Defining priority and corrective actions to strengthen the intervention

During the implementation of the intervention, the project team conducted the self-assessment that helps determine whether an intervention is in adherence with the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutionsᵀᴹ. The assessment provided information about the intervention’s strengths and weaknesses and helped derive concrete recommendations and corrective actions for future interventions. Two criteria were deemed insufficient. Criterion 3 (biodiversity net-gain) fell short, because the analysis of the biodiversity benefits achieved through this intervention were largely based on a desk review of existing literature and information rather than a specific assessment, monitoring framework or thorough and collective effort with key informants and stakeholders. Criterion 6 (balancing of trade-offs) was also deemed insufficiently addressed. While there was a reported willingness from the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar to consider relevant trade-offs, the limits of these trade-offs and associated safeguards were not clarified. In addition, while provisions on the rights, usage of and access to marine and coastal resources for mariculture are in place, further information on how this is applied in practice is required.

The assessment was supported by IUCN expert reviewers, who supported the team with the completion of the self-assessment and provided clarification on specific criteria and indicators. Several rounds of discussions revealed that the criteria were sometimes understood and interpreted differently by different people, impacting the assigned rating. This demonstrated the complexities associated with assessing whether an intervention can be considered a Nature-based Solution and the need for thorough and guided consideration of each indicator.

The IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutionsᵀᴹ served as an important tool to reflect on  design, implementation and monitoring challenges related to aquaculture and seaweed farming approaches applied in the IUCN AquaCoCo Project. It provided insights into areas that require corrective action, the collection of additional evidence and means of verification and involvement of local stakeholders, in particular women. In this manner, the self-assessment results will inform future work on aquaculture and seaweed farming in Zanzibar (and elsewhere) and help improve intervention design, implementation and monitoring frameworks.

Systematic Camera Trapping

Camera trapping allows non-invasive surveys of wildlife throughout the protected area, providing new insights into hotspots of rare and threatened species, while also providing information on which locations contained the most species targeted by hunters. Systematic camera traps were set in either fine-grid (smaller areas with 1-2 km spacing in between stations), or course-grid (full protected area coverage with ~2.5 km spacing between stations) designs, with stations that contain 2 or more cameras spaced about 20 m from one another. Cameras trapping systems were left in the field for ~3 months for each sample session to meet the closure assumption; fine grid designs for two locations were repeated 2 years apart, the course grid is intended to be reproduced in 2023 (5 years apart). Systematic cameras were set and microhabitat data were collected at each station site following protocols from Abrams et al (2018). 

 

References

Abrams, J. F., Axtner, J., Bhagwat, T., Mohamed, A., Nguyen, A., Niedballa, J., ... & Wilting, A. (2018). Studying terrestrial mammals in tropical rainforests. A user guide for camera-trapping and environmental DNA. Berlin, Germany: Leibniz-IZW.

  • Donor funding to purchase camera traps, batteries, and other necessary equipment
  • Assistance by rangers and local people to set camera traps in the field
  • Capacity of researchers to properly classify, clean, analyze, and report data.
  • Due to the flash, it is easy for camera traps to be detected and damaged or stolen
  • Experienced personnel are needed to coordinate camera trap setting efforts to mitigate errors as much as possible. Common errors include:
    • date-time setting issues
    • vegetation not cleared from the immediate area of the camera traps causing thousands of blank photos to be triggered by leaves swaying in the wind and rapid loss of battery life, and eventually battery death within days of setting.
    • improper setting of camera traps facing toward one another instead of away, causing potential duplicate records
    • Forgetting to turn the cameras on
    • inconsistent microhabitat data collection by various teams
  • Pre-planning for camera trapping is essential to success and reducing errors, pre-planning should include all personnel involved, should be presented on mapped locations, should identify team leaders, and review protocols and checklists. 
  • Photos should be taken in 4 directions around the camera location. This way if mistakes are made in the field, they can be somewhat mitigated by evaluation of photos later on where possible.
PoacherCams

Our anti-poaching teams have improved the workflow of detecting and pre-emptively stopping offenders who illegally enter the protected forest areas by deploying PoacherCams -- automated detection systems that operate via camera traps and artificial intelligence classification of humans, animals, and vehicles (Figure 3). PoacherCams are strategically placed at entry points into protected forests adjacent to local villages and access trails. When the cameras detect a human entering the park at PoacherCam installation sites, the site manager will receive a notification on their Smartphone of the threat and location. The manager will then deploy a mobile unit (forest rangers) to survey the area or document the entry and exit activity of the offender over time and make an arrest. Our system also has a dashboard for record-keeping purposes and note taking which forestry law-enforcement can refer to later when issuing penalties and following up with their issuance with commune-level law enforcement. Through extensive patrolling efforts, we have identified numerous central access points from local villages into the protected forests and set PoacherCams to monitor them and take action where needed.

  • External funding from donors willing to improve site protection efforts in Vietnam protected and conserved areas via new technologies. It is difficult to get government buy-in for new equipment and technology with limited resources until proof of success is achieved.
  • Support by Panthera – both in providing us with cameras and technical with assistance setting them up on their server.
  • Support by Wildlife Protection Solutions with re-routing camera messages and images to their dashboard and sent to rangers as WhatsApp alerts
  • Cellular network connectivity
  • PoacherCams must be well hidden, or set high up in trees, or they will be damaged or stolen
  • Cellular network connection is required for the system to send alerts to ranger’s phones, and the weaker the cellular connection, the longer the message will take to be received. 
  • Sometimes, it is best to observe offenders entering and exiting the forest and record common times of entry/exit to then deploy a ranger to wait for them at the location, rather than deploy rangers immediately when alerts are received.
  • Some smart phones cannot communicate with the Camera Trap Wireless Client app required to set up the camera. The app should be tested before leaving to the field
  • the nPerf app may help to actively map cellular network connection strength in the field, and provide information on locations to optimize PoacherCam placement.
  • Local people are quickly habituated to ranger patrol patterns and have their own communication networks. When local people from the villages see a ranger going toward a trail where the village hunter entered the forest, they will call the hunter and tell him to take another trail so they will not be caught.
Spatial Reporting and Monitoring Tool (SMART)

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.
Anti-poaching team

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.
Implementation of Ecological Restoration Agreements

The agreements are aimed at preserving the integrity of the SFFG, through the release of transformed areas and the implementation of active and passive restoration processes, in order to achieve the recovery of degraded land cover and contribute to the maintenance of natural areas and the good living of the community.

To achieve the implementation of the ecological restoration agreements, it was necessary to carry out out outreach activities and socialization of the process with the 23 prioritized peasant families and also to collect information according to the guidelines of participatory ecological restoration, which allowed the construction of the technical annexes and the content of the agreements.

  • Funding sources available from the National Government and international cooperation projects (GEF Mosaic Galeras Heritage Fund - KFW).
  • Willingness of key stakeholders to sign Ecological Restoration agreements.

As a contribution to land management and the conservation objectives of the SFFG, the activities that have been developed within the framework of the agreements and the participatory process of ecological restoration, contribute to the appropriation of knowledge of the rural communities for the implementation of favorable practices for conservation, in a way that favors their quality of life and reduces socio-environmental conflicts. On the other hand, it is expected that in the short and medium term the communities will feel identified, involved and appropriate to the ecological restoration process and will be able to conceive a degree of social co-responsibility in the conservation of the protected area.

Social participation in the implementation of the ecological restoration strategy.

Its purpose is to involve local communities in the restoration process, depending on the socioeconomic environment prevailing in the area, with special attention to the aspirations of local communities in terms of the future they want for the space they inhabit. Therefore, in the implementation of the restoration strategy, local communities made up of children, youth and adults were involved in activities such as:

(i) Identification of the areas to be restored.

ii) Construction of community nurseries for the propagation of high Andean forest species. iii) Participation in the implementation of isolation in areas under pressure from agricultural activities, in order to encourage the use of the region's own natural resources that contribute to valuing the existing biodiversity and ensure the long-term continuity of the project, taking into account the important knowledge that the community has about their region, its history of use, the location of the species and in some cases their propagation.

  • Funding available from the National Government and international cooperation projects (GEF Mosaic Galeras Heritage Fund - KFW).
  • Community ownership of the restoration work, guaranteeing the continuity of the process.
  • Recognition of the communities regarding the existence of a protection figure.
  • Knowledge of the communities and the work team of the territory and its ecosystems.
  • The ecological restoration strategy developed by the SFFG has involved the participation of the communities from the beginning, generating ownership in the conservation of the protected area's ecosystems.
  • Scientific knowledge and ancestral knowledge of the communities should be considered in the ecological restoration processes.
  • The strengthening of community nurseries has allowed the protected area to have adequate plant material for the implementation of ecological restoration actions, both in the interior and in the zone of influence. These nurseries also function not only as a source of plant production, but also as an experimental site for native species of interest, with the goal of creating temporary banks of germplasm and seedlings of native species that allow for their characterization, selection, and management. In the future, this will allow the design, knowledge and adaptation of the simplest techniques for the massive propagation of the different Andean species.
Building block No. 1: Identification of the areas to be intervened through active and passive restoration actions.

The purpose of identifying the areas to be restored is to determine the number of hectares in which active restoration actions should be implemented (which consists of direct human intervention on the structure and characteristics of the degraded ecosystem, in order to replace, rehabilitate or restore it to ensure the existence of a structured and functional ecosystem) and passive restoration (focused on eliminating or minimizing the disturbances causing the degradation, leaving the degraded ecosystem to recover its structure and functionality by itself).This process was carried out through the methodology of observation and participatory research, which consists of making field trips with some members of the community, to take geo-reference points with the GPS, to subsequently build the polygons and calculate the area to be restored, which comprises 196.2 hectares. Parallel to this activity, a diagnosis of the conservation status and composition of the plant species present in the area is made to determine the degree of intervention to which the ecosystem has been subjected and thus make the decision on what type of restoration will be implemented.

  • Funding sources available from the National Government and international cooperation projects (GEF Mosaic Galeras Heritage Fund - KFW).
  • Availability of geographic information systems.
  • Willingness of rural communities to participate in restoration activities.
  • Building trust with the farming families, since they have been involved in the ecological restoration strategy activities, thus achieving a degree of co-responsibility in the conservation of the protected area.
  • The SFFG technical team gained experience in carrying out active and passive restoration activities.
Public awareness on environmental and biodiversity conservation

Community buy-in and participation are key building blocks for project success and sustainability. These depend in large measure on community awareness of the project itself, as well as its intended benefits, beneficiaries, and long-term viability. Raising awareness around new protected areas, revised laws/regulations, community conservation agreements, etc. is also a key element of effective enforcement and interdiction, and assuring community adherence to conservation plans.

  • Creation and dissemination of messages that are comprehensible to locals, using appropriate vernacular (including media such as radio that do not require universal literacy)
  • Increased awareness of the benefits of environmental conservation increases community feelings of ownership of planted seedlings
  • Local community authorities play a vital role in involving community members and consensually ensuring adherence to agreed regulations
  • Deforestation and loss of biodiversity take place in situations where there is a lack of awareness of the importance of forests for biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihoods among local communities
  • Limited alternative livelihoods sources drive unsustainable utilization of forest resources and other factors including weak enforcement capacities to limit wildlife and forest crimes
  • Communities are willing to change when provided with viable options as was evident from the adoption of SRI rice production resulting to reduced pressure to encroach on forest land for agricultural production
  • For initiatives to be effective, viable and sustainable, economic alternatives to using forest resources need to be provided, to compensate for losses incurred due to restrictions imposed on the use of the forest resources
Development of Alternative Livelihoods

The overall project objective is "to facilitate a transformative shift towards sustainable land and forest management in the forested landscape of Savannakhet Province in order to secure the critical wildlife habitats, conserve biodiversity and maintain a continuous flow of multiple services including quality water provision and flood prevention." This transformative shift to sustainability is predicated on the provision of adequate alternatives to unsustainable resource use. Previous unsustainable usages of the project's forested landscapes (e.g. logging, poaching) will not cease unless replacement livelihood activities provide an economic benefit and improve income generation for participating villagers.

  • Integration with other project activities (e.g. if improved animal husbandry methods could keep cattle and buffalo near villager’s homes, then the manure from these animals could be collected and processed to make organic fertilizer which could be used for home gardens and rice production)
  • Recruitment of support specialists
  • Planning and preparation
    • Needs assessments
    • SWOT analyses
  • Monitoring and Evaluation
    • Conservation contracts
  • The quality of livestock extension activities is vital
  • Livelihood activities need to be integrated with all project activities, rather than siloed
  • Targets and indicators should be adhered to
  • Activities should be designed to identify how they address the overall goals and objectives of the project