Environment and development in coastal regions and in small islands

WISE COASTAL PRACTICES FOR SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: WORK IN PROGRESS JANUARY 2000

THE COASTAL REGIONS AND SMALL ISLANDS (CSI) PLATFORM  

CSI is a relatively new initiative within UNESCO. It was launched in 1996, and seeks to assist UNESCO Member States towards environmentally sound, socially equitable and culturally appropriate development of their coastal regions. The focus of CSI has been on intersectoral approaches utilising UNESCO’s sectors in natural and social sciences, culture, communication and education, along with their networks of counterparts in over 180 countries.

CSI’s intersectoral theme has utilised three main approaches:

• pilot projects;

• UNESCO Chairs in Sustainable Coastal Development;

• formulation of wise coastal practices for sustainable human development.  

PILOT PROJECTS

Twenty-three intersectoral pilot projects have been established or co-sponsored involving some 60 countries. These projects cover topics ranging from the various dimensions of a ship-breaking industry in India, to sustainable fishing activities in Haiti, to underwater archaeology in Egypt (see List 1: Pilot Projects).

Details can be obtained from:

http://www.unesco.org/csi 
http://mirror-us.unesco.org/csi 
http://mirror-japan.unesco.org/csi

These field-based activities, some of which have been in progress for several years, provide frameworks for collaborative action bringing together decision-makers, local communities, cultural heritage experts and scientists from all disciplines. They provide a hands-on approach to ICM, and the lessons learnt from their successes and failures provide a tangible means of assessing progress. 

UNESCO CHAIRS

A second and related approach has been to establish UNESCO Chairs in Sustainable Coastal Development which link the field-based actions (pilot projects) to global networks of scientific reflection and research and which also provide innovative training and capacity building in sustainable coastal development. So far two UNESCO Chairs have been established, but others are in the process of being set up (see List 2: UNESCO Chairs).  

WISE COASTAL PRACTICES FOR SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

This activity takes the lessons already learnt (and those still being learnt) from the pilot projects and the UNESCO Chairs and tries to establish areas of commonality, divergence and new foci. The outcome will then provide input back to the pilot projects and UNESCO Chairs so as to improve these activities at a grassroots level. 

DETERMINATION OF WISE COASTAL PRACTICES FOR SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

This activity has included various processes, including two separate electronic fora and a workshop. One of the first actions was to define “wise practices”:

Wise practices are actions, processes, principles or decisions that contribute significantly to the achievement of environmentally sustainable, socially equitable, culturally appropriate, and economically sound development in coastal areas.

The overall goal of this activity is to improve the practice of ICM at the level of the pilot projects and the UNESCO Chairs, as well as providing useful general guidelines at both the conceptual and the implementation level for coastal practitioners. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the process which at the time of writing is ongoing.

The activities are described below:

• Preliminary ideas for wise practices were formulated during an electronic discussion group (WP EDG) amongst seven pilot project leaders/UNESCO Chair holders between September and October, 1998.

• These concepts were then discussed during a pilot project leaders’ workshop, “Towards Wise Coastal Development Practice”, held in Paris in December, 1998. This workshop succeeded in preparing a first stage list of characteristics of wise practices.

• During the period January March 1999, the wise practice formulation was advanced by a second electronic discussion using e-mail, during which the list of wise practice characteristics developed at the 1998 Workshop was refined (see List 3).

• Between April and September 1999, a dedicated website (username = csi, password = wise) was established for example wise practices. Participants included all the pilot project leaders, UNESCO Chair holders and other persons experienced in various aspects of ICM. They were invited to describe one or more example wise practice(s) with which they were familiar.

• Discuss the example wise practice in the context of the wise practice characteristics. Participants in this forum were also invited to comment on, and respond to the example wise practices posted by others. Some 48 example wise practices have been submitted, from all over the globe and covering a range of topics and approaches. While the list of example wise practices is too long to include in this paper, the main topics and approaches contained in the example wise practices are enumerated in List 4.

• During October–November 1999, the website (www.csiwisepractices.org; username = csi, password = wise) was re-designed and the example wise practices were indexed. The website has been re-opened so as to allow for further discussion of the example wise practices and of the reactions and responses. The website has also been opened to a wider audience.

To date, progress results have been compiled and the usefulness of the wise practice characteristics assessed. This information will be used to (re-)evaluate, (re-)focus and advance the activities of the pilot projects and the UNESCO Chairs. The experiences derived from the global wise practices forum will be further refined and discussed at regional and national levels through face-to-face and electronic fora. Ultimately, it is envisaged that the process will lead to the formulation of concepts and guidelines for ICM practitioners.

Through this activity, CSI is seeking to place the experiences learnt from the individual, site-specific pilot projects and UNESCO Chairs in a global generic context in an effort to improve our understanding and practice of sustainable coastal development.  

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE WISE COASTAL PRACTICES FOR SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT FORUM

Since the electronic discussion forum (username = csi, password = wise) is still ongoing, it would be premature to discuss results at this time. The following discussion represents a series of observations or “snapshots” gained after indexing and editing the contributions.

WISE PRACTICES THAT FAILED PROVIDE MANY VALUABLE LESSONS

There are many different ways to classify all the example wise practices submitted to the discussion forum. One way of looking at the contributions is to divide them into:

• unwise practices;

• wise practices that are conceptual or in the very preliminary stages of implementation;

• wise practices that have stood the test of time and worked;

• wise practices that failed.  

The unwise practices are very informative and useful and tell us what not to do. They may also tell us how things could have been improved. However, it is believed that encouraging people to think constructively in terms of wise (as opposed to unwise) practices and especially on ways to implement them, is a pro-active way to further the practice of ICM.

Most of the items submitted to the discussion forum described wise practices that were either still being conceptualised or were in the very early stages of implementation – usually in the first few years. Most of the authors wrote in an optimistic light about the likely success of these wise practices. However, there were very few objective evaluations of progress/success.

There were very few examples that fell into the third category of wise practices that had stood the test of time and had worked.

However, the few items that fell into the last category wise practices that had failed were perhaps the most informative and bear further detailed analysis. This group included a failed attempt at co-management in fisheries, and a failed attempt to change people’s attitude to beach sand mining. They provided examples, where for varying reasons, something went wrong. This does not necessarily mean that the wise practice was unwise, rather that unforeseen circumstances or activities resulted in the failure of the wise practice. 

TEMPORAL ASPECTS OF WISE PRACTICES

Many authors addressed the concept of time in relation to wise practices. Several persons indicated that it may take several generations for the results of wise practices to be fully realised, and certainly this may well be the case when trying to change people’s attitudes. This obviously creates problems in a world where people are increasingly being conditioned to expect instant results.

Furthermore this concept has major implications for ICM practitioners, coastal communities and even funding agencies the idea to stay with a concept, idea, approach, project beyond the normal project cycle of 3–5 years. And related to this is the idea of wise practice sustainability beyond the life of a particular project. 

USE OF WISE PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PROJECT EVALUATION

One contributor suggested that defining a particular project in terms of the wise practice characteristics proved to be a valuable tool for monitoring and evaluating a project or activity. The process of evaluating a project against each characteristic helped to identify strengths and weaknesses such that future implementation of similar projects could be improved.  

USE OF WISE PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS AS INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

One contributor suggested using the wise practice characteristics for evaluating ongoing or proposed development and developing international standards, e.g. a logging company, if complying with the characteristics, could use the “seal of wise practices” to market their products.  

PAYING FOR WISE PRACTICE IMPLEMENTATION

Of particular interest were discussions relating to ways to pay for wise practice implementation against a background of poverty. Contributions from benefiting communities/populations ranged from payments in kind to direct cash payments.  

TRADITIONAL VERSUS MODERN PRACTICES

Several people discussed the use of traditional practices and areas where they diverged with modern practices. Some of the most useful discussions dealt with ways to combine the traditional and modern. In some cases this led on to ethical considerations, the “need versus greed concept” and ideas regarding the continuity of humanity.  

THE DISCUSSION FORUM BROUGHT OUT THE REALITIES OF ICM

Many people felt free to discuss ideas and difficulties that might not be voiced in other more formal settings, and many of these ideas and difficulties represent the reality – the “nuts and bolts” of life for ICM practitioners.

For instance in a discussion of environmental impact assessment, the disadvantages of using outsiders or foreigners to conduct the studies were clearly illustrated. As were the unrealistic goals of major lending agencies who expect such major studies (as environmental impact assessments) to be conducted in 3–6 months, when often the baseline data still needs to be collected.

Similarly in a discussion of consensus building and using the participatory approach, one contributor wrote very clearly illustrating the reality of ICM in the field, “... the intensity of participation is always linked to the degree of awareness and of personal gain that the population hopes to acquire from the project. People cannot always be counted on to participate it is necessary to mobilise them incessantly without ever being discouraged.”

Another contributor, discussing how villagers were being empowered to manage their own subsistence fisheries, stated that some communities were just not ready to manage their own resources and that these villages had been dropped from the project. 

WISE PRACTICE SUCCESS

Since so many of the example wise practices were in the very preliminary stages, most contributors only talked about success in general terms and with a good degree of optimism. Some writers did, however, provide figures, e.g. a 25% rate of success among communities managing their fisheries effectively. Such figures, where available, are very useful to other practitioners in trying to evaluate progress and success. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The above discussion in no way represents the results of the electronic discussion forum on “Wise Coastal Practices for Sustainable Human Development” (username = csi, password = wise). A detailed analysis of the contributions to the discussion forum has not yet been done and must of course await the ending of the discussion forum. However, the discussion does highlight just a few of the ideas that are emerging from the forum and may serve as pointers for the present discussion phase.

In addition, many lessons have been learnt about how to conduct such a web-based discussion which, when documented, may also assist others who plan to use the Web as a medium for regional/global discussion and collaboration.  

 ***************************

FIGURE 1. FURTHERING WISE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE IN COASTAL REGIONS AND IN SMALL ISLANDS

***************************

LIST 1: PILOT PROJECTS  

AFRICA-EAST/SOUTHERN

• Development-conservation strategies for integrated coastal management, Maputaland (South Africa and Mozambique)

• Communication and education for sustainable coastal development (Sub-Saharan Africa and Indian Ocean Islands )

 AFRICA-NORTH/EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN

• Underwater archaeology and sustainable coastal development (Alexandria, Egypt )

• Urban development and freshwater resources in small historic coastal cities (Mediterranean)

AFRICA-WEST/CENTRAL

• Sustaining human and environmental health in peri-urban coastal communities (Dakar, Senegal )

• Urban flood control, Lagos, Nigeria  

• Communication and education for sustainable coastal development (Sub-Saharan Africa and Indian Ocean Islands )

 AMERICA-SOUTH/CENTRAL

•  An interdisciplinary coastal research programme at the mouth of the Amazon (Belem, Brazil)

• The Rio de la Plata estuary and sustainable development (Uruguay and Argentina)

 ASIA-SOUTH

• Integrated coastal management (Gujarat, India):  

  • The environmental, social and cultural dimensions of a ship-breaking industry (Alang)

  • Mitigating land and water salinity in the Gujarat coastal region

  ASIA-SOUTHEAST  

• Reducing the impact of a coastal megacity on island ecosystems (Jakarta and the Seribu Islands, Indonesia)

• Coastal resources management and ecotourism: an intersectoral approach to localising sustainable development (Ulugan Bay, Palawan, Philippines)

• A place for indigenous people in protected areas (Surin Islands, Andaman Sea, Thailand)

CARIBBEAN (SMALL) ISLANDS

• Managing beach resources and planning for coastline change (Caribbean islands )

• Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program (CARICOMP): Sustaining coastal biodiversity benefits and ecosystem services

• Enhancing coastal and fisheries resource management through stakeholder participation, local knowledge and environmental education (Arcadins Coast, Haiti )

• Sustainable livelihoods for artisanal fishers through stakeholder co-management in the Portland Bight Sustainable Development Area (Jamaica )

• Planning for people and human settlements, southern coasts of Habana Province (Cuba )

EUROPE

• Urban development and freshwater resources in small historic coastal cities (Mediterranean)

• Nordic-Baltic network for sustainable coastal development

• Circumpolar coping processes project (Canada and northern European countries)

INDIAN OCEAN (SMALL) ISLANDS

• Communication and education for sustainable coastal development (Sub-Saharan Africa and Indian Ocean Islands ) 

 PACIFIC (SMALL) ISLANDS

• Sound development in the Motu Koita urban villages (Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea)

• Promotion of indigenous wise practices: medicinal knowledge and freshwater fish,  Moripi Cultural Area, Gulf Province; food production, Trobriand Islands (Papua New Guinea)

• Freshwater security in small islands (South Pacific)

• Education for sustainable village living (Sanapau and Sataoa villages, Upolu Island, Samoa) 

***************************

LIST 2: UNESCO CHAIRS IN SUSTAINABLE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

CHAIRS ESTABLISHED

• University Cheikh Anta Diop (Dakar, Senegal)

• University of the Philippines (Quezon City, Philippines)

CHAIR PROJECTS INITIATED

• University of Alexandria (Alexandria, Egypt)

• University of Bhavnagar (Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India)

• Universidade Eduardo Mondlane (Maputo, Mozambique [IOC])

• Université de l’océan Indien (la Réunion)

• University of Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea)

• Universidad de la República (Montevideo, Uruguay)

• University of Latvia (Riga, Latvia) 

***************************

LIST 3: CHARACTERISTICS FOR WISE PRACTICES

***************************

LIST 4: TOPICS AND APPROACHES COVERED BY THE EXAMPLE WISE PRACTICES  

start		Introduction	Activities	Publications	search
		Wise practices	Regions	Themes