\subsubsection*{What are Institutions}
Within the EAFM framework an institution is...
\begin{defn}[Institution]
Any agency or group involved with the planning, execution, monitoring, or enforcement of the EAFM management plan.
\end{defn}
Examples of institutions which would be involved in an EAFM management process include: local, regional, and national governments; non-governmental organizations; fishery management agencies; fisherman; etc..

\subsubsection*{What and How of Cooperative or Coordinating Activities}
In order to balance multiple objective cooperation and coordination needs to occur among institutions. Within an EAFM framework, cooperative and coordinating activities can include such things as: open communication; data and information sharing; harmonized or complementary work plans, budgets, and goals; and developing interagency arrangements. In order for cooperative or coordinating activities to occur institutions/sectors which do not usually interact must work together. Thus, from a planning perspective, much of the initial workload is determining which institutions are involved and which institutions should be working together on particular issues. One tool often used to aid in this process is formalized memorandums of understanding, or binding agreements which help establish cross-sector collaboration.

\begin{cstdy}[Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve in India]
    The following case study demonstrates what can happen when cooperative or coordinating activities are not used.\\
    
    The Gulf of Mannar includes the southern tip of mainland India, the southeast coast of Tamily Nadu State, and the northwest coast of Sri Lanka. In 1988, under governmental order, a reserve was created which encompassed 21 coral islands and a 10km land and water buffer zone. Within the reserve, several hunderd villages and towns also exsist which have a large number of artisan and commercial fisherman.
    
    Under governmental order, the management of the reserve was the responsibility of the Forest Department. Which was charged with protecting marine habitats and the species which reside within them as well as encouraging alternative livelihood options. However, at the same time, the Fisheries Department was given the task of maximizing fisheries development through the use of subsidies and increasing the welfare of fisherman. Thus, the Forestry Department and Fisheries Department had conflicting management objectives and in turn issues arose. Some of the issues were dealt with by creating village specific regulations such as banning the collection of protected species. However, village specific regulations are not recognized by the federal government and therefore have reduced enforcement capabilities.\\
    
    This case study was adapted from \cite{staples}.
\end{cstdy}