| Environment
and development in coastal regions and in small islands |
Coastal region and small island papers 9
Annex 4
WISE
PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS
AS AN EVALUATION TOOL
The
wise practice characteristics and their definitions are listed below in italics.
Workshop discussion items and, in some cases, recommendations are included under
individual characteristics. One new characteristic was proposed; this is listed
under ‘General comments’.
Long-term
benefit: The benefits of the activity are still evident
‘x’ years from now and they improve environmental quality.
Potential
benefits should be identified at the planning stage of the project, so that
progress can be assessed during periodic evaluations. The timeframe of the
long-term benefits (‘x’) should be identified for each project.
Intangible benefits, e.g. confidence building, legal empowerment should be
included. The issue of whether the benefits are project-confined or apply to
a wider population also merits consideration.
Capacity
building and institutional strengthening:
The activity provides improved management cap abilities and education for
the stakeholder groups, as well as knowledge and efforts to protect the
local coastal/marine environment.
There
was discussion as to whether these two items should be separated, for
capacity-building deals with people, e.g. the number of fishermen trained,
while institutional building deals with organizational units, e.g. a unit is
established for integrated coastal management. However, in view of the fact
that there are significant overlaps between the two, it was decided to
retain the characteristic as one item.
Sustainability:
The activity adheres to the principles of sustainability (the extent to
which the results will last and development continue once the project/programme
has ended).
The evaluation would need to determine different aspects of
sustainability, e.g. financial, human.
Transferability:
Aspects of the activity can be applied to other sites in and/or outside
of the country.
The project planning process should define which project components are
potentially transferable locally, nationally, regionally and globally.
Interdisciplinary
and intersectoral: The activity fully incorporates all
relevant disciplines and all societal sectors.
Due
to budget and time resources, it may not be feasible to include all relevant
disciplines; in such cases, priority disciplines need to be determined.
Participatory
process: Transparent participation of all the stakeholder
groups as well as the involvement of individuals is intrinsic to the process.
Identification
of all stakeholder groups is a vital component of any project and its
evaluation.
Consensus
building: The activity should benefit a majority of the
stakeholder groups, whilst bearing in mind that in some cases certain
under-privileged groups may need to be treated as special cases.
This
characteristic may need to be re-drafted to encompass the concept of benefit
sharing (this might need to be linked to long-term benefit).
Effective
and efficient communication process:
A multidirectional communication process involving dialogue, consultation
and discussion is needed to attain awareness.
Culturally
respectful: The process values local traditional and cultural
frameworks while also challenging their environmental validity.
It
was recommended that this characteristic should be termed ‘Locally
sensitive’ instead of ‘Culturally respectful’.
Gender
and/or sensitivity issues: The process accounts for the many aspects
of gender and/or other sensitive issues.
Strengthening
local identities: The activity provides a sense of belonging and
self-reliance at various levels.
National
legal policy: The activity adheres to current government
environmental, economic, legal and social policies.
The
definition needs rewording since it is sometimes necessary to change
government policy. It was suggested that the definition should read ‘the
activity progressively shapes current government environmental, economic,
legal and social policies.’
Regional
dimension: The activity should embody the regional economic,
social and environmental perspective.
Human
rights: The activity should provide freedom to exercise
fundamental human rights.
Documentation:
The activity and the lessons learnt have been well documented.
Evaluation:
The activity has been assessed to determine the extent to which ICM has
been achieved and/or wise practice characteristics utilized.
General
Comments
An
additional characteristic was proposed, as follows:
Cultural
transformation: Positive ways in which the activity influenced
existing cultural patterns or behaviour.
Focus
of evaluation: It was agreed that any evaluation should focus on
project activities that have been achieved to date, not those that are
likely to be undertaken in the future.
Verifiable
indicators: Wherever possible, it is recommended to use
verifiable indicators.
Linkage
of characteristics:
Some of the characteristics are linked and this should be taken into account in the determining of
performance during an evaluation, e.g. the ‘Culturally respectful’ and
‘Strengthening local identities’ characteristics.
Numerical
or grouped evaluation indicators: Grouped indicators were used during the workshop
trial, namely Full, Partial, None and Unknown. One suggestion was to use a
scale of 1–10 instead.