Implementation and Monitoring Plan

Besides setting conservation goals, the Implementation and Monitoring Plan also details strategic objectives and activities to be implemented over a set period of time in order to achieve these goals. Furthermore, the plan identifies potential risks and difficulties and provides indicators for monitoring and evaluation.

  • Defined targets according to CBD
  • Annual activities of the Monitoring Plan included in the Operating Working Plan of SINAC, the annual acquisition plan of the trusteeship and in the working plans of bilaterally cooperating projects that contributed in the first four years
  • Budgeted activities according to the existence of a trusteeship
  • Application for regulated goods and services from SINAC to ACRXS for a cooperation agreement and a manual of operations

Using clearly defined targets, a detailed plan to meet them and a budget allowing this:

  • divided revenues from the trusts,
  • an efficient and organized implementation,
  • a guarantee to meet the targets mentioned.
Implementation
Monitoring
Review phase
National
Informed Decision Making
Access to pertinent and best-available information is important for informed decision-making, yet coordination between government agencies and other data collection and management organizations can be stymied by lack of resources and inconsistent mandates. To address this gap, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has invested in connecting agency departments with other local, regional and international organizations that contribute to data production and/or management relevant to risk reduction and adaptation planning. Working closely with the Grenada Statistics Department, TNC developed a coding system that allows census survey data to be linked with spatial representations of survey districts and made unrestricted information freely available through an online platform. To support data access, co-management, and use, the AWE project in partnership with the World Bank contributed to the development of holistic databases and critical training of government technical staff. This partnership makes non-confidential information available via a centralized system and helps decision-makers access integrated spatial information on ecological, social, and economic systems.
• Involvement of and participation of Government Ministries and Departments in the project processes. • Effective partnerships with other organizations (e.g. World Bank) and government agencies.
• The importance of understanding dynamics of organizations and agencies as it relates to information sharing. • The importance of prioritizing clear communication about the project with partner agencies to ensure that project aims, objectives potential benefits are fully understood. • The importance of strong partnerships.
Planning phase
Implementation
Monitoring
Documentation and dissemination of results
Review phase
National
Map of the Coastal Resilience Organization
Testing of conservation and rehabilitation techniques
The testing of the techniques enabled the team and working group to obtain lessons learned from management activities directly influencing the design of the management plan and also to answer immediate concerns and threats faced by local stakeholders. Techniques included the rehabilitation of a waterway inside the mangrove forest to protect villagers from storms on the coast (canal dredging), re-planting zones affected by coastal erosion, implementation of a zoning system regulating uses in the site. Feedback and lessons learned for a better management plan are compiled.
- Preliminary participatory approach to identify priorities and activities most needed by local stakeholders - Sufficient scientific information to ensure the activities tested are “no regrets” activities and won’t impact the site - Capacities for close monitoring with local stakeholder to draw lessons learned in common
The technical activities, in particular the secured access brought by the rehabilitated canal, enabled a shared and mutual trust in the process and also informed the management plan drafting process. The beach stabilization was rather difficult to achieve through re-plantation only, therefore the management planning committee is now studying other green techniques.
Review phase
Local
Immense benefits of channel dredging in Koh Kapik
Pluralistic governance board

A pluralistic governance board is typically composed of representatives from local authorities, government departments and agencies, local communities and sometimes business organisations and is established during a negotiation process. The board is responsible for making joint decisions about issues raised regarding natural resource conservation. Its role is steering the implementation of the co-management agreement and review of the co-management results and impacts based on monitoring. The pluralistic governance board is an essential element to turn the idea of "sharing power" from theory into practice. This distinguishes it from centralized or private management where only one partner assumes the responsibility for making decisions.

  • The authorities should be committed to co-management partnerships.
  • Communities should have the capacity for making joint decisions. It could be done through practices of participatory action researches with different community groups.
  • The political system of the country should allow shared governance or allow grassroot discussions of issues related to natural resource management.

In order for the pluralistic governance board to effectively make joint decisions, it is important for all stakeholders involved to understand the need for a co-management partnership. For example, authorities should treat communities as equal and strategic partners and vice versa. Co-management will normally yield best results if the involvement of all in the partnership is voluntarily. However, in some situations where power also means money, political supports from higher levels or national policies promoting the practice of sharing power among different stakeholders can be helpful. Members of the board also need to understand and get used to the learning by doing practice. As a whole, they should aim for achieving better results but also learn to accept failures and how to constructively criticize mistakes.

Implementation
Monitoring
Review phase
Local
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, Phil…
Co-management agreement

The co-management agreement is a document consisting of everything agreed to during the negotiation process including management and governance elements. It can be seen as written evidence of the partnership among local actors. The management part specifies the six ‘W’: who can do what, where, when, how and how much. It provides general conditions; specifies natural resource management rules and regulations in each zone, rewards, penalties, the reporting schedule and implementation terms and monitoring. The governance part specifies key actors for decision making and their responsibilities.

Stakeholders need to understand the purposes of the co-management agreement. They should also see the need to adapt it to better reflect the changing situation of resource conservation. The co-management agreement should be developed through negotiation among organised partners. Therefore, community development to turn passive groups of individuals into a true community should be given attention throughout the establishment of co-management agreement and its subsequent adaptation.

The co-management agreement is subject to modification during the learning-by-doing process. Key actors involved in shared governance should understand the need to modify the agreement based on lessons learned during implementation. The co-management agreement provides the basic principles for the co-management partnership among key actors but does not limit their collaboration in making joint decisions to specific terms and problems mentioned in the agreement. Partners, such as authorities and communities, should continue to discuss and deal with any issue raised during their partnership. The co-management agreement is not the same as a fixed form of a benefit sharing mechanism even though it consists of sections specifying what resources can be collected by people and their responsibilities in forest protection. Instead, a co-management agreement is the result of negotiations and has a lot to do with adaptive management and governance issues.

Implementation
Monitoring
Review phase
Local
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. et al (2000) Co-management of Natural Resources: Organis…
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. et al. (2011) Sharing governance! A practical guide for …
Subscribe to Review phase