CBEMR workshop field training report sittwe rakhine, myanmar

Community-Based Ecological Mangrove Restoration: Training Report, Demonstration Site Establishment & Maintenance Report Hotel Memory, Sittwe, Rakhine State, Myanmar. Jan. 16-29, 2017

Figure 1 Participants, ACTED staff and MAP trainers at Hotel Memory, Sittwe, Rakhine State, Myanmar.

1

Table of Contents List of Acronyms ACTED AMG CBEMR CBO CERA CSO GPS HHs ICS IDM RAND

Act for Change, Invest in Potential Ahmyintgyun Village, Sittwe Township Community Based Ecological Mangrove Restoration Community Based Organization Community Empowerment and Resilience Association Civil Society Organization Global Positioning System Households Improved Cook Stoves Program for Increased Disaster Management and Resilience Against Natural Disaster IMPACT IMPACT Initiatives is a leading Geneva based think and do tank JP Jiro Pasig Village, Sittwe Township MAP Mangrove Action Project MONREC Myanmar's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation MSN Mangrove Service Network NGO Non-Government Organization NTT Nga Tauk Te Village, Sittwe Township REACH REACH is a joint initiative of IMPACT, its sister-organisation ACTED, and the United Nations Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT) UNOSAT United Nations Operational Satellite Applications Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development USAID-OFDA United States Agency for International Development - The Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

Report Summary The Mangrove Action Project undertook a two part training on Community-Based Ecological Mangrove Restoration (CBEMR) in Sittwe, Rakhine State involving a 5 day theory workshop (16-20 Jan. 2017) for 36 participants, plus a 7 day practical field training (23-29 Jan. 2017) for a smaller group of 12 participants, as a follow-up to the classroom workshop. Dominic Wodehouse and Jim Enright from MAP were the main trainers for the ACTED-selected government, NGO, CSO, and CBO participants which were drawn from Sittwe and northern townships of Rakhine State. The impetus for training was the rapid loss of mangrove forest coverage in northern Rakhine State, with the need for mangrove rehabilitation linked to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) by re-establishing coastal green belts to buffer against tropical storms, reducing wave surge and wind damage, as well as slowing coastal erosion.

2

MAP hoped to demonstrate hydrological restoration in an abandoned pond, but since no restoration site requiring hydrological adjustments could be located, three sites in villages where CERA has previously worked were selected to demonstrate protection from livestock and humans by fencing using bamboo. These sites will require on-going protection through community cooperation and fencing maintenance with CERA overseeing the monitoring, including the use of time-lapse photography. ACTED should be aware that the bamboo has about a 3 year life span and all sites outlined in this report will require a renewed investment at that time for fencing replacement to secure the restoration areas.

Unmaintained fencing will result in a loss of the restoration sites due to renewed livestock grazing and human impacts. It is unclear how long fencing will need to be kept in place, but likely about ten years.

This report provides the highlights of both the theory and practical trainings, followed by maintenance recommendations of the three demonstration sites. The report also includes lessons learnt by the trainers, and a summary of the participants’ feedback taken from the theory workshop evaluation forms. Finally, several photo sheets are included to illustrate different aspects of the CBEMR training.

Acknowledgements The Mangrove Action Project would like to thank the following for their invaluable help: Mr. San Win, a PhD candidate from the Environmental Conservation Dept. and King Mongkut University of Technology, Thailand; and Dr. Toe Aung, Assistant Director (Mangrove Conservation Unit) Watershed Management Division of the Forest Dept., Myanmar for their workshop translation and presentations, Mr Win Sein Naing, Chairman from Mangrove Service Network for his presentation and translation during the field study training and Mr. Win Maung, Chairman, from Worldview International Foundation, Myanmar for his presentation. Thank you also to Kelsey Crowley, Country Representative Myanmar, Alejandro Cuyar, Sittwe Area Coordinator, Mr. Soe Min, Sittwe Logistics Manager and the team and drivers from ACTED, Mr. Thein Haing from Community Empowerment and Resilience Association (CERA), and Dave Storey (Independent Consultant). Finally, a big thank you to the villagers and village leaders of Ahmyintgyun, Nga Tauk Te and Jiro Pasig for their support and enthusiasm.

Commissioning Partners and Groups Mangrove Action Project (MAP) was commissioned to deliver this mangrove restoration training by ACTED’s Myanmar office. ACTED is part of a consortium with International Organization for Migration (IOM, who are the lead organization in this consortium) Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC), Swiss Resource, and Swanyee Development 3

Foundation (SDF), a local Myanmar NGO. These consortium partners are implementing the “Program for Increased Disaster Management and Resilience Against Natural Disaster in Rakhine State, Myanmar” (IDM-RAND), which was launched in late 2014. This 33-month project is funded by USAID-OFDA. REACH is a joint initiative of two international non-governmental organisations - ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives - and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT).

REACH’s mission is to strengthen evidence-based decision making by aid actors through efficient data collection, management and analysis before, during and after an emergency.

ACTED’s partner REACH, conducted a Socio-Ecological Assessment of mangrove 1areas in northern Rakhine state, in the townships of Sittwe, Pauktaw, Minbya and Myebon in November 2015. The assessment aimed at investigating the major trends and drivers of change affecting the current status of mangroves in the aforementioned townships. In support of this study, a remote sensing analysis of mangrove coverage in 1988, 2000, and 2015 within these townships was conducted by UNOSAT, which revealed that 23% of the mangrove coverage had been lost between 2000 and 2015. This finding served as the impetus to promote rehabilitation of coastal mangroves as part of an integrated, ecosystem-based approach to DRR, thereby reducing the vulnerability of the local population.

What is CBEMR? Community-Based Ecological Mangrove Restoration (CBEMR) is an alternative mangrove restoration technique developed by Robin Lewis of Florida, USA to overcome the high rate of hand planting failure. CBEMR is a holistic approach which combines decades of field experience and published science to encourage project teams to work with local people to facilitate the natural regeneration of mangroves by restoring and improving the local hydrology and topography. This avoids the time and expense of planting nursery-raised seedlings or propagules, increases site biodiversity and helps bring back the full complement of mangrove ecosystem services. Key to the process is getting the participation of local people from the outset and resolving issues which caused mangrove loss in the first place.

The principle stages of the CBEMR process are: With the local people, develop an understanding of the species that are living or should live on the proposed site, their ecology, preferences, tolerances, method of reproduction etc.

The team should also understand the site’s features and hydrology (particularly the depth, duration and frequency of inundation), and collect data on site history, previous use, seed/propagule availability, and what is currently preventing natural regeneration. There should be a clear understanding of what has changed on the site and therefore, what needs 1

Hyperlink: Socio-Ecological Assessment: http://www.reach-initiative.org/myanmar-socio-ecologicalassessment-investigates-trends-and-drivers-of-change-affecting-mangroves-in-northern-rakhine

4

to be remedied, as well as what social issues affect site restoration. To aid this research a concurrent study of a benchmark natural reference mangrove is encouraged of similar topography, to assess species presence, species elevation relative to sea level, soil types, and other site features. (Unfortunately, as there was very little natural mangrove around Sittwe, studying a reference mangrove was impossible.)

Assuming the site chosen is appropriate, develop a restoration plan with the local community, paying particular attention to removing natural regeneration inhibitors and restoring or improving the hydrology, keeping in mind budget availability, local labour skills and availability, and other issues identified during the research.

Execute the plan and implement the activities necessary to facilitate natural regeneration.

Around the Sittwe area, a significant problem was grazing animals, therefore, many plans included fencing and social agreements around such exclusion.

Monitor and evaluate the project from the start for 5 years after the work is completed. This allows faults to be corrected, channels and hydrology maintained and fencing looked after.

Unless the objective is something other than full ecosystem restoration, planting is necessary only if the site is ‘propagule-limited’. If this is the case, other methods can be used to introduce more propagules, for example, by broadcasting propagules onto an incoming neap tide.

CBEMR’s Objectives The assumed objective is full ecosystem restoration. This means that all possible species of flora are expected to naturally regenerate over time. It is hoped that with (improved) hydrology and a full complement of flora, all the expected fauna would also return.

5

CBEMR Training Background MAP has given many CBEMR trainings over the past 12 years and has learned that teaching the restoration theory, even with field visits, is not sufficient to provide trainees with both the skills and confidence to actually put the theory into practice by implementing CBEMR projects. Recently, there has been an attempt to follow-up the workshop theory with hands-on field training, implementing a small demonstration project to learn by doing and building confidence. This Sittwe training was a first for MAP as it combined a five-day workshop training, followed by seven days of field training for a small group of participants, after which participants could apply for 12 small grants available to actually put the CBEMR knowledge gained into practice by implementing their own mangrove restoration projects.

This three-part combination provided the best opportunity to bring fresh new information into practise and should be a model for future trainings.

The workshop training week took place in a meeting room on the top floor of the Memory Hotel, Sittwe, Myanmar. Teaching was primarily through photo-based Powerpoint presentations given by Dominic Wodehouse, but also involved three Myanmar guest presentations, small group discussions, interactive exercises, videos, question and answer sessions, two field visits and field exercises, and small group presentations based on field work.

Theory Workshop Participant Breakdown Workshop Date 16/1/17 17/1/17 18/1/17 19/1/17 20/1/17

Government 28 22 20 26 19

NGO 7 7 7 7 6

CSO/CBO 11 11 10 10 8

Total 46 40 37 43 33

Field Training Demonstration Workshop Participant Breakdown Workshop Date 23/1/17 24/1/17 25/1/17 26/1/17 27/1/17 28/1/17 29/1/17

Government 6 5 6 6 7 7 7

NGO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CSO/CBO 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Total 11 10 11 11 12 12 12

Based on ACTED attendance sheets

6

For a full list of workshop participants, see Appendix A.

Training Workshop Timetable 16th - 20th Jan The trainers arrived in Sittwe from Thailand on 12th January. This provided preparation time to visit possible demonstration field sites in the Sittwe area for week two, find field trip venues for the workshop theory training, and take the translators through the presentations and running order. Two days were spent in the field with ACTED, CERA, and MSN looking at a variety of potential training and restoration sites and one day was spent going over presentations and preparing materials for different sessions. For a daily running order, please see Appendix B.

Training Running Order and Topics Covered Day 1 Having thanked the funders, (USAID and Synchronicity Earth) workshop logistics were explained. The training was then opened by Mr. John Htun Oo, the Director of the Forest Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, Rakhine State.

The participants were asked to introduce themselves, indicate how much mangrove experience they had, describe something they wanted to learn from the training and suggest a mangrove skill they had to offer others. MAP’s approach to the training was explained as all participants come with unique information and background experiences, all members including trainers being both students and teachers, so sharing experience was critical to the learning process. Participants were encouraged to both ask questions and share knowledge.

After a coffee break, Mr. Win Maung, retired Director of the Forest Dept, now with Worldview Myanmar, conducted a presentation about the mangroves of Rakhine State, their abundance, nursery techniques, preferred species zones, and the challenges of restoring ponds and issues relating to thinning mangrove plantations.

This was followed by an exercise about mangrove planting failures. Participants had to work in groups to study a few photocards to work out what was happening and why the planting had failed. This emphasized the point that restoration was difficult, and that many projects fail. This exercise was to test and strengthen the participant’s observation skills and think about what nature was telling us. It was also recognized that a photo is only a single image from one location at one second in time and could not be expected to provide the full 7

picture of what occurred. Therefore, the trainers helped by sharing some of the story behind each photograph.

After the photo card planting failure examples, mangrove benefits were discussed, and in particular the more obscure benefits concerning mangroves’ ability to clean water by removing excess nutrients, sediment and locking-up heavy metals.

Day 2 Day 2 started with a review of the first day and what had been learned. Then the importance of mangrove hydrology was presented and discussed, and how good hydrology was crucial for delivering mangrove ecosystem benefits mentioned the previous day.

A brief introduction to the CBEMR process was shown, using an illustrative case from Florida, before talking about mangrove ecology and what a normal mangrove should look like. This included multiple-age class flora (seedlings, samplings, seed-bearing trees and mature trees), biodiverse floral line-up, hydrological patterns, a variety of light intensities, tree densities, and species zoning.

After lunch the participants were briefed about the first field trip and what they were expected to do. This included demonstrations about salinity measurements with refractometers and measuring pH with litmus paper. Then the group moved to the first fieldtrip site (Lat 20.264583, Long 92.859689): a former aquaculture pond to practice the first stage of CBEMR – site research.

Day 3 As the participants arrived they were encouraged to draw-up their findings from the field trip on flipcharts. They then presented what they had found back to the group and discussed the details of the site in the context of CBEMR and restoring that pond.

After lunch, Mr. San Win presented his PhD fieldwork from the Irrawaddy Delta, which focuses on investigating vulnerability indicators from a range of biophysical features.

Coffee was followed by more presentations and discussions about species zoning relative to sea level, and then how to measure ground elevation relative to sea level, to ensure the appropriate species were being considered for the site and zone. This included use of an auto-level and other traditional methods, like using water levels in a transparent plastic hose The team then shared techniques to study a reference site, by use of transects through the mangrove, drawing on experience from Mr. San Win, participating Forest Dept. staff as well as the presenters. Transects provide standardised baseline data which could be compared to published literature, and compared over time. To end day three, participants watched case study video documenting MAP’s first CBEMR project in Talae Nok Village, Ranong, Thailand.

8

Day 4 As before, the session started with a review of what had been discussed and presented the previous days. The teaching started with Mr. Win Sein Naing presenting his case study about Mangrove Service Network’s restoration of a 100 acre site in the Irrawaddy Delta, which had previously been illegally cleared for aquaculture. He discussed the techniques they had used as a result of a previous CBEMR training in India (2005) to rehabilitate the area.

Continuing to work through the CBEMR process, the next skill presented was mapping. This included the utility of Google Earth for measuring site area and perimeter length, and mapping’s inclusive nature, allowing everyone to see the planned work. Mapping was followed by examples of implementation. It was stressed that action might involve hydrological improvements, social agreements, leadership training, fencing, environmental training, setting up village patrols and conservation groups, clearing mangroves out of hydrological channels where they should not be growing and being sensitive to local needs.

After lunch the group was briefed about the second field trip. This involved heading to Ahmyintgyun Village to look at two potential sites. Two groups studied a site close to where CERA had already installed a fenced plantation involving both planting and natural regeneration (Lat 20.298980, Long 92.878051) and three groups studied a new potential site to the east, within the same village (Lat 20.299464, Long 92.881331). The site research included mapping, site hydrology, species present, soil types present, biochemical features, social history of the village and all other relevant features.

Day 5 To start day five, working in their groups, the participants wrote-up what they had found from the second field trip. After presenting their output, there was a review of what had been discussed on the previous days.

The need for and importance of monitoring was presented via PowerPoint, including possible techniques, what to measure, and how often it should be done. After coffee Dr. Toe Aung (of the Forestry Dept.) presented his mangrove work about coastal protection and disaster risk reduction (DRR) and led a discussion about social / community forestry and current government policy. There was a lot of discussion and interest regarding social forestry regulations and how those regulations can help protect mangrove forests and promote their sustainable use. It was also noted that social forestry was not functioning in many sites due to lack of oversight and lack of community management capacity building by both NGO and government officers.

The rest of the day saw use of a table-top card sorting exercise to go through various individual components of the CBEMR process, as well as answer any other remaining questions participants had about the process and mangroves in general. The card exercise emphasized the systematic framework the CBEMR process provides for restoration, but 9

stressed the need for flexibility as every site is different. Sometimes two or more stages are happening concurrently, or due to problems encountered, mangrove workers must cycle back to acquire more information to solve problems. Some steps, such as resolving land tenure of the restoration site, may be quickly solved or it may be a very long and difficult process. Other issues may not be resolvable, requiring a change of site.

ACTED staff described the 12 grants of $4,500 each available for mangrove work in Rakhine State. A final group photo was taken outside, and the trainers awarded finishing certificates to all participants.

Various handouts were provided to the workshop participants, in Myanmar language, including: • • •

• • • •

‘MAP’s Five Steps Manual To …. Successful Ecological Restoration of Mangroves’ (2006) ‘Guide to Asian Mangroves’ -a 2 page photo identification sheet developed by Dr Jean Yong, Singapore ‘Mangrove Restoration: to plant or Not to Plant’ a Wetlands International flyer (2016) The following ACTED produced documents were developed by consultant, Dave Storey, for the larger project and this CBEMR training in particular: ‘A Practical Guide to Mangrove Rehabilitation in Rakhine State – a Handbook’ ‘What is Community Based Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation?’

‘Why is Land Tenure Important for the Future of Mangroves’ ‘Mangroves for the Future of Rakhine State – Policy Brief 1’

These documents are available on request in English and Burmese from ACTED. Workshop news article on ACTED website: http://www.acted.org/en/mangrove-conservation-disaster-risk-reduction

Jan. 23-29 – Practical Training and Setting-up Demonstration Sites MAP was invited to set-up two demonstration sites near Sittwe in conjunction with providing additional practical training for a smaller group of participants from the initial training. Ideally MAP was searching to locate an abandoned pond which was formerly mangroves or some other hydrologically disturbed site so field training could focus on the process of hydrologically restoring a site to facilitate natural regeneration. The MAP trainers viewed eight sites before and during the theory training with the help of MSN and CERA. Most of these sites proved unsuitable due to land tenure difficulties which would take months to resolve. Several of the former shrimp ponds assessed were already in the state 10

of natural regeneration due to open sluice gates or degraded walls. Hydrological sites may have been available farther afield from Sittwe town, but due to time and poor roads, sites could not be more than a 40-60 min drive away. Further, it became clear that the real challenge within the Sittwe area was the combination of a huge demand for firewood and grazing animals inhibiting mangrove regeneration. Due to the short time available, MAP decided to focus on two villages where CERA had already developed a good working relationship, later expanded to three villages as the budget allowed an expansion of the work, see Fig 2, below. The three villages were: Ahmyintgyun (AMG)

Lat 20.29, Long 92.88

Nga Tauk Te (NTT)

Lat 20.25, Long 92.88

Jiro Pasig (JP)

Lat 21.17, Long 92.91

Figure 2 Location of the three villages near Sittwe, Myanmar

Demonstration Village Descriptions Ahmyintgyun (AMG) village is located 20km from Sittwe. 456 households (HHs) were occupied by over 2,260 people. The village had approximately 70 HHs out the total who relied on fishing alone, while the community also had 113ha of rice paddy and four chicken farms for agriculture based HHs. AMG was not connected to the power or water utilities, but some HHs had solar panels connected directly to motorbike batteries to provide some lights. All HHs collected or bought wood for fuel, at 21 pieces of 18� wood costing $1.

Though the village leadership was interested in protecting the village from extreme northeasterly weather and enabling the return of mangrove resource, the conservation group had dissipated and needed to be re-built. CERA had been working with this village for approx. two years, developing a small, fenced off demonstration site, educating the village about mangrove benefits, and replanting the wind-damaged plantation areas. (Stocking density

11

approx. 3,750/ha). Happily, pioneer mangrove species were naturally regenerating within the plantation.

Nga Tauk Te (NTT) village, approximately 15 km from Sittwe, has 300 HHs, for a population of approximately 1400 persons. Around 370 people were engaged in fishing. 70 HHs are farmers, with a combined total of 120ha of rice paddy. The villagers explained that each family buys approx. 100,000 Kyat ($72) of fuel wood per year and had been doing so for more than 20 years. None of them used improved cookstoves, but used the traditional open fire with 3 stones or bricks for a cooking pot to sit on. Again, NTT had no electricity supply or water, but used wells built throughout the village. Twenty years previously a businessman had acquired land nearby, upstream in their river system, and the resulting hydrological changes due to shrimp farm construction had killed off much of their existing mangrove, exposing them to easterly winds. Their existing young mangrove plantation was developed in mid-2015 by CERA. NTT has an active conservation group of 10 members, which claimed to be maintaining CERA’s plantation fence. They suffered from significant riverbank erosion and sedimentation within their section of the river.

Jiro Pasig (JP) village has 340 HH, totalling 4,000 people. JP is located only 4km from Sittwe town, and has electricity but lacks running water. It is likely that many in the village work in Sittwe town or labour on the nearby construction sites. Sixty village rice farmers own their own land, the rest being landless labourers. 150 villagers are engaged in fishing and the community is deeply engaged in fishing issues including the problem of trawlers illegally fishing within the inshore. Drying in the village during both visits were nets with fine mesh of approx. 1-2cm. Many in the village have moved inland 3 times due to coastal erosion.

The village used to be located 200 feet from the present high tide mark. Presently there are 600 feet of mudflat between village and water at low tide. To protect the village MSN has worked within this community and with the 10-man conservation group for several years, establishing a mangrove wave-wind barrier to help counter the erosion. Indeed, the village leadership is actively looking for funding to extend fencing of the present protected mangrove.

Week 2 Practical Training Schedule Sat 21st January – Pre-Meetings AMG was the site of the second field trip. The training team had a further meeting with the village headman and the conservation group leader to discuss mangrove conservation issues in general, and specifically the possibility of extending one restoration area CERA had already enclosed (yellow polygon) from 0.18ha to 0.38ha (red polygon), and enclosing another area to the east of 0.79ha (red polygon), see Fig. 3, below.

12

Figure 3 Ahmyintgyun Village. Existing restoration site (yellow polygon) and proposed (red)

The need for fencing was illustrated by the fact that there were water buffalo grazing on the eastern site during this visit. Enclosing these areas within fencing would avoid grazing pressure on natural regeneration and plantation, and also avoid boat impact damage and footfall damage from man and beast.

Sunday. Admin and rest day

Monday 23rd January At a meeting in ACTED’s office, MAP explained the nature of the second phase of the training to those who could join. The 12 participants selected by ACTED from the workshop were then taken to NTT village. At a meeting and lunch with the village headman and villagers interested in conservation, discussions were held about possible restoration areas (red polygons) close to the village. These areas were marked out with the villagers and measured via handheld GPS for possible enclosure, see Blocks A (0.39ha), B (0.72ha) and C (0.88ha) in Fig. 4, below. Yellow polygon denotes the existing fenced CERA plantation.

13

Figure 4 Nga Tauk Te Village. Existing restoration site (yellow polygon). Proposed restoration sites (red)

Tuesday 24th January The group met at the ACTED office, where they learned how to use a handheld GPS. The previous day’s GPS points were used to provide an example of applying GPS data from the field to draw polygons on Google Earth to facilitate measurement the perimeter of a proposed restoration site and the area enclosed.

Following that, MSN presented a case study about the plantation established in JP village to help combat erosion. The group then travelled to JP village to interview the JP village leaders before inspecting the plantation blocks, village mangroves, and erosion problem.

Wednesday 25th January In ACTED’s office the group discussed the areas seen the previous day and marked with by GPS within JP village, and saw the resulting polygons marked-up on Google Earth.

Then the team headed to NTT for lunch with the community. At this meeting a 6’x4’ vinyl printed satellite image of their village from Google Earth was given to the leadership and the proposed restoration areas discussed further. The leadership agreed to the proposed sites of A, B and C, including fencing techniques to be used and costs and supply of materials. Site B had to be adjusted to suit the community’s need to move cattle through the area to higher ground. Subsequently the team witnessed the first installation of fencing to enclose block B.

Thursday 26th January In ACTED’s office the participants were shown how to use an autolevel once more. This was linked again to mangrove species zoning and the need to understand where within the intertidal range a restoration site lay.

14

The process of budgeting and putting estimated expenses in an Excel sheet was described.

Having calculated the number of metres of bamboo fencing required for each site the amount of materials required could be calculated and costed. Participants were very interested in how to complete a budget has many were interested in applying for the ACTED small grants and presenting a budget would be required. Only the Forestry Dept. staff had previously prepared a budget.

Later the group travelled to AMG village to meet with the leadership and presented the village with their 6’x4’ printed vinyl satellite image from Google Earth. The group discussed and agreed with the village to expand the CERA plantation, gaining permission from the owner, and to restore the new proposed site to the east, which the same owner agreed to formally hand over to the community, by having the land documents transferred. The group then conducted a transect over this new easterly site, measuring elevation changes, species, and features present, and marking the transect path by GPS.

Friday 27th January In the ACTED office, in small groups, the participants drew up their data from the previous day’s transects at NTT and presented it to the group. This led to many useful discussions about species zoning, the value of transects as a systematic method for assessing a site and regeneration, technical issues of their execution, field skills and so on.

After lunch, the team returned to NTT village to conduct more transects and spot height surveys through proposed restoration areas A and B in this village (see Fig. 4).

Saturday 28th January Saturday morning the participants reconvened at the ACTED office, where in small groups, they drew up the transect data from NTT village. Again, this led to useful discussions about conducting transects efficiently, restoration of sites, that planting in straight lines was not necessary, and a reminder of the importance of site hydrology.

Having budgeted for the work needed in AMG and NTT villages it had become apparent that there would be sufficient funds to attempt a third demonstration site. This would allow MAP to further support CERA and MSN’s work in JP. After lunch the group returned to JP village.

The team presented a 6’x4’ vinyl satellite image of their village to the leadership and used it to discuss the village mangroves and the erosion the village had suffered. The village leaders were happy to help the natural regeneration of a new area (Block E, 0.32ha, see Fig. 5, below) to the landward side of the current MSN plantation (Block D) and fence the area (E&D) as one unit, which was then marked out with the villagers. Other current plantations are marked with yellow polygons. The village also agreed to other areas being examined and proposed, e.g. Block F (0.51ha).

15

Figure 5 Jiro Pasig Village. Existing exclosed restoration Sites (Yellow polygons). Proposed or proposed enclosures (red)

All zones were marked out with GPS to aid later discussion. The team then conducted transects within Zone E, focusing on species present.

Sunday 29th January The final practical day was held at the ACTED office only. The groups prepared and presented the final set of transect data from JP village. The GPS points collected from all the actual and proposed restoration sites (see Fig. 5) were shown to the group and discussed.

For their own reference, using the transect experience, each participant developed their own blank data sheets for collecting transect data in future projects. In a final discussion session, various issues were covered, including the importance of biodiversity in mangroves, species zoning as seen around Sittwe, time-lapse photography and its effectiveness as a communication tool, and issues relating to same-aged class plantations and protection from wind and waves. Mangroves in a plantation of even-age trees and therefore even- height have been shown to be less effective against storm wave surge and wind compared to a natural multi- species forest with various tree heights.

With the experience gained from the three villages, MSN and CERA led a further budgeting discussion to help participants put possible proposals together to ACTED.

Maintenance Report and Post-Hoc Suggestions AMG •

For expanding the current CERA plantation area (west in Fig. 3), a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will have to be signed between the village leadership and the 16

•

• NTT • •

owner of the site to ensure that the mangrove forests in the area remain and are utilised only with the agreement of the village and CERA, in a sustainable manner.

Either the current fencing of this plantation (fencing 180m/590’) or the expanded fencing (fencing 260m/853’) surrounding this area will need to be regularly inspected and maintained.

Once installed, fencing surrounding the proposed eastern site (fencing 392m/1,290’) will need to be inspected and maintained.

This village also had an existing plantation (fencing 394m/1,296’). This will need inspection and maintenance as there were already minor holes in the fencing.

Proposed new areas will need new fencing. Block B (fencing 363m/1,192’) has already been started. Block A will need 297m/976’ of fencing. Block C 170m/560’. All this enclosure will need to be supervised by CERA, regularly inspected and maintained.

JP MSN and CERA have established various plantations in front of JP village. Some are fenced off (A, B & H, see Fig 5.), others are not (G & D).

•

•

•

Part of the natural regeneration within Area E should be enclosed by fencing which would also include the established plantation of Block D (currently unfenced). The exact location of this fencing near the mangrove nursery had not be marked by GPS but would be approximately 550m/1,820’. This fencing would need to be inspected and maintained.

Proposed Block F was suggested to protect the northern-most part of the village.

Fencing (295m/970’) would be needed to establish this area to protect it from grazing animals and boat impact. As this block was some distance from a seed source (Block D) and therefore propagule-limited, this area would benefit from planting with pioneer mangrove species seedlings in mixed clumps (Avicennia alba, A. marina, Sonneratia alba, S. apetala) due to its low elevation, from the local nursery, of at least one year old. This new block and its fencing would need inspection and maintenance.

Blocks A (292m/957’), B (358m/1,174’), C 483m/1,584’), H (373m/1,223’), I (295m/966’), all had fencing in various states of repair and of various qualities. Block H was already missing sections at time of inspection (Jan 2017). The south end of Block I was poorly maintained and had missing sections. It is recommended that these are all inspected and maintained.

Overall • As there are grazing animals, cattle and water buffalo, that frequent all areas listed above, it is recommended that the owners of the animals are informed about the plans and included in the discussions to ensure they support the effort to exclude 17

•

•

•

•

grazing animals from restoration areas to allow plantation and natural regeneration to grow. For violations of the fenced area, after a first warning, livestock owners would be required to pay for fence repairs and pay a fine.

It is strongly recommended that if at all possible Mr. Than Hlaing and CERA keep in contact with all villages, supporting the development and education of the conservation group, encouraging villagers to report issues and damage to any fencing, and to preserve and protect mangrove where possible.

MSN expert Mr. Win Sein Naing will return regularly to the Sittwe for UNDP meetings. Consideration should be given to supporting Mr. Win to re-visit the sites with the CERA team to ensure the maintenance is being carried out and offer his expertise and encouragement to villagers.

Due to the ubiquitous use of wood and charcoal for cooking, improved cook stove (ICS) training should be implemented to reduce the pressure on all forests resources.

MSN is highly experienced in ICS and, having three teams engaged in this activity full time, it is recommended that they be commissioned to support CERA to provide a 3 day ICS training in all three communities. ICS training is very much a part of the CBEMR holistic approach which goes beyond restoring mangroves by dealing with issues that contribute to mangrove loss or threaten existing mangroves.

Mr. Than Hlaing of CERA should be supported and encouraged to establish a network of mangrove restoration villages and conservation leaders around the Sittwe area and northern Rakhine State coast. This might be attempted in combination with the Myanmar Environment Rehabilitation Network (MERN), MSN in the south, and perhaps the communities working with Flora and Fauna International (FFI) along the Myeik Archipelago. The objective is to make the communities the central mangrove stakeholders and for villages to learn from and support each other.

Monitoring Restoration Sites Using Time-lapse Photos It is recommended that all three mangrove restoration sites for this project be monitored to record change over time, which is both useful for the implementing community and the donor. Time-lapse, time-series or photo point monitoring are all terms which refer to taking a photo from the same location, in the same direction, with preferably the same camera/smart phone over a period of time of 3-5 years or longer. This can be started when the restoration work is complete, in this case when the fencing is installed, and then at 6 months, 1 year and then annually.

Photo locations should be marked by putting some type of small marker in the ground like a piece of PVC pipe or wooden stake, taking a GPS reading at the point and recording the photo point on a map.

18

Photo points should be selected to view the restoration site from several good vantage points, from higher ground, if possible. Having a permanent reference point, like a building, tower, rock outcrop or hill in the background is useful to make sure the photo is framed the same each time.

Photos should be taken at low tide with sun high in the sky to prevent strong shadows and poor lighting. It is best if several community members and the NGO undertake photo monitoring together and the photos should be stored on a computer and an external hard drive or pin drive in case one is damaged or lost. Photos should be clearly labelled such as Site 1, Point A which becomes 1-A (date). For analyse, a series of 1-A photos say over 3 years can be viewed on a computer or printed for display.

Time-lapse photos are the most basic and minimal form of recorded monitoring and have the advantages of being simple, inexpensive and requiring minimal time and resources.

Also good time-lapse photos can be very convincing of successful mangrove regeneration over time, which may not be realized if the site is observed frequently by local people.

Lessons Learned by Trainers and Suggestions for Future Training Organisation and Arrangements before the Training • •

•

•

Finding a suitable demonstration site in just a few days was not practical as resolving land tenure issues was outside the available timeframe.

ACTED staff prepared useful information reports with maps, photos and site descriptions about potential restoration sites which were e-mailed to the trainers before the workshop, but the site selection in most cases really required a site visit by trainers to evaluate it fully. A site visit by one trainer a month or more before the training would have been useful in evaluating sites, viewing the venue and meeting key persons to be involved.

A pre- questionnaire for participants would have be useful to gauge their mangrove experience in more detail would have helped tailor the presentations to the appropriate level. This, of course, would require more preparation logistics as a select list of questions would need to have been developed by the trainers, translated & sent to the participants, responses returned to ACTED and a summary prepared in English and forwarded back to the trainers. With few participants having access to computers and internet, this was unlikely to occur or would have resulted in a weighted response in favour of those more advanced participants.

Having the PowerPoint presentation translated into Burmese in advance was very important but presenters had to adjust, improvise, and add new material and local information as the training progressed, making it difficult to have all material in Burmese.

19

•

There was a lack of understanding by participants about what the field trips entailed and therefore they were not appropriately prepared with field clothing and footwear. Ideally all participants should have received the workshop agenda and list of items to bring in Burmese well before the workshop. Luckily, ACTED was able to purchase rubber boots for all workshop participants who required them with the understanding they would be utilized by other future project field activity.

During the Training •

•

•

• • •

Though participants from government, NGOs, civil society groups, and communities were welcome, pitching the level of teaching was challenging due to the varied skills, mangrove experience, and exposure to technology (GPS, computers, internet, Google Earth) among participants. MAP trainers had been anticipating a higher level of English and exposure to computers amongst participants. The participants were on an extremely wide spectrum of knowledge and mangrove experience from those with little previous knowledge to the top mangrove expert in Myanmar, which made teaching a challenge trying not to go over the heads of some while not boring more advanced participants.

About half of the entire week-one theory group had never been in a mangrove forest previously, about which the trainers were only informed at during the first session.

In hindsight, it would be been valuable to spend an entire day covering mangrove ecology and why mangroves are important. One option could have been to split the group into novice and intermediate/advanced groups, but the trainers were not prepared for this and the workshop room being small was not conducive for this option. It might have been better to have local Myanmar experts from MSN, Forest Dept. CERA, and Worldview Myanmar to present mangrove ecology on day one, so everyone had the same basic background to start the CBEMR training. Presenting in Burmese would have saved presentation time.

The workshop agenda in Burmese was not ready until day two of the training.

Having it handed out earlier would have been useful. The final evaluation form in Burmese was ready and handed out early, at the suggestion of MSN, which proved useful as it allowed people to think over the questions before the evaluation session on day 5.

Though using many photos already, text-heavy parts of the presentation would benefit from more communication by photo and less by text.

The trainers did not anticipate the sensitivity of participants of viewing Muslim villagers in a case study film from Thailand.

Some participants wanted to discuss uses of mangroves and mangrove-based livelihoods. This was a moot point as, though interesting as a topic, this was not what MAP was commissioned to deliver.

20

•

•

• •

Some participants were also interested in leadership training, and how to raise mangrove seedlings in a nursery; both topics which may be considered for future training by ACTED or other agencies. If using CBEMR methodology, generally nurseries are not required. However, due to the lack of mangroves in general and the resulting seed sources, and the desire for quick results, nurseries and more planting would fit with the present needs around Sittwe to re-establish mangrove cover.

More consideration might have been given to the environmental impact of the training. This might have included issuing a refillable bottle for water (canteen) to each participant for the week, and 20litre bottles for refills, rather than the use of a large numbers of plastic bottles every day. This would make an appropriate teaching point, demonstrating that meetings and workshops do not require the use one-time use water bottles, particularly as there was no recycling locally due to processing facilities being too far away. Or indeed, re-fillable bottles could have been imprinted with ACTED’s logo and an environmental message and given to each participant.

With only three females joining the CBEMR workshop training there was room for more gender balance in future workshops.

The workshop participants were very attentive throughout the entire workshop and this may be partly due to very few having laptop computers and the workshop rule that mobile phones be turned off during the workshop.

Week 2: Practical Training •

•

•

MAP’s preparation and planning had focused on hydrological restoration and, despite intense searching before and during the workshop, we had to accept the fact that a hydrological restoration site to study could not be found, which was a first for MAP’s CBEMR trainings.

MAP initially envisioned that nearly all time in the practical training week would be spent in the field, but the reality was that, due to the tides and the lack of need for hydrological physical work, about half the time was spent at the ACTED office going deeper into the theory and linking field observations to theory and teaching from week one, discussing the field plans and then reviewing what had occurred in the field. This combination worked very well with mornings at the office meeting room and afternoons in the field.

In hindsight, it would have very difficult to implement even a small demonstration site in seven days in a new community, even if land tenure had been sorted out in advance, without skipping major preparation steps or rushing through the process.

Even the process of building trust and a relationship within a community takes time with many steps requiring discussions with community and leaders. It was emphasised to participants that a mangrove restoration project normally occurs over 21

•

•

several months, so ours was only a small piece of the entire process.

Our implementation progress was only possible because of the relationship MSN and CERA had developed with these three communities, and the restoration experience previously gained.

Due to the prevalence of grazing animals, most of the mangrove issues related to protecting the natural regeneration by use of fencing to keep the animals out, and the accompanying social agreements with livestock owners. This was unexpected.

Participants were not aware of what the second, practical week entailed, and therefore were not appropriately prepared nor understood what would be occurring.

Participant Verbal Feedback MAP staff asked the group for verbal feedback from the practical training sessions.

•

• •

More information about this second week, provided before the start of the whole training programme, would have helped their preparedness. The time length of this second week (7 days) was not seen as too long for the practical work as there were many things to learn, however, more information about what they would be doing day-by-day would have been appreciated.

The lack of female participants during week two was noted as gender imbalanced.

There was a variety of opinions regarding the workshop framework. Some, but not all, of the participants would have preferred a much bigger gap between theory training (week one) and practical work (week two) so they could return to their homes in the township to visit family. Some suggested that the practical training take place approximately 1-2 months after the theory workshop. However, the trainers explained the difficulty and expense of making a second trip from Thailand and the UK back to Myanmar to complete the training.

•

Some participants would have preferred to run the practical training immediately after the theory, starting on the weekend, as they complained they had nothing to do during this down-time. The trainers explained the weekend break was necessary as they had continued to search for demonstration sites for teaching and implementation purposes.

•

Several felt the workshop meeting room was a bit small and therefore crowded for group activities.

•

Some participants wished to have received hard copy print-outs of the powerpoint presentation at the start of the workshop. Trainers explained that the workshop presentation was often adjusted to the needs and time with some sections being cut due to time. There was also concern that if participants had copies they may be less inclined to pay close attention to the presentation.

22

23

Appendix A. Participant List No 1

Name Zaw Thant Aung

Organization MMA

2

U Sein Thee

MMA

3 4 5

U Thar Tun Khine U Tun Kyi U Saw Win

Kyauk Tan Gyi village Kalar Chaung village CERA (local NGO)

6

U Hla Thein Tun

Ah Lel Kyun village

7 8 9

U Hla Thar Maung U Hla Maung U Kyaw Sint

Kyay Taw village Kyay Taw village SDF (local NGO)

10

U Ye Linn Moe

SDF

11 12 13

U Win Si Thu Maung U Nyein Chan Kyaw U Aye Min Khant

Department of Forestry (Yambye) DoF Thandwe DoF Yambye

14

U Kyaw Kyaw Win

Relief and Resettlement Dept. (RRD)

15 16 17

U Than Tun Aung U Ko Ko Naing U Tin Maung Win

RRD Department of Environmental Conservation (ECD) DoF

18

Daw Khin Khin Shwe

Department of Livestock (DoL)

19 20 21

Daw Aye Kyaut Yin Daw Ei Ei Khine Mg Aung Win Oo

DoF ECD DoL

22

Mg Tun Min Aye

DoL

23 24 25

U Kyaw Kyaw Naing U Than Maung U Han Hla Tun

Department of Information (DoI) Department of Agriculture (DoA) DoA

26

U Aung Win Hlaing

DoI

27 28 29

U Moe Hein U Shwe Thein U Gon Suan Khual

General Administrative Dept. (GAD) DoF DoF

30

U Toe Aung

DoF

31 32 33

U Than Hlaing U San Win U Win Maung

CERA ECD WIF (INGO)

34

U Nay Hein Kyaw

GAD

35 36

U Myo Zaw U Hla Maung

GAD Kyay Taw village 24

37

U Hla Thar Maung

Kyay Taw village

38

U Aung Win Oo

DoL

39

U Win Sein Naing

MSN (local NGO)

40 41 42

U Myo Thant Zin Khine U San Hla Tun U Than Shwe

DoI Kha Maung Taw village Kyein Khay Maw village

25

Appendix B. Theory Training Running Order

C o m m u n it y -B a s e d E c o lo g ic a l M a n g r o v e R e s t o r a t io n T r a in in g S c h e d u le H o t e l M e m o r y , S i t t w e , R a k h i n e , M y a n m a r . J a n .1 6 - 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 M O R N IN G

A F T ER N O O N

R a k h e in S ta te M a n g r o v e s U W in M u a n g

F ie ld T r ip b r ie fin g 1 ( J E )

M a n g r o v e R e s to r a tio n P la n tin g F a ilu r e s ( D W )

B a n T a le N o k C a s e S tu d y

F ie ld T r ip 1

F ie ld T r ip 2

S tu d y in g R e fe r e n c e S ite s . T r a n s e c ts

C o ffee / Tea S e s s io n 4

O p e n in g s p e e c h fr o m R a k h e in S ta te M a n g r o v e s th e F o r m e r D G U W in M u a n g F o r e s t D e p t.

F ie ld T r ip s k ills d e m o n s tr a tio n . ( p H p a p e r s , S a lin ity r e fr a c to m e te s , G P S u n its ) ( D W )

M e a s u r in g S p o t H e ig h ts R e la tiv e to S e a L e v e l (D W )

F ie ld T r ip 2

S e s s io n 3

M a n g r o v e E c o lo g y a n d W h a t a N o rm a l M a n g ro ve S h o u ld L o o k L ik e ( D W )

M a n g r o v e S p e c ie s Z o n in g

F ie ld T r ip 2

Lunch

C B E M R P ro ce s s : In tr o d u c tio n

M a n g r o v e C o m m u n ity V u ln a r a b ility in th e Ir r a w a d d y D e lta . ( S W )

F ie ld T r ip 2 B r ie fin g . ( J E )

S e s s io n 2

P r e s e n ta tio n F ie ld T r ip 1 O u tp u t ( J E )

Im p le m e n ta tio n - S o c ia l a n d T e c h n ic a l Is s u e s ( D W )

E ffe c ts o f P o o r H y d r o lo g y o n M a n g ro ve s (D W )

C B E M R T a b le T o p C a r d S o r tin g E x e r c is e ( D W )

F in a l G r o u p P h o to

W o r k s h o p E v a lu a tio n P r e s e n ta tio n o f C e r tific a te s ( J E , F o rm s DW , KC, AC)

F ie ld T r ip 1

L e s s W e ll K n o w n M a n g o r o v e B e n e fits ( D W )

9am R e v ie w o f D a y 1 (J E )

W r itin g u p o f F ie ld T r ip D a ta

M a p p in g & P la n n in g (D W )

M o n 16th

T u es 17th

9am R e v ie w o f D a y 1 & 2 (J E ) R e s to r a tio n in th e Ir r a w a d d y D e lta b y M r W in S e in N a in g (M S N )

C o ffee S e s s io n 1 / Tea R e g is tr a tio n W o r k s h o p L o g is tic s In tr o d u c tio n s & th a n k s to F u n d e r s . Ic e B r e a k e r P a r tic ip a n t A C T E D s m a ll g r a n ts In tr o d u c tio n s ( J E ) a v a ila b ility ( A C )

W ed 18th

9 a m R e v ie w o f A ll S o F a r (J E )

Im p o r ta n c e o f H y d r o lo g y ( D W )

T h u rs 19th

C o a s ta l P r o te c tio n , D R R a n d C o m m u n ity F o r e s tr y a n d cu rre n t g o ve rn m e n t p o lic y ( D r T A )

F in a l Q & A S e s s io n

M o n ito r in g W hy? W he n? H o w ?

(D W )

G r o u p D is c u s s io n a b o u t th e w o r k s h o p a n d p o s s ib le im p r o v e m e n ts . ( J E )

F ri 20th

9am R e v ie w S e s s io n

P r e s e n ta tio n o f F ie ld T r ip 2 O u tp u t (J E )

26

Appendix C. Evaluation Form (English)

Final Evaluation Community Based Ecological Mangrove Restoration (CBEMR) Training Workshop Sittwe, Rakhine, Myanmar January 16-20, 2017 Trainers: Jim Enright and Dominic Wodehouse 1. To what extent has the workshop achieved stated purposes and objectives? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. What changes have you experienced in your knowledge (K), skills (S), and attitude (A), related to the workshop topics? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. What have been the best parts of the workshop for YOU? Why? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. What parts could have been de-emphasized or eliminated? Why? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Were there ways that the event could be improved from your point of view? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please rate the following aspects of this workshop from 1 to 5 (5 being the best).

6. Daily schedule (time spent in and out of sessions) 7. Length (number of days) of workshop 8. Satisfaction with the training and

27

facilitation methods 9. Satisfaction with the venue (location and facility) 10. The training method utilized during the workshop 11. The quality and the effectiveness of the trainers Others:

12. What else would you like to see happen related to the themes discussed at this training workshop? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________

13. How do you think you will be able to use the CBEMR information you learned in this workshop in your daily work? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 14. Other Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your candid feedback. Your responses will help us to better assist you in the future and provide valuable information on how our trainings and activities can be better delivered.

28

Appendix D.

Summary of Comments and Feedback

(8 out of 30

translated) Q1. Workshop Achieved Stated Purposes and Objectives?

Participants said that the workshop achieved its objectives and they learned many things, such as the benefits of mangroves and techniques for restoration. However, one person mentioned they would like more information about the costs of CBEMR projects.

Q2. How have your skills, knowledge and experienced changed as a result of this workshop?

For those who answered, they suggested a change in their approach to restoration. Rather than the traditional method, they realised that there were many more things to consider, such as site/species matching, and the use of CBEMR’s systematic approach. Others mentioned the value of community environmental education and focusing on the priority of conserving the mangrove they already had.

Q3. Best Parts of the Workshop?

A variety of features were appreciated with no consistent theme. These included the fact that CBEMR uses low cost techniques, the field trips brought the work to life and revealed the difficulties of actual implementation, the powerpoint presentations and videos were appreciated, as well as new knowledge such as the importance of hydrology, tides and general mangrove ecology.

Q4. What Training Elements could have been Omitted / Reduced?

This drew no suggestions.

Q5. How could we have Improved the Event?

One person suggested using a larger training room and provision of hard and soft copies of the training (due to copyright issues, this is contrary to MAP’s policy, however participants received a ‘MAP’s Five Steps Manual for EMR’ A5 booklet, in Burmese.) Provision a training agenda beforehand would have been appreciated. And another suggested inviting more actual mangrove users to the workshop.

Q6. Daily schedule (time spent in and out of sessions)

4,1,4,5,5,3,3,5

Av. 3.8

Q7. Length (number of days) of workshop

3,4,4,5,4,2,2,5

Av. 3.6

Q8. Satisfaction with the training and facilitation methods

4,3,4,3,5,4,3,5

Av. 3.9

Q9. Satisfaction with the venue (location and facility)

3,2,1,4,5,3,2,3

Av. 2.9

Q10. The training method utilized during the workshop

4,5,5,1,5,5,4,5

Av. 4.3

Q11. The quality and effectiveness of the trainers

5,5,5,2,5,5,4,5

Av. 4.5

29

Q12. What else would you like to see happen related to the themes discussed at this training workshop?

There was a suggestion that MAP should take the opportunity to teach other coastal villagers while in country. Otherwise for a one week session, this appeared to be more than enough information.

Q13. How would they Use the CBEMR Information and Training?

Several people mentioned that they intended to disseminate what they had learned about CBEMR to others, either at their work, or shrimp farm owners. Another person mentioned how this new knowledge of mangrove ecology, the importance of elevation and hydrology, and M&E would change what they did.

Q14. Any Other Comments? • Other comments related to the fact that government staff lacked the time to join the second week, as they were busy with departmental work. One person felt the training was important for higher ranking government officers, but they could not commit two weeks of time away from the office.

30

Appendix E. Photo Sheets

31

32