0%>
Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
Ecosystem-based management Ecosystem-based
management
Markers for assessing progress
dep
/0821/ha
isbn 92-807-2707-9
www.unep.org
United Nations Environment Programme
PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel +254 20 762 12 34
Fax +254 20 762 39 27
uneppub@unep.org
www.unep.org
OmslagR7 01-09-2006 11:12 Pagina 1 Ecosystem-based
management
Markers for assessing progress
United Nations Environment Programme (unep)
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (gpa) i
f o r e w o r d
Foreword
The gpa is the only intergovernmental programme with a specic mandate to address the
management interconnectedness between fresh water systems and coastal and marine
environments. The unep Coordination Ofce of the Global Programme of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (gpa) commissioned this
expert report in recognition of the importance of promoting the links between fresh water
management and the management of coastal and large marine ecosystems.
The complexity of the economic, social and environmental realities requires ecosystem-
based, multi-sectoral approaches in policy and management. Actions in the context of
the gpa should be embedded in integrated management programmes and frameworks in
order to be sustainable. Worldwide, the practice of integrated management of river basins,
coastal areas and the marine environment is growing. Many countries are overcoming the
separation between the scientic and the political approaches to management of
freshwater and the marine environments.
This publication should be considered a practical tool for assessing progress in integrated
coastal and river basin management. It highlights the needs and benets of integrated
management, while at the same time providing guidance in establishing the
management link.
The report takes a critical look at indicators and how they can be used for management
purposes. A number of key questions are raised for consideration: What is progress in
integrated management of river and coast? What steps are to be taken for making
progress? And how to assess progress made in a practical situation?
The unep/gpa Coordination Ofce and its partners are pleased to present this report and
it is our hope that the ndings presented here will further support global, regional and
national efforts in implementing the Global Programme of Action.
Dr. Veerle Vandeweerd
Coordinator, unep / gpa Coordination Ofce i i
e c o s y s t e m - b a s e d m a n a g e m e n t : m a r k e r s f o r a s s e s s i n g p r o g r e s s
Abstract
This paper offers a framework for disaggregating the goal of sustainable development
into a sequence of tangible levels of achievement. The focus is on outcomes rather than
management processes. Sets of markers or indicators are offered that can be used to assess
progress in integrated management of river basins, coasts or large marine ecosystems and
in programmes that link across these systems. The markers are organized into a framework
composed of four Orders of Outcomes. The First Order is achieved by assembling the
enabling conditions for the sustained practice of ecosystem-based management. The
First Order culminates in negotiating commitments to implement a plan of action directed
at a set of priority management issues. The implementation of a plan of action is addressed
in the Second Order, as changes occur in the behaviour of institutions and relevant user
groups, and the programme succeeds in generating the funds required to sustain a
programme over the long term. The Third Order marks the achievement of the specic
societal and environmental quality goals that prompted the entire effort. In ecosystems
that are much altered by human activities the achievement of a sequence of Third Order
goals over long time periods typically marks the path to sustainable forms of development.
This Orders of Outcomes Framework is applied to assess progress on issues that integrate
across management of coasts and river basins. The paper identies major lessons that have
emerged from coastal and water resources management. It offers guidance on the design
and conduct of ecosystem-based management initiatives that address both the impacts
of human activities and the need to sustain or restore the goods and services that are
generated by healthy ecosystems. i i i
t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s
Table of contents
Foreword
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Abstract
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
List of gures, boxes and tables
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Acronyms
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
1
River basins, coasts and large marine ecosystems: a shared agenda
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1
Issues that link across ecoystems
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2
The objectives of this paper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2
Ecosystem management: an emerging paradigm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1
The dimensions of ecosystem management
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2
Evolving expressions of ecosystem management
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3
Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management (icarm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3
The current status of programme evaluation in integrated coastal and
water resources management
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1
Evaluating processes and outcomes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2
Frameworks for assessing the management process
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3
Indicators for assessing icm as a process
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4
Assessments of iwrm initiatives
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4
Assessing the outcomes of ecosystem-based management
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1
The challenges of outcome evaluation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2
Assessing progress towards more sustainable forms of development
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3
Assembling the enabling conditions: First Order markers
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.4
Programme implementation as behavioural change: Second Order markers
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.5
Achievement of a sequence of goals as progress towards sustainable development
. . . . . . 27
5
Applying the Outcomes Framework to individual programmes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1
Dening the purpose and context of a progress assessment
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2
Making adjustments to the markers and justifying ratings
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3
Monitoring requirements and their implications
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.4
The Orders as a basis for programme design and training
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6
Further development of methods for assessing progress
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1
Initial responses to the icarm progress assessment framework
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2
Further development of Order of Outcome assessment methods
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3 Concluding
remarks
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 i v
e c o s y s t e m - b a s e d m a n a g e m e n t : m a r k e r s f o r a s s e s s i n g p r o g r e s s
References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Annexes
1
A marker set for Integrated Coastal and River Basin Management
First and Second Order Outcomes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2
Denitions of Integrated Coastal Management (icm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3
The Integrated W