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