I. First progress report (September 3, 2008)
Activities undertaken:

1. Launching capacity building activities: Project confirming meetings, seminars, workshops and training on resources inventorying (plant species and aqua species in Mekong Basin)
2. Conduction inventories on biological diversity and indigenous knowledge

Results of activities:

1. Established committed eight working groups of 91 members composed of women groups, youth groups and traditional leaders
2. Increased awareness and technical capacity of target population witnessed through active participation , eager sharing of thought & ideas and launching filed activities without waiting for the first disbursement from SGP
3. Initial data of biological diversity obtained: 18 sub-habitats, 150 aqua species, 16 kinds of fishing gears, 23 kinds of baits, 21 native crops, 28 kinds of pests, 20 kinds of animals, 7 new aqua species, 8 extinct species and 11 species decrease in number. Completed inventories expected at end of project.

Project communication:
Project activities and result were uploaded in www.naturecareubon.org and a cable TV focusing on environment documentary.

Experiences ,lessons learned, problems and issues:

Nothing in notable during the period.

Project expense:
The project report the expense of THB: 495,198 out of the first disbursement of THB: 495,198.47.

II. Project site visit by the NC and two NSCs (February 28, 2009)
Findings and observation:

The target population in eight villages of Ubonratchathani Province?s Phosai District would be classified as ? Mekong people of fish and rice culture? who grows paddy and other native species for consumption and additional income. Small scale fresh water fishery has been a major source of income for the villagers. Cash crops or plants of alien species of commercial value also had their role in the location , even though they were not very outstanding.

One remarkable finding in this visit was a result of resources inventorying by target population. In a participatory evaluation with two other projects of the same grant cycle witnessed on the previous day, community leaders depicted this result through posters of their hand-writing and drawing which told about the kinds and numbers of niches including fishes depending on them, extinct and new found species, native crops, numbers and types of fishing gears, alien species, etc.

In Baan(village) Samrong, one of the eight participating villages situated along the Mekong, the visiting team was walked by a group of project leaders into cultivated area of Huay Na Tu (or Na Tu Creek) of Mekong River then Mekong River itself. Several native edible species as a result of both community livelihood activity and ecological function were seen. A few niches along the river and its creek were glanced at, with rehabilitation plan briefed. A niche in the river at the village was proclaimed as a conservation zone, with more in the future. To support function of the niche, and slow down bank erosion, communities planned to grow two native species , i.e. bamboo and ?Khrai Noon? (Homonoia riparia Lour.).

A few kilometers away, at Baan Park Huay Muang, another participating village , the visiting team held a brief discussion with another group of project leaders. This time, the topic focused on slowing down bank erosion -which is comparatively more serious -and supporting function of the niches through planting selected native species-more or less of the same kinds. Community members shared their respective experience and confirmed their plans to the visiting team.

The final finding happened at Baan Pha Sun, where a project fish fund was visited. The fund provided services to members in the same way as a cooperative shop did. One objective, among others, was to subsidize prices of the fishes of local fishermen. Currently, there were 72 members in the village who sold their catches to the shop with fairly stable prices. Before, the prices were heedlessly fixed by middlemen. This community-based transaction ,somehow, indirectly contributed to sustainable use of water species as amount of catches and kinds of fishes offered to the shop would indicate whether destructive fishing methods were used and conservation zones invaded. During one discussion, the visiting team shared a concept of Fisheries Refugia which was a recommended practice of the Strategic Action Program of a UNEP-GEF?s Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.

III. Mid-course evaluation workdhop (March 20-21, 2009)
Findings and observation:
Together with representatives from other projects of the same grant cycle (from THA/06/13 to THA/06/28), and SGP country team, the project participate in the workshop to update progress , share experience and initiate a network. It was agreed that each project would keep on contacting one another and sharing experience. Contacting addresses were distributed with one project as the coordinating centre for future activities. An NSC member who represented the National Environment Fund was also committed to help in keeping the network.

IV. Second progress report (April 22, 2009)
Activities undertaken:
1. Continuing launching inventories on biological diversity and indigenous knowledge covering eight communities
2. Formulating plans for rehabilitation of biological diversity in project location
3. Launching public hearing on the plans for rehabilitation in 2.
4. Putting the plans into actions
5. Conducting participatory evaluation

Results of activities:
1. Compilation of eight sets of inventories on biological diversity and indigenous knowledge: community history and database, river ecosystems, fresh water species, fishing practice, fishing gears, humidity-based agriculture, plant and insect species, and community value system
2. Clarity of locations and rehabilitating activities in the eight communities and endorsed by each responsible community
3. Emergence of detailed plans , regulations and monitoring systems for each communities
4. Broader development vision of project leaders on holistic participatory of Mekong River basin at this specific portion of the river

Project communication:
1. Project activities and result were uploaded in www.naturecareubon.org on environment development plan.
2. September 6, 2008, representatives of eight communities participated in a seminar on ?Approach for Mekong River Development? at Ubonratchathani University.
3. September 27, 2008, a representative of the network (eight communities) the Mekong Open Forum of the Thai parliamentary committee, at Khongjiam District Office, Ubonratchathani Province.
4. October 6, 2008, the representative of the network was in was invited to be a resources person in a meeting focusing on development of Mekong River.
5. November 5-7, 2008, the representative of the network was in was invited to participate and submit community data& information in an international meeting on the Mekong River at Chularlongkorn University, Bangkok.

Experiences ,lessons learned, problems and issues:
The project related an experience as follows:

1. Applying community-based research process, technical capacity and awareness of project working groups was increased. Nonetheless, there emerged some small errors requiring time for correction. But the activity was on schedule.
2. As a rule, participation from target population was always imperative in carrying out community development. With activities conducted by communities themselves, real and substantial cooperation and result were sure things.

Project expense:
The project report the accumulated expense of THB: 1,005,060 out of the sum of two disbursements of THB: 1,005,062.83.

V.Completion report (June 15, 2010):
Date of Participatory Evaluation( March 9, 2010 )
Number of Beneficiaries/ Participating personnel:
Women: 2,191
Men: 2,369
Children: 506
Number of persons trained/ attending seminars, joining study tours:
Women: 434
Men: 866
Children: 40

Expense:
Amount received from SGP (3 disbursements): Baht: 1,536,327.43
Total amount spent out of SGP budget: Baht: 1,708,327.00
Balance: Baht: (- 171,999.57)
Amount authorized for the final payment: US$: 4,988.40

Amount Received from others: THB: 264,000 (in cash)
THB: 1,542,000 (in kind)

Activities undertaken:
1. Launching capacity building activities: Project confirming meetings, seminars, workshops
2. Conduction inventories on biological diversity and indigenous knowledge
3. Formulating action plans for rehabilitation and putting the plans into actions
4. Conducting study tours for sharing experiences and replication
5. Participatory evaluation , once three months
6. Compiling lessons learnt with major stakeholders
7. Producing dissemination materials of the project

Results and indicators:
1. Increased insight on collective development and biological rehabilitation approaches of 327 community members witnessed by active participation with questions and answers flowing , emergence of 8 working groups with 8 action plans and a volunteer group of 50 members
2. Emergence of 8 compilations of biological diversity resources and indigenous knowledge of project location and respective action plans
3. Evinced decreased issues /problems on collective community works and evinced improvement in ecosystems , especially increase of some endangered species
4. Lessons learnt and dissemination materials on biological diversity rehabilitation for replication in other communities:
- 8 sets of video on community-level conservation and rehabilitation of biological diversity
-1set of video on project-level conservation and rehabilitation of biological diversity
-8 sets of posters at community-level
-1 set of posters at project-level
- 8 sets of tracts at community-level
- 1 set of tracts at project level
5. Emergence of one eco-tourist group and one saving group
6. Gaining additional financial support as follows:
-THB: 70,000 from Royal Forestry Department to purchase seedlings of native species
- 200,000 young fishes from the Fishery Department

Plans & activities for sustainability:
1. The 8 working groups of 91 members would continue to be leaders to oversee the sustainable use of biological resources and any threats to the ecosystems.
2. There would be an initiative for networking among CBOs in the Mekong Basin to share experience and give mutual support.
3. The project would promote environmentally-friendly occupation to ensure sustainable use of natural resources in project location
4. Project experience and knowledge would be disseminates to other communities and incorporated into village development plan.

Experience , Lessons Learnt , Problems and Issues:
1. Diversity of communities should be kept in mind when launching participatory process. Adaptation and modification were, more or less, required when working with different communities.
2. Development personnel learnt a lot from applying research process in collecting data & information. There were mistakes and errors during the process but were corrected.
3. Project study tours proved to be an effective tool for building capacity of targeted group.