Procedure for Determination of National and Regional
Economic Values for Ecotone Goods and Services
and
Total Economic Values of Coastal Habitats in the context
of the UNEP/GEF Project Entitled:
"Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the
South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand"





WEIGHTED MEAN REGIONAL VALUE



R
Kg
VA1
= [(SCa*MVCa)+(SChi*MVChi)+(SIn*MVIn)+(SMa*MVMa)+
(SPh*MVPh)+(STh*MVTh)+(SVi*MVVi)]


(SCa + SChi + SIn + SMa + SPh + STh + SVi)













South China Sea Knowledge Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.3

---

First published in Thailand in 2007 by the United Nations Environment Programme.

Copyright © 2007, 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 Illustration: Formula for determination of the weighted mean regional value (RV) of 1 Kg of
production of resource A
Kg
1 (A1
) based on weighted mean national values for
Cambodia (Ca), China Chi), Indonesia (In), Malaysia (Ma), Philippines (Ph),
Thailand (Th) and Viet Nam (Vi) and the stock (S) of each country.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:

UNEP, 2007. Procedure for Determination of National and Regional Economic Values for Ecotone
Goods and Services, and Total Economic Values of Coastal Habitats in the context of the UNEP/GEF
Project Entitled: "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". South China Sea Knowledge Document No. 3. UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.3

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 1

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES
FOR ECOTONE GOODS AND SERVICES1 AND TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUES OF COASTAL
HABITATS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED:
"REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND
GULF OF THAILAND"

INTRODUCTION

The project entitled "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand" is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and implemented by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) in partnership with seven states bordering the South China Sea2. A
brief history of the development of the project and the Management Framework can be found in South
China Sea Knowledge Document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1. Planning commenced in 1996 and the project
became fully operational in February 2002.

The Project is complex as it addresses three priority areas of concern identified in the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)3 (Talaue-McManus, 2000), namely: the loss and degradation of coastal
habitats; over-exploitation of fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand; and, land-based pol ution. Of these three
substantive project components, the first, relating to habitat degradation and loss, is the largest and is
sub-divided into four sub-components. The fourth component of the project is concerned with regional
co-ordination, including organisation of regional exchanges of experience and information, facilitation of
national level execution and securing multilateral agreement on project related matters.

The project was designed to be implemented over a period of five years and involved the initial signing
of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between UNEP, as the GEF Implementing Agency, and seven
focal Ministries (the Ministries responsible for Environment in each country) and thirty-one Specialised
Executing Agencies (SEAs) in the seven participating countries, each being responsible for one
component or sub-component4. Subsequently, an additional 29 Memoranda of Understanding were
signed to facilitate the development of the website, associated databases and models, and the work of
the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation (RTF-E) and Regional Task Force on Legal Matters
(RTF-L).

THE PROBLEM

During the initial project development phase from 1996 to 1999, a framework Strategic Action
Programme (SAP) was developed that not only formed the basis for the GEF approval of the project
but was also somewhat innovative in including a cost benefit analysis of the benefits of action
compared with non-action (UNEP, 1999). The chal enge facing the SCS project in 1999 was that the
only "ecosystem values" readily available were those of Costanza et al. (1997) that were based on
global data and have subsequently been challenged on both economic and scientific grounds. The
Project Steering Committee, composed solely of participating government representatives, in
approving the draft SAP and the SCS GEF Project, insisted not only that the project activities include
the revision of the SAP but also the determination of regionally applicable economic values for
environmental goods and services.

THE APPROACH

Initially, the plan was for each national working group to review the economic data and information
relating to their areas of expertise (mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass, wetlands, fisheries and land-
based pollution) and to assemble data sets that would enable some form of regional analysis of
values to be undertaken by the regional working groups.

It became apparent by the end of 2002, that the national working groups contained specialists in the
subject matter with few or no economists amongst the members. The Project Steering Committee

1 The term "services" is used in this document in an inclusive sense to encompass all non-direct use values; i.e. it includes
indirect use value, option value, existence and bequest values.
2 Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam.
3 All project related documents cited in this paper can be found on the project website at www.unepscs.org.
4 In the case of Cambodia the limited human capacity in the country resulted in the coral reef and seagrass sub-components
being combined under responsibility of a single Specialised Executing Agency, the Department of Fisheries. The mangrove
and wetlands sub-components were similarly combined resulting in the creation of only four rather than six national
committees in Cambodia.

---

2 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3

therefore decided to establish a Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation (RTF-E) consisting of
nine economists from the region charged with providing economic assistance and advice to the
national and regional working groups addressing habitat, fisheries and pollution issues and
determining "regionally applicable economic values for environmental goods and services"

During its first meeting in September 2003 (UNEP, 2003), the task force reviewed the data and
information assembled by the regional working groups and provided advice regarding the further
elaboration and refinement of these data sets. In addition, work commenced on the development of
simple guidelines for the conduct of economic valuation studies that could be applied during the
implementation of demonstration site activities, particularly in support of the activities concerned with
sustainable financing of the management regime and the assessment of alternative livelihoods and
sources of income.

STEPS IN THE PROCESS

Identifying the goods and services

Initially, each habitat regional working group was asked to prepare a listing of al the goods and
services provided by each habitat of which they, as expert members, were aware. Such lists were
prepared during 2003 and provided to the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation who produced
simple guidelines regarding what were the easiest methods to use for undertaking the economic
valuation of each of the identified goods and services (Annex 4 of UNEP, 2004) and procedures for
valuing the impacts of land-based pollution (UNEP, 205a) These lists subsequently provided the basis
for the development of the guidelines for economic valuation studies to be undertaken at the project
demonstration sites.

Empirical Data Set Relating to the Values of Goods and Services Derived from Coastal
Habitats bordering the South China Sea

During the meeting in 2004 (UNEP, 2005c), the Project Steering Committee agreed to allocate funds
to the Regional Task Force to assemble an empirical dataset of economic values of goods and
services provided by the coastal ecotones bordering the South China Sea. During 2005, the task force
assembled such data that were comprehensively reviewed during the two meetings of the Task Force
convened in 2006 (UNEP, 2006a; 2006b).

Data were taken from published sources in the international literature and from the "grey" literature of
government reports. The focus was on data derived from studies along the coasts of the South China
Sea although, in some instances, data from elsewhere in the seven participating countries were
included. Data represent "Farm Gate Prices" and this is assumed to be equivalent to the value of
natural production, i.e., the value of the labour involved in harvesting is considered negligible in
comparison with the "value" of the natural production. Data derived from secondary markets have not
been included because the value added cannot be accurately determined in most cases.

As the data have been derived from diverse studies undertaken over the course of some twenty
years, the methods used to undertake the valuations differ, as do the forms of the actual data and
information contained in the publications and reports. Every attempt has been made therefore to
ensure that the data contained in the final tabulations were based on primary data collection and did
not represent merely the use of values derived elsewhere.

Standardisation of the Data

In order to ensure that values are comparable, all data have been expressed as production values in
US dollars per hectare per annum, including the values for ecosystem services. Values have been
converted to a standard year (2005) by means of the Consumer Price Index (UNEP, 2007a) and
these values in local currency have been converted to US dollars using the 2005 exchange rate.
Tables 1 to 8 of Annex 4 of the report of the seventh meeting of the RTF-E (UNEP, 2007b) present
the empirical data and derived values for the goods and services provided by mangroves, coral reefs,
seagrass and wetlands bordering the South China Sea. The largest volume of data relates to the
mangrove habitat and these data are reproduced in Tables 1 and 2 of this document. Discussion of
the contents of these tables provides an overview of all the issues faced in agreeing upon the final
data sets for all habitats for use in determining regional values.

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 3

Table 1
Values of goods from mangrove ecosystems at various locations bordering the South China Sea. Shaded cells include values not used in
the subsequent analysis to determine national and regional weighted mean values for each resource.
Standard National
Regionally
CPI
Total Stock Value
Total Area Volume
Unit Net
Value
Exchange Value, 2005, per
comparable
Country Year
Location
Currency
(base
by Locality (Area
(ha)
(per ha)
Price
(per ha)
rate 2005
hectare in local
Value per
2005)
xValue/ha in US$)
Currency
hectare US$
Timber M3/Ha
Cambodia 2006 Peam Krasop
12,638.00
9.20
90.00
US$ 828.00
106.16
4,187.17
779.95
779.95
9,857,068.58
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
1.13
933.45
RMB 1,050.13
93.38
8.20
1,124.58
137.09
193,911.96
Indonesia 2004
Youtefa Bay
188.00
130.00
12,057.69
Rupiah 1,567,499.70
90.54
9,721.65
1,731,278.66
178.08
33,479.95
2004 Bali
9.00
50.00
27,160.00
Rupiah 1,358,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
1,499,889.55
154.28
1,388.55
2004 Karawang, West Java
1,692.40
40.00
52,500.00
Rupiah 2,100,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
2,319,416.83
238.58
403,777.17
2004 Marisa District, Gorontalo
5,332.00
7.95 200,000.00
Rupiah 1,590,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
1,756,129.89
180.64
963,178.35
2003 Kangean Island
5,716.00
30.76
72,480.00
Rupiah 2,229,484.80
85.22
9,721.65
2,616,152.08
269.11
1,538,208.28
2003 Sikka district NTT
220.00
28.12
88,880.00
Rupiah 2,499,305.60
85.22
9,721.65
2,932,768.83
301.67
66,368.26
2001 Kalimantan
14,941.00
91.92
27,440.00
Rupiah 2,522,284.80
71.46
9,721.65
3,529,645.68
363.07
5,424,637.40
2001 Buton, Southeast Sulawesi
144.00
17.25
60,000.00
Rupiah 1,035,000.00
71.46
9,721.65
1,448,362.72
148.98
21,453.58
2000 West Seram District : Area I
175.00
50.00 181,000.00
Rupiah 9,050,000.00
64.09
9,721.65
14,120,767.67
1,452.51
254,188.73
2000 West Seram District : Area II
706.00
40.00 181,000.00
Rupiah 7,240,000.00
64.09
9,721.65
11,296,614.14
1,162.01
820,375.97
2000 West Seram District : Area III
110.00
64.30 181,000.00
Rupiah 11,638,300.00
64.09 9,721.65
18,159,307.22
1,867.92
205,471.65
2000 Batu Ampar, Pontianak
10,277.00
91.92
47,498.71
Rupiah 4,366,081.42
64.09
9,721.65
6,812,422.25
700.75
7,201,581.06
1999 Segara Anakan
8,975.00
17.00
10,000.00
Rupiah 170,000.00
61.79
9,721.65
275,125.42
28.30
253,994.97
1999 Segara Anakan
12,090.00
19.40
50,000.00
Rupiah 970,000.00
61.79
9,721.65
1,569,833.31
161.48
1,952,269.54
1999 Gelumbang District, South
9,538.00
20.00
60,000.00
Rupiah 1,200,000.00
61.79
9,721.65
1,942,061.82
199.77
1,905,374.32
Sulawesi
1998 Tulung Selapan, South Sumatra
8,232.00
64.40 100,000.00
Rupiah 6,440,000.00
51.28
9,721.65
12,558,502.34
1,291.81
10,634,159.02
1997 Batam Rempang and Galang
16,520.00
49.74
7,840.00
Rupiah 389,961.60
32.38
9,721.65
1,204,328.60
123.88
2,046,515.22
Island
1996 Subang District
5,327.00
38.00 160,000.00
Rupiah 6,080,000.00
30.48
9,721.65
19,947,506.56
2,051.86
10,930,279.09
1991 Bintuni Bay Papua
300,000.00
80.00 128,000.00
Rupiah 10,240,000.00
20.16 9,721.65
50,793,650.79
5,224.80
1,567,438,901.94
1988 Sumatra
386,100.00
66.00
7,520.00
Rupiah 496,320.00
16.06
9,721.65
3,090,410.96
317.89
122,737,133.01
Philippines 1996 Pagbilao, Philippines
1,440.00
4.00
1,664.00
PHP 6,656.00
59.56
55.14
11,175.29
202.67
291,846.46
Malaysia 1998
Kuala Selangor
379.00
61.80
4.12
RM 254.81
87.87
3.79
289.99
76.54
29,009.24
1997 Coast of Malacca
78,395.00
N/A N/A RM
913.36
83.47 3.79
1,094.24
288.82
22,642,333.56
Viet Nam
2005
Balat estuary
3,000.00
8.05 200,000.00
VND 1,610,000.00
100.00
15,967.54
1,610,000.00
100.83
302,488.76
2004 CanGio
75,740.00
12.25 400,000.00
VND 4,900,000.00
92.38
15,967.54
5,304,178.39
332.19
25,159,704.55
2005 CaMau
5,800.00
17.00 370,000.00
VND 6,290,000.00
100.00
15,967.54
6,290,000.00
393.92
2,284,760.87
2005 SocTrang
1,686.60
11.52 390,000.00
VND 4,492,800.00
100.00
15,967.54
4,492,800.00
281.37
474,560.18
Firewood M3
Cambodia 2006 Peam Krasop
12,638.00
1.84
10.00
US$ 18.42
106.16
4,187.17
17.35
17.35
219,284.06
Indonesia 2005
Makassar
27.00
25.00 183,851.85
Rupiah 4,596,296.30
100.00 9,721.65
4,596,296.30
472.79
12,765.32
2005 Mamuju
976.00
70.00
21,183.04
Rupiah 1,482,813.00
100.00 9,721.65
1,482,813.00
152.53
148,866.21
2005 Donggala
18,300.00
70.00
18,195.43
Rupiah 1,273,679.92
100.00 9,721.65
1,273,679.92
131.01
2,397,570.19
2004 Karawang, West Java
1,692.40
50.00
5,600.00
Rupiah 280,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
309,255.58
31.81
53,836.96
2004 Bali
9.00
20.00
79,541.65
Rupiah 1,590,833.00
90.54 9,721.65
1,757,049.92
180.74
1,626.62

---

4 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3

Table 1 cont. Values of goods from mangrove ecosystems at various locations bordering the South China Sea. Shaded cells include values not used in the
subsequent analysis to determine national and regional weighted mean values for each resource.
Standard National
Regionally
CPI
Total Stock Value
Total Area Volume
Unit Net
Value
Exchange Value, 2005, per
comparable
Country Year
Location
Currency
(base
by Locality (Area
(ha)
(per ha)
Price
(per ha)
rate 2005
hectare in local
Value per
2005)
xValue/ha in US$)
Currency
hectare US$
2002 Tinanggea District, SE Sulawesi
6,596.00
25.92
9,000.00
Rupiah 233,280.00
79.95
9,721.65
291,782.36
30.01
197,970.11
2002 Talise, Minahasa
62.00
68.16
7,500.00
Rupiah 511,200.00
79.95
9,721.65
639,399.62
65.77
4,077.78
2000 Batu Ampar, Pontianak
7,460.00
40.00
4,300.00
Rupiah 172,000.00
64.09
9,721.65
268,372.60
27.61
205,938.21
1999 Gelumbang District, South
9,538.00
50.00
10,000.00
Rupiah 500,000.00
61.79
9,721.65
809,192.43
83.24
793,905.96
Sulawesi
1999 Segara Anakan
7,904.00
42.40
1,013.97
Rupiah 42,992.44
61.79
9,721.65
69,578.31
7.16
56,569.30
1998 Tulung Selapan, South Sumatera
8,232.00
40.00
1,250.00
Rupiah 50,000.00
51.28
9,721.65
97,503.90
10.03
82,563.35
Philippines 2004 Busuanga
1,298.50
4.12
800.00
PHP 3,296.00
87.67
55.14
3,759.55
68.18
88,534.28
1996 Pagbilao, Philippines
1,440.00
4.00
810.00
PHP 3,240.00
59.56
55.14
5,439.89
98.66
142,064.68
Thailand 1995
Trang not included
35,665.28
15.62
1,616.25
Baht 25,245.83
72.65
40.31
34,749.93
862.15
30,748,845.10
1993 Ranong
19,236.64
2.11
1,616.25
Baht 3,410.29
65.37
40.31
5,216.90
129.43
2,489,839.00
1993 Krabi
28,273.48
1.49
1,616.25
Baht 2,408.20
65.37
40.31
3,683.95
91.40
2,584,178.78
Viet Nam
2005
Balat estuary
3,000.00
4.64 195,000.00
VND 904,500.00
100.00
15,967.54
904,500.00
56.65
169,938.56
2004 CanGio
75,740.00
8.18 325,000.00
VND 2,658,500.00
92.38
15,967.54
2,877,787.40
180.23
13,650,423.38
2005 CaMau
97,187.00
16.00 299,000.00
VND 4,784,000.00
100.00
15,967.54
4,784,000.00
299.61
29,117,994.61
2005 SocTrang
1,686.60
7.97 184,615.38
VND 1,471,384.60
100.00
15,967.54
1,471,384.60
92.15
155,417.68
Poles value per pole
Philippines 2004 Busuanga Philippines
1,298.50
0.60
200.00
PHP 120.00
92.91
55.14
129.16
2.34
3,041.54
Charcoal Kg
Cambodia 2006 Peam Krasop
12,638.00 1,010.00
0.08
US$ 75.75
106.16
4,187.17
71.35
71.39
902,226.82
Indonesia 2004
Bali
4.00
797.00
1,229.22
Rupiah 979,688.34
90.54
9,721.65
1,082,050.30
111.30
445.21
2000 Batu Ampar, Pontianak
7,460.00
246.00
400.03
Rupiah 98,407.38
64.09
9,721.65
153,545.61
15.79
117,824.65
Philippines 2004 Busuanga Philippines
1,298.50
911.25
0.04
PHP 36.45
87.67
55.14
41.58
0.75
979.09
1996 Pagbilao, Philippines
1,440.00 1,012.50
0.04
PHP 35.44
59.56
55.14
59.50
1.08
1,553.94
Thailand 1980
Chathaburi
24,064.00
12.16
1.67
Baht 20.31
37.38
40.31
54.33
1.35
32,434.54
1980 Ranong
22,592.00
29.19
4.20
Baht 122.60
37.38
40.31
327.98
8.14
183,834.91
1980 Krabi
31,760.00
18.72
1.20
Baht 22.46
37.38
40.31
60.10
1.49
47,354.09
1980 Phang Nga
48,716.00
12.30
1.10
Baht 13.53
37.38
40.31
36.20
0.90
43,748.11
Leaves/palm fronds (Thatch, fodder) per frond
Cambodia 2006 Peam Krasop
12,638.00
14.50
1.00
US$ 14.50
106.16
4,187.17
13.66
0.00
41.23
Philippines 2004 Busuanga Philippines
1,298.50
6.37
5.00
PHP 31.85
87.67
55.14
36.33
0.66
855.53
1996 Pagbilao, Philippines
1,440.00
22.50
4.50
PHP 101.25
59.56
55.14
170.00
3.08
4,439.52
Fruit - propagules Kg
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
321.69
2.40
CNY 772.00
93.38
8.20
826.73
100.78
142,553.64

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 5
Table 1 cont.
Values of goods from mangrove ecosystems at various locations bordering the South China Sea. Shaded cells include values not used in
the subsequent analysis to determine national and regional weighted mean values for each resource.
Standard National
Regionally
CPI
Total Stock Value
Total Area Volume
Unit Net
Value
Exchange Value, 2005, per
comparable
Country Year
Location
Currency
(base
by Locality (Area
(ha)
(per ha)
Price
(per ha)
rate 2005
hectare in local
Value per
2005)
xValue/ha in US$)
Currency
hectare US$
Wildlife Values per hectare
Indonesia 2004
Youtefa Bay
188.00
N/A N/A Rupiah 21,660.00
90.54
9,721.65
23,923.13
2.46
462.63
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Perhutani's
1,292.40
N/A N/A Rupiah 364,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
402,032.25
41.35
53,446.32
property
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Private
400.00
N/A N/A Rupiah 351,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
387,673.96
39.88
15,950.95
property
2004 Marisa District, Gorontalo
5,332.00
N/A N/A Rupiah 604,538.73
90.54
9,721.65
667,703.48
68.68
366,212.97
1999 Segara Anakan
12,090.00
N/A N/A Rupiah 24,311.00
61.79
9,721.65
39,344.55
4.05
48,929.51
Extraction for Medicine Values per hectare
Indonesia 2004
Marisa District, Gorontalo
5,332.00
20.00 155,125.00
Rupiah 3,102,500.00
90.54 9,721.65
3,426,662.25
352.48
1,879,409.33
2002 TNL Bunaken
2,689.00
10.00
92,611.70
Rupiah 92,611.70
79.95
9,721.65
115,837.02
11.92
32,040.41
Fish capture Kg
China 2002
Fangchenggang - wild fish
1,414.50
500.00
2.85
CNY 1,427.00
93.38
8.20
1,528.16
186.29
263,502.65
Indonesia 2005
Mamuju
976.00
890.93
2,442.40
Rupiah 2,176,000.00
100.00 9,721.65
2,176,000.00
223.83
218,458.35
2005 Donggala
18,300.00 1,246.95
1,346.49
Rupiah 1,679,000.00
100.00 9,721.65
1,679,000.00
172.71
3,160,543.15
2004 Youtefa Bay
188.00
? ?
Rupiah
25,425,040.00
90.54
9,721.65
28,081,555.11
2,888.56
543,048.90
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Perhutani's
1,292.40 1,262.17
780.40
Rupiah 985,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
1,087,916.94
111.91
144,628.08
property
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Private
400.00
410.54
2,252.67
Rupiah 924,800.00
90.54
9,721.65
1,021,426.99
105.07
42,026.89
property
2005 Pondok Bali, Subang
225.45
225.33
5,000.00
Rupiah 1,126,650.00
100.00 9,721.65
1,126,650.00
115.89
26,127.58
2004 Bali
9.00 5,152.00
8,285.49
Rupiah 42,686,857.00
90.54 9,721.65
47,146,959.35
4,849.69
43,647.17
2004 Marisa District, Gorontalo
5,332.00
819.15
18,428.87
Rupiah 15,096,008.86
90.54 9,721.65
16,673,303.36
1,715.07
9,144,747.75
2001 Buton, Southeast Sulawesi
144.00
728.00
3,000.00
Rupiah 2,184,000.00
71.46 9,721.65
3,056,255.25
314.38
45,270.16
2000 West Seram District
991.00
? ?
Rupiah
1,440,968.72
64.09
9,721.65
2,248,351.88
231.27
229,191.17
2000 Batu Ampar, Pontianak
8,800.00
8.00
13,797.75
Rupiah 110,382.00
64.09
9,721.65
172,229.68
17.72
155,901.61
1999 Segara Anakan - Cilacap
12,090.00
63.74
4,080.01
Rupiah 260,060.00
61.79
9,721.65
420,877.16
43.29
523,409.50
1999 Gelumbang District, South
9,538.00 1,095.00
3,000.00
Rupiah 3,285,000.00
61.79 9,721.65
5,316,394.24
546.86
5,215,962.19
Sulawesi
Philippines 2004 Philippines
1,298.50
4.12
41.25
PHP 169.95
92.91
55.14
182.92
3.32
4,307.59
1996 Pagbilao, Philippines
1,440.00
409.80
24.28
PHP 9,949.94
59.56
55.14
16,705.75
302.97
436,276.44
Thailand 1995
Trang
35,665.28
18.98
30.00
Baht 569.42
72.65
3.79
783.79
206.88
7,378,430.34
Malaysia 1998
Kuala Selangor District all
379.00 3,750.00
3.33
RM 12,477.50
87.87
3.79
14,199.95
3,748.07
1,420,520.18
fisheries resources
1997 Straits of Malacca all fisheries
78,395.00
6.61
1,737.04
RM 11,486.88
83.47
3.79
13,761.69
3,632.39
284,761,505.39
resources
Viet Nam
2005
Ba Lat estuary
2,889.00
200.00
16,000.00
VND 3,200,000.00
100.00
15,967.54
3,200,000.00
200.41
578,974.76
2004 Can Gio
7,990.00 12,000.00
10,000.00
VND 120,000,000.00
92.38 15,967.54
129,898,246.37
8,135.15
64,999,824.11
2005 Soc Trang
10,702.00 5,000.00
10,000.00
VND 50,000,000.00
100.00
15,967.54
50,000,000.00
3,131.35
33,511,746.72

---

6 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3

Table 1 cont.
Values of goods from mangrove ecosystems at various locations bordering the South China Sea. Shaded cells include values not used in
the subsequent analysis to determine national and regional weighted mean values for each resource.
Standard National
Regionally
CPI
Total Stock Value
Total Area Volume
Unit Net
Value
Exchange Value, 2005, per
comparable
Country Year
Location
Currency
(base
by Locality (Area
(Ha)
(per ha)
Price
(per Ha)
rate 2005
hectare in local
Value per
2005)
xValue/Ha in US)
Currency
hectare US$
Young Milkfish kgs
Indonesia 2001
Buton, Southeast Sulawesi
144.00 21,600.00
30.00
Rupiah 648,000.00
71.46
9,721.65
906,801.01
93.28
13,431.81
2000 West Seram District : Area III
706.00
? ?
Rupiah
234,560.91
64.09
9,721.65
365,986.75
37.65
26,578.47
Thailand
1997
Samut Sakorn fish larvae
1,696.00
N/A
N/A
Baht 751.78
81.21
40.31
925.72
22.97
38,952.59
1997 Ranong fish larvae
19,237.00
N/A
N/A
Baht 414.23
81.21
40.31
510.07
12.65
243,443.74
1997 Trang prawn larvae
24,696.00
N/A
N/A
Baht 89.03
81.21
40.31
109.63
2.72
67,171.14
1997 Samut Sakorn crab larvae
1,696.00
N/A
N/A
Baht 1,673.04
81.21
40.31
2,060.14
51.11
86,686.58
1997 Ranong crab larvae
19,237.00
N/A
N/A
Baht 984.82
81.21
40.31
1,212.68
30.09
578,780.53
1997 Trang crab larvae
24,696.00
N/A
N/A
Baht 207.11
81.21
40.31
255.03
6.33
156,259.85
Crabs Kg
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
165.00
9.30
CNY 1,535.00
93.38
8.20
1,643.82
200.39
283,445.39
Indonesia 2005
Makassar
27.00
? 17,292.90
Rupiah 4,779,761.90
100.00
9,721.65
4,779,761.90
491.66
13,274.86
2005 Mamuju
976.00
233.13
24,424.00
Rupiah 5,694,000.00
100.00 9,721.65
5,694,000.00
585.70
571,646.06
2005 Donggala
18,300.00
242.24
23,424.90
Rupiah 5,674,513.90
100.00 9,721.65
5,674,513.90
583.70
10,681,683.15
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Perhutani's
1,292.40
21.57
22,256.70
Rupiah 480,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
530,152.42
54.53
70,478.66
property
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Private
400.00
20.49
22,256.70
Rupiah 456,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
503,644.80
51.81
20,722.60
property
2004 Bali
9.00 1,248.00
19,006.41
Rupiah 23,719,999.68
90.54 9,721.65
26,198,365.01
2,694.85
24,253.62
2004 Marisa District, Gorontalo
5,332.00
202.29
34,444.44
Rupiah 6,967,765.77
90.54 9,721.65
7,695,787.24
791.61
4,220,881.22
2002 Tinanggea Distric, SE Sulawesi
6,596.00
784.75
21,500.00
Rupiah 16,872,125.00
79.95 9,721.65
21,103,345.84
2,170.76
14,318,314.61
2001 Buton, Southeast Sulawesi
144.00
720.00
10,000.00
Rupiah 7,200,000.00
71.46 9,721.65
10,075,566.75
1,036.40
149,242.29
2000 West Seram District : Area I
175.00
16.43
10,000.00
Rupiah 164,300.00
64.09
9,721.65
256,358.25
26.37
4,614.72
2000 West Seram District : Area II
706.00
3.38
10,000.00
Rupiah 33,800.00
64.09
9,721.65
52,738.34
5.42
3,829.93
2000 West Seram District : Area III
110.00
86.73
10,000.00
Rupiah 867,300.00
64.09
9,721.65
1,353,253.24
139.20
15,311.99
2000 Batu Ampar, Pontianak
10,277.00
25.00
8,405.48
Rupiah 210,137.00
64.09
9,721.65
327,877.98
33.73
346,607.97
1999 Segara Anakan
7,904.00
9.40
14,339.57
Rupiah 134,791.96
61.79
9,721.65
218,145.27
22.44
177,358.77
1998 Tulung Selapan, South Sumatera
8,232.00
0.20
6,000.00
Rupiah 1,200.00
51.28
9,721.65
2,340.09
0.24
1,981.52
Philippines 2004 Philippines
1,298.50
5.24
126.00
PHP 660.24
95.66
55.14
690.19
12.52
16,253.49
1996 Pagbilao, Philippines
1,440.00
694.60
7.60
PHP 5,278.96
59.56
55.14
8,863.26
160.74
231,467.22
Thailand 1995
Trang
35,665.28
7.71
85.00
Baht 655.35
72.65
40.31
902.06
22.38
798,201.51
Viet Nam
2005
Balat estuary
2,889.00
260.00
80,000.00
VND 20,800,000.00
100.00
15,967.54
20,800,000.00
1,302.64
3,763,335.96
Prawn Kg
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
34.50
30.00
CNY 1,035.00
93.38
8.20
1,108.37
135.11
191,117.90
Indonesia 2005
Makassar
27.00
162.00
17,292.90
Rupiah 2,801,375.00
100.00 9,721.65
2,801,375.00
288.16
7,780.28
2005 Mamuju
976.00
132.84
24,424.00
Rupiah 3,244,444.44
100.00 9,721.65
3,244,444.44
333.73
325,724.25
2005 Donggala
18,300.00
182.53
23,424.90
Rupiah 4,275,714.29
100.00 9,721.65
4,275,714.29
439.81
8,048,588.14
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Perhutani's
1,292.40
102.50
22,256.70
Rupiah 2,281,250.00
90.54 9,721.65
2,519,604.59
259.17
334,957.17
property

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 7
Table 1 cont.
Values of goods from mangrove ecosystems at various locations bordering the South China Sea. Shaded cells include values not used in
the subsequent analysis to determine national and regional weighted mean values for each resource.
Standard National
Regionally
CPI
Total Stock Value
Total Area Volume
Unit Net
Value
Exchange Value, 2005, per
comparable
Country Year
Location
Currency
(base
by Locality (Area
(Ha)
(per ha)
Price
(per Ha)
rate 2005
hectare in local
Value per
2005)
xValue/Ha in US)
Currency
hectare US$
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Private
400.00
83.68
22,256.70
Rupiah 1,862,500.00
90.54 9,721.65
2,057,101.83
211.60
84,640.01
property
2005 Pondok Bali, Subang
225.00
288.85
15,000.00
Rupiah 4,332,750.00
100.00 9,721.65
4,332,750.00
445.68
100,278.10
2004 Bali
9.00 1,248.00
11,995.73
Rupiah 14,970,667.00
90.54 9,721.65
16,534,865.25
1,700.83
15,307.46
2004 Marisa District, Gorontalo -
5,332.00
44.12
85,000.00
Rupiah 3,750,200.00
90.54 9,721.65
4,142,036.67
426.06
2,271,768.21
Windu
2004 Marisa District, Gorontalo - Putih
5,332.00
14.71
20,000.00
Rupiah 294,200.00
90.54
9,721.65
324,939.25
33.42
178,218.28
2002 Tinanggea Distric, Southeast
6,596.00 9,187.00
12,500.00
Rupiah 114,837,500.00
71.46 9,721.65
160,701,791.21
16,530.30
109,033,838.65
Sulawesi
2001 Buton, SE Sulawesi - Udang
144.00
640.00
35,000.00
Rupiah 22,400,000.00
71.46 9,721.65
31,346,207.67
3,224.37
464,309.36
Windu
2001 Buton, SEt Sulawesi - Udang
144.00
60.00
15,000.00
Rupiah 900,000.00
71.46
9,721.65
1,259,445.84
129.55
18,655.29
Putih
2000 Batu Ampar, Pontianak
9,800.00
17.60
34,688.18
Rupiah 610,511.97
64.09
9,721.65
952,585.38
97.99
960,262.40
1999 Segara Anakan
7,904.00
122.20
17,222.72
Rupiah 2,104,616.00
61.79 9,721.65
3,406,078.65
350.36
2,769,246.03
1999 Segara Anakan
12,090.00
92.57
19,254.81
Rupiah 1,782,417.76
61.79 9,721.65
2,884,637.90
296.72
3,587,381.33
1998 Tulung Selapan, South Sumatera
8,232.00
9.08
25,000.00
Rupiah 227,000.00
51.28
9,721.65
442,667.71
45.53
374,837.59
Philippines 2004 Busuanga, Philippines
1,298.50
1.88
300.00
PHP 564.00
92.91
55.14
607.04
11.01
14,295.26
1996 Pagbilao, Philippines
1,440.00 1,226.90
200.00
PHP 245,380.00
59.56 55.14
411,987.91
7,471.67
10,759,207.47
Thailand 2003
Chanthaburi
192.00
43.17
130.00
Baht 5,611.45
93.08
40.31
6,028.63
149.57
28,717.67
Viet Nam
2005
Balat estuary
2,889.00 1,500.00
70,000.00
VND 105,000,000.00
100.00 15,967.54
105,000,000.00
6,575.84
18,997,609.43
2004 Can Gio
7,990.00 4,000.00
65,000.00
VND 260,000,000.00
92.38 15,967.54
281,446,200.48
17,626.15
140,832,952.23
2005 Ca Mau
247,510.00 4,000.00
60,000.00
VND 240,000,000.00
100.00 15,967.54
240,000,000.00
15,030.50
3,720,198,436.09
2005 Soc Trang
43,311.00 3,200.00
70,000.00
VND 224,000,000.00
100.00 15,967.54
224,000,000.00
14,028.46
607,586,818.72
Eels kg
Indonesia 2004
Karawang, W. Java, Perhutani's
1,292.40
75.60
5,000.00
Rupiah 378,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
417,495.03
42.94
55,501.94
property
2004 Karawang, W. Java, Private
400.00
64.00
5,000.00
Rupiah 320,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
353,434.95
36.36
14,542.18
property
Shellfish kg
Indonesia
2004
Bali
9.00
302.50
6,869.01
Rupiah 2,077,875.53
90.54 9,721.65
2,294,980.70
236.07
2,124.62
2004 Marisa District, Gorontalo
5,332.00
32.50
5,000.00
Rupiah 162,500.00
90.54
9,721.65
179,478.68
18.46
98,438.04
Thailand 2003
Bang Khun Thien
192.00
352.69
41.11
Baht 14,499.09
93.08
40.31
15,577.02
386.47
74,201.87
Philippines 2004 Philippines (MUSSELS)
1,298.50
2.62
30.00
PHP 78.60
92.91
55.14
84.60
1.53
1,992.21
2004 Philippines (Shellfish- "KIBAW"
1,298.50
6.75
20.00
PHP 135.00
92.91
55.14
145.30
2.64
3,421.74
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
260.00
33.61
CNY 8,738.00
93.38
8.11
9,357.46
1,153.82
1,632,075.59
Viet Nam
2005
Ba Lat estuary
2,889.00 12,000.00
5,200.00
VND 62,400,000.00
100.00
15,967.54
62,400,000.00
3,907.93
11,290,007.89
2004 Can Gio oysters
7,990.00 5,000.00
2,500.00
VND 12,500,000.00
92.38
15,967.54
13,531,067.33
847.41
6,770,815.01
Worms Kg
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50 1,190.00
16.62
CNY 19,781.00
93.38 8.20
21,183.34
2,582.30
3,652,660.10
Philippines 2004 Philippines
1,298.50
1.13
20.00
PHP 22.60
92.91
55.14
24.32
0.44
572.82

---

8 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3

Table 2
Values of services from mangrove ecosystems at various locations bordering the South China Sea. Values in the shaded cells were not used
in the subsequent analysis to determine national and regional weighted mean values for each service.
Standard National
CPI
2005
Regionally
Total Area
Value per Ha
Valuation
Value, 2005, per
Total Value by
Country Year
Location
Currency
(base Exchange
comparable Value
(Ha)
Local currency
Method
hectare in local
Locality
2005)
Rate
per hectare US$
Currency
Ecotourism
Indonesia 2004
Youtefa Bay (not included)
4.00 Rupiah 203,400,011.25
90.54
9,721.65
Travel
cost
224,652,099.90
23,108.43
92,433.72
1999
Segara Anakan
12,089.99 Rupiah 18,508.40
61.79
9,721.65
Travel
cost
29,953.71
3.08
37,250.88
1999
Gelumbang District, South Sulawesi
9,538.00 Rupiah 790,889.08
61.79
9,721.65
Travel
cost
1,279,962.91
131.66
1,255,783.12
Nursery ground
China 2002
Fangchenggang, Guangxi
1,414.50
RMB 9,762.00
93.38
8.20
market
price
10,454.06
1,274.37
1,802,601.88
Indonesia 2005
Makassar
27.00 Rupiah 120,707.76 100.00
9,721.65
CVM
120,707.76
12.42
335.24
2005
Mamuju
975.50 Rupiah 3,922.57 100.00
9,721.65
CVM
3,922.57
0.40
393.60
2005
Donggala
18,300.00 Rupiah 196.38 100.00
9,721.65
CVM
196.38
0.02
369.66
2005
Pondok Bali
225.45 Rupiah 2,540.70 100.00
9,721.65
CVM
2,540.70
0.26
58.92
2004
Bali
9.00 Rupiah 67,013.00
90.54
9,721.65
CVM
74,014.80
7.61
68.52
2004
Karawang, W. Java Perhutani's
1,292.40 Rupiah 7,269,454.28
90.54
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
8,028,997.44
825.89
1,067,377.90
property
2004
Karawang, W. Java Private property
400.00 Rupiah 7,269,454.28
90.67
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
8,017,485.70
824.70
329,881.62
2003
Kangean Island
1,887.00 Rupiah 7,112,000.00
85.22
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
8,345,458.81
858.44
1,619,877.06
2003
Sikka district NTT
74.00 Rupiah 7,112,000.00
85.22
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
8,345,458.81
858.44
63,524.59
2003
Belanakan, Subang
287.75 Rupiah 65,550.00
85.22
9,721.65
CVM
76,918.56
7.91
2,276.70
2001
Buton, Southeast Sulawesi
144.00 Rupiah 9,739,596.57
71.46
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
13,629,438.25
1,401.97
201,883.30
2001
Kalimantan
14,941.00 Rupiah 720,000.00
71.46
9,721.65
CVM
1,007,556.68
103.64
1,548,492.43
2000
West Seram District : Area I
175.00 Rupiah 2,719,214.00
64.09
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
4,242,805.43
436.43
76,374.98
2000
West Seram District : Area II
706.00 Rupiah 2,550,141.64
64.09
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
3,979,000.84
409.29
288,960.63
2000
West Seram District : Area III
110.00 Rupiah 2,550,909.09
64.09
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
3,980,198.30
409.42
45,035.74
2000
Batu Ampar, Pontianak
13,900.00 Rupiah 1,078,305.67
64.09
9,721.65
market
price
1,682,486.61
173.07
2,405,616.29
1999
Segara Anakan
12,089.99 Rupiah 74,769.00
61.79
9,721.65
market
price
121,005.02
12.45
150,483.63
1998
Tulung Selapan, South Sumatera
8,232.00 Rupiah 3,432,000.00
51.28
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
6,692,667.71
688.43
5,667,148.10
1996
Subang district
5,327.00 Rupiah 2,850,000.00
30.48
9,721.65 Shadow
Project
9,350,393.70
961.81
5,123,568.32
Nutrient - Sediment Retention
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
RMB 86,902.00
93.38
8.20
market
price
93,062.75
11,344.56
16,046,886.80
Coastal protection (replacement values divided by 25 years to provide annual benefit)
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
RMB 8,000.00
93.38
8.20 replacement
Cost
8,567.14
1,044.35
1,477,239.81
Indonesia 2005
Makassar
27.00 Rupiah 83,532,059.26 100.00
9,721.65 replacement
Cost
83,532,059.26
8,592.37
231,994.07
2005
Mamuju
976.00 Rupiah 4,485,291.92 100.00
9,721.65 replacement
cost
4,485,291.92
461.37
450,298.47
2005
Donggala
18,300.00 Rupiah 110,919.62 100.00
9,721.65 replacement
cost
110,919.62
11.41
208,794.67
2004
Karawang, W. Java Perhutani's
16,000.00 Rupiah 415,380.00
90.54
9,721.65 replacement
cost
458,780.65
47.19
755,066.17
property
2004
Karawang, W.t Java Private property
7,200.00 Rupiah 403,849.44
90.54
9,721.65 replacement
cost
446,045.33
45.88
330,347.81

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 9
Table 2 cont.
Values of services from mangrove ecosystems at various locations bordering the South China Sea. Values in the shaded cells were not used
in the subsequent analysis to determine national and regional weighted mean values for each service.
Standard National
CPI
2005
Regionally
Total Area
Value per Ha
Valuation
Value, 2005, per
Total Value by
Country Year
Location
Currency
(base Exchange
comparable Value
(Ha)
Local currency
Method
hectare in local
Locality
2005)
Rate
per hectare US$
Currency
2004
Marisa District, Gorontalo
5,332.00 Rupiah 1,815,650.00
90.54
9,721.65 replacement
cost
2,005,356.75
206.28
1,099,870.93
2003
Kangean island
1,708.00 Rupiah 14,000,000.00
85.22
9,721.65 replacement
cost
16,428,068.53
1,689.84
2,886,252.42
2002
TNL Bunaken
160,700.00 Rupiah 3,432,000.00
79.95
9,721.65 replacement
cost
4,292,682.93
441.56
70,958,532.54
2001
Kalimantan
14,941.00 Rupiah 3,816,000.00
71.46
9,721.65 replacement
cost
5,340,050.38
549.29
8,207,009.90
2000
Ameth Vil age, Mal uku
8,500.00 Rupiah 255,000.00
64.09
9,721.65 replacement
cost
397,877.98
40.93
347,879.45
2000
Batu Ampar, Pontianak
127,600.00 Rupiah 4,163,880.00
64.09
9,721.65 replacement
cost
6,496,926.20
668.29
85,274,375.08
1999
Segara Anakan
12,090.00 Rupiah 3,195,105.47
61.79
9,721.65 replacement
cost
5,170,910.29
531.90
6,430,625.85
1999
Gelumbang District, South Sulawesi
9,538.00 Rupiah 1,641,000.00
61.79
9,721.65 replacement
cost
2,655,769.54
273.18
2,605,599.38
1996
Subang district
5,327.00 Rupiah 3,500,000.00
30.48
9,721.65 replacement
cost
11,482,939.63
1,181.17
6,292,101.45
1988
Sumatra
386,100.00 Rupiah 1,815,000.00
51.28
9,721.65 replacement
cost
3,539,391.58
364.07
140,568,610.57
Thailand 1998
Surathanee
400.00
Baht 77,775.00
87.77
40.31 replacement
cost
88,612.28
2,198.48
879,393.26
Windbreak (40%of coastal defence costs)
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
RMB 9,194.73
93.38
8.20
market
price
9,846.57
1,200.32
1,697,852.66
Carbon sequestration (carbon fixed per hectare per annum)
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
RMB 2,500.56
93.38
8.20
market
price
2,677.83
326.43
461,740.85
Indonesia 2001
Kalimantan
14,941.00 Rupiah 222,008.00
71.46
9,721.65
market
price
310,674.50
31.96
477,469.04
1999
Segara Anakan
8,975.00 Rupiah 282,900.00
61.79
9,721.65
market
price
457,841.07
47.09
422,677.52
1996
Subang district
5,327.00 Rupiah 222,200.00
30.48
9,721.65
market
price
729,002.62
74.99
399,458.55
1991
Bintuni BaY
300,000.00 Rupiah 289,825.00
20.16
9,721.65
market
price
1,437,624.01
147.88
44,363,572.24
1989
Sumatra
386,100.00 Rupiah 159,400.00
17.09
9,721.65
market
price
932,709.19
95.94
37,042,986.52
Thailand 1998
Surathanee
400.00
Baht 2,136.81
87.77
40.31
market
price
2,434.56
60.40
24,160.67
Oxygen release
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
RMB 3,331.00
93.38
8.20
market
price
3,567.14
434.84
615,085.73
Option value ­ biodiversity
Indonesia
2005 Makassar
27.00 Rupiah 156,855.00 100.00
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
156,855.00
16.13
435.63
2005
Mamuju
976.00 Rupiah 500,558.80 100.00
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
500,558.80
51.49
50,253.33
2005
Donggala
18,300.00 Rupiah 154,365.00 100.00
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
154,365.00
15.88
290,576.08
2004
Youtefa Bay
188.00 Rupiah 142,500.00
90.54
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
157,389.00
16.19
3,043.63
2004
Karawang, W. Java Perhutani's property
1,292.40 Rupiah 135,262.50
90.54
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
149,395.29
15.37
19,860.67
2004
Karawang, W.t Java Private property
400.00 Rupiah 135,262.50
90.54
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
149,395.29
15.37
6,146.91
2004
Marisa District, Gorontalo
5,332.00 Rupiah 375,000.00
90.54
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
414,181.58
42.60
227,164.71
2003
Derawan Island
44.60 Rupiah 2,867,680.00
85.22
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
3,365,031.68
346.14
15,437.75
2003
Pulau Derawan
44.60 Rupiah 2,867,680.00
85.22
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
3,365,031.68
346.14
15,437.75

---

10 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3

Table 2 cont.
Values of services from mangrove ecosystems at various locations bordering the South China Sea. Values in the shaded cells were not used
in the subsequent analysis to determine national and regional weighted mean values for each service.
Standard National
CPI
2005
Regionally
Total Area
Value per Ha
Valuation
Value, 2005, per
Total Value by
Country Year
Location
Currency
(base Exchange
comparable Value
(Ha)
Local currency
Method
hectare in local
Locality
2005)
Rate
per hectare US$
Currency
Indonesia 2002
TNL Bunaken
2,689.00 Rupiah 12,000,000.00
79.95
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
15,009,380.86
1,543.91
4,151,581.02
2002
Tinanggea, Southeast Sulawesi
6,596.00 Rupiah 147,606.69
79.95
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
184,623.75
18.99
125,264.54
2001
Kalimantan
14,941.00 Rupiah 123,760.00
71.46
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
173,187.80
17.81
266,168.64
2000
West Seram District
991.00 Rupiah 1,019,500.00
64.09
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
1,590,731.78
163.63
162,155.08
2000
Batu Ampar, Pontianak
13,900.00 Rupiah 123,750.00
64.09
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
193,087.85
19.86
276,076.65
1999
Gelumbang District, South Sulawesi
9,538.00 Rupiah 243,751.31
61.79
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
394,483.43
40.58
387,031.24
1999
Segara Anakan
12,090.00 Rupiah 146,700.00
61.79
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
237,417.06
24.42
295,255.61
1996
Subang district
5,327.00 Rupiah 115,200.00
30.48
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
377,952.76
38.88
207,100.02
1991
Bintuni BaY
44.60 Rupiah 37,500.00
20.16
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
186,011.90
19.13
853.37
1989
Sumatra
44.60 Rupiah 37,500.00
17.09
9,721.65
benefit
transfer
219,426.57
22.57
1,006.66
Aesthetic (5% of land prices)
China 2002
Fangchenggang
1,414.50
RMB 14,300.00
93.38
8.20
Hedonic
Price
15,313.77
1,866.78
2,640,566.17

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 11

Surprisingly few data were available for either coral reefs or wetlands and this may be an artefact as
scientific data and information tend to be highly compartmentalised in the participating countries and it
is often not easy to access data from sources outside an individual's own institution or organisation.
The lack of data for seagrass habitats is less surprising because the actual extent of this habitat in the
region cannot be accurately determined at this time and the numbers of scientists currently involved in
the study of seagrass ecosystems is quite limited resulting in a comparatively small body of published
literature.

These data sets have been extensively discussed and reviewed by the regional task force and, where
anomalies or questions remain unresolved or unanswered, the data have been excluded from further
consideration. Such cells are shaded in these tables and it can be seen that a number of values for wild
capture of fish, crab and prawns and for natural production of molluscs have been excluded from
further analysis as the values were considered by the task force to be too high to represent natural
production and more likely represent production from some form of mariculture.

In the case of services, data have been excluded from further consideration that were deemed by the
task force to represent unrealistically high, or unrealistically low, values. The extremely high value for
ecotourism for Youstefa Bay in Indonesia was excluded, for example, because this almost certainly
represents the total annual value for al tourism at this location and not merely the value of tourism
associated with the mangrove habitat in this Bay.

The valuation of the nursery function of mangroves is of some interest as apparently, in no case, has
any attempt been made to value the natural production resulting from the use of mangroves by off-
shore demersal fish and crustaceans as nursery areas. This is somewhat surprising in that McNae, for
example, was able to demonstrate as early as 1974 a strong correlation between the off-shore catch of
penaeid shrimp and the area of mangrove on the adjacent coastline (McNae, 1974) and such
relationships could have been used to value this function. In contrast, valuations have been done either
in terms of the market value of larval fish and crustaceans caught in the mangrove area for sale to
mariculture farmers or through a shadow pricing method using the costs of producing such larvae
through other means. Neither of these methods can be considered ideal, nor do they actual y represent
a "true" evaluation of the "nursery function"; nevertheless, they were used in the absence of other data.

Examination of any one portion of this dataset reveals wide variation in farm gate prices. Mangrove
timber from Indonesia, for example, apparently varies from US$ 76 to in excess of US$ 5,000 per cubic
metre. In this instance, a weak but significant negative correlation exists between the value per cubic
metre and the stock or more precisely the area of mangrove. This issue of widely differing prices within
each country is addressed through the calculation of weighted mean national values.

Determination of Weighted Mean National Values

As is well known, farm gate prices for environmental goods vary within countries reflecting both the
local supply and the demand. Where blood cockle beds (Anadara granosa), for example, are located in
close proximity to a centre of population, the unit farm gate price is higher than when an equivalent
sized resource is located farther away.

In order to address this problem of the wide variation in prices within one country, the RTF-E decided to
weight the data from each location and determine a "Weighted Mean National Value" that reflected
both the prices for the same resource at each location and the "stock" of that resource at the same
locations. Hence, the price at location A was multiplied by the stock (or area where the stock could not
be estimated) in area A and this value was added to other values determined for locations B, C, etc.
The summation was then divided by the total stock for which prices were available, thus providing the
Weighted Mean National Value. This results in a national value that reflects the totality of the national
stock rather than being a simple arithmetic average of all values. Full details of this method are
contained in the various reports of the regional task force.

Tables 3 to 6 present the weighted mean national and weighted mean regional values for mangroves,
coral reefs, seagrass and wetlands respectively.

---

12 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3

Table 3
Weighted mean national and regional values for the per hectare annual production of goods and services by mangroves bordering the South China Sea.
Mangrove Goods
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Regional
Timber
779.95 137.07
73.55
9.59
202.67
0.00 10.91 73.45
Firewood
17.35 0.00 65.06 0.00
84.21
106.80
242.63 2.08
Poles
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
2.34
0.00
0.00 0.06
Charcoal
71.39 0.00 15.85
0.00 0.92 2.42 0.00
0.43
Leaves/palm fronds (Thatch, fodder)
13.66
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.93
0.00
0.00 0.27
Fruit/propagules
0.00
100.78 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.59
Bark (tanning & dyes)
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Medicine
0.00 0.00 238.31
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.52
Sap (sugar, alcohol, Acetic acid)
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Wood tar
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Fish capture
0.00 186.29 281.88
0.00
160.89 206.88
200.41 230.64
Fish fry
0.00 0.00 47.07
0.00 0.00 51.11 0.00 37.43
Eels
0.00 0.00 41.39
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.21
Crab capture
0.00 200.39 266.67
0.00 12.52 22.38 0.00 199.46
Prawn capture
0.00 135.11 272.33
0.00 11.01 149.57 0.00 210.19
Shellfish collection
0.00
1,153.82 18.83
0.00 2.08 386.47 0.00 55.26
All Fisheries resources
0.00 0.00
0.00 3,632.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 513.54
Insect and larvae collection
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Worms
0.00
2,582.30 0.00 0.00
0.44
0.00
0.00
40.66
Wildlife
0.00 0.00 25.13
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.19
Zooplankton
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Jellyfish
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Honey & wax
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Algae
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Total value of goods US$ per Ha
882.35
4,495.76
1,346.06
3,642.54
479.02
925.63
453.95
1,584.97









Mangrove
Services





Ecotourism
0.00 0.00 59.79
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.28
Nursery Function
0.00
1,274.37 781.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 573.23
Sediment retention
0.00
11,344.56 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
66.43
Coastal Protection
0.00
1,044.35 421.56
0.00 0.00
2,198.48 0.00 443.85
Windbreak
0.00
1,200.32 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 7.03
Carbon Sequestration
0.00 326.43 115.62
0.00 0.00 60.40 0.00 89.26
Oxygen Production
0.00
434.84 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 2.55
Option Value
0.00 0.00 70.07
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.73
Aesthetic Value
0.00
1,866.78 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.93
Total value of services US$ per Ha
0.00
17,491.67
1,448.53
0.00
0.00
2,258.88
0.00
1,287.28









Grand Total Goods and Services
882.35
21,987.43
2,794.59
3,642.54
479.02
3,184.51
453.95
2,872.25
Total Area of Mangrove Ha
72,350
23,446
934,000
532,100
28,014
62,618
156,608
1,809,136.00
Value
of
Total
Annual
Production
US$ 63,838,022 515,517,394 2,610,142,421 1,938,197,499 13,419,183 199,407,799 71,091,633 5,196,296,711

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 13
Table 4
Weighted mean national and regional values for the per hectare annual production of goods and services by coral reefs bordering the South China Sea.

Cambodia Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam Regional
Coral Reef Goods






Capture Fisheries (food and aquarium fish)
0.00
285.49
0.00
150.98 0.00 0.00
108.31
Shrimp
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shellfish collection
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Molluscs
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sea Cucumbers
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Echinoderms-Sea urchins
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coral - Building materials m3
0.00
482.81
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.28
Coral (curio trade)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Seaweed
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Value Goods US$ per Ha
0.00
768.30
0.00
150.98 0.00 0.00 133.59








Coral Reef Services







Coral Reef Tourism
0.00 0.00
0.00
270.19
7,149.70
964.17
1,024.62
Research
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Beach Protection
0.00
7,330.56
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
383.80
Biodiversity Option Value
0.00 10.57
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55
Total Value Services US$ per Ha
0.00 7,341.13 0.00 270.19 7,149.70 964.17 1,408.97








Total Value Goods and Services US$
0.00
8,109.43
0.00
421.17
7,149.70
964.17
1,542.56
Total coral reef area in the South China Sea (ha)
2,807
39,287
44,276
464,000
90,000
110,000
750,307
Value of Total Annual Production US$
0
318,595,042
0
195,422,880
643,473,000
106,058,248
1,157,393,756

---

14 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3

Table 5
Weighted mean national and regional values for the per hectare annual production of goods and services of seagrass meadows bordering
the South China Sea.

Cambodia China Indonesia Malaysia
Philippines Thailand Viet
Nam Regional
Seagrass Goods







Capture Fisheries (food and aquarium fish)
452.15 176.33
0.00 0.00
34.84
0.00 0.00 222.92
Shrimp
96.14 158.82
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 48.29
Crabs
117.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
53.63
Crustaceans
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
117.54
14.24
Shellfish/Molluscs collection
12.04 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
399.30
53.91
Acorn worms
0.00 794.10
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 21.10
Seaweed-algae
508.67 584.69
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 36.40 253.11
Seagrass fertiliser
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 29.12 3.53
Handicrafts
0.00 559.84
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 14.87
Cosmetics
0.00 1,007.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 26.78
Total Value of Goods US$ per Ha
1,186.00
3,281.53
0.00
0.00
34.84
0.00
582.36
712.38








Seagrass Services







Seagrass Tourism
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
1,264.13
153.20
Research
0.00 57.83
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54
Beach Protection
0.00 1,190.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 58.41
Nursery Function
0.00 1,966.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 414.64 102.51
Biodiversity Option Value
0.00 439.02
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 11.66
Turtle Nesting beaches
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4,097.93 0.00
141.82
Carbon sequestration
0.00 2.26 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06
water quality-nutrient removal
0.00 38.54
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02
Oxygen release
0.00 3.71 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
Total Value of Services US$ per Ha
0.00
3,656.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
4,097.93
1,678.77
469.21








Grand Total Goods and Services Value US$
1,186.00
6,938.23
0.00
0.00
34.84
4,097.93
2,261.13
1,181.59
Total known areas of seagrass
33,814
1,960
3,035
222
23,245
2,553
8,940
73,769
Value of total Annual production in US$
40,103,435 13,598,940
0
0
809,766 10,462,004 20,214,500 87,164,402

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 15
Table 6
Weighted mean national and regional values for the per hectare annual production of goods and services of wetlands5 bordering the South China
Sea.
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Viet
Nam
Regional
Wetland Goods





Timber
0.00 92.58 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 147.53
14.23
Firewood
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 135.04
12.61
Charcoal
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
5.87
0.55
Leaves/palm fronds (Thatch, fodder)
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 21.84
0.00
1.43
Medicine
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 22.51
2.10
Fish capture
0.00 109.66 0.00 0.00
0.00
438.67
966.93
119.53
Crab capture
0.00 192.55 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.93
Wildlife
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.38
0.00
0.29
Honey & wax
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 164.18
15.34
Total Goods US$ per Ha
0.00
394.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
464.89
1,442.05
167.00









Wetland Services





Ecotourism
0.00 294.46 0.00 0.00
0.00
75.45
26.62
8.84
Research & Education
0.00 954.54 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.61
Migratory species
0.00 373.62 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.80
Sediment retention
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Nutrient retention
0.00 0.52 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00252
Coastal Protection
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Windbreak
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carbon Sequestration
0.00 140.61 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
Oxygen Production
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Option Value
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.13
0.00
0.01
Aesthetic Value
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 1,201.32 112.21
Total Services US$ per Ha
0.00
1,763.75 0.00 0.00
0.00 75.58
1,227.94
128.15







Grand Total Goods and Services Value US$
0.00
2,158.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
540.47
2,670.00
295.15
Total known areas of wetlands
77,202
20,276
3,252,780
0
183,818
274,653
392,416
4,201,145
Value of total annual production in US$
0.00
43,766,563
0.00
0.00
0.00
148,440,949
1,047,749,247
1,239,956,427



5 It should be remembered that, in the context of the UNEP/GEF project, the only habitats included in the coastal wetlands group are: coastal lagoons, estuaries, inter-tidal mudflats, and peat and
non-peat swamp forest.

---

16 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3

Determination of Weighted Mean Regional Values

The determination of weighted mean regional values was undertaken in a similar manner to the
computation of weighted mean national values but using data and information concerning the total
stock (or area) in each country and the weighted mean national values. Thus, the weighted mean
national value for each resource was multiplied by the stock for each country and the resultant values
summed, then divided by the total stock (or area) of the habitat bordering the South China Sea.

The absence of values in a particular table may reflect one of two circumstances:
·
First, and most commonly, no data for farm gate prices and hence no value could be found for that
resource in the country concerned; and,
·
Secondly, that a particular resource is not used in the country concerned.

An example of the latter is the case of sipunculid worms that are highly prized in China and also eaten
to a lesser extent in the Philippines but which are not consumed in the other countries of the region.
Consequently, there are no market values from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam
reflecting the fact that these worms are not eaten and do not enter the market in these countries.
Sipunculid worms are, however, found in all mangrove areas in all countries. The contribution of the
weighted mean regional value for sipunculid worms to the total economic value of mangrove production
in the region is therefore much smaller than if a benefits transfer method of determining value were
used to value the entire South China Sea stock of sipunculid worms.

In the case of mangrove "fruit" or propagules, the value from China represents the price of Avicennia
marina propagules that are used in soup and other dishes in southern China and are apparently not
eaten elsewhere in the region. Propagules of other species are processed as sweets and eaten in
Thailand but no farm gate price is available from that country. What is interesting is the apparent
absence of a market for mangrove propagules in countries where propagules are purchased from local
villagers for use in re-forestation and re-planting schemes. During the sixth meeting of the regional
Working Group on Mangroves (UNEP, 2006), there was a discussion regarding the value and sale of
propagules during which it was noted that propagules from the Batu Ampur demonstration site were
being sold for replanting elsewhere in West Kalimantan at a price for Rhizophora of 1$ for 200
propagules. In Thailand and Viet Nam the price was cited at around 1$ for 100 propagules, whilst in the
Philippines the price was higher at 1$ for 50 propagules. Markets thus do exist for these products but
values are apparently not formally recorded in the literature.

Determination of Total Economic Value (TEV)
The task force agreed that the Total Economic Value of the habitats bordering the South China Sea
should be estimated as the summation of the values of all goods and services produced by each
habitat on an annual basis. The summation of the regionally weighted values therefore represents the
Total Economic Value of the annual production per hectare, whilst the Total Economic Value for the
entire area of each habitat is derived from the product of this value multiplied by the total area of the
habitat bordering the South China Sea.
In the case of mangroves, the annual values of production per hectare for both goods and services
varies from 450 US dollars in Viet Nam and the Philippines to in excess of 21,000 US dollars in the
case of China. The latter value reflects the high value for the service of sediment retention by
mangroves determined by the difference in annual cost of dredging of the Fangchenggang Port before
and after removal of mangroves. As the total area of mangrove in China is only 23 thousand hectares
compared with nearly 2 million hectares along the Indonesian coast of the South China Sea, this very
high value does not distort the regional value for this service which computes at a modest 66 US dollars
per hectare annually.
The most comprehensive dataset is that for mangroves, whilst the least comprehensive are those for
coral reefs and wetlands. Only three national datasets were found for coral reef goods and, in the case
of wetlands, the bulk of the data are from Viet Nam. This results in a regional value of coral reef
production of a modest 1,500 US dollars per hectare per annum and for wetlands of around 300 US
dollars per hectare per annum. These should be compared with the regional value for mangrove of
nearly three thousand dollars per hectare and the value of 1,118 US dollars per hectare for seagrass
meadows.

---

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC VALUES 17


Discussion
On first principles, one might expect the value of mangrove goods to exceed those for coral reefs and
seagrass because the former will include values for mangrove timber and other direct derivatives that
have few, if any, equivalents in coral reef and seagrass habitats. In contrast, one would expect that the
service values for coral reefs would be greater than those for the other three habitats given the
extensive coral reef tourism in the region.
Examination of the value of total annual production of goods and services by the four habitats from
areas bordering the South China Sea demonstrates unequivocally the importance of mangroves in this
region. The total annual value of mangrove production exceeds 5.1 billion6 US dollars annually
compared with around 1.2 billion for wetlands and coral reefs and a mere 86 million US dollars for
seagrass habitats.
It is important to recognise that the values for goods and services, both individually and collectively, are
extremely conservative as a consequence of the manner in which they have been calculated using
weighted means. Where data are lacking for a good or service from one country, the consequence will
be a lowering of the weighted mean regional value. Given the absence of values for many goods and
services in each habitat, the values are likely to be as low as 50% or less of the real value. For
comparison, the values derived by Costanza et al. are presented along side those from the present
study in the following table.

Table 7
Comparison of the Total Economic Value of coastal habitats as determined by Costanza et
al. 1997 and during the present study.
US$ per hectare per annum
Total Economic Values
Area
ha
Costanza et
Present study
Costanza et al
Present study
al
Mangroves 1,799,136
9,990
2,872.25
17,973,368,640
5,167,568,376
Coral reefs
750,307
6,076
1,542.56
4,558,865,332
1,157,393,566
Seagrass 73,769
22,400
1,181.59
1,652,425,600
87,164,713
"Wetlands" 4,201,145
14,785
295.15
62,113,928,825
1,239,967,947

In al four cases, the values cited by Costanza et al. 1997 are greater than those determined in the
present study and consequently would result in Total Economic Values ranging from 3 to 22 times
greater than those determined in the present instance. It is important to recognise, however, that the
two sets of values are not directly comparable since those of Costanza et al. relate to capital values
whilst those of the present study reflect annual production values.

FINAL OUTCOMES:

The original outcome of the project was simply anticipated as being "regionally applicable values for
habitat goods and services"

Additional Outcomes not envisaged during project design:

What has resulted from this work is a standardised method for computing national and regional
weighted mean values of resources and services that can be applied more widely in handling and
manipulating economic valuation data from multiple locations across any time span. The techniques
can be applied in any region where multiple currencies, varying exchange rates and widespread inter-
locational variation in farm gate prices are found.

The specific targets of the revised SAP have been valued or, more specifically, the incremental benefit
derived from achieving the target has been valued. The values saved by achieving the targets have
been compared with the costs of implementing the actions defined in the regional SAP through a cost
benefit analysis (see Annex 6 of document UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.7/3).


John C. Pernetta
July 26th 2007.

6 The American billion is used in this document, i.e. 109

---

18 SOUTH CHINA SEA KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT NO. 3


REFERENCES
Costanza, R, R. D'arge, R. De Groot, S Farber. M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. O'neil , J.
Paruelo, G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. Van Den Belt. The value of the world's ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387:253-260 (1997)
MacNae, W., 1974. Mangrove Forests and fisheries. UNDP/FAO, IOFC/DEV/74/34. pp 1-35.
Talaue-McManus, L. 2000. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the South China Sea. EAS/RCU Technical
Report Series No. 14. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP, 1999. Strategic Action Programme for the South China Sea. Draft Version 3, 24 February 1999. UNEP
SCS/SAP Ver. 3
UNEP, 2002. Second Meeting of the Project Steering Committee for the UNEP/GEF Project "Reversing
Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". Report of the meeting,
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.2/3, 110 pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP, 2003. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Report of
the First Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation. UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.1/3.
UNEP, 2004. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Report of
the Second Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation. UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.2/3.
UNEP, 2005a. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Report
of the Third Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation. UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.3/3.
UNEP, 2005b. Managing Multi-Lateral Intergovernmental Projects And Programmes: The Case of the UNEP/GEF
Project Entitled: "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand". UNEP/GEF/SCS/INF.1, 15pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP, 2005c. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Report
of the Fourth Meeting of the Project Steering Committee. UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.4/3
UNEP, 2006a. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Report
of the Fourth Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation. UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.4/3.
UNEP, 2006b. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Report
of the Fifth Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation. UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.5/3.
UNEP, 2007a. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Report
of the Sixth Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation. UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.6/3.
UNEP, 2007b. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Report
of the Seventh Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Economic Valuation. UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-E.7/3.

---