The WWF Nature Academy cycle ends with a final event were all ambassador schools present the results of their projects and the protected area they are an ambassador of. The final event is hosted by one of the participating protected area and the goal of the events is to share success, lessons learned and promote networking among the ambassador schools and PAs. An important element of the final event is the press conference for local and national media.

During the academic year the ambassador schools share their results on the WWF Nature Academy Facebook page (a closed group for project participants), on their school websites and Facebook groups and they communicate them to the local media together with the protected area.

After the final event each ambassador school becomes a mentor to a new school participating in the academy and hands them over the “mentoring box” with suggestions, motivational messages and handmade souvenirs. In this way ambassador schools of the same protected area start to cooperate and in time build a school network of the protected area.  

Very important for the end of the academy cycle – celebrate the success at a thematic biodivesity party! 

Once the environmental, economic and health benefits of restoration been nationally acknowledged, The Council of Ministers adopted the Strategy for Sustainable Use and Categorization of All Peatlands, in 2015. This policy prevents any future loss of peatlands, allowing peat extraction only where no biodiversity loss would be caused and requiring mandatory re-wetting after extraction or agricultural use. Ownership and management of peatland during their use/protection, during and after restoration, and the saving mechanism to set aside funding for restoration have been all clarified in national regulations.

With the co-funding from the Global Environment Facility, 22,397 ha of degraded peatlands were restored between 2009 and 2011. Restoration at these 10 sites helped stop annual emission of about 448,000 tons of CO2 from peatland fires and mineralization, and saving the country tens of millions of dollars in fire-fighting operations. Already one year after rehabilitation most sites showed re-emergence of typical wetland vegetation (primarily Sedge communities) and its domination over trees and shrubs (pictures attached). The density of water-birds increased by 12-16%. At the re-created wetlands scientists recorded the IUCN-listed Aquatic Warbler (VU), Greater spotted eagle (VU), Black-tailed godwit (NT), as well as other wetland species previously lost from these areas, such as Common snipe, Reed bunting, Lapwing, Sedge warbler, Great reed warbler. Restoration cost (from engineering design to having water level restored) has been around US$50/ha. Restoration mostly involved use of local materials and local labor. Since 2011, restoration of peatlands at other sites continued without external donor support.

A technical guidebook was developed on affordable approaches to peatland restoration. The key challenge was to bring together specialists from different fields (hydrology, biology, soil sciences, economy) to work together on developing a single most sustainable solution for each peatland; the process, therefore, involved a lot of learning and benefited from advice of German and British experts. The resulting know-how was approved as a Code of Best Practices, becoming a standard in peatland restoration in Belarus. The restoration approach relies on using local material and in a very few cases on more solid (concrete) constructions to block drainage ditches and thus stop/prevent water from running-off peatlands. The blocking constructions can be regulated if needed, allowing to adjust water level in the peatland as needed. An algorithm has been developed for identifying how many such constructions would need to be placed and where, depending on area size, elevation, and condition of the drainage ditches. (Further details on the technical aspects of the restoration approach can be found in the Guidebook itself). The re-wetting of temperate peatlands, as developed by a team of specialists led by Dr. Alexander Kozulin, can prevent emissions, restore hydrology, recreate habitat of water-birds and trigger re-start of peat accumulation.

According to Costa et al, “Brazil was the first country in the world to implement a National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production”. It is therefore worthy of notice that the Policy has been widely implemented in the country, succeeding as a good example of a multi-sectoral public policy, despite the challenges it still faces. Furthermore, PNAPO has served as inspiration for Brazilian States (such as Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, Goiás, São Paulo and Amazonas), the Federal District and Municipalities to elaborate their own state and municipal policies, following the guidelines of the National Policy and adapting them to their own realities and necessities. Hence PNAPO is likely suitable to be transferred to other situations.

The National Policy (PNAPO) has been implemented in Brazil since 2012, aiming at fostering sustainable agricultural practices and healthy food consumption habits; empowering family farmers, traditional communities, women and youth; and promoting sustainable rural development through specific programs and financing for smallholder farming. It is a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder interdisciplinary policy on a federal level, whose initiatives have been implemented throughout the five Brazilian regions, with verifiable results.

Some programmes and initiatives currently included in the flagship of PNAPO already existed before its creation. Nonetheless, with the establishment of the policy and the creation of CNAPO, those programmes have been strategically articulated and integrated into PNAPO’s general objectives and working plan, guaranteeing more participative planning, implementation and monitoring processes.

One of the PNAPO’s main instruments is the National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO), which must always include at least the following elements: overview/diagnosis, strategies and goals, programmes, projects, actions, indicators, deadlines and a management structure (Article 5 of Federal Decree 7,794).

Responsible for the implementation of PNAPO are the Interministerial Chamber of Agroecology and Organic Production (CIAPO) and the National Commission of Agroecology and Organic Production (CNAPO):

The CIAPO is the government body composed of nine Ministries and six invited Independent State Agencies. It is coordinated by the Special Secretariat for Family Farming and Agrarian Development (SEAD), which also provides technical and administrative support. CIAPO’s attributions are: building up and executing the National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO), coordinating the Government Bodies and Entities committed to PNAPO’s implementation, promoting liaison among and with State, District and Municipal Bodies and reporting to the CNAPO on the monitoring of the PLANAPO.

The CNAPO, on the other hand, represents the government-civil society liaison. It is composed of fourteen representatives from the public administration and fourteen representatives from civil society organizations, each one with a designated alternate representative. It is coordinated by the Secretariat of Government of the Presidency of the Republic (Segov), through the National Office of Social Articulation (SNAS), which also provides technical and administrative support.

The National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO) is a pioneer Brazilian national public policy on agroecology. It was enacted through a participatory process, in which civil society played a pivotal and leading role in pushing forward the agenda and in ensuring that some relevant demands were effectively included in the policy’s final text.

On 20th August 2012, the PNAPO was adopted by President Dilma Rousseff, by means of the Federal Decree No 7,794. It is relevant to point out that within the Technical Board for Organics (CT-ORG) there was in the early 2010s a proposal to create a national policy on organic agriculture. However, with the decision of the President to establish a policy on agroecology, both issues were incorporated into the same agenda.

During the enactment process of the policy, the most relevant spaces for dialogue between the Government and civil society were the five Regional Seminars (from February to April 2012) and the National Seminar (May 2012) entitled “For a National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production” jointly organized by ANA and ABA with the support of the Ministry of the Environment (MMA).

Conservation Agreements (CAs) are binding grant contracts created and agreed upon by specific communities and the ECF. CAs set out clear, attainable and realistic conservation objectives and determine the scope of conservation measures to be implemented within communities that demonstrate the have the organization, motivation and commitment to follow 10-year habitat management plans. Conservation objectives are determined by the ECF and the local community using expert and local knowledge. Each agreement is tailored to the identified needs in the target community and the local landscape. These contracts bind communities to protect ecosystems but also assist traditional land users to use the land in a sustainable way. 

The communities that sign Conservation Agreements have been selected to do so because they show initiative, community involvement and potential through the FPA process and establishment of a CBO. In order to ensure the sustainability of the projects, the compliance of Conservation Agreements is monitored. Each community must submit annual technical reports. In case they fail to perform the planned activities, the payments under the agreement may be suspended until they meet the requirements, or subsequently terminated if they don’t comply for more than a year.

Clear land ownership and land tenure (the right to use land) are the basic preconditions for the implementation of any habitat management measure. Land-use rights of all beneficiaries needs to be clear and secure before project initiatives commence to avoids risk of undocumented dimensions in the planning and implementation of conservation measures. It also secures long-term interest of the land user to manage the land sustainably. The purpose of this measure is to clarify, legally regulate, obtain and hold land tenure rights needed for conservation actions and for sustainable livelihood. Land tenure rights encompasses land ownership, lease of land and/or other rights related to the use of land. 

In Georgia, most land is state owned. But after the breakdown of the Soviet Union land tenure rights have not been properly documented or registered. Today, traditional land-use rights based on verbal agreements and traditions are translated into legally documented/registered leases by the CBOs representing their respective villages. Resolving uncertain land tenure is one of the major benefits the ECF is bringing to partner communities, providing them with a clear economic perspective for the future while preserving the existing community management of shared pastures and meadows.