CSI info 10 section Vb

	1999	2000-2001
1. CSI website: clearing house for - interactive communication - newsletter - case studies	X	on-going
2. More and regular meetings 2.1 Mahdia, Tunisia – networking start - Additional 1-2 from Baltic region (especially on Agenda 21 etc.) - Presentation of projects/sites assessments 2.2 Assessments - Methodologies (+ cases) - Meeting in Paris 2.3 Workshops in several countries for case studies - Methodologies - Case design and a) printing b) electronic	March June X	X on-going
3. UNESCO Chair developments 3.1 Finishing Chair in Latvia 3.2 Developing Chair in Mediterranean Field offices (Cairo, Venice) – Partner regions 3.3 Summer university On interdisciplinary research and education: SCD projects/sites	August
4. Visits/exchanges - Projects, professors, students

To start with, in 1999 we should prepare an inventory of on-going projects in the area (sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian Ocean) financed by CSI or non-CSI sources and list the work going on at different places. The areas which are found under-represented can be prioritized for developing new projects. Regions which have not been covered in the two geographical areas can be given priority for starting the projects.

In 2000–2001, the pilot projects generated in 1999 could be implemented. Projects along similar lines could be inter-linked. UNESCO (CSI) and other agencies can be approached for funds.

Criteria for wise practices should be identified for different types of projects and in different geographical areas. The indispensable criteria would be based on awareness generation and participatory practices.

The socio-economic conditions of the people of the area should be studied to assess the impact of any new industry started. The effect of the new activity on the life-style of the people, and on the environment should be studied so as to examine the pollution and harmful changes in fauna, flora and other useful resources. So, the criteria should be identified on the basis of extensive research in socio-economic, cultural, and environmental aspects.

The “wise practices” can be developed for individual projects depending on case studies. This will include importing awareness through organization of workshops, seminars and other methods for the benefit of stakeholders. These awareness programmes can be planned according to the concern, interest and intellectual level of the stakeholders. Different categories have to be approached by different methods. The villagers, for example, have to be approached in their own language for providing information and awareness.

The various projects should work in a co-operative, complementary and synergistic manner. For this, efficient communication and networking is essential. Free exchange of experts to different projects would benefit the transfer of wise practices.

UNESCO can provide more financial assistance in terms of pilot projects, travel expenses and chairs to promote pooling of ideas.

On 3 December 1998, a live video conference was conducted between eight workshop participants (the other participants watched the exchange on a video set) and counterparts from Jamaica including fishers participating in the Portland Bight Protected Area project, representatives of the Natural Resources Management Authority and the University of the West Indies. Since direct links could not be established between Paris and Jamaica, a “bridge” was established (“Frontier Video Conference”) in the USA allowing Paris to communicate with Jamaica. The conference lasted one hour.

After an introduction there was an interesting exchange on the benefits of co-management. The Jamaican fishers felt that this was the best approach to fisheries management recognising that the government had a role to play, e.g. making laws, and they, the fishers, were the protectors of the local area. This view was reinforced by the representatives from the Natural Resources Management Authority who pointed out that their co-management policy for parks and protected areas involved a range of mechanisms and arrangements so that communities and all stakeholders were fully involved. Another issue discussed related to the role of Jamaican fishers as wardens, and whether this caused social conflicts, e.g. having to regulate/report on friends and family members. The fishers acknowledged that this did sometimes cause problems, but that enforcement of the law was always a difficult matter, especially with Jamaican fishers who are often prepared to resist enforcement officers. The fishers stated that if enforcement of the regulations had been in place previously then the fisheries would be in a better state today.

In answer to the question “What is the biggest problem facing the fisheries?” there were a variety of responses. These included the import of fish from overseas which were sold at a cheaper rate than locally caught fish; the high cost of engines and gear; the problem of over-fishing; the need for enforcement of regulations; too many fishers; poor fishing practices such as dynamiting and dragnets; and illegal fishing by foreigners.

The sale of local fishing beaches to outside investors was another issue discussed. The fishers expressed a desire to have the Natural Resources Management Authority purchase the fishing beaches, which could then be leased to the local fishing associations for management.

Responding to questions about the role of women in the industry, the fishers stated that women had a key role to play. They owned about 40% of the fishing boats as well as being responsible for all the fish marketing, some women also went to sea.

The role of scientific research, including the work of the University of the West Indies and the Fisheries Division, in the fishing industry was also discussed. Some fishers felt that the information gathered was useful but others were more sceptical.

The Jamaican fishers were very enthusiastic about their visit with counterparts in Haiti and felt they had learnt a lot from the exchange. They were impressed by the way the Haitian fishers could organize themselves in the absence of a stable government and in the face of environmental degradation, e.g. the severe deforestation in Haiti.

In closing, the importance and benefits of continual communication within and among the regions, e.g. Haiti/Jamaica, Caribbean/ Pacific, was noted. The video conference was hailed as a success; it illustrated to participants in both countries the potential benefits of this means of communication.

Earlier in 1998, at the University of Dakar, we initiated a debate with some students there on wise practices. That was the start of the process. We have also had face-to-face exchanges between the Haitian and Jamaican fishers. Following that we had the electronic discussion group (EDG) on wise practices. In moving forward we have to examine the scope and capacity of such EDGs, e.g. the language capacity – we opted for one language in our EDG experiment, but we have to be culturally respectful of other languages. We have to consider connecting the unconnected and moving from literate to oral traditions; illiterate people also need to be involved in this wise practice discussion.

Our ideas for 1999 and beyond include a dedicated web site to generate cross-sectoral wise practices (both CSI and non-CSI projects). This is in addition to our normal activities of consolidating and networking the pilot projects and UNESCO Chairs; the latter are dependent on the pilot projects, and we wish to develop the interaction between academia and field activities. We also hope to use regional meetings, such as the one scheduled for Fredrikstadt in May 1999, to further our wise practice networking activities.

We would like to receive your comments on these ideas. One group this morning mentioned the benefits of the EDG while another group found it less rewarding. Obviously approaches are going to vary according to the regions and their characteristics; it is this diversity we cherish. Our work on wise practices has not finished this week, it was only supposed to make a start.

THE ELECTRONIC DISCUSSION GROUP (EDG) CONDUCTED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 1998

Those who took part is this discussion agreed that it was a useful exercise and that it was a good medium through which to communicate and, for some, participation became reflexive. The language used (English) created difficulties for some persons. Even with only eight persons participating, there was a need for ordering and coding the interventions and it was recognized that taking part in the EDG involved a considerable time commitment on the part of the participants. It was also felt that the results of the EDG could have been improved if the discussants had been provided with shared reference material. The participants felt that the role of the chairperson was important in running the EDG, although the title “facilitator” which implies more of a supporting function (whereas “chairperson” implies a top/down approach) was preferred. The EDG had also opened up the possibility for individuals to better communicate on their own within the regional context.

It was generally felt that this had been an interesting and useful experience, although more might have been achieved if both parties had had an agreed agenda beforehand. It was also suggested that in the future, more inexpensive forms of video conferencing using the internet structure may become available, so that a group in Indonesia could talk to a group in Jamaica almost as easily as we now send e-mails.

There was considerable discussion about how to move ahead and organize future electronic discussions on aspects of wise practices. One suggestion was for UNESCO (CSI) to act as a clearinghouse for input, but this might pose difficulties because with UNESCO becoming increasingly decentralized, the clearinghouse function would need to be undertaken by its Headquarters and its 65 field offices. Also a suggestion for UNESCO to act as a “nerve centre” did not fit into the decentralization policy, and the preferred course of action would be for the people around the table to take a lead role.

Questions were raised as to how to include the 31 persons around the table in an electronic discussion, since experience from elsewhere, as well as the September–October 1998 EDG, had shown that 7–8 persons is the maximum number for an EDG.

There was concern by some that the EDG was an elitist process limited to those with access to the internet. However, it was pointed out that EDG is just one part of the communication protocols that will eventually support the neediest actors in the field.

FUTURE ELECTRONIC DISCUSSION ON THE WISE PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS, QUALIFIERS AND INDICATORS

A suggestion was made to use the existing lists on wise practice characteristics, qualifiers and indicators, as well as the input from the group sessions, to prepare one comprehensive list through the mechanism of a global EDG.

A further suggestion was to carry out a similar activity at a regional level. Thus there would be a series of regional EDGs on the wise practice characteristics, qualifiers and indicators. It is likely that the output from the regions would vary, and the differences between the regions might help to better understand and refine the list of parameters. In this way there would be regional discussions (EDGs) which would then lead to an inter-regional (global) discussion.

During this discussion the issue of transferability of wise practices was again raised. While there are levels of transferability, it was reiterated that it is an important characteristic of wise practices.

Based on actual field experiences and case studies, a suggestion was made to develop example wise practices in a structured format. Regardless of the stage of a particular project, it is likely that some example wise practices can be developed. Many of the papers presented in this workshop already provide examples of wise practices. It was proposed that an EDG be conducted to exchange these example wise practices and that this discussion be separate to the one on wise practice characteristics, qualifiers and indicators, although each discussion should inform the other.

A preliminary paper had been prepared on the World Conference on Science (Annex 4) and due to the shortage of time it was suggested that an EDG be convened to contribute to a responsive research agenda for that conference. The themes for this workshop, e.g. “integrating natural and social science”, could provide initial ideas for this discussion group.

The roles of scientists and managers were discussed in depth. Some people felt that too much emphasis was being placed on the scientific agenda in this present discussion on future action and not enough attention was being paid to implementation at the pilot project level. A discussion paper had been prepared on the implementation of wise practices (Annex 3), but unfortunately time had run out before it could be discussed.

However, it was recognized that implementation has to be carried out at a very local level and that many other factors, e.g. the cost of the wise practice and whether it can be afforded, also need to be considered.

Most participants felt that the focus should be on co-operation between scientists and managers, and between government agencies and NGOs. Furthermore, it was generally agreed that the participants would now be able to use the results of the workshop discussions and brainstorming so that when they return to their countries they would be better able to organize and implement their pilot projects.

On the role of research, it was also recognized that research can be done by any person: scientist, manager, resource user etc. Thus it was important not to confuse the nature of research, nor to belittle the role of the scientist.

Most participants agreed that it was necessary to make management adaptive and that time is not available to conduct all the necessary research before taking action. Thus it is necessary to use the precautionary principle and act now on the best available information.

It was felt by most participants that much had been achieved in the five days of discussion, especially in terms of understanding and supporting each other’s, pilot projects and for future networking to continue the activity. For instance on Monday, there had been much talk of the need for a common language, but by Friday it was becoming apparent that the wise practices themselves are the common language we are in search of, and that the development of this common language is a long term process.

However, some participants were concerned that they did not have anything concrete to take back to their regions from this meeting. Some people felt that mangroves are still being cut and fish are still being dynamited, and they were concerned about how to deal with this reality. It was pointed out that these problems have been going on for a very long time, and if there were an easy solution, these unwise practices would have been stopped long ago. This workshop is the beginning of a process to try and understand the complexities of these challenges and to try and link the very specific activities of the pilot projects at the local level with the regional and global perspectives.

It was suggested that participants needed to make a commitment to continue the process and that perhaps a preliminary team or task force should be formed.

It was suggested that the framework of wise practices be expanded to include an integrated framework for multi-level policy reform e.g. in the long run the exchange between the Haitian and Jamaican fishers will have to be viewed in the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, this would also involve consideration of UNESCO’s overall goals as an institution. In this context, a reference made by the Director-General on the World Culture Report was relevant: “In the words of the World Commission on Culture and Development, the report should be seen as a contribution to discussion and debate, as a way to influence national and public opinion, and as a testing ground for new policy and ideas”.

Further ideas for widening the framework of discussion included the need for social learning processes of key on-site sectors, e.g. local government agencies that had no leverage to talk to their superiors, NGOs who are afraid to talk about coastal problems because of violent threats directed at them, etc.; and a responsive research agenda. (This latter issue was also discussed under the heading “On a future electronic discussion on the World Conference on Science”). In relation to this suggestion, reference was made to UNESCO’s major foci for the 2000-2001 biennium:

The participants were also reminded of the timeliness of the meeting, for in the next few weeks, input would have to be finalized for the 2000–2001 biennium. The importance of UNESCO’s National Commissions – who together with the Organization’s Executive Board determine policy – was emphasized, as well as the role of the UNESCO regional offices.

start		Introduction	Activities	Publications	search
		Wise practices	Regions	Themes


SECTION V Part B	DISCUSSIONS	CSI info 10