Wetlands Governance in the Mekong Basin: Challenges, recent progress and the way forward

Transcription

1 Wetlands Governance in the Mekong Basin: Challenges, recent progress and the way forward Robert Mather, Head of Country Group 1 IUCN Asia Programme, IUCN Lao PDR ABSTRACT The Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) contains a great number and diversity of wetlands which together cover 10-20% of its total area, support a wealth of biodiversity, and provide a wide range of ecological service functions and natural resources that support food security, livelihoods and a range of other important social, economic and cultural values. This paper presents a framework for governance analysis and then applies it to governance of wetlands in the Lower Mekong Basin. Major issues in wetlands governance are identified and discussed The paper shows that wetlands in the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) are subject to aspects of many different laws, policies and regulations in which overlap and inconsistency between different sectors frequently occurs. The vast majority of wetlands do not have any special status and are extremely vulnerable to development. The paper highlights that one of the major problems in the Mekong countries is that the local users of wetlands resources often do not have their traditional rights to these ecosystems recognized, and therefore are not properly involved in the management and control over the wetlands resources. Consequently, these important habitats are liable to suffer degradation at the hands of other, wealthier and more powerful sectors of society, without any benefit to the poorer parts of the population. As of April 2010, all Lower Mekong countries need to develop national policy statements on key wetland issues. Similarly all four countries lack specific legislation for the community-based management and protection of freshwater wetlands, and the role of national, provincial and local bodies in relation to supporting local communities to manage wetlands has not been clearly established either. Nevertheless, there have been some promising recent developments, and a number of case study examples are discussed in the paper. From these, recommendations for future priority interventions clearly emerge. 1. Introduction The Mekong is one of the world s greatest rivers. The Middle Mekong Valley is believed to have been the site of the first rice cultivation some 6,000-5,500 years ago (Huke & Huke, 1990), and today the Mekong s 800,000 km 2 basin is home to 80 million people. Around 35% of the world s freshwater fish species are found in Asia (Kottelat and Whitten, 1996) and the Mekong has more fish species than any other Asian river (Vidthayanon et al., 1998). The lower Mekong accounts for 2% of our planet s total fish catch each year. (Hortle, 2007). The integrity of key wetland habitats of the Mekong mainstream and tributaries are essential for the provision of food security for millions of people (Mather, 2009) In Thailand freshwater and coastal wetlands cover 36,616 km 2 or 7.5 per cent of the nation s land area. A national inventory identified 61 wetlands of international importance, 108 sites of national importance and an estimated 42,484 locally important sites (OEPP, 1999). In Laos 35 internationally important wetland sites were identified (Claridge,1996), while In Vietnam, freshwater and marine wetlands are mainly distributed in the Red River and the Mekong River Deltas and along the 3,260 km coastline, with almost 70% of the remaining mangroves now being found in the Delta and around HCMC. NEA and IUCN (1999) identified 68 wetlands of national or international importance.. Because of the high diversity of wetland functions and services supporting livelihoods and economic development in the region, it is no surprise that the region's population is concentrated around wetlands. Yet, accelerating economic development, population growth and changed consumption patterns of the basin s population are placing the health of wetland ecosystems and their ability to sustain the livelihoods of a growing population at risk. As a result, today only about 1-1.5% of the Mekong Delta s inland wetlands remain, in a natural or semi-natural state. Tram Chim and Lang Sen together for example cover less than1.5% of the former Plain of Reeds ecosystem that once covered over 700,000 hectares. At the same time they continue to be affected by rapid population growth, agricultural expansion, alien invasive species, unsustainable use of natural resources, and the impacts of upstream constructions (Mather et.al., 2010). Globally, wetlands store an estimated 300 to 700 billion tons of carbon (Bridgham 2006) roughly equivalent to the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere. If we manage them well, wetland ecosystems and their biodiversity also have a role to play in the mitigation of climate change and will be important in helping humans to adapt to climate change through their critical role in reducing impacts of extreme weather events, and ensuring water and food security. While currently the number one driver of wetland loss and degradation is habitat change as a result of human development, climate 1

2 change effects are already being felt across the world. At the same time, a recent study (Syvitzki et. al., 2009) shows that many deltas are sinking globally because of reduced sediment inflow and that the Mekong Delta is defined as a delta in peril. According to this study, upstream dam construction poses a much greater threat to the Mekong Delta than climate change and sea level rise. For all of these reasons, effective governance of Mekong wetlands (including transboundary governance) is vital. 2. Methods On September 22-23, 2009, IUCN, together with the DRAGON Institute-Mekong at Can Tho University, hosted a meeting of 30 scientists and wetlands managers who discussed the state of the wetlands in the delta and proposed policies that would help sustain the vital ecological services provided by wetlands and mitigate the effects of climate change on the region. The participants came from the delta s leading universities and research centres, government agencies, NGOs, and management boards of wetland protected areas. Subsequently on January over 40 wetlands specialists met in HCMC in a workshop organised by MRC and IUCN. The main objective was to provide an opportunity to share recent experience, knowledge gained and lessons learned from ongoing work on wetlands in the Mekong Basin, and to identify priority areas for future work. Presentations on IUCN, WWF and GTZ projects in Nong Khai in north-east Thailand, Stung Treng in Cambodia, Beung Kiet Ngong in Laos, and Soc Trang in Vietnam, focused on site-based interventions that illustrated successful examples of wetlands comanagement approaches. A key feature in each case has been the establishment of new organisational and institutional arrangements at the local level that have enabled better management of the sites. One workshop was fully, and the other partially supported as part of the Mekong Region Water Dialogues (MRWD), project financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland to address water governance issues and climate change in Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos PDR. The author of this paper helped design, facilitate and make presentations at these meetings. Also as part of MWD, IUCN s Regional Environmental Law Programme in Asia (RELPA) is developing a governance framework for the dialogues. This paper draws on the discussions from both of the above workshops, and from the ongoing work in developing a governance framework. 3. Results There are no specific results as this was not a research paper. It is a discussion paper so everything is presented under the heading of discussion. 4. Discussion 4.1 A wetlands governance framework In the last decade or so, natural resource governance has been a much talked about subject and there are a huge number of different definitions of governance available (see e.g. UNDP, 2007; World Bank, 2009; de Ferranti, 2009). For the purpose of this paper, the following definition of wetlands governance is being used: Wetlands Governance is the interaction of policies laws and other norms; institutions; and processes; through which a society exercises powers and responsibilities to make and implement decisions affecting wetlands and wetland users and to hold decision makers accountable. Wetlands governance is therefore essentially about: who has the power to make decisions that affect wetlands and wetland users and how those decisions are made who has the power and responsibility to implement those decisions and how those decisions are implemented who is held accountable, and how, for implementation. 2

3 Much has also been written about the desirable or appropriate characteristics or principles of governance. After conducting a wide ranging review of the principles of governance, IUCN s RELPA identified that four were the most commonly referred to: transparency; predictability/rule of law; accountability, and participation. Components and principles of governance are shown in Table 1. If a complete analysis was carried out, it would be possible to populate this matrix with key indicators for assessing and improving wetlands governance in each of the lower Mekong countries. Although that is beyond the scope of this current paper, the framework has already been used to assess coastal and marine governance in six countries as part of the Mangroves for the Future initiative. Table 1. Components and principles of governance (Source: IUCN). Governance Components Policies, Laws and other norms Principles of Governance Transparency Predictability/ Accountability Participation Rule of Law indicators indicators indicators indicators Institutions indicators indicators indicators indicators Processes indicators indicators indicators indicators 4.2 Wetlands Governance in the Mekong Basin The following discussion is structured following the components of governance. Considerations of the principles of governance are interwoven into the text regarding each component Policy General principles relating to how natural resources should be managed are often adequately stated at the highest levels of governance frameworks. While not specifically referring to wetlands, the 1997 Constitution of Thailand clearly provides the basis for recognising the rights and responsibilities of traditional communities and communities to participate in the management (articles 46 and 56), maintenance, preservation and exploitation (article 79) of all natural resources. Recent test cases concerning environmental and health impacts of proposed industrial projects at Map Tha Put in Thailand s Eastern Seaboard, have now provided a legal precedent that the spirit and intention of the Constitution still has to be considered even when policy and law for its implementation is lacking. All Mekong countries need to develop comprehensive national wetlands policies. These should set out the vision and direction for how the country intends its wetlands to be used, and should identify long term goals and objectives as well as overall strategies and approaches to address the principal threats to 3

4 wetlands. National wetlands policies should address the existing issues of conflicting and overlapping policies, laws and regulations and should envisage the necessary legal instruments to be enacted and the types of institutional arrangements to be established (if these do not already exist) to support the effective implementation of the policy. The policy should encourage greater co-ordination and collaboration between agencies and sectors on wetland issues from local to national levels, as well as greater cooperation at the international level. National wetlands policy should recognise the need for transparency, accountability and participation and provide some guidance as to how these desirable characteristics would be ensured.. Wetlands policy may identify the need for development of regular master plans, action plans or management plans, and may emphasise the need for: - further research on wetland resources and processes, and the valuation of wetland services; - wetland education to extend the knowledge base about wetlands and to build future capacity - improved data management for monitoring changes in wetlands, and effective site management. - capacity building at site level and among provincial and national agencies - improved decision-making about specific wetlands and implementation of wetland policies broad understanding and awareness of wetlands, their importance and threats at all levels Finally, national wetlands policy should also address the issue of financing. A range of sources of financing, such as environmental funds, government budgets, corporate sector funding and donor funded projects, could be considered Traditional Rights and Legislation Although some form of community forestry legislation exists in many countries, legislation for community management of wetlands is sorely lacking. Consequently, one of the major problems with regard to wetlands in the Mekong countries is that the local users of wetlands resources often do not have their traditional rights to these ecosystems recognized in law, and therefore are not properly involved in the management and control over the wetlands resources. Consequently, these important habitats are liable to suffer degradation at the hands of other, wealthier and more powerful sectors of society, altering land use, without benefiting the poorer parts of the population. That is not to say there are no laws governing the use of wetlands. In fact wetlands in the Mekong Basin are often subject to aspects of many different laws, policies and regulations in which overlap and inconsistency (or even conflict) between different sectors (rural development, agriculture, land/water/forest management, biodiversity conservation etc) frequently occurs. For example in Vietnam, there is no specific wetlands law, but a significant body of other legislation impinges on wetlands in many ways. This includes (1) Law on Water Resources, 1998 (No.8/1998/QH10), (2) Fisheries Law, 2003 (No. 17/2003/QH 11), (3) Land Law, 2003 (No 13/ 2003/ QH11), together with several Decrees, Circulars and other implementing legislative documents such as e.g. Government Decree No. 109/2003/ND-CP on Conservation and Sustainable Development of Submerged Areas and Circular No. 18/2004/TT-BTNMT guiding the implementation of the decree. Many wetlands fall under Special Use Forests categories and are therefore managed under policies and laws designed for forests with an overriding priority to prevent forest fires as the highest level management objective. In the Mekong Delta this has led to the perverse situation of National Parks management authorities digging additional canals and maintaining artificially high water levels throughout the year rather than allowing the natural processes of seasonally flooded grassland wetlands systems to run their natural course. Park budgets are determined by the area of remaining trees, and staff rewarded and promoted on their ability to prevent and control fires Institutions (i) National Level In Thailand, the National Wetland Committee (NWC) was established on 1 st July 1993, chaired by the Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment with members comprising representatives from relevant agencies. The NWC is responsible for providing guidelines 4

5 and coordinated action on wetland management through the formulation of a national wetland policy. Other responsibilities include supporting and monitoring the implementation of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and co-ordination between the relevant agencies. The NWC has appointed a Wetland Technical Working Group (WTWG) to assist in reviewing and providing advice on wetland management plans before submission to the NWC A first National Wetland action plan was created for the period This action plan focused on management conservation, rehabilitation, and protect of wetlands. (OEPP, 2002). A similar body has been discussed for Vietnam (Shepherd and Dang, 2009). In fact given the important values of wetlands in the Mekong Region it would be prudent for all four lower Mekong countries to establish National Wetlands Committees. The most important governance characteristics to consider for such national committees would be participation ensuring that the committee includes members from different government agencies as well as representatives from academia, civil society and the private sector. It is also important to ensure that that there are mechanisms to ensure the accountability of such a committee who holds them accountable, for what and how is it done? (ii) Sub-National, Provincial, and Local Level Some large wetlands in the Lower Mekong have been designated as various types of protected areas including Tram Chim National Park and Can Gio Biosphere Reserve in Vietnam, the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve in Cambodia and Beung Kong Long Non-hunting area in Thailand. Other wetlands are located wholly or at least partially inside protected areas such as the Beung Kiat Ngong wetlands in Laos which are partially inside Xe Pian National Protected Area. The vast majority of wetlands however are found outside of protected areas. The institutional arrangements applied to wetlands therefore vary depending on their location inside or outside of protected areas? Increasingly wetland protected areas have management boards as part of their institutional structure. Once again, participation and accountability seem to be critical governance considerations. In Vietnam the management boards report directly to the district government or provincial government through the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. In general they involve little representation of the primary stakeholders (direct resource users). In Thailand protected area management boards (where they exist) are established under the authority of the park superintendent who reports directly to the Department of National parks in Bangkok. They are not directly accountable to local government, although they often include better representation of local stakeholders in their membership. Thailand may be doing better in local participation while Vietnam may be doing better in local accountability. Both Cambodia and Lao PDR are presently experimenting with new sub-national structures for protected area institutions. Decentralization has been promoted in all the lower Mekong countries but there are for the most part no clear indicators of effectiveness or efficiency. Lack of clear mechanisms and guidelines on processes between different layers is also an issue, and limited capacity of lower levels is a significant barrier that needs to be addressed. In open access wetland areas, local government ( - the lowest levels are commune government in Vietnam and Cambodia, Sub-District Administration in Thailand and Kum Baan in Lao PDR) undertakes overall and direct management responsibility. Local government implements activities for livelihoods, socio-economic development, and resource protection. It also implements the management guidelines, regulations and policies that are issued by the higher levels of government (district, province and national government). Despite the existence of less than optimal policy and legal frameworks, evolution of new institutional arrangements at the local level is proving to be one of the most important areas where improving wetlands governance is really yielding dividends. The creation of the Wetlands Technical Advisory Group of Dong Thap province in Vietnam has been a success. This institutional identity has been formally established by Dong Thap provincial government. The TAG has successfully provided a science-backup to provincial government to resolve the conflicts between stakeholders. The approval of a separate Wetlands Management Statute for Tram Chim wetlands is a key achievement of this initiative. This Statute allows the hydrological and fire regime of Tram Chim to be managed in line with its priority wetland values an approach that could subsequently be spread to other wetlands in the delta. 5

6 In Nong Khai Province of north-east Thailand, a Provincial Wetlands Committee and District Wetlands Working Groups have been established, supporting and formally endorsing the community-led boundary demarcation, zoning, and natural resource use rules development in Goot Ting and Beung Kong Long wetlands. (Parr et.al., 2010 in Press). Again this approach should and is being, spread more widely (as the next example shows) After a study visit from Beung Kiat in Laos to Beung Kong Long in Thailand, in January 2009, the District Committee for Kiat Ngong surveys and management was established and field surveys on the wetlands boundaries, land uses, economic values, and proposed zoning were carried out. The committee consists of members for all relevant sectors in the district, village clusters heads, 13 village heads and representatives from the Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO) in Champasak. Management zones were clearly identified and agreed; regulations for the wetland management were created and adopted by the communities; and a co-management plan for the wetlands is being prepared. This comanagement plan will focus on mandating the local institution to manage the area, building local ownership, enhancing local capacity whereby a village wetland committee will be established under the district one, and putting in place sustainable financing mechanisms Processes In the context of co-management approaches to wetlands inside protected areas, and community-based management of wetlands outside of protected areas there are a number of key processes of concern. (i) Management planning: In a case study of wetlands management in Vietnam, it was found that with regards to management objectives, there were several cases: (i) often there are no objectives in place at all; (ii) management objectives are established but not clear enough; and (iii) management objectives are relatively well established and clear, but are not being achieved in reality (Tuyen,2009). Further, the quality of planning (particularly with respect to participation and accountability) was found to be the most critical issue. In the Xuan Thuy National Park and Can Gio Biosphere Reserve management planning was done without taking account current access and customary use rights of wetland stakeholders, especially the primary groups who rely on the wetland resources for their livelihoods (Tuyen, 2009). In the open use wetland areas planning was found to be either of very low quality or produced plans that were impossible to implement (Tuyen, 2009). On the other hand some initiatives on communitybased management and co-management of natural resources have been carried out at pilot scales in other wetland sites e.g. in Tam Giang lagoon. This brought in participatory planning and a framework for a scaling-up of the application of participatory management methods. This helped not only to improve the quality of planning, but also defined new roles for stakeholders and management partners in the resource management itself (Tuyen, 2009). (ii) Status Assessments (Baseline surveys and monitoring) Efforts to achieve sustainable, effective and equitable wetland management will be enhanced by a thorough understanding of the relationships between their biodiversity, livelihood and economic aspects; this requires that wetland assessments consider these multiple dimensions in an integrated way. However up to now, these issues are most often assessed independently with their own standard techniques, and there is a lack of practical methods to integrate the assessments, or at least to express this information in a way that contributes to real world conservation and development planning. For example, recent wetland valuation surveys in Beung Kiat Ngong found that six core villages annually harvest 474 tonnes of fish, 179 tonnes of other aquatic resources, and 75 tonnes of wild vegetables, which together generate income for these villages equaling USD 759,985 per year The fishery provides a livelihood not just for fishers and their families but for thousands more who are employed full or part time making and selling food products and fishing gears, repairing boats and providing related services. (Maimanilong and Chanthavong, 2009). To be really useful this information needs to be considered together with information about fish biodiversity, fisheries ecology and trends in productivity, etc. IUCN and partners undertook an integrated assessment of the biodiversity, livelihood and economic values of the Stung Treng Ramsar Site in Cambodia as part of a project that aimed to develop and test 6

7 an integrated multi-disciplinary wetland assessment toolkit (IWAT). The IWAT presents integrated biodiversity, livelihood and economic assessment methodologies to strengthen pro-poor approaches to wetland management. With an emphasis on process rather than step by step instruction, the toolkit outlines the process of designing, preparation for, and undertaking an integrated assessment. It also describes methods for analysing and presenting the information collected. It is based on the principles that assessments should be integrated across disciplines; should be geared to addressing specific management issues; and should generate information that can be used to support and improve planning of on the ground management action and allocation of resources. (Springate-Baginski et. al., 2009). With regard to assessments, the governance characteristics of most concern are participation and transparency. Community-led assessments are becoming increasingly popular in Thailand and Cambodia, under the banners of Tai Baan and Salaphoum essentially processes of Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), and many of the IWAT methodologies also involve local participation. Transparency is important in regard to ensuring that community members are informed about and understand why the surveys are happening, and what the purpose of the surveys is. In addition it is extremely important to make the results of any assessments available to the communities in a format that is appropriate for them and to provide opportunities for discussion of the results and interpretation of their meaning.. (iii) Clarification of issues and identification of responses (including negotiation of trade-offs) To achieve long-term sustainability of benefits, in most wetlands some restrictions will have to be placed on current use patterns. Certain behaviours will have to be eliminated, temporarily suspended, reduced or relocated. As an example, in terms of fisheries activities in wetlands this would include eliminating use of explosives, chemicals and inappropriate fishing gear; and will often include identification of no-take zones, or closure of fishing areas at certain times of year (such as spawning times of key species), or restrictions on certain types or sizes of gear at certain times of year. This will always involve some negotiation of trade-offs and often requires provision of appropriate incentives. Participation is important in ensuring all key stakeholders are involved in the negotiation of any changes to resource use practice, and transparency and accountability are particularly important with the provision of incentives. The inequitable capture of project benefits by the local elite is a common risk in many interventions (personal observation). In many cases were fish conservation zones have been implemented by communities in Lao PDR, the recovery of fish populations has been so rapid, that no additional incentives have been required (Roger Mollot, pers. Comm.) although this is not necessarily always the case (Eric Meusch, pers. Comm.). In all cases there will need to be a gradual process of trust-building before any significant changes can be achieved. Local communities attempts to manage their wetlands sustainably can be undermined by outsiders who refuse to follow the locally-agreed rules. This is why it becomes important to have community-developed rules endorsed by local government, to provide them with a legal basis to enforce them against outsiders as well as within their own community. A good example of how this has been achieved in a step-wise manner over a three year project period, is provide by the WWF Thailand Community Wetlands Management project in Nong Khai Province. This is shown clearly in figure Conclusions There is still a need for all of the countries of the lower Mekong to improve national wetlands policies and to enact revised and/or new legislation that recognises local community rights and responsibilities to mange wetlands through community-based management and co-management arrangements. Institutional mandates still need further clarification in many cases (eg between MONRE and MARD in Vietnam) and multi-sectoral collaboration in planning and implementation of wetlands management needs to be further improved. Attempts to encourage this have usually been more successful if initiated at the provincial level rather than at the national level (eg the establishment of a Provincial Wetlands Committee in Nong Khai. Institutional innovation at the local level has been the key to improved outcomes for wetlands and local livelihoods in many cases (Koot Ting in Thailand, Beung Kiat Ngong in Laos, Tram Chim and Tam Giang in Vietnam). While national level legal, policy and institutional reform are necessary and are necessarily long-term processes, significant gains for biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods and well-being can be achieved in a shorter timeframe by focusing on the local level components and principles of governance at specific wetland sites. In some cases, testing of new governance models may require projects to request temporary freedom from the restrictions of existing law and policy for 7

8 the lifetime of the project, and most governments have so far been willing to allow donor-funded project experimentation in this way. In this way, if project results are compelling enough, they can then also contribute information and lessons to policy, legal, institutional and procedural reform processes. 6. References Bridgham, S. D. et al. Wetlands 26, (2006). Claridge G.F. (compiler) (1996). An Inventory of Wetlands in the Lao PDR. Vientiane, IUCN. De Ferranti (2009) How to improve governance: a new framework for analysis and action. The Brookings Institution, Washington DC. Hortle K.G (2007) Consumption and the yield of fish and other aquatic animals from the Lower Mekong Basin. MRC Technical Paper #16, Mekong River Commission, Vientiane, 87pp Huke, R.E. & Huke, E.H. (1990) Rice: Then and Now. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. Kottelat M. and Whitten A.J (1996) Freshwater Biodiversity in Asia, with special reference to fish. World Bank Technical Paper No. 343, Washington D.C. Maimanilong, S. and Chanthavong, K. (2009). Assessment of Kiat Ngong wetlands in Pathoumphone district, Champasak Province, Faculty of Forestry, National University of Laos. Mather, R.J., and Brunner, J. and Van Ni, D., Editors (2010) Wetlands Governance: A state-pressureresponse analysis of wetlands in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta (in Prep.) Moore, Patricia Governance Programme of Work. Overview and National Assessments. Presentation at Mangroves for the Future Regional Review Forum. 22 April, Ahungalla, Sri Lanka. NEA and IUCN, (1999) Wetland sites with biodiversity and environment values in Vietnam OEPP. (1999). National Wetland Inventory of Thailand, Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Bangkok, Thailand. 142 pp. Parr, J.W.K, Y. Sricharoen, A. Pichaisir, J. Letsahakul, C. Vidthayanon, C. Peng-Un and C. Moolsiri (2010 In press) Community-based Wetland Management at Goot Ting Marshes, North-east Thailand; Implications for Policy and Practice. International Journal for Environment and Sustainable Development Scott, D. A. (1989). A Directory of Asian Wetlands, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Shepherd, G., and Dang, LM Eds. (2009) Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Wetlands in Vietnam. Hanoi, IUCN Vietnam Sricharoen, Y (2010) Community-based management of wetlands in Thailand and in the Mekong Region (Presentation to joint MRC-IUCN workshop HCMC, January 2010). Syvitzki, JPM, Kettner, AJ, Overeem, I, Hutton, EWH, Hannon, MT, Brakenridge, GR, Day, J, Vorosmarty, C, Saito, Y, Gioson, L, and Nicholls RJ (2009) Sinking Deltas due to Human Activities Nature Geoscience September 2009 Truong Van Tuyen (2009) Toward Wetland Ecosystem Management: A Case Study Review in Vietnam in: Shepherd, G., and LM Dang, Eds.(2009) Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Wetlands in Vietnam. Hanoi, IUCN Vietnam UNDP (2007) Governance Indicators: A user s guide users guide online version.pdf Accessed 09 November 2009 Vidthayanon C., Karnasuta J., and Nabhitabhata J (1998) Diversity of Freshwater Fishes in Thailand. Fisheries Department, the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, and DANCED, Bangkok, Thailand. 8

9 World Bank (2009) Governance Matters. On-line accessed 24 October 2009 Figure 1: Community empowerment and improved governance of wetlands (adapted from Sricharoen (2010) Third year Propose guidelines for wetland policy based on CWM Communication activity, civil society and NGO networking in Thailand and the Mekong region Second year Feedback on collaborative research Demarcation and Zoning GIS Data base Facilitate setting of rules/regulations Support local initiative activities First year Collaborative research Training, study tour, workshop Orientation Building effective institutional mechanism for wetland management 9