in coastal regions and in small islands
Coastal region and small island papers 9
2. Synthesis of the Workshop Results
section presents a synthesis of the major outcomes of the workshop. It is based
on the presentations and discussions that are presented in Section 3 and their
corresponding annexes. CSI’s
work being a continuous and integrated process, it should be noted that the
actual workshop is only a first step; the follow-up work is likely to continue
for several years. The major results from this workshop relate in particular to:
for project assessment/evaluation;
project activities; and
for Project Assessment/Evaluation
assessment, as an essential project activity, was discussed on several occasions
during the workshop. The goal of such assessments is to advance project
an earlier workshop in Paris in 1998 entitled ‘Towards
Wise Coastal Development Practice’/‘Pratiques
Éclairées pour un Developpement Humain Durable dans les Régions Côtières’
(UNESCO-CSI 2000), wise practices were defined as ‘actions, tools, principles
or decisions that contribute significantly to the achievement of environmentally
sound, socially equitable, culturally appropriate and economically sound
development in coastal areas’. In order to attempt a clarification of this
very general definition, a list of characteristics was proposed to further
define wise practices; these were subsequently modified during electronic
discussions and the WiCoP
forum. These characteristics provide a framework for evaluation, and are as
building and institutional strengthening
and efficient communication process
and/or sensitivity issues
for these 16 wise practice characteristics, as well as additions, suggested
improvements and modifications proposed by the work-shop participants, are
included in Annex 4. The characteristics include
goal-oriented criteria, such as long-term benefit; means-oriented criteria, such
as documentation; and value-based criteria, such as gender and sensitivity
issues. However, not all the characteristics fall easily into a particular
category, and further refinement may be necessary.
the last day of the workshop, these characteristics were used as the basis for a
trial evaluation of two pilot projects: ‘Managing
beach resources and planning for coastline change, Caribbean islands’ and
‘Education for sustainable village
living, Saanapu and Sataoa villages, Upolu Island, Samoa’. The results
were discussed in detail. Following this, other small-island pilot projects and
chairs we re evaluated using the same characteristics, and while there was
insufficient time to fully discuss these further evaluations, they have been
retained as starting points for future, more detailed project assessments.
workshop participants endorsed the concept of regular project
assessment/evaluation and recommended that the wise practice characteristics,
with some modifications, constitute the framework for assessment. Project
activities to date could be assessed against the characteristics on a scale of
1–10, with 1 representing minimal compliance and 10 being full compliance,
using verifiable indicators wherever possible. Furthermore, it was recommended
that project assessments/evaluations should be conducted as a combined activity
between project personnel and outside evaluators, and should be conducted on a
regular basis, possibly every two years.
in order for project assessment to be successful, certain conditions must be in
place and specific constraints recognized, as outlined hereafter:
needs to be full co-operation between the pilot project personnel and the
must always be undertaken in the spirit of advancing a project/chair
activity, not in the sense of rating the activity.
cultural and individual traits need to be recognized, e.g. admission of
possible negative project experiences may be difficult, if not impossible,
in some cultures, and ways around such constraints must be sought.
project documentation must be made available, in advance, to the people
involved in the assessment.
assessments themselves must be fully documented.
project assessments may also provide an opportunity for inter-project exchange,
as will be discussed below.
the project and university chair activities were presented and discussed during
the workshop, the commonalities between specific local activities in different
parts of the world became apparent to the participants. For instance, during a
discussion following a presentation on a ‘Water supply infra-structure project
in Samoa’ on the open day, the issue of beach sand mining was debated with
examples of management approaches and case studies from islands all over the
world. The opportunity to interlink the pilot project and university
chair/twinning activities, so that combined they provide an overall and more
comprehensive picture of wise practices in small islands, was recognized by the
1998 fishers from the Portland Bight,
Jamaica project visited their counterparts in Haiti, and this visit was
followed by the Haitian fishers visiting
Portland Bight. This successful exchange benefited fishers in each country
by exposing them to different fishing techniques, and providing opportunities
for them to learn about their respective environmental problems. During the
workshop, the potential for other such exchanges, e.g. between fishers from San
Andrés (Colombia) and Portland Bight (Jamaica), was discussed.
example of inter-project exchange is at present in progress between the Haitian
pilot project and the ‘Managing
beach resources and planning for coastline change, Caribbean islands’ (COSALC)
project. Techniques for beach monitoring, developed and successfully implemented
in the latter project, are in the process of being transferred to the project in
Haiti. Future collaboration between the COSALC
project and the Portland Bight project
was also discussed.
the workshop, an evening session was conducted to outline the techniques used
for beach monitoring in the COSALC
project and to demonstrate the analysis protocols and outputs. Manuals and
copies of the software were provided to the participants.
linkages should not be confined to CSI
projects/chair activities. The workshop of representatives from the ‘Samoan
coastal fisheries extension project’, funded by the Australian
Agency for International Development (AusAID), was of benefit to all participants.
Several contributions about the activities of this project have also been posted
on the WiCoP forum
and have prompted considerable debate. (See Annex 6.18.)
open day session, where representatives of other agencies had the opportunity to
present their activities in the small-island environment and development field,
was very successful and presented an opportunity for useful interaction and
information-sharing. Similar inter-agency meetings, held in the individual
islands in the different regions, would provide further opportunities for
issue of particular interest to most small islands, tourism, has also been
intensely debated on the WiCoP
forum. The pilot project in Ulugan Bay,
the Philippines, focuses particularly on sustainable tourism, and it
provides many potential wise practices for ecotourism, which are of particular
interest to other projects working or planning to work in this are a, e.g. the
projects in Samoa and Portland
proposed UNITWIN network, which will include
six universities in Asia and the Pacific, will facilitate collaborative research
and training and will support the pilot projects in the area. This network is in
the process of being established. Many small islands do not have a university
campus; however, in the case of the University of the South Pacific and the
University of the West Indies, extension centres exist in many of the Pacific
and Caribbean islands. The potential exists in the future to involve these
universities and their small-island networks.
The workshop participants endorsed the concept of initiating and strengthening inter-project/activity exchanges as a means to inter-link and advance the various activities. CSI confirmed that they were willing to consider funding such exchanges subject, of course, to budget limitations. It was further recommended that in any such exchange, the activities must benefit both projects. These inter-project exchanges could be combined with project assessments.
to the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy (2002–2007)
modalities and goals of the CSI
platform were extensively discussed and debated
during the workshop and especially during the final session (see Section 3). The
major recommendations issuing from the debate covered the three modalities of
pilot projects, university chairs/twinning networks and the WiCoP
included the possible need for a fourth modality ‘wise practice
implementation’. The recommendations are presented below:
Pilot projects should be renamed ‘field projects’. The term ‘pilot
project’ indicates that the activity is a precursor of a larger activity when,
in fact, several CSI
projects are fully-fledged projects in their own right.
Other terms such as ‘experimentation projects’ were also discussed.
Wise practice implementation is an important part of the process and must be
recognized as such. At present the point where projects move from pilot to
implementation is blurred. While wise practice implementation can be included
under the project modality, it may be better to include a distinct fourth
There may be a need to terminate or bring to a close certain pilot projects
because of non-productivity.
Any new pilot projects should be carefully designed, with clearly defined goals,
objectives and time frames, and should cover new content areas and/or fill
geographical gaps in the existing network of projects. Personnel and time
constraints within CSI
in Paris and in the field offices concerned also need to
Alternative and complementary mechanisms to the university chairs should be
explored in order to provide innovative training and support to the pilot
projects. While the presentations and discussions relating to the chair at the
University of the Philippines and the proposed chair at the University of Papua
New Guinea clearly demonstrated the usefulness of these initiatives, they are
very time-consuming to establish. The UNITWIN network, with modifications, may
be an alternative mechanism, and another suggestion was to establish UNESCO-CSI
focal points in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean regions.
The WiCoP forum should be refocused to further advance the on-the-ground activities of the pilot projects and university chairs/twinning networks. This will require the full co-operation of all persons involved in these activities to actively contribute new ideas and initiatives to the forum.