emphasis on federal/state/local interactions report vol 2... · 2019. 9. 18. · and former...

I

WHITE PAPER

VOLUME 2

Review of International Experiences in Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and Relevance to India

Emphasis on Federal/State/Local Interactions

Prepared byBiliana Cicin-Sain, Miriam Balgos, Indumathie Hewawasam,

Alexis Maxwell, Brian Cortes, Richard Delaney, and Tony George Puthucherril

Global Ocean ForumWith contributions from: Ramesh Ramachandran, Director, and Purvaja Ramachandran, Scientist,

National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India; Peter Ricketts, Coastal Zone Canada, and President, Acadia University, Canada;

Milton Asmus, Graduate Program on Coastal Management, Institute of Oceanography, Federal University of Rio Grande–FURG, Brazil; Keita Furukawa, Research Fellow, Ocean Policy Research Institute, Sasakawa

Peace Foundation, Japan; Rhoda Ballinger, Director of Marine Geography, Cardiff University, United Kingdom; Dr. Evelia Rivera Arriaga, Professor, Integrated Coastal Management, Instituto EPOMEX-UAC,

and former Secretary of Environment, State of Campeche, Mexico; and Nancy Bermas, Senior ICM Specialist, Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia

Prepared for the World Bank pursuant to Contract # 7190936 on Unlocking India Blue Economy Potential 1

Draft: June 29, 2019

Global Ocean Forum

DRAFT

II

DRAFT

III

Acknowledgements

Section 1. Overview of International Experiences on Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Implications for India

Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview

1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2. Essential Elements of Integrated Coastal Zone Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3. Purposes of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.4. Structure of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Section 2. International ICZM Experiences

Chapter 2. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the United States

2.1. Overview of ICZM in the United States . . 11

2.2. Roles of National and State Actors . . . . . . 12

2.3. Financial Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4. Capacity Development, Education and Awareness Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.5. Linkages to Ocean Planning, Blue Economy, and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . 16

Chapter 3. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Canada

3.1. Overview of ICZM in Canada . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2. Roles of National and State Actors . . . . . 23

3.3. Financial Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.4. Capacity Development, Education and Awareness Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.5. Other Considerations for Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 4. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Brazil

4.1. Overview of ICZM in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2. History of ICZM in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.3. Roles of National and State Actors . . . . . . 30

4.4. National/Sub-national Division of Authority and Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . 31


4.6.Capacity Development, Education and Awareness Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.7. Other Considerations for Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness in ICZM . . . . 33

Chapter 5. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Mexico

5.1. Overview of ICZM in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . 37





Chapter 6. ICZM and Related Marine Programs in the European Union

6.1. Brief Overview of ICZM and Related MarinePrograms in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43





Chapter 7. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in South Africa

7.1. Overview of ICZM in South Africa . . . . . . 51





Chapter 8. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in East Asia

8.1 Overview of ICZM in the East Asian Seas Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

8.2 Roles of Regional, National and State Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

8.3 Financial Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

8.4 Capacity Development, Education, and Awareness Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

8.5. Other Considerations for Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness in ICZM . . . . . 64

Table of ContentsDRAFT

IV

Chapter 9. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Japan

9.1. Overview of ICZM in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . 69



9.4. Capacity Development, Education and Awareness Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

9.5. Other Considerations for Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness in ICZM . . . . . 76

Section 3. Summary and Conclusions

Chapter 10. Summary and Conclusions: Some Relevant Lessons from International ICZM Experiences for Further ICZM Development in India

10.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

10.2. Lessons Learned Regarding Federal/ State/Local Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

10.3. Lessons Learned Regarding Financial Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

10.4. Lessons Learned Regarding Capacity Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

10.5. Linkages to Ocean Planning, Blue Economy and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . 86

10.6 Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table of ContentsDRAFT

V

Acknowledgements

The Report has been prepared by Global Ocean Forum Researchers Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain, Dr. Indumathie Hewawasam, Dr. Miriam C. Balgos, Mr.

Richard Delaney, Ms. Alexis Maxwell, Mr. Brian Cortes, and Dr. Tony George Puthucherril. Any errors or omissions in the Report are the sole responsibility of these authors.

We acknowledge and are indebted to many experts in India who so generously shared their experience with ICZM. Special thanks go to Prof. Ramesh Ramach-andran, Director, National Center for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) and Dr. Purvaja Ramachandran, Scientist and Division Chair, Futuristic Research Division (NCSCM); Eng. W. Bharat Singh, Director, Society for Integrated Coastal Management (SICOM); staff at both NCSCM and SICOM; and to the World Bank project coordinators Dr. Milen F. Dyoulgerov, Mr. Addepalli Sita Ramakrishna and Mr. A.Sitarama Krishna. We also very much appreciated the insightful com-ments provided by Dr. Junaid Kamal Ahmad, World Country Director for India.

Many thanks are also due to other international ICZM experts who provided perspectives on particular case studies: Dr. Peter Ricketts, Coastal Zone Cana-da and Acadia University, Canada; Dr. Milton Asmus, Federal University of Rio Grande, Brazil; Dr. Keita Furukawa, Research Fellow, Ocean Policy Research Institute, Sasakawa Peace Foundation, Japan; Dr. Rhoda Ballinger, Director of Marine Geography, Cardiff University, United Kingdom; Dr. Evelia Rivera Ar-riaga, Professor, Integrated Coastal Management, Instituto EPOMEX-UAC, and former Secretary of Environment, State of Campeche, Mexico; and Ms. Nancy Bermas, Senior ICM Specialist, Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia.

DRAFT

VI

ACB The ASEAN Centre for BiodiversityAPEC Asia-Pacific Economic CooperationASEAMS Association of Southeast Asian Marine Scientists ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian NationsATS Region of the Arafura and Timor SeasBE Blue EconomyCCFAM Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture MinistersCD Capacity DevelopmentCEEZ Coastal Ecological Economic ZoningCFE Federal Electricity Commission, MexicoCGF Clean Ganga Fund, IndiaCIRM Inter-Ministry Commission for Sea Resources, BrazilCMO Coastal Management ObjectivesCMP Coastal Management PlanCNLCOM Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Committee on Ocean

ManagementCOBSEA Coordinating Body on the Seas of East AsiaCOGERCO Coordination Group of Coastal Management, BrazilCONAFOR National Forestry Commission, MexicoCONAGUA National Water Commission, MexicoCONANP National Commission for Natural Protected Areas, MexicoCONAPESCA National Fisheries Commission, MexicoCPF Country Partnership FrameworkCRC Coastal Resource Coordinators, CanadaCRM Coastal Resource ManagementCRZ Coastal Regulation ZoneCSO Coastal States Organization, USCTI Coral Triangle InitiativeCVCA Critically Vulnerable Coastal AreasCZC Coastal Zone CanadaCZCA Coastal Zone Canada AssociationCZM Coastal Zone ManagementCZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, USCZMP Coastal Zone Management Program, IndiaDFA Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, CanadaDFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans, CanadaDG MARE Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, EUDOALOS United Nation’s Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the SeaEAS East Asian SeasEBM Ecosystem Based ManagementEC European CommissionEEZ Exclusive Economic ZoneEIA United States Energy Information AdministrationENCORE Enhancing Coastal and Ocean Resource EfficiencyESA Ecologically Sensitive AreasESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United

NationsESSIM Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management, CanadaEU European UnionFA Fishery AssociationFAO United Nations Food and Agriculture OrganizationFAO-APFIC Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission

FMCN Mexican Nature Conservation FundFONATUR National Trust Fund for Tourism Development, MexicoFURG Federal University of Rio Grande, BrazilGCF Green Climate Fund, UNFCCCGDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environmental FacilityGERCO Brazilian Coastal Management ProgramGFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and RecoveryGI-GERCO Group of Integration of the Coastal Management, BrazilGOF Global Ocean ForumGOI Government of IndiaGOSLIM LOMA Newfoundland and Labrador portion of the Gulf of

St. Lawrence, CanadaGRABS Green and Blue Space Adaptation for Urban Areas and Eco

Towns, EUHCDS Human Capital Development StrategyHTL High Tide LineHWL High Water LevelIAEA International Atomic Energy AgencyICM Integrated Coastal ManagementICOM Integrated Coastal and Ocean ManagementICZM Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementICZMA Integrated Coastal Zone Management Authority ICZMP Integrated Coastal Zone Management ProjectIGA Intergovernmental AffairsILMB Integrated Land Management Bureau, CanadaIMO International Maritime OrganizationIMP Integrated Maritime PolicyINE National Ecology Institute, MexicoINP National Fisheries Institute, MexicoIOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic CommissionIOC-WESTPAC Sub-Commission for the Western PacificIUNC International Union for Conservation of NatureLIFE European Union Financial InstrumentLMCR Lower Manhattan Climate Resiliency Project, USLOMA Large Ocean Management AreaLSUP Land-Sea Use PlansLWL Low Water LevelMAF Ministry for Agriculture, Forest, and Fisheries, JapanMCC Municipal Coastal Committee, South AfricaMEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,

JapanMINMEC Standing Intergovernmental Body, South AfricaMLIT Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, JapanMOE Ministry of Environment, JapanMOEFCC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, IndiaMSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive, EUMSP Maritime Spatial PlanningNABST National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, CanadaNAPCC National Action Plan on Climate Change, IndiaNCC National Coastal Committee, South AfricaNCICM National Course for Integrated Coastal Management, Philippines

List of AcronymsDRAFT

VII

NCM National Coastal Mission, IndiaNCMP National Coastal Management Plan, BrazilNCSCM National Center for Sustainable Coastal Management, IndiaNDF Nordic Development Fund, EUNDZ No Development ZonesNEMA National Environmental Management Act, South AfricaNEP National Environment Policy, IndiaNGO Non-Governmental Organization NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USNOEP National Ocean Economics Program, USNOWPAP Northwest Pacific Action PlanNPA National Programme of Action, CanadaNRI Non-Resident IndianOPRI Ocean Policy Research Institute, JapanORLA Coastal Border Project, BrazilOSPAR OSPAR Convention for the Protection of Marine Environment of

the North-East AtlanticPAF Federal Action Plan, BrazilPANDSOC National Environment Policy for the Sustainable Development of

Oceans and Coasts: Strategies for its Conservation and Sustain-able Use, Mexico

PBGB LOMA Placentia Bay/Grand Banks LOMA, CanadaPCC Provincial Coastal Committee, South AfricaPEA Project Executing Agency, IndiaPEMEX Mexican State Oil CorporationPEMSEA Partnerships in Environmental Management for the

Seas of East Asia, JapanPET Temporary Employment Program, MexicoPHARE ICZM Programme, European UnionPMGC Municipal Plan of Coastal Management, BrazilPNGC National Plan of Coastal Management, BrazilPNMA National Policy on the Environment, BrazilPNRM National Policy for Sea Resources, BrazilPPP Public-Private PartnershipsPRF PEMSEA Resource Facility, East AsiaRCOM Regional Committee on Ocean Management, CanadaRICAMA Rational for Integrated Coastal Area Management, EUROC Regional Oversight Committee, CanadaRPF Regional Partnership Fund, East AsiaSAGARPA Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development,

Fisheries and Food, MexicoSALGA South Africa Local Government AssociationSCT Ministry of Communications and Transport, MexicoSCZMA State Coastal Zone Management Authorities, IndiaSDG Sustainable Development GoalSDS Sustainable Development StrategySDS-SEA Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of

East Asia, JapanSE Ministry of Economy, MexicoSECIRM Secretary of CIRM, BrazilSECTUR Ministry of Tourism, MexicoSEDESOL Ministry of Social Development, MexicoSEMAR Ministry of the Navy, MexicoSEMARNAT Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico

SENER Ministry of Energy, MexicoSICOM Society of Integrated Coastal Management, IndiaSIDS Small Island Developing StatesSPMU State Project Management UnitSSME Social Science and Modern EducationTERRA ICZM Program, EUTNC The Nature Conservancy, USUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNDP-RCF Regional Cooperation Framework, Asia and the PacificUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNEP-GPA UNEP Global Programme of ActionUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNTSC United Nations Train-Sea CoastUS United States of AmericaUSAID US Agency for International DevelopmentUT Union Territories, IndiaUTCMA Union Territory Coastal Zone Management Authorities, IndiaWACA West Africa Coastal Area Management ProgramWB World BankWCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries CommissionWWII The Second World WarYSLME Yellow Sea Large Marine EcosystemZC Coastal Zone, Brazil

DRAFT

VIII

List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables

BOXES

Box 1.1. Framework for Analysis for Review of International ICZM Cases . . . . . . . . .5

Box 2.1. Base CZM Funding for Fiscal Year 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Box 2.2. US. Ocean Commission Report–Major Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Box 2.3. Example of Regional Ocean Planning in the Mid-Atlantic Region . . . . . . . . 17

Box 3.1. The Role of the Provincial and Territorial Governments in the Oceans Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Box 6.1. Demonstration Programmes from 1996 to 1999 (EU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Box 6.2. Funding for Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Box 8.1. Successful Financing Mechanisms Adopted in Xiamen, China and Batangas, Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Box 9.1. Ecosystem-based and Community-based Management: The Satoumi Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Countries and Regions Covered in the White Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Figure 2.1. United States Exclusive Economic Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 3.1. Exclusive Economic Zone of Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Figure 4.1. Coastal Zone of Brazil, officially composed of 397 coastal municipalities . .29

Figure 5.1. Exclusive Economic Zone of Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Figure 6.1. Maritime Boundaries in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Figure 7.1. South Africa’s Exclusive Economic Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 8.1. The Seas of East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Figure 8.2. Framework for Sustainable Development of Coastal Areas through ICM Implementation (SDCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Figure 8.3. ICM Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 8.4. The PPP Process Followed in PEMSEA Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Figure 9.1. Exclusive Economic Zone of Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Figure 9.2. Responsibilities for Coastal Management in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 9.3. Japanese Government Framework Related to ICZM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 9.4. ICM Projects in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Figure 10.1. The PPP Process Followed in PEMSEA Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

DRAFT

IX

TABLES

Table 5.1. Stakeholders in an Integrated Ocean and Coastal Strategy for Mexico . . . .39

Table 8.1. Status of Participating Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Table 9.1. History of Coastal-related Events and Coastal Management in Japan . . . . . .71

DRAFT

X

Section 1.

Overview on International Experiences on Integrated Coastal Zone Management and

Implications for India

DRAFT

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW1.1. Introduction

Coastal zones, including both land and sea ele-ments, are among the most productive areas

in the world, offering a wide variety of valuable habitats and ecosystems services. They are attrac-tive tourist destinations and important business zones. High population concentration and exces-sive exploitation of natural resources put enor-mous pressure on the coastal ecosystems leading to biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, pollution, as well as conflicts among various users. Coastal zones are also among the most vulnerable areas to climate change and natural hazards. Risks include flooding, erosion, sea level rise as well as extreme weather events. These impacts are far reaching and are already changing the lives and livelihoods of coastal communities in 183 coastal and island nations around the world.

In the context of the larger Blue Economy De-velopment Framework, the economic, social and environmental viability of coastal zones requires integrated and long-term management approaches and tools, such as integrated coastal zone manage-ment (ICZM), to enhance the protection of coasts and resources while increasing the efficiency of their uses. A fragmented sectoral approach to coastal resources leads to separate decisions and unmitigated risks of inefficient resource use and missed opportunities for sustainable development.

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM, vari-ously called Integrated coastal and ocean man-agement, Coastal management, Coastal zone management), has long been established as the main approach to use to address management of coastal and marine areas, and to address, through authoritative decision-making processes, planning and conflict management among multiple uses; intersectoral and intergovernmental coordination; and planning integration for both the land and sea aspects of the coastal zone.

India and ICZM

The Government of India has long emphasized the need for ICZM and has achieved considerable

progress on ICZM during the last decade, through the ICZM Phase 1 project jointly sponsored by the Government of India and the World Bank. India is now at a key point in the development of the next phase of ICZM implementation, and in the process of shaping the next phase of its ICZM program focusing on streamlining the institution-al mandates and resource flows among different levels of government; balance financial viability and long-term resource sustainability to enable private finance; and link science to management and decision-making, strengthening the role of existing institutions dedicated to this goal. The World Bank has requested this Review of inter-national ICZM cases to inform the ongoing effort in the preparation of the next phase. The major purpose of this Report is to review a number of international ICZM cases, with a special focus on: National/state/local interactions and flows of authority and responsibility; patterns of financial resources to support ICZM; and capacity building at all three levels of governance—national, state, and local; and ICZM linkages to ocean planning, Blue Economy, and climate change policies.

Roadmap to this Chapter

In this Introduction and Overview, we present: A brief overview of the essentials of integrated coastal zone management; ICZM in practice; the purposes of this Report; the rationale for the choice of the ICZM cases selected (6 nations and 2 regions of the world); and a preview of the remaining chapters in the Report.

1.2. Essential Elements of Integrated Coastal Zone Management

The concept of ICZM is rooted, in particular, in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the constitution for the world’s oceans, which underscores that “all aspects of ocean space are interrelated and should be treated as a whole” (Koh, 1983), and in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), and particularly in the oceans and coasts chapter of Agenda 21, Chapter 17. In Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, nations commit-ted themselves to integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas and the marine environment under national jurisdiction; the imperative of achieving integration (identify-ing existing and projected uses and their interac-

DRAFT

2

tions and promoting compatibility and balance of uses); the application of preventive and precau-tionary approaches (including prior assessment and impact studies), and full public participation. An important emphasis was also placed on in-tegrated policy and decision-making processes and institutions--each coastal State should con-sider establishing (or strengthening) appropriate coordination mechanisms for integrated manage-ment and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas, at both the local and national levels (UNCED, 1992).

Integrated Coastal Zone Management may be de-fined as “a continuous and dynamic process by which decisions are taken for the sustainable use, development, and protection of coastal/marine areas and resources” (Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998). ICZM involves a management process that acknowledges the interrelationships among coastal and ocean uses and the envi-ronments they affect. In a geographical sense, ICZM typically embraces upland watersheds, the shoreline and its unique landforms (beaches, dunes, wetlands), nearshore coastal and estuarine waters, and the ocean beyond to the extent is it affected by or affects the coastal zone. Given that many nations have claimed jurisdiction over 200 nautical-mile ocean zones, the coastal areas in some cases incorporate the entire offshore zone.

The goals of ICZM are generally to attain sustain-able development of coastal/marine areas; reduce vulnerability of coastal areas and their inhabitants to natural hazards; and maintain essential ecolog-ical processes, life support systems and biological diversity in coastal and marine areas.

ICZM is multipurpose oriented; it analyzes implica-tions of development, conflicting uses, and interre-lationships between physical processes and human activities; and it promotes linkages and harmoni-zation among sectoral coastal and ocean activities. A key aspect of ICM is the design of institutional processes of integration/harmonization to over-come the fragmentation inherent in the sectoral management approach and in the splits in jurisdic-tion between levels of government (national, state/provincial, local) at the land-water interface.

The major functions of ICZM include: 1. Area Planning--Plan for present and future uses of coast-al and marine areas; provide a long-term vision; 2. Promotion of Sustainable Development--Promote

appropriate uses of coastal and marine areas; 3. Stewardship of Resources--Protect the ecolog-ical base of coastal and marine areas; preserve biological diversity; ensure sustainability of uses; 4. Conflict Resolution--Harmonize and balance existing/potential uses; address conflicts among coastal and marine uses; 5. Protection of Public Safety--Protect public safety in coastal and marine areas typically prone to significant natural, as well as climate-change induced hazards; 6. Proprietor-ship of Public Submerged Lands and Waters--As governments are often outright owners of specific coastal and marine areas, manage government-held areas and resources wisely and with good econom-ic returns to the public.

While ICZM requires an integrated approach to achieve coherence among uses and among levels of government, it should be noted that ICZM does not replace sectoral management (such as for fisheries, for example), but instead supplements sectoral management. Policy integration in ICZM is typically best performed at a higher bureaucrat-ic level than sectoral management.

Dimensions of integration that should be ad-dressed in ICZM include: 1. Intersectoral integra-tion (among various sectors and uses of the coast and ocean); 2. Intergovernmental integration (to ensure consistency in the actions of national, state, and local governments); 3. Spatial inte-gration (considering land and sea processes and uses); 4. Science-management integration (ap-plication of natural and social sciences to address the problems and issues of the coastal zone); 5. International integration (which may be needed to address transboundary resources and processes outside the scope of national authorities).

Intergovernmental integration is significantly de-pendent on the nation’s governmental structure. India exemplifies a federalist government, as do countries like the US, Germany, Canada, Brazil, and Australia. Federalism is generally defined as a governing system with a division of authority be-tween the central government and the individual state or regional governments. Federalist coun-tries represent about 25 countries and roughly 40% of the global population (Fedforum.org).

ICZM in Practice

Twenty years after the Earth Summit, during the Rio+20 process (2012), an assessment on progress

DRAFT

3

achieved in ICZM practices and related practices in Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) noted that while quantitative data on progress achieved are sparse, significant progress in the dissemina-tion of ICZM practices had been achieved since 1992 (Cicin-Sain, Balgos, Appiott, Wowk, and Hamon, 2011). Examples noted include:

-- Over 100 countries have established ICZM pro-grams (some of these need to be scaled up from pilot areas to encompass a nation’s entire coastal zone)

-- About 40 countries are developing or are implementing integrated national ocean poli-cies covering their 200-mile EEZs (Cicin-Sain, VanderZwaag, and Balgos, eds. 2015)

-- ICZM/EBM have been applied in regional areas as well, especially in: 20 Large Marine Ecosys-tem Programmes supported by the Global Envi-ronment Facility and implemented by 110 coun-tries around the world; in the 18 Regional Seas Programmes; and in various regional groupings: The European Union, with its pioneering work on the European Integrated Maritime Policy; the East Asian Seas region through the work of PEMSEA (Partnerships on Environmental Man-agement for the Seas of East Asia); the South Pa-cific Islands region through the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy

-- Barragan and Andres (2015) note the rapidly growing proportion of the global population living in Coastal Cities and Agglomerations (CCAs), finding that half of the population liv-ing in cities with over 100,000 inhabitants are within 100 km from the coast. They suggest that ICZM may become more closely linked to urban planning and development as city popu-lations rise, and strongly emphasize the necessi-ty of ICZM policies on a municipal level

As the ICZM concept becomes more widely ac-cepted, common barriers to implementation and effectiveness include lack of: 1. Financial commit-ments, 2. Assessment and monitoring systems, 3. Knowledge regarding the coastal system, 4. Qual-ified human resources, and 5. Public participation and administrative integration strategies based on information (Gonzalez-Riancho, 2009).

ICZM and Climate Change Impacts

ICZM is now needed more than ever, to address in a concerted way the impacts of climate change on

the oceans and on coastal zones and their peoples and economies in 183 coastal and island nations around the world. As noted by the report on As-sessing Progress on Ocean and Climate Action: 2018, presented at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Katowice, Poland, December 7, 2018 (Cicin-Sain et al, 2018):

-- The year 2017 was one of the most devastating yet for highlighting the enormous effects that climate change is having on the world’s coasts and the subsequent impacts upon the global population……causing loss of life and liveli-hood as well as inflicting billions of dollars of damage to buildings, harbours, and other infrastructure

-- Coastal property and infrastructure are in-creasingly at risk from sea level rise and storm events. Due to the real and potential impacts on coastal ecosystems, economies, and the human use of these areas, predicting areas that will be most affected by increased severe and extreme events must be an important compo-nent of adjustment and mitigation activities in response to climate change…Governments at all levels must develop clear policies for coastal protection, planning and damage response…to manage the world’s coastlines as climate change continues to increase exposure to haz-ard and risk

-- In some parts of the world, wholesale evacu-ation of coastal areas is becoming more and more a necessity as the impacts of climate change become more dangerous and uncon-trollable

-- Low-lying small island developing States (SIDS) are facing the prospect of complete submer-gence and in some cases the necessity of evacuating their entire population to another country. It is predicted that for the world’s 52 small island states, sea-level rise is as much as four times the global average and increasing levels of vulnerability means trillions of dollars in annual economic losses

-- The IPCC report on the implications of a 1.5°C increase in global warming sounds the alarm on what is evident around the world. Global efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions are failing to meet required levels of effort, targets are not being met, and the consequences for

DRAFT

4

global coastal populations are moving to the highest level of threat…… The effectiveness of adaptation options comprising structural, physical, institutional, and social responses will depend largely on governance, political will, adaptive capacities, and the availability of finance

1.3. Purposes of the Report

The purposes of the Report are two-fold:

1) To review and analyze the ICZM experiences of 6 countries and 2 regions, especially with re-gard to the following variables:

1. Policy, institutions, and governance issues re-lated to Federal, State, and Local interactions on ICZM, including division of authority and responsibilities, and integration among gov-ernment levels;

2. Sustainability of financial flows to support ICZM, including the relative roles of Feder-al, State, and Local governments and of the private sector;

3. Capacity development at all levels of govern-ment (Federal, State, and Local) to carry out ICZM;

4. Linkages between ICZM and ocean plan-ning, Blue Economy, and climate change and disaster risk management

2) To draw lessons from these experiences which may be of relevance to the Government of India

as it embarks upon the next phase of its ICZM program to considerably expand ICZM in India, particularly in terms of:

1. The roles of National and State/UT and Local actors and stakeholders for greater efficiency in ICZM implementation;

2. Financial flow models for investment sup-port for effective ICZM implementation at State/UT and local levels;

3. Capacity to promote science, data/informa-tion sharing, education, communications, and awareness raising, and the roles of the public sector, academic institutions, and NGOs.

Cases Selected for Analysis

The Report provides a synthetic overview of ICZM cases in 6 nations: United States, Cana-da, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, and Japan, and in 2 regions: The European Union (com-prising 28 nations), and the East Asian Seas (involving 11 nations in East Asia and coordi-nated by the Partnership for Environmental Management of East Asian Seas (PEMSEA). The map below (see next page) shows these coun-tries and regions.

The rationale for selecting these countries and regions was as follows. Five of the countries se-lected—United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa—are major coastal/ocean countries with extensive coastlines and Exclusive Economic

Countries and Regions Covered in the White Paper

BrazilIndonesia

Singapore

India

ChinaEast Asia Region

Japan

Malaysia

VietnamCambodia

Laos

South AfricaTimor-Leste

Philippines

South Korea

NorthKorea

Mexico

United States

Canada

European Union

Figure 1.1. Countries and Regions Covered in the White Paper

DRAFT

5

Zones, and with long experience in ICZM, much like India. As well, all of these countries have fed-eral systems of government with shared authority and responsibility over the coast and ocean by national and state/provincial authorities, as does India.1 Although having a unitary (and not a fed-eral) form of government, Japan was also select-ed because of the highly effective way in which national ocean policy was created and imple-mented, and because of the special relationship between the national level of government and the local communities embodying the concept of “satoumi” which may be of interest to India with its rich and extensive local community heritage.

With regards to the regions selected for review, first, the European Union (comprising 28 nations) also has extensive coastlines and abuts several seas with varying conditions and circum-stances. The European Union has been a leader in ICZM since the 1990s when it first initiated a major EU program on ICZM. This was followed by major initiatives and ultimately authoritative policies on Integrated Maritime Policy and on Marine Spatial Planning. The European Union 1 South Africa is a quasi-federal state.

adheres to the principle of “subsidiarity,” which, defined in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Euro-pean Union, aims to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made to verify that action at the EU level is justified in light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local levels. Over time, the European Union has targeted various levels of government—national, provincial, local, regional, as partners in the implementation of its coastal and ocean policies. Implementation of the subsidiarity principle bears resemblance to the complexities involved in federal systems as they grapple with the question of which level(s) of government may be most suitable for the carrying out of particular management functions related to coastal and ocean management.

The second region selected for review, the East Asian Seas region, led by the Partnership for Environmental Management of East Asian Seas and incorporating 11 East Asian Seas countries (ranging from very developed to least developed nations), demonstrates the importance of international influences on ICZM, deriving

Box 1.1. Framework for Analysis for Review of International ICZM Cases

The following questions were applied to each of the case studies in order to draw lessons learned in the implementation of ICZM that may be of relevance to India.

I. Brief Overview of ICZM in the CountryCoastal nature (Ocean and coastal profile including existing coastal management issues)

• Geographic and demographic information (e.g., total land area, length of coastline, maritime zones, and human population)

• Maritime boundaries, including map

• Status of and utilization of marine and maritime resources, including economic data and conflicts among uses

History of ICZM in the country

• Include factors that gave rise to an ICZM policy initiative

Existing policies

• Brief description of existing policy (goals, main legal provisions, institutional mechanism)

• Stakeholders/key players involved

II. Roles of National and State ActorsAuthority at National Level

• Who is in-charge of implementing ICZM at the national level? Is there a lead agency, interim body, or a unit in the Head of State’s office that serves as a focal point for implementation?

• How is the implementing structure organized? Is there an advisory group, a secretariat or staff in-charge of the ICZM policy/program?

Authority at State/Local Level

• Who is in-charge of implementing ICZM at the state/local level? Is there a lead agency, interim body, or a unit in the chief state executive’s office (such as a Governor’s office) that serves as a focal point for implementation?

• How is the implementing structure organized? Is there a specific agency in charge of ICZM, an ad-visory group, a secretariat or staff in-charge of the ICZM policy/program at the state/local level?

National/Sub-national Division of Authori-ty and Interaction

• What is the division of authority over ocean issues among national and sub-national levels of govern-

DRAFT

6

ment? What are the issues on federal-state and state-local linkages?

• How is the authority over land and over water juris-dictions divided?

• Are there general conflicts and competition among levels of government?

• Are there existing policies that address intergovernmental conflicts?

• What processes are present in addressing these conflicts?

• Are these processes working well?

Checks and balances for ensuring consis-tency with federal laws (also state laws)

• What are the issues in enforcement?

• Is there complementarity (or overlap) in regulatory framework–e.g. EIA

• What impacts do these complementarities/overlaps create on the environment, communities, and water-based industries? How were overlaps addressed?

• How does the federal government provide oversight?

• What system of monitoring and evaluation is used? What indicators were used?

• How were the M&E/performance data used in improving performance?

• Are there informal mechanisms that can help facilitate ICZM implementation and continuity of financial support?

III. Financial SustainabilityWhat are the sources of and allocation for ICZM implementation? Were there any best-practices and low-cost innovative solu-tions that were used?

• Allocation to states by federal level

• Revenue generated by state and local levels (taxes, royalties)

• Multilateral sources (e.g., World Bank, other)

• Other international funding (GCF, private investment)

• Sustainable financing instruments, Carbon off-sets, tradeable permits, debt swap

Has there been any initiative carried out on structuring sustainable financing?

• What were the options used? At federal level? At state level? (Who was involved: A number of States; all coastal states; regionally organized; or under a Coastal States Organization?)

• Was there a set of criteria for entry and/or gover-nance?

Other financial considerations

• To what extent, if any, did financial uncertainties and inefficiency undermine the implementation of the ICZM policy/program?

• How were unmanaged financial risks and ineffec-tive transactions addressed at the state and local levels?

• In addition, were there previously untapped re-sources identified that could complement existing services and provide innovative financial solutions?

• Were there improvements in financial flows that not only improved the quality of existing funding, but also contributed to an increase in the net value of external assistance and funding for ICZM?

IV. Capacity Development, Education, and Awareness Raising• Was a capacity needs assessment conducted to

inform capacity development needs for the ICZM policy/program?

• What capacity development, educational and pub-lic awareness programs were carried out to sup-port ICZM implementation?

• Management and coordination of the various com-ponents of the ICZM policy, e.g., area-based man-agement, EIA, etc., with multiple stakeholders

• Coordination between federal/state/local/ communities

• Partnership with the private sector and communities

V. Links to Blue Economy, Spatial Planning, Ocean Zoning• What are the links between existing ICZM pro-

grams and more recent efforts to foster Blue Econo-my development?

• What are the links between ICZM efforts and ef-forts regarding Marine Spatial Planning, and Ocean Zoning? Are these carried out through similar institutions and authorities?

VI. Links to Adaptation to Climate Change• What adaptation strategies to risks including flood-

ing, erosion, sea level rise, and extreme weather events are incorporated in ICZM policy/programs?

• To what extent, if any, are similar institutions car-rying out efforts related to coastal adaptation and ICZM management?

• To what extent, if any, is financing supporting adaptation measures for the coastal zone and ocean related to financing for the implementation of the ICZM policy/program?

Box 1.1, continued

DRAFT

7

much of its initial impetus from international prescriptions such as UNCED and follow-up developments, as well as the power of voluntary partnership, capacity development, and joint action by the national governments in the re-gion. A major source of success in PEMSEA has been steady financing over time, from the Global Environment Facility and contributions from the participating countries in the region. In addition to working with the national governments in the region, PEMSEA has targeted the municipal level in East Asia (which often incorporates large me-tropolises) as a key developer and implementer of ICZM policy, and has achieved significant results in this regard, with a network of local ICZM offi-cials throughout the region that have undergone similar training and routinely share experiences on what works and doesn’t in ICZM.

It should be noted that each nation/region is unique and operates according to its own dy-namics, including history, culture, economy, politics, and other factors. Any lessons learned in the context of a nation or region must be inter-preted in the context of each country and region and are not readily transferable to other con-texts. Lessons learned, including possible inno-vative modalities for ensuring long-term success in ICZM, may serve for inspiration and possible adaptation, after suitable changes and transfor-mation, to other contexts.

Major Questions Posed

As noted earlier, the main questions posed in each case revolve around the first three major emphases of this Report:

1. Federal/state/local interactions on ICZM, in-cluding division of authority and responsibility;

2. Sustainability of financial flows;

3. Capacity development;

4. Linkages to ocean planning, Blue Economy, and climate change.

The specific questions asked in each case study are noted in Box 1.1. Framework for Analysis for Review of International ICZM Cases.

It should be noted that not all questions could be addressed in each of the country/regional con-texts, due to absence of available data. This was especially the case with regard to the questions

regarding financial sustainability—detailed data of financial flows over time are typically difficult to obtain.

As shown on the cover of this Report, the case studies were prepared by Global Ocean Forum researchers. In a number of instances, national and regional experts in ICZM reviewed and further contributed to the analyses of specific cases. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the Global Ocean Forum team.

1.4. Structure of the Report

Following this Introduction and Overview Chapter, synopses of the case studies of 6 countries and 2 re-gions are found next, as follows: Chapter 2, ICZM in the United States; Chapter 3, ICZM in Canada; Chapter 4, ICZM in Brazil; Chapter 5, ICZM in Mexico; Chapter 6, ICZM in the European Union; Chapter 7; ICZM in South Africa; Chapter 8, ICZM in the East Asian Seas Region; Chapter 9, ICZM in Japan.

A brief summary of lessons learned in these var-ious cases and their possible relevance to India are summarized in Chapter 10.

Planned International ICZM Conference

A more detailed analysis of the relevance of possi-ble lessons from other country and regional cases to India will be prepared after the conduct of a Government of India/World Bank International ICZM Conference (to be held in India on July 9-11, 2019). The conference will provide an opportu-nity for international ICZM experts from various countries and regions to present lessons learned, and issues and opportunities from their respective countries and regions and for Government of India and World Bank officials to present their vision and plans for the next phase of ICZM in India. The conference will provide an opportunity for poli-cymakers at the national and state level in India to interact and share experiences with experts from outside the country and region. The focus of the conference will be to highlight issues and options of relevance to India and to contribute to the fur-ther preparation of the next ICZM program.

References

Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht, R.W. (1998). Integrated Coast-al and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices, Washington DC, Island Press.

DRAFT

8

Cicin-Sain, B., Balgos, M., Appiott, J., Wowk, K., and Hamon, G. (2011), Oceans at Rio+20: How Well Are We Doing in Meeting the Commitments from the 1992 Earth Summit and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development? Global Ocean Forum

Cicin-Sain, B., VanderZwaag, D.L., and Balgos, M.C., Editors. (2015). Routledge Handbook on National and Regional Ocean Policies, London and New York, Routledge.

Cicin-Sain, et al. (2018). Assessing Progress on Ocean and Climate Action: UN Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties, COP 24, Katowice Poland.

De Andres, M. & Muñoz, J. (2015). Analysis and Trends of the World’s Coastal Cities and Agglomerations. Ocean & Coastal Management. 114. 11-20. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.004.

Fedforum.org

González-Riancho, P., Sanò, M., Medina, R., García-Agui-lar, O., & Areizaga, J. (2009). A Contribution to the Im-plementation of ICZM in the Mediterranean Develop-ing Countries. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(11), 545-558. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.08.007

Koh, Tommy B. (1983). Statement by Tommy B. Koh, president of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. In The Law of the Sea, xxxiii-xxx-vii. New York: United Nations

United Nations Conference on Environment and De-velopment (UNCED). (1992). Agenda 21, Chapter 17, Protection of the Oceans, All Kinds of Seas, Including Enclosed and Semi-Enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas and he Protection, Rational Use and Development of Their Living Resources.

DRAFT

9

DRAFT

10

Section 2.

International ICZM Experiences

DRAFT

11

Chapter 2

Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the United States 2.1. Overview of ICZM in the United States

The United States is a major coastal and mar-itime nation.2 The United States claims an

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 11.5 million km2–the world’s largest (FAO, 2005). The US EEZ is 25 per cent larger than the US land mass area of 9.2 million km2, and its coastline extends for 19,924 km (CIA, 2014). The oceans and coasts of the United States directly support marine transportation, fisheries and aquaculture, energy production, recreation, biotechnology, and other uses. US coastal shoreline counties (including the Great Lakes) accounted for 41 per cent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) and con-tributed about 44 million jobs and US$2.4 trillion in wages (NOAA, 2012). While these figures certainly matter, it is important to consider that these are only the market values of ocean and coastal resources. The non-market values, such as, for example, the value public access to the beach, are estimated at over $100 billion a year (NOEP, undated). Further, it is becoming increas-ingly clear that the services that these ecosystems provide, including coastal storm protection, car-bon sequestration, and the regulation of climate, natural hazards, wastes, and water quality, are of significant value that has not yet been captured (NOAA, undated). Ocean and coastal ecosystems and sectors are clearly a central driver of the US economy.

The United States has signed, but has not ac-ceded to, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, the United States claims the following maritime zones consistent with UNCLOS:

• a territorial sea 12 nautical miles from the base-line;

• a contiguous zone 24 nautical miles from the baseline;

2 This introduction is drawn from Cicin-Sain et al (2015).

• an EEZ 200 nautical miles from the base-line;and

• a continental shelf that was specified before UNCLOS

US coastal states generally have authority between 0 and 3 statute (geographical) miles offshore, with the exception of Texas and Florida, the authority of which extends over 3 marine leagues (about 10 statute miles) into the Gulf of Mexico. The Fed-eral government has jurisdiction over the ocean area from 3 to 200 miles offshore (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 2000).

In the 1970s, the United States was a world leader in the creation of sectoral marine laws address-ing issues such as fisheries, offshore oil and gas, water quality, and marine mammal protection, and enacted the world’s first coastal management legislation, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. General increases in public awareness of environmental concern (such as the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill), the 1969 Stratton Report on US ocean policy (Stratton Commission, 1969), and a proactive Congress combined to give rise to significant ocean-related legislation and reg-ulation from 1969 through the 1970s, resulting in enactment of an extensive body of generally sectoral laws. These include the Marine Protec-tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, among others (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 2000).

Figure 2.1. United States Exclusive Economic Zone (NOAA, undated)

DRAFT

12

2.2. Roles of National and State Actors

Legislative Origins of the Coastal Zone Management Act3

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, a tru-ly cross-sectoral and multiple-use law, authorized the establishment of a federal program to encour-age and assist the states in developing and imple-menting programs to manage their coastal areas, within zones defined in the act to include the 3-mile territorial sea adjacent to state shorelines and an unspecified width of shoreland, “the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters,” depending on the particular geographic situation in the state (CZMA 1972, Section 1453). The CZMA represented the federal government’s most aggressive step yet regarding the management of land and water uses at state and local levels.

Enactment of the CZM legislation in 1972 oc-curred at the time when the environmental move-ment had already become a strong and effective force in U.S. politics. Older conservation groups such as the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, joined by newer organizations such as the Friends of the Earth and the Natural Resources Defense Council, collectively had a major voice in shaping many environmental bills enacted between 1969 and 1975. The active participation of these groups ensured that the legislation incorporated the highest degree of environmental protection that was politically feasible.

Another contextual factor was the contempora-neous movement toward a stronger state role in land-use planning and management. In particular, the National Governors Association created the Coastal States Organization in 1969 to foster state participation in the emerging debate on national coastal management. As well, eight coastal states (California, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Delaware, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota), had by then embarked on coastal or shoreline programs. These states became valued partici-pants in the process of debating and shaping the national legislation. Being closer to the real needs for coastal management and more aware of the obstacles and constraints posed, they had a signif-icant impact on the final content of the legislation (U.S. Congress, Senate 1976).

3 These sections rely on the analysis in Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 2000.

An Intergovernmental Approach

Major objectives of the 1972 CZMA legislation can be summarized as follows:

• To manage resources and activities/uses within the coastal area (land and water uses)

• To protect, conserve and restore sensitive habi-tats (wetlands, dunes, estuaries)

• To manage hazards and shore erosion

• To ensure public access to the coast

The major features of the legislation were as follows:

1. Recognizing that conflicts existed among com-peting uses in the coastal zone (often conser-vation versus development), as well as among the overlapping authorities of the three levels of government, the Act designated one level of government–the state–as the appropriate one to take the lead in developing plans to manage land and water uses in the coastal zones

2. The program was a voluntary one, with no sanctions imposed against states choosing not to prepare CZM programs under the Act

3. Federal grants-in-aid were to be made available for a limited period to state governments (and through them, to local governments) for devel-oping CZM programs, and after federal approv-al of state coastal zone management programs, grants were to be available to the states for im-plementing and administering such programs

4. Federal agencies were called upon to assist states in the CZM process and, after program approval, to act consistently with the policies contained in the federally approved state coast-al zone management plans

5. The criteria describing the requirements for federal approval of state programs all dealt es-sentially with process and not with substantive standards

Federal Consistency—An Effective Tool for Intergovernmental Collaboration

The CZMA went further than any previous leg-islation in giving the states a voice in the actions of federal agencies affecting their coastal zones once the state CZM program had been approved at the national level. The real strength of the novel “federal consistency” provisions established

DRAFT

13

by Section 307 of the Act was to be determined later as states attempted to use this power to gain greater control in the federal offshore oil and gas leasing program.

The CZMA embodied an unusual form of fed-eralism. The underlying concept of the Act–the driving force–was contained in the following quid pro quo: If states adopted CZM programs that were judged to meet the national inter-est and other tests found in the Act, and if the states were willing to enforce their programs in relation to local and state interests (public and private), federal agencies would be bound by the coastal policies contained in those programs as well.

Taken together, the various provisions of Section 307 required, in effect, that federal activities, fed-eral development projects, federal licenses and permits, and federal assistance action be consis-tent with approved state CZM programs. While escape clauses existed for each of the above categories of federal actions, these were judged to be relatively narrow and limited. Sections 307 (c)(1) and (3) employ the term “affecting the coastal zone;” thus federal actions occurring outside the coastal zone but affecting it also fall within the scope of the federal consistency requirements, adding an element of “extraterritoriality” to a state’s power under the CZM Act. This aspect was to become very important in the late 1970s and early 1980s as states began to differ with the fed-eral government over offshore oil leasing policies in federal waters.

Critical Roles and Processes for Establish-ing CZM at Federal and State Levels:

At the Federal level in 1972, a new ocean agency was created to provide coordination among a host of diverse federal agencies and laws and reg-ulations all pertaining to different aspects of the coast and ocean. That “lead” ocean agency was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration (NOAA) and it was tasked with the follow-ing responsibilities:

-- coordination of other federal agencies ICZM related actions

-- financial and administrative functions for feder-al grants to the states

-- management training and policy coordination

-- setting out a comprehensive planning process and national goals for the development of state CZM programs under leadership of each state

-- resolution of overlapping or conflicting jurisdictions when possible

-- assuring that state ICZM policies/plans were backed by enforceable laws and regulations

With the dual incentives of authority (Section 307 federal consistency) and funding (Section 305 and Section 306 of the CZMA), all 23 coast-al states, 7 Great Lake States and 5 US Territo-ries all proceeded with a comprehensive plan-ning process outlined in the CZMA. The more successful programs began the process with the designation of a “lead state” CZM agency tasked with the following responsibilities:

-- lead the local/state comprehensive planning process to produce the state CZM plan that implements the national goals but is tailored to that state’s particular features

-- work with State/Local regulations to identi-fy weaknesses, gaps and other problems in achieving ICZM goals and take steps address them

-- resolve and streamline areas with overlapping or conflicting jurisdictions

-- after CZM plan completion, be responsible for its ongoing implementation via coordination with other state agencies with coastal related responsibilities

As of 2019, 34 of the 35 US coastal states and territories are part of the national coastal manage-ment program (with the exception of Alaska).

Performance Reviews, Challenges Faced in Implementation

Section 312 of the CZMA required periodic perfor-mance reviews conducted by the Federal agency NOAA evaluating of each state’s achievements and weaknesses. While precise quantitative metrics for outcomes of coastal management are difficult to apply, these “312 Evaluations” together provide a convincing narrative of many successful years of integrated coastal management by the states.

However, because the US coastal management program is oriented toward the states, few sys-tematic evaluations have been carried of the impact of the program as a whole. Findings of

DRAFT

14

such evaluations (e.g., Knecht, Cicin-Sain and Fisk 1996; Hershman et al, 1999), point to a number of beneficial impacts (a multi-purpose, multiple-use approach; responsible for halting coastal degra-dation trends; started new processes at state and local levels; the power of the consistency clause insured that federal agencies, in general, abided by the state CZM plans; and the federal govern-ment and states entered into and maintained strong cooperation).

Informal evaluations, as well, have put forward the idea that the real impact of the program was on the “inappropriate development that is not on the coast,” in an oft-repeated observation by Peter Douglas, long-standing director of the California coastal management program.

Some weaknesses in the CZMA program that have been noted, include: The fact that there was no initial baseline of coastal conditions, which made it difficult to measure success over time; little science in policy development in the initial decades (this appears to have changed at present given the concerns over climate change impacts); until the decade of the 2000s, the ocean side was not addressed much in most cas-es, but this has now changed quite dramatically; and the program has suffered from being low on the organizational hierarchy of the Department of Commerce at the federal level (the hierarchy being Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service /Office of Coastal Management) therefore lacking at times, sufficient visibility.

The lack of systematic information about the overall impact of the program has also hurt the program politically. US laws need to be reautho-rized periodically (typically every five years), and reauthorization affords opportunities for changing and enhancing the law and gathering renewed political momentum and support. In the case of the CZMA, the Act was reauthorized five times since its inception (1972, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1990, and 1996). The CZMA has since been maintained through congressional continuing resolutions, but the opportunity for renewal and enhancement has not yet happened.

The CZMA has, however, been able to overcome many challenges arising over time. Some Presiden-tial administrations sought to revert the entire pro-gram to the states and to eliminate federal funding. That was denied by the US Congress. The oil and

gas industry pursued legal challenges to the CZMA to exempt its activities from CZMA jurisdiction and the use of the “consistency provision.” Those attempts were largely denied by the US Supreme Court. And some coastal states over time, chose to limit the high level planning and policy functions of their CZM Programs assigning the CZM office to a low level in the state bureaucracy.

Many states, however, continue to turn to their CZM Program as the lead agency for new and emerging issues. For example, the development of Marine Spatial Plans or Ocean Plans was initi-ated by the state of Massachusetts CZM Program and subsequently adopted by the Obama Admin-istration which called for and supported the de-velopment of national US Ocean Plans to comple-ment the nearshore and land-based Coastal Plans. Most recently, coastal states are taking the lead in responding to climate change driven impacts along the US coast with strong efforts promoting coastal resilience and adaptation actions, as is discussed in a subsequent section.

2.3. Financial Sustainability

In contrast to other cases covered in this Report, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, steady continuing support has been provided to the participating coastal states over the life of the program, both in terms of federal funds as well as state matching funds.

The annual federal appropriation for “core” funding is distributed to the eligible state coastal management programs by NOAA/OCRM using a formula based primarily on length of shoreline and coastal population as per CZM regulations 16 U.S.C. S 1455 CZM Administrative Grants (Section 306). The precise formula is closely maintained and guarded by NOAA; but the key language from the regulation is: (c) Allocation of grants to coastal states. Grants under this section shall be allocated to coastal states with approved pro-grams based on rules and regulations promul-gated by the Secretary which shall take into ac-count the extent and nature of the shoreline and area covered by the program, population of the area, and other relevant factors. The Secretary shall establish, after consulting with the coastal states, maximum and minimum grants for any fiscal year to promote equity between coastal states and effective coastal management.

DRAFT

15

In addition to the base or core annual funding, another section of the CZMA provides additional funds for innovative projects that would enhance existing programs. The regulations for these more “competitive” grants are found in 16 U.S.C. S 14566 CZM Enhancement Grants (Section 309). Key language for this version of “competitive federalism” is found in Section (c) Evaluation of State proposals by Secretary. The Secretary shall evaluate and rank State proposals for funding under this section, and make funding awards based on those proposals, taking into account the criteria established by the Secretary under subsection (d) of this section. The Secretary shall ensure that funding decisions under this section take into consideration the fiscal and technical needs of proposing States and the overall merit of each proposal in terms of benefits to the pub-lic. This funding is now referred to as funding for Projects of Special Merit.

The annual federal funding for Section 306 Ad-ministrative Grants has averaged around $70 mil-lion in recent years with individual state grants averaging $2 million annually. Coastal states are required to provide an equal funding amount in matching funds. NOAA has also established min-imum and maximum levels which help provide a degree of certainty and equity; however, over time, many states have reached the maximum level, or the “cap” thereby negating the underly-ing concept. Additional funding via Section 309 varies annually. depending on the federal budget for that year.

It should be noted that federal funds are less like grants but rather, more like a “cooperative agree-ments” that are based on detailed descriptions of how tasks will be carried out by the states.

Box 2.1 provides an overview of the flow of funds for fiscal year 2017.

2.4. Capacity Development, Education, and Awareness Raising

Each of the 34 active coastal programs has ex-tensive programs in public education about the importance of the coast and ocean and the issues facing these areas. This is, in part, related to the fact that public education was emphasized in the implementation of the CZMA since its outset in 1972 and because of the generally high level of public interest that exists in the US coastal states about these issues. As well, the lead federal agen-cy, NOAA/Office of Coastal Resource Manage-ment, routinely distributes relevant information on coastal management to its constituencies and to the general public.

An important component of the CZMA is the National Estuarine Research Reserves (NEERS). NEERS is a network of 29 protected areas repre-senting different biographic areas where long-term research, water-quality monitoring, educa-tion and coastal stewardship is conducted and shared widely among all ICZM State Programs.

There are several organizations beyond the Feder-al National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion (NOAA) and State CZM Programs that togeth-

FY2017 Base CZM Program Funding (Source: NOAA OCM)

Category Federal State Combined

Protecting and Restoring Coastal Habitat 18.2 17.1 35.3

Mitigating Coastal Hazards 13.5 6.9 20.4

Coastal Community Development 10 8.7 18.7

Expanding Public Engagement 9.5 6.9 16.4

Protecting Coastal Water Quality 7.4 7.6 15

Enhancing Public Access 4.6 4.6 9.2

Implementing State Program Management 4.3 2.8 7.1

Planning for Our Ocean and Coastal Waters 1.8 2.3 4.1 Total 69.3 56.9 126.2 Amounts in millions of dollars

Box 2.1 Base CZM Program Funding for Fiscal Year 2018 (from Coastal States Organization, 2018b, page 10)

DRAFT

16

er help build technical and staff capacity on an ongoing basis. The Coastal States Organization, represents the interests of coastal states in federal matters, provides information, updates and alerts to coastal states of developments at the Federal level, maintains a national network for sharing best management practices in the coastal states, and helps to identify emerging issues and prob-lems and to develop consensus among the coastal states on how to respond to those issues. Another independent government agency, the Coastal Ser-vices Center, provides a wide range of technical and scientific support to all coastal states includ-ing training and other capacity building activities. In addition, the Sea Grant Program, which is a consortium of university-based research entities, conducts coastal and ocean research on issues

that are identified as priority problems for coastal managers. Lastly, the Coastal Society, is an infor-mal association of coastal management practi-tioners, students and many others who share an interest in coastal management and are willing to share lessons learned, mentor students, and explore new ideas in coastal management.

2.5. Linkages to Ocean Planning, Blue Economy, and Climate Change

Push for National Ocean Policy and Region-al Marine Planning4

Starting in the late 1990s, it had become evident that with the exception of the multi-purpose Coastal Zone Management Act, that all the other major ocean laws enacted in the 1970s dealing 4 This section relies on Cicin-Sain et al, 2015.

Guiding Principles

• Sustainability

• Stewardship

• Ocean-Land-Atmosphere connection

• Ecosystem-based management

• Multiple use management

• Preservation of marine biodiversity

• Best available science

• Adaptive management

• Understandable laws and clear decisions

• Participatory governance

• Timeliness

• Accountability

• International responsibility

National Governance• Create a Presidential Assistant on Oceans and a

national ocean office in the Executive Office of the President

• Establish a National Ocean Council, chaired by the Assistant to the President

• Create a Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy

• “Jump start” the process through Executive Order, pursue the Ocean Policy Act later in the process

• Strengthen NOAA and improve the federal agency structure

Regional Ocean Governance• Develop a flexible and voluntary process for

creating regional ocean councils, facilitated and supported by the National Ocean Council

• Develop regional ocean information programs for research, data collection, science-based informa-tion products, and outreach activities

Funding• Double the nation’s investment in ocean research

• Use revenues from offshore oil production to pro-vide grants to coastal states for conservation and sustainable development of renewable ocean and coastal resources

Other Major Recommendations• Implement the national Integrated Ocean Observ-

ing System

• Increase attention to ocean education through coordinated and effective formal and informal programs

• Strengthen the link between coastal and water-shed management

• Create a coordinated management regime for federal waters

• Create measurable water pollution reduction goals, particularly for nonpoint sources, and strengthen incentives, technical assistance, and other management tools to reach those goals

• Reform fisheries management by separating as-sessment and allocation, improving the Regional Fishery Management Council system, and explor-ing the use of dedicated access privileges

Box 2.2. US. Ocean Commission Report—Major Recommendations

DRAFT

17

with single uses of the marine environment (as noted earlier, marine mammal protection, off-shore oil and gas, fisheries management, etc. were largely based on single-sector approaches to ocean governance, and that there were few, if any, effective mechanisms to reconcile conflicts, encourage area-wide planning and management, and set cross-cutting national ocean policy. Con-gress, hence, adopted the Oceans Act of 2000 which created The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to carry out detailed analyses and make recommendations for a coordinated and com-prehensive national ocean policy for the United States. After four years of work with very exten-sive public participation, the Commission issued its final report on September 20, 2004.

The U.S. Ocean Commission report was truly a landmark report. The Report made extensive recommendations for a coordinated and compre-hensive national ocean policy to promote: Pro-tection of life and property; Stewardship of ocean and coastal resources; Protection of the marine environment and prevention of marine pollution; Enhancement of maritime commerce; Expansion of human knowledge of the marine environment;

Investments in technologies to promote energy and food security; Close cooperation among gov-ernment agencies; U.S. international leadership in ocean and coastal activities. The major recom-mendations of the U.S., Ocean Commission are noted in Box 2.2.

To implement these recommendations, extensive efforts were made both under the Presidency of George W. Bush and the Presidency of Barack Obama. President Obama established the Na-tional Ocean Policy, the first US National Policy for Ocean Stewardship by Executive Order (No. 13547) on July 22, 2010), setting forth overarch-ing principles to guide ocean management deci-sions; creating the National Ocean Council; and focusing on ecosystem-based and regional man-agement.

Inter alia, the National Ocean Policy encouraged the formation of Regional Planning Bodies and the use of CMSP (coastal marine spatial plan-ning), bringing together the relevant state and federal agencies to create regional assessment and plans for particular US ocean regions, build-ing on regional ocean planning efforts that had already been started by the coastal states. Regions had to appoint a Regional Planning Body (RPB) that would be responsible for developing Marine “Spatial” Plans that would be approved by the National Ocean Council by 2015. An example of the work carried out by these regional planning bodies, with reference to the Mid-Atlantic ocean region, is found in Box 2.3.

The work on regional marine planning continues to date, although in more informal ways, since President Donald Trump abolished the Executive Order 13547.

Box 2.3. Example of Regional Ocean Planning in the Mid-Atlantic Region

In the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, state, tribal, and federal governments along with stakeholders have been engaged in regional planning to maintain and enhance the health of the ocean and to support sustainable use of the ocean, within the framework of the 2010 National Ocean Policy. This process built on the earlier initiatives of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, a voluntary partnership forged among the Governors of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia in 2009 (MARCO, no date), in collaboration with federal agen-cies, tribes, local governments, and other stakeholders. The regional ocean planning process was led by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body with data management support provided by the Mid-Atlantic Data Portal. As part of the planning process, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Assess-ment was carried out, which brought together and summarized the best available information on the ocean ecosystem and ocean uses from New York to Virginia, and serves as a conduit for more in-depth information sources. The outputs of the regional planning process are the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Planning Framework and the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Action Plan. (Mid-Atlantic Re-

DRAFT

18

Climate Change Resilience--Action at the State Level

The US Climate Change report, released in No-vember 2018, evokes a number of the points raised in the IPCC 1.5°C report (Jay et. al, 2018) regarding global developments in the national context in the United States. The conclusions in the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA4), released in November 2018 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), underlined that negative impacts of climate change are not a hypothetical future scenario but are already causing damages to U.S. lives and livelihoods (Jay et. al, 2018). The NCA4 stated that many coastal regions in the country would be utterly transformed by the end of the century, through a combination of ocean warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification, coastal erosion, more intense storm surge, and an increased number of heavy precipitation events. In partic-ular, coral reef and Arctic ecosystems are already experiencing significant impacts, which has already been detrimental to the economies which depend on their health.

Climate changes are impacting virtually every sector of coastal communities and urgent action is essential. State CZM Programs are uniquely positioned to provide the needed leadership and tools to help local coastal communities prepare for and adapt to a warming climate and rising seas. Actions range from vulnerability studies and policy changes to reduce risk to improved building codes and restoring natural more re-silient coastal ecosystems. At the same time, there is a growing awareness among citizens and businesses that productive coastal economies are inextricably linked to healthy, productive ecosystems--a concept recognized as the Blue Economy. Building the Blue Economy is further motivation for taking actions to foster resilience in the face of climate change. The Coastal States Organization has documented examples of the many actions being taken by State CZM Programs for climate resilience and the Blue Economy in two reports: Advancing Critical Solutions to Protect Coastal Communities and Coastal Zone Management Programs and the Blue Economy. Both publications can be obtained at: www.coastalstates.org/csopublications/

References

Cicin-Sain, B., Kuska, G., Snyder, C., Wowk, K. (2015) Development of a National Ocean Policy in the United States

Cicin-Sain, B., and Knecht, R. (2000) The Future of US Ocean Policy, Washington, DC: Island Press.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA (2014) ‘United States’, in CIA Factbook 2014, online at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Coastal States Organization (2018) Coastal Zone Man-agement Programs and the Blue Economy. http://www.coastalstates.org/?wpdmdl=9328

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2005) Fishery Country Profile: The United States of America, online at ftp://ftp.fao.org/Fi/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_US.pdf

Greenfeld, B. (2016) Coastal Zone Management: Ad-vancing Critical Solutions to Protect Coastal Com-munities. A publication by the Coastal States Orga-nization. http://www.coastalstates.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CSO-Resilience-Report.pdf

Hershman, M.J., Good, J.W., Bernd-Cohen, T., Goodwin, R.F., Lee, V., Pogue, P. (1999) The Effectiveness of Coastal Zone Management in the United States. Coastal Management 27(2).

IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-in-dustrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufou-ma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Mat-thews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.

Lewis, K. Reeves, and D. Winner, 2018: Overview. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Wash-ington, DC, USA, pp. 33–71. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH1

Knecht, R.W., Cicin-Sain, B., Fisk, G.W. (1996) Per-ceptions of the Performance of State Coastal Zone Management Programs in the United States. Coastal Management 24:141-163

Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) (no date) MARCO

Overview. http://midatlanticocean.org/about/mar-co-overview/ Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Assess-ment (no date) Purpose and Structure of the Regional Ocean Assessment. http://roa.midatlanticocean.org/

DRAFT

19

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2012) ‘Spatial Trends in Coastal Socioeco-nomics’, online at http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/stics

National Ocean Economics Program (NOEP) (undated) ‘Environmental and Recreational (Non-Market) Val-ues: Overview, online at http://oceaneconomics.org/nonmarket/

US Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (Stratton Commission) (1969) Our Nation and the Sea: a Plan for National Action – Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

DRAFT

20

DRAFT

21

Chapter 3

INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN CANADA3.1. Overview of ICZM in Canada

Canada, made up of ten provinces and three territories, borders the North Pacific, the

Arctic, and the North Atlantic oceans. Canada has a large ocean region, 6 million km2 with eight out of ten and all three territories bordering the ocean. Twenty four percent of Canada’s popula-tion inhabits the coastal zone along a coastline that is the longest of any nation in the world at 245,000 km (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015), and Canada’s offshore areas are among the largest of the world’s nations. The expansive coasts and oceans of Canada encom-pass diverse marine environments and geography (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012).

Oceans have always been an important part of Canada’s economic activity, historically through fisheries and maritime trade and shipping and in the latter part of the 20th century the devel-opment of aquaculture and offshore oil and gas resources. The collapse of Atlantic cod stocks in the mid-1990s created the need for greater atten-tion to resource and habitat management, as well as being a catalyst for economic diversification for coastal communities that had been depen-dent upon the commercial groundfish industry. The oceans sector of the Canadian economy has seen significant growth since the start of the 21st century, and while ocean activities make up a modest contribution to the broader econo-my, they are a significant economic driver at the provincial ad territorial levels (Mageau, VanderZ-waag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015).

Historically, Canada pursued vigorous environ-mental and ocean policies (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012), especially through the management of fisheries and oceans habitat conservation, and in areas related to pollution such as ocean dump-ing. Environmental issues in oceanic areas and recognition of the need to sustainably maximize economic benefits from marine resources, served as the catalyst for Canada in developing Inte-

grated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) policy initiatives (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015). Development of ICZM policy was historically difficult due to the governance frame-work required for effective management at a level of detail sufficient to guide provinces, however Canada presently claims leadership in the ICZM policy field (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012).

Canada has developed both Integrated Coast-al and Ocean Management (ICOM) and ICZM through policy and legal frameworks. Parallel law-making gives the federal and provincial levels distinct responsibilities, with some over-lapping responsibilities. The Canadian federal legislative process uses primary and subsidiary legislation, where statutes are preceded by policy proposals and regulations follow as authorized by statute. Organized coordination happens be-tween the federal and provincial levels through cooperative federalism, where the federal gov-ernment leads on policy, and incorporates prov-inces through a collaborative and consultative process (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012).

The Canadian Constitution makes cooperation between the federal and provincial governments a requirement for ICOM due to the classic divide between federal and provincial jurisdictions within the coastal zone, whereby the federal government has jurisdiction over the oceans (waters and sub-strate) and the nearshore zone while the provinces have jurisdiction over coastal waters typically to the mean low water levels and estuarine waters and lands, defined as inland waters. The first

Figure 3.1. Exclusive Economic Zones of Canada

DRAFT

22

attempt to coordinate the various levels of govern-ment was the 1987 Oceans Policy for Canada led by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Following shortly after was the Federal Framework and Action Plan for Marine Environmental Quality co-led by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These early policy initiatives were designed to coordinate federal level programs, but were not able to fully integrate the federal and provincial level govern-ments (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012). The Nation-al Advisory Board on Science and Technology (NABST) recommended addressing environmental issues confronting oceanic areas and stressed that maximizing the economic benefits of the ocean would be derived through sustainable ocean man-agement. These recommendations, a convergence of domestic and internal fishing and pollution issues, and political interests produced the Oceans Act in 1996 (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015).

The Oceans Act of 1996, enabling legislation, opera-tionalizes ICOM policy by setting out Canada’s mar-itime zones and jurisdictions in accordance with UNCLOS, assigning a lead role to DFO to spearhead the development of a national oceans strategy and integrated management initiatives (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012). The Oceans Act provides the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a way of focusing current federal legislative and policy tools to in-crease linkages for overall effectiveness of federal government efforts in specific geographic areas. Collaboration is a vital aspect of this legislation, in-cluding intergovernmental agreements and negoti-ations with industry and aboriginal authorities. The Oceans Act was developed and reviewed by means of the public and parliamentary processes and was complemented by a broad public consultation pro-cess leading to Canada’s Ocean Strategy and the In-tegrated Management and Operational Framework in 2002. This legislation serves as the overarching oceans policy framework for the integrated man-agement of Canada’s oceans, led by the DFO. Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) and coastal management areas, developed as part of Canada’s Ocean Strategy, serve as ecologically-based tools to guide integrated management. Both Canada’s Oceans Act and Oceans Strategy rely on three core principles: sustainable development, integrated management, and the precautionary approach (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger,

2015). After a report from the Auditor General of Canada was critical of the federal government’s lack of efforts to implement the Oceans Act, Phase I of an Oceans Action Plan was implemented in 2005, and prioritized international leadership, sovereignty, and security; integrated management in LOMAs; health of the oceans; and oceans sci-ence and technology (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012; Ricketts and Harrison, 2007). The Oceans Act also provides for the establishment of a national system of Marine Protected Areas.

These legislative and legal frameworks are inter-related parts of the ICOM/ICZM package. The Oceans Act provides the guiding principles on integrated management, sustainable development and the precautionary approach, mandates the development and implementation of programs, and places existing authorities within the management context. The Oceans Strategy expanded on the pol-icy framework and the Ocean Action Plan provided the priority areas for action under the four major themes (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015).

ICZM in Canada is embedded within the broad-er policy, and does not have specific binding or funding legislation. While the Oceans Act provides a framework for ICZM, because implementation re-quires collaboration with provincial governments it cannot be too directive or prescriptive. Hence, the ICZM components of the Oceans Act sets out broad but important principles which help with integra-tion between federal and provincial policies, but lacks specific guidance at the provincial level. This ambiguity has been recognized by Chircop and O’Leary, 2012 who argue that greater clarification of the relationship between ICOM at the federal level and ICZM at the provincial level, combined with a set of commonly-agreed-to principles for ICZM implementation at the provincial level would enhance ICZM policy in Canada. As a consequence of this ambiguity, implementation of ICZM in Can-ada has been difficult and limited to a few areas where the federal government and a provincial government have been able to reach an agreement. For example, the provincial government of British Columbia signed a cooperation agreement on ICZM with the federal government in the early 2000s. There have also been some individual provincial initiatives in CZM, such as in New Brunswick, whereby the provincial government has sought to

DRAFT

23

manage coastal development within its own area of jurisdiction through provincial legislation. Current-ly, Nova Scotia is in the process of developing a Coastal Protection Act to limit development in the coastal zone in response to the increasing impacts of climate change.


The federal government has primary jurisdic-tion over Canada’s ocean areas through ICOM, including jurisdiction over marine navigation and shipping, international affairs, defense, environmental protection, and the protection of living resources within offshore areas. The provincial level has limited jurisdiction in offshore waters, which includes marine areas ‘between the jaws of the land,’ and marine areas that were a part of the province at the time of confederation. The provinces have expanded landward jurisdiction through ICZM, especially on the seabed within the coastal inter-tidal area with jurisdiction over property and civil rights within the province (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015).

Distribution of powers to the federal and pro-vincial levels of government is mandated by the British North America Act of 1867, now succeeded by the Constitution Act of 1982. Further, there is a constitutional framework in each province to guide ICZM policy. The DFO takes the lead in the development of national oceans strategy and integrated management initiatives, but is meant to liaise with other federal departments (such as Environment Canada and Transport Canada) in implementing ICOM and ICZM. Increasingly, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between the federal and provincial levels setting up reg-ular meetings and overall coordination helps to overcome the jurisdictional difficulties regarding implementation (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012).

At the national level, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans leads, with authorization to implement the following: “coordinate the activities of ocean stakeholders to develop a policy strategy; devel-op tools and coordinate with stakeholders the development of specific plans to implement the strategy; develop integrated management plans for all Canadian marine waters; establish, as re-quired, subnational and local bodies to assist with the implementation plans; establish and enforce

measures or regulations associated with marine protected areas; and develop marine environmen-tal quality guidelines.” The Oceans Action Plan Secretariat coordinated the integration of seven federal departments to deliver specific elements of Phase I of the national Oceans Action Plan, initiated in 2005. The DFO houses the Secre-tariat and is responsible for the implementation of ocean programs that are key for the Oceans Action Plan (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015; Ricketts and Harrison, 2007). The Oceans Action Plan (OAP) included the develop-ment of a number of Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) in each of Canada’s Pacific, At-lantic and Arctic oceans EEZs, and these were to include integrated management agreements incorporating consultation with multiple stake-holders. Initial consultations went well, but started to flounder under the federal Conservative government elected in 2006, and eventually were abandoned when that government eliminated the Oceans Action Plan in favor of one focused on health of the oceans, and moved away from an integrated and comprehensive approach to ICOM and ICZM. At the provincial level, provin-cial, territorial, and local governments as well as aboriginal authorities first collaborated through the Oceans Task Group, under the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM), to implement ICZM policies. More recently, existing and developing regional gov-ernance mechanisms allow the provincial levels of government to meet for the development of joint programs, work plans, and approaches. Management and advisory bodies are currently in place to support specific integrated manage-ment plans, which generally include federal and provincial level representation, and also include a range of other stakeholders (aboriginal peoples, NGOs, citizens, etc.) (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015). An example of this is the Haida Gwaii agreement in British Columbia which provides for Aboriginal stewardship over a large area of the Queen Charlotte Islands extend-ing from the inland coastal watershed out to the edge of the continental shelf. This is one of the most comprehensive integrated coastal and ocean resources management collaboration in Canada.

Regional integrated approaches also exist in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Gulf of Maine, the latter including a long-standing collaborative

DRAFT

24

British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB)

Coast and Marine Planning Branch

The Branch is responsible for coastal planning and policy coordination related to coastal and marine issues among other provincial agencies. The Branch’s Coastal Plans focus primarily on the provincial juris-diction of foreshore areas and address economic de-velopment and diversification, environmental threats, land and resource conflicts, First Nations issues, and supporting informed decision-making in coastal areas.

There are two distinct levels of planning: local coast-al planning and strategic coastal planning to identify broad goals, objectives and strategies for coastal and marine resources. There are three types of local plans: coastal plans to identify land tenure opportu-nities to guide decision-makers; issue-resolution plans to resolve conflicts or issues associated with coastal land uses and activities; and special management plans that provide detailed direction for management of specific uses or distinct areas.

Strategic level coastal plans developed thus far are:

• Central Coast Land and Resource • Management Plan• Kalum Land and Resource Management PlanLocal level coastal plans developed thus far include:• Baynes Sound Coastal Plan for Shellfish Aquaculture• Chatham Sound (on hold)• Clayoquot Sound• Cortes Island Shellfish Aquaculture Plan• Johnstone-Bute Coastal Plan• Kyuquot Sound Coastal Plan• Malaspina Okeover Plan• Nanaimo Estuary Management Plan• North Island Straits Coastal Plan• Nootka Coastal Land Use Plan• Quatsino Sound Coastal Plan• Queen Charlotte Islands• Sunshine Coast

Coast Sustainability Strategy

The government is committed to the completion of three coastal land-use plans to define and implement ecosystem-based forest management and economic measures with First Nations and to establish the Coast Sustainability Trust. Other elements include moving forward with protocol arrangements with First Nations — including discussions to finalize pro-tection areas in the Central Coast and the completion and implementation of coastal and marine planning.

Ministry of Environment

Oceans and Marine Fisheries Division

While responsibility for oceans is shared between governments, management of Pacific marine fisheries is under federal jurisdiction. The Division ensures a strong provincial role in the management of fisheries and ocean resources through leading the development of provincial marine interests and objectives, creating collaborative provincial-federal resource manage-ment strategies, and developing shared governance frameworks. One of the Division’s Core Business Area Goals regarding ocean resources is the sustainable and integrated management and use of ocean resources

Nova Scotia

Strategic policy, planning and services

The Division is mandated to work with the De-partment of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and other federal departments on oceans issues. One such initiative is Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Man-agement (ESSIM), a collaborative ocean planning process being led and facilitated by DFO Maritimes Region under the Oceans Act.

The primary aim of the initiative is to develop and implement an Integrated Ocean Management Plan for the Eastern Scotian Shelf. Offshore oil and gas is one of the major activities to be managed in the ESSIM area; this Division takes an active role in engaging in these issues. The Division is also represented on the Provincial Oceans Network, ESSIM Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the federal provincial ESSIM Working Group, and it supports departmental participation on the Regional Commit-tee on Ocean Management (RCOM), which provides senior-level guidance and coordination for regional ocean and coastal management activities.

Department of Fisheries and Aquacul-ture (DFA)

Commercial/Marine fisheries

Marine Fisheries Services represents the Nova Scotia fishing industry at provincial, national and interna-tional forums. It is the provincial lead on ocean and coastal zone management and promotes the best use of marine and coastal resources and the habitat that supports commercial fisheries. It chairs the Provincial Oceans Committee, an inter-departmental network responsible for information exchange and coordina-tion on coastal management issues.

Coastal Resource Coordinators (CRC) act as a liaison between government, plant owners and Nova Scotia fishers. As frontline service-delivery agents, they participate in local coastal management initiatives.

Parks and Recreation Division (Under the

Department of Natural Resources Division)

The Division provides expertise for beach protection and related coastal zone management, evaluates park-land acquisition options and negotiates private land stewardship agreements.

Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA)

IGA is the central coordinating agency for the prov-ince’s relations with federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as with other governments. IGA is the lead on inter-governmental issues related to coastal and ocean management. It provides leadership in constitutional problem-solving and policy, focusing particularly on matters affecting sovereignty and natural resource entitlement within the province’s offshore boundary. Provincial initia-tives involving offshore or coastal activity, such as the proposed Donkin mine, increase the need for a coordinated constitutional approach.

Newfoundland and Labrador

Department of Fisheries and Aqua-culture

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is the lead authority for developing a provincial coastal and ocean management strategy and policy framework. It is responsible for net-working with other provincial departments and for liaising with other levels of government on coastal and ocean initiatives.

Department of Environment and Conservation

The Department of Environment and Con-servation is responsible for the protection and enhancement of the environment, management of the province’s wildlife, inland fish, water, parks and protected areas, and Crown land resources. The Department has a strong interest in coastal and ocean management, including environmental assessment, marine oil spills and debris, impacts of climate change on the ocean and coastal areas, coastal zone planning and development, provincial parks and protected areas in coastal areas, protection of marine areas and marine biodiversity, marine pollution from land-based sources, alien invasive species and the introduction and transfer of aquatic organisms.

The Department participates in coastal and ocean committees with the federal government, other provincial governments and stakeholders to protect and manage coastal and ocean resources, such as:

• Regional Oversight Committee for Ocean Management (ROC)

• Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Com-mittee on Ocean Management (CNLCOM)

• Large Ocean Management Area (LOMA) committees for Placentia Bay/Grand Banks (PBGB LOMA) and the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence (GOSLIM LOMA)

• 5 Coastal Management Area committees within the LOMAs

• South Coast Oil Spill Risk Assessment• Introductions and Transfers of Aquatic Or-

ganisms• National Programme of Action for the

Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (NPA)

• Atlantic Coastal Zone Information Steering Committee

• Aquatic Invasive Species Committee

Coastal and Ocean Management

The Division works with the provincial Depart-ment of Fisheries and Aquaculture to co-lead policy development for the province in the area of coastal and ocean management. It co-chairs the Provincial Coastal and Ocean Network of provincial government department representa-tives and participates in a number of coastal and ocean committees.

Box 3.1. The Role of the Provincial and Territorial Governments in the Oceans SectorThis box includes a sampling of ocean activities related to ICZM at the Provincial and Territorial Level.

Source: The Role of the Provincial and Territorial Governments in the Oceans Sector, Report by the Fisheries and Ocean Canada, catalogue of oceans-related responsibilities and activities that are carried out by the provin-cial and territorial governments of Canada, 2009http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/pg-gp/index-eng.html

DRAFT

25

initiative between the Canadian provinces and US states that border the Gulf of Maine.

Enforcement of marine offenses is delivered through federal statute. Through the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can authorize specific regulations regarding designa-tion and conservation of marine protected areas. Regarding enforcement, pollution prevention is split among fishery officers and other federal and provincial enforcement in specific geographic areas where oceans conservation or management is being applied. Substantial effort is made to engage stakeholders and involve them in advisory and management bodies. Canada is a leader in effective enforcement and innovative sentencing options for environmental and fishing offenses through legislation (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huff-man and Farlinger, 2015).


Prior to the implementation of Phase I of the na-tional Oceans Action Plan in 2005, funds for ICZM policy came from a reallocation of resources within DFO rather than a centrally approved funding mechanism through the government budget. The 2005 Plan included set government funding from 2005 to 2007 through secured government funding of CAN$28.5 million (Ricketts and Harrison, 2007). A conservative federal government beginning in 2006 resulted in substantial cuts to the federal ocean budget, and a move away from the Oceans Action Plan. From 2007 to 2012, ICZM policy was funded (CAN$19 million) through the Health of the Oceans Initiative (HOI) under the National Water Strategy, and funding was increased to five years (CAN$61.5 million) when the HOI program be-came Phase II of Oceans Action Plan. From 2012 to 2014 one year funding extensions were granted to the Health of the Oceans. At that time, there were serious concerns about the lack of federal commit-ment to ICOM and ICZM (Ricketts and Hildebrand, 2011). Collaborative efforts to develop the LOMAs ground to a halt, and the LOMA initiative effectively died as an ICOM approach in Canada. In 2014, five years of funding were approved under the National Conservation Plan (CAN$37 million), but even with the five year extension, a lack of adequate funding remained an issue for the implementation of federal ICOM and ICZM programs in Canada (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012; Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015).

In 2015, the election of a liberal federal govern-ment pledged to renew Canada’s commitment to ICOM and in 2016 the Oceans Protection Plan was launched with funding of CAN$1.5 billion over five years to address four main priority areas: marine safety; marine ecosystems and habitat protection and restoration, especially in Canada’s Arctic; partnerships and co-management with Indigenous communities; and oil spill cleanup research and methods to ensure evidence-based emergency re-sponse. This is the single biggest federal investment in ICOM in Canadian history.


Increased partnership with academia, interna-tional scientific organizations, and sister agencies in other governments has helped to facilitate and develop tools for the application of ecosys-tem-based considerations of ocean and coastal issues. This partnership has also helped to build scientific advisory peer review processes to sup-port ocean managers. In 1993, the Coastal Zone Canada Association (CZCA) was established to bring together governments, academia, industry, community and Aboriginal groups to engage in greater cross-sectoral dialogue in support of ICOM and ICZM. The CZCA organized its first Coastal Zone Canada (CZC) conference in 1994 and has held CZC conferences every two years since. The CZCA was influential in the drafting of the Oceans Act through its 1996 CZC con-ference and in the development of the Oceans Action Plan at its 2004 conference. In addition to the actions designed to implement the ICOM as-pects of the Oceans Act, Oceans Action Plan also sought to improve information-sharing through connecting information networks, to promote innovation and new technologies. The Ocean Management Research Network was established in 2001 to bridge the gap between natural and social sciences. In 2008, the Canadian Healthy Oceans Network a university-government part-nership focused on conservation and sustainable ocean use in Canada was created. Overall, ca-pacity and education have helped to implement integrated management and marine conservation under the Oceans Act (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015).

Considerable efforts were made to engage with coastal communities and organisations in the

DRAFT

26

LOMA development process under the Oceans Action Plan, but when these ended there was little engagement from the federal government. Under the Oceans Protection Plan, the govern-ment is investing to engage with Indigenous and coastal communities to support regional planning that ensures environmental, traditional knowl-edge, and cultural knowledge is incorporated into identifying appropriate sites of refuge. Hopefully this initiative will result in renewed engagement across coastal communities and other stakehold-ers.

3.5. Other Considerations for Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness

Canadian ICZM policy does not have an author-itative maritime spatial planning roadmap for the provincial levels to implement (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012). Even with the recent Oceans Pro-tection Plan, the bulk of the money is focused on maritime security and safety, pollution response, habitat protection and restoration, and there is little emphasis upon spatial planning and integrat-ed management as such. However, one important aspect of the Oceans Act is the establishment of a national system of marine protected areas. Currently, Canada’s target is to have 10 percent of its ocean areas protected, and in October 2017 it was announced that the 5 percent level had been reached. Protected areas include Marine Protected Areas created under the Oceans Act, National Ma-rine Conservation Areas, and marine portions of National Wildlife Areas, Migratory Bird Sanctuar-ies, National Parks, and provincial protected areas. Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures both contribute to meeting the 10 percent target.

Various governmental and independent review efforts have been carried out to assess the im-plementation of the Oceans Act. A Report on the Oceans Act conducted by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada in 2005 (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2005) concluded that the Act was sound but had not been implemented effectively and put forth twelve recommenda-tions, including the need for a performance-based reporting system and reporting to Parliament on an annual basis. A further recommendation included the preparation of a ‘state of the ocean’ report to track ocean health, ocean communities, and ocean industry. The Report concluded that

implementing the Oceans Act and subsequent oceans strategy had not been a government priority, that after eight years, the promise of the Oceans Act remained unfulfilled, and that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had fallen far short of meeting its commitments and targets, having finalized no integrated management plans and designating only two marine protected areas. Furthermore, the Report found that the new Oceans Action Plan provided the government’s framework for sustainably developing and manag-ing our oceans, but that it did not address all the barriers to implementing a national oceans strate-gy. These included the need for strong leadership and co-ordination over the long term, adequate funding, and an accountability framework with appropriate performance measures and report-ing requirements. While some progress has been made since, it is fair to say that Canada still falls short of the necessary requirements to implement an effective national ICOM and ICZM strategy.

These recommendations were directed to the DFO in 2005, which informed Phase I of the Oceans Action Plan. Federal departments must provide performance reports to Parliament an-nually, and the DFO has created a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework to monitor the progress and implementation of the national ocean policy. An Expert Panel Report was released in 2012 pointing to the necessity of integrated marine spatial planning (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015).

Given that coastal land planning resides in the purview of the provinces, ICZM efforts to regu-late development, address natural hazards, and respond to sea-level rise are completed at the provincial and municipal levels of government, although these are often done with assistance from federal departments such as DFO, Environ-ment Canada, and Natural Resources Canada. On the west coast, British Columbia has developed coastal management plans to restrict develop-ment in hazardous coastal areas (including both coastal cliffs and bluffs that are subject to erosion and landslides, and low-lying coastal areas subject to flooding and inundation. On the east coast, as mentioned, the provincial government of Nova Scotia is developing new coastal protection leg-islation to restrict and regulate development in the coastal zone, in response to increased storm

DRAFT

27

intensity and accelerated sea-level rise resulting from climate change.

Currently, the necessity to adapt to climate change impacts is renewing the drive for ICZM, and likely this will play an increasingly import-ant role in stimulating Canada’s various levels of government to move more quickly towards implementing the integrated planning sections of the Oceans Act, either through complementary provincial legislation or collaborative efforts with the Government of Canada. The focus on work-ing with Indigenous and coastal communities in the Oceans Protection Plan is a welcome move, as the needs of those communities become ever more aligned with the visionary goals of Canada’s national oceans legislation.

Finally, it can be stated that while Canada has visionary enabling legislation at the federal level, the lack of any funding incentives or imperatives for provinces means that at best Canada has a patchwork of ICOM and ICZM initiatives, but no comprehensive program either nationally or regionally. Furthermore, changes of government at the federal level has resulted in long periods of missed opportunities whereby promising initia-tives, such as the Oceans Action Plan of the early 2000s, have been abandoned or cancelled. The current Oceans Protection Plan is a promising re-newal of federal interest in oceans, but it is still a long way from a comprehensive ocean and coast-al management program, and will not on its own deliver on the promise of the Oceans Act.

References

Chircop, Aldo, and O’Leary, Ryan. (2012). Legal Frame-works for Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada and the EU: Some Insights from Compar-ative Analysis, Vermont Journal of Environmental LawbC.

Mageau, C., VanderZwaag, D.L., Huffman, K., and Farlinger, S. (2015). Oceans Policy: A Canadian Case Study In Cicin-Sain, Biliana; Vanderswaag, David; and Balgos, Miriam. 2015. Routledge Handbook of Nation-al and Regional Ocean Policies.

Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2005). Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustain-able Development. Chapter 1, Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Canada’s Oceans Management Strategy. Ottawa, ON.

Ricketts, P.J. and P. Harrison. (2007). Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada: Moving into the 21st Centu-ry, Coastal Zone Management Journal, 35 (1), January – March 2007, pp. 5-22.

Ricketts, Peter J. and L. Hildebrand. (2011). Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada: Progress or Paralysis? Coastal Management, 39: 1, 4-19.

Ricketts, Peter; B. Jones; L. Hildebrand; B. Nicholls; and G. Gardner. (2011). Coastal Zone Canada Association: Carrying the Torch for Coastal and Ocean Manage-ment in Canada, Coastal Management, 39: 1, 82-104.

DRAFT

28

DRAFT

29

Chapter 4

Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Brazil4.1. Overview of ICZM in Brazil

The Nature of Coastal and Ocean Areas in Brazil

Brazil has a coastal zone of approximately 514,000 km2, including the terrestrial and

aquatic sectors. The terrestrial limit of the coast-al zone involves selected counties according to the criteria established by the maritime policy of the country, with 397 counties distributed along 7,367 km of coast (a total of 8,698 km if bays and indentations are considered), and a total area of approximately 388,000 km² (Figure 5.1). The Brazilian territorial sea extends out to 12 nautical miles. In terms of latitude, the Brazilian coast extends from 4° 30’N to 33° 44’S in inter-tropical and subtropical zones with a variety of ecosys-tems and habitats, including coastal reefs, man-groves, coastal lagoons, barrier islands, marsh areas and swamps, tidal zones, and beaches and dunes (MMAb 2008 as cited in Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015). Around 74 million people live in the coastal zone with a mean population density of 105 inhabitants per square kilometer, which is five times the national mean (20 inhabitants/km2) (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

The uses of the coastal zone in Brazil include human settlement, harbor installations and industrial complexes, such as Cubatão, Santos and São Vicente (Estate of São Paulo), and Rio Grande (Estate of Rio Grande do Sul) due to an export-oriented policy, oil and mineral extraction and refining, ports, agriculture, aquaculture, fish-ing, reforestation, salt production, and tourism. Industrialization in the coastal zone is strongly associated with urbanization (Fernandes 2013 and MMA 2008b as cited in Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

In the South Brazil shelf, commercial fisheries yield half of national production with artisanal fisheries producing 22% of commercial capture. Overexploitation, excessive bycatch, and de-structive fisheries are among the issues related to this industry. Other threats and issues identified

include: heavy metals pollution; impacts from megacities (Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo); urban waste in catchments; high degree of eutrophica-tion in bays and estuaries due to organic pollution (urban sewage); increased erosive process due to dredging and deforestation; and conflicts asso-ciated with oil and gas extraction and fisheries. (Almeida Seraval 2010; Marroni and Asmus 2013 as cited in Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

4.2. History of ICZM in Brazil

The National Plan of Coastal Management (PNGC)

Law No. 7.661 of 16 May 1988 established the Na-tional Coastal Management Plan (PNGC) oriented by the National Policy for Sea Resources (PNRM) and the National Policy on the Environment (Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente, PNMA). The PNGC established the principles on which were based the coastal management concepts and definitions, objectives and rules, as well as instruments, competences, and resources in Bra-zil. On 18 April 1990, Decree No. 99.213 created the Coordination Group of Coastal Management (COGERCO). On 27 June 1995, Decree No. 1.540, set out COGERCO’s current constitution (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015, Polette and Asmus 2015).

The PNGC was superseded by the revised Nation-al Plan of Coastal Management (PNGC II) (CIRM5 Resolution No. 5 of 3 December 1997), which contains principles that direct coastal manage-ment, as well as norms and rules for its implemen-5 Comissão Interministerial para Recursos do Mar, in Portuguese

Figure 4.1. Coastal Zone of Brazil, officially composed of 397 coastal municipalities. Note: The two-character names are the abbreviations for the Brazilian states. Source: Adapted from Marroni and Asmus 2013 as cited in Asmus, Marroni, and Vieira 2015

DRAFT

30

tation in states and counties. PNGC II provides for the selection of a decentralized management process that is integrated, non-centralized, and participatory. Through this process, the division of responsibilities and tasks is made possible, and favors the involvement of the community in the process of regional development (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

The Federal Action Plan for the Coastal Zone of Brazil (PAF)

A year after the establishment of PNGC II, CIRM Resolution No. 05/98 created the Federal Action Plan for the Coastal Zone (Plano de Ação Federal Para a Zona Costeira do Brasil, PAF). The PAF is an action instrument for setting a benchmark for programmatic activities of the state in the coastal territories. It aimed to articulate the activities and actions of the nation regarding the PNGC (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015, Polette and Asmus 2015).

Based on criteria adopted to prioritize actions of the PAF, some priority, converging, and comple-mentary actions were identified and grouped into four program areas, with respective lines of action. In 2005, CIRM Resolution No. 7 es-tablished the revision of PAF, which included new lines of action: territorial planning of the coastal zone; conservation and protection of natural and cultural heritage; and monitoring and control, each defined with specific focus, goals, areas of expertise, activities, and insti-tutional arrangements. The strategic basis for the implementation of PAF involved strength-ening inter-sectorial coordination of the com-ponents in the Coastal Management Integration Group (Grupo de Integração do Gerenciamen-to Costeiro, GI-GERCO), attention to regional demands, and advances in the regulatory and standardization processes in the coastal zone (CIRM 2005 as cited in Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

Federal Decree No. 5300, dated 7th Decem-ber 2004, which regulated the Federal Law No 7661/88, provides more specific rules for use and occupation of the coastal zone, establishing cri-teria for the management of the waterfront. This Decree delimited the coastline, on the seaside by the 10 m isobath and on land by the linear distance of 50 m in urbanized and of 200m in nonurbanized areas, from the high tide line (or the end limit of adjacent terrestrial ecosystem)

(Klumb-Oliveira and Souto 2015).


Brazil involves all three levels of government, i.e., federal, state, and municipal, in the planning and implementation of ocean and coastal manage-ment.

Authority at the National Level

The Inter-Ministry Commission for Sea Resources (CIRM) is the main implementing arm of ICM in Brazil at the federal level. CIRM is a ‘multidisci-plinary’ unit supervised by the Brazilian Navy. Its secretariat, SECIRM, gathers and executes all programme activities of the PNRM, including the GERCO. CIRM proposes the general rules of the policy, monitors the results and, when neces-sary, suggests possible changes to the president, presents opinions and suggestions, and estab-lishes connections with other ministries, state governments, and the private sector to attain the necessary support for the execution of the plans and programmes of PNRM for which they share common objectives. CIRM is composed of the Of-fice of the Presidency of the Republic and various sectorial ministries with relevant mandates on the coastal zone (Decree No. 6.107 of 2 May 2007) (CIRM 2003 and CIRM 2012 as cited in Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

On 18 April 1990, Decree No. 99.213 created the Co-ordination Group of Coastal Management (COGER-CO), which was tasked with defining the decentral-ized and participatory institutional model for coastal management in the country (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

PNGC II provided for the creation of the Coast-al Management Integration Group (GI-GERCO) whose function is to promote the articulation of current federal actions in the coastal zone from the approved PAF (CIRM 2008 as cited in Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

Due to constraints caused by geographical limita-tions in a continental country like Brazil, the on-line platform Fórum do Mar (Sea Forum) (Fórum do Mar, 2012) was established in 2010 to provide a broad and participatory platform for contact and dialogue among government, civil society, and social actors in light of their shared responsi-bilities (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

DRAFT

31

Authority at the State/Local Levels

States exercise autonomy in the execution of regional proposals, as long as these are consistent with the principles of the national plan. States and municipalities are called on to draw and carry out their respective plans in compliance with the national objectives established (Law No. 7.661/88)6 although it is the responsibility of the state to indicate emergency areas to address (As-mus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

The decentralization means a change of com-petences in many respects, especially social, but overall a transfer of autonomy and real deci-sion-making power to the states, and more spe-cifically to the municipalities. As a consequence of these transformations, local governments have an expanded presence in the state apparatus and in the definition of public policies. As each city government organizes and develops its own man-agement plan according to the national plan, the exchange of information and solutions at the state level is facilitated and optimized along with re-gional analysis and proposals (Marroni and Asmus 2005 as cited in Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

4.4. National/Sub-national Division of Authority and Interaction

PNGC II establishes that development should have the support of three levels of government: federal, state, and county. States will have autonomy in the execution of regional proposals, as long as these are consistent with the principles of the national plan. The county, as a consequence, will execute the state proposal, although it is the responsibility of the state to indicate emergency areas to ad-dress. (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015)

The Municipal Plan of Coastal Management (Plano Municipal de Gerenciamento Costeiro, PMGC), once legally established, articulates the work of the PNGC and the State Plan of Coastal Management, with the aim of implementing the Municipal Plan, including the responsibilities and the institutional procedures for its execution. The PMGC should have a close connection with the use and territorial occupation plans and other pertinent measures to county planning (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

Presently, public government does not have the management capacity to provide immediate and 6 Ibid, 53.

effective answers that minimize problems at the local level. This limited capacity is a product of the horizontal authority among different parts of the government (secretaries, departments, and other sectors). Also, national support organiza-tions have a double function in that they finance and provide technical assistance to most cities. For this reason, the decentralization of initia-tives and decisions is necessary. Because cities face scarcity of resources, in both economic and management capacity, as well as minimal levels of community intervention, actions should be planned that aim to use the available resources efficiently (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

Checks and Balances for Ensuring Consistency with Federal Laws

As previously mentioned, states will have autono-my in the execution of regional proposals, as long as these are consistent with the principles of the national plan. As well, the Coastal Management Integration Group ensures that PNGC actions are compatible with sectorial public policies concern-ing the coastal zone through the elaboration of a document oriented toward the various activities of the federal government concerning the Brazil-ian coast in the form of the PAF (MMA, 2008b as cited in Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015).

In Brazil, Ecological Economic Zoning (EEZ) is an instrument for planning and managing the territory according to Federal Law No. 6938, dated 31th August 1981. In this context, the EEZ, as an instrument of the National Environmental Policy (PNMA), has been implemented by Gov-ernment in various scales of work and in differ-ent administrative levels of the national territory. Municipalities, federal states and federal agencies have implemented EEZs and advanced the con-nection between generated products and other public policy instruments, with the objective of implementing integrated environmental manage-ment actions.

Zoning is also considered in the National Coastal Management Plan (Article 3), which provides for its use in prioritizing uses and activities of the coastal zone, especially for the conservation and protection of natural resources. Its regulation, through Decree 5.300/2004, indicates that it is the responsibility of the Coastal Ecological Eco-nomic Zoning (CEEZ) to guide the process of territorial planning for the coast, guaranteeing

DRAFT

32

the conditions for sustainable development, by supporting actions of monitoring, environmental licensing, and elaboration of economic instru-ments (Nicolodi 2018).

The CEEZ can be taken as the most used instru-ment of coastal management among the set of in-struments provided by Decree 5.300/2004. Since the beginning of the so-called “GERCO System” the ZEEC has been debated, developed and im-plemented at different levels in Brazilian coastal states. There is a clear relationship between CEEZ and the degree of implementation and prioritiza-tion of State Coastal Management Policies (and their respective agendas) in coastal states. States that adopted and maintained GERCO within their organizational structures are, as a rule, the ones that have advanced most in all aspects regard-ing the zoning elaboration and implementation (Nicolodi et al. 2018).


In 2004, through Decree No. 5.300, the regula-tion of Law 7661/1998 and the improvement of PNGC II took place. The Decree defined the rules for use and occupation of the Coastal Zone (ZC) and the reformulation of management instru-ments, defining the government levels for their implementation. However, no sources of financial resources or support were identified or suggested for the implementation of this public policy (de Lima 2018).

Support for States was ensured through the creation, in 1990, of the “Ecosystem Protection” component of the National Environment Pro-gram (PNMA 7). Through GERCO, funds were provided as a loan agreement between the Fed-eral Government and the World Bank, in order to support initial activities at eight state projects focused on the management of the coastal zone.

During PNMA implementation between 1990 and 1998, the investments were designed to create the necessary bases for developing the coastal zone management instruments by the Federation and the States as foreseen in PNGC. Special atten-tion was given to the elaboration of the Coastal EEZ. At that stage, eight states - Bahia, Espírito Santo, Maranhão, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Santa Catarina and São Paulo - had projects supported by the pro-

7 Programa Nacional de Meio Ambiente, in Portuguese

gram with approximately US$ 2.4 million (values for 1990) (Nicolodi 2018).

Since then, the Brazilian program did not have federal funds for PNGC actions. The initiatives and programs developed in the states and mu-nicipalities depend on their state and municipal budgets each year. Such situation has produced a substantial inequality among coastal states in relation to the development and maintenance of coastal management. Likewise, there are very different situations from year to year in each state, reflecting not only the national economic situation, but the specific budgetary conditions in the states. This is a reality repeated at the munici-pal level, where some budgetary restrictions have caused the discontinuation of coastal manage-ment actions. As a whole, there is considerably weak financial support for Brazilian coastal man-agement at its federal, state and municipal levels.


The Brazilian Coastal Management Program (GER-CO) does not have a permanent system of educa-tion or development of human resources. In the several years of the program’s existence, there have been temporary initiatives or initiatives relat-ed to disparate objectives.

From 1995 to 2009, GERCO was supported by the United Nations Train-Sea-Coast Program for training human resources in the planning and management of marine and coastal systems. The Train-Sea-Coast Program was a worldwide ca-pacity-building network created by the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS). In Brazil, the Train-Sea-Coast Program, which was coordinated through a joint action between the Federal University of Rio Grande-FURG and the Interministerial Com-mission for the Resources of the Sea (CIRM), has trained dozens of managers from federal, state and municipal institutions with responsibilities regarding coastal management activities.

A current initiative related to capacity building for coastal management is part of a specific proj-ect under the federal sector policy. The ORLA Project focuses on the planning for the use of the Brazilian coastline, through actions with local governments in different municipalities. The ORLA Project, which is under the responsibility

DRAFT

33

of the Secretariat of the Patrimony of the Union (Ministry of Planning), has in its structure the de-velopment of training workshops with the main local stakeholders. The workshops seek to gener-ate participatory proposals for integrated coastal municipal management plans (Brazil 2019).

4.7. Other Considerations for Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness in ICZM

Following are lessons learned and other consid-erations put forward by various experts in the field for improving efficiency and effectiveness in ICZM in Brazil.

Lessons Learned (Jablosnki and Filet 2008; Seraval and Alves 2011; Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015; Azevedo Klumb-Oliveira and Dezidério Soutoa 2015):

• The incorporation of principles related to com-munity participation and sustainable develop-ment in coastal management plans is essential.

• Participatory management and concerted actions with relevant stakeholders are the key elements for the successful cases. The involve-ment of institutions with specific roles in poli-cy formulation, coordination, implementation, and evaluation as well as local communities in coastal management plans is important.

• Assessment of Brazilian policy basis and initia-tives indicate that ICZM and MSP frameworks are appropriate mainly with respect to: the integration of landward and seaward issues management; improvement of the knowledge about coastal and marine resources; and a risk management approach.

• Assessment of NCMP and tools indicate that the definition and delimitation of the coastal zone, the institutional processes of coordination and cooperation within the ICZM, and the diagnos-tics and territorial planning of the coastal zone are adequate.

• As is true for the PNRM, it is difficult to assess progress achieved because targets and success indicators are rarely taken into consideration in the implementation of its plans and pro-grams--social, economic, and ecological indica-tors have not been well established.

• The wide dissemination of results contributes

to the improvement of NCMPs nationally and locally and to ICZM worldwide.

Needs Identified on the Way Forward (Asmus, Marroni and Vieira 2015; Azevedo Klumb-Oliveira and Dezidério Soutoa 2015):

• There is a need for a more clearly delineated hierarchical structure and legal basis for ICM from the federal to local level.

• Historically, the country’s policy has followed a top-down approach, though now to a lesser extent. The policy could be more participatory, especially in the identification and analysis of major issues and problems, providing opportu-nities for all stakeholders to shape the policy and participate in the implementation of strate-gic actions, thereby leading to increased effi-ciency.

• There is a need for greater inclusion of new internationally agreed upon principles, includ-ing, inter alia, integrated approach, intra- and inter-generational equity, participatory gover-nance, and stewardship.

• The NCMP still need to fully meet the major global goal of the ICM with respect to the improvement of the quality of life of coastal populations that depend on coastal resources and with respect to the environmental conser-vation of the Brazilian coastal zone.

References

Almeida Seraval, T. (2010). International trends in ocean and coastal management in Brazil. Dissertation. Master’s Degree in Environmental Sciences, Univer-sidade de Aveiro. p42. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15563704.pdf

Asmus, M.L., Marroni, E.V., and G.G. Vieira.(2015). Brazil’s National Ocean Policy, pp. 236-259. In B. Cicin-Sain, D. VanderZwaag, and M.C. Balgos (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of National and Regional Ocean Policies, Abingdon.

Azevedo Klumb-Oliveira, L. and R. Dezidério Soutoa. (2015). Integrated coastal management in Brazil: Analysis of the National Coastal Management Plan and selected tools based on international standards. Jour-nal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management / Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada, 15(3):311-323.

Brasil. (2019). Capacitação--Projeto Orla, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, http://www.mma.gov.br/informma/item/8967.html

De Lima, R. P. (Coord.) (2018). Relatório de Gestão: Co-ordenação Geral de Gerenciamento Costeiro-CGER-CO, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 19 pp.

DRAFT

34

Jablonski, S. and M. Filet (2008). Coastal management in Brazil – A political riddle. Ocean & Coastal Manage-ment 51:536–543.

Nicolodi, J. (Coord.) (2018). Avaliação dos zoneamentos ecológico-econômicos costeiros elaborados no Brasil: Relatório Final. Relatório Técnico elaborado conjun-tamente pelo Ministério de Meio Ambiente, Universi-dade Federal do Rio Grande, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí e Universidade de São Paulo, 185 pp.

Nicolodi, J., Asmus, M. L., Polette, M., Turra, A. (2018). Evaluation of Coastal Ecological-Economic Zoning (CEEZ) in Brazil: Methodological Proposal. Desenvolv. Meio Ambiente, v. 44, Edição especial: X Encontro Nacional de Gerenciamento Costeiro, p. 378-404.

Polette, M., Asmus, M.L. (2015). Meio ambiente marinho e impactos ambientais. In: Jorge P. Castello, Luiz C. Krug (Org.) Introdução às ciências do mar. Editora Textos, Pelotas, p. 500-521.

Seraval, T.A. and F. L. Alves. (2011). International Trends in Ocean and Coastal Management in Brazil. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 64 (Proceedings of the 11th International Coastal Symposium), 1258 – 1262. Szc-zecin, Poland, ISSN 0749-0208

DRAFT

35

DRAFT

36

DRAFT

37

Chapter 5

Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Mexico5.1. Overview of ICZM in Mexico

Mexico has a total population of 129.2 mil-lion, ranking it 11th globally. The total pop-

ulation within a 100 km coastal strip is estimated at 14,572,188, which is roughly 14.9% of the total national population (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015). Notably, the coastal zone displays the highest population growth rate at 2.8% annually, with further coastal migration expected in the future. Following international norms, Mexico claims jurisdiction over its territorial sea stretching 12 nautical miles from its shoreline, as well as its Exclusive Economic Zone stretching 200 nautical miles beyond the boundaries of the territorial sea.

Mexico’s marine area is larger than its terrestrial area and comprises approximately 11,600 km of coastline; the territorial sea embraces nearly 291,585 km2 and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends to 3,149,920 km2 (Arriaga Cabre-ra et al., 1998; Burke et al., 2001; Contreras and Castañeda, 2004; De la Lanza, 2004; EarthTrends, undated). The Mexican Republic consists of 32 states, 17 of which have access to the sea and represent 56% of the national territory. Within these 17 states, 156 municipalities have beach-front shores and represent approximately 21% of the continental area of the country (Alvarez-Tor-res et al. 2015). The 17 coastal states are divided into four regions: Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea on the Atlantic Ocean; the California Current Region; the Gulf of California; and the America’s Central Pacific Coastal Zone (Sherman and Al-exander, 1989). The Exclusive Economic Zone of Mexico extends into the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, the Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of California, as shown in Figure 5.1.

Some factors that have influenced the progress of ICZM policies over the past 2 decades include the various maritime industries present along Mexi-co’s coastline, the ecological importance of Mexi-can coastal areas and marine waters, and the high rate of population growth along coastal munici-palities. The main maritime industries found along

Mexico’s coastline are fishing, tourism, energy production, and transportation/ports. These in-dustries oftentimes have conflicting or dissimilar interests concerning the coastal zone, suggesting the need for coordination through a nationwide ICZM policy. Ecologically speaking, the conver-gence of warm and cold ocean currents and rich nutrient blooms results in high biodiversity and endemism (Salazar Vallejo and González, Develop-ment of a National Ocean Policy in Mexico 1993). It is therefore critical that the natural environment be protected from heavy industrial influences. Fi-nally, as the coastal population grows, more stress will be placed on the coastal regions due to great-er demand for and use of resources. Some exam-ples of negative ecological effects due to human influence include: fishery overexploitation and decreased fisheries catch, high levels of water pol-lution, habitat deterioration and loss, diminished landscape quality, unregulated urban growth, and loss of public space and recreational areas.

Currently, the primary laws governing Mexico’s coastal zones include: the Federal Oceans Law of 1986, which pertains to Mexico’s national boundaries and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in accordance with international law; the National Property Law enshrined in the Mexican Constitu-tion of 1917, which governs land use rights across the nation; and the Coastal Zone Regulation of 156 municipalities, which governs all federal coast land zones (Paisley et al. 2003). The Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMAR-NAT) is the federal office mostly responsible for administration and management of coastal zones. In 2000, the President’s Office led the Agenda Del Mar initiative, which “aimed to create a discussion forum for all of the perspectives and activities promoted among the public federal administration

Figure 5.1. Exclusive Economic Zone of Mexico

DRAFT

38

and other sectors with a stake in ocean and coast-al activities” (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015).

Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Mexico took significant steps forward in 2006 with the publication of PNDSOC (National Environmental Policy for the Sustainable Development of Oceans and Coasts: Strategies for its Conservation and Sustainable Use), an integrated policy for the environmental sector with regard to oceans and coasts which was institutionalized in 2018. The policy ensures that each federal agency has the ability to communicate and collaborate with each other to fulfill its duties, since a lack of coordina-tion between federal agencies has plagued initia-tives in the past (Alvarez-Torres 2015). Additional-ly, PNDSOC was designed to develop integrated management strategies for Mexico’s coastal zones, strengthen the coordination between relevant federal, state, and local governments and private institutions, and improve the economic, social, and ecological welfare of coastal regions.


ICZM can be implemented at different levels in Mexico. Considering that the coastal zone is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, Integrated Coastal Zone Management practices fall under the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMAR-NAT) in conjunction with the Inter-Ministries Commission for Oceans and Coasts (CIMARES). CIMARES is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Secretariat of the Navy. SEMARNAT led the project to prepare PNDSOC, which aimed to establish an inter- and intra-institutional coordina-tion mechanism for efficiently addressing current and emerging management and planning issues in the ocean and coastal zones (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015). CIMARES may also implement ICZM strategies in individual regions of Mexico, such as the Gulf of Mexico region or the Mexican Ca-ribbean region. At the local level, ICZM may be implemented for any municipality’s coastal zone or even at a smaller scale, like a city’s water front. Each coastal municipality has an environmen-tal or development department that is granted responsibility over ICZM through signed agree-ments with the federal government.

There are three possible structures for imple-menting ICZM in Mexico: (1) top-down, (2)

bottom-up, and (3) assisted bottom-up. Consid-ering the federal leadership, the (1) top-down implementation requires that CIMARES work with six different topics through working groups made up of individuals from different partici-pant ministries. Each group meets and develops an agenda under a common objective (i.e. clean coastal waters) that has been previously identi-fied by CIMARES. This top-bottom implementa-tion occurs at national or regional levels. The (2) bottom-up implementing structure is led by the municipality which organizes an advisory group that would tackle the identified coastal issue. This advisory group may integrate Regidores and Síndicos (advisers and vigilantes of the municipal interests); local deputies; issue-related municipal departments; issue-related state and federal min-istries; academia; private sector; and organized civil society. Finally, the (3) assisted bottom-up implementing structure for ICZM may involve the leadership of an organized civil society or the academia helping a coastal community in the bot-tom-up ICZM process. In this case, an advisory group is created, and coastal issues are identified through a participatory process together with government authorities.

The Mexican Constitution established the feder-al government’s jurisdiction over the ocean and coastal zone (20 meters) as well as the division of authority over ocean issues at the federal level. Moreover, local government actions should be consistent with the national development pol-icies and legal framework. Any discrepancies or issues between the two would be settled through agreements and coordination agendas. The federation may grant individuals, municipal-ities, or regions a permit for the use of parts of the coastal zone for certain periods of time. Nev-ertheless, the poor capacity of the municipal and state governments in addressing their responsi-bilities may result in coastal issues. For example, poor coastal water quality may result from the absence of municipal water treatment, while lit-tering may occur due to the lack of an adequate solid waste management. Despite the division of authority over ocean issues among national and subnational levels of government, federal author-ities are willing to aid the municipal and state governments through financial and technical aid.

Ocean and coastal issues may arise concerning

DRAFT

39

federal-local linkages with hydrocarbon exploita-tion and fisheries in the Bank of Campeche in the Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries activities are banned from oil and gas extraction facilities, thereby reducing the opportunities of fishermen in the Carmen municipality. This issue imposes conflicts on the municipality and, more significantly, on the national oil company PEMEX and the federal energy and fisheries authorities.

Coordination among federal, state, and local government entities has come a long way in the past few decades as many individual communities take the initiative in managing their own coast-lines with the help of federal resources. In 2015, Alvarez-Torres et al. described the poor communi-cation before PNDSOC as a result of “different vi-

sions and competences in the coastal region and the country as a whole,” claiming the lack of co-ordination “increased when the different sectors could not reach a consensus on productive activ-ities and conservation strategies, thereby risking the sustainability of efforts made in each region.” However, some observers still view the coordina-tion framework as insufficient and shortsighted, with more action needed on creating solid, long term integration strategies (Azuz et al. 2018).


The Mexican Nature Conservation Fund (FMCN) was founded as a private, civil association in 1994 (Harstad, 1999). This source of financing is primarily directed at maintaining biodiversity

Table 5.1. Stakeholders in an integrated ocean and coastal strategy for Mexico. (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015)

InstitutionFederal Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, SAGARPA) National Fisheries Commission (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca, CONAPESCA) National Fisheries Institute (Instituto Nacional de Pesca, INP) Ministry of Tourism (Secretaría de Turismo, SECTUR) National Trust Fund for Tourism Development (Fondo Nacional de Fomento al Turismo, FONATUR) Ministry of the Navy (Secretaría de Marina, SEMAR) Ministry of Communications and Transport (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes, SCT) Ministry of Economy (Secretaría de Economía, SE) Ministry of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, SEDESOL) Ministry of Energy (Secretaría de Energía, SENER) Mexican State Oil Corporation (Petroleos Mexicanos, PEMEX) Federal Electricity Commission (Comisión Federal de Electricidad, CFE) Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, SEMARNAT) National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, CONANP) National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua, CONAGUA) National Forestry Commission (Comisión Nacional Forestal, CONAFOR) National Ecology Institute (Instituto Nacional de Ecología, INE) National CongressLocal State governments Municipal governments Local CongressSocial Non-government organizations (NGOs) Coastal communitiesAcademia Universities and research institutions

DRAFT

40

and sustainable resource use throughout Mexico’s coastal region, and has received funding from the federal government, the Global Environmental Facility, the US Agency for International Devel-opment (USAID), and the World Bank (Harstad, 1999). To achieve its goals, the FMCN awards grants to implement and maintain protected areas across the nation, with input from members of the public, private, academic, NGO, and social sectors (Harstad, 1999).

A prime example of an innovative financing solution is the Temporary Employment Program (PET), a cash-for-work social safety net program created to assist in economic recovery from natural disasters, especially those affecting the fisheries industry. Over time, the PET has become a major support mechanism for coastal regions, directing funds towards mangrove and wetlands hydrological systems restoration, marine mammal and turtle protection, and beach, river, cenotes, and wetlands clean-up actions (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015). Additionally, the program has been applied to enhancing coastal resilience in the face of climate change, while some states and munic-ipalities have been able to build and train their own environmental and Land-Sea Use Plan de-partments. The program has also enhanced legal frameworks and led to the development of air quality networks and vehicle verification process-es (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015).


The Sectoral and Regional Integration division within the Directorate General for Environmental Policy has emphasized Land-Sea Use Plans as a central component to sustainable management with the goals of green development and climate change adaptation (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015). LSUPs have evolved to become a key tool for local governments in addressing risk and vulnerability issues (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015). As a binding in-strument, having a published LSUP allows coastal communities to access resources necessary to prevent and alleviate coastal disasters. LSUPs often involve all three levels of government, as well as academia, NGOs, organized social groups, stakeholders, and the private sector, in order to “provide general environmental, social, economic assessment of the threats that each marine zone faces” (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015).

The Conserving Critical Coastal Ecosystems in Mexico program, running from 1996 to 2003, focused on supporting biodiversity conservation through capacity building in NGOs and local uni-versities. Operated primarily by the University of Rhode Island’s Coastal Resources Center with sig-nificant funding from USAID, the project targeted local conservation and management efforts in the state of Quintana Roo and the Gulf of California.

5.5. Other Considerations for Improv-ing Efficiency and Effectiveness

Quesada et al. (2018) notes that Mexico currently faces obstacles in implementing ICM practices, namely the lack of adequate legal and policy frameworks for ICM and the struggle to enforce existing ICM laws and policies. It is therefore essential that Mexico places a stronger political emphasis on implementing a robust policy and legal framework for ICM, in addition to maintain-ing strong enforcement measures.

References

Alvarez-Torres, P., Díaz-de-León-Corral, A., Perez-Chiri-nos, G., Aguilar, J. C., Rosado, R., Burgoa, F. E., Cortina, S., Ibáñez, M., Brachet, G., Sevilla, N.P.M., Rivera-Arriaga, E., Adeath, I. A. (2015). Development of a National Ocean Policy in Mexico. In Routledge Handbook on National and Regional Ocean Policies (pp. 294-310). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Azuz, Isaac & Le Bail, Maxime & Munoz, Norma & Cortes Ruiz, Alejandra. (2018). Coastal Development: Construction of a Public Policy for the Shores and Seas of Mexico. 10.1016/B978-0-12-810473-6.00003-0.

Cicin-Sain, B., VanderZwaag, D. L., & Balgos, M. C. (2015). Routledge Handbook of National and Regional Ocean Policies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di-rect=true&db=nlebk&AN=1086838&site=ehost-live

Fuentes, J. C., Granados, P. A., & Martins, F. C. (2017). Coastal management in Mexico: Improvements after the marine and coastal policy publication. Ocean & Coastal Management, 137, 131-143. doi:10.1016/j.oce-coaman.2016.12.017

Paisley, R.K., Curlier, M., Leon, C., Graizbord, Brickle-myer, Jr., E.C. (2003). Integrated Coastal Management (ICM): A Brief Legal And Institutional Comparison Among Canada, The United States And Mexico, 9 Ocean & Coastal L.J. Available at: http://digitalcom-mons.mainelaw.maine.edu/oclj/vol9/iss2/4

Quesada, G. C., Klenke, T., & Mejía-Ortíz, L. M. (2018). Regulatory Challenges in Realizing Integrated Coastal Management—Lessons from Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa. Sustainability, 10(10), 3772. doi:10.3390/su10103772

DRAFT

41

DRAFT

42

DRAFT

43

Chapter 6

ICZM and Related Marine Programs in the European Union6.1. Brief Overview of ICZM and Related Marine Programs in the European Union

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)

The European Union (EU), made up of 28 member states, has expansive marine wa-

ters that take up a larger space than total land area. The maritime sector plays a key role in the economy of the EU, adding over 566 billion euros of economic value annually (European Union, 2018a). Over 200 million European citi-zens live near coastline, and the marine regions are diverse. Waters of the EU Member States are divided into different maritime basins or eco-re-gions. These regions have varying geographical and political characteristics (Gambert, 2015). The coastal zone is a strip of land and sea areas of varying width depending on the nature of the environment and management needs (European Union, 2000).

Early European action and interest in coastal zone issues and their resolution, resulted in the 1973 Resolution on the Protection of Coastline by the Council of Europe and the 1983 European Region-al/Spatial Planning Charter. Further coastal focus within European Community environmental

Action programmes from 1973 to 1976 and 1977 to 1981, led to the European Coastal Charter of 1981 followed by the European Parliament 1982 Resolution supporting the principles of the Coast-al Charter, both of which supported the need for integrated coastal planning (European Union, 2016b). Further development of the integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) concept, how-ever, only really began to take shape in the EU in the wake of the conclusions from the UN Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro in 1992. A Demonstra-tion Programme on ICZM was operated by the EU Commission from 1996 to 1999, including a consultative process, to gain consensus on what would be necessary to initiate ICZM in Europe

(Box 6.1). The thirty-five demonstration case study projects across Europe, tested new poten-tial models and solutions for coastal management. The programme also included a number of the-matic reviews on key subjects related to ICZM, including information needs and management, as well as participatory mechanisms and proce-dures. As such the programme stimulated much debate and discussion on the need for and the types of measures required for ICZM in Europe. In particular, the programme aimed to demon-strate how the principle of subsidiarity might be effected with regard to the management of coast-al areas, where already, in the early 90s there were a considerable number of local, bottom-up initiatives across Europe. This key European principle is designed to ensure that ‘decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen’ so that (European) Community action (including specific policy) is only put in place where it can be jus-tified over and above related actions at national, regional and local levels.

The Demonstration Commission to the Coun-cil and the European Parliament on “Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Eu-rope,” and a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Recommendation concerning the implementation of ICZM in Europe, which was adopted in 2002. ICZM was confirmed through the 6th Environmental Action Programme of the European Community, 2002-2012 by the Euro-pean Parliament and Council (Gambert, 2015). Together the Strategy and the Recommendation provided clear direction for ICZM development, including a set of eight ICZM principles, gover-

Figure 6.1. Maritime Boundaries in the EU (European Environmental Agency, 2009)

DRAFT

44

Box 6.1. Demonstration Programmes from 1996 to 1999

Thirty-five locally-based coastal zone management projects were selected by the Commission for the ICZM Demonstration Programme from 1996 to 1999 and funded by the EU (see section 6.3).

Demonstration programs are grouped by geographical area:

Baltic Sea Region

Coastal Planning on the Gulf of Finland

ICZM Latvija, The Latvia Coast

ICZM Lietuva, The Lithuanian Coast

Coastlink Storstrøm, Denmark

North Sea Region

Integrated cooperation on the development of sus-tainable tourism and recreation in the Wadden Sea area

Forth Esturary Forum: A demonstration of effective integrated coastal zone management

Local management plans on the Norwegian coasts

North-West Europe Metropolitan Region

Integrated management of the Flemish coast (West Flanders)

Côte d’Opale Concertation, Coordination and Coop-eration

Integrated management of the Kent coast, England

Integrated management of coastal zones: Isle of Wight

An integrated management strategy for an open coast, Dorset

The Mediterranean and the French and Italian Alps

Co-operation, integrated management and sustain-able development in the coastal zones of the Europe-an Union, La Costera-Canal

RICAMA - Rational for Integrated Coastal Area Man-agement, The Abruzzi Coast

Territorial coordination scheme for the harbour system and coast of the Gulf of Napoli - “Posidonia” (Napoli and Barcelona)

Atlantic Area

Implementing alternativestrategies in Irish beach and dune management: involvement in sustainable-coastal development

Integrated management of the coast of Down

The Development of a Consensus Based Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy for Bantry Bay, Ireland

Integrated management of a living Atlantic coastline, Devon and Cornwall, United Kingdom

Integrated development and management of the Bay of Brest and its catchment area

Co-operation, integrated management and sustain-able development in the coastal zones of the Europe-an Union, Arachon

Co-operation, integrated management and sustain-able development in the coastal zones of the Europe-an Union, Vale do Lima

Programme of integrated management for the Ria de Aveiro

TERRA CZM Algarve (Ria Formosa)

Integrated management of the Algarve-Huelva coast

Central and Eastern Mediterranean

Territorial coordination scheme for the harbour system and coast of the Gulf of Napoli - “Posidonia” (Palermo, Taranto, and Athinai)

Strategies for management and cooperation in the metropolitan and peri-urban coastal zones of the Saronic Gulf - Athens

Integrated management of the coast of Ipiros

Programme for integrated coastal zone management in the Cyclades

Information, cooperation, requirements for the sus-tainable development of Magnesia’s coastal zones

Concerted Actions for the Management of the Stry-monikos Coastal Zone

Integrated management of the coast of Kavala

DRAFT

45

nance principles deemed to be central to the delivery of ICZM at all levels, including Member State and local levels. Whilst the Recommenda-tion provided the impetus for the development of ICZM national stocktakes and strategies by Mem-ber States, given the non-mandatory nature of the policy and the rather general nature of the princi-ples, the implementation of the policy was mixed (O’Hagan and Ballinger, 2009). The Rupprecht Review of 2006 for the European Commission noted that only 13 out of 24 Member States had implemented the ICZM principles and 11 Member States had not yet agreed on any ICZM policy at national levels (Rupprecht, 2006).

Prior to the initiation of ICZM, there were ex-isting networks among the EU marine regions, especially the four Regional Sea Conventions (Gambert, 2015).8 The EU is a contracting party to the Barcelona Convention, OSPAR Convention and Helsinki Convention, however is not a con-tracting party to the Bucharest Convention. All four Conventions have adopted ICZM approach-es. Notable is the binding Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management to the Barcelona Con-vention in 2010 in the Mediterranean (European Union, 2016c).

Integrated Maritime Policy

Between 2005 and 2009, the EU followed the international trend, (ex. Canada and Australia) in creating coordinated and comprehensive mari-time policy, and while the European Parliament was always supportive of maritime policy, histor-ically, sectoral division had gotten in the way of implementation (Gambert, 2015). The Commis-sion for Fisheries steered a new Maritime Policy Task Force to consult widely on a new Maritime Policy in the EU. A consultation document was produced in 2006 called ‘the Green Paper.’ Con-sultation led to the Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union (IMP) in 2007, called ‘the Blue Book,’ and an action plan. The Direc-torate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) set up governance mechanisms. Both an Interservice group consisting of the differ-ent directorates-general in the maritime sectors and a Member States expert group were set up

8 The 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environ-ment of the Baltic Sea Area; the 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environmental for the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention); the 1995 Barcelona Convention for the Protection of Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean; and the 1992 Bucharest Conven-tion for the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution

for political development of IMP. IMP sought to increase coordination and cooperation, bringing together the experiences and expertise of the various maritime sectors (Gambert, 2015). IMP focuses on issues that do not fall under a single sector-based policy, and issues that require the coordination of different sectors and actors. Important cross cutting policies include blue growth, marine data and knowledge, maritime spatial planning, integrated maritime surveillance and sea basin strategies. IMP was necessary in the EU for data sharing among authorities, building cooperation among decision-makers in different sectors, and the overall inter-connectedness of marine based industries and human activities (Eu-ropean Commission, 2012). Beginning with IMP in 2007, regional structure to maritime policy be-came necessary, including the division of distinct eco-regions or maritime basins (Gambert, 2015). In 2008 the Directive 2008/56/EC of the Europe-an Parliament and Council, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was passed. The MSFD, in effect until 2020 establishes a frame-work for community action in marine environ-mental policy and serves as the first legislation taking into account the EU’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Gambert, 2015).

In 2012, the Blue Growth Strategy was born out of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy to explore growth sectors of the EU economy. The ‘Limassol Dec-laration’ made blue growth the maritime pillar of the Europe 2020 strategy. Blue growth was a success and remains a focus area from 2014 to 2020 for research and innovation. Blue Growth helped to launch a second phase of IMP focusing on policy implementation, and to reach full insti-tutionalization (Gambert, 2015).

Maritime Spatial Planning

As a part of the 2012 Blue Growth strategy, legislation was proposed for maritime spatial planning (MSP) in the EU (Gambert, 2015). After several years of observation and pilot studies, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2014/89 EU, which establishes a frame-work for maritime spatial planning, and a tool for facilitating coherent, integrated, participatory, transparent and trans-boundary decision making for offshore areas. The Directive applies to ma-rine waters of Member States, but does not apply to coastal waters or parts thereof falling under a

DRAFT

46

Member State’s town and country planning. The Directive calls for the establishment of maritime spatial planning in each State, including taking into account land-sea interactions. When estab-lishing and implementing maritime spatial plan-ning, Member States need to consider economic, social, and environmental aspects to support sus-tainable development and growth in the maritime sector, applying an ecosystem-based approach, and to promote an ecosystem approach to pro-mote the coexistence of relevant activities and uses. The Directive calls for achieving coherence between maritime spatial planning and other processes, including land-based planning systems and integrated coastal management programmes, where these exist. Implementation of the Direc-tive, in terms of the creation of Marine Spatial Plans and their submission to the EU, is expected to take place no later than March 31, 2021.

As mandated by the Directive, Member States are required to plan future marine spatial devel-opment and to coordinate policy for integrated coastal management and serves as a continuation of the 2003 Council Recommendation for Inte-grated Coastal Zone Management and the Proto-col to the Barcelona Convention on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, ratified by the EU in 2010. All coastal states of the EU must complete plans for the entirety of their EEZ prior to 2021, and cooperation between all Member States is re-quired. The proposal will also help in the imple-mentation of several other EU policies for marine and coastal areas (DIRECTIVE 2014/89/EU).9 The proposal will allow for the coordination of policy and contribute to the sustainable develop-ment of the coast. The MSP development process involves stakeholder and covers the full cycle of information collection, planning, decision-mak-ing, management and monitoring of implementa-tion. The Directive was the first in the world to create a mandate at the supranational level where sovereign countries must coordinate and imple-ment maritime planning (Gambert, 2015). In terms of integrated coastal management, there is no specific provision although the Directive does express the need for Member States to ‘take into account land-sea interactions’ (Articles 4, 6 and 9 Relevant environment policies include the Marine Strategy Frame-work Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Natural and Habitats Directives and the Biodiversity Strategy. Other relevant EU policies are the Integrated Maritime Policy, the upcoming Strategy on Climate Change Adaptation, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Motorways of the Sea Initiative and the Common fishery Policy.

7), which, as Article 7 suggests, ‘may use formal or informal processes, such as integrated coastal management.’ The recently established European MSP Platform has provided some guidance on Land-Sea Interaction in Maritime Spatial Planning ‘following an international conference in 2017 on land-sea management (European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohe-sion, 2018). The results of the European-funded European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) project on Maritime spatial Planning and land-sea interactions are eagerly awaited (May 2019) as these are anticipated to include a methodology for exploring Land-Sea Interactions at various scales (European Commission, 2018b), and presumably will provide some guidance as to the future direction of ICZM-type activities.


The EU has various layers of new initiatives and regulations on ICZM and on marine management. The EU operates as a political arm, disseminating information to the Member States, which reaches down to provinces and localities.

The EU is a supranational entity, but is compara-ble to a federal state due to its legal framework. There is a parallel and hierarchical system in the EU, where the EU and Member States have some separate and some overlapping responsi-bilities. The EU has the power to bind Member States to certain legislation, however for ICZM, cooperation between the EU and Member States is imperative. While top-down coordination is at play, where general guidance is given to Member States from the EU level, Member States largely determine ICZM specifics at the local level. This is an example of the subsidiarity principle, where authority for action is developed at the lowest lev-el due to localities being best equipped to handle specific policy (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012).

The Lisbon Treaty of 2009, or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union of 2009, helps to clarify the roles of the EU versus the Member State level, with EU law taking general priority over the Member States. At the EU lev-el, there are regulations (legally binding in all respects), directives (legally binds results while allowing Member States to delegate power to domestic authorities), and recommendations and communications (additional tools to clarify EU

DRAFT

47

policy) (Chircop and O’Leary, 2012).

Starting in 2005, a regional approach was created in EU, using regional and sea basin strategies to share best practices and experiences across Mem-ber State borders (Gambert, 2015).


Generally in practice, EU funding can help support the delivery of ICZM at local levels. Local integrat-ed coastal projects, for example the Dorset Coast Forum in England, have received large amounts

Financing Project Name

Description

Project Bothnia2010-2012

Preparatory action on maritime spatial planning in the Baltic Sea. Completed: pilot plan, map service.

BaltSeaPlan2009-2012

Baltic Sea region programme “Introducing Maritime Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea.” Com-pleted: recommen-dations, pilot Maritime Spatial Plans, web-advanced MSP tool.

TPEA2012-2014

Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic – Project on maritime spatial planning in the Atlantic, includ-ing the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay. Completed: pilots, good practice guide.

ADRIPLAN2013-2015

ADRiatic Ionian maritime spatial PLANning. Completed: data portal, tools4MSP.

SIMCELT2015-2017

Promoting practical cross-border cooperation between EU countries on the implementation of the maritime spatial planning directive in the Celtic Seas Completed: case studies, board game and data portal.

Baltic SCOPE2015-2017

Cross-border solutions in Baltic maritime spatial plans. Completed: topic papers, joint maps and online tool.

MARSPLAN2015-2017

MSP in the Black Sea. Completed: case studies, common strategic framework for MSP, MSP for cross-border area (Mangalia - Shabla).

SIMNORAT2017-2018

The project will support the implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning in EU Member States, launch and carry out concrete and cross-border MSP initiatives between Member States in the North Atlantic Region.

SIMWESTMED2017-2018

The project will support Maritime Spatial Planning, launch and carry out concrete and cross-border MSP initiatives between Member States in the in the Western Mediterranean.

SUPREME2017-2018

The project will support the implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning in EU Member States within their marine waters in the Eastern Mediterranean, including the Adriatic, Ionian, Aegean and Levantine Seas, launch and carry out concrete and cross-border MSP initiative between Member States in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Pan Baltic Scope2018-2019

SEANSE2018-2020

Will build upon the previous project to continue developing innovative tools, ex-changing data and harmonising MSP approaches, expanding the principles to the entire Baltic Sea.

Will develop and test a common approach to Strategic Environmental Assessments focusing on renewable energy and supporting the deployment of maritime spatial plans in the North Sea.

MarSP2018-2020

The project will provide management tools tailored to the environmental and so-cio-economic settings of each archipelago in Macaronesia.

OCEAN METISS2017-2019

The project aims to develop MSP tools on both a regional and a local scale to boost economy while preserving the region’s rich biodiversity in Reunion, an outermost region of the European Union and one of the overseas departments of France, in the Indian Ocean.

Box 6.2. Funding for Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)

Source: (European Union, 2018c)

DRAFT

48

of money from EU funds for project support. For the 35 ICZM Demonstration Programmes, 14 were co-funded under the LIFE 1996 and 1997 financial instrument, 18 were supported with contributions from the TERRA programme, 2 were funded under the PHARE program with additional finance from the World Bank, and 1 project was financed by the government of Norway.

The regional and sea basin strategies beginning in 2005 assisted in identifying where EU funds should be targeted (Gambert, 2015). Funding for IMP, beginning in 2007 was provided by the EU under Regulation 508/2014. Annual work pro-grammes had a total budget of EUR 259 million for the 2014-2020 period (European Union, 2012). In 2014, IMP received a budgetary allocation of 5 percent of the total volume of the European Mari-time and Fisheries Fund for the timeframe 2014 to 2020. This was a four-fold increase in funding for IMP (European Union, 2019).

The projects included in Box 6.2. are funded by the EU to make cooperation between EU coun-tries in the management of maritime space pos-sible. Since 2015, these funds have supported the implementation of the MSP legislation (European Union, 2018c).


There are many efforts, both past and ongoing, that have addresses capacity development, education and awareness raising regarding ICZM in the EU.

Many EU funded projects have supported ICZM education, for example the COREPOINT (Coastal Research and Policy Integration) project. CORE-POINT aims to advance ICZM in northwest Europe through a network of local authorities, including 12 partners from Ireland, UK, France, Netherlands and Belgium, research organizations and NGOs. The EURO 4.2 million project ran from 2004 to 2008 (Cooper and Cummins, 2009).

The European MSP Platform 10 through OURCOAST was implemented between 2009 and 2011 with a budget of EURO 1 million from the DG Environment of the EU. The Platform ensures that lessons learned and experience from ICZM can be shared and are accessible. The ICZM da-tabase focuses especially on climate change, and has compiled hundreds of ICZM case studies.10 https://www.msp-platform.eu

The European principles of ICZM are central the EU ICZM approach. In a 2010 study by Ballinger et. al, assessed local ICZM development against the European Progress Indicator using ‘expert’ surveys. Adherence to ICZM principles was mixed at the national, regional and local levels, however stakeholder engagement at the local level showed promise. This study helped assess the operational aspects of ICZM principles to assess ICZM prog-ress (Ballinger et. al, 2010).


Combatting climate change in the short and long term is vital, and the EU has taken tangible steps toward addressing climate change using inte-grated coastal management as a major strategy. The 2002 ICZM Recommendation cites climate change as the basis for strategic coastal manage-ment and national integrated coastal management strategies are also in place at the member state level. Data collection, research, and monitoring are essential aspects of understanding and com-batting climate change, which is completed by the European Environmental Agency and the Eu-ropean Commission, which have published many reports and studies on the issue. The Commission Platform on European Climate Adaptation focus-es on all climate change adaptation, including adaptation in coastal areas. The ‘Green Infrastruc-ture’ helps to connect water and marine regions to preserve biodiversity and to strengthen eco-systems, with projects such as the GRABS Proj-ect (Green and Blue Space Adaptation for Urban Areas and Eco Towns) and ECOSHAPE (building with nature). Funding for adaptation programs to combat climate is provided by the EU through the Structural and Cohesion Funds and the EU Research Framework Programmes (European Union, 2016a).

References

Ballinger, R., Pickaver, A., Lymbery, G. and Ferreria, M., 2010. An Evaluation of the Implementation of the European ICZM Principles. Ocean & Coastal Manage-ment, 53(12), pp.738-749.

Chircop, Aldo; and O’Leary, Ryan. 2012. Legal Frame-works for Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada and the EU: Some Insights from Compara-tive Analysis, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law.

J.A.G. and Cummins, V., 2009. Coastal Research and Poli-cy Integration in Northwest Europe. The COREPOINT

DRAFT

49

Project. Marine Policy, 33(6), pp.869-870.

DIRECTIVE 2014/89/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PAR-LIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial plan-ning https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089&from=EN

European Observation Network for Territorial Develop-ment and Cohesion. 2018. Maritime Spatial Planning and Land-Sea Interactions.

European Environmental Agency. 2009. Maritime Boundaries.

European Union. 2000. Coastal Zone Policy, I.C.Z.M Demonstration Project http://ec.europa.eu/environ-ment/iczm/projects.htm

European Commission. 2012. Report from the Commis-sion to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Progress of the EU’s Inte-grated Maritime Policy.

European Union. 2016a. The Challenge of Climate Change to the European Coastal Areas

European Union. 2016b. EU Policy on Integrated Coastal Management. The History of EU Integrated Coastal

European Union. 2016c. Coastal Zone Policy. Protocol to the Barcelona Convention on Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

European Union. 2018a. The 2018 Annual Economic Report on EU Blue Economy.

European Commission, 2018b. Land Sea Interactions in Maritime Spatial Planning.

European Commission. 2018c. Maritime Spatial Plan-ning.

European Union. 2019. Fact Sheets on the European Union–2019 (www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en)

Gambert, S. 2015. The Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union. In Cicin-Sain, B.; VanderZwaag, D.; and Balgos, M.. 2015. Routledge Handbook of National and Regional Ocean Policies

O’Hagan, A.M. and Ballinger, R., 2009. Coastal Gover-nance in North West Europe: An assessment of Ap-proaches to the European Stocktake. Marine policy, 33(6), pp.912-922.

Rupprecht Consult. 2006. Evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe Final Report.

DRAFT

50

DRAFT

51

Chapter 7

Integrated Coastal Zone Management in South Africa7.1. Overview of ICZM in South Africa

The 2018 population of South Africa is about 55.4 million, making it the 26th most popu-

lated country in the world. The total land area is about 1.2 million km2, and the length of coastline is about 2,800 km, with a significant portion of the population living on the southern coast in cities like Cape Town and Durban (Central Intelli-gence Agency, 2019). South Africa claims jurisdic-tion over a 12 nm territorial sea, as well as a 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as shown in Figure 7.1.

The industries found within the roughly 1.07 million km2 of South Africa’s EEZ include marine fishing, port and harbor development, and tour-ism and recreation (Department of Environmen-tal Affairs, 2014). In 1998, direct benefits from coastal goods and services were estimated to be about 35% of South Africa’s GDP, illuminating the significant value in responsibly managing the coastal zone (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2008).

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) was also created in 1998, with the goal of creating a coordinated approach to environ-mental matters within a new legislative frame-work. In 2008, South Africa passed the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICM Act) as it realized that “economic and social opportunities for wealth creation and equity are being missed and coastal ecosystems are being degraded” (Depart-ment of Environmental Affairs, 2008). The ICM Act was mainly designed to determine the extent of the coastal zone, ensure equal access to coast-al public property, integrate management, and preserve the coastal environment (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2008).

The 2008 ICM Act establishes a system of Coast-al Management Plans (CMPs), with the national CMP (NCMP) having jurisdiction over provincial and municipal CMPs. Each government level

(national, provincial, and municipal) was tasked with producing their own CMP within 4 years of the ICM Act’s implementation in 2008, and each CMP was supposed to “include a vision for the management of the coastal zone they cover, set coastal management objectives (CMO’s) and in-clude priorities and strategies for achieving these” (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2008). The ICM Act also calls for greater participation from affected authorities and the general public in implementing regulation (Department of Envi-ronmental Affairs, 2008).


South Africa has a unique environmental body called the MINMEC, which includes the Minister of Environmental Affairs (national), members of the Executive Councils (provincial), and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), thereby ensuring a “high level of pol-icy and strategy coherence between the three spheres of government” (Department of Environ-mental Affairs, 2014). MINMEC receives input and advice on matters like pollution, biodiversity, and waste management from the standing intergov-ernmental body MINTEC.

At the national level, the Department of Environ-mental Affairs seems to have the greatest author-ity over ICM policy, and is tasked with forming a National Coastal Committee (NCC). The NCC is responsible for overseeing the proper implemen-tation of the ICM Act and the NCMP at the nation-al level, as well as coordinating efforts with the provincial and municipal environmental bodies. The NCC must include coastal experts, Provincial Coastal Committee representatives, municipal leaders, relevant national departmental represen-tatives, and representatives of the coastal protect-

Figure 7.1. South Africa’s Exclusive Economic Zone

DRAFT

52

ed area authority (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2014).

Each coastal province also creates their own Provincial Coastal Committee (PCC) tasked with implementing the ICM Act and the NCMP.

These committees must be composed of repre-sentatives from local government, NGOs, and academia. The NCMP also formulated policy regarding Municipal Coastal Committees (MCCs), but clarified that forming one was up to each municipality’s discretion.

South Africa’s colonialist and apartheid history has left a legacy of non-white persons with little or no political power or property. This deficit has been addressed briefly in the National Coastal Management Plan, although it is unclear how well the principles are being translated into equitable and just policy at each government level. Quesada et al. (2018) concludes that South Africa has made progress in rectifying its historical injustices, particularly by adopting international standards of nondiscrimination and investing in the man-agement of vulnerable coastal communities like the Sunday Estuary.


South Africa’s 2014 National Coastal Management Programme, prepared by the Department of Environmental Affairs, frankly discusses the fact that funding is in short supply for South Africa’s ICM infrastructure. It recommends emphasizing the potential benefits of effective coastal manage-ment, such as poverty alleviation, job creation, and economic development. The document also suggests promoting tourism as a means of financ-ing other ICM programs via generated taxes.

Sowman and Malan (2018) agree that South Afri-ca is in dire need of a sustainable funding mech-anism for ICM. They cite high staff turnover, lack of expertise, and lack of political clout as danger-ous factors contributing to the failure of the ICM Act. The best way forward seems to be the ability of the Minister of Environmental Affairs, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, to levy fees, costs, and rents on public coastal services (Sow-man and Malan, 2018).


In 2009, the Department of Environmental Affairs created a Human Capital Development Strategy (HCDS) to combat the diminishing capacity found in all levels of South Africa’s government (Depart-ment of Environmental Affairs, 2014). Specific input from provincial and municipal governments was used to determine how to structure and ad-minister the program.

Looking ahead, the Department of Environmental Affairs hopes to develop a National Human Ca-pacity Development program specifically target-ing coastal management. Additionally, they hope to link academic institutions with government officials to provide “in-job training” for those in charge of managing the coastal zone. Quesada et al. (2018) specifically cited the provincial govern-ments as lacking employees with critical expertise in the field of coastal zone management. It is most likely the case that municipal governments are experiencing similar issues as provincial govern-ments to a greater extent since local leaders tend to have fewer resources available to them.


Sowman and Malan (2018) conclude that the lack of political will is a major driving force in the failures of the ICM Act. In particular, the Minister of Environmental Affairs has still not appointed a National Coastal Committee, thereby hindering the government’s collaborative capacity and pre-venting agencies from making significant prog-ress in ICM implementation. Sowman and Malan (2018) attribute part of the political apathy to the much stronger emphasis on economic develop-ment along the coast at the cost of sustainable development.

The ICM Act of 2008 allows for the creation of coastal protection zones and special management areas to allow for more sustainable development in highly sensitive regions. In particular, these special designations are intended to protect eco-systems like dunes, which protect coastal com-munities from threats like sea level rise and storm surges.

DRAFT

53

References

Central Intelligence Agency. (2019). South Africa. In The World Factbook 2018-19. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/LIBRARY/publications/the-world-fact-book/geos/sf.html.

Department of Environmental Affairs. (2014). South Af-rica’s National Coastal Management Programme. Cape Town.

Department of Environmental Affairs. (2008). A Summa-ry Guide to South Africa’s Integrated Coastal Manage-ment Act. Cape Town.

Quesada, G. C., Klenke, T., & Mejía-Ortíz, L. M. (2018). Regulatory Challenges in Realizing Integrated Coastal Management—Lessons from Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa. Sustainability, 10(10), 3772. doi:10.3390/su10103772

Sowman, M., Malan, N. (2018). Review of progress with integrated coastal management in South Africa since the advent of democracy. African Journal of Marine Science. 40. 121-136. 10.2989/1814232X.2018.1468278.Chapter 8

DRAFT

54

DRAFT

55

Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the East Asian Seas Region8.1. Overview of ICZM in the East Asian Seas Region

Coastal and Ocean Profile Including Exist-ing Coastal Management Issues

The Seas of East Asia, which has a combined coastline of 235,000 km, a total area of 7 million km2, cover six large marine ecosystems (LMEs) - the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the Sulu-Celebes (Sulawesi) Sea, the Indonesian Seas, and the Gulf of Thailand, includ-ing their associated river and watershed systems with an estimated area of 8.6 million km2. Major river systems in the Seas of East Asia include the Mekong River, the Yangtze River, the Yellow River and the Red River. The Seas of East Asia are bordered by twelve coastal nations, with China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea on the north, and the Southeast Asian nations (Cambodia, Phil-ippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Japan, Vietnam, Laos) bordering the east, west, and south of these ‘semi-enclosed seas’(Chua 2006).

The countries in the region are interconnected in many ways: 1) The people, e.g., are connected by related cultural, religious and traditional practic-es, mainly as a result of migration, trade and com-merce; 2) shared rapid economic development; 3) shared political beliefs and practices; 4) eco-logically connected through the six LMEs, which support a rich biodiversity of marine plants and animals making the region a globally important center of biodiversity, being home to 31% of the world’s mangroves, 33% of seagrass beds and a third of the world’s coral reefs (Chua 2006; SOC 2018).

Close to 72% of the approximately 2 billion people of the countries bordering the Seas of East Asia live within 100 km of the coastline. Much of the economic development in the region occurs along the coast, especially that involving marine-related industries such as oil refineries, petrochemical manufacturing, food processing, shipbuilding and repair. The region’s seas serve as important conduits for 90% of world trade through shipping and produce 80% of glob-

al aquaculture output and around 60% of the world’s capture fisheries. The region is also home to the second and third largest economies of the world, China and Japan, respectively, and the combined economies of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN), which represents the world’s 5th largest economy and the 3rd largest global market (Chua 2006; SOC 2018).

The region as a whole has achieved unprece-dented growth and the development in the last three decades which has been accompanied by a dramatic decline in absolute poverty, a signif-icant increase in per capita income and notable improvements in social services. However, more than 20% of the population in the region still lives below the poverty line, a large sector of which still lacks adequate access to improved water sup-plies and sanitation services. Economic activities in the coastal areas of the region are convention-ally managed by government line agencies with specific mandates and responsibilities governing coastal areas with overlapping biophysical, eco-nomic, institutional and organizational boundar-ies, which have not effectively arrested the rapid environmental degradation that is occurring, affecting sectoral growth (Chua 2006).

Because coastal areas are the preferred sites for human settlements, economic development and urbanization, severe conflicts often arise among

Figure 8.1. The Seas of East Asia

DRAFT

56

various stakeholders as a result of the multiple use of, and competition for, limited land and sea resources. Continued economic development modifies the coasts as land conversion, dredging and water pollution become synonymous with progress. Natural hazards such as typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, storm surges and floods) could devastate the social and economic develop-ment of the coast. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsuna-mi, which claimed over 250,000 lives and caused economic losses exceeding USD 10 billion (UNEP 2005f as cited in Chua 2006) as well as the disas-ter brought about by Typhoon Yolanda in 2013 in the Philippines, which caused an estimated total damage of $4.55 billion and the loss of 6,300 lives are among the worst examples of natural-caused disasters where the socio-economic losses are exacerbated by the destruction of the region’s natural defense systems (Chua 2006).

History of ICZM in the Region

ICM in East Asia largely developed as a replica-tion of the US experience in coastal management mainly through donor assisted initiatives (Chua 2015). Local-level proliferation of coastal resource management happening in various countries

in East Asia influenced the adoption of the East Asian Seas Action Plan in 1981 with subsequent establishment of the UNEP Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) to oversee its im-plementation. The Action Plan aimed to provide a framework for a comprehensive and environmen-tally-sound approach to coastal area development (Hinrichsen 1990).

In 1993, the initiation of a Global Environmental Facility (GEF) / United Nations Development Pro-gramme (UNDP)/ Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) project in the region provided the opportunity to develop, verify and demonstrate the effectiveness of ICM practices and the subsequent replication and scaling up throughout national coastline. The ability to continue such project operation over the last 25 years enabled a systematic analysis of the concept and practices of integrated coastal management in more than 67 locations in nine countries in the region under varied socioeco-nomic, political, cultural, and ecological settings following a framework and process which allow a systematic, process-oriented, participatory, plan-ning and management of the coastal areas towards

Figure 8.2. Framework for Sustainable Development of Coastal Areas through ICM Implementation (SDCA)

Governance

Policy, Strategies, and Plans

Institutional Arrangements Legislation Information and

Public AwarenessFinancing

MechanismsCapacity

Development

Policy and Functional Integration, Scientific/Expert Advice

Part

ners

hips

(Pu

blic

, Civ

il So

ciet

y, C

orpo

rate

and

Oth

er S

take

hold

ers)

XX

XXX

ICM

Cod

e XX

XXX

Natural and Man-made Hazard

Prevention and Management

Habitat Protection, Restoration and

Management

Water Use and Supply

Management

Food Security and Livelihood Management

Pollution Reduction and Waste

Management

Projects and Programs

State of the Coasts Reporting

MDG WSSD Agenda 21 SOS-SEA

Targets

ICM Cycle ICM Cycle

Sustainable Development Aspects

DRAFT

57

achieving sustainable development goals (Chua 2015; UNDP 2018). PEMSEA has developed and implemented over the past 25 years, a common framework for sustainable coastal development (Figure 9.1) that provides a governance system, and issue-specific management systems that are key to achieving the overarching goals of sustain-able development and promotes local implemen-tation of international conventions and regional commitments and plans of action. (Chua 2015; Bermas and Chua 2018)

Other ICM initiatives implemented in the region include: 1) ASEAN-US Coastal Resources Manage-ment Program; 2) ASEAN-Australia Coastal Living Resources Project; and 3) ASEAN-Canada Coop-erative Programme on Marine Sciences. These externally-funded programs provided valuable scientific foundations for coastal resources man-agement in the region (Chua 2015). In addition, ICZM initiatives at the national and sub-national levels were initiated by non-government and government organizations working with local government organizations, which mostly involved the establishment of marine protected areas, sup-ported by external donors.

Existing Policy in the Region

In 2003, Ministers of Brunei Darussalam, Cambo-dia, China, DPR Korea, Indonesia, Japan, Malay-sia, Philippines, RO Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam signed the Putrajaya Declaration, which adopted the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA) during the Ministerial Forum of the First East Asian Seas Congress held in Putrajaya, Malaysia (2003). The SDS-SEA is a regional marine strategy for achiev-ing sustainable coastal and ocean development in East Asia. The development of the marine strat-egy was largely based on relevant international conventions and other international and regional instruments, as well as the lessons learned from the coastal and ocean governance experiences in the region – particularly from a decade of efforts and activities undertaken by the PEMSEA.

The development of the SDS-SEA followed the process of consensus-building and consultation, including the formulation of the Shared Vision of the concerned stakeholders and their mission for achieving sustainable coastal and ocean devel-opment, followed by the identification of the values that the people of East Asia attach to the

seas and the threats to them. The SDS-SEA was a product of over three years (2000-2003) of exten-sive national and regional consultations among the countries of the region and other stakehold-ers. The SDS-SEA provides for development of a policy framework for building partnerships, a regional marine environment resource facility, and a regional mechanism to support existing efforts. The key components of the strategy are the identification and incorporation of interna-tional instruments and conventions that pertain to the region and the need for a more integrat-ed approach toward these, with sub-strategies to sustain, preserve, protect, develop, imple-ment, communicate, and adapt. The SDS-SEA, a non-binding instrument, which allows country partners to comply with the strategy’s provisions according to their respective capacities, is im-plemented through partnership arrangements among country partners. Implementation includ-ed the identification of regional priorities, which were embodied in a regional framework program designed to strengthen national capacity, foster environmental investments, promote synergies, build strategic partnerships, and coordinate and catalyze national and international efforts for SDS-SEA implementation in a participatory, long term, a country- and stakeholder-owned, and self-sus-taining regional mechanism. (Bernad and Chua 2015). In 2006, Lao PDR and Timor-Leste agreed to adopt and implement the SDS-SEA.

The following four targets represent the desired outcomes of SDS-SEA implementation at the na-tional and regional levels to 2015:

1. A self-sustained regional partnership mecha-nism for the implementation of the SDS-SEA;

2. National coastal and ocean policies and sup-porting institutional arrangements in place in at least 70% of Partner Countries;

3. ICM programmes for sustainable development of coastal and marine areas and climate change adaptation covering at least 20% of the region’s coastline; and

4. A report on the progress of ICM programmes every three years, including measures taken for climate change adaptation (PEMSEA 2012 as cited in Bernad and Chua 2015).

More than ten years after its adoption, the SDS-SEA was updated in recognition of the numerous

DRAFT

58

ocean-related international instruments and ob-ligations that had been accepted by countries of the region since 2003, or were in the process of being adopted, which were critical to the sustain-able development of coastal and marine areas in the EAS region. Moreover, changing conditions, knowledge and capacities across the seas of East Asia necessitated a revisit of the SDS-SEA in order to keep the strategy in tune with country priori-ties and objectives. A comprehensive assessment was undertaken of global and regional instru-ments or platforms most relevant to the region’s sustainable development — and their correspond-ing programmes, targets and approaches — ad-opted or ratified since 2003 or under discussion at the time of updating. Guided by the vision of “Healthy Oceans, People and Economies”, the ministers adopted the “SDS-SEA 2015” at the 5th Ministerial Forum of the EAS Congress held in Danang, Vietnam collectively as a region and in-dividually as countries, and commit to the devel-opment and implementation of national strategies and action programmes at regional, subregional, national, and local levels, taking into account national development objectives, capacities, and specific conditions of the countries and stakehold-ers involved.

The Ministers also agreed to adopt the following post-2015 Strategic Targets as key indicators of progress in implementing the SDS-SEA 2015 until 2021:

1. By 2017, a self-sustaining PEMSEA Resource Facility managing and coordinating a suite of products, services and financing mechanisms for advancing SDS-SEA implementation at the regional, national and local levels.

2. By 2018, a regional State of Oceans and Coasts reporting system to monitor progress, impacts and benefits, and to continually improve plan-ning and management of SDS-SEA implementa-tion.

3. By 2021, national coastal and ocean policies, and supporting legislation and institutional arrangements set up and functional in 100% of PEMSEA Partner Countries, consistent with international environmental and sustainable development commitments and based on best available scientific information.

4. By 2021, ICM programs for sustainable devel-

opment of coastal and marine areas covering at least 25% of the region’s coastline and contig-uous watershed areas, supporting national pri-orities and commitments under the UN SDGs, UNFCCC, Aichi Biodiversity Targets, UNISDR Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduc-tion, and other relevant environmental and sustainable development targets subscribed to by PEMSEA Partner Countries.

In July 2012, the Ministers adopted the SDS-SEA Implementation Plan (2012–2016) to address, among other things: the mainstreaming of SDS-SEA objectives, targets, and actions; a shifting from government-centred toward more inclu-sive coastal and ocean governance; converging sectoral initiatives and programmes in priority coastal, marine, and watershed areas within the framework of national ICM programmes (espe-cially in relation to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, biological diversity, water quality, food security, and investments); building technical and management capacity; and target-ing research (Bernad and Chua 2015).

A new implementation SDS-SEA plan for 2018-2022 has been adopted during the 6th Ministerial Forum of East Asian Seas Congress in November 2018 held in Iloilo City, Philippines, which is com-posed of three priority management programs and three governance programs. The priority management programs include: a) Biodiversi-ty Conservation and Management; b) Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction and Manage-ment; and c) Pollution Reduction and Waste Man-agement. The cross-cutting governance programs include: a) Ocean Governance and Strategic Part-nerships; b) Knowledge Management and Capaci-ty Development; and c) Blue Economy Investment and Sustainable Financing. (PEMSEA 2018)

To facilitate implementation of SDS-SEA at nation-al level, countries including Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Vietnam have prepared their coun-try-specific implementation plans to parallel the regional SDS-SEA implementation plan.

DRAFT

59

8.2. Roles of Regional, National and State Actors

Regional Leadership

PEMSEA was implemented through a partner-ship arrangement among participating countries, which evolved into a regional implementing mechanism for the SDS-SEA. The Partnership Operating Arrangements (PEMSEA 2006d as cited in Bernad and Chua 2015), adopted the following regional institutional arrangements:

1. The East Asian Seas (EAS) Partnership Council is the governing body, conducted in two ses-sions attended by government representatives, as well as concerned stakeholder partners, and focuses on technical matters relating to the implementation of the SDS-SEA.

2. The PEMSEA Resource Facility (PRF) is made up of two functional units: 1) the Secretariat Services, which acts as the Secretariat to the Partnership Council and the Executive Commit-tee; coordinates SDS-SEA implementation at the national level; coordinates various networks set up by PEMSEA; facilitates information dissem-ination and capacity building; and prepares the triennial EAS Congress, Ministerial Forum, and other major workshops; and 2) the Tech-nical Services, which implements projects and programmes, conducts training courses, and provides technical assistance to interested coun-tries and other technical supports.

3. The Regional Partnership Fund (RPF) is a trust fund built up from donor contributions and other income arising from the sale of goods (publications, software) and services from the PRF Technical Services. The Fund is used for specific activities toward attaining the goals and objectives of PEMSEA.

4. The EAS Congress takes place every three years, bringing together stakeholders, ex-perts, regional partners, and other actors from around the world to evaluate progress in the implementation of the regional strategy, and to share their experience and exchange infor-mation or ideas in different areas of concern on the sustainable development of coasts and oceans. The event includes an international conference, a Ministerial Forum, exhibits, and other side events. The Forum allows ministers to review the status of implementation of the

SDS-SEA, renew commitments, and set new policy directions.

The scope of the Sustainable Development Strat-egy is broader than any individual international instrument or regional programme in the re-gion. Its implementation entails and facilitates partnerships, involving national and local gov-ernments, civil society, the business sector and regional governance mechanisms, such as ACB, ASEAN, ATS, CTI, COBSEA, ESCAP, FAO/APFIC, IOC-WESTPAC, NOWPAP, SSME, UNDP/RCF, UNEP GPA, The World Bank, WCPFC, YSLME and others. The Strategy also provides the framework and platform for collaborative and joint initiatives with UN agencies, international programmes and projects, ODA programmes and international and national NGOs, such as WWF and IUCN.

Authority at National Level

A regional review on Implementation of the SDS-SEA 2003-2015 was prepared in collaboration with the countries in the region to determine progress and steps forward in achieving the four regional strategic targets. In terms of national coastal and ocean policies and supporting institu-tional arrangements, the review indicated that 10 out of the 12 countries have developed and imple-mented national policies, strategies, action plans and programs in coastal and ocean management and river basin management. Nine out of the 12 countries have established national inter-agency and inter-sectoral coordinating mechanisms for coastal and ocean management and river basin management and 7 of the 11 littoral countries Table 8.1. Status of Participating Countries

Country Coastal & Ocean Coastal & Ocean or National Institutional Policies or Water Water Governance Arrangements for Governance Strategy Legistration Coastal & Ocean Govern- ance or Water Governance

Cambodia Yes – Yes

China Yes Yes –

DPR Korea – – Yes

Indonesia Yes Yes Yes

Japan Yes Yes Yes

Lao PDR Yes – Yes

Philippines Yes – –

RO Korea Yes Yes Yes

Singapore Yes Yes Yes

Thailand Yes Yes Yes

Timor-Leste – – Yes

Vietnam Yes Yes –

No. of countries 10 7 9 with instruments

DRAFT

60

have put in place their respective national legisla-tion to facilitate governance of coastal and ocean development.

National agencies that are mandated to provide policy direction and support and coordinate and monitor the implementation of ocean policies and legislations, including water strategy, are:

1. Cambodia – Ministry of Environment;

2. DPR Korea – Ministry of Trade/General Bureau for Cooperation with International Organiza-tions;

3. Indonesia – Ministry of Environment and For-estry and Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisher-ies;

4. Japan – Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Trans-port and Tourism;

5. Lao PDR – Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment;

6. Philippines – Department of Environment and Natural Resources;

7. Singapore – Ministry of Environment and Water Resources;

8. Thailand – Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment;

9. Timor Leste – Ministry of Agriculture and Fish-eries, and

10. Vietnam – Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment/Vietnam Administration of Seas and Islands.

Authority at Sub-national (State/Local) Levels

Starting in the 1990s, decentralization policies in a number of countries delegated the function and responsibility of managing coastal resources to local authorities (e.g., in the Philippines and Indo-nesia). Unfortunately, the devolution of function was not immediately accompanied by the devo-lution of resources to local authorities in order to carry out the associated tasks (Balgos 2005). Some of the local authorities, however, have already acquired the needed coastal management expe-rience from their earlier involvement with ICM initiatives in the country prior to decentralization, which constituted a critical mass of expertise and experience available in the country for replicating and scaling up of ICM practices throughout the

coastal areas. (Bernad and Chua 2015).

In the Philippines, the issuance of Executive Or-der (EO) 533 in 2006 adopting ICM as the policy framework for the sustainable development of the coastal and marine environment and resources is considered a significant milestone in the long history of coastal management in the Philippines. An ICM Bill filed at the 17th Congress, which captures the provisions of the EO, aims to institu-tionalize ICM through the enactment of the Bill into ICM Act. The role of local governments in establishing institutional arrangements for ICM is clearly outlined in the Bill. An independent Third-Party Assessment (TPA) was conducted in 2017 to objectively evaluate ICM program cover-age in 32 coastal provinces covering about 27% of the Philippine coastline; to benchmark the ICM processes and controls that have been established in selected provinces and municipalities against the requirements of PEMSEA’s ICM Code, and to provide guidance on the standardization, stream-lining and strengthening the national ICM pro-gram. The results of the TPA has confirmed that multi-agency coordinating mechanisms in various forms (e.g., Coordinating/Steering Committee, Sustainable Development Council, etc.) that are chaired by the local chief executives are present and functional at the local level.

It is also to be noted that policy-making at the national level has been strongly influenced by de-velopments at the local level (bottom-to-top). For example, as part of ICM implementation by the city government of Xiamen in China, it adopted an integrated functional zoning scheme and en-acted the Xiamen Marine Use Regulation, which formed the backbone of integrated management that addressed multiple-use conflicts. Regulatory instruments addressed common property rights issues. Through the use of economic instruments, the city government was able to regulate the type and level of sea use, thereby resolving several outstanding use conflicts and effectively reversing the trend of environmental degradation. This ap-proach was adopted through national legislation in China in 2002.

In Vietnam, the development of the National ICM Strategy to 2020 and Vision to 2030 which was approved in 2014 by the Prime Minister has also benefited from local experiences in ICM imple-mentation. The establishment of Vietnam Admin-

DRAFT

61

istration of Seas and Islands in 2008 with a man-date to facilitate the integrated and unified state management of seas and islands, including coasts, and the establishment of counterpart agencies of seas and islands at the provincial and city levels provide tremendous opportunities for strengthen-ing the coordination for ICM in the country.

In 2017, ICM programs covered an estimated 19% of the region’s coastline. In 2014, partner counties identified priority locations to scale up ICM pro-grams to cover at least 25% of the region’s coast-line in 2021.

In 2018, PEMSEA launched the publication, “Local Contributions to Global Sustainable Agenda: Case Studies in ICM in the EAS Region” to commem-orate its 25th Anniversary. The publication pro-vides the reader with a comprehensive discussion of the ICM system backed by 47 case studies; a series of case studies written by local leaders, managers and practitioners, natural and social sci-entists, academicians, private sector, and partners from nongovernment organizations; good practic-es and lessons learned to support replication and scaling up of ICM in the region; and an operation-al modality that other regions of the world can consider adopting and applying.

(http://www.pemsea.org/publications/books/

local-contributions-global-sustainable-develop-ment-agenda-case-studies-integrated)


Over the long term, a country- and stakehold-er-owned, self-sustaining regional mechanism to implement the SDS-SEA has been evolving. Meanwhile, the regional partnership mechanism continued to operate with Global Environment Facility (GEF) funding for national and regional implementation of the SDS-SEA and to facilitate the operation of its implementing mechanism. As well, six participating countries (China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, East Timor and Singapore) contributed financial support to the Secretariat of the regional partnership mecha-nism. (Bernad and Chua 2015)

Environmental investments through PEMSEA-fa-cilitated ICM and sub-regional program imple-mentation had amounted to US$369 million, of which US$78.65 million came from the private sector as of 2012. This translates to an environ-mental investment leverage ratio of about 13 to 1 for GEF funds over the projects to that point (UNDP 2012).

In 2014, the EAS Partnership Council approved the Strategy and Implementation Plan to Achiev-ing a Self-Sustained PEMSEA, which reorients PEMSEA’s sustainability by delivering products and services that are geared towards address-ing the needs of the partner countries, local governments, private sector and international organizations. These include advising on the implementation of the ICM Code and ICM System Certification, the ICM Professional Certification, the PEMSEA Sustainable Business Award, and the Port Safety, Health and Environmental Manage-ment System.

The EAS Partnership Council also supported the proposal to establish a new and innovative financing mechanism to support and accelerate SDS-SEA implementation. Referred to as Ocean Investment Service, the primary purpose of the mechanism is to develop and promote projects that can attract capital for investment in infra-structure, technologies, systems, etc. in support of SDS-SEA implementation. One of the key activ-ities of the investment service is to help build the capacity of local governments on the use of tools and services for developing investments in the

Figure 8.3. ICM Sites

DRAFT

62

ICM sites. Key to this approach is the establish-ment of strategic partnerships with several orga-nizations to help develop a pipeline of pilot in-vestments with potential investors across several sectors, including wastewater recovery, protected area and sustainable marine tourism, solid waste recycling and ocean plastics and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. Each of these partner-ships provide an opportunity to “jumpstart” the process of establishing investments and provides valuable learning for PEMSEA as it continues to build its capacity.

Sustainable Financing: Public-private Partnerships (PPP) Through the SDS-SEA

A sustainable financing mechanism was included in PEMSEA’s governance framework for an ICM system, in order to emphasize the need to provide sustained funding for management interventions and maintenance of environmental improvement infrastructure (Chua 2008 as cited in Cardinal 2018). The financing mechanism involves the identification and selection of appropriate options for developing sustainable financing mechanisms including regular government budget allocation, user fees and taxes, and PPP (see Figure 8.4 for an illustrative diagram of the PPP process followed in PEMSEA sites). Box 8.1 summarizes the successful financing mechanisms applied in Xiamen, China

and Batangas, Philippines (Cardinal 2018).

A high-level, macro landscape mapping of finan-cial investments linked to ICM and sustainable coastal development activities was undertaken by PEMSEA, including financial funding flows through: (i) philanthropic donations given with-out return considerations; or (ii) capital in the form of debt, equity or its hybrid variations along with the requirements and expectations of var-ious investors, donor agencies and foundations across the grant and investment spectrum. ICM implementation and scaling-up initiatives through PEMSEA have catalyzed US$9-11 billion in public and private sector finance, which represents a 277 to 1 “return” over a cumulative GEF invest-ment of US$36.1 million since 1993, emphasiz-ing the tremendous value and impact of ICM in placing the requisite enabling environment and catalyzing ocean finance. This initiative aimed to provide relevant partners and governments with a greater understanding of financial flows into ICM-related projects and initiatives, as well as the requirements and expectations of various investors, donor agencies and foundations across the grant and investment spectrum. (Shujog and PEMSEA 2015)

Additional sources of external funding (from the US, Australia, and Canada as well as the Asian

Figure 8.4. The PPP Process Followed in PEMSEA Sites (Chua 2006)

PPP process: Development and Implementation of PPP projects in PEMSEA sites

Defining mechanisms to catalyze, promote and advance

environmental investments

Technical and economic viability

Willingness-to-pay

Pre-feasibility studies

Consensus building

Packaging, promoting and networking

Identifying investment opportunities

Technologies and services Environmental financing

Institutionalizing partnership arrangements

Developing and adapting a business planPartnership building/

MOA signing

Roundtable meetings with investors, partners,

and stakeholders

DRAFT

63

Development Bank and the World Bank) have supported the implementation of various ICM ini-tiatives carried out within and outside the frame-work of the ASEAN (Balgos 2002; Chua 2004 as cited in Chua 2006). In addition, funding from foundations and NGOs supported national and sub-national initiatives on ICM with counterpart funding from national and local governments.


The Association of Southeast Asian Marine Scien-tists (ASEAMS) was launched by UNEP in 1987

in order to involve the science community in the management of coastal resources and pro-vide a mechanism for inter-regional cooperation. The East Asian Seas Action Plan’s scientific base was considerably broadened with the training of 500 technicians and scientists from East Asia. ASEAMS prepared a UNEP-funded report on the likely effects of sea-level rise on the coasts and resources of Southeast Asia. The ASEAN initia-tives on coastal resources management included strong components on capacity development. In particular, training activities to strengthen ma-rine scientific research in the region were con-

Box 8.1. Successful Financing Mechanisms Adopted in Xiamen, China and Batangas, Philippines (based on Cardinal 2018)

In Xiamen, the local government implemented several legislations for financing marine environment protection, ecosystem restoration, disaster risk reduction, and endangered species protection (Guo and Engay 2018 as cited in Cardinal 2018). Mandatory allocation of fiscal budget was included in the Xia-men’s Regulations in the Protection of Marine Environment (Article 7), which required municipal and district governments to gradually increase investment in marine ecosystem restoration, marine disaster preparedness and risk reduction, and marine environment pollution treatment. In addition, operational funds were included in the fiscal budget of the different levels of national and local governments. As well, special funds were allocated from the local government budget to undertake specific activities which were unique and beneficial to the areas concerned. For example, Article 4 of the Xiamen Chinese White Dolphin Conservation Regulation (1997) stated that the municipal government was required to establish the Chinese White Dolphin Conservation and Development Special Fund to support the species’ conser-vation, MPA management, and scientific research, education, and awareness-raising activities.

In the case of Batangas, supporting policy and legislations were available for ICM program implementa-tion. The Philippines adopted ICM as the “national strategy to ensure the sustainable development of the country’s coastal and marine environment and resources” with the issuance of Executive Order No. 533 (2006). Section 7 of the said strategy provided for the corporate and private sectors, among others, to “be engaged in planning, community organizing, research, technology transfer, information sharing, invest-ment, and training programs in the development and implementation of the ICM program”. Several key sector-specific legislations were adopted in support of implementing action plans of the ICM programs. For example, in the Philippines, apart from the national policy (E.O. 533, 2006), there was no national or local legislation covering

the development and implementation of ICM. With respect to water use zoning, the municipality of Mabini, Batangas enacted such a regulation through Municipal Ordinance No. 4, 2006. Nine coastal municipalities (Calaca, Calatagan, San Juan, Lobo, Mabini, Tingloy, Balayan, Batangas City, and Nasugbu) passed municipal regulations with respect to fisheries. Batangas City and Calatagan passed Municipal Ordinances (in 1996 and 2006, respectively) that limit fishing in their municipal waters to their own resident fishers. Regulations with respect to mining and quarrying were enacted at the provincial level. The Provincial Mining Regulatory Board was established in 1996 and further affirmed through Provin-cial Ordinance No. 003, 2004, which allocated appropriations for the Board (PGBatangas and PEMSEA, 2008 as cited in Cardinal 2018). These legislations were specific in addressing key sustainability chal-lenges including natural and human-made disasters and climate change, pollution, habitat protection and conservation, fisheries and other marine resources, etc.

DRAFT

64

ducted, which broadened ASEAMS membership (Hinrichsen 1990). Of particular significance was the development of a manual of survey methods (Dartnall and Jones 1986) under the ASEAN-Aus-tralia Cooperative Program on Marine Science, which was widely used throughout the region in the assessment of the status of living resources in coastal areas preliminary to management plan-ning or establishment of marine protected areas.

Training materials and other publications for ICM-related initiatives, especially fisheries man-agement in the region were produced by the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (WorldFish Center), including A framework for future training in marine and coastal protected area management (McManus et al. 1998). Other environmental NGOs, inter-national and local, operating in East Asia wielded strong community-organizing and capacity-build-ing prowess in their involvement in ICM and related initiatives in the region. An overview of the experience of the URI/USAID International Coastal Resources Management Program in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Ecuador provided lessons learned for strengthening ICM efforts in develop-ing countries (Crawford 1993).

A National Course for Integrated Coastal Manage-ment (NCICM) in the Philippines was developed through the joint efforts of local coastal resource management (CRM) practitioners, led by the De-partment of Agriculture, Department of Environ-ment and Natural Resources, Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Develop-ment, Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, and the International Cen-ter for Living Aquatic Resources Management to develop a pool of coastal managers in each region of the country and to develop a training package for local and regional use. The United Nations Train-Sea-Coast (UNTSC) influenced the training development technique used, which involved a training needs assessment. Initial financial support for training development and implementation was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and contributions from associate donors. The NCICM training series resulted in 98 graduates and a material-based ICM training package designed for middle managers, with subsequent adaptations, a Training of Trainers (TOT), and repackaging

and implementation in Indonesia and Vietnam. Parallel training projects have been implemented since 2001 with financial assistance from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation (Balgos 1998; Munoz and Capistrano 2013).

PEMSEA carried out capacity development initia-tives to facilitate the implementation of the SDS-SEA as well as the continuing efforts to promote and scale up ICM in the region. The initiative aimed to lessen the disparities in capacity among countries of the region and enabling them to develop both technical and managerial skills to ef-fectively manage their coastal and marine resourc-es and environment. The following are some of PEMSEA’s capacity development activities: Special Skills Training Programs; Internship Programs; ICM Graduate Program; ICM Learning Centers; Model ICM Training Manual; Regional Task Force/National Task Force; Regional Center of Excel-lence; Workshops/Seminars; Communication/Publications; The East Asian Seas (EAS) Congress; and the Ministerial Forums (PEMSEA 2010).

8.5. Other Considerations for Improving

Efficiency and Effectiveness

The need to expand beyond the pilot areas cov-ered by these initiatives as well as take into con-sideration climate change and sea-level rise which will further impact on the East Asian coasts is well-recognized. Several countries in East Asia have developed and implemented national pol-icies, strategies or action plans for coastal and ocean management, a number of which have adopted ICZM as their national strategy to ensure the sustainable development of the countries’ coastal and marine environment towards a Blue Economy. Cross-fora collaboration to expand the Blue Economy was among the four priority areas for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ocean and Fisheries agenda adopted by APEC Ocean and fisheries ministers in 2014 (APEC 2018a). The APEC Blue Economy Forum is a regional initiative to promote Blue Economy cooperation in APEC countries (APEC 2018b).

In line with APEC’s initiative on Blue Economy, in 2009, PEMSEA coordinated with the partner countries to make an assessment of the ocean or marine economy, and provide information on the

DRAFT

65

contribution of these core sectors to gross domes-tic product (GDP). The studies showed that activ-ities dependent on the oceans and coasts make a substantial contribution to the economies of the EAS region. In 2012, Ministers from 10 partner countries of PEMSEA signed the Changwon Dec-laration Toward an Ocean-based Blue Economy: Moving Ahead with the SDS-SEA, which provides the definition of blue economy and also signified the commitment of the countries to moving to-wards blue economy.

Having adopted the Changwon Declaration in 2012, PEMSEA organized the following forums to help develop and advance the understanding of blue economy:

1. Workshop on Blue Economy Assessment (July 2015) - participants reported their respective ocean economy, coastal and marine eco-system services, and key policies and plans including data concerns for the assessment of ocean economy, ocean health, and invest-ment opportunities (http://www.pemsea.org/publications/meeting-documents/others/proceedings-blue-economy-assessment-incep-tion-workshop). In the same year, PEMSEA released a report on Blue Economy for Business in East Asia, the first major effort to establish a foundation of understanding blue economy (http://www.pemsea.org/publications/reports/blue-economy-business-east-asia-towards-inte-grated-understanding-blue-economy).

2. Workshop on Blue Economy Development: Where are we now? Where are we headed? – convened during the 2015 East Asian Seas Con-gress in Danang, Vietnam. A policy brief with the same title was developed as reference for the discussion. http://www.pemsea.org/publi-cations/policy-briefs/blue-economy-where-are-we-now-where-are-we-headed

3. Regional Workshop on Catalyzing Blue Econo-my Investment in East Asia (November 2016) - convened during the Xiamen World Ocean Week which brought brought together invest-ment professionals, financiers, development organizations, local and national government officials, project proponents, business organiza-tions and others to provide background on blue economy investment in the region and explore the potential for developing a pipeline of bank-able investment opportunities (http://www.

pemsea.org/publications/meeting-documents/others/regional-workshop-catalyzing-blue-econ-omy-investment-east-asia).

4. Economic assessment of oceans for sustainable blue economy development - presents the com-mon approach on blue economy assessment adopted by selected countries in the East Asian Seas region, and results of initial assessment studies (http://www.pemsea.org/publications/reports/economic-assessment-oceans-sustain-able-blue-economy-development)

5. Blue Economy Forum 2017 - introduced 10 national and 4 sub-regional State of Oceans and Coasts (SOC) reports, which focused on the vital role that oceans and marine ecosys-tems play in economic development, trade, welfare, resiliency, and food, water and energy security across the EAS region (http://www.pemsea.org/publications/meeting-documents/blue-economy-forum-2017-proceedings).

6. Blue Economy Forum 2018 – convened during the 2018 EAS Congress where attendion was directed towards solution options, ongoing interdisciplinary research, initiatives and inno-vations to improve ocean health, incomes and livelihood, the role of government as an en-ablers and beneficiary and the investment and business opportunities.

7. Regional and 10 National SOC Reports focusing on blue economy growth in the EAS presented at the 6th Ministerial Forum of the 2018 EAS Congress (http://www.pemsea.org/publica-tions/reports/state-oceans-and-coasts-2018-blue-economy-growth-east-asian-region). The SOC reporting system with the blue economy assessment will provide a mechanism to:

a. examine resource use and footprint;

b. monitor investment and net returns from ocean economic activities;

c. promote growth potential in strategic industries;

d. identify investment opportunities;

e. provide direction in ocean stewardship and governance;

f. contribute to multi-country response to address environmental threats and protect shared resources, and

DRAFT

66

g. continually improve planning, monitoring and management of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia.

References

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). (2018a). Ocean and Fisheries. https://www.apec.org/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Techni-cal-Cooperation/Working-Groups/Ocean-and-Fisher-ies

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). (2018b). The 5th APEC Blue Economy Forum. APEC Project Data-base. https://aimp2.apec.org/sites/PDB/Lists/Propos-als/DispForm.aspx?ID=2169

Balgos, M. C. (1998). Integrated coastal management training in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Manage-ment 38:225–228.

Balgos, M. C. (2005). Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas in the Philippines: Con-current developments. Ocean & Coastal Management 48:972–995.

Bermas, N. and Chua T.E. 2018. Roles of the Key Ele-ments of Governance in Integrated Coastal Manage-ment Practice, p. 37-60. In: Chua, T.-E., L.M. Chou, G. Jacinto, S.A. Ross, and D. Bonga. (Editors). Local Con-tributions to Global Sustainable Agenda: Case Studies in Integrated Coastal Management in the East Asian Seas Region. Partnerships in Environmental Manage-ment for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) and Coastal Management Center (CMC), Quezon City, Philippines.

Bernad, S. R. and T.-E. Chua (2015). The Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia: Policy implications at local, national, and regional levels, pp. 522-542. In Cicin-Sain, B., VanderZwaag, D. L., Balgos, M. C. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of National and Regional Ocean Policies.

Cardinal, R. (2018). Financing Mechanisms and Econom-ic Instruments to Leverage ICM Program Implementa-tion and Sustainability: Experience from Xiamen and Batangas. Case study 9, pp. 129-138. In Chua, T.-E., L.M. Chou, G. Jacinto, S.A. Ross, and D. Bonga (Eds) (2018). Local Contributions to Global Sustainable Agenda: Case Studies in Integrated Coastal Manage-ment in the East Asian Seas Region. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) and Coastal Management Center (CMC), Quezon City, Philippines. http://www.pemsea.org/sites/default/files/ICM_Case_Studies_Book_11_Part_III_CS09.pdf

Chua, T-E. (2006). The Dynamics of Integrated Coastal Management: Practical Applications in the Sustainable Coastal Development in East Asia. 468 p. GEF/UNDP/IMO PEMSEA. Quezon City, Philippines.

Chua, T.-E. (2015). Integrated Coastal Management in the East Asian Seas Region: A Reflection. OPRI Ocean Newsletter No.349 February 20, 2015. https://www.spf.org/en/_opri/newsletter/349_1.html?full=349_1

Dartnall, A. J., and M. Jones (1986). A manual of survey methods: living resources in coastal areas. ASE-AN-Australia Cooperative Program on Marine Science Handbook. The Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland. 167 pp.

Hinrichsen, D. (1990). Our Common Seas: Coasts in Cri-sis. Don Hinrichsen Earthscan Publications, London

McManus, J.W., C. van Zwol, L.R. Garces and D. Sadacha-ran, Editors. (1998). A Framework for Future Training in Marine and Coastal Protected Area Management. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 57, 54 p.

Muñoz, J.C. and C. G. Capistrano, C.G. (2013). Broad-Based Coastal Management Training Program: Capac-ity Building Towards a Responsive Coastal Resource Management. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Re-sources. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?re-cordID=PH2004000975

Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) (2010). Capacity Development Initiatives in the East Asian Seas Region: A PEMSEA Report. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_as-sembly/contributions_2010/PEMSEA.pdf

PEMSEA (2018) SDS-SEA Implementation Plan 2018-2022. http://pemsea.org/publications/reports/sds-sea-implementation-plan-2018-2022

Shujog and PEMSEA. (2015). Investment Landscape Mapping in East Asia: Integrated Coastal Management and Sustainable Development of Coasts and Oceans. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines. 77 p.

SOC. (2018). State of Oceans and Coasts Report 2018. Blue Economy Growth in the East Asian Seas Region. 20 p.

Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA) Implementation Plan 2018-2022 http://pemsea.org/sites/default/files/PEMSEA_SDS-SEA_IP_2018-2022_(20181018).pdf

UNDP. (2012). Catalysing Ocean Finance. Volume 1. Transforming Markets to Restore and Protect the Global Ocean. 54 p.

UNDP. (2018). What Works in Water and Ocean Gov-ernance. Impact Stories from the UNDP Water and Ocean Governance Programme. 111 p.

White, A.T. (2016). Ocean governance initiatives in the East Asian Seas – Lessons and recommendations. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusam-menarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. 74 p.

DRAFT

67

DRAFT

68

DRAFT

69

Chapter 9

Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Japan9.1. Overview of ICZM in Japan

Maritime Zones Claimed

Japan is a relatively small island country located off the east coast of Asia with a total land area

of 377,835 km2. The area covered by its territorial sea and internal waters is about 430,000 km2, its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) covers some 4,050,000 km2, and the length of its coastlines is approximately 35,000 km. The population of Japan is estimated at 126,451,398 as of July 2017 (Central Intelligence Agency, 2017). Coastal cities and communities occupy around 30 per cent of the land area, and about half of the population lives in coastal cities and communities (Terashima and Hayashi, 2015).

Significance of the Oceans to the Nation

Surrounded completely by oceans, Japan has depended heavily on the oceans for food, trans-portation, industry, recreation, trade, and the exchange of people and cultures for many centu-ries. The seas around Japan consist of three large marine ecosystems, the Kuroshio and Oyashio currents, and the Sea of Japan, which are rich in fauna and flora, with some 3,100 species of fish and 5,500 species of algae having been identified. About 40% of the animal protein intake of the Japanese is provided by fish and fishery products (Terashima and Hayashi, 2015).

Ocean and Coastal Use and Conflicts

Extensive development of Japan’s coastal areas started in the 1960s, when its economy began to expand rapidly. Many industrial facilities – par-ticularly large-scale petrochemical processing complexes and accompanying infrastructure – were built along the coasts and on reclaimed land areas. Inevitably, this, together with the increas-ing concentration of the population in coastal cities, has caused serious environmental damage in the coastal zones, as well as tragic human suffering, e.g., the outbreak of Minamata disease. Another notable development is the construction of seawalls and other artificial improvements of

the coastline against typhoons, tsunami, and high tides. As a result, natural beaches have disap-peared, causing the loss of mudflats, seagrass beds, shallows and related ecosystems vital in preserving marine and coastal biodiversity. Public access to beaches, natural beauty, and other amenities has also been reduced. Approximately 34 per cent of Japan’s shoreline has been trans-formed for ports, harbors, and other development purposes. Only about 53 per cent remains as natural sandy and rocky shores. These and other developments have led to a number of conflicts and disputes among such key stakeholders as in-dustrial and land developers, construction compa-nies, fishermen and fishery cooperatives, ship-ping companies, conservationists, and recreation seekers, as well as government authorities. Other players include the Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) and active local governments. Several disputes have ended up in courts (Terashima and Hayashi, 2015).

Integrated Coastal Management in Japan: Brief History and Current Initiatives

Until the middle of the Tokugawa shogunate, rules governing the exploitation of the oceans were customarily formulated independently in different parts of the country. The first uniform nation-wide regulations affecting the fishing industry are to be found in “The Regulations of Tokugawa in a Nutshell” (Ritsuryo Yoryaku), published by the Tokugawa government in 1741.

Figure 9.1. Exclusive Economic Zone of Japan

DRAFT

70

The Ritsuryo Yoryaku codified the customary rules which had prevailed in fishing villages all around Japan, and consisted of three fundamen-tal principles, upon which the feudal fisheries systems under the Tokugawa was developed, and important elements of which are still vital to the present system in Japan (Fuse, 1994).

i. The distinction between Urakata (fishing village) and Jikata (farming village). Only Urakata was allowed the exclusive right to engage in fishing while the Jikata was obliged to devote himself exclusively to agriculture, which was considered the most important industry at that time. The same distinction led to the organization of Nokyo (agricultural cooperatives) in farming villages, and Gyokyo (fishermen’s cooperatives) in fishing villages.

ii. The distinction between Iso (inshore ar-eas) and Okiai (off-shore) fishing grounds. Iso (inshore areas) are excursively used by Urakata, and Okiai (off-shore) areas, as be-yond local jurisdiction, should be open areas accessible to other fishermen by shared basis. From this practice, a unique Japanese legal concept of fishing rights called Gyogyo Ken developed.

iii.The principle of achievement. Rights and privileges granted referred expressly to the ac-tual practice of fishing, on actual fishing catch-es spread throughout almost all fishing villages. Accordingly, the peaceful settlement of dis-putes among fishermen became a significant mechanism of the principle of achievement, and remains so even under contemporary fishing policies. This principle is still applied mutatis mutandis even under the terms of the existing Fisheries Act of 1947.

The underlying framework on which modern fishery policies are based, with respect to the fishing industry and the conservation of fish re-sources, can be traced to the Ritsuryo Yoryaku. They were mostly confirmed in the Fishery Act of 1901, following the Meiji Restoration of 1868, when Japan opened her doors to the world. Thus, it can be said, that modern Japanese ocean pol-icies emanate ultimately from customary rules formed in the course of long historical practice (Fuse, 1994).

Japan has a long history of coastal-related works

and relevant management practices as summa-rized in Table 9.1. The first ever recorded coastal work dates back to the 12th century when Ki-yomori Taira, a war lord of the Heiann Period, conducted large-scale land reclamation for port development on the coast of Hakata Bay, Fukuo-ka, and the coast of Kobe (Yasui and Yabunaka, 2002). Since then, many land reclamation works have taken place, converting lowland areas into farmlands used for rice cultivation throughout the Japanese coast, especially during the Edo Period betweenthe1600s and 1800s. This trend continued until the end of the Second World War (WWII) (Kojima, Kubo, and Kinoshita, 2013).

After WWII, Japan’s most immediate task fo-cused on the recovery of the Japanese economic and social systems, and the reconstruction of devastated infrastructures. The Comprehensive National Land Development Act, established in 1950, provided a foundation for national and regional plans that portrayed a vision of postwar development of Japan’s national territory. As far as the coastal zones are concerned, reconstruction of damaged port facilities and land reclamation for industrial development were immediate proj-ects and were undertaken by the administrative government agencies, such as the former Minis-try of Transportation, Ministry of Construction, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, and so forth, based on sectoral laws such as the Har-bor Act, Fishing Port Act, and the Public Water-front Landfill Act. During the same period, Japan suffered severe coastal disasters caused by several huge typhoons and destructive tsunamis. Thou-sands of lives were lost. These tragedies gave rise to the enactment of the Coastal Act of 1953. Although it was not drafted from the viewpoint of integrated management of the coastal zone and the single objective was prevention of coastal di-sasters, the Coastal Act was considered as Japan’s first formal coastal zone management scheme since prevention of disasters has remained the primary focus of Japanese coastal zone manage-ment until the current period (Isobe 1998 as cit-ed in Kojima, Kubo and Kinoshita 2013) (Kojima, Kubo, and Kinoshita, 2013).

The so-called sectoral management of coastal zones in Japan, in fact, has worked remarkably to serve specific purposes of marine transportation

DRAFT

71

and fisheries; preservation of natural beaches and construction of artificial beaches; land reclama-tion and artificial islands for industrial factories, power plant facilities, farming grounds, and other developments (Environmental Agency of Japan 1996; Kojima, 2000; Yasui and Yabunaka,

2002; Kojima, 2008 as cited in Kojima, Kubo, and Kinoshita (2013). However, sectoral management of coastal zones have led to its deterioration. In the late 1980s, realization of the adverse effects of the sectoral management system on the nature of the coastal zones resulted in the development

Table 9.1. History of Coastal-related Events and Coastal Management in Japan. Source: Kojima, Kubo and Kinoshi-ta (2013)

Year Events

Before WWII Construction of reclamation and polder for new rice field development Post WWII high Individual development plans economic Comprehensive National Land Development Act enacted in 1950 growth era Destructed coastal hazards by several typhoons (1945 – 1961) and Nankai (1946), Chile (1960) Tsunamis 1956 Coastal Law enacted 1973 Public Water Body Reclamation Law amended 1979 The first report of the Ocean Development Committee 1987 The fourth National Comprehensive Development Plan mentioned coastal zone 1988 Waterfront development-redevelopment and various projects Tentative guidelines for formulation of an integrated coastal zone utilization plan ~1990 Proposition by the coastal zone management committee 1993 Basic Environment Law enacted Formulation of the guideline for coastal preservation and utilization 1994 Coastal-related government agencies studied introduction of mitigation practices 1995 Proposition on long-term coastal vision 1996 The Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) enacted 1998 The 5th Comprehensive National Development Plan, “Ground Design for The 21st Century” provides formulation and promotion of an integrated coastal zone management plan 1999 Coastal Law amended to include perspective of environments and proper use of seacoasts 2000 Port Law amended to include consideration of environmental preservation in port development The National Land Agency drew up “The guideline for comprehensive management of coastal area” Japanese Association for Coastal Zone Studies made “Proposition for Sustainable Utilization and Environment Preservation of Coastal Zones” 2001 River Bureau of the MILT formed “Proposition of Coastal Management Committee” 2002 The Nippon Foundation made “Proposition on Japanese Ocean Policy in the 21st Century” 2003 PEMSEA adopted the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA) 2006 The MILT formed the “Schemes for Ocean-Coast Policy” 2007 Basic Act on Ocean policy enacted: to clarify Japan’s basic stance on ocean policy and to establish the Headquarters for Ocean Policy within the Cabinet 2008 The Cabinet approved “Basic plan on Ocean Policy”

DRAFT

72

of tentative guidelines for the formulation of an integrated coastal zone utilization plan in 1984. After the enactment of the Basic Environment Law in 1990, other coastal-related laws, such as the Port Law and Coastal Act, were amended so that preservation of the natural environments of the coastal zones should be taken into consider-ation in the planning and implementation of any coastal works related to port development and coastal hazard protection. In 2000, the former National Land Agency (presently the National and Regional Planning Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism) issued “the Guidelines for Comprehensive Man-agement of Coastal Zones,” which was drawn up as complementing document to “the 5th Compre-hensive National Development Plan,” endorsed by the Cabinet in 1998. It contains well-written guidelines based on internationally recognized common concepts and methods (Cicin-Sain et al., 1996; Kojima et al., 1999 as cited in Kojima, Kubo and Kinoshita 2013), which emphasized:

• Prioritization of biological resources over non-biological ones, also of nonexclusive and renewable uses over exclusive and nonrenew-able uses;

• Need for public management of marine and coastal resources and the resolution of conflicts between multiple stakeholders on a public and equitable basis;

• Participation of the local communities and stakeholders; and

• International cooperation to resolve trans-boundary issues (Mimura 2008 as cited in Kojima, Kubo and Kinoshita 2013).

Japan entered into a starting phase of ICM prac-tice in April 2007 through the enactment of the Basic Act on Ocean Policy, which stipulated the application of the ICZM approach in Article 25. It was the first time that the stipulation with cross-sectoral comprehensive ocean management has appeared in a Japanese statute act. The Basic Act on Ocean Policy aims to “contribute to the sound development of the economy and society of our State and to improve the stability of the lives of citizenry as well as to contribute to the coexistence of the oceans and mankind”. The Basic Act on Ocean Policy states the following six basic principles:

i. Harmonization of the development and use of the sea with the preservation of the marine environment;

ii. Securing the safety and security of the sea;

iii. Enhancement of scientific knowledge of the sea;

iv. Sound development of marine industries;

v. Comprehensive governance of the sea; and

vi. International partnership with regard to the sea (Terashima and Hayashi, 2015).

Among other sites, ICM is currently being im-plemented in seven model sites in Japan within the framework of the Partnerships in Environ-mental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA): Shima City, Mie Prefecture; Miyako City, Iwate Prefecture; Bizen City, Okayama Pre-fecture; Obama City, Fukui Prefecture; Otsuki Town/Sukumo City, Kochi Prefecture; Taketomi Town, Okinawa Prefecture; and Oomura Bay, Nagasaki Prefecture (OPRI, 2018).

The Munakata coastal area, characterized by its aesthetic landscapes, is another site in Japan where the development of local ICM is being promoted through the formulation of an ICM pro-gram and the implementation of two primary ac-tivities on resource use conflicts related to coastal tourism and recreational use (Kojima, Kubo, and Kinoshita, 2013).


In Japan, it was realized during the 1990s that some marine and coastal problems may have been due to sectoral management and the call for vertically and horizontally integrated coastal management has become more common (Nation-al Land Agency, 1998; Research Committee on Integrated Coastal Management, 2003). “Vertical integration” is taken to mean coordination and necessary integration of policies and measures among national and local governments while “horizontal integration” signifies coordination and necessary integration of policies and measures among different sectors, such as fisheries, mari-time industries, environmental NGOs, academics, and government officials. The marine and coastal problems mentioned above include unexpected beach erosion and sediment deposit due to insuf-ficient coordination between fisheries and sea-

DRAFT

73

coast protection authorities, lack of nutrients in the sea because strict regulation has only focused on water quality without due consideration of the entire ecosystem and coastal area nutrient cycling (Uda 2006 and Ministry of the Environment 2011 as cited in Wakita 2014).

Decisions are usually arrived at in Japan by con-sensus. Accordingly, the decision-making process in this country, even at the national level, is exact-ly a matter of achieving consensus among inter-ested parties. The three leading actors at national level whose views have to be reconciled are politi-cians, bureaucrats, and specific interest groups, es-pecially businessmen. These three leading actors are, in principle, independent of each other, but they are in fact closely interrelated.

The principal ministries and agencies relevant to ocean and coastal areas in Japan are:

• the Ministry of Defense;

• the Ministry of Public Management, Home Af-fairs, Post and Telecommunications;

• the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

• the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sci-ence and Technology (MEXT);

• the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fish-eries, including the Fisheries Agency;

• the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, including the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy;

• the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, including the Japan Coast Guard, the Meteorological Agency, and the Geographi-cal Survey Institute; and

• the Ministry of the Environment (Terashima and Hayashi, 2015).

Contemporary approaches to ocean and coastal policy-making originated from the top, i.e., pre-scriptions emanating from global agreements such as the integrated and ecosystem-based man-agement approaches, as well as from the bottom, e.g., the saotumi approach, which is essentially a community-based approach (See Box 9.1).

In a Japanese framework of coastal management, responsibilities for coastal management are del-egated to various agencies at the national, pre-fectural and municipal levels (Figure 9.2, Figure 9.3). For example, around half of the coastal areas designated by the Seacoast Act as extending 50 meters from each side of the Low Water Level

Box 9.1. Ecosystem-based and Community-based Management: The Satoumi Approach

Satoumi is defined as marine and coastal landscapes that have been formed and maintained by prolonged interaction between humans and ecosystems (Matsuda, 2010). Japanese satoumis are human-influenced coastal seas that are both productive and rich in biodiversity. Satoumi has gained interest within and outside Japan as a field-tested approach to reconcile sustainable ecosys-tem use and conservation of biodiversity. A great variety of active conservation measures that do not rely on the exclusion of human influence to manage biodiversity are being assessed. Some are centuries-old, such as river basin forestry, some more recent such as seagrass transplants or artifi-cial tidal flats. The involvement of local communities and the voluntary contribution of signifi-cant labor by ecosystem users, mostly fishers are essential to their success (community-based approach). These contributions from fishers’ communities are an internalization of the costs of conservation by the economic activity that benefits from it, based on collective ownership of ter-ritorial use-rights, strong local collective structures that enforce the community’s interest, and the availability of active conservation measures as options to contribute to biodiversity management through manual work in the ecosystem (Berque and Matsuda, 2013).

There are other applications of the EBM approach to coastal management in Japan such as the fishers-based watershed management from the viewpoint of sustainable fish production in lagoon fisheries and coastal habitat restoration in urban areas. Among the means to ensure success in restoring habitats in an urban area are: use of a sound ecosystem-based approach to guide the se-lection of restoration sites and the application of appropriate engineering and management meth-

DRAFT

74

COASTLINEHigh Water Level Low Water Level

Majority of shipping portsand harbors:managed by prefecturalPorts and Harbors Bureaus

Most small �shing ports:managed by municipality

Around half of coastal areas:managed by prefectural River Bureaus

Second-class river: managed by prefectural River Bureau

First-class river: managed by Minister of MLIT

50m50m

National Level Cabinet

Governor

Mayor

Headquarters for Ocean Policy

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,Transport & Tourism

National Land Agency Fisheries Agency

Ports and HarborsBureau

EnvironmentalBureau

Fisheries BureauRiver BureauBureaus

Ministries

Agencies

Ministry of Agriculture,Forestry & Fisheries

Prefectural Level

Municipal Level

--

-- --

--

Ports and HarborsBureau

EnvironmentalBureau

Fisheries BureauRiver BureauBureaus --

Figure 9.2. Responsibilities for Coastal Management in Japan

Figure 9.3 Japanese Government Framework Related to ICM

DRAFT

75

(LWL) and High Water Level (HWL) are managed by prefectural River Bureaus (Wakita, 2014).

The majority of shipping ports and harbors are managed by the Ports and Harbors Bureaus of the prefectures in which they are located (Ports and Harbors Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,

Transport and Tourism (MLIT), 2011), and most fishing ports are managed by municipalities (Fish-eries Agency, 2011). Riverine systems important for national land conservation or the national economy are designated as first-class rivers by the MLIT and are managed at the national level by MLIT. Rivers of less importance to the public in-terest are designated as second-class rivers by gov-ernors and are managed by prefectures. Smaller rivers and streams are managed by municipalities (Wakita, 2014).

To strengthen the sectoral management of coasts and rivers, Integrated Coastal Management has been applied in Japan. For example, since 1973, the Special Act has been enacted in the Seto-In-land Sea, and the multi-layered management of national, prefectural and bay wide council has been implemented. Since 2002, the Special Act for Ariake-Yatsushiro Sea has been enacted, and the integrated research and assessment committee has been formed for various issues for coastal environ-ment restoration measures. The Bay renaissance project led by the cabinet office, ministries and

local governments have been started since 2003 in the Tokyo Bay, Osaka Bay, Ise Bay and Hiroshima Bay. Each bay has established a bay renaissance committee and developed bay restoration plan. Furthermore, local governments and stakeholders have started their local model sites for ICM imple-mentation with support from NGOs, ministries and researchers.

The Basic Act on Ocean Policy, in its chapter on General Provisions, provides six basic principles, and the responsibilities of national and local public bodies, industries, and the general public (Terashima, 2012). Integrated ocean and coastal management is listed among the basic principles of the Policy, which always emphasized ICM im-plementation in its 2008, 2013, and 2018 versions. Furthermore, the revision of the basic plan of Seto-Inland Sea based on the Special Act has been decided in the Cabinet in 2015, and ICM concept and implementation was enrolled in gulf’s plans and prefectural plans accordingly.


In a study that assessed the extent to which six conditions of effective implementation of Japan’s ICM Guideline were met, financial resources was rated low because no funding support for local governments in developing and implementing ICM plans was provided (Wakita and Yagi, 2013).

Figure 9.4. ICM Projects in Japan

DRAFT

76

Although ICM implementation is not expressly supported by governments, there are several subsidies given by MLIT, MAF and MOE. It is now listed in a guide book, and each ministry is trying to set “one stop service” windows for applicants.

Furthermore, local governments are exerting significant efforts to secure the financial sustain-ability of their ICM initiatives. In the Mie prefec-ture, Shima city had established the “satoumi 11” implementation section in their city office to implement ICM, with official budget allocation for implementation. This section has since been reorganized as the implementation section for the Sustainable Development Goals. Another example comes from the Bizen city, Okayama prefecture, which established a promotion council for brand-ing “satoumi” and “satoyama” as ICM, financed by “furusato” tax payment12. The promotion council is being restructured as a self-funded pri-vate organization.


Population decline is a very serious problem faced by local governments in Japan since the decline in the number of tax payers decline result in the reduction of budget, human resources and activities in local governments. The situation requires more efficient use of budget and human resources and the involvement of stakeholders, which could be achieved, inter alia, by capacity development of government officers and increas-ing education and awareness of stakeholders, respectively.

The cabinet office has revised the Integrated Strategies for Cities-People-Business Creation in 2018 to promote the strategies and provide support for the needed information base, human, financial and other resources, as well as capacity development and public education programs.

In the Basic Act on Ocean Policy, “Enhancement of Citizen’s Understanding of the Oceans” is listed as one of the twelve basic measures. How-ever, neither the ocean nor the coast is taught in schools as an independent curriculum as yet. Some organizations are currently supporting the

11 The idea for enhancing productivity and bio-diversity in targeted coastal area by proactive interaction of human and ecosystem.12 The system for paying tax to selected local government determined by each tax payer. The payment is deducted from their hometown tax.

implementation of ocean education13 which is also facing the lack of teachers/ faculty able to teach these subjects.

In the second phase of the Tokyo Bay Renaissance Project (targeted in 2013-2024), a Public-Private Partnership Forum has been established to pro-mote public relations and participation in the project. A typical Forum public awareness activity is the conduct of the “Tokyo Bay Festival,” which has been held annually, with the last festival held in October 2018 at Yokohama gathering105,000 people in three days.

9.5. Other Considerations for Improving Efficiency and Effective-ness in ICZM

Role of Science

Science has played a major role in the country’s trajectory of economic development after WWII, particularly in technology development. Science was also a major driving force in Japan’s ocean governance upon the recognition that economic development has wrought major damage on the marine environment and its resources. It is among the measures emphasized in the first and second Basic Plan on Ocean Policy. In the first Basic Plan, two of the twelve measures pertain to science (the promotion of scientific research and survey; the promotion of research and development in ocean science and technology). In the second Ba-sic Plan, science features among the six measures that set out the basic directions of policy mea-sures (the promotion of scientific research, and the integration of maritime information and facil-itation of public access thereto) and in the policy measures that the government should implement (e.g., the promotion of research and development in ocean science and technology, particularly for responding to the policy needs of prediction of, and adaptation to, global warming and climate change, the exploitation of ocean energy and mineral resources, the conservation of marine ecosystem and sustainable development of living resources, the development of renewable ocean energy, and responses to natural disasters).

Science also plays an important role in promoting satoumi recognition and implementation. Faced

13 The Nippon Foundation, Ocean Alliance of the University of Tokyo, and the Ocean Policy Research Institute of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation have been operating the “Pioneer School Program” to promote individual school and regional activities on ocean education since 2016.

DRAFT

77

with ecosystem degradation and ebbing marine re-sources, the Ago Bay community, for example, has embraced a successful satoumi approach to revive scientific understanding of the Bay that promotes economic and ecosystem sustainability (Kokubu and Matsuda, 2012).

Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Prior to the formulation of 2030 Agenda, Japan had already started implementing measures in an integrated manner to build a sustainable society through environmental, economic and social im-provements. It also has embarked on creating an inclusive and participatory society in which every individual can achieve his or her full potential. In line with this ideal, Japan has forged ahead by reforming its relevant systems. As well, Japan has set Human Security as the guiding principle that underpins its assistance and placed issues such as health, disaster risk reduction and gender equality, which are listed in the SDGs as major challenges to be addressed, at the core of its international co-operation (SDGs Promotion Headquarters, 2017).

Japan has identified eight priority areas among the goals and targets of the SDGs on which Japan should focus, which includes Priority Area 6 on Conservation of Environment, including Biodi-versity, Forests and the Oceans (related SDGs: 2, 3, 14, 15). To achieve these goals and targets, the Government of Japan established the SDGs Pro-motion Headquarters, a new Cabinet body headed by the Prime Minister and comprising all minis-ters on May 20, 2016 to foster close cooperation among relevant governmental agencies and lead the comprehensive and effective implementation of related measures. The Government also formu-lated the SDGs Implementation Guiding Principles which was adopted as a national strategy to im-plement the 2030 Agenda on December 22, 2016 (SDGs Promotion Headquarters, 2017).

Under Priority Area 6, Japan aims to promote sustainable ocean and marine and land resources use. Japan aims to improve ecosystem services provided by the natural environment such as forests, countryside, rivers, and seas in addition to promoting biodiversity conservation, which it considers as the foundation of its society and economy (SGDs Promotion Headquarters, 2017).

Lessons learned

The lack of a scheme that would provide nation-al subsidies to local governments after approval of their ICM plans by the national government, the unviable districting of coastal areas which leads to the loss in status of single administra-tive boundary local governments, existence of Seacoast Conservation Plan initiatives which are somewhat similar or overlapping with ICM plans, and the diminished position of the coordinating national agency are identified as major factors hindering the implementation of the Guideline for ICM Plans (Wakita and Yagi, 2013).

Gradual changes have been observed throughout the recent revisions of the Basic Plan on Ocean Policy (2018), the Basic Plan on Seto Inland Sea (2018), and Action Plans for Bay Renaissance (2013). The more participation and inclusion of stakeholders are realized, and the more com-prehensive planning and project execution are targeted in line with achievement of the SDGs.

Science is also recognized as a mainspring of Japan’s ocean governance upon realization that economic development has caused major damage on the marine environment and its resources, and plays an important role in ecosystem-based man-agement especially in the satoumi concepts.

ICM is a system for the achievement of sustain-able development of the local cities and towns. In this system, ownership by multi-stakeholders is key to successful implementation, since local governments are facing serious problems asso-ciated with population decline. Private sector involvement in a multi-stakeholder ICM process is especially important. The satoumi concepts are attractive to fishermen and local residents. To promote its adoption among private companies and industries, utilizing the Blue Economy con-cept (World Bank, 2017) as a demonstration of the satoumi concept can be a potential solution (OPRI, 2018).

References

Berque, J. and Matsuda, O. (2013). Coastal Biodiversi-ty Management in Japanese Satoumi. Marine Policy 39(2013):191–200.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2017). The World Fact-book. Japan. https://www.cia.gov/library/publica-tions/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html

DRAFT

78

Furukawa, K. (2013). Case Studies for Urban Wetlands Restoration and Management in Japan. Ocean & Coastal Management 81:97-102.

Fuse, T. (1994). Some Observations on Mechanisms for Decision-Making and the Execution of an Integrated Ocean Policy in Japan. In P. Bautista Payoyo (Ed.) Ocean Governance: Sustainable Development of the Seas. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu15oe/uu15oe0f.htm#some%20observations%20on%20mechanisms%20for%20decision%20making%20and%20the%20execution%20of%20an%20inte

Kojima, H., T. Kubo, and A. Kinoshita. (2013). Integrated Coastal Management as a Tool for Local Governance of Coastal Resources: A Case Study of Munakata Coastal Zone. Ocean & Coastal Management 81:66-76.

Kokubu, H. and O. Matsuda. (2012). Satoumi in Ago Bay: Embracing Integrated Coastal Management. Our World/UNU (2012-07-27). https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/satoumi-in-ago-bay-embracing-integrated-coast-al-management

Ocean Policy Research Institute (OPRI), 2018. Guide-book for Coastal Community Based Management – for implementation of Blue Economy -, ISBN978-4-88404-353-7 (in Japanese).

SDGs Promotion Headquarters. (2017). Japan’s Voluntary National Review Report on the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. https://sustainablede-velopment.un.org/content/documents/16445Japan.pdf

Terashima, H. (2012). Japan’s Ocean Policymaking. Coastal Management 40(2):172-182.

Terashima, H. and M. Hayashi. (2015). Development of National Ocean Policy in Japan, pp. 352-363. In B. Cicin-Sain, D. VanderZwaag and M.C. Balgos (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of National and Regional Ocean Policies.

Wakita, K. (2014). A Study on the Influences of Human Utility on Marine and Coastal Management in Japan. https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/?page_id=41&lan-guage=eng

Wakita, K. and N. Yagi. (2013). Evaluating Integrated Coastal Management Planning Policy in Japan: Why the Guideline 2000 Has Not Been Implemented. Ocean &

DRAFT

79

DRAFT

80

Section 3.

Summary and Conclusions

DRAFT

81

Chapter 10. Summary and Conclusions: Some Relevant Lessons from International ICZM Experiences for Further ICZM Development in India10.1. Introduction

ICZM is a dynamic process which aims to pro-mote the sustainable management and use of coastal and ocean areas and resources. The ap-proach takes into account the fragility of coastal and ocean ecosystems and aims to balance the di-versity of activities, their location, uses and users. As outlined in the international ICZM case studies in the previous chapters, the success of ICZM depends on a number of variables which include: clarity of federal-state-local linkages; capacity at different levels of government and within user groups; financial sustainability; and the linkages to ocean planning, Blue Economy and climate change. The presence or absence of political will is an over-arching variable upon which depend the transfers of capacity and financial flows to im-plement ICZM. The following sections draw out some key lessons from the ICZM case studies.

10.2. Lessons learned regarding Fed-eral/State/Local Interactions

Clear, well defined, and predictable division of authority among federal, state, and local gov-ernments is an essential ingredient in the suc-cess or lack thereof for ICZM programs. In this section, we highlight examples of both successes and problem situations in delineating federal/state/local interactions.

Inadequacy of Policy and Legal Framework Hinders Implementation of ICM—Mexico

Quesada et al. (2018) note that Mexico currently faces obstacles in implementing ICM practic-es, due to the lack of adequate legal and policy frameworks. This leads to a serious challenge in enforcing existing ICM laws and policies. The authors recommend a stronger political empha-

sis on implementing a robust policy and legal framework for ICM as well as maintaining strong enforcement measures.

Absence of Political Will – South Africa

In South Africa, Sowman and Malan, (2018) note that the lack of political will is a major reason for the failures of the ICM Act. They emphasize, in particular, the failure to appoint a National Coastal Committee, thereby hindering collabora-tion among government agencies and preventing agencies from making significant progress in ICM implementation. Sowman and Malan (2018) attribute part of the political apathy on ICZM to the much stronger emphasis on economic devel-opment along the coast.

Achieving Effective State/Federal Coopera-tion on ICZM – United States

In the United States, the 1972 Coastal Zone Man-agement Act (CZMA) has motivated coastal states to fully participate in the national CZM program with two incentives–shared and delegated au-thority and substantial funding for CZM planning and implementation. Sections 305 and 306 of the CZMA provided to each of the 35 coastal, Great Lake and US Territories multi-year funding to support a comprehensive planning process in each state that resulted in a set of coastal policies backed by enforceable regulations that addressed the national goals set out in the CZMA but which were tailored to each state’s particular coastal resources, institutional and governance arrange-ments and other variations. An even more pow-erful incentive was provided in Section 307, the Federal Consistency provision, by which after a State CZM Program is approved by both that State and the Federal government, all future federal ac-tivities (defined very broadly) are to be reviewed by the State CZM Program to assure consistency with the policies and goals of the approved CZM program. This unique delegation of power to create legally binding “states’ rights” has provided a productive framework for early coordination and successful negotiation of solutions to federal/state conflicts in the vast majority of decisions ever since.

Bottom-up Approaches–East Asia

In East Asia, policy-making at the national level has been strongly influenced by ICZM develop-ments at the local level. In China, an integrated

DRAFT

82

functional ocean zoning scheme was adopted and enacted the Xiamen Marine Use Regulation, which formed the backbone of integrated man-agement that addressed multiple-use conflicts. Regulatory instruments addressed common prop-erty rights issues. The City Government used eco-nomic instruments to regulate the type and level of sea use, thereby resolving several outstanding use conflicts and effectively reversing the trend of environmental degradation. The approach was adopted through national legislation in China in 2002. In the Philippines, learning and scaling up from the experiences of Batangas Bay, Manila Bay, and several other initiatives, the ICM approach has been adopted as a national policy by execu-tive order (Bernad and Chua 2015).

Two-track Approach in Policy Making – Japan

Contemporary approaches to ocean and coastal policy-making originate from the top, i.e., pre-scriptions emanating from global agreements such as the integrated and ecosystem-based man-agement approaches, as well as from the bottom, e.g., the saotumi approach, which is essentially a community-based approach.

Need for Greater Participation in ICM – Brazil

In Brazil, there is a need for a more clearly de-lineated hierarchical structure and legal basis for ICM from the federal to local level (Asmus et al. 2015; Azevedo and Soutoa 2015). The authors discuss the previous top-down approach and emphasize the need for greater participation in policymaking, especially in the identification and analysis of major issues and problems, provid-ing opportunities for all stakeholders to identify strategic actions. The authors emphasize the need for: (i) improvement of the quality of life of coastal populations that depend on coastal resources; and (ii) greater inclusion of interna-tional principles, including integrated approach, intra- and inter-generational equity, participatory governance, and stewardship.

Asmus et al (2015) also discuss the priorities of integration of ICZM and marine spatial planning (MSP); delimitation of the coastal zone; insti-tutional coordination and cooperation within ICZM; improvement of the knowledge base about coastal and marine resources; and a risk

management approach.

Periodic Review and the Desirability of Reporting on the State of the Coast and Ocean

Various governmental and independent review efforts have been carried out to assess the imple-mentation of the 1996 Oceans Act. A Report on the Oceans Act conducted by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada in 2005 (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2005) concluded that the Act was sound but had not been implemented effectively and put forth twelve recommenda-tions, including the need for a performance-based reporting system and reporting to Parliament on an annual basis. A further recommendation included the preparation of a ‘state of the ocean’ report to track ocean health, ocean communities, and ocean industry. The Report concluded that implementing the Oceans Act and subsequent oceans strategy had not been a government priority, that after eight years, the promise of the Oceans Act remained unfulfilled, and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada had fallen far short of meeting its commitments and targets, having finalized no integrated man-agement plans and designating only two marine protected areas. Furthermore, the Report found that the new Oceans Action Plan provided the government’s framework for sustainably devel-oping and managing Canada’s oceans, but that it did not address all the barriers to implementing a national oceans strategy. These included the need for strong leadership and co-ordination over the long term, adequate funding, and an account-ability framework with appropriate performance measures and reporting requirements.

10.3. Lessons Learned Regarding Financial Sustainability

As discussed in the Report, stable financing is a sine qua non for the success of ICZM. In the Report we have seen many shifts and “up and down” funding cycles, which leave ICZM pro-grams without appropriate support for imple-mentation. In this section, we note good exam-ples of sustainable financing as well as some problem situations.

Sustainable Implementation Funding – United States

The annual federal appropriation for “core”

DRAFT

83

funding for coastal management is distributed to the eligible state coastal management programs by the NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Manage-ment (OCRM) using a formula based primarily on length of shoreline and coastal population as per CZM regulations 16 U.S.C. S 1455 CZM Adminis-trative Grants (Section 306). The precise formula is closely maintained and guarded by NOAA; but the key language from the regulation is: (c) Allocation of grants to coastal states. Grants under this section shall be allocated to coastal states with approved programs based on rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary which shall take into account the extent and nature of the shoreline and area covered by the program, population of the area, and other rel-evant factors. The Secretary shall establish, after consulting with the coastal states, maximum and minimum grants for any fiscal year to pro-mote equity between coastal states and effective coastal management.

In to the base or core annual funding, another section of the CZMA provides additional funds for innovative projects that would enhance existing programs. The regulations for these more “com-petitive” grants is found in 16 U.S.C. S 14566 CZM Enhancement Grants (S 309). Key language for

this version of “competitive federalism” is found in Section (c) Evaluation of State proposals by Secretary The Secretary shall evaluate and rank State proposals for funding under this section, and make funding awards based on those proposals, taking into account the criteria es-tablished by the Secretary under subsection (d) of this section. The Secretary shall ensure that funding decisions under this section take into consideration the fiscal and technical needs of proposing States and the overall merit of each proposal in terms of benefits to the public. This funding is now referred to as funding for Projects of Special Merit.

The annual federal funding for Section 306 Ad-ministrative Grants has averaged around $70 mil-lion in recent years with individual state grants averaging $2 million annually. Coastal states are required to provide an equal money amount in matching funds. NOAA has also established min-imum and maximum levels which help provide a degree of certainty and equity. Additional funding via Section 309 varies annually depending on the federal budget for that year.

Figure 10.1. The PPP Process Followed in PEMSEA Sites

Technical and economic viability

Identifying investment opportunities

Technologies and services Environmental financing

Willingness to pay

Pre-feasibility studies

Concensus Building

Packaging, promoting, and networking

Partnership building/ MOA signing

Defining mechanisms to catalyze, promote and

advance environmental investments

Roundtable meetings with investors, partners, and

stakeholders

PPP process Development and implementation of PPP projects in PEMSEA sites

Institutional partnership arrangements

Developing and adapting a business plan

DRAFT

84

Budgetary Shifts in Supporting ICOM – Canada

Funding support for the implementation of the Oceans Act of 1996 has been subject to “up and down” cycles since the late 1990s, with very little funding available during certain periods. In the current period, the situation has changed dra-matically with much enhanced funding support. In 2015, the election of a liberal federal govern-ment pledged to renew Canada’s commitment to ICOM and in 2016 the Oceans Protection Plan was launched with funding of CAN$1.5 billion over five years to address four main priority areas: ma-rine safety; marine ecosystems and habitat protec-tion and restoration, especially in Canada’s Arctic; partnerships and co-management with Indigenous communities; and oil spill cleanup research and methods to ensure evidence-based emergency response. This is the single biggest federal invest-ment in ICOM in Canadian history.

Sustainable Financing: Public-private Part-nerships (PPP) – East Asia

A sustainable financing mechanism was included in PEMSEA’s governance framework for an ICM system, to provide sustained funding for man-agement interventions and maintenance of envi-ronmental improvement infrastructure (Cardinal 2018). The financing mechanism involves the identification and selection of appropriate options for developing sustainable financing mechanisms including regular government budget allocation, user fees, and taxes. PPPs were successfully implemented in Xiamen, China, and in Batangas, Philippines. Figure 11.1 outlines PPP process ad-opted by PEMSEA (Cardinal 2018).

Regional Partnership Fund – East Asia

In East Asia, the Regional Partnership Fund (RPF) is a trust fund built up from donor con-tributions and other income arising from the sale of publications, software and services from Technical Services. The Fund is used for spe-cific activities toward attaining the goals and objectives of PEMSEA.

Inadequacy of Funding Hinders ICZM Implementation – South Africa

South Africa’s 2014 National Coastal Management Program prepared by the Department of Environ-mental Affairs, notes the inadequacy of funding

for implementation. It recommends emphasizing the potential benefits of effective coastal manage-ment, such as poverty alleviation, job creation, and economic development to generate budget-ary support. The document also suggests promot-ing tourism as a means of financing. Sowman and Malan recommend the development of a sustain-able financing mechanism via generated taxes, levies, and rents on public coastal services (Sow-man and Malan, 2018).

Innovative Financing Mechanism--Coastal Zone Management Trust, Quintana Roo –Mexico

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) notes that the Coastal Zone Management Trust (in Quintana Roo, a top coastal tourism state in Mexico) aims to support climate resilience, demonstrating how both public and private capital can be used to preserve natural assets. The trust fund receives taxes collected by the government from local hotel owners and the tourism industry. The fund aims to continuously maintain the coral reef and local beaches and also buys an insurance policy. The reef insurance pays out when a certain wind-speed crosses the area covered by the insurance to fund the repair and rebuilding of the coral reef, restoring its protective power and hence its financial benefit to the local economy. Collective-ly, through the trust fund-purchased insurance, the local community maintains and restores an important asset from storm damage and protects its interests through risk transfer.

The trust fund also supports activities to continu-ously manage and conserve the coastal area–both before and after a storm event–-so that the reef is better able to withstand storm damage when a hurricane hits. The trust fund is governed by a technical committee and includes a scientific committee that oversees spending on conserva-tion projects, aside from the insurance premium. The TNC notes that the financial mechanisms being put into place in Mexico can be replicated across the world, in coastal economies dependent on natural features but faced with an increasing risk from storms and sea-level rise. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/docu-ments/TNC_Mexico_CoastalManagementTrust_Factsheet.pdf

DRAFT

85

10.4. Lessons Learned Regarding Capacity Development

As discussed in the Report, building of capacity in ICZM among the federal, state, and local enti-ties involved in ICZM implementation, as well as capacity among user groups and the public, is an essential ingredient of success for ICZM. Here we highlight examples of effective capacity development as well as delineate unmet capaci-ty development needs.

Organizations that Effectively Contribute to CZM Capacity Building–United States

In the broader context of coastal management in the US, there are several organizations beyond the Federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and State CZM Programs that together help build technical and staff ca-pacity on an ongoing basis. The Coastal States Organization, represents the interests of coastal states in federal matters, provides information, updates and alerts to coastal states of develop-ments at the Federal level, maintains a national network for sharing best management practices in the coastal states, and helps to identify emerg-ing issues and problems and to develop consen-sus among the coastal states on how to respond to those issues. Another independent government agency, the Coastal Services Center, provides a wide range of technical and scientific support to all coastal states including training and other capacity building activities. In addition, the Sea Grant Program, which is a consortium of uni-versity-based research entities, conducts coastal and ocean research on issues that are identified as priority problems for coastal managers. Lastly, the Coastal Society, is an informal association of coastal management practitioners, students and many others who share an interest in coast-al management and are willing to share lessons learned, mentor students, and explore new ideas in coastal management.

Information Networks that Effectively Promote Ocean and Coastal Management – Canada

Increased partnership with academia, internation-al scientific organizations, and sister agencies in other governments has helped to facilitate and de-velop tools for the application of ecosystem-based considerations of ocean and coastal issues in

Canada. This partnership has also helped to build scientific advisory peer review processes to sup-port ocean managers. In 1993, the Coastal Zone Canada Association (CZCA) was established to bring together governments, academia, industry, community and Aboriginal groups to engage in greater cross-sectoral dialogue in support of ICOM and ICZM. The CZCA organized its first Coastal Zone Canada (CZC) conference in 1994 and has held CZC conferences every two years since. The CZCA was influential in the drafting of the Oceans Act through its 1996 CZC conference and in the development of the Oceans Action Plan at its 2004 conference.

The implementation of the Oceans Act and Oceans Action Plan in Canada, sought to improve information-sharing through connecting informa-tion networks, to promote innovation and new technologies. The Ocean Management Research Network was established in 2001 to bridge the gap between natural and social sciences. In 2008, the Canadian Healthy Oceans Network a university-government partnership focused on conservation and sustainable ocean use in Canada was created. Investment in capacity and education have helped to implement integrated management and marine conservation under the Oceans Act (Mageau, VanderZwaag, Huffman and Farlinger, 2015). Under the Oceans Protection Plan, the government is investing to engage with Indigenous and coastal communities to support regional planning that ensures environmental, traditional knowledge, and cultural knowledge to identify appropriate sites of refuge.

National and Regional Initiatives to Develop Capacity in East Asia

The initiatives of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with external funding support from the United States, Canada, Australia and other donor countries as well as those by the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management provided valuable scientific foun-dations for the management of fisheries, coastal resources and the coastal environment in the region. In addition, ICZM efforts at the national and sub-national levels which were initiated by non-government and government organizations working with local government units, had strong capacity development components especially in the establishment of marine protected areas.

DRAFT

86

These initiatives altogether helped develop capac-ity for ICM in various countries in the region. In Japan, science was a major driving force in Japan’s ocean governance and is among the measures emphasized in its Basic Plan on Ocean Policy.

The Partnership for Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), facilitates information dissemination and capacity building; provides technical services for projects and pro-grams, conducts training courses, and provides technical assistance to participating countries (Bernad and Chua 2015). A highly successful activity has been the training of local government officials in ICZM in the region, and the fostering of periodic interaction among the local officials through the PEMSEA Network of Local Govern-ments.

Capacity and Resources Constraints in South Africa. In South Africa, the Department of Envi-ronmental Affairs aims to develop a National Hu-man Capacity Development program specifically focused on coastal management. The Department hopes to link academic institutions with govern-ment officials to provide “in-job training” for those in charge of managing the coastal zone. Quesada et al. (2018) specifically cited the provincial gov-ernments as lacking employees with critical ex-pertise in the field of coastal zone management. It is most likely the case that municipal governments are experiencing similar issues as provincial gov-ernments to a greater extent since local leaders tend to have fewer resources available to them.

10.5. Linkages to Ocean Planning, Blue Economy and Climate Change

Looking ahead, it will be important for ICZM programs to be systematically linked, if they are not already doing so, to efforts at ocean planning, Blue Economy, and climate change, since these activities and processes are inextricably linked to-gether. Many of the cases that we have examined already closely link coastal and ocean manage-ment (such as, for example, the United States). In other cases, the linkages have to be made more explicitly and be rooted in formal decision-mak-ing processes. In this section, we highlight recent developments and country/regional experience in this area.

Marine Spatial Planning and Links to ICZM – European Union

The most advanced experiences in Marine Spatial Planning are currently taking place in the Eu-ropean Union as a result of the adoption by the European Parliament and the Council in 2014, of Directive 2014/89 EU, establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. The Directive ap-plies to marine waters of Member States, but will not apply to coastal waters or parts thereof falling under a Member State’s town and country plan-ning. The Directive calls for the establishment of maritime spatial planning in each State, includ-ing taking into account land-sea interactions. When establishing and implementing maritime spatial planning, Member States need to consider economic, social, and environmental aspects to support sustainable development and growth in the maritime sector, applying an ecosystem-based approach, and to promote an ecosystem approach to promote the coexistence of relevant activi-ties and uses. The Directive calls for achieving coherence between maritime spatial planning and other processes such as integrated coastal management. Implementation of the Directive, in terms of the creation of Marine Spatial Plans and their submission to the EU, is expected to take place no later than March 31, 2021.

Significant information resources on Marine Spa-tial Planning are available at MSPglobal, the ini-tiative launched by UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC-UNESCO) and the European Commission to promote cross-bor-der maritime spatial planning.

Blue Economy and Linkages to ICZM

When the Blue Economy concept was first intro-duced around the time of the Rio+20 Conference in 2012, most parties had varying definitions of what the term entailed. Some believed that it de-scribed all economic activities related to marine environments, regardless of their sustainability. More recently, however, the concept of the Blue Economy has been reinforced as the confluence of maintaining the integrity and health of the ocean system and those affected by it, while also developing economic opportunities that serve to reduce poverty and promote economic growth. More specifically, the definition of a Blue Econo-my is increasingly based on a low-carbon founda-tion, meaning that industries like oil and gas are

DRAFT

87

generally not included.

In 2018, the World Bank committed more than USD 1 billion to advance the sustainable oceans and Blue Economy agenda at the Our Ocean Con-ference in Indonesia.

The first global Sustainable Blue Economy Confer-ence, organized by the Government of Kenya in November 2018, has declared that a Blue Econo-my is one that necessarily involves a commitment to sustainability and conservation. The confer-ence, held in Nairobi, Kenya from November 26-28, 2018 included over 18,000 participants from 184 countries, and focused on 9 themes: smart shipping, ports, transportation, and global con-nectivity; employment, job creation, and poverty eradication; cities, tourism, resilient coasts, and infrastructure; sustainable energy, mineral re-sources, and innovative industries; ending hun-ger, securing food supplies and promoting good health and sustainable fisheries; management and sustaining of marine life, conservation and sus-tainable economic activities; climate action, ag-riculture, waste management, and pollution-free oceans; maritime security, safety, and regulatory enforcement; and people, culture, communities, and societies. This conference, along with other conferences centered around the Blue Economy, is geared towards achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development laid out by the UN, spe-cifically SDG14 on oceans.

To date, there are no detailed analyses of the ex-tent to which established ICZM programs are also addressing Blue Economy issues, through what means, and with what funding resources. Among the countries/regions we have discussed in this Report, there are specific examples of linkages between ICZM programs and Blue Economy efforts in the United States, European Union, and East Asian Seas Region.

Climate change resilience--Action is at the State Level – United States

Climate changes are impacting virtually every sector of coastal communities and urgent action is essential. State CZM Programs are uniquely positioned to provide the needed leadership and tools to help local coastal communities prepare for and adapt to a warming climate and rising seas. Actions range from vulnerability studies and policy changes to reduce risk to improved build-

ing codes and restoring natural more resilient coastal ecosystems. At the same time, there is a growing awareness among citizens and business-es that productive coastal economies are inextri-cably linked to healthy, productive ecosystems--a concept recognized as the Blue Economy. Build-ing the Blue Economy is further motivation for taking actions to foster resilience in the face of climate change. The Coastal States Organization has documented examples of the many actions being taken by State CZM Programs for climate resilience and the Blue Economy in two reports: Advancing Critical Solutions to Protect Coastal Communities and Coastal Zone Management Programs and the Blue Economy. Both publica-tions can be obtained at: www.coastalstatesorg/csopublications/

Land-Sea Use Plans for Climate Adaptation – Mexico

The Sectoral and Regional Integration division within the Directorate General for Environmen-tal Policy has emphasized Land-Sea Use Plans (LSUPs) as a central component to sustainable management with the goals of green develop-ment and climate change adaptation. LSUPs have evolved to become: (i) a key tool for local govern-ments in addressing risk and vulnerability issues; (ii) allowing coastal communities to access re-sources necessary to prevent and alleviate coastal disasters. LSUPs involve all three levels of gov-ernment, as well as academia, NGOs, organized social groups, stakeholders, and the private sector (Alvarez-Torres et al. 2015).

10.6. Concluding Observations

In large coastal nations, such as India and the other nations we have discussed in this Report, a strong federalism system of governance plays an important role in ICZM implementation. Clear and complementary division of authority and responsibilities among federal, state, and local authorities is an essential element in ICZM imple-mentation.

Strong and complementary federalism practices will be even more essential in the near future as federal, state, and local authorities must face extraordinarily complex decisions regard the impacts of climate change on oceans, coasts, and islands. Such decisions will entail such matters as moving key infrastructure facilities (power plants,

DRAFT

88

sewage processing plants, etc.) away from the dangers of flooding in low-lying coastal areas; the spread of diseases heretofore unknown in partic-ular areas that will accompany ocean warming; ocean acidification that will significantly affect a variety of marine species and economic activities; changes in ocean currents which may drastically affect weather patterns and food production; in-creased frequency and intensity of coastal storms which will threaten lives, livelihoods, infrastruc-ture, and resources in coastal and island areas; use of the ocean for renewable energy purposes; relocation of local communities to higher eleva-tions and less risky areas.

All of these challenges will require strong feder-alism institutions—a federal government with the national vision, including issues related to nation-al security, and capability to address such issues as relocation of critical infrastructure facilities, management of large population movements, proper rebuilding of facilities, dwellings, in areas away from critical hazard areas. A strong ICZM institutional system in India and in the remain-ing 183 coastal and island nations in the world is essential to effectively address and manage such challenges.

Planned International ICZM Conference and Revision of this Report

A more detailed analysis of the relevance of possi-ble lessons from other country and regional cases to India will be prepared after the conduct of a Government of India/World Bank/Global Ocean Forum International ICZM Conference (to be held in India in June-July 2019). The conference will provide an opportunity for international ICZM experts from various countries and regions to present lessons learned, and issues and opportu-nities from their respective countries and regions and for Government of India and World Bank officials to present their vision and plans for the next phase of ICZM in India. The conference will provide an opportunity for policymakers at the national and state level in India to interact and share experiences with experts from outside the country and region. The focus of the conference will be to highlight issues and options of rele-vance to India and to contribute to the further preparation of the next ICZM program.

DRAFT

For further information, please contact Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain, Global Ocean Forum,

[email protected]

DRAFT

emphasis on federal/state/local interactions report vol 2... · 2019. 9. 18. · and former...

Documents