 |
Environment and development in coastal regions and in small islands |
 |
|
Environment and development in coastal regions and in small islands |
|
 |
Regional Workshop for the Asia-Pacific University Twinning Network ‘Exploring Wise Practice Agreements’
2.
Wise Practice Characteristics and Agreements
The CSI initiative seeks to develop wise coastal
practices for sustainable human development.
Wise practices have been defined through sixteen characteristics, which
were initially compiled during a
workshop in Paris in 1998, ‘Towards wise
coastal development practices’ (UNESCO 2000).
These are continually being modified as experience and knowledge expands.
2.1
Wise practice characteristics
The
characteristics of wise practices are defined as follows:
Long-term benefit: The benefits of the activity are still evident ‘x’ years from now and contribute to the improvement of environmental quality
Capacity building: The activity improves management capabilities, and provides education and knowledge for the stakeholder groups
Institutional strengthening: The activity enhances existing management mechanisms/structures or creates new ones
Sustainability: The activity adheres to the principles of sustainability (the extent to which the results will last and development will continue once the project/programme has ended)
Transferability: Aspects of the activity have been applied at other sites in and/or outside of the country or region
Interdisciplinary and intersectoral: The activity incorporates all relevant disciplines and sectors of society
Participatory process: Identification of, and transparent consultation with all stakeholder groups, as well as the involvement of individuals, is intrinsic to the activity
Consensus building: The activity builds agreement among a majority of the stakeholder groups
Effective and efficient communication process: A multidirectional communication process involving dialogue, consultation and discussion is utilized
Locally responsive: The activity respects local traditional and cultural frameworks while also challenging their environmental validity
Gender and/or other sensitive issues: The activity accounts for the many aspects of gender and/or other sensitive issues
Strengthening local identities: The activity promotes and strengthens a sense of belonging and self-reliance
Contributing to national policy: The activity assists in informing and shaping government’s environmental, legal, economic and social policies
Regional dimension: The activity takes into account the regional, economic, social and environmental perspective among neighbouring countries
Human rights: The activity is sensitive to issues concerning the freedom to exercise fundamental human rights
Documentation: The activity and the lessons learnt are well documented
Evaluation: The activity is regularly assessed to determine the extent to which integrated coastal management has been achieved and/or wise practice characteristics utilized
These characteristics are also used as criteria to assess field projects and university chair activities. Assessment procedures are discussed in detail in: http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/papers2/map14.htm
2.2
Conceptualisation of wise practice (multi-stakeholder) agreements
This section is based on
the conceptualisation of wise practice agreements that was discussed in earlier
workshops in 2001 and 2002 and has been documented in: http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/papers2/domr.htm
and http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/papers2/map.htm
Multi-stakeholder
agreements have the potential to enhance an integrated approach to coastal
management, bringing together all stakeholders, including the various levels of
government, in a framework of voluntary compliance.
During the workshop participants agreed that a multi-stakeholder
agreement is a dynamic process involving site-specific tools founded upon social
and cultural contexts as well as stakeholder interests and dialogue. Such
agreements are the result of an evolving process and are dependent upon the
scale, stage and complexity of the conflict or issue under consideration.
Flexibility in the definition and use of such agreements is critical.
A multi-stakeholder agreement is characterized by:
Efficiency: a minimum or absence of disputes, with limited effort needed to ensure compliance.
Stability: an adaptive capacity to cope with progressive changes, such as the arrival of new users or techniques.
Resilience: a capacity to accommodate suddenly changed conditions or newly developing challenges.
Equitability: a shared perception of fairness among the members with respect to inputs and outcomes.
Terms such as ‘voluntary agreement,’ ‘social contract’ and ‘sustainable development agreement’ are also used in the literature.
Some of the main factors leading to increased conflict over resources in many coastal areas have been inadequate legislation, ignorance of existing policy, which is often based on a lack of knowledge with regard to the underlying causes and principles, and the limited enforcement of laws and regulations. Thus the exploration of less formal mechanisms may provide an opportunity to adopt a new approach to deal with conflict prevention and resolution. Multi-stakeholder agreements are not a panacea for all conflict situations and they do not replace the need for legislation and enforcement. There is an entire spectrum from voluntary compliance to external enforcement. A multi-stakeholder agreement might be regarded as a first level attempt at conflict resolution; if unsuccessful it might be necessary to explore and apply different methods.
There are several advantages of such multi-stakeholder agreements:
The formative process is not as lengthy or as costly as with legislation
The necessary precautionary approach can easily be incorporated
Such less formal agreements may generate a moral authority that may affect behaviour through the pressure of public opinion
Two essential elements of a multi-stakeholder agreement are preparedness to compromise and a will to ensure that more stakeholders are better off with the agreement than without it.
Several steps may be identified in the formulation and implementation of a multi-stakeholder agreement:
Identification of
stakeholders. Not all stakeholders may become signatory partners under the
agreement, but their identification and conceptual inclusion in the process
often strengthens the stability and resilience of the agreement.
Definition
of the physical boundaries of the area contained by the conflict situation.
Facilitation of a
mechanism that brings all stakeholders together under equitable arrangements
for discussion, promoting equal representation of all parties. Challenges
may be encountered in determining the representation of groups or
individuals identified as stakeholders (for example, such issues may include
considerations of language, culture, social relations, economic and
political position). Some stakeholder groups may lack experience in the
participatory process, while others may not be accustomed to making
compromises.
Joint formulation of an agreement on the proposed use of the resource, considering issues of concern to stakeholders and partners and clearly identifying permitted activities and specific items of responsibility for each party.
Development of decision-making procedures, rules of agreement enforcement and recognition of compliance, as well as dispute resolution mechanisms.
Ensuring a long term agreement perspective: while multi-stakeholder agreements may initially be established within the framework of a particular project, they should be set up to endure and continue beyond the project timeframe.
The choice of the lead agency, or catalyst to initiate and facilitate a multi-stakeholder agreement will strongly depend on the site-specific context. The facilitator needs to show strong commitment and take a neutral third party position; a university group, a government agency, a non-governmental or community-based organization, a local village council, a private developer, or other concerned individuals may be appropriate. It is often helpful to carefully specify the role of all partners in the agreement, and for all stakeholders to understand and agree with the conditions. During the earlier workshops as well as the Khuraburi discussions it was noted that governments often do not manage to fulfil their obligations as signatories to international conventions, and care should be taken to avoid that similar situations do not occur in the case of multi-stakeholder agreements.
