coastal resources center - embracing the power of …coastal management for food secu-rity, poverty...

By James A.Tobey

Integrated coastal management(ICM) has been practiced world-

wide for almost three decades inboth small-scale pilot projects andnational efforts. Global recognitionof ICM and the number of fieldinterventions grew rapidly follow-ing the 1992 United NationsConference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED).The RioConference established ICM as thecentral vehicle for sustainablecoastal development. Now on theedge of a decade since Rio, theworld is turning its attention with

renewed interest on the accumulat-ed experience in applying ICMworldwide—what methods workand what methods do not, whatprogress has been achieved, andwhat needs to be done in thefuture? To capture lessons fromexperience and to develop reliableguidance for improved ICM in thefuture calls for a conscious empha-sis on learning strategies and activi-ties.

This issue of InterCoast is aboutlearning, where this refers to sys-tematically acquired knowledgethat informs and influences actions.

Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode IslandNarragansett, Rhode Island USA • #39 • Spring 2001

FO

CU

S O

N:

CR

OSS

-PO

RTFO

LIO

LE

AR

NIN

G

FO

R E

NH

AN

CIN

G I

CM

Highlights

6Voices from theVillage:AcrossPortfolioLearning in thePacific Islands

12Shrimp Farmingand theEnvironment

16WISE CoastalPractices:Whatand How

20Draining theSwamp andBeating Awaythe Alligators:Baseline 2000

ThemeAdvisor:

James A.Tobey

Landscape of Integrated CoastalManagement Learning ActivitiesBy Kem Lowry

Integrated coastal management(ICM) has been a recognized sub-

field of environmental managementfor almost three decades.Withinthat 30-year period, the recogni-tion of the potential importance ofcoastal management for food secu-rity, poverty alleviation, conserva-tion of bio-diversity, reduced riskfrom natural hazards and economicdevelopment has grown dramati-cally.The number of nations orsemi-sovereign states with coastalmanagement programs of somekind has grown from 57 in 1991 to95 in 2000, while the actual num-

nearly three decades of globalcoastal management experience?How can that learning be mosteffectively organized? Systematicresearch is obviously central to thisprocess, although research findingscannot always be translated intoneat lessons. Learning strategiesalso need to tap the wealth of prac-tical experience among ICM pro-fessionals. Like other professionals,ICM practitioners are constantlyseeking to make sense of what ishappening in their design andimplementation activities as well assolve specific problems. More sys-tematic attention to these practicalsense-making and problem-solvingactivities of practitioners couldresult in potentially important contributions to the intellectual

(continued page 3)

Embracing the Power of Learning

ber of programs has nearly doubledin the same period.

The growth of investments incoastal management has not beenmatched by a correspondingincrease in certainty about howbest to tailor the tools of coastalmanagement to the many programcontexts in which they are needed.While millions of dollars areinvested annually in coastal-relatedscientific and engineering research,the resources invested in addressingimportant coastal managementuncertainties and knowledge gapsare miniscule.

What is to be learned from the

We use the term cross-portfoliolearning to mean that the knowl-edge is acquired and given meaningthrough use across multiple ICMproject sites and interventions.Thiskind of learning is fundamental toimproving the success of coastalmanagement worldwide inaddressing coastal problems andforces of degradation. Learningfrom others, assimilating thatknowledge, and adapting it topractice offer the opportunity tomake rapid advances withoutrepeating others’ mistakes.

The contributions to this issue(continued page 2)

InterCoast • Spring 20012

Executive Editor:Stephen B. OlsenEditor: Noëlle F. LewisDesigner: Matt Castigliego

InterCoast is an internation-al newsletter of coastal man-agement, published three timeseach year by the CoastalResources ManagementProject of the University ofRhode Island's CoastalResources Center (CRC) andthe U.S. Agency forInternational Development(USAID). Funding to publishInterCoast is provided byUSAID's Global EnvironmentCenter and the NationalInstitute for Coastal andMarine Mangement,TheNetherlands.

InterCoast’s objective is tofacilitate information exchangeon coastal management issues.Readers are invited to contactNoëlle F. Lewis with contribu-tions, questions, and com-ments.

InterCoastCoastal Resources CenterUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansett, Rhode Island02882 USATel: 401 874-6870Fax: 401 789-4670E-mail: [email protected]: www.crc.uri.edu

InterCoast's policy is tolimit submissions to a shortessay or summary.The editorroutinely edits submissionsheavily and removes refer-ences. Such changes are com-monly made without furtherconsultation with the author.

describe cross-portfolio learningefforts in ICM and identify the top-ics that ICM educators/practition-ers have selected as priorities forimproving the effectiveness, reach,and impact of ICM activities.Lowry (page 1) develops a veryuseful roadmap to navigate throughthe potentially complex world oflearning topics and approaches.Applying Lowry’s taxonomy oflearning methods, we can sortmany of the contributions in thisissue in two categories: testingassumptions and case studies.

Four of the contributions fall inthe category of testing assump-tions.These involve rigorousempirical tests of causal assump-tions linking community condi-tions, project features or projectprocesses to project outputs andoutcomes. Pollnac (page 4)describes how systematic analysisand empirical testing across a largenumber of projects in thePhilippines has contributed to ourunderstanding of the factors mostimportant in influencing the suc-cess of community-based marineprotected areas (CB-MPAs).Predictors of overall success of theMPAs in the study sample are smallpopulation size, perceived marinefisheries crisis, abundance of alter-native income projects, high levelof community participation in deci-sionmaking, and continuing advicefrom the implementing organiza-tion. Equally important, the studysuggests that some commonly heldassumptions about good practiceare invalid for the region of thestudy.The research findings aredirectly feeding back to strategiesand practices of United StatesAgency for InternationalDevelopment’s (USAID) coastalresource management project inIndonesia.

The contribution by Gillett(page 6) describes an empirical

study commissioned by the WorldBank on the factors that contributeto success in coastal management.Information from 31 coastal com-munities in five Pacific Island coun-tries was collected from a total of133 small focus groups and ana-lyzed to help Pacific Island govern-ments and donors to better tailorcommunity-based coastal resourcemanagement policies and programsto the needs of local communities.The study found that some of thekey factors that influence successinvolve aspects of intersectoral col-laboration, the role of alternativeincome opportunities, and theimportance of outside assistance.

Parks, Johnson and Salafsky(page 8) describe a learning portfo-lio approach whereby a group ofprojects deliberately come togetherto collectively and systematicallylearn about the conditions underwhich a conservation tool works,does not work, and why. A learningportfolio is being developed amongprojects in the Indo-Pacific regionthat are interested in testing sharedassumptions and collecting stan-dardized information relevant toanswering questions being askedabout locally managed MPAs. Bydesigning for a systematic compari-son of projects, it is hoped that thecapacity of each project to achievespecific, measurable conservationobjectives will be strengthened. Inthis way, the authors explain thatthe net impact of the collaborativeeffort is “greater than the sum of itsparts.”

Christie and colleagues (page10) describe another collaborativelearning partnership on ICM with ageographic focus on the Philippinesand Indonesia.This learning effortis designed to empirically investi-gate the factors and conditions thatinfluence the sustainability of ICMand MPAs. Learning topics includedecentralization, community char-acteristics and dynamics, and strat-egies for human and institutional

(continued from page 1)Tobey

(continued page 34)

InterCoast • Spring 2001 3

TOPIC CATEGORIES IN INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT

Learning Focus Examples Types of QuestionsCoastal Resource Issues Causes of decrease in fish size and How are local fish stocks changing over time, if at all?

diversity (community scale) What are the local causes of decreases in fish size and Trends in fish catch per unit of effort diversity as seen by fishery biologists? By other stakeholders?

(national; global) What are the national and international trends in fish cash per unit of effort? In types of fish caught? What causal attributions do stakeholders make about changes in trends? How much scientific consensus is there about causes of trends?

Management Technologies Types of management tools used for What management tools such as marine reserves or gear restrictions specific resource issues such as fisheries are being used at the community level in tropical environments to

Effectiveness of alternative management increase the productivity of local fisheries?tools in different settings How effective are they? Under what circumstances are they less effective?

Capacity for Managment Management staff knowledge of In any particular ICM setting, what knowledge of coastal dynamics is resource conditions, coastal regarded as essential for effective planning and management? What skills dynamics, and community conditions aredeemed essential?needed for effective planning What knowledge or skill 'gaps' exist in any particular planning and management management setting? As determined by whom? What is known about how

Technical skills required for effective to make effective ICM planning and management 'capacity' judgments?planning and management What ICM 'capacity building' strategies have been found most effective?

Distribution of knowledge and skills Which less effective?in governing group

Community Context for ICM Local environmental conditions What are livelihood conditions in coastal communities designated forCommunity social organization management projects? How, if at all, does relative poverty shape communityCommunity livelihood conditions willingness to engage in self-management efforts?Traditions of self-governance What social structural factors are important in enhancing or impeding

community-based management efforts?How do traditions of self-governance affect community willingness to

engage in community management?

Program Design and Impact of program design processes What techniques of community mobilization are most likely to result inImplementation Processes on implementation processes and understanding and continued support of the ICM project?

outcomes What types of baseline studies have been done in support of Identification of 'best practices' for community projects? What has been learned about what constitutes a

ICM planning and management 'sufficient' analysis?How have communities been involved in the identification of coastal

issues to be addressed by the project? In the identification of alternative management tools? In the evaluation of alternative tools? What has beenlearned about how different techniques for involving communitiesenhance or impede community support and participation in implementation processes?

What problems have emerged in the implementation of community projects? How might they have been better anticipated in planning processes?

Institutional Design Design of institutions to address To what extent is 'free-riding' a problem in self-governing community 'free-riding', rent-seeking, user management efforts such as those using marine reserves? What institutionsconflicts, etc. have been designed-or have evolved---to address this and other resource

Design of institutions for inter- use issues? How effective are they?organizational coordination How do communities coordinate with local government? How is ICM

authority and management responsibility shared among levels of government? How effective are these arrangements? What problems have emerged? Have any adaptations occurred?

capital of ICM practice.What should we be learning

about? Several important topic cat-egories are shown in the tablebelow along with the types ofquestions that might be asked.(These questions are only exam-ples, most of which are focused oncommunity-level issues. A morecomplete elaboration of questionswould address issues at several geo-graphic or jurisdictional scales.)

Learning StrategiesLike other professionals, ICM

practitioners learn from experi-ence through observation, reflec-tion, exchanging stories, readingresearch reports and by means ofseveral other formal and informalinquiry strategies.

Case studies, evaluations, expertgroups and other learning methodsare all ways to organize raw per-ceptions, to sort them out, to cre-ate categories and to express inter-

actions and relationships amongvariables. How is all the informa-tion generated by these activities tobe used effectively? Donors decid-ing what types of projects to fundand practitioners confronting plan-ning and management designquestions face two practical dilem-mas:

� How do we create crediblegeneralizations from the mass ofinformation about ICM experi-ence?

(continued page 35)

(continued from page 1)Lowry


By Richard B. Pollnac

Decisionmakers in coastalresource management (CRM)

need to develop strategies and tac-tics that will maximize the chancesof success.They would like toknow that if procedures A, B and Care carried out, the probability ofsuccess is X. And that if C is notcarried out, the probability willreduce to Y, or if A, B, C and D arecarried out, the probability of suc-cess will increase to Z.The bestapproach to respond to this need isthe cross-portfolio researchmethod that determines interrela-tionships between variables in a setof observations of any type of phe-nomena. One first identifies thedependent variable of interest, forexample, success of some CRMobjective. Pre-existing theory andinformation are then used to iden-tify other characteristics of thecases believed to influence thedependent variable, such as prac-tices assumed to influence achieve-ment of a CRM objective.Thedependent and independent vari-ables are evaluated for each case,then statistical analyses are appliedto determine both the strength andstatistical significance of the rela-tionships between the variables.The results can be used to identifypractices or other characteristicsthat influence the achievements ofCRM objectives.

Similar techniques have longproven useful in determining fac-tors influencing the success of ruraldevelopment projects. Eliott R.Morss’ 1976 publication, Strategiesfor Small Farmer Development, isan excellent example. For coastaldevelopment and managementprojects, the author and his col-league, John J. Poggie, applied

these techniques in the 1980s toidentify factors influencing the suc-cess of fishers’ cooperatives.TheWorld Bank recently used the sametechniques to elucidate factorsinfluencing CRM in their recentstudy, Voices from the Village(Gillett, p. 6).This year (2001), theWorld Resources Institute pub-lished a document, Fish for theFuture?, describing the processthey are developing to collect com-parable data across some 22 SouthPacific and Sulu-Celebes Seamarine protected area (MPA) proj-ects to detect factors influencingproject success. Cross-portfolioanalysis and empirical testing is theonly way one can produce reliableinformation concerning the proba-bility of success of applying select-ed practices to cases (e.g., commu-nities) manifesting specified charac-teristics.

In order to conduct this type ofanalysis, one needs strictly compa-rable data collected from a sampleof CRM sites. Strictly comparabledata means that data on all vari-ables of interest are collected byemploying identical methods in allthe sites in the study sample. Dataof this type are rarely, if ever, avail-able in published material concern-ing CRM projects (e.g., CRM proj-ect reports, journal articles, etc.).This is a consequence of the factthat each author collects, analyzes,and writes-up their findings withvarying levels of objectivity as wellas different implicit or explicit the-oretical perspectives.

The cross-portfolio researchmethod was used by the author andhis colleagues (Brian Crawford andMaharlina Gorospe) to discoverfactors influencing the success ofcommunity based MPAs (CB-MPAs) in the Visayas, Philippines.

Objectives of most CB-MPAs aremultiple:

� Resource conservation andimprovement

� Community empowerment� Establishment of MPA hard-

ware and rules (e.g., marker buoys,guard house, community sign-boards, a management plan, etc.)

� Effective enforcement of rules� Recognition by community

members that the MPA is positivelyaffecting the resource

The research devised ways tomeasure the achievement of theseobjectives and developed a multi-component, composite measure ofproject success. A review of appliedsocial science theory, community-based MPA (CB-MPA) projectreports, and directed focus groupmeetings with Philippine andIndonesian MPA practitioners wereused to make a preliminary identi-fication of practices and site char-acteristics believed to influenceproject success.This resulted insome 300 variables to be evaluated.

The author, his research associ-ate Maharlina Gorospe, and a teamof Philippine research assistants vis-ited 45 communities with CB-MPAs in the Visayas, Philippines. Ineach community the success vari-ables as well as the practices andsite characteristics expected toinfluence project success wereevaluated.The resultant data setwas then analyzed. First, simple,zero-order correlations betweenthe summary success measure and64 distinct predictor variables werecalculated.Twenty-three (36 per-cent) of the predictor variablesmanifested a statistically significant(p <0.05) relationship with thesuccess measure. Step-wise multi-ple regression was used to identifythe specific combination of these

Learning Across Projects: Detecting FactorsInfluencing the Success of Coastal ResourceManagement

Te

st

ing

As

su

mp

tio

ns


belief that MPAsinitiated at the vil-lage level are morelikely to be success-ful. Many othervariables expectedto be related toMPA success alsoproved to be unre-lated in our sample.

The significanceof such findings isthat decisionmakerscan use them toavoid unnecessary,costly activities inCB-MPA projects. For exam-ple, it costs a great deal moreto have a full-time facilitator foreach village involved in a project. Ifpart-time facilitators achieve thesame level of success, as indicatedby the analysis, significant savingscan be made.

We do, however, have severalcautions with respect to applyingthe present analyses. First, nothinghas been said about the factorsinfluencing important predictorvariables, such as the success ofalternative income projects.We areplanning to identify some of thesefactors in future analyses of thedata. Second, some of the predictorvariables, such as population size orlevel of democracy seem to beinherent characteristics of a com-munity—possibly the result of his-torical forces in the area. Changingthese characteristics (e.g., improv-ing the level of democracy in acommunit) may prove to be a diffi-cult, long-term or impossible task.Perhaps, it would be most efficientto select sites manifesting thesepreconditions.Third, the resultsare useful to the extent that oneagrees that the success measuresused here are the right measures ofsuccess of a CB-MPA, and fourth,we do not know if the findings canbe generalized beyond the Visayasregion of the Philippines.

Finally, there are some who

argue that institutions such as CB-MPAs are the result of a mostlyunpredictable sequence ofantecedent human behavior, wherethe final results could be changedby any change in any step in thesequence. Hence, the relative suc-cess of any CB-MPA must beexplained as a consequence of itsunique history.Taken to theextreme, this approach denies theexistence of general processes thatinfluence the outcomes of humanbehavior.The question of whetherthere are general processesinvolved or that each case is aunique instance of human behavioris an empirical question. As such, itcan only be resolved by compara-tive field research such as thatreported here. Despite thesecaveats, the findings should proveto be a useful supplement to themany case studies found in the lit-erature. Application of the findingsshould improve the present successrate of CB-MPAs.They are directlyfeeding back to strategies and prac-tices of the Proyek Pesisir CoastalResource Management Project inIndonesia.The findings should alsostimulate further research to iden-tify in more detail the factors influ-encing the success of CB-MPAs. Inthe end, if ideas are to be moreinfluential, they will have to evolve

23 practices and site characteristicsthat best predict MPA success.Thisanalysis indicated that five factorsappear to be the most important ofall those studied in the overall suc-cess of the MPAs in our sample (R2

= 0.68, p<0.001).The five predic-tor variables are 1. population size(relatively small), 2. a perceived acrisis in terms of reduced fish pop-ulations before the MPA project, 3.percent successful alternativeincome projects, 4. a relativelyhigh level of community participa-tion in decision making, and 5.continuing advice from the imple-menting organization.

A simple way of illustrating thestrength of this finding is to giveeach project site a score represent-ing the number of characteristicsor practices that they manifest inthe right direction; for example,small population, high percentageof successful alternative incomeprojects, etc.We can then plot thesuccess score against the number ofpredictor variables as in Figure 1.This figure clearly illustrates that asthe number of predictor variablesincreases, so does the level of suc-cess of the MPA.

The methods applied in thispaper were capable of identifying aset of five practices and site charac-teristics—out of a very large set ofpossibilities—that seem to be cru-cial for the success of CB-MPAs.Some variables widely assumed tobe important for CB-MPA successdid not appear so in the analyses—only a little more than one-third ofthe predictor variables were signifi-cantly correlated with the compos-ite success measure. For example, anumber of published papers as wellas practitioners suggest that a full-time village facilitator is an impor-tant pre-condition to success.Thecorrelation analyses indicated thatthis factor does not have a signifi-cant relationship with the successmeasure used here.The same holdstrue for the almost ubiquitous

Figure 1. Success score versus number ofpredictor variables at each site.

1 2 3 4

Total Number of Positive Predictor Variables forComposite Success Measure 1

-2

5

12

19

Mea

n Va

lues

of G

roup

s fo

rC

ompo

site

Suc

cess

Mea

sure

1

5

(continued page 24)


tries: Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands,Palau, and Tonga.

MethodologyThe study relied primarily on

community perceptions of factorsaffecting coastal resource manage-ment at the village level.Therewere two main reasons for thisapproach: first, there was no com-prehensive ecological survey ofcoastal resource conditions in thePacific which could be used tocompare conditions between thesites.The costs and time involvedin conducting such a survey wouldhave been beyond the scope of thisstudy. Second, and perhaps mostimportantly, the majority of deci-sions regarding coastal resourcesare made by local communitiesbased on their own perceptions. Abetter understanding of their per-ceptions is therefore essential tohelp Pacific Island governments anddonors formulate appropriatenational policies and coastal pro-grams.

Several indicators could poten-tially be used for determining sitemanagement success, but manyrequire intensive data gatheringand quantification. Accordingly, thestudy used villagers’ perceptions offour relatively simple success indi-cators which did not suffer fromthis limitation:

� Trends in productivity of keyresources used.The study obtainedsimple perceptions of cost per-unit-effort trends for three keyresources used by village groupsover a decade.

� Trends in habitat condition.This measure consisted primarilyof perceived changes in three localhabitats over a decade.

� Trends in incidence of

threats. This was to determine theimportance and urgency of keythreats to the site, and the extentto which they have been containedor increased.

� Compliance with manage-ment rules. This evaluated thecompliance with a selection of fivelocal and national rules.

A questionnaire was formulatedfor the collection of information atthe village level on the success fac-tors and on other aspects of coastalresource management. Perceptionsof success were collected from atotal of 133 small, resource usersfocus groups at the 31 sites, includ-ing elders, women, and men. Inaddition, the study collected infor-mation from various other commu-nity sources (e.g., village leaders,large village meetings, key respon-dents, village teachers, and shop-keepers) on the factors that mayaffect management success.Theanswers from the community werecomplemented by study teamobservations of site conditions andinterviews with representatives ofgovernment agencies and externalpartners.

Study SitesThe study was carried out at 31

sites in the five countries.Therewere 12 focus sites (four-to seven-day visits) and 19 supplementarysites (one-to three-days visits).The31 sites ranged in size from 0.6square kilometers in Papa (Samoa)to 2,360 square kilometers inLuaniua, Ontong Java (SolomonIslands).The sample included twourban sites (Koror in Palau andHoniara Fishing Village in theSolomon Islands), five peri-urbansites and 24 rural sites. Several ofthe rural sites were very isolated

By Robert Gillett

Coastal resources are of funda-mental importance in the

Pacific Islands. Much of theregion’s nutrition, welfare, culture,employment, and recreation arebased on the living resources in thezone between the shoreline and theouter reefs of the region. For manycenturies there has been a recogni-tion by Pacific Islanders that someform of resource management isnecessary to assure sustainability ofthese resources. In former times,traditional management of coastalresources was undertaken by manycoastal or resource-owning com-munities and appears to have beenreasonably successful. In recentyears, however, serious problems inthe management of coastalresources have arisen.There is thedual problem that the authority oflocal traditional leaders has beeneroded, while the threats to theresources (over-harvesting,destructive fishing, pollution, and awide range of land-based threats)have increased.

In this current situation, thereappears to be a need to carefullyexamine the successes in coastalmanagement and focus on identify-ing factors contributing to thosesuccesses.What are the processesmost likely to result in successfulmanagement? What should be therole of external stakeholders (gov-ernments, nongovernmental organ-izations) in supporting theseprocesses? When resources formanagement are scarce, whereshould they be allocated to maxi-mize the chances of success?

This study, commissioned by theWorld Bank in 1998, examinedsome of these questions from thepoint of view of 31 coastal commu-nities in five Pacific Island coun-

Voices from the Village: Across PortfolioLearning in Coastal Resource Managementin the Pacific Islands

Te

st

ing

As

su

mp

tio

ns


and lacked regular transportation.Eight sites, including all sites inTonga and Cooksin, and Honiarafishing village in the SolomonIslands, lacked any form of custom-ary marine user rights and wereoperated under open accessregimes. All of the remaining siteshad some form of customarymarine tenure.

Key ResultsCoastal resources are

perceived to be declining...Community groups were gener-

ally pessimistic about resourcetrends. Only 10 percent of theresponses said that catch per-unit-effort had increased over the last10 years, and only 3 percent asso-ciated such an increase to manage-ment interventions. Perceptionsabout habitat conditions and threatsto coastal resources were moreoptimistic, with about half of theresponses seeing negative trends.Several of the communities whereresources were perceived to bedeclining were villages with lowpopulation densities, suggestingthat even in remote areas, theimpact of a few efficient commer-cial fishers on the exploitation offragile coastal resources should notbe overlooked.

...and the nature of thethreats to coastal resourcesappears to be changing.Communities perceived pollutionas the fastest rising threat to coastalresources, while destructive fishingthreats were perceived to bedeclining the most.Threats causedby overfishing, siltation, and miningfell between these two extremes.Overfishing and destructive prac-tices, however, were commonlyidentified as among the mostimportant threats to coastalresources.

The outlook for coastalresources is perceived to bebleak.

Respondents at 21 of the 31 sites

believed coastal resources wouldcontinue to decline in the future.In village after village, peoplewhose livelihood depends on thehealth of coastal resources arguedfor stricter enforcement of existingregulations and additional restric-tions on commercial harvesting.

Simple management ruleswork best...

The study found that at 13 of thesites (42 percent), respondentswere not familiar with many of thenational rules designed to managecoastal resources. In general, thoseinterviewed believed that the fol-lowing types of rules obtained themost compliance:

� National regulations that wereseen to be relevant to the commu-nity and which were subsequentlyadopted by village leaders as localcommunity rules

� National rules enforced bybuyers or exporters, such as thenational ban on trade in crocodilesin the Solomon Islands

� Marine sanctuaries, closedseasons for specific fisheries, andrules restricting destructive fishingpractices (e.g., ban on night diving)

In general, the results of thestudy indicate that the simpler thenational rules, the better they wereunderstood and followed by coastalcommunities.

...while open access con-strains community action.Eight of the villages lacked anymechanisms to exclude outsidersfrom using their coastal site.Withone possible exception, none ofthese open-access sites had devel-oped community rules for manag-ing coastal resources. By contrast,all of the restricted-access sites hadadopted local management rules,indicating that the authority torestrict access by outsiders is apowerful incentive for community-based management. Comparedwith restricted-access sites, open-access communities perceivedthreats to coastal resources to beincreasing faster and felt less capa-ble of dealing with local threats.

Communities need help...Community-based management

was found to be insufficient in fivemajor areas:

1.The villagers felt that someform of outside assistance wasneeded to handle coastal pollution,mining operations, commercialoverfishing, and other threats suchas dredging, construction of cause-ways, and drilling for oil.

2. Nearly 40 percent of the vil-lages lacked mechanisms to controltheir own fishing effort.Wheresuch mechanisms existed, externalpartners had acted as catalysts forcommunity action.(continued page 28)


By John E. Parks,ArlyneJohnson, and Nick Salafsky

Can locally-managed marineprotected areas (LM-MPAs)

lead to conservation?There is a growing trend

towards establishing MPAs incoastal areas. In many parts of theworld, these same coastal areas aresources of cash and subsistence forlocal residents; in certain parts ofthe world, such as the WesternPacific, some communities legallyown the near-shore resources. As aresult, there is growing interest inwhether local residents can estab-lish MPAs, and if so, whether theseareas contribute to biodiversityconservation and/or sustainableresource use. In particular,resource managers want to knowwhether they can develop general,yet non-trivial guiding principlesregarding the conditions underwhich LM-MPAs can lead to moreeffective resource management.

Over the past decade, a numberof coastal resource managementprojects have implemented LM-MPAs. Most projects are in isola-tion from one another; thus, expe-rience gained by one team may notnecessarily be shared with another.As a result, learning has often beenunsystematic and anecdotal, mak-ing it difficult—or even impossi-ble—to draw broader principlesabout whether these areas work.

This raises the question: Is therean efficient and expedient way tobring marine conservation practi-tioners together to share theirexperiences and collect commoninformation? How can they collec-tively learn and develop principlesfor using LM-MPAs? One answer isto use ‘learning portfolios’designed to collaboratively and sys-tematically test shared assump-tions, in this case, whether LM-

MPAs result in measurableimprovement in biodiversity con-servation and sustainable fisheries.

Answering ComplexConservationQuestions

A learning portfolio has twogoals: to help projects systematical-ly and collectively learn about theconditions under which a conserva-tion tool works, does not work,and why; and to strengthen thecapacity of project teams to achievemeasurable conservation objec-tives.

In a traditional program, proj-ects are focused primarily onresults. Because each project isusing different conservation tools,information exchange only occurshaphazardly as shown in the modelon the left side of the diagram.Within a learning portfolio, on theother hand, a group of projectscome together to test the effective-ness of a specific conservation toolsuch as eco-enterprises as shown inthe model on the right side of thediagram.

The assumption behind thelearning portfolio approach is thatby focusing on a common tool, asmuch or more can be learned fromfailures as success regarding theconditions under which this tool isuseful. Learning portfolios alsoallow an exchange of ideas and

experiences among practitionerswho are all working on similarthings, thus promoting cross-proj-ect learning, peer mentoring, andultimately, more effective capacitybuilding. Ideally, a learning portfo-lio thus becomes much greaterthan the sum of its parts.

History of LM-MPALearning Portfolios

In August 2000, Indo-Pacific-based LM-MPA practitioners andresearchers met to develop amethod to collectively learn anddevelop principles of using LM-MPAs. As the result of two work-shops, a learning portfolio wasdesigned to test a set of sharedassumptions about which LM-MPAconditions result in measurablebiodiversity conservation and sus-tainable fisheries. At the work-shops, project teams first devel-oped models of the conditions attheir specific sites.They then beganto identify common assumptionsand factors behind the use of LM-MPAs at their sites and what datamight be collected to test theseassumptions. At the end of theworkshops, the project then devel-oped a social contract outlininghow the projects would work withone another in the portfolio.

In February 2000, representa-tives of the participating organiza-tions met to form a portfolio coor-

A Learning Portfolio:Testing Marine ProtectedAreas in the Indo-Pacific

EcotourismProject

EnterpriseStrategy Portfolio

BiodiversityProspecting

Project

ResearchTourismProject

EcotimberProject

EcotourismProject

HoneyHuntingProject

CoreStaffRestoration

Project

A Typical Results-Only ProgramList of Projects

BufferZone Project

Eco-Enterprise

Project

Legal ReformProjectProtected

Area Project

BiodiversityProspecting

Project

EducationProject

= flow of information

Te

st

ing

As

su

mp

tio

ns

Adapted:Salafsky and Margoluis (1999), Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts, Biodiversity Support Program,Washington DC.


dination team (PCT) to facilitateportfolio activities, particularlyongoing communication betweenprojects about management andmonitoring, and the methods anddata collection to test a shared setof portfolio hypotheses.

Challenges to MovingForward

One of the biggest challengesfacing the portfolio is finding theresources to take on the portfolioactivities. At a project level, addi-tional time and effort are requiredfrom staff and community mem-bers to participate in this collectiveinitiative. At a portfolio level, timeand additional funding are requiredto convene portfolio meetings andhelp support the project-basedactivities.

Another challenge is to createincentives to participate.This isaccomplished by supplying what isneeded to improve their ability todo work. An attraction to join isthe opportunity to improve andenhance their site-based conserva-tion efforts. An additional bonus ispooling results and collectivelylearning if project participants’strategies are achieving measurablesuccess.

Finally, developing a commonand realistic learning framework is

not an easy task. A learning frame-work is essentially the analytical‘map’ of standardized steps andmethods used to guide all portfoliomembers in their test of commonlyshared assumptions.The LM-MPAlearning framework is therefore thefoundation that determineswhether or not this learning port-folio has the potential to success-fully achieve the goal of being ableto determining the conditionsunder which LM-MPAs work, donot work, and why.

Where the LearningPortfolio is Headedin the Future

Over the next six months, thelearning portfolio will:

� Finalize a learning frameworkfor testing shared assumptions

� Confirm project membershipand readiness to participate

� Develop and implement aworkplan for data collection andcapacity building

The PCT will play an importantrole in helping project teams tocollect, collate, and analyze dataand in coordinating cross-portfoliolearning processes. Ongoing datacollection by participating projectswill then occur, with new groupsbeing phased into these activities. Itis hoped that within a year or two,

the total number of participatingprojects will have grown to a sizethat the group’s collaborative workis internationally recognized andaccepted.

Learning Portfolios inthe Context ofGlobal ICM Efforts

The LM-MPA effort is only oneexample of how a coastal manage-ment tool is being tested across adiverse set of sites and organiza-tions. Learning portfolios could beestablished to generate sets of guid-ing principles on the use of ICMtools. In turn, this could also leadto a learning portfolio to test theeffective integration and use of var-ious tools within an ICM frame-work. Such nested lessons fromapplied marine conservation sci-ence will be required if resourcemanagers and conservation practi-tioners are to expand their learningbeyond the site-specific level.Thiswould enable conclusions to bedrawn at a regional and globalscale—where our managementefforts must evolve in order toensure sustainability and humansurvival.

(Information on learning portfo-lio initiatives can be found on web-site: www.fosonline.org)

For further information, contactJohn Parks, Portfolio CoordinationTeam Member in the LocallyManaged Marine Area Network,World Resources Institute, 10 GStreet NE, Washington DC 20002USA. Tel: 202 729-7632. Fax: 202729-7620. E-mail: [email protected]

During the Fiji workshop, South Pacific project representatives were invited to a LM-MPAsite in Verata where they surveyed recovering bivalve populations. Photo by John Parks.


By Patrick Christie, ManuelArbon, Catherine Courtney,Akhmad Fauzi, MarcHershman, Kem Lowry, RoyOlsen de Leon, RichardPollnac, Robert S. Pomeroy,and Alan White

In light of the volume of pub-lished literature and current

funding levels, considerable inter-est surrounds integrated coastalmanagement (ICM) in developingcountries. Following the UnitedNations Conference on Environ-ment and Development, donorcontributions towards ICM havedramatically increased. For exam-ple, in the Philippines, it has beenestimated that approximatelyUS$25 million is spent annually tosupport ICM. ICM takes manyforms depending on the context,but principally it has focused onencouraging sustainable coastalresource use through an iterativeprocess of regulation and policydevelopment, institutional coordi-nation, and education.

Mainly due to limited financialresources, externally funded proj-ects generally have been the mainproponents and implementers ofICM within developing countries.The dependence on external finan-cial and technical assistance createsthe potential for unsustainability ofinstitutions and policies as projectsare terminated and support staffand funding are withdrawn. Basedon experience, it is a commonbelief among coastal managementpractitioners that many seeminglyrobust institutions and initiativeswane after external support iswithdrawn. For example, in thePhilippines, the majority of marineprotected areas (MPAs) establishedwith good intentions are not main-tained for appreciable amounts oftime, a situation commonlyobserved elsewhere in the region.

Some feel that projects do not putenough attention into the planningof phase-out activities. Recently,there have been some very usefulcomparative studies that investigatethe success of coastal managementand MPAs.While success and sus-tainability of ICM and MPAs arelikely interrelated, the relationshipbetween these variables is unclear.

Very little of the coastal manage-ment literature goes beyond raisingconcerns about sustainability toprovide empirically-based explana-tions. Many ICM projects conductinternal evaluations; however, it isnot typically within the mandate ofICM projects nor their externalproject evaluations, to conductdetailed research into whetherefforts were sustained beyond aproject’s termination.This is symp-tomatic of a relatively young fieldwhose literature and theoreticalbasis is at an early stage of develop-ment.To address this practical andtheoretical gap, this project wasundertaken primarily to under-stand the dynamics of how ICMprocesses are sustained after formalproject termination.

ICM SustainabilityResearch Project

In January 2001, with financialsupport from the David and LucilePackard Foundation, a multi-disci-plinary and multi-institutionalresearch initiative was launched.This research project will investi-gate the influence of these factorson ICM sustainability in thePhilippines and Indonesia, coun-tries with some of the most innova-tive and varied approaches to ICMin the tropics.This effort has threemutually reinforcing sub-objectivesthat are developed in detail below.

1. Applied evaluative researchTo identify factors and condi-

tions, at various levels of gover-

Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable?New Research in the Philippines and Indonesia

nance and in different contexts thatinfluence ICM sustainability.

2. ICM project assistanceTo provide policy recommenda-

tions and educational materials toassist ongoing and future ICM ini-tiatives to improve the sustainabili-ty of coastal management in thePhilippines and Indonesia.

3. Capacity developmentTo improve human and institu-

tional capacity to conduct evalua-tive research and ICM by strength-ening institutional linkagesbetween practitioner andresearch/educational institutions inthe US, the Philippines, andIndonesia.

An advisory group made up ofnongovernment and governmentICM practitioners will reviewresearch results and products andhelp ensure that recommendationsare realistic.

Applied Evaluative ResearchA general operational definition

of a sustainable ICM process is “onethat supports sustainable resourceuse beyond the termination of anICM project. It is adaptive andmulti-sectoral as appropriate and issupported by a stable source offinancial and technical resources.”

A literature review identifiedthat legal, socio-cultural, econom-ic, institutional, bio-physical, proj-ect design and underlying contex-tual variables are likely to haveconsiderable impact on ICM sus-tainability. Based on this review,this project will begin by focusingattention on impacts of the follow-ing factors on ICM sustainability:

� Centralization of policy devel-opment

� Community-level characteris-tics and dynamics

� The role of legal consistency� ICM-derived economic and

bio-physical benefits (if they exist)

Te

st

ing

As

su

mp

tio

ns


� ICM project strategies forhuman and institutional capacitydevelopment

� Financial mechanisms� Use and management of

information� Globalization and market pen-

etration into coastal communitiesThe project will focus on the

Philippines and Indonesia toimprove the understanding of con-text and so that generalizationsmay be derived.These countrieswere chosen for a number of rea-sons: their high levels of coastalbiodiversity is at extraordinaryrisk, and human reliance on theseresources warrants efforts to devel-op innovative strategies for ICM.Furthermore, the Philippines pro-vides an opportunity to study ICMin a context where many historicand current ICM initiatives havebeen undertaken. Fewer examplesof ICM exist in Indonesia, however,increasing numbers of programsare underway that could directlybenefit from research efforts in thePhilippines.

The research will consider bothhistoric and ongoing ICM projectsand the institutions that collaboratewith these projects.The CoastalResources Management Project(CRMP)-Philippines, CRMP-Indonesia, nongovernmental organ-ization-led ICM projects (e.g.,World Wildlife Fund-Philippinesand Nature Conservancy-Indonesiaprojects), and historic large-scaleICM projects in the Philippines andtheir collaborating institutions willbe studied.

The research will be conductedin four principal phases:

1. Focus group interviews ofICM researchers, practitioners, andcommunity leaders (April-June2001)

2. Intensive multi-method,multi-disciplinary quantitative fieldresearch that will validate andextend the initial propositions(June-September 2001)

3. Intensivemulti-method,multi-disciplinaryqualitative fieldresearch which willconceptualize andexplain the patternsuncovered by quan-titative research(July-November2001)

4. Comparative,but focused, fieldresearch inIndonesia that willtest the ability togeneralize and the relevance of thefindings from the Philippines fieldresearch (April-July 2002)

The following are initial proposi-tions based on a preliminary litera-ture review and discussions amongprincipal investigators (PIs).Thesewill be examined during theresearch component of this proj-ect.

Proposition 1:The majority ofhistoric ICM initiatives (institu-tions, policies) have not been sus-tained beyond formal project ter-mination.

Proposition 2: In those instanceswhere ICM initiatives have beensustained beyond formal projecttermination, the following are themost effective predictors of sus-tainability:

� Strong and supportive localleadership at the community level

� Strong and supportive localleadership and institutional com-mitment at the local governmentlevel

� Significant economic benefitsfrom ICM activities for local com-munities

� Inter-sectoral coordinationand inter-governmental (nationalto local) coordination

� The presence of stable com-munities (without significantdemographic or economic shiftssince project termination)

� The lack of direct market

penetration by multinational mar-kets for marine products (e.g., livefish)

� Decentralized governancestructures that are backed bynational-level policies/assistance

� Adaptability of establishedICM regimes/policies to change

� Enhanced local capacity andunderstanding of the goals andprocess of natural resource man-agement

� Adequate and long-termfunding mechanisms that supportICM

Similarly, when these conditionsare absent, sustainability of ICM isnot likely.

Proposition 3:That the perspec-tives of government officials, ICMpractitioners, and coastal residentson the factors that drive ICM sus-tainability will be quite distinct,but will overlap considerably.

ICM Project AssistanceAs research results are

processed, project PIs will work tomake this information available andrelevant to ICM projects interestedin improving the sustainability ofcoastal management.This effortwill focus on two levels: 1. at theproject level (including govern-ment and nongovernment-led ini-tiatives), and 2. at the national levelby providing information thatcould help guide the national-level

(continued page 17)

March 13-15, 2001 planning meeting.


By Michael Phillips, JasonClay, Ronald Zweig, CarlGustav Lundin, and RohanaSubasinghe

In recent years, aquaculture hasbecome an increasingly impor-

tant economic activity in coastalareas of many countries. It offersone of the few viable opportunitiesfor poverty alleviation, communitydevelopment, and food security incoastal regions of many countriesin the tropical developing world.The development of coastal aqua-culture has certainly not beenwithout its controversies.Theshrimp aquaculture, in particular,has generated considerable debatein recent years over its social andenvironmental costs and benefits.Rapid expansion of shrimp farmingin some countries in Latin Americaand Asia has focussed attention onthe need for effective managementstrategies. Such strategies shouldtap the potential of the sector foreconomic growth and poverty alle-viation, while controlling the nega-tive environmental and socialimpacts that can accompany poorlyplanned and regulated develop-ment.

Recognizing that challenges forbetter management of shrimpaquaculture around the world arecomplex, and that improved prac-tices often result from identifyingand analyzing lessons learned andexchanging such information, aconsortium program entitledShrimp Farming and theEnvironment has been developed.The partners are the World Bank,the Network of AquacultureCentres in Asia Pacific (NACA),the World Wildlife Fund (WWF),and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations(FAO).The program comprisesover 35 complementary case stud-ies prepared by more than 100researchers in more than 20

shrimp-farming countries. Casesrange from specific interventionswithin single operations to themat-ic reviews of key issues in shrimpaquaculture.The goal is to docu-ment and analyze experiencearound the world in order to bet-ter understand what works, whatdoesn’t, and why.

The program is based on therecommendations of the WorldBank review on shrimp aquacultureand the environment (1998), aNACA/WWF (1999) meeting inBangkok,Thailand, on shrimp man-agement practices, and a FAOBangkok technical consultation onpolicies for sustainable shrimpaquaculture (1997).There are sixmain objectives of this cooperativeprogram:

1. Generate a better understand-ing of key issues involved in sus-tainable shrimp aquaculture

2. Encourage a debate and dis-cussion around these issues thatleads to consensus among stake-holders regarding key issues

3. Identify better managementstrategies for sustainable shrimpaquaculture

4. Evaluate the cost for adoptionof such strategies as well as otherpotential barriers to their adoption

5. Create a framework to reviewand evaluate successes and failuresin sustainable shrimp aquaculturewhich can inform policy debate onmanagement strategies

6. Identify future developmentactivities and assistance requiredfor the implementation ofimproved management strategiesthat would support the develop-ment of a more sustainable shrimpculture industry

The consortium is giving specialattention to poverty and equityissues, and the work will providean assessment of the use of shrimpfarming development/investmentsas a means of alleviating poverty

through targeted developmentinterventions in coastal areas.

The program was initiated in1999.The case studies cover a widerange of topics, from farm-levelmanagement practice, povertyissues, integration of shrimp aqua-culture into coastal area manage-ment, shrimp health management,and policy and legal issues.Thecase studies together provide aunique and important insight intothe present global status of shrimpaquaculture and management prac-tices.While there is no majorshrimp-farm development to datein Africa, the reported case studywill provide guidance on importantissues to consider in the face ofpotential shrimp-farm develop-ment in the region.The fieldworkhas been completed for nearly allcase studies, and reports are beingfinalized.They will be available inprinted and web versions during2001.

The proposed approach beingtaken involves consultation with asmany stakeholders as possiblethroughout the study, from local tointernational.The preparation ofthe case studies has incorporatedthe views and inputs from a widerange of stakeholders, from localcommunities to global multilaterialorganizations. Several casesentailed widespread consultationwith local farmers and communi-ties, through community work-shops and participatory meetings.In Bangladesh, for example, theresearchers consulted stakeholdersat all levels; from poor women andlandless households involved inshrimp fry collection to senior gov-ernment officials involved in policydevelopment.The consultationswith landless women in particularprovided an important insight tothe dependence of poor families incoastal Bangladesh on shrimp aqua-culture for their livelihood.This

Shrimp Farming and the EnvironmentC

as

e

St

ud

y


type of open and participatoryapproach to the case study researchhas provided a unique opportunityto gain understanding, generateconsensus and identify manage-ment experiences from a widerange of stakeholders involved inthis complex sector.

As the reports are drafted andfinalized, findings from case studiesare being discussed with a wideraudience.This approach is designedto ensure that the findings will bebased on widespread consultationand will have widespread impactand relevance. A website givinginformation on the case studies hasbeen developed (http://www.enaca.org), and the Internet willincreasingly be used as a means ofdisseminating information arisingfrom the studies.Translations ofcase study materials into Spanish,Portuguese,Thai, and MandarinChinese, have been initiated to dis-seminate findings to non-Englishspeakers. Priority will be given tofurther translation and dissemina-tion in 2001.

There are indications alreadythat the consortium approach andcase study findings are having posi-tive impacts. A few are highlightedto indicate the types of impactsthat can be expected.

� In Mexico, for example, thefindings are changing the waysnongovernmental organizations(NGOs) and foundations view andengage the shrimp aquacultureindustry to work together toreduce agro-chemical runoff fromcommercial agricultural farms.

� In Brazil, one case is providingthe basis for putting in place poli-cies and investment screens forsupporting more sustainableshrimp aquaculture managementpractices.

� The outcome of a multi-coun-try, thematic analysis of shrimp dis-ease issues has helped promoteregional cooperation on the move-ment of animals in Latin Americaboth among governments andshrimp producers.This case hasalso raised awareness of inter-regional cooperation in aquatic ani-mal disease control within the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC) forum and provided a basefor new project assistance in LatinAmerican countries.

� One study in Vietnamexplored the role of shrimp aqua-culture in coastal communitydevelopment.This case has raisedawareness in the country about thepotential connection betweenaquaculture and poverty allevia-

tion. It has already led to a newgovernment policy orientationtowards poverty focussed aquacul-ture development.

� The Bangladesh case promot-ed dialogue between NGOs andthe government and led to widerappreciation of social issues inshrimp culture development.Thecase also contributed to the devel-opment of management strategiesfor a World Bank-supported proj-ect in coastal areas.

� A case from Colombiaexplores the use of an artificiallyextended natural mangrove as abiofilter to treat effluent from ashrimp farm.There is of consider-able interest in the incorporation ofnatural biofilters in shrimp opera-tions as a way to avoid pollutionand, in the case of Colombia, thepollution taxes they generate.

� A consortium case is alsobeing developed that looks at theproduction and market implica-tions of third-party certificationsystems for shrimp aquaculture.The goal of this work is not to cre-ate a certification system, butrather to identify what the majorissues and implications are for suchwork.There is tremendous interestin this issue both on the part ofproducers and retailers, but fewhave thought through the issuescarefully.

� One case will also explore thepotential of investment and buyer‘screens’ that could be used to sendsignals to producers regardingmore sustainable shrimp aquacul-ture on the part of investors andconsumers.While the consortiumwill explore the implications ofsuch screens (e.g., simple vs. com-plex, etc.), it will not be involvedin any way in establishing suchscreens or undertaking certificationor screening activities.

The findings from some of thecases were also discussed at therecent expert consultation on

Shrimp-seed trader in Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. An example ofemployment generation through shrimp aquaculture. (continued page 30)


Improving Watershed Governance:Lessons Learned from Efforts inthe United StatesBy Mark T. Imperial andTimothy Hennessey

Some researchers, practitioners,and government officials assume

that no watershed is managed with-out having some form of central-ized watershed program. Our viewof management programs is some-what different.

The program discussed heregives heavy emphasis to science,planning, and the preparation ofdetailed management plans. Everywatershed in the US is managed insome way by a wide range of gov-ernment programs whose decisionsinfluence the health and integrityof ecological systems.Therefore,watershed management shouldfocus on finding ways to get thisportfolio of government programsto work together better. Often thisinvolves building, managing, andmaintaining collaborative relation-ships that facilitate the direct (e.g.,restoration projects, infrastructureinvestment, etc.) and indirect (e.g.,public education, new research,etc.) actions necessary to improveenvironmental conditions andenhance watershed governance.This implies that watershed man-agement is inherently strategic, andpractitioners should not expectthat it is an effective way to addressall watershed problems.

This article summarizes the find-ings from a recent evaluation of sixwatershed management programscompleted for the NationalAcademy of Public Administrationas part of its Learning fromInnovations in EnvironmentalProtection Project.The academycommissioned this study to helpdetermine whether watershedmanagement is a useful tool forhelping federal, state, and localgovernments to address complex

ecological systems functioned, itwas equally important to under-stand ‘the ecology of governance;’that is the tradeoffs among envi-ronmental problems and how insti-tutions addressing watershed prob-lems functioned and interactedwith one another.This informationis critical because it helps practi-tioners identify ways to improvewatershed governance.

CharacterizingProblems: ‘Nesting’Science and AgendaSetting

We were also interested in therole that science played in the poli-cy process.We concluded that inorder for science to inform policy,it must be nested in a decisionmak-ing process. Scientific research is oflittle use if the information gener-ated is not salient to decisionmak-ers.We also found that scientificresearch rarely tells decisionmakerswhat to do, although it often helpsdefine problems and shapes thedebate on policy alternatives. Ouranalysis also revealed that betterinformation on environmental con-ditions and implementation wasneeded. In particular, state andlocal officials needed better techni-cal and financial assistance toimprove data collection and inte-grate data management systems.

Implementation:AnExercise in AdvancedGovernance

Much of our analysis focused onevaluating the activities that offeredsome potential for improving envi-ronmental conditions. Commonimplementation activities included:regulation, installation of best man-agement practices, habitat restora-tion/protection, participatoryplanning, iInfrastructure invest-ment, public education, and scien-tific research.

The particular pattern of activityvaried in each watershed based on

environmental problems such asnonpoint source pollution (NPS)and habitat loss and degradation.Our study evaluated watershedmanagement programs at six loca-tions in the US: the Inland Bays(Delaware), Narragansett Bay(Rhode Island, Massachusetts),South County Salt Ponds (RhodeIsland), Lake Tahoe (California,Nevada),Tampa Bay (Florida), andTillamook Bay (Oregon).

The findings reported below areorganized around the four basicstages of the policy process.Thisshould not imply that watershedmanagement follows a linearsequential process. Planning activi-ties were iterative in nature andimplementation often began beforethe ‘plan’ was completed. In somecases, participatory planning wasan implementation activity. In oth-ers, implementation was onlyloosely related to a plan’s policiesand recommendations, althoughthe planning was the catalyst forthese actions.The following sec-tions summarize some of ourimportant findings and the lessonslearned from this evaluation.

Problem Definition:The Ecology ofGovernance

In this study, it was clear that thephysical and institutional environ-ment in which a watershed man-agement effort developed had astrong influence on how problemswere selected or defined as well asthe policy instruments chosen.Thestrong influence of these contextu-al factors suggested to us thatimplementation priorities shouldbe set at the state and local levelrather than at the federal level.Moreover, it was clear that while itwas important to understand how

Ca

se

S

tu

dy


the configuration of problems andinstitutions.We concluded thatregulation often helped minimizeand control future problems (e.g.,NPS, and habitat loss and degrada-tion). However, the power of regu-lation to stimulate restoration waslimited when environmental condi-tions had already deteriorated. Inthese cases, watershed manage-ment programs used non-regulato-ry activities such as investment ininfrastructure (e.g., sewers), theinstallation of best managementpractices, and habitat restoration toimprove degraded systems.

Collaboration emerged as thedominant implementation strategy.These strategies involved a widerange of public, private, and non-profit organizations. For example,in a habitat restoration project, oneorganization may own the land,another performs the engineeringand design work, another providestechnical assistance, another sup-plies funding, and another recruitsvolunteers to help maintain thesite. At the policymaking level, itwas common to find organizationsworking together to develop a setof shared policies (e.g., priorities

for habitat restoration), shareknowledge, or pool financial orstaff resources. In some cases,shared policies were incorporatedinto a higher-order set of rules ordecisionmaking processes. Forexample, priorities for habitatrestoration might be incorporatedinto state funding programs orlocal comprehensive plans. In somecases, new collaborative organiza-tions were created whereby theirmembers agreed to implementshared policies. For example, inDelaware, the Inland Bays devel-oped the Center for the InlandBays, a new nonprofit organization.Tampa Bay created an independentalliance of government agenciesknown as the Tampa Bay EstuaryProgram.Tillamook Bay formedthe Tillamook County PerformancePartnership.

There was also no substitute fora well-managed program. Issuessuch as program leadership, staffingand recruitment, personnel man-agement, budgeting, contracting,and grants management emergedas important factors influencingboth planning and implementation.Administering watershed manage-

ment programs often proved to bea complex endeavor requiring aformidable set of professionalskills.

Adequate resources (e.g., staff,money, etc.) and flexibility inspending also influenced imple-mentation efforts by helping publicofficials plan and budget with con-fidence.This allowed state and localpriorities to drive implementation,rather than the priorities and grantrestrictions contained in federalprograms.This flexibility allowedwatershed management programsto make the transition from imple-menting a set of loosely-connecteddiscrete projects to a systematicprogram that uses a set of integrat-ed projects to achieve specificgoals. Making this transition isimportant.The danger inherent ina project-based approach is thatover the long term, the projectsmay never amount to more thanwhat respondents in Tillamook Bayreferred to as “random acts of envi-ronmental kindness.”The individualprojects offer some benefits, butare implemented in different sub-basins or are too limited in scope,

(continued page 27)

SCIENCE AND INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENTB. von Bodungen and R.K.Turner, editors

Dahlem Workshop Report 85

This volume from the Dahlem Workshop, Dahlem University, Berlin, Germany (2000), provides a multidis-ciplinary forum for international experts from environmental, cultural, social, and economic sciences to

discuss the crucial issues relevant to the further development and implementation of integrated coastal man-agement.

Among the topics discussed are the success and failure in transboundary issues, shoreline development, coastalmanagement in developing countries, and unifying concepts. Lack of communication and scientific informa-tion as well as neglect of the precautionary and subsidiary principles in the policy cycle were identified as themain cause and failure in the integrated coastal management process. It emphasizes that management shouldtake the form of an adaptive approach to cope with uncertainties in prediction and outcome.

For further information, contact Dahlem University Press, Orders and Customer Service, KaiserswertherStr. 16-18, 14195 Berlin, Germany. Tel: 49 30 838 55053. Fax: 49 30 838 73442. E-mail:[email protected]. ISBN 3934504 02 7. Cost: DM 84.00 (ca. US$ 45.00)


edge through pilot projects, uni-versity teaching, and research ini-tiatives.This kind of integration,particularly on a global scale, setsthe Forum apart as an ambitious,and also as a very powerful,endeavor.The power of the Forumis driven by those engaged in themany practical aspects of coastalmanagement. Over the past twoyears, it has been relatively easy toparticipate in the Forum as timeand interest permits. It has beeneven easier to be a passive partici-pant for those fortunate enough tohave a computer and good Internetconnections. However, it is notalways easy to meet these techno-logical requirements.Thus, the4,000 participants in the Forumrepresent but a miniscule portionof those who could be teaching andlearning through its use.

One potential direction of theForum is linking the local andglobal levels through regional andinter-regional mechanisms. Onepossible mechanism is to developregional fora, and perhaps inter-regional fora, e.g., a small islandsforum. Such fora would be com-plementary to the global Forumand would provide for widenedparticipation through the use oflocal languages, focus on specifictopics, and the incorporation ofother activities such as face-to-facemeetings. A further proposal is touse the results of the Forum,specifically the WISE characteris-tics, to advance and assess the pilotproject and university chair activi-ties, so that they can be re-focusedto become model WISE practicesfor sustainable coastal and smallisland living.

A recommendation for theForum as it evolves is to direct itmore towards priority issues suchas conflict resolution and the trans-fer and exchange of WISE prac-tices.There is a need to prioritize

By Dirk Troost

In 1996, United NationsEducational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization (UNESCO)began the Environment andDevelopment in Coastal Regionsand Small Islands (CSI) initiative.From this came the UNESCO WiseCoastal Practices for SustainableHuman Development Forum.Thelong-term goal of the CSI initiativeis to develop an ethical code ofpractice to resolve conflicts overresources and values, as well as topromote sustainable living incoastal regions and in small islands.

The question is, how to do thisand manage resources and values inthe world’s increasingly fragilecoastal areas? To answer this ques-tion, the CSI initiative incorporatesthree main modalities: pilot proj-ects, university chairs/twinning,and a global web-based discussionforum [http://www.csiwiseprac-tices.org (username: csi; password:wise)].The initiative has initiatedand co-sponsored some 21 pilotprojects involving some 60 coun-tries and has initiated two formallyestablished university chairs.Thisestablishes a solid basis to developand evaluate the concept of sustain-able coastal living.

What: Definitions ofWISE Practices

The web-based discussion forum‘Wise Coastal Practices forSustainable Human Development’(referred to as the Forum) waslaunched in April 1999.There weretwo initial goals.The first was todetermine the relevance and use-fulness of WISE practice conceptsat a grassroots level.Whereas ‘bestpractices’ attempt to describe whatshould be done, ‘wise practices’accept that, in the real world, thereis always going to be some com-promise.The second was to discussthe findings within a wider context

WISE Coastal Practices: What and How?and with expanded participation.

WISE practices were defined asactions, tools, principles, or deci-sions that contribute significantlyto the achievement of environmen-tally sustainable, socially equitable,culturally appropriate, and eco-nomically sound development incoastal areas.Though general, thisdefinition provides a frameworkfor action.

Participants of a 1998 workshopproposed 16 characteristics to fur-ther define WISE practices.Thesewere then used for the discussionand analysis of ‘example wise prac-tices.’These WISE practices are:

� Ensure long-term benefit andprovide capacity-building and insti-tutional strengthening

� Be sustainable and transfer-able

� Be interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral and incorporate the partic-ipatory processes

� Provide for consensus build-ing and include an effective andefficient communication process

� Be culturally respectful and-take account of gender and/or sen-sitivity issues

� Strengthen local identities andshape national legal policy

� Encompass the regionaldimension and provide for humanrights

� Be documented and haveundergone evaluation

This list of WISE characteristicshas been evolving over the pasttwo years.There continues to bean ongoing dialogue on these prac-tices; much of this is occurringwithin the Forum.

How: Global InternetForum—SharingExperience andKnowledge

UNESCO’s WISE PracticesInternet Forum creates a vehicle toshare experience and link knowl-

Co

de

o

f

Pr

ac

tic

es


For further information, contactDirk G. Troost, Environment andDevelopment in Coastal Regionsand in Small Islands platform(CSI), UNESCO, 1 Rue Miollis,75732 Paris Cedex 15, France.Tel: 33 01 4568 3971. Fax: 33 014568 5808. E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.unesco.org/csi

17

and plan appropriate and worth-while actions for the next sevenyears. It is hoped and urged thatthe Forum recipients play an activerole in this process.

Vehicles such as the Forum arethe only way to improve accessibili-ty to information on successes andfailures, and the questions of whyand how. Only with the interactionof vehicles such as the Forum andthe many other integrated coastalmanagement-devoted programs

project's recommendations, a focusgroup with ICM practitioners, gov-ernment officials and academicswas held at Silliman UniversityApril 27, 2001. During this meet-ing participants identified key con-straints to ICM sustainability fromthe practitioner's perspective.Theyalso expressed interest in collabo-rating with the research team toimplement recommendations.Research in the Philippines willcover approximately 10 sites thatvary in ICM project size, time sincephase out, and implementingagency. Field research in thePhilippines will start in June 2001and in Indonesia in April 2002.

For further information, contactPatrick Christie, School of MarineAffairs, University of Washington,3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle,Washington 98105-6715 USA.Tel: 206-685-6661. E-mail:[email protected]. Toreceive an electronic projectnewsletter, contact Liza Eisma, E-mail: [email protected]

incorporation of findings in univer-sity-level classroom activities, andextension of results to ICM projectstaff. Additionally, considerableeffort will be focused on develop-ing collaborative and mutuallyrespectful working relationshipsbetween US and Asian colleagues.The involvement of US and Asianresearchers, practitioners, andgraduate-level students in thiseffort will improve each institu-tion’s capacity to conduct multi-disciplinary, comparative research.

Initial ActivitiesAn initial literature review has

identified major trends in thecoastal management literatureregarding success and sustainabilityof tropical coastal management.This literature review will be aug-mented with information from themore highly developed institutionalmanagement and development lit-erature.

A planning meeting was heldMarch 13-15, 2001, at SillimanUniversity in the Philippines.During this meeting, the PIs andadvisors developed detailedresearch questions and hypotheses,and selected methods and sites.Tohelp with the formulation of inter-view guides and to develop link-ages with potential users of the

coastal management policy devel-opment process currently undewayin the Philippines and Indonesia.The participation of ICM projectadvisers, advisers to donors, andICM practitioners will help ensurethat findings and recommendationsinfluence future projects. Linkagesto ICM initiatives will be madethrough a multifaceted approachinvolving printed documents, theInternet, presentations at ICMproject workshops, and profession-al conferences.The culmination ofthe project will be the productionof a ‘best practices’ guidebook thatis intended to assist mainly ICMproject designers and practitioners.Initial recommendations based onthis research will be implementedby involved ICM projects as a wayto gain a sense of whether recom-mendations are feasible and effec-tive. Considering the likelihoodthat there will be future ICM proj-ects in the Philippines andIndonesia, this research will pro-vide useful information that is like-ly to be incorporated into theseprojects’ plans.

Capacity DevelopmentCapacity development will result

from direct participation of per-sonnel in fieldwork and analysis,

(continued from page 11)Christie

will strides be taken towards sus-tainable management of our coastalresources.

[Much of the text for this docu-ment has been taken either directlyor in-part from the UNESCO CSI,Wise Coastal Practices for Sustain-able Human Development Forum:Work in Progress 2 at website:http://www.unesco.org/csi/wise/wip2.html and the Forum websiteat: www.csiwisepractices.org(username: csi; password: wise)]


live in a world of small, stand-alone site successes amidst a largerarea of failure.

It was stated that in order tomaximize conservation impact,models need to be developedwhere learning occurs systemati-cally across a network of coral reefmanagement sites. Also noted wasthe need to use a learning networkmodel to spread the impact of suc-cessful conservation measuresbeyond an individual project to aidthose just starting.

Recommendations toIncrease the Scale ofFuture Learning

At the session’s close, the ques-tion still remained: How do wemove beyond merely a site-specificlearning scale to one that allowslearning and adaptation of ICMefforts to occur across projectsoperating around the world? A use-ful place to begin to answer thisquestion would be a set of policyactions based on the cumulativeexperience of session presenters.This article will start that process.

From the ICRS CapacityBuilding Session came a commonset of lessons, conclusions, and rec-ommendations. Analysis of thesegenerated the following four rec-ommended policy actions toimprove and scale-up learning oncoral reef conservation to anappropriate level for the 21st cen-tury.Action One: EstablishFormal Learning NetworksAcross Sites andGeographic Scales

In order to develop the level ofmanagement capacity that willoperate at a scale necessary toinfluence the globalized threats thatpresently act on coral reef andcoastal ecosystems, learning must

By John E. Parks, GhislaineLlewellyn, Ian M. Dutton, andRobert S. Pomeroy

Capacity-BuildingLessons for CoralReef Conservation

The10th meeting of theInternational Coral Reef

Symposium (ICRS) in October2000 was the largest ICRS sympo-sium to date, with more than1,500 scientists, resource man-agers, and decisionmakers.Themeeting’s agenda focused on cur-rent critical issues such as climatechange, the future of coral reefs,and destructive fishing.

One session was dedicated toeffective learning on coral reefconservation and associated ecosys-tems management.The session pre-sented lessons (both successes andfailures) on creating coral reefmanagement capacity and on theresults and conclusions within abroader integrated coastalresources management (ICM) con-text. Currently underway is a para-

digm shift away from habitat-spe-cific management to an approachwhere coastal management needsare being integrated.

Present Scale ofLearning:Too LittleToo Late?

One of the most commonlycited lessons in the session was theneed to increase the scale of learn-ing about coral reef conservation.Learning has been highly site spe-cific, making it difficult to confi-dently extrapolate lessons at abroader, geographic scale. Only afew programs are at the replicationphase where site-specific approach-es and lessons are actively beingapplied elsewhere. Called for wasthe need to increase the scale thatCRM systematically and confident-ly learns about what works, whatdoesn’t, and why, across a networkof sites on a large geographicscales. It was pointed out that ifthis need for scaling-up ICM learn-ing is not met soon, we would becondemning future generations to

Learning Networks Called for by ConservationPractitioners

Fijians exchanging community techniques for monitoring bivalve and crustaceanpopulations. Photo by John Parks.

Co

ns

er

va

tio

n

Ne

tw

or

ks


systematic learning across sites isthe best tool available to produceconfident and replicable conserva-tion principles.This can be used asmanagement guidance by othersconsidering the use of such tools intheir projects.

An important distinction madeduring the ICRS session was thatthe recommended learning infuture ICM efforts be led by theprojects and communities them-selves, as opposed to outsidersonly. It was, however, noted thatfor capacity building and technicalassistance purposes, outsideexpertise would be a necessarycomponent of any ICM learningnetwork undertaking.

Action Two: Develop SimpleMethods for Doing SuchLearning Networks

The methods for establishingformal learning networks in con-servation are still being developed,and as a consequence, the overallprocess is still being determined.Those learning networks underway

require patience and flexibility, twoattributes that are often difficult toreconcile given the immediacy andurgency of the many threats. Oneexample illustrating the difficultnature of learning exactly how todo this is a learning network ofsites throughout the Indo-Pacific.These sites are systematically test-ing the conditions under whichcommunity and co-managedmarine protected areas are effec-tive tools for conservation (Parkset al., page 8). However, systemati-cally testing a shared set of assump-tions across this network firstrequires developing, adopting, andemploying a common learningframework that provides individualprojects a standardized set of infor-mation needed to address the ques-tions being asked. As simple as theprocess for producing a rigorous,shared, learning framework mayappear at first, the reality has beenfar more difficult in the case of thisnetwork. One of the most difficultand critical steps in designing a

(continued page 32)

occur quickly and at relevantregional and global scales.Therefore, learning must evolvepast a site- or organization-specificlevel to one where multiple organi-zations and projects are collabora-tively and formally learning togeth-er on data that is based on soundscience.To do this, nearly one-thirdof the papers presented at the ses-sion specifically recommended thatformal learning networks be estab-lished between ICM sites usingsimilar tools at scales beyond thenational and organizational level.Through such formal learning net-works, group learning and adaptivemanagement can be promoted, andregional and global policymakingguidance can be provided on theeffective use of coral reef conserva-tion tools.To do this, a dialoguemust occur between the govern-ment, the university community,nongovernmental organizations,and local communities.Though thismeans of communication may betime consuming and expensive,

CORAL BLEACHING:CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND RESPONSE

Heidi Z. Schuttenberg, editerFebruary 2001

Coastal Management Report #2230. ISBN # 1-885454-40-6

Selected Papers presented at the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium on Coral Bleaching:Assessing and Linking Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts, Future Trends and

Mitigation Planning

Coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the earth, but are degrading at analarming rate in all tropical oceans.Throughout the Indo-Pacific, only a small fraction of reefs are con-sidered to still be in excellent condition. Many reefs are seriously degraded, particularly in thePhilippines and Indonesia.

This compendium captures the symposium’s special session results. It brings together the experiencein the science and management of coral reefs under conditions of climate change, emphasizingsocioeconomic aspects of coral bleaching. It is hoped that it will bring attention on the need foreffective and innovative approaches to management of coral reefs.With awareness, knowledge andaction, the viability of coral reefs will be assured.

For further infomation, contact Communications Department, Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett BayCampus, University of Rhode Island, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 USA. Tel: 401 874-6224. Fax: 401 789-4670. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: http://crc.uri.edu


Sustainable Human Development),online and hard copy newsletters(e.g., Coastal Guide News, icoast,and InterCoast), three journalsfocused on ICM, and the outputsfrom dozens of international andnational levels ICM conferencesevery year.

The issues that have motivatedICM efforts (e.g., pollution, over-exploited fisheries, coastal hazards)are very much the same in allnations (with some differencesbetween tropical and temperateclimates, and developed and devel-oping countries). Similarly, all unitsof government are involved inICM, regardless of their socioeco-nomic or political regime.They allhave a similar set of process chal-lenges in each step of the ICM pro-gram (or project) cycle (i.e. initia-tion, preparation, adoption, imple-mentation, evaluation, and revi-sion).

“We are not learning nearly asmuch as we could from the vastand rich experience of ICMefforts” is a statement that isbecoming a common refrain. ICM’svast and rich experience derivesfrom its 35-year history and the447 efforts in 95 nations aroundthe world at all levels of gover-nance (from international to com-munity-driven programs). ICMefforts have occurred in all types ofpolitical regimes, in all types ofenvironments, and in countries atall levels of socioeconomic devel-opment.

There are two evident conse-quences of the failure of one ICMeffort to learn from similar ICMefforts. First, the ratio of failed orineffective programs to successfulprograms is much higher than itcould be. Second, the same well-known and, for the most part,avoidable mistakes are continuously

being repeated while successfulapproaches are not being replicated.

The issues that have motivatedthe initiation of ICM efforts (moti-vating issues)—such as point andnon-point pollution of coastalwaters or destruction wrought bycoastal hazards—are very much thesame in all nations (with some dif-ferences between tropical and tem-perate climates and between devel-oped and developing countries).Similarly, all units of governmentinvolved in ICM, regardless of theirlevel of socioeconomic develop-ment or their political regime, havea similar set of challenges that con-front program initiation, prepara-tion, adoption and implementation(process issues).Two examples ofglobal challenges are modelingcomplex systems in order to makeadequate impact assessments andassessing the socioeconomic worthof environmental values that arenot-directly measurable such asbiodiversity or coastal esthetics andamenities. Furthermore, develop-ing nations have a very similar setof many additional challenges thatconfront each step in the ICM pro-gram development process.Theseinclude absence of free press andaccess to public information, per-vasive corruption, the competencyof professional staff, and nationalgovernance and wealth controlledby a relatively small group of elites.

Baseline 2000 (B2K)In September 2000, the Coastal

Zone Canada 2000 Conference washeld in Saint John, NewBrunswick, Canada.The CoastalZone Canada Association (CZCA, anational NGO) organized andadministered the conference asthey had done for three previousbiennial events. In December1999, CZCA decided that a base-line paper (Baseline 2000 or B2K)should be prepared for the 2000Conference. A comprehensive

By Larry Hildebrand andJens Sorensen

Yes, we know the plan was todrain the swamp, but how can

we do that when we are up to ourarmpits in water and always beat-ing away alligators?

There have been a number ofoccasions when we have heard thiswell known swamp and alligatormetaphor from integrated coastalmanagement (ICM) practitionersto depict how they cope with theday-to-day challenges and tasksinvolved in developing and manag-ing complex ICM programs. Itappears that most ICM practition-ers have little time to look beyondthe immediate demands of theirown programs to find informationfrom other ICM efforts that wouldcontribute to the success of theirproject or program.The alligatorfixation is further compounded bythree other factors: ignorance ofexisting information exchange net-works, the absence of a number offrameworks to organize and facili-tate international informationexchange, and skepticism that les-sons learned from any nation’s orsub-national unit’s ICM effort cansignificantly assist in solving theproblems and challenges of ICMefforts in another nation.

The rapidly growing field ofICM is replete with experience andlessons learned that can and shouldguide improving the practicearound the world, as well as allowus to assess the extent of progress.Access to much of this informationis readily available from a variety ofsources that are devoted to ICM asan international practice.Theseinclude at least 85 websites ofdirect relevance to the practice(www.coastalmanagment.com). E-discussion groups (e.g., Netcoastand Wise Coastal Practices for

Draining the Swamp and BeatingAway the Alligators: Baseline 2000

In

te

rn

at

ion

al

IC

M

Ef

fo

rt

s


background report was also pre-pared to provide the informationand data that were the basis for thediscussion paper’s findings and con-clusions.

The basic objective of B2K wasto establish a baseline that wouldenable periodic assessment todetermine ICM’s growth in num-ber and type of efforts, develop-ment of model planning approach-es and management techniques,achievements in resolving motivat-ing issues, and successes in over-coming common challenges.Furthermore, Baseline 2000’sinformation exchange frameworksand databases should provide prac-titioners the ability to learn whatworks in certain contexts, whatdoesn’t work in certain contexts,and why.The Organizing Frameworksand Databases

Baseline 2000 is built on sevenorganizing frameworks and a num-ber of associated databases.Currently, each of the frameworksand databases are in various stagesof completion.

A global database for ICMefforts. At the close of 2000, thenumber of ICM efforts stood at447: 41 efforts at the internationallevel, 98 at the national level, and308 efforts at sub-national levels.At the same time 95 nations andsemi-sovereign states had at leastone ICM effort at a national orsub-national level. Four tables ofICM efforts are presented in thereport.The tables include the con-tact information for most of theICM efforts.

The compilation of ICM effortsis the first of three stages to devel-op an interactive database.The sec-ond stage would be a standardizedsurvey questionnaire to determineat least the following informationfor each ICM effort: priorityissues, planning and managementapproaches, techniques employed,institutional arrangements, budg-

et/staff resources, and outputs.The third stage is survey data

(including follow-up communica-tions on each survey) analysis andformatting. A database would becompiled that could be searched bythe above categories and addition-al categories.The fourth stage isto design associated websites.

An index of the motivatingissues. The similarity ofmotivating issues in ICMefforts has already beennoted.The index willconnect the motivatingissues as well as thecause and effect net-works of adverseimpacts that may begenerated by thecommon types of activitiesor actions (e.g., dredging or shore-line armoring) and common typesof coastal development (e.g.,tourism resorts or mariculture).

An index of model planningapproaches and techniques. Overthe last two decades, it has becomeapparent that, for the most part,each motivating issue has the sameenvironmental and socioeconomicdynamics.Whether it is Sri Lanka,Spain, or Surinam, estuary eutro-phication, in most cases, has thesame causes, impacts, remedial andmitigating actions, and types ofstakeholders.These similarities,despite location, have promptedgovernment institutions and non-governmental organizations todevelop model planning approach-es (e.g. flood plain management)and management techniques (e.g.,impact assessment or permit let-ting).The index will integratethese and will have an index ofmotivating issues as well as com-mon challenges.

An index of common challenges(or process issues). Currently, thisindex is divided into two parts:challenges to all nations and addi-tional challenges to developingnations.The 19 challenges to all

nations are subdivided into:information and predictability,costs and benefits and their inci-dence, institutional arrangements,and distribution and access topower.The 21 additional challengesto developing nations are subdivid-ed into: demographics and impov-erishment: culture of decision-making, institutional capacity, andinformation base.

Comparative assessment of guid-ance literature. Content analysiswas done on 29 documents thatprovide general guidance on ICMas an international practice. Aseven page matrix compares thesewith six types of ICM dimensions.Each dimension type has a list ofspecific dimensions.The types ofdimensions and the number of spe-cific dimensions are: 23 inherentaspects (e.g,. multi-sector), 38principles (e.g,. priority given tocoastal dependent uses), 30 steps inthe ICM cycle (e.g., enforcement),6 general components (e.g,.applied research) and specific tech-niques (e.g,. impact assessment),

(continued page 31)


By Christina S. Johnson

During the 1960s and ‘80s, theUnited States’ California

Department of Fish and Game par-ticipated in the construction ofmany artificial reefs to enhancesport fishing in the state’s coastalwaters. Constructed by sinking oldstreetcars, automobiles, barges,planes, cement pipes, concreterubble, and quarry stones, thesereefs were meant to provide anunderwater landscape to attractfish by giving them nooks and cran-nies for hiding and hunting. In the-ory, the reefs had two benefits:they would boost fish catches, andoffset pressures on fish stocks byproviding fish with added habitat.

To a certain degree, these reefsworked as planned. In places likeParadise Cove in Santa Monica Bay,California, where 20 automobilebodies were submerged in 1958,marine biologists reported observ-ing surfperches, sargos, kelp bassand small California halibut at thereef within hours of its comple-tion.Today, more than 100 artificialfishing reefs have been constructedat 33 sites in Southern California’snearshore waters. Most of themore modern reefs are build ofeither quarry stone or donatedconcrete from harbor projects.

What has not yet been deter-mined is whether these reefs actu-ally benefit fish or merely makethem more vulnerable to fishing bycongregating them in set areas. Ifso, it is possible that the reefs mayactually be contributing to declin-ing fish stocks.

A Possible TestThe state’s largest artificial reef

is being constructed by SouthernCalifornia Edison (a utility compa-ny) as a mitigation requirement fordamaging kelp beds during con-

struction of its nuclear power plantin Orange County. Informationfrom this will be used to helpdetermine whether artificial reefscan be designed to increase fishproduction. In conjunction withthis effort, the Department of Fishand Game, San Diego StateUniversity, and the University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, are con-ducting a variety of fish surveys atthis reef.

The reef’s unusual structure andsize makes this type of study possi-ble. At present, though not forlong, the reef is composed of 56modules of concrete and quarrystone.These modules are arrangedin seven big clusters, each contain-ing eight modules. Each of theseeight modules is four-tenths of anacre in area and each presents aslightly different reef design.Ultimately, the areas between theclusters will be filled with moreconcrete or quarry stone to pro-vide substrate for a 150-acre kelpforest.The kelp beds are expectedto attract bass, lobster, rockfish,sheephead, crab, urchin, and maybeeven one day, abalone. However, inthe meantime, this rocky habitatprovides a rare opportunity tostudy fish reproduction, mortality,and growth as a function of habitattype.

A two-year California Sea Grantproject at San Diego StateUniversity will examine how fishproduction varies within the reef’seight different rock habitats.To dothis, very young fish will betracked. Unlike large, freely swim-ming fish, young fish are unable tomigrate from one reef to another.Thus, their abundance at one reefrepresents a better estimate of thatreef’s ability to boost fish produc-tion. A series of dives will begin inthe summer of 2001, in which Sea

Grant scientists will count thenumber of young fish that have set-tled over the eight reef types. Insubsequent dives, they will recordthe fishes’ growth and survivalrates.Their statistics will be com-pared to those gathered at the nat-ural reefs nearby.

If an artificial reef is trulyincreasing fish production in thearea, fish production should begreater on the artificial reefs thanon the natural reefs. If the fish pro-duction rate is lower on an artifi-cial reefs (measured by looking at acombination of recruitment,growth, fecundity, and survival),then it could be argued that the fishwould have been better off settlingon one of the natural reefs nearby.Alternatively, this can be arguedfrom a different perspective. If fishnumbers are limited by a lack ofrocky habitat, artificial reefs mayenhance fish abundance eventhough fish production is lower onthe artificial reefs than on the natu-ral reefs.

In the fall of 2000, researchersconducted a study to examinewhether artificial reefs are support-ing the same groups of animals andplants as the natural reefs.This isextremely important because it ispossible that artificial reefs mayalter the natural assemblages ofspecies in an area.The study didfind some differences between thereefs. On the artificial reefs, therewere more bottom fish and fewerkelp-canopy fish. However, this wasattributed to the age of the artifi-cial reefs (built in the fall of 1999).

Scientists are also interested inmonitoring populations ofCalifornia sheephead, since thesefish graze on sea urchins. Urchinsare like locusts on a kelp forest.The 150-acre kelp bed is ideal forthe study. Sheepheads are alsounder intense pressure by the livefin fishery, in which fish aretrapped and delivered to whole-salers alive.

Artificial Reef Study Undertakenby California Sea Grant Program


To determine whether the artifi-cial reefs can increase populationsof sheephead, a biologist with theDepartment of Fish and Game willbegin tagging sheepheads in sum-mer 2001 with sonic tags.Thesetags, which must be surgicallyimplanted, emit a continuous ping.The fishes’ locations can be trackedfrom a ship equipped with listeningdevices. From the data, scientistscan estimate sheepheads’ survivalrate, their range, and their abun-dance per unit area. Determiningthe expected number of fish per a

certain area of reef can help man-agers predict how many fish anartificial reef can support.

Today’s environment regulationsoften require coastal constructionprojects to undertake mitigationactivities to offset environmentallosses caused by construction.Because there is a growing interestin using the construction of artifi-cial reefs as a mitigation tools, theinformation gathered from thisstudy is becoming increasinglyimportant.

Before the coasts are dotted with

rock piles and sunken boats, biolo-gists need to know whether thesereefs actually benefit fish popula-tions or merely make them morevulnerable.

For further information, contactMarsha Gear, Scripps, Universityof California, San Diego, 9500Gilman Drive, Dept. 0232, LaJolla, California 92093-0232 USA.Tel: 858 534-0581. Fax: 858 453-2948. E-mail: [email protected]: http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu

TAKING CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE:PARTICIPATORY NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ON THE

CARIBBEAN COAST OF NICARAGUA

Patrick Christie, David Bradford, Ray Garth, Bonifacio Gonzalez, Mark Hostetler,Oswaldo Morales, Roberto Rigby, Bertha Simmons, Eduardo Tinkam, Gabriel Vega,

Ronnie Vernooy, and Noreen WhiteIDRC/CIDCA 2000. ISBN 0-88936-925-9

Together, rapid population growth, commercialization and exploitation ofaquatic resources, deforestation and pollution, and encroachments on com-

munally-owned resources are placing the world’s coastal regions under enor-mous pressure. One example is the Pearl Lagoon estuary, the main basin on theCaribbean Coast of Nicaragua.

This book provides detailed insight into the problems of the Pearl Lagoonand presents alternatives for more effective management of its naturalresources. It documents a new approach to the study and future manage-ment of a complex resource system in a politically demanding environ-ment. It emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary research indeveloping sustainable solutions to natural-resource-management prob-lems.

Taking Care of What We Have will interest researchers, scholars,and students in natural resource management and developmentstudies; donors, development organizations, and development

practitioners working in the areas of natural resource management andparticipatory action research; and community leaders and NGOs in developing

countries that work on natural-resource-management issues.

For ordering information, please see website: http://www.idrc.ca or Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd, 5369 CanotekRoad, Unit 1 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1J 9J3. Tel: 1-613-745-2665. Fax: 1-613-745-7660. E-mail: order.dept@

renoufbooks.com


By Gratian Luhikula

“There is no doubt about it,fishing by use of dynamite

explosives is back. Unless theTanzanian government acts quickly,this illegal practice is going to turninto a rampage as it was in the 1980sand 1990s,” an old fisherman atSomanga village in Tanzania told ateam of scientists making a survey ofthe state of the coast.

The old man who earlierexplained that fish catches by localartisanal fishers had highlyimproved after the 1998 nationalcrackdown on dynamite fishing,further noted that a new approachto combat dynamite fishing is need-ed.Though he had no immediatealternatives, he was of the opinionthat the national and local govern-ments needed not to rest after thesuccessful crackdown that wasspearheaded by the TanzaniaPeople’s Defense Forces (TPDF)(InterCoast #34).They were sup-posed to work out sustainablestrategies for monitoring andenforcement, which would ensurefishing by explosives is completelychecked out.

“The people who are now deto-nating dynamite know quite wellthat the government cannot under-take another crackdown, which is

not only expensive, but highlycomplicated to organize.Without along-term monitoring and enforce-ment plan, it will not be easy tofind a lasting solution to the illicitdynamite fishing,” the old manelaborated. He added, “Dynamitefishing is a complex issue that isintertwined with poverty con-cerns, corruption, greed, and igno-rance that requires a more focusedand integrated approach to root itout.”

Dynamite fishing had turnedinto a scourge evading practicalsolution in Tanzania. All the wayfrom Tanga in the north to Mtwaraalong the south coast, explosivesliterally zapped the coast. It wasnot until the ministry of NaturalResources and Tourism, in cooper-ation with TPDF and the Navypolice, embarked on a special oper-ation in 1998 to crack down ondynamite fishers, that a breeze ofpeace returned to the coast.However, the crack down wasextremely expensive for the gov-ernment.

The effects of dynamite fishingneed not be emphasized. Fishing byuse of dynamite explosives isunquestionably the most destruc-tive to the delicate marine environ-ment.This is because dynamite is

usually detonated on coral reefswhich are highly productiveecosystems supporting a greatdiversity of plant and animal life.

According to marine experts,dynamite fishers usually search forreefs with a high concentration offish before detonating their explo-sives.The explosion, however, doesnot only kill fish, but cause totaldestruction of corals and otherassociated plant and animal lifefound in the vicinity of the blast.

It is estimated that a single dyna-mite blast instantly kills all fish, bigand small, all invertebrates andplankton, as well as eggs and larvaeof a variety of marine life within a15-20 meter radius.

As far as the coral reefs are con-cerned, the effects of dynamiteblasts are long lasting, and it takesmany years for the affected ecosys-tem to recover. It may take 25-50years for a destroyed reef to regen-erate, if it does. But even if itregenerates, it may never return toits original state.

For further information, contactGratian Luhikula, Information andLiason Officer, Tanzania CoastalManagement Partnership, P.O.Box71686, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,Tel: 255 51 667589/666190. Fax:255 51 668611. Email: gluhikula@

epiq.or.tz

Has Dynamite Fishing Resurfaced in Tanzania?

from analyses and empirical testingin a cross-portfolio learningapproach as described here.

(Copies of the reports support-

(continued from page 5)Pollnac ing this article are available from

the author.) For further information, contact

Richard B. Pollnac, Marine Affairsand Anthropology and the Coastal

Resources Center, University ofRhode Island, Kingston, RhodeIsland 02881 USA. E-mail:[email protected]


THE EASTERN AFRICAN COASTAL MANAGEMENTDATABASE:A NEW TOOL FORSTAKEHOLDERS IN THE REGION

Stakeholders in Eastern African countries need quality and timelyinformation for implementing integrated coastal management

(ICM). However, information sharing is facing a number of difficul-ties, such, as lack of concise data about coastal activities, failure incontacting coastal practitioners mainly because their contacts andmeans of communication have not been made available and short-age of related bibliography.

Representatives from 10 Eastern African countries requested a creation of an EasternAfrican Coastal Management Database as for assisting stakeholders in the region and to better

coordinate the implementation of ICM.The Secretariat for Eastern AfricanCoastal Area Management (SEACAM) in collaboration with Resource Analysisdeveloped the Eastern African Coastal Management Database, which containsinformation on coastal projects, programs, research activities, institutions,practitioners, bibliography, and other websites.

The database structure was based on the information needs of the region,the links between this information, and the way one can search for informa-tion.

For further information, contact Jorge Banze, Sten Engdahl, and Cust›dio Voabil, SEACAMl, P.O. Box4220, Maputo, Mozambique. Tel: 258 1 300641/2. Fax: 258 1 300638. E-mail: [email protected]

The Eastern African Coastal Management Database is accessed through the website: http://www.seacam.mz

New Watershed Management InitiativesWORKSHOP REPORT. WISCONSIN, USA

The watershed management efforts examined in our study reflect only several types of collaborativewatershed partnerships underway in the U.S. In July 2000, a dozen researchers gathered at the

University of Wisconsin, Madison,Wisconsin, for a workshop to discuss some of the common charac-teristics of new watershed management initiatives and the current state of knowledge of the factors thatinfluence their development and implementation.

The final report of these proceedings “Toward Understanding New Watershed Initiatives: A Reportfrom the Madison Watershed Workshop” is available at website: http://www.tu.org/library/conser-vation.asp


By Finn Bolding Thomsen

The Blue Flag Campaign is aneco-label awarded to beaches

and marinas complying with specif-ic criteria within the categories ofwater quality, environmental edu-cation and information, environ-mental management, and safetyand service facilities.The award hasto be renewed each year to ensurecontinuous compliance with thecriteria.

The campaign is owned and runby the independent non-profitorganization, Foundation forEnvironmental Education inEurope (FEEE).The campaignstarted in 1987 with approximately450 Blue Flag beaches/marinas in10 European countries. Despitecontinuously strengthened criteria,the Blue Flag Campaign hasbecome a huge and widespreadsuccess.Today, 23 European coun-tries are working with the BlueFlag Campaign. In 2001 more than2,700 beaches and marinas hope to

be awarded the Blue Flag.The Blue Flag has become a very

recognized symbol in Europe.Tourists and tour operators haveidentified the Flag as a symbol ofclean, safe, and environmentally-friendly managed coastal areas. Anincreasing number of tourists aretherefore asking for Blue Flagsbefore choosing their holiday desti-nation. Due to this, local authori-ties and marina owners are makingefforts to increase the environmen-tal and safety standards in order tocomply with the strict criteria andreceive the recognition.

In recent years, the success ofthe campaign has spread to coun-tries and regions outside Europe.With the active support of theUnited Nations EnvironmentalProgramme and World TourismOrganization, the work towardsthe implementation of the cam-paign in a number of areas outsideEurope has begun. South Africa,the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia

are actively working on the intro-duction of the campaign.Therehave been discussions concerningthe introduction of the campaign inNorthern America.

One of the strengths of the cam-paign lies in the approach towardsintegrated coastal management.The criteria consider differentenvironmental management com-ponents: compliance with existinglegislation on bathing water, waste-water treatment, physical planning,environmental codes of conduct atthe beaches/marinas, legislationconcerning beach use, and protec-tion of natural sensitive coastalareas and the surrounding environ-ment.

Although the Blue FlagCampaign is an award for beachesand marinas, the criteria areincreasingly being applied to thehinterland in order to see ifimprovements there can have aneffect on the environmental andsafety conditions at the beaches andmarinas.The last revision of thebeach criteria included a require-ment to take wastewater treatmentin the whole municipality into con-sideration in the evaluation of abeach candidate. It will also beimpossible to award a beach theBlue Flag if the beaches borderingthe Blue Flag candidate are notproperly managed.

The National Blue Flag Juriesare the political responsible bodiesin the evaluation and decisionprocesses ahead of the season.Thejury consists of all the relevantstakeholders in the coastal zone,and this representation is ensuringan important balance of the cam-paign.The typical jury membersare the ministry of environmentand health, the ministry of tourismor the national tourism board,environmental organizations, asso-ciation of local authorities, lifesav-ing experts, educational experts,marina experts. Bringing all therelevant stakeholders together for

Blue Flag Campaign:A PracticalTool for Integrated CoastalManagement

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE

COASTAL AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT

GESAMP REPORT AND STUDIES NO. 68GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP

Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection 2001

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is publishing aguideline document produced by GESAMP’s Expert Group on Environmental

Impacts of Coastal Aquaculture.The GESAMP expert group concluded that in most cases,enhanced sectoral approaches or locally focused coastal management are likely to be themost effective approaches to dealing with these problems.Part 1 is designed for policymakers and general planners. It presents the basic principlesand procedures for using these more integrated planning approaches.Part 2 is designed for coastal management and aquaculture development specialists. Itprovides in-depth review of the tools and their application.For further information, contact Uwe Barg, E-mail: [email protected]. For further infor-mation on GESAMP publications on coastal aquaculture, see website: http://www.fao.org/fi/meetings/gesamp/wg31cm.asp


this purpose demonstrates theimportance and necessity of bring-ing the public and private sectortogether.This approach is a clearillustration of integrated coastalmanagement.

The daily administration of thecampaign on the national level is inthe hands of independent non-prof-it environmental nongovernmentalorganizations that are member ofthe FEEE network.The nationalorganizations are responsible forthe preparations ahead of the jurymeetings, ensuring the compliancewith criteria during the season,promoting the campaign, arranginginformation seminars, etc. It is vol-untary whether a local authority ormarina manager will apply for theBlue Flag.This demonstrates theimportance of the bottom-upapproach in the campaign in addi-tion to the top-down approach in

the enforcement of existing legisla-tion and development of new legis-lation.

A very important component inthe Blue Flag Campaign is environ-mental education. FEEE is workingwith environmental education onthree different levels: generalawareness raising, adult/staff edu-cation, and formal school educa-tion.The Blue Flag Campaignfocuses on general awareness rais-ing through environmental infor-mation and education. In addition,all national organizations have sem-inars to educate the variousstakholders about coastal zonerelated issues. Formal school edu-cation is to a lesser degree includedin the Blue Flag Campaign, butschool children are often involvedin the campaign through beachcleaning activities, excursions tothe coast, among others.

The Blue Flag Campaign is animportant tool in the work towardssustainable coastal development. Itis concentrating on tourism byaddressing actions at beaches andmarinas. A goal is to continue touse current areas sustainably, andleave the more pristine areasuntouched.

(Criteria, application proce-dures, development in a new coun-try, and other information can befound at the Blue Flag website:http://www.blueflag.org)

For further information, contactFinn Bolding Thomsen, Inter-national Blue Flag Coordination,FEEE, The Danish OutdoorCouncil, Scandiagade 13, DK2450, Copenhagen SV, Denmark.Tel: 45 33 79 00 79. Fax: 45 3379 01 79. E-mail: [email protected]

scale, magnitude, number, or dura-tion to have much potential for sig-nificant improvements in a water-shed’s environmental conditions.

We also concluded that therewere often unrealistic expectationsabout what could be accomplishedby a watershed management pro-gram given current funding levels,the pervasive nature of many NPSproblems, and existing institutionalconstraints. It is also important forpolicymakers, practitioners, andthe public to recognize that manyNPS problems are the result of the‘tyranny of small decisions’ anddeveloped incrementally overdecades. It may take equally longperiods of time to address them.

Evaluation:TheImportance ofPerformanceMonitoring

Our final set of findings con-

cerned monitoring and evaluatingthe effectiveness of implementationefforts.We concluded that per-formance measures and trackingsystems played an important role inencouraging a systematic approachto addressing specific watershedproblems.While it was importantto have good data on environmen-tal conditions, it was equallyimportant to have a system thatmonitors federal, state, and localimplementation activities on anongoing and frequent basis.Thisinformation often helped developand reinforce peer-pressure at thepolitical, professional, and inter-personal level, helped sustain com-mitments, and encouraged addi-tional implementation activities.These social norms also provide aninformal means of helping enforcethe voluntary agreements that typi-cally lay at the heart of many col-laborative implementation efforts.

(Environmental Governance inWatersheds: The Importance of

Collaboration to InstitutionalPerformance, supporting case stud-ies, and related publications areavailable at: http://www.spea.indi-ana.edu/mimperia/imperial.htm)

For further information, contactMark T. Imperial, University ofNorth Carolina at Wilmington,Wilmington, North Carolina28403-3297 USA. Tel: 812-855-5971. E-mail: [email protected]. After 8/01 Tel: 910-962-3220. E-mail: [email protected] or Timothy Hennessey, Dept.of Political Science. University ofRhode Island, Kingston, RhodeIsland 02881 USA. Tel: 401-874-4052. E-mail: [email protected]

(continued from page 15)Imperial and Hennessey


3. Communities had difficulty inenforcing local rules when it wasunclear whether the rules conflict-ed with national laws (this was par-ticularly true in Fiji and theSolomon Islands).

4. Communities may need accessto expert advice on the technicalaspects of managing resources.

5. Several respondents reportedthat external commercial operatorshad circumvented local manage-ment rules by forming allianceswith local leaders.

...yet coastal resource man-agement seems to be receiv-ing low priority.

In general, the study found aneed for greater government atten-tion to coastal resource manage-ment. Only about one fourth ofthe staff time of national fisheriesagencies is spent on coastal man-agement matters. Given the lowpriority accorded to coastal man-agement, it is not surprising thatonly about 40 percent of the vil-lages had been visited by a govern-ment official to discuss coastalresource management issues duringthe previous 10 years.

Further collaborativeefforts are needed, but per-haps of a different kind thanpresently provided...

Over-fishing was the most fre-quent cause cited for catch declinesand one of the most importantthreats found at the study sites, yetin many cases it cannot beaddressed adequately by currentregulations. Programs may beneeded to strengthen the commu-nities’ ability and awareness of theneed to restrict their own fishingeffort, and to restrict the issuanceof commercial licenses. Many ofthe threats that, in the view ofrespondents, require some form ofexternal assistance (e.g., coastalpollution, mining, coastal infra-structure construction) cannot be

provide information to the com-munities, there was often little evi-dence that villagers had absorbedmuch of the information provided.

Sanctuaries seem to act ascatalysts for communityawareness of the benefits ofcoastal resource management.

Marine sanctuaries were foundat 14 of the study sites. In general,these communities had favorableimpressions of the sanctuaries’impact. Compliance was perceivedto be good, and key species werethought to be increasing in abun-dance.The communities also felt,in general, that the sanctuarieswould be sustained into the future.Perhaps as relevant as their man-agement role, sanctuaries seem toact as catalysts in enlarging com-munity awareness of the benefits ofcoastal resource management.Thestudy team found, however, thatgreater attention needs to be paidto ensuring that the results of eco-logical monitoring are available tovillagers, that no-take rules insidesanctuaries are strictly enforced,that sanctuaries are properly locat-ed and sized, and that villagersclearly understand the sanctuaries’objectives and benefits.While thebenefits of sanctuaries were gener-ally perceived to be positive, theydo not eliminate the need for othermanagement interventions.

Which factors affect perceivedsuccess at the site level? The rela-tively small number of sites, alongwith data constraints, made it diffi-cult to distinguish the effects ofmultiple factors on perceived indi-cators of successful resource man-agement. However, some generalconclusions can be drawn. Amongfactors external to the site, naturaldisasters (e.g., cyclones) were sig-nificantly associated with the per-ception that fish catches wererecovering and habitats hadimproved following a major event.The study provided indications ofthe national policies that may be

controlled only by the institutionsthat traditionally have been givenresponsibility for dealing withcoastal resource management (thefisheries and environmental agen-cies).

...most alternative incomegeneration programs do notappear to have been success-ful in reducing pressure oncoastal resources...

A common strategy to reducepressure on coastal resources hasbeen to introduce alternative waysto earn income, such as aquacul-ture, offshore tuna fishing, anddeep-slope fishing. Communityperceptions at the study sites arethat these programs have generallynot been successful in reducingpressure on coastal resources.Thissuggests a need to explore incomegeneration opportunities outsidethe fisheries sector, should theyexist.

...and some of the most val-ued partners play primarilyan advisory role to the com-munities.

Fifteen study sites (48 percent)were being assisted by externalpartners in managing their coastalresources. In general, communitiesperceived the benefits of partner-ships to outweigh their shortfalls,but communities and externalpartners tended to have differentperceptions about the benefits ofthe partnership. Local communitiestended to focus on short-term,tangible benefits, while externalpartners were more interested inprocess-oriented results (e.g.,strengthening local managementinstitutions). Communities per-ceived unkept promises, inadequateconsultation, and slowness inachieving benefits as the main flawsof the partnerships, while theexternal partner focused on thefailure of villagers to fulfill theircommitments.The study also foundthat while external partners feltthey had made strong efforts to

(continued from page 7)Gillett


needed to support community-based management of coastalresources.These include:

� Simple and clear national reg-ulations

� An enabling framework facili-tating the adoption and enforce-ment of local rules

� Awareness programs aimed atlocal leaders

� Assistance on technicalaspects of resource management

COASTLEARN:A LONG-DISTANCE TRAINING

PROGRAM FOR EASTERN EUROPE

By Alan H Pickaver

The European Union for Coastal Conservation (EUCC) International Secretariat is the lead partner in a newproject—COASTLEARN—launched in January 2001.This project aims to make integrated coastal manage-

ment (ICM) accessible to professionals in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and Baltic Sea. A vocationaltraining package will be used that makes extensive use of the electronic media to develop and test new electron-ic-based training modules for topics of this and similar contents.

The project will communicate basic knowledge about ICM with the help of manuals distributed electronically (E-mail, CD-ROM) combined with references to where additional information can be found on the internet. Alsoproposed is a virtual, long-distance ICM problem-solving seminar involving both eastern and western partners.

A Helpdesk will be available for assistance. Course participants will be encouraged to support each other,exchange information, and jointly develop methods by communicating via E-mail, Internet relay chats, and virtu-al workshops.To minimize language barriers, the most important information will be translated into local lan-guages.These developing networks will be linked electronically with existing ICM networks.The project’s aim isto strengthen pan-European cooperation and encourage/allow other countries to participate in this process.

The Coastal Zone Management Centre of the National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management in theNetherlands will contribute know-how on ICM issues.The Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic andEnvironmental Engineering Delft, the Netherlands; and the Southampton Institute, UK, will provide ICM train-ing expertise.The Forest Research Institute, Greece, will provide case studies and best practice examples fromICM projects Europe-wide. Experts from educational and planning institutes in several countries (e.g.,Turkey,Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Poland) will ensure that the package meets the needs of the target audience, in addition toupdating their distance-training techniques.These packages will be distributed not only in their own countries,but also to the whole region.

For further information, contact Alan H Pickaver, European Union for Coastal Conservation, P.O. Box 11232,2301 EE Leiden, Netherlands. Tel: 31 71 5122900. Fax: 31 71 5124069. E-mail: [email protected]. Website:www.eucc.nl

� Inter-sectoral collaboration toaddress land-based threats tocoastal habitats

Some Final Thoughtson the Emphasis ofthe Survey

The results of the survey indi-cate the need for a greater relianceon socioeconomic analysis tounderstand the incentives govern-ing local decisions on coastal

resource use. By listening to com-munities, coastal managers in thePacific will be better able to for-mulate effective programs of assis-tance and to help curb the degrada-tion of coastal resources and habi-tats throughout the region.

For further information, contactRobert Gillett, Fiji. Tel: 679362855


The year 2001 will be busy asthe case study reports are finalized,thematic reviews are synthesizedand the lesson’s learned are sum-marized and disseminated.Theconsortium has agreed that thiscooperative approach provides animportant platform for gainingunderstanding and sharing experi-ences globally on shrimp aquacul-ture management.The next stageof work will focus more on sup-port to implement the findings.This reflects a key concern amongall consortium partners to translatethe information generated intoimproved capacity and better man-agement practice from the pondlevel to the ecosystem, national,and international levels. As aqua-culture continues to expand global-ly and becomes more diverse andcomplex, the need to promotecooperation, capture lessons

shrimp aquaculture managementheld in Brisbane, Australia, duringDecember 2000. An agreementwas reached on a set of broad guid-ing principles for sustainableshrimp aquaculture management.FAO plans to table these guidingprinciples for government consen-sus at the first Committee onFisheries (COFI) Sub Committeeon Aquaculture (2002 in China),which was established during the24th session of COFI in February2001.The consortium has agreedto prepare documentation andreports together for this meeting.The consortium work will there-fore potentially have significantimpact at the intergovernmentallevel in helping to reach broaderconsensus on guiding principles forfuture management of shrimpaquaculture.

Phillips et al.(continued from page 13)

learned, and share learning andexperiences will increase as well.The consortium’s partnershipapproach shows that such coopera-tion is not only fruitful in the shortterm, but also provides a platformupon which such cooperation canbe further extended in the future.

The program was funded by theWorld Bank-NetherlandsPartnership Program,WWF,NACA, FAO, and MacArthur andAVINA Foundations.

For further information, contactMichael Phillips, NACA, SuraswadiBuilding, Kasetsart UniversityCampus, Ladyao, Jatujak, Bangkok10900 Thailand. Tel: 662 5611728. Fax: 662 561 1727. E-mail:[email protected] or [email protected]. Website:http://www.enaca.org bank.org

MANAGEMENT OF BLEACHED ANDSEVERELY DAMAGED REEFS

World Conservation Union Booklet Available

Since the 1980s, the phenomenon of coral bleaching has become more frequent, widespread and severe. Globalclimate change appears to be the main cause. Long periods of unusually warm sea temperatures in 1998 lead to

wide-scale bleaching of coral reefs in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean. Bleached corals expeltheir symbiotic algae and become susceptible to disease and overgrowth by algae. In the Seychelles islands in thewestern Indian Ocean, coral reefs were particularly hard hit by bleaching, and more than 90 percent of corals died.

Climate change and other human impacts are destroying the coral reefs of the world. Scientists estimate that onequarter of the coral reefs have already been destroyed, and a third of the remaining reefs are severely threatened.Urgent measures are needed to protect the remaining reefs.

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has published a booklet, Management of Bleached and Severely DamagedReefs, to provide guidance on how to protect and manage degraded coral reefs.The booklet is available in six lan-guages: English, French, Spanish, Kiswahili, Indonesian and Portuguese. It was produced in cooperation with theSecretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and the US Agency forInternational Development.

The booklet can be ordered from IUCN Publication Services Unit, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL,United Kingdom. Tel: 44-1223-277894. Fax: 44-1223-277175. E-mail: [email protected]. Website:http://www.iucn.org/places/usa/literature.html. The English version of the booklet can be ordered free ofcharge from WWF Sweden, Ulriksdal Slott, SE-170 81 Solna, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]


for measuring each objective’sachievement, as well the establish-ment of the standards (or targets)and the setting of timetables (mile-stones).

Further work is needed to devel-op each of these organizing frame-works and associated databases inorder to make them fully opera-tional and thereby achieve their fullpotential to improve ICM. In orderto do this, funding is needed tocomplete information and datainput into each framework, andmake each operational and easilyaccessible to those interested inICM or other fields or interestsdirectly relevant to the practice.

Beyond 2000Baseline 2000 is a tangible

expression of the CZCA’s commit-ment to use its biennial conferenceseries to generate products of valueto the coastal/ocean planning andmanagement agenda and to havethese serve as the benchmark forICM at the turn of the century.This benchmark can be used tomeasure and evaluate our individ-ual and collective progress overtime.

The next CZC conference (CZC2002, Hamilton, Ontario) willreport on progress made, highlightnew lessons learned, and to pro-vide working sessions designed toproduce insights and practicalapproaches for advancing ICMbeyond Baseline 2000.

If we heed the recommendationsin Baseline 2000 and increase ourlearning from the experiences inthe literature as well as Baseline2000 frameworks and the databas-es, the state-of-the-art of ICMshould increase significantly.Wecan learn from the success and fail-ures of similarly situated swamprehabilitation projects how toeffectively and efficiently both con-trol the alligators and drain theswamp, with minimal adverseimpacts while achieving the best

agreement among the stakeholders.We can then communicate the les-sons learned from our project toothers contemplating similar proj-ects.Who could ask for anythingmore?

(Funds for the B2K project camefrom the CZCA, CanadianDepartment of Fisheries andOceans, Environment Canada andthe U.S. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. JensSorensen was commissioned to dothe B2K project. A concise confer-ence version and a comprehensivebackground report of Baseline2000 are available at website:http://www.dal.ca/aczisc/czca-azcc/index.htm)

For further information, contactLarry.Hildebrand, CorporateAffairs Branch, EnvironmentCanada-Atlantic Region, 16thFloor, Queen Square, 45 AlderneyDrive, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,B2Y 2N6 Canada. Tel: 902 4262131. Fax: 902 426 6348. E-mail:[email protected] or JensSorensen, Harbor and CoastalCenter, University ofMassachusetts, Boston,Massachusetts 02125 USA, Tel:617 287 5578. Fax: 617 287 5599.E-mail: [email protected]

and 29 challenges.The matrix illus-trates a pronounced pattern of rep-etition among most of the dimen-sions.The practice of ICM hasdeveloped a dogma.The matrixserves as a reference point and,hopefully, it will constrain furtherrepetition in the general guidanceliterature on ICM as an interna-tional practice.

An index and database of ICMtopics. The literature on all aspectsof ICM continues to grow. Reviewof this literature (particularly con-ference proceedings, journal arti-cles, and newsletters) produced alisting of 218 topic areas of directrelevance to ICM. Most of thesetopic areas have their own informa-tion exchange networks (e.g., web-sites, periodicals, and conferences).An index of these topics will beconverted into an interactive data-base that will include informationon the exchange networks (thosenetworks judged to be most helpfulto ICM practitioners) associatedwith each relevant topic.The data-base of ICM topics should alsoserve as an integration point for allthe key topics in the other six com-ponents.

Approaches and indicators forevaluating ICM programs. Nationalgovernments in developed nationsand international donor institutionsare increasingly assessing whethertheir investments in a program—such as ICM—are wisely and effec-tively fulfilling the intended pur-poses of the program.These evalu-ations are also needed to improveproject/program design and makeadjustments to the internal work-ings of the ICM effort.This sectionfocuses on the main impediment tocreating a system for monitoring,evaluating, and periodic reportingon ICM programs. However, con-sensus has not been reached onspecific and measurable objectives,valid and cost-effective indicators

(continued from page 21)Hildebrand and Sorensen


more beneficial to projects than thecosts of their participation. Inorder to keep learning networksgoing, the learning process has tobe keep meaningful to the entiregroup. Of ultimate importance forsuch learning approaches to workis having the human resource sup-port necessary to organize andestablish a coordination and facili-tation team.

Support for learning networksalso extends to a project level. Forlong-term, cross-project learning,it was noted that the types of sup-port needed were well-developedmonitoring methods appropriatefor the communities and assistancein data analysis. Also essential was acentral website for sharing ideasand capacity-building training, aswell as support to enable travel.

Estimating the level of humanand financial support requiredunder any particular ICM learningnetwork is specific to the numberof project sites involved, the scaleof questions being asked, and thenumber of assumptions being test-ed. Although seemingly unafford-able, an important message regard-ing investment is that such learningefforts are not always too expen-sive to implement. Indeed, whilethey may require sizeable capitalinvestment to initiate, such short-term costs of scaling-up ICMlearning efforts are insignificantwhen compared to the long-termcosts associated with the continuedloss of coral reefs and other coastalecosystems.

(For copies of a summary ofthese recommendations, contactRobert Pomeroy, E-mail:[email protected])

For further information, contactJohn Parks, Biological ResourcesProgram, World ResourcesInstitute, 10 G Street NE,Washington DC 20002 USA. Tel:202 729 7632. Fax: 202 729 7620.E-mail: [email protected]

shared learning framework is mod-eling sites’ operating conditions inorder to share and compare withinthe network to produce a commonset of testable assumptions.Generating site models across asuite of projects requires a com-mon method and language that canbe followed by multiple projectsindependent of one another.Thus,to be useful in a shared learningframework, project models mustbe developed as simply and clearlyas possible.This simple methodolo-gy is critical to long-term successof such necessary efforts needed inan ICM learning networks.

Action Three: IncreaseCross-Project Communicationand Learning Opportunities

In order to scale-up coral reefconservation learning from site-specific lessons to principles con-cluded across a network of system-atically-tested sites, the exchangeof information and experiencesmust occur at a cross-project level.This cross-project or ‘network’learning is a method of first-handlearning that provides for the shar-ing of tangible lessons that areclearly understood by those work-ing on coral reef management.

Critics of such cross-projectlearning argue that the conse-quences of such efforts are limitedand do not always outweigh theexorbitant cost in terms of timeand money. As a result, criticsadvocate for ‘virtual’ networkingalternatives such as online meet-ings. However, not everyone agreeswith this approach. Some presen-ters at the session highlighted theneed for such network learning tooccur actively, rather than passivelythrough virtual communicationssuch as E-mail or the Internet.Through cross-project visits andmeetings, projects will beenhanced by allowing ‘real-time’learning.

Parks et al.(continued from page 19)

In all of the discussion at ICRSregarding the utility of site visitsfor cross-project learning, twopoints were made clear for futureguidance: 1) cross-project visitsshould be done strategically, basedon the needs of the projectsinvolved and their mutual contri-butions toward one-another; and 2)such visits should be conductedwithin the context of a muchbroader learning network of proj-ect sites that exceeds organization-or country-specific parameters.

Action Four: IncreaseSupport to Those Who AreDoing the Learning

To do the kind of learning out-lined within the previous three rec-ommendations will obviouslyrequire a new commitment ofhuman and financial support fromdonors and policymakers. At pres-ent, the financial support availablefor doing coral reef management islimited and highly competitive.Even so, donors, research scien-tists, and managers are forminginnovative partnerships and learn-ing arrangements with conserva-tion practitioners to improve thescientific techniques underlying thepractice of day-to-day coral reefmanagement. Despite this collabo-ration, however, there remain sig-nificant gaps. Relatively few donoragencies seem prepared to invest inthe long-term scientific effort nec-essary to develop applied conserva-tion experiments and learningarrangements. As a consequence,our learning capacity is limited,and we face real risks of drawingthe wrong conclusions about theefficancy of particular approachesto conservation management.

Financial support is not the onlyresource formal learning networksrequire—they also need dedicatedpeople.The learning participantsthemselves are a key resource forlearning network success, as suchpeople are instrumental in demon-strating that group learning may be


COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENTCoastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLEFor a complete list, and for shipping and handling information if applicable, please contact the Coastal Resources

Center, University of Rhode Island, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 USA. Tel: 401 874-6224. Fax:401 789-4670. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: http://crc.uri.edu

Tobey, J., J. Clay and P.Vergne. 1998. Maintaining a Balance: The Economic, Environmental andSocial Impacts of Shrimp Farming in Latin America. URI Coastal Resources Center.Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2202. In English and Spanish.

Olsen S., K. Lowry and J.Tobey. 1999. A Manual for Assessing Progress in Coastal Management.URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report#2211.

Pogue, P. and Noëlle F. Lewis. 1999. Coastal Hazards Mitigation: An Overview of the Policies,Programs and Activities in the Coastal Northeast. URI Coastal Resources Center.Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2216.

Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership Support Unit and the Mariculture Working Group. 1999.Tanzania Mariculture Issue Profile. Dar es Salaam,Tanzania.

Olsen, S.B. 1999. Coastal Management: What Are We Learning From U.S. and InternationalExperience? URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal ManagementReport. #2218.

Olsen, S.B. 1999. Educating for Governance of Coastal Ecosystems: The Dimension of theChallenge. URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal ManagementReport #2219.

Olsen, S.B. 2000. Increasing the Efficiency of Integrated Coastal Management. URI CoastalResources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2220.

Coastal Resources Center. 2000. Coastal Resources Management Project II, 1999 Results:Increasing Conservation and Sustainable Use of Coastal Resources. URI Coastal ResourcesCenter. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2222.

Fraser, N., B. Crawford and J. Kusen. 2000. Best Practices Guide for Crown-of-Thorns Clean-up.URI Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report#2225.

Pollnac, R. and B. Crawford. 2000. Assessing Behavioral Aspects of Coastal Resources Use. URICoastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. Coastal Management Report #2226.

Olsen, S.B. 2000. Ecuador's Pioneering Initiativein Integrated Coastal Management. URICoastal Resources Center. Narragansett, RhodeIsland USA. Coastal Management Report #2227.

Coastal Development Authority-Kenya. 2000. MovingCoastal Management Forward, KenyaProgress Report 1994-1999. URI CoastalResources Center. Narragansett, Rhode IslandUSA. Coastal Management Report #2231.

capacity development.The learningeffort combines empirical testingof propositions with training andcapacity development.

Two contributions to this issuedescribe cross-portfolio learningefforts using a case study learningapproach. Phillips and colleagues(page 12) describe a major interna-tional collaborative effort whosegoal is to analyze and share experi-ences on management of shrimpaquaculture in coastal areas. Over35 cases from around the worldhave been prepared with the objec-tives of improving understanding ofkey issues involved in sustainableshrimp aquaculture, enhancingcapabilities for evaluating successand failures in sustainable shrimpaquaculture, and identifying bettermanagement strategies. In thecoming year, the consortium willcommunicate the findings and seekways to feed them back to actionand innovation on the ground.

Imperial and Hennessy (page 14)describe the cross-portfolio learn-ing effort of six watershed manage-ment programs in the UnitedStates. A common set of proposi-tions and research questions wereposed and then applied to a casestudy evaluation of each watershedprogram. Major topics that the casestudies cast light upon include theimportance of contextual factors,inter-institutional collaboration,flexibility in planning and imple-mentation, the role of science indeliberation and decisionmaking,and the importance of defining andmeasuring outcome goals.

Two other of the contributionshighlight the possibilities and chal-lenges of broad-based learning net-works.Troost (page 16) explainsthe objectives and activities of theUnited Nations Educational,Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) Wise

Coastal Practices for SustainableHuman Development Forum.TheWise Practices Forum combinesfield project experience, mentoringand web-based information oncoastal management issues, prac-tices and strategies.

Parks and colleagues (page 18)describe efforts to establish a for-mal learning network on coral reefconservation. A session of the 10thmeeting of the International CoralReef Symposium (ICRS) in 2000was dedicated to shared learningand recommendations to increasethe scale of future learning.Recommendations include estab-lishment of formal learning net-works across sites and geographicscales; development of systematic,but simple learning methods;increased cross-project communi-cation and site visits, and increasedhuman and financial commitmentto cross-portfolio learning.

These and the other collabora-tive learning networks described inthis issue of InterCoast recognizethe need to boost the benefits oflearning in ICM to enhance thereach and impact of projects.Thisis particularly critical in a world inwhich development challenges areincreasingly complex and resourcesare shrinking. Given the scope ofthe coastal challenges, the complexrealities, and gaps in knowledge onbest strategies toward sustainablecoastal development, strategic col-laboration is a necessity. No onecan ”go it alone.”

In other collaborative networksand partnerships in coastal manage-ment networks, partners collabo-rate through a variety of initiatives,including pilot projects; trainingand research; evaluation; informa-tion sharing; identification of gapsand supporting action at the local,national, and regional level; anddevelopment of common goals,principles, and tools. In somecases, task force teams address spe-

cific priorities and provide strategicassistance to participating organiza-tions. Learning networks providean environment for partners toadvance learning initiatives anddevelop solutions.

Finally, the contribution byHildebrand and Sorenson (page 20)describes how coastal managementconferences can promote thedevelopment of a common learningagenda in ICM.The last biennialCoastal Zone Canada Conferenceprepared background and discus-sion papers on the status of ICM asan international practice. One ofthe objectives of the Baseline 2000paper was to review the key princi-ples, strategies, techniques, andtools of ICM that have emergedand are now largely accepted with-in the community of practitioners.This recognized that to developand advance a shared learningagenda, we must first develop aconsensus on what has beenlearned about good practice inICM. At the Coastal Zone CanadaConference 2002, the baseline2000 will be revisited to produceinsights and approaches for advanc-ing learning in ICM.

In summary, the contributions tothis issue show that there are manyapproaches and strategies to learn-ing. As Lowry observes, somequestions about practice can beaddressed using focus groups andexpert groups, documentation,case studies, or web-based learningnetworks. Others require more sci-entific, experimental methods.When the costs of being wrong arehigh and the issues are contentious,inquiry strategies are needed thatare widely accepted as resulting inreliable and credible results. In allcases, the ultimate aim is to pro-mote learning activities that willboost the cumulative impact ofICM efforts worldwide and thetransfer and adoption of new ideasto practice.

34

Tobey(continued from page 2)



� How do we know which gen-eralizations to apply to the specificconditions of a particular project ata particular site?

In general, what ICM practition-ers learn from experience and thevariety of inquiry strategies getsexpressed in five ways:

� Practice stories.Tales we telleach other about practice; aboutwhat has worked, what hasn’t andwhy.

� Rules of thumb. Practical,often implicit personal guidelineswe use to organize our own profes-sional behavior.

� Lessons. Principles or guide-lines drawn from experience orinquiry that apply to classes of situ-ations.

� Best practices. Specific ‘how-to’ guidance for carrying out plan-ning or management tasks.

� Propositions. Causal attribu-tions made on the basis of rigorousresearch.

Encouraging MoreLearning in ICM

How can we make learningmore relevant to ICM practice?

Here are some general suggestions.1. Incorporate learning into

project designs.The IndonesianCRMP included explicit learningtasks into the project design.Theresulting documentation and analy-sis could serve coastal projects inthat country for years to come.

2. Identify key questions oruncertainties in ICM practice. ICMpractitioners confront similar proj-ect design and implementationissues and problems.What arethey? Which ones are researchable?

3. Match inquiry strategies tothese key questions. Expensive, rig-orous analysis is not necessary forall important practice questions.Some questions about practice canbe addressed using focus groups orcase studies. Other questions mayrequire quasi-experimental meth-ods.

4. Acknowledge—and address—issues of research validity and cred-ibility.Testing new drugs or med-ical procedures requires experi-mental methods both because thestakes are high in terms of lives andpotential cost-savings and becauseopinion about the efficacy of newmedical approaches is often divid-

Lowry(continued from page 3)

The number and quality oflearning efforts in ICM are increas-ing, and this is a sign of a strongand maturing field and an indica-tion that donors are encouragingstructured learning efforts. In May2001, the Coastal ResourcesCenter at the University of RhodeIsland is convening a workshop oncross-portfolio learning in ICM.The workshop will build on theexperience gained from the activi-

ties presented in this issue ofInterCoast and will seek to furtheradvance understanding of learningmethods, priority areas for learn-ing, and opportunities for improv-ing collaborative learning partner-ships. InterCoast will notify read-ers how to obtain a copy of theproceedings when they are avail-able later this year.

James Tobey is a technical spe-cialist in coastal management and

coordinator for the CoastalResources Center's initiative inresearch and learning. He can becontacted at the Coastal ResourcesCenter, University of RhodeIsland, South Ferry Road,Narragansett,Rhode Island 02882USA. Tel: 401 874 6411. Fax: 401789 4670. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: http://crc.uri.edu

ed.The same is true of some ICMissues.When the costs of beingwrong are high and the issues arecontentious, inquiry strategies areneeded that are widely accepted asresulting in ‘credible’ results.

5. Encourage a more criticalapproach to ‘lessons’, ‘best prac-tices’ and other inquiry products. Amore systematic approach to learn-ing requires us to examine theproducts of such inquiries morecritically and to offer suggestionsfor revisions and refinements. Peerreview should become the norm.

For further information, contactKem Lowry, Department of Urbanand Regional Planning, Universityof Hawaii, 2424 Maile Way, Rm.107, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822USA. Tel: 808 956 6868. E-mail:[email protected]

Coastal Resources CenterUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansett Bay CampusNarragansett, RI 02882 USA

Address service requested

Printed on recycled paper

INTERCOAST, FALL 2001, ISSUE #40WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T?

ESTUARY, BAY, AND LAGOONMANAGEMENT

There is an increasing awareness that subtle, cumulative, and possibly irre-versible changes are occurring in our environment. Estuaries, bays, and

lagoons, the systems with the most immediate inputs from land, are par-ticularly vulnerable to actions taking place on land. Increased use of

fertilizers and the discharges of sewage effluents have greatly increased ratesof fertilizer delivery to the coastal environment with the consequence of increas-

ing the occurrences of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms.Toxic pollution entering from rivers,runoff, and atmospheric deposition has become so pervasive no place has been left untouched. River flowhas been reduced by extraction for irrigation and industrial and domestic use. Deforestation has caused severe sedimenta-tion in some systems, decreasing light penetration and limiting biological production. All these factors can have devastatingeffects on the fish and other organisms that live and spawn in these areas.

Unfortunately, management of estuaries, bays, and lagoons has always been complex and fraught with problems created byoverlapping and competing industrial, political, economic, preservation, and recreational interests.The result is there is lit-tle consensus about management approaches. In short, what works and what does not work?

The next issue of InterCoast (#40, Fall 2001) will report on the current under-standing of watershed management, and how different practices affect estuaries,bays, and lagoons. Can certain approaches to watershed management help torestore and preserve the coastal areas? Can good management avoid creatingunforeseeable problems in the future?

To contribute, please contact Noëlle F. Lewis, Coastal Resources Center,University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 USA.Tel: 401-874-6870. Fax: 401-789-4670. E-mail:[email protected]: http://crc.uri.edu. General articles on other coastal management issues are also welcome.

Deadline is August 1, 2001. Articles should be 1,000-1,700 words.Articles will be edited; please do not include references.

coastal resources center - embracing the power of …coastal management for food secu-rity, poverty...

Documents