Building Trust with Local Communities

Building partnerships and trust with local subsistence communities is essential to ensure successful uptake of public health messaging and community engagement in participatory surveillance, especially given that traditional superstitions and beliefs may contrast significantly with modern scientific knowledge and medicine 

Time, long-term funding, and the human capacity for repeat visits to spend adequate time with communities to build long-standing relationships of trust over a period of years

In order for participatory surveillance networks with remote communities to be successful, long-term investment is needed, often longer than the duration of short funding streams from foreign entities. Repeat visits and support over many years and consistent, effective communication and rapid result sharing with the communities are essential  

Implementation of Effective Control Strategies for Disease Spillover From Livestock to Wildlife

Multi-sectoral coordination, and communication and coordination with local communities, are essential to clearly and simply share findings of surveillance and why specific management strategies have been developed and are recommended for implementation. This would include, for example, vaccination of domestic livestock for PPR in areas where their range overlaps with that of significant wildlife populations, protecting livestock health, and reducing the risk of spillover to wild ungulates.

Financial support for vaccination or other management strategies; good coordination and communication between sectors; good communication and relationships with local communities of herders; access to vaccines and appropriate storage capability; human capacity to implement effective vaccination campaign.

Open lines of communication between relevant government sectors and between government and communities as well as and their understanding of the disease epidemiology is essential to implement effective disease control strategies that address the concerns of all stakeholders involved.

Local Capacity Building for Management of Disease at the Wildlife-Livestock Interface

Many nations have limited funding for wildlife health surveillance so developing this capacity and the knowledge of wildlife health and disease epidemiology as it pertains to the wildlife-livestock interface at the local, provincial and central levels is vital for sustained surveillance and for the true value of this surveillance to be realized including its use to implement wildlife-friendly interventions that also support improved livestock health.

External and governmental financial support for development of wildlife health sector including surveillance and diagnostics; interest of host government to develop wildlife health capacity; time and personnel availability to be trained

Developing local capacity for wildlife health surveillance is critical for sustainability of such efforts and sustained One Health benefits

Collection of baseline wildlife health data

Conducting monitoring and surveillance in wildlife (both healthy populations and those showing signs of disease) and routine serological testing for exposure to pathogens frequently shared with livestock as well as more in depth diagnostics e.g. PCR/ NGS on sick/ dead animals support comprehensive understanding of the circulation of pathogens in these populations, geographic and temporal distributions and time-lines of exposure and non-exposure of different populations. Integration of this data with livestock surveillance data contributes to understanding of the epidemiology of diseases and the dynamics of disease outbreaks, including the potential source, to implement effective science-based control strategies.

Financial support for surveillance; human capacity for surveillance, and data management and analysis; access to sites to conduct surveillance; cold chain/ sample storage capacity; capacity for accurate field and/ or laboratory based diagnostics; good coordination between environment/ wildlife and livestock health sectors; openness for result sharing by host government

Coordination and support from the government is essential from the beginning to ensure support for surveillance, understanding of what is being implemented and the goals/ outcomes, good coordination between sectors, engagement to build local capacity and export samples for testing where necessary, host government willingness to be open about diagnostic findings and motivation to amend disease control strategies based on findings.  Wildlife health is under-funded in all countries compared with livestock and human health sectors and external donor support is almost certainly required for success of such programs in LMICs and MICs. It takes considerable time and patience to develop truly functional, localized wildlife health surveillance networks, integrated with other national surveillance networks

1. Multi-sectoral coordination for monitoring diseases at the wildlife-livestock interface

Building partnerships across the emergency management, animal health and environment/ wildlife sectors is an important first step for planning and implementation of wildlife surveillance to ensure results are used to guide science-based policy and disease control mechanisms. Convening multi-sectoral meetings to open discourse and share information on the challenges and opportunities to monitoring and management of disease at the wildlife-livestock interface, and to develop smooth communications and trust between and across sectors as well as multi-sectoral surveillance and response networks is critical.

 

Financial support for coordination meetings; openness of host government to coordination between environment/ wildlife and livestock health sectors; time and patience

Coordination and support from the government is essential from the beginning to ensure support for surveillance, understanding of what is being implemented and the goals/ outcomes, good coordination between sectors, engagement to build local capacity and export samples for testing where necessary, host government willingness to be open about diagnostic findings and motivation to amend disease control strategies based on findings. 

Defining priority and corrective actions to strengthen the intervention

During the implementation of the intervention, the project team conducted the self-assessment that helps determine whether an intervention is in adherence with the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutionsᵀᴹ. The assessment provided information about the intervention’s strengths and weaknesses and helped derive concrete recommendations and corrective actions for future interventions. Two criteria were deemed insufficient. Criterion 3 (biodiversity net-gain) fell short, because the analysis of the biodiversity benefits achieved through this intervention were largely based on a desk review of existing literature and information rather than a specific assessment, monitoring framework or thorough and collective effort with key informants and stakeholders. Criterion 6 (balancing of trade-offs) was also deemed insufficiently addressed. While there was a reported willingness from the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar to consider relevant trade-offs, the limits of these trade-offs and associated safeguards were not clarified. In addition, while provisions on the rights, usage of and access to marine and coastal resources for mariculture are in place, further information on how this is applied in practice is required.

The assessment was supported by IUCN expert reviewers, who supported the team with the completion of the self-assessment and provided clarification on specific criteria and indicators. Several rounds of discussions revealed that the criteria were sometimes understood and interpreted differently by different people, impacting the assigned rating. This demonstrated the complexities associated with assessing whether an intervention can be considered a Nature-based Solution and the need for thorough and guided consideration of each indicator.

The IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutionsᵀᴹ served as an important tool to reflect on  design, implementation and monitoring challenges related to aquaculture and seaweed farming approaches applied in the IUCN AquaCoCo Project. It provided insights into areas that require corrective action, the collection of additional evidence and means of verification and involvement of local stakeholders, in particular women. In this manner, the self-assessment results will inform future work on aquaculture and seaweed farming in Zanzibar (and elsewhere) and help improve intervention design, implementation and monitoring frameworks.

Developing a management plan

For the first ten years after protected area designation, the management authority was in place but operating without a management plan. They did not have the internal capacity or knowledge to develop a plan that addressed the requirements for management of a protected landscape. 

The management plan was developed to provide the objectives, activities and indicators for measuring the outcomes. The plan included a ten year program of activities, with opportunity for a review and amendments after five years. 

1. Funding

2. Engaged authorities and land managers, who can provide input

3. Skilled staff or consultants to develop plan

The most important part of developing a management plan was to find the balance between providing a plan to lift this burden from authorities, yet ensuring land managers and decision makers have input to ensure it is realistic and supported. 

In the case of Buna, there was initially not enough consultation or input from the authorities. The activity plan that aimed to lead to success proved unachievable with the capacity and resources available locally to implement. 

Systematic Camera Trapping

Camera trapping allows non-invasive surveys of wildlife throughout the protected area, providing new insights into hotspots of rare and threatened species, while also providing information on which locations contained the most species targeted by hunters. Systematic camera traps were set in either fine-grid (smaller areas with 1-2 km spacing in between stations), or course-grid (full protected area coverage with ~2.5 km spacing between stations) designs, with stations that contain 2 or more cameras spaced about 20 m from one another. Cameras trapping systems were left in the field for ~3 months for each sample session to meet the closure assumption; fine grid designs for two locations were repeated 2 years apart, the course grid is intended to be reproduced in 2023 (5 years apart). Systematic cameras were set and microhabitat data were collected at each station site following protocols from Abrams et al (2018). 

 

References

Abrams, J. F., Axtner, J., Bhagwat, T., Mohamed, A., Nguyen, A., Niedballa, J., ... & Wilting, A. (2018). Studying terrestrial mammals in tropical rainforests. A user guide for camera-trapping and environmental DNA. Berlin, Germany: Leibniz-IZW.

  • Donor funding to purchase camera traps, batteries, and other necessary equipment
  • Assistance by rangers and local people to set camera traps in the field
  • Capacity of researchers to properly classify, clean, analyze, and report data.
  • Due to the flash, it is easy for camera traps to be detected and damaged or stolen
  • Experienced personnel are needed to coordinate camera trap setting efforts to mitigate errors as much as possible. Common errors include:
    • date-time setting issues
    • vegetation not cleared from the immediate area of the camera traps causing thousands of blank photos to be triggered by leaves swaying in the wind and rapid loss of battery life, and eventually battery death within days of setting.
    • improper setting of camera traps facing toward one another instead of away, causing potential duplicate records
    • Forgetting to turn the cameras on
    • inconsistent microhabitat data collection by various teams
  • Pre-planning for camera trapping is essential to success and reducing errors, pre-planning should include all personnel involved, should be presented on mapped locations, should identify team leaders, and review protocols and checklists. 
  • Photos should be taken in 4 directions around the camera location. This way if mistakes are made in the field, they can be somewhat mitigated by evaluation of photos later on where possible.
PoacherCams

Our anti-poaching teams have improved the workflow of detecting and pre-emptively stopping offenders who illegally enter the protected forest areas by deploying PoacherCams -- automated detection systems that operate via camera traps and artificial intelligence classification of humans, animals, and vehicles (Figure 3). PoacherCams are strategically placed at entry points into protected forests adjacent to local villages and access trails. When the cameras detect a human entering the park at PoacherCam installation sites, the site manager will receive a notification on their Smartphone of the threat and location. The manager will then deploy a mobile unit (forest rangers) to survey the area or document the entry and exit activity of the offender over time and make an arrest. Our system also has a dashboard for record-keeping purposes and note taking which forestry law-enforcement can refer to later when issuing penalties and following up with their issuance with commune-level law enforcement. Through extensive patrolling efforts, we have identified numerous central access points from local villages into the protected forests and set PoacherCams to monitor them and take action where needed.

  • External funding from donors willing to improve site protection efforts in Vietnam protected and conserved areas via new technologies. It is difficult to get government buy-in for new equipment and technology with limited resources until proof of success is achieved.
  • Support by Panthera – both in providing us with cameras and technical with assistance setting them up on their server.
  • Support by Wildlife Protection Solutions with re-routing camera messages and images to their dashboard and sent to rangers as WhatsApp alerts
  • Cellular network connectivity
  • PoacherCams must be well hidden, or set high up in trees, or they will be damaged or stolen
  • Cellular network connection is required for the system to send alerts to ranger’s phones, and the weaker the cellular connection, the longer the message will take to be received. 
  • Sometimes, it is best to observe offenders entering and exiting the forest and record common times of entry/exit to then deploy a ranger to wait for them at the location, rather than deploy rangers immediately when alerts are received.
  • Some smart phones cannot communicate with the Camera Trap Wireless Client app required to set up the camera. The app should be tested before leaving to the field
  • the nPerf app may help to actively map cellular network connection strength in the field, and provide information on locations to optimize PoacherCam placement.
  • Local people are quickly habituated to ranger patrol patterns and have their own communication networks. When local people from the villages see a ranger going toward a trail where the village hunter entered the forest, they will call the hunter and tell him to take another trail so they will not be caught.
Spatial Reporting and Monitoring Tool (SMART)

The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) is a both a software and a framework that allows forest rangers and anti-poaching patrols to collect geospatial data on their smart phones (via the SMART mobile app), which acts as an advanced handheld GPS. When traps, illegal encampments, animals, or violators are located, the patrol will make a record using the app’s customized “data model” (a customization of the application that creates specific drop-down lists, and decision trees). The SVW data model is based on Vietnamese forestry law, so when any technical gaps are identified in the data model in terms of arrest procedures, non-standard violations, or priority species listed in legislative decrees, it can directly inform and improve policy.

 

Once data has been collected by patrols on their smart phones, the patrol data (paths walked, km travelled, time spent on patrol, and data recorded) will upload automatically to SMART desktop. This is where managers can evaluate poaching hotspots to apply pressure, and also allows them to monitor the effectiveness of the patrols themselves. With each new data input, data managers are able to adapt to the situation and adjust their team and patrolling regimens accordingly.

  • Cooperation of park managers enabling SVW anti-poaching team to operate in the park
  • Rangers willing to learn new technologies and agree with directional planning from younger, newer employees that have less experience and seniority in the protected area.
  • Intensive and effective training of anti-poaching teams and willingness of members to perform intensive work in the field collecting data and, in the office, managing and reporting the data outputs.
  • Functioning SMART software and available equipment (smart phones)
  • Data managers are vital to the success of intelligence reporting and planning, and should be separate from patrols so they can focus specifically on data management tasks alone. Rangers and team members often forget to turn off their track recorder during breaks, in transit, and after they finish working. As a result, data managers must clip and clean data to maintain reporting accuracy. 
  • At the learning phase, mistakes are common in the first year of data collection and processing, and are to be expected. It is best to identify the most common errors early on and address them with all participating patrols to ensure data viability moving forward.
  • SMART Connect is a solution to centralizing data collected from multiple ranger stations or sites. However, SMART Connect servers require expert technical assistance to set up and maintain. If they are set up through a third-party service, server issues rely on the third-party service technical support, and data sovereignty laws may prevent access to this option altogether.