NEW
Page
1
Ocean
& Coastal Management 46 (2003) 807–822 Integrated coastal zone management
in the PatosLagoon estuary: perspectives in context ofdeveloping country $
P.R.A. Tagliania,*, H. Landazurib, E.G. Reisc, C.R. Taglianid,M.L. Asmus a , A.
S!anchez-Arcilla e a Department of Oceanography, Funda@*ao Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande, Brazil, Caixa Postal 474, Rio Grande, RS 96201-100, Brazil b
Interamerican Development Bank, Washington, DC, USAc Department of
Oceanography, Funda@ao Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Brazild Department
of Geology, Funda@ao Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Brazile Centro
Internacional de Investigaci!on en Recursos Costeros, Spain AbstractLocated at
the southern Brazilian coast, the Patos Lagoon estuary is bordered by the
citiesof S*ao Jos!e do Norte and Rio Grande, which depend on a series of
economic sectorsassociated with the nearby presence of the estuary and ocean,
such as estuarine shrimpfisheries, small-scale ocean fisheries, tourism, port
activities and associated industrial activities.Despite its environmental and
socioeconomic importance, the Patos Lagoon estuary hassuffered severe
environmental disturbances mainly over the last three decades. This
ongoingtrend makes it a priority to develop an Integrated Coastal Management
Plan for this area.Recent studies have demonstrated the environmental
degradation of several coastal habitats,such as dunes, embayments and salt marshes.
Most fisheries have experienced a markeddecline, leading to a serious social
crisis that has affected approximately 50,000 people directlyor indirectly
involved in the traditional activity. The growing poverty of small farmers
andfishermen has placed increasing demands on local governments, which are
struggling tomanage conflicts between traditional and non-traditional sectors.
This paper describes theobjectives, criterions and expected results of an
initiative for an ICZM program to beimplemented in the estuary, as well as the
main difficulties in a context of developing country.r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved. ARTICLE IN PRESS $Project financed by Interamerican
Development Bank/Japanese Special Fund. *Corresponding author. Fax: +55-53-233-6601.E-mail
address: docprt@furg.br (P.R.A. Tagliani).0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2003
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00063-2
Page
2
1.
IntroductionThe growing pressure over the coastal zone at the global level has
been widelyreported in the scientific literature. The convergence of multiple
interests, such asagriculture, fisheries, tourism, ports and industrial
activities make these areas themost populated of the world, demanding efforts
of recuperation and conservation ofthe productivity and quality of the coastal
resources and human health of coastalcommunities.These problems are
particularly conspicuous in developing countries, where hugesocial demands have
imposed the need of fast economic growth, pushingenvironmental issues to lower
level of priorities. The environmental degradation ofcoastal zones in such
countries, has affected other economic sectors dependent onenvironmental
quality, such as fisheries and tourism, and frequently incorporatesother
indirect costs associated with the reduction of human health conditions.In the
long term, such strategies frequently lead to a vicious circle,
betweenenvironmental degradation and poverty of rural coastal communities.
Breakingdown this circle, promoting a virtuous circle, in which a wealthy
production is madeby observing environmental criteria and progressive
improvement in the distributionof social benefits, is a global endeavour
strongly recommended in the Agenda 21.As a new answer to deal with the complex
socio-economic and environmentalproblems that have been impacting coastal zones
all around the world, the conceptof Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)
has emerged in the last decades,and has experienced a wide acceptation by the
scientific community. ICZM has beenunderstood more as a participatory process
of community-based decision-makingthan a technical tool. Nevertheless, besides
the inevitable degree of uncertainty in aresponse of the environment to
management decisions, due to natural variability ofecological processes related
to its stochastic and synergetic nature, the decision-makers have to face a
lack of basic scientific information, what may concur tounanticipated negative
social, economic and environmental impacts. An adaptiveapproach has been
proposed to deal with such uncertainties. But this does notexclude the
necessity of a good scientific database.2. The Patos Lagoon estuarine
ecosystemThe Patos Lagoon, about 300km long and 40km wide, is considered one of
thebiggest lagoons of the word [1]. Together with Mirim and Mangueira lagoons,
itintegrates a complex hydrological system which drains a watershed of
approximately184,000 km2, corresponding to 2/3 of total area of Rio Grande do
Sul, thesouthernmost state of Brazil.The coastal plain where this lagoon is located,
is a site of conspicuous biodiversity.Constituted by a wide sand strip of
roughly 40000 km2, this plane is a unique coastalbiome of temperate climate of
the country, and encompasses two importantConservation Areas, the Taim
Ecological Reserve and Lagoa do Peixe NationalPark, both included in the UNESCO
Biosphere Reserves Network (Fig. 1). ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R.A. Tagliani et al. /
Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 807–822808
Page
3
Even
though the estuarine ecosystem comprises only 5% of the total PatosLagoon area,
it has several temperate habitats including salt marshes, sea grass bedsand
estuarine shallow embayments, which provide crucial habitats for nursing
andgrowing near-shore fisheries in southern Brazil [2–6].Typical problems of
developing countries, such as increasing poverty with a hugeconcentration of
wealth, scarcity of basic public health services, increase of urbanpopulation,
uncontrolled tourism, environmental contamination and naturalresources
depletion are particularly noticeable in this estuary. Most fisheries
haveexperienced a marked decline, leading to a serious social crisis that has
affectedapproximately 50,000 people directly or indirectly involved in the
traditionalactivity. From more than 20 fish-processing plants existing in the
last decade only 5remain in operation today (Fig. 2). The growing poverty of
small farmers andfishermen has placed increasing demands on local governments,
which are strugglingto manage conflicts between traditional and non-traditional
sectors.Rio Grande is the main town in this estuary and assumes an important
role at anational context, with an economy propelled by a series of activities
related to the ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 1. Patos Lagoon estuary and some
references points.P.R.A. Tagliani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 46
(2003) 807–822809
Page
4
estuary
such as industrial and artisanal fisheries, tourism, port activities
andindustrial plants with high contamination potential from a petroleum
refinery,fertilizers and fishes processing, which highlight the conflicts
between traditional andnon-traditional sectors. With 170,000 habitants, this
municipality occupies the 6thposition in economic ranking of
Page
5
the
zooplankton caused by heavy metal contaminations, geomorphologic altera-tions,
and a series of impacts over the salt marshes ecosystems due to
severalanthropogenic sources, have been reported [10,11].Considering the
adverse situation described in the region, the development of anIntegrated
Coastal Management Plan for this area is a priority, particularly in theestuary
of the Patos Lagoon. This program represents the results of a cooperativeeffort
in the scope of civil and technical-scientific society that begun several
yearsago. Rather than representing an individual and isolated initiative, the
program mustbe understood as a product of cumulative social effort within a
political and scientificcontext at national and local levels. To put this
program in such context is animportant task, since it establishes a social
coherence and an internal cohesion line,reinforcing its objectives and the link
of the social/institutional tissue and citizenshipempowering.3. Main scientific,
legal and institutional initiatives towards an ICZM in Patos LagoonEstuaryA
series of actions taken in the last 30 years at different levels (national,
regional,and local from government and academic origin) have produced a
favourablecondition to set up an integrated management program in the area. The
mostsignificant ones are:1971—Municipal law number 2560 is approved,
establishing the Urban Guide-lines Plan of Rio Grande city, with the purpose of
ordering, promoting andcontrolling in a integrated way the urban development of
Rio Grande city.1977—The Oceanography Department of Rio Grande University
publishes thefirst scientific information attesting environmental degradation
of MangueiraEmbayment.1983—The municipal law number 3832, sets up the Municipal
EnvironmentalProtection Council (CONDEMA), a consultant forum with the
objective ofcounselling of executive local government.1986—Municipal law number
4116 is approved, establishing the new IntegratedUrban Development Plan of Rio
Grande city, in substitution of the older UrbanGuidelines Plan [12] (Fig.
3).1986—The National Council of Environment (CONAMA) promulgates Resolu-tion
number 20 of CONAMA which determines a system classification to waterquality
and obligates state agencies to classify the water resources of the
statesaccording this system.1988—The different environments of Patos Lagoon
estuary are identified andmapped recommending distinct levels of management for
them, according toresilience and environmental functions, establishing the scientific
basis to themanagement of the estuary [13] (Fig. 4).1988—Promulgation of
Federal law number 7661 which institutes the NationalPlan of Coastal Management
(PNGC), coordinated by the Brazilian Institute ofEnvironment (IBAMA), with the
objective of promote a sustainable use of the ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R.A. Tagliani
et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 807–822811
Page
6
ARTICLE
IN PRESS Fig. 3. Urban plan of
Page
7
natural
resources in Brazilian Coastal Zone. This law determines the establishmentof a
System of Coastal Management at state and municipal levels with its
objectivesintegrated to the PNGC, prevailing the most restrictive
determinations.1990—The Interministerial Commission of Sea Resources (CIRM)
approved theFirst National Plan of Coastal Management—I PNGC.1993—A study is
published in which all aquatic sources of contamination in thePatos Lagoon
estuary are identified, classified and mapped [14] (Fig. 5).1993—In attention
to the Resolution number 20 of CONAMA, the StateFoundation of Environmental
Protection (FEPAM) and Federal University of RioGrande (FURG), present to the
Rio Grande community in a public audience aproposal classifying acceptable
water quality levels for all water bodies of the lowestuary and its
micro-watershed, according to the prevailing uses.1994—State law number 10350
is published, establishing the State System ofAquatic Resources to attend to
the article number 21 of the National Constitution of1988. This law defines
important tools for management of aquatic resources, such asthe water use
approval, the payment for the use of water and the cost sharing. ARTICLE IN
PRESS Fig. 4. Levels of management recommended for the Patos Lagoon estuary and
surroundings [13].P.R.A. Tagliani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 46
(2003) 807–822813
Page
8
ARTICLE
IN PRESS Marinheiroisland
390000394000398000402000643600064400006444000644800064520006456000 RIOGRANDE
CASSINO - beachATLANTICi embayment 020004000 meter DECBAFGHILHJ PLUVIAL
SEWAGEINDUSTRIAL SEWAGEDOMESTIC SEWAGEMIXED SEWAGEWORKING INDUSTRYPOTENTIALITY
PROBLEMATIC(A - L) Fig. 5. Main sources of aquatic contamination in Patos
Lagoon Estuary [14].P.R.A. Tagliani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 46
(2003) 807–822814
Page
9
1995—Technical
norm 003/95 of the State Secretary of Health and Environment isapproved,
regulating the use of water in the Rio Grande do Sul state. This
normincorporates the proposal approved in a public audience in 1993 to the low
estuaryof Patos Lagoon [15] (Fig. 6). ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 6. Levels of water
quality legally determined for the several hydrological environments of
PatosLagoon estuary [15].P.R.A. Tagliani et al. / Ocean & Coastal
Management 46 (2003) 807–822815
Page
10
1996—Forum
of Patos Lagoon [16] is created to organize the fishery sector inrelation to
the policies of fishery management in Patos Lagoon. It is composed of
21institutions that represent the fishermen organizations, fishermen unions,
religiousmovement, fishing industries unions, official environmental
institutions, lawenforcement units, universities, state government, public
defender, NGOs, technicalassistant organizations and municipalities.The Forum
initiatives range from suggestions and evaluation of management andenforcement
measures, encouragement of co-operative and associated initiatives, toplanning
and development of activities that may lead to the possible recovery of
theproductive capacity of the Patos Lagoon.1997—Federal law number 9433 is published,
establishing the National Policy ofAquatic Resources State attending the
article number 21 of the NationalConstitution of 1988 [25] determining a series
of management measures for thenational water resources, setting up the National
Plan of Hydrological Resources; aclassification system for the aquatic bodies
according the prevailing use; theconcession of the uses rights for the
hydrological resources; the charge for the uses ofhydrological resources; the
compensation to the municipalities; the establishment ofthe Hydrological
Resources Information System. * The second National Plan of Coastal
Management—PNGC II (1986–1989) is approved, in substitution of the I PNGC
making the Patos Lagoon estuary one ofthe national priorities. * State law
number 35237 is approved establishing the ‘‘Pr!o- Mar-de- Dentro’’ Program.
This program aims at sustainable development of Patos-Mirim Watershed,through
environmental recuperation and environmental education and sets upadequate
technical conditions towards environmental management of this
watershed.1999—The Oceanography Department approves the project ‘‘Integrated
Manage-ment of Patos Lagoon Estuary with emphasis on the Mangueira Embayment’’,
whosepurpose is to establish the scientific basis to the recuperation of this
embayment.2000—The Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) approves a proposal
sent byBrazilian Agency of Cooperation (ABC) to finance a technical cooperation
proposalfor integrated management of Patos Lagoon Estuary under sponsorship of
theFEPAM, with the purposes introduced below.4. Objectives of the integrated
management plan for the Patos Lagoon EstuaryUNESCO [17] postulates five basic
principles for the integrated management ofcoastal ecosystems: * Understand
that management of renewable coastal resources is of strategic importance for
social and economic development, and must therefore be cost-effective. *
Recognize the need to maintain the integrity of the coastal system and that
this implies limits to use of coastal resources. ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R.A.
Tagliani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 807–822816
Page
11
*
Develop integrated management strategies that allow for multiple use of coastal
resources, in which complementary activities are integrated and
conflictingactivities are segregated. * Balance broad scale management (e.g.
national and regional coastal legislation, and economic incentives and
disincentives) with targeted management (e.g.establishment of protected areas
and rehabilitation of heavily degradedecosystems). * Involve local populations
in the planning process to ensure effective coastal management plans.The
objectives of ICZMs usually vary according to local problems but usually
fallinto the analysis and re-ordering of the institutional arrangements,
habitatrestoration, development of economic alternatives to the fisheries/rural
communitiesand land use ordering.In a recent document concerning this subject
the World Bank [18] points out twocritical points: The construction of a
consensus and a strong political alliancebetween the involved social sectors,
and the adoption of strong regulatory measuressuch as the Polluter Payer
Principle, Ecological Precaution Principle, user taxationsand the imposition of
Environmental Impacts Studies.The need of an ICZM for the Patos Lagoon estuary
is particularly importantsince, at this time, several initiatives are
elaborated and implemented in such waythat without and integrated approach,
there would be a serious risk of divergentactions and introduction of new
conflict situations.The general purpose of the Patos Lagoon Integrated
Management is to contributeto the restoration of the environmental quality and
fisheries productivity of the PatosLagoon Estuary (Rio Grande do Sul state) as
a basis for economic recovery of thenearby coastal communities. Specific
objectives include: * to generate a self-sustaining local program for coastal
and estuarine management with active participation of civil society and local
institutions; * to improve traditional economic activities and generate
alternative sources of employment for small coastal communities living in the
vicinity of the estuaryincluding artisanal fishers; and * to recover and manage
the area’s coastal habitats and resources. Beyond these specific objectives, it
will also generate a long-term strategicmanagement plan for the permanent care
of the estuarine ecosystem. Such programwould include follow up activities and
investment projects.5. Description5.1. ComponentsThe ICZM would include the
following components and activities:Preparation of an ICZM Plan for the Estuary
of the Patos Lagoon, including thedevelopment of base-line data and
information. The following studies and activities ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R.A.
Tagliani et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 807–822817
Page
12
are
planned: (i) development of a mathematical model of the Lagoon’s water
quality,based upon previous work initiated in this area; (ii) analysis of land
use change in theestuary surroundings; (iii) development of an integrated
monitoring system forestuarine water quality, including an inventory of
effluent sources, coastal wetlands,and other habitats; (iv) the description of
the Fisheries Environmental System;(v) development of a socio-economic baseline
assessment of coastal municipalitiesand, at the end of this process, (vi) the
preparation of an ICZM plan for the estuaryof the Patos Lagoon.Training for
integrated estuarine management: This activity would encompass: (i)short-term
and in situ training in coastal and estuarine management aimed atselected
stakeholder groups such as fisheries cooperatives and local municipalitiesand
(ii) training support staff from participating agencies, to improve their
abilitiesto collect and analyse data for estuarine management.Maintaining
traditional estuarine fisheries and generation of alternatives: Thiscomponent
would be aimed at promoting self-management and regulation inestuarine
fisheries that have declined in the last decade while simultaneouslyintroducing
alternative sources of employment for fishers and their families. It wouldinclude:
(i) implementation of a demonstrative project for family based pink
shrimpaquaculture in the Patos Lagoon Estuary using small-scale technology
developed atFURG, (ii) promotion of ecotourism opportunities in the small towns
located on theestuary’s barrier beaches and (iii) promotion of agro-forestry
and ‘low inputs’sustainable agricultural production through local producers
associations.Recovery and Conservation of Habitats and Coastal Resources:
Several activitiesare recognized as urgent priorities given the current stage
of deterioration of thecorresponding ecosystems and/or human populations. Those
are: (i) on-siterestoration of salt marshes which serve as nursery areas for
estuarine fisheries, (ii)investments to improve water quality in highly
degraded embayments such as theSaco da Mangueira; (iii) restoration of coastal
sand dunes along the barrier beachsystem and (iv) community-based efforts to
solve problems associated with solidwaste collection and disposal in small
towns during peak tourist season. Thiscomponent will benefit from the
development of a cartographic base which willcollect the requisite
physiographic, hydrographical and vegetation data to help betterdefine the
intervention areas.5.2. Expected resultsThe project will produce an integrated
management plan for the Patos LagoonEstuary, supported by detailed diagnostics,
and consisting of action plans developedwith the participation of local
communities and technical staff from the agencies thatwill later be responsible
for their implementation. Follow up activities and possibleinvestment projects
which could apply for international and local financing will bepart of the
plan.Furthermore, the project will have immediate concrete results in terms of
therestoration of endangered habitats, as well as the implementation of
severaldemonstrative projects with the dual function of promoting
environmentally sound ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R.A. Tagliani et al. / Ocean &
Coastal Management 46 (2003) 807–822818
Page
13
productive
activities, and raising awareness as to the fragility and value of the
area’snatural resources. These projects will be continued after the end of
project financing,under responsibility of FURG.In terms of training the project
will generate several short courses in fisheries (1day duration) for fishermen
from all colonies affected by the project: courses inaquaculture and
cooperativism for artisanal fishermen; courses (4 day duration) forextension
technicians and courses of Integrated Coastal Management for decision-makers,
governmental officers and members of local NGOs, to improve theirabilities to
prepare management plans.5.3. Structure of the execution5.3.1. Sponsoring
AgencyThe current proposal is sponsored by the State Environmental Protection
Agency(FEPAM), which is the State-level authority in charge of environmental
manage-ment for
Page
14
specific
agreements, and the provision of assurances as to the ability of the
potentialpartner not only to undertake the required actions, but also to
sustain their supportin the future.6. Final considerationsThe adoption of the
basic principles prescribed by UNESCO and World Bank forthe implementation of
an effective ICZM plan incorporates a high degree ofdifficulties in developing
countries since it supposes a series of premises not evercertain in such
countries, usually involved with a (false) dilemma betweenenvironment and
development.The environmental degradation in these societies is particularly
linked to socialprivation and economic pauperism, that has justified the
priority of immediate andunrestricted economic development as an urgent goal,
posing environmental issues insecond place. The in consideration of
externalities associated with environmentaldegradation put in evidence a
persistent distance between the governmental speechof sustainable development
and its practice. In such context, investments inenvironmental controls sounds
like a extravagance and ICZM becomes a verydifficult task to be effectively
implemented.Additionally, building of a consensus presumes an effective social
representationin the discussion arena, which is only guaranteed in a full
democracy. When societyhas no access to privileged communication media and even
to basic education, as arule, sectorial interests of economic groups—stronger
and better organized andtherefore with bigger power of influence in the
communication media and decisionsforum—tend to prevail. Therefore, social organisation,
must be a priority to assurethe representativeness of these interests in a
discussion arena. Nevertheless, theinstitutional fragility of developing
countries perhaps becomes the bigger challengefor the implementation of an
effective ICZM program. Such fragility is manifested inseveral ways: * In the
priority of policies in which prevail the immediate economic interest over the
interest of conservation of quality of resources, inconsidering the
externalities. * In a low level of direct investments to improve the
environment quality.* In the scarcity of human resources in the environmental
agencies.* In the lack of technical qualification in municipal environmental
agencies.* In the inadequate institutional arrangement to deal with the
inter-related and complex issues found in coastal zones, in which are involved
multiples interests.Such structures lead to a sectorial fragmentation of
policies, which are, often,overlapped or antagonistic. * In the lack of
long-term policies.* In the lack of integration of goals in the different
administrative levels.* In a lack of credibility of the instituted authorities,
leading to the non-observation of the established norms. * In the inefficient
systems of control and enforcement. ARTICLE IN PRESS P.R.A. Tagliani et al. /
Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 807–822820
Page
15
Considering
the specific characteristics of the Patos Lagoon estuary, its economicand
social environmental tendencies, and the institutional structure and
fragilities,this program will be strongly oriented to building capacity of
social actors such asfishermen and decision makers, development of economic
alternatives to the ruralcommunities, and institutional enhancement.
Demonstrative projects will be used asstrategy to show the benefits of
sustainable initiatives.AcknowledgementsThis paper was written under CNPq
financial support (process number 200430–00.9). Benefited from discussions held
during the preparation of the ECOSUDproject.References [1] Kjerve B.
Comparative Oceanography of Coastal Lagoons. In: Estuarine Variability.
Page
16
[14]
Almeida MTA, Baungarten MGZ, Rodrigues RMS. Identifica@*ao das Poss!ıveis
Fontes deContamina@*ao das !Aguas que margeam a cidade de
Page
1
5
Coastal Management, 28:5–18, 2000Copyright ã 2000 Taylor &
Francis0892-0753/00 $12.00 + .00 What Are We Learning from Tropical
CoastalManagement Experiences? STEPHEN OLSEN Coastal Resources CenterUniversity
of Rhode IslandNarragansett, Rhode Island, USA PATRICK CHRISTIE School of
Marine AffairsUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, Washington, USA The experience
in coastal management in the tropics that is presented in this specialissue is
considered in light of other coastal management initiatives worldwide. Themajor
challenges confronting those working to promote cross-sectoral,
participatoryapproaches to the management of coastal areas are discussed.
Emerging conceptualframeworks are considered. Several factors critical to the
design of coastal manage-ment projects and programs are identified. The article
concludes with a reflectionon priorities for furthering the practice of coastal
management in the next decade.Keywords comanagement, community-based
management, learning, managementregimes, tropics An Evolving Field Since the
United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED)in 1992,
there has been a surge of interest in integrated coastal management (ICM) as
apromising response to the accelerating transformation of the world’s coasts.
UNCEDsucceeded in putting the importance of coastal change and coastal
management on theagendas of the international donor community and those of many
national governments,nongovernmental organizations, and universities. One
recent count showed that in 1993there were coastal management initiatives
underway in 56 coastal nations and states, upfrom 13 in 1974 (Sorensen,
1997).This article reflects on the experience of promoting coastal management
at the com-munity level in the tropics that is presented in this volume. We
attempt to link thesecase studies from largely rural areas with rapidly growing
populations of predominantlypoor people to experience in the practice of
coastal management in other regions and on Received February 1999; accepted
August 1999.The authors would like to acknowledge Alan White, Marc Hershman,
and the anonymousreviewers whose input greatly improved the quality of our
submission.Address correspondence to Stephen Olsen, Director, Coastal Resources
Center, GraduateSchool of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island,
Narragansett, RI 02882, USA. E-mail:olsenuri@gsosunl.gso.uri.edu
Page
2
6S.
Olsen and P. Christielarger geographical scales. We review the features of
coastal management as an alterna-tive to traditional sector-by-sector development
and explore why making sustained progressin conserving and enhancing social and
environmental qualities is proving to be so diffi-cult. Our perspective is that
of observers and participants in coastal management withexperience in both
high- and low-income nations in the North and in the tropics.Funding for
coastal management has increased dramatically since UNCED. In de-veloping
nations, one indicator of the magnitude of investment in coastal management
isthe size of the coastal management portfolios of the development banks. Both
the WorldBank (Hatziolos, Lundin, & Alm, 1996) and the Inter-American
Development Bank(Lemay, Vaughan, & Rodriguez, 1998) have produced regional
strategy papers for ad-vancing coastal management.
Page
3
What
Are We Learning?7than 20 such programs in the
Page
4
8S.
Olsen and P. Christie · the increasing concentration of wealth among the
richest 20% of the population, whilethe poorest continue to live in abject
poverty;· mounting conflicts among user groups;· the social equity issues
raised by competition for a dwindling base of common propertyresources;· the
inability of existing institutions and governance procedures to deal with these
issueseffectively. Where a large proportion of the population lives in poverty
and governments are fragile,these expressions of ecosystem and social change
can contribute substantially to socialunrest and political instability.The
challenges are similar in developing and developed nations. The differences
liein the prevalence of poverty and the pace of social and ecosystem change. In
the trop-ics, where the decline in ecosystem qualities is much more rapid than
in most developednations, a large proportion of the coastal population often
depends upon their immediateenvironment for their survival and have few options
for alternative ways to supportthemselves when such local resources fail.
Equally important, in many tropical nationsthe power to allocate common
property resources and to make decisions on how and towhat ends coastal areas
and resources will be developed is concentrated in the hands ofa small elite
who are usually centered in large cities. Robinson (1997) examined
thissituation in
Page
5
What
Are We Learning?9Spatial, Temporal, and Sectoral Integration Are the Hallmarks
of the PracticeCoastal management emphasizes integration across scales of time
and space, the activeparticipation of stakeholders, and an incremental
iterative approach to problem solving.Quoting again from the GESAMP report: ICM
is a continuous and dynamic process that . . . requires the active and
sustainedinvolvement of the interested public and the many stakeholders with
interests in howcoastal resources are allocated and conflicts are mediated. The
ICM process providesa means by which concerns at local, regional, and national
levels are discussed andfuture directions are negotiated. Initiating Coastal
Management Raises Difficult Issues in theDistribution of Authority,
Responsibility, and Power within a NationCoastal managers are frequently
reminded that the new forms of management that theyformulate require
adjustments to the distribution and exercise of power over coastalresources and
the processes by which coastal development proceeds. This is becausemany of the
nuts and bolts of coastal management practice are concerned with whereand on
what basis decisions on the allocation and use of coastal areas are made.
Wehave learned that in most cases sustained change to how coastal resources are
managedcannot simply be imposed from above. New laws and regulations over, for
example,mangrove cutting, blast fishing, and waste disposal in developing
country contexts oftenhave little impact (Robadue, 1995). Change occurs and is
sustained only when a suffi-cient portion of a society wants such change and
therefore the constituencies for a pro-gram are sufficiently strong.In most
developing countries, the authority and the responsibility to manage
suchresources is not vested in local institutions but in distant governmental
agencies andpowerful private interests. The result is that a form of anarchy
prevails in which boththe wealthy and the poor act in accordance with narrow
self-interests. In a context ofunmediated competition, the poor too often are
the losers. Even those involved in aspecific place are motivated to behave
differently, there is seldom a local institution inplace with the capacity to
promote and sustain an alternative governance system. Forprogress toward the
goal of coastal management to occur, there must therefore be em-powerment at
the local level. This realization has led to the strong emphasis on
commu-nity-based management in many developing nations. Community empowerment,
how-ever, does not have to mean that there is a net loss in power at higher
levels in thegovernance hierarchy. The ultimate impact may be neutral or even
beneficial at higherlevels. The practical reality, however, is that both
individuals and institutions are stronglymotivated to maintain or increase
their power, and any change is viewed with suspicion.The art of coastal
management lies in good measure with designing a process by whichthe allocation
and use of power can be sufficiently modified to make progress towardthe goal
of coastal management feasible.Dealing successfully with the issues brought by
the allocation of power in a societyrequires vision, leadership, and courage.
Sustained progress requires understanding theculture and traditions of a given
place. A variety of strategies are being tested that applygreater or lesser
emphasis on beginning with a top-down or a bottom-up strategy or acombination
of the two. The community-based coastal resource management (CBCRM)approach
discussed in several of the articles in this volume appears to place a
greateremphasis, at least initially, upon stand-alone “community-owned”
governance. Often thisis the most productive place to begin formulating new
approaches to governance. This hasbeen the case in the
Page
6
10S.
Olsen and P. Christierecently delegated more authority to local government, and
in Ecuador (Robadue, 1995).In some other nations, however, community
initiatives in the management of commonproperty resources made without
“permission” from central government is seen as a directassault on established
prerogatives and authority (Christie, 1999). In these settings, actionat the
community level can lead to unproductive, even violent confrontation with
theexisting power structure. However, community-level participation, in the
absence of power-sharing can perpetuate the exploitation of the disenfranchised
(McCay & Jentoft, 1996).Strategies that begin by working to build
constituencies for new forms of coastalgovernance at both the community level
and at the provincial or national levels aretermed comanagement (Pinkerton,
1989; Pomeroy, 1995; Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997), orthe two-track approach
(Olsen, Tobey, & Hale, 1998; Hale et al., 2000).Whatever strategies are
adopted to initiate the improved management of coastalregions, the accumulating
experience demonstrates that if progress toward the goal ofcoastal management
is to be sustained, commitments to the practice will need to bemade and acted upon
across the governance hierarchy and should eventually evolve intomutually
supportive policies and actions implemented by institutions at several
levels.Such “harmonization” invariably involves shifts in the distribution of
power and/or theends to which power is used. The art of successful coastal
management is expressed ingood measure in strategies by which changes that are
beneficial over the long term tothe majority of those affected are achieved and
sustained.Integrated Coastal Management Is a Form of Adaptive ManagementMany
observers and practitioners of coastal management emphasize the iterative
andadaptive nature of the work. According to Lee (1993) adaptive management is
basedupon two pillars: 1. a sound governance process rooted in the principles of
participatory democracy,2. reliable knowledge that applies the best available
science to the issues that a managementinitiative is working to address. The
issues raised by forms of governance that integrate across both sectors and
theestablished hierarchies of power and authority are often dominated initially
by concernfor the processes by which an initiative evolves, i.e., pillar 1.
Indeed, identifying andinvolving stakeholders, promoting greater transparency
in the existing decision-makingprocess, public education, and constituency
building all require careful attention to thepractice of participatory
democracy. But the second pillar is equally important. We mustknow what we are
managing, strive to understand the implications of various forms ofsocietal and
ecosystem change, and invest in documenting trends in the issues that
areimportant to our initiatives. Viewing coastal management as an expression of
adaptivemanagement emphasizes that practice is a learning process. At its most
fundamentallevel, a learning-based approach is most efficient when coastal
management initiativesare framed as experiments and subjected to the rigors of
objective analysis. As stated byLee (1993), “without experimentation reliable
knowledge accumulates slowly and with-out reliable knowledge there can be
neither social learning nor development.” This overtlyexperimental approach
re-enforces that management decisions must often be made inthe face of
considerable uncertainty. If we knew all the answers to our managementchallenges
there would be no need to experiment. Coastal managers know that decisionsmust
often be made in the face of important unknowns and conflicting opinions on
thebest course of action. It is unnerving when equally well-qualified experts
predict verydifferent consequences from following a contemplated course of
action. Yet this situ-ation is not uncommon. This should only serve to
reinforce the need to frame theendeavor as a series of experiments. Ideally,
hypotheses upon which a strategy is based
Page
7
What
Are We Learning?11are clearly stated, the information needed to evaluate the
outcomes is gathered and ana-lyzed, and conclusions are drawn and shared.Since
the process of achieving effective coastal management at significant
geographicscales is an incremental process that should extend over several
decades, it is useful toexamine in greater detail the dynamics occurring within
each of the two pillars as thecoastal management process plays out in the
different settings following different strate-gies. There are many descriptions
(Christie & White, 1997; Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998;Olsen, Tobey, &
Hale, 1998; Thia-Eng, 1998) of the steps by which coastal manage-ment
initiatives evolve. GESAMP (1996) likened this process to a cycle of learning withthe
same features as other institutional endeavors. This approach, which sees
coastalmanagement as a sequence of learning cycles, has recently been
elaborated in a manualfor assessing the progress of coastal management projects
and programs (Olsen et al.,1999). This suggests that charting the progress of
coastal management initiatives is use-ful because it helps place the many
actions of the coastal management process intological sequences that proceed
from issue definition and goal setting (step 1) to planning(step 2) to
institutional formalization (step 3) and on to implementation (step 4)
andevaluation (step 5). Each completion of this sequence can be diagrammed as a
learningcycle and termed a “generation” of a program. One of the problems of
contemporarycoastal management is that the completion of a full generation,
even at the scale of ademonstration project, usually requires more time than
the four- to five-year life span ofa typical “project.” A benefit of charting
progress by steps and generations is that itreinforces the need to maintain
continuity among coastal management efforts in a givenplace. Several of the
case studies presented in this volume report on initiatives that havenot yet
attempted to formalize new governance practices (step 3). Others, such as the
St.Lucia, Cogtong Bay, and Malalison Island case studies examine what can be
consideredthe completion of an initial management cycle. This reflects the
immaturity of coastalmanagement practices in most tropical nations. If the
objective is to scale up from dem-onstration sites to coastal management
initiatives that encompass larger geographic scales,initial “governance
experiments” like those presented in this volume must be completedand then
carefully analyzed to sort out what worked, what did not, and why.Build on a
Nation’s Own Experience to Advancefrom Demonstration Projects to National
ProgramsAt an international workshop held in Xiamen, China, in 1996, a group of
coastal man-agement practitioners drawn from both developed and developing
countries analyzedwhat they were learning. The resulting booklet of guidelines
(IWICM, 1996) reinforcedthe importance of incremental approaches that recognize
the importance of tailoringcoastal management principles to the culture and the
priority issues of specific nations.The guidelines suggest beginning with
demonstration projects. Once these have provedtheir effectiveness by
successfully addressing selected issues at a small scale (the dem-onstration
phase) and the institutional arrangements have been formally endorsed
(theconsolidation phase), coastal management practice should be replicated at
other sites.The final phase (termed extension) occurs when a formally
constituted national programis put in place that can effectively link a
consistent set of policies and managementactions across the hierarchy of
national, provincial, and local levels of governance. It isessential to
recognize that this process of “harmonization” does not imply that successlies
in imposing a single template of command and control across ever-larger
areas.Quite to the contrary, the practice is constantly reinforcing that
success lies in tailoringthe application of the principles of the participatory
democratic process and sound infor-mation on the activities and environments
being managed place by place.
Page
8
12S.
Olsen and P. ChristieMost of the case studies presented in this special issue
illustrate the initial demon-stration phase as described in the Xiamen
guidelines. The article by Courtney and White(2000) examines the current
attempts in the Philippines to draw together the experiencefrom a large number
of coastal management experiments and thereby identify and strengthenthe
approaches that can be applied to the nation as a whole. In terms of the
Xiamenguidelines, this is an example of the consolidation phase. Important
Strategic Decisions When DesigningDemonstration Projects Among the many
differences in the approaches to coastal management at the commu-nity level
reflected in these articles, three appear to be particularly important. Theyconcern
the number of issues and sectors that are addressed by individual
managementinitiatives, whether the design calls for linking new forms of
governance at the commu-nity level to higher levels of governance authority,
and the time commitment made toachieve specific objectives in a given
locale.Selecting the Appropriate Degree of Initial Integration Across
SectorsCoastal management does not replace traditional sector-by-sector
management, but ratherprovides for an additional dimension to the governance
process by examining and actingupon the interactions and interdependencies
among human activities, and the ecosystemprocesses that link coastal lands with
the coastal ocean. Experience is demonstrating,however, that from a pragmatic,
political, and operational point of view more integra-tion is not always better
than less integration. Sri Lanka, for example, purposefully fo-cused its
program on coastal erosion issues first and then gradually addressed
additionalissues as its planning and regulatory capacity increased (Lowry &
Wickremeratne, 1989).Competition between government agencies for external
funding and jealousy of man-agement control over important activities makes
intersectoral management difficult. Anincremental approach is therefore often a
sensible option. When analyzing across coastalmanagement initiatives, it is
important to differentiate between the different degrees ofsectoral integration
that are being attempted. One simple typology (Olsen et al., 1997) isas
follows. · Enhanced Sectoral Management: Focuses upon the management of a
single sector ortopic but explicitly addresses impacts and interdependencies
with other sectors and theecosystems affected. Investments in coastal tourism
and transportation infrastructure fundedby development banks (Lemay, Vaughan,
& Rodriguez, 1998) increasingly feature thisapproach.· Coastal Zone
Management: Multisectoral management focused upon both developmentand
conservation issues within narrow, geographically delineated stretches of
coastlineand nearshore waters. Many state coastal management programs in the
United States(Beatley et al., 1994) and the initial phases of the Sri Lanka
program (Lowry & Wickremeratne,1989) illustrate this approach· Integrated
Coastal Management: Expands the cross-sectoral feature of coastal zone
man-agement to consideration of the closely coupled ecosystem processes within
coastalwatersheds and oceans; it explicitly defines its goal in terms of
progress toward moresustainable forms of development (Cicin-Sain & Knecht,
1998; Clark, 1996). Several case studies in this volume are examples of
enhanced sectoral managementthat address fisheries issues (for example,
Nickerson-Tietze, 2000 and Sandersen & Koester,2000) and the conservation
of biodiversity (for example, Werner et al., 2000). Many ofthe cases in the
Philippines examined by Uychiaoco, Alino, & Dantis (2000) appear tobe
examples of coastal zone management that addressed several issues
simultaneously
Page
9
What
Are We Learning?13but confined their efforts to the shorefront and adjoining
sea. Since many of these casesdescribe management efforts on small islands,
some appear to approach integrated coastalmanagement. There is, however, little
evidence of attempts in such demonstration projectsto tackle the full
complexity of issues raised by management at the terrestrial and linkedmarine
ecosystem scale. In fact, the article by Alder et al. (2000) notes that this
level ofsophistication can be inappropriate in a first-generation effort. The
Coastal ResourceManagement Program is (Courtney & White, 2000) addressing
coastal issues that coverlarge geographical areas and is framed as a project
designed to promote the inclusiveICM approach. It would be useful to carefully
analyze the strengths and weaknesses ofdifferent degrees of sectoral and
spatial integration once more of the projects describedhave matured
sufficiently to have implemented the management arrangements, and weare in a
position to evaluate their effectiveness.Selecting Where to Initiate Coastal
Managementwithin a Nation’s Governance HierarchyA second pivotal decision is to
select where to focus the effort and what degree ofintegration will be
attempted among governance at the community, municipal, provin-cial, and
national scales. In the United States, the overuse and misuse of coastlines
wasseen as a problem of national importance, but the federal legislation
entrusted the designand implementation of management plans to the individual
states and made participationby individual states voluntary. In order to win
financial support and a commitment fromthe federal government to abide by the
policies and plans developed by the individualstates, a set of federal
standards had to be met and the national interests in the coastalareas to be
managed had to be enumerated and protected. Other nations like Sri Lanka,Costa
Rica, and the Scandinavian nations have put in place policies and standards
thatare applied on the national scale. In many developing nations, however,
national gov-ernments have neither the financial resources nor the operational
authority and mecha-nisms to implement a meaningful program without engaging
with local interests andauthorities. The so-called “top-down” approach has
therefore given way to “bottom-up”initiatives that rely upon action at the
community level to address the unwanted effectsof coastal change. The challenge
lies in linking the two in a two-track or comanagementstrategy.The differences
between comanagement and community-based management are ex-plored in some
detail in the case studies presented in this volume. Comanagement hasbeen
defined as the sharing of responsibility and authority between the government
andthe community of local users to manage a resource (Pomeroy, 1995).
Community-basedmanagement may be characterized as a community-led process that
involves the govern-ment once a community feels the need and capacity to make
this linkage (Christie &White, 1997; White et al., 1994). For advocates of
community-based management thecrucial issue is whether an initiative is
community-led. Most of the articles in thiscollection analyze community-based
initiatives and illustrate the difficulties of linkingsuch small-scale efforts
to coherent programs that can address the problems on a largergeographical
scale. The coastal resource management program case specifically raisesissues
and applies lessons that are born of the relatively long history of
community-based coastal management in the Philippines.According to the GESAMP
coastal management cycle, formal sanctioning of newforms of governance occurs
at step 3. Two examples from the Philippines, the Certifica-tion of Stewardship
Contracts described by Katon, Pomeroy, and Garces (2000) and theImplementation
of Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURF) described by Agbayani etal.
(2000), are offered by the authors to be outstanding examples of the success of
new
Page
10
14S.
Olsen and P. Christiemanagement arrangements. In both cases, success required
negotiating these arrange-ments with higher level authorities. Nickerson-Tietze
(2000) reinforces the importanceof such linkages when analyzing efforts to
enforce a ban on illegal push nets in Phang-nga Bay, Thailand. Hale et al.
(2000) imply that the implementation of action plans forsmall coastal areas in
Zanzibar and Kenya is occurring—even in the absence of sus-tained external
funding and support—because authorities came together at the beginningin an
example of horizontal collaboration among institutions with responsibilities
forcoastal resources. Sandersen and Koester (2000) examine 12 years of
experience in St.Lucia to demonstrate the destructive effects of wavering
commitments to powersharing.These authors emphasize that comanagement requires
a genuine devolution of power,and their case illustrates that this is a process
that rarely comes easily. The specificmechanisms and sequencing of events in
initiatives that require powersharing is a cru-cially important topic deserving
greater attention and analysis.Sustaining an Initiative Over a Long Enough
Periodto Attain Significant Changes in Societal Values and BehaviorThe
situations created by societal and ecosystem change described in the case
studies inthis volume demonstrate that throughout much of the tropics the
contemporary develop-ment process is progressing toward increasingly
unsustainable patterns of behavior anduse. Thus, rather than advancing toward
the fundamental goal of coastal management,human activity along many coastlines
is moving away from it. Therefore, in many in-stances, the initial objective of
a coastal management initiative must be to slow downand, where possible,
reverse well-established trends of environmental degradation, sus-tained or
even increasing poverty, and mounting conflicts among user groups.Moving
forward to a new order where social justice, the accountability of those withpower,
and stewardship of natural features are the hallmarks of success requires
efforts thatmust be sustained over many decades. The enormity of this challenge
is not recognizedin the designs of many coastal management projects and
programs. In order to promotegreater realism in what may be feasible to attain
and then sustain, it is useful to considerthe sequence of outcomes that must be
attained in order to achieve the ultimate goals of(1) an acceptable and
sustainable quality of life in coastal communities and (2) thesustained
well-being and qualities of coastal ecosystems. The sequence may be
visualizedas first-, second-, and third-order intermediate outcomes, as shown
in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ordering coastal governance outcomes. (Source: Olsen,
Tobey, & Kerr, 1997.)
Page
11
What
Are We Learning?15Experience with mature coastal management programs suggests
that it usually takesa sustained effort measured in decades and spanning
several completions of the coastalmanagement cycle to achieve tangible
expression of third-order outcomes on a signifi-cant geographic scale, for
example, a province, state, or nation. Yet many of the pro-grams and projects
currently funded by multilateral development banks and internationaldonors are
designed with the expectation that this will be achieved at somewhat
smaller“demonstration project” scales through projects with typical time frames
of five years ora decade at most. This is naïve and self-defeating. It
encourages large investments and apace of work that creates institutions and
management practices that too often prove tobe unsustainable once the massive
infusions of funds and external expertise are with-drawn.Such tools as the
Manual for Assessing Progress in Coastal Management (Olsen etal., 1999) provide
a means for ordering the activities and sequence of events that typi-cally make
up a single completion of
planning-formalization-implementation-assessmentcycles by which the practice
evolves. To date, experience from initial pilot efforts spon-sored in the 1980s
by USAID and implemented by ICLARM (Thia-Eng, 1998) and theCoastal Resources
Center (Olsen et al., 1999), and projects sponsored by the GlobalEnvironmental
Facility (Olsen et al., 1997; 1998(a)(b)(c)) demonstrate that three to
fiveyears are typically required to progress to an initial phase of
implementation (step 4).This does not imply, however, that tangible expressions
of improved management occurduring this initial period. Quite to the contrary,
success invariably rests in good measureon very small-scale “experiments” in
new approaches to management that test ideas andbuild constituencies.The power
of this approach was demonstrated early on by the well-documentedand sustained
success of creating a small marine reserve managed by villagers on ApoIsland in
the Philippines (White & Savina, 1987; Russ & Aleala, 1996). On this
verysmall scale, a community of 600 people created through a municipal
ordinance an 11-hectare sanctuary within a 284-hectare reserve within which
forms of destructive fishingwere prohibited. The boundaries of the management
area and the management planwere formally endorsed (first order), and both
compliance with the rules governing thereserve and success in alternative
livelihoods (second order) were achieved within threeyears. Repeating this progression
elsewhere on a similarly small scale has subsequentlymet with mixed success.
Achieving similar progress at a provincial and national scale isa far more
complex and long-term undertaking. In the Philippines, some important
first-order outcomes have been achieved on the national scale by formally
assigning respon-sibility and resources to provinces and municipalities to
formulate and implement coastalmanagement strategies. Municipal governments now
have a legal mandate to managemarine resources within 15 kilometers of the
shore. These are very important expres-sions of power reallocation. They came
after at least two decades of sustained effort,experimentation, and public
education supported by large investments of donor funds(see Courtney & White,
2000). On these provincial and national scales, however, thetrends in the
abundance of fishery resources, coral reefs, and mangroves continue toproceed
in the wrong direction and it will take many more years to achieve
significantoutcomes comparable to those achieved at Apo Island on these larger
scales.Several case studies in this volume (for example, Nickerson-Tietze,
2000, and Sandersen& Koester, 2000) reconfirm that unless the management
effort is sustained over manyyears and continues to demonstrate that the
recommended measures produce positiveresults, the necessary behavioral changes
are not likely to take root and be sustained.This should not be surprising
given that the context within which these initiatives tookplace is one where
societal and ecosystem trends are progressing rapidly away from thegoal of
coastal management. Unfortunately, in most developing nations, investments in
Page
12
16S.
Olsen and P. Christiecoastal management continue to be in the form of
disjointed short-term projects ratherthan distinct elements of a coherent,
overarching program or strategy. Some Priorities for the Next Decade The
articles in this issue document elements of a learning process that is underway
in agrowing number of locations throughout the tropics and elsewhere. This
process of learningneeds to occur simultaneously on many scales and involve a
wide diversity of peopleand institutions. At the community level, demonstration
projects can convince peoplethat improved management is both necessary and
possible and brings tangible benefits.Where such initiatives succeed and bring
positive results, they need to be adequatelydocumented so that they can be
replicated, hopefully with greater efficiency, at othersites in that country or
region. It is increasingly important to foster learning across coun-tries and
regions. For example, Latin America has much to learn from a decade
ofexperience in the Philippines in the practice of community-based management
and co-management. The initiatives reported on by Hale et al. (2000) illustrate
the power ofapplying lessons learned in one region to the design of new
initiatives somewhere else.In this case, the initial steps of a coastal
management process were accomplished moreefficiently when the lessons learned
from projects in Latin America and South Asiawere used to guide the design of
an initiative in East Africa. A similar approach, whichdraws from the
accumulated experience in a single nation, is discussed by Courtney andWhite
(2000).As we look to the future, a number of lessons are emerging from recent
experiencein the tropics that can help shape a maturing field. 1. It is
essential that coastal management initiatives are designed to encourage and
accom-modate learning. This requires an adaptive approach to management.
Opportunities mustbe created for reflection and a critical examination of the
successes and weaknesses of aprogram’s strategies and to changes in the issues
demanding attention in the places wherethe program is operating. The
flexibility that is required by a program that is based uponlearning is unusual
among governmental institutions at any level. Incentives for suchbehavior need
to be embedded into the design of all coastal management initiatives.
Un-fortunately, many donor-funded projects are designed to follow a blueprint
and cannotreadily accommodate learning.2. The difficulty of translating the
principles of integrated approaches to effective and sus-tained action on
significant geographical scales calls for an iterative governance
process.Progress is limited initially by the capacity of the institutions
responsible for the imple-mentation of new forms of management and the limited
power of the constituencies thatmay initially support a coastal management
program. These realities suggest that pro-grams will succeed only when they are
sustained and evolve over many decades. Thestrategy should be to increase the
scope of each generation of a program by adding newissues to the agenda and/or
expanding the geographic scope of the program. Such conti-nuity is very difficult
to achieve when funds come primarily from donors that prefer tosponsor
short-term, stand-alone initiatives.3. More integration is not always better
than less integration, particularly in first-generationprograms. It is often
best to focus a young coastal management program on a constrainedagenda
directed at a few coastal management issues nationwide or on a more
comprehen-sive approach that is targeted on one or more small geographical
areas.4. Coastal management programs must be built place by place and will only
be sustained ifthey are owned by the people who are most immediately
responsible for them and af-fected by their actions. The emphasis on
participation and building the constituencies thatunderstand and support the
values and goals of coastal management is based on therecognition that a
society must believe in a coastal management program if it is to makethe
necessary changes in behavior that can produce progress toward sustainable
forms ofcoastal development. Anxiety that it is already too late and the desire
to move quicklyoften lead to projects operating on inappropriately large
geographical scales, to an over-
Page
13
What
Are We Learning?17 reliance upon outside experts, and to forms of participation
that are peripheral rather thancentral to each step in the evolution of a
project or program. External experts, be theyfrom a foreign country or a
distant city, can be essential to the success of a coastalmanagement
initiative. But the ownership of a program must be with people in the nativeinstitutions
of a place if the effort is to be sustained. The challenge for
community-basedmanagement initiatives lies in creating a context in which
ownership and initiative at thelocal level provides the foundation for
effective and sustained action with real returns onprovincial and national
scales.5. Finally there is much to learn from the experience of others. It is
particularly instructiveto examine failures and the constrained success of
attempts at integrated management in adiversity of settings. Since coastal
management is an iterative and learning-based en-deavor, there are no
blueprints. Programs must be designed and refined place by place.Yet the issues
that these programs address are remarkably consistent in all parts of theworld.
The skill of coastal management practitioners lies in selecting the scope of
aprogram for a given place at a given time and in tailoring the approach to the
uniquecharacteristics of that place. References Agbayani, R. F., D. B.
Baticados, and S. B. Siar. 2000. Community fishery resources management
onMalalison Island, Philippines: R&D framework, interventions, and policy
implications. Coastal Man- agement 28:19–27 (this issue). Alder, J., R.
Hilliard, and G. Pobar. 2000. Integrated marine planning for Cocos (Keeling), an
isolatedAustralian Atoll (Indian Ocean). Coastal Management 28:107–113 (this
issue).Beatley, T., D. J. Brower, and A. K. Schwab. 1994. An introduction to
coastal zone management. Washing-ton, DC: Island Press.Christie, P. 1999. In a
country without forest, no life is good: Participatory action research in the
neo-liberal context of Nicaragua. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Christie, P., and A. T. White. 1997. Trends in
development of coastal area management in tropical coun-tries: From central to
community orientation. Coastal Management 25:155–181.Cicin-Sain, B., and R. W.
Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management Concepts and Prac-tices.
Washington, DC: Island Press.Clark, J. R. 1996. The coastal zone management handbook.
Boca Raton, LA: CRC Lewis.Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M.
Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naccm, R. V.O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. Raskin,
P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. Principles for sustainable gover-nance of
the oceans. Science 281:198–199.Courtney, C. A., and A. T. White. 2000.
Integrated coastal management in the Philippines: Testing newparadigms. Coastal
Management 28:39–53 (this issue).GESAMP
(IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scien-tific
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. The contributions of science
to integratedcoastal management. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 61, 66 pp. Food
and Agricultural Organiza-tion, Rome, Italy.Hale, L. Z., M. Amaral, A. S. Issa,
and B. A. J. Mwandotto. 2000. Catalyzing coastal management inKenya and
Zanzibar: Building capacity and commitment. Coastal Management 28:75–85 (this
issue).Hatziolos, M., C. G. Lundin, and A. Alm. 1996. Africa: A framework for
integrated coastal management.Land, Water and Natural Habitats Division, The
World Bank, Washington, DC, June 1999.Hershman, M. J., J. W. Good, T.
Bernd-Cohen, R. F. Goodwin, V. Lee, and P. Pogue. 1999. The effective-ness of
coastal zone management in the United States. Coastal Management 27:113–138.Hooten,
A. 1999. Personal communication. The World Bank, Washington, DC.IWICM (The
International Workshop on Integrated Coastal Management in Tropical Developing
Coun-tries). 1996. Enhancing the success of integrated coastal management: Good
practices in the formula-tion, design, and implementation of integrated coastal
management initiatives. MPP-EAS TechnicalReport No. 2, 32 pp. GEF/UNDP/IMO,
Quezon City, Philippines.Katon, B. M., R. S. Pomeroy, and L. R. Garces. 2000.
Rehabilitating the mangrove resources of CogtongBay, Philippines: A
comanagement perspective. Coastal Management 28:29–37 (this issue).Kay, R., and
J. Alder, J. 1999. Coastal planning and management. New York:
Routledge.Kelleher, G., and C. Recchia. 1998. Editorial. Lessons from marine
protected areas around the world. Parks8(2):1–4.Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and
gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washing-ton,
DC: Island Press.
Page
14
18S.
Olsen and P. Christie Lemay, M., W. Vaughan, and D. Rodriguez. 1998. Strategy
for coastal and marine resources managementin Latin America and the
Ocean
& Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361 Frameworks and indicators for
assessing progressin integrated coastal management initiatives Stephen B.
Olsen* Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI
02882, USA AbstractThe fundamental purpose of all integrated coastal management
(ICM) initiatives is tomaintain, restore or improve specified qualities of
coastal ecosystems and their associatedhuman societies. A defining feature of
ICM is that it addresses needs for both developmentand conservation in
geographically specific places—be they a single community, an estuary orthe
coast of an entire nation. The times required to achieve these fundamental
goals atsignificant spatial scales far exceed those of the usual 4–6-year
project, the dominant ICMmodality in developing nations. This paper offers two
simple, but elastic frameworks forassessing progress over the extended time
periods involved. The first is the four Orders ofOutcomes that group together
the sequences of institutional, behavioral and social/environmental changes
that can lead to more sustainable forms of coastal development.The second
framework is a version of the more familiar ICM policy cycle. These
conceptuallysimple frameworks are making it possible to unbundle and organize
into consistent formatsthe usually implicit assumptions that underpin project
and program designs and then groupactivities and outcomes along a critical path
that leads—or is presumed to lead—to the desiredoutcomes. Each step in the ICM
policy cycle and each Order of Outcomes suggest theindicators by which progress
and learning can be assessed. The application of theseframeworks to a diversity
of ICM initiatives is proving useful in assessing progress acrossportfolios of
ICM initiatives, extracting good practices and teasing out how
differentgovernance contexts effect the forces that shape the evolution of ICM
initiatives.r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. The
fundamental goals of integrated coastal managementA review of the tangle of forces
that are producing losses in the qualities of coastalregions reaffirms that
attempts to reverse or decelerate the negative direction of the *Tel.:
+1-401-874-6501; fax: +1-401-789-4670.E-mail address: olsenuri@gso.uri.edu
(S.B. Olsen).0964-5691/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00012-7
Page
2
trends
are small and fragile compared to the destructive forces at work. Yet
thefundamental purpose of all coastal management efforts is to do just this.
Since the1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development such
effortstypically couch their goals as progress towards sustainable forms of
coastaldevelopment. This translates [1] into project and program goals that are
commonlyexpressed as:1. Specific improvements in the bio-physical environment
(for example, thecondition or aerial extent of mangroves or coral reefs, the
control of coastalerosion or improvements in water quality).2. Specific
improvements in the quality of life of the human population in the area
ofconcern (for example, greater equity in how coastal resources are
allocated,improved livelihoods, reduced conflicts among user groups, control of
destructiveforms of behavior).ICM initiatives designed to advance specific places
towards the dual goals ofcoastal management must be designed to (1) be
sustainable over long periods of time,often several decades, (2) be capable of
being adapted to often rapidly changingconditions and (3) provide the
mechanisms to encourage or require particular formsof resource use and
collaborative behaviors among institutions and user groups. Amajor feature of
instruments and indicators used to track progress in ICM initiativesis that
they must be designed to transcend the scope of the 4–6-year projects that
arecurrently the dominant vehicle by which investments in coastal management
arebeing made in the tropics. The methods presented here place such
short-terminfusions within the trajectory of social and environmental change in
a given place.A framework for grouping the outcomes of ICM initiatives is given
in Fig. 1. Theframework recognizes that ICM is a process for negotiating and
implementing publicpolicy to achieve sustainable coastal development goals. It
highlights the importanceof changes in state (such as the abundance of fish or
quality of life) but alsorecognizes that for each change in state there are
correlated changes in the behaviorof key partners and stakeholders within the
sphere of influence of the managementactivity.First Order outcomes are the
societal actions that are required when it commits toa plan of action designed
to modify the course of events in a coastal ecosystem. Atthe national level,
First Order outcomes are expressed as a formalized commitmentto an ICM program
and putting in place the ‘‘enabling conditions’’ that are requiredif ICM
policies, plans and actions are to be successfully implemented. First
Orderoutcomes require building the constituencies and the institutional
capacity toundertake integrated coastal planning and decision making as well as
the authority,funding and other resources that make it feasible to implement
ICM policies andactions. The setting of goals in another essential element of
the enabling conditionsthat together set the stage for the successful implementation
of an ICM policy andplan of action.Second Order outcomes are evidence of
successful implementation of an ICMprogram. This includes evidence of new forms
of collaborative action amonginstitutions, the actions of state–civil society
partnerships, and the behavioral S.B. Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46
(2003) 347–361348
Page
3
changes
of resource users. Second Order changes in the behavior of organizationsand
user groups are the precursors to Third Order socio-economic and environ-mental
outcomes that mark physical evidence of progress towards sustainable formsof
coastal development.Today the results of the ICM initiatives in 95 nations and
semi-sovereign statesidentified by Sorensen [3] lie primarily in First Order
outcomes. Many of thoseinvolved in funding and administering ICM programs in
developing nations see thechallenge as one of better coordination among
governmental institutions andsmoothing the path so that contemporary
development can occur more efficiently.The assumption is that adjustments to
the processes of planning and decision makingwill produce progress towards the
fundamental goals of ICM—sustained orimproved societal and environmental
qualities. The reality is that there is a wide‘‘implementation gap’’ and that
many laws, policies regulations, plans exists only onpaper. Experience is
demonstrating repeatedly that even when the financial resourcesare assembled
and spent to implement a plan of action the results are oftendisappointing. In
developing nations, there is only modest evidence of sustainedprogress in the
Second Order behavioral changes that mark successful implementa-tion. The
cutting edge of ICM practice in this next decade lies in learning how
toeffectively and efficiently instigate these behavioral changes in specific
institutionsand groups. This is illustrated graphically in Fig. 2. Reversing
the predominantlynegative trends in the qualities of coastal ecosystems at
significant spatial scales and
NationalRegionalLocalScaleIntermediateOutcomesEndOutcomes 2ndORDER:Changes
inBehavior Changes inbehavior ofinstitutions andstakeholder groups;Changes
inbehaviors directlyeffecting resourcesof concern;Investments inInfrastructure
3rdORDER:The Harvest Some social and/orenvironmentalqualitiesmaintained,
restoredor improved. 1st ORDER:EnablingConditionsFormalized mandatewith
implementingauthority;Management plansadopted;Funding
secured;Constituenciespresent at local andnational
levels.4thORDER:SustainableCoastalDevelopment A desirable anddynamic
balancebetween social andenvironmentalconditions isachieved. Time Fig. 1. The
four orders of coastal governance outcomes. Adapted from [2].S.B. Olsen / Ocean
& Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361349
Page
4
?4th3rd2nd1stThe
Ultimate OutcomeA Goal for2012Statusin 20024th3rd2nd1st4th3rd2nd1st Fig. 2.
Orders of outcomes as a critical path to sustainable coastal.S.B. Olsen / Ocean
& Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361350
Page
5
thereby
achieving the Third Order outcomes that are the justification for investmentsin
ICM lie further off in the future.The ultimate goal of sustainable forms of
coastal development (Fourth Orderoutcomes) is today an undefined ideal. If we
are to make sustained positive progressit will be necessary to think through
how human needs can be balanced with thenecessary qualities of the coastal
ecosystems of which human societies are but oneelement. Thus, the bottom
graphic in Fig. 2 suggests that as experience and successaccumulates we shall
be capable of defining for increasing numbers of areas what thisbalance is and
how it can be sustained. However, the sustainable coastaldevelopment that so
many plans and programs have adopted as their ultimate goalwill not be a static
condition. Maintaining such equilibria will require a far moresophisticated
understanding on the linkages and interdependencies between societaland
ecosystem well being than we possess today.2. The features of each order of
outcomes and indicators for their accomplishmentIt is important to recognize
that some expressions of First, Second and ThirdOrder outcomes should
accumulate concurrently within a given time period. Whilethere are causal
relationships between the three orders they are not, and should not,be achieved
in a strictly sequential progression. For example, many successfulprograms
experiment at a small geographic scale before attempting to apply newmanagement
practices at the national scale. Thus the First Order threshold may onlybe
achieved at the national scale when Second and Third Order outcomes
haveaccumulated at one or more demonstration sites.2.1. Indicators of First
Order outcomesFirst Order outcomes are concerned with the construction of the
enablingconditions that set the stage for the implementation of an ICM
initiative.This, however, can only be the initial goal for investments whose purpose
is toinstigate the concepts and practices of ICM in a place where
sector-by-sectordevelopment has been the norm. There are two thrusts to this
challenge. One is tosecure formal commitments to a plan of action and the
institutional structuresby which it will be implemented. The second and equally
important priority is tocreate a demand for the services that a coastal
management program canprovide. This is the mobilization of the constituencies
that will actively supportthe program and hold it accountable to its stated
goals. Both need to beoperationally viable within the existing power structure
(in most casesgovernment and key interest groups) and among those who will be
affected by theprogram.At the heart of the challenge in First Order outcomes is
a reallocation of authority.New laws, programs and procedures provide the
legal, administrative andmanagement potential for achieving the desired changes
in societal behavior. Howsuch authority is used will eventually determine the
power of the coastal program. S.B. Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46
(2003) 347–361351
Page
6
Improved
stewardship, participatory decision making and greater equity in theallocation
of goods and benefits that flow from coastal ecosystems invariably
requireadjustments to the existing power structure.At a national scale,
indicators of First Order outcomes can be grouped into thefollowing
categories:1. Constituencies that actively support the ICM initiative. Within
the user groups that will be most affected by the ICM program. Within the
governmental institutions involved in the program. Within the general public.2.
A formal governmental mandate for the program with the authority necessary
toimplement a course of action. This may take the form of: A law, decree or
other high level administrative decision creating an ICMprogram as a permanent
feature of the governance structure. The creation of commissions, working
groups, user organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated
to the advancement of anICM agenda. The designation of protected areas and the
enactment of land and water usezoning schemes.3. Resources, including sustained
annual funding, adequate to implement the planof action.4. A plan of action
constructed around unambiguous goals.5. The institutional capacity necessary to
implement the plan of action.A key feature of the First Order threshold is to
grant the institution or institutionsresponsible for the ICM initiative with
sufficient authority and resources toimplement its plan of action. The process
may require a sequence of decisions. Forexample, in Sri Lanka, commitments contributing
to the First Order began with thecreation of the Coast Conservation Department
(CCD) in 1978. Five years later thiswas followed by passage of the Coastal Zone
Management Act by the legislature.The Act provided the CCD with the necessary
mandate and authority to formulate aNational Coastal Management Plan that was
approved by cabinet in 1990 andthereby put in place a formal framework of
policies and procedures for an initialphase of program implementation.The
complexity of negotiating legally binding commitments to ICM increases asone
progresses up a governance hierarchy. At the community level, a commitmentmay
need no more than a motion by a village council, the passage of a
municipalordinance or even a commitment from one or more user groups to abide
by a definedset of rules. Typically, much of the energy of national ICM
programs initially goes tocreating the enabling conditions so that local level
ICM initiatives can proceedlegally and be nested within the preexisting
governance hierarchy. In federal systemslike the United States and Mexico
authority over coastal activities and resources isallocated among federal,
state and municipal governments. In the US, federallegislation in 1972 created
a system of voluntary state coastal management incentivesand performance
standards. By 2000 all but two US coastal states had negotiatedcoastal
management programs that were signed by the respective state governors and S.B.
Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361352
Page
7
approved
by the lead federal agency. Mexico is currently initiating a parallel
processstructured around Ecological Ordinances.2.2. Indicators of Second Order
outcomesSecond Order outcomes are the changes in human behavior that that is
required toachieve desired social and environmental improvements. These fall
into three largecategories. First are changes to how institutions and groups
relate to one another asan integrated, rather than a sectoral approach to
coastal management takes hold.Evidence of such change may be seen in the deliberations
of a Commission, newprocedures for granting permits, more transparent and
inclusive planning, thesuccessful application of conflict resolution techniques
etc. In a young programoperating at a national scale it is these changes in the
behavior of governmentalinstitutions that mark the first stages of successful
implementation of an ICMprogram. Equally important, but usually occurring
initially at a localized scale, arechanges in how user groups relate to their
ecosystem. Here we look for evidencethat good practices in the siting of
shorefront structures or shrimp ponds arebeing followed, that dynamite fishing
or other destructive practices have haltedor declined, that the flows of
pollutants into estuaries have been checked. SecondOrder outcomes also include
investment in such physical infrastructure as sewagetreatment plants, solid
waste disposal sites, and the construction of breakwaters anddams.In summary,
examples of each category of indicators of Second Order outcomesare:1. Changes
in the behavior of institutions and interest groups. Collaborative planning and
decision making through task forces, commis-sions, civic associations and the
like. Successful application of conflict mediation activities. Evidence of
functional public-private partnerships. Collaborative actions by user groups.
Use of new school curricula on ICM topics.2. Changes in behaviors directly
affecting resources of concern. Elimination of destructive fishing practices
and over-harvesting. Land use practices that reduce contamination of water,
sustain fresh waterinflows to estuaries.3. Investments in Infrastructure
Supportive if ICM Policies and Plans. Construction and maintenance of shoreline
protection works. Construction of port facilities and other transportation
related infrastructure. Waste disposal and pollution reduction infrastructure
including sewagetreatment facilities, sanitary landfills, runoff retention
basins. Infrastructure to enhance and protect public access to the shore
includingrights of way, boardwalks, signage programs. Investments in habitat
protection and restoration including purchase ofprotected areas and
conservation easements, construction of artificial reefs,installation of
mooring buoys. S.B. Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361353
Page
8
The
outcome mapping technique [4] disseminated by the International Develop-ment
Research Center (IDRC) is a powerful means for defining and thendocumenting and
analyzing the behavioral changes associated with the SecondOrder. The technique
calls for identifying the ‘‘boundary partners’’ that a programselects to work
with directly in order to instigate the societal change required toattain its
Third Order goals. The changes in relationships, activities, actions
orbehaviors of boundary partners that can be logically linked to the ICM
program’sactivities are specified. A graduated set of indicators of changed
behaviors are thendeveloped and monitored. Periodic self-assessments provide
the feedback loops thatencourage the program and its partners to learn and
adapt as the program proceeds.2.3. Indicators of Third Order outcomesThird
Order outcomes are expressions of the harvest that is the reward foradequate
and sustained achievements in institutional and behavioral change. Waterquality
improves, there are more fish, and indicators for the quality of life,
incomeore engagement in alternative livelihoods within target communities
stabilize orimprove.The changes that constitute Third Order outcome indicators
are invariably theresult multiple events and forces. Only occasionally can an
ICM program confidentlyclaim at anything larger than a local scale that it
alone was responsible for a positivechange in the environment or social well
being. The more complex the program, themore difficult it is to establish valid
cause and effect relationships. A second difficultyis that the benefits of
Third Order changes in behavior may be reflected inimprovements in coastal
conditions over the long-term, but not in the short-term. Athird difficulty in
documenting Third Order outcomes is that ICM programs oftenprohibit
inappropriate development or modulate forms of development that havenegative
impacts on coastal conditions. These are difficult to quantify and place on
abalance sheet.Greater equity and social welfare is one of the important
socioeconomic outcomesof ICM. ICM strengthens systems of participatory
democracy and brings order,transparency, and equity to decision-making and to
the manner in which resourcesare allocated. By modeling standards of
participatory democracy, ICM programsbring hope, a greater sense of security
and belief that the governance system canrespond to public needs. ICM induced
changes in behavior can increase the standardof living of coastal residents by
improving food security and improving opportunitiesto generate income through
traditional and alternative employment. Properlymanaged, alternative income
generating activities that improve economic welfare canbe related to
improvements in the condition of the environment.In summary, Third Order outcomes
fall into two broad categories:1. Improvements in some coastal ecosystem
qualities. Sustained conservation of desired qualities with the areas subject
to ICM. Halting or slowing undesired trends such as overfishing, sand and
coralmining, eutrophication. S.B. Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46
(2003) 347–361354
Page
9
Restoration
of lost qualities, for example, through re-establishment of waterflows to
wetlands, sufficient diminution of sediment or nutrient loads topermit light
penetration to corals or sea grass beds, control of over-exploitation of living
resources.2. Improvements in some societal qualities, including for example:
Increases in indices of quality of life, such as the Human DevelopmentIndex.
Reduced poverty, greater life expectancy, better employment opportunities.
Greater equity in access to coastal resources and the distribution of
benefitsfrom their use. Greater order, transparency and accountability in how
planning and decisionmaking processes occur. Greater security, including food security.
Greater confidence in the future and hope.It is within Third Order outcomes
that the wisdom of Second Order investments inphysical infrastructure can be
assessed. Sometimes the results are disappointing.Often failures are
attributable to an absence of the governance capacity required tosuccessfully
administer the facilities that have been built. The case can often be madethat
this translates into inadequate investments in building the base of First
Orderoutcomes required to sustain the Third Order prize.By far more effort has
gone into developing and refining and monitoring ThirdOrder outcomes than
either First or Second Order outcomes. This has contributed toa very major
problem with the designs of most ICM initiatives in developing nations.This is
that most investments in ICM set their ‘‘bottom line’’ targets primarily
inThird Order terms even when experience should have made it abundantly clear
thatthese lie beyond the time scales of the usual donor or development bank
funded‘‘project’’. Developing country programs are more realistic. The more
successful,such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Great Barrier Reef
Authority, settheir Third Order goals within time frames of one or two decades.
In developingnations in the tropics most Third Order outcomes that are
attributable at least inpart to ICM initiatives are currently limited to
demonstration sites. In the US thedocumentation of Third Order achievements
potentially attributable to the CoastalZone Management Programs of coastal
states has been frustrated by an absence ofbaselines and adequate monitoring
protocols [5].2.4. A defining feature of Fourth Order outcomesThe difference
between Third and Fourth Order outcomes is that sustainabledevelopment requires
achieving yet to be defined equilibria among both social andenvironmental
qualities. Sustainable development has not been achieved if, forexample, the
condition of the coral reefs of a place are sustained or improved but thepeople
associated with them continue to live in poverty. Similarly, sustainabledevelopment
has not been achieved if some measures of quality of life are high butsuch
achievements are eroding the resource base or require the exploitation of other
S.B. Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361355
Page
10
social
groups. The challenge is vastly complicated by the imperative of defining
anacceptable balance in terms of both intergenerational equity and a
planetaryperspective on both societal and environmental conditions and
trends.ICM currently tackles issues in a sequential manner. We are a long way
fromdefining in specific terms what balance among societal and environmental
qualitiesmay be considered sustainable in given coastal places. We must also
recognize thatall living systems are in a constant process of change. Sustainable
forms ofdevelopment will be dynamic, not static, and capable of responding to
the surprisesthat Mother Nature delivers.3. A framework and indicators for
tracing the processes by which ICM initiativesevolveThe Orders of outcomes
framework but does not help trace how ICM negotiatesand implements the cycles
of planning and decision making that can produce suchresults. Since the Rio
conference, the features of ICM as a distinct practice havebecome increasingly
well defined. This section describes the fundamental features ofICM practice
and suggests the indicators that can be used to assess progress andlearning.ICM
operates through a series of steps and actions in a policy process that must
betailored to the needs and capacity of individual places. In successful
programs alimited number of management issues are selected strategically in
light of thedimensions of the existing institutional capacity and the
complexity of the issues.Thus strategies to cope with problems are reviewed in
light of political realities, theresources available to achieve goals, and
other constraints. ICM programs thatpersist over decades maintain their
strategic focus by defining and redefining theissues—the problems and
opportunities, which are the management focus—withsustained input from those,
affected.As described by Torell [6] the policy cycle framework has its roots in
Lasswell’s [7]approach to making good governance operational by grouping the
process bywhich public policy evolves into a sequence of functional phases. This
approachwas further developed by others including Brewer [8] and DeLeon [9].
GESAMP [10] offered a version of the public policy cycle as a framework for
grouping the activities associated with five phases within a ‘‘generation’’ of
coastalmanagement.There are many variations to how the policy cycle model can
be adapted to ICM,but the central idea of a multiple step cycle of
planning-commitment-implementa-tion-evaluation remains constant. The ICM policy
cycle developed by GESAMP [10]is shown in Fig. 3. It visualizes a sequence of
interconnected completions of a five-step cycle, where each cycle is termed a
‘‘generation’’ of ICM. Successive generationsof ICM address an expanding agenda
of issues and/or a larger geographic area.Indeed, review of long established
and successful ICM initiatives in both developedand developing country contexts
shows that they have expanded in scope and scaleover time. S.B. Olsen / Ocean
& Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361356
Page
11
The
policy cycle framework places the many actions of policy making,implementation
and evaluation into a sequence and stresses the interconnectionsand
interdependencies between different groups of activities. The emphasis
onsequence does not imply a blueprint that can be imposed on any situation but rathera
codification of good practice that builds on the central reality that
governancecapacity is the primary factor limiting forward progress. This means
that sustainedadvances will be achieved through a sequence of connected
efforts, not by theconstruction of a turnkey operation that once in place will
transform unsustainablepractices into sustainable development.Organizing the
many actions undertaken to advance a coastal managementinitiative around the
policy cycle emphasizes that successful initiatives link the stepswithin a
generation of management—particularly the need to bridge between stepsdevoted
primarily to planning (Steps 1, 2 and 3) and a period of policyimplementation
(Step 4). Progress is further enhanced when completed cycles ofmanagement build
upon each other and are expressions of purposeful learning. Inmany places where
contemporary coastal management is being initiated there is apre-existing body
of experience in coping with the issues that need to be addressed.This may be
in the form of ‘‘traditional’’ practices and the informal rules recognizedas
important by the Ostrom school of institutional analysis [11]. It is important
tolink such experience to new initiatives and build upon them. The diagramming
ofgenerations of management is a visual prompt that reinforces the importance
of thisovert dedication to a learning-based approach. Fig. 3. The ICM policy
cycle. Adapted from [10].S.B. Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003)
347–361357
Page
12
A
Manual for Assessing Progress in Coastal Management [12] offers a set
of‘‘priority actions’’ for each of the five steps (Box 2) and then poses
questions that aredesigned to probe how these steps and actions are being
adapted to a given situationand whether they are being strategically linked as a
program evolves. Table 1presents the actions associated with each Step in the
ICM cycle as clusters ofindicators.As with the Orders of Outcomes, the steps in
the ICM cycle are not and should notbe followed mechanically. Depending upon
the capacities of those involved and theconditions prevailing in a given place,
steps may be combined, and their order maybe changed. There are, however,
predictable consequences of changing the order inwhich the steps are taken. For
example, formalizing the objectives of a managementeffort and the institutional
structure by which those objectives will be met through alaw or decree (Step 3)
before making a thorough assessment of the issues inconsultation with those who
will be most affected (Steps 1 and 2) is an option withpredictable risks. This
does not mean that this is not a good strategy in somesituations. The policy
cycle applies a problem solving perspective to policydevelopment and calls for
multidisciplinary, interactive responses that recognizethe roles of social norms
and personal values in the management process. Thepriority actions and the good
practices associated with them are rebuttablepresumptions that should be
tested, rejected or refined as the practice evolves.4. ConclusionsTaken
together the two frameworks allow us to tease out the logic in a givenproject
or program in a manner that can set the stage of comparisons acrossinitiatives
in a given place or across portfolios of projects undertaken in
differentlocales. They provide a means for sorting coastal management efforts
into groupingsthat highlight the pre-existing governance experience and
capacity, the scale andscope of efforts and the outcomes that are desired. The
frameworks are also provinguseful as a guide to program and project design and
as a tool for organizing periodicself-assessments or peer reviews of an ongoing
initiative.The experience of the evaluating the results of ICM initiatives
sponsored by avariety of international donors including the United States
Agency for InternationalDevelopment [13], the Global Environmental Facility
[1], the Inter AmericanDevelopment Bank [14] and the Swedish Foreign Assistance
Program [15] in a widediversity of settings in Latin America, East Africa and
Southeast Asia suggests thatthe primary factor limiting progress in coastal
management is not the availability offunding or knowledge of the social and
ecosystem process at work, but the capacityof the institutions most directly
involved to instigate and sustain integrated andadaptive forms of management
[15]. Matching the governance capacity that canbe created or strengthened
within a given time period with given resources tothe complexity of the issues
to be addressed lies at the heart of good practice. Themethods presented here
are therefore directed at assessing the adequacy ofmanagement structures and
governance processes as these relate to generally S.B. Olsen / Ocean &
Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361358
Page
13
accepted
international standards and experience. Their primary purpose is to findways to
improve program design and implementation, assess the effectiveness of
thecoastal management strategies that are being promoted and to make
administrative Table 1Indicators for the five steps of the ICM
cycleStepIndicatorsStep 1: Issue identification andassessment * An assessment
of the principal environmental, social and institutional issues and their
implications. * Identification of the major stakeholders and their interests. *
Selection of the issues upon which the ICM initiative will focus its efforts. *
Definition of the goals of the ICM initiative.* Active involvement of
stakeholders in the assessment and goal setting process.Step 2: Preparation of
the plan * Scientific research on selected management questions.* Boundaries of
the areas to be managed defined.* Documentation of baseline conditions.*
Definition of the action plan and the institutional framework by which it will
be implemented. * Development of institutional capacity for implementation.*
Testing of Second Order behavioral change strategies at pilot scales. * Active
involvement of stakeholders in planning and pilot project activities.Step 3:
Formal adoption andfunding * Formal endorsement of the policies/plan and
provision of the authorities necessary for their implementation. * Funding
required for program implementation obtained. Step 4: Implementation *
Behaviors of strategic partners monitored, strategies adjusted. *
Societal/ecosystem trends monitored and interpreted.* Investments in necessary
physical infrastructure made.* Progress and attainment of Third Order goals
documented.* Sustained participation of major stakeholder groups.*
Constituencies, funding and authorities sustained.* Program learning and
adaptations documented. Step 5: Self-assessment and externalevaluation *
Program outcomes documented.* Management issues reassessed.* Priorities and
policies adjusted to reflect experience and changing social/environmental
conditions. * External evaluations conducted at junctures in the program’s
evolution. * New issues or areas identified for inclusion in the program.
Source: Adapted from [10,12].S.B. Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46
(2003) 347–361359
Page
14
adjustments
in response to what is being learned. Such governance capacityassessments
examine these issues not only from the perspective of a given projectbut in
light of the course of events and experience of the place where a
coastalmanagement initiative is being undertaken. There is an emphasis upon the
linkagesamong past and present coastal governance initiatives in the place. Their
purpose,therefore, differs from those of most performance evaluations which
focus onjudging the quality of project execution and the degree to which
project or programoutputs and activities have been achieved as these relate to
the project or programobjectives as defined by an individual initiative.The
initial applications of these methods demonstrates that their
sustainedapplication requires a high degree of trust among those participating.
These typicallyinclude those funding and administering the initiative,
political leaders and, mostimportantly the stakeholders most directly affected
by the program’s actions. Toooften some of these relationships are colored by
adversarial tensions and the instinctto behave in a less than transparent
manner. However, a culture of learning withhigh standards of accountability and
professional excellence predominate in suchfields as public health. A similar
culture must be fostered within the emergingprofession of coastal ecosystem
governance.References [1] Olsen SB. Assessing progress towards the goals of
coastal management. Journal of CoastalManagement 2002;30(4):325–45.[2] Olsen
SB, Tobey J, Hale L. A learning-based approach to coastal management. Ambio
1998;17(8).[3] Sorenson J. Baseline 2000. Background paper for Coastal Zone
Canada 2000: Coastal Stewardship—Lessons Learned and the Paths Ahead. September
17–22, 2000, New Brunswick, Canada, http://www.sybertooth.ca/czczcc2000/. [4]
Earl S, Carden F, Smutylo T. Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection
intoDevelopment Programs. International Development Research Centre: Ottawa,
ON, Canada, 2001.[5] Hershman MJ, Good JW, Bernd-Cohen T, Goodwin RF, Lee V,
Pogue P. The effectiveness ofcoastal zone management in the United States.
Coastal Management 1999;27:113–38.[6] Torell E. Developing and grounding a
conceptual framework for learning in coastal management.Ph.D Thesis, Department
of Environmental Studies, Antioch New England Graduate School, Keene,2002.[7]
Lasswell HD. The design process; seven categories of functional analysis.
College Park: University ofMaryland Press, 1956.[8] Brewer GD. The policy
sciences emerge: to nurture and structure a discipline. Policy
Sciences1974;5(3):239–44.[9] DeLeon P. The stages approach to the policy
process: what has it done? Where is it going? In:Sabatier P, editor. Theories
of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.[10] GESAMP
(IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts onthe
Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. The contributions of
science to integratedcoastal management. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 61,
1996.[11] Ostrom E, Roy G, James W. Rules, games, and common-pool resources.
Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1994.[12] Olsen S, Lowry K, Tobey J. A
manual for assessing progress in coastal management. CoastalResources Center
Report #2211, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI, USA, 1999.S.B.
Olsen / Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (2003) 347–361360
Page
15
[13] Ochoa E, Olsen SB. Avances del Manejo
Costero Integrado en PROARCA/Costas. CoastalResources Center, University of Rhode
Island, Narragansett, RI, USA and Ecocostas, Guayaquil,Ecuador, 2001.[14] Olsen
SB. The common methodology for learning: Ecuador’s pioneering initiative in
integrat