Showing posts with label data. Show all posts
Showing posts with label data. Show all posts

Monday, March 20, 2017

Light at the end of the tunnel for Malagasy fishermen

Interview with Tisza Ernest, president of a ten-member fishermen’s association in Sahoragna, Madagascar

60-year old Tsiza Ernest is President of a ten-member fishermen's association (The Whale) in Sahoragna neighbourhood, in the east coast commune of Fenerive Est some 500 km from the capital. As the problems that are destroying fishermen's livelihoods threatened to overwhelm his association, the Participatory 3D Modelling (P3DM) process provided timely confirmation of their achievements and prospects for the future.

Why do you say that P3DM came just in time for you?

Tsiza Ernest: The P3DM learning process was like a shot in the arm for the sector, the association and especially for my family. Things had been difficult for a while and we were getting really desperate, but I can't stop being a fisherman now. I have no choice but to carry on. We used to be able to make a decent living from fishing but now we need several sources of income to make ends meet. Thankfully, things have seemed a bit more hopeful since the Liaison Office for Rural Training Institutions (BIMTT) ran some sessions on participatory 3-D modelling (P3DM) in early 2016, with support from CTA. We all came away feeling that we could do something to address the problems and get fishing back on its feet again. The P3DM process helped everyone understand the situation and gave us the opportunity to think about it together around the model, exchange ideas and take appropriate measures. It was a really useful exercise because representatives from different parts of the fishing industry were there – fishermen, staff from the town hall, the Regional Directorate for Fisheries (DRP), the Saint Benoît religious community, traditional authorities, etc. All the fishermen who work in a 30km-stretch of the east coast were represented. Everyone was there.



What are the problems and how can they be resolved?

Tsiza Ernest: The main issue is over-exploitation due to illegal fishing. Our output has fallen considerably over the last 10 years, and nowadays we have to go much further afield to have any hope of catching something. It's a free-for-all. There's no regulated closed fishing season, no limits on minimum or maximum sizes, no standardised equipment and no properly demarcated fishing zones. This is an emergency. It's not unusual to come across strangers or Chinese fishermen in motorboats that swallow up everything in their path. People also use floodlights in sensitive areas such as spawning grounds or large shellfish beds, and this has serious consequences – like a bushfire that displaces creatures from their habitat and makes it easier to flush them out in future. They're coming in and stealing our resources! Some people use mosquito nets instead of fishing nets, which take everything, right down to the eggs. The authorities just turn a blind eye to it. Our association has been trained on responsible marine fishing and we've adopted a convention that obliges us to respect our profession. We use conventional nets, we've stopped catching small fish, observe spawning periods, etc. – but other people don't care, so those of us who abide by the law look like idiots. We can't do anything even when we catch people red-handed, as we don't have the power to stop them or even threaten them. There doesn't seem to be any coordinated effort to crack down on illegal fishing in Madagascar, especially in our area.

How can the P3DM process help this deteriorating situation?

Tsiza Ernest: Everyone has a responsibility to do something, from ministerial bodies and the regional Directorate for Fisheries to town hall officials and individual fishermen. The relevant authorities have been lobbied repeatedly, the current law condemns illegal fishing but is ignored, and the authorities seem to find it hard to get different members of the fishing industry together around the table. That's why the P3DM process is so powerful, because it brings all the protagonists together around the model at the same place and the same time. Everyone has a chance to voice their concerns, defend their position, share their ideas and put their cards on the table. That's how the idea of developing an internal convention (Dina) came up and was supported by the town hall and the Regional Directorate for Fisheries. This convention is agreed by local actors from the fishing industry at the commune and district level and should lead to the demarcation of our local marine area, proper internal organisation and discipline, a closed fishing season, standardised equipment and finally to sanctions. The idea of registering pirogues and issuing fishermen with cards also emerged during the exercise, so that we know who should and shouldn't be fishing in our waters. We were strongly advised to update the model so we can improve the Dina, so it better reflects the current situation and takes account of future changes. After validating the regulatory texts through the Dina, the town hall and DRP also plan to create a platform for all actors in our local fishing industry, to ensure that activities in this sector are properly coordinated.

How will this help you and your fellow fishermen?

Tsiza Ernest: For me personally, it confirmed that what I have learned and achieved over the years still stands up. We fishermen learn everything on the job: the structure of coral and reefs, the location of lobster and prawn spawning grounds, how to identify danger areas, quicksand, etc. I was amazed that you can see all of this on the model we made together – older villagers, fishery technicians, the whole community. The model shows that our knowledge still holds true, confirms everything we know about fishing. Now I feel proud of myself, that what I've been doing for all these years stands up on a scientific basis! I'm aware that my knowledge is limited and imprecise – I had a vague idea that there were mangroves and spawning grounds in certain areas, but didn't have detailed information about their size, depth or area ... That's what's so great about the 3-D map, because it gives all the information on distance, depth, size, temperature, date, etc. And the P3DM exercise gave me ideas about what I can do in the future to reduce damage, stabilise the situation and plan projects. My family also learned a lot from the process, they've become active partners and take an interest in issues that affect marine fishing. The model showed my wife how rich our coastline is, and since then she's really helped the association lobby the municipal authorities. Our sons also learned a huge amount about the fishing environment in our area from the 3-D model – it's a quick, easy and direct way of transferring knowledge.


What are your plans for the future?

Tsiza Ernest: Once things have settled down a bit, I can get on with my own plans to increase production and move into high-end products such as lobster, oysters, mussels, etc. But there's a lot to be done before that can happen: fishermen need to be trained, the value chain has to be cleaned up, resources made available, and fishermen need to work together. We also need measures to support the development of other income-generating activities during the closed season.

Another thing we want to do is create a protected area within our fishing grounds, a 'marine park' that will be used responsibly and sustainably so that we can safeguard the future of our industry. This area will be a reference point, a showcase so that all our neighbours can see how environmentally sound fishing can be done. We'll need to use P3DM and make a special model of the 'park' showing all the information and especially the regulations relating to this area. During the P3DM process, the regional director of fisheries also highlighted the need to set up a federation of fishermen's associations, as this can provide an important platform for fishermen to discuss and exchange ideas and ultimately negotiate directly with different partners. I think P3DM can play a key role in getting all fishermen onto the same wavelength. And finally, I'd like all the other villages and neighbouring communes to have their own models because giving every fisherman access to the same information and knowledge will help prevent conflicts and contribute to the development of the sector.



Monday, May 16, 2016

Making sense of drone regulations

Authorities demand regulation for and supervision of the increasing use of drones, because of privacy, safety and security issues. Drone operators must be aware of this. 

While unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) – also known as drones – are indisputably useful for civilians, the technology has an increasing public relations problem. For example, UK pilots were calling for research into what would happen if a UAV hit an airliner, after 23 near-misses around UK airports in six months during 2015. In Japan, UAVs equipped with a net have been developed to capture rogue UAVs that might threaten disruptions along flight paths. And the Dutch police are experimenting with trained eagles to take unwanted UAVs out of the sky.

Some people are wary of drones due to the technology's association with lethal military technology. Others have seen recent news reports describing the reckless and indiscreet use of UAVs by civilians, from paparazzi drones to unauthorized UAVs flights over tourist hot-spots. These incidents have made governments and citizens around the world raise serious concerns about leaving the technology unregulated.

Image: Walter Volkmann
PhotoThe debate about UAV regulation also concerns developing countries. Some nations, like South Africa, have already implemented regulations on the use of the technology by civilians, while others, like Kenya, have banned the use of UAVs without explicit permission from authorities. Several small island developing states in the Pacific have adopted the regulations formulated by their bigger, more developed neighbours. That is the case for Samoa and Tonga, for example, who follow the UAV laws of New Zealand. Still, many developing countries have no provision at all when it comes to the use of this technology by civilians.

Why rules and standards are necessary

One of the fundamental prerequisites for the use of small UAVs in public airspace is the existence of harmonised rules, in particular for UAV operators. These rules should pertain to safety and training, facilitate cross-country recognition of aircraft and pilot certification. Furthermore, such regulations should be combined with appropriate provisions for the protection of public privacy, data protection, liability and insurance. UAV rules also need standards that apply to both private and commercial use, covering issues such as the identification of types of small UAVs, and development of technologies that can prevent hackers or third parties from taking control of the devices while they are in the air. Clear and concise guidance material, customs procedures, simplified regulations, and readily available online forms and information products, like maps that show where it is allowed or not to use UAVs, could all help to succeed in reducing risks for operators.

The increasing commercial exploitation of smaller drones will require further, specific adjustments, such as limitations on third-party liability, the introduction of UAV weight categories below 500 kilograms, and adjustments to the risk levels that are associated with the flight characteristics of very small UAVs. Some concerns with UAVs are not new: the protection of fundamental civilian rights, such as the privacy of images and data, was already an issue with the use of manned aircraft and helicopters. In this context UAVs represent an increase in the scale of aerial data collection – a new challenge when it comes to strengthening and managing the legal protection of privacy rights and both personal and business data.

The international discussion about regulation of the commercial application of UAVs formally began in 2007 with the creation of an unmanned aerial system study group within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The study group brought to the table several member states and aviation management organizations. In 2011 the study group produced a circular 328, followed in 2015 by a manual on unmanned aircraft systems and proposed amendments to national civil aviation laws.

ICAO's current coordination efforts in the international arena focus almost exclusively on the large remotely-piloted aircrafts used for trans-boundary missions and not on the smaller UAVs. However, much of the material that was prepared by the study group is useful to develop country-specific and regionally relevant regulations for small UAVs under 500 kilograms and with visual line-of-sight operations, as Leslie Cary, who manages ICAO’s programme on drones, said at the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Symposium in March 2015.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has been tasked by the European Commission to develop a regulatory framework for drone operations and proposals for the regulation of civil, low-risk drone operations. In achieving this, EASA is working closely with the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking of Unmanned Systems (JARUS), which is producing guidelines that should serve the UAV governance of the national airspaces.

Regulations in ACP countries

Research led by the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) recently examined the current state of drone-related regulations in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states. It revealed several distinct categories of responses to the drone issue. Indeed, ICAO member states use the organisation's standards and recommended practices and other guidance material to develop their own regulations.

South Africa in particular has implemented and now enforces a comprehensive set of legally-bound rules governing UAVs, placing it among the small group of nations that have working regulations. Others, like Senegal and Kenya, have banned the civilian use of drones or specific airborne tools, such as cameras, although they have amended their aviation laws with drone-related provisions developed by ICAO. Others, like Chad and Gabon, still left notes in their newly updated aviation laws stating that international norms still need to be established on specifics such as certification, licensing and aircraft types. Others have created a variety of forms, guides and information products, and sometimes have simply adopted the UAV rules of another country, without any official amendments to their aviation laws.

In emergency situations, like post cyclone Vanuatu, drones have been used on Efate and Tanna islands for reconnaissance and damage assessment purposes with the endorsement of the government, but in the absence of a legal framework and specific rules. Thus, it appears that the question is no longer whether, but how and when the integration of UAVs into existing forms of aviation will take place. When rules are unclear, professional small UAV operators working in agriculture or natural resource management should use common sense and follow diligence: have an operator permit, documentation and registration for the aircraft and the instrument used, and seek approval from local authorities. Ideally they also should seek approval from customs and national transport agencies.  

Emerging UAV expertise

Tackling safety and privacy issues together with the adoption of harmonised relevant regulation will play a crucial role in the public acceptance of civilian drone technology, and the role of ICAO and JARUS is instrumental in developing the appropriate standards and recommended practices. Regional coordination efforts could spur further harmonisation of national operating rules, licences and certification between neighbouring countries. By doing this they could help the spread of commercial applications and facilitate the growth of regional enterprises and expertise on UAV technology.

ACP countries looking to regulate the technology should consult with professional operators and users of drones to ensure that UAVs’ user cases are well defined and their authorisation streamlined for the relevant activities within the individual countries.

About the Author:

Cédric Jeanneret (cedricj@gmail.com) is a freelance geographer. Cédric is particularly interested in capturing and analysing geographic information to map and learn about the diffusion of innovations and adoption of technology in socio-ecological systems.

Source:

Republished with consent from ICT Update, issue 82, April 2016

Related links:


Follow @UAV4Ag on Twitter

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Being on a map means to exist: the Saramaccan experience

Saramaccan communities in Suriname seek government’s recognition of their traditional knowledge

On 23 February 2016, 18 Saramaccan community representatives from the Brownsweg and Upper Suriname River areas met in the capital city, Paramaribo, with key stakeholders and policymakers. The meeting was organised by the Saramaccan Peoples to share the results of a two-year process which led to the visualisation and documentation of their traditional environmental knowledge over a vast area.

Maps generated using data extracted from the 1:15000 scale participatory 3D model of the Brownsweg area (manufactured in November 2015), combined with the digital elevation model obtained from the Foundation for Forest Management and Production Control, Suriname.
It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words and maps may be even more effective in conveying messages when it comes to resource distribution and access. In fact the outcome of the process – which the Saramacca delegates proudly presented at the meeting – consisted of a series of community-generated physical and digital maps.

The maps and various data sets were produced in Saramaccan, English, and Dutch languages as a result of three Participatory 3D modelling (P3DM) exercises that took place in 2014 and 2015, involving 220 residents, including women, youth and the elderly. A film documentary about the process was released in 2015 in Saramaccan, English, and French.


Saramaccan leaders highlighted the uniqueness of the data the communities were able to collate, geo-reference and visualise using highly sophisticated technology, including Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Benefitting from external technical support, knowledge-holders were able to share their mental maps and memories which were used to populate blank 3D models.

The Saramaccan representatives drew attention to the relevance and accuracy of the data, and its accessibility to third parties, provided free prior informed consent for their use was given. "We made the map for it to be used. We want other people to make use of it. We only ask that the data is not used without involving us, the Saramaccan Peoples," concluded a community representative.

The Saramaccan delegates welcomed the use of the data for spatial planning purposes and called on the government and private investors to recognise them as key stakeholders and fully involve them when planning logging activities, protected area management and gold mining concessions within traditional Saramaccan lands.

They urged for the replication of P3DM processes in the rest of the Saramaccan territory so that a complete map of traditional Saramacca lands could be generated. To achieve this, they called on the government, development organisations, private sector, and NGOs present at the meeting to raise the necessary funds.

The event was hosted by Tropenbos International Suriname, WWF Guyanas and the Association of Saamaka Authorities.

In addition to Tropenbos International Suriname, project sponsors included the UNDP-GEF Small Grant Programme and CTA. Contributions by both organisations were duly acknowledged, with participants stating that their valuable contribution established a 'fertile ground' for community empowerment via P3DM which they considered to be a very innovative process. Participants also acknowledged that the P3DM process had inspired other communities who were now requesting support to deploy the P3DM process in their areas.


Friday, July 10, 2015

‘Participatory data’ and the formulation of Tourism Development Area Management Plans in Samoa

Developing agriculture to better serve tourism markets in the Pacific is knowledge intensive. The first step is to determine the tourism market’s demands for agricultural produce and then to match this with what is available from local production. But much of this information is not currently readily available.

Bridging this information gap was a key objective of the recent Agribusiness Forum: Linking the agrifood sector to the tourism-related markets coordinated by CTA and the Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation (PIPSO) with support from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), the Pacific Agriculture Policy Programme (PAPP) and the intra-ACP Agricultural Policy Programme (Intra-ACP APP). This event, held in Fiji from 1 to 3 July 2015, brought together experts from government agencies, farmers’ organisations, community-based organisations, remote sensing and research bodies to identify the data gaps and discuss how to go forward.


Giving a community perspective, Amia Luatua from the Samoa Tourism Authority, shared Samoa’s work on tourism planning, showing how communities have used participatory 3D modelling (P3DM) to collect data that have been used to inform tourism developments.

Friday, March 06, 2015

Participatory Data

Participatory 3D modelling (P3DM) is a community-based tool that builds on local and indigenous knowledge for a variety of purposes, such as land use planning, watershed management, disaster prevention, communication and advocacy.  

Participatory 3D modelling (P3DM) is a community-based tool – better defined as a ‘process’ – that integrates local spatial knowledge with data on land elevation and sea depth to produce a physical model. Local communities participate in the model building of the territory that they rely on for their livelihoods and cultural practices. The kind of data that the P3DM process generates are extremely diverse, but essentially it are data that are relevant for local knowledge holders: from land cover and land use to infrastructure – all of which are intimately related to a given people’s culture, their sacred sites, and burial grounds.

Local knowledge holders may be interested in sharing data, but there may also be data that they may consider private and sensitive. However, they may like to locate and document this data solely for their internal use. They may wish to maintain strategic control over the information that is shared, how it is released and to whom.

P3DM has already been used in a variety of contexts: claim land ownership, transfer knowledge across generations, and manage conflicts. It has recently started to take off in the Pacific region, enabling people in small island countries – where rising sea levels are posing a serious risk to many people’s livelihoods – to take informed decisions about how best to manage risk and adapt to climate change.

Origins of P3DM  

P3DM was initially used in the late 1980s in Thailand, to demonstrate where the Royal Forestry Department was developing plantations for catchment rehabilitation. As such it was a conservation-based demonstration tool, not a participatory tool. Dr Uraivan Tan-Kim-Yong, an anthropologist at Chiang Mai University, was running a research programme involving hill tribe people. She invited her students to make small Styrofoam models and bring them to the villages to discuss soil conservation and soil erosion issues.

These models proved useful and eventually drew the attention of other parties, who began to develop and deploy the P3DM process. The Thai-German Highland Development Programme (TG-HDP) (1981-1998) funded by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation was on the forefront in making use of the tool [1]. For the first time the 3D models began to be used on a village-to-village basis and in a participatory manner. 3D models started to shift from being a demonstration tool to an education tool, and finally a planning tool. In 1993, a workshop was held in Thailand attended by several NGOs from Southeast Asia. Organisations such as the Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID) and Green Forum Western Visayas began to embrace P3DM and started using it with indigenous people. It enabled them to address the demand coming from tribal minority groups to generate a great deal of data to prove their ancestral occupancy of land and waters in order to get their customary rights of tenure and use recognised by the government. Over the years, P3DM has benefited from the creativity of the many practitioners who have been engaged in the process.

Initial challenges  

All new technologies face implementation challenges. With P3DM, the initial one is posed by the availability of sufficiently detailed, up-to-date and accurate digital elevation models (DEMs). For example, some DEMs were produced decades ago. So if a blank model is constructed based on an obsolete elevation model, knowledge holders may point out landscape features that have changed, such as an eroded coastline, a mutated river’s course or slope that was altered by a landslide. Once the DEM issue is solved, the model is populated by local knowledge holders, where they share and visualise their spatial knowledge. People have a lot of fun doing this kind of exercise and get a great deal of gratification from it.


Another challenge is the difficulty of applying P3DM to map out large areas, such as an entire country. P3DM requires substantial preparation and logistics. As a result, the tool is often deployed in hotspots, or critical areas. In small island countries it is a useful tool used to map land and seascapes, and eventually large parts of an entire country.

In certain countries the use of P3DM has had a definite impact on policy. In the Philippines, the government has adopted the process in many different contexts, from conflict resolution to awarding indigenous tenure on land and water. In 2001 the minister of the environment and natural resources signed a memorandum circular that recommends the use of P3DM in “protected area planning and sustainable natural resource management” [2]. As of November 2014, in the Philippines 165 models were made that provided critical data for policy making. Samoa is a more recent case where the government has embraced the process in the context of climate change adaptation and community-based risk management.

At international levels, P3DM has been cited as a recommended process by CTA, UNDP, IFAD, GEF, UNESCO and more recently by IUCN in the context of the 2014 “Promise of Sydney”.

From physical to digital  

Custodianship of the 3D model is important to determine where the models are stored and who is responsible for their conservation, use and updating. A model is useless if it is locked up in a room where people cannot access it, or if it is stored under a glass cover and becomes a museum piece. The models have to be part of everyday life. They are used to educate children about local geography and history. This is true of physical models which are usually under the direct control of the knowledge holders. However, their digital representation follows a different path and has usually different custodians.

Once the data goes from physical to digital there is a risk that it will be misused or unwittingly shared. It is crucial that the intermediaries appointed as custodians of the data, are a trusted and reliable entity that will protect the data and respond to the community’s wishes in terms of data sharing. Trust and ethics play an important role in this. Research work may be extractive and could fail to consider that the mapping process should first and foremost benefit the knowledge holders. Unscrupulous individuals may entice people to share data to exploit resources. P3DM implies that a high level of ethics is applied and trust established between the actors involved: the knowledge holders and the technology intermediaries / facilitators.

In 2006 the community of practitioners focusing on Participatory GIS practice has developed a guideline [3] on practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers to stimulate the adoption of good practice. It has been published in 12 languages and governs the way people doing participatory mapping should behave in the process of generating, handling, storing and sharing data. The code recommends that knowledge holders remain in full control throughout the process and that data are gathered and eventually shared with their free prior informed consent (FPIC).

For the most part, P3DM data have been well protected. But there have been cases where data entered into a model were misused. In South-East Asia, there are accounts that graveyards located on a 3D model were plundered because such data were not removed and left accessible to the public. Therefore, it is important to make people aware of the implications of geo-locating sensitive data and making it public. They can then decide what to visualise, what to leave or remove from the model.

One of the most important components of a P3DM process is to involve external agencies from the very beginning. This can raise awareness among “outsiders” about the depth, accuracy and relevance of local knowledge. This may induce a new sense of esteem for local knowledge holders.

References   

[1] P3DM for Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP) in Thailand, Integrated Approaches to Participatory Development (IAPAD).
[2] Participatory 3-Dimensional Modelling as a Strategy in Protected Area Planning and Sustainable Natural Resources Management. Memorandum, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Republic of the Philippines, Integrated Approaches to Participatory Development (IAPAD).
[3] Rambaldi,G., Chambers, R., MCcall M. And Fox, J. (2006) Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers, Participatory Learning and Action, 54, IIED (April) 106-113.

Related links