Leveraging real-time alerts from ScannerEdge, a response unit can quickly assess and mitigate potential threats, such as poaching or other illegal activities.

Inclusive and participatory mapping of all stakeholders in the mangrove space in the five counties of Kwale, Mombasa, Kilifi, Tana River and Lamu. A series of meetings for sensitization on the National Mangrove Management Plan, and later facilitated formation of the national and five county committees. The committees were then facilitated in developing their workplans and executing some of the activities. This has since been picked up. 

The debriefing occurs both during and after the game. Brief debriefs can take place after each session to gauge participants’ feelings about the game at individual and territorial levels. These are kept light to maintain the game’s flow.

Once the game is over, a more in-depth debriefing can take place. It doesn’t necessarily have to happen immediately after the game; it could be scheduled for the following day. Some preparation is required for this discussion. The facilitator should bring a list of prepared questions and a printed map of the territory. During this debriefing, participants will identify the challenges they faced regarding land use, as well as the causes of those challenges. Key actors needed for resolution and potential solution ideas will also be discussed. The map serves as a visual aid to guide the discussion. Some basic questions that could be asked include:

• What happened during the game? How much, how quickly, and why did the soil degrade?
• What were the main conflicts that arose during the game? Between which actors?
• Did you find any solutions?
• Did you try to implement them? What was the outcome?

Of course, the questions can be more specific and adapted to the participants and the situations that arose during the game. 

Early warnings are delivered through multiple channels, including a mobile app, smart broadcasting, phone calls, and text messages. The app is the most widely used, and monitors also share alerts via WeChat groups or personal networks for broader reach. To expand user coverage, field teams conduct door-to-door awareness campaigns in elephant-affected villages. As a result, the app has been downloaded by more than 246,660 users.
This module has strengthened public engagement and built community capacity by combining face-to-face outreach with digital tools. It also improves public understanding of wildlife protection and encourages participation. These efforts directly support GBF Targets 20 (capacity-building) and 21 (public awareness and education).

Our modular drones are designed for accessibility, adaptability, and sustainability. Initially crafted using wooden components with fewer than six screws and zip ties, they are simple to assemble, repair, and replicate using local materials, empowering communities to lead restoration projects independently.

As we’ve advanced, we’ve integrated hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid-electric propulsion systems, enhancing flight endurance, energy efficiency, and environmental sustainability. These innovations enable drones to cover larger areas and operate in remote environments while reducing their carbon footprint.

The modular design ensures flexibility for continuous adaptation, allowing communities to upgrade drones with tools like cameras or sensors for monitoring. This approach combines simplicity and cutting-edge innovation, bridging grassroots empowerment with scalable, impactful environmental restoration.

Under the application of the trap for intermittent harvest, the best results were achieved with the following combination of variables: maize bran (supplementary feed) x maize bran (trap bait) x O. Shiranus (species) x 2 fish/m2 (stocking density).

The total yields under this combination were 25 percent higher than in the control group with single batch harvest. A higher stocking density (3 fish/ m2) led to a slightly higher total harvest in the control group, but to a lower net profit. The use of pellets reinforced both effects and was the least economical.

Results from the on-farm trials (see Figure 1) have demonstrated the functionality and the excellent catch effect of the traps. Over the three-month on-farm trial period, the trap was used 2 to 3 times a week and a total of 27 times. On average, around 120 small fish – an equivalent of 820 grams – were caught each intermittent harvest. With the use of the trap, all households reported that they now eat fish twice a week. Before that, fish consumption was between one and four times a month.

The benefits:

• Reducing the competition for oxygen and food among the fish in the pond and thus measurable increase in yield.
• Improved household consumption of small, nutritious fish and better cash flow.

Success factors:

• Traps are easy and inexpensive to build (USD 3).
• Traps are easy to use, also for women.
• Directly tangible added value thanks to easy and regular access to fish.

Examples from the field

Overall, the user experience of households engaged in the on-farm trials was very positive:

“As a family we are now able to eat fish twice and sometimes even three times a week as compared to the previous months without the technology when we ate fish only once per month.” (Doud Milambe)

“Catching fish is so simple using the fish trap and even women and children can use it.” (Jacqueline Jarasi)

“It is fast and effective compared with the hook and line method which I used to catch fish for home consumption that could take three to four hours but to catch only three fish and thus not enough for my household size.” (Hassan Jarasi)

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.

Based on results from monitoring data and facilitated feedback discussions with the village grazing committees, rangeland restoration activities are identified as appropriate. This often requires the existing village grazing plan to be adapted and evolve with the changing state of the rangelands. For example, in Ngoley village, data collected over two years indicated one particularly problematic species (Sphaeranthus - locally called “Masida”) that proliferated significantly during a prolonged dry season and limited the regrowth of palatable species after the rains. To prevent further proliferation, an uprooting plan was designed and implemented based on the best practices for removing this particular species. Immediately after the first round of uprooting, the data show a drop in the species frequency and subsequent months of monitoring provide further evidence to suggest that native, palatable grasses are recovering in the treated plots. These targeted interventions directly contribute to GBF Target 1 by integrating biodiversity considerations into local planning and land use, and Target 2 by restoring degraded ecosystems. Furthermore, by improving ecological function and resilience, these efforts enhance the rangeland’s capacity to withstand climate variability, supporting both biodiversity and the well-being of local communities.