Elaboration of a Database on Restoration Measures

The objective of this building block is to provide developers and implementers of ecosystem and landscape restoration projects with a tool for collecting key information in the field to measure the impact of proposed restoration actions.

The steps for its implementation are:

  1. Survey of management units: provides complete information on the sites selected for restoration actions and includes; name and sex of the producer, correlative number and code of the management unit, administrative boundaries, geographic coordinates, area and legal status of the management unit, predominant land use and a photograph of the site.
  2. Survey of the management subunits: provides complete information on the specific restoration measures to be implemented in the selected sites and includes; the codes of the management subunits, coordinates and areas of the management subunits, current land use, future land use, restoration measures and practices to be implemented.

By executing this process, information is available that relates restoration actions to the improvement of ecosystem services in different parts of the landscape.

  • Incorporate new technologies and work distribution schemes to make field data collection and processing cost-effective.
  • Develop communication and performance protocols between office and field teams to collect quality data.
  • Have a supervision scheme that provides timely feedback to data collection and processing, while avoiding reprocessing.
  • The process of collecting management units is the most time-consuming part of this solution (estimated to be 2% of the project's execution cost), and therefore requires detailed and precise planning of the technologies to be used, the number of personnel required and the ways in which the data will be processed, as failure to do so in an appropriate manner may increase costs.
  • To take care of the processing and quality of the data, cross supervisions (internal personnel of the organization that is not linked to the project) or outsourced (external personnel that have been hired for this purpose) are required, which can identify inconsistencies in the databases and what has been executed in the field.
Ecosystem Services Baseline Construction

The objective of this building block is to provide developers and implementers of ecosystem and landscape restoration projects with a tool that uses remote sensing and geospatial data to determine the current state of ecosystem services and the sites where specific restoration measures can be implemented.

The steps to execute it are as follows:

  1. Preparation of baseline data: it forms a cartographic series that includes information on the project area, topography, climate, soil and forest cover.
  2. Hydrological and soil analysis: results in the water erosion map and the water infiltration map of the project area.
  3. Structural landscape analysis: results in the biological connectivity map of the project area.
  4. Integrated landscape analysis: results in the ecosystem services index and its map in different territorial management units.
  5. Generation of suitability indexes: results in 7 soil suitability maps to apply specific ecosystem and landscape restoration measures.
  • Have access to official geospatial information sources.
  • Implement a training and capacity building process, where doubts and uncertainties about methodological aspects and technologies to be used are resolved, which facilitates their adoption.
  • Have an advisor or mentor during the process; this facilitates the resolution of doubts or queries arising from the execution of the instruments; a single process of accompaniment is sufficient, as it develops a strong foundation for future replications.
  • It requires a technician with basic knowledge of GIS, since it requires access and manipulation of tools, data and platforms very specific to this sector.
  • The execution of the process is not time consuming, however, it requires time and exclusivity to perform it (more, if it is the first time it is executed); which are reduced with each new replication process.
Country packages

The aim is to establish practices, rules and/or standards to reduce risks to the environment, human and animal health in trade in wild animals and wild animal products in selected partner countries in global biodiversity hotspot regions. Among other things, risk assessments, the design of educational measures in different formats (digital and non-digital campaigns, training courses, etc.) and the scientific monitoring of the implementation of good practices (e.g. impact assessments) are to be promoted. The Alliance brings the relevant actors together across sectors and use concrete findings to formulate adapted regulations or or supports the institutionalization of relevant practices.

Existing political and GIZ structures, as well as other local partner organizations in the selected partner country.

Depending on the initial situation in the partner countries, you have to start at different levels. In some cases working together at the political level is possible, in other places it is more effective to implement the goals via a partner organization that already has experience on site and a network of local actors.

Governmental Consultation Facility

The goal of the Consultation Facility is to provide context-specific multidisciplinary consultancy services from Alliance experts to governments/governmental institutions in countries with a high risk of novel diseases of zoonotic origin to prevent spill-over infections.

The expertise of more than 180+ member organisations and individual experts in the Alliance will be used to put together those interdiscplinary teams.

The Consultation Facility specializes on medium-term, primary preventive and context-specific government advisory services with concrete results in the context of health risks in wildlife trade and consumption along the entire contact and trade chain.

Effective and sustainable counseling requires thorough policy analysis/screening to identify suitable governments.

Existing political action or other political regulations regarding the intersection of wildlife and human health for example, are particulary helpful at the beginning of the consultation.

The facility was launched in December 2023. For this reason, the lessons learned will only be communicated in the course of 2024.

Feasibility Study

A study on how the carbon market could potentially finance climate adaptation/mitigation projects.

Collaboration with researchers in the climate financing field and relevant governmental stakeholders.

The Indonesian carbon market is yet to be fully developed, with many uncertainties in the policy side. Nonetheless, feasibility study became a guideline for other initiatives who are searching for sustainable financing for their mitigation projects. 

 

Although the findings were not fully conclusive, connections with the Government were established along the way to receive the necessary information for future implementation.

Policy Dialogues or Workshops

A dialogue or workshop with governmental stakeholders to present case studies or solutions that could be incorporated into national policies.

An ongoing collaboration with the national government and close communication about various project updates that are beneficial for policy.

Conducting panel discussions or FGD has been shown to facilitate dialogues between the public and private sectors. Such discussions are important for information accessibility to the private sector, while also influencing policies that are not resistant to project goals.

 

For instance, the carbon market workshop was significant in elaborating the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) plan on the Indonesian Carbon Market. Elaborating projects such as the biogas initiative early on is necessary to ensure smooth implementation once the policies are ready.

Training Methodology

The Sustainable Blue Economy Training emphasizes an interactive and participative approach, fostering a dynamic learning environment. Unlike traditional training programs, the facilitators prioritize engagement and active participation, which allowed for a more contextualized and meaningful learning experience tailored to the participants’ specific needs and realities.

The training combined the presentation of concepts and ideas with a series of interactive exercises in which participants apply these concepts and learn about practical tools to use within their own organizations and wider actor networks. The materials were adapted to help practitioners and decision-makers discuss conceptual knowledge on SBE, and to create interactive work sessions that provide participants with opportunities to practice methodologies and tools that they can take away and use subsequently to address or strengthen their contribution to an SBE.

  • Engaging participants to reflect on their own challenges and actively discuss solutions proved vital for the training's success;
  • Logistics should be more related to training methodology;
  • It is advisable to conduct trainings preferably outside of the city to prevent participants from being called back by their superiors, as well as to create a more immersive training experience.    
  • The facilitators maintained a neutral stance and should have provided more critical feedback on group work results.

  • The training assumed that participants had read the materials, which was not possible for many participants.

  • There was a decrease in the number of participants over the course, particularly in the case of the BE Council

  • There was a gap in participant selection, as representatives from the private sector and local community leaders should have been invited.

  • The use of Miro Boards was challenging for most participants.

Participant-centred evaluation

Training evaluation can be understood as the systematic process of collecting information and using that information to improve the training. Without disregarding the pre-training evaluation, keeping track during and after the training is relevant for the ongoing and future trainings.

The evaluation process for the Sustainable Blue Economy Training was conducted on a daily basis, with a strong emphasis on the active involvement of the co-management group. This group, consisting of three participants, played a key role in assessing the effectiveness and impact of the training program. Through daily evaluations, the co-management group provided valuable insights and feedback on the training sessions, facilitation methods, and overall learning experience. 

  • Daily evaluations are needed for continuous improvement of training efectiveness; 
  • Post evaluation should be done at training location;
  • Evaluation platforms should be used after assessment of participants capacity to correspond. 
Pre-Training Survey boosting training effectiveness

The Blue Economy (BE) concept has become a central aspect of global and regional environmental policies. This is mainly reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through Goal 14, which is to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development” (UN, 2017). Nonetheless, such concept is still new to Mozambique, and it became relevant to explore the different participants background on this topic.

Pre-training surveys helps to gather data that can inform how to run the training, how it’s delivered and what content it covers. To ensure training participants’ ownership of the program, a preparatory working group meeting was also convened, enabling potential participants to share their expectations and learning objectives with each other and to discuss key adaptations to be done. The results from the survey helped to make changes or improvements that maximized the results for the participants. 

  • Objectives should be shared clearly from the very beginning of the process;
  • It is necessary to use the information from the participants to prepare a tailored training;
  • Facilitators should be flexible to attribute specific time to certain topics;
  • Exercises should be tailored to audience level and make them more culturally appropriate.
Partners

While APOPO is the leading organisation in training scent detection rats, we rely on our partners for a wide range of support. Without them, deploying scent detection rats would not be possible. Such partners range from local partners such as the Sokoine University of Agriculture, to international partners such as Mine Action Authorities, governments, donors, and specialised organisations.

For example, the wildlife detection project partners with the Endangered Wildlife Trust of South Africa. The project has been funded by a wide range of government donors such as

 

- The German Government (through the GIZ 'Partnership against Wildlife Crime in Africa and Asia' Global Program)

- The UNDP-GEF-USAID 'Reducing Maritime Trafficking of Wildlife between Africa and Asia' Project

- The UK 'Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund'

- The Wildlife Conservation Network

- The Pangolin Crisis Fund

- US Fish and Wildlife

 

We rely heavily on support from the Tanzanian Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA) for provision of training aids, and, recently, the support from the Dar es Salaam Joint Port Control Unit in order to conduct operational trials for illegal wildlife detection. 

Trust, collaboration, networking, knowledge exchange, integrity, supporting evidence, reporting, media and outreach. 

Building relationships takes time and trust. Open and honest dissemination of results, goals, and setbacks ensures that partners feel that they can trust your organisation. In addition, when dealing with governments and partners in countries other than your 'own', we have found it helpful to have a person who is familiar with the way the specific countries' governments work. An in-depth understanding of cultural values and customs can greatly enhance partnerships. In addition, expectations should be clearly communicated across all parties to avoid frustration and misunderstandings.