The general framework for adaptation to climate change in Cartagena de Indias is the “Plan 4C. Cartagena: Competitive and Climate Change Compatible” (2014). It is a long term vision and framework for planning and action to achieve climate compatible development by 2040. EbA is one of its five core strategies. The project directly supports the inter-institutional technical committee by facilitating dialogue among its diverse members, e.g. representatives from public administration, private sector, NGOs, education and research institutions. Tailor-made capacity development activities enhance a common understanding of EbA opportunities and limitations. By supporting the implementation of selected EbA measures as a joint learning process, the findings feed back into the strategic evolution of the Plan 4C as well as the national framework for (ecosystem-based) adaptation to climate change. The expected impacts of concrete EbA measures - such as the recovery of canals and channels - are supposed to show economic, social and environmental benefits in the short and medium term, thus contributing to a practical proof of concept.

This building block includes development and introduction of sustainable aquaculture and livelihoods diversification (seaweed cultivation, crab & shrimp farming). –10 community groups are supported through farmer field schools and by providing resources to initiate new aquaculture management practices and livelihood diversification. –these improved practices will directly revitalize 300 ha of land for 300 households (based on a conservative estimate of 1 ha per household), increasing average aquaculture productivity with 50%, by adjusting pond lay-out and management, by reducing fertilizer and pesticide inputs, by making optimal use of mangrove services like water purification and by diversifying livelihoods activities. Based on experiences in Indonesia and Vietnam, income derived from the ponds is expected to have risen to 5000 EUR ha by year 5. –community funds will be established that: i) absorb savings from increased pond productivity (5%) in support of long-term coastal belt maintenance and up-scaling of sustainable land-use management measures beyond the project lifetime; ii) can absorb government support to local communities for coastal protection and sustainable land-use.

One aim of joint nature-focused research and monitoring (years 2007, 2011 and 2015) was to harmonize contrasting national methods. Harmonised methodology facilitates data exchange, management, and interpretation to inform park management strategies to protect these populations. The target species/groups included those that are of management concern in the parks: brown bear, Golden Eagle, waterfowl, butterflies, and ants. Brown bear is highlighted here as an important example. Bears affect livelihoods of reindeer herders, which are important stakeholders in the Pasvik-Inari area. Bears are hunted in all the three countries, and estimated bear population size is used when determining numbers of hunting licenses. Modern DNA-sampling methodologies give the best estimate of the number of bears in the cross-border bear population. Hair was collected for DNA-analysis using hair snagging stations scattered around the area. In addition, local residents, in particular hunters and co-workers in the field were encouraged to collect fecal samples. Results can be compared between years, as identical methodology is being used throughout.

The two national park directors met 4-5 times per year to discuss among other issues the status of the invasive plant monitoring and removal. Jointly, they allowed the project to be funded and enabled the necessary actions. Furthermore, other staff from both parks met each other whenever needed to share information regarding the monitoring and removal efforts.

Integrated compliance is a key approach contributing to effective management of the GBR. A number of compliance strategies are utilise to achieve compliance management, comprising a much wider range of strategies than just surveillance or enforcement (see Table 1 below). Today the GBR’s compliance approach is recognised as being of a world standard. It is implemented by a joint Field Management Compliance Unit (FMCU) comprising trained and competent officers of both the Australian and Queensland governments working closely together. The FMCU has a central role coordinating the deployment of all available compliance resources across the GBR. The delivery of field activities occurs through a number of key partner agencies including the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol, the Queensland Police Service and Australia’s Border Protection Command (BPC). The planning of patrols is based upon intelligence-derived information and delivers maximum detection as well as a deterrence effect. BPC is the principal provider of aerial operations delivering targeted aerial surveillance. BPC crews are trained by FMCU in the detection of marine park offences and subsequent evidence collection.

Effective management in the marine realm can be greatly assisted by various technological aids; examples include: • Global Positioning System (GPS) - a satellite navigation system accessible to anyone with a GPS receiver (including most cell phones). Provided there is unobstructed access to four or more GPS satellites, a GPS will provide three-dimensional position, velocity and time anywhere on Earth. • Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) - an electronic tracking system used by regulatory agencies to monitor the activities of commercial fishing vessels. VMS can play important roles in fisheries management, including the prevention of illegal fishing and protecting the marine environment. VMS requires a GPS on the vessel and communication between the vessel and shore, usually via satellite. It has wider applications (e.g. collision avoidance) and may be used to monitor vessels up to 200 nm from the coast of most countries. • Automatic Identification System (AIS) - a radio broadcasting system enabling AIS equipped ships and shore stations to identify and locate ship’s positions, course and speed. Vessel traffic services (VTS) uses AIS to monitor vessels in ports, busy waterways and inshore waters, primarily for safety and efficiency.

The boundaries of an MPA (or zones within an MPA) should be identifiable while on the water. Traditionally, inshore MPA boundaries were referenced to some obvious natural feature or by using a distance from a feature like the shoreline. In some instances, physical demarcation of marine boundaries has occurred using fixed markers on the land or floating marker buoys, but there are significant costs to install and maintain such infrastructure. For deepwater, open-ocean conditions or for large MPAs the placement of marker buoys is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and the cost is prohibitive. For these reasons, MPA managers delineate such offshore boundaries using GPS coordinates (see Resources for Coordinate-based zone boundaries). Experience has shown that submerged features (e.g. depth contours, reefs, banks, shipwrecks, etc) may be hard to identify so should not be used for marine boundaries. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has considerable experience with installing offshore infrastructure for marine boundaries; FKNMS staff have installed >100 yellow boundary buoys marking marine zones; over 120 boundary buoys and/or signs marking Wildlife Management Areas, and are responsible for > 500 mooring buoys.

An obvious preference of most MPA managers is to have a fleet of reliable, safe, fit for-purpose vessels, which are well maintained and operational. However, sometimes vessel patrols or some marine management tasks are more appropriately shared (e.g. with other governmental agencies or by chartering a vessel from the private sector). The operation and ongoing maintenance of specialised management vessels can pose significant challenges, especially if there are insufficient staff in the agency with the necessary technical capacity, or if the operating funds for ongoing regular operations are limited. Determining whether to purchase expensive assets (e.g. specialised fast patrol vessels for enforcement or a stable working vessel to install facilities such as moorings or no-anchoring markers) should consider the objective of providing the required level of service and its frequency of likely use in the most cost-effective manner. MPA management may also be enhanced by sharing responsibility and information as explained in the Blue Solution on Shared Governance in the GBR. Management may also involve sharing other physical assets than just boats; e.g. shared assets may include operational bases, offices, vehicles and even aircraft.

Many issues facing MPAs cannot be effectively addressed by managing the marine realm alone; e.g: • water quality – most water quality issues arise on land • coastal developments, e.g. ports – most are outside the jurisdictional control of an MPA • increasing population growth and recreation – marine management does little to curtail growth or reduce some consequential impacts • climate change – management may build resilience but climate change is a global issue The GBR Marine Park is confined to waters seaward of low water mark so does not include tidal lands/tidal waters; key coastal areas e.g. ports and ‘internal waters’ of Queensland are also excluded (another Blue Solution outlines complementary zoning, irrespective of which jurisdiction applies). An integrated management approach with other agencies extends the management influence outside the Marine Park so that the islands, tidal areas and many activities in the catchments are effectively addressed. For example, the mapping of coastal ecosystems, the identification of key areas within catchments, and working with farmers to minimise their impacts on water quality, are specifically aimed at addressing the land-sea interface and the adjoining coastal lands and waters.

Zoning is only one of many spatial tools used in the Great Barrier Reef. Other spatial layers are depicted in the maps below, showing the same area of the GBR with differing layers overlying the zoning. A range of multi-dimensional management tools (spatial, non-spatial and temporal) are applied, some of which are part of the statutory GBR Zoning Plan, while others are in other statutory documents. Non-spatial management includes bag limits or size limits for fishing, or a wide range of permits; temporal management includes seasonal closures at key fish spawning times or temporary closures for short-term activities like military training. So rather than a single GBR management plan, a comprehensive three-dimensional Management system exists, comprising federal agency plans, State agency plans and other plans (e.g. fisheries management, ports, etc). Today this full suite of management tools comprises a comprehensive management framework, integrated and coordinated across agencies and jurisdictions. However, not every aspect of spatial management is shown in the publicly available zoning maps. Permits (often tied to specific zones or locations within zones) allow a detailed level of site management not possible by zoning alone.