in coastal regions and in small islands
|SECTION V Part A||
|CSI info 10|
several occasions during the workshop, plenary discussions were held on the
theme “wise practices” for the sustainable development of coastal regions
and small islands. To facilitate these exchanges, discussion papers were
prepared prior to the workshop and distributed during the meetings. These
papers: “Indicators to identify wise practices”
and “Example wise practices” were based on the
Wise Practice Papers received from meeting participants as well as the results
of the electronic discussion group held in September – October 1998, and
appear in Sections below for easy reference.
third discussion paper on “Implementing wise practices” was also prepared
and distributed. However, due to the intensity of discussion on the first two
papers, the meeting did not find time to address the implementation theme in
detail, nevertheless because of its relevance to this report, this discussion
paper has been included in Annex 3.
order to capture the ideas and commentaries generated by the presentations and
debates, the participants also prepared overheads during the meeting and these
were presented at various times during the plenary sessions. These overheads
captured important thoughts and also served to stimulate further discussion.
They are included in Annex 2.
PAPER ON INDICATORS TO IDENTIFY WISE PRACTICES
based upon Wise Practice Papers and electronic discussions
TOWARDS AN INITIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM
we cannot identify “wise practices” nor designate indicators for “wise
practices”, if we do not know what we mean by the term. At the same time, we
must accept that our definition of the term will evolve and be refined through
experiences in the field and discussions during this Workshop and beyond. So as
a point of departure, perhaps we can agree upon a general concept of “wise
practice” which is (for the time being) a bit vague and thus, flexible.
Fortes has described “wise practices” as emerging
from a set of experiences. He points out that time is a factor, and notes
that in some cases, “wise practices” may emerge unexpectedly, falling out
from nowhere, their presence revealed by the cumulative beneficial effect they
have upon people and environment (or cumulative negative effect for unwise
practices). A simple step-wise process can be described:
begins with a set of experiences/actions in coastal development;
these experiences, preliminary “[un]wise practices” emerge that are
identified with the help of indicators;
wise practices” are then analyzed and generalized to broaden their
application, raising them to the level of tentative “wise practice”
“Wise practice” principles are then tested by applying them in other contexts and at other sites, and the results allow for their refinement and finalization.
TENTATIVE DEFINITION OF “WISE PRACTICE”:
Actions, processes, principles or decisions that contribute significantly to the achievement of socially equitable, culturally appropriate, economically sound and environmentally sustainable development of coastal regions and small islands.
INDICATORS TO IDENTIFY WISE PRACTICES
How are we to know when we are in the presence of a “wise practice”?
as reformulated by J. Calvo:
What kind of quantitative and qualitative indicators should we use to identify wise practices and to rationalize why they are such?
BUT WHAT IS AN INDICATOR?
might be defined as a key variable, measurable with relative ease, which
indicates the state of a larger set of variables (a system) which is much more
difficult to monitor on a regular basis, e.g. infant mortality provides an
indication of the quality of health services; measures of heavy metals in
mussels may indicate water quality.
ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION, ARE THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW INDICATORS?
are they the beginning of a list of fundamental “wise practice” issues and
their associated goals? By evaluating whether we advance towards or regress from
these goals, we may judge a practice “wise” or “unwise”. In this view,
indicators are practical tools which provide measures (qualitative or
quantitative) of our advancement towards goals, such as those listed above, that
are a fundamental part of wise practice.
PAPER ON EXAMPLE WISE PRACTICES
based on Wise Practice Papers and electronic discussions
SOURCES OF EXAMPLE “WISE PRACTICES”
project activities carried out on the “coasts and small islands platform”
represent one direct source of example wise practices. We must bear in mind,
however, that these projects are not carried out in a vacuum. On the one hand,
as project leaders, you design activities based upon your own broad experience
and your knowledge of local ecological and social realities. As a result, the
emerging example wise practices benefit from your long experience and insight.
the other hand, relevant ideas and experiences for the development of example
“wise practices” are available from other projects in sustainable coastal
development. These other sources should not be ignored. Consequently, a “wise
practice” inventory should be based upon both CSI and non-CSI inputs.
the context of formal projects in coastal development, G.
Cambers also reminds us of the wealth of information that is available
informally – “in peoples” heads”. Referring specifically to local
practitioners who do not have a tradition of writing things down, she points out
that their knowledge and experience need also to be recorded as they represent
another valuable source of example “wise practices”.
H. Gaudi, N.
Hinshiranan and P. Varghese drew our
attention to another important source of example “wise practices”:
traditional/indigenous practices relating to coastal resource use and
management, and the knowledge systems and worldviews of which they are a subset.
While the ecological and cultural value of many of these practices is clear, a
major challenge today is how to integrate traditional practices into
contemporary contexts that are rapidly-evolving.
EXAMPLE “WISE PRACTICES”
Diop cautions against re-inventing the wheel and encourages the group to move
forward by considering the following question:
From all pilot projects and other research projects developed in coastal areas around the world, what concrete cases can we present that serve to illustrate our concept of wise practices?
an example wise practice for the Senegalese coastal area, S. Diop puts forward
the “Integrated Management Plan of the Saloum Mangroves Delta” which has
been achieved through an interdisciplinary exercise, involving local populations
in their own language (village committees), and setting into place well-defined
mechanisms for capacity-building and follow-up. In this view, an example “wise
practice” is portrayed as an exemplary case study.
have represented example “wise practices” as an inter-related series of
actions/decisions. For example, P. Espeut presents a number of “wise
practices” that focus upon the empowerment of local resource users. His nested
series of “wise practices” for the Jamaican context include:
management through protected areas,
are managed by local NGOs,
a co-management process,
local resource-users are empowered
enforce regulations that they themselves have drafted.
Fortes provides a list of 12 “wise practices” and then analyses in tabular
form the extent to which these have been adopted at a number of ICAM
sites in the Philippines:
OF “WISE PRACTICES”
research at questions of direct relevance to resource management (scientific
advice to management)
multi-agency and inter-disciplinary
opportunities to link planning to implementation
those affected by management schemes in all phases of the ICAM process
sharing of experience among resource managers
all uses of the coastal zone, including actual and potential
functional co-ordination among stakeholders (team spirit)
culturally and spiritually responsive
|SOME “SUCCESSFUL” INTEGRATED COASTAL AREA
MANAGEMENT SITES IN THE PHILIPPINES
Numbers correspond to “wise practice” features above
(++ more intense; + less intense application)
others have made reference to specific “wise practices” as follows:
common language should be developed that is comprehensible to all social actors:
natural and social scientists, local community members, decision-makers,
resource managers, etc. (S. Diop)
artisanal fisheries, one should replace centralized, top-down management of
coastal resources with participative arrangements that ensure effective
community involvement in the management process. (O.
the context of conserving the cultural heritage of Essaouira (Morocco), Abdelazziz
El Mouatez provides us with a structured and exacting evaluation of “what
went wrong” and “why”. He concludes that “unwise practices” are of
equal, if not greater importance, than “wise practices”, as the former
provide an opportunity to understand why an activity has failed and how similar
failures can be avoided in the future.
What is an ”example wise practice”? What should we include and exclude from this category? The proposed “wise practices” are very diverse.
range across a broad scale:
proposed wise practices extend from the micro-scale (e.g. meticulous, but
critical, technical details relating to architectural restoration – El
Mouatez) through to entire case studies/projects as wise practices (Diop).
cover a large number of domains:
Individual wise practices provide guidance with respect to the bio-physical
environment, others relate to the built environment, and still others
concern socio-economic or cultural domains. Some wise practices are
concerned with public information/ communication, others deal with community
participation in the management process and still others focus on
pertain to several different phases
of an intervention: from the planning/ conception phase through to
implementation, and including aspects of policy-making, institutional reform
and public awareness.
Proposed “wise practices” can therefore be ordered, categorized by scale, domain, discipline. While this may be a necessary first step, we must guard against “re-packing” these elements into our conventional boxes and losing sight of the more integrated and intersectoral perspective that we are trying to attain.
INDICATORS: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE
point was made that indicators for sustainable coastal development, despite
their specific geographic focus, were unlikely to differ from general
sustainable development indicators that have been the focus of extensive work
since the Rio Conference, e.g. the development of tools that combine resource
management and poverty reduction strategies – sound resource management as a
source of income. Accordingly, these discussions and conclusions should be taken
into consideration in furthering the work on coastal indicators. It was
emphasized that indicators must be easily comprehended by local actors,
measurable by simple and straightforward means, and conducive to long-term
monitoring. In this spirit the acronym SMARTER was
proposed showing that indicators should be Simple; Measurable; Actual;
Replicable; Timeless – Transferable; Equitable; Reliable. It must be
recognized, however, that indicators vary in resolution. Care should be taken to
select indicators of the appropriate precision depending upon the context.
persons disputed the concept of measurement. How can one measure sustainability,
long-term benefit or empowerment? Quantification was attacked as a positivist
natural science approach, that should give way to more stochastic and less
determinist models. Even more fundamental is the issue of who
is to decide on the indicators and who
is to measure them. It was pointed out that indicators can only be
refined with respect to certain predetermined goals, and that these goals are
unavoidably value laden, e.g. indicators for empowerment or governance. One is
quickly drawn into the realm of ethics and politics. It was further suggested
that the notion of indicators was static and thus it would be better to focus on
process and procedures.
the issue was raised as to whether it was correct to consider the items
discussed in the first Discussion Paper as
indicators, or as queried at the end of the paper. Is this rather a list of
issues, goals or characteristics of wise practices?
ON GOALS AND DEFINITIONS
order to assist the debate a short document was drafted (see
participants discussed the definition of coastal management, the proper terms to
use, and the need for a clear distinction between methods and goals. Some
thought there was no need to discuss definitions but rather to identify a common
approach. However, it was pointed out that in order to achieve this goal there
was a prior need for a satisfactory information repository, a clearing house
mechanism and a protocol for information sharing.
a proposal for the use of the “ecosystem concept”, Step 1 in the “Proposed
Procedure” paper was modified as follows: “The goal of integrated
coastal management is to improve the quality of life of human communities
dependent upon these resources without jeopardising the basic diversity and
productivity of the ecosystems”.
persons were in favour of remaining within general statements while others
warned of too much simplification when the issues remain complex. Caution was
raised concerning rigid guidelines and a dogmatic approach which might result in
an idealized (wishful thinking) vision of integrated coastal management (ICM).
IS THE OBJECTIVE OF ICM “SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT” OR “MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE”?
the use of the term “wise” practices (rather than the more commonly
encountered term “best”) met with general agreement, discussion arose as to
whether the overall objective was wise “management” practice as in ICM
or wise practice for “sustainable development”. Some felt management was the
broader term that encompasses development and conservation, others understood
management as a subset within the broader goal of sustainable development, and
still others viewed the terms as closely interrelated and largely
resolve these different points of view, it was suggested, based on a series of
debates in the Indonesian context, that a more appropriate term could be
“management of change”. This more modest expression was presented as
anchored in real world contexts where in most cases, the possibilities for
moving towards improved conditions (as suggested by “development”) were at
best limited. Recognising that most change escapes the control of the state or
corporate sector, not to mention local communities, “management” of that
change is already an ambitious undertaking. It was therefore proposed that our
objective could be stated as “the management of change to sustain quality of
life”. The term “management of change” allows for a dialogue that will
link local communities with local governments and other actors while also
recognising that their actions are influenced by outside factors. It was felt
that any attempt to find an exhaustive definition for “quality of life” was
doomed. While this proposal met with general support, it was nonetheless noted
that the term “management” perpetuates economic overtones and emphasizes
manipulation of both people and the environment.
FROM “THE ROLE OF SCIENTISTS” TO “THE ROLE OF CSI”
were urged to think critically about the conventional model whereby scientists
first provide information, the politicians convert this information into
guidelines and finally these guidelines are communicated to people who do as
informed. Reality is quite otherwise. It was felt that some conventional
thinking was still present in the paper on Indicators
and that it might be more appropriate to portray scientists as offering
different scenarios or alternatives. Furthermore local people can acquire
information about themselves and their situation by being confronted with other
sets of knowledge and experience directly, with or without the mediation of
it is not sufficient to speak of alternatives, as if some ultimate environmental
or social logic will prevail. One must recognize the existence of different
interests and, as in the Alang case, consider the interests of certain
stakeholders who may not be local. We must also recognize the practices and
experiences (knowledge) that already exists. In our pursuit of “wise
practices” we must develop a more critical and self-evaluating approach.
TRANSFERABILITY OF WISE PRACTICES
discussion arose on the issue of transferability of wise practices. Certain
participants emphasized the specificity of local situations, referring to the
strength of cultural factors and the unique local circumstances under which a
“wise practice” may evolve. Accordingly, they expressed grave doubts whether
a practice judged “wise” at one location, might also be “wise” at
another. While not denying the importance of the aforementioned, others found
this position somewhat exaggerated as it assumes there is little possibility of
learning from experience. A proposed solution was to distinguish between
“general” practices or “methods” which would be universally applicable,
and thus be highly transferable (e.g. to make a social analysis), and specific
“solutions” which would be context/site specific, and thus less transferable
(e.g. local resource user councils for management).
proposal was made based on the “Small
Coastal Cities” project, to take the lessons learnt from each
example/context, e.g. Essaouira and Saida, and to transfer the lessons learnt
from each case to a new context, in this case a third city. The transfer of the
lessons learnt will require adaptations which may themselves be the wise
ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
the need for environmental education and public awareness was emphasized on
several occasions, a number of participants also expressed
about such measures. In their view, many of the social and environmental
problems being discussed were not caused and are not perpetuated by a lack of
information. Other issues such as a lack of confidence in the existing political
system, or the weakness of social control mechanisms, were seen as more
fundamental concerns. In sum, education remains a valuable tool in the process
of change, but it is only one part of the solution. “... education is not
everything ... development of policy and structures that go beyond just making
people aware should be encouraged”.
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL POLICIES
regimes need to be adapted to complex institutional and international
situations. We also need to support management regimes that maintain the
integrity of ecological systems, e.g. the entire island approach with insular
systems. Furthermore management regimes need to be translated into mainstream
ecological processes and economic policies so as to avoid having two different
worlds working side by side in a non-productive manner. For instance, we need to
understand how major urban core regions are linked to transnational economic
processes. The fruits of the CSI initiative should feed into these agendas.
ON SHARING EXPERIENCES AND INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
participants felt that the workshop provided an opportunity for sharing
experiences and lessons learnt from the different pilot projects. In a similar
light, sharing experiences from other situations where integrated management is
required might be useful, e.g. integrated transport systems.
one late night session, the preceding discussions together with the overheads
prepared by the participants (Annex 2) were used to
compile a list of wise practice criteria/characteristics and qualifiers. This
list is presented below, and was discussed in detail in parallel
THE VIEWPOINT OF URBAN AND INDUSTRIALIZED SITES: REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS
Participants: J. Calvo, G. Campeol, S. Diop, H. Dube, A. El Mouatez, S. Fazi
industrialization of the productive processes and urban expansion seems to apply
to all coastal regions, uneven geography and pace of economic and environmental
change mediate the configuration, types and magnitude of stressors to
coastal/island ecosystems. The dynamics of the current international division of
labour also teaches us that we increasingly are dealing with non-linear,
sometimes two-way directions of change. On the developed end, we are witnessing
the presence of the trans-territorial production, de-industrialization of former
core industrial coastal areas; ex-urbanization of the Maquiladoras and the
Guang-Zhou economic zone, and the African post-independent urbanization without
the other hand, local coastal communities are constantly dealing with
exclusionary urban policies and unresponsive delivery of services and
infrastructure, while having to cope with the loss of accessible fishing grounds
and coastal arable land. To add to the complexity, the last four decades have
seen the declining efficacy of locally accountable financing and political
institutions in the urban regions, which has endorsed the growth of portfolio
investment that tends to disregard long-term environmental costs. The exposé of
problems, resource use and coastal zone management over the last three days
forces us to broaden, rather than narrow, the contexts of each of our
undertakings. What we need is a sufficiently inclusive problematic for the
urban-industrial coastal region and small islands.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH FOR WISE PRACTICES IN
the range of coastal resources use and exploitation is present in
urban/industrialized coastal sites, this gives a particular importance to the
need for identification of criteria and wise practices for sustainable
THE DISCUSSION OF THE WORKING GROUP FOCUSED ON:
some geographic categories in the urban-industrial relationship;
and ordering, in a hierarchical way, the list of criteria for wise practices;
the application of some of these wise practices in a particular geographic
category, such as an area with relevant risk of pollution and explosion (i.e.
petrochemical industrial site);
a “compatibility factor” as an indicator of the level of urban-environmental
conflict to be used as a guideline to solution identification.
it is possible to select some significant geographical categories of the
relationship between urban-industrial coastal sites that range from megacities
to small coastal cities:
megacities having a large number of industries with a high environmental risk (Jakarta
coastal cities surrounded by a big industrial pole (Omisalj);
coastal cities with a patch distribution of small and different industries (Essaouira).
the criteria identified by the plenary section are valid and important. In
particular, for all the geographical categories the list can be prioritized as
Local community level:
Legislation and normative.
order to show the applicability of the wise practices, the case of a “high
environmental risk in the north Mediterranean area” (pollution and explosion)
has been discussed. Applying the criteria (following the hierarchy a c), it is
possible to indicate some actions of wise practices as:
|1.|| Sanitary security of the population:
|2.|| Improvement of production cycles:
|3.|| “Requalification” of urban areas:
same methodological approach can be used in the other geographical categories
taking into account local characteristics, local environmental problems and the
THE VIEWPOINT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES COPING WITH GLOBAL FORCES REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS
this group, the terms of reference were discussed and the decision taken that
the list of criteria would be examined to see if they are relevant to the above
topic. Members of the group reviewed the list, with the following results.
Local institutional strengthening and capacity building:
Effective communication process:
Does it encourage/ challenge the people to evaluate their cultural framework to be more environmentally sound?
Strengthening local identities:
Maximum (consensus) benefit:
Political and cultural dimensions:
THE VIEWPOINT OF SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES: REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS
group agreed to go through the items listed, rewording and clarifying, if
necessary, and characterizing the items if possible as universal or of specific
importance. In some cases, the entire group did not agree on whether an item was
universal or selective, in which case the word consensus was added.
Capacity building and institutional strengthening:
It was agreed to delete this characteristic since it was already included in “Consensus building”.
Strengthening of ethnic identity:
Empowerment of users:
Political and cultural dimension: