Framework characteristics-1 • • • • • • • • • •

C onceptual and methodological Sustainability and management science foundations C omplex socialsocial-ecological sy stems Integrative forms of knowledge and social learning Adaptive management Institutional issues InterInter-disciplinary analy sis Participative processes Integration of advisory processes with decisiondecision-making Empowerment of fishing communities.

Framework characteristics-2 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

C onceptual and operational, nonnon-prescriptive, sy stemic DemandDemand-oriented , problem -oriented, processprocess-oriented Participative, using multiple sources of evidence Interdisciplinary , privileging integrative modes of inquiry C ombines historical, comparative and experimental approaches C ombines qualitative and quantitative methods C onsiders multiple scales of analy sis Accounts for uncertainty C ontinuously improves and tests knowledge Provides a performanceperformance-driven environment. Looks for anticipated sets of adaptive responses Looks for enhanced capacity of reaction C ontributes to capacity -building

Sources of inspiration • C onventional stock assessment (single or multiple species level) • MultiMulti-criteria decision analy sis • Integrated environmental assessment (MEA) • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) • Qualitative and quantitative risk analy sis and management • Analy sis of rural livelihoods • Policy analy sis • C ost benefit analy sis • Vulnerability analy sis • C omplex sy stems theory • Risk management theory • Etc..

Connection to other frameworks • • • • • • • • •

C ode of C onduct Code Sustainable development and ESD Ecosy stem Approach to fisheries Precautionary Approach to Fisheries RightsRights-based fisheries management C o--management Co Ecosy stem conservation. C onventional fishery management Conventional Traditional fishery management

• AreaArea-based integrated management • Integrated rural development • Integrated conservation and development (IC AD) • Interactive governance • C ommon property resource Common managt. managt. • Sustainable livelihoods programs • Poverty reduction strategies • ResilienceResilience-based management

3-5 years

Setting objectives (Broad goals, operational objectives, indicators and performance measures)

Formulating action & rules (Legislation; regulation; planning)

Implementing & enforcing 1 year

Monitoring & reporting; Short-term assessments Long-term policy review

Information management

Consultation with stakeholders Cascading systems of representation

Scoping (Fishery and area, stakeholders, issue identification)

Indicators, case studies, models, drivers, narratives, competencies, laws and regulations, best practices , discussion groups, portals, education and outreach

Planning & management process

Source: FAO Guidelines

The integrated assessment process Demand New demands

Scoping Drop the issue

Feasible?

Assessment Solution?

Retry

Advice/Decision New policy?

Agreement?

Use best practices

Implementation Monitoring & Evaluation Failure?

Success?

Fine tuning?

Send to best practices

Single versus recurrent assessment

Trigger

Characteristics

Single assessment Crisis

Time schedule

Unplanned, urgent

Recurrent assessment Management & Planning process Planned, formal schedules

Predictive horizon Short term

Medium to long term

Data sources

Existing

Character

Operational

Strategic

Monitoring

Usually not foreseen

Institutionalized

Resources

Available

Available + additional

Existing + new data

Knowledge building process

Assessment process

Policy / management process

Recognizing potential scientific contribution

Clarify demand

Setting policies and strategies

Research-based knowledge

Boundaries? Dimensions? Issues? Attributes? Stakeholders? Partners? Data sources? Approaches?

Establishing institutions

Scoping

Confronting issues

Assessing

Stakeholders knowledge & interests

Paradigms and mental models

Dimensions, vision, strategy, roles, methods

Organizing information

Analysis and synthesis

Roles, methods and toll kits Option identification & evaluation

Extended peer review

Using

Articulating decision-making needs

Better practices

Advice

Deliberation & decision

Monitoring & evaluation

Implementation

New scientific agendas

New policy agendas

From Lebel 2007

Key Keystakeholder stakeholder inputs inputs and and processes processes

Landings Employment Gear Institutions Markets Conflicts

Participatory visioning and strategic planning

A3: Characterize system & Identify approaches High

A1:Fishery attributes

Complexity

A2: Select, prioritize issues

Low

Scoping

A: Characterize the system

Low

High Value

B1: select approaches

Assessment 1 2 3 4 5

Processes to engage stakeholders identify and prioritize issues

B2: Select toolbox Low cost

1

2

3

4

Expensive 1.Participation

B3: Determine integration approach

2. Livelihoods

5

3. Resource status

2

4

ns tio ac er

3

4. Institutions

t In

Issues

1

Processes to obtain local and traditional knowledge inputs to assessment

5. ?? ??

5

B4: Conduct assessment

New Demand

DEMAND SCOPING: Characterize… Issues

Fishery

Assessment Drop the issue

Convene team Major change

MULTIDISCPLINARY & PARTICIPATIVE ASSESSMENT: agree on… Interactions

Approaches

Common vision

Roles

Tool box

MULTIDISCPLINARY & PARTICIPATIVE ASSESSMENT: sensu stricto

Fine tuning

Issues & objectives

Status & trends

Options & consequences

Transition strategies

Advice

DECISION PROCESS Scientists

Authority

Stakeholders

Decision Confirmation

CO-IMPLEMENTATION

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

BEST PRACTICES

MONITORING & EVALUATION

New Demand

DEMAND SCOPING: Characterize… Issues

Fishery

Assessment Drop the issue

Convene team Major change

MULTIDISCPLINARY & PARTICIPATIVE ASSESSMENT: agree on… Interactions

Approaches

Common vision

Roles

Tool box Fine tuning

MULTIDISCPLINARY & PARTICIPATIVE ASSESSMENT: sensu stricto Issues & objectives

Status & trends

Options & consequences

Transition strategies

Advice

DECISION PROCESS Scientists

Authority

Stakeholders

Decision Confirmation PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

CO-IMPLEMENTATION

BEST PRACTICES

MONITORING & EVALUATION

Some cross-cutting issues… • • • • • • • • •

C ompetition with existing frameworks Recurrent costs Simplification . Pilot testing and up scaling Optimizing participation Dosing complexity C apacity -building at central and local levels Auditing sy stem Developing the background research

The integration challenge Between: Between: • • • • • • •

Science and policy Policy and society Natural and social science disciplines Scientific and traditional knowledge Quantitative and qualitative analy ses Facts, values and perceptions Assessment, advice, monitoring and evaluation

Governance triangles B1

C1

P

P

F

S

F

S

Traditional

Modern A

B2

P

F

S

P S

F

S

S

P

M F

B3

S

C F

C3 P

P

P = Policy F = Fishers S = Science C = Courts M = Media

D

C2

P

F

S

F

Inspired by Garcia 1997 & Oransanz 2007

Integrated Advisory Process Models Scenarios Scenarios Facts, Data Feedback

Mental models Perceptions Perceptions Values, Knowledge

Expectations

Analytical process Experts

Science community

Validation Integrated model & Assessment Options Communication Communication

Participatory process process Stakeholders

Public / Stakeholders

Advice Advice Issues Goals

Regulations Policy makers

Modified from Garcia and Charles (2006). Inspired by and redrawn from Pahl-Wostl (2002).

Integrating disciplines OBJECTIVES

PHA SES

Biodiversity Valuation

Livelihoods

OUTPUTS JOINT RESEA RCH QUESTIONS A ND ASSESSMENT PLA NS

SCOPING

JOINT COLLECTION COMMON KNOW LEDGEBA SE INTEGRA TED MODELS, OPTIONS A ND SCENA RIOS

DATA COLLECTION FIELD SURVEY DATA PROC ESSING A ND A NA LYSIS

PRESENTA TION TO MA NA GERS A ND STA KEHOLDERS

INTEGRA TED IMPLEMENTA TION

MONITORING & EVA LUATION

INTEGRA TED M&E

Role of participation • • • • • • • • •

Increases ownership, relevance, legitimacy Empowers the actors; Facilitates consensus and mobilization; Enriches the knowledge base Underlines expectations and perceptions Improves problem formulation & solution Improves conflict resolution & equity Reduces social & economic risk Increases transparency , public scrutiny

Participation State of crisis

Effects

Action

Problem identification

Uncertainties

Advice

Reality

Society

PARTICIPATION: Test of realism and acceptability

Model

Potential Consequences

Components

Science

Model Relations

Results

Inspiré de Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester

Assessment characteristics Conventional assessment Purpose Goals Approach A pproach Modes of operation

Decision support

Decision Methods

External, centralized Few, standard, quantitative, computer models

Participation

+ + empowering people Predetermined, highly specified + Flexible, evolving Objective, standardized, disciplinary + Subjective, contextual, interdisciplinary Extractive, distance from subject, Empowering, participatory , focus on focus on information generation, human growth Joint, locally with/without facilitator Many , loosely defined, qualitative (ranking, drawing), games

Controller, C ontroller, expert, dominant Science role People role Targets, respondents, passive,

+ facilitator, cataly st, partner

Ownership Output

By local people, shared Non recorded, local knowledgeknowledge- & capacity -building ,

Outcome

reactive By State and technocrats. “unavailable” ” unavailable Recorded reports, pubs, policy options, scenarios, measures, evaluation Policy and management change

Source of knowledge, active, creative

Social learning, improved compliance

Modified from Naray an 1996 in Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb, 2006: Box 7.3

Indicators implementation process Scoping the system Selecting the framework

Policy and strategy

Selecting criteria and objectives

Feedback

Identifying reference points and values Organizing, A ggregating Visualizing Testing Implementing

Capacity building

Communicating

Role of simulation models • • • • • • • • • •

Materializes understanding Recreates sy stem dy namics Helps testing theories Helps forecast and introduce precaution Mobilizes, structures stakeholders’ dialogue Improve foresight Provides role games Promotes social learning Helps merging disciplines Helps reformulating societal demand

But a strong role for the “human computer”

Simulation models As simple as possible but not simpler

As complex as necessary but not more

SUPPORT GROUP A llison, Eddie A ndrew, Neil A rthur, Robert A rthur, Robert Baran, Eric Béné, Chris Bensch, Alexis Bianchi, Gabriella Bjoru, Kirsten Charles, Anthony Davy, Brian De Graaf, Gertjan Fletcher, Rick Garcia, Serge Gomez, Edgardo Hall, Steve Hjörleifsson, Einar Horemans, Benoit Hoshino, Eriko Kalikoski, Daniella Jul-Larsen, Ey olf Kelleher, Kieran Kurien, John

Leemans, Ingrid Mahon, Robin Marrul, Simão Mees, Chris Neto, José Dias Nguyen Khoa, Sophie Oransanz, Lobo Parma, Ana Petralli, Nila Píraz, Laura Ratner, Blake Reynolds, Eric Siar, Susanna Staples, Derek Strømme, Tore Sugiyama, Shunji Supongpan, Mara Tomasson, Tumi Townsley, Philip Sholtz, U we Vasconcellos, Marcello W illiams, Mery l W illmann, Rolf

MA NY THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ATTENTION

y

rkets ss

ac tio

n

rig

hts

to ma

Co lle

cti

ve

Ac ce

a al fr Leg

s nd

on

pr ac tic e

s, o

e/d emo grap hy

the r

u se

i ty bil ria va

e ng

sh ing

flic t

y cit

ork mew

ic om

a ch

Fi

Co n

a ap

n co -e

s

tre

Lan d us

Opportunities Threats

a te im Cl

&

c al i on tut

ro ac M

t

us

Natural system

l enta onm Envir ainty rt unc e

o St

ck

Institutions Governance

rs

it ers div Bio

sta

ti Ins

People Livelihood

Pollu ti

Othe

city capa ers

me co y / in ert et pov

ne ra bi lity Div e rs De ifica pen tion den ce Comp etition

Acce ss

Fish

s As

Vu l

Oversight

Selecting and prioritizing issues

rs

Characterizing approaches

High Low

Complexity

(Probability of mistakes)

Low

High Surveys, complex modeling, risk assessment and management; recurrent evaluation, monitoring

Highly precautionary & participatory adaptive process. Develop reactivity

Comprehensive indicators; elaboration of rules; prevention. assisted self assessment & adaptive process; monitoring

Questionnaires; simple models; self assessment and management; best practices

Low

High Value

(potential cost of mistakes)

What values and for whom?

DIRECT VALUES Production and consumption goods such as: Water, Fish, Firewood, Building poles, Thatch, Wild foods Medicines, Crops, Pasture, Transport, Recreation, … etc ...

INDIRECT VALUES Ecosystem functions and services such as: Water quality and flow, Water storage and recharge; Nutrient cycling; Flood attenuation, Microclimate, … etc ...

OPTION VALUES Premium placed on possible future uses or applications, such as: Agricultural, Industrial, Leisure, Pharmaceutical, Water use, … etc ...

NON-USE VALUES Intrinsic significance of resources and ecosystems in terms of: Cultural value, Aesthetic value, Heritage value, Bequest value, … etc ...

Connecting issues and dimensions Issues 1

2

3

4

5

1

Issues

2 3

4 5

Selecting approaches and tools Methods Low cost

Expensive

Issues / Dimensions

1. Participation 2. Livelihoods 3. Resource status 4. Institutional capacity 5. Non compliance 6. ??

A Workshop on Toolbox for Applying the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries was held in Rome, Italy, from 26 to 29 February 2008, to systematically find out what tools are available for implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries, assess their usefulness and applicability, particularly in less developed countries, identify what tools are needed but are not yet available, how they should be developed and the potential role of FAO and other partners in their development. The workshop was attended by twenty-six participants representing different disciplines and expertise. The last session of the workshop was devoted to a discussion on the appropriate framework for the toolbox and on possible next steps.

ISBN 978-92-5-106321-7

9

ISSN 2070-6987

789251 063217 I0946E/1/07.09/1