Subnational | PANORAMA

Vulnerability analysis and identification of EbA measures

Six step approach of the Vulernability Assessment

GIZ Thailand, 2015

Casual chain showing the root causes for fresh water shortage and flooding in Nakhon Si Thammarat

GIZ Thailand, 2015

Five EbA-Measures tackling five major concerns in the Huai Sai Bath River Basin

GIZ Thailand, 2015

Floodplain and wetland development for flood retention, sediment trapping and nutrient filtering

GIZ Thailand, 2015

The vulnerability assessment approach allows to find the biggest problems in river basins. For this assessment the approach was based on GIWA (Global International Water Assessment Methodology) & HSAP (Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol) and follows a 6 step approach including the following: 1) geographical scaling (mapping of hot spots) defines the geographic boundaries of the pilot areas to be analysed; sub-regions are identified within each project area and major hydro system features and economic activities are mapped out; 2) scoping by assessing environmental and socio-economic impacts and establishing priorities among the major concerns and issues as well as tracing the root causative factors behind the selected concerns and issues; 3) data collection; 4) modeling for verification and quantification of root-cause relationships with either physically deterministic or conceptual models covering a) hydrologic modeling with TalsimNG software, b) erosion and sedimentation modeling with Modified Uniform Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE), c) water quality modeling with GISMO software; 5) assessment to identify risks and uncertainties and to prioritize vulnerabilities; 6) Identification and ranking of potential EbA measures.

Available datasets (e.g. GIS) on digital elevation models and time series for water discharge, precipitation, temperature, humidity, evapotranspiration. Cooperation of local stakeholders to ensure that they are part of the decisions making processes and that their prioritized problems are tackled.

- Different data, discharge, evaporation, humidity, temperature, etc., is owned by different institutions. Some of them do not share their data as they consider it a loss of power. This needs to be considered as early as possible. The project used drones for collect additional data on the river discharge. - Datasets were partly incomplete. The missing information does not allow to analyze and quantify certain effects, therefore the results of the assessments still include uncertainties.

Planning phase

Subnational

Vulnerability analysis for the river basins of Huai Sai Bat, Tha Di and Trang (…

Pre-Selection of Ecosystem-based Measures (final report)

North Europe

Transboundary strategy for communication about nature conservation

Brady

Mattsson

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.

Sustainable Model of Arctic Regional Tourism

Principles for sustainable nature tourism in Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park

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.

Harmonized research and monitoring in Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park

North Europe

Promotion of transboundary nature protection and sustainable nature tourism

Riina

Tervo

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

North Europe

Transboundary integration and enhancement of public transportation system in a National Park region

Sophia

Fettinger

Integrated compliance activities in the GBR

Table 1 – Key strategies to achieve effective compliance management in the GBR.

Jon C. Day

Table 2 – Example of a Forward Compliance Threat Assessment and Response Prioritization periodically assessed for different fisheries and different management areas in the GBR.

Jon C. Day

Integrated compliance is a key approach contributing to effective management of the GBR. A number of compliance strategies are utilise to achieve compliance management, comprising a much wider range of strategies than just surveillance or enforcement (see Table 1 below). Today the GBR’s compliance approach is recognised as being of a world standard. It is implemented by a joint Field Management Compliance Unit (FMCU) comprising trained and competent officers of both the Australian and Queensland governments working closely together. The FMCU has a central role coordinating the deployment of all available compliance resources across the GBR. The delivery of field activities occurs through a number of key partner agencies including the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol, the Queensland Police Service and Australia’s Border Protection Command (BPC). The planning of patrols is based upon intelligence-derived information and delivers maximum detection as well as a deterrence effect. BPC is the principal provider of aerial operations delivering targeted aerial surveillance. BPC crews are trained by FMCU in the detection of marine park offences and subsequent evidence collection.

The key factors for overall compliance success in the GBR include: • Having annual and operational compliance plans aligned with the agency’s strategic objectives and priorities. • Having comprehensive operating manuals and guidelines underpinned by approved Commonwealth Standards. • Effective management of information/intelligence (including comprehensive analysis and threat/risk assessment). • A close working relationship with prosecutors, including the provision of comprehensive briefs.

- Enforcement and prosecution are not always the preferred choice, and other more appropriate compliance strategies (e.g. education, caution, warning letter or an infringement notice) may be used depending upon the threat, human behaviour and the environmental impact. The objective is to achieve informed self-regulation by the majority of users, allowing limited resources to be focussed on the highest impact, non-compliant users. - Good intelligence/information can be a key for good compliance. - Impact statements are supplied when court action is taken; these assist judges to understand the actual or potential harm that an unlawful activity can cause (e.g. illegal fishing can equate to serious environmental harm), and lead to more appropriate penalties being imposed by the judiciary. - The level of fines currently applied in the GBR is not a deterrent for many fishery offenders; increased use is being made of the ‘Three strikes and you’re out’ approach for repeat-offenders.

Entirety

Local

Subnational

Compliance management in the GBR

Education, Surveillance and Enforcement in the GBR

Understanding Non-compliance in the Marine Environment

On-line incident reporting form

Field Management Program: Annual Report summary 2014-15

West and South Europe

Promoting transboundary co-existence of large carnivores

Brady

Mattsson

Identifying and framing the transboundary decision problem

Identifying joint transboundary management objectives

Transboundary management options and external factors

Modelling transboundary consequences and trade-offs

Determining & implementing transboundary resource allocation

Identifying and framing the transboundary decision problem

The first step is to form a core team composed of two structured-decision-making (SDM) coaches with skills in decision analysis and workshop facilitation along with one authority representing each protected area in the transboundary region. In consultation with park directors, one primary contact person is identified as having the necessary knowledge and time availability to participate in the entire decision process. The core team then holds a series of conference calls or meetings to identify a joint transboundary management question. Between calls, the core team reviews any available management plans from the two respective protected areas and a guidance document on transboundary cooperation between the parks to identify shared management topics. The core team then formulates a concise 1-sentence transboundary conservation question, which summarizes the focal decision, associated objectives, and time-horizon: “Over the next 10 years, how can the managers of Triglav National Park and Julian Prealps Nature Park allocate their resources to best satisfy all stakeholders concerned about brown bears in the Julian Alps?”

During a stakeholder workshop where the decision analysis was conducted, 10 of 12 participants provided independent feedback on each step of the SDM process via a questionnaire. Of the 10 respondents, 9 indicated that the decision question was clear and relevant to their own interests, which confirmed that the problem framing and question were valid for developing a solution.

Authorities from the respective parks found it useful to independently determine whether there would be added value of transboundary cooperation on planned activities listed in their management plans and transboundary guidance document. The authorities also indicated that management of brown bear is relevant for multiple objectives for both protected areas and invokes strong interest in their stakeholder communities. By focusing on brown bear, the managers believed that it would be easier to engage a diverse set of stakeholders in addressing a key transboundary conservation issue and could serve as a useful example for applying SDM and transboundary conservation to other management topics in the Julian Alps and beyond.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Subnational

Multi-national

Instructional video on defining decision problem

Julian Alps Transboundary Ecoregion

Identifying joint transboundary management objectives

The first step is to identify stakeholder groups that should be considered when addressing the transboundary management question, including but not limited to the protected area staffs themselves. Six stakeholder groups were identified: nature conservation, agriculture, forestry, tourism, research, and local communities and municipalities. The core team then identifies up to 8 stakeholder representatives to include in the decision-analytic process. Each participating park authority then independently identifies 2-5 concerns and/or wishes from the perspective of each stakeholder group. Next, each core team converts the wishes and concerns into statements of objectives, and ultimate objectives are then distinguished from intermediate objectives that are only means to achieve ultimate objectives. A reduced set of three ultimate, quantifiable objectives are then identified to represent the main trade-offs and concerns across stakeholder groups while serving as measures of success for the focal transboundary conservation efforts. Focusing on a smaller number of ultimate objectives ensures feasibility and understandability for conducting the participatory decision analysis.

To avoid the objectives and stakeholders being driven by one of the two participating parks, initial lists of stakeholder groups and objectives should be based on independent input from park authorities of the two respective parks in each pilot region. A group of >8 stakeholder representatives (including the park authorities) would likely require a professional facilitator, and the process described here would need to be considerably modified to address issues related to participatory decision

Park authorities found it useful to organize an original set of 18 objectives into a hierarchy to recognize interrelationships among objectives and “Maintain coexistence of bears and humans” as an ultimate objective. For the decision analysis, the team selected the following ultimate objectives: 1) maintain bear population carrying capacity in the transboundary area and beyond, 2) maintain sustainable agriculture in the transboundary area, and 3) minimize stakeholder conflicts regarding bear management. Half the respondents to the stakeholder workshop survey indicated the ultimate objectives were clearly understood and representative of their concerns. Some stakeholders indicated the following issues were not addressed sufficiently: actual numbers of bears, ecotourism, positive impacts of bears, relationship between bear management and local communities, ecological requirements of bears, relevant regulations (national and regional), and practical day-to-day problems.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Subnational

Multi-national

Instructional video “Developing objectives”