Implementation | PANORAMA

Capacity building of the WIOMN

The project team facilitated the development of the supporting documents required to enhance the capacity of the network and finalize the formal registration as an NGO in Zanzibar. The documents developed included the operational manual and the strategic plan. In addition, the website was developed. A consultancy was paid to aid the network to take the necessary steps needed for the registration.

The availability of the funds, the willingness of the WIOMN, the good collaboration within the consortium, the local representation of the member of the consortium.

Implementation

National

Multi-national

National Mangrove Ecosystem Management Plan

National Mangrove Ecosystem Management Plan 2017-2027

National Mangrove Ecosystem Management Plan 2017-2027 provides for establishment of National and County Mangrove Management Committees to serve as advisory organ to inform Kenya Forest Service on the technical issues regarding mangrove management. The committees at national and in the five counties of Kwale, Mombasa, Kilifi, Tana River and Lamu, have been established and operationalized. Their membership comprise of technical experts for mangrove ecosystem relevant disciplines, including; Forestry, Fisheries, Wildlife, Water, Land, and Climate, and representatives of communities and Civil Society/Non-governmental organizations.

The National Mangrove Ecosystem Management Plan was developed through a participatory process and adopted by Government.

Inclusive participation of Government, community, Civil Society/Non-governmental organizations
Government policy that provides for establishment of the committees to coordinate mangrove management

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&v…

Building block 4 – Cooperation between NOCs and local nature conservation organisations as a prerequisite for success

The IOC requires that all Olympic Forest Network projects “be developed and implemented in collaboration with the relevant experts and authorities.” All six projects that are currently part of the Network not only take this requirement into account but establish it as a corner stone of their implementation.

For example, the Papua New Guinea project involves a partnership between the NOC, local communities, the National Fisheries Authority, and the Conservation and Environment Protection Authority. The Slovenian project is partnered with the Slovenian State Forestry Company; the Spanish with the Ministry of the Environment and the Federation of Spanish Municipalities; while the Portuguese project has the technical support of the governmental Institute for Nature and Forest Conservation (ICNF) and the Abramud e Sentido Verde association.

Requiring partnerships between NOCs and environment experts ensures that projects running under the Olympic Forest Network are as relevant and effective as can be with regards to nature conservation. Partnering with local experts and organisations also ensures that the Network can have meaningful impact not only on the environment, but also on the local communities where projects are run. Moreover, it facilitates local interest in, and ownership of, environmental work.

Criteria set by the IOC requiring NOC-led projects seeking to be a part of the Olympic Forest Network “to be developed and implemented in collaboration with relevant experts and authorities”.
Local organisations’ environmental knowledge and expertise.
Interest of local environmental organisations in the (communications and engagement) potential of the Olympic Movement.

Providing basic standards and guidelines helped the NOCs find the right partners and (business) solutions locally. Thanks to this local approach, NOCs could be guided by national/local experts to find the best solution in terms of added value for ecosystems and local communities.

Building block 3 – Embracing local expertise, governance, and ownership of projects

While following the direction and guidance of the IOC, NOCs are best placed to design and implement projects complying with the IOC’s global standards at local level. This means that the IOC can support and promote environmental projects, while benefiting from expertise that the NOCs can provide in the local context through. This implementation method not only promotes local solutions to global problems, but also increases local ownership, empowers local communities, and promotes cooperation between sports, local environmental groups and indigenous peoples.

In Brazil, for example, the “Brazil Olympic Committee Olympic Forest” project aims to restore a damaged part of the Tefé National Forest in the Amazon and is executed together with the Mamirauá Institute of Sustainable Development. Besides restoration, the project’s objective is to reinforce the sustainable use of the forest by the local community through planting key species such as Brazilian chestnut and açaí or providing training to the local community.

Training and upskilling of local communities (on mangrove planting/rehabilitation) is one of the main objectives also of the Papua New Guinea Olympic Committee’s “Love Your Coast Project” where they aim to train “Love Your Coast Champions”, who are to lead small conservation projects in their communities

As leader of the Olympic Movement, the IOC is responsible for coordinating relations and actions of all members of the Olympic Movement, including the National Olympic Committees. This ensures that projects and actions can be designed and implemented according to consistent regulations or guidelines, enabling continuity and best practice across the Olympic Movement’s environmental activities.

While it was important to set up general criteria that all projects would need to comply with to ensure consistency and high quality, providing NOCs with the flexibility to reflect local context and its particular risks and opportunities in how they approach the criteria proved to be equally vital.

Building block 2 – Establishing principles for admitting National Olympic Committees’ projects to the Olympic Forest network

The IOC’s Executive Board approved several principles that NOCs would have to meet to join the Olympic Forest Network.

To have their project included in the Network, an NOC is required to submit details for the IOC’s review and approval, based on these specific criteria/principles. The review process is coordinated together with environmental experts who provide their feedback to the NOC and have the possibility to carry out field visit whenever relevant.

Projects are required to:

Contribute to enhancing climate and nature protection and resilience;
Support and be delivered in partnership with local communities;
Be developed and implemented in collaboration with the relevant experts and authorities; and
Have a long-term maintenance plan in place.

These principles help guide NOCs in the creation of their projects and ensure that all projects that are part of the Network are contribution to climate action and nature protection. The principles also ensure that projects possess certain characteristics and collaborative structures that are to ensure local impact and projects’ long-term viability.

Knowledge and understanding of factors that are important for designing and implementing successful nature restoration projects.
IOC’s practical experience with the implementation of the Olympic Forest project.
Collaboration between sport and nature conservation experts.

Having principles “on paper” does not automatically mean that they will be perfectly implemented and adhered to by the NOCs from the very beginning.

The application process to this initiative is a learning and improvement path where NOCs, under the guidance of the IOC and of environmental experts, can be guided to ultimately comply with all the requirements of the initiative and to create and implement high quality projects with tangible added value and shared benefits for the ecosystems and the local communities.

Stand on existing binational platforms

Three binational (Canada-United States) commissions play a role in the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes, including the Great Lakes Commission (GLC), Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), and International Joint Commission (IJC). More specific to the Great Lakes, the work of the IJC is supported through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). While none of these commissions explicitly represents and advances an agenda related to protected and conserved area (PCA) networks, they share goals and have capacities that can support such networks.

To this end, the Great Lakes Protected Areas Network (GLPAN) continues to find opportunities to profile PCAs, meet its network ambitions, and address conservation issues by standing on these platforms. In particular, the GLWQA has specific Annexes addressing the priority issues which are also of importance to PCAs, such as Habitat and Species, Climate Change, Aquatic Invasive Species, Science, and Lakewide Management. Engaging with the GLWQA is an effective means to address conservation at scale and represents a significant return on investment given the capacity and collaborative support partners bring. More specifically, "Lakewide Action and Management Plans" (5 year rotation on each of the 5 Great Lakes) and "Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiatives" are two GLWQA initiatives that PCAs and PCA networks can lever and contribute to help advance conservation efforts.

There are members on GLPAN who either work for a respective Commission or are actively involved in GLWQA committees.
The efforts of the GLWQA and GLFC on issues such as aquatic invasive species, climate change, habitat and species, and water quality are collaborative in nature and implemented at a scale.

While other platforms/forums may be involved in protection and restoration, PCAs may need to be prepared to express their own issues and concerns, that is, don't assume others will represent.
There are agencies working on Great Lakes protection and restoration space at a policy-level and welcome the opportunity to practice in a place-based manner with PCAs.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Multi-national

Build a binational Great Lakes protected areas network

There are over 650 coastal and freshwater protected areas representing over 40 agencies in the Great Lakes. Prior to the Great Lakes Protected Areas Network (GLPAN) establishment in 2019 there was no forum or network that supported a direct dialogue or collaboration across protected and conserved areas in the Great Lakes.

Members of the GLPAN are individuals or representatives from agencies that carry out professional activities related to Great Lakes conservation and/or protected areas management. Members are generally senior positions that can contribute expert knowledge, relevant information, and capacity to achieve GLPAN objectives, including:

Contribute to the conservation and protection of the Great Lakes coast and lake ecosystems through a collaborative network of people and places;
Provide a platform for enhancing communication and knowledge exchange across Great Lakes protected and conserved areas;
Build partnerships and support projects of interest to the GLPAN membership;
Raise awareness and appreciation of Great Lakes protected and conserved areas with the public and other domestic and binational conservation initiatives; and,
Serve as a regional hub for the North American Marine Protected Areas Network (NAMPAN).

GLPAN membership has chosen to remain voluntary and unfunded. While there is an organizational structure and purpose, the informal nature supports collegiality and flexibility.
The network is not competing with other protected area networks in the Great Lakes, the members essentially recognized and filled a need.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (including Lake Partnerships) is a platform that GLPAN can engage with and if necessary, use to advance initiatives and interests.
The pandemic normalized and equipped people to attend virtual video meetings.

Early in its formation, members collectively worked on a GIS Story Map "Great Lakes, Great Protected Areas". This not on provided an experience and opportunity to collaborate but helped GLPAN to define its identity.
Some members feel the informal context creates a more open space for dialogue and sharing without the formalities sometimes associated with representing one's agency in an international forum (there is machinery for that sort of work if need be).
Scheduled meetings (quarterly) with invited speakers helps to maintain the interest and drive of GLPAN.

Inception phase

Implementation

Multi-national

5. Second Coaching Phase: Business Improvement and linkages

The second coaching phase consists of three sessions per month for a duration of three months. After finalising their Business Improvement Plans, the entrepreneurs get in touch with other Business Development Services and prepare a presentation to financial institutions for credit assessment and business finance.

In the coaching process the coach strengthens the coachee by using suitable questions, techniques and instruments as well as reflecting observation to reinforce the coachees’ capacities for widely self-reliant problem-solving, enterprise and personality development. The needs, priorities and capacities of the coachee determine content and methodology of coaching.

The coach and the coachee have a relationship on equal terms.
The coachee has all required resources, skills, and experiences to improve their situation and to fix a problem themselves.
The coach doesn`t try to solve the coachee’s problems but rather provides support, feedback and guidance.

The coachees’ needs, priorities and capacities determine content and shape of the coaching process.
The coachees themselves are responsible for the results of the coaching process and the attainment of their goal(s) and therefore need to be motivated or facilitated enough to follow their goals.
The coach should not advise, preach, criticize or lecture the coaches. Instead, they should be accommodative and attentive.

Implementation

Local

Optimisation of the Public Financing Instrument

To optimise the public financing instrument, BioInvest works with entities from the public sector such as the Ministry of Agricultural Development and Irrigation (MIDAGRI) and the Ministry of Environment (MINAM) to integrate sustainability criteria into their financing instruments. This involves optimising existing programmes to support biodiversity-friendly businesses.

Close cooperation with the public sector, clear understanding of sustainability criteria, and effective communication are essential.

Clearly communicating the objectives of the financing instruments is vital. Ensuring that both the enterprises and the government understand the goals and intended outcomes of the programmes establishes a foundation for successful collaboration. This transparency aids in building trust and fostering a supportive environment for the development of biodiversity-friendly businesses.

Implementation

Local

Bridging the Gap between Enterprises and Investors

BioInvest works with the Investment Readiness Program to bridge the gap between enterprises and impact investors. This programme educates enterprises with three training packages on key techniques and tools to present companies attractively to investors. BioInvest also organises matchmaking events to bring companies and investors together.

Collaborative partnerships with impact investors, comprehensive information about financing options, and an effective matchmaking process are key for the success of this building block.

It is important to identify a common language when referring to biodiversity-friendly businesses or enterprises. Recognising diversity in terms such as ‘microenterprise’, ‘small enterprise’, or ‘medium enterprise’, and understanding factors like raw materials and value chains can improve communication and align objectives. Understanding diverse levels of enterprises, be it microbusinesses, established market players, or start-ups, is essential.

Implementation

National

Manual Técnico de Criterios Mínimos que definen modelos de negocio aptos para movilizar inversiones de impacto (ES)

Impact investments for the sustainable use of biodiversity in Peru