Build collaborative environment

Enforcement involves more than just one organization. The entire process in development and implementation of an enforcement strategy must be participatory. Ultimately, stakeholders must be involved as they can have a positive or negative effect on outcomes. In this case local government agencies are crucial to be involved (i.e coast guard, police, military, government agencies). Equally important are community members of influence who can become stewards educating on legislation and the protected area rules ultimately to help reduce poaching. Additionally, the value of strong community support is the fact that they can become “eyes on the ground”.

All partners are to be equally valued in terms of input as this will affect implementation. Process of engagement and facilitation are key.

Ease of implementation of the enforcement plan is directly tied to having good partners and community support.

Situational Analysis—National Context for enforcement of selected Protected Area

In order to develop your enforcement strategy there are key pieces of information that must be collated and understood. These include lay of the land (why is the protected area important, what are the natural assets that need protection), legal framework (what laws apply, what agencies are involved in protected area enforcement/management), and finally what do you want to focus on: enforcement goals. 

Informed, capacitated people should be involved in the process. Enforcement goals need to be S.M.A.R.T  (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound), this can only happen if the context is correctly represented. 

Context is key in the design of enforcement goals. Having a participatory process gets support and buy in from partner agencies and communities making enforcement “easier”.

Transfer of knowledge on new methods of ecological restoration through seeding

One of the main objectives of the project was to transfer the seed bombing method developed by XGraines, and adapting it to the material, human and knowledge resources available within tribal communities. This action required the implementation of several training workshops, following a preliminary phase of identification of all locally mobilizable resources. The experiments were carried out directly with the participants, who were able to contribute to the implementation of the method in a co-constructed process that could guarantee the proper appropriation of this technique. A main local referent was trained throughout the process and will be able to pass on this acquired knowledge in the future within the community.

The tribe's representatives' interest in experimentation and their good understanding of the project's objectives is one of the main factors that favoured the project. The selection of participants who were already engaged in ecological restoration actions before the project demonstrates their commitment and willingness to improve and develop techniques in a field (reforestation and production) that is familiar to them.

The transfer of knowledge and learning process required multiple workshops and work sessions.

Carrying out a shared diagnosis for the selection of plant species and trial site selection.

One of the prerequisites for action was to work with the project referents in the tribe to conduct an inventory of potential sites for seed planting trials, as well as to identify and select certain target plant species necessary for the process. This step involved mobilizing specific expertise in ecology and botany, also traditional knowledge, as well as putting in place a validation process by the different levels of local authorities involved.

Good communication with the local leaders in the tribes was a critical factor in completing this step. Project presentation ceremonies were held, followed by several field visits with ecological experts to list the range of possibilities and entrust the final choice of these trial sites to the local leaders. The project coordinators were flexible in adapting to the constraints of the location and human factors related to the desired modes of the organization by the local leaders.

Remain flexible in the implementation of solutions; remain attentive to local community referents in order to arrive at a shared and agreed diagnosis and validate project options that local partners have appropriated.

Stakeholder engagement and collaboration

Enhancing governance and conservation in biodiversity protected area management requires robust stakeholder participation and collaboration by all the actors in the protected areas. This was key as the shared resources made it possible to accomplish the project implementation within the schedule and timeframe.  This process also involved stakeholder analysis and their contribution to the governance of the site. Shared vision planning and established mechanism for continued coordination.

 

Good stakeholder participation, and support by the government and the traditional leadership. The participatory nature of the tool allows broader collective action planning and assessment.

 

Stakeholder participation helped to pull resources together and a joint action agreed and made implementation much easier. It requires proper planning and identification of key governance issues to be analyzed and acted upon. Usually, you would want to focus on those governance issues that are relevant such as gender equity, participation, and information sharing. The process became expensive especially the implementation of other activities due to a high number of stakeholders.

 

Site-level profile and governance gap analysis

A brief site-level profile (baseline) was developed to assist in understanding the governance gaps and issues in the targeted protected areas. In this case, a SAGE too was identified to assist with a quick assessment of governance issues.  This process also helped to identify key stakeholders relevant to the implementation of the project at the site level.

 

The community buy-in, and commitment from the government and other stakeholders made the process more participative. The use of the SAGE tool encouraged more interaction and contributed to the implementation of the project. The Technical staff and field-based teams were also always available to guide the process through.

 

The baseline survey to establish site level profile and governance gap analysis required cooperation and collaboration from other stakeholders, especially the traditional leadership and government. It is also a slow process and requires adequate planning and preparation.

 

Collaboration

Blue Parks relies heavily on collaborations with other conservation NGOs, communications and marketing professionals, government leaders, MPA managers, scientists, and local ocean champions. Growing the network of Blue Parks and amplifying the Blue Park standard for conservation effectiveness requires many partners.

Blue Parks has benefitted from the contributions of many partners. These collaborations have been made possible by a growing awareness that MPA coverage alone is not sufficient to safeguard biodiversity -- that we need to fully implement high quality MPAs in order to see conservation outcomes, and most MPAs are not yet well implemented.

 

These collaborations have also grown out of Marine Conservation Institute's long-standing history as a trusted partner among marine scientists, conservation organizations, and governments.

Nurturing collaborations across multiple sectors (government, NGO, academia) requires clear communication. We have found that regular, though not too frequent, outreach and communication with these partners keeps the collaborations active, and that these communications are most effective when they are designed for the audience, so we often send separate communications to partners in different sectors.

No blue print

A ‘local community’ represents a heterogeneous group of people, characterized by their ethnic origin, political orientation and shared history, defining (dynamic) power relationships between it`s members.

Each community possesses therefore a ‘social capital’ that can be described as its capacity to respond to an external intervention (e.g. a project).

A blue print approach would therefore not be suitable.

 

No ´One solution` for all approach on different sites. 

From the project teams` perspective, it means that the same approach used to engage and work with different communities will not produce the same results and that a good understanding of the local power relationships and governance systems will help in adapting the approach to the local context.

Time & resources

Donors need to change the way they fund project and project implementers should not accept anymore 3-years projects that address complex systems.

Complex systems need time and resources to have a chance to be successful (an inception phase of 6 months is far too short to understand a new network of stakeholders).

Time & resources

Speficic skills (e.g., social sciences and humanities)

 

Time, specific skills and well sequenced application of mixed methodologies and dedicated means are necessary to build trust and mutual respect with local stakeholders before any concrete intervention can take place, but should not take too long to compromise stakeholders’ expectations.

Skipping the first steps, usually to respect a project timeline, is counterproductive and compromises outcomes (i.e. positive results beyond the lifetime of the project). This ‘inception phase’ is therefore necessary and needs to be negotiated with the donor, the consortium members and the final beneficiaries.

Multi-Stakeholder Partnership (MSP)

In multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs), stakeholders from the state, the private sector, civil society and  academia plan, coordinate and implement joint activities to tackle the challenges of sustainable development. They use an agreed steering structure that enables them to function strategically and operationally. Smoothly functioning decision-making mechanisms are, among other things, crucial to cooperate across  organisation. Yet, depending on the complexity of the issues involved, decision-making can be a challenging process. The AOHSM is based on the principle of collegial leadership, i.e. non-hierarchical and self-organised cooperation, proceeding on the basis of solution focussed action. The exchange amongst the AOHSM working groups is facilitated by rotating moderators. Currently, a governance structure for the AOHSM is being developed taking into consideration the opinions, ideas and experiences of key members of all working groups. 

Cooperation, open communication, a clear understanding of the joint objectives, formally signed expressions of interest, official declarations of membership by institutions' authorities, voluntary dedication of time and efforts to the groups. Creative and participatory capacity building on the tool MSP and the One Health approach helped to convice and motivate the members. 

The One Health approach requires constant and continuous explication using evidence and concrete examples on how it can be a solution to the region's environmental problems. Creative introduction to the topic as well as the identification of One Health champions in the three countries, and giving them international visibility at seminars and webinars, is useful to make the abstract approach implementable.