Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Marine Science
This content is subject to copyright.
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 01 July 2021
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.685122
Edited by:
Kum Fai Yuen,
Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore
Reviewed by:
Yen-Chiang Chang,
Dalian Maritime University, China
Jurian Edelenbos,
Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Netherlands
*Correspondence:
Robin Mahon
Prof.mahon@gmail.com
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Marine Affairs and Policy,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Marine Science
Received: 24 March 2021
Accepted: 28 May 2021
Published: 01 July 2021
Citation:
Mahon R and Fanning L (2021)
Scoping Science-Policy Arenas
for Regional Ocean Governance
in the Wider Caribbean Region.
Front. Mar. Sci. 8:685122.
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.685122
Scoping Science-Policy Arenas for
Regional Ocean Governance in the
Wider Caribbean Region
Robin Mahon1*and Lucia Fanning2
1Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), University of the West Indies, Cave Hill,
Barbados, 2Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
This paper explores the diversity of relationships that exist between science and
policy and which underpin the uptake of science in oceans policy-making in the
Wider Caribbean Region (WCR). We refer to these complex relationships, influenced
by organizational culture and environments, as science-policy arenas. The paper
examines the types of decisions that require science input, where the decision-making
responsibility lies, who the science providers are, and how science gets translated into
advice for a suite of 20 regional Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). The picture
that emerges is one of a diverse suite of well-structured and active science-policy
processes, albeit with several deficiencies. These processes appear to be somewhat
separated from a broad diversity of potential science inputs. The gap appears largely
due to lack of accessibility and interest in both directions (providers <->consumers),
with IGOs apparently preferring to use a relatively small subset of available expertise.
At the same time, there is a small number of boundary-spanners, many of which are
newly emerging, that carry out a diversity of functions in seeking to address the gap.
Based on our scoping assessment, there is an urgent need for actors to understand
the networks of interactions and actively develop them for science-policy interfaces to
be effective and efficient. This presents a major challenge for the region where most
countries are small and have little if any science capacity. Innovative mechanisms that
focus more on processes for accessing science than on assembling inventories of
available information are needed. A managed information hub that can be used to
build teams of scientists and advisors to address policy questions may be effective
for the WCR given its institutional complexity. More broadly, recognition of the potential
value of boundary spanning activities in getting science into policy is needed. Capacity
for these should be built and boundary spanning organizations encouraged, formalized
and mainstreamed.
Keywords: boundary-spanning, science producers, science consumers, regional institutions, information hubs
INTRODUCTION
This paper scopes the science-policy arenas involved in regional ocean governance in the Wider
Caribbean Region (WCR). It builds on a study by McConney et al. (2016a) that explored factors
affecting the uptake of science in policy making. The purpose is to illustrate, for an ocean region,
the diversity and complexity of actors and processes with which any actor seeking to promote
or improve the uptake of science in policy making in this region must cope. This descriptive
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 1July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 2
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
elaboration is considered to be an essential precursor to
deeper understanding of science-policy interfaces in the region
and to developing approaches to improving uptake (Ostrom,
2010). There is increasing recognition of the role of regional
organizations in achieving effective governance of the global
oceans, and of the importance of building regional processes
that have access to and make use of ‘best available scientific
evidence’ (BASE) (Wright et al., 2017;IASS et al., 2020). However,
other than the study by McConney et al. (2016a), we know of
no other systematic attempt to elaborate a picture of science-
policy arenas for ocean governance at the regional level. In our
view, such studies are needed to develop a perspective of what is
required to improve use of BASE at the regional level for global
ocean governance.
The principle that decisions regarding conservation and
management of living marine resources should be based on
BASE is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) (United Nations, 1982). Countries and their
regional organizations are legally obligated to operationalize
this principle. Consequently, it has become well established
in national, regional and global management policies and
agreements. Even with the best intentions, managers have
found many challenges to developing, obtaining and using
BASE (Wolters et al., 2016). These range from low capacity
to produce or access relevant scientific evidence, through poor
communication of science to decision makers, to governance
processes that are poorly or inadequately structured for the
uptake of scientific advice (UNEP, 2017). The problem of linking
science and policy for ocean governance has been extensively
discussed in the literature for decades (e.g., Rice, 2005;Watson-
Wright, 2005;Chilvers and Evans, 2009;MacDonald et al., 2016;
Schumacher et al., 2020). Recently, the adoption of ecosystem
based approaches to management which require a wide diversity
of information for operationalization has resulted in renewed
attention to this issue (Rice et al., 2014;Borja et al., 2016;Fanning
et al., 2021a).
Developing countries and regions, particularly those with
small islands developing states (SIDS) are particularly affected
by the above challenges. The WCR is one such region in
which the role of science in policy making has been noted as
weak (Mahon et al., 2011;CLME+ Project, 2011;Deane and
McConney, 2011;McConney et al., 2016a). Consequently, the
Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem Strategic Action Programme
(CLME+SAP) includes a strategy to promote the uptake of
science in management for the sustainable use of living marine
resources in the region (Debels et al., 2017). The importance
of this strategy has been reemphasized in the development of
a regional coordination mechanism (CM) for the WCR which
has strengthening science-policy interfaces as one of its functions
(CLME+ Project, 2019).
The regional institutional context for governance of
marine ecosystems in the WCR is complex (Chakalall et al.,
1998;Fanning et al., 2009;Mahon et al., 2014;Cooke,
2017). It comprises a suite of regional and subregional
intergovernmental and non-governmental arrangements1that
1The term arrangement refers to an agreement and the organs and processes
established to give effect to it.
includes sectoral organizations (fisheries, pollution, biodiversity,
etc.), multipurpose economic integration organizations and
supporting organizations (academia, science and technology).
The effective functioning of these arrangements is highly
dependent on technical inputs from, and implementation at,
the national level. Consequently, the importance of interfaces
between national and regional levels has frequently been noted
(McConney et al., 2016a). A multistakeholder consultation on
marine ecosystem-based management (EBM) for the WCR that
included representatives from academia, regional IGOs, Non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and national governmental
departments identified use of BASE as the second most
important principle for EBM after participation (Fanning et al.,
2011). Additionally, that consultation identified strengthening
science-policy interfaces as critical for marine EBM in the WCR.
Clearly there is wide agreement that effective science-policy
interfaces have a key role to play in promoting the use
of BASE in ocean governance policy making in the WCR.
However, in a region as complex as the WCR with ocean
governance comprising a multi-organizational, multilevel system
of arrangements (Mahon et al., 2010, 2014;Mahon and Fanning,
2019b;Degger et al., 2021), a key component to understanding
the diversity of science-policy arenas, their structure and how
they operate is to unpack the complexity of the system.
As pointed out by Ostrom (2010) and Jordan et al. (2018),
unpacking complexity is an undervalued step in the process of
understanding and prescribing ways of improving a system. We
believe that this unpacking is a necessary and valid step for
assisting with the uptake of BASE in ocean governance decision
making in the WCR and may also be instructional for other
regions of the global ocean. We believe that the literature on
science-policy interfaces, including boundary spanning, provides
a valuable lens through which to approach this task. We first
provide a brief conceptual overview of the components of a
science-policy arena, the types of actors involved and their
roles. Using the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) Governance
framework as a conceptual basis for multilevel ocean governance
processes and interactions (Fanning et al., 2007), we then assess
20 key regional ocean governance arrangements within the
WCR in terms of their type, origin and mandate. This scoping
contributes to unpacking the complexity within the WCR by
providing a broad perspective on where the decision-making
responsibility lies, who the science providers are, and how science
for ocean governance gets translated into advice in the WCR. We
conclude with a reflection on brokering/boundary-spanning roles
and approaches to strengthening these.
DIMENSIONS OF SCIENCE-POLICY
INTERFACES
Conceptual Basis
This section provides a perspective that underpins the
exploration of the science-policy arenas for ocean governance in
the WCR. van den Hove (2007) defines science-policy interfaces
as “. . .social processes which encompass relations between
scientists and other actors in the policy process, and which
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 2July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 3
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of
knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making.” (p. 815).
Consistent with this definition is the perception of science-policy
interfaces as networks of all the actors engaged in a particular
science-policy arena (McConney et al., 2016a). Sarkki et al.
(2020) refer to these networks as ‘meshworks’ and emphasize the
need to understand and facilitate them. Hartley (2016) promotes
a similar view and emphasizes the potential role of network
analysis in understanding connectivity between science and
policy. These studies underscore the reality that the relationship
between science and policy is much more complex than just
an interface between two entities. Consequently, in this paper
the entire science-policy system for an issue is referred to as a
science-policy arena.
It is also necessary to recognize that in governing, there are
different levels of policy making - strategic policy, planning and
operational - that will require science inputs (Fanning et al.,
2013). The actors, the questions to be addressed and types of
input will differ among these levels. In a multilevel, multi-
organizational regional system, these processes may take place
at different levels, namely local, national, subregional regional
and global. In a regional perspective, the global level may be
considered an externality, but may still be a major influencer of
the structure and function of science-policy interfaces at regional
and subregional levels. For example, many regional organizations
are sub-bodies of global organizations, especially within the UN
system (Mahon and Fanning, 2019b). At the same time, the
national level may be so closely integrated into the regional level
that it may even be difficult to identify policy processes that
operate entirely at the regional level (McConney et al., 2016a).
In many instances policy-making pertaining to a single issue
will cut across two or more levels (Fanning et al., 2013). For
example in the case of managing a fishery, the overarching
policies may be set at the global level by the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct agreed
upon at the FAO Commission of Fisheries (COFI). These policies
are then translated to regional policies within regional economic
integration organizations and regional fisheries organizations.
The latter may then convert these policies into regional
management plans at geographical scales appropriate to the
resource distribution. Finally, in most cases the decisions for
operational planning for enforcement, and data collection are
taken at the national or even local level, and also require
science/technical input. Fanning et al. (2013) provide more
detailed examples of such multilevel policy-interfaces. Effective
interoperation of these processes requires linkages among the
various levels of the regional governance system and may even
require a regional cooperation mechanism (Fanning et al., 2007;
CLME+ Project, 2019;Mahon and Fanning, 2019a).
Roles in Science-Policy Arenas
To simplify the exploration of science-policy arenas, it is
convenient to consider various categories of actors and their
diversity (MacDonald et al., 2016;UNEP, 2017;Gluckman,
2018). In this study, three categories of actors are proposed:
science consumers, science providers, and science-policy
brokers/boundary-spanners (Figure 1). However, as pointed
FIGURE 1 | Roles and interrelations among actors involved in science-policy
arenas (arrow thickness suggests relative strengths of the relationship
between actors).
out by Bednarek et al. (2018) within a science-policy arena for
a particular issue, several individuals may play the same role,
and/or some individuals may play more than one role.
Science Consumers
Consumers of coastal and marine science are of two broad types
‘advisors’ and ‘decision-makers.’ Advisors are usually the primary
users with whom the research providers and brokers/boundary
spanners engage. They weigh the technical advice together with
other factors such as feasibility, competing interests and broader
societal values to formulate the final advice. Ultimately, the
decision-makers merge the advice with their own suite of factors
before reaching final policy conclusions (Gudmundsson, 2003).
It is important for scientists to understand that their input is
usually only one of several factors influencing policy decisions,
otherwise they may develop a negative view of the process and
become disinclined to participate (Singh et al., 2014;MacDonald
et al., 2016). On occasion, the providers and/or brokers may
engage directly with decision-makers (Figure 1). It is also
useful to note that regional level science advisors may formulate
advice for input to decision making processes at global, regional
and national levels. Serving the needs of these diverse science
consumer processes at multiple levels will present advisors with
challenges in formulating advice appropriately.
Science Providers
Ecosystem based management (EBM) of ocean ecosystems
requires a wide range of disciplines: biogeophysical sciences (e.g.,
geology, biology, ecology, physics, chemistry), social sciences
(e.g., political, economic, social), legal studies, management
studies and technological studies, inter alia (UNEP, 2017).
Science users must engage with this diversity among the research
provider community (in terms of disciplines, institutions and
research orientation) if they are to ensure use of BASE.
Additionally interdisciplinary studies that bring the above
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 3July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 4
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
together to address a research problem are required (Rice,
2016). The information may originate from many sources
including from local stakeholders and communities (UNEP,
2012;Weichselgartner and Marandino, 2012) (Figure 1). As
governance becomes more widely accepted as including all
stakeholders, the need to provide for the coproduction of
information by scientists, users and other interested parties is
increasing and adds further complexity (Gustafsson et al., 2017;
Norström et al., 2020).
Science-Policy Brokers/Boundary-Spanners
Connecting science and policy as described above is thought
to require yet another kind of expertise in the form of
an intermediary or broker that facilitates the exchange of
information between science providers of all kinds and science
consumers (Bednarek et al., 2015;Goldsmith et al., 2016).
Actors in this role are often referred to as boundary-spanners
(Cook et al., 2014;MacDonald et al., 2016;Bednarek et al.,
2018). Bednarek et al. (2018) define the practice of boundary-
spanning as “work to enable exchange between the production
and use of knowledge to support evidence-informed decision-
making in a specific context” and define boundary-spanners “as
individuals or organizations that specifically and actively facilitate
this process” (p. 1176).
There is a substantial literature on boundary spanning which
has its origin in organizational and management studies (e.g.,
Tushman and Scanlan, 1981;Levina and Vaast, 2005). A full
review of these concepts is beyond the scope of this paper.
More recently, these concepts have been applied to science-policy
interfaces (see review by Gluckman et al., 2021). Of particular
interest for this paper is their application in science-policy
interfaces for environmental governance (e.g., Guston, 2001;
Smith et al., 2018;Jensen-Ryan and German, 2019) and especially
for oceans (e.g., Driscoll et al., 2011;Cook et al., 2014;Goodrich
et al., 2020;Posner et al., 2020). The conceptual developments
pertaining to boundary spanning in science-policy arenas include
activities by individuals and organizations. Note however, that
most of the research has been done on national science-policy
interfaces, with less attention to regional transboundary science-
policy arenas (e.g., McConney et al., 2016a).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study includes 20 major regional intergovernmental
arrangements for governance of ocean ecosystems in the WCR.
These arrangements were included based on previous analyses in
this region (Mahon et al., 2015;Fanning et al., 2015;Cooke, 2017;
Mahon and Fanning, 2019a,b). The LME Governance Framework
which provides the conceptual basis for this evaluation is
based on the premise that effective regional governance requires
complete policy cycles, each with five stages; namely ‘data
and information (DI),’ ‘provision of advice,’ ‘decision making,’
‘implementation,’ ‘review and evaluation,’ at multiple levels (local,
national, subregional, regional and global) with appropriate
lateral and vertical linkages among them (Fanning et al., 2007).
The first three stages above encapsulate the science-policy
interface with ‘DI’ representing science providers, ‘provision of
advice’ representing translation of science into policy relevant
advice, including brokerage and boundary-spanning functions,
and ‘decision making’ representing science users.
Following the approach of Mahon et al. (2015), this study
examines the occurrence of each of the three stages in policy
cycles associated with each arrangement in the WCR. Regarding
the data and information stage, the main question asked is who
the science providers are. Regarding the provision of advice
stage, the questions pursued are: Is the science advisory function
clearly specified in the agreement? If not, is it identifiable as a
regular process based on documented outputs, or is it irregular,
unsupported by formal documentation, or even entirely absent?
Regarding the decision-making stage a key question is who
decides and whether decisions are binding, passed to another
arrangement as recommendations for decision-making there, or
only recommendations for participating countries for voluntary
implementation?
For each arrangement, the institutional mechanisms for policy
making were determined from constituting documentation such
as conventions and operating rules. Sources and pathways of
scientific input to the identified science-policy arenas were
determined by examining documentation of key meetings. In
addition to the regional IGOs reviewed, the activities of NGOs
that have been involved in regional science-policy interfaces are
considered to evaluate the roles that they have played. In all cases,
attention was paid to boundary spanning activities by actors
within the science-policy arenas. In order to evaluate the extent
of boundary spanning activities, a broad view of what constitutes
a boundary spanning activity was taken. We found the seven
possible functions suggested by Goodrich et al. (2020) provided
guidance appropriate for our scoping exercise:
(1) “Connecting producers and users of knowledge by
enabling and organizing their interaction, including
providing logistical, mediation, facilitation, and financial
support;
(2) Reconciling and protecting interests, different motivations,
and cultures at the boundary and attending to issues of
equity, unequal power, inclusivity, and trust building;
(3) Acting as ‘honest brokers’ by specifically focusing on
integrating scientific knowledge with stakeholder input
and offering (or helping influence) alternative approaches;
(4) Fostering mutual understanding among different interests
while representing the interests of all (i.e., a stabilizing role
at the science-policy interface);
(5) Co-producing and disseminating materials, tools, and
objects (e.g., communication and visualization resources,
scenarios, models, maps, apps) that can help bridge
users and producers of knowledge but also customize
information to different decision contexts;
(6) Providing services, training, and complementary expertise
to enhance the production of actionable knowledge;
(7) Supporting and fostering the creation and maintenance
of knowledge networks and communities of practice that
sustain the co-production of knowledge and use.”
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 4July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 5
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
These functions were used to identify boundary-spanning
activities by individuals within all types of organizations, and
by entire organizations. Brief descriptions of these activities are
provided to facilitate this evaluation and illustrate the diversity of
boundary-spanning functions occurring within the WCR.
There are other actors whose activities may impact marine
ecosystems in the WCR. Their science input needs are also
relevant; for example tourism, oil and gas, shipping, energy,
mining. Some have regional IGOs that could also play a
role in regional ocean governance, such as the Caribbean
Tourism Organization (CTO), Caribbean Shipping Association
(CSA), Port Management Association of the Caribbean (PMAC),
Regional Association of Oil, Gas and Biofuels Sector Companies
in Latin America and the Caribbean (ARPEL). However, these
bodies are not included in the current analysis which focuses only
on those bodies with a mandate for ecosystem management.
Finally, every effort has been made by the authors to
objectively assess the identified science-policy arenas in the WCR
through the use of the peer-reviewed frameworks and guidance.
However, it must be noted that we have been engaged in regional
and subregional ocean governance arrangements and activities
involving all of the regional organizations included in this study
for over 40 (RM) (Mahon, 2020) and 16 (LF) years and we
draw extensively on our experiences. While being aware of the
potential drawbacks of insider research (Teusner, 2016;Fleming,
2018), it is important to note that some of the information
and insights acquired for this study are not readily available on
websites or in easily accessible documents.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section first examines the diversity of science-policy
arenas at the regional and subregional levels and the types
of decisions that require science input. It examines where
the decision-making responsibilities lie and resulting lateral
and vertical linkages among regional organizations and with
the global level. Next, it examines who the science providers
are. Finally, it considers the types and operations of science-
policy brokers/boundary-spanners and how their role might be
strengthened. The picture that emerges is one of a diverse suite
of well-structured and active science-policy processes, albeit with
several deficiencies. These processes appear to be somewhat
separated from a broad diversity of potential science inputs. The
gap appears largely due to lack of accessibility in both directions
(providers <->consumers), with IGOs apparently preferring to
use a relatively small subset of available expertise. At the same
time, there is a relatively small number of diverse boundary-
spanning activities, many of which are newly emerging.
Science-Policy Arenas for Regional
Ocean Governance
Within the WCR, the regional IGOs2with responsibility for
ocean issues are the core of the emerging Regional Ocean
Governance Framework (CLME+ Project, 2013;Mahon et al.,
2In this study the term IGO refers to the entire arrangement.
2014). The mandates, science-policy processes and sources of
science input of the key IGOs that are relevant to sustainable
use of marine ecosystems in the WCR are shown in Table 1.
These intergovernmental arrangements provide the majority of
arenas for the uptake of science in policy making at the regional
level. Some of these IGOs are indigenous multipurpose economic
integration organizations with a broad mandate that includes
oceans; namely the Association of Caribbean States (ACS),
the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Organisation of
Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), and the Central American
Integration System (SICA) (Table 1). These organizations are
mostly high-level policy-setting bodies and, with the exception
of the OECS, have subsidiary organizations with mandates
for marine ecosystem management in areas such as fisheries,
pollution and biodiversity.
These four high-level bodies tend to use science only after
it has been processed by other organizations into overarching
policy advice. Nonetheless, ensuring that the advice that reaches
them is based on the best available science is important, as
they are where science policy meets multisectoral financial policy
and planning (Söderbaum and Granit, 2014). Among the four
indigenous multipurpose IGOs, only two, the OECS Commission
and the ACS have policies and institutions for the broader
topic of ocean governance. Although SICA and CARICOM
have subsidiary arrangements (Table 1) addressing aspects of
ocean governance, neither has overarching oceans policy. The
development of such policy and supporting arrangements that
would provide an integrating science-policy arena within which
science providers and brokers/boundary-spanners could engage
is long overdue in both IGOs; especially as they are now pursuing
blue economic growth.
In the OECS, these sectoral responsibilities are encompassed
within the structure of the OECS Commission. The OECS
Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project (CROP) which
underpins the development of ocean governance in the OECS
subregion links national to subregional ocean policy in an
integrated program that feeds advice to sectoral ministerial
decision-making processes and the heads of government.
Nonetheless, the OECS arena has a limited science base within
its member countries and relies on inputs from projects and
external scientists selected for their specific expertise. The
establishment of a fifth University of the West Indies (UWI)
Campus in 2019 in an OECS Member country (Antigua and
Barbuda), and the Centre of Excellence for Oceanography and
the Blue Economy based at this campus augurs well for the
development of a stronger science base and a more integrated
OECS science-policy arena.
Most other IGOs have a sectoral focus and use science directly.
All have been established by signed agreements, have secretariats
and hold regular intergovernmental meetings (IGMs) in which
member countries take decisions (Table 1). Five are fisheries
IGOs (CRFM, ICCAT, OSPESCA, OLDEPESCA, WECAFC)3
(Table 1). However, as the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
(EAF), requires attention to ecosystem health as well as the
wellbeing of the social and economic systems associated with
3Refer to Table 1 for full names of each IGO.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 5July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 6
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
TABLE 1 | Key regional ocean governance arrangements in the Wider Caribbean Region and their science-policy processes.
Arrangement Type, origin and mandate Science-policy process Sources of input
ACS – Association
of Caribbean States
Indigenous multipurpose economic
integration organization for all
Caribbean coastal states except the
United States
The ACS’s top decision making organ is the Ministerial
Council comprising heads of member states. The
Secretariat supported by Special Committees on key topic
areas and the Caribbean Sea Commission prepare
recommendations for the Council.
Technical input is mainly from national
experts as well as a small number of
experts from regional organizations.
CSC – Caribbean
Sea Commission
Established under the ACS to promote
cooperation and coordination for
sustainable development of the
Caribbean Sea. Its membership
includes all Caribbean coastal states
except the United States.
The Caribbean Sea Commission was established as a high
level ocean policy making body to integrate ocean policy
making in the WCR. The Secretariat and three technical
sub-commissions develop advice for ratification by the
Commission and onward submission to the ACS Ministerial
Council for final decision making.
Technical input is from sub-commissions
which are not often operational. These
comprise mainly national experts as well
as a small number of experts from regional
organizations. No iterative management
processes for issues have been
established requiring regular science-policy
inputs. Science input has been primarily
ad hoc addressing one-off issues
perceived as priority for the region.
CARICOM –
Caribbean
Community and
Common Market
Indigenous multipurpose economic
integration organization for 15 Member
States, and 5 Associate States, ex
British colonies (except Suriname). It
promotes economic integration and
cooperation among its members, to
ensure that the benefits of integration
are equitably shared, and to coordinate
foreign policy.
The decision making organs are Conference of Heads of
Government which provides overarching policy and three
ministerial councils with responsibility for ocean topics, inter
alia; Council for Trade and Economic Development
(COTED), Council for Human and Social Development
(COHSOD) and the Council for Foreign and Community
Relations (COFCOR). These policies guide the functioning
of the CARICOM institutions with responsibility for marine
ecosystems (CRFM and CARPHA).
Technical input to the CARICOM decision
making organs comes from the relevant
CARICOM-associated organizations, the
Sustainable Development Desk at the
CARICOM Secretariat and the national
technical advisors to the relevant ministers.
CARPHA –
Caribbean Public
Health Agency
Implementing agreement under
CARICOM covering pollution as it
relates to human health.
Waste management and marine pollution is a relatively
small part of CARPHA’s mandate. Its work is guided by
CARICOM policies established at COHSOD and by the
Heads of Government. These policies are developed by the
Secretariat and a Technical Committee drawn from national
and regional experts and vetted by an Executive Board
before they are put forward to higher level organs of
CARICOM
Technical input to CARPHA policy and
plans comes from national technical
experts on water pollution as well as
consultants engaged to carry out specific
technical and policy development projects.
The secretariat and work of the Cartagena
Convention LBS Protocol is another key
source of input. These two arrangements
often collaborate on projects.
CFRM – Agreement
establishing the
Caribbean Regional
Fisheries
Mechanism (CRFM)
Implementing agreement under
CARICOM Fisheries
The highest decision-making body is the CRFM Council of
Ministers. However, high level overarching policy making
takes place at the level of CARICOM’s COTED or even
CARICOM Heads of Government as in the case of the
CARICOM Fisheries Policy. Advice is prepared by the
Secretariat and taken to the CRFM Fisheries Forum
(comprising heads of fisheries departments) for adoption
before going to the Council of Ministers.
Technical input to CRFM comes from a
variety of sources including an annual
science meeting in which national
technical experts participate as well as
technical experts from other regional IGOs,
academic institutions and consultants. Not
all science input passes through the
science meeting. Some, primarily from
consultants working on projects goes
directly to the Secretariat. CRFM has a
document information system that includes
meeting, policy and technical reports.
OECS
Commission –
Organisation of
Eastern Caribbean
States
Indigenous multipurpose economic
integration organization for 11 Eastern
Caribbean SIDS (7 Full and 4 Associate
Members) dedicated to economic
harmonization and integration,
protection of human and legal rights,
and good governance among countries
in the Eastern Caribbean
Ocean governance in the OECS subregion is the
responsibility of the Ocean Governance and Fisheries Unit
(OGFU) within the secretariat. Its work is guided by the
Eastern Caribbean Regional Ocean Policy (ECROP) and
Strategic Action Plan adopted by the Heads of
Government. Implementation is by the OECS Ocean
Governance Team (OGT) comprising focal points from
member countries and OGFU staff.
Technical input to OECS policy and its
implementation comes from national
technical experts, primarily from
government departments, as well as
consultants engaged to carry out specific
technical and policy development projects.
Much of the consultant expertise is
extra-regional associated with World Bank
and Commonwealth Secretariat projects.
SICA – Central
American
Integration System
Indigenous multipurpose economic
integration organization for seven
Central American states and the
Dominican Republic addressing
political, social-cultural, economic
issues and the sustainable
management of natural resources.
The Meeting of Presidents (MoP) is the top decision making
body in SICA. The Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers is
responsible for matters that may have international
repercussions, including policy relating to transboundary
marine ecosystems. The SICA family of organizations is well
integrated at the SICA level, where policy is determined by
the MoP, but associated organizations, notably CCAD and
OSPESCA for marine ecosystems have their own Ministerial
Councils for decision making.
Technical input to SICA policy comes
primarily from national technical experts,
mainly from government departments, as
well as consultants engaged to carry out
specific technical and policy development
projects.
(Continued)
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 6July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 7
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
TABLE 1 | Continued
Arrangement Type, origin and mandate Science-policy process Sources of input
CCAD – Central
American
Commission for
Environment and
Development
Implementing agreement under SICA
Aimed at developing a regional regime
of cooperation and environmental
integration across all environmental
issues.
The Council of Ministers is the top decision-making body of
CCAD. Technical committees supported by the Secretariat
prepare technical advice to the Commission of senior
environmental bureaucrats form member countries. This
advice is reviewed and put before the Council of Ministers.
Science input is through technical
committees, primarily from national
government scientists, academics from
regional institutions and consultants. Much
of the input is derived from projects.
OSPESCA –
Central America
Fisheries and
Aquaculture
Organization
Implementing agreement under SICA
Fisheries for development and
coordinated management of regional
fisheries and aquaculture activities.
The Council of Ministers is the top decision making body of
OSPESCA. Working groups formulate technical input which
is reviewed by the Commission of Directors of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, which provides scientific and technical
leadership for OSPESCA. Recommendation from the
Commission of Directors goes to the Committee of Vice
Ministers, which is the executive level of the organization
and provides integrated advice to the Council of Ministers.
Science input is through working groups
primarily from national government
scientists, academics from regional
institutions and consultants. Much of the
technical input is derived from projects.
Cartagena
Convention –
Convention for the
Protection and
Development of the
Marine Environment
of the Wider
Caribbean Region
UNEP Regional Seas overarching
convention with three implementing
Protocols: Oil Spills, Land Based
Sources of Pollution (LBS) and Specially
Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW).
The Conference of Parties is the highest level body of the
Cartagena Convention. Much of its technical input comes
from the COPs of its three protocols. Its output is agreed
upon advice for national government or recommendations
that may be input to other IGOs.
Technical input comes from national
experts, experts at the secretariat, experts
in regional institutions (e.g., colleges and
universities), consultants and technical
staff of projects primarily via the COPs of
the three Protocols.
Cartagena
Convention LBS –
Protocol
Concerning
Pollution from
Land-Based
Sources and
Activities
Implementing protocol under the
Cartagena Convention to prevent,
reduce and control land based sources
pollution in the Convention area and to
ensure sound environmental
management.
The Conference of Parties is the highest-level body of the
LBS Protocol. Its output is agreed upon advice for national
government or recommendations that may be input to
other IGOs. Input to the COP is vetted by the LBS Scientific
and Technical Committee which comprises national
technical experts, as well as other regional experts.
Technical input comes from national
experts, experts at the secretariat, experts
in regional institutions (e.g., colleges and
universities), consultants and technical
staff of projects.
Cartagena
Convention Oil
Spills – Protocol
Concerning
Co-operation in
Combating Oil
Spills
Implementing protocol under the
Cartagena Convention to prevent,
reduce and control oil pollution of the
Convention area and to ensure sound
environmental management
The Conference of Parties is the highest-level body of the
Oil Spills Protocol. Its output is agreed upon advice for
national government or recommendations that may be
input to other IGOs.
Cartagena
Convention
SPAW – Protocol
concerning
Specially Protected
areas and Wildlife
Implementing protocol under the
Cartagena Convention to protect rare
and fragile ecosystems and habitats,
thereby protecting the endangered and
threatened species residing therein.
The Conference of Parties is the highest-level body of the
SPAW Protocol. Its output is agreed upon advice for
national government or recommendations that may be
input to other IGOs. Input to the COP is prepared by
experts in the Secretariat as well as in the SPAW Scientific
and Technical Committee, which comprises national
technical experts and other regional experts.
IOCARIBE – IOC
Sub-Commission
for the Caribbean
and Adjacent
Regions
This sub-body of UNESCO-IOC is
responsible for the promotion,
development and co-ordination of IOC
marine scientific research programs,
the ocean services, and related
activities, including training, education,
and mutual assistance in the Caribbean
and adjacent regions
The Commission is the highest level decision making body.
The Secretariat compiles and coordinate technical input for
the Commission. In addition IOCARIBE holds topic specific
technical meetings from which advice goes directly to
participating countries.
Commission members often have
technical expertise or are supported by
technical experts from their institutions.
Nonetheless technical input to
Commission meetings is primarily from
experts engaged in IOCARIBE projects
and programs.
PSC MOU LA –
Memorandum of
Understanding on
Port State Control
in Latin American
Implementing agreements under the
Intergovernmental Maritime
Organization. Mandates cover the
inspection of foreign ships in national
ports to verify that the condition of the
ship and its equipment comply with the
environmental and safety at sea
requirements of international regulations
and that the ship is manned and
operated in compliance with convention
standards of relevant instruments,
mainly IMO and ILO agreements.
The executive body is a Latin American Port State Control
Committee comprising representatives of all member
states.
There appears to be little need for science
input as the MOU-PSC is primarily about
implementing globally agreed measures
through monitoring and enforcement
activities. Information input is largely from
countries about progress with these
activities at the national level.
(Continued)
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 7July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 8
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
TABLE 1 | Continued
Arrangement Type, origin and mandate Science-policy process Sources of input
PSC MOU
Caribbean –
Memorandum of
Understanding on
Port State Control
in the Caribbean
Region
The executive body is a Caribbean Port State Control
Committee comprising representatives of all member
states.
WECAFC –
Western Central
Atlantic Fisheries
Commission
Implementing regional fisheries
management organization, under FAO
to promote the effective conservation,
management and development of the
living marine resources and address
common problems of fisheries
management and development among
member countries
The highest level body is the WECAFC Commission. This is
informed by a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) which
provides general guidance and vets technical input to the
Commission meetings. There are also several working
groups addressing various resource types or technical
issues that report to the commission. Decisions of the
commission are recommendations to countries.
Primarily national government scientists,
experts from FAO headquarters and
consultants. Academics from institutions in
the region are often named to the SAG
and working groups as well as
participating in the Commission meetings.
ICCAT –
International
Convention for the
Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas
Implementing arrangement for
maintaining populations of tuna and
tuna-like fishes at levels which permit
the maximum sustainable catch for
food and other purposes (extends
throughout Atlantic Ocean)
The Commission is the top decision making body. Technical
advice is developed by species panels and working groups
which provide their recommendations to the Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) which
formulates advice for the Commission.
Technical input comes primarily from
national governmental experts who are
often supported by experts from
academia. Experts from observer
organizations also provide input. The
process is supported by a data centralized
data function at the Secretariat which
takes in national data and information and
performs a quality control and
standardization function.
OLDEPESCA –
Latin American
Organization for
Fisheries
Development
Implementing development
organization to meet the food demands
of Latin America, using its potential
fishery resources for the benefit of their
peoples.
The Council of Ministers is the highest decision-making
body. Expert Groups and the Technical Committee prepare
technical advice which is reviewed by the Board before
being passed to the Council of Ministers
Technical input comes primarily from
experts form national governments
research institutes. OLDEPESCA does not
manage fisheries, its decision are primarily
programmatic.
IAC –
Inter-American
Convention for the
Protection and
Conservation of
Sea Turtles (IAC)
Implementing agreement (extends to
Pacific coast of Americas) to promote
the protection, conservation and
recovery of sea turtle populations and
of the habitats on which they depend.
IAF Scientific Committee analyzes research pertaining to
sea turtle biology and population dynamics and makes
scientific recommendations to the Consultative Committee
which reviews reports from the Scientific Committee and
member states in order to recommend conservation and
management activities to the Parties and analyze the
effectiveness of measures already in place. Decisions are
taken at a biennial COP and are binding.
Technical input comes from national
experts, experts at the secretariat, experts
in regional institutions (e.g., colleges and
universities), consultants and technical
staff of projects. Countries are required to
report annually on their activities
supporting the convention. There is no
centralized data and information system.
The four indigenous multipurpose economic integration organizations and their associated bodies are presented first, followed by the UN related arrangements, with the
two independent arrangements at the end.
fishing, they will require the fullest range of science input for
effective decision making. Seven IGOs have a mandate to address
various aspects of pollution (Cartagena Convention, Oil Spills
Protocol, LBS Protocol, CCAD, CARPHA, two PSC MOUs),
while three have a mandate for biodiversity issues (SPAW
Protocol, CCAD, IAC) (Table 1).
Most IGOs have well defined processes articulated in their
constituting and operational documents, and for which there
is ample evidence of operation in the form of meeting reports.
These processes produce recommendations which may be taken
to a political decision-making level, if there is one associated
with the IGO, or for adoption at the national level (see below).
Some IGOs meet biennially, for example, WECAFC, IOCARIBE,
the Cartagena Convention and its protocols; but most convene
at least annually. In addition, most hold technical meetings
which may be of associated technical bodies, ad hoc meetings on
special issues, or project related. Thus across the entire suite of
arrangements, there is a large array of meetings each year that
both science providers and boundary-spanners must grapple with
if they are to make or facilitate effective science inputs.
Several arrangements are sub-bodies of global level UN
organizations; namely UNESCO-IOC, UNEP, IMO, and FAO
(Table 1). While these regional level arrangements may set some
types of policy, they rely on their global bodies for overarching
policy direction. Thus, this aspect of the science-policy interface
must span the regional/global interface and requires regional
input to adapt global policy to the regional level. Similarly, where
regional IGOs are sub-bodies of indigenous regional economic
integration bodies (namely ACS, CARICOM and SICA), some
policy advice must transit from the sub-body to the parent body
for policy decisions (Table 1). In the ACS, its Caribbean Sea
Commission has its own ministerial council and could function
as the high-level science-policy interface that it was originally
intended to be (ACS/CERMES-UWI, 2010). However, it has not
taken up this role and functions mainly as an implementing
body for projects.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 8July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 9
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
The majority of science input across the entire suite of
arrangements is oriented toward programmatic decisions such
as which projects and research initiatives to pursue and the
implications of subsequent findings for regional and national
policy and legislation. The other common form of advice is on
overarching policy, such as the CARICOM Common Fisheries
Policy4, the Castries Declaration on Illegal Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing5or the OECS St. Georges Declaration
(Geoghegan, 2015). Few organizations provide advice as part
of regular recurrent processes that manage ongoing issues such
as fisheries stocks (e.g., ICCAT, CRFM), pollution levels, or
biodiversity loss. The irregular nature of needs for science
advisory inputs likely makes it difficult for science providers to
engage, emphasizing the need for boundary-spanning actors.
Data and information functions in regional IGOs are generally
limited; perhaps due to irregular science needs. Information on
these functions is not included in Table 1 to avoid extensive
repetition. ICCAT, and WECAFC are the only IGOs which
maintain centralized databases on recurrent issues for which they
have a mandate. For ICCAT, the secretariat vets and combines
data for use by the assessment working groups. For WECAFC,
the data are held at FAO headquarters, Rome, and extracted to
produce reports for WECAFC meetings. All other IGOs maintain
document libraries of technical and meeting reports. However,
they seldom maintain databases for monitoring variables of
concern. The ease of access to, and completeness of, document
libraries vary widely across IGOs. Databases and documentation
on issues falling under an IGO’s mandate are of critical
importance for institutional memory which underpins continuity
and consistency of technical input; especially when there are
few technical staff in the secretariats and external experts may
change over time.
The suite of IGOs and associated arrangements described
above presents a complex set of science-policy arenas with
which science providers seeking to influence policy must engage,
either directly or through boundary-spanners, to (a) have their
science outputs considered and (b) to determine what the major
questions are so they can orient their research accordingly.
In addition to the regular and ad hoc processes of regional
IGOs, there are other emergent science-policy processes with
which science providers must cope, for example, those for the
international agreement on conservation and sustainable use of
marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction
(BBNJ Agreement), the invasive lionfish and the sargassum
invasion affecting the entire region.
Actual and Potential Sources of
Scientific Input
Our analysis of constituting documentation and operational rules
for the 20 arrangements found science input to IGO and other
science-policy processes was obtained primarily from national
governmental experts, IGO Secretariat staff, and projects carried
out for IGOs by consultants (which may include academic
researchers) (Table 1). Academic researchers from universities
4http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/mul167228.pdf
5http://www.fao.org/tempref/FI/DOCUMENT/wecafc/15thsess/ref11e.pdf
and research laboratories are less frequently directly involved
in providing science input (Table 1). When they are involved,
IGOs appear to use a limited selection of experts as also
found by Fanning and Mahon (2021). This is concerning
given that the academic research community in the WCR
is highly heterogeneous and there is considerable research
capacity within the region across the varied types of research
required. Toro (2017) reported that there are 147 academic
higher education institutions (universities, polytechnics, colleges)
with marine science and technology programs in the WCR. If
the full range of disciplines and types of research needed are
considered, this number will be considerably higher. Most of
these academic institutions are concentrated in a few countries
(United States, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil) and the remainder
are distributed through 14 other countries. Collectively they
represent considerable research capacity. These institutions and
their research capacity has not been fully inventoried which
would be useful in coordinating research, especially its transfer
to decision makers.
Regional IGOs also conduct research either by permanent
secretariat staff, mostly facilitating the synthesis of knowledge
from secondary sources, or through projects being carried out
by consultants (e.g., CRFM, 2019;CCAD, 2020). These activities
have generated considerable quantities of research not all of
which is readily accessible or obtainable through conventional
web-based search processes. Similarly, local, national and
regional NGOs produce applied research which can be found
mainly in the gray literature. As with tertiary educational
institutions, no reliable inventory of these organizations or
their research outputs exists. National agencies often have
researchers as well; again mainly concentrated in the larger more
developed countries. Nonetheless, the collective research capacity
in national departments of the many smaller, less developed
countries is likely to be considerable.
Finally, a considerable amount of research is conducted in the
region by external researchers, mainly from universities. It is not
uncommon for such research to be conducted unbeknownst to
anyone in the WCR and published in journals and reports that are
difficult to know about, let alone access. According to Stefanoudis
et al. (2021) this ‘parachute science’ is a common problem
worldwide. They call on researchers and publishers to adopt
practices to minimize this problem, especially by including local
researchers and observing national research policies requiring
that data and reports be provided to relevant agencies in the
country. However, smaller countries may not have the capacity to
monitor and enforce these policies or to manage these data and
reports when they are provided. Hence the need for such capacity
at the subregional and regional levels. At the subregional level,
the OECS Commission has a ‘Code of Conduct for Responsible
Marine Research’ that promotes sharing and dissemination of
research by all researchers (OECS Commission, 2016). However,
what is also lacking is a regional level registry of researchers who
fail to adhere to information sharing principles and practices.
It is evident that there is considerable research capacity
in the WCR, but that its wide institutional and geographic
distribution makes it difficult to access either the outputs, or more
importantly, the expertise. This is not to say that there is sufficient
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 9July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 10
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
research, that capacity is adequate, or that topics are adequately
covered. However, efforts to increase the uptake of science in
decision making should consider information and expertise that
is already available and develop mechanisms to access it, in
addition to seeking to promote more and better research.
The relatively low input of academic science into policy
advisory processes may be due to the lack of mechanisms by
which IGOs can access these sources. Just as it is a daunting task
for researchers to be aware of the potential routes of uptake for
their research, it is a considerable task for IGO staff responsible
for coordinating technical input into advice to be aware of
relevant science being done in the wide range of circumstances
described above, far less to be in communication with the
researchers. This is a push-pull barrier that may contribute to the
scarcity of direct scientific input into governance processes in the
WCR also described by McConney et al. (2017).
In some regions there are specialized regional research
organizations that provide technical input to regional IGOs, for
example the International Council for Exploration of the Sea
(ICES), in the northeast Atlantic, The North Pacific Marine
Science Organization (PICES), in the north Pacific, and the
Coastal Oceans Research and Development – Indian Ocean
(CORDIO) program (Mahon et al., 2015). These organizations
are directly connected to the science-policy interfaces that they
serve. No such regional organization exists in the WCR. The
likelihood of a research advisory organization being established
for fisheries is low considering the relatively low revenue
generating nature of the predominantly small-scale fisheries in
the region; notwithstanding their high importance for livelihoods
and food security (Oxenford and McConney, 2021). The tourism
sector, which derives considerable revenue from healthy marine
ecosystems, and could support such an organization, is yet to
show any significant interest in contributing to marine ecosystem
research or governance at the regional level.
Brokers/Boundary-Spanners
Given the documented inadequacy of established linkages
between science producers and consumers, alternative
mechanisms for bridging the science-policy gap and
strengthening the application of BASE in decisions affecting
ocean governance in the WCR needs to be explored. We are
not suggesting efforts aimed at improving direct interactions
between users and providers should be abandoned. However,
given the ocean governance challenges inherent in the WCR
(Fanning et al., 2021b), it seems pertinent to examine the
potential role boundary spanning organizations and individuals
might play in mitigating some of the more intractable challenges.
These include social and financial capital, capacity building and
socio-cultural factors stemming from a history of colonization
across the region.
In addition to the regional (IGOs) reviewed, the activities
of key NGOs that have been involved in regional science-
policy interfaces in the WCR were evaluated to determine their
actual and potential brokering/boundary spanning activities with
reference to the seven functions of Goodrich et al. (2020), noted
as f1–f7 in parentheses However, given the diversity of actors in
science-policy arenas in the WCR, it is often difficult to determine
their relative roles, as some actors may perform multiple roles as
noted by Bednarek et al. (2018). For example, the same actors
may at times engage in providing science inputs as academics
and at other times as consultants; or the same actors may be
science providers to advisory processes on some occasions and
advisors at others.
IOCARIBE, IOC-UNESCO’s regional commission in the
WCR has a mandate to promote and coordinate marine science
(Table 1) (f1, f4–f7). Consequently, it might be expected to
play a role in facilitating the strengthening of science-policy
interfaces in the region. However, it does not have a mandate
for any specific governance issue, or to function as a provider
of science input for specific issues that are the mandates of
other IGOs. Most of its advice is directed to its commission
and is programmatic. However, some of its programs include
workshops and conferences that bring science into the policy
arena, result in direct advice to member countries; for example
the development of a regional tsunami warning system6, or
the Caribbean Marine Atlas7(f4, f5). These have often linked
regional with extra-regional experts, thus extending the scope
of science input. IOCARIBE’s role in developing a boundary-
spanning regional hub or platform to provide access to regional
expertise, data and information through the Caribbean LME
Initiative is discussed below (f7).
The Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI),
established in 1947, is a regional focal organization for
fisheries research. Its annual conference brings scientists,
fishers, managers, and policy advisors from around the region
together. The conference includes workshops on topical issues
aimed at generating applied advice. Through time, GCFI has
embraced emerging topics such as sociology of fisheries and
ecosystem-based management. This information is published
in the conference proceedings. In this way it plays a role
as a boundary organization (f4–f6), but this has not been
formalized with the relevant IGOs and pertains only to fisheries.
Its engagement with the previous and current phases of the
Caribbean LME (CLME) Initiative reflects a more structured
role as a boundary-spanner through the development of an
information hub in the first phase and a science plan in the
second phase (Acosta et al., 2020) (f7).
The members of the Association of Marine Laboratories of
the Caribbean (AMLC) are marine laboratories of all types
including extra-regional organizations with laboratories in the
region (e.g., Smithsonian Institution and McGill University). It
has 22 members which represent a considerable potential source
of information and expertise. AMLC is well positioned to play
a role as a broker/boundary-spanning organization. A proposal
in 2010 that it should do so through association with the CLME
Project, with which all regional IGOs were engaged, was not
approved by the AMLC Board which noted that its role was to
promote science rather than to link it to policy. A subsequent
attempt by some AMLC Members to create a stand-alone
‘Cooperative Network of Marine Laboratories’ in 2014 did not
gain the necessary financial support from donors. While AMLC
6https://www.ctic.ioc-unesco.org/
7https://www.caribbeanmarineatlas.net/
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 11
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
only carries out function f7 incidentally. it has the potential to
undertake other functions as well.
The University of the West Indies (UWI), while mainly a
science provider, has also played a boundary spanning role as
an institution. In 2011 it established the UWI Ocean Governance
Network, a Google e-group linking 90+faculty with an interest
in oceans across its four campuses. The Network served as a
forum for exchange among community members, and to link
them to the needs of external agencies such as the CRFM and
ACS with which it had MOUs (f1). However, it was not much
used until 2015, when CARICOM took an integrated approach
to negotiating the international legally binding instrument under
the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea on the
conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity
of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement). In
2016 the Network was used to find four experts to join the
overall CARICOM advisory team which included the CRFM,
the OECS Commission and national experts. This time-bound
ad hoc process is led by the Sustainable Development Desk at
CARICOM Secretariat and the advice flows via that desk to the
CARICOM negotiators at the United Nations Representations
in New York. The UWI is a large institution within which
individuals also carry out all of f1–f7, as noted for universities by
Smith et al. (2018), albeit to different extents across its campuses
and bodies. There is certainly considerable potential for UWI
to become more mainstreamed as both science provider and
boundary-spanner for the IGOs serving its member countries.
The Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) is
a regional NGO that focusses on small-scale livelihoods
and inclusion of local stakeholders in national and regional
governance. It sometimes functions as a science provider by
generating social science information on community-based
management. However, it also plays an organizing role by
providing capacity building that enables local level engagement
(f6), and by taking a programmatic approach to getting legitimate
local and community level inputs into regional science-policy
arenas (f1, f2). Notable is the development of the Civil Society
Action Programme for the Sustainable Management of the
Shared Living Marine Resources of the Caribbean and North
Brazil Shelf LMEs (2018–2030) (CANARI, 2018). Indeed over
the years in its many projects, CANARI has carried out all seven
functions of Goodrich et al. (2020).
The Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organisation (CNFO)
is a network of small-scale fisher folk and their organizations
for CARICOM countries. In addition to their role in improving
livelihoods for fisher folk, they play a role in fisheries governance
and sustainable fisheries development by engaging with regional
fisheries management organizations to ensure that the views
of, and information from, small-scale fishers are represented
in regional level decision-making (McConney and Phillips,
2011) (f1). As such, they serve as a boundary-spanning
organization channeling information from a broad base of fisher
folk through legitimate representation into regional fisheries
processes (McConney et al., 2016b,McConney et al., 2017) (f2,
f4). CNFO representatives have also played this role in global level
processes such as the FAO Committee on Fisheries and the UN
Oceans Conference.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC), is a
national organization that adopted a regional role for queen
conch fisheries. As one of eight US Fishery Management
Councils established under the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, its purpose is to conserve,
restore and manage fishery resources in Puerto Rico and
United States Virgin Islands. Nonetheless, it has become the
lead agency in developing a regional fisheries management
plan for queen conch. It has brought together all the regional
fisheries bodies (CRFM, WECAFC, OSPESCA) and countries
with significant queen conch resources to develop this plan,
which is then taken up by the processes of the fisheries bodies
(f3, f7). In this role it performs as a regional level boundary-
spanning activity.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a large NGO with global
reach and considerable activity in the WCR, mainly projects to
manage marine ecosystems; especially through marine spatial
planning and marine protected areas. However, there is also
a component of information brokerage and advocacy at the
regional level f2, f7). Its most notably technical initiative was
its ecoregional planning program that mapped marine and
terrestrial biodiversity in the insular Caribbean and proposed
networks of protected areas for conservation (Huggins et al.,
2007). This initiative marshaled a substantial amount of technical
expertise and data, but ultimately did not have much uptake at the
regional level. This is probably because it was not connected to
any regional arrangement or process and the outputs did not have
any champions within these arrangements. In another initiative,
the TNC Caribbean Challenge Initiative played a central role
in developing a regional program connecting sources of extra-
regional funding for marine protected areas with high level
national decision makers. This was technically supported by the
Secretariat of the Cartagena Convention, the UNEP Caribbean
Environment Programme (UNEP CEP) and resulted in several
commitments to upscale protected area coverage.
The World Resources Institute is a large global NGO based
in the United States. Its Reefs at Risk program integrated a
wide variety of information on the status of reefs and related
ecosystems globally with data on the pressures affecting them
(Bryant et al., 1998). The Caribbean component of this initiative
(Burke and Maidens, 2004) integrated information from a wide
range of stakeholders (f4). The information was shared in a highly
visual, easy to understand format which is fundamental to uptake
(McConney et al., 2016a) (f5). The outputs were actively taken
up by regional and national policy fora. That reefs were already
high profile ecosystems connected to tourism and biodiversity
concerns, and decision makers were under pressure from regional
and global organizations to address reef degradation may also
have promoted uptake in contrast to the TNC ecoregional
planning initiative discussed above.
The ad hoc science-policy arena for the sargassum seaweed
invasion WCR provides an example of an emergent boundary-
spanning activity. In 2011 unprecedented massive influxes of
pelagic sargassum seaweed took the Caribbean completely by
surprise (McConney and Oxenford, 2020). They disrupted
fishing and tourism activities as well as recreational use
of beaches and the sea throughout the region. Influxes of
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 12
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
sargassum have continued intermittently since 2011. There was
no regional or subregional policy process or science-policy
interface for this problem in the Eastern Caribbean (McConney
and Oxenford, 2020). The response which emerged through the
often fragmented efforts of the multiplicity of stakeholders was
decidedly self-organized rather than centrally facilitated. Rather,
was facilitated by stakeholders and various boundary-spanning
activities on the part of regional and national organizations, that
rapidly brought regional and extraregional science to bear on
the problem which policy makers were flagging as critical (f7).
However, communication among stakeholders and between the
stages of the policy process was, and continues to be, a major
challenge (McConney and Oxenford, 2020).
Projects may also play temporary boundary-spanning roles.
A full review of regional and subregional projects that have played
this role is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it has been
noted that projects that adopt a boundary spanning role may
leave a gap when the project ends, unless the project is designed to
leave a mechanism in place to sustain that function. Two regional
level examples illustrate this situation. The first is the Caribbean
Regional Fisheries Assessment and Management Programme
(CFRAMP) funded by the Canada International Development
Agency (CIDA) from 1992 to 2004 which developed fisheries
science and management capacity among CARICOM countries
(Mahon, 2020). At its completion, it established the CRFM to
continue that function (Haughton et al., 2004), which it continues
to do (Table 1). The second example is the CLME Initiative,
a suite of four GEF projects spanning 20+years (Fanning
et al., 2021b). The CLME Initiative engaged the major regional
IGOs to promote an ecosystem-based approach to the major
fisheries ecosystems in the WCR (f1). It supported pilot activities
(f6) that brought science to bear on fisheries ecosystem issues
and contributed advice into science-policy processes with the
aim of strengthening them in a learning-by-doing mode (f5)
(Fanning et al., 2009). Ultimately, the IGOs and countries of
the WCR agreed that the role played by the CLME Initiative
in integrating science and policy-making at the regional level
should be continued by a regional coordination mechanism (f7)
(CLME+ Project, 2013). The mechanism was designed (CLME+
Project, 2019) and adopted in principle by the countries in
2021, subject to national political approval. It is anticipated that
this mechanism will be established in the next Phase of the
CLME Initiative.
These examples of brokering/boundary-spanning activity
serve to illustrate the diversity of circumstances to be found
in the WCR that contribute to linking science production and
policy making (Table 2). These instances can best be described
as arising organically to meet the variety of needs rather than as
deliberately planned by the institutional processes in the IGOs
with a mandate to ensure sustainable use of marine ecosystems
in the WCR. Notably only four organizations were seen to be
addressing function two “Reconciling and protecting interests,
different motivations, and cultures at the boundary and attending
to issues of equity, unequal power, inclusivity, and trust building.”
This is an important function if inputs of local and traditional
knowledge holders is to be incorporated into decision making in
a legitimate and trusted fashion.
We are conscious that a more rigorous evaluation of boundary
spanning activities for ocean governance in the WCR is needed.
Figure 2 illustrates the key actors involved in enhancing the
application of BASE in ocean governance decision making
within the WCR and their roles as science providers, consumers
and nascent boundary spanners. However, we are of the view
that although most organizations reviewed undertake boundary
spanning activities, none can be described as an boundary
spanning organization designed for that purpose.
Improving
Brokering/Boundary-Spanning Capacity
in the WCR
This study has provided insight into the diversity of regional level
boundary-spanning activities currently taking place in the WCR.
However, only a few organizations could be identified as formally
engaging in boundary spanning activities (IOCARIBE, CANARI,
GCFI, CNFO), and this was not their primary function. This
section explores what can be done to improve the effectiveness
of boundary-spanning activities in the WCR as a means of
improving the current science-policy arenas affecting the success
of regional ocean governance. The lessons from this scoping
study could also be useful to other ocean regions.
At the institutional level, there is the need for policy change
in which the individuals and organizations responsible for
using BASE in decision-making, are encouraged to recognize
the distinct role of boundary-spanners, engage them, promote
their activities and mainstream them into their organizations’
arrangements as suggested by Goodrich et al. (2020) and IASS
et al. (2020). This could include promoting the establishment
of formal boundary spanning organizations (Kennedy, 2018)
noting their importance as ‘honest brokers’ that can operate at
‘arm’s length’ from policy makers (Boswell, 2018;Kennedy, 2018).
At the same time, it is worth noting that successful boundary
spanning linkages may be less about utilizing formal boundary
organizations and more about fostering the process through
which science and policy are intermingled (Jensen-Ryan and
German, 2019). Consequently, a broad approach that focusses
on practical actions such as developing web-based decision
support tools and improving boundary spanning functions
within existing IGOs should also be considered (Goodrich et al.,
2020). Most already have some degree of internal boundary-
spanning capability in the form of program officers who are
technical generalists, or in-house specialist expertise, for example
CRFM, while many have expertise supported by short-term
funding or attached to projects. One approach to strengthening
this capacity in IGOs would be the establishment of scientific
advisory groups for IGOs as was proposed for the OECS Ocean
Governance Team, drawing on the expertise of other regional
institutions (Renard, 2020). Several of the IGOs already have
technical advisory committees (Table 1), but the constitution
of these and their effectiveness in bringing BASE into decision-
making has not been evaluated in any case.
To support building the capacity of boundary-spanners,
there is need for their functioning and effectiveness to be
more thoroughly examined to understand their operations
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 12 July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 13
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
TABLE 2 | Preliminary assessment of organizations within the WCR demonstrating the boundary-spanning functions of Goodrich et al. (2020).
Organizations f1 connecting
producers
and users
f2 reconciling
and
protecting
interests
f3 acting as
‘honest
brokers’
f4 fostering
mutual under-
standing
f5
co-producing
and
disseminating
information
f6 providing
services,
training and
expertise
f7 supporting
and fostering
knowledge
networks
IOCARIBE X X X X X
GCFI X X X
AMLC X
UWI X X X X X X X
CANARI X X X X X X X
CNFO X X X
CFMC X X
TNC X X
WRI X X
Sargassum X
CLME+X X X X
FIGURE 2 | The organizations involved in regional science-policy arenas for ocean governance in the WCR. The gray ellipse is the boundary between science
producers and science consumers. Arrows on ellipses indicate science-policy processes.
and impacts, and ultimately to prepare guidelines and best
practices for their operation. Smith et al. (2018) emphasized the
need to understand context before designing and implementing
boundary management strategies. Similar studies in other global
ocean regions leading to interregional learning may also be useful
(Mahon and Fanning, 2019a). Posner and Cvitanovic (2019) note
that such research will be a “challenging prospect as such impacts
occur in complex social and ecological systems; involve subtle,
gradual, and difficult-to-track changes; and elude conventional
evaluation methods that fail to capture the complexity of real
world science and decision-making contexts” (p. 141). The
diversity of types and settings of boundary-spanning activities
to be found in the WCR underscores their view. They also
emphasize that such studies would help “clarify general principles
for what success looks like and how to measure it.” Gluckman
et al. (2021) provide an example of how analysis can generate
recommendations for effectiveness. These studies could include
application and testing of approaches such as the workshop
model designed by Goldsmith et al. (2016) to bridge the gap
between coastal and marine decision makers and scientists.
Among the practical activities needed to improve the
connection between science and policy are mechanisms to
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 13 July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 14
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
improve access to the widely dispersed scientific capacity
and sources of information within the WCR. Gorg et al.
(2016) considered the strengths and weaknesses of two extreme
approaches; a network model and a platform model. The
former is less formal, and less resource intensive, but subject
to the voluntary engagement of science providers for effective
functioning. The latter is more formal and demanding of
resources for its operation, but more reliable and comprehensive.
The development of a mechanism to improve uptake of science
in policy was planned in the 2011–2014 Phase of the CLME
Initiative. It was to facilitate access by policy makers to science
expertise throughout the region and thence to the desired data
and information. The planned mode of operation was that in
response to a query from a policy maker or advisor, a core
team of three to five topic experts would be assembled. They in
turn would engage with other experts, within and beyond the
WCR, in a working group to address the question with the best
available information and determine what additional research
would be required. Teams would remain functional as long as
needed, might change membership as the problem evolved, and
could develop long-term relationships with the regional IGOs
and other science users as appropriate. This initiative went as
far as to establish an information hub, housed at the GCFI, but
the mechanism was not attached to an institution, which was
initially envisaged as being IOCARIBE. This mixed platform-
network approach remains to be explored for the WCR. The
CLME+Hub for the Wider Caribbean currently being developed
by the CLME+Project has the potential to serve as such a
mechanism, but will also need an institutional home that will
proactively pursue the further development and operation of
the mechanism (CLME+ Project, 2020). Given its mandate to
promote uptake of science in policy making, the proposed
regional coordination mechanism emerging from the CLME
Initiative (CLME+ Project, 2020) will need to reflect carefully on
this and other possible approaches.
CONCLUSION
This scoping study of science-policy arenas for ocean governance
in the WCR finds that while regional IGOs provide the
institutional basis for much of the uptake of science by
regional ocean governance processes, the science-policy arenas
are diverse, complex and interconnected. Many have some
degree of internal boundary-spanning capability in the form of
program officers and resident technical experts. While several
have pathways to ministerial decision-making, they must often
revert to their parent organization, which may be at the global
level. Others have no access to ministerial level decision making
and must rely on uptake at the national level or on champions
from other IGOs with ministerial decision-making capacity to
take the recommendations forward. The lack of decision-making
bodies in several of the arrangements and their reliance on
national uptake for implementation is a weak area in the regional
science-policy arena in the WCR.
The regional science-policy landscape is further complicated
by the occurrence of other science-policy arenas at the
regional level that are emerging or not part of an established,
regular regional process, for example, the sargassum issue
and CARICOM’s engagement with its UN representations in
formulating input to the BBNJ agreement. A regional strategy
for improving the uptake of science into policy making must
consider all of these arenas. The assignation of new and emerging
issues such as sargassum to an IGO with a regular process
for ocean issues could help ensure that they are taken up in
established science-policy arenas.
The complexity of science-policy arenas in the WCR is likely
to have considerable implication for efficacy of getting BASE into
policy, as despite the existence of a variety of boundary spanning
activities, the pathways from science producers to science users
are often irregular, informal and unclear. While constraints
imposed by this situation were not explicitly examined in this
paper, it is inferred that it is likely to affect both science
producers and boundary-spanners as they seek to engage with
policy processes. Navigating this complex multi-organizational,
multilevel system to ensure that advice reaches the appropriate
forum and level requires understanding of the overall system,
and the interaction among the IGO partners to determine entry
points for science inputs. Developing and communicating this
understanding is a key role for boundary-spanners.
The fact that a significant part of ocean governance policy in
the WCR is externally driven, largely by UN organizations (e.g.,
FAO, UNEP, IMO, UNDOALOS) and global conventions (e.g.,
CITES, CBD, MARPOL) also contributes to the complexity of the
science-policy arenas in the region. Of the regional integration
IGOs, only the OECS Commission can be considered as having
an indigenous subregional oceans policy. While the Caribbean
Sea Commission of the ACS is in project implementation
mode, neither CARICOM nor SICA have integrated ocean
policy, despite prominent orientation toward Blue Economies
for which such policies would seem essential (Clegg, 2021). The
requirement to develop ocean policies formally informed by
BASE by these IGOs would provide a clearer policy environment
for boundary spanning.
In terms of strengthening the provision of accessible policy-
relevant science, there is the need for science producers,
their organizations (e.g., universities and research institutes)
and their professional bodies (e.g., GCFI, AMLC) to develop
mechanisms that provide more efficient access to their expertise
and information. These mechanisms could facilitate establishing
regional working groups to address specific problems and lead in
turn to improved engagement within the science-policy arenas.
Research institutions, especially in academia, could support this
approach by giving researchers merit for engaging in science-
policy arenas, and may find that policy-relevant science leads
to increased funding. Ultimately, these mechanisms will come
under the heading of boundary-spanning. There are examples of
past and ongoing efforts in the WCR to build on and lessons to
be learned from other regions as well.
No organizations established specifically for boundary
spanning were found, and while boundary spanning activities
were found to be taking place, largely informally, through efforts
of a wide range of actors, there are significant gaps (Table 2).
This role needs to be explicitly recognized and fostered by
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 14 July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 15
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
IGOs and other research consumers; even to the extent of
encouraging the establishment of organizations whose primary
role is boundary spanning. Some IGOs cultivate relationships
with science providers often admitting them as permanent
observers to their meetings, while others seldom do, or do
so only for specific topics for which the observers’ input is
considered necessary. A reorientation by IGOs to recognizing
and encouraging brokers/boundary-spanners on a permanent
and more integrated basis; indeed even strengthening their
capacity, would enable them to better play their role and
to engage in ongoing dialogue with both science providers
and science users. This will also have the potential to move
the science-policy relationship toward knowledge coproduction
wherever appropriate and thus facilitate the incorporation of a
broader range of BASE (Norström et al., 2020).
The diversity of ways in which boundary-spanning takes
place in the WCR suggests that analysis of the effectiveness
of boundary spanning activities in the region is needed to
determine what works and what does not (Posner and Cvitanovic,
2019). In that way, rather than seeking to promote conventional
approaches to boundary-spanning, WCR ‘bright spots’ can
be identified and built on (Cvitanovic and Hobday, 2018).
An analysis at the regional level regarding impacts of policy
advice similar to that done at the national level by Kushner
et al. (2012), could contribute to understanding efficacy and
best practices for boundary-spanners in the region. It could
also serve to illuminate the role of boundary-spanners for
IGOs so that they can consider how best to engage with
them. As noted by IASS et al. (2020), the UN Decade of
Ocean Science for Sustainable Development may provide the
opportunity and resources needed to pursue strengthening
science-policy arenas.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Both authors listed have made a substantial, direct and
intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it
for publication.
REFERENCES
Acosta, A. A., Glazer, R. A., Ali, F. Z., and Mahon, R. (2020). Science and Research
Serving Effective Ocean Governance in the Wider Caribbean Region. Report
for the UNDP/GEF CLME+ Project (2015-2020). Technical Report No.2. 185.
Marathon, FL: Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.
ACS/CERMES-UWI (2010). Report of the Expert Consultation on the
Operationalisation of the Caribbean Sea Commission: Building a Science-
Policy Interface for Ocean Governance in the Wider Caribbean, July 7th–9th,
2010. CERMES Technical Report No. 33. University Of The West Indies, Cave
Hill Campus: CERMES.
Bednarek, A. T., Shouse, B., Hudson, C. G., and Goldburg, R. (2015). Science-
policy intermediaries from a Practitioner’s perspective: the lenfest ocean
program experience. Sci. Public Pol. 43, 291–300. doi: 10.1093/scipol/sc
v008
Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., Meyer, R., Colvin, R. M., Addison,
P. F. E., et al. (2018). Boundary-spanning at the science–policy interface: the
Practitioners’ perspectives. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1175–1183. doi: 10.1007/s11625-
018-0550- 9
Borja, A., Elliott, M., Snelgrove, P. V., Austen, M. C., Berg, T., Cochrane, S., et al.
(2016). Bridging the gap between policy and science in assessing the health
status of marine ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:175. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.
00175
Boswell, J. (2018). Keeping expertise in its place: understanding Arm’s-length
bodies as boundary organizations. Policy Polit. 46, 485–501. doi: 10.1332/
030557317x15052303355719
Bryant, D., Burke, L., McManus, J., and Spalding, M. (1998). Reefs at Risk: a Map-
Based Indicator of Threats to the World’s Coral Reefs. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute, 114.
Burke, L., and Maidens, J. (2004). Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean. Washington, DC:
World Resources Institute.
CANARI (2018). Civil Society Action Programme for the Sustainable Management
of the Shared Living Marine Resources of the Caribbean and North Brazil Shelf
Large Marine Ecosystems (2018-2030). Port-of-Spain: CANARI, 27.
CCAD (2020). Screening Tool for the Implementation of WWF Policies and
Safeguards to the Model Projects of the Integrated Ridge to Reef Management
of the Mesoamerican Reef Ecoregion MAR2R. Antiguo Cuscatlán: Central
American Commission on Environment and Development.
Chakalall, B., Mahon, R., and McConney, P. (1998). Current issues in Fisheries
Governance in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Mar. Pol. 22, 29–44.
doi: 10.1016/s0308-597x(97)80002- 4
Chilvers, J., and Evans, J., (2009). Understanding networks at the science–policy
interface. Geoforum 40, 355–362.
Clegg, P., Mahon, R., McConney, P., and Oxenford, H. A. (eds) (2021). The
Caribbean Blue Economy. Oxford: Routledge.
CLME Project+ (2011). Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem Regional
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. The UNDP/GEF Caribbean Large
Marine Ecosystem and Adjacent Areas (CLME) Project, Cartagena, Colombia.
Cartagena: CLME Project, 138.
CLME+ Project (2013). The Strategic Action Programme for the Sustainable
Management of the Shared Living Marine Resources of the Caribbean and North
Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems (CLME+ SAP). Cartagena, CO: Caribbean
Large Marine Ecosystem Project.
CLME+ Project (2019). Proposals for a Permanent Coordination Mechanism
and a Sustainable Financing Plan for Ocean 2 Governance in the Wider
Caribbean region. London: Centre for Partnerships for Development.
Available online at: http://gefcrew.org/carrcu/18IGM/10SPAWCOP/Ref-Docs/
CAD_CLME+_PCM-en.pdf
CLME+ Project (2020). Proposals for a Permanent Coordination Mechanism and
a Sustainable Financing Plan for Ocean Governance in the Wider Caribbean
Region. Centre of Partnerships for Development (GlobalCAD),Barcelona, Spain.
Barcelona: GlobalCAD, 121.
Cook, C. N., Mascia, M. B., Schwartz, M. W., Possingham, H. P., and
Fuller, R. A. (2014). Achieving conservation science that bridges the
knowledge–action boundary. Conserv. Biol. 27, 669–678. doi: 10.1111/cobi.
12050
Cooke, A. L. (2017). Evaluating Regional Governance Arrangements for Living
Marine Resources in the Wider Caribbean Region. Ph.D thesis. University of the
West Indies, Cave Hill Campus: CERME.
CRFM. (ed.) (2019). CRFM Research Paper Collection, Vol. 9. Belize City:
Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism.
Cvitanovic, C., and Hobday, A. J. (2018). Building optimism at the environmental
science-policy practice interface through bright spots. Nat. Commun. 9:3466.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018- 05977-w
Deane, L., and McConney, P. (2011). Communication between marine science and
policy in the eastern Caribbean. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 63, 406–410.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 15 July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 16
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
Debels, P., Fanning, L., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Walker, L., Bahri, T., et al.
(2017). The CLME+ strategic action programme: an ecosystems approach for
assessing and managing the Caribbean Sea and North Brazil shelf large marine
ecosystems. Environ. Dev. 22, 191–205. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2016.10.004
Degger, N., Hudson, A., Mamaev, V., Hamid, M., and Trumbic, I. (2021).
Navigating the complexity of regional ocean governance through the Large
Marine Ecosystems Approach. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:645668. doi: 10.3389/fmars.
2021.645668
Driscoll, C. T., Fallon Lambert, K., and Weathers, K. C. (2011). Integrating science
and policy: case study of the Hubbard brook research foundation science links
program. BioScience 61, 791–801. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.10.9
Fanning, L., Al-Naimi, M. N., Range, P., Ali, A. S. M., Bouwmeester,J., Al-Jamali, F.,
et al. (2021a). Applying the ecosystem services-EBM framework to sustainably
manage Qatar’s coral reefs and seagrass beds. Ocean Coast. Manag. 205:105566.
doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105566
Fanning, L., and Mahon, R. (2021). Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem+ Strategic
Action Plan Monitoring Report: Baseline 2011-2015. Centre for Resource
Management and Environmental Studies, CERMES Technical Report No. 100.
The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus: CERME, 98.
Fanning, L., Mahon, R., Compton, S., Corbin, C., Debels, P., Haughton, M., et al.
(2021b). Challenges to implementing regional ocean governance in the Wider
Caribbean Region. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:286. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.667273
Fanning, L., Mahon, R., and McConney, P. (2009). Focusing on living marine
resource governance: the Caribbean large marine ecosystem and adjacent
areas project. Coast. Manag. 37, 219–234. doi: 10.1080/0892075090285
1203
Fanning, L., Mahon, R., and McConney, P. (2013). Applying the large marine
ecosystem (LME) governance framework in the Wider Caribbean Region. Mar.
Pol. 42, 99–110. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.02.008
Fanning, L., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Angulo, J., Burrows, F., Chakalall, B.,
et al. (2007). A large marine ecosystem governance framework. Mar. Pol. 31,
434–443. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2007.01.003
Fanning, L., Mahon, R., and McConney, P., eds (2011). Towards Marine Ecosystem-
based Management in the Wider Caribbean. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press, 426.
Fanning, L., Mahon, R., Baldwin, K., and Douglas, S. (2015). Transboundary Waters
Assessment Programme (TWAP) Assessment of Governance Arrangements for the
Ocean: Transboundary Large Marine Ecosystems. IOC Technical Series, 119: 80,
Vol. 1. Paris: IOC-UNESCO.
Fleming, J. (2018). Recognizing and resolving the challenges of being an insider
researcher in work-integrated learning. Int. J. Work Integr. Learn. 19, 311–320.
Geoghegan, T. (2015). Regional Policy Harmonisation as a Bridge Between Global
and National Policy Arenas: the St. George’s Declaration on Principles for
Environmental Sustainability in the Eastern Caribbean. Case Study. Port of
Spain: Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI).
Gluckman, S. P. (2018). The role of evidence and expertise in policy-making:
the politics and practice of science advice. J. Proc. R. Soc. N. S. W. 151(Pt 1),
91–101.
Gluckman, P. D., Bardsley, A., and Kaiser, M. (2021). Brokerage at the science–
policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance. Humanit.
Soc. Sci. Commun. 8:84. doi: 10.1057/s41599-021- 00756-3
Goldsmith, K., Granek, E., Lubitow, A., and Papenfus, M. (2016). Bridge over
troubled waters: a syn-thesis session to connect scientific and decision making
sectors. Mar. Pol. 70, 30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.015
Goodrich, K. A., Sjostrom, K. D., Vaughan, C., Nichols, L., Bednarek, A., and
Lemos, M. C. (2020). Who are boundary-spanners and how can we support
them in making knowledge more actionable in sustainability fields? Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 42, 45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.001
Gorg, C., Wittmer, H., Carter, C., Turnhout, E., Vandewalle, M., Schindler, S., et al.
(2016). Governance options for science–policy interfaces on biodiversity and
ecosystem services: comparing a network versus a platform approach. Biodivers.
Conserv. 25, 1235–1252. doi: 10.1007/s10531-016- 1132-8
Gudmundsson, H. (2003). The policy use of environmental indicators–learning
from evaluation research. J. Transdiscip. Environ. Stud. 2, 1–12.
Gustafsson, K. M., Wolf, S. A., and Agrawal, A. A. (2017). Science-policy-practice
interfaces: emergent knowledge and monarch butterfly conservation. Environ.
Pol. Gov. 27, 521–533. doi: 10.1002/eet.1792
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and
science: an introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 26, 399–408. doi: 10.1177/
016224390102600401
Hartley, T. W. (2016). “When scientific uncertainty is in the eye of the beholder:
using network analysis to understand the building of trust in science,” in Science,
Information, and Policy Interface for Effective Coastal and Ocean Management,
eds B. H. MacDonald, S. S. Soomai, E. M. De Santo, and P. G. Wells (London:
CRC Press), 175–202. doi: 10.1201/b21483-11
Haughton, M. O., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Kong, G. A., and Mills, A. (2004).
Establishment of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism. Mar. Pol. 28,
351–359. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2003.08.002
Huggins, A. E., Keel, S., Kramer, P., Núñez, F., Schill, S., Jeo, R., et al.
(2007). Biodiversity Conservation Assessment of the Insular Caribbean Using
the Caribbean Decision Support System. Technical Report. Arlington, TX: The
Nature Conservancy, 112.
IASS, IDDRI, and TMG (2020). Marine Regions Forum 2019: Achieving a Healthy
Ocean–Regional Ocean Governance Beyond 2020. Conference Report. Marine
Regions Forum 2019, 30 September–2 October 2019. Berlin: Institute for
Advanced Sustainability Studies, 109. doi: 10.2312/iass.2020.001
Jensen-Ryan, D. K., and German, L. A. (2019). Environmental science and policy:
a meta-synthesis of case studies on boundary organizations and spanning
processes. Sci. Public Pol. 46, 13–27. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scy032
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Schoenefeld, J., Van Asselt, H., and Forster, J. (2018).
“Governing climate change polycentrically: setting the scene,” in Governing
Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action?, Vol. 2018, eds A. Jordan, D. Huitema,
H. Van Asselt, and J. Forster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 3–25.
Kennedy, E. B. (2018). Supporting Scientific Advice through a boundary
organization. Glob. Challeng. 2:1800018. doi: 10.1002/gch2.201800018
Kushner, B., Waite, R., Jungwiwattanaporn, M., and Burke, L. (2012). Influence of
Coastal Economic Valuations in the Caribbean: Enabling Conditions and Lessons
Learned. Washing, DC: World Resources Institute.
Levina, N., and Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence
in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems.
MIS Q. 29:2.
MacDonald, B. H., Soomai, S. S., De Santo, E. M., and Wells, P. G. (2016).
“Understanding the science–policy interface in integrated coastal and ocean
management,” in Science, Information, and Policy Interface for Effective Coastal
and Ocean Management, eds B. H. MacDonald, S. S. Soomai, E. M. De Santo,
and P. G. Wells (London: CRC Press), 20–43.
Mahon, R. (2020). Exploring scale in ocean and coastal governance in the Wider
Caribbean. Gulf Caribb. Res. 31, xxix–xlviii. doi: 10.18785/gcr.3101.06
Mahon, R., and Fanning, L. (2019a). Regional ocean governance: integrating and
coordinating mechanisms for polycentric systems. Mar. Pol. 107:103589. doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103589
Mahon, R., and Fanning, L. (2019b). Regional ocean governance: polycentric
arrangements and their role in global ocean governance. Mar. Pol. 107:103590.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103590
Mahon, R., Fanning, L., Gjerde, K. M., Young, O., Reid, M., and Douglas, S.
(2015). Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP) Assessment of
Governance Arrangements for the Ocean: Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.
IOC Technical Series, 119: 91, Vol. 2. Paris: UNESCO-IOC.
Mahon, R., Fanning, L., and McConney, P. (2011). CLME TDA Update for Fisheries
Ecosystems: Governance Issues. Cartagena, CO: The Caribbean Large Marine
Ecosystem and Adjacent Areas (CLME) Project, 113.
Mahon, R., Fanning, L., and McConney, P. (2014). Assessing and facilitating
emerging regional ocean governance arrangements in the Wider Caribbean
Region. Ocean Yearb. 28, 631–671. doi: 10.1163/22116001-02801022
Mahon, R., Fanning, L., McConney, P., and Pollnac, R. (2010). Governance
characteristics of large marine ecosystems. Mar. Pol. 34, 919–927. doi: 10.1016/
j.marpol.2010.01.016
McConney, P., Fanning, L., Mahon, R., and Simmons, B. (2016a). A first look at the
science-policy interface for ocean governance in the Wider Caribbean Region.
Front. Mar. Sci. 2:119. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00119
McConney, P., Monnereau, I., Simmons, B., and Mahon, R. (2016b). Report on the
Survey of National Intersectoral Coordination Mechanisms. Centre for Resource
Management and Environmental Studies, CERMES TechnicalRepor t No. 84. The
University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus: CERMES, 75.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 16 July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
fmars-08-685122 June 25, 2021 Time: 19:20 # 17
Mahon and Fanning Science-Policy Arenas Wider Caribbean
McConney, P., and Oxenford, H. A. (2020). Caribbean sargassum phenomenon:
complexities of communicating. J. Caribb. Environ. Sci. Renew. Energy 3, 10–14.
doi: 10.33277/cesare/003.002/02
McConney, P., and Phillips, T. (2011). “Collaborative planning to create a network
of fisherfolk organisations in the Caribbean,” in Collaborative Resilience: Moving
Through Crisis to Opportunity, ed. B. Goldstein (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press),
207–229.
McConney, P., Phillips, T., Nembhard, N., and Lay, M. (2017). “Caribbean
fisherfolk engage the small-scale fisheries guidelines,” in The Small-Scale
Fisheries Guidelines, ed. S. Jentoft (Amsterdam: AUP), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-
55074-9_21
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P.,
et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research.
Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
OECS Commission (2016). OECS Code of Conduct for Responsible Marine Research.
Castries: OECS Commission.
Ostrom, E. (2010). A long polycentric journey. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 13, 1–23. doi:
10.1146/annurev.polisci.090808.123259
Oxenford, H. A., and McConney, P. (2021). “Fisheries as a key component of
blue economies in the Wider Caribbean,” in The Caribbean Blue Economy, eds
P. Clegg, R. Mahon, H. Oxenford, and P. McConney (London: Routledge),
118–130. doi: 10.4324/9780429342233-10
Posner, S. M., and Cvitanovic, C. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of boundary-
spanning activities at the interface of environmental science and policy: a
review of progress and future research needs. Environ. Sci. Pol. 92, 141–151.
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.006
Posner, S. M., Fenichel, E. P., McCauley, D. J., Biedenweg, K., Brumbaugh,
R. D., Costello, C., et al. (2020). Boundary spanning among research and
policy communities to address the emerging industrial revolution in the ocean.
Environ. Sci. Pol. 104, 73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.004
Renard, Y. (2020). Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project (CROP) Midterm
Evaluation Report. The Morne: Organization of Eastern Caribbean States
(OECS) Commission.
Rice, J. (2005). Implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries
management—-asynchronous co-evolution at the interface between science
and policy. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 300, 265–270. doi: 10.3354/meps300265
Rice, J. (2016). “Science information and global ocean governance,” in Science,
Information, and Policy Interface for Effective Coastal and Ocean Management,
eds B. H. MacDonald, S. S. Soomai, E. M. De Santo, and P. G. Wells (London:
CRC Press), 75–101. doi: 10.1201/b21483-7
Rice, J., Jennings, S. J., and Charles, A. T. (2014). “Scientific foundation: towards
integration,” in Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation,
eds S. M. Garcia, J. C. Rice, and A. T. Charles (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell),
124–136. doi: 10.1002/9781118392607.ch9
Sarkki, S., Balian, E., Heink, U., Keune, H., Nesshöver, C., Niemelä, J., et al.
(2020). Managing science-policy interfaces for impact: interactions within the
environmental governance meshwork. Environ. Sci. Pol. 113, 21–30. doi: 10.
1016/j.envsci.2019.05.011
Schumacher, J., Bergqvist, L., van Beest, F. M., Carstensen, J., Gustafsson, B., Hasler,
B., et al. (2020). Bridging the science-policy gap–toward better integration of
decision support tools in coastal and marine policy implementation. Front. Mar.
Sci. 7:587500. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.587500
Singh, G. G., Tam, J., Sisk, T. D., Klain, S. C., Mach, M. E., Martone,
R. G., et al. (2014). A more social science: barriers and incentives for
scientists engaging in policy. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12:161–166. doi: 10.1890/13
0011
Smith, H., Suldovsky, B., and Lindenfeld, L. (2018). Science and policy: scientific
expertise and individual participation in boundary management. J. Appl.
Commun. Res. 44, 78–95. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2015.1116707
Söderbaum, F., and Granit, J. (2014). The Political Economy of Regionalism: The
Relevance for International Waters and the Global Environment Facility. STAP
Issues Paper. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility.
Stefanoudis, P. V., Licuanan, W. Y., Morrison, T. H., Veitayaki, J., and Woodal,
L. C. (2021). Turning the tide of parachute science. Curr. Biol. 31, R161–R185.
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.029
Teusner, A. (2016). Insider research, validity issues, and the OHS professional: one
Person’s journey. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 19, 85–96. doi: 10.1080/13645579.
2015.1019263
Toro, C. (2017). IOCARIBE 35th Anniversary International
Marine Sciences Conference, 24–25 April 2017. Cartagena, CO.
https://oceanexpert.org/event/1935#documents (Accessed April 2017, 25).
Tushman, M. L., and Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individual: their role
in information transfer and their antecedents. Acad. Manage. J. 24, 289–303.
doi: 10.5465/255842
UNEP (2012). 21 Issues for the 21st Century: Result of the UNEP Foresight Process
on Emerging Environmental Issues. Nairobi: United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP).
UNEP (2017). Strengthening the Science-Policy Interface: a Gap Analysis. Nairobi:
United Nations Environment Programme.
United Nations (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. New
York, NY: United Nations.
van den Hove, S. (2007). A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39,
807–826. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.004
Watson-Wright, W. M. (2005). Policy and science: different roles in the pursuit of
solutions to common problems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 300, 291–296.
Weichselgartner, J., and Marandino, C. A. (2012). Priority knowledge for marine
environments: challenges at the science–society nexus. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 2012, 323–330. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.05.001
Wolters, E. A., Steel, B. S., Lach, D., and Kloepfer, D. (2016). What is the best
available science? a comparison of marine scientists, managers, and interest
groups in the United States. Ocean Coast. Manage. 122, 95–102. doi: 10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2016.01.011
Wright, G., Schmidt, S., Rochette, J., Shackeroff, J., Unger, S., Waweru,
Y., et al. (2017). Partnering for a Sustainable Ocean: the Role of
Regional Ocean Governance in Implementing SDG14, PROG. IDDRI.
https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and- events/report/partnering-
sustainable-ocean- role-regional-ocean-governance (accessed June 7, 2021).
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2021 Mahon and Fanning. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 17 July 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 685122
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
