Information acquired from the preliminary appraisal should be summarized and used in
the project design and site selection process. Although it is essential that site selection be
based on coastal management issues uncovered in the preliminary assessment, other crite-
ria may be significant for specific purposes. For example, in some cases political consider-
ations will have to be taken into account, and there may be a preference to have a project
located in each of several political divisions of the target region. Other considerations may
involve the willingness of community officials to become involved, the expected degree of
cooperation by community residents, and the existence of community organizational struc-
ture (cooperatives or other associations) which may facilitate community participation.
These considerations are project-specific, depending on the unique characteristics and
needs of each. Thus, the preliminary assessment findings should be used in combination
with these other considerations to select the project sites.
Example 5: Project site selection
The project established a Provincial Working Group (PWG), chaired by the
Regional Development Planning Board for North Sulawesi (BAPPEDA), to help
establish project guidelines.The PWG decided to use geographic distribution as the
first criteria in site selection, suggesting that one be a northern island, one be on
the Sulawesi Sea coast and one on the coast of the Maluku Sea. Other criteria were
the size of the population dependent on coastal resources; the potential of coastal
and marine resources; awareness of the community and commitments for devel-
opment from it and its officers; the development status and progress of the village;
village harmony; coastal management issues; that it be representative of a small
island; accessibility; and finally, location in an area with potential influence on
neighboring villages (Crawford et al. 1997).
As a first step in the selection process, the summary and data on the 20 sites in
the preliminary assessment were reviewed and sites were ranked according to the
criteria above. Each village was given a score of 1–3 (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 =
high) for each. The scores were totaled and the top two villages from each of the
three geographic regions were evaluated further for final selection.This evaluation
was based on information collected in the field by project staff and PWG mem-
bers.The stated objectives of the field trip were to obtain more information about
the candidate villages (especially concerning criteria not covered in the preliminary
assessment), to introduce the candidate village to members of the PWG and exten-
sion officers, and finally, on the basis of the preliminary appraisal and results of the
field trip, to select three project locations from the six candidate villages.
Methods used during the field trip included collection of additional secondary
data, semi-structured interviews with the kepala desa, kepala dusun, informal leaders,
In Example 5, the additional criteria for site selection used by project personnel and
members of the PWG necessitated further fieldwork, but the preliminary assessment was
used to select the six candidate sites. Use of criteria such as commitments from the com-
munity and its officers, and village harmony, while facilitating pilot project development,
may also lead to a false impression of the ease with which such projects can be established.
In essence, though the project and PWG stacked the cards in their favor, it yielded both
positive and negative consequences. In addition, criteria such as village harmony and com-
munity commitment are difficult factors to determine in a brief, one-day visit to a com-
munity. PWG members made decisions concerning these factors relative to the other
candidate sites during follow-up visits. Nevertheless, in several of the selected villages,
intra-community social dynamics, which have made project work more difficult, only came
to light after extension workers had been assigned full-time in the villages for several
months. In the final analysis, however, based on their best assessment of the project’s needs,
the project personnel must weigh the consequences and make a choice.
social groups (fishermen, women, etc.), members of the community and other
stakeholders, and direct observation. One day was spent at each site. In the north,
the villages of Talise and Gangga Satu were visited. After completion of the field
visits, the team met to discuss findings and observations and to make a final deter-
mination of field sites. In this case, the group quickly came to a unanimous deci-
sion that Talise should be the field site. Specific considerations expressed by the
group members in this decision were the conservation-mindedness of Talise, as
demonstrated by almost 10 years of weekly beach clean-ups in Dusun Tambun, and
a local ordinance protecting mangroves from being cut. In addition, the group felt
that socio-political conflicts present in Gangga Satu would not make it a good site.
On the Sulawesi Sea coast, Blongko and Bajo were visited. In the case of these
two villages, the field team was almost evenly split on which village should be
selected. The merits and limitations of each site were discussed for several hours.
Finally, a vote among the team members was taken and Blongko selected. Factors
influencing the decision of Blongko included the cleanliness of the village, the sup-
port of the kepala desa and his apparent respect within the community, and again,
the community’s previous efforts to protect its mangroves from being sold and cut
by outsiders. In addition, several members of the team felt that although Blongko
had fewer coastal management issues than Bajo, this simplicity would help in see-
ing quicker results on the ground, a key strategy of the project in North Sulawesi.
In the case of Bentenan and Tumbak, which are adjacent villages, the overlap in
community use of the sea space offshore led to a decision that, rather than select-
ing one over the other, the site should include both.
BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Once CB-CRM sites have been selected on the basis of the rather sketchy data provided by the preliminary appraisal, it is necessary to obtain more detailed baseline information from communities selected for pilot projects. This section describes techniques for estab- lishing a techno-socioeconomic baseline2for both later evaluations and development of CB-
CRM activities. The techno-socioeconomic information is only part of an adequate baseline.The baseline must also include environmental information that should be collected at the same time as the socioeconomic information. Methods for establishing environmen- tal baselines are beyond the scope of this guide and are covered in other publications (English et al. 1994, Fox 1986, McManus et al. 1997).
Concurrent with the collection of environmental and techno-socioeconomic baseline information at the pilot project sites, it is necessary to collect information from nearby con- trol site communities. Control sites are important for several reasons. A significant ques- tion associated with any coastal resources management project concerns its relative impact on the coastal ecosystem, including its human and non-human components. Ideally, both of these components will benefit from a coastal resources management project.The only way we can determine these impacts, however, is by establishing a baseline of both techno- socioeconomic and environmental information that can be compared with similar data col- lected during and after establishment of the management strategy. It is obvious, however, that factors other than those generated by a management strategy impact the socioeco- nomic and environmental status of an area. Changes in weather patterns, in infrastructure, in the social, political and economic context of the communities involved can all have an impact on the socioeconomic and natural environment. In other words, outside forces, both natural and unnatural, can impact an ecosystem. Therefore, in addition to baseline information, it is necessary to collect information from similar communities that can be used as controls to determine whether the new coastal resources management strategy or some other factors have influenced the ecosystem.
2Although not strictly necessary, “techno” has been appended to socioeconomic to emphasize the fact that a cer-
tain level of detail concerning the technologies associated with productive activities needs to be described as part of the baseline, because aspects of these technologies frequently impact aspects of the natural environment.
Given the complexity of a coastal ecosystem, it is not possible to select controls that are perfectly matched with the pilot project communities.This, however, is not a problem.The goal of the controls is not to determine the exact degree of project impact, but to determine if trends in the project communities differ from those in the controls and to try to separate out the effects of the project from the non-project variables. For example, if the quality of life has improved in a similar way or amount in both project and control communities, can the change be attributed to an overall improvement of the regional or national economy? Or has resource management in the project village improved harvesting and incomes, while the increase in the control community can be attributed to improved markets as a result of a new road? Likewise, where trends are different, both project and non-project variables must be examined in terms of their impact on the trends. Use of controls is not simple, but without them, it is impossible to discern the relative impact of project and non-project variables.
While controls are useful for determining project outcomes in terms of environmental quality and quality of life, they are rarely, if ever, used for CB-CRM project assessments. This concept therefore, may be difficult for project managers or funders to accept, as it requires added costs that do not directly produce on the ground results at project field sites. However, if time spans are long enough, and if decisionmakers are truly interested in deter- mining project outcomes, particularly if the initial set of project sites are viewed as pilots for subsequent replication in a larger number of communities, then the use of controls must be given serious consideration. Individuals involved in project design, and project imple- menters responsible for monitoring and assessment, must be able to persuasively articulate the value of control sites to those who determine the budget.
The techno-socioeconomic baseline includes many of the same types of information that are included in the preliminary assessment, as well as additional information.The main difference is the level of detail, accuracy, and reliability. These differences result from the use of different methods, including the expenditure of a greater amount of time in data col- lection. The first part of this section describes general characteristics of the methods used in establishing the baseline. Following sections describe specific information requirements, along with methods used in data collection, and methods for converting the data into infor- mation for the baseline. Where appropriate, examples from actual baselines are used to illustrate the methods.