This section describes the programme development phase. Here are emphasized the processes involved in programme development rather than the technical aspects. Programme development is the third phase in the four-stage ICZM sequence described in the previous section. Detailed technical material for programme development is given in four publications in the “Coasts” series of the US National Park Service (see Clark, 1985; Clark, in press (a); Snedaker and Getter, 1985; Sorensen and McCreary, 1990).
Like any structural model for governance, the approach described below is more instructive than prescriptive. Each country will have to choose and develop an ICZM structure that is most suited to its own programme needs.
Effective coastal and marine conservation programmes should include both protected area and regulatory components. Protected areas provide custodial protection for areas of special resource value through exercise of proprietary rights. The regulatory component, directed by the ICZM programme, provides a broad framework for controlling uses of coastal resources, including regulations, permits, environmental assessment, and development planning, operating through administrative process. By combining the two, there is created both 1) a regulatory scheme for resource conservation and orderly development and 2) a specific protected areas scheme for high-level protection of special resources.
The ICZM programme covers such activities as policy-making, enforcement, boundary definition, zoning, monitoring, development of guidelines/standards and appropriate control measures, incentives and disincentives. It designs a framework that will incorporate all the aspects examined previously in this report. Specific management mechanisms are discussed in the following section.
In programme development, emphasis should be put on articulation of goals and objectives and on the preparation of guidelines for development management, environmental protection, and multiple-use planning. Such programmes should include mechanisms for the anticipation and resolution of conflicts and the preparation of the Coastal Master Plan (Clark, in press (a)).
ICZM should relate to the broader national economic planning process through components on resources planning, land-use planning, and economic planning. Advice should be available from ICZM for government agencies, developers and other stake-holders and to the general public regarding economic development options. The ICZM entity should also transmit to the national planners any coastal needs for legislation, new programmes, improved policy base, and interagency coordination.
The programme should address such peripheral aspects as natural hazards and watersheds. Natural hazards prevention and mitigation should be integrated into the ICZM programme, including defences against any sea level rise caused by global warming. Influence on watershed management should be gained in order to lower the risk of agricultural and other pollutants washing off the land and entering coastal waters.
Regarding environmental restoration, all critical habitats that have been degraded should be rehabilitated to the highest possible level of productivity and biodiversity. Current rehabilitation techniques require research and careful evaluation. The research should include prediction of the effects of environmental change (including climate change) on critical coastal habitats and on living resources they support.
Ocean management is not the focus of ICZM, but in some countries ocean management and ICZM may be brought closely together (e.g., Brazil). Ocean manage-ment is usually a national enterprise, conducted as a multi-agency, multi-sectoral, initiative. Issues of greatest concern include shipping, offshore fisheries, mineral exploration and development, oceanic pollution control, and ocean research. Recent agreement on the “Law of the Sea” regime has stimulated many initiatives in national ocean management. These may in turn enhance ICZM-type programmes as ocean concerns are felt along the land/ocean interface. Sweden, Sri Lanka, and Brazil appear to exemplify this trend (Joliffe and Patman, 1985).
ICZM is a problem-solving programme. For example, Healy and Zinn (1985) list numerous concerns that have been addressed by more than 30 States participating in the US coastal zone management programme during 1973–1982, its first 10 years (Table 7.1). This study was accomplished by screening 1 044 reports and studies produced on behalf of State coastal agencies.
In another example, four major categories of problems were identified by the Philippines Government as those to be addressed in an ICZM-type programme (Box 7.1).
National legislation may need to be adapted to provide the regulatory tools needed for ICZM programmes; e.g., modern methods of environmental impact assess-ment (EIA). Fisheries legislation should be improved to integrate considerations regarding habitat conservation and pollution control in addition to traditional concerns regarding fisheries management and sustainable development.
Serious governmental interest in ICZM will probably start with a perceived use conflict, a severe decline in a resource, or a devastating experience with natural hazards. Launching a coastal programme demands strong motivation. Such motivation can arise from events that dramatize the importance and vulnerability of coastal resources.
The potential long-term socio-economic benefits of coastal management must be evident to decision-makers for environmental quality and natural area protection to enjoy continued support. Fisheries productivity, increased tourism revenues, sustained mangrove forestry, and security from natural hazard devastation appear to be the four most common and persuasive arguments for ICZM-type programmes (Sorensen and McCreary, 1990).
| Development concerns | Environment concerns | Environment/development interactions | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recreation/tourism | 140 | Coastal resources | 118 | Erosion/sedimentation | 90 |
| Petroleum industry | 65 | Wetlands | 103 | Environmental impact | 38 |
| Energy facility siting | 65 | Fish/fisheries | 85 | Conflicting uses | 36 |
| Facility siting | 62 | Public access | 82 | Floods/flooding | 34 |
| Ports/waterfronts | 58 | Critical areas | 48 | Oil pollution/effects | 29 |
| Energy | 45 | Vegetation | 47 | Energy impacts | 21 |
| Transportation | 43 | Marine biology | 46 | Pollution | 17 |
| Industry/commerce | 42 | Wildlife | 46 | Water pollution | 13 |
| Population | 29 | Water quality | 44 | ||
| Dredging | 29 | Beaches/dunes | 36 | ||
| Marinas | 28 | Water resources | 35 | ||
| Boating | 25 | Estuaries | 34 | ||
| Growth | 22 | Aesthetics | 28 | ||
| Shipping | 18 | Resource protection | 22 | ||
| Agriculture | 18 | Living marine resources | 21 | ||
| Water development projects | 14 | Cultural/historical resources | 12 | ||
| Navigation | 14 | Groundwater | 10 | ||
| Oil and gas | 14 | Barrier islands | 8 | ||
| Marine mining | 9 | Open space | 7 | ||
| Coal transportation/storage | 9 | Preservation | 5 | ||
| Energy transportation/storage | 9 | Coral reefs | 4 | ||
| Forestry/logging | 7 | Air resources | 3 | ||
| Waterfront development | 7 | ||||
| Aquaculture | 6 | ||||
| Total | 778 | Total | 844 | Total | 278 |
| BOX 7.1-MAJOR COASTAL RESOURCE PROBLEMS IN THE PHILIPPINES | |
| - | Natural resources degradation:(a) beach erosion; (b) conversion of mangrove swamplands into other land uses; (c) landfill or reclamation of foreshore areas; (d) dynamite fishing; (e) overfishing; and (f) over-exploitation of mangrove forests. |
| - | Pollution: (a)industrial sources (industrial waste); (b) domestic sources (household wastes and solid wastes); (c) agricultural sources (pesticide and fertilizer runoff); and (d) other sources (dredging activities). |
| - | Land-use conflicts: (a) absence of access to foreshore lands due to human settlements encroachment; (b) unusable beach areas due to excessive pollution; and (c) conservation and preservation of mangrove areas versus conversion of the same into fishponds, or reclamation of the same for human settlements and commercial purposes. |
| - | Destruction of life and property by natural hazards: (a) flooding due to storms; (b) tropical cyclones; (c) earthquakes; and (d) tsunamis. |
| Source: NEPC (1983) | |
At present there is no one correct model for integrated management of coastal zones. But there is a family of coastal zone related management schemes that include shorelands and coastal seas (Clark, 1990). These are variously entitled: “coastal zone management” (CZM), “integrated coastal zone management” (ICZM), “coastal area management and planning” (CAMP) or “coastal resources management” (CRM). Each refers to a slightly different form of governmental intervention for the purpose of developing coastal resources sustainably while protecting the natural environment (Sorensen and McCreary, 1990). The most appropriate terminology for the purposes of this report is ICZM (Clark, 1991).
In an integrated management format there are two “foundation blocks” to be addressed. First, is the zone of sea and land to be included. Here, it is the resources and/or environments to be managed, according to issues analysis and the resulting programme goals that define the geographic extent of the coastal area or zone.
The second matter concerns the dictates of policy and resulting subjects and issues to be addressed. A basic pre-condition for the determination of a national marine policy is identification of problems and opportunities in the coastal/marine area under its jurisdiction. It may be helpful to examine the failures of ICZM programmes as well as successes. For example, Hildebrand (1989) lists the following reasons to explain why a Canadian initiative for a nationwide ICZM programme failed in the early 1980s:
Lack of agreement on a satisfactory definition of the coastal zone
Political boundaries vs. ecological boundaries
Coastal zone treated as a common property resource
Lack of awareness of coastal zone problems
No clear motivation for CZM
Administrative fragmentation
Lack of clearly stated goals
Dominance of short-term management over long-range planning
Inadequate information on which to base decisions
Attitudinal problems
Ran against political and economic grain of the time.
Unfortunately, national development decisions are usually made according to single-sector priorities without sufficient knowledge or understanding of the impact these narrow decisions may cause on other sectors. In addition, at the planning or budget level, the inputs of many sectors may conflict and pull in different directions (see Table 7.2). Traditional economic sectors, each with its own clientele, compete for funding, resources and political advantage (OECD, 1990).
It would be virtually impossible to allocate the coast to a single one of these economic sectors for development, or even to give one or two sectors a priority for coastal development. In fact, it is the intense conflict over use of the coast that so often arise among the various sectors that makes both the ICZM process and multiple-use necessary.
Involvement by all levels of government will be required for coastal management programmes such as ICZM. At one extreme, the local governments are involved because they govern where development takes place, where resources are found, and where the benefits or penalities are mainly to be felt. At the other extreme, the Central Government has to be involved because responsibility and authority for marine affairs inevitably rests there - navigation, national security, migratory fish, international relations, etc. (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). At the intermediate level, Provincial or Regional governments are involved because they also often have financial and administrative responsibility in the coastal area.
| SECTORS RECEIVING IMPACTS | SECTORS GENERATING POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ports and Shipping | Transportation | Public Works | Fisheries | Tourism | Additional Sectors Can Be Portrayed | |
| + | Passenger liner facilities | Airports and roads to tourist areas | Infrastructure for tourism development | Conservation of habitat areas vital to both recreational and commercial species | ||
| TOURISM | ||||||
| - | Ship pollution in beaches and swimming areas | Encroachment of urban dev. produced by roads | Encroachment of urban dev. from fish processing produced by public works | Air & water pollution Industries & boats | ||
| + | Harbors and processing faclllties | Roads and rallroads to ship products | Sewage from processing | Sportfishing opportunities | ||
| FISHERIES | ||||||
| - | • Ship pollution | • Wetland fill | Wetland fill for development | • Pollution from fish processing | ||
| • Wetland fill | • Estuary fragmentation | produced by provision of public works | • Flll of wetlands for tourist facilities | |||
| + | Docks & channels enabling evacuation before storm & flooding | Roads & bridges for evacuation before storm & flooding | Public works such as dams & revetments to reduce or ellmlnate hazards | Fisheries development increases both amount & healthful- &/or sewage | Improvement in quality of public water supply treatment | |
| PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY | ||||||
| - | Port development in hazard-prone areas | Provision of transportation stimulates development of hazard-prone areas | Provision of public works stimulates development of hazard-prone areas | Water pollution from fish processing industries & bosts | Development of tourist faclllties in hazardprone areas | |
| Additional Sectors Can Be Portrayed | ||||||
+ Sector reinforces or has positive impacts on another sector
- Sector has negative impacts on another sector
ICZM requires “horizontal integration” of all these national agencies (and their private sector clientele) as partners. While no hierarchical arrangement may be needed, or possible, there should be a lead agency or a coordinating office. In the initiation of an ICZM programme, strong, sectorally-oriented agencies may be disturbed about their potential loss of power and autonomy that might result from creation of new institutions or reorganization of existing ones. UNESC (1987) state that this may be one of the most significant barriers because bureaucracies are known for “protecting their turf” (OAS, 1984).
Experience shows that it may be more expeditious to set up a strong coordinating office in an appropriate ministry, or at the executive level, to administer the ICZM authority. In this way the actual programme work would be spread among various departments. This would be simpler than to structure a whole new department with autonomy.
The ministries having mandates in broad economic or social sectors will usually have only a partial responsibility with respect to the marine area under national jurisdiction (OAS, 1984). For example, fisheries may fall under a ministry of agriculture, maritime transport under a ministry of transportation, offshore oil and gas development under a ministry of mines and energy and so on.
Coordination of coastal-use management within the framework of development planning represents a major challenge to both developed and developing countries. The main objective is to strengthen the capabilities of countries to fulfil their responsibilities for development and conservation of coastal areas and to increase global efficiency.
A framework must be established for collaboration, integration and communication (through development of appropriate mechanisms and institutions) between sectors in a country and possibly between countries in a region. In addition, institutional cooperation must be strengthened between international agencies and between donors.
Institution-building for integrated planning and management of coastal marine areas and their inclusion within the framework of national development planning require the following: 1) restructuring of governmental institutions responsible for the development and protection of coastal seas; 2) development of coastal and marine policies and programmes for which national capabilities need to be created and coordinated; 3) fostering technical cooperation among developing countries in the field of ocean and coastal planning and management by establishing or strengthening appropriate mechanisms; 4) promoting public awareness of the importance of the sea, its products and its conservation in national development strategies; and 5) developing the capacity to implement existing international agreements including the drafting of appropriate national legislation.
Because all levels of government must be involved in ICZM (see Principle 8) along with development interests and resource users (see Principle 13), the task of coordination with the variety of “stakeholders” is complex and important. The decision-making and implementation processes must be shared among these interests, requiring efficient communication and effective dialogue. Information-sharing is especially important (Box 7.2). Public hearings or consultations may be appropriate in advance of particularly important decisions. For most programmes it will be desirable, if not essential, to establish an “interagency coordinating committee” to review progress, consider programme changes, discuss proposed new rules, receive advice, and consider actions on specific development applications and resource management proposals. The benefit of widening the involvement in ICZM beyond government agencies to include the public is particularly emphasized for small island countries such as those in the Caribbean (Box 7.3).
Figure 7.1 Extent of Government Control in the Management of Marine and Coastal Resources and Environments Source: Sorensen and McCreary (1990)
Figure 7.2 Legislative Administration of the Coastal Environment of New Zealand. Source: Sorensen and McCreary (1990)
| BOX 7.2-COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CRM) STATUS IN INDONESIA | |
| The main problem with existing CRM in Indonesia [in 1985] is that a central integrated and coordinated programme has not yet been established, although the basic legislation has been passed, the lead ministry identified (Population and Environmental Affairs) and a coordinating committee among the ministries proposed. Single purpose sectoral projects advocated by one line ministry (or subordinate counterparts at provincial or kabupatens level) presently do not consider the adverse CRM and environmental effects and can conflict with the programmes of other ministries (or subordinate equivalents). As a consequence, poor, uninformed, decision-making results, and coastal use options are unnecessarily compromised and resources lost. | formulation, training, research and development, pilot-level implementaion, dissemination of information, periodic adjustment of programme goals, and gradual expansion of the programme throughout the provinces of the country. |
| All the above components would be a part of both national and provincial initiatives, but most of the actual management and decision-making would occur at the provincial level while most of the important policies and guidance including those of national significance would be developed and monitored at the national level. The above components also serve as the general sequence for programme evolution. | |
| The goals of CRM programme would be to provide the framework for resolving conflicts among single purpose proposals in a specific region, by evaluating the consequences of individual projects on other activities and selecting alternatives that maximize multiple and compatible use and minimize unnecessary foreclosures of option or losses to coastal resources. The components should be included in the programme: policy and plan | Policy and plan formulation would refine existing policies, develop new ones, and develop implementing procedures (regulations). Coordination with conservation and development agencies would be accomplished until an integrated national plan and process is adopted. Gradually this would filter down to the provincial level. After specific regional plans and a process is established, day-to-following day CRM would be initiated at the provincial and lower levels. |
| Source:Burbridge and Maragos (1985) | |
The ICZM authority must have influence over a wide range of ministries and agencies - e.g., finance, agriculture, economic planning, commerce, tourism, forestry, and transportation - and often take a position on coastal development or conservation that is adverse to one or more of them. As Joliffe has said:“It cannot be assumed that diverse authorities, such as government departments, local government authorities, conservation agencies, port and harbour authorities, water and river authorities, and many others, will, without prodigious effort and goodwill, coordinate their policies in relation to coastal problems” (Joliffe and Patman, 1985).
Without exception, institutions will defend their turf and only yield authority and prerogative. Convincing institutions to cooperate in multi-sectoral activities toward ICZM goals that no single institution can accomplish singly is certainly one of the toughest jobs for the ICZM authority. Without centralization of authority - i.e., above the level of the individual ministries or departments of government - ICZM success will be minimal.
Few countries will have an interagency or interministerial entity already in existence which is positioned to take on an ICZM programme. Therefore, a lead agency with an interagency mandate will usually have to be created to accomplish the coordinative management and planning functions of ICZM. As Joliffe and patman (1985) state the case: “…what is quite clear is that existing planning and management agencies are essentially land or sea-based and that the littoral zone normally marks a jurisdictional boundary rather than the vital focus for coastal planning and management.”
The ICZM office within the lead agency should be mandated, staffed, and budgeted to accomplish at least the minimum three tasks listed in section 4: 1) interinstitutional coordination on coastal resource conservation matters, 2) review and comment on all major coastal developments, and 3) compliance with ICZM rules and decisions. A simplification that has merit is “networking”, whereby agencies have individual tasks to perform under a coordinated mechanism (Box 7.4). Other tasks that may be added as possible to build a full-service ICZM operation are described later in this section.
Awareness must be raised among the public, the managers, and the developers concerning the integrated nature of the problem, the consequences of resources mis-management, and the importance of the maritime dimension in national planning and development strategies.
Education is needed in the skills required for ICZM, particularly for fact-finding and managerial personnel who formulate policy and organize programme elements involving skills in law, economics, and development management.
| BOX 7.3 - INVOLVING LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN ICZM |
| Implementation of management programmes is not and should not be an entirely governmental responsibility. Resource management objectives can be pursued by local communities, resource user groups, schools, and other formal or informal collectives. For example, fishermen's cooperatives have proven to be extremely effective tools for implementation of development objectives in Guyana, Nevis and Barbados. Government has provided incentive, but the organization has remained non-governmental. Often, local communities and resource users have developed management techniques to sustain their traditional resource use, and these techniques can be exploited… Government regulation, on the other hand, can often make the resource user feel out of control of his destiny and out of touch with his environment. |
| To a particular community, their special problems may have more importance, and government's inability to see their situation can be frustrating. Communities can resolve many of these special problems themselves by freely exchanging ideas and information and working towards commonly acceptable solutions. Government can assist by being a receptive part of this problem-solving process, working to understand the problems of individual groups, and supplying technical or institutional assistance to encourage local efforts. |
| Particularly in rural communities, many people do not receive wages or salaries, but rather depend on activities like subsistence fishing, small scale farming, or trade for their survival. An increase in the per caput income is unlikely to affect these people; development for them means increased ability to carry out the activities on which they rely. Actions that close options off by concentrating on purely economic development can wind up creating more problems than they resolve. When, for example, commercial fishing is developed to the point of squeezing out the subsistence fisherman, the net result to the community can be negative, despite apparent economic growth. |
| Source:Geoghegan(1984) |
BOX 7.4-OMAN: AN EXAMPLE OF THE MULTIPLE JURISDICTION, OR NETWORKING, APPROACH TO ICZM
CASE STUDY
The success of any plan that implicates different ministries, as this Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for Oman does, depends on two principal factors:
A lead agency should assume primary responsibility for coordinating these two tasks. Since the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has commissioned this CZMP, it is assumed that this responsibility should rest with them. However, certain specialized tasks relating to the management of the various resources fall directly into mandate of other ministries which should assume that responsibility for them.
Thus, in the ICZM recommendations, tasks pertaining to different activities are assigned as follows:
land-use policy, planning, and allocation: to the Ministry of Housing
recreation and tourism policy, planning and management : to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry through the Department of Tourism
fisheries support systems management : to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries through the Directorate General of Fisheries
implementation of environmental policy: to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources
protected areas management : to an existing management authority in the Capital Area pending acceptance of implementation of recommendations of IUCN project 9069
control of roads, harbours, and coastal works : to the Ministry of Communication
site implementation of policy: to the Capital Area Municipality and the Ministry of Regional Municipalities throughout the respective municipalities
enforcement of environmental and species protection regulations : to the Royal Oman Police
Source: Adapted from Salm (1986)
Training programmes should be developed on various aspects of ICZM planning at national and regional levels, including seminars and workshops for policy-makers and planners, short-term courses, development of new academic programmes aiming at the development of multidisciplinary competencies (e.g., law of the sea, environmental economy, socio-economy, sociology, demography), preparation of training materials (manuals, simulations, audio visual aids) for various strata of the public, including the rural communities (Clark,1991b).
A Coastal Master Plan is the final product of the basic ICZM planning activity. It provides a detailed representation of the coastal zone and an inventory of the resources, an identification of critical areas, specifying those in need of special attention and those offering potential for development.
The Master Plan identifies the permissible type of uses and the standards for these uses, the procedure for permit approval processes, for monitoring of activities and enforcement of compliance. It indicates options for human progress in the coastal area - e.g., it recommends governmental and private actions to accomplish beneficial and sustainable change; i.e., change that is economically sound and socially just and that maintains the natural resource base. It should have a complete set of objectives as its foundation.
Objectives of the Master Plan could include any of the following : 1)maintain a high quality coastal environment; 2)identify and protect valuable species (and their intraspecific variations): 3)identify and conserve critical coastal habitats and identify lands that are particularly suitable for development; 4)resolve conflicts among incompatible activities affecting coastal and ocean resources and the use of space; 5)identify and control activities that have an adverse impact upon the coastal and marine environment; 6)control pollution from “point sources” and from land runoff as well as accidental spills of pollutants; 7)restore damaged ecosystems; 8)coordinate governmental efforts to promote the sustainable development of coastal and ocean resources; 9)balance economic and environmental pressures as they affect development and conservation of coastal and ocean resources; 10)provide guidance for coastal development planning to reduce inadvertent side effects; 11)analyse and prepare safer options for coastal development; and 12)raise public awareness.
In collecting data and synthesizing information for the Master Plan, the kinds of information needed for the strategic plan are those that will enhance the decision-making process, that clearly depict the trade-offs. The Master Plan has a fixed time frame to which the strategy of its creation must be adapted. And it must be recognized that each version of the plan is only an interim statement since the plan basis will be constantly changing and therefore in constant need of updating.
To assume that planning ends with programme development would be incorrect. In an effective ICZM programme, planning is a continuing process, perhaps even more at the tactical than at the strategic level. Because conditions change and the ICZM programme is always gaining experience and evolving, planning must be an ongoing activity. The planning function should include the more technical aspects of the programme and the more scientifically trained staff.
In the ICZM programme development structure suggested herein, where management functions are separated from planning functions (somewhat arbitrarily), a permanent planning unit can be annexed to the ICZM staff or planning services can be obtained from universities, research institutes (as in Trinidad and Tobago) or consultants.
The planning unit would handle a wide variety of services in the areas of data collection, planning, education, special programmes, advisory technical services, and research. In a modest programme for a small country the ICZM planning unit might consist of one or two professionals with additional outside assistance as needed.
The planning unit's initial priority should go to supporting the management unit in its work (Box 7.5). This would mostly entail furnishing technical background material, including surveys and delineations of special areas. Much of the output would be maps and overlays.
BOX 7.5 - EXAMPLE SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE EXPANDED ICZM MODE
Technical services: planning, information management, survey and mapping, monitoring, research, economic analysis, and technical advice to developers, government agencies, and interest groups.
Education services: information dissemination, public education, staff training, extension services.
Guidelines: formulation of standards and guidelines for coastal development, and publication and update of the standards and guidelines.
Restoration activities: assessing the state of coastal renewable resources, determining restoration needs, designing restoration projects.
Protected areas: determining the need for the establishment of a system of parks, reserves, or other types of protected areas, priorities for site selection, creation of management plans.
In reactive mode, integrated management is an issue-driven process and the nature of the particular issues dictates the type of programme to be created and the boundaries of the programme. In this mode, the effort and expense required to set up an ICZM-type programme would not be justified unless there were multiple issues of importance to be addressed.
In prescriptive mode, integrated management is part of the national development planning process and may help to avoid the most serious conflicts by making the “right” decisions early in the process. This consideration is particularly important for developing countries.
In concept, ICZM can be as simple as a programme of impact assessment for development projects; or it can be as complex as a comprehensive, full service, programme of economic development, conservation, education, and social well-being. In the minimal mode, it is anticipated that the programme would mainly review developments and issue permits for acceptable projects are examined.
In an expanded mode, the ICZM programme would broaden out to include additional functions needed for a more complete programme. Examples of some of the more valuable additional functions are shown (see Philippines example in Box 7.6).
Planning boundaries were discussed in the previous section. Here the final boundaries for the management zone are examined.
According to Sorensen and McCreary (1990), because there is a broad array of possible coastal issues, there is a broad array of possible ICZM management boundaries (Table 7.3 and and Figure 7.3). Some boundaries are quite narrow, and are best suited to deal with use conflicts occurring at the immediate shoreline. If watershed-generated impacts are of concern, then a coastal management boundary extending inland would be justified. Likewise, if the issues extend over all the sea area under national jurisdiction, then the whole EEZ should be included.
To best accomplish the purposes of ICZM, the coastal zone area should be divided into management “tiers”, each representing a management unit characterized by different resources, issues and jurisdictions.
An approach using four tiers is shown in Box 7.7. In this approach, one tier would be the marine and coastal waters (wetside) and would be adjusted to reflect fisheries and port sectors, the importance of nearshore spawning and nursery habitats, and regional and international matters. A second would be the primary coastal zone, or “edge zone” defined to include all the transitional areas between land and sea-wetlands, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuaries/lagoons, beaches, tidal rivers, and flood plains. A third tier (dryside) would include the shorefront that borders the transitional area and would address coastal development and storm-flooded areas. A fourth tier would be all the areas inland of the primary zone that have critical linkages to the primary zone and its resources and would address watershed problems (Salm and Clark, 1984).
BOX 7.6 - PHILIPPINES ICZM STRATEGY
CASE STUDY
The following 12 items, listed as “strategies and targets” for the “enhancement of the coastal zone” of the Philippines show how important the information component is in an ICZM-type programme:
Generation of baseline information about coast zone resources
Identification of the present status of coastal resources and utilization, institutions and policies
Identification of specific environmental problems in the coastal zone
Continuous inventory, monitoring and assessment of coastal zone components
Establishment of a system of coastal zone data storage and retrieval
Development of coastal zone management expertise in the country
Organization of training programmes, fora and symposia where relevant issues in coastal zone management are discussed
Dissemination of information about the importance of the coastal zone through an environmental education approach
Rehabilitation and development of coastal resources and features
Investigation of non-productive coastal environments
Formulation of guidelines and legislation for the implementation of the coastal zone management plan
Delineation of the responsibilities of government agencies related to coastal zone management
Source: NEPC (1983)
| Increasing Jurisdictional Area | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oceanward Boundary Options | Mean low tide (MLT) or mean high tide (MHT) | Arbitrary oceanward distance(s) from a tidal mark | Boundary between provincial or state jurisdiction and national jurisdiction* | Ocean boundary of the territorial sea* (usually) between 3 and 12 n.m. from CB)† | Ocean edge of the continental margin or shelf** | Ocean boundary of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) †† | |
| Inland Boundary Options | |||||||
| Increasing Jurisdictional Area | Arbitrary diatance(s) from a tidal mark (such as 200 motors from low tide) | Costa Rica (MLT) | Sri Lanka Brazil Israel | California (from 1972 to 1976) | Spain | Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority | Sri Lanka, Netherlands, and Sweden ocean management program |
| Inland boundary of local government's jurisdiction*** | Western Australia (MHT) | State of Washington (for planning) | |||||
| Inland limits of lands on which adverse Impacts may be generated | • U.S. Coastal
Zone Management Act • California (since 1976) | ||||||
| Inland limit of climatic Influence | |||||||
* In many cases the boundary between a coastal state (or province) and the national jurisdiction is the same as theterritorial sea boundary line.
** In a number of places the continental margin extends oceanward beyond 200 nautical miles.
***The Inland boundary of local government's jurisdiction often extends further Inland than the lands on whichadverse impacts may be generated.
† The coastal baseline (CB) is a series of straight lines that interconnect coastal islands, headlands and promontories.It is used to map the oceanward boundary of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone.
†† The EEZ extends 200 n.m. or to the oceanward limit of the continental margin, whichever is greater.
Figure 7.3 Existing and potential Boundaries of Coastal Zone Management Programmes and Ocean Management Programmes Source: Sorensen and McCreary (1990)
| BOX 7.7 - A FOUR-TIER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE COASTAL ZONE | |
| The following tiers are used to subdivide the coastal zone into management sub-units that are compatible with existing natural and jurisdictional boundaries: | |
| Tier 1) | Marine and coastal waters - The open water part of the coastal zone beyond the transitional area of wetlands, tide flats, etc.; permanently submerged resources. High level of central government interest and authority. |
| Tier 2) | Transitional area - The edge of the sea which is intertidal may include coastal lowlands subject to flooding during seastorms as well as intertidal mangroves, tideflats and beaches. Central government interest; high level of interest regionally and locally. |
| Tier 3) | Shorelands - The lands directly adjacent to the transitional area which generate significant impacts to coastal resources; high value for many purposes; urban waterfront develop- ment usually disrupts the edge zone and generates pollution. High level of local interest. |
| Tier 4) | Uplands - A fourth tier should be added to include “uplands”, if the ICZM programme is designed to address the effects of watershed clearing and soil erosion, pesticide or herbicide runoff, and alterations of hydro-period caused by dams and reservoirs. |
| Source: Clark (1980) | |
An expanded, more elaborate, version of the management-tier system is shown in Box 7.8. In this seven-tier system, three additional areas are distinguished - coastal flood plains, lagoons and estuaries, and the EEZ. The additional subdivision allows for a more focused and more flexible programme format. But Chua Thia-Eng (pers. comm.) warns that “One should not lose the holistic aspect” because the interactions between tiers may be very important in the management strategy, particularly where the programme is issue- oriented and aimed at reducing adverse impacts.
In the regional approach, specific “Regional Units” would be selected for customized planning and management programmes created specifically for the conservation, economic, and social needs of particular coastal regions. A regional unit might be a particular bay, estuary/lagoon, or commercial port and its surrounding communities and land resources. Or it might be a stretch of coast including beaches, coral reef and lagoon, and surrounding villages and resorts. Or perhaps, an island and its aquatic surroundings.
Specifically, the national ICZM programme can be organized to implement individual regional unit programmes, if it has the flexibility to recognize regional distinction. The national programme should be organized to facilitate regional economic development planning activities (Clark, 1990). Case studies of attempts at regional unit implementation of ICZM are shown in Box 7.9. However, not all attempts succeed; for example, refer to Canada's experience in Section 7.3 and Box 7.9.
Protected areas as well as regulatory components are necessary for effective coastal and marine integrated programme. Protected areas provide custodial protection for areas of special resource value. The protected area component can be facilitated by regulations which address both generic types of habitat of widely recognized biodiversity value (e.g., all mangrove forests or all coral reefs) and specific sites identified as “environmentally sensitive” (e.g., a particular lagoon, coral reef, or coastal lowland forest) for which site boundaries can be drawn.
An example of alternative approaches using protected areas is the Australian State of Western Australia where the ICZM strategy is to keep the land adjacent to the edge of the sea in a State Reserve and not “alienate” it for private purposes. The effect of this linear coastal reserve is to provide a buffer strip (of undeveloped public land) between the high water line and the developed part of the shorelands (O'Brien, 1988). In this manner, development does not crowd into the “edge zone”, site of some of the most valuable of coastal critical areas (see Principle 4).
| BOX 7.8 - A SEVEN-TIER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE COASTAL ZONE | |
| 1. | Upland areas of major influence; |
| 2. | All coastal lands subject to storm flooding by the sea; |
| 3. | All intertidal areas of mangrove, marsh, deltas, salt flats, tideflats, and beaches; |
| 4. | All permanent shallow coastal water areas such as bays, lagoons, estuaries, deltaic waterways, and nearcoast waters that include seagrass meadows, coral reefs, shellfish beds, and submerged bars; |
| 5. | All the sovereign nearshore coastal waters (territorial waters), usually to a distance of 12 miles offshore; |
| 6. | All small coastal islands and offshore reefs; and |
| 7. | The country's declared Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). |
| BOX 7.9 - REGIONAL ICZM PROGRAMME INITIATIVES |
| CASE STUDY |
| Mexico: The State of Yucatan, Mexico, has developed an ICZM-type plan for management of its coastline (Rafael Robles, pers. comm.). Major goals are to control coastal tourism development, create sustainable occupations for Yucatecans, reduce conflict, and improve the development and the conservation process. A “Plan de Manejo Integral de la Zona Costera” has been created for Yucatan, cooperation of the Federal Government has been assured, and the programme is now moving into the implementation phase. The plan combines regulatory control with designation of protected areas. |
| SE Asia: In a trial programme of great interest, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) operating a coordinated series of regional-unit ICZM pilot studies, one in each of the six ASEAN countries. The idea was to start with prototype regional units in hopes that these would show enough promise to encourage the individual countries to implement nationwide ICZM programmes or, at least, to attempt more regional unit programmes within each country. The project was funded by USAID and operated by the International Center for Aquatic Living Resources Management (ICLARM) in Manila. |
| Canada: Canada's experience with the Regional Unit approach did not work out well. In fact, Hildebrand (1989) states that “the momentum for a nationally coordinated CZM programme was lost” in disagreements over administration of a federal provincial agreement for the Fraser River Estuary (British Columbia, Canada) unit programme (see section 7.3 for more details). |
Of the greatest economic importance is maintaining the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture. Continued fish production means continued livelihood for fishermen and for others in the fishing industry, including boat builders, trap and net makers, packers, distributors, and retailers - all of which enhances social, cultural, economic, and political stability. Of particular importance, a strong domestic fishery promotes self-sufficiency and reduces the outgo of foreign exchange. Compatible aquaculture can also improve the jobs and foreign exchange situation (Table 7.4).
As previously mentioned, ICZM-type programmes are less involved with control of fishermen or fisheries harvests and more with habitats of fish and shellfish and water suitability. Because the typical fisheries management role is not so likely to be subsumed by ICZM, the coastal management programme is often a collaborative venture working in cooperation with the fisheries authority. However, the author's opinion is not unanimous; some authorities see regular fisheries management as being undertaken “under the general framework of ICZM” (Chua Thia-Eng, pers. comm.).
A primary interest of coastal fishermen in ICZM is its potential role in the conservation of critical habitats (e.g., wetlands, and coral reefs) and protection of water quality. There will be a much closer connection between ICZM-type programmes and the small-scale, artisanal, fisheries than with the more industrialized offshore fisheries, because the artisanal fisheries are conducted in near-coastal and lagoonal/estuarine waters where the ICZM programme would be most relevant.
In aquaculture, the role of ICZM is more direct because aquaculture usually requires the conversion of land and water areas, a habitat issue. Grow-out pond construction, for example, usually requires conversion of natural coastal lowlands or mangrove forests to open water impoundments. If aquaculture expansion is not controlled, the long term consequences of habitat conversion may be to reduce the natural reproduction of species used in aquaculture, as well as reduce other natural values and contribute to pollution of shallow coastal waters. The presently favoured management response to requests for additional construction of ponds is to recommend against expansion if intensification of use and increased production from existing ponds is feasible (Snedaker et al., 1986).
With assistance from USAID, Ecuador is developing and ICZM-type programme called a “Coastal Resources Management Programme” (CRMP) which has as a main element, and major motivation, the control of coastal shrimp aquaculture. The enormous Ecuadorian aquaculture industry has pre-empted much of the mangrove forest along the coast and the natural production of young shrimp needed to stock the grow-out ponds has been depleted. CRMP is proposed as the management and planning approach best suited to control the expansion of the industry and, at the same time, to accomplish other needed management functions (Box 7.10).
| Social Feasibility of Coastal Aquaculture | |||
| In the context of working with coastal communities to develop appropriate aquaculture systems, the following aspects of community structure and institutions appear to be the most important: | 2) | The common-property nature of the coastal zone's resources, especially mangrove areas, is being rapidly eroded by the conversion of much of these areas to private fishpond use. This use and missue of the coastal zone is made possible through subsidized financing and institutional arrangements that favour the large-scale private or corporate investor over the small-scale, perhaps communal, investor. | |
| - | informal and formal institutions, especially those of a legal nature that govern property or use rights; | ||
| - | sources of wealth (productive assets) and degree of concentration of ownership; | ||
| - | male and female labour use patterns and availability; | ||
| - | extent of collective action and strong leadership; | The above two factors imply that for the majority of residents in the coastal zone there is nothing particularly beneficial in existing community power structures and institutional arrangements. Most often, those communities have experienced only the negative aspects of this technology; for example, in the form of large- scale trawlers that hve led to the over-exploitation of many coastal fishing grounds. What has been missing in much of their experience to date with technological advance is an element of community control over its development and use. | |
| - | previous experience with and reaction to technological charge in aquaculture or other community activities; | ||
| - | present skill levels, both technical and managerial; and | ||
| - | extent of linkages with external institutions, including credit, extension and markets | ||
| In most instances, technology is a two-edged sword. While it can potentially liberate and add to general community welfare, it frequently does so at the cost of established socio-cultural values, community structures and institutions. Oln the case of coastal aquaculture, however, two major factors must be kept in mind with respect to this issue | Participatory development on the part of coastal communities will require conscious efforts to involve them in the process of aquaculture development; it certainly will not come about without efforts to decentralize control and decision-making over the coastal zone itself and the technologies that are appropriate there. Nor will participatory development come about without efforts of interested researchers, extension workers, rural bankers and non-governmental community developers to make certain that communities are directly involved and supported over the long term. | ||
| 1) | The vast majority of residents in coastal communities are desperately poor. They are poor because of their lack of access to alternative employment opportunities and because existing community and national structures and institutions most often allow local elites to capture the bulk of any benefits that come from more productive tech-nologies introduced to or adopted by such communities. | ||
BOX 7.10- ECUADOR'S PROPOSED COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
CASE STUDY
Ecuador's Coastal Resources Management Programme (CRMP) began in March, 1986, when USAID selected Ecuador as the first of three countries in which to start a pilot project on integrated management of coastal resources. The Coastal Resources Center of the University of Rhode Island (URI) and the Office of the Environment in the Ministry of Energy and Mines (DIGEMA) in Ecuador were chosen to implement the project.
Ecuador's future economic development in large measure depends upon how its coastal ecosystems are utilized and managed. It is of the utmost importance that the resource base of agricultural products, lumber, fisheries. and cultured seafood is not needlessly degraded.
The seven proposed components of the programme (as of August 1988) are as follows:
Form a Ranger Corps to improve enforcement of existing statutes;
Designate special management zones and create a decision-making body for each;
Create advisory committees in each management zone comprised of citizens and local and regional government entities;
Establish in Quito a simple structure to provide high level governmental support to the CRMP programme;
Establish a public education programme to show the people the importance of coastal resource management;
Establish a research programme on coastal issues, and;
Develop a training programme for all levels of participation in coastal resources management.
Source : URI (1989)
The effectiveness of “traditional” conservation, such as fisheries management, at the local level (by villages, tribes, etc.), has been recognized recently in studies in Nova Scotia (Canada), Brazil, Palau, Solomon Islands, and elsewhere (Principle 14); but there is little experience with incorporating traditional conservation into broad ICZM programmes. However, enough thought has been given to the subject as to how it could fit under the umbrella of ICZM.
Presently, the best approach appears to be the establishment of designated marine protected areas with joint authority between the local village or tribal governing unit and the national government. With the traditional conservation area set aside as a protected area, rules of access and resource use can be formulated to give priority to the traditional users. In this situation, where the traditional group has exclusive, or priority, access to the resource, more care may be exercised in the quantity of fish or shellfish removed, abstinence may be practised during spawning periods, and less destructive fishing methods may be used. In some cases, this will provide for better conservation of fishery resources than nationwide, centrally operated, management. But a combination of the two approaches might give an even better result.
A second approach is to designate the subject area as an ICZM regional unit and protect its resources through regulations and guidelines (the “regulatory” approach). However, the custodial approach (parks and reserves ) might work better because the management authority would actually own the area - proprietorship generally confers a higher level of autonomy than regulation through the “police power” of government. The central government keeps some control by “leasing” the area to local authorities; the lease would be revocable for cause. The optimum arrangement would be to fit the custodial, protected areas, approach into a general ICZM regional programme (see Box 7.11.)
It should be noted that the major result of officially recognizing traditional (or “customary”) conservation in an ICZM-type programme will be to convert public property rights, “the commons”, to village or tribal property rights. This can be accomplished by a variety of techniques for transferring property use rights, such as designating the fishing area as a “resource reserve”.
National research capacity is required to: 1) understand ocean and coastal processes, their relationship and impact upon the resource endowment; 2)evaluate, develop and conserve the resource endowment; 3)evaluate safety and environmental protection requirements in the marine areas as well as those related to the protection of life and property in the coastal area; 4)evaluate information needs for monitoring the effects of present and planned activities on the marine and coastal environment; 5)assess new or improved technology to support coastal area and EEZ surveying, mapping, and research programmes; 6)develop approaches for multiple uses, and identify and resolve potential and current conflicts between the various users of coastal seas; 7)establish management structures for planning and coordinating the development activities in the coastal zone, including the EEZ; and 8)develop a regulatory framework and coordination machinery needed to implement a national ICZM plan.
BOX 7.11 - ASSESSING “TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT” OF FISHERIES
A Commonwealth Science Council report recommends the following guidelines for the assessment of traditional fisheries:
adaptability of traditional systems in the face of changes in perception, technology and society;
the place of traditional knowledge in society - its role in social status, and differing sex roles;
responses to commercial development;
adaptability of traditional fisheries management regimes;
effective means of obtaining and recording traditional knowledge;
definition of traditional fisheries;
clarification of nature of coastal resource use rights;
social unit(s) on which rights are based;
principles of boundary delimitation;
allocation and transfer of coastal resource use rights;
procedures for sharing of resources with outsiders;
traditional conservation practices; and
dispute resolution mechanisms.
Source : SPREP (1985)
Lack of financial support at national and regional level hampers the management of ocean and coastal resources in developing countries. Protection of resources and adoption of more “responsible” development schemes for long term benefits may have immediate costs which developing countries might not be able to afford. Therefore, the promotion of ICZM in developing countries might best be in the form of a programme which utilizes some proportion of financial support from international funding agencies. But, still the ICZM programme must be founded on the national economic planning of coastal states.
Funding sources need identifying and proper funding procedures should be promoted. In particular, national sources should be identified (fees, fines, taxes, rents) and short-term financing cycles by donors should be replaced by medium to long-term cycles. Various international banks and donors should allocate a significant share of the funding they provide for pre-investment studies and better coordinate their interventions among themselves.
Conservation-oriented investment opportunities in coastal seas, including environmental rehabilitation, should be identified and encouraged as a useful complement to development-based funding, particularly for innovative resource developments. International organizations and donor agencies have a major role to play in mobilizing finances for ICZM managed coastal seas development and in formulating optimal revenue-generating systems. Excess funding should be diverted away from overinvested extractive industries into creation of alternative employment opportunities.
