How do we improve ocean management in Canada? International guidelines prescribing IM as the preferred approach
to coastal and ocean management also call for the use of indicators
in assessing progress achieved. A survey of 19 funding organizations
has identified the major issues that form the subject of donor evaluations
(Olsen et al., 1997). Many of these indicators
evaluate the human dimension.
Human Dimension |
Institutional Dimension |
Human capacity |
|
Participatory planning, decision-making and management |
Government commitment |
Public education and awareness |
Institutional structure |
Sustainability |
Policy framework |
Clear roles and responsibilities |
Use of scientific information |
Conflict resolution |
Assessment of conditions and trends |
Traditional attitudes, uses and rights |
Monitoring and evaluation |
Transfer of knowledge / experience |
Issue analysis |
Public disclosure |
|
In this workshop we propose to use a series of indicators to assess
progress in six case studies of integrated coastal and ocean management
in Canada. We anticipate that this approach will reveal strengths
and weaknesses within the human dimension of IM that can be translated
into research needs and pursued further by the social science community.
The goal of the workshop is to understand the factors that contribute
to effective integrated management. The objective is to improve integrated
management in Canada. The six case studies chosen for analysis include the Bras
d’Or Watershed, Nova Scotia; Caraquet,
Eastern New Brunswick; Hudson Bay, Nunavut;
Les Escoumins to the Betsiamites River Coastal
Zone, Quebec; an
IM process with a long term history of planning over 15 years in
the offshore oil and gas sector, and
an IM process for aquaculture planning (B.C.
Quatsino Sound and central coast).
This workshop is organized around a series of questions that will
serve as a guide for addressing the above issues in coastal and ocean
management. Each case study will be reviewed in relation to these
questions by a presenter. A panel of three will comment on the information
provided. The hour will conclude with a group discussion sharing
experiences, identifying lessons learned, and noting areas requiring
further study. The series of questions will be published at this web site, and
made available by email to workshop registrants. Questions for workshop discussion
- Initiation of the IM planning process?
- What triggered this coastal management initiative? (for
example, this could be a government agency or a particular
issue such as contamination of a shellfish bed) and how did
this influence the selection of issues that the project is
addressing?
- What information was gathered in this case, and from whom?
- Was scientific information/data (socio-economic and ecological)
as well as local and traditional knowledge included?
- How was this information gathered and exchanged, and how
long did it take to gather and vet this information?
- Are participatory planning and decision-making characteristic
of your process?
- What is the role of each major stakeholder group in your
IM planning exercise, and how were these roles facilitated?
- How is decision-making linked to the IM planning process?
Who makes decisions? How are decisions influenced? How will
different view points be addressed? Is there a mechanism
for conflict resolution?
- To what extent are program data (e.g. impact assessments,
permit decisions, development and conservation plans, and
violations), the program policy, and the decision-making
process made available to stakeholders and the public?
- How does your IM project address the health/maintenance
and protection of coastal ecosystems?
- The Oceans Act dictates that IM planning should be ecosystem-based
and that the health of coastal and marine ecosystems should
be maintained as sustainable development proceeds.
- Can ecoregions, or their subdivisions, be used to define
the spatial boundary of the IM or ICZM planning and management
area, and should these units be modified to take into account
human considerations such as the presence of communities
and the nature/distribution of human activities?
- Is there a framework for defining and monitoring trends
in environmental quality?
- How should integrated management planning relate to activities
beyond the IM planning boundaries and how should the study
areas for IM/ICZM be defined to take this into account?
- What institutional framework is being used for your IM
process?
- Has an institutional framework (e.g., management body,
advisory bodies, working groups,) been established for implementation
of the IM plan?
- Have the necessary inter-institutional agreements been
negotiated that specify how responsibilities for implementation
are allocated among different pre-existing institutions?
- Does the institutional structure link policy formulation
at the agency level with decision-making and/or advice at
the local level?
- What political support does your IM plan have and how was
this achieved?
- Is encouraging sustainable development a feature of your
IM process?
- How is sustainable economic development being supported
in your IM plan?
- Is promoting economic diversity a consideration?
- How does the plan address social and cultural development?
- How does it integrate conservation with these other objectives?
- How does the plan address the long term future of coastal
communities?
- Is capacity building among coastal residents a feature
of your IM process?
- How are the external forces (such as global markets/climate
change) affecting your communities being taken into account?
- Governments change over time and hence policies change
whereas communities tend to be continuous over the long term.
How are coastal communities involved in IM planning and decision-making?
- How can we assess the effectiveness of an IM planning
initiative?
- Describe how the effectiveness and outcomes your IM plan
are monitored.
- What indicators are used to assess program milestones?
- Is there a mechanism to continue the monitoring process
and how is it funded?
- Is there a mechanism for revising the IM plan and, if so,
how frequently will this be done?
- What “Outcomes” have occurred as a result
of your IM process?
- What constituencies and institutional capacity has been
built to undertake IM planning and decision making?
- What authority, funding and other resources have been put
in place to carry out IM?
- What new forms of collaborative action among institutions
have emerged as a result of IM?
- What changes in State-civil society relationships have
occurred as a result of IM? For example, are there new partnerships,
or are there civil management bodies that advise government?
- How has the behaviour of people been affected by IM?
- What social and/or environmental qualities have been maintained,
restored or improved as a result of IM?
|
References
Olsen,
S., K. Lowry, J. Tobey, P. Burbridge and S. Humphrey, 1997a.
Survey of current purposes and methods of evaluating coastal
management projects and programs funded by international donors.
Coastal Management Report #2200, University of Thode Island,
Coastal Resources Centre. Narragansett, RI, USA. |
|
Backgrounder author(s)
Together with other
Oceans Program staff, Helen Fast has for the past
five years been developing and implementing integrated management
projects in Canada’s arctic marine regions. Projects have been initiated
in the Western Arctic, in the Baffin Region, and in Hudson Bay. Helen’s
graduate studies concerned northern resource management issues, focusing
on the ethos and economy of subsistence land use in the Hudson Bay
bioregion. Helen is an adjunct professor at the Natural Resources
Institute at the University of Manitoba. She has been actively involved
in the
Oceans Research Network since its inception, and works closely with
the Integrated Management Node. |