environmental monitoring report...environmental monitoring report ist annual report december 2009...

Environmental Monitoring Report

Ist Annual Report December 2009

Pakistan: Sindh Coastal Community Development

Proejct – Departmental Mangrove Plantation in

Shah Bundar and Keti Bundar Creeks

Prepared by International Union for Conservation of Nature, Pakistan Country Office for the

Government of Sindh, Pakistan and the Asian Development Bank.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of 31 December 2009)

Currency unit – pak rupees (PRs) PRs1.00 = $ 0.0119

$1.00 = PRs. 83.7099

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank CFD – Coastal Forest Department DFO – divisional forest officer GIS – geographic information system IUCN – International Union for Conservation Of Nature NRSP – National Rural Support Programme SCCDP – Sindh Coastal Community Development Project SCDA – Sindh Coastal Development Authority SRS – sample random sampling This environmental monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

Sindh Coastal Communities Development Project – SCDA (ADB) First Monitoring Report - Departmental Mangrove Planted Areas - Shah Bundar and Keti Bundar

Sindh Coastal Communities Development Project First Monitoring Report Departmental Mangrove Planted Areas Shah Bundar and Keti Bundar December 2009 Prepared by IUCN Pakistan IUCN Pakistan Country Office 1 Bath Island Road, Karachi 75530 Pakistan Tel: ++ 92 (21) 35861540-3 Fax: ++ 92 (21) 35861448, 5835760


Table of Contents Table of Contents...................................................................................................... 2

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 3

II. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF MONITORING ......................................... 3

III. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................. 4

i. Pre-Planting Site Selection......................................................................... 4

ii. Post-Planting Monitoring ............................................................................. 4

iii. Assessment of Survival Percentage .................................................... 4

iv. Assessment of Planting Process and Approach................................ 5

IV. FINDINGS OF MONITORING ...................................................................... 5

V. DISCUSSION................................................................................................... 7

i. Technical Aspect of the Project................................................................. 7

a. Estimated Survival Percentage ............................................................. 7

b. Plant Growth ............................................................................................... 8

c. Choice of Species and Planting Methodology ................................... 9

d. Area Planted.............................................................................................. 10

e. Container Plant Nursery ........................................................................ 10

ii. Planting Process and Approach............................................................... 12

a. Special Features of the Project ........................................................... 12

b. Inter-Organisational Collaboration .................................................... 13

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 14

Map I: Newly Planted Areas – Shah Bundar .......................................... 15

Map II: Newly Planted Areas – Keti Bundar ........................................... 16

Annexure I: Lists OF Randomly Selected Coordinates ....................... 17

Annexure II: Mangroves Monitoring Protocol for SCCDP ................... 18

Annexure III: Statistical Analysis .............................................................. 20

Annexure IV: Species Wise Survival and Area - Keti Bundar........... 22

Annexure V: Species Wise Survival and Area – Shah Bundar ......... 23

3

I. INTRODUCTION

The Sindh Coastal Community Development Project (SCCDP) is being implemented by the Sindh Coastal Development Authority (SCDA) in coastal areas of Thatta and Badin through government agencies (Sindh Forest Dept., Sindh Fisheries Department, and District Governments) and non-government organizations (NRSP and IUCN) with different roles and responsibilities assigned to each of them. The objectives of the project are:

i. Diversify household income generation options and access to service in ways sustainable to the fragile ecosystem

ii. Improve coastal zone management by stablilising environmental degradation, protecting coastal areas from accelerated erosion

iii. Strengthen institutional capabilities for coastal zone planning and development and management of fisheries resources

The complex nature of the project demands effective cooperation between organizations for successful implementation of the project in order to achieve the following outputs:

i. Sustainable community managed income generating mangrove stands, pond/raft fisheries, and shell fisheries established

ii. Transparent and accountable community driven mechanisms for identification, implementation and operations and maintenance of civil works and public services in place

Under the sub-component improved coastal management, IUCNP is tasked with the planning and implementation of community planting, management and environmental assessment of aquaculture in the coastal areas of the Thatta and Badin districts. IUCN Pakistan’s key roles in the ADB funded ‘Sindh Coastal Community Development Project are:

i. To implement the Community Mangrove Planting component of the project – 350 ha on community owned property

ii. To monitor and evaluate both the 350 ha area, and the planting of 3000 ha of mangrove by the Dept of Forestry on government owned land.

iii. To monitor environmental impacts of the aquaculture related activities to be undertaken as part of the project.

In the role of consultant IUCNP has been working very closely with NRSP and Sindh Forest and Fisheries departments for the implementation of SCCDP.

II. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF MONITORING

This monitoring report pertains to 1426.5 ha of newly planted mangrove areas in Shah Bundar (967.5) and Keti Bundar (459 ha) tackled by Coastal Forest Division (CFD) till September 2009. The objectives of this monitoring report are as follows:

4

i. Assess quantity and quality of mangrove rehabilitation work undertaken by CFD and report the same to Project Executing agency.

ii. Provide positive technical feedback to the CFD on deficiencies in implementation of the mangrove rehabilitation component.

iii. Enhance overall outcome of the mangrove rehabilitation sub-component.

III. METHODOLOGY

IUCN Pakistan has developed a monitoring framework for monitoring the process and approaches adopted in planting of 3000 ha by the Sindh Forest Department. The methodology used follows the guidelines and indicators identified in the monitoring framework. The monitoring approach involved several steps, as follows:

i. Pre-Planting Site Selection

The sites for mangrove plantation component were finalized by the ADB’s appraisal mission. These sites were reconfirmed and intensively visited by IUCN jointly with the staff of Coastal Forestry Division (CFD) of Sindh Forest Department in January 2009 to develop baseline GIS maps, which were shared with the Project Director, SCCDP and DFO-CFD, Karachi.

ii. Post-Planting Monitoring

Monitoring of mangrove areas is a daunting task in terms of their inter-tidal characteristics, remoteness which are subject to tidal phenomenon which limit access to these areas. Hence, the choice to access and monitor planted areas becomes subject to suitable tide and weather conditions. Nevertheless, the post planting monitoring by IUCN remained continue through out the period during which several joint visits of planted sites in Shah Bundar and Keti Bundar were carried out. These visits were carriedout during the various phases of implementation of mangrove component of the project by the Sindh Forest Department including site selection, area mapping and assessment of survival percentage in the planted areas. The purpose of these visits was to record GPS coordinates of planting sites for preparation of GIS maps of the planted areas and to ensure conformity of planted areas with the already identified sites. Further, the GIS maps were also used to assess the quantum of planted areas. The detailed post planting data collection was conducted from 26 to 30 October 2009 at both the sites by the two field teams constituted by IUCN Pakistan. During these visits, the staff of CFD accompanied the field teams. However, the post monitoring visits during June to August were delayed due to engagement of CFD staff in Guinness Book of World Record Event and rough weather conditions which prevailed during the Monsoon season.

iii. Assessment of Survival Percentage The assessment of survival percentage of mangrove planted areas is one of the important indicators identified in the monitoring framework. This assessment has helped in evaluating effectiveness of planting approach, choice of species, protection

5

measures, etc. adopted by CFD. It also provides a useful insight for subsequent corrective measures based on lessons learnt. In order to assess survival percentage of the mangrove planted areas, a Simple Random Sampling (SRS) approach was adopted. SRS is a widely used sampling approach to make inference about population from data collected through the independently selected samples. Using SRS, randomly selected geographic locations were identified within the planted sites at Shah Bundar and Keti Bundar. The randomization was undertaken for the extent of both East longitudinal and North latitudinal coordinates encompassing the entire planted areas. The random sample locations were identified using quick random calculator which is available at http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/randomn2.cfm. Based on this, 25 sampling locations were identified for data collection in each of the project sites (Keti Bundar and Shah Bundar) which were well distributed to represent the entire planted areas. The list of randomly selected coordinates is annexed (Annexure I). At each sampling location, four linear transacts, each of 100 m length, were laidout perpendicularly in all the four direction from the centre of plot. At each transact, total no of plants, no of surviving plants, no. of dead plants, type of species, height of plants, leaf count, etc. were recorded in the questionnaire (Annexure II) developed for the purpose. In addition, general topographical and biological conditions of the sampled locations were also recorded. The field collected data was compiled using Microsoft Excel Spread Sheets and analysed for their statistical significance. The data was analysed to calculate various statistical parameters including, mean, variance, standard deviation to estimate statistical significance of the sample data and make inference about the population. The significance of sample data was analysed by applying t-test statistic using 0.05% significance level (95% confidence). Based on this analysis conclusions were drawn about the mean plant survival at both the project sites. In all data was recorded from 88 randomly selected sample plots (transacts) on 22 locations within the project area at Keti Bundar and 64 sample plots on 17 locations within the project area at Shah Bundar. The missed out sample plots fell either inside the vegetated area/ water (Shah Bundar) or corridor allocated for camel herds (Keti Bundar).

iv. Assessment of Planting Process and Approach This was undertaken through physical verification of planted sites and discussion with the field staff. In addition, additional information related to planting approach, process and protection measures adopted to safeguard the planted areas was also recorded in the questionnaire through responses from the field staff of CFD. Besides, photographs were also taken to know ground position of at various locations.

IV. FINDINGS OF MONITORING It may be kept in mind that the monitoring is a continuous process, the data and findings in this report will keep evolving as the monitoring and evaluation process will remain continue through the project period. Therefore, the findings and analysis presented in this report pertain to the situation at the point in time when this monitoring was undertaken i.e. October 2009. This situation may vary during the subsequent monitoring of the same area. The summary of findings covering the various important parameters is shown as follows:

6

# Parameter Findings

i. Site Selection

The sites planted confirm with the sites identified by IUCN jointly with staff of CFD at both sites (Keti Bundar and Shah Bundar). At both the sites, sparse natural mangrove vegetation exists.

ii. Area Planted area

The planting has been done in the completely or partially blank mudflats and interspaces within the existing sparse natural vegetation of Avicennia marina at both the sites. Based on GIS maps, the net tackled area at Shah Bundar has been estimated to be approximately 946 ha against 967.5 ha claimed by CFD. Whereas, net tackled area of monitored block at Keti Bundar has been estimated as 439 ha against 459 claimed by CFD. The second block (61 ha) could not be monitored at Keti Bundar due to late sharing of information by CFD and will be covered in the subsequent monitoring visits.

iii. Choice of species

The species planted include mostly Rhizophora and Avicennia. Initially the area was planted with Rhizophora spp. as its propagules were available for planting during May and June. Later on, other areas have been planted with Avicennia sp including restocking of failure areas. Propagules of Rhizophora and wildlings of Avicennia species have been used for planting and restocking of failures respectively. The % survival of different species ranged from 60% to 80% at both sites. Good survival % of Rhizophora was observed in the areas surrounded by sparse natural vegetation of Avicennia.

iv. Planting Pattern The planting pattern involved linear-block fashion with overall 10’x10’ spacing between plants and rows. At a few places the prescribed spacing has not been maintained. At some places, the spacing was found to be ranging from 15’-20’ plant to plant and row to row. Whereas, in some areas a more close spacing of 6’-8’ was also observed between the plants and rows. However, in most of the areas the planting distance was found to be consistent with the spacing prescribed in the project document.

v. Survival Percentage

The estimated overall survival percentage estimated at Shah Bundar is 64% with a margin of error 3.79% at 0.05% significance level (95% confidence level). Whereas, the overall survival percentage estimated at Keti Bundar is 76% with a margin of error 1.6% at 0.05 significance level.

vi. Planting Process and Approach

Apparently, conventional approach has been adopted by CFD to undertake plantation activities. The community engagement in the process had been found restricted to involving the community members as labourers and chowkidars (watchers). The integration of partners’ roles in mangrove planting component is negligible. This appears a shift from the project approach which entails, community mobilization through NRSP, training by IUCN and SFD and subsequent engagement in plantation (Page 7 of PC-I).

vii. Adopted Protection In Shah Bundar, five members of regular staff of CFD are

7

Measures involved in protection of the planted areas. In addition, seven community members have been engaged as paid watchers to undertake regular patrolling of the area. In order to protect the area from camel grazing wire fencing has been done at potential camel crossings. The current protection measures were so far found effective as the previously grazed and stunted mangrove vegetation is showing signs of recovery. Natural recovery of such areas due to these protection measures may be considered as incremental benefits of the project interventions. At Keti Bundar, four members of regular forest staff and six watchers/chowkidars (on contractual basis) have been engaged for protection of the plantation. Besides, through negotiation with local Jat community a corridor has been left as passage for their camel movement to avoid damage to planted areas.

V. DISCUSSION Based on field visit, the following observations related to technical aspects and adopted planting approach have been recorded and are commented as follows. It is hoped that these comments would provide useful direction and guidance to the project executing agency and the staff of CFD for future interventions.

i. Technical Aspect of the Project

a. Estimated Survival Percentage

The statistical analysis of the field data has revealed that the mean survival % in the areas planted at Shah Bundar lies between 60% and 68% with a margin of error 3.8%. In other words, the mean population plant survival is 64% with a margin of error 3.8%. Whereas, the mean survival % at Keti Bundar was estimated to lie between 74.6% to 77.8% with a margin of error 1.6%. In other words, the mean population plant survival at Keti Bundar is 76% with a margin of error 1.6%. Moreover, at Shah Bandar, approximately 12% Rhizophora propagules were observed un-germinated. The seed appeared still alive but there is little chance that same may germinate. The detailed statistical analysis for Shah Bundar and Keti Bundar is shown as Annexure –III, IV & V. In terms of species, the estimated survival percentage at both the sites is shown in the Table I. Table I: Survival Percentage as per Species Composition

Average survival % # Species Keti Bundar Shah Bundar

1 Mixed Rhizophora + Avicennia

80% 78%

2 Rhizophora 80% 61% 3 Avicennia 61% 65% 4 Ceriops 60% N/A

8

The success percentage of Rhizophora has been found lower in blank open mudflats and at creek frontages, as compared to the areas covered with sparse natural vegetation of Avicennia which provided nursing cover to the Rhizohora propagules against flushing waves, algal mat and Barnacle attack. The higher survival percentage of Rhizophora, 80% and 78% respectively at Keti Bundar and Shah Bundar within the existing sparse vegetation of Avicennia is indicative of this fact. Hence, it is advised not plant Rhizophora in open mudflats to avoid failure. In open areas, direct seed sowing or wildlings of Avicennia may be preferred. Further, due to low freshwater inflow the salinity in the Indus Delta has increased resulting in the geophysical conditions that are more suitable for Avicennia which is more salinity tolerant than Rhizophora sp. This is one of the reasons why Avicennia sp. constitutes more than 95% species composition in the Indus Delta. Therefore, preference should be given to Avicennia in future planting within the Indus Delta.

Further, it is important to use knowledge and experience of local people including senior field staff of CFD in choice of species in a particular area. These people living for generations in these areas possess rich ecological knowledge which could be useful in better natural resource planning and management.

b. Plant Growth As far as plant growth is concerned, at Shah Bundar, good growth of Rhizophora was observed in the mudflats covered with sparse natural vegetation of Avicennia. The plant height varied from 15” to 25” at various places, with most plants attaining height of 17”-18” and leaf count of 6-8 leaves. On the other hand, the height of Avicennia plants ranged from 4”-9” and leaf count 4-10 leaves per plant at different locations, with most plants attaining height of 6” and leaf count of 6 leaves. Furthermore, the natural vegetation which has remained stunted due to previous overgrazing by camels was also found recovering at various places due to protection by the field staff. A continued protection of the planted areas would allow these grazed mangrove plants to grow vigorously.

Good Rhizophora growth in sparsely vegetated areas

at Shah Bundar (Oct 09)


at Shah Bundar (Sept 09)

9

At Keti Bundar, good plant growth was observed in mixed plantation of Avicennia and Rhizophora on the mudflats with sparse natural vegetation of Avicennia, Arthrocnemum and Aleuropus. The plant height of Rhizophora varied from 9” to 20” with most plants attaining height of 14”-16” inches. The leaf count varied from 2-10 leaves per plant. The average height of 4”-10” of Avicennia plants was observed with a leaf count ranging from 2-9 leaves per plant. The average height of 6-9” of Ceriops plants was observed with a leaf count ranging from 2-4 leaves per

plant. Based on size of plants it is concluded the planted sites were tackled newly during the foregoing planting season as has been revealed by plant height and number of leaves.

c. Choice of Species and Planting Methodology

Under the technical features of the project, ‘two main species of mangroves Avicennia and Rhizophora have to be planted in mixed and single species clusters and belts of 50 to 100 meters width, and at a density of approximately 1100 plants per ha’. However, the specific definition of “cluster” has not been prescribed in PC-I. Unless otherwise specified, the density of 1100 plants/ha prescribed in the PCI appears to reflect normal practice of raising mangrove plantation blocks at 10’x10’ spacing i.e. one plant per nine square meters. The field observations revealed that separate blocks of single species have been planted at both the sites. The Avicennia were planted by using the wildlings; whereas Rhizophora and Ceriops were sown through propagules directly. The restocking of failure areas was witnessed in Keti Bundar. It was observed that much focus has been given to Rhizophora sp. which is relatively easier to plant. Rhizophora constitutes 57% and 39% of the planted areas in Keti Bundar and Shah Bundar, respectively. A comparative species wise composition of planted area is shown in Table II. Table II: Species-wise Composition of Planted Sites

Keti Bundar Shah Bundar # Species Composition

(%)

Estimated Area (ha)

Composition (%)

Estimated Area (ha)

1 Mixed Rhizophora and Avicennia

21.6% 95 09% 85

2 Mixed Avicennia and Ceriops

02.3% 10 N/A N/A

3 Rhizophora 56.8% 249 39% 369 4 Avicennia 13.6% 60 52% 492 5 Ceriops 05.7% 25 N/A N/A Total 100% 439 100% 946


at Keti Bundar (Oct 09)

10

However, there has been very little mixed planting of mangrove species, except in the areas where assisted natural regeneration (ANR) has been carriedout in the blank interspaces within the existing mangrove vegetation. The CFD staff viewed that the seeds of different mangrove species becomes available at different times; hence, they opted planting of single species of which seed was available. Initially, Rhizophora spp. was planted whose seed was available from April to July. Later on, seed of Avicennia became available from July-Sept. Technically it may not be possible to carryout mix plantation over large area simultaneously during one season, as there is little overlapping time when the seed of different mangrove species is available simultaneously. In order to develop mixed plantations, it might be useful to inter-mix newly planted areas with other species during the ensuing season or restocking of failure plants through container plants. However, it is emphasized that wherever possible mixed plantation of mangrove species shall be preferred for better environmental benefits.

d. Area Planted

Based on maps prepared through GIS laboratory of Sindh Forest Department, the total area tackled in two blocks at Shah Bundar (Map 1) has been estimated as 1066 ha. However, approximately 120 ha area has been estimated to be under existing mangrove vegetation blank patches and water channels. Hence, the net tackled area at Shah Bundar has been estimated to be approximately 946 ha. At Keti Bundar, the total area tackled in two blocks has been estimated as 520 ha. of which the area of monitored block has been estimated as 459 ha (Map 2). The second block (61 ha) could not be monitored due to late sharing of information by CFD. It will be covered in the subsequent monitoring visits. Approximately, 20 ha area has been observed to be under existing vegetation, camel corridor, water channels, etc. within the monitored block. Hence, the net tackled area of monitored block has been estimated to be approx: 439 ha. However, a detailed GIS based assessment through a GIS expert may provide more accurate measurement of the tackled areas. Sindh Forest Department has a well established GIS facility in Hyderabad which could be involved in recording of GPS coordinates of newly planted areas, more accurate measurement of the area and preparation of GIS maps. It is therefore, recommended that use of GIS should be encouraged for accurate estimation of the tackled area. The GIS maps and GPS coordinates also provide a reference for subsequent monitoring and act as a reliable evidence to avoid duplication of sites under different development schemes.

e. Container Plant Nursery

CFD has established mangrove container plant nurseries of 150,000 plants each at Shah Bundar and Keti Bundar. Field monitoring of nurseries was carriedout at both sites during the months of July and October/November 2009. At Shah Bundar, as per stock register, the nursery was established in April 2009, as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Container Plant Stock Position at Shah Bundar Nursery

Month Species Opening Balance

New Raising

Consumption Closing Balance

April Rhizophora - 114285 - 114285 May -do- 114285 35715 - 150,000 June -do- 150,000 - - 150,000

11

July -do- 150,000 24500 125500 August -do- 91500 - 36000 91500 September -do- 91500 - 18500 73000 October -do- 73000 - 11000 62000 As against the above position, during monitoring visit, 24 beds of Rhizophora were observed in the nursery containing an estimated 76000 saplings of 9” height and leaf count of 08 leaves. In addition, approximately 5000 saplings of Ceriop and 2400 saplings of Avicennia were also observed which probably have been raised under other schemes.

From the review of stock register and physical verification, it seems that approximately 70,000 Rhizophora container plants were presently available in project nursery established at Shah Bundar. As per stock register and statements of field staff, 90,000 container plants had been consumed in planting/restocking. However, this position is contradictory to the physical verification, as container plants transplanted in the field could not be seen. Instead, direct planting of Rhizophora propagules and Avicennia wildlings was observed in

the field. Moreover, consumption of the most of nursery plants has been shown during July to September at the time when mangrove seed is still available naturally. Hence, technically it is not realistic to use nursery plants at the time when mangrove seed is available naturally, and it also defeats the purpose of establishing mangrove nursery. Conventionally, mangrove container plants are consumed at the time when natural seed is not available. Therefore, the position explained by nursery record and stated by the field staff is unconvincing and inconsistent technically and physically. At Keti Bundar, the mangrove nursery was visited during July and October. As per stock register, the nursery was established in April 2009, as shown in Table 4. Table 4: Container Plant Stock Position at Keti Bundar Nursery

Month Species Opening Balance

New Raising

Consumption Closing Balance

April Rhizophora - 114285 - 114285 May -do- 114285 35715 - 150,000 June -do- 150,000 - - 150,000 July -do- 150,000 22500 127500 August -do- 127500 - 38000 89500 September -do- 89500 - 19500 70000 October -do- 70000 - 10000 60000

Rhizophora Nursery at Shah Bundar (Nov‘09)

12

During the field visit, it was observed that SCCDP nursery was established at the same site where another nursery was established probably under a different scheme. In all 55 beds containing approximately 85,000 Rhizophora propagules were found in SCCDP nursery during visit in July 2009 with most propagules still un-germinated. However, as stated by RFO Keti Bundar and revealed by stock register 90,000 saplings had been consumed in planting/ restocking during July-Oct 2009. The field experience has shown that Rhizophora propagules take 35-45 days to germinate. If 150,000 propagules were raised in April/May then most of them should have been germinated by July 2009 when the first monitoring visit of nursery was carriedout by IUCN. Contrary to this most propagules were observed un-germinated in July 2009. Hence, nursery stock consumption shown in Table 4 appears unconvincing. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to start consuming nursery stock

within three months of raising and that too during the time when the mangrove seed of some species is available naturally. This defeats the purpose of establishing a mangrove nursery. Further, the quantum of container plant consumption reflected in the stock register could not be observed in the field, as mostly direct planting of propagules was observed in the field. However, some restocking through container plants was observed during monitoring visits in October 2009.

ii. Planting Process and Approach

a. Special Features of the Project During project monitoring, it was felt that the implementation of mangrove planting component was being done on conventional approach. CFD has attempted this task in isolation without seeking advice from IUCN Pakistan or NRSP regarding choice of species, planting methodology, community engagement or training, etc. As such, less attention has been paid to the community engagement as has been entailed in the special features of project (page 13 of PC-1) which places local communities at the centre of project activities. For this purpose, NRSP has been assigned key role in mobilization and organization of communities to be engaged in the project activities. The same is true for mangrove component, where local communities have to be orgnaised, trained and linked to the CFD for sustainable management of mangrove resources as per project result framework. However, this linkage between community and CFD appears weak. The role of NRSP at both sites was not visible in

Rhizophora Nursery at Keti Bundar (Jul 2009)

Rhizophora Nursery at Keti Bundar (Oct 2009)

13

strengthening this linkage. This aspect needs to be strengthened to encourage relevant partners’ engagement in the process and approaches adopted by CFD for better project outcomes. So far, in Keti Bundar, the community currently engaged is Faqirani Jats belonging to Keti Bundar area. The field staff reported that allowing a corridor to the camel herds the CFD in return enjoys the community-based protection of their plantations. Another engagement of the community in plantation exercise is in terms of hiring them as laborers in field activities. In Shah Bundar area, the nearest village exists at a distance of approximately 10 Kms from the planting site and the dependence of mangrove for fuelwood seems negligible. The most evident threat to mangroves (at Keti Bundar as well) is from camel grazing which is very much evident in the form of previously grazed plantation areas near the newly planted site. Through regular presence of CFD staff in the area and support of local influential the camel grazing pressure seems to have shifted somewhere else. This has provided an opportunity for the newly planted areas to survive and the grazed mangrove vegetation to recover. However, camel grazing would continue to remain a serious threat to these areas beyond the project life. The sustainability of planted areas beyond the project life would be subject to provision of regular funds for protection of the tackled areas as recurring expenditure, unless local communities are mobilized to take responsibilities of sustaining mangrove plantations.

b. Inter-Organisational Collaboration

As per project design, IUCN has been assigned role of continuous monitoring of mangrove component throughout the project life. This role could only be effectively discharged if both CFD and IUCN work closely in mangrove component implementation. The independent third-party monitoring by IUCN is a noval approach of the project and should be understood in a positive context rather than perceiving it as “policing” of CFD. In fact, the purpose of monitoring is to ensure path correction and provide positive and timely feedback to CFD and project executing agency in order to maximize outcome of project interventions. However, there is a need to improve exchange of information by CFD for timely and effective monitoring and feedback. At present, there seems little integration of partners’ roles towards the achievement of project objectives. This aspect needs to be strategized for a collaborative engagement of various partners in future project interventions. For instance, during the last planting season CFD neither shared progress reports with IUCN regularly nor kept IUCN informed of the field activities. The information on newly planted areas was shared with IUCN only one time (June 2009). Hence, it is not possible for IUCN Pakistan to provide required technical advise if the information sharing by CFD is inadequate and irregular. Therefore, it is important that the information on future new planting by CFD is shared with IUCN Pakistan at the start so that the field staff of IUCN is kept regularly involved in the new planting activities and a timely feedback is provided to the CFD. Such a strategy will also help in cross-fertilisation of ideas and experiences between IUCN and CFD. Similarly, it is recommended that CFD shall closely liaise with NRSP for initiating community mobilization and capacity-building before undertaking actual planting activities so that local communities may be made integral part of planning and sustainable management of coastal mangrove resources, as per project design and objectives. In order to achieve this, it is imperative that the project executing agency shall encourage partners’ collaboration and active community engagement in the planting process for sustainability of mangrove plantations.

14

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall conclusion is that CFD has attempted the target assigned to them for the first year with overall satisfactory success. Rhizophora has been the preferred species at both the sites for the apparent reasons of being easier to plant but, planting it without considering the suitable site conditions seems to be the most obvious reason of its failure in many areas. It is therefore recommended that Rhizophora should only be planted as in-fills in areas surrounded by natural vegetation of Avicennia or in the areas occupied by Aleuropus grass. The observed percentage of success is approximately 60-68% at Shah Bundar and 74-78% at Keti Bundar. In mangrove areas, the success percentage beyond 60% may be considered as reasonably good success. However, the most important challenge is to sustain new plantations over the period of time. This could be better ensured if local communities are mobilized and actively engaged in sustaining the planted areas. If protection is ensured through the project life, the natural regeneration within the planted areas would enhance present density of the planted sites. Recommendations for follow-up:

The areas for next years target should be jointly selected with IUCN, mapped and GPS coordinates recorded.

Regular and timely information exchange on field activities (such as, planting targets, progress reports, area maps/sketches, GPS coordinates, etc.) between CFD and IUCN needs to be ensured. Use of GIS facilities of SFD may be encouraged for accurate estimation of tackled areas.

Avicennia being more salinity tolerant mangrove species in the Indus Delta shall be preferred in planting activities. Its seed is available in large quantities during planting season and gives good results.

Community engagement should be made central in future planting activities through the support from NRSP. It is recommended that CFD shall closely liaise with NRSP for initiating community mobilization and capacity-building before undertaking actual planting activities.

Rhizophora planting in blank and open mudflats should be avoided. It should be planted in areas surrounded by sparse natural vegetation of Avicennia or in the areas covered with Aleuropus grass.

Mangrove nurseries shall be established and utilized realistically. Ideally, separate sites shall be selected for establishment of nurseries for different schemes to avoid duplication.

Monitoring is a continuous process that would remain continuous through the project life. This needs to be appreciated at all the levels.


Map I: Newly Planted Areas – Shah Bundar

Net Planted Area (946 ha)

16

Map II: Newly Planted Areas – Keti Bundar

Monitored Block (459 ha) Net Planted Area = 439 ha


Annexure I: Lists OF Randomly Selected Coordinates

Based on http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/randomn2.cfm

Shah Bundar Keti Bundar North Latitude (Extent 240 03’ 40” to 240 05’ 40”) East longitude (Extent 680 01’ 30” to 680 03’ 50”)

North Latitude (Extent 240 08’ 58” to 240 10’ 23”) East longitude (Extent 670 25’ 22” to 670 27’ 14”)

# North Latitude East Logitude North Latitude East Longitude

1 24 05 34 68 03 32 24 09 25 67 26 78 2 24 04 36 68 02 55 24 09 73 67 26 05 3 24 05 27 68 02 34 24 09 49 67 25 58 4 24 05 15 68 03 36 24 09 11 67 26 44 5 24 05 01 68 02 36 24 09 87 67 26 83 6 24 04 32 68 02 52 24 09 67 67 26 56 7 24 04 34 68 02 18 24 09 61 67 26 88 8 24 04 58 68 03 20 24 09 91 67 25 57 9 24 05 20 68 03 26 24 10 40 67 26 47

10 24 04 35 68 03 08 24 09 33 67 26 59 11 24 05 18 68 02 06 24 09 38 67 26 58 12 24 05 28 68 02 09 24 09 40 67 26 68 13 24 04 51 68 02 48 24 09 51 67 26 73 14 24 04 22 68 02 38 24 09 59 67 25 31 15 24 05 35 68 02 45 24 09 88 67 25 45 16 24 04 46 68 03 02 24 09 53 67 26 13 17 24 04 34 68 02 42 24 09 16 67 26 33 18 24 04 48 68 02 40 24 09 77 67 25 50 19 24 05 19 68 02 46 24 09 83 67 25 39 20 24 04 17 68 03 10 24 09 24 67 25 25 21 24 05 11 68 02 25 24 10 10 67 25 49 22 24 05 02 68 03 46 24 09 73 67 26 07 23 24 04 13 68 03 30 24 10 02 67 26 50 24 24 04 23 68 02 08 24 10 01 67 25 57 25 24 05 07 68 02 16 24 09 58 67 27 10

18

Annexure II: Mangroves Monitoring Protocol for SCCDP Site:…………………………… Creek/Island………………………………….. Area (ha) / No of Plants Planted

Q1: When the area was planted? (month and year

Method Area (ha) No of plants

Direct sowing

Nursery plants

Wildlings

Q2: What area/No of plants have been planted and method of planting?

Other

Species Area (ha) No of plants

Avicennia marina

Rhizophora sp.

Ceriops sp.

Q3: Which species have been planted (Area/No)?

Mixed

Q4: What method was used to estimate the area or No of plants/seeds planted? Get explanation from the field staff/RFO?

Q5: Has FD produced any GIS maps or sketches of the planted areas? If yes, collect copies of such maps/sketches from RFO/DFO.

Community Engagement Model Identified And Under Implementation

Q1: Which communities were involved in the planting activities? Indicate name of villages involved

Q2: In which way communities were engaged in planting activities?

Q3: Whether community was identified and mobilized by NRSP?

Q4: How many COs have been formed by NRSP in the area?

Q5: Has this information been shared by NRSP? If yes, when (check the month in which it was shared)

Q6: Was the community involved imparted field training or not?

Post planting operations/care

Month Area / No of plants Species Method

Q1: Has any restocking been undertaken after planting?

19

Forest Dept. (No of staff) Q2: How the planted area is being protected? Who is protecting? Community (No of community

members engaged)

Q3: What other measures have been taken for protection of the planted areas? explain.

Official Frequency

RFO

DFO

Q4. What is frequency of supervision visits?

Others

Q5: Any other additional information / explanation?

Mangrove Nursery Month of establishment

Species No of saplings originally sown

No of saplings transplanted

Balance in nursery

Avicennia

Rhizophora

Ceriops

Stock Position (As per stock register)

Aegicerus

Stock Assessment (field assessment) Species No of Beds: No of saplings per bed:

Estimate stock

Avicennia

Rhizophora

Ceriops

Aegicerus

Sites Selection

Q1: Does the planted site confirm with the sites identified by IUCN? If no, what is the explanation for variation/change in site? Get explanation from RFO/DFO

20

Annexure III: Statistical Analysis

Shah Bundar: The sample variance and standard deviation could be calculated using the following formula: Sample Variance = Sum (∑) of squired deviations from mean divided by degree of freedom, is given by:

Where X is sample value, and x is sample mean, n-1 is degree of freedom. Sample variance (S2) for living plants could be calculated as follows:

S2 = 1575 (from Excel sheet) 63 S2 = 25

Sample Standard Deviation (S) is squire root of variance. Therefore, sample standard deviation (S) for living plants would be:

S= 25 = 5

SE(surviving plants) = 5

64 SE = 0.625 The confidence interval for the population mean constructed at 0.05 significance level gives the following range of mean population survival:

t > α/2, n-1 = t.025,63 ≈ t.025,60 = 2.000 (from t-table) Therefore: 5

21.17 2.000 64 = 21.17 2.000 X 0.625 = 21.17 1.25

Hence, we are 95% confident that the mean population survival % ( ) in all transacts lies between 19.92 plants (60%) and 22.42 plants (68%). In other words, the mean population plant survival is 21.17 (64%) with a margin of error 1.25 (3.79%).

Standard Error = = Standard Deviation (S) n

21

Keti Bundar: The sample variance and standard deviation could be calculated using the following formula: Sample Variance = Sum (∑) of squired deviations from mean divided by degree of freedom, is given by:

Where X is sample value, and x is sample mean, n-1 is degree of freedom. Sample variance (S2) for living plants could be calculated as follows:

S2 = 557.43 (from Excel sheet) 87 S2 = 6.41

Sample Standard Deviation (S) is squire root of variance. Therefore, sample standard deviation (S) for living plants would be:

S= 41.6 = 2.532

SE (surviving plants) = 2.532

88 SE = 0.27 The confidence interval for the population mean constructed at 0.05 significance level gives the following range of mean population survival:

t > α/2, n-1 = t.025,87 ≈ t.025,80 = 1.990 (from t-table) 2.532

Therefore: 25.15 1.990 88

= 25.15 1.990 X 0.27 = 25.15 0.54

Hence, we are 95% confident that the mean population survival % ( ) in all transacts lies between 24.61 plants (74.6%) and 25.69 plants (77.8%). In other words, the mean population plant survival is 25.15 (76%) with a margin of error 0.54 (1.6%).

Standard Error =

22

Annexure IV: Species Wise Survival and Area - Keti Bundar Species *No of

samples (n)

*Sample Mean ( x )

*Variance *St. Deviation (S)

Std Error

Surviving Plants

Mixed Rhizo + Avicennia

19 26.58 1.578 1.256 0.288 = 1.256 4.3589

Rhizophora 50 26.60 3.758 1.8921 0.267 = 1.892 7.071

Avicennia 12 20.33 10.712 3.273 0.945 = 3.273 3.464

Ceriops 5 19.80 2.0825 1.443 0.645 = 1.443 2.236

* From Excel Data Sheet Species No of

samples (n)

t > α/2, n-1 = t.025,n-1 (t-table)

Conf Interval for population Mean

Interpretation of CI for population mean @ 0.05 significance level (95% Confidence)

Surviving Plants

Mean survival lies between

Mixed Rhizo + Avicennia

19 2.101 26.58 2.101 1.256

19 = 26.58 0.605

25.95 and 27.19 (79% to 82%)

Rhizophora 50 ≈ 2.000 26.60 2.000 1.8921

50 = 26.60 0.534

26.07 and 27.13 (79% to 82%)

Avicennia 12 2. 201 20.33 2.201 3.273

12 = 20.33 2.08

18.25 and 22.41 (55% to 68%)

Ceriops 5 2.776 19.80 2.776 1.443

5 = 19.80 1.791

18.0 and 21.59 (54% to 65%)

Area under New Plantation: Species-wise Composition # Species No of Sample

plots %

composition

Estimated Area (ha)

1 Mixed Rhizophora and Avicennia

19 21.6% 95

2 Mixed Avicennia and Ceriops

02 02.3% 10

3 Rhizophora 50 56.8% 249 4 Avicennia 12 13.6% 60 5 Ceriops 05 05.7% 25 Total 88 100% 439

23

Annexure V: Species Wise Survival and Area – Shah Bundar Species *No of

samples (n)

*Sample Mean ( x )

*Variance *St. Deviation (S)

Std Error

Surviving Plants

Rhizophora 24.75 20.283 50.27 7.090 1.425 = 7.090 4.975

Avicennia 33 21.394 20.807 4.561 0.794 = 4.561 5.745

Mixed Avicennia + Rhizophora

5.75

25.913 3.300 1.817 0.758 = 1.817 2.398

* From Excel Data Sheet Species No of

samples (n)

t > α/2, n-1 = t.025,n-1 (t-table)

Conf Interval for population Mean

Interpretation of CI for population mean @ 0.05 significance level (95% Confidence)

Surviving Plants

Mean survival lies between

Rhizophora 24.75 2.064 20.283 2.064 7.090

75.24 = 20.283 2.941

17.34 and 23.22 (52% to 70%)

Avicennia 33 ≈ 2.042 21.394 2.042 4.561

33 = 21.394 1.621

19.77 and 23.01 (60% to 69.7%)

Mixed Avicennia + Rhizophora

5.75

2. 571 25.913 2. 571 1.817

75.5 = 25.913 1.948

23.97 and 27.86 (72.6% to 84%)

Area under New Plantation: Species-wise Composition

# Species No of Sample plots

% composition

Estimated Area (ha)

1 Rhizophora 24.75 39% 369 2 Avicennia 33.00 52% 492 3 Mixed Avicennia +

Rhizophora 05.75

09% 85

Total 63.5 100% 946

environmental monitoring report...environmental monitoring report ist annual report december 2009...

Documents