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 Seagrass Sub-component
Beihai, China, 24th 27th July 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, July 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: A holuthurian, Pentacta anceps
in a seagrass bed of Halophila ovalis at the
Hepu Demonstration Site, Beihai, China. Dr. Xiaoping Huang.
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 Seagrass
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Table of Contents
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING ...................................................................................................1
1.1 WELCOME ADDRESS ON BEHALF OF UNEP..........................................................................1
1.2 Opening Statement by a Representative of the Local Government
1.3 INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................1
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING........................................................................................1
2.1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS ......................................................................................................1
2.2 DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE MEETING............................................................................2
2.3 ORGANISATION OF WORK....................................................................................................2
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA ................................................................................2
4.
STATUS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS; AND NATIONAL
ACTION PLANS.........................................................................................................................2
4.1 STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: PROGRESS AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS,
AUDIT REPORTS, AND MOU AMENDMENTS...........................................................................2
4.2 STATUS OF THE PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL REPORTS IN ENGLISH AND NATIONAL
LANGUAGES........................................................................................................................3
4.3 FINALISATION, ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS.......................4
5.
CONSIDERATION OF PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE DEMONSTRATION SITE
ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................6
5.1 REPORTS FROM FOCAL POINTS ...........................................................................................6
5.2 CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF
FISHING IN THE HABITAT DEMONSTRATION SITES .................................................................8
6.
FINALISATION OF THE INPUTS FROM THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT TO
THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME ........................................................10
6.1 REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL DATA REGARDING THE ECONOMIC VALUES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DERIVED FROM SEAGRASS SITES.......................................................................10
6.2 ELABORATION OF THE INPUTS FROM THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT TO THE DRAFT
REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME......................................................................11
7.
UPDATE OF THE REGIONAL GIS DATABASE AND META-DATABASE AND
EFFICIENT USE OF THE PROJECT WEBSITE.....................................................................13
7.1 STATUS OF THE REGIONAL SOUTH CHINA SEA, META- AND GIS- DATABASES AND USE
OF THE PROJECT WEBSITE FOR UPDATING ENTRIES............................................................13
7.2 USE OF THE PROJECT WEBSITE TO ENHANCE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AND AMONG
MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON SEAGRASS ............................................14
8.
PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT..14
9.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON SEAGRASS 2006 - 2008 ....................................................................................15
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON SEAGRASS.........................................................................................................16
11.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS.........................................................................................................16
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING ................................................................16
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING ................................................................................................16
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing and Aquaculture in the Context
of the Habitat Demonstration Sites amended by the Regional Working Group on
Seagrass
ANNEX 5
Utilisation of Seagrass Sites by Significant Demersal Fish Species
ANNEX 6
Inputs to the SAP from the Seagrass Sub-component
ANNEX 7
Work Plan (2006-2008) and Schedule of Meetings for 2007
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 1
Report of the Meeting
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1
Welcome Address on Behalf of UNEP
1.1.1
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director, official y opened the meeting on behalf of Dr. Achim
Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and Mr. Olivier
Deleuze, Officer-in-Charge, Division of Global Environment Facility Co-ordination (UNEP/DGEF). He
welcomed participants to the Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Seagrass, and
expressed his thanks to Dr. Xiaoping Huang, China's seagrass focal point and to Mr. Yao Haibo for
their assistance in organising the meeting.
1.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that the main item of business before the group was a consideration of the
seagrass elements to be included in the Strategic Action Programme and in particular, elaboration of
the actions and their associated costs. He noted further that this would require a review of the current
status of the National Action Plans since the SAP itself was dependent and builds upon, the national
level actions.
1.1.3 Dr. Pernetta noted the extensive agenda before the meeting and expressed the hope that the
working group would be able to complete the business of the meeting and that despite the volume of
business it would stil be an enjoyable experience.
1.1.4 Dr. Pernetta noted that China's Hepu seagrass demonstration site was the first site to
become operational under the framework of the project, and noted further that this site had played an
important role in publicising the implementation of demonstration site activities in China. In this
connection, he warmly welcomed the Vice-Mayor of Beihai, Mr. Shuhua Li, and invited him to address
the meeting on behalf of the Beihai local government.
1.2
Opening Statement by a Representative of the Local Government
1.2.1 On behalf of the Mayor and the Beihai City Government Mr. Li, expressed appreciation to the
Regional Working Group on Seagrass for selecting Beihai as the location for its' seventh meeting. He
noted that Beihai was an important coastal tourism destination in China with a diverse range of
natural attractions. He noted further that the Hepu demonstration site activities were progressing
smoothly, largely due to the support from UNEP, GEF, and the local Project Co-ordinating Unit, which
had developed the first seagrass website in China. He expressed the belief that this meeting would
enhance the work at the Hepu demonstration site and hoped that the meeting would be a success
and that the participants would enjoy their stay in Beihai.
1.3
Introduction of Participants
1.3.1 Dr. Pernetta noted that there was full representation by al seagrass focal points; two of the
three regional experts; and a number of observers and representatives from news agencies, the
Beihai Environmental Protection Office and the National Dugong Reserve. He invited participants to
introduce themselves to the meeting, and there 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 of this report.
2. ORGANISATION
OF
THE
MEETING
2.1
Election of Officers
2.1.1 Dr. Pernetta reminded participants that the rules of procedure state that, the Regional
Working Group shal elect, from amongst the members, a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and
Rapporteur to serve for one year. The rules state further that, officers shall be eligible for re-election
no more than once.
2.1.2 Members recalled that, during the sixth meeting in Bolinao, Philippines, 27th 30th September
2005, Dr. Suvaluck Satumanatpan, Dr. Marco Nemesio E. Montaño, and Mr. Kamarruddin bin Ibrahim
were elected as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Rapporteur respectively. Dr. Pernetta noted
therefore that Dr. Suvaluck, Dr. Montaño, and Mr. Kamarruddin were all eligible for re-election, having
served only one year to date.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 2
2.1.3 Mr. Kamarruddin, the Malaysian focal point for seagrass nominated Dr. Montaño, focal point
for seagrass in Philippines as Chairperson, and this nomination was seconded by Mr. Tri Edi
Kuriandewa, focal point for seagrass in Indonesia. Mr. Tri Edi, nominated Mr. Ouk Vibol, focal point for
seagrass in Cambodia as Vice-Chairperson. This nomination was seconded by Dr. Suvaluck, focal
point for seagrass in Thailand. Mr. Tri Edi nominated Dr. Suvaluck as Rapporteur for the meeting, and
this nomination was seconded by Mr. Vibol. There being no further nominations, Dr. Montaño,
Mr. Vibol and Dr. Suvaluck were elected by acclamation.
2.2
Documents Available to the Meeting
2.2.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Christopher Paterson, the Secretary to introduce the
documentation available to the meeting and listed in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/Inf.2.
Mr. Paterson briefly introduced the documents and highlighted the main substantive items for
consideration and decision by the working group, which included the administrative reports; the status
of the demonstration sites; finalisation of the National Action Plans; the project website and
associated databases; the training activities; finalisation of inputs to the Regional Strategic Action
Programme; and revision of the work plan and activities of the working group. The list of documents is
contained in Annex 2 of this report.
2.3
Organisation of Work
2.3.1 Mr. Paterson briefed participants on the administrative arrangements for the conduct of the
meeting, and the proposed organisation of work (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/Inf.3). He noted that
formal sessions of the meeting would be conducted in English and in plenary although sessional
working groups might need to be formed, to further develop and elaborate elements related to the
seagrass sub-component of the regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP).
3. ADOPTION
OF
THE
MEETING
AGENDA
3.1
The Chairperson introduced the amended provisional agenda prepared by the PCU as
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/1, and the annotated provisional agenda UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-SG.7/2 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 ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS; AND NATIONAL
ACTION PLANS
4.1
Status of the Administrative Reports: Progress and Expenditure Reports, Audit
Reports, and MoU Amendments
4.1.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Kim Sour, the PCU member to introduce document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/4, which outlined the current status of the administrative reports,
including progress reports, expenditure reports, audit reports, and MoU amendments.
4.1.2 Mr. Sour drew the attention of members to the current situation with respect to receipt of
routine 6 monthly progress and expenditure reports and the audit reports for expenditures during
2005. He noted that the second amendments to the Memoranda of Understanding were al current
and that all the seagrass demonstration sites were operational under addenda to the second MoU
amendments for Cambodia, China, Philippines, and Viet Nam.
4.1.3 Mr. Sour noted with respect to the contents of Table 2 that there was a need to clarify the
expenditure statement for Indonesia for the second half of 2005. Concerning the annual audit reports
he highlighted the fact that only Thailand and Viet Nam, had submitted audit reports for 2005.
Mr. Sour expressed some concern that the Cambodian and Malaysian Specialized Executing
Agencies stil held significant cash balances.
4.1.4 In relation to the contents of Table 6, Mr. Sour noted that the realised co-financing was
slightly higher than the estimate over the period 2002 to 2005 and reminded members that the Project
Steering Committee had agreed to increase co-financing from participating governments for national
coordination activities and that such co-financing received by the SEAs should be reported by the
Focal Points in their administrative reports.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 3
4.1.5 The Chairperson invited members to brief the meeting on the situation with respect to
outstanding reports.
4.1.6 Mr. Tri Edi indicated that the expenditure statement had been sent to the PCU but there were
questions from the PCU regarding the co-financing. Mr. Tri Edi noted that he had no cash co-
financing to report, and that he had already produced the required substantive reports. He noted that
from July-December he had spent GEF funds for the convening of a public meeting and publications.
4.1.7 Dr. Pernetta suggested that Mr. Tri Edi and Mr. Sour resolve the outstanding problems over
lunch. Dr. Pernetta reminded the meeting that all SEAs were obliged to produce an audit report of
expenditures by the end of March for the preceding calendar year and that, in the absence of such
reports no further funds could be transferred to the SEA's by UNEP. He further reminded the
members that the 6 month progress reports and expenditure reports for the period January to June
2006 were due next week and urged members to finalise and submit their reports as soon as
possible.
4.1.8 Mr. Vibol noted that a draft audit report had been produced for Cambodia and he anticipated
that the final report would be available in August. He noted further that due to the high costs of the
audit he would need to discuss with the PCU a revision to the budget. He noted that the large cash
balance held by Cambodia was due to delays in the convening of community consultations on the
National Action Plan.
4.1.9 Mr. Tri Edi noted that in Indonesia al project components were audited by the same company
that was engaged by the Ministry of Environment, and that the responsibility for this task had been
assigned to Indonesia's National Technical Focal Point. He explained that he felt there was little he
could do to expedite this matter, and Dr. Pernetta suggested that Mr. Tri Edi should remind the NTFP
weekly of the need to conduct the audit. Dr. Montaño agreed that there was a need to be persistent in
this matter and Dr. Fortes suggested that al focal points for the project components should apply
pressure to the Ministry of Environment as a group.
4.1.10 Dr. Huang explained that the audit report for China had been finished but that he had not yet
received the final report which he hoped to be able to send to the PCU in the next week.
4.1.11 Mr. Kamarruddin noted that in relation to Table 2 he had sent a letter regarding the
expenditures in Malaysia to the PCU but this must have gone missing and that he would hand deliver
it to Mr. Sour during the meeting. He noted that the audit report would be available some time after
August.
4.1.12 Dr. Montaño noted that the audit report for the Philippines would be available in mid August.
4.1.13 The Chairperson reminded the group of the need to be diligent in the contracting of the audits
and in the submission of the administrative reports.
4.2
Status of the Publication of National Reports in English and National Languages
4.2.1 In introducing this agenda item Mr. Sour reminded the group of the agreed timetable for
publication of national reports in national languages which had been extended to the last quarter of
2005, and that al national language reports, except Malaysia's, had been received by the PCU.
4.2.2 Mr. Sour noted that the PCU had edited and formatted the national reports for final publication
and regional distribution by UNEP. He noted however that the Malaysian National Report needed
some amendments to the citation of references in the text in order to conform with the agreements
made during the fourth meeting of the Regional Working Group.
4.2.3 Mr. Tri Edi tabled the metadata base of Indonesia and the final national seagrass report, in
Bahasa and English, which were distributed to participants during the meeting. He noted that a near
final draft of the National Action Plan was available. Mr. Kamarruddin made available copies of the
Malaysian national report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 4
4.2.4 Mr. Vibol noted that Cambodia had produced more than 200 copies of the national reports,
which had been distributed to relevant ministries, the coastal provinces and community groups.
Dr. Huang noted that he had distributed approximately 100 copies of the Chinese report to relevant
ministries, local government and community organisations.
4.2.5 Mr. Tri Edi noted that in excess of 100 copies of the previous version of the Indonesian report
had been sent to a number of Ministries, Libraries and academic institutions and noted further that the
new version contained more comprehensive biophysical information. Dr. Montaño noted that the
Philippines had produced 100 copies, which had been distributed to ministries, libraries, NGO's and
some schools. He noted that he had received numerous requests for electronic copies of the report
and WWF and Conservation International had requested more copies.
4.2.6 Dr. Suvaluck noted that 2,000 copies of the seagrass field guide had been produced; 1,000
GIS reports; 500 national reports; 500 copies of the legislation and 200 copies of the National Action
Plan. More than 200 stakeholders including universities had received the National Report. She noted
that the Legislation report had a more limited audience and that the legal situation had now changed
fol owing restructuring of the government Ministries and Departments.
4.2.7 Dr. Tien noted that the National Report in Vietnamese had been sent to al 30 coastal
provinces and noted further that he had sent the distribution list to the PCU and Mr. Sour responded
that this had been received as part of the progress report. Dr. Tien noted that he intended to publish
the national action plan by the end of this year, provided that it was adopted. In this regard he noted
that the National Action Plan was now under review by senior environmental experts in Viet Nam from
the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. He noted that he had organised many meetings
in Viet Nam to develop the National Action Plan and that he hoped there would be no problems with
its' final adoption.
4.3
Finalisation, Adoption and Implementation of National Action Plans
4.3.1 The Chairperson introduced this agenda item by noting that the sixth meeting of the RWG-SG
had reviewed the National Action Plans (NAPs) submitted to the PCU prior to the meeting. The
meeting had discussed the purpose of the national action plans, their relationship to the regional
Strategic Action Programme, and the reasons for delay in their adoption. During that meeting, it was
pointed out that some of the NAPs stil needed revision, specifically:
·
Indicators of either performance or, outputs and outcomes, should be included in the NAPs as
a mechanism for monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation;
·
The NAP for Cambodia required a section that justified the NAP;
·
The NAPs for China and Indonesia required prioritisation of actions;
·
The NAP for Malaysia needs to be further expanded and completed.
4.3.2 Mr. Sour noted that according to the work plan and timetable for the RWG-SG, as agreed
during the sixth meeting, the adopted/finally revised NAPs should have been submitted to the PCU
during the first quarter of 2006. He noted further that final draft NAPs had been received from
Cambodia, China, Indonesia, and Viet Nam and that these documents were available to the meeting
as information documents.
4.3.3 Mr. Vibol noted that the latest version of the Cambodian NAP had been sent to the Director
General of Fisheries in May who had forwarded it to the Ministry of Agriculture. He noted that if
approved the Minister would sign both the English and Khmer versions. Dr. Pernetta noted that some
of the performance indicators in the Cambodian NAP were not very specific and noted further that
while the NAP states that performance indicators wil be used to evaluate the implementation of the
NAP, the text was not clear concerning what these indicators were nor, how they were to be used.
4.3.4 Dr. Huang noted that the Chinese NAP had been approved by SEPA at the end of 2005 and
noted further that this had not been finally approved by the Inter-Ministry Committee as insufficient
members were present during the last IMC meeting. He anticipated that final formal approval would
be made prior to the end of this year.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 5
4.3.5 Dr. Suvaluck queried whether indicators were required for all sub-activities or only an overall
indicator for the main components. Dr. Huang noted that at the last meeting it had been agreed that
indicators of either performance or, outputs and outcomes, should be included in the NAPs as a
mechanism for monitoring the effectiveness of NAP implementation. Dr. Suvaluck noted that at the
last meeting it had been agreed that all the sub-activities would be grouped into 5 main components
and that perhaps it would be better to measure the success of these components rather than
sub-activities.
4.3.6 Dr. Pernetta drew the attention of the meeting to the agreed minimum requirements for the
content of the NAPs, which simply list milestones for NAP implementation. Dr. Pernetta noted that
therefore in his view it would be more appropriate to look at the overal performance of each
component, which should also be greater than the sum of the parts. He posed no objection should a
NAP contain performance indicators for the sub-activities.
4.3.7 Mr. Tri Edi noted that following discussions with the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
progress had been made with the NAP, which was being supported by MMAF. He noted further that
the Indonesian NAP had no indicators of performance and that the NAP would be amended by the
end of this year.
4.3.8 Mr. Kamarruddin noted that the NAP for Malaysia (tabled during the meeting) did not contain
indicators and that these would need to be added. He noted that he had recently convened a
community consultation (July) and that the NAP should be completed by the end of the year.
4.3.9 Dr. Montaño noted that there had been a succession of four Secretaries and four Directors in
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) since the commencement of the
project and that this had affected the ability of the DENR to convene a convergence meeting between
the various focal points. He noted that at a national seagrass committee meeting the lawyers had
noted that the legal framework was not well developed but that this should not preclude action at the
local level. He agreed that the Philippines NAP needed to be amended to include performance
indicators and noted that when the NAP is adopted would depend on the DENR.
4.3.10 Dr. Suvaluck noted that in relation to Thailand they had added 3 key immediate threats to the
original 4: construction and boat anchoring; direct use of seagrass; tourism activities (inappropriate
mooring etc). She noted that obtaining NAP approval was a key challenge due to the complex
institutional arrangements in Thailand but noted further that although the NAP has not yet been
adopted several activities have commenced: including the use of GIS to map seagrass in Thailand;
and training of personnel in the use and maintenance of seagrass-related databases. Dr. Suvaluck
noted that within the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) Office of Natural
Resources, Environment, Policy and Planning (ONEP) there was a good understanding of the key
priorities for seagrass management in Thailand and that they had assisted in involving school
teachers in the community education aspects of the NAP.
4.3.11 Mr. Vibol noted that although the NAP in Cambodia had not been finalised they had also
begun implementing activities.
4.3.12 Mr. Tri Edi noted that in Indonesia there had been a gradual increase in the understanding of
the importance of seagrass, and that MMAF had included seagrass as part of a broader NAP for the
management of Indonesia's coastal habitats, and had agreed to act as an umbrel a organisation for
the implementation of the seagrass NAP for the South China Sea coast of Indonesia.
4.3.13 Dr. Fortes noted that problems such as obtaining government approval of the NAP had
prevented the achievement of some project outputs. Referring to the facts regarding the number of
Directors and Secretaries raised by Dr. Montaño (para. 4.3.9) he questioned how such problems
might affect future actions such as approval of the SAP and ensuring that commitments made under
the SAP are met. He asked if there was anything that UNEP or GEF could do in this regard.
4.3.14 Dr. Montaño noted that the seagrass committee in the Philippines had discussed this issue
and were proceeding to work more closely with local government units in order to ensure that action
was undertaken, locally if not national y.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 6
4.3.15 Dr. Pernetta noted that the discussion had highlighted a number of issues that had been
taken into consideration in the original project design. The need for wide stakeholder buy-in had been
foreseen in the recommendation to create national seagrass committees with extensive stakeholder
involvement. A national committee with NGO and civil society representatives could bring pressure to
bear on government authorities to take action at the local level. Dr. Pernetta explained that the
broader the involvement in the national committees the greater one's power base to leverage change.
He noted further that the Strategic Action Programme would require central government approval and
that the 1st draft of the revised SAP would be presented to the Project Steering Committee in
November 2006. At that time the PSC members would be asked what they had done in terms of
adopting the National Action Plans. Dr. Pernetta hoped that this would assist in giving the national
committees support in terms of a top down as wel as a bottom up pressure to adopt the NAPs.
5.
CONSIDERATION OF PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE DEMONSTRATION SITE
ACTIVITIES
5.1 Reports
from
Focal
Points
5.1.1 The Chairperson invited the focal points for the seagrass demonstration sites to brief the
meeting regarding the present status of implementation of agreed activities at the approved
demonstration sites.
5.1.2 Dr. Huang presented an overview of activities at the Hepu Seagrass Demonstration Site. He
reviewed the establishment of the Hepu Seagrass Site Management Board and noted that four
management board meetings had been held to discuss and plan the Hepu Seagrass demonstration
site activities. A stakeholder consultation had been held to facilitate community involvement in the
preparation of the site management plan, and he noted further that the site had established a website
<http://seagrass.scsio.ac.cn/> to publicise and share information with al stakeholders, regarding
demonstration site activities.
5.1.3 Dr. Huang informed the meeting that the ongoing activities at Hepu include: a stakeholder
analysis; the valuation of goods and services of the Hepu seagrass bed; expansion of the existing
Dugong National Reserve to cover the wider ecosystem in the area; analysis of national legislation
and preparation of draft recommendations on the integration of laws with local arrangements;
collection of information for sound management; and development of training, education, and
awareness programmes. He noted that the site has finalised plans for an education and interpretation
centre and construction wil start shortly.
5.1.4 Dr. Huang noted that some members of the local community had begun aquaculture activities
in the dugong reserve and the local government had responded by removing aquaculture materials
from the area. During discussion Dr. Hutomo asked if the local community was involved in the
management board. Dr. Huang indicated that the local community was represented on the
management board by the local government but that more direct involvement of the local community
took place during the implementation of the activities on site, and that a socio-economic survey was
being undertaken to assess community values/understanding.
5.1.5 In response to a question from Dr. Tien, Dr. Huang informed the meeting that standard
parameters such as percentage cover, biomass, biodiversity, and water quality were being monitored
as were dominant species in all major taxonomic groups of organisms.
5.1.6 Mr. Vibol presented an overview of the core management zone and activities at the Kampot
seagrass demonstration site in Cambodia. He noted that the MoU was signed at the end of May 2006,
and noted further that the Management Advisory Group and Management Board had been
established and that the demonstration site manager had recently been recruited by the Department
of Fisheries. He informed the meeting that the first joint meeting between the management teams of
the Kampot and Phu Quoc demonstration sites had been convened in May 2006 and noted that they
had agreed to stop the illegal trade in dugong, turtle, coral and seagrass, and to reduce or stop the
use of il egal fishing activities within the demonstration sites. He noted further that the sites had
agreed to develop a policy and cooperation framework for the transboundary area, guidelines for
resource assessment and monitoring, a joint GIS database, and joint training activities on resources
assessment monitoring, database management, community-based resource management, and
alternative livelihoods.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 7
5.1.7 Dr. Hutomo sought clarification from Mr. Vibol regarding the criteria used to identify the core
management zone at the Kampot site. Mr. Vibol noted that the core zone had been identified using
anecdotal information from the local community due to a lack of information regarding the distribution
of seagrass species and associations within the boundaries of the Kampot seagrass site.
5.1.8 In this connection Dr. Pernetta reminded the working group that while the outer boundaries of
the Kampot seagrass bed had been determined, little was known about the distribution and
abundance of seagrass and associated species within the site boundaries. He expressed concern
that joint guidelines for resource assessment and monitoring prepared by Viet Nam might not meet
the needs of the Kampot site if inadequate attention was given to the fact that there was very limited
baseline information, in Cambodia compared with Viet Nam.
5.1.9 Mr. Vibol indicated that they aimed to conduct surveys of the site prior to the implementation
of any monitoring programme. Dr. Pernetta suggested that a large and extremely time-consuming
sampling programme would be required to obtain a broad indication of the coverage and distribution
of seagrass within the 23,000 ha site at Kampot. In this connection Dr. Fortes noted that a team of six
researchers worked for 28 days to survey 70 locations within the Bolinao seagrass bed in respect of
seagrass distribution and coverage. It was agreed by the meeting that a proper survey of such a large
area would require considerable investment of time and human resources in order to obtain
information of sufficient resolution to enable the stratification of a seagrass monitoring programme at
Kampot.
5.1.10 Dr. Hutomo asked whether the agreement made at the first joint meeting to stop il egal trade
and to reduce or stop completely the use of illegal fishing activities within the demo-site was realistic.
Dr. Pernetta noted that this would depend upon the level of community support and the extent of
political will. If both were high then such a goal might not be unrealistic. Mr. Kamarruddin asked if the
Kampot site was utilised by sea turtle and if turtle were stil being harvested and Mr. Vibol noted that
both adult and juvenile turtles were found at the site and that they continued to be exploited by the
local population.
5.1.11 Dr. Tien reviewed activities at the Phu Quoc demonstration site in Viet Nam, noting that they
had: · Established the management board;
·
Conducted a survey of economic values of seagrass goods and services at the site;
·
Identified an area of 3,700 ha from a total of 10,000 ha that is characterised by high seagrass
biomass and cover and will be used as core areas in the management zones; and
·
Have conducted training courses on awareness building, survey and transplantation of
seagrass, and the development of regulations for the management of seagrass.
5.1.12 Dr. Tien noted further that a community consultation from 27th 28th July was planned to
consider the zoning of use within the seagrass areas of Phu Quoc.
5.1.13 Mr. Tri Edi asked Mr. Vibol and Dr. Tien what mechanisms are in place to support the joint
management of the Phu Quoc and Kampot demonstration sites. Dr. Pernetta noted that a key
outcome of the recent joint meeting was the agreement by both sides of the need for dialogue at both
the policy and operational levels. Both sides had already agreed upon the need to develop joint
policies regarding transboundary issues, such as the trade in threatened species and seagrass and a
joint GIS database as a tool for the joint management of the transboundary area. He noted the two
management teams will meet annual y to discuss the overal management of the sites and that more
frequent meetings will be convened to deal with technical matters as required.
5.1.14 Dr. Pernetta sought clarification from Dr. Tien regarding the methodology used to identify the
3,700 ha area characterised by high seagrass cover and biomass from the 10,000 ha of seagrass at
Phu Quoc. Dr. Tien noted that site identification was based on information derived from recent
surveys, and noted further that at Phu Quoc there are 12 main seagrass beds making up the 10,000
ha of seagrass. He highlighted that 3 main areas made up the total 3,700 ha, one area in the north,
one area at Bai Bon, and one area to the south of the island. The seagrass beds had been selected to
maximise the coverage of seagrass biodiversity within the core areas.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 8
5.1.15 Dr. Pernetta noted that the information available to the meeting regarding the methods used
to identify areas of high seagrass cover and biomass at Phu Quoc was insufficient to enable the
working group to evaluate the quality of this work, and requested that Dr. Tien provide the working
group, within 2 weeks from the closure of the meeting, a report on how the 3,700 ha was selected
from the total 10,000 ha. Dr. Tien agreed that he would prepare this report and send it to the PCU
following the community consultation on the zoning of seagrass planned from 27th 28th July 2006.
5.1.16 Dr. Montaño presented an overview of the Bolinao seagrass demonstration site and noted
that since the signing of the MoU on 28th September 2005 the Bolinao site had:
·
Participated in the 1st (13th November 2005) and 2nd (6th 8th June 2006) Mayors'
Roundtables;
·
Attended the 2nd UNEP/GEF Regional Scientific Conference (14th 16th November 2005);
·
Established its' management board (7th December 2005);
·
Delivered orientation seminars in al coastal Barangays (December 2005 to February 2006);
·
Convened its' first management board meeting (2nd February 2006);
·
Held a meeting with fishers and local government technicians for the identification of seagrass
areas (23rd March 2006);
·
Conducted a survey of seagrass areas;
·
Mapped Santiago Island (10th April 2006);
·
Gathered information regarding the locations of fish cages, fish-pens, mussel culture farms
and other mariculture structures in the area of the site (26th April 2006); and had
·
Conducted a consultation meeting on zoning, mapping and other associated activities
(12th July 2006).
5.1.17 Dr. Montaño presented a draft report of the results of the resource assessment at the Bolinao
site, highlighting the locations of al observed seagrass flowers and fruits during the survey period, the
distribution of seagrass richness and diversity, and the density of the seagrass species Thalassia
hemprichii, Enhalus acoroides, Halodule uninervis, Halophila ovalis, Cymodocea rotundata, C.
serrulata, and Syringodium isoetifolium. He also introduced the group to the Bolinao seagrass website
and a brochure that is given to international visitors to the site.
5.1.18 Mr. Tri Edi sought clarification regarding the criteria used to select the core zones and
Dr. Montaño indicated that they had ranked importance of the sites in terms of biodiversity and
cover and information from consultations with the local fisherfolk regarding current patterns of use.
5.1.19 Mr. Tri Edi noted that the proposal for the East Bintan seagrass demonstration site was under
final review by GEF, and highlighted that he now had the letter of support for the project from the
central government (LIPI) but was stil awaiting a similar letter from the Riau Regency. He noted that
he had previously mapped seagrass at the East Bintan site using remotely sensed data, and the
publication of this work highlights seagrass distribution and density over the whole East Bintan area.
5.2
Consideration of the Preliminary Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing in
the Habitat Demonstration Sites
5.2.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/5
"Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing in the Habitat Demonstration Sites". Mr. Paterson
reviewed the previous deliberations of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries and Habitat
Sub-Components regarding this matter noting that nearly all habitat demonstration sites had
highlighted fisheries as a threat. It was the view of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries and the
Regional Scientific and Technical Committee that, a framework for assessing the threats from
fisheries to the habitat demonstration sites might provide a useful platform for improving the
integration of fisheries and habitat management.
5.2.2 Mr. Paterson outlined the framework for assessing the effects of fishing and aquaculture
developed by the RWG-F during its' seventh meeting. He noted that the Regional Working Group on
Seagrass had an important role to play in commenting on any elements of this framework that require
further elaboration in relation to the interaction of fishing and aquaculture with seagrass, and noted
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 9
that any comments from the group would be used by the RWG-F in preparing guidance on the
management of fishing and aquaculture in the habitat demonstration sites.
5.2.3
During the discussion of the effects of fishing and related activities on seagrass the fol owing
changes to Table 2 were suggested and agreed:
·
"Fish Populations and Communities" be reworded as "Populations and Communities of
Fished and Harvested Species";
·
"Change in the age structure of catches of important species" be changed to "Change in the
age and sex structure of catches of important species";
·
The framework be amended to reflect impacts on seagrass caused by changes in current and
sediment patterns as a result of fish fence construction; and
·
Reference to the effect of fishing on water quality be amended to reflect impacts on sediment
quality.
5.2.4 During discussion of the effects of aquaculture and related activities on seagrass the fol owing
changes to Table 2 were suggested and agreed:
·
"Water Quality solid waste pollution" be reworded as "Water and Sediment Quality solid
waste pollution";
·
The framework be amended to reflect the problems of pathogen outbreaks under eutrophic
conditions, and the over-grazing of seagrass in areas re-stocked with sea urchins.
5.2.5 There being no further proposals for amendment or addition to the framework Table 2 was
amended as it appears in Annex 4 of this report.
5.2.6 In terms of any possible initiatives to improve the integration of fisheries and habitat
management in the context of the seagrass habitat demonstration sites, Dr. Fortes suggested that it
may be useful to promote the role of seagrass in sustaining significant fisheries species. In this
connection, Mr. Paterson reminded the group that a key activity of the Regional Working Group on
Fisheries was the establishment of a regional system of fisheries refugia and that the fisheries
component focal points are currently conducting a review of the importance of the habitat
demonstration sites as inshore nursery areas for significant demersal species. He suggested that
promotion of the role of the seagrass demonstration sites, as inshore nursery refugia could be a
useful mechanism for improving community understanding and appreciation of the importance of
seagrass.
5.2.7 There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the significant demersal species that utilise the
seagrass demonstration sites as nursery areas. Dr. Fortes and Mr. Kamarruddin agreed to contact a
Malaysian fisheries researcher regarding obtaining a copy of his PhD thesis which involved a review
of fish-seagrass associations in Malaysia. This led to a discussion of the ASEAN-AUSTRALIA Living
Coastal Resources project, database which Dr. Fortes suggested would be a valuable source of
information to support this aspect of the project. Dr. Pernetta noted that he had been attempting to
locate this database since 2002 without success.
5.2.8 Mr. Vibol informed the meeting that the landings of fish adjacent to the Kampot seagrass site
were dominated by mackerels (Rastrelliger spp.), which led to a discussion of the difficulties in linking
fish landing information to fish usage of coastal habitats such as seagrass. Dr. Suvaluck noted the
use of seagrass areas by juvenile groupers on the East coast of the Gulf of Thailand.
5.2.9 Mr. Paterson highlighted the efforts of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries to col ate
information about areas critical to the life-cycle of significant fished species, and noted that this work
would benefit from inputs from the Regional Working Group on Seagrass in relation to demersal fish
use of seagrass sites as critical nursery areas in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. It was
agreed that Mr. Paterson would prepare a table for reporting information about demersal fish usage of
seagrass sites as nursery areas overnight and that the members would complete this table and return
it to the PCU by close of business 18th August 2006. This table is included as Annex 5 of this report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 10
6.
FINALISATION OF THE INPUTS FROM THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT TO THE
REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
6.1
Review of the Empirical Data regarding the Economic Values of Goods and Services
derived from Seagrass Sites
6.1.1 The Chairperson invited the PCU member to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
SG.7/6 "Valuing Seagrass Goods and Services from Locations Bordering the South China Sea".
Mr. Sour noted that data and information had been received from the Hepu demonstration site in
China, three sites in Viet Nam, the Bolinao seagrass site in the Philippines, and the Kampot seagrass
site in Cambodia.
6.1.2 Dr. Pernetta reminded the working group that the Project Steering Committee had established
the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation in 2002 to provide technical advice on the economic
valuation of environmental goods, and services. He reminded the group that the purpose of
determining the economic value of coastal habitats was to provide an economic justification of the
costs of action versus non-action in the context of the revised Regional Strategic Action Programme.
6.1.3 Dr. Pernetta noted that the draft Regional Strategic Action Programme had used economic
values for coastal habitats derived from Costanza 1997 and noted further that many of these values
were open to question from both the ecological and economic viewpoints. At the time of approving the
draft SAP the governments had noted the need to review and update the SAP and the economic
arguments for intervention using regional y applicable values.
6.1.4 Dr. Pernetta reminded the working group that the members of the RTF-E had been col ecting
data and information on the economic value of coastal habitats since the second half of 2005, and
that during its' fourth meeting in April 2006 the RTF-E had reviewed the data and information and
noted that:
·
Some of the compiled data provide total economic values without providing information
regarding what values have been included in determining the "total economic value";
·
Some provide total value of certain products at the national level or in a local jurisdiction
without specifying what percentage of these products are produced from the coastal habitats;
·
Some of the values col ected do not distinguish between the total price of valued goods and
the net value of the goods. The cost of col ecting or producing certain goods from the coastal
habitats has not been provided in some cases;
·
Some reports are unclear about the sources and references of the data used or col ected.
6.1.5 Dr. Pernetta invited members to review the data provided in Table 1 of the document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/6 and the additional empirical data provided by the members for this
meeting. He noted that in relation to Table 1 the RTF-E had produced a summary of empirical data
relating to seagrass and members needed to provide any further empirical data of which they were
aware.
6.1.6 Dr. Pernetta noted that the data recently contributed by the Bolinao site for the values of
fermented and fresh rabbit fish fingerlings were not related to total volumes harvested or the area
from which the harvest was derived. In relation to the Vietnamese data for the Bai Bon, Tam Giang
Cau Hai Lagoon, and Tam Giang Cau Hai Lagoon seagrass sites, Dr. Pernetta noted that there was
no information regarding how the values were derived and that since fish, crustaceans, mol uscs, and
seaweeds had been valued by group it was not possible to identify the actual species that had been
valued and hence it was difficult to verify whether the species concerned were in fact derived from
seagrass habitats.
6.1.7 Mr. Kamarruddin noted that he could source information relating to the value and trade of
turtle eggs in the region, and noted further that he was unsure of how to relate the value of the eggs
harvested in Malaysia to the use by turtles of seagrass in areas outside Malaysia. It was agreed that
whilst linking turtle egg production with specific seagrass areas would be a difficult task, the
information regarding the trade of turtle eggs would be useful in preparing a regional value for eggs of
turtles that rely on seagrass areas. Dr. Fortes noted that there is strong trade in turtle eggs between
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 11
the southern Philippines and Malaysia and Mr. Kamarruddin agreed that he would provide information
regarding the value of turtle eggs and the trade in southern areas of the South China Sea prior to the
upcoming meeting of the economic task force.
6.1.8 Mr. Tri Edi noted that pages 47-48 of the Indonesian National Report on Seagrass contain
information relating to the economic valuation of seagrass goods and services, particularly with regard
to the use of Syringodium isoetifolium as feed for dugong held in aquaria, Enhalus acoroides and
Thalassia hemprichii as feed for cattle and other stock, Enhalus acoroides fruit as food for fishers, and
seagrass raw material and snails as materials for handicrafts. He also noted that he might be able to
source information regarding the value of sea cucumber in the area of the East Bintan site.
Dr. Pernetta suggested, and the meeting agreed that these examples are of high regional relevance
and that efforts should be made to ensure that as much of this information as possible be made
available to the RTF-E.
6.1.9 Dr. Fortes noted that good information exists regarding the economic value of different size
classes of rabbitfishes at the Bolinao demonstration site. Dr. Pernetta suggested that it should be
possible to relate the harvest to the total area of seagrass at the site in order to derive a, value per ha
for rabbitfish and that where necessary a clear statement regarding the assumptions and
uncertainties would be adequate to ensure that the reader understood the uncertainties associated
with the data. Dr. Fortes noted that they are currently working with fishers at the site to identify where
rabbitfish are being caught and it is hoped that this wil provide better information regarding the values
of fish production from seagrass.
6.1.10 In this connection Mr. Kamarruddin noted the example provided by Dr. Suvaluck regarding
the use of seagrass by juvenile grouper in Thailand, and sought clarification regarding whether the
volume and value of grouper traded in markets could be used to value seagrass areas. Dr. Pernetta
noted that it would only be possible to assign a proportion of the value of an end product such as a
grouper to the nursery function of seagrass areas and that to the best of his knowledge there are no
examples of where this had been done.
6.1.11 In relation to Table 2, Dr. Fortes suggested and the meeting agreed that: sea urchins should
be added to the table as a seagrass good; specific reference should be made to the use of seagrass
beds as spawning areas; and that sediment and nutrient export should be added as a seagrass
service.
6.1.12 Dr. Pernetta sought clarification from Dr. Tien regarding the economic values of seagrass
goods and services provided in relation to the Bai Bon, Tam Giang Cau Hai Lagoon, and Tam
Giang Cau Hai Lagoon seagrass sites in Viet Nam. Dr. Tien explained that Dr. Nguyen Huu Ninh of
the Centre for Environmental Research, Education and Development (CERED) had conducted this
work and indicated that he would send the report of this work to the PCU upon his return to Viet Nam.
Dr. Pernetta indicated that he would also write to Dr. Ninh requesting that the tables be revised to
provide more complete and accurate information regarding the actual species that were valued and
the methods used to conduct the evaluation.
6.1.13 The meeting agreed to amend the data on economic values from the demonstration sites in
order that values per unit of area could be derived and to submit this to Mr. Sour by 11th August 2006.
It was noted that economic values from other seagrass sites bordering the South China Sea and Gulf
of Thailand could also be provided at the same time should they be available.
6.2
Elaboration of the Inputs from the Seagrass Sub-component to the Draft Regional
Strategic Action Programme
6.2.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Sour to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/7
"Inputs from the Seagrass Sub-component to the Revision of the Regional Strategic Action
Programme (SAP)". Mr. Sour reviewed the document and summarised the major elements related to
the seagrass sub-component that need to be included in the revised SAP.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 12
6.2.2 The Chairperson noted that the task of the working group in relation to this agenda item was
to review and expand the existing materials, and that the group needed to:
·
Review the document and consider any additional inputs (including further elaboration of the
activities identified during the sixth meeting of the RWG-SG), and the costings needed to
finalise the document;
·
Consider and agree on the manner in which management status is to be defined;
·
Determine further work needed to elaborate the other elements, including costing for inclusion
in the document;
·
Identify the key threats from a regional perspective; and
·
Agree upon a timetable and individual responsibilities to finalise the document.
6.2.3 The group commenced with a consideration of Table 1 of Annex 1 of document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/7. Dr. Pernetta noted that the working group needed to clarify what was
intended by the term "management areas" and/or "management status" in the inputs to the SAP
regarding the status of seagrass management at country and site levels. In this connection, he drew
the attention of the meeting to the approaches adopted by the Regional Working Group on Wetlands
and Coral Reefs regarding their definition of management status. The RWG-W had amended the
column headings in their table to reflect the areas under legal protection, and those, which were being
sustainably or unsustainably used. The Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs had taken a different
approach by agreeing that the areas should be defined as either being under management or not and
had added an additional column headed, "management effectiveness".
6.2.4 Dr. Fortes suggested that the approach taken by the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs
might also be suitable for the seagrass sub-component. Dr. Pernetta noted that the problem with this
was that the RWG-SG would need to define what was meant by low, medium and high management
effectiveness. Dr. Montaño noted that the RWG-CR definition of management effectiveness might
also be suitable for use by the seagrass sub-component.
6.2.5 There was a lengthy discussion regarding the content of the tables developed by the working
groups on wetland and coral reefs, and in response to several questions regarding the meaning of the
term "area under management" in the coral reefs table, Dr. Pernetta explained to the group that this
referred to the sub-area of a coral reef site that was in fact being managed. For example in the case
of Koh Samui the total area of coral reef was 3,249 ha of which only 600 ha was included within the
boundaries of the National Park, and hence was under management.
6.2.6
Dr. Suvaluck sought clarification in relation to the Koh Kong coral reef site in Cambodia. She
noted that the area of 72.5 ha was al under management but the management effectiveness was
classified as low. Dr. Pernetta noted that in this case the entire Koh Kong coral reef site was under
management, but the actual effectiveness of this management had been considered low in relation to
the categories of management effectiveness defined by the RWG-CR. Mr. Vibol noted that the Koh
Kong site was being proposed as a marine protected area.
6.2.7 It was suggested and the meeting agreed that the table developed by the coral reef group
should be used by the seagrass group and that the column in the coral reef table titled "management
type" should be changed to "legal status". There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the use of
"Legal Status" for situations where areas were being managed without the support of law, such as
community-based management areas. It was agreed that in cases where legal instruments did not
exist the legal status should be defined as "None". It was further agreed that if the management
effectiveness of a site being managed outside a formal legal framework was high, then a footnote
should be added to the table providing information regarding how the site is managed.
6.2.8 Mr. Vibol sought clarification regarding how the legal status would be defined in situations
were the management area had been declared only at the provincial level. Dr. Pernetta noted that a
provincial level administrative order or instruction could be interpreted as a legal instrument.
6.2.9 The members then added information on area (ha), legal status, area under management,
management effectiveness, and target area to be added for management, to the table. Dr. Fortes
suggested that Mr. Sour should complete the summaries of the total areas under management and
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 13
the total areas to be added for management in the table. It was agreed that Mr. Sour would finalise
the table overnight. The table is included as Table 1 in Annex 6.
6.2.10 The Chairperson recommended that an important task for the Regional Working was to
review the regional priority threats to seagrass as outlined in Table 2 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-SG.7/7. It was suggested that the two sets of threats should be combined in a single list,
together with the list of regionally important threats. During the ensuing discussion, issues regarding
natural hazards; the impacts of seaweed farming; land reclamation and dredging; coastal
construction; over fishing and destructive fishing were discussed.
6.2.11 Having agreed on the listing of regional threats, each member ranked the threats
independently and the scores were summed to provide a regional ranking of the threats. The outcome
is presented in Table 2 of Annex 6.
6.2.12 The RWG-SG decided to discuss the substance of the activities through four working groups
with responsibility for reviewing sections of the components, sub-components, and activities for
inclusion in the revised Regional Strategic Action Programme. The outcomes of the work of these
groups were subsequently presented to the full working group, considered, amended and agreed as
presented in Table 4 of Annex 6.
7.
UPDATE OF THE REGIONAL GIS DATABASE AND META-DATABASE AND EFFICIENT
USE OF THE PROJECT WEBSITE
7.1
Status of the Regional South China Sea, Meta- and GIS- databases and use of the
Project Website for updating entries
7.1.1 The Chairperson invited Mr. Paterson to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/8,
"Status of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project Website, Online Tools, and Activities to Promote
the Seagrass Sub-component of the Project". Mr. Paterson 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 and Sub-committees and
Regional Working Groups. It is anticipated that this network will continue to grow as the demonstration
sites and pilot activities become ful y operational. He noted further that the project had developed a
wide range of outputs, including:
·
Knowledge documents;
·
An online Geographical Information System and Meta-database;
·
English and national-language reviews of the science and management of marine habitats
and fisheries in the South China Sea;
·
A nutrient carrying capacity model for the South China Sea;
·
National Action Plans for key marine habitats;
·
Regional Guidelines on the Use of Fisheries Refugia for Capture Fisheries Management; and
·
In excess of sixty meeting reports and numerous discussion documents for the meetings
convened since March 2002.
7.1.2 Mr. Paterson informed participants that it was envisaged that the implementation of the
demonstration sites and pilot activities would result in the number of project outputs growing
considerably over the next 2 years. The independent evaluations in 2004 suggested that there were a
number of key lessons learned in the project: including inter alia the procedures used for the selection
of demonstration sites, and the management framework adopted for project implementation. The
intention was that the project will continue to promote and support the sharing of lessons learned
associated with the demonstration sites and pilot activities during the operational phase of the project.
7.1.3
Mr. Paterson reminded participants that during the second half of 2005 the Project
Co-ordinating Unit had identified that the project website could be used more effectively to:
consolidate and strengthen the partner network, disseminate project outputs, and share experiences
and lessons learned. Consequently the PCU had invested a considerable amount of time and effort in
re-organising and redesigning the project website in an interactive format.
7.1.4 Mr. Paterson demonstrated the key features of the new website, noting that the Joomla
Content Management System used as the platform for the site contains a facility that can be used for
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 14
controlling publishing processes and assigning specific authoring, editing and/or publishing rights to
various individuals via a secure login procedure.
7.1.5 Mr. Paterson noted that all members of the Regional Working Group on Seagrass had been
registered as users of the website and that users were required to log into the website using a
username and password in order to contribute information to the website. He noted further that each
members' login details had been provided to them earlier this year and that they were presented on a
card attached to the CD distributed during the meeting that contained user manuals for the website,
online meta-database and associated templates, and online nutrient carrying capacity model for the
South China Sea.
7.1.6
It was noted that the South China Sea Meta-Database contained more than 1,000 meta-data
entries and that the PCU had conducted a rapid evaluation of all current meta-data entries with the
aim of improving the quality of these entries. In this respect Mr. Paterson noted that Table 2 of Annex
2 provides specific questions relating to existing meta-data entries, and recommended that the
responsible focal points consider revising the elements of each meta-data entry for which an "N" score
was given in the evaluation.
7.1.7 The meeting considered the evaluation of meta-data quality and agreed to revise and add
new meta-data to the online meta-database by the end of September 2006.
7.2
Use of the Project Website to enhance communication between and among members
of the regional Working Group on Seagrass
7.2.1
Mr. Paterson drew the attention of the meeting to the fact that document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-SG.7/8 contained suggestions for various initiatives that could support the substantive work of
the RWG-SG in using the project website more effectively for the exchange of information and
experiences through, for example, e-fora. He suggested two items for consideration: the first was the
use of the demonstration site and regional working group web-pages to promote the work of the
RWG-SG; and the second was the development of an e-forum, involving all members of the RWG-SG
in activities in the inter-sessional periods between the regular meetings.
7.2.2 There followed a discussion regarding the effectiveness of e-mail versus e-fora for the sharing
of information between members of the group. It was noted by Dr. Fortes that member's change their
e-mail addresses and that, communication occasionally breaks down during inter-sessional periods. It
was suggested by Dr. Pernetta that the e-forum facility provides an easily accessible and central
location for communication amongst and between members of the group. It was suggested that use of
the e-forum facility by the RWG-SG be discussed under agenda item 9 in terms of identifying concrete
issues regarding the preparation of text for the SAP that would need to be finalised and agreed by
members prior to the next meeting of the group.
8.
PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT
8.1
The Chairperson invited Mr. Sour to introduce documents UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/9
"Regional Training Programme of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project" and UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-SG.7/10 "Outcomes of the Discussion by the Regional Working Group on Coral Reefs on the
Regional Training Programme of Relevance to the Seagrass Regional Working Group", containing
details of the regional training programme to be implemented under the framework of the UNEP/GEF
South China Sea Project.
8.2
Mr. Vibol sought clarification regarding the number of participants in each regional training
course. Mr. Paterson noted that the sub-committee of the RSTC had proposed that 3-4 participants
from each country would participate in each regional training course.
8.3
The group considered the content of the training course on coral reef and seagrass
ecosystems as proposed by the sub-committee of the RSTC and amended by the seventh meeting of
the RWG-CR. It was proposed, and the meeting agreed that, ethnobotanical issues be added to the
topics listed under the component relating to supplemental income generation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 15
8.4
Mr. Tri Edi sought clarification regarding the requirement for English as a pre-requisite for
participation in the regional training courses and Dr Pernetta noted that this issue had been
extensively discussed by various committees over the last two years and that the consensus view was
that participants in the regional training courses must have sufficient understanding of English not
only to actively participate in the regional courses but also to be able to translate the course materials
into local languages for use in national echo seminars.
8.5
Mr. Vibol sought clarification regarding how many regional courses and echo seminars an
individual could attend. Dr. Pernetta noted that the sub-committee of the RSTC had proposed that no
individual could attend more than one regional training course, but that in terms of attendance at the
national echo seminars this should perhaps be left to the discretion of the National Technical Focal
Point.
8.6
The group then considered the content of the training course as revised by the RWG-CR and
agreed that, ethnobotany should be added as a training topic, as should seagrass taxonomy and
identification.
8.7
In identifying possible implementing entities Mr. Paterson provided some background
regarding the need to identify possible organisations that may be interested and/or capable of
organising and supporting such a training course. During discussion the Marine Science Institute of
the University of the Philippines, LIPI, the University of Malaysia, Sabah (UMS), Agricultural University
of Malaysia (UPM), the University of Malaya (UM) and Ramkamhaeng University were al identified as
potential implementing agencies.
8.8
During the discussion the issue of whether or not an Australian or Singaporean Institution
could be used as the implementing agency Dr. Pernetta indicated that whilst experts from these
countries could be involved in the delivery of such courses it would be difficult for UNEP to engage,
for example CSIRO, as the entity to manage a regional training course for the South China Sea
Countries.
9.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON SEAGRASS 2006 - 2008
9.1
Based on the discussion and agreements reached under previous agenda items, and the
draft work plan presented in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/11 "Proposed Work Plan and
Timetable for the Regional Working Group on Seagrass from 2006 to December 2008", the
Chairperson invited members to consider, and agree, on the activities and work plan for the seagrass
sub-component for the next twelve months.
9.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that the working group would need to elaborate elements of the Revised
draft Strategic Action Programme during the inter-sessional period. The meeting agreed to consider
the contents of the draft annexes prior to finalising the work plan for the group. Dr. Pernetta noted that
Annex 5, the fisheries table as currently presented would provide the information required by the
Regional Working Group on Fisheries but would not meet the requirements of the seagrass working
group. He proposed, and the meeting agreed, to amend the table to enable inclusion of information
regarding any species of fish using seagrass habitats as a spawning, nursery or feeding area.
9.3
There followed a discussion of the mechanisms by which the text of the SAP would be
amplified in the immediate future. Dr. Montaño suggested, and the RWG-SG agreed, to assign to
individual member, responsibility for drafting the initial draft text relating to the activities and posting
these on the e-forum of the regional working group for comment and amendment by other members.
There agreed responsibilities are indicated in Table 4 of Annex 6 of this report.
9.4
Fol owing discussion of responsibilities for the drafting of the initial text relating to the
activities to be included in the Regional Strategic Action Programme the deadlines for completion of
the tasks were discussed and agreed and the final work plan for the RWG-SG was approved as
contained in Annex 7 of this report.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Page 16
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON SEAGRASS
10.1
Members were reminded of the decision of the PSC that al RWG meetings should be
convened at demonstration sites.
10.2
Mr. Vibol proposed that the eighth meeting be convened in Sihanoukville in conjunction with
the Kampot demonstration site. The members of the group accepted this kind invitation and agreed
that the eighth meeting of the RWG-SG would be convened from 21st - 24th May 2007 inclusive.
11. ANY
OTHER
BUSINESS
11.1
Dr. Montaño invited members to raise any additional items of business requiring discussion
by the working group at this time.
11.2
Dr. Fortes asked whether it was possible for NGOs to sponsor individuals to participate in the
Regional Training Course. Dr. Pernetta indicated that the costs of an individual's participation in the
training courses would be met from the project budget for those participants being officially nominated
by the National Technical Focal Points. If an institution running a course could accommodate more
trainees than could be financially supported by the project then he saw no reason why NGOs should
not be able to support participants in the regional training courses.
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
12.1 The Rapporteur, Dr. Suvaluck presented the draft report of the meeting, which was
considered amended and adopted as it appears in this document. Dr. Fortes formally moved to
accept the report.
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
13.1
The Chairperson thanked the participants for the hard work and contributions and called for a
motion to close the meeting. The meeting was formally closed at 1610 on 27th July 2006.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Ouk Vibol
Mr. Xiaoping Huang
Department of Fisheries
South China Sea Institute of Oceanology
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
Chinese Academy of Sciences
186 Norodom Boulevard
164 West Xingang Road
PO Box 582, Phnom Penh
Guangzhou 510301
Cambodia
Guangdong Province, China
Tel: (855) 12 836 376
Tel:
(86 20) 8902 3210
Fax: (855 23) 210 565
Fax: (86 20) 8445 1672
E-mail: aims1@online.com.kh
E-mail: xphuang@scsio.ac.cn
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Tri Edi Kuriandewa
Mr. Kamarruddin bin Ibrahim
Puslit OSEANOGRAFI, LIPI
Department of Fisheries
Pasir Patih 1 Ancol Timur
Turtle and Marine Ecosystem Center (TUMEC)
Jakarta, Indonesia
23050 Rantau Abang, Dungun
Terengganu, Malaysia
Tel:
(62 21) 64713 850 Ext. 218;
(62 251) 64379912, (62 21) 645 7368
Tel:
(609) 845 8169; 845 3169 (direct)
Fax:
(62 21) 6471 1948
Fax: (609) 845 8017
E-mail: indo-seagrass@centrin.net.id;
E-mail: kdin55@yahoo.com
kuriandewa@plasa.com
Philippines
Thailand
Dr. Marco Nemesio E. Montaño
Dr. Suvaluck Satumanatpan
Marine Science Institute
Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies
University of the Philippines
Mahidol University, Salaya Campus
Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines
Nakorn Pathom 73170, Thailand
Tel: (632) 922 3962
Tel:
(66 2) 441 5000 Ext. 187; (081) 700 7512
Fax: (632) 927 2693
Fax:
(66 2) 441 9509-10
E-mail: coke@upmsi.ph
E-mail: ensnt@mahidol.ac.th
Viet Nam
Ass Prof. Dr. Nguyen Van Tien
Senior Expert, Chairman of Scientific Committee,
Former Director, Research on Marine Botany,
Vietnamese Academy of Science and Technology
Institute of Marine Environment and Resources
246 Da Nang Street
Hai Phong City, Viet Nam
Tel:
(84 31) 760 599, 761 523; 84 903 475 468
Fax:
(84 31) 761 521
E-mail: tiennv@imer.ac.vn
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Regional Experts
Dr. Hutomo Malikusworo
Dr. Miguel Fortes
Indonesian Institute of Science
IOC Sub-Commission for Western Pacific
Pasir Putih 1, Ancol Timur
(WESTPAC)
Jakarta 14330
4th Floor, Department of Marine and Coastal
Indonesia
Resources, Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment, 2nd Floor, 93 Soi Phahonyothin 7,
Tel:
(62 21) 6471 3850
Samsen Nai, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Fax: (62 21) 6471 1948
E-mail: malikusworo_h@yahoo.com;
Tel:
(66 2) 298 2142
mali001@lipi.go.id
Fax: (66 2) 298 6313
E-mail: m.fortes@unescobkk.org,
mdfortes138@yahoo.com
Observers
Mr. Shuhua Li
Mr. Siming Liang, Director
Vice-Mayor of Beihai
Beihai Environment Protection Bureau
Office of Beihai City Government
18 West Beihai Road
Beihai, Guangxi,
Beihai 536000
China
Quangxi, China
Tel:
(86 779) 221 789
Fax: (86 779) 202 1407
Tel: (86)
13
8078910010
Fax:
(86 779) 303 5928
E-mail lsm5012@sina.com,
csd8@tom.com.ph
Mr. Yao Haibo
Mr. Sunxiongyu
Hepu Seagrass Site
Hepu Seagrass Site
Tel:
(86 779) 303 2306
Tel:
(86 779) 303 2306
E-mail: bhfisher@126.com
E-mail: sunxiongyu@126.com
Ms. Luo Li
Ms. Qingiurong
Beihai Environmental Protection
Hepu Dugon National Protected Area
Tel:
(86 779) 303 2306
Tel:
(86 779) 680 1360
E-mail: welcomeluo@eyou.com
E-mail: beihaiqqr@163.com
Ms. Zhouke
Hepu Dugon National Protected Area
Tel: (86)
13
878975256
E-mail: keertoutou@hotmail.com
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Mr. Kim Sour, Associate Expert
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 2609
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: kims@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 1
Page 3
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Mr. Christopher Paterson, Expert Fisheries
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: (66 2) 288 1116
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Fax: (66 2) 288 1094
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: patersonc@un.org
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
Ms. Unchalee Pernetta, Programme Assistant
Ms. Saranya Rojananuangnit, Team 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 1670
Tel:
(66 2) 288 2608
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
E-mail: rojananuangnit@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/1
Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/2
Annotated Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Report of the Meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/4
Current status of administration reports: Progress,
Expenditure and Audit Reports; and MoU Amendments.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/5
Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing in the
Habitat Demonstration Sites.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/6
Valuing Seagrass Goods and Services from Locations
Bordering the South China Sea.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/7
Inputs from the Seagrass Sub-component to the Revision
of the Regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/8
Status of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project Website,
Online Tools, and Activities to Promote the Seagrass Sub-
component of the Project
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/9
Regional Training Programme of the UNEP/GEF South
China Sea Project
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/10
Outcomes of the Discussion by the Regional Working
Group on Coral Reefs on the Regional Training Programme
of Relevance to the Seagrass Regional Working Group
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/11
Proposed Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional
Working Group on Seagrass to December 2008.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/Inf.1
List of Participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/Inf.2
List of Documents.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/Inf.3
Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/Inf.4.Cam
Revised National Action Plan for Cambodia.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/Inf.4.Chi
Revised National Action Plan for China.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/Inf.4.Viet
Revised National Action Plan for Viet Nam.
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/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 2
Page 2
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-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 Pol ution 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.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 2
Page 3
Document received during the RWG-SG-7 meeting in Beihai, China, 24-27 July 2006.
Indonesia:
Metadata Base of Indonesia Seagrass, Jakarta, Indonesia 2005, English language,
147 pps, 10 hard copies. (Report.No.04/Seagrass/K/1005)
Indonesia Seagrass Report, Jakarta, Indonesia 2005, English language, 102 pps,
10 hard copies. (Report.No.01/Seagrass/K/0505)
Laporan Tentang Lamun (seagrass) di Indonesia Oleh, Jakarta, Indonesia 2005,
Indonesian Language, 67 pps ++, 10 hard copies. (Report.No.02/Seagrass/K/0905)
Malaysia:
National Seagrass Metadata of Malaysia, 49 pps, 12 hard copies. (DOFM-MNSC, 2006.
National Seagrass Metadata of Malaysia. Publication No. 1)
National Seagrass Report of Malaysia, 2006. 73 pps, 12 hard copies. (DOFM-MNSC,
2006. National Seagrass Report of Malaysia. Publication No. 2)
Philippines:
1 CD-ROM contents:
-
BSDS Webpage
-
Earth Observation Satel ite Data
-
Files for Presentation
-
Seagrass Remote Sensing Progress Report
-
Seagrass Valuation
-
Demo Figures
-
Report (for Presentation)
-
Status of Seagrass Management
-
Table 2 Revised Format for the Collection of Data
1 CD-ROM contents: Earth Observation Satel ite Data of Pangasinan and Sambales
Seagrass Remote Sensing Progress Report.
1 CD-ROM contents: Seagrass Remote Sensing LandSat Thematic Mapping Data-
Consultant's Report.
Viet Nam:
Six Monthly Expenditure July December 2006.
Cash Advance request 31 December 2006.
Six Monthly Progress Report Jan June 2006.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 3
Page 1
ANNEX 3
Agenda
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome Address on behalf of UNEP
1.2 Opening Statement by a Representative of the Local Government
1.3 Introduction
of
Participants
2. ORGANISATION
OF
THE
MEETING
2.1 Election of Officers
2.2 Documents Available to the Meeting
2.3 Organisation
of
Work
3. ADOPTION
OF
THE
MEETING
AGENDA
4.
STATUS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS; AND NATIONAL
ACTION PLANS
4.1 Status of the Administrative Reports: Progress and Expenditure Reports, Audit Reports,
and MoU Amendments
4.2 Status of the Publication of National Reports in English and National Languages
4.3 Finalisation, Adoption and Implementation of National Action Plans
5.
CONSIDERATION OF PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE DEMONSTRATION SITE
ACTIVITIES
5.1 Reports from Focal Points
5.2 Consideration of the Preliminary Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing in the
Habitat Demonstration Sites
6.
FINALISATION OF THE INPUTS FROM THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT TO THE
REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
6.1 Review of the Empirical Data regarding the Economic Values of Goods and Services
Derived from Seagrass Sites
6.2 Elaboration of the Inputs from the Seagrass Sub-component to the Draft Regional
Strategic Action Programme
7.
UPDATE OF THE REGIONAL GIS DATABASE AND META-DATABASE AND EFFICIENT
USE OF THE PROJECT WEBSITE
7.1 Status of the Regional South China Sea, Meta- and GIS- Databases and Use of the
Project Website for Updating Entries.
7.2 Use of the Project Website to Enhance Communication between and Among Members
of the Regional Working Group on Seagrass
8.
PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE SEAGRASS SUB-COMPONENT
9.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON SEAGRASS 2006-2008
10.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON SEAGRASS
11. ANY
OTHER
BUSINESS
12.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
13.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing and Aquaculture in the Context of the
Habitat Demonstration Sites amended by the Regional Working Group on Seagrass
A key activity of the fisheries component of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project is the promotion
of the guidance provided by the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and the related
SEAFDEC Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia (RGRFSA) in the context
of the habitat demonstration sites for the management of identified fisheries issues in the SCS
Project's suite of coral reef, seagrass, mangrove, wetland, and multiple habitat demonstration sites.
This work is also intended to foster collaboration between fisheries and environment agencies;
various levels of government; and other stakeholders in the implementation of actions focused on
developing best practice in integrated fisheries and habitat management in the region.
Identification of Fisheries Management Actions in the Context of the Demonstration Sites
Threats from fisheries to the habitat demonstration sites were discussed during three sessions of the
2nd UNEP/GEF Regional Scientific Conference (RSC-2) convened in Bangkok, Thailand 14th 16th
November 2005. The first session "Think Globally, Act Locally" included reviews of demonstration site
activities by project component, followed by plenary discussion. Fisheries, especially "illegal" fishing
and the use of destructive fishing gear and practices, were highlighted as key threats by each of the
project components and the importance of improved fisheries management in the context of the
demonstration sites formed a central part of discussions during that session.
During the session on "Addressing Fisheries Issues in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand", the
then Chairperson of the Regional Working Group on Fisheries (RWG-F), Mr. Pirochana Saikliang,
presented a paper prepared by the RWG-F entitled "Applying the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries to Improve the Integration of Fisheries and Habitat Management in the South China Sea
and Gulf of Thailand" (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSC.2/Inf.3). This paper provided a review of the threats from
fisheries as identified in the habitat demonstration sites, and highlighted the guidance provided by the
CCRF and the RGRFSA for the management of fisheries issues. Numerous examples of how the
CCRF and RGRFSA could be applied in the context of the habitat demonstration sites were provided.
Final y, during the paral el meetings of the Regional Working Groups on 16th November 2005,
members of the RWG-F participated in each of the working group meetings for the habitat
sub-components for one hour in order to discuss and reinforce the contents of the CCRF presentation
and to try to secure agreement on fisheries management actions to be undertaken at the
demonstration sites. Discussions during these brief meetings focused on general threats from
fisheries. The proposed actions were very generic, including public awareness, control of trawling and
push netting, reduction of fishing effort, and co-management, and provided little insight into local
contexts and needs. Each Working Group was introduced to the CCRF and Regional Guidelines and
the general guidance they provide for the management of fisheries, however there was no substantive
analysis of how the relevant components of these instruments could be applied to resolving fisheries
issues at the individual site level.
Need for a Clearer Definition of Fisheries "Threats"
The ensuing meeting of the RWG-F focused on the outcomes of the meetings with the habitat
components. Generally, the group considered that the outcomes achieved were modest and that
discussions were constrained by a number of factors. These included confusion of the "threats from
fisheries" and "threats to fisheries", lack of a systematic framework for assessing the threats from
fisheries in the context of the sites (e.g., some threats from fisheries being considered in relation to
the effects on fish resources, others in relation to habitat integrity, biodiversity, site sustainability), and
the mixing of fisheries and aquaculture management issues.
Development of a Framework for Assessing the Effects of Fishing and Aquaculture
The RWG-F considered that, in terms of providing fisheries management advice to the demonstration
sites, a need exists for a simple framework within which fisheries threats can be more clearly defined
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 4
Page 2
and analysed. In this connection, the RWG-F agreed on a preliminary framework for assessing the
effects of fishing and aquaculture in the context of the habitat demonstration sites. During its' Seventh
Meeting the Regional Working Group on Seagrass was requested to comment on any elements of the
preliminary RWG-F framework that required consideration in the context of the seagrass
demonstration sites. The suggestions of the RWG-SG were used to amend the preliminary framework
as it appears in Table 1 of this Annex.
Table 1
Framework for assessing the effects of fishing and aquaculture as amended
by the Regional Working Group on Seagrass.
Effects of fishing and
Reported problem in relation to the habitat demonstration sites
Related Activities on:
Populations and
Declining availability and biomass of important species
communities of fished
and harvested species
Size at first capture of important species low relative to historic average
Change in the age and sex structure of catches of important species
Changes in the species composition of catches
Number of species in the catch low relative to historic average
Changes in community structure due to direct reduction of populations representing
specific trophic levels of the community (e.g., predator or prey)
Indirect changes in community structure caused by habitat changes or provision
f additional food or nutrients as a result of fishing
Capture/mortality of large vertebrates/rare and endangered species
Nursery functions of
Fishing in nursery areas and the targeting of juveniles
coastal habitats
Large incidental captures of juveniles
Habitat
Removal and alteration of habitats as a result of fishing
Change in current and sediment patterns as a result of fish fence construction
Water and sediment quality
Pollution of coastal waters by fishing vessels
Release of wastewater and organic pollutants into coastal waters from fish processing
facilities
Localised and short-term changes in turbidity, oxygen levels, and changes in water
and sediment chemistry due to fishing
Human Environment
User group conflicts (e.g., commercial v. small-scale fishers)
Fishing gear conflicts (e.g., push netters v. gill netters)
Effects of Aquaculture
and Related Activities
Reported problem in relation to the habitat demonstration sites
on:
Water and Sediment Quality
Smothering of coastal habitats (e.g., seagrass) and shellfish
solid waste pollution
Increased turbidity of the water quality
Water Quality Increased
Algal blooms and pathogens as a result of increased nutrient inputs to coastal waters
dissolved nutrient inputs
Fish kills due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations caused by eutrophic conditions
Removal of oxygen from deep water and sediments as a consequence of the biological
oxygen demand created by the sinking and decay of blooming algae
Habitat
Conversion of coastal habitats for construction of farms and onshore facilities
Populations and
Over-grazing of seagrass from re-stocking with sea urchins
communities
Human Environment
Littering of coastal waters and inter-tidal area with aquaculture materials
User group conflicts (e.g., aquaculturists v. fishers)
Reduced aesthetics as a result of the development of aquaculture infrastructure
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Utilisation of Seagrass Sites by Significant Demersal Fish Species
The key themes that are emerging from the fisheries component of the SCS Project relate to (a) the critical role that coastal and marine habitats of the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand play in sustaining regional fisheries, many of which are transboundary in nature, and (b) the general y low-level coordination
between fisheries and habitat management in the region. It is now well recognised that coral reef, seagrass, mangrove and wetland habitats contribute
significantly to the productivity of regional fisheries, and act as refuges to the majority of fished species during critical phases of their lifecycle.
During its' Seventh Meeting in Beihai, China, the Regional Working Group on Seagrass identified possible initiatives for improving the integration of fisheries
and habitat management in the context of the project's seagrass demonstration sites. It was suggested and the meeting agreed that promoting the role of
seagrass in sustaining significant fisheries species, particularly in areas of the habitat demonstration sites, might be a useful approach in building awareness
of the need for integrated fisheries and habitat management. It was subsequently agreed that Table 1 of this Annex would be used by members of the RWG-
SG to col ate information about demersal fish usage of seagrass sites as nursery areas, spawning areas, and feeding areas.
Table 1
Significant Demersal Fish Species known to utilise Seagrass beds as Nursery, Spawning and Feeding Areas.
Importance of the seagrass site to the life-cycle of the species
Common Name
Species Name
Seagrass Site
Reference(s)
Nursery area
Spawning area
Feeding
Demersal Species of Transboundary Significance as Identified by the RWG-F
Greasy grouper
Epinephelus tauvina
Mangrove red snapper
Lutjanus argentimaculatus
Malabar grouper
Epinephelus malabaricus
Threadfin breams
Nemipterus spp
Leopard coral grouper
Plectropomus leopardus
Lizardfish
Saurida spp
Brownstripe red snapper
Lutjanus vitta
Sixbar grouper
Epinephelus sexfasciatus
Other Species
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Inputs to the SAP from the Seagrass Sub-component
THE MANAGEMENT STATUS OF SEAGRASS BEDS BORDERING THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
In the South China Sea region there has been a rapid rate of seagrass loss and decline in recent
years. Indonesia has lost about 30-40% of its seagrass beds, with as much as 60% being destroyed
around Java. In Singapore, the patchy seagrass habitats have suffered severe damage largely
through burial under landfil operations. In Thailand, losses of the beds amount to about 20-30% and
in the Philippines, it is about 30-50%. Very little information on seagrass loss is available from
Cambodia, China, Malaysia, and Viet Nam (UNEP, 2004).
During the sixth meeting of the RWG-SG, 39 seagrass sites in seven countries bordering the South
China Sea with an estimated total areas of 23,458 ha were identified: Cambodia (10,653 ha),
Indonesia (575 ha), Malaysia (222 ha), Philippines (3,295 ha), Thailand (2,553 ha), and Viet Nam
(4,200 ha).
During and after the seventh meeting of the RWG-SG, 44 seagrass sites were re-identified from
seven countries bordering the SCS. The total estimation of seagrass sites accounted for 73,769 ha; in
which 26,116 ha (35.4%) were added for management by 2012. Among 44 total seagrass sites;
Cambodia identified 33,814 ha from 4 sites, China identified 1,960 ha from 4 sites, Indonesia
identified 3,035 ha from 7 sites, Malaysia identified 222 ha from13 sites, Philippines identified 23,245
ha from 5 sites, Thailand identified 2,553 ha from 4 sites and Viet Nam identified 8,940 ha from 7
sites. Table 1 lists 44 seagrass sites and provides information regarding current management status.
Table 1
Status of Seagrass Management at the Country and Site Levels in the South China
Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
Target Area
to be Added
Area
Area under
Management
Country and Site Name
Legal Status
for
(ha)
Management
Effectiveness1
Management
by 2012
Cambodia 33,814
2,000
11,446
Kampong Sam Bay
164
No
No
N/A
0
Chroy Pros
3,910 MPA
2,000
Medium
0
Kampot
Proposed fish
25,240
No N/A
10,096
Sanctuary
Kep Beach & Koh Tonsay
4,500
No
No
N/A
1,350
China
1,960
150
700
Hepu seagrass bed
National Dugong
540
150 Medium
150
Reserve
Liusha seagrass bed
900 No2
No N/A 200
LiAn seagrass bed
Proposed
320
No N/A 200
Marine Park
Xincun seagrass bed
Proposed
200
No N/A 150
Marine Park
Indonesia
3,035
0
2,420
Medang-Mesanak
5
No No
N/A
5
Temiang
5
No No
N/A
5
East Bintan
2,000 No
No
N/A
1,500
Mapor
275 No
No
N/A
275
Anambas
150
No No
N/A
35
Bangka-Belitung 350
No No
N/A
350
Fenayang 250
Proposed MPA
No
N/A
250
1
Categories of Management Effectiveness: Low: Area declared or proposed to be declared for management; Management
Plan developed and approved. Medium: Existing Management Framework is implemented with inadequacy of manpower,
finance and/or equipment: High: Existing Management Framework is implemented with enough trained manpower,
equipment, facilities and sustainable finance.
2
Local Reserve.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 1 cont. Status of Seagrass Management at the Country and Site Levels in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
Target Area
to be Added
Area
Area under
Management
Country and Site Name
Legal Status
for
(ha)
Management
Effectiveness3
Management
by 2012
Malaysia
222
17
40
Tanjung Adung Laut Shoal
40
No
No
N/A 40
Tanjung Adung Darel Shoal
42
No
No
N/A 0
Merambong Shoal
30
No
No
N/A 0
Sungal Kemaman
17
No
No
N/A 0
Telaga Simpul
28
No
No
N/A 0
Sungal Paka Shoal
43
No No
N/A 0
Pulau Tinggl Mersing
3
Marine Park
3
Medium
0
Pulau Perhenlian
3
Marine Park
3
Medium
0
Pulau Redang
2
Marine Park
2
Medium
0
Setlu Terangannu
3
No No
N/A 0
Pulau Besar Mersing
3
Marine Park
3
Medium
0
Merchang 2
No No
N/A 0
Tunku Abdul Rahman Park
6
State Park
6
Medium
0
Philippines
23,245
6,641
6,920
Cape Bolinao
22,400 Environmentally
6,000 Medium
6,720
Critical Area
Puerto Galera
114 Man and
60 Low/Medium
50
Biosphere
reserve/fish
sanctuary
Ulugan Bay
11 Man and
11 Medium
0
Biosphere
reserve/fish
sanctuary
Honda Bay
470 Fish Sanctuary
320 Medium
150
Puerto Princesa
250 Protected Areas
250 Medium
0
Thailand 2,553
1,780
0
Kung Krabane Bay
700
No4
700 High
0
Tungka Bay
1,080
National Park
1,080
Low
0
Sarat Thani
500
No
No
N/A
0
Pattani Bay
273
No
No
N/A
0
Viet Nam
8,940
2,340
4,590
Bai Bon, Phu Quoc Island,
4,600 Phu
Qoc
2,000 Low
2,000
+
920
Kien Giang Province
National Park
Rach Vem, Phu Quoc Is,
900 Phu
Quoc
50 Low
50
+
270
Kien Giang Province
National Park
Con Dao Island, Ba Ria-
200 National
Park
200
Medium
0
Vung Tau Province
Phu Qui Island, Binh Thuan
400 Proposed
MPA
No
N/A
0
Province
Thuy Trieu, Khanh Hoa
800 Proposed
MPA
50
N/A
50+300
Province
Tam Giang, Cau Hai, Hue
2,000 Proposed
No N/A
1,000
Province
Ramsar
Cu Lao Cham, Quang Nam
40 MPA
40 Medium
0
Province
3
Categories of Management Effectiveness: Low: Area declared or proposed to be declared for management; Management
Plan developed and approved. Medium: Existing Management Framework is implemented with inadequacy of manpower,
finance and/or equipment: High: Existing Management Framework is implemented with enough trained manpower,
equipment, facilities and sustainable finance.
4
Under King's project.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 6
Page 3
THREATS
Major threats to the seagrass beds bordering the South China Sea were reviewed from the national
perspective during the 6th meeting of the RWG-SG. During the seventh meeting of the RWG-SG, the
relative importance of these threats from a regional perspective was considered and the threats
ranked from 1, the most important to 6, the least threat important threats to seagrass ecosystems in
the South China Sea.
Table 2
Regional ranking of threats to seagrass, by the members of RWG-SG.
Total
Threats
Ranking by each of Members
Ranking
Score
Destructive fishing such as push net, trawler
1
1
2
6
1
3
1
1
2
1
19
1
Sedimentation from coastal development
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
5
3
2
25
2
Waste water effluent
4
3
4
2
5
4
2
3
6
6
39
3
Nutrients
6
4
1
3
4
5
5
6
4
3
41
4
Coastal construction
3
5
5
5
2
2
6
4
5
4
41
5
Over-fishing
5
6
6
4
6
6
4
2
1
5
45
6
Table 3 provides detail of the threats of significance in each participating country.
GOAL
During the 6th meeting of the RWG-SG, there was agreement regarding the goal of the SAP with
respect to seagrass which was defined as:
"To conserve, manage and sustainably utilise seagrass habitats and
resources."
TARGETS
The specific targets for management and conservation of seagrass ecosystems in the SCS to be
included in the revised SAP were agreed as follows:
·
Twenty-one managed areas totalling 13,755 hectares (approximately 50% of the
23,458 hectares identified as potential demonstration sites and subjected to cluster
analysis) in the SCS, with a minimum of 2 managed sites in each of the 7
participating countries, by 2012.
·
"Adoption at a high level and implementation of the provisions of the National Action
Plans for Seagrass by all countries by 2012".
·
Government recognition of the ecological importance of seagrass through
amendment of the management plans for seven existing MPAs with significant areas
of seagrass habitat, to include specific seagrass-related management actions by the
year 2012.
·
Adoption of 7 new Marine Protected Areas specifically focussing on seagrass
habitats by the year 2012.
OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
The proposed regional activities to promote sustainable management and use of the Seagrass
ecosystems are categorised into five main components in Table 4; namely:
Component 1 Research and Monitoring:
Component 2 National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Co-ordination:
Component 3 Public awareness, Communication and Education:
Component 4 Capacity Building and Sustainability:
Component 5 Resource and Habitat Management.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 6
Page 4
Table 3
Threats to Seagrass.
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Region
- Unsustainable and
1. Building shrimp
- Destructive fishing
- Nutrient enrichment;
1. Habitat &
1. Over-fishing beyond - Destructive fishing
1. Destructive fishing
destructive fishing
ponds;
methods such as
- Runoff of sediment;
community
the natural carrying
methods;
such as push net,
practices;
2. Excessive
trawling & push net;
modifications;
capacity;
- Pollution: discharge
trawler;
- Pollution/
- Coastal reclamation;
Aquaculture with
- Uncontrolled soil/sand
2. Unsustainable
2. Fishery activities,
of heavy metals;
2. Sedimentation from
Sedimentation and
seawater;
mining on land and
- Sand mining;
fishing practices
which are detrimental
suspended sediments,
coastal development;
waste dumping;
3. Fishing by netting;
seabed;
- Traditional harvesting
e.g., use of fine
to the ecosystem,
nutrient loading and
3. Waste water
- Unsustainable
- Solid waste water from
of fishery resources;
mesh nets, over
i.e., push netting;
oils;
effluent;
Development in
4. Poisoning and
domestic and emerging - Illegal encroachment
harvesting of
3. Wastewater from
- Turbidity and
coastal areas;
electroforming
associated species,
4. Nutrients;
shrimps and
tourism activities;
of trawlers;
aquaculture, industry,
sedimentation;
- Seaweed farming;
e.g., crabs, fish;
5. Coastal construction;
exploding fish;
- Over reliance of local
- Destructive fishing
fishing boats, piers;
- Increase in freshwater;
- Collection of seagrass
3. Siltation/
6. Over-fishing.
5. Digging shellfish;
communities on fish
(fish blasting &
4. Increase
- Over fishing on
roots.
harvesting;
cyanide);
Sedimentation;
sedimentation from
6. Human Induced
Seagrass beds
4. Eutrophication or
topsoil erosion and
Pollution;
- Reclamation;
- Marine pollution.
(seahorses,
nutrient loading,
channel dredging.
Holothurians, etc.);
7. Port & sea-route
- Marine pollution by land
Domestic
digging;
based human activities
discharges;
- Reclamation of tidal
such as agriculture,
flats for fish pond and
8. Digging worms
human settlement,
5. Boat scour;
agricultural purposes;
and shellfish;
industrial and urban
6. Infestations
- Coastal construction:
9. Reclamation.
development, logging
(fungal, viral, insect).
dredging canals.
and land clearing.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 6
Page 5
Table 4
Proposed Regional Actions for Seagrass Management and Conservation.
Components
Sub-components
Regional Activities (For 2007 2012)
Objective
1. Research and Monitoring (Dr. Miguel Fortes, Mr. Tri Edi, Dr. Tien, and Dr. Xiaoping Huang)
To enhance, improve and
1.1 Resource Assessment
1.1.1 Enhance assessment of baseline information on seagrass from deeper waters
upgrade the knowledge and
and other unstudied areas (US$ 55,000) MF
understanding of the ecological
1.1.2 Adopt and implement a regional seagrass resource assessment and monitoring
and socio-economic importance
protocol (e.g., SeagrassNet and SeagrassWatch) (US$ 35,000) MF
of seagrass eco-system.
1.2 Mapping
1.2.1 Enhance the regional seagrass map (e.g. finer resolutions, using standardized
methods, technology) (US$ 80,000) TE
To establish a viable regional
1.3 Socio-economic and Cultural
1.3.1 Analysis of regional socio-economic and cultural aspects of seagrass
seagrass management plan.
Assessment
(e.g., for input into Eco valuation) (US$ 82,000) XH
1.3.2 Develop regional guidelines on socio-economic and cultural assessment related
to seagrass (US$ 70,000) XH
1.4 Database Management
1.4.1 Assemble information and data relating to seagrass habitats into a regional
seagrass database (US$ 42,000) MF
1.4.2 Expand and update the regional seagrass meta-database MF
1.5 Decision Support System
1.5.1 Regional synthesis of experiences at demonstration sites for policy support
(US$ 25,000) TE
2. National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Co-ordination (Dr. Hutomo and Mr. Kim Sour)
To codify and harmonise existing
2.1 Integration of Research Programme
2.1.1 Organise and develop the process of the integration of research programmes
policies and legislations.
with Management and Policy Making
with policy (US$ 300 x 3 days x 2 pers. x 7 countries = US$ 12,600) Dr. H
2.1.2 Develop guidelines or procedures to integrate research into management and
To ensure cross-sectoral and
policy making (1 per. x 7 countries x 15 days x US$ 300 = US$ 31,500) Dr. H
participatory approaches to
2.1.3 Integration of assessment results into local management plans. Dr. H
address threats of the root
2.2 Monitoring the Implementation
2.2.1 Maintain and enhance the existing network of regional working group
causes.
of NAPs
for seagrass KS
2.3 Strengthening Traditional Value
2.3.1 Compile ethnobotanical and traditional practices and management of seagrass
To assist countries in meeting
into Management System
considering their application in the modern context. KS
their obligations under multilateral
2.4 Establish an Incentive System
2.4.1 Development of criteria and award system for exemplary seagrass related projects
environmental agreements.
(1 WS. x 2 pers. x 7 countries x 3 days x US$ 300 = US$ 12,600) KS
2.5 Linkage to Regional and
2.5.1 Analysis of outcomes of project to enhance compliance to treaties, conventions,
International Obligations
agreements Dr. H
2.6 International and Regional
2.6.1 Participation in the international associations and network related to seagrass
Co-operation
(2 Mtgs. x 5 years x 10 members x US$ 1,000 = US$ 100,000) KS
3. Public Awareness, Communication and Education (Mr. Vibol and Dr. Montaño)
To enhance the acquisition of
3.1 Improve Government
3.1.1 Building partnerships through personnel exchange, specially among demonstration
knowledge and skills useful in
Services/Education Vibol
sites through meeting and site visit Meeting: 3/6 years* 30,000 USD = 90,000 USD
seagrass conservation and
3.1.2 Formulate the regional seagrass awareness syllabuses for formal and informal
management.
education Meeting: 1/6 years* 20,000 = 20,000 USD
3.2 Development, Improvement,
3.2.1 Compilation, selection, production and dissemination of awareness materials
and Dissemination of Awareness
of seagrass through media/website Consultancy: 3,000 USD* 3 = 9,000 USD
Materials Dr. M
Production: 20,000 USD* 3 = 60,000 USD
3.2.2 Develop the Seagrass Information Network for East Asia (SINEA) through national
seagrass websites linked to existing regional and global ones (US$ 25,000)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 6
Page 6
Table 4 cont. Proposed Regional Actions for Seagrass Management and Conservation.
Components
Sub-components
Regional Activities (For 2007 2012)
Objective
4. Capacity Building and Sustainability (Dr. Suvaluck and Mr. Kamarruddin bin Ibrahim)
To strengthen the capacity
4.1 Human Resource Development
4.1.1 Short and longer term training activities. Short term to include exchange
for sustainable seagrass
Dr. S + KbI
programmes and regular training in fields such as paralegal issues, stakeholder
management.
analysis, community empowerment, participatory approaches; enhancing use of
scientific data in EIA; Seagrass monitoring and management; GIS & remote
sensing; Community based management & monitoring, Control & Surveillance.
Long term: Provide scholarships for young scientists and etc.
4.2 Financial Sustainability and
4.2.1 Establish seagrass trust fund
Institutional Strengthening Dr. S + KbI
4.2.2 Strengthening and expanding regional col aboration
4.3 Network Establishment and
4.3.1 Annual conference
Strengthening Dr. S + KbI
4.3.2 Upgrade UNEP/GEF SCS Website
4.3.3 Periodical publications
4.3.4 Organising regional symposium for, stakeholders, scientists and managers
(2 Symposia x 150 pers. x US$ 300 = US$ 90,000)
5. Resource and Habitat Management (Dr. Miguel Fortes, Mr. Tri Edi, Dr. Tien, and Dr. Xiaoping Huang)
To establish integrated
5.1 Guidelines for Sustainable Use
5.1.1 Develop regional guidelines for sustainable use of seagrass and associated species
management of 13,755 (?) ha of
(in both degraded and less degraded areas) (US$ 20,000) TE
SG in the SCS;
5.2 Strengthening Management
5.2.1 Develop a regional training programme on seagrass management (US$ 30,000) TE
Component
To develop and implement the
5.3 Seagrass Rehabilitation
5.3.1 Undertake a regional synthesis of and pilot appropriate techniques for rehabilitating
coastal resources management
seagrass (US$ 65,000) MF
plan for sustainable use of SG
5.4 Community-based Seagrass
5.4.1 Develop guidelines based on regional synthesis of experiences in community-based
ecosystem.
Management
seagrass management (US$ 25,000) Dr. T
5.5 Environmentally Friendly
5.5.1 Compile, publish and disseminate environmentally friendly seagrass technologies
Technologies
in the region (US$ 45,000) XH
5.6 Types of Management Regimes,
5.6.1 Replicate successful models for conservation and management of seagrass
Development of Models
for use in the region (US$ 15,000) Dr. T
5.7 Alternative/ Complementary
5.7.1 Synthesis of successes in alternative or complementary livelihood programmes
Livelihood
using seagrass resources (US$ 22,000) MF
5.8 Establishment of Management
5.8.1 Promote transboundary management and zoning of seagrass for conservation of
Zones
marine endangered species (e.g., sea turtles and dugongs) (US$ 55,000) MF + TE
5.8.2 Establish a regional body for joint management of seagrass resources
(US$ 20,000) XH
5.8.3 Establish seagrass habitat corridors (US$ 15,000) XH
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 7
Page 1
ANNEX 7
Work Plan (2006-2008) and Schedule of Meetings for 2007
Table 1
Preliminary Work Plan for 2006-2008.
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 Committee meetings
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
National Technical Working Group
x
x
x
x
x
x
RWG-SG meetings
X
X
X
X
X
Provide information to RWG-SG and RSTC
Maintain national meta-database
Completion of Outstanding Tasks of the Original MoU
Publication of National Reports in local languages
Phil,
Ind,
VN,
Chi
Mal
Cam
Thai
Regional Publication of National Reports in English
x
Regional Distribution of English Language reports
X
Maintaining and updating GIS data and information
X
Maintaining and updating regional meta-database
X
Implementation of Demonstration Sites
Implementation of demonstration sites
Dr. Tien to circulate the Phu Quoc report
9-Aug
Finalisation, Adoption and Implementation of National Action Plans
Finalisation of National Action Plans
X
Adoption of National Action Plans
Chi,
Ind,
Cam-
Tha?
Mal,
Phi, Vie
Publication of NAPs
Cam.
X
National public meetings/workshops for awareness of the NAP
X
Finalisation of Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
SEAs to provide the data of economic value at site level
14-Aug
Focal Points of Cambodia, Indonesia and Philippines to provide the
7-Aug
complete data of Management Status of seagrass site
First draft of revised SAP for seagrass
X
Input from members to the PCU for the 2nd draft SAP
X
Initial posting of text for SAP activities
3-Aug
RWG-SG comments/amendments
23-Sept
Finalisation of the draft SAP for Seagrass (PCU)
1-Oct
The RWG-SG to comment to the PCU
30-Oct
Revision of draft - PCU
31-Dec
PCU circulates 2nd draft to RWG-SG for comment
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 7
Page 2
Table 1 cont.
Preliminary Work Plan for 2006-2008.
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 MA M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Implementation of the Regional Training Programme
Submission of Training proposals
X
Selection of implementing entities
X
Finalisation of the syllabus and training materials
X
Finalisation and signing of the MoU between UNEP
X
and the selected implementing entities
Nomination of trainees
X
Conduct of the regional training course
X
Conduct of national "echo" seminar
X
SEAs to provide a list of Significant Demersal Fish Species utilise
21-Aug
Seagrass Site as Nursery, Spawning and Feeding Areas
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.7/3
Annex 7
Page 3
Table 2
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