Competence development for forest tenants and staff of State Forest Enterprises
Mainstreaming integrative forest management
Amending the Law
Workshop on Illegal Wildlife Trade organized by FPWC in Armenia
FPWC
In 2016, at the IUCN World Congress, FPWC co-authored Motion 37 on Supporting Privately Protected Areas, which was one of the top discussed documents at the congress and passed with a majority of votes. This became a crucial step in the FPWC’s efforts to lobby the Armenian government to adopt policies that recognize, encourage and monitor privately protected areas as a key contribution to national and international conservation targets and to implement mechanisms for integrating privately protected areas into national system. FPWC continues to promote legal and financial incentives for the maintenance and strengthening of privately protected areas, to have the respective category highlighted in the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Specially Protected Natural Areas.
Since 2015, FPWC has had a tangible contribution in elaborating amendments package for the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Fauna, in collaboration with the Ministry of Nature Protection.
FPWC has been a member of GSP+ monitoring system for international environmental conventions and protocols such as CBD or CITES.
Collaboration, consistency and constructive approach with the state institutions such as the MInistry of Nature Protection and international organizations such as European Union has been a key factor for the success in this segment.
Working with the government is not the easiest but a necessary component to secure the work implemented and having it recognized officially.
Women working in a social enterprise created by the FPWC in frames of an EU funded poverty reduction project in Urtsadzor community
FPWC
Through the Soviet period and after independence, Armenian society in general and rural communities in particular have continuously been discouraged from taking active role in the protection and management of nature reserves.
Recognizing the urgent need for communities living around protected areas to actively participate in and benefit from the conservation of the resources upon which they depend, the FPWC, since 2006, has consistently contributed to the communities’ environmental, social, economic, and cultural development, thus referring to all four dimensions of sustainability.
The community development project promotes a new sustainable development strategy for the villages all around Armenia, with a focus on the areas adjacent to the CWR.
It aims to improve the livelihoods of rural people and to foster sustainable rural development as a holistic approach. This strategy links economic and infrastructure improvements with nature conservation and the protection of the environment by offering inhabitants of remote villages incentives and opportunities to gain income by using/managing natural resources sustainably.
Winning trust of the communities by proven positive impact happening within them is a key enabling factor. Parallel to conservation work, FPWC has been introducing renewable energy solutions to dozens of communities; constructing / renovating infrastructures for drinking / irrigation water, building capacity and creating employment and income opportunities for the communities. These and more hugely contributed to building trust toward FPWC's work in conservation; willingness to learn, understand and contribute; compassion and solidarity.
Mistrust and resistance developed on the background of factors such as role of the government as only owner of the nature reserves, centralized administration, lack of consideration for local and societal input for conservation planning and management, as well as corruption, lack of attention to the environmental sector by legislators were major challenges FPWC faced while approaching the communities with an offer of partnership and participation.
As the CWR grows, engaging communities still takes time and consistency, but it is only complicated to the point until the "first ice melts". Then it becomes contagious, turning into a growing wave making its own way.
Starting working in only a few communities more than 10 years ago, communicating patiently the benefits of conservation to them, using different localized methodologies, tackling with distrust and resistence, FPWC is now at a place where more and more communities turn for collaboration on their own initiative, bringing forward their commitment to common ideas and willingness to invest for their implementation.
Assess the total net income from FAP and Control Fields
Income is the best incentive for farmers.
The methodology is in detail described in Christmann et al. 2017. On farm trials using the same inputs in all fields (inputs according to usual practice of farmers, so other farmers can gain the same net income).
Select marketable plants together with farmers. Which ones are useful for them? Do they flower during the flowering time of the main crop or before/after - to sustain pollinators in the field over a longer period. Check before seeding: not all useful crops recommended by farmers attract pollinators.
It is important that at least some plants in the habitat zone provide really good income. Farmers select those habitat enhancement plants, which they regard as most useful. Their criteria might differ from the researcher's criteria, so better seed a wide range of habitat enhancement plants. Include oil seeds and spices, they are very attractive. Check, if they don’t attract pests at this specific seeding time. Check, if they can grow (water demand) under the same conditions as the main crop.
To effectively conserve natural resources and facilitate sustainable development, a shift in perception must occur so communities and governments view PAs and natural resources as productive units of the economy, rather than resources under siege from development sectors and local communities. In the lower Mekong countries, attitudes are changing and governments are beginning to perceive PAs as economic assets carefully conserved for the development benefits they provide. While this shift is still occurring, governments are moving towards a situation where the natural capital held in PAs is subject to regular stock taking with the results reflected in GDP and budgets. Member states understand that investing in PAs and natural capital ensures resources are sustained, restored and expanded so they continue to produce ecosystem services vital to development and economic expansion.
For this building block to be successful, citizens and industries must directly benefit from the conservation of natural resources and expansion of PA networks. Direct benefits may take the form of water filtration, flood control, fisheries production, etc. If citizens and industries do not directly benefit, they will fail to see the value in expanding PAs. Success also depends on the commitment of governments to financially invest in the upkeep and expansion of PAs and their resources.
All PAs need to have their values expressed in economic terms which can be communicated in annual and long term budget submissions. Valuations should be part of PA management plans and environmental assessments associated with development proposals affecting PAs.
Each sector needs to be made aware of the development benefits they do or might receive from PAs.
Those benefits and their maintenance should be recognised in sector plans and budgets.
A more systematic application of the beneficiary or user pays approach in all sectors is needed requiring supporting economic policies and instruments. Pilots already carried out, for example, the Lao hydropower levies, should be applied consistently and replicated in neighbouring countries.
Users of PAs need to become involved in their management and protection. New collaborative management approaches will be required relating to specific areas, resources and rights of access and to the services and products PAs provide.
Underlying all these new directions, is the need to build the capacity, skills and budgets of PA managers.
Collaboratively plan and manage PAs and natural resources
Natural systems are not restricted to national boundaries and should be the foundation for regional development across borders, providing opportunities for political, technical and cultural collaboration leading to mutual economic gains. The partnership in the lower Mekong region united four member states, and expanded to embrace upper Mekong countries, and it provided the framework for focused conservation agreements between the countries.
Member states began by conducting national reviews of resources and policies, involving cross-sectoral working groups of PA agencies, economic planning and finance bodies, development sectors, and conservation organizations. National reviews directed a regional action plan to determine how much and which parts of the region should be kept in its natural state for the best development outcomes. Member states collaborated in reviewing issues requiring shared management, and adopted the same goals and objectives to facilitate comparative analysis and regional collaboration. The national reviews laid the foundation of information and directions the governments of the region wish to take, and the results will be integrated into the policies, programs and practice of each country and of their international partners.
Collaborators should have common goals and objectives, and all members should benefit equally from agreements reached. Additionally, agreements should be formed in a way that allows them to be updated to account for the rapidly changing state of the environment and human development.
Lessons learned to overcome different development priorities:
The four countries do not have similar development progress, objectives and priorities. Thailand, for example, is more developed and conservation focused in comparison to Cambodia, where economic development is a priority. These differences have to be recognised to ensure that national development goals and priorities align with shared goals and objectives to collaboratively plan and manage PAs. This required intensive consultation, discussion and negotiation.
Lessons learned to overcome differences in PA management authority and capacity in developing collaborative plans:
Lessons in resolving potential contradictions between developing (or difficulties in implementing) a national government level collaborative PA management plan and national processes of decentralization in PA management? Or perhaps differences in who decides and who is involved in PA management.
