The bird list was supplemented through passive acoustic monitoring, and the effectiveness of the monitoring was confirmed. Compared with the ordinary line survey method, passive acoustic methods recognition is more effective. 60 species of birds were identified, belonging to 4 orders and 23 families. Among them, the identification results included 3 species of national second-class protected animals, namely the big noisy babbler, the orange winged noisy babbler, and the red billed sparrow. 

Through the efforts of the government, local government, and local residents, the Amami Islands were designated as a NP in 2017.　
Subsequently, the extermination of non-native species such as mongoose and feral cat etc. became a challenge in maintaining the island's biodiversity in preparation for the registration as a World Natural Heritage site, and preserving the unique natural environment that forms the basis of the island's nature/environmental culture.  The mongoose, the biggest challenge of all, has been exterminated under the government's initiative and will be completely eliminated by 2024. Meanwhile, measures against feral cats and monitoring of non-native plants were carried out with the cooperation of Kagoshima University, the Ministry of the Environment, local governments, and local residents. In the case of feral cat countermeasures, precedents from overseas were introduced and considerations for owners in their daily lives were shared. In terms of invasive plant monitoring, continuous training sessions for local residents have been held to improve their capabilities and share the results.
 

On-station trials

In a series of experiments conducted at the National Aquaculture Center in Domasi, the project team tested the trap for intermittent harvest with different baits in ponds (200 m2) stocked with different species (Coptodon Rendalli vs. Oreochromis Shiranus) at different densities (1 vs. 2 vs. 3 fish per sqm.). In addition, further tests were carried out to determine the time and intervals it takes to catch a certain amount of fish. As a control and for comparison, additional ponds were stocked with O. Shiranus and C. Rendalli fed with maize bran or pellets for single batch harvest to represent customary forms of rural aquaculture in Malawi.

On-farm trials

At the time when the trap was technically functional, households that wanted to test the trap under every day, real-life conditions were identified. Over three months, six households tested the trap and documented the catch.

For many conservationists, including our participants, the knowledge to effectively use conservation technology is not enough without the funding to access the tools. Recognizing this barrier, we provide each participant with USD$500 in seed funding to support the implementation of their conservation solutions. Participants are required to propose and carry out projects, which have ranged from building predator-proof bomas and underwater camera traps to developing AI tools, mobile apps, and community-driven citizen science initiatives. Each participant is required to report on their project’s progress over the following year, fostering accountability and impact tracking.

To ensure long-term sustainability, we also deliver training in grant writing, proposal development, and funder engagement to equip participants with the skills needed to secure sustained future funding. Ongoing mentorship and support also continue beyond the initial training. Our team, along with a growing alumni network, provides guidance on grant applications, reference letters, and professional development opportunities. Many of the projects and collaborations initiated during the program have led to graduate study, published research, and conference presentations, reinforcing participants’ continued growth as conservation leaders. 

Our technical training emphasizes experiential learning by giving participants direct, practical experience with conservation technologies. Whenever possible, students are encouraged to set up and deploy tools themselves in safe, low-pressure environments, creating space to experiment, make mistakes, and learn by doing. For instance, students may choose camera trap locations based on the classroom training module, then evaluate the effectiveness of their decisions by analyzing the resulting data. This process helps bridge theory and practice while building confidence in problem-solving and tool use.

In cases where participants cannot operate the tools directly, trainers and field practitioners from host institutions provide live demonstrations, such as tracking wildlife using GPS or operating drones, ensuring students still gain exposure to how these technologies function in real-world conservation settings.

We select participants who are at the beginning stages of their careers, such as those who have completed their bachelor’s degrees and are entering the NGO or conservation workforce or embarking on higher education.The goal is to identify participants whose careers would benefit the most from the type and amount of training, funding, mentorship, and support we provide. Over the past two years, we’ve recruited at least one participant from a non-academic background who nevertheless possesses extensive on-the-ground experience. These individuals have thrived in the program, highlighting an opportunity to further cater to this audience in future iterations.

To build technical capacity across diverse conservation contexts, we have created a modular portfolio of standardized training materials that teach foundational competencies in conservation technology. These materials are organized into themed modules, such as wildlife monitoring, wildlife protection, and human-wildlife conflict, and are designed to be flexible and adaptable based on regional needs.

In collaboration with local host institutions and regionally recruited trainers, we tailor the curriculum to align with local ecological conditions, institutional priorities, regulatory frameworks, and learning styles. For example, because drone use is permitted in Kenya but restricted in Tanzania, modules are adjusted accordingly to ensure all content is actionable within the participant's home context. This approach ensures the training is both locally relevant and practically applicable, maximizing its long-term impact.

Examples of our core training portfolio include:

• Wildlife monitoring: Camera traps, biologgers, acoustic sensors, GPS tracking
• Wildlife protection: SMART, EarthRanger, infrared cameras, radios, K9 units, drones
• Human-wildlife conflict mitigation: Electric fencing, networked sensors, deterrent systems
• Cross-cutting tools: GIS and remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and introductory coding and electronics

Our standardized training curriculum is delivered by female experts (academics, practitioners, and government professionals) working in conservation and conservation technology within the local region. These women serve not only as instructors, but also mentors and collaborators. By centering local female role models, we help participants envision pathways for their own careers while strengthening their ties to regional research and conservation communities. We strive to foster an inclusive environment for honest dialogue around challenges of being a woman in conservation technology and encourage lasting mentorship relationships beyond the formal training period.

However, the gender gap we seek to address can make it difficult to identify and recruit female trainers in certain technical fields. In response, we have defined three distinct roles to broaden the support system for participants:

• Mentors: Local female role models who lead sessions and provide ongoing mentorship.
• Allies: Male trainers and facilitators who actively support our commitment to gender equity and inclusive training spaces.
• Trainers: Members of the international organizing team who provide additional instruction and logistical support.

Together, these individuals play a critical role in delivering content, fostering participant growth, and modeling diverse forms of leadership across the conservation technology landscape.

The village grazing committee and interested community members then come together at a Conservation Technology Center (CTC) for Rangeland Data Feedback Meetings facilitated jointly by an APW team member and the habitat monitors. While the dashboards are available on any mobile device, the CTCs allow for the community to convene for information sharing and participatory decision-making based on the data visually displayed on large screens. Oftentimes, the village grazing committee will review existing land use plans and verify their effectiveness with the data collected each month, adjusting pasture resource allocation accordingly. Finally, where the dashboards show rangeland degradation or proliferation of invasive species, the committee can use the data as justification to apply for financial support from APW for rangeland restoration interventions such as invasive species removal, reseeding, or soil erosion control projects. Through these data-informed, participatory mechanisms, community members play an active role in the stewardship and sustainable use of their natural resources. This model contributes to GBF Target 2 and 22 by empowering Indigenous Peoples and local communities to take leadership in habitat restoration, ensuring that their knowledge, rights, and participation are integral to conservation planning and implementation.

This building block emphasises community participation in monitoring, utilising citizen science and accessible data platforms to ensure local knowledge informs adaptive management and contributes to the long-term success of mangrove restoration.