· Contract Number: INCO-CT-2005-003697 . MANGROVE . Mangrove ecosystems, communities and...
Transcript of · Contract Number: INCO-CT-2005-003697 . MANGROVE . Mangrove ecosystems, communities and...
Contract Number: INCO-CT-2005-003697 MANGROVE Mangrove ecosystems, communities and conflict: developing knowledge-based approaches to reconciling multiple demands Instrument: STREP Thematic Priority: INCO-DEV Activity Report: P3 Period covered: from August 2007 to July 2008 Date of preparation: August 2008 Start date of project: 1st August 2005 Duration: 42 months Coordinators name: Dr Stuart W Bunting Coordinators organisation: Centre for Environment and Society, Department of Biological
Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK Revision [draft 1]
Project consortium
Coordinator University of Essex Centre for Environment and Society Department: Department of Biological Sciences Colchester CO4 3SQ United Kingdom
Stuart Bunting E-M: [email protected] TEL: +44 1206 872219 FAX: +44 1206 87
Partners
Wageningen University Animal Science Group / Aquaculture and Fisheries PO Box 9101, Costerweg 50 Wageningen 6701BH The Netherlands
Paul van Zwieten / Roel Bosma E-M: [email protected] [email protected] TEL: +31 317 483920 FAX: +31 317 483937
Stockholm Environment Institute Risk, Livelihoods & Vulnerability Programme Kraftriket 2B SE 106 91 Stockholm Sweden
Dr Neil Powell /Maria Osbeck E-M: [email protected]
[email protected] TEL: +46 8 674 7070 FAX: +46 8 674 7020
Mulawarman University Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science Jalan Muara Pahu No. 1, Kampus Gunung Kelua Samarinda 75119 Indonesia
Ahmad Syafei Sidik E-M: [email protected] TEL: +62 541 7071370 FAX: +62 541 748482
Kasetsart University Faculty of Fisheries Department of Aquaculture Bangkhen Chatujak 10900 Bangkok Thailand
Varaunthat Dulyapurk E-M: [email protected] TEL: +66 25792924 FAX: +66 25613984
Vietnam National University Mangrove Ecosystem Research Division No. 7, Ngo 115, Nguyen Khuyen Hanoi Vietnam
Phan Nguyen Hong E-M: [email protected] TEL: +84 4 7335625 FAX: +84 4 7335624
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific DOF Complex, Kasetsart University Campus, Ladyao, Jatujak Bangkok Thailand
Sena De Silva E-M: [email protected] TEL: +662 9405457 FAX: +662 5611727
ii
Glossary AFGRP Aquaculture and Fish Genetics Research Programme of the UK Government’s
Department for International Development
COFI FAO Committee on Fisheries
CZM Coastal Zone Management
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DFID Department for International Development (UK Government)
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
IDDRA Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales
GO Government Organization
GTZ Gesellshaft Fur Techniciazuzaminarbeit (German development organization)
MU Mulawaman University
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MERD Mangrove Ecosystem Research Division
NACA Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NRSP Natural Resources Systems Programme (DFID research programme)
OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator
PMG Project Management Group
RMD Reconcile Multiple Demands
UOE University of Essex
SEI Stockholm Environment Institute
STREAM Support to Regional Aquatic Resources Management
SwedBio Swedish International Biodiversity Programme
UEssex University of Essex
VNU Vietnam National University, Ha Noi
WP Work Package
For more information visit the project website: http://www.enaca.org/modules/mangrove
iii
Contents Section Heading Page Project consortium ii Glossary iii Executive Summary vi 1 Project objectives and major achievements during the reporting period 1 1.1 Overview of project objectives 1 1.2 Current relation to the state-of-the-art 2 1.3 Objectives, work performed, contractors involved and achievements 4 1.4 Addressing recommendations from previous reviews 5 1.5 Most significant problem 6 2 Work package progress of the period 6 2.1 Work package 1: Situation analysis 6 2.1.1 Work package objectives and starting point 6 2.1.2 Progress towards objectives 6 2.1.3 Deviations from the project work programme 7 2.2 Work package 2: Dissemination, monitoring and evaluation 7 2.2.1 Work package objectives and starting point 7 2.2.2 Progress towards objectives 7 2.2.3 Deviations from the project work programme 11 2.3 Work package 3: Ecosystem health and functioning 11 2.3.1 Work package objectives and starting point 11 2.3.2 Progress towards objectives 11 2.3.3 Deviations from the project work programme 13 2.4 Work package 4: Livelihoods, goods and services 13 2.4.1 Work package objectives and starting point 13 2.4.2 Progress towards objectives 13 2.4.3 Deviations from the project work programme 18 2.5 Work package 5: Institutions and stakeholders 22 2.5.1 Work package objectives and starting point 22 2.5.2 Progress towards objectives 23 2.5.3 Deviations from the project work programme 27 3 Consortium management 29 3.1 Consortium management tasks, achievements, problems and solutions 29 3.2 Contractors - contributions, responsibilities and consortium changes 30 4 Other issues 32 4.1 Gender mainstreaming 32 Appendix 1 Plan for using and disseminating the knowledge 35 A1 Overview 35 A2 Raising public participation and awareness 36 A3 Exploitable knowledge and its use 37 A4 Dissemination of knowledge 37 A4.1 Dissemination activity descriptions 38 A5 Publishable results 42 Appendix 2 Logbook shrimp farmers Indonesia 43
iv
Tables and Figures Object Heading Page Table 1 List of deliverables (WP4&7) 19 Table 2 List of milestones (WP4&7) 20 Figure 1. Graphical representation of the timing and linkages between workpackages in the
MANGROVE project. 21
Table 3 Deliverables list 28 Table 4 Summary of project meetings and purpose 30 Table 5 Work planning and timetable 31
v
vi
Executive Summary
Objectives
Urbanisation and industrial development in Southeast Asia is occurring rapidly along coastal zones,
however, such areas are important food production centres and are central to the livelihoods of many
poor people. Until recently the benefits of mangroves were generally not appreciated and undervalued.
Major constraints to informed policy and management of mangrove ecosystems in Asia are the lack of
relevant information on the value stakeholders ascribe to them and the absence of a balanced
assessment of ecosystem functioning, livelihoods and multiple uses. Moreover, mangrove ecosystem
management requires scientists, planners and policy makers to deal with changing and often
conflicting demands whilst attempting to meet the challenge of fulfilling the needs of local
communities. Considering the many important resources and functions that mangroves provide and the
support afforded to poor coastal livelihoods, this project will address the lack of knowledge about their
status, use and requirements for sustainable management. An improved understanding of the multiple
uses of mangrove ecosystems in employment generation, asset creation, food provision and sustaining
the provision of societal support functions is required.
Activities
A multidisciplinary situation analysis of mangrove ecosystem resources, functions and management
has been conducted at sites in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Factors analysed included, the
ecological characteristics and functions of the mangrove ecosystem, and adjacent coastal areas;
livelihood strategies of households dependent on goods and services derived from mangroves;
institutional features, including local, national and international policy and legislation, describing
patterns of change, stakeholder values associated with mangroves, and conflicts or tensions. Methods
and appropriate indicators for participatory monitoring and evaluation of impacts on mangrove
ecosystems are being developed. Action plans designed to reconcile multiple demands are currently
being formulation in collaboration with local communities and regional and national stakeholders. The
action plans will be piloted by stakeholders and the ecosystem, livelihoods and institutional impacts
assessed through participatory monitoring and evaluation. High potential strategies will be identified
and appropriate communication media developed to promote national and regional policy initiatives.
Research findings are being disseminated through appropriate media and pathways, ensuring national
institutions and international development agencies are able to use this new knowledge to promote
participatory action planning to reconcile multiple demands on coastal zones, especially mangroves.
Results
Situation Analysis (WP1) outcome have been summarised in a series of reports prepared by the teams
working in Indonesia (Bosma et al. 2007), Thailand (Dulyapurk et al. 2007) and Vietnam (VNU,
2007). Findings from the situation analysis were presented to stakeholders at workshops to raise
awareness, stimulate feedback and permit verification. WP1 outputs have been used in WP3-5 to guide
the more focused assessment on ecosystem services, livelihoods and institutions and contributing to
the formulation of action plans. Within WP3 work has focused on reviewing and assessing mangrove
ecosystem functioning at each of the study sites based on the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ as
invoked in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment with a focus on functionality i.e. biogeochemical,
hydrological and ecological processes. Consequently, based on the presentation of this review work to
stakeholders at workshops in each site (planned for Oct 2008) simple indicators for key functions and
services will be agreed upon. Moreover, building on problem trees developed in WP1, management
options to protect important ecosystem functions and sustainable use of mangrove resources will be
proposed in the form of an action plan for implementation in WP6 and an appropriate monitoring
regime devised and implemented in association with stakeholders. WP4 activities during the reporting
period have focused on the development of a common research and data collection framework
concerning bio-resource monitoring, livelihoods and mangrove derived incomes by monitoring inputs
and outputs in fisheries and culture based livelihoods of households (at least 30 per site). The
discussions on the research work to be undertaken and the planning of the data collection was done
during a visit by partner 2 to the partners 4, 5 and 6 from 15-25 September 2007 and during a second
visit from 2-12 November 2007. Partner 2 was also involved in the Stakeholder workshop in Thailand
held during March 2008 and additional assistance of the Indonesian partners with the logbooks.
Logbook data collection will continue for a full year, i.e. till January 2009 (Indonesia and Vietnam)
and till March 2009 (Thailand). In the second half of 2008 teams from the three countries will return
the information from the logbooks to participating farmers and fishermen on a monthly (Vietnam),
bimonthly (Indonesia) and quarterly (Thailand) basis. The research will be used to help formulate
management strategies and policy initiatives to reconcile conflicts and tensions between livelihoods.
The focus of WP5 has been to: complete an institutional assessment and policy study and report on the
outcomes, including an assessment of opportunities to reconcile conflicts/tensions; report on multiple
uses and users of mangroves and trajectories of change; engage stakeholders in valuing functions,
goods and services from mangroves and explore opportunities for reconciling differences between
different users and uses; develop Action Plans to reconcile multiple uses of mangrove, including
consideration of ecosystem and livelihoods aspects (WP3&4), and refine these in consultation with
stakeholders, in particular civil society and local community and government representative. Building
on WP1 outcomes and a more refined understanding of the social, ecological and institutional setting
gained through WP3-5 the project is helping stakeholders develop action plans to reconcile multiple
demands placed on mangroves and adjacent coastal zones at sites in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam;
local and national level stakeholders are participating in action planning, ensuring widespread support
and increasing the likelihood of implementation. Local ownership and involvement of civil society,
local communities and local governments will be a critical measure of success. New knowledge
vii
concerning the most effective approaches to action planning involving coastal communities and
national institutions will be communicated to agencies responsible for coastal zone management and
planning, to assist in developing codes of practice and policies that acknowledge and aim to reconcile
the multiple demands placed on mangroves and adjacent coastal zones. Dissemination, monitoring and
evaluation activities facilitated under WP2 during the reporting period have included: maintenance and
regular updating of the project web-space; raising awareness of local and national stakeholders of
functions and values of mangroves (in local language bulletins); communicating the findings and
output to key local and national stakeholders in appropriate formats (updating communication plans
for the 3 countries); designing a monitoring and evaluation system based on the concept of Most
Significant Change reporting. Outcomes of these activities will be integrated into the website. Also
meeting minutes from the feedback workshop of situation analysis in each of the country groups needs
to be compiled and put on the website.
Intentions for use and impact
Anticipated communication outputs include local language bulletins, media coverage, policy briefs,
project reports, joint scientific publications, project website and a compendium CD-ROM. Project
outcomes will contribute to various priorities relating to the European Community’s external relations,
development aid policies and societal objectives of INCO, in particular, the fight against poverty, the
EU Water Initiative and the commitment towards the Millennium Development Goals. The project
will take into consideration, and contribute toward the policy objectives of equitable and wise-use,
conservation and sustainable development set out by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance; Convention on Biodiversity; International Tropical Timber Organization
Mangrove Workplan; FAO Mangrove Forest Management Guidelines and Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries; World Summit on Sustainable Development decision on aquatic ecosystem
restoration; World Bank Code of Conduct for Sustainable Mangrove Management.
Consortium details
Contractors involved, include: University of Essex, UK; Wageningen University, The Netherlands;
Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden; Mulawarman University, Indonesia; Kasetsart University,
Thailand; Vietnam National University, Ha Noi, Vietnam; Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia. The
co-ordinator, Dr Stuart Bunting, can be contact at the Centre for Environment and Society, Department of
Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom, Email:
[email protected]; Tel: +44 1206 872219; Fax: +44 1206 872592.
viii
For further information and access to project outputs please visit the project website at:
http:// www.enaca.org/modules/mangrove
Project logo
ix
1
1. Project objectives and major achievements during the reporting period
1.1. Overview of project objectives
Urbanisation and development in SE Asia is occurring rapidly along coastal zones. Such coastal areas
are important food production centres, which are central to the livelihoods of many poor people. Until
recently the benefits of mangroves were generally not appreciated and undervalued. Major constraints
to informed policy and management of mangrove ecosystems in Asia are the lack of relevant
information on the value stakeholders ascribe to such systems and the absence of a balanced
assessment of ecosystem functioning, livelihoods and multiple uses. Moreover, mangrove ecosystem
management requires scientists, planners and policy makers to deal with changing and often
conflicting demands whilst attempting to meet the challenge of fulfilling the basic needs of local
communities. Considering the many important resources and functions that mangrove ecosystems
provide and the support afforded to poor coastal livelihoods, this project will address the lack of
knowledge about their status, use and requirements for sustainable management. An improved
understanding of the multiple uses of mangrove ecosystems in employment generation, asset creation,
food provision and sustaining the provision of societal support functions is required.
This project aims to develop action plans to reconcile multiple demands placed on mangroves and
adjacent coastal zones in Southeast Asia; local and national level stakeholders will participate in action
planning, ensuring widespread support and increasing the likelihood of implementation. New
knowledge concerning the most effective approaches to action planning involving coastal
communities and national institutions will be communicated to agencies responsible for coastal zone
management and planning, to assist in developing codes of practice and policies that acknowledge and
aim to reconcile the multiple demands placed on mangroves and adjacent coastal zones. A detailed
situation analysis, involving participatory community appraisals, stakeholder and institutional analysis,
a study of the market networks for goods derived from mangroves and an assessment of existing
datasets is being undertaken. Ecological characteristics, structure, processes and functions of
mangroves, and adjacent coastal areas are being assessed, enabling methods and indicators for
participatory monitoring to be developed. Livelihood strategies of households dependent on goods and
services derived from mangroves are being investigated to identify conflicts and tensions between and
within livelihoods. A more detailed institutional analysis involving local, national & international
organisations is describing existing policy and legislation relating to mangroves, the changing status of
mangroves and values stakeholders associate with them. These activities will contribute to the
formulation, in collaboration with stakeholders, especially local communities and representatives from
national scale institutions, of Action Plans designed to reconcile multiple demands (RMD). Impacts of
implementing these action plans on the mangrove ecosystem, adjacent coastal areas, producers,
consumers and institutions involved will be monitored and evaluated. New knowledge from the
project will contribute to a better understanding of the value of mangrove ecosystems to poor
communities and help guide other communities and national scale institutions in developing action
plans to reconcile multiple demands placed on mangroves and associated coastal zones.
1.2. Current relation to the state-of-the-art
Attempts to improve the management and sustainability of mangrove ecosystems will be unsuccessful
unless the current situation is better understood. Moving from understanding complex systems to
developing improvements in an iterative, participatory way is a major innovative feature of the
MANGROVE project. The livelihood implications of modifying access to or the management of
mangroves are largely unknown but ongoing development of a framework tailored to mangrove
dependent livelihoods, based on the asset vulnerability framework proposed Moser (1998) and
capability improvement framework for women in aquaculture developed by Brugere et al. (2001) will
constitute an important contribution to enhancing the state-of-the art. Livelihood impacts of innovative
mangrove management strategies to reconcile multiple demands will be assessed using key indicators
such as employment, well-being and capabilities, resilience and changes to the natural resource base
(Scoones, 1998). Furthermore, Carney (1998) highlighted the importance of understanding the role of
institutions and organisations, both formal and informal, in mediating change in livelihoods; this is a
critical element of ongoing project work.
Improving current mangrove management practices will require elements of participatory action
research involving households, communities and local institutions; researchers will facilitate this and
communicate outside knowledge to the process (Chambers et al., 1989; Pretty et al., 1995). Adaptive
learning is being invoked as it has been proven to represent an effective approach for enhancing
productivity of community managed wetland areas (Garaway et al., 2000). However, facilitating
change in the use of mangroves with complex access rules risks increasing conflicts; the needs and
assets of poorer people is being assessed to ensure they are not marginalised further (Murray and
Little, 2000).
Certain stakeholders are known to value mangroves for reasons other than food production, such as
their conservation and amenity value. However, in the past a generally poor understanding of their
multiple roles and functions has constrained pro-active management and development. The
sustainability of traditional mangrove-based production systems, both in terms of physical and socio-
economic considerations, is at risk even in some of the most protected mangroves, such as the Ranong
Biosphere Reserve, Thailand (Macintosh et al., 2003). The deterioration or loss of these systems has
impacts upon ecosystem health, employment and livelihoods more broadly, that extend far beyond the
coastal zone. Mangroves constitute important nursery areas for commercially exploited species and
2
therefore sustaining this function is critical to supporting capture fisheries, and consequently
livelihoods dependent on such activities, both in near-shore and off-shore areas (Cocheret de la
Moriniere et al., 2003).
The ecological functioning of mangroves generates widespread benefits in terms of protecting inland
communities from potentially damaging storms and tides, however, the importance of coastal-urban-
rural interactions is frequently overlooked in analysis of activities and household welfare in many
communities that depend on mangroves, and for food production these may be critical. For example,
most farmers in Thailand, even in rural areas, no longer depend solely on agriculture to meet their
needs, rather constructing livelihoods that are increasingly hybrid both spatially and sectorally (Rigg
and Nattapoolwat, 2001). Understanding the diversity and robustness of livelihoods dependent on
goods and services derived from mangroves is an important focus of the ongoing work.
Broader processes driving the conversion of mangrove ecosystems and disrupting traditional patterns
of access and resource appropriation are also being studied and conflicts/tensions identified;
participatory action plans will be formulated with stakeholders to RMD placed on mangroves and
associated areas. The proposal to develop action plans and then, in conjunction with local
communities, stakeholders and institutions, implement them whilst monitoring impacts on ecosystem
functioning, livelihoods and institutional practices and processes constitutes a significant advance, as
compared with most other work relating to coastal ecosystems and communities, especially those
dependent largely on goods and services derived from mangrove ecosystems.
Producers and products from mangrove areas such as shrimp, fish and timber are connected through
networks centred in provincial towns and cities, and processes of globalisation, to international
markets and consumers. Whilst export oriented production of high value species in converted
mangrove areas is generally regarded in a poor light, there may be opportunities, through initiatives
such as fair-trade, eco-labelling or adoption of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
decision on aquatic ecosystem restoration, including indicators for sustainable fisheries products
entering international trade, to redress the balance, favouring more sustainable, low impact forms of
production (see Bunting, 2006), which benefit the environment, producers, local communities and
consumers.
Participatory and integrated policy development that ensures local needs are prioritised, but integrated
with institutions responsible for different levels of planning is critical (Campbell and Townsley, 1996).
The necessity for an approach that cuts across disciplines and sectors, builds cooperation in the field
and develops new forms of partnership with poor people is critical for effective poverty reduction
3
(Maxwell, 1998). Furthermore, this approach used in the context of research into mangrove
ecosystems, dependent livelihoods and associated institutions constitutes an important innovation.
Another innovation offered by the proposed project is an internal system of Monitoring & Evaluation
for activities, deliverables and impact; such an approach has been advocated by Smith and Sutherland
(2002) for agricultural research institutions, and will ensure that project activities and outputs are
completed in a timely fashion, that they are reviewed by stakeholders and peers for verification and
quality, and that evidence of uptake and impact is collected and reported.
1.3. Objectives, work performed, contractors involved and achievements
Situation Analysis (WP1) outcome have been summarised in a series of reports prepared by the teams
working in Indonesia (Bosma et al. 2007), Thailand (Dulyapurk et al. 2007) and Vietnam (VNU,
2007). Findings from the situation analysis were presented to stakeholders at workshops to raise
awareness, stimulate feedback and permit verification. WP1 outputs are now being used in WP3-5 to
guide the more focused assessment on ecosystem services, livelihoods and institutions and
contributing to the formulation of action plans. Within WP3 work has focused on reviewing and
assessing mangrove ecosystem functioning at each of the study sites based on the concept of
‘ecosystem services’ as invoked in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment with a focus on
functionality i.e. biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological processes. Consequently, based on the
presentation of this review work to stakeholders at workshops in each site (planned for Oct 2008)
simple indicators for key functions and services well be agreed upon. Moreover, building on problem
trees developed in WP1, management options to protect important ecosystem functions and
sustainable use of mangrove resources will be proposed in the form of an action plan for
implementation in WP6 and an appropriate monitoring regime devised and implemented in association
with stakeholders. WP3 activities during the reporting period have focused on the development of a
common research and data collection framework concerning bio-resource monitoring, livelihoods and
mangrove derived incomes by monitoring inputs and outputs in fisheries and culture based livelihoods
of households (at least 30 per site). The discussions on the research work to be undertaken and the
planning of the data collection was done during a visit by partner 2 to the partners 4, 5 and 6 from 15-
25 September 2007 and during a second visit from 2-12 November 2007. Partner 2 was also involved
in the Stakeholder workshop in Thailand held during March 2008 and additional assistance of the
Indonesian partners with the logbooks (Appendix 2). Advice on the secondary data collection to be
undertaken to the Indonesian partner for WP1 was also done during this visit. Logbook data collection
will continue for a full year, i.e. till January 2009 (Indonesia and Vietnam) and till March 2009
(Thailand). In the second half of 2008 teams from the three countries will return the information from
the logbooks to participating farmers and fishermen on a monthly (Vietnam), bimonthly (Indonesia)
4
and quarterly (Thailand) basis. The research will be used to help formulate management strategies and
policy initiatives to reconcile conflicts and tensions between livelihoods. Further details concerning
progress with WP4 and WP7 planning are provided in Section 2.4. The focus of WP5 has been to:
complete an institutional assessment and policy study and report on the outcomes, including an
assessment of opportunities to reconcile conflicts/tensions; report on multiple uses and users of
mangroves and trajectories of change; engage stakeholders in valuing functions, goods and services
from mangroves and explore opportunities for reconciling differences between different users and
uses; develop Action Plans1 to reconcile multiple uses of mangrove, including consideration of
ecosystem and livelihoods aspects (WP3&4), and refine these in consultation with stakeholders, in
particular civil society and local community and government representatives. A more comprehensive
discussion on progress and planning for WP5 and WP8 is given in Section 2.5. Building on WP1
outcomes and a more refined understanding of the social, ecological and institutional setting gained
through WP3-5 the project is helping stakeholders develop action plans to reconcile multiple demands
placed on mangroves and adjacent coastal zones at sites in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam; local and
national level stakeholders are participating in action planning, ensuring widespread support and
increasing the likelihood of implementation. Local ownership and involvement of civil society, local
communities and local governments will be a critical measure of success. New knowledge concerning
the most effective approaches to action planning involving coastal communities and national
institutions will be communicated to agencies responsible for coastal zone management and planning,
to assist in developing codes of practice and policies that acknowledge and aim to reconcile the
multiple demands placed on mangroves and adjacent coastal zones. Dissemination, monitoring and
evaluation activities facilitated under WP2 during the reporting period have included: maintenance and
regular updating of the project web-space; raising awareness of local and national stakeholders of
functions and values of mangroves (in local language bulletins); communicating the findings and
output to key local and national stakeholders in appropriate formats (updating communication plans
for the 3 countries); designing a monitoring and evaluation system based on the concept of Most
Significant Change reporting along with measuring progress against logframe indicators. Outcomes of
these activities will be integrated into the website. Also meeting minutes from the feedback workshop
of situation analysis in each of the country groups needs to be compiled and put on the website.
1.4. Addressing recommendations from previous reviews
During the meeting between the coordinator and the Scientific Officer in Brussels recommendations
concerning reporting included improving the reporting format, in particular simplifying how project
outputs are summarised i.e. in 1 as opposed to 3 formats, progress beyond problems concerning
1 Actions planning in the context of MANGROVE is an “enabling process” which supports stakeholders in country sites to organise a concerted approach to emergent management and governance issues.
5
changes in the consortium and delays in the accession of the replacement partner, and deliver peer
reviewed journal articles within the reporting period.
1.5. Most significant problem
The most significant challenge during this reporting period was the coordination of 4 workpackages
running in parallel. With the appointment in July 2008 of a full-time member of staff responsible for
the MANGROVE project at NACA, coordinating WP2 which was intended to facilitate internal
project communication this should make a significant contribution to better coordination across work
packages, whilst planned meetings involving representatives from different work packages and
partners should help facilitate better coordination.
2. Work package progress of the period
The following sections provide an overview of the actions carried out in the reporting period based on
work packages which were active or for which planning was ongoing. Management activities are
discussed further in Section 3.
2.1. Work package 1: Situation analysis
2.1.1. Work package objectives and starting point
Stated work package objectives were: representative communities identified and awareness of project
raised; livelihood strategies of community and mangrove functionality at selected sites studied and
understood; institutional, policy and legal frameworks examined and discussed with stakeholders;
market networks described and influence on poor livelihoods explored; dialogue with key stakeholders
established, and their role and position described and understood.
2.1.2. Progress towards objectives
During the reporting period Partner 1 was responsible for concluding WP1 the ‘Situation Analysis’
work package. WP1 outcomes were reviewed at the 2nd PMG meeting in Hanoi, activities to finalise
the work identified and subsequently project reports prepared for each of the field sites summarising
the situation analysis phase of the work (Bosma et al 2007; Dulyapurk et al 2007; VNU 2007).
Findings from the situation analysis were presented to stakeholders at workshops to raise awareness,
stimulate feedback and permit verification. WP1 outputs are now being used in WP3-5 to guide the
more focused assessment on ecosystem services, livelihoods and institutions and contributing to the
formulation of action plans. In addition to the Deliverables associated with the work package,
associated outputs included: proceedings from consortium workshops, published both as a CD-ROM
and hardcopy; a series of Occasional Papers; a chapter in the SAGE Handbook of Environment and
6
Society; presentations on behalf of the consortium at the World Aquaculture Society meeting, Hanoi
(Bosma et al 2007) and European Aquaculture Society meeting, Istanbul (Bunting et al 2007).
2.1.3. Deviations from the project work programme
Implementation of work package activities was delayed until the dispersal of pre-financing payments
to the consortium, however, the consortium partners took corrective actions to regain lost time and
momentum. Outcomes of the Situation Analysis were reviewed at the consortium workshop held in
Hanoi, July 2007 and for each site a critical assessment was made of achievements against the stated
Objectives and Description of Work. As the Situation Analysis was not completed until month 25 it
was agreed at the consortium meeting that an approach should be made to the EC for a one year
unpaid extension to permit all planned project activities to be properly addressed.
2.2. Work package 2: Dissemination, monitoring and evaluation
2.2.1. Work package objectives and starting point
The starting objectives of the work package were as follows:
- develop communication plan for project outputs in consultation with stakeholders
- raise local/national stakeholders awareness of mangrove functions and values
- gather stakeholders feedback that verifies and validates outputs and helps focus subsequent
activities
- communicate findings & outputs to key local/national stakeholders in appropriate formats
- monitor and evaluate progress against project objectives and impact of activities and outputs
2.2.2. Progress towards objectives
Dissemination, monitoring and evaluation activities facilitated under WP2 are described briefly below
and cross-referenced with relevant documents and project outputs:
- website established, maintained and regularly upgraded and developed
- regional inception workshop was hosted in Bangkok
- organised training workshops on livelihood based and participatory approaches
- meeting minutes from the feedback workshop of situation analysis in each of the country groups
needs to be compiled and put on the website
- project summaries & bulletins in local languages have been prepared
- raising awareness of local and national stakeholders of functions and values of mangroves (in
local language bulletins). This has been done in both Vietnam and Thailand. More explanation of
this is needed and passed on to NACA. A template of these brochures will be produced in English
by NACA partly based on information provided by the country teams in their situation reports.
- communicating the findings and output to key local and national stakeholders in appropriate
7
- an information access survey has been completed for Vietnam
- a 2nd consortium workshop was jointly hosted by NACA and VNU in Hanoi, July 2007.
- a monitoring and evaluation system is being designed based on the concept of Most Significant
Change reporting along with measuring progress against Logframe indicators. These are being
developed and integrated into the website
- cross case learning has been adopted by the project and the first training workshop will focus on
the application of CATWOE at each project site
In the second and third phases of the MANGROVE project the need for cross case internal project
learning and communication is even more important than phase 1. NACA will take charge of
establishing a communicative interface between MANGROVE and the project stakeholders. It is
proposed that SEI take responsibility for the role of managing and implementing cross case learning
and communication within MANGROVE by using a combination of e-learning, facilitation and
process design. To enable coordinated and synergetic co-creation of operational knowledge depends
on strong mechanisms for self-organisation, which can bring the partners across time and space for
meaningful learning. This will be facilitated by employment of a cross-cutting techno-dialogical
approach (TDA). In short, TDA denotes the application of Internet and Communication Technology
(ICT) which aims at creating an enabling environment for the co-learning via online dialogues. TDA
uses Video-Conferencing (VC) to provide an operational meeting platform for partners. It is assumed
that the partners have VC facilities or can readily gain access to these by simply using skype in
conjunction with a webcam. Other TDA-tools will include blogging, skyping, and the use of mobile
phone SMS and emailing in general. The first cross case learning event, using TDA technology, was a
soft-systems workshop focused on CATWOE which was held in September 2007.
Notable progress to date includes: a dedicated electronic mailing list; establishment and regular
updating of the project website; organizing the inception meeting; conducting the capacity building
workshops on livelihoods for Asian partners. Ongoing activities include the updating of
communication plans for each site to help in communicating key outcomes to local resource planners
and national policy makers and facilitate exchange intra-project outcomes for action planning.
Principles of communication planning within the MANGROVE project are based on: understanding
who are the key stakeholders?; tailor making communication to different stakeholders based on a
needs analysis; ensuring that communications contain a consistent message; using appropriate media
for communication; encouraging feedback from stakeholders. Within the 3rd PMG meeting it was
noted during discussion concerning stakeholders and communication requirements that:
8
- the communication process should be more specific and targeted to addresses the issues of
individual stakeholders experience;
- it was suggested that NACA uses the project stakeholder platforms on an ongoing basis to
customise the communication;
- NACA undertook to facilitate a needs analysis for communication in the different project context;
where needs are connected to the specific issues to be addressed.
Within WP it is intended to use the Most Significant Change (MSC) method for Monitoring &
Evaluation. MSC is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation; takes place throughout the
project; focuses on the collection of significant changes based on stories emanating from the field;
involves the systematic assessment concerning the significance of these stories by panels of designated
stakeholders or staff; invokes discussion about the value of these reported changes brought about by
the project. Implementation of MSC involves: starting to raise interest by introducing MSC to a range
of stakeholders; defining the domains of change (the domains will be bounded on the basis of the
issues we are working with); defining the reporting period; collecting significant change stories;
selection of most significant change stories; feedback on the selection process; verification of the
stories; quantification; secondary analysis; revising the system as required.
Within the scope of WP2 ‘Dissemination, monitoring and evaluation’ and drawing on knowledge
derived from WP1 WP3 and WP6, Partner 1 has engaged in various communication activities.
Communication related to project coordination was facilitated through: PMG meetings; project
workshops; joint meetings; visits and presentations by the co-ordinators; day-to-day contact (through
email, phone and instant messenger); exchange of documents and data. The project email list is being
used to communicate within the consortium on project management and topics of interest.
Communication plans relevant to project activities in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are currently
being revised by Partner 7. Partners 1 and 7 are also in the process of agreeing on the best approach to
cataloguing and archiving the diverse array of project outputs as an enduring resource for reconciling
the multiple demands on mangrove ecosystems and associated coastal areas in the future.
The coordinator was invited by the Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations to attend an ‘FAO Expert Consultation on Improving Planning and Policy
Development in Aquaculture’ which was held in Rome, Italy, from 26-28th February 2008. Based in
part on outcomes of MANGROVE project the co-ordinator made a presentation entitled ‘Improving
planning and policy development in aquaculture with the stakeholder Delphi’ (Bunting 2008) to the
other participants. The meeting resulted in FAO Fisheries Report No. 858 which recommended the
FAO undertake:
9
- compilation of case-studies and best practices related to policy formulation and implementation
and the analyses (including costs-benefit) of policy implementation in different contexts,
- dissemination of success stories relating to aquaculture to impact on and improve policy
development
- creation of a repository relevant to aquaculture policy implementation
- further assessment and analysis of stakeholder participation methods in policy formulation
and contained in Appendix E the ‘Proposed outline for FAO Technical Guidelines on Improving
Planning and Policy Formulation and Implementation for Aquaculture Development’, to be presented
at the next session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) Sub-Committee on Aquaculture, in
Puerto Varas, Chile, in October 2008.
The coordinator also made a presentation entitled ‘Mangrove ecosystems, communities and conflict:
developing knowledge-based approaches to reconcile multiple demands’ on behalf of the consortium
outlining the aims, activities and preliminary results from the project at the European Aquaculture
Society 2007 meeting ‘Competing Claims’ held in Istanbul, Turkey, 24-27th October 2007. The
presentation was delivered in the session during day 4 of the conference entitled ‘Aquaculture policy,
institutions, legislation and conflict resolution’ and the abstract was published in the CD-Rom
proceedings (Bunting et al., 2007). A second presentation was given by the coordinator in the session
entitled ‘Promoting participation and consensus building in aquaculture development with a
stakeholder Delphi’ drawing on outcomes of the MANGROVE project relating to stakeholder
participation in consensus-building for enhanced natural resources management (Bunting 2007).
Occasional Papers on ‘Low impact aquaculture’ (Bunting 2006), ‘Coastal aquaculture and
development’ (Lewins 2006), ‘Urban and peri-urban aquaculture development’ (Bunting and Lewins
2006) and ‘Aquaculture development and global carbon budgets’ (Bunting and Pretty 2007) that built
on preliminary review work for WP1 and WP3 and were prepared in conjunction with support from
the United Kingdom Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) Aquaculture
and Fish Genetics Research Programme (AFGRP) were posted on the MANGROVE project website
during the reporting period and have generated significant interest from varied stakeholder groups and
policy-makers internationally. The papers are also available on the University of Essex website
(www.essex.ac.uk/bs/ces/). The Occasional Paper by Bunting (2006) was revised and updated and was
published as a chapter entitled ‘Regenerating aquaculture: enhancing aquatic resources management,
livelihoods and conservation’ (Bunting 2007) in ‘The SAGE Handbook of Environment and Society’
(Pretty et al. 2007). An overview of the papers is being prepared for submission to id21, onefish and
other development portals to raise their profile. With suitable amendment it is planned to include the
10
other papers as chapters in an Earthscan book on ‘Sustainable Aquaculture’, Springer book on
‘Mangroves’ and an article for a science-policy journal.
2.2.3. Deviations from the project work programme
Communication activities are in line with the project work programme. Moreover,
appointment of a staff member within NACA who has sole responsibility for WP2
‘Communication, monitoring and evaluation’ should enable the project to implement the
communication strategy foreseen with the Technical Annex, thus ensuring that the project
communicates effectively and efficiently and has a demonstrable impact.
2.3. Work package 3: Ecosystem health and functioning
2.3.1. Work package objectives and starting point
- Analyse mangrove ecosystem functioning according to the preliminary classification of functions:
biogeochemical, hydrological and ecological
- Identify simple indicators for each function/resource
- Propose management options to protect important ecosystem functions and sustainable utilisation
of mangrove resources
2.3.2. Progress towards objectives
Following planning for WP3 conducted and refined during the consortium workshop and 2nd PMG in
Hanoi (MANGROVE 2007) activities agreed upon by the consortium were implemented. A further
meeting with the MANGROVE project team in Thailand (29th January to 2nd February 2008) provided
an opportunity to review progress and agree on a more detailed plan of action to assess ecosystem
services associated with mangrove ecosystems. Initially the literature concerning ecosystem services
derived from mangroves was reviewed and a pro-forma developed to collect data on the magnitude
and extent of the various ecosystems services at the MANGROVE project study sites. In addition to
previous studies and published accounts these reviews have drawn heavily on outcomes of WP1 the
Situation Analysis, findings from other work packages and to date, limited amounts of supplementary
data collection. When this review drawing on scientific publications and the knowledge of
stakeholders associated with the study sites is completed (Oct 2008) the next step will be to convene
joint-stakeholder workshops in each country to review and verify the findings and to ask them to
propose and agree upon a selection of ecosystem-based indicators that could be used to assess future
changes in the mangrove health and functionality. Moreover, to agree on a set of management and
policy options (action plans) to help reconcile multiple demands placed on mangroves and associated
coastal areas in the study sites and to propose an appropriate strategy for monitoring and evaluating
11
the health and functionality of the mangrove ecosystem (WP6) based on new knowledge of ecosystem
services derived primarily from WP3.
Considering the methodology to facilitate stakeholder participation in the selection of indicators for
ecosystem health and function, to permit local monitoring of mangrove ecosystems and the impact of
implementing elements of the action plans (scheduled for WP6-8), is was suggested that a modified
version of the stakeholder Delphi might be appropriate (see Bunting 2008, Bunting in press).
However, as the majority of stakeholders are already engaged in open forms of discussion and
interaction, imposition of the stakeholder Delphi might actually be considered a retrograde step.
However, assessment of the nature of interaction amongst participants in this manner did highlight
potential barriers to interactive participation and prompted the research team to think about groups that
might have been excluded. Action planning within WP3 is building on WP1 outcomes, notably
CATWOE and associated problem trees, and will result in the selection of specific action points by
stakeholders to implement in WP6. Implementation will be monitored and evaluated from both in
terms of the impact of implementation on ecosystems and livelihoods and the effectiveness and
robustness of the process.
Focus groups and aggregating activities at joint workshops, avoiding value laden statements, will be
employed to help include poor and vulnerable groups, and to foster constructive dialogue. Moreover,
stakeholder participation will be adopted as an indicator concerning the action planning process. Given
the diversity of mangrove communities and associated ecosystems services it is likely that
stakeholders will be requited to agree on a trade-off with respect to the management and rehabilitation
(replanting) of mangroves, to this end the MANGROVE project will assess the suitability of
approaches such as the damage cost schedule approach to facilitating and negotiating such agreements.
It is proposed that planning and decision-making will be couched in terms of ecosystem services as
they are relevant and valued by communities, stakeholder groups and policy-makers. However,
questions remain concerning the degree of relationship of supplies of ecosystem services with
ecological integrity, resilience and sustainability and mechanisms to ensure sufficient ecological flows
are maintained and account for variability within mangrove communities and ecosystems; by
attempting to address these questions the MANGROVE project could make a significant contribution
to furthering the equitable and sustainable management of mangroves and associated coastal areas.
Two journal articles prepared by the coordinator were accepted for publication during the reporting
period. The first presented a review and assessment concerning prospects for horizontal integration
e.g. combined shrimp-shellfish, shrimp-seaweed, shrimp-mangrove systems to internalise negative
environmental costs of aquaculture development (Bunting 2008). Moreover, given the apparent
12
potential of such systems, in particular in tropical developing countries, it is proposed that additional
use should be made of cost data currently being collected in WP4 to permit the current financial and
economic viability of such systems to be assessed employing a bioeconomic modelling approach, as
outlined by Bunting (2001). The second paper accepted for publication and currently in press focused
on routes to enhanced stakeholder participation in aquaculture development planning, and although
focused on the stakeholder Delphi, outlined some of the key constraints to achieving interactive
participation of stakeholders in natural resources management (Bunting, in press). Findings will help
guide and inform the action planning process currently being implemented in the MANGROVE
project, including the evaluation and selection of indicators for monitoring mangrove ecosystem health
and functionality (WP3) and assessing the ecosystem-based outcomes of action plan implementation
by stakeholders (WP6).
2.3.3. Deviations from the project work programme
Stakeholder workshops to review and verify indicators of mangrove ecosystem health and function
have been delayed until October 2008. During these meetings action plans will also be formulated and
agreed amongst stakeholder groups. Action plan implementation, starting with an assessment of the
feasibility of pilot-scale activities will then commence as part of WP6.
2.4. Work package 4: Livelihoods, goods and services
2.4.1. Work package objectives and starting point
- Nature, productivity and resource-use efficiency of mangrove-dependent farming and harvesting
strategies will be assessed
- Household-level livelihoods of representative primary stakeholders dependent on mangrove
derived goods and services analysed
- Effect of seasonality, trends and shocks on access to goods and services derived form mangroves
assessed and impacts on producers, intermediaries and consumers monitored
- Role of mangrove-based food production in sustaining actor networks studied
- Conflict/tension between livelihoods described and strategies for reconciliation proposed
2.4.2. Progress towards objectives
Partner 2 has contributed strongly to the development of a common research and data collection
framework for our partners on bio-resource monitoring and livelihood mangrove derived incomes by
monitoring inputs and outputs in fisheries and culture based livelihoods of households (at least 30 per
site). The discussions on the research work to be undertaken and the planning of the data collection
was done during a visit by partner 2 to the partners 4, 5 and 6 from 15-25 September 2007 and during
a second visit from 2-12 November 2007. Partner 2 was also involved in the Stakeholder workshop in
13
Thailand held during March 2008 and additional assistance of the Indonesian partners with the
logbooks (Appendix 2). Advice on the secondary data collection to be undertaken to the Indonesian
partner for WP1 was also done during this visit.
The purpose of the first workshop in September was to develop the research under WP4. Focus of this
work is the survey among 30 households on the utilization of the aquatic natural resources in and
around mangrove forests as an important element in the construction of their livelihoods. The survey is
considered the basis of all other subsequent work (see point 2). A second purpose of the workshop was
to develop working relations between the research groups in Indonesia (4), Thailand (5) and Vietnam
(6) and WUR (2). Partners 4, 5 and 6 were initially acquainted further with the DFID livelihoods
research approach; a case study approach based on livelihoods of individual fisheries based
households; logbooks were developed to that end and a tentative group of potential participants, i.e.
people involved in shrimp-farming or fishing, dependent on the mangrove ecosystem, were chosen.
The DFID Livelihood Concept was explained and expanded with the actor oriented approach taken by
the Wageningen school of Social Science (Long, van Dijk): the purpose of the latter is to introduce the
units of research as individuals ‘actors’ in a household that make day to day decisions constituting
adaptive strategies in reaction to opportunities and risks formed by the external environment –
ecosystem and institutions - and in so doing shape their daily lives (livelihood). The choice of
participants in the logbook survey are those who are actually taking bio-resources – in particular
aquatic resources - out of the mangrove and mangrove associated estuarine ecosystem, focusing on
fish, crustaceans and other animals. What the survey intends to quantify is the variation (in kg/$$) in
income from (and costs of) aquatic production. Thus this survey is not an attempt to do a complete
household income survey.
A case study approach of 30 households was taken in which the following elements were to be
investigated:
i. Assessment of mangrove and coastal bio-resource flows and contributions to income and
food-security of mangrove dependent production and harvesting over 12 months
ii. 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 based on daily logbooks.
iii. Access to mangrove derived goods and services: 30 households, focus groups, participant
observations: qualitative, semi-quantitative data methodology to be developed in due course
14
of the logbook data collection but in close conjunction with the return of the (summarised)
data to the participants in the logbook survey.
iv. Benefits related to social networks: observations, interviews with participant mapping
relational networks; scoring on importance of links: qualitative data (same remark as under
previous bullet.)
v. Magnitude and extent of supply and distribution networks: 30 households, interviews with key
informants: qualitative (same remark as under previous bullet.)
vi. 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.
This will be further developed during and after the next consortium meeting (August 2008) but will be
the result of the first four bullets and will be developed in close conjunction with WP3 and WP5
activities. Indicators are tools for assessing action, and are to be developed in close conjunction with
WP3/6 and WP5/8, and the issues that are taken up by the local stakeholders. A distinction should be
made between 'process' indicators (e.g. ongoing participation, representation, empowerment, etc) and
action plan 'implementation' indicators (biodiversity, ecosystem services, livelihoods, policy
development etc). As ideally the 'process' should continue/evolve beyond the project, therefore, these
indicators will remain relevant for those engaged in future action planning. The aim of the program
should be to show the value of the approach in bringing people together to plan appropriate actions to
reconcile-multiple demands. Some small initiatives that bring together a few stakeholder groups to
discuss and take action on a few small issues should enable us to monitor and report on 'process'
indicators and at least ensure that the 'implementation' indicators are in place, appropriate for
participatory monitoring, and valued/trusted by key/senior stakeholders.
Site 1: Salo Palai Site 2: Saliki Site 3: Taduttan (P. Lerong) Total Total farmers
70 (25%) 136 (49%) 74 (26%) 280
Total caretaker
60 60
Fishermen 5-10 trawler; 20 trammel; 2 traps
Pond owner <5 3 4 3 10
6-14ha 1 2 1 4
>15ha 1 1 1 3
Pond-caretaker
5 5
Fishermen 3 trawler , 3 trammelnet , 2 trap 7
Total =30 12 13 5 30
15
The link between WP3 and WP4 is in the development of indicators on mangrove goods and services
and livelihood well-being indicators in relation to mangrove-estuarine ecosystem related goods and
services. WP3 is to provide contextual data on a large scale that can assist in the development as well
as the understanding of “well being” indicators that will be derived in WP4. The participants chosen
for the surveys were based on the Situation Analysis (WP1). In Indonesia (1) based on the numbers of
farmers and fishers in the three villages about 20 out of 30 should be farmers 5 caretakers and the rest
fishers (2) the 20 farmers and the 5 caretakers are distributed over the villages by size of ponds. Only
Salaiki had ponds >15ha. A caretaker is hired when pond size is app. Larger than 20 ha.(3) As we need
more than 1 person for each different category, and 1 trap fisherman was added. See the Indonesian
report for the final distribution of logbooks.
Criteria for the selection of the households in Vietnam were (1). Focus area - the protected area of the
mangrove estuary of the Red River in Thai Binh (see Situation Analysis for reference) down to a
seaward depth of 5m and outside the sea dike on the landside. This means that the focus is on shrimp
farmers outside the dike area and fishing and collecting activities in the mangrove/estuarine tidal flat
area. (2). Conflicts arising between shrimp-farms (pollution) and clam (meretrix) farms; between
collecting activities and mangrove replanting; and around the unplanned expansion of clam farms; and
(3) the initial choice of households in the table below is tentative. Ding Minh is included as this may
provide contrast with the other two communes as it is just outside the area and shrimp farmers, crab
ponds and clam farmers face less restrictions then the same activities in the other villages. The final
decision will be made on the basis of further developments in WP5 (focus main problem) and also on
the bases of logistics and funds. Dong Minh stakeholders were also involved in the Situation Analysis.
See report of Vietnam for further developments. The last report was that 17 households were actually
reporting. In August 2008 the first summary of the logbooks will be discussed with the participants.
Main activity Types Owner/labor Dong Minh Nam Thinh Nam Phu Total by
activity Shrimp ponds Semi-intensive Pond owner group 1 2 2 5 Ecological Pond owner group 1 1 2 Crab ponds 1 2 2 5 Dang 1 2 3 Clam farming Owner 2 2 4 Hired labor 2 2 4 Collecting Crab 1 1 1 3 Clams/molluscs 2 2 4 Total by commune 3 13 14 30
After some discussion it was decided in Vietnam that the focus of the logbooks would be on
individuals (and not on household income, labour and expenditure level) and focused on the main
income related to aquatic resources in the household.
16
An important criterion of choice of households in Thailand will be on the resource, and in particular
on the collection of crabs (see table below). In the months following this visit the logbooks were tested
in all three countries. During the second visit by WUR in November the logbooks were extensively
revised based on the result of these tests, in most cases made simpler and more focused to the different
main productive activities (fishing: trap, trawl, gillnet and aquaculture) involved. A final list of
participants in the logbook data collection was made as well. Logbooks data in Indonesia were of high
quality, though the procedure followed was non-sustainable (a village coordinator was filling in the
logbooks daily in a meeting with the participants). This has been changed and participants are now
filling in the logbooks themselves. In Vietnam it was decided to collect additional information on
group owned ponds. In Thailand the logbooks were too complex and were simplified to the needs of
the participants in the logbook data collection. The logbook data collection started in December (in
Vietnam and Indonesia). Due to the elections in Thailand all surveys and logbook activities were
postponed. Most participants started in January/February of that year.
Aquaculture Fishing Area
Total Details Total Details
Kong Khong 5*
• Seabass cage culture (2)
• Extensive shrimp/crab farm (3)
11*
• Sesarmid collector (4)
• Mud crab trap (4) • Trammel net (3)
Pak Nam Pak Phaya 4 • Extensive shrimp/crab
farm (4) 7
• Sesarmid collector (2)
• Set bag net (2) • Trammel net (3)
Talad Has 5 • Extensive shrimp/crab farm (4) 8 • Set bag net (4)
• Trammel net (4)
Total 14 - 26 -
During a visit in Indonesia in January 2008 a summary sheet was to return monthly information to
farmers and fishermen. As no data were available yet for Vietnam and Thailand at that stage no
specific summary sheet could be devised for these specific situations. The Indonesian sheet was
proposed as a starting point. Eventually the information returned to the participants was based on the
amount of produce, the income and expenditure. In Vietnam an attempt was made to use the actual
data sheet, though no information was returned yet to the fishermen.
Logbook data collection will continue for a full year, i.e. till January 2009 (Indonesia and Vietnam)
and till March 2009 (Thailand). In the second half of 2008 teams from the three countries will return
the information from the logbooks to participating farmers and fishermen on a monthly (Vietnam),
17
bimonthly (Indonesia) and quarterly (Thailand) basis. During these visits points (ii) to (v) will be
surveyed in direct discussions with the participants. Methodology is currently further developed in
conjunction with WP3 (Partner 1 UoE) and the Asian partners 4 (UNMUL),5 (MERD) and 6 (KU).
The goal is to use methodologies that are least extractive and assist in learning through e.g. individual
and focus group discussions. Based on this research Partner 2 will collaborate with the other partners
on the description of contributions to income and food security as well as wider benefits of mangrove
dependent production and harvesting to define indicators for well-being. Other non-site specific
partners involved in WP4 i.e. Partners 1 (Essex), 3 (SEI) and 7 (NACA) have been assigned the tasks
of 1) mapping supply and distribution networks and 2) assessment of conflicts and tensions between
livelihoods.
Information from WP3 and WP4 will serve as input for the stakeholder process. Apart from secondary
data analyzed by ourselves, it may well be that input is sought from (local) experts or administrators to
provide information that can address issues that come up under the stakeholder process. In a
discussion with the Vietnamese partners and later with Maria Osbeck, one of the most interesting
things that came up is that the fishers and farmers participating in the data collection proposed to form
"discussion groups/clubs" in each of the three sites in which the results of the logbooks would be
discussed. This is highly interesting and is a very good way of using the information that can be
derived from the logbooks. The information from the logbooks can be used by the participants in that
discussion to gain a clearer insight in their (economic) position, their production activities and the
labour input; the "clubs" can discuss the issues that arise out of the workshop and, combining the two,
the potential for the different partners to aid in the solution of these issues. Questions that arise from
these "clubs" can be then used for a following larger workshop. In the case of Thailand the team is
ready to explore such possibilities,. Experiences are that the logbook approach is entirely new for the
community and the local officers; they need longer time to learn and share; the logbook design is still
too complex and not clear enough to gain precise data (this is usually because the design and testing
phase did not yield enough information on the actual day-to-day way’s of working of the participants
and therefore remains too complex, i.e. not specifically geared to the recorders. The Thai team may
resolve this by obtaining incomplete data about fishing activities through in-depth interviews.
Nevertheless the logbook approach was received with much appreciation by both local Fisheries
Officers and participants.
2.4.3. Deviations from the project work programme
No deviations from the intended work plan for WP4 have been made except the starting date of the
activities pending the information from WP1 and the accession of SEI. Table 1 contains a list of
deliverables relating to WP3, including due date and actual/foreseen submission date. Table 2 contains
18
a list of milestones, including due date and actual/foreseen achievement date. Deliverables D12 and
D13 were rescheduled pending the release of funds; Milestone M.41 was rescheduled pending the
release of funds. Other milestones have been put back by around 10 months to allow for the delay in
project implementation.
Table 1. List of deliverables Deliverable name WP
no. Lead participant
Delivery date (project doc) Delivery date (proposal)
Stakeholder workshop proceedings WP 1 1 6 Done
Situation appraisal report WP 1 1 7 Done Report on livelihoods dependent on mangroves and well-being indicators WP 4 2,4,5,6 38 Nov-08 Suggested date March 2009 Report on livelihoods oriented conflicts/tensions, and Action Process to RMD WP 4 2,4,5,6 39 Dec-08
Title changed from plan to process – suggested date April 2009
R. implementation, impact & effectiveness of Action Plans from a livelihoods perspective WP 7 2,4,5,6 52 jan-10 Suggested date December 2009 Appropriate communication media for implementation of strategies to RMD at other sites in the region WP 7 2,4,5,6 52 jan-10
Propose to combine D21, D23 and D26 as a joint product
Suggested dates for the deliverables are taking into account the starting dates of activities in WP4.
Figure 1 presents a graphical representation (that includes an extension of the project: time available).
Central in the research process will be a series of stakeholder interactions (workshops, focus group
discussions) primarily organised by SEI in co-operation with all other partners. During these
workshops the planned research and indicator development for WP3 and WP4 will be discussed and
permission for the planned bio-resource monitoring, household level and community level activities as
described in the project document will be asked. Preparations for the livelihood and bio-resource
monitoring (WP6-7) activities that are to be discussed, will be carried out in January to March 2009
prior to the Policy Review Workshops planned by WP8 in the three Asian countries. Based on these
discussions actions will be planned (WP7) and monitored.
19
Table 2. List of milestones Milestones WP no. Lead
participant Delivery date (project doc)
Delivery date (proposal)
Initial meetings held with representative households WP 4 2,4,5,6 6 Done
Bio-resource flows in mangrove-based production systems at 3 sites quantified WP 4 2,4,5,6 18 Jan-Apr-2009
Production & harvesting patterns described with respect to regulating factors WP 4 2,4,5,6 18 Jan-Apr-2010
Livelihoods and well-being indicators for households dependent on mangroves assessed and described WP 4 2,4,5,6 19 Jan-Apr-2011
Conflict/tension & potential synergy between livelihoods assessed & described WP 4 2,4,5,6 19 Jan-Apr-2012
Findings presented at project workshops and potential strategies to reconcile multiple livelihoods oriented demands proposed and evaluated by stakeholders WP 4 2,4,5,6 20 Jan-Apr-2013
Communities in which to implementation Action Plans identified and access negotiated WP 7 2,4,5,6 Done
revision Jan-Apr-2014
Indicative households and livelihood strategies selected WP 7 2,4,5,6 Done revision Jan-
Apr-2015
Baseline for mangrove use and user livelihoods understood WP 7 2,4,5,6 Done revision Jan-
Apr-2016
Action Plans initiated and awareness of process increased amongst community WP 7 2,4,5,6 23 Jan-Apr 2009
Progress review & draft report on Action Plan monitoring produced WP 7 2,4,5,6 32 June 2009
Appropriate communication media developed for key stakeholders and policy-makers WP 7 2,4,5,6 40 June 2009
20
21
Bioresource monitoring WP3/4
WP4
WP 5
WP3 - Training CATWOE - Bio-monitoring Development - Household information
CATWOE Issue 1 Issue 2 Scenario development
September 2007
November 2007
~ May 2007
~January 2009
January 2010
Feedback/learning groups
Feedback/learning groups
Feedback/learning groups
Consortiummeeting
Stake- holders
interaction
Stake- holders
interaction
Stake- holders
interaction
Stake- holders
interaction
- Reporting
lanation.pect. See text for further exjroes in the MANGROVE packagFigure 1. Graphical representation of the timing and linkages between workp
22
ves.
2.5. Work package 5: Institutions and stakeholders
2.5.1. Work package objectives and starting point
Objectives of the work package are to: complete an institutional assessment and policy study and report
on the outcomes, including an assessment of opportunities to reconcile conflicts/tensions; report on
multiple uses and users of mangroves and trajectories of change; engage stakeholders in valuing
functions, goods and services from mangroves and explore opportunities for reconciling differences
between different users and uses; develop Action Plans2 to reconcile multiple uses of mangrove,
including consideration of ecosystem and livelihoods aspects (WP3&4), and refine these in consultation
with stakeholders, in particular civil society and local community and government representati
Work package 5: Institutions and stakeholders
In the first period of the project SEI introduced soft system theory and CATWOE as a tool to facilitate the
action planning process of the project. The training workshop on CATWOE conducted by SEI in 1st
period has resulted in a better understanding of soft system theory among project partners. Subsequently,
the institutional analysis has been conducted based on soft system theory and literature review.
The improved understanding of soft system theory and insight into the application of CATWOE has
contributed to facilitate cross learning between the partners and work packages. SEI has in collaboration
with the country teams developed draft CATWOES in the three countries. The CATWOES indicate an
intricate relationship between different stakeholders in the three sites which has been essential in
understanding the management and governance regimes of mangrove ecosystem in the three sites. The
issue, determining the project’s orientation, has been revised after the stakeholder workshops and focus
group discussions have been conducted in the three country sites to clarify the role of mangroves. Revised
issue definitions in the three countries include:
• Thailand: What are the institutional3 implications of mangrove rehabilitation in relation to land
resource rights/access and the role of community management?
• Vietnam: What are the institutional implications of mangrove plantations in providing long term
benefits for ecosystem and livelihoods?
• Indonesia: What are the institutional implications of mangrove ecosystem management in
Mahakam Delta?
The process of conducting the institutional analysis using soft system theory has facilitated cross learning
within the project. In preparation for the stakeholder workshops and focus group discussions the project
P
P
2 Actions planning in the context of MANGROVE is an “enabling process” which supports stakeholders in country sites to organise a concerted approach to emergent management and governance issues. 3 Institutional is here referring to the governance and stakeholder structures determining the institutional regimes.
partners have reviewed the findings and have had internal discussions on how to present the findings to
the stakeholders. As an example, the stakeholder workshops have been useful to discuss the log book
activity and how fishery and aquatic resources are linked to people’s livelihoods. The process of
stakeholder engagement has provided an insight into the institutional setting and governance system
determining the management of the mangrove ecosystem. The figure below shows how the project
envisions using soft system theory to initiate and facilitate a process of change in the management of
mangrove ecosystems.
situation centred On restoration
vs diverging livelihoods
Livelihoods concernsare
included
decision-making institutions generate uncertainty forfurther transformation
Changes in understanding
Changesin
practices
aquatichistory
enters MANGROVE
changes in social practicesand understanding among institutions, stakeholders,
and facilitators
?
2.5.2. Progress towards objectives
The main findings inWP5 shows the context specifics of mangrove ecosystems and its management. The
situation in the three countries is very different. The institutional drivers determining the management
regimes are influenced by the level of poverty, economic interest and value of mangrove and adjacent
resources, corruption and other economic interests in the area. Policy framework for the protection of
mangroves exists in the three countries but is subjected to weak enforcement. Another assumption being
explored by the researchers is the single purpose approach in designing rehabilitation efforts, which is
evident in the three countries. The plantations are often designed and implemented by the Department of
Forestry. In Vietnam the single purpose of mangrove rehabilitation is to mitigate impact of natural
hazards. In Thailand the single purpose of mangrove rehabilitation is to improve biodiversity. In
Indonesia the single purpose of mangrove plantations is to plant trees. The interactive action planning
process will explore this based on the perception by different stakeholders in the three sites to identify
appropriate action.
23
Activities completed in WP5 in period 2
Thailand
• 2 field visits conducted in preparing for the stakeholder workshop and providing input to WP4&5
• Stakeholder workshop organized in March 2008 in Nakhon Sri Thamarat. Report available on
Mangrove website. SEI issued press release and liaised with media during workshop.
• Stakeholder workshop in December 2007. Information available on Mangroves website.
• Draft report on institutions & policy, including conflicts/tensions available.
• Policy analysis workshop. Had discussions with CORIN (coastal research institute at Songkla
University) on testing mangroves case study in relation with the new marine law. MFF agree to
provide funding for policy analsyis workshop. Involve Louis Lebel at USER, Chiangmai
University will support research in relation to water management and coastal area in Nakhon Sri
Thamarat
Vietnam
• Field visit in preparation for the stakeholder workshop and input to WP4.
• Participated in the establishment of the conservation club in Thien Hai.
• Stakeholder workshop in December 2007. Information available on Mangroves website.
• Revised CATWOE available.
• Draft report on institutions & policy, including conflicts/tensions available. The analysis will be
published in 2008 as a chapter in an upcoming publication: Policy and stakeholder engagement.
The publication is edited by Dr Hoang Minh Ha, ICRAF Vietnam & Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Department of Soil Sciences and Dr Neil Powell, SEI.
• Presentation of the project at the 30years anniversary of Swedish Vietnam bilateral collaboration
held in Hanoi in March 2008.
• Preparatory meetings for the policy analysis workshop held with the Policy division (NISPASS)
under Ministry of Science and Technology. Mangroves project has been selected as a case study.
Policy analysis workshop is planned for end of 2008 to reflect on mangrove rehabilitation to
policy contexts. The workshop will be supported by EU Mangroves partners and organised by
NISPASS and policy analysis institute under MARD.
• Discussion with Mr Ho at MARD/Fisheries in regard to new Marine Policy and how the
mangroves to be used as a case to reflect on the policy coherence. Review of information about
Forest Laws and other relevant policies/laws and projects. Dr Tien at Hue University discussing
co-management and local governance for coastal resource management. DOST'S reflections on
development of integrated coastal resource management. Le seafood processing industry contact:
Dao Than Tam.
Indonesia
24
• 2 field visits conducted in preparing for the focus group discussions and providing input to
WP4&5
• Consultation with national level stakeholders including, Telapak, Sawit Watch, Non-Timber
Forest Products Exchange Programme
• Revised CATWOE available
• Focus Group Discussions (FGD) in three villages and separate FGD with traders conducted
• National consultations with UNDP, MFF, WALHI, Ministry of Environment
SEI and the Mulawarman University have decided to facilitate a different process for WP5&8 in
Indonesia in comparing with Thailand and Vietnam. Since the institutional relationships between different
stakeholders at local, district, provincial national levels determining the state of the mangrove ecosystem
in the Mahalkam delta are based on informal interactions and subjected to illegal activities the project has
decided to facilitate a series of focus group discussions instead of as in the other countries facilitate bigger
stakeholder meetings. It is anticipated that by the end of period 3 a stakeholder workshop will be
facilitated in the Mahakam Delta.
SEI contribution to WP2
The SEI communication team has assisted in engaging media in relation to the Mangroves project. In
preparations to the stakeholder workshop in Thailand a press release was issues; 15 journalists
subsequently attended the workshop. SEI has explored national level engagement of stakeholders to
channel the lessons learned to the policy level and engage national stakeholders in the project. This has
mainly been done through interaction with Mangroves for the Future (IUCN/UNEP/FAO/National
Committees in Indonesia and Thailand). Subsequently, a national level policy analysis workshop will be
organised in the three countries in period 3 of the project to present the institutional analysis and facilitate
discussions between different stakeholders at different levels linked to mangrove ecosystems. In Vietnam
the project has been approached by the policy division (NISPASS) under the Ministry of Science and
Technology who has agreed to fund the activity. NISPASS envision using the project and field site to
analyse national level policy in relation to rehabilitation of mangroves. SEI will through the policy
analysis workshop enable a holistic thinking in relation to rehabilitation to develop a multipurpose plan
for rehabilitation of mangroves. In Thailand SEI has discussed with the Wetland Alliance under Asia
Institute of Technology and with Coastal Research Institute Songkla University (CORIN) about
organising a national level policy review workshop looking at the recent draft marine law. In Indonesia
SEI has had a discussion with UNDP to engage the national committee of the Mangroves for the Future to
organise a national policy workshop in Mahakam Delta. SEI used the findings in WP5 to comment on the
role of mangroves following the devastating effects when Cyclone Nargis hit Irrawaddy Delta in Burma.
SEI issued: Press release, opinion paper and radio and newspaper interviews were given. Information
available: www.sei.se
25
Dr Neil Powell made a presentation of EU Mangroves project at Resilience and Vulnerability colloquium
in Stockholm April 2008.
Timeframe (period 2&3) 2008-09 WP5&8
• Sept, Focus Group Discussion and planning for Policy Review workshop, Thailand
• Oct, Focus Group Discussions and planning for Stakeholder meeting, Indonesia
• Nov, Preparing for Policy Review workshop, Vietnam
• Sept-Dec, Work with country teams to develop outline of governance system in relation to
rehabilitation of mangroves and identify focus groups.
• Jan, Focus Group Discussions in Tien Hai and Policy review workshop in Hanoi, Vietnam
• March, Policy Review workshop, Thailand
• June, Stakeholder meeting in Samarinda, Indonesia
• July-Dec – Writing up of WP5&8
Outputs
Related scientific publications
Thomalla F et al. (2008). Cyclone Nargis: What are the Lessons from the 2004 Tsunami for Myanmar’s
Recovery? Stockholm Environment Institute. Stockholm, Sweden.
Thomalla F et al. (2008). Myanmar cyclone: the lessons from recent disasters must not be forgotten.
Sustainable Development Update. Albaeco. Stockholm, Sweden
Related outputs
Powell N, Osbeck M (2007). Soft system theory and CATWOE methodology – process for WP5&8.
Revised CATWOE Vietnam (mind manager)
Revised CATWOE Indonesia (mind manager)
Revised CATWOE Thailand (mind manager)
Stakeholder workshop report Thailand
Stakeholder workshop report Vietnam
Powell Neil and Osbeck Maria (forthcoming). Policy formulation and stakeholders engagement
experiences and lessons in Vietnam.
Related news outputs
26
Press release (23 May 2008): Mangroves in the wake of cyclone Nargis - getting the balance right.
www.sei.se
MYANMAR: Loss of mangrove forests exacerbates cyclone deaths (Irin news)
Interview with Maria Osbeck in Swedish Radio (in Swedish)
Press release (5 March 2008): The role of Mangroves in Nakhon Sri Thamarat (In Thai only)
2.5.3. Deviations from the project work programme
Implementation was delayed owing to changes in the consortium. Now, however, the consortium is
implementing WP5 & 8 activities inline with the timeframe set out in Figure 1, P3 Management Report.
Table 3 contains a list of deliverables relating to WP5, including due date and actual/foreseen submission
date.
27
28
Table 3: Deliverables list Deliverables list
Del. no.
Deliverable name WP no.
Lead particip-ant(s)
Estimated person-months
Nature Dissemination level
Delivery date (project month)
D1 Stakeholder workshop proceedings WP 1 4,5,6,7 21.5 R PU Month 6 D2 Situation appraisal report (including outcomes from Gender Framework Analysis) WP 1 1 39 R PU Month 8 D3 Project summaries and bulletins in local languages & website established WP 2 4,5,6,7 15 O PU Month 3 D4 Communication plan for each site formulated in consultation with stakeholders WP 2 7,4,5,6 11 O PU Month 6 D5 Proceedings from regional workshop and CD-ROM disseminated WP 2 7,1 6 R, O PU Month 46 D6 Appropriate communication media on RMD addressing ecosystem, livelihoods and institutions WP 2 7,4,5,6 14 O PU Month 47 D7 Maps indicating key resources and functions WP 3 1,4,5,6 7 O PU Month 28 D8 Report on mangrove structure, processes & functions, and fishbase and Sea Around Us inputs WP 3 1 12 R PU Month 36 D9 Report on participatory monitoring methods WP 3 1 12 R PU Month 36 D10 Draft ecosystem oriented Action Plans for each site WP 3 1,4,5,6 16.25 R PU Month 38 D11 Papers submitted to scientific journals WP 3 1 8 R PU Month 39 D12 Report on livelihoods dependent on mangroves and well-being indicators WP 4 2,4,5,6 45.5 R PU Month 38 D13 Report on livelihoods oriented conflicts/tensions, and Action Plans to RMD WP 4 2,4,5,6 20 R PU Month 39 D14 Report on institutions & policy, including conflicts/tensions and fishbase inputs WP 5 3 15 R PU Month 36 D15 Report on conflicts/tensions between uses and users and trajectories of change WP 5 3 15.75 R PU Month 38 D16 Report on stakeholder evaluation of mangrove-derived goods and services WP 5 3,4,5,6 15 R PU Month 38 D17 Action Plans to reconcile multiple demands in Phase 3 WP 5 3,4,5,6 11 R PU Month 39 D18 Report on approaches agreed with stakeholders to implement & monitor Action Plans WP 6 1 12 R PU Month 40 D19 Protocols for participatory monitoring of ecosystems WP 6 1,4,5,6 10 O PU Month 44 D20 Report on change in ecosystem indicators WP 6 1 14 R PU Month 52
D21 Report on ecosystem-based outcomes and appropriate communication media for implementation and monitoring elsewhere in region WP 6 1,4,5,6 16.25 R PU Month 52
D22 Report on implementation, impact & effectiveness of Action Plans from a livelihoods perspective WP 7 2,4,5,6 38.5 R PU Month 52
D23 Appropriate communication media for implementation of strategies to RMD at other sites in the region WP 7 2,4,5,6 18 R PU Month 52
D24 Report on institutional/policy impact of Action Plans at each site WP 8 3 20 R PU Month 52 D25 Report on most effective approaches to RMD with respect to institutions and policy WP 8 3 16 R PU Month 52
D26 Appropriate communication media aimed at institutions for RMD placed on coastal zones, especially mangroves WP 8 3,4,5,6 20.75 R PU Month 52
TOTAL 449.5
29
3. Consortium management
3.1. Consortium management tasks, achievements, problems and solutions
Consortium coordination activities in the period focused largely on compiling the P2 Management and
Activity Reports and ensuring these were acceptable for the Commission; addressing consortium
management issues identified in the PMG meeting in Hanoi (requirements for a 1 year extension to
permit successful implementation and approach to addressing delays in implementation by certain
partners); meeting with the Scientific Officer in Brussels to discuss project reporting, progress and
delays; preparing a revised catalogue entry for the Commission; preparing for the third MANGROVE
consortium workshop and Project Management Group (PMG) meeting, 5-7th August 2008, hosted by
Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia. Details of
participants who attended the workshop and PMG meeting are provided in the proceedings
(MANGROVE 2008); unfortunately due to personal circumstances the coordinator was unable to
attend the meeting at short notice.
The PMG chaired by the Coordinator, will continue to steer and make decisions on all project
activities. Conditional upon an extension to the project to compensate for delays owing to the
withdrawal of IDDRA, a further PMG meeting is planned for month 49 (see Table 4); this meeting
will coincide with the World Water Week in Stockholm, providing an opportunity to present project
findings and network with other groups working on the management of marine resources. Further
opportunities for meetings of PMG members will be sought, especially following planned stakeholder
and policy workshops; use will be made of electronic meeting and conferencing to aid internal project
communication. Responsibility for individual WPs has been delegated by the PMG to respective work
package coordinators; considering WP4 & 7 partners 2, 4, 5 & 6 share this responsibility, with each
local partner leading research in their region, for WP5 & 8 partners have undertaken to collaborate
closely to address the challenging issues of institutions and stakeholder participation, leading to
reconciliation strategies and policy developments.
During the reporting period Partner 1 assumed responsibility for overall project implementation,
communication with the Commission and financial administration. The coordinator remains
responsible for facilitating negotiation of sub-contractor inputs with the relevant work package
coordinators. Moreover, during the reporting period Partner 1 liaised with the Commission regarding
the possibility of a 12 month extension to the project, the coordinator submitted a request via email,
met with the Scientific and Financial Officers in Brussels (13th February 2008) and submitted a formal
request in line with contractual requirements; the consortium hopes formal approval of the extension
will be forthcoming, thus enabling the successful completion of tasks outlined in the Technical Annex.
Table 4. Summary of project meetings and purpose
Timing Meeting/Workshop Purpose End Month 4 - 1st PMG meet at
NACA for Project Inception Meeting
- Agree on research locations, coordination of situation appraisal (WP1) and communication plans and M&E strategy for WP2.
End of Month 24 - State-of-the-System (SOS) workshops at 3 sites
- 2nd PMG meeting in
Hanoi, Vietnam
- Review information from PCAs, institutional analysis, Gender Framework Analysis and existing data on ecosystem goods and services with partners & stakeholders.
- Agreement on objectives, methodologies & sampling framework for WPs3-5.
End Month 37 - Stakeholder workshops at 3 sites
- 3rd PMG meeting Samarinda, Indonesia
- Report on major findings from WPs3-5 to elicit feedback from local and national stakeholders and formulate Action Plans for WPs6-8.
- Progress review, identify Phase 3 study sites & review communication plans.
End month 49 - Stakeholder workshops at 3 sites
- 4th PMG meeting in Stockholm, Sweden
- Reporting on WPs6-8 to elicit feedback from local and national stakeholders and identify main policy issues.
- Progress review and agreement on monitoring and evaluating policy impacts.
End month 50 - Regional workshop with policy makers
- Sustain ongoing dialogue with policy makers and facilitate drafting of ‘Codes of Conduct’ and revised rule sets; monitor and report.
Work package coordinators are responsible for implementation of the work described in Technical
Annex I, coordinating the activities of research and field staff, staff inputs and ensuring quality control
of the various tasks undertaken; they report directly to the overall coordinator. In addition to close
contact between partners (in person or in conference calls) a dedicated electronic mailing list has been
established and is being managed by Partner 7 permitting information exchange for internal reporting.
The mail list is also designed to facilitate rapid feedback between partners and enhance transparency,
communication and the transfer of knowledge within the project. Communication internationally is
being facilitated through collaboration with Partner 7, who is also responsible for maintaining and
updating the project website.
3.2. Contractors - contributions, responsibilities and consortium changes
During the reporting period there have been no changes in the consortium. The contributions of
contractors to the project during the reporting period are detailed in the P3 Management Report. Good
progress has been possible on all fronts, whilst project activities have been rescheduled to compensate
for earlier delays (Figure 1; Table 5).
30
31
Table 5: Work planning and timetable
Work Package No.
Work package title Person months
Project month
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54
WP 1 Situation appraisal 60.5
WP 2 Dissemination, monitoring & evaluation 46
WP 3 Ecosystem health & functioning 55.25
WP 4 Livelihoods, goods & services 65.5
WP 5 Institutions & stakeholders 56.75
WP 6 Reconciling multiple demands: ecosystem health & functioning 52.25
WP 7 Reconciling multiple demands: livelihoods, goods & services 56.5
WP 8 Reconciling multiple demands: institutions & stakeholders 56.75
Total person months 449.5
Derived from Technical Annex I
32
Co-ordination activities in the period focused on the execution of work packages 1 to 5 and on the
third consortium workshop and Project Management Group meeting planned for August 2008 in
Samarinda, Indonesia. Internal project communication during the reporting period has been facilitated
through visits, email exchanges, phone calls and instant messenger session; the planned project email
list has been established and is being used for internal communication on general issues of interest.
4. Other issues
Issues of concern for the project are outlined below showing that they have been taken into account
and where necessary actions planned to avoid negative impacts or outcomes; areas specifically
addressed here are ethics, social engagement, gender, generation, ethnicity and environment. Where
personal data is collected during household interviews and focus groups all information collected is
treated confidentially, but equally all people involved will have access to project information. All the
partner institutions have experience of working in this context, but good practice is being reinforced at
every available opportunity. Throughout the project, activities and outcomes are focused on
community and stakeholder participation, awareness raising and capacity building. Inquiry at the
household level into livelihood impacts is being conducted with respect to local norms, customs and
religion. Especially as the project is working with poorer sections of communities, interactions are
designed to be time efficient and as non-extractive as possible. The participation of women in the
research is being encouraged both within the research team and within the evaluation, consultation and
implementation process, research is being undertaken that addresses the needs of women, as much as
men, and the research contributes to an enhanced understanding of gender issues. The research also
aims to contribute to an enhanced understanding regarding issues relating to generation and ethnicity,
and the participation of people of different ages and ethnic backgrounds is encouraged.
The research does not involve: research activity aimed at human cloning for reproductive purposes;
research activity intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such
changes heritable; research activity intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of
research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear
transfer; research involving the use of human embryos or embryonic stem cells with the exception of
banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture.
4.1. Gender mainstreaming
Gender is used to describe all the socially given attributes, roles, activities and responsibilities
connected to being female or male in a given society. It is one marker among others such as age, race,
ethnicity, class, disability, connections, education, and sexual orientation etc that determines status.
Campbell and Townsely (1996) state that the Participatory and Integrated Process they advocate
constitutes ‘a structured approach to research, dialogue, decision-making, institutional reform and
development-resource allocation, which promotes greater involvement of all stakeholders in the policy
process and harmonises their conflicting objectives, strategies and capacities’. With specific reference
to decision-making the authors advocate using gender framework analysis to address the needs of
women, assessing their activities in relation to men, the access and control they have over resources,
factors that influence these activities and resources, and how development efforts might influence
them. A modified approach to gender framework analysis that takes account differing ideological,
historical, religious, ethnic, economic and cultural determinants is being developed for each project
site; the approach recognises that socially constructed gender roles are temporarily and spatially
specific. The framework is being developed alongside the initial community level appraisal, ensuring
gender issues are addressed; transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 was conditional upon satisfactory
plans to incorporate gender framework analysis in the planning process at each study site. Each Asian
partner also undertook to employ at least one researcher with a background in the social sciences to
ensure all project activities are sensitive to issues of gender, generation and ethnicity. Progress in
integrating the gender dimension in the MANGROVE project is currently being assessed by the
consortium following a joint decision at the 3rd PMG meeting in Samarinda, Indonesia.
Concerning gender equality and women's participation it was noted that the Asian partners have
engaged social science and gender expertise; one Asian partner (VNU) has engaged a senior female
social scientist to work on the project, KU and MU have recruited junior female staff with a
good awareness of gender issues, NACA are highly experienced in gender issues and approaches and
are supporting the other partners in addressing gender issues. The current proportion of women and
men in the research teams constitutes an improvement on gender balance in the research teams as
compared with the original proposal. Action has been taken to improve the gender competence of the
research teams. The issue of gender was discussed at the project inception meeting and the Asian
partners were encouraged to engage researchers with social science expertise. Furthermore, a modified
form of the gender framework analysis and techniques alluded to by Moser (1989) is being
developed to facilitate more efficient and focused assessment of practical and strategic gender needs.
Preliminary work suggests men access mangroves for more formal activities, primarily fishing
and aquaculture, whereas access by women is more informal, gathering aquatic species, fuelwood
and non-timber forest products. Women have much less control but seemingly greater dependency as a
coping strategy during times of need. More work is being done to qualify this at the different sites and
develop participatory action plans, incorporating key elements of gender framework analysis. Through
raised awareness of the dependence of poor and vulnerable groups, including women, on the
mangroves we aim to highlight to local institutions and policymakers the need for continued access
and wise-use of the mangroves, whilst also exploring opportunities to reduce the dependence and
associated vulnerability of poor people through alternative and more secure livelihood options.
33
Female participation has been encouraged in the research teams and community meetings used to gain
feedback from men and women on research findings. Participatory approaches used with both men
and women have enable assessment of their respective needs and perspectives relating to mangroves
and associated coastal areas.
34
Appendix 1. Plan for using and disseminating the knowledge4
A1. Overview
A key strength of the proposal is the balance between policy, systems and tools oriented research. At
the core of the project design is the belief that good quality technical and social research can and
should have impacts on the broader community; indeed that good research benefits from iteration with
a range of stakeholders to which its outputs will be targeted. The broader framework of the project,
that mangroves and associated coastal zones are important to Asian countries at different stages of
development and with quite different ethnic and cultural profiles, should increase understanding at a
conceptual level and allow a degree of extrapolation to other situations.
Considering the different contexts in which project work is being undertaken at different sites, in terms
of the existing knowledge base and institutional organisation, it seemed prudent that the project team
should develop a ‘Communication plan’ for each situation (see NRSP, 2003). These communication
plans identify the communication stakeholders, new knowledge and products from the project which
would benefit them, the most appropriate media and pathways to reach them and outline a plan of
action (activity, timing, responsibility, monitoring and evaluation) to ensure timely implementation
and impact assessment. Communication plans take account of the demands and expectations of
primary stakeholders (disaggregated with respect to wellbeing, age and gender) and local and national
institutions, elicited through interviews, questionnaires and outcomes of participatory activities
focused on communication. Consequently, the content and format of communication media produced
responds to demand expressed by these groups, contributing to their sense of ownership and the
likelihood that project outcomes will have a significant impact. Links to producers of educational
materials and course and curriculum developers are being explored as part of this wider
communication process. Opportunities to link with the fishbase and Sea Around Us initiatives are also
being reviewed and where appropriate deliverables formatted accordingly.
At an individual country level, project outcomes the process being designed to demonstrate relevance
and competency to a broad range of peers and institutions. It was envisaged that publications of both a
scientific and popular nature in the local language will improve communication with stakeholders and
a general understanding of the objectives and results of the research. Lessons learnt and communicated
between countries should also reduce the costs for individual institutions. For example, the relatively
greater level of knowledge regarding the current management of mangroves in Thailand than at other
4 Knowledge: means the results, including information, whether or not they can be protected, arising from the project governed by this contract, as well as copyrights or rights pertaining to such results following applications for, or the issue of patents, designs, plant varieties, supplementary protection certificates or similar forms of protection (Article II.1.14 of the contract)
35
sites will permit more detailed enquiry concerning problems with existing management strategies and
conservation measures that will inform the development of Action Plans at the other sites.
The partnership with NACA in which a thematic platform is being developed and managed to both
disseminate news arising from the project and stimulate discussion is critical to informing a global
audience. Project summaries and bulletins in local languages are being produced and integrated with
main English-language text to ensure maximum impact. Production of this information on CD-ROM
will complement the web-based dissemination and broaden the impact of the platform to different
users. In addition, distribution of the CD to communication stakeholders will ensure that key
practitioners and planners receive the information; the CD-ROM format will permit the project to
reach and inform people in developing countries with limited internet access.
Furthermore, the "Consortium partners accept and authorise that the Commission disseminates
relevant project information, including summaries and public project results, names and contact details
of consortium partners through the visual, oral and electronic media."
A2. Raising public participation and awareness
Initial contact with local stakeholders is central to WP2 and includes an assessment of current media
interest in mangroves. Summaries of the project purpose, outputs and activities have been produced
for dissemination in both English and local languages and targeted at both scientific and general
interest audiences. Radio and TV are being targeted in addition to text media. Dedicated project web-
pages and a discussion forum have been established within the website of Partner 7 and are being
updated regularly. It is intended that the website and virtual library linked to it will be maintained
beyond the lifetime of the project, and options for achieving this and ensuring long term access will be
evaluated as part of WP2. Potential links with the fishbase and Sea Around Us projects are being
explored to ensure data originating from the project will be readily accessible in the public domain
beyond the lifetime of the project. At the end of WP1, workshops were held with local stakeholders
and outcomes of the situation appraisal presented and triangulated; summaries were produced for local
media and an overview of the regional findings developed and published through the international
media and website; contacts with local opinion makers are being maintained through regular
interaction. Following WP3-5, workshops at each site will allow processing of the research outputs
and cross checking by communities and institutions locally. It will also allow for local input into the
selection of suitable sites for piloting modified mangrove management strategies. Research outputs
will then be compared in a regional workshop and forward work-plans for at least one mangrove area
at each of the three sites finalised. A summary of regional findings will be produced and disseminated
as an output of this workshop. An open session will be held on the last day of the workshop in which
key information will be disseminated to stakeholders and their views fed back through small group
36
discussions. A final regional workshop will allow processing, aggregation and summarisation of
information leading to preliminary project findings being publicised.
Technical reports are being produced for the international and national scientific communities for each
of the major foci but all will include interdisciplinary perspectives informed by communication
between partner institutions. During the pilot phase, opinion will be sampled from local policy makers
and other stakeholders about perceptions of mangroves locally and a communication strategy
developed for each project site. Dissemination through more specialist channels will be guided by the
updated communication plans being formulated by NACA and result in key interdisciplinary findings
being published and publicised through a range of broad and focused channels, including the website
and CD-ROM edition. The research partners have also agreed upon a strategy to monitor the progress
and impact of the project against the stated objectives, based on the MSC approach, with a key
objective being to ensure community participation in this process. Transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2
of the project remains dependent on satisfactory completion of a modified form of gender framework
analysis at each study site and subsequent review of outcomes at the SOS workshops. The impact of
project activities and outcomes on awareness in the community, amongst senior stakeholders and
knowledge flows through actor networks will be studied. Community participation in monitoring and
evaluating project activities and outcomes will contribute to planning and focusing activities in other
workpackages, in particular WP5 & 8.
A3. Exploitable knowledge and its use
The consortium has not produced any exploitable results, defined as knowledge having a potential for
industrial or commercial application in research activities or for developing, creating or marketing a
product or process or for creating or providing a service; this situation will be reviewed periodically.
A4. Dissemination of knowledge
This review of project related dissemination activities includes past and future activities. Information
on project outputs is maintained by the coordinator using Procite bibliographic software; an annotated
bibliography of outputs will be included in the CD-Rom produced by partner 7, responsible for
coordinating dissemination, monitoring and evaluation activities in WP2. Under WP5 SEI has
introduce the consortium to Merritech which is a programme used for interactive video meetings. The
tool has facilitated cross-case learning between the countries and improved communication between
partners in the North and South. The activities under WP5 build on what has been developed under
WP1-4 and thus, to the dissemination of the learning generated under WP1-4.
37
A4.1. Dissemination activity descriptions
Websites
MANGROVE, 2006-7. MANGROVE Project web-site. (www.streaminitiative.org/Mangrove)
MANGROVE, 2008-10. MANGROVE Project web-site. (www.enaca.org/module/mangrove)
The project website provides access to workpackage descriptions, including objectives, tasks and expected
deliverables; project outputs, including workshop reports, publications and deliverables; information on
the consortium members; links to other mangrove related sites and information resources; information on
monitoring and evaluation; news and events.
VNU 2007. MANGROVE Project pages. www.mangrovesvn.org.
Project reports
Bosma RH, Sidik AS, Sugiharto E, Fitriyana, Budiarsa AA, Sumoharjo; Rizal S, Nuryatiningsih,
2007. Situation of the mangrove ecosystem and the related community livelihoods in Muara Badak,
Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Universitas Mulawarman, Samarinda, East Kalimantan,
Indonesia.
Bunting SW 2006. Low impact aquaculture. Colchester, UK: Centre for Environment and Society,
University of Essex. CES Occasional Paper 2006-3.
Bunting SW 2006. Communication planning: shared experiences from the East Kolkata Wetlands,
India. Colchester, UK: Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex.
CES Working Paper 2006-SWB1.
Bunting SW, 2007. Situation Analysis: mangrove communities, markets, stakeholders, institutions and
policies in Vietnam. European Commission Project MANGROVE [INCO-CT-2005-003697]. CES
Back to Office report 2007-SWB2. Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex,
Colchester, UK, 16 p
Bunting SW, 2007. Situation Analysis: mangrove communities, markets, stakeholders, institutions and
policies in Thailand. CES Back to Office report 2007-SWB1. European Commission Project
MANGROVE [Contract INCO-CT-2005-003697]. Centre for Environment and Society, University of
Essex, Colchester, UK, 11 p
38
Bunting SW, Pretty J, 2007. Global carbon budgets and aquaculture - emissions, sequestration and
management options. Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper 2006-4. Colchester, UK:
Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex.
Dulyapurk, V, W. Taparhudee, R. Yoonpundh & S. Jumnongsong, 2007. Multidisciplinary situation
appraisal of mangrove ecosystems in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart
University.
Larsen RK 2007. Network for Integrated Transboundary Water Research (NITWAR) in the Mekong
Region. Field Report from Scoping Study in Bangkok 26 March - 4 April 2007.
Lewins R 2006. Coastal aquaculture and development - planning for sustainability. Colchester, UK:
Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex. CES Occasional Paper 2006-
MANGROVE 2005. Inception workshop proceedings. (CD-ROM and online at:
http://www.streaminitiative.org/Mangrove/)
MANGROVE 2007. MANGROVE Consortium Workshop and 2nd Project Management Group meeting.
Proceedings of the meeting, 9-13th July, Meeting Hall of the National Fisheries Extension Centre,
Ministry of Fisheries, Hanoi, Vietnam.
MANGROVE 2008. MANGROVE 3rd Consortium meeting – minutes. Faculty of Fisheries and Maine
Science, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia.
Powell N, Osbeck M, 2007. Soft system theory and CATWOE methodology – process for WP5 & 8.
Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
SEI/KU 2008. Stakeholder workshop report, Thailand. Prepared by Stockholm Environment Institute and
Kasetsart University.
Suspita A (in preparation). Report of the Indonesia livelihoods workshop.
VNU 2007. Situation of the mangrove ecosystem and related community livelihoods in Tien Hai, Thai
Binh Province. Situation Analysis Report. Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam.
39
Presentations and lectures
Bunting SW, 2006. Assessing prospects for horizontally integrated temperate and warmwater
aquaculture with bioeconomic modelling. Presentation and Roundtable event at the Littoralia ’06
International workshop about fishery and aquaculture in the sustainable development, 27-28th
September, Huelva, Spain. Colchester, UK: Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex.
Bunting, SW 2006-2008. Five lectures on mangroves, ecology and conservation to BS352 (3rd Year
Undergraduate module: Tropical Aquatic Biology) One lecture on sustainable aquaculture to MEnv
(Masters in Environment, Science and Society). Colchester, UK: University of Essex.
Bunting SW, 2007. Promoting participation and consensus building in aquaculture development with a
stakeholder Delphi. Paper presented at the 2007 European Aquaculture Society meeting, Istanbul,
Turkey.
Bunting SW, 2008. Improving planning and policy development in aquaculture with the stakeholder
Delphi. Presentation to the United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) ‘Expert
Consultation on Improving Planning and Policy Development in Aquaculture’, 26-29 February, Rome,
Italy.
Bunting SW, van Zwieten P, Powell N, Sidik AS, Dulyapurk V, Hong PN, De Silva SS, 2007.
Mangrove ecosystems, communities and conflict: developing knowledge-based approaches to
reconcile multiple demands. Paper presented at the 2007 European Aquaculture Society meeting,
Istanbul, Turkey.
Le Xuan Tuan, Nguyen Huu Tho, Phan Nguyen Hong, Phan Thi Anh Dao, 2007. Stakeholders
involved in mangrove management in Tien Hai District, Thai Binh Province. National Symposium
“Mangrove restoration for climate change adaptation and sustainable development” Can Gio – Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam, 26-27th November 2007 (in Vietnamese)
Powel N, 2008. MANGROVE project presentation. Resilience and Vulnerability Conference, April
2008, Stockholm.
Sidik AS, Bosma R, 2007. Aquaculture or failed gold rush: situation analysis of the mangrove ecosystem
and the related community livelihoods in Muara Badak, Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Paper presented at the Asian Pacific Aquaculture 2007 Conference, 5-8 August, Hanoi, Vietnam.
40
Tran Trung Thanh, Le Xuan Tuan, 2008. Primary study on exploitation and management of natural
resources in mangrove areas in Tien Hai District, Thai Binh Province. Proceedings of Scientific
Workshops of National Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment. Ho Chi Minh,
Vietnam, June 2008 (in Vietnamese)
Journal articles
Bunting SW, 2008. Horizontally integrated aquaculture development: exploring consensus on
constraints and opportunities with a stakeholder Delphi. Aquaculture International 16(2), 153-169
[doi:10.1007/s10499-007-9134-x]
Bunting SW (in press). Assessing the stakeholder Delphi for facilitating interactive participation and
consensus building for sustainable aquaculture development. Society & Natural Resources [doi:]
Bunting et al (in preparation). Internalising negative environmental costs of shrimp aquaculture with
integrated mangrove constructed wetlands. International Journal
Books
Bunting et al (in preparation). Mangrove ecosystems, communities and conflict. Springer.
Book chapters
Bunting SW 2007. Regenerating aquaculture: enhancing aquatic resources management, livelihoods
and conservation. In Pretty J, Ball A, Benton T, Guivant J, Lee D, Orr D, Pfeffer M, Ward H (Eds.),
The SAGE Handbook of Environment and Society. SAGE Publications, pp. 395-410.
Powell N, Osbeck M (forthcoming). Policy formulation and stakeholders engagement experiences and
lessons in Vietnam.
van Zwieten PAM, Sidik SA, Noryadi, Suyatna I, Abdunnur 2006. Aquatic Food Production in the
Coastal Zone: Data-Based Perceptions on the Trade-off between Mariculture and Fisheries Production of
the Mahakam Delta and Estuary, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Hoanh CT, Tuong TP, Gowing JW,
Hardy B (eds.). Environment and Livelihoods in Tropical Coastal Zones: Managing Agriculture - Fishery
- Aquaculture Conflicts. CABI Publishing, UK, in association with the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), Philippines and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Sri Lanka. pp.
219-236.
41
CD-ROM and electronic media
Bunting SW 2006. Mangroves. Plasma screen slides. Colchester, UK: Department of Biological
Sciences, University of Essex. Target audience researchers, students and general public.
CAB International (in press). Bays [original text by SW Bunting]. In: Aquaculture Compendium, 1st
edition. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Target audience researchers, policy-makers and students.
MANGROVE, 2005. Inception Workshop. Proceedings of the Inception Workshop. CD-ROM. Bangkok,
Thailand: STREAM/NACA.
MANGROVE, 2007. Consortium Workshop and second Project Management Group presentations and
group work outcomes. CD-ROM. Hanoi, Vietnam: NACA/VNU.
A5. Publishable results
By the end of the project, this section of the final Plan for using and disseminating the knowledge will
include a complete set of all publishable exploitable knowledge.
42
Appendix 2. Logbook shrimp farmers Indonesia Month ……………………………….…..…….. Year …..……………………………..……….
Name ……….……………………….……..Age…… Address ……………………………………………………… Household members Name Sex Age Involved in aquatic
production activities Main income source
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Assets for aquatic production activities
Pond number
Size (for each pond separate) in ha
Number gates Distance to main channel
Name main channel
Other assets: Number Size
43
Instructions for the participant
Front page - Fill in everything - Household members fill in all names of members that contribute or are dependent on the household. For each member fill in main income source (if no income write: “no”) - Distance to the main channel, river or sea from which pond water is taken or is drained . - Other assets: only fill in assets related to aquatic production activities and information on the nuber and/or size (e.g. gillnet length, width, mesh size and number of nets)
Data sheet: fill in one sheet per day also when there is no pond harvest 1. Activity boxes
Day/Month/Year = date; Activity fill in all activities related to shrimp farming or aquatic production (e.g.
also crab collection; fishing) Number of workers total = all workers including yourself on that particular activity Other cost labour = payment in goods (e.g. shrimp) or food. Other activities instead of aquatic production activities, or in addition to the activities mentioned in the previous box
2. Expenses box Fill in only the expenses related to all aquatic production activities Bought/collected from = name and place the item was bought/collected (e.g. fuel station in Ban Khong Khong)
3. Income from other activities box Fill in the activity (e.g. selling chicken, building house), the income from the activity, how it was paid and who paid it to you
4. Aquatic production box Fill in all aquatic production from shrimp pond, collecting or fishing Species categories = in the blanks fill in all other species (fish, other shrimp etc.) with the full
name of the species (so for example not just Udang and Ikan, but Udang putih and Kakap).
If fish are dried or fresh or salted, use a different line for each of these. Weight = total weight of commercial group in kilograms Earnings price (Baht) = is the total price of thecatch of the group or species sold fresh,
dried, or salted Consumed = ftick if (part) of the catch was eaten by yourself, your workers and/or your
family Sold to = write the name of a person (trader, middelman,), shop or factory you received
cash or to whom you paid of credit 5. Write down why today’s catch or harvest was good, not so good (medium) or bad and
why this was so. Write down what the wheather was like Write down any unusual occurrences during the day (heavy storm, rainfall, illness, accident, catch of females of crabs with eggs, your daughters marriage)
44
Day …..……… Month …….…..…. Year 200..…
Number of hours worked Number of workers (including yourself) Activity
Morn. Aftern. Night Total Family
In addition or work or instead of working, what did you do? Health: Illness of myself of family member of other ….…………..……….…. Social: Festival Funeral Religious day Other ……………..………….. Other activities (specify) ………………………………………………………………….…………
Input (money, goods) related to aquatic production activities acquired today (including cost
of labor)
Item Amount Cost (TBaht) Cash/Credit Bought/Collected From
Income from other activities today
Activity Earnings (TBaht) Cash/Credit/Borrow Source (from whom)
45
Harvest and income from (all!) aquatic production
If from pond give pond number ………………………….. Tide ………………..
Earnings Thai Baht) Species/categories Total weight
(kg)
F r e s h D r i e d S a l t e d
C o n s
Sold to whom
Cash/ Credit
Today’s harvest was good medium bad because ……………….…………..…………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Today the weather was good normal bad because ……………….…………..………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….... Today was an unusual day because …………………….…………..…………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Any other remarks
Thank you for your patience today. Good luck to you tomorrow
46
47