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: swbunt@essex.ac.uk 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: paul.vanzwieten@wur.nl roel.bosma@wur.nl 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: neil.powell@sei.se

maria.osbeck@sei.se 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: assidik-fpik@telkom.net 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: ffisvtd@ku.ac.th 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: merd@netnam.vn 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: sena.desilva@enaca.org 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:

swbunt@essex.ac.uk; 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