MANGROVE Consortium Workshop and 2 Project Management Group meetinglibrary.enaca.org/mangrove/workshops/mangrove-pmg2.pdf · 2008-08-25 · 1 MANGROVE Consortium Workshop and Project

MANGROVE Consortium Workshop and 2nd Project Management Group meeting

Meeting hosted by MERD, VNU and NACA, 9th-13th July 2007, Meeting Hall of the National Fisheries Extension Centre (NAFEC), Vietnam Ministry of Fisheries, 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan, Hanoi

Glossary

EC European Commission

MANGROVE Mangrove ecosystems, communities and conflict: developing knowledge-based approach to reconcile multiple demands (EC project)

MERD Mangrove Ecosystem Research Division

NGO Non-Government Organisation

PAP Participatory Action Planning

STEPS Social, Technical, Environmental, Political, Sustainability

Citation: MANGROVE, 2007. Proceedings of the Consortium Workshop and 2nd Project Management Group Meeting, 9th - 13th July, Meeting Hall of the National Fisheries Extension Centre, Vietnam Ministry of Fisheries, 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan, Hanoi.

Acknowledgement and disclaimer:

This report is an output of the MANGROVE project which received research funding from the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme [Contract: INCO-CT-2005-003697]; this publication reflects the author’s views and the European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. © The authors retain the copyright to materials presented in this report

ii

Contents

Section Heading Page Glossary ii 1 Overview 1 1.1 Welcome 1 1.2 Objectives 1 2 Agenda 2 3 Consortium Workshop – Day 1 3 4 Review of project status and progress 4 5 Mangroves situation analysis in Vietnam 7 6 Thailand: WP1 - Multidisciplinary situation appraisal of mangrove ecosystems 11 7 Situation of the mangrove ecosystem and related community livelihoods in

Muara Badak, Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia

19 8 Assessment of achievement in Situation Analysis by country 25 9 Consortium Workshop – Day 2 36 10 Phase II research questions 36 10.1 Ecology (WP3) 36 10.2 Livelihoods (WP4) 36 10.3 Policy and institutions (WP5) 37 11 Work Package 3 implementation plan agreed upon by partners 38 12 Work Package 2 update and review 39 13 Introduction to Work Package 5 and social learning 44 14 PMG meeting outcomes and consortium decisions 46 Annex 1 WP1 objectives and DOW review pro-forma Annex 2 Outstanding Situation Analysis issues – group session presentation Annex 3 Group session – WP3 planning Annex 4 MANGROVE introduction to livelihoods - WP4 Annex 5 Participants

iii

1

MANGROVE Consortium Workshop and Project Management Group meeting hosted by MERD, CRES, VNU and NACA

9th - 13th July, Meeting Hall of the National Fisheries Extension Centre (NAFEC), Vietnam Ministry of Fisheries, 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan, Ha Noi

1. Overview 1.1. Welcome Dr Hoang Van Thang, Director, Centre for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies (CRES),

Vietnam National University, Ha Noi officially welcomed the participants to Ha Noi and to the

meeting organised by his institution and NACA-Vietnam. He thanked the EC for funding the project

and the National Fisheries Extension Centre (NAFEC), Vietnam Ministry of Fisheries, for hosting the

event. Dr Thang outlined the important contribution CRES had made to mangrove conservation and

restoration in Vietnam and expressed his hopes that the MANGROVE Project would make a

significant contribution to the sustainable management of mangroves and associated coastal areas in

Vietnam, and through collaboration with the other institutions represented at the meeting, the region as

a whole. Finally he wished the participants well and hoped the meeting would be productive.

1.2. Objectives Objectives for the meeting were presented to the participants and agreed upon, they included: - reacquaint project partners and introduce new partner and team members, - review the status of the MANGROVE project, - review progress with WP1 - Situation Analysis in project countries, - agree on indicators for subsequent monitoring and evaluation, - agree on strategy to conclude WP1, - discussing planning and logistics for Phases 2, - agree on implementation strategies and detailed work plans for WP3-5, - review communication needs and assess progress with implementation of WP2, - convene Project Management Group meeting to assess progress and resolve issues, - consolidate and verify partner inputs for the second periodic report due 31st July 2007, - agree on time and venue for next consortium meeting.

2. Agenda Sunday 8th Arrive Ha Noi Evening Informal gathering … Day 1 Monday 9th 08:30 Depart Hotel 09:00 - 09:30 Welcome and opening address 09:30 - 09:45 Participant introductions 09:45 - 10:00 Workshop objectives and housekeeping (MERD/UOE) 10:00 - 10:30 Review status of project and general progress against milestone and deliverables (UOE) 10:30 - 11:00 Break 10:30 - 11:30 Mangroves Situation Analysis in Vietnam (MERD, VNU) 11:30 - 12:30 Mangroves Situation Analysis in Thailand (KU) 12:30 - 13:30 Lunch 13:30 - 14:30 Mangroves Situation Analysis in Indonesia (MU) 14:30 - 15:45 Group session - outstanding Situation Analysis issues (including Gender Framework Analysis) 15:45 - 16:00 Break 16:15 - 17:00 Reporting back in groups on outstanding issues 17:00 - 17:15 Any other business Evening MERD & NACA host Welcome Party Day 2 Tuesday 10th

08:30 Depart Hotel 08:50 - 09:00 Review the days programme, summary of yesterdays work (UOE) 09:00 - 10:45 Group session - planning Work Package 3 - activities, timing, outputs and interaction with

other WPs (UOE) 10:45 - 11:00 Break 11:00 - 12:00 Country teams report back on WP3 planning 12:00 - 13:00 Lunch 13:00 - 14:45 Group session – planning Work Package 4 - activities, timing, outputs and interaction with

other WPs (WU) 14:45 - 15:00 Break 15:00 - 16:00 Country teams report back on WP4 planning 16:00 - 16:20 Review progress with implementing WP2 (NACA) 16:20 - 17:00 Partners present summary of MANGROVE outputs achieved and planned (5 minutes each) Evening Free Day 3 Wednesday 11th 08:30 Depart Hotel 08:50 - 09:00 Review the days programme, summary of yesterdays work (UOE) 09:00 - 10:45 Group session - planning Work Package 5 - activities, timing, outputs and interaction with

other WPs (SEI) 10:45 - 11:00 Break 11:00 - 12:00 Country teams report back on WP5 planning 12:00 - 13:00 Lunch

2

3

13:00 - 13:30 P2 report preparation - review of obligations 13:30 - 14:30 Partners drafting outline P2 report contribution 14:30 - 15:10 Partners present outlines of P2 report contributions (5 minutes each) 15:10 - 15:30 Break 15:30 - 16:30 Project Management Group Meeting – including opportunity to discuss issues with the

coordinator individually 16:30 - 16:45 Press release and news item for website 16:45 - 17:00 Thanks and farewell Evening Meal Field trip to Tien Hai, Thai Binh Day 4 Thursday 12th 06:00 - Leave for Giao Thuy (on-the-way breakfast) 10:00 - 10:30 Visit Mangrove Ecosystem Research Station 10:30 - 13:30 Visit Xuan Thuy National Park, Giao Thuy and ecological shrimp pond in Con Vanh, Tien Hai Lunch at eco-shrimp pond 13:30 - 14:30 Visit mangroves in Tien Hai 14:30 - 16:00 Check in at the guest house 16:00 - 18:00 Visit clam farming site in Dong Minh Commune in front of guest house 19:00 - 21:00 Dinner and singing performance exchange with Tien Hai Nature Reserve Management Board Day 5 Friday 13th 07:00 - 07:30 Breakfast 07:30 - 09:00 Visit clam farming sites in Dong Minh and Nam Thinh Communes on the way to Nam Hung

Commune (in Tien Hai) 09:00 -10:30 Visit mangrove nursery in Nam Hung Commune, visit shrimp ponds around Nam Hung and

Nam Phu Communes 10:30 - 12:00 Meet aquatic collectors coming back from the mangroves 12:00 - 13:00 Lunch at Nam Phu Commune 12:00- 13:00 Leave Tien Hai for Ha Noi 3. Consortium Workshop - Day 1 An overview of the current status of the project and expected progress against milestones and

deliverables was presented by Stuart Bunting (Section 4). Presentations were then made by

representatives from Vietnam (Section 5), Thailand (Section 6) and Indonesia (Section 7) concerning

progress with the Situation Analysis. These presentations were followed by group work by country

teams. Firstly, reviewing the objectives of WP1, evidence of achievement (activities and outputs), an

assessment of the quality, quantity and timing of outcomes against the description of work, means of

verification (independent where possible) and gaps and required actions to complete WP1 (see Annex

1); outcomes are presented in Section 8. Secondly, formulating research questions for Phase 2 based

on the preceding presentations (Annex 2); a composite set of research questions relevant to the

situation in all counties was agreed upon to focus research in Phase 2 (Section 9).

Dr Stuart BuntingCentre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UKTel: +44 (0)1206 872219; Email: [email protected]

Review project status & progress against milestones and deliverables

Presentation for: MANGROVE Consortium Workshop

9-13 July 2007

Stuart Bunting

Presentation outline

- Project status

- Project aims

- Work plan - general description

- Milestones & Deliverables WP1WP2

Project status

- Project start date 1st August 2005 (fixed)

- IDDRA withdrew prior to signing

- UOE delayed dispersal of pre-financing to protect partners

- November 2005 search for replacement partner commenced

- Negotiations with SwedBio / SEI / UOE / EU

- Amended Technical Annex I agreed - 9th May 2006

Project status

- UOE aggress to dispersal of pre-financing payment - 26th October 2006

- EC approve P1 Report from Scientific perspective - 4th December 2006

- Official notification of SEI accession from EC - 13th March 2007

- EC approve P1 Report from Financial perspective - 7th May 2007

- Notification from UOE that all partners had signed revised Consortium Agreement - 22nd May 2007

- Second Project Consortium meeting, 9th to 13th July 2007

Project aims

- Develop action plans to reconcile multiple demands placed on mangroves and adjacent areas

- Local and national level stakeholders participate in action planning

- Action plans piloted by stakeholders and impacts on ecosystems, livelihoods and institutions assessed

- New knowledge on most effective approaches communicated to agencies responsible for coastal zone management

- To assist in formulating Codes of Practice and polices to Reconcile Multiple Demands placed on mangroves and adjacent areas

Work plan - general description

- Official start date - 1st August 2005

- Project duration - 42 months

- Phase 1 - months 1-8 (1-24)

- Phase 2* - months 8-22 (25-37)

- Phase 3 - months 22-42 (38-48)

- End date - 31st January 2009? – (suggest applying for a 6 month extension)

* Transition to Phase 2 dependent on completion of Gender Framework Analysis

Section 4

4

Section 4

5

Milestones – WP1

• M1.1 - Month 1 - Initial meeting held and secondary stakeholders identified

• M1.2 - Month 3 - Representative communities identified

• M1.3 - Month 5 - Analysis of stakeholders, CBOs, institutions, legislation and markets completed

• M1.4 - Month 6 - Biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological setting of mangroves assessed

• M1.5 - Month 6 - Livelihoods of representative communities described

• M1.6 - Month 6 - Stakeholder workshop in each site to present and verify preliminary outcomes

Deliverables – WP1

• D1 - Stakeholder workshop proceedings (month 6)

• D2 - Situation appraisal report (including outcomes from Gender Framework Analysis) (month 8)

Milestones – WP2

• M2.1 - Month 4 - Communication plans & monitoring and evaluation strategy developed

• M2.2 - Month 4 - Project purpose etc… communicated locally and first project bulletin produced

• M2.3 - Month 4 - Project website established and updated regularly with project outputs

• M2.4 - Month 9 - Stakeholder workshops to present and verify findings and monitor progress

Milestones – WP2

• M2.5 - Month 12 - First annual report on project progress and preliminary impact assessment

• M2.6 - Month 24 - Second annual report on project progress and impact assessment

• M2.7 - Month 34 - Regional workshop convened, well attended and proceedings produced

• M2.8 - Month 40 - Communication media, including CD-ROM produced, disseminated and feedback assessed

Deliverables – WP2

• D3 - Project summaries & bulletins in local languages & website established (month 3)

• D4 - Communication plan for each site (month 6)

• D5 - Regional workshops proceedings & CD-ROM (month 34)

• D6 - Appropriate communication media on Reconciling Multiple Demandsaddressing ecosystem, livelihood and institutional issues (month 35)

Section 4

6

Mangroves Situation Analysis in Vietnam

VNU/HNUE

MANGROVE Consortium Workshop and Project Management Group Meeting

hosted by MERD, VNU, NACA9th - 13th July, Hanoi, Vietnam

THE STUDY SITE

MANGROVES IN THE STUDY SITE:SOCIAL AND NATURAL RESILIENCE Population of coastal communes of Tien Hai

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Dong Minh

Nam Thanh Nam Cuong

Nam Hung

Nam Phu Nam Thinh

DIRECT VALUES OF MANGROVES AS LOCAL LIVELIHOODS IN THE STUDY SITE

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OF MANGROVES IN THE STUDY SITE

Section 5

7

IMPROVING LOCAL AWERENESS AND KNOWLEDGE Stakeholder analysis

Commune PC

District ardDistrictFishery office

Donre of province

Dard of province District s&T

Farmer ass.

Womenass

Youth union

Security of PC District nr&eDistrict PC

Red cross ass

EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT Mangrove-related stakeholders

- Take unreasonable decisions on forest exploitation resulting in forest destruction/loss.

- Guide mangrove cultivation and protection - Propagandize and deal with acts of violation- Invest in and develop mangroves

Administration and social organizations

Group 6

- Spoil young forests- Feed tree leaves leading to fall of trees

- Provide information, protect mangroves- Supply manure

Cattle (buffaloes and oxen) tending

Group 5

- Destroy mangroves ( pond surrounding resulting in inundation and thus, destroying mangroves inside)

- Using chemicals negatively affecting natural and water environment

- Mangrove planting for protection of pond embankments

Aquaculture, clam farming Group 4

- Destroy young seedlings - Destroy the environment- Cut down old forests- Limit propagule dispersal

NoneNatural seafood exploiters with tools (net, gillnets (locally called “dang”, trawlers locally named “te”, push-net)

Group 3

- Move around and trample down young seedlings

- Chop down trees for firewood

- Catch barnacles- Inform forest guards of bad actions- Warn mangrove destroyers of their bad actions

Mannual natural aquatic collectors

Group 2

None- Plant and protect mangroves- Propaganda- Act as an advisor for Commune People’s

Committees

Group of mangrove planting and protection

Group 1

Negative ActivitiesPositive ActivitiesName of Organizations/GroupsGroup No

Diagram 1. Relation between organizations and local community life

(6)(14)

(3)

(1)

(5)

12

8

11

(4)

(9)

(2)

(13)

(7)

Local community

10

Note:

- Farmer Association (1)- Women Association (2)- Youth Union (3)- War Veteran Association (4)- Red Cross Association

(5)- Conservation club (6)- Study Extension Association, Schools(7)- Elder Association (8)- VAC Association (9)- Bee Keeping Association (10)- Health Clinic (11)- Clam Farming Association (12)- Agri-Power Cooperative(13)- Mangrove planting and protection group ()

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS Stakeholder’s position and importance

Venn diagram for Tien Hai Mangrove Stakeholder Analysis

NationalAgenda 21

Private sectors

Provincial People

Committee

Provincial Agencies

Traditional locally

associations

Public association

s

Individual Households

Social and cultural

organizations

Schools and Community

Learning Centers

State owned

business

Informal Business sectors

Collective Farms and Business

Section 5

8

Livelihood ranging in three coastal communes in Tien Hai (1-10 point)

82636310414. Hired labor

4346758813. Side-occupation

5337477812. Aquatic fishing by boats, nets

92253210211. Aquatic fishing by hand

23848810810. Clam farming

147101010989. Shrimp farming

730656678. Salt making

6325125557. Others rearing

3358135636. Chickens, ducks rearing

8264104445. Sows

6324116564. Pork rearing

7306105453. Rice farming

1020416722. Fish pond

922327821. Gardening

RankTotal scoreRiskTime & intensityInvestReturnLaborActivity

Gender analysis: Percentage contribution of man and women to family income in Tien Hai

4357Average

554514. Hired labor

505013. Side-occupation

554512. Aquatic fishing by boats, nets

59511. Aquatic fishing by hand

802010. Clam farming

85159. Shrimp farming

15858. Salt making

10907. Others rearing

10906. Chickens, ducks rearing

15855. Sows

20804. Pork rearing

50503. Rice farming

70302. Fish pond

80201. Gardening

Men’scontribution (%)

Women’scontribution (%)

Activities

Evaluation of the role of stakeholders related to local communities

6.87.97.7Mangrove Planting and Protection Group 14

7.49.89.8Cooperative for Agriculture, Utility (Electricity, Water)13

5.87.79.5Clam Farming Association12

8.58.66.9Health Clinic 11

6.47.98.6Bee Keeping Association10

7.09.19.1VAC Association 9

8.84.85.4Elder Association8

9.28.06.6Association for Extension, Community Education, Schools 7

8.07.68.1Conservation Association 6

8.76.36.8Red Cross Association5

8.97.17.8War Veteran Association4

9.28.78.3Youth Union3

8.19.19.6Women Association2

6.99.49.8Farmer Association1

Spiritual(score)

Technical(score)

Economic(score)Organizations

Assessment of cooperation (above) and conflict (below) of stakeholders in Tien Hai

A65.24.36.45.10.16. Administration &

social organizations

3.6A55.13.12.97.15. Cattle tenders

4.41.6A44.53.85.84. Aquaculture owners

2.42.93.1A33.87.93. Natural aquatic

exploiters with tools

3.82.13.53.3A27.12. Manual natural aquatic collectors

9.32.13.42.13.8A11. Group of mangrove

planting and protection

6.Administratio

n & social

organizations

5. Cattle tenders

4. Aquaculture

owner

3. Natural

aquatic exploiter

s with tools

2. Manual

natural aquatic

collectors

1. Group of

mangrove

planting&

protection

Recommendations from local community

• Property right of land• Owned land: shrimp ponds, clam

farming (mud flat): budget for land bidding, suitable species for planting or compensation budget for site clearance

• Public land: resurvey for land fund; Nam Thinh (bid for one-year clam farming land under the planning)

• Budget: State investment (70% or 100%)

• Mobilizers: Commune’s People’s Committee, mass organization, encouragement/mobilization. Mangrove planting and management should be assigned to individual households and then the planted mangroves returned back to local authorities.

• Land available for planting• Should plant a mangrove belt along

the seadyke in accordance with the ordinance

• Lowly effective farming ponds: should invest in mangrove nursing for mangrove –shrimp combination model Bare flat: young sandy soil; suitable mangrove species should be found for sea

• Invasion Model: pilot model or expansive/massive model for the whole pond

• Owners Advocacy/awareness raising combined with economic benefits Implementer: pond owners, different departments/divisions

• Management: party committee, Commune’s People’s Committee, Women Association, departments/divisions, specialized group, budget

THE CAUSES OF MANGROVE DESTRUCTION

• CONVERSION TO POND AQUACULTURE, PARTICULARLY SHRIMP

• CLEARANCE FOR URBANISATION AND PORT DEVELOPMENT;

• SEDIMENTATION OF THE RIVER MOUNTH

Section 5

9

CURRENT THREATS TO MANGROVE SYSTEMS

Anthropogenic Threats• Reclamation and infrastructure

development • Pollution from shrimp farming • Conversion to industrial parks,

ports and harbours • Conversion-to shrimp culture

potential long-term threat

Natural Threats • Sea level rise• Episodic events – tsunami,

typhoon.

Transboundary Influences• Regional trade – Charcoal, wood

chips• Global trade – Shrimp

CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE MANGROVE USE

• Lack of sustainable financing

• Poverty of coastal communities

• Weak or non-existent law enforcement

• Lack of understanding on the part of the general public and decision makers regarding the functions and values of mangrove ecosystems.

• Ineffective management systems and land-use planning

• Lack of experience and techniques for multi-species replanting

• Lack of long-term regional and international co-ordination and co-operation; and,

CURRENT NEEDS IN MANGROVE RESTORATION

• A PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IS THE NEED TO DIVERSIFY THE RANGE OF SPECIES USED IN REPLANTING/ RESTORATION WITH A CONSEQUENT GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF:

• THE SITE SPECIFIC LIMITS TO SPECIES DISTRIBUTIONS IN RESPONSE TO ABIOTIC ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.

• HANDBOOKS OF REPLANTING TECHNIQUES AND SIMPLE GUIDES TO IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR DIFFERENT SPECIES

• NATIONAL PROGRAMMES THAT FOSTER MULTI-SPECIES REFORESTATION BY PROVIDING CONCRETE INCENTIVES

Proposed outreach documents

Terima kasihKhorb khun

krub

Section 5

10

THAILANDWP1- Multidisciplinary Situation Appraisal of

Mangrove Ecosystems

“Mangrove ecosystems, communities and conflict: developing knowledge-based approaches to reconcile

multiple demands”

Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University,Bangkok, Thailand

Mangrove Consortium Meeting, Ha NoiJuly 9, 2007

Mangrove forest in Thailand

• 87% sps in 41 families

• 5 families major components

Rhizophora apiculata(Family: Rhizophoraceae)

Lumnitzera racemosa(Family: Combretaceae)

Nypa fruticans(Family: Palmae)

Sonneratia caseolaris(Family: Sonneratiaceae)

Avicennia marina(Family: Avicenniaceae)

Trend in mangrove forest area(1960 – 2000)

(Wilkie and Fortuna, 2003)

The extent of existing mangrove forests and other land uses, by different regions in 1996 compared to original

mangrove forest before 1961Total area 1996 (ha)

Region Mangrove forest

Shrimp pond

Resettlement Other uses* Total original

mangrove forest before

1961 (ha) 24,295.30 3,957.10 13,934.60 Eastern 12,658.00 (58 %) (9 %) (33 %) 54,845.00

15,629.20 3,099.90 42,803.70 Central 5,449.00 (25 %) (5 %) (70 %) 66,981.80

21,919.60 1,001.10 16,957.00 South: Gulf of Thailand 16,517.40 (55 %) (3 %) (42 %) 56,449.20

5,153.80 742.30 55,371.90 South: Andaman Sea 132,904.00 (9 %) (1 %) (90 %) 194,172.00

66,997.90 8,800.40 129,067.20 Total 167,582.40 (33%) (4%) (63%) 372,448.00

Source: Charuppat and Charuppat (1997)* Other uses including agriculture, urbanization, ports and harbors

Distribution of mangrove forest areas in Thailand in 2004

Mangrove forest area in 2004 No. Regions/ Provinces ha % Eastern Region (Gulf of Thailand) 24,369.56 10.43

1 Trat 9,189.85 3.93 2 Chantaburi 11,722.32 5.02 3 Rayong 1,555.02 0.67 4 Chon Buri 727.66 0.31 5 Chachoengsao 1,174.72 0.50

Central Region (Gulf of Thailand) 6,357.41 2.72 6 Samut Prakarn 1,213.62 0.52 7 Bangkok 405.96 0.17 8 Samut Sakhon 1,684.87 0.72 9 Samut Songkhram 2,004.84 0.86 10 Petchaburi 1,048.11 0.45

Southern Region (Gulf of Thailand) 28,637.71 12.25 11 Prachuap Khirikhan 270.78 0.12 12 Chumphon 6,445.44 2.76 13 Surat Thani 6,509.47 2.79 14 Nakhon Si Thammarat 10,277.90 4.40 15 Phatthalung 67.58 0.03 16 Songkhla 1,369.57 0.59 17 Pattani 3,696.96 1.58

Southern Region (Andaman Sea) 174,334.82 74.60 18 Ranong 26,072.51 11.16 19 Phangnga 44,301.58 18.96 20 Phuket 1,680.67 0.72 21 Krabi 36,103.85 15.45 22 Trang 30,610.75 13.10 23 Satun 35,565.45 15.22

Total 233,699.50 100.00

Source: DMCR, 2005 (Unpublished data)

Distribution of mangrove forest of Thailand in 2004

(Source: Jumnongsong, 2005 based on data from the DMCR GIS Database, 2005)

Section 6

11

Selection criteria for MANGROVE Project sites in Thailand

Phatthalung Prachuap Khiri Khan

Chumphon Surat Thani

Nakhon Si Thammarat

Songkhla Pattani

Area 1 2 4 4 5 2 3 Forest types 1 1 4 3 5 1 2 Diversity 1 1 4 3 5 1 2 Abundance1 1 1 4 3 5 1 2 Economic sp. 3 3 3 4 5 3 3 Communities 2 2 2 4 5 4 2 Households 2 2 2 4 5 4 2 Resource uses 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 Logistics2 4 4 4 4 5 4 1 Secondary data

3 2 2 2 5 4 1

Conflicts 2 2 2 5 5 5 1 Total score 24 24 35 40 55 33 23

1 Abundance (density, biomass)2 Logistics (transportation and accommodation)

3 communities - Project sites

(a) (b) (c) (www.wikipedia.com) (www.earth.google.com)

1

3 2

1) Ban Kong Khong, Pak Phanang Fang Tawan Ok Subdistrict, Pak PhanangDistrict (Abundant)

2) Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya, Ta Sak Subdistrict, Mueang District (Abandoned shrimp ponds)

3) Ban Talad Has, Pak Phun Subdistrict, Mueang District (New mud flat and mangrove area)

Seasons and Monsoon

Rainy SummerJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rainy

(NE)

Summer

Rainy (SW) Rainy (NE))

SW = South West MonsoonNE = North East Monsoon

Meteorological data in Nakhon SiThammarat in 2005

Temperature Relative Humidity Precipitation

Month Max ( ๐C )

Min ( ๐C )

Average( ๐C )

Max ( % )

Min ( % )

Average ( % )

Per month (mm.)

No. of rainy days

(days) Jan 33.1 18.7 26.39 97 50 80.74 85.70 8 Feb 34.2 19.0 26.94 97 44 77.63 0.0 0 Mar 33.9 19.4 27.15 97 51 79.45 241.5 9 Apr 36.7 21.7 28.96 98 30 77.22 12.4 3 May 36.9 23.0 29.49 98 45 78.81 132.2 13 Jun 36.4 22.7 28.43 97 43 76.42 121.0 12 Jul 35.5 22.0 28.00 96 41 76.51 147.1 14 Aug 36.0 21.8 28.21 97 40 76.14 65.2 14 Sep 35.2 22.5 27.81 97 43 78.64 136.5 13 Oct 34.7 22.3 26.52 99 50 86.18 384.4 23 Nov 33.0 22.0 26.33 98 55 85.79 643.1 15 Dec 31.0 21.0 24.87 100 64 89.84 927.9 24

Total - - - - - - 2,987.2 148 Source: Meteorological station at Kakhon Si Thammarat

http://www.nakhonsithammarat.go.th/air.php

Soil TypePak Pak Phanang Fang Ok Subdistrict (Ban Kong Khong)

http://giswebldd.ldd.go.th/

Soil TypeTasak Subdistrict (Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya)


Section 6

12

Soil TypePak Phoon Subdistrict (Ban Talad Has)


Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

(DFID; Guidance Sheet – Section 1, 1999)

Gender Analysis FrameworkCategory of

enquiry Issues to consider

1) Assets (natural, physical, financial, human, social)

• What livelihood assets/opportunities do men and women have access to?

• What constraints do they face? 2) Roles and

responsibilities

• What do men and women do? (1) Productive roles - paid work, self-employment,

and subsistence production, (2) Reproductive roles (domestic work, child care and

care of the sick and elderly) 3) Power and

decision-making • What decision-making do men and/or women participate

in or control? (1) Household level (2) Community level

4) Needs, priorities and perspectives

• What are women’s and men’s needs and priorities?

Note: Adapted from DFID Infrastructure Department (1999)

Assessment of livelihoods, goods and services

PCA with Ban Talad Has community at Pak Phun TAO

PCA with Ban Kong Khong community at Ban Kong Khong School

PCA with Ban Pak Nam Pak Phayacommunity at Ban Pak Nam Pak

Phaya School

About 30 villagers from each community participated in PCA (Total – about 90 villagers)

Specific objectives and methodologies for assessment of livelihoods, goods and services

Objectives Methodologies/Tools

(1) To assess the assets of each community

Review of secondary data, site observation, questionnaire, and focus group (natural, physical, financial, human, and social assets)

(2) To assess the role of mangrove for providing goods and services in the livelihoods of poor people

PCA - Brainstorming • Rank the importance of mangrove goods and

services • Map the flow of goods and services supporting

the communities (Marketing channel)

(3) To assess the vulnerability context of each community

PCA- Brainstorming • Rank the causes of impacts on the mangrove

forest and mangrove aquatic resources • Trend line of the quantity of natural resources,

the economy, social relation, and conflicts in different periods

• Seasonal calendar of activities related to the mangrove ecosystem

(4) Address specific gender issues

PCA- Participatory Gender Framework Analysis • Mapping of community assets (natural, physical,

financial, human, and social) • Perceptions of roles and responsibilities, • Perceptions of power and decision-making • Rank the needs and priorities

1. Assessment of community assets

Section 6

13

Assessment of community’s assets

The asset pentagon (DFID; Guidance Sheet – Section 2.3, 1999)

• Human assets (H) - e.g. health services, education, and information access

• Natural assets (N) - e.g. natural goods and services derived from the mangrove ecosystem, resources and the system of land allocation

• Financial assets (F) - e.g. capital/income, credit, and levels of trust

• Physical assets (P) - e.g. Infrastructure, tools and equipment that people use to work more productively

• Social assets (S) - e.g. social networks (vertical/ horizontal), membership of more formalized groups

Review of secondary data, site observation, questionnaire, and focus group

Situations and changes in access to assets in study sites

Study sites Ban Kong Khong Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya Ban Talad Has

AssetTypes

Situation* Changes ** Situation* Changes ** Situation* Changes ** H 5 (+) 8 (+) 8 (+) N 4 (-) 7 (-) 8 (+) F 5 (-) 7 (-) 6 (-) P 4 (+) 6 (+) 8 (+) S 6 (+) 6 (NS) 5 (NS)

(a) Ban Kong Khong (b) Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya

(c) Ban Talad Has

S (+)

H (+)

P (+) F (-)

N (-)

H (+)

N (-)

F (-) P (+)

S (NS)

H (+)

N (+)

F (-) P (+)

S (NS)

* 0= completely no access or severed conflicts,

10 = perfectly access and no conflicts)

** Declined (-), extended (+), or not significant changes (NS)

H=Human asset, N=Natural asset, F=Financial asset, P=Physical asset, S=Social asset

2. Assessment of roles of mangrove ecosystem

providing goods and services in livelihoods of poor people

2. Assessment of roles of mangrove ecosystem providing goods and services in

livelihoods of poor people

PCA - Brainstorming

• Ranking importance of mangrove goods and services

1) Mapping flows of goods supporting communities

Participatory Community Appraisal (PCA) with 3 communities

Ranking importance of mangrove goods and services

(a) Representative of male group from

Ban Kong Khong (21 June 07) (b) Representative of female group from Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya (24 June 07)

Participatory Community Appraisal (PCA) with 3 communities

Example of ranking from Ban KongKhong, PakPhanangFangTawanOk Subdistrict, PakPhanang District

Female Group Male Group 1. Use of mangrove wood for house construction

and charcoal 2. Prevention of coastal erosion 3. Drainage of water for aquaculture (Giant

Seaperch, mud crab, Giant Tiger Prawn, Sesarmid crab)

4. Source of food for the community 5. Habitat of aquatic fauna 6. Collecting Sesarmid crab and shells 7. Use of mangrove’s parts for herb and medicine 8. Collection of white shrimp (Penacus indicus) 9. Collection of mud crab and fish 10. Use of Nipa palm’s leaves for roof material and

tobacco wrapping, used of Nipa palm’s stem for fishing gear

11. Selling Rhizophora seedlings for mangrove planting project

12. Place for ecotourism 13. Use of Sonneratia griffithii as plant for house

decoration, fruit for consumption

1. Collection of Sesarmid crab 2. Collection of mud crab 3. Collection of fish 4. Collection of shrimp 5. Use of mangrove wood for house

construction 6. Selling Rhizophora seedlings for

mangrove planting project 7. Collection of muolusk 8. Habitat for Nohk Gwak (a white-

breasted waterhen, Amaurornis phoenicurus)

9. Habitat for Heron 10. Prevention of coastal erosion 11. Use of Nipa palm’s leaves as material

for thatched house or dwellings 12. Breeding areas of aquatic fauna 13. Habitat and food source of Nest

Swiftlets bird 14. Use of mangrove poles for fishing gear

Section 6

14

Ranks of importance of goods supporting communities

Ban Kong Khong Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya Ban Talad Has 1. Sesarmid crab (Sesarma mederi) 2. Mud crab (Scylla serrata) 3. Banana shrimp/Indian white

shrimp (Penaeus merguiensis and P. indicus)

4. Bluespot Grey Mullet (Valamugil seheli)

5. Java Tilapia (Tilapia mossambica ) 6. Walking Catfish (Pla Duk Talae)

(Clarias spp. ) 7. Giant Seaperch (Pla Kra Pong)

(Lates calcarifer) 8. Common Geloina (Hoi Gan)

(Polymesoda erosa) 9. Horse Mussel (Hoi Kapong)

(Musculus senhousia) 10. Nipa Palm (Nypa fruticans) – Roof

material 11. Nipa Palm (Nypa fruticans) –

Tobacco wrapping 12. Nipa Palm (Nypa fruticans) – Pure

i

1. Banana shrimp/Indian white shrimp (Penaeus merguiensis and P. indicus)

2. Mud crab (Scylla serrata) 3. Walking Catfish (Clarias spp.) 4. Blue Swimming Crab (Portunus

pelagicus) 5. Giant Seaperch (Lates calcarifer)

6. Bluespot Grey Mullet (Valamugil

seheli) 7. Horse Mussel (Musculus

senhousia) 8. Cockle (Anadara granosa) 9. Sesarmid crab (Sesarma mederi) 10. Green Mussel (Perna viridis)

(Culture) 11. Mysids (Acetes spp.) 12. Honey

1. Bluespot Grey Mullet (Valamugil seheli)

2. Banana shrimp/Indian white shrimp (Penaeus merguiensis and P. indicus)

3. Mud crab (Scylla serrata) 4. Horse Mussel (Musculus

senhousia) 5. Walking Catfish (Clarias spp.) 6. Nipa Palm (Nypa fruticans) –

Tobacco wrapping 7. Sesarmid crab (Sesarma mederi) 8. Shieldheaded Catfish (Pla God)

(Arius nella)

Flow chart –Mud crab (Scylla serrata)

F ish e rs in B a n K o n g K h o n g

F ish e rs in B a n P ak N a m P ak P h a ya

F ish e rs in B a n T a lad H a s

H o u se h o ld co n su m p tio n

M id d le m a n in v illa g e

S e lle r in m ark e t in P ak P h a n an g D is tr ic t

S e lle r in m ark e t in B an g k o k a n d o th e r p ro v in c es

M id d le m a n fro m o u tsid e v illa g e

E x p o rt

S a le a t M ee tin g m ark e t in v illa g e

S e lle r in m ark e t in N a k h o n T o w n

S a le a t m ark e t in N a k h o n T o w n

(Summarized from three diagrams that were developed during PCA)

Flow chart –Banana shrimp (Penaeus merguiensis) &

Indian white shrimp (P. indicus)

Fishers in Ban Kong Khong

Fishers in Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya

Fishers in Ban Talad Has

Household consumption

Middleman in village

Seller in market in Pak Phanang District

Seller in market in Bangkok and other provinces

Middleman from outside village

Sale at Meeting market in village

Collector in Mueang District (Sin Thai Pae)

Sale at market in Nakhon Town

Collector in Pak Nakhon Subdistrict (Chock Sunan Pae)

Seller in market in Nakhon Town

Export to Malaysia

(Summarized from three diagrams that were developed during PCA)

3. Assessment of vulnerability context

Assessment of vulnerability context

(DFID; Guidance Sheet – Section 2.2, 1999)

PCA- Brainstorming

• Ranking the causes of impacts to mangrove forest and mangrove aquatic resources

• Trend line of natural resource quantity, economy, social relation, conflicts in different periods

• Seasonal calendar of activities related to mangrove ecosystem

Ranking the causes of impacts to mangrove forest and mangrove aquatic resources

Ban Kong Khong Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya Ban Talad Has 1. Severe storm-

damaged mangroves 2. Mangrove cutting 3. Private sector

- Cause of decrease in catch as they cannot survive in low quality of water contaminated by waste water discharged from industrial plants

- Cause of loss in mangrove area for different purposes

- Waste from shrimp farm may be cause of reduction in catch from mangrove forest

1. Strong wave cause of coastal erosion

2. Strong winds and storms 3. Mangrove cutting 4. Low survival rate of

mangrove seedlings planted because of boat, big poles, strong winds

5. Discharged Waste water from industrial plants and town to canal nearby mangrove forest

6. People throw waste and rubbish into canal nearby mangrove forest

1. Human - Mangrove cutting - Shrimp farm - Waste from shrimp farm may

be cause of reduction in catch from mangrove forest

- People throw waste and rubbish into canal nearby mangrove forest

- Discharged Waste water from industrial plants and town to canal nearby mangrove forest

- Use of illegal fishing gear - Fishing in breeding season

2. Natural hazard - Strong storms and wave

create coastal erosion - Flooded area by raised sea

water level

Section 6

15

Shocks in the pastIn 1962 - Typhoon “Harriet” with wind speeds over 90 km/hr swept through the province during October 24-25. Laem Talumpuk was swept clean. More than 1,000 people lost their lives and 422 were injured.

In 1970 - Mangrove forest areas were cleared for shrimp farming.

In 1989 - Thai government launched the Cabinet Resolution on August 1st, 1989 – The reservation and protection for mangrove forest areas in Surat Thani and Nakhon Si Thammarat Provinces.

In 1995 - Dam was constructed.

Trend line of natural resource quantity, economy, social relation, conflicts in different periods (1)

Items/ Shocks Before the storm

occurred

After storm- Before

shrimp farm started

After shrimp farm started – Before

resolution declared

After resolution declared –

Before dam constructed

After dam constructed – After present

Extensive / Intensive 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1

1) Mangrove forest area in the communities

5 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1

2) Catch amount

5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 1

3) Economic situation in the communities

0=None, 1=Very low, 2=Low, 3=Medium, 4=High, Ban Kong Khong Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya Ban Talad Has

Trend line of natural resource quantity, economy, social relation, conflicts in different periods (2)

Items/ Shocks Before the storm

occurred

After storm- Before

shrimp farm started

After shrimp farm started – Before

resolution declared

After resolution declared –

Before dam constructed

After dam constructed – After present

Extensive / Intensive 4 2 2 1 1

4) Level of conflicts among local people in the village 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 3 2 1

5) Level of conflicts between local people and government 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1

6) Level of Appreciation for efficiency of government work 0 0

0=None, 1=Very low, 2=Low, 3=Medium, 4=High, Ban Kong Khong Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya Ban Talad Has

Seasonal calendar of activities related to mangrove ecosystem

Items/ Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Seasons (SW-South West, NE-North East Monsoon)

Rainy

(NE)

Summer

Rainy (SW) Rainy (NE))

Strong winds/high wave

Catching White shrimp (a-Gill net, b-stake trap)

a

a a

b

Catching Mud crab (a-by traditional crab trap or Raew, b-gill net)

b

a

b

Catching Sesarmid crab (hands)

Catching fish (gill net)

Catching Horse Mussel (Hoi Kapong) – low level of water

Catching Common Geloina (Hoi Gan) by hands

Mangrove plantating (Low level of water)

4. Assessment of Specific gender issues

4. Assessment of Specific gender issues

PCA- Participatory Gender Framework Analysis

1) Mapping of community assets (natural, physical, financial, human, and social)

2) Perceptions of roles and responsibilities, 3) Perceptions of power and decision-making4) Rank the needs and priorities

Section 6

16

Example of community asset map from Ban Pak Nam Pak Phaya

Men

Women

Perceptions of roles , responsibilities, power and decision-making

% of respondents Ban Kong Khong

(n=33, m=14, w=19) PakNam Pak Phaya (n=32, m=14, w=18))

Ban Talad Has (n=31, m=16, w=15)

M W E M W E M W E Roles and responsibilities 1. Productive roles - work

outside home (paid work, self-employment, and subsistence production)

87.90 0.00 12.1 78.13 3.13 18.75 83.87 0.00 16.13

2. Productive roles - work at home 6.45 9.68 83.9 31.25 50.00 18.75 16.13 77.42 6.45

3. Reproductive roles (domestic work, child care and care of the sick and elderly)

0.00 100.0 0.00 3.13 84.38 12.50 6.45 90.32 3.23

4. Directly use mangrove goods 90.60 6.25 3.13 90.32 3.23 6.45 66.67 3.33 30.00

5. Community participation/self-help (voluntary work for the benefit of the community as a whole)

51.50 21.20 27.30 58.06 16.13 25.81 74.19 6.45 19.35

Power and decision-making 6. Household level (e.g.

decisions over household expenditure)

33.30 60.60 6.06 25.00 46.88 28.13 22.58 64.52 12.90

7. Community level (e.g. decisions on the management of community water supplies)

60.60 25.20 24.20 71.88 15.63 12.50 74.19 9.68 16.13

Rank the needs and priorities Steps to get the rank

1) Participants wrote their needs into colourcards

2) Colour cards with different needs received from participants were grouped

3) Participants were given 3 stickers (green for men and pink for women) with no. 1, 2, and 3 on it so each participant will have 6 points to vote for their prioritized needs.

4) The highest score will be given to the most priority and the lowest score will be given to the lowest priority.

5) Then calculation to find out scores given by women and men as well as total score for each topic will be done.

Rank the needs and priorities Ban Kong Khong

Rank NO.

Needs/ priorities Male Woman Total

1 Solution for land title or land ownership 38 47 85 2 Increase in aquatic fauna 14 20 34 3 Sufficient water for household use 14 11 25 4 Availability of finance help /credit 5 15 20 5 Improvement of infrastructure (Road) 6 7 13 6 Increase in mangrove plantation area 6 5 11 7 Security of occupation 6 2 8 8 Sufficient / availability of medicine 0 2 2 Total 89 109 198

Rank the needs and priorities Ban Pak Nam Phaya

Rank No.

Needs/ priorities Men (n=17)

Women(n=16)

Total(n=33)

1 Termination of illegal fishing 27 23 50

2 Increase in mangrove plantation area 16 23 39

3 Provision of equipment for occupation + additional occupation 18 15 33

4 Conservation of mangrove forest in the community 5 13 18

4 Construction of seawall 15 3 18

5 Use some parts of mangrove woods/pools in mangrove forest 11 6 17

6 Increase in aquatic fauna 6 10 16

7 People’s participation in rules and regulation related to mangrove ecosystem 2 3 5

8 Land for agriculture 2 0 2

Total 102 96 198

Rank the needs and priorities Ban Talad Has

Rank No. Needs/ priorities Men

(n=14) Women (n=14)

Total (n=28)


2 Healthy mangrove ecosystem 21 10 31

3 Termination of mangrove cutting in the community 10 11 21

4 Need to get knowledge about mangrove ecosystem 10 10 20


6 Development of mangrove zonation 3 14 17

7 Participation in mangrove conservation 2 11 13

Total 84 84 168

Section 6

17

Institutional and Stakeholder Analysis

Main organization for mangrove forest mgt. in Thailand

The Mangrove Resource

Conservation Bureau

Under RFD, MOAC

The Mangrove Resource

Conservation Bureau

Under DMCR, MONRE

Gov. structurereformation in late 2002

However, the RFD also has responsibility of the Forest Act B.E. 2484 (1941) for protection and supervision in which the Provincial Offices represent central administration for inspection in provincial level.

Cabinet’s resolutions (1966 -2000)

2000: Last resolution on October 17th, 2000 referred to the July 23rd, 1991.

1966: 15 yr-mangrove concession grants

1978: measures for mangrove utilization

1984: Silvo-fishery system

1987: Mangrove forest zonation 3 zones

Solve problems in specific mangrove areas e.g., Chachoengsao, Surat Thani, Nakhon Si Thammarat + eastern Thailand

1991: urgent measures for mangroves + corals (provincial level plan, marking mangrove boundary, mangrove plantation, seed source areas, public promotion)

July 23rd, 1991: Utilization in mangrove forest areas shall be completely prohibited

1992: the National Environmental Board recommend gov. working with local gov+ local community. Mangrove management unit

1996: concerned impacts of shrimp culture

1996: concession in mangrove forest areas was terminated by this resolution

Venn Diagram – Relationship of stakeholders

K

P

T

DMCR

RDF

Other Departments*

School & university

M

M M

R

R

R

Tambon (Subdistrict) Administrative Office (TAO) Provincial Administrative Office (PAO) M Middlemen R Religious

K Kong Khong Vilalge T Talad Has Village P Pak Nam Pak Nakhon Vilalge

Thank You

Section 6

18

Situation of the Mangrove Ecosystem and Related Community Livelihoods in Muara Badak,

Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia.

FINAL REPORT WP 1Contract number : FP6 – 003697

May 28 – June 1, 2007(SALO PALAI VILLAGE, SALIKI VILLAGE and TADDUTAN)

European Union

Reporting and Fieldworking by :

Nuryatiningsih

Roel H. Bosma Prof. A. Syafei Sidik Noryadi

Eko Sugiharto Erwiantono Qoriah Saleha Fitriyana

Anugrah Aditya BudiarsaSumoharjo Samsul Rizal

PROJECT FLOWCHARTINCEPTION MEETING (2005)

by Consortium of Mangrove Project

Preparation & Pra Survey (2006) by MU Team

Workshop for Capacity Building (2007) by MU Team & NACA

WP1 : Situation Analysis (2007) by Mr. Roel H. Bosma & MU Team

WORK PACKED 1

Representative communities identified and awareness of project raisedLivelihood strategies of community and mangrove functionality atselected sites studied and understoodInstitutional, policy and legal frameworks examined and discussed with stakeholdersMarket networks described and influence on poor livelihoods exploredDialogue with key stakeholders established, and their role and position described and understood

OBJECTIVES

PRA TECHNIQUEMATRIXMAPPINGTEMPORALINTERVIEW

PRA METHODSa) Resources map ; b) Land distribution

b) Wealth ranking ; b) Livelihood activity ; c) Contract arrangement ; d) Annual Activity

a) Venn diagram ; b) Market Network

Problem Tree

Gender framework analysis

METHODS AND TOOL

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

DELIVERABLESStakeholder workshop proceedingsSituation appraisal report (including outcomes from Gender Framework Analysis)

Section 7

19

MAP OF MAHAKAM DELTA SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF THE MAHAKAM DELTA

RESOURCE MAPFigure : SALO PALAI Figure : SALIKI Figure : TADDUTAN

DISTRIBUTION OF LAND SIZE

VARIOUS ACTIVITIES FOR LIVELIHOOD

Figure 2.2. Overview of the various activities the populations might use for their livelihood.

Household

Pond farmer

Livestock raisingCulture crab

Catch crab

Find firewood

Crop farming

Bake cookies

* including: fetching water, raising children, cooking. sewing, washing, baking, accompany husband.

Fishing Make Nypah mats for houses

Pond worker

Boat construction

Pond care-taker

Catch seed shrimp & milkfish

Collector of fish, shrimp & crab

Prepare dry salted fish

Shop keeper

Housekeeping *

Make equipments for catching fish, crabs a.o.

Non-farm labour

Table 2.2. The main livelihood activities in the 3 sites, their sex involvement and their relative contribution to livelihood (not representative sample size: 9, 12 and 8 households respectively).

* % of the male and of the female involved in the activity for the households doing the activity.** Making boat, salaried labour, renting and trading for Salo-Palai and Saliki-Joppang but collect fire-wood for Saliki-Taddutan.

21093086Non-farming **

-555083Crop & livestock farming

-281000Bake (and sell) cookies

1411724100Catch mud crab

66530100Collect fish for market

21970100Off-farm pond worker

313-25100Pond care-taker

57293645100Pond farmer

6178342Prepare dry salted fish

51175100Make traps & roof covers

621140100Fishing

Saliki-Taddutan.Saliki-JoppangSalo-Palai♀♂Relative contribution to livelihood (%)Sex task division*Livelihood activities

RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO LIVELIHOOD

Section 7

20

Table 2.3. The dependency of three categories of wealth on mangrove resources for their livelihood.

1778951055648Poor

19557413173016Medium

2740672218405Well-off

ConsumptionCashTotalConsum.CashTotal

Plus pond farming Mangrove related activitiesnWealth rank

WEALTH RANKING ACTIVITIES CALENDAR OF RESEARCH SITES

100 % for land userAll cost plus rent Rp. 2 to 4 million /ha/year

Land rent9

Repairing pond and getting harvest for 2 year and then give the pond back to owner.

Caretaker repairs pond and provide 100% of inputs.

Pond Repairing8

20% for caretaker, 80 % owner100 % capital & landOwner7

Own or ponggawa (100%)Caretaker

Equal share of tiger prawn for bothSpotted & crabs for caretaker.

LandOwner6

100% inputs & workerCaretaker


landOwner5

Hire workerCaretaker


land and seed 100%Owner4

50% (incl. hire worker)Caretaker

Sharing of tiger prawn identical to cost sharing. Spotted Prawn and crab all for care-taker

50%Owner3

20%Caretaker

Sharing of tiger prawn and spotted prawn identical to cost sharing. Crab all for care-taker

80%Owner2

34%Caretaker

Sharing of tiger prawn and spotted prawn identical to cost sharing. Crab all for care-taker

66%Owner1

Type of harvest sharingProduction inputs(Seedstock, Fertilizer, Feed)

Type of Cooperation

No.

Note: In scenario x it is the responsibility of the owner pond to provide the caretaker withconsumables like rice, coffee, fuel, expense for religious ceremony or to pay for medical co

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POND OWNERS AND CARE-TAKERS GENDER ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

0+-+0Young*

0+ + ++ + ++ + ++ + +Wife

0+-+0HusbandRaise chicken(Saliki)

-+-00Young*

-+ ++ ++ ++ + +Wife

+ ++ ++ ++ ++HusbandMaking dry salted fish (Salo-Palai)

-++ +-+ +Young*

+ ++ ++0+Wife

+ + ++ + ++ + ++ + ++ + +HusbandFisheries(Salo-Palai)

-+--+Young*

++ ++0+ +Wife

+ +++ + ++ + ++ + +Husband

Pond farming (Saliki)

Access to information

Access to benefit

Decision-power

Access to ownership

Labour inputActivity

Legend: - = not and never ; 0 = mostly not ; + = some ; ++ = good ; +++ = very high*in one of the village a category of children replaced 'young' who were not very much present in the communities being at school or working outside the area..

INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK OF THE RESEARCH SITES MARKET NETWORK OF PRODUCTS FROM AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES

Section 7

21

PROBLEM TREE OF THE RESEARCH SITESThe functions attributed to mangrove forests are:1. Provide firewood, and material for roof cover and for traps (mainly for crab)2. Protection of land from high tide and from erosion of current and waves 3. Shelter of aquatic animals from heat and predators4. Refuge for reproduction of mud crab, fish and shrimp 5. Keep quality of water good6. Protection of dikes from ponds7. Source of food for fish and shrimps 8. Keep production of ponds high.

MANGROVE DERIVES GOODS AND SERVICES

POTENTIAL INDICATORS FOR ECOSYSTEM MONITORINGAccording to the pond farmers and fishermen the following indicators can be used to monitor the effect of mangrove management:

1. Enough seed for fish and shrimp; 2. Easy to find mud crab; 3. Less mortality of shrimp;4. The presence of apes and wild pigs; 5. Less destruction of coastline from waves compared to the present narrow

area at the riverside composed of Nypa mainly.

CONCLUSIONS1. In the research sites in Mahakam Delta, close to 90% of the mangrove cover

has disappeared

2. Around 80% of the livelihood activities of the population of the research sites, pond-farmers, pond care-takers, fishermen and farmers, is based on or related to the mangrove resource.

3. The relative contribution of pond farming to livelihood is on average close to 50%, which makes the population highly vulnerable for decreasing pond productivity

4. A huge part of the ponds is non-productive, and was opened for speculation on high profits, on land value and on compensation by oil companies.

RECOMMENDATIONSSome pond owners started to replant mangrove, this gives an opportunity

to start action research with the farmers to establish the best ways to recover the mangrove ecosystem.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ANNEXES

FGD in Salo Palai Village

PRA Interview in Salo Palai Village

Ressource mappingactivity in Salo Palai village

Presentation of FGD results in Salo Palai Village

Section 7

22

Pond in Salo Palai Village

Drying salted fishIn Salo Palai Village

FGD in Saliki Village

PRA Interview in Saliki Village

Ressource mappingactivity in Saliki village

Presentation of FGD results in Saliki Village

Collecting Shrimp post larvae in Saliki Village

Crab collecting activityin Saliki Village

FGD in Taddutan

PRA Interview in Taddutan

Ressource mappingactivity in Taddutan

Figuring Seasons Calendar in Taddutan

Section 7

23

Crab collecting activityin Taddutan

Milkfish fry trader in Taddutan

Mangrove Squirrelin Saliki

Mangrove Crocodilein Taddutan

Mud Skipper (Periophthalmous schlosseri)

(Tempakul) in Saliki

Flat Needle fish(Ablennes hians)

(Julung-Julung) in Saliki

RESUMEPROJECT FLOWCHART

OBJECTIVES

DELIVERABLES

Settlement history of the Mahakam Delta

Table 2.5. The distribution of land

Figure 2.2. Overview of the various activities

PRA Methods & Tool

RESOURCE MAP

Table 2.2. The main livelihood activities in the 3 sites

ANNUAL ACTIVITY CALENDAR OF RESEARCH SITE

Table 2.4. Nine types of relationships

Figure 2.4. The assembled institutional network

Figure 2.3: Market network

Table 2.3. The dependency of three categories

Table 2.4. Gender analysis framework

Figure 2.5. Problem tree

The functions attributed to mangrove

2.3.4. Potential indicators for eco-system

European Union

The distribution of land (5000 ha)

Conclusions and recommendations

Section 7

24

Table 8.1a Assessment of achievement in Situation Analysis in Vietnam against stated Objectives Objectives Evidence (activities &

outputs)

Assess Q,Q,T vs DOW (score * v. bad - ***** v. good)

Means of verification Gaps and what to do

1. Representative communities identified and awareness of project raised

Identified stakeholder : 2 workshops Invited leaders from local communities o joint the working team

Q: ***** Representatives of activities diversity Gender representatives and active contribution to the workshops Not having fishery communities Not having representatives of households Considering only mangroves in Northern part of Vietnam

Higher level workshop/District

To extend asking the fishery communities to joint Choosing representatives of households To be presented in National Workshop on Mangroves in HCMC, Nov.2007

2. Livelihood strategies of community and mangrove functionality at selected sites studied and understood

Having already livelihood analysis

Q: ***** Not much linkages of human, natural physical and financial capitals DFID process Insufficial data from fieldwork to analysis

Leaders from local communities

More analyzing linkages of human, natural physical and financial capitals Applying DFID approach More works/fieldwork to be done on data from fieldwork to analysis

3. Institutional, policy and legal frameworks examined and discussed with stakeholders

Communal leaders/Policy makers presented in workshops (Reports) Group meeting, venn diagram, ranging, interview of key people

Q: ***** Not having time -line to present the policy changes and situation of grass root level

National workshop More feedbacks on Venn diagram in the workshop

More work on the time-line analysis on policy and institutional analysis

Section 8

25

4. Market networks described and influence on poor livelihoods explored

Market network done by interviews and checked by local people In report, there are linkages of poor people and market…

Q: ***** Not having much work on market analysis to link capitals of human, natural, financial, physical...

National workshop Presented in local stakeholder meetings

Need more work on market analysis to link capitals of human, natural, financial, physical...?

5. Dialogue with key stakeholders established, and their role and position described and understood

Dialogue with key stakeholders at local level of District, Communes and villages During fieldtrip, discussion with local leaders Analyzing the situation of conflicts between/among stakeholders

Q: ***** Not having much un-official dialogues among and between key stakeholders

Specific stakeholder meeting / Red Cross at communal level

Mobilizing this organization to activate official and un-official dialogues with other stakeholders More analyzing the situation in terms of dialogue with key stakeholders

Section 8

26

Table 8.1b Assessment of achievement in Situation Analysis in Vietnam against stated Description of work Description of work Evidence (activities &

outputs)

Assess Q,Q,T vs. DOW (score * v. bad - ***** v. good)


Spatial distribution of mangroves mapped with secondary stakeholders at each study site

Mapping mangrove areas with locations of secondary stakeholders

Not much detailing the locations of mangroves in relation with stakeholders

Verification of mapping by both MERD/CERE and local workshops

Local stakeholders to put more information into these maps

RRA techniques used to identify communities dependant upon goods and services from mangroves

Used RRA during both workshops and fieldwork: mapping, scoring, ranging, Venn diagram

Q: ***** Not having local people perspectives and comments on these Venn diagrams

Verification of mapping by both MERD/CERE and local workshops

Local stakeholders to contribute these Venn diagram designs and implementation

Participatory Community Appraisal undertaken in 3 communities, disaggregated by wealth and gender to assess: role of mangrove goods and services in livelihoods of poor people; vulnerability context of each community (shocks / trends); peoples assets (human, financial, natural, physical, social)

Done some analysis by local people on gender, linking livelihood, vulnerability,, access to assets

Q: ***** Not much involvements of local stakeholders into the process

Local workshops Raising local comments and contribution to the analysis

Gender Framework Analysis to address specific gender issues

Done analysis on percentage of gender in all activities in the three communes

Q: ***** Not yet in detail the contribution of gender in

Local meeting More information and analysis by local people in the process

Describe biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological setting (using traditional knowledge and existing data sets)

Done good National workshop Review

Section 8

27

Understand existing data collection programmes / recording by local communities

-

Done Q: ***** Not having involvement of local people

Local meeting More information and analysis by local people in the process

Institutional analysis – relationships, motivations, legal frameworks

Done Q: ***** Not having time-line analysis of impacts in terms of analysis of these policies

National meeting Consultation with local people comments and contribution

Investigate current policy formulation and linkages

Done some investigation Not yet analysis in detail the impact and various level of decisions relating with the local situation

Consultation with experts, commune, district, province…

More analysis on impact of policies at different levels

Overview of marketing networks

Done good

Present outcomes to local and national stakeholders at workshop

Ideas to bring these outputs into the national workshop to be held in HCMC, Nov. 2007

Section 8

28

Table 8.2a Assessment of achievement in Situation Analysis in Thailand against stated Objectives

Objectives Evidence (activities & outputs)

Assess Q,Q,T (score * v. bad - ***** v. good)



- Consult with expert from central government authority

- Contacting local staff and community leaders

- Prepared pamphlet - Distributed pamphlet

**** - List of representative communities

- Criteria score table - Pamphlet - Phone bills - Photos of pamphlet

distribution

- Limited to local leaders and participants in PCA so need to increase distribution and involve more people

- Continue communication with communities through out the project

- Spread the news to local people via local leaders


(2.1-2.4) **** (2.1-2.4) (2.1-2.4)


(2.7-2.8) **** (2.7-2.8) (2.7-2.8)


2.9 **** 2.9 2.9


2.1-2.10 **** ? 2.1-2.10 2.1-2.10

Section 8

29

Table 8.2b Assessment of achievement in Situation Analysis in Thailand against stated Description of work Description of work Evidence (activities &

outputs)



2.1 Spatial distribution of mangroves mapped with secondary stakeholders at each study site

- Mapping mangrove distribution with local and national levels

***** - Mangrove distribution maps of 3 communities

None

2.2 RRA techniques used to identify communities dependant upon goods and services from mangroves

- Ranking of importance of mangrove’s goods and services to livelihoods by gender (3 communities)

- Ranking of importance of goods/ species supporting 3 communities (in general)

**** - Table of importance of mangrove’s goods and services to livelihoods by gender (3 communities)

- Table of importance of goods/ species supporting 3 communities (in general)

Find out more about relative importance in SOS

2.3 Participatory Community Appraisal undertaken in 3 communities, disaggregated by wealth and gender to assess: role of mangrove goods and services in livelihoods of poor people; vulnerability context of each community (shocks / trends); peoples assets (human, financial, natural, physical, social)

- Disaggregated people by wealth and gender

- Identified role of mangrove goods and services in livelihoods of poor people

- Established vulnerability context of each community (causes of impacts, shocks / trends/ seasonal calendar

- Assessed peoples assets

***** - List of disaggregated people by wealth and gender

- Tables of identified role of mangrove goods and services in livelihoods of poor people

- Tables and figures of established vulnerability context of each community (causes of impacts, shocks / trends/ seasonal calendar

- Tables and figures of assessed peoples assets

- Put table of the list of disaggregated people in the report

- include wealthier people in to SOS

2.4 Gender Framework Analysis to address specific gender issues

- Addressing Gender Framework Analysis to address specific gender issues

-

**** - Tables of roles/responsibility/power/ decision-making) from 3 communities

- Maps of assets by gender from 3 communities

- Tables of needs/priorities from 3 communities

-

- More details rights by gender

Section 8

30

2.5 Describe biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological setting (using traditional knowledge and existing data sets)

- Collection of secondary data on biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological setting

*** - Presentation slides of secondary data (soil map, seasonality, meteorological table)

- Presented the data into report

2.6 Understand existing data collection programmes / recording by local communities

- Inventory of available data set

**** - None - Only data available at provincial level

- Data is not apparently available

2.7 Institutional analysis – relationships, motivations, legal frameworks

- Develop Venn diagram - Review laws, regulations

**** - Venn diagram - Summary of laws and

regulations

- Need to analyze more on conflict issues and present in SOS

2.8 Investigate current policy formulation and linkages

- Review policy and linkages **** - Summary policy and linkages - Present in SOS and get some feed back

2.9 Overview of marketing networks

- Identify marketing networks for each species

**** - Flow charts of marketing networks for each species

- Present in SOS and get comments describe the commonality

2.10 Present outcomes to local and national stakeholders at workshop

- Not yet Not available Not yet - Present in SOS and get some feed back

Section 8

31

Table 8.3a Assessment of achievement in Situation Analysis in Indonesia against stated Objectives Objectives Evidence (activities &

outputs)




1. A: Site selection against criteria identified during inception meeting O: choice of Muara badak as research site

2. A: preliminary survey by UNMul O: 3 villages chosen on the basis of accessibility by road and river. Villages + environment considered representative for 60-70% of the Delta

3. A: Workshop awareness with stakeholders and representatives of 3 communities O: awareness raised

1. Q **** T: no delay 2. Q *** T: 1 year delay 3. Q: **** T: 1 year delay

1. Inception meeting report 2. earlier studies UNMUL: on pond productivity in the whole delta (Noryadi et al.); study Bourgeois et al. 2002 3. Publications in national (Kompas: printed and online) and regional (Kaltimpos; Tribunkaltim; Samarindapos) newspaper ; regional radio interviewed UNMUL staff

1. No ToR of situation analysis developed (hence different results of case studies) 2. No monitoring and evaluation followed (through as planned)


A: PRA villages O: draft report situation analysis. Local perception mangrove derived goods and services described.

Q: *** T: 1 year delay, reporting in time

Final report WP1 Situation analysis July 2007

Mangrove functionality insufficiently described – solution WP3 should collect more secondary info on this; Additional research on social capital (WP4)

Section 8

32


Institutional: yes, perceptions of local people and discussed with stakeholders Policy: data collected not reported on Legal framework: data collected not reported. Not discussed with stakeholders

Q: **** T: 1 year delay reporting in time

Final report WP1 Situation analysis July 2007. History and institutional analysis: Bourgeois et al. 2002; van Zwieten et al 2006)

Description of institutional policy and legal framework: limited information on views stakeholders and discussions during workshops Relation between local community members, landowners, private sector, governments, to be better described (WP5). History of development mangrove use is needed (information present in various publications)


Market networks : yes, discussed with local people Influence : preliminary data collected, but need to be more explored

Q *** T: 1 year delay reporting in time


Market networks influence on poor livelihoods to be better described (WP4)


A : PRA villages and stakeholders workshop. O : draft report situation analysis and data of stakeholders role and position revised

Q **** T: 1 year delay reporting in time

Final report WP1 Situation analysis July 2007 History and institutional analysis: Bourgeois et al. 2002

stakeholders role and position insufficiently described – solution : WP3 - 5 should described better on this

Section 8

33

Table 8.3b Assessment of achievement in Situation Analysis in Indonesia against stated Description of work Description of work Evidence (activities &

outputs)




A : PRA villages O : draft report situation analysis

T: 1 year delay reporting in time


Spatial distribution of mangroves need to mapped more detail in WP3


A : RRA villages O : draft report situation analysis



communities dependant upon goods and services from mangroves need to described more detail in WP4


role of mangrove goods and services in livelihoods of poor people : yes, discussed with stakeholders. vulnerability context of each community (shocks / trends); people’s assets preliminary data collected


Final report WP1 Situation analysis July 2007 Earlier studies UNMUL: on pond productivity in the whole delta (Noryadi et al.);

vulnerability context and peoples assets need to described more detail in WP4 but need to be more explored peoples assets (human, financial, natural, physical, social) : need to be more explored





Gender Framework Analysis to address specific gender issues to be better described (WP4). Assets and roles in household income and consumption to be described better from a gender point of view

Describe biogeochemical, A : RRA villages O : draft T: 1 year delay reporting in Final report WP1 Situation biogeochemical,

Section 8

34

hydrological and ecological setting (using traditional knowledge and existing data sets)

report situation analysis time analysis July 2007 Earlier studies UNMUL: on pond productivity in the whole delta (Noryadi et al.);

hydrological and ecological setting of mangrove ecosystem insufficiently described. WP3 should collect more primary info on shrimp pond and fisheries (collecting, fishing) productivity


-

Much formal data collection on fisheries, mangroves ponds by UNMUL; statistical data by Fisheries service; no written recording by local communities (as far as we know)


Reports data with UNMUL and fisheries service.

Verify with local communities – disseminate /making available aggregated information to local communities


Institutional analysis ; yes. relationships, motivations, legal frameworks : preliminary data collected, but need to be more explored



Relationships, motivations, legal frameworks insufficiently described – solution : WP5 should described better on this


preliminary data collected, but need to be more explored



current policy formulation and linkages insufficiently described – solution : WP5 should described better on this





Market networks to be better described (WP4)


A : yes, in local stakeholders workshop at each village/site, O: workshop [proceedings still to be included in the final report



Workshop results in final report (D1) .

Section 8

35

9. Consortium Workshop - Day 2 Having reviewed the outcomes of the Situation Analysis it was proposed by SEI that this would

be a good point in the proceedings to consider what research questions this earlier work posed.

Stuart Bunting and Paul van Zwieten then presented an overview of WPs 3 and 4, respectively

with a view to planning the implementation of these work packages in more detail (see Annex 3

and Annex 4). During the second half of the day two groups with representatives from each

project partner were formed to work on planning the implementation of these work packages in

more detail; outcomes for WP3 and WP4 and summarized in Sections 11 and 12, respectively.

Nguyen Song Ha then presented an update concerning progress with WP2 (Section 13) and Neil

Powel presented an introduction to WP5 focusing on social learning (Section 14).

10. Phase II research questions Research questions were explored in 3 groups, outcomes for the individual groups dealing

specifically with Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are presented in Annex 2. A composite set of

questions under broad headings of ecological, livelihoods and policy and institutions was

developed and agreed upon by the workshop participants. Moreover, considering the

multidisciplinary nature of the MANGROVE Project consortium emphasis was also given to

identifying cross-cutting issues that the partners could address in collaboration.

10.1. Ecology (WP3)

How do the ecological services within mangrove systems impact on fishery production?

To what extent has the productivity of fish and shrimp larvae (and possibly other important

resources e.g. crabs) in mangroves changed, and why has this change occurred?

Is reduced pond productivity relate to mangrove functioning?

Is the capacity of mangroves to filter and protect changing and what impact might this have on the

ecosystem and livelihoods?

What is the role, impact and perception of the different people/user groups concerning ecosystem

change? How do they perceive their own and others role in “reductions”?

What impact does mangrove planting have on livelihoods and ecosystem health?

10.2. Livelihoods (WP4)

What are the community’s assets (natural, physical, financial, human, social) and how does this

impact on mangroves, their livelihoods and access to other assets or livelihood strategies?

36

37

What is the dependency level of different wealth categories on mangrove ecosystems?

How do peoples’ rights and access to mangrove related assets (5 assets) influence livelihood

outcomes?

What are peoples’ priorities for their livelihood outcomes?

Coping strategies to deal with vulnerable livelihoods (individuals and community strategies) -

What do people do if they have a bad situations to achieve their livelihoods outcome?

Do healthy mangrove ecosystems contribute to building social resilience?

How do power relationships between different stakeholders influence livelihood outcomes and

mangrove ecosystems?

Could access to improved market information and capital help conserve mangroves and improve

poor livelihoods?

10.3. Policy and institutions (WP5)

What is the legal status of property rights, how does this impact on mangroves and how can the

situation be improved?

What are the sharing arrangements and benefits, and are there any problems that could be

addressed?

Considering conflicts of interest, who are the losers and winners and why? What alternative

approaches (e.g. capturing multiple perspectives, feedback mechanisms, self-organizing system)

could be used to reconciling multiple demands?

Conflict resolution (e.g. community based, rules, regulations and policy) – What are the most

effective mechanisms to solve the conflicts or reconcile multiple demands?

From a local perspective: who is perceived as in control with regard to making “policy” and

decision making?

Which strategies are appropriate and most effective in achieve more sustainable livelihoods where

a bottom-up approach is necessary?

Table 11.1. Agreed implementation plan for Workpackage 3

Description of goals for work package 3, assessment of mangrove ecosystem.

Planned activities & outputs

Planning * month (1,2,..); meeting (I, ..)

Means of verification

What to do next

1. Detailed interrogation of existing hydrological, biological and ecological datasets to assess ecosystem resources and functions

- Develop checklist of data needed to assess ecosystem resources and functions

- Interpret existing datasets - If data are not available and needed: sample and collect - Communicate data (of interest) to relevant stakeholders

1

2 3-12 I, II

Develop checklist Define ecosystem resources and functions

2. Mapping with stakeholders to identify contributions from mangroves & adjacent areas to livelihoods, and areas of possible conflict

- Identify groups of stakeholders according to interest and considering gender, vulnerability (poor), and power.

- Spatial mapping of the resource base on groups to identify potential conflict on areas, function and goods (include seasonal calendars of ecosystem services).

2

3 I

Report joint stakeholder meeting I. Maps and calendars in communities

Identify groups using outcomes of WP1

3. Profiles of mangrove ecosystem structure, processes and function with emphasis on biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological functioning

- Interpretation of results from 1 and 2 - Consortium outline of profiles of mangrove ecosystems - Country profiles of mangrove ecosystems

7 8 II

Report joint stakeholder meeting II.

Outlines of profiles (following MEA example)

4. Simple indicators for each function identified and validated in consultation with local and national stakeholders (for participatory monitoring)

- Review indicator literature relevant to mangroves - Establish online database of literature on mangrove ecosystem

indicators - Inventory developed and agreed with stakeholders

0-7

8-9 II

Report joint stakeholder meeting II, and agreed inventory.

5. Potential management options to protect important ecosystem functions, resolve conflicts/tensions and ensure sustainable use of mangrove resources will be identified

- Stakeholder meeting I - introduction - Stakeholder meeting II - outline action plan - Implementation of pilot-scale actions following a test of

feasibility using STEPS criteria (social, technical, environmental, political, sustainability) WP3-6

I II

9

Report joint stakeholder meeting II. Action Plans

Section 11

38

13. Workpackage 2 review Work package requirements (to date) Initial contact with stakeholders, including an assessment of current media interest in mangroves. Opinion will be sampled from primary stakeholders, national level institutions and policy makers and a communication plan developed for each of the 3 sites. Activities: From December 2006 to January 2007, an IAS workshop and several interviews were conducted in Nam Dinh and Hanoi, to identify media interest in the mangroves (see the findings and recommendations below) Deliverables (to date) D3 - Project summaries & bulletins in local languages & website established

- For Vietnam, the summaries are now available in English and Vietnamese - A website has been established but not frequently updated as a result of personnel change

in the management of NACA D4 - Communication plan for each site

- Communications plan has been developed for Vietnam - However, due to some political reasons, the plan will not be implemented until August.

Part I: Findings

• Communication effectiveness varies greatly with and between rural communities, depending upon factors such as proximity in relation to major centres and strategic routes.

• Communes that are closer to major cities and/or are situated near major communications infrastructure are likely to experience improved communication access.

• Productivity of the region, generally primary production, will also have a large role to play in the ability of local people to access information through a variety of media sources.

• Before working with local mangrove communities, it is important to assess these communication strengths and weaknesses in order to ensure the approaches taken are likely to be successful.

Communications Media in Mangroves

• Radio and television appear to be the most accessible media types for people living in

mangrove environments. Radio and television are available to communities through national and local broadcasting services. With television ownership estimated at 85-90% and 100% of people able access a television, it is regarded by local people as their preferred media for receiving information. However, the cost of using television as a communication media is very high and must be evaluated accordingly when investigating communication strategies.

• Although telecommunications across Viet Nam are reasonably developed, particularly in the major centres, it is estimated that less than 10% of people living in mangrove areas

39

are able to access these services for information exchange. The situation improves dramatically at a provincial level, where telecommunication services are readily available and widely used. Taking this into account, telecommunications is best served for communicating with provincial level officers and departments that can then disseminate the information to a district and commune level.

• Currently the situation is slightly worse for internet type communications, where accessibility is restricted almost entirely to the provincial level and above. This is likely to change in the next few years, with the price of infrastructure and hardware continuing to fall and the .com generation embracing the World Wide Web. Although close to 1/4 of Viet Nam's population has access the internet, it will remain difficult for individuals that reside in isolated rural communities to access this media type.

• The effectiveness of printed media is highly variable, with many communication activities being poorly researched and therefore having minimal impact on the target audience. Understanding the level of detail that local people will understand, using appropriate illustrations and examples, the method of dissemination and even timing all play a significant role in the effectiveness of printed media types. The most common issue with printed media is that local people are not able to find answers to questions that they might have and as a result the information is either misinterpreted or disregarded. Using printed media is most effective when combined with other communication strategies, particularly as a source of information to refer back to as knowledge is improved.

• The public address system is a useful tool for disseminating information to a large audience instantaneously. However, the quality of audio output is often poor and as a result the information may not be absorbed.

• The use of public events, such as festivals and competitions, on the other hand are interactive and highly regarded among local people. Public events are useful for disseminating information to target groups, such as school children, or the broader community.

• Likewise personal communications and information centres are very effective methods of sharing information with large groups of people. The advantage of these media types is that the information can be discussed and questioned, resulting in a common understanding of the people attending.

Access to Information for People Living in Mangrove Environments

• Workshops and training courses are the preferred method for gaining information, particularly when communicating with NGO's and specific project groups. When communicating with government, meetings were the most common method for receiving and sharing information. The downside is that workshops/training courses require time to attend and they are often crowded. This means that when planning activities, the organisers must be aware of being flexible and coordinating the workshop/training course around the abilities and constraints of local people.

• Respondents of this study identified a number of key issues that required improved knowledge and access of information. Theses issues included; improved knowledge in developing alternative livelihood strategies; information on how to protect the environment and improve public health and improved knowledge on how to protect and support the regeneration of mangrove forests. A number of smaller issues identified included improving awareness of protecting wild fish stocks and wild birds and improving local people's knowledge of legislative changes that may impact on their livelihoods.

40

Cost benefit analysis of communication techniques aimed at people living in mangrove environments of Viet Nam

Media Cost Strength Weakness Radio Moderate cost, VND 2 million

(USD 125) per 30 minute program High access, up to 97% nationally. Information can be broadcast in local/ethnic language. Access in remote areas

People prefer more interactive forms of media such as TV

Television and Video High cost for programming, VND 10 million (USD 625) per 10-30 minute program

Large audience and is the preferred media by the target group

Reception in some areas is poor, particularly for national programming. High costs for extended communication activities

Telecommunications Moderate cost, landline and mobile telephones cost between VND 1-5 million (USD 63-313), telephone calls can be expensive if used frequently

Real time access to information, questions can be answered

Telecommunication access across rural areas can be limited, high cost of maintaining regular communication

Internet Low cost, websites hosting and adding information is relatively inexpensive, VND 640 thousand (USD 40)

Potential audience is very large, easy to provide up to date information

Internet access and computer availability is low, especially in remote areas, requires commitment to keep information updated, need IT specialists and wide promotion

Printed Media Brochure, Pamphlet, Poster: Low cost, single pages can cost from VND 200 - 1,000 (USD 0.01-0.63). One off artists/editors might cost VND 1.6 million (USD 100) Newspaper: Moderate to high cost, VND 4-12 million (USD 250-750) depending on half or full page articles and colour content

People can retain information and refer to it later if necessary Far reaching in terms of number of people (up to 40,000 readers) and geographic spread (entire province), including some remote areas

Difficult to control content and understanding of information provided. Literacy rate in remote areas my not be high, materials should be pre-tested which can add to costs

Public Address Systems Low cost, the commune may ask for a small contribution for broadcasting information. If the system is not well maintained, users may be asked to contribute to general maintenance and upgrading

Regular broadcasting to a wide audience, low cost communications

Audio quality is often poor and messages may be misunderstood, clarification can not be gained through questioning. Public address systems are often poorly maintained and may not be functioning

Public Events and Competitions

Performance: High cost, logistical arrangements require significant time and effort. Performances of 90 minutes can cost between VND 32 million -1.28 billion (USD 2-8 thousand) depending on whether professional or local artists are used. Competition: Low cost, a competition involving 200 people might cost around VND 1 million (USD 63)

Large audience, culturally sensitive and can reach remote communities

Difficult to control content, Department of Culture and Information must be consulted, costs can be high

Workshops, Training and Personal Communication

Workshop: Moderate to high cost, 1 day workshop can cost over VND 16 million (USD 1 thousand) Training: Moderate cost, one day field trips cost around VND 2 million (USD125) for 40 people

Local people prefer practical instructions. Gender bias can be managed through inviting males and females

Can be costly and time consuming to organise. Foreigners need permission to travel and work in rural provinces

41

Information Centre High cost required for initial set up. However, use of existing structures can significantly minimise such expenditure. Costly to maintain with up to date information

General source of information where questions can be answered

Time consuming and requires promotion to be effective

Part II: Recommendations General recommendations

• Thoroughly research the communication infrastructure available to local people. Generally speaking, local people prefer to be engaged through interactive processes rather than have information simply delivered.

• The use of workshops and training courses appear to be highly regarded by local people, if the information is delivered at the right level and is relevant to their needs.

• Innovative methods such as public competitions and festivals are also well received and enable access to target groups or a wider audience. Tools that have been successfully used include drawing competitions, poetry competitions, public theatre and musicals.

• These methods align well with normal social activities and can be linked to the wider/global community through coordinating events with social/international calendars, such as world environment day.

• The government extension system is a resource and tool that should be strengthened sufficiently to support livelihoods development at a local level. .

Specific Recommendations for Communications

42

5

Recommended communication activities for the EU Mangroves Project Group Key Communication Strategies Monitoring Evaluation

Local People

Hosting of workshops and group meetings at project sites Data collection should be a two way exchange, with researchers sharing information throughout the entire project Exhibitions in district/commune meeting rooms or other common public buildings, information packs available Public address system for project updates Public event, competition on identifying drawing conflicts through art

Number of meetings held, attendance, occupation (livelihood strategy), gender, age Increasing local knowledge of project activities, questions asked by local people, significant change stories Log book of visitors, information taken, questions asked, follow up activities Number and frequency of public announcements, survey information received Engaging schools, local groups to participate, number of competition entries, use of entries in public display/exhibition

Orientation workshop held before the start of each phase for orientation. Project workshops reviewed through evaluation surveys Collection of 5 significant change stories throughout each phase of the project Minimum of 2 weeks per project site during start up phase

Documentation of information broadcasts. Public announcements made prior to the collection of data and at the end of each phase for information dissemination At least one public event (competition) held with local people. Artwork used for awareness raising and identifying methods for mitigating conflicts

Central Government

Follow formal contact procedures Face to face meetings

Number of formal letters sent and received Number of meetings held and correspondence following from meetings

Initial contact has been made with relevant agencies Project partners meet with key government agencies during each phase to explain project activities. Frequency of contact made between central and local government regarding mangrove project activities

Local Government

Workshops and meetings Activity planning

Attendance at project workshops Consult local officials/officers during planning of field based activities

Local officers/officials from key departments attend all workshops and meetings Officers/officials endorse all project activities at a local level

43

Other Stakeholders

Communications network Website Workshops and meetings Printed media

Develop a database of key contacts and details. Circulation of bulletins/newsletters Website is advertised to key stakeholders. Number of website hits. Number of informational updates Stakeholder attendance at workshops. Number of pamphlets distributed

Communications are maintained with key stakeholder throughout each project phase. Over 4 communication activities for each phase of the project. Website is updated at least every 2 weeks Minimum of 2 key stakeholders at each workshop

Project Partners

Internet In-country meetings Website

Email correspondence includes all project partners Number of meetings held Number of website updates provided by each project partner

Lead agencies for each phase coordinate communications effectively At a minimum, all project partners meet in-country during the start up, mid term and end of each phase Lead agencies for each phase update website information within 2 weeks of being publicly available

44

Problem or Issue?

Interdependencies

? Uncertainty

Controversy

Complexity

ISSUE / MESS

Assumptions

• We can identify the (eco)systems involved, and set boundaries on them

• There is an ideal steady state for any ecosystem/water body– Science can define this state, and determine

how to achieve it

Natura 2000 in the RochefortMarshland (France)

Ecological constraints 2

• Different stakeholders see different systems, with different ecological constraints

• Therefore, need to co-construct these constraints.

A purpose shaped distinction

BoundarySub- system

System of Interest

Environment

Section 13

44

How can we address these complex issues?

Normalise practices

Regulate the market

Raise awareness

Environmental

problem

Fixed form of knowledge is applied to a problem

Environmental issue

Knowing occurs within the act of constructing the

issue and solutions

Promote concerted

action

Stakeholding and

livelihoods

Institutions &

PoliciesEcologicalconstraints

Facilitation

Changes

in

practices

Historyof the situation

Changes in understanding

ISSUE

Social Learning

Schön (1983) identifies the need for social learning in response to the loss of the perception of the stable state, that is, the belief that things remain constant over time. By accepting that rapid change is occurring one also has to accept that this requires continuous learning about how the change is occurring, the new situation and the nature of the processes used by institutions, organisations and society to transform in order to adapt to the new situation.

Social learning practices help us to:•Recognize and reframe our mental models•See issues through fresh eyes.•Resolve social dilemmas.•Define and articulate what we value.•Discover a shared purpose.•See through conflicting views to a shared vision for the common good•When regulation and inducement fail to guarantee adequate stewardship of natural resources, social learning may be a more powerful lever for change.

Section 13

45

15. PMG meeting outcomes and consortium decisions

Having reviewed outcomes of the Situation Analysis (WP1) and assessed outstanding issues

and the need to conclude Phase 1 it was agreed that:

- partners should undertake actions to ensure Phase 1 is concluded by 1st September,

- UEssex to follow up on outstanding WP1 activities and outputs identified in group

sessions by meeting participants,

- UEssex to review WP1 reports (and suggest review also by at least 1 other partner) prior

to submission,

- UEssex to prepare supplementary WP1 report on Gender Framework Analysis application

and development in the project (by 24th August),

- UEssex to submit WP1 and Phase 1 deliverables to EC (1st September).

Based on the review of progress with WP2 three points were noted:

- UEssex to seek urgent update and evidence of action from NACA

- SEI offered to develop a concept note for internal cross case learning

- UEssex to develop a Communication Plan for the project to complement country level

plans already developed or expected

Considering P2 reporting:

- UEssex outlined P2 reporting obligations and deadlines and participants agreed to respect

these

- UEssex undertook to send an outline of elements required in P2 Management Report and

draft C Forms and to prepare the consolidated report

- UEssex undertook to draft the P2 Activity Report, coordinate additional inputs from

partners, and prepare the consolidated report for EC

Anticipating the transition to Phase 2 of the project the following points were raised:

- SEI proposed series of combined project workshops to enhance coordination and

facilitate action planning, all partners agreed

- SEI and WU proposed series of training workshops focused on CATWOE and logbook

data collection

- WP3 team agreed on common workplan for all three countries with UEssex responsible

for coordination

- WP4 team agreed on common workplan for all three countries with WU responsible for

coordination

Section 14

46

Considering the overall management of the project it was noted that:

- MU kindly offered to host 3rd Consortium Meeting

- Meeting dates agreed as May 15-16 2008

- UEssex to approach EC for a 1 year extension to the project owing to serious delays in

implementation

Section 14

47


Outstanding Situation Analysis issues –Group session


9-13 July 2007

Stuart Bunting

Suggested Process

Review progress against WP1: Objectives &Description of work

1. Against each Objective specify evidence (activities or outputs) to confirm completion

2. Assess whether quality, quantity & timing (Q,Q,T) coincide with Description of work (DOW) & milestones

3. Specify any means of verification (independent & verifiable)

4. Highlight gaps and outline how to justify or compensate

WP1 - Objectives






WP1 – Description of work

- Spatial distribution of mangroves mapped with secondary stakeholders at each study site

- RRA techniques used to identify communities dependant upon goodsand services from mangroves

- Participatory Community Appraisal undertaken in 3 communities, disaggregated by wealth and gender to assess:- role of mangrove goods and services in livelihoods of poor people- vulnerability context of each community (shocks / trends)- peoples assets (human, financial, natural, physical, social)

- Gender Framework Analysis to address specific gender issues


- Describe biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological setting (using traditional knowledge and existing data sets)

- Understand existing data collection programmes / recording by local communities

- Institutional analysis – relationships, motivations, legal frameworks

- Investigate current policy formulation and linkages

- Overview of marketing networks

- Present outcomes to local and national stakeholders at workshop

Suggest using a table / matrix to cross-check achievement

Side - Objectives (1-5)

Top - Evidence (activities & outputs)Assess Q,Q,T vs DOW (score * v. bad - ***** v. good)Means of verificationGaps and what to do

Country teams report back for 10-15 minutes

Gender Framework Analysis

- Men and women play different roles in society

- Consequently they have different needs

- Have the triple roles that women perform been acknowledged?- Reproductive work- Productive work- Community management work

- Have potential interventions been assessed in terms of:- women’s triple role?- practical and strategic gender needs?

Objectives Evidence (activities & outputs)








Description of work Evidence (activities & outputs)







Describe biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological setting (using traditional knowledge and existing data sets)


-





Issues that came out of the state of the system analysis

Ecology :

1. reduced pond productivity 2. reduced capacity mangrove to filter and protect 3. reduced productivity of fish and shrimp larvae; potential decrease of other

important resources (e.g. crabs) role/level/perceptions of different people/user groups on ecosystem change and their

own and others role in the “reductions” Livelihoods:

1. Dependency level on ecosystem on different wealth categories 2. Access to market information, capital

Policy

1. From a local perspective: who is in control with regard to making “policy” and decision making?

2. Legal status of property rights 3. Sharing arrangements and benefits

Conflicts of interest losers of winners? Alternative approaches, multiple perspectives Feedback mechanisms

Annex 2

Situation Appraisal – Research Questions Thailand

July 10, 2007

1) What are the community’s assets related to livelihoods? (individuals and community) (Natural, physical, financial, human, social)

2) Rights and access of assets (5 assets)

3) Conflict resolution – What are the mechanisms to solve the conflicts? (e.g., community based, rules, regulations, and policy)

4) Power relation between different stakeholders

5) What is the livelihoods outcome that people expected?

6) Coping strategies to deal with vulnerable livelihoods (What do people do if they have a bad situations to achieve their livelihoods outcome?) (individuals, community strategies)

Annex 2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

WP3 - Ecosystem health & functioning How do the ecological services within mangrove systems impact fishery production?

WP4 - Livelihoods, goods & services

Do healthy mangrove ecosystems contribute to building social resilience? WP5 - Institutions & stakeholders Which strategies should be applied for sustainable livelihoods with bottom-up approach?

Annex 2


Group session – WP3 planning


9-13 July 2007

Stuart Bunting

WP3 - Objectives

1. Mangrove functionality assessed in consultation with stakeholders at each project site

2. Indicators of ecosystem health and functioning developed with stakeholders for participatory monitoring

3. Potential management options to protect important ecosystem functions, resolve conflicts/tensions and ensure sustainable use of mangrove resources explored and evaluated


1. Detailed interrogation of existing hydrological, biological and ecological datasets to assess ecosystem resources and functions

2. Resource mapping with local communities to identify important contributions from mangroves and adjacent areas to poor livelihoods + areas of possible conflict

3. Profiles of mangrove ecosystem structure, processes and function with emphasis on biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological functioning

4. Simple indicators for each function identified and validated in consultation with local and national stakeholders (for participatory monitoring)

5. Potential management options to protect important ecosystem functions, resolve conflicts/tensions and ensure sustainable use of mangrove resources will be identified

Suggest using a table / matrix to verify

Side - DOW elements

Top - Activities and outputsQ,Q,T indicatorsMeans of verificationWhat to do next

Country teams report back for 10-15 minutes

Gender Framework Analysis

- Have the triple roles that women perform been acknowledged?- Reproductive work- Productive work- Community management work

- Have potential interventions been assessed in terms of:- women’s triple role?- practical and strategic gender needs?

Description of work

Planned activities & outputs

How to assess Q,Q,T Means of verification What to do next

Detailed interrogation of existing hydrological, biological and ecological datasets to assess ecosystem resources and functions

Resource mapping with local communities to identify important contributions from mangroves and adjacent areas to poor livelihoods + areas of possible conflict

Profiles of mangrove ecosystem structure, processes and function with emphasis on biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological functioning

Simple indicators for each function identified and validated in consultation with local and national stakeholders (for participatory monitoring)

Potential management options to protect important ecosystem functions, resolve conflicts/tensions and ensure sustainable use of mangrove resources will be identified

MANGROVE WP4 – Livelihoods WP4Introduction workshop July 2007

Paul van ZwietenRoel Bosma

Developments instigated by many resource use decisions byindividuals has lead to changed coastal landscapes …

… that have degraded production environments with highlyuncertain outcomes affecting livelihood continuity …

… i.e. decreased social and ecological resilience

Degradation occurs but is hard to detect given high variability in resource outcome…

Potential for detecting effects of better management practices is low ..

Uncertainty (CV) in shrimp culture is extremely high compared to small-scale Mahakam shrimp trawlers …

Productivity 125 kg/ha/yearMode farm size 4 – 7 haNumber harvest 2-3 /yearFarm production 500 – 875 kg/yearCVharvest 120%CVannual 70 - 85%

Catchtotal 5 kg/day Catch4 shrimp species 0.15 – 1.3 kg/dayFishing days 180 /yearProduction 900 kg/yearCVtotal/day 75%CVspecies/day 100 – 155%

… and to other fisheries CVannual = 9% - 100%… and to crop production CVannual = 9% (intensive) - 70% (marginal rainfed)

Ba Lat Estuary: a continuously changing environment

30 km

•Decadal: coastline- bathymetric changes 100 year cycle

• ~ app. every 4 years - Shocks floods – typhoons

•Seasonal: monsoon – river discharge

• Daily: tidal patterns

Structurally complex

Recurring spatio-temporal patterns

Individual Annual Resource Space : Drift-/Trammelnets

Catch CV Categories(kg/day) (sd/mean)

24 83 7738 83 132

10 74 47

% fish shrimp crabs

93 - -56 7 31

51 22 22

~200 km2

~50 km2

~150 km2

Individual Annual Resource Space: Small Trawlers

Catch CV Categories(kg/day)

270 132 106170 77 98

% fish %shrimp

88 755 17

~1,600 km2

~600 km2

Annual Resource Space Trawlers: SeasonalityJ a n

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

Fe b

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

Mar

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

Apr

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

Ma y

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

J u n

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

J u l

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

Au g

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

Se p

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

Oc t

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

No v

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

De c

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 05 0

7 0

9 0

1 1 0

1 3 0

1 5 0

D D D D

D

D D

W W W

W W

W

January

December

Definition terms used see page 5

Where is change, decision making, learning, adaptive capacity, agency?

Time 1 Time 2

External drivers

External drivers

Internal drivers

Vul

nara

bilit

yco

ntex

t

Decision making

Pathways

Socio-cultural capital

(Relationships

Perceptions

Understandings

Abilities)

Actor

Socio-cultural capital

(Relationships

Perceptions

Understandings

Abilities)

Actor’

Economic & political capital

(market, policies) ...

Economic & political capital

(market, policies) (changed)

Natural & physical capital

Natural & physical capital

(changed)

Decision making

Pathways

Individual decision making - focus on actors/agency - focus on learning

1. Actors (fishermen, shrimp farmers, traders etc.) are rational decision makers2. But they live in an insecure environment (natural, social, political) characterized by

risks that endanger the continuity of their income generating activities as fisheries, shrimp farming trading;

3. By consequence they take specific decisions to deal with risks and ensure livelihood goals;

4. These decisions are to a certain extent unpredictable, and are informed by:a) ecological factors (weather, the mangrove and coastal ecosystem, catch, fishing effort) (WP3);b) economic factors (markets, prices) (WP4 and 5); c) governance processes (government, local management arrangements,

relations with traders etc.) (WP5);5. The result of decisions are pathways, which emerge out of interaction with the

environment thus described; 6. Therefore every decision-maker is the result of earlier decisions;7. Decisions are taken within networks of social and political relations (WP4 and 5)8. Driving factors can be abstracted from careful analysis of decisions and resulting

pathways, and the relation between these decisions and larger networks (WP3, 4 and 5);

WP4 - Objectives

• To assess livelihood strategies of individuals/households dependent on goods and services form mangroves – in particular focussed on aquatic production: pond production and fisheries together with them

• To develop well-being indicators together with them• To identify conflicts and tensions between and within

livelihoods together with them• To propose draft action plans to reconcile multiple

demands together with them

WP4 – Elements case study approach with

• Assessment of mangrove and coastal bio-resource flows and contributions to income and food-security of mangrove dependent production and harvesting over 12 months

through regular monitoring of harvest and production of aquatic foods. 30 representative households will be sampled on pond harvest (stocked and natural) fisheries catches and cropping patterns and other uses of mangrove resources

- quantitative data on resources use portfolios, inputs; assess variability in resources use, • Access to mangrove derived goods and services

focus groups, participant observation- qualitative

• Benefits related to social networksobservations, interviews with participant mapping relational networks; scoring on importance of links

- qualitative• Magnitude and extent of supply and distribution networks

interviews with key informants- qualitative

• Development of well-being indicators in terms of human, natural, financial, social and physical capital

reflecting ecosystem state, economic state, social values, ethical/esthetical values

Select 30 households Muara Badak (?) + personnel input

10911Total331Collector

--4 trawler2 trammelnet2 trap

Shrimp fisher431Pond-caretaker331Pond owner

Site 3: Taduttan (P. Lerong)

Site 2: SalikiSite 1: SaloPalai

3 villages 2 persons 12 months = 1 day per 2 weeks per village

data digitising and correcting = 2 days / weektotal = app 5 person days/village/week

What to do?

• 5 Elements – Methods to use, data collection– Personnel requirements Asian partners to execute

program– Requirements from European partner in developing

methodology and in analysis• Timeline WP4

– deliverables

Indicator assessment framework: socially valid –ecologically acceptable

Observable1. within economic resources for research on a sustained basis – (cost; availability of data)2. by stake holders, either directly or by transparency in the observation process – (meaning)

Acceptable3. by stakeholders in the fishery system – (meaning)4. by the public at large (or: in our discussion we have limited it decision makers) – (meaning)5. should have research based substance – reflect analytical soundness – (meaning)6. they should reflect features in accordance with stakeholders’ understanding of the resource –(meaning)

Related to management7. relate to management objectives (including associated limit, target and precautionary referencevalues) – (responsiveness; availability of data)8. they should respond to decisions within a reasonable time frame – (responsiveness)9. they should be relevant at the scale at which decisions are taken - (responsiveness; availability of

data)10. they need to be compatible with management institutions – (cost; meaning; availability of data).

GENERIC LOCAL

End …. beginning …

© Wageningen UR

Annex *. Participants

Mangrove Ecosystem Research Division (MERD) Centre for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Vietnam National University No. 22, Luong Su B, Quoc Tu Giam Street Ha Noi Vietnam

Dr Hoang Van Thang, Director, CRES Prof Phan Nguyen Hong

Kasetsart University Bangkhen Chatujak 10900 Bangkok Thailand

Dr Varaunthat Dulyapurk Dr S

Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science Mulawaman University Jalan Muara Pahu No. 1, Kampus Gunung Kelua Samarinda 75119 East Kalimantan Indonesia

Dr Ahmad Syafei Sidik Mr Erwiantono, and Mr Eko Sugiharto

Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific Suraswadi Building DOF Complex, Kasetsart University Campus Ladyao, Jatujak Bangkok, Thailand

Mr Nguyen Song Ha

Wageningen University PO Box 9101 Costerweg 50 Wageningen 6701BH Netherlands

Ir Paul van Zwieten Ir Roel Bosma

Stockholm Environment Institute

Dr Neil Powell Dr Frank Thomalla Ms Maria Osbeck

University of Essex Wivenhoe Park Colchester CO4 3SQ United Kingdom

Dr Stuart Bunting

Documents

MANGROVE Consortium Workshop and 2 Project Management Group meetinglibrary.enaca.org/mangrove/workshops/mangrove-pmg2.pdf · 2008-08-25 · 1 MANGROVE Consortium Workshop and Project