Vietnam – Publication commissioned by the World Resource Institute (Powell N, Osbeck M, Sinh B T, and Vu C T (2011). World Resources Report Case Study. Mangrove Restoration and Rehabilitation for Climate Change Adaptation in Vietnam)
Abstract: As a country located within the tropical monsoon belt, Vietnam is extremely vulnerable to climate change, particularly to increases in storm intensity and sea level rise. This case study examines Vietnam’s efforts at using mangroves as a climate change adaptation action, and illustrates how governance plays a crucial role in the success of such actions. Large-scale mangrove restoration and rehabilitation have been institutionalized as key adaptation actions in Vietnam, with very different results in the northern and southern areas of the country. In the North, mangroves have been planted primarily to protect the coast from sea level rise and storms, without giving local inhabitants user rights. This has magnified the serious conflicts of interest over claims to coastal wetlands between the very lucrative shrimp aquaculture industry and mangrove plantations. These two competing forms of land use have displaced marginalized groups, and in particular women in coastal communities who are dependent on access to the coast to harvest non-cultivated seafoods, such as clams and crabs. In the South, attempts have been made to promote and design mangrove restoration and rehabilitation as a multi-functional policy action to alleviate poverty and diversify livelihoods. Many plantations are both species-rich and exist under a number of different land-use arrangements, with individuals being allocated ownership in some cases. Under such conditions, mangroves can provide a host of ecological goods and services as well as livelihood benefits, especially when coupled with a development component which has includes capacity building and training, construction of schools and health clinics, and infrastructural development such as roads and electricity. The case of mangrove restoration and rehabilitation characterizes the different interests associated with the management of the coastal resources. It shows that approaches with a single objective – such as protecting coastal infrastructure from sea level rise – can lead to conflicts of interest that hinder implementation, especially when individuals are not involved in managing the forest. When mangrove restoration and rehabilitation is nested within a comprehensive development planning process, it is more likely than the single objective approach to secure a greater set of benefits across stakeholder groups, even in a future characterized by uncertainty.
Thailand: Publication commissioned by JICA Research Institute (Osbeck M, Somsak B and Powell N (2011). Linking Policy Processes and Stakeholder Agencies to Coastal Change: A Case Study from Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand (ed) R Fujikura and M Kawanishi, Climate Change Adaptation and International Development, Earthscan Climate)
Abstract: Coastal areas in Thailand have been undergoing rapid land-use, socio-economic and environmental change. Inadequate planning and coordination of infrastructure projects and lack of effective enforcement are all factors that tend to increase vulnerability among local communities and the degradation of coastal and marine resources. These challenges are exacerbated by the intensity and diversity of development pressures and by the lack of understanding of the contribution that coastal and marine resources make to national development. When framed in the context of climate change, which will be felt in particular through sea-level rise and coastal storm surges, understanding other existing pressures and the responses to those pressures is of vital importance. It is consequently necessary to understand and address the multiple factors affecting coastal areas in which major challenges are linked to the management of catchments and river basins that feed freshwater and materials to the coast. The process of policy adaptation in the Nakhon Si Thammarat context demonstrates an incredible capacity within the informal system to self organize in an operating environment characterized by ambiguity. This is demonstrated by the diverging roles and functions of line ministries on one hand and local administration on the other in supporting and engaging in mangrove rehabilitation. The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources promote mangrove rehabilitation based on a conservation agenda whereas local administration is involved in mangrove rehabilitation for development linking it to eco tourism and fishery. The role of local communities to influence and be part of mangrove rehabilitation is determined by how authorities interpret the national policy from a conservation or development perspective. The unclear land classification and strict regulatory framework prohibiting any cutting or use of mangroves further complicates the opportunity for community-based management of mangrove systems.
Indonesia, East Kalimantan: Publication funded by the Swedish Development Cooperation Agency (Powell N, Osbeck M (2010) Approaches for Understanding and Embedding Stakeholder Realities in Mangrove Rehabilitation Processes in Southeast Asia: Lessons Learned from Makaham Delta, East Kalimantan, Sust. Dev. 18 (260-270))
Abstract: Using a soft systems narrative, this paper examines the implementation process growing out of a policy environment intended to promote the rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems. The analysis is based on research conducted 2007-09 in the Mahakam delta in East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. The rich and diverse natural resource base of the area has turned East Kalimantan into one of the wealthiest areas in Indonesia. The case from Mahakam reveals that there is no stakeholder consensus in terms of problem definitions and management priorities of the coastal delta area. Further, there are no institutional bodies or ‘guardians’ responsible for monitoring and facilitating the long-term sustainability of mangrove systems. There are also significant power imbalances in the system, not only between stakeholders, but also between the discourses of conservation and production. In order to ensure the long-term, sustainable governance of mangrove systems, these institutional and geopolitical issues will need to be addressed and adapted accordingly. Through a structured systemic inquiry, this analysis has explored the problem situation related to the sustainability of mangrove systems for coastal environments and people. The research shows the complexity in managing dynamic coastal systems subjected to rapid human induced biophysical changes exacerbated by a non conducive policy environment aggravating the impact on the ground. The absence of this guardian implies that feedback and institutional learning is not inherent, making constructive adaptation of governance and management arrangements in this context unlikely.
Relationship and contribution to state-of-the-art
Without sufficient knowledge and understanding amongst stakeholders the value of mangroves has been underestimated and attempts to restore and enhance the management of mangrove ecosystems have generally been unsuccessful (Walton et al. 2006; FAO 2007; Samson and Rollon 2008). The MANGROVE project has proved an important initiative in this respect, generating greater understanding amongst stakeholders at study sites in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam and facilitating the joint assessment of promising strategies to reconcile multiple demands on mangroves identified by stakeholders. Research within the MANGROVE project has generated new knowledge on previously poorly understood livelihood implications of modifying access to mangroves and promoting the rational utilisation of mangroves. Comparison across communities and between countries and disaggregation of stakeholders based on wealth and gender has highlighted important differences in the contribution mangroves make to people’s livelihoods. The need for such assessments was apparent prior to commencing the project (Moser 1998) and research findings should make a significant contribution to the ongoing development of more refined sustainable livelihoods and asset vulnerability frameworks that prompt explicit assessment of intra-household and group planning and decision-making.
Major obstacles to enhancing the management of coastal ecosystems, including mangroves, and establishing wise-use as a legitimate use of natural resources perceived to be overexploited and vulnerable are a lack of information on the resource-base and peoples’ use of it, difficulty in jointly assessing development pathways and options and reconciling multiple-demands, and an absence of tools to evaluate what impact adoption of wise-use practices might have on stocks and flows of ecosystem services, associated livelihoods and broader socio-economic conditions. Logbook monitoring with fishing and aquaculture communities and subsequent analysis (van Zwieten et al. 2010) generated knowledge on the appropriation of provision ecosystem services associated with mangroves, and this information was deliberated by participants during joint formulation and assessment of action plans.
Action planning centred on convening joint stakeholder workshops to review and verify findings and facilitate joint assessment and selection of potential management actions and initiatives and policy options (action points) to help reconcile multiple demands placed on mangroves and associated coastal areas in the study sites. Additionally participants were requested to identify locally appropriate means to monitoring the implementation and impact of proposed actions. Potential barriers to interactive stakeholder participation and engagement in action planning and research were identified during the initial stages of the project (Bunting 2010). Co-monitoring and joint assessment approaches developed in the MANGROVE project offer critical insights concerning promising strategies to achieving interactive participation in monitoring and planning mangrove ecosystem management. Potential barriers to action planning include the legal and constitutional status of local planning outcomes, in some case the process might lack legitimacy and not comply with statutory or accepted planning procedures, and the fact that some groups, often marginal and poor communities, have limited entitlement to engage in joint assessment and decision-making (Bosma et al. 2010; Dulyapurk et al. 2010). Such concerns demand further investigation as the rights of stakeholders to participate in planning and management of natural resources is enshrined in certain international treaties and declarations. The challenge of how to integrate global concerns and driving forces in local planning initiatives also demands further consideration.
Activities undertaken to support the action planning process and implementation included development of methods to evaluate the status of mangroves, extent of associated ecosystem services, approaches to sharing knowledge on responsible aquaculture development and modelling potential impacts of adopting alternative aquaculture management practices to reconcile multiple demands on mangroves. Ongoing development of a mangrove ecosystem resilience assessment framework for local monitoring in Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand has highlighted the potential of such an approach and pointed to practical and scientific constraints to such approaches and critical areas demanding further research.
Major challenges to implementing such strategies include coordination and data collation and interpretation, even tracking progress with single agreements or monitoring single stocks demands self-organisation, local facilitation of joint assessment approaches, institutional or scientific support and resource allocation.
Reviews conduced on mangrove ecosystem services and Better Management Practices (BMPs) for sustainable aquaculture development provide a timely assessment of current developments in this area and critical insights to areas demanding further investigation. Bioeconomic modelling of promising BMPs and innovative mangrove management strategies to facilitate wise-use of mangrove resources and evaluate associated livelihood impacts, including change to important indicators such as employment, appropriation of environmental goods and services and risk exposure and resilience is an important innovation resulting from the MANGROVE project. Leung and El-Gayar (1997) highlighted the potential of bioeconomic modelling in formulating sustainable aquaculture strategies and project findings will make an important contribution to the knowledge-base on promoting sustainable aquaculture, notably given recent calls to address the perfect storm gathering of growing water scarcity, energy shortages, rising demand for food globally, increased competition for production enhancing inputs and climate change adaptation and mitigation costs facing the global food system (Godfray et al. 2010). Moreover the bioeconomic modelling approach developed here has the potential to facilitate assessment of livelihood strategies dependent on coastal ecosystems, inland land-based activities and urban occupations, particularly important as rural livelihoods diversification has been identified as a significant trend in Asia (Rigg and Nattapoolwat 2001). And could be refined to generate knowledge of wise-use practices performance and resilience to emerging hazards and associated risks, notably climate change impacts. To further evaluate options for ecologically-sound shrimp production systems in Indonesia a comparative bioeconomic modelling assessment of green-water systems in the Philippines has been initiated drawing on data collected during the MANGROVE project (Bosma et al. in prep).
Campbell and Townsley (1996) noted that participatory and integrated policy development that ensures local needs are prioritised, but integrated with institutions responsible for different levels of planning is critical. An approach that cuts across disciplines and sectors, builds cooperation in the field and develops new forms of partnership with poor people is critical for effective poverty reduction (Maxwell, 1998). Within the MANGROVE project adoption of the soft system approach has allowed the project to explore constraints and opportunities in the existing policy environment linked with mangrove rehabilitation. In the case of Thailand some of the key challenges involved are linked with property rights, level of stakeholder involvement in rehabilitation efforts and establishing rehabilitation that generate ecosystem services. The policy analysis workshop highlighted the need for improved collaboration between private, public and civil sectors rooted at the local level.
The case from the Mahakham Delta reveals that there is no stakeholder consensus in terms of problem definitions and management priorities in terms of the coastal delta area. Further, there are no institutional bodies or ‘guardians’ responsible for monitoring and facilitating the long-term sustainability of mangrove systems. There are also significant power imbalances in the system, not only between human actors, but also between the discourses of conservation and production. To ensure the long-term, sustainable governance of mangrove systems, these institutional and geopolitical issues will need to be addressed and adapted accordingly. Through a structured systemic inquiry, this analysis has explored the problem situation related to the sustainability of mangrove systems for coastal environments and people. The study shows the complexity in managing dynamic coastal systems subjected to rapid human induced biophysical changes exacerbated by a non conducive policy environment aggravating the impact on the ground. The absence of this guardian implies that feedback and institutional learning is not inherent, making constructive adaptation of governance and management arrangements in this context unlikely.
Intentions for use and impact
Communication for the project was guided by plans formulated for each project site and resulted in key findings being published and communicated through a range of generic and focused channels. Several project Deliverables were developed in to more targeted communication and dissemination materials and activities. Communication outputs include site specific bulletins, media coverage, regional and international workshop and conference papers, technical project reports, joint scientific publications and project web-pages. Stakeholder and policy workshops at each project site allowed for processing of the research outputs and cross checking by communities and institutions. Research outputs were also presented at action planning workshops to inform joint assessment and decision-making amongst stakeholder groups. Technical reports were produced for the international and national scientific communities for each of the major foci and include interdisciplinary perspectives informed by communication between partner institutions.
The achievement of project goals varied between the three sites. In Thailand, stakeholder engagement in logbook monitoring and elaboration of action plans was better organised and more comprehensive than in the two other sites. This resulted in more informative indicators on resource use and variability in incomes and expenditures than in the other sites. The geographical situation in the Red River Delta was much more dynamic. In both in the Red River Delta and Mahakam Delta implications for all key stakeholders were difficult to assess as not all stakeholders were equally able to participate in the process, notably in the case of absentee owners. Though the action plan in the Mahakam Delta was relatively weak, improved knowledge on the production systems led to involvement of the project site in an IUCN project to assist farmers in reaching certification standards for the EU market. A policy analysis workshop co-funded and co-organised by SEI on mangrove rehabilitation in Thailand was held in association with ‘Mangroves for the Future’ a regional programme supported by IUCN, UNDP, FAO and UNEP. New knowledge from the MANGROVE project was communicated through the coordinator to the FAO ‘Expert Consultation on Improving Planning and Policy Development in Aquaculture’ and the meeting resulted in FAO Fisheries Report No. 858 (FAO 2009) which contained the ‘Proposed outline for FAO Technical Guidelines on Improving Planning and Policy Formulation and Implementation for Aquaculture Development’. A joint review originating from the MANGROVE project on ‘Global carbon budgets and aquaculture - emission, sequestration and management options’ (Bunting and Pretty 2007) undertaken in association with AFGRP, United Kingdom Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) was cited amongst a limited number of resources in the Working Document ‘Fisheries and aquaculture in our changing climate: adaptation and mitigation measures in fisheries and aquaculture’ for delegates at the FAO Committee on Fisheries 29th session in 2011, Rome.
Planned intentions for use include a number of chapters, papers and presentations at international meetings to communicate research findings to coastal resources managers, development practitioners and policy-makers. Further peer reviewed scientific papers are under development on situation analysis findings, logbook monitoring outcomes, mangrove ecosystems resilience indicators framework development and bioeconomic modelling outcomes. Concerning future collaborative outputs it is anticipated that it will be possible to apply the bioeconomic modelling approach developed principally for the Mahakam Delta to evaluate sustainable modes of coastal aquaculture being proposed for Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand and the Red River Delta, Vietnam and to comparing shrimp aquaculture practices in the Mahakam Delta with green-water systems in the Philippines. A special session has been organised at the Asian Fisheries and Aquaculture Forum 2011, Shanghai where presentations will be made concerning logbook monitoring and associated research findings and bioeconomic modelling of responsible integrated aquaculture-mangrove production systems. It is intended that the website and virtual library of project outputs linked to it will be maintained for the foreseeable future and complementary links to FishBase have been established. Consequently, arrangements have been made to ensure knowledge originating from the project will be readily accessible in the public domain beyond the lifetime of the project.
Selected MANGROVE project outputs
Amarasinghe MD, 2009. Communication plans for disseminating knowledge-based strategies for reconciling multiple demands on mangrove ecosystems of Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand and Tien Hai District, Vietnam. NACA, Bangkok, Thailand.
Bosma R, Sidik AS, 2007. Aquaculture or failed gold rush: situation analysis of the mangrove ecosystem and the related community livelihoods in Muara Badak, Mahakam delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Paper presented at the Asian Pacific Aquaculture 2007 conference, 5-8 August, Hanoi.
Bosma RH, Tendencia E (in prep) Comparing Shrimp aquaculture with and without green-water in the Philippines.
Bosma RH, Sidik AS, Sugiharto E, Fitriyana, Budiarsa AA, Sumoharjo; Rizal S, Nuryatiningsih, 2007. Situation of the mangrove ecosystem and the related community livelihoods in Muara Badak, Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Universitas Mulawarman, Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Bosma RH, Sidik AS, van Zwieten PAM, Aditya A, Visser L (submitted) Challenges of sustainably managing shrimp culture in Mahakam delta, Indonesia.
Bosma RH, Tendencia E, Bunting SW (in prep) Comparing integrated shrimp-mangrove aquaculture with and without green-water in the Philippines with extensive shrimp ponds in East Kalimantan.
Bosma RH, Jumnongsong S, Dulyapurk V, Sidik AS, Dao PTA, Tuan LX, van Zwieten PAM, Bunting SW, 2010/2011. Mangrove ecosystems and the related community livelihoods. Abstract presented as poster at the Global Aquaculture Conference, Sept. 2010, Phuket Thailand, and orally at the Asian Fisheries and Aquaculture Forum, April 2011, Shanghai.
Bunting SW, 2008. Horizontally integrated aquaculture development: exploring consensus on constraints and opportunities with a stakeholder Delphi. Aquaculture International 16(2), 153-169.
Bunting SW, 2009. Ecosystem processes, functions and ecosystem services as potential indicators for participatory monitoring of mangrove and associated coastal areas. CES Working Paper 2009-SWB1. Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Bunting SW, 2010. Assessing the stakeholder Delphi for facilitating interactive participation and consensus building for sustainable aquaculture development. Society and Natural Resources 23, 758-775.
Bunting SW, Pretty J, 2007. Global carbon budgets and aquaculture - emissions, sequestration and management options. Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper 2006-4. Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Bunting SW, Bosma RH, van Zwieten PAM, Sidik AS (submitted) Reconciling multiple-demands on mangroves in the Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesia with bioeconomic modelling of traditional, extensive, semi-intensive and integrated intensive shrimp-mangrove aquaculture.
Bush SR, van Zwieten PAM, Visser LE, van Dijk H, Bosma RH, de Boer WF, Verdegem MCJ, 2010. Scenarios for Resilient Shrimp Aquaculture in Tropical Coastal Areas. Ecology and Society 15(2), 15.
Bush SR, van Zwieten PAM, Visser L, van Dijk H, Bosma R, de Boer F, Verdegem M, 2010. Rebuilding Resilient Shrimp Aquaculture in Southeast Asia: Disease Management, Coastal Ecology and Decision Making. In: C T Hoanh, B Szuster, S Kam, A Ismail, A Noble, Tropical Deltas and Coastal Zones: Food Production, Communities and Environment at the Land–Water Interface. CABI Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 496 Pages: page 117-132.
Dao PTA, Tuan LX, Bunting SW, 2010. Ecosystem services mapping and action planning in Thai Binh Province, Vietnam. Mangrove Ecosystem Research Center, Hanoi.
Dulyapurk V, Jumnongsong S, 2009. The bulletin on Mangroves: Supporters of Life in Thailand. Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Dulyapurk V, Jumnongsong S, Bunting SW, 2010. Participatory action planning to reconcile multiple demands on mangroves in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand. Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University, Thailand.
Dulyapurk V, Taparhudee W, Yoonpundh R, Jumnongsong S, 2007. Multidisciplinary situation appraisal of mangrove ecosystems in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University.
Hong PN, Tri NH, Tuan LX, Dao PTA, Dao QTQ, Tho NH, Thai VD, Phuong TM, Anh PH, Nguyet PTM, Hien VT, Nam PH, 2007. Situation of the mangrove ecosystem and related community livelihoods in Tien Hai, Thai Binh Province. Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Osbeck M, Somsak B, Powell N, 2011. Linking Policy Processes and Stakeholder Agencies to Coastal Change: A Case Study from Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand. (ed) R Fujikura and M Kawanishi, Climate Change Adaptation and International Development, Earthscan Climate.
Powell N, Osbeck M, 2010. Approaches for Understanding and Embedding Stakeholder Realities in Mangrove Rehabilitation Processes in Southeast Asia: Lessons Learned from Makaham Delta, East Kalimantan. Sust Dev 18, 260-270.
Powell N, Osbeck M, Sinh BT, Vu CT, 2011. Mangrove Restoration and Rehabilitation for Climate Change Adaptation in Vietnam. World Resources Report Case Study.
van Zwieten P, Bosma R, Jumnongsong S, Dulyapurk V, Sidik AS, Aditya A, Sugiharto E, Hong PN, Tuan LX, Dao PTA, Tung NX, 2010. Report on surveys carried out to study livelihoods dependent on mangroves in Pak Phanang Bay, Nakhon si Thammarat (Thailand), Thai Binh (Vietnam) and the Mahakam Delta (Indonesia). Wageningen, Samarinda, Bangkok, Hanoi.
ADB, ACIAR, AwF, BRR, DKP, FAO, GTZ, IFC, MMAF, NACA, WWF, 2007. Practical manual on better management practices for tambak farming in Aceh. Published by Asian Development Bank ETESP, Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group, Banda Aceh, Indonesia.
Campbell J, Townsley P, 1996. Participatory and integrated policy: a field guide for policy formulation for Small-scale fisheries. IMM, Exeter, UK.
FAO, 2007. The world’s mangroves 1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper 153. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2009. Report of the expert consultation on improving planning and policy development in aquaculture, Rome, 26–29 February 2008. FAO Fisheries Report No. 858.
Leung P, El-Gayar OM, 1997. The role of modeling in the managing and planning of sustainable aquaculture. In: Bardach JE (ed.), Sustainable Aquaculture. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 149-175.
Maxwell S, 1996. Food security: a post-modern perspective. Food Policy 21(2), 155-170.
Moser CON, 1998. The asset vulnerability framework: reassessing urban poverty reduction strategies. World Development 26(1), 1-19.
Godfray HCJ, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Nisbett N, Pretty J, Robinson S, Toulmin C, Whiteley R, 2010. The future of the global food system. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 365, 2769-2777.
Rigg J, Nattapoolwat S, 2001. Embracing the global in Thailand: activism and pragmatism in an era of de-agrarianisation. World Development 29(6), 945-960.
Samson MS, Rollon RN, 2008. Growth performance of planted mangroves in the Philippines: revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio 37, 234-240.
Walton MEM, GISELLE PB, Samonte-Tan GPB, Primavera JH, Edwards-Jones G, Le Vay L, 2006. Are mangroves worth replanting? The direct economic benefits of a community-based reforestation project. Environmental Conservation 33, 335-343.
Contractors involved, include: University of Essex, UK; Wageningen University, The Netherlands; Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden; Mulawarman University, Indonesia; Kasetsart University, Thailand; Vietnam National University, Ha Noi, Vietnam; Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia.
Co-ordinator, Dr Stuart Bunting, can be contact at the interdisciplinary Centre for Environment and Society, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org; Tel: +44 1206 872219; Fax: +44 1206 872592.
For further information and access to project outputs please visit the project web pages at: