PISCES stakeholder FEEDBACK evaluation v3

Stakeholder Perspective: What Has PISCES
Achieved?
Stakeholder Evaluation
Dr. K. E. Lawrence, WWF-UK
WWF-UK
In colloboration with:
Dr. Lyndsey Dodds, WWF-UK
Toby Roxburgh, WWF-UK
Dr. Dara Siciliano SeaWeb
Cathal O’Mahony, CMRC
Sarah Twomey, CMRC
Jose Luis Varas Garcia, WWF-Spain
Carlota Viada, WWF-Spain

March 2013
Subject to final review
March 2013
ii

Contents
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE: WHAT HAS PISCES ACHIEVED?...................................................................I
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................1
Stakeholder Evaluation of the Project.........................................................................................................................1
METHODS USED IN THE STAKEHOLDER EVALUATION.....................................................................................................2
Semi-Structured Interviewed – Stratified targeted Sampling – counterfactuals & Value for Money.........................2
Online Anonymous Questionnaire – Stratified random sampling compared with a general control and baseline
status............................................................................................................................................................................3
Limitations to the method............................................................................................................................................3
SECTION 1: DEMONSTRATING PROJECT OUTCOMES.........................................................................................................4
SECTION 2: DEMONSTRATING LEARNING FROM INVOLVEMENT IN PISCES..................................................................20
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................................................24
Impact of the project processes on the quality of results..........................................................................................25
Outcomes of PISCES achieved (or not) relating to Objective 1: Increased knowledge, Understanding and
Cooperation of Marine Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................26
Outcomes of PISCES achieved (or not) relating to Objective 2: Improved Policy and Governance.......................29
Outcomes of PISCES achieved (or not) relating to Objective 3: Effective communication that promotes project
results........................................................................................................................................................................34
Outcomes of PISCES achieved (or not) relating to Objective 4: Effective project management promotes
sustainability through stakeholder ownership of the results.....................................................................................36
ANNEX 1: .......................................................................................................................................................................41
Stakeholders Interviewed...........................................................................................................................................41
Briefing sheet provided to interviewers.....................................................................................................................44

Introduction
PISCES focused on the implementation of the ecosystem approach in the Celtic Sea through European
marine policy. The project applied a demonstration approach, and the findings of this ‘pilot project’ in the
Celtic Sea will have future EU added value for other sub-regions and regional seas in EU maritime waters.
PISCES aimed to improve policy and governance through developing guidance for effective engagement
and delivery of the ecosystem approach, developed by key marine stakeholders and in close collaboration
with governments in the Celtic Sea. In order to meet this broader purpose, there were four main objectives
areas delivered from July 2009 to December 2012:
PISCES Project Objectives:
(i) Policy and governance: Objective 1: By 2012, relevant marine stakeholders in the Celtic Sea have a
significantly greater shared understanding of the ecosystem approach of integrated marine management.
(ii) Increased knowledge, understanding and interaction: Objective 2: By 2012, cooperation and
coordination between all relevant representative marine stakeholder groups has led to the development
(and Celtic Member State recognition) of agreed mechanisms for implementing the ecosystem approach in
the context of EU Marine Strategy and Directive.
(iii) Effective communication: Objective 3: By 2012, the outcomes of the project are effectively disseminated
to the wider marine community in the Celtic Sea and upscaled to other marine sub-regions within EU
maritime waters.
(iv) Effective project management: Objective 4: By 2012, the project is technically and financially managed
and monitored coherently within the timeframe of the project, and stakeholders have committed to a
shared strategy to ensure the project’s future sustainability
This three-year multi-stakeholder project (2009 to 2012) provided expert facilitation to guide a target group
of 30 marine stakeholders to develop creative methodologies; test solutions to stakeholder engagement;
explore their understanding of the ecosystem approach, and agree with wider stakeholders groups on what
this means in the Celtic Sea. The key results from PISCES were an increase in understanding of the
ecosystem approach among Celtic Sea stakeholders, a set of guidelines for implementing the ecosystem
approach through the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the identification of processes and
techniques for multi-sector, regional engagement. The results contribute to the knowledge base for the
development, assessment, monitoring and evaluation of EU environmental policy and legislation and
should improve stakeholder participation and understanding of, and compliance with, the ecosystem
approach. However how much of this is attributable to the involvement of stakeholders in PISCES actions?
Stakeholder Evaluation of the Project
The challenge to any multi-stakeholder process is to demonstrate the changes and achievements caused by
the project, rather than down to external aspects; the attributable change. Similarly donors are asking to
understand the contribution of the project to achieving outcomes as well as value for money.
The key source of data is the stakeholders themselves. The engagement design ensured that after each
workshop there was a feedback form where participants were invited to share their opinions. Therefore
enabling the project to track small changes and respond quickly. However it was felt that a slightly
different methodology was required to examine whether the project had achieved what it had expected to
do and claimed to do so through various verifiable means. Rather than demonstrate the actions, the team
1

wanted to demonstrate the outcomes of the project and the potential impacts. This meant that the
outcomes associated with the four project objectives were to be the focus of the evaluation as well as
some of the actions that led to or contributed to these key outcomes. The four outcomes were identified
as the following:
1. Improved policy and governance
2. Increased knowledge, understanding and interaction
3. Effective communication that promotes project results
4. Effective project management that promotes sustainability through stakeholder ownership
Methods Used in the Stakeholder Evaluation
It was recognised that although the project was designed to demonstrate the achievements at activity level
by using quantitative data and information as means of verification, it was both good practice and in
keeping with the stakeholder led process to seek the opinion of the stakeholders as to what was achieved.
Two key methods were chosen. Semi-structured interviews were chosen to explore with the various
stakeholders what they felt had been the various achievements and a questionnaire was designed to
demonstrate if there had been a shift in learning (understanding and confidence to apply knowledge) of
stakeholders that could be attributed to the project. The two techniques were carefully designed to
address key outcome areas (using the project logframe as guidance) so that questions were worded as
simply as possible, were open ended and would allow analysis to demonstrate the outcome associated with
each achieving one of the four objectives. To increase the rigour of the qualitative data collection
techniques, and our confidence in the results several elements were designed into both methods.
Semi-Structured Interviewed – Stratified targeted Sampling – counterfactuals &
Value for Money
The questions and questionnaires were tailor made, or adapted slightly to make more sense and often
ordered differently to ensure the flow was logical for each of the partners to ask over the phone. Each
partner was assigned at least 4-5 stakeholders that they were asked to ring to arrange an interview with
their stakeholders.
There were about 30 questions chosen to test by asking stakeholders and see whether we have achieved
what we said we would in the project proposal. The wording of the questions was kept as simple as
possible to enable teams to translate them on the spot if needed. The order was carefully considered and
they were designed to be open ended and not lead the stakeholder to say what we wanted to here but to
give us honest replies. A stakeholder briefing document was provided to prepare those facilitating the
interviews. The questions and answers have been collated in the following tables linked to the question
they were aiming to demonstrate. It should be noted that the actual total of stakeholder replies for a
question depended upon whether they were asked that question, and whether a reply was given. The
number in square bracket indicates the total number of stakeholders that replied to that question.
To obtain a sense from stakeholders whether they felt there were unique elements attributable to their
involvement in PISCES, they were asked the counterfactual; to say what they felt would have happened
without the project and without WWF or partners. Benefits were defined indirectly by asking about gains of
individuals or organisations, usefulness of information and ways of working that were different. Similarly a
common proxy for value for money was used; time involved /participated in the project and whether it was
2

worth it to the stakeholder. These were asked in a section called impact and were essentially there to
obtain the potential impact of the project, without leading or using the term (thus reducing bias).
Online Anonymous Questionnaire – Stratified random sampling compared with a
general control and baseline status
The questionnaires were delivered online using survey monkey and a link sent was sent to a variety of
stakeholders from the four groups. The stakeholders themselves were the ones that chose whether or not
to participate in the survey. These were anonymous to encourage as much honesty as possible in the
answers. Different types of stakeholders were directed to a specially designed questionnaire, for
core/moderating stakeholders, government and a general control group, wider marine stakeholders.
However whether the “right” stakeholder picked up on their tailor made questionnaire was not checked.
Some stakeholders did fill out the section that identified their sector and stakeholder type and this allowed
a level of verification as to the right stakeholders picking up “their” questionnaire.
Stakeholder evaluation questionnaires were designed to capture the shift in learning attributable to their
participation in PISCES project. Two learning results were tested, increase in understanding of certain
subjects and an increase in confidence to either apply or explain to others subjects being learnt. This
follows the Kirk Patrick learning model, with the main design difference being that the before and after the
project options for each of the areas where improvement was expected, were separated (this separation
was down to layout design). There was a separate design for core and moderating stakeholders that
reflected their greater involvement in the project, a design for government stakeholders that did not ask all
the questions of the first form, but only those felt relevant for their limited project involvement. Also a
questionnaire was designed for wider stakeholders that tried to capture the background levels of
understanding and confidence of well-informed marine stakeholders that were not directly involved in the
project.
The results of the two studies are discussed separately, where section 1 examines the feedback from the 30
semi structured interviews and section 2 analyses the results from the 37 questionnaires.
The conclusion section brings the evidence from both results together and seeks to assess the extent that
the outcomes were achieved. It then presents some of the challenges and resulting lessons as well as
making suggestions in terms of what elements can be taken forward. It also makes recommendations as to
the indicators that could be used in a future impact assessment to determine the longer term changes
brought about by PISCES.
Limitations to the method
The stakeholder evaluation was not a planned activity and as such it was not sufficiently discussed with
partners beforehand, in terms of the purpose of each question, and the overall analysis of results. The
timing was not ideal. It was originally scheduled for September after the launch events for the Guide
however stakeholders proved more difficult to contact than anticipated and the interviews were finished at
the end of November. The questionnaires were left till later and links were sent to stakeholders before
Christmas and then in early January. There was no time to discuss the interviews with the interview teams
nor to listen to their feedback on how the process went. All partners were asked to feedback on the results
and analysis but this is not the best method to solicit insights on the process. There were issues with the
3

online survey design as normally the before and after choices are side by side, however this layout proved
too squashed in the survey monkey format and therefore the before questions were separated from the
after questions. Feedback from one of the stakeholders made it clear that “forcing” people to make choices
on the questionnaire, as the survey monkey format can lead a designer to do, was not always appreciated,
although becoming a more common aspect of online questionnaires. The questionnaires were not tested
before being launched and therefore were only adjusted when it was too late. Having said that the
methods used were innovative and although there were limitations, a reasonable sized samples of
stakeholders provided data. The following sections will discuss the results from apply these two methods
separately and then bring them together to consider their combined weight of evidence to assess the
achievement of the project outcomes. Finally lessons from applying this innovative method are presented.
Section 1: Demonstrating Project Outcomes
PISCES FEEDBACK synthesis, 30 stakeholders replied:
CORE STAKEHOLDERS (13 interviews), MODERATING STAKEHOLDERS: Synthesis of 8 moderating
stakeholder replies, GOVERNMENT STAKEHOLDERS Synthesis of answers from 5 stakeholder interviews,
and WIDER STAKEHOLDERS synthesis of 4 interviews.
Semi-structured interview results. The colour coding on the text in the results table is to clearly
differentiate the various types of stakeholder voices, where
Black, Bold, Italtic = Core stakeholder
Black text = moderating stakeholder
Russet/Purple text = Government stakeholder
Lilac text = Wider stakeholder
The number in [square brackets] is the number of stakeholders that replied to the question.
4

Objective 1: Actions 1 to 4: By 2012 Relevant Marine stakeholders in the Celtic sea have a significantly greater shared understanding of the ecosystem approach of
integrated marine management
Questions from the Interview [Nº of
answers]
What it will help us
show to the EU
Stakeholders Replies [Nº of answers]
Is there anyone that you are working
with now as a result of the PISCES
project that you would not have
worked with before? [20]
Objective 1
Outcomes:
stakeholders have
increased
understanding of EA
by at least 75%
Increased
interaction between
stakeholders
7 core stakeholders felt they were working with new contacts, in addition 2 felt they had better relationships
with existing contacts through PISCES, only 4 felt there was no difference.[13]
Of the 7 Mod. stakeholder that replied, 3 stated that it had and of those that found no new contacts, at least 2
felt they were given new reasons to re-engage with existing contacts.
To what extent is it easier to work
with other sectors now as a result of
PISCES and Why? [17]
6 core stakeholders identified it was easier due to the better relationships made, where trust and knowing
people better were key factors. Two felt they were more open to participation and engagement. Another felt
the guide helped enable sectors to work together, and only 3 felt that is was not really easier.[13]
Of the 4 Mod. stakeholders that answered they all felt it would potentially be easier due to the increased
understanding of other sectors given by the guide.
What difference, if any, do you think
implementing an ecosystem
approach will make to the
management of the Celtic sea and
why?[20]
9 of the core stakeholders stated that implementing the ecosystem approach would make a difference, 3
stated it helped identify management needs, although 2 stakeholders were also concerned in terms of a need
for government buy-in through legislation or consistent planning. 3 did not answer and 1 was not sure.[11]
Of the 5 Mod. stakeholders that answered all felt it would make a difference although this was often caveated by
the need to implement it correctly, to be practical and with the acknowledgement that this would not be easy. It
was felt the integrated approach was the most significant reason by at least two stakeholders, where others
pointed out the knowledge of other sector activities, regional scale management and sea users implementing
practical steps/actions as being key.
3 Gov. stakeholders replied, 3 confirmed that they felt it probably would make a difference but gave caveats with
the following points; it needed to be implemented globally and required political will, trans-national engagement
needed to happen and regional forums needed statutory underpinning to be effective. 1 stakeholder felt it was
the implementation of the MSFD that would enable environmental sustainability lessons to be drawn from the
Celtic sea. [4]
“It has been easier to work with people on an individual basis rather than a sectoral basis due to the trust built up during time on the project. It is easier to pick up the phone to
people to discuss things.” Core Stakeholder Wales
“If implemented, it should overcome issues associated with fragmented governance and the sectoral approach” Moderating stakeholder Ireland
“In traditional institutional arrangements, environmental management activities, and fisheries management are separate, in some cases with weak and in others, with no or weak
or non-existent integration. The implementation of integrated policies favour the reversal of this trend” Commercial Fisheries, Spain
“The EA should have to be implemented at global level, as it makes a difference for sure, but it will be only achieved if there is political will from the competent governments.”
Government Stakeholder Spain
Indicator Result 1.1.1: By the end of the project 25 identified marine stakeholders have formally committed to engage in the network and promote the project results
through outreach activities
5

Indicator Result 3.2: 20-25 target marine stakeholders indicate a willingness to be involved in the development of practical guidelines
Questions from the Interview
[Nº of answers]
What it will help
us show to the EU
How many people have you told
about the guide or the PISCES
project? [21]
Results 1.1.1 & 3.2
Shared Outcome:
marine
stakeholders have
formally
committed to
engage in the
network and
promote the
project results
through outreach
activities
3 core stakeholders have shared PISCES information with between 100 and 500 people in their sectors, another 6 have
shared information with between 20 and 100 stakeholders, with only 3 core stakeholders sharing information with 10 or
less representatives in their sectors.[13]
7 Mod. stakeholders have started sharing the guide, significantly all CEPESCA members as well as the Pelagic RAC, 120 MSC
members, and approximately 50 fishery stakeholders, and 20 North sea stakeholders, as well as 85 students. 3 stakeholders
have disseminated to less than 10 others. [8]
In what ways, if any, has PISCES
made it easier for you to promote
the ecosystem approach in your
sector? [17]
The guide was identified by 3 core stakeholders as making things easier, 3 others identified that PISCES had made it easier
to articulate needs and the EA as a viable solution, 2 stated that it was the ways of working that made it easier, whilst
one stated it had removed barriers to engaging with the ecosystem approach, another considered it had provided a clear
policy context. 4 did not answer.[10]
Of the 5 Mod. stakeholders that answered 3 found the project documents, the guide helpful to promote.
1 Wider stakeholder felt it was good for PISCES to focus on MSFD, and the other was not sure. [2]
To what extent, if any, do you
think the guide will support
sustainable management of the
Celtic seas and why? [13]
5 core stakeholders identified the guide contents as a support where they are implemented, 2 focused on the way
stakeholders are brought together in a process, although one stakeholder pointed out that the Guide itself was not
enough. The remaining 6 did not provide answers.[9]
5 Mod. stakeholders did not answer. 2 stakeholders did agree because of the recommendations made that were considered
targeted and doable. With one feeling it supported the balance between the use of a resource rather than different types of
uses. One stakeholder felt it was the process of developing the guide that would have the most impact as it had increased
capacity of those involved. [3]
Only 1 Wider stakeholder replied. The felt it needed to be seen by the right people [1]
“The Guide allows me to explain the ecosystem approach in my sector and demonstrate that it is a transnational approach.” Core stakeholder French
“PISCES removed the "fear factor" around the ecosystem approach - helped to establish the link between ecosystem approach and sustainable development, and that the EA is not anti-
development.” Core stakeholder Ireland
“I think the recommendations have an impact in terms of supporting sustainable management because they are achievable, real, and target focused.” Moderating stakeholder ireland
“The important thing is to make sure that the guide is seen by the right people. For example, I think the right people were involved. First came across it when PISCES was talking about
marine spatial planning rather than the MSFD. Quite a few industries were a part of it so that was a good sign. PISCES did involve more than just the environment sector. “ Wider
Stakeholder eNGO UK
Expected Result 3.1.: 20-25 target marine stakeholders have a significantly increased collaborative understanding of the ecosystem approach, and its relevance to the
Celtic Sea region, from baseline information
Expected Result 7.1: By end of May 2010, target marine stakeholders are aware of the benefits of applying the ecosystem based approach in the Celtic Sea region
through participatory stakeholder engagement processes
6

Questions from the
Interview [Nº of answers]
show to the EU
What if any are the benefits
of applying an ecosystem
approach to your work? [17]
Result 3.1 & 7.1:
Target marine
stakeholders are aware
of the benefits of
applying the
ecosystem based
approach in the Celtic
Sea region through
participatory
stakeholder
engagement processes
5 core stakeholders considered it a new approach that either was to be managed from bottom up, emphasized mutual
respect and linked to sustainability. 2 stakeholders considered it would either make no difference to their work or the
Guide would not have any significant impact. 3 considered they were already doing it and 3 did not respond.[10]
Only 3 Mod. stakeholders answered, where one felt it would lead to greater precaution in fisheries management, another
felt it would enable stakeholders to seek synergies with other initiatives in the same marine region and that a broad
definition needed to include stakeholders. [3]
Of the 4 Gov. stakeholders that answered they ranged from already doing it, to under obligation to implement, and then 2
linked the benefits to the ecosystem functionality and sustainability of the environment, which one further elaborated were
necessary to bring economic and employment benefits [4]
What do you think could be
the benefits of applying an
ecosystem approach to your
work and why? [2]
2 Wider stakeholders replied, 1 felt it would result in a sense balance, trade off between sea uses, another felt they were
already using it in their work, and felt it was building ownership in key areas including economic ones.
Who else should also apply
this approach in your opinion
and why? [15]
4 core stakeholders considered that it should be implemented by everyone as a universal approach, 2 considered sea users
were the only ones that need apply it, another identified farmers causing marine pollution as a sector that should also
apply this. Government were identified by two stakeholders as key to this approach and 4 did not respond. [10]
3 Gov. stakeholders felt that all stakeholders should apply this approach, 1 specifically identified industrial fisheries,
recreation, and government, but the emphasis was on broader application. [3]
2 Wider stakeholders replied; 1 stated that all management bodies should apply this approach. Another stated that the EU
Government needed to set objectives and targets first, other stakeholders could then support delivery, and even taking their
own initiative in some cases. [2]
“Provides a neutral context for discussion of the problems encountered, and allow stakeholders to express themselves without lobbying”. Core stakeholder france
“It is not so much about applying it to your work, but more about the benefits of a much clearer understanding of the approach and the process of MSFD. The MSFD is going to happen
no matter what and the ecosystem approach is driving the MSFD implementation so it is vital that everyone involved understands the ecosystem approach.” Core stakeholder wales
“shouldn't pick and choose – it applies to everyone. PISCES is part of the process of getting EA in the main discourse, top of the agenda not just in politics so that everyone knows what it
means. PISCES is targeting most relevant stakeholders but should consider general public – it relates to everyone” Government Stakeholder EU
“Implementing the ecosystem approach requires a significant amount of scientific, economic and social development knowledge. In general there are gaps in our knowledge about the
intensity, duration and reversibility of the effects of various activities on the ecosystems, as well as ecosystem dynamics and trends and projections. Considering the knowledge gained
to date, it can lead us to the implement an exaggerated precaution in fisheries management.” Commercial fisheries Spain
“EU government needs to set objectives/regulatory framework (including targets). This underpins everything. National governments are responsible for delivery, coordinated via
regional seas mechanisms. Other stakeholders need to support delivery, since involvement is a pre-requisite for good buy in. The ecosystem approach will always result in
winners//losers; losers need (need / want) to be involved to minimise the risk of disenfranchising them and them derailing the process. Stakeholders can also take a lot of the initiative -
eg as the fishing sector is through long-term management plans / devolved responsibility to the fishery regional advisory councils.” Wider stakeholder UK
7

Objective 2: Actions 5 to 8: By 2012, cooperation and coordination between all relevant representative marine stakeholder groups has led to the
development (and Celtic Member State recognition) of agreed mechanisms for implementing the ecosystem approach in the context of EU Marine
Strategy and Directive.
[Nº of answers]
show to the EU
How would you describe your
involvement in developing the
PSICES guide? [5]
Objective 2
Outcomes:
Collaborative
development of
guide
Elements of guide
and/or engagement
process being
repeated
Only 1 Gov. stakeholder felt they had contributed to the guide, although another stakeholder pointed out that their
colleague had.
Has your
involvement/participation
changed over the lifespan of
the PISCES project – if so why?
[23]
Evenly split, with equal numbers similarly involved throughout or more at beginning and end (5,5). 3 were more involved
at the beginning. Limited by: 1. economic downturn (1 core stakeholder), 2. work commitments (2core stakeholders) [13]
5 Mod. stakeholders noted a change in their involvement, but only one of those felt that it had changed radically and
reduced. For 2 their involvement stayed the same and two other noted an increase at the end. [7]
3 Gov. stakeholders that answered felt their involvement had increased over the later stages of the project. 1 stakeholder
admitted to initially seeing the project as a burden, but not now. [3]
What if anything did the
project staff do to ensure you
remained involved throughout
the project activities? [16]
4 Core Stakeholders felt good engagement through a variety of methods, Workshops, tasks, time taken; 4 felt kept
informed/update (email & phone), and 2 suggested improvements, whilst 2 did not know and 1 complained that their
proposals were not used [13]
Of the 3 replies, 2 mentioned emails and calls as we as receiving invites to attend workshops and meetings. 1 Gov.
stakeholder felt it was the discussions at meetings that kept him involved [3]
Was there anything the project
staff could have done
differently to improve your
involvement throughout the
project activities? [7]
Of the 7 Mod. stakeholders that replied 6 felt that project staff could not have improved any thing, only one stakeholder felt
that it should have been more involved, a partner rather than a participant.[7]
In what way would you have
liked to have been involved in
the PISCES project and why (or
why not)? [3]
What would have helped you
to be more involved in the
project and why?
3 Wider stakeholders would like to have been involved earlier, although 1 pointed out there was not the time given other
commitments, 1 stakeholder wanted there to have been more national focus to activities to overcome language issues and
would liked to have been a partner and another felt they could have been contacted earlier
Additionally one of the stakeholders wanted to be involved in the next phase, CSP, and another hoped it would contribute
more to marine planning of the Celtic sea.
2 Wider stakeholders stated that earlier contact would have helped, another felt his own availability was more the issue [3]
Do you feel there were any key
stakeholders/sectors missing
or less involved in project
activities than you would have
liked? [18]
10 core stakeholders felt there was either under representation or sectors missing, although 3 acknowledged the efforts
made to get sectors involved (those missing/or lacked representation were; ports, off shore energy (2), commercial
fisheries (4), Marine aggregates, shipping (3), ferries, state services(1) [13]
6 suggestions were mentioned by 3 Gov. stakeholder replies. Representation from Brittany, IFREMER, Commercial fishing,
eNGOs and MoD (Navy in particular) were identified as either less involved or missing. [5]
8

What else if anything could
have been done differently by
the project to improve the
participation of
stakeholders/sectors? [21]
8 core stakeholders made suggestions to improve participation of some sectors ranging from lobbying, to using address
books, media and practical egs. 4 either said no more could have been done or did not know what could have been done,
3 said that efforts had been good.[13]
Again of the 4 mod. Stakeholders that answered, 3 felt nothing different could have been done by the project, 2 explained
that their level of involvement was determined by the economic downturn and consequent budget limitations. [4]
4 Gov. stakeholders were either unsure or did not answer this question. 1 stakeholder suggested more lobbying of the
Spanish fisheries authorities may have helped, another commented that the engagement process was impressive and hence
had no suggestions. [4]
What aspects of the guide, if
any, are useful to your work
and your sector as a whole?
[12]
5 felt the participation and engagement in developing the guide was more important, 3 identified particular sections or
parts, 2 felt is was good for briefing others, 1 thought it was helpful for adaptive management. 1 felt the guide was not
useful [12]
“I am now more aware of stakeholder needs and I would look at stakeholder participation differently than before – I would now be more inclined to engage with other sectors and to
put ourselves forward in stakeholder consultation / participation processes.” (Core stakeholder, Ireland)
“I wasn't present very much at first (because at first I was a little sceptical, but now I'm convinced that the project works well” Core Stakeholder France.
“we wished to participate in the project as partners both in developing and in implementing, and not as mere participants. Definitely, this would have been an interesting incentive for
the industry to participate given the importance of getting the necessary knowledge about this new approach. Moreover, given the difficult economic situation that this sector is
suffering, its incorporation as partners would have been rewarded.” Commercial Fishing Sector, Spain
“The fishing industry attended the workshop in May and the technical seminar in September and I think that is important. The Ministry of Defence was missing, they make a significant
use of the sea, with the navy and its military fleet. I know that they have collaborated on issues related to noise in the sea and providing data on whale watching. It is an important
sector to engage.” Government Stakeholder Spain
“the engagement process seems to have been very impressive, especially where it engaged government early on, as well as the core stakeholders - this is vital” Government Stakeholder
UK
IMPACT: Perceived Stakeholder participation Quality, and organisational benefits from participation.
[Nº of answers]
show to the EU
On a scale of 1 to 10, how
would you rate the quality of
the stakeholder participation
in the process to develop the
Guide and what difference has
it made? [17]
Impact related:
Participation quality
Gains
7 core stakeholders rated the quality as scoring either 8 (5) or 9 out of 10, two gave a rank of 7, another said it was
good and only 1 gave a rank of 4, 3 gave no response. [13]
Only 2 Gov. stakeholders estimated a value, one gave 7 and the other gave 8. However 4 stakeholders commented on the
quality of the Guide and that this was because it came from the stakeholders themselves. Although 1 stakeholder felt that
there was still the challenge of stakeholders working together on areas where they disagreed. [4]
What have you or your
organisation/ sector gained by
Networking/contacts, education/knowledge gained were areas identified by 5 core stakeholders in each case, 2
stakeholders identified the relationships/links/dialogue, whilst 3 mentioned the working together and 1 specifically
9

your participation in PISCES?
[23]
identified working with a young and dynamic team. [13]
6 areas were identified by 6 Mod. stakeholders, but not all to the same frequency. Improvement of knowledge area was
mentioned 5 times, in terms of participatory techniques, EA application, marine spatial planning and about the economic
situation of other sectors. 2 stakeholders also felt there had been an improved cooperation and communication between
sectors, and 2 felt their profile was raised by participating and contributing to the process. [7]
3 Gov. stakeholders either did not answer or were not sure, 2 stakeholders felt the gain was in understanding the different
stakeholder perspective, another felt the EA description used was clear and concise, another possibly thought it could
help with respect of marine planning in the south of England. [3]
What do you think you or your
organisation might have
gained by your participation in
a stakeholder led project like
PISCES? [4]
3 Wider stakeholders gave suggestions here, 1 felt they had better access to discussions on key issues-action, another felt
that their thinking had been clarified, it was good to have MSFD example with principals and examples and finally another
hoped for more integration and sharing reports/findings with other MSFD related projects. [4]
Difference SH participation made: “From my perspective - high participation from stakeholders at the Pisces Guide launch event, many giving their time. Shows that people went out of
their way” Government Stakeholder EU
“The quality of participation was good. Different groups were represented and people were able to work together and resolve differences. The Guide is something that we from
different groups could all sign up to and buy into. And it carries more weight to the wider group of stakeholders because of that and because it is not driven by a single agenda.” Core
stakeholder UK
Organisation gain: “To see the problems and the implementation of a given policy from a different point of view, different from a governmental dpt” Government Stakeholder Spain
“I can't comment on how adequately the project has addressed marine industry aspects as I have only flicked through the Guide, but it's important that industry is properly reflected in
marine management otherwise there's no point doing it. If the document and key messages give that and resolve the current uncertainties and lack of clarity in the regulatory world
then that's useful. The MSFD is not high on industry's agenda because of everything else that's going on.” Wider stakeholder UK
Expected Result .5.2. By end October 2010 target marine stakeholders have significantly increased understanding of an ecosystem approach in the context of the EU and
international marine policy framework
Questions from the Interview [Nº of answers] What it will help us show to the
EU
Stakeholders Replies (only asked of core stakeholders)
To what extent if any has PISCES project increased your
confidence to talk about the ecosystem approach to others? [13]
Result 5.2: target marine
stakeholders have significantly
increased capacity to
communicate widely and apply
the ecosystem approach in the
context of the EU and
international marine policy
framework
10 core stakeholders identified that it was easier to talk about the EA
because they had greater clarity of the concepts, 1 stakeholder referred to
the information and comments provided by the project, only one stakeholder
stated that they had sufficient previous knowledge.
How comfortable to do you feel talking to others about the way
the ecosystem approach fits within the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive? [9]
Of the 9 core stakeholders that answered, 7 were more comfortable and 1
very comfortable with talking to others about the way the EA fits within the
MSFD. 1 stakeholder was concerned that MSFD could be seen as a band
wagon.
10

To what extent has PISCES helped your confidence to use the
ecosystem approach to tackle the implementation of the MSFD?
[11]
5 core stakeholders either said they had an increased understanding, or
confidence and one considered that PISCES had increased the importance of
these concepts and another identified the Guide to MSFD implementation.
Only 1 stakeholder felt they were already implementing MSFD.
“now learnt more about it so increased confidence for practical implementation. Now British Marine Federation want me to go to Head office to talk about it - gov talking to me more.
PISCES is a catalyst, now seen as the sector contact point for MSFD as the expert for the sector as a result of involvement in PISCES” Core stakeholder UK
“I try to explain to others not to impose their personal goals but to invest together in ecosystem approaches to avoid conflict and instability.” Core Stakeholder France
“Has definitely made it easier to explain the Ecosystem Approach, although not an expert feels comfortable talking about it to others.” Core Stakeholder UK
“It's been useful to see the PISCES recommendations (eg around participation/engagement/communication) in print so that he can circulate to BPA members.” Core Stakeholder UK
Expected Result 8.1: .By end June 2012, 20-25 target marine stakeholders have collaboratively developed guidelines to implement the ecosystem approach to marine
management, addressing unsustainable marine resource use in the Celtic Sea sub region facilitating Member State implementation of the EU Marine Strategy
Directive
Expected Result 8.3: By end of December 2012 3,000 wider marine stakeholders are aware of the benefits of the guidelines developed
[Nº of answers]
What it will help us show
to the EU
What if anything do you think the
PISCES guide will help
stakeholders do differently in the
Celtic sea? [17 + 1]
Results 8.3 & 8.1: wider
marine stakeholders are
aware of the benefits of
the guidelines developed
… …addressing
unsustainable marine
resource use in the Celtic
Sea sub region facilitating
Member State
implementation of the EU
Marine Strategy Directive
7 core stakeholders were positive about the difference it would make to stakeholders, with 4 stakeholders stating
the Guide has shown the need for cooperation and collaboration, 2 stakeholders saw the Guide helping with
better and wider engagement processes, with another identifying that it would help stakeholder led approach. 3
stakeholders considered it would make no different and 2 did not respond. [12]
Of the 3 Mod. stakeholders that answered, one felt it would enable a new multi-sectoral forum to be created,
another felt that it would give perspectives on new sectors and another felt it would provide a better understanding
of the EA and MSFD [3]
Only 2 Gov. stakeholders replied, 1 stated it would help them see the bigger picture, the other felt it would help
them see the different perspectives and views held by other sectors [2]
PISCES guide will help Marine
users do differently in their day to
day activities?
1 Wider stakeholder answered, they felt it would show stakeholders that they are already doing what they need to
and encourage early engagement in processes, likewise reminding governments to involve stakeholders early on. [1]
PISCES guide will help policy
makers do differently? [16]
5 core stakeholders felt it would help policy makers do things differently but only in a small way. 5 felt it would
increase the stakeholder inputs and participation in processes, 2 felt it would lead to a greater consistency of
approach by policy makers. 1 did not respond.[12]
Of the 3 Mod. stakeholders that answered 3 felt that policy makers would have a coherent understanding of
stakeholder expectations in terms of participation, another also felt they would have an increase awareness of what
happens at sea [3]
11

1 Wider stakeholder replied saying it showed government that stakeholders can organise themselves to dialogue
around the table. [1]
To what extent will
stakeholders/sectors be affected
by the implementation of the
marine strategy framework
directive in the Celtic sea, either
positively or negatively? [16]
Of the 9 core stakeholders that responded, 3 felt that it would bring about a change in practices for sectors. 3
identified positive affects if it were to be implemented properly, but negative ones in the short term for long term
benefits. 1 stakeholder felt that some sectors would be displeased with the affects, another clarified that it would
not affect all countries equally. Another felt there would be no affect if the Guide were followed. [10]
Of the 3 Mod. stakeholders that answered each gave similar but distinct opinions on the affects. These ranged from
not sure to seeing an improved information on descriptors, seeing changes in practices, and more restrictions on
some sectors. One felt that the short and medium term reduction in income would be offset by the long term
environmental improvements creating social and economic benefits. [3]
3 Wider stakeholders gave varied answers, 1 felt that because stakeholders did not know about MSFD but must
implement it then it would not affect them much (although this is rather counter intuitive). 2 stakeholders felt the
affect would be significant but one in a positive way as fishing access had already been reduced and there was lots
of confusion about MSFD implementation. 1 of the stakeholders felt its affect was positive because stakeholders
would have to take more responsibility for how they do activities in the sea. [3]
“both negative and positive. Affect them significantly if MSFD measures are properly delivered. If weak legislation then little effect, but if ambitious then will have an effect. Negative
in Short Term, positive in Long Term - achieves GES then healthier seas benefit all industries - more fish (or better quality) - better tourism etc etc health benefits. Less conflicts across
borders. Core stakeholder UK
“It should make them realise that stakeholders have a very important role to play in the successful implementation of the MSFD.” Moderating stakeholder Ireland
“It could help policy-makers gain a more coherent understanding of what stakeholders will be expecting in terms of participation - and in order to help reduce conflict, optimise the
benefits we gain from the sea.” Moderating stakeholder, UK
“Environmental, ports, fishing etc were able to sit down together and think what we can do differently where are areas that might be difficult. Not entirely sure -the test is - do any
behaviours change…” Government Stakeholder UK
“Fishing was once the only use of the sea. Now there are inevitable big changes to their access etc. There is concern that the sector doesn’t have the resources to engage in debate
and maintain its position.” Wider Stakeholder UK
“Great thing about MSFD is that it doesn’t penalise activities per say but on activities as a whole. … if you can change the way activities are managed and people take more
responsibility for how they undertake those activities, then you are implementing the ecosystem approach already.” Wider Stakeholder eNGO UK
Objective 3: Actions 9 to 13: By 2012, the outcomes of the project are effectively disseminated to the wider marine community in the Celtic Sea and
upscaled to other marine sub-regions within EU maritime waters.
Expected result: By Dec 2012 at least 3000 stakeholders in the Celtic Sea Marine Community are aware of the guidelines produced by PISCES and at least one other RAC
knows about PICSES Guidelines
Questions for the Interview
[Nº of answers]
What the
questions help
demonstrate
Stakeholder Replies (Only Moderating, government and wider stakeholders were asked these questions) [Nº of answers]
12

When approximately did you
hear about or receive or see a
copy of the PISCES guide? [16]
Objective 3
Result: Celtic
Sea Marine
community
are aware of
the guidelines
and at least
one other RAC
knows about
PICSES
All 8 Mod. stakeholders received copies [8]
2 Gov. stakeholders heard about it from being invited to the London event, 2 were involved in reviewing draft versions and 1
was informed by this interview. [5]
Of the 3 Wider stakeholders that answered they gave a variety of replies ranging from 1.5 years to that morning. But all had
received it [3]
How did you hear about the
project?
1 Wider stakeholder said they heard through email [1]
What comes to mind if you hear
mention of the PISCES guide? [16]
4 Mod. stakeholders felt it gave a stakeholder consensus position, another 3 associated it with MSFD and the celtic sea, and
one felt it was about enhancing knowledge exchanges between stakeholders. [8]
2 Gov. stakeholders mentioned the ecosystem approach, how the guide gives examples of how it should be done. 1
stakeholder felt the Guide itself came to mind, another felt participation was the key element. [5]
3 Wider stakeholders replied, 1 thought it was about management, another about ecosystem approach, the last thought it
looked professional [4]
Were you able to read the guide,
if so what were your
impressions? [16]
All 8 Mod. stakeholders had a good and positive impression. 5 stakeholders mentioned that it was practical, easy to understand
and concise, another 4 highlighted the understanding of the importance of stakeholder participation in marine issues. Other
points made by individual stakeholders where that it increased the knowledge of the EA and MSFD implementation, and gave
the stakeholder interpretation of the principals. [8]
All 5 Gov. stakeholders had a positive reaction to the Guide, although 2 wanted more; one wanted it to also prioritize the
information, and another wanted it more problem and solution focused. Other stakeholders noted the practical examples, the
stakeholders viewpoint and finally that it was a good mechanism for participation [5]
Of the 3 Wider stakeholders that had looked at it, 1 felt it was useful, another thought it was OK, and the last thought it was
too generic [4]
What in your opinion is the
purpose of the guide? [7]
Of the 3 Gov. stakeholders that answered, 2 felt it purpose was to support MSFD implementation and marine conservation
(applying to any marine policy), another felt it was presenting an ecosystem approach best practice, and illustrating what this
meant, with one of these feeling it was a manual of interesting ideas. [3]
All 4 Wider stakeholders had an opinion, 2 felt it was about the celtic sea, one in terms of management measures the other in
terms of issues, another felt it was to help marine planning and the ecosystem approach and the 4th
felt it was a roadmap for
MSFD [4]
What aspects of the guide could
be useful to stakeholders and
why? [9]
Mod. stakeholders tended to mention more than one use; 3 stakeholders found the recommendations very useful, another 3
stakeholders considered it would improve the knowledge of participatory tools and improve links between stakeholders and
government. 2 of them felt it highlighted the need for international and transnational forum, another 2 mentioned that it
increased the understanding of the needs and challenges of EA, and one stakeholder felt it simplified policy. [7]
Of the 2 Wider stakeholders that replied, 1 thought it was useful because it was a guide to say who needed to what when,
another felt it was helpful as a background read for those new to the area [2]
13

What aspects of the guide, if any,
are useful to policy makers or
decision makers as a sector? [5]
All 5 Gov. stakeholders felt the guide would be useful to policy makers, 2 felt all of it was relevant, another 2 felt it helped
establish participatory approaches, another considered it was how it involved stakeholders in monitoring programmes, and
their contribution to data collection. One 1 focused on the recommendations made [5]
Is there anything about the guide
you would like to have changed,
if so could you explain? [9]
4 Mod. stakeholders felt it needed no changes. One felt the Navy could have been mentioned, another felt that the case
studies could have been more analytical to highlight the barriers and successes of each another felt there needed a future
communication strategy. [7]
None of the 2 wider stakeholders suggested any changes, 1 felt it did not need to be changed [2]
“I like the Guide very much, and I think that it can be an extremely useful document to us in order to establish good mechanisms for participation in subsequent phases of marine
strategies.” Government stakeholder Spain
“yes, general impressions - it feels like a nice start, have done well to bring different sectors together - list at the back is impressive - some good people, people that are thoughtful and
interesting and a good range. My impression is that its fine as a manual of interesting ideas, the interesting question is how it moves on from that.” Government stakeholder UK
“Right now, the most useful are those about how to involve stakeholders in the monitoring programs, contributing to data collection, and to achieve their collaboration. The aspect of
public participation, how to improve it in subsequent phases, is also very useful.” Government Stakeholder Spain
“The recommendations for stakeholders, particularly those that advise stakeholders to seek out or advocate for opportunities to participate in decision-making. This is one element
that is often overlooked in the academic literature - the onus is always put on the government to provide opportunities for stakeholder participation but stakeholders must also make
the case for their participation and advocate for real and meaningful participation.” Moderating stakeholder Ireland
“Very useful document and it’s come at a good time with the MSFD. As a stakeholder guide, I do still think that the language still needs to be as non- technical as possible. It’s easy
to confuse people with the Ecosystems Approach. But the PISCES Guide has tackled the stakeholder approach well. Simpler language eg multi-layered stakeholder forum.” Wider
Stakeholder eNGO UK
Expected Result 12.1.1: 30 government officials have an increased awareness of stakeholder solutions to applying integrated management techniques of
the marine environment in the Celtic sea region – MSEP
Expected Result 12.1.2: At least 50% of above government officials indicate their official recognition of the Guidelines
[Nº of answers]
What it will help us show to
the EU
Stakeholders Replies (Only the government stakeholders were asked these questions) [Nº of answers]
What elements of the
recommendations in the
PISCES guide are most relevant
to you, and why? [4]
To what extent have you/will
you use these
recommendations and why?
[5]
Expected Outcome 12.1.1 &
12.1.2: ..increased awareness
of stakeholder solutions to
applying integrated
management techniques of
the marine environment in
the Celtic sea……government
officials indicate their official
recognition of the Guidelines
All 5 Gov. stakeholders felt the recommendations were relevant, at least 4 mentioned those referring to
stakeholder engagement, 2 focused on how they enable the incorporation of true stakeholder participation in
each step. And another felt those relating to marine spatial planning were more important.
Although 4 stakeholders had not used them yet, they felt they would be likely to, 1 stakeholder said they would
be distributing the guide to colleagues and refer to them in briefings, another intended to use them in the
programme of measures, another felt they could help in marine planning in the south
What benefits do you think
could be provided by following
these recommendations,
either for you or others? [4]
Only 3 Gov. stakeholders replied, 2 felt the policies would be better accepted by users and society, and lead to a
successful policy outcome leading to better marine environment protection. Another felt it would lead to better
EA promotion in other areas. And the 4th
felt another level of detail was needed.
14

What challenges or issues do
you think may make following
these recommendations
difficult, and how could these
be overcome? [5]
A variety of challenges were identified by all 5 Gov. stakeholders, these included being able to make economic
arguments, the political will, lack of understanding of policy makers as the situation of stakeholders, cross boarder
conflicts, challenges of key group involvement, free riders and coherence. 2 were also concerned in terms of the
current economic crisis and the lack of resources. None offered solutions.
Describe where, if at all, you
have seen the Guide used or
referred to by others? [5]
To what extent have you
endorsed or recommended the
PISCES guide to others and
when? [5]
4 Gov. stakeholders had not yet seen the Guide referred to elsewhere, but pointed out it was too soon.
4 stakeholders endorsed the Guide, with 2 stakeholders plan to mention them, 1 has given a talk about PISCES,
and 1 has shared the guide with 8 colleagues. And 1 will mention it at the national congress of environment
related to GES
“benefit of following any participatory process is a more successful policy implementation as it is better accepted by society and users, … but if you involve the stakeholders from the
beginning the results are achieved quicker and with less controversy.” Government Stakeholder Spain
“The benefits are a protection of the marine environment more robust and agreed among all. As much as you regulate and introduce rules, if users are not convinced it's very difficult
to implement them successfully. First of all stakeholders (decision makers, users) have to understand what the common goal and guidelines to follow are, such as objectives to be set
by consensus”. Government Stakeholder Spain
“I liked all [of the recommendations] because they are very synthetic. More relevant for me are now those related to public participation, because we need to improve that aspect.”
Government stakeholder Spain
“Not as yet but expect it might happen more now that the guide is out. Will be happy to talk to people about it and ask them what they see as the useful outcomes from it.”
Government Stakeholder UK
Objective 4: Actions 14 to 28: By 2012, the Project is technically and financially managed and monitored coherently within the timeframe of the Project
and stakeholders have committed to a shared strategy to ensure the project’s future sustainability
Questions from the
show to the EU
What do you think have
been the key commitments
stakeholders have made
during PISCES project that
they could take forward?
[19]
Objective 4
Outcomes:
Stakeholders are
committed to
sustaining project
commitments
They commit to
taking up PISCES
outputs and
5 core stakeholders felt it was the adherence to the 11 principals, goals and concepts that were key, 4 stakeholders felt it
was the commitment to work together, two stakeholders identified a positive attitude. Another decided it was being a
champion by sharing experiences and communicating the results. 1 did not consider there to be commitments made and
two just did not know.[13]
Of the 4 Mod. stakeholder that responded, all felt there was a greater commitment to be more proactive in participation
and stakeholder engagement processes, another felt sharing of information and another focused on their belief that they
can improve the situation for their sector by being involved. [4]
2 Gov. stakeholders replied, 1 identified that it was not only the recommendations but also a common view that would be
taken forward. The other felt it was the way of working together. [2]
15

outcomes and
applying lessons
What from the PISCES
project, if anything, have you
committed to taking forward
and how? [16]
6 core stakeholders felt they had not really made a commitment yet, another 3 were committed to the principals, goals
and concepts of the Project, whereas 2 stakeholders were committed to sharing their experiences and advocating the
project results as well 2 committing to continue to work together. [12]
Of the 4 Mod. stakeholders that replied, 2 were going to use and take on the Guide and apply the guiding principles, 1
emphasized the importance of talking and face to face interaction and another wanted to get involved in similar projects.[4]
What elements from this
project would you
recommend get repeated in
other projects and Why? [22]
5 core stakeholders would like to see the time taken for stakeholder engagement process repeated, 2 wanted more of the
professional exchanges between sectors, then 3 individuals identified a variety of things like, clear steps, the
management, and the workshop format, another also suggested staff be kept for a follow on project to build trust. 3
either did not know or suggested nothing. [13]
Of the 5 Mod. stakeholders that answered, 3 would recommend similar engagement process should be used, repeat how
the team pulled people together and got consensus. Another pointed out the diversity of stakeholders and another the
breadth and multi-disciplinary approach were also important to repeat. Finally one also mentioned the workshop approach
and web site as being areas for repetition [5]
4 Gov. stakeholders replied, 1 felt that all of it should be repeated in all other sea basins, others identified the following as
key to repeat; multisectoral element, the participatory workshop, thinking creatively about what stakeholders can do,
actions they can take. [4]
What would you advise
other projects do differently
and Why? [19]
4 core stakeholders were not sure. 2 stakeholders wanted a continuation of the project, 2 wanted more concrete
examples, 1 suggested a more wholistic approach be used, another wanted different sector approaches to be shared,
another wanted an analysis of the impacts. Whereas another felt audience could be clear at the beginning, and there
needed to be less supportive information or make it more concise so it did not overwhelm readers.[11]
Out of the 4 Mod. stakeholders that answered, 3 felt that the lessons from PISCES should be learnt so elements could be
repeated, 1 felt that nothing should be done differently. [4]
3 Gov. stakeholders made suggestions, 1 wanted a country by country scope to the project, another wanted greater
stakeholder engagement on areas of conflict or where differing views exist, under 10meters UK & French fishermen & NGOs.
And 1 was concerned that stakeholders should not snub the process. [4]
“Many things. Their vision for the management of the Celtic Sea, their practices, trust in working together. Everything is possible if we become aware of the ecosystem approach.”
Core Stakeholder France)
“Rather than commitments it is more about understanding which stakeholders can take things forward. More about being able to recognise the benefits of the ecosystem approach”.
Core Stakeholder UK)
“it’s vital that the stakeholders involved are well networked within their constituencies/sectors AND that they share what they learn in the PISCES project with their communities. We
need to avoid creating an elite set of stakeholders who increase their capacity to participate in decision-making by being involved in such a project and ensure that the benefits filter
out into the wider stakeholder community” moderating stakeholder Ireland
“Spain as a country is a very important stakeholder in the Celtic Sea. A more actively participation from the commercial fisheries sector would have been very relevant.” Government
Stakeholder Spain
“repeat all of it - celtic sea as example should be repeated in all sea basins, lock stock and barrel. They have the manual now.” Government stakeholder EU
“PISCES did really try to get people to think creatively about what they could do to be active process - very helpful.” Government stakeholder UK
“recommendations but more than that - a commitment to a cause - common understanding as basis can now be taken forward. Now moving with common views to move forwards”
16

Government Stakeholder EU
Impact Measure, the without Scenario: Asking stakeholders to think about what would have happened without the Project or a Key partner
Questions from the
What it will help
us show
Counterfactual: What do you
think would have happened
if the PISCES project had not
been implemented? [25]
Impact related
questions to show
Counterfactual –
would the same
thing have
happened anyway
with or without
PISCES
Generally, 4 core stakeholders stated there would have been a loss if there were no project, but it would not necessarily have
been significant although 4 stakeholders stated that there would be no Guide, 2 felt there would have been less stakeholder
engagement and stakeholder would know less about MSFD. Another stakeholder identified that there would be reduced
international coordination, and another felt there would be less consistency causing delays in international contacts. [13]
Out of 6 Mod. stakeholder responses, 3 felt there would have a loss of focus on the celtic sea, then 2 stated the lack of
stakeholder engagement processes and 2 mentioned no guide would have resulted. One stakeholder felt there would have
been no difference as other projects would have done something similar.[5]
4 Gov. stakeholders identified events or elements of the guide that would have been lost without the project. In particular the
lost opportunity of bringing together stakeholder views on Celtic Sea issues, and not reaching society on environmental policies
like MSFD. 1 stakeholder felt there would have been no big difference. [4]
3 Wider stakeholders gave a variety of answers; 1 pointed out that we would not have an example of stakeholder engagement
process across boundaries. Another said that stakeholders would be less aware and prepared about MSFD, the 3rd
felt things
would have been the same. [3]
Attribution: What would
have happened if
WWF/partner had not been
involved in the PISCES
project? [24]
Attribution – how
important was the
involvement of
WWF/partner
Direct Benefits –
what are they
Indirect Benefits –
5 core stakeholders identified the importance of the impartiality, respect and the credibility that WWF brought. 3
stakeholders felt that the mixture that partners and WWF brought was necessary for the projects success, 2 stakeholders
identified the integrity of the team as a key factor in terms of their accessibility and transparency and 3 felt the project would
not have happened without WWF and the partners. 2 stakeholders however felt things would have gone better as WWF
france does not have a good image. 3 stakeholders were unable to say. [12]
Of 5 Mod. stakeholder responses, 2 stakeholders felt there would have been less balance between the stakeholders that WWF
ensured an inclusive process where individual stakeholders did not dominate. 2 stakeholders also felt that there would have
17

what are they been less dissemination of the results due to the extensive network of contacts WWF brings. Other points made were in terms
of less credible results and less legitimacy with government. 2 stakeholders identified the professionalism that the team
brought as important. One stakeholder felt the benefit of WWF was its convening power and independence. [5]
Of the 4 Gov. stakeholder replies, 3 agreed that it would have had a less environmental approach without WWF, 2 felt that
WWF lent credibility to the project another felt there would also have been less sectors present. 1 felt the project would not
have happened. [4]
Only 1 Wider stakeholder replied, they felt that the process would not have been driven to completion if WWF had not been
involved. [3]
Value for Money: How much
time do you think you have
invested in PISCES activities
and in what way if any, was
it worthwhile? [22]
Value of time
invested – getting
a sense of value
for money –
time/money
equivalent
12 core stakeholders felt their involvement was worthwhile, with most (7 stakeholders) spending between 2 to 3 weeks per
year, although 2 stakeholders spent about a months time per year on the project and 3 spent less than 10 days. Although 1
stakeholder did point out that the amount of information sent to them between workshops was overwhelming at times.[13]
Out of 7 Mod. stakeholders that replied, 6 felt they had only made a small contribution, with one stating they had spent a lot of
time, but 5 considered it had been worthwhile, one had wanted to spend more time but could not due to other work
commitments. [7]
The 5 Gov. stakeholders were involved in different ways, 1 spending 5 hours and another participating in two events, and
proving comments, in this case it was felt worthwhile, the 3 other stakeholders gave no answer [2].
How much time do you think
is reasonable to give to
stakeholder projects like
PISCES? [3]
There were two suggestions, 3 weeks per year and as much time as possible (however this stakeholder was aware of conflicting
commitments on time)
No WWF: “I think that WWF were an excellent body to have led on the project- from my limited involvement they were exceptionally professional and wholly inclusive of all ideas and
ethos coming from different sectors. If they had not of been involved I think perhaps a project leader from a private sector company could have had alternative
objectives/motivations.” Moderating stakeholder Ireland
“I suspect that if dominated by one or two types of stakeholder, then the outcome would not have been so powerful. The fact that the project was multi-disciplinary and encompasses
the environmental and social and economic, gives the project more credibility to a wider range of stakeholders.” Moderating stakeholder UK
“It needed those people and the mix of them to bring the different skills to get people working together, along with the technical expertise from different organisations. They all
brought different strengths, for example, IT. You need the breadth. Organisations that are respected carry greater weight and bring credibility to the project.” Core stakeholder UK
No PISCES Project: “In Spain the PISCES technical seminar on participatory approaches for the implementation of the MSFD wouldn't have taken place and many stakeholders that
didn't know about this policy got to know about it. … Member States are focused on our work and we have not been able to reach society in terms of the implementation of
environmental policies such as the MSFD.” Government Stakeholder Spain
“If the project had not been developed an opportunity to bring together the views of all stakeholders on the Celtic Sea problems and their solutions would have been missed.”
Government Stakeholder Spain
“There needed to be a PISCES, it was very necessary. I wasn't aware of any such guidelines before or any opportunity to input collectively like this. When ecosystem approach reared its
head before it was used as a weapon against fishing but now it can be more understood.” Core stakeholder wales
“the guide is clearly made by and for stakeholders, which is great. The topics are explained in a practical way, not with a technical or legalistic point of view. One aspect that makes
the difference is that it shows self-criticism from economic sectors, failures or gaps that they have, that would have not been highlighted if the guide had not been made by the
stakeholders themselves.” Government Stakeholder Spain
18

“We would still be talking about the best way of getting stakeholders together at a seascape level, but if we’re talking about achieving coherence cross boundaries. It’s a good case
study of getting stakeholder cross boundary together to talk about one sea area.“ wider stakeholder eNGO Uk
“I genuinely think that initiatives like PISCES can be pretty useful. I have been involved in other initiatives: it's important for them have a practical outcome that's universally agreed
and accepted, otherwise the product's just an inventory of information that quickly goes out of date. PISCES is a good repository of what we understand about marine management
and stakeholder involvement” wider stakeholder UK
19

Section 2: Demonstrating Learning from Involvement in PISCES.
The aim is to show that Stakeholders have learnt something and have an increased capacity due
to the project.
ACTION 5: Collaborative learning with target stakeholder group of 20-25 people on relevant EU and
international marine policy
Expected Result 5.2:. By end October 2010 target marine stakeholders have significantly
increased understanding of an ecosystem approach in the context of the EU and international
marine policy framework
Expected Result 5.1: By October 2010, concise and accessible reference materials are
available to direct and indirect stakeholders on EU and international marine policy through links to
the PISCES website
ACTION 6: Collaborative learning with target stakeholder group on Marine Spatial Planning
Expected Result 6.1. By end September, 20-25 target marine stakeholders have a significantly
increased understanding of Marine Spatial Planning and linkages to implementing the
ecosystem approach.
Expected Result 6.2.By end September 2010 target marine stakeholders have significantly
increased capacity to undertake outreach activities and apply Marine Spatial Planning tools for
integrated management of the marine environment in the Celtic Sea region
ACTION 8: Guidelines on implementing the ecosystem approach in the Celtic Sea developed
collaboratively with stakeholders
Expected Result 8.2. By end Dec 2012, at least 200 wider marine stakeholders have been able to
meaningfully engage in the development of the guidelines and have increased capacity and
knowledge to manage marine resources in the Celtic sea sustainably
Expected Result 8.3: By end of December 2012 3,000 wider marine stakeholders are aware of the
benefits of the guidelines developed
From the questionnaires there were 21 replies from core and moderating stakeholders that answered half
of the questions, 14 of which answered nearly all of them. 3 government stakeholders answered half of the
questions, 2 of which answered all questions. The government stakeholder questionnaire did not ask the
first 3 questions so hence the total for these is 21 and not 24. These were asked questions that were aimed
to test what stakeholders had learnt from their involvement in the PISCES project. This was an anonymous
questionnaire, but it did ask where stakeholders were from and their sector (although only 13 answered
this information).
There were 13 wider stakeholders that were asked a slightly different design of questionnaire, 4 answered
fully. These acted as a control group that were not involved in PISCES activities but were asked similar
questions to understand what was the general level of understanding of these topics for Marine
stakeholders. Again the questionnaire was anonymous.
The results are summarised below. It was decided that shifted the stakeholder understanding of a topic
from where ever they were to a level 4 or 5 was a degree of success for the project. We also wanted to
note if stakeholders involved in PISCES had significantly different levels than the wider group for particular
topics.
Shift in understanding
Number Did
not
shift
Shifted
to 4 or
5
At
level
5
Project
benefit
Wider
4&5
Was
C&M
4&5
* I UNDERSTOOD THE HUMAN IMPACTS ON
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND HOW
MANAGING MARINE RESOURCES MORE
SUSTAINABLY CAN ADDRESS THEM
21 16 76% 4 19% 4 minimal 61% 86%
20

* I UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING AND HOW IT
LINKS TO THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
21 13 61% 8 38% 3 Some, but
limited
69% 71%
I UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE ECOSYSTEM
APPROACH MEANS AND HOW IT
CONTRIBUTES TO SUSTAINABLE MARINE
MANAGEMENT IN THE CELTIC SEA
21 12 57% 9 43% 4 Some 46% 52%
I UNDERSTOOD THE VARIOUS BENEFITS OF
APPLYING THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH IN
THE CELTIC SEA
24 15 62% 9 38% 5 Some, but
limited
62% 58%
I UNDERSTOOD WHAT KEY PRINCIPLES
SHOULD BE APPLIED IN A GOOD
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
24 13 54% 11 46% 7 Good 54% 42%
I UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF
STAKEHOLDER SOLUTIONS TO INTEGRATED
MARINE MANAGEMENT AND ITS
RELEVANCE TO MY WORK
24 14 58% 10 42% 8 Some,
getting
better
46% 67%
I UNDERSTOOD THE PURPOSE OF THE
PISCES GUIDE AND THE PROCESS THAT
WOULD BE USED TO DEVELOP THE
CONTENT
24 3 13% 20 83% 11 Very good 31% 21%
From this sample we can say that the project did not shift the majority of stakeholders understanding on
the six topics stated, especially when it came to understanding the human impacts on the marine
environment and how sustainable management can address them. The exception was in terms of
improving the understanding of PISCES guide, which an expected project result 83% reached our preferred
level of 4 or more. However it should be noted that 31% wider stakeholders who would have been
contacted via PISCES newsletter or via the website as part of the communications outreach, felt they had a
good understanding of PISCES guide from minimal involvement, compared with only 21% of those of the
core and moderating group with a level of 4 or 5 before the project.
The areas were the project has had most significant impact has been on the level of understanding relating
to stakeholder involvement i.e understanding:
• The KEY PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE APPLIED IN A GOOD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
• IMPORTANCE OF STAKEHOLDER SOLUTIONS TO INTEGRATED MARINE MANAGEMENT AND ITS RELEVANCE
TO MY WORK
Although in both cases over 50% of the stakeholders felt there was no change in their understanding, of
those that did, they all shifted to level 4 or 5, with the majority in both cases shifting to level 5. In terms of
comparing core and moderating & government stakeholders with those of the wider group, the wider
marine stakeholders had a better understanding of stakeholders solutions, but had a lower level in terms of
understanding the key principals of good stakeholder engagement. So it possible that PISCES has provided
added value on the quality of good stakeholder engagement process. This seems to agree with anecdotal
evidence from the semi-structured interviews and feedback questionnaires where stakeholders
commented on high quality of the stakeholder engagement processes used by the project.
In general however PISCES seemed to have added value when it came to increasing the confidence of
stakeholders to do things differently as the following table shows.
Level of Confidence Number Did
not
shift
Shifted
to 4 or 5
At
level
5
Project benefit Wider
4&5
Was
C&M
4&5
I WAS ABLE TO APPLY ELEMENTS OF THE
ECOSYSTEM APPROACH IN MY WORK IN THE
MARINE ENVIRONMENT AS IT RELATES TO
THE MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
DIRECTIVE (MSFD)
24 10 42% 10 42% 4 Good 62% 42%
I WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE BENEFITS OF
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING TOOLS FOR
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT
24 9 38% 11 46% 5 Significantly
Good
69% 51%
I WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO OTHERS
ELEMENTS OF THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
AND ITS IMPORTANCE TO MSFD
IMPLEMENTATION
24 12 50% 12 50% 5 Good 46% 50%
21

50% or more stakeholders noted a shift in their confidence from their involvement in PISCES, in the three
areas asked. With 45% or more shifting to level 4 or 5, although fewer stakeholders were at a level 5 in
their confidence compared with improvements in their understanding. In two out of three of the areas
core and moderating stakeholders had a lower level initially than the wider marine stakeholder community
on these three topics. The most value added was in the area of enabling stakeholders to explain the
benefits of marine spatial planning tools for the integrated management of the marine environment.
However the confidence of stakeholders to apply elements of the EB approach to their work as it relates to
MSFD had also improved, as did their confidence to explain this to others.
Key elements stakeholders felt they learnt from being involved in PISCES
The questionnaire gave respondents the opportunity to provide their own answers when asked about the 3
most important things they had learnt. Only 13 stakeholders chose to answer (2 of these being government
stakeholders).
12 out of 13 respondents mentioned the importance of stakeholder engagement in some way in, either the
importance of starting early, or the multi-sectoral nature or simply that it was really important and was
very beneficial. Where as Ecosystem based approach and or management was mentioned by 4
stakeholders as an area of learning, the importance of Marine spatial planning was mentioned only once.
Other areas valued by stakeholders was the work of a specific sector (offshore wind), need for training,
knowledge and data, working at small scale can make a difference and the limitation of key institutions.
They were also asked what they felt they could apply to their own work, and 9 stakeholders identified an
aspect of stakeholder engagement would be applied, the 10th
stakeholder felt they would consider more
thoroughly the long term affects of activities. The application of what they learnt is best captured by the
following quote: “I have already held 12 local stakeholder workshop/meetings to inform on, discuss and
get buy-in for MPAs and co-management concepts. These will be followed up with further workshops and
meetings to help inform the necessary management measures”. Government stakeholder
So it can be concluded from this sample at least that the stakeholder engagement process used made the
greatest impression on stakeholders themselves.
There were key questions in the survey that related specifically to the PISCES guide which were asked of all
three stakeholder groups (24). The same three questions were asked of Wider stakeholders (13) although
they were not involved in the project activities, they were sent a copy of the guide and acted as a control.
Out of the 24 core, moderating and government stakeholders, most felt their confidence to apply elements
of the guide, explain the relevance of the guide and explain how the guide recommendations could help
implement MSFD were mainly at level 4, 57%, 41% and 71% respectively. Although 30% of these
stakeholders felt their confidence to explain the relevance of the Guide was even higher, at level 5 (29%).
These results are shown in the following graph.
Level of Confidence
I AM ABLE TO APPLY ELEMENTS OF THE
PISCES GUIDE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
MSFD
I CAN EXPLAIN THE RELEVANCE OF THE
PISCES GUIDE TO OTHERS IN MY SECTOR
AND IDENTIFY ELEMENTS WE CAN APPLY TO
OUR WORK.
22

I CAN EXPLAIN HOW KEY
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PISCES GUIDE
CAN HELP IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MSFD
As expected these were higher results than those obtained for the 13 wider stakeholders, with one
interesting exception. 30% of these stakeholders felt their level of confidence to apply the guide was level
5. This is a positive endorsement of the Guide and their accessibility, where stakeholders that are new to
them, felt them easy enough to engage with that they were confient to apply them. It may be that once
they are engaged with at depth the challenge of their application in the real world context maybe more
apparent and therefore stakeholders that were more familiar with them did not give themselves a level 5 in
confidence to apply them (only 4% in fact.)
The overall confidence of the those stakeholders that engaged with the project and contributed to their
development was much higher than the wider stakeholders as the following graph shows.
23

The final set of questions asked by the questionnaire related to the project activities and was only asked of
the core and moderating stakeholders. Of the 14 (10 did not answer) stakeholders that replied, they had
moderate to high (3 or 4) level of involvement (which is consistent with expectations for their group). The
role of the PISCES team in enhancing their involvment was also noted. However many (50%) felt it was not
easy for them to be actively involved, one stakeholder clarified this in the comments by stating that this
was due to external factors. This is consistent with comments from other sources which indicates that
stakeholders made an effort to stay involved either because of other work or due to resource constraints.
On the whole those stakeholders that answered these questions felt the project activities, workshops and
materials were useful and interesting. Both level 4 and 5 each received 29% of the scores. Atlhough the
pace of the activities did not score quite so highly. Overall this is a positive feedback to the design of the
activities and their intensity over the 4 year period. The project had orginally been designed over a shorter
timeframe and was amended to enable more time for engagement and dissemination. This feedback
confirms this decsion. See below.
Conclusions
In order to assess how well the project achieved against expected targets and therefore understand the
likely impact of the project, evidence from both the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews have
been combined per each outcome they were designed to demonstrate. This evidence is assessed and
scored according to the legend below. In several cases data from the outreach diary, internet tutorials and
stakeholder participation figures relating to the Guide development steps was combined to supplement the
findings here where it was necessary to get a more complete understanding of the evidence for the scores
for each outcome.
Legend for the Outcome Scores Colour /score
Significantly over achieved the expected target value – Excellent 7
Moderately over achieved the expected target value – Very Good 6
Achieved the expected target value or achieved what was possible – Good 5
Moderately under achieved the expected target value – Fair 4
Weak achievement of the expected target value – Weak 3
Over the lifespan of PISCES project
1. MY LEVEL OF INTEREST & ENGAGEMENT WAS HIGH DURING THE PROJECT
2. MY LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION WAS ENHANCED BY THE PISCES PROJECT TEAM
3. IT WAS EASY FOR ME TO GET ACTIVELY INVOLVED DURING THE PROJECT
4. I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THE PACE & DURATION OF THE PROJECT
5. THE COMBINATION OF VARIOUS ACTIVITIES; INCLUDING WORKSHOPS, TUTORIALS, TASKS, EDITING AND EVENTS WAS
INTERESTING AND WELL BALANCED
6. THE WORKSHOPS WERE USEFUL
7. THE MATERIALS PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT AND WEBSITE CONTENT ARE A USEFUL REFERENCE FOR ME
24

Significantly under achieved the expected target value – Poor 2
No achievement 1
There were 11 outcome areas scored through this process and 4 impact areas examined. The findings are
summarized below.
Impact of the project processes on the quality of results
Quality of the stakeholder engagement process:
The quality of the stakeholder process was reflected in the quality of the Guide according to at least 4
stakeholders. Several stakeholders valued the networking/contacts, knowledge gained on participatory
techniques and ecosystem approach, marine spatial planning and the economic situation of other sectors.
At least 2 stakeholders felt there had been an improved cooperation and communication between sectors.
On an individual level at least two stakeholders felt their profile in the organisation had been improved by
participating and contributing to the process as they were seen to be the most experienced in MSFD
implementation for example. From the questionnaire 43% of stakeholders felt their level of interest and
engagement was high during the project and were highly comfortable with the pace and duration of the
project, 58% felt the project activities were interesting and well balanced and that the workshops were
useful. 65% of stakeholders felt their learning and participation was enhanced by the project team and that
the materials and website were useful. Only 14% of stakeholders agreed that it was easy for them to be
actively involved in the project, this confirmed other data from the workshops themselves.
Quote: “The quality of participation was good. Different groups were represented and people were able to work
together and resolve differences. The Guide is something that we from different groups could all sign up to and buy
into. And it carries more weight to the wider group of stakeholders because of that and because it is not driven by a
single agenda.” Core stakeholder UK
Significance of the PISCES Project: What would have happened or not have happened if
PISCES did not exist – the counterfactual
In order to critically examine the significance of PISCES, or its additional value stakeholders were asked the
counterfactual question that seeks to understand what they think would have happened without the
project. This enables clearer attribution of their answer than if we had simply asked them what were the
benefits of the project. 88% of target stakeholders were able to identify unique benefits attributable to the
project, although of these 16% felt the loss would not have been that significant and another 12% felt there
would have been no difference principally because another project would have filled the space. At least 3
stakeholders felt the guide would not have been produced, other examples included; less stakeholder
engagement, fewer stakeholders would know about MSFD, and there would not be a cross boundary
example of stakeholder engagement.
Quote: “There needed to be a PISCES, it was very necessary. I wasn't aware of any such guidelines before or any
opportunity to input collectively like this. When ecosystem approach reared its head before it was used as a weapon
against fishing but now it can be more understood.” Core stakeholder wales
Importance of WWF/partners in the Project: What would have happened if WWF or
PISCES partner had not been involved – the counterfactual
75% of target stakeholders felt that WWF made a positive difference to the way the project went. With
several aspects of note being mentioned such as; integrity of the team, legitimacy and credibility of results,
convening power and independence, balance of stakeholders, mixture of partners, WWF ensured it was an
inclusive process where no individual stakeholders dominated. 8% of stakeholders felt it would have gone
better without WWF as the image of WWF France was perhaps negative for some stakeholders.
Quote: “It needed those people and the mix of them to bring the different skills to get people working together, along
with the technical expertise from different organisations. They all brought different strengths, for example, IT. You
need the breadth. Organisations that are respected carry greater weight and bring credibility to the project.” Core
stakeholder UK
25

Value for Money – Time Invested was Worthwhile
In order to get a sense of value for money, stakeholders were asked to think about the amount of time they
had given up to be involved in the project activities and whether this was a worthwhile use of it. Time has a
direct cost for most stakeholders and an indirect cost (lost opportunity) which can both be estimated albeit
crudely. On average stakeholders seemed to feel they had invested about 2 to 3 weeks a year on average
participating in PISCES activities, and 86% of stakeholders felt their involvement was worthwhile. A wider
stakeholder confirmed this figure that they felt that spending 3 weeks participating in a stakeholder project
was a reasonable time to expect.
Quotes: “A good educational experience for individuals, contacts, and links with people and means that that others
will also become of aware of the difference that can be made”. Core stakeholder UK
“I've spent a lot of time: I've been to two workshops and spent time disseminating it to Marine Scotland and the North
Sea Commission. It was very worthwhile and I was quite impressed by the whole situation and the Guide.” Moderating
Stakeholder UK
Outcomes of PISCES achieved (or not) relating to Objective 1: Increased
knowledge, Understanding and Cooperation of Marine Stakeholders
Contributing outcomes to achieving this which were are the following:
• Stakeholders have an increased understanding of the Ecosystem approach
• Increased interaction between stakeholders
• Stakeholders promote the project results supporting sustainable management of the Celtic
seas
• Stakeholders are aware of the benefits of applying the ecosystem based approach in the
Celtic Sea from their involvement in PISCES
Outcome 1 (Increased Knowledge, Understanding and Interaction)
Equals new ways of working together
Evidence of more collaboration (making new, new reason to re-connect)
3 questions 70% said either new contact made or 76% said its now easier to work together and 85% said
had shared understanding of common ways of working EA. Therefore more collaborative ways of working
have been experienced by target stakeholders
Quote: “you got to know individuals on a less formal basis than through business contact opportunities, so this makes
relationships easier and you trust people more. Knowing that you have a shared objective, not just in your other day
to day role, and working together is key to achieving that.” Core stakeholder, UK
“It has been easier to work with people on an individual basis rather than a sectoral basis due to the trust built up
during time on the project. It is easier to pick up the phone to people to discuss things.” Core Stakeholder Wales
Impact question: regarding Stakeholder opinions on the quality of the participatory process and the
benefits of this, 65% of them ranked it equal or greater than 7 out of 10. In addition 81% identified benefits
of participation gained by the organisation and themselves. With 3 of them providing several suggestions
such as the following:
Quote: “This allowed me to share the ecosystem approach with foreign actors and scientists. It was very rewarding.”
Core Stakeholder, Wales
“It’s been good for my organisation as I can say that I was asked to give guest presentation and that I am also on the
web – so it is good for me in terms of raising my personal profile.” Core Stakeholder, Ireland
“To see the problems and the implementation of a given policy from a different point of view, different from a
governmental department” Government Stakeholder Spain
From the stakeholder perspective PISCES project has achieved outcome 1 in terms of increasing
collaboration and the quality of interaction.
26

Quote: “I suspect that if dominated by one or two types of stakeholder, then the outcome would not have been so
powerful. The fact that the project was multi-disciplinary and encompasses the environmental and social and
economic, gives the project more credibility to a wider range of stakeholders.” Moderating stakeholder UK
In terms of demonstrating that stakeholder increased their shared understanding of the ecosystem
approach by 75%; the questionnaire sample responses showed that 43% shifted their understanding from
what ever level to a level 4 and 5. However given the wider marine stakeholders seemed to have a good
understanding, 46% were at level 4 or 5, and 52% of core and moderating stakeholders had similarly high
understanding of this before the project, we were never going to reach such an ambitious increase of 75%
for 20 marine stakeholders. In part this confirmed as 76% stakeholders felt there was no shift in
understanding of the human impacts on the marine environment and how managing marine resources
more sustainably can address them. Therefore this was a good score.
Level expected result has been Achieved Score
Over 70% more collaborative behaviour being practiced or experienced by
stakeholders.
6
65% ranked the quality of participation as equal or over 7/10. 6
In a sample, 43% of targeted marine stakeholders increased their understanding to
75% level or above in terms of the Ecosystem approach and how it contributes to
sustainable marine resource management in the Celtic seas
5
Overall achievement for Outcome 1 5
Outcome 1.1: Stakeholders actively commit to networking and promoting the project results.
Three questions were chosen to show their promotion of the Guide and or the project and the EA approach
and one to show how they valued to Guide in terms of whether they thought it would achieve anything in
practice.
From the sample of the semi-structured interviewees 90% of stakeholders had shared PISCES information,
including in some cases the Guide, roughly with 1500 other stakeholders in total. 71% felt that PISCES had
made it easier to promote the Ecosystem approach because they made it easier to talk about it. For the
stakeholders that replied, 85% of them talked positively about the guide.
Whether stakeholders would be willing to promote the project results was probably better addressed
through the questionnaire. In this case 68% of stakeholders felt their level of confidence to apply the Guide
to their work was at either 4 or 5. Going further, 71% felt they were confident to explain the relevance of
the Guide to others (level of confidence either 4 or 5) and finally 79% of stakeholders felt they could explain
the key recommendations of the Guide can help implement MSFD. The answers from the wider
stakeholders were surprisingly good in this case (62%, 54% and 46% respectively) which could suggest that
the Guide is written in a very accessible way as these stakeholders would have been least familiar with
them. The target did not quantify stakeholder willingness or confidence to share and promote the Guide,
therefore the results can be considered as excellent.
Quote: “PISCES removed the "fear factor" around the ecosystem approach - helped to establish the link between
ecosystem approach and sustainable development, and that the EA is not anti-development.” Core stakeholder Ireland
Level expected result has been Achieved Score
90% of stakeholders had shared PISCES information, roughly with about 1500 other
stakeholders
7
71% felt easier to promote EA because of the Guide and, 71%, felt their confidence
to promote the guide in their sector had increased to a high level and 79% felt
confident to explain how the Guide recommendations would help MSFD
implementation
6
85% talked positively about the Guide, and 68% felt confident to apply the Guide in
the implementation of MSFD in their own work.
7
Overall achievement for Outcome 1.1 7
27

PISCES stakeholder FEEDBACK evaluation v3

PISCES stakeholder FEEDBACK evaluation v3

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (7)

Ähnlich wie PISCES stakeholder FEEDBACK evaluation v3

Ähnlich wie PISCES stakeholder FEEDBACK evaluation v3 (20)

PISCES stakeholder FEEDBACK evaluation v3