Every year since the project started meetings have been conducted in each partner community to summarize annual benefits and infractions and discuss issues. These meetings have resulted in changes and improvements to the benefit sharing contract. It is very important to allow contracts to be adapted, changed and improved, as all issues cannot be foreseen from the start. It is also important that changes be made by villagers themselves in order to engender ownership. Here are some examples of changes that were made over the first four years of operation: • Increased penalty for killing of Class I (protected) species such as a tiger, leopard or bear to a 100% loss of a village’s fund. • Increased number of participating villages from 9 to 14 to further reduce threats in the tour area. • Sharing benefits by family rather than by village in order to give equal responsibility to families for protecting wildlife. • Providing incentives to report on wildlife crimes in one’s own village by making a rule of no reduction in a village fund for cases where information is provided by the village itself.

The management invited local communities to partner with them in undertaking joint patrolling of park boundaries, organize visitor services and local logistics, design and implement day and overnight treks through the park and involved erstwhile poachers in keeping vigil. It helped create community ownership of park resources and provided alternative income generating options.

Garden projects with centralized control and restricted access often fail as the result of political disputes, the loss of a key member or driver of the project, or a lack of funding. At the same time, they establish a politics of access: who can access the resources and how are they shared? We have taken an open-access approach, planting our medicinal gardens on degraded and readily-accessible land. This allows anyone to harvest from the medicinal plants as they require them, either for the treatment of themselves or others, or to sell as a means of supporting their livelihood. There is a certain vulnerability to this approach, considering that the plants can be destroyed by individuals or animals. However, we believe that the potential benefits outweigh the disadvantages of such an approach.

The Authority established a partnership with Mandingalbay Yidinji peoples own organisation, Djunbunji Land and Sea Program. Collaboratively we developed a timeline for project activities, and developed an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the delivery of certain outcomes by Djunbunji. These outcomes included construction of model tables, facilitation of community involvement and coordination of P3DM activity days. At a first community meeting the wider community were briefed on project parameters, risks and potential outcomes. The community were taken step-by-step through the proposed process and shown a film of the Ovalau P3DM activity. At this meeting the community made several key decisions, these were: - the geographic coordinates of area to be covered by the 3 dimensional model (a pivotal outcome as it determines several actions henceforth) - the scale of the model - a calendar of dates for the building of the model, its legend and the population of information onto the model - to participate in the development of a video of the process - a commitment to work on the project to completion

Legalize locally managed marine areas (LMMA) at district and provincial levels. Implement an initial 2-year management plan to be regularly revised. Regular monitoring and reporting includes annual meetings of all members involved in co-management. Consider climate change adaptation of livelihoods in ongoing interventions and the management plan, as well as changes of state mechanism (staff and capacity) and emerging local needs. Mobilize funding from institutions and organizations.

During the first year of the project, we developed a partnership with a range of groups and individuals interested in economic valuation and marine conservation in Belize. Our core partners were WWF-Central America and World Conservation Society, but we also worked with more than 10 Belizean NGOs, MPA co-managing organizations, and government departments, as well as faculty at Belize’s universities. We held a workshop in Belize in 2007 to introduce economic valuation and held several follow-up workshops in the following year, focusing separately on shoreline protection, fisheries, and tourism in greater depth. The project partnership represented the views and expertise of a wide range of primary, secondary, and external stakeholders. The partnership was instrumental in helping design the valuation study, identify potential policy applications and outreach opportunities, collect data, and communicate results to decision makers.

Mapped data depicting height contours is the key to creating a 3D model, as each layer of the model corresponds with a contour height. At the Authority's offices two sets of 1:10,000 scale maps depicting contour heights at 20m intervals, and the coastline, were printed to fit the model tables exactly. At the community's request we also printed large format topographic/satellite imagery of the area. This phase also involved sourcing and purchase of model construction and depiction materials. Research was undertaken prior to ascertain what what available locally and how much it would cost. We used foamcore board for the model, acrylic school paints, acrylic wool yarn and pushpins for depicting information on to the model. The amount of foamcore or carton board purchased is dependent on how many contour layers will be depicted on the model. This phase was done entirely by the Authority's facilitator due to time constraints. Concurrently the Djunbunji organisation built the tables for the models, using specifications adapted from Rambaldi, G (2010) Participatory 3 Dimensional Modelling: Guiding Principles and Applications

Two levels of institutions were established. At the Park level, an independent society was created that people could approach comfortably and a flexible management approach could be adopted. At the community level, Eco Development Committees (EDC) were created that would set up and manage revolving fund to provide loans on easy terms to members to get out of debt trap.

Working with partners, we gathered data on reef- and mangrove-associated tourism, fisheries, and shoreline protection from a variety of sources (mostly sources in Belize): - Tourism: data on accommodation from the Belize Tourism Board, scaled by the percentage of tourists who are reef- or mangrove-associated (determined via expert opinion in each district), data on reef and mangrove recreation and cruise tourism from the Belize Tourism Board - Fisheries: data on catch from Fishermen’s Cooperatives, divided into (1) exports through cooperatives, (2) local sales through cooperatives, (3) all other local sales - Shoreline protection: a variety of spatial data sets were collected, including data on coastline (SERVIR), elevation (NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission 90m DEM), coral reefs (Belize Tropical Forest Studies Ecosystem Map, Wildlife Conservation Society, Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute), mangroves (Belize Forestry Department, LANDSAT), coastal geology, coral characteristics, storm regime, and coastal property values (internet search).

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.