The IOSEA region is host to six species of marine turtles: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), Green (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and Flatback (Natator depressus).
Across the region, there are several examples of decades-long conservation programmes whose management interventions have contributed to stable or increasing turtle populations. In addition, several countries can boast significant turtle populations that, if not still thriving, have remained resilient in the face of increasingly diverse and escalating human pressures.
However, many of the region’s marine turtle populations have declined significantly, some having been almost eliminated. Various factors are thought to have contributed to unsustainable turtle mortality, including: widespread and intense exploitation of eggs, meat and shell, fisheries-related mortality (by-catch), destruction and degradation of critical habitats, pollution, climate change, and inappropriate management practices. Consequently, where marine turtles were once a substantial economic and cultural resource in many parts of the IOSEA region, costly management interventions are now required to protect marine turtles and their habitats.
Marine turtles depend on diverse habitats at different phases of their life cycle, including suitable beaches for nesting and coastal waters for foraging and reproduction. Yet the importance of many of these coastal habitats – critical not only for marine turtles, but for a wide range of species as well as ecosystem services critical for human wellbeing – is often not recognised.
A lack of awareness and understanding of the ecological and other values of these unique habitats may lead to inappropriate development of areas at the expense of coastal ecosystem integrity, as well as the conservation of marine turtles. In some areas marine turtles and their habitats may be protected on paper, through appropriate national legislation and regulations, yet the implementation of adequate conservation measures on the ground is often lacking. In either case, there are adverse impacts for the coastal communities that rely on the services provided by these ecosystems.
Protecting areas critical for the region’s marine turtles will simultaneously yield a range of socio-economic benefits for people. Maintaining coastal water quality, protecting habitat used as nursery grounds for seafood species that support commercial and subsistence fisheries, and generally protecting mangrove and reef habitat in a way that reduces threats from coastal hazards – such as erosion, flooding, and strong wave action – is good for humans as well as turtles.
The overarching goal of the IOSEA Marine Turtle Site Network is to promote the long-term conservation of sites of regional value for benefit of marine turtles and their habitats. Its main objectives are to:
(i) Provide a regional mechanism to enhance the conservation of sites of importance to marine turtles;
(ii) Derive ecological and governance benefits that are not possible to achieve by managing individual sites in isolation;
(iii) Contribute, through enhanced regional conservation of marine turtles and their habitats, to more effective maintenance of ecosystem services that support human well-being; and
(iv) Catalyse opportunities for participatory resource management and community development centred on marine turtles, through network-wide information exchange.
The IOSEA Marine Turtle Site Network will enhance local-to-global scale recognition of the importance of the networked sites, on the strength of a credible selection process. This in turn should catalyse increased support and resources for more effective site-based and regional management. When fully functional, the network will coordinate available financial, technical and human resources to conduct common training, facilitate exchange of information on best practices, carry out joint research and monitoring, undertake performance evaluation, and encourage adaptive management. In so doing, it will optimize the use of limited resources available for mutually-supportive governance.
The careful selection and inclusion of network sites will help to mtigate adverse socio-economic impacts over a wider geographic scale. Activities incompatible with marine turtle conservation cannot be eliminated entirely, but such activities may be restricted at selected network sites in a way that diffuses adverse impacts across the wider region.
The network seeks to protect ecological connectivity between habitats through strategic spacing and shape of sites; and to optimise regional resistance and resilience of marine turtle habitats to environmental stress. This will be achieved by including and managing sites containing marine turtle habitats necessary for different life cycle phases, by protecting multiple examples of each habitat.
The concept of a network of sites of importance for marine turtles was under development for several years, having been introduced initially in 2004 at the second Meeting of the IOSEA Signatory States. The proposal was developed and refined by the Secretariat in close consultation the Signatory States, Advisory Committee and other experts; and benefitted from an open dialogue that served to reconcile divergent views about several aspects of the proposal, including: what would the governance structure of the network entail, how would sites be evaluated for inclusion and ultimately be chosen, and what additional obligations, if any, would be required of governments. A concerted effort was made in 2011 to present a coherent vision of the objectives of the network, together with a realistic picture of its operation in the short to medium-term.
No, as far as marine turtles are concerned, the Site Network is unique in the IOSEA region. However, there are many other initiatives and programmes at various levels that provide for the designation and protection of sites of importance for biodiversity, including those of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Programme for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Also, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is working to identify ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs), which may have some relevance to the network. IOSEA can benefit from the experience and strengths and weaknesses of these other approaches, even if some of them may appear to be far removed from marine turtle conservation.
Countries will be invited to nominate turtle nesting beaches and adjacent areas considered to be important sites for marine turtles and, in doing so, will hopefully have an added incentive to secure additional resources and protection at the sites. However, provision of additional resources is not a binding commitment or obligation upon joining the network.
The need to prepare a baseline site assessment is the only fundamental requirement associated with site nomination. This exercise will be extremely valuable in and of itself, especially if one has never been conducted previously. In addition to helping identify constraints and management gaps, the assessment will lend credibility to the site selection process and will help to match potential donors to specific site needs.
The Network is established under the IOSEA Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding, which is a non-binding instrument concluded under the aegis of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). All of the network sites will be nominated by Signatory States, which participate voluntarily in this regional initiative as a way to improve coordination of their individual efforts, as well as to bring greater attention to the conservation status of particular sites.
It has been agreed that nominating a site to the network should not impose any new binding financial commitments or create any new legal obligations on Signatory States. All existing local, regional and national legislation for marine turtle conservation, marine protected areas and other applicable laws will continue to take precedence.
Government agencies nominate sites to become part of the IOSEA Marine Turtle Site Network by addressing a covering letter to the IOSEA Secretariat, accompanied by the required Site Information Sheet(s). A sample form letter has been prepared which Signatory State Focal Points may use for this purpose.
The completion of a site information sheet is an important prerequisite for the nomination of a site to the network. It provides the justification for a site to be included in the network and is the basis upon which the merits of including a site will be evaluated by the IOSEA Advisory Committee. The sheet includes baseline information on the site; describes the current and/or planned management framework; and identifies any resources already committed or foreseen for management of the site.
The exercise of preparing such an assessment will be extremely valuable in and of itself, especially if one has never been conducted previously for the site. In addition to helping identify current constraints and management gaps, it will lend credibility to the site selection process and will help to match potential donors to specific site needs. A well-prepared site information sheet can also be used to assess management progress at regular intervals.
All site information sheets will be compiled in a searchable database that will be maintained on the IOSEA website for public viewing, thus providing another vehicle for publicising the importance of the site to the international community.
Interested nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions and the private sector are encouraged to suggest sites for possible formal nomination by governments, and may assist governmental bodies in the preparation of the Site Information Sheet. However, the formal submission must be made by the national IOSEA Focal Point for the country in whose jurisdiction the site is located.
It is recommended that individuals or organisations wishing to facilitate the nomination of a particular site prepare at least a first draft of a Site Information Sheet, and consult with their respective IOSEA Focal Point about the feasibility of going forward with a formal nomination.
Yes. It is foreseen that Arabic and French translations of the Site Information template will be prepared, to make it easier for some countries to prepare submissions in their native language. However, a complete English translation must accompany any submissions prepared in Arabic for French, in order to facilitate the work of the Advisory Committee.
Nominations may be submitted to the Secretariat at any time, at least six months before the Meeting of Signatory States. This is the minimum time needed by the Advisory Committee to review and comment on the nominations, suggest any necessary amendments or improvements, and make recommendations to the Meeting of IOSEA Signatory States for inclusion or rejection based on the results of their assessment. The Secretariat will circulate the Advisory Committee’s recommendations to IOSEA Focal Points no later than three months prior to the regular Meeting of the Signatory States.
IOSEA Signatory States were invited to submit proposals of candidate sites from which initially ten regionally-balanced sites were selected. The reason for initially limiting the number of sites included in the network is so that efforts are focused on establishing effective demonstration sites that can serve as models elsewhere. Through their national governments, NGOs (including environmental groups, academic institutions and the private sector) are welcome to suggest possible future sites for formal nomination by IOSEA Signatory States, and to assist in the preparation of relevant documentation.
Each site will be inaugurated through a dedication ceremony, including provision of an IOSEA certificate to the Signatory State, as well as installation of appropriate signage identifying the site’s inclusion in the IOSEA Marine Turtle Site Network. A dedicated page for each site will be created on the IOSEA website to publicise its main features. Emphasis will be given to identifying, as concretely as possible, the particular resource needs of each site. It is hoped that this increased attention may lead to additional funding that can be made available for conservation and management interventions at the site.
Even in the absence of significant new funding, ties can be developed among network sites – for example by twinning pairs or larger numbers of ‘sister sites’. These sister sites can begin to coordinate their human, technical and financial resources with the aim of conducting collaborative staff training, outreach, monitoring, and management activities.
In the course of applying for inclusion in the network, a site manager and/or collaborators will have conducted basic field and desk research in order to prepare the IOSEA Site Network Information Sheet. This will serve as a benchmark against which to measure progress and to guide adaptive management – with a goal of maintaining and augmenting the long-term site-specific and network-wide values of the site. Analyses of ecological gaps in the network will help to guide its systematic growth, to ensure that it is achieving the desired objectives.
If more funds become available, additional funding will be used to increase the networking of all sites through coordinated activities, including financial support to implement formal mechanisms for the coordination and sharing of technical, financial and human resources between subsets of sites in the network. Also under this scenario, new site management plans or improvements of existing plans will be developed for a number of ‘model’ sites. Available funding will also be used to undertake some prioritized interventions at these sites.
The IOSEA Advisory Committee is tasked with evaluating all site nominations against a suite of criteria, in order to evaluate nominations of new sites; to re-assess, in the longer-term, the rationale for continued inclusion of existing sites; and to conduct gap analyses for the overall network to identify priorities for inclusion of additional sites.
The Committee may call upon independent reviewers / local experts to assist in its evaluations, in cases where specialized expertise and knowledge about a particular site is lacking or where additional capacity is needed to deal with the number of submissions.
Whereas site nominations may be submitted at any time, the Advisory Committee will review them only two times per year, for sake of efficiency and to facilitate relative comparisons across sites. These reviews will take place approximately 12 months and six months prior to the regular Meeting of IOSEA Signatory States, unless there are compelling reasons to adjust this timetable.
The Advisory Committee will comment on the nominations, suggest any necessary amendments or improvements, and make recommendations to the Meeting of IOSEA Signatory States for inclusion or rejection based on the results of their assessment. The Secretariat will circulate the Advisory Committee’s recommendations to IOSEA Focal Points no later than three months prior to the regular Meeting of the Signatory States.
Within the framework of the IOSEA Technical Support / Capacity-building programme, the Advisory Committee may offer expert advice/technical support (e.g. at selected sites) upon request of Signatory States; and may be called upon to make recommendations for improving the operation of the site network.
Signatory States have multiple roles to play in relation to the further development and implementation of the Site Network. They develop and/or solicit proposals for site nominations, beginning with the careful preparation of Site Information Sheets), in consultation with other interested partners. Focal Points are encouraged to discuss and coordinate nominations at the sub-regional level to facilitate coherence within the network. Focal Points are responsible for formally submitting to the Secretariat the nominations of sites located in their jurisdiction.
Collectively the Signatory States decide whether or not to accept sites for inclusion in the network, taking into account recommendations made by the Advisory Committee. Each Meeting of the Signatory States will have on its agenda the consideration of any new candidate sites, and will either endorse or reject the inclusion of a given site. When relevant, rejections may be accompanied by specific recommendations about what would be needed for the nomination to be approved.
In the longer term, it may be useful to encourage a subregional approach to both nomination and evaluation, in order to promote interaction among neighbouring countries as well as familiarity with the sites in question.
Once a site has been formally accepted, each Signatory State is expected to make arrangements for the inauguration of newly listed sites, in collaboration with the Secretariat. They are encouraged to examine the potential for collaboration (e.g. twinning/sister-sites) with other sites, with a view to enhancing coordination and cost-effectiveness of conservation efforts. Signatory States are also expected to consider the need and possibility to enhance the protection status of listed sites; and are encouraged to examine the possibility of increasing the funding available for the development of site management plans, as well as conservation interventions and research activities.
Finally, the Signatory States have an important role to play in keeping under review the operation of the site network, and to consider proposals for further improvement.
The Secretariat will continue to advise the Signatory States in the preparation and revision of site network proposals, and will coordinate the review process for the IOSEA Site Network. The Secretariat will develop and issue IOSEA certification for newly listed sites and will cooperate with Signatory States in inauguration activities.
The Secretariat will develop and maintain a dedicated section of the IOSEA Website to publicise listed sites, including mention of additional resource needs; and it will encourage interested partners to suggest additional sites for inclusion in the network. The Secretariat will also work with the Advisory Committee to develop technical/training materials suitable for use at network sites.
Finally, the Secretariat will work with a Site Network Steering Committee to seek additional funding for implementation of activities at individual sites as well as network-wide interventions.
The IOSEA Site Network acknowledges and gives value to the cultural and traditional importance of sites, and expects proponents to describe the involvement of local communities and indigenous people in the participatory management of the site, including in co-management activities, surveillance, enforcement and performance evaluation. Moreover, the network approach recognizes that private and/or public tenure or customary or traditional approaches do not necessarily require legislation to underpin them and that alternative forms of land/sea management may provide fully adequate protection of a site.
The selection criteria are divided into four categories: Ecological/ Biological, Governance-related, Socio-economic / Political, and Network-wide Ecological. A weighting scheme is use to differentiate the relative importance of the various criteria. The maximum value assigned to each criterion determines its relative importance in the overall rating. Points are awarded against each criterion, up to its maximum value. For a site to be recommended for inclusion in the network, it must obtain a minimum score against each of the four categories, as well as a minimum total score over all categories combined. This design is intended to allow sites that might be deficient in some areas still to be included in the network on the basis of their strengths in other areas, while setting a minimum standard for inclusion.
The thresholds are also designed so that sites containing nesting beaches and sites containing other habitats will be able to meet minimum thresholds. A separate IOSEA Site Network Evaluation Criteria paper describes these criteria and the rationale behind them in more detail and defines, for each criterion, the scale that evaluators will use to assess the merits of a particular submission.
Considerable thinking has gone into the development and refinement of the criteria, which are intended to help to assure minimum standards and add credibility to the selection process. That so much effort has done into their design is a reflection of the importance attached to ensuring that the site network meets rigorous ecological and socio-economic criteria, and promotes effective governance of individual sites and the network at large. Above all, the robustness of the criteria should help to secure confidence among the donor community of the likelihood of success of initiatives conducted at individual sites, as well as network-wide activities.
At the end of the day, it is the Advisory Committee that will use and apply the criteria. While proponents of site nominations should be aware of the Evaluation Criteria, which have a relationship to the information provided in the Site Information Sheets, they need not concern themselves too much with “self-evaluation”. The evaluation exercise will require expertise and general knowledge that is unlikely to be found in any one individual or Signatory State.
The Evaluation Criteria should continue to be regarded as a working document, subject to adjustment and further refinement based on experience gained as they are actually used. While earlier versions have been tested on a limited number of sample sites, closer scrutiny with full proposals is certain to reveal (hopefully minor) inconsistencies, discrepancies and other issues that will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
There is a need to conduct national and regional-level gap analyses to establish national and regional priorities for the nomination of new sites for the network. The suite of Evaluation Criteria as well as the network’s overarching goal and objectives, provide a framework against which to identify gaps in the site network.
The process of identifying appropriate sites for nomination should be rigorous, country-driven and involve a wide range of stakeholders. One may make use of reviews already undertaken in other fora to begin to draw up master lists of candidate sites, for preliminary consideration. It has been suggested that the IOSEA Advisory Committee lead a process whereby a ‘master list’ of potential candidate sites is drawn up and tested against the Evaluation Criteria, in order to provide guidance to Signatory States as to which sites should receive active consideration.
The structure and operation of the IOSEA Marine Turtle Site Network will depend largely on the financial resources made available for its development. Three different implementation scenarios have been developed, based on the level of funding that is actually realised. A Steering Committee has been established to seek financial support for the implementation of the Site Network and to consider other operational issues that may arise inter-sessionally. Among other things, it is hoped that this steering committee will help identify funding opportunities and assist in the drafting of funding proposals to potential donors.
The Site Network concept paper calls for IOSEA Signatory States and the Secretariat to seek up to five years of funding to support the initial formation of the site network, after which time the sites would be expected to be self-sufficient or maintained through direct government and other funding.
Capital outlays would be expected to be highest in Years 1 and 2, and substantially less in Years 3-5, to cover ongoing operational costs. Funding needs at site level will differ from site to site, and country to country, depending on local circumstances. In some countries, a site may already have protected status and conservation programmes and infrastructure in place, and will require funding only to meet incremental improvements. In other countries, a site may be designated that has never before benefited from protection, thus requiring substantial investment.
Conceptually, there are at least two ways of presenting the site network proposal to interested donors and partners:
(1) The proposal could be offered as a complete package to a major donor that is able to provide sufficient funding to cover the network development and coordination costs, as well as the operating costs of a certain number of sites (backed by matching funds, as necessary). Administration and disbursement of funds would be handled centrally, so that the donor would need to have only one point of reference. This approach may be attractive to donors that would like to support interventions in multiple countries, without necessarily having to administer the project funding through separate arrangements.
(2) Alternatively, multiple donors may be interested in and/or may have the means only to support activities in individual sites or countries, or certain aspects of implementation at particular sites. In this case, donors may prefer to deal directly with the site management, and each site will be responsible for the administration of funds received. To assure that funds are still available to cover the basic network development and coordination costs, a certain percentage of the site’s budget should be allocated to the coordinating body. In this way, individual sites can participate in and receive support from the network, while paying their fair share of the associated development and coordination costs.
These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, and the network could embrace both of them simultaneously. To complement the funds provided by major external donors, several sources of matching funds are envisaged: (1) voluntary contributions from interested governments, towards the overall operation of the site network (not necessarily linked to a particular site); (2) financial and in-kind contributions from a site’s host country; and (3) financial and/or in-kind contributions from interested non-governmental organizations, (particularly those already working in the area or at the site), private sector, academic and research institutions, and communities adjacent to the site.
Under this scenario, significant resources would be available to implement activities at individual sites and network-wide. Ideally, institutional donors will be attracted to make a major investment in the development and operation of the network, by committing substantial resources towards network-wide coordination activities and fundamental site-based activities, including: infrastructure development, human resource development and capacity-building, conservation interventions, community engagement and information sharing, and networking among sites.
Initial funding would be used to improve network coordination and to implement management plans at selected sites -- including a budget for subsequent infrastructure and human resource development, and activities to address priority threats to marine turtles and their habitats. Depending on the nature of the site and the amount of funding available, the following site-based activities are envisaged:
- Construction or upgrading of visitor (information) centre;
- Construction of guard stations, as appropriate;
- Non-expendable equipment procurement and maintenance (e.g. for patrolling land/sea); and
- Provision of standard beach-management kits (e.g. basic research, monitoring equipment).
Human resource development and capacity-building:
- Recruitment or (re-)assignment of personnel (manager, guards, community outreach/education/development specialists, researchers etc.);
- Specialised staff training (methodology, team building etc.);
- If eco-tourism activities are desirable, an eco-volunteer programme;
- Acquisition of standard reference materials; and
- Staff exchanges with other network sites and related institutions.
- Temporal or spatial restrictions on habitat use, as appropriate;
- In-situ nest (i.e. clutch/egg) protection; measures to minimise mortality from all sources and to maximise the production and survival of hatchlings;
- Ex-situ nest protection in accordance with defined protocol;
- Habitat restoration/rehabilitation, debris removal etc., as necessary;
- Mitigation of undesirable impacts at or near the site (lighting, vehicles, sand extraction, invasive predators, bycatch etc.);
- Research and long-term monitoring programme (on-site collection of biological and sociological data, genetics, tagging, pollution monitoring etc.); and
- Extraordinary re-introduction programme (e.g. egg exchange between rookeries), when necessary/appropriate, with adequate long-term experimental design and monitoring to measure outcomes (i.e. only as a last resort intervention, to test the efficacy of this approach).
Community engagement and information sharing:
- Education and awareness programme for defined audiences;
- Collaborative management framework, including incentives to involve local communities in benefit-sharing (e.g. managed eco-tourism, alternative livelihood development etc.);
- Initiatives to enhance community welfare (literacy, health projects etc.);
- Engagement of relevant nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations;
- Information exchange with other network sites; and
- Sharing of data with national/regional/global databases (e.g. IMapS, OBIS).
Networking with other sites:
Participate in formal mechanisms for sharing resources with other sites, including training and implementation of standardized monitoring, sharing resources for surveillance and enforcement, and participating in “sister sites” programme.
Once the site network is operational, the effectiveness of management interventions can be monitored employing a modified version of a tool for “Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites” (Stolton, 2007). Performance assessments for the network and for individual sites should be conducted according to an established schedule and methodology. Monitoring data and other information from network sites should be shared and compiled to enable periodic evaluation of the efficacy of conservation interventions and to guide adaptive management.
For any additional information on the Site Network or individual sites, not already covered by the documentation on the IOSEA website, you may wish to contact the IOSEA Focal Point in your country, whose contact details can be found here.
Katika eneo la Iowasi kuna spishi sita za kasa wa baharini: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Olive Ridley (Lepidoceleus olivosa), Green (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Leatherback (Dermochelys coriaceus), na Flatback (Natator depressus). Katika eneo hilo, kuna mifano kadhaa ya mipango ya uhifadhi ya miongo mingi ambayo uingiliaji wa usimamizi umechangia kudumisha au kuongeza idadi ya kasa. Kwa kuongezea, nchi kadhaa zinaweza kujivunia idadi kubwa ya kasa ambao, ikiwa hawajaendelea kusitawi, wamebaki thabiti katika kukabiliana na shinikizo la binadamu linaloongezeka na kuongezeka. Hata hivyo, idadi kubwa ya kasa wa baharini katika eneo hilo imepungua sana, na baadhi yao karibu wametoweka kabisa. "Kama ilivyoelezwa, ""vitu mbalimbali vinavyohusika katika vifo vya kasa, ikiwa ni pamoja na: uharibifu mkubwa wa mayai, nyama na makapi, vifo vinavyohusiana na uvuvi (vifungo vya ziada), uharibifu na uharibifu wa makazi muhimu, uchafuzi wa mazingira, mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa, na mazoea yasiyofaa ya usimamizi.""" Kwa hivyo, ambapo kasa wa baharini walikuwa rasilimali kubwa ya kiuchumi na kitamaduni katika sehemu nyingi za mkoa wa IOSEA, hatua za usimamizi wa gharama kubwa zinahitajika sasa kulinda kasa wa baharini na makazi yao. Turtles baharini hutegemea mazingira mbalimbali katika hatua tofauti za mzunguko wao wa maisha, ikiwa ni pamoja na fukwe zinazofaa kwa ajili ya kuota viota na maji ya pwani kwa ajili ya kutafuta chakula na kuzaliana. Hata hivyo umuhimu wa wengi wa hawa makazi ya pwani - muhimu si tu kwa turtles baharini, lakini kwa mbalimbali ya spishi kama vile huduma za mazingira muhimu kwa ustawi wa binadamu - ni mara nyingi si kutambuliwa. Ukosefu wa ufahamu na uelewa wa maadili ya ikolojia na mengine ya makazi haya ya kipekee inaweza kusababisha maendeleo yasiyofaa ya maeneo kwa gharama ya uadilifu wa mazingira ya pwani, pamoja na uhifadhi wa kasa wa baharini. Katika maeneo fulani, kasa wa baharini na mazingira yao yanaweza kulindwa kwenye karatasi, kupitia sheria na kanuni zinazofaa za kitaifa, lakini mara nyingi utekelezaji wa hatua za uhifadhi zinazofaa juu ya ardhi haupo. Katika hali yoyote, kuna athari mbaya kwa jamii za pwani ambazo hutegemea huduma zinazotolewa na mifumo hii ya ikolojia. Kulinda maeneo muhimu kwa ajili ya kasa wa baharini wa mkoa huo wakati huo huo itazaa safu ya faida za kijamii na kiuchumi kwa watu. Kuhifadhi ubora wa maji ya pwani, kulinda mazingira yanayotumiwa kama maeneo ya kuzaliana kwa spishi za samaki na samaki wa baharini ambao huunga mkono uvuvi wa kibiashara na wa kujitegemea, na kwa ujumla kulinda makazi ya mangrove na matumbawe kwa njia ambayo hupunguza vitisho kutoka kwa hatari za pwani - kama vile mmomonyoko, mafuriko, na athari kali ya mawimbi - ni nzuri kwa wanadamu na kasa. Lengo kuu la Mtandao wa Tovuti ya Turtle ya Bahari ya IOSEA ni kukuza uhifadhi wa muda mrefu wa maeneo ya thamani ya kikanda kwa faida ya kasa wa baharini na makazi yao. Lengo lake kuu ni: (i) Kutoa utaratibu wa kikanda wa kuboresha uhifadhi wa maeneo muhimu kwa kasa wa baharini; (ii) Kupata faida za ikolojia na usimamizi ambazo haziwezi kupatikana kwa kusimamia maeneo ya kibinafsi kwa kujitenga; (iii) Kuchangia, kupitia uhifadhi wa kikanda wa kanda ya kasa wa baharini na mazingira yao, kwa uhifadhi bora wa huduma za mfumo wa ikolojia ambazo zinaunga mkono ustawi wa binadamu; na (iv) Kuchochea fursa za usimamizi wa rasilimali na maendeleo ya jamii. Mtandao wa Tovuti ya Turtle ya Bahari ya IOSEA utaongeza utambuzi wa kiwango cha ndani hadi cha kimataifa cha umuhimu wa tovuti zilizounganishwa, kwa nguvu ya mchakato wa uteuzi wa kuaminika. Hii kwa upande wake inapaswa kuchochea msaada ulioongezeka na rasilimali kwa ajili ya usimamizi bora wa eneo na kikanda. Wakati wa kufanya kazi kikamilifu, mtandao huo utaunganisha rasilimali za kifedha, kiufundi na za kibinadamu zinazopatikana kwa ajili ya mafunzo ya pamoja, kuwezesha kubadilishana habari juu ya mazoea bora, kufanya utafiti wa pamoja na ufuatiliaji, kufanya tathmini ya utendaji, na kuhamasisha usimamizi wa kubadilisha. Kwa kufanya hivyo, itaboresha matumizi ya rasilimali chache zinazopatikana kwa utawala wa kuunga mkono. Uchaguzi wa uangalifu na kuingizwa kwa maeneo ya mtandao itasaidia kupunguza athari mbaya za kijamii na kiuchumi kwa kiwango kikubwa cha kijiografia. Shughuli ambazo hazipatani na uhifadhi wa kasa wa baharini haziwezi kuondolewa kabisa, lakini shughuli hizo zinaweza kupunguzwa katika maeneo yaliyochaguliwa ya mtandao kwa njia ambayo inasambaza athari mbaya katika mkoa mzima. Mtandao huo unatafuta kulinda uhusiano wa ikolojia kati ya makazi kupitia nafasi ya kimkakati na umbo la maeneo; na kuboresha upinzani wa kikanda na uvumilivu wa makazi ya kasa wa baharini kwa mkazo wa mazingira. Hii itatimizwa kwa kujumuisha na kusimamia maeneo yenye makazi ya kasa wa baharini muhimu kwa awamu tofauti za mzunguko wa maisha, kwa kulinda mifano mingi ya kila makazi. Mfumo wa mtandao wa maeneo muhimu kwa kasa wa baharini umekuwa ukiendelea kwa miaka kadhaa, baada ya kuanzishwa kwa mara ya kwanza mnamo 2004 katika Mkutano wa pili wa Mataifa ya Saini ya IOSEA. Pendekezo hilo lilitengenezwa na kusafishwa na Sekretarieti kwa kushauriana kwa karibu na nchi zilizo saini, Kamati ya Ushauri na wataalamu wengine; na ilinufaika na mazungumzo ya wazi ambayo yalitumika kupatanisha maoni tofauti juu ya mambo kadhaa ya pendekezo, ikiwa ni pamoja na: nini muundo wa utawala wa mtandao ungehusisha, jinsi maeneo yangeathiriwa kwa kuingizwa na hatimaye kuchaguliwa, na ni nini majukumu ya ziada, ikiwa ipo, yangehitajika kutoka kwa serikali. Katika mwaka 2011, juhudi za pamoja zilifanywa ili kuanzisha maono ya usawa ya malengo ya mtandao, pamoja na picha ya kweli ya utendaji wake katika muda mfupi hadi wa kati. Kwa mujibu wa taarifa ya shirika la IUCN, kwa sasa, kiota cha kiota cha baharini cha Turtle ni cha pekee katika eneo la IWCA. Hata hivyo, kuna mipango na mipango mingine mingi katika ngazi mbalimbali ambayo hutoa kwa ajili ya uteuzi na ulinzi wa maeneo ya umuhimu kwa ajili ya urithi wa kibiolojia, ikiwa ni pamoja na wale wa Mkataba wa Urithi wa Dunia, UNESCO Mtu na Biosphere Programu, Ramsar Mkataba juu ya Wetlands, Programu ya Bahari Nyekundu na Ghuba ya Aden (PERSGA), na Chama cha Mataifa ya Kusini Mashariki mwa Asia (ASEAN). Mkataba wa Biolojia ya Diversity (CBD) unafanya kazi ya kutambua maeneo muhimu ya baharini ya ikolojia au ya kibiolojia (EBSAs) ambayo yanaweza kuwa na umuhimu fulani kwa mtandao. IOC ina uwezo wa kuimarisha na kuimarisha mifumo ya uhifadhi wa samaki wa baharini. Nchi zitakaribishwa kuorodhesha maeneo ya kuota nyangumi na maeneo ya karibu yanayochukuliwa kuwa maeneo muhimu kwa nyangumi wa baharini na, kwa kufanya hivyo, kutakuwa na kichocheo cha ziada cha kupata rasilimali za ziada na ulinzi katika maeneo hayo. Hata hivyo, utoaji wa rasilimali za ziada si ahadi au wajibu wa kisheria wakati wa kujiunga na mtandao. Uhitaji wa kuandaa tathmini ya tovuti ya msingi ni mahitaji pekee ya msingi yanayohusiana na uteuzi wa tovuti. Zoezi hili litakuwa lenye thamani sana lenyewe, hasa ikiwa halijawahi kufanywa hapo awali. Mbali na kusaidia kutambua vikwazo na mapungufu ya usimamizi, tathmini itaweka uaminifu kwa mchakato wa uteuzi wa tovuti na itasaidia kulinganisha wafadhili wa uwezekano na mahitaji maalum ya tovuti. Mkataba wa Uelewa wa Turtle ya Bahari (IOSEA) ni hati ya kisheria ya kisheria iliyoundwa chini ya Mkataba wa Spishi za Migratory. Maeneo yote ya mtandao yatatolewa na nchi zilizo saini, ambazo zinashiriki kwa hiari katika mpango huu wa kikanda kama njia ya kuboresha uratibu wa juhudi zao za kibinafsi, na pia kuleta umakini zaidi kwa hali ya uhifadhi wa maeneo maalum. Ilikubaliwa kwamba kuteua tovuti kwa mtandao haipaswi kuweka ahadi yoyote mpya za kifedha au kuunda majukumu yoyote mapya ya kisheria kwa Mataifa ya Saini. Sheria zote zilizopo za mitaa, kikanda na kitaifa kwa ajili ya uhifadhi wa kasa wa baharini, maeneo ya baharini yaliyohifadhiwa na sheria nyingine zinazotumika zitaendelea kuwa na kipaumbele. Kwa hivyo, kwa sababu ya hali ya hali ya hewa, tovuti za Usalama wa Bahari za Baharini za IOSEA zinaweza kupewa nafasi ya kuingizwa katika mtandao wa tovuti za Usalama wa Bahari za Baharini, na kwa hivyo kupewa nafasi ya kuingizwa katika mtandao wa Usalama wa Baharini wa Usalama wa Baharini. Mfano wa barua fomu imewekwa ambayo Saini State Focal Points inaweza kutumia kwa kusudi hili. Kukamilika kwa karatasi ya habari ya tovuti ni sharti muhimu la awali kwa ajili ya uteuzi wa tovuti kwa mtandao. Mkataba huo unatoa sababu ya kuingizwa kwa tovuti katika mtandao na ni msingi ambao sifa za kuingizwa kwa tovuti itaathiriwa na Kamati ya Ushauri ya IOSEA. Karatasi hiyo inajumuisha habari ya msingi juu ya tovuti; inaelezea mfumo wa usimamizi wa sasa na/au uliopangwa; na inabainisha rasilimali zozote zilizotengwa tayari au zilizopangwa kwa usimamizi wa tovuti. Utafiti wa hali ya hewa ni muhimu sana, hasa ikiwa haujawahi kufanywa hapo awali. Mbali na kusaidia kutambua vikwazo vya sasa na mapungufu ya usimamizi, itatoa uaminifu kwa mchakato wa uteuzi wa tovuti na itasaidia kulinganisha wafadhili wa uwezekano na mahitaji maalum ya tovuti. Karatasi ya habari ya tovuti iliyoandaliwa vizuri inaweza pia kutumiwa kutathmini maendeleo ya usimamizi kwa vipindi vya kawaida. Karatasi zote za habari za tovuti zitakusanywa katika hifadhidata inayoweza kutafutwa ambayo itahifadhiwa kwenye wavuti ya IOSEA kwa kutazamwa na umma, na hivyo kutoa chombo kingine cha kutangaza umuhimu wa tovuti kwa jamii ya kimataifa. Mashirika yasiyo ya kiserikali, taasisi za kitaaluma na sekta binafsi ni kuhamasishwa kupendekeza maeneo kwa ajili ya uwezekano wa uteuzi rasmi na serikali, na inaweza kusaidia mashirika ya serikali katika maandalizi ya Site Information Sheet. Hata hivyo, kuwasilisha rasmi lazima kufanywa na kitaifa IOSEA Focal Point kwa nchi ambayo mamlaka ya tovuti iko. Inashauriwa kwamba watu binafsi au mashirika yanayotaka kuwezesha uteuzi wa tovuti fulani ya kuandaa angalau rasimu ya kwanza ya karatasi ya habari ya tovuti, na kushauriana na kituo cha mawasiliano cha IOSEA kuhusu uwezekano wa kuendelea na uteuzi rasmi. Ndio, nina hakika. Inatarajiwa kwamba tafsiri za Kiarabu na Kifaransa za template ya Habari ya Tovuti itatayarishwa, ili kuifanya iwe rahisi kwa nchi zingine kuandaa mawasilisho katika lugha yao ya asili. Hata hivyo, tafsiri kamili ya Kiingereza lazima iambatanishwe na mawasilisho yoyote yaliyoandaliwa kwa Kiarabu kwa Kifaransa, ili kuwezesha kazi ya Kamati ya Ushauri. Maagizo yanaweza kuwasilishwa kwa Katibu wakati wowote, angalau miezi sita kabla ya Mkutano wa Mataifa ya Saini. Hii ni muda wa chini unaohitajika na Kamati ya Ushauri kuchunguza na kutoa maoni juu ya uteuzi, kupendekeza marekebisho yoyote muhimu au maboresho, na kutoa mapendekezo kwa Mkutano wa Mataifa ya IOSEA ya kusaini kwa kuingizwa au kukataliwa kulingana na matokeo ya tathmini yao. Mipango ya Kamati ya Ushauri ya Umoja wa Mataifa (IOSEA) itatolewa kwa wanachama wa Kamati ya Ushauri ya Umoja wa Mataifa (IOSEA) na kuwasiliana nao kabla ya mkutano wa kawaida wa nchi wanachama. Serikali za Umoja wa Mataifa na Umoja wa Mataifa zilikuwa na mpango wa kuandaa maeneo ya kimataifa ya kimataifa ya kimataifa, ambayo ni pamoja na maeneo ya kimataifa ya kimataifa ya kimataifa. Sababu ya awali kupunguza idadi ya maeneo ni pamoja na katika mtandao ni hivyo kwamba juhudi ni ililenga kuanzisha maeneo ya maonyesho ya ufanisi ambayo inaweza kutumika kama mifano mahali pengine. Kwa njia ya serikali zao za kitaifa, mashirika yasiyo ya kiserikali (ikiwa ni pamoja na makundi ya mazingira, taasisi za kitaaluma na sekta binafsi) yanakaribishwa kupendekeza maeneo ya baadaye yanayowezekana kwa uteuzi rasmi na Mataifa ya Saini ya IOSEA, na kusaidia katika uandaaji wa nyaraka husika. Kila tovuti itafunguliwa kupitia sherehe ya kujitolea, ikiwa ni pamoja na utoaji wa cheti cha IOSEA kwa nchi ya saini, na pia ufungaji wa ishara sahihi inayoashiria kuingizwa kwa tovuti katika Mtandao wa Tovuti ya Turtle ya Bahari ya IOSEA. Ukurasa maalum kwa kila tovuti utaundwa kwenye tovuti ya IOSEA ili kutangaza sifa zake kuu. Mkazo utatolewa kwa kutambua, kwa njia halisi iwezekanavyo, mahitaji maalum ya rasilimali ya kila tovuti. Inatarajiwa kwamba hii kuongezeka kwa tahadhari inaweza kusababisha fedha za ziada ambazo zinaweza kutolewa kwa ajili ya uhifadhi na usimamizi wa hatua katika tovuti. Hata katika kukosekana kwa fedha kubwa mpya, vifungo inaweza kuendelezwa kati ya maeneo ya mtandao <unk> kwa mfano kwa twinning jozi au idadi kubwa ya <unk>sister maeneo<unk>. Vituo hivi vya dada vinaweza kuanza kuratibu rasilimali zao za kibinadamu, kiufundi na kifedha kwa lengo la kufanya mafunzo ya wafanyakazi wa ushirikiano, ufikiaji, ufuatiliaji, na shughuli za usimamizi. Katika mchakato wa kuomba kuingizwa katika mtandao, meneja wa tovuti na (au) washirika watafanya utafiti wa msingi wa uwanja na wa dawati ili kuandaa karatasi ya habari ya mtandao wa tovuti ya IOSEA. Hii itatumika kama benchmark dhidi ya ambayo kupima maendeleo na kuongoza usimamizi adaptive <unk> na lengo la kudumisha na kuongeza muda mrefu tovuti maalum na mtandao-wima maadili ya tovuti. Uchambuzi wa mapungufu ya ikolojia katika mtandao utasaidia kuongoza ukuaji wake wa utaratibu, kuhakikisha kwamba inapata malengo yaliyotarajiwa. Ikiwa fedha zaidi zitapatikana, fedha za ziada zitatumika kuongeza mtandao wa maeneo yote kupitia shughuli zilizopangwa, ikiwa ni pamoja na msaada wa kifedha kwa kutekeleza taratibu rasmi za uratibu na kushiriki rasilimali za kiufundi, kifedha na binadamu kati ya sehemu za maeneo katika mtandao. Pia chini ya hali hii, mipango mpya ya usimamizi wa tovuti au maboresho ya mipango iliyopo itatengenezwa kwa idadi ya maeneo ya "mfano". Fedha zinazopatikana pia zitatumika kufanya baadhi ya hatua za kipaumbele katika maeneo haya. Kamati ya Ushauri ya IOSEA ina jukumu la kutathmini uteuzi wote wa tovuti dhidi ya seti ya vigezo ili kutathmini uteuzi wa maeneo mapya, kupima tena, kwa muda mrefu, sababu ya kuendelea kujumuisha maeneo ya sasa, na kufanya uchambuzi wa mapungufu kwa mtandao wote ili kutambua vipaumbele vya kujumuisha maeneo zaidi. Kamati inaweza kuomba watafiti wa kujitegemea wa ndani kusaidia katika tathmini zake, katika kesi ambapo utaalam maalum na maarifa juu ya tovuti fulani ni kukosa au ambapo uwezo wa ziada inahitajika kushughulikia idadi ya maombi. Wakati uteuzi wa tovuti unaweza kuwasilishwa wakati wowote, Kamati ya Ushauri itawasoma mara mbili tu kwa mwaka, kwa ajili ya ufanisi na kuwezesha kulinganisha kwa kiasi kati ya maeneo. Uchunguzi huo utafanyika miezi 12 na miezi sita kabla ya mkutano wa kawaida wa nchi zilizo saini Mkataba wa IOSEA, isipokuwa kuna sababu za kulazimisha kurekebisha ratiba hii. Kamati ya Ushauri itatoa maoni juu ya uteuzi, kupendekeza marekebisho yoyote muhimu au uboreshaji, na kutoa mapendekezo kwa Mkutano wa Mataifa ya Saini ya IOSEA kwa kuingizwa au kukataliwa kulingana na matokeo ya tathmini yao. Mipango ya Kamati ya Ushauri ya Umoja wa Mataifa (IOSEA) itatolewa kwa wanachama wa Kamati ya Ushauri ya Umoja wa Mataifa (IOSEA) na kuwasiliana nao kabla ya mkutano wa kawaida wa nchi wanachama. Katika mfumo wa programu ya ujenzi wa uwezo wa msaada wa kiufundi wa IOSEA, Kamati ya Ushauri inaweza kutoa ushauri wa wataalam au msaada wa kiufundi (kwa mfano, Mkutano huo utafanyika katika maeneo ya mkataba, na kwa ombi la nchi wanachama, na unaweza kuombwa kutoa mapendekezo ya kuboresha utendaji wa mtandao wa maeneo. Nchi zilizo saini zina majukumu mengi ya kufanya kuhusiana na maendeleo zaidi na utekelezaji wa Mtandao wa Tovuti. Wao kuendeleza na (au) kuomba mapendekezo kwa ajili ya maeneo ya uteuzi, kuanzia na maandalizi ya makini ya Site Taarifa Sheets), kwa kushauriana na washirika wengine nia. Vituo vya mawasiliano vinahimizwa kujadili na kuratibu uteuzi katika ngazi ya chini ya kikanda ili kuwezesha mshikamano ndani ya mtandao. Vituo vya mawasiliano ni wajibu wa rasmi kuwasilisha kwa Katibu uteuzi wa maeneo ziko katika mamlaka yao. Kwa pamoja, nchi zilizo saini huamua ikiwa zitachukua maeneo kwa ajili ya kuingizwa katika mtandao, kwa kuzingatia mapendekezo yaliyotolewa na Kamati ya Ushauri. Kila Mkutano wa Mataifa ya Saini utaweka katika ajenda yake kuzingatia maeneo yoyote mapya ya wagombea, na ama itathibitisha au kukataa kuingizwa kwa tovuti fulani. Wakati muhimu, kukataa inaweza kuwa pamoja na mapendekezo maalum kuhusu nini ingekuwa zinahitajika kwa ajili ya uteuzi kuwa kupitishwa. Katika muda mrefu, inaweza kuwa na manufaa ya kuhamasisha mbinu ya chini ya mkoa kwa wote uteuzi na tathmini, ili kukuza mwingiliano kati ya nchi jirani kama vile ukoo na maeneo katika suala hilo. Mara baada ya tovuti kukubaliwa rasmi, kila nchi ya saini inatarajiwa kufanya mipango kwa ajili ya uzinduzi wa maeneo mpya waliotajwa, kwa ushirikiano na Katibu. Wao ni kuhamasishwa kuchunguza uwezekano wa ushirikiano (kwa mfano Mipango ya ushirikiano na maeneo ya dada na maeneo mengine ya kipekee, pamoja na kuimarisha ushirikiano na ufanisi wa gharama za juhudi za uhifadhi. Serikali za mkataba pia zinatarajiwa kuzingatia haja na uwezekano wa kuboresha hali ya ulinzi wa maeneo yaliyoorodheshwa, na zinahimizwa kuchunguza uwezekano wa kuongeza fedha zinazopatikana kwa ajili ya maendeleo ya mipango ya usimamizi wa maeneo, pamoja na uingiliaji wa uhifadhi na shughuli za utafiti. Hatimaye, Mataifa ya Saini na jukumu muhimu ya kucheza katika kuweka chini ya uchunguzi wa uendeshaji wa mtandao wa tovuti, na kuzingatia mapendekezo kwa ajili ya kuboresha zaidi. Usimamizi wa Shirika la Usalama wa Dunia (IOSEA) utaendelea kushauri nchi zilizo saini katika kuandaa na kurekebisha mapendekezo ya mtandao wa tovuti, na itaratibu mchakato wa ukaguzi wa mtandao wa tovuti ya IOSEA. Katibu ataendeleza na kutoa vyeti vya IOSEA kwa maeneo mapya yaliyoorodheshwa na atashirikiana na Mataifa ya Saini katika shughuli za ufunguzi. Sekretarieti itaendeleza na kudumisha sehemu maalum ya tovuti ya IOSEA ili kutangaza maeneo yaliyoorodheshwa, ikiwa ni pamoja na kutajwa kwa mahitaji ya rasilimali za ziada; na itahimiza washirika wanaopendezwa kupendekeza maeneo ya ziada kwa ajili ya kuingizwa katika mtandao. Katibu pia kazi na Kamati ya Ushauri ya kuendeleza vifaa vya kiufundi-mafunzo yanafaa kwa ajili ya matumizi katika maeneo ya mtandao. Hatimaye, Katibu atafanya kazi na Kamati ya Usimamizi wa Mtandao wa Tovuti kutafuta fedha za ziada kwa ajili ya utekelezaji wa shughuli katika maeneo ya mtu binafsi kama vile uingiliaji wa mtandao wote. Mtandao wa Tovuti ya IOSEA unakubali na inatoa thamani kwa umuhimu wa kitamaduni na jadi wa maeneo, na inatarajia watetezi kuelezea ushiriki wa jamii za mitaa na watu wa asili katika usimamizi wa ushiriki wa tovuti, ikiwa ni pamoja na shughuli za usimamizi wa pamoja, ufuatiliaji, utekelezaji na tathmini ya utendaji. Kwa kuongezea, mbinu ya mtandao inatambua kwamba umiliki wa kibinafsi na au wa umma au mbinu za kawaida au za jadi hazihitaji sheria ili kuziunga mkono na kwamba aina mbadala za usimamizi wa ardhi na bahari zinaweza kutoa ulinzi wa kutosha wa tovuti. Vipimo vya uteuzi vimegawanywa katika makundi manne: Kiikolojia, Biolojia, Utawala, Kijamii, Kiuchumi, Siasa, na Mtandao wote wa Kiikolojia. Mpango wa uzito hutumiwa kutofautisha umuhimu wa kiasi cha vigezo mbalimbali. Thamani ya juu iliyowekwa kwa kila kigezo huamua umuhimu wake wa kiasi katika kiwango cha jumla. Pointi ni tuzo dhidi ya kila kigezo, hadi thamani yake ya juu. Ili tovuti kupendekezwa kwa ajili ya kuingizwa katika mtandao, ni lazima kupata alama ya chini dhidi ya kila moja ya makundi manne, pamoja na alama ya chini ya jumla juu ya makundi yote pamoja. Mpango huu unakusudiwa kuruhusu maeneo ambayo yanaweza kuwa na upungufu katika maeneo fulani bado kuingizwa katika mtandao kwa msingi wa nguvu zao katika maeneo mengine, wakati kuweka kiwango cha chini cha kuingizwa. Vipimo vya kiwango cha chini vinapaswa kuundwa kwa njia ambayo maeneo yenye fukwe za kuota na maeneo yenye makazi mengine yanaweza kufikia viwango vya chini. Hati tofauti ya IOSEA ya Vigezo vya Tathmini ya Mtandao wa Tovuti inaelezea vigezo hivi na sababu ya nyuma yao kwa undani zaidi na hufafanua, kwa kila kigezo, kiwango ambacho watathmini watatumia kutathmini sifa za kuwasilishwa kwa moja. Mawazo mengi yamefanywa katika maendeleo na usahihi wa vigezo, ambayo ni nia ya kusaidia kuhakikisha viwango vya chini na kuongeza uaminifu kwa mchakato wa uteuzi. """Jitihada nyingi zilizotumika katika kubuni tovuti hizo zinaonyesha umuhimu wa kuhakikisha kuwa mtandao wa maeneo unakidhi vigezo vikali vya ikolojia na kijamii na kiuchumi, na kukuza usimamizi mzuri wa maeneo ya mtu binafsi na mtandao kwa ujumla." Zaidi ya yote, nguvu ya vigezo inapaswa kusaidia kupata ujasiri miongoni mwa jamii ya wafadhili wa uwezekano wa mafanikio ya mipango iliyofanywa katika maeneo ya mtu binafsi, pamoja na shughuli za mtandao wote. Mwisho wa siku, ni Kamati ya Ushauri ambayo itatumia na kutumia vigezo. Wakati watetezi wa uteuzi wa tovuti wanapaswa kuwa na ufahamu wa Vigezo vya Tathmini, ambayo yana uhusiano na habari iliyotolewa katika Karatasi za Habari za Tovuti, hawapaswi kujishughulisha sana na "kujipima". Mazoezi ya tathmini itahitaji utaalam na maarifa ya jumla ambayo haiwezekani kupatikana katika mtu yeyote au Jimbo la Saini. Vigezo vya tathmini vinapaswa kuendelea kuchukuliwa kama hati ya kazi, chini ya marekebisho na usafishaji zaidi kulingana na uzoefu uliopatikana wakati zinatumiwa kweli. Ingawa matoleo ya awali yamepimwa kwenye idadi ndogo ya maeneo ya sampuli, uchunguzi wa karibu na mapendekezo kamili ni hakika kufunua (tumaini ndogo) kutopatana, kutofautiana na masuala mengine ambayo yatahitaji kushughulikiwa kwa kila kesi. Kuna haja ya kufanya uchambuzi wa mapungufu katika ngazi ya kitaifa na kikanda ili kuanzisha vipaumbele vya kitaifa na kikanda kwa ajili ya uteuzi wa maeneo mapya kwa ajili ya mtandao. Mfululizo wa Vigezo vya Tathmini pamoja na lengo la jumla la mtandao na malengo, hutoa mfumo ambao dhidi ya kutambua mapungufu katika mtandao wa tovuti. Mchakato wa kutambua maeneo sahihi kwa ajili ya uteuzi inapaswa kuwa kali, nchi-kuendeshwa na kuhusisha mbalimbali ya wadau. Mtu anaweza kutumia ukaguzi tayari uliofanywa katika vikao vingine kuanza kuandaa orodha kuu za maeneo ya wagombea, kwa ajili ya kuzingatia awali. Tume ya Ushauri ya IOSEA imeongoza mchakato ambao "orodha kuu" ya maeneo ya uwezekano wa kuajiriwa imeandaliwa na kupimwa dhidi ya Vigezo vya Tathmini, ili kutoa mwongozo kwa Mataifa ya Saini kuhusu maeneo ambayo yanapaswa kupokea kuzingatia. Muundo na utendaji wa mtandao wa tovuti ya kamba ya baharini ya IOSEA itategemea sana rasilimali zinazopatikana kwa ajili ya maendeleo yake. Matukio matatu tofauti ya utekelezaji yametengenezwa, kulingana na kiwango cha ufadhili ambao kwa kweli unatimizwa. Kamati ya Usimamizi imeanzishwa kutafuta msaada wa kifedha kwa ajili ya utekelezaji wa Mtandao wa Tovuti na kuzingatia masuala mengine ya uendeshaji ambayo yanaweza kutokea kati ya vikao. Miongoni mwa mambo mengine, inatarajiwa kwamba kamati hii ya uongozi itasaidia kutambua fursa za ufadhili na kusaidia katika uandishi wa mapendekezo ya ufadhili kwa wafadhili wa uwezekano. "Katika hati ya dhana ya mtandao wa tovuti, Serikali za Saini za IOSEA na Katibu zinapaswa kutafuta fedha kwa miaka mitano ili kusaidia kuunda mtandao wa tovuti, baada ya muda huo, tovuti zinatarajiwa kuwa ""kujiandaa"" au kudumishwa kupitia serikali ya moja kwa moja na fedha nyingine." Matumizi ya mtaji yatatarajiwa kuwa ya juu zaidi katika miaka ya 1 na 2, na chini sana katika miaka ya 3 hadi 5, ili kufidia gharama za utendaji wa sasa. Mahitaji ya ufadhili katika ngazi ya tovuti yatatofautiana kutoka kwa tovuti hadi tovuti, na kutoka nchi hadi nchi, kulingana na hali za ndani. Katika nchi fulani, eneo linaweza kuwa tayari lina hali ya ulinzi na mipango ya uhifadhi na miundombinu, na itahitaji fedha tu ili kukidhi maboresho ya kuongezeka. Katika nchi nyingine, eneo ambalo halijawahi kutunzwa hapo awali linaweza kutajwa kuwa na ulinzi, na hivyo kuhitaji uwekezaji mkubwa. Kwa mfano, kuna njia mbili za kuwasilisha pendekezo la mtandao wa tovuti kwa wafadhili na washirika wanaopendezwa: (1) Pendekezo linaweza kutolewa kama mfuko kamili kwa mtoaji mkubwa ambaye anaweza kutoa fedha za kutosha ili kufidia gharama za maendeleo ya mtandao na uratibu, pamoja na gharama za uendeshaji wa idadi fulani ya tovuti (kuungwa mkono na fedha zinazolingana, kama inahitajika). Usimamizi na utoaji wa fedha utafanyika kwa njia ya kituo, ili mtoaji awe na uhakika mmoja tu wa kumbukumbu. Njia hii inaweza kuwa ya kuvutia kwa wafadhili ambao wangependa kusaidia hatua katika nchi nyingi, bila lazima kusimamia ufadhili wa mradi kupitia mipango tofauti. 2) Vinginevyo, wafadhili wengi wanaweza kuwa na nia na au wanaweza kuwa na njia tu ya kusaidia shughuli katika maeneo ya mtu binafsi au nchi, au baadhi ya mambo ya utekelezaji katika maeneo maalum. Katika kesi hii, wafadhili wanaweza kupendelea kushughulika moja kwa moja na usimamizi wa tovuti, na kila tovuti itakuwa na jukumu la usimamizi wa fedha zilizopokelewa. Ili kuhakikisha kwamba fedha bado zinapatikana ili kufidia gharama za msingi za maendeleo ya mtandao na uratibu, asilimia fulani ya bajeti ya tovuti inapaswa kugawanywa kwa chombo cha uratibu. Kwa njia hii, maeneo ya mtu binafsi inaweza kushiriki katika na kupokea msaada kutoka mtandao, wakati kulipa sehemu yao ya haki ya maendeleo yanayohusiana na gharama za uratibu. Mbinu hizi mbili si mutually exclusive, na mtandao inaweza kukumbatia wote wawili wakati huo huo. Ili kukamilisha fedha zinazotolewa na wafadhili wakuu wa nje, vyanzo kadhaa vya fedha zinazolingana zinatazamiwa: (1) michango ya hiari kutoka kwa serikali zinazohusika, kwa ajili ya uendeshaji wa jumla wa mtandao wa tovuti (haihusiani na tovuti maalum); (2) michango ya kifedha na ya asili kutoka kwa nchi mwenyeji wa tovuti; na (3) michango ya kifedha na ya asili kutoka kwa mashirika yasiyo ya serikali (haswa wale ambao tayari wanafanya kazi katika eneo au kwenye tovuti); sekta binafsi, taasisi za kitaaluma na utafiti. Chini ya hali hii, rasilimali kubwa zingeweza kupatikana kutekeleza shughuli katika maeneo ya mtu binafsi na mtandao wote. Kwa mfano, wafadhili wa taasisi watashughulikiwa kufanya uwekezaji mkubwa katika maendeleo na uendeshaji wa mtandao, kwa kujitolea rasilimali kubwa kwa shughuli za uratibu wa mtandao wote na shughuli za msingi za tovuti, ikiwa ni pamoja na: maendeleo ya miundombinu, maendeleo ya rasilimali za binadamu na ujenzi wa uwezo, uingiliaji wa uhifadhi, ushiriki wa jamii na kushiriki habari, na mitandao kati ya maeneo. Fedha za awali zitatumika kuboresha uratibu wa mtandao na kutekeleza mipango ya usimamizi katika maeneo yaliyochaguliwa - ikiwa ni pamoja na bajeti ya maendeleo ya miundombinu na rasilimali za binadamu, na shughuli za kukabiliana na vitisho vya kipaumbele kwa kasa wa baharini na makazi yao. Kulingana na asili ya tovuti na kiasi cha fedha inapatikana, shughuli zifuatazo tovuti-msingi ni kutazamwa: - Ujenzi au kuboresha mgeni (maelezo) kituo cha; - Ujenzi wa vituo vya ulinzi, kama inavyofaa; - Ununuzi wa vifaa vya matumizi na matengenezo (kwa mfano. kwa ajili ya doria ardhi / bahari); na - Utoaji wa kawaida pwani-usimamizi kits (kwa mfano utafiti wa msingi, vifaa vya ufuatiliaji). Maendeleo ya rasilimali za binadamu na ujenzi wa uwezo: - Kuajiri au (re) utoaji wa wafanyakazi (msimamizi, walinzi, jamii outreach / elimu / wataalamu wa maendeleo, watafiti nk. ); - Mafunzo ya wafanyakazi maalumu (mbinu, kujenga timu nk. - Ikiwa shughuli za utalii wa mazingira zinatakiwa, programu ya kujitolea ya mazingira; - Ununuzi wa vifaa vya kumbukumbu vya kawaida; na - Kubadilishana kwa wafanyikazi na maeneo mengine ya mtandao na taasisi zinazohusiana. - Vizuizi vya muda au nafasi juu ya matumizi ya makazi, kama inavyofaa; - In-situ kiota (yaani Ulinzi wa kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota cha kiota. ); - Utafiti na mpango wa ufuatiliaji wa muda mrefu (kukusanya mahali pa data ya kibiolojia na ya kijamii, urithi, kuweka alama, ufuatiliaji wa uchafuzi nk. ); na - Programu ya ajabu ya kuanzisha tena (kwa mfano Kuchukua hatua ya kuimarisha uhifadhi wa mayai (kama inahitajika) na kuimarisha mfumo wa majaribio ya muda mrefu na ufuatiliaji wa matokeo. kama hatua ya mwisho tu, ili kupima ufanisi wa mbinu hii). Ushirikiano wa jamii na kushiriki habari: - Programu ya elimu na ufahamu kwa watazamaji waliotajwa; - Mfumo wa usimamizi wa ushirikiano, pamoja na motisha ya kuhusisha jamii za mitaa katika kushiriki faida (kwa mfano Usimamizi wa utalii wa mazingira, maendeleo ya njia mbadala za kuishi, nk. ); - Mipango ya kuboresha ustawi wa jamii (kujifunza kusoma na kuandika, miradi ya afya nk. - Ushirikiano wa mashirika husika yasiyo ya kiserikali na ya kati ya serikali; - kubadilishana habari na maeneo mengine ya mtandao; na - kushiriki data na hifadhidata za kitaifa, kikanda, na za kimataifa (kwa mfano, IMM (OBS, OBS, OBS) Kushirikiana na maeneo mengine: Kushiriki katika mifumo rasmi ya kushiriki rasilimali na maeneo mengine, ikiwa ni pamoja na mafunzo na utekelezaji wa ufuatiliaji wa kawaida, kushiriki rasilimali kwa ajili ya ufuatiliaji na utekelezaji, na kushiriki katika programu ya "maeneo ya dada". Mara tu mtandao wa tovuti ni kazi, ufanisi wa uingiliaji wa usimamizi inaweza kufuatiliwa kwa kutumia toleo lililorekebishwa la chombo kwa ajili ya "Ripoti ya Maendeleo katika Maeneo ya Eneo la Kulindwa" (Stolton, 2007). Tathmini ya utendaji kwa ajili ya mtandao na kwa ajili ya maeneo ya mtu binafsi inapaswa kufanyika kwa mujibu wa ratiba ya kudumu na mbinu. Takwimu za ufuatiliaji na habari nyingine kutoka kwa tovuti za mtandao zinapaswa kugawanywa na kukusanywa ili kuwezesha tathmini ya mara kwa mara ya ufanisi wa hatua za uhifadhi na kuongoza usimamizi wa kubadilika. Kwa habari yoyote ya ziada juu ya mtandao wa tovuti au tovuti za mtu binafsi, ambazo hazijafunikwa tayari na nyaraka kwenye tovuti ya IOSEA, unaweza kuwasiliana na Kituo cha Focal cha IOSEA katika nchi yako, ambayo maelezo ya mawasiliano yanaweza kupatikana hapa.