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
Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for
the Mangroves Sub-component
Busuanga Island, Palawan, Philippines, 1st 5th August 2005
__________________________________________________________________________________
UNEP/GEF
Bangkok, August 2005
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: Mangroves fringing a drowned valley on Busuanga Island, Philippines. John Pernetta,
5th August 2005.
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 Sixth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Table of Contents
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING........................................................................................................1
1.1 WELCOME ADDRESS ON BEHALF OF UNEP.................................................................................1
1.2 OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUSUANGA LOCAL GOVERNMENT ...........1
1.3 INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS...............................................................................................2
2. ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING ............................................................................................2
2.1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS.............................................................................................................2
2.2 DOCUMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................2
3. ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA.....................................................................................3
4. REPORTS REGARDING OVERALL PROGRESS TO DATE .......................................................3
4.1 STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS FOR 2004 AND 1ST HALF 2005: PROGRESS
REPORTS; EXPENDITURE REPORTS; AUDIT REPORTS; AND MOU AMENDMENTS ..........................3
4.2 CONSIDERATION OF PROGRESS IN FINALISING AND IMPLEMENTING THE DEMONSTRATION SITES ...4
5. UPDATE AND FINALISATION OF THE NATIONAL SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS .......................7
5.1 DISCUSSION REGARDING FINALISATION FOR UNEP PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL REPORTS IN
ENGLISH ...................................................................................................................................7
5.2 STATUS OF PUBLICATIONS IN LOCAL LANGUAGES........................................................................8
6. REVISION OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION
PROGRAMME ................................................................................................................................8
6.1 REVIEW OF REVISED NATIONAL ACTION PLANS...........................................................................8
6.2 DISCUSSION OF THE REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ADVICE REGARDING
THE GOALS AND TARGETS OF THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME ......................... 10
6.3 DISCUSSION FOR PREPARATION OF INPUTS FROM THE MANGROVE SUB-COMPONENT TO THE
DRAFT STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME..................................................................................12
7. UPDATE OF NATIONAL DATA FOR THE REGIONAL GIS DATABASE .................................13
8. REGIONAL DISSEMINATION OF EXPERIENCES DERIVED FROM THE MANGROVE
DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TRAINING
PROGRAMME DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
PROJECT .....................................................................................................................................13
8.1 PLANNING THE REGIONAL DISSEMINATION OF EXPERIENCES DERIVED FROM THE MANGROVES
DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES............................................................................................13
8.2 TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................15
9. CONSIDERATION OF THE FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES TO VALUE THE
IMPACTS OF LAND-BASED POLLUTION ON MANGROVES ..................................................15
9.1 FRAMEWORK FOR VALUING THE IMPACTS OF LAND-BASED POLLUTION ON MANGROVES..............15
9.2 PROCEDURES TO UNDERTAKE VALUATION OF THE IMPACTS OF LAND-BASED POLLUTION ON
MANGROVES ...........................................................................................................................16
9.3 CONSIDERATION AND REVIEW OF THE ELEMENTS OF ECONOMIC VALUATION CONTAINED IN
THE DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 16
10. PREPARATION OF INPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES
TO THE SECOND REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE.......................................................17
11. REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES 2005 - 2007 ......................................................................................19
i
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
12. DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES ..........................................................................................................19
13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS..............................................................................................................19
14. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING .....................................................................19
15. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING.....................................................................................................20
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
ANNEX 3
Agenda
ANNEX 4
Analysis of National Action Plan Contents and Identification of Regional
Actions for Inclusion in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
ANNEX 5
Revised Targets for the Mangrove Sub-component of the Regional Strategic
Action Programme
ANNEX 6
Proposals Regarding Training Needs and Opportunities in the Context of the
Demonstration Sites
ANNEX
7
Response to the Training Needs and Capacity Building Assessment
Questionnaire
ANNEX 8
Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Sub-component to June
30th 2007
ii
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
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 opened the meeting, at 0800 on 1st August 2005, and
welcomed all participants on behalf of the Executive Director of UNEP, Dr. Klaus Töpfer; and the
Assistant Executive Director, and Director of the UNEP Division of Global Environment Facility
Co-ordination, Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf. He noted that Dr. Djoghlaf would leave the Division on 1st January
2006 to assume responsibility as the Head of the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
1.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that the agenda was extremely full but that the group had four full working
days in which to complete the business before it. He noted that the agenda included finalisation of the
Peam Krasop and Batu Ampar demonstration sites and that time had been allocated during the
agenda to accomplish this important task. He noted further that on Friday a full day's field trip would
be organised to the Busuanga demonstration site.
1.1.3 Dr. Pernetta apologised to the Regional Working Group that the documents for the meeting
had been completed and distributed rather late and that there had been a lack of follow-up from the
last meeting noting that in part this stemmed from a backlog of work resulting from the continued
under-staffing of the PCU in the recent past. He informed the meeting that he was pleased to report
that as of June this year the Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) now had a full staff complement; that
Dr. Vo Si Tuan former National Technical Focal Point for Viet Nam had been appointed as Senior
Expert and replacement for Mr. Yihang Jiang; that Mr. Christopher Paterson had been appointed as
the fisheries Associate Expert to replace Mr. Kelvin Passfield; and that, Mr. Kim Sour had been
appointed as Associate Expert - Natural Sciences. He welcomed Mr. Kim Sour to his first meeting of
the Regional Working Group on Mangroves (RWG-M) and noted that he would serve as secretary to
the meeting.
1.2
Opening Statement by the Representative of the Busuanga Local Government
1.2.1 Mr. Florendo Barangan informed the meeting that the Mayor of Busuanga was unable to
attend the meeting as planned due to illness but that Mr. Edwin Cac, Community Environment and
Natural Resources Officer, and Acting Chief of the local DENR Office was able to attend. He
welcomed all participants on behalf of the Government of the Philippines and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, and wished them a pleasant stay on Busuanga Island.
1.2.2 The Vice-Mayor of Busuanga municipality, Mr. Tammy Cruz, came to welcome all participants
on the second day. The Vice-Mayor welcomed participants and expressed his pleasure on behalf of
the Municipal Government that the working group had chosen to convene its' meeting on Busuanga
Island and that Busuanga had been selected as one of the mangrove demonstration sites in the
framework of the South China Sea Project. The Vice-Mayor, briefed the meeting on the Busuanga
eco-tourism development, and said that the improvement of mangrove habitat would make an
important contribution to this development. He noted that his government accorded mangrove
conservation and sustainable use a very high priority. He wished the meeting every success and
stated that he looked forward to showing the members the demonstration site on Friday.
1.2.3 In thanking the Vice-Mayor for his warm welcome the Project Director, noted that the SCS
project was a regional project with 7 countries participating, which encompassed the whole area of the
South China Sea. He noted that during the preparatory phase, the project had focussed more on
intergovernmental levels of co-ordination and collaboration but that during the operational phase the
focus was shifting towards the involvement of local governments and communities in the framework of
the demonstration sites. Dr. Pernetta noted that the Regional Working Group was pleased to visit
Busuanga Island and he looked forward to continuing to work with the local government and
communities of Busuanga over the next three years.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 2
1.3 Introduction
of
Participants
1.3.1 Dr. Pernetta invited participants to introduce themselves noting with regret that the three
regional experts were unable to attend this meeting. There followed a tour de table during which
participants introduced themselves to the meeting and provided brief information regarding their
involvement with the project. The List of Participants is attached as Annex 1 to this report.
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1 Election
of
Officers
2.1.1 Members recalled that at the first meeting of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves
(RWG-M) held in Phuket, Thailand, 29 April 1 May 2002, Dr. Sonjai Havanond, Focal Point from
Thailand, Dr. Hangqing Fan, Focal Point from China, and Mr. Florendo Barangan were elected as,
Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur respectively. During the fifth meeting Mr. Nyoto
Santoso, Focal Point for Indonesia, Professor Gong Wooi Khoon expert member from Malaysia and
Dr. Nguyen Hoang Tri expert member from Viet Nam, were elected as Chairperson, Vice-
Chairperson, and Rapporteur respectively.
2.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that the Rules of Procedure state that, the Regional Working Group shall
elect, from amongst the members, a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur to serve for one
year. The rules state further that, officers shall be eligible for re-election no more than once.
Mr. Santoso was therefore eligible for re-election. Regrettably the three expert members of the
working group were unable to be present during the meeting hence neither Professor Gong, nor
Dr. Tri could be re-elected.
2.1.3 The Project Director called for nominations to the positions of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson
and Rapporteur of the Regional Working Group on Mangroves. Dr. Pernetta nominated and
Mr. Barangan seconded Mr. Santoso as Chairperson. Mr. Santoso nominated Mr. Barangan and Mr. Ke
Vongwattana as Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur. There being no further nominations Mr. Santoso,
Mr. Barangan, and Mr. Vongwattana were duly elected by acclamation, as Chairperson, Vice-
Chairperson, and Rapporteur respectively. Mr. Santoso assumed the Chair, and expressed his
appreciation to the group for their confidence in his abilities as Chairperson.
2.2
Documentation and Administrative Arrangements
2.2.1 The Project Director introduced the discussion and information documents available to the
meeting, which included the published reports from the last round of working group meetings. He
noted that documents had been lodged on the project website and invited members to table any
additional documents including copies of new national publications if any. He noted that the copies of
the Indonesian National Mangrove Strategy together with the national report and a document on the
economic valuation of mangroves in Indonesia were available to members together with copies of the
first newsletter from the Fangchenggang demonstration site, and the national report in local language
from Viet Nam. The list of documents is attached as Annex 2 to this report.
2.2.2 The Project Director noted that several discussion documents would require extensive
amendment and modification during the meeting including the analysis of the draft National Action
Plans and the previously distributed questionnaire assessment of training and capacity building
needs. The former was required in order that the PCU might draft a revised Strategic Action
Programme for consideration of the RSTC and PSC in December and the latter in order to complete
the proposed training programme for approval by the PSC. He expressed the hope that members
would be able to complete the questionnaire promptly so that the results could be compiled into a
single document for consideration of the meeting.
2.2.3 The Project Director then introduced the draft programme contained in document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/Inf.3 noting that the arrangement for sessions included the opportunity for
finalising the demonstration site proposals. He noted that the meeting would be conducted largely in
plenary and wholly in English but that, breakout sessions and smaller working groups might be formed
to consider specific matters of substance as circumstances demanded.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 3
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
3.1.1 The
Chairperson
introduced
the Provisional Agenda prepared by the Project Co-ordinating
Unit (PCU) as document, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/1, and the Annotated Provisional Agenda,
document, UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/2. Members were invited to propose any amendments or
additional items for consideration, and to adopt the agenda.
3.1.2 No amendments or additional items were proposed and the meeting agreed to adopt the
agenda as proposed. The Agenda is attached as Annex 3 to this report.
4. REPORTS
REGARDING
OVERALL PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of the Administrative Reports for 2004 and 1st half 2005: Progress Reports;
Expenditure Reports; Audit Reports; and MoU Amendments
4.1.1 The Project Director, was invited by the Chairperson to introduce document, UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-M.6/4, "Current status of budgets and reports from the Specialised Executing Agencies in
the participating countries" and to draw to the attention of the meeting any outstanding issues or
matters requiring the attention of the working group.
4.1.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that the table of the status of reports was incomplete since subsequent to
its compilation draft six-monthly reports for the period of January to June 2005 had been received
from Cambodia, and Thailand, but no reports had been received from China, Philippines, and Viet
Nam. Dr. Do Din Sam subsequently submitted the reports from Viet Nam. He noted that all audit
reports had been received and that all reports for 2004 were now finalised.
4.1.3 Regarding co-financing, the Project Director noted that the team of evaluators conducting the
Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR), who had participated in the fifth meeting of the Regional
Working Group had been impressed with the efforts made in tracking co-financing in this project.
4.1.4 The Project Director noted that the PCU needed to improve the tracking of co-financing
following the agreement of the PSC that the participating countries would increase their cash
co-financing to the costs of national co-ordination meetings. The fourth meeting of the PSC had
agreed that the format of the six monthly reports should be modified to include provision for recording
of both cash and in-kind co-financing. Dr. Pernetta noted that if the promised cash co-financing was
not forthcoming, then he would bring the matter to the attention of the PSC.
4.1.5 Dr. Pernetta referred members to Table 4 of the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/4
containing the record of in-kind government co-financing to December 2004 for of the Mangrove Sub-
component. He noted further that in-kind co-financing was important as an indicator of the
commitment of participating countries in the area of mangrove management. He noted that the actual
co-financing realised during the preparatory phase was high in comparison with the estimates,
indicating a strong commitment on the part of both the members and the governments to this
sub-component of the project.
4.1.6 Dr. Sam noted that he had received the new format from Ms. Nita and was submitting his six
month reports for the period January to June 2005 during the meeting. He requested clarification
regarding the definition of co-financing since he had received funds from the government for research
activities that were not directly related to the South China Sea (SCS) project, and wondered whether
these could be considered as co-financing. The Project Director noted that this needed to be decided
on a case-by-case basis. If for examples the funds were to support applied research activities that
contributed to the goals of the SCS project, then they could be considered as co-financing. However,
if the activities could not be related either in terms of area in which the actions were undertaken or in
terms of purpose then they could not be considered as co-financing.
4.1.7 Mr. Santoso noted that the six-monthly report from Indonesia had not included co-financing
support from the private sector and local government. The Project Director responded that the new
format allowed focal points to provide details of all cash and in-kind co-financing received regardless
of source.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 4
4.1.8 Mr. Barangan noted that the Philippines has some difficulty in estimating co-financing since
actions in mangrove management covered the entire country not merely the coastline bordering the
South China Sea. He also noted that if he approached senior management of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the additional cash co-financing agreed by the PSC he was
likely to be advised that this should be taken from his existing departmental budget due to financial
constraints. Dr. Pernetta noted that from his recollection of the discussions the cash co-financing
should have been new and additional.
4.1.9 Dr. Sonjai noted that mangroves in Thailand are found along both the Gulf of Thailand and
the Andaman Sea coasts of Thailand and asked whether co-financing from the Andaman coast
should be included in the SCS project records as co-financing. Dr. Pernetta responded that the
activities in the Andaman Sea could not be considered as co-financing since they were beyond the
geographic area of coverage of the project. He further noted that some other projects in the Gulf of
Thailand could not be considered as co-financing since the activities were not directly linked to the
activities of the SCS project.
4.1.10 Dr. Fan commented that co-financing derived from other activities should be considered as
co-financing if it met two criteria: 1) the actions were located in the same demonstration site or area of
intervention of the SCS project; 2) if the actions led to achieving the same goals as the South China
Sea Project. The Project Director noted that where successes were transferred from one
demonstration site to other sites then the funds utilised at the second site should be considered as
additional leveraged financing rather than as co-financing per se.
4.1.11 Mr. Vongwattana pointed out that the co-financing for the Peam Krasop demonstration site
was small and did not meet the 1:1 co-financing ratio agreed by the PSC. He noted however that the
Minister had agreed to make a special request to cabinet for financing once the GEF grant funding
had been approved and the volume of required co-financing identified. Dr. Pernetta noted that the
particular problems of Cambodia had been noted by the PCU and that the combination of the Peam
Krasop and Trat activities meant that the shortfall in the Cambodian contribution to the co-financing
was covered by the excess co-financing ratio in Trat.
4.2
Consideration of Progress in Finalising and Implementing the Demonstration Sites
4.2.1 The Chairperson invited the focal points to make presentations regarding the status of the
mangrove demonstration sites. Dr. Pernetta noted that copies of the signed documents for
Fangchenggang and Trat Province had been lodged on the project website whilst the most recent
versions of the Batu Ampar and Busuanga proposals were contained in the meeting documents as
documents UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/5, and UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/6, respectively.
4.2.2 Mr. Santoso made a PowerPoint presentation of the Batu Ampar proposal reviewing the
mangrove status in Batu Ampar, West Kalimantan, and providing information on the historical uses of
mangrove in Batu Ampar; the biodiversity of the area the socio-economic context, the main threats
and conflicts in the area; the goal, objectives, activities, and budget. He noted that the document was
near final and that a few outstanding matters required clarification and finalisation before signature of
the document. He expressed the hope that these matters could be resolved during the present
meeting.
4.2.3 Dr. Sonjai asked for an explanation regarding the production of "white" charcoal and the
difference between this and "black" charcoal. Mr. Santoso noted that, "white" charcoal is generally
produced by, private sector operators using a process that involves up to 15 days for completion. In
contrast the production of black charcoal was a subsistence activity and that the production time was
around 45. He noted that white charcoal was a better product with a higher carbon value produced
largely for export, whilst black charcoal entered the subsistence sector in the area.
4.2.4 Dr. Sonjai requested clarification regarding the designation of the area boundaries and how
areas were determined and permits issued. Mr. Santoso noted that uses of mangrove are separated
into discrete areas each regulated by permit. Dr. Sonjai noted that although shrimp farming currently
occupies only a small area it is a powerful source of change once introduced into an area.
He expressed the hope that the area designated for shrimp farming would be limited and that
expansion of the area would be controlled. During the discussion Mr. Santoso noted that the source of
financing for the shrimp farms in Batu Ampur was private sector shrimp producers.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 5
4.2.5 In response to a query regarding the regeneration of mangrove following cutting for charcoal
production Mr. Santoso noted that cutting was selective and that "mother" trees were left to provide a
source of propagules. Most regeneration was natural but after one year an inspection was undertaken
and enrichment planting conducted to ensure full canopy cover in the regrowth area.
4.2.6 Dr. Pernetta and Dr. Sonjai queried why plot boundaries were not designated by, marking
trees but rather by attaching boards, which could be easily removed completely or, moved to suit the
plot concessionaire. Mr. Santoso noted that it was a National Government regulation that plot
boundaries be marked with boards and that there was indeed a problem of them being moved and
removed. There followed a discussion regarding the value and sale of propagules and Mr. Santoso
noted that propagules from the Batu Ampur site were being sold for replanting elsewhere in West
Kalimantan at a price for Rhizophora of, 1$/200 propagules. The group considered this very cheap
compared to the price in Thailand of 1$/100 propagules. In Viet Nam the price of propagules is
comparable to that of Thailand but in the Philippines the price of propagules was more expensive
1$/50 propagules.
4.2.7 Dr. Sonjai presented the Trat province demonstration site noting that all members had visited
the site during the previous meeting. He provided an overview of the mangroves in Trat province,
which lies close to the border with Cambodia and the counterpart Peam Krasop demonstration site.
Dr. Sonjai provided an overview of the history of the past use of mangrove and the present
management system, which is based on a community based management approach and noted that
activities included training, community consultation, and mangrove re-planting by local communities.
4.2.8 When asked by Mr. Barangan whether seedlings were collected from the wild, Dr. Sonjai
noted that propagules were collected and some were planted directly and some were retained in a
nursery until around the 6-8 leaf stage before being planted out as replacements for mortality amongst
the planted propagules.
4.2.9 Dr. Pernetta requested clarification regarding the status of the demonstration site activities
following signature of the MoU. Dr. Sonjai stated that activities had not yet commenced but that he
had recently met with the Trat Province Governor to discuss the formal commencement of activities
later this month. He noted that the Governor intended to invite his counterpart from Cambodia and
noted further that many people in the Cambodian demonstration site areas spoke Thai, hence
materials produced for community awareness in Thailand could be directly used in Cambodia.
4.2.10 Mr. Santoso requested clarification on the role of the volunteers and Dr. Sonjai noted that the
network of volunteers, consisted of individuals who worked as protection officers and controlled the
use of mangrove resources, which were regulated on a community basis. For example, sesarmid
crabs were an important source of income to the Pred Nai Village and the community had decided
that female crabs should not be harvested. Offenders were "fined" by the community and the outcome
appeared to be a fully sustainable harvest, which provides significant income to the community.
4.2.11 Mr. Vongwattana presented an overview of the Cambodian proposal for the Peam Krasop
Wild Life Sanctuary in Koh Kong Province, which is a transboundary site adjacent to Trat province in
Thailand. He noted that the demonstration site area included part of a RAMSAR site; that it was one
of 23 designated protected areas in Cambodia; and that it included Koh Kapik within the area.
Mr. Vongwattana noted that the proposal had been approved by, the local government and that they
had agreed to limited co-financing in both cash and kind.
4.2.12 Mr. Vongwattana briefed the meeting on the contents of the proposal including the threats,
goal, objectives, outcomes, planned activities, stakeholders, executing agencies, management
framework and budget. Dr. Sonjai requested clarification regarding the process of approval and in
response Mr. Vongwattana stated that it was already approved by, the government but that, the
operational document was still in the process of finalisation.
4.2.13 Dr. Pernetta sought clarification regarding the statement in the proposal that 43 species1 of
true mangroves were found at the site, a statement which appeared not to conform with the
information previously assembled by the working group, which had noted there were 46 species of
1 Mr. Vongwattana subsequently informed the meeting that the number of species should be 34, not 43.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 6
true mangrove around the South China Sea only 31 of which were recorded from Cambodia.
Mr. Vongwattana stated he would check this and perhaps what had happened was that the number
represented both true and associate mangrove species.
4.2.14 In response to Dr. Sonjai's and Mr. Santoso's query about private charcoal production;
Mr. Vongwattana said that it was legal at the community level but commercial production was not
allowed in Peam Krasop demonstration site. Dr. Pernetta noted with concern that about 90% of the
population were migrants from other provinces. He foresaw difficulties in establishing community-
based management under such circumstances since there would be no tradition of managing use nor,
established land ownership or, tenurial rights.
4.2.15 The Project Director sought clarification regarding the status of the draft proposed Ministerial
Declaration between the two countries. Dr. Sonjai pointed out that the Office of Environmental Policy
and Planning had stated that since the South China Sea project was a jointly agreed and approved
programme they felt that there was no need for such a declaration. Dr. Pernetta pointed out that on
the contrary there was every need for such a joint commitment since the funding for each component
was passed to Cambodia and Thailand separately and unless there was a clear agreement at the
highest level on co-operation in the framework of this project there would be no means of insisting on
such collaboration should it fail to materialise.
4.2.16 It was agreed that Dr. Sonjai would discuss the possibility of a joint declaration to be signed
by the governors of both Provinces affirming their support to the principles of collaboration in the
framework of the activity and that perhaps this could be signed at the time of the proposed "opening"
ceremony for the project. It was further agreed that the focal points from Cambodia should also be
present.
4.2.17 Dr. Fan made a presentation regarding the status of the demonstration site in
Fangchenggang China. He focussed on the activities to date, noting that the management
arrangements had been finalised including administrative framework, financial allocations, and that a
first workshop and training course had been held.
4.2.18 Dr. Fan noted some of his personal experiences and problems to date, and outlined the
proposed capacity building and training/student research activities that had already been initiated. He
currently had a Masters student studying the germination and production of Heritiera littoralis, noting
that without damage or removal of the pericarp, germination was extremely slow. He informed the
meeting that the first edition of the sites' newsletter had been published and that technical criteria
regarding mangrove replanting had been agreed and the outcome published. He further noted that
three articles had appeared in the national press written by himself and the Site Manager. [Chinese
Green Times newspaper, role of local government, Ocean Management].
4.2.19 In response to Mr. Santoso`s query regarding the area of the demonstration site that is not
mangroves, Dr. Fan pointed out that the site encompassed sub-tidal areas used for pearl farming,
some abandoned shrimp ponds, and rice paddy.
4.2.20 Mr. Barangan presented the Philippines' proposal for the demonstration site in Busuanga. He
started by noting that the "site" consisted of several areas of mangrove within the Municipality of
Busuanga on the Island of Busuanga. He noted that in total there was approximately 125 ha
containing 18 species of true mangroves, and many species of other fauna and flora some of which
were considered endangered.
4.2.21 Mr. Barangan outlined the problems in the area related to mangroves, and the goal, and
objectives of the activity. He noted that the main activities included propagation of multi-species
plantation of mangroves, protection and multi-use zoning, awareness building, alternative livelihood
development including a pilot test of eco-tourism at the community level, and community networking
at local levels. Mr. Barangan outlined the management framework of the demonstration site including
the executing agencies and involved stakeholders, sustainability of the project, and prospects for
replication in other areas.
4.2.22 Dr. Sonjai noted that since the main purpose of the project, was demonstration of community-
based mangrove management it would be appropriate to link closely with the activities planned in the
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 7
Trat and Peam Krasop's demonstration sites. Mr. Santoso asked what was meant by enrichment
planting and Mr. Barangan responded that this referred to artificially enhancing the density of young
seedlings to increase the animal production from the habitat. In response to a query from Dr. Sonjai,
Mr. Barangan noted that the abandoned shrimp farm areas were targeted for mangrove reforestation
under the project.
4.2.23 Dr. Sam provided a brief description of the Xuan Thuy/Balat Estuary site in the Red River
delta in northern Viet Nam. He noted that he and the wetland focal point, had undertaken a field visit
to the area and it was agreed that the purpose of the site was primarily to protect the habitat of
important migratory birds. The activities proposed include the establishment of management board
including both the park and local, authorities; establishment of an aquaculture model; honey
collection; and a sound development and management plan for the site as both a National Park and
RAMSAR site. It was divided into three zones, namely, core zone, ecological rehabilitation zone, and
buffer zone.
4.2.24 In response to a question from Dr. Sonjai, Dr. Sam responded that the core zone was an area
were no human activity was permitted but that in the buffer zone controlled use was permitted. He
noted this was the only RAMSAR site declared by Viet Nam's government for mangrove conservation
and that, about 70% of the existing mangrove area is covered by, the RAMSAR site.
5.
UPDATE AND FINALISATION OF THE NATIONAL SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS
5.1
Discussion Regarding Finalisation for UNEP Publication of National Reports in English
5.1.1 Members were advised that national reports had not yet been edited for publication in English
and that the PCU has not yet received final versions incorporating amendments following review from
a number of countries. The status of these reports was presented in document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-M.6/7.
5.1.2 Dr. Pernetta drew the attention of participants to their prior agreements as documented under
agenda item 4 on pages 2 and 3 of the report of the fifth meeting of the RWG-M regarding the
preparatory phase outputs, noting that the GIS databases were to have been submitted in September
2004. He noted that no final Philippines national report had been received and that some reports such
as the national report from Thailand appeared not to have been revised subsequent to the regional
reviews. The PCU has apparently not received the meta-database and GIS data from Indonesia and
Thailand, and only a partial meta-databases from Viet Nam. Members were requested to discuss and
agree on the final form and timetable for publication of these reports.
5.1.3 Dr. Sonjai noted that he understood that his staff had submitted the GIS data, however, he
agreed to check this by phone the following day and get his staff to resend this to the PCU and SEA
START RC during the meeting.
5.1.4 Mr. Santoso stated that the Meta-database and GIS database have not been finalised but that
these would be dispatched to the PCU by the end of September. Dr. Pernetta noted that he could not
disperse any further money until the outputs from the preparatory phase had been received.
5.1.5 Dr. Sam promised the Project Director that he would send the meta-database immediately
following the meeting.
5.1.6 Dr. Pernetta noted that the PCU needed all reports in order to publish these in a consolidated
volume. He asked all members to check dates and version of the reports held by the PCU and noted
that the process of publication of the mangrove reports was behind in comparison with three other
Working Groups.
5.1.7 Dr. Fan noted that the version of the national report from China held by the PCU was the
most up-to-date.
5.1.8 The Project Director noted that Indonesia had published 13 separate reports on mangroves in
each of the provinces bordering the South China Sea, together with a consolidated report and a
publication on the economic valuation of mangroves in Indonesia. He noted that this was different
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 8
from the other countries, and requested advice from the meeting on how to publish these outputs at
the regional level. Dr. Fan noted that in the case of China he had also produced three Provincial
reports, which had subsequently been consolidated into the single national report. He informed the
meeting that it was the intention of SEPA to publish the national reports from all the components in a
single consolidated volume.
5.1.9 The Project Director proposed, and the meeting agreed that the consolidated report on the
flora and fauna of Indonesian mangroves would be formally published as the Indonesian National
report, while the thirteen individual provincial reports would be scanned and lodged on the project
website.
5.2
Status of Publications in Local Languages
5.2.1 Members were reminded that national reports were to have been published by the focal
points in national languages for distribution in each country by June 30th 2004. Dr. Pernetta noted that
Indonesia, China and Viet Nam had published their national reports and that the PCU had copies, he
requested clarification from the other focal points regarding the status of their reports.
5.2.2 Dr. Sonjai said that the national report of mangroves in Thai has not been published yet, but
noted that a contract had been agreed with a publisher to produce the report and he anticipated that
copies would be available within two months of the meeting.
5.2.3 Mr. Vongwattana noted that the national report on mangroves in Cambodia had been
translated into Khmer, edited, and put into a camera ready format. He promised that the report would
be published and copies dispatched to the PCU by the end August 2005.
5.2.4 Mr. Barangan noted that he had just received the final draft from the sub-contractor and that
he would finalise the national report for local publication by the end of September 2005. He asked for
clarification about the format of the report, and in response the Project Director said that any style
could be used for publication of the report at the national level.
5.2.5 The Project Director requested, and the meeting agreed, to allow the PCU to scan the front
pages of all nationally published reports and upload these to the website with information on the
contact, should individuals visiting the website wish to obtain copies in the local language.
6.
REVISION OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION
PROGRAMME
6.1
Review of Revised National Action Plans
6.1.1 Members were reminded that during the fifth meeting of the Regional Working Group on
Mangroves it was agreed that, second drafts of the National Action Plans (NAPs) would be produced
no later than January 2005, and that final drafts were to have been produced no later that June 30th
2005. Revised NAPs were received only from Cambodia, China and Viet Nam and were included in
the documents as UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/8.Cam; 6/8.China; 6/8.Viet. The revised Indonesian
NAP was tabled in hard copy at the meeting and the original drafts for Thailand and the Philippines
were reproduced for the information of the meeting as documents UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Thai
and UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Phil respectively.
6.1.2 Members recalled that during the fifth meeting an extensive analysis of the contents of the
draft plans was conducted, the outcomes of which were presented in Annexes 5 and 6 of document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3. The Chairperson invited members to: discuss the content of the revised
action plans in relation to the analysis referred to above, and to advise on any further elaborations
which might be required; and to discuss and agree the timetable and work plan for the finalisation of
the National Action Plans taking into account the delays in undertaking the first revisions.
6.1.3 The Project Director noted that analysing the content of the NAPs was an important step in
identifying the elements that should be included in the revised Strategic Action Programme (SAP),
and noted further that it was the responsibility of the PCU to prepare the first draft for consideration by
the next meeting of the Project Steering Committee. Where an action was included by only one
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 9
country its importance from the perspective of the SAP might be lower than actions, which were
included by several countries. The Project Director requested that the meeting review the revised
NAPs and adjust the tables accordingly.
6.1.4 Dr. Pernetta drew the attention of members to Annex 5 of the report of the 5th meeting of
RWG-M, and went on to tables 1 to 6 of Annex 6 of the Analysis of National Action Plan contents. The
Chairperson invited each Focal Point to indicate whether elements not originally included in Annex 5
had now been added and to amend the cells accordingly.
6.1.5 Mr. Vongwattana noted that the revision of the Cambodian NAP had been extensive and that
in revising the contents they had adhered to the contents of the tables such that now all cells in the
table were complete. Dr. Fan, Dr. Sam and Mr. Santoso made minor adjustments to the contents of
the tables in relation to the revised NAPs for China, Viet Nam and Indonesia. Mr. Barangan assigned
priority rating for the NAP contents of the Philippines, noting that these ratings were being assigned in
anticipation of the revision of the NAP. Dr. Sonjai noted that the NAP for Thailand would be revised
during the next few months and revised the tables in anticipation of the likely changes.
6.1.6 Mr. Santoso noted that in Indonesia the timeframe had been divided into two phases, short
and longer terms and suggested that this should be the same for other NAPs. There followed a
discussion of suitable time frames and Dr. Pernetta pointed out that the RSTC had suggested
timeframes of 2012 and 2017 (5 and 10 years) assuming that the SAP was approved in 2007.
Dr. Pernetta noted two points in relation to this: firstly longer term plans were generally less detailed
and concrete providing more of a strategic direction; and, secondly short term plans were more
detailed and operational. The purpose of the longer timeframe was to provide overall direction for
future revisions and more detailed planning during implementation.
6.1.7 Regarding Indonesia's NAP, Mr. Santoso remarked that a lot of money from the Indonesia
Government was being directed in support of mangrove reforestation and management in the wake of
the tsunami tragedy. For regional coordination and networking, Mr. Santoso noted that this was not
considered an immediate benefit to Indonesia, so the NAP focused on only actions at the national
level. Mr. Santoso further noted that, the benefits from regional coordination were sometimes
unforeseen and cited the example that following a presentation by him in Batam, the Municipal
Government had sent several officers to see the work of the Kung Kraben, Chantaburi Province
mangrove demonstration site of the King's Project in Thailand. Dr. Pernetta noted that there was a
need to demonstrate the concrete benefits of regional co-operation in order to convince both the
Governments and potential donors of the value of such actions even though the transaction costs
might be high. Mr. Santoso responded that he was being requested to make presentations at least
once a month on the work of the mangrove component and that as a consequence the South China
Sea Project was quite well known in Indonesia.
6.1.8 Dr. Fan also noted that following a visit by him to Indonesia he had presented information to
Chinese stakeholders regarding mangrove management in Indonesia and that he considered this an
example of the regional transfer of experience. He further noted that regional planning was very
important since it could provide many opportunities for regional exchange of experience and transfer
of techniques and experience.
6.1.9 Mr. Barangan noted that the NAP for the Philippines included an estimate for regional
co-operation but that he felt it unlikely this would be approved since the DENR focussed on the
national perspective only. Mr. Barangan also noted that the NAPs for mangroves for many countries
included areas beyond the South China Sea.
6.1.10 Dr. Sam noted that it was the intention of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
to combine the component NAPs and to approve these as a single package. He noted further that
there were two levels of possible approval: approval by the government; and approval by the ministry.
He noted that the latter process might be more difficult since mangroves were managed by, the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development.
6.1.11 Dr. Fan noted that it was difficult for him to extract the information from the China NAP to
include in the table since the organisation of the contents was not directly comparable. He noted
however, that the content of the revised NAP encompassed essentially all items listed in the table.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 10
Dr. Fan noted that it required between 5 and 10 years for the Chinese government to adopt a
"national" plan and consequently he was focussing on Provincial level approval. Dr. Pernetta
requested clarification regarding the budget and Dr. Fan responded stating that the budget figures
were estimates and that at this stage it was impossible to state how much would be provided by the
government.
6.1.12 Dr. Pernetta requested Dr. Fan to re-organize the items in Table 2 of Annex 6 to reflect the
organisation of the National Action Plan. Dr. Fan agreed to rearrange the activities of the NAP and
insert them in the appropriate points of the table.
6.1.13 Mr. Santoso stated that there would be a meeting to finalize and adopt the NAP for mangrove
this year and hence it would not commence implementation until 2006, consequently the timeframe
should be adjusted by one 1 year. He noted further that the budget was a framework budget lacking
detail, and was not included in the Action Plan as presented.
6.1.14 Mr. Barangan requested clarification regarding the targets and the Project Director suggested
that the plan of Viet Nam provided some good examples. Targets should be explicit and might include
for example the number of hectares of mangrove to be replanted by a specified date, or the numbers
of individuals trained and working in mangrove management by a certain date.
6.1.15 The tables were reviewed amended and are attached as Annex 4 to this report.
6.2
Discussion of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee Advice Regarding the
Goals and Targets of the Regional Strategic Action Programme
6.2.1 Members were invited by the Chairperson to note the outcome of discussions during the fifth
meeting of the RWG-M during which it had been agreed to revise the regional target contained in the
draft SAP as follows:
7.2.13 It was finally agreed that national targets be set, for the purpose of arriving
at a provisional target for the SAP, with the concession that they may be changed
in the future if required. The provisional target for the SAP was that 66% of the
present area should be brought under protection by the year 2010. It was also
agreed that an email discussion would be required after this meeting to further
refine the targets, if any progress was to be made before the next meeting.
6.2.2 The Project Director noted that the fifth meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee in Fangchenggang, December 2004 had considered the goals and targets proposed by
the Regional Working Groups and noted that:
10.2.5 The Committee considered the possible target year(s) for the revised
SAP. It was agreed that, assuming the SAP would be adopted and implemented by
2007, then five and ten-year milestones would be 2012 and 2017, and these
should be used by the Regional Working Groups.
10.2.6 The meeting proceeded to review each goal and target proposed by the
Regional Working Groups, and provided comments for the Regional Working
Groups to consider during the next meeting. The revised goals and targets for each
component and sub-component, along with RSTC comments, are presented as
Annex 8 to this report.
6.2.3 Dr. Pernetta noted that Annex 8 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.5/3 contained the
following comment relating to the agreed revised targets for mangroves:
The RWG-M should consider the definition of "protection" and ensure common
understanding of "protection" in the region. It was pointed out in Indonesia and
Philippines "protection" means "non-use" of timber and other forest products.
6.2.4 Members were invited to discuss this comment from the RSTC and to consider what actions if
any should be taken during the present meeting with respect to the SAP targets for Mangroves.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 11
6.2.5 Dr. Pernetta noted that in general the word "protection" is taken to mean "non-use" of timber
and other forest products. Dr. Sonjai noted that "protected" areas in Thailand could be used for non-
extractive use such as eco-tourism or education. There followed an extensive discussion of how to re-
formulate the targets in such as way as to indicate clearly the status of the different forms of
management of mangrove forest areas, found in the region.
6.2.6 Dr. Pernetta sought clarification from Mr. Vongwattana regarding the Cambodian target of
having all mangrove areas in Cambodia accorded "protected" status and asked whether it was really
the intention of the Cambodian Government to transfer 90% of the mangrove area to marine
protected areas. Mr. Vongwattana responded that it was indeed the intention of the Government that
90% of the total mangrove area be accorded protected status.
6.2.7 Dr. Sam noted that in Viet Nam the word "protection forest" was applied to areas that can be
used and "special use forest" encompassed parks and national reserves which cannot be cut, while
Mr. Santoso noted that, based on Indonesia's policy, "conservation areas" except for natural reserves,
could be used for eco-tourism. Mr. Barangan noted that mangroves were protected in the Philippines
since no cutting was permitted but that the areas were not necessarily within marine parks or
protected areas and that problems arose with privately owned mangrove lands. Within protected
areas conservation meant wise use of the mangrove area, and it was divided into core and buffer
zones.
6.2.8 Following a lengthy discussion on the different meanings of the word "protection", the Project
Director proposed, and the meeting agreed, to rearrange the table of present areas and targets for
the SAP by including two additional types of management regime: non-use of mangrove timber but
extractive use of other mangrove resources; and "sustainable management area" in which the uses
were considered to be conducted in a sustainable manner.
6.2.9 The Project Director noted that it was assumed that the production of mangrove timber in
production forests or, the extractive use of other resources were sustainable and that in the case of
marine parks or protected areas where there was no use, these could be considered as being
sustainably managed, but as all members were aware this was not necessarily the case. He
suggested that members provide an estimate of the area in each country that was currently being
utilised sustainably.
6.2.10 Dr. Sonjai noted that it was difficult to provide an exact area under sustainable management
but thought it was probably around 1,000 ha of the area in Thailand under non-use of mangrove
timber but other extractive uses. Mr. Vongwattana estimated that 8,820 ha of mangrove in Cambodia
were currently under sustainable management, while Mr. Barangan estimated that around 15,000
were under sustainable management in the Philippines. Dr. Fan noted that the exact figure was not
known for China but he estimated it was around 1,000 ha. Dr. Sam estimated that around 50,000 ha
was being sustainably managed in Viet Nam. Mr. Santoso estimated the area under sustainable
management in Indonesia as being around 100,000 ha of the production forest, noting that the
majority of the 610,000 hectares had not in fact been leased for timber production.
6.2.11 The Project Director then requested participants to consider the goals and targets in terms of
the additional area that might reasonably be expected to be transferred to National Parks and
protected areas within the timeframe of the SAP, how much of the production forest could reasonably
be re-classified as non-use of timber but other extractive uses, and the area that could be brought
under more sustainable management regimes. Revised targets were discussed and are presented in
Table 1 of Annex 5.
6.2.12 Dr. Pernetta asked participants to consider indicators of the quality of the current
management system in order to redefine what was meant by currently under sustainable
management. Dr. Fan noted that the group needed to consider what indicators might be used to
measure sustainable use of non-mangrove resources.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 12
6.3
Discussion for Preparation of Inputs from the Mangrove Sub-component to the Draft
Strategic Action Programme
6.3.1 The Project Director, was invited by the Chairperson, to introduce document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/9 Analysis of the Content of the Draft National Action Plans from the
Perspective of the Regional Strategic Action Programme. The document provides a compilation of the
contents of the national action plans in comparable format as a means of providing a basis for an
analysis of actions to be included in the draft SAP.
6.3.2 Members were invited to consider this analysis and identify those elements, which should be
elaborated in the context of the Strategic Action Programme. It was noted that due to the late receipt
of the revised draft NAPs the table was incomplete and members agreed to work overnight on the
revision of the table of contents to bring it up-to-date. The revised completed table was printed and
distributed as the bases for further discussion.
6.3.3 Following distribution of the up-dated tables of the comparative contents of the National
Action plans there followed a lengthy discussion of what regional actions based on the identified
contents of the NAPs should be proposed for inclusion in the draft Strategic Action Programme.
6.3.4 Numerous proposals were tabled regarding objectives and actions that should be included in
the SAP and these were recorded in an additional column to the table entitled Regional Actions.
Commencing with a consideration of the table of threats the Project Director sought clarification
regarding whether some of the items were in fact past causes of degradation rather than present
threats. Each focal point indicated which of the threats in the table could be considered a past threat
and which an on-going significant threat in each country. It was noted that although the rate of
conversion of mangrove to shrimp farms was a declining threat in many countries. In some, such as
Thailand it created a new threat, namely the problems of pollution from high levels of waste-water
discharge from shrimp farms, which was certainly affecting organisms in mangrove habitats and in at
least one instance had been responsible for the death of an extensive area of mangrove in Nakhorn
Si Thamarat.
6.3.5 It was noted that the goals and targets generally referred to management and sustainable
development and hence the overall goal of the SAP should be framed in these terms. Regarding the
challenges facing management of mangroves in the region the over-riding priority was seen as being
financial constraints to action; with issues such as the lack of easily available information regarding
sustainable management models and problems of enforcement of existing laws and regulations being
seen as the key challenges that would be addressed through some form of regional action. The case
of China was cited where Dr Fan indicated it will become easier to obtain internal financing in China if
the proposed activities had a wider geographic perspective. He cited as an example the provision of
funds to the Fangchenggang demonstration site by the Guangxi Provincial Government, to run a
training course involving personnel from the neighbouring provinces of Guangdong and Hainan.
6.3.6 A major driver of mangrove degradation was seen by all members as being the poverty of
coastal communities and it was recognised that without a programme to address this issue
specifically, actions focussing purely on mangrove management models and techniques would not be
successful.
6.3.7 In discussing regional level needs with respect to data and information the value of the
Regional GIS database from the perspective of overall decision-making was recognised. It was noted
however that, at the level of individual sites, databases with quite different scales were needed.
Various targeted research related topics were identified as being needed at the regional level
including programmes on development of models for sustainable use, restoration techniques,
particularly with respect to abandoned shrimp farms, alternative uses of mangroves, and research
relating to the economic valuation of mangrove goods and services.
6.3.8 One topic, which received detailed consideration, was the issue of potentially introducing a
scheme for eco-labelling and accreditation of mangrove products. It was recognised that such a
scheme would require detailed planning and analysis and could only be operated by a regional or
international organisation if the scheme was to be creditable both within and outside the region.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 13
6.3.9 Further matters discussed included the potential development of a regional policy on
ecological security; the need for a programme providing co-ordination amongst mangrove institutions
in the participating countries; the need to network mangrove communities from around the region;
networking institutions with interests in sustainable use of mangroves and assisting participating
countries in meeting their obligations under Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements.
6.3.10 Annex 4 of this meeting report contains the amended table of NAP contents together with the
items identified by the regional working group as being elements that should be included in the
revised Strategic Action Programme.
7.
UPDATE OF NATIONAL DATA FOR THE REGIONAL GIS DATABASE
7.1
The Project Director advised the working group of current actions being undertaken by the
PCU in collaboration with the SEA START RC. He noted that the working document had not been
completed since the SEA Start RC had not yet completed its' analysis of the submissions currently
entered into the system.
7.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that following the analysis of which data sets had been entered and which
were up-dated it was the intention of SEA START RC to enter all GIS data into the database and get
this on-line in an interactive format by the end of September 2005. He noted in this regard that the
SEA START RC had previously agreed to complete this by December 2004 but that due to staffing
constraints they had been unable to meet this deadline.
7.3
It was hoped that the GIS system would be fully operational before the 2nd Regional Scientific
Conference to be convened in Bangkok from 14th to 16th November 2005. By this time focal points
could submit GIS data to the web directly since each focal point would be issued with a username and
password enabling access to the system. It was hoped that appropriate subsets of the regional GIS
database could be downloaded and used at the national level for demonstration and briefing of
decision makers and managers, thus putting the national situation in a regional context.
7.4
The Project Director noted further that it was the intention of both the PCU and the SEA
START RC that the meta-database would be loaded to the website and be operational at the same
time as the GIS database but that this was a second priority.
8.
REGIONAL DISSEMINATION OF EXPERIENCES DERIVED FROM THE MANGROVE
DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TRAINING
PROGRAMME DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
PROJECT
8.1
Planning the Regional Dissemination of Experiences Derived from the Mangroves
Demonstration Site Activities
8.1.1 The Chairperson recalled that during the discussion and selection of the demonstration sites
the PCU had prepared a framework discussion document regarding the regional co-ordination of
demonstration sites and dissemination of experiences between sites. This document had been
considered and refined at the level of the regional working groups and RSTC before being considered
and approved by the Project Steering Committee and included as Annex 8 of document
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3. This Annex was reproduced as information document UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-M6/Inf.4 for the meeting.
8.1.2 The Chairperson noted further that during the fifth meeting of the RWG-M, this matter was
considered and the following agreement reached:
8.2.7 A table was prepared of the potential "demonstration elements" at each
site and it was noted that these broad categories were not sufficiently well defined
to provide clear guidance regarding exactly what was to be demonstrated through
exchange visits study tours and other mechanisms and what was the potential
value to potential candidates. It was agreed that members would prepare a brief
statement regarding what could be offered by each demonstration site, what the
needs were for personnel training at the site, and details of optimum timing and
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 14
duration of visits by exchange personnel at the site. It was agreed that this would
be done within one month of the closure of the meeting.
8.1.3 The Project Director noted that the statements referred to above were to have been provided
to the PCU but had not been received. Members were being asked under this agenda item to
consider and discuss the manner in which the exchange programme could be initiated and agree on a
timetable for the completion of required actions.
8.1.4 The Project Director noted that it was difficult to organize the exchange programme if the
PCU did not know, what training opportunities could be provided at each site and what the sites'
training needs were. He further informed the participants that the PSC had approved a budget
allocation of US$1.3 million for the training programmes which included personnel exchange between
sites, training courses and study tours. He noted that two demonstrations sites were now operational
and two more were nearing finalisation, consequently the PCU needed this information in order to
finalise the entire projects' capacity building programme for approval by the next meeting of the
Project Steering Committee in December 2005.
8.1.5 Dr. Sonjai asked for clarification regarding training needs, and what the demonstration sites
could provide to one another. Dr. Pernetta noted that each site had unique activities and outputs that
should be made available to other members of the network for example, the propagation studies of
Heritiera littoralis in Fangchenggang could be of value elsewhere, while the experiences of Trat
Province in community based management and networking communities were a further example of a
experiences that could prove valuable to others in the region.
8.1.6 In response to a question from Mr. Santoso, Dr. Pernetta noted that the target individuals for
the exchange programme were individuals such as site managers, or young scientists who would be
in a position to apply their experiences when they returned to their own countries. In contrast the
study tours and training courses targeted different kinds of individual and study tours might involve
managers and decision makers or community leaders whilst training courses should focus on training
trainers.
8.1.7 Dr. Fan queried whether it would be possible for him to send one of his staff through the
exchange programme to a seagrass site and what the duration of the proposed exchanges would be.
The Project Director responded that it was not appropriate to send staff from a mangrove
demonstration site to a seagrass site but it might be possible to send them to a wetland site since the
key point was that the staff member would apply their experiences upon return. Experience gained
from a seagrass site was unlikely to be directly applicable to a mangrove site. He noted further that
the PSC had agreed that exchanges should have a duration of between 2 and 6 months, however in
the case of young scientist working on research the duration of the programme could possibly be
extended.
8.1.8 Dr. Fan remarked that the three types of capacity building activity presented a broad and
valuable range of opportunities. Finally, the Project Director suggested, and the meeting agreed, that
by the end of the meeting the focal points would produce a statement about training opportunities and
training needs.
8.1.9 Subsequently the submissions encompassing all six, demonstration sites were tabled and
briefly considered. It was noted that at present these were very brief and in some instances did not
provide a great deal of detail regarding the opportunities at each site and that furthermore, the
proposals had been formulated without reference, one to the other.
8.1.10 It was agreed that the Project Director would analyse the information and produce a matrix of
opportunities correlated with needs for circulation to members of the working group by the end of
August. He also indicated that he would provide guidance on additional information required and
members agreed to respond promptly so the analysis could be presented to and considered by the ad
hoc meeting of the RWG-M scheduled to take place during the Regional Scientific Conference 14
16th November 2005.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 15
8.2
Training Needs Analysis
8.2.1 The Chairperson invited the Project Director to introduce document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.6/11 concerning proposals from the PCU regarding possible training to be offered within the
framework of the Project.
8.2.2 Dr. Pernetta noted that he had distributed the questionnaire immediately prior to the meeting
and that the purpose of this was twofold; to analyse on the one hand what capacity had been built
during the preparatory phase; and secondly to seek views regarding what the training needs might be
during the operational phase of the project.
8.2.3 In response to Mr. Vongwattana's query regarding what existing capacity building and training
initiatives should be included in the final table, the Project Director noted that what was required here
was a list from the members of any existing training programmes either regional or national that were
of relevance to the sustainable management of mangroves and other coastal resources since the
project did not wish to duplicate other initiatives.
8.2.4 Following a brief review of the document and clarification of outstanding issues members
were requested to complete the forms and provide them to the Secretary for consolidation. Copies of
the consolidated responses were subsequently tabled and discussed.
8.2.5 Referring to document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/11, Dr. Pernetta presented the
consolidated tables of responses from each focal point. He noted that some focal points had ranked
priorities, that were a little unexpected and there followed a discussion of a number of examples. He
noted further that the way in which the responses had been completed was not directly comparable.
Thailand for example, had ranked multiple tasks equally. In the light of this discussion it was proposed
and agreed that the meeting adjourn briefly to permit individuals to amend their submissions for the
sake of comparability of the results.
8.2.6 The outcome of these revisions, were entered into the synoptic tables and these were
presented to the meeting for their consideration. An initial discussion followed regarding the manner in
which the ranking should be undertaken and it was agreed to determine an average value based on
the number of cells completed against each task. The Project Director agreed to complete the Table
in this way and to present the final document the following morning.
8.2.7 During a final consideration of this matter the members noted that in the Tables 3a et sequitor
where individual items had been compiled by focal points, ranks were based on a single response
only in comparison with others that were an average of four or more responses. In discussion it was
noted that a number of the individual entries were in fact very similar and that these should be
combined to make the ranking more comparable between individual entries.
8.2.8 There being insufficient time to complete this prior to the closure of the meeting the Project
Director offered to rework the tables combining similar items and to re-send these to the working
group members for their consideration no later than the end of August. The amended tables of
training needs assessment are attached as Annex 7 to this report.
9.
CONSIDERATION OF THE FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES TO VALUE THE IMPACTS
OF LAND-BASED POLLUTION ON MANGROVES
9.1
Framework for Valuing the Impacts of Land-based Pollution on Mangroves
9.1.1 Dr. Pernetta presented Annex 4 of the report of the third meeting of the Regional Task Force
on Economic Valuation (RTF-E) which consists of a series of table providing a framework for valuing
the impacts of land-based pollution on four key habitats, namely, mangroves, wetlands, seagrass and
coral reefs. The Project Director noted that the information in the document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-
M.6/12 was extracted from the report of the third meeting of RTF-E. Members were invited to consider
if the checklist of potential impacts of land-based pollution contained in Table 1 of Annex 4 of
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/12 was correct or whether further impacts were considered by
the group to be of significance to mangroves.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 16
9.1.2 Following extensive discussion the meeting felt that smothering by sediments was a
significant problem and that Oil and hydrocarbons affected the non-mangrove biota, hence changing
overall system productivity. In addition it was noted that solid wastes particularly plastics could
potentially smother smaller benthic organisms and certainly had impacts in terms of amenity value.
9.2
Procedures to Undertake Valuation of the Impacts of Land-based Pollution on
Mangroves
9.2.1 Members were invited to consider whether the framework for valuation presented in Table 2
of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/12 adequately reflected changes in productivity, amenity
value and human welfare costs or, whether amendments or additions should be proposed to the
RTF-E and whether the procedures proposed in Table 3.1 seem practical and appropriate.
9.2.2 The meeting discussed Table 2.1 of UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/12: Framework for Valuing
Impacts of Land-based Pollution on Mangroves and noted that entries relating to "Oil and
hydrocarbons: affects on productivity and tainting; sediment impacts in terms of smothering and
hence changes in productivity; and solid waste smothering impacts on productivity and amenity
values should be changed in accordance with the changes recommended in Table 1.
9.2.3 The meeting proceeded to discuss Table 3.1 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/12:
Procedures to Undertake Valuation of Impacts of Land-based Pollution on Mangroves. The Project
Director noted that this table was intended as a guide to economic techniques and the group should
accept that the recommended techniques were considered the best by a group of economists. Hence
the entries on which the regional working group could justifiably comment were those in the column
relating to the indicators of measurement particularly whether these indicators were practical in the
sense of being readily collected.
9.2.4 Dr. Sam suggested that it was important to measure the concentration of heavy metals, and
noted that very often, rural populations were unaware of the contamination of seafood and
consequently there was no impact on value since contaminated and uncontaminated foods, were
indistinguishable from one another. Dr. Pernetta noted that reduction in value due to contamination
would only be a significant factor in assessment of total economic value if it resulted in the food being
unmarketable due to health regulations that were enforced such as in the case of export markets.
9.2.5 Mr. Santoso noted that the impact of heavy metals on fish was often not observable in short
time periods, but population level impacts became observable only after a long time and gave the
example of long term impacts of heavy metal pollution on fish populations in Jakarta Bay.
9.2.6 Dr. Pernetta noted that in a demonstration site it was only necessary to know the value of the
impact from pollution and if the impact was not observable or measurable then pollution should be
ignored in the evaluation framework.
9.2.7 Dr. Fan pointed out that historical data could be used to determine loss of economic value as
a consequence of pollutant impacts but that such changes were often quite small compared to other
influences in the market. He cited the example of shrimp prices in China, which had dropped
dramatically in the last two years as a consequence of import bans by the United States.
9.2.8 In conclusion it was noted that guidelines were being produced by, the working group such
that these would be available for application in the context of the demonstration sites. In conclusion,
the RWG-M commended the RTF-E for their comprehensive analysis, which they felt would be of
considerable value to the demonstration sites.
9.3
Consideration and Review of the Elements of Economic Valuation Contained in the
Demonstration Site Activities
9.3.1 The Chairperson noted that under this agenda item members were invited to consider the
elements of economic valuation currently outlined in the demonstration site proposals and to discuss
and agree a timetable for the provision of inputs to the work of the Regional Task Force on Economic
Valuation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 17
9.3.2 Dr. Pernetta provided the meeting with some background information noting that, the RTF-E
had already produced guidelines for the economic valuation of mangrove goods and services and was
proceeding to compile a database of empirical data relating to the valuation of goods and services. He
noted that economic value as measured via market price varied according to location, with shellfish
from areas adjacent to urban centres have a higher market price than those in more isolated areas.
The purpose of the work of the RTF-E was to produce regionally agreed total economic values of
habitats. These would be used in the determination of the costs of action and non-action in the
framework of the SAP. The RTF-E had produced a set of economic valuation guidelines for
application in the demonstration sites in the hope that a set of data collected in comparable manner
over the same time frame would be available as a baseline. He requested information from members
concerning how soon they expected to have the economic values from their socio-economic surveys.
9.3.3 Mr. Santoso noted that the demonstration sites were likely to produce two sets of economic
values those relating to the commencement of the project and those relating to the end of the
intervention. Dr. Pernetta noted that the RTF-E could not wait until the completion of the
demonstration site activities, by which time the SAP should also be complete, finalised and approved,
and that those produced as part of the initial socio-economic assessments were the ones that were
needed.
9.3.4 Mr. Santoso suggested that values would be available from the Batu Ampur site before
December 2005. Mr. Vongwattana noted that the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) project did have
survey data on economic valuation that could be provided before December 2005. The Project
Director noted that in this case care would need to be taken to ensure that the values had been
derived using the recommended techniques and noted that provided the data used to derive the
values was also supplied it might be possible for the RTF-E to rework the data. Mr. Barangan
indicated that preliminary work by the RTF-E focal point should provide some data on economic
values at Busuanga, before December 2005. Dr. Sam indicated that economic values from the Xan
Thuy/Balat Estuary site would be available within three months of commencement of work at the
demonstration site. Dr. Fan noted that some data were already available from Fangchenggang but
that some, required data in the valuation framework were impossible to collect in China, he indicated
however there would be no problem in supplying some data before December 2005. Dr. Sonjai noted
that he would supply the economic values derived from the socio-economic survey in Trat Province by
January 2006.
10.
PREPARATION OF INPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES
TO THE SECOND REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE
10.1
The Project Director introduced the report of the second meeting of the Executive Committee
of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC/ExComm.2/3) provided
for information of the RWG-M. The report contains a record of discussions regarding the second
regional scientific conference to be convened in Bangkok in November 2005. The Regional Working
Group on Mangroves was invited to consider the contents of this report and to discuss and agree on
the inputs from the Regional Working Group to the conference.
10.2
Dr. Pernetta noted that the intention was that the first day of the conference would focus on
the demonstration sites, the second on science and management, and the third be devoted to parallel
sessions including meetings of the Regional Working Groups and Task Forces.
10.3
Mr. Barangan suggested that only two demonstration sites should be discussed since he was
of the opinion that most would not be operational. Mr. Santoso responded that he assumed that all
demonstration sites would be operational, and that the meeting should proceed on that basis.
10.4
The Project Director pointed out that there would not be enough time for individual site
presentations and that perhaps the group should consider a single substantive presentation of the
highlights of achievements and value of the sites, rather than focussing on simple reports on
progress, for example community-based management in Trat, charcoal production in Batu Ampur,
Heritiera propagation in Fangchenggang and many others. Dr. Sonjai noted that in Trat, crab
conservation, and mangrove propagation through use of partial propagules could be highlighted. Nypa
palm production, and nursery techniques, were other proposed topics for inclusion.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 18
10.5
Mr. Santoso suggested that the meeting clarify the topics and list them under a series of
major categories.of substance and the following preliminary listing was prepared.
1.
What is being demonstrated?
· Community networking
· Presented in matrix form for cross comparison of all sites
· Model aquaculture
2.
Aspects of Reforestation
· Germination of Heritiera
· Multiple seedling production by cutting propagules
· Rehabilitation of mangrove in degraded land
3.
Socio-economic aspects Resource potential
· Valuation studies
· Patterns of Subsistence Use by local communities
4.
Stakeholder networking collaboration
· Charcoal production
· Bee keeping
· Aquaculture models
5.
Influence of demonstration sites on national policies and financing
10.6
There followed a discussion of a possible presentation on the use of GIS at the demonstration
site level to complement the presentation Dr. Anond on the regional GIS database and system. The
Project Director asked who had GIS systems operational at their demonstration sites. It was agreed
that no single GIS system was yet sufficiently developed, to be presented at the regional scientific
conference but a composite presentation highlighting the use of GIS in management decision-making
at the site level was a possibility.
10.7 It was agreed that the Project Director would co-ordinate the preparation of a possible
presentation along these lines. It was agreed that:
· Dr. Fan would provide a GIS Image of Guangxi Province showing that the scale was not
suitable for detailed site planning;
· Mr. Vongwattana would supply a GIS image of land cover at Peam Krasop;
· Dr. Sonjai would supply GIS images of communities, zonation etc., noting that these were
based on older remotely sensed images which required up-dating.
10.8
It was further agreed that:
· Members would send images to the PCU by 12th August;
· Dr. Pernetta would send a draft to members by 20th August;
· Members would respond by 30th August with suggestions for addition;
· Dr. Pernetta would finalise and send to all members by 15th September.
10.9
There followed a discussion of the timing of the preparation of the major presentation for day
one of the conference. The following time-table was agreed:
· The PCU would send the format by 10th August;
· Members would send inputs to the Chairperson of existing PowerPoint presentations by
10th August;
· The Chairperson would respond to members by 15th August regarding new and additional
input requirements;
· Members would send new inputs by 20th August;
· The Chairperson would finalise and send the first draft of the presentation to members by
25th August;
· Members would respond by 31st August;
· The Chairperson would revise the presentation and send the revised version to members
by 10th September;
· Members would respond with agreement or amendments by 12th September; and
· The Chairperson would send the final presentation to the PCU by September 15th.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 19
10.10 The Working Group noted that site managers of the demonstration sites would be invited to
participate in the conference and consequently the PCU required names and contact details of the
site managers no later that 30th August 2005. If focal points wished to nominate a second individual
then what would be required in addition to the names, and contact details, would be a substantive
justification for their attendance.
10.11 Noting the intention to convene half day working group meetings during the conference it was
agreed that members would send suggestions for topics to be included on the agenda by 15th August
to the PCU and Chairperson. The PCU would finalise and circulate a draft agenda by 30th August.
11.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES 2005 - 2007
11.1 Based on the discussion and agreements reached in the previous agenda items, and
document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/13 "Draft work plan and timetable for the Regional Working
Group on Mangroves 2005 to 2007" the Regional Working Group considered its' work plan for the
period 2004 2007, including the timetable for finalising the NAPs and securing high level
government approval, and the publication of national reports.
11.2
The agreed deadlines for actions were incorporated into the work plan, which was agreed and
is attached as Annex 8 to this report.
12.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON MANGROVES
12.1
Members of the Regional Working Group were reminded that, according to the decision of the
Project Steering Committee, all Regional Working Group meetings would be convened at the
demonstration sites. Members were invited to consider the dates and venue of the seventh meeting of
the Regional Working Group on Mangroves.
12.2 Members discussed possible locations and agreed to hold the seventh meeting of the
RWG-M in Batu Ampar, Indonesia, from 4th - 8th September 2006. Dr. Pernetta hoped that participants
would reserve these dates and noted that he would contact the regional experts immediately following
the meeting to advise them of this decision.
13.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
13.1
Mr. Santoso proposed that the group compile a Mangrove cookery book, encompassing
unusual dishes and foods derived from mangroves. In this regard he noted that he had acquired over
26 different recipes involving mangrove foods together with numerous photographs and felt that other
members might also have similar unique and unusual recipes. Dr. Pernetta noted that this was an
interesting idea and that possibly it could be published in local languages and marketed in tourist
areas, which had a focus on mangrove ecotourism.
13.2
All members agreed with the idea and there followed a discussion of various matters ranging
from dishes made from sipunculid worms, to sweets made from Brughiera propagules. It was agreed
that members would assemble information and pictures and review the selection during the ad hoc
meeting of the Regional Working Group in November.
13.3
Dr. Pernetta asked whether Mr. Santoso's recipes were in Bahasa and whether these could
be easily translated. Mr. Santoso agreed to translate the recipes at the latest by the end of December.
The PCU would then put together all materials in the form of a model publication for consideration
during the seventh meeting of the Regional Working Group.
14.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
14.1
The Rapporteur presented the draft report, prepared by the secretariat during the meeting, for
consideration and adoption by the members. The report was discussed, amended and approved as it
appears in the document.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Page 20
15.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
15.1
In calling for a motion of closure the Chairperson thanked participants for their very hard work,
the PCU staff for their support to the meeting. He noted that the meeting had been extremely
important in reinforcing the regional co-operation and for him personally in building his personal
capacity through experience of chairing and international meeting.
15.2
The Project Director thanked participants for their hard work during the course of the meeting
that had enabled the group to complete a large volume of business, and the collegial attitude that had
prevailed throughout the week.
15.3
Mr. Barangan thanked the participants on behalf of both himself and the Government of the
Philippines for their decision to convene the sixth meeting of the working Group in Busuanga and
expressed his appreciation to all participants for an enjoyable meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 1
Page 1
ANNEX 1
List of Participants
Focal Points
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Mr. Ke Vongwattana
Dr. Hangqing Fan, Professor
Assistant to Minister in charge of Mangrove
Guangxi Mangrove Research Centre
Department of Nature Conservation and
92 East Changqing Road
Protection, Ministry of Environment
Beihai City 536000
48 Samdech Preah Sihanouk
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon, Cambodia
China
Tel:
(855 23) 213 908
Tel:
(86 779) 206 5609; 205 5294
Mobile: (855) 16 703 030
Mobile: (86) 13 367798181
Fax:
(855 23) 212 540, 215 925
Fax:
(86 779) 206 5609; 209 5566
E-mail: kewattana@yahoo.com
E-mail: fanhq@ppp.nn.gx.cn;
13367798181@gx165.com
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mr. Nyoto Santoso
No National Focal Point designated
Lembaga Pengkajian dan Pengembangan
Mangrove Indonesia
(Indonesian of Institute Mangrove Research &
Development)
Multi Piranti Graha It 3 JL. Radin Inten II No. 2
Jakarta 13440, Indonesia
Tel:
(62 251) 621 672; (62 21) 861 1710
Mobile: (62) 081 111 0764
Fax: (62 251) 621 672; (62 21) 861 1710
E-mail: imred@indo.net.id
Philippines
Thailand
Mr. Florendo Barangan, Executive Director
Dr. Sonjai Havanond
Coastal and Marine Management Office
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
Department of Environment and Natural
92 Pollution Control Building
Resources (CMMO/DENR)
Phaholyothin 7 (Soi Aree)
DENR Compound Visayas Avenue
Phayathai, Bangkok 10400
Diliman, Quezon City 1100, Philippines
Thailand
Tel: (632) 926 1004; 926 0550
Tel:
(66 2) 298 2166; 298 2591
Mobile: (63) 917 840 5616
Mobile: (66) 01 811 4917; 01 173 1161
Fax: (632) 926 1004
Fax:
(66 2) 298 2591-2; 298 2166; 298 2058
E-mail: cmmo26@yahoo.com
E-mail: sonjai_h@hotmail.com;
sonjai_h@yahoo.com
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 1
Page 2
Viet Nam
Dr. Do Dinh Sam, Professor
Forest Science Institute of Viet Nam
Dong Ngac, Tu Liem
Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel:
(844) 838 9815; 755 0801; 854 2044
Fax:
(844) 838 9722
E-mail: ddsam@netnam.vn; fuongvt@hn.vnn.vn
dodinhsam@yahoo.com
Project Co-ordinating Unit Member
Dr. John Pernetta, Project Director
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 1886
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: pernetta@un.org
Project Co-ordinating Unit
Mr. Kim Sour
Ms. Unchalee Pernetta
Associate Expert
Programme Assistant
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
2nd Floor, Block B, United Nations Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:
(66 2) 288 2609
Tel: (66 2) 288 1670
Fax:
(66 2) 288 1094
Fax: (66 2) 288 1094
E-mail: kims@un.org
E-mail: kattachan.unescap@un.org
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 2
Page 1
ANNEX 2
List of Documents
Discussion documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/1 Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/2 Annotated
Agenda.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3 Report of the Meeting.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/4
Current Status of Budgets and Reports from the Specialised
Executing Agencies in the Participating Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/5 Batu
Ampar Demonstration Site Proposal.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/6
Busuanga Medium Sized Project Proposal.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/7
Status of National Reports in the Participating Countries.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/8.Cam National Action Plan of Cambodia.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/8.Chi National Action Plan of China.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/8.Ind National Action Plan of Indonesia.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Phi
National Action Plan of Philippines.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/8.Tha
National Action Plan of Thailand.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/8.Vie
National Action Plan of Viet Nam.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/9
Analysis of the Content of the Draft National Action Plans
from the Perspective of the Regional Strategic Action
Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M6/10
Status of Regional GIS and Metadata for the Mangrove Sub-
component.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M6/11 Training
Needs
in
the Framework of the UNEP/GEF Project
entitled Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M6/12
Valuing the Impacts of Land-Based Pollution on Mangroves.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/13
Draft Work Plan and Timetable for the Regional Working
Group on Mangroves 2005 to 2007.
Information documents
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/Inf.1
List of Participants.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/Inf.2
List of Documents.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/Inf.3 Programme.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/Inf.4
Framework for Regional Co-ordination, Dissemination of
Experiences, and Personnel Exchange between Sites.
[ANNEX 8 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.3/3]
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC/ExComm.2/3
Second Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Regional
Scientific and Technical Committee. Report of the Meeting.
Bangkok, Thailand 21st 22nd February 2005 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RSTC/ExComm.2/3.
The following documents were supplied in published form.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-SG.5/3
Fifth 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. Bintan,
Indonesia, 24th 27th August 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-SG.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 2
Page 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-CR.5/3
Fifth 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. Koh Chang,
Thailand, 13th 16th September 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RWG-
CR.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.5/3 Fifth
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. Trat
Province, Thailand, 26th 30th September 2004 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-M.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-W.5/3
Fifth 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. Ha Long City,
Viet Nam, 5th 8th October 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-W.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.5/3
Fifth 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. Phu Quoc
Island, Viet Nam, 11th 14th October 2004 UNEP/GEF/SCS/
RWG-F.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-LbP.5/3
Fifth Meeting of the Regional Working Group on the Land-
based Pollution Component for the UNEP/GEF Project
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the Meeting.
Shenzhen, China, 24th 27th November 2004 UNEP/GEF/
SCS/RWG-LbP.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RSTC.5/3
Fifth 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.
Fangchenggang, China, 9th 11th December 2004
UNEP/GEF/SCS/ RSTC.5/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.4/3
Fourth 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. Guilin, China, 13th 15th December 2004
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.4/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.3/3
Third 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. Alongapo City, Philippines,
28th February 3rd March 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.3/3
Third 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. Fangchenggang,
China, 18th 21st April 2005 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.3/3.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 2
Page 3
List of documents received during the meeting of RWG-Mangrove
Busuanga Island, Palawan, Philippines. 1 - 5 August 2005
China:
1. Chinese Newsletter No. 1: "GEF FCG Mangrove Domo Site Project" in Chinese
Language
2. Technical Criteria of Mangrove Afforestration at Demo Site, China Mangrove
Executing Agency, Gaungxi Mangrove Research Center, 2004, August. (2 copies)
3. China Mangrove National Report, 2003, October (2 copies)
4. China Mangrove National Action Plan, by 2015, Guangxi Mangrove Research Center,
2004, November (2 copies)
Indonesia: 1. Flora and Fauna of Indonesia Mangrove in the South China Sea (book)
2. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (Central Java Province) (book)
3. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (Riau Province) (book)
4. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (East Java Province) (book)
5. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (Central Kalimantan Province) (book)
6. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (South Kalimantan Province) (book)
7. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (Bangka Blitung Province) (book)
8. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (West Kalimantan Province) (book)
9. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea West Java Province) (book)
10. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (South Sumatera Province) (book)
11. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (Banten Province) (book)
12. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (DKI Jakarta) (book)
13. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (Jambi Province) (book)
14. Review Data and Information Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem in the South China
Sea (Lampung Province) (book)
15. Economic Valuation of the Mangrove Ecosystem in Indonesia (book)
16. National Strategy on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Indonesia, Book 1:
Strategy and Program, 2005. (book and CD)
17. National Strategy on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Indonesia, Book 2:
Mangrove Ecosystem in Indonesia, 2005 (book and CD)
(Item 16 & 17 distributed to participants 1 copy each book)
Viet Nam: 1. Six Month Progress Report (revised format)-Viet Nam (January June 2005)
2. Cash Advance Request-Viet Nam (June 30 December 31, 2005
3. Viet Nam National Report (Vietnamese language book 2 copies)
TÔNG QUAN RÙNG NGÂP MÂN, Hanoi 2005
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
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 the Representative of the Busuanga Local Government
1.3
Introduction of Participants
2.
ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING
2.1
Election of Officers
2.2
Documentation and Administrative Arrangements
3.
ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA
4. REPORTS
REGARDING
OVERALL PROGRESS TO DATE
4.1
Status of the Administrative Reports for 2004 and 1st half 2005: Progress Reports;
Expenditure Reports; Audit Reports; and MoU Amendments
4.2
Consideration of Progress in Finalising and Implementing the Demonstration Sites
5.
UPDATE AND FINALISATION OF THE NATIONAL SUBSTANTIVE REPORTS
5.1
Discussion Regarding Finalisation for UNEP Publication of National Reports in
English
5.2
Status of Publications in Local Languages
6.
REVISION OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLANS AND REGIONAL STRATEGIC ACTION
PROGRAMME
6.1
Review of Revised National Action Plans
6.2
Discussion of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee Advice Regarding the
Goals and Targets of the Regional Strategic Action Programme
6.3
Discussion for Preparation of Inputs from the Mangrove Sub-component to the Draft
Strategic Action Programme
7.
UPDATE OF NATIONAL DATA FOR THE REGIONAL GIS DATABASE
8.
REGIONAL DISSEMINATION OF EXPERIENCES DERIVED FROM THE MANGROVE
DEMONSTRATION SITE ACTIVITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TRAINING
PROGRAMME DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
PROJECT
8.1
Planning the Regional Dissemination of Experiences Derived from the Mangroves
Demonstration Site Activities
8.2
Training Needs Analysis
9.
CONSIDERATION OF THE FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES TO VALUE THE IMPACTS
OF LAND-BASED POLLUTION ON MANGROVES
9.1
Framework for Valuing the Impacts of Land-based Pollution on Mangroves
9.2
Procedures to Undertake Valuation of the Impacts of Land-based Pollution on
Mangroves
9.3
Consideration and Review of the Elements of Economic Valuation Contained in the
Demonstration Site Activities
10.
PREPARATION OF INPUTS FROM THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON MANGROVES
TO THE SECOND REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE
11.
REVISION OF THE WORK PLAN AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGIONAL WORKING
GROUP ON MANGROVES 2005 - 2007
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 3
Page 2
12.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL WORKING GROUP
ON MANGROVES
13.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
14.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
15.
CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
Analysis of National Action Plan Contents and Identification of Regional Actions for Inclusion in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
Table 1
Threats to Mangroves Outlined in Each of the National Action Plans.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam Regional
1. Fast population growth since 1. Coastal reclamation for
1. Domestic
1. The conversion of
1. Culture of marine animals, 1. Extensive application of chemicals - Conversion-shrimp
after the civil war, and
rice farming(P);
exploitation,
mangroves into fishponds or
in particular the farming of
(ecocide) by Americans in 10 years
culture-VN, In, Ch,
associated issues: poverty,
2. Coastal aquaculture,
2. Salt production(P),
shrimp farms(P);
black tiger shrimp;
1962 - 1972(P);
settlement and urgent
mangrove areas converted 3. Rice cultivation(P), 2. Unregulated and destructive 2. Increase in population and 2. So called "Reclaiming marginalized - Shrimp farming-
survival needs of local
for fishponds and shrimp 4. Aquaculture,
tanbark tapping;
development has resulted
lands" that converted large
Pollution-Th, Ch, In
people;
farming;
5. Oil pollution,
3. Indiscriminate cutting for fuel
in mangrove areas being
segments of mangrove into arable - Ph-none
2. Increased Demands in
3. Mangroves converted for 6. Industrialization,
and charcoal production;
converted (P);
lands in 1980 1985 (P);
mangrove charcoals and
port, urban expansion and
settlement and
4. Conversion into
3. Agricultural production
3. Repeated clearing mangrove for
- Industrial conversion-
shrimp culture leading to the
industry;
urbanization,
harbours/ports and
and salt pans(P);
aquaculture, particularly for shrimp
Ch-High; Ph, In, VN-
degradation and destruction 4. Mangrove biodiversity are 7. Agriculture
settlement areas;
4. Mining in mangrove
rearing, was extremely extensive
Small; Th, Ca-NI2
of mangrove forests/
threatened by animal
pesticides etc.,
5. Certain past policies and
areas(P);
during 1988 -1995;
unsustainable uses of
collecting, hunting, exotic 9. Coastal erosion,
regulations tended to
5. Tree felling exceeding
4. Seaward embankment and
- Charcoal production-
mangroves (P);
species, pest and
and
encourage the destruction of
mangrove productivity (P)
expansion of urban areas
In, Ph, Ca
3. Growing needs for National
diseases.
10. Perception of the
the rich mangrove resources 6. LbP-garbage industry
conducted in the North has led to
Economic Development/
public
(P).
7. Coastal erosion (small)
the reduction of mangrove cover.
foreign investments (P).
2 Not important.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 2
Table 2
Goals, Time Frames, Total Costs and Key Executing Agencies for each of the National Action Plans for the Mangrove Sub-component.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
Goals
- Protecting and maintaining
To minimize the degradation of
To increase the
Having the country's
"Manage Thailand's mangrove The mangrove ecosystem
Management
mangrove products, functions natural mangrove forests in China;
stakeholder capacity
mangrove forests and
resources in Gulf of Thailand
protection and development
resources
and their attributes systems by rehabilitate disturbed natural
on mangrove
the resources therein
area through multi-sector
action plan is designed to add
monitoring and protecting
mangrove forests; maintain existing
ecosystem
developed and
participation to provide a
force to mangrove protection,
water quality and level,
mangroves healthy; restore and
management that fir
managed on a
stable, balanced ecosystem
rehabilitation and wise utilization
biodiversity and site's ecology regenerate man-made mangrove
to environment
sustainable basis for
which can support Thai
on a sustainable way so that
with community liaison.
forests; enlarge mangrove areas;
carrying capacity and the economic and
society, the economy, and the mangrove protective function and
- Managing the human activities establish a system for rational use
based on valid
environmental benefits
environment and provide a
its biodiversity values could meet
and their widely utilizing the
and effective management of
scientific information
of the people.
good quality of life for the
the need of socio-economic
mangrove resources in the
mangroves; secure ecological safety
public"
development and environment
optimal way that preserves for for fast growing economy at coastal
To increase and
protection in river estuaries and
the long term of the basic
areas of China.
maintain the benefit
coastline areas.
natural resources and
and function of
environment, which are
mangrove ecosystem
necessary for sustainable
for life support system
development and human life.
- Ensuring that the benefits
coming from the sustainable
use of the mangrove is widely
use with equity and contribute
to poverty reduction and
improve quality of life for all.
Purposes of goal
Protection, management
Restoration, management
Restoration,
Management, sust.
Management Protection,
wise
use
conservation and
Dev't
sustainable use
mangrove
management
Time Frames
5 years?
2005-2015
2005 - 2020
2005-2007?
2004-2008
2005-2015
2012 & 2017
Total Costs
US$1.698 million
Yuan 1,057.7 million
US$ 349 million
Baht 54,747,000
US$ 5.9 million
Key Executing Agencies
DNCP, MoE, NMC, Line
SEPA, NRDC, SFA, SOA, Local
Ministry of Forestry,
DENR, DA, DILG,
DMCR, academic
FSIV, FIPI, MERC, UNEP/GEF,
-Those
Ministries, local authorities
Governments, MST, CNTA,
Ministry of Marine
DOST, NAMRIA,
institutions, and local
IUCN, ACIAR, NGOs, MARD,
been/should/
Academic Institutions,
and Fishery, Ministry
National Mangrove
government organizations,
MONRE, MOF, ADPI, DONRE, PPC,
be involved in
of Home Affair, LIPI
Committee (NMC)
and communities.
DPC, NP, NR, Silvo, VEPA, FMBs
SCS project
Environmental
MPI, FRI,
Ministry
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 3
Table 3
Challenges for Mangrove Management Outlined in each of the National Action Plans.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
1. Low awareness
1. No specific
1. More than 50 % of total mangrove area in 1. Non-delineation of the
1. Authority and
1. Mangrove ecosystems
1. Finance-Ch,
among local people on
legislation on
Indonesia is damage and lead to the
boundaries of the mangrove
responsibility for
are improperly managed;
Cam, Ph, In;
mangrove importance
mangroves in China,
decreasing its ecological function
forests,
mangrove
2. Lack of policy tools and
partial-VN&Th
and their conservation
cross-sectoral
2. Conservation and rehabilitation of
2. Absence of firm efforts
management in the
specific regulations
2. Management
and sustainable
management and
mangrove ecosystem is considering as a
towards reversion of
past has rested with
guiding the fishery and
system & LUP-
management needs;
poor coordination;
problem not responsibility
the government;
3. The mangrove rehabilitation efforts still can
abandoned, undeveloped
other economic sectors
VN, In,
2. Absence of specific
2. Single ownership of
not easing the level of damaged
and unproductive fishponds, 2. Limited public and
in utilization of mangrove 3. Law
legal, regulatory and
mangroves and
4. Policy maker and community have different 3. Lack of public awareness
local participation;
forests;
enforcement-all
managerial tools, and
existing management
perception on value and function of
on the importance of the
3. Lack of laws
3. Most of policy makers
Law Enforcement
regime hinder the
4. coastal rural
mangrove ecosystem
mangrove forests and their
supporting
have a vague perception
weakness;
inflow of investment;
poverty-all
5. Local community participation on planting
resources,
enforcement action;
on mangrove
3. Lack of political wills
3. Lack of rational use
and implementation of mangrove
4. Overlapping functions and 4. Limited co-operation
ecosystems;
among and abuses by
technology and
ecosystem management is not optimal
conflicting policies and
between mangrove
4. Lack of a sound and
5. Long term
high rank people;
mode;
6. Largest part of the community who live
legislation of different
management
empowered inter-
regional
4. Lack of funds/
4. Lack of national
around the mangrove area is poor
national government
agencies;
sectoral land-use
cooperation
insufficient supports
norms and criteria of 7. The utilization of mangrove ecosystem that
agencies and the LGUs,
5. Lack of systematic
planning, including
from external sources;
mangrove
environmentally friendly is not well develops
mangrove land-use, at
8. Ineffective coordination related institution
5. The non-appropriateness of
and co-ordinated
5. Low capacity among
forestation,
local levels (province
9. There is no synergies regulation between
the existing CBFMA for
monitoring;
government staff for
monitoring, and
and district);
sectors on mangrove ecosystem
mangrove forests,
6. Dissemination of
mangrove sustainable
evaluation;
management
6. Institutional constraints in
information and
5. Personnel staff assigned
management.
5. Short of funds for
10. Key government institution and its role in
the management and
publicity material is
to take care of mangrove
6. Difficult accesses and
mangrove protection
mangrove management are not agreed yet
administration of the
limited and does not
forests in different
facility shortage to the
and research;
11. Ineffective of law enforcement on
mangrove forests,
reach its target.
locations are insufficient
target localities
6. No platform to
mangrove management
and lacking knowledge;
7. The lack of a
7. Poor conditions of
improve mangrove
12. There is no legal umbrella of National
comprehensive research
6. Gaps and weaknesses
responsible staff.
education,
Action Plan on Mangrove Ecosystem
and development
are found in mangrove
information share,
management
programmes.
ecosystem studies.
and public
involvement.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 4
Table 4.1
Objectives and Activities for Component 1: Research and Monitoring.
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Regional
Objectives
1. To develop and design the standardized
1. To form a solid
1. Increasing the role of
1, To prioritise mangrove R/D
1. Development of
1. Improve
- Regional GIS
methodology and guideline for inventory and
scientific base for
management authority and
on biology and ecology;
databases and
perception and database related to
assessment;
restoration and
scientific authority on mangrove
silvics and silviculture; pests
research into
understanding
site database
2. To identify and analysis the stakeholder in each
sustainable
ecosystem management
and diseases cost effective
conservation,
on Biodiversity - Regional research
site;
management;
2. Develop mangrove ecosystem
restoration/rehabilitation;
restoration, and
of Mangrove
program on
3. To survey of the site ecology, fauna and flora;
2. To supply techniques
management based on
and pollution
sustainable use of
ecosystem
mangroves
4. To make species distribution and environmental
of application of data
knowledge, technology, and
2. To study economic, political
mangrove resources
and
stratification Mapping;
in management;
communities traditional
and socio-cultural aspects of
conservation - Model for sustainable
5.To formulate an appropriate economic valuation
3. To formulae rationale
knowledge
mangrove restoration
value of rare
use
system for mangrove that take into account the
and professional
3. Develop models of
3. To harmonise policies on
and precious - Restoration
externalities present in many natural system;
methods in decision
environmental friendly and
mangrove establishment
gene sources.
technique on
6. To improve knowledge and awareness of the values
making;
community based mangrove
and management
abandoned shrimp
of mangrove among all levels of society but
4. To formulate National
ecosystem management
4. To study resource valuation
farms
particularly among decision-makers and local
technical norms and 4. Determined mangrove
5. To asses more effective
people;
criteria.
ecosystem status in coastal
information dissemination
- Eco-labelling-
7. To maintain and enhance the cultural values within
landuse planning
schemes
accreditation
mangrove areas;
5. Execute adherence to
8. To establish a process for the storage and access
regulation and law enforcement
- Research program
of data related to mangrove environments in
on mangrove ecosystem
on alternative use
Cambodia;
management
- Research program
9. To ensure that MIST is implemented and
on economic value
maintained for the efficient dissemination of
information for decision-making
Activities
Sub-component 1: Resource Assessment
1. Develop and design the standardized methodology 1. Conduct an Overall
1. inventory mangrove (Survey
1. Sustain national resource
1. Survey and prepare 1. Speeding up
and guideline for inventory and assessment
Survey into Mangroves
and mapping) condition
inventory/assessment of
a plan of mangrove
research,
(US$10,000, Year 3, MoE, Medium priority);
with Focus on the
mangrove
mangrove forests in the
resources (2005,
cooperation in
2. Identify and analysis the stakeholder in each site
Resources,
2. Conduct total economic
country (immediate, FMB,
DMCR and local
research and
(US$5,000, Year 2, MoE, Medium priority);
Biodiversity, and
valuation of mangrove
LGU, concerned POs)
government
technology
3. Establish group to undertake studies and to develop
Healthy Condition
3. Develop criteria and indicator
2. Validation on the ground of
organizations);
transfer
management strategies for the protection of rare
(Yuan19 million, 2
landuse planning on mangrove
results of satellite imagery
2. Integrated research
(US$500,000,
and endangered species (US$5,000, Year 1, MoE,
years, SFA, SOA,
ecosystem.
produced by the NAMRIA
combining academic
FSIV, FIPI,
High priority);
SEPA);
and FMB
knowledge with
MERC,
4. Establish fish management policy for stocking of
2. Establish a System to
knowledge from local
UNEP/GEF,
commercial species and rare and endangered fish
Periodically Monitor
wisdom and culture
IUCN,
species (US$30,000, Year 1-5, MoE, High priority);
and Evaluate
in order to develop
ACIAR,
5. Establish a licensing system for the harvesting of all
Mangrove Ecosystem
basic information at
NGOs, Phase
mangrove species, enforce sustainable harvesting
(Yuan19 million, 3
the area level
1: 2005-2010,
practices and increase policing of border checks to
years, SEPA, SFA,
(DMCR, academic
Phase 2:
prevent smuggling (US$30,000, Year 1-5, MoE,
SOA).
institutions, schools,
2010-2015).
Medium priority).
and communities).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 5
Table 4.1 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 1: Research and Monitoring.
Cambodia China Indonesia Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 2: Mapping
1. Develop kinds of needed maps for
Included in Component 1- 1. Survey and mapping of mangrove ecosystem 1. Develop maps of mangrove 1. Plan and design coastal
1. Component 1,
mangrove management areas in Peam
Sub-component 5:
in protected and cultivation area
stands including
landuse areas to the
Sub-comp. 1
Krasop (US$10,000, Year 3, DNCP, High
Information system
2. Research of mangrove biodiversity
determination/mapping of
participation of local
priority).
3. Research of sylviculture system of mangrove
potential sites for mangrove
organization and members
utilization
rehabilitation/restoration
of the publics.
4. Research of eco-hydrology of mangrove
Sub-component 3: Socio-economic and cultural assessment
1. Formulate mangrove evaluation sub-
1. Evaluate the Ecological 1. Develop curriculum, material and supporting 1. Determine and evaluate
1. Support local communities 1. Component 1,
committee or working group in the national
Benefits and Economic
facilities, methods of awareness and training
socio-economic and cultural
in participation in
Sub-component
committee (US$5,000, Year 2, DNCP,
Values of Mangroves in
on mangrove management
factors affecting mangrove
conservation and
1.
Medium priority);
China (Yuan4 million, 2 2. implement research and development of
management nationwide
restoration and sustainable
2. Establish national mangrove awareness
years, SEPA).
knowledge and technology on fish/shrimp
2. Resource valuation of
use of mangrove resources
program in the media and in educational
farm that environmental friendly
mangrove ecosystems;
and applying successful
institutions and/or training courses
3. Conduct to total economic of mangrove
3. Medium for improved IEC on projects to other areas
(US$15,000, Year 3-5, DNCP, Medium
ecosystem in each area
mangrove ecosystems
2. Provide opportunity for
priority);
4. Conduct survey of social use of mangrove in
local communities for eco-
3. Identify, evaluate and document cultural
community around mangrove ecosystem
tourism services jointly with
values (US$5,000, Year 2, DNCP, Medium
government for
priority);
conservation uses.
4. Prepare maintenance and enhancement
plans for the identified cultural values within
mangrove areas (US$10,00, Year 3, DNCP,
Medium priority).
Sub-component 4: Database management
1. Establish a central meta data system in
Included in Component 1 - 1. Organize data and information exchange to Maintain and update mangrove 1. Develop databases and
1. Component 1,
MoE (US$5,000, Year 2, DNCP, Medium
Sub-component 5:
update and improve quantities and quality of information at the provincial
information systems to
Sub-component
priority);
Information system
data
and national levels for planning
support decision-making
1.
2. Financial support for maintenance and data
and for decision making at all
and action by staff and
updating (US$4,000, Year 2-5, DNCP,
levels of governance
communities, which is
Medium priority).
correct, appropriate,
proficient, and timely
(DMCR, academic
institutions, and local
government organizations).
Sub-component 5: Information system
1. Establish Mangrove
1. Develop journal mangrove ecosystem
Establish comprehensive
1. Component 1,
Information and decision-
management
information management for
Sub-component
making System (Yuan 10 2. Publish the books on utilization of mangrove planning and management
1
million, 3 years, SOA
ecosystem
&SFA).).
3. Establish of Mangrove Information Centre in
Indonesia
4. Organize seminar/workshop/dialog on
integrated sustainable mangrove
management
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 6
Table 4.1 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 1: Research and Monitoring.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 6: Decision support system
1. Apply MIST (US$10,000, DNCP, Year 1, High
1. To Formulate
1. Develop criteria and
1. Prioritisation of research 1. Report on the status of
priority);
National Mangrove
indicators on sustainable
and development on the
mangrove resources to
2. Implement MIST (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 2, High
Technical Norms
mangrove ecosystem
mangrove (continuing,
compile information for
priority);
and Criteria, relative
management
PCARRD, SCUs and
supporting decisions on
3. Train staff in the use and maintenance of MIST
to protection,
2. Develop guideline and
other Research
development projects and
(US$5,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, High priority);
management,
improve community
Institutions).
provide basic information
4. Implement resource-use data collection using MIST
afforestation,
participation on mangrove
for planning the restoration
(US$5,000, DNCP, Year 2-5, High priority);
monitoring and
management
of mangrove resources
5. Regularly provide information to MoE for the update
sustainable uses
3. Conduct activities on
(DMCR, academic
of the NPAS website (DNCP, Year 2-5, High
(Yuan 5 million, 3
mangrove management
institutions, and local
priority);
years, SEPA, SFB&
unit for forestry cultivation,
government organizations).
6. Carry out refresher training for staff on RBDC, use of SOA)
fisheries and ecotourism
MIST and maintenance of MIST database
4. Develop and provide
(US$5,000, DNCP, Year 2-5, High priority).
incentive to all
stakeholders that success
on mangrove conservation
and rehabilitation
Sub-component 7: Environmental Impact Assessment
1. Study changes in the
condition of the mangrove
and coastal environments
after the construction of
development projects
(DMCR, academic
institutions, schools, and
communities).
Priority
High
Very high
Medium
Medium
Very High
High
Time Frame
5 years?
2005-2010
2005-2010
2005
2005-2008
2005-2015
Cost
US$164,000
Yuan57 million
Yes
US$40 million
Baht 2,961,500
US$500,000
Executing Agencies
DNCP, MoE
SEPA/SOA/SFB
MoF, MoMF, MoE, MoHA,
CMMO, NAMRIA, CMMD DMCR
FSIV, FIPI, MERC,
LIPI
UNEP/GEF, IUCN,
ACIAR, NGOs
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 7
Table 4.2
Objectives and Activities for Component 2: National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Co-ordination.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Objectives
1. To conduct research for the new innovative and optimal 1. To improve
1. Increasing the role of
1. Effecting equitable access 1. To build strong 1. As
- Develop regional
approaches for mangrove management;
China Mangrove
management authority and
to mangroves on multiple-
network to work Objectives of policy on ecological
2. To develop management plan;
management,
scientific authority on
use, multiple-user basis;
in coordination Component 3. security
3. To analyse institution;
coordination
mangrove ecosystem
2. Harmonisation of policies
for sustainable
- Regional
4. To strengthen the cooperation and coordination;
Mechanism;
management
and institutional
development of
Coordination of
5. To identify and analysis the stakeholder in each site;
2. To seek for entry 2. Develop coordination and
arrangements /coordination
mangrove in
mangrove institutions
6. To design and zone for community development area;
of non-
integrated program between
to enhance productivity of
Gulf of
7. To provide the community development approaches for
government
relevant stakeholders
mangrove addressing
Thailand.
the areas and/or different alternatives with the
investment;
3. Improving capacity of central
sustainability of resources
sustainable development way;
3. To enhance the
and local government and
8. To build the partners with different organizations such as
policy of
community institution on
private, public and NGOs/UN agencies for community
community
mangrove ecosystem
development supports;
participation.
management
9. To maintain and enhance the traditional values within
Peam Krasop;
10. To ensure the right of local people in the process of
mangrove resources;
11. To develop regional transboundary agreement for
management;
12. To establish and enhance collaboration with the
neighbouring Coastal Areas for resource conservation
and management.
Activities
Sub-component 1: Integration of research programmes with management and policy making
1. Develop the new innovative and optimal approaches for Included in
1. Establish of Institution of
1. Study and formulate policy Integration
of
mangrove management (US$10,000, DNCP, Year 3,
Component 1-sub-
Mangrove information centre
to address existing
agencies
High priority);
component 4
and rehabilitation
productive illegal fishponds
2. Revitalization of National
and/or shrimp farms
Mangrove Committee
(immediate, FMB, FDC).
3. Organize clean action and
2. Application of technologies
mangrove care movement
and best practices in the
formulation and
development of policies to
enhance management of
mangrove resources
Sub-component 2: Monitoring the NAPs
1. Define goals and objectives of each site (US$5,000,
1.
Strengthening
of
national
1. Monitor the
1. Monitoring
-
Monitoring
the
DNCP, Year 3, High priority);
Mangrove Committee as a
implementation of the
progresses
implementation of
2. Collect the existing data and information (US$10,000,
communication and
NAP and evaluate the
and evaluate
the SAP
DNCP, Year 3, High priority).
coordination media on
results for possible
results by
development knowledge and
revision and amendment
report annually
technology on mangrove
of strategies in
in 5 year basis
2. Identification and evaluation
implementing the plan
to identify
regulation on mangrove
problems and
ecosystem management
obstacles.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 8
Table 4.2 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 2: National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Co-ordination.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 3: Review and improve existing laws and policies
1. Establish clearly the roles and
1. Trial of reform
1. Develop criteria and
1. Further study of the cutting ban 1. Support the
1. Revise institutional
- Establishment of
responsibilities of the various ministries
Mangrove
indicator landuse planning
provision of the RA 7161
formulation of
structure, policy
formal
and departments related to mangrove
Ownership System
on mangrove ecosystem
(immediate, DENR, LGUs and
community
framework to perform the
mechanism for
resources (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 2,
to Improve Financial 2. Initiation National
Pos);
regulation for
package of decisions and
cooperation
Medium priority);
Sustainability
Workshop on
2. Regulate strictly the conversion
conservation and
decrees issued by the
among south
2. Identify coordination and decision-making
(Yuan20 million, 5
implementation of law on
of mangroves into other land
restoration and
Prime Minister on
China sea
process to undertake review of the roles
years, SEPA,
landuse planning in
uses (immediate, DENR, BFAR,
community use of
effective and sustainable
countries
and responsibilities of government
NRDC).
mangrove ecosystem
LGUs, FDC); 3. Review and
mangroves.
management and
agencies responsible for management and
3. Prepare and promote
strengthen policy on reversion of 2. Establish
utilization of mangrove
use of mangrove resources (US$10,000,
President Decree as legal
abandoned, undeveloped and
performance
ecosystem (US$ 300,000,
DNCP, Year 2, Medium priority);
umbrella of NAP
unproductive fishponds to
indicators for
MARD, MONRE, MOF,
3. Identify mechanism and opportunities for
mangrove forest estates
evaluating
2005-2006);
decision-making mechanism related to the
(immediate, FMB, BFAR, LGUs,
success in
2. Review and perform land-
wise use and long-term sustainable
FDC).
implementation
use planning in provinces
utilization on the mangrove areas
policy.
and districts which
(US$10,000, DNCP, Year?, Medium
possess mangrove forests
priority).
and make these planning
legally, scientifically and
practically sound
(US$300,000, FIPI, ADPI,
DONRE, PPC, DPC, NP,
NR, Silvo, 2005-2007).
Sub-component 4: Integration of government agencies
1. Strengthen the government's
1. To Create and
1. Improve interest and role
1. Creation of Mangrove National 1. Build a network for 1. Consolidate and reinforce
responsibilities for the mangrove
maintain China
of community and
Committee (immediate, CMMO-
cooperation
the mangrove ecosystem
management (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 1-5,
Mangrove
stakeholder that concern to
DENR)
between different
management organization
Medium priority);
Management and
mangrove in every activities 2. Identify roles and
development
at ministerial level
2. Develop the policy of each ministry and
Coordinating
on mangrove management
responsibilities of different
organizations,
(MARD, MONRE) and at
department involved in management of
Committee and
2. Establish well
agencies and stakeholders in
education
local level (province and
mangrove (US$30,000, DNCP, Year 2,
(Yuan 2.5 million, 5
understanding between key
enhancing services provided by
institutes and
district) in an inter-sectoral
Medium priority).
years, SEPA)
institution on mangrove
the mangrove and other related
private sector on
linkage (US$400,000,
management
resources
academic
MONRE, MARD, MOF,
knowledge to
NP, NR, Silvo, 2005-
maintain the
2007).
nature and quality
of mangroves.
2. Publicity to
increase
understanding
and cooperation.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 9
Table 4.2 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 2: National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Co-ordination.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 5: Stakeholder analysis and involvement
1. Strengthen the term of references for stakeholders
1. Analysis of
1. Prepare program and establish
1. Evaluate and analyse
(US$30,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, Medium priority).
stakeholder
international and national
stakeholders and determine their
benefit and policy
partnership and collaboration on
role in the management of
suggestion(Yuan
implementation of knowledge and
mangrove resources
2 million, 3 years,
technology of environmental
SEPA)
friendly, utilization and marketing
Sub-component 6: Community empowerment
1. Mapping the zone for community with consultant with
1. Socialization technical standard
1. Strengthen capability of
1. Create volunteer network to
local people (US$20,000, DNCP, Year 2-5, Medium
guideline, criteria and utilization of
communities in managing
guard and maintain mangrove
priority);
knowledge and technology and
coastal resources including
areas;
2. Boundary demarcation (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3,
traditional knowledge
mangroves and other related
2. Develop mangrove resource
Medium priority);
2. Improve role of non formal group,
critical habitats
people from community
3. Develop community status (US$10,000, DNCP, Year
organization in education and
leaders, young people through
3, Medium priority);
training activities on mangrove
training.
4. Develop approaches or programmes for people
ecosystem management
involvement in process of management (US$8,000,
3. Develop curriculum of education
DNCP, Year 2, Medium priority);
and training of mangrove that
5. Give the right to local people in making planning and
appropriate to environment
development of their areas (US$15,000, DNCP, Year
characteristic and socio culture
3, Medium priority);
condition
6. Support technical advise for development of their
4. Socialization of rule on mangrove
areas in the term of bank account, development, etc
ecosystem management
(US$30,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium priority).
5. Improve supporting infrastructure
and capacity on mangrove
Information Centre in Central and
Local
6. Encourage all stakeholder and
community to participate on
mangrove rehabilitation activities
Sub-component 7: Strengthening traditional value and management system
1. Identify, evaluate and document traditional values
1. Included in Sub-
1. Socialization technical standard
1. Promotion, enhancement and
1. Promote the use of knowledge
- Networking
(US$8,000, DNCP, Year 1-3, Medium priority);
component 5:
guideline, criteria and utilization of
integration of indigenous
from mangrove research
local
2. Prepare maintenance and enhancement plans for the
Stakeholder
knowledge and technology and
cultural communities and
combined with indigenous
communitie
identified traditional values within Peam Krasop
analysis and
traditional knowledge
individuals in the mangrove
knowledge and local culture
s around
(US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3-4, Medium priority);
involvement
2. Develop guideline and improve
management systems
from local communities to
the South
community participation on
support service businesses
China Sea
mangrove management
associated with mangroves
(DMCR, academic institutions,
and local government
organizations).
Sub-component 8: Establish an incentive system for good governance
1. Allocate the concession (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 2,
Develop and provide incentive to 1. Come up with guidelines to
Medium priority);
all stakeholder that success on
recognise partners in
2. Develop guideline for mangrove management
mangrove conservation and
mangrove management for
(US$15,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium priority);
rehabilitation
improved productivity
3. Develop and implement the programs for participation
(US$20,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium priority).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 10
Table 4.2 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 2: National Policy, Legal and Institutional Arrangement and Co-ordination.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 9: Linkage to regional and international obligations
1. Develop and get agreement (US$5,000, DNCP, Year Included in Sub-component 10: Prepare and promote President 1. Develop and
-Assisting
participating
2, Medium priority);
International and regional
Decree as legal umbrella of
maintain close
countries in meeting their
2. Joint meeting with site managers and advisory group cooperation
NAP (base on implementation
coordination and
obligations under
for operation twist per year(US$10,000, DNCP, Year
of Ramsar Convention, Rio
networking at all
international conventions
1-5, Medium priority);
declaration, etc)
levels (nationally,
3. Joint meeting for policy/planning between
regionally and
management boards from the countries annually
internationally)
(US$10,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, Medium priority).
Sub-component 10: International and regional cooperation
1. Plan and attend regular regional/border meetings
1. Construct International
1. Prepare program and
1. Maintain and
1.
Broaden
and
- Networking regional &
(US$50,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, High priority);
Mangrove Demo Site
establish international and
comply with
Strengthen
international
2. Carry out joint trans-boundary conservation
(Yuan45 million, 5 years,
national partnership and
international and
international
organizations having
programmes (US$30,000, DNCP, Year 2-5, High
SFA, SOA, SEPA, local
collaboration on
regional
cooperation in
interest in sustainable
priority);
governments).
implementation of knowledge
commitments to
research,
use of mangroves
3. Carry out joint patrols (US$50,000, DNCP, Year 2-5, 2. Create "China-Asean
and technology of
improve
preservation,
High priority);
Mangrove Cooperation and
environmental friendly,
management of
rehabilitation and
4. Carry out joint monitoring programmes (US$30,000,
Development Centre"
utilization and marketing
mangrove
sustainable utilization
DNCP, Year 3-5, High priority);
(Yuan21 million, 5 years,
2. Invite Foreign Donor
ecosystems
of mangrove
5. Agree on priority research programmes with regions
SEPA & Guangxi
Institution (ITTO, JICA, NRM,
ecosystem
(US$10,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium priority);
government)
DFID, European Union,
(US$300,000,
6. Harmonise the various databases in regions
UNEP, etc) and encourage
UNEP/GEF, IUCN,
(US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium priority);
role of research institution
ACIAR, NGOs,
7. Share research and monitoring findings and
such as government, NGOs,
MARD, MONRE,
recommendations to improve resource management
Private sectors, to participate
FSIV, FIPI, MERC,
(US$3,000, DNCP, Year 3-5, Medium priority);
on mangrove research and
2005 2015).
8. Establish protocols for regional co-operation
management
(US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3, Low priority);
9. Initiate joint community development programmes at
the borders (US$10,000, DNCP, Year 4, Low priority).
Priority
Medium High
High
High
Low
High
Time Frame
5 years?
2005-2010
2005-2010
2005-2007
2005-2008
2005-2015
Cost
US$474,000
Yuan90.5 million
Yes
US$18 million
Baht 790,750
US$ 1.3 million
Executing Agencies
DNCP
SEPA, State Department, SOA, MoF, MoMF, MoE, MoHA, LIPI, CMMO/PPSO/ERDB, DMCR
MARD, MONRE, MOF,
SFB.
Local government (Bappeda)
Focal Point, Local
ADPI, DONRE, PPC,
Governments,
DPC, NP, NR, Silvo,
DENR/LGUs, DFA.
UNEP/GEF, IUCN,
ACIAR, NGOs, FSIV,
FIPI, MERC.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 11
Table 4.3
Objectives and Activities for Component 3: Public awareness, Communication and Education.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
Objectives
1. To provide training to the public services
1. To improve public and 1. Maintain the existence
To improve transfer of 1. To increase the
1. Basically change the perception of key - Establish a network
and study tours;
local official
and function of
information through
potential of staff of
managers and policy makers at local
of environmental
2. To use multimedia system at the national
awareness of
mangrove ecosystem,
appropriate and
development sector
levels (province and district) on
journalists and
and local level in order to promote
mangrove values,
and rehabilitation
applicable means,
organizations by
mangrove ecosystem values.
educators, and
understanding and involvement of the
enhance initiatives of
degraded mangrove
through multi-media
increasing their
provide them
stakeholders;
conservation.
ecosystem in protected
and through field
knowledge and
materials of
3. To Integrate the concept of mangrove
and cultivation area
demonstration and
awareness about the
awareness on
management and important to the
2. improving community
observation
development
mangroves.
schooling system;
understanding on
conservation and
4. To produce poster, brochure and
existence, status,
restoration activities.
guidebooks for the site management.
function and utilization of
mangrove ecosystem
3. increasing local
community role on
mangrove ecosystem
management
Activities
Sub-component 1: Improve government services
1. Organize the training for public
1. facilitate and provide
1. Strengthen
1. Provide forum to joint
1. Strengthen appropriate activities to
awareness (US$20,000, DNCP, Year 2,
assistance on mangrove
Information,
work and exchange
transform the perception of managers in
Medium priority);
rehabilitation, utilization
Education and
knowledge within
localities with the mangrove areas on
2. Organize study tours for sight seeing
and conservation
Communication on
development sectors,
the role, value, management and
(US$10,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium
activities
mangrove
especially between
sustainable uses of mangrove
priority).
2. Organize training on
forests/ecosystems
government and local
ecosystem (US$600,000, VEPA, MERC,
mangrove conservation
(Continuing, DENR,
communities.
FSIV, FIPI, 2005 2010);
and rehabilitation whose
LGUs, Academe)
2. Reinforce propaganda and
participant from local,
universalization of role, value of
national and
mangrove ecosystem as well as
international
management and sustainable use of
mangrove ecosystem for social
organizations and local communities in
mangroves areas for immediate and
long-term benefits (US$1,2 million, NP,
NR, MERC, FSIV, FIPI, and NGOs,
2005-2015).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 12
Table 4.3 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 3: Public awareness, Communication and Education.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 2: Development, improvement, and dissemination of awareness materials
1. Work with national media for national and 1. Conduct Mangrove
1. Develop journal
1. Develop and
1. Publicity to increase
In sub-component 3, Sub-component 1.
local awareness and information
Education (Yuan 9.7
mangrove ecosystem
maintain a
understanding and co-
exchange (US$20,000, DNCP, Year 2,
million, 5 years, SEPA
management
compendium of
operation (DMCR and
High priority);
& local governments). 2. Publish the books on
information and
local government
2. Magazine with the picture for local people
utilization of mangrove
documented lessons
organizations);
(US$10,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium
ecosystem
learned and best
2. Publicity (2005, DMCR
priority);
3. Establish of Mangrove
practices in
and local government
3. Use the established religious group such
Information Centre
mangrove
organizations);
as monks, teachers (US$5,000, DNCP,
4. Organize seminar/
management
3. Prepare media / study
Year 3, Medium priority);
workshop/dialog on
2. Disseminate
materials on mangrove
4. Establish database and library
integrated sustainable
information through
resources for
(US$50,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium
mangrove management
multi-media and
community use, for
priority)
other appropriate
example for monitoring
5. Design development of mangrove related
means
of water quality and
tourism activities to include and meet the
3. Improve medium of
biodiversity monitoring
needs of awareness of the opportunities
increasing
(DMCR, academic
for ecotourism of local people
awareness on
institutions, schools,
(US$10,000, DNCP, Year 3, High
mangroves through
and communities).
priority);
feedback
6. Develop and produce poster, brochure
mechanisms and
and guidebooks for the site management
analysis
(US$40,000, DNCP, Year 2, High
priority);
7. Develop the programs on public
awareness to target groups (US$10,000,
DNCP, Year 2, High priority).
Priority
Medium Low
Medium
Medium
High High
Time Frame
2005-2010
2005-2010
2005-2007
2005-2008
2005-2015
Cost
US$175,000
Yuan 9.7 million
Yes
US$ 10 million
Baht 785,000
US$ 1.8 million
Executing Agencies
DNCP
SFB, SOA&SEPA
MoF, MoMF, MoHA, MoE, Executive Branch,
DMCR
VEPA, MERC, FSIV, FIPI, NP, NR,
LIPI, Local Government
DENR/DPI/Academe,
NGOs
(BAPPEDA).
etc.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 13
Table 4.4
Objectives and Activities for Component 4: Capacity Building and Sustainability.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Objectives
1. To raise public awareness;
1. To enhance the
1. Improving capacity of To improve effective
1. Conservation, restoration, and 1. In component 3,
- Develop and
2. To build network with government agencies;
capacity in Institution, central and local
mangrove resource
increase in mangrove areas2.
sub-component 1.
implement a regional
3. To promote community awareness of mangrove
conservation,
government and
management by
Support the formation of
2. In Component 1,
exchange programme
areas;
utilization and
community institution strengthening and
organisations for the
sub-component 1.
for managers,
4. To develop a nation awareness programmes;
education.
on mangrove
capacitating
participatory development of
government officials,
5. To build institutional capacity;
ecosystem
communities and other
mangrove resources in the Gulf
teachers, research
6. To organize formal education;
management
stakeholders and other
of Thailand to drive the
students, and
7. To provide training for non government organizations;
2. Increasing the role of mangrove users in the
sustainable conservation,
community leaders.
8. To analysis policy and legislation for mangrove
management
proper management of
restoration, and use of
management;
authority and
mangrove ecosystems
mangrove resources.
9. To Monitor and control the site;
scientific authority on
10. To develop and implement streamlined financial
mangrove ecosystem
management systems and strategies for increasing
management
the revenue base;
3. Develop synergy
11. To develop and implement an infrastructure
collaboration and
development and maintenance plan;
integrated program
12. To analysis and recommend institution;
between relevant
13. To Strengthening the cooperation and coordination;
stakeholders
14. To build a network for cooperation between
difference development organizations.
Activities
Sub-component 1: Human resource development
1. Develop a programme to increase awareness within 1. Build the Capacities 1. Insert awareness
1. Improve capability of 1. Support the process of formal
government of the functions and benefits of mangrove of Mangrove
program in extra
stakeholders and other
study and non-formal education
(US$20,000, DNCP, Year 2, High priority);
Reserves (Yuan28.5
curricular activities of mangrove users for
to develop organizational
2. Undertake small, in the short-term, and large-scale, in
million, 5 years,
students and
more improved
knowledge, capacity and focus
the long-term, demonstration projects involving the
SFA, SEPA)
Schools, University
management and
in the conservation, restoration,
management of mangrove areas (US$50,000, DNCP,
curriculum
productivity
and use of mangrove resources
Year 3, Medium priority);
2. Improving quality of
(DMCR, academic institutions,
3. Develop a comprehensive programme to increase
human resources for
local government organizations,
public awareness of mangrove and the benefits
supporting
and communities); 2. Build
(US$40,000, DNCP, Year 2, High priority);
infrastructure and
forums for joint work and
4. Develop national awareness and information
facilities mangrove
learning between development
exchange programs (US$10,000, NMC, Year 2-5,
information centre
organizations, government, local
Medium priority);
organizations, and communities
5. Establish cooperation with foreign broadcast
to share and exchange local
operation (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3-5, Medium
knowledge and appropriate
priority);
technology for the management
6. Make magazine with picture for local people
of mangrove resources (DMCR,
(US$20,000, DNCP, Year 3-5, High priority);
academic institutions, local
7. Develop newsletters for government, national and
government organizations, and
international agencies (US$20,000, DNCP, Year 3-5,
communities).
High priority);
8. Use established religious groups such as monks and
teachers (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium priority);
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 14
Table 4.4 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 4: Capacity Building and Sustainability.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 2: Immediate training activities
1. Organize training programmes for relevant government
Included in Component 1. Organize training on
1. Sustain training for LGUs and 1. Training for
ministries and local authorities and groups (US$20,000, DNCP, 3- Sub-component 2:
mangrove
mangrove/ coastal communities
mangrove resource
Year 2-3, Medium priority);
Development,
conservation and
on sustainable management of
people from
2. Integrate basic mangrove ecology into school curricula and
improvement, and
rehabilitation whose
mangroves (immediate, DENR,
government
promote awareness programmes on mangrove benefit and
dissemination of
participant from local,
LGUs, SCUs, NGOs).
organizations,
value (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3-5, Medium priority);
awareness materials
national and
2. Encourage group visiting to
community leaders,
3. Develop training programmes for NGO staff working in rural
international
successful projects; cross-
young people, and
areas and advertising local agencies (US$30,000, DNCP, Year
2. Develop curriculum ,
posting for additional
other development
3-5, Medium priority).
material, schedule,
knowledge on mangrove
organizations
supporting facilities,
resource management
(DMCR and
methods of awareness
academic
and training on
institutions).
mangrove
management
Sub-component 3: Law enforcement
1. Compile existing sectoral legislation relating to mangrove
1. Develop step by step 1. Involvement of all responsible 1.
In
resources from all ministries (US$2,000, DNCP, Year 3,
of law enforcement
government entity, private, civil
component 2,
Medium priority);
system on mangrove
society, religious organisations
sub-
2. Review existing legislation to determine areas of overlap and
management
and individuals in the
component 3.
gaps in legislation (US$2,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium priority);
2. Execute law
enforcement of policies, s and
3. Ensure that mangroves are managed along the principles of
enforcement on
regulations on mangrove
suitable development (DNCP, Year 2-5, Medium priority).
mangrove ecosystem
resources
management
Sub-component 4: Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance
1. Prepare annual report on policies, activities, and plans
1.
Identification
and
Follow-up of the NAP and
1.
Human
(US$7,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, High priority);
evaluation regulation revise/amend when necessary
resource and
2. Measure to allow and encourage non-government participation
on mangrove
infrastructure
in the implementation of strategy (US$10,000, DNCP, Year 2,
ecosystem
development
High priority);
management
(p 20, the
3. Report regularly the indicators identified for each strategic
solution)
objective (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, High priority);
4. Revise the strategy after an initial implementation (US$15,000,
DNCP, Year 1-5, Medium priority).
Sub-component 5: Financial sustainability
1. Develop economically viable eco-tourism activities
1. Operate Eco-tourism 1. Establish well
1. Develop livelihood and other
1.
Funding
(US$10,000, DNCP, Year 3-5, High priority);
in Mangrove
understanding on
income generating projects and
solution
2. Develop an AOP manual and implement AOP procedures
Reserves (Yuan30
institution role and
promote the user's pay principle
· Diverse
annually (US$10,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, High priority);
million, 3 years, SFA,
responsibility on
for a sustained mangrove
funding
3. Implement policies on financial management (US$5,000,
SOA);
mangrove ecosystem establishment, management
sources
DNCP, Year 1, High priority)
management
and protection
· Foreign
4. Raise funds through eco-tourism and other activities offered by
support
Peam Krasop (US$10,000, PD, Year 3-5, Medium priority)
· Increase
5. Explore and implement opportunities for fund raising
eco-
(US$10,000, PD, Year 3-5, Medium priority);
tourism
6. Train accounts staff and budgets holders in financial
services
management systems (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3-5, Medium
(p19,
priority);
solution)
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 15
Table 4.4 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 4: Capacity Building and Sustainability.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 6: Infrastructure development
1. Monitor road improvements & lobby stoppage of
1. Create "China 1. Improve supporting
Provision for
1. Set up centres for local people to pass
potentially harmful road development plans (US$30,000,
Mangrove
infrastructure and capacity on infrastructure
on knowledge about mangroves from
DNCP, Year 1-5, High priority);
Management
mangrove Information Centre development such as
research, local indigenous knowledge,
2. Carry out environmental and social impact assessment for
and Utilization
in Central and Local
but not limited to board
and local culture to tourists (DMCR,
all proposed infrastructure according to specific EIA
Technology
walk for educational,
academic institutions, and local
guidelines (US$10,000, DNCP, Year 2, High priority);
Development
tourism promotion and
government organizations);
3. Prepare site plans and layouts for all approved
Centre"
awareness building on 2. Support establishment of 50 mangrove
infrastructure (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3, High priority);
(Yuan25.5
the importance of
ecosystem study centres within five
4. Solicit for funding for approved infrastructure
million, 2
mangroves; ports and
years (DMCR, academic institutions,
developments and renovation work(US$20,000, DNCP,
years, SEPA &
other environmentally
schools, and communities).
Year 2-4, High priority);
local
friendly infrastructure
5. Identify appropriate contractors according to infrastructure
government);
for economic
development standards ( DNCP, Year 3, High priority);
2. Install
development of the
6. Closely supervise contractors to ensure quality work and
Mangrove
coastal
conformity with agreed standards (DNCP, Year 3-5, High
Education
dwellers/communities
priority);
Facilities
7. Develop and implement a maintenance plan for all
(Yuan20
infrastructure (US$2,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, Medium
million, 2
priority);
years, SOA &
8. Lobby local governments on maintenance of key roads to
SFA).
Peam Krasop (DNCP, Year 1-5, Medium priority).
Sub-component 7: Institutional building and strengthening
1. The roles and responsibilities of the various Ministries and
1. Establish well understanding 1. Solicit the
-Establishment
Departments in relation to mangrove resources must be
on institution role and
involvement of other
of a regional
clearly established (US$30,000, DNCP, Year 1-5, Medium
responsibility on mangrove
agencies of they
training and
priority);
ecosystem management
government (local
research
2. Strengthen the government's responsibilities for the
2. Strengthening National
and national) to
institution
mangrove management (DNCP);
Mangrove Committee
improve services
3. Develop the policy of each ministry and department
and benefits the
involved in management of mangrove.
mangrove
ecosystems provide
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 16
Table 4.4 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 4: Capacity Building and Sustainability.
Sub-component 8: Network establishment and strengthening
1. Build forums for joint works and learning between
1.
Prepare
program
and
1. Encourage
1. Create a volunteer network to guard
development organizations, government, local
establish international and
networking of
and maintain mangrove areas (DMCR
organizations, and communities (US$10,000, DNCP, Year
national partnership and
concerned
and local government organizations);
3, Medium priority);
collaboration on
individuals, private
2. Support establishment of networks of
2. Support establishment of network of development
implementation of knowledge
sectors, civil society,
development organizations (DMCR,
organizations (US$5,000, DNCP, Year 3, Medium priority).
and technology of
religious
academic institutions, local
environmental friendly,
organizations and
government organizations, and
utilization and marketing
government
communities).
organizations for
improved benefits and
services
Priority
High High
Low
Low
Very
high
Low
Time Frame
5 years?
2004-2010
2005-2010
2005-2007
2005-2008
Yes
Cost
US$478000
Yuan 104 million Yes
US$ 104 million
Baht 5,500,750
Executing Agencies
DNCP, NMC, PD
SPB,
Dept. Forestry, Dept. Marine F, CMMO/NGO/Academe, DMCR Yes
SEPA/SOA/SFB, MoEnv, Dept. Home A, LIPI.
DENR/DA/PCG/LGU.
SMD
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 17
Table 4.5
Objectives and Activities for Component 5: Resource and Habitat Management.
Cambodia China
Indonesia Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Objectives
1. To identify and define the degraded
1. Protect and
1 Maintain the existence
1. Preservation of the remaining
1. Promote the sustainable use of
1. Reinforce
areas or/and the important areas;
Rehabilitate the
and function of
mangrove forests bringing them under
mangrove resources;
effectiveness of
2. To patrolling and protection against the
Existing Mangroves
mangrove ecosystem,
effective management and enhancing
2. Monitoring of management of
mangrove
illegal activities;
and Plant Mangrove and rehabilitate
their biological productivity;
mangrove resources and
ecosystem
3. To design and zone for community
Trees;
degraded mangrove
2. Preservation of portions of the
identification of performance
protection,
development area;
2. Improve Mangrove
ecosystem in protected
mangrove areas for protection of floral
indicators.
rehabilitation and
4. To provide the community development
Management;
and cultivation area.
and faunal biodiversity;
development;
approaches for the areas and/or
3. Develop New
3. Expansion of mangroves through
2. Contribute to
different alternatives with the
Technologies and
reforestation and plantation
improve
sustainable development way;
Modes to Rationally
development;
livelihoods for
5. To build the partners with different
Use Mangroves;
4. Provision of adequate supply of
the people who
organizations such as private, public
mangrove products and services to
live inside or in
and NGOs/UN agencies for community
various end-users while at the same
the vicinity of
development supports;
time conserving and expanding the
mangroves.
6. To strengthen coastal management and
resources;
effective use;
5. Promotion of economic development in
7. To Speeding up research, cooperation
areas around mangrove forests
in research and technology transfer;
especially in ways that enhance
8. To transform the perception of key
mangrove protection and management.
mangers, policy makers at local levels.
Activities
Sub-component 1: Develop guidelines for sustainable use
1. Identify the degraded and /or important Included in
1. Develop standard and
1. Delineation of the mangrove permanent 1. Identify and prepare plans of areas -Information
areas in each site of the highest
component 2- Sub-
criteria of conservation
forest estate (immediate, FMB-DENR,
at risk (DMCR and local
network and
priorities (US$20,000, DNCP, Year 2-5, component 4:
activities
NAMRIA, BFAR);
government organizations)
exchange
Medium priority);
Integration of
2. Develop guideline and
2. Plan tourism zones and ecological
2. Mapping the degraded and/important
government agencies
improve community
tourism activities for mangroves
areas (US$30,000, DNCP, Year 2-5,
participation on
together with local communities; 3.
High priority);
mangrove management
Research and development of
3. Develop strategy and method to restore
3. Develop criteria and
appropriate guidelines for
their ecosystem in each area
indicators on sustainable
protecting against coastal erosion
(US$50,000, DNCP, Year 3-5, Medium
mangrove ecosystem
(DMCR Department of Mineral
priority).
management
Resources).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 18
Table 4.5 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 5: Resource and Habitat Management.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 2: Strengthen management components
1. Establish patrolling system (US$50,000,
1. Establish seed nursery 1. Adoption of Criteria &
1. Conserve species of aquatic
DNCP, Year 1-5, High priority).
2. Establish MIC
Indicators for
animals found in mangrove
(Mangrove Information
management of mangrove
forests (DMCR, academic
Centre)
forests (Immediate, FMB,
institutions, and local government
Academe)
organizations);
2. Monitor progress and results of
joint work and issue annual reports
and a five-yearly report (DMCR and
communities);
3. Develop measurements for change
in mangrove status and for
monitoring success of strategies,
methods, and activities, including
measures at the overview level for
sustainable mangrove
management and measures for
monitoring change in particular
aspects (DMCR, academic
institutions, and communities).
Sub-component 3: Establish/enhance habitat classification system
1. Develop action plan for the restoration 1. Plant Mangrove
1. Establish infrastructure 1. Expand the mangrove
1. Expand planting areas (DMCR and -Develop
regional
activities in each area (US$20,000,
Trees to Restore
and facilities to support
areas (FMB, BFAR,
local government organizations);
criteria for habitat
DNCP, Year 2-5, High priority);
and Rehabilitate
knowledge and
LGUs)
2. Maintain mangrove areas (DMCR
classification
2. Thinning and pruning of the natural
Mangroves
technology of mangrove
and local government
space for natural regeneration of the
(Yuan460 million,
ecology
organizations)
forest (US$20,000, DNCP, Year 3-5,
10 years, SFA)
Medium priority);
3. Establish tree nursery for each site with
the identified plant species (US$30,000,
DNCP, Year 3-5, Medium priority);
4. Plant seedling trees from the nursery in
the degraded areas (US$30,000,
DNCP, Year 3-5, Medium priority);
5. Maintain the planted forest and natural
forest in the degraded areas
(US$15,000, DNCP, Year 3-5, Medium
priority);
6. Establish the wildlife rescue centre for
each site for treat and take care wild
animal (US$40,000, DNCP, Year 4-5,
Medium priority);
7. Delivery the rescue animal into its
habitats (US$15,000, DNCP, Year 3-5,
Medium priority).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 19
Table 4.5 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 5: Resource and Habitat Management.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Sub-component 4: Community-based management
1. Design and zone for community
1. Socialization technical
1. Encourage community-
1. Establish `mangrove
1. Socialization of
development area (US$10,000, DNCP,
standard guideline,
based management and
communities' (DMCR,
mangrove forestry
Year 2-5, Medium priority);
criteria mangrove
partnership in all aspects
academic institutions, and
and upgrading
2. Organize public awareness
management, and
of mangrove
local government
living standard for
programme/training (US$10,000,
utilization of knowledge,
management
organizations);
local people
DNCP, Year 3-4, Medium priority);
technology and traditional
2. Support communities in
(US$1,2 million,
3. Organize skills training (US$10,000,
knowledge
introducing regulations for
PPC, DPC, FMBs,
DNCP, Year 3-4, Medium priority);
conservation, restoration,
Silvo, Phase 1:
4. Help community define local products
and use of mangrove
2005 2010 and
depend on markets (US$3,000, DNCP,
resources by the
phase 2: 2010
Year 3-4, Medium priority);
community (DMCR,
2015).
5. Build partnership with public, private
academic institutions, local
sectors and NGOs (US$310,000,
government organizations,
DNCP, Year 2-5, Medium priority).
and communities).
Sub-component 5: Sustainable use of coastal systems
1. Develop mew approaches for
1. Operate Ecotourism in Urban
1. Prepare program and
1. Initiate implementation of
-Examination
of
sustainable use (US$10,000, DNCP,
Mangrove Areas (Yuan180
establish national and
integrated coastal
commercializat
Year 3-5, Medium priority);
million, 5 years, SEPA, CNTA,
international partnership
resource management
ion of
2. Strengthen coastal management and
local governments).
and collaboration on
following all phases of
mangrove
effective use (US$10,000, DNCP, Year
implementation of
coastal resources
carbon sink.
4-5, Medium priority).
knowledge and
assessment, CRM plan
technology environmental
preparation and
friendly
implementation including
M/E following all
benchmarks and best
practices as adopted my
other economies
Sub-component 6: Environmentally friendly technologies
1. Prepare research topics with line-
1. Exploit Medical and Genetic
1 . Implement research
1. Advocate for the use of
1. Support the production of
ministries (US$10,000, DNCP, Year 3-
Resources in Mangroves
and development of
environmentally- friendly
goods from mangrove
5, Medium priority);
(Yuan50 million, 5 years, MST &
knowledge and
technologies for
resources, causing no
2. Strengthen capacity of research
local governments);
technology on fish farm enhancement of resources
damage to the balance of
institutions, which are specialized on
2. Develop Productivity Restoration
that environmental
and habitat management
the ecosystem (DMCR,
mangrove ecosystem (US$5,000,
Technology to Reuse
friendly
academic institutions, and
DNCP, Year 2-5, Medium priority).
Abandoned Shrimp Ponds and
local government
Salina (Yuan34.5 million, 5
organizations).
years, SEPA & local
governments).
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 20
Table 4.5 cont.
Objectives and Activities for Component 5: Resource and Habitat Management.
Cambodia China
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Regional
Sub-component 7: Types of management regimes, development of models
1. Transform the perception of
1. Practice Eco-Farming 1. Conduct activities on
1. Replicate of the Pagbilao GRA to
1. Promote ecotourism (DMCR,
1. Appropriate use,
key mangers, policy makers on
in Mangrove Areas
sustainable mangrove
consider other environmental gradients
academic institutions, and local
protection and
the roles and value of
(Yuan42 million, 5
management unit for
(immediate, ERDB, UPLB and other
government organizations).
rehabilitation of
mangrove ecosystem and
years, MST, SEPA,
forestry utilization
SCUs, PCARRD);
mangrove ecosystem
raise awareness of local
3 provincial
(charcoal, timber, nipa 2. Study and establish appropriate model
(US$600,000, FSIV,
community (US$4,000, DNCP,
governments);
palm), fisheries and
for CBFM in mangrove forests
FIPI, FIRI, FMBs, Silvo,
Year 3-5, Medium priority);
2. Construct
eco-tourism
(immediate, FMB, FDC).
PPC, DPC, NP, NR,
2. Consolidate and reinforce the
International
Local communities,
mangrove ecosystem
Mangrove Demo
extension agencies,
management organizations at
Site (Yuan45 million,
Phase 1: 2005-2010,
ministries levels and at local
5 years, SFA, SOA,
Phase 2: 2010-1015).
levels (US$5,000, DNCP, Year
SEPA, local
3-5, Medium priority).
governments).
Sub-component 8: Alternative livelihood
Included in Component
1. Promote additional alternative livelihood
5-Sub-component 5, 6, 7
opportunities for mangrove forest
resource users (immediate, DENR,
BFAR, LGUs).
Sub-component 9: Establishment of management zones
1. Expand Protected
1. Initiation national
1. Management zones should be properly 1. Create mangrove and buffer
1. Reinforcement and
Mangrove Areas
workshop on
identified and laid on the ground to avoid
zone boundaries either naturally
development of nature
(Yuan20 million, 5
implementation of law
conflicting uses and for a more
by forest planting or by using
reserves and national
years, SEPA, SFA);
on land use, especially harmonious use of resources and
other appropriate structures
parks (US$500,000,
that related to
habitats including mangrove ecosystems.
(DMCR and local government
MARD, MONRE, MPI,
mangrove ecosystem
organizations);
NP, NR, PPC, DPC,
2. Plan tourism zones and
FIPI, 2005-2010).
ecological tourism activities for
mangroves together with local
communities (DMCR, academic
institutions, and local
government organizations).
Priority
Medium
Very high
High
Very high
Very high
High
Time Frame
2005-2015
2005-2010 2005-2007
2005-2008
2005-2015
Cost
US$407,000
Yuan 786.5 million
Yes
US$ 177 million
Baht 44,709,000
US$ 2.3 million
Executing Agencies
DNCP
SEPA, SFB, SOA
MoF, MoMF, MoE,
DENR, NGA, NGO, Academe, LGUs.
DMCR
PPC, DPC, FMBs,
MoHA
Silvo, MARD,
MONRE, MPI, NP,
NR, FIPI
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 4
Page 21
Abbreviation
Cambodia China Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand Viet
Nam
AOP: Annual Operation
CNTA: China National
Local Government Planning BFAR: Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
DMCR: Department of Marine ACIAR: Australian Centre for
Plan;
Tourism Administration
Agencies (Bappeda)
Resources
and Coastal Resources (part International Agriculture
of the Ministry of Natural
Research
Resources and Environment)
DNCP: Department of
MST: Ministry of Science
Ministry of Forestry (MoF)
CBFM: Community Based Forest
ADPI:?
Nature Conservation and
and Technology
Management
Protection of MoE;
MAFF: Ministry of
NRDC: National Reform and Ministry of Marine and
CMMO: Coastal Marine Management
DONRE: Department of
Agriculture, Forestry and
Development Commission, Fisheries (MoMF)
Office
Natural Resource and
Fisheries;
Environment
MIST: Management
SEPA: State Environment
Ministry of Environment
DA: Department of Agriculture
DPC: District People's
Information System;
Protection Bureau
(MoE)
Committee
MLMUC: Ministry of Land
SEPA: State Environmental Indonesian Institution of Life DENR: Department of Environment and
FIPI: Forest Inventory and
Management, Urbanization Protection Administration
Science (LIPI)
Natural Resources
Planning Institute
and Construction;
MoE: Ministry of
SFA: State Forestry
Ministry of Home Affair
DFA: Department of Foreign Affairs
FMBs: Forest Management
Environment;
Administration,
(MoHA)
Boards
MoP: Ministry of Planning.
SMD: State Monetary
Local Government Planning DPI: Department of Public Information
FSIV:?
Department
Agencies (Bappeda)
MRD: Ministry of Rural
SOA: State Oceanic
ERDB: Ecosystems Research and
MARD:
Ministry
of
Development;
Administration
Development Bureau
Agriculture and Rural
Development
NMC: National Mangrove
SPB: State Personnel
FDC:
MERC: Mangrove
Committee;
Bureau
Ecosystem Research Centre
PD: Provincial Department?
FMB: Forest Management Bureau, DENR
MOF: Ministry of Fishery
GRA: Genetic Resources Area
MONRE: Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment
LGU: Local Government Unit
NGOs: Non-Governmental
Organizations
NAMRIA: National Mapping Resource
NP: National Park
Inventory Authority
PCARRD:
NR:
National
Reserves
PO:
People's
Organization
PPC:
Provincial
People's
Committee
PPSO: Policy and Planning Service Office
Silvo: Fishery Enterprise
RA: Republic Act
VEPA: Viet Nam
Environment Protection
Agency
SCU:
UPLB:
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 5
Page 1
ANNEX 5
Revised Targets for the Mangrove Sub-component of the Regional Strategic Action
Programme
BACKGROUND
The fifth meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee reviewed the revised targets
proposed by the Regional Working Groups for the various components of the Strategic Action
Programme and commented as follows on the proposals from the Regional Working Group on
Mangroves:
Mangroves
· 66% of the present area of mangroves should be brought under protection by the
year 2012.
RSTC Comment: The RWG-M should consider the definition of "protection" and ensure
common understanding of "protection" in the region. It was pointed out in Indonesia and
Philippines "protection" means "non-use" of timber and other forest products.
The sixth meeting of the Regional Working Group reviewed the revised draft targets proposed during
the fifth meeting and prepared the following table reflecting the goals and targets with respect to
mangroves that could be realistically established in the revised Strategic Action programme.
Table 1
Areas of Mangrove under different forms of management and potential targets
for mangrove protection to be included in the SAP. [Targets relate to 2012 unless
otherwise stated]
Cambodia China Indonesia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam Total
%
Total area (ha)
72,350
23,446
934,000
27,251
34,677
156,6083 1,245,864 100
Production 0
0
610,800
0
0
40,000
650,800
52
Conversion 0
0
165,000
5004
0 0
166,640
13
Parks & Protected Areas (Conservation)
13,558 15,772
158,200
[4,776}5
11,520 50,000 249,050
20
non-extractive use
Non-use of mangrove but extractive
58,792
7,674
0
26,751
23,157 66,608 179,374
14
resource use (fish, crabs etc.)
Area currently under management
13,558 15,772
768,800
23,143
11,520 155,000 987,793
79
Regulated in laws
30,000
Areas estimated as currently under
13,558 15,772
100,000
15,0007
1,000
42,000
430,329
35
sustainable management
8,820 +1,0006
158,200
11,520
46,626
Area to be transferred to National
0
5,330
20,000
0
1,400 30,000 56,730
4.5
Parks and Protected Area status
Non-conversion of mangrove but
0
0
165,0008
0
0 0
165,000
1.3
sustainable use
Improved management relating to
49,972
0
490,8009
11,75110 c
10,000 165,000 727,523
58
sustainable use
3 By 2010 new plantation raising the total mangrove area in Viet Nam to in excess of 202,008 Hectares.
4 Conversion for Infrastructure development and other uses.
5 Area is for the entire Philippines, area for South China Sea to be supplied later.
6 Area outside the protected area for which some form of management plans exist estimated.
7 Estimate of total area with local government or community based management plans.
8 Represents re-classification of conversion forest to other forms of use.
9 This represents areas to be transferred from "productive use" to the "non-use of mangrove but other extractive use category."
10 By 2010.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 6
Page 1
ANNEX 6
Proposals Regarding Training Needs and Opportunities in the Context of the Demonstration Sites
Table 1a
Training Needs in Exchange Programme From Mangrove Demo site Management in Batu Ampar Indonesia.
Time (Days)
Number
Activity
Young
Status Participant
Expected Site
Study Tour
Training
Participant
Scientist
1. Community base management of mangrove rehabilitation and
60
Vice Site Manager
1
Trat Province
management
Staff of forestry and ecotourism
2. Comparative study of mangrove ecotourism and management
10
6 Trat
Province
office, and staff of site manager
3. Planning, developing and managing of ecotourism on mangrove
60
Site Manager
Trat Province
4. Improve the role and participation, and networking of local community in
90
Young Scientist
4
Trat Province
sustainable mangrove management
5. Technique and management of Shrimp farming friendly
90
Young Scientist
4
Trat Province
6. Strategy and Technique of develop stakeholder (private sectors,
government, volunteers) participation and networking on mangrove
60
Staff of Site Manager
2
Fanchenggang
management
7. Conflict resolution and land use planning on mangrove ecosystem
90
Young Scientist
2
Trat Province
management
8. Management of Research Station and Information Center of mangrove
Site Manager, staff of forestry
12
5 Trat
Province
conservation and rehabilitation
office
Table 1b
Training Opportunities from the Mangrove Demo site Management in Batu Ampar Indonesia.
Time (Days)
Activity
Status Participant
Study Tour
Training
Young Scientist
1. Natural mangrove ecosystem in the Tropic (Batu Ampar) and utilization of
10
Site
Manager
local community
2. Research of biodiversity on mangrove ecosystem (competition Nypa Palm
and Rhizoporaceae plant, monitoring of sylviculture system, impact of
90
Young
Scientist
exploitation, wildlife)
3. Technique of White Charcoal Process and Management of Mangrove
10
Site
Manager
Forest Production
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 6
Page 2
Table 2
Training Needs From Peam Krasop Demonstration Site in Cambodia. [Given the relatively low level of development of the site no
training opportunities are offered at this site]
Number of
Activities Duration
Visiting Countries
Position
Participants
Scientific programs
·
Young science, site manager,
Economic valuation on mangrove ecosystem
·
10-12 days
4 Thailand
technical team leader of site and
Impact on mangrove ecosystem caused by other sources and degradation of mangrove
(July/2006)
interpreter
areas
Study Tours
· To learn and exchange knowledge and experiences on mangrove management system,
Thailand, Indonesia,
·
10-17 days
Site manager and technical team
To learn and exchange knowledge and experiences on community based management,
5-7
Viet Nam, Philippine
·
(September/2006)
leader of site and interpreter
Techniques of establishment of nursery and replanting mangrove
and China
· Network building and community establishment
Training Courses
· Techniques of patrolling system,
Thailand, Indonesia,
·
5-10 days
Site manager, technical team
Techniques on law enforcement
5-7
Viet Nam, Philippine
·
(November/2006)
leaders of site and interpreter
Techniques on inventory of mangrove species
and China
· Techniques of establishment and maintain information management system
Table 3
Initial plan for personal exchange of FCG Demonstration Site, China.
Experiences needed
Tour visiting
Training
Young Sci.
Expected Site
Strategy, policy and management on mangrove ecosystem
6
Trat province
Financing and mechanism to develop ecotourism
5
Community-based management
3
Plan design & management of Eco-tourism
3
Techniques of eco-farming
3
Volunteer and NGO organizing
3
Management of Marine Natural Reserve
3
Nursering and Planting techniques
1
Conservation Planning
1
Status and strategy to restore abandoned shrimp ponds
1
Uses of mangrove fauna & flora and management method
1
Graduate student research
2~3
Experiences offered
Tour visiting
Training
Young Sci.
Lead Organisation
How to maintain urban mangroves during economy expansion
Xindi.Co.
Resource and environment monitoring
GMRC
Coordinating stakeholders and govern.
Site Manage. Board
Aquaculture of seashell in mangrove area
FCG city government & Xindi.Co.
Graduate student research
GMRC
Traditional uses of Chinese mangrove system
FCG city government
Conservation and restorage of China endangered coastal habitats and species
GMRC
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 6
Page 3
Table 4.
Trat Demonstration Site, Thailand.
Activities will be offered to visitors:
Activities should be learnt from other demonstration sites:
1.
On the protection of mangrove ecosystems
1.
Forest Management: Due to mangrove forest in Trat province had been stopped cutting
and replantation for more than ten years, high density mangrove forest lead to low
1.1 Mangrove areas classification: conservation zone and economic zone where the area
production of wood and marine fauna because of very low light intensity inside the
divided by artificial creeks. It can be seen in Trat Demonstration Site and King Project
mangroves. Good forest management practice including silvo-fishery should be learnt
at Kung Kraben Bay in Chantaburi Province which is about 90 kms far west from Trat
for promotion mangrove community activities in the future.
Province. The economic zones are mostly shrimp farms, agriculture lands or
communities. King project will show clearly effective mangrove conservation and shrimp
2.
Mangrove Product: White charcoal, food from mangrove, tanin and other near by
cultures.
mangrove product such as pearl culture, cockle culture, fish and crab culture should be
learnt and apply to this site.
1.2 Communities networking in protecting mangrove ecosystems: where the mangroves in
many provinces in the Gulf of Thailand destroyed by various development activities.
3.
Ecotourism management: The study on this activity will be enhancing idea and apply to
People at Ban Pred Nai in Trat province were grouping and stimulated the Governor to
improve in the demonstration site. This study is including Nature Mangrove Parks and
use his power to protect mangrove from converting at into shrimp farms. This
their Biodiversity study.
successful protection lead to join with many communities and enhance the coastal
ecosystem in crabs, fishes and natural shrimps and production.
4.
Functioning of mangroves: Main functionings of mangrove demonstration sites are
different due to the ecosystems are different. However, the role of mangroves are
1.3 Mangrove Conservation, Protection and Rehabilitation Trainings: Thai government with
much more important after the tsunami hit the Indian Ocean coastal areas recently. It
the cooperation for UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project has supported mangrove
saves many communities, which there are mangroves in front. Cleaning water pollution
officials and site managers to train the local people in strengthened networking,
and marine habitat are also should be learnt.
protection and rehabilitation based on technical and traditional knowledge. Visitors
should be trained with local communities. Nursery technique, planting technique are
5.
Training method: Training of other demonstration sites will be different from Trat site. It
also including.
depends on the culture, ecosystem functioning and basic knowledge of trainee.
Method of training of other sites can be applied to Trat site.
1.4 Mangrove Biodiversity: Trat mangrove is one of the most high biodiversity both interms
of plant and animals. The study on this activity can be done in Mangrove Habitat Study
6.
Local community based: Mangroves are closely related to local communities, hence
Area at Ban Pred Nai (Trat) and at Kung Kra Ben Bay (King Project), Chantaburi
the study
province and Mangrove Research and Development Station in Trat province. Further
more, various kinds of birds are also interesting.
1.5 Mangrove Production: Product of mangrove ecosystem is not only marine animals but
also can take from plant. Nypa palm is one of high productivity species. Bruguira
gymnorshiza fruit can cook for desert. Acanthus sp. can use for medicine. Sesarma spp
and mud crab conservation by local people at Ban Pred Nai are also very interesting.
1.6 Mangrove ecosystem ecotourism: Due to high biodiversity of plants and animals and
forest can pass through by boat along nature creeks. Visitors will enjoy like the nature
parks and very nice seafood. They can learn how to manage mangrove for ecotourism.
1.7 Transboundary Demonstration Site: Mangroves in Trat, Thailand and Prem Kasop in
Koh Kong Province, Cambodia has been joint for coastal ecosystem management. It is
only one mangrove demonstration site of South China Sea to be like this. The visitors
can study this coastal sit interm of linking ecosystems.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 6
Page 4
Table 5
Summary of Training/Work Experience at Mangrove Demonstration Site Busuanga, Palawan, Philippines.
No. Training
on
Sponsor/s
Participants
1
Basic organization management
DENR
PO members
2
Financial management system and book keeping
DENR
PO members, LGU representatives
3
Effective ecotourism administration and management
DENR, DOT
PO members, LGU representatives
4
Comprehensive site development and project site management
DENR
PO members
5
Coastal resource inventory and planning
DENR
PO members
6
Community resource management framework formulation and resource utilization planning
DENR
PO members, LGU representatives
7
Coastal resource protection and deputization of local "Bantay Bakawanan"
DENR, LGU, DND, PCG
PO members
8
Livelihood development and marketing
DENR, DTI, LGU
9
Benefit sharing system formulation and capital build up management
DENR, LGU, DND, PCG
10
Ecological waste management and sanitation
DENR, DOH, LGU
Table 6
Training Needs From Mangrove Demonstration Site In Viet Nam.
Activities
Time & Duration
Number of Participants
Visiting Countries
Position
Fellowship
· Economic valuation on mangrove ecosystem
3 months
2 Thailand
Young
science
and pollution
(8-11 months/2006)
· Environmental assessment
Study Tours
· To learn and exchange experiences on multi
sector and management system,
Local manager, technicians,
·
10-12 days
Thailand, Indonesia
To learn and exchange experiences on forest
6-8
Farmers and Interpreter,
(3 or 4/2006)
and China
management based community,
researchers
· Techniques of multi use models and their
organization and management
Training Courses
· Methodology on economic valuation,
· Techniques on multi use of management
10-15 days
Technicians, researchers and
3
Thailand and China
(models)
(5 or 6/2006)
interpreters
· Management and wise use of coastal habitats
· GIS
Experiences from mangrove demo site in Viet Nam
· Multi use models (aquaculture, bee keeping,.............)
· Experiences from management of RAMSAR site
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 1
ANNEX 7
Response to the Training Needs and Capacity Building Assessment Questionnaire
Table 1
Task Areas in the original Memoranda of Understanding in which capacity has been built, is needed, and depends upon a network of
national level partners.
Column A
Column B
Column C
Project Memoranda of Understanding Task
(Capacity Built)
(Capacity Needs)
(Partnerships)
Areas
CA CH IN PH TH VN
Rank CA CH
IN PH TH VN Rank
CA CH IN
PH
TH VN Rank
Chair and convene National Mangrove
1 1 3 7 2.8
2 2
1 2 1 1 1.25
Committee
Serve as a member of the National Technical
2 2 5 2 10 5 5.5
4 4
2 3 2.5
Working Group
Act as member of the Regional Working Group
3 1 2 1 9 6 3.7
0
3 3
Ensure that the NMC serves as an effective
source of Scientific and Technical advice to the
4 8 6
4 4
0
NTWG (to PSC)
Ensure that the NMC serves as an effective
source of Scientific and Technical advice to the
5
5
1 2
0
RWG (to RSTC)
Provide data and information to the RWG and/or
6 4 8 6
3 2.5
3
3
the RSTC
Review and update existing information relating
7 3 4 4 5 1 3.8
1
5 1 3.5
3 1 2
to the component
Assemble a national meta-database
5
10 5 7.5
1 2 1 4 2
1
1 2 1.33
Summarise all existing national legislation
6 6 4 2 4.5
3 3
0
Review criteria in use for decision making with
6 3
4.5
3 3 4 2 1 2.8
2 2
respect to future uses
Prepare criteria for use in site selection
9 3 4 6.0
2 2 2 2
0
Assist the RWG in preparing a regional synthesis
of data and information, together with a review of
7 8 7 8
5
3 3 4
2
2
threats
Develop a National Mangrove Action Plan
10 8 9 7 1 8 6.8
5 5 5
3 3
Guide IMC re SAP implementation
10 10
4 4
0
Promote the National Action Plan among
9 7 9 2 9 6.6
5 5 5
3
3
stakeholders
Prepare and submit Demonstration Site
8 6 10 3 10 6.8
4 4 4
2 2
proposals
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 2
Table 2
Amended Memoranda of Understanding tasks that your SEA is most capable of performing, can most readily obtain support from
other organisations at the national level to assist in the successful completion of the tasks, and is most capable of assisting other
SEAs/organisations at the national and regional level complete.
Column A
Column B
Column C
Amended Memoranda of Understanding Task Areas
(Existing Cap.)
(Partnerships)
(Expertise)
CA CH IN PH
TH
VN Rank CA CH IN PH
TH
VN Rank CA CH IN PH
TH VN Rank
Chair and convene National Mangrove Committee (NMC)
1 3 1 2 1 1.6
1 2 1 1.3
0
Serve as a member of the National Technical Working Group (NTWG)
2 1 2 3 2
2
2
2
0
Act as member of the Regional Working Group (RWG)
3 2 2 1 3 5 3.2
3 3 3 3
1
1
Ensure that the NMC serves as an effective source of Scientific and Technical advice to the NTWG
4 4
10 10 10
6 9
0
(to PSC)
Ensure that the NMC serves as an effective source of Scientific and Technical advice to the RWG
5 10
3 6
9 7 4 7 6.66
0
(to RSTC)
Provide data and information to the RWG and/or the RSTC
6 4 4 4 4 6 5.6
5
8
1
4.66
3 4 2 1 2.5
Maintain the national meta-database
8 5 6.5
7 3 10
2 5.5
1 2 1.5
Update criteria used for decision making with respect to future uses of marine habitats
9 9
4 3 3.5
2 2 2
Update data contained in the Regional GIS
9
7 10
8.67
8 1 4.5
3 1 2
Work with the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters regarding national legislation and the
10
8 6 2 6.5
6
9
3
6
3 3 3
preparation of a regional directory of legislation and best practices
Work with the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation regarding national level economic
6 5 4 5
2
5
2
4
3.25
4
4
valuation of mangroves
Assist the RWG in preparing a regional synthesis of data and information, together with a review of
7 5 7 6.33
6 5 5.5
5 5 5
threats for publication in early 2007
Further develop the preliminary National Mangrove Action Plan
3 3
1 1 9 3.66
0
Critically review from the national perspective, the targets and goals set by the draft SAP, and
5 5
0
2 2
prepare concrete proposals concerning actions at the national level required to meet these targets
Based on the criteria and ranking processes for the selection of sites of national and regional
significance, prepare and submit proposal(s) for the mangrove specific site(s) to be adopted by the
9 10
1
6.66
7
6
6.5
5 3 4
government for sequential intervention
Guide IMC re SAP implementation
10
10
0
0
Promote the NAP and SAP among stakeholders
9 9
4 8 6 10
7
5
0
Facilitate the process of formal government approval of the NAPs
9 6 8 7.67
9
8
4
10
7.75
0
Complete any outstanding tasks, listed in articles 5.i to 5.xvi of the original MOU.
0
5
5
0
Manage & execute the activities planned for demonstration sites as approved in the operational plan.
7
10
8.5
8 4 9 6.33
2 5 3.5
Co-ordinate national involvement in the regional programme for co-ordination, dissemination of
7 8 9 8
5 6
9
7
6.75
4 4 3 3.66
experiences, and personal exchange between demonstration sites
Prepare and submit additional Demonstration site proposals
8 7 6 8 7.25
7 5 8 6.66
1 1 4 2
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 3
Table 3a
The key five (5) achievements derived from the use of Memoranda of Understanding in the Project.
Priority
Achievements derived from the use of Memoranda of Understanding
CA CH IN PH TH VN
Rank
No
Score
Resp
Please circle these examples if you wish to use them in your list of five
6
· Increased stakeholder involvement
1
1 1 1
4 2 1.7
Improved support to the project at the local and national level
2
· Enhanced accountability through devolving of responsibility to specific bodies
3 2 4 3 5 3 3.3 6
· Enhanced capacity within the SEAs in respect to contract and task management
2 4 3 4 1 1 2.5 6
Please list your opinions in the fol owing cel s
2
Increased national meta-database and information sharing at national and regional levels
5
3.5
Enhance scientific and technical knowledge
2
Develop NAP to meet targets agreed in the regional SAP
3
Increased capacity within the SEAs to develop National Action Plan and Legislation status
4
4
5
Enhance national action planning
3
Increased funding effective uses
2
2
1
Expanded study areas
2
3
Ensured to develop good activities of national technical working group
2 4
Increased financial sustainability
1
1
1
Increased capacity of the SEAs to develop and revitalization of NMC
2
2
3.5
Ensured to do activities of NMC
5
Strengthened coordination among focal points and other components
5 5 1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 4
Table 3b
The key five (5) achievements derived from the site selection process.
Priority
Achievements derived from the site selection process
Rank
No.
CA CH IN PH TH VN
Score Resp.
Please circle these examples if you wish to use them in your list of five
·
Establishment of scientifically sound and transparent process for the selection of
1 1 2 2 1 1 1.3 6
funded demonstration sites
·
Development of a regionally agreed process for determining regional priorities
2 3 1 1 3 2 2 6
that is independent but which takes account of national priorities
·
Ranking of 26 mangrove, 43 coral reef, 26 seagrass and 41 wetland sites
5 2 3 4 3 3.4 5
Please list your opinions in the fol owing cel s
Review criteria for site selection
Cross-sectional evaluation/analysis of mangrove sites using the physical and ecological status
5
4.5 2
4
of all resources in the site
Full supports from local and national level, for mangrove management
Good contact to the local authorities and other stakeholders in area of demonstration site
3
3.3 3
Development of integration programme of stakeholder (Central and Local Government, etc.)
4
3
Enhanced stakeholder involvement in the term of data and information sharing
4
3.5 2
Enhanced stakeholder involvement
3
Pushed prepare of site data investigation
1 1 1
Importance to develop code of conduct mangrove management for utilization (Shrimp ponds)
4 4 1
Development of sustainable mangrove management for multiple use
5 5 1
Determined the frequency and stocking of mangroves sites being evaluated along the South
5 5 1
China Sea
Team work of focal points for decision-making
5 5 1
Main purpose of each demonstration site
Making explain the goals, objectives and important role of the UNEP-GEF project in the South
2
5
3.5 2
China Sea
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 5
Table 3c
The key five (5) achievements derived from the selection of approaches to project management and implementation that are
replicable.
Priority
Achievements derived from the selection of replicable approaches to project implementation
Rank
No.
CA CH IN PH TH VN Score Resp
Please circle these examples if you wish to use them in your list of five
2.6 6
·
Site selection process has led to establishment of priorities, locations, and purposes for
4 3 4 1 3 1
additional demonstrations/projects in the region
·
Several countries have adopted the use of the site selection methodology developed
2.8 6
3 1 2 2 4 5
through this project
·
Observers predict that many of the procedures used in the project may be implicitly
2.6 5
2 1 3 5 2
replicable at the national-level
Please list your opinions in the following cells
1 1
1
Regional Transboundary agreement developed for collaboration in management
Joint regional activities and programmes have developed for strengthening management
2 2 1
Learning of the process of the site selection methodology developed through this project
5 5 1
The priorities are important standards for Nature Reserve Construction
3 3 1
The priorities enhanced cross studies among different experts
5 5 1
Criteria and indicator at Demo site selection can be develop to improve mangrove monitoring at national
2 2 1
Some researcher/Scientist at national level adopted criteria and indicator to develop methodology
5 5 1
Approaches in selection of sites can be done in other parts of the country
4 4 1
Approaches can be modified depending on site conditions
5 5 1
GIS is useful for sites selection
1 1 1
All data information should be compiled of easy finding
2 2 1
Good analysis of key issues in demonstration sites for management and implementations that are
4 4 1
replicable
The process of management and implementations have been implemented by deferent stakeholders
3 3 1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 6
Table 3d
The key five (5) achievements derived from the adopted institutional arrangements and structures.
Priority
Achievements derived from the adopted institutional arrangements and structures
Rank
No.
CA CH IN PH
TH VN score Resp
Please circle these examples if you wish to use them in your list of five
2.8 6
·
Effective separation of the policy and decision-making body, the PSC, and the scientific
3 2 4 3
1 3
and technical forum, the RSTC
·
Ability for each body to concentrate on its primary area of responsibility and scientific and
2 1 3 2
2 1 1.8 6
technical considerations do not become confused by political discussions
·
All expertise used in the project is derived from within the region
4 5 2 1
4 2 3 6
Please list your opinions in the fol owing cel s
1 1
Institutional arrangements and structure strengthened
1
Capacity building for Institutional development
Ensure that project implementation gets success
5 5 1
Increased efficiency
1 1 1
Ensured Scientific Sound of Data
3 3 1
Effective to achieve sustainability mangrove management
5
5 1
All expertise of the mangrove management in regional level can be improve capacity and
1
1 1
responsibility at national level
Strengthened multi-sectoral / institutions involvement in policy making and decision making
5
5 1
Increased participation of stakeholders and coastal communities through consultation
4
4 1
meeting/referendums
Project director and SEAs are key persons for succession of the project
5
5 1
Transboundary of countries natural resources management should be done for sustainting
3
3 1
conservation
Giving good management structures of the level project at national
4 4 1
Good monitoring
5 5 1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 7
Table 3e
The key five (5) achievements derived from the protocols adopted for project co-ordination and management.
Achievements derived from the protocols adopted for project co-ordination and
Priority
management
Rank
No
CA CH IN PH TH VN Score Resp
Please circle these examples if you wish to use them in your list of five
·
Increased levels of ownership at the national level over progress and financial reporting
2 1 2 1 5 1 2 6
·
Increased accountability
5 3 3 5 1 3 3.3 6
·
National networking
4 1 2 4 2 2.6 5
Please list your opinions in the fol owing cel s
Increased co-ordination and collaboration among line ministries and stakeholders
1 1 1
Increased effectively and successful works
4 4 1
Improved process of decision making among stakeholders
3 3 1
Increased the responsibility of involved units
5 5 1
Increased the ability of SEAs in project management
2 2 1
Regional networking
5 5 1
Increased capacity and capability
4 4 1
Improved collaboration among mangrove project implementers
3
3 1
Local governments participation enhances
4
4 1
Reliable data information
2
2 1
Team work decision making
3
4 2
Good agreement
5
Clarify / identified the tasks and duties
4 4 1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 8
Table 4
Prioritised list of longer-term sustainability needs of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project.
Priority
Longer-term sustainability needs of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project
Rank
No
CA CH IN PH TH VN
Score Resp
Please circle these examples if you consider them to represent sustainability needs
2 5 2 1 5 4 3.2 6
·
Preservation of the regional consultative mechanism
·
Maintenance of demonstration site activities in the form of management mechanisms
5 1 1 2 1 1 1.8 6
Please list your opinions in the fol owing cel s
Maintain national and regional network
1 1 1
Capacity building needs for staff
3 3 1
Develop revenue strategy that can get from demo site
4 4 1
Emphasis on connection of regional requirement with country's social system
3 3 1
Development of Networking
4 4 1
Development of activity and Programme in demo site
3 3 1
Maintenance and sustainability of linking and networking nationally and regionally
4
4 1
Strengthen cross visitation to learn best practices in project implementation and management
6
6 1
Comprehensive analysis of the relationship between and among critical habitats for resources
3
3 1
productivity within the coastal zones
Application of lessons learned / best practices in mangrove and other coastal habitats with
5
5 1
stakeholders through participatory and coordinative approaches
Training of official manger to develop demonstration site
2
2 1
Planning of long tern demonstration sites
3
3 1
Strengthening demonstration sites network in the region
4
4 1
Good extension, exchanges of experiences, cross visit
2 2 1
Good participations of different stakeholders, especially local people in implementing the project
3 3 1
Keeping good co-financing
5 5 1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 9
Table 5
Prioritised list of how the available allocation (budget) for the training component should be best used to develop
the capacity required to enable the longer term sustainability of the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project.
Capacity building needs for the longer-term sustainability of the UNEP/GEF South
Priority
China Sea Project
Rank
No.
CA CH
IN PH
TH
VN
score
Resp.
Please circle these examples if you consider them to represent sustainability needs
·
Build capacity to preserve the regional consultative mechanism
4 3 5 3 5 4 4 6
·
Disseminate project outcomes and experiences throughout the region
5 1 2 5 1 1 2 6
Please list your opinions in the fol owing cel s
Present clear annual operational plan to the region with expected outputs
3 3 1
Conduct training needs assessment for capacity building
1 1 1
Present the importance of capacity requirements for project achievements.
2 2 1
Official training must be important consideration
2 2 1
Develop institution body of demo site
3 3 1
Disseminate of mangrove demo site at national level
4 4 1
Provide adequate funding support for identified training programmes
4
4 1
Capacity building of communities strengthened
1
1 1
Improved management capability of project implementers
2
2 1
Develop capacity of site manager
2
2 1
Apply technical and traditional knowledge to enhance productivity
3
3 1
Build capacity of local people to enhance ecotourism
4
4 1
Rational allocations of training component's budget for participating countries, especially for
3
3 1
the countries, that has limited fund for demonstration sites
Training should be paid more attention to the policy
5
5 1
Build capacity to the key persons implementing project
2
2 1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 10
Table 6
National and regional prioritisation of the key demonstration activities that should be implemented in order to provide examples of best
practice in mangrove management for further application within the region.
Key demonstration activities that should be implemented to
National Priority
Regional Priority
provide examples of best practice in mangrove management
Rank
No.
Rank
No.
CA
CH
IN
PH
TH
VN
CA
CH
IN
PH
TH
VN
Score
Resp
Score Resp
Please circle this example if you wish to use it in your list of five
2
4 5
5 4 4
3
3
4
5
3.8
4
Re-planting of multi-species mangrove forests
Please list your opinions in the following cells
0 0 4
4
1
Develop management information system for site
Review five year management plan from year to year
1
1
1
3
3
1
Develop eco-tourism strategy for the site
3
3
1
5
5
1
Develop ranger training curriculum
5
5
1
2
2
1
Develop reporting system
4
4 1 1
1
1
Technical guideline for establish community protected area
2
2
1
0
Effective management based on existing conditions
3
3
1
3
3
1
Monitoring based a long-term scientific Institute
2
2
1
2
2
1
Finance sustained
1
1
1
5
5
1
Endangered habitats and species are protected and recovered
1
1
1
1
1
1
Public and government awareness are obviously increased
5
5
1
2
2
1
Sylviculture of mangrove forest utilization
1
1
1
3
3
1
Community base management for mangrove management
1 1 1
1
1
1
sustainability
Biodiversity conservation of mangrove ecosystem
2
2
1
4
4
1
Intensive community organizing
2
2
1
0
0
National government to provide technical assistance communities
3 3 1
0
0
doing the restoration of critical habitats
Involvement of stakeholders in operations plan (annual)
1
1
1
0
Linkage and networking
5
5
1
5
5
1
Livelihood enhancement/ecotourism
0
4
4
1
Community-based project piloting in mangrove ecosystem
0
2
2
1
Awareness building of mangrove stakeholders
0
1
1
1
Ecotourism promotion
2
2
1
3
3
1
Ecosystem management for sustained yield
4
4
1
2
2
1
Research to enhance knowledge and productivity
3
3
1
1
1
1
Net working of community forests
1
1
1
5
5
1
Good structures or model of management of mangroves forests (co-
2 2 1
2
2
1
management)
Forest management based community
3
3
1
4
4
1
Multi uses of mangrove forests
1
1
1
1
1
1
Improvement of awareness
4
4
1
3
3
1
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 11
Table 7
Existing capacity building and training initiatives for (a) mangrove management (MM) and (b) general coastal and marine resource
management (CMRM) at both national and regional levels.
Capacity
building/training
Lead Organisation
Focus on MM or CMRM
National (N) or Regional (R)
initiative
CA
CH
IN
PH
TH
VN
CA
CH
IN
PH
TH
VN
CA
CH
IN
PH
TH
VN
Training on patrolling
CZM
MM
N
system
project
Training on development
CZM
MM
N
5 year
project
Training on techniques
CZM
of developing
MM
N
project
ecotourism strategy
Training on techniques
CZM
CMRM
R
of mangrove inventory
Project
Training on techniques
of developing gap
CZM
MM
R
analysis and system
Project
planning for site
How to maintain urban
FCG city
mangroves during
government
MM
N
economic expansion
& Xindi Co.
Environmental
Monitoring of Mangrove
GMRC
MM
R
System
Approaches to connect
conservation and
GMRC
CMRM
N,R
government support
Mangrove GIS and RS
GFSD
CMRM
R
Monitoring of Mangrove
Guangxi
MM
R
Birds
University
Aquaculture in
GMRC
CMRM
R
Mangrove areas
Graduate students
Guangxi
education on mangrove
University &
MM
R
wetland
GMRC
Training of charcoal
Dept. of
production and
MM
N
Forestry
management
Sylviculture of
Dept. of
sustainable mangrove
MM
N,R
Forestry
management
Develop Technology of
Dept. of
MM
N,R
Nypa Palm utilization
Forestry
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 7
Page 12
Table 7 cont.
Existing capacity building and training initiatives for (a) mangrove management (MM) and (b) general coastal and marine resource
management (CMRM) at both national and regional levels.
Capacity
building/training
Lead Organisation
Focus on MM or CMRM
National (N) or Regional (R)
initiative
CA
CH
IN
PH
TH
VN
CA
CH
IN
PH
TH
VN
CA
CH
IN
PH
TH
VN
Dept. of
Forestry,
Develop of ecotourism
MM,
Marine
N,R
CMRM
and
Forestry
DENR-
Integrated Coastal
CMMO;
CMRM
N
Resource Management
BFAR
Mangrove establishment
DENR-
MM
N
and management
CMMO
DENR-
Marine Protected Area
CMMO
CMRM
N
Management
and
PAWB
Dept.
Marine &
Mangrove conservation
Coastal
MM
N
and rehabilitation
Resources
and
University
Dept.
Marine and coastal
Marine &
CMRM
N
conservation volunteers
Coastal
Resources
MM &
Site manager training
UNEP
R
CMRM
Young researcher
UNEP
MM
N,R
training
Community forest
Forest
MM
N
management training
Dept.
Ecosystem management
UNEP
CMRM
R
training
Ecotourism training
UNEP
CMRM
R
FSIV &
Co-management
MARD
MM
N,R
(VN)
Forest management,
Foreign
MM
N,R
based community
countries
Multi use of mangrove
FSIV &
MM &
forests
Foreign
N,R
CMRM
countries
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 8
Page 1
ANNEX 8
Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Sub-component to June 30th 2007
Figure 1
Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Component to June 30th 2007. (S=submit, P = PCU comment, R = resubmit, F = final)
2004
2005 2006 2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M
A M J J A S O N D
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
National Committee meetings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
National Technical Working Group
X
X
X
X
X
X
RWG-M meetings
X
X
X
Provide information to RWG-M and RSTC
Maintain national metadata base
Publication of National Reports in local language
China, Viet Nam
X
Cambodia
X
Thailand, Philippines
X
Indonesia
X
Complete second draft and final draft of NAP
Cambodia, Viet Nam
2
F 2
China
2
F-2
Thailand,
Philippines
2
Indonesia
2
F-2
Adoption of NAP (contributing to SAP targets) All countries
X
China
A
Cambodia
A
Indonesia
A
Philippines
A
Thailand
A
Viet Nam
A
Refine targets for SAP
1
2
3
Definition of actions for SAP 2nd draft from PCU for comment
1
2
Update data to regional GIS Database
X
Thailand
X
Indonesia
X
Meta-database
Indonesia
Sept
30th
Viet
Nam
30th Aug
Provide
guidance to IMC on the Mangrove component input
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 8
Page 2
Figure 1 cont. Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Component to June 30th 2007. (S=submit, P = PCU comment, R = resubmit, F = final)
2004
2005 2006 2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M
A M J J A S O N D
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Implement demo site exchange programme
SEAs provide information to the PCU on activities and timing
that can be demonstrated at the demonstration sites, and
X
X
expertise lacking in demonstration site personnel
PCU analyses meeting draft and provides
End
comments/revisions by end August
August
Members respond within 15 working days
Mid Sept
PCU consolidates information into a single document and
X
End
Sept
disperse within 15 working days
Members consider and finalise proposals during the RSC
Mid-Nov.
SEAs to submit nominations for exchange to PCU
X
X
Decisions taken by correspondence
X X
Finalise demonstration site proposals
Peam Krasop (Cambodia)
?
Batu Ampar (Indonesia)
X
Busuanga (Philippines)
S
P R F
Balat- Xuan Thuy (Viet Nam, Mangrove/wetland)
S
P R F
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 8
Page 3
Figure 1 cont. Framework Work Plan and Time Table for Mangrove Component to June 30th 2007. (S=submit, P = PCU comment, R = resubmit, F = final)
2004
2005 2006 2007
Quarter
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Month J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M
A M J J A S O N D
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Second Regional Scientific Conference
PCU send PowerPoint format to all focal points
Aug 10
Member send existing PowerPoint presentations to
Chairperson & PCU
Aug 10
Mr. Chairperson responds to members by 15th August
regarding new and additional input requirements
Aug 15
Members send new inputs
Aug 20
Mr. Chairperson finalizes and sends the first draft to
members
Aug 25
Members respond with comments/amendments
Aug 31
Mr. Chairperson revises the presentations and sends to
Sep 10
all members
Members respond with agreement or amendment
Sep 12
Mr. Chairperson sends the final presentations to PCU
Sep 15
Focal Points send names and contact detail of site
managers to the PCU
Aug 15
Members send meeting topics for the RWG-M
meeting at the RSC to the PCU (Training & Exchange
Aug 15
Programme)
Scientific Session Presentation
Members send GIS images to PCU 12th August
PCU sends draft to members 20th August
Members respond by 30th August
PCU finalises and dispatch by 15th September.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-M.6/3
Annex 8
Page 4
Table 1
Schedule of Meetings for 2006. (RWG = Regional Working Group; -M = Mangroves; -CR = Coral Reefs; -SG = Seagrass; -W = Wetlands; -F= Fisheries;
LbP = Land-Based Pollution; RTF-E = Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation; RTF-L = Regional Task Force on Legal Matters) (H = United Nations Holidays)
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S
S
M T W T F S S M
January
1
2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10
11
12
13
14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
30 31
H
H
Chinese NY
February
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10
11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28
March
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10
11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30 31
RTF-E-4
April
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29
30
H
H
RTF-L-4
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
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
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
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-7
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
RWG-M-7
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
H
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