View the complete CCRN’s Japan Community Story as a PDF

Mitsutaku Makino, Fisheries Research Agency of Japan; mmakino@affrc.go.jp

Key Messages

• Japan’s diverse climate produces a wide range of marine ecosystem types.
• Increasing urbanization throughout Japan has resulted in widespread conservation efforts of resources to protect lifestyle and traditional culture.
• Differences of the local culture dynamics can be linked to coastal ecosystem changes.

Community Introduction

Japan is an island country comprised of 4 large islands and thousands of smaller islands which stretch from Russia to the north and Taiwan and the Philippines to the South. Located at the middle latitudes in the northwestern Pacific, Japan is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the east and the Sea of Japan to the west. Due to the ocean currents and climate conditions, Japan has wide-ranging marine ecosystems from sub-arctic to tropical (Figure 1).

Figure 1: study sites

With a population of approximately 127 million(1), land and resources are of high value and protecting these areas are of high priority. Although known for its urban development, Japan is home to many coastal, rural communities which rely on primary resource production for their livelihoods.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Abashiri coast is sub-arctic, salt-water lake on the northern coast of the northern island of Hokkaido. Distant from big cities, it has a small population and relies heavily on large fisheries production. Due to the amount of fishing that takes place, sea grass and sand beach conservation is a top priority for the Abashiri community (Figure 2).

Figure 2: sea grass bed in Abashiri community

Tokyo-bay is a temperate, enclosed bay located in Tokyo, on the largest island of Honshu. This area is highly industrialized with a huge nearby population. Especially over the last 60 years, urban development has increased as new residents move into the area, putting further strain on the already at-risk resources. As a result, locals have taken action in order to protect and restore the sea grass beds and their traditional seafood culture (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Tokyo Bay

Hiroshima suburb is a temperate, inland sea located in the Hiroshima prefecture on the western side of the largest island, Honshu. Distant from big cities and with a decreasing population, sea grass bed conservation (Figure 4) is very important to the traditional sea grass culture that is vanishing in the region.

Figure 4: Hiroshima Suburb

Ishigaki Island is a tropical lagoon. It is a remote island southwest of the 4 main island located close to Taiwan. Coral reefs and sea grasses are at risk due to an increasing population and a fast growing tourism industry (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Ishikagi coral reef

Shiretoko is a sub-arctic ecosystem located in the most northeastern part of the northern island of Hokkaido. Recently gaining status as a World Heritage Site, locals are concerned with how the management and conservation of this site impacts their traditional fishing lifestyle (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Shiretoko fishing community

Community Initiative

The coastal ecosystem conservation activities conducted by the local communities are part of a comparative analysis study that explores and discusses the differences of the SES conditions that each community experiences, and their influence to the nature of community conservation. The comparative study seeks to:
1) Develop integrated diagrams of coastal ecosystem functions, services, uses, and stakeholders, by collaboration with local officers and local ecosystem researchers in the different sites (Figure 7).

2) Conduct stakeholder interviews asking their interests, activities, concerns, conflicts, etc., and develop Stakeholder Tables. Also, important statistics relating to the above stakeholders are collected.

Figure 7: summary of the ecosystem functions, ecosystem service uses and stakeholders (case of Abashiri)

3) Based on above, conduct a comparative analysis among the sites, with special emphasis on the governance, meanings and motivations in each site.

Practical Outcomes

Meanings and motivations for conservation are dependent on the local culture for the ecosystem service uses. In other words, the meanings and motivations are reflecting the local way of living in harmony with t      he coastal ecosystems.

• In Abashiri, local people have a strong fisheries-oriented culture, and the culture is still at the very core of the local motivations and meanings for conservation.
• In Hiroshima, seagrass is deeply linked to the local traditional lifestyle, but the community itself is diminishing now.
• In Ishigaki, the traditional coral reef culture is surviving, but the population and the tourism industry is growing very fast.
• In Tokyo, the traditional lifestyle was almost totally destroyed, but local people (mainly the new residents) are very proud of the local seafood culture.
• In Shiretoko, engaging in consistent interactions and incorporating local-ecological knowledge provided some successes between management authorities and local communities.

We found that such differences in local culture dynamics can be linked to coastal ecosystem changes. In Tokyo bay, the coastal ecosystem was almost totally destroyed, and the objective of the conservation was the revival of traditional lifestyle and culture. In Abashiri, on the opposite case, the coastal ecosystem has remained relatively unchanged, and their only objective/motivation is resource sustainability and productivity.

The comparative analyses shows that with higher biodiversity, we will have more diverse use-types and stakeholders, more conflicts, so more public initiatives are important for community conservation activities. Also, the dynamics of ecosystem and cultural changes are synchronized, and the meanings/motivations for local conservation activities are linked to those dynamics.

These relationships among the social system conditions, ecological system conditions, and the nature of the community conservation activities, should be properly incorporated when designing the conservation activities in specific areas. There is no one-fit-all approach when it comes to conservation

References

1. World Bank. 2013. Japan. From http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&country=JPN&series=&period

Acknowledgements

This research is being carried out with the aid of a Doctoral Research Award from the Canadian International Development Research Centre, a doctoral award from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, a SSHRC grant held by Dr. Derek Armitage as part of a Coastal-Marine Transformation Project, and support from the SSHRC-funded Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN).

See below for the Japanese language abstract for this community story, “網走、知床、東京湾、広島、石垣、日本：沿岸生態系の保全を実践ファイブコミュニティ.”

View the complete CCRN’s Chilika Lagoon Community Story as a PDF

Prateep Kumar Nayak

Key Messages

• Fisher communities in the Chilika Lagoon should be an integral part of policy creation for lagoon governance.
• Current community based institutions can be reviewed and re-engaged in the management of capture fishery in order to strengthen fishery-based community livelihoods and food security.
• In Chilika Lagoon, the majority of outmigration is temporary or seasonal in the nature, which makes it possible for migrating fishers to reoccupy their customary fishing spaces if aquaculture is vacated.

Community Profile 

Connected to the Bay of Bengal in the south, with the Eastern Ghats Mountain ranges forming most of its catchment on the north and the west, Chilika Lagoon is a Ramsar Site of international conservation importance and a biodiversity hotspot (Figure 1).

Rare, vulnerable, and endangered species inhabit the lagoon. It is the largest wintering ground for migratory waterfowl found anywhere on the Indian subcontinent and home to Irrawaddy dolphins and the Barkudia limbless skink.   The total number of fish species is reported to be more than 225. Along with a variety of phytoplankton, algae, and aquatic plants, the lagoon region also supports over 350 species of non aquatic plants. A survey carried out by the Zoological Survey of India in 1985-87 recorded over 800 species of fauna. This represents a solid ecological foundation to the lagoon’s small-scale fisheries system.

The Chilika community

Conservation and livelihood challenges

Due to large-scale forest and land degradation, subsistence based on agriculture and forestry is on the decline. Consequently, a number of non-fisher caste members have now turned to aquaculture, and in some cases regular capture fishing, as a growing source of income.

Figure 2: Chilika Aquaculture.

Conservation consequences

• Disturbance of the salinity regime and the fresh water/saltwater balance.
• Random changes in water depth.
• Increase in sand deposits, especially in the lagoon’s outer channel areas near the new sea mouth.
• Changes in the nature of the water inflow and outflow during high and low tides.
• Infestation of barnacles affecting both fishers and their equipment.
• Sudden appearance of what local people call sea creatures, such as the stingray, octopus and jelly fish.

Social and livelihood consequences 

• Fish production reached an all-time low, and the small-scale fisher economy, efficiently run by caste-based fishers and their organisations for centuries, began to collapse.
• Household incomes dropped as a result of the decline in fish production, contributing to the loss of fishery-based livelihoods.
• Local subsistence and household economies came under stress, severe food insecurity in fisher communities became evident, increasing fishers’ dependence on staggering amounts of cash loans with interest rates of 60-120% per annum.
• More than one-third of adult fishers and their families were occupationally displaced from fishing and either migrated to urban centers as unskilled workers or took up daily wage labor.
• Elite capture of customary fishing areas through encroachment acted as a vehicle for the growth of aquaculture in Chilika. Influential people took control of the lagoon resulting in serious issues around fishers’ access rights and entitlements.

Community Initiatives

Fishers use a well-known metaphor which best explains the level of their response to these challenges and initiatives: “For the poor, when hunger becomes unbearable, movement and protest becomes our last resort.” This suggests that social and political struggles and movements are the ultimate options for the fishers when social, economic, political and environmental problems become rampant. Fishers realise that when everything seems to be going against them and nothing really works in their favour, coming together to protest the acts of the external forces becomes an obligation.

Figure 3: Chilika fisher protest movement.

Practical Outcomes

A series of specific proposals arose from community meetings, including:

• Fishers expressed their desire for priority to be given to community level institutions, while also recognising that other institutions at multiple levels can work together with local institutions.
• Communities feel that the dominance of higher-level government institutions can be minimised and bottom-level institutions, who often do not get an opportunity to participate in fishery related decision-making, should gain some much-required political space and voice.
• The fishers also noted the need to revise some of the earlier institutions that have been dissolved by the government, such as the Central Fishermen Cooperative Marketing Society, or those that have become dysfunctional such as the Primary Fishermen Cooperative Societies at the village level.

Figure 4: Fisher presentation at a policy workshop.

References

1. Nayak, P. K. and F. Berkes. 2010. ‘Whose marginalisation? Politics around environmental injustices in India’s Chilika Lagoon’. Local Environment 15(6): 553–567. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2010.487527

Additional Reading on Chilika Lagoon

Acknowledgements

See below for the Odia language abstract for this community story.

View the complete CCRN’s Koh Pitak Community Story as a PDF

Phil Deardena and Dachanee Emphandhuba

Key Messages

• Conservation initiatives such as habitat creation and fishing restrictions have improved the biodiversity around Koh Pitak Island.

• Establishing a community-based tourism industry enabled further development of lower-consumptive activities to support island livelihoods and reduce dependence on marine resources.

• Community conservation on Koh Pitak Island was successful due to leadership, social capital, distributional equity, tourist attractions, media interest, village culture, support network, and timing.

Community Profile

Koh Pitak is an island ecosystem located approximately one km off the coast of Chumporn Province in the Gulf of Thailand in Bang Num Jeud Sub-District, Luang Suan District. The area of the small, relatively steep island is 113.92 ha, about one-half consisting of natural vegetation and the rest mainly coconut plantation or housing. The island is inhabited by about 45 related households, the majority of whom are Buddhist. Koh Pitak was established over a hundred years ago by fishers who took shelter along its coasts. The abundant sea resources surrounding the island allowed the community to flourish⁽¹⁾.

Figure 1. Map of Koh Pitak Island

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

The marine environment around Koh Pitak Island was formerly very productive and diverse but suffered rapid declines around 20 years ago due to over-fishing and pollution. The decline in marine resources led the island community heavily into debt – a situation faced by many Thai fishing communities during this period⁽¹⁾. Senior levels of government were unresponsive to the plight of the community.

Community Initiatives

Conservation was seen at Koh Pitak as being an essential element of livelihood recovery. The community, under charismatic leadership, recognized that they themselves were partially to blame for the environmental degradation that had occurred and designed initiatives to reverse this trend. Some of these initiatives included⁽¹⁾:

• Establishing a community-based tourism industry that enabled further development of lower-consumptive activities to support island livelihoods and reduce dependence on marine resources.

• Creating an artificial reef which enhanced marine biodiversity and provided supplemental income for fishers.

• Protecting marine resources through seasonal closures, zoning and the use of grow nets.

• Designating a local no-take zone where villagers seed giant clams; this site has become popular for dive and snorkel tourism.

• Restoring mangrove populations along Koh Pitak’s shoreline.

• Improving waste disposal through the use of micro-organisms that rapidly digest organic waste. The treated wastewater from this system is then used to develop and water home gardens. These gardens have become a popular tourist attraction, where the village teaches visitors how to create such gardens.

• Initiated a study to understand the tourism carrying capacity of Koh Pitak by monitoring water quality, waste and the quality of visitor experience.

Figure 2: Mangroves replanted by the community

“I want it to be like it was 30 years ago, with the seas full of fish…” – Headman of Koh Pitak regarding their main goal for conservation

Figure 3: Interview with two of the main exponents of the “garden culture” of the Island

Influencing Marine Policies

As for all other coastal communities in Thailand, Koh Pitak is ostensibly governed by the same fisheries laws, rules and regulations of the country. However, through their own initiative, the community has managed to create unprecedented flexibility in this respect that is of national importance. One example is the stewardship of a local island, Koh Kram, about 1 km further offshore Koh Pitak.

Koh Kram has the best remaining biodiversity in the area and is part of a larger national park, Mu Koh Chumporn. Nevertheless, the administration of Mu Koh Chumporn has allowed the villagers to have stewardship over the island who, in turn, have developed a no-take fishing zone and oversee a reseeding and enhancement of giant clams in the area. They are allowed to enter and leave as they wish and take tourists there. This kind of practical relationship between the Thai National Parks Department and local communities is very rare.

Another important example is the current revision of the Thai National Fisheries Law to recognise the abilities of communities, such as Koh Pitak to manage their own fisheries. Although Koh Pitak figures prominently, it is not the only fishing community to be recognised in this area. Interestingly, the community has elected to have a smaller ocean area than permitted under the proposed bill, due to a practical recognition of their own limitations in patrolling a larger area.

Figure 4: View of fishing boat from Koh Pitak Island

Practical Outcomes

The success observed on Koh Pitak Island can be attributed to several factors:

Leadership – A charismatic, far seeing and powerful village leader was critical to the transformations.

Community social capital – The community has very high social capital and unity due to their inter-relatedness and common history.

Distributional equity – Activities are undertaken by groups; a proportion of all income is returned to the community fund with full transparency.

Tourist attractions – Koh Pitak does not offer the coastal tourism attractions typically associated with Thailand, such as long, white sand beaches and azure blue seas. Had it done so it is quite likely that it might have already been consumed by mass tourism. The attractions are more suited to the kind of community-based tourism that has developed there.

Media interest – There has been significant media interest in the transformation of the village, providing ample free marketing for tourism.

Village culture – The village enjoys a slow pace of life that is well suited to low-key tourism development.

Support network – The village enjoyed an extensive support network ranging from government agencies, institutions (such as universities) and other villages developing community-based initiatives.

Timing – The conservation and tourism initiatives coincided with the growing popularity of the Thai King’s “Self Sufficiency” philosophy which promotes small, local, low-impact development and living a moderate, self-dependent life without greed or overexploitation of, for example, natural resources.

Figure 5: A homestay extended out over the water

“For me […] conservation cannot be done by only one person, or by one community. It must have collaboration among communities and organizations that we call it “our conservation network”. It is a network of conservation in many aspects: giving ideas, supporting each other, and working together. Conservation is not only at our homeland but covers from mountain to the sea. This conservation network is like a jigsaw that missing one piece can bring a whole mission down.” – Koh Pitak village head concerning his thoughts on conservation

References

We thank S. Songpornwanich and A. Ruksapol for their ongoing work with the villagers and for granting access to their field work results.

See below for the Thai language abstract for this community story, “เกาะพิทักษ์, ประเทศไทย การฟื้นฟูวิถีชีวิตและทรัพยากรทางทะเลโดยการอนุรักษ์ของชุมชน”

A video report on the inhabitants of the scenic Koh Pitak island and their efforts to manage local ecotourism

View the complete CCRN’s Odisha Community Story as a PDF

Alex Zachariah-Chaligne,University of Manitoba; alexvzach@icloud.com

Key Messages   

• The Samudram Women’s Federation (SWF) monitors and protects the endangered olive ridley turtles through habitat restoration, artificial reef construction and sustainable fishing practices.

• The SWF is reducing the region’s poverty through income diversification, a financial literacy program and distributing low cost infrastructure and fishing equipment.

• The SWF is empowering woman through education, capacity building, training and networking.

Community Introduction

Odisha’s (Orissa) 482 km coastline has been blessed with abundant marine resources which support 38,000 small-scale fishers (Figure 1). The beaches in Odisha are largely sandy and are well known as “Arribada” beaches (Figure 2), where thousands of olive ridley sea turtles come every year to nest(1).

Figure 1: Map showing Odisha and the study area.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Due to a number of factors, Odisha is one of the poorest states in India. The depletion of marine resources, annual cyclones and poverty cycles have forced many fishers to rely on illegal moneylenders and local traders, resulting in further indebtedness.

Figure 2: Mass nesting (arribada) of olive ridley turtles on the Odisha Coast, India.

Fishers are poor, marginalized and exploited by people from so-called “upper castes” who provide credit and charge high interest rates, typically close to 100% per annum(2). An additional challenge faced by the region’s fishers is government imposed fishing bans and restrictions which occur between February and May each year. The purpose of these bans is to protect the endangered olive ridley turtle during the peak nesting season. However, these actions inadvertently limit the earning capacity of small-scale fishing communities.

Community Initiative

The Samudram Women’s Federation (SWF) began in 1993 with 250 female members, as a response to conservation and livelihood challenges faced by the small-scale fishers. The SWF now has more than 5,800 members in 160 groups spread over 50 villages along the coast of Odisha. It is both a state level federation of women fish workers and a social enterprise. A key factor to its success, as recognized by the United Nations (2010 Equator prize), has been its joint focus on biodiversity conservation and community enterprise for poverty reduction. “Conservation is multidimensional and holistic, encompassing species, humans, environment and the whole biosphere” – Samudram’s view on Biodiversity Conservation.

The SWF fosters a holistic approach to conservation that is sensitive to local livelihoods and strives to achieve a balance between ecological conservation and social/economic goals. The presence of many complementary factors – economic, environmental, social and cultural – enables the Odisha fishing community to take up conservation and environmental stewardship.

Income Diversification

The SWF forms beach patrol groups with government conservation guards to monitor and protect olive ridley turtles during peak nesting periods. Since these periods coincide with the fishing restriction, beach patrols offer additional income.

Figure 3: Processed prawn pickle packets ready for the market.

Additionally, the Odisha Forest Department, and other research organizations, provide training in producing value-added marine products (Figure 3), and link the community with wholesale traders and exporters. The SWF provides low cost infrastructure and fishing equipment, and helps distribute relief supplies during cyclones. To address fishers’ dependence on money lenders and the ensuing poverty cycle, the SWF provides a financial literacy programme to encourage households to link up to mainstream banking and credit systems.

Empowering Women

The SWF created a platform for the voice of traditional women fishers to be heard. These women are empowered and made aware of their own rights, gaining improved self-esteem and dignity. Through collaborations, schools and adult education centres have been created. These resources have allowed members to improve their quality of life through education, increased literacy and better health practices. Exposure to mainstream media and institutions has boosted the confidence and pride of many traditionally disadvantaged women, allowing them to counter and question any law or system detrimental to their interests. “Being a Samudram member means being a vehicle of change in my community” – Samudram Member.

Community Conservation

Small-scale fishers have deep-seated beliefs about how to treat other living beings and their food basket, the sea. They see everything as a gift from Mother Ocean and ocean creatures such as turtles are seen as their brothers and sisters. Fishers take pride when thousands of turtles choose to return annually to their beaches to breed and nest and they take special care of these visitors (Figure 4). Beach patrols offer the community an opportunity to give something back to their Mother Ocean. “The health of the ocean is dependent on these turtles, if there are more turtles, the sea is healthy and there will be more fish” – Samudram Member.

Figure 4: Children holding the turtle hatchlings before releasing them into the sea.

The majority of households living on the coast self-identify as followers of the Hindu religion, where turtles are considered as one of the avatars of Lord Vishnu. Since Lord Vishnu is the preserver of life, some members of this community consider protecting turtles to be their responsibility. “Out of all the beaches, these turtles chose mine to lay their eggs. It means they trust us with their future and we are proud that they chose us and we make sure that we keep this trust” – Samudram Member.

Practical Outcomes

The Samudram Woman’s Federation is reducing poverty and protecting biodiversity through a number of different initiatives:

• Promoting the conservation of marine resources, and sustainable fishing practices to protect marine biodiversity.

• Linking economically marginalized fishing communities to wholesale markets and exporters.

• Generating income during fishing restriction periods through beach patrols and by selling value added and processed marine products (e.g. dry fish, pickles, papads).

• Gender empowerment through capacity building, training, knowledge dissemination and
networking.

• Community social development through building schools, health centres and organizing medical camps.

• Developing a community cooperative enterprise by providing social, financial and infrastructural support to local fishers.

References

1. Karnad, D., Isvaran, K., Kar, S.C. & Shankar, K. (2009). Lighting the way: Towards reducing misorientation of Olive ridley hatchlings due to artificial lighting in Rushikulya, India. Biological Conservation, 142(10): 2083-2088.

2. Nayak, P.K. & Berkes, F. (2010). Whose marginalization? Politics around environmental justice in India’s Chilika lagoon. Local Environment, 15(6): 553-567.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the following: The team of Samudram Women’s Federation and United Artist’s Association, Ganjam; Parvathy for her help in conducting and organizing interviews and group discussion, and being a great help as my interpreter; Mangaraj Panda and Govind Panda for their everyday help; The team at CBRM, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba; Dr. Fikret Berkes for his timely advice and suggestions at every instance of the research; Durdana, Eranga, Ian, Dilbar and Alex for their help and support; and finally to all the fishing community in Nolianuagaon, Purnabandam, Arjyapally and Gokurkudham for allowing me to be a part of your community.

See below for the Odia language abstract for this community story.

This new document describes social-ecological systems as integrated complex systems that include social and ecological subsystems in a two-way feedback relationship (Berkes 2011). This relationship occurs whenever people interact with their environment. The forms of interactions can vary from community-based small-scale fishing to country-wide eco-tourism. Thus, the interactions within social-ecological systems have implications regarding social systems (i.e. jobs) and ecological systems (i.e. biodiversity loss).

Three key concepts to understanding social-ecological systems are described in detail in this guidebook: multiple scales, multiple levels, and resilience. Multiple scales usually refers to time and space, specifically whether an event occurs over a short or long time scale, or whether an activity takes place over a small or a large spatial scale. Parallel to the idea of scale is that of level; a specific point along a scale, or a unit of analysis within a scale. Finally, resilience is the ability of a system to maintain overall function and structure, despite unexpected shocks to that system.

According to this guidebook, looking at communities through a social-ecological systems lens  requires researchers to understand the meaning, motivation and governance of conservation within their community. How the meaning and motivation of conservation is perceived by a community can improve a community’s environmental initiative by establishing a conservation policy that fits with local realities and needs. In terms of governance and conservation, the main goal is to achieve a fundamental balance between food and livelihood needs, while ensuring that the ecosystem continues to provide goods and services. Outcomes of conservation initiatives, whether community-led or government-driven, will be multi-dimensional in nature. It is important to examine the impact human use and conservation can have across the entire social ecological system, with a focus on the outcomes that are viewed as the most relevant and important.

More information regarding social-ecological system analysis, including detailed information on the material above, examples, frameworks for analysis and definitions, can be found in the guidebook itself, “Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems for Community Conservation.”

References

Berkes F. 2011. Restoring unity: the concept of social-ecological systems. In: World Fisheries: A Social-Ecological Analysis (R.E. Ommer, R.I. Perry, K. Cochrane and P. Cury, eds.). Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 9-28.

Arif Satria (CCRN Researcher) talks about fisheries conservation challenges in Indonesia that were brought in by the government’s zoning system, which failed to consider the plight of local fishermen. He then proposes community conservation programmes as a remedy to conservation problems in Indonesia. Derek Armitage (CCRN Researcher) tackles the relationship between community stewardship of resources and community well-being in a fishing community. He defined community well-being as the ability of communities to maintain their families and livelihoods and recognizing that fishing is not just a job, but a livelihood that requires communities to be stewards of fisheries.

Phil Dearden (CCRN Researcher) highlights some of the challenges with Thailand’s marine reserves and fisheries that include dwindling fisheries, changes brought by climate variabilities and coral bleaching. He proposes a community-oriented agreement that focuses on community conservation and stewardship of resources as a solution to Thailand’s marine reserve challenges. Dachanee Emphandu (CCRN Researcher) emphasises the need for community stewardship of resources for the benefit of livelihoods that rely on these resources. Mitsutaku Makino (CCRN Researcher in Japan) highlights some of the conservation challenges in Japan, such as declining fisheries, environmental degradation and urbanization, degradation of coral reefs and heavy tourism.

Check out the CCRN community stories for more information about these sites.

For more information, check out our Tujereng community story.

For more information, check out our Koh Pitak community story