PDF Format

7 Key Outcomes and Next Steps
It was clear from the workshop that there is strong interest in a national ILM
Network. The participants saw the value in such a network for facilitating
collaborative learning, but wanted to make sure that this would not be a solely
top-down effort. As one participant said, “There is need for a feedback loop in
standards. There is a need to incorporate us in the development, monitoring, and
adjustments to standards.”
A critical function of the Network is to develop and document information on
lessons learned and ILM best practices. This requires some form of framework
that serves as a guide for integrating within and across the various hierarchical
levels of both natural ecological systems and governance systems. This, in turn,
requires the sharing of lessons learned among practitioners from the different
pilot project areas, different disciplines (sectors), and different parts of the world.
Figure 4. Proposed Overarching Phases in ILM Processes
Five general categories were proposed to allow ILM activities to be categorized
for comparative reasons in plenary discussion (Figure 4). No consensus was
reached on how activities could be characterized into these headings. This was, in
part, because the non-linear or “system” approach of ILM and ecosystem-based
management activities creates a fuzzy situation in which any individual
practitioner group might be involved in activities falling into more than one of the
proposed categories (Visioning, Planning, Implementation, Monitoring, and
Assessment and Adaptation). 13
26