 Barrier Removal Plan Outline (Terrestrial) Barrier Removal Strategy
The barrier removal strategy is to help address the barriers that the targeted
audience of farmers and the general community may have in terms of adopting
the new behavior that promotes sustainable land use. The planned activities
are aimed at increasing the chance of farmers and the community to adopt
sustainable land clearing/development practices.
The assumption is, if farmers and the community are not aware of erosion control
practices and its connection to the consequences of increased sediment flow
into systems of watershed and the reefs of which they greatly depend on for
their livelihood, then the chances that they would adopt sustainable land
clearing practices is very minimal. Centralization of environmental monitoring
within government agencies has gradually reduced community ownership and
management of their own natural resources. Although there are traditional
erosion control techniques built into agricultural practices, the understanding of
the purposes and science behind the techniques have been lost with time and
social changes.
Similarly, forest burning is traditionally a crime that families get penalized for their
involvement in starting forest burning, which has been lost to the centralization
of government authority. However, lack of adequate personnel to monitor
burning, limits surveillance and repercussions and promotes increased burning of
forests in Ngerchelong and throughout the Babeldaob area. During dry seasons
from the month of November till April, almost all of the forest alongside the
Babeldaob road is lost to burning, leaving behind degraded land areas
struggling to grow back only to be met by new forest burning 6 months later.
The assumption is that if the community surveillance and repercussion is revived
through signing and approval of a petition and by implementing a hotline and a
community monitoring group, then the incidence of forest burning should
decrease.
As a result of the qualitative research that was conducted in SeptemberOctober 2012, it is clear that the target audience, farmers, the community, and
State Government road workers, are mostly aware of erosion control practices
and believe that they must be implemented in order to protect their watershed,
the taro fields and from further damage as a result of sediment runoffs. While
they know and believe in erosion control practices, it is not communicated
within the community. It is clear that their daily participation in their farming and
fishing activities that they see the sedimentation slowly overwhelming the taro
fields and reef, to the point where it’s non-productive. While the community
may not understand to the full extent of the damages caused by the lack of
sustainable land use and management, they do believe that many of these
environmental threats can be alleviated by the traditional community
watershed management practices, that provided regular maintenance of
streams and water sources, of removing debris and sediment from the bed and
using it to support river banks that helped to prevent flooding and erosion of
river banks. Thus, this has been identified as one of the barrier removal strategy
to be implemented to increase community pride and strengthen water
management.
The Barrier removal strategies as part of the campaign includes, conducting of a
vulnerability assessment of the project sites, provide free training on erosion
control practices and sustainable land clearing practices, developing a buffer
zone policy for the watershed, reviving of traditional watershed management,
petition to increase surveillance and repercussions for forest burning,
implementation of a hotline for reporting of forest burning, mapping out of land
use activities within the riparian areas, developing of erosion control practices
demonstration site, and training and recruiting of a community monitoring team.
The following tables shows the details of each barrier removal strategy, the
timeline, and the estimated cost.
Table 10: Barrier Removal Plan activities
Barrier Removal
Activity
What barrier is this addressing?
Date of
Implementation

Work with existing
management/ advisory
committee for Belau
Watershed Alliance

Review Management
plan for Belau Watershed
Alliance and develop/
adopt site specific plan

Lack of Guideline for recommended
land use near watershed
Oct 1-14, 2012

Complete endorsement
of management plan

Same as above
Oct 1-14, 2012

Conducting a
vulnerability assessment
of the project sites

Lack of knowledge on types of land
use appropriate for project area
March 27, 2013

Training on erosion
control practices (i.e.,
agroforestry, no burning,
selective cutting, revegetation, planting to
hold ground, etc. )
March 23, 2013

Lack of Knowledge on erosion control
practices ecosystems services
Dec 10- Jan 13, 2013

Revive traditional
watershed management
techniques and
knowledge

Community pride and ownership of
resources
Dec 10-Jan 23, 2013

Establishing riparian
buffer

Lack of buffer zone for the watershed
Jan 28-Feb 24, 2013

Initiate petition signing
and approval for
community surveillance
and repercussions on
forest burning

Lack of surveillance and repercussions for
forest burning
Dec 10- Jan 13, 2013

Implement hotline for
community reporting of
forest burning

Lack of surveillance and repercussions on
forest burning
Dec 10-Jan 13, 2013

Recruit and train
community monitoring
team


Lack of erosion control practices
Lack of surveillance and repercussions on
forest burning
Feb 25-Mar 24, 2013

Setting up erosion
control demonstration
site

Lack of knowledge on sedimentation
impact on watershed and reef
Mar 25-Apr 21, 2013
Below table provides the detail estimation of the cost of implementation of barrier removal
strategies beginning in September 2012 till April of 2013, a total of 8 months. All barrier
removal strategies have to be conducted after the KAP (Knowledge, Attitude, Practices)
quantitative survey has been complete in order to establish baseline information before
exposure to activities to increase knowledge and practices of erosion control and forest
burning. The total estimated budget for barrier removal is $20,000 to cover training costs,
meeting costs, demonstration site costs, monitoring cost, etc.
Table 11: Barrier Removal Plan Budget
Task
Detail
Example: Workshop for
community members on best
erosion control practices
1. Demonstration Sites
2. Training on Erosion
Control Practices/
traditional watershed
management revival
3. Training on Water
Total costs
~30 attendees for
a 2 day workshop
plus
demonstration of
3 key erosion
control practices,
cost of trainer,
plus venue, plus
lunch for
attendees
~$X per venue,
$Y for meals,
and $Z for
trainer’s time



2 demo/day;
erosion
control
practices as
part of
training
10 attendees
for 5 trainings

20
Trainers feeIn Kind from
EQPB,
PICRC, NRCS,
BWA

$50/person
x 50 = $

35 mi. travel
x 10 trainers
= $350 for
fuel
Trainers feeIn Kind from
EQPB,
PICRC, NRCS,
BWA


$350/ venue
plus food x 5

35 mi. travel
= $35 for
fuel 3days x
6 trainers =
50 x
35=$1750
•Trainers fee- In
Costs covered
by existing
budget or
partners
a budget of $V
already exists
from XX
program or
gov’t agency or
local partner
Costs/
Resources
Needed
Partners will
cover cost of
trainers from
their own
agencies/ AUS
Aid/Rare
$2500
Partners will
cover cost of
trainers from
their own
agencies
AusAid/Rare +
Ebiil In-kind
$1750
Partners will
$1500
$(X+Y+Z)$V
$350
$1750
quality, erosion
control monitoring,
and forest burning
monitoring
attendees
x 5 days
Kind from EQPB,
PICRC, NRCS,
BWA
cover trainers
cost
persons)
AUSAid/Rare+
Ebiil In-Kind
20/px x $15 x
5dys= $1500
$3500
$1000
$1500
35 mi. travel =
$35 for fuel x 20
px= $ 3500
$1080
Water Quality
Monitoring
equipment;
$1000
Monthly
monitoring; 15
px x $45/ person
= $1080
4. Implementation of a
hotline for burning
Will be done in
conjunction with
erosion control
practices training
$13 x 12 mos =
156
Maybe
sponsored by
other partners
(TBD)
$156
5. Establishing of a
Riparian Buffer
8 persons x 2
watershed
 2 Taro field
cultivator
 Chief
 Hamlet
Legislator
 Palau
Automated
Land Area (2
persons)
Resource
Information
System
 CM
 EQPB
 BWA
Chairman

16 x $20 ea x
10 days =
$160
35 mi. travel
x 5 workers
=$175 ( $35)
for fuel
Partners will
cover cost of
trainers from
their own
agencies
$3200
10 meetings over

10 x $10 =
Meeting lunch
6. Meeting with

$175
AusAid/Rare
Ebiil In Kind
$1000
Advisory Committee
and partner agencies
7. Census KAP Survey
8. KAP Survey
Expansion
6 mos.
10 persons
For meals
35 days
3 days training of
enumerators

10 x $15/dy
x 3 = $450
27 days of survey
5 days of data
entry

$30 x 10 x
27days=
$2100
Ngaraard, Ngiual,
Melekeok,
Ngeremlengui

Total


$100
$100x 10=
$1000
Training stipend
AUSAid/Rare
$450
$8100
Door to door
survey
Ebiil In-Kind for
transportation
$28, 011
TR and CR monitoring
In order to establish baseline data for the environmental monitoring part of the
project, initial assessment of the two watershed areas, namely Emeraech and
Tilorch will be mapped out with information of land use and activities within the
riparian area including watershed basin natural landscape information, as to
forests types, forest density, land use, a vulnerability assessment. The assessment
will be conducted with the partners agencies, namely, Sustainable Land
Management office, Environmental Quality Protection Board, Palau
International Coral Reef Center, The Nature conservancy, and Belau Watershed
Alliance.
Demonstration sites will be developed at three (3) locations to be used to
show/train on erosion control practices, including water quality monitoring sites,
i.e., sedimentation levels in watershed, and water turbidity. The technical design
and monitoring protocols for demonstrations and monitoring will be developed
with the technical partner agencies, such as Pacific Marine Research Institute
and Palau International Coral Reef Center.
Protocol for TR
With the assistance of the technical agency partners, Environmental Quality
Protection Board and Palau International Coral Reef Center will develop
sediment traps and place them in certain areas of the two watersheds, and
provide training to the recruited community monitoring team who will be
responsible for monitoring and gathering of the samples. Protocols for collecting
of the sample will be developed by the technical experts along with the design
or provision of sample tools. Areas for monitoring will include water quality and
vegetation along the riparian areas. The trained monitoring team will include
female and male members of the farmers’ community and government
workers. Taro field cultivators will be targeted in particular as they are the
traditional watershed managers and their knowledge on watershed
management will be revisited and incorporated into regular maintenance plans
shared between the community and the State government. The same group
will be responsible for working with the technical groups on developing erosion
control demonstration sites and training with other community members of
similar interest. The monitoring activities will include visiting other farms and land
development to identify best practices application to be awarded and with the
failing projects to receive assistance for improving. Smaller focus group like the
government State workers and the rooster trappers, hunters, and land survey
workers will be included in the trainings. Regulatory agencies will be part of the
team and the solutions for addressing compliance and buffer zones can be
used to influence national level of monitoring as we develop the local State
level.
Protocol for CR
Similar to the threat removal monitoring, the conservation results monitoring will
also be designed by the technical partner agencies. Once the protocol and
tools have been developed and or adopted, trainings will be provided to the
previously mentioned sediment monitoring team and the fishers’ community
who will be monitoring the water turbidity in the coastal areas where the
watershed discharges.
The same team who will be trained to monitor erosion control best practices will
also be trained to monitor forest fires by taking burning reports from the hotline
and mapping them on a terrestrial map. Comparisons of the mapping from
implementation of monitoring till end of campaign will determine whether or not
the incidence of forest burning has decreased.