International Experience in Integrated CoastalResources Management

Presented to the Fiji National Workshop onIntegrated Coastal Resources Management

April 9-11, 2002Suva, Fiji

by Lynne Zeitlin Hale and Donald D. Robadue, Jr.Coastal Resources Center

Graduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode Island

Narragansett, Rhode Island USA

The preparation of the document was generously supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundationas part of the Coastal Resources Center’s Program: Fostering Marine Conservation in the Western PacificEnabling People, Enabling Site Management.

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN INTEGRATED COASTAL RESOURCESMANAGEMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.0 COASTAL MANAGEMENT IS AN APPROACH RECOGNIZED AS CENTRAL TO THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL RESOURCES ........................................................... 6

3.0 PLACES THAT HAVE UTILIZED AN ICM APPROACH HAVE REALIZED TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL .AND SOCIAL BENEFITS ................................................................................................................................. 7

4.0 COUNTRIES FOLLOW DIFFERENT STRATEGIES TO ADVANCE TOWARDS INTEGRATED COASTALMANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 8

4.1 NATIONAL COASTAL PROGRAMS. ...................................................................................................................... 84.2 LOCAL AND SITE-BASED PROGRAMS. .................................................................................................................. 84.3 ISSUE – SPECIFIC (ENHANCED SECTORAL) PROGRAMS. ...................................................................................... 9

5.0 COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CAN BE INITIATED AT ANY LEVEL, AND EVOLVE OVER ........TIME TO INCREASE THEIR SCALE, SCOPE, AND IMPACT ...................................................................... 11

6.0 THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF INTEGRATED APPROACHES TO COASTAL RESOURCESMANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 13

6.1 A GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS .................................................................................................................................... 136.2 LEADERSHIP ................................................................................................................................................... 136.3 LOCAL AND NATIONAL OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................ 136.4 INTEGRATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN THE POLICY PROCESS ............................................................... 146.5 LEARNING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 146.6 A PHASED STRATEGIC APPROACH TO SELECTING ISSUES AND ADDRESSING THEM IN A GOAL-DRIVEN/ACTION

ORIENTED MANNER ....................................................................................................................................... 146.7 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS CAN (AND SHOULD) OCCUR CONCURRENTLY WITH PLANNING ................................ 156.8 INTEGRATION ACROSS SECTORS AND SCALES OF MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 156.9 INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ..................................................................................................... 166.10 MATCHING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES TO THE CAPABILITY OF THE INSTITUTIONS ................................................... 16

7.0 CASE STUDIES OF INTERNATIONAL ICM EXPERIENCE .......................................................................... 18

7.1 SRI LANKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................................................. 187.2 TANZANIA NATIONAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ............................................................................... 217.3 XCALAK VILLAGE COMMUNITY STRATEGY (MEXICO) ....................................................................................... 257.4 CHWAKA BAY-PAJE ACTION PLAN (ZANZIBAR, UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA) ............................................. 287.5 CORAL REEF PROTECTION IN PHUKET, THAILAND: A STEP TOWARD INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT ....... 257.6 ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT (UNITED STATES) ......................................................................................... 317.7 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR QUINTANA ROO, MEXICO .................................................................. 347.8 MARICULTURE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR TANZANIA ............................................................................... 37

ENDNOTES 39

4

International Experience in IntegratedCoastal Resources Management

Presented to the Fiji National Workshop on Integrated Coastal Resources ManagementApril 9-11, 2002, Suva, Fiji

byLynne Zeitlin Hale and Donald D. Robadue, Jr.

Coastal Resources CenterUniversity of Rhode Island,

Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA

1.0 Introduction

By 2000, approximately 98 coastal nations or semi-sovereign states had initiated 345 coastal manage-ment efforts, nearly double the number of efforts catalogued in 19931. Coastal countries have testedand adopted a wide array of strategies, each “inventing” the coastal program or policy that fits its uniquedevelopmental, environmental, social and political situation. Some countries emphasize specific issues,such as tourism development or shoreline erosion, others are most concerned about certain criticalcoastal ecosystems or large marine ecosystems, while other programs emphasize coastal and marinebiodiversity conservation and place a priority on establishing marine protected areas and no-takereserves. (Box 1) In all cases, they are tackling these issues by pursuing collaborative mechanisms thatcut across levels of government as well as employing community-based approaches that build towardsustainable development.

This paper draws upon selected aspects of the rapidly growing and diverse body of world experience ofnations at all stages of development in light of some of the challenges and opportunities that Fiji currentlyfaces.

The information and examples presented here emphasize findings from the URI Coastal ResourcesCenter’s over 25 years of experience in assisting a wide range of partners both in the United States anddeveloping countries to formulate, implement and assess coastal management programs.

Box 1Principal Ocean and Coastal Activities

Navigation and CommunicationsShippingPort and harbor developmentNavigational aidsCommunication cables

Living Marine ResourcesFishing (traditional, artisanal, industrial)AquacultureGathering of seaweedGathering of other marine creatures (e.g., seacucumbers, snails, shells, corals, pearls)Tropical fish collectionCollection of marine mammals for consumption,display, or researchWatching marine mammals (e.g., whale watch-ing)Marine biotechnology applications; use of marineorganisms or processes for product development

Mineral and Energy ResourcesHydrocarbon (oil and gas) exploration andproductionOffshore drilling, pipeline laying, platforms,installationsExploitation of sand and gravel aggregatesExploitation of other minerals (gold, placerdeposits. polymetallic sulfides, manganesenodules)Other forms of ocean energy (e.g.. wave energy,tidal power, ocean thermal energy)

Tourism and RecreationHotels, vacation homesTourism infrastructure (transportation services)Swimming and diving, underwater parksRecreational fishing, boatingNon-consumptive aesthetic uses

Coastal Infrastructure DevelopmentRoads, bridges, other transportationinfrastructureWater supply and treatmentReclamation or alteration of coastal waters (e.g..for building of human settlements, impoundmentfor aquaculture ponds. diking for recreationalfacilities)Desalination facilities

Waste Disposal and Pollution PreventionSiting of industrial facilitiesSewage disposalDumping of dredged materialsDisposal of other wastesNonpoint sources of marine pollution (agriculture,runoff, river sedimentation)Oil and toxic spill contingency planning

Ocean and Coastal Environmental QualityProtection

Protection of the ocean’s global role in regulatingclimateProtection of the oceans from pollutionProtection of the oceans from transport anddisposal of hazardous materials (radioactive,chemical, etc.)Establishment of marine and coastal protectedareas, parks to protect special areas or features(e.g., coral reefs, wildlife sanctuaries)Marine mammal protectionProtection of cultural resources (e.g.. religioussites, archaeological sites. Ship- wrecks)Protection of the oceans from transfer of alienspecies (e.g., through ballast waters)Prevention and mitigation of harmful algal bloomphenomena

Source: Biliana Cicin-Sain and Robert W. Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management:Concepts and Practices. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Table 1.2 in original.

5

6

2.0 Coastal Management is an Approach Recognized as Central to theConservation and Sustainable Development of Coastal Resources2

The term “coastal management” came into use in the United States with the passage of the US CoastalZone Management Act in 1972, after a protracted debate which touched upon how the country shoulddevelop its marine and coastal areas, address the contamination and physical modification of its hundredsof estuaries, and whether the federal government had a role in land use decision-making. The U.S. choseto emphasize a voluntary, state-led approach, providing program guidance, funding for planning and imple-mentation of approved programs’ initiatives, and the promise that the Federal Government would makedecisions consistent with state policy.

In the 1980s a number of developing countries began to launch coastal management programs. SriLanka and Costa Rica were early program innovators, and bilateral donors such as the United StatesAgency for International Development supported pilot programs in a number of nations in Asia andLatin America. In 1992, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) andthe parallel non-government-led Global Forum held in Rio de Janeiro provided unified, global recogni-tion of the need and utility of an integrated coastal governance approach. The Rio Principles on Environ-ment and Development and Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 called all coastal nations to formulate and imple-ment coastal management programs by the end of that decade.

Since the Rio conference on sustainable development, coastal management has been embraced by manydeveloping countries as well as incorporated into a number of global and regional environmental treaties.These include the:· Convention on Biological Diversity· Convention on Climate Change· Global Program of Action on Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities· International Coral Reef Initiative· Cartagena Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the

Wider Caribbean Region· Program of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States

These agreements assign a central role to integrated coastal governance in carrying out commitments tothe conservation and sustainable development of coastal areas.

Over the past 25 years, we have learned that no single coastal management strategy or method is more“correct” than another. Indeed, the integrated governance of the world’s coastal ecosystems does notoccur through the application of any standard recipe. Rather success is found by engaging the layers ofgovernment together with the private and civic sectors to tailor a mixture of strategies which match theecological, social, economic, cultural and institutional conditions and processes at work in the place thatis to be managed.

7

3.0 Places that have Utilized an ICM Approach have Realized TangibleEnvironmental and Social Benefits.

To date many of the major achievements of coastal management programs have been institutional –better governance. ICM has resulted in better siting decisions for economic facilities and urban infra-structure, cost efficiencies, harmonized policy, conflicts avoided and conflicts resolved. Environmentaloutcomes have been demonstrated for specific sites, typically at a small scale. Larger scale environ-mental improvements have been achieved in locations where management initiatives have been sustainedover decades. Examples of some tangible successes of ICM programs in developing countries areshown in Box 2.

Tanzania• Through a community-based coastal management

program, the Tanga District has largely halted theuse of dynamite fishing by local fishers

• District officials in Tanga have sufficient capacity toprovide assistance to other coastal districtsembarking on coastal programs

• Mariculture developments will be reviewed andpermitted in an integrated, coordinated way

• The national government is assisting local districtsto prepare district action plans for coastal issues.

Sri Lanka• The spread of illegal coral mining has been stopped;

and in two areas with local level ICM programs,illegal mining has been halted.

• New hotels are constructed with adequate setbacks,reducing the demand for public expenditures forexpensive shorefront protection works.

• Avoidable and costly environmental impacts of newdevelopment have been reduced through early andtypically positive interaction between CoastalProgram staff and developers.

• Rekawa Lagoon resident incomes are increasing as aresult of implementation of an integrated manage-ment plan focused on fisheries rehabilitation andtourism development.

Mexico• Mexico is combining a variety of conservation tools

to move toward coastal management, such asbiosphere reserves, marine protected areas, islandreserves, and regional land and water area zoningplans, which assign coastal areas to categories suchas preservation and conservation.

• Mexico’s 167 coastal municipalities are now eligibleto petition for taking on the responsibility ofcollecting and managing revenues from use conces-sions in the federal coastal zone and seek approvalfor setting policies in these federally - held areas. Aportion of the revenues are to be allocated to coastalmanagement programs.

Philippines• Coral reef condition and fish catch have been

improved in numerous locations through thecreation and implementation of community fisheriesreserves. New eco-tourism opportunities have alsoresulted.

• Enforcement of existing coastal environmental lawsis being improved through improved capacity anddeployment of existing field personnel.

• Citizens’ rights and responsibilities for mangroveuse in specific areas are being negotiated andrecognized by government; then formalized in userstewardship agreements.

• Through a multi-year, multi-faceted investment intraining, capacity for integrated planning andmanagement has improved significantly at Provincialand municipal levels

Box 2Examples of Tangible Successes of Coastal Management Programs

8

4.0 Countries Follow Different Strategies to Advance Towards IntegratedCoastal Management

Coastal management programs share the same general end goal – sustainable coastal development, butface very different circumstances and decisions about what the best first or second step might be inorder to advance a step or two closer to better management of its coastal resources. The severity andnational importance of issues varies, as does the strength of the legal and administrative framework, thelevel of national and local capacity, the amount of experience already gained and the degree of publicinterest and support. The following brief case studies provide a “snapshot” of the starting points forseven different programs. These are described in more detail in Section 7.

4.1 National Coastal Programs

The nations of Sri Lanka and Tanzania took very different paths to creating and implementing theirnational programs. Sri Lanka, the developing nation with the longest history in coastal management,launched its program in 1981 with the passage of a national law. The law sets out the broad frameworkfor the program by defining its overall goals, focus, structure and authority. The Sri Lanka CoastalProgram’s early emphasis was on establishing procedures and administrative capacity to regulateactivities along shorefront, primarily hotel development; eliminate coral mining (which was prohibited bythe Act); and develop and implement a master plan for erosion management. Over time, the programextended its scope to address a range of key coastal issues and fostered and supported decentralizationof its permitting functions as well as integrated planning for specific sites along the coast.

Several site-specific coastal management initiatives had been ongoing in Tanzania for several years in afew locations prior to a national initiative being launched. In 1997, the process to develop a nationalpolicy began with the dual objectives of supporting and extending local initiatives, and enabling thenational government to address development issues and opportunities of greater than local concern (e.g.tourism, mariculture, natural gas development) in an inter-sectoral way that balanced local and nationalinterests. While the Sri Lanka program, created new authorities and rules through a coastal law, theTanzania program is an example of a networked program that relies on effective leadership and coordi-nation of existing authorities and rules.

4.2 Local and Site-based Programs

The number and variety of site-based coastal programs around the world is considerable. In somecases, such site projects have little connection to a national initiative. In other programs, site projectsare explicitly launched as pilot or demonstration sites with the expectation that “models” will be devel-oped that can be replicated in other locations. Investments in local projects may also yield valuableinsights and lessons about how to address issues of coast wide concern that can subsequently beincorporated in national policy. The attractiveness of site-based management to both nations anddonors is due to the many perceived and real benefits such projects offer in a relatively short time. It isa chance to start small on real problems so that implementation can occur quickly and tangible benefitsaccrue. Such demonstrations of the tangible benefits of an ICM approach are essential for buildingconstituencies and capacity for larger initiatives. In the program summaries presented in Section 7, wedescribe four quite different local experiences.

9

In recent years, the cost, sustainability and true “demonstration” nature of some site model programs hasbeen questioned. Site and local programs are perhaps more likely to succeed over the long term if theyare nested within a supportive national (or provincial) framework program that can provide technical,policy and financial support to the local programs.

Xcalak Village Community Strategy, MexicoThis small effort lead to a self-initiated marine park and a major role in negotiationsover future development in the Costa Maya region, through the ecological ordi-nance. It is occurring within the larger process of decentralizing environmentalmanagement in Mexico and a multinational effort to protect the Meso-AmericanReef.

Chwaka-Paje Action Plan, ZanzibarThe Chwaka Bay-Paje demonstration project was launched as a first step towardsdevelopment of a national coastal management program for Zanzibar. The site wasselected because it contained problems and opportunities related to a rapidlydeveloping tourism industry within an area that contains resource-dependenttraditional villages. This situation is representative of many parts of Zanzibar’scoast.

Provincial Planning in Phuket Island, ThailandCoral reef conservation served as an entry point into an integrated effort to attemptto influence the trajectory of tourism and its impacts along the rapidly developingwest coast of Phuket Island. The context proved difficult as national and provincialdevelopment interests were at stake, and the process raised questions about theflow and distribution of the benefits of growth as well as the burden of paying thecosts.

Decentralized Planning, AlaskaThe US Coastal Zone Management framework mainly provides incentives andtechnical assistance to foster the preparation and implementation of state ICMpolicies and plans, which reflect to a large extent the unique situations and circum-stances of each state. The Alaska program demonstrates how a coastal program wasthe catalyst for rural areas of the state, which are largely, but not exclusivelyinhabited by Alaskan natives, to organize into governance units that includedtraditional tribal and non-tribal representation to develop and oversee implementa-tion of local ICM programs.

Box 3 Locally oriented ICM programs (See section 7 for more detail)

4.3 Issue – Specific (Enhanced Sectoral) Programs

Not all ICM programs include regulatory functions or are place-based. Guidelines for good develop-ment practice crafted to apply to the specific environments of a country or region have often been astarting place toward more comprehensive approaches. Working with key stakeholders—within gov-ernment, communities and the private sector—to together develop guidelines on how and where devel-opment should occur can jump-start a governance process. Guidelines developed through a participa-tory process can get incorporated into government processes; and through outreach and extensioncampaigns, can lead to voluntary adoption by developers. (See examples in 7.7 and 7.8)

10

Box 4 Major Functions of Integrated Coastal Management

Area Planning

Plan for present and future uses of coastal and marine areas; provide a long-term vision.

Promotion of Economic Development

Promote appropriate uses of coastal and marine areas (e.g., marine aquaculture, ecotourism).

Stewardship of Resources

Protect the ecological base of coastal and marine areas; preserve biological diversity; ensuresustainability of uses.

Conflict Resolution

Harmonize and balance existing and potential uses; address conflicts among coastal and marineuses.

Protection of Public Safety

Protect public safety in coastal and marine areas typically prone to significant natural, as well ashuman-made, hazards.

Proprietorship of Public Submerged Lands and WatersAs governments are often outright owners of specific coastal and marine areas, manage gov-ernment-held areas and resources wisely and with good economic returns to the public.

Source: Biliana Cicin-Sain and Robert W. Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management:Concepts and Practices. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Table 2.3 in original.

11

5.0 Coastal Management Programs can be Initiated at Any Level, andEvolve Over Time to Increase their Scale, Scope, and Impact

Coastal management programs have been initiated for reasons as diverse as the countries involved instarting them. Sri Lanka found that engineering methods for addressing coastal erosion were inadequatefor protecting tourism and transportation infrastructure along the coast, both vital sectors of its economy.The island nation of Barbados also needed to protect its tourism offerings from coastal erosion, thenbroadened its concern to resolving shore use conflicts and improving the quality of new tourism devel-opment projects. The first coastal program in the U.S., in San Francisco Bay, California, was spurredby fear of federal plans to fill thousands of hectares of the bay to create new land, and the City ofBerkeley’s use of the bay to dispose of its municipal solid waste. Ecuador began with national govern-ment concerns about the declining productivity of its shrimp mariculture industry and loss of mangrovehabitat from shrimp farming and urbanization. Our home state of Rhode Island created its CoastalResources Management Council to deal with concerns about proposals to construct large energyfacilities including an oil refinery and nuclear power plants in Narragansett Bay.

Sometimes a local issue or conflict sparks a national call for coastal management, and in other casesnational leadership looks ahead to create a framework for supporting the creation of state and municipalcapacity for better coastal decision-making. In either situation, integrated coastal management (ICM)plays an important role in advancing towards sustainable forms of coastal development by pursuing alinked sequence of interventions within the normal ebb and flow of the policy process at the targetedlevel. The process might be initiated by leaders from outside government or from within, and begins by:

(1) identifying and assessing the issues or conflict in the stretch of coast in question, movingbeyond the immediate parties concerned about the issue to involve a much broader public;(2) setting objectives and preparing a plan of policies and actions; and(3) utilizing a (hopefully representative) mechanism to negotiate and formalize a course ofaction through a law, decree or interagency agreement.

Policy implementation (step 4) takes place once funds and resources to carry out some selected set ofactions is secured, the capacity to carry out action is created and the measures set out in an agreementare made operational. The cycle is completed after (step 5) progress is evaluated and, most impor-tantly, adjustments are made to program objectives, scope or projects and activities.

This cycle shares much in common with the cycle of carrying out a project or learning a skill, except thatit takes place squarely within the realm of public debate and decision-making, and is subject to thedebate, delay, uncertainty and modifications which a democratic process is expected to introduce.

The results of an ICM initiative are layered and work at different time scales. The program should beworking as close to the points of leverage or control as possible. In some cases, the decision-makingprocess can yield a choice, which is easily carried out and keeps the ecosystem in question intact andfree from future degradation. In Rhode Island, for example, a proposal to site a twin-reactor nuclearelectric generating facility adjacent to a coastal lagoon was forever preempted when an agency decidedto allocate the site for conservation purposes instead.

12

The more typical situation does not yield such clear cut, immediate results. The Sri Lanka coastalprogram, for example, faced many hotel operators who insisted on building in rapidly eroding areas,plus hundreds of people who mined the barrier coral reef, plus hundreds of others who excavated sandfrom river mouths. All contributed to the nation’s erosion problem. In moving toward the formallyapproved ICM plan, all these stakeholders have been involved in developing policies and solutionswhich are now implemented. Sri Lanka has also strengthened its institutional mechanisms and receivedfunding and personnel from the national government as well as international donors to carry out its plan.

An initiative must also anticipate the impact of factors beyond its immediate control. When the power toundo a plan or reverse a course of action is in hands of a few powerful others or many unorganizedindividuals the program must focus on influencing the choices these individuals make, and thereby theirbehavior. The new targeted behaviors might include institutional changes, positive gains from a public-private partnership, or the broad-based adoption of new, less damaging resource use practices by awhole category of user.

It is changed behavior that then results in changes in environmental and socioeconomic conditions.Indicators might include the amount of public access to and recreational opportunity available at theshore compared to an earlier benchmark, the amount of tourism infrastructure still at risk from erosionor storm events of a particular magnitude and frequency, the value of property or level of public healthresulting from coastal water quality improvements, and the remaining extent of previously designatedcritical natural features. Many ICM programs target outcomes at this level, even though they may nothave full jurisdiction or control over all the factors and decisions required to realize the outcomes. Thatis why most effective programs rely upon agreements with other agencies, and reach out to negotiatewith private and non-governmental actors to bring the full array of resources to bear.

Over time, the catalytic, consensus-building and collaborative implementation roles played by ICMprograms for a specific critical area or coastal issue can lead either to expanded functions for theprogram, or more likely convince other agencies and levels of government to utilize the same generalapproach in order to move from a narrow, sectoral outlook to a more integrated collaborative one. Forexample, a traditional fisheries management agency might take on habitat protection, aquaculture oreven coastal community development roles.

13

6.0 The Essential Ingredients of Integrated Approaches to CoastalResources Management

The examples provided in Section 7 will help illustrate the variety of settings and circumstances whereintegrated coastal management has been tested and applied. There is a broad-based agreement onwhat ICM is–and what kind of natural resource or environmental management that it tends to replace.This section generalizes from the eight cases and our more than 25 years of experience to set out someof the common features which are worth keeping in mind during discussions about what contributionICM can make to Fiji.

6.1 A Geographic Focus

ICM projects and programs are concerned with both the area of the ocean affected by the land and thearea of land affected by the ocean–although the boundaries of coastal programs vary widely dependingon issues to be addressed and capacity of implementing institution. An ICM focus helps to supplementor adjust sectoral programs such as the management of coastal fisheries, protected areas, resort tourismdevelopment initiatives or river basin projects.

6.2 Leadership

ICM has been initiated by private and civic sector leaders as well as by governments. Effective andcommitted leadership at both the political and practical levels is essential for a successful coastal pro-gram. Coastal programs are not sectoral, so they will never have all the autonomous authority requiredto achieve desired outcomes. Hence leaders who can recognize and act on opportunities, seek andobtain cooperation from key actors, and keep the program a priority for the nation, are essential forsuccess.

6.3 Local and National Ownership

A coastal management program articulates in specific terms a nation’s shared goals and policies for ageographically specific region or regions. It is essential that the process by which this vision is devel-oped and refined is “owned”, that is, endorsed and attracting the active involvement and investment ofthe government, civic and private sectors and the broad base of people of the country. Internationalexperience repeatedly demonstrates that programs are successfully implemented and sustained wherethere are constituencies who are active advocates for improved resource management. Participatorymethods engage people who have a stake in the outcome of the management effort, and give them avoice in management decisions.

The mechanisms by which the public is involved must be tailored to the culture and traditions of a place,but should strive to assure that key participants at both the national and local level participate in allphases of the policy process. ICM is founded on sustained participatory processes and enduringmechanisms that enables multiple layers of government to interact with the diverse range of stakeholderswho have interests in the quality and allocation of coastal resources.

14

6.4 Integration of Scientific Information in the Policy Process

ICM programs support and utilize applied research to make complex and dynamic coastal ecosystemsmore understandable, and to enable rational decision-making based on the application of the bestavailable knowledge and technology to solve use and conservation problems. The natural and socialsciences, including the important contributions of traditionally held ecological knowledge, are vital tounderstanding how ecosystems function, to clarifying the origin of human-induced problems, and tofinding solutions that can be implemented. It is important that science has clearly defined roles within theplanning process. Science can be used to help characterize problems over time and establish manage-ment priorities; link causes to specific environmental problems; understand ecological systems in orderto develop policy options and legitimize management decisions; and, monitor existing conditions in orderto evaluate the effectiveness of policies and attainment of plan objectives.

Judgments on what research and what technology will be most useful and appropriate in a given settingis best made by managers and scientists working together through all the steps in the coastal manage-ment process.

6.5 Learning and Adaptive Management

ICM is itself a sustained and iterative process, replacing the fragmentation inherent in single-sectormanagement by preparing plans or negotiated agreements spanning across jurisdictions (e.g., nationalgovernment, local government, nongovernment) and sectors. It operates through coordinated, multi-institutional planning and decision-making mechanisms, usually with the purpose of forging new forms ofintegration and to experiment with new resource management techniques. Programs need to developmechanisms for sustained learning on how to improve efficiency and effectiveness based on the resultsof monitoring and previous implementation experience. They must be able to seize new opportunitiesand adapt their work plans and priorities to the often rapidly changing political, economic and socio-cultural conditions in which they operate. Such an incremental and adaptive approach requires a flexibleprogram design and agile administrative mechanisms that will permit, even encourage, programs to beflexible. Specific mechanism that enhance learning during the development of a coastal managementprogram include:

• use of a series of pilot projects to test management strategies;• completing the loop between planning and implementation as quickly as possible;• learn “by doing”;• monitoring of program activities in a manner that provides timely, useful and useable informa-

tion that managers can and will act upon; and• creation of “space” for regular, participatory self-assessments of program objectives, strate-

gies, activities and outcomes.

6.6 A Phased Strategic Approach to Selecting Issues and Addressing them in a Goal-Driven/Action Oriented Manner

No single program, even an integrated one, can solve all the problems of the coastal region. Initiativesneed to maintain a strategic focus throughout the development and implementation process Decidingwhich issues to address; and where and when to address them is among the most crucial decisions that

15

a program makes. Programs can fail when they try to do too much at once, are spread too thin, orbecome too rigid, thus becoming a barrier to solving the problems they were created to address.

ICM projects and programs can grow to encompass multiple objectives (e.g., sustainable economicdevelopment, biodiversity protection, food security) that aim to both conserve and sustainably utilizenatural and human resources.

6.7 Implementation Actions Can (and Should) Occur Concurrently with Planning

Early implementation of actions, which solve simple coastal management problems, need to occur duringthe coastal management planning phase, and not wait until planning is “finished.” Such actions are morethan demonstrations of good faith and intentions. Tangible expressions of improved management helpbuild support for the coastal management process, provide specific opportunities for horizontal andvertical coordination and provide a basis for learning successful approaches and constraints to imple-mentation. It is crucial, however, that such actions are selected through a participatory process; haveclear objectives linked to the coastal management process; build or strengthen the community and inter-institutional partnerships essential for coastal management; be modestly scaled; and, be within thecapacity of agencies and stakeholders to implement.

6.8 Integration Across Sectors and Scales of Management

The integration in coastal management distinguishes this endeavor from traditional sectoral approachesand programs.

Integration among governance levels. Unitary states may choose to centralize planning and decision-making regarding coastal development because coastal resources are held in common trust, nationalagencies do not have capable decentralized units of government with the technical capability and author-ity to analyze and make good decisions, or the apparatus of regulation and enforcement is weak.Federations may find it necessary to make similar choices, preferring to retain jurisdiction over majortypes of decisions rather than build or delegate decision-making capacity to states or provinces. Thesearrangements may be effective for decision-making on large, complex projects where multiple ministrieshave to be involved, but are less workable for decisions involving a great many small actors, or mobiliz-ing local resources out a policy that must involve several actors.

The complex overlay of issues and institutions along coastlines makes it impossible for a single agency tomeet the challenges of management alone. Success lies in forging partnerships among institutions,among user groups and those who provide technical assistance. Building such productive and sustain-able partnerships is not easy; and incentives are essential

Coastal programs can be designed to share authorities and create needed capacity through severallevels from national and provincial to municipal and even village governments, creating a dialogue thatlinks the layers and promotes a sense of shared purpose.

Integrating among sectors, institutions and disciplines. Reaching out across technical and adminis-trative divisions is imperative in coastal management planning, research, policy formulation and imple-

16

mentation. Technical and governance complexity requires the formation and nurturing of multidisciplinaryteams whose members are prepared to think and act strategically, resolve conflicts, administer compli-cated projects, understand how coastal ecosystems function and work collaboratively with coastalresidents.

ICM’s point of departure is on addressing human activities and their multiple benefits and impacts oncoastal resources. The success of biodiversity conservation and preservation efforts can be enhancedby attending to the needs and concerns of people in adjacent areas where use conflicts need to beresolved.

6.9 Individual and Institutional Capacity

Many coastal management studies, plans and even regulations that have little or no discernible impact oneither the resolution of user conflicts or the degradation of coastal ecosystems have been prepared andadopted. A major reason for this is the scarcity of people of the place with the required skills andknowledge to carry out the steps in the coastal management process.

Investments that build capacity for effective coastal management seem more likely to produce positivedividends than the upheavals brought by institutional restructuring. There is considerable evidence thatreallocating responsibilities among governmental agencies, restructuring ministries and creating, forexample, new ministries of the environment do not necessarily bring the anticipated benefits. Majorhuman activities will continue to be organized and managed by sector. The challenges lie as much inpromoting collaborative behavior, and rethinking the objectives of development, as in restructuring howresponsibility and power is allocated within the bureaucratic structures of government.

6.10 Matching Program Activities to the Capability of the Institutions

ICM is viable in both developed and developing nations at every stage of development and at everyscale from village to national and even in ecosystems shared by more than one country. One of the mostcommon mistakes in the design of first generation coastal management programs is to set objectives andplace workloads on implementing institutions that outstrip their capacity and financial resources creatingan “implementation gap”. The result is that tasks are poorly executed, the time required to meet keyobjectives lengthens and the credibility and efficiency of coastal management endeavors are put at risk.It is important to realistically match the scale and objectives of a program with the capacity of theinstitutions involved and the strength of the constituencies affected. While this focus may not yield the“best” plan from a technical standpoint, it does help to produce a “realistic” plan containing recom-mended actions, which can be implemented and provide a solid foundation of experience and successfrom which to build.

Box 5Typical Integrated Coastal Management Program Activities

Area PlanningStudies of coastal environments and their usesZoning of usesAnticipation of and planning for new usesRegulation of coastal development projects andtheir proximity to the shorelinePublic education on the value of coastal andmarine areasRegulation of public access to coastal and marineareasPromotion of Economic DevelopmentIndustrial fisheriesArtisanal fisheriesMass tourismEcotourismMarine aquacultureMarine transportationPort developmentMarine recreationshore mineralsOcean researchAccess to genetic resourcesProprietorship of Public Submerged Landsand WatersEstablishment of leases and fees for use of publiclyheld coastal and marine resources and spacesEstablishment of joint ventures to exploit non-renewable resources (e.g., offshore oil)

Stewardship of ResourcesConduct of environmental assessmentsConduct of relative risk assessmentsEstablishment and enforcement of environ mentalstandardsProtection and improvement of coastal waterquality (point sources, nonpoint sources) Establishment and management of coastal andmarine protected areasProtection of marine biodiversityConservation and restoration of coastal andmarine environments (mangrove forests, coralreefs, wetlands, etc.)Conflict ResolutionStudies of multiple uses and their interac tionsApplications of conflict resolution methodsMitigation of unavoidable adverse effects on someuses

Protection of Public SafetyReduction of vulnerability to natural disasters andglobal changes (e.g.. sea-level rise)Regulation of development in high-risk areasthrough such methods as establishment of “set-back lines”Construction of coastal defense measures(e.g.,seawalls)Creation of evacuation plans or other mea sures incase of coastal emergency

Source: Biliana Cicin-Sain and Robert W. Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management:Concepts and Practices. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Table 2.4 in original.

17

18

7.0 Case Studies of International ICM ExperienceNational ICM Programs

7.1 Sri Lanka Coastal Management Program3

This mature program was launched by the Coast Conservation Act of 1981. Its emphasis is onregulation of activities that occur along the shorefront. The National Coastal Management Planadopted in 1990 and amended in 1995 sets forth policies on a limited number of coastal issues,and provides a framework for planning and management of “special areas.”

The island nation of Sri Lanka has 2,825 km ofcoast line. It passed its Coastal Management Actin 1981 (it was gazetted in 1983). The Act vestedconsiderable authority and responsibility for bothcoastal planning and implementation within a singlenational agency – the Coast Conservation Depart-ment (CCD). CCD was given responsibility for:♦ Design and implementation of a permit pro-

gram for all development in a legally definedcoastal zone;

♦ Scientific and socio-economic studies toprovide information for a national coastal plan;

♦ National coastal management plan prepara-tion and updates; and

♦ Shoreline protections works design andconstruction.

From its inception, CCD staff implemented as theyplanned. CCD staff reviewed coastal permitapplications, met with developers, enforcedcoastal set-back requirements, constructed coastalprotection works, commissioned research, metwith representatives of other agencies to reviewprojects, organized public awareness projects,and carried out a variety of other implementationactivities. During the 1985 to 1989 period theyalso prepared their first National Coastal Manage-ment Plan (adopted by Cabinet in 1990). In itsfirst generation plan, CCD chose to focus on alimited subset of coastal issues – coastal erosion,coastal habitat protection, and historic, scenic andarcheological sites.

Location map of Sri Lanka

Coastal tourism development along thesouthwestern coast

19

During this period CCD also recognized thelimitations of a national coastal program that triedto regulate all coastal activities from the capitalcity. In the 1990 to 1995 period alone, CCD witha coastal management staff of less than 15,reviewed more that 2700 coastal permit applica-tions, supervised Environmental Impact Assess-ments for 10 major developments, launchedseveral major policy and awareness-buildinginitiatives, and began revision of the national plan.In short, the national office was attempting to takeon all the work of nation’s efforts to bettermanage their coast.

CCD staff recognized from the beginning, that thevolume of permit applications and the relativelyminor nature of many coastal projects wouldultimately require some delegation of authority.Successful delegation of permitting authority andresponsibility proved difficult. First, local govern-ment in Sri Lanka, as in other places is over-burdened and under capacitated. CCD had fewincentives to offer local government, and localofficials correctly viewed the permitting of coastaldevelopment as an activity that would not be“appreciated” by resource users and small devel-opers, local government’s constituency. CCDrecognized that it needed to provide Districts withextremely clear procedures, training, and incen-tives if they were to take on this burden.

CCD also recognized that the coastal programhad to move from being an agency that basicallysaid yes or no to individual developments to onethat was also making a tangible and positivedifference in the lives of coastal people. Thestrategy that CCD adopted was to begin topromote special area management plans (SAMPs)as a mechanism to deal comprehensively withcoastal management issues at specific sites.Potential SAMP sites were selected by CCDbased on four criteria: severity of the issues;biodiversity; feasibility; and economic significance.In their revised coastal management plan (1997),

Shore line erosion

20

CCD calls for SAMPs for 23 coastal sites; thenprovides guidance on the process for SAMplanning. As with the permitting program, CCDsnational guidance is based on its “lived” experi-ence. CCD pioneered the SAM concept in SriLanka, developing two successful models in theRekawa and Hikkaduwa lagoons.

In sum, the major change that occurred in SriLanka’s program has been a much greater interac-tion between national and local levels of govern-ment and a greater role for local government. Inthe first generation program, the national govern-ment tried to “do it all.” In the second generation,national government retains a regulatory role formajor coastal developments, an over site role tolocal government in relation to minor permitreview; and a catalyst/ facilitator role with regardto SAMPs. In addition, CCD continues to play anational leadership and coordinating role – keep-ing coastal issues on the national agenda, promot-ing awareness of and support for these issues, andimproving the available information base forcoastal management.

21

7.2 Tanzania National Coastal Management Strategy4

Within the context of Tanzania’s National Environmental Policy, a National Coastal Strategy isbeing formulated. The Strategy’s purpose is to support and extend locally successful ICM initia-tives, and enable the national government to encourage sustainable economic developmentalong the coast. The Coastal Strategy creates no new authorities, rather it focuses on coopera-tive, intersectoral and local/nation actions to achieve jointly developed objectives.

Tanzania is in the process of developing a NationalCoastal Strategy with the assistance of USAIDand the University of Rhode Island. The nationhas approximately 800 kilometers of mainlandcoast and is severely underdeveloped. Outside ofurban areas, the major source of income forcoastal communities is fishing, mostly at a subsis-tence level, but increasingly at commercial levels.Marine fisheries provide protein for coastalcommunities and contribute $6.5 million to thenational economy. Women and children directlydepend on the collection of shellfish and are ofteninvolved in processing and selling fish. Mangrovesprovide wood for building and fuel, while reefs aremined for lime and coral rock. In addition to thehuman use of the resources, coastal ecosystems(reefs, mangrove forests and sea grass beds) havehigh biodiversity and productivity and provideshoreline protection.

Of the opportunities Tanzania has for develop-ment, many are coastal, including export fisheries,mariculture (both prawn & seaweed farming) andtourism. As coastal areas become more populatedand activities become more intense, it is increas-ingly likely that the natural resource base will bedegraded. Because Tanzanians depend on aquality coastal environment, pressure from devel-opment and over-utilization can have significantimpacts on the nation’s economy and social fabric.It is clearly in the national interest that this devel-opment be carefully planned to best manage theseresources.

Despite this pressure, and a long-standing nationalrecognition of the need for a coastal strategy, theNational government of Tanzania made littleprogress in moving from rhetorical support forcoastal management to initiation of a meaningfulplanning process. Over the last five years, how-ever, pilot programs began testing the viability andtangible benefits of using coastal management as ameans for addressing coastal issues and opportu-nities along the coast. Existing programs primarilyfocus on district and village levels of governmentand village economies, and are producing promis-ing results. They work independently of oneanother and are not tied into a central coordinatingbody at the national level.

22

The situation of no national framework for coastalmanagement has resulted in lost opportunities andincreased costs at a national level, and frustrationat the local level. With management authority forcoastal resources under the auspices of multipleinstitutions and departments, (e.g., fisheries,forestry, tourism and wildlife) mandates andprograms frequently conflict with each other,wasting extremely limited financial resources.Second, there is no coherent national effort topromote or guide coastal development, nor isthere a mechanism for local communities toacquire support from the national government toimplement integrated management plans. From adifferent perspective, lack of coordination at thenational level makes it difficult for pilot levelactivities to inform national policy with the lessonsthat are being learned through the pilot efforts.This limits the replication of successful modelsbeing created by programs.

Creating a national coastal management strategywithin a context of strong sectoral agencies andlocal programs presents the national governmentwith a series of challenges. Local programs areconcerned that a national program will be ahindrance not a help; and sectoral agencies areconcerned they will lose power. This is a delicatebut common situation for coastal programs.

In 1997, the Tanzania Coastal ManagementPartnership (TCMP) was formed under theauspices of the National Environment Manage-ment Council (NEMC). The TCMP works withnational and local government agencies and theexisting network ICM programs and practitioners,to facilitate a participatory, transparent process tounite government and the community, science andmanagement, sectoral and public interests toestablish the foundation for effective coastalgovernance at the national level.

.From its inception the TCMP has been con-sciously trying to define the national program’s role

as the group that promotes integration and that fillsgaps not covered by existing agencies or pro-grams. This viewpoint of what the nationalprogram should do is captured in four of TCMP’sten operating principles

1. Build on and from existing experience, pro-grams and capacity with integration across allsectors and scale of management. Do notseek to replace sectoral responsibilities, but,instead, enhance the abilities of the sectors to

Mangrove cutting in Tanzania

Sea weed farming

23

work toward common goals. Use conflictmanagement and participation as the primarytools for improving sectoral coordination.Ensure that a national program contributes tothe success of local and regional programs.

2. Understand that coastal management willalways be constrained by the lack of financialresources. Work in partnership to selectpriority areas of focus where limited resourcesshould be applied. Ensure ownership andsharing of costs of the program at both localand national levels.

3. Ensure participation by all key state andparastatal groups, resources users and privatesector stakeholders throughout the programplanning and implementation. Decisions aboutprogram direction should be made withtransparency, in partnership between nationaland local governments.

4. Build human capacity at all levels. Providepeople with the right information, build theirskills and create attitudes that model appropri-ate behavior for coastal management.

The early and explicit definition of the nationalprogram’s role and approach is helping TCMPwin support. Similarly, as TCMP looks at whatthe national coastal program should do it seeks touse a facilitative, non-regulatory model.

The National Coastal Strategy will:

Support planning and integrated managementof coastal resources and activities at the locallevel and provide mechanisms to balancenational and local interests.• Guidelines for preparation of District Action

Plans have been prepared, based on thesuccessful experience of a long-runningdemonstration project. The TCMP hasprovided technical support to two districts to

The Tanzania State of the Coast Report

Options for coastal management in Tanzania

develop action plans, and mechanisms arebeing developed to provide small amounts offunding through the regular governmentbudgeting process for implementation.

Promote integrated and sustainable approachesto the development of major economic uses ofthe coast to optimize benefits and minimize nega-tive impacts.• Ensure that coastal activities and opportunities

are developed according to national and localneeds and guidelines

• Establish project review procedures that areconsultative, multi-sectoral and inter-disciplin-ary in order to promote efficiency and trans-parency in the decision-making process

• Ensure that all forms of pollution in coastalareas are properly controlled and managed.Guidelines for mariculture development havebeen completed and adopted by the 10agencies engaged in the review of suchactivities. Tourism guidelines are now underdevelopment.

Conserve and restore critical habitats andareas of high biodiversity while ensuring thatcoastal people continue to benefit from thesustainable use of the resources.Geographically specific planning will be facilitatedthrough the Coastal Strategy. Special AreaManagement Plans (SAMPs) will be developedfor geographic areas of concern. Special areamanagement planning is a mechanism that allowscentral government–in partnership with localgovernment–to plan and manage geographic areasof particular concern. Potential SAMPs include:• Areas with existing important economic/infra-

structure facilities• Areas slated for major new economic develop-

ments• Pollution hot-spots• Areas of high risk from erosion and flooding

Develop and use an effective coastal ecosystemresearch, monitoring and assessment systemthat will allow already available—as well asnew—scientific and technical information toinform ICM decisions.

A Scientific and Technical Working group hasalready developed a State of the Coastpublication that combined existing scientificinformation with resource users perceptions asto the trends and conditions of coastal re-sources.

24

25

Local ICM programs

7.3 Xcalak Village community strategy (Mexico)

This small effort lead to a self-initiated marine park and a major role in negotiations over futuredevelopment in the Costa Maya region, through the ecological ordinance. It is occurring withinthe larger process of decentralizing environmental management in Mexico and a multinationaleffort to protect the Meso-American Reef.

During the 1990s, important forces of changewere underway in Mexico that created a windowof opportunity for coastal management. In Quin-tana Roo, the once sleepy village of Cancunexploded into a premier resort city of 397,000and a 100-km tourism corridor called the CostaRiviera over a period of only 25 years. Thesuccess showed that tourism could be an impor-tant engine for economic development in Mexico’syoungest state. Cancun’s excesses, a changingmarketplace, and concern about the potential lossof Mexico’s critical marine and coastal areas leadto the concept of low impact tourism for the CostaMaya, a undeveloped shore located along thestate’s southern Caribbean coast on the borderwith Belize.

The convergence of this increased interest andcapacity for conservation still required a ‘littlespark’ which was provided when the FishingCooperative “Andres Quintana Roo” wrote aletter to the Governor of Quintana Roo in 1994requesting that its nearshore waters and coral reefbe designated as a marine protected area. A keypurpose for this designation was to enable thecommunity to participate in potential economicdevelopment that a marine park might generate.

The Fishing Cooperative’s vision for what theycalled a ‘tourist reserve’ included:! Support to form a group of boatmen able to

provide services to tourists! Creation of a reserve which included the area

from the entrance channel along the borderwith Belize to the southern part of the villageof Xcalak

! Permanent closure of a portion of touristreserve to fishing with spears and nets

! Limits on capture of snook, tarpon andbonefish

! Protection for the nests on Bird Island, west ofthe village in Chetumal Bay

! Protection for the reefs, including banning theuse of nets and poles which damage the coral.

Marine protected areas along Quintana Rooand the Xcalak Proposal

26

Village participation in planning—Xcalakeño-styleThe formal procedure for preparing a conservationor protected area proposal consists mainly oftechnical requirements for characterizing the landand marine environment, developing objectives formanagement and justifying the significance of theproposal. Extensive public involvement is notrequired and typically such proposals are initiatedat the state or federal level. The technical docu-ment is submitted to the National Ecology Institute(INE) for review and approval. State and localgovernment have no legal jurisdiction in tidal ormarine waters. However, this formal procedurewould not accomplish the other goals of thecommunity or enable it to participate effectively indeveloping the policies and regulations controllingthe impacts from land based development in theCosta Maya corridor.

The project team, comprised of the Amigos deSian Ka’an, a prominent civic association, and theUniversity of Rhode Island’s Coastal ResourcesCenter, worked to include community members ingathering information needed for the marineprotected area proposal, which covered the landas well as ocean. The community created avoluntary, informal committee that advised on themarine park proposal and discussed a number ofother issues related to community participation intourism, and in decisions affecting future develop-ment.

The project team assigned part time staff based inthe village as well as a coordinator in Chetumal inorder to support a parallel flow of activities as thetechnical diagnosis proceeded. For example,additional work was carried out to capture thecommunity’s history, social and economic charac-teristics and begin to identify actions that could becarried while the process of designation of theprotected area wound its way through state andfederal procedures.

The essence of community aspirations and actionswas eloquently captured and published in 1997 inthe form of the Community strategy for theXcalak Area, which addressed many topicsoutside the bounds of the marine park related tocommunity development.

Planning and action go hand in handVillagers took a number of small steps to carryforward some practical actions while larger scaledecisions about infrastructure, land use planningand development density were being made. TheFishing Cooperative prepared and began toimplement a set of rules to govern its members’activities in the sections of the proposed marineprotected area of most concern. Some fisherswere trained as ecotourist guides, which includedEnglish language training, through a collaborationwith RARE, an international organization thatspecializes in small tourism enterprise develop-ment. Buoys were installed along La Poza, thecoral reef trench at the center of the Xcalak ReefNational Park proposal, to help protect it, andseveral fishers participated in English classesoffered in the community. A class of architecturestudents from Syracuse University worked withthe village to prepare design and developmentguidelines for future construction that preserve itsunique style.

A seat at the negotiating tablePerhaps most important action to emerge was the

The village of Xcalak, looking south to Belize

fact that community and NGO leaders becameinvolved in the process of preparing the environ-mental master plan for the coast, theOrdenamiento Ecologico Territorial for CostaMaya, or OET,which covered the shore lands upto Punta Herrero on the edge of the Sian Ka’anBiosphere Reserve. Adoption of this master planturned out to hinge upon reaching an agreement onoverall density of develop, and on integrating theXcalak Reef marine park proposal with the masterplan zoning for the Rio Huache lagoon.

The community’s proposal was submitted inMarch of 1997, just as the public review processfor the master plan was to begin. The originalCosta Maya proposal had been to attempt todevelop 10-15,000 hotel rooms along the shore.

The new situation in the Xcalak Peninsula

The detailed management plan for the Xcalak ReefPark was completed in 2002, and the tourisminvestment promoted by the State will be arrivingat an increasing pace along the entire shore ofCosta Maya. The agenda for all actors is expand-ing to making many practical decisions about howideals and policies will manifest themselves inreality. The relationship between pioneeringtourism entrepreneurs, most of whom are fromoutside the region, and local residents will remainturbulent. Some villagers are working to improvetheir business skills and participate in tourism, butothers have not become involved or lack thecapital to make investments. Migration of busi-nesses and workers to the region is inevitable andlikely to challenge the ability of the community toabsorb new investment, people and activity.

The Xcalak Reef National Park is only one part ofa package of new policies and plans that willshape how the pristine coastline is developed overthe next decade. In fact, the team preparing theproposal looked ahead to this new stage byincluding an extensive recommendation on theneed to incorporate an “Integrated Coastal

Management Subcommittee” to serve as “acommunication forum for the various levels ofgovernment agencies in the region, residents,investors, the scientific and academic community,non-governmental organizations and all sectors ofsociety interested in the area. The TechnicalCommittee recently set up to oversee marine parkmanagement has begun to hold its meetings in theXcalak village. The villagers also have a seat onthe interagency oversight committee formed in2001 to supervise implementation of the CostaMaya environmental and land use plan.

27

The Xcalak Village Community Strategy

7.4 Chwaka Bay-Paje Action Plan (Zanzibar, United Republic of Tanzania)5

The Chwaka Bay-Paje demonstration project was launched as a first step towards developmentof a national coastal management program for Zanzibar. The site was selected because it con-tained problems and opportunities related to a rapidly developing tourism industry within an areathat contains resource-dependent traditional villages. This situation is representative of manyparts of Zanzibar’s coast.

28

In order to “practice” ICM prior to developmentof a national program, the government of Zanzibar,an island with 350 km of shoreline, decided tolaunch a pilot project in ICM. Facilitated by thenational government, the pilot ICM programutilized interagency working teams composed oftechnical staff of key agencies to work with localresidents to accomplish project work; adopted theICM policy process and essential actions de-scribed by the United Nations Joint Group ofexperts on the Scientific Aspects of MarineEnvironmental Protection, as a “road map; andintegrated capacity-building strategies into everyaspect of project implementation. Taken togetherthese strategies allowed Zanzibar to “test” theICM approach and lay a foundation for a nationalinitiative.

The Chwaka Bay-Paje area, on the southeast sideof Unguja Island, approximately 20 km fromZanzibar town was chosen as the pilot site. This25,000-ha site contains seven rural fishing com-munities with a total resident population of about10,300. Environmental quality and the condition ofcoral reefs, fisheries, and mangroves are generallygood. The economy is expanding from near-totalreliance on fishing, man- grove, and coastal thicketharvests and marginal agriculture to new economicactivities including tourism, seaweed farming, andsmall-scale business. The site is confronted by thenation’s most urgent coastal issue: incorporating arapidly expanding international tourism industrywithin an area comprising traditional villages in amanner that maintains the environment and benefits

the local people.

Each of the three key strategies used in imple-menting the pilot project are described below:

Interagency Core ICM Teams. The need for“implementers” to participate in planning is recog-nized as good practice in ICM. While muchattention is given to how to involve resource usersin the ICM process, ironically less emphasis hasbeen given to government officials from multipleagencies working together to solve problems andsustain participatory ICM processes. Sincegovernment must play a key role in implementingICM in eastern Africa, this project focused oninitiating the participatory ICM process through

29

multiagency government working groups.

The Zanzibar ICM team was convened and led bythe director of the Zanzibar Department of Envi-ronment (DOE) in cooperation with theUniversity’s Institute of Marine Science, andincluded representatives from all key sectoralagencies. It was important that the teams werelead by high-ranking staff who were respectedboth within and outside their institutions. The teamleader assumed responsibility for the process,served as the critical link to stakeholders, and wasthe liaison with the national government. It washelpful to have more than one person from thelead institution on the team to provide assistanceto the team leader.

The benefits of nurturing and sustaining the coreteam were substantial. They provided a criticalmass that allowed the project to keep movingahead, even with inevitable changes in teamcomposition. Team members also became ICMadvocates within their home institutions. Since theyrepresented different institutions, they were able tospread information about ICM much further than ifthe project only worked with one institution.

The ICM Policy Process. Adopting theGESAMP-endorsed policy process and actionsprovided the project with credibility and stability,and a clear strategy. The steps of the policyprocess are described below.

Issue Identification and Assessment. The firststep was to identify coastal issues, array the bestavailable information, then develop a consensusabout which issues the ICM effort should address.To achieve this within the project’s time frame, theteams rapidly synthesized existing information andcollected field data on both the current conditionof resources and perceived trends and issues. Forissues that lacked a sufficient body of information,local experts were commissioned to fill criticalinformation gaps. The issue analysis developed bythe ICM team was reviewed by stakeholders at a

series of meetings designed to promote two-waycommunication, with separate sessions for menand women. This was essential for gaining theinsights of women in a traditional Muslim commu-nity such as exists in Zanzibar. The stakeholdersgave the ICM teams critical information about thepilot sites, helped sort issues by priority, andsuggested actions for resolving problems. Thestakeholder meetings were an important step inraising awareness about resource management andcreating trust between stakeholders and thegoverning institutions.

Plan Preparation. Using the issues defined duringStep 1 as the foundation, the team worked withstakeholders to set management goals and clearobjectives. They then engaged in a sustaineddialogue (through meetings and review of draftdocuments) with stakeholders and relevantgovernment agencies to define strategies to

30

address the critical issues. The strategies weredivided into two categories: action and planning.The action strategies defined activities that couldrealistically be carried out in the near term withexisting or readily obtainable resources. Theplanning category was used to define longer term,and frequently more expensive, analytical andinformation-generating activities. The resulting“Action Strategy” document does not includeregulatory actions or major infrastructure propos-als. Rather, it comprises a consensus view of siteICM issues within the national context, a strategyfor progress on the crucial issues, and recommen-dations on institutional mechanisms for implemen-tation.

Adoption. The integrated site strategy, includingproposed implementation structures, was adoptedby consensus at a national workshop whichincluded representatives from national and localgovernment, the private sector, resource users,and villagers. This process yielded broad support;however, implementation of the strategy is volun-tary, not legally binding. A broadly representative,fifteen member implementation committee wasformed called the Coastal Resources ManagementCommittee (CRMC). The core ICM team wasformally asked to serve as the committee’s secre-tariat.

Implementation. After the national workshop, thecommittee described above was established andbegan implementing the Action Strategy. Theseactions were designed to begin to solve someproblems at the site, quickly gain experience incoastal management, demonstrate thegovernment’s commitment to ICM, and providean opportunity for government institutions, non-governmental organizations, and private sectorrepresentatives to experiment with joint action.

Evaluation/Learning/Adaptation. The ICMteam self- assessed its progress, focus, andtactics. This was essential, as project resources(human and financial) were modest and the

demands on and expectations for the projectlarge. By continually thinking strategically aboutthe scope and structure of the process, the teamwas able to make progress on ICM issues withoutbeing overwhelmed or stretched beyond theirlimited capacity. Most importantly, this processcreated a culture of learning and adaptation withinthe local team.

31

7.5 Coral Reef Protection in Phuket, Thailand: A Step Toward Integrated Coastal Manage-ment 6

Coral reef conservation served as an entry point into an integrated effort to attempt to influencethe trajectory of tourism and its impacts along the rapidly developing west coast of PhuketIsland. The context proved difficult as national and provincial development interests were atstake, and the process raised questions about the flow and distribution of the benefits of growthas well as the burden of paying the costs.

Thailand, one of Asia’s economic tigers of the 80s,has experienced rapid, unmanaged, and unsustain-able exploitation of the kingdom’s rich naturalresource base. In coastal areas, the need foreffective integrated resource management wasespecially urgent in the mid-1980s. Tourism wasbooming. Pristine coastal areas were rapidlybeing developed without regard for the environ-ment- the same qualities that drew tourists in thefirst place. Although Thailand had a number ofenvironmental laws, and technically sound man-agement plans had been drafted to cover someissues and some geographic areas, implementationwas either ineffective or lacking.This implementation gap was caused by a lack ofpolitical will to allocate needed resources, which inturn was largely the result of the absence of abroad, strong coastal management constituency atboth the national and local levels; and an absenceof good in-country examples of effective manage-ment.

Tourism is Thailand’s largest single source offoreign exchange, and Phuket is Thailand’s pre-mier coastal destination. Until the mid-1980s,access to Phuket’s west coast was limited, andmost pocket beaches were either undeveloped orhad the potential for only small-scale development.Beginning in about 1985, tourism started to grow,and, with the construction of a “ring road” on thewest coast in 1988, west coast developmentexploded.

Coral reef conservation initiative in Phuket

Phuket Province, Thailand

32

The Thailand Coastal Resources ManagementProgram, TCRMP, was sponsored by USAIDand carried out by URI in collaboration withThailand’s National Environmental Board. Whenthe project began, awareness of the existence,beauty, and significance of Phuket’s coral reefswas limited primarily to scientists. There was nomedia or public attention paid to coral reefs.Neither the private sector, which was enjoying“free” and very profitable benefits from reefs, northe government, which was making decisions thataffected their condition, considered the impacts oftheir activities on the condition of the coral reefs.

There were two distinct goals for the Phuket CoralProtection Strategy. The first was to protect andprovide for the sustainable use of the reefs. Thesecond was to use the relatively simple anduncontroversial issues associated with coral reefprotection to build local, then national, supportand political will for addressing other coastalmanagement issues in Phuket. In other words, theproject team hoped that the constituency builtaround coral protection would later want toaddress the more complicated and contentiouscoastal management issues that Phuket faced-water-quality degradation and unregulated andinappropriate land and water use.

The project team followed a basic policy processin carrying out its work, completing the planningand implementation cycle in about three years.(See discussion of Chwaka Bay, 6.4) Teammembers were keenly aware of the need to buildconsensus and support for initiatives throughoutthe process; hence, much attention was paid notonly to what was done but also to how it wasdone.

Issue Definition and Assessment. The projectteam started with the premise that existing orreadily available information provided a sufficientbasis for understanding reef conditions, the localreliance on reef resources, and the relative signifi-

cance of management issues. Throughout the yearand a half of the issue identification and analysisstage, considerable effort was made to heightenpublic awareness of coral reefs and to buildsupport for subsequent management initiatives.Early activities, which included media campaigns,community events, and the publication of bro-chures, were designed to enhance both the generalpublic’s and the private sector’s appreciation forthe area’s reefs and to explain why a protectionstrategy was necessary. Support for coral protec-tion was also built through the extensive discus-sions carried out with reef-dependent businessesand reef users during the process of issue identifi-cation.

Plan Preparation. In March 1988, a workshopbrought together local and national governmentofficials and key interest groups to review andverify the outcomes of the issue definition process.The participants concurred with the followingobjectives for coral reef management in Phuket:(1) to maintain and promote multiple and sustain-able uses of Phuket’s reefs; (2) to promote therecovery and enhancement of coral reef habitat;and (3) to enhance local commitment to, andparticipation in, coral reef management. Manage-ment strategies to maintain water quality, sustainfisheries, and reduce tourism-related damage wereall set forth in the Phuket Coral Protection Strat-egy document.

Implementation. The first implementation effortswere non-regulatory initiatives to reduce avoidablephysical damage to reefs associated with tourismactivities. Educational activities were designed tomotivate reef users to voluntarily change damagingbehaviors and to support policy reform. Animportant initial implementation effort was theinstallation of mooring buoys. This project wasdesigned to show tangible action, gain support ofthe private sector, and build linkages amonggovernment agencies and between the public andprivate sectors. This project not only solved aproblem, but also built essential interagency and

33

public sector-private sector linkages. By 1989,maintenance of the buoys was completely takenover by local groups- both public and private.

Coral reef issues and project results were wellcovered in both local and national media. By1988, awareness and appreciation of the signifi-cance and value of coral reefs were widespreadnot only in Phuket but in government, NGO, andtourism circles in Bangkok. In short, progress wasbeing made in developing a constituency formeaningful coral reef management. In this changedcontext, the TCRMP began to focus on makingprogress at the local and national levels in policyreform.

Toward Integrated Coastal Management in Phuket

Building on early successes in controlling physicaldamage to Phuket’s coral reefs, the projectexpanded the management focus to include water-quality degradation and land-use control. TheTCRMP had committed key groups to coralprotection, made tangible progress in addressingthe physical impacts of tourism and recreationaluse that were relatively easy to mitigate. It thenbuilt on this support to try to address a broaderand more difficult set of issues. The result was amultisector action plan for the integrated manage-ment of the most rapidly developing sections of thewest coast of Phuket

Toward a National Coral Reef ManagementStrategy

News of the outcome of the Phuket coral reefmanagement project spread quickly. Otherprovinces began requesting ONEB assistance inundertaking mooring buoy installation and othercoral reef management measures. In October1989, a coral reef management workshop,attended by over seventy people from the centralgovernment, provincial agencies, and the privatesector, was held in Bangkok to share and dissemi-nate the lessons learned from various local initia-

tives. The participants expressed widespreadsupport for initiating work on a national strategyfor coral protection that would encourage andsupport local coral reef management efforts aswell as address the essential coral reef manage-ment issues that required national attention.During the 1990-92 period, a National Coral ReefStrategy for Thailand was formulated. In March1992, the strategy was adopted by Thailand’scabinet, and 51 million baht ($2 million) wasappropriated for its initial implementation.

34

7.6 Alaska Coastal Management (United States)7

The US Coastal Zone Management framework mainly provides incentives and technical assis-tance to foster the preparation and implementation of state ICM policies and plans, which reflectto a large extent the unique situations and circumstances of each state. The Alaska programdemonstrates how a coastal program was the catalyst for rural areas of the state, which arelargely, but not exclusively inhabited by Alaskan natives, to organize into governance units thatincluded traditional tribal and non-tribal representation to develop and oversee implementationof local ICM programs.

Alaska is a unique state; it is the largest but mostsparsely populated state in the United States. Ithas a coastline of 54,718 km, which is highlyvalued by Alaskans as having cultural, economic,recreational and spiritual significance. The majorityof the state’s total population of 550,000 live onor near the coastline, including many in remote,small villages. The populations of Alaska’s coastalvillages consist largely of Native Alaskans whohave inhabited these areas for tens of thousands ofyears, and rely on the natural resources of thecoastal area for their primary source of food andincome. Major changes are occurring to theseresources as a result of oil and gas development,development of wetlands and waterfront areas,and increasing recreational uses by non-residents.

The three primary goals of the Alaska CoastalManagement Program are to:

• Balance natural resource protection andresource development throughout Alaska’scoastal zone

• Involve Alaskans in decisions about the useand protection of their coastal resources

• Simplify the state permitting process forcoastal development projects, and reduce thetime it takes to obtain state governmentapproval for a project

Local involvement is insured through:

Representation on the Statewide CoastalCouncil . The Legislature established a 16-

member Coastal Policy Council to oversee thestate program. Nine of the Council members arelocally elected officials. Local representativesensure that local concerns and issues are ex-pressed, discussed and acted upon by the toppolicy-making body in the program.

Coastal Plans for Local Areas. Alaska’s pro-gram is designed to allow local coastal areas towrite plans that will guide coastal activities anddevelopment. Four of Alaska’s coastal districts arecalled “Coastal Resource Service Areas”(CRSAs). CRSAs are organized in large ruralcoastal regions of Alaska that are not representedby an organized local government. These areashave no local government authorities that wouldallow them to regulate coastal developmentprojects. The state Legislature created CRSAs toallow local residents in these areas to influencewhere and how coastal development projects

35

occur, through participation in state and federalgovernment permitting decisions. Local manage-ment plans:• inventory resources in the region• consider issues of concern to local residents• define an appropriate coastal zone boundary• adopt policies to guide coastal development

decisions• describe how the plan will be implemented.

Coastal districts may also write more specificmanagement plans for areas with unique coastalvalues, or where there are particular conflicts overthe use of the area. Local coastal managementplans must be approved by the state CoastalPolicy Council and the US federal government.Once approved, the local plans have the force andeffect of state and federal law.

Approved coastal district plans are implemented ina variety of ways. However, the “consistencyreview process” established in the state andfederal coastal management law is key. Under theconsistency review process, all government -sponsored and private development projects thatmay impact the coastal zone must be reviewed tomake certain they comply with Alaska’s coastalprogram before they receive state and federalpermits or approvals to proceed. Projects areapproved only if they are consistent with thepolicies of local coastal man- agreement plans.

Coastal districts have a strong role in this reviewprocess. The state agencies coordinating thereviews consider the coastal districts to be expertsin applying the policies of their local managementplans. If conflicts arise during project reviews,coastal districts, government agencies and theproject applicant meet to discuss ways to resolvethe concerns. Ultimately, if a coastal districtdisagrees with the results of a project review, itcan appeal the decision to higher levels in stategovernment, the Governor, and the Coastal PolicyCouncil.

Community of Deering

Coastal property for planned development

36

agement plans, written by local people andapproved by the Coastal Policy Council and thefederal government, are now the basis for coastalresource decisions in most of Alaska.

Each coastal district plan accomplishes somethingdifferent, depending upon the needs and interestsof people in the area. Plans for rural areas oftenemphasize protection of fish and wildlife andsubsistence activities. Coastal plans for Alaska’surban areas focus on streamlining governmentapprovals for waterfront and wetland developmentprojects to encourage community growth andeconomic opportunity. Coastal districts have alsocompleted special management plans and projectsrelated to specific local concerns, includingfloodplain management and drainage control, portand harbor development, protection of watershedsfor city drinking water supplies, enhancement ofcoastal public access, and prevention of marinedebris.

Coastal District Funding

Adequate and stable funding is needed for coastaldistricts to actively participate in coastal manage-ment. State and federal funds are provided toAlaska’s coastal districts to allow them to pay oneor two staff, prepare management plans, partici-pate in the project review process, track importantcoastal issues, and educate the public about theplans. Over $1 million is distributed in grants toAlaska’s coastal districts each year.

Although Alaska’s coastal program is structured tofavor local involvement, local views cannot solelycontrol decisions on where and how coastaldevelopment will occur. The degree to which localconcerns are met depends in part on the willing-ness of the state and federal governments to workin good faith with local people to help themachieve their goals. Achieving the correct “balanceof power” between local interests and those of thestate and federal governments, and ensuring thatprivate industry and other interest groups are alsotreated fairly, is a challenge both during the devel-opment and implementation of each local coastalmanagement plan.

Since 1979, 30 local coastal management planshave been completed. Alaska has learned that theplanning process takes time. The state Legislatureoriginally set a deadline of 30 months for comple-tion of all local coastal management plans. Theprocess has taken over 12 years. Local coastaldistricts that have written plans recently havecompleted their plans in less time (now averagingapproximately two years), since they have usedthe earlier plans as examples, have received moretraining in coastal management planning from thestate government, and have benefited from theknowledge of state government staff and privateconsultants that are now experienced in the coastalmanagement planning process.

Although the planning process has been time-consuming, the policies of the local coastal man-

37

ICM Approaches for Key Economic Sectors

7.7 Tourism Development Guidelines for Quintana Roo, Mexico

Large scale resort tourism investments in areassuch as Cancun have propelled Quintana Roo, onMexico’s Caribbean coast, to become one of thefastest growing states in Mexico. One of the firstadopted and implemented coastal environmentalzoning schemes in the country failed to control theecological damage from hotel projects or avoidchaotic tourism-oriented urban centers.

One of the reasons for this failure was a lowdegree of understanding and consideration of thedynamic nature of coastal features by projectdesigners and constructors. Another key factorwas the inability of public officials to specify thetypes of development which were preferred and toenforce use restrictions on areas which were to beprotected under these plans.

The less than positive results of the first waves ofdevelopment in the state led to questions aboutwhat should be encouraged and avoided. TheGuidelines for Low-Impact Tourism bookprovides information on the vulnerability of coastalphysical features and ecosystems, and illustratesthe practical measures project designers andbuilders need to take, usually at low or no addi-tional cost, to avoid storm hazards and needlessdamage to the very environment which visitors areexpecting to enjoy when they arrive.

Some of the recommended practices have beenincorporated into the Costa Maya EcologicalLand Ordinance and the guidelines document hasserved as the basis for training of national regula-tors. State level permit writers are seeking toadopt the guidelines as review criteria for evaluat-ing tourism projects throughout the state ofQuintana Roo.

Development pressure

Voluntary guidelines for tourism development

Example of shore use guideline

38

Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in theworld in terms of per capita income. The need foralternative sources of protein and livelihoods isgreat, particularly in coastal areas, which areamong the poorest regions in the country. Thegreat diversity of mariculture encompasses verysmall scale to very large-scale enterprise, implyingthat the sector can contribute to a wide range ofdevelopment needs.

Shrimp mariculture development proposalsbrought to the political forefront the realizationthat Tanzania lacks the necessary guidelines andinstitutional mechanisms to effectively manage thisactivity. This situation threatens both investorconfidence as well as fragile coastal ecosystemswhere development might occur.

The Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership,(TCMP) decided to tackle sustainable maricul-ture development at the national level to demon-strate how an ICM approach could both promotedevelopment and protect the environment. Amulti-disciplinary and inter-sectoral MaricultureWorking Group (MWG) whose members aredrawn from the public and private sectors wasformed to develop clear project review andapproval procedures that are consultative, multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary, and to designmonitoring, reporting, evaluation and responseprocedures. The Guidelines are intended toincrease the likelihood that projects can bereviewed in a manner that safeguards the environ-ment and coastal population, while encouragingwise investment in mariculture.

The guidelines include crucial elements such as:

• Siting, design, technology, and management atthe farm level

• Location and spatial distribution of the sectoras a whole

7.8 Mariculture Development Guidelines for Tanzania

• Water supply• Project appraisal, permit and EIA procedures and

institutional roles and responsibilities• Monitoring protocols• Fish health management including disease and

stock control• Communication and information exchange• Access to markets and trade opportunities• Research and extension

The mariculture guidelines have been endorsed bythe ten agencies involved in promoting and permit-ting mariculture in Tanzania.

Guidebook for investors in maricultureprojects

39

1 Summarized from Bernal, P. and B. Cicin-Sain. 2002. Ensuring the Sustainable Development ofOceans and Coasts A Call to Action. Co-Chairs’ Report from The Global Conference on Oceansand Coasts at Rio+10. UNESCO. Paris. 38 pp.

2 Summarized from The Block Island Consensus Statement, 2001; a CRC working paper preparedfor the Global Conference on Oceans and Coasts at Rio+10. UNESCO. Paris.

3 Summarized from Hale, L.Z. 2000. Achieving Integration in Coastal Management: The Challenge ofLinking National and Local Levels of Government. Korea Observer. Volume 30 (4). pp. 671-690.

4 Summarized from Hale, L. Z. 2000. Achieving Integration in Coastal Management: The Challenge ofLinking National and Local Levels of Government. Korea Observer. Volume 30 (4). pp. 671-690.

5 Summarized from Hale, L. Z., M. Amaral, A. Issa, and B. Mwandotto. 2000. Catalyzing CoastalManagement in Kenya and Zanzibar: Building Capacity and Commitment. Coastal Management.Volume 28. pp. 75-85. (permission pending)

6 Summarized from LeMay, M. and L. Z. Hale. 1994. Coral Reef Protection in Phuket, Thailand: AStep Toward Integrated Coastal Management. In: Collaborative and Community-Based Manage-ment of Coral Reefs: Lessons from Experience. Kumarian Press, Inc. West Hartford, Connecti-cut. pp 68-79.

7 Summarized from Caulfield, J. 1991. The Alaska Coastal Management Program: Involving localpeople in coastal resource planning and decision making. In: Case Studies of Coastal Manage-ment: Experience from the United States. CRC Publication 1001. University of Rhode Island,Coastal Resources Center. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA. pp. 9-22.

ENDNOTES