Advisory Boards at each World Heritage property

Local ownership, local responsibility and local involvement are tools for the best possible management of the World Heritage properties. With a view to strengthen ownership, responsibility and involvement, local World Heritage advisory boards have been established at each property. These boards include members from different stakeholder groups and authorities. The world heritage coordinator takes part in the World Heritage advisory board. The board will discuss issues of relevance for the management of the particular world heritage property, ensuring that local decision-making does not compromise but rather support the world heritage values of the property.

World Heritage Advisory Boards are developed and put in place within the framework of the Report to the Storting (white paper) no. 35 (2012-2013) The Cultural Heritage Policy (Chapter 4.8 World Heritage) and the Report to the Storting (white paper) no. 16 (2019-2020).

  • World Heritage Advisory Boards are important tools for local involvement at World Heritage properties. The advisory board is a key element to coordinate the work of multiple stakeholders at one property.
  • The establishment of world heritage advisory boards have been important for raising awareness of the obligations in the management of world heritage properties.
World Heritage coordinators

To ensure the dialogue with local communities and stakeholders as well as their participation in World Heritage processes, the Norwegian policy foresees the identification of a World Heritage coordinator at each World Heritage property. The role of the coordinator is to coordinate dialogue and information flow between national institutions and local governments, communities and stakeholders. A yearly meeting has been established between the world heritage coordinators, the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the directorates with the aim to facilitate this dialogue. A world heritage coordinator is in place at all eight world heritage properties in Norway.

The World Heritage Coordinators work together with local stakeholders in enhancing local capacities through awareness raising and outreach campaigns aimed at communicating the Outstanding Universal Values and other values of the properties and in enhancing local understanding of what World Heritage is and what the requirements are, also looking at the importance of balancing development and conservation needs.

World Heritage Coordinators are established within the framework of the Report to the Storting (white paper) no. 35 (2012-2013) The Cultural Heritage Policy (Chapter 4.8 World Heritage) and the Report to the Storting (white paper) no. 16 (2019-2020).

  • World Heritage coordinators play a significant role in ensuring the effective implementation of the World Heritage Convention at inscribed properties. The task requires to be up to date with changes in the mechanism and knowledge applied to the implementation of the convention (including changes in the Operational Guidelines) and for this reason it has proven important to ensure that World Heritage coordinators have access to knowledge and up-to-date information as well as to be able to participate in capacity building activities (for example training courses or site managers’ fora).
  • The work of a World Heritage coordinator is effective when local communities and stakeholders are involved and aware of the importance and value of World Heritage properties. The role of the coordinator is to strengthen local understanding of the property and local participation in World Heritage processes.
  • The establishment of the annual world heritage coordinator meeting has been essential in securing the information flow from national level and to secure information flow between coordinators.
Material Recovery Facility (MAREFA)

A Material Recovery Facility (MAREFA) is a space that receives, sorts, processes and stores recyclable materials to be shipped and marketed to end-users. MAREFA accepts materials, whether source separated or mixed, and segregates, processes and stores them for later use as raw materials for remanufacturing and reprocessing. The main function of the MAREFA is to maximize resource recovery while producing materials that will generate the highest possible revenues in the market. MAREFA will also function to process wastes into a feedstock for biological conversion or into a fuel source for the production of energy. MAREFA serves as an intermediate processing step between the collection of recyclable materials from waste generators and the sale of recyclable materials to markets for use in making new products. There are basically four components of MAREFA: sorting, processing, storage, and load-out. MAREFA is privately owned and operated by COBWAMM.

 

  • Increased human consumption and production as a result of lifestyle changes 
  • Increasing volume and variety of items to be recovered from the markets up the value chain in recycling and manufacturing.
  • Increased demand versus supply of 'recoverables' to the job market
  • Population growth as a result of rapid urbanization
  • Importance of understanding demand versus supply on the waste management value chain is important
  • The effectiveness of the facility is dependant on the quality of human resources and handling tools inside the facility.
  • Awareness of generators on the importance of sorting at source is critical. 
  • Plastic has adverse effects on the environment thus requiring recovery but it doesn't always make business sense (better to sort at source).
  • Advice to anyone wishing to establish MAREFA: Let it be market-driven!
Zoning of waste collection neighbourhoods
  • Zoning of potential areas/neighbourhoods requiring waste collection services. 
  • Identification and recruitment of potential franchisee within priority zones.
  • Conduct demand stimulations.
  • Connect the franchisee with the zone for service provision by providing training, tools and equipment. 
  • Provision of the brand to the franchisee.
  • Provision of tools and equipment to the franchisee.
  • Provision of training and awareness to the franchisee.
  • Enhanced access to the market for the delivery of waste management services.
  • The concept of the franchise in its entirety is critical when setting up an innovation that involves the selling of franchise models. 
  • The ambiguity of the laws causes hindrances to many youths and women subscribing to service provision. 
  • The mindset of youths and women towards the provision of waste collection services creates a subscription barrier among them. 
  • Reliance on the county government to provide waste removal does not work. 

 

Effective Customer Services

Effective customer service is achieved through the development of an online payment system and customer service enabled mobile app (currently under development). These measures enable clients to interact with the service, submit applications, requests, and payments and even look for any upcoming value chain services.

The existence of a mobile-based payment system and customer service app, enables the customers and other actors to interact with the service providers providing valuable feedback on the kinds of services they demand, hence increasing the effectiveness of service delivery.

The community we are serving is urban and trending towards high levels of smart phone ownership and internet access.

Service delivery through mobile-based applications enables information to be passed easily to users. This has helped increase community awareness of proper waste management practices.

 

The majority of the community we intend to serve are conversant with the mobile-based payment system in Kenya and thus, the mobile-based text (USSD) has helped facilitate the services where smartphones could not reach.

 

Some youths and women we target to subscribe to the franchise model of the waste collection are technologically shy and require encouragement.

Legal Framework on Waste Governance

The project references and aligns with the relevant legal framework making it easier to influence and persuade current and prospective clients. The existence of a County legal framework on waste governance is critical for the success of the project. 

The National Solid Waste Management Strategy spells out national targets on waste management and is also important for the project.

Existence of a waste governance structure that includes the National Solid Waste Management Strategy and the National Sustainable Waste Management Bill, 2019. They are important enablers of the implementation of waste management project by helping regularise and organize all actors within the waste value chain. 

The role of government in waste management is critical and manifests through policies and bills which have proven to be the blue print and reference point for actors in the sector.

There is, however, the challenge of policy overlaps which can result in hefty charges and taxes within the waste sector. 

BB5. Spatial database and filling data gaps

The spatial database elaborated for the Azores archipelago was essentially based on the compilation of already existing and available cartographic information. This was due to the limited time period for the implementation of the MarSP project and the need for validation of information by the competent entities/authorities, in the case of the elaboration of new cartography. Thus, the new information collected was composed of information produced during the participatory process. The participatory process, with the resulting production of cartographic information, was based on two distinct steps: (i) development of individual interviews, with the main actors representing each of the sectors of maritime activities identified for the Azores and (ii) workshops for discussion and/or validation of preliminary results obtained during the research and sector interviews performed, and for adding more information (during the 3rd stakeholder workshop). To collect the data in the interviews conducted, a web-based solution (SeaSketch) was used. This solution brings together powerful tools to empower and improve the MSP process.

  • Face-to-face interviews allow a better participation and collection of data.
  • Workshops allow the clarification of doubts, data ammendment and collection of new data.
  • Using a web-based tool (SeaSketch) facilitates the collection of spatial information during the interviews.
  • Interviews are time-consuming.
  • Filling knowledge gaps require an extensive effort.
  • Need for time to validate information/data by the competent entities, in the case of the elaboration of a new cartography.
BB4. Sector analysis and briefings

In order to understand the current and potential situation of maritime uses and activities in the Azores, an extensive sector analysis was elaborated, including nine sectors. For each maritime sector identified in the region, a sector briefing was done. Each sector briefing includes information relating to its characterization, the relevant legal framework, current and potential spatial distribution, a SWOT analysis, an analysis of interactions (with other sectors, with the environment and land-sea interactions), as well as an analysis of pressures resulting from different drivers of change (e.g. climate change, demographic changes and blue growth policies). This work involved an extensive collection of information, both through literature review and collected from stakeholders during the engagement process.

  • Sector analyses are essential to understand the current scenario.
  • A significant amount of information was available online.
  • Willingness of some institutions to provide updated data.
  • It takes time to develop this methodology in a robust and consistent way.
  • Sometimes it is extremely difficult to obtain sector information.
  • Some institutions were not available to support the data gathering process.
BB3. Building scenarios for MSP

The Maritime Spatial Planning process plans towards a desired future and a common vision. The vision is usually an integration of various aspirations from different stakeholders and sectors that depend on the governance framework ruling them. A tool as scenarios’ development is of high importance, once it helps decision-makers visualize both the future that might unfold due to specific actions/policies and the actions/policies needed to make a certain future happen.  For the region of Azores, MarSP adopted a scenario-building process based on a combination of two approaches: an exploratory (“what can be done?”) and a normative (“how a specific objective will be reached?”).   

The methodology is structured in four main steps (Figure 1):

(i) setting MSP objectives based on policy review and following stakeholders’ inputs (BB2);

(ii) identifying key objectives after consultation with regional experts;

(iii) developing scenario storylines; and

(iv) balancing across scenarios based on feedback from stakeholders gathered through engagement actions (including, first, (i) a vote on the scenario and, second, (ii) a vote on the sentences that built the storyline of the scenarios).

  • A stakeholders’ engagement methodology defined in the beginning of the process, connecting the different steps along the process.
  • Existence of a MSP vision and objectives built upon a participatory process allowed the construction of more tailored scenarios for the region.
  • Previous workshops for experts and stakeholders’ engagement and sharing of the results set the path for their increasing willingness to participate and collaborate.
  • Experts classification of objectives on themes: environmental; social; economic, was the basis to create robust storylines.

Amongst the three proposed scenarios (one economic oriented, one environmental oriented and one social oriented), stakeholders voted for the environmental scenario. However, they selected more sentences from the economic scenario, suggesting that participants are ideologically willing to protect the environment but less willing to take the needed actions to make that scenario actually happen.

BB2. Creating a vision and objectives for MSP

Setting a vision and objectives is a fundamental initial step in all maritime spatial plans. Under the MarSP project, a methodology was created to develop MSP objectives. This methodology linked MSP objectives to established policy commitments of these archipelagos at the international, EU, national and regional levels. It was adopted in the Azores following these phases:

 

  1. Policy review: review of marine policy to determine the objectives targeting the maritime space. The Portuguese policy horrendogram helped in the selection of policies.
  2. Thematic classification of the objectives by themes and subthemes.
  3. Generalisation of objectives by subthemes to obtain specific objectives.
  4. Discussion, prioritisation and validation of specific objectives by stakeholders.
  5. Legal validation and cross-check with MSP policy documents to finalise the MSP objectives.

 

During the first MSP stakeholder workshop in the Azores, stakeholders were asked to discuss and validate the specific objectives. This was also the case for the proposal of a regional MSP vision, also discussed and validated in the stakeholder workshop.

  • The validation of objectives by stakeholders was included in the methodology since its inception to ensure the participatory approach and social acceptance.
  • Methodologies need to be properly communicated to ensure the understanding of scientific methods by stakeholders. A brief communication on the methodology was given prior to the stakeholder participation.
  • The discussion of objectives allowed the inclusion of stakeholders’ inputs.
  • Activities with stakeholders need guidance to facilitate a smooth discussion and acceptable results.
  • The review of various marine policies at different geographical levels result in multiple objectives for the maritime space. This may make the task of reaching MSP objectives difficult.
  • The review of all policy commitments is very comprehensive and requires prioritisation of the most significant policies. The most significant policies at each geographical scale were selected.
  • After the stakeholders’ inputs and validation, there was a final phase to cross check the resulting objectives with the MSP policy. This allowed both the legal validation of inputs given by stakeholders and also ensuring their compliance with the legal obligations given by MSP policy.
  • Certain objectives go beyond the legal scope of MSP (e.g. some sectorial objectives). Despite not being included in the list of MSP objectives, they were considered in the frame of this policy.
  • Obtaining SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) objectives requires firm commitment in setting the time frame for the objectives.