Planning phase | PANORAMA

1 Engaging key stakeholders

Participants at the IMET workshop in October 2021

Fundação Tartaruga

The IMET assessment is a participatory process. Therefore, in preparation for the workshop with the local ministry of environment we tried to identify stakeholders which were representative of all interested parties within the PAs. The workshop included the following stakeholders: Fundação Tartaruga (FT), Ministry of Agriculture and Environment Boa Vista (MAA-BV), BIOS CV, Cabo Verde Natura 2000, Turtle Foundation (TF), Câmara Municipal Boa Vista (CMBV), Society of Tourism Development in Boa Vista and Maio (STDIBVM), Varandinha Association, Port Maritime Institute (IMP), National Police including Maritime Police. Additionally, the national director of environment, the association for tourism operators, fisheries inspectors and further community leaders were invited but did not attend. They were informed that this is a participatory process which will allow everyone's voices and opinions to be heard and recorded in the evaluation. The vote of each representative was given equal weighting and so it was a very inclusive process.

The attendance and contribution of all involved was fantastic. Members could see the idea clearly behind the tool and at the end of the workshop the results were very clear and were representative of the challenges all stakeholders face while interacting with the PAs.

Everyone was invited to participate in the online sessions to understand the process and idea of the evaluation which made the face to face sessions more effective.

Communication between the stakeholders (Portuguese-speaking) and the trainer (English-speaking) was very important.

Inclusivity! In order to make the process accessible to all interested parties we had two translators present at the workshop and have translated all correspondence, reports and presentation to both Portuguese and English. This allowed local people from all different backgrounds to share their ideas and opinions on the management of their local parks and express what they believe should be done.

There is a history of poor relationships between the NGOs on the island, however this process allowed individuals representing the NGOs to be unified in presenting arguments for what they believed should be made a priority in the management of the PAs in terms of species and habitats and the ecosystem as a whole.

There is no one correct answer. An understanding of compromise is also vital in the sense that not everyone can achieve exactly what they want, those stakeholders with contrasting needs, desires or demands were faced with the opportunity to present their case, and their reasons behind it. Those stakeholders placed along the spectrum of contrasting opinion had to decide in which favour to support.

Planning phase

Local

Local Capacity Building for Safe Sampling and Testing of Wildlife Carcasses

With limited funding for wildlife surveillance and veterinary medicine in the country, and limited access for subsistence communities to adequate health care, increasing awareness of the importance of wildlife health as it pertains to human and livestock health at local, provincial, and central levels is essential. Introducing preventative approaches and building local capacity for wildlife surveillance is key to reducing human health risks from contact with wildlife. Bringing diagnostic capacity from other nations into the country itself and ultimately to the carcass side enables better local engagement and rapid response and mitigation efforts in the case of detection of a pathogen of concern

- Long-term external financial support for the development of the wildlife health sector including surveillance and diagnostics

- Long-term funding to develop the capacity of communities to engage in preventative approaches, participatory surveillance and wildlife sampling

- The interest of the host government to develop wildlife health capacity and designation of time and personnel availability to be trained

Enhancing local understanding of the importance of wildlife health for human and livestock health and developing local capacity to conduct effective wildlife surveillance is critical to achieving sustained One Health benefits

Documentation and dissemination of results

Creating sustainable networks for reporting and response to wildlife mortality

Taking the time to develop effective systems for reporting from remote areas (e.g. local human networks or cell-phone based if available) and ensuring a centralized team that responds to reports and communicates findings to communities is vital for the long-term success of such wildlife mortality monitoring networks

- Good relationships and networks from local to district to the provincial and central levels

- Good coordination across multiple sectors from local to national levels

- Financial and human capacity to respond effectively and in a timely manner to mortality reports

- Access to communication tools e.g. cell phones

If communities don't see effective response or communication with them on findings, they are unlikely to continue to participate in surveillance efforts. Taking the time to build efficient, sustainable multi-sectoral networks with key stakeholders is essential

Documentation and dissemination of results

Building Trust with Local Communities

Community engagement on Ebola

WCS Republic of Congo

Building partnerships and trust with local subsistence communities is essential to ensure successful uptake of public health messaging and community engagement in participatory surveillance, especially given that traditional superstitions and beliefs may contrast significantly with modern scientific knowledge and medicine

Time, long-term funding, and the human capacity for repeat visits to spend adequate time with communities to build long-standing relationships of trust over a period of years

In order for participatory surveillance networks with remote communities to be successful, long-term investment is needed, often longer than the duration of short funding streams from foreign entities. Repeat visits and support over many years and consistent, effective communication and rapid result sharing with the communities are essential

Documentation and dissemination of results

Entirety

Local

Implementation of Effective Control Strategies for Disease Spillover From Livestock to Wildlife

Multi-sectoral coordination, and communication and coordination with local communities, are essential to clearly and simply share findings of surveillance and why specific management strategies have been developed and are recommended for implementation. This would include, for example, vaccination of domestic livestock for PPR in areas where their range overlaps with that of significant wildlife populations, protecting livestock health, and reducing the risk of spillover to wild ungulates.

Financial support for vaccination or other management strategies; good coordination and communication between sectors; good communication and relationships with local communities of herders; access to vaccines and appropriate storage capability; human capacity to implement effective vaccination campaign.

Open lines of communication between relevant government sectors and between government and communities as well as and their understanding of the disease epidemiology is essential to implement effective disease control strategies that address the concerns of all stakeholders involved.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Local Capacity Building for Management of Disease at the Wildlife-Livestock Interface

Many nations have limited funding for wildlife health surveillance so developing this capacity and the knowledge of wildlife health and disease epidemiology as it pertains to the wildlife-livestock interface at the local, provincial and central levels is vital for sustained surveillance and for the true value of this surveillance to be realized including its use to implement wildlife-friendly interventions that also support improved livestock health.

External and governmental financial support for development of wildlife health sector including surveillance and diagnostics; interest of host government to develop wildlife health capacity; time and personnel availability to be trained

Developing local capacity for wildlife health surveillance is critical for sustainability of such efforts and sustained One Health benefits

Documentation and dissemination of results

Collection of baseline wildlife health data

Conducting monitoring and surveillance in wildlife (both healthy populations and those showing signs of disease) and routine serological testing for exposure to pathogens frequently shared with livestock as well as more in depth diagnostics e.g. PCR/ NGS on sick/ dead animals support comprehensive understanding of the circulation of pathogens in these populations, geographic and temporal distributions and time-lines of exposure and non-exposure of different populations. Integration of this data with livestock surveillance data contributes to understanding of the epidemiology of diseases and the dynamics of disease outbreaks, including the potential source, to implement effective science-based control strategies.

Financial support for surveillance; human capacity for surveillance, and data management and analysis; access to sites to conduct surveillance; cold chain/ sample storage capacity; capacity for accurate field and/ or laboratory based diagnostics; good coordination between environment/ wildlife and livestock health sectors; openness for result sharing by host government

Coordination and support from the government is essential from the beginning to ensure support for surveillance, understanding of what is being implemented and the goals/ outcomes, good coordination between sectors, engagement to build local capacity and export samples for testing where necessary, host government willingness to be open about diagnostic findings and motivation to amend disease control strategies based on findings. Wildlife health is under-funded in all countries compared with livestock and human health sectors and external donor support is almost certainly required for success of such programs in LMICs and MICs. It takes considerable time and patience to develop truly functional, localized wildlife health surveillance networks, integrated with other national surveillance networks

Documentation and dissemination of results

1. Multi-sectoral coordination for monitoring diseases at the wildlife-livestock interface

Building partnerships across the emergency management, animal health and environment/ wildlife sectors is an important first step for planning and implementation of wildlife surveillance to ensure results are used to guide science-based policy and disease control mechanisms. Convening multi-sectoral meetings to open discourse and share information on the challenges and opportunities to monitoring and management of disease at the wildlife-livestock interface, and to develop smooth communications and trust between and across sectors as well as multi-sectoral surveillance and response networks is critical.

Financial support for coordination meetings; openness of host government to coordination between environment/ wildlife and livestock health sectors; time and patience

Documentation and dissemination of results

Spatial Reporting and Monitoring Tool (SMART)

SMART in Pu Mat National Park

CC-BY-NC

The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) is a both a software and a framework that allows forest rangers and anti-poaching patrols to collect geospatial data on their smart phones (via the SMART mobile app), which acts as an advanced handheld GPS. When traps, illegal encampments, animals, or violators are located, the patrol will make a record using the app’s customized “data model” (a customization of the application that creates specific drop-down lists, and decision trees). The SVW data model is based on Vietnamese forestry law, so when any technical gaps are identified in the data model in terms of arrest procedures, non-standard violations, or priority species listed in legislative decrees, it can directly inform and improve policy.

Once data has been collected by patrols on their smart phones, the patrol data (paths walked, km travelled, time spent on patrol, and data recorded) will upload automatically to SMART desktop. This is where managers can evaluate poaching hotspots to apply pressure, and also allows them to monitor the effectiveness of the patrols themselves. With each new data input, data managers are able to adapt to the situation and adjust their team and patrolling regimens accordingly.

Cooperation of park managers enabling SVW anti-poaching team to operate in the park
Rangers willing to learn new technologies and agree with directional planning from younger, newer employees that have less experience and seniority in the protected area.
Intensive and effective training of anti-poaching teams and willingness of members to perform intensive work in the field collecting data and, in the office, managing and reporting the data outputs.
Functioning SMART software and available equipment (smart phones)

Data managers are vital to the success of intelligence reporting and planning, and should be separate from patrols so they can focus specifically on data management tasks alone. Rangers and team members often forget to turn off their track recorder during breaks, in transit, and after they finish working. As a result, data managers must clip and clean data to maintain reporting accuracy.
At the learning phase, mistakes are common in the first year of data collection and processing, and are to be expected. It is best to identify the most common errors early on and address them with all participating patrols to ensure data viability moving forward.
SMART Connect is a solution to centralizing data collected from multiple ranger stations or sites. However, SMART Connect servers require expert technical assistance to set up and maintain. If they are set up through a third-party service, server issues rely on the third-party service technical support, and data sovereignty laws may prevent access to this option altogether.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Anti-poaching team

Figure 1. Annual patrol coverage of Pu Mat National Park between 2020-2021 recorded by SMART mobile.

CC-BY-NC

Figure 2. Effectiveness comparison of anti-poaching team members and forest rangers Pu Mat National Park, Nghe An, Vietnam.

CC-BY-NC

Anti-poaching (AP) teams are hired and funded under Save Vietnam's Wildlife, and approved by protected area managers where they sign a joint contract between the two. They undergo approximately one month of training in Vietnamese forestry law, species identification, self-defense, field training, first aid, and using SMART.

AP patrols stay with forest rangers for 15-20 days of patrolling at various ranger stations each month, and an assigned Data Manager typically processes, cleans, analyzes and reports SMART data for all patrols to the park director and SVW coordinators. At the beginning of each month, a SMART report is generated by the data manager; based on the intelligence from this report, a patrol plan will be discussed with the ranger and anti-poaching members, and then submitted to the protected area director for approval; mobile units are on standby and led by forest rangers to rapidly respond to any emergencies, locations outside of planned patrol areas, or situations accessible by road.

Rangers were trained to use SMART mobile through vertical knowledge transfer in the field, and by the end of 2020, 100% of the forest rangers (73 people) were all effectively using SMART, increasing patrol data coverage across the entire protected area (Figure 1).

Collaboration between NGO-based law enforcement assistants (the SVW anti-poaching team) and protected area managers and forest rangers
Willingness for forest rangers with senior status and position to take advice and adaptive direction from newly trained younger staff
Willingness for rangers and anti-poaching team members to adapt to new technologies and operational systems to achieve a shared goal.

We have learned through the patrol observations, local information, and data trends that there are primary periods of poaching activity in the park which correspond to bamboo/honey harvesting seasons and months proximal to Tet holiday (Lunar New Year), whereby locals have a high demand for wild meat as a special gift to family and friends.
When directly compared, joint patrols with rangers and anti-poaching team members were shown to be substantially more effective than ranger-only patrols in terms of illegal activity documented and mitigated. This is probably due to the effectiveness of SMART data collection (Figure 2).
Since anti-poaching members are not government employees like rangers, they do not have the power to make arrests, when necessary, therefore patrols with only anti-poaching members are only able to document but not mitigate active human threats to wildlife.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Review phase

Entirety

Local