The Potato Park is a biocultural heritage territory, collectively designed and governed by the communities that live around it. Established in 2002 among six Quechua communities (with 5 still active), the park itself holds over 650 varieties by western scientific classification (or over 1300 by traditional classification), as well as other Andean crops. There are 18 potato varieties resilient to drought and frost, plus one virus-tolerant variety. Thus, the park acts as a gene reserve, and a repository for tools for climate-change resilience.
The park is managed using the traditional aylluvalue system as a model, focusing on protecting the indivisibility and interconnectedness of agrobiodiversity within the park. The governing body, the Association of Communities of the Potato Park, hold the communal land title for the territory. Communities themselves defined the structure and operation of the association, with the support of ANDES, and includes representatives of leadership from each of the five communities covering the park. The association allows the communities to enter into legal agreements and to negotiate effectively as a group regarding any innovations or microbusinesses associated with the park, such as beauty or food products.
A repatriation agreement with the International Potato Centre returned 410 locally-adapted potato varieties to the area
The communal pooling of land facilitates experimentation; this is especially important since climate change is altering farming conditions, for example pushing up the lower planting line for potatoes, and farmers must adapt
To support the park, a Seed Guardians Group has been established and trained in botanical seed production, transects and multiplication
The use of participatory action research in supporting the design and management of the park was central to its success, and facilitated the development of e.g. the equitable benefit sharing agreements, based on customary laws, which underpin biocultural innovation associated with the park
In restoring and preserving this region’s biocultural heritage, the Potato Park reduces vulnerability to adverse weather events and disease, thus fostering resilience to climate change challenges. Supporting local agrobiodiversity also helps with maintenance of ecosystem services.
Potato Park for ecosystem-based adaptation through biodiversity conservation (and safeguarding biocultural heritage)
Informal trademarking and equitable benefit-sharing
Provide and support conservation projects and programs to strengthen relationships and enhance park values
Rankins paddock revegetation
Queensland Government
Rankins paddock revegetation
Queensland Government
The purpose of this building block is to have relevant projects that provide a benefit for Lamington National Park. Examples include revegetation projects, public events, education programs and materials. By working together with the community and volunteer organisations, projects can be guided/developed to benefit Lamington National Park and its stakeholders. Having structured projects and programs provide volunteers with a purpose for their time and also assist in implementing the management plan for the park.
It is important that projects and programs are appropriate and work towards park management goals; are do-able by the volunteers; have a high chance of achieving success; and have a purpose understood by and supported by all involved.
Conservation projects and programs must be tailored to the age and skill set of the volunteers. Park staff must also have realistic expectations about the supervisory role they play. The outcomes of the projects need to also be desirable by all parties so everyone is working towards their aspirations.
Develop Memorandum of Understandings between Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service & Partnerhsips (QPWS&P) and volunteer organisations
Volunteer agreements (Memorandum of Understanding) exist between each association (LNHA and GMNHA) and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Partnerships (QPWS&P). The agreements sets out the roles and responsibilities of both parties. Although they are not legally binding, it establishes the commitment of the department and volunteers that has contributed to the longevity and growth of the relationship.
It is important that the Volunteer Agreements are clear and supported, and capture the requirements and aspirations of both parties while being mutually beneficial. It must cover all the important parts of the negotiated agreement and be in line with legislation and government policies. It sets out the duties and responsibilities of all involved, including financial arrangements.
A successful volunteer agreement needs flexibility built into it so that it can be informally adapted over time as required. Communication also needs to be open and transparent while developing the agreement.
Monitoring program for effectiveness and program outcomes
Monitoring is an essential component of any adaptive management program. To understand whether the artesian spring management program was successful, a suite of monitoring and assessment was undertaken. This involved photographic monitoring and condition assessments of the springs based on the amount of grazing, ground disturbance and visual water condition. Biological assessment of species diversity of plants and endemic gastropods were carried out.
Develops land management outcomes and knowledge.
Evaluates management effectiveness.
Documents program outcomes.
Resources (time and staff) to undertaken monitoring.
Skills to undertake monitoring and assessment.
Effective monitoring programs create better and more sustainable engagement by program stakeholders, reduces costs and allows for more effective use of project resources.
Monitoring needs to be adaptive to ensure the desired outcomes are being measured.
Results need to be easy to understand and readily available so that all stakeholders can appreciate how the program is achieving the desired program outcomes.
While landscape based pest management programs reduce pest animals numbers, they often leave sufficient animals in the landscape to cause significant and ongoing adverse impacts. Targeted high conservation value spring wetlands have been fenced to exclude pest animals while allowing native species access to the wetlands. Two types of fencing techniques were trialled, one larger area which enclosed the spring and wetland area, and one smaller area that allowed the ‘tail end’ of the spring to flow outside the spring and wetland area
.
Appropriate objectives that work towards park management goals.
Resources (time and funding) for the installation and maintenance of fences.
Knowledge and understanding of pest ecology.
Fencing is a cost effective spring wetland management tool.
When used in combination with landscape pest control programs, fencing can achieve substantial and sustainable conservation outcomes.
Feral goats, pigs, horses and cattle have been identified as a key threat to the spring wetland biodiversity and the overall biodiversity of the national park. The program aims to reduce the impacts of domestic and introduced ungulates to improve the condition of artesian spring ecosystems. The pest control program involves baiting (poison), mustering and culling to remove pests from the landscape.
Appropriate objectives and work towards park management goals.
Adequate resources to implement the pest management program.
Knowledge and understanding of pest ecology.
Skills to undertake tasks, e.g. firearms and handling of poisons.
Threats need to be clearly defined.
Threat management actions need to be based on science.
Threat management actions need to be adaptive to respond to changing environmental conditions.
Monitoring program for effectiveness and program outcomes
Commitment to explicit, attainable conservation objectives through long-term Conservation Agreements
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.
Successful application of the FPA; communities practice using tools, models, financing
Development of a philosophy of support and education, not policing
Careful selection of communities which demonstrate the skills, organization and involvement to commence conservation measures
Providing training and education to make decisions and manage landscapes in cooperation with nature conservation ideals
Clearly defining activities being paid for creates a sense of purpose for CBOs
Assisting communities secure additional funding
Technical expertise is needed in very few cases for specific questions related to agreeing on habitat management plans.
The cost estimates were developed in cooperation with the local community representatives based on their knowledge of local markets. The final result is that a fair full cost reimbursement is set by the conservation agreements that allows the CBOs to implement the Conservation Agreements and secure their economic sustainability over the contracted period.
Annual community reports include: a comparison of targeted and actual values for the planned measures; developments in project time frames; general financial report; information on problems and identification of possible solutions.
Each year a sample of conservation agreements are selected for independent audit of performance by ECF or a third party. This is an opportunity to examine monitoring and reporting as a method to test performance of the conservation agreement process.
Examining connections between conservation objective and resilience/livelihoods of locals helps direct future projects.
