Many nations have limited funding for wildlife health surveillance so developing this capacity and the knowledge of wildlife health and disease epidemiology as it pertains to the wildlife-livestock interface at the local, provincial and central levels is vital for sustained surveillance and for the true value of this surveillance to be realized including its use to implement wildlife-friendly interventions that also support improved livestock health.

Conducting monitoring and surveillance in wildlife (both healthy populations and those showing signs of disease) and routine serological testing for exposure to pathogens frequently shared with livestock as well as more in depth diagnostics e.g. PCR/ NGS on sick/ dead animals support comprehensive understanding of the circulation of pathogens in these populations, geographic and temporal distributions and time-lines of exposure and non-exposure of different populations. Integration of this data with livestock surveillance data contributes to understanding of the epidemiology of diseases and the dynamics of disease outbreaks, including the potential source, to implement effective science-based control strategies.

Building partnerships across the emergency management, animal health and environment/ wildlife sectors is an important first step for planning and implementation of wildlife surveillance to ensure results are used to guide science-based policy and disease control mechanisms. Convening multi-sectoral meetings to open discourse and share information on the challenges and opportunities to monitoring and management of disease at the wildlife-livestock interface, and to develop smooth communications and trust between and across sectors as well as multi-sectoral surveillance and response networks is critical.

During the implementation of the intervention, the project team conducted the self-assessment that helps determine whether an intervention is in adherence with the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutionsᵀᴹ. The assessment provided information about the intervention’s strengths and weaknesses and helped derive concrete recommendations and corrective actions for future interventions. Two criteria were deemed insufficient. Criterion 3 (biodiversity net-gain) fell short, because the analysis of the biodiversity benefits achieved through this intervention were largely based on a desk review of existing literature and information rather than a specific assessment, monitoring framework or thorough and collective effort with key informants and stakeholders. Criterion 6 (balancing of trade-offs) was also deemed insufficiently addressed. While there was a reported willingness from the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar to consider relevant trade-offs, the limits of these trade-offs and associated safeguards were not clarified. In addition, while provisions on the rights, usage of and access to marine and coastal resources for mariculture are in place, further information on how this is applied in practice is required.

Co-management approaches were applied in marine conservation areas. These involved the government, local communities, seaweed farmers, NGOs and associations, often with international support. A particular feature was the inclusion, empowerment and support of women, considering their role as primary seaweed farmers and beneficiaries. The cooperation generated between different actors has not only demonstrated the willingness of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar to implement blue growth strategies that are inclusive of local communities and aim to build a sustainable future, but also enabled the ongoing revision of management plans for marine protected areas in Zanzibar. The need to improve the participation of women and aquaculture farmers in decision-making, to increase transparency and to provide access to information, was highlighted. There are also opportunities to enhance cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries.

Throughout the project, consultations and participatory approaches and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) were applied. In particular, local community associations were created and strengthened in close coordination with formal organisational structures (community councils for development). New employment opportunities were generated, especially for Q'eqchi' Maya youth and women, covering the value chain of production. An Institutional Technical Team was established at national level, which was responsible for coordinating and promoting actions in accordance with the National Strategy for the Cocoa Value Chain. The technical team involved the government of Guatemala, local NGOs and actors involved in the cocoa value chain. A total of 898 producers and technicians developed technical skills for sustainable agricultural and manufacturing practices (20 per cent women).