Water Resour ManageDOI 10.1007/s11269-009-9407-4

Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Managementof Aquatic Resources

J. I. Agboola · A. K. Braimoh

Received: 8 April 2008 / Accepted: 14 January 2009© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Several global environmental assessments indicate that the aquatic ecosys-tems have been profoundly influenced by human activities. Nonetheless, aquaticresources continue to be managed on a sectoral basis with virtually no integrationbetween sectors or with other environmental management strategies. This paperreviews human impact on aquatic resources and argues for a strategic partnership(SP) of stakeholders for sustainable management of aquatic resources. SP integratesthe objectives of ecosystem-based and co/community-based approach to manage-ment. It consists of a resources inventory plan designed to improve the status of theecosystem, and a long-term strategy integrating scientific research with conservationaction. The suitability of SP for aquatic resources management is illustrated with twoexamples. Successful implementation of SP however requires the establishment ofrelevant administrative structure and legal environment at all scales of governance.

Keywords Aquatic resources · Sustainable governance ·Strategic partnership · Stakeholders

1 Introduction

Aquatic resources refer to water and its multiple roles as a natural resource insupporting all human, animal and plant life. They encompass all the possible roles forwater in terms of quality and quantity for intended uses, supporting the functioningof aquatic ecosystems and as an essential component of economic development.

J. I. Agboola (B)Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University,Sapporo, 060-0810, Japane-mail: juliusia@ees.hokudai.ac.jp

A. K. BraimohGlobal Land Project, Hokkaido University,Sapporo, 060-0809, Japan

J.I. Agboola, A.K. Braimoh

Aquatic resources also encompass the linkages between freshwater systems and thedownstream coastal areas into which it drains and where it sustains biologically-richand commercially-important coastal ecosystems. They are a critical driving force formany of the natural cycles that occur on our planet, and serve as a link to bothterrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Human activities are profoundly influencing the Earth with the consequencethat survival pressure is now intense on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.According to Cohen et al. (1997), an estimated 37% of the global populationlives within 60 km of the coast—more people than inhabited the planet in 1950.The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment also indicated that over the past 50 years,humans have transformed these ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than inany comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growingdemands for food, and fresh water, among other needs (MA 2005). The increasingpopulation effects are multiplied by both poverty and human consumption patterns,and have resulted in substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity oflife in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Land-based activities such as agriculturalproduction and industrial development affect the runoff of pollutants and nutrientsinto coastal waters, and could compromise the integrity of natural habitats (Syvitskiet al. 2005). Over the pan-tropical area, 32% of forests have been converted toagriculture (as of the mid-1990s), leading to 10% increase in annual basin wateryield (Fig. 1). The largest proportion of both forest conversion and increased yieldwas observed in Southeast Asia, where a 44% forest conversion has yielded a 23%increase in annual basin yield (GWSP Digital Water Atlas 2008).

Global warming caused by human-induced changes in the atmosphere is projectedto have dramatic effects on the oceans (IPCC 2001), threatening valuable coastalecosystems and the economic sectors that depend upon them (Table 1). Other po-tential impacts are complex and poorly understood. A global study of anthropogenicdrivers of ecological change for 20 marine ecosystems indicates that all parts of theworld are affected by human influence, with more than two-fifths affected by multiple

Fig. 1 Change in river flow due to historical conversion from forest to agriculture in the tropics(GWSP Digital Water Atlas 2008)

Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources

Tab

le1

Mai

ndr

iver

sof

chan

gein

aqua

tic

biod

iver

sity

and

ecos

yste

m(a

dapt

edfr

omM

A20

05)

Dri

vers

Inla

ndw

ater

Coa

stal

Mar

ine

Impa

ctov

erth

eC

urre

nttr

end

Impa

ctov

erth

eC

urre

nttr

end

Impa

ctov

erth

eC

urre

nttr

end

last

cent

ury

last

cent

ury

last

cent

ury

Hab

itat

chan

ge��

��xx

����

xxx

��x

Clim

ate

chan

ge�

xx��

x�

xIn

vasi

vesp

ecie

s��

�xx

���

xxx

�xx

Ove

r-ex

ploi

tati

on��

x��

xxx

����

xxx

Pol

luti

on��

��xx

����

x�

x(n

itro

gen,

phos

phor

us)

Key

:Low

�;M

oder

ate

��;H

igh

���;

Ver

yhi

gh��

��;C

onti

nuin

gim

pact

x;In

crea

sing

impa

ctxx

;Ver

yra

pid

incr

ease

ofth

eim

pact

xxx

J.I. Agboola, A.K. Braimoh

drivers of change (Halpern et al. 2008). The pressure exerted by humanity on globalaquatic resources necessitates a new paradigm for governance of aquatic resourcesin the face of growing uncertainties (Costanza et al. 1998).

Increasing aquatic ecosystems degradation and user conflicts have prompted callsfrom the international community for an integrated approach to managing theseareas. Many scientific forums have been held to identify the various environmentalchallenges of sustainable aquatic resources management at national, regional andglobal scales (e.g. Moyle and Leidy 1992; WCMC 1998; UNEP 2002a; UNDP2004, 2005). International Agreements of importance include the Dublin FreshwaterConference and the Bonn International Freshwater Conference that call for fun-damentally new approaches to the assessment, development, and governanceof freshwater resources (files.inpim.org/Documents/DublinStatmt.pdf; http://www.water-2001.de/ ), and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (http://www.ramsar.org/).While, up to 700 initiatives in Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management (ICOM)are estimated to have been initiated in more than 140 countries since the mid-1960s(Sorensen 2002), major threats to the oceans that were recognized in the 1972 Stock-holm Conference—marine pollution, the overexploitation of living marine resourcesand coastal habitat loss—still exist. The Stockholm Conference recommended twobasic approaches to aquatic resources management: improving management infor-mation through research, assessment and monitoring, and international cooperation.Global agreements aimed at sustainable fisheries exploitation include the adoptionin 1995 of an Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling andHighly Migratory Fish Stocks, and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheriesdeveloped by the FAO. The persistence of resource conservation problems such asoverexploitation of fisheries indicates the need for a better institutional response tonature and societal impact on aquatic resources.

Despite numerous international agreements, there has been a lack of coordinationbetween major policy platforms (Young 2002). One approach that may be requiredis to promote multi-convention cooperation. While many coastal environments arebenefiting from existing Regional Seas agreements, there is a paucity of counterpartinternational agreements addressing specifically, transboundary freshwater systems.There is a need to develop mechanisms to secure stakeholders participation indecision-making, from design to the implementation and management of resourcesat the local and national levels. This paper therefore proposes a framework toimprove on the existing governance and management of aquatic resources: “StrategicPartnership”. After reviewing the complexity that aquatic resources managemententails, the paper presents the strategic partnership framework as an alternative tocurrent management approaches.

2 Sustainable Governance and Aquatic Resources

One of the key ideas of our time is the search for a pathway to the future thatencompasses ecological sustainability, social equity and economic growth. Aquaticresources, of course, play a major role here. Sustainable fresh and marine waterresources are a foundation for human survival and economic development, and formaintaining life-supporting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. However, inadequateunderstanding of aquatic resources and the prevailing inability to properly integrate

Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources

scientific, technical, and socioeconomic elements continues to hinder sustainableaquatic resources management around the world. The scarcity of aquatic resourcesthreatens global food supplies and the state of human health in many regions of theworld (FAO 2007).

International policy responses to the global challenges described above havebeen many and varied. Most of them are based on fisheries conventions, RamsarConvention, World Water Forum, International Shipping Conventions, or the largenumber of agreements tied to the United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea. At the same time, institutional and organizational weaknesses in some countriesand the complex interaction among myriad authorities responsible for marine andcoastal management make the implementation of policies difficult. The concept ofIntegrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has recently been accepted asa means to ensure equitable, economically sound and environmentally sustainablemanagement of water resources and provision of water services. This approach isdefined by the Global Water Partnership (GWP) as:

a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management ofwater, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economicand social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustain-ability of vital eco-systems (GWP 2000).

However, it has been suggested that practical implementation of IntegratedWater Resource Management (IWRM) at the basin scale, including considerationof conjunctive groundwater aquifers and downstream coastal areas, is a key responseto freshwater scarcity. IWRM requires a framework where the different and oftencompeting water interests find a common ground and where multi-sectoral stakesare regulated and balanced. As such, improving coordination and consultation,building partnerships and avoiding single-purpose strategies are essential to IWRM.Also, putting IWRM into practice is a long-term process that will often requiresignificant changes in the interactions between politics, laws, regulations, institutions,civil society, and the water user. The capacity to make these changes depends onestablishing better governance systems. Changes in institutional and environmentalgovernance frameworks are sometimes required to create the enabling conditions foreffective management of ecosystems, while in other cases existing institutions couldmeet these needs but face significant implementation barriers (MA 2005).

Water resources continue to be managed on a sectoral basis with little integra-tion either between sectors or with other environmental management procedures.Such an approach ignores vital interactions with much wider ecosystems and otherfunctions, and ecological services related to water (Braimoh and Craswell 2008).There has been a trend towards transferring water services from the public to theprivate sector during the past decade and to decentralizing legal and administrativeresponsibilities. As a result, laws and regulations designed to protect freshwaterresources are often lacking or poorly enforced (WWC 2000). Policy measures havenot been adequate to counteract the pressures imposed by increasing poverty anduncontrolled consumption. There is a need to develop new governance approachesto facilitate the practical, timely and cost-effective implementation of existing inter-national and other agreements, policies and targets, which can provide a basis forcooperation at many levels.

J.I. Agboola, A.K. Braimoh

Biermann et al. (2007) states that Earth System Governance entails formal andinformal rule systems and actor–networks at all levels of human society (fromlocal to global) that are set up to influence the sustainable co-evolution of humanand natural systems. The goal of sustainable governance in the context of aquaticresources involves addressing their sustainable use for domestic, agricultural andindustrial purposes, and for maintaining life-supporting aquatic ecosystems and themyriad of biological communities they contain. This requires the identification,analysis and integration of elements of the aquatic system, including the scientific,technical and engineering aspects of water (which define the quantity and qualityof available aquatic resources), and the socioeconomic aspects—economics, law,institutions, demography, politics, etc. (which ultimately define how humans usethese resources; Global Water System Project 2004). In pursuit of this goal, thediffering resources and capabilities of developed and developing nations in regardto developing and sustaining these resources also must be recognized and includedin aquatic resources management. An additional dimension of complexity is encoun-tered when international aquatic systems are considered. However, the gradual movetowards integrated planning and development of freshwater, coastal and marineareas, through national, regional and global initiatives, is an encouraging trend, andshould be sustained through a more proactive framework we have suggested here:“Strategic Partnership”

3 Strategic Partnership Framework

About 40% of the world’s population lives in more than 200 transboundary riverbasins that are shared by two or more countries, and increased population growthleads to more complex management issues. Data on international freshwater agree-ments indicate that international basins in South America are least covered byinternational agreements (16%), followed by Africa (32%), whereas Europe hasthe highest proportion of 63% (Table 2). There is a need for nations to work co-operatively on policies and strategies that will optimize benefits, manage competingdemands for aquatic resources, and minimize conflicts among various stakeholders.Such policies can be developed at the regional level, but incorporated into nationallegislations for implementation (FAO 2007). On the other hand, the fragmentation,duplication and overlap among international Multilateral Environmental Agree-ments (MEAs) reflect their piecemeal origin in response to each new aquaticresources management problem.

So far, there is not much consensus, and in fact not much research, on thequestion of the role and relevance of the ‘Partnerships for Sustainable Development’

Table 2 Regional distributionof transboundary basins(based on UNEP 2002b)

Continent Number of international Percent coveredbasins by international

agreements

South America 38 16Africa 59 32Asia 57 42North America 40 58Europe 69 63

Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources

agreed upon at the 2002 Johannesburg Summit (Biermann et al. 2007). Unlike thetraditional venues of international co-operation, such as legally binding agreementsor declarations of Heads of States and governments, these initiatives typically bringtogether actors from various sectors—governments, industry, activists, scientistsor international organizations—and build on a voluntary agreement to achieve aspecific sustainability goal.

Strategic partnership (SP) denotes a formal, comprehensive and systematic mu-tual cooperation, to clarify objectives, make decisions and check progress towards theobjective. The objective in this context is sustainable governance of aquatic resourcesto maximize the economic, social and cultural benefits that can be derived from theseecosystems without compromising their health and productivity. In achieving thisgoal, we consider strategic partnership from two focal points:

1. SP integrates two existing frameworks: ecosystem-based approach to manage-ment (EBM), and cooperative management (CM). EBM recognizes the roleof humans within the ecosystem in terms of their use of natural resources andthe direct and indirect impacts of their activities. Ensuring ecosystem healthrequires, among others, the management of human behavior and activities tominimize their negative impacts on ecosystems. To understand ecosystems andmonitor changes, EBM considers all forms of relevant information, includingscientific, indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices in planningand decision-making, and the involvement of all relevant sectors of society andscientific disciplines in resources management (CBD 1998; Syvitski et al. 2005).

Cooperative management, also co-management, is concerned with more effectiveand equitable systems of resources management. In CM, representatives of usergroups, the scientific community, and government agencies share knowledge, power,and responsibility. CM is closely allied with collaborative management, participa-tory management, community management, joint management, and stakeholdermanagement (Pomeroy 1995). In addition, aquatic resources co-management en-tails the sharing of responsibility and authority for the management of aquaticresources among government agencies, the community of local resource users,non-government organizations, and other stakeholders. Co-management covers var-ious partnership arrangements and degrees of power-sharing and integration of local(informal, traditional, and customary) and centralized government managementsystems. Traditional or local community-based management systems have a longhistory of existence in most coastal states around the world, but the majority ofthese systems have been weakened or have disappeared, due partly to institutionalrestructuring under colonial administrations, technological modernization, the riseof the nation-state, and socio-economic stratification and unequal concentrationof power and wealth within coastal communities (Pomeroy 1995). Also, politicaland economic restructuring can be expected to have significant implications forcommunity-based resource management (Hirsch 1992), especially in politically andeconomically dynamic regions of the world.

Thus, a practicable integrated framework that cuts across regional barrier andinfuses the objectives of EBM and CM is proposed as “Strategic Partnership ofStakeholders.” This aims to bridge not only the existing gaps in the choice ofobjectives but also the social and political dimensions associated with the utilizationof aquatic resources at an environmentally sustainable level.

J.I. Agboola, A.K. Braimoh

2. SP strikes a balance between top-down and bottom-up efforts to solve aquaticresource problems, resolve the problems of cross-scale interaction (verticalinterplay) and the politics of institutional linkages (horizontal interplay) (Young2002). There is a consensus in the literature that participatory approaches to re-sources management may well be as conflictive and may cause as much economic,social and ecological havoc as top-down approaches. Strategic partnership doesnot outrightly imply bringing together actors (from individuals to states) who donot have the same amount of power, wealth or knowledge but it is a systematicapproach of hierarchical partnering of actors from bottom-up to top-down, thus,providing a level playing field for actors. The SP solution to the management ofaquatic resources lies in striking a proper balance between the development ofa common structure and the identification and preservation of personal nichesthat appeal to individual stakeholders/actors. There must be ample scope forthe role of individual creativity and bottom-up initiatives in order to ensure thatmanagement problems are properly addressed.

SP hopes to resolve these problems by first, identifying and understanding of local,states, regional, and global commons. Partnership across the scales could be achievedonly when there is a strong partnering at various scales, presenting a commonfront. Secondly, having realized the complexity in the institutional dimension tomanagement of aquatic resources, a major key response needed would be to promotemulti-convention cooperation leading to increase in institutional interplay, that is,interactions between or among distinct institutions. The need to look into ways ofmanaging regime overlap and linkages, in ways that generate overall benefits, ratherthan conflict cannot be overemphasized. Thus, SP as a form of linkage strategiescenters on efforts to rationalize existing institutional arrangements through variousforms of integration.

3.1 Strategies for Implementing the SP Framework

Two main strategies are involved in the implementation of SP: outreach plan andin-reach plan.

3.1.1 Outreach Plan

This is an aquatic resource inventory plan that encompasses all policies, strategies,measures, and interventions that are established to change ecosystem status andprocesses directly, and those that modify direct or indirect drivers of ecosystemstatus, processes and transformations. This plan deals with:

• Identification of the various stakeholders of aquatic resources from the grass-roots and the determination of their roles and interplay without under-estimatingthe capacities of experience- and knowledge-based traditional and informalmanagement systems. In their attempts to control coastal fisheries management,national governments have often under-estimated the role of traditional andinformal management systems, but over-estimated their own abilities to managethese same resources.

• Environmental analysis, which involves assessing how the aquatic resourcessector (e.g. fishery) of local, national and global economy has changed overtime and the causal factors of the trend. Analytical techniques such as SWOT

Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources

may be employed based on regional dynamics in global environmental change(Wijesekara and Yakupitiyage 2001). SWOT Analysis is a tool used to evaluatethe Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the system. Whereasstrengths and weaknesses are endogenous to the system, opportunities andthreats are exogenous variables. Thus, the analysis is used to identify the keyinternal and external variables that are important for achieving stated objectives.

• Resource Analysis: The essence of this is the identification of aquatic re-source/biodiversity and the relative abundance of species from different loca-tions and regions. This will enable us to have in-depth knowledge of local,regional and national competitive advantages and disadvantages in relationto aquatic resources for proper sustainable governance policy. For example,information on freshwater, recreational fisheries and identification of the specificwaterbodies supporting these fisheries that would benefit the most from habitatenhancement, restoration or conservation activities needs to be provided.

• Strategic decision making: Looking at the current performance gap, it may benecessary to change the existing strategy through identification, evaluation andselection of alternative approaches e.g. breaking new grounds (aquaculture),pruning of current fishing industries to a reasonable/adequate size, review andmodification of existing laws etc.

3.1.2 In-Reach Plan

This is a strategy that ensures long tenure of management of aquatic resources byintegrating scientific research with conservation action. It is much easier to sustainand make predictions on aquatic resources when a strategy enjoys long tenure andthis can only be achieved through the strategic partnership of the stakeholders. Thefundamental problem, however, is that the long-term vision required for sustainablepractices to take hold is relegated due to economic short-term gains and politicalconsiderations. Resource managers should ideally consider the best current practicesand the latest techniques suitable to their local conditions in drawing up their aquaticresource plans. Gaps which exist between aquatic resource stakeholders as a resultof loss of resources, choice of objectives, consumer pressure and environmentaldynamics can be bridged by this plan.

In general, water resource needs must be balanced among several stakeholdersranging from individuals to public utilities. As public and recreational uses increase,coordinated efforts to balance economic concerns and human health will be required.

The outreach/in-reach plan facilitates adaptation in the face of global changeuncertainties. It synthesizes relevant state-of-the-art thinking on, and application ofadaptive management (Folke et al. 2005). In order to guide against adaptive capacityfailure, it is necessary to evaluate the institutions relevant to aquatic resourcemanagement. Most failures take place during situation analysis, as well as duringresponse to crises (outreach planning stage). Systematic understanding of aquaticresource management includes not only the production and consumption of aquaticresources (food), but also the interaction between and within the aquatic systems.This way of framing aquatic resources management opens up the possibility todiscuss adaptive governance and adaptive institutions in changing aquatic systemsthrough the “Strategic Partnership” framework. Adaptive management is a system-atic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learningfrom the outcomes of previously employed policies and practices (MA 2005). The

J.I. Agboola, A.K. Braimoh

iterative process facilitates learning and adaptation, thereby reducing uncertaintyabout ecosystem management decisions. A detailed illustration of this managementapproach is shown in Fig. 2.

After the determination of stakeholders and upon agreeing on aquatic resourcesmanagement objectives by the stakeholders, the adaptive management processbegins with assessing the conditions and determining the major threats to aquaticresources (i.e. environmental and resource analysis). A conceptual model may bedesigned to define the conditions and relationships between key factors on a regionalbasis. Using this model, a resource management plan that outlines the results that weexpect to accomplish and the specific actions to be taken to reach them is developed.Next, a monitoring plan is built-in for assessing progress in implementing aquatic re-source management. The next step is the actual implementation of the managementplans and assessment of results using monitoring indicators. Subsequently data areanalyzed and results communicated to appropriate audiences. Feedback informationhelps the management process in learning and adaptation.

A Environmental and

Resource Analyses to develop Conceptual

Model

D Implement Management and Monitoring plans

E Analyse Data and

Communicate Results

B Strategic decision

making on Management Plans

Start Clarify Stakeholder’s

Mission, roles and interplay.

Iterate Use Results for Learning and Adaptation

Identify the stakeholders from

grassroots.

Strategic Partnership

Project Cycle

C Interphase of Outreach/In-

reach Plan. Develop a Monitoring Plan.

Fig. 2 Strategic partnership in adaptive management (adapted from Margoluis and Salafsky 1998).Thick lines indicate outreach plan and thin lines, in-reach plan

Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources

One example of strategic partnership approach to aquatic resources managementin the USA is the recent delineation of ten regional ecosystems that represent geo-graphically specified management areas by The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), in collaboration with federal, state, academic and NGOpartners (NOAA 2004). Many ecosystem boundaries cross local, state, national andinternational boundaries. Therefore, ecosystem approach to management requiresco-management and cross-jurisdictional management. The delineation and develop-ment of these ten regional ecosystems was an important first step in moving towarda more holistic approach within a spatial context. NOAA’s approach seeks to shiftthe current sectoral, short-term and non-scientifically integrative management effortsto one that accounts for ecosystems knowledge and uncertainties, offer long-termperspectives and fully integrates science with management (NOAA 2004).

Another example of SP is the United States Southeast Aquatic Resources Part-nership (SARP) established in 2001 (http://www.sarpaquatic.org). The overall goalof the SARP is to develop State and Federal partnerships that extend beyondthe traditional boundaries of fishery resources management agencies to include acommitment by partners to work together for the benefit of the resource. TheSARP comprises 14 southeastern states including inland and marine divisions inmost coastal states, Fisheries Services and Management Councils, Wildlife Agencies,and non-governmental organizations, grassroots groups, and private commercialconcerns. The key focal areas of SARP include recreational fishing, fishery mitiga-tion, imperiled species reduction and aquatic species recovery, conservation of inter-jurisdictional fisheries, aquatic habitat conservation, and control of aquatic invasivespecies. Activities include needs assessment, resources inventory and informationmanagement, drawing up ecosystem conservations plans, and monitoring and eval-uation of projects. Table 3 spells out the stakeholders involved in this partnership,their interests and responsibilities.

Under the Southeast Aquatic Resource Partnership (SARP) arrangement, thecommon and broad objectives of conserving and managing of aquatic resources isjointly implemented by a partnership of stakeholders. These entities have signeda Memorandum of Understanding pledging to work together for the conservationand management of aquatic resources in the Southeast of the United States. Aclear demarcation of roles and responsibilities at different levels were agreed andunderstood by all parties inside and outside government Table 3. Of recent, SARP’swork has been extended to the development of a regional aquatic habitat conditiondatabase and assessment tools that will allow its partners to track habitat conditionsover time, view conservation projects, and assess results at local and regional scales.The major lesson learnt from the SARP arrangement is that successful aquaticconservation is a three-way partnership between Federal and States agencies andthe public.

Strategic partnerships could improve the long-term security of aquatic resourceusers by reducing current and potential conflicts between the users and ensuringthat their activities are ecologically sustainable. An integration of ecosystem-basedand co/community-based approach to management through strategic partnershipseeks to overcome the fragmentation among national, state, local and regionalagencies responsible for coastal and marine resource management by harmonizingresource management decisions in a spatial context. With SP, management effortswill be characterized by policy decisions that account for ecosystems, are long-term,

J.I. Agboola, A.K. Braimoh

Table 3 Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) stakeholders and aquatic managementresponsibilities (synthesized from http://www.sarpaquatic.org/)

Stakeholders Interest Responsibilities

StateFish and Wildlife Agencies Interjurisdictional Efficient and effective use

from 14 states: Alabama, fisheries of available human andArkansas, Florida, Georgia, fiscal resources; DevelopKentucky, Louisiana, a better understandingMississippi, Missouri, of resource issuesNorth Carolina, Oklahoma, around the Southeast,South Carolina, Tennessee, for both the generalTexas and Virginia public and resource

managers

RegionalThe Gulf and Atlantic Interjurisdictional fisheries; Identify the highest

States Marine Fisheries aquatic habitat plan. priority aquatic habitatCommissions; The Gulf of needs and effectiveMexico and South Atlantic conservation strategiesFishery Management to better address theCouncils conservation and

management of aquaticresources across theregion.

FederalThe US Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Habitat Conservation; Regulatory functions;

Service; NOAA Fisheries: Fishery Mitigation; Aquatic Protecting, restoring,Federal agency partners. Nuisance Species (ANS); and conserving aquatic

Aquatic habitat plan. resources and theirhabitats throughout theSoutheast.

User groupsNon-governmental organizations; Public use Foster responsible and

grassroots groups, ethical use of resources.industries, business;Private sector interests;Farmers/agricultural interests;Recreational interests;Transport

fully integrate science with management and recognize humans as integral toecosystem functions and sustainability. Also, resource conflicts may be diminished,management better implemented and resources better managed when fishers andother resource stakeholders are more involved in the management of resources andaccess rights are distributed more effectively and equitably.

The difficulties plaguing efforts to coordinate institutional arrangements acrosslevels of social organization constitute a significant feature in the management ofaquatic resources. No generally accepted taxonomy of types of cross-scale interactionexists in the management of aquatic resources, and this paper does not attemptto devise one. Rather, the goal of this paper is to illuminate the general characterof cross-scale interaction by examining in some depth interactions across levels of

Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources

social organization relating to aquatic resource management. In this context, SPwill ensure a commitment to creating arrangements that can manage functionalinterdependencies on an ongoing basis, rather than an exercise aimed at selectingthe proper level of social organization at which to respond to particular problemsarising from aquatic resource management. We propose that the implementation ofSP may lessen the inescapable tension that cross-scale interactions among resourceregimes may generate between the benefits and costs of higher level arrangements.

With the right application of SP framework, policy-makers and developmentspecialists will not only see community-based resource management and communityparticipation as ways to improve resource management but as ways to alleviatepoverty. By empowering the community, SP can address both the need for economicdevelopment and the conservation of natural resources. It is a conscious effort todesign and operate institutional arrangements that recognize local knowledge andprotect the rights and interests of local stakeholders even while they introduce mech-anisms at higher levels of social organization required to encompass the dynamics ofecosystems that are regional and even global in scope.

4 Concluding Remarks

International experience suggests that aquatic resources management does not comeabout automatically but requires some impetus. Most commonly, it is the recog-nition of a resource management problem that triggers management choice. Also,institutions that enable equitable and sustainable utilization of common propertyresources do not always emerge spontaneously. It often requires conscious efforts toorganize and craft the institutions that will enable more equitable and sustainablemanagement of resources for the benefit of diverse groups holding claims to theresources. Strategic partnership is not the only panacea for sustainable governanceof aquatic resources. It is but one alternative strategy for resource management. Itis, however, a strategy which is receiving more attention from resource managers,policymakers, development agencies, non-governmental organizations, and donorsworldwide.

For strategic partnership initiatives to be successful, basic issues of governmentlegislation and policy to establish supportive legal rights and authority frameworksmust be addressed. The establishment of an appropriate multiscale governanceadministrative structure and an enabling legal environment are essential in efforts topromote and sustain existing local level management systems and/or to develop newco-management systems. SP recognizes the need to decentralize the managementof aquatic resources to local governments and resource users and to increase theparticipation of resource users in management. Finally, for sustainable governanceof aquatic resources to truly become a ‘development paradigm’ it will be necessaryto effect a basic change in our life-style, in our attitude, and in the value systems.This could be achieved largely through the strategic partnership of the variousstakeholders, since the duty of ensuring sustainable governance of aquatic resourcesinvolves the participation of all stakeholders.

Acknowledgement We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlierdraft of this paper. We also acknowledge the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research forsupporting the ECOSMAG project (http://www.glp.hokudai.ac.jp/ecosmag).

J.I. Agboola, A.K. Braimoh

References

Biermann F, Pattberg P, Chan S, Mert A (2007) Partnerships for sustainable development: anappraisal framework. Global governance working paper no 31. Available at www.glogov.org

Braimoh AK, Craswell ET (2008) Quantitative assessment of interdisciplinarity in water scienceprograms. Water Resour Manag 22:473–484. doi:10.1007/s11269-007-9173-0

Cohen JE, Small C, Mellinger A, Gallup J, Sachs J (1997) Estimates of coastal populations. Science278:1211–1212

Convention on Biodiversity CBD (1998) Report of the workshop on the ecosystem approach,Lilongwe, Malawi, 26–28 January 1998. CBD, Montreal

Costanza R, Andrade F, Antunes P, van den Belt M, Boersma D, Boesch DF, Catarino F, Hanna S,Limburg K, Low B, Molitor M, Pereira JG, Rayner S, Rui S, Wilson J, Young M (1998) Principlesfor sustainable governance of the oceans. Science 281:198–199. doi:10.1126/science.281.5374.198

FAO (2007) The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome, ItalyFolke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg G (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.

Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511Global Water Partnership (2000) Towards water security: a framework for action, GWP, March 2000GWSP Digital Water Atlas (2008) Map 23: change in discharge due to deforestation (V1.0).

Available online at http://atlas.gwsp.orgHalpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, Bruno JF, Casey KS,

Ebert C, Fox HE, Fujita R, Heinemann D, Lenihan HS, Madin EMP, Perry MT, Selig ER,Spalding M, Steneck R Watson R (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems.Science 319:948

Hirsch P (1992) Resource development in mainland Southeast Asia: political and environmental con-siderations. RIAP occasional paper no 18. Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific, Universityof Sydney, Australia

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adapta-tion and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of theintergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Margoluis R, Salafsky N (1998) Measures of success: designing, managing, and monitoring conserva-tion and development projects. Island Press, Washington, DC

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. IslandPress, Washington, DC

Moyle PB, Leidy RA (1992) Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems: evidence from the fish faunas.In: Fiedler PL, Jain S (eds) Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation,preservation and management. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 127–169

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2004) NOAA workshop ondelineation of regional ecosystems, Charleston, SC. http://ecosystems.noaa.gov/noaa_workshop_delineation_final.htm

Pomeroy RS (1995) Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastalfisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean Coast Manag 27(3):143–162. doi:10.1016/0964-5691(95)00042-9

Sorensen J (2002) Baseline 2000 background report: the status of integrated coastal managementas an international practice—second iteration. 26 August 2002. http://www.uhi.umb.edu/b2k/baseline2000.pdf

Syvitski JPM, Vorosmarty CJ, Kettner AJ, Green P (2005) Impact of humans on the flux of terrestrialsediment to the global coastal ocean. Science 308:376–380

UNDP (2004) Human development report 2004: cultural liberty in today’s diverseUNDP (2005) Human development report 2005: international cooperation at a crossroads: aid, trade

and security in an unequal world. Oxford University Press, New YorkUNEP (2002a) Atlas of international freshwater agreements. United Nations Environment

Programme, Nairobi, KenyaUNEP (2002b) Global environment outlook—3. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi,

416 ppWCMC (1998) Freshwater biodiversity: a preliminary global assessment. Biodiversity series no 8.

World Conservation Monitoring Center, 140 pp

Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Resources

Wijesekara RGS, Yakupitiyage A (2001) Ornamental fish industry in Sri Lanka. Present status futuretrends. Aquar Sci Conserv 3(4):241–252

WWC (2000) Water in the Americas for the twenty first century. Roundtable Meeting of theAmericas, 26–28 July 2000, Final report. World Water Council, Montreal

Young OR (2002) The Institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay and scale.MIT Press, Cambridge