Role of science in ICARM

ICARM extended the range of management for coastal and river basin areas to natural resource management, environmental management and land-use planning combining ICZM with Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) practices.

As coastal and riverine environments are complex ecosystems there is a need to develop a simple analogy which scientists and managers can use to describe the essential features of these ecosystems and their interaction with human usage (UNEP, 1999). ICARM is based on a system analogy described in the UNEP planning guidelines for ICARM (UNEP, 1999). This analogy is made of the two main components which interact in river basin and coastal areas:

the natural system and the human system. The description and understanding of these two systems can be done through natural and social science.

According to the UNEP/MAP/PAP (United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan/Priority Action Programme) planning guidelines for ICARM (UNEP, 1999), the planning process of ICARM is divided into seven “steps”:

1. Initiation

2. Analysis of existing situation

3. Identification of conflicts/opportunities

4. Identification of goals and alternatives courses for action 5. Strategy formulation

6. Implementation

7. Monitoring and evaluation

Good management practices are based on the available knowledge on the system we actually want to manage. Generally, the best way to solve a problem is by having the highest knowledge on the possible causes of this problem. How could eutrophication be solved in coastal waters if we do not know that it is actually linked with anthropogenic nutrient input?

Science in river basin and coastal management has therefore a role from the early start of the ICARM (providing information analyzing the system and developing a simple analogy) to the reviewing process of the different issues through monitoring.

In order to illustrate the role of science in the planning process of ICARM, steps 2 and 3 can be merged as well as steps 5 and 6. A modified planning process with four steps is thus defined (Fig.12).

Figure 12: The use of science in the different step of ICARM planning process (after UNEP, 1999;

Coccossis, 2004 and GESAMP, 1996)

Figure 12 gives an overview of the science input in the ICARM planning process. This figure outline that science has an important role in almost all the steps of the process.

1. Analysis

2. Identification of goals

3. Implementation/Action

4. Monitoring & Evaluation

Analysis of the system -System definition -Boundary settings

-Assessment of system condition Issue Identification

-Determination of problem -Cause effect analysis

Analysis of conflict/Opportunities Development of goals

-Definition of priorities Answers to solve problems

-BAT (Best Available Technology) Cost/Benefit Analysis of solution to problems

Environmental/Social monitoring Evolution of the system

Production of progress reports (trends)

Steps of the process Use of science for

Application of techniques Engineering

In its report “The contributions of science to coastal zone management”, the GESAMP (1996) actually recognize that science plays a major role in all the steps of ICZM:

“Collaboration between managers and scientists at all stages of the formulation of management policy and programmes, and in the design, conduct, interpretation and application of research and monitoring” being a pre-requisite for a successful ICZM.

This report outline the contribution of science in ICZM process through a general description illustrated with four study case from different countries.

The basic principles of ICARM are the same as those for ICZM (RAMSAR, 2006); therefore, the contribution of science in ICARM can be considered the same as those developed by GESAMP.

According to this GESAMP report, managers should base their decision through trends rather than states, precautionary principle and priorities. To support these decisions, three main key role of the science can be summarized from the report:

1. Definition of the management issues

2. Isolation of the problems causes and helps to eradicate misconceptions

3. Monitor results to adapt management (trend analysis to support management decision)

However the success of ICARM does not only rely on the data availability and science knowledge but also in the cooperation between scientists and managers. For instance, a successful management program can be realized only if there is community support and therefore scientists and managers must work together to achieve this support.

To achieve good management GESAMP also recommend that:

Science in support of ICARM must be undertaken within a structure for solving problems.

Scientists and managers must work together continuously if science is to be relevant and applied to management decisions.

Having nearby scientific institutions involved is helpful to achieving these objectives.

There must be realistic and specific research objectives and time-frames to support a research effort that will successfully answer management questions.

Response to scientific knowledge varies among nations and cultures. The presentation and application of such knowledge must be sensitive to the local culture.

As ICARM programmes mature, the role of science evolves from issue identification into helping to develop the needed technologies, and to understanding results of research and monitoring, feedback loops and other interrelationships.

From all the integrated projects funded through the European FP6, SPICOSA which started in February 2007 is maybe the best illustration of the effort that EU members are realizing to integrate science and policy/decision making in coastal areas. Indeed, the overall objective of SPICOSA is “to develop a self-evolving, holistic research approach for integrated assessment of Coastal Systems so that the best available scientific knowledge can be mobilized to support deliberative and decision-making processes aimed at improving the sustainability of Coastal Systems by implementing Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) policies” (SPICOSA, 2006). These goals being planned to be achieved within four years and with the collaboration of 54 partner institutes from 22 countries and a critical mass of researchers, stakeholders and policy operatives.

The characteristics and objectives of such an ambitious project does not only illustrate that EU encourages science-policy integration, but also that scientific community realizes that