Principles for a code of conduct

for the management and sustainable use of mangrove ecosystems

Back to MAIN PAGE		Collaborators
Desk Study · A Review of Mangrove Biodiversity Conservation and Management	Lessons Learned The consultation process from 2004 to 2006 revealed that the mangrove Principles are well regarded and popular as a potential management tool among senior governmental representatives, researchers and mangrove experts. However there are major challenges involved in presenting and debating the Principles among certain NGO and local user representatives, especially in the Americas’ region. Fundamental differences of opinion still remain between (a) traditional communities living in or near mangrove ecosystems plus some of the NGOs that support them; and (b) certain economic sectors (particularly shrimp farming and likely other coastal developments, although shrimp farming is the main concern), together with certain governmental departments and agencies that appear to support these sectors. As the consultation process progressed down to the mangrove user level, the issue of coastal land and water use became the overriding concern of all the stakeholders represented. Effective local legislation to control coastal land and water use equably, with the rights of traditional mangrove users protected, was emphasised consistently. This was regarded by local mangrove users and managers as a prerequisite before many of the other Principles could be adopted into local management procedures. The main conclusion drawn is that the Principles have played a valuable role in stimulating debate worldwide about mangrove ecosystems and their sustainable use, but no single document can be expected to address all the issues surrounding mangrove management, or to satisfy all the diverse priorities and needs of the various stakeholders concerned. The consensus view is that the Principles are a useful reference document to help States and mangrove stakeholders formulate codes, guidelines and/or regulations to meet their particular coastal zone management needs. The Principles have definitely raised awareness of the need to prepare local legal and policy instruments for mangrove management and provided ideas and direction regarding their scope and content. Adaptation of the Principles document, via reorganisation and simplification of the principles and articles, translation into the local language, and other actions to make them more relevant and “user-friendly” to mangrove users and local managers are among the next steps identified in the final section of this report. Valuable lessons have been learned from the NGO led consultations and from the field testing in Vietnam, regarding the need to modify the approach when attempting to adapt the Principles for local debate or utilisation. The first lesson learned is that NGO/community consultation requires much more time than was allowed for during the reporting period. Moreover, a considerable amount of that time should be allocated to orientation or “lead-in” activities. Time must also be allocated to training the local facilitators and in “practicing” the type of work they will be asked to perform with local mangrove stakeholders. More fundamentally, there is a need to modify the approach into what can be termed “social participation”. The work with the mangrove Principles has, to date, been limited to consultation with key mangrove stakeholders after the draft document was prepared (based largely on inputs from researchers, senior governmental representatives and existing literature). This is known as an informative process. In its truest sense, social participation requires that all stakeholders are also involved in the design- making phase, not only in the informative phase(s). Thus, social participation should not be viewed as an appendix to an environmental project (in this case the mangrove Code of Conduct), but as an essential component for the project to be effective. In addition, it is clearly evident as was reaffirmed that guidance for the overall process from the very beginning must involve social scientists and community organizers in addition to natural resource managers and scientists and related government staff who would work collectively with stakeholders toward the formulation, review, modification and adoption of the Principles. The social participation approach also differs from that of the more activist NGOs advocating for mangrove conservation and local ownership. These NGOs mainly promote indigenous knowledge in developing management practices without the infusion of current scientific knowledge that can enrich and help to provide better management through a synergy of the two. The social participation approach does, however, involve some of the micro-social and participatory processes that these NGOs use and can apply effectively. Overall, social participation involves a self critical but inclusive approach to science, society and scientific knowledge, where dialogue and collaboration between the various stakeholders is at the center of the process. The social participation approach proposed here, involving collective design-making, is of course even more difficult when the discussion turns to Code/guidelines, because of the rather complicated scientific and technical nature of ecological and environmental management. However a local version of the Code should, in most cases, start with production of didactic versions for local use and then later on include more abstract themes as contained in the draft Principles. (This is actually very close to the proposals from the activist NGOs and is also “bottom-up” in conventional development jargon. However the actual concrete way to produce local mangrove Codes of Conduct should be decided locally. Thus, from an operational standpoint, social participation means that local adaptation of the Code should start at the community level, including the collaborative effort of all relevant stakeholders in the production of local versions of the Code as a micro-social process. Examples of this are some of the extravist reserves in mangrove areas (the RESEX or Extravist Reserves in Maranhao, Brazil). (Extravist reserves allow local communities to continue to live there and to extract traditional forest products, but do not permit commercial scale activities such as logging or mining.) These reserves involve a high degree of local autonomy in which participatory processes facilitate in producing local plans involving scientists from the local environmental agency and communities plus their representatives and other stakeholders. Scientific knowledge is not disregarded here, but is critically explained and discussed, especially in relation to local knowledge. This approach is consistent with the objective of using the Principles only as a reference document from which local Codes can be developed. At the same time, it is important to consider the current local situation with regard to existing related policies (or lack thereof) and any required modification in guiding the way forward.	Centre for Tropical Ecosystems Research
Principles Document · English · French · Spanish · Portuguese · Chinese		World Bank – Netherlands Partnership Programme
Consultations · Regional · Ramsar · IUFOR · IMPAC 1 · ICEMAN		University of Aarhus
Power Point Presentations · English – original · English - updated · French · Spanish · Chinese		International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems
Field Testing · Vietnam · Thailand · Brazil		Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling
Lessons Learnt
Case Studies
Other Key Documents · Code of Practice for Sustainable Use of Mangrove Ecosystems for Aquaculture in Southeast Asia · MANGROVE GUIDEBOOK for Southeast Asia
	Work in progress FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Please Give Comments to thomas Nielsen – Thomas.Nielsen@biology.au.dk Based on consultations in South and Southeast Asia (21-23 October, 2002), Africa (17-19 February, 2003) and Central and South America (17-19 March, 2003) and Peer Review Workshop in Washington DC (16 – 17 September 2003)