Project no.

003711 Project acronym: ECOST Project title: Ecosystems, Societies, Consilience, Precautionary principle: Development of an assessment method of the societal cost for best fishing practices and efficient public policies Instrument Specific Targeted Research Or Innovation Project Thematic Priority PRIORITY A.2.2, Reconciling multiple demands on coastal zones

Report D13.4 Pre-Seminar Project Presentation Package

Due date of deliverable: May 2009 Actual submission date: May 2008 Start date of project: January 2005 Duration: 4 years

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: IRD/UVSQ Revision [draft, 1]

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)
Dissemination Level PU PP RE CO Public Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) X

DL 12.4 - Pre-Seminar Project Presentation Package

Authors: Jean-Marc DOUGUET jean-marc.douguet@c3ed.uvsq.fr Aurlie CHAMARET aurlie.chamaret@c3ed.uvsq.fr

INTRODUCTION
1.1. EVALUATION AND SUSTAINABILITY IN ECOST PROJECT
Integrated fishery strategy demands the comparison of alternative metiers. Concern with economic, ecological and social sustainability brings the long term future into confrontation with the considerations of the present. How should we seek to reconcile preoccupations with the future with those of the present? How should the diversity of stakeholder values be accommodated along the way? Sustainability Assessment (henceforth SA) is concerned with what sorts of guiding concepts, frameworks and information sets might be appropriate for decision support as we enlarge our scope of concern from economic affairs narrowly defined, to the ecosystems of the planet and the long term. A large number of recent books and journal articles have highlighted links between changes and challenges to accounting practices and decision support for sustainability. While this is a field of theoretical reflection and pragmatic experimentation whose ecological economics precursors go back more than 30 years (e.g., Victor 1972; Hueting 1980) and whose literature is fragmented across many different contexts and domains, there are nonetheless several signs that the field of enquiry is maturing. A wide range of approaches have by now been devised with a view to ensuring that various categories of social and environmental change are taken properly into account in the course of project and policy evaluation. Established economic valuation methodology has sought to extend concepts of rational and optimal resource use (including various forms of monetary cost-benefit analysis) to environmental systems, and also across time through the quantification of environmental damages and of cost-benefit trade-offs through time (raising the problem of discounting). This is notwithstanding the fact that, given the distributional conflicts between present and future, and the ethical and culturally-based disagreements between existing interested parties, a cost-benefit optimizing approach based on a concept of inter-temporal efficiency is completely indecisive (on theoretical grounds alone) as a desideratum of societal choice. To this we might add that, as we turn our attention to the long-term, the evaluation of benefits and risks (due to accidents, pollutants and ecosystem disruption, among other things), pose difficulties of high uncertainties and the irreversibility of many effects, fuelling the divergences of opinion within present day society about the basis for resolving questions of risk acceptability and fairness in exposure to risks. Distributional concerns and the diversity of ethical positions, alongside system complexity and uncertainty, are thus often cited, negatively, as reasons for the difficulty or inappropriateness of monetary valuation as a basis for sustainability assessments. It follows that these same features can also be declared positively, as properties of the world that scientifically based SA procedures would like to represent and address. A widespread portrayal of "sustainable development" since the 1970s is a symbiosis or co-evolution between economic production and ecological (re)production. In this view, our terrestrial habitats that are not just raw materials sources but veritable life-support systems that underpin the commodity production systems of industrial economics. These are also habitats in the sense of being the places of live, invested with social and community significance, or meanings. Yet, the stakeholders in sustainability (human communities and otherwise, present and yet to come) are very diverse. Sustainability Assessment means to reflect about choices that have been made or that will, intentionally or not, come to be made about which environmental features and functions, which ecosystems and habitats, which spectra of economic opportunities, and which systems of meaning, might be sustained or (alternatively) left un-fed, poisoned, unrequited, atrophied or undermined. Based on a synthetic review of systems complexity and ethical considerations, this deliverable will set out very briefly a discourse theoretic approach to SA obtained through embedding multi-criteria representation and evaluation methods in a multi-stakeholder deliberative evaluation process. The main idea of this deliverable (DL 12.4) is to make a presentation of the workshop that was held during the Punta Cana Meeting (Fifth ECOST Meeting, November 2007) and its outputs considering the dissemination themes of WP12.

1.2. POINTS ON THE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AGENDA

We seek to highlight, in the context of todays sustainability agenda, the pertinence of multi-stakeholder dialogue or deliberative approaches as a necessary complement to technical and scientific analyses, in evaluation and decision support for fishery policy. A key challenge in moving towards a more sustainable future is adequately embedding sustainability principles into organisational decision-making at appropriate scales. And, for this reason, efforts are

being made all around the world for the development of tools to assist in decision-making to support sustainable development initiatives. Among the many questions on the Sustainability Assessment agenda, let us note:
Despite more than 30 years of academic (aid wider societal) debates and notwithstanding the wide recognition of limits to CBA, the question of the relative roles for money and non-money, quantitative and non-quantitative indicators an accounting still remains unresolved, (and, more curiously, there does not seem even to be much common agreement about the reasons for this question remaining unresolved!). The question of the roles for valuation (monetary and otherwise) is inseparable from the concepts of sustainability that are adopted to inform the systems of accounts or the frameworks of sustainability assessment. This has important consequences for the developments of norms for scientific and statistical quality assessment and for the types of multidisciplinary partnerships needing to be built between (among others) statisticians, accountants, environmental engineers, systems scientists, economists, social policy experts and political theorists. In the business world, corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and related activities of indicator development often address sustainability agendas through reference to a triple bottom line but, this link is often only implicit, sometimes is made in opportunistic ways and without clear reconciliation with wider societal frames of reference. There is increasing emphasis on integrated assessment approaches and (inter alia) on the use of batteries of indicators to evaluate policy options and to highlight progress (or lack of it) relative to multiple objectives. This integrative perspective highlights the interfacing of business (and consumer), public administration, civil society and research perspectives on performance and information, and raises the challenge of finding, and using, effective methods for this interfacing. Indicator development work and accounting is carried out at many different scales (e.g., company accounts, CSR reporting, regional planning, national accounts) and there is no ready-made bridge between the micro (household, firm) and macro levels of sustainability accounting. The importance of building stakeholder dialogues for robust evaluations and policy assessments is widely affirmed but, despite interesting experiments and case studies for more than 20 years, there is not yet a set of clear signals on effective ways to integrate formal accounting, modeling, spatial analysis, and evaluation methods with social processes of deliberation.

Taking stock of these several and somewhat disparate considerations, we seek to make a contribution both theoretical and practical to building the dialogues between the different fields of SA theory and practice. We will develop the argument that Sustainability Assessments can and should be developed through mobilising a representative diversity of indicators (qualitative and quantitative, monetary and non-monetary) with reference to multiple bottom lines. Both the agreed set of multiple bottom lines and the selection of indicators must be validated by reference to the full spectrum of stakeholders in sustainability. This notion of a representative diversity of indicators relative to multiple bottom lines will be set in dialectical opposition (along both methodological and epistemological planes) to the notion of an inventory of costs and benefits, or of direct and indirect impacts of a project, or of changes in capital stocks (etc.) that is necessary for the construction of any single-bottom line or aggregate SA indicator (such as CBA based measures, or macroeconomic genuine savings, etc.). The approach in terms of representative diversity accepts pragmatically that, in prevailing conditions of complexity and stakeholder diversity, many significant SA concerns cannot be made the object of reliable quantification. It accepts that, although useful systems measurements and model-based quantifications can be obtained for a great variety of features, there is a need to work synthetically with an amalgam (and not an aggregation) of qualitative as well as quantitative elements of description and judgment. In effect, we are asserting that prospects for socially satisfactory responses to the question sustainability of what, for whom and why? may be explored and often enhanced through bringing stakeholder perspectives into constructive dialogue with each other in order to search for common ground. This is not really a very new argument. The added value of our deliverable lies in the specific suggestions that we make about principles and methods for the use of stakeholder dialogue processes that would be put to work in SA contexts, for the specification of qualityperformance multiple bottom lines as a common ground and for the selection of indicators having representative diversity across the spectrum of sustainability bottom lines and stakeholder preoccupations. These suggestions, which are presented here as a component of the ECOST Project research programme, emerge as a synthesis of disparate strands of work that have been going on in various parts of the world for many years. We take hope from the fact that, manifestly, there is some convergence in this diversity and that, thirty years on, we are better placed for politically effective sustainability accounting and evaluation than we were when the challenge of a sustainable society was first placed on the public agenda in the 1970s.

1.3. PLAN OF THE DELIVERABLE

The contribution of WP12 within the overall ECOST work programme is centred on proposals for the mobilisation of stakeholders in deliberation for fishery strategy assessment relative to sustainability considerations. The main operational recommendations in this regard are contained in PART ONE of this deliverable, referring to the on-line KERDST deliberation support tool, and accompanied by case study illustrations. However, it is necessary to situate these recommendations against a background of evaluation theory and sustainability assessment considerations (see also Deliverables 12.1 and 12.2 of WP12). In particular, we insist that the conditions for achieving the common ground across the spectrum of stakeholders in SA that is necessary for robust and legitimate evaluations are not merely analytical, they are also cognitive and social. In this regard, we do not set analytical tools in opposition to deliberative methods. Nor do we set qualitative in opposition to quantitative considerations, nor do we set monetary data in opposition to other dimensions of measure and meaning. Our argument is that whatever their character, quantified data and analytical assessment tools must, and can, be used deliberatively if they are to respond to their main vocation, which is to highlight the dilemmas of sustainability decision-making and policy and to support the social processes of framing, debating and making difficult choices whose basis cannot be resolved by analysis alone. PART TWO of the deliverable, titled KER-ECOST, an science-policy interface, gives a brief description of the KER-ECOST website framework. The deliverable is completed by a set of References that, in complement to the present report, make up the written documentation of the C3EDs WP12 contribution to ECOST. For convenience, we list the principal such documents below. We also mention the website addresses for the two current prototypes of the KERDST deliberation support tool; it should be noted that these on-line creations are currently Beta-versions and subject to ongoing developments and change.
1. OConnor, M. (2006), Deliberative Sustainability Assessment: Multiple Scales, Multiple Stakeholders, Multidisciplinarity and Multiple Bottom Lines. Methodological Study for Work Package WP6 of the SRDTOOLS Project (Methods and tools for evaluating the impact of cohesion policies on sustainable regional development, EC 6th Framework Programme, Contract No.502485, 2005-2006), available as Rapport de Recherche du C3ED, Guyancourt : Universit de Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France. 2. Bureau P., Legrand F., OConnor M., Reichel V. (2006), How To Do It: Users Guide to the on-line Deliberation Support Tool kerDST (English version); Manuel dUtilisateur pour le systme multimdia daide la dlibration kerDST (version franaise). Available in the series Cahiers du C3ED, Guyancourt : Universit de Versailles St-Quentin-enYvelines, France, December 2006. (Note: the English and French versions are self-contained, and available separately). 3. Reichel V., Bureau P., OConnor M., Sunde, C. (2007[A,B]), Lessons Learned with use of the multimedia deliberation support tool kerDST in the SRDTOOLS Project (A = English version) ; Retours sur Exprience : Remarques sur lutilisation du systme multimdia daide la dlibration kerDST dans le projet SRDTOOLS (B = version franaise). Rapport de Recherche du C3ED No.2007-01, Universit de Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Guyancourt, France, January 2007. 4. O'Connor, M. (2007). "The four spheres framework for sustainability." Ecological complexity (In press). 5. Douguet J.-M., OConnor M., van der Sluijs J.P. (2007), Tools to assess uncertainty in a deliberative perspective. A Catalogue , A. Pereira Guimaraes & S. Funtowicz (eds), Science for Policy: Opportunities and Challenges, Oxford University Press, India. 6. van der Sluijs J.P., Kaiser M., Maxim L., Douguet J.-M. (2007), Le principe de prcaution, un principe pour agir dans des situations d'incertitude , Risques, en cours dvaluation. 7. Maxim L., van der Sluijs J.P., Douguet J.-M. (2007), Mettre en uvre le principe de prcaution , Risques, en cours dvaluation.

THE C3EDS MULTIMDIA DST CREATIONS

Legrand F., Marion M., OConnor M. (2006), KERDST (I): The KerBabel Deliberation Matrix (prototype on-line Deliberation Support Tool), Beta version operational June 2006, at: http://kerdst.c3ed.uvsq.fr/. Legrand F., Marion M., OConnor M. (2006), KERDST (II): The 2nd Generation KerBabel on-line Deliberation Support Tool with Indicator Kiosk and Multi-Actor Participation, Beta version operational November 2006, at: http://iacaprod.c3ed.uvsq.fr/kerdst2

PART 1: DELIBERATION MATRIX WORKSHOP 1. Using the Deliberation Matrix

One objective of this workshop was to demonstrate the KerbabelTM Deliberation Matrix to ECOST partners, and to see how this tool could be applied to the project problems. This was realised in two steps: first by a presentation of the tool and then by a workshop during which partners applied the Matrix to their problems. 1.1. Presentation The objective of the presentation of the KerbabelTM Deliberation Matrix was to make the ECOST partners think about how they could use the tool for dealing with their own problems. The presentation was held on Tuesday the 13th of November 2007, in the afternoon, during the Work Package 12 presentation. The first step was to introduce the tool in a simple way explaining how it worked and how it had to be built. Then, to be more concrete, two different examples were developed based on partners presentations during the meeting. 1.1.1. THE REGIONAL EXAMPLE The first example was based on the Vietnamese partners presentation showing how the fishery sector was organised in their country. This examples objective was to show the potential use of the Matrix for organising the fishery problems at the regional scale. The following steps had been done for structuring the problem: - First, performance issue categories had been analysed and organised using the Tetrahedron framework (O'Connor, 2007). From this, five performance issue categories were defined: o Economic performance of the fishery sector (production, transport, processing, final market, quality) o Redistribution issues (on society, economic and ecological parts) o Pressure on fish stocks o Social values of fisheries o Sector regulation on economic, social and ecological aspects - then, stakeholders were organised using a framework highlighting five main categories: o Internal stakeholders that have direct interests in companies (fishermen, employees, unions) o Traditional external stakeholders identified as the firm's partners, that all have direct commercial importance for the company (processors, output traders, suppliers, customers, banks, private lenders and insurers) o Enlarged external stakeholders, identified as dialogue partners that have an interest or requirements concerning the performances of a plant, a company or an industrial sector, and have a direct influence on commercial success (local population, media, NGOs, associations, and partner firms) o Coordinating authorities (government, local authorities, and professional associations). o Scientist community - And, to best fit to the ECOST project objectives, it was chosen to replace the usual scenario axis of the Matrix by a metier axis. According to the Vietnamese partners presentation, four metiers were retained: o Single trawl o Pair trawl o Trammel net o Gill net - Next, indicators used in the project partners presentations were introduced in the Matrix. - Finally, one row of the Matrix (Coordinating authorities assessing single trawl) was filled up to complete the example. The two figures above, taken from the Matrix multimedia interface, show the whole Matrix and the row example.

1.1.2. THE JOB SATISFACTION EXAMPLE During the meeting, Marteen Bavinck (WP3a) presented his work on the Job satisfaction model which aims to assess the fishermens contentment with their work. This assessment should be realised by all the regional partners in their own countries. At the end of his presentation Marteen Bavinck highlighted that this model was quite powerful as it enables comparisons between countries, but it is also limited as it cannot take into account the metier or the country specificities. From these remarks, it appeared that the KerbabelTM Deliberation Matrix could find an application in this model. The idea was that the satisfaction categories would remain the same for all the countries and all the metiers (providing for comparison) but that inside each category, stakeholders would be able to choose the indicators that make the most sense for them and even to propose new indicators that seemed more relevant for their situation (providing for customization). For this, the Matrix was organised as follows: - First axis represented the Metiers - Second axis represented the job satisfaction categories, viz.: o Basic needs o Social needs o Self-realization o Management o Valuation of Nature - And the third axis was used for the countries - Indicators used for the survey were filled up in the Matrix. - The example was developed using Marteen Bavincks results on a survey carried out in India.

1.2. Workshop
1.2.1. WORKSHOPS ORGANISATION Following the Matrix presentation, a workshop was organised for the morning of Wednesday the 14th. The objective was to build examples of the KerbabelTM Deliberation Matrix applications with the ECOST project partners. It was decided to work on three different scales: - The national scale

- The eco-regional scale - The international scale. In addition to these three scales, the Matrix was applied to Marine Protected Areas (Work Package n8). Seven people attended the workshop, coming from different Work Packages. Five applications had been realised: - At the national scale: Vietnam and Thailand - At the eco-regional scale: Caribbean - At the international scale: International Fishery Policy (WP 10) - Marine Protected Areas. To help participants, an exercise book had been prepared (see Annex n1), identifying the main steps necessary to build their Matrix, viz.: - Step 1: What is your problem? - Step 2: Who are the stakeholders? - Step 3. What are the issues? - Step 4. What are the metiers? - Step 5. Filling up the matrix without indicators - Step 6. Identifying relevant indicators - Step 7. Filling the Matrix with indicators The workshop last three hours, composed as following: - 20 minutes presentation of the work to be done - 2 hours of group work - 40 minutes for a debriefing point 1.2.2. WORKSHOPS RESULTS One of the encouraging results of this workshop is that all participants easily completed the steps, which appears to show the process is easily adopted by new users even if this can be attributed to the participants scientific background, and the resultant mind-set. Due to time constraints, participants had to stop at the 5th step. According to the scales dealt with, results1 were somewhat different, as is shown in the table above2. Four matrix have been developed. Some of the main comments from the participants, at the end of the workshop, include: - There were difficulties encountered by the eco-regional group due to the specificities of each country in the area - The Caribbean group were surprised to see that their judgements were mainly negative - The Caribbean Group found few differences between the metiers - As scientists, participants were often tempted by the so-so judgement - It helps to organize scientific information - The political dimension of the decision is clearly highlighted in the use of the KerbabelTM deliberation matrix - Scientist is one category of stakeholders - It helps to frame the problem, even if the first question is hard to answer (What is the problem?). This means that to frame the problem, one need to have a clear understanding of the problem, and its different perspectives and dimensions, which are treated in the process of filling in the deliberation matrix. - Defining performance issues is difficult because as scientists, participants are accustomed to developing some of these issue, but not taking into account all four dimensions of ECOST project (economic, social, environmental and political). - The need to develop a communication strategy in order to identify and give information concerning the possible use of the deliberation matrix as a support in decision processes with fishermen, as a tool in an evaluation method, or as a pedagogic support. - Sociological work must be developed to emphasize the stakeholder categorization. - Filling in the deliberation matrix is quite easy. - How can we use the deliberation matrix with fishermen in eco-regions? Is there a paper version?
All the examples are represented in the multimedia interface of the KerbabelTM Deliberation Matrix. For the regional, eco-regional and international examples : http://kerdst.c3ed.uvsq.fr/?q=node/209. For the Job Satisfaction example: http://kerdst.c3ed.uvsq.fr/?q=node/210. 2 Because of its unfinished character, the work realised on the political aspects was not included in the workshop results, according to the participants wish.
1

Problem

National scale Vietnam Thailand - Large number of Fishery resources fishing boats are degradation due to over exploitation fishing inshore - Fisheries resources are decreasing - Difficult to manage fishing activities Fishermen Sellers Processors Fisheries officers Local consumers Scientist Fishermen Fish processor Insurers Governmental officials - Traders

Eco-regional scale The sustainable management of the fisheries and the harmonisation of many, sometimes conflicting, objectives

Marine protected areas - The comparison of MPAs with non MPA zones - The comparison between ecoregions both from the societal cost of fishing activities and policies point of view - Fishermen inside MPAs - Fishermen outside MPAs - Tourism professional - Scientists - Local politicians - National politicians - Consumers (local, regional) - NGOs - Non professional users (non market users) - International organisations - MPAs administration - Government - Traditional authorities - World market operators - Communities organisations (cooperative) - Substitution of market activities to non-market activities / fishery profitability - Costs and benefits distribution inside and outside MPAs - Local traditional society conservation - Marine resources shortage - Fishery policy

Stakeholders

- Fishermen and their families - Upstream industry (boat builders, providers of gear, etc.) - Downstream industry (processing plants) - Civil society (local population, NGOs) - Local consumer - International consumer - Tourism companies - National government - International community and international policy makers

Issues

- Economic performance - Difficulty of job - Fishing grounds are destroying - Regulation

- Low net margin - Low return / lack of investment in nonfishing occupation - Living conditions of coastal fishermen - Less catch, low income - Conflict interest in fishing - Resource degradation - Source of foreign exchange earnings

- Local income - Social conditions of fishermen - Employment issues - Over fishing - Coral reef degradation from destructive fishing practices - Lack of national and regional political coordination and

National scale Vietnam Thailand - Industrial fishermen are powerful, better bargaining

Eco-regional scale cooperation

Mtiers

- Trawlers / trawnet / shrimp - Trawler / trawnet / demersal fish - Netter boat / gill net / demersal fish

- Trawler fleet / other board gear / trash fish - Purse seiner fleet / anchory purse seiner fleet / anchovy

- Artisanal / diving / lobster - Artisanal / diving / green conch - Artisanal / line / king mackerel

Marine protected areas - Decentralised and participatory governance - Ressource access and environment sensibilisation - Climate change / pollution - Natural resources policy - Regulation enforcement For this problem, metiers were replaced by case studies areas: - Iroise (France) - Parc Naturel des - Chumphum (Thailand) - Parque del Este (Dominican Republic) - Bijagos (Guinea) - Saloun (Senegal)

Following the workshop, several tasks have been identified for the Deliberation Matrix adaptation to the ECOST project. Some of these tasks are transversal to the whole work package 12 tasks (especially concerning the dodecahedron): Task Definition of performance issues categories Task objective To define a generic issue framework to enable comparisons between case studies and scales To define a generic issue framework to enable comparisons between case studies and scales To identify a set of relevant indicators To see how the Deliberation Matrix could be relevant to deal with eco-regional issues. Task description This task will be realised through a combination / comparison between local issues coming from the case studies and international issues coming from an analysis of international frameworks (Agenda 21, Johannesburg, etc.). This task will be realised through a combination / comparison between local issues coming from the case studies and literature frameworks. This task will mainly consist of transferring indicators that are used in the ECOST model to the KIK. This task will consist of four applications of the Deliberation Matrix to ECOST eco-regions. Partners WP 3a, WP 10, WP 6, WP 8 Regional partners Timescale April 2008

Workshop outcomes and forthcoming tasks

Definition of stakeholders categories Identification of indicators Application of the Deliberation Matrix at the eco-regional scale

April 2008

WP 2 Regional partners

April 2008 Dakar (2008) Bangkok (April 2008) Jamaica (July 2008) Global forum on Ocean (2009) March 2008

Application of the Deliberation Matrix to the Job satisfaction survey

To see how the Deliberation Matrix could be relevant for the Job satisfaction survey

This task will essentially consist of working closely with Marteen Bavinck. One education application in the University of Amsterdam is under discussion for March 2008.

WP 3a

PART TWO The Ker-ECOST Website

Ker-ECOST is a Deliberation Support Tool Ker-ECOST that aims to develop on-line documentation, evaluation and communication interface for fishery. It is a fishery DST is a design concept for an interactive on-line deliberation support tool for discovery and analysis of the fishery challenges facing public policy makers, the business world, scientists and civil society. The 12 Discovery Spaces of the DST Ker-ECOST

Area

Acronym

Area

Acronym

Ker-ECost Home Page

Consult the CUBE

Virtual Visit

Indicator Dialogue Box

Methodology

Metiers

The Projects ECOST, etc

10

Maps & Data

Performance Issues

11

KQA Knowledge Quality Assessment

Actors [stakeholders]

12 12

Documentation

Area

Acronym

Area

Acronym

Four main contributions are identified using the KER-ECOST interface. 1. The TOOLS & METHODS: Allying science and stakeholder dialogue processes for risk governance, Ker-ECOST introduces visitors to state-of-the-art integrated environmental assessment and participatory evaluation practices. Participate, via the Deliberation Matrix (The Cube), in a multi-stakeholder multi-criteria scenario evaluation as a framework for the appraisal of fishery challenges and options for policy. Familiarise yourself with, and contribute to, the Kerbabel Indicator Kiosk an interactive meta-information system for the information sets used in description and evaluation of system change, and a forum for dialogue between producers and users of information. Discover an array of procedures for Knowledge Quality Assessment that address data sources, model specifications and incertitude, and also societal dimensions such as value systems, power relations and acceptability of risks in the framing of science-policy issues.

2. DISCOVERY and LEARNING: Learn about the reasons for being concerned about damage to ecosystem functions and the benefits of fish resources loss. Take a promenade along the Virtual Visit to appreciate the variety and significance for human society of the resources of coastal zones. Discover the variety of human exploitations (rural and urban), the variety of fauna and flora (including inland and coastal waters, and the tensions on the interfaces of marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Explore the spectrum of Performance issues such as: Maintenance of Biological Richness; Ecosystem Services to the Economy; Economic Performance; Social Cohesion; Power Structures & Political Models; Economic Regulation; Environmental Governance; Community & Local Identity; Quality of Landscape; Status of Nature. Build bridges between different points of views on fishery and what needs to be done.

3. THE POLICY CHALLENGES: Become a participant in local and international science-policy dialogues. What are the factors determining current and possible future stresses on fisheries resources? What governance can, and should, be influenced over fisheries? Who are the key players and classes of stakeholders for fishery? Who might be interested in learning from the results of ECOST? What are the communication challenges the gaps to be bridged to link the actors in the scientific world with those in public policy and administration, the business world and civil society?

4. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SCIENCE: Travel in a virtual world in order to gain new insights about our real one. Walk through the doorway to the ECOST Projects multi-disciplinary scientific results. Explore metiers of fishery strategies for Case Study regions with the help of models, images, maps, graphs and texts from the ECOST scientific community. Link to the ECOST Projects Data Warehouse for the complete spectrum of scientific data produced and made available by the ECOST scientific community. Exploit hyperlink access to comprehensive documentation of the Ker-ECOST system itself and information about the outside world.

2 .1

DETAILED PRESENTATION OF KER-ECOST: DESCIPTION, TASKS (on-going work)

This part aims to present the framing of each area of the dodecahedron. For each area, a set of pages is proposed, using information and outputs of ECOST Project (mainly during the Punta Cana Meeting). 2.1.1
Pages 1. Home page

AREA 1: HOME PAGE

Description Use of the dodecahedron frame for a first access to the twelve areas Presentation of all elements concerning the production, IPR Presentation of basic element for the use of the KER-ECOST website Presentation of basic element for the understanding of the KER-ECOST website Short description of each area. The brochure present the concept of KerECOST Access to the menu on the left part of the screen Make the log-in system work for the website Existing Elements Tasks Links between areas 1.2

2. Credits 3. User guide page: technical part 4. User guide page: scientific part 5. Short presentation to each area 6. Brochure 7. Menu 8. Log-in

- Identification of the elements for credits (IACA/IRD) - Development of the user guide (IACA/IRD) - Development of the user guide (IACA/IRD) - Development of the short presentation (IACA/IRD) - Development of the brochure (IACA/IRD) - make the link from the menu to each area (IACA/IRD) - Develop the access system and user name for the administration and the use of the website (IACA/IRD) - make the link from the menu to each area (IACA/IRD) Methodology Area p. 5.??? Link each short description to each area

Link to each area

9. Bug report 10. Search Engine

11. Random image

Make accessible the system for an automatic bug report. Using the related links, similar links, meta-tags and main used term Presentation of picture related to ECOST.

2.1.2
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Presentation to the 9 case study

AREA 2: VIRTUAL VISIT

Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Presentation of the 9 case study of ECOST, by eco-region. Use of image gallery for pictures, movies, etc. Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) Description of each case study already exist on ECOST website - develop the generic framework for case study, use the existing photos, video, maps existing for each case study - The possible items are :Location: Vietnam (see also maps) Surface: Categories of stakeholders: (link to the area Actor) Types of metiers: (link to the area Metiers) Production: (link to data sets) Transportation: (link to data sets) Processing: (link to data sets) Final Market: (link to data sets) Job satisfaction:?? - develop the picture catalogue for presenting mtier in eauch case study or other picture and movie on case studies - Fill in all the information for each case study - Identify all the existing element of this theme - See with Thierry Caroff of the possible use of his painting. Links between areas brochure

3. Social Value

Presentation of different element on social value

- use the picture show developed by S. Collet on fishery in Senegal - Possible use of Thierry Caroff paintings

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2.1.3
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Classification of each case study actor

AREA 3: ACTORS
Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Classification of each case study actor, by eco-region, using a generic framework. For each case study, a short description should exist. Presentation of stakeholder interaction form production to the final market Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) Links between areas brochure Link to each case study presentation

- Existing framework in D.2

3. Presentation of chain value

- Existing presentation of the chain value for case studies

- identify which presentation exist and transform it for internet presentation (IACA/IRD)

Link to each case study presentation

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2.1.4
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Metier description 3. Classification of case studies

AREA 4: METIERS
Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Presentation of the concept of Metier Classification of case studies, by eco-region, using metier concepts. For each case study, a short description should exist. Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - Presentation development by F. Lalo - Work to do with F. Lalo Links between areas brochure Link to article of F. Lalo Link to case study presentation

- article from F. Lalo - See deliverable D.2

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2.1.5
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Classification of case, by eco-region, by issues

AREA 5: PERFORMANCE ISSUES

Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Classification of case, by eco-region, by issues. For each case study, a short description should exist. Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - Development the main issues classification (as social justice, restoration of ecosystem, food security) Links between areas brochure Link to each case study.

- Article of Marteen of Johannesburg, Agenda 21 and Guide for good fishing practices, millennium goals.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2.1.6
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Presentation of modeling methodology 3. Organization of the work

AREA 6: METHODOLOGY
Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Short presentation of modeling methodology Presentation of the organization of the work in Ker-ECOST Presentation of the complementary dimension of assessment and sociopolitical context Presentation of the multimedia tools for knowledge mediation Presentation of the social cost concept and the literature on the theme Using the deliberation Matrix developed during four different workshops, what are the main conclusion (and link to the Agenda 21.) - DL12.2 Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - Presentation developed by Villy - Presentation to be developed by P. failler, S. Collet, GuanLuca (forthcoming in April 2008) - Presentation to be developed by IACA/IRD - Presentation to be developed by IACA/IRD - Presentation to be developed by P. Failler (& other partners as IACA/IRD) - Work to do with P. Failler, IACA/IRD and Leuven University Links between areas brochure - to articles on modeling developed in ECOST or other

- see work of Villy

4. Deliberative Sustainability assessment 5. Knowledge Mediation Tools 6. Social Cost Concept

- DL12.2

7. Interpretation of the Deliberation Matrix

8.

2.1.7
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Indicators from modelling

AREA 7: KERBABEL INDICATOR KIOSK

Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Access to general information concerning thses indicators (acronym and description) Access to general information concerning thses indicators (acronym and description) Access to general information concerning thses indicators (acronym and description) Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - Fill in the information (uder the control of IACA/IRD) - Fill in the information (uder the control of IACA/IRD) - Fill in the information (uder the control of IACA/IRD) Links between areas brochure

- see modelling (J. Moreau, Villy)

3. Indicator from the information platform

- See information platform (P. Morand)

4. Indicators from case studies

- See each case study responsible

5. 6. 7. 8.

2.1.8
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Exercice matrix

AREA 8: KERBABEL DELIBERATION MATRIX

Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Presentaiton of the matrix developed in Punta Cana as an exercice Presentation of the matrix of the eco-region (Bangkok, April 2008) Presentation of the matrix of the eco-region (Senegal/CLME Project) Presentation of the matrix of the eco-region (Jamaica, july 2008) Presentation of the matrix of the forum (2009) Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - Development of the Matrix on line (IACA/IRD) - to prepare from an scientific and technical points of view the development of the on line matrix (IACA/IRD) - to prepare from an scientific and technical points of view the development of the on line matrix (IACA/IRD) - to prepare from an scientific and technical points of view the development of the on line matrix (IACA/IRD) - to prepare from an scientific and technical points of view the development of the on line matrix (IACA/IRD) Links between areas brochure

- Paper Matrix for Vietnam, Thailand, Caribbean eco-region and Protected Marine Area

3. Asian eco-region Matrix

4. African eco-region Matrix

5. Caribbean ecoregion Matrix

6. Global Forum on Ocean Matrix

7. 8.

2.1.9
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Link to the information platform 3. Link to the map server 4. Make the link to other data sets 5. 6. 7. 8.

AREA 9: DATAWARE HOUSE

Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Make o link to the platform of information Make o link to the map server Make the link to data sets produced in the modeling activity Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - see with P. Morand to make the link (IACA/IRD) - see with P. Morand to make the link (IACA/IRD) - see J. Moreau and Villy to make a link (IACA/IRD) Links between areas brochure

- see the access system (P. Morand) - see existing maps with Mickael in Dakar - see J. Moreau and Villy

2.1.10
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. Presentation to ECOST project

AREA 10: ECOST WEBSITE & CO

Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Ecost website Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - Make a link to the website (IACA/IRD) - Make a link to the picture catalogue of ECOST members (IACA/IRD) - Make a link to the list on ECOST website (IACA/IRD) - Make eco-region partner fill in the part Links between areas brochure

- Ecost-website: http://www.ecostproject.org/

3. Presentation of other internet website

Presentation of other internet website by eco-region (local partner) and at international level (to European project or others)

- list of website on the ECOST website

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2.1.11
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. ALREADY

AREA 11: KNOWLEDGE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) Links between areas brochure

DEVELOPED
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2.1.12
Pages 1. Presentation of the area 2. ECOST Project documentation 3. Identification of other kind of documentation 4. Pedagogic supports 5. Kerbabel

AREA 12: DOCUMENTATION

Description Short presentation of the theme and the content of the area ECOST Project documentation Identification of other kind of documentation Make a link to presentation and/or online pedagogic supports Use of the Kerbabel portal for the access of documentation stored (video, pictures, articles) Existing Elements Tasks - develop this presentation (IACA/IRD) - Make the link to the ecost documentation (IACA/IRD) - Work to do with P. Failler and IACA/IRD - All partners - IACA/IRD and all partners Links between areas brochure

- ECOST Project documentation on ecost website

6. 7. 8.

2 .2

Cross-cutting questions

In order to highlight learning pathways to discover information, knowledge and outputs of ECOS project, a set of questions has been identified and a progressive disclosure is proposed. These questions are the one identifies within ECOST Project.

2.2.1 QUESTION 1: WHATS FISHING PROBLEM?

find different element to answer to the question.
Area 1. Home 2. Virtual Visit 3. Actors 4. Metiers 5. Issues

The first question is related to the understanding of fishery problem. A navigation pathway is proposed in order to
Description Page Weight

Discovering Ecosystem alteration, the importance of commercial capture, the cost of production, job, conflicts, food security issues, redistribution issues, international fishing fleet

6 2 3 4 1

6. Methodology 7. KIK 8. Cube 9. Data & Maps 10. ECOST 11. KQA 12. Documentation

2.2.2 QUESTION 2: SOCIAL COSTS EVALUATION

The second question is related to the evaluation to assess the social cost of fisheries. This part aims to present different dimension of the social cost assessment (economic, social) in the perspective of sustainable development and the process of contextualization of this information, knowledge and outputs of ECOST Project.
Area 1. Home 2. Virtual Visit 3. Actors 4. Metiers 5. Issues 6. Methodology 7. KIK 8. Cube 9. Data & Maps 10. ECOST 11. KQA 12. Documentation Description Page Weight

1 3 2 4 5 6

2.2.3 QUESTION 3: PRODUCTION OF COSTS

The third question is related to the cost calculation item. It is mainly linked to the problem of information and knowledge production, quality and pertinence
Area 1. Home 2. Virtual Visit 3. Actors 4. Metiers 5. Issues 6. Methodology 7. KIK 8. Cube 9. Data & Maps 10. ECOST 11. KQA 12. Documentation Description Page Weight

2 5 3 1 4 6

2.2.4 QUESTION 4: SOCIAL COSTS AND DECISION

The fourth question is related to the decision process using social cost information. This part is mainly linked to the process of integration of knowledge in the decision process.
Area 1. Home 2. Virtual Visit 3. Actors 4. Metiers 5. Issues 6. Methodology 7. KIK 8. Cube 9. Data & Maps 10. ECOST 11. KQA 12. Documentation Description Page Weight

5 4 3 1 6 2 7 8

Annex 1: KerDST Deliberation Matrix Workshop Exercise book

Step 1 : What is your problem ?

Describe the problem you want to deal with (in one sentence or a small paragraph):

Step 2: Who are the stakeholders?

Stakeholder category Description

Stakeholder category

Description

Step 3: What are the issues?

Economic Social Environmental Political

Economic

Social

Environmental

Political

Issues

Description

Step 4: What are the mtiers?

Mtiers Description

Step 5: Filling the Matrix without indicators

Stakeholder name / category:

Mtier 1:

Mtier 2:

Mtier 3:

Mtier 4:

Mtier 5:

Issue 1:

Issue 2:

Issue 3:

Issue 4:

Issue 5:

Good

So-so

Bad

Dont know

N.A.

Scenario 1: Stakeholder category Issue 1: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Scenario 2: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Scenario 3: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Scenario 4: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Scenario 5: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Issue 2:

Issue 3:

Issue 4:

Issue 5:

Good

So-so

Bad

Dont know

N.A.

Step 6: Building a set of indicators

Name of the indicator Description

Name of the indicator

Description

Step 6: Filling the Matrix with indicators

C CO OL LO OU UR RT TH HE EC CU UB BE E // C CO ON NS SU UL LT TT TH HE EC CU UB BE E T TH HE EM ME ET TH HO OD DO OF FK KE ER RD DS ST T

Define the 3-D array of (1) actors, (2) performance issues and (3) options or situations to be evaluated, then COLOUR THE CELLS of the Deliberation Matrix using a code such as ), (blue = dont care or not applicable). (red = bad), (yellow = not so bad), (green = good), (

Note: The KERDST system proposes certain judgement categories and colours as default options; but the user can modify both the categories and the colours if desired.

It is permitted to choose UP TO 5 DISTINCT INDICATORS for each basket corresponding to an individual Cell. For each indicator placed in a basket, the user must specify the JUDGEMENT (by choice of colour code) and the relative WEIGHT compared with other indicators
Reflecting on the pattern of judgements built up, the user is encouraged to appreciate the PROS & CONS of each option (or the relative merits and deficiencies of each situation) and, thus, to IDENTIFY A GOOD DECISION OR TO CONVEY EFFECTIVELY AN ASSESSMENT.

SPECIFY THE OF THE DELIBERATION MATRIX Actor: Evaluation Issue: Scenario or Situation:

CELL

KE R BA OR TO AT T L IN CA ET EL KE RBA BE DIIC SK ER AB ND AS
Register Overall Judgement for Cell

SPECIFY THE QUESTION BEING ADDRESSED

EVALUATION

Name/Description of the Debate:

Person(s) or Organisations Responsible:

Date:

Indicator Label (Short name)

Description

REFERENCE (or range, etc.)

VALUES

ESTIMATE OF VALUE for Scenario/Situation

COLOUR CODE

Weight (%)

PERSON(S) COMPOSING THE INDICATOR BASKET: GOOD SO-SO BAD DONT KNOW N.A. OTHER

KerDST Deliberation Matrix Workshop - Exercise Book

SPECIFY THE OF THE DELIBERATION MATRIX Actor: Evaluation Issue: Scenario or Situation:

CELL

KE R BA OR TO AT T L IN CA ET EL KE RBA BE DIIC SK ER AB ND AS
Register Overall Judgement for Cell

SPECIFY THE QUESTION BEING ADDRESSED

EVALUATION

Name/Description of the Debate:

Person(s) or Organisations Responsible:

Date:

Indicator Label (Short name)

Description

REFERENCE (or range, etc.)

VALUES

ESTIMATE OF VALUE for Scenario/Situation

COLOUR CODE

Weight (%)

PERSON(S) COMPOSING THE INDICATOR BASKET: GOOD SO-SO BAD DONT KNOW N.A. OTHER

C3ED (UVSQ/IRD)

ECOST 5th Meeting 12/16 Nov. 2007

Page 43 of 44

KerDST Deliberation Matrix Workshop - Exercise Book

SPECIFY THE OF THE DELIBERATION MATRIX Actor: Evaluation Issue: Scenario or Situation:

CELL

KE R BA OR TO AT T L IN CA ET EL KE RBA BE DIIC SK ER AB ND AS
Register Overall Judgement for Cell

SPECIFY THE QUESTION BEING ADDRESSED

EVALUATION

Name/Description of the Debate:

Person(s) or Organisations Responsible:

Date:

Indicator Label (Short name)

Description

REFERENCE (or range, etc.)

VALUES

ESTIMATE OF VALUE for Scenario/Situation

COLOUR CODE

Weight (%)

PERSON(S) COMPOSING THE INDICATOR BASKET: GOOD SO-SO BAD DONT KNOW N.A. OTHER

C3ED (UVSQ/IRD)

ECOST 5th Meeting 12/16 Nov. 2007

Page 44 of 44