Establish value of the dolphins to New Zealanders
We financed a country wide survey and co-authored an economic report based on the survey with Economists At Large, Melbourne, Australia. The survey assessed "willingness to pay" for conservation of the dolphins which indicated that New Zealanders were willing to pay higher prices for their fish to ensure that the Dolphins weren't subject to bycatch. We presented this work in a report which went to New Zealand politicians and we also prepared a poster which was presented at the Biennial Marine Mammal Conference in Dunedin, New Zealand in Dec. 2013.
Key supporting facts that made the survey and report possible include cooperation of New Zealand scientists to refine the survey, an outside economist group separate from ourselves to ensure impartiality and to evaluate where we stood. All of this was essential to directing our future efforts and to know where and how we might be effective.
Although the survey and economic report supported conservation and were reported favourably in the media, we realized that it would take more direct action and involvement by New Zealanders in their communities to execute change in terms of gaining more protection and removing the nets.
Setting up a long-term research project
This collaboration between the Far East Russia Orca Project (FEROP) of Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), the Russian Academy of Science and researchers from Moscow State and St. Petersburg State universities has focussed on the following research areas: Abundance and distribution, behavioural ecology of whales, dolphins and porpoises in Russian Far East waters, and how they inform conservation of these species.The funding for a multi-year study was obtained to train and enlist young Russian researchers in the study and conservation of these species.
The work in the various research areas has been presented in papers and popular articles, and other media. Building links with various local and national institutions in Russia through key researchers has been vital to our success.
It takes more years than originally envisioned to do the baseline studies and to get the quantity of data needed to progress to thinking about protection. Part of this is due to the logistics of working in the unpredictable conditions of the Russian Far East, but it's also because results from photo-ID and acoustic research techniques to indicate habitat require multiple years.
Common understanding and trust
Shifting the thinking of individual fishers from solo owner-operators to being part of commercial sector with shared obligations, responsibilities and social license and a common desire to promote better fishing practices to ensure the sustainability and growth of the snapper biomass. All independent commercial fishers, fishing vessel owners, SNA1 quota owners, Licensed Fish Receivers of snapper and snapper processing plants were identified and invited to attend the same meeting. Over a period of five months three meetings were held, repeated in four locations based on the commercial fishers ‘local port’. The first meeting identified the issues fishers felt they were being criticised about; the second meeting set out possible solutions and called for discussion before being voted on. At the third meeting the agreed solutions were framed as a Voluntary Agreement with six rules, debated and voted on before being given to government officials, who then worked with commercial fishers on the logistics of recording and reporting on success.
The Agreement was signed by almost everyone who was involved in catching, selling and processing more than 5 tons of SNA1 a year. Over 90% of fishers within the first month of the Agreement being finalised were meeting their reporting requirements.
• To set up from the start the processes for discussion and voting, systems and communication channels that you want to end up with rather than letting these grow organically. • To have everyone on board that has a role in the commercial snapper fishery and take them with you through the evolving journey. • To clearly identify the problem but be willing to muddle through and think outside the box until the solution becomes clear.
Pride training program
Rare’s Pride Program training is a two-year process through which local conservation leaders receive formal university training, followed by periods of field-based formative research and results analyses. Participants learn how to change attitudes and behaviors, mobilize support for environmental protection, and reduce threats to natural resources. Rare’s local partners not only receive classroom training, but also implement an entire social marketing campaign in their communities, designed around a specific conservation goal. Participants in the program receive a toolkit for community outreach: Training 1 provides trainees with basic community engagement tools, so that they can start embedding themselves in the target audience and earn their trust. Training 2 takes place after a period of 1-2 months of field embedding, and teaches research techniques for qualitative and quantitative formative research. Training 3 takes place after 2-3 months of data collection and information gathering, to analyze data collected and design the Pride Campaign. Training 4 takes place upon campaign conclusion, to evaluate results and produce final report.
• Partner commitment to secure full-time dedication of participating fellows to the Pride program. • Continued full engagement and adequate progress of fellows during the entire duration of the program. • A minimum of high school degree for program participants/fellows. • A basic Pride curriculum, tailored to programmatic theme. • Basic infrastructure as well as training team.
A key element in the success of the Pride training program is to have specific deliverables and frequent evaluations of capacity. These deliverables and grades are recorded in an online tool that allows for multiple party follow-up. The same basic training assessment is delivered at the beginning of the cohort, and upon completion of every training phase. Having participants with different backgrounds and levels of academic training (high school or university degrees), presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is having to adapt lesson content and activities to accommodate for these differences. The opportunity is precisely to take advantage of these differences in skills and backgrounds to recruit participants to share past experiences and help fellow trainees in the learning process as mentors.
Fishing access rights
Access rights, such as individual quotas or territorial use rights (TURFS), delimited based on scientific findings and participatory processes, help to avoid overfishing and recover fish populations. They assure fishermen stable fishing over time and exclusive benefits from sustainable management, increasing their stewardship and compliance.
- Support through associated legislation - Long-time set-up for access rights - Clearly defined norms and rules
Examples on the international level show that with access rights: - Fishermen responsibly manage their resources - Administration and planning of fishing activities improves in the short, middle and long-term In Mexico single examples exist in which access rights are agreed upon between fisherfolk and authorities in an unusual way: - It is necessary to act with a clear and transparent juridical framework that has a legal framwork for access rights
Vulnerability assessment and stakeholder plan
The Vulnerability Assessment and Stakeholder Involvement plan is a prerequisite for action. It uses data and policies from the Seychelles National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA) and other country reports, as well as recently published scientific papers. Stakeholder survey and analysis was undertaken to identify, choose and engage the right stakeholders in the project.
• Availability and access to existing data from national reports • Willingness of stakeholders to be surveyed • Existence of adequate numbers of relevant stakeholders for a successful project • Capacity of stakeholders
Desk top studies are important. Field surveys are lengthy and costly and not always necessary because relevant data may exist in government and consultancy reports. Not all stakeholders are the ones to partner with. Some stakeholders may be skeptical about the feasibility of coral reef restoration or cannot be engaged. Those with the right attitude and adequate capacity are the ones to be brought on board otherwise time will be spent on solving stakeholder issues rather than implementing the project. Stakeholders are not always reliable. Stakeholders may not engage fully or may drop out due to various factors. In small countries like Seychelles missing even one or two individuals may make a difference if there was previous commitment.
Updating the Reserve’s Master Plan
The triggering factor that started the updating process of the Reserve’s master plan, were the inhabitants’ concerns about floods affecting them. In response to this, CECON is leading a process of gathering, updating and analysing information to propose management actions and strategies to be included in the updated master plan. Additionally, final discussions with stakeholders and elaboration of the final version of the updated master plan to be presented and approved by CONAP are ongoing.
• Availability of information. • Ability of the institution in charge of the protected area management to generate widespread interest amongst different stakeholders. • Stakeholders are committed to participate actively in the process.
• The Reserve by itself will not be able to control the risk of floods inside its territory, without interventions outside of its limits. • Updating a management plan is not just a specific event in time, but a powerful process to establish permanent stakeholder engagement, and to link a protected area with its surroundings.
Baseline data collection
Scientific data collection with input from relevant stakeholders, through public consultations and government, includes biophysical status and condition of the area, socio-economic status, resource use and preferences, governance, organisational and policy structures. Document data in a public document (Nusa Penida Profile). The profile helps to determine criteria for establishment of protection zones and as input for discussions with local stakeholders.
High diversity of marine ecosystem and biota
The combination of scientific data and traditional knowledge provides best information and baseline information for MPA planning. However, MPA planning should not be delayed until a perfect data set is available.
Conducting formal risk assessment
The building block aims to help communities identify their risks. Risk scenarios and the action plan are developed. Complimentary surveys from biodiversity, environmental quality, fishery, and social economic studies are included into the risk assessment.
Availability of data in the literature, from local governments. Qualified technical staff to analyze results from scientific monitoring on local climate change, biodiversity and livelihoods.
Scientific information and community knowledge are necessary input data to produce a complete risk assessment.
Designing and zoning an MPA for climate adaptation
The zoning of the MPA followed an ecological systems approach and now prioritizes strictly protected areas, ecological restoration, tourism development, and reasonable exploitation and development areas. The management of the zones is undertaken according to different requirements to meet the needs of the ecosystem and the local community. The zoning allows for specific adaptation measures including coastal and river bank erosion prevention measures. Mangrove reforestation projects are conducted at the mouth of the river and along the banks of the river. Several small dikes and sea walls to protect against flooding and rising tides are built.
The declaration for Hoi An to become an eco-city was a trigger to establish the MPA and ensure its benefits for the people of Hoi An.
The MPA management is currently not able to control the outside fishes' activities on their water bodies, which may undermine the capacity of local marine resources to recover from previous activities. Current outside activities of local fishermen result in the overexploitation of certain species. Further, they are often caught when they are still too small for sale. The Cham Islands marine ecosystem health is also threatened by upstream activities that have a detrimental impact on water quality. Illegal logging and hydropower development cause increased erosion which results in sediment discharge that has an adverse impact on coastal ecosystems. The diversity of stakeholders and conflicts between resource users makes it difficult to ensure local ecosystem health. Challenges will best be resolved by innovative, participatory mechanisms that encourage integrated management strategies.