Building the case for increased funding for protected area and coral reef management

DECR is one of the main protected area managers in TCI. As a government department, DECR depends on funding allocated through a regular budget cycle. Although the government collects a number of fees and taxes that are linked to nature-dependent sectors such as tourism, none of these payments is earmarked to protected area management. Instead, these funds flow to the consolidated fund, from which they are redistributed across public entities.

 

Building a strong case for protected area management was fundamental for DECR to promote: 1. increasing funding through the regular budget cycle, and 2. earmarking of a portion of nature-related revenues.

 

To support DECR in this task, GCFI funded technical assistance for the estimation of budget needs and gaps for basic and optimal protected area management. In addition, an assessment of the tourism value of nature was conducted based on existing studies. By comparing these figures, DECR could show authorities that increasing funding was financially reasonable, given that its operating budget in the year under analysis (2015/2016) was 25 times smaller than the added value of nature for tourism and 30 times smaller than the nature-related tourism revenue for the government.

  • Active participation of DECR staff in different functional areas to help establish specific budget needs.
  • Availability of 'willingness to pay' studies in neighbouring countries and territories with similar visitor profiles.
  • Availability of information from tourist exit survey.

Active involvement of various DECR representatives in the preparation of the business case was fundamental due to the following reasons:

  • Key staff should have a good understanding of the information presented in the business case and the methods used, so that this can be used and updated in the future.
  • Key staff should also be able to effectively communicate the business case to stakeholders.
  • If any staff members leaves the institution, then other members involved in the process should be able to transfer the information internally.
Partnerships

Creating dynamic plastic waste value chains through collaboration between local community groups (youth, women) and the hotel industry. Where community groups collect and sort the waste. The value of partnership is very critical in ensuring streamlining circularity as well as ensuring synergies are pulled concertedly.

Partnering with hotels to source recyclable waste and training of hotel staff on best waste management was factor that accelerated organizing plastic waste collection, storage, and transport logistics within Watamu, Malindi, and Kilifi

There is value in creating meaningful partnerships through capacity building and providing incentives in creating circularity on waste management through training, dialogue, and engagement for the stakeholders to maximize their impact.

Partnerships

Partnerships have been very key in getting stakeholder buy-in as well as ownership on the project. The proposition in the partnerships aimed to decentralize the ownership of the eco-points, spur collections rates and develop a seamless sustainable plastic waste value chain. 

 

During the last 12 months, 3R established various partnerships with different stakeholders. One of the partnerships was with an NGO, ParCo, whereby they established two eco-points, to receive and buy plastic waste from the local community waste pickers. 

Continuous stakeholder engagement was cited as an important platform in ironing out issues among partners involved in the implementation of the project

 

 

  • Planning collaboratively is imperative in harnessing synergies as well as allocating responsibility going forward.
  • Co-creation exercises informed the gaps and opportunities to strengthen aspects of the waste value chain as well as providing the assistance that each stakeholder needed.
  • A partnership is only but a means. Continuous communication is vital to keep partnerships strong and robust to deliver their objectives.
BB1. Organising stakeholder engagement and public participation

The Maritime Spatial Plan of the Azores was designed in a transparent and inclusive process, with the active involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. A strategy for stakeholder engagement and guidelines for public participation were drafted for this purpose. The engagement was designed in a series of three stakeholder workshops held simultaneously in the three most populated islands of the archipelago (São Miguel, Terceira and Faial). The workshops had the same structure, which combined communication about the MSP progress as well as activities to discuss, complement and validate the project outcomes. Prior to the workshops, stakeholders were mapped using the snowball technique. All identified stakeholders were assembled in the regional stakeholder directory and invited to participate in the events over the two years of the project. Complementary activities such as interviews were undertaken to fill important knowledge gaps related to specific maritime sectors.

  • Planning and undertaking a transparent and inclusive participatory process.
  • Widespread coverage of the entire archipelago, enabling the participation of stakeholders of the nine islands.
  • Timely organisation and coordination among the team members, enabling communication and exchange among the simultaneous workshops in the three islands.
  • Collaboration of colleagues and volunteers to support and moderate the workshops.
  • Communicating and giving feedback to stakeholders on the results of the workshops.
  • Stakeholders need to be contacted well in advance to get a good response.
  • Good coordination and organisation among the team members and in the preparation of the materials is essential for timely implementation of the workshop activities.
  • The development of a visualisation tools could help to decrease the ecological footprint of this type of workshops (most materials were paper) and decrease the time spent in the organization of the materials.
  • Lack of data; multiplicity of reference systems or its nonexistence; the information dispersed both in terms of responsible entities and types of data (digital, analogue, etc.), affected the development of materials.
  • Large workload to try to standardize all the information in order to be able to use it in a GIS system.
  • Entities take too long to collect and make information available hindering the team's work.
Knowledge of biological needs of the species

Without an understanding of the biological processes under threat, it would have been impossible to design solutions. For instance, knowledge of the need for dune structures and the importance of native flora as stabilising agents, or salinity impacts on eggs, seasonality of nesting, etc. were crucial in designing the stepwise approach.

Over two decades of experience working with the species, and also a decade of experience working with industry partners and understanding their limitaitons, drivers, operational constraints and in-house environmental policies were important in being able to develop the solution.

Industry already had a tentative plan. The plan did not take into account the biology of the impacted species. By tweaking the plan to ensure there were minimal cost diffferences, and practical, implementable ground operations, the solution met budget considerations while providing a solution tat was acceptable to the regulator and to the sea turtles.

Collection and harmonizing of the data

Collect and harmonize a bunch of spatial data to describe and map ecological connectivity from 6 independent states and numerous regions is probably the most challenging thing you can do in a GIS-project.

  • Describe precisely the data you need;
  • Find the right person to establish the contacts to the data provider;
  • Be able to handle manyfold data formats, structures and systems.

They think that refusing to disclose data means that open questions are not answered.

Production of scientific knowledge

The Mamirauá Institute provides scientific knowledge inputs to local communities and this is relayed to communities and indigenous peoples, applying Conservation Area governance processes. 

 

This knowledge arises from 4 lines of action:

  1. Environmental education
  2. Environmental protection
  3. Strengthening the community
  4. Communication within the community 

The production of knowledge seeks to create medium and long-term solutions.

 



 

  1. Respect and dialogue: The knowledge generated is given to the communities but not imposed on them. They are the ones who decide whether the proposed strategies are implemented.

 

  1. Each community and group is different and one should never assume that what works for one community will work for the neighbouring community. (These are not replicable models.)
  2. Contexts, leadership and ways of working vary. If these differences are not taken into account, conservation processes become complicated and even impossible to develop. 
Working closely with the community

Working closely with the community respects the diversity of traditions, acknowledging elements of a backward nature.

 

The community work must begin with the interests and needs of the community itself; the work should act as the protagonist in the solution to problems.

 

The purpose of the governance processes that the Institute applies is to facilitate communication processes between the organization and the communities, using methodology based on inclusive management workshops.

 

  1. In the Brazil region, it is known that nature conservation is 90% related to local communities. Bearing this in mind, the Institute is building relationships and creating a long-term work plan.
  2. The bonds of trust that are established with the communities are crucial to being able to work closely with them.
  3. Government governance processes
  4. Governance processes in indigenous and community-based conservation areas.
  1. Several organizations have participated in initiatives in an effort to ensure conservation in and development of communities. However they have not been able to do so because they have not been able to understand and respect the communities.
  2. Various organizations still do not understand that 90% of conservation projects involve communities and indigenous peoples
  3. It is important to work hand in hand with government governance processes; effective management of the territory will be achieved by involving stakeholders.
Creation of the Multi-Stakeholder Partnership

In the Dominican Republic, coral reef restoration became a popular alternative to try to safeguard this ecosystems. At the beginning, it started to grow rapidly lacking control and causing many nurseries to become abandoned. This concern triggered the creation of the Dominican Coastal Restoration Consortium (CDRC), a Multi-Stakeholder Partnership that works with along with the Ministry of Environment monitoring coral nurseries all over the country and leading the  nursery evaluations, as well as steering the restoration initiatives in the DR. 

  • Existing interest of several local organizations in getting thigs done the right way, without harming the environment. 
  • Willingness of local organizations and authorities to share knowledge and expertise.
  • The need of structure and a nation wide platform to coordinate and regulate coral reef restoration activities. 

 

  1. A common goal for the stakeholders must be identified, so that everyone benefits from the partnership and it will always be a win-win situation. 
  2. Specific roles and capabilities must be defined from the beginning. 
  3. Formal agreements must be prepared in time so that the implementation of the activities is not delayed. 
  4. Definition of a functional steering structure for the partnership is a must at the beginning. 
Authoritative Geodata and Map Services

The foundation of any SeaSketch project is geospatial information (maps) displayed as map services. There are no minimum data requirements. You can begin working with whatever you've got. Maps may be published as Esri REST Services (e.g., with ArcGIS Server or ArcGIS online) and open source mapping services (e.g., WMS, WMTS) and then imported into SeaSketch. Example maps include administrative boundaries (e.g., EEZ, territorial sea, existing MPAs), seafloor habitats, bathymetry, human uses, etc.

 

The maps you choose to include as Data Layers in SeaSketch depend on the goals of your process. If you are planning for marine protected areas, shipping lanes and aquaculture sites, you may want navigational charts, habitat maps, the distribution of fishing activities and other layers that may be used to guide users in the design of their plans. Protected areas are only meaningful if they effectively protect certain habitats, shipping lanes minimize collision and maximize efficiency, aquaculture sites are located in certain depth zones, etc. On a case-by-case basis, you will need to evaluate what data need to be viewed as maps, and what subset of these data need to be analysed.

 

In some cases, relevant map data may already be published as map services and discoverable in coastal atlases and other map portals. As long as they are in the correct formats (Esri map services, WMS, WMTS, etc), they may be imported directly into SeaSketch and displayed as map layers. 
 

In many cases, it will be advantageous to publish your own map services for display in SeaSketch. This will give you control over the cartography and performance of the maps.

Successful projects usually have a single GIS technician who is responsible for locating existing map services, acquiring data from providers (government agencies, NGOs, academics) and generating new map services using standard desktop and web-mapping tools.