 |
Environment
and development in coastal regions and in small islands |
 |
|
Environment
and development in coastal regions and in small islands |
|
 |
work in progress 2
APPENDIX VII
Analysis of the Characteristics of Wise Practices
Long term benefit: the benefits of the activity are still evident ‘x’ years from now and they improve environmental quality.
This characteristic is implicit, since if a practice is being presented to the Forum as an example wise practice, then obviously it will be providing long term benefit.
All the EWPs state or imply that long term benefit is associated with the practice. Of the 52 primary contributions to the Forum, 46 contain specific discussions relating to long term benefit.
In general the long term benefits describe direct and indirect ways to improve the quality of life for people living in the coastal zone. Many EWPs describe more than one type of long term benefit (hence the number of benefits listed below exceed 46). The nature of the long term benefit varies according to the EWP, the benefits are categorised below into tangible and less-tangible benefits.
Tangible benefits
Economic benefit (undefined) (2 EWPs)
Sustainable tourism (5 EWPs)
Sustainable industrial and infrastructural development (4 EWPs)
Preservation of historical buildings (2 EWPs)
Improved building methods (3 EWPs)
Sustainable agricultural development (2 EWPs)
Sustainable resource extraction (4 EWPs)
Sustainable fisheries (6 EWPs)
Provision of safe drinking water (4 EWPs)
Pollution reduction/improved waste management (3 EWPs)
Ecosystem conservation: mangroves (1 EWP), beaches (4 EWPs), turtles (1 EWP), coral reefs and seagrass beds (2 EWPs)Less tangible benefits
Improved institutional structure for ICM: inter-agency coordination (2 EWPs), public/private partnerships (1 EWP), intersectoral linkages (1 EWP), regional interaction (3 EWPs), coastal regulations (2 EWPs)
Community based management (3 EWPs)
Strengthening stakeholder groups (2 EWPs)
Community financial responsibility for environmental improvements (2 EWPs)
Changing community attitudes (3 EWPs)
Enhanced local control of resources (1 EWP)
Focused education (3 EWPs)
Improved communication (2 EWPs)
Improved working safety and living conditions (2 EWPs)
Combining traditional and modern practices (2 EWPs)
Conservation of rural way of life (1 EWP)
Only a few EWPs attempt to define the time scale of ‘long term’. This varies from 10 to 20 years in relation to ecosystem restoration/conservation, to a lifetime (70 years) for educational benefits.
Because of the preliminary nature of many of the EWPs, few try to define indicators of long term benefit or ways to evaluate long term benefit. Inevitably, most indicators are specific to the particular context. Some indicators mentioned in the EWPs are included below as examples:
Results from baseline surveys and follow-up surveys (53);
Rate of beach change and number of buildings constructed before and after safe setbacks instituted (2);
Formation of sand dunes as an indicator of beach recovery (49);
Village laws enforced and marine protected areas operating (46);
Quality of life indicators based on catch, market price and minimum wage (12);
Number of communities, NGOs and partnerships strengthened and/or actively participating (73).
Capacity building and institutional strengthening: the activity provides improved management capabilities and education for the stakeholder groups as well as knowledge and efforts to protect the local coastal/marine environment.
Almost all the EWPs (49 EWPs) discuss this characteristic, the only exceptions are some contributions dealing with unwise practices.
The nature of the capacity building/institutional strengthening can be divided into two groups:
actions to strengthen specific sectors of society, and
actions to establish linkages between different sectors of society.
Many EWPs define capacity building/institutional strengthening in more than one way, and these different ways are included in the lists that follow.
Specific sectors of society strengthened:
Non government stakeholder groups (13 EWPs);
Local communities (12 EWPs);
Family groups (2 EWPs);
Government agencies (federal) (10 EWPs);
Government agencies (local) (5 EWPs);
International institutions (1 EWP);
Non-government organisations (2 EWPs);
UNESCO Chair students (2 EWPs);
Local professionals (7 EWPs).
Linkages between different sectors of society established:
All stakeholders (government, private sector, resources users, professionals, workers, general public, developers, communities, women’s groups, youth groups, tribal groups) (11 EWPs);
Inter-agency (government and non government) (5 EWPs);
Inter-disciplinary (2 EWPs);
International cooperation (2 EWPs);
Elders and younger groups (traditional practices) (2 EWPs).
Some additional ideas in the discussion of capacity building and institutional strengthening include:
The need to show the public that their participation has actually influenced the activity - in this case environmental impact assessments, (87);
Government officials need to have the knowledge, confidence and freedom to challenge government policy where appropriate (55).
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.
Sustainability is discussed either directly or indirectly in 48 of the primary contributions.
Since many of the EWPs are either conceptual or in the early implementation phase, it is a little premature to discuss sustainability except in a ‘hoped for’ context. For instance, several authors mention that the involvement of all stakeholders in an activity/practice should ensure its sustainability/continuation beyond project life. However, as is shown in two EWPs, (12, 88), the involvement of all stakeholders, while desirable and possibly essential, does not necessarily guarantee sustainability.
Of the 48 EWPs that discuss sustainability:
34 EWPs are thought to be sustainable;
Nine were considered sustainable (2, 3, 12 [shell fishery in Chile], 20, 22, 23, 29, 185, 190);
Three of the EWPs were not sustainable (12 [yellow clam fishery in Uruguay], 43, 88).
(Note that the EWP submitted by Defeo and Castilla (12) includes two fisheries projects, these have been separated into two sections for the discussion of the sustainability characteristic).
Of the three EWPs which are not sustainable, this is due to several different reasons. In one case, (12 [yellow clam fishery in Uruguay]), the failure was due to a unilateral decision by one of several partners; in a second case, (88), the failure was due to a natural disaster and this case also illustrated that three years was too short a period to judge whether a practice is sustainable; and in the third case, (43) the wisdom of the practice is debatable.
The ways in which the EWPs are thought to be sustainable vary considerably, and are grouped below:
Involvement, activation and development of all stakeholder groups (community groups, NGOs, resource users, government, private sector) (22 EWPs);
Through governance: development of regulations and standards (7 EWPs), new institutional structures (4 EWPs), development of inter-sectoral linkages (3 EWPs);
Development/implementation of a tool (e.g. environmental impact assessment) or publication (4 EWPs);
Conservation of natural and cultural resources (4 EWPs);
Using traditional practices that had worked in the past (2 EWPs);
Changing social practices (1 EWP);
Controlling numbers of users (1 EWP);
Activity becomes self-financing (1 EWP);
Transfer of knowledge to a specialised group (1 EWP).
There are several other interesting concepts that emerge in the discussions of sustainability, which are not easily grouped but are nevertheless important to consider:
‘……the perception of ownership by the fishers is one of the most important points that determined the success of this wise management practice,’ (12 by Defeo and Castilla [shell fisheries in Chile]).
‘The participation of some institutions….whose polices are directly linked to the party lines of the ongoing government, poses doubts for the sustainability issue.’ (66 by Calvo).
‘The sustainability of such a monitoring network rests on: recognition of the obligations of each of its members, agreements on data sharing, and adoption of common standards.’ (58 by Thia-Eng).
‘Had it not been for the volcanic crisis the wise practice may have been sustainable in the long term……..generations are needed before we can claim to have changed attitudes.’ (88 by Cambers).
Traditional practices, such as the use of taboos have worked in the past ‘…. but they are very hard to impose these days for fear of treading on the freedom of the individual and on individual rights. Thus it raises an important question of social contract…….. responsibility to collective well being versus individual responsibility and accountability.’ (3 by Voi).
‘Many of the coastal practices are judged on their ability to contain conflicts. Conflicts normally arise at the interface of tradition and modernity.’ (18 by Sudarshana).
Transferability: aspects of the activity can be applied to other sites, in and/or outside of the country.
Transferability was one of the issues that was debated during the workshop ‘Towards wise coastal development practice’ held in Paris in 1998, and there was considerable divergence of opinion. The word ‘practice’ may be defined as ‘frequently repeated act’, thus the idea of repetition is implied, the question arises as to the location of the repetition. Of the 52 primary contributions to the Forum, most of them (35 EWPs) indicate that transferability of the EWP is feasible. Most authors feel that transferability is possible at a general level, but that detailed implementation of a wise practice will vary because of national and cultural differences.
Of the 35 EWPs where transferability is considered feasible:
14 EWPs are considered transferable to other countries (without qualification);
10 EWPs are considered transferable to the rest of the same country and to other countries in the same region;
11 EWPs are considered transferable only to other parts of the same country.
Of the 35 EWPs which are considered to be transferable, seven had actually been transferred to other areas, these were:
(29): the experiences and work practices had been transferred to other restoration projects in the same city;
(78): the experiences from a wise practice in one city had been transferred to another city through a ‘twinning’ process;
(2): the wise coastal development building practice had been transferred to three other islands;
(88), and the subsequent discussion thread (142, 149, 151, 154): through this process, aspects of a wise practice concerning beach sand mining in one island are being transferred to another island in a different region (Caribbean/Pacific);
(20): a ‘coping strategy’ based on building the capacity to combine local and international relations was applied in two different localities;
(216): where the experiences of a union of local government municipalities has been applied nation wide;
(215): the experiences of a local governments union, including document models, are being used by other local governments in the country in the water management sector.
Transferability is not discussed in 16 of the EWP contributions.
One EWP, (55) focuses on the negative aspects of transferability in a situation where a beach erosion mitigation measure was transferred from a continental country to an island.
One EWP, (20) contains an interesting discussion relating to transferability, part of which is reproduced here.
‘The idea of universal and transferable wise practices can be questioned - apart from very general statements……What might be considered as wise in one environmental, social or cultural context, could be unwise in another. Apart from this contextual perspective, we also have the problem of interdependency, as practices in different localities may be interdependent…………. In a world of more global connectivity, it thus may be unwise to transfer practices by copying, but transmission of experiences of different opportunities in specific contexts and in more principal terms can be an important inspiration.’
One EWP (3), further develops the issue of transferability and suggests the wise practice characteristics could be developed into an international ethical conduct instrument for assessing developments and businesses. (See discussion thread: 8, 25, 27, 36, 44).
Participatory process: transparent participation of all the stakeholder groups as well as the involvement of individuals is intrinsic to the process.
Fifty of the 52 EWP contributions discuss this characteristic and indicate that a participatory approach was used in their example or that they planned to use such an approach. The characteristic is not specifically discussed in two of the EWP contributions.
All types of stakeholder groups are included in the various EWPs from tribal groups to land owners, from communities to governments.
Five EWPs note that not all the stakeholder groups are included, various reasons were cited: financial constraints (42), the need to concentrate on just local stakeholders (185), the dependence of participation on perceived benefit (71), difficulty with obtaining private sector involvement (190) and the lack of clear demonstration of economic benefits to the stakeholders (52).
The nature of the participation varies considerably, from empowering tribal groups to oversee fisheries uses (62) to local communities controlling sand extraction (49), and from NGOs recharging wells (41) to community financial contribution to development projects (26).
The usefulness of sociological surveys in the participatory process is discussed in three EWPs: (28, 53, 78).
Some other interesting discussions are included below:
‘There is a limit to how far private investors can involve all local stakeholders…. It is easier for an investor to deal with local stakeholders (fishermen) who have an interest in one particular reef…’ (185 by Riedmiller).
The project ‘…has enabled a certain number of actors to form a partnership….’ (29 by El Mouatez).
Contact with other agencies with experience in the area was very beneficial in terms of information, contacts with local representatives and information, (26 by Diop and Tandia)..
‘… identification and classification of priority actions by the populations themselves.’ (19 by Diop and Soumare).
The level of participation of the various groups varied between the design and implementation phases of the project, ‘…there is a need for consistency and transparency in implementation.’ (2 by Cambers).
Following the first stage of the project which included national and international experts, it was clear ‘that the knowledge base and suggestions elaborated in this framework needed to be assimilated and re-elaborated by the local population.’ (28 by Campeol and Pypaert).
Consensus building: the activity should benefit a majority of the stakeholder groups, whilst bearing in mind that certain under-privileged groups may need to be treated as special cases.
Most contributors, 36, discuss this characteristic. Twenty six of the EWPs state or imply that the wise practice involved all the stakeholders. However, involvement of all the stakeholders relates more to the participatory process characteristic. Consensus building goes one step beyond involvement, and includes obtaining general agreement among the stakeholders. So it is one step to involve all the stakeholders and yet another, and perhaps more difficult step, to get the majority to agree on the issue/practice. Possibly some of the confusion arose because this characteristic was listed before the participatory process characteristic on the original list.
Six contributions state that the EWP had benefited some stakeholders, but not all. This is the type of outcome to be expected from consensus building, since it is often nearly impossible to get 100% agreement. One contribution, (42), states that not all the stakeholders had been involved, but acknowledges that they should have been.
Two contributions, (22, 23), discuss consensus building in terms of the financial benefit to the stakeholders.
One contribution, (70), acknowledges that the EWP would not contribute directly to consensus building, but will facilitate cross cultural understanding, an important key to consensus building.
Some other ideas emerged.
In one case, (2), modifications had to be made to the EWP in order to accommodate one minority stakeholder group, and it was questioned whether this modification might reduce the overall benefit of the wise practice in the long term by setting a precedent for one group.
‘….one must ensure that “no one should be left on the sidelines”. The project has made sure that all the social and socio-professional layers of society are aware of the problem. However, the intensity of involvement is always linked to the degree of awareness and of the personal gain that the population hopes to acquire through the project.’ (71 by Boina).
‘The wise practice will benefit a majority of the stakeholder groups especially traditional landowners … who own 97% of the land mass of Papua New Guinea. Some developers and financiers …will oppose the wise practice.’ (13 by Gaudi).
‘The planning process is beginning to rally local villages and urban communities. One of the main unresolved concerns relates to the participation of the private sector.’ (190 by Henocque).
‘The consensus building will decrease conflicts between economic and environmental factors.’ (100 by Siirala).
Effective and efficient communication process: a multidirectional communication process involving dialogue, consultation and discussion is needed to attain awareness.
The nature of the communication process is discussed in 36 of the EWPs and it is considered an important characteristic.
Three EWPs note that the communication process was inadequate. Reasons for this range from time and financial constraints (42), to inadequate infrastructural (roads, telephone, radio) networks (190), to difficulties involved in reaching an entire island’s population (2).
Several EWPs emphasise the need for a multi directional communication process.
The main methods used in communication are as follows:
large meetings and consultations, workshops, family meetings, meetings of groups of friends, one-on-one meetings;
documents, books, primers, brochures, newspapers, CD-ROMS;
public information and environmental education campaigns, projects, exposure/study tours;
theatre;
radio;
television, video, advertising;
street side satellite data relay systems.
Some EWPs describe special communication needs for:
communities with low levels of literacy (2 EWPs);
young people (3 EWPs);
other specific target groups - not specified (2 EWPs).
Three EWPs mention the need for communication in the local language: (17, 28, 70, 131).
Four EWPs discuss communication and traditional practices:
(48) describes ‘chats’ between young and old fishermen to describe traditional practices;
(70) describes the development of a school primer to record traditional life styles to be used in non formal education for a group of maritime hunters-gatherers;
(22) shows how the construction of traditional adobe houses provided an incentive for others to imitate;
(23) demonstrates how traditional rural knowledge of medicinal and local plants helped promote a new horticultural philosophy.
A successful project is one of the best means of communication (22, 23, 49).
Two EWPs mention that it is easier to have an effective communication process in a small island than in a larger population. (59, 88).
The private sector is in a good position to carry out effective communication because this is one of the main criteria for successful business management (185).
Culturally respectful: the process values local traditional and cultural frameworks while also challenging their environmental validity.
The culturally respectful characteristic is discussed in 35 of the EWPs.
The focus of eight of the EWPs is primarily on ways to articulate traditional knowledge and practices in the context of contemporary activities:
traditional fishing practices, including the use of taboos, and societal groups (3, 46, 48, 62);
traditional building practices (22);
a move back to native horticulture (23);
preservation of a rural way of life (77);
local marriage practices (86).
Twenty EWPs include traditional concerns in their planning and implementation.
Seven EWPs question specific traditional practices in the context of societal change and renewal (2, 52, 59, 71, 190, 185). These EWPs include a range of ‘new’ wise practices from the control of land use and sand mining to the conservation of corals and turtles. And with one exception, they all involve small islands.
Several other interesting ideas emerged:
‘A wise practice is to ensure cultural diversity is identified and promoted within a coastal development framework so as to engender a sense of belonging. This will encourage cultural tourism and job opportunities based on indigenous knowledge.’ (184 by Jury et al).
‘Simply prescribing cottage industries because there are people who make baskets is courting disaster. Somewhere within the prescription, there has to be an effective cultural dimension to link the actions.’ (78 by Fortes).
‘The overall objective is for sustainable coastal development through the self promotion of village communities. Thus the project takes into account traditional and customary activities of the villages. However, this can have a negative impact in that new industrial activities, interests and growing needs in the region may not be fully taken into account.’ (190 by Henocque).
Gender and/or sensitivity issues: the process accounts for the many aspects of gender and/or other sensitive issues.
Twenty eight EWPs address this characteristic, 24 do not discuss gender or sensitivity issues.
In 12 of the EWPs, the discussion on gender/sensitivity issues focuses specifically on women. Several of the EWPs which focused on fisheries issues note the important role that women played in fish processing and marketing (e.g. 17). Other EWPs addressed women’s role in sand extraction, design of traditional houses, rural communities and equal employment opportunities.
In nine of the EWPs discussion of this characteristic focuses on other social groups besides and/or as well as women. Other groups receiving special attention in the EWPs were students and young people (77), migrant and casual labourers (85).
Six EWPs discuss this characteristic in terms of sensitivity issues that developed between local residents and foreign developers. Since the development of new industrial activities e.g. fisheries, tourism, is often in the hands of overseas developers, this can lead to conflicts with local residents over traditional uses of the coast, land development, and preferential treatment of large investors.
Some other interesting ideas emerged:
‘In the local Islamic culture, women do not learn how to swim. In the Chumbe case, teaching school girls how to swim and snorkel in coral reefs for environmental education is a huge eye-opener, and necessary for developing feelings of ownership, as well as more political support for marine conservation.’ (185 by Riedmiller).
‘…..gender participation maintained a perfect balance in the activities, without any discrimination whatsoever. This is largely due to the stimulating input from the Mayor of Omišalj – a woman.’ (28 by Campeol and Pypaert).
‘The extension process involves separate meetings of several village groups, including women, untitled men, fishers and titled men. In this way, particular sections of the community are free to express opinions, which they may otherwise not do in large groups dominated by titled people.’ (46 by Kallie and Taua).
‘The participation approach developed in this project has enabled us to index and analyse the solutions proposed by all categories of actors (young people, women, old people, socio-professional categories, etc.).’ (19 by Diop and Soumare).
Strengthening local identities: the activity provides a sense of belonging and self-reliance at various levels.
Sixteen EWPs discuss this characteristic.
Authors feel that local identities could be strengthened by:
developing a sense of belonging (3 EWPs);
instilling concepts of resource ownership (4 EWPs);
establishing links between cultural identity and heritage (5 EWPs).
Decentralization, the reversal of urban migration, and the motivation of young people to stay in their own country are themes discussed in three other EWPs.
One EWP, (71) introduces a cautionary note, namely that strengthening identity at a very local level, e.g. the village level, might discourage cooperation.
Some other interesting concepts:
‘We therefore coexist with our land, forests and the sea that provided our life’s sustainability and nourishment. Our land and sea are us and we are them. This rather unique attachment to the land is almost religious and emotional …’ (13, 21 by Gaudi).
‘A wise practice would be to consider the types of employment the local people want. It would be wise to provide individuals within the community with training and institutional outreach programmes so that they can develop from within and take up more advanced positions in the employment sector’ (39 by Jury and Hoguane).
National legal policy: the activity adheres to current government environmental, economic, legal and social policies.
Fourteen EWPs consider this characteristic.
In six cases the EWP adheres to legal national policy.
In three EWPs, the local legislation is insufficient for conservation, (59, 71,185). The national judicial system was not recognised by the villagers, who were more inclined to respect local habits and customs or ‘traditional laws’ (59).
In two cases, (73, 216), contributors feel that the EWP would stimulate changes in legal policy.
Other interesting concepts that emerged:
‘Omišalj presents an interesting case study demonstrating the need to resolve the strong and existing conflict between local and centralised strategies. This is illustrated in the ‘conflict’ between the need to maintain a petrochemical industry of national interest and the local desire to develop activities linked to cultural tourism.’ (28 by Campeol and Pypaert).
‘The project is aiming at supporting new democratic policies and strengthening cooperation between public authorities, enterprises and inhabitants.’ (100 by Siirala).
Regional dimension: the activity should embody the regional economic, social and environmental perspective.
Fifteen EWPs discuss this characteristic. It is generally considered that the EWPs embody regional perspectives. The nature of these perspectives varies and include the East Asian economic slowdown, cross border issues, regional transportation systems and international marketing networks.
One EWP, (3), suggests that the wise practice characteristics should be developed into international instruments for the evaluation of existing and planned developments, e.g. a logging company, if complying with the characteristics, could use the seal of wise practices to market their products. Furthermore the concept could be further developed as an international treaty to bind states.
Some other interesting ideas emerged:
‘More than terrestrial conservation (game parks), marine conservation may have a potential impact far beyond national boundaries. The sea has no boundaries… ’ (185 by Riedmiller).
‘The project ……… gives the Municipalities involved and the company ‘Ziemelkurzeme’ Ltd. a chance to participate in the realisation of the Baltic Sea Strategy (Baltic 21).’ (215 by Klavins).
‘The regional, indeed international, dimension is inevitable in turtle protection and the fight against poaching. It would be misleading to limit actions to a local level. This demonstrates the importance of reinforcement and development of networks on a regional and international scale.’ (59 by Boina).
Human rights: the activity should provide freedom to exercise fundamental human rights.
Four EWPs discuss this characteristic. In three cases the EWP appears to be stimulating human rights issues in young democracies (28, 100, 216). In a fourth case, (59), ‘human rights’ are not the issue, since the EWP deals with a case where human activities were harming the environment.
Documentation: the activity and the lessons learnt have been well documented.
Forty one EWPs address this characteristic, 11 do not specifically address documentation. However, submitting an EWP to the Forum is one way of documenting the practice, so in this sense at least, all 52 EWPs have been documented, at least partially.
Thirty three of the EWPs specifically describe documentation in the form of papers, reports and publications.
Other forms of documentation discussed are laws, regulations, plans, posters, exhibitions, inventories, CD-ROMs, remote sensing tools and geographical information systems.
Four EWPs mention that the documentation process is incomplete, and one goes further to say that the documentation was unbalanced in terms of the subject areas involved (190).
Two EWPs discuss distribution and accessibility of the documentation (42, 70).
One EWP, (215) was developed into a paper and is subsequently defined as an Intellectual Investment belonging to the capital of a registered company.
One very relevant comment pertinent to the whole concept of wise practices is made by Espeut in 53 ‘Often innovative natural resource management efforts contain lessons for others. In order that the lessons not be lost, it is wise to document all interventions and their results, both positive and negative.’
Evaluation: the activity has been assessed to determine the extent to which ICM has been achieved and/or wise practice characteristics utilised.
Thirty two EWPs discuss this characteristic. The reason why so many contributors (20) did not discuss evaluation procedures most probably relates to the fact that so many of the EWPs are conceptual or in the early stages of implementation.
Of the 32 EWPs where evaluation is discussed, 18 have been/are being evaluated. Nine contributors indicated that it was too early to conduct an evaluation.
In 11 EWPs the evaluation consists of before and after surveys of natural resources e.g. flora, fauna, beach changes, pollution levels, salinity. Remote sensing is suggested as a tool for such evaluations.
Five EWPs describe evaluation of socio-economic factors e.g., social questionnaires, number of partnerships formed, implementation of investment programmes.
Two contributors suggest that the list of wise practice characteristics be used as a means of evaluation.
Five contributors describe how ongoing evaluations are used to drive/refocus projects:
(29, 79) describe how the various partners meet regularly to establish progress so that evaluation has become an integral part of the project.
(43) shows how evaluation led to a questioning of the wisdom of the practice.
(71) points out that an evaluation after one year indicated a need to concentrate on economic aspects.
(46) shows that ongoing evaluation directed efforts towards villages with the potential to manage their own resources, and to reduce/stop efforts for villages lacking this potential.
(73) indicates that the evaluation recommended the project should be expanded to a wider community and should focus on solid waste as an economic resource.
Some other interesting ideas emerged:
‘The work conducted to this day has produced results that have gone beyond the expectations of the promoters. The interested local administration has taken over the coordination; …’ (28 by Campeol and Pypaert).
‘In spite of the fact that the authors are far from being objective evaluators, they tried to find the key issues for others to learn from.’ (87 by Gronlund).
‘Approximately 20% of the communities perform poorly for various reasons …. Nevertheless, the fact that at least 25% of the communities are managing their own fisheries very effectively, indicates that communities are ready for self-management and indeed, value the opportunity.’ (46 by Kallie and Taua).
