Misappropriation of traditional knowledge, history and a sometimes fractured relationship between Indigenous people and governments in Australia, has meant that Aboriginal people are often reluctant to share or expose their cultural heritage knowledge. Decisions about what to include in the model legend were led by Mandingalbay Yidinji people, through a carefully facilitated process. The Authority's facilitator took participants through a participatory brainstorming process to list every feature (natural, cultural, historical etc) of their traditional lands and waters. One feature per card. As a group the community then displayed the cards, grouped and sorted into themes and made final decisions about what to include and exclude on the legend. Once agreement was reached, participants collectively decided on symbology for each legend item. A hardcopy legend was created by elders and youth at the site, and the facilitator translated this in to softcopy. Sites were listed as a reference for creating labels on the model This process occurred over several meetings, allowing time for participants to think and discuss exclusions without pressure.
Pre meeting engagement with Djunbunji staff. Trust between the Authority's facilitator and Mandingalbay Yidinji community. Real and meaningful actual participation by community members. Skilled facilitation and an understanding of how Aboriginal people 'see' the landscape. Using tried and tested participatory techniques such as card sorting, brainstorming etc. Good pre-briefing of community by Djunbunji staff to encourage 'buy-in'
The use of participatory techniques was vital to the development of the model legend. It is the participatory process which ensures responsibility for, and ownership by, the Mandingalbay Yidinji people of the project and its outcomes. Ensuring that participants have as much knowledge as possible about why the legend is important, leads to a more comprehensive and community owned legend.
Planting activities and garden maintenance events are designed to open up spaces for diverse stakeholders, as well as individuals and group representatives, to come together to work side-by-side towards a common goal. In the act of digging holes, working the soil, and planting, perceptions of individuals may be shifted as people engage with one another in conversation and come to recognise their shared humanity. This can be a powerful process for breaking down barriers and antagonisms that may exist between groups or individuals due to prior blanket judgments, ignorance or misunderstanding.
In order for this building block to be successful, it is important to consider which groups and individuals to invite to the gardens for visits or specific events, as well as various strategies to help ensure their attendance. In the case of planting days, activities must be structured to encourage communication and teamwork towards a common goal. A further aspect to consider is the role of the media in bringing attention to the project.
Connecting key individuals within groups, communities and institutions can lead to rapid establishment of relationships and the sharing of information and resources, often far beyond any initial expectations. Through such strategic linkages, garden activities can soon become catalytic and spread with minor additional inputs.
Support from multiple governments for international collaboration was gained after the Sargasso Sea was recognized internationally, through formal bodies, as an important ecosystem. Designation as an Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area (EBSA), and mention in the UN General Assembly Annual Omnibus Resolution on Oceans and Law of the Sea provide legitimacy for government involvement.
The initial Summary Science Case led to the basis for designation as an EBSA by CBD Parties. A scientific-expert driven process, working on a regional scale, provides a formal designation which can be leveraged when seeking government support for protection measures at international and regional organizations. Acknowledgement in the 2012 and 2013 UN Omnibus Resolution on of the Alliance’s efforts to raise awareness of the ecological significance of the Sargasso Sea, communicates the importance of the area to the full General Assembly.
Formal international recognition facilitated the approach to governments bordering the Sargasso Sea, or those interested in regional approaches to high seas protection, leading to the Hamilton Declaration Signatories and other supportive governments who plan to join the Declaration over time.
Building Strong Partnerships with Regional Identity & GLISPA
The Micronesia Challenge spans 5 jurisdictions, thousands of islands and more than 650,000 people speaking 12 different languages. Many key partners (listed above) collaborate on the Micronesia Challenge to support and implement a joint commitment across the region. Using the shared regional and cultural identity of being Micronesian has been a powerful way to create lasting partnerships among local and grassroots organizations to share lessons learned and feel a sense of common cause. Moreover, the reliable and firm commitment of the highest political leaders draws international partners to invest time and resources in building new relationships, because investors and partners know conservation has the full support of the political leadership.
Shared cultural heritage allows for a regional identity as Micronesian, which helps unite diverse stakeholders and jurisdictions. The Global Island Partnership (GLISPA), led by the President of Palau alongside the President of Seychelles and Prime Minister of Grenada, plays an important role of showcasing the Micronesia Challenge on the international stage. This helped maintain momentum in implementation of the MC as well as inspiring other leaders to make similar commitments such as the Caribbean Challenge Initiative and Aloha+ Challenge.
It requires continuous work to maintain the MC partnerships and coordinate conservation action in the region. The broad support from local and high levels, the ambitious targets, and the sense of common cause in the region motivate the partners to work together, learn from each other, and strive to live up to the Micronesia Challenge.
A strong network of partners inspires new and leverages existing regional opportunities to draw additional partners and funding to the region that go beyond the MC targets. Examples are the world’s first Regional Shark Sanctuary in Palau, the Micronesia Biosecurity Plan to address the risk of spread of invasive species, the Young Champions Internship Program, the German Lifeweb Support for community-based climate adaptation and resilience, the NOAA Partnership Agreements for coral reef conservation, and the RARE Pride Social Marketing Campaigns.
Working with the best available information/knowledge
When undertaking a planning or zoning task, rarely does a planner have access to all the information or knowledge that they would like for the entire planning area. Whether it might be more consistent ecological data across the entire planning area or a more complete understanding of the full range of social and economic information, a planner is often faced with the following choices:
Waiting until they have more data (with the ultimate aim of accumulating ‘perfect’ information across all the required datasets); or
Working with the best available scientific knowledge and accepting that while it is not perfect, it is adequate provided the deficiencies of the data are understood (by the planners and the decision-makers) and clearly explained to the public and to the decision-makers. Insufficient knowledge about marine ecosystems can impede the setting of meaningful objectives or desirable outcomes when planning. David Suzuki in 2002 questioned how can we effectively plan and manage when “… to date all we have actually identified are ... about 10–20% of all living things”, and “… we have such a poor inventory of the constituents and a virtually useless blueprint of how all the components interact?’’
A good understanding of the wider context within which the MPA is situated is an important factor when planning. Due to the levels of ‘connectivity’ in the marine environment and the biological interdependency upon neighbouring communities, an MPA can only be as ‘healthy’ as the surrounding waters. Even a well-planned MPA will be difficult to manage if the surrounding waters are over-utilised, polluted or are themselves inadequately managed.
The reality is if you wait until you have ‘perfect’ information for planning, you will never start.
Recognise that marine areas are dynamic and are always changing; and with technological advances, the levels and patterns of use are constantly changing, as are the social, economic and political contexts, so having perfect data is realistically an impossible aim.
In virtually all planning situations, it is better to proceed with the best available information than to wait for ‘perfect’ data. However, if new data becomes available during the planning process, then incorporate it rather than ignore it.
Those who are frequently on the water (like fishers and tourist operators) often know as much (if not more) about the local environment than the researchers – so draw upon their knowledge and use it to augment the best available scientific data.
When resources are limited, seeking new data should focus on providing information that will be useful for ongoing management.
Relevance of international conventions for MPA management
The delegates of the World Heritage Committee at the meeting in Bonn, Germany in 2014. The Chairperson of the Committee and the UNESCO secretariat are at the top left side below the big screen.
Some of the representatives of the 21 State Parties that collectively comprise the World Heritage Committee at the meeting in St Petersburg, Russia in 2012.
Australia is a signatory to a wide range of international conventions/frameworks relevant to MPAs; the main ones are listed in Resources below and include global and regional conventions and treaties as well as bilateral agreements.
The fundamental basis for international law and conventions is mutual respect and recognition of the laws and executive Acts of other state parties.
• Note the term ‘state party’ is used in many international conventions instead of ‘nation’ or ‘country’ – but don’t confuse the term with federal states or territories.
Some of the obligations arising from these international conventions have been incorporated into Australian domestic law (e.g. some provisions of key international Conventions addressing significant matters such as World Heritage, are incorporated into Australia’s national environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).
How much international conventions impact on various countries will vary according to the regulatory, legal and political context of the country in question, whether that country is a party to the relevant conventions or agreements, and whether these have been implemented at the national level.
• The range of international instruments, in conjunction with domestic (national) legislation and to a lesser extent, Queensland (State) legislation, collectively give the GBR very strong legal protection.
• International law may be relevant to interpreting domestic (national) legislation and may assist if there is an ambiguity in domestic law.
• Once a country has signed and ratified an international convention, there are international obligations with which that country must comply; however, enforcement of non-compliant nations by the global community is not easy.
• The level and detail of reporting on international obligations varies; some examples are shown in ‘Resources’ below.
• The ‘precautionary approach’ has become widely accepted as a fundamental principle of international environmental law and is now widely reflected in Australian environmental law and policy.
• Some of the issues facing coral reefs, such as climate change, are global or trans-boundary and are addressed in international conventions – however while those issues may be global, many also require local level solutions for effective implementation.
Capacity building on standards for sustainable fishing organized by COBI, the Senate, Lower Chamber, CONAPESCA and INAPESCA.
COBI
Presentation FAO SSF Guidelines book. Global Implementation. Chapter 20 includes COBI and community partners contributions.
COBI
The results of our demonstrative models provide us with recommendations to improve national public policy and strengthen public agencies. The components of this program are:
1. Identification of problems and potential solutions. We conduct participatory research that engages both experts and local knowledge.
2. Evaluation of working arena. We develop a stakeholder map and an assessment to have the political context and identify key allies, including our community partners.
3. Work plan design. We design a plan (strategies and actions) aligned with national goals and international agreements, using the most best information available.
4. Work plan implementation. We implement and evaluate our activities and strategies to ensure our impact is strengthening public policy and agencies.
Currently, we have five strategies: capacity building for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture; the creation of the National Prize for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture; the strengthening public participation in fisheries management and research; and the alignment of local actions to international agreements and instruments (Aichi Goals, SDG14, and FAO SSF Guidelines).
1. Political will.
2. Strong international networks to move the marine conservation and sustainable fisheries agenda.
The legal framework to support marine conservation and sustainable fisheries needs to be in place to move from local demonstrative models to greater impacts at the national level. This represent a niche of work in Mexico. Community partners are key for moving this agenda forward. International agreements and instruments can provide great guidance, and are key to initiate a meaningful dialogue with public governmental organizations.
