Transboundary action plan for nature protection & sustainable tourism
The aim of developing a transboundary action plan was to ensure the future of the cooperation among the five protected areas across international borders for continued nature protection and sustainable nature tourism. The plan is available in English, Finnish, and Russian, and is divided into two main parts. Part A describes characteristics of the area, including basic information about natural and cultural history, legislation, land use, and management of the areas. Basic information is useful for those curious about the transboundary area. Management plans, area plans, and regional plans are needed for coordinating nature protection and sustainable nature tourism between and within countries. Knowledge of international agreements, legislation, practices and planning in each area is also needed for transboundary cooperation. In part B, the 10-year vision describes the joint aims and strategies of the the cooperation. Mutual strategies include: cooperation, nature monitoring, dissemination of information and nature tourism. Finally concrete actions are suggested, and more concrete plans can be made to guide short-term planning. The plan was therefore considered as an advisory plan, focusing on common long-term guidance.
Trilateral cooperation in Pasvik-Inari dates back to the 1990’s. During this time, managers of the nature protection areas signed a trilateral agreement for international cooperation, which enabled development of the action plan to implement the cooperation. Finnish and Norwegian managers of nature protection areas had schemes of their own, which were adjusted to the needs of transboundary cooperation. Creating the action plan was a prerequisite for actual transfer of funds for the project.
Developing the action plan was done with a limited timetable and during a time when internet connections were not working in Russia and fax was the only way to share commented versions of the plan. Costs for translating the final plan in English to national languages (Russian, Norwegian and Finnish) were high, and there was plenty of proof-reading work for the project partners. These issues need to be considered when planning the budget of the project. The action plan has proven to be a very good tool for the cooperation. Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park has an action plan working group, which coordinates the implementing of the individual actions. The action plan provides useful list of possible activities, from which individual activities can be implemented when external project funding becomes available. Updating of the current action plan begins in 2017, so that in year 2018 when the current action plan is expiring the updated one will be ready for implementation.
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.
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.
Eija Ojanlatva
Joint nature-focused research and monitoring
Establishing transboundary guidelines for sustainable nature tourism
Transboundary action plan for nature protection & sustainable tourism
Certification as a transboundary protected area
Podyjí National Park administration
Invasive plant monitoring
Transboundary protected areas staff communication
Joint transboundary removal of an invasive plant
Coordinating meadow management with local landowners
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.
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.