In this stage the water fund’s structure and each stakeholder’s responsibilities are determined. A contract signed by the partners serves to formalize their agreement to unite efforts to carry out watershed conservation activities. It is also a guarantee to third parties wishing to contribute financial resources. Negotiating the contract must comply with fundamental legal requirements and corporate purpose of each partner, and must possibly be overseen by a specialized law firm. The fund’s board of directors will be responsible for overseeing the decision-making process. Therefore, it is crucial to prepare internal guidelines outlining the board’s operations, including e.g. decision-making mechanisms. A voting mechanism should be defined to guarantee the balance between the public and private sector, ensuring that decisions are reached in a consensual, independent and transparent manner. Prior to launch, the strategic plan (Goals; Priority Areas for Conservation; Cost Analysis of the Activities to be Implemented and Design of Financial Flow; Strategic Plan Preparation; Preparing Financial Flow) and fundraising strategy need to be designed.
Solid science and technical studies. Understanding of tradeoffs and willingness to compromise
Creating a water fund does not necessarily mean the creation of a new organization. Although this may be a solution to overcome legal obstacles, it is important to optimize resources and the use of partners’ available technical capacity, in order to avoid creating new legal bodies. The water fund’s investment decisions must be made in consensus and with transparency. The design of the investment plan and of a fundraising strategy must go hand-in-hand. The latter specifies expected incoming funds, to finance priority conservation activities, but also to establish own capital in order to be autonomous in the long term. The creation and operation of a water fund is an adaptive process that requires modifications, adjusting goals and continuous improvement, especially because many financial, social and political issues may vary from the initially approved investment plan.
The identification of hydrologic services that must be conserved or recovered is a very important step that helps set clear goals and objectives for the fund, identify key stakeholders that should be involved and develop strategies for achieving the goals set. Regulation of the Water Cycle, Sediment Control and Water Quality are some examples of hydrologic services that can be identified as goals for a water fund.
Reliable data for an initial opportunity assessment. Relationship with local organizations and government agencies with relevant data on the ecosystem service.
This step is key to set clear goals and objectives for the fund, identify key stakeholders, and develop strategies.
Strengthening transboundary cooperation through joint action
Park Director Kari Lahti of Oulanka National Park and Park Director Aleksandr Bizhon of Paanajärvi National Park celebrating success of transboundary cooperation in Paanajärvi National Park in 2008
For transboundary cooperation to work, it is important that the transboundary National Parks work together on common tasks and activities. This can be achieved through joint implementation of projects. In the case of Oulanka National Park in Finland and Paanajärvi National Park in Russia, many projects have been implemented in order to solidify these two entities into one real functional unit – a twin park – that serves as a model for transboundary cooperation.
The Interreg/Tacis Joint Project “Oulanka-Paanajärvi – wilderness, experiences and well-being” contributed toward ensuring ecological and socio-economic sustainability of Oulanka and Paanajärvi National Parks while preserving and enhancing attractiveness of the region for visitors and to make the twin park the most important and attractive destination for nature-oriented tourism in the region. This in turn creates possibilities for entrepreneurship and preserves and strengthens employment opportunities for local people and entrepreneurs.
Joint management and implementation of the project was an important tool in making transboundary cooperation part of the daily work in the management of the transboundary National Parks on both sides of the border.
It is helpful if transboundary cooperation has recognition on a higher level than just the National Parks. In Oulanka-Paanajärvi twin park, in addition to the joint agreement of collaboration there is a convention between the Finnish and Russian governments as well as a memorandum between the regional governments. The commitment of twin park managers and personnel to reaching common goals and working together is essential. Promotion on both sides is important and helps nature tourism businesses in creating sustainable transboundary products.
The best way to make transboundary work part of daily activities of managers and personnel of the National Parks is to do actual work together and in such a way that all levels of personnel participate in the work. Transboundary work cannot be just meetings between higher level staff but actual hands-on work by all levels of personnel.
It is important that the staff members that have knowledge of the language spoken in the NP across the border or another common language actively act as interpreters in order to help communication between personnel in transboundary NPs. Language learning should be encouraged and supported by the management of NPs.
It is also important to celebrate the achievements together and invite local people, businesses, local and regional government and media to take part in the events. It is important to make new history together especially in Oulanka-Paanajärvi region where wars were fought and the border was closed for a long time.
Enhancing sustainable tourism in transboundary NPs
Nature is the basis for nature-oriented tourism and recreational use of nature, thus nature tourism must be sustainable: not threatening natural values and respecting local culture. Sustainability of activities is a precondition for use of NPs, continuity of nature-based tourism and recreational use of nature, and regional attractiveness.
Assessments of ecological sustainability of tourism and recreational use of nature were conducted in Oulanka and Paanajärvi NPs by research institutions. The method ‘Limits of Acceptable Change’ was used to determine limits of ecological sustainability as part of a Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in Oulanka NP. Waste management practices and public awareness of waste management were developed in Paanajärvi NP. A Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy (STDS) was developed in Paanajärvi NP to match the already existing one in Oulanka NP. The STDS is an instrument for attaining long-term sustainability of ecological and socio-economic development of the territory. Work on STDS enables an objective assessment of the present situation of the transboundary NPs and adjoining areas in relation to development of tourism and to develop a plan of future activities for the whole territory.
It was important that there was sufficient data collected on natural and socio-economic conditions of the National Parks in order to make an educated assessment of the sustainability of nature-based tourism and recreational use of nature. Good cooperation with stakeholders that have an impact on National Parks was vital as was mutual commitment to the importance of strategic planning of the Parks and their surrounding area. Monitoring of the factors used to determine the limits of acceptable change is essential for long-term sustainability.
It is important to reserve sufficient time to build the base for cooperation and understanding of the methodology and process of developing a Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy for a National Park. It is also important to engage the stakeholders early on so that they feel that their views and opinions are taken into account. This enhances the commitment to implement the STDS by all involved.
Collection of baseline data and information and monitoring of relevant factors is essential if real sustainability in the use of National Parks is to be reached. Also the limits of acceptable change should be open for revision as new data are collected. Sharing of work methodologies and information across the border in transboundary NPs improves coordinated actions that benefit NPs on both sides of the border, thus also making the management of transboundary NPs more in line. This transboundary cooperation is essential to ensure ecological sustainability, as nature knows no borders.
Training and certification of National Park guides
Training of nature guides in Oulanka National Park, Finland
A competent guide and site-specific information deepen the visitor experience and understanding of natural and cultural sites. There is a need for increased quality in the range of nature-based tourism products and guides specialised in sites and site-specific information to intensify the visitor’s experience. The project answered to this challenge by developing a training system for nature guides as well as the principles governing the certification of guides for Oulanka National Park in Finland.
Four guides from the Russian Paanajärvi National Park participated in the training course for nature guides in order to learn about the training and its applicability in Paanajärvi NP and to enhance their knowledge of Oulanka NP as well as to form personal links with Oulanka NP staff. Other participants of the training were guides of local nature-based tourism businesses. In order to be certified, the guides had to pass the tasks specified in the training programme. The training was given by NP specialists and practical arrangements were organised by a co-operating educational institute.
The interest of the local nature-based tourism businesses to have their guides participate in the training course was the most fundamental factor. This meant that the businesses were willing to invest in their guides, as they believed it would ultimately be beneficial for the business. The National Park’s willingness to provide resources (staff and funding) for the training was of vital importance. Open and constructive dialogue between NP management and businesses was very important during the training.
The training was a great way to get to know the local nature-based tourism businesses and the people that work in them. We (managers of National Parks) learned about the realities of business, while the business entrepreneurs learned about our management philosophy and got to know us personally. After the training, the entrepreneurs saw us as actual people rather than just authorities enforcing laws. This helped improve relationships between NP managers and the entrepreneurs.
During the training, it is important to have time for discussions and sharing as these strengthen the bonds between people. It is very important to do the training on the guides’ terms: they are used to oral presentation, not written, so it is good to formulate the tasks so that not much paper work is needed on the trainees’ part. It is good to make the certified guides public and give them the right to use a certified guide badge. It is vital to take into account the tourist season and avoid training during it.
Development of GIS-based electronic information points
The aim of the electronic information points is channeling visitor use in order to help avoid congestion within Paanajärvi and Oulanka NPs and thus to enhance possibilities of nature experiences for visitors and to safeguard biological diversity and ecological sustainability of the NPs. Through the information points visitors can obtain easily accessible, fun and entertaining information of the possibilities for experiencing nature in Oulanka and Paanajärvi National Parks and in other areas in their vicinity, encouraging also visitation across the border. The information points also describe less visited sites, thus channelling the visitor use towards areas that can accommodate more visitors. This can effectively reduce crowding in certain areas and thus contribute towards preserving ecological values in the more crowded areas.
Nine electronic, multi-lingual information points were installed: 7 in Finland and 2 in Russia. Partnerships were formed with tourism associations and businesses and local administrations in order to place the information points in well visited sites outside of National Parks, as well as in the Visitor Centres of the NPs. Emphasis was put on presenting the sites with engaging photos and fun text.
There was great interest in these electronic information points, and the managers of sites where information points were placed were keen to maintain them.
Interest of regional and local authorities and tourism sector actors to promote natural and cultural sites of visit within their own and in neighbouring areas was important for planning and implementing the information points. The personnel of the National Parks were keen to share their photos for the information points and the Parks management was very supportive of the information points.
The electronic information points provide information in a fun and entertaining way focusing more on photos than text. By keeping the text short and fun to read along with photos showing people not taking themselves seriously, the information is easily accessible to the user.
The electronic information points can be updated using a network connection but they cannot be used over the Internet. They are only available on site. It might be worth to have the information points available on the Internet as well, as that is the way people seek information nowadays. This would help visitors plan their trip better and avoid crowds as they could find information on the less visited and known sites prior to their visit.
Development of GIS-based electronic information points
Training and certification of National Park guides
Enhancing sustainable tourism in transboundary NPs
Sharing a common past through preservation of cultural sites
Strengthening transboundary cooperation through joint action
Working with the best available information/knowledge
When undertaking a planning or zoning task, rarely does a planner have access to all the information or knowledge that they would like for the entire planning area. Whether it might be more consistent ecological data across the entire planning area or a more complete understanding of the full range of social and economic information, a planner is often faced with the following choices:
Waiting until they have more data (with the ultimate aim of accumulating ‘perfect’ information across all the required datasets); or
Working with the best available scientific knowledge and accepting that while it is not perfect, it is adequate provided the deficiencies of the data are understood (by the planners and the decision-makers) and clearly explained to the public and to the decision-makers. Insufficient knowledge about marine ecosystems can impede the setting of meaningful objectives or desirable outcomes when planning. David Suzuki in 2002 questioned how can we effectively plan and manage when “… to date all we have actually identified are ... about 10–20% of all living things”, and “… we have such a poor inventory of the constituents and a virtually useless blueprint of how all the components interact?’’
A good understanding of the wider context within which the MPA is situated is an important factor when planning. Due to the levels of ‘connectivity’ in the marine environment and the biological interdependency upon neighbouring communities, an MPA can only be as ‘healthy’ as the surrounding waters. Even a well-planned MPA will be difficult to manage if the surrounding waters are over-utilised, polluted or are themselves inadequately managed.
The reality is if you wait until you have ‘perfect’ information for planning, you will never start.
Recognise that marine areas are dynamic and are always changing; and with technological advances, the levels and patterns of use are constantly changing, as are the social, economic and political contexts, so having perfect data is realistically an impossible aim.
In virtually all planning situations, it is better to proceed with the best available information than to wait for ‘perfect’ data. However, if new data becomes available during the planning process, then incorporate it rather than ignore it.
Those who are frequently on the water (like fishers and tourist operators) often know as much (if not more) about the local environment than the researchers – so draw upon their knowledge and use it to augment the best available scientific data.
When resources are limited, seeking new data should focus on providing information that will be useful for ongoing management.
Use and limitations of decision support systems/tools
Figure from the paper by Lewis et al. (2003). Use of Spatial Analysis and GIS techniques to Re-Zone the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Lewis et al. (2003)
A diagram showing one of the ‘final’ outputs of Marxan (A) in the GBR which met the planning principles, and how much that differed from the draft plan (B) and the final Zoning Plan (C), both of which had to consider other social and political inputs.
Pressey et al.2012
Decision-support systems (DSS) or analytical tools, such as Marxan or SeaSketch, are often promoted as a pre-requisite for effective marine spatial planning, providing a quick and reliable solution to a planning problem. It is natural for DSS users to hope that using the DSS will generate ‘the answer’ and hence provide the solution to their planning problem. More often than not, DSS produce simplistic results which need to be modified using other planning methods. All DSS tools have limitations and cannot compensate for missing or incomplete data. They can produce unintended side-effects and often are unable to match the complexity of real-world planning problems. Planning outcomes are of little practical value if social, cultural and economic values are not considered – however rarely is such data readily available in a form amendable to a DSS or at the an appropriate spatial resolution. In the GBR, the DSS generated a ‘footprint’ of various ‘no-take’ zone options, but it could not cater for the eight zone types, so other planning methods needed to be applied. However the real benefit was the ability to generate metrics to inform the development of the best possible no-take zoning network.
Marxan was developed by the University of Queensland as a modified version of SPEXAN to meet the needs of the GBRMPA during the Representative Areas Program and the development of the 2003 Zoning Plan. The images below show that Marxan did not produce the final zoning network in the GBR, but it did provide invaluable decision support through post-hoc accounting of various options, enabling a rapid assessment of the implications of each option in terms of each of the planning objectives.
In reality a DSS cannot undertake the fine scale tuning and political trade-offs that inevitably occur in the final stages of planning, so it can never produce the final pragmatic solution for any planning task. Some shortfalls of DSS are:
Some planning information, especially socio-economic data, may not easily be applied into a DSS.
While a DSS may generate a ‘solution’, it is inevitably refined if/when socio-economic values are introduced. These values are often not represented in the data yet are often some of the most fundamental values for a socially-acceptable outcome.
Poor data will always lead to a poor result.
Most contemporary DSS tools are unlikely to meet all the needs of a user; in the GBR planning program even simple ‘rules’ such as ‘all reserves should be no smaller than ...’ were not able to be directly implemented by a DSS.
Some stakeholders are wary of ‘black-box’ models or DSSs (e.g. Marxan or Seasketch) that they do not understand.
The new network of no-take zones (NTZ) in the GBR was guided by 11 Biophysical Operational Principles developed using general principles of reserve design and the best available knowledge of the GBR ecosystem (see Resources). They included:
Have a few larger (rather than many smaller) NTZs
Have sufficient replication of NTZs to insure against negative impacts
Where a reef is within a NTZ, the whole reef should be included
Represent at least 20% of each bioregion in NTZs
Represent cross-shelf and latitudinal diversity in the network of NTZs
Maximise use of environmental information like connectivity to form viable networks
Incorporate biophysically special/unique places
Consider adjacent sea uses and land uses when choosing NTZs
Four Social, Economic, Cultural and Management Feasibility Operational Principles were also applied:
Maximise complementarity of NTZs with human values, activities and opportunities;
Ensure that final selection of NTZs recognises social costs and benefits;
Maximise placement of NTZs in locations which complement and include present and future management and tenure arrangements; and
Maximise public understanding and acceptance of NTZs, and facilitate enforcement of NTZs.
An independent Scientific Steering Committee, including scientists with expertise in the GBR, helped to develop these principles, basing them upon expert knowledge of the ecosystem, available literature and their advice as to what would best protect the biodiversity. Careful consideration of the views of Traditional Owners, users, stakeholders and decision-makers was an essential pre-requisite before deciding the final spatial configuration of NTZs that could fulfil these principles.
Having a publicly-available set of planning principles assists everyone to understand how the NTZ network is developed.
The principles are based on the best available science and expert knowledge but can be improved.
A principle should not be considered in isolation; they all need to be treated collectively as ‘a package’ to underpin the number, size and location of NTZs.
None of these recommendations is for ‘ideal’ or ‘desired’ amounts and they refer to recommended minimum protection levels. Protecting at least these amounts in each bioregion, and each habitat, helps achieve the objective of protecting the range of biodiversity.
The “minimum of 20% per bioregion” principle is often misunderstood – it is NOT saying that 20% of every bioregion in NTZs must be protected; rather it recommends no less than 20% should be protected. In some instances that is only the minimum amount and in some less contested bioregions, a higher percentage protected is more appropriate.
