US$)
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Co-ordination
To develop regional policy
2.1 Integration of Research
2.1.1 To maintain the network of communication between policy
(7 Pers. x 1 month x 10,000) +
on ecological security.
Programme with Management
makers managers, and scientists as established under the
(3 Mtgs. x 25,000) = 145,000
and Policy Making
UNEP/GEF/SCS Project, to ensure the inclusion of new
research findings in management and policy making.
2.2 Monitoring the NAPs
2.2.1 Establish an appropriate mechanism to monitor and evaluate
(1 consultant x 1 month x 12,000) + (1st Mtg. x
the implementation of SAP.
15,000) + (2nd Mtg. x 18,000) = 45,000
2.3 Review and Improve
2.3.1 Establishment of formal mechanism for cooperation in managing
(Co-ordination x cost) + (2 Mtgs. x 15,000) =
Existing Laws and Policies
the marine environment in the South China Sea.
30,000 + C
2.4 Integration of Government
2.4.1 Organise periodic regional conference to facilitate cross-sectoral
(Co-ordination x cost) + (3 Mtgs. x 20,000) =
Agencies
discussion of issues and problems relating to mangrove
60,000 + C
management.
2.5 Community Empowerment
2.5.1 Establish guidelines to promote participation of local
(1 consultant x 1 month x 12,000) + (1st Mtg. x
communities in management of mangrove habitats.
15,000) + (2nd Mtg. x 18, 000) = 45,000
2.6 Linkage to Regional and
2.6.1 Establish an expert group to assist participating countries
(Co-ordination x cost) + (2 Mtgs. x 20,000) =
International Obligations
in meeting their obligations under international conventions
40,000 + C
relating to biological diversity and RAMSAR conventions.
2.7 International and Regional
2.7.1 To maintain the network of mangrove specialists established
(7 Pers. x 1 month x 10,000) +
Co-operation
under the UNEP/GEF/SCS Project, to advice the governments
(3 Mtgs. x 25,000) = 145,000
on sustainable management of mangroves.
2.8 International and Regional
2.8.1 To maintain the network of mangrove specialists established
(7 Pers. x 1 month x 10,000) +
Co-operation
under the UNEP/GEF/SCS Project, to advice the governments
(3 Mtgs. x 25,000) = 145,000
on sustainable management of mangroves.
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education
To establish a network of
3.1 Improve Government
3.1.1 Organize regional forum every two years to share knowledge
(1 Mtg. x 30,000) = 30,000 (every two years)
environmental journalists
Services (Management
and experiences on how to improve government services in
and educators, and provide
and Conservation)
managing the Marine Parks and MPAs.
them materials of awareness
3.2 Development, Improvement,
3.2.1 To maintain and update regional website.
1 regional person to maintain and update
on mangroves.
and Dissemination of
website (20,000 per year)
Awareness Materials
3.2.2 To translate relevant national publications
20,000 per country per year for first
to English for regional use.
four years
3.2.3 To establish a regional bibliography.
(1 consultant 120,000 for one year) +
(National co-ordination, 4,000 x 7) = 148,000
3.2.4 Produce guide books for mangrove rehabilitation,
3 guide books (3 x 4 man-month) = 120,000
management and conservation in the region.
3.2.5 Produce guide books for mangrove rehabilitation,
3 guide books (3 x 4 man-month) = 120,000
management and conservation in the region.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 4
Page 11
Table 7 cont. Proposed Regional Actions for the Mangrove Sub-component of the regional Strategic Action Programme.
Components
Estimated Costs
Sub-components
Regional Activities
Objectives
(US$)
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability
To increase the knowledge
4.1 Human Resource
4.1.1 Maintain and expand the existing regional exchange
Website manager (3.2.2)
of government officials,
Development
programme for managers, government officials, teachers,
(already paid under 3.2.2)
managers and stakeholders
research students, and community leaders.
on the function, value and
4.1.2 Organise programme of study visits for government officials,
- 4 persons from each country (28 persons)
sustainable management
community leaders, and mangrove managers to
- 5 Demonstration sites
of the mangrove eco-system.
demonstration sites to study on-going practices in
- 40,000 per Demo. site visit
rehabilitation, management and conservation in the region.
Total cost: 200,000
4.2 Law Enforcement
4.2.1 Regional exchange of experience on how to enforce
Meeting and co-ordination = 18,000/year
the laws in practice.
4.3 Monitoring
4.3.1 Regional training programme for country trainers on
(1 Mtg. x 30,000) + (Co-ordination cost x cost) =
effective monitoring the state of mangrove eco-systems.
30,000 + C
4.4 Financial Sustainability
4.4.1 Regional workshop every two years for exchange
(Mtgs. x 25,000) + (Co-ordination cost x cost) =
of experiences of developing livelihood and
25,000 + C (every two years)
other income generation activities.
4.4.2 Develop guidelines based on existing experience
(1 consultant x 2 man-months) = 24,000
on micro-credit scheme.
4.4.3 Development of curricular and materials for use in training
(6 man-months of consultancy x 12,000) +
programmes relating to sustainable use and management of
(1 Mtg. x 15,000) + (Co-ordination cost x cost) =
mangroves, offered by educational institutions in the region.
87,000 + C
5. Resource and Habitat Management
5.1 Develop Guidelines
5.1.1 To develop standards and criteria for defining sustainability
(1 consultant x 2 months x 12,000) + (3 Mtgs. x
for Sustainable Use
of mangrove management system.
15,000) + (1 software x 2,000) = 71,000
5.1.2 Document models for sustainable use
(1 consultant x 1 month x 12,000) +
of mangrove eco-system.
(2 Mtgs. x 15,000) + (National Co-ordination cost)
= 42,000 + NC
5.2 Environmentally Friendly
5.2.1 Identify and encourage the use of environmental
(1 consultant x 1 month x 12,000) +
Technologies
friendly technologies for timber harvesting,
(3 Mtgs. x 15,000) + (National Co-ordination cost)
fishing and shrimp farming.
= 67,000 + NC
5.3 Alternative Livelihood
5.3.1 Promote multiple-use of mangrove resources
(Co-ordination x cost) + (3 Mtgs. x 15,000) +
and alternative livelihood.
(National Co-ordination cost) = 45,800 + C + NC
5.4 Establishment of
5.4.1 Establish criteria and guidelines for zoning
(1 consultant x 2 months x 12,000) + (3 Mtgs. x
Management Zones
of mangrove eco-system.
15,000) + (1 software x 2,000) = 71,000
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Work Plan (2006-2007) and Schedule of Meetings for 2007
Figure 1
Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Sub-component to December 31st 2007. (F = final, A = Approved)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Quarter
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
National Mangrove Committee Meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
National Technical Working Group Meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RWG-M Meetings
X
X
X
X
Provide information to RWG-M and RSTC
Maintain national meta-database
Publication of National Reports in local languages
(Philippines outstanding)
Ind
Chi&Vie
Cam
Tha,Phi
Thailand provide translation of updated data table
Sep8
from Thai version
Complete second draft and final draft of NAP
Cambodia, Viet Nam
2
F
Cam
China
2
F
Thailand, Philippines
2
F
Tha
Indonesia
F
2
Ind
Adoption of NAP (contributing to SAP targets) All countries
China
A
A
Cambodia
A
A
Indonesia
A
A
Philippines
A
Thailand
A
A
Viet Nam
A
A
Finalisation of SAP
1
2
Revised SAP inputs from RWG-M
X
SEAs provide data on economic valuation
Cam,
X
Chi, Ind
Tha
Additional Inputs from members to the PCU for the 2nd draft
X
Finalisation of the second draft SAP for Mangroves
X
Update data to regional GIS Database
X
X
Thailand
X
Tha
Indonesia
X
Ind
Correction of Meta-database inaccuracies
Thailand (Virus free)
Sep
Viet Nam
30th Aug
X
Implementation of demonstration sites
Up-load of substantive reports to SCS website
Chi, Ind,
Tha,
Cam
Approval of Batu Ampar
X
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.7/3
Annex 5
Page 2
Table 1
Schedule of Meetings for 2007. (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -CR = Coral reefs; -SG = Seagrass; -W = Wetlands; -F= Fisheries;
LbP = Land-based Pollution; RTF-E = Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation; RTF-L = Regional Task Force on Legal Matters; RSTC = Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee; RSTC-SC = RSTC Sub-Committee; PSC = Project Steering Committee; (H = United Nations Holidays).
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
M
January
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
H
RTF-E-6
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 NY
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
April
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
H
H
RWG-M-8
Joint Mtg.
PKWS-Trat
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
RWG-W-8
RTF-L-6
RWG-SG-8
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
RWG-CR-8
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-8
H
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
Ramadan
October
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Ramadan
November
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
December
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
H
H