Mainstreaming Mangroves

Mainstreaming Mangroves Proceedings of Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Southeast Asia, Feb. 27 – Mar. 1, 2013 Surabaya, Indonesia

Edited by: Bedjo Santoso and Takahisa Kusano

Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia Jakarta

Mainstreaming Mangroves: Proceedings of Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Southeast Asia Edited by: Bedjo Santoso and Takahisa Kusano

ISBN: 978-979-606-097-9 Citation: Santoso, B. and Kusano, T. (eds.), 2013, Mainstreaming Mangroves, Indonesian Ministry of Forestry, Jakarta © Indonesian Ministry of Forestry and JICA, 2013 This symposium was conducted as one of activities of the technical cooperation project between Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for Mangrove Ecosystem Conservation and Sustainable Use in the ASEAN Region (MECS Project) No reproduction of any part of this publication may take place without the written permission of the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry and JICA. Disclaimer: The perspectives and knowledge described in individual messages and papers contained in this publication represent only the author/s, and do not reflect the views of the editors, the organizer nor the publisher.

Published by: Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia Manggala Wana Bakti Building, Jl. Gatot Subroto, Jakarta, Indonesia

Book Design and Compilation by: Rika Novida A copy may be obtained by writing to the National Coordinator of MECS Project ([email protected]/[email protected]). Post and handling fee will be charged. Or you can download from

Messages

Mr. Zulkifli Hasan

Minister of Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia

iv

Forest ecosystems, including mangroves and coastal forest have a very strategic role in supporting the system of life on earth as well as in supporting of the current development at the national level, as well as in the ASEAN region and the world.

Ekosistem hutan termasuk hutan mangrove dan hutan pantai memiliki peran yang sangat strategis dalam mendukung system kehidupan di dunia serta dalam mendukung pembangunan yang sedang laksanakan di tingkat nasional, regional ASEAN dan dunia.

The presence of mangrove forests in ASEAN countries provides benefits to the surrounding communities, such as protection against tsunami waves or strong winds coming from the sea, economic benefits such as fruit and other parts of mangrove trees, as well as supporting the production levels of fish and a good habitat for a variety of typical flora and fauna in this area.

Keberadaan hutan mangrove di Negara-negara ASEAN memberikan manfaat bagi masyarakat di sekitarnya, seperti perlindungan terhadap gelombang tsunami atau angin kencang yang berasal dari laut, manfaat ekonomi dari buah dan bagian pohon mangrove lainnya, serta mendukung tingkat produksi ikan dan menjadi habitat yang baik bagi berbagai flora dan fauna khas di areal ini.

These days mangrove area in many places have not been managed optimally. On the other hand, pressure to occupy mangrove area is quite large. In urban areas, mangroves are often used for housing after conversion through reclamation, while in rural areas the mangrove areas are often used for fishing businesses which sometimes do not pay proper attention to the rules of conservation or protection.

Pada saat ini kawasan mangrove di berbagai tempat belum dikelola secara optimal sementara tekanan terhadap kawasan mangrove cukup besar. Di perkotaan, seringkali mangrove dijadikan perumahan setelah diubah melalui reklamasi, ddi daerah terpencil kawasan mangrove seringkali dijadikan usaha-usaha perikanan yang tidak memperhatikan kaidah-kaidah konservasi atau perlindungan.

We have done various efforts. The Ministry of Forestry has annually rehabilitated at least 10,000 ha of mangroves area, establishing the Community Based Nursery (KBR) and Social Assistance for Conservation Based Social Forestry Program (PPMBK) in mangrove areas. Similarly, mangrove areas which are located within conservation forests have undergone various efforts for protection and restoration. Communities have also utilized mangroves located within social forestry areas. The use of mangroves as a tourist destination can be seen in Bali, North Sulawesi, and other places. However, the effort is still deemed lacking. Management of mangrove rehabilitation outcomes still need to be improved, in order to increase the value of the benefits and functions of the mangrove forest to the surrounding community. Therefore these people need to be fostered and their capacity and capability to manage their plants need to be enhanced.

Berbagai upaya sudah dilakukan. Kementerian Kehutanan setiap tahun melaksanakan kegiatan rehabilitasi mangrove paling sedikit seluas 10.000 ha, pembuatan Kebun Bibit Rakyat (KBR) dan Bantuan Sosial Program Perhutanan Masyarakat Berbasis Konservasi (PPMBK) di area mangrove. Di kawasan hutan konservasi telah dilakukan berbagai kegiatan perlindungan dan restorasi. Kegiatan pemanfaatan oleh masyarakat juga telah dilakukan pada kawasan hutan kemasyarakatan, sebagai tempat wisata sebagaimana dapat dilihat di Bali, Sulawesi Utara, dan tempat-tempat lainnya. Namun demikian, upaya itu masih kurang. Pengelolaan hasil-hasil rehabilitasi mangrove masih perlu disempurnakan, terutama dalam rangka meningkatkan nilai manfaat dan fungsi hutan mangrove bagi masyarakat di sekitarnya. Masyarakat perlu dibina dan ditingkatkan kapasitas dan kapabilitasnya dalam mengelola tanamannya.

Mainstreaming Mangroves: Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in South East Asia

Recently, the President of the Republic of Indonesia has issued Presidential Decree Number 73 Year 2012 on National Strategy on Mangrove Ecosystems Management, substantiating any policies, programs and activities related to the mangrove should be conducted under Mangrove Ecosystem Management Coordination Team at the National or Regional level. Mangrove rehabilitation activities are carried out by various parties, both through funding from Central Government, Provincial Government or District Government, as well as funds from the public in order to synergize and to avoid overlapping or abandonment at all. Likewise for the utilization of mangrove ecosystems, including for other purposes, it should be first discussed with the Coordinating Team.

Baru-baru ini Presiden RI telah menerbitkan Perpres No.73 Tahun 2012 tentang Strategi Nasional Pengelolaan Ekosistem Mangrove, yang intinya setiap kebijakan, program dan kegiatan-kegiatan yang berkaitan dengan mangrove agar dilakukan dalam Tim Koordinasi Pengelolaan Ekosistem Mangrove di tingkat Nasional atau Daerah. Kegiatan-kegiatan rehabilitasi mangrove yang dilakukan berbagai pihak baik melalui dana Pemerintah, Pemerintah Provinsi atau Kabupaten, serta dana masyarakat agar dapat disinergikan sehingga tidak tumpang tindih atau tidak tertangani sama sekali. Demikian juga untuk pemanfaatan ekosistem mangrove termasuk untuk kepentingan lain, harus dibahas terlebih dahulu dalam Tim Koordinasi tersebut.

The above Presidential Regulation strengthen the National Mangrove Working Group (KKMN) that has been existed since 2010 involving stakeholders to encourage provincial or district/city government to establish Regional Mangrove Working Group (KKMD) in order to synergize between programs. Until recently there are 23 Mangrove Working Group in the Province level and 5 in the Districts / Cities have been established.

Peraturan Presiden tersebut sekaligus menguatkan Kelompok Kerja Mangrove Nasional (KKMN) yang telah ada sejak 2010 melibatkan stakeholder mendorong Pemerintah Provinsi, Kabupaten/Kota untuk membentuk Kelompok Kerja Mangrove Daerah (KKMD) guna sinergitas program antar pihak. Sampai saat ini telah terbentuk 23 KKMD tingkat provinsi sebanyak dan 5 KKMD tingkat kabupaten/kota.

With the synergistic efforts are then expected to be able to realize the sustainable management of mangrove ecosystems while providing sustainable benefits for the community.

Dengan upaya yang sinergis tersebut diharapkan akan dapat mewujudkan pengelolaan ekosistem mangrove yang lestari sekaligus memberikan manfaat yang berkelanjutan bagi masyarakat.

Symposium that held at the ASEAN level indicates that mangrove management felt needed to be communicated in the region. Conditions of mangroves in ASEAN countries is generally very similar, both potential and existing constraints. This condition can promote the establishment of communication between the members of ASEAN, especially in handling mangrove ecosystem management. Therefore, I hope that this symposium will generate an idea or formula that can provide solutions for problems faced relating to the condition of mangroves in the ASEAN countries.

Simposium yang diadakan di tingkat ASEAN menandakan bahwa pengelolaan mangrove perlu dikomunikasikan di wilayah ini. Kondisi mangrove di ASEAN secara umum hampir sama, baik potensinya maupun kendala-kendalanya. Kondisi ini dapat mendorong terwujudnya komunikasi antara anggota ASEAN, khususnya dalam penanganan ekosistem mangrove. Oleh karena itu, saya berharap bahwa symposium ini akan menghasilkan suatu gagasan atau rumusan yang dapat memberikan solusi bagi pemasalahan yang dihadapi berkaitan dengan kondisi mangrove di Negara-negara ASEAN.

The establishment of the ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNet) which was presented at ASOF meeting last year needs to be well prepared and discussed at this meeting as much as possible.

Adapun Rencana pembentukan ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNet) yang telah disampaikan pada pertemuan ASOF tahun lalu perlu dipersiapkan dengan baik dan dibicarakan semaksimal mungkin dalam pertemuan ini.

On this auspicious occasion I would also like to thank JICA that has participated to facilitate mangrove management especially in Indonesia.

Pada kesempatan yang baik ini saya juga mengucapkan terima kasih kepada JICA yang telah ikut memfasilitasi kegiatan pengelolaan Mangrove khususnya di Indonesia.

Mainstreaming Mangroves: Proceedings of Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in South East Asia

v

Ms. Takako Ito Minister – Counsellor, Deputy Chief Representative of Japan Mission to ASEAN

It is my great honor and pleasure to be here today as a representative of the Government of Japan. I would like to express my heartfelt congratulations on this regional symposium on mangrove ecosystem, which has gathered so many participants from ASEAN countries. Let me take this opportunity to thank deeply all those who have made great efforts, particularly Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia, JICA, ASEAN Secretariat and Surabaya City, for organizing this symposium. This year is the 40th anniversary of ASEAN-Japan friendship since 1973, when Japan and ASEAN started a dialogue on synthetic rubber. It is quite meaningful that we can have such an excellent symposium at this timing to celebrate our long-lasting friendship. As all of the participants here may already know, mangrove has many functions. It provides a lot of benefits for local people, giving opportunities for fishery, forestry, eco-tourism etc. It is also one of valuable ecosystems with rich biodiversity. Recently mangrove has been given more attention in the context of climate change because of its high capacity to absorb carbon stock. It also serves as disaster prevention forest against tsunami and high tide. On the other hand, as mangrove is growing along coastal areas and thereby is more subject to development pressure, it is disappearing 3 to 5 times faster than other forest ecosystems. It is of urgent necessity for us to promote the conservation of mangrove, which must include protection, restoration and sustainable use of the ecosystem. This is our common task in ASEAN countries. Japan has been very active in mangrove conservation especially in Indonesia since 1990s, with a lot of achievements including the establishment of Mangrove Information Center, which has evolved to become Mangorove Management Centres (MMC) in Bali and Medan. Yet, Southeast Asian region is still seeing the decrease of mangrove range caused by coastal development. Under such circumstances, it is very encouraging that ASEAN countries have been engaged in the conservation in each country.

vi

Now it is getting more desirable to share the practices and lessons learned in the region to synergize such efforts. In this regard, Japan and Indonesia have started a new project on “Mangrove Ecosystem Conservation and Sustainable Use in the ASEAN Region”, what we call “MECS Project”. This symposium is part of the Project and I’m sure it provides useful insights for shared learning. In addition, in order to ensure the continuous conservation in a regional cooperation, I truly hope that we agree on the establishment of ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNet) that will be proposed by Indonesia during this event. AMNet is aimed at improving mangrove-related policies in each country, by further networking stakeholders in ASEAN as well as promoting “shared learning” programs MECS is developing. Moreover, to call the people in the region for further actions in conserving mangrove, this symposium is planning to propose “Surabaya Call for Action”. I hope it will be adopted as a consensus of the symposium. I wish to conclude my remarks by thanking you very much for your kind support. I believe this 3-day event will be fruitful for all, and let us look forward to a greater cooperation in mangrove conservation.


Mr. Saifullah Yusuf Vice Governor of East Java Province

Economic performance in East Java can be illustrated from the acquisition of GDP. Generally, the economic conditions in East Java in 2012 start from 7,27% compared to the same period in 2011. Based on the sources of GDP growth in the field of business, sector performance showed positive growth including agriculture sector at 3,49%. This achievement is also supported by a significant increase in performance among others by the Sub Sector of Forestry in 16,17%. As we know, the agricultural sector is a sector that is still dependable and has become a central focus in supporting regional economy acceleration. This achievement is visible in the implementation of our policy: pro growth, pro job, pro poor and pro environment. However, the condition of the agricultural sector, especially forestry commodities in East java, still needs a touch of refinement aspect in technology, in empowerment of farmers and institutional and sustainable ecosystem of forest resources. East Java Province has a wealth of natural resources that we should be grateful for. To achieve the objectives of regional development we should protect and manage them well. The potential of using natural resources as a motor engine of growth in regional development is visible. To illustrate, the forests in province of East Java area is approximately 1,361,146 (one million three hundred sixty one and one thousand six hundred forty ha or 28,26 % of the land area in East Java which consists of (i) Protected Forest: 344 742 ha (ii) Nature Reserve / Nature Conservation: 233 632 ha and (iii) Production Forest: 782 772 ha. Besides, the forest land in the province of East Java area has reached 640,024.30 ha while critical land in East Jawa in 2012 covers 267,884.70 ha consisting of 729047.82 Ha in the forest area and 195,796.88 ha in the outside area. In addition to the potential of the forest in East Java, this province has a long coast about 2128 miles along with mangrove forest. Until the year 2011, the mangrove forest in East Java Province covers 40,299 ha, which is spread in 19 regencies/cities.

This condition needs to be addressed with efforts to restore its main existence and managing role of mangrove forests in maintaining the ecological balance of nature. Mangrove forest is a part of the marine coastal ecosystem that provides productive natural resources. Many of the benefits derived from existence of mangrove forests, such as the benefit of economic, social, cultural and ecological. The economic benefit of such a diversification of productive activities in surrounding communities are being developed such as mangrove forests as recreational area, utilization of mangrove fruits as a syrup maker and batik dyes. Social benefit of mangrove forest should be promoted such as the level of awareness for the farmer institutional in order to improve their welfare. Existence of mangrove forest provides ecological benefits including the prevention of erosion, and as a place of life of millions species of mangrove ecosystems. The importance of mangrove forest among others has inspired farmers to develop awareness and cultivate mangrove through mangrove seed bank as the one that has been done in Jenu area of Tuban District. Utilization of mangrove forest management in such as protection and conservation of natural resources-based ecosystem for human welfare and the sustainable of forest resources should be promoted as well. To achieve this, the level of awareness from society need to be considered, including public understanding of the existence, status and function of mangrove ecosystem. As the Governor of East Java I convey many thanks to the Minister of Forestry and Mrs. Mayor of Surabaya, for the facilitation to the activities of Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in South East Asia. In addition, I give the highest appreciation to all those who have contributed to this activity. I hope that with the implementation of this symposium will create collaboration and harmonization between the various parties, between groups, between, the countries of Southeast Asia with programs to save the environment that support each other in the corridors of the concept of sustainable development.


vii

Ms. Tri Rismaharini Mayor of Surabaya City

viii

In 1978, Surabaya had 3300 ha of mangroves area. However in the year of 1985 the area has shrunk because of land conversion to residential and ponds. In 1990 the area was turned back into a green open space, and in 2005 the residential permits was re-issued in the region. In following with this, in the year of 2007 the Surabaya City Administration issued Regional Regulation No. 3 Year 2007 on Surabaya Spatial Plan (RTRW). At present, the mangrove area in Surabaya covers 2,500 hectares.

Surabaya memiliki lahan mangrove seluas 3.300 ha pada tahun 1978. Namun sekitar tahun 1985 terjadi penyusutan karena dikonversi menjadi pemukiman dan pertambakan. Tahun 1990 kawasan tersebut berubah menjadi Ruang Terbuka Hijau, dan tahun 2005 diadakan penertiban ijin pemukiman. Tahun 2007 Pemerintah Kota Surabaya menerbitkan Peraturan Daerah No. 3 Tahun 2007 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Kota Surabaya. Hingga saat ini kawasan mangrove di Kota Surabaya menjadi seluas 2.500 hektare.

It is expected that other areas starts to anticipate the mangrove areas conversion into residential areas. Mangrove areas are not just for the sake of green open space, but also for its function to hold back seawater intrusion and prevent coastal erosion. It makes Surabaya City Government remains determined to make the area a mangrove area by residential exemption.

Diharapkan daerah-daerah lain melakukan antisipasi agar kawasan mangrove tidak menjadi kawasan pemukiman. Kawasan mangrove bukan hanya untuk Ruang Terbuka Hijau namun untuk menahan intrusi air laut dan mencegah terjadinya abrasi pantai. Hal ini menjadikan Pemerintah Kota Surabaya tetap bertekad menjaga kawasan mangrove dengan melakukan pembebasan pemukiman warga.

Surabaya City Government took steps to allocate Pamurbaya area as a green open space zone. Various attempts have been made to preserve the mangroves including rehabilitation, environmental education, and trainings to utilize mangrove processed products.

Pemerintah Kota Surabaya mengambil langkah dengan menjadikan kawasan Pamurbaya sebagai kawasan ruang terbuka hijau. Berbagai upaya telah dilakukan antara lain rehabilitasi, pendidikan lingkungan, dan pelatihan pemanfaatan olahan produk mangrove.

The Surabaya City Government is always committed to make mangrove areas as green open space. This step is reinforced by forming a legal umbrella by issuing Regional Regulation No. 3 of 2007 on Surabaya Spatial Plan. The results can be seen, for instance in the mangrove forest in Wonorejo Surabaya that now has become one of tourist destinations. We can find various types of vegetation such as mangrove and its associates like hibiscus, sea lote and various other herbaceous plant species.

Pemerintah Kota Surabaya berkomitmen menjadikan kawasan mangrove sebagai kawasan ruang terbuka hijau. Langkah ini diperkuat dengan Peraturan Daerah Nomor 3 Tahun 2007 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Kota Surabaya. Hasilnya dapat dilihat, saat ini hutan mangrove di kawasan Wonorejo Surabaya, menjadi salah satu tempat tujuan wisata. Di sana dapat dilihat aneka jenis vegetasi mangrove dan asosiasinya seperti waru, bidara laut dan beragam jenis tumbuhan perdu lainnya.

Mangrove ecosystem is also a habitat for wildlife. Here live hundreds of species of birds, insects, fish, and mammals. In terms of economic functions, a mangrove is useful as food ingredients, syrups, cakes and others. Dye batik fabrics lately also use material from the mangrove.

Ekosistem mangrove juga merupakan tempat hidup satwa seperti burung, serangga, ikan, termasuk juga mamalia. Dari sisi fungsi ekonomi, mangrove bermanfaat antara lain sebagai bahan dasar makanan, sirup, kue dan lain-lain. Pewarna kain batik juga sudah banyak yang menggunakan bahan dari mangrove.


In addition to economic functions there is also ecological function of mangroves such as a place for breeding ecology for seeds of fish, prawn, crab and scallops. The solid tree is a major nesting birds as well as the natural habitat for many organisms.

Selain fungsi ekonomi terdapat juga fungsi ekologi yaitu sebagai tempat bersarangnya benih-benih ikan, udang, kepiting dan kerang. Pohonnya yang kokoh merupakan tempat bersarangnya burung-burung besar dan juga sebagai habitat alam bagi banyak biota.

The City government continuously makes efforts to save environment, including by performing maintenance and replanting mangroves. Activities undertaken not only to secure but also planting and maintaining efforts to avoid from the irresponsible destruction because we all know that the destruction of mangroves will also disrupt the ecosystem as a whole. Therefore once again, I invite all of you, jointly safeguarding our environment, for the sake of a better life for our children and grandchildren in the future.

Pemerintah Kota terus melakukan berbagai upaya penyelamatan lingkungan dengan melakukan pemeliharaan dan penanaman kembali tanaman mangrove. Kegiatan yang dilakukan terdiri dari penanaman, penjagaan dan pemeliharaan agar terlepas dari upaya perusakan yang tidak bertanggung jawab. Kita semua tahu bahwa kerusakan mangrove juga akan mengganggu ekosistem secara keseluruhan. Untuk itu saya mengajak agar kita bersama-sama menjaga lingkungan, demi hidup yang lebih baik bagi anak cucu kita.

On this occasion, I want to reaffirm our commitment to increasing environment capacity as an earnest and sustained effort, especially in the situation of the rise of environmental problems in the region.

Pada kesempatan ini, saya ingin menegaskan mengenai komitmen kita dalam meningkatkan kapasitas lingkungan hidup sebagai upaya yang sungguh-sungguh dan berkelanjutan, terutama di tengah situasi semakin maraknya permasalahan lingkungan hidup di daerah.

It all becomes challenges and task that require very serious treatment from all parties. As a manifestation to that effort, we have initiated to mitigate and adapt to climate change, sustainable management of forest, marine and coastal areas.

Semuanya menjadi tantangan dan pekerjaan yang membutuhkan penanganan sangat serius dari semua pihak. Sebagai wujud dari upaya itu, kita telah berinisiatif untuk melakukan mitigasi dan adaptasi terhadap perubahan iklim, pengelolaan hutan, laut dan pesisir secara lestari.

Good environmental management ensures sustainability of ecosystem services and the microbial life in it. Hopefully this symposium can bring ideas to better management of mangrove ecosystems, including technical and management issues in the protection, rehabilitation and sustainable use in Southeast Asia.

Pengelolaan lingkungan hidup yang baik menjamin keberlangsungan layanan ekosistem dan kehidupan biota di dalamnya. Mudah-mudahan symposium ini dapat membawa ide-ide yang lebih baik untuk pengelolaan ekosistem mangrove, termasuk masalah teknis dan managemen dalam perlindungan, rehabilitasi dan pemanfaatan berkelanjutan di Asia Tenggara.

Finally we are confident that you will feel at home and enjoy the hospitality of the people of Surabaya. I am also looking forward for cooperation and support from all of you for the success of this symposium.

Akhirnya kami berharap Bapak dan Ibu sekalian akan betah dan menikmati keramah tamahan warga Kota Surabaya. Saya juga berharap kerjasama dan dukungan Bapak, Ibu sekalian dapat mendukung keberhasilan simposium ini.


ix

Dr. Bedjo Santoso Chairman of the Organizing Committee

x

Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management: Mainstreaming Mangroves will be held for three days from February 27th to March 1st, 2013, by involving various stakeholders including donor institutions who have helped the development of mangrove management in Indonesia. The symposium aims at introducing the practices of mangrove forest management that will invite positive and good impression from the participants from ASEAN countries. The purpose of the symposium is to: 1. Share experience on mangrove ecosystem management, including its sustainable use among ASEAN Member States. 2. Develop the good and appropriate system and approach on mangrove management and sustainable utilization. 3. Promote capability of all stakeholders in relation to the mangrove ecosystem management and sustainable use.

Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management: Mainstreaming Mangroves akan dilaksanakan selama tiga hari dari tanggal 27 Februari–1 Maret 2013 melibatkan stakeholder terkait termasuk diantaranya lembaga donor yang telah membantu pembangunan pengelolaan mangrove di Indonesia. Maksud Symposium adalah untuk memperkenalkan praktek-praktek pengelolaan hutan mangrove yang baik sehingga akan menimbulkan kesan dan opini yang positif dari Negara-negara anggota ASEAN. Adapun tujuannya adalah : 1. Sharing pengalaman pengelolaan ekosistem mangrove termasuk pemanfaatannya secara lestari di antara negara-negara anggota ASEAN. 2. Membangun sistem dan pendekatan terbaik untuk pengelolaan dan pemanfaatan ekosistem mangrove 3. Meningkatkan kemampuan seluruh pihak yang terkait dengan pengelolaan dan pemanfaatan ekosistem mangrove.

The symposium is attended by around 200 participants from Indonesia or ASEAN Member States such as Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippine, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. There are also participants from Bangladesh, Dutch, Japanese, and Tonga, who came from different background such as mangrove practitioners, mangrove experts, researchers, entrepreneurs, mangroves including the NGOs and bureaucrats even from the central or local government.

Symposium ini diikuti oleh + 200 orang peserta baik dari Indonesia maupun negara ASEAN yaitu Kamboja Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippina, Singapura, Thailand dan Vietnam, dan juga peserta dari Bangladesh, Belanda, Jepang, dan Tonga, dengan berbagai latar belakang baik dari praktisi, pakar/peneliti, dunia usaha, pemerhati mangrove (termasuk NGO) dan birokrat baik dari pemerintah pusat maupun pemerintah daerah.

Mangrove in Indonesia comprises of about 3,7 million ha with a very high diversity. Due to its high potentiality, Indonesia proposed the establishment of a network among ASEAN Member States which named as ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNET). The first proposal was submitted to the 14th ASEAN Senior Official on Forestry (ASOF) Meeting in the year of 2011 in Chiang Mai, Thailand. One of the agenda of AMNET is to prepare and hold a Regional Workshop titled: “Mangrove Management as a Part of Coastal Area” which has been done in November 2012 in

Indonesia memiliki hutan mangrove seluas + 3,7 juta ha dengan keanekaragaman yang sangat tinggi. Oleh karena potensinya yang sangat besar ini, maka pada ASEAN Senior Official on Forestry (ASOF) Meeting ke-14 tahun 2011 di Chiang Mai – Thailand, Indonesia mengusulkan pembentukan ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNET). Salah satu agenda dalam menyiapkan AMNET adalah menyelenggarakan workshop : “Mangrove Management as Part of Coastal Area” yang telah diselenggarakan pada bulan November 2012 di Kota Surabaya dan Balikpapan


Surabaya and Balikpapan City; as well as to hold Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management: Mainstreaming Mangroves.

serta Symposium ”Mangrove Management as Part of Coastal Area” yang saat ini kita ikuti.

On the first day, Symposium is filled with Keynote Speeches from competent resource persons in their fields as well as the papers from the representatives of ASEAN Member States.

Pada hari pertama, Symposium akan diisi dengan Keynote Speech dari nara sumber yang kompeten di bidangnya, serta paparan dari wakil-wakil negara ASEAN.

On the second day, the symposium participants will be divided into three groups according to the interests of the participants: 1. Mangrove and Climate Change 2. Conservation and Restoration of Mangrove Forest 3. The sustainable use of Mangrove Ecosystem to promote the community’s welfare

Pada hari kedua peserta symposium dibagi kedalam tiga kelompok sesuai tema dan minat para peserta, adapun tiga tema/topik tersebut yaitu : 1. Mangrove dan Perubahan Iklin. 2. Konservasi dan Restorasi Hutan Mangrove 3. Pemanfaatan Lestari Hutan Mangrove untuk Kesejahteraan Masyarakat

Another theme beyond these three themes above can be adapted to the symposium as long as there is a request from the participants during the discussion.

Tema lain di luar ketiga tema di atas dapat diadopsi ke dalam symposium sepanjang ada permintaan dari peserta dan disetujui sidang.

On the third day of the Symposium will be held a wrap-up session which summarizes the result of the discussions of the second day. The output of this meeting is “Call for Action” for mangrove management in Southeast Asia. This Call for Action will be presented at the Government Official Meeting (GOM) which will discuss the Term of Reference of ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNET). The result of this GOM meeting will be presented in the 16th ASEAN Senior Official Meeting in this July 2013.

Pada hari ke tiga Symposium akan diadakan wrap up session yang akan merangkum hasil-hasil diskusi pada hari kedua. Hasil akhir dari pertemuan ini adalah ”Call for Action” untuk pengelolaan mangrove di Asia Tenggara. Rumusan itu akan disampaikan pada pertemuan Goverment Official Meeting (GOM) yang akan membahas Term of Reference ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNET) yang hasilnya akan diajukan pada sidang ASOF yang akan diselenggarakan padake 16 bulan Juli 2013.

On the last day of the symposium a field trip is organized to the site of community based management in Rungkut area, Sidoarjo. The purpose is to see the utilization of mangrove with Non Timber Forest Product concept, where mangrove’s flowers and fruits are used as ingredients for syrup, soap, cake, cookies, batik dye and many more. This can be seen in the show room managed by Ibu Luluth. After this all participants will continue the Surabaya City Tour.

Hari terakhir symposium akan diselenggarakan field trip ke lokasi pengelolaan ekosistem mangrove berbasis masyarakat di daerah Rungkut – Sidoarjo untuk melihat Non Timber Mangrove Forest Product, yaitu pemanfaatan bunga dan buah mangrove untuk sirup, sabun, kue, beras, bahan pewarna batik, dan lain-lain di show room Ibu Lulut di Kota Surabaya, kemudian dilanjutkan dengan city tour.

It is expected that after the symposium, participants will have the positive opinion on the efforts of mangrove ecosystem management in Indonesia, increase the regional consolidation on the existence of mangrove ecosystems, and improve network management in the ASEAN countries.

Diharapkan dari symposium ini kita mendapatkan hasil berupa terbangunnya opini yang positif terhadap upaya pengelolaan ekosistem mangrove di Indonesia, meningkatkan konsolidasi regional terhadap keberadaan ekosistem mangrove dan meningkatkan network pengelolaan ekosistem mangrove di antara negara-negara ASEAN.

On this occasion, we would like to apologize if in organizing this symposium there are shortcomings and things that are less convenient for all participants. Finally, I would like to thank all those who have participated and supported this activity. I hope what we have done will benefit us all.

Pada kesempatan ini kami sampaikan pula permohonan maaf yang sebesar-besarnya apabila dalam penyelenggaraan symposium ini terdapat kekurangan dan hal-hal yang kurang nyaman bagi semua peserta. Akhir kata, tak lupa saya ucapkan terima kasih kepada semua pihak yang telah berpartisipasi pada kegiatan ini.


xi

Preface - Semantics of Mainstreaming Mangroves Takahisa Kusano Co-Editor of the Proceedings Co-Chair of the Symposium Organizing Committee Chief Advisor to MECS Project, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Visiting Professor of Joshi-Eiyo University, Saitama, Japan

Our symposium had the sub-title Mainstreaming Mangroves. The main objective in organizing this symposium was to exchange ideas on mainstreaming mangrove management in Southeast Asia to save and benefit the people affected by the rapid loss and degradation of mangrove ecosystems. This includes establishment of a cooperation mechanism or ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNet) as a measure of mainstreaming. The organizing Committee felt that, in spite of its importance, issues related to mangrove ecosystems have been marginalized from the international agenda, especially in the donor community, and from major government development policies and programs in some countries in the region. One might have asked ‘Why do you need to put mangroves in the mainstream?’ or ‘Have mangroves ever been in the mainstream? ' The Committee members shared a view that human beings have been benefiting from mangrove ecosystems in many ways for thousands of years. However, mangroves have been disappearing rapidly due to the expansion of human activities in the last several decades. Degradation is causing economic and environmental difficulties among the people along the coastal areas in many countries. The three keynote speakers illustrated and answered the above questions very well. They did not only present comprehensive views of academic findings on the values of mangrove ecosystem services and their management, but also explained the need of mainstreaming mangroves as the regional interest of Southeast Asia. However, those who do not know much about mangroves, especially the ones who live in the Temperate and colder zones, may still wonder ‘Why mangroves?’ I would like to add a bit more explanation and elaboration for those people who may pick the proceedings with dubiousness and suspicions. Civilization started from where mangroves grew. The oldest mangrove pollen was discovered in Southeast Asia from the soil of 60,000,000 years ago. Coastal areas including low lands in what is now called Jakarta, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh and many other big cities in flat lands in coastal zones are assumed to be covered with thick mangrove forests. It is known that Indochina and the Malay Peninsula were connected xii

with the island of Borneo and the Indonesian archipelago during the last Ice Age. Homo sapiens is believed to have arrived in the area now called Southeast Asia 40 to 60,000 years ago. One of the early civilizations after the Ice Age might have happened somewhere in what is now called Southeast Asia where mangroves grew. It was assumed the civilized people of the region later diffused to the rest of world. Through identification of mitochondrial DNA, together with the recent findings of archaeologists and anthropologists, we are able to trace human migrations. Mangroves were once in the mainstream of concerns of the people who lived along the coastal areas of Southeast Asia. Anthropological studies show that early human beings had always utilized the numerous benefits derived from and had been protected by mangrove ecosystems in the areas along the 173,000 km of shoreline in Southeast Asia. The rulers and governing classes of this region before colonization started knew the significant wealth of mangroves for a long time. However, many of the present-day descendants destroy and clear mangrove forests without knowing this legacy. The decisions on coastal development and management nowadays were later made by the urban dwellers. Mangroves have been under-valued and marginalised throughout the 20th century, the era of development or the expansion of human activities. Mangroves have been lost and face threats mostly from large-scale conversion of forests to destructive and haphazard development. It is the age of economic development again. But this one is not about neither development as freedom nor empowerment of communities, but merely exploitation and development for economic growth, for securing energy and natural resources for a selected few. This kind of development does not bring forth a balance between the urban and rural communities and between exploitation and conservation. A great majority seems to have forgotten key issues like biodiversity, ecological services or even environment. It seems international communities do not remember or have forgotten the track of international agreements in the past, the wisdom of ourselves. The term Sustainable Development was used to mean to


develop ENVIRONMENTALLY sustainable society on earth. However, this term is now twisted to mean like ‘sustainable industries’ or ‘sustainable business’. This is short of saying that mangrove ecosystems and other major slogans of environment conservation are no longer recollected and are neglected by the world’s leaders or those in the economical growth machineries. Despite of the recent high alert on climate change and discussions on mitigation and adaptation, natural resources conservation and restoration are yet to become the highest prioritized issues at present. Leaving out and marginalizing environment conservation create a very bleak future for all, especially the next generation and generations to come. We, who understand its significance, are therefore responsible and should take the initiative to create a network that can empower to bring the environment, including the mangrove ecosystems back to the mainstream of international discussions and conducts in international, national and local development policies and programs. The symposium participants well shared the benefits from mangrove ecosystems, commonly in the country policies and individual presentations. The long coastline of Southeast Asia needs mangroves to protect its shores, estuaries, delta and lower riverine. The mangrove ecosystems provide aquatic resources. Houses are protected by mangrove forests from cyclone, high tide, strong wind, and tsunami. Corals are protected from muddy soil by mangroves. The participants of the symposium proved that a number of notable conservation efforts of mangrove ecosystems including protection, rehabilitation and sustainable use should continue. We are certain that many good practices and lessons learned exist in Southeast Asia. Also, a number of researchers have found effectiveness, and the needs for further improvement of certain policies, program, approach, practices and technologies. The symposium has provided an opportunity for the participants to share and learn these experiences, knowledge and perspectives by the policy makers, administrators, field managers, community leaders, government officials, NGOs and researchers engaged in mangrove ecosystem management in the region. This will mutually help all for further improving future policies, strategies, programs or projects on sustainable management. We used the terms ‘mangrove ecosystem’ and ‘mangroves’ in the title of the symposium. ‘Mangrove’ is a loosely used term, which can mean either any of the plants, forests or ecosystems, which exist in tidal areas such as coasts, lagoons, deltas and estuaries of the Tropics and the Sub-Tropics. The term ‘mangroves’ refer to the mangrove trees and plants. The resilience of the mangrove ecosystems is characteristic with adoptability to high salinity, low oxygen, changes of water level, and fast growth. Mangroves bring us hope in restoring and rebuilding

coastal ecosystems, if we apply correct approaches and methodologies. The facts and perspectives presented in the symposium are printed in this book. On DAY1 of the symposium, we heard about national issues and policies from 8 representatives from nations in the Southeast Asia region. The country presentations are printed in the proceedings as 6 full papers and 2 in PowerPoint format in the Appendixes. Many of the 51 presentations in DAY2 during the sessions of 3 groups, namely: Mangroves and Climate Change, Conservation and Restoration, and Coastal Management and Livelihood, reported on situation in details and the benefits and degradation of mangrove ecosystems. We have printed 48 full papers among them, and the rest are in Abstract and PowerPoint format in the Appendixes. We also had some poster presentations, exhibitions, and a side event participated by the CSR activities, NGOs, government offices and individuals. These presentations are printed in this book as the appendixes. We have seen the expected outcomes of this symposium have been fulfilled. The participants have learned from the shared presentations and brought home the gained perspectives and knowledge to further improve their own policies, programs, approaches and practices of mangrove ecosystem management in their own countries. The Organizing Committee’s concern to mainstream mangroves from its marginalized status in Southeast Asia was shared by all the participants. Actions necessary to mainstreaming mangroves in the region were listed up in the group discussions on DAY2. At the wrap-up session on DAY3, the participants adopted ‘The Surabaya Call for Action in Mainstreaming Mangrove Ecosystems Management in Southeast Asia’. The Call has addressed and appealed many more ideas for mainstreaming mangrove ecosystem management in each country. The Call can be used as guidelines in many countries and for tackling regional issues. The Surabaya Call for Action is printed next to this preface. KEHATI, Indonesian Biodiversity Foundation and Bank Rakyat Indonesia have announced a collaboration program on ‘Connecting Mangrove Green Belt Corridor to follow up ‘The Surabaya Call for Action’ at the closing ceremony of the symposium. The program will finance many projects by NGOs nationwide in Indonesia. This endeavour has shown an evidence of the Indonesian non-governmental sector’s commitment for conservation of mangrove ecosystems. It is hoped that the other participants diffuse ‘The Surabaya Call’ and actions to happen in their own countries.


xiii

A cooperation mechanism for shared learning in the region is deemed effective and necessary. To design and prepare a cooperation mechanism for sharing the good practices and lessons learned, the Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia and JICA have been carrying out the technical cooperation project for ‘Mangrove Ecosystem Conservation and Sustainable use in the ASEAN region (MECS Project)’ from June 2011 to June 2014. This Symposium is a part of the activities under the MECS Project. The Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia has proposed the establishment of ‘ASEAN Mangrove Network (AMNet)’ as the said cooperation mechanism to ASEAN Senior Officials on Forestry (ASOF) in their meetings in 2011 and 2012. It was suggested in the ASOF15 that AMNet could be started with ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network (ARKN) modality. This symposium was also organized as another step to establish AMNet. Indonesia will present AMNet to the ASOF 16th meeting in July 2013 with a detailed proposal. This is why, the MECS Project team originally planned to have a meeting with ASEAN government officials to discuss AMNet during the symposium. However, this meeting was acknowledged and ranked as an ASEAN meeting, and was handled by the ASEAN Secretariat. Among 9 ASEAN member states with mangroves, the representatives from 8 countries except Brunei attended. The results of the ASEAN Government Officials’ Meeting were shared with the participants of the symposium during its closing, and are printed as an appendix of this book.

Clever anticipation and emerging capital made grabbing of natural resources and the lands of other countries possible. Negligence and misjudgement of the global reality on the part of leading donors and multi-national financial supporters also add to this predicament. Also a long economic slump in the world, especially of the developed world, boosted the expectations of emerging economies. International rules and ethics laid in a long effort after the World War II are being wasted under these circumstances. For the sake of economic growth, closing one of the eyes on accelerated loss and degradation of natural resources seems very characteristic of this time development boom. The issue to save the ill-fated global condition might not have been the CO2 trade-off, but maybe the consequences from the loss of lands of natural resources for biological reproduction. What the international community should be concerned about now is preserving and restoring the resilience of the biological reproduction. In this light, I would like to say that ‘Mainstream Mangroves in Southeast Asia’ needs cooperation at its best. I see lots of hope in mangrove resiliency and the people who work to save it.

A final after thought. What happens when a globally significant agenda has been marginalised from the international agenda? This is seen well in the case of agriculture. Extension of modernised agricultural technologies to the farms and rural poverty alleviation were the major subjects of official development aid (ODA) throughout 1960 to 1980. But agricultural sectors were almost completely marginalised and bypassed in the last couple of decades by major ODA donors, World Bank, and from the international watch and debates. Global population keeps growing towards 2 billion and additional growth is expected by 2050. The situation is requesting an expansion of agricultural production of 70 % or more. However, usable land is in short supply everywhere. For example, the sale of lands and forests for palm oil plantation risks Southeast Asian biodiversity and resilience of bio-resources. ‘Land Grabbing’ by large-scale companies has been affecting vast swatches of Africa. So much so, in many parts of the world, agricultural lands and forests have been acquired by corporations, many of which are not native to the country. There are so many who lack the power to stand against the temptation of money.

xiv


THE SURABAYA CALL FOR ACTION IN MAINSTREAMING MANGROVE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH EAST ASIA We, the participants to the Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in South East Asia –Mainstreaming Mangroves held in Surabaya Indonesia organized by the Ministry of Forestry, Republic of Indonesia and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) on 27 February – 01 March 2013 Recognize that: People in the coastal areas of Southeast Asia have been and are benefitting from mangrove ecosystems and continue to depend on its services that nurture fishery resources, provide timber and non-timber forest products, reduce risks and damages from disasters such as flooding, tsunamis, high tide, strong winds and control the inflow of soil, sludge and garbage to the sea, maintaining biodiversity, providing wellness, recreation, ecotourism and the related income for the local communities, and storing and sequestering carbon for mitigating and supporting climate change adaptations. Due to perception of low value, large tracts of the mangrove habitat have been destroyed or have been lost in spite of the efforts of many parties; Good practices and rich knowledge, technology and perspectives on mangrove ecosystem management that involves local communities, whose integrated and comprehensive approaches in sustainable area management are commendable, exist in the region and can be shared and learned among countries; Mainstreaming mangrove ecosystem management including enforcement, top-down and bottom-up approach in the region’s development and spatial planning, and decisionmaking processes is urgently needed to stop the degradation of the coastal environment and the loss of coastal resources and benefits derived from a healthy mangrove ecosystem;

National and Local Governments 1. Harmonize and develop comprehensive policies and plans with active participation and consultation of concerned stakeholders on sustainable coastal zone management including production, conservation, restoration and rehabilitation, and usage of goods and services of the mangrove ecosystem, reducing risks from disasters and climate change adaptation for the benefit (including livelihood) of coastal communities and the wider society. 2. Ensure the implementation of proposed programs and projects, fund research and on-the-ground action to study on mangrove and to facilitate effective sustainable coastal management policies by all concerned ministries, departments and local governments. 3. Conduct more Research and Development, especially on more accurate data, facts, and figures for mangroves, establish Monitoring and Evaluation system, and monitor the environmental sustainability of coastal areas, including mangrove ecosystems. 4. Improve the communication and coordination between the Ministries and local governments and collaboration with concerned entities in mangrove conservation and management. 5. Enforce the rules and legislative measures strictly on violators and impose penal regulations if they fail to comply with the policy of sustainable mangrove ecosystem 6. Educate, raise awareness among local people on the importance of mangroves 7. Control, manage the expansion of plantations, e.g. oil palms, and excessive aquaculture farming, e.g. shrimp ponds, so as not to encroach in coastal areas, especially into mangroves, and promote the Aquaculture Stewardship Council standards. 8. Recognize and safeguard the rights of local communities to access and share benefits for their livelihood from the uses of mangroves. Consider the biodiversity safeguards and sustainable management and use of biodiversity

We, the participants, call for the following actions needed to be taken by all relevant entities in order to mainstream mangrove ecosystem conservation and management in the Southeast Asian Region:


xv

Researchers and Academics 9. Conduct more integrative Research and Development, especially on more accurate temporal and spatial data, facts, figures for mangroves, establish Monitoring and Evaluation system, for environmental sustainability of coastal areas, including high technology, in mangrove ecosystems management and conservation. 10. Identify and integrate traditional and private sector knowledge and practices into scientific findings and maintain engagement among the science communities through exchange of scientific information and follow-through the Manila Resolution crafted in the 2012 ASEAN Mangrove R&D Congress for natural and economic justification in sustainable mangrove ecosystem management. 11. Communicate, educate and raise public awareness among students, business sectors and political leaders involved in coastal area development to understand the values of mangrove ecosystem and mobilize them to take care of the environment. 12. Feedback the results of studies to local communities and government. Business and Industries utilizing coastal resources including forestry, fishery, fish-culture, agriculture, plantations, development, construction, and shipping, mining, oil and gas, tourism 13. Assess and promote the economic, ecological and socio-cultural values of mangrove ecosystem services from various angles in terms of the future of local residents and their generations to come. 14. Implement corporate social responsibility initiatives in sustainable coastal area management especially in the mangrove ecosystem. 15. Engage and invest in business activities that lead to positive environmentally responsible coastal development. 16. Refrain from dumping domestic and industrial wastes into rivers and mangrove areas 17. Educate customers, suppliers, employees and other key stakeholders on the values and economical importance, and vulnerability of the mangrove ecosystem. 18. Identify and integrate traditional and private sector knowledge and practices into scientific findings and maintain engagement among the science communities. Non-Government Organizations 19. Learn and apply knowledge of mangrove ecosystem and its vulnerability and sustainability.

xvi

20. Assist in connecting local communities with government agencies and the academic sector including research to promote cooperation in mangrove ecosystem conservation and management. 21. Generate and utilize more accurate data, facts, figures for mangroves, establish Monitoring and Evaluation system, environmental sustainability of coastal areas, including mangrove ecosystems. 22. Participate in and contribute to government and decision-making, planning and designing programmes and implementing projects. 23. Collaborate with the private sector in decisionmaking, planning and designing programmes and implementing projects 24. Raise awareness among local residents on the importance of the mangrove ecosystem values and vulnerability, and promote policies on mangrove ecosystem services 25. Combine mangrove conservation education and community development Local Communities 26. Learn and understand the values of the mangrove ecosystem for the future and well-being of their children and communities. 27. Participate and cooperate with projects of governments, NGOs, business and other sectors in conserving, restoring and rehabilitating the mangrove ecosystem. 28. Take own initiatives to restore damaged ecosystems by planting mangrove trees with proper knowledge and skills, especially silvicultural techniques and protect and manage natural mangrove forests. 29. Refrain from polluting and dumping domestic and industrial wastes into rivers and mangrove areas. International Organizations and Donors 30. Provide financial, technical and technological support in developing and implementing ecosystem-based research, sound programs and projects on sustainable mangrove ecosystem management and for sustainability. 31. Promote the formulation of international standard policies on mangrove conservation and management 32. Ensure the integration of mangrove ecosystem management and restoration for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation 33. Improve the communication and coordination and collaboration with ASEAN countries concerned with mangrove conservation and management. 34. Help boost networking among governments, NGOs, local communities and academics in all countries in the region to promote sharing of information and learning from each other’s experiences.


35. Stress and promote the importance of the mangrove ecosystem in every opportunity. We, the participants, therefore agree and urge everyone to promote this call for action in our respective countries and among our regional and international networks.

Recorded and witnessed this 01 March 2013 in Surabaya, Indonesia by:

Filiberto A. Pollisco, Jr., Ph.D Facilitator of the Wrap Up Session

TakahisaKusano, Prof. Co-Chair, Organizing Committee

FauziMas’ud, Ph.D. Group A Leader

Komar, Ir. M.Sc. Member, Scientific Sub-Committee

Maryati Mohamed Datin, Prof. Ph.D. Group B Leader

AgustinusTampubolon, Ir.M.Sc. Member, Scientific Sub-Committee

Somying Soontornwong, M.S.S. Group C Leader

Hiroshi Imae, Ph.D. Member, Scientific Sub-Committee


xvii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Messages Indonesian Minister of Forestry, Mr. Zulkifli Hasan.......................................................................... Minister – Counsellor, Deputy Chief Representative of Japan Mission to ASEAN, Ms. Takako Ito.................................................................................................................................... Vice Governor of East Jawa Province, Mr. Saifullah Yusuf.............................................................. Mayor of Surabaya City, Ms. Tri Rismaharini ................................................................................. Chairman of the Symposium Organizing Committee, Dr. Bedjo Santoso ........................................ Preface: Semantics of Mainstreaming Mangroves Co-Chair of the Symposium Organizing Committee, Takahisa Kusano Surabaya Call for Action in Mainstreaming Mangrove Ecosystems Management in South East Asia..............................................................................................................................

iv vi vii viii x

xii xv

Table of Content Keynote Speeches 1.1 Mangrove and Biodiversity, Mr. Demetrio Ignacio, Acting Executive Director, ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) ...................................... ............................... 1.2 Community Empowerment and Integrated Coastal Management for Sustainable Use of Mangrove Ecosystem in South East ASEAN Region, Prof. Dr. Rokhmin Dahuri, Former Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Indonesia .................................................................................... ............................... 1.3 Indonesian Policy on Mangrove Management, Dr. Hilman Nugroho, Director General of Watershed Management and Social Forestry Development, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia ........................................... ..............................

2

4

8

Country Issues and Policies 2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Issues, Policy and Programme on Mangrove in Cambodia. Kim Sokha, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Cambodia ........................................................................................................................... Mangrove Ecosystem in Malaysia: Country Issue and Policy. Siti Fatimah R, Biodiversity and Forestry Management Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia ................ ............................ Mangrove Management in Myanmar. Kim Maung Oo, Director of Planning and Statistic Division, Forest Department, Ministry of Environmental Coastal Conservation and Forestry, Myanmar................................................................................ ............................ The Philippines Trajectory in Mangrove Development. Gwendolyn C. Bambalan, DPA, CESE. OIC, Regional Director, Protected Areas, Wildlife and Coastal Zone Management Region IVB, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines .............................. Sustainable Management of Mangrove in Thailand. Wijarn Meepol, Mangrove Conservation Office, Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, Thailand ............................................. .............................. Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Surabaya City. A,A Gde Dwijawardana, City Planning Agency, Surabaya City Government, Indonesia ........................................................................ ..............................

14

20

24

30

36

42

Mangrove and Climate Change A1.1.

Estimation of CO2 Fixation Capacity and Growth Potential of Mangrove in Southeast Asia By Okimoto Yasuke, Saga University, Japan .................................... ..............................

46

A1.2.

A1.3.

A1.4.

A2.5

A2.7

A2. 8

A3.9

A3.12

A4.13

A4.15

A4.16

A4. 17

Blue Carbon Stocks of Selected Mangrove Sites in the Philippines By Dixon T. Gevana, University of the Philippines Los Banos, Philippines ........................................................................................... .............................. Allometricmodels for Estimating Biomass and Carbon Accumulation in Mangrove Forests By Haruni Krisnawati, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia ..................... ............................. Indonesian Mangroves Survey: Their Roles in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation By Daniel Mudiarso, Centre for International Forestry Research, Indonesia .............................................................................................. ............................. Rehabilitation of Eroded Coastal Mangroves Using Innovative Techniques: A Case study in Peninsular Malaysia By Raja Barizan R.S, Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM).... .............................. Recovery status of Aceh mangroves after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami By Onrizal, University of Sumatera Utara, Indonesia ......................... ............................ Community Based Disaster Preparedness in Cyclone and Flood Exposed Regions of Rakhine State, Myanmar By Htay Lin, Project Coordinator, Myanmar ....................................... ............................ Using of Mangrove Forest for Economic Income and Environment Stabilization (Case Study Jaring Halus Village, Langkat Regency, North Sumatra Province By Edy Suhartono, Fisherman Association, Indonesia ........................ ............................ Mangrove Stakeholders’ Coping Mechanisms to Climate Change in Philippines: Eastern Seaboard Islands By H.G. Palis, Supervising Science Research Specialist .................... ............................ Community Based Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation and Subsequent Development of Adaptive Collaborative Mangrove Ecosystem Management By Ben Brown, Mangrove Action Plan Indonesia ............................... ............................ Mangrove Forest Protection and Rehabilitation for Adaptation to Climate Change: Philippine Initiatives By Angelita Meniado, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources ............................................................................................. ........................... Partnership Approach in Mangrove and Coastal Conservation in Thailand: Lessons Learned from Mangrove for the Future (MFF) By Siriporn Sriaram, Mangrove for the Future, Thailand National Coordinator ........................................................................................... ............................. The Roles of Mangroves to Support Coastal Aquaculture (An Overview from Shrimp Certification and Land Cover Changes Related to the Release of Carbon) By Nyoman Suryadiputra, Wetland International Indonesia Program, Indonesia ............................................................................................. ............................

54

60

66

70

74

86

92

98

106

122

126

132

Conservation and Restoration B1.1

B1.2

B1.4

B2.6

Assessing the Vulnerability of Macrobenthos to Developmental Activities in Mangrove Ecosystems along Hamilo Coast, Nasugbu, Batangas, Philippines By Josephine E. Garcia, DENR and UPLB CFNR Campus, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines .................................................................. ............................. Evaluation of Mangrove Development in a Created Mangrove Wetland in Porong, East Jawa By Frida Sidik, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia............. .............................. Vegetative Propagation of Rhizopora apiculata, Casuarina equisetifolia and Hibiscus tiliaceus By Aminah H, FRIM Selangor, Malaysia............................................. .............................. Factors Influencing the Success of Mangrove Rehabilitation Programme at District of Brebes and Jepara, Central Jawa, Indonesia By Tangguh Gilang PW, Diponegoro University, Indonesia .............. ..............................

140

148

154

158

B2.8 B3.9

B3.10

B3.11

B3.12

B4.13

B4.14

B4.15

B4.16

Scum and Mangrove at Tg. Piai, Johor, Malaysia By Maryati Mohamed, University Tun Husseun Onn Malaysia........... .............................. Mahakam Delta Integrated Management Program through Mangrove Restoration and Conservation for Climate Change Adaptation and Sustainable Community By Syafei Sidik, Mulawarman University, Indonesia........................... .............................. Nature Restoration of Mangrove Ecosystem in Northern Vietnam using Remote Sensing and GIS (from Shrimp Pond to Mangrove Forest) By Satoshi KAMEYAMA, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan ........................................................................................ .............................. Empowering the Mangrove Stakeholders of Northern Palawan, Philippines By Eunice M Becira, Western Philippines University, Philippines...... .............................. Avicennia Forest and Sedimentation Behind Bamboo Seawall at Samusakorn By Saijai Samosorn, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand ................... .............................. Economic Valuation of Provisioning and Cultural Services of Sundabars Mangrove Ecosystem in Bangladesh By Shams Uddin, UNESCO-IHE, Bangladesh ................................... .............................. Policy Reforms in Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA) Cancellation and Reversion of Disused Fishponds to Mangroves in the Philippines By Dennis Fernandez Calvan, NGO for Fisheries Reform, Philippines ............................................................................................ .............................. Communities Welfares and Mangrove Management in Paklok Bay, Phuket, Thailand By Chot Tavorn, Khon Kaen University, Thailand .............................. .............................. Sustainable Private Mangrove Forest Management, Samut Songkram Province, Thailand By Somsak Priyayota, DMCR, MONRE, Thailand.............................. ..............................

168

178

182

190

194

200

206

212

218

Coastal Management and Livelihood C1.1

C1.2

C1.3

C1.4

C2.5

C2.6

C2.7

Wetlands Conservation through Education and Restoration in Sabah, Malaysia By Lee Ka Han, Sabah Wetlands Conservation Society, Malaysia..... .............................. Local Community Initiative to Restore Mangrove Ecosystem and Develop Ecotourism in Indramayu West Java By Madri, Yayasan Siklus Indramayu, Indonesia ................................ .............................. Trial Restoration in Degraded Mangrove Area Caused by Fishpond Development in Sembilang National Park By Rujito Agus Suwignyo, Faculty of Agriculture, Sriwijaya University, Palembang .......................................................................... .............................. Coastal Community: The Struggle for a Livelihood, and Achievements of Coastal Management By Chatree Maknual, Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, Thailand ............................................................................................... .............................. Community Based Mangrove Management, A Lesson from Basaan Village By Edi Tololiu, Community Facilitator, Indonesia .............................. .............................. Ecosystem Based Integrated Coastal Resources Management through Multistakeholder Participation in Southern Thailand By Kesinee Kwanjaroen, Sustainable Development Foundation, Thailand ................................................................................................ .............................. Local Government Involvement in Managing Mangrove for Ecotourism and Nature Education Purposes in the State of Pahang, Malaysia By Abdul Khalim Abu Samah, Pahang State Forestry Department, Malaysia................................................................................................. ..............................

226

230

232

238

242

248

256

C2.8

C3.9

C3.10

C3.11

C4.13

C4.14

C4.15

C4.16

C4.17

Mangroves Loss and Inter Institutional Cooperative Management for Mangrove Ecosystem By Abdullah Muhammad, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.......... .............................. Shared Learning as an Effective Approach to Restoration and Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystem in Southeast Asia By Chatherina Ugik Margiyatin, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia........ .............................. Streamlining Corporate Responsibility into Effective Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management Scheme in the Philippines By Abner Barnuevo, KP Group Philippines Inc., Philippines .............. .............................. Developing Ecotourism to Empower Local Community at Blok Bedul, Alas Purwo National Park By Eko Kurniawan, Chairperson of Badan Pengelola Wisata Mangrove, Indonesia ............................................................................ .............................. Interstakeholder Partnership in Mangrove Rehabilitation: A Lessons from Desa Ratatotok Timur, Southeast Minahasa District, North Sulawesi Province By Dennie Mamonto, Yayasan ASPISIA, Indonesia .......................... .............................. Socio-Economic Assessment and Analysis of Drivers for Deforestation and Forest Degradation Around Mui Ca Mau National Park By Pham Trong Thinh, Vietnam .......................................................... .............................. How Do Impacts of Management Differ Between Co-managed Mangrove Forest and Community-Managed Mangrove Forest? By Margie Gianan, Mahidol University, Thailand ............................... .............................. Strengthening the Community-Based Coastal Resources Management through Community Based Learning Centers: Case of Eastern Province in Thailand By Somying Soontornwong, RECOFTC Center for People and Forest, Thailand .................................................................................... .............................. Multistakeholders Mangrove Ecosystem Rehabilitation Based on Community. By Basuki Rahmad, KEHATI-Indonesian Biodiversity Foundation.. ..............................

262

268

274

282

286

292

306

312

318

Appendixes (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(11) (12) (13)

Presentation by U Hla Myo Aung ........................................................ .............................. Presentation by Poh Poh Wong ............................................................ .............................. Presentation by Mehdi Almasi .............................................................. .............................. Presentation by Hui Ping Ang .............................................................. .............................. Presentation by Cecep Kusmana .......................................................... .............................. Presentation by Lang Kiry..................................................................... .............................. Presentation by Steen Christensen ........................................................ .............................. Presentation by Mashadi ....................................................................... .............................. Summary of Group Discussion ............................................................. .............................. Side Event by KEHATI Indonesian Biodiversity Foundation: Partnership and Funding Opportunity to Support Mangrove Ecosystem Management and Conservation in Indonesia ..................... .............................. JICA and Mangrove Ecosystem Conservation in Southeast Asia ........ .............................. Organizers and MECS Project Team ................................. .............................. List of Participants ................................................................................ .............................. .

324 327 330 334 338 341 343 347 350

357 358 364

Keynote Speeches

2


Mangrove and Biodiversity Mr. Demetrio L. Ignacio, Jr. Acting Executive Director, ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB); Chair, ASOEN Philippines; Member, ACB Governing Board; and Undersecretary (Deputy Minister), Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines

As we all know, the mangrove is a unique ecosystem that straddles both terrestrial and marine environments. Its unique biochemical habitat creates one of the most highly bio-diverse communities the biosphere can offer. This biodiversity in the mangrove ecosystem gives it a more significant value. As practitioners in mangrove conservation and development, we all know that pretty well. However, not many people are aware of the values of the mangrove ecosystem. Mangroves are valued for their diverse ecosystem services. The mangroves regulate the impact of strong storm surges to coastal communities absorbing the energy of strong waves and wind, and decreasing damage from flood. They also serve as carbon sinks that mitigate pollution. They serve as soil erosion checks that capture and accumulate sediments in their roots. These same roots attract marine species that may be harvested, sold or consumed by humans. They provide timber and non-timber forest products; improve biodiversity; and promote wellness, recreation and ecotourism. Southeast Asia is home to 35 percent of the mangroves found on earth, where 36 to 47 species of the world’s known 70 mangrove species are present. Nine of the 10 ASEAN Member States are endowed with 173,000 km of shore supporting the highest biodiversity of coastal and marine fauna and flora on the planet. An estimated 600 million people depend directly on these resources for food and income, which also forms the economic base for the fishing and tourism industries of the region. Mangroves in the region occupy over 60,000 square kilometers. There are about 52 true mangrove species in Southeast Asia. Of these, 48 species are found in Indonesia, and 42 species in Malaysia. Of special concern to the ASEAN region are a number of mangrove species listed recently as Critically Endangered, the highest probability of extinction being applied under the IUCN Red List. The rare Sonneratia griffithii is distributed in parts of India and Southeast Asia, where a combined 80 percent loss of all mangrove areas occurred over the past 60 years. The species was reported to be locally extinct in a number of areas within its range, primarily due to clearing for rice farming, shrimp aquaculture and coastal development. Bruguiera hainesii, a very rare mangrove species, made it to the Critically Endangered category very recently, and is now only

known to exist in a few fragmented locations in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar. Camptostemon philippinense has been listed recently as Endangered, with only an estimated 1,200 or fewer remaining, due to the extensive depletion of mangrove areas for aquaculture and fuelwood. The Endangered Heritiera globosa has the most restricted distribution in Southeast Asia, as it exists only in western Borneo in Indonesia, where it is sporadically distributed and its primarily riverine habitat had been extensively impaired by logging activities and the creation of timber and oil palm plantations. Biodiversity in the mangrove ecosystem also includes crustaceans and mollusks. There is often a high population density of these animals in mangrove areas due to the high deposits of silt and accumulated debris brought down by the rivers. Leaves and branches shed by mangrove vegetation also add to the organic richness of the soil. Being detritovores, crustaceans and mollusks find mangroves a suitable environment. The mud crab (Scylla serrata), often found in mangrove areas, is classified as a threatened species because of its high commercial value. Another animal that could easily be found in this ecosystem is the fiddler crab (Uca sp.), so-called because of its enlarged and colorful pincer. Fish, on the other hand, come to mangroves either to lay eggs or for protection against predators. The mass of intertwining roots of mangrove vegetation makes an ideal nursery for juvenile fish. Some common fish species visit mangroves occasionally for breeding or for protection. Some examples are scats, milkfish, mudskippers, mullets and catfish. Other vertebrate fauna that inhabit mangroves are reptiles, including the salt water crocodile (Crocodilus porosus), sea turtles and the water monitor lizard (Varanus salvator). While the ASEAN region is bestowed with immense mangrove resources, it nonetheless suffers the highest rates of mangrove losses in the world. An area of 628 square kilometers of mangrove got stripped away each year throughout the last couple of decades. There is a decreasing trend in the size of mangrove areas all over Southeast Asia, the other parts of Asia, and the world – with significant decreases of 9.7 percent, 5.6 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively, in a span of 15 years.

Mangrove and Biodiversity

The chief cause of mangrove depletion in the ASEAN territory has been the conversion of mangrove inter-tidal areas to mariculture ponds, most commonly for shrimps. Pond culture is responsible for 50 percent of mangrove losses in the Philippines, and from 50 to 80 percent of Southeast Asia’s. Other forms of indirect damage from the practice of conversion extenuate to coastal resources, such as the discharge of nutrients by rich waters, or what is known as eutrophication; the associated depletion of natural stocks of fish and crustaceans; and the accumulation of toxins at mariculture facilities that render it unusable after a short span of time, leading to eventual abandonment and further degradation to the ecosystem, yet setting off the conversion of more mangrove areas elsewhere. The direct clearing of mangroves for coastal development, aquaculture and resource use, as well as the escalating population within coastal zones, have exacerbated widespread impairment to mangrove ecosystems. Over-exploitation for fuelwood and timber production accounts for 26 percent of mangrove forest degradation. Pressures affecting the decrease of mangrove areas include deforestation due to the domestic demand for fuel and materials for housing by nearby communities, and conversion of mangrove forests to either fish or prawn ponds for commercial consumption. In some mangrove areas in Southeast Asia, shore erosion is a very serious concern. While mangrove biodiversity is already in a badly degraded state, climate change is not going to make it any easier. The impact of climate change to which mangrove ecosystems are particularly sensitive is raising sea levels. On a possibly positive note, however, global warming could promote the migration of mangrove species to higher latitudes. This would be added protection to the coastlines of the higher latitude areas and, once established, would serve as breeding and nursery grounds for many species of fish. This would, theoretically, expand fishery resources to the higher latitudes. There is urgency in taking action that will better protect mangrove ecosystems. Mangrove communities are spread across the world’s tropical coastlines, mostly in localities with limited funds for conservation or research, and with only modest technical capacities for assessing biodiversity threats and developing conservation strategies. According to the initial study on the economics of mangrove ecosystems and biodiversity conducted by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity last year, the foregone annual benefits by year 2050 for the ASEAN region as whole is estimated at US$ 2.2 billion, or 95 percent prediction interval of US$ 1.6 to 2.8 billion. At a country level, the annual value of foregone mangrove ecosystem services by 2050 follows the pattern of loss of area, with Indonesia expected to suffer the highest losses at US$ 1.7 billion per year or 95 percent prediction interval of US$ 1.2 to 2.2 billion). Malaysia

is estimated to suffer the second highest losses in mangrove ecosystem service values at US$ 279 million per year or 95 percent prediction interval of US$ 228 to 330 million (ACB TEEB Scoping Study Report 2012). The values of nature vary according to local biophysical and ecological circumstances and the social, economic and cultural context. Our biggest challenges are to make the public aware of the true values of mangroves, beyond their knowledge that mangroves only provide food and firewood; to forge collaboration between science and policy; and to mainstream mangroves conservation into development planning. In order to address these challenges, adequate local, national and international policies need to be adopted and implemented. There should be massive public information campaigns on the values of mangroves and the need to conserve them. Decision makers need scientifically credible and independent information that takes into account the complex relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem services and people. Decision makers also need effective methods to interpret this scientific information in order to make informed decisions. The scientific community has to understand the needs of decision makers better in order to provide them with relevant information. In essence, the dialogue between the scientific community, governments, and other stakeholders on biodiversity and ecosystem services needs to be strengthened. The first meeting of IPBES – the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – held recently in Bonn, Germany recognized this interface. It is not enough that scientists generate information. They need to inform others, share information about mangroves, so that they would still be existing for future generations. I believe the term used here is “networking”. That is why we are gathered here today to share good practices and lessons, findings and perspectives, and to establish a mechanism of cooperation to mainstream mangroves conservation and management into our development planning and other activities affecting the lives of people dependent on the mangroves.

3

4


Community Empowerment And Integrated Coastal Management for Sustainable Use of Mangrove Ecosystem in South East Asia Region Prof. Dr. Rokhmin Dahuri, MS Professor in Coastal and Ocean Management at Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia; Member of International Scientific Advisory Board of Center for Coastal and Ocean Development, University of Bremen, Germany; Hononary Ambassador of Jeju Island Province, Republic of Korea; and Former Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Republic of Indonesia (2001 – 2004).

From sustainable development perspective, management of mangrove ecosystems in ASEAN region has been confronted with a dilemmatic situation. On the one hand, we have to protect mangrove ecosystem for its highly important ecological and social-economic values and roles not only for the sustenance of coastal and marine organisms but also for the sustainability of human welfare. On the other hand, the increasing population number and economic development in the region, especially in the last 25 years, have in many cases forced government, private sector, or coastal community to convert mangrove habitats for industrial zone, ports, housing, business centers, fish and shrimp ponds, coastal tourism, infrastructures and other development purposes. Mangrove trees have also been cut excessively for both commercial purposes like charcoal and woodchips, and subsistence uses such as firewood and construction materials. Thus, the real challenge for any mangrove management endeavor in the ASEAN region is how to strike the balance between protecting mangrove ecosystems and fulfilling social-economic development needs. When we are able to define and implement an optimal solution in the form of policies, programs, and strategies, then conservation of mangrove ecosystem and its sustainable uses in the region can be materialized. Empirical facts from around the globe have proven that to come up with such an optimal solution, ICM (Integrated Coastal Management) combined with the empowerment (capacity building programs) of coastal community is the most feasible and affordable approach. ASEAN countries harbor the largest mangrove areal coverage on earth of about 6 million hectares (Table 1) or 43.5 percent of the world’s mangrove area 13.8 million hectares. Among the 15 most richmangrove countries in the world that cover 75.3% of the world’s mangrove area, Indonesia posses the largest mangrove coverage of about 3.1 million ha (22.6% of the world’s mangrove area), Malaysia ranks number 6 of about 505.000 ha (3.7%), Myanmar number7 of about 494.580 ha(3.6%), and

the Philippines number-15 of about 263.137 ha (1.9%) (Table 2). Table. 1 The 15 most mangrove-rich countries and their cumulative percentages SN

Country

Area (ha)

1 2 3

Indonesia Australia Brazil

4

5 6 7 8 9 10

Cumulative %

3,112,928 977,975 962,683

% of global total 22.6 7.1 7.0

Mexico

741,917

5.4

42.1

Nigeria Malaysia Myanmar (Burma) Papua New Guinea Bangladesh Cuba

653,669 505,386 494l584

4.7 3.7 3.6

46.8 50.5 54.1

Asia Oceania South America North and Central America Africa Asia Asia

480,121

3.5

57.6

Oceania

436,570 421,538

3.2 3.1

60.8 63.9

Asia North and Central America Asia Africa

22.6 29.7 36.7

11 12

Region

India 368,276 2.7 66.6 Guinea 338,652 2.5 69.1 Bissau 13 Mozambique 318,851 2.3 71.4 Africa 14 Madagascar 278,078 2,0 73,4 Africa 15 Philipinnes 263,137 1.9 75.3 Asia Source: Journal of Macroecology, Global Ecology and Biogeography, (Global Ecol. Biogeogr.) (2011) 20,154–159

Table. 2 Change in Mangrove area and value in Southeast Asia by country 2000-2050 Country

Mangrove area in 2000 (ha: 000’s) 16 54 4329 699 102 250 254

Change in mangrove area 2000 – 2050 (ha: 000’s) -1 -4 -1656 -220 -6 -25 90

Total value change (US$/ annum: millions) -4 -2 -1728 -279 -11 -36 48

PI 95% low (US$/ annum: millions) -4 -1 -1239 -228 -10 -32 33

PI 95% high (US$/ annum: millions) -4 -2 -2241 -330 -12 -41 64

Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand Vietnam Total

6042

-2082

-2158

-1582

-2759

Source: L.M. Brander et al./Ecosystem services 1 (2012) 62-69

Mangrove ecosystems provide both direct and indirect products for human life and welfare (Hamilton

Community Empowerment and Integrated Coastal Management for Sustainable Use of Mangrove Ecosystem in South East Asia Region

and Snedaker, 1984). Direct products include for fuel, construction materials, fishing, agriculture, paper, foods, drugs, beverages, household items, textile and leather, and other uses. While indirect products are in the form of a myriad of coastal and marine organisms in which a whole or a part of their life-cycle depend on mangrove ecosystems, such as finfish, crustaceans, mollusks, bees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and other fauna (Table 3). Those direct and indirect products from mangroves form the basis for mangrove-dependent economic activities vital to many coastal dwellers and most countries in the ASEAN region, particularly Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. Table 3. Mangrove Goods and Ecosystem Services Provisioning Good and products

Services Forest Resources

Fisheries

Genetic Resources

Regulating Natural processes

Examples Construction material, food, fuel, tennins and resins, ornamentals, fodder Fish, shrimp, crustaceans, and other marine species

Services Carbon Storage and Sequestrati on (Blue Carbon)

Wild species and genes used of animal/plant breeding/ biotechnology derived from mangrove species product

Coastal Protection

Examples Provide high rates of carbon sequestrati on and storage Flood Regulation: Protect against storms, floods, and tsunamis Erosion Control: Contributes to wave attenuation and stabilization of soils

Supporting Natural processes that maintain other ecosystem services Services Examples Nutrient Maintain Cycling nutrient flows in surrounding air, soil, and vegetation Soil Roots Stabilization constrain water movement and trap sediment Primary Production

Organic matter produced through photosynthesis

Cultural Non material benefit

Services Aesthetic

Examples Beautiful scenary and landscape

Educational

Research, education, training, opportunities

Recreational

(Eco) tourism (Boat tours, boardwalki ng, bird watching, sport fishing, kayaking (etc).

In addition to those various products, mangrove ecosystems also provide multiple and sustained environmental services which are beneficial indirectly to coastal dwellers. For instance, there have been strong evidences that mangroves provide the following ecological values and functions: 1) Exporting detritus and nutrients that form the food base of a complex of marine organisms which in turn support valuable estuarine and near-shore fisheries including finfishes, shellfishes, and crustaceans. 2) Serving as feeding, nursery, and spawning grounds for a myriad of economically important marine fishes, crustaceans, and other marine biota. Although definitive lists are not available, it was reported that mangrove ecosystems also provide living space for a dependent biota of more than 2,000 species of fish, invertebrates, and epiphytic plants (Hamilton and Snedaker, 1984). 3) Serving to protect coastal properties, buildings, facilities, and infrastructures dampening storm surges and high winds associated with inclement weather conditions, and tsunami waves. In other words, mangroves can play as “a bioshield “ for coastal properties and infrastructures. It is noteworthy, while the mangrove coastal barriers may be battered and damaged in severe storms or

tsunamis, they will grow and recover naturally without costs to people. 4) Where mangroves occupy estuarine floodplain, they perform a flood reduction function. This function may be lost if the mangroves are filled up and converted into other land uses. 5) Helping to prevent erosion of banks of rivers, thus, protect properties adjacent to them. 6) Serving as habitat of wildlife and provide valuable opportunities for education and scientific studies. 7) Improving water quality of adjacent coastal waters by taking up suspended solid and floating materials. 8) Performing as a carbon sink so as to reduce unmanageable impacts of global climate change. 9) As a gene bank (genetic resource pool) such as wild species and genes used for plant and animal breeding, and biotechnology derived from mangrove species products (Table 4). Despite their highly important values and functions, mangrove ecosystems in the ASEAN region have been deteriorated in an alarming rate. In the last 30 years, nearly 50% of the original mangroves in the region have been destroyed. Unless properly managed, the current rate of loss will result to removal of all mangroves by 2050 (UNEP, 2010). Mangroves are lost due to conversion to aquaculture ponds, industrial estates, ports, business centers, human settlement (real estates), mangrove felling for woodchip and pulp production, urban development and human settlements, and harvesting for domestic uses. In general, mangrove ecosystems are fairly resistant to many kinds of environmental stresses and perturbations. However, mangroves are sensitive to excessive siltation (sedimentation) due to poor upland management (deforestation), stagnation, surface water impoundment, and major oil spills. These environmental stresses reduce the uptake rate of oxygen for respiration which results in rapid mangrove mortality. Water salinities high enough to kill mangroves (about 90 ppt) result from reductions in freshwater inflow and alterations in flushing pattern (water regime) from dams, dredging, and bulk heading. Lowered salinities from seawalls and coastal structures and restriction of tidal flow also kill mangroves. On the other hand, mangrove forests help maintain coastal water quality by absorbing pollutants from the water. The root causes of mangrove destruction in the ASEAN regions as described above include: (1) the growing population number; (2) rapid development (industrialization); (3) the greed of most private sectors (large corporations); (4) poverty lingering the majority of coastal residents with no or limited alternative livelihoods rather than by cutting mangrove trees, particularly in six developing countries of ASEAN which are Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand; (5) lack of awareness or understanding of majority of government officials, private sector, and coastal dwellers regarding the strategic values and functions of mangrove ecosystems.

5

6


Technically, to reduce threats on mangrove ecosystems and at the same time utilizing their products and environmental services sustainably, the original or remaining mangrove forests of every regency (county) and province of the ASEAN countries must be reserved for: (1) conservation, (2) sustainableyield, and (3) multiple-use zones, with a minimum conversion or destruction. Ideally, the area of these three mangrove zones in every regency or province should be at least 30 percent of the total area of a regency or province. In addition, mangroves should also be protected from excessive felling, pollution, sedimentation, and other environmental destruction. Conservation zone is dedicated to protect natural and relatively undisturbed mangrove forests to maintain genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity, and to provide areas for scientific research, education, ecotourism, and cultural interests. This zone also has functions for shoreline protection and habitats for finfish, shellfish, and wildlife. This zone must be declared as and managed for mangrove nature reserve. A sustainable-yield zone entails responsibility for two functions. The first is management for sustainable yield for timber production. In this case, a silvicultural system for timber harvesting should minimize negative environmental impacts and encourage natural regeneration. Planting should done in harvested areas where natural regeneration is insufficient. Clear-felling in strips or in blocks is so far a proper silvicultural system or harvesting technique which feature a cutting rotation of about 30 – 40 years. This system has been fairly successfully applied to mangrove forests in various countries including Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Venezuela. Secondly, the management for sustainable yield for fisheries . In this case, the areal size and quality of mangrove forest should be able to maintain the habitat conditions for sustaining finsfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other marine biota that can be harvested sustainaby in the mangrove area and in adjacent estuarine, lagoon or marine waters. In practice, it should be possible to combine management for both forestry and fisheries productions. A multiple-use zone is a mangrove area in a coastal zone allocated for forestry economic activity in combination with other economic sectors. This multiple-use management system approach, which has been implemented quite successfully in the ASEAN region, consists of four models. Firstly is for an integrated forestry and aquaculture. The integrated management system involving mangrove plantation with fish, shrimp, and crab farming used in Indonesia can be applied in other ASEAN countries to avoid clearing mangrove forests for aquaculture purposes only. Called “tumpang sari” or silvo-fishery system in Indonesia, this management model saves natural mangrove formations and simultaneously produces fisheries products.

Secondly, an integrated forestry and agriculture management model. Indonesia is the leading country in practicing this, another “tumpang sari” system. Basically, it is for growing agricultural crops, especially rice, within a mangrove environmental setting. The inner part of mangrove forest is used or clear-felled. Then, a ditch or small canal of 3 – 5 m wide is dug around the cultivation 1 -2 m over the high-tide mark. When it rains, salt is drained into the ditch. Rice or other agricultural crops are planted when soil conditions are suitable that is the absence of too much salt in the soil. With this model, the mangrove forests can be permanently used for agriculture which produces high returns. Thirdly, an integrated forestry and salt production. This model has been implemented successfully in Thailand. This simple system involves clear-felling the mangrove areas at the driest and saltiest inland site. Ponds of 50 cm deep are dug and seawater is pumped in (some areas use windmills). Solar radiation evaporates the seawater, so salt production is done only during the dry season. Rhizophora spp can be grown on the dikes of the salt pond. When these trees are 7 – 10 years old, they can be harvested and used for firewood for charcoal burning, construction materials, and other purposes. Fourthly, an integrated forestry and tourism model which has been applied in Indonesia (e.g. Bali, Tarakan of East Kalimantan, and Batam), Malaysia (e.g. Selangor and Matang), Thailand, and Philippines demonstrates quite successful results. In the sense it optimally fulfills the need for conserving mangroves and for generating economic growth through ecotourism activities. Meanwhile, in the area outside the aforementioned mangrove area which covers a maximum 70 percent of a regency or province can be used for various development activities such as ports, housing, industrial estates, and business centers. In view of adaptation and reducing negative implications of global warming and other natural hazards, a set back zone in the form of mangrove green belt should be established in front of (seaward to) all those development activities, building, property, and infrastructures. In addition, all development and human activities adjacent to the mangrove area within a coastal zone of a regency or province must be carried must be carried out on an environmentally friendly fashion. This includes conducting EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) prior to project commencement, applying zero waste and green technology, and using renewable energy such as solar cells, wind power, and tidal energy. It must also be ensured that economic growth generated by each development or business activity in the coastal zone should also accrue to local coastal communities on a fair basis. In other words, economic development of any coastal zone should produce an inclusive green growth which guarantees the realization of sustainable development.

Community Empowerment and Integrated Coastal Management for Sustainable Use of Mangrove Ecosystem in South East Asia Region

The technical approach as I described above can only be materialized by implementing ICM and empowering coastal community. ICM is ‘a continuous and dynamic process by which decisions are made for the sustainable use, development, and protection of coastal and marine areas and resources (Cicin-Sain and Knect, 1998). First and foremost, the process is designed to overcome the fragmentation inherent in both the sectoral management approach and the splits in jurisdiction among levels of government at the landwater interface. This is done by ensuring that the decisions of all sectors (e.g., fisheries, oil and gas production, water quality) and all levels of government are harmonized and consistent with the coastal policies of the nation in question. There are five dimensions of integration which should be incorporated in the development of mangrove-based coastal zone, namely: (1) intersectoral integration, (2) intergovernmental integration, (3) spatial integration, (4) science-management integration, and (5) international integration. Finally, to carry out all those approaches and techniques to conserve and use mangrove ecosystems on a sustainable basis, we need capable and highly dedicated human resources, not only in government and private sectors but also more importantly is the local coastal dwellers themselves. Because, they are the one who are experiencing coastal nature and activities on a daily basis.

7

8


Policy on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Indonesia Dr. Hilman Nugroho Director General of Watershed Management and Social Forestry, Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia

Introduction Indonesia is an archipelago consisting of ± 17,500 islands with about 81,000 km length of coastline. Indonesia has a vast coastal area includes that locates between land and sea borders, so it has a high complexity. Coastal lies as border between land and sea, therefore this region is influenced by the processes that exist on land or in the sea. In terms of management, coastal areas managed by various stakeholders that include Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Public Works, district / city government, and so on. Coastal areas may include mangrove ecosystems, coral reefs, seagrass beds and coastal ecosystems. Ministry of Forestry (DG BPDAS PS) considers that the coastal region is part of the Watershed unity (downstream), and in accordance with its main function to focus on the downstream basin mangrove forest and coastal ecosystems. Forest and land rehabilitation activities in the coastal areas is an integral part of integrated coastal zone management are placed within the framework of the watershed as a management unit. The magnitude of mangrove potential is a gift from God and a huge resource potential that if we manage as best as possible can certainly provide great benefits for all of us, for that we need to keep it wisely. Mangrove Ecosystem Conditions The coverage of mangrove forests in the world is about 16.530 million hectares (FAO, 1994), while according to Spalding (2010) the world mangrove forests reach 15.24 million ha. Asia mangrove forest area is the widest reaching 7.441 million ha or about 27% of the world's mangrove forests, while African mangrove forest area reached 3.258 million ha and the United States’s reached 5.831 million ha. In Asia region, Southeast Asian mangrove forest is the largest, reaching 5.56 million ha (FAO, 1994) and 5.11 million ha (Spalding, 2010). Indonesia has the largest mangrove forest in the world, reaching 3.10 million ha (FAO, 1994), 3.19 million ha (Spalding, 2010), 3.24 million ha (Bakosurtanal, 2009), and 3, 75 million ha ( DG BPDAS PS, 2010). Of 3.75 million ha mangroves area, about 2.67 million hectares is identified as good condition mangrove forests

where damaged condition reached 1.08 million ha (DG BPDAS PS, 2010). Mangrove ecosystem plays important role as a buffer of life. Mangrove ecosystem is useful both ecologically and economically, among others like following:  Connecting land the sea,  Preventing sea water intrusion  Protecting shoreline from abrasion caused by the fierce waves, including tsunamis.  Spawning a variety of marine life,  Providing shelter and breed various species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and insect  From economic point of view, mangrove forest provides timber and non-timber product  Having enormous potential to be developed into nature tourism  Research and education. In general, mangrove forests suffered extensive damage and massive area reduction. This is because mangrove is a unique and fragile ecosystem and has a high appeal to the community economically. Damaged mangrove ecosystem caused by land conversion of mangroves into fishponds, residential, industrial, coastal/port infrastructure, and logging by people for various purposes. In addition there are many 'people' who do not understand the importance of forest/mangrove ecosystem to keep the environment or its benefits for life. Most of the mangrove ecosystem damage (+ 70%) occurred outside forest area. The ecological due to reduction and damaged mangrove ecosystems is the loss of various species of mangrove flora and fauna associated with mangrove ecosystems, which in the long run will disrupt the balance of the mangrove ecosystem in particular and coastal ecosystems generally. Policy on Mangrove Forest Management Legislation which is used in the determination of policy in the mangrove forests management are:  Presidential Decree no. 32 of 1990 on the Management of Protected Areas  Government Regulation no. 76 Year 2008 on Forest Rehabilitation and Reclamation  Presidential Regulation no. 73 Year 2012 on National Strategy for Mangrove Ecosystems Management.

Mangrove Management Policy in Indonesia

 Regulation of the Minister of Forestry no. P. 70/2009 jo. P. 26/2010 on Guidelines for Forest and Land Rehabilitation Engineering  Regulation of Minister of Forestry no. P. 12/Menhut-II/2011 dated March 9, 2011 on Guidelines for the Implementation of Forest and Land Rehabilitation. RHL planning activities is carried out in two directions by combining Top Down and Bottom Up inputs to be put in the Technical Plan (RTK) RHL (mangrove) containing forest and land recovery plan as well as institutional strengthening, Management Plan (RP) RHL (Mangrove) which contains policies and strategies, tentative location, type of activity, institutional, financial, and administrative time in 5 years, Annual Plan (RTN) RHL (Mangrove) that contains RHL draft activities, details of the location, volume of physical activity, cost needed, time frame, institutional strengthening, coaching, training, mentoring, counseling, monitoring, and evaluation. Mangrove Forests Rehabilitation Given the extent of the mangrove resources damage is so high, the Ministry of Forestry established policies to encourage the implementation of communityempowerment based forest restoration and watershed land- that became the basis of the activities carried out to improve the mangrove forest. Furthermore, the policy is outlined in the program to improve Forest and Land Rehabilitation in priority watersheds. In line with the vision of the Directorate General of BPDASPS that is "Optimization to facilitate the development of Watershed Management and Social Forestry in order to support watershed function enhancement and society well-being ". Rehabilitation activities within the framework of integrated watershed management are managed as one unit under the management of mangrove ecosystems. In 2010 - 2014 mangrove forests and coastal area rehabilitation is planned for 40,000 ha (including swamps and peat) or 10,000 ha annually both inside and outside the forest areas throughout Indonesia. But for 2013 the target is increased to 15,000 ha. Target location for mangrove forest rehabilitation is within forest area located on deforested protected forest, production forest (poor/critical land and unencumbered right, and not reserved/permitting process for plantation establishment o(HTI / HTR), including Forest Park ( Tahura) managed by the district / city, and outside the area of mangrove forest which has been degraded / deforested and having impaired ecological, social and economic functions. In addition rehabilitation also conducted on mangrove forested coastal areas, in accordance with Presidential Decree No.. 32 of 1990 in which the protection of the region is conducted to preserve mangrove forests as the forming the mangrove

ecosystem and marine life breeding places as well as a variety of coastal protection from sea water erosion and the protection of farming behind. In order to support rehabilitation activities including mangrove, the forestry ministry initiated the establishment of the People's Garden Seeds (KBR) including mangrove garden to provide quality mangrove seedlings held by Farmers Group, where for the year 2012 as many as 400 units of KBR has been prepared. As for another forest and land rehabilitation program is Little Sowing Grow up Harvesting (KMDM), the Women's Movement Planting and Maintaining Trees (GPTP), Greening the Environment. Besides, mangrove planting activity is also conducted independently by NGOs, students, individuals and companies by utilizing CSR funds. The data shows that the realization of mangrove rehabilitation program in 2009 through the National Movement for Forest and Land Rehabilitation (GNRHL) has reached 107,739 ha both inside and outside the forest area in Indonesia. Development of model area for mangrove rehabilitation area silvofisheries model (wanamina) and planting in some provinces from 1999 to 2009 that has implemented in area of 3,355 ha with 293 model units. Rehabilitation of mangrove forests outside the GNRHL program in 2003 to 2008 has covered 2,362 ha area (219 ha area of regional the budget, DAK DR area of 2,033 ha and community initiative of 110 ha). Further than just physical activity, non-physical activities also held to support the implementation of the Mangrove Forest Rehabilitation such as training, provision of information materials related to mangroves, the provision of technical guidelines, mentoring and counseling. In order to support this non-physical activities, the Ministry of Forestry through the Regulation of the Minister of Forestry. No. P.04/Menhut-II/2007 dated February 6, 2007 have formed Mangrove Forest Management Office in 2 (two) locations, that is: 1). Denpasar-Bali for mangrove management area I (Java, Bali, Madura, Nusa Tenggara, Sulawesi, Maluku and Papua), and 2). Medan-North Sumatra for mangrove management area II region (Sumatra and Kalimantan). National Strategy Management

for

Mangrove

Ecosystem

As a country that posses the largest mangrove ecosystem in the world, by benefits it bring and strategic functions for system sustainability of life on earth as well as in order to prevent and control the rate of degradation of mangrove forest ecosystems, therefore it is critical to have a strategy to manage a recognized mangrove ecosystem and accepted by all parties / stakeholders roles and can be used as a basis for mangrove ecosystem management policy from thr national level down to regional level and blend them with characteristics of the local. The strategy integrates

9

10


the regional center of authority in accordance with the regional autonomy policy, the interests of the parties concerned in the management of mangrove ecosystems and to provide guidance in determining the status of mangrove ecosystems. National Strategy on Mangrove Ecosystem Management which was drawn up by the Ministry of Forestry, published in 1997 felt no longer appropriate to the current conditions, especially with the enactment of Law no. 22 of 1999 on Regional Government jo. Law no. 32 of 2004, and the establishment of Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. Therefore the National Strategy for Management of Mangrove Ecosystems (SNPEM) is reviewed the existing documents by organizing discussions, seminars and workshops (public consultation) involving cross-sector, NGOs, Universities, LIPI, Private and Community Leaders. Currently SNPEM has been approved to become Presidential Regulation. No.73 of 2012 on the National Strategy of Mangrove Ecosystem Management. This regulation contains the vision, mission, goals, objectives and strategies in the management of mangrove ecosystems. The programs and activities have not been included in this presidential regulation, it is considering the conditions and problems of management of mangrove ecosystems in each region is quite varied. The implementation of Presidential Decree No.. 73 of 2012 mandated the establishment of the National Coordination Team, assisted by the Working Group for the National Mangrove at national level as well as for provincial and district level. The duty of National Coordination Team includes (1) develop policies, strategies, programs and performance indicators of mangrove management, (2) coordinate SNPEM implementation regarding planning, management, coaching, controlling, monitoring, reporting and dissemination, (3) coordinate the preparation of financial support / budget for SNPEM implementation. Therefore, each region needs to follow up on this rule in order to implement the national strategy of mangrove ecosystems management by preparing a specific mangrove ecosystem management strategy at provincial and district / city level. This presidential regulation also mandates the establishment of the Coordination Team and working groups at the national, provincial and district /city level. Before presidential regulation no 73 of year 2012 was established, the Ministry of Forestry together with the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Environment has established a National Mangrove Working Group (KKMN) in 2006 which is supported by experts and non-governmental organizations that relates with mangrove ecosystem management. National Mangrove Working Group is a working team consisting of cross sectors / agencies / NGOs and mangrove observers and formed as a bridge before the

formation of Coordination Work Team (National Coordination Team) which as mandated by the National Strategy for Mangrove Ecosystem Management formally established to accelerate the movement and implementation of programs contained in the "National Strategy for Mangrove Ecosystem Management" as well as the preparation before the enactment of regulations on SNPEM. where the members consist of multi-stakeholder (government, private sector, experts / academics and observers) relating to the management of mangrove ecosystems. At the Provincial and District / Municipal Working Group has also been established in some areas Mangrove provincial and district / city in Indonesia. Furthermore, by the issuance of Preesidential Decree No.. 73 of year 2012, there will be some adjustment in accordance with the mandate of the Presidential Decree in question. Importance of Mangrove Management at Regional level In order to develop regional framework, coordination, integration and synergies in sustainable management of mangrove ecosystems has remain an integral part.. Therefore the Indonesian government initiated the formation of AMNET (ASEAN Mangrove Network), so that one aim of the implementation of regional symposium is to support the formation of (AMNET). This initiation has been proposed by the Ministry of Forestry at the meeting of the ASEAN Senior Officials on Forestry (ASOF) in 2011. To that end, on the 3rd day of this symposium there will be an ASEAN Government Official Meeting to discuss preparations for the establishment of AMNET where the results will be presented at the ASOF meeting in 2013. AMNET is expected to be a center of communication related on sustainable mangrove forests management in Southeast Asia. Problems and follow-up Problems encountered in the implementation of mangrove rehabilitation activities are among others:  Limited accurate data and information  High pressure on mangrove forests so that the rate of mangrove destruction is still happening  Low quality of human resources in the management of mangrove  Limited RHL mangrove (low mangrove rehabilitation success and unclear management for post-rehabilitation stage). Follow-up effort that needs to be done by the ministry of forestry, among others:  Cooperating with various parties in the provision of data and information on mangrove  Intensify efforts to strengthen institutional aspect of mangrove managers

Mangrove Management Policy in Indonesia

 Synergy between policies and programs in the mangrove ecosystems management  Increase community participation in mangrove rehabilitation  Determination of zoning / land use coastal areas as agreed / referenced various parties  The development and use of technology. Closing Government initiatives alone will not be able to handle the pace of current mangrove damage, therefore the active role of all parties will determine the sustainability of mangrove ecosystems. Coordination and integration in mangrove forest management should be implemented both at local, regional and national success to achieve sustainable management of mangrove forest.

11

Country Issues and Policies

14


Issues, Policy and Programme on Mangrove in Cambodia Kim Sokha1 1

Director of Fisheries Conservation Division, Fisheries Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Cambodia

Background Cambodia's extensive river system covers 2.7% of the total surface area and contains high minerals and nutrients. This has made Cambodia rank number 4 in inland fisheries productivity behind China, India and Bangladesh. The coastal area also has a high potential for fisheries productivity with 435km covers from Thailand border on the north to Vietnam border and across 4 provinces as Koh Kong, Preah Sihanouk, Kampot and Kep. The total marine and freshwater capture fisheries production is estimated at about 350,000 to 500,000 tons per year. This provides for 81.5% of the total animal protein intake in people's diets and represents a value of US$ 200-300 million (fish consumption 52.4kg/person/year). As a result the National Institute of Statistics showed in 2001 that Fisheries contributed 11.4% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Fisheries sector is crucial to people’s livelihoods and the national economy, the Royal Government has put in place the Rectangular Strategy. One side of the Rectangular Strategy is devoted to fisheries reforms which aim is law enforcement, making action plans, and strengthening all relevant institutions to achieve the national goals of environmental fisheries protection, conservation of biodiversity, socioeconomic development, good governance and poverty alleviation. The goals are clearly mentioned in the Royal Government’s political program on the Fisheries Sector, as well as in the Socioeconomic Development Plan, the Preliminary Strategy of Poverty Alleviation, and the Good Government Action Plans.

Marine Fisheries Resources

4. Marine fish species: 435 species, including 29 endangered species. Current Status of Mangrove Mangrove forest, coral reef and seagrass are the main habitats of the aquatic resources. Based on reported by FiA, the total number of;  Total mangrove forest area covered 78,405ha  Total area of reef is 2,800ha  Total area of sea grass is 2,790 and the details are showed in below table; Province

Coral Reef (ha)

Koh Kong Preahsihanouk

Mangrove (ha)

602

3,993

62,000

1,198

164

13,500

953

25,000

1,900

52

2,790

1,005

2,800

30,000

78,405

Kampot Kep Total

Seagrass (ha)

Status of mangrove area from 1973-2006 100000 80000 60000 ha 40000 20000 0

Mangrove forest, coral reef and seagrass habitats are some of the most biologically rich and economically valuable ecosystems: 1. Total mangrove forest area covered 94,600 ha (1979) 2. Total area of reefs is 2,806 ha and indicate 70 species of coral in 33 genera and 11 families 3. Total area of seagrass is 32,492 ha, consists of 9 species

1976

1987

1993 Year

2006

Issues On Mangrove Cambodia may similar issues to some country in ASEAN regarding to the mangrove management. Due to that some issues are identified as following; 1. Urbanization: because of increase population people need to enlarge their home which affects to natural habitats and biodiversity specially mangrove forest.

Issues, Policy and Programme on Mangrove in Cambodia

2. Unsustainable coastal development: there is no master plan for area management 3. Salt farming: high demand makes farmer enlarge area of salt farming which affected to area of mangrove. 4. Land encroachment for agriculture purposes 5. Charcoal production.

B. Policy and Activities: 1. Management and development of fisheries 2. Management of community fisheries and family fisheries 3. Management and development of aquaculture 4. Management and development of fish processing 5. Conservation of fisheries resources 6. Development of fisheries institutions and their infrastructure 7. Budget and Fisheries Infrastructure In which of seven policies, the policy number 5, Conservation of fisheries resources, is much involved in the management of mangrove forest. Some main activities of the conservation of fisheries resources are below; 1. Revising and disseminating regulations for enforcement and crackdown of all illegal fishing activities and preserving the inundated forest; 2. Increasing awareness of people in fisheries communities and general fishermen to the importance of conservation of fisheries resources and ensuring maximum participation from local communities with respect to fisheries management and conservation; 3. Protecting the important natural habitats and biodiversity; 4. Ensuring wide coordination with all relevant sectors in order to reduce the potential negative impact on fisheries resources as a result of developments in these other sectors; 5. Strengthening and increasing the conservation of sustainable fisheries resources through increased cooperation between stakeholders. Law On Fisheries And Decrees A.

National Policy And Vision On Fisheries Sector Royal Government has put in place the Rectangular Strategy. One side of the Rectangular Strategy is devoted to fisheries reforms which aim is law enforcement, making action plans, and strengthening all relevant institutions to achieve the national goals of environmental fisheries protection, conservation of biodiversity, socioeconomic development, good governance and poverty alleviation. A. The Vision for the Fisheries Sector: "Management, conservation, and development of sustainable fisheries resources to contribute to ensuring people's food security and to socioeconomic development in order to enhance people's livelihoods and the nation's prosperity”. In order to achieve the vision above the Fisheries Administration raise up seven policies to manage fisheries sector for ensuring sustainable utilization.

Law on Fisheries: The Fishery Administration is a Government authority, under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries whose management of fisheries and fisheries resources is based on the National Fisheries Policies and this law. The Fishery Administration has a uniform linear organizational structure, which consists of central level, inspectorate, cantonment, division and Sangkat of the Fishery Administration. The objectives of this law are to ensure fisheries and fisheries resources management, enhance aquaculture development, production and processing, promote livelihood of people in local communities for the social-economic and environmental benefits, including the conservation of biodiversity and natural culture heritages for sustainability in the Kingdom of Cambodia. The Law on Fisheries is contains of 17 chapters and 109 articles. Relevant to the mangrove management in chapter 6, The management of Inundated Forest and Mangroves, described clearly on the prohibition of some activities which affected to destruction of

15

16


mangrove and replanting of mangrove trees. Below the description of articles of 26, 27 and 28; Article 26. It is prohibited to set fires in the inundated forest and mangrove areas. It is allowed to set fires or use fires by the Fishery Administration to benefit silviculture or inundated forest and mangrove hygiene. Guidelines to determine areas for inundated forest and mangrove fire control, forest fire prevention, and the establishment of Inundated Forest and Mangrove Fire- Fighters Committees as rule for implementation in all inundated forest and mangrove areas shall be defined by the proclamation of the Minister of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. All citizens, community fisheries, armed forces, and all levels of authorities shall have the obligations to participate in the maintenance and protection of fish sanctuaries, forests, fire prevention and fighting against any inundated forests and mangroves fire. Article 27. Protected inundated area shall be the inundated lands in the fishing lots, the inundated forest areas and mangroves, which shall be protected for replanting and conserving inundated forests and mangroves and maintaining the stability of fishery ecology. Article 28. Shall be prohibited:  Expanding agriculture lands or using lands in the protected inundated areas for all purposes other than development of fisheries.  Issuance of land title in the protected inundated areas.  Cutting, reclaiming, digging out, clearing, burning or causing flooded forests and mangroves fires etc.  Destroying, cutting down of inundated forest and mangrove forest or pull out of the ground to collect woods.  Commercial collection, transportation, and stocking of woods, firewood or charcoals of inundated and mangrove forest species  Construction of kilns, handicraft places, processing places and all type of plants, which using raw woods of inundated and mangrove forest species.

B.

Decree on Fisheries: Up to now, the fisheries administration has done some decrees and some in process of preparation. However, the mangrove forest needs participation from community in management activities so the royal and sub-decree on establishment and management of fisheries community were approved by the King and Prime Minister to benefit to mangrove management. 1. Royal and Sub-decree on Establishment and Management of Fisheries Community

The purpose is to encourage the local people to involve in protection of fisheries resource for sustainable utilization 2. Draft Sub-Decree on Legal Procedure for Creation or Nullification of Fisheries Management Area The purpose is to provide the procedure for Creation or Nullification of Fisheries Management Area 3. Draft Proclamation on Fire prevention measure for inundated forest and mangrove. The purpose is to manage, protect and conserve inundated forest and mangrove for sustainable utilization through fisheries law. Stratergic Planning Framework For Fisheries: 2010 – 2019 The responsibility for major activity of the 10 year Strategic Planning Framework for Conservation is followings; 1. Identify critical or threatened aquatic habitats and design and implement appropriate policy, legislative and action-related measures to isolate, protect and rehabilitate them. 2. Identify critical or threatened aquatic species. Where species are threatened, protect them and take appropriate steps to return their abundance to acceptable and non-endangered levels. 3. Raise awareness amongst resource users about the fragility of the aquatic systems and endangered species and about the laws to protect and conserve those resources. 4. Enhance fish stocks through the release of fish into the wild (including the culture and release of endangered species), through the use of refuges in communities and through conservation measures and areas. 5. Collaborate with regional partners to develop and implement large ecosystem approaches to the management of fisheries and aquatic resources. 6. Work with regional partners to ensure coherence between fisheries management, development and conservation policies, plans and actions to enable the marine and freshwater fisheries of Cambodia to be effectively managed. 7. Understand, through research, the likely and actual changes that are occurring as a result of climate change. Where possible mitigate these changes through appropriate action. Where they are inevitable and irreversible, ensure that their effects are minimised and ecosystem services lost from them are, where possible, replaced through enhancement of other ecosystems. Goal 3 of the Strategic Planning Framework for Fisheries: 2010 – 2019: The fisheries domain and associated resources are in a healthy and resilient condition and sustainably managed


Indicators

The area of critical fisheries habitats and Endangered Species under sustainable management

2 Year Targets (by end of 2011)



3,000 ha of seagrass

5,000ha of seagrass

7,000ha of seagrass

300ha of coral reef 300ha of mangrove replanted

500ha of coral reef

840ha of coral reef

700ha of mangrove are replanted

1,000ha of mangrove are replanted

At least 4 species are removed from the list and at least 10 species are increased by 30% in population

At least 15 species are removed

At least 5 endangered species are increased by 20% in population

A.

The Programme Objective Programme objective of FiA (3-year rolling plan): The contribution of the fisheries sector to the achievement of national development objectives maximised. Sub-programme Objective of Conservation: Sustainable fisheries resources through protection and conservation are realized to ensure sustainable utilization. B.

Management Mechanism The management is level in national, provincial and commune. National level is composing of Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forest and Fisheries and Universities as well as International Organizations and Local NGOs. The provincial level is composing of provincial department of environment, rural development department, fisheries administration cantonment and department of women affairs and the commune level is composing of community fisheries and village resource committees. All actors above are involved in activities of mangrove management activities.

 Research and zoning  Cooperation and networks 2. Provincial Level:  Structure and responsibility  Planning  Potential area identification  Research  Law enforcement/patrolling  Education and public awareness  Promotion of alternative livelihood 3. Commune Level:  Support implementation of Law and other sublaw  Combination between 10 Year Strategic Planning Framework for Fisheries and Provincial planning  Supporting and participating in management and implement activities  Supporting in law enforcement, research and zoning  Participating in awareness raising, policy and plan development  Propose all proposals and issues to the national level Achievements The management of mangrove forest, FiA has achieved many activities as mangrove area identification, mangrove area boundary demarcation, establishment of community fisheries, public awareness, law enforcement and rehabilitation.

A.    

Mangrove area identified: Kampot: 100% Kep: 100% Preah Sihanouk: 90% Koh Kong: 40%\

ក40ោះ

ព្ពោះសីហនុ កុង

កំព 100 ត

90

100កកប

1. National Level:  Prepare law/legislations  Prepare planning framework: 10 years  Technical support

Valid Kompot Valid Kep Valid Preash Sihanouk

17

18


B. Mangrove area boundary demarcation: 110 poles deployed\

F. Mangrove replanting:  1,030 ha were replanted  150 ha in plan.

C. Community Fisheries establishment : 38 CFis established along coastline

G. Constrains • Poor network and communication among partners • Limitation of resource support (fund, human resource) • Long process on establishment of conservation aspects • Interaction between unclear development and conservation projects • Poor public awareness • Limitation of law enforcement

D. Public awareness: Conducted among local community

E. Law enforcement:  Day to day watched by FiA officials and CFis  Illegal encroachment; 1,023 ha were confiscated


19

20


Mangrove Ecosystem In Malaysia: Country Issue And Policy Siti Fatimah R.1 1

Biodiversity and Forestry Management Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to give an overview on issue and policy of the mangrove ecosystem in Malaysia. The paper will also discuss on mangrove management rehabilitation efforts, namely Tree Planting Programme with Mangroves and Other Suitable Species along National Coastlines.

Introduction Malaysia has managed its forests in accordance with Sustainable Forest Management practices. While focusing on economic growth and development, Malaysia will continue to give equal attention to promote conservation of its natural and environmental protection, and to utilize forest resources sustainably particularly for the benefit of the people dependent on it. Figure 1 shows the types of forest in Malaysia ranging from the mangroves forest to montane forest. In principle, these forest types are classified according to elevation. Mangrove forests are found along the coastline.

National Forestry Policy The National Forestry Policy formulated in 1978, serves as guidance for the purpose of standardization of forest resource management and development practices in the country, including the management of mangrove forests. In addition to the National Forestry Policy, the management and conservation planning of the mangroves also incorporate in the National Physical Plan and Integrated Shoreline Management Planning. National Land Council The National Land Council (NLC) is empowered under the Malaysian Constitution to formulate national policy for the utilization of land for mining, agriculture and forestry. The Deputy Prime Minister chairs the NLC and members consist of the Chief Ministers of Malaysia’s thirteen states and federal ministers whose portfolios have an impact on the sector - finance, trade, plantation industries and commodities, science, technology and the environment. It serves as a forum for federal and state governments to discuss and resolve forestry issues relating to policy, administration and management in a coordinated manner. Responsibility for implementation lies with state governments unless it falls within the authority of the federal government.

Policy And Forest Governance Under the Malaysian Constitution, land forestry comes under the jurisdiction of states which enact laws and formulate policy independently from the federal government. The executive authority at the national level only extends to providing advice, technical assistance and training, and to conducting research.

Country Issues The total mangrove area in Malaysia is currently 575,000 hectares. This actually constitutes a mere 1.7% of the nation land area. The total mangrove area in Malaysia has been reduced from 695,000 in 1970s to about 575,000 in 2005 (17%) due to land conversion/reclamation for agriculture, aquaculture, urbanisation, infrastructure development and natural cause mainly from coastal erosion. On 26 December 2004, an earthquake of 9.3 on the Richter scale occurred on the sea floor on the west coast of North Sumatra, Indonesia, generating a powerful wave resulting in the largest tsunami the world has ever experienced last forty years. Malaysia was also affected by the tsunami besides Acheh, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Myanmar and India. In Malaysia, the tsunami though much less destructive compared with other countries, was one of the worst natural disasters in the country’s history. The number of deaths currently stands at 68 with 52 in Penang, 12 in Kedah, 3 in Perak and 1 in Selangor and property losses amounted to about RM25 million.

Mangrove Ecosystem in Malaysia: Country Issue and Policy

planting of mangroves and other suitable tree species since 2005. The Forestry Departments had identified a total of 3,200 hectares along the coastline to be planted with mangroves and other suitable tree species between 2005 to 2015. As at the end of 2012, a total area of 2,402.83 hectares had been planted with more than 6.3 million trees comprising of Rhizophora apiculata, R. mucronata, Avicennia spp., Xylocarpus spp., Sonneratia spp., Nypa fruticans, Casuarina equisetifolia, Callophyllum inophyllum, Fragrae fagrans and Syzygium grande. This progamme being implemented through an integrated approach, involving multi stakeholders comprising of federal and state governments, relevant ministries, technical departments, agencies, research and institutions of higher learning, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil and local communities.

A house damaged by the 2004 tsunami Mangrove Rehabilitation Efforts In this endeavour, the Government of Malaysia through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) had formed a National Task Force namely Special National Task Force on the Planting of Mangrove and Other Suitable Tree Species Along the Coastlines to implement the Planting of Mangrove Trees and Other Suitable Tree Species along the National Coastal Areas Rehabilitation Programme. Among others, the major tasks of these National Task Force are to carry out concerted/continuous efforts on the rehabilitation and conservation of coastal forests, promotion of research and development (R&D) through adoption of a multidisciplinary and integrated approaches involving federal and state governments, research institutions, non-governmental organizations and local communities. Under the National Task Force, three technical committees were formed namely the Technical Committee on Planning and Implementation (TCPI), Technical Committee on Research and Development (TCRD) and Technical Committee on Monitoring (TCM). These technical committees had their specific tasks to plan and implement; undertake research and development (R&D); and, evaluate and monitor the implementation of the planting projects along the coastal area. The conservation and rehabilitation of the coastal area had been intensified through restoration or

Mangrove Planting Programme

21

22


Innovation Technique

Awareness Program

Conclusion In short, Malaysia will continue efforts to restore and rehabilitate the mangrove areas. The Planting of Mangrove and Other Suitable Tree Species Along the Coastlines could directly contribute in stabilizing buffer zones to counter incoming strong waves and erosions along the national coastlines, as well as providing significant benefits to socio-economic and protecting villagers and people of coastline dwellers. In this context, the coastal dwellers are continuously encouraged to participate actively in this tree planting activity for the effective implementation of the national coastline rehabilitation and conservation programme. Involvement of NGOs and local communities

Mangrove Ecosystem in Malaysia: Country Issue and Policy

23

24


Mangrove Management in Myanmar Kin Maung Oo1 1

Director of Planning and Statistic Division, Forest Department, Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry, Myanmar

Introduction

Forest Management in Myanmar

Myanmar is rich in biodiversity because of diverse ecosystems and of different elevations from sea level to high mountainous region, with an elevation of near 6,000 meters. It has a long coastline covering almost the entire east coast of the Bay of Bengal. Myanmar is also a country prone to heavy rainfall, as floods regularly occur during the mid-monsoon period (June to August) in areas traversed by rivers or large streams. Myanmar has a long coastline of nearly 3 000 km. It can be divided into three coastal regions: the Rakhine Coastal Region (from the mouth of the Naaf River to Mawtin Point, about 740 km in length), the Ayeyarwaddy Delta and the Gulf of Moattama (Martaban) Coastal Region (from the Mawtin Point to the Gulf of Moattama, about 460 km in length) and the Thanintharyi Coastal Region (from the Gulf of Moattama to the mouth of the Pakchan River, about 1 200 km in length) in the Bay of Bengal and in the Andaman Sea.

Myanmar Selection System (MSS) has been the principle forest management system applied in managing natural forests in Myanmar since 1856. Although Myanmar has a long tradition in Forest Management, it is a country striving to sustain its valuable forest resources. National forest policy focusing on the SFM has been in place since its promulgation in 1995. To achieve national goal of SFM, forest legislations have been reviewed and revised. A 30 year National Forest Master Plan has been formulated and adopted. Also management plans at Forest Management Unit (FMU) level have reviewed and revised in line with SFM concepts. In order to monitor, assess and reporting on SFM, Myanmar has developed its own C&I and is actively participating in regional initiatives on MAR-SFM, Timber Certification.

Forest Policy

The enormous range of terrestrial and aquatic environments on the earth has been classified into a number of ecosystems. Major ecosystems include tropical rain forests, grasslands, wetlands, coral reefs and mangrove. The mangrove ecosystems play a vital role in buffering the force of extreme costal events and protecting the life and properties of human dwelling in the coastal areas. Even before the 2004 Tsunami, countries have been experiencing rapid loss of mangrove ecosystems mainly due to anthropogenic factors including the unprecedented growth of tourism sector, shrimp farming and paddy. In addition to the provision of ecosystem functions, the mangroves are instrumental in supporting the livelihoods of the local coastal communities. These mangrove ecosystems also perform vital hydrological functions and serve as breeding grounds for fish and other marine species. Almost 40% of the world’s mangroves are concentrated in Asia. The region also has accounted for the highest loss of mangrove area over the last decade. The mangrove ecosystems in Myanmar are located mainly in three geographical regions namely Ayeyarwady Delta and, Tanintheryi and Yakhine coasts. In spite of the known ecological and economic value of mangroves, there has been unsustainable exploitation of mangroves for commercial and housing needs mainly due to the lack of the ecological role of the mangrove amongst the related stakeholders. Struck by the cyclone Nargis, in 2008 May, mangrove in the

To promote sustainable forest management and development for attaining socio-economic benefits and environmental stability, a new forest policy was adopted in 1995. The six imperatives of the Forest Policy are: • Protection of soil, water, wildlife, bio-diversity and environment; • Sustainability of forest resources to ensure perpetual supply of both tangible and intangible benefits accrued from the forests for the present and future generations; • Basic needs of the people for fuel, shelter, food and recreation; • Efficiency to harness the full economic potential of forest resource; • Participation of the people in the conservation and utilization of the forests; and • Public awareness about the vital role of forests in socioeconomic development of the nation.

Background

Mangrove Management in Myanmar

Ayeyawady delta suffered a great lost both in extent of forest cover and species diversity. Despite Myanmar Forest Department in cooperation with related stakeholders is trying its best to sustainably manage the mangrove ecosystems, the mangrove ecosystem rehabilitation and conservation have yet to be paid enough support in terms of budget, human resources and law enforcement.

shown in the following table. Area in acres Sr. 1 2 3 4

Mangrove Resources In Myanmar

5

Mangrove forests are of the fundamental natural resources found in coastlines throughout tropical and subtropical regions of the world. In Myanmar, mangroves occur extensively in three geographical regions, namely, Taninthayi Division, Rakhine State and Ayeyarwaddy Delta, the areas touching with coasts of Bay of Bengal. Along the 1385 miles-long coastline of the country, these mangrove forests serve as the link between inland and marine ecosystems. Like other countries, Myanmar also faced with decrease of mangrove forests due to changes of land use pattern in pursuit of socio-economic development. The situation of mangrove forests in Myanmar, particularly in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, is briefly described below. Pre-Cyclone Situation of mangrove forests in Myanmar Sr. 1 2 3

Region Rakhine State Ayeyarwaddy Division Taninthayi Division Total

Area (Acres) Area (Acres) in 1980 in 2002 414,470 158,080 679,019 341,848 647,571

203,585

1,741,060

703,515

(Source: Planning & Statistics Division, Forest Department)

A.

The Ayeyawady Delta

The Ayeyawady Delta covers an area of 33,670 km2 and is composed of a large network of creeks, streams and rivers. Due to its low altitude (maximum 3 meter above sea level), this region is frequently flooded by tides and rains during the rainy seasons. The tidal action in the Delta region together with various other conditions constitutes an ideal ecological environment for mangrove vegetation. In Myanmar, Ayeyawady Delta alone, therefore, encompassed about 2,500 km2 of mangrove forest in the past. In the Ayeyawady Delta the mangrove forest reserves were established in 1920s. The mangrove forest cover has been decreasing over time as a consequence of various reasons such as encroachment into the reserved forests, increased demand for wood fuel caused by rapid population growth and conversion of mangroves into other land uses (e.g. agricultural expansion and aquaculture) to achieve economic development. The periodic decreases of mangrove cover by reserved forest in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta are

6 7 8 9

Reserve d Forest Kyakank winpauk Pyinalan

1924

1954

1974

1983

1995

2001

2007

66,650

64,401

97,809

87,362

Kakakya n Labutkw e Kalayaik

66,471

66,095 7,304

32,09 4 70,86 8 57,24 9 1,969

37,98 6 69,21 1 29,55 2 1,669

24,89 3 62,95 2 19,31 7 1,432

10,76 1 31,50 0 7,196

12,846

61,42 9 90,03 5 66,43 1 6,055

21,345

21,295

1,378

1,020

232

16,465

16,398

9,272

228

181

-

133,563

128,103

31,115

30,991

178,958

157,538

625,222

579,487

18,68 6 16,46 5 124,6 33 30,98 0 156,2 02 570,9 16

6,046

Nyinaun g Kadonka ni Meinma hla Pyindaye

105,0 19 31,07 3 137,0 40 450,6 30

83,99 8 30,48 9 142,6 66 397,1 77

52,12 3 30,31 9 84,36 9 276,6 06

28,94 2 27,06 1 55,20 0 160,9 31

Total

39

Effort of saving Mangroves in Ayeyarwaddy delta The fate of the Ayeyarwaddy delta mangroves in Myanmar, where mangrove forestlands were reclaimed mainly for paddy (rice) over many decades, illustrates how mangroves are being degraded and destroyed, generally at a very much higher rate than that of tropical rainforests. The delta was formerly covered with dense mangrove forests, most of which has been cleared during the last two decades to grow rice and to produce charcoal for domestic use. Though the production of charcoal was banned in 1993 the average rate of deforestation in the delta mangroves continued at 2.4 % per annum, about three times higher than the national forest depletion rate of 0.74 %. Satellite photos show that in 1995, only about 6% of the land in Laputta Township and 24% in Bogalay Township were still forested, while Mawlamyuinegyun Township had lost all its forest cover. The combined area of Mangrove Forest Reserve in three townships is registered at 671,492 acres but most of which has turned into vast area of paddy land. B.

Mangroves in Yakhine State

The rivers of Yakhine State flow into the Bay of Bengal and are tidal to a considerable distance inland. The tidal mangrove areas are most extensive at the mouth of the Kispanadi, Natt, Mayu and Laymyo Rivers and near Rambye and Manaung islands. The mangroves of the Yakhine State provide a home for around thirty-five tree species, a complex and diverse range of other vegetation and a unique mixture of marine and terrestrial fauna. Wunbaik mangrove forest is situated in Yanbye Township, Kyaukpyu District. The area was declared a reserve by order No.343 of the Minister for Forestry in 1931. The total reserved area is about 22,919 hectares. The main objective of reserve was to supply fuel wood for salt production, brick baking and charcoal production. Even though deforestation in Wunbaik Forest Reserve has been significant in the past the

25

26


forest cover status of it is still better than the mangrove of anywhere in the Ayeyawady Delta. C.

Mangrove in Tanintheryi Division

The coral ecosystems and the islands of the Mergui archipelago form a unique network of aquatic ecosystems providing favorable opportunities for offshore or near-shore fishing industries and ample potentials for ecotourism. Most islands of Mergui archipelago cover with tropical rain forest. The forest resources are some extent in good condition and mangroves in particular are probably intact or climax condition in the some islands, which are worthwhile to conserve as the heritage of the world. With clear, straight and strong boles, dirk green and closed canopies, and pure and uniform stands with enormous stilt roots for acres, the scenery of mangrove in Lampi Island is miraculous. The Lampi Island is one of the largest islands in Mergue archipelagos and, comprised of surrounding islets, has been notified as Marine National Park by Ministry of Forestry since 1996. In Lampi national park about three ecosystems, such as mangrove, coral reef and tropical rain forest ecosystems etc can be observed. But, because of weakness in management, marked depletion of natural resources such as wildlife, rain forests and coral reef is occurring within and around the National Park. Mangrove Management In Myanmar Myanmar’s mangroves was 6th largest in area on the world according to IUCN in the 1980s. Provisioning invaluable goods and services, Myanmar also possesses one of the largest coastal environments in the Indian Ocean Ring countries. All the types of mangrove namely, riverine, basin, fringe and over-wash, can be seen in Myanmar. More than 60 true and associate mangrove species are also found in Myanmar. Though, here in Myanmar, mangroves mostly exist in the three regions, more attention is paid to the mangrove of Ayeyawady Delta than other two geographical areas due mainly to socioeconomic and environmental considerations. Among three regions, mangrove in Tanintheryi region is the best and Yakhine second in quality. Natural or intact mangrove can still be found in Tanintheryi region in lampi marine national park which represents rich biodiversity. Struck by the Cyclone Nargis on the 2nd and 3rd of May in 2008, the mangroves in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta were severely damaged. After the incident of Nargis, mangroves are being aware by people, thereby people participation of mangrove conservation and rehabilitation activities in Myanmar is increased. Forest Department, Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry has been playing a major role to manage mangrove ecosystems through reservation, restoration and rehabilitation activities.

Following are some salient mangrove management activities in Myanmar. Pre-cyclone activities of mangrove conservation and management in the Ayeyawady Delta are as follow: a) Management of natural stands: In each Township of Laputta and Bogalay, 150 acres of natural stands have been regenerated annually by means of tending operations. b) Plantation establishment: Annually, 1,000 acres of mangrove plantation have been established in each Township of Laputta and Bogalay. During the period from 1988 to 2007, the area extents of established plantations in Laputta, Bogalay and Mawlamyinegyun Townships are 21,450 acres, 16,375 acres and 1,250 acres respectively, which adds up to a combined total of 39,075 acres in three Townships. c) Community forestry: Community forestry was initiated in Laputta and Bogalay Townships in 1998. To date, 65 users’ groups in Laputta Township have established community forests with an area of 21,747.5 acres. In Bogalay, 4,083.8 acres were established by 33 users’ groups. Due to various reasons, only 7 users’ groups in Bogalay Township supported by Forest Resources and Environment Development Association (FREDA) have successfully implemented the community forestry practice. In Lapputa Township, it was observed that only 7 users’ groups continued with their community forests. d) International cooperation: Apart from its own efforts to conserve and manage mangrove forests in line with adopted policy and guidelines, Forest Department under the Ministry of Forestry has also jointly implemented mangrove conservation projects in cooperation with international organizations such as UNDP/FAO, JICA and local NGOs. Soon after struck of the Cyclone Nargis, Forest Department prepared a work plan namely “Action Plan for Rehabilitation of the Cyclone Nargis Affected Areas and Prevention from Future Natural Disasters” with a primary goal to regain protection as well as production functions of mangrove forests for the local population, and stabilization of coastal environment in the cyclone-affected areas through restoration and rehabilitation activities. Activities accomplished are mentioned below.


Departmental Plantations No.

Township

Year

Name of Reserved Forest

1

Boglay

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-1011 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Kadonkani

2

Pyapon

3

Laputta

ditto ditto Pyindaye ditto Pyinalan+Kyakankwinpauk ditto ditto TOTAL

Area (Acre) 1000 1000 750 1000 500 1000 1000 800 7050

Remark; the objectives of mangrove plantation are to conserve mangrove and costal ecosystems, and to provide regular necessity of firewood and forest products while offering protection functions to the costal dwellers.

In cooperation with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Forest Department as a major implementation agency and SLRD, MAS, DOF as coordinating agencies, a project namely, “Integrated Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management Project through Community Participation in the Ayeyawady Delta” has been being implemented since 2007. Major activities of the project are construction of nurseries and extension centers, community forestry, action research plantations, extension and fish culture (trial). Establishment of action research plantations No. Township

Year

Name of Reserved Forest

1

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2009-2010 2010-2011 2009-2010 2010-2011

Kadonkani

Boglay

2

Pyapon

3

Laputta

ditto ditto Pyindaye ditto Pyinalan+Kyakankwinpauk ditto TOTAL

Area (Acre) 212 300 80 14 80 500 240 1426

Remark; The objectives of Action Research Plantations are to make research on growth rate, adaptability and usefulness of mangrove tree species relating to land elevation and tidal inundation of the Delta Area. Depend on results gained from research activities; the most appropriate species will be selected and used in future reforestation activities in correlation with specific objectives.

Community Forestry No. Township 1

Boglay

Year

Name of Reserved Forest 2009-2010 Kadonkani 2009-2010 Pyindaye

2

Pyapon

2009-2010 Pyindaye

3

Laputta

2009-2010 Pyinalan 2009-2010 Pyinalan 2009-2010 Pyinalan 2009-2010 Kyakankwinpauk TOTAL

Name of village Apyin Padekaw Hngetkyi Taung Htaungyi Tan Kanpalar Tapin Nyaung Tapin Thayakone Kwakwa Lay

Area (Acre) 50 50 100

as soil conservation, river bank protection and disaster prevention.

natural

Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry clearly recognizes local NGO’s important role in forest management activities. Therefore, Forest Department is participating with various NGOs and individuals in the forest management activities including in the mangrove areas. No.

Township

1

Bogalay

Year 20092010 20092010

Reserved Forest Kadonkani

Area (Acre) 250

Kadonkani

250

TOTAL

Remark FREDA II

500

Remark; Objectives of community forestry plantations established in cooperation with NGOs are to conserve mangrove ecosystems and to provide local people with mangrove products. Cooperation with International Organizations “The Study on Integrated Mangrove Management through Community Participation in the Ayeyawady Delta” has been launched by JICA from 2002 to 2005. Major project activities include Socio-economic survey, Biophysical Survey, Database construction, Formulation of Integrated Mangrove Management Plan (IMMP) for the Ayeyawady Area. “Integrated Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management Project through Community Participation in the Ayeyawady Delta” has been launched by JICA from 2007 to 2013. Major project activities include construction of CF extension centers and nurseries, community forestry, action research plantation and oyster culture (trial) . “Mangrove Rehabilitation Project for Enhancement Disaster Prevention in the Ayeyawady Delta” is recently launched by JICA from 2013 to 2017. Now, Detail Design Survey are being implemented. Major project activities will include Establishment of Mangrove Plantations, construction of 2 cyclone shelters, Provision of vehicles and boats, Extension activities to local people and so on. Lesson Learned in Mangrove Restoration,

50 50 50 50 400

Remark; The objectives of Community Forestry plantations are to provide local communities with fuel wood and other forest products together with spin-off effects such

The local people are still inadequate knowledge and understanding of mangrove ecosystems, and they have un-planned and excessive uses of mangrove resources by communities, inefficient reforestation & restoration measures for degraded mangroves, Illegal encroachment due to un-cleared land use policy, Weak cooperation among relevant stakeholders, Weak awareness raising among people about the importance of mangrove ecosystem and disaster management.

27

28


Challenges and Issues

Recommendation

1. Socio-economic Aspect Uncontrolled and increased population growth is very seriously impact to Mangrove in the Delta of Myanmar. Even though JICA project implemented technical supports to not only Forest Department but also local people, they have inadequate efforts to reduce poverty of local people. On other hand, some of the local people have low education and awareness, limited group activities for community development. Moreover, the major issues are weak cooperation between immigrants and inherent local residence for their development in Delta.

Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry of Myanmar is committed to achieve Sustainable Forest Management and implement environmental conservation. The Forest Department regulates between development and conservation within an overall framework of Sustainable Forest Management.Forest Department is implementing to conserve Mangrove forest area and promote agro-forestry and community forestry. Present situation of mangrove in the Ayeyawady Delta calls for urgency of rehabilitation. At the same time, capacity building is inevitably required for local people, FD staff and relevant agencies with adequate skills to restore mangroves. Related local stakeholders and international communities are invited to participate with Forest Department of Myanmar. The Forest Department actively cooperate with international agency and GO, INGOs and NGOs in addressing global issues such as climate change and etc.

2. Natural Resources Aspect Limited technology and utilization of natural resources, Lack of suitable land for integrated land use, Land use conflicts among stakeholders (Private, CF and shrimp culture) 3. Management Aspect Lack of proper land use policy and incentives of CFI-1995. Insufficient resources of FD (Man, material, money, machine, method) Emphasize on agriculture & fisheries due to economic policy. Conclusion Myanmar, like other developing countries, is facing with domestic environmental problems such as deforestation, forest degradation and loss of biodiversity, in addition to providing basic human needs and addressing poverty. But she is actively engaged in addressing global environmental issues in accordance with the principle of sustainable development, and based on common but differentiated responsibilities. These include protecting the ozone layer, mitigating climate change, sustaining biological diversity and protecting endangered species, making wise use of wetlands, and practicing sustainable management of forests. While Myanmar is not the major source of global environmental problems such as climate change, ozone layer depletion, and hazardous wastes disposal, it is most vulnerable to those adverse effects. Nevertheless, Myanmar has contributed substantially to addressing these global issues despite its scarce resources and other pressing national priorities. The Ministry of Forestry will make its utmost effort to successfully implement the action plan prepared for rehabilitation of the cyclone affected areas and prevention from future natural disasters. Present situation of mangrove in the Ayeyawady Delta calls for urgency of rehabilitation, and FD invites related stakeholders including local and international community to participate with Forestry Department of Myanmar.

References “Action Plan for Rehabilitation of the Cyclone Nargis Affected Areas and Prevention from Future Natural Disasters”, Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry “Sustainable Community-based Mangrove Management in Wunbaik Forest Reserve” Project Document, FAO and Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry “Integrated Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management Project through Community Participation in the Ayeyawady Delta” Project Document, Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry and JICA “Natural ecosystems as coastal development infrastructures” IUCN Issue # 5, July 2007 Progress Reports, Planning and Statics Division, Forest Department


29

30


The Philippine Trajectory in Mangrove Development Gwendolyn C. Bambalan1 1

OIC, Regional Director, Protected Areas, Wildlife and Coastal Zone Management Region IVB, Department of Enivironment and Natural Reserouces, Philippines

The Philippines The Philippines, also known as the Pearl of the Orient, is an archipelagic country located in Southeast Asia. Its neighbors include Taiwan in the North, Indonesia in the South and Vietnam in the East. It is surrounded by several bodies of water such as the Pacific Ocean, West Philippine Sea, Balintang Channel and the Celebes Sea. It is comprised of 7,107 islands with three major islands: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. As of March 2010, it is divided into 17 regions, 80 provinces, 138 cities, 1,496 municipalities, and 42,025 barangays. Philippines has a total land area of approximately 300,000 sq. km. as reported by National Mapping and Resource Information Authority of Department of Environment and Natural Resources, updated on August 07, 2012. It is also regarded as the country with 5th longest coastline in the world with a distance of 36,289 km. of coastline (22,499 miles). Region Iv B (Mimaropa) Region IVB, also known as MIMAROPA is comprised of five provinces namely Mindoro – Occidental and Oriental, Marinduque, Romblon, and Palawan. MIMAROPA is one of the busiest regions in terms of tourism, cornering more than its fair share of the total number of tourists that visit the country. The region is home to Palawan’s serene tropical beauty as well as Puerto Galera’s beautiful sunsets. Tourists who are looking for a rich dose of history and religion flock to Marinduque, the country’s Lenten capital, where the famous Moriones Festival is held every year. Divers from all over the world seek the marine wonders of Occidental Mindoro’s Apo Reef. Mountain climbers will delight in exploring the challenging terrains of Romblon’s Mt. Guiting- Guiting, as well as the province’s unexplored and unspoiled beaches. The region is regarded as one of the most biologically significant region in the country in terms of richness in both terrestrial and marine species diversity with twenty (20) Protected Areas in its location. It is home to a number of wildlife species found only in the islands

including the Tamaraw, Calamian deer, Palawan flying fox, Mindoro imperial pigeon, Mindoro bleeding heart, Palawan hornbill, Mindoro hornbill, Black hooded coucal, Scarlet collared flowerpecker, and Palawan peacock pheasant. The region’s economy relies mostly on agriculture, fishing and ecotourism, making it one of the strongest in the country. MIMAROPA is one of the Philippine’s top producers of rice, banana, coconut, mango, cashew, papaya and cassava, which are included among the country’s top export products. MIMAROPA covers a extensive coastline measuring 6,428 kilometers which is 17.7% of the country’s total coastline, and also the second top fish producer in the country, and its output makes up almost 14% of the Philippine’s total produce annually from 2002-2004. MIMAROPA also ranks as the second top producer of seaweeds, representing 21% of the country’s total output. Coastal Resource The coastal zone is the interface where the land meets the ocean. It includes the shoreline environment and the adjacent coastal waters. It is legally defined to extend 1 km inland from the shoreline at high tide and to seaward areas covered within the 200-m isobaths. Of the areas seaward of the low water mark, the marine waters out to 15 km are under the local government jurisdiction, while the national jurisdiction extends from 15 km from the shore up to 200 nautical miles. The Philippines’ diverse coastal zone consists of a variety of tropical ecosystems. These include sandy beaches, rocky headlands, sand dunes, coral reefs, mangroves, seagrasses, wetlands, estuaries and lagoons. The various ecosystems are interconnected, making it virtually impossible to alter one feature of the coastal zone without affecting another, either directly or indirectly. Each plays a critical role in maintaining the viability and health of the entire coastal zone as well as the other ecosystems. The extent and importance of coastal resources and coastal areas in the Philippines are highlighted by a few facts: 832 municipalities out of almost 1,500, or 54% are coastal; almost all major cities are coastal; 62% of the population lives in the coastal zone; there are about 27,000 km2 of coral reefs but less than 5% is in excellent condition; 120,000 ha of mangrove remains, only about 25% of the area in 1920; and more than 50% of the animal protein intake in the Philippines is derived from marine resources.

The Philippine Trajectory in Mangrove Development

The coastlines provide a large array of coastal and marine resources which include naturally-occurring, living and renewable resources such as fish stocks, coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass / algal beds. The services provided by coastal and marine ecosystems in the Philippines are associated with the high level of biodiversity. They provide numerous benefits which directly affect people. For example, the fish stocks which refer to all finfish that thrive in wild state or habitat, are taken primarily for human consumption. Coral reefs are natural aggregation of coral skeleton, with or without living coral polyps, occurring in intertidal and subtidal marine waters. These constitute the largest biogenic structures on the planet and support assemblages of living corals and many other organisms, including fish, mollusks, marine worms, crustaceans, algae and sponges. Healthy coral reefs may support fish harvests of up to 30t/km2/yr. Sea grass beds are areas of salt-tolerant plants that occur in shallow near-shore waters, estuaries, lagoons, and adjacent to coral reefs. Mangroves are communities of intertidal plants including all species of trees, shrubs, vines and herbs found on coasts, swamps or border of swamps. These resources directly contribute in fish production even ornamental resources such as marine aquarium fishes, forest products such as timber and fuelwood, as well as education and research programs that constitute formation of biochemicals, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals. Cultural benefits can also be provided by coastal and marine resources which include recreation and ecotourism, formal and informal education and aesthetics as reflected in land and housing values and preservation of scenic drives along coastal areas. Ecological tourism is a form of sustainable tourism within a natural and cultural heritage area where community participation, protection and management of natural resources, culture and indigenous knowledge and practices, among others as well as economic benefits are fostered and pursued for the enrichment of host communities and satisfaction of visitors. Coastal and marine-related ecotourism activities include the following: wildlife watching or interaction; SCUBA diving and snorkeling; and beach visitation and swimming. Over the last 20 years, coastal areas in the Philippines have come under increasingly severe threats due to human activities. More than 75% of the coral reefs are degraded due to human activity. Municipal fisheries production has been relatively stagnant for the last 20 years with recent and noticeable declines annually since 1991. Coastal ecosystems and their natural ability to produce are being overexploited to the point of causing permanent damage to them. This means that future generations will have fewer resources and the natural productivity of the ecosystems will be significantly reduced. Conservation of the coastal and marine ecosystem is continuously highlighted on certain government

policies and programs to ensure development of healthy ecosystems.

sustainable

Mangrove Reforestation And Rehabilitation The Fisheries Code defines mangroves as a community of intertidal plants including all species of trees shrubs, vines and herbs found on coasts swamps or border of swamps. Mangroves are among the most important coastal ecosystems. They supply habitats for species of marine fauna and flora, especially breeding and nesting grounds for fish, along with food and livelihoods for local communities. Very importantly, they can provide protection from the impacts of climate change, including sea-level rises and coastal erosion caused by storm surges and extreme weather events They are also good source of important commodities such as food, fuel, timber, medicine and building materials. They serve as shelter belt, for they can cushion the impact of strong winds and provide protection against soil erosion with its extensive air root system and has the capacity to stabilize shorelines and protect inshore fish habitats from sediment pollution. Also, they can transport accumulated nutrients to adjacent areas and serve as natural nurseries or breeding places for a large number of fishes, crabs, sea creatures and other commercially important species. Because of their importance, several communitybased mangrove restoration projects have been implemented in the Philippines aimed at protecting and rehabilitating this significant ecosystem. Sound mangrove management can provide adaptation strategies such as increasing resilience of the coastal line and its inhabitants, as well as providing new livelihoods options to the local communities. History Of Mangrove Development In the 1950’s, vast tracts of mangroves were awarded to concessionaires and logged over for firewood and tanbarks. Mangrove firewood was the preferred fuel source in coastal villages and most bakeries because of its high heating value, but a greater volume was exported to Japan as firewood, which reportedly became the source of rayon. In the 1960’s, the government adopted a policy aimed at increasing fish production by converting large areas of mangroves into fishponds for the culture of milkfish and prawns. Such policy was promoted by a government program, which classified and released mangrove timberland for fishpond development and opened loan windows in most government banks to finance fishpond development. It was only towards the end of the 1970’s when the government realized the fishery value of mangroves. A National Mangrove Committee was formed in the Ministry of Natural Resources, and a Mangrove Forest Research Center was created under the Forest Research Institute of the Philippines. The former was charged with the formulation of

31

32


policies/recommendations for the conservation and sustainable management of the remaining mangrove forests in the country, while the latter worked for the generation of technology for the rehabilitation, production and sustainable management of mangroves. The 1980’s and 1990’s were marked with significant efforts to rehabilitate destroyed mangroves and related coastal resources. In 1981, small islands indented by mangroves containing an aggregate area of about 4,326 hectares were declared Wilderness Areas under Presidential Proclamation No. 2151. Also in the same year, Presidential Proclamation No. 2152 was issued declaring the entire island of Palawan and some parcels of mangroves in the country containing an aggregate area of 74,267 hectares as Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserves. In 1987, the Mangrove Forest Research Center was expanded in its concerns and coverage, becoming nationwide in scope under the Freshwater and Coastal Ecosystems Section of the Ecosystems Research and Development Service of every regional office of the present Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Based on the DENR data, forested mangrove area has decreased greatly from an estimated coverage of 450,000 ha in 1918 to less than 120,000 ha in the late 1990’s and fishponds cover about 289,000 ha most of which are located within mangroves areas In the period of 19671988, the average rate of decline is 8,000 ha annually. Based on 2007 Forestry Data as of 2003, there are 247,362 ha of mangrove forests. Recent ground validation conducted by the DENR showed a total of 210,497.62 hectares as of 2008. In the Philippines, we already have 77 mangrove and associated species (Rhizophora, Avicennia, Bruguiera, Sonneratia, Nypa). Not long after, the Coastal Environment Program (CEP) and the Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP) were launched in the regional offices of DENR in 1993 and in 1996, respectively, expanding the environment department’s concerns over all coastal ecosystems. These programs promote communitybased approaches to coastal resource management, making direct stakeholders partners of government in the sustainable development and management of mangroves, seagrass beds, coral reefs, and other coastal resources. Philippine Mangrove Protection/ Greenbelt Laws PD 705 (1975)

Revised Forestry Code: Retention of 20-m wide mangrove strip facing the oceans etc.

PD 953 (1976)

Fishpond/mangrove leaseholders required to retain or replant 20-m mangrove strip along rivers, creeks etc. 3 to 20 m of riverbanks, seashore for public use: recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing, and salvage; building of structures not allowed Minimum of 25% of given mangrove forest declared completely protected as Mangrove Wilderness Areas Declaration of 4,326 ha of mangrove as wilderness areas and 74,767 ha (inc. entire Palawan province) as forest reserves Prohibition on mangrove cutting throughout the

PD 1067 (1976) BFD A.O. 2 (1979) P.P 2151 & 2152 (1981) P.P 2146

(1982)

country

MNR A.O. 26 (1986)

Expansion of mangrove belt on storm surge, typhoon areas; 50-100 m on shorelines, 20-50 m on riverbanks Establishment of buffer zones, 50 m fronting seas and oceans, and 20 m along riverbanks; FLA ponds required to plant 50 m mangrove strip Guidelines on Environmental Clearance Certificate (applied to fishponds)

DENR A.O. (1987) DENR A.O. (1987) DENR A.O. (1988) DENR A.O. (1990)

76

34

77

123

DENR A.O. 15 (1990)

R.A. 7161 (1991) DENR A.O. 3 (1991) DENR A.O. 23 (1993) R.A. 8550 (1998)

Integrated Social Forestry Program (provision of legal tenure incentives for co-management of forest resources) Award of 25-year Community Forestry Management Agreement for small scale mangrove use, Rhizophora and Nypa plantation, aquasilviculture Policies on communal forest plantations, tenure through Mangrove Stewardship Contracts; revert abandoned ponds to forest; ban cutting of trees in FLA areas; prohibit conversion of thickly vegetative areas Internal Revenue Code: Ban on cutting of all mangrove species Policies and Guidelines for Mangrove Stewardship Agreement Combined 3-yr Mangrove Reforestation Contract and 25-yr Forest Land Management Agreement into 25-yr FLMA families (1-10 ha) and communities (10-1,000 ha) Fisheries Code: Prohibits mangrove conversion to fishponds etc.; mangroves suitable for fishery use should not be alienated or disposed; FLA leases entitled to 25-year extension, thereafter preference to fisherfolk and small/medium enterprises; DENR with DA and LGUs etc. to determine abandoned, underdeveloped, underutilized FLA ponds for reversion to forestland in accordance to existing forest laws

Implemented Programs And Projects The basic key in implementation of the laws and programs is enforcement. Various initiatives were extended both in national and local levels to promulgate coastal law enforcement. For such, the Office of the President provided direct intervention in coastal law enforcement. In 1989, Pres. Aquino signed A.O. 114 which established the Presidential Committee on Illegal Fishing and Marine Conservation. Also in 1993, Pres. Ramos signed E.O. 117 which also established Inter-Agency Task Force for Coastal Environment Protection. The Philippine Navy also cooperated by participating in an Adopt-A-Bay Program, and PNP with Operation Plan Kalikasan. Local initiatives were reflected in provincial governments which enacted Environmental Codes. Establishment of Bantay Dagat Commission and CRM offices, as mandated by the Fisheries Code, on municipalities and cities are few examples of such collaboration. Programs and projects were made more effective by partnerships with NGOs and other sectors like media. A network company, such as ABS-CBN initiated Bantay Kalikasan and the organization of broadcasters and media companies launched an Environmental


Broadcast Circle. Assistance and involvement of numerous non-government organizations helped cascade the knowledge and implementation of these programs. These include Haribon Foundation, World Wildlife Fund-Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, International Marine Life Alliance, Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Siliman University-Legal and Environment Assistance Program, Philippine Center for Maritime Affairs, Save Davao Gulf Foundation, and Philippine Coast Guard Auxillary. Further, the Roman Catholic Church during the 1992 Plenary Council of the Philippines declared all parish churches will have environmental desks to attend to environmental concerns. Marine Protected Areas Marine Protected Area is defined as any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historal and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect or all of the enclosed environment (IUCN 1988). It can exist individually or in a network. It is essential to biodiversity conservation and maintenance of ecosystem health and services. Coastal marine habitats are being exploited beyond their capacity to recover overfishing and destruction of coral reef, mangrove, seagrass and estuarine habitats continue. MPAs such as reserves, sanctuaries and parks can achieve protection of particular, well-defined areas and critical habitats. When properly designed and wellmanaged, a marine reserve can meet various marine and coastal conservation needs by preserving habitat and important species and protecting specific areas. Legal and policy framework for the planning, establishing and managing of marine protected areas in the Philippines is found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution quoted as “the State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth and the rights of subsistence fishermen and local communities to the preferential use of marine and fishing resources”. In the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 and its Implementing Rules (RA 7586), it clearly declares that this act is the primary legal framework that covers the establishment and management of protected areas in the Philippines. The establishment and management of protected areas are part of the international commitments signed by the Philippine Government such Convention on Biological Diversity, Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention, Convention on Migratory Species, and the ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. It is implemented originally through DENR Administrative Order No. 25, Series of 1992. The said DENR Administrative Order was amended pursuant to DAO 2008-26 dated 24 December 2009. This Administrative Order sets the procedures for the establishment, administration, management and development of the System. Areas designated as protected areas are “outstanding remarkable areas and biologically important public lands that are habitats of

rare and endangered species of plants and animals, biogeographic zones and related ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland or marine”. The Act generally covers protected areas that are national in scope and are declared as such by congress as compared to the smaller municipal protected areas such as fish sanctuaries that are covered by municipal ordinances unless they are specifically part of a broad protected area system. The Fisheries Code of 1998 and its Implementing Rules reaffirms the jurisdiction of municipal and city governments over municipal waters and their important roles in enforcing fishery laws and managing coastal resources. It also provides for the establishment of closed seasons for areas with strong conservation and ecological values as well as to declare closed seasons for rare, threatened and endangered species. It gives LGUs the authority to declare and manage areas as MPAs. Other Municipal Ordinances supporting establishment of MPA paved way for the MPA sites in the country. There are 33 marine protected areas in our country as established under NIPAS 1992. Integrated Coastal Resource Management Program (Icrmp) The ICRMP is a six year project (July 2007 to June 2013) implemented by the DENR, BFAR and Municipal Development Fund Office (MDFO). It aims to promote the “ridge to reef” approach for sustainably managing the coastal resources and to increase income of the fisher folks by providing them greater access to livelihood opportunities. The project implementation is supported by US-loan proceeds from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and US-grant proceeds from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) including from the Central Government and from the Local Government and Beneficiaries. The project covers 80 municipalities in the provinces of Cagayan (Region 2), Zambales (Region 3), Romblon (Region 4B), Masbate (Region 5), Cebu and Siquijor (Region 7) and Davao Oriental (Region 11). Major accomplishments include development of the National Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) Program as mandated by EO533, completion of various policy studies (e.g. mangrove management, foreshore management, user’s fees and resource rents, environmental and social impact assessment, trade in live reef/food fish trade, etc.) which provide corrective measures on policy weaknesses and legal gaps in the management of coastal zones and habitats, and provision of trainings on Biodiversity Conservation, Gender Sensitization, Environmental Assessment and Review Framework, MPA Networks and Institutional Arrangements, Initial Environmental Examination for DENR Staff and participating LGUs. ICRM and biodiversity conservation includes undertaking of Participatory Coastal Resources Assessment and Scientific Observation of Habitat and Species. In 2012, Region IVB has attained 70 hectares of mangrove forests that have been planted and 52,000 hectares were

33

34


maintained and protected. In a particular site, Romblon, IEC materials have been disseminated, mangrove areas have been rehabilitated, municipal slaughterhouse was proposed to be relocated and reconstructed with wastewater treatment facility. Other programs and projects include USAID’s EcoGov Project which aims to reduce overfishing and use of destructive fishing practices, reduce illegal logging and conversion of natural forests and improve management of solid wastes and wastewater; the FISH Project which aims to address a variety of fisheries management issues; Sustainable Coastal Tourism Project in Asia (SCOTIA) 2003-2008 with an objective of local capability building to increase sustainability and reduce negative “ecological footprint”; Coastal Resources and Fisheries Conservation Project (CRFC); Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion – Partnership for Sustainability: Apo Reef – Sablayan Occidental Mindoro & Puerto Galera Oriental Mindoro; Population, Health and Environment (PHE) Integrated Approaches; Tubbataha Reef National Park and Cagayancillo; Malampaya Sound – Irrawaddy Dolphin Conservation Project; Sustainability of fisheries through the protection of spawning aggregations in Palawan and; Sustainable Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Program (SCREMP). Challenges And Opportunities Resource Development

For

Coastal

Various issues and challenges must be firstly addressed to enable sound decision-making and effective planning. Many serious problems exist in the Philippine coastal areas that are causing the natural productivity of these areas to be compromised and degraded. Although most of the recent programs and policies are already addressing these issues, their interconnection that directly or indirectly affect coastal areas are still the same raised and identified threats that lead to gaps and unsustainability of the projects. It was the pressing fact of managing and preserving the environment, it is a long-term battle and requires integration of various levels of communities and ecosystems. The domino effect of one issue directly dampens the end goals and strengthens another problem. However, the changing demands of this problem must be patiently and continually addressed in an adaptive, integrated and multidisciplinary approach. Participation and enforcement must be cascaded up to grassroots levels consistently. Bigger issue is population growth and poverty. The urgent need to generate income is based on the requirements to sustain feeding families at homes. The most significant challenge is to limit population growth so that gains from development and environmental management are not eroded or reversed by the increasing pressure of too many people. The present experience is that as population density increases, the quality of life and the environment declines for the average person living in the coastal area. Reproductive

health and family planning are identified strategies to address this issue. Secondly, it leads to the threat of food security. Due to the greater demand, people resort to dangerous and destructive means to produce food. Local governments should promote best practices identified in the coastal areas to uphold food production and economic benefits. Illegal activities contribute largely on the destruction of coastal habitats. While national policies and laws exist prohibiting a wide range of activities in coastal areas, without swift, painful and public enforcement of these laws, illegal activities abound. Respect for and obeyance of the law needs to be promoted and become accepted as an important means to improve status and productivity of coastal ecosystems. Public education and better enforcement are two strategies that have proven to be effective. One of the challenges includes resource use conflicts. Most of the people at local levels cannot see the general concept of conserving the environment, their need to address their everyday food and business are regarded more important than the rest of effects of them addressing their needs. The consequence is that beaches, foreshore land areas, and near shore coastal habitats are in demand and are being utilized for a wide variety of conflicting human uses including industry, construction, dumping, boat landings, tourism and habitation. The willingness of the fishers to continue fishing when catches are declining indicates the relative lack of alternatives and small value fishers place on their own time. If properly implemented, reserving the use of municipal waters by municipal ordinances that are enforced serves as a strategy for restricting access, reducing fish pressure, and improving the condition of municipal fisheries for more fishers for a longer time. Local management regimes that clarify and limit user rights will improve sustainability of fisheries. Alternative livelihoods must also be capacitated among small coastal communities to reduce their entire reliance to marine resources. Existing laws are not effective in achieving their intended needs without political will, enforcement and better institutional linkages and coordination to implement them. Policy and institutional gaps must be addressed to ensure multilevel and multisectoral approach. Technical assistance and budgetary support must be prioritized as well as the significant gaps in authority and management of resources between national agencies and local government authorities. Numerous opportunities can be identified in designing, planning and implementing coastal management plan. There should be a large percentage of objectives attained via accomplished projects vs. targets approach. Community-based Participatory Processes or harmonization between LGUs and national agencies must be prioritized by LGUs coordinating and sustaining MPA management, thus enhancing multisectoral and inter-LGU integration. Coastal Law Enforcement should produce subsets of policies that will demand and instill compliance and


implementation of the policies and programs. To address poverty reduction, local communities in coordination with local and national agencies must build capacity to create alternative livelihoods and sustainable tourism. Education, outreach and awareness –building is achievable through mobilization of interest groups and useful IEC materials and trainings. Effectiveness of Strategies through M&E plans must make certain measurements of effectivity and sustainability. Institutionalization of existing database information tools such as IIMS (Integrated Information Management System), MEAT/METT (Management Effectiveness Assessment/Tracking Tool) are utilized for effectiveness management of protected areas. Further, continuous studies and research and the aim to scale up existing situations will always prove to be the best means to allow progress through time and varying demands to meet the objectives of the coastal management. Future Directions: The Way Ahead With effective planning and design of coastal management plans, with integration from various sectors, agencies and NGOs plus strict coastal law enforcement including the efficient ways and means to maintain sustainability will pave way to positive perspectives and significantly better results. With all the projects and target goals attained, we expect and hope that mangrove forests be restored and maintained. Every little effort to add positive effect to the ecosystem is a significant endeavor that will affect many marine species and habitats and prevent collapse of the entire ecosystem. With the era of an entirely advanced technology, new equipment will arise and made for the effort of environment conservation. Continuous studies and reports that can further enhance the survival and preservation of the mangrove ecosystem are still at hand. Various policies regarding selection of plant’s species and type, as well as identification of proper planting sites are further

developed to increase the success rate of the rehabilitation that will coincide with the goals to provide sustainable development of coastal resources for present and future generations of Filipinos. References Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior and Local Government and Coastal Resources Management Project. 2001. Philippine Coastal Management Guidebook Series 1,3,5,7-8. Esteban, J. and Primavera, J. 2008. A Review of Mangrove Rehabilitation in the Philippines: Successes, Failures and Future Prospects. pp. 1-2. Mapalo, A., Melana, D. and Melana, E. 2000. Mangrove Management and Development in the Philippines. pp. 1-5. Padilla, J. 2008. Analysis of Coastal and Marine Resources: A Contribution to the Philippine Country Environment Analysis. pp. 4-5, 13. UN Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management, National Mapping and Resource Information Agency, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2012. Country Report of the Philippines. pp. 1-2. www.wikipedia.org/philippines www.mimaropa/denr.gov.ph

35

36


Sustainable Management of Mangrove in Thailand Wijarn Meepol1 1

Mangrove Conservation Office, Department Of Marine and Coastal Resources, Thailand

ABSTRACT

Mangrove In Thailand

In Thailand, mangroves are found on the shelter muddy shores and low-lying bogs of rivers and stream estuaries at level between low and high tides, along the gulf of Thailand and on the east and west coast of the peninsula. The total mangrove area is approximately 244,160 ha. The importance of mangroves in providing invaluable goods and services both in economics and environmental terms are well understood and documented. Hence, the sustainable management of mangroves is essential for the people and environment alike. The sustainable mangrove management has been implemented to ensure that mangroves can provide both the direct and indirect benefits to the community. One of the efforts of the government is the abolition of mangrove concession in 1996. However, the last concession forest in the country terminated in 2004. Then, canal excavation was launched in 2002 to distinctly separate mangrove area from the private land. Canals measuring two meters deep and four meters wide were excavated in mangrove areas. Mangrove areas adjacent to the community were priority areas for excavation. To date, approximately 1,000 kilometers have been excavated. The government through the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources is promoting mangrove conservation by conducting training among villagers living near the mangrove forests. This effort aims to improve understanding of the mangrove ecosystems in order to increase awareness of the importance of mangrove forests and the need for their conservation. The Thai government set a large-scale mangrove rehabilitation project to improve the mangrove condition after the abolition of concession forest. Degraded mangrove forests, abandoned shrimp ponds, abandoned mining areas and new mudflats are the target areas. From 2004 to 2009, a total 67,220 ha were rehabilitated. At present, mangrove rehabilitation is almost complete. Mangrove plantation is done either by Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) or by private individuals. The most common species planted are Rhizophora apiculata and R. mucronata with some other species such as Ceriops and Bruguiera which are planted on higher areas within the mangrove area. With a sustainable mangrove forest management in place, mangroves will remain a sustainable resource for the well-being of the people and the environment.

In Thailand, mangroves occur on the shelter muddy shores and low-lying bogs of rivers and stream estuaries at level between low and high tides, along the gulf of Thailand and on the east and west coast of the peninsula. The total mangrove area is approximately 244,160 ha. The best developed mangroves are mostly on the west coast of the peninsula especially in the provinces of Ranong which the UNESCO declared as the Ranong Biosphere Reserve. The core area of the biosphere reserve, Had Sai Khao, is comprised of a stand of Rhizophora apiculata trees estimated as being 200 years old. Some of these trees reach up to 35m in height and over 2m in circumference at breast height. Mangroves along the Gulf of Thailand are mainly classified as young growth because most of these mangrove forests had suffered heavy felling for many years and in some provinces particularly in Samut Sakhon and Samut Prakarn are now facing the coastal erosion with the alarming rate. Vegetation Mangroves in Thailand comprise of 78 species, under 53 genera and 36 families. Most of the dominant and important species are in the family Rhizophoraceae, especially genera Rhizophora, Ceriops and Bruguiera; the family Sonneratiaceae such as Sonneratia; and the family Avicenniaceae with many species. The distribution of mangroves occurs in distinct zonation patterns with different species or combination of species dominating different zones as a result from the environmental factors such as soil texture, water salinity, and frequency of inundation. Meepol (2002) reported that mangroves at downstream of Ngao Canal located in the core zone of Ranong Biosphere Reserve from seaward to landward sites are distributed in the following manner: Sonneratia alba, Avicennia alba, A. marina and Aegiceras corniculatu occupy the seaward zone. This zone is about 50 m long from seaward. From 50 to 130 m, mangroves comprised of mixed species such as Rhizophora mucronata, Bruguiera cylindrica and B. parviflora. At the inner zone (130 to 200 m along the transect line), mangroves comprised a pure stand of Rhizophora apiculata.

Sustainable Management of Mangrove in Thailand

Table 1. Mangrove species in Thailand. No.

Scientific Name

Family

1

Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl.

Acanthaceae

2

Acanthus illicifolius Linn.

Acanthaceae

3

Acanthus volubilis Wall.

Apocynaceae

4

Acrostichum aureum Linn.

Pteridaceae

5

Acrostichum speciosum Willd.

Pteridaceae

6

Aegialitis rotundifolia Roxb.

Plumbaginaceae

7 8

Aegiceras corniculatum (Linn.) Blanco Amoora cucullata (Roxb.) Pennington &Styles

No.

Scientific Name

Family

44

Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn.

Malvaceae

45

Intsia bijuga (Colebr.) Druce

LeguminosaeCaesalpinioideae

46

Kandelia candel (Linn.) Druce

Rhizophoraceae

47

Lumnitzera littorea Voigt

Combretaceae

48

Lumnitzera racemosa Wild

Combretaceae

49

Melaleuca cajuputi Powell

Myrtaceae

50

Melastoma villosum Lodd

Melastomataceae

51

Merope angulata (Kurz) Swingle

Rutaceae

52

Nypa fruticans Wurmb.

Arecaceae

53

Oncosperma tigillaria Ridl.

Palmae

54

Pandanus odoratissimus L.F.

Pandanaceae

55

Peltophorum pterocarpum (DC.) Backer &.Heyne

Liguminisaecaesalpinioideae

Myrsinaceae Meliaceae

9

Allophyllus cobbe (Linn.)

Sapindaceae

10

Ardisia elliptica (Thunb.)

Myrsinaceae

11

Atalantia monophylla (DC.) Correa

Rutaceae

56

Phoenix paludosa Roxb.

Palmae

12

Avicennia alba Bl.

Avicenniaceae

57

Pluchea indica (Linn.) Less

Compositae

13

Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh.

Avicenniaceae

58

Premna obtusifilia R.Brown

Labiatae

Avicenniaceae

59

Rapanea porteriana (A.Dc.) Mez.

Myrsinaceae

Lecythidaceae

60

Rhizophora apiculata Bl.

Rhizophoraceae

Lecythidaceae

61

Rhizophora mucronata Poir.

Rhizophoraceae

62

Sapium indicum Willd.

Euphorbiaceae

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Avicennia officinalis Linn. Baringtonia asiatica (Linn.) Kurz. Baringtonia racemosa (Linn.) Spreng. Brownlowia tersa (Linn.) Kostern. Bruguiera cylindrica (Linn.) Bl. Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (Linn.) Savigny. Bruguiera hainesii C.G.Rogers. Bruguiera parviflora (Roxb.) W.GA.ex Griff. Bruguiera sexangula (Lour.) Poir.

Tiliaceae

63 Rhizophoraceae 64 Rhizophoraceae 65 Rhizophoraceae Rhizophoraceae Rhizophoraceae

Sonneratiaceae

67

Sonneratiaceae

68

Sonneratia griffithii Kurz.

Sonneratiaceae

69

Sonneratia ovata Backer.

Sonneratiaceae

24

Caesalpinia crista Linn.

LeguminosaeCaesalpinioideae

70

25

Cassine viburnifolia (Juss.) Ding Hou

Celastraceae

71

26

Cerbera manghas Linn.

Apocynaceae

72

27

Cerbera odollam Gaertner.

Apocynaceae

28

Ceriops decandra (Griff.) Ding Hou

Rhizophoraceae

29

Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C.B.Rob.

Rhizophoraceae

30

Clerodendrum inerme (Linn.) Gaertner

Labiatae

31

Cynometra iripa Kostel.

33

Dalbergia candenatensis (Dennst) Prain.

34

Derris indica (Lamk.) Bennet

35

Derris trifoliate Lour.

36 37

Diospyros areolata King&Gamble Dolichandrone spathaceae (Linn.f.) K.Schum.

Ebenaceae Bignoniaceae

38

Excoecaria agallocha Linn.

Euphorbiaceae

39

Ficus microcarpa Linn.f.

Moraceae

40

Finlaysonia maritime Back.

Asclepiadaceae

41

Flagellaria indica Linn.

Flagellariaceae

42

Heritiera fomes Buch.-Ham.

Sterculiaceae

43

Heritiera littoralis Aiton

Sterculiaceae

Rubiaceae

Sonneratia caseolaris (Linn.) Dumort

Guttiferae

Cynometra ramiflora Linn.

Flacourtiaceae

Sonneratia alba J.Smith.

Calophyllum inophyllum Linn.

32

Goodeniaceae

66

23

LeguminosaeCaesalpinioideae LeguminosaeCaesalpinioideae LeguminosaePapilionoideae LeguminosaePapilionoideae LeguminosaePapilionoideae

Scaevola taccada (Gaertner.) Roxb. Scolopia macrophylla (W&A) Clos. Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea Gaertn.f.

73 74

Stenochlaena palustris (Burm.f.) Bedd. Suada maritima (Linn.) Dumort Terminalia catappa Linn. Thespesia populnea (Linn.) Soland. Ex Correa Thespesia populneoides (Roxb.) Kostel

Pteridaceae Chenopodiaceae Combretaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae

75

Wedelia biflora (Linn.) DC.

Compositae

76

Xylocarpus granatum Koenig

Meliaceae

77

Xylocarpus moluccensis Roem.

Meliaceae

78

Xylocarpus rumphii (Kostel.) Mabberley

Meliaceae

Significance and Value of Mangroves Mangroves provide a rich and diverse living resource. The direct benefits from mangroves include: sources of firewood, charcoal, pole, tannin, medicine and food. Whereas, mangroves indirect benefits include: play a vital role in the coastal food chain, provide a source for food for many marine animals as well as shelter for young shrimps, crabs and fish in their complex root systems. In this way, mangrove forests support Thailand’s fishing industry, provide employment, food and other economic benefits for a large number of people. Mangroves also help to stabilize shorelines

37

38


against storm and big wave or tsunami. Moreover, mangroves can serve as an important source for carbon sink which help to decrease greenhouse gases. The mangrove ecosystem is endowed with uniqueness which in turn offering aesthetic, scientific and educational values. Today, due to the attractiveness of mangroves, ecotourism in mangroves becomes a flourishing industry. Sustainable Management of Mangroves The sustainable management of mangroves has been implemented to assure that mangroves can provide both direct and indirect benefits to the people. Therefore, these are the measures for sustainable management: A.

Policy The Thai government articulated in the National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) in recognition of the importance of mangrove forests. The previous NESDP (2007-2011) set the following targets: 1. Conserve mangrove forest at least 1.25 million rai (200,000 ha) 2. Protect and restore marine resources and coastal ecosystems 3. Preserve, conserve and protect area of high biodiversity However, the present NESDP (2012-16) stated that to increase mangrove area at least 800 ha yearly and to conserve and protect mangrove areas for high biodiversity. At present, the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand is responsible for the management of mangroves. Prior to October 2002, the Royal Forest Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives took charged. B.

Cancellation of Concession Forest Mangrove forests in Thailand had been utilized for a long time. The government provided the majority of the mangrove areas for concession forest. The management of mangrove previously aimed at timber production. Havanond (1994) reported that the timber production from the concession forest in 1975 was 658,570 m3 and down to 193,145 m3 in 1993. The decrease of timber production was a result of the decline of mangrove forest and the over-exploitation. During the concession period (1968-2002), mangrove stocks were depleted and land degraded due to weak enforcement of the existing rules and regulations. Large areas were left with non-commercial species. In 1996, the government proposed a total log ban in mangrove forests and eventually, the concession forest was terminated in 2002. Now, mangroves serve as conservation areas.

C.

Protection Measure The DMCR set the Mangrove Development Station throughout the country. The office is responsible for the protection and restoration of mangrove resources and also in the promotion of mangrove conservation among the locals. For a long time, mangroves in Thailand are protected by three Acts. These are: Forest Act B.E.2484 (1941), National Forest Reserve Act B.E. 2507 (1964) and National Park Act B.E. 2504 (1961). Under these acts, people cannot destroy, invade and settle in mangrove areas. The government also issued a Cabinet Resolution to resolve problems of this nature. For example, Cabinet Resolution issued on July 23, 1991 prohibits the utilization of mangrove area for any kind of activity. However, due to increasing population and economic expansion in the past 40 years, mangroves had been the primary target for development. Development pressure reduced the mangrove area from 372,228 ha in 1961 to 167,584 ha in 1996. Since 1961, mangrove conversion by various development activities such as aquaculture, mining, agriculture, salt pond, human settlement areas, infrastructure development, etc contributed to the continuous reduction of mangrove areas. As a result, the remaining mangrove area is not adequate to balance the direct and indirect benefits. In 1996, the Thai government declared the abolition of concession forest which consequently converted mangrove areas in Thailand into conservation forest in 2002. With the abolition of concession forest, the mangrove areas in the country increased. At present, the total mangrove area is approximately 244,160 ha (Department of Marine and Coastal Resource, 2011). The government also launched the canal excavation to distinctly separate mangrove areas from private lands. The canals measuring two meters deep and four meters wide were excavated in the mangrove areas. Approximately 1,000 kilometers of canal throughout the whole mangrove area of the country have been excavated. D.

Promotion of Mangrove Conservation The government through the DMCR is promoting mangrove forest conservation through the conduct of training among community living near the mangrove forests. This action aims to increase people’s awareness on mangrove conservation and education on mangrove ecosystems including the sharing information about mangrove resource management. E.

Participation of Local Community in Mangrove Protection At present, the coastal communities setting in or nearby mangrove forests take part in the conservation of mangrove forest. These communities are dependent on mangroves for their livelihood such as catching fish, crab or tapping sugar from Nypa plam (Nypa fruiticans). The people understand the importance of


mangrove forest such as food sources and nursery grounds for marine life. They always participate with government and other private organizations efforts in planting mangroves. Other communities set up associations to check the illegal cutting of mangroves in nearby communities. F. Rehabilitation of Mangroves The rehabilitation of mangroves is an effective tool to bring mangroves back to the fertile stage. In Thailand, mangrove forests had been utilized for charcoal production for more than 30 years, resulting in poor condition or low productive forest. To address this situation, the Thai government launched a mangrove rehabilitation project throughout the country. Large areas of degraded mangrove forests, abandoned shrimp ponds, abandoned mining areas, degraded mangrove areas and new mudflats are the target areas. The rehabilitation projects are carried out not only by the government but also in private sectors, NGOs and local communities. Between 2004 and 2009, approximately 67,200 ha of mangrove areas have been rehabilitated. At present, the rehabilitation is almost in full completion. Recently, the government also launched the rehabilitation project in the private land in the upper gulf of Thailand in the province of Samut Songkram and Petcha Buri during 2012-2013 covered the area of 218 ha. The government supported the budget for plantation in the first year. This project aimed to increase mangrove area and improve the environmental quality as well as protection shoreline in the coastal areas. The plantation activities have been largely concentrated on the direct planting of nursery grown or elongate propagules of Rhizophora species on mudflats and degraded areas. The species most commonly planted are Rhizophora apiculata and R. mucronata with some other species such as Ceriops and Bruguiera which planted on the higher areas within the mangrove area. On 26 December 2004, coastal areas of Thailand along the Andaman Coastline, in the provinces of Ranong, Phang-nga, Phuket, Krabi, Trang and Satun had affected from the tsunami attacks, with more than 5,300 people dead and thousand of people were missing. The tsunami destroyed the mangrove areas approximately 314 ha in the provinces of Ranong , Phang-nga and Phuket. Mangroves in Phang-nga province were the biggest damaged areas with a total area of 311 ha while Phuket and Ranong provinces were minimal with a total area of 2 and 1 ha, respectively. Immediate rehabilitation was spearheaded by DMCR covering all damaged areas. The mangrove species planted in the damaged mangrove areas were Rhizophora mucronata and R. apiculata. To date, the mangroves stand at an average of five meters high. Mangroves rehabilitation is not only helpful for increasing mangrove areas for wood resources in the

future but also secure environmental quality such as coastal water quality, soil rich in organic matter caused by debris of leaves, plants etc. The mangroves rehabilitation also reduces carbon dioxide in ambient air through photosynthesis process. Products from photosynthesis are stored in the form of trunks, branches, leaves and roots which result in reduced fluctuation of the earth’s temperature (in short, it reduces global warming The country considers five procedures in the mangrove rehabilitation. These are as follows: 1. Species selection. In species selection, environmental factors to consider include: soil characteristics, seawater inundation, water salinity including botanical and silvicultural characteristics of each mangrove species. For example; Rhizophora mucronata grows well in soft muddy soil along the coast, near river banks within the zone of seawater inundated for a long period. 2. Site preparation. Site preparation is an important process for mangrove rehabilitation. Good site preparation could lead to better growth of plants. Different areas such as new mudflat area, mangroves degradation area, former mining area and abandoned shrimp pond have different considerations. For example, in degraded mangrove areas, the preparation of site including the removal of weeds and debris. For abandoned shrimp farms, the destruction of water gate to let the tidal inundation freely. 3. Nursery technique. Mostly used in mangrove planting are nursery grown seedlings. Normally, seedlings are cultivated at least four months before they are ready for planting. 4. Planting technique. Generally, an appropriate spacing for mangroves is 1.5 x 1.5 m. However, for wind break or coastal protection purposes, a narrower space should be considered. Propagule or seed and seedlings are used for mangrove plantation. Propagules are planted in fertile, inundate during high tide, no weeds and more importantly no long-tailed macaque because it will remove propagule after planting. Mangroves plantation mostly used seedling from cultivation because of higher survival. However, seedling cultivation entails higher cost. Seedlings around 4-6 months old are ready for planting. 5. Tending – After one month of planting, survival rate should be examined and weeds or undergrowth should be eliminated at least twice a year during the first 1-2 years. Branches and other debris should be removed from the area because they might float during high tide and cover seedling and cause the death of seedlings. The success of mangrove rehabilitation in each area depends on different environmental factors in each area such as soil, water salinity, tidal inundation, weather, including disease and pest of plants in the mangroves area. Important pests for mangrove reforestation are insects that pierce the propagules of Rhizophora,

39

40


Bruguiera and Ceriops including moth which destroys mangrove leaves. Moreover, Sesarmid crab and barnacle also destroy tree trunks including Long-tailed Macaque that destroys the propagule. In addition, community participation is vital for the sustainability of mangroves rehabilitation. Mangroves rehabilitation results in a broad spectrum of advantages for the community. This includes abundance of mangrove areas for wood but also increases food resources, aquatic animals nursery area and their habitat which also lead to an increase in aquatic animals production. Moreover, mangrove areas help balance the environment. For example, mangrove serve as a coastal protection line from waves and storms, land waste discharge absorption before flowing into seawater including an important carbon storage resource which could also reduce global warming phenomenon. Meepol (2011) reported that the carbon sequestration of 10 years old Rhizophora mucronata plantation had the average value of 118.69 ton carbon/ha and nutrients return from litter fall had the value of 408.56 kg/ha. Figures reveal that mangrove plantation had significant value in balancing the ecosystems. Conclusion Mangroves are both ecologically and economically valuable. They provide breeding and nursery grounds for commercial fish and crustaceans. They are used for capture and culture fisheries and have been utilized by local people for a variety of purposes such as charcoal, fire and construction woods, food and medicine. Moreover, mangroves help stabilize shorelines against storm and tidal waves. The sustainable management of mangrove resources is needed in order to meet the balancing of nature and wellbeing of the people who rely on these resources. Many schemes for management have been implemented in mangroves of Thailand such as policy on cancellation of concession forest, promotion the conservation of mangroves, the participation of local people, the protection measure and rehabilitation. These would help achieve the sustainable management and green growth target. References Havanond, S. 1994. Charcoal Production from Mangroves in Thailand. The development and dissemination of Re-afforestation Technique of Mangrove Forests. Bangkok, Thailand, April, 1820, 1994. Meepol, W. 2011. Growth and Litter Production of 710 years Old Rhizophora mucronata Lamk. Planted on Abandoned Shrimp farm Area at Donsak, Surat Thani Province. Paper presented at the 14 National Seminar on Mangrove Ecosystem. 7-8September, 2011.Bangkok, Thailand (in Thai). Meepol, W. 2012. Diversity of Mangrove Species in Ranong Biosphere Reserve. Ranong Mangrove

Forest Research Center, Mangrove Conservation Office, Department of Marine and Coastal Resources. (in Thai)


41

42


Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Surabaya City Case Study : Mangrove Conservation Area in The East Coastal of Surabaya A.A Gde Dwijawardana1 1

City Planning Agency, Surabaya City Government, Indonesia

Background Surabaya as the second largest city in Indonesia seen from its district structures is appointed as the main center. It is the capital city of East Java with its dominant function as the center of commercial, financial, trade, information, administration, social, and health activities. Surabaya has a vision as the trade and service city which is smart, humane, dignify, and environtmentally friendly. The principles of good governance, community-based development and development integration are the applied core to guarantee Surabaya sustainable development.

Surabaya location is strategic, connecting Surabaya with the surrounding cities located in the range of Greater Surabaya Metropolitan Area (GKS/Gerbangkartosusilo), thus it supports the accelerated development in Surabaya. Beside its rapid development, Surabaya make a significant transformation in the environtmental regeneration and community based development. Communities are involved in the process of development started from the planning phase to the development implementation. Moreover, communities are also involved in the process of maintenance, hence the work acomplished will be not in vain. One of the program which has been implemented through community based development approach was Mangrove Conservation Development Program.

Condition of Surabaya and The East Coastal of Surabaya Generally, the city of Surabaya is a lowland area with an average height of 3-6 meters above sea level. Coastal area of Surabaya is located in west Surabaya and east Surabaya, bordered by Sidoarjo Regency, with a total length of 47.4 km. Geographically and ecologically, Pamurbaya region (East Coast Surabaya) has a very important function for the city of Surabaya to prevent the threat of sea water intrusion and damage to beaches, in addition to neutralizing waste and also for supporting the drainage system of Surabaya. Therefore, this East Coast Area is planned as mangrove conservation area.

East Coastal Mangrove Area Is The Part Of Public Green Open Space In Surabaya In the early 2000, Surabaya suffered the image of hot, dirty, and uninteresting city to live and visit. This has driven Surabaya City Government to make innovations in building an environtmentally sustainable city through the improvement of the open green spaces quality anf quantity. A good environment will stimulate good economic growth, not the other way around. Consequently, it is arranged the policy and strategy to improve the Green Open Space that can be acomplished by tightly controlling the course of development, determining conservation area, converting the built area into open green space, as well as building dozens of city parks and forests which many of them were gas stations. The efforts have resulted in the extension of public open green space from 9,18% in 2008 into 20,26% in 2012.

Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Surabaya City

No.

Type of Public Green Open Space (GOS) 1. GOS: Cemetery 2. GOS: yard and stadion 3. GOS: lake/reservoir/boezem 4. GOS: assignment of settlement public infrastructure 5. GOS: protecting area 6. GOS: city forest 7. GOS: park and green line Total area (Ha) Surabaya area (Ha) Percentage (%)

Large (Ha)

space in Surabaya cover around 20,26% as it is listed in the following table:

178,45 220,68 144,33 117,27 4.115,90 41,16 1.877,07 6.694,86 33.048,00 20,26

The supervision of the tight development direction was held in accordance to fulfill the proportion of public green open space as mandated by the Law number 26 of 2007 about the spatial arrangement where public green open space of city is set at minimum 20% from the city’s total area. As such mandate, recently the number of public green open

As mentioned above, one purpose of the establishment eastern coastal Mangrove Areas in Surabaya are implemented to prevent Surabaya against the flood, especially Rob / tidal shores, since Surabaya is very potential area affected by tides. It includes conservation of mangroves including ponds area located along the East Coastal Area of Surabaya as wide as ±2.500 ha. Besides, the mangrove area also serves as a preserver of the ecosystem. In addition, it has also become a tourist destination and help to prevent erosion and seawater intrusion. Nowadays, there are also many products can be got from mangrove which can improve social and economic conditions of community around, for example syrup, jenang, chocholate, batik, etc.

There are several strategic issues on East Coast Surabaya related to its function as mangrove conservation area, which are: 1. Legal basis of mangrove conservation area management is weak

43

44


2. Monitoring and controlling the use of mangrove conservation areas are important 3. Development activities in that area are still high, by converting it to housing and other built area 4. There are conflicts over the designation of Pamurbaya Conservation Area, including land status, utilization, etc. 5. There is sedimentation on estuaries caused by waves and back water 6. Socialization & Community empowerment is important related to mangrove conservation

5.

6.

Insentive and dis-insentive (reward & punishment) in conservation areas when people try to convert its landuse Community empowerment related to mangrove conservation.

Spatial Planning Zone of East Coast Area In order to keep the coastal Mangrove Areas as mangrove conservation area, the Surabaya city government made spatial planning in 2012 to prevent its landuse. This planning divides eastcoast are to be 3 (three) zones, which are: 1. Core zone, includes mangrove area and bird watching activity, 2. Restricted zone, includes ecotourism area such as tour boat/canoe, silvofishery, etc, 3. Supporting zone, includes mangrove planting area, mangrove information centre, fishing ponds, etc.

However, it is not easy to keep the mangrove area as conservation area if there is no support from citizen and other stakeholders as expected. Therefore, the city government is always trying to enhancing all stakeholders participation to conserve the mangrove areas. Many mangrove plantation events has been held together and it can be a great effort to ask participation from other stakeholders to conserve the mangrove area together. From the explanation above, it is known that mangrove conservation area in East Coast Area of Surabaya is one important area to support Surabaya as an Eco City. It needs participation from all stakeholders and all stakeholders have a strong commitment to take an active role in conserving and managing the area.

To implement that spatial planning, there are several efforts should be done, such as: 1. Law enforcement of mangrove conservation area management 2. Dissemination of conservation area management 3. Monitoring and controlling the land use use of mangrove conservation areas 4. Managing Land Ownership of Pamurbaya Conservation Area (land status, utilization, etc.)

Mangrove and Climate Change Group Leader: Dr. Fauzi Mas’ud

Moderators: Honorato G. Palis Wilistra Dani Nyoman Suryadiputra Raja Barizan

46


Estimation of CO2 Fixation Capacity and Growth Potential on Mangrove Forest in South East Asia Okimoto Y1, 2*, A Nose1, RA Swignyo3, TZ Ulqodry1, Y Oba1 and Y Tateda4. 1

Saga University, Saga, Japan Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia 3 Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia 4 Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Chiba, Japan 2

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Carbon stocks of mangrove forest have estimated by using allometric equations, although UNFCCC approves the only 10 equations for AR-CDM. The allometric method is laborious and time consuming to develop, so alternative methodologies which more accurate and simple to use are required. We have challenged to develop such alternative methods on the monoculture mangrove forest. As a result of that, both analysis methods of gas exchange and growth curve were proposed (Okimoto et al., 2007, 2008). The former method estimates CO 2 balance of photosynthetic absorption and respiratory emission of CO2, which are based on measurements of photosynthesis in leaf and respiration in leaf, branch and trunk. While, the latter is derived by variations of the tree biomass at some tree ages, and which estimates potential of maximum tree biomass and variations of annual biomass increment with derivative value of the growth curve. Our results of the gas exchange estimations shows that aboveground biomass increment were 66.0 and 34.3 ton ha-1 yr-1 for 7 and 10 year-old Kandelia candel forest in Nam Dinh and Thanh Hoa, Vietnam (21° and 19° N North latitude) and 76.3 ton ha -1 yr-1 for 9 year-old Rhizophora apiculata forest in Trat, Thailand (12° N), respectively. Meanwhile, the growth curve estimations in the both sites of Vietnam show that potential of the maximum growth of 265 and 305 ton ha-1 was estimated, respectively. Consequently, it is appeared that the mangrove monoculture forests in approx. 20° N (the North Vietnam) have potential to growth up to around 300 ton/ha. In addition to the results shown above, some data for 8-10 year-old R. apiculata forest in Sungai Asam, Indonesia (2° S) are under analysis. All analyzed data will be combined to figure out variations of growth potential of the mangrove monoculture forest in different latitudinal areas.

Forests, which function as carbon sinks, are expected to sequester a great amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2). Efforts at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries that include conservation, sustainable management and enhancement of forest carbon stocks by afforestation and reforestation (REDD+) have been a controversial issue in the climate change debate. Carbon pools of mangrove forests are among the highest of tropical forest types (Bouillon et al., 2008). Of great interest is the mangroves’ potential value in carbon mitigation programs such as REDD+ and other financial incentives for its conservation of standing forests (Kauffman and Donato, 2012). Mangroves are currently being advanced as an essential component of climate change strategies such as REDD+ and blue carbon (Alongi, 2012). However, distribution of mangrove trees has decreased to the half in the last five decades due to land conversion for urbanization, agriculture, and aquaculture, especially shrimp farms. They are planted to recover its distribution and rehabilitate the coastal ecosystems. To account for mangrove biomass, only ten allometric methods are approved by UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) so far (Putz and Chan 1986, Day et al. 1987, Clough and Scott 1989, Chave et al. 2005, Smith and Whelan 2006). The allometric method relies on some empirical relationships between growth factors such as diameter at breast height (1.3 m from the ground), tree height and tree biomass. Although these factors are periodically measured in the field, it requires laborious and time-consuming work to correlate the growth relationships. Alternative methodologies are required to ensure estimation accuracy and make it simple to use. We have conducted studies on mangroves of Rhizophora stylosa in Ishigaki, Japan (24° North latitude), and Kandelia candel in Thanh Hoa, Vietnam (21° N) to propose alternative methods, which increase the accuracy of estimations of the carbon fixation capacity of mangrove trees.

Estimation of CO2 Fixation Capacity and Growth Potential on Mangrove Forest in South East Asia

Our previous study has proposed two analysis methods of gas exchange and growth curve (Okimoto et al. 2007 and 2008). The former estimates photosynthetic CO2 absorption, respiratory CO2 emission and the balance of net CO2 fixation. It has overcome traditional gas exchange method which had weaknesses to estimate the CO2 emission due to the difficulty. As a result, it is appeared that accuracy in measuring CO2 fixation of the forest can be enhanced by temperature modification, i.e. correcting CO2 values of photosynthetic absorption and respiratory emission with a diurnal change model of temperature in each month. The latter method shows variations in the biomass of planted mangrove trees and derives annual biomass increments with the derivative values throughout mangrove forest maturity up to 23 to 28 years (Gong and Ong, 1995). Over the field surveys in the three different sites for the last decade, several data of biomass of the monoculture mangrove trees were collected and those of CO2 fixation capacity were estimated. This paper shows growth curve estimations in the three research site, and which leads to estimate growth potential of biomass in the monoculture forest in South-east Asia. Material And Methods 1) Study site Study sites are located in Trat, Thailand (12°11'N, 102°34'E) and the both of Thanh Hoa (20°12’N, 160°32’E) and Nam Dinh (21°17’N, 106°33’E) in Vietnam. These regions are all subtropical areas. Field research was carried out for monoculture mangrove trees of 3, 4, 5 and 9 yearold R. apiculata in Trat, 5, 10 and 15 year-old Kandelia candel in Thanh Hoa, and 2, 5, 7 and 10 year-old Kandelia candel in Nam Dinh, respectively. These species are all familiar in Southeast Asia. Tree density of R. apiculata trees in Trat was 100, 66.7, 50.0 and 25.0 trees 100 m-2, K. candel trees in Thanh Hoa 64.5, 89.0, and 52.0 trees 100 m-2 and K. candel trees in Nam Dinh 108, 108, 226 and 178 trees 100 m-2, respectively. 2) Measurement of above- and below-ground biomass Biomass of branch and trunk in each tree was measured based on dry weight (surface area and volume for R. apiculata in Trat, because they are preserved trees.). The branch was divided into four offshoot groups, following the same method described in the previous study (Okimoto et al., 2008)—primary offshoots attached to the trunk, those branching from the first offshoots, those branching from the second offshoots, and other twigs. The divided branches were also separated into lignified brown and non-lignified green parts,

based on the degree of lignification and colour of the branch surface. Roots were carefully collected by excavation with an engine pump (SEG-25E, Koshin Ltd.). They were divided into four groups: main root and first, second and third lateral roots. The main root was separated into four parts—upper, upper middle, middle lower and lower—and the lateral roots were separated into two groups, brown and white, based on the colour of the root surface. These biomass samples were used for RCER measurement. After the measurements, the samples were dried at 115°C for more than a week, and the dry weights were measured. In addition, water content and wood density (weight per unit volume) of the samples were calculated. 3) Estimation of net CO2 fixation capacity using gas exchange and growth curve analysis methods Net CO2 fixation capacity of the monoculture mangrove trees in South-east Asia was estimated using both analysis methods, gas exchange and growth curve (described in Okimoto et al. 2008). In the gas exchange analysis, the response of the photosynthetic CO2 exchange rate (PCER) to light and temperature was measured in the leaves of upper and lower layers in the canopy. Light extinction and distribution of the leaves in the canopy were measured to calculate the canopy’s CO2 absorption capacity. Respiratory CO2 emission was estimated by multiplying the respiratory CO 2 exchange rate (RCER) measured in selected organs by the total amount of each organ in the aboveground tree. Monthly average based on whole-day absorption and emission of CO2 was corrected based on the diurnal values of light intensity and air temperature. An annual CO2 fixation capacity was estimated by integrating CO2 balance (absorption and emission) each month. The details can be referred to Okimoto et al. (2008). In the growth curve analysis method, single tree biomass of 3, 4, 5 and 9 year-old R. apiculata trees was measured based on both surface area and volume using non-destructive methods. A growth curve was calculated based on the volumes at different tree ages and the given maximum dry weight of the tree, based on a formulation described in Okimoto et al. (2008):

D (1) 1  E  exp  F t where Y is the tree biomass (kg dry weight/tree) at the age of t , t is the tree age (in years), D is the maximum tree biomass, E is an integration constant, and F is the growth coefficient showing Y

the maximum value of annual biomass accumulation. The value of E can be calculated by

47

48


both

D

and an initial value of

Y0 with the

following equation:

E

D  Y0 Y0

(2)

A derivative value of the growth curve ( ΔY /ΔT ) was calculated by the following formula, and an annual CO2 fixation along the tree growth was estimated with this value:

ΔY D  E  F  exp  F t  ΔT (1  E  F  exp  F t ) 2

(3)

4) Estimation of annual biomass accumulation using growth curve analysis In drawing a growth curve of the single tree biomass, it is necessary to have actual tree biomass in different growth stages and maximum tree biomass in a mature period. A shape of the growth curve is determined by these data on the tree biomass and an initial tree biomass (propagule). An annual biomass increment was calculated based on derivative values of the growth curve. A growth curve was drawn by using the above-ground biomass of each tree based on Equation 1 above. The maximum tree biomass at climax period was assumed based on the largest tree biomass in each site. Hence, they were 9 year-old tree for R. apiculata in Trat, 15 year-old tree for K. candel n Thanh Hoa and 10 year-old tree for K. candel in Nam Dinh, respectively. For example in Trat, the maximum tree biomass was arbitrarily assumed to be about 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 times larger than that of the 9 year-old tree—i.e., 15，20 and 25 × 10-2 m3 tree-1, respectively. Meanwhile in Nam Dinh, the maximum tree biomass was assumed by the following three steps; the first ones for a whole tree, above- and below-ground biomass were 12.5, 10.0 and 2.5 kg DW tree-1, which is similar to the 10 year-old biomass (12.1, 9.7 and 2.3 kg DW tree -1), respectively. The second one was 17.2, 13.9 and 3.3 kg DW tree-1, respectively. These are calculated by referring to above-ground biomass of mature R. apiculata forest 246.7 ton ha-1 (Alongi et al., 2000), and which was calculated by multiplying T/R (top/root) ratio of 4.16 by the tree density (178 trees 100 m-2), the both are obtained in the 10 year-old tree. The third one was 14.6, 11.8 and 2.8 kg DW tree-1, the middle values of the two maximum tree biomasses as shown above. Those three kinds of maximum biomass are 223, 260 and 306 ton ha -1, respectively. Assumptions of the maximum tree biomass for K. candel in Thanh Hoa were described in Okimoto et al. (2008).

It is reported that mangroves reach their climax in 23 to 28 years (Gong and Ong, 1995); thus, the growth curves were drawn based on the assumption that the tree biomass would reach its maximum at 25 years. Results In Trat, total surface area in a single tree of 3, 4, 5 and 9 year-old R. apiculata was 0.136, 0.584, 1.95 and 19.8 m2 and the total volume was 0.0520, 0.147, 0.608 and 10.3×10-2 m3, respectively. To calculate dry weight of the tree biomass of different ages, wood density obtained from a part of samples in 4 year-old tree (0.510 and 0.488 g cm-3 for trunk and branch, respectively) was multiplied by the calculated value of tree biomass in volume. The calculated tree biomass of 3, 4, 5 and 9 year-old in dry weight was 0.254, 0.720, 2.97 and 50.2 kg DW tree-1, respectively. Above-ground tree biomass in hectare was 2.54, 4.80, 14.9 and 126 ton DW ha -1, calculated by multiplying the single tree biomass in dry weight by tree density, respectively. Root biomass of the 4 year-old R. apiculata tree was 5.82 m2 in surface area and 1.91×10-2 m3 in volume. Both of them were 10 times higher than those of aboveground biomass. Root biomass of 4 year-old tree in dry weight was 6.30 kg DW tree-1, which was calculated by using the wood density of root (0.329 g cm-3). T/R ratio (the ratio of total weight of aboveground biomass to dry weight of the root) was 0.114. In Thanh Hoa, total dry weight of the 5, 10, and 15 year-old K. candel tree was 4.48, 11.5, and 31.3 kg DW tree-1, respectively. Their total dry weight per hectare was 28.9, 102, and 163 ton DW ha -1, respectively. Most of the parts in above-ground tree were composed of lignified brown trunk and first branches. Dry weight of leaves belonging to 10 and 15 year-old tree was almost the same. They were 2.3 times higher than those of the 5 year-old tree. Root biomass was mainly composed of the main roots. The ratio of dry weights of the main roots was about 43, 36, and 58%, respectively. Their T/R ratios were 1.45, 3.85, and 2.54, respectively. In Nam Dinh, above-ground biomass of 2, 5, 7 and 10 year-old K. candel tree was 0.48, 2.48, 3.86 and 9.74 kg DW tree-1, respectively. Root biomass of the single tree was 0.44, 1.57, 1.73 and 2.34 kg DW tree-1, respectively. Dry weight of the aboveground biomass per unit hectare was 5.18, 26.8, 87.2 and 173 ton ha-1 and those of the root were 4.75, 17.0, 39.1 and 41.6 ton ha-1, respectively. Their T/R ratios were 1.09, 1.58, 2.23 and 4.16, respectively. Volume accumulations of R. apiculata trees in Trat as a function of time in growth curve analysis method were shown in Fig. 1. Three kinds of growth curves with different values of the maximum tree biomass corresponded well to the single tree


volumes obtained from the four different ages. As indicated in the growth curves, it can be predicated that single tree biomass attain their peaks at around 13 year-old. Meanwhile, annual increment of tree biomass in volume reached their maximum value at 8 or 9 year-old, which were 5.26-9.43×10-2 m3 tree-1 yr-1. In the growth curve with the maximum tree biomass of 20×10-2 m3 tree-1, annual increments of the tree volume in 3, 4, 5 and 9 year-old tree was 0.0742, 0.203, 0.611 and 5.81×10 -2 m3 tree-1 yr-1, respectively, which was calculated from derivative values of the growth curve. These values in volume can be converted into those in dry weight by multiplying the calculated values by the wood density obtained from the samples of 4 year-old tree (0.486 g cm-3). The calculated values of annual dry weight accumulation in above-ground of 3, 4, 5 and 9 year-old forests were 3.32, 6.69, 15.0 and 71.2 ton ha-1 yr-1, respectively (Table 1). Also from the growth curves with the maximum tree biomass of 15 and 25×10-2 m3 tree-1, the annual values of dry matter accumulation were 2.85-53.1 ton ha-1 yr-1 and 3.77-88.1 ton ha-1 yr-1, respectively (Table 1).

Fig. 1. Growth curves made using the estimated data of above-ground biomass in four kinds of stand ages in Trat, Thailand. Maximum stand biomass was assumed in three levels, details referred in Materials & Methods. Values of D, E and F show the parameters of growth curve equation of Y=D/(1+E・exp-F・t), where D is an assumed maximum stand biomass, E=(D-Y0)/Y0 where Y0 is an initial value of stand biomass, t is a stand age, and F is a growth coefficient.

Table 1. Annual biomass increment (ton ha-1 yr-1) in the forests of Rhizophora apiculata in Trat, Thailand, estimated by growth curve analysis method.

Stand age (yr)

Growth Curve Estimation (ton ha-1 yr-1) Assumed maximum stand biomass (X10-2 m3/stand)

15 20 25 3 2.85 3.32 3.77 4 5.53 6.69 7.86 5 11.9 15.0 18.2 9 53.1 71.2 88.1 Dry weight accumulation of K. candel trees in Thanh Hoa in the growth curve analysis was shown in Fig. 2, which is previously reported Okimoto et al. (2008). All the growth curves corresponded well to the dry weights of the single tree measured at different three ages. Annual growth rates of the total tree biomass of 5, 10, and 15 year-old tree calculated by derivative values of the growth curve were 1.00, 3.82, and 4.39 kg DW tree –1 yr–1, in which the maximum value of the total tree biomass was postulated at 45.8 kg DW tree–1. The net CO2 fixation capacity of 5, 10, and 15 year-old canopy estimated by growth curve analysis was 6.45, 34.0, and 22.8 ton ha–1 yr–1 (Table 2), which was calculated by multiplying the annual growth rates of single tree by the tree density (64.5, 89.0, and 52.0 trees 100 m-2), respectively. The derivative values described in Eq. 3 can be substituted for the actual biomass accumulations of the tree in each growth stages.

Fig. 2. Growth curves made with both estimated stand biomass, above- and below-ground biomass and total stand biomass in three kinds of stand age in Thanh Hoa, Vietnam. Maximum stand biomass was assumed in three levels, details referred in Materials & Methods. Values of D, E, and F show the parameters of growth curve equation of Y=D/(1+E・exp-F・s), where D is an assumed maximum stand biomass, E=(D-Y0)/Y0 where Y0 is an

49

50


initial value of stand biomass, s is a stand age, and F is a growth coefficient. Table 2. Annual biomass accumulation of K. candel trees in Thanh Hoa in growth curve analysis (ton ha-1 yr-1 in the forest, kg stand-1 yr-1 in one tree). In table, "Whole" shows the summed value of above- and below-ground biomass.

Growth curve analysis

Tree age 15 10 15

Forest Above ground 5.00 26.6 13.6

Root

Whole

1.50 8.50 8.60

6.50 34.0 22.8

Tree Above ground 0.77 2.99 2.62

Whole 1.01 3.82 4.38

Dry weight accumulation of K. candel trees in Nam Dinh as a function of time in growth curve analysis was shown in Fig. 3. All the growth curves corresponded well to the dry weights of the single tree measured at different five ages (2, 5, 7 and 10 year-old). Forest biomass per hectare was 265-308 ton ha-1, which was calculated by multiplying the maximum single tree biomass obtained in the growth curves (14.9-17.3 kg DW tree-1) by the tree density. Maximum values of annual biomass increment in above-, below-ground and the total tree were 2.23-2.26 kg DW tree-1 yr-1 at 8 year-old, 0.180.19 kg DW tree-1 yr-1 at 6-11 year-old and 2.512.84 kg DW tree-1 yr-1 at 7-9 year-old, respectively. These values resulted in the maximum value of annual biomass increment per hectare of 54.7±3.51 ton ha-1 yr-1. In the growth curve analysis method, averaged values of annual biomass increment at 2, 5, 7 and 10 year-old were 3.44, 13.1, 50.8 and 39.5 ton ha-1 yr-1, respectively (Table 3). By using gas exchange analysis method, net CO 2 fixation capacity was estimated with CO2 balance between photosynthetic absorption and respiratory emission of CO2. Although results of the gas exchange estimations are not sufficiently described in this paper, the above-ground values for 3, 4, 5 and 9 year-old R. apiculata tree in Trat were 6.33, 36.9, 50.5 and 76.3 ton CH2O ha-1 yr-1, respectively (Fig. 4). Those for 5, 10 and 15 year-old K. candel in Thanh Hoa were 71.2, 34.3 and 3.64 ton CH 2O ha-1 yr-1 and for 2, 5, 7 and 10 year-old K. candel tree in Nam Dinh were 35.0, 32.0. 66.0 and 28.6 ton CH2O ha-1 yr-1, respectively.

Fig. 3. Growth curves made with both estimated stand biomass, above- and below-ground biomass and total stand biomass in four kind of stand ages of Kandelia candel in Nam Dinh, Vietnam. Maximum stand biomass was assumed in three levels, details referred in Materials & Methods. Values of D, E, and F show the parameters of growth curve equation of Y=D/(1+E・exp-F・t), where D is an assumed maximum stand biomass, E=(D-Y0)/Y0 where Y0 is an initial value of stand biomass, t is a stand age, and F is a growth coefficient.

Table 3. Comparison of annual biomass accumulation estimated with the growth curves (ton ha-1 yr-1) which were drawn using the four kinds of the estimated stand biomass (2, 5, 7 and 10 year-old) of Kandelia candel in Nam Dinh, Vietnam. “D" in the title is the assumed maximum stand biomass (kg DW tree-1).

Tree age 2 5 7 10

Assumed maximum value (D) 14.9 4.62 17.0 56.6 27.6

16.0 2.8 11.4 48.9 43.5

17.3 2.89 11.0 47.0 47.3

Average 3.4 13.1 50.8 39.5

Discussions To estimate CO2 fixation capacity of the monoculture mangrove trees, two analysis methods of gas exchange and growth curve have conducted to develop. Through collecting the data and comparison of the both estimations, the two methodologies have proposed (Okimoto et al. 2007, 2008). This paper shows mainly results of the growth curve estimations, which leads to estimate growth potentials of the monoculture mangrove trees.


Annual biomass increments of this study (Table 1, 2 and 3) were partly higher than the above-ground estimates for Rhizophora of 26.7 ton ha-1 yr-1 in Thailand (Christensen, 1978), 23.6 ton ha-1 yr-1 in Malaysia (Ong et al., 1995) and 22.9 ton ha -1 yr-1 in Indonesia (Sukardjo and Yamada 1992). As Komiyama et al. (2007) indicates, the variation in net primary productivity of mangrove species may be related to the geographical location (Clough, 1992), species, stand density and growing season (Aksornkoae, 1993), as well as stand age (Ong et al., 1995). However, it is appeared in this study that the mangrove monoculture forests in approx. 20° N (the North Vietnam) have growth potential up to around 300 ton ha-1 (Fig. 2 and 3). Our study shows growth potential of the monoculture mangrove trees which exceeds that of tropical forest. This suggests that mangrove plantation in the south-east Asia could be a strategic countermeasure of climate change mitigation, and which enforce continuous mangrove plantation activity there. The T/R ratios obtained in this study were similar with those of the mangrove forest of Xylocarpus granatum in Thai, showing 0.95–2.14 (Pongparn et al. 2002) and those of mangrove forests varied between 1.1 (a Ceriops tagal stand in Thailand) and 4.4 (a Sonneratia stand in Indonesia), and generally was between 2.0 and 3.0 (Komiyama et al., 2007). The above-ground biomass to belowground biomass (T/R) ratio of mangrove forests was significantly lower than that of upland forests (Komiyama et al., 2007) and mangroves might allocate a great deal of biomass to their roots. It is determined by IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change) methodology of AR-AMS0003, description of root biomass is determined with a default value of 0.1 of the above-ground biomass. Therefore, study of the below-ground root is important for precise estimation by avoiding underestimation of the root biomass of mangrove trees. Our results of the gas exchange estimations shows that above-ground biomass increment were 66.0 and 34.3 ton ha-1 yr-1 for 7 and 10 year-old K. candel forest in Nam Dinh and Thanh Hoa, Vietnam (21° and 19° N North latitude) and 76.3 ton ha-1 yr-1 for 9 year-old R. apiculata forest in Trat, Thailand (12° N), respectively (Fig. 4). The CO2 fixation capacity of 34.3 tons ha-1 yr-1 (13.7 ton C ha-1 yr-1) for 10-year-old K. candel trees in Vietnam was similar to those of 27 ton ha-1 yr-1 for 15-year-old R. apiculata trees in Thailand (Christensen, 1978) and 14.0 ton C ha-1 yr-1 for 10-year-old R. apiculata trees in Malaysia (Ong, 1993), both of which were calculated by the allometric method. These correspondences show the validity of our developing methodologies and indicate the possibility that our methods could supersede

traditional methods of measuring the CO2 fixation capacity of mangrove trees. Growth curve estimations can be used as a reference value of net CO2 fixation capacity estimated by the gas exchange estimations. Okimoto et al. (2008) reported the comparisons of estimated values for K. candel tree in Thanh Hoa and indicated some remaining challenges to develop the methodologies as found in the difference of the comparison. In regards to the gas exchange analysis method, for example, it is necessary to involve respiratory CO2 emission from the below-ground root. As for the growth curve, assumed values of the maximum tree biomass can be replaced to actual value, if some mature tree could be collected, and which improve the growth curve analysis method. In the current study, these developing methods of estimating CO2 fixation capacity were applied to the well-managed monoculture forest to test their applicability to various mangrove species grown in Southeast Asia and to enhance their accuracy. Precise evaluation of carbon standing stock in mangrove forests is essential to quantify carbon credits generated by “carbon sink” enhancement forestation projects using CDM and REDD+. In addition to the results shown above, some data for 8-10 year-old R. apiculata forest in Sungai Asam, Indonesia (2° S) are under analysis. All analyzed data will be combined to figure out variations of growth potential of the mangrove monoculture forest in different latitudinal areas. Acknowledgements This work was partly supported by the research of CO2 sequestration and collection technology funded by New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization and Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth. Also, dispatch of Y. Okimoto at CIFOR is sponsored by JapanCGIAR Fellowship, 2012. References Aksornkoae, S. 1993. Ecology and management of mangroves. Bangkok: The IUCN program, 6970. Alongi, D.M. 2012. Carbon sequestration in mangrove forests. Carbon Manage., 3(3): 313322. Alongi, D.M., Tirendi, F., Clough, B.F., 2000. Below-ground decomposition of organic matter in forests of the mangroves Rhizophora stylosa and Avicennia marina along the arid coast of Western Australia. Aquat. Bot. 68, 97–122. Bouillon, S., Borges, A. V., Castaneda-M.E., Diele, K., Dittmar, T., Duke, N.C., Kristensen, E., Lee, S. Y., Marchand, C., Middelburg, J.J., Rivera-

51

52


Monroy, V. H., III, Thomas J. S., Twilley, R. R. 2008. Mangrove production and carbon sinks: A revision of global budget estimates. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22, GB2013. Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M.A., Chambers, J.Q., Eamus, D., Folster, H., Fromard, F., Higuchi, N., Kira, T., Lescure, J.P., Nelson, B.W., Ogawa, H., Puig, H., Rie´ra, B., Yamakura, T., 2005. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia, 145, 87– 99. Christensen, B., 1978. Biomass and productivity of Rhizophora apiculata B1 in a mangrove in southern Thailand. Aquat. Bot., 4, 43–52. Clough BF. 1992. Primary productivity and growth of mangrove forests. In: AI Robertson and DM Alongi, eds., Tropical Mangrove Ecosystems. American Geophysical Union. pp. 225-249. Clough, B.F., Scott, K., 1989. Allometric relationships for estimating aboveground biomass in six mangrove species. Forest Ecol. Manage., 27, 117–127. Day, J.W., Conner, W.H., Ley, L.F., Day, R.H., Navarro, A.M., 1987. The productivity and composition of mangrove forests, Laguna de Terminons, Mexico. Aquat. Bot., 27, 267–284. Gong, W.K. and Ong, J.E. 1995. The use of demographic studies in mangrove silviculture. Hydrobiologia, 295, 255-261. Kauffman, J.B., and Donato, D.C. 2012. Protocols for the measurement, monitoring and reporting of structure, biomass and carbon stocks in mangrove forests. Center for International Forestry Reserch Center (CIFOR) Working paper 86, pp50. Komiyama, A., Ong, J.E. and Poungparn S. 2007. Allometry, biomass, and productivity of mangrove forests: A review. Aquat. Bot., 89, 128-137. Okimoto, Y., Nose, A., Katsuta, Y., Tateda Y., Agarie, S., and Ikeda, K. 2007. Gas exchange analysis for estimating net CO2 fixation capacity of mangrove (Rhizophora stylosa) forest in the month of Fukido, Ishigaki Island, Japan. Plant Prod. Sci., 10(3), 303-313. Okimoto, Y., Nose, A., Ikeda, K., Agarie S., Oshima K., Tateda Y., Ishii, T. and Nhan D.D. 2008. An estimation of CO2 fixation capacity in mangrove forest using two methods of CO2 gas exchange and growth curve analysis. Wetlands Ecol. Manage., 16, 155–171. Ong, J.E., 1993. Mangroves—a carbon source and sink. Chemosphere, 27, 1097–1107. Ong, J.E., Gong, W.K., Clough, B.F., 1995. Structure and productivity of a 20-year-old stand of Rhizophora apiculata B1 mangrove forests. J. Biogeogr., 22, 417–427.

Poungparn, S., Komiyama, A., Jintana, V., Piriyayaota, S., Sangtiean, T., Tanapermpool, P., Patanaponpaiboon, P., Kato, S., 2002. A quantitative analysis on the root system of a mangrove, Xylocarpus granatum Koenig. Tropics, 12, 35–42. Putz, F., Chan, H.T., 1986. Tree growth, dynamics, and productivity in a mature mangrove forest in Malaysia. Forest Ecol. Manage., 17, 211–230. Smith III, T.J., Whelan, K.R.T., 2006. Development of allometric relations for three mangrove species in South Florida for use in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem restoration. Wetland Ecol. Manage., 14, 409–419. Sukardjo, S., Yamada, I., 1992. Biomass and productivity of a Rhizophora mucronata Lamarck plantation in Tritih, Central Java, Indonesia. Forest Ecol. Manage., 49, 195–209.


53

54


Blue Carbon Stocks of Selected Mangrove Sites in the Philippines Dixon T. Gevana1,2,3, Antonio P. Carandang1, Leni D. Camacho1, Sofronio C. Camacho1, Florencia B. Pulhin1 and Sangjun Im2 1

College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna 4021, Philippines Department of Forest Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 151–921, Republic of Korea 3 Email: [email protected] or [email protected] 2

ABSTRACT Mangrove is among the most important ecosystems in climate change mitigation. Recognized as one of the blue carbon sinks, it captures and stores vast amount of carbon in its biomass and sediments. This study aimed to highlight the importance of mangrove trees in carbon storage. Studies on tree biomass and carbon stocks can provide benchmark information for future resource valuation and conservation planning in the Philippines. Four mangrove sites were selected in this study namely, San Juan in Batangas Province; Pagbilao in Quezon Province; Puerto Princesa City in Palawan Province; and Banacon Island in Bohol Province. Standard nondestructive nested plot technique was used to estimate tree carbon stock. By estimate, natural mangrove stands of San Juan store about 114.6 tC ha-1. Largest share of this value were observed in Avicenniadominated stand where Avicennia marina and Avicennia marina var. rumphiana are frequent. Natural mangroves of Pagbilao collectively store 99.1 tC ha-1 where Avicennia-dominated stands also contributed much to total carbon stock. Natural stands of Puerto Princesa largely contain 473.2 tC ha-1 where oldgrowth and strictly protected Rhizopora-dominated stands were found common. Lastly, dense plantations of R. stylosa in Banacon Island hold about 197.4 tC ha-1. Overall, estimates from all sites indicate the vigorous condition of mangrove trees in trapping carbon. Variations among estimates can be attributed to four likely factors: tree age; stand density; geographic location; and local management. Keywords: bakawan, blue carbon, mangrove conservation, tree biomass

community,

Introduction Carbon sequestration of coastal vegetations is receiving considerable attention now. Evidences that coastal vegetation can store more carbon than terrestrial forests have gained more interests to explore the capacity of mangrove forests to curve

down global warming. Since the recognition of global climatic change as a problem, proofs that global mean temperature is still on the rise has always been undeniable and climate-related impacts are becoming more prominent and severe. This enduring issue have always been associated with human activities prompting gigantic release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Among the GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most abundant. Coastal vegetations, known as ‘blue carbon sinks’, play a significant role in climate change mitigation because they are sources and sinks of CO2. Among these are mangroves that store huge amount of carbon in its biomass and sediments. Mangroves also provide countless services to people such as food, livelihood and protection from abrupt sea level rise, tidal surges and erosion. Other important blue carbon ecosystems include seagrass meadow and tidal marsh. Mangrove forest is indeed among the world’s most productive and diverse ecosystems. They showcase a group of halophytic species belonging to some 12 genera in eight different families (Lugo and Snedaker 1974). They are also well adapted to deal with natural stressors (e.g., high temperature, salinity, strong wind and ultraviolet rays). However, their proximity to population centers is pushing them beyond their limits being preferred for sewage disposal, human settlement, industrial sites and aquaculture ponds. Globally, mangroves are estimated to 15.2 million ha with a deforestation rate of 102,000 ha per year (FAO 2007). Massive loss was reported in Asia of about 1.9 million ha since 1980. In some regions, mangrove areas are already in the danger of complete collapse (Kathiresan and Bingham, 2001). The Philippines share a similar story after losing 70% of its original mangrove since early 1900s. Overharvesting of trees for fuelwood, charcoal and pole, and the conversion to aquaculture ponds remained as significant drivers of mangrove loss (Brown and Fischer 1920; Chapman 1976; Primavera 2000). Today, mangroves barely cover about 247,362 ha with an estimated annual deforestation of 0.8%. Notwithstanding this historical downtrend, statistics is now showing signs

Blue Carbon Stocks of Selected Mangrove Sites in the Philippines

of ease with the growing awareness and appreciation of mangrove’s broader values (eg. ecotourism, biodiversity and carbon sequestration). Further, the adoption of community-based forest management programs (CBFM) in coastal areas is now spurring efforts to restore and conserve the remaining mangroves. Mangrove conservation must be then sustainably pursued. Moving forward on this direction however demands ample information on their status to craft management plans and programs that will achieve lasting and desirable impacts on the ground. This is where studies on biomass and carbon stocks are needed. Knowledge about tree carbon stock provides yardstick for better assessment and appreciation of mangrove values. For this reason, this study was conducted to generate benchmark figures for biomass and carbon stocks of mangrove trees in the Philippines forest.

Methodology Site Description The Philippines is part of one of the West Malesiana pythogeographical region together with Malay Peninsula, Borneo and Sumatra (Figure 1). With a land area of about 300,00 sq. km and coastal length of 33,900 km, it harbours five percent of the world’s flora. Among these are mangrove plants that belong to 30 species and 14 families. There are five common mangrove vegetation types, namely: Rhizophoradominated stands along river; Rhizophora-dominated stands at shallow and rocky sediments; Avicenniadominated stands at intertidal mudflats; mixed Sonneratia stands in subtidal beds; Nypa forest along brackish water; and mixed tree and brushes on elevated coasts. Vast tracts of old growth forest can be only found in few provinces such as Palawan and Zamboanga del Sur while the largest plantation in Asia is situated in Bohol.

and presence of community-based mangrove management programs. Puerto Princesa in Palawan was largest area among natural stands while Banacon Island in Bohol was the only plantation studied. Table 1. Basic description of the study sites. Site

Province

Location

San Juan

Batangas

Pagbilao

Quezon

Puerto Princesa Banacon Island

Palawan

13°48’51”N; 121°26’51”E 13°58’65”N; 121°43’50”E 10º01’27”N; 118º47’17”E 10º03’30”N; 124º03’30E

Bohol

Area (ha) 100

Year Reported June 2008

157

October 2008 July 2010

5,737 458

December 2011

Biomass and carbon stock sampling Standard nested plot sampling technique developed by Hariah et al (2001) was used to determine tree species, diameter at breast height (dbh), total height (m), biomass (t ha-1), and carbon stocks (tC ha-1). Small plot (5m x 40m) included trees with dbh of 5 to 30cm while large plot (20m x 100m) accounted trees with more 30cm dbh. Biomass and carbon stock estimation was exclusively done for trees (aboveground and roots) to highlight their specific contribution to carbon stocks. Sediment carbon was not yet included in the assessment but is considered for future assessments. Tree biomass was computed using allometric equations developed by Komiyama et al. (2005). Choice of this equation took into account some reliability criteria such as coefficient of determination (r2) and significance level (p-value) in predicting dry mass of specific mangrove species. Values of aboveground (stem and canopy) and belowground (roots) were summed to get the total tree biomass expressed in ton per hectare (t ha-1). Carbon stock was computed by multiplying tree biomass values with the suggested carbon content value for Philippine tropical trees i.e. forty five percent (Lasco and Pulhin 2003). Wagb = 0.247 p (D2)1.23 Where: Wagb is the aboveground biomass (kg) p is the wood density of the species D is the diameter at breast height Root biomass was computed using the following formula:

Figure 1. Map of the Philippines showing the four study sites.

Four mangrove sites were selected for biomass and carbon stock assessment (Table 1). Data collection and analysis was done at different periods. The major criteria for selecting the study sites were accessibility

WR = 0.199 p0.899 (D2)2.22 Where: WR is the root biomass (kg) p is the wood density of the prop roots D is the diameter at breast height

55

56


Results and Discussion Stand description Biometric description of the stands is presented in Table 2. Among the trees, Rhizophora sp. and Avicennia sp. were found most common in all sites. In terms of stand density, Banacon Island was densest with an average of 210 trees per 200m2 plot. Tree spacing of this plantation site was 0.5m x 0.5m to 1.0m x 1.0m. Among the natural stands, the Rhizophora-dominated stands of San Juan and Puerto Princesa were thickest with an average of 29 trees and 27 trees per plot, respectively. Girth averages were largest in old growth stands of Puerto Princesa with about 18.3cm to 25.9cm. Among the trees, Bruguiera cylindrica measured the largest dbh of 59.5cm. Other Rhizophora species that co-dominated B. cylindrical were R. apiculata, R. mucronata and B. sexangula with diameter more than 40 cm. Height was also highest in Puerto Princesa. Avicennia-dominated stands in San Juan and Pagbilao was found sparsely vegetated with about 5 to 8 trees per 200m2. Large diameter trees such as Avicennia marina (53.4cm in Pagbilao; 84.5cm in San Juan) were found common in these sites. Other species that codominated A. marina were Avicennia officinalis (49cm), Sonneratia alba (48.5cm) and Ceriops decandra (43cm).

mangrove stands, larger estimates were observed in Rhizophora-dominated stands than in Avicenniadominated stands. Puerto Princesa has the largest stock with about 1,451.4 t ha-1 of biomass and 653.1 t ha-1 of carbon. Among the trees, B. cylindrical (est. 2.6 tC/tree), B. sexangula (est. 1.6 tC/tree), R. mucronata (est. 1.6 tC/tree) and R. apiculata (est. 1.5 tC/tree) contributed much to carbon stock. On the other hand, Rhizophora stand of Pagbilao has the smallest biomass (208 t ha-1) and carbon stock (96.3 tC ha-1). This can be attributed to its sparse and small tree diameter condition compared with other sites. Overall, values for natural Rhizophora stands followed a distribution trend: Puerto Princesa > San Juan > Pagbilao. In the case of plantation, Banacon Island stores more carbon than San Juan and Pagbilao. The extremely dense spacing of this site yielded larger biomass (438.6 t ha-1) and carbon stock (197.4 tC ha-1). Among Avicennia-dominated stands, San Juan has larger biomass (285.3 t ha-1) and carbon stock (12.5.8tC ha-1) than Pagbilao. Large stature trees such as A. marina (est. 3 tC/tree) and A. officinalis (est. 0.8 tC/tree) contributed much to this site’s carbon stock.

Table 2. Biometric description of stands across study sites. Site

San Juan

Pagbila o

Puerto Princes a

Banaco n Island

Stand Type

No. of plot

Ave. Stem per plot

Ave. DBH (cm)

Height Range (m)

Dominant Species

Natural: Rhizophor adominated Natural: Avicenn iadominat ed

5

29

13.9 ± 0.8

6 to 7

5

4

33.9 ± 2.4

5 to 7

Natural: Rhizoph oradominat ed s Natural: Avicenn iadominat ed Mixed Natural: Rhizoph ora

5

Rhizophora mucronata, Xylocarpus granatum Avicennia marina, Avicennia marina var. rumphiana, Ceriops decandra Rhizophora apiculata

Natural: Rhizoph oradominat ed Plantati on: Rhizoph ora stylosa

24

13.7 ± 0.4

6 to 8

8

19

13.7 ± 1.0

5 to 6

Avicennia marina

3

22

18.3 ± 2.9

6 to 20

3

27

25.9 ± 1.5

3 to 25

Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mucronata, Xylocarpus granatum Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mucronata

5

210

7.5 ± 0.1

13 to 14

Rhizophora stylosa

Biomass and Carbon Stocks The summary of tree biomass and carbon stock values is shown in Figure 2. Between the natural

Figure 2. Biomass and carbon stock distribution of different stand types across study sites.

Overall, tree carbon stock was largest in Puerto Princesa with 473.2 tC ha-1 (Figure 3). This is reflective of its century old, dense and well-protected condition. The presence of local management in terms of local forest policies and programs has also contributed to continual enhancement of its carbon stocks. By the virtue of Republic Act 7611 or Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act of 1992, mangroves in Palawan were placed under the care of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) which is a multisectoral and interdisciplinary organization that creates and enforces local forest policies on mangrove protection, and assists local communities in mangrove management. The plantation of Banacon Island was second in carbon stock with 197.4 tC ha-1. Being one of the largest plantations in Asia, it has already received several awards including the prestigious Outstanding Tree Farmer Award of UN-FAO in 1991. The success of Banacon Island in community-initiated reforestation


has propelled the government to install Communitybased Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA) which is a stewardship program that aids local community (represented by local People’s Organization known as Banacon Fisherfolks and Mangrove Planters Association or BAFMAPA) to develop and manage mangrove stands. Currently, there are about 380 families in this island who largely depend on mangrove forest for their income and livelihood. Among their livelihoods, indirect and less extractive means such as fishing and seaweed farming are the most common (Camacho et al 2011). Mangrove forest of San Juan store about 114.6 tC ha-1 thus placing it at the third place. San Juan mangrove lies along the Verde Island Passage Biodiversity Corridor which is one of the most diverse seascapes in the Philippines (Gevana and Pampolina 2009). The involvement of local government and and Conservation International in the management of this protected area is making a huge impact on the enhancement of carbon stocks. However, there are now small portions mangroves that are also being loss for fish ponds being under private ownership. This then contributes to some losses in carbon stocks. Lastly, Pagbilao contains 99.1 tC ha-1. Overharvesting of mangrove trees for wood and charcoal over the past several decades is a likely reason for smaller carbon stock value. Notwithstanding this problem, efforts are now underway to protect and restore degraded sites through the collaborative reforestation project between the government (represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and municipal government), Tokyo Electric Power Company and Marubeni Corporation (a private power generation company that operates near the site) and local People’s Organizations. The observable differences in carbon stocks can be attributed to four likely reasons: tree age; stand density; geographic location; and presence of local management. Age serves as a good indicator of tree’s capacity to store carbon. For instance, Rhizophora(s) of Puerto Princesa have larger stature (diamater and height) and carbon stocks being older in age compared with other sites. Similarly, stand density contributes largely to carbon stock whereas denser stands like plantations of Banacon Island can store more carbon than sparsely vegetated mangroves of Pagbilao. Geographic locations also influences biomass and carbon stock as species composition, climatic regime, edaphic properties and tree growth patterns vary from one place to another. Lastly, local management i.e. policies and programs in tending mangrove stands largely affects carbon stocks. Thus, without clear local management mechanism, habitat quality and carbon stocks will tend to degrade.

Figure 3. Mean total carbon stock distribution across study sites.

Implication to forest management Biomass and carbon stock observed from four sites generally indicates the vigorous condition of mangrove trees in mitigating climate change. Moreover, the active and sustained involvement of different stakeholders can be regarded as an important factor that enhances carbon stocks. Further studies to capture local management dynamics including impacts of local management systems on mangrove health are therefore necessary to distill successful paths toward effective shared management of mangroves. Among the sites, the case of Banacon Island somehow portrays the ideal case in rehabilitating degraded mangroves. Dense planting of mangroves could yield faster tree growth, better survival, and high productivity rates especially when environmental conditions (eg. sediments, exposure to tide and winds) are favorable. On the other hand, the case of Puerto Princesa suggests a protected, stable and healthy stand of which local managers of other natural mangrove sites should imitate. The well-represented conservation planning and implementation processes among local stakeholders has contributed much to continuous improvement of carbon stock by which value is possibly unmatched if compared with other sites in the Philippines and abroad. By comparison, some estimates abroad have lower estimates. For instance, natural mangroves of Phuket in Thailand was reported to around 159.00 tC ha-1, Boca Chica in Mexico with 135.00 tC ha-1, and Hongkong with 129.10 tC ha-1 (Christensen 1978; Day et al. 1987; Lee 1990). Komiyama et al (1987) measured 203 tC ha-1 for Indonesia while Amarasinghe and Balasubramaniam (1992) suggested 120 tC ha-1 for Sri Lanka. Values for Malaysia and China were 286.8 tC ha-1 and 248.5 tC ha1 , respectively (Ong et al. 1979; Lin et al. 1990). Overall, mangrove trees have huge potential to sequester vast amount of carbon if they will be properly protected and improved by the local stakeholder themselves. It is therefore crucial for the government to develop financial and technical mechanisms to continuously harness local commitments towards mangrove conservation. This may include adoption of incentive-based conservation programs such as payments for environmental services (PES) projects and Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Forest

57

58


Degradation (REDD) that will reward local commitments for conserving mangroves for carbon sequestration and other ecological values. Conclusion Biomass and carbon stock estimates obtained from four sites provide good benchmark for future resource valuation and landuse planning. Among the natural mangrove sites, Puerto Princesa contains the largest stock because of its relatively older, denser and strictly protected condition. On the other hand, the case of Banacon Island suggested potentially huge carbon stock of establishing dense mangrove plantation. Imperative to any successful management of blue carbon sinks are sound policies and programs, and strong local commitment towards resource conservation. This may require creating incentive-based conservation programs to reward communities in taking good care of mangroves. References Amarasinghe MD, Balasubrananiam S. 1992. Structural properties of two mangrove forest stands on the northwestern coast of Sri Lanka. Hydrobiologia 247:17-27 Brown WH, Fischer AF. 1920. Philippine mangrove swamps. In: Brown WH, editor. Minor products of Philippine forests I. Bureau Forestry Bull. 22:9–125. Camacho L, Gevaña D, Carandang A, Camacho S, Combalicer E, Rebugio L, Youn Y. 2011. Tree Biomass and Carbon Stock of a Communitymanaged Mangrove Forest in Bohol, Philippines. Forest Science and Technology 7(4): 161-167. Chapman, V.J. 1976. Mangrove Vegetation. New York: J. Cramer. 477 pp. Christensen B. 1978. Biomass and primary production of Rhizophora apiculata B1. in a mangrove forest in southern Thailand. Aquatic Botany 4: 43-52. Day J, Conner W, Ley-Lou F, Day R, Machado A. 1987. The productivity and composition of mangrove forests, Laguna de Terminos, Mexico. Aquatic Botany 27: 267 - 284. FAO. 2007. The world’s mangrove: 1980-2005: A thematic study prepared in the network of the Global Forest Resource Assessment 2005. FAO Paper No. 153. Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome. Gevana DT, Pampolina NM. 2009. Plant diversity and carbon storage of a rhizopora stand in Verde Passage, San Juan, Batangas, Philippines. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 12(2):1–10. Hairiah K, Sitompul S.M, Van Noorwijk M, Palm C. 2001. Methods for Sampling Carbon Stocks Above and Below Ground. International Center for Research in Agroforestry , ASB Lecture Series Note 4B, Bogor, Indonesia. 23 pp. Komiyama A, Ogino K, Aksornkoae S, Sabhasri S (1987) Root biomass of a mangrove forest in southern Thailand. I. Estimation by the trench

method and the zonal structure of root biomass. J Trop Eco. 3:97-108 Komiyama A, Poungparn S, Kato S. 2005. Common allometric equations for estimating the tree weight of mangroves. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:471477. Lasco R, Pulhin F. 2003. Philippine forest ecosystems and climate change: carbon stocks, rate of sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol. Annals of Tropical Research 25(2): 37-51. Lee, S. 1990. Primary productivity and particulate organic matter in an estuarine mangrove-wetland in Hongkong. Marine Biology 106: 453-463. Lin P, Lu C, Wang G, Chen H. 1990. Biomass and productivity of Bruguiera sexangula mangrove forest in Hainan Isalnd, China. Journal of Xiamen University 29: 209-213. Lugo A, Snedaker S. 1974. The ecology of mangroves. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 39-65. Ong J, Gong W, Wong C, Dhanarajan G. 1979. Productivity of a managed mangrove forest in West Malaysia, Paper presented at International Conference on Trends in Applied Biology in S.E. Asia, USM Penang, Malaysia. Primavera J. 2000. Development and conservation of the Philippine mangroves: Institutional issues. Ecological Economics 35: 91-106.


59

60


Allometric Models for Estimating Biomass and Carbon Accumulation in Mangrove Forests Haruni Krisnawati1,2, Wahyu C. Adinugroho1, Rinaldi Imanuddin1, I Wayan S Dharmawan1 1

Research and Development Center for Conservation and Rehabilitation, Forestry Research and Development Agency, Bogor, Indonesia E-mail address: [email protected]

2

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Mangrove forests are widely recognized as one of the most important and productive ecosystems in the tropics. However, this type of ecosystem is highly vulnerable to both climate change and land use change. Managing mangrove forest ecosystem requires information necessary to understand and predict changes in ecosystem structure and function. Accurate estimates of the amount of biomass are important to describe the current status of mangroves, to understand the dynamic of organic matter cycling in the mangroves, and to predict carbon sequestration and potential impacts of both climate change and land use change. The estimates of biomass and carbon storage can be improved through applying allometric models. In this study, we examined species- and site-specific allometric models to predict aboveground biomass and carbon stock developed at several sites of mangrove forests in Indonesia. There was a high variation of tree biomass estimates between the mangrove forest ecosystems. A variety in tree biomass estimates was also found for individual species among sites. The reliability of the biomass and carbon stock estimates will increase with the increase in level of site specificity of allometric models that are used to convert site-level forest inventory data into biomass. The species- and site-specific allometric models presented here should enable more accurate estimates of biomass and carbon sequestration in Indonesian mangrove forests.

Mangrove forests are known as one of the important and productive ecosystems in the tropics. Perhaps most importantly, mangrove forests are accumulation sites for contaminants, carbon and nutrients, sediments, and offer significant protection against coastal erosions, storms and tsunamis, and regulation of water quality (Duke et al., 2007; Alongi, 2009). Despite their importance, tropical mangrove forests continues to be threatened by local, regional, and potentially global climate changes and land use changes (Kathiresan and Bingham, 2001; Valiela et al., 2001). Over the last twenty years, this forest ecosystem has undergone severe changes due to anthropogenic influences to meet the increasing demand of lands, food, fiber and charcoal. The conversions of mangroves into other land uses have resulted in the emission of the green house relevant gas CO2 and a severe loss of mangrove biodiversity. Managing mangrove forest ecosystem requires information necessary to understand and predict changes in ecosystem structure and function. Accurate estimates of the amount of biomass are important in describing the current status of mangroves, understanding the dynamic of organic matter cycling in the mangroves, predicting carbon sequestration and potential impacts of both climate change and land use changes, as well as essential component for national carbon accounting and monitoring requirements (Eamus et al., 2000; Compley and McGuiness, 2005; Soares and Schaeffer-Novelli, 2005). Allometric models are useful tools for estimating biomass and carbon storage. The models, which relate biomass and tree variables (e.g. diameter, height) for individual species, may vary among sites (Clough et al., 1997; Eamus et al., 2000) due to the variability of environmental conditions (e.g. climate, geomorphology, edaphic factors, tides, ages, and the history of forests). The variations are reflected by the structural characteristic of mangrove forests, which make application of the models constructed from data obtained from the areas which are geographically different difficult (Soares and Schaeffer-Nuelli, 2005).

Keywords: climate change, carbon stock, mangrove, allometry

Allometric Models for Estimating Biomass and Carbon Accumulation in Mangrove Forests

Therefore, the need to obtain specific data for each geographical area has led to an increase in studies on biomass of mangroves. In this study, we examined species- and sitespecific allometric models to predict aboveground biomass and carbon stock developed at several sites of mangrove forests in Indonesia. The relationships and the amount of biomass estimated from the models were compared and the differences among sites were examined. Allometric Models For Mangrove Ecosystem In Indonesia Mangroves are distributed latitudinally within the tropics and subtropics, reaching their maximum development between 25°N and 25°S (Hensel et al., 2002). In Indonesia, mangroves span along 80,000 km with the total area of approximately 2.5 million ha, accounting for more than 75% of mangroves in Southeast Asia and 30% of mangroves in the world. A wide area of Indonesian mangroves can be found in Papua, covering more than half of the total area of mangrove forests in Indonesia (Figure 1). The availability of allometric models for mangroves in this region is, however, very limited. Our previous study (Krisnawati et al., 2012), reviewing published and unpublished literatures on biomass allometric models derived from destructive sampling method in Indonesia, reported that of the total nine literatures available on the tree biomass allometric models for mangrove forest ecosystem, most of them were based on sample trees collected from the mangrove forests in Kalimantan, Sumatra and Java islands (Figure 1).

mangrove forests in primary condition or loggedover forests, or mangrove plantations. Table 1. Description of biomass allometric models developed for mangroves in Indonesia Species

Site

Bruguiera parviflora

Riau Stem, 1 Branch+Twig, Leaves, Flower+Fruit Riau1 Stem, Branch+Twig , Leaves, Flower+Fruit Riau Stem, 1 Branch+Twig , Leaves, Flower+Fruit, Prop Root Cent Stem, ral Branch+Twig Java2 , Leaves, Prop Root, Aboveground Tree East Stem, Kali Branch+Twig mant , Root an3 East Stem, Kali Branch+Twig mant , Stilt root, an3 Root Riau Stem, Branch, 4 Twig, Leaves, Fruit, Root, Total Tree Riau Stem, Branch, 4 Twig, Leaves, Root, Total Tree Riau Stem, Branch, 4 Twig, Leaves, Fruit, Root, Total Tree West Stem, Branch, Kali Twig, Leaves, mant Aboveground 5 an Tree West Aboveground Java6 Tree, Root, Total Tree West Stem, Branch, Kali Twig, Leaves, mant Aboveground an7 Tree West Stem, Branch, Kali Twig, Leaves, mant Root, Total an8 Tree West Stem, Branch, Kali Twig, Leaves, mant Flower+Fruit, an9 Aboveground Tree, Root

Bruguiera sexangula

Rhizophora apiculata

Rhizophora mucronata

Bruguiera spp.

Rhizophora spp.

Bruguiera spp.


Rhizophora mucronata


Avicennia marina Xylocarpus granatum

Figure 1. Distribution of biomass allometric models for mangrove forests in Indonesia

There were at least seven species studied for the model developments, i.e. Rhizophora apiculata Bl., R. mucronata Lamk., Bruguiera parviflora (Roxb.) Wight & Arn. Ex Griff., B. sexangula (Lour.) Poir, B. gymnorrhiza (L.) Lamk., Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh., and Xylocarpus granatum Köenig (Table 1). Some of these species were sampled from


Bruguiera gymnorrhiza

1 3 5 7 9

Biomass component

Sam ple trees 7

Min D (cm) 10.0

Max D (cm) 24.8

9

10.0

40.5

5

10.0

49.5

10

2.0

7.8

11

10.5

37.0

11

11.0

46.5

12

10.8

22.3

21

1.1

38.2

7

11.1

24.5

34

2.5

40.0

47

6.4

35.2

30

5.9

49.4

45

2.8

8.9

33

5.0

60.9

Kusmana et al. (1992); 2Sukardjo and Yamada (1992); Supratman (1994); 4Hilmi (2003); Amira (2008); 6Dharmawan and Siregar (2008); Talan (2008); 8Pambudi (2011); Krisnawati et al. (2012).

61

62


The models related biomass (either total tree, aboveground tree, or tree’s components) and D (Dbh = diameter at breast height), with the exclusion of those reported by Kusmana et al. (1992) for all species and that reported by Supratman (1994) for Rhizophora spp., which used both D and H (tree height) as the predictor variables. The number of sample trees used to develop the biomass allometric models varied from 5 to 47 trees. The range of tree diameter used for developing the models was mostly larger than 5.0 cm to up to 40-60 cm, except for the models developed for R. mucronata in Central Java, which covered a maximum diameter of sample trees of 7.8 cm (Sukardjo and Yamada, 1992), and R. apiculata in West Kalimantan with a maximum tree diameter of 8.9 cm (Pambudi, 2011). Both were applied for mangrove plantations. Variability Ecosystem

of

Biomass

Within

Mangrove

To examine the biomass estimates predicted by the models for all mangrove forest conditions, we compared the models which used only diameter as the predictor variable (Figure 2). The results confirmed that there was a high variation of tree biomass estimates between the mangrove forest ecosystems. For instance, trees with the same diameter (Dbh = 20 cm), the estimates of aboveground biomass varied between 137 kg and 412 kg. The aboveground biomass of trees with Dbh = 40 cm ranged from 645 and 2264 kg. The larger the tree diameter, the bigger the difference in biomass estimates resulted by the models (Figure 2). Despite the different types of the models applied, the variation of biomass estimates might be influenced by some factors, such as ecological condition, site (location), species composition, and anthropogenic factors which contributed to the development of tree biomass in the forests. As a consequence, the estimates of carbon stocks may also vary within the mangrove forest ecosystem. Some models appear to have relatively consistent estimates of tree biomass up to a certain size of diameter. This may lead to an identification of a common allometric model that can be applied to these tree species within the geographical locations.

Figure 2. Aboveground tree biomass estimated from various allometric models developed for mangrove forests in Indonesia (1 Sukardjo and Yamada (1992); 2 Supratman (1994); 3 Hilmi (2003); 4 Amira (2008); 5 Dharmawan and Siregar (2008); 6 Talan (2008); 7 Krisnawati et al. (2012)).

Variability of Biomass Within Species Variability in the amount of tree biomass was also found for trees of the same species. The examples are shown by Rhizophora spp. (Figure 3) and Bruguiera spp. (Figure 4) in which data were collected from several sites of mangrove forests. As we can see from Figure 3, the amounts of biomass of the Rhizophora trees for the same diameter vary among sites. In general, a larger variation in the amount of biomass occurs as the tree diameter grows.

Figure 3. Aboveground tree biomass for Rhizophora spp. (1 Supratman (1994); 2 Hilmi (2003); 3 Amira (2008); 4 Pambudi (2011); 5 Krisnawati et al. (2011)).


Literature Cited

Figure 4. Aboveground tree biomass for Bruguiera spp. (1 Supratman (1994); 2 Hilmi (2003); 3 Krisnawati et al. (2012))

The variability in biomass (and thus carbon stock) of the same species among sites is most likely to be influenced by environmental conditions and anthropogenic factors, which affect the growth and accumulation of biomass (Soares and SchaefferNuelli, 2005). The difference in methodology used for sampling and field measurement may also influence the result of biomass estimation. Analysis of tree biomass conducted for Rhizophora spp. and Bruguiera spp. (Figures 3 and 4) have also resulted in various allometric relationships among sites (Figure 2), which produced a variety of tree biomass estimates for the same diameters. This variation will lead to a need to obtain species specific data for each geographical area, especially when carbon accounting is required to be more site-specific to meet high quality of data and information. Conclusions The variability of tree biomass estimates were found within the mangrove forest ecosystems as well as for the same species among sites. Application of the species- and site-specific allometric models should enable more accurate estimates of biomass and carbon sequestration. Establishing a series of allometric models for all tree species and sites is, however, very laborious. Thus, there is a need to identify a common (general) allometric model that can be applied for various tree species that have common characteristics and within a wide geographical location of mangrove forests. Acknowledgement Data analysed in this paper were based on our previous study which reviewed literatures (from published and unpublished sources) reported on the development of allometric models in Indonesia, with particular references to models developed in mangrove forest ecosystems.

Alongi, D.M. (2009). The Energetics of Mangrove Forests. Springer Science and Business Media BV, New York. Amira, S. (2008). Pendugaan biomassa jenis Rhizophora apiculata Bl. di hutan mangrove, Batu Ampar, Kabupaten Kubu Raya, Kalimantan Barat. Skripsi Departemen Konservasi dan Sumberdaya Hutan, Fakultas Kehutanan IPB, Bogor. (unpublished). Clough, B.F., Dixon, P. and Dalhaus, O. (1997). Allometric relationships for estimating biomass in multi-stemmed mangrove trees. Australian Journal of Botany 45: 1023-1031. Comley, B.W.T. and McGuinness, K.A. (2005). Above- and below-ground biomass, and allometry of four common northern Australian mangroves. Australian Journal of Botany 53: 431-436. Dharmawan, I.W.S. and Siregar, C.A. (2008). Karbon tanah dan pendugaan karbon tegakan Avicenia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. di Ciasem, Purwakarta. Jurnal Penelitian Hutan dan Konservasi Alam 5: 317-328. Duke, N.C., Meynecke, J.O., Dittmann, S., Ellison, A.M., Anger, K., Berger, U., Cannicci, S., Diele, K., Ewel, K.C., Field, C.D., Koedam, N., Lee, S.Y., Marchand, C., Nordhaus, I. and DahdouhGuebas, F. (2007). A world without mangroves. Science 317: 41. Eamus, D., McGuinness, K. and Burrows, W. (2000). Review of allometric relationships for estimating woody biomass for Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 5A. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. 56p. Hensel, P., Proffitt, E. and Delagado, P. (2002). Mangrove Ecology. In: Oil Spills in Mangroves: planning and response considerations. Hoff, R.Z. (Ed). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 70p. Hilmi, E. (2003). Model penduga kandungan karbon pada pohon kelompok jenis Rhizophora spp. dan Bruguiera spp. dalam tegakan hutan mangrove: studi kasus di Indragiri Hilir Riau. Disertasi Program Pascasarjana IPB, Bogor. (unpublished). Kathiresan, K. and Bingham, B.L. (2001). Biology of Mangroves and Mangrove Ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 40: 81-251. Krisnawati, H., Adinugroho, W.C. and Imanuddin, R. (2012). Allometric Models for Estimating Tree Biomass at Various Forest Ecosystem Types in Indonesia. Research and Development Center for Conservation and Rehabilitation, Forestry Research and Development Agency, Bogor. 119p.

63

64


Krisnawati, H., Adinugroho, W.C., Dharmawan, I.W.S. and Imanuddin, R. (2012). Allometric models for estimating above ground biomass of Bruguiera gymnorrhiza L. (Lamk.) at Kubu Raya mangrove forest, Indonesia (Manuscript). Krisnawati, H., Adinugroho, W.C., Dharmawan, I.WS., Imanuddin, R., Murdiyarso, D., Purbopuspito, J., Warren, M. and Susmianto, A. (2011). Carbon stock assessment in mangrove ecosystem of Kubu Raya, West Kalimantan: technical report. Cooperation between the Center for Conservation and Rehabilitation Research and Development-FORDA and CIFOR. Kusmana, C. Sabiham, S., Abe, K., and Watanabe, H. (1992). An estimation of aboveground tree biomass of a mangrove forest in East Sumatra, Indonesia. Tropics 1: 243–-257. Soares, M.L.G. and Schaeffer-Novelli, Y.S. (2005). Aboveground biomass of mangrove species. I. Analysis of models. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 65: 1-18. Sukardjo, S. and Yamada, I. (1992). Biomass and productivity of a Rhizophora mucronata Lamarck plantation in Tritih, Central Java, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management 49: 195-209. Supratman, I. (1994). Model persamaan pendugaan biomassa bagian pohon berkayu jenis Rhizophora spp. dan Bruguiera spp. di hutan mangrove Kalimantan Timur: Studi kasus di kawasan HPH PT. Karyasa Kencana. Skripsi Departemen Manajemen Hutan, Fakultas Kehutanan IPB, Bogor. (unpublished). Talan, M.A. (2008). Persamaan penduga biomasa pohon jenis nyirih (Xylocarpus granatum Koenig. 1784) dalam tegakan mangrove hutan alam di Batu Ampar, Kalimantan Barat. Skripsi Departemen Konservasi Sumberdaya Hutan, Fakultas Kehutanan IPB, Bogor. (unpublished). Valiela, I., Bowen, J.L. and York, J.K. (2001). Mangrove forests: one of the world’s threatened major tropical environments. Bioscisnce 51: 807815.


65

66


Indonesian Mangroves Survey: Their Roles in Cllimate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Daniel Murdiyarso1,2, Joko Purbopuspito1, Sigit D. Sasmito1, Matthew Warren3, Boone Kauffman1,4, Sofyan Kurnianto1,5, Haruni Krisnawati6, Sartji Taberina7, and Solichin Manuri8 1

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jalan CIFOR, Situgede, Bogor 16115, Indonesia Department of Geophysics and Meteorology, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor-Indonesia USDA Forest Service, 271 Mast Rd. Durham, NH 03824, USA 4 Oregon State University, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nash Hall Rm 104, Corvalis OR 97331, USA 5 Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space, & Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA 6 Center for Forest Conservation and Rehabilitation Research and Development (CFCRRD-FORDA), Bogor-Indonesia 2 3

ABSTRACT Indonesia has more than 50,000 km coastlines, where most of the low-lying coastal areas are occupied by 3.1 million ha of mangroves forest, which is around a quarter of the global mangroves area. There are three major islands of Indonesia where mangroves are found Sumatra (18%), Kalimantan (20%), and Papua (50%), others (12%). Our preliminary survey shows that in eight selected sites across these islands we found 22 mangroves species, mean basal area of 24.53 m2 ha-1 + 10.28 m2 ha-1, and mean number of tree with diameter at breast height, dbh >5 cm of 864.54 ha-1 + 156.57 ha-1 . Total below and above ground carbon stocks ranges between 615.6 Mg C ha-1 in most disturbed ecosystem and 1247.2 Mg C ha-1 in most pristine ecosystem. Controlling deforestation in these ecosystems would significantly contribute in climate change mitigation. Mangrove forests protect coastlines from sea level rise and erosion from high wave and storm surges, therefore, highly potential for climate change adaptation. Keywords: mangroves ecosystem, carbon stocks, climate change adaptation and mitigation

Introduction Indonesian archipelago is spread along the equator with more than 17,000 islands and 50,000 km long coastlines house more than 3.1 Mha is the biggest mangroves population by country in the world (25%) (Giri et al. 2010). Mangroves forests are distributed in five major islands of Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua. With thousands of deltaic rivers and hundreds of mountains in the middle of Indo West Pacific region relief, biogeographically Indonesia is a good habitat for more than 50 mangroves species

(Spalding et al. 1997, Duke et al. 1998, Alongi 2002, Triest 2008). The unique mangrove ecosystems are good habitat for coastal biodiversity e.g. reef fish, molluscs, crustaceans, birds, insects, monkeys and reptiles (Mumby et al. 2003, McLeod 2006).They also provide important ecosystem goods and services for local livelihoods (Vo et al. 2012). Mangroves filter and trap pollutants from and to the oceans, stabilize coastal land by trapping sediment and protection against storm/tsunami damage (McLeod 2006). In the context of climate change, mangroves have dual roles; to protect coastal areas from sea level rise and store carbon from highly productive ecosystem into the soil (McKee 2007, Lovelock 2008). Mangroves ecosystems mitigate climate change by accumulating large amount of organic carbon – the largest among other forest ecosystems (Murdiyarso et al. 2010, Donato et al. 2011, Bouillon 2011). Despites numerous global and local services, mangrove forests are one of the worlds’s most threatened tropical ecosystems with global loss exceeding 35% (Valiela et al. 2001). Globally 16% of mangroves species or eleven of 70 species are at elevated threat of extinction (Polidoro et al. 2010). Indonesia as developing country is one of the high mangroves deforestation rate 52,000 ha y-1 over the period of 1980-2005 (FAO 2007). Integrated coastal management, of which mangroves are part of, is urgently needed to regulate tremendous pressure due to land use-change issue into aquacultures and settlements. This paper shows initial results of a series of field surveys we conducted with a number of partners in mangroves ecosystem carbon stocks (Cstocks) assessment across Indonesia. It is also part of capacity building and public awareness regarding the roles of mangroves in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Indonesian Mangroves Survey: Their Roles in Cllimate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Study Sites and Methods This study is distributed in eight sites within five Indonesian major islands (Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua). Being located in the tropical region the sites experience monsoonal wet and dry seasons with annual rainfall ranges between 2000 and 3500 mm and air temperature range is 24-33 oC. A total of 38 transects represented 19 ha with 0.5 ha per transect were established in Sembilang (6 transects) representing Sumatra; Cilacap (2 transects) representing Java, Kubu Raya (7 transects) and Tanjung Puting (5 transects) representing Kalimantan, Bunaken (5 transects) representing Sulawesi; Teminabuan (4 transects), Bintuni (5 transects), and Timika (4 transects) representing Papua (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Distribution of the selected sampling sites across Indonesian archipelago.

The methods of our study clearly explained in the protocols of C-stocks assessment in mangrove ecosystems (Kauffman and Donato 2012). Aboveground carbon pools including trees, prop roots, and woody debries and belowground carbon pools for soils were examined by duplicated plots within transect method to get the ecosystem Cstocks. Tree diameters at breast height (dbh) within plots were surveyed and a common mangroves allometric equation by Komiyama et al. (2005) was used to determine dry biomass then it was converted into carbon allocation by (IPCC 2003) default number. Woody debries or dead downed woods were sampled using planar intersect technique (Brown and Roussopoulous 1974). They were classified into four classes fine, small, medium, and large based on their diameter size 0-0.6 cm, 0.6-2.5 cm, 2.5-7.6 cm, and >7.6 cm respectively. Mangroves litters were neglected due to the high efficiency detritusconsuming, crabs, as well as exported through tides and seasonal river flooding. Soil carbon polls were examined by collecting soil core within 300 cm depth with intervals od 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, 30-50

cm, 50-100 cm, 100-200 cm and 200-300 cm. Laboratory analysis for bulk density and soil carbon content using dry combustion method (Schumacher 2002) were performed. Ecosystems C-stocks were calculated based on the sampled carbon pools. Results and Discussions Across all 38 transects in eight sites of Indonesian five major islands, we found 22 mangroves species. This is much lower than the former studies (Spalding et al. 1997, Duke et al. 1998, Alongi 2002, Triest 2008) that were 50 species. The species diversity showed by ShannonWiener diversity index and Thompson’s diversity index were 1.77 and 3.78 respectively. The number of Shannon-Wiener diversity index was lower than our earlier studies in the riverine mangrove forests, but higher for Thompson’s diversity index (Murdiyarso et al. 2010). Both numbers, however, confirm that Indonesian archipelago has high mangroves species diversity. Following the IPCC Guidelines (IPCC 2003) we divided mangrove ecosystems into four carbon pools (trees, prop roots, woody debries, and soils) as we do not usually find litter. Rhizophora apiculata, Bruguiera gymnorizha, and Rhizophora mucronata have mean vegetation C-stocks 90.95 Mg C ha-1, 54.84 Mg C ha-1, 21.97 Mg C ha-1 respectively. The ecosystem C-stocks, which we define as the whole mangrove stands that include all pools and consider spatial variability, we estimate site by site. Total below and above ground carbon stocks ranges between 615.6 Mg C ha-1 in most disturbed ecosystem and 1247.2 Mg C ha-1 in most pristine ecosystem. On average, in all these sites most of carbon (83 percent) is stored in the soil pool. Conclusions Indonesian mangrove ecosystems surveys provide a basic data of their structure, diversity, species distribution, and C-stocks for further use and development of field assessments and monitoring. Managing high and increasing basal area through thinning should be encourage to maintain the ecosystem roles in storing carbon and at the same time stabilizing the ground against sea level rise. Based on our survey, Indonesian mangroves, which are mainly riverine and estuarine play crucial role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. REDD+ mechanism may be adopted to promote the synergy between climate change adaptation and mitigation.

67

68


References Alongi, D.M. 2002. Present state and future of the world's mangrove forests. Environ. Conserv. 29: 331-349. Bouillon, S. 2011. Storage beneath mangroves. Nature Geoscience 4: 1-2. Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kurnianto S, Stidham M, and Kanninen M. 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4:293-297. DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1123. Duke, N.C., Ball, M.C., Ellison, J.C. 1998. Biodiversity and function of mangrove ecosystems. Glob. Ecol. And Biogeo. Let. 7: 2747. FAO. 2007. The world's mangrove 1980-2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations. Rome- Italy. Giri, C. et al. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 154-159 (2011). Lovelock, C.E. 2008. Soil respiration and belowground carbon allocation in mangrove forests. Ecosystems 11: 342-354. McKee, K.L., Cahoon, D.R., Feller, I.C. 2007. Caribbean mangroves adjust to rising sea level through biotic controls on change in soil elevation. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00317.x McLeod, E. and Salm, R.V. 2006. Managing mangroves for resilience to climate change. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 64pp. Mumby, P.J. et al. 2003. Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean. Science 427: 533-536. Murdiyarso D, Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Kurnianto S, Stidham M, and Kanninen M. 2010. Carbon storage in mangrove and peatland ecosystems, a preliminary account from plots in Indonesia. CIFOR Working Paper 48. Bogor-Indonesia. Polidoro, B. A. et al. 2010. The loss of species: Mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern. PLoS ONE 5, e10095. Spalding, M., Blasco, F. and Field, C. 1997.World Mangrove Atlas.Okinawa, Japan: The International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems: 178 pp. Triest, L. 2008. Molecular ecology and biogeography of mangrove trees towards conceptual insights on gene flow and barriers: A review. Aquatic Botany 89: 138-154. Valiela, I., Bowen, J.L., York, J.K. 2001. Mangrove forests: one of the world's threatened major tropical environments. Bioscience 51: 807-815. Vo, Q.T., Kuenzer, C., Vo, Q.M, Moder, F., and Oppelt, N. 2012. Review of evaluation methods for mangrove ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 23: 431-446.

Indonesian Mangroves Survey: Their Roles in Cllimate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

69

70


Rehabilitation of Eroded Coastal Mangroves Using Innovative Techniques: A Case Study in Peninsular Malaysia Raja Barizan, R.S1. & Ismail, H1 1

Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), 52109, Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia, [email protected]

ABSTRACT After the 2004 tragic tsunamis that struck the region and claimed many deaths and huge loss to properties along coastal areas, the Malaysian government realized that there is a critical need to stabilize, conserve and to protect the country shoreline areas that could potentially be affected by tsunamis in the future. The Malaysian government had established the “Special National Task Force on Planting of Mangrove and Other Suitable Species in Coastal Areas”, with the major task to identify coastal mangrove areas for rehabilitation and conservation and promotion of research related to planting of mangrove species. Before 2005, Malaysia has very little experience in planting mangroves for restoration and protection of coastal areas. It has been found that extensive mud-flats along the western coast of the Peninsular Malaysia are devoid of vegetation. The area is still unstable to support natural succession due to active erosion and accretion occurring within the area. To facilitate mangrove rehabilitation activities along these areas, a research on techniques of coastal stabilization prior to planting, especially in areas classified as highly eroded with strong wave actions was conducted. Since then, in December 2007 the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) with the support of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) and its agencies, have worked together to embark on the project to rehabilitate open mud-flats with soft mud that are exposed to strong tidal waves. The task was designed as an attempt to create a buffer zone along the coastal line. Therefore, to facilitate shoreline stabilisation prior to planting, soft engineering structure whereby the partially submerged woven geo-textile (geotubes) sandfilled breakwater was constructed prior to the introduction of innovative planting techniques. To increase the survival rates of mangrove seedlings planted in areas which are classified as highly eroded with strong wave action, two innovative planting techniques of mangrove were introduced. The first innovative planting techniques, Comp - Mat techniques, was

pioneered and developed by FRIM scientists for planting Rhizophora species. The second innovative planting, Comp-Pillow techniques, was developed by using a circular compressed coconut fibres as a planting casing or planting medium for planting Avicennia species. Introduction Erosion and accretion is a natural process that occurs along the dynamic coastlines. Erosion along either sandy or muddy coastline occurs as a result of a few factors such as the action of waves that hit perpendicular to the coastlines. Swift flow of sea current may result in soil or sand particles being washed away along with the sea current. The height and frequency of waves hitting the coastline are also very important factors contributing to the severity of eroding coastline. It is not uncommon to find large areas devoid of vegetation are subjected to active coastal erosion. The presence of coastal vegetation especially mangroves would offer excellent protection to soil and reduce soil erosion significantly. The occurrence of the tragic tsunami on 26 December 2004 that hit the western coastlines of Peninsular Malaysia and several Asian countries claimed thousands of lives and inflicted a substantial damage to properties and economy of affected areas. As a consequence of the catastrophic tsunami, the National Task Force Committee (NTF) on Planting of Mangroves and Other Suitable Species on the shorelines of Malaysia was formed under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE). The Technical Committee on Research and Development (TCR&D) which is chaired by the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) was one of the committees formed under the Task Force (NTF). Among the responsibility of the TCR&D is to look at the best way of rehabilitating the degraded coastal mangrove areas with mangrove species and other suitable species along the coastal zone. The conventional technique of planting mangroves was observed to be less effective to withstand strong waves and current action at the early stage of growing period. Thus, improved planting techniques were developed by FRIM and the research was

Rehabilitation of Eroded Coastal Mangroves Using Innovative Techniques: A Case Study in Peninsular Malaysia

conducted at the study site at Sg Hj Dorani, Sg Besar, Selangor, Malaysia. The research on techniques of coastal stabilization prior to planting, especially in areas classified as highly eroded with strong wave actions was conducted together with the Malaysia’s Department of Drainage and Irrigation (DID), the National Hydrology Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM). The project was supported by the Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia (FDPM) both at the federal and state levels. The stabilization of these coastal areas was done by placing a ‘soft engineering’ breakwater structure at a predetermined distance towards seaward side. The structure is a partially submerged woven geo-textile sand-filled tube and is called geotubes. The breakwater was constructed prior to the introduction of innovative planting techniques of mangrove species. The geotubes act as a wave breaker by reducing the height of the wave that passes through the geotube and hence slowing down tidal wave impacts on the shorelines. Methodology An experimental plot, 200 m × 55 m, was established on December 2007 at the beach front of D’ Muara Marine Park Resort. The study site is located in a village of Sg Hj Dorani (03o 38’N and 101o 00’E), Sg Besar, state of Selangor, on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. It is about 90 km to the north of Kuala Lumpur. The plot was established mainly for investigating the rehabilitation techniques of degraded coastal mangroves using improved and innovative mangrove planting techniques. The site was chosen because it represents a suitable study site with extensive open mud-flat area. The stretch of mangroves at the study site is subject to severe coastal erosion and the existing thin belt of mangroves is being threatened as many fringe trees have been uprooted by strong waves. The site has a semi-diurnal tidal regime with a maximum annual tidal range of 3.2 m (Babak et al. 2010). Four tubes geotubes, act as a frontline wave breaker, were installed at the site by DID in July 2007. Each of geotubes size was 1.8 m × 3.7 m × 50 m and with 0.5 m gap between them. The area of mud-flats accumulated between geotubes and the shoreline provide space for planting. At the time of geotube installation, the mudflat was still in liquid form, thus it provides poor anchorage for seedlings to develop and less effective to withstand strong tidal waves. Therefore, innovative planting techniques were introduced as an alternative means of rehabilitating the site (Raja Barizan et al., 2009). The plot was established and designed according to split split plot design: 3 Species  4 Planting techniques  4 Blocks  3 Subblocks  4 Plots  33 and size of each plot was 10 m × 10 m. Three species of mangrove seedlings were planted using different planting techniques. The seedlings were: i) Rhizophora apiculata (bakau minyak, BM); ii) R. mucronata (bakau kurap, BK); and iii) Avicennia alba (api-api, AA). Three

different innovative planting techniques were tested against the conventional planting practices, Control (CT). The three techniques were: i) Comp-Pillow (CP), ii) Comp-Mat, (CM), and iii) Bamboo Encasement Methods (BEM). However, in this paper, only CP and CM planting techniques will be discussed. The plant was planted using 2 m × 2 m planting spacing. CP planting technique was developed using a coirlog as a planting casing or planting medium (Raja Barizan, 2008, Raja Barizan et al., 2010). The coir-log was made of 100% biodegradable natural compressed coconut fibre. It is encased with a high tensile natural 100% biodegradable coir twine netting or polypropylene (PP) netting. Each coir-log size was 100 cm length and 30 cm height. The coir-log was holed with three to up five holes, depending on the requirement, for planting bakau seedlings. The pre-planted bakau seedlings were raised in the nursery or wet nursery for at least two months before planting on mud-flat to allow the development of bakau roots within the coir-log. Whilst, CM planting technique was developed using a coated wire mesh of rectangle open box, 100 cm  25 cm  25 cm, as a planting casing and filled up with loose coconut fibre and mixed with mud as a planting media (Raja Barizan et al. 2010). The upper and sides of casing were covered with polypropylene material to protect planting from being washed away and 3 to 5 cuts were made on the upper casing to allow planting of 3 to 5 bakau seedlings. In December 2011, which is after three (3) years, the seaward mangrove plot was successfully established at Kampung Sungai Haji Dorani, Sungai Besar, Selangor and become a demo site of establishing mangrove buffer. This paper discusses and elaborates on the successfully established coastal mangrove plot at Kampung Sungai Haji Dorani, Sungai Besar, Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia which functions as a mangrove buffer, using innovative planting techniques. Results and Discussion The survival of bakau minyak (BM) and bakau kurap (BK) planted using innovative CM techniques gave the highest survival rate, especially those behind geotube 2 (G2) and geotube 3 (G3) as shown in Table 1. The survival of mangrove seedlings planted using convensional technique (CT) was severely recorded after 15 months, especially behind geotubes 4. However, all mangrove seedlings planted using CT technique was washed away after 24 months. The cause of high mortality of mangrove seedlings planted using CT techniques was due to the technique was not sufficient to anchor the newly planted plants from being washed away by a strong wave.

71

72


Table 1: Group survival (%) of planted mangrove behind different geotubes (1, 2, 3 & 4) using different planting techniques after 15, 18 and 24 months (m)

Table 2b: Multiple comparison height of mangrove species planted using different types of planting techniques (CM, CP, K=CT) behind geotube number 3, 15 months after planting

Survival (%) of mangrove species planted behind different geotubes Plantin g Species Techni ques

15m

CP

CP

AA

BK

BM

CM

BK

CM

BM

CT

CT

CT

BM

Dependent Variable: HEIGHT(cm)

G 3

G 4

G 1

G 2

G 3

G 4

G 1

G 2

G 3

G 4

3 9

7 3

6 1

3 4

3 9

7 0

4 8

1 4

3

2 0

2 0

0

4 4

7 0

5 2

0

2 4

6 5

3 9

0

2

2 4

2 0

0

3 2

7 5

7 5

4

2 8

7 2

7 2

2

9

1 9

1 9

0

6 1

9 1

1 0 0

4 9

6 1

8 8

9 4

2 7

3 6

7 9

7 6

0

2 3

1 0 0

9 6

7 3

2 3

1 0 0

9 6

6 5

0

6 5

7 6

0

0

2 0

0

0

0

2 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2 5

3 0

1 3

0

1 0

2 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4 5

2 5

0

0

0

2 5

0

0

0

0

0

0

AA

BK

24m

G 2

G1 CP

18m

Multiple Comparisonsa

Multiple comparison of height growth for mangrove species after 15 months planted using different types of planting techniques (CM, CP, K=CT), behind geotubes number 2 and 3, has shown a similar trend (Tables 2a, 2b). The result showed that mangrove seedlings planted using CM technique gave significantly higher height growth when compared to CP technique. However, mean height of mangrove seedlings planted using CT technique slightly higher than those planted using CM techniques but the different is no significant. Table 2a: Multiple comparison height of mangrove species planted using different types of planting techniques (CM, CP, K=CT) behind geotube number 2, 15 months after planting Multiple Comparisonsa Dependent Variable: HEIGHT(cm)

LSD

Mean Dif f erence (I-J) Std. Error 3.15* 1.246 -3.12 3.215 -3.15* 1.246 -6.26* 3.171 3.12 3.215 6.26* 3.171

Based on observ ed means. *. The mean diff erence is signif icant at the .05 level. a. BLOK = 2, MONTH-AP = 15

a.

GEOTUBE = 2, MONTH = 15

95% Confidence Interv al Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound .000 15.56 20.78 .628 -14.52 8.78 .000 -20.78 -15.56 .000 -32.65 -9.42 .628 -8.78 14.52 .000 9.42 32.65

Based on observ ed means. *. The mean diff erence is signif icant at the .05 level. a.a.BLOK =GEOTUBE 3, MONTH-AP ==153, Conclusion MONTH = 15

Abbreviations: Planting Techniques: CP=Comp-Pillow; M=Comp-Mat; CT= Control; Geotubes number: G1, G2, G3 & G4; Species: AA=api-api; BK=bakau kurap; BM=bakau minyak

(I) TEKNIK (J) TEKNIK CM CP K CP CM K K CM CP

LSD

Mean Dif f erence (I) TEKNIK (J) TEKNIK (I-J) Std. Error CM CP 18.17* 1.327 K -2.87 5.925 CP CM -18.17* 1.327 K -21.04* 5.908 K CM 2.87 5.925 CP 21.04* 5.908

Sig. .012 .333 .012 .049 .333 .049

95% Confidence Interv al Lower Bound Upper Bound .70 5.60 -9.43 3.20 -5.60 -.70 -12.49 -.03 -3.20 9.43 .03 12.49

1. The results of the study has proven that the ‘soft engineering’ technology, geotubes, which was used for the stabilisation of shoreline at the study site in Sg Haji Dorani succesfully created a more conducive growing condition behind the wavebreaker (geotubes) and induced substrate to accumulate and build-up. 2. It is not recommended to plant mangroves species along the coastlines if the wave height is more than 1 m, regardless of planting techniques, unless suitable wavebreaker structures are constructed to reduce 1 m wave height (Raja Barizan & Shamsudin, 2010). 3. The design and placement of the geotubes at the sudy site, should take into account the height of the tidal waves, tidal range and soil profile of the site. 4. Before any planting program is conducted especially along the coastlines, the soil types and coastal hydrodinamic paremeters need to be studied. The information gathered can be used as a guide in determining suitable planting techniques and suitable species that could be planted. 5. CM planting techniques showed the most promising survival and good growth when compared to CP and CT techniques. Acknowldegement We would like to thank TCR&D for allowing us to conduct the study and NRE for funding the project. We would also like to thank FDPM for granting permission to conduct research at Sg Haji Dorani, Selangor, Malaysia.

Rehabilitation of Eroded Coastal Mangroves Using Innovative Techniques: A Case Study in Peninsular Malaysia

References BABAK K., ROSLAN, H. & SHATIRAH A. (2010). Efficiency of an intergrated habitat stabilisation approach to coastal erosion management. International Journal of the Physical Sciences. Vol. 5(9). Pp 1401-1405. RAJA BARIZAN, R.S. (2008). Promising planting techniques. FRIM in Focus. A quarterly of the Forest Research Institute Malaysia, March 2008. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, Selangor. Pp 6-7. RAJA BARIZAN, R. S., AZIAN M. & WAN NURZALIA W.S. (2007). Innovative Mangrove Planting Techniques Using Bamboo Encasement Methods (BEM) for Mangrove Coastal Rehabilitation: Preliminary findings on survival and growth of Rhizophora apiculata. Proceedings on the International Seminar On Wetlands & Sustainability 2007 ISWS 2007 4 - 6 Sept 2007, Puteri Pan Pacific Johor Bharu, Johor Malaysia Pp.8. RAJA BARIZAN, R.S., SHAMSUDIN, I., ISMAIL, H. & SITI NORMASLIANA, M.T. (2009). Innovative Planting Techniques of Mangrove Species for Coastline Protection: A case study in Kuala Bernam FR, Sg Hj Dorani, Selangor. Proceedings of the Seminar PEM 2/2009 Highlights of Non-Science Fund Projects 2009. Genting Awana Hotel, Pahang, 9 November 2009. RAJA BARIZAN, R.S. & SHAMSUDIN, I. (2010). Effectiveness of Geotubes as a Wave Breaker in Rehabilitating Degraded Mangrove For Coastal Protection. Paper presented at the National Coastal Morphology Seminar 2010: The Muddy Coast of Malaysia. 17 Jun 2010, NAHRIM, Serdang, Selangor. RAJA BARIZAN, R.S., SHAMSUDIN, I., ISMAIL, H. & SITI NORMASLIANA, M.T. (2010). Garis Panduan Teknik Inovatif Penanaman Bakau Di Pesisiran Pantai Berisiko Tinggi. [Guidelines on Innovative Planting of Mangrove at High Risk Coastal Sites]. ISBN 978-967-5221-25-5. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM). 85 pp. RILEY, J.K.W. (2005). Riley Encased Methodology. Http:/mangrove.org/method.htm. Assessed on 30 Decemer 2006.

73

74


Recovery Status of Aceh Mangroves After 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Onrizal1 and Mashhor Mansor2 1 2

Forestry Sciences Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Sumatera Utara [[email protected]; [email protected]] School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia

ABSTRACT The recovery status of Aceh mangrove after the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was examined. The field researches were conducted during January 2005 to December 2011 in more than 70 km of Aceh coast to (1) look at plant species that are resilient to the onslaught of up to 50-meter tsunami waves, (2) observe and record the emergence of several existing plant species as well as new ones that were caused by the tsunami, and (3) examine the survival of the rehabilitated mangroves after the tsunami disaster. The natural hazards caused catastrophic destruction to Aceh coastal communities, and also caused environmental changes such as landscape change, land subsidence, land uplift, etc. Disturbance is an important factor in structuring ecological communities, exerting its influence through changes to the physical environment and to the trajectories of succession processes. For natural succession, the main result shows that (1) mangrove coasts may not recover at all to their former state as their topography has been greatly altered and hydrologic and sedimentary conditions differ from their previous state, (2) most of mangrove trees dead due to change in habitat environments, mainly in land subsidence coasts, (3) some mangrove species in land subsidence coasts were found to migrate land-ward via seedling recruitment, naturally, (4) some mangrove plants species seemed to thrive well in the natural stands with mother trees survived against tsunami, (5) new species such as Typha latifolia are widely colonizing along the intertidal coastal zone, and (6) mangrove fern Acrostichum aureum population occupy the open areas left by mangrove plant communities or unmanaged aquaculture pond. For rehabilitation activities, the true mangrove species such as Rhizophora apiculata and Rhizophora mucronata are most popular selected in mangrove rehabilitation after tsunami disaster. The successful level of rehabilitation are varied from low to middle survival due to some reason such as mistakes in the selection of planting sites, unsuitable choice of plants, insufficient preparation, inadequate guidance, no tending of the plants, and the low capacity of human resources. It should be noted that before 26th December 2004, most of the

Aceh mangroves had been destroyed to make way for aquaculture ponds. Since the mangroves provide a natural barrier, more human lives could probably be saved during the tsunami. Unfortunately, due to high demand of aquaculture products such as shrimps, prawns and fish, the widespread destruction of these mangrove forests was unmanaged. Therefore, mangrove forests should be rehabilitated and conserved very well in the future. Based on the results, the impact and natural recovery processes provide valuable lessons for coastal management, for example, in the replanting of mangroves in the modified coastal environments following and the questionable construction of seawalls on accreting coasts. Keywords: mangroves, natural succession, rehabilitation, tsunami impact, coastal management, Aceh Introduction Aceh in northern Sumatra, Indonesia is most affected area due to earthquake and tsunami on 26th December 2004 (Figure 1). An earthquake measuring is about 9.3 in magnitudes occurred along the Sunda Subduction Zone within 150 km of the Aceh province of Indonesia (Bilham, 2005, Chen, 2005, Ghobarah et al., 2006, Chlieh et al., 2007). The initial energy released by the eruption was estimated at about 25 Hiroshima bombs (Lay et al. 2005). This huge earthquake triggered tsunami waves, which the combined destructive impact of the earthquake and the tsunami was enormous to the coastline and its inhabitants lining the Indian Ocean. The natural hazard had caused extensive damage on human life and coastal environments, including massive loss of human life, devastation of coastal ecosystems and settlements, and damage to infrastructure and facilities. In Aceh alone, a total of 476,808 people were displaced, 120,663 killed, 116,126 lost and 714,517 affected (Athukorala and Resosudarmo, 2006). The agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and tourism sectors were seriously damaged, threatening food supplies and livelihoods. Estimates of the total damage exceeded US$4.45 billion (approximately 97% of Aceh’s GDP) and economies in the affected regions are expected to

Recovery Status of Aceh Mangroves After 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami

shrink by approximately 14%, including $US1 billion in lost productivity (BAPPENAS and the International Donor Agency, 2005). Almost 900 km2 of coastal land in Aceh were flooded and to a large part devastated (Iverson and Prasad, 2007). The tsunami run up heights varied which the West Coast was impacted by the highest wave height, sometimes exceeding 30 m to a maximum of 51 m, the North Coast by height around 10 m (Borrero et al. 2006; Jaffe et al. 2006; Matsutomi et al. 2006, Lavigne et al., 2009; Wong 2009, Prasetya, 2011) but the area's lowlying land allowed those waves to penetrate far inland, and the East Coast by heights of about 5 m (Wong 2009). The most damage on land was in nearby Aceh, with severe and widespread impacts found in west and north coast of Aceh. Liew et al. (2010) stated that the tsunami removed almost the entire suite of depositional landforms of beaches, low sand dunes and wetlands, and eroded the coast back for about 500 m. Chen et al. (2005) estimated that 89.7% of Aceh mangroves were destroyed by the tsunami. These different wave heights have implications on the impacts and recovery of various coastal types (Wong, 2009) in Aceh coast after the giant earthquake and tsunami. This paper examines the impact and recovery of Aceh mangrove from the giant tsunami on 26 December 2004 on the various coastal types. Study Site and Methods Three coastal sectors of northern of Aceh about 70 km are focused in this study. West coast is extending south to Ujung Pulot and north to Lhok Nga about 20 km, North coast is extending west to Lambadeuk and west to Lambada about 25km, and East coast is extending west to Ujung Kareng and east to Kuala about 25 km (Figure 1).

coast, which are influenced by semi-diurnal tides with a tidal range of slightly more than 1m (Sea Defence Consultants, 2007). The West Coast is of high relief and consists of massive Palaeozoic limestones at headlands and alluvium in the bays and estuaries (Bennett et al., 1981). Landforms in west coast are dominated by wave; characterized by the formation of beach ridges on the coastline-hills and marine terraces. Isolated tidal swamps are usually formed on the beach ridges at the river mouths (Figure 2) (Syofiati et al., 2005) or back of beaches on riverbanks. The west coast is the most exposed as it is open to the Indian Ocean swell with wave height of 1-2m and even more from the dominant southwest direction (Sea Defence Consultants, 2007). Before tsunami, mangroves in west coast were limited and distributed in a narrow area on riverbanks and confined to estuaries and behind the barriers formed sand dune which covered by littoral vegetation (such as Casuarina, coconut and others trees and shrubs) or open area (bareland). River dominated coastal landforms are characterized by beach ridges formed on alluvial plain of big river estuary in north coast (Syofiati et al., 2005). Therefore, the North Coast is low-lying and consists of undifferentiated alluvium (Bennett et al., 1981). Tsunami disrupted the beach ridges, forming new landscapes of a mixture of remnants of the ridges and muddy alluvial plains (Figure 3) (Syofiati et al., 2005). The North Coast, which is protected by Pulau Weh, is the most sheltered and has a wave height mainly 95% mortality over 2-3 years) are common including; 9 separate planting projects on Simeulue Island, Aceh after the tsunami supported by Australian Red Cross (7) and District Forestry Department (2) (Brown and Yuniati, 2007), one planting site in Maros District, South Sulawesi which experienced total mortality on three separate occasions, and is being funded by Green PNPM for a fourth planting this year (Melati, 2011), and a case where BRLKT and the village government of Tiwoho in North Sulawesi planted an area 6 times over 9 years experiencing total failure each time (Brown, Personal Observation). This failure was attributed to three assumptions regarding restoration: 1) Mangroves can only be restored by planting , 2) roots causes of the failure of natural recruitment to take place are not important to investigate and 3) fluvial mud-flats (between LGT and MSL) are suitable for planting, when in fact they likely never supported a mangrove forest in the first place.

Community Based Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation and Subsequent Development of Adaptive Collaborative Mangrove Ecosystem Management

Improved Practices The five images in Figure 1 illustrate the restoration of a portion of a 500 ha (1236 acres) mangrove forest restoration project in Hollywood, Florida, USA, within the Anne Kolb Nature Park. The interesting part of the story is that none of the mangroves you see were planted! They are all what we call “volunteer” mangroves (Fig. 2)—ones that colonized the site on their own after appropriate biophysical conditions were established. Such conditions include appropriate tidal hydrology to support natural colonization by the millions of floating “propagules” (seeds or seedlings) of mangroves naturally produced in this area every year. A three year pilot project prior to this major restoration effort had established the target topographic elevation that would facilitate natural recruitment of mangroves. The construction of a tidal creek in the center of the project was essential to replicate the natural tidal creeks found in all mangrove forests and to allow for the movement of fish and invertebrates into and out of the forest as tidal levels rose and fell. A common goal for such a project, aside from healthy mangrove growth might be the restoration of 75% of a functional fisheries equivalent – compared to a natural reference site – within five years of constructing the project.

Understanding Natural Recovery Mangroves exist in a variety of intertidal situations, with the common denominator of substrate elevation. Nearly all true mangrove are found established and growing between Mean Sea Level, and Highest gravitational tide. Individual species and associations change based on environmental gradients, which may express themselves as ecotones. One pre-requisite for the re-establishment of mangroves is the availability of open substrate, at the appropriate elevation. This will influence both the frequency and duration of tidal inundation, which are key determinants to the natural establishment and subsequent growth of mangroves. In addition to the need to understand the existing hydrology as it relates to topography of an adjacent mangrove forest reference area, it is also important to understand the natural recovery processes in damaged mangrove forest areas, also known as “secondary succession.” The natural secondary succession process in damaged mangrove forests often begins with the appearance of a “nurse species” (Fig. 2), which is typically herbaceous plant species such as Smooth Cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, or Saltwort, Batis maritima. These species, which are associated with mangrove forests around the world, appear to facilitate the recolonization and eventual natural restoration of damaged mangrove areas. Although not well studied, facilitation may work by improving edaphic conditions and/or physical trapping of floating mangrove seeds. Such knowledge is important in planning and conducting mangrove restoration projects, because mimicking the natural secondary succession may lead to a more successful restoration in the long-run. (Lewis, 2009; Friess, 2011). Ecological Mangrove Restoration There is enough evidence that over-simplified restoration of mangroves does not work, while Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation trials in Florida and Indonesia have resulted in success, and led to increased community protection and development of adaptive collaborative management systems. Six Principles Successful mangrove forest restoration should be routinely successful if a few basic ecological restoration principles are applied at the early planning stages. These principles have been taught now at 3-5 day workshops around the world (India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, United States, Cuba, Nigeria, Brazil, Ecuador and Honduras), targeting mangrove managers, as well as community fisherfolk as active, hands-on participants. 1. Understand both the autecology (individual species ecology) and the community ecology of the mangrove species at a particular location, in particular the patterns of reproduction, propagule (seeds and seedlings) distribution, and successful seedling establishment.

107

108


2. Understand the normal hydrologic patterns that control the distribution and successful establishment and growth of targeted mangrove species. 3. Work together with local communities to assess the modifications of the previous mangrove environment that occurred and that may prevent natural secondary succession. 4. Select appropriate mangrove restoration sites through application of steps 1-3 above that are both likely to succeed in restoring a sustainable man-grove forest ecosystem and are cost effective, given the available funds and labor. 5. Design the restoration program at appropriate sites selected in Step 4 to initially restore the appropriate hydrology and utilize natural recruitment of propagules or seeds for plant establishment unless other-wise determined likely not to succeed. 6. Only utilize actual planting of propagules, collected seedlings, or cultivated seedlings after determining through steps 1-5 that natural recruitment will not provide the quantity of mangroves desired (or the desired rate of stabilization or growth of seedlings) established as quantitative goals for the project. Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation courses include a field component during which participants examine pre-existing mangrove restoration projects as well as newly proposed sites for restoration. Learning from past mistakes, in order to improve techniques is often a transformative process. The following section of this paper discusses five specific case studies in Indonesia where community learning around restoration failure, resulted in community based implementation of Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation (in projects now 1 – 10 years old). In each case, EMR was augmented by additional interventions including; the development of sustainable livelihood alternatives out of existing coastal resources, and community organizing towards the development of mangrove management plans. The following findings have been notable, and indicate both acceptance of the EMR method as an appropriate tool for community based coastal resource management; 1. EMR methods were understood by communities, practiced both as part of the activity and replicated on their own, and promoted by some portion of the community as a recommended practice when subsequent government or other planting projects visited their area. 2. Growth of EMR plots always met targets of at least 1250 seedlings per hectare growing healthy after year three of the intervention 3. Even in recent interventions where success is not yet evident, the logic of the EMR approach, in conjunction with associated programs (livelihoods development, coastal field school, etc.) has been effective in catalyzing the organization of communities to protect (formally or informally) their mangrove resources and advocate for mangrove

conservation and sustainable utilization to some level of government.

Fig. 3. Propagule limitation has resulted in relatively little natural recruitment, even after 6-8 years of pond of abandonment and dike wal degradation. Photo A (left) averages around 400 seedlings per hectare, relatively high due to wind aided drifted into this corner section. Typical “exposed” sections (B) exhibit under 100 seedlings per hectare.

Methods Case Study Sites Tiwoho Village, North Sulawesi (01°35’00” N; 124°50’21.06” E) This study site is located on the mainland of North Sulawesi, and is at the Eastern-most boundary of Bunaken National Marine Park. EMR was undertaken in 25 hectares of cleared mangrove situated within > 100 hectares of coastal, fringing mangroves with a natural diversity of 33 species of true mangroves. EMR implemented in 2004. Bengkalis Island, Riau Province (01°27’00” N; 102°30’20” E) This study site is located on the Western Coast of Bengkalis Island, in the Province of Riau along a pair of river estuaries, the Jangkang and the Kembung. The main cause of mangrove degradation was due to clearfelling for export-oriented charcoal making. This system has a high level of peat formation, yet also experiences mangrove degradation along the coast due to changing current patterns coupled with potential effects of sealevel rise. EMR was trialed in a 33 hectare section ceded to the community, and included planting and natural recruitment areas. EMR implemented between in 2006-2007. Simeulue Island, Aceh Province (02°30’58” N; 96°21’07” E) This study site includes 7 villages in NE Simeulue Island and 7 villages in Teluk Dalam, a large bay in


north-central Simeulue. Mangroves disturbance on this island was natural, due to tectonic uplift ranging from 75 – 150 cm in the NE coast and 25-50 cm in Teluk Dalam as a result of the 2004 tsunami and 2005 “Nias” earthquake along the Sunda Megathrust. This relocated the intertidal zone, requiring an equivalent seaward migration of the island’s diverse, fringing mangrove. Large parts of the island are propagule limited – due to uplift of adult trees out of the range of tidal influence. EMR not yet implemented. Jaring Halus, NE Langkat Wildlife Sanctuary, North Sumatera Province (03°56’34” N; 98°33’54” E) Jaring Halus is a 33 hectare village adjacent to a 40 hectare highly biodiverse village mangrove forest located at the mouth of the Wampu River. The system is an estuarine delta on a vast alluvial floodplain. EMR was undertaken in a 10 ha abandon shrimp pond complex in the adjacent, 9000 hectare wildlife sanctuary, and was followed up by enhancement planting by communities in bare patches in sporadic sections of the sanctuary which was largely logged over for illegal charcoal development. EMR implemented between 2007-2008. Tanakeke Island, South Sulawesi Province (05°29’38” S; 119°18’28” E) This island lies off the SW tip of South Sulawesi province, a one hour small boat ride from the mainland. 1200 ha of mangroves were converted to aquaculture ponds in the 1990’s of an original 1776 ha of mangroves. This system is known as a mangrove over wash system, situated on an atoll with proportionately little terrestrial area compared to sub-tidal and intertidal systems. EMR implemented between 2010-2012. Each of the above sites have experienced mangrove disturbance due to aquaculture development or clearfelling for industrial charcoal production. Stakeholders at each site have tried to address this disturbance initially with direct planting of only a single or narrow range of mangrove species. In each case a high degree of planting failure ensued. Subsequently, community groups were engaged in Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation, and have succeeded in adequately restoring their forests in older projects (5-10 years old), or are confident that EMR will work where the initiative is still new ( 2500 seedlings per hectare. Areas of 40008000 stems per hectare are common, with canopy heights of 8-11 meters. 27 of the 30 recorded species of true mangrove occurring in the area have been observed in the rehabilitation site (see table 1). In addition to EMR, communities have been engaged in a wide variety of livelihood programs (organic farming, bamboo preservation for furniture making, improved cookstove production, processing of non-timber forest products, etc). Environmental education programs have been run for 5 years with

elementary school children, and over 80 community members were involved in creating a village ordinance for mangrove protection, ratified in an open community meeting. No mangrove felling takes place in the entire village, and subsistence gathering of fisheries products is a daily activity in both the old mangrove and rehabilitation site. Mid term corrections are required to repair 3-4 hectares of the area. The majority of the area, however is successfully restored.


One by one, these community groups have been attempting EMR (to date four groups have practiced the methods). They reconnected fresh water flows into the mangroves, razed the Acrostichum mounds, filled in pot-holes, and dedicated areas for both natural regeneration and planting. Six years later after initial EMR, a pair of community groups have already thinned their plots by selective logging, leaving behind 12 meter tall trees for future thinning. Groups are also engaged in a variety of livelihood projects, such as clam fattening in the mangroves and virgin coconut oil making, which augment proceeds from selective cutting.

Fig. 4. Before and after hydrological restoration of 25 hectares of abandoned shrimp ponds in Tiwoho, North Sulawesi. This work was carried out with hand tools and community labor.

Bengkalis Island, Riau Province In 2003, MAP-Indonesia worked with local NGO Yayasan Laksana Samudera to create a GIS Atlas of the condition of mangroves in the Bengkalis Islands. The atlas revealed that 600 hectares of mangroves were being cut per year to fire a charcoal industry. The charcoal concessions were permitted, but often cut mangroves beyond their boundaries, both in terms of space and time. Replanting was a requirement of the permit; and although mangroves regrew, generally, after initial logging, in the 1990’s logging practiced had changed (stumps and rootballs previously left alone were now dug up and carbonized) and the forest remained bare after logging. The excavation of the root ball led to the pock-marking of the landscape, with deep waterlogged holes scattered amidst high mounds created by crabs and the mud lobster Thalassina. This irregular substrate no longer supported growth of mangrove trees (Rhizophora, Brugueira and Xylocarpus), but rather Acrostichum ferns on the high mounds, and no vegetation at all in the holes. The construction of a 30 kilometer long dike wall worsened the situation. Communities built the wall to separate the mangrove area from their coconut plantations, which were suffering from salinization after the clearing of the mangroves (which had acted in a buffering capacity). The dike wall, however, excluded the flow of fresh surface water into the mangroves area, maintaining the brackish nature of the water. Increasingly salty water in the mangroves, eventually permeated the long dike wall through numerous crab holes and micropores, killing many coconut trees. Direct planting of disturbed areas, by government and concerned communities ensured but was not successful. Things changed in 2004-5, as community interest in the mangrove area peaked, catalyzed by a page in the GIS Atlas depicting areas for potential community stewardship. These stewardship areas (totaling 300 hectares) were formalized due to support from the ADB Co-fish program and Yayasan Lakasana Samudera.

Simeulue Island, Aceh Province Not many people had heard of this island before December 24, 2004, which gained fame due to its longstanding traditional information system announcing the arrival of a tsunami known as “smong”. Because of this early warning system, the tsunami claimed only three victims even at it’s origin. The islanders had also taken good care of their island resources, and mangroves had only been significantly logged and degraded near the small port town of Sinabang, fueling a brick-making industry. Although communities proved resilient against the tsunami, the island’s mangroves fared less well. Initially, mangroves on the Eastern edge of the island subsided along with the island, dying within weeks due to water logging. After the subsequent March 2005 mega-earthquake, the island experienced cumulative seismic uplift. Mangroves along the NE and NW coasts of the island were lifted entirely out of the influence of the tidal zone, and subsequently died of desiccation or competition with terrestrial vegetation. Propagule limitation in the absence of mother trees, has resulted in very lownatural recruitment of newly uplifted substrate – even where the substrate is at the appropriate tidal elevation. Nonetheless, this area was planted with seedlings from North Sumatera after the tsunami – but large scale failure was recorded, due to a variety of reasons (seedling condition, planting method, planting area, damage due to water buffalo, species selection).

111

112


human assisted propagule distribution, to promote recolonization of their coast by mangroves, for fisheries and other benefits. All the while, communities both in Teluk Dalam and Eastern Simeulue are engaged in sustainable livelihood development, from mangrove and other available coastal resources.

The story differs slightly in Teluk Dalam, North Central Simeulue, where seismic uplift (25-50 cm) measured less than the tidal range (78cm) and many adult mangroves survived, able to disperse their propagules to colonize the newly uplifted intertidal zone. Natural recruitment has been recorded averaging 2856 seedlings per hectare – growing well and exhibiting the full range of original biodiversity. Although communities planted mangroves as part of post-tsunami activities, they now see that planting is unnecessary and are interested in petitioning sub-district and district government to declare the bay of Teluk Dalam a community based mangrove reserve for the conservation and sustainable use of mangrove resources. Communities from Eastern Simeulue, having been trained in the methods of EMR, are now interested in

Jaring Halus, NE Langkat Wildlife Sanctuary, North Sumatera Province The 9000 hectare NE Langkat Wildlife Sanctuary is situated at the Mouth of the Wampu river, which flows north out of the mountains separating North Sumatera from Aceh. It is predominantly natural mangrove habitat, yet has undergone severe illegal logging over the past 25 years, largely to feed the charcoal industry. The entire area was patrolled by only 3 staff from the BKSDA (Agency for Conservation of Natural Resources) a division of the National Forestry Department, with minimal patrolling budgets, and little experience in engaging local communities. The village of Jaring Halus is a 33 hectare stilt village, home to 3300 ethnic Malay fisherfolk. The village makes its entire living from mangrove and estuarine resources, predominantly processing fish catches from neighboring isolated villages for shipment upriver to the commercial center of Medan. Historically, the village controlled 2000 hectares of mangrove resources, however with the creation of the National Wildlife Sanctuary, their access to these resources was diminished to a 40 hectare forest adjacent to their village. This forest has been protected since antiquity under strict adat rules. Cutting is allowed, for timber for housing or pilings, as well as fuelwood for male circumcision ceremonies, however only with permission by the traditional council and appropriate replanting. The 40 hectare forest maintains a high biodiversity of 26 species of mangroves of enormous height and girth. Only a hundred meters across a tidal channel, the wildlife sanctuary sports small trees and large areas of clear cuts. The government had enjoined the community to plant mangroves in the sanctuary in 1999, but as the seedlings grew, they were cut again for charcoal making at only 6-8 years of age. Asked to plant mangroves again in 2006, the community declined, suspicious that some of the BKSDA agents were involved in the illegal logging. Through the USAID sponsored Environmental Service Project, mangrove rehabilitation was proposed again to the community, who again initially declined. Instead, 10 hectare shrimp pond complex in the landward edge of the Wildlife Sanctuary was restored using EMR techniques of strategic dike wall breaching. Mangroves grew back quickly. In the meantime, community organizers facilitated a group from Jaring Halus to make a presenteation at the office of BKSDA, petitioning for restoration of access and control over a wider area of mangroves. Within the year, BKSDA and the Director General of Forestry had granted the community 500 hectares of collaborative management area, the first case of its kind in a


nationally protected mangrove forest in Indonesia. The community then initiated enhancement planting of the 500 hectares, focusing around four major tidal creeks, each managed by a community group from the village. Poorer members of the village were given crab trapping equipment, to increase community vigilance over the area. There has, however, been a degree of back-sliding. With the USAID program over, the community has been left on its own to deal with an agency whose entire staff has been changed out. In addition, 2000 hectares of the sanctuary towards the mainland was reportedly filled for the development of oil palm plantation. In this case, continued partnership is needed, to ensure the community of Jaring Halus long term access to and control over mangrove resources. Tanakeke Island, South Sulawesi Province Tanakeke Island is situated 20 km off the SW coast of South Sulawesi in the Takalar District. The mangrove forest is characterized as an overwash system (Whitten, 1985). LandSat photos from 1976 reveal a mosaic containing 1776 hectares of mangroves, primarily low and midmangal, with relatively little upper mangrove due to small proportion of hinterland area on the island, yet a significant amount of sub-tidal lagoon interspersed within the atoll. Recent satellite images depict a highly altered topography. In the 1990’s, the transmigration department cleared 400 hectares of mangroves for aquaculture development, while local landowners, both individually and in partnership with investors converted an additional 800 ha. By the mid 90’s 1200 hectares of aquaculture ponds (milkfish and prawn polycultures) had been developed, but by 2005 nearly all community ponds were disused. The condition of mangroves on the island before aquaculture development was already degraded due to shifting clear-cutting of young trees and low growth potential. Due to lack of fresh water and poor edaphic conditions (little organic matter with a calcareous base – average depth 15cm under organic layer, high interstitial salinities), biomass accumulation is low. Growth figures of Tanakeke’s Rhizophora apiculata match up with the lowest of five algorithms of a lowgrowth site determined by JICA for R. apiculata in Java and Bali. (Table 1 and Fig 7). Table 1 – Low Growth Site Yield Prediction Table for Rhizophora apiculata (Site L-III) (Summary Table) JICA 1999 Age Mean height (m) Number (trees/ha) Volume (m3/ha) Effective Volume (m3/ha)

10

15

20

25

30

35

3.84

7.10

9.63

11.23

12.12

12.59

6723

5565

5063

4828

2715

4659

7.94

40.33

88.57

130.17

157.45

173.07

4.76

24.24

53.14

78.10

94.47

103.84

Fig 7. Site Index Curve, Low Growth Site (Bali – Java)

There is little firewood on the island’s small, dry terrestrial area and transport to mainland South Sulawesi is costly and dangerous in certain seasons. This means that mangrove wood is the major fuelwood source for the 23 island communities. Mangrove areas called “borong” measure 20m x 20m are individually owned by the villagers. Subsistence fuelwood is gathered by felling trees within a borong. Small-scale commercial logging, for production of charcoal, sale of fuelwood to the mainland, or use in construction of piers, fences, fishing equipment and seaweed mariculture infrastructure is undertaken by clear-felling entire borong, which may be replanted at a density if 5 trees per every adult tree cut. The age of felling has also decreased from 12-25 year old trees, to 6-8 year old trees. Over time mangroves become overdense, and biomass addition is low due to competition. The low price of mangrove timber (500 rp/meter for 8 year old poles and 25,000 – 60,000rp for 60kg of charcoal) means that large areas of mangroves need to be cut for a family to make a living out of timber product sale. Islanders prefer Rhizophora spp., wood due to its high caloric value, and thus R. stylosa and R. apiculata have been anthropogenically selected for. Mangroves occurring on the coast, such as Avicennia marina and Sonneratia alba, have been cleared, and replanted with Rhizophora spp., however, lack of success in many areas have reduced the extent of coastal mangroves. In essence, Tanakeke has lost its lower-most mangal. Periodic attempts to replant coastal mangroves by the forestry department and communities are reported to have failed several times. A high diversity of species in the mid mangrove (Brugueira gymnorhizza, A. marina, A. alba, Ceriops tagal, S. alba and S. ovata), have also been cut and replaced with Rhizophora spp, reducing the natural resilience of the remaining forest. Back mangrove species, such as Lumnitzera racemosa and Pemphis acidula occur in the infrequent hinterland fringe, and on the more frequent dike walls which now dote the island. Xylocarpus moluccensis and Heritiera littoralis are rare but also occur.

113

114


Medium-Scale EMR on Tanakeke As discussed above, traditional management calls for replanting of 5 propagules for every “adult” tree clear-felled. This practice, however, was not applied in disused shrimp ponds, as pond owners maintained hopes to accumulate enough capital from their main occupation (seaweed mariculture of carrageen species), to re-invest in aquaculture. By and large, fish farmers were at a disadvantage with mainland practitioners, due to the added cost of transportation for purchase of external inputs (feed, piscicides and urea) as well as sale of cultured fish and shrimp. Thus, as villagers farmed seaweed, gleaned crabs and prawns in remnant mangroves, and fished on their bombed out coral reefs (with occasional trips to open ocean, primarily engaged in illegal sea-turtle fishery), the disused ponds of poorer communities members degraded for periods of up to 6-8 years, while richer community members maintained their dike walls and their hopes of rejuvenating small aquaculture enterprises. Assessment teams from Restoring Coastal Livelihoods project, showed up in 2010, and noted the condition of 6-8 year old chronoseres of dilapidated ponds. The findings were encouraging to the team. R. stylosa and R. apiculata had colonized much of the degraded pond area, with occasional additional species (S. alba, A. marina, B. gymnorhizza, C. tagal). This indicated that, if communities could be convinced to free up disused ponds for rehabilitation, simply removing the dike walls would likely result in successful natural revegetation. From 2010-2012 the RCL team and local communities went to work, engaged in assessments, appraisals, EMR trainings, community awareness raising, study tours, and finally implementation and monitoring of Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation. The work began in 45 hectares associated with one sub-village (dusun Lantang Peo) and spread to cover 228 ha in 2 years. Three additional communities have pledged land for the project to total 400 hectares by the end of 3 years (of 800 ha of community owned ponds on the island). Success, however, is not yet evident. During the first attempt at strategic dike wall breaching in Lantang Peo, overzealous practitioners created 212, 5-meter wide breaches in dike walls. This high number of breaches resulted in relatively low tidal prisms at each breach, reducingthe “scouring” effect desired during tidal creek formation, to keep the creek open (free of sediment) and facilitate flooding and drainage. Pond interiors were still inadequately drained.Also, R. apiculata and R. stylosa, although abundant nearby, are not renowned pioneer

species, in comparison with Avicennia spp, and Sonneratia spp. (small diaspore, able to colonize various substrate elevations and types, quick to establish roots and leaf-out, etc.). Although chronoseres evidence successful natural growth of Rhizophora at 6-8 years, it is unclear how long the colonization process took. To speed up the process of colonization, in year two, midcourse corrections were made at Lantang Peo, which included hand-digging a tidal creek to facilitate flooding and drainage, and human assisted propagule distribution, focusing on pioneering species collected at reference forests in South and North Sulawesi. Result Ecological Results In Tiwoho, diversity was highest of all restoration sites, with 27 species of true mangroves recruited, established and growing out of a total of 30 species noted for Bunaken National Park (Djamalludin, 1996). The highest area of diversity for the site occurs in the hinterland margin. Table 2 records all mangrove species noted during surveys in 2007 and 2011. The next highest site, in terms of diversity are the natural recovery sites in Teluk Dalam, northcentral Simeulue, specifically near the lighthouse known as Mercusuar, Ujung Ranup. 13 plots measuring 20m x 5m were monitored, with 39 subplots of 5m x 2m surveyed. This site has experienced natural recruitment and healthy growth of 13 species of true mangroves (see Figure 8) with an average density of 2856, or 408 seedlings being established per year since final disturbance (the 2005 Nias Earthquake). Sites close farther from sea in Teluk Dalam were regenerating at lower rates, of 125-318 seedlings per year. In Eastern Simeulue (Teluk Sinabang), recruitment rates were lower, with average recruitment in two study areas at 96 and 196 seedlings ha/yr recruiting onto the newly uplifted inter-tidal in areas adjacent to disturbed mangrove forests. Average densities of around 1000 seedlings per hectare were noted here, but several subsites had much lower densities of 200, 275, and 475 seedlings per hectare after 7 years, indicating low recruitment rates of only 29-69 plants per hectare per year. Due to the apparent high recruitment rate in Teluk Dalam, community leaders want to forego additional, and likely unnecessary mangrove restoration, to begin talks leading towards areal management for conservation and sustainable use.


In Bengkalis Island, Riau, data for a typical group after EMR can be seen at the Belukap site. Within three years, planted Rhizophora averaged 2.6 meters tall with 80% survivorship and a density of 3208 seedlings per hectare. Average natural recruits of 8 species were 3.4 meters tall with a density of 4210 seedlings per hectare. Anecdotal evidence shows that 6-8 years after EMR, selective logging of Rhizophopra poles has taken place twice in a pair of sites. In the NE Langkat Wildlife Sanctuary, the ten hectare shrimp pond complex experienced exceptional growth after dike wall breaching. Four planted species grew well, with R. mucronata ranging from 1.3 – 2.5 meters of growth 24 months after breaching year exhibiting 54-89 leaves per tree. More impressive was the growth of hundreds of Avicennia marina trees which had inhabited the pond in dwarf form before breaching (5000 trees/hectare – 7 mixed species ion 10 hectares 2000 ha of reported damage to wildlife sanctuary – conversion to oil palm (unsubstantiat ed) Excellent natural regeneration in Teluk Dalam – full original biodiversity – normal growth – more than 4000 seedlings/ha Poor natural regeneration in Eastern Simeulue (and presumably Western) – propagule limited. Some incidence of hydrological disturbance – but natural – will selfrepair.

Dominant ecotone on the island, along with sub-tidal seagrass beds (currently supporting large scale seaweed mariculture) Impact on seagrass and fishery uncertain Low growth due to biophysical condition (low organic content, CaCO3 substrate, lack of fresh water input) – coupled with anthropogenic pressure for young Rhizophora timber Extreme conversion of mangroves to aquaculture ponds (from 1776 ha mangroves to 500 ha mangroves or 72% loss) – but little permanent hydrological


initiatives Women’s groups beginning to organize and have a voice Patriarchal private ownership of fish ponds and mangrove areas Presence of Hutan Pangandrian – a traditional mangrove forest conservation zone – translated as “food pantry forest”

damage due to largely unexcavated ponds and low, non compact dike walls.

*Note: EMR not yet implemented in Simeulue (training only), and still under 2 years old in Tanakeke.

Discussion: Conditions for the Establishment and Long-term Sustainability of Communitybased Mangrove Management – The Development of Adaptive Collaborative Management Damage and Successful Rehabilitation There’s an adage that goes “you don’t know what you had, until it is gone.” It may not be necessary for a coastal community to experience degradation of their coastal resources, in order to better appreciate them once restored, but communities who have experienced firsthand the loss of critical coastal resources, which provide them with essential goods and services, are certainly more wary of external plans to convert of degrade their resources the second time around. In all of the case studies above, communities lost their valuable mangroves. In all cases, initial replanting of Rhizophora mangroves failed to bring mangroves back. And, in all cases, once rehabilitation success became apparent, all of the communities responded with strong engagement in both informal and formal protection of both restored coastal areas, as well as those which were never disturbed. Short-term Economic Benefits Mangrove systems take years to recover. Mangrove Action Project strives to restore 75% of a functional fisheries equivalent within 5 years of mangrove rehabilitation, but recovery can take significantly longer. In a modern era, where instant gratification is expected, it is folly to undertake a mangrove rehabilitation program with rural poor, without linkage to some sort of sustainable livelihood development. Unfortunately, NGO’s and governments, who are the most common partners in mangrove restoration projects, have a poor track record in business development. Findings from more recent programs, including the Restoring Coastal Livelihoods program in South Sulawesi, is that communities are strongly responding to programs which offer participatory action research (through programs like Coastal Field School) around the development of one or several common commodities in

their coastal region, followed by engagement with the business community to assist with marketing and business development. Women’s’ Participation In the above case studies, women were involved equally in mangrove rehabilitation only in North Sumatera, North Sulawesi and South Sulawesi, where their participation in planning, implementation and monitoring has been equal or greater to that of men. Women were not involved in mangrove rehabilitation in Riau, and to this day, their role in stewardship of the mangroves is minor. In imeulue Aceh, women’s involvement is still more focused on equal percentage of participation rather than equal participation. With specific regards to women’s engagement in mangrove areas, assessments in years 1-2 of the RCL program found;  Women are involved in a large variety of activities which utilize mangrove resources. The major ones include use of timber for fuel-wood, seaweed farming and charcoal production, the collection of mollusks, shrimp, crabs, and fish, and the planting of mangroves. Women are also involved in activities which take place in converted mangroves such as aquaculture, and in adjacent ecosystems such as rice fields, bamboo forests, and sub-tidal seaweed farms. There are some differences between the four project districts, but in all districts women contribute labor to the different steps of mangrove resource utilization. Some activities are more often the responsibility of women (wood preparation for cooking, cooking, gleaning mollusks, seafood processing, etc); others are more often the responsibility of men (felling of timber, use in construction, capture of higher value mangrove products (crabs, shrimp)).  Women are involved in decision making on mangrove resource use at the household level. Women have a say in time spent on collecting and processing mangrove resources versus other economic activities (aquaculture, seaweed farming, rice farming). Women also decide on daily expenditures of both the household and some aspects of production (feeds, fertilizers, seeds, juvenile fish). Bigger expenditures are normally decided both by wife and husband, for items such as boats, boat motors, pumps, etc.  Women participate much less in leadership at the community level than men on Tanakeke Island, where mangrove rehabilitation has been piloted, and their voice in community decision making is still small. That being said, women have been equally or more strongly involved in mangrove rehabilitation planning, evidenced by the seven women’s groups who are leading activities around community based mangrove management planning.  Concerns about gender issues, as expressed by the leadership at different levels of the program, may create favorable conditions for the integration of gender activities in the program, but is not sufficient to realize a higher degree of female involvement in the

117

118


program. Gender issues should be integrated in general policies and specific activities at different levels in order to "translate" the expressed concerns into concrete plans of action. Access, Control and Ownership It has been shown in previous research that local cooperation in community management can increase when user groups gain secure rights over the resources and have the authority to exclude outsiders (Ostrom 1990, Hanna and Munasinghe 1995, Johnson 2001, Gibson et al. 2005). This is usually accomplished first by the establishment of clear resource and user group boundaries. Clearly defined resource and user group boundaries can reduce conflict and improve user group compliance with rules (Dietz et al. 2003), reduce uncertainty in resource tenure, and clarify who will pay the cost of collective resource management (Gibson et al. 2005). On Tanakeke, long-standing village mangrove ownership patterns facilitate quick decision making, and development of support for mangrove rehabilitation and management activities. In Bengkalis and Jaring Halus, formal MOU’s between government and communities, restoring access and control rights to community were needed to pique active community stewardship. Where government has a strong degree of ownership, such as Tiwoho, North Sulawesi, the process of destruction, and rehabilitation success over 20 years was needed to develop a sense of community ownership, although much of the mangrove area is still officially part of the National Park System.

Social Capital Collective action in Bengkalis Island, was supported by a high degree of social capital, consisting of norms of reciprocity and cooperation, and attitudes of social trust and respect (Brown and Ashman 1996). Because villagers at the Eastern edge of Bengkalis Island reside in a remote rural area where it is difficult to seek and get external support, villagers were obliged to exist with a high degree of autonomy that supported the development of strong social capital, based on trust and reciprocity that facilitated cooperation between villagers (Pretty and Ward 2001). High social capital can promote more effective cooperation in social problem solving (Brown and Ashman 1996). The best example of this was demonstrated in communities coming together over their main livelihood, kurau fishing, to exclude trawlers from operating in their area (Brown, 2007). The acts of women swimming to foreign trawlers with torches in their mouths to burn the invaders and breaking their husbands out of jail, although illegal, go a long way to building social trust within the community. This facilitated, in the future, the rapid government decision to make charcoal production on the island illegal, as the government saw the opportunity to appeal to popular consensus, having learned the hard way the costs of supporting a minority business working against general social good. Thus, social capital was a central feature of collective action to claim rights to the mangrove resource (Uphoff and Wijayaratna 2000, Pretty and Ward 2001, Gibson et al. 2005 in: Sudtongkong, C., and E. L. Webb. 2008).

Monitoring and Sanctions Monitoring is well known to be an important facilitator of long-term sustainable management of resources (Gibson et al. 2005). Monitoring methodologies for EMR exist, but are not yet usable by a broad section of the community, rather by trained community members with significant experience as well as outsiders (university students, NGO staff). More simple monitoring methodologies for EMR are being developed. With regards to community involvement in mangrove management, there is a need for clear sanctions when an encroacher is caught and mechanisms for communities to either report to authorities or take direct action. In Tiwoho and Tanakeke Island, illegal cutting of mangroves breaks informal and formal village ordinances and is regulated by a village council. Threre may be other contributing factors to why villagers and outsiders are in obedience with mangrove sanctions, such as abundance of other resources in rural North Sulawesi, or difficulty of access by outsiders to the mangroves on isolate Tanakeke Island and Simeulue Island. In Bengkalis Island, Riau, high level government support for mangrove conservation, coupled with the active cessation of the destructive charcoal industry was afforded by enthusiastic support for mangrove conservation after involvement of community in successful rehabilitation.

External Assistance Researchers have underlined the important roles that NGOs play in support of community management, especially in advocating villagers to undertake activities that demonstrate their power in the form of group action, transmitting information about community rights to villagers, and encouraging them to demand their rights and coordinate with concerned government organizations and other stakeholders (Sudara 1999, Brown and Ashman 1996, Johnson 2001, Johnson and Forsyth 2002, Pagdee et al. 2006 in: Sudtongkong, C., and E. L. Webb. 2008). In the stories above, a host of national and international NGOs (Yayasan Kelola, MAP-Indonesia, OXFAM-GB, Yayasan Konservasi Laut, Yayasan Laksana Samudera), played various important roles in the empowerment of Bengkalis Island, Tanakeke Island and Tiwoho Village. These roles include conflict resolution, access to information and techniques for improved mangrove rehabilitation and management, assistance in stakeholder negotiations especially preparing communities to collaborate with government, and access to new markets and economic opportunities. Before assistance from these NGO’s, citizens of Bengkalis Island, Tanakeke Island and Tiwoho Village were generally unaware about the mechanisms of how to interact with the government or gain rights over their mangrove forests, because of reduced information availability to “remote and rural”


villages such as theirs. This is still the case in Simeulue Island, where the process of development of adaptive collaborative management is just beginning. Strong relationships between NGO’s and the community occur due to trust, appropriateness of interventions, genuine opportunities for community participation as well as real or perceived social, economic and/or environmental improvements. Conclusions This study depicted five communities where mangrove resources were degraded, either by humanmade or natural causes, after which communities along with external actors (usually governments but also NGO’s and iNGO’s attempted an oversimplified version of mangrove planting, which unequivocally failed to address root causes of mangrove demise or lack of natural regeneration, and thus failed to meet the expectations of mangrove restoration. Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation was introduced to each of these communities, trialed, and along with attention to sustainable livelihoods development became the impetuous towards genuine development of improved mangrove management. In all cases, mangrove management was in collaboration with local government agencies, growing in terms of formality and participation by local communities. Where participation was highest, women were involved from the onset in not only mangrove restoration, but its planning. Where ecological success has been achieved, communities have actively and formally protected their mangroves, confident to engage government and other stakeholders to ensure the long-term functioning of a system which is important to them, but was damaged, to some extent by external forces. Where ecological success has not yet been achieved, due to the newness of the intervention, communities still feel confident that mangroves will grow back, and are engaged in continued community organizing and management planning, for the near and longer term future. In all cases, a subset of community members has gone on to promote the EMR method in their and other regions, a testament to their confidence in the method and importance of the activity. This can be juxtaposed with planting projects in all regions, where communities became engaged perhaps for the first time positive and altruistic intentions, however, after failure of a planting effort, became in-genuinely interested in future planting projects, engaged more or less for direct economic benefit. This study has regional implications for mangrove rehabilitation and conservation around the region, where 90% of all mangrove planting projects fail, and seldom lead to the development of improved system management.

Literature Cited Alongi, D.M. 2009. “Paradigm shifts in mangrove biology.” Chapter 22, pages 615-640 in GME Perillo, E. Wolanski, D.R. Cahoon, and MM Brinson (eds.) Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach. Elsevier Press. Briggs, Richard., Kerry Sieh, Aron J. Meltzner, Danny Natawidjaja, John Galetzka, Bambang Suwargadi, Ya-ju Hsu, Mark Simons, Nugroho Hananto, Imam Suprihanto, Dudi Prayudi, Jean-Philippe Avouac, Linette Prawirodirdjo, Yehuda Bock, 2006. “Deformation and Slip Along the Sunda Megathrust in the Great 2005 Nias-Simeulue Earthquake” Science. Vol. 311 31 March 2006. Brown, Benjamin. 2007. “Resilience Thinking Applied to the Mangroves of Indonesia.” IUCN & Mangrove Action Project - Indonesia; Yogyakarta. Brown, Benjamin and Woro Yuniati. 2007. “Technical Report Summarizing And Analyzing Restoration And Conservation Initiatives Post-Tsunami In The Indonesia to IUCN – Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group 2 Asia (ELG2)” Brown, Benjamin. 2012. “Mangrove Management Challenges on Tanakeke Island.” Restoring Coastal Livelihoods Project - CIDA, OXFAM GB, MAPIndonesia Djamaluddin, R. 2003. “Mangrove restoration project at Tiwoho, North Sulawesi Province, Indonesia.” In The hand of The Fishers (IHOF) Workshop#9”, Small Fisher Federation in Pambala, Chilaw, Sri Lanka, October 6-10, 2003. Djamaluddin, R. 1996 “The Mangrove Flora In Bunaken National Park” Duke,Norm. 2010. “Biomass Of Mangrove Forests – Long Plot Field Methodology” James Cook University, Australia. English, S., C. Wilkinson, and V. Baker. 1994. “Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources; Section 3.4 Transects Line Plot Method.” AIMS, Townsville. Erftemeijer, PLA, and RR Lewis III. 2000. Planting mangroves on intertidal mudflats: habitat restoration or habitat conversion? Pages 156-165 in Proceedings of the ECOTONE VIII Seminar “Enhancing Coastal Ecosystems Restoration for the 21st Century”, Ranong, Thailand, 23-28 May 1999. Royal Forest Department of Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand. Friess et al. in press. Are all intertidal wetlands naturally created equal? Bottlenecks, thresholds and knowledge gaps to saltmarsh and mangrove ecosystems. Biological Reviews doi:10.1111/j.1469185X Gunderson, L.H. C.S. Holling and S. S. Light. 1995. “Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions.” Columbia University Press, New York. Holling, C. S. 1986. “Resilience of ecosystems; local surprise and global change.” pp. 292-317 in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C.

119

120


Clark and R. E. Munn, editors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Holling, C. S., L. Gunderson, and G. Peterson. 2002. “Sustainability and Panarchies.” P.63-102 in: Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling, eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Holling, C. S., L. Gunderson, and D. Ludwig. 2002. “In Quest of a Theory of Adaptive Change.” P. 3-24 in: Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling, eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Kabes. Y., 2003. Study on physical conditions of disused mangrove area in Tiwoho Village, Kecamatan Wori, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Marine Science Stdy Program, Lab. Coastal Geomorphology, Sam Ratulangi University. Manado. Lewis, RR. 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove forests. Ecol. Eng. 24(4 SI): 403-418. Lewis, RR. 2009. Ecological mangrove restoration. Intercol Bulletin 3(4):4. Lewis, RRL. 2009. “Mangrove Field of Dreams: If We Build It, Will They Come?” SWS Research Brief No. 2009-0005 July 2009 Lewis, RRL. 2009. Methods and Criteria for Successful Mangrove Forest Restoration.” In: Gerardo M. E. Perillo, Eric Wolanski, Donald R. Cahoon, Mark M. Brinson, editors, Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach. Elsevier, 2009, p. 787. ISBN: 978-0-444-53103-2 Mckee, Karen L., Jill E. Rooth and Ilka C. Feller, 2007. “Mangrove Recruitment After Forest Disturbance Is Facilitated By Herbaceous Species In The Caribbean Ecological Applications.” Ecological Society of America 17(6), 2007, pp. 1678–1693 Melati, Kuntum. 2012. “Why Do Mangrove Planting Initiatives Commonly Fail? With a special case study: Green PNPM in Nisombalia, Maros.” Restoring Coastal Livelihoods Project. OXFAMGB. Makssar. Primavera, Jurgenne H., et Al., “Handbook of Mangroves in the Philippines Panay,” SEAFDEC 2004 Resilience Alliance, 2007. “Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: A practitioners workbook.” Version 1.0 June 2007.” Saenger, P., E.J. Hegeri and J.D.S. Davie. 1983. Global Status of Mangrove Ecosystem. The Environmentalist, 3. Suppl. 3 80pp. Saenger, P., M.M. Specht and R.L. Specht. 1977. Mangal and coastal salt-marsh communities in Australia. In: Chapman, V.J. (ed) Ecosystem of the World 1. Wet Coastal Ecosystems. Amsterdam, Oxford, New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. P.293-345 Snedaker, SC. 1993. “Impact on mangroves.” Pages 282-305 in GA Maul (ed.), Climatic change in the Intra-American Seas: implications of future climate

change on the ecosystems and socio-economic structure of the marine and coastal regimes of the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas and N.E. Coast of S. America. Edward Arnold, London. Sonjaya, Jajang A. 2007. “Kebijakan Untuk Mangrove Mengkaji Kasus dan Merumuskan Kebijakan.” International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources & Mangrove Action Project – Indonesia Sonjaya, Jajang A. 2011. “Kajian Risilian - Situational and Contextual Field Assessment and Analysis.” Restoring Coastal Livelihoods Project - CIDA, OXFAM GB, MAP-Indonesia Sonjaya, Jajang A. 2011. “Skema Kajian Risilian” Restoring Coastal Livelihoods Project - CIDA, OXFAM GB, MAPIndonesia Stevenson, NJ, RR Lewis and PR Burbridge. 1999. “Disused shrimp ponds and mangrove rehabilitation.” Pages 277-297 in “An International Perspective on Wetland Rehabilitation”, W. J. Streever (Ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 338 pp. Sudtongkong, C., and E. L. Webb. 2008. “Outcomes Of StateVs. Community-Based Mangrove Management In Southern Thailand.” Ecology and Society 13(2): 27. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art27/ Thom, B.G. and Chappell, J.M.A., 1975. Holocene sealevels relative to Australia. Search, 6: 90-93 Wirijoatmodjo, Boedijono. “Experiences of the Indonesia Sugar Research Institute.” 1986 Whitten, A.J., Damanik, S.J., Anwar, J., Hisyam, N. 1987. “The Ecology of Sumatra.” Yogyakarta : Gadjah Mada University Press.


121

122


Mangrove Forest Protection and Rehabilitation for Adaptation to Climate Change: Philippine Initiatives Angelita P. Meniado1 1

Supervising Ecosystems Management Specialist Coastal and Marine Management Office Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources

The impact of climate change on archipelagic countries such the Philippines is aggravated by the presence of thousands of small islands that are at risk from inundation resulting from global warming and sea level rise. The Philippines is ranked the world’s seventh most vulnerable country to climate change because of its archipelagic nature and exposed position in the Pacific Ocean (Conservation International , Philippines). Along the country’s long coastline, stretching some 18,000 km long, are patches of mangrove ecosystems of various sizes and stages of development. The role of mangrove ecosystems in addition to coastal protection and soil erosion control include the provision of ecological services (e.g., nutrient recycling, nursing grounds of numerous marine life) and economic goods (e.g., marine and forest products) ( Catibog-Sinha and Heaney, 2006). With 42 mangrove species representing 18 families, the country is considered one of the most diverse in the world (Spalding et al., 2010, Polidoro et al., 2010). The role of mangrove ecosystems in minimizing the impact of climate change cannot be underestimated (Primavera, 2011). The mangrove ecosystems in the Philippines are utilized for aquaculture, salt production, and human settlement. They are important sources of forest products (e.g., timber) as well as fishery products (e.g., fish, shrimps, mollusks, crabs, fry) (Jacinto et al., 2000). At least 54 species of crustaceans, 63 species of mollusks, and 110 species of fish, many of which are commercially important, are found in mangrove ecosystems (PNMC, 1987 in PCAMRD, 1991; De la Paz and Aragones, 1985). In 2006, the estimated contribution of mangrove ecosystems to fisheries production), based on a mangrove area of 209,109 ha, ranged from 29,681 to 120,865 MT (Padilla, 2009). The estimated net value of timber production in the same year ranged from PhP 332 million to PhP1.23 billion or an average of about PhP596 million. The benefits from mangrove ecosystems in the country, as in many other developing countries, are being compromised because of over-harvesting, pollution, and other unsustainable human activities. In the early 1900s, the Philippines had around 400,000 hectares (ha) of mangrove (Brown and Fischer, 1988). However, in 2005, only a total of 247,268 ha remained. From 1980 to 2006, the gross

Fischer, 1988). However, in 2005, only a total of 247,268 ha remained. From 1980 to 2006, the gross value of potential production from mangrove fisheries decreased from PhP1.54billion-PhP6.28 billion/yr to PhP1.49billion-PhP6.09 billion/yr (Primavera et al., 2011; White and de Leon, 2004). Mangrove management in the Philippines gained impetus in the 1980s with the issuance of various regulations and passage of key legislations to conserve and rehabilitate the remaining mangrove forests.  The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has been mandated to manage mangrove ecosystems by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 705 or the Forestry Code.  Several mangroves and swamp areas have been declared as protected areas under Republic Act No. 7586 (NIPAS Act of 1992).  The Local Government Units (LGUs) have been given administrative jurisdiction over specific aspects of mangrove management through the Local Government Code (Republic Act 7160).  Community-based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA), as a form of tenurial instrument, was made available to communities who wish to manage their mangrove resources through the issuance of Executive Order No. 263.  Republic Act 7161, Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines, prohibited cutting of all mangroves.  The Philippines has also initiated several reforestation programs. These programs directly and indirectly aim to adapt to climate change.  The National Greening Program (NGP) was initiated on 24 February 2011 under the leadership of President Benigno S. Aquino III. It aims to plant 1.5 billion seedlings in 1.5 billion ha of public lands nationwide, including 38,411 ha of mangroves, within six years (2011-2016). NGP also aims to improve the water quality of rivers and irrigation systems for agriculture, reduce the potential of flooding, sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and lay the foundation for an expanded wood-products economy. To date, the country has rehabilitated a total of 222,619 ha of forestland with an accomplishment rate of 111% as per the 2012 target area. The mangrove component of the NGP has contributed about 1,315 ha.

Mangrove Forest Protection and Rehabilitation for Adaptation to Climate Change: Philippine Initiatives

 In conjunction with the implementation of the Integrated Coastal Management Strategy, which focuses on the sustainable development of the country’s coastal and marine areas and for improving the quality of life of coastal populations, and that of the National Greening Program, the “Manual for Mangrove Rehabilitation” was drafted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The Manual is comprised of several components, namely project planning and implementation, monitoring and evaluation, knowledge management, and community outreach. The DENR is also tasked to orient, educate, and guide stakeholders on the various aspects of mangrove rehabilitation.  The DENR together with the Department of Agriculture through its Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR) is implementing the Integrated Coastal Resource Management Project (ICRMP) with support through a loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), grant from the Global Environment Facility, and funds from the Philippine Government. ICRMP promotes the “ridge- to- reef” approach to coastal resource management, underscoring the interconnectivity of coastal and upland ecosystems. Specifically, the project aims to enhance coastal resources management and reduce poverty among municipal fisherfolks through sustainable economic and livelihood activities, microenterprises and resource management practices. Component B of ICRMP is focused on ‘Integrated Coastal Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation’ that addresses the rehabilitation of 7,000 ha of poorly managed/threatened mangroves and reforestation of 2,000 ha of mangrove areas.  The USAID Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) has also supported Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Initiatives in Calatagan, Batangas. Part of the CCA Strategy was the Vulnerability Assessment of the Verde Island Passage, which highlighted mangrove reforestation and management. A 3-ha rehabilitation, protection and management project was undertaken by 11 fisher families. The Calatagan Mangrove Development Alliance (CALMADA) established a mangrove nursery with a capacity for 10,000 seedlings; each seedling is sold at PhP15.00 each. In Quilitisan village, the local communities developed a mangrove island known as “Ang Pulo” (the island) as an ecotourism destination managed by relevant stakeholders within the community. Various capacity-building activities (e.g mangrove assessment and monitoring, financial management, and tour guiding techniques) were conducted at the community level to make the locals understand the benefits of mangrove rehabilitation and ecotourism while also addressing climate change adaptation measures.  The Community-based Mangrove Rehabilitation Project, a 4 -year project funded by the Zoological Society of London, supported coastal communities in

four provinces in the rehabilitation of abandoned government-leased fishponds and degraded Nipa palm stands, to increase food resources and livelihood income (CBMRP–ZSL Report, 2012). The project also re-established the legally mandated coastal greenbelts or buffer zones for protection from typhoons and tsunamis. Because of the adverse impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise, increased typhoon intensity and frequency, droughts, and floods, national governments have been urged by international bodies to develop climate change adaptation measures. The Philippine Climate Change Adaptation Project (PHILCAP), a 5year project covering protected areas (terrestrial and coastal) and agricultural areas, aims to develop and demonstrate approaches that will enable target communities to adapt to the potential impacts of climate variability and change, to strengthen existing institutional frameworks for CCA, and to demonstrate cost-effective adaptation strategies in agriculture and natural resources management (PHILCAP Presentation Document, 2012). The PHILCAP includes the following components: (1) strengthening the enabling environment for climate change adaptation; (2) adapting measures in agriculture and natural resources management, (3) enhancing the provision of scientific information for climate risk management; and (4) effective project coordination. The primary beneficiaries of the project in addition to the Local Government Units include farmers, who often suffer from climate-related losses, and other community members, who depend on natural resources for livelihood. The specific management interventions of the project include policy support, improved management capability (i.e., farms, protected areas) under conditions of climate risk, better access to weather forecasting and climate patterns, infrastructural support (e.g., climate-proofing irrigation systems), and facilitated access to risk management options (e.g., weather index-based insurance for rice/corn farmers). Recognizing the impact of climate change on its many small islands and the value of mangrove ecosystems as a carbon sink, the Philippines has recently been focusing on climate change adaptation strategies such as the rehabilitation of mangroves to (1) protect, shield coasts and coastal communities against storm damage; (2) stabilize shorelines; (3) absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; as well as (4) provide home and nursery habitats for fish, crabs shrimps; and (5) filter out sediments from entering the sea. Complementing the climate change adaptation program of the Philippines is the Community Based Forest and Mangrove Management Project. It is a 7 year project that focuses on community-based sustainable natural resources management practices and improvement of livelihoods of communities in six provinces. The major project components are: (1) rehabilitation of forest and mangroves, (2) introduction

123

124


of livelihood options that increase income and contribute to sustainable forest and mangrove management, (3) improvement of rural infrastructure in support of livelihood, and (4) capacity building of major stakeholders. Among the activities that have been undertaken include capacity building on value chain of forestry and forestry products for the local government units and peoples organizations, conflict management trainings, and orientation workshop in improving efficiency of project operations for the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officers. The rural infrastructures that have been improved in support to livelihood include farm to market roads, water system, and purchase of road equipment, multi-purpose loader and excavator (FASPO DENR Report, 2012). To strengthen the enforcement of environmental laws and to facilitate coastal and marine management protection, the “Manual on Environmental Law Enforcement in Coastal and Marine Areas” was developed by DENR. The Manual provides field guidance to multi-agency law enforcers on prohibited acts as well the procedures on how to gather evidence of violations, arrest protocol, and filing of court cases. Furthermore, the “Manual on Mangrove Rehabilitation“ was also developed in support to the implementation of National Integrated Coastal Management Program and the National Greening Program. It covers ideas about mangrove rehabilitation/restoration such as planning for site selection, species selection, project implementation (planting strategy), monitoring and evaluation, knowledge management and outreach/ orientation. Given that the maintenance of mangrove ecosystems and the rehabilitation of degraded areas are key to climate change adaptation, the Philippine government (i.e. DENR, DA-BFAR, and LGUs), in collaboration with and support from international bodies, has the responsibility to ensure that the vulnerable islands of the country are saved from the adverse impacts of global warming and increasing sea level rise. Strong political will is crucial. References Catibog-Sinha, C. & Heaney, L. (2006). Philippine biodiversity: Principles and practice. Manila: Haribon Foundation Inc., 495 pp. Conservation International , Philippines. Factsheet, Climate Change Adaptation in Coastal Communities. Brown, W.W., and A.F. Fischer. 1998. “Philippine Mangrove Swamps.” Bull. Bur. For. Philipp. Is. 22: 9-125. Dela Paz, R. and N. Aragones. 1985. “Mangrove Fishes of Pagbilao (Quezon Province, Luzon Island), with Notes on their Abundance and Seasonality.” Natural and Applied Science Bulletin 37(2): 171-190. Jacinto, G.S., P.M. Aliño, L. Talaue-McManus, and E.D Gomez. 2000. “The Philippines.” In Seas at the Millenium: An Environmental Evaluation. Edited by

C.R.C. Sheppard. Volume II Regional Chapters: The Indian Ocean to the Pacific, pp. 405-423. Primavera, J.H., R.N. Rollon, and M.S. Samson. 2011. “The Pressing Challenges of Mangrove Rehabilitation: Pond Reversion and Coastal Protection.” In Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, Vol. 10, pp. 217–244. Edited by E. Wolanski and D.S. McLusky. Waltham: Academic Press. Polidoro, B.A., K.E. Carpenter, L. Collins, N.C. Duke, A.M. Ellison, et al. 2010. “The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction Risk and Geographic Areas of Global Concern.” PLoS ONE 5(4): e10095. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0010095. Spalding, M., M. Kainuma, and L. Collins. 2010. World Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan Publication, U.K. Padilla J.E. 2009. “Part II. Analysis of Coastal & Marine Resources. A contribution to the Philippine Country Environmental Analysis.” In Readings in the Economics of Climate Change & Natural Resources Management, pp. 81-147. Edited by N.C. Lasmarias, Z.M. Sumalde, and E.E.Tongson. Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. (REECS), Quezon City, Philippines. White, A.T., and R.O.D De Leon. 2004. “Mangrove Resource Decline in the Philippines: Government and Community Look for New Solutions.” In DABFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.

Mangrove Forest Protection and Rehabilitation for Adaptation to Climate Change: Philippine Initiatives

125

126

Mainstreaming Mangroves: Proceedings of Regional Symposium on Managrove Ecosystem Management in South East Asia

Partnership Approach in Mangrove and Coastal Conservation in Thailand: Lessons Learned from Mangroves for the Future (MFF) Siriporn Sriaram1 1

Mangroves for the future Thailand National Coordinator. Email: [email protected] IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, 63 Sukumvit soi 39 Wattana Bangkok, Thailand 10110

ABSTRACT Mangroves for the Future (MFF) is the partnershipbased initiative promoting investments in coastal ecosystems that support sustainable development. MFF builds on a history of coastal management efforts before and after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. MFF began in 2006 by engaging the countries worst-affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami: India, Indonesia, Maldives, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Then in 2010, MFF expanded to include Pakistan and Viet Nam. The ninth member country is Bangladesh which recently join in November 2012. MFF’s objectives are supported by 15 Programmes of Work (PoWs), grouped under the three “pillars” of Apply knowledge, Empower civil society and Enhance governance. The three pillars are the holistic framework of Integrated Coastal Zone Management principles and Tools. MFF PoWs consider coastal economic valuation, ecosystem service and promoting investment in coastal ecosystems to goal everyone common goal which is healthy ecosystems. MFF at the regional level is oversight by the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) while at National level is supervised by National Coordinating Body (NCB). The RSC and NCB are the policy body of MFF both comprised of Government agencies, NGOs, International organizations. In Thailand, the representatives of NCB are from four sectors; NGOs, Government, International organization, Academia. Director General of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) is a chairperson of Thailand NCB. The involvement from multi-stakeholders is more at the project level where the project engaged with local people, local administrative organizations, academia, NGOs and private sector. In Thailand the National Strategy and Action Plan (NSAP) was developed in 2009. It identified national priorities for sustainable coastal development. Two focal areas have been chosen. The first is on the Andaman coastal (Ranong, Phang Nga, Phuket, Krabi, Trang). The second is on the Gulf of Thailand (Chumporn, Surat Thani, Nakorn Sri Thammarat, Trat and Chantaburi). MFF invests directly in coastal ecosystems through on the ground projects that relevant to the PoWs and NSAP. Since 2008, 24 small scale projects, 4 large projects have been funded and implemented. The small grant modality ( Increase Awareness -> Changing Attitude -> Motivated to Adopt Innovation -> Changing Behavior. Each step is influenced by the value systems of each person (Rogers 1995, Kusano 2002).. Therefore, sharing different perspectives in a relatively smaller group with interactions is considered effective in promoting learning and changing attitudes and behavior (Kusano 2012). Shared learning adopts this concept, where interactions among participants are valued and every participant can be a lecturer as well as a learner. Shared Learning has been applied to encourage a change through developing behavior, viewpoint, knowledge and skill among practitioners. It has been reported to be effective in building productivity, performance, efficiency, understanding and/or motivation on collaborative works by multidisciplinary, multi-tasked, multi-sectional or multicultural participants in the fields of: agricultural development (Wilson 2009), religious community (Wilson 2011), health professionals (Horsburgh et al 2001, Morison et all 2007), manufacturing (Adler 1990), university education (Jarvera et al 2008), school teachers’ capacity development (Margetts & Nolan 2008), among others. Some activities in nature conservation have also practiced shared learning approach. CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) in Indonesia has already accommodated the concept in its training. Based on CIFOR's experience (Mulyana et all 2008), the important principles of shared learning are all

participants become teacher/lecturer as well as student/learner, all places become classroom for learning, all experiences come to be subjects of learning, learning in awareness and wholeheartedly, alteration oriented, openness, and balancing in theory and practical experience. Shared learning will change an individual who will influence social change. Why Project MECS employs Shared Learning approach? Mangrove restoration and conservation issue involves wide varieties of sectors and stakeholders, such as forestry, fishery, developers and tourism. Such condition is easy to attract conflict of interests and misunderstanding among them in how to manage mangrove. It can occur not only in Indonesia but also in many other countries. They should realize that there are many stakeholders concerned in mangrove ecosystem management. With such settings, when forestry sector wants to implement a program for mangrove restoration and conservation, an appropriate program would be developed considering other stakeholders and interests. Practices with conventional approach that have been applied for a long period seemed in many cases not effective enough for restoration and conservation of mangrove ecosystem, such as top-down programs, trainings or workshops. Practices that encourage mutual understanding among stakeholders should be implemented to avoid long conflict of interests, which have been causing degradation in mangrove ecosystem. Becoming aware of various interests and achieving common understanding on the issue among stakeholders is urgently needed. To meet this need, MECS proposed Shared Learning as an alternative approach to be employed. Definition of shared learning for the MECS project is “Learning good practices and lessons by the stakeholders by sharing their experiences, knowledge, perspectives and opinions through participatory methods such as brain storming, mind mapping, small group discussions and dialogues at workshops and symposiums/forums.” In order to materialize shared learning approach into activities, MECS developed four shared learning workshops. Those workshops involved multistakeholders concerning mangrove ecosystem issues. Some characteristic issues in the host site of the workshop were discussed as case studies, through which multi-stakeholders shared their viewpoints, exchanged their opinions, and developed common understanding of the issues. METHODOLOGY This paper applied case study analysis, based on observations and questionnaires of four cases of shared learning workshops. Three workshops provided questionnaires for all participants. There were two kinds of questionnaires that were comprised of pre- and postworkshop questionnaire. Pre-workshop

269

270


questionnaires were distributed to and filled out by participants before the workshop started. Postworkshop questionnaires were distributed to and filled out after the workshop finished. The analysis focused in the change of participants' opinion, viewpoint or knowledge on the issue by comparing pre- to postresponses and participants' opinion about achievement of expected and actual outcome. But one shared learning workshop was not supported with questionnaires, so the analysis was based on observations only. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Four cases of these shared-learning workshops were different from one another in its design, characteristics, and structures. Simple images of respective workshops to clearly show the difference are summarized in Figure 1. Case 1. 1 area, 1 theme, many sectors

Pangpang Bay Essential Ecosystem Action Plan

Case 3. Regional sharing on 1 theme

Conservation & Coastal Management

Case 2. Domestic sharing on 1 theme

Ecotourism Development for Conservation

Case 4. Sharing by visiting each other

Surabay a

Balikpa pan

Figure 1. Images of four shared-learning workshops

Case 1 has the simplest design among the four. Participants came from one administrative area but with various backgrounds and professions, such as forestry, fishery, tourism, social welfare, universities, public bodies and private sectors. Such multistakeholders discussed one theme: development of action plan framework of Pangpang Bay Essential Ecosystem. In Case 2, the theme was ecotourism development for mangrove conservation, and participants attended the workshop from eight sites in Indonesia. All participants shared common interest and concern on ecotourism and mangrove, and they were mixed with public and private sectors. Therefore, “multi-

stakeholders” were not as wide as the Case 1 in terms of professions, but much wider in terms of geography. In Case 3, the design is similar to Case 2 to some extent. The theme was mangrove conservation as a part of coastal management, and participants were from ten Southeast Asian countries including Indonesia. Most of the participants were government officers, and responsible authority for mangrove is different from country to country, such as forestry, fishery, natural resources, and environment. Therefore, “multistakeholders” shared their common interest in mangrove, but their professions were varied, as well as country situations in physical environment, political background, and economic status. In Case 4, participants gathered from two cities and their professions were widely varied, such as forestry, fishery, city planning, tourism, journalists, environmental activists, school teachers, local farmers, NGOs, and public and private sectors. The theme was mangrove conservation as a part of coastal management, and participants from two cities discussed and developed action plan framework of the two cities respectively by visiting and analyzing each other. Detailed analyses of respective workshops were as below. Shared Learning Workshop in One Area, One Theme and Many Sectors This shared-learning workshop was held in Banyuwangi, the nearest city to Pangpang Bay, on 27th - 29th June 2012 with the theme “Action Plan Framework Development in Essential Ecosystem1 (MECS 2013) of Pangpang Bay”. The goal of this workshop was to share common understanding and develop harmonious relationships between stakeholders for the conservation of mangrove in Pangpang bay, and the stakeholders were able to develop a deeper understanding, to have a broader perspective and an effective action plan for the management of mangrove areas in Pangpang Bay through sharing experiences and mutual learning. Participants in this workshop included the core members of Essential Ecosystem of Pangpang Bay Board in Banyuwangi District, who shares common concern and interest. The flow of the workshop began 1

The meaning of Essential ecosystem is an area which is not scooped by the administrative boundaries, only by geographic of human community also their ecology system. Hereby, essential ecosystem has to be adequate, to maintain community’s habitat integrity and biology ecosystem of that area, supporting important ecology process as nutrient/element cycle, and migration in order to complete the need of habitat by key species and an indicator also includes human community to involve in the management of biology resources. The advantage of essential ecosystem for the conservation of natural resources and as supporting life ecosystem is as genetic source to improve forestry production, agriculture and fishery, also to improve industry related to natural resources material; as protector of the origin (wilderness), as the protector of nature’s and culture’s features that give benefit to ecotourism and recreation; also as the savior of hydrologic system at the karsts area

Shared Learning as an Effective Approach to Restoration and Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystem in Southeast Asia

with presentations of the area and issues, field trip, participatory discussion on Pangpang Bay situation and recent condition (fact finding), and ended with group discussion to develop an action plan framework for Essential Ecosystem of Pangpang Bay. The workshop program provided participants with opportunities to share and exchange their knowledge about respective institutions’ role on Pangpang Bay and to learn each interest of the member in Pangpang Bay Essential Ecosystem. The outcome of workshop was a framework of action plan for Pangpang Bay management. Through it, each institution/member knew and understood how to manage this site integrally and in what role they should contribute to the management. With such common understanding, Pangpang Bay would be managed as an Essential Ecosystem that provides sustainable resources to prop up livelihood of society living around. No questionnaire survey was conducted but workshop outcome and observations help the analysis as below. Shared learning workshop was expected to encourage participants to learn issues with various angles, develop common understanding of the issue, discuss practical solution transparently, and build their capacities through learning, all of which were achieved through this workshop. Participants were multistakeholders including members of the board, and they actively participated in the workshop. This shared learning workshop was a medium in which board member explored various viewpoints of the concept of Essential Ecosystem and possible role to manage the site sustainably and integrally as an Essential Ecosystem. The emphasis was placed upon such encouragements of stakeholders, however their rolesharing remained unclear, and follow-ups for implementation was not sufficiently discussed nor considered. Domestic Shared Learning Workshop on One Theme A domestic shared-learning workshop was held in Alas Purwo National Park in Banyuwangi District, East Java Province on 28th May – 1st June 2012. Theme was Ecotourism Development for Mangrove Conservation. The purposes of the workshop were; to understand ecotourism concept and perspectives, to develop deeper understanding and wider perspective in ecotourism management in harmony with mangrove conservation through sharing the good practices and lessons learned from other participants, to share the ideas and experiences of ecotourism development process among participants, and to develop mangrove ecotourism domestic network. The participants were 22 persons from 8 mangrove tourism sites in Indonesia. Their backgrounds included government officers, local community/people, researchers, lecturers and NGO members concerning tourism, forestry, fishery, etc. Unfortunately private sector could not participate in this workshop. More

various backgrounds of participants, richer experiences and knowledge would have been offered to participants with their participation. A resource person and a facilitator supported shared learning workshop in the whole process. Resource person shared information and understanding about ecotourism issues theoretically then gave analytic clarification and reasons to the case observed in the field. Meanwhile facilitator facilitated the flow of shared learning workshop using SWOT analysis. Her role was important to encourage participants to share their experiences and knowledge on the issue with the others. Based on analysis of the questionnaire, all participants achieved all expected outcomes mainly: they learned new/deeper understanding, perspective, ideas and knowledge on concept of ecotourism management in harmony with mangrove conservation. They were inspired from ecotourism management at Blok Bedul as a case study where home-stay and field trip program were conducted by local community. Some of participants said that they would adopt the best practice of Blok Bedul for tourism activities in their respective areas. Participants became aware that the basic principles of ecotourism for mangrove conservation included engaging local community in ecotourism management, environment education package, and mangrove conservation. Meantime, process to develop recommendations for the host site, Blok Bedul, stimulated participants to achieve new ideas for better ecotourism management for their sites through sharing experiences, fieldtrip session and discussion, participatory approach and ecotourism concept discussion as well as SWOT analysis method. That was accomplished by developing recommendations for their respective areas for their mangrove ecotourism. The result of recommendations was very useful to enhance development of the host site since many people from outside assessed their activities and programs. They developed an action plan based on factual condition which shared by host site openly. Then host site received many lessons while other sites needed elaboration to apply their learning to respective sites. The Regional Shared Learning Workshop on One Theme This shared-learning workshop was conducted in Surabaya on 4th - 10th November 2012. The objective of the workshop was to develop deeper understanding and wider perspectives towards mangrove conservation as a part of coastal management, by sharing the good practices and lessons learned of Southeast Asian countries and learning from each other. Through this workshop, participants were expected to acquire many new ideas, perspectives, knowledge and skills from other neighboring countries, and develop recommendations to refine their own activities for

271

272


mangrove conservation as a part of coastal management. A total of 28 participants congregated from 10 countries of Southeast Asia, namely Brunei, Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor Leste, Vietnam, and Indonesia. They were local government officer, local community or NGO, and central government officer who concerns and/or in charge of mangrove conservation as a part of coastal management in their countries. Their backgrounds were widely varied, such as forestry, fishery, environment, agriculture, etc. This shared learning invited a resource person who joined the whole process of the workshop and a facilitator to facilitate the process. The resource person shared and provided references about issues to participants, then gave suggestions or improvement of analysis during the workshop. Meanwhile facilitator was supposed to have not only facilitation skills but also fluent English because the workshop was conducted in English. Facilitator encouraged participants from 10 countries to share their experiences with others, stimulated their awareness in main findings and learning they had perceived during the process, as well as facilitated them to analyze their finding during the fieldtrip to develop recommendations for mangrove conservation as a part of coastal management in the host, Surabaya City. The flow of this shared learning workshop was as follows: each country shared their practices on mangrove conservation in the respective countries; Surabaya City government shared their planning, policy, and practices in coastal management and mangrove conservation; participants visited sample sites in Surabaya City to get information and facts about issues relating with mangrove conservation as a part of coastal management. Based on that knowledge, facilitator encouraged participants to analyze issues in the host city through fact finding analysis and to develop recommendations for Surabaya. After finishing the recommendation development for the host city, participants adopted the process to develop their own recommendations. Questionnaire survey found that the workshop achievements included more diverse learning from each other than domestic workshop, probably because differences among 10 countries were much bigger than domestic sharing. The workshop also provided a good opportunity for the host city to review their activities, but it was difficult to monitor and evaluate its outcomes in other countries. Furthermore, one of the challenges of this workshop was language barrier that discouraged active discussion and learning, which needs to be addressed. Shared-Learning Workshop by visiting each other The 1st domestic shared-learning workshop was conducted in Surabaya (26th–29th February, 2012) and Balikpapan (29th February–3rd March, 2012). The purpose of the Workshop was to visit, share and learn

from each other the experiences and perspectives on mangrove conservation as a part of coastal management, and to develop together action plan frameworks for mangrove conservation respectively. This workshop had three expected outputs as follows:  Participants have clearer idea and wider perspectives of mangrove conservation and coastal management,  Participants have developed an image of action plan, and  Participants have a common idea of shared-learning. Seven participants from each city attended the whole workshop, while additional six participants from each city attended the workshop only when the workshop was held in respective cities. The background and positions of participants were widely varied, including government officers, NGO members and local people concerning forestry, fishery, tourism, environmental journalist, teacher, etc. They could directly compare their own landscape and activities with the other city. It was considered to provide good references for them to develop their own framework of action plan. The flow of the workshop was as followings: presentation by the host city on their mangrove conservation, field trip, participatory discussion on their activities and efforts, and group discussion to develop a framework of action plan for the host city. A facilitator facilitated the workshop process to encourage participants, especially fourteen participants, to become aware and gain new knowledge, information, and valuable experiences from all activities and the process of workshop. Participants observed and discussed the issues in the host city in a participatory manner, through which they shared and exchanged their experiences. Questionnaire survey confirmed that this sharing by visiting each other provided very good opportunity for both cities to achieve practical and useful knowledge, experience and references, because there were high possibilities to find their counterparts in the other site, and easier to share their views and understand its implications. Even though, it was unavoidable that discussions in this workshop was shallower and less integrated due to shorter period of program in each site. In this case there were only two effective days for the program in each city. Therefore the framework of action plan that was developed in the workshop still needed further development and improvement. Discussion on Shared Learning Workshop as an Effective Approach Expected outcomes of four shared learning workshops were comprised of: to learn issue with various angles, to develop common understanding of the issue, to discuss solution transparently, and to build their capacities through learning. These were achieved effectively by involving multi-stakeholder participants in workshops, which encouraged good coordination among multi-stakeholders. Such as Case 1 (a board develops an action plan), applying shared learning

Shared Learning as an Effective Approach to Restoration and Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystem in Southeast Asia

approach can work effectively to workshop that has an objective to achieve coordination among multistakeholders, as members of the board were supposed to share their knowledge and opinions from each viewpoint. There were various understandings of the members to develop and manage the site. Moreover, the other workshops also involved multi-stakeholders and enriched discussions with diverse knowledge of the issue from many viewpoints that were helpful to develop recommendations or a framework of action plan. Furthermore, host sites of the workshops achieved many lessons the most, and other participating sites needed elaboration to apply their learning to respective sites. It means that host site as a case study provided a very good opportunity for participants to analyze and criticize the case site then to develop its framework of action plan or recommendations with all participants. The host site achieved more comprehensive analysis and discussions than respective participating sites. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation of the follow up of the workshop are needed more in the host site than the other participating sites. The analysis of the four case studies unearthed some challenges. The workshops encouraged multistakeholders to understand the reality from wide angles and deeply, however putting such understandings into practice is essential, as well as difficult. No follow-ups have been made to monitor such implementation in the field, and such follow-up programs should be developed when designing the shared-learning programs. In the regional workshop, English was the only common language, and some participants found it difficult to discuss smoothly and freely. Language barrier must be addressed in such regional/international events. Having interpreters in the workshop could be one of the ideas, while use of non-verbal tools in the discussion could be another idea. Further elaboration and innovation is required in the workshop management.

Conclusion and Recommendation The conclusions and recommendations of this paper can be summarized as below: 1. Effectiveness of shared learning approach has been confirmed that it can encourage good coordination among multi-stakeholders. 2. Host site and the other participating sites have clear differences in the workshop benefits and in its sensible and justifiable necessities for monitoring and evaluation. 3. Follow-up program should be developed to monitor its implementation in the field.

References Adler, P.S. (1990), Shared Learning, Manage. Sci., 36(8), 938-957 BPDAS PS, 2010, RTK RHL Mangrove dan Sempadan Pantai, Kementerian Kehutanan, Horsburgh, M., Lamdin, R., and Williamson, E., 2001, Multi-professional learning: the attitudes of medical, nursing and pharmacy students to shared learning, Med. Educ., 35(9) 876-883. Jarvela, S., Jarvenoja, H., Veermans, M., 2008, Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning, International J. Educ. Res., 47(2), 122-135. Kusano, T., 2002, Rural Development and International Cooperation [Jpn.], Kokon Shoin, Tokyo, 184p. [Krn.2007] Kusano, T., 2012, Definition for the MECS Project, unpublished paper. Margetts, K. and Nolan, A., 2008, Shared learning: a collaborative approach for supporting pre-service teacher's reflective practice, Australian research in early childhood education, 15(1) 61-68 MECS, 2013, A Report of Mangrove Survey and Workshop for Action Plan Framework Development, unpublished paper. Morison, S. and Jenkins, J., 2007, Sustained effects of inter-professional shared learning on student attitudes to communication and team working depend on shared learning opportunities on clinical placement as well as in the classroom, Medical Teacher, 29(5) 450-456 Mulyana, Agus dkk, 2008, Belajar sambil Mengajar: Menghadapi Perubahan Sosial untuk Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam, Jakarta: CIFOR, p.13-14. Rogers, K.M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovation (4th ed.), The Free Press, NY, 519p Spalding, Mark et all (eds), 2010, World Atlas of Mangroves, UK and USA: Earthscan publications, 103p Wilson P.N., 2011, Shared Learning In and From Transformational Development Programs, International J. Holistic Mission Stud., 28(2) 103-113p Wilson, P.N., 2009, Impact Assessment as Shared Learning, 351-359, Proc. International Assoc. Agr. Economists 2009 Conf., Beijing.

273

274


Streamlining Corporate Responsibility Into Effective Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management Scheme in the Philippines Abner Barnuevo1, Takashi Asaeda2, Emi Tsuneizumi1, Hirotaka Kanehira1, and Yoshikazu Kanesaka1,3 1

KPGroup Philippines, Inc., 16th Floor Tower 2, Insular Life Corporate Center, Filinvest,Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines Email ad.: [email protected] 2 Department of Environmental Science, Saitama University, 255 Shimo-okubo, Sakura, Saitama, 338-8570 Japan 3 Kanepackage, 1095-15 Minamimine, Iruma, Saitama, 358-0046, Japan

ABSTRACT The alarming rate of decline of Philippine mangroves several decades ago prompted multilateral agencies to engage in planting mangroves as response to rehabilitate and restore the degraded habitat. Presently mangrove rehabilitation projects have been a popular choice by many business companies as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and business operations in the Philippines. This noble activity with the intention to help restore the denuded mangrove habitat is absolutely good however considering success rates of many projects; several resulted to low and poor survival. This is primarily due to inappropriate site and species selection. Additionally most plantations utilize only a single species and ecologically this can adversely impact the associated mangrove biodiversity. Consequently, the good intention could also unwittingly affect the overall integrity and balance of the mangrove ecosystem. This paper looked into the streamlined CSR mangrove project of KPGroup Philippines (KPG) as a strategy in helping the mangrove rehabilitation and conservation. KPG act as a catalyst in linking the multi-sectors from the government institutions, non-government organizations, academe, and the community to implement the mangrove rehabilitation and management by entering into an agreement. Holistic relationship was built with the community through organization of the locals and mobilizing them as the resource managers directly responsible for day-to-day resource decisions. They were involved as the key actors in the management planning and implementation process of the mangrove monitoring and management. Results on the assessment of the three and two years plantation showed remarkable values. Average heights of the plantations are 70.8±12cm and 62.2±2.2cm for three and two year old respectively with annual growth increment of 22.0±2.5cm per year. Average survival rate was at 87.78±5.6% while mortality rate was at 12.22±5.6%.

Recruitment of seedlings particularly A. marina showed mean density at 1,270.0 seedlings ha-1. Recruitment data showed significant post-planting recruits particularly A. marina. The plantation offered a micro-environment favouring the settlement and growth of A. marina. Although far from completely successful, the KPG CSR project has been able to give additional livelihood income to the community, raised environmental awareness, and gained cooperation in the replanting of 25.3 ha managed by the local people. Thus, any CSR projects should have long term management plan, appropriate technical design and institutional support mechanism. Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, mangrove management, Philippines Introduction Mangroves are salt tolerant trees and shrubs that inhabit the intertidal areas within tropical to subtropical places in the world. Mangroves offer a wide range of functions and services (Tomlinson 1986). Aside from source of firewood, mangrove host a rich assemblage of fauna, as spawning grounds of fishes, shrimps and crabs and feeding grounds of sea birds. Mangroves also offered social services like bioshields from the devastating impacts of storms and tsunamis, reduction of coastal erosion, filtration of contaminated water, and sequestration of greenhouse gases (Kathiresan and Rajendran 2005). The Philippines being an archipelago of 7,107 islands located within the tropics in southeastern coast of Asia hosts a luxuriant growth of mangroves. Its coastline extends up to 36,300 km and surrounded with the waters of Celebes and Sulu Sea to the south, South China Sea in the west, and the Philippine Sea in the east coast.

Streamlining Corporate Responsibility Into Effective Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management Scheme in the Philippines

The Philippines is considered one of the top biodiversity hot spot areas of the world, supporting 1.9 percent of the world’s endemic plants and vertebrate species (Myers et al. 2000). Mangrove diversity is relatively high in the Philippines with 35 true mangroves species (Primavera et al. 2004). However, anthropogenic activities particularly culture pond conversion contributed significantly to the dramatic reduction of mangrove forests of the Philippines in the past decades. The total mangrove area decreased rapidly from the initial estimate of 450,000 ha (Brown and Fischer 1920) to around 120,000 ha in 1994 (Primavera 2000). The massive loss of mangroves could also be translated to a grave loss of biodiversity and source of income for thousands of coastal communities especially that large population subsist in coastal fisheries. This alarming rate of decline of mangroves prompted the Philippine government to undertake mangrove rehabilitation programs and even encourages multilateral agencies to take necessary efforts in restoring the rapidly declining mangrove forest. Heavy funds from external organizations were channelled to the Philippine government to catalyse the mangrove rehabilitation and strengthen preservation campaign. However, mangrove rehabilitation efforts were met with mixed successes and failures stories. Several projects failed or had very poor survival due to inappropriate site and species selection and most if not all utilizes only a single species of Rhizophora (Primavera and Esteban 2008, Samson and Rollon 2008). With the intensive efforts of mangrove rehabilitation in the past decades, the recent estimate of Philippine mangrove cover showed significant improvement accounted to 256,185 ha Long and Giri 2011). The estimate however did not account for the percentage of plantation areas and the natural forest covers. Apparently, several private firms in the Philippines incorporated mangrove planting activity an integral part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and business operations. However, most projects don’t have any long term management plan, appropriate technical design and institutional support mechanism. Thus, most CSR mangrove projects resulted to low survival and stunted growth. This case study presents the Kanepackage Group (KPG) streamlined privatepublic partnership by linking the company’s CSR into an effective mangrove rehabilitation and management scheme. The Kanepackage has been implementing the CSR mangrove project since 2009 primarily to help in the rehabilitation of mangrove forest and strengthen the sustainability of coastal development, gives alternative livelihood to the community, and streamlined the CSR mangrove project into effective mangrove rehabilitation and management strategy. The Project Site Olango Island is part of Mactan Island political jurisdiction located at Visayas group of islands in

central Philippines (Figure 1). It lies between the Bohol Strait to the south and the Camotes Sea to the north and bounded in the east with Olango Channel and Hilutungan Channel in the west. Geographically, the island has low topographic relief and with a maximum elevation of not more than 9 m at its highest point. A total of 4,482 hectares of extensive sandy beach, rocky shoreline, inshore flats, seagrass beds, coral reefs, mangrove forest, mudflats, and salt marsh grass surround Olango and its satellite islets. The wetland is comprised of 424 ha mangrove, 33 ha mudflats, and some 53 ha of shallow areas that serve as a bird feeding grounds. In the northern tip of the island located the Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary (OIWS) that covers an area of 1,030 ha and host large concentration of resident and migratory birds (Flores 2002). This made the island recognized as the first Ramsar site in the Philippines which is a wetland of international importance. There are 97 species of birds documented in OIWS, 48 of which are migratory species while the rest are resident birds of the island. The wildlife sanctuary serves as feeding and roosting site for birds traveling the East Asian to Australasian Flyway that stretches from Alaska and Russia in the north to Australia and New Zealand in the south. The island hosts 19 species of mangroves with Sonneratia alba and Avicennia marina dominated the natural forest while Rhizophora stylosa in plantation forest. Based on the study conducted by Barnuevo et al. (2012), a remarkable difference between natural and planted mangroves was observable in terms of structural characteristics and composition. Planted mangrove areas showed high plant densities, slender stems, and narrower canopy cover and strikingly composed of monospecific R. stylosa species while natural mangrove stand on the other hand is dominated by S. alba and A. marina. Apparent threats to mangroves involve anthropogenic pressures from human settlements, firewood gathering and gleaning of antique shells within mangrove areas. Despite the laws and policies promulgated to protect and preserve the mangrove areas, indiscriminate cutting still persist. If these apparent threats continue, this will imperils the feeding grounds of the resident and migratory birds in the long run. Several mangrove planting projects coming from the government and private and NGOs are being implemented in the area. CSR as A Strategy for Mangrove Rehabilitation Climate change and environmental degradation has become an important issue for governments and societies throughout the world (Sandhu 2010). The causes and effects of climate change have led to social, economic, environmental and political debates. There is now a growing awareness of the intensity of the environmental change of the planet and also of the centrality of the human effort in provoking that change (Sandhu 2010, Dunphy et al., 2007).

275

276


As governments and people awaken to the urgency of this problem, industries throughout the world are being pressured to be more environmentally benign (Desjardins 1999). Adapting to climate change is no longer an issue for governments to resolve alone. The private sector needs to be better involved in decision making. As a result, many business companies incorporated to their activities and business operations the environmental and social projects as part of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). There are already several private sectors that are willing to invest substantial amounts of funds into mangrove rehabilitation, and the success of these efforts varies greatly, and is often limited in scale and time (Ertemeijer and Bualuang 2002). With the recognition of the business sector’s role and responsibilities in addressing the issue on climate change and environmental degradation, business actions were conceptualized leading to the formation of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (WBCSD 1998, Sandhu 2010). The conception of corporations as merely economic entities is being replaced by a view that places corporations in a broader economic, social, and environmental context – referred to as the “triple bottom line.” Based on the definition of WBCSD, CSR is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at. The CSR is now viewed as a process with the aim to embrace responsibility for the company's actions and encourage a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere who may also be considered as stakeholders. In response to this vital role that a business sectors could contribute in the environmental conservation and sustainable development, the Kanepackage Group (KPG) incorporated to its business operations the CSR KPGreen Earth mangrove project that primarily aimed at helping the rehabilitation of the mangrove areas through community involvement, strengthening the sustainability of coastal development through resource stewardship, and promotion of the investment of funds and efforts into locally relevant approach in mangroves and coastal resources management.

Linking the Private-Public Partnerships (PPP) Through CSR Partnership with government offices and the community. Spurred by the realization of the mangrove values and increasing environmental concerns, much efforts has gone into rehabilitating degraded or deforested mangrove areas (Saenger and Siddiqi 1993, Alongi 2002). Along with the recognition of the business sector’s role in addressing the environmental issues,

KPG together with the affiliated Kanepackage (KP) companies incorporated to its CSR environmental program dubbed “KPGreen Earth” mangrove project. KP is a Japanese packaging firm, has committed to include mangrove rehabilitation program in its environmental activities since 2009. The CSR projects enjoined and partnered with different institutions and organizations. Prior to the project implementation, series of consultations with the concerned government offices were initiated primarily to seek help in the identification of the suitable mangrove area for rehabilitation. KPG linked and built partnership with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region 7, Local Government Units (LGUs), academic institutions, Peoples Organization (POs), and the community by entering into Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). All parties agreed to get involved in the mangrove rehabilitation, and monitoring and maintenance of the plantation to ensure high success. At the implementation phase, the PO and local people was mobilized and capacitated as the resource managers since they are directly responsible for day-today resource decisions and are key actors of the project. They were mobilized to rehabilitate the identified mangrove areas, and manage the plantation. PO is a group of people which may be an association, cooperative, federation, or other legal entity established by the community to undertake collaborative actions to address community concerns and needs and mutually share the benefits from the endeavour. The common practices of many CSR mangrove projects in the Philippines don’t have long term considerations and management plan (pers. observation). Furthermore, most are done only as short term planting activities particularly during foundation or anniversary week celebration. In the past experiences, mangrove projects without the long term management destined to fail and often resulted to low survival (Primavera and Esteban 2008) whereas those that highly consider management have a higher success rate (Katon et al. 1998, Primavera and Esteban 2008, Severino et al. 2007). With these experiences, KPG crafted and considered the long term management plan and protection of the plantation by strengthening the community participation. The PO was employed as forest rangers of the plantation and in return receives a minimum amount of cash incentives as honorarium from the company for the protection and management of the plantation. Mangrove management through the community participation and monitoring. Monitoring is well known to be an important facilitator of long term sustainable management of resources (Gibson et al., 2005). It has been suggested that these systems empower local participants while promoting conservation. The wide range of strategies to empower local people include intensifying local participation, linking them to local education, feeding information back to communities, purposely selecting


participants, paying for monitoring services, marketing monitored resources, and inserting local people into broader politics (Constantino et al. 2012). Furthermore, it is being highlighted that linking the monitoring activities to the decisions of local people may help make monitoring more relevant locally and hence sustainable (Danielsen et al. 2005). In developed countries this has been facilitated by citizen-scientist programs, in which professional scientists develop a coordinated network of volunteers, many of whom may have no specific scientific training, who undertake research-related tasks such as observation, measurement or computation (Greenwood 2007). The monitoring of trends in the status of species or habitats is routine in developed countries, where it is funded by the state or large NGOs and often involves large numbers of skilled amateur volunteers (Danielsen et al. 2009). In contrast, far less monitoring of natural resources takes place in developing countries like the Philippines, where state agencies have small budgets and with fewer or lacking skilled professionals. Additionally, the socioeconomic conditions prevent the development of a culture of volunteerism. Through the lessons learned from the success and failure stories of many mangrove projects (Primavera and Esteban 2008), KPG designed a management and monitoring scheme that primarily involved the participation of the local people and the community. Full time project personnel with technical knowledge and basic trainings on mangrove ecology and biology was employed to initiate awareness campaigns, strengthen local capabilities, establish linkage with government units, monitor the project implementation and conduct periodic assessment and evaluation of the plantation. In addition, baseline data was also established by conducting the mangrove community structure in the old growth forest using ground and aerial survey. The community-based approach which was already widely accepted in several conservation and rehabilitation efforts (Danielsen et al. 2008, Salmo et al. 2007, Sudtongkong and Webb 2008, Primavera and Agbayani 1997, Ertemeijer and Bualuang 2002, Katon et al. 1998, Biswas et al. 2009) was adapted. As a strategy, the local people were mobilized to become the resource managers and stewards of their coastal resources. They are directly responsible for day-to-day resource decisions and are key actors in the planning and implementation process (sensu Katon et al 1998). They were engaged and capacitated through lectures and planning workshops in partnership with the DENR. This was complemented by a series of informal meetings and discussions to craft and streamline the management scheme relevant and applicable to the community. At the start, the locals have hesitations due to unpaid projects and delayed payments of the previous mangrove projects of other institutions and organizations. Prior to the CSR project, there was no mangrove monitoring activity in the area done by the local people. Mangrove protection is being covered under

the laws, policies, and decrees of the Philippine government regulated and overseen by the DENR who has the direct supervision of the area. Globally, the Philippines is one of the countries with the most number of laws promulgated to protect mangrove (Primavera 2000). However despite of the existing laws, indiscriminate cutting still persist in Olango Island and elsewhere in the country. Based on personal communication with the locals, cutting of trees were done usually during night time leaving several patches of cleared areas inside the forest. This is alarming if this scenario exacerbated especially that the area harbours feeding grounds of migratory birds and associated diverse fauna. In the 1960s, the Philippine mangrove declined rapidly. From the initial estimate of 450,000 ha in 1918 (Brown and Fischer 1920), it dramatically reduced to 120,000 ha in 1995 (Primavera 2000) and further dropped to 109,700 ha in 2003 (FAO 2003). Mangrove degradation was aggravated in the 1960s due to the adoption of government’s policy intensifying aquaculture productions that encourage clearing of vast mangrove areas. The KPG CSR project brought the company closer to the people and the community at large. With the establishment of a holistic relationship with the community, the local people through the PO were employed as forest rangers. The routine tasks of the PO were the regular monitoring of the mangrove plantation by removing the attached plastics, seagrasses and other floating debris to the planted seedlings. As incentives, the KPG is giving minimum amount to the locals as their monthly honorarium for the management and protection of mangroves. The community monitoring activity increases the awareness and appreciation of the locals to the importance of mangroves. In addition, mangrove nursery was established rearing the species of A. marina and S. alba. This was the first mangrove nursery established in Olango through the initiative of KPG and managed by PO members in partnership with the DENR. The nursery reared A. marina and S. alba will be used to enrich the plantation. Also, the PO leader was requested to accompany the technical personnel of KPG in conducting the evaluation and assessment of the plantation. Basic demographic variables like survival, mortality, recruitment, and growth rate among others were periodically assessed. Through this participation of the local representative, basic biological monitoring can be delegated to the community in the long run. According to Danielsen et al. (2008), locally based monitoring is particularly relevant in developing countries, where it can lead to rapid decisions to solve the key threats affecting natural resources, can empower local communities to better manage their resources and can refine sustainable-use strategies to improve local livelihoods. The Outcomes And Opportunities Of Kpg Csr Mangrove Project With the realizations of the importance of mangrove in maintaining the balance and overall

277

278


integrity of coastal ecosystem, mangrove planting activities attracted much attention from different sectors (Primavera and Esteban 2008; Walters 2005; Walters 2004). Many mangrove rehabilitation projects in Philippines met with mixture of success and failure stories. The recent estimate of Philippine mangrove cover showed a remarkable increase from 120,000 ha in 1994 (Primavera 2000) to 256,185 ha in 2011 (Long and Giri 2011). This increase in the mangrove cover is attributed by the mangrove rehabilitation programs in the country. Ecological restoration of mangrove forests is feasible and has been done on a large scale in various parts of the world and can be done cost effectively (Lewis 2005). Planting of mangroves particularly R. stylosa has been practiced in Olango several decades ago. Based on the study conducted by Barnuevo et al (2012) in Olango Island, there is remarkable difference in natural and planted mangroves in terms of structural characteristics and composition. Plantation site showed high plant densities, slender stems, and narrower canopy cover and strikingly composed of monospecific R. stylosa species (Table 1). In addition, very few plants were recruited as competition for space, light, and nutrient is very intense. Natural mangrove stand on the other hand was dominated by S. Alba and A. marina. Mean DBH in natural forest was significantly higher compared to plantation site and the individual tree height varied widely signifying the broad range of plant’s age. From this baseline information, it is suggested that future rehabilitation efforts should be shifted towards the utilization of multi-species to include A. marina and S. alba since they are ubiquitous in the area. Initially, only the three species of Rhizophora were utilized by KPG project. The findings led to the establishment of mangrove nursery using A. marina and S. alba which is being maintained and managed by the locals. The nursery-reared seedlings will serve as species enrichment of the plantation. In the past practices, the species of R. stylosa was ardently planted by government organizations, NGOs, academic institutions (Primavera and Esteban 2008) and business companies that incorporated mangrove planting activities as part of their CSR. This is the most preferred species of choice for planting due to convenience of collection, propagules availability throughout the year, and it doesn’t require a laborintensive nursery period. However, ecologically monospecific plantation can have adverse impacts to mangrove associated biodiversity (Samson and Rollon 2008, Primavera and Esteban 2008). Monospecific plantation is being challenged by scientists and researchers in the country. In 2003, the Philippine Association of Marine Science (PAMS) recommended the use of locally adapted and existing mangrove species such as A. marina and S. alba in seaward zones, and Rhizophora species in more sheltered areas (Primavera and Esteban 2008).

Table 1. Structural characteristic of mangroves comparing the natural and planted forest. March 2012 (from Barnuevo et al. 2012) Characteristics forest

Natural Forest

Plantation

No. of species (in sampled plot) Density (per ha) Tree density per ha (% composition) Sapling density per ha (/% composition) Seedling density per ha (% composition) Ave. BA (m2/ha) Ave. height (m) Lowest branch height (cm) Canopy width (cm) Diversity (H') Evenness (J')

9 2927 1272.22 (15.65) 3661.11 (45.03) 3197.22 (39.32) 2602.90 2.75 0.80 1.46 0.62 0.65

4 673 2385.71 (24.81) 5114.29 (53.19) 2114.29 (21.99) 603.21 3.58 1.38 1.41 0.52 0.75

Through the years of the implementation of the CSR project, it provided the locals a supplementary and or alternative source of livelihood through planting mangroves, protection and monitoring of the plantation, and nursery maintenance. There were instances that fishermen reduced their fishing time and efforts and shifted their time to planting and monitoring of the plantation. Through this diversification, the fishing pressure was reduced. Furthermore, the women were motivated by having a source of income aside from their routine household chores and selling of fisheries products. In addition to increasing the awareness of the locals on the importance of mangroves, it promotes sense of resource stewardship to manage the natural resources where their daily subsistence depends. Assessment of the KPG mangrove plantation was conducted following English et al (1994). Permanent monitoring plots were established and marked. The results on the basic demographic parameters of the three and two year old mangrove plantation are shown in Table 2. Average heights of the plantations are 70.8±12cm and 62.2±2.2cm for three and two year old respectively with annual growth increment of 22.0±2.5cm per year. Average survival rate was at 87.78±5.6% while mortality rate was at 12.22±5.6%. Recruitment of seedlings particularly A. marina showed mean density at 1,270.0 seedlings ha-1. The survival rate of this project is relatively high and comparable to some externally funded mangrove rehabilitation projects in the Philippines from 1957 to 2006 (Primavera and Esteban 2008) (see Table 3). This high survival is attributed by the suitability of the site for mangrove rehabilitation and the involvement of the local people in the management of the plantation. Recruitment data showed significant post-planting recruits particularly A. marina. The plantation offered a micro-environment favouring the settlement and growth of A. marina. Research on upland tropical and subtropical areas has shown that sites planted with one or a few tree species are subsequently rapidly invaded by many natural forest species and show increasing species richness with age (Lugo 1992, Walters 2000).


Table 2. Demographic parameters of the mangrove plantation in Olango Island. January 2013. Parameters

Value (±sd)

Density (no. ha-1) Mean height (cm) (3 years) (2 years) Annual growth increment (cm) Mean girth (cm) (3 years) (2 years) Recuitment density (no. Ha -1) Mortality density (no. ha-1) Survival rate (%) Mortality rate (%)

35233.0±9759.8 70.8±10.2 62.6±2.2 22.1±1.8 4.0±1.3 3.0±0.3 1740.0±1270.6 4470.0±2514.5 87.78±5.6 12.22±5.6

In addition to the persistent cutting of trees, apparent threat to mangroves is the collection of antique gastropod shells buried beneath mangrove soils valued at PhP 14.0 per kilo. The collection process is highly disturbance and detrimental to young mangrove cohorts. They dug the soil up to one meter depth turning the mass of soil upside-down leaving several impoundments (Figure 2). This shell collection impaired the recruitment and succession of the degraded areas. With the existence of the plantation, this disturbance was abated due to the regular monitoring and protection of the local people. This is one case where anthropogenic disturbance was addressed through the community participation. Researchers and policymakers are finding conservation strategies that lead to successful biological outcomes, while accounting for the needs of rural coastal inhabitants who depend on the resource (Sudtongkong and Webb 2008). And based on the lessons from the KPG CSR, business companies’ corporate responsibility can be an effective strategy in mangrove rehabilitation provided it has long term management consideration and active community involvement.

resolve alone, the private sector needs to be better involved in decision making. With the increasing concerns on this global threat, businesses and industries throughout the world are being pressured to be more environmentally benign. And as a result many businesses have now positioned themselves accountable to the sustainable utilization of natural resources and sustainable development. In the Philippines, several business companies already incorporated the environmental and social activities as part of CSR projects and business operations agenda. The case of KPG CSR mangrove project showed a positive outcome and proves that CSR can be effective strategy in mangrove rehabilitation. Primarily, it streamlined CSR mangrove by having long term management plan through community involvement and empowerment and capacity-building. Although far from completely successful, the KPG CSR project has been able to give additional livelihood income to the community, raised environmental awareness, and gained cooperation in the replanting of 25.3 ha managed by the local people. Acknowledgments This is a product of a concerted effort of Kanepackage Group of Companies. The researchers are grateful to the Kanepackage (KP) employees for the vibrant support of the KP Green Earth project and to Saitama University for the technical support. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources Region 7 is duly recognized for the full support extended to KP Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. The local communities of Olango and Peoples Organizations played valuable role and offered remarkable effort to KP environmental project and activities. References

Figure 2. Photo showing the impoundment in the mangrove plantation arising from the collection of antique shells valued at PhP 14.0. This is impaired the settlement and succession of recruits in the area.

Lessons Learned and Way Forward The issue on climate change and environmental degradation has become the central topic of many scientific and political debates. Addressing this issue is no longer a sole responsibility for governments to

Alongi, D.M. 2002. Present and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Environmental Conservation 29(3):331-349. Barnuevo, A., T. Asaeda, E. Tsuneizumi, and Y. Kanesaka. 2012. Comparison of natural and planted mangrove forest structure in Olango Island, Cebu, Philippines. 1st ASEAN Congress on Mangrove Research and Development by DENR-ERDB. Manila, Philippines (December 3-7, 2012) Biswas, S.R., A.U. Mallik, J.K. Choudhury, and A. Nishat. 2009. A unified framework for the restoration of Southeast Asian mangroves – bridging ecology, society and economics. Wetlands Ecol Manage 17:365-383 Brown, W.H. and A.F. Fischer. 1920. Philippine mangrove swamps. Minor Products of the Philippine Forests Vol. I, 22, DANR, Bureau of Forestry Bul. No. 17. Constantino, P.A.L., H.S.A. Carlos, E.E. Ramalho, L. Rostant, C.E. Marinelli, et al. 2012. Empowering

279

280


local people through community-based resource monitoring: a comparison of Brazil and Namibia. Ecology and Society 17(4):22. http://dx.doi.org/10.575/ES-05164- 170422. Danielsen, F., N.D. Burgess, A. Balmford, P.F. Donald, M. Funder, et al. 2009. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology 23(1):31-42. Danielsen F., N. Burgess, A. Balmford, P. Donald, M. Funder, et al. 2008. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology 23:31-42 Danielsen, F., N. D. Burgess, and A. Balmford. 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:2507–2542 Desjardins, J.R. 1999. Business’s environmental responsibility. In: R.E. Frederick (Ed.), A Companion to Business Ethics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Dunphy, D., A. Griffiths, and S. Benn. 2007. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. English, S., C. Wilkinson and V. Baker. 1994. Survey Manual for Tropical Resources. Townsville, Queensland: Australian Institute of Marine Sciences. 368 pp. Ertemeijer, P.L.A. and A. Bualuang 2002. Participation of local communities in mangrove forest rehabilitation in Pattani Bay, Thailand: learning from successes and failures. pp.27-35. In: Gawler, M. (ed.) Strategies for Wise Use of Wetlands: Best Practices in Participatory Management. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the 2nd International Conference on Wetlands and Development (November 1998, Dakar, Senegal). Wetlands International, IUCN, WWF Publication No. 56, Wageningen, The Netherlands. FAO 2003. Status and trends in mangrove area extent worldwide. In: Wilkie, M.L. and S. Fortuna (ed.). Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 63. Forest Resources Division. FAO, Rome. Flores, M.M.M. 2002. Ecotourism and enterprise development for coastal resource management. Coastal Resource Management – Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 85p. Gibson, C.C., J.T. Williams, and E. Ostrom. 2005. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development 33(2):273-284. Greenwood, J. J. D. 2007. Citizens, science and bird conservation. Journal of Ornithology 148:S77– S124. Katon, B.M., R.S. Pomeroy, M. Ring, and L.R. Garces. 1998. Mangrove rehabilitation and coastal resource management: a case study of Cogtong Bay, Philippines. Naga ICLARM Q. 21 (2), 46-52.

Kathiresan, K. and N. Rajendran. 2005. Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 65:601-606. Lewis, R.R. 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove forests. Ecological Engineering 24:403418. Long, J.B., and C. Giri. 2011. Mapping the Philippines, mangrove forests using landsat imagery. Sensors 11:2972-2981. Lugo, A.E. 1992. Comparison of tropical tree plantations with secondary forests of similar age. Ecological Monographs 62:1-41. Myers, N., R.A. Mittemeir, C.G. Mittemeir, G.A.B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853-858. Sandhu, S. 2010. Shifting paradigms in corporate environmentalism: from poachers to gamekeepers. Business and Society Review 115(3):285-310. Primavera, J.H. and J.M.A. Esteban. 2008. A review of mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines: successes, failures and future prospects. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 16:345-358. Primavera, J.H., R.B. Sadaba, M.J.H. Lebata, and J.P. Altamirano. 2004. Handbook of Mangroves in the Philippines – Panay. SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department, Iloilo, Philippines, 106 pp. Primavera, J. 2000. Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: institutional issues. Ecological Economics 35:91-106. Primavera, J.H. and R.F. Agbayani. 1997. Comparative strategies in community-based mangrove rehabilitation programmes in the Philippines. In: Hong, P.N., Ishwaran, N., San, H.T., Tri, N.H., Tuan, M.S. (Eds.), Proceedings of Ecotone V, Community Participation in Conservation, Sustainable Use and Rehabilitation of Mangoroves in Southeast Asia. UNESCO, Japanese Man and Biosphere National Committee and Mangrove Ecosystems Research Centre, Vietnam, pp. 229243. Saenger, P. and N.A. Siddiqi. 1993. Land from the sea: the mangrove afforestation programin Bangladesh. Ocean and Coastal Management 20:23-39. Salmo, S.G., D.D. Torio, J.M.A. Esteban. 2007. Evaluation of rehabilitation strategies and management schemes for improvement of mangrove management programs in the Lingayen Gulf. Science Diliman 19(1):24-34. Samson, M.S. and R.N. Rollon. 2008. Growth performance of planted mangroves in the Philippines: revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio 37:234-240. Tomlinson, P.B. 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. U.K. 419 pp. Sudtongkong, C. and E.L. Webb. 2008. Outcome of statevs. community-based mangrove management in southern Thailand. Ecology and Society 13(2):27.


WBCSD 1998. World Business Council for Sustainable Development Stakeholder Dialogue on Corporate Social Responsibility, The Netherlands, Sept 6-8, 1998. Walters, B.B. 2004. Local management of mangrove forests in the Philippines: successful conservation of efficient resource exploitation? Human Ecology 32:177-195. Walters, B.B. 2000. Local mangrove planting in the Philippines: are fisherfolk and fishpond owners effective restorationists? Restoration Ecology 8:237-246.

281

282 Mainstreaming Mangroves: Proceedings of Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in South East Asia

Developing Ecotourism for Community Empowerment at Block Bedul Alas Purwo National Park Eko Kurniawan1 1

Mangrove Bedul Tourism Management Board

ABSTRACT Mangrove Bedul is located in the western part of Alas Purwo National Park, where Alas Purwo National Park itself is administratively located in Banyuwangi District, about 60 km from the center of Banyuwangi City, East Java. The background of the tourism activity stemmed from concerns of head of Sumberasri Village and the Chief of Bedul Resort, Alas Purwo National Park. In this area community dependency to mangrove forest is very high where the community utilize forest toward almost negative thing. High deforestation and hunting animal surrounding the mangrove forest was happened. Lack of awareness because low economical impacts to the local community from national park existence, limited programs on community empowerment as well as limited tourism activity which involves local community. From the above then it gets the idea that people in a positive benefit from the existence of Alas Purwo National Park without damaging area. So as several meeting between the chief of Resort Bedul and master village appear the idea to make a block Bedul limited nature tourism. The idea was presented to the head of alas purwo national park which was then occupied by Mr. Ir. Hudiono, MZ. From several meetings finnaly signatured memorandum of understanding for the development of Block Bedul limited nature tourism of Alas Purwo Nastional Park.

Location Mangrove Bedul are precisely the western of alas purwo national park, which is alas purwo national park is administratively located in banyuwangi district and 60 km from the center of Banyuwangi, East Java.

Map of the location of Sumber Sari Village

Background The background of the tourist activity stemmed from concerns sumberasri master village and the chief Resort Bedul , Alas purwo national park. Look around the forest dependent communities that utilize forest toward the negative. As High deforestation and hunting animal surrounding the mangrove forest, Lack of awareness because Low Economical Impacts to the local community from national park existence, Limited programs on community empowerment. Limited tourism activities which involve local community. From the state above then it gets the idea that people in a positive benefit from the existence of alas purwo national park without damaging area. So as several meeting between the chief of resort Bedul and master village appear the idea to make a block Bedul limited nature tourism. The idea was presented to the head of alas purwo national park which was then occupied by Mr. Ir. Hudiono, MZ. From several meeting finnaly signatured memorandum of understanding for the development of Block Bedul limited nature tourism of Alas Purwo National Park.

Developing Ecotourism to Local Community at Blok Bedul - Alas Purwo National Park

conducting a formulation workshop, which was attended by the new Head of Banyuwangi District for period 2006. In this Workshop it was agreed to put the themes “Sumberasri Village program For Rural Tourism”. The baseline concept of the theme is based on the potentiality of Block Bedul to be developed as a tourism area (Creation of on-site project to empower the local community through tourism activities). Afterwards, Alas Purwo National Park suggested a concept management for Blok Bedul limited tourism and the MoU for this purpose was signed on 31 januari 2007. Cooperation with related stakeholders has been promoted as well, with among others; local government (Regency of Banyuwangi), school and universities, tour and travel agents, etc. The activity to improve human resource capacity building was started in 2006 with the training undertaken by various parties such as training guide by the department of tourism, management training by JICA and Mangrove Management Center (MMC I, under the Ministry of Forestry from 2007-2010). To achieve the above goal, the village make a cooperation with several institutions concerned.

PT. Plengkung Beautiful Holidays (enterprise): Donated a traditional boat for ecotour Regency of Banyuwangi: 1. Quay / wharf building: Rp. 500 million 2. The 3 kms road rehabilitation: Rp. 4 Billion (2010 – 2012) JICA Sub Sectoral Program on Mangrove Project: 1. October 29th - 31st, 2007: observation of the site 2. April 28 th - 30th, 2008: survey of community's perspective on mangrove conservation 3. July 22nd, 2008: Stakeholder meeting 4. January - June, 2009: training-courses for local people and the development of organization (BPWM); a. The ecology of mangroves b. English Class c. Guidance / interpretation 5. July, 2009: The trial of ecotour started at july 2009 6. 2010 - now: self-managed tourism and ecotourism activities by BPWM

The Stakeholders and Their Roles: Recent Condition Sumberasri Village: Through the program of PNPM (National Program for Community Empowerment), the Sumberasri village has been allocated donation for several purposes such as develop the road to the site in the year 2009, relocated some villagers houses from Blok Bedul Alas Purwo National Park to the village, built an information center, built a toilet and some infrastructure for tourism avtivity and parking area. Alas Purwo National Park: 1. Facilitate the community development programs; training and other support 2. Research 3. Conservation campaign 4. Donated equipments for ecotour (canoe and boat) Cultural and Tourism Agency, Banyuwangi: 1. Training and sertification on guidance, cooperated by Cultural and Tourism Agency of East Java Province 2. Training on tourism management BPHM I (Mangrove Management Center Region I): 1. Training on identification of flora and fauna of the mangrove 2. Training on management of nature tourism 3. Mangrove nursery project with mangrove bedul ecotourism

The average of visitors in Mangrove Bedul tour to date is about 20,000 people per year. Of these 96% were domestic travelers from Banyuwangi District, 3.5% of the domestic tourist from East Jawa and Bali Province, 0.5% are foreign tourists. Environmental education activity is conducted every 3 months, where the target is the students from high schools and elementary schools near mangrove Bedul area. The tour packages offered in the mangrove Bedul Tour including the following: Package Kere (40 minutes) IDR 175.000, The trip starts from the pier north by traditional boat gondang-wheat with max capacity 10 people and accompanied by a guide. Guide gives a general overview of the management of ecotourism which is a collaboration between the Alas Purwo National Park with Sumberasri village government, followed by browsing Segoro anakan into the kere river, the guide explains the types of mangrove and wildlife encountered along the stream that passed, until the kere river the boat is paused , the guide presents the environment and traditional fishing activities carried out, then the journey continues to Grajagan resort, visitors are allowed to relax in front of the post and there is also heading to the south coast. It is advisable to go home around 5 PM.

283

284


Package Cungur (see migratory birds) within 1.5 hours IDR. 225.000, The trip starts from the pier and the tour provides an overview of the management and condition of the block Bedul. A trip down Segoro anakan heading west (cungur). Guides explain the mangrove ecosystem during the trip, got cungur boat dock on the coast, visitors are allowed to observe the environment, accompanied by a guide for 20-30 minutes, then proceed to Resort Grajagan or visitors back to the northern dock. Maximum participant capacity of 10 people. Package Ngagelan (turtle hatchery semi nature) time max. 4 hours IDR. 400.000, Before starting the tour participants were given an overview of the package and at the same time and management. Then down Segoro anakan headed toward the east (ngagelan) during the course of the guide explains the mangrove ecosystem. A trip down Segoro anakan need time an hour, then proceed with trekking in the rain forest along the 1 km with a time of 20-35 minutes during the course of this guide describes the wildlife and fauna encountered. Until turtle hatchery participants briefed by the duty officer at the post Ngagelan. This activity takes 15-20 minutes, the next activity participants shore break and then back to boat to remain as set out trekking in the same path to the boat, then the boat ride back to pier of bedul or can also post Grajagan.

Impacts:

1. Average revenue from tourism activities (Retribution): USD 340 million / year.

2. Economical Impacts for the local community:

3. 4.

a. Employment in: cafeterias, boat operators and tourist transportation b. Homestays Protection of mangrove forest and the surrounding area Decreasing of illegal logging and hunting animal Significantly

Existing Problems

1. 2.

Lack of promotion and network: limited ecotourists visited the site More than mass tourism ecotourism activities

Future Action 1. Developing effective promotion and networking through multimedia (website) and cooperation with tours and travel agent.

2. Creating ecotour roomates linked the mangrove site with the village and other destination in base purwo national park. 3. Increasing the human resources development and guiding Abilities. 4. Developing representative office 5. Enhancing mangrove nurcery location

286


Interstakeholder Partnership in Mangrove Rehabilitation: Lessons from Desa Ratatotok Timur, Southeast Minahasa District, North Sulawesi Province Dennie Mamonto1, Arman Mokoagow2, David Sompie3, Jerry Kojansow3 1

Yayasan ASPISIA Kelompok Pengelola Mangrove Desa Ratatotok Timur 3 PT. Newmont Minahasa Raya 2

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Desa Ratatotok Timur is located on coastal area of Totok Bay, Southeast Minahasa, North Sulawesi Province. The potency of mangrove resources in this village is big enough, but its utilization has not been environmentaly friendly accomplished. This results from high use of mangrove wood for house and fence materials, firewood, fish net maintenance structure, and mangrove area conversion to fish/shrimp ponds. This is also supported with low people’s understanding on the crucial roles of mangrove ecosystem. Considering the extent of threat to present mangrove resources degradation in this village, the rehabilitation efforts and the capacity building of the local community and institutions have become one of the alternatives in managing the mangrove ecosystem. The approach model used in this program was to build a partnership among related government institutions, private sectors and local communities for sustainable mangrove management. These activities were fully carried out by the people of East Ratatotok technically facilitated by Yayasan ASPISIA, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science UNSRAT, BPDAS Tondano, District Government of Ratatotok and with financial support of PT. Newmont Minahasa Raya, as implementation of one of the company’s commitments on community development and environment around the complex. In addition, the establishment of local mangrove managing group is expected to be able to prepare the village mangrove management plan and become mangrove information centre of the village. In this activity, the local people have felt the benefit of mangrove ecosystem for their life. The village condition has been shaded due to good mangrove growth which also helps increasing the fisheries production from mangrove ecosystem. Number of mangrove seeds planted in this activity was approximately 10,000 of several genera (Rhizopora sp., Bruguiera sp., Ceriops sp.) and the survival rate has reached up to 85 % until January 2012.

Mangrove forest is a major supporting ecosystem in the coastal area. Beside possessing ecological functions in providing nutrients for aquatic biota, spawning ground, and nursery ground for various biota, protection from abrasion, wind storm, waste absorbent, seawater intrusion, and others, it has also economic functions, such as wood, leaf as medical raw materials, and etc. (Dahuri, et al 2001). In line with population growth, there are more and more need in natural resources utilization, including mangrove ecosystem as a potential coastal resource. High mangrove utilization has often neglected the sustainability principles of the resources. Major problems concerning pressures on mangrove habitats initiate from human interests to converse the mangrove forest to residential development, commercial, industrial and agricultural areas. Increased demand for timber production has caused excessive pressures on mangrove forest. Other activities causing sufficient mangrove destructions are conversions to aquaculture ponds. This activity highly contributes to mangrove ecosystem destructions. In such a situation, basic habitat and its function is demolished and this loss is much higher than its substitute value. Some problems appear due to lack of understanding on natural values that could be granted by the mangrove ecosystem and absence of planning for an integrated development (Dahuri dkk., 1998). Government has responsibility to provide services in promoting any possible management actions of mangrove resources for community prosperity. On the other hand, community has also responsiilities to take part in maintaining its conservation and sustainability. Beside that, private parties, with their financial capability, could hold up the government and the communities in the effort of mangrove resources management.

Interstakeholder Partnership in Mangrove Rehabilitation: A Lessons from Desa Ratatotok Timur, Southeast Minahasa District, North Sulawesi Province

Roles of government, private company, community are very crucial and cannot be separated in mangrove rehabilitation activities. Partnership between government, private parties, and community in the implementation of integrated mangrove management will offer some opportunities for effective management in order to balance the resources conservation and the economic potency utilization of the resources. East Ratatotok village is located on the coastal area of Totok Bay, Southeast Minahasa Regency, North Sulawesi. Local people mostly rely upon the coastal resources around the village. Most people are fishermen and fish processors or other fisheries products and running small shops. People of East Ratatotok are also dependent upon mangove resources around the village. Mangrove area in East Ratatotok village is 62 Ha, but its utilization has not been environmental friendly yet. It appears from high utilization of mangrove timber for construction material and fences, fish net maintenance, food source, and fish or shrimp ponds that are not well planned. Looking at high pressure on the mangrove ecosystem in this area, since 2003 a community-based mangrove rehabilitation has been carried out, supported by regional government, private parties, and nongovernment organization. This program was aimed to making the local community as a major component driving the mangrove forest conservation through human resources quality improvement; helping the community responsibly use the mangrove forest; holding up efforts of the environmental quality improvement; increasing coastal fisheries productivity; and helping the recovery of mangrove forest ecological functions in East Ratatotok and its surrounding. Beneficiaris of the program was the community of East Ratatotok village living near the mangrove resources, beside local institutions, either formal or non-formal, are also beneficiaries of this activity throgh their involvement in all steppy processes, and eventually created networks and reliance among the stakeholders. Partnership In this program, the partnership and collaboration took several parties, as stakeholders, with their role and capacity as follows:  East Ratatotok communities through village mangrove managing group that is the major executor in this activity.  Guidance and facilitation by ASPISIA Foundation Manado in technical aspects and community empowerment.  Technical support of mangrove planting activities from Tondano Watershed Management Authority (Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai - BPDAS) Tondano, Government of Southeast Minahasa and District Government of Ratatotok.  Technical support for training and mangrove planting through the involvement of scientists and students

from Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Sam Ratulangi University (UNSRAT).  Financial support from PT. Newmont Minahasa Raya as a manifestation of concern for the community development and environmental preservation. Approach Community-based management is one of the approaches to manage the promising coastal resources in order to raise active participation of the community and in support of the environmentally sustainable development. According to Carter (1996), the community-based resources management is a strategy to achieve human-centered development, in which the core of decision making regarding the sustainable resources utilization is one the hand of the public organizations in the target area. In this management system, the community was given chances and responsibilities to manage resources itself, in which the community itself defined the needs, objectives, and aspiration, and it made the decision for people’s prosperity as well. From this point of view, the community-based approach was taken on the basis of 5 important factors in a practical and realistic process development for mangrove rehabilitation and its integration into the community livelihood, such as:  investment on the community. The program wa directly carried out at the community level without going through institutions outside the village  partnership. The program was done through partnership with either coastal community or other organizations that are capable of maintaining the activity.  stakeholders. The program was run including as many stakeholders as possible, particularly the coastal communities.  benefit/incentive. The program was done to allow benefits to the community, especially in medium and long term and provide incentives in order to raise public participation in the coastal ecosystem management.  Monitoring/control. Monitoring/control was carried out to ensure the program was well managed in line with its goals. During the program, the monitoring/control was continuously conducted. Implementation Mangrove forest rehabilitation activities in East Ratatotok, were carried out in several steps: socialization, mangrove condition study, increasing public awareness through skill training in mangrove managemnet, managing group establishment and approval, villa mangrove management plan preparation, seeds preparation, mangrove planting, and finally preparation of village agreement (Figure 1).

287

288


Socializat ion

Planting

Village Study

Com munit y Seed Agree Preparation ment

Increasing Public Awareness Masyarakat Establish ment of Managing Group Managing Group Strengtheni ng Planning

Figure 1. Mangrove Rehabilitation Implementation Scheme in East Ratatotok Village.

1. Socialization Socialization was formally carried out through village meetings involving religion leaders, public leaders, local government, women and young people. It was also done through house to house visits or visit to the crowd. 2. Participatory Village Assesment To promote the mangrove forest rehabilitation activities in East Ratatotok, a survey on the village mangrove forest condition and potency was conducted using a rapid assessment method involving local community. This survei provided data and information on mangrove condition of the village, such as mangrove species, seeds availability, substrate condition, and potential locations for planting sites. 3. Increasing Public Awareness In increasing local public awareness concerning the importance of mangrove ecosystem for human, counseling and education on environment were carrid out. To help lifting up publich awareness, an information center was established carrying mangrove posters, books and other related facilities. This information center could also be used by people outside the village who are keen to get information on mangroves and its management in East Ratatotok. To complete the mangrove information, mangrove-related posters and brosures were provided addressing the mangrove functions for human and environments. The objective of providing posters and brosures is to give good understanding on mangrove resources. These posters and brosure were distributed to all communities of East Ratatotok and neighbourhood villages. 4. Establishment and Approval of Village Mangrove Managing Group The community and the village government of East Ratatotok, facilitated by ASPISIA, through several meetings, have established a village mangrove managing group. This group of 19 members was legalized as village mangrove managing group with decision letter of Village Head, called Hukum Tua,

numbered 32/SKHT/RT/VII/03. The task of the group was to make a management plan with the involvement of community and local government. In addition, this group becomes the driver of village mangrove management plan implementation. 5. Skill Training in Mangrove Management This training was conducted by taking in the mangrove managing group and local Communities. It was aimed to increasing the understanding of the group members, promoting the mangrove ecosystem, building up good relationship among the group members in order to have a strong mangrove managing group, introducting an easy and unexpensive mangrove monitoring method, but scientifically accountable, obtaining preliminary data for mangrove management in the East Ratatotok. The executor of the training was the village mangrove group through the involvement of speakers from several institutions, such as university (Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science – Sam Ratulangi University, Manado), NGOs (ASPISIA) and government institutions (BPDAS Tondano and Subdistrict government). In this training, several mangrove ecosystem-related materials, such as Introduction to Mangrove Ecosystem, Mangrove Seedling and Planting Techniques, Group Dynamics, Mangrove Health Monitoring Techniques and Proposal Writing Techniques. Participants were also taught how to put those materials in practice, and for this, they were taken to directly practice in the village mangrove forest. 6. Preparation of Mangrove Management Plan Managing a resource, of course, requires a good and appropriate management plan. Through the community-based mangrove management actitivites, a village mangrove management plan was made. Mangrove group through meetings and discussion with the community and village government established this management plan. The village mangrove management plan set was a guide to mangrove management in its implementation. Some management plans were done to carry on the management efforts through BPDAS Tondano / North Sulawesi Forestry Services in order to make East Ratatotok village be a permanent seedling center that could supply seedlings to the Southeast Minahasa Regency and North Sulawesi Province, to build a mangrove activity center in North Sulawesi through the establishment of mangrove training and seedling center and the establishment of village regulations concerning mangrove forest management of East Ratatotok. 7. Mangrove Seed Preparation Seeds supply was done by the managing group and assisted by local community who were technically led by the ASPISIA field technicians and the university (UNSRAT). The community built a temporary seeds germination pool around the planting area in the intertidal. This area was taken in order to ease the


maintenance, since the seed planted in this site will did not require daily watering due to tidal flooding. Mangrove spesies provided were Rhizopora sp., Bruguiera sp., and Ceriops sp. The mangrove propagules were collected from mangrove forest in the village and then germinated in the polybag prepared. The polybag size was situated with species germinated. For Rhizopora sp., the polybag has a diameter of 15 – 20 cm, Bruguiera sp. 10 – 12 cm and Ceriops sp. 5 – 10 cm, respectively. Number of seeds provided was 20.000 seeds. Soil used for seedlings was collected from near the planting site, mixed with dung previously prepared by the group. Seed germination was carried out for 3 months since the seed is firstly planted. Seedling maintenance was routineously done to replace if there was any mortality and to remove wastes from the seedling site. To protect the seedling site from animal invasion, usually goat and cow, fences were built surrounding the seedling site and plastic sheet was put on the bottom of seedling column to protect it from crabs 8. Mangrove Planting Mangrove planting was conducted by the mangrove managing group and the local community, held up by several parties, such as intermediate school students and nature lover’s students. Total area planted was 15 Ha including the former mangrove logging area, the river bank, and the unused fish ponds. Planting was done in two ways, seed planting after sown and direct seed planting. Planting plan was done by the mangrove managing group, such as planting distance setting (1 M X 1 M and 2 M X 2 M) and species selection adapted to soil condition in the planting site and coordinating other parties involved in this activity. Planting activity, together with the local community and students, started with introducing them the mangrove ecosystem, then the planting method, and finally, planting practice. This activity is also a direct learning process for local communities on mangrove ecosystem. 9. Managing Group Development Capacity building of managing group in mangrove management was carried out through training (in or outside the village) and included this group to involved in each activity relating to mangrove forest management. The managing group was also given opportunities to manage the budget for seeds and planting in the process of lifting up the management capability that may support the funding continuity of their activities. These groups will continuously be guided to be able to gain help or support from local, national or international institutions in the effort of mangrove management. Several efforts were conducted through proposal submission to several organizations, private or government, in order to obtain technical and financial supports to mangrove management efforts.

1. Public Understanding and Impact of Mangrove Rehabilitation Community involvement in these activities also affected their attitude in future mangrove management. Change in their attitude appeared from decline in mangrove logging activities and more selective logging was done. At the end of the program, a survey through questioneers indicated that community-based mangrove management activities in East Ratatotok gave sufficient impact on the level of public awareness concerning mangrove management. Of 30 respondents, 76.7 % are aware of the importance of mangrove conservation and 23.3 % have no response (graph 1). It could appear from decline in mangrove logging activities in the village. Logging is limited and need to have permit from the village government and the mangrove managing group. The Community of East Ratatotok also began to have the presence of physical and economic benefit if mangrove forest could be well managed. About 63.3 % of the respondents agreed with the benefits and 26.7 % did not (graph 2). Physical benefits directly considered by the community is protection of residential area from abrasion, fresher enviromental condition, no Rob flood any more. Economically, the community began to use non-timber production of mangrove forest, such fish, mangrove crabs, and clams, that was previously hard to find.

Biasa saja 23.3%

Lebih sadar 76.7%

Graph 1. Effect of Mangrove Management Activities

Biasa saja 26.7 %

Ada Keuntunganr 63.3 %

Graph 2. Physical Influence and Economic of Mangrove Management

Results 2. Success Rate of Mangrove Growth

289

290


A descriptive monitoring carried out on growing success of several mangrove species planted up to January 2013 showed good success. The planted mangroves survived and covered 85% of planting site, about 5 Ha with variations in height. Rhizopora sp., was found between 6 - 8 M tall, while Ceriops sp. and Bruguiera sp beween 5 – 6 M tall. Selection of seed, substrate, planting locations determines the growing success rate of the mangroves. This success was also held up by village government through issuing several village regulations supporting the mangrove rehabilitation activities, such as regulation concerning goat and cow domestication. This regulation governs all villagers to make cages for their goats and cows, so that they are not wildly going around. Those animals are known to kill plants in the village. 3. Inter-stakeholder Relationship Relationship among stakeholders in mangrove management in this village was well managed. It revealed that the support of sub-district and district governments in monitoring the rehabilitated mangrove forest worked well. Several logging cases were directly handled by local police authority after getting information from the village mangrove managing group. Beside that, strong support from private parties and NGOs is going well through support for alternative livelihood and providing 5,000 mangrove seeds for rehabilitated sites, such as Yayasan Minahasa Raya. Lessons From Mangrove Rehabilitation Activity From mangrove rehabilitation implementation in East Ratatotok village, few lessons learned could be gathered as follows: 1. Approach. Community-based management is a management alternative that is capable of responding to problems in relation to natural resources and human resources characteristics in certain area. Local people possess their right to be involved or even have direct competence to make their own area management plan in association with their capability and carrying capacity of the area to various human activities of surrounding areas. Bottom-up and Top-down planning approach were synchronized to be sinergetically implemented. The principle of public empowerment is crucial to be implementation base for communitybased management. 2. Institution. Establishment of village mangrove managing group, as a group responsible for mangrove rehabilitation activities and strengthening organizations in the village, is a good strategy to monitor the program implementation so that the goal could be achieved.

3. Partnership. Inter-stakeholder partnership is a power for the implementation of mangrove rehabilitation activities. Roles of each party are determinant of this partnership. 4. Facilitation and external support. Careful facilitator selection will determine the success of mangrove management activity. Also, any support from external institutions, such as uiversities and NGOs will strengthen the implementation of mangrove management ativities. 5. Ecological study. Good ecological studies on substrate suitability, suitable seed species, planting site condition, and planting time will determine the growing success rate of the mangrove.

References Carter, J.A. 1996. Introductory Course on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Training Manual). Pusat Penelitian Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan dan Pusat Penelitian Sumberdaya Manusia dan Lingkungan Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta; Dalhousie University, Environmental Studies Centres Development in Indonesia Project. Dahuri R., Rais Y., Putra S.,G., Sitepu, M.J., 2001. Pengelolaan Sumber daya Wilayah Pesisir dan Lautan Secara Terpadu. PT. Pradnya Paramita, Jakarta. Dahuri, R. et al. 1998. “Penyusunan Konsep Pengelolaan Sumber daya Pesisir dan Lautan yang Berakar dari Masyarakat” Kerjasama Ditjen Bangda dengan Pusat Kajian Sumber daya Pesisir dan Lautan, IPB. Laporan Akhir


291

292


Socio-Economic Assessment and Analysis of Drivers for Deforestation and Forest Degradation Around Mui Ca Mau National Park Pham Trong Thinh1 1

Ban Van Tran Tan Binh District, Ho Chi Minh CityTel: (084-8) 38 9704667 - Mobile: 084-091 8 835 932 -Fax: (084-8) 38 8642.528;Web: www.fipi.vn Email: thinhwetland.phamtrong@gmailcom [email protected]

Introduction

General Information

Throughout the world, mangroves have been exploited for wood and timber and have been cleared to reclaim land for agricultural, residential and industrial purposes, salt making, and more recently, for aquaculture. Often the reclaimed land has proved unsuitable, or the uses for the land unsustainable with the land being abandoned. Mangrove forests are threatened by a ‘death from a thousand cuts’ as individual households make decisions to clear small areas for shrimp or clam farms or to decide to cut down trees for firewood and/ or timber. They are also threatened by more wholesale land re-zoning at the provincial or district level to make way for developments and investments in aquaculture. One way for this situation to be reversed is by providing a stronger economic incentive for local communities to protect rather than convert mangroves. To aid this reversal, it may be possible to get payments from the carbon markets. Mangroves are important as they fix a significant amount of carbon in the plant biomass through net primary production. Given their high carbon content this offers potential from the carbon markets. Following the UNFCCC Bali negotiations in 2007, there is renewed interest in the issue of reduced carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and Improved forest management (IFM). The purpose of this study is to better understand the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation to understand the potential from the carbon markets. \ The objectives of the research is to provide an analysis and initial insights at commune level on political, socio-economic and land-use situations, and the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in and the communes around Mui Ca Mau National Park. Also to cross-check information from these plans with information from district and provincial levels. With support fund of SNV Viet Nam, the research was carried out by a team leaded by Dr. Pham Trong Thinh, in November and December, 2010. The team applied usual methods and tools for situation analysis, documentation review, informal meeting, stakeholder semi-interviewing, informal survey on the fields, direct observation and mapping. Elements of analysis are coastal ecology related to mangrove planting and management, biology, planting techniques, socioeconomy, legal and institutions.

Background Mui Ca Mau National Park (MCMNP) located at the southern tip of Vietnam. It was nominated to be the park under decision of Prime Minister on July 14, 2003 on the basis of upgrading the Dat Mui Nature Reserve. This is one of the most abundant biodiversity, in the mangrove system of special use forests in Vietnam. The park located within the administrative boundaries of the four communes, Dat Mui, Vien An, Lam Hai and Dat Moi, with the total area of 41,862 hectares, including of 15,262 ha of land, and 26,600 ha of submerged coastal area. At the first session 21, the International Coordinating Committee and program Human World Biosphere (MAB) Committee under UNESCO (2009), the park is designated to list the world's biosphere reserve. The coast of Mekong Delta as well as Ca Mau peninsula used to cover by mangrove forest. The species richness is of high conservation value and the aquatic resources are the basis of economic activities and livelihoods of a large portion of the human population. Despite their importance, mangrove forests have been destroyed in recent decades due to various human impacts and development pressures for agricultural, residential and more recently, for aquaculture. The degradation of mangroves is already affecting their livelihoods, aquaculture productivity, and the resilience of the coastal forests to climate change is reduced. In the buffer zone of Mui Ca Mau national park, land-use farming system under 30-70 to 50-50 regulation, of those 50 to 70 percent of land maintained as mangrove forest and 30 to 50 percent are available for shrimp production. This regulation is not sufficiently enforced. There is potential for aquaculture products to increase economic and ecological benefits. Mekong delta is also the most vulnerable region of the world to climate change. The effects of climate change and how it will affect local people are not well understood. To date there seems to be no understanding of the risks involved and how to deal with predicted changes Erosion takes place on the east and west coast, while accretion occurs on mudflats around the Cua Lon river mouth. Along the south-east coast, erosion takes place at 20-40 m per year, affecting even forested areas. Rhizophora is being planted in the shrimp ponds in the belief that it may increase shrimp production and

Socio-Economic Assessment and Analysis of Drivers for Deforestation and Forest Degradation Around Mui Ca Mau National Park

to generate income from the sale of fuel wood. The west coast used to be a sedimentation area until 5 years ago, but now erosion is prevailing. Shrimp farmers near the coast have found production has decreased from the 1994s until now, and sharply decreased over the past 3 years. Reasons are not known but increased sedimentation and water pollution including organic matter flows were mentioned as possible causes. Located in a special geographical position, winds, ocean waves caused massive damage to coastal works, especially for sea dyke system, estuary dykes, agricultural land and villages. Response to climate change, the Prime Minister issued Decision No 667/QD-TTg on May 27, 2009 approved the program for upgrading sea dikes from Quang Ngai to Kien Giang. In particular, mangrove reforestation is a key solution to protect sea dikes. Subsequently, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has issued Directive No 85/2007/CT-BNN October 11, 2007 on the promotion of reforestation and tree planting coastal waves. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Government Affairs has been responsible for implementing the project "Restoring and development of coastal mangroves, the period 2008-2015". Requirements to develop the entire ecosystem of coastal mangrove forests under long-term plan, with the scientific and technical solutions associated with economic development and social security. Destruction of mangroves for aquaculture farming, forestry and converting land for other purposes, is a growing tendency to reduce its volume and quality of mangroves. Besides managing the organizational system, management measures, mechanisms and policies on protection and development of coastal mangrove forests are not appropriate and incomplete. One way for this situation, to be reversed is by providing a stronger economic incentive for local communities to protect rather than convert mangroves. To aid this reversal, it may be possible to get payments from the carbon markets. Following the UNFCCC Bali negotiations in 2007, there is renewed interest in the issue of reduced carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and Improved forest management (IFM). The purpose of this study is to better understand the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation to understand the potential from the carbon markets The Objectives of the Survey The general objective of the survey is to provide an analysis and initial insights at commune level on political, socio-economic and land-use situations, and the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in and the communes around Mui Ca Mau National Park. Also to cross-check information from these plans with information from district and provincial levels.

Following are specific objectives:  Gathering data from development plans and of meeting with community members to assess socioeconomic situation and local impressions of drivers of deforestation of 6 villages belonging to 2 communes, Dat Mui and Lam Hai.  Gain access to commune development plans and provide a general socio-economic assessment of each commune in terms of population, ethnicity, percentage of households in poverty, income sources, etc. Record area of commune currently under mangrove and projections in the plans for changes in area.  Collect past data to track historical changes in mangrove cover, produce maps highlighting the changing mangrove cover in the project area, pinpoint key areas of change.  Record most significant causes of deforestation (a) in the past and (b) projected into the future. Determine who the main actors are in these processes.  Provide overview of drivers of deforestation in the communes; include information on the direct deforesting / degrading activities;  For each commune, note other major development plans, its possible future impact on mangrove areas. Obtain any information possible on location, size of impact, and groups sponsoring the developments, record information areas for mangrove replanting.  Provide details on the charcoal production and use of mangroves for both domestic and international fuelwood Identify which communes are involved and its impact on the mangrove area. Highlight the value chain and describe future trends. Summary of Methods The team have carried the assignment in November and December, 2010 by applying usual methods and documentation review, informal meeting with local agencies and authorities, group meeting with local farmers, track walk for on the fields, direct observation and mapping Followings are summary of the activities. On desk analysis We have reviewed available relevant documents, reports, and statistics on socioeconomic and land-use situations, demography, cropping patterns, legal documents, forest resources uses in the target communes. Importantly, documents of mangroverelated development projects/programs and commune development plans. Land cover maps have been made from existing information and satellite images collected in 1995, 2003 and 2009. Land use statistic data collect in Dat Mui and Lam Hai commune. These provided information of the forest cover and land management in the area.

293

294


In-depth interview In-depth interviews have been conducted with local authorities and officers from related organizations, with well structured questionnaires. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) The locations of chosen communes and villages showed in figure 1. Ten group discussions held in two communes, Lam Hai and Dat Mui. Those are Bien Truong, Trai Luoi, Xeo Sao villages in Lam Hai commune, lied in the buffer zone of MCMNP, belong to NCPMF; Khai Long village lied in the buffer zone of MCMNP, in DMPMF, Con Mui and Lach Vam located in the Dat Mui commune, within the Mui Ca Mau National Park. Each of the village, two groups have been organized. Totally, 96 people took part in the groups Tools of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) have been used during the group discussions with local people, with focus Group survey forms were developed.

 Conduct Transect Walk/Ride/Boat  Supplementary Focus Group Discussion and Key Informant Meetings The contents to collect and PRA tools to be used can be: Other information such as understanding of governmental policy regarding land use and forest protection among local people, non-community resource use, as well as understanding of illegal logging, road expansion, new plantations by outside companies, government policy on expansion of certain crops, drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, etc, are also be collected through focus group discussions. Direct observation With the activities of transect and resources mapping, the team was go together with local incharged officials and villagers to the fields in the chosen communities in the two communes, to crosscheck (with what had been provided during FGD) and get really actual situations of land use practices, available forest resources and locations, level of deforestation and forest degradation, and uses of forest resources among the villagers. Overview the Study Site

Figure 1. Location of communes and group discussion and study site

Following steps have been taken to get required data and information 1. Meet Communes/Village Leadership, inform leadership of the objectives of the study Present them with official documentation. Introduce team members. Discuss the work plan and agree on the progress and logistics. Request the village head to find some other senior members in the village to discuss with the team (list of commune in annex 1). 2. Conduct Focus Group Discussion, the objective of this step is to obtain information on the village histories, livelihood trends, consequences of changes in resources and views of government policies from diverse perspectives. To capture the diverse views of the participants in a participatory manner to obtained following information:  Historical Timeline  Livelihoods-Seasonal Calendar  Scenarios for resource change discussion  Aid policy from the central government or local administration  Carry out Participatory Resource Mapping

Location The study site is southernmost region of Vietnam, including Lam Hai commune (Nam Can district) and Dat Mui commune (Ngoc Hien district). The study focused in Dat Mui and Lam Hai communes. Ten group discussion organized, of those 4 discussions in Con Mui and Lach Tram village, when are within the park. Location of the study site and group discussion expose in figure 1. The study site comprises of three forest types, special use, and protection and production forest. Special use forest is under supervision of Mui Ca Mau National Park (MCMNP). The par is belong to four communes, about 50.6% of the park belongs to Dat Mui commune. It’s 24.5% is within the Vien An, Lam Hai contained 19.8% area of the park, only 5% of the park is belong to Dat Moi communes. The national park comprises three sub-zone, strictly protected areas fully used for biodiversity conservation, restoration area used to rehabilitation of mangrove, and administrative area. Protection and production forests are under supervision of forest protection management board of Nam Can in Lam Hai commune and forest protection management board of Dat Mui, Dat Mui commune, and commune authorities. A part of protection and production forest were under contract with farmer, ration of shrimp and forest are 30-70 or 40-60 in protection forest and up to 50-50 in production forest. None-forested lands were mainly shrimp farming.


Physical condition The area is under a typical monsoon climate, with the annual average temperature of 2690 C The rainfall is highest value in the Ca Mau provinces as well as the Mekong delta, it ranks from 2100 – 2300 mm. Two prevailing wind direction, especially the impact of sea from December to April next year, east and northeast wind direction, with the average speed from 16 to 28 m/s Rainy season, from May to November, the prevailing southwest wind, average wind speeds from 18 to 45 m/s, or storm effects on marine fishing. The study site is submerged mud flat, separating by the system of natural rivers and canals Particularly, Cua Lon River with a width from 400 - 1,000 m. The average elevation of 05 - 07 m, often flooded tidal sea, east coast has its own terrain higher (from 1.2 to 1.5 m). Forming from new marine sediments, substrate generally is soft soil, mud and clay organic layer from 7 to 17 m thick and clay layer from 13 to 14 m. Hydrology is irregularly controlled by tide both from eastern and the western sea High tidal amplitude from eastern sea reached 300 - 500cm in raising tidal period or 180 – 220 cm at low tide. The tidal amplitude in Gulf of Thailand is lower, with the highest amplitude of about 100 cm at high tides coincide with the annual dry season (from October to March next year). Tidal in Cua Lon River, Nam Can site, with rising time lasted 5 hours and 43 minutes and lowering time lasted in 6 hours 40 minutes (the tidal cycle of 12hour and 23 minutes). Coastline of Ca Mau cape exposes two opposed processes, fast accretion in west but severe erosion is taken in the eastern side. Annual accretion in the west was 153 m in average from 1930 to 1965, but it was 30 m during the period from 1991 to 1998. In contrary, erosion occurs severely along the eastern coastline from Khai Long to Con Mui village with 10-15 m width collapsed per year. Mangrove ecosystem The physical environment provide favorable condition to mangrove forest, it become a best mangrove of Viet Nam. The ecosystem preserved biological resources, geological resources abundance of high conservation value. There are two forest types in the area, primary natural forest, and plantation. The primary forest formed by natural forest regeneration in the alluvial and coastal estuaries. Forest plantations of Rhizophora are mainly planted mangrove forest belt in the back of Avicennia belt and shrimp farms. 1. Primary natural forest, dominated by Avicenia alba, concentrated along the west coast, west of Ca Mau tip (the river mouth of Ong Trang river). Formed on pre-forest land accretion liquid mud, unstable and dilute ground. Natural regeneration with high density trees, plants grow well. Dominant species is Avicennia alba. Alluvial silt along the edge of coastal line with a belt small young plants, density of the forest is above 20,000 plants/ha. From the sea to the inland, a belt of young seedling

expands a width of 5-50 m of Avicennia alba. Back to the mainland is the forest belt has been formed from the previous year. 2. Mangrove plantations were planted in this area from 1977 onwards After 1986, the "movement" deforestation for shrimp farming, immense forest area were lost. National program of reforestation as 327, 556, 661 have been carried out since 1991 in the protection forest. These programs had regreening barren muddy land. In soft mud or silt tight, daily flooded at high tide, the plants grow well. Forests are often planted one species of Rhizophora apiculata or Rhizophora apiculata planted in Avicennia forest, which was formed in the coastal alluvial, liquid mud influenced by daily tidal flooding tide. Density of forests in the shrimp farms range from 2000 to 6000 trees/ha, the height of the forest after six years reach about 25 meters with a diameter of about 50 cm. 3. The alluvial mud occurs in estuaries. Muddy liquid distribution in large estuaries, focusing most at Bay Hap estuary, Cua Lon, a large alluvial in the west with a total area 6,500 ha, each year encroaching into the sea some tens meters. The composition of the soil is mostly clay and identifies plant and animal residues (wood, leaves, and snailshell.). Unstable soil, marshes indented, frequently flooded by tidal and exposed at low tide. This is the shelter and breeding grounds of aquatic species - a source of seed inexhaustible natural aquaculture industry Mau province. The mud fate is initial foundation for the processes of natural mangrove trees. 4. Biodiversity. The park is the unique characteristics of physical geography and geomorphology, creating an ecological area estuaries and coastal areas is one of a kind in Vietnam with the features of the flora and fauna of mangroves. As noted in 2006 by the Center for Research in Ca Mau mangroves, the ecosystem is native habitats of 22 mangrove species, 13 mammals, 74 birds, 17 reptiles, five amphibians, 14 species of shrimps, 175 species fish, 133 species of plant and animal life adventure, including plant and animal species in Vietnam Red Book and rare birds such as giang sen (Mycteria leucocephala), gray foot pelicans (Pelecanus philippensis). There is a large bird park with thousands of individuals to the shelter at night. In the national program on biodiversity conservation. Those make the Park to be key habitats of several water-birds of the Asia – Pacific region. Mui Ca Mau Land ecosystems are extremely diverse and abundant, especially mangroves forests. The ecosystem provides breeding sources of natural marine products for both a large area southwest of the country and the Gulf of Thailand.

295

296


Formation of the Mui Ca Mau National park In 1983, the southernmost area of the provincial was designated to be Dat Mui Nature Reserve In 1986, the Dat Mui Nature Reserve was officially recognized by Decision number 194/CT of the President Council of Ministers on 09/08/1986 in the list of national special use forest. In 1990, the investment plan was formulated, then, the management was established under the management of the FPD provinces of Ca Mau. Before 2003, the northern areas of Ca Mau tip were designed and construction of coastal protection forest accretion with the aim to prevent soil erosion and protect coastal land from flooding as well as the conditions of natural disasters other extreme. Alluvial coastal protection forest management boards were established under the management of Mau Forest Protection Department. The site was designated to be a national park by Decision No 142/2003/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister Socialist Republic of Vietnam Nam on July 14 in 2003 on the basis of upgrading the Dat Mui Special Forest (established by Decision No 194/CT, on August 9 in 1986) At the first session 21, the International Coordinating Committee and program human world biosphere (MAB) Committee under UNESCO (held from 25 to 29-5 - 2009 in Jeju, Korea, the Mui Ca Mau (Ca Mau) was designated to the core of Ca Mau Biosphere Reserve. Management of the Ca Mau National Park In according to Decision No. 142/2003/QD-TTg July 14, 2003 of Prime Minister, Mui Ca Mau National Park has 15,262 ha of inland areas and the marine protected area is 26,600 ha. The zoning of the park is in the figure 2. Regarding management, national parks, including three sub-zones and marine protected areas, with the functions and management measures. 1. Strictly protected areas, 12,203 ha, including 5,998 ha of forest land, 6110 hectares of accretion, land without forests and other land is 95 ha. This zone supplies the feeding areas for water birds and other aquatic organisms; provides seed plants, animals, and aquatic organisms to other areas, protects coastal community from natural disasters in coastal areas. 2. Restoring natural ecosystems included an area of 2859 ha with function are to protect the coast, limiting the damaging effects of waves and wind; restriction coastal erosion, promoting the accretion of silt, protection of life, and living for local people; to provide shelter and feeding area for wild animals and aquatic species. 3. Administrative Services zone, is 200 hectares, to build the office and housing for management and administration of national parks.

Figure 2. Mui Ca Mau National Park

4. The marine protected areas, 26,600 ha, marine protected areas were designed to protect and sustainably managed wetland, protected biodiversity of coastal habitat protection of the marine species threatened with extinction or living organism, which are diminished; wetlands protection of high value for life cycle of species, especially aquatic species. Five action programs have been established for the park management. Those are (i) Silviculture research, forest management to promote regeneration; (ii) mangrove protection (iii) Conservation of marine resources, investigation and research of marine conservation research policies proposed marine conservation management; (iii) Water quality monitoring; (iv) Ecotourism, and (v) awareness and capacity building. Livelihood Situation History and Actual Economy Of The Commune The history of the communes 1. The Dat Mui Communes The Dat Mui commune was formed in 1977 in 1979. At the beginning, the population was sparse, people mainly living by the beach, fishing, collecting of marine products in mangrove forest In 1989 onwards they began to shrimp farming Since 1990 1995 people massively moved to the commune for shrimp farming In 1995, many people start cropping in Truong Phi sandy ridge. By the year 1994 and 1995, implementation of decisions 432/TTCP, approximately 1,500 households had been resettled from coastal protection forest and the special use forest In 1997, the storm number 5 caused severe damage, increased epidemic in the area. In the year 1997 – 1998, forest management boards allocated forest lands to farmers under contract for forest management and shrimp farming. On the new accretion land, primary forests have been formed previously under natural succession,


plantation aquaculture. Three categories of forest lands are clearly defined on the fields by milestone, dyke and canals. Those are Dat Mui national park, protection forest, and production forests. The commune accommodates a number of migrants from around the country, particularly in the. Population increase quickly through the migration process, people come to explore new land-based fishery resources that is pressing strongly to mangrove resources in this area. Human population was 16,998 people in 2010, the density of 113 people per km2. It was 89 people per km2 in 2002. Number of households were 3769 households in 2009. Along with the rapid growth of population, number of employees also increased rapidly; from 1984 to 1995 the number of employees rose by an average of 21% per year, simple accounting for 98% of the total number of employees and focusing on career of forest and aquaculture. Data in table 1 shows the demographic condition in 6 selected villages in Dat Mui and Lam Hai communes. It is exposed that the population of these villages increased in the past five years, from 1.07 times in Xeo Sao to 1.49 times in Con Mui. The number of households increased by 1.02 times in Xeo Sao to 1.85 times in Con Mui. Fast growth of population is in the Con Mui accompanied by other needs, especially food and fuel, that would be serious pressure to aquatic resources of the MCMNP. Table 1. Demographic data of 6 selected villages

Villag es

Popul ation

Popul ation Past 5 years

Conm ui Khail ong Lachv am Bientr uong Xeosa o Trailu oiB

694

467

Incr ease in 5 year s

Hou se num ber

231

Hou se num ber Past 5 year s 125

1.49 1176

965

1.85 268

220

235

187

202

196

1.22 1087

875

992

837

Incr ease in 5 year s

1.22

1.24

1.26

1.19

1.03

690

643

1.07

167

164

1.02

897

815

1.10

197

180

1.09

The main changes of the resource and livelihood condition In the 1980s and earlier, shellfish, fish in the wild was much more. Human population in the village was very low. At that time the area is primary forest, the people living by fishing, catching marine products, collecting sea products, hunting in the wild, making charcoal from Rhizophora timber. Since 1982, people and forest enterprise began harvesting timber. From

1985 onwards, people in this village began to shrimp farms. In 1988, the people invaded new land in new accretion area (where the park is now) for shrimp farming. In 1994, under and decision of Primmer Minister made for saving natural ecology and natural succession, the shrimp farms in new alluvial clearance. In the past, people could simply collect marine resources in the wild, if shrimp farming are comfortable life. Since 1987, shrimp farming started, disease was not happen, wild shrimp production was too high. From 1993 - 1994 onwards disease occurred severely. Compared with the 1980s and earlier, today's shrimp and fish production in the wild were only about 10%. Shrimp farming difficult, people have to travel far to earn for living, employees, making hiring, the bank loan. People's lives are more difficult, more bank debt. Many other livelihood styles appear like farming oysters, collecting seedling of crab gatherers for sale. Social development plan of the communes Following is social development of the communes:  Aquaculture, the most important economic sector Development directions are diversifying varieties in farming Strengthening extension and guidance on scientific, technical, application-intensive shrimp farming, semi-intensive, extensive improvements strengthening quality control of aquatic breeds, dredging irrigation systems.  Forestry sector, work closely with the management of protection forests and national parks based in Dat Mui for regular supervision and monitoring of forest resources, forest land is strictly handle violations of the destruction of forests, encroachment on forest land.  Agriculture, diversifying species in farming, developing crop and fruit trees on the levees where aquaculture, livestock development of 90,000 individuals.  Encourage industrial development and small industries, the rezoning the residential area of communes;  Development of rural roads, construction power network to achieve 98% of households using electricity in 2015, and construction sites in primary schools;  Issuance of certificates of land use rights to households, education, and advocacy for environmental protection, reforestation, and waste disposal Land use variation of Dat Mui and Lam Hai communes Dat Mui, focus on aquaculture and aquatic resource exploitation, tourism Formation and development of oyster farming cooperatives. Almost people in the villages are new immigrant residents. But security and order situation is relatively stable. Through information from the press and radio, most people started to understand the policies, and laws. Land use in the area

297

298


is presented in the table 2 with its map in figure 3 and 4. Table 2. Variation of Land use in Lam Hai and Dat Mui Commune

1 1.1 1.2

DAT MUI COMMUNE Agriculture area Agriculture production

2009 9809.0 6

2005 9940.4 2

2000 9382.0 2

6307.1 6 1401.2 3

6780.8 2 1569.0 7

7000.8 4 1664.9 7

1995 9119.9 9 54.50 3875.6 2

1.2.1

Forest area Production forest

1.2.1.1

Natural forest

1.2.1.2 1.2.2

Plantation Protection forest

1401.2 3 1025.6 0

1569.0 7 1442.6 5

1.2.1.1

Natural forest

364.90

885.55

1664.9 7 1580.8 7 1027.3 3

1.2.1.2

Plantation

1.2.3

Special forest

1.2.1.1

Natural forest

1.2.1.2 1.3

Plantation Aquaculture land

557.10 3769.1 0 1685.6 0 2083.5 0 3159.6 0

553.54 3755.0 0 1764.2 0 1990.8 0 2381.1 8

0.00 3875.6 2 1642.0 0 2233.6 2 5189.8 7

2

Other land

3

Unused lands

660.70 3880.3 3 1419.3 9 2460.9 4 3501.9 0 1091.7 5 4124.0 1 15024. 82

915.20 4169.2 0 15024. 82

392.40 5250.4 0 15024. 82

347.31 5557.5 2 15024. 82

2009 9824.4 5

2005 9718.4 8

2000 8046.2 0

1995 7372.6 0

139.31 7013.0 6 3425.6 9

101.67 5743.1 2 2924.9 2

3996.2 0 1738.3 0

2732.1 0 1295.3 0

3425.6 9 2183.0 7

2924.9 2 1924.5 4

188.70 1549.6 0 1566.0 0

238.40 1056.9 0 1075.9 0

79.20 1486.8 0

143.90

1924.5 4 893.66

691.90

360.90

1 1.1 1.2

TOTAL AREA LAM HAI COMMUNE Agriculture area Agriculture production

1.2.1

Forest area Production forest

1.2.1.1

Natural forest

1.2.1.2 1.2.2

Plantation Protection forest

1.2.1.1

Natural forest

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

1.2.1.2

Plantation

1.2.3

Special forest

0.00 2183.0 7 1404.3 0

1.2.1.1

Natural forest

653.80

273.16

272.70

150.00

1.2.1.2 1.3

Plantation Aquaculture land Other land

3

Unused lands

620.50 3873.6 9 1214.5 6 1839.3 6 12772. 40

419.20 4050.0 0 1150.0 0 3576.2 0 12772. 40

210.90 4640.5 0

2

750.50 2672.0 8 1953.4 8

TOTAL AREA

494.45 12272. 38

Figure 3. Maps of Land use in Dat Mui commune in (a) 1995 and (b) 2009

932.00

963.10 4436.7 0 12772. 40

Figure 4. Maps of Land use in Lam Hai commune in (a) 1995 and (b) 2009


Actual Situation Of The Villages And Commune Settlement, economical activities, and income Settlement of households There are three main types of settlement in the region are:  Concentrated in village, every village has 50 to 150 households. About 300-400 households in the center of village.  Settlement along the canal or close to bottom fishing, each village has 30 to 50 households.  Single households scattered households in fishing or aquaculture, and hunting. Year around livelihood activities are in the Table 3. Table 3. Seasonal calendar with living activities in the study site Months The climatehydrologic al

The main activities during the month (% of household s participati ng)

Feb Mar Sunshin e Little rains, 26-35 0 C Shrimp Care, harvesti ng shrimp and crabs (50% 10) Employ ees (40% 45) Collecti ng fisheries (30% 60) Business (5%)

Apr Aug Sunshin e Little rains, 26-35 0 C Harvest shrimp, crab (50% 30) Employ ees (40% 35) Collecti ng fisheries (30% 40) Business (5%)

Sep - Nov

Nov - Jan

Much rain Little sunshine, 24 to 32 0 C

Reduced rainfall, sunny, 26-33 0 C

Clean the farm (50%) Fishing (10%)

Stocking (50%) Fishing (10%) Employees(5 0% -35) Collecting fisheries (40%) Business (5%)

Employees(5 0%) Collecting fisheries (40%) Business (5%)

- Agricultural production - Forestry and Fisheries - Handicraft - Trade - Other Services Total

Income households

Wealthy households Average income Poor income Total

Dat Mui commune Household s % 92 2.4 2868 76.1 809 21.5 3769

Lam Hai commune Househol ds % 306 30 521 51 194 19 1021 100

Table 6. The main sourceS of income (the average in 6 villages) The main source of income in rural households

Aquaculture

Average ratio (%) of households live 50.0

The main source of income in rural households

Average ratio (%) of households live 38.0

Offshore fishing

7.5

Harvest fisheries in the mangrove forests and Wood / fuel Wood Other products from forests Sell cattle

40.8

Employees (regular) Employment (casual / seasonal) Pensions

5.7

Credit / loan

56.7

6.0

7.0

Business (profit)

4.7

Savings (in banks) Remittances (money sent by family members) Other

12.7

15.7

2.2

2.30

1.40

Table 7. Evaluate the product's most valuable forest; the locals are daily used, with large quantities. For daily use, the highest point is the crabs and mangrove timber, in addition to other types such as shrimp, fish, snails, and small mudskipper is the type usually collected.

Product Types

Dat Mui 20 3147 101 376 1257 3769

of

Table 7. The important products to basic life of people in the area

Table 4. Number of house in various living activities Activities

Table 5. Number of household income various levels of incomes

Lam Hai 0 955 3 41 22 1021

Total 20 4101 104 417 1279 4790

The Most valuable

The Most used 5

Largest volume

Crab

4

5

Wood

4

5

5

Shrimp

1

1

1

1 Ratio % 0.4 85.6 2.2 8.7 26.7 100.0

Income of households Main income of people living in the park are aquaculture, fishing, collecting fisheries; employees, late for work, business. The average income of households is 27 -30 million / year (1400 to 1500 $VND per household per year). Approximately 93% of the total income of the households relies on the professional activities of forest and aquaculture.

2 3 Snail

1

4 Keo Fish 5

1

1

1

Place collected Forests, shrimp farms Forests, shrimp farms Forests, shrimp farms Forests, shrimp farms Mud flat, shrimp farms

Achievements in nine months of 2010 in Lam Hai commune  Total production of fishery and aquaculture reached 2359 tons The commune organized extension activities for 260 people and two cooperative aquaculture 38 members  Piloting extensive shrimp farming with 8 ha, organized 7 training to improve productivity and quality performance of shrimp with 210 participants

299

300


 The area of crops and fruit trees is 139.31 ha, developed models for keeping animal, crab, pig, and retailing for 675 households  Raising livestock and poultry reached 11,216 children  Transportation and irrigation with 2300 m concrete road, build 56 small bridges Dredged 2 two canal systems with 6015 m and constructed power system with 1200 m  The commune has 254 poor households, with 798 inhabitants In the nine months of 2010, the commune created jobs for 322 workers  The commune has a medical station with a doctor, five nurses, and a pharmacy assistant. Recently, a project for control malaria and dengue fever has been organized. The support of social services for the development of agriculture, forestry Government has a policy for loans and mobilized people to reforestation, however, no projects or much support, besides, providing general technical shrimp extension per year. Therefore, people are not eager for the plantations. Other business activities referred to forest products is very few, there is only one workshop making chopstick in the Con Mui village. But supplies of wood are not clear understand from the beginning. In Lam Hai, commune, number of households, communities, groups of households and land use certificate (Red Book), in Lam Hai commune: 150 families about 400 ha. Forest and agricultural land is allocated to households. For the region specializing in shrimp, land allocated to households and they are given Redbook with land use right certification. People have the right to decide the ratio of shrimp farming area, they are not mandatory in the forest planting. The rate of aquaculture and forest farming at the rate of 3/7 or 4/6, people said that shrimp area is so low, they would like to increase the rate of shrimp farming area in the allocated plots. Scattered trees of hybrid of acacia were planted on the dyke of shrimp farms leaf of this species has affected shrimp aquaculture, it also accumulated on the ground polluting environment, caused epidemic, and mortality. In strictly protected forests managed by Nam Can PMF and Mui Ca Mau National Park, people cut down trees and fishing in the area, especially in free occasion, lack of food Most of the violators are immigrants, landless, the poor. National Park is planning to set up the thinning process and the contracting sector to households (under the ecological restoration - zone). Some activities have been done by MCMNP for improving the living conditions of many people, mainly invest in dredging canals, road traffic, but the investment is still very limited and not much efficiency. World Bank (2000-2005), that constructed of house for exerts exhibition room and some equipment at the headquarters of the national park, VCF project (2010) on improving the capacity of the community, patrolling

protection and management capacity. As the suggestion of Mui Ca Mau national park, to improve the life living with the some following activities are essential:  Research and explore measures to reduce diseases on shrimp, crabs, fish. Infrastructure investment, ecotourism development, planning of villages for tourism.  Need special treatment regime for these households, who have the look and protection, and the people living within the park (health care, health, create conditions for their children to education to have the opportunity to switch professions, reduce impacts of forest).  Capital support for the household production, consumption output. Consider diseases on shrimp, seed sources, support for controlling the shrimp disease.  Put information network, called on government agencies and non-government investment.  The investment projects must be complete, comprehensive in all fields. Construction welcome centers serving eco-tourism. Driver of Degradation The causes and motivation of deforestation and forest degradation The causes of deforestation and forest degradation Data in the table 8 shows the critical levels of deforestation and degradation in the Lam Hai and Dat Mui commune. Through interviews, portion of internal driver by daily use of firewood and timber and cutting forest for sell and housing are the most critical driver, the aquaculture is less critical. Construction work and roads is the most critical external driver, cutting tree and fishing is also the critical issues that caused the deforestation and degradation. Table 8. The critical levels of deforestation and degradation in the Lam Hai and Dat Mui commune STT Internal factors 1

Aquaculture

2

Charcoal

3 4

6

Fishing Daily use of firewood and timber and for sell, house Construction work and roads Cutting trees

7

Internal driver Deforestation Degradation 31.4 22 18

18

6.7 43.9

10 50

External driver Deforestation Degradation 15 9.1

15

18.2

30

27.2

10

18.2

Farming

10

9.1

8

Harbor

10

9.1

9

Residential

10

9.1

5


In the villages of Dat Mui commune, most households are using charcoal for daily cooking. Monthly, usage quantity was about 20 kg per household. In the Lam Hai commune, the majority of households use firewood for cooking every day. They use pruning branches, the percentage of households use gas for heating are more than in Dat Mui. Households have received land allotment on the land, the pruning they are assigned. These new immigrants’ households without land, they sneak into the trees cut theft protection or special use forests. They do not cut trees over large areas, which closely trimmed to avoid detection. The motivation of deforestation and forest degradation Aquaculture is serious motivation both in the past, at the present and the future. Illegal cutting tree for fishing tool and charcoal are critical issues at present and upcoming both in community and outside. People is entity responsible for deforestation and forest degradation + In the commune, people committees (defined in decision 245) + In the district, people committee, district ranger + Management board of Dat Mui and Nam Can protection and management forests; and management board of Dat Mui National Park.

Driver of deforestation and forest degradation The data in table 9 presented the factors causing deforestation and forest degradation from the outside of the village. The data is expressed as the ratio % of people agrees in total interviewees. Table 9 The results of deforestation and forest degradation caused by internal activities in the villages of Dat Mui Commune N o

Causes

DEFORESTATION Very serio us

1 2

3

4

5 6

Aquacult ure Timber for houses Daily use of firewood and timber Firewood and timber for sale Making charcoal Making fishing tools TOTAL

Serio us

No serio us 16.7

FOREST DEGRADATION Very Serio No serio us serio us us 16.7

16.7

16.7

The data in Table 10 shows that in Dat Mui Commune, the level of deforestation and forest degradation, with no serious level, accounting for 97.2% and 94.4%, respectively. Number of interviewees responded that serious deforestation and degradation were 2.8 and 5.6%. No one made the comment that deforestation and forest degradation is very serious. About the factors causing deforestation and forest degradation, aquaculture, timber for house construction, firewood and timber use every day, get to sell firewood, charcoal, having the same number of people agreed at 16.7 %. Deforestation and forest degradation due to fishing equipment accounted for 11.1% rate. In Lam Hai commune, the degree of deforestation and forest degradation, with no serious level and accounting for 87.5% and 94.7%, respectively. Number of interviewees responded very serious deforestation and degradation were 4.1% and 2.6%. Number of interviewees responded very serious deforestation and degradation were 8.4% and 2.6%, respectively. Those mean, deforestation and forest degradation in Lam Hai were more serious than that in Dat Mui commune. The factors causing deforestation and forest degradation, aquaculture, timber for house construction, firewood and timber use daily, firewood and timber for sale, and do the fishing equipment is generally of the same level at the rate of 15.8%. Deforestation and forest degradation caused by underground making charcoal accounted for 10.5% rate.

Table 10. The results of deforestation and forest degradation due to the internal operations of the villages in Lam Hai commune N o

16.7

16.7

16.7

1 2

4

5 16.7

00

16.7

2.8

13.9

5.6

11.1

2.8

97.2

5.6

94.4

DEFORESTATION Very serio us

3 16.7

Causes

6

Aquacult ure Timber for houses Daily use of firewood and timber Firewood and timber for sale Making charcoal Making fishing tools Other TOTAL

4.1

Serio us

No serio us 16.7

FOREST DEGRADATION Very Serio No serio us serio us us 15.8

4.2

12.5

15.8

16.7

15.8

16.7

15.8

4.2

12.5

2.6

2.7

12.5

4.1

8.4

87.5

10.5 15.8

2.6

2.7

5.3 94.7

301

302


Data in the table 11 shows the evaluation results on the factors causing deforestation and forest degradation from the outside of the village. In the Dat Mui commune, the level of loss of deforestation and forest degradation, with serious levels not accounted for 90.0% and 71.0% and. Only 10.0% number of reviews that deforestation in severity and 25.8% of the people for the deforestation in severity. No one made the comment that deforestation, is very serious level important but and forest degradation accounted 3.2% rate. Factors causing deforestation and forest degradation, and activities for road construction residential, considered by many to be possible causes of deforestation and forest degradation. Construction of the road was the most serious, with the rate of 16.1%. Aquaculture and agriculture are two activities causing deforestation at the second level; those are 12.9% and 9.7%. The construction of downtown, or to build tourist resorts are also a factor for causing deforestation and forest degradation. Data in the Table 12 shows the evaluation results on the factors causing deforestation and forest degradation from the outside of the village of Hai Lam commune. All interviewees answered that, not serious levels of deforestation, seventy five percentage of responded to severe degradation. About 25.0% of interviewees assessed the level of forest degradation. No one made the comment of deforestation and forest degradation is very serious level. Table 11. The factors causing deforestation and forest degradation from the outside of the village N o

Causes

DEFORESTATION Ver y serio us

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Aquaculture Farming Construction of road Residential Trade Zone Harbor construction Supermarket Deforestation Resort TOTAL

00

Seri ous

6.7 3.3 10.0

13.3 10.0 20.0

FOREST DEGRADATION Ver Seri No y ous serio serio us us 12.9 9.7 6.5 16.1

13.3 6.7 3.3

12.9 6.5 3.2

No serio us

3.3 6.7 13.3 90.0

3.2 3.2

6.5 6.5 6.5 25.8

3.2 6.5 71.0

Table 12. The factors causing deforestation and forest degradation from the outside of the village of Hai Lam commune N Causes o

DEFORESTATION Ver y serio us

Seri ous

No serio us

1

Aquaculture

42.9

2

Farming

14.3

FOREST DEGRADATION Ver Seri No y ous serio serio us us 25.0

3 4

Construction of road Residential

5

Trade Zone

6

Harbor construction Supermarket Deforestation Resort TOTAL

7 8 9

14.3

28.6 0.0

0.0

100. 0

62.5 12.5 75.0

25.0

About the factors causing deforestation and forest degradation, aquaculture, and deforestation are two most prominent factors causing deforestation and forest degradation. Activities in agriculture, road construction, or resort to be well being of the factors causing deforestation and forest degradation, but at lower levels. In the fact, illegal cutting is severe problem causing degradation in Mui Ca Mau National park. According to Mr. Nguyen Van Thang, head-in-charge of Mui Ca Mau ranger, said from the beginning of the year was discovered, handled 82 cases violated forest law. Hotspot of deforestation is now the most serious regional Xeo Doi (Dat Mui commune) and Trang Sao (Vien An commune). Mr Phan Hung Dung, Head of Legal Department FPD Inspection of Ca Mau, said: Recently, the mangrove forest in Ca Mau, especially in areas Mui Ca Mau National Park, there were warming of several cases deforestation and combat forces of rangers. Recently, they attacked the officers at forestry ranger station at Trai Xeo, Vien An Commune (Ngoc Hien district). Mr Huynh Thanh Sinh, deputy of ranger of Mui Ca Mau National Park , said length of protective forests in this field start from Truong Phi canal (Dat Mui) to Cua Bay Hap (Vien An commune) is over 80km, the width from 500 meters wide in some places to over 3,000 meters. Disadvantage in the management, forest protection and patrolling the large area, stretching along the sea, interlaced canals, create traffic complex, very difficult to control. Violators access to protection forest quickly, especially along the seaside at high tide, there are numerous canals and small creeks connect the sea are easily for getting into the forest by boats, the cover over the tails these bays. Pecuniary penalties given to violators were not effect. As most of deforestation are poverty, so his arrest, fines, they have to run high-interest loan and then pay a fine, no other way than to continue cutting trees to sell just to pay the debt plays fine, just managed to spend on family life. For nearly six months of this year, FPD Mau coordinate with the concerned branches and localities to detect forest, handling 343 cases violated forest law, destroying hundreds of illegal coal oven on stand. At Mui Ca Mau National Park, from the beginning of the year was discovered, handled 70 cases of forest law violation, but in fact this number is much larger and


loots are very sophisticated, no signs of stopping. Current deforestation hot spots are areas of Trang Sao, Ong Trang (Vien An commune). Mr To Hoang Man, deputy station Con Cat ranger station, said, more seriously, when cutting the tree is finished, they brought down the river left behind, use foam box to hide submerged under boat, wait for high tide transported to safety sites, a person sitting next to a knife is ready to fight ranger force. Not only adults but children 14-15 years old also participated in deforestation. They cut the tree about 4 – 5 m out pieces, put in to oven to make charcoal or sale for $ 10,000 - 20,000 VND/ tree depending on tree size large or small. So, when they have no money to spend as they sneak into the forest, cutting trees to sell, coal pits and forests "bleeding" all one place to another, continuously from day to day, very difficult to control. Violators do not cut the trees in greater numbers, before they may be arrested to prosecution, that deforestation in the form of "longer than the others comments”, if caught is it also plays a fine stop. Consequences are related to deforestation in large numbers, but may not be prevented. There are about 2,000 households living on the stand Mui Ca Mau National Park, but most of these households are lacking stable jobs, not the means of production, almost dependent on forest resources, abuse of illegal exploitation of fisheries resources in restricted accretion areas. They catch snails, crab, in the forest if these resources depletion, they cutting trees to sell for rice or exchange, for food or for living expenses. Charcoal of Rhizophora is priced around 5,000 VND/kg, with a small charcoal furnace, after 2 days they received more than 40 kg, earning about $200,000 VND. They know cutting the forest are illegal but still have to do, because real life is in no way different. Table 13. The motivation was for the most serious, 1 is worst and 7 is less serious FACTOR In the village Making fishing tools Firewood and timber for sale Charcoal Daily use of firewood and timber Timber houses Aquaculture Outside villages Cutting tree Aquaculture Road Residential Farming Trade Zone Works and supermarket

PAST

PRESENT

UPCOMING

6 3

2 1

1 2

4 5

4 5

3 4

2 1

3 6

5 6

2 1 3 6 5 7 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 13 exposed that aquaculture is the most important factors causing deforestation in the past, present and in the near future, the impact of this factor

will be reduced but still important factor from outside the village. Logging for timber, firewood, fishing equipment, or to sell are also relatively serious factors. Road construction activities are external factors also impact the deforestation in the past, present and future. The responsibility for deforestation and forest degradation, mainly from other places, the forest management and protection of the national park and commune People's Committees are responsible. Table 14. The the actual contract to protect natural forests for local households Villages

Lach vam Khai long Con Mui Bien truong Xeo sao Trai luoi

Contract duration (years) 15 20

Area (ha) 44 44

15 20

44 35

20 20

35 35

Forest categories

Special use Protection, production Special use Protection, production Production Protection

Household numbers 28 87 138 150 142 177

Table 15. Assess encroachment of forest land for national parks and protection forests Very serious National Park Protection forest

Serious 18.8 18.8

No serious 81.2 81.2

TOTAL 100 100

The Table 15 shows the percentage (%) of assessing the land encroachment into national parks and coastal protection forest. Results from group discussions showed that 81.2% of those attending the meeting to the extent that encroachment on forest land in national parks and protection forests are not serious and 18.8% of people have to be serious. Driver of significant impacts on socio-economic development in Ngoc Hien  Project Ho Chi Minh City route (Highway 1A extended from Ca Mau to Nam Can) This is an investment project to the center Ngoc Hien district and extended to Mui Ca Mau, connected to the tourist sites in the district  Projects of Tourism infrastructure of national Mui Ca Mau mangrove capital investment by the central budget  Projects to establish Center of marine seed  Project Mui Ca Mau National Park  Investment projects to build ports Nam Can, the shipbuilding industry Nam Can  The construction of power transmission, especially stations 110 KV Ca Mau 2 (Dam Doi), Ngoc Hien 110 kV station will solve the power quality for the district  Road: Forecasting the formation of the transport stream:  Nam Can – Rach Goc - Khai Long - Dat Mui  Rach goc - three way-cross road of Duong Keo Vam Ong Dinh

303

304


 Vam ong Dinh- Vam Ong Trang- Khai Long –Dat Mui Social pressure for forest resources and biodiversity of mangrove forests in general and in particular of the Ngoc Hien district is very large, the main reason is because the life of a part of population remains difficult , lead to forest destruction, illegal migration to the freedom of mangrove forests, deforestation shrimp Restore, protect and develop forests are major tasks, we must first is the response of the people involved, the investment of all levels and departments Keep the forest, forest development, especially protection forests, special-use forests, the Ngoc Hien is capable of sustainable development But now there are many issues to be resolved to restore protection\ Conclusion and Recommendation Conclusion The typical forms of land use in the study area are special use forests of conservation, protection forests and production forests. These forests were contracted to households by the ratio of forests to aquaculture was 70-30 (subdivision ecological rehabilitation of special use forests) and the ratio of 40-60 in the forest or 50-50 ratio in production forests, specialization of shrimp aquaculture. The agricultural activity is growing significantly due to land here is not suitable for agricultural production. Mangrove in surrounding Mui Ca Mau National Park is threatened by high population that increases rapidly (especially in Dat Mui commune), the landless poor immigrants into the forest and forest products and timber cutting, firewood, coal pits. Most households in Dat Mui use charcoal in daily cooking. Although the special use forest, some projects were carried out in this area such at CWPD, or program of 661, VCF, however, there were not appropriate program to raise awareness of the people. People's awareness of special use forests are not suitable, they want to expand the area of aquaculture; current rules of procedure and exploitation of forest thinning on the contracted households where not appropriate, people wanted more active in their allocated lands. The dynamics of forest degradation, forest loss within the community are: deforestation for timber, to the coal pits, houses, bridges and temporary, as fishing equipment, and expand the aquaculture area. The dynamics of forest degradation, forest loss from the outside is the plan to build roads, set up residential areas, expansion of shrimp farming. Road construction activities, new residential areas, aquaculture is the driving force of forest degradation and deforestation. Aquatic diseases, epidemic in cattle, poultry, coastal erosion, bank erosion and storm surges are causing catastrophe for the people in the area. Recommendation Ca Mau authorities direct the functional agencies to coordinate with localities to continue to strengthen the

propaganda to protect forests and wildlife in various ways to intensify the inspection and control and the military crackdown across the forest, particularly in coastal protection, preventing freedom of migrants living along the forest, coastline to exploit, felling forest trees; strict handling of cases against forestry officials. However, it is needs of social security for residents of forest villages with propaganda, education, management and protection.  Awareness rising and capacity building. People are thinking that the large percentage of forests area in the shrimp pond that affecting the shrimp, pull in people's low income, difficult life. Comprehensive complain needed to improve awareness of local people and capacity is essential for management staff at the level of district, commune, MCMNP and FPM.  Research needs. People are still expecting the state allocate forest land to farmers with appropriate assistance to people in protecting the forest resources, and allow the exploitation, pruning trees to solve part of the demand of life. Planning allowed fishing areas, fisheries exploitation, conditions for the people exploited fisheries resources to stabilize their lives, forming organized communities to protect forests or cooperatives for forest protection.  Investment. Infrastructure building schools, medical stations, supporting the education of children of local resident’s Health care, free medical care for local people especially the poor. State loans needed for shrimp farming and assign technical staff on farming training.  Land use planning need to be improved. With the allocation of forests for local people to manage, protect, people wanted the state planned separate areas of forests, shrimp farming areas in particular. People will manage, protect forest areas. Shrimp farming areas will be delivered right to use for people and the people is arbitrary action on their areas.  Forest and shrimp extension. People for live nearby forest, but the benefits derived from forests are very limited Forest sector just interests only on in forest management (???). Currently more and more shrimp epidemic to people's lives more difficult, people wanted protection provided that the forest sector should support the cost of families stabilize their lives. State of concern to shrimp diseases, seed support, knowledge of farming to control the disease Capital and technical support reforestation, combined with aquaculture Build infrastructure, provide loans, support for production people  Regulation needed to be improved. Regulations on the rate of forest / fisheries is 6/4 should change to forest / fisheries 3/7 or appropriate rate to each household. Dyke in shrimp farms should not be


planting anything (for the past trees, deciduous flowering affecting aquaculture) can be converted into other crops. References Government (2004), Decree No 181/2004/ND-CP dated 29/10/2004 of Government on the implementation of the Land Law Government (2005), Decree No 135/2005/ND-CP dated 08/11/2005 of the Government promulgating the Regulation on the allotment of agricultural land, production forest land and water surface for aquaculture in agricultural farms, forestry farms Prime Minister (2006), Decision No 186/2006/QD-TTg on 14/8/2006 by the Prime Minister promulgating the Regulation on management of forest Prime Minister (2001), Decision No 178/2001/QD-TTg dated 12/11/2001 of the Prime Minister on the benefits and obligations of households and individuals assigned, leased or forest and forest land Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2010), Joint Circular No 80/2003/TTLT-BNNBTC dated 03/9/2008 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Finance guiding the implementation Decision No 178/2001/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister People's Committee of Ca Mau (2010), Decision No 19/2010/QD-UBND, September 22, 2010, Regulation on the implementation of some policies to protect and develop forests in Ca Mau province People's Committee of Ngoc Hien district (2010), the master plan of socio-economic development Ngoc Hien district of Ca Mau province by 2020 GOV, 2007, Decree No 159/2007/ND-CP issued by Government on 30/10/2007 sanctioning administrative violations in forest management, forest protection and forest product management Pham Trong Thinh, 2010 Outline and budget estimates to formulate regulation for mangrove management and development in the coast, Southern Sub-FIPI Southern Sub-FIPI, 2004, Investment project for Protection and Development of Mui Ca Mau National Park. Southern Sub-FIPI, 2004, Investment project for Establishing Buffer Zone of Mui Ca Mau National Park.

305

306


How Do Impacts of Management Differ Between Co-Managed Mangrove Forest and Community-Managed Mangrove Forest? Margie Gianan1, and Sansanee Choowaew2 1

Graduated of MSc, Natural Resources Management at Mahidol University, Thailand; Department of Environment and Natural Resources National Capital Region ([email protected]) 2 Associate Professor at the Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Thaland ([email protected])

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this paper is to analyze and compare management impact indicators between community-managed mangrove forests and comanaged mangrove forests. Eleven (11 management impact indicators namely: participation, influence, control, access, collective action, conflict resolution mechanisms, financial resources, capacity building, community compliance, threat, and ecological knowledge were used to assess the impact of management to members of people’s organization managing the mangrove forest. These management impact indicators were measured through a 5-point Likert’s scale. One hundred twenty (120) respondents from four barangays in the province of Pangasinan, Philippines were randomly sampled and interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Results revealed that participation, access, collective action, conflict resolution mechanism, financial resources, capacity building and threat have significant differences between co-managed mangrove forests and community-managed mangrove forests. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in influence, control, community compliance and ecological knowledge between co-management and communitybased management structure. Based from independent t-test, one-way ANOVA analysis, and Kruskall-Wallis test, there was higher mean/mean ranks of participation, access, collective action, conflict resolution mechanism, financial resources, capacity building and threat in co-management than community-based management structure. This indicates that co-management has more positive impact to the local communities than community-based management.

According to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, mangrove forests are assemblage of “taxonomically diverse, salt-tolerant tree and other plant species which thrive in intertidal zones of sheltered tropical shores, "overwash" islands, and estuaries” found between latitudinal gradient 32ºN to 38ºS [16]. Although occupying a small part of the world’s land area, mangroves are recognized as an important ecosystem because they provide many ecological goods and services and socio-economic benefits. Many people in the tropical region depend on mangroves for food, timber, fuel, medicine and non-timber products for their daily subsistence and for livelihood [2]. Every year, flocks of migratory birds seek refuge in the confines of mangrove forest. It is also a nursery and breeding sites for small fishes, crustaceans and other marine organisms [3]. Approximately, 80-90% of “demersal fisheries” in the tropical areas are mangrove dependent [11]. They also sequester and store huge amount of carbon. According to [5], mangroves are responsible for > 10% dissolved organic carbon (DOC) flux in oceans, the largest carbon pool on Earth. These various ecological, socio-cultural or economic benefits are results of the functions performed by the ecosystems [4];[7]. Functions are the “capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly” [4]. Although functions are the result of natural processes occurring in the ecosystem, the proper performance of functions, can be affected by human activity particularly by the way of resource utilization which in turn are also influenced by the existing institutions [14]. For example, overlogging of mangrove trees can result to lesser mangrove cover impacting the habitat of fishes, crustaceans and other mangrove dependent animals. The regulation of logging activities is based on the governing rules and regulations of the management. This paper will assess the impact of management to the resource users, particularly to the members of people’s organization managing the mangrove forest. Two types of management structures, namely community-management and co-management will be assessed and compared through the perception of the members of people’s organization (PO).

Keywords—co-management, community management, management impact indicators

How do Impacts of Management Differ Between Co-Manage Mangrove Forest and Community-Managed Mangrove Forest

Although selection of an appropriate management structures is site-dependent, the results of the study can provide policy implications on strengthening the management of mangrove forest having similar situations and conditions like the studied area. Community-Based Management And Co-Management Community-based coastal management (CBCM) also known as community-based coastal resource management (CBCRM) is an approach to coastal resource management where local coastal resource users are given active role in the planning and decisionmaking with regards to the management and utilization of coastal resources like mangroves, coral reefs and seagrass [8]. It is based on the premise that “people have the innate capacity to understand and provide solutions to their own problems”. Thus, it allows local communities to develop strategies appropriate or specific to their own particular needs and conditions. It aims for a more active people’s participation in the planning, implementation and evaluation of coastal resource management programs. Moreover, it assumes greater responsibility in the assessment and monitoring of environmental conditions and in the enforcement of agreement and laws [6]. Co-management is almost similar to communitybased management in the sense that it also aims for the active participation of local communities [19]. Compared to community-based management, the government has major and active roles in comanagement [9] [12]. According to [13], management effectiveness is the “degree to which management actions are achieving the goals and objectives”. Community-based management and co-management both aims to empower the local communities and make them effective resource user and manager. Management can be considered effective if it is equitable, efficient, and sustainable [10]. Equitable means that it has fair sharing of benefits and responsibilities. Efficient implies that there is an excellent delivery of service. Sustainable denotes the resilience of management through time. Previous researches had employed various indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of management. In the evaluation, project managers, staffs, leaders, and/or local communities were asked to rate the effectiveness of management. Methodology A. Study Area The study was conducted in Barangay San Miguel and Aporao of Bani Municipality and Barangays Pilar and Arnedo of Bolinao Municipality, province of Pangasinan, Philippines (Fig.1) The 42.5-hectare mangrove forest in the municipality of Bani are comanaged by the municipal government and Bangrin Federation (comprised of residents from Barangay San Miguel and Aporao. The 8.65-hectare mangrove forest

in Barangay Arnedo and 12-hectare mangrove forest in Barangay Pilar are managed by the people’s organization - Samahang Pangkabuhayan ng Arnedo (SAPA) and Samahan ng Mangingisda at Magsasaka sa Kalikasan (SAMMAKA) respectively. All of the people’s organizations were beneficiaries of acommunity-based coastal resource management project implemented in 1980s by University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute (UP-MSI), University of the Philippines College of Social Work and Development, and Haribon Foundation, Inc, a nongovernmental organization (NGO). It was during the implementation of the project when the people’s organizations were organized and one of the outcomes of the project was the rehabilitation of degraded mangroves.

Data Instrumentation and Collection Technique A total of 120 respondents were selected from four barangays using simple random sampling method. The selection was limited to members of the people’s organization in each barangay since major users of the mangrove resources are members of the people’s organization. They were interviewed using a structured questionnaire consisting of socio-demographic data, amount and price of mangrove resources gathered, frequency of gathering, costs incurred in gathering, and perception and behavior of respondents towards mangrove management. A 5-point Likert scale was used to know the perception and behavior of respondents towards mangrove management where 45 questions in this part describe the management impact indicators. Questions about perception and behavior of respondents towards mangrove management are categorized into 11 management impact indicators. Descriptions of the question sets in each indicator are presented in Table I. Each indicator has sets of questions with 5-point Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree as the choices for answers. Some of the questions were negatively coded in order to prevent the tendency of respondents to reply in the same way. The mean of the weighted score of each item represents the score for the impact indicator.

307

308


Table I. Management impact indicators

throughone-way ANOVA analysis and Kruskall-Wallis test. The Levene’s F test for Equality of Variances revealed three management impact indicators satisfying assumption for homogeneity of variances: participation (F=1.056, p=0.371), capacity building (F=1.141, p=0.336), and ecological knowledge (F=0.352, p=0.787). Thus, differences in the means of these three indicators were tested using one-way ANOVA analysis. The result of one-way ANOVA is presented in Table II. Table II. One-way ANOVA for management impact indicator

Krusskall-Wallis test was performed if the impact indicators did not satisfy the assumptions of homogeneity required in one-way ANOVA. The results of KruskallWallis test is presented in Table III. Table III. Kruskall-Wallis test for management impact indicators

Results And Discussion More than 50% of the survey respondents had been living in the barangay for more than 40 years. Major occupations of the entire sample includes: fishery activities (65%), agriculture (20%); mat weaving (7%), labor (4%), and trade (4%). Around 66% have other jobs aside from their primary occupation. Independent t-test was applied in order to determine if there were significant differences in the management impact indicators between the municipalities of Bani and Bolinao. Results revealed that participation (p=0.009), access (p=0.000), collective action (p=0.002), conflict resolution mechanism (p=0.000), financial resources (p=0.000), capacity building (p=0.048), and level of threat (p=0.012) were significantly higher in the Municipality of Bani than Municipality of Bolinao. Further examination of differences in management impact indicators among barangays was determined

Table III shows that access, collective action, conflict resolution mechanism, financial resources, and threat were significantly different among the barangays. Barangay Aporao and Barangay San Miguel have higher mean ranks than Barangays Pilar and Arnedo in all significant indicators except level of threat. Barangay Aporao perceived the lowest level of threat among the barangays while Barangay San Miguel perceived the highest level of threat. This contrasting/ opposing perceptions between the two barangays having same mangrove forest and management structures can be attributed to the perceived amount of mangrove goods that respondents actually collected. Respondents in Barangay San Miguel believed that fishery catch is decreasing while only few Barangay Aporao respondents perceived this scenario. These results from one-way independent t-test, oneway ANOVA analysis and Kruskall-Wallis test indicated more positive impact of co-management over community-based management. In independent t-test, Municipality of Bani which is under co-management had significantly higher mean in seven indicators than

How do Impacts of Management Differ Between Co-Manage Mangrove Forest and Community-Managed Mangrove Forest

Municipality of Bolinao which is under communitymanagement, pĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ&ƵŶĐƟŽŶĂůDĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵŝŶŵĂŶǇ ƉůĂĐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞÊZĞŐŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ /ŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĂŶĚDŽƌĞ^ĞĐƵƌĞ>ŝǀĞůŝŚŽŽĚŽĨ >ŽĐĂůWĞŽƉůĞŝŶĂŶĚĂƌŽƵŶĚ Mangrove Ecosystems

ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨĂŽŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶDĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵ ĨŽƌ^ŚĂƌĞĚͲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐŽŶDĂŶŐƌŽǀĞ ĐŽƐǇƐƚĞŵŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ Sustainable Use in the ASEAN Region

WĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŽŶŽĨ ASEAN Stakeholders in the Workshops

Surveys and Discussions on the Project Approaches

ASEAN

/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽĨ ^ŚĂƌĞĚͲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ Workshops

Development of ^ŚĂƌĞĚͲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ Programs

^ĞůĞĐƟŽŶŽĨ Model Sites

INDONESIA

ROADMAP TO SUCCESS

INDONESIA

MMC I

c/o Mangrove Management Centre Region I Jl. By Pass Ngurah Rai Km. 21 ^ƵǁƵŶŐĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ͕͟ƐŚĂƌŝŶŐŐŽŽĚ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĂŶĚůĞƐƐŽŶƐůĞĂƌŶĞĚ

Sustainable use ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂĐƟǀĞ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŽŶŽĨ local people

^ŝƚĞ

Other site

'ŽŽĚ management system for ƌĞŚĂďŝůŝƚĂƟŽŶ

^ŝƚĞ

sĂƌŝŽƵƐ ĞīŽƌƚƐ ŚĂǀĞ ďĞĞŶ ŵĂĚĞ ĨŽƌ ŵĂŶŐƌŽǀĞ ĞĐŽƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞƵƐĞŝŶƚŚĞ ASEAN countries. Those purposes and backgrounds ŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚĨƌŽŵƉůĂĐĞƚŽƉůĂĐĞ͕ĐŽƵŶƚƌǇƚŽ ĐŽƵŶƚƌǇ͕ ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐ ƌĞŚĂďŝůŝƚĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ŽǀĞƌͲĞǆƉůŽŝƚĞĚ ĂƌĞĂƐ ĨŽƌ ďŝŽĚŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ƉŽǀĞƌƚǇ ĂůůĞǀŝĂƟŽŶ ďǇ ĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐŝŶŐ ůŽĐĂů ƉĞŽƉůĞ͛Ɛ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƵƐĞ͘tŚŝůĞĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ sustainable use of mangrove is a common and ƵƌŐĞŶƚ ŝƐƐƵĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ Ê ƌĞŐŝŽŶ͕ /ŶĚŽŶĞƐŝĂ ŽĐĐƵƉŝĞƐƚŚĞďŝŐŐĞƐƚĂƌĞĂƐŽĨŵĂŶŐƌŽǀĞŝŶƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚ ĂŶĚŵĂŶǇĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝŶǀĂƌŝŽƵƐ ƐŝƚƵĂƟŽŶƐ͘ 'ŽŽĚ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ůĞƐƐŽŶƐ ůĞĂƌŶĞĚ ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƐŚĂƌĞĚǁŝƚŚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽƵŶƚƌŝĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĂĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƟŶŐŵĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵŽĨ ƐŚĂƌĞĚͲůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͘

tŚǇ͞ÊƌĞŐŝŽŶ͍͟

DĂŶŐƌŽǀĞĞĐŽƐǇƐƚĞŵŝƐƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶůĂŶĚĂŶĚ ƐĞĂ͕ ĂŶĚ ŝŶƐĞƉĂƌĂďůǇ ůŝŶŬĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ ĞĐŽƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐ ĐŽĂƐƚĂů͕ ĞƐƚƵĂƌǇ͕ ƌŝǀĞƌŝŶĞ ĂŶĚ ǁĞƚůĂŶĚ͘ DĂŶŐƌŽǀĞ ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ ƵƐĞ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ ďĞŶĞĮƚ ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ďƌŽĂĚĞƌ ĞĐŽƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ͕ ƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶ ŽĨ ůŝǀĞůŝŚŽŽĚ ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ ǁĞůůͲďĞŝŶŐ ŽĨ ůŽĐĂů ƉĞŽƉůĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞŶ even global environment.

Mainstreaming Mangroves: 361 Proceedings of Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in

362


COOPERATION WITH MYANMAR

Intergated Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management Project through Community Participation in the Ayeyawady Delta

Project Summary The goal of this Project is to facilitate local inhabitants in making decisions for themselves and taking actions on the management and usage of the forests, which were supervised by the government of Myanmar for improving the standard of living. Through the activities of this Project, efforts will be made towards issues such as sustainable forest use by local habitants, forest management through citizen participation and establishment of means to reduce mangrove loss. These efforts will improve both the standard of living for inhabitants of the delta region and the sustainable management of the mangroves.

Background and Aim In Myanmar, the Reserved Forests in the Ayeyawady Delta is one of the most seriously deforested areas due to unchecked expansion of agricultural land and unsustainable forest use for decades, and more recently, harmful methods for aquaculture. The loss of the forest has most affected the livelihood of local residents using mangroves. Hence, environmentally and economically sustainable community forestry is urgently required in the region.  Record of Discussion signed on: September 26, 2006  Total Amount: 710 million yen  Executing Agency: Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Myanmar

Project Highlights In May 2008, Cyclone Nargis directly hit the project site in the Ayeyawady Delta. Many mangrove trees were destroyed in the targeted villages. Under these severe conditions, the original efforts towards sustainable mangrove use and improved living standards are still underway with Forest Department participation, with the addition of rehabilitation and recovery activities. The Project Purpose: The communities and the mangrove forests co-exist in a sustainable manner in the selected areas where project activities were implemented within the Ayeyawady Delta. The Overall Goal: The mangrove forests are sustainably managed and poverty is alleviated among the communities in the Ayeyawady Delta. The Outputs: (1) Output 1: The selected communities practice environmentally and economically sustainable community forestry (CF).

JICA and Mangrove Ecosystem Management in South East Asia

(2) Output 2: The management and the support system of the Forest Department for CF are effective. (3) Output 3: Some silvicultural techniques for the rehabilitation and the management of the mangrove and its associated forests for the Ayeyawady Delta are established. (4) Output 4: A coordination mechanism is established among key sectors to address the underlying causes of mangrove deforestation in the Ayeyawady Delta. (5) Output 5: (Additional Output after the Cyclone Nargis in May 2008) Recovery from damage of Cyclone Nargis is promoted.

363

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Regional Symposium on Mangrove Ecosystem Management in Southeast Asia: Mainstreaming Mangroves February 27 - March 1, 2013 Surabaya, Indonesia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

A. Barnuevo Abdul Khalim Abu Samah Abdullah Mohd. Adi Kunarso Agiel Prakoso Agus Agus Suratno Agustinus Tampubolon Airi Kaneko Alandrea Sitanggang Alex Siahaya Ali Sofiawan Allan Rosehan Amalia Sukma Agustina Aminah Hamzah Andi Ahmad Subandi Andi Budiyarto Angelita Meniado Anytha Eva Maria Arai Yuki Arnold Sitompul Asako Yamamoto Asihing Kustanti Bagus Dwi Rahmanto Baiq Sri Wahyu Hidayati Bambang Bambang Priyono Basuki Rachmad Bedjo Santoso Ben Brown Binsar Sihotang Bresman Marpaung Budhi Santoso Budi Pramono Cecep Rusmana Chatarina Ugik Chatree Maknual

38

Chot Tavorn

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Christina Julianti Christina Siahaan Christina Sinaga Daisuke Yumiyama Daniel Mudiyarso Demetrio L. Ignacio, Jr. Dennie Mamonto Dennis Fernandez Calvan Desi Diah Rahayuningsih Dian Purnama Putra Disaorn Aitthiariyasunthon

51

Dixon T. Gevana

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Dyah Nawang Wulan Eddy Tololiu Edy Suhartono Eka Widiastuti Eko Kurniawan Emi Okawa Eunice M. Becira Fabien Garnier Fahrudin Darmawan Fauzi Mas'ud

62

Filiberto A. Pollisco, Jr.

63

Frestyana

64

Frida Sidik

65

Giri Suryanta

Presenter, Moderator/KP Group Philippines, Inc. Presenter, Moderator/Pahang State Forestry Department Presenter/Universiti Putra Malaysia Researcher, Palembang Forest Research Center Faculty of Forestry, Gajah Mada University KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation GIZ Ministry of Forestry JOCV - JICA Indonesia Ministry of Forestry Surabaya Forestry Office KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation Sembilang National Park ASEAN Secretariat Presenter, Moderator/FRIM Selangor Ministry of Forestry PT Jawa Power Ecosystem Management Environemnt Office, Balikpapan JICA KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation MECS Lampung University Ministry of Forestry Counterpart JOCV Indonesia KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation Head of Forestry Office, East Jawa KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation Ministry of Forestry Presenter/Restoring Coastal Livelihoods Faculty of Forestry Gajah Mada University Ministry of Forestry PT Jawa Power Ministry of Forestry Bogor Agriculture Institute Ministry of Forestry Department of Marine and Coastal Resources Presenter/Faculty of Humanity and Social Science, Khon Kaen University KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Forestry JOCV - JICA Tonga Presenter/CIFOR Keynote Participant Presenter/Yayasan Aspisia Presenter, Moderator/Director, NGO for Fisheries Reform. KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation Kelompok Petani Mangrove Surabaya Presenter/Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) Presenter/College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Banos, Philippines Faculty of Forestry Gajah Mada University Presenter/Community Facilitator Presenter/Fisherman Association Head Sampean Watershed Management Office Presenter/Chairperson of Badan Pengelola Wisata Mangrove JOCV - JICA Indonesia Presenter/Faculty, Western Philippines University Planete Urgence IFSA Gajah Mada University Ministry of Forestry Moderator/Program Development Specialist ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Ministry of Forestry Presenter/School of Biological Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia Ministry of Forestry

Philippines Malaysia Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Japan Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia Philippines Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Thailand

66

Gwendolyn Bambalan

The Philippine Trajectory on Mangrove Development: Policy & Program Philippines

67 68

Haji Zainie Abdul Aucasa Handayaningsih

Sabah Wetlands conservation Society/Moderator Ministry of Forestry

Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Tonga Indonesia Philippines Indonesia Philippines Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Thailand Philippines Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Japan Philippines Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Philippines Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia

Malaysia Indonesia

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Hangga hardanto Hartley Tham Haruni Krisnawati Heru Winarto Hilman Nugroho Hiroshi Imae Hj. Nasir Hj. Husein Hla Myo Aung Hoifua 'Aholahi

79

Honorato G. Palis

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

Htay Lin Hui Ping Ang I Wayan Dharma IBP Ari Chandana Iman Santoso Joakim Sagala Jose Roberto T. Togle Josephine E. Garcia Kanti Budiarti Kei Jinnai Kesinee Kwaenjaroen Kim Sokha Kin Maung Oo Komang Tri Wijaya Kusumah Komar Korakot Boonrod Kusuma Adinugroho Kwok Ming Desmond Lee Lamris Sitompul Lang Kiry Lee Ka Han Lorisa C. Caredo Lutfi M. Yuli Susetio Madri

105

Margie Gianan

106 107 108 109

Maryati Mohamed Mashadi Maulana Megumi Yamazaki

110

Mehdi Almasi

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

Mita Fitria Mohd. Salleh Abbas Muchamad Arif Wijayanto Mudi Yuliyani Muljadi Tantra Murdiono Murdoko Musmah Hendra Mustajib Naomi Okamoto Nia Nilam Sari Norio Matsuda Novia Fadhilla Sari Novrisima Eva Nuriasih Nababan Nuryani Widagti Nyoman Ngurah Suryadiputra Okimoto Yosuke Omar Bin Abdul Kadir

131

Onrizal

132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

Pangestuti Astri Peni Rahayu Pham Trong Thinh Pigselpi Anas Poh Poh Wong Puspa Kartika Wijayanti Putut Adji R. H. Bosma Rahmi Fatimah Raja Barizan R. S. Raudatul J. Suraya Regina Herti Sitorus

Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Forestry Betham Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. from Selangor, Malaysia Presenter, Moderator/ MMC-MoF Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Forestry MECS FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MALAYSIA (FRIM) Staff Officer Forest Department Counterpart JOCV Tonga Presenter, Moderator/Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau Presenter/Project Coordinator, Myanmar Biodiversity Manager NPARKS Bali Forestry Office Bali Forestry Office Ministry of Forestry/ ASOF Leader Ministry of Forestry Counterpart JOCV Philippines Presenter/UPLB CFNR, Los Banos Head, Rungkut Sub District JICA-Japan Presenter/Sustainable Development Foundation Director of Fisheries Conservation Division Director Planning andstatistic division Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Forestry MFF Thailand Total Conservation Officer NPARKS Ministry of Forestry Chief of Koh Kong Fishery Administration Cantonment Presenter/Sabah Wetlands Conservation Society Counterpart JOCV Philippines Surabaya Forestry Office Surabaya Forestry Office Presenter/KEHATI Presenter/ Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University Presenter/Universiti Tun Hussain O. Presenter/KEHATI Kapus Humas, Setjen Kemenhut JICA Volunteer Presenter/ Institute of Biological Science, Faculty of Science, University of Malaysia Dinas Pertanian Surabaya IFSA UGM JICA-RECA Project Green Forest Product and Tech PT BUMWI Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Forestry JICA Volunteer JICA Volunteer JICA-Japan Surabaya Forestry Office Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi (STITEK) Bontang JICA International Forestry Students Association Local Committee-UGM KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation MECS Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Presenter, Moderator/ Wetland International Indonesia Program Presenter/Saga University, Japan Sabah Wetlands conservation Society Presenter/Forestry Sciences Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Sumatera Utara Environmental Leadership and Training Initiatives Forestry Office, Central Jawa ASEAN Government STP Bogor University Of Adelaide Lutheran World Relief Forestry Office, East Jawa Wageningen University Ministry of Forestry Presenter, Moderator/Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation JICA

Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia Myanmar Tonga Philippines Myanmar Singapore Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Philippines Philippines Indonesia Japan Thailand Cambodia Myanmar Indonesia Indonesia Thailand Indonesia Singapore Indonesia Cambodia Malaysia Philippines Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Thailand Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia Japan Malaysia Indonesia Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Japan Indonesia Indonesia Japan Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Japan Malaysia Indonesia Singapore Indonesia Viet Nam Indonesia Australia Indonesia Indonesia Netherland Indonesia Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia

144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

Rektarini Restu Nur Afi Ati Rianto Rika Novida Rina Kusuma Rita Avitri Rochmin Dahuri Roni Tulus Jatmiko Rujito

Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation MECS KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia

155

Satoshi Kameyama

156 157 158 159 160 161

Shams Uddin, Md. Sigit Sasmito Siriporn Sriaram Siti Fatimah Binti Ramli Siti Wahsinta Sjarif

162

Somying Soontornwong

163 164 165 166

Steen Christensen Sudarti Sugeng Sukristiyono

Presenter/Universitas Sriwijaya Presenter/Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University Department of Botany, Chulalongkorn University Presenter/Center for Environmental Biology and Ecosystem, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan Presenter/Department of Environmental Resources, UNESCO-IHE Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Presenter/MFF Thailand Coordinator ASEAN Government KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation Ministry of Forestry Presenter/Coordinator of Thailand Country Program, RECOFTC-Center for People and Forest Presenter/Mangrove for The Future Ministry of Forestry Forestry Office, East Kalimantan Mangrove Working Group

167

Sulahi Bin Hj Rosli

ASEAN Government

168

Supandi Tarigan

Forestry Office, Langkat

Indonesia

169 170 171 172 173

Suparjo Suprihatin Supriyanto Sutarmadji Suzy Irawati

Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia

174

Syafei Sidik

175 176 177

Syamsul Arifin Takahisa Kusano Takako Ito

178

Tangguh Gilang P. W.

179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197

Terry Louise Kepel Teruo Yamazaki Tiurma Pohan Tori Tri Wahyuni Tri Wira Yuwati Triswanto Vera Chandra Puspitasari Verus Anselmus Aman Sham Vo Van Hong Wahyu Widi Artanti Widiastuti Hapsari Wijarn Meepol Wilistra Wisnu Yayu Siti Salimah Widiawati Yos Malole Yurianto

Forestry Office, Banten Ministry of Forestry PT Jawa Power Ministry of Forestry Forestry Office, Surabaya City Presenter, Moderator/Center for Fisheries and Coastal Resources Study and Innovation, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Mulawarman University Forestry Office, Surabaya City MECS JICA Presenter/Marine Science Program Study, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Diponegoro University Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries JICA Volunteer Lutheran World Relief Presenter/KEHATI Ministry of Forestry interpreter KEHATI Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation Diponegoro University Sabah Wetlands conservation Society/Moderator Forest invetory and planning Institute (FIPI) Marine and Fisheries Office, East Jawa MECS Environment Office, Balikpapan Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, Thailand Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Forestry Ministry of Forestry American Red Cross Ministry of Forestry

153

Saijai Samosorn

154

Sasitorn Poungparn

Thailand Thailand Japan Bangladesh Indonesia Thailand Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia Thailand Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia

Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Japan Indonesia Indonesia Japan Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia Viet Nam Indonesia JICA Indonesia Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia