ICM Basics
ICM Basics
What Is Integrated Coastal Management?
What Triggers the Need for ICM?
What Are Its Guiding Principles?
What Are the Functions of ICM?
What Capacity Is Needed for ICM?
What Kinds of Institutions Carry Out ICM?
Institutions are, of course, the main actors in the coastal management process and the institutional mechanism created to harmonize the activities and programs that affect the coastal area and its resources constitutes a fundamental part of most ICM. To extent that the various levels of government perform services and operate programs each level will be made up of a number of different organizations or institutions, each specialized in a particular function or field. It is through these organizational units, consisting of staff, space, facilities, budgets, and procedures, that governments operate. One of the challenges of ICM is to fashion ways to ensure the actions of the coastal and ocean institutions at each level of government harmonized with one another and are consistent with agreed coastal goals and ties.
Complicating the situation is the fact that different institutions are generally guided by different mandates and laws, often containing different goals, objectives and policies. Agencies may also differ in outlook, type of personnel and training, and external constituencies. Hence, institutions, even if predisposed to collaborate with sister organizations, may interpret their underlying legislation as restraining or even preventing such cooperation. At least three factors tending to complicate institutional cooperation in coastal resource management could be identified (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1990):
1. Organizations in different sectors will probably have different orientations and goals. A fisheries agency's policy regarding the destruction of a wetlands will differ from that of a port or harbor authority.2. Different levels of government will probably have different goals and objectives. The national government and its organizational units, for example, may give higher priority to offshore oil and gas development than does the adjacent state or community.
3. Policy-level leaders may set different policy goals for the units that report to them. Hence, a development-oriented leader will probably set different goals from those of a conservation-oriented leader.
Hence, the challenge is to devise institutional or procedural mechanisms that can coordinate the myriad organizations and agencies often involved in coastal and ocean issues. Indeed, the proper functioning of such a mechanism is at the heart of a successful ICM process. To be effective, such a mechanism should have the following attributes:
* it must be authoritative; that is, it must have appropriate legal/legislative authority.* It must be able to affect the activities of all agencies and levels of government that have decision-making authority relative to the coastal zone.
* it must be seen as a legitimate and appropriate part of the process.
* it must be capable of making "informed" decisions; that is, it must have access to appropriate scientific and technical expertise and data.
The institutional form of the harmonization mechanism will, of course, depend upon the particular nation involved and its government traditions and philosophy. Agenda 21 calls for states to consider establishing (or strengthening) appropriate coordinating mechanisms (such as a high-level policy-planning body), at both the local and national levels, to promote integrated management and sustainable development of marine and coastal areas and to consider strengthening (or establishing) national oceanographic commissions to catalyze and coordinate the needed research. Some options for developing coordinating mechanisms include creating an interagency committee, naming a lead agency, creating a new agency, and training agency personnel to instill an integrated, in contrast to a sectoral, perspective. The following three features tend to enhance the effectiveness of the integrated coastal management process:
* the coastal management entity and process should be at a higher bureaucratic level than the sectoral agencies to give it the necessary authority to harmonize sectoral actions;* the effort should be adequately financed and staffed; and
* the planning aspect of integrated coastal management should be integrated into national development planning.
Most analysts would agree that a combination of national and provincial or local authorities is needed to carry out integrated coastal management, although analysts will vary on the extent to which they emphasize a "top-down" or a "bottom-up" approach. Local community concerns, even in centralized political systems, are always important in integrated coastal management processes, particularly with regard to inland areas and coastal lands. On the other hand, the national government's role becomes more and more important as one goes farther offshore.
Addressing Intergovernmental Issues: National- and Local-Level Involvement (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1990)
- Responsibility for the management
of coastal and ocean resources rarely falls on one level
of government. In most countries, national, provincial,
and local governments have some form of jurisdiction or
management control over coastal lands and waters.
Therefore, it is essential to reach an understanding of
the relative roles of national, provincial, and local
authorities in ICM.
- National and local governments may
sometimes be in conflict over ICM because they have
different responsibilities, legal authorities, and
priorities and respond to different constituencies. In
our cross-national survey, 41 percent of respondents
indicated that the nature of the intergovernmental
relationship (positive or negative) varied according to
the issue, whereas 20 percent of respondents reported a
competitive or "hands off" relationship. Among developing
countries, 30 percent reported that national-level
institutions had little to do with or were generally
competitive with state-and local-level institutions.
- Local government resistance to ICM
can be expected if a national governments proposal is
viewed as shifting power or authority away from the local
level, reducing the amount of discretion available to the
local government, or imposing additional costs or other
burdens on the local government without providing
commensurate benefits.
- National government resistance to
an ICM proposal that originated at the local level may be
expected if the local plan was developed in isolation
from the national level or if national concerns were
ignored.
- Each level of government, however,
brings unique expertise and perspective to the ICM
process. The local level can contribute the most detailed
understanding of the local coastal zone and its problems,
constraints and limitations that will affect the choice
of solutions, data and information on the local coastal
zone, and support of coastal user groups and the
community. The national government, in turn, can
contribute specialized data and expertise on various
sectors of coastal activity (fisheries, wetlands, etc.),
capacity to harmonize sectoral activities through a
coordinating mechanism, funding assistance (in some
cases), and ties to relevant global and regional coastal
and ocean programs.
- Fruitful intergovernmental
partnerships may be built through the following means:
(1) identification and pursuit of common interests, such
as reducing loss of life and property due to coastal
hazards, rather than focusing on questions of ownership
and control; (2) identification and use of unique
expertise, talent, and data that exist at the two levels;
(3) deferral of difficult issues, such as those involving
jurisdiction and division of management responsibilities
and revenues, until a history of working together has
been established; and (4) use of respected outside
expertise for difficult issues.
- In one model for an intergovernmental partnership in ICM, the national government, with the advice of local governments and affected stakeholders, formulates and legislates broad coastal policies and goals for the nation, and the local government develops plans an actions for their coastal zones that are consistent with and incorporate these national coastal policies. The local government then operates a regulatory system consistent with its coastal plan.