PDF Format

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Pilot Team Perspectives on Key Challenges to ILM Previous work and the input of the seven pilot project proponents provide various perspectives on challenges for ILM. The challenges may be due to existing silos of information, governance, decision-making delivery, or data/funding inconsistencies, resource shortages (including skills gaps), etc. Recognizing the importance of a common language to facilitate learning and exchange among practitioners from differing disciplines and backgrounds, an attempt was made to describe: (i) the phase and components of the ILM process being undertaken by each pilot project team; and (ii) the capacity needs and challenges each team identified in their presentations to the Workshop’s plenary session. A description of the pilot projects’ main issues of concern, needs and challenges is summarized below: 1. Key Issues of Concern: In general, most of the issues identified were directly associated within the growth of human populations (urbanization), climate change, and technologies that act collectively to increase the intensity and breadth of pressures on the environment and its long-term health. Some examples focusing around the future health and well-being of humans include: sustainable resource sectors (fisheries, mining, forestry); water protection (eutrophication and contaminants); and ecological integrity (invasive species). More specific areas of concern included how to approach the defining of thresholds and indicators, manage increased development pressures from multiple sources, and understand issues at the land-water interface and in coastal areas, and how to co-ordinate and manage planning across different levels of government and privately owned lands. 2. Policy Context: The policy scope varied within and across proponent teams, ranging from municipal land/water management plans (land-use plans/management frameworks, Official Community Plans, and the Atlantic Coastal Action Program) to provincial and federal legislation and initiatives (the federal Oceans Act, Atlantic Ecosystems Initiative, provincial biodiversity policies, First Nations treaties, federal and provincial parks acts, the Coastal and Ocean Information Network Atlantic (COIN Atlantic), federal Focus on long-term sustainability and resilience Varied policy context, not all legislative and provincial forestry acts, as well as federal and provincial endangered species legislation). A general observation was that for most of the pilot projects, linkages between planned project outputs and specific policy or planning processes were not well established. 3. ILM Approach: Established multi-stakeholder approaches featured strongly in most of the proponents’ presentations as did the use of visualization tools for communication and engagement (e.g. indicators’ mapping tools and web distribution systems). However, Emphasis on the need for tools for complex cumulative effects and prediction 16
scenarios and other cumulative analysis and evaluation tools were less well established (much of the focus was on education and communication, science and technology, and public engagement). A strong desire to apply analytical tools was evident. Several examples of the development and use of such analytical tools, ecosystem-based management frameworks, and simulation tools were presented (modelling change, trade-offs, and adaptation). 4. Challenges and Lessons Learned: Perhaps the most consistently identified challenge to ILM application was the lack of capacity to access and use these types of approaches. These impediments were evident throughout all aspects of ILM work, such as: the lack of engagement and co-ordination activities across sectors and different levels and types of decisionmakers and planners (governance silos); the need for Access to knowledge and capacity are key analytical models to understand cumulative effects and complex economic, social, and environmental linkages; and skills and funding gaps. A further complication is that shortages in resources and capacity combined with time constraints interfere with ILM practitioners’ abilities to obtain, adapt, and use data to support decision-making. In the absence of mechanisms to facilitate collaboration, these challenges sometimes create a competitive environment as practitioners from different sectors vie for limited resources and this, in turn, reduces opportunities for collaboration across sectors and agencies. This cycle is difficult to interrupt in the absence of fora or formal requirements that encourage the pooling of complementary skill sets to compensate for limited resources (and capacity). The lessons learned reinforced the need for the development and standardization of integrated approaches, data, and tools. The presentations also highlighted the need for “best practices” fora to: • co-ordinate and advance data and information integration (notably across land/water/marine interfaces and to credibly deal with uncertainty and risk); • provide access to ILM resources and knowledge (education and technology); • assist with implementation and engagement challenges; • to establish common “currencies” and language for more efficient communication across disciplines. 5. Benefiting from the Network: The benefits of the Network that were discussed in the pilot project presentations included: lessons learned from other practitioners (sharing The Network needs information and experience); creation of momentum in to grow ILM; pooling of resources around common issues; access to a professional network of technical and other experts; 17
Page 1: Integrated Management and Geospatia
Page 4 and 5: About this Report The PRI contribut
Page 7 and 8: Integrated Landscape Management: Co
Page 9 and 10: asis of the needs and objectives fo
Page 11 and 12: The project outlined in this report
Page 13 and 14: The principal activities of the ILM
Page 15 and 16: The pilot project presentations foc
Page 17 and 18: est practice documents and develop
Page 19 and 20: ILM Relevance: The project addresse
Page 21: or other knowledge resources, tools
Page 25 and 26: Figure 1. Telling an Integrated Sto
Page 27 and 28: The Workshop’s proposal developme
Page 29 and 30: 6. External Advisory Committee, who
Page 31 and 32: 4. Training, Knowledge and Other Ca
Page 33 and 34: Given the diversity of participants
Page 35 and 36: Appendix A: Detailed List of Activi
Page 37 and 38: Appendix B: Initial Overview of Dif
Page 39 and 40: Virtual Communication among Network
Page 41 and 42: makers concerned with indicators, c
Page 43 and 44: Notes 1 Policy Research Initiative.

PDF Format

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?