ICM Basics
ICM Basics
What Does Integrated Mean?
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?
"In general, a continuum of property ownership exists in the coastal zone, with private concerns predominant in inland areas; public interests prevailing in coastal and offshore waters; and a mixture of public and private concerns dominant in coastal lands."
Integration:
(section drawn from Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998)
"Implementing and monitoring policies, investment strategies, administrative arrangements, and harmonized standards as part of a unified program, and making adjustments, if necessary, to ensure stated objectives are being met."
(Chua, 1996:4)
Agenda 21 challenges us to think about the entire spectrum of area encompassing both the land and water sides through its call for "integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas, including Exclusive Economic Zones." It emphasizes as well the need for proper management of marine fishery resources under national control and the importance of the connection between land and sea, particularly regarding land-based sources of marine pollution.
Five main zones can be identified in the coastal-marine spectrum: inland areas, which affect the oceans mainly via rivers and nonpoint sources of pollution; coastal lands-wetlands, marshes, and the like--where human activity is concentrated and directly affects adjacent waters; coastal waters-generally estuaries, lagoons, and shallow waters--where the effects of land-based activities are dominant-, offshore waters, mainly out to the edge of national jurisdiction (200 nautical-miles offshore); and high seas, beyond the limit of national jurisdiction.
Although natural processes in these five zones tend to be highly intertwined, it is difficult to integrate management regimes across the zones because the nature of property, the nature of government interests, and the nature of government institutions tend to differ in these zones, as summarized in Figure 3. Roughly speaking, with regard to the nature of property in coastal areas, there tends to be a continuum of ownership: in inland areas, private property tends to predominate; on coastal lands, there tends to be a mix of public and private property; and in coastal and offshore waters, public property concerns are dominant. This generalization, of course, varies somewhat from country to country according to cultural conceptions of private and public property. In many South Pacific islands, for example, coastal lands and waters are often communally controlled by village-level councils of elders (see, e.g., South et al. 1994).
Figure 3. Nature of Property and
Government Interests and Institutions in Coastal and Ocean
Areas
Source: Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998), p. 44.
With regard to the nature of government interests, local or provincial interests tend to predominate in inland areas, whereas there tends to be a mix of local, provincial and national interests on coastal lands and in coastal waters. Moving farther out, ultimately to offshore waters and the high seas, national and international interests become most important. The nature of government institutions also differs in the various zones. On land, there are often well-established "multiple-purpose" government institutions at the local and provincial levels to address such questions as control of land use and conflicts among uses. On the water side, there tends to be only "single-purpose" provincial or national agencies operating, each concerned primarily with a single use of the ocean, such as fisheries operations or oil and gas extraction. Given these differences, management of the five zones may require common and complementary, yet somewhat differentiated, approaches and institutions. Thus, several dimensions of integration need to be addressed as a part of an ICM process:
1. Intersectoral integration. Integration among different sectors involves both "horizontal" integration among different coastal and marine sectors (e.g., oil and gas development, fisheries, coastal tourism, marine mammal protection, port development) and integration between coastal and marine sectors and land-based sectors that affect the coastal and ocean environment, such as agriculture, forestry, and mining. Intersectoral. integration also addresses conflicts among government agencies in different sectors.2. Intergovernmental integration, or integration among different levels of government (national, provincial, local). National, provincial, and local governments tend to play different roles, address different public needs, and have different perspectives. These differences often pose problems in achieving harmonized policy development and implementation between national and sub-national levels.
3. Spatial integration, or integration between the land and ocean sides of the coastal zone. There is a strong connection between land-based activities and what happens in the ocean involving water quality, fish productivity, and the like; similarly, all ocean activities are based or dependent on coastal land. And yet, as figure shown in 2. 1, different systems of property ownership and government administration predominate on the land and ocean sides of the coastal zone, often complicating the pursuit of consistent goals and policies.
4. Science-management integration, or integration among the different disciplines important in coastal and ocean management (the natural sciences, the social sciences, and engineering) and the management entities. Although, the sciences are essential in providing information for coastal and ocean managers, there often tends to be little ongoing communication between scientists and managers. (Here, the sciences are broadly construed to mean the natural sciences concerned with the oceans and coasts, such as oceanography, coastal processes, and fishery sciences; the social sciences, concerned with coastal human settlements and user groups as well as management processes that govern ocean and coastal activities; and coastal and ocean engineering, which focuses on all forms of coastal and ocean structures.)
5. International integration. Integration among nations is needed when nations border enclosed or semi-enclosed seas or there are international disputes over fishing activities, transboundary pollution, establishment of maritime boundaries, passage of ships, and other issues. Although in many instances, coastal and ocean management questions are within the purview of national and sub-national governments within national jurisdiction zones (200 nautical mile EEZs, extended fishery zones), in many other cases, nations face ocean and coastal management problems vis-a-vis their neighbors and thus must seek internationally negotiated solutions. Typically, the national government plays the leading role in such negotiations.
The Challenges of Integration
(section drawn from Sorensen (1997))
One of the most important lessons learned from the history of ICM is that horizontal and vertical integration is both the practice's keystone and its largest challenge. Often, either vertical or horizontal integration requires a new commitment to power sharing. Horizontal integration means that disparate functions (planning, permit letting, budgeting, development) must be coordinated. Again, this requires levels of cooperation which may be new for leaders of narrowly focused sectoral agencies. Similarly, local and regional units of government which exercise the power of land use planning and regulation have fought against vertical integration programs proposed by states or provinces and nations.
When ICM is introduced into a national or sub national unit, it always will be a vulnerable fledgling, and as such, at the mercy of the bureaucratic pecking order. If the program is to survive and grow, government unit directors must learn how to convince other institutions that it is in their self-interest to voluntarily coordinate. Government leaders, particularly those who are veterans of electoral politics, need to be persuaded that government integration is not a sign of weakness or an abdication of responsibility, but rather a strategy to advance the agenda of a sectoral agency in a way which will anticipate and avoid conflicts.
Forced integration has its political costs. Agencies and interests that are coerced into a new ICM regime can be expected to find ways to opt out, actively undermine, or otherwise thwart implementation of its initiatives. Increasingly, it appears that proponents of ICM must also be skilled builders of coalitions which include multiple agencies and interest groups. Negotiation, coalition building, and the crafting of consensus agreements must be part and parcel of ICM. There is clear evidence that even the most talented political leaders cannot impose government programs of the complexity required by ICM. For many leaders, negotiation is second nature. However, for many others, building of consensus agreements may require a new set of tools and a new conception of policy making.
Options for Achieving Intersectoral
Integration
(section drawn from Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998)
Agenda 21 calls for states to consider establishing (or strengthening) appropriate coordinating mechanisms (such as a high-level policy-planning body) for integrated management and sustainable development of marine and coastal areas at both the local and national levels and to consider strengthening (or establishing) national oceanographic commissions to catalyze and coordinate the needed research.
Some options for establishing coordinating mechanisms include creating an interagency committee, naming a lead agency, creating a new agency, and training agency personnel to instill an integrated rather than a sectoral perspective. Some specific examples at the national level would be the following:
* Creation of a special interministerial coastal coordinating council or commission. This is often a good approach, provided the political will can be generated to create a new government entity of this kind. Important questions of composition, staffing, and funding of a new office such as this are discussed in Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998), Ch. 8).* Assignment to an existing planning, budget, or coordination office. This can be a satisfactory approach in certain government settings, provided the designated office is at a level above that of the line ministries or departments. The high-level location usually provides adequate legal authority and appropriate legitimacy, but such an office is likely to have other goals (e.g., monitoring or controlling the national budget) that could interfere with timely performance of lCM functions.
* Designation of an existing line ministry to act as lead ministry. The challenge in this type of arrangement is to vest sufficient authority in the lead ministry that it has effective control over the activities of sister ministries with regard to lCM decision making.
Three conditions, if fulfilled, enhance the effectiveness of the integrated coastal management process: the coastal management entity and process should be at a higher bureaucratic level than those of the sectoral agencies so it has the necessary power to harmonize sectoral actions; the effort should be adequately financed and separately staffed; and the planning aspect of integrated coastal management should be integrated into national development planning.