An examination of the Community Fisheries Sub-Decree in Cambodia: changes and developments during the drafting process

This study examines the development of the Community Fisheries Sub-Decree. From its promulgation in late 2000 through its draft form in June 20021, this sub-decree has gone through over 25 drafts. Initially, the writing process involved the public intimately: community meetings were conducted, NGOs contributed their knowledge and expertise, and then, with these consultations in mind, the newly-formed Community Fisheries Development Office (CFDO) in the Department of Fisheries (DoF) drafted the sub-decree. Over the following year and a half, the sub-decree went through numerous changes, some of which fundamentally alter the tenor of the legislation. This includes the deletion of some of the primary issues of rural communities, such as what fishing gears they can use and whether they can participate in patrolling the fishing area. While the final form is still pending, there are many questions as to the positive effects that the sub-decree will ultimately have on people’s livelihoods when it is finally approved. This research was undertaken to track the development of the sub-decree to gain a better understanding of how the Cambodian policy-making system functions. Consultations were undertaken with the DoF and CFDO before the research began, both of which agreed to the study. It is hoped that this report will help not only those interested in community fisheries issues, but also those who want to advocate on other Cambodian development issues as well. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject material, and the fact that the sub-decree is still pending, the author has conducted interviews with the express purpose of keeping them confidential. Therefore, no individual will be quoted directly in this study. In addition, many of the English versions of the drafts examined were unofficial translations. The author has made no effort to correct the English in the drafts. Moreover, there are also questions regarding the drafts and their sequence, as no government records were kept of the process or the changes that were made along the way. These have been compiled after the fact. (33 p.)

Report of the workshop on process monitoring and significant change. Bangkok, Thailand 26-28 June 2002

The STREAM Initiative is a process rather than a project, and its focus is on learning and building on learning, not the achievement of pre-determined objectives. An overarching goal of STREAM is to facilitate changes that support poor people who manage aquatic resources. A key objective of STREAM is policy change, which in itself is complex and difficult to monitor. Two further layers of complexity relate to the regional scope of the Initiative and the collaborative involvement of stakeholders, all of which need to be accountable for their work. The objectives of this workshop are consistent with the aims of the STREAM Initiative and can be summerized as follows: 1- Familiarizing everyone in the regional STREAM Initiative with work being done in process monitoring and significant change. 2- Discussion and development of a practical information system that enables (i) the monitoring of development processes and significant changes occurring within the STREAM Initiative, and (ii) learning to inform STREAM implementation and other stakeholders. (PDF has 59 pages.)

Adapting to climate change: Combining economics and geomorphology in coastal policy

How is climate change affecting our coastal environment? How can coastal communities adapt to sea level rise and increased storm risk? These questions have garnered tremendous interest from scientists and policy makers alike, as the dynamic coastal environment is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Over half the world population lives and works in a coastal zone less than 120 miles wide, thereby being continuously affected by the changes in the coastal environment [6]. Housing markets are directly influenced by the physical processes that govern coastal systems. Beach towns like Oak Island in North Carolina (NC) face severe erosion, and the tax assesed value of one coastal property fell by 93% in 2007 [9]. With almost ninety percent of the sandy beaches in the US facing moderate to severe erosion [8], coastal communities often intervene to stabilize the shoreline and hold back the sea in order to protect coastal property and infrastructure. Beach nourishment, which is the process of rebuilding a beach by periodically replacing an eroding section of the beach with sand dredged from another location, is a policy for erosion control in many parts of the US Atlantic and Pacific coasts [3]. Beach nourishment projects in the United States are primarily federally funded and implemented by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) after a benefit-cost analysis. Benefits from beach nourishment include reduction in storm damage and recreational benefits from a wider beach. Costs would include the expected cost of construction, present value of periodic maintenance, and any external cost such as the environmental cost associated with a nourishment project (NOAA). Federal appropriations for nourishment totaled $787 million from 1995 to 2002 [10]. Human interventions to stabilize shorelines and physical coastal dynamics are strongly coupled. The value of the beach, in the form of storm protection and recreation amenities, is at least partly capitalized into property values. These beach values ultimately influence the benefit-cost analysis in support of shoreline stabilization policy, which, in turn, affects the shoreline dynamics. This paper explores the policy implications of this circularity. With a better understanding of the physical-economic feedbacks, policy makers can more effectively design climate change adaptation strategies. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Sea level rise adaptation: emerging lessons for local policy development

Many coastal communities across the United States are beginning to plan for climate-related sea level rise. While impacts and solutions will vary with local conditions, jurisdictions which have begun this process seem to pass through three common stages when developing policy for local sea level rise adaptation: l) building awareness about local sea level rise threats, 2) undertaking analyses of local vulnerabilities, and 3) developing plans and policies to deal with these vulnerabilities. The purpose of this paper is to help advance community dialogue and further inform local decision-makers about key elements and steps for addressing climate-related sea level rise. It summarizes the results of a project the Marine Policy Institute (MPI) undertook during 2011-12 to review experiences from fourteen U.S. coastal jurisdictions representing a variety of city, county, and state efforts with sea level adaptation. There are many more initiatives underway than those reflected in this sample, but the “focus jurisdictions” were selected because of the extensive information publically available on their experiences and lessons being learned that could provide insights for coastal communities, especially in Southwest Florida.