adopted benthic behaviour. He argues that from a commercial perspective selling to the aquarium trade or releasing back into the wild are real possibilities. Having
conducted a feasibility analysis, Pomeroy et al. 2006 agree but they also clarified that the financial capital and technical competence required for
commercial viability was beyond that available to the majority of traditional fishers.
2.4 Critical Success Factors in Coastal Initiatives
Faced with mixed results regarding the sustainability of coastal projects, research over the last 15 years has focused on investigating the types of initiatives
that have been implemented and the critical success factors for the sustainability of coastal resource initiatives.
2.4.1 Analyses of Factors Controlling Project Success
One of the fundamental difficulties facing researchers trying to review and evaluate multiple programs and projects is that those projects have different aims,
proceed using different methodologies and have different measures of success. Pomeroy et al. 1997 and Pollnac and Pomeroy 2005 developed a technique
that does not require baseline data in order to overcome this challenge. A range of impact indicators success criteria were chosen such as income, access to the
resource, and participation in decision making and comparisons were made of perceptions, as recalled at the time of the study, of project participants and non-
participants before and after the project was completed. A ladder technique was used to elicit a graduated response from participants with the base of the ladder
meaning the worst situation e.g. a polluted environment where no fish could be harvested and the top rung of the ladder meaning the best situation e.g. a pristine
environment with large numbers of valuable fish. Using this method Pollnac and Pomeroy 2005 found that the strongest predictor of a sustainable project was
participation . Participation generates a feeling of ownership amongst the
community and also increases the probability that the interventions of the project will dovetail with their needs. But participation is also closely related to the other
main factor that produced project sustainability, visible benefits. Establishment of new occupations and improvement of village infrastructure, standard of living and
income are the sort of benefits that will increase project participation and perceptions of success. They identify a cycle of early participation leading to
benefits specifically targeted to the community which in turn leads to greater involvement.
Pollnac and Crawford 2000 in their review of the factors controlling success in community based Marine Protected Areas MPAs in the Philippines
aimed to quantify in terms of probability which of these factors were the strongest predictors of success. They identify two main categories of factors from existing
studies: contextual and project. Having identified five measures of success ecosystem health, perception of MPA impact on the resource, MPA visible
features, adherence to the rules, community empowerment they use stepwise regression to show that the six strongest predictors of success for community
based MPAs based on probability are: A small population size.
A perceived crisis in terms of reduced fish populations before the MPA was started.
Successful alternative income projects. A relatively high level of community participation in decision making.
Continuing advice from the implementing organization. Inputs from the municipal government.
Pollnac and Crawford’s 2000 analysis is a way of looking beyond the case study specific issues to the more universal factors that determine success.
The factors that strongly influence a successful outcome, from Pollnac and Crawford 2000 and other review articles, are summarised in Table 2.1.
Crawford et al. 2006 went on to use this technique in a review of 24 villages in North Sulawesi in the early stages of MPA establishment. They reviewed the
factors that influence success with a particular emphasis on the involvement of field extension officers and community organisers. They found that community
organisers were one of the most important factors correlated with success and recommend that community organisers are homophilous with the general
population in regard to ethnicity, religion and educational attainment. Community organisers needed time to give to the project but could come from any age, marital
status or gender bracket. Field extension officers differed from community organisers because they typically did not originate from the target village and
were formally employed by the project. Although these extension officers were thought of by project leaders as a crucial component of success, Crawford et al.
’s 2006 analysis did not show any particular characteristics or experience of an
extension officer that increased the probability of success. This contrasts with their observations regarding community organisers. One project activity that
correlated with success was sufficient training events that included broad sections of society and encouraged participation. Besides these factors, they also outlined
the following contextual factors as contributors to success:
1. Villages with small populations and a small number of sub-villages. 2. Villages that were more dependent on fishing, had lower levels of
social and communications infrastructure and less business development.
3. Villages where local leadership support is strong.
In order to maximise the likelihood for success in situations where only selected villages will be targeted for a project they suggest using existing
government statistics to narrow down the search to those villages where the first two of these contextual factors are fulfilled and then carefully assessing local
leadership, the third contextual factor, before inviting villagers to participate. With regard to implementation, Pomeroy and Carlos 1997 write that “the
conditions for successful implementation and sustainability of CBRM are probably not present in all communities.” This is a helpful reminder that some
contexts will be riper for success than others and that community based projects may not be appropriate in every context Crawford et al., 2006. Much of the
focus in the past has been supporting the more able communities or members of communities and hoping there will be a trickle-down effect but targeting the less
able is just as important IMM, 2008b. The challenge for policy makers and resource managers is that every failing or difficult project spends political capital
and there is constantly the temptation to go for the ‘easy pickings’.
Table 2.1:
Factors that have been shown to strongly influence coastal community project success, in Indonesia and the Philippines, grouped using the framework
proposed by Pollnac and Crawford 2000. Data referenced to individual study as follows: Pollnac and Crawford 2000 1, Crawford et al. 2006 2, Tobey et al.
2001 3, Pomeroy and Carlos 1997 4, Pollnac and Pomeroy 2005 5 and Pomeroy et al. 1997 6.
Broad category
Sub-category Specific factor identified that was shown to strongly
influence project success with reasoning behind factor, where available
Context Environment and
demography Population size small populations are easier to
manage 1, 2. Perceived crisis with coastal resources encourages
involvement 1. Socioeconomic
context Occupational balance and dependence on the resource
more dependent communities will respond positively 3
Tradition of cooperation and collective action more likely to respond to CBRM initiatives than a context
of conflict 3, 6. Committed local leadership 2,3
Community concern and awareness of coastal issues Trust in local government 3
General development and
quality of life Healthy community
–quality of life better developed, more integrated communities should have successful
CBRM but this is not always the case 2 Project
Project activities and management
Existence of external advice extension should enhance success 3
Cross visits to successful MPAs to envision 4 Small groups of beneficiaries 4
Successful alternative livelihood activities to replace what was loss by MPA 1,5
Early identification of a core group or lobby group. No surprises through constant communication 4
Adequate financial support 4 Thorough project planning 4
Social preparation preceding technical intervention 4 Strong government support 1,4
Adequate technical skills of project staff 4 Handover period to local institutions that are ready to
takeover 4 Community
participation Community initiatedEarly partnership between the
community and the implementing institution 4, 5, 6 High level of involvement in decision making 1, 5
Ongoing advice training and support 1, 2. Community organiser from the typical religious,
ethnic and educational background of the target community 2.
2.4.2 Perception of Success
