Partnerships for capacity building: community, governments and universities working together

Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

Partnerships for capacity building: community, governments and universities working together Geoff Wescott* School of Ecology and Environment, Faculty of Science and Technology, Deakin University, Melbourne Campus, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia

Abstract This paper summarises initiatives in the area of capacity building between communities, governments and universities since Rio 1992. First the global advances through the UN and associated agencies are described with lessons learned and challenges remaining being highlighted. This is followed by a similar approach for first regionally based initiatives and finally some of the better examples of nationally based approaches. Among the key findings from the review were: trying to keep the initial message simple, asking the ‘‘user’’ what they want and what they need from capacity building, the use of local experts in capacity building where ever possible, universities extending themselves to engage in genuine partnerships as well as offering new courses, subjects, etc., attempting to match the strengths and weaknesses of partners in capacity building, concentrating on improving regional partnerships across national boundaries, deriving methods to sustain capacity building programs over the long term, questioning the absence of the private sector from capacity building partnerships, questioning whether capacity building is receiving the attention, funding and centrality to ICM promotion that it warrants, a proposal to build a global ICM capacity building network, the need for greater critical analysis of capacity building programs, integrating capacity building into ICM practices and recognising that effective capacity building practice may require some time and effort to build up, i.e. there are no universal ‘‘quick-fixes’’. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

*Tel.: +61-3-9251-7623; fax: +61-3-9251-7626. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Wescott). 0964-5691/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 4 - 5 6 9 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 6 - 8

550

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

1. Introduction This paper will describe and discuss some of the concepts and ideas that have been attempted since Rio 1992 to form partnerships for capacity building between the community, governments and universities. Rather than attempt a comprehensive description and review of all, or even most of what has happened in this area since 1992 the paper will attempt to introduce some examples of partnership approaches at the international, regional and national level as a basis to deduce some of the concepts and ideas inherent in the partnerships that may be applied in other regions or nations. The paper is a starting point for a reflection on progress on capacity building partnerships over the last decade and on lessons learnt during this time, but it does not discuss standard course development activities of universities. Universities develop and promote award-based programs (e.g. Bachelor degrees, Masters, Graduate Diplomas, etc.) and offer short-courses in response to demand as part of their core business. Many tertiary institutes have responded to Agenda 21, Chapter 17 by introducing programs associated with ocean and coastal management. These are too numerous to mention here and only some of these courses, those which have interactive partnership role with communities and/or governments, are covered. 1.1. The approach taken in this paper This review will commence with a brief background description on capacity building partnerships between the community, government and universities described in Agenda 21, Chapter 17. This will be followed by a review of some major examples of implementation attempts at the global, regional and national levels. In the final section of the paper some of the lessons that have evolved from the past decade will be discussed. First some working definitions are necessary. In this paper ‘‘capacity building’’ is defined as ‘‘enhancement of the skills of people and the capacity of institutions in resources management through education and training’’ Cicin-Sain and Knecht [1]. As often noted, but not as often acted on, ‘‘capacity building’’ pertains to the building of the ‘‘capacity of institutions’’ as well as individuals. This is not something as easily achieved through the standard approach of university short courses or education programs. Whilst ‘‘government’’ and ‘‘university’’ are clearly understood groupings it is worth while to point out that in this paper ‘‘community’’ will be applied in its broadest sense, i.e. private organisations/companies, non-government organisations, not-for-profit organisation as well as the general community are covered in the term ‘‘community’’. 1.2. Capacity building partnerships in Agenda 21, Chapter 17 The emphasis in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development on capacity building is on endogenous capacity building and the transfer of

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

551

technological knowledge and scientific understanding for sustainable development (Principle 9). In Chapter 37 of Agenda 21 capacity building in developing countries is discussed with the overall objectives of ‘‘endogenous capacity building’’ stated to be [2] ‘‘to develop and improve national and related subregional and regional capacities and capabilities for sustainable development, with the involvement of the nongovernmental sectors’’ (authors emphasis). In Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 a separate section is devoted to capacity building under each of the seven programmes. Without labouring through each of these sections some of the clear directions identified include: * *

* * * *

*

*

*

ensuring capacity building occurs at the local level (17.17a), emphasising consultation across all sectors, including those which are the topic of this paper (17.17b), supporting pilot demonstration projects and centres of excellence (17.17g,h) building national coordination bodies (17.39), strengthening research facilities (17.40), assisting developing countries in building capacity for data and information retrieval and storage (17.68), developing institutions and local communities’ capacity to conserve and manage marine living resources (17.94), using regional and subregional mechanisms to develop knowledge of the marine environment (17.114), providing adequate support from the international community to small island developing states to strengthen human resources.

These aspects, and others, will be described below as they apply to capacity building partnerships at the global, regional and national level.

2. Global initiatives and approaches Cicin-Sain and Knecht [1] discussed global initiatives in capacity building since Rio 1992 and suggested that the capacity needed to implement Integrated Coastal Management (ICM)included four realms: * * * *

legal and administrative capacity, financial capacity, technical capacity, human resources capacity.

They report that there has been considerable progress since UNCED in capacity building as major UN entities have expanded their own capacity whilst sponsoring global capacity building and the development of new training efforts, particularly at the international level. These authors mention a number of United Nations organisations in their work which can only be briefly summarised below.

552

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC): this UNESCO organisation has operated for nearly 40 years with an emphasis on global ocean processes and more recently small-island development. Recent examples of programs/conferences include; COASTS: Coastal Ocean, Advanced Science and Technology, and its development of TEMA: training, education and mutual assistance in marine sciences. United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (UNDOALOS): this organisation has encouraged the development of case studies to stimulate activity on capacity building for implementation of the Law of the Sea. These include TrainSea-Coast (discussed later in this paper). Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO): this UN organisation has been involved in the development of a code of responsible fishing practises and training programs associated with maintaining healthy coastal habitats to allow marine fisheries to flourish. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP): UNEP has made significant contributions to capacity building under its Regional Seas Programme. This includes the Mediterranean Action Plan and associated guidelines on ICM. Other efforts of note include the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Global Programme for Action on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities. A specific Asia-Pacific training effort, NETTLAP, is described later in this paper. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): UNDP runs ‘‘Capacity 21’’ and sponsors specific marine/coastal efforts such as Train-Sea-Coast and the work in ICM of the International Ocean Institute (IOI), both described below. International Maritime Organisation (IMO): Significant capacity building efforts related to partnerships of the IMO include the World Maritime University in Sweden and the Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas (PEMSEA). The latter program is described and discussed in some detail below. The Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP) as it was originally known is now the GESA of Marine Environmental Protection and is an example of using experts to form applied partnerships to improve environmental quality. The World Bank has led ICM projects in Europe, the Middle East and Africa with pilot projects elsewhere. The Global Environment Facility (GEP) with UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank funds projects with environmental benefits including coastal programs in the Red Sea, Ghana and Lake Victoria. Cicin-Sain and Knecht [1] also surveyed capacity-building measures as part of their cross-national survey and the results are summarised in Table 1. Whilst these data support the interpretation that the Rio recommendations have been acted upon possibly the most concerning feature is the small percentage of graduate programs established at Universities in developing countries. Graduate programs are often where middle managers with training in a specific discipline acquire interdisciplinary skills beyond their first degree. As such these programs are particularly important in ICM capacity building. This is clearly an area for increased

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

553

Table 1 Types of capacity building approaches adopted globally Middle All (%) ðN ¼ 49Þ

Developed (%) ðN ¼ 14Þ

Developing (%) ðN ¼ 15Þ

Developing (%) ðN ¼ 20Þ

Specialised incountry training of existing staff

73

57

73

85

Specialised training at overseas institutions

67

21

80

90

Participation in UNDP, UNEP, FAO, IOC, or other training programs

65

29

80

80

Hiring of new staff with appropriate tertiary qualifications and training

51

36

53

60

Establishment of new graduate programs in ICM at the university level

41

64

53

15

Other

10

14

13

5

Source: Cicin-Sain and Knecht’s 1996 cross-national survey. Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to mark all categories that applied.

activity and possibly partnerships between government, universities and communities might be a better mechanism than universities ‘‘going it alone’’. 2.1. Train-Sea-Coast This program is organised by a range of UN related bodies (see above) and was launched in 1993 to develop a coordinated global training program in response to Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. This program produces a set of high-quality standardised course materials but its delivery is decentralised to ten academic institutions located in nine countries (Brazil, Costa Rica, Fiji, India, the Philippines, Senegal, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the USA). These institutions in turn commit their own resources, and those of their government, to the program in a university-government partnership.

554

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

Borgese [3] has described the role in training of the International Ocean Institute (IOI) from its inception in 1976 as part of the early stages of development of the Law of the Sea convention. The IOI’s aim was to ensure that developing nations had the experts to participate in the outcomes of the Law of the Sea convention. The kind of training needed to develop these experts did not exist at the time and IOI was the vehicle designed to develop these programs: the first being on seabed mining in Malta in 1979. Programs followed on Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) management and regional cooperation and development in many different countries. One of the key ingredients in this training approach, according to Borgese, was to use experts from developing countries as well as from local academic institutions before bringing in experts from the ‘‘north’’—an early example of university and ‘‘local’’ community partnerships. From 1987 sustainable development became the focus of activities which were broadened again after the 1992 Rio Conference and to quote Borgese [3]: Our programmes deal with the institutional implications, discuss case studies of emerging new forms of ‘‘ocean governance’’, at the levels of the coastal community, the nation, the region and the United Nations. In 1993 a large grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) led to the establishment of a number of IOI Operational Centres in Fiji (University of the South Pacific), Senegal and Costa Rica (Universidad Nacional)—note that two of the three are directly associated with universities. These started by adapting existing IOI programs but have since developed many of their own programs and approaches. Other IOI centres have opened independent of GEF funds in Japan*, China, South Africa*, Romania* and Trinidad and Tobago (*based at universities). These autonomous institutions are coordinated by a IOI Planning Council. These changes correspond with UNCED’s growing emphasis on Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) and the emphasis on a decentralised approach to implementation of ICM. The IOI emphasises that sustainable development requires the eradication of poverty and hence emphasises a ‘‘people-oriented’’ approach to ICM and Law of the Sea implementation. This has led to a new type of IOI training program (commenced in India) designed by the villagers themselves (the community) in association with local Non-Government Organisation (NGOs). Borgese [3] states that the 5 years from 1998 would have three components in the training programs: * * *

programs in local languages for inhabitants of poor coastal villages; training programmes for NGOs to implement such programmes, and training programmes for future decision makers at the level of national governments.

The IOI has clearly been an innovative leader in capacity building and has demonstrated practical implementation of a variety of partnerships between universities, governments and communities which can be a model to other groups.

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

555

2.2. The Coastal Resources Centre (CRC) and USAID One could have easily devoted this entire paper to the work of Coastal Resources Centre of the University of Rhode Island (USA). Their range of activities in capacity building through university (URI)/government (USAID)/community (local communities in Ecuador, East Africa, Indonesia to name but a few) partnerships is staggering. In the following sections of this paper there is repeated reference to examples of capacity building that have emanated from the CRC. For those wishing to explore the examples of this work the best starting places are: 1. the ‘‘Intercoast Network’’ newsletter, e.g. the Spring 2001 edition on ‘‘Cross Portfolio Leaning for Enhancing ICM’’, 2. the CRC website: http://crc.uri.edu and 3. publications such as Needham [4] on the origins of the CRC/USAID program for capacity building; Hale et al. [5] and Torell [6] on East African experiences and Olsen [7] and Olsen et al. [8] on US and international experiences. Needham’s [4] summary provides a history of the URI efforts since 1971 and these remain a model for partnership approaches—albeit ones which require the backing of the oversea’s aid organisation of the richest country on earth. In 1995 the Centre hosted a workshop on ‘‘Educating Coastal Managers’’ which gave a global ‘‘snapshot’’ of efforts at the time including sections of the program devoted to ‘‘Networks and Partnerships’’ and to ‘‘...building university capacity’’ Crawford et al. [9]. In terms of networks the group recognised the significance of stable long-term funding for networks to be sustained. These discussions were around the global networks Train-Sea-Coast and the IOI. The two regional networks described at the conference were MedCoast and NETTLAP. Several recommendations were made at the workshop regarding university capacity building including the establishment of joint curricular, identifying linkages between networks that currently exist and exploring the possibility of establishing a global network of ICM universities. Some of these ideas have been acted upon and some others will be picked up on later in this paper but certainly there appears that similar gatherings, held on a regular basis, would be very fruitful. In Genoa in 1998 a similar regional conference was held: the ‘‘International Conference on Education and Training in Integrated Coastal Management—the Mediterranean Experience’’. Some speakers overlapped between these two gatherings and again possibly these discussions should occur on a regular basis moving around the regions in the world (but will Americans and Europeans attend gatherings away from the western hemisphere?) 2.3. Intercoast Network (International Newsletter of Coastal Management) In ‘‘hard copy’’ terms the ‘‘Intercoast Network’’ newsletter has become a default link or ‘‘network’’ of ICM. The ‘‘Spring’’ 2001 issue, as an example, provided a

556

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

whole series of excellent articles which contribute to the topic of this paper in a variety of ways. Several of these are summarised below. Tobey [10] writes of ‘‘embracing the power of learning’’ and calls on a ‘‘conscious emphasis on learning strategies (author’s emphasis) and activities’’ to maximise the benefit of the many lessons learnt in ICM. Tobey focuses on the effectiveness and impact of these learning activities and I believe rightly suggests that ICM learning now needs to move on to another plain: i.e. one about effective ICM training, not just ICM training in itself. We know that collaborative networks and partnership methods include: pilot programs, training and research, evaluation, information sharing, identification of gaps, supporting local, national and regional strategies and the development of common goals, principles and tools. What we need to do is start to test some of the assumptions underlying these approaches in order to move forward more effectively. Lowry [11] attempts to analyse what the ‘‘topic categories’’ are in ICM and lists them as: coastal resources issues, management technologies, capacity for management, community context for ICM, program design and implementation, processes and institutional design. Lowry believes one major challenge is to ‘‘create credible generalisations from the mass of information about the ICM experience’’. I believe this is a fundamental issue (making our message clearer, simpler and more elegant) if the networks we establish are to be successful. Lowry proposes five approaches: stories of current practise, rules of thumb, principles or guidelines learned from experience, best practice (‘‘how to...’’) guidance and propositions built from causal attributions. Lowry concludes that we can encourage more learning from ICM if we: * *

*

* *

incorporate learning into project designs (not as an ‘‘add on’’ at the end), identify the recurring uncertainties met in ICM and concentrate research on these uncertainties, match the (inquiry) approach to the issue, i.e. sometimes the approach can be simple other times it may need rigorous experiments, acknowledge that there are research validity and credibility issues and test them, encourage a more critical approach to the lessons we claim to have learnt (i.e. apply peer review processes).

These are indeed major challenges but ones which take capacity building to a new level. Briefly a few other global examples are worthy of mention as potential ‘‘models’’ for other groups mentioned: CANADA/Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) marine science projects in the ASEAN region. ACORN (Australian-Canadian Ocean Researcher’s Network). This is a group of Canadian and Australian academics which hold irregular meetings discussing ICM and Ocean Policy issues common to the two countries. The most recent meetings were in December 2000 in Vancouver and in Canberra in May 2002. MEDCOAST programs and conferences in the Mediterranean.

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

557

The International Centre for Coastal and Ocean Policy Studies (ICCOPS) which has operated out of Italy since 1992. The Malaysian Institute for Maritime Affairs (MIMA) has been sponsored by the Malaysian Government to examine Ocean Policy initiatives. The Coastal Resources Institute (CORIN) has been established at Prince of Songkla University in Thailand. The Centre for Maritime Policy at the University of Wollongong, in Australia, has sponsored many studies, publications and conferences in Australia and Asia. 2.4. Global examples of a more specific nature The examples quoted so far have been about global capacity building partnerships in general. There are two examples of a more restricted nature worth describing briefly. 2.5. WISE coastal practices Wise Coastal Practices for Sustainable Human Development was launched in April 1999 Troost [12] as a web-based discussion forum. This UNESCO sponsored program recognises that there is a difference between best practice and the compromises needed in the real world which leads to ‘‘wise practice’’. There have been 21 pilot programs initiated with 60 countries involved in this project which is concentrated on coastal regions and small islands. This very recent development will be worth observing in the future. 2.6. Capacity building lessons for coral reef conservation Parks et al. [13], a group of conservation practitioners have called for learning networks to be developed. Based on extensive on-ground community level experience these practitioners propose four major actions: 1. Establish formal learning networks which go across sites and a geographical level, i.e. Involve cross-pollination between specific projects. 2. Develop simple methods for developing and operating such learning networks. 3. Increase cross-project communication and learning opportunities. 4. Increase support to those who are doing the learning.

3. Regional examples Possibly the programs in capacity building involving substantial partnerships reach their highest level of achievement at the regional (i.e. between global and national levels) level as the examples below illustrate.

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

558

3.1. East Asia Yu and Thai-Eng [14] have described the highly successful Regional Program on Marine Pollution Prevention and Management in the East Asian Seas (MPP-EAS) sponsored by GEF/UNDP/IMO. They describe the program as unique because its curriculum is tailored for developing countries, it concentrates on practical examples and solutions in ICM demonstration sites, it is a joint effort of a number of regional educational and research institutes and it is multidisciplinary. The Regional Program package includes ICM approaches and practical tools and methods on institutional arrangements, information management and sustainable financing. This approach is based on the fact that experience has demonstrated that a lack of national capacity is a serious impediment to implementing ICM. Yu and Thia-Eng [14] also state that ‘‘sustainability of training efforts remains and issue...’’ This approach has since evolved and developed even further into what is now globally one of the most successful capacity building programs: the ‘‘Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia’’ (PEMSEA). PEMSEA’s development objective is: ‘‘to protect the life support systems, and enable sustainable use and management of coastal and marine resources through intergovernmental interagency and intersectoral partnerships, for improved quality of life in the East Asian Seas Region’’ [15]. The project is based on two important lessons learnt from the previous Regional Program and other projects: *

*

governments alone cannot halt misuse of marine and coastal resources, private and public sector partnerships are crucial, and individual states cannot defeat pollution in a region, regional capacity building is crucial.

PEMSEA is based on ICM principles and risk assessment/management approaches and operates through pilot demonstration projects. There are now 12 nations involved with PEMSEA which is implemented through UNDP and IMO with the host being the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) in the Philippines. The range of capacity building programs now include specialised training courses, degree training programs, professional upgrading programs, study tours and an internship program. The partners include NGOs, religious groups and media practitioners. The program appears to be an exemplar of a regionally based and regionally managed program run for, and by, developing countries and offers many lessons in cooperation and partnerships for capacity building (www.pemsea.org). There are many other regional examples that could be described as well. Space limitations don’t allow such full descriptions and analysis and hence below these are mentioned briefly, although the approaches adopted do contribute to the discussion of the lessons learnt at the end of this paper.

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

559

3.2. Asia and the Pacific 3.2.1. NETTLAP NETTLAP stands for Network for Environmental Training at Tertiary Level in Asia and the Pacific. NETTLAP was established under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and consists of agencies and individuals active in environmental training in the Asia-Pacific regions and covers 35 countries with 200 tertiary institutional members and 1600 individual members. Various themes operate including coastal management. The NETTLAP was designed to: *

* * *

Enhance the environmental expertise of tertiary level educators and through them the knowledge and skills of decision-makers and policy formulators. Increase environmental skill and awareness of tertiary level graduates. Enhance environmental technologies in capacities for their use. Strengthen the overall environmental expertise in the region in technical, management and policy levels.

The emphasis seems to have moved more to toxic waste management in recent times. (http://www.envfor.nic.in/news/dec97/nettlap, 7 August 2001). NETTLAP has re-oriented its strategy more to regional cooperation with national implementation through national partnerships in environmental training. These partnerships would include NGOs, community based organisations, industries and tertiary institutions and commenced with a forum early in 1996. NETTLAP appears to not have been as active in recent times. For example the last newsletter this author received was several years ago and the website was last altered in 1996. 3.3. South Pacific 3.3.1. TRAIN-SEA-COAST South and Veitayaki [16] report on capacity building in the South Pacific with the centre of operations the University of the South Pacific (USP). The university started in 1968 and involved 12 Pacific Island Countries (PICs). An Ocean Resources Management Programme (now a Marine Affairs Programme) commenced in 1986 and the first formal courses started in 1993. This Marine Studies Programme continues as the formal (leading to university awards) training and educational opportunity. Links have continued with the International Oceans Institute. The USP is a founding member, with the IOI, and UNDOALOS running the TRAIN-SEACOAST program. 3.3.2. Africa Hale et al. [5] have discussed capacity building in Kenya and Zanzibar. Whilst the programmes have been relatively successful, the authors suggest a number of improvements. They suggest that the core ICM team would have benefited from

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

560

private sector representation and that the balance between maintaining regional cooperation and maintaining activity at specific sites was difficult. They also believe that project size needs to be matched to the existing capacity of the people and institutions. As capacity builds so can the size and complexity of projects. Finally linking the pilot projects back into national policy development is a continuing challenge. Torrell [6] discussed adaptive management and learning in ICM in five projects in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. The general approaches in the projects were similar and learning was linked to the adaptive management approaches adopted. Different approaches have been used in developed countries. The North American based Marine Affairs and Policy Association (MAPA; www.oce.orst.edu/mrm/mapa) is an association of individuals and institutions ‘‘dedicated to the advancement of education and research in marine affairs and policy’’. Their website provides a list of academic institutions and organisations both in the USA and elsewhere and events/information etc. for prospective students and researchers. The Coastal Learning Network’s website (www.crc.uri.edu/research/cln) was established following the Block Island Workshop on Cross Portfolio Learning (May, 2001). These regional networks in addition to some national examples below raise the question of how to effectively link these together to avoid regions, countries and subnational ICM efforts constantly ‘‘re-inventing the wheel’’.

4. National examples Whilst it is not possible to cover every national capacity building program a sample of developed and developing nations are reviewed below. 4.1. Canada Hildebrand and Sorenson [17] report on what may become a model program of data storage and indices called ‘‘Baseline 2000’’, in Canada. The types of material that Baseline 2000 has started to assemble include: * * * *

* *

references on global ICM efforts, index of motivating issues for ICM programs, model planning approaches and techniques, index of challenges in ICM to all countries and a second list of challenges for developing nations, comparative assessment methods, and an index of evaluation programs.

The project has arisen from the recognition of three major factors confronting ICM: ignorance of existing information exchange networks, the absence of frameworks to

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

561

organise and facilitate international exchange of information and scepticism that lessons learned in one area can be translated to another jurisdiction. 4.2. Indonesia The Indonesian Coastal University Network is an example (11 universities) of universities attempting to focus on practical ICM and helping to build capacity in local communities. The network is relatively new (March 1999) and the Coastal Resources Centre has received a grant from the Packard Foundation to aid in preparing a strategic plan (www.crc.uri/field/asia/indonesia/incune). This initiative could well be a model for further valuable university/community partnerships in capacity building. 4.3. South Africa Glavovic [18] has reported on the South African experience of building partnerships for sustainable coastal development. Glavovic speaks of ‘‘public service through partnership’’ [18]. The partnerships would be between government, ‘‘civil society’’ (community), the private sector and the coastal research community. To do so he suggests that particular attention needs to be devoted to ‘‘removing institutional obstacles and disincentives’’ to greater cooperation. This will involve new ways of thinking and working and here lies the main challenge. 4.4. Dominican Republic Jorge [19] writes of an interesting example of capacity building in the absence of government input. A case study is presented of an NGO-driven capacity program which was literally ‘‘bottom up’’. A consensus-based approach was adopted at the local level to identify priority problems and possible solutions. These were then built up into an elementary regional management plan. The challenge is that once built to this stage by NGOs, which may well be highly desirable, can the impetus be maintained and the plan implemented without government involvement? This is an interesting example as it puts forward the possibility that there may be a temporal element in partnerships, i.e. not all partners need to be involved at the same stage of a capacity building program. 4.5. Australia Australia has initiated a number of innovative partnership programs in marine and coastal affairs in the past decade—often with a very strong emphasis on the general community. Some of these are briefly described below under three headings: Government/Community project based programs, a Community network and University/Government partnerships.

562

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

4.5.1. Government/Community Joint Projects: Coastcare Harvey et al. [20,21] have examined the concept of the Coastcare program, a capacity building coastal management tool. Coastcare is part of the Australian (National) Government’s ‘‘Coasts and Clean Seas Initiative’’ (CCSI) through its Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) approach. The NHT was established in 1997 and the CCSI was initially allocated $A125 million. Coastcare is a community-based program designed to encourage local community involvement in coastal management (a separate specifically capacity-building program also exists). One of the stated aims is ‘‘to provide opportunities and resources for interest groups, business and residents to participate in coastal management’’. This is achieved by the allocation of small grants for projects with State Governments matching these funds. There is an emphasis on gaining practical experience and skills through these projects and the desire to engender in local communities a sense of ‘‘stewardship’’ of coastal and marine areas through partnerships with government bodies responsible for coastal management and with universities, etc. In their paper Harvey et al. [21] examine the state of South Australia as a case study, where over 80% of all projects sponsored were for on-ground works. The authors conclude that Coastcare has effectively harnessed community groups to work in partnership with local authorities and has led directly to capacity building of local communities. They conclude that the program has ‘‘kick started’’ community projects and has stimulated local interest and commitment based on a partnership with educational management agencies in which coastal expertise already existed. The challenge again is whether funds can be generated from new sources (other than government) to ensure that these positive benefits are sustainable in the medium to long term (see also [22]). 4.5.2. A community network The Australian Marine and Coastal Community Network (MCCN). Tarte and Watson [23] and Wescott [24] have published descriptions of the MCCN’s operations in Australia. The Network (MCCN) grew out of the Ocean Rescue 2000 initiative of the Australian Government from a recognition that progress in coastal and marine conservation could only come with a greater understanding (and consciousness) of the coastal, and in particular, marine environment amongst the general community. Whilst formal capacity building approaches were initiated under the (Australian) Commonwealth Coastal Action Program, e.g. resources guides: MESA et al. [25]; short course training: Environment Australia [26]; development of electronic databases: Minter [27] and a tertiary courses guide: Anon [28], the Network was a unique attempt to build an alliance of interested individual and groups (called ‘‘participants’’) to ensure the sustainability of the lessons learnt. The Network is composed of over 8500 registered participants from every possible interest group involved in coastal and marine matters (government agencies, NGOs, conservation groups, coastal recreational users, fisheries, private industry, universities and other educational groups) from all tiers of Australian society. These participants are kept informed of recent coastal/marine initiatives, workshops, etc. through a national bi-monthly newsletter (‘‘Waves’’) and state level inserts

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

563

(‘‘Ripples’’). In each Australian state a full-time Regional Coordinator is located in a ‘‘host’’ organisation to disseminate information and answer inquiries from anyone in the general community, business, media, etc. The ‘‘host’’ organisations vary from state to state and include fisheries organisations, tertiary institutions, conservation groups and local government agencies. The ‘‘Regional Coordinators’’ each have a mentor who is a member of the National Reference Group (the author of this paper is the Chair of the National Reference Group, NRG). The NRG members are also from a wide variety of backgrounds: state and local government agencies, academia, conservation groups, etc. and are from a range of disciplines. The Network is non-political and does not take ‘‘sides’’ in controversial issues but rather acts as ‘‘honest-broker’’ and disseminator of different opinions. Since its commencement in 1993 the Network has grown steadily and is fully funded by Environment Australia (EA, the national government environment department). The fact that the Network is seen as independent of government (the Australian Marine Conservation Society is contracted by EA to run the network at approximately $A800,000 p.a) and neutral allows all groups in the community to use it as a vehicle for dissemination of information and as a mechanism for capacity building in coastal and marine affairs in Australia. 4.5.3. University and Government partnerships There are two Commonwealth of Australia (National) Government programs which operate in Australia which while not confined to coastal/marine matters, are interesting partnership-based capacity building models: the Australian Research Council (ARC)—Linkage Grant scheme and the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) model. Both operate with the objective of linking university research activities to business/community research needs with the national Government acting as a catalyst in the three-way partnership. The ARC—Linkage program encourages collaborative research. In these grants the university supplies the research expertise and infrastructure and funds; an ‘‘industry’’ partner (including community groups, NGOs, private sector businesses, etc.) which has specific research interest, supplies cash and ‘‘in-kind’’ resources that are then matched by a government grant. Hence each partner brings its ‘‘resources’’ to the table where they are complemented by the other partners’ resources. Grants can seek between $A20,000 and $A500,000 in funding for up to 5 years (www.arc.gov.au). An example of a successful project currently involves the author. A local government authority (the Surf Coast Shire) is dependant on its intertidal environment (beaches and rocky shores) for the social and economic well being of its residents through recreational/tourist use of its beautiful coastline. The local government authority wants to know whether the use of its shoreline is sustainable in the long term and whether there are specific localities which need increased protection from use. Deakin University has a research priority area in the sustainable use of natural resources and several staff members expert in this area. Deakin University, through the author, approached the Surf Coast Shire to join it in

564

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

a successful application under the ARC Linkage program for a 2-year study of Surf Coast’s sustainable use. The Shire provides some cash ($A10,000 p.a) and in-kind support (e.g. office space, vehicles, etc.) whilst the university supplies the staff expertise and infrastructure. The Government grant of approximately $A40,000 p.a pays for a Research Assistant to carry out the project. All partners are ‘‘winners’’: the Shire gets its project done, the University extends its research program and interacts actively in the local community and the Government sees its investment in universities enhanced by sponsoring a ‘‘real world’’ project. The Cooperative Research Centre Program (www.dist.gov.au/CRC/). The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) program brings together universities, research institutions, government and private industry into a research based partnership. As well as encouraging university research to be more applicable to social needs the CRCs provide an educational and training environment for building capacity in specific areas of community interest such as ICM. CRC’s usually contain more than 30 full time researchers with a budget of over $A7 million p.a. On average the CRC’s receive around $A2.2 million per year from the government and this is matched in cash and in-kind by the ‘‘industry’’ partner. There are now over 60 CRCs in Australia with 5 of these with a coastal/marine focus: Australian Maritime Engineering CRC, CRC for Aquaculture, CRC for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, CRC for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management. As with the ARC-Linkage program the key here is that each of the partners supply what they have available (Universities: staff and infrastructure; Industry; projects and financial resources; Government; facilitation and finances) which then, when combined, provides an invaluable partnership for research projects and capacity building. Ph.D. scholarships are an essential ingredient in both these schemes.

5. The way forward: lessons learned on the journey so far There are many messages and lessons to be learnt from the range of examples described above. These have been summarised into a series of points below. 5.1. Keeping the initial message simple ICM is a complex area, a field of study well described once as a ‘‘wicked problem’’ [29]. Sometimes this complexity is overwhelming, even to people who have worked in the field for decades. In building the capacity of people entering the field it appears important to ensure that this complexity does not confuse capacity building attempts or overwhelm the community—one has to move to the ‘‘simple side of complex’’. Put more bluntly in conveying the need to apply ICM principles we need to adopt the KISS approach, i.e. ‘‘Keep It Simple Stupid’’.

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

565

To do this we need to continue to work on refining the principles of ICM down to a few simple and straightforward easily communicated messages. The complexities can be dealt with after the initial capacity is built, for those who wish to pursue them. The work of Canada’s ‘‘Baseline 2000’’ [17] is noteworthy here. The WISE project makes a related point which is linked to several of the lessons below as well, i.e. that there is a difference between ‘‘best’’ practice (a theoretical possibility) and ‘‘wise’’ practice, the realistic outcome given all the constraints on ICM implementation. In capacity building we should probably aim for ‘‘wise practice’’. 5.2. Asking the ‘‘user’’ what they want ICM rightly emphasises the importance of adapting the coastal management approaches adopted to the needs of the local community. Capacity building must identify the local needs first before developing its approaches and programs. But as well as determining the needs of the community for capacity building one needs to identify what the community wants to learn. The ‘‘needs’’ and ‘‘wants’’ may not coincide but when taken together the benefits are not only a more comprehensive and integrated approach to capacity building but one which will have the support and interest of the local community because they have contributed to its development (see [13]). 5.3. Capacity building programs should use local experts wherever possible The work of the IOI and the PEMSEA program, in particular, highlight that programs which use local experts and local partnerships familiar with the regional issues seem to be more poignant and sustainable. Non-local experts should be used as a ‘‘last resort’’, i.e. only when the expertise is not available regionally. This is not to say that there are not excellent examples of the involvement of non-locals or that there are not many cases when ‘‘outside’’ expertise is vital but the issues is about achieving a balance between outside and internal expertise. 5.4. Capacity building moving further beyond learning and teaching strategies Initially, the response of universities becoming involved in capacity building partnerships was to establish new course and offer these to students. Although this is a worthy offering it falls short of true partnerships, even when the community and government is involved in designing the courses. Whilst not under-estimating the important of such course (postgraduate ones in particular) universities, in general, need to be more engaged in forging genuine interactive partnerships in the future. The Australian university partnership programs could be studied as examples of such models.

566

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

5.5. Matching the strengths and weaknesses of the partners The partners involved in capacity building bring different strengths and weaknesses ‘‘to the table’’. It would appear that successful approaches allow each partner to contribute their ‘‘strengths’’ and have their ‘‘weaknesses’’ complimented by another partners’ ‘‘strengths’’. For example universities throughout the world bring enormous intellectual capacity to the table. But most universities are now ‘‘people rich’’ and ‘‘capital poor’’—they have little money to contribute. They contribute their intellectual capital and an infrastructure of physical facilities (research and teaching based) often in varying degrees of condition. They also bring a potential institutional continuity of staff and culture to the table. Private institutions are often complimentary to these universities. They often have capital and ideas but not the continuity of infrastructure and personnel. Governments can supply seeding funds and place projects in a broader social and political context whilst local communities can often supply the commitment, energy, ideas and local knowledge but not the infrastructure or intellectual expertise. If these groups provide complimentary contributions (e.g. universities: infrastructure and expertise; private corporations: capital and impetus; governments: context and initial support, and communities: commitment and local knowledge) there is an enormous opportunity for capacity building of all contributors. The key is that it is a partnership, that is no one group dominates the others. 5.6. Improving regional cooperation in partnerships There appears that, not unexpectedly, there is a variation in success of partnerships in different parts of the world. This probably relates to financial resources and the sophistication of infrastructure but the question of (1) whether this observation is correct, (2) what are the causes of this variation (if there is variation in reality) and (3) what can be done about it, all need further attention in the future. The successful regional operators, e.g. PEMSEA, the Coastal Resource Centre work in Indonesia, etc. appear to share the characteristics of a community dictated approach and the use of external expertise only when local expertise does not exist. 5.7. The ‘‘sustainability’’ of capacity building programs Yu and Thia-Eng [14] reporting on one of the best organised and appreciated longer-term capacity building programs (GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme on Marine Pollution Prevention and Management in the South East Asian Seas) state: ‘‘sustainability of training efforts remain an issue despite the fact that a comprehensive action plan was formulated through the efforts of the United Nations’’. The issue of how to sustain practical training efforts over a long period of time certainly deserves greater discussion.

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

567

Whilst theoretically universities can bring medium-to-long term continuity to programs through institutional longevity, in real terms most of the university partnerships which operate are funded by relatively short-term grants, whether this is from aid programs or establishment grants to develop courses. The contribution of university courses require students to pay (directly or indirectly, via aid programs) fees as the universities themselves do not have the recurrent funds to deliver programs indefinitely, even if they do have the staff. Proceeding down the path of electronic delivery of programs is in reality restrained by the limitations of infrastructure and facilities (networks, computers, satellites, etc.) in developing countries, not to mention the lack of practical fieldwork and face to face interaction with colleagues that are essential elements of ICM capacity building. The ‘‘(financial) sustainability’’ of capacity building programs appears to be, in the author’s opinion at least, the major challenge of the 21st century. One which will not be overcome by universities, governments or communities acting alone. Partnerships appear to be the way to go... continuity of financial resources is the key. But is any Government in the world, with the possible exception of the USA and the EU, capable of such financial commitments? Support for the learners involved in capacity building is important and should be constantly re-emphasised in this context.

5.8. The absent partner: where is the private sector? In reviewing capacity building partnerships the predicted/predictable partners are represented (general community, government, universities, NGOs) with one obvious exception: the private sector. In ‘‘Coastcare’’ in Australia local communities; local, state and national governments have been involved but the private sector is noticeably absent even though they were expected to be a major participant. Why? Is it because it is not seen as part of their ‘‘core business’’? Is the profit motive so completely dominant that anything that does not contribute to profit is not tackled or is it that private corporations are not organisationally structured to be able to actively interact with community projects/partnerships? Hale et al. [5] pointed out the absence of the private sector in their African programs but in the material reviewed this paper repeatably, the private sector is either completely absent (most common) or playing a very minor role. Why? What can be done to involve the private sector? How can a sense of obligation to share their wealth be instilled in profit-based organisations? These are key questions that need to be answered soon if programs are to be sustainable. Given the increasing global power of private corporations (and the apparently lessening power of sovereign governments) and the impact private corporations have on coastal/marine regions these questions and their answers are a key to Rio þ 10 discussions—and to what Yu and Thai-Eng [14] referred to as the ‘‘sustainability of training efforts.....’’.

568

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

5.9. Capacity building: the poor relation of ICM? Lowry [11] says: ‘‘While millions of dollars are invested annually in coast-related scientific and engineering research, the resources invested in addressing important coastal management uncertainties and knowledge gaps is minuscule’’. There appears to be a case for the argument that the allocation of resources within ICM projects globally has ‘‘capacity building’’ as a poor relation when compared to the sponsorship of coastal development projects (including tourism and aquaculture). Is this true? Should it be changed? How can it be changed in the next decade? It appears that investment in capacity building is not an attractive area for politicians, global institutions and private corporations when compared to the ‘‘monument building’’ of large scale development projects. How can this ‘‘mind set’’ be changed? It is possible that because the benefits of capacity building occur over the medium-to-long term these projects are not as attractive to politicians looking for short-term gains.

5.10. A global ICM capacity building network Ignorance of current approaches and practises in ICM is an issue according to Hildebrand and Sorenson [17]. There have been many effective regional and national ICM based networks developed since Rio 1992, e.g. MAPA, NETTLAP, Coastal Learning Network, PEMSEA, MCCN, etc. Would it be advantageous and effective to attempt to link these in some way? One possibility is to establish a biannual workshop/conference on ‘‘Capacity Building in Coastal Zone Management’’. The conference could discuss: * * * *

formal training, institution building, learning networks, and local community capacity building.

The conference could move between four regions: The ‘‘West’’: (1) Europe, North Africa (2) North America (including Hawaii) The ‘‘East’’: (3) Asia including India, Indo-China, South-east Asia, China, Japan, Russia, and The ‘‘South’’ (southern hemisphere): (4) Pacific Island Countries, Australia, New Zealand, Southern Africa, South America. The conference would offer an opportunity to build on the concept of a global ICM network.

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

569

5.11. Regularly analysing the effectiveness of capacity building partnerships and programs A strong message which came through from the various descriptions in the Spring 2001 ‘‘Intercoast Network’’ newsletter was after more that a decade of capacity building ‘‘experiments’’, including those involving partnerships, there was a lack of assessment of their effectiveness. This lack of what might be termed ‘‘critical rigour’’ requires development. As capacity building matures we should be brave enough to start to be more critical of our effectiveness. 5.12. Integrating capacity building into ICM practices There is some irony in the possibility that in integrated coastal management there is a risk that a vitally important component such as capacity building may not be integrated into the approach but become an ‘‘add on’’, or after thought, to research programs or aid programs. Clearly most proponents of ICM recognise that capacity building must be integrated into ICM programs but it may not necessarily be true that the funders and implementers of programs act on these intentions. 5.13. Incremental Growth (the ‘‘building blocks’’ approach) to capacity building On occasions there has appeared to be a desire to create instant partnerships for capacity building. The examples in this paper illustrate that incremental growth of the partnerships and matching the partnerships to the size of a project and the existing capacity is essential. Successful partnerships demonstrate an almost organic growth and the role of some players, e.g. Governments, is to catalyse the formation of partnerships if they are to be sustainable rather than transitory.

6. Conclusion There has been many lessons learnt from the rapid expansion of capacity building partnerships witnessed over the past decade. The most pleasing conclusion from this review is the observation that there is no shortage of enthusiasm and commitment for capacity building partnerships to continue to grow in the next decade. Our challenge is to use creative approaches such as partnerships to ensure this happens.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Anna Wasterval for assistance with the text and Deakin University for assisting with the airfare to attend the conference at which this paper was first presented.

570

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

References [1] Cicin-Sain B, Knecht R. Integrated coastal and ocean management. concepts and practises. Washington: Island Press, 1998. [2] Paragraph 37.3; http://www.icg.org/habitat/agenda21/ch 7.html, 7 August 2001. [3] Borgese EM. The training programme of the International Ocean Institute. Ocean & Coastal Management 1998;40:93–7. [4] Needham B. An innovative approach to training and capacity building for integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management 1998;38:279–83. [5] Hale LZ, Amaral M, Issa AS, Mwandotto BAJ. Catalyzing coastal management in Kenya and Zanzibar: building capacity and commitment. Coastal Management 2000;28:75–85. [6] Torell E. Adaptation and learning in coastal management: the experience of five East African initiatives. Coastal Management 2000;28:353–63. [7] Olsen SB. Coastal management: what are we learning from US and international experience? Coastal Management Report No. 2218. URI Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA 1999. [8] Olsen S, Lowry K, Tobey J. A manual for assessing progress in coastal management. Coastal Management Report No. 2211. URI Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA 1999. [9] Crawford BR, Cobb JS, Ming CL. editors. Educating coastal managers: Proceedings from the Rhode Island Workshop. Coastal Resources Management Project, Coastal Resources Center, The University of Rhode Island and Center for the Environment, US Agency for International Development, Narrangansett, Rhode Island, USA, 1995; 184p. [10] Tobey JA. Embracing the power of learning. Intercoast Network 2001; 1,2,34,35. [11] Lowry K. Landscape of integrated coastal management and learning activities. Intercoast Network 2001; 1,3,35. [12] Troost D. WISE Coastal Practises: what and how? Intercoast Network, 2001; 8–9. [13] Parks JE, Llewellyn G, Dutton I, Pomeroy RS. Learning networks called for by conservation practitioners. Intercoast Network 2001;32:18–9. [14] Yu H, Thia-Eng C. ICM training for marine pollution prevention and management. Ocean and Catchment Management 1998;38:69–86. [15] PEMSEA, Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia. Brochure and Fact Sheet, 1999. [16] South GR, Veitauaki J. Capacity building in the South Pacific and the role of the marine studies programme at the University of the South Pacific. Ocean & Coastal Management 1998;41: 103–13. [17] Hildebrand L, Sorensen J. Draining the Swamp and beating away the alligators: baseline 2000. Intercoast Network 2001;31:20–1. [18] Glavovic B. Building partnerships for sustainable coastal development. The South Africa Coastal Policy Formulation Experience: the process, perceptions and lessons learnt. Common Ground Consulting/Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Durban, 2000. [19] Jorge MA. Developing capacity for coastal management in the absence of government: a case study in the Dominican Republic. Ocean & Coastal Management 1997;36:47–72. [20] Harvey N, Clarke BD, Carvalho P. Capacity building and human resource use through coastcare as an Australian Government-based coastal management tool. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Island Climate Change Conference ‘‘Linking Science and Policy: improving the Understanding and Responding to Climate Change and Sea-level Rise, Raratonga, Cook Islands, April 2000. [21] Harvey N, Clarke BD, Carvalho P. The role of the Australian Coastcare program in communitybased coastal management: a case study from South Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management 2001;44:161–81. [22] Wescott G. Reforming coastal management to improve community participation and integration in Victoria, Australia. Coastal Management 1998;26:3–15.

G. Wescott / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 549–571

571

[23] Tarte DM, Watson E. Australia’s marine and coastal community network. In: Saunder DA, Craig JL, Mattiske EM, editors. Nature conservation, the role of networks. New South Wales, Australia: Beatty and Sons P.L., 1995 (Chapter 4). [24] Wescott G. The development and initial implementation of Australia’s ‘‘integrated and comprehensive’’ Oceans Policy. Ocean & Coastal Management 2000;34:853–78. [25] MESA (Marine Education Society of Australasia) et al. Coastal and marine resource guide. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1996. [26] Environment Australia. Survey of Coastal Managers’ Training Requirements. National Short Course Program. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1997. [27] Minter G. Coastnet. Development of an electronic network. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1995. [28] Anonymous. Guide to tertiary courses in marine and coastal studies in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1995. [29] Kenchington R. An overview of some key issues in achieving strategic planning in Australia’s Coastal Zone. Proceedings of ‘‘Coast to Coast’’ Conference, 1994; p. 134–9.