The CATS Programme was based on the acknowledgement that good practices within the terrestrial zone augur well for the health of the coasts and marine spaces.  Thus, it worked with practitioners (farmers, foresters, agroprocessors) within this space by teaching and reinforcing good practices that could be incorporated within their operations.  A small group was also taught the specialised skills for mushroom cultivation as an alternative to traditional crop production.  This niche area was anticipated to increase food production diversity as it aligned with the practices of good resource management, recycling of byproducts and resilience.  For practitioners at the management level, the Programme supported the training of various persons in the practical application of Unmanned Aerial Systems for natural resource management and monitoring.  Since CATS Programme’s introduction of this, several other organisations both private and public sector have embarked on similar trainings for their officers. 

We identified an efficient technology that can be replicated by the local community members

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. 

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.

The IOC’s Olympic Forest project – a reforestation initiative launched in Mali and Senegal – generated interest from National Olympic Committees, who expressed their wishes to take action against climate change and to implement similar projects in their own countries.

Following this interest, the IOC launched the Olympic Forest Network, where NOCs could build on the original Olympic Forest project by designing and implementing their own initiatives to restore existing forests, wildlife corridors, coastal watersheds, and ecosystems, as well as implement regenerative agriculture projects.

The Network builds on, and expands, the IOC’s Olympic Forest initiative, helping to profile Olympic Movement’s work that contributes to fighting climate change and conserving nature. It recognises local projects delivered by NOCs according to best practices and within the IOC’s framework. The IOC provides support to NOCs (guidance, technical advice for the application to the network, workshops, webinars and in some cases funding), receives their projects and assesses them using specific criteria. Thanks to its offices located worldwide, IUCN helps the IOC in providing technical feedback about the projects, carrying out field visits and reviewing the technical documentation provided by the NOCs.

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 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). 

Once we have established a Community Wildfire Management Team we review their local wildfire issues and identify options for change using a range of participatory methods. Our aim is to build an understanding of how and why fires start within each community and the positive and negative impacts of fires started for different reasons, and in different areas. We recommend interviewing various people including members of the Community Wildfire Management Team, other village leaders and elders, women, youth, and local authorities.

When we understand the causes and impact of wildfire we then conduct community mapping to spatially determine: 

• where fires are most likely to be lit and why;
• potential firebreaks or control lines within the landscape;
• location of water sources;
• location of access roads and tracks;
• priority areas for protection (e.g. high value forest and restoration areas); and
• the ability of local community members to control fires both through pre-suppression and suppression measures.

These fire maps helped each community implement measures to prevent, detect, and effectively respond to wildfire.

First, we identify a suitable community – one that is threatened by fire and has the will to address the problem, and ideally has an established community group. On the Tonle Sap Lake we have worked with Community Fishery Organizations (CFi’s), Community Protected Area Organizations (CPA’s), and Villages to implement CBFiM. Engaging a formal community organization with a recognized structure has several advantages, including recognized community leadership, management capacity, financial resources such as bank accounts, and recognition by the local authorities. First, we seek advice from local government authorities on which communities have the necessary capacity to take part in CBFiM. We then meet with community leaders to gain their support, before engaging with Women’s Saving’s Groups who can provide financial support. From this we develop the community wildfire management team which should be integrated with both the Village and Commune authorities. The community wildfire management team forms the basis of CBFiM.

In order to identify the most feasable urban EbA measures with the highest potential to pilot in Dong Hoi city, the first step was to carry out a scoping mission and a preliminary study to collect and analyse data to provide a scientific basis for the consultation process. The objective was to provide a detailed review and analysis of previous studies and information gathered through structured stakeholder engagement via interviews, focus group discussions and stakeholder consultations for a participatory selection of pilot measures with relevant partners. 

The scoping mission and the preliminary study were conducted to provide further insight into the specific vulnerabilities and the possible adaptation responses for Dong Hoi city. The findings were used to identify a short list of urban EbA measures as well as any outstanding knowledge gaps and/or information needs for the next steps. 

A multi-stakeholder engagement event was held to promote an open dialogue between stakeholders to discuss key issues related to climate impacts and local vulnerabilities. This knowledge exchange among key stakeholders strengthened relationships among key partners, enhanced partners’ understanding of urban EbA measures as well as generated knowledge to fill information and data gaps identified in the preliminary study.

Selection Process
Analysis: The identification, development and assessment of the selected urban EbA measures was based on a functionalistic approach in which the cause and effect of the main hazards compiled during the preliminary assessment and the scoping mission provided the basis for the revision of final measures. These measures, based on the causes of the key problems and their linkages to current and future climate hazards, were meant to take into account short-term and long-term considerations as much as possible.

Selection: The selection criteria were based on the Friends of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (FEBA) Assessment Framework for EbA Quality Standards. It was used in a participatory selection exercise during the second multi-stakeholder event and during consultation with key partners. The use of the framework provided a scientific and transparent selection process, based on an internationally endorsed tool.

The final measures, based on this selection process, was defined as: 1) Cau Rao EbA River Park (water retention areas), 2) Rain Gardens (green wall and green roof) and 3) Water Flow Management (SUDS).