Local | PANORAMA

Knowledge exchange visits at local and national level

A visit to study the proposed EbA pilot sites and to talk to farmers whose land will be affected in Huay Sai Bat sub-river basin, Khon Kaen provice. Exchange of knowledge, experience and insightful information among public, civil society and academia.

GIZ Thailand, 2015

The set-up of site visits and exchange of stakeholders and decision makers between the three different pilot river basins was a great method to foster exchange and mutual learning on potential EbA measures across river basins and across institutions. This exchange triggered important exchange on the feasibility of measures, their application in different locations and the possibilities for upscaling. Further, on one hand a friendly competitive spirit could be sensed in regards to which river basin would have the better ecosystem-based water management sooner. On the other hand, institutions which are in competition to each other came together and started cooperating.

• Exchange of local lessons learned • Cooperation across river basins • GIZ project as neutral framework allowed non-cooperative institutions to come together

- Tangible examples and good practices on EbA measures help relevant stakeholders to get a better understanding on EbA concepts and its benefits. - At the same time, EbA measures cannot simple be copied to other river basins and relevant people need to be made aware of the need for river basin-specific vulnerability assessments.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Local

National

Utilization of local knowledge and ownership through river basin committees

The set-up of river basin committees, representing the population within a river basin as well as academia, government and others is crucial for the success of river management. The connection between the local population and the water resources, especially in the Tha Di river basin, is very strong. Within the local communities knowledge on changes in climate and natural disasters (flood and drought events) has been passed down from generation to generation without much written documentation. The concept of flood protection via living weirs originated from the local riparian communities and strong leaders with innovative ideas and the willingness to experiment different approaches for flood and drought protection. Combining this strong ownership with hydrological data from local universities and the administrative capacity from the regional governing institutions allows for a holistic water management approach. All these actors are represented within the river basin committees.

• strong community partnership and ownership • innovative ideas and willingness to experiment • willingness to contribute with resources (time, manpower, local material) • river basin committees are the bridge between local stakeholders and water management institutions of the government

The river basin committees (RBCs) in different river basins were at very different stages at the beginning of the project. Some were fully established, which allowed easier communication with the local population as well as cooperation between local stakeholders, public sector and academia. Other RBCs had not held their first meeting when the project started. Here local stakeholders took strong ownership over their water recourses, which allowed the project to progress while the RBC was still in the process of being established.

Implementation

Local

EbA Measure: Living weirs as flood buffers

Living weir

GIZ Thailand, 2015

The living weir concept is an EbA Measure, which is based on the knowledge of the local communities in the river basin and in line with the King of Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy Philosophy to apply technologies based on local resources and know-how. In a first stage a bamboo grid construction is constructed in the river providing structure for degradable sand bags containing a mixture of sand, coconut coir and manure. Along the riverbanks a combination of Banyan trees (Ficus bengalensis) and other leguminous plants is planted to stabilize soils. The wide rooting banyan trees are planted on both side of the weir, The roots that they are forming will nurture from the manure and will penetrate in the bamboo construction over the next decades to form a “living weir”. This technology entails several benefits such as improving ground water recharge, which can increase the crop yields, increasing biodiversity, such as increasing in fish habitat, variety of plants etc. and strengthen unity among related stakeholders. Terraces also allow fish to move upstream. Maintenance costs and efforts for this methodology are low and can be easily conducted by the local communities.

• Local acceptance & ownership • clarity on land tenure on construction site • stakeholder involvement, such as local people, (ideally with support from government and private sector) • natural materials that are available in the area such as bamboo, sandbags, tree seedlings etc. • working on voluntary basis, budget and material support by community at the first stage, support from the government and/or private sector at a later stage

- Being seen as a local wisdom, these measures have the full support from the local community and are financed and implemented by local stakeholders. This has gained them a lot of attention and interests from Thai government institutions. - However, there is a lack of scientific backup. This leads to construction without proper planning and without coordination with the local water management institutions. In the past newly constructed weirs were built in wrong locations at the wrong time, underestimating the river flow during an early flood season , which caused damage or even destruction of the incomplete structures - Raising awareness on physical and socioeconomic impacts of climate change has increased the acceptance of EbA measures by local stakeholders. However, further knowledge is needed to erase belief on false effects of EbA measures and to convey to stakeholders in which locations EbA measures are feasible.

Implementation

Local

Establishing transboundary guidelines for sustainable nature tourism

The aim of developing joint guidelines and working group for sustainable nature tourism is to protect natural diversity while allowing for recreational use of the protected areas. The Finnish coordinator began by collecting two sets of principles regarding sustainable nature tourism in Norway and Finland, i.e. the principles of Metsähallitus (Agency responsible for managing most protected areas in Finland) and the Sustainable Model of Arctic Regional Tourism (SMART). Joint guidelines combining these sets of principles were prepared, which incorporated input from entrepreneurs, nature tourism working group and the project Steering Committee. The guidelines were added to the Action Plan for nature protection and sustainable nature tourism in Pasvik-Inari Area, and they were published on the project web page.

First there were good, existing national guidelines for sustainable nature tourism available in Norway and Finland, and there was agreement in all countries that sustainable nature tourism should be promoted in the Pasvik-Inari area. Second, acceptance of joint guidelines by local actors (entrepreneurs, stakeholders and nature-protection authorities) was gained through a sustainable nature tourism seminar. Third, funds for a translator were needed when local people attended the meetings.

The guidelines have been used less than expected, and the focus is more on nature protection cooperation than promoting tourism. National guidelines for sustainable tourism in Finnish nature protection areas are renewed in 2016, and joint efforts toward nature protection and sustainable tourism should be reflected in the future Pasvik-Inari cooperation. During project implementation, the Russian border expanded and covered more area surrounding Pasvik State Nature Reserve. This reduced access for foreigners, tourism entrepreneurs, visitors, and Reserve staff. The international working group promoting nature tourism has not met since 2010. It proved to be difficult to get the entrepreneurs of small companies together. Pasvik-Inari area is remote and travel distances are long, while resources of the entrepreneurs and companies are scarce. It was decided that experts in the action plan working group are invited to the meetings when needed.

Sustainable Model of Arctic Regional Tourism

Principles for sustainable nature tourism in Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park

Joint nature-focused research and monitoring

One aim of joint nature-focused research and monitoring (years 2007, 2011 and 2015) was to harmonize contrasting national methods. Harmonised methodology facilitates data exchange, management, and interpretation to inform park management strategies to protect these populations. The target species/groups included those that are of management concern in the parks: brown bear, Golden Eagle, waterfowl, butterflies, and ants. Brown bear is highlighted here as an important example. Bears affect livelihoods of reindeer herders, which are important stakeholders in the Pasvik-Inari area. Bears are hunted in all the three countries, and estimated bear population size is used when determining numbers of hunting licenses. Modern DNA-sampling methodologies give the best estimate of the number of bears in the cross-border bear population. Hair was collected for DNA-analysis using hair snagging stations scattered around the area. In addition, local residents, in particular hunters and co-workers in the field were encouraged to collect fecal samples. Results can be compared between years, as identical methodology is being used throughout.

Cooperation with the parallel research project (run jointly by a Finnish university and government) on large carnivore DNA was important for information sharing. Expertise was also exchanged regarding waterfowl counts conducted along Pasvik River during summers of 2006 and 2007. Finnish experts could learn from Norwegian and Russian colleagues, who have long tradition in bilateral waterfowl monitoring. In addition, a Russian ant expert conducted an ant survey in all three countries.

A participatory process to develop the bear DNA sampling and population estimation methodologies was key to ensuring that stakeholders would accept the population estimates as valid. Fieldwork methodology and laboratory analysis was discussed by several experts in a workshop, and multiple institutions helped with field testing. Before testing the method in Finland, a public information event was arranged in a local village. All interest groups (e.g. border authorities, reindeer herders, hunting associations and the local residents) were informed about the study. During a workshop with research institutions and environmental authorities dealing with nature monitoring, participants presented and discussed on-going research in each country and recent experiences with DNA-sampling, population estimation (population size and structure, calf mortality), bear hunting, and bear-human conflicts. The workshop resulted in a strong cooperation on brown bear research between the institutions.

Harmonized research and monitoring in Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park

Coordinating meadow management with local landowners

Private lands occupy a significant portion of the river valley within inholdings of Thayatal NP, which are dominated by meadows. The economic benefits for farmers to cultivate these meadows are too low to warrant raising of crops there. To prevent the establishment and spread of neophytes in the meadow areas, however, Thayatal NP staff coordinated with farmers to regularly mow these meadows. In turn, farmers were compensated monetarily.

The financial support of the mowing measures came from the Austrian government, who fosters environmentally friendly and extensive forms of agriculture protecting natural habitats in the frame of the ÖPUL-program.

Some of the farmers turned out to be a great help for the maintenance of the meadows and thus the control of the Himalayan Balsam. The established cooperation and contacts can prove to be relevant also in forthcoming activities.

Implementation

Local

Information about the ÖPUL-program on the official website of the respective Au…

Joint transboundary removal of an invasive plant

Invasive plants occurred on both sides of the Thaya River, which serves as the international boundary and the border between the two national parks. Plants were removed from both sides of the river by staff from the respective parks, and removal of plants took place following their detection by the monitoring effort. When the joint eradication project was originally proposed by Podyjí National Park, staff of Thayatal National Park were sceptical of the efficiency of the efforts to remove the invasive plant based on their knowledge of many unsuccessful eradication attempts in other areas. Thayatal National Park was therefore only willing to invest a small amount of resources initially to test whether the eradication efforts would work. After initial successes, Thayatal National Park contributed resources to conduct more substantial removal measures jointly with Podyjí National Park. As both parks are opposed to the use of pesticides, individual plants needed to be removed by hand and preferably during the adolescent life stages before seeds emerged. Otherwise, seeds could be spread during removal of the adult plants. Nevertheless, mowing measures proved very effective in places of larger stocks.

The removal process had been initiated by Podyjí before establishment of Thayatal National Park, which reduced the effort needed through the joint eradication. Second, geomorphology within the river valley section running through the parks is relatively unfavorable for rapid expansion of the plant. Third, removal of plants by Czech staff on Austrian soil became easier after Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004. Before, border police had to be informed every time staff crossed the border.

A big lesson learned for both National Parks was the need to cooperate across the state border and between the two protected areas to jointly implement nature conservation measures. This especially applied to the removal of invasive species in a river valley that is situated on the border.

Transboundary protected areas staff communication

The two national park directors met 4-5 times per year to discuss among other issues the status of the invasive plant monitoring and removal. Jointly, they allowed the project to be funded and enabled the necessary actions. Furthermore, other staff from both parks met each other whenever needed to share information regarding the monitoring and removal efforts.

There was usually at least one Podyjí NP staff member involved in the joint project that spoke German, otherwise English was spoken to overcome the language barrier.

The project revealed the additional value of transboundary communication in the field of nature protection. Without the exchange and the mutual enriching cooperation between Thayatal and Podyjí National Park the project would not have been that successful. Both National parks took the experience with them for future challenges and projects that collaboration enables positive exchange and mutual learning.

Entirety

Local

Multi-national

Invasive plant monitoring

Podyjí National Park took sole responsibility for monitoring the river valley for infestations of the Himalayan Balsam and other invasive plants. The National Park staff used a boat to monitor the occurrence of the plant along the river banks, especially in areas that are hard to reach overland. Today, staff from Thayatal National Park is also part of the boat crew, and monitoring from the river is conducted once a year. The measures to eliminate invasive species are implemented several times during the year (2 to 6 times). The Himalayan Balsam occurs on both sides of the border, but Podyji National Park has greater capacity in implementing the measures. The participation on monitoring and management has thus been divided in accordance of capabilities of both national parks.

Thayatal NP co-funded the purchase of a boat to be used for riverside monitoring by Podyjí NP staff. To be able to cross the border regularly for monitoring, the European Schengen system, i.e. in this case open borders for passenger traffic, was a facilitating condition.

Initially, monitoring occurred at a small scale only on the Czech side. Eventually it became apparent that it was necessary to monitor Himalayan Balsam on both banks and on both sides of the border to get the necessary data to inform eradication efforts.

Monitoring

Local

Multi-national

Integrated compliance activities in the GBR

Table 1 – Key strategies to achieve effective compliance management in the GBR.

Jon C. Day

Table 2 – Example of a Forward Compliance Threat Assessment and Response Prioritization periodically assessed for different fisheries and different management areas in the GBR.

Jon C. Day

Integrated compliance is a key approach contributing to effective management of the GBR. A number of compliance strategies are utilise to achieve compliance management, comprising a much wider range of strategies than just surveillance or enforcement (see Table 1 below). Today the GBR’s compliance approach is recognised as being of a world standard. It is implemented by a joint Field Management Compliance Unit (FMCU) comprising trained and competent officers of both the Australian and Queensland governments working closely together. The FMCU has a central role coordinating the deployment of all available compliance resources across the GBR. The delivery of field activities occurs through a number of key partner agencies including the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol, the Queensland Police Service and Australia’s Border Protection Command (BPC). The planning of patrols is based upon intelligence-derived information and delivers maximum detection as well as a deterrence effect. BPC is the principal provider of aerial operations delivering targeted aerial surveillance. BPC crews are trained by FMCU in the detection of marine park offences and subsequent evidence collection.

The key factors for overall compliance success in the GBR include: • Having annual and operational compliance plans aligned with the agency’s strategic objectives and priorities. • Having comprehensive operating manuals and guidelines underpinned by approved Commonwealth Standards. • Effective management of information/intelligence (including comprehensive analysis and threat/risk assessment). • A close working relationship with prosecutors, including the provision of comprehensive briefs.

- Enforcement and prosecution are not always the preferred choice, and other more appropriate compliance strategies (e.g. education, caution, warning letter or an infringement notice) may be used depending upon the threat, human behaviour and the environmental impact. The objective is to achieve informed self-regulation by the majority of users, allowing limited resources to be focussed on the highest impact, non-compliant users. - Good intelligence/information can be a key for good compliance. - Impact statements are supplied when court action is taken; these assist judges to understand the actual or potential harm that an unlawful activity can cause (e.g. illegal fishing can equate to serious environmental harm), and lead to more appropriate penalties being imposed by the judiciary. - The level of fines currently applied in the GBR is not a deterrent for many fishery offenders; increased use is being made of the ‘Three strikes and you’re out’ approach for repeat-offenders.

Entirety

Local

Subnational

Compliance management in the GBR

Education, Surveillance and Enforcement in the GBR

Understanding Non-compliance in the Marine Environment

On-line incident reporting form

Field Management Program: Annual Report summary 2014-15