• Carbon-offset initiatives require a strong scientific basis to determine carbon stocks and baselines
• Good relationship between scientists, government agencies, and communities is required for project sustainability
• Transparency is required in all stages of carbon project development. This ensures that there are no over-expectations among the community even when the carbon prices fluctuate
• Benefit sharing has to be pre-determined during the project development phase. This ensures onward harmony among project partners
• The strong partnership between KMFRI and Gazi community has enabled quick realization of carbon benefits
• Mikoko Pamoja has local and international partners such as Earthwatch Institute (UK), Napier Edinburgh University (Scotland), who have played a pivotal role in linking community to carbon buyers

• Consensus building is needed before the signing of forest management agreement between the government and the local community
• The agreement affirms community ownership of a designated forest area thus enhancing their participation
• Mangrove management needs to be pursued in an integrated manner; rather than over-emphasizing carbon benefits in the expense of other goods and services derived from the system
• Forest management agreement should be in simple language that is fully understandable by the community

• Development of a participatory forest management plan should be a transparent and an all-inclusive activity.
• The process is time consuming particularly when you have to consider divergent views.
• Planning is a dynamic process; it is therefore easier to build a consensus as soon as possible and provide room for future changes.
• Community buy-in of the management planning process is critical for its full implementation.
• Resources need to be allocated to the development of the forest management plan, as it can be quite an expensive process. The cost of developing a PFMP for Gazi Bay was estimated at US$ 30,000; much of which went to community negotiations and capacity building.

Using fishing tools in protected areas was an important challenge in the Mexican Caribbean, and not always well received by the authorities in charge of the protected areas. Nevertheless, due to the technical and legal arguments, the first fish refuges zones were legally established in two biosphere reserves in 2012. This was supported by the intensive work together with the fishermen, several years before the Alliance existed. But when talking about legal and institutional framework, it is not enough to have a bottom-up participatory approach. Some legal changes require high-level work within the public administration. Efforts must be made in balancing both approaches. The Kanan Kay Alliance allowed to combine the bottom-up style with the more top-down approach from the public institutions, providing the arena for the discussion and building on a common goal.

Having leadership and ownership of the fishermen in the Alliance strengthens and helps the initiative. The institutional actors, academics and civil society organizations support collective action based on community empowerment in a way they did not do before, because they respect one basic premise: if the fishermen do not agree to and support the actions, the implementation would not be possible. This approach additionally allows for a more direct communication, an implementation of basic principles of collaboration and a growing trust between the participants.

The local-ecological knowledge that fishermen provide about natural resources, fishing grounds and climate conditions, are fundamental elements to be considered in the design of a fish refuge. When combining local-ecological knowledge with scientific knowledge it is important that a transparent negotiation begins that will enable to have the best science-based conditions with social acceptance.

Then, a community monitoring program is led by organizations members of the Kanan Kay Alliance. Fishermen and women are trained and actively participate in collecting data. Hence, they see results with their own eyes and can then share the information with other members of the community. Once monitoring results have been delivered, during the renewal process, the goals of the fish refuges are reviewed to understand if they meet biophysical criteria for no-take zones and hence, if changes need to be done.

This “bottom-up” approach must be complemented with “top-down” elements to ensure that decision-making reflects the complexity of this process.

Working together as a collective impact platform doesn’t mean that we do everything all together at all times. It is about how to boost the best of every organization, while respecting and understanding the strengths and opportunity areas. Communities must have a clear role in the decision-making, which brings us back to building block #1 about empowering fishermen and building capacities.

By bringing together social, environmental and economic topics for the trainings and not focusing solely on resource management related workshops, we have been able to increase collective impact and sustain it over time. Strengthening the three key aspects to sustainability has been fundamental. We’ve learned that our best strategy is that which provides leadership skills, human development, personal and organizational administration, business plans for fishing cooperatives or fair trade. Fishermen need to be asked and coached to find out their own weaknesses and strengths. Time and resources must be invested to include customers into the fishermen’s projects.

• Surveillance and enforcement in protected areas are the responsibility of the governmental agency. Still we have discovered that interinstitutional cooperation favours higher presence and enforcement in the area. Joining forces with the Marine Secretariat increased operation capacities to operate as well as the safety of involved personell.
• Nonetheless, leadership by a responsible stakeholder is required (in our case CONANP).
• The establishment of a platform systemizing field data collated, allows to generate valuable information, which supports the evaluation and adaption of the work programs.

• The authorities responsible for surveillance and enforcement are interested in detailed information about the protected areas, so the trainings are always well attended. #
• Evaluation on the knowledge before and after the training workshops allows the identification of knowledge gaps and documentation of progress. It is important to have regular evaluations in order to ensure participants understand and remember key information.
• It is helpful to use personal accounts and explanations in addition to technical documents.
• Integrating an exercise or using video material ensures active particpation.
• Coastal fishermen are not very familiar with the use of maps, so other means to convey information about management plans must be developed.