[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]






                                              Ir


































                                                     Coastal
                                                      Publication No.

                               Renewable Resources Information Series


                                 JENS C. SORENSEN 9 SCOTT T. McCREARY
                                    RESEARCH PLANNING INSTITUTE, INC.
@T395                                     I          I          I
                   in cooperation with NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - USDI, and U.S. AGENCY FOR
 D44S67                                           114TERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
 990
















                                   Renewable Resources information Series
                                    Coastal Management Publication No. 1






                     INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR MANAGING

                         COASTAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTS


                                        REVISED SECOND EDITION







                              JENS C. SORENSEN* AND SCOTT T. McCREARY'

                                        *Department of Marine Affairs,
                                         University of Rhode Island

                                   "Department of Landscape Architecture
                                     University of California at Berkeley




                                 US Department Of commerce        Library
                                                            
                                 NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
                                 2234 south Hobson Avenue
                                 charieston, SC 29405-2413


                                            National Park Service
                                        U.S. Department of the Interior
                                                    and
                                  U.S. Agency for International Development


                                              Second Printing
                                                    1990


           N OV 2 5 1996.



                                        Property of CSC Library









                           The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
                        report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official view
                        of the National Park Service or the Agency for International Development.




                        Sorensen, Jens C.

                        Institutional arrangements for managing coastal resources and environments.
                           (Renewable Resources Information Series. Coastal Management Publication
                           No. 1.)

                        National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

                        Cover title: Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and
                           Environments.

                        Bibliography
                           1)   Coastal zone management--de vc loping countries.
                           2)   Natural resources--developing countries.

                                I.   McCreary, Scott T.
                               Ii.   United States (National Park Service.)
                              III.   Series.
                              IV.    Title.
                               V.    Title: Institutional Arrangements for Managing
                                             Coastal Resources and Environments

                        HT395.D44S671984; 333.917091724; 84-17986           ISBN 0-931531-00-4






                                                        Available from:


                                                    Coastal Resources Center
                                                          Bay Campus
                                                ,the University of Rhode-'Ishfhd-"Y
                                                    Narragansett, R.I. 02282

                                                               or


                                               The International Affairs Office
                                                U.S. National Park Service (023)
                                                    Washington, D.C. 20240












                                                                iv











                                                      FOREWORD




                    Most countries recognize their coastal zones as distinct regions with resources
                    that require special attention. Many have taken specific actions to conserve
                    coastal resources and to manage coastal development.       A f ew have created
                    comprehensive nation-wide coastal zone management programs that are fully
                    integrated with other resource conservation and economic sector programs.
                    There is a current trend among the coastal countries to move toward more
                    comprehensive and integrated coastal programs. To explore the results of this
                    trend, the authors have reviewed the literature on institutional arrangements
                    for coastal zone management in 75 countries, with concentrated attention on
                    25 of them. In so doing, they have produced the most detailed analysis of the
                    subject yet prepared.

                       This book is one in a series of publications produced for the U.S. Agency
                    for International Development (USAID) by the National Park Service (NPS) to
                    guide the planning and management for sustainable coastal development and for
                    the conservation of coastal resources.    In addition to this book, the series
                    includes a case book with eight case studies, a coastal protection guidebook
                    and a program development guidebook.

                       This coastal series is part of a wider publication and training partnership
                    between USAID and NPS under the "Natural Resources Expanded Information
                    Base" project commenced in 1980 in response to world-wide critical need for
                    improved approaches to integrated regional planning and project design. The
                    project is producing publications on arid and semi-arid rangelands and humid
                    tropic systems as well as on coastal zones.      The publications and training
                    components are dedicated to strengthening the technical and institutional
                    capabilities of developing countries in natural resources and environmental
                    protection and to providing other international development assistance donors
                    with ready access to practical information.

                       The goal of integrated planning is to prepare a comprehensive plan in
                    which the various development sectors have been assessed for their effects on
                    the resources in given geographic areas (of which the coastal area is one of
                    the most distinctive). In a world of rapid population growth and diminishing
                    natural resources, countries that fail to plan their economic development
                    strategy in concert with resource conservation and environmental management
                    may not be able to sustain progress in health, food, housing, energy, and other
                    critical national needs. Each developing country must have a realistic plan for
                    accommodating its share of the 100 million people per year being added to the
                    world's population. Such basic resources as fuel, water, fertile land, and fish
                    stocks are already in short supply in many countries and their future prospects
                    are in grave doubt.

                       While the presence of integrated planning and comprehensive management
                    alone may not assure a sustained and ample yield from the coastal natural
                    resources of any country, its absence will lead to their depletion.           The
                    opportunities for development based on excessive exploitation of coastal natural
                    resources are rapidly fading.     The future depends on development closely
                    linked to resource conservation.      In the coastal zone, the need f or an
                    enlightened approach is urgent.



                                                            v








                      Foreword




                         As noted by the authors, coastal zone management is a relatively new field
                      that has its own special phraseology and concepts. The authors define coastal
                      zone as "the interface or transition . . . that part of the land affected by its
                      proximity to the sea and that part of the ocean affected by its proximity to
                      the land . . . an area in which processes depending on the interaction between
                      land and sea are most intense."     They define coastal management as "any
                      governmental program established for the purpose of utilizing or conserving a
                      coastal resource or environment . . . and is intended to include all types of
                      governmental intervention." Further, "the term implies that the governmental
                      unit administering the program has distinguished a coastal area or zone as a
                      geographic area apart -- yet between -- the ocean domain and the terrestrial
                      or interior domain."

                         In producing the coastal publication series for USAID, we realize that we
                      have, at best, provided a foothold for natural resource aspects of the new and
                      rapidly expanding field of coastal zone management. Much important work lies
                      ahead in many technical areas. We particularly recognize the need to provide
                      specific natural resource working materials for regional planners and economic
                      development planners. Also, there is a need for advice on protection of life
                      and property against storms and other coastal natural hazards.           Equally
                      important is advice to planners on the role for designated protected areas--
                      reserves, parks, sanctuaries -- in tourism enhancement, fish stock management,
                      and critical area and species conservation.   We hope the present series will
                      provide a springboard for studies on these important matters.

                         John Clark managed the coastal components of the NPS/AID projrct. We are
                      especially grateful to William Feldman, Molly Kux, and William Roseborough, of
                      the Office of Forestry, Environment, and Natural Resources of the Bureau of
                      Science and Technology, for their continuing encouragement and patience.

                                                             Robert C. Milne
                                                             Chief, Office of International Affairs
                                                             National Park Service
                                                             Washington, D.C.






















                                                             vi










                                                          PREFACE




                        This book presents available strategies to strengthen the governance of
                     coasts and the management of renewable natural resources in coastal zones of
                     the developing nations.      It represents our synthesis of literature from the
                     developed and developing world along with the findings of our interviews with
                     coastal resource managers.

                        Chapter 2 presents a series of technical terms and phrases to set the stage
                     for the analysis that follows.         Chapter 3 explains key differences and
                     commonalities among coastal nations.        The evolution of coastal management
                     programs is explained in Chapter 4.         Chapter 5 reviews coastal issues, and
                     Chapter 6 identifies key actors in coastal resource management.

                        Chapter 7 presents eleven management strategies, and considers the
                     advantages and disadvantages of each.           Chapter 8 presents an array of
                     alternate institutional arrangements and supplements.         Program evaluation is
                     discussed in Chapter 9 as the last step in the development of an integrated
                     and comprehensive coastal resources management program. Chapter 10 offers
                     two sets of recommendations. The first set is offered to guide the work of
                     international assistance organizations, while the second set gives suggestions
                     for the creation of national coastal resources management programs.

                        A key finding of this report is that there is an array of management
                     strategies and an array of institutional managements available to help allocate
                     coastal resources among competing and conflicting interests.

                        Our second finding is that institutional arrangements and management
                     strategies must be tailored to the needs of each individual coastal nation.
                     They should reflect the geographic scope of issues, and the existing
                     institutions, political traditions, and technical capabilities of a nation.

                        A third key finding of this report is that nations with one or more of four
                     critical coastal-dependent sectors have a strong incentive to pursue integrated
                     coastal management. These sectors are: fisheries, tourism, mangrove forestry,
                     or an economy vulnerable to coastal hazards.

                        We wrote   this book for five audiences:

                              0     government     of f icials who     administer     coastal
                                    resources management programs, particularly those
                                    who now administer or may initiate integrated
                                    programs;

                              0     officials in international assistance organizations
                                    who are concerned about the management of coastal
                                    resources;


                              0     staff    and     members       of     non-governmental
                                    organizations that have a vested interest in the use
                                    of coastal resources and environments;

                              0     environmental policy consultants who advise national


                                                               vii








                           .Preface




                                         and international organizations on coastal resources
                                         management;

                                   0     scientists and other academicians who conduct applied
                                         research on coastal resources and coastal environments.

                              This is the second edition of this book. The first edition was published in
                           1984. That edition underwent three cycles of review and comment on two
                           complete draf ts.  The f irst draf t was prepared as a discussion paper f or a
                           workshop convened in November, 1983, by the International Affairs Program of
                           the National Park Service, and attended by individuals experienced in
                           international environmental management.        The comments generated by this
                           meeting were incorporated into a second review draft. The second draft was
                           selectively distributed nationally and internationally for review and comment by
                           individuals who had been engaged in international coastal resources
                           management. Comments on the second draft were incorporated into a third
                           draft, which became the first edition of this book.

                              Many people contributed to the first edition by providing detailed comments
                           on the review drafts. They include: John Clark, Random Dubois, Daniel Finn,
                           David Fluharty, Charles Getter, John Horberry, David Kinsey, Molly Kux, Crane
                           Miller, James Mitchell, Renee Robin, Christine Rossell, Harvey Shapiro, Samuel
                           Snedaker, Paul Templet, and Stella Vallejo. We are especially grateful to Niels
                           West for his assistance in determining the sovereignty status of coastal
                           nations. John Clark of the National Park Service provided valuable advice,
                           support, and encouragement throughout the project.

                              We owe a special debt of gratitude to Marc Hershman for his collaboration
                           on the first edition. He also made a detailed review of the first edition and
                           offered recommendations that helped us improve the organization and the
                           presentation of our material.

                              Six years have now elapsed since the first edition. The book was widely
                           distributed throughout the world under the auspices of the U.S. Agency for
                           International Development and the International Affairs Unit of the U.S.
                           National Park Service.     This revised second printing reflects the comments
                           received from colleagues as well as reviews in professional publications.

                              Five years ago the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology Branch
                           (now reorganized into the Office of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea)
                           contracted Jens Sorensen to prepare a working paper on the resolution of
                           coastal and marine use conflicts in the developing world. Jens Sorensen and
                           Scott McCreary worked together on the United Nations contract. The work on
                           the U.N. contract enabled us to further develop our concepts on governance
                           arrangements (U.N. Office of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, forthcoming).
                           We have drawn on this U.N. work to revise and update these concepts in
                           Chapter 8. Our work in the f ield also made us aware of the need to add a
                           chapter in this edition on competing interests, the actors in allocation and use
                           of coastal resources and environments. Chapter 6 is the addition on competing
                           interests and actors or stakeholders.

                              Gretchen Lovas provided final editing and production assistance for this
                           revised edition.



                                                                   viii








                                                                                                 Preface




                        In the intervening years since the first edition was published we have had
                     the opportunity to test the frameworks we described in the first edition in the
                     real world of coastal management programs. The tests have occurred in
                     programs in the United States, Latin America, Australia and West Africa. The
                     frameworks on issues, governance arrangements and management strategies
                     were used to structure two publications on Latin America.         A special issue
                     (Vol. 15, #1) of the Coastal Management Journal on coastal management in
                     Latin America included articles on the Galapagos Archipelago, Argentina,
                     Brazil, Ecuador, and Mexico.      A collateral report will be published by the
                     Organization of American States and will also include chapters on Colombia,
                     Costa Rica, Chile, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.

                        In Australia, five coastal states collaborated to develop a national issues
                     index modelled after the framework presented in Chapter 5 and Appendix B.
                     The list is intended to serve as an important guide in structuring new coastal
                     management programs.

                        The core descriptions of coastal management programs, together with the
                     chapters on management strategies and institutional managements, helped
                     structure the first workshop on integrated coastal resource management in
                     West Af rica.   That workshop, convened November, 1987 in Mbour, Senegal,
                     brought together representatives from 12 nations. The results are described in
                     another U.S. NPS/USAID publication, Prospects for Integrated Coastal
                     Resources Management in West Africa (Clark, McCreary, and Snedaker, 1988).

                        Our experience with coastal zone management programs during the six years
                     between publication of the first edition and this edition have enabled us to
                     draw two conclusions.      First, the frameworks we present in this book are
                     useful to structure program design.     Second, the frameworks can be used to
                     structure comparative assessments across programs to determine their relative
                     strengths and weaknesses.

                                                                    Jens Sorensen
                                                                    Scott McCreary























                                                              ix











                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                                                         PaRc


                      1. INTRODUCTION          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                               I


                           1.1    Objectives   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                               1
                           1.2    Work Program     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                             1



                      2.   CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS              . . . . . . . . . . .                       3


                           2.1    Coastal Nations and Subnational Units       . . . . . . .                  3
                           2.2    Coastal Management      . . . . . . . . . . . . .                          5
                           2.3    Coastal Zone and Coastal Area        . . . . . . . . .                     5
                           2.4    Shorelands and Coastal Uplands       . . . . . . . . .                   11
                           2.5    Coastal Resources, Uses, and Environments      . . . . . .               12
                           2.6    Coastal Systems      . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         14
                           2.7    Coastal Sectoral Management or Planning        . . . . . .               16
                           2.8    Integrated Planning     . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        16
                           2.9    Integrated Coastal Zone Management       . . . . . . . .                 17
                           2.10   Ocean Management     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         18



                      3.   DIFFERENCES AND COMMONALITIES AMONG
                           COASTAL NATIONS             . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         21


                           3.1    Geographic Disparities      . . . . . . . . . . . .                      21
                           3.2    Coastal Resource Value      . . . . . . . . . . . .                      23
                           3.3    Concentration of Development and Population        . . . . .             25
                           3.4    Coastal Orientation     . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        25
                           3.5    Level of Development        . . . . . . . . . . . .                      27
                           3.6    Existing or Potential Government Powers
                                     in the Coastal Zone      . . . . . . . . . . . .                      27



                      4.   EVOLUTION OF INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT:
                           FROM CONCEPT TO PRACTICE              . . . . . . . . . . .                     31

                           4.1    Incipient Awareness (Stage 1)     . . . . . . . . . .                    31
                           4.2    Growing Awareness (Stage 2)       . . . . . . . . . .                    33
                           4.3    National Study (Stage 3)       . . . . . . . . . . .                     33
                           4.4    New Program Creation (Stage     4)   . . . . . . . . .                   34
                           4.5    Program Development, Implementation,
                                    and Evaluation (Stages    5 through 8)    . . . . . . .                35


                      5.   COASTAL ISSUES          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                           37

                           5.1    Need f or a Global Issues   Index    . . . . . . . . .                   39
                           5.2    Impact Issues    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                           39
                           5.3    Hazard Issues    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                           41
                           5.4    Developmental Needs         . . . . . . . . . . . .                      41
                           5.5    Organizational Process Problems      . . . . . . . . .                   42
                           5.6    National Listings    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         43
                           5.7    Surveying National Issues      . . . . . . . . . . .                     44

                                                                 xi








                           Table of Contents




                           6. MAJOR ACTORS IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT                       . . . . . .              45


                                6.1    Well Organized Actors      . . . . . . . . . . . .                       45
                                6.2    Less Organized Actors      . . . . . . . . . . . .                       49


                           7.   MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES                 . . . . . . . . . . .                     53

                                7.1    National Economic Planning        . . . . . . . . . .                    54
                                7.2    Broad-scope Sectoral Planning     . . . . . . . . . .                    56
                                7.3    Regional Seas    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                           59
                                7.4    Nation- or State-Wide Land Use
                                          Planning and Regulation     . . . . . . . . . . .                     61
                                7.5    Special Area or Regional Plans       . . . . . . . . .                   64
                                7.6    Shoreland Exclusion or Restriction       . . . . . . . .                 67
                                7.7    Critical Area Protection       . . . . . . . . . . .                     71
                                7.8    Environmental Impact Assessment      . . . . . . . . .                   72
                                7.9    Mandatory Policies and Advisory Guidelines         . . . . .             77
                                7.10   Acquisition Programs                                                     80
                                7.11   Coastal Atlases or Data Banks     . . . . . . . . . .                    82



                           8.   GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS                  . . . . . . . . . .                    87

                                8.1    Complexity of the National Governance Arrangement         . . .          87
                                8.2    Need for Sectoral Integration                                            94
                                8.3    Overview of Institutional Arrangements
                                          and Supplements .           , , * *                                   97
                                8.4    Elements of Choice in Organizing an
                                          Institutional Arrangement      . . . . . . . . . .                    98
                                8.5    Major Institutional Alternatives to Broaden
                                          the Scope of Sectoral Planing     . . . . . . . . .                  100
                                8.6    Supplements to Major Institutional   Arrangements      . . . .          105



                           9.   PROGRAM EVALUATION             . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       113


                                9.1    Outcome and Process Assessments of Coastal
                                          Management Programs     . . . . . . . . . . . .                      115
                                9.2    Criteria to Assess Program Implementation       . . . . . .             117
                                9.3    Clear and Consistent Policy Objectives      . . . . . . .               119
                                9.4    Good Theory and Information       . . . . . . . . . .                   120
                                9.5    Sufficient Jurisdiction and Authority       . . . . . . .               121
                                9.6    Good Implementation Structure        . . . . . . . . .                  123
                                9.7    Staff Competence and Commitment          . . .                          125
                                9.8    Maintaining the Program's Priority on the Public Agenda                 126



                           10. RECOMMENDATIONS             . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         127

                                10.1   Programmatic Recommendations for International
                                          Assistance Organization     . . . . . . . . . . .                    127



                                                                      xii







                                                                                   Table of Contents




                         10.2  Guidelines for National Coastal Resources Managers
                                  and Administrators    . . . . . . . . . . . .                   131



                     APPENDICES       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         135

                         Appendix A:     Data Needed to Assess the Value of a Nation's
                                         Coastal Resources . . . . . . . . . . .                  135

                         Appendix B:     A Global Issues Index    . . . . . . . . .               139

                         Appendix C:     An Outline for Descriptions of Coastal
                                         Resources Management Programs     . . . . . .            153

                         Appendix D:     Need for Issue-Based Governance Analysis    . . .        155

                         Appendix E:     Classifications of Coastal Governance
                                         Arrangements   . . . . . . . . . . . .                   157

                         Appendix F:     Steps in a Facilitated Policy Dialogue or
                                         Mediated Negotiation     . . . . . . . . .               163



                     REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY               . . . . . . . . . .                167



                     AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES              . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    193





































                                                            xiii










                                                LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES


                                                                                                          Page


                         Figure 2.1    Options for Delineating the Ocean and Inland Boundaries
                                       of a Coastal Zone or an Ocean Management Area         . . . .         7

                         Figure 2.2    Existing and Potential Boundaries of Coastal Zone
                                       Management Programs and Ocean Management Programs                     8

                         Table 2.1     Inland and Ocean Boundaries of Coastal Zone
                                       Management Programs    . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    10

                         Table 3.1     Geographic Dimensions of Selected Coastal Nations        . . .      22

                         Figure 3.1    Extent of Government Control in the Management of
                                       Marine and Coastal Resources and Environments         . . . .       28

                         Figure 4.1    Evolution of Coastal Zone Management: From Concept
                                       to Practice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        32

                         Table 6.1     Potential Actors in Coastal Resources Management in
                                       Developing Nations     . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    46

                         Table 7.1     Strategies Used in Coastal Resource Management        . . . .       55

                         Figure 7.1    Procedure of Port Planning and Implementation in      Japan         58

                         Figure 7.2    Shoreland Exclusion or Restriction Setbacks        . . . . .        69

                         Figure 7.3    Sri Lanka Coast Conservation Department's (CCD)
                                       Procedure for Reviewing and Issuing Permits        . . . . .        75

                         Table  8.1    Sectoral Planning and Development in the Coastal Zone               89

                         Figure 8.1    The Arrangement of Government Organization in the
                                       United States for Selected Sectors      . . . . . . . .             90

                         Figure 8.2    Legislative Administration of the   Coastal Environment
                                       of New Zealand      . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                     92

                         Figure 8.3    Longitudinal Division of the Coastal Zone for Osaka
                                       Bay,Japan     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       93

                         Figure 8.4    Examples of Positive and Negative Relationships Among
                                       Sectors   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         96


                         Table  8.2    Some Potential Elements of a National Institutional
                                       Arrangement for Coastal Management, Arrayed on a
                                       Continuum of Permanence       . . . . . . . . . . .                 99


                         Table 8.3     A Continuum of Participation in Institutional
                                       Arrangements for Coastal Conflict Resolution       . . . . .        99




                                                                   xv







                       List of Figures and Tables



                       Table 8.4     Sharing of Responsibility for Coastal Policy Making
                                     in Permanent Institutional Arrangements and Temporary
                                     Supplements     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   101

                       Table 9.1     Examples of Process Indicators and Outcome Indicators
                                     for Coastal Resources Management Evaluation     . . . . .       114

                       Figure E.1    Mitchell's Typology of Governance Arrangements     . . . .      159

                       Table E.2     Coastal Governance Arrangements    . . . . . . . . .            161

















































                                                              xvi















                                                         1. INTRODUCTION




                         1.1 Objectives

                         This   book     characterizes    the   management      strategies    and     institutional
                         arrangements available to coastal nations to conserve and develop their coastal
                         resources and   to resolve coastal use conflicts.

                             We def ine   institutional arrangement as the composite of laws, customs,
                         organizations and management strategies established by society to allocate
                         scarce resources and competing values for a social purpose, such as to manage
                         a nation's coastal resources and environments. Over time, every coastal nation
                         has established its own institutional arrangement for managing coastal
                         resources and environments.

                             Our initial intent was to examine how integrated management of coastal
                         resources as currently practiced by a number of governments may apply to
                         developing coastal nations. This initial framework was broadened to include an
                         explanation     of   the   available    management      strategies   and     institutional
                         arrangements used to guide coastal resource use in all coastal nations.               This
                         expanded scope helped us achieve three purposes:

                                   0     present and comparatively assess the full range of
                                         national and subnational approaches to coastal
                                         resources management;

                                   0     guide the choice of coastal management strategies
                                         and institutional arrangements for the design and
                                         implementation of coastal resources management;

                                   0     propose a format for organizing information to
                                         facilitate information exchange.

                             Although    the scope of analysis was expanded, our primary audience
                         continues to be planners, administrators, scientists and senior officials
                         interested in managing the renewable coastal resources in developing countries.


                         1.2 Work Program

                         We began our work on the first edition of this book with a review of the
                         literature   describing    coastal    resources   management       and    environmental
                         management in developing nations. Our literature review was supplemented by
                         interviews with individuals who have had international experience in coastal
                         resources management. No case studies were conducted for analysis nor were
                         any visits made to coastal nations. In the six years since publication of the
                         first edition, however, we have traveled extensively in both developed and
                         developing coastal nations on research and consulting projects.

                             Three documents we examined were invaluable sources of information on
                         coastal resources management programs. The documents are: United Nations

                                                                      I







                    Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments




                    Ocean Economics and Technology Branch, Coastal Area Management and
                    Development; James Mitchell, "Coastal Zone Management:         a Comparative
                    Analysis of National Programs"; and the report of USAID's five nation site
                    visit to assess the potential for coastal resources management.   These three
                    documents are cited respectively as "UNOETB, 1982a"; "Mitchell, 1982"; and
                    "Kinsey and Sondheimer, 1984."




















































                                                           2














                                        2. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS




                   Coastal zone management is a new field.      Accordingly, there is no general
                   agreement about the appropriate use or meaning of common phrases and terms.
                   A number of terms are used interchangeably in the literature to describe the
                   activity of managing a coastal region, area, use, or resource. These include
                   coastal management, coastal resources management, coastal area management,
                   coastal area management and planning, coastal zone management, integrated
                   coastal zone management, Integrated coastal resources management and coastal
                   zone resources management. In general, these terms are not carefully defined
                   or distinguished from one another, nor are the "resources" or "environments"
                   that they manage well defined.

                      Given the global scope of coastal zone and exclusive economic zone
                   management, it is essential to clarify terms at the outset.       This section
                   reviews some key concepts and definitions to establish a foundation for the
                   analyses presented in later sections.

                      To acquaint the reader with terms in a logical order, the discussion begins
                   with "coastal nations and subnational units" and "coastal management," then
                   defines the natural areas and systems under consideration, and concludes with
                   the specific management and planning terms.

                      Ten frequently used terms are defined in this section. They are:

                           0     coastal nations and subnational units;

                           0     coastal management;

                           0     coastal zone and coastal area;

                           0     shorelands and coastal uplands;

                           0     coastal resources, uses, and environments;

                           0     coastal systems;

                           0     coastal sectoral management or planning;

                           0     Integrated planning;

                           0     coastal zone management program and integrated
                                 coastal resource management;

                           0     ocean management.



                   2.1 Coastal Nations and Subnational Units

                   We address four general categories of government authority which permit the
                   establishment of an autonomous coastal management program. They are:

                                                          3







                          Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                   0     independent nations (referred to as sovereign states
                                         in the international law and political science
                                         literature);

                                   0     semi-sovereign nations, colonies, or dependencies;

                                   0     subnational units such as provinces, prefectures, or
                                         states empowered by the national constitution to
                                         undertake certain governmental functions, such as
                                         land use management;

                                   0     subnational   regional   authorities   established    by
                                         legislative action or executive order.

                             The  f our distinctions were made to identify how many units of government
                          there are in the world with the potential legal authority and resources to
                          launch an integrated program for coastal resources management. According to
                          the U.S. State Department's publication, Status of the World's Nations, the
                          independence of Brunei increased the number of independent coastal (or ocean
                          bordering) nations to 136 (U.S. Department of State, 1983). Since there are 30
                          landlocked nations, eighty-two percent of the world's independent nations
                          border on the ocean or an ocean connected sea (Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea,
                          Baltic Sea, Red Sea, and the Persian or Arabian Gulf). It is also noteworthy
                          that 40 of the ocean or sea-bordering independent nations are small islands
                          (e.g. Nauru, Barbados) or large islands (e.g. Papua New Guinea or Japan). This
                          means that thirty percent of the world's independent nations are situated on
                          large or small islands.

                             The State Department publication also enumerates "dependencies and areas
                          of special sovereignty."       Forty coastal semi-sovereign states have both
                          sufficient resources and the population size to be self governing -- at least to
                          the extent that the metropolitan nation could have granted them the statutory
                          authority to establish their own coastal or ocean management program,
                          examples of which include Bermuda, Hong Kong, and St. Kitts-Nevis. Of these
                          40 scmi-sovcreign coastal states, only five are not situated on large or small
                          islands.


                             Several nations' constitutions delegate authority for specific government
                          functions to the subnational level.     Examples are the United States, Canada,
                          Australia, and Malaysia.     These nations have respectively 32, 8, 5, and 13
                          subnational units of government with authority to create an autonomous coastal
                          management program.        Coastal nations or subnational units also have the
                          authority to establish by legislation regional entities to carry out coastal
                          management programs. Examples are Australia's Port Phillip Authority and the
                          San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).

                             In sum, the number of government units in the world that have the legal
                          authority to establish independent coastal management programs considerably
                          exceeds the number of independent states.              Taking into account the
                          combination of 136 sovereign coastal nations, up to 40 semi-sovereign states,
                          national subunits which are constitutionally autonomous, and regional
                          authorities, on a world-wide basis the potential exists for creation of well over
                          200 and perhaps 250 distinct coastal management programs.


                                                                    4







                                                                               Concepts and Definitions




                     2.2 Coastal Management

                     Coastal management refers to any government program established for the
                     purpose of utilizing or conserving a coastal resource or environment. It is the
                     broadest of the terms used, and is intended to include all types of
                     governmental intervention in a society.       Use of the term implies that the
                     governmental unit administering the program has distinguished a coastal area
                     as a geographic unit apart, yet between, the ocean domain and the terrestrial
                     or interior domain. The resources and/or environments being managed define
                     the geographic extent of the coastal area (see Section 2.3 for a definition of
                     11coastal area"). The coastal management program can consist of just one type
                     of resource, such as coastal fisheries, or one type of environment, such as
                     tidal wetlands. It is more common however, for a coastal management program
                     to include several types of resources and environments.



                     2.3 Coastal Zone and Coastal Area


                     The image evoked by the term "coastal" varies considerably.             To some it
                     connotes fish and wildlife, to others beaches and dunes, and to still others
                     broad reaches of land and water. Most agree that the term "coastal" conveys
                     the notion of a land-ocean (or estuary) interface.

                        The land-ocean interface has two principal axes. One axis lies parallel to
                     the shoreline (or longshore). The other axis runs perpendicular to the shore
                     (or cross shore). For the longshore axis, relatively little controversy arises as
                     to the definition, since it does not typically cross environmental system
                     boundaries -- with the exception of watershed systems.        By contrast, there is
                     considerable discussion about the cross shore axis of the coastal zone.          The
                     cross shore axis profiles a coastal zone of transition between the ocean (or
                     estuary) environment and the terrestrial or inland environment (see Figure 2.2).

                        The coastal zone is commonly referred to as the interface or transition
                     space between two environmental domains, the land and the sea. It has been
                     defined as that part of the land affected by its proximity to the sea and that
                     part of the ocean affected by its proximity to the land (U.S. Commission on
                     Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, 1969).         It is an area in which
                     processes depending on the interaction between land and sea are most intense.
                     One lengthy definition combines demographic, functional, ecological, and
                     geographical considerations:

                              The coastal zone is the band of dry land and adjacent ocean
                              space (water and submerged land) in which land ecology and
                              use directly affect ocean space ecology, and vice versa. The
                              coastal zone is a band of variable width which borders the
                              continents,   the    inland   seas,   and    the   Great     Lakes.
                              Functionally, it is the broad interface between land and water
                              where production, consumption, and exchange processes occur
                              at high rates of intensity.      Ecologically, it is an area of
                              dynamic biogeochemical activity but with limited capacity for
                              supporting various forms of human use. Geographically, the
                              landward boundary of the coastal zone is necessarily vague.
                              The oceans may affect climate far inland from the sea. Ocean
                              salt penetrates estuaries to various extents, depending largely

                                                               5







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                 upon geometry of the estuary and river flow, and the ocean
                                 tides may extend even farther upstream than the salt
                                 penetration. Pollutants added even to the freshwater part of
                                 a river ultimately reach the sea after passing through the
                                 estuary (Ketchum, 1972).

                        Invariably, "estuary" or "estuarine zone" is used in connection with or    as part
                        of the definition of the coastal zone. The term "estuarine zone" means:

                                 an environment system consisting of an estuary and those
                                 transitional areas which are consistently influenced or affected
                                 by water from an estuary such as, but not limited to, salt
                                 marshes, coastal and inter-tidal areas, bays, harbors, lagoons,
                                 inshore waters, and channels, and the term "estuary" means all
                                 or part of a navigable or interstate river or stream or other
                                 body of water having unimpaired natural connection with open
                                 sea and within which the sea water is measurably diluted with
                                 fresh water derived from land drainage (U.S. Department of
                                 Interior, 1970).

                           Given the environmental, resource, and governmental differences among
                        coastal nations and subnational units, there is considerable variety in the
                        selection of boundaries to delineate both the seaward and inland extent of the
                        coastal zone.   For example, the inland definitions of the coastal zone range
                        from those that include entire watersheds, to those that comprise only the
                        immediate strip of shoreline adjacent to the water. Ideally, a coastal nation
                        or subnational unit should set the boundaries of the coastal zone as far inland
                        and seaward as necessary to achieve the objectives of the management
                        program. Since the problems and opportunities that motivate the creation of a
                        coastal zone management program vary considerably from one unit of
                        government to another, the selection of coastal zone   Iboundaries would also be
                        expected to exhibit considerable variation among coastal nations as well as
                        among subnational units.

                           Small island nations or subnational units present a specific problem in
                        setting the inland boundary of the coastal zone or area. An analysis of island
                        ecosystems defines small islands as environmental units that do not have an
                        "interior hinterland or central core area that is essentially distant from the
                        sea" (Towle, 1985).    The study concluded that approximately 10,000 square
                        kilometers -- about the size of Jamaica -- is the breakpoint between small and
                        large islands. In an island of less than one thousand square kilometers, there
                        is no point that is more than a one hour drive from the sea, and one could
                        argue that the entire island is a coastal zone.    Coastal zone management on
                        small islands is essentially synonymous with nation-wide or regional resource
                        management.

                           Figure 2.1 displays the set of options for delineating the inland and ocean
                        boundaries of the coastal zone.      Figure 2.2 depicts these boundary options
                        along a profile across the costal zone. The figure also presents examples of
                        programs that use different sets of boundaries.          The boundary options
                        depicted in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 are now being used by coastal nations or
                        subnational units to set the width of the coastal zone or the ocean
                        management area (Section 2.10 discusses ocean management). At one extreme,
                        the coastal zone could extend from the oceanward edge of the exclusive

                                                                 6







                                     Figure 2. 1: Options for Delineating the Ocean and Inland Boundaries
                                                            of a Coastal Zone or an Ocean Management Area
                                                                                  Increasing Jurisdictional Area                                            1110-
                                                 Mean                               Boundary            Ocean boun-                            Ocean
                            Oceanward         low tide        Arbitrary             between pro-        dary of the          Ocean edge        boundary of
                               Boundary         (MLT)         oceanward             vincial or state    territorial          of the            the exclusive
                   Inland         Options     or mean         distance(s)           jurisdiction        sea*(usually         continental       economic
                   Boun ry                    high tide       from a                and national        between 3            margin or         zone(EEZ)
                   Optio    S                   (MHT)         tidal mark            jurisdiction*       and 12 n.m.          shelf             tt
                                                                                                        from CB) t
                   Arbitrary                                                                                                 Great             Sri Lanka,
                   distance(s) from              Costa         Sri Lanka                                                     Barrier           Netherlands,
                   a tidal mark                  Rica            Brazil              Calif ornia            Spain            Reef Marine       and Sweden
                   (such as 200                 (MLT)            Israel              (from 1972                              Park              ocean man-
                   meters from low                                                   to 1976)                                Authority         agement
                   tide)                                                                                                                       program
               C   Inland boundary            Western                                 State of
               0
                   of local govern-           Australia                             Washington
                   ment's jurisdiction"* (MHT)                                      (for planning)

                                                                                    U.S. Coastal
                   Inland limits
                                                                                    Zone Manage-
                   of lands on
                   which adverse                                                    ment Act
                   Impacts may
                                                                                    California
                   be generated
                                                                                    (since 1976)


                   Inland
                   limit of
                   climatic
                                                                                                                                                                      rA
                   Inf luence                                                                                                                                         0
                   In many cases the boundary between a coastal state (or province) and the national jurisdiction Is the same as the                                  0
                 territorial sea boundary line.
                    In a number of places the continental margin extends oceanward beyond 200 nautical miles.
                     The Inland boundary of local government's jurisdiction often extends further Inland than the lands on which
                 adverse Impacts may be generated.
                 t The coastal baseline      (CB) Is a series of straight lines that Interconnect coastal Islands, headlands and promontories.
                          da
                          n




























                 It Is used to map the oceanward boundary of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone.
                 tt The EEZ extends 200 n.m. or to the oceanward limit of the continental margin, whichever Is greater.







                                 Figure 2. 2: Existing and Potential Boundaries of Coastal Zone
                                       Management Programs and Ocean Management Programs
                                                                                  Washington State CZ
                                                                                                                 IBM-
                                                                                      Planning Area                                                         rA
                                                                                                                                                            V4.


                                                                                                                                                            V-0.


                                                                                 U.S. Coastal Management Act -


                                                                                               Costa,,_
                                                                                                Rica
                                     Sri Lanka Ocean                                  Sri Lanka
                                  Management Program                                 CZ Program                                   Z-000"

                                        Brazil Ocean                                Brazil Coastal
                                        Management                            -04- Management         No-
                                         Program                                       Program



                                                                                                                                       Inland
                                                                                                                                      Limit of
                                                                                MLT MHT                                               Climatic
                                                                                                                                     Influence

                                                                                                                  Inland
                                                                                                                Boundary
                                                                                                                of Local
                                                Ocean Boundary            Arbitrary Ocean-
                                                of the Territorial        ward Distance                        Governments
                 Ocean                                  Sea               from a Tidal Mark
                 Boundary                                                                                                    Inland Limits of
                 ofthe         Ocean Edge                                                             Arbitrary              Lands on Which
                                                             Boundary between
                 Exclusive     ofthe                                                                   Inland                Adverse Impacts
                                                             Provincal or State
                               Continental                                                            Distance               May Be
                 Economic                                    Jurisdiction and
                 Zone          Margin*                       National Jurisdiction                     from a                Generated
                                 1.04           Continental Margin            BPI                    Tidal Mark
                   In a number of places the Continental Margin extends oceanward beyond 200 nautical miles.







                                                                                         Concepts and Definitions



                        economic zone, usually 200 nautical miles (Section 2.10 discusses the exclusive
                        economic zone), to the inland limit of climatic influence.                 This zone could
                        measure at least 250 nautical miles wide. At the other extreme is a program
                        -- such as Costa Rica's -- that extends from the mean low tide line to an
                        inland distance of 200 meters.


                            Table 2.1 depicts the landward and oceanward boundaries for 13 programs.
                        The most common inland boundary is an arbitrary distance from mean high tide
                        and the most common oceanward boundary is the limit of state or provincial
                        jurisdiction.     The table also shows that a program can have at least two
                        different inland boundaries, the planning zone and the regulation zone. The
                        planning area should cover all lands on which development may generate
                        impacts that significantly affect coastal resources or environments.                In many
                        cases the planning area extends a considerable distance inland (to the limits of
                        an estuary watershed, for example).            In the regulation zone the government
                        has the power to issue or deny development permits. If there are two zones,
                        the planning zone will always be larger than the regulation zone. The table
                        al@o shows that the inland boundary of a program can change over time. In
                        the case of California, the inland boundary line for regulation was set in 1972
                        as an interim measure of 1,000 yards from mean high tide. This boundary was
                        kept for four years until the California Coastal Plan was implemented by new
                        legislation in 1976. After four years the California Coastal Commission had
                        much better information for establishing an inland boundary line. The new
                        boundary is a variable line that has been set according to the various issues
                        that were addressed by the California Coastal Plan.

                            It should be noted that most of the inland boundaries listed in Table 2.1
                        have one or more exceptions. For example, in Sri Lanka the inland boundary
                        line extends two kilometers up coastal water bodies from their "natural
                        opening" to the ocean. In California, the 1972 inland boundary line could not
                        extend more than five miles from mean high tide in Los Angeles, Orange and
                        San Diego counties.

                            One of the few maxims in the practice of coastal zone management is that
                        the boundary lines should be determined by the issues which led to creation of
                        the program.       Generally this means a variable inland line.              There are two
                        reasons for the variable line.              Different issues require different            size
                        management areas and the issues change as one moves along the length of                   the
                        coast.    For example, in northern and central California the boundary                    line
                        swings inland five miles to control forestry and agriculture practices that               can
                        have a direct effect on the quality of coastal rivers and estuaries-
                        particularly rivers with salmon runs. By contrast, in urban areas the inland
                        boundary is no more than 200 feet from mean high tide because the main
                        concerns there are direct access to the shore and the visual quality of coastal
                        architecture and public areas.

                            In this report the term "coastal area" refers to a geographic space that has
                        not been defined as a zone. In other words, in coastal areas the inland and
                        ocean boundaries to the zone have not been set or a@proximated. Use of the
                        term merely indicates that there is a national or subnational recognition that a
                        distinct transitional environment exists between the ocean and terrestrial
                        domains.





                                                                       9







                         Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                         Table 2.1: Inland and Ocean Boundaries of Coastal Zone Management Programs




                                                  Inland Boundary                          Ocean Boundary


                   Brazil                      2 km f rom MHT                             12 km from MHT


                   California
                    -1972-1976                 highest elev. of nearest                   3 NM f rom the CB*
                      planning                 coastal mountain range

                    -1972-1976                 1,000 yds f rom MHT                        3 NM f rom the CB
                      regulation

                    -1977-present              variable line depending                    3 NM f rom the CB
                                               on issues


                   Costa Rica                  200 meters f rom MHT                       MLT


                   China                       10 km from MHT                             15 meter isobath
                                                                                          (or depth)

                   Ecuador                     variable line depending
                                               on issues"


                   Israel                      1-2 km depending on                        500 meters f rom MLT
                                               resources and environment

                   South  Af rica              1,000 meters f rom MHT

                   South   Australia           100 meters from MHT                        3 NM f rom the CB


                   Queensland                  400 meters f rom MHT                       3 NM f rom the CB

                   Spain                       500 meters f rom highest                   12 NM (limit of
                                               storm or tide line                         territorial water)

                   Sri Lanka                   300 meters f rom MHT                       2 km from MLT


                   Washington State
                    -planning                  inland boundary of                         3 NM f rom the CB
                                               coastal counties


                    -regulation                200 f t f rom MHT


                      For a def inition of     coastal baseline (CB), see Figure 2.1.
                      Ecuador has six special management areas instead of a continuous zone.
                   Inland width varies according to Issues In each area.             Limits will be set
                   after the initial stages of planning.

                   MHT = mean high tide, MLT = mean low tide, NM = nautical mile


                                                                     10








                                                                               Concepts and Definitions




                    2.4 Shorelands and Coastal Uplands

                    Within many coastal zones, a further geographic subdivision is made for land
                    immediately inland from the highest tidelinc, often called the shorelands zone.
                    Shorclands arc the terrestrial portion of the coastal zone where the inland
                    connection to the shoreline and coastal waters is most apparent.            In most
                    cases, the seaward limit is mean high tide.

                       The inland extent of the shorclands varies.        Several criteria are used to
                    define the immediate and apparent connection to the coastline, depending on
                    the public purpose the shoreland zone is intended to address. The following
                    five criteria are a synthesis of standards drawn from U.S. coastal states'
                    programs, Australian states' programs, and U.K. programs.

                             0     For public access, easy walking distance to the
                                   shore -- usually 300 to 500 meters -- is of ten the
                                   key determinant.     A longshore dimension is often
                                   included, to provide for lateral access along the
                                   shore.

                             0     Hazard avoidance programs are often established in
                                   reference to bluffs, flood-prone areas, or areas with
                                   historic landslides.


                             0     Protection of sensitive habitats, such as wetlands,
                                   unstabilized dunes (those not stabilized by woody
                                   vegetation).

                             0     Water   quality   protection   is   achieved    through
                                   setbacks for installation of septic tanks, and zones
                                   to keep natural vegetati  on along shores and banks
                                   -- both to control erosion and to retain the natural
                                   filtering capabilities of this vegetation. In this case
                                   the first tier of lots inland from the shore may be
                                   a logical shoreland boundary.

                             0     Visual protection of the coast is often accomplished
                                   with a shoreland zone defined in reference to the
                                   first public road paralleling the shore. Retention of
                                   natural vegetation along the shoreline is often a
                                   key element of such programs.

                       Exclusion zones and their applications are described in more detail in the
                    chapter on management strategies (Section 7.6). Given the apparent land-ocean
                    connection, shorclands are usually designated to provide government with more
                    regulatory authority than in areas of the coastal zone that are further inland.
                    Generally, a person anywhere in the shorelands area will be able to see, smell,
                    and hear the ocean or a coastal water body such as an estuary or lagoon. As
                    shown in Section 7.6, shoreland exclusion zones often use an average fixed
                    inland limit. A number of programs have drawn the inland limit of the coastal
                    zone at the shorelands/inland boundary. Usually this more conservative action
                    is taken to gain acceptance for the coastal program.



                                                              11







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           Coastal uplands are defined as the area between the landward extent of the
                        shorelands and the inland extent of land, the use of which could have a direct
                        and significant impact on the quality of coast resources (see Figure 2.2). For
                        small watersheds, coastal uplands extend to the inland boundary of the
                        watershed. In cases where coastal mountain ridges are parallel and proximate
                        to the coasts, coastal uplands extend to these ridgelines.     Such a topographic
                        configuration produces drainage patterns that affect the coast.       It is also the
                        inland barrier to marine climate penetration.       Activities that often generate
                        impacts in coastal uplands include road construction, new land clearance and
                        development, agriculture, and logging (Dubois, Berry, and Ford, 1985).


                        2.5 Coastal Resources, Uses, and Environments

                        Within all coastal areas or zones, there are coastal resources, coastal uses, and
                        coastal environments. A coastal resource is usually defined as a natural, often
                        renewable commodity, the existence of which depends on the coast or the
                        value of which is appreciably enhanced by its location within the coastal zone.
                        Sometimes constructed features such as a scenic coastal village are included in
                        the definition-of coastal resource.

                           As we use the definition, the products of agriculture or forestry practiced
                        near the shore are not coastal resources unless they achieve substantial
                        production advantages from conditions associated with their coastal location.
                        Similarly, land with a view of the ocean or within easy pedestrian access of
                        the coastline can be considered a coastal resource since its value as property
                        is usually enhanced by these attributes.

                           The types of natural or constructed features that fit the meaning of a
                        coastal resource can be very broad.       For example, the definition of coastal
                        resources given by the California Coastal Plan (California Coastal Zone
                        Conservation Commissions,       1975) divides' coastal resources into several
                        overlapping categories:

                                 0     Natural resources - e.g., agricultural lands, coastal
                                       waters, beaches, clean air.

                                 0     Marine resources - e.g., coastal waters, kelp beds,
                                       salt marshes, tidepools, islets and offshore rocks,
                                       anadromous fisheries.

                                 0     Coastal land resources - e.g., watersheds, freshwater
                                       supplies, agricultural land, open space, bluffs, dunes,
                                       wildlife, natural habitat areas.

                                 0     Productive resources - e.g., maricultural areas,
                                       gravel deposits, agricultural and timber lands,
                                       petroleum resources.

                                 0     Constructed resources - coastal communities and
                                       neighborhoods with particular cultural, historical,
                                       architectural, or aesthetic qualities.   These towns
                                       and neighborhoods are characterized by orientation
                                       to the water, usually a small-scale of development,

                                                                  12







                                                                                      Concepts and Definitions




                                      pedestrian     use, diversity     of   development       and
                                      activities, public attention to and use of facilities,
                                      distinct      architectural      character,       historical
                                      significance, or ethnic or cultural characteristics
                                      sufficient to yield a sense      of coastal identity and
                                      differentiation from nearby      areas.

                                0     Historical     and    prehistorical    resources    -    e.g.,
                                      recognized      historical      landmarks,      outstanding
                                      architectural landmarks, Indian burial sites and shell
                                      mounds, plant and animal fossils.

                                0     Recreational and scenic resources - e.g., beaches,
                                      coastal streams, marinas, SCUBA diving areas,
                                      scenic coastal roads, and other land and water areas
                                      with     the   potential     for  providing     signif icant
                                      recreational use f or the public.

                                0     Educational and scientific resources - e.g., marine
                                      life refuges, rare and endangered species habitat,
                                      primitive areas, tidepools, wetlands.

                          The list   includes many coastal environments such as watersheds, bluffs,
                       dunes, islets, tidepools and salt marshes. Coastal environments are natural and
                       constructed physical conditions that are either specific to the coastal zone
                       (e.g., estuaries) or whose attributes are significantly determined by its coastal
                       location (e.g., fishing villages).

                          The two terms are interconnected since the capacity of coastal resources to
                       provide social utility is directly dependent on the conditions of the coastal
                       environment.     For purposes of policy-making, it is not important to draw a
                       distinction between coastal resources and coastali environments.              We use the
                       term "coastal resources" in its broad sense to include coastal environments.


                          We note that developing nations will probably be most concerned with those
                       coastal resources of direct economic or social value to its citizens. Visual and
                       recreational resources of the coastal zone may be of lesser concern to
                       developing nations unless coastal tourism is either an important economic
                       sector or is an area for potential economic growth.

                          Coastal use refers to the utilization of coastal resources for economic,
                       aesthetic, recreational, scientific or educational purposes. Use may be either
                       consumptive or non-consumptive. For example, fishing is a consumptive use
                       while bird watching is a non-consumptive use.

                          The distinction between coastal-dependent uses and non-coastal dependent
                       uses is a cornerstone of most integrated coastal zone management programs.
                       A coastal-dependent use requires an immediate coastal site to be able to
                       function at all. Examples are fishing, mariculture, port facilities, offshore oil
                       extraction, boat works, and marinas.           An economic utility argument can be
                       made to support the          policy that coastal-dependent uses should not be
                       preempted or precluded from shoreline or offshore locations by non-coastal
                       dependent uses (such as      residential development). Recently a study was done
                       applying the concept         of coastal dependency to case studies in five

                                                                    13







                       Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                       Northeastern states (Marine Law Institute, 1988).        The study provides a
                       thorough analysis of this concept.


                       2.6 Coastal Systems

                       The aggregation of environmental and physical systems in a compact area is
                       the distinctive characteristic of the coastal zone.    In fact, the coastal zone
                       has been defined by this aggregation of systems. At least nine major systems
                       affect coastal management: (1) large-scale geomorphic or oceanographic units,
                       (2) estuary watersheds, (3) estuary circulation systems, (4) ocean basins, (5)
                       longshore circulation cells, (6) air basins, (7) populations of sport and
                       commercial species, (8) viewsheds, and (9) public services.        Of the nine
                       systems, four are specific to the coastal zone: large-scale geomorphic units,
                       estuary circulation systems, ocean basins, and longshore circulation cells. Five
                       systems have hydrologic dynamics as the interconnecting mechanism.              A
                       recognition that these nine systems interconnect the coastal zone through
                       impact networks must be a cornerstone of coastal zone management.

                          Some of the major issues these costal systems pose for coastal management
                       are:


                               1.    Large-scale geomorphic or oceanographic units.

                                     - the formation, growth, and decay of barrier
                                     islands, coral reefs, atolls;

                                     - sea level rise from global warming and/or
                                     subsidence or emergence of tectonic plates.

                                     - coastal ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream or
                                     the Humboldt Current.


                               2.    Estuary watersheds.

                                     - ground water or surface water pollution, estuary
                                     water quality, and effects on flora and fauna;

                                     - ground or stream water flows, estuary and
                                     wetlands salinity, and effects on biota;

                                     - land use practices, run off, stream water flows, and
                                     stream or estuary flooding;

                                     - stream sediment loads, estuary sedimentation, and
                                     effects on biota;

                                     - stream sediment loads and deposition of beach
                                     materials on estuary or open coast shore (and then
                                     into the system of longshore circulation cells -- see
                                     #5).




                                                               14







                                                                         Concepts and Definitions



                           3.   Estuary circulation systems.

                                - direct discharge of wastewater into coastal waters
                                from all sources, estuary water quality, and effects
                                on biota.


                           4.   Ocean basins.

                                - direct discharge of wastewater, oil, and solid
                                waste from all sources, quality of ocean waters and
                                sediments, and effects on biota;

                                - estuary  pollution, quality of ocean waters and
                                sediments, and effects on flora and fauna.

                           5.   Longshore circulation cells, coastal erosion and
                                deposition.

                                - control of coastal erosion and erosion-accretion
                                dynamics within littoral circulation cells.

                           6.   Air basins.

                                - atmospheric emissions from all sources, ambient
                                air quality, and effects on biota and human health.

                           7.   Populations of sport and commercial species.

                                - degradation of coastal streams and habitat of
                                anadromous fish populations;

                                - degradation of estuarine habitats and size of
                                waterfowl, wildlife, and fish populations;

                                - harvesting of commercial or sport species and
                                maintenance of a sustained-yield population and
                                food web.


                           8.   Viewsheds.


                                - development in areas visible from the first public
                                road parallel to the coast, public recreation areas,
                                or tourist facilities;

                                - control of development in areas visible from major
                                public use facilities;

                                - design of guidelines for coastal development
                                visible from recreation or tourism areas.


                           9.   Public service systems.

                                - land use within sewage services district and
                                capacity of sewage system;

                                                          15








                           Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments




                                          - land use within water services district and
                                          capacity of water supply system;

                                            land use within highway service area and highway
                                          congestion;

                                          - land use and the       ability to evacuate residents
                                          from storm hazard-prone areas before the advent of
                                          hurricanes, typhoons, or tsunamis.

                              Developing coastal nations probably will be concerned with management of
                           those coastal systems which have direct and significant effects on the national
                           economy or society.       They may be less concerned with protecting coastal
                           viewsheds unless coastal tourism is an important sector of the economy.


                           2.7 Coastal Sectoral Management or Planning

                           Coastal sectoral management or planning connotes the management of a single
                           resource or use by a unit of government. For instance, a program focused on
                           control of shoreline erosion in the coastal zone is a coastal sectoral
                           management program.        Sectoral planning is most often undertaken for ports,
                           fisheries, tourism, oil and gas development, and wildlife (sectoral planning is
                           discussed further in Chapters 7 and 8).

                              International assistance agencies use the term sectoral planning or
                           management to describe a socio-economic development area. In the field of
                           natural resources and environmental planning the most commonly conducted
                           sectoral development programs are: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy,
                           transportation, industrialization, urbanization, and public health and safety.
                           This report divides a number of these eight sectoral development areas into
                           more specialized coastal components. For example, transportation is divided
                           into shipping, ports, and surface transportation. Table 8.1 lists typical sectoral
                           divisions in coastal zone management.


                           2.8 Integrated Planning

                           Integrated planning is designed to interrelate and jointly guide the activities of
                           two or more sectors in planning and development. In the context of coastal
                           zone management, integrated planning usually implies the programmatic goal is
                           to balance and optimize environmental protection, public use, and economic
                           development.      Often, integration also assumes coordination between data
                           gathering    and    analysis,    plan-making,     planning,     implementation,      and
                           construction.   The two most common expressions of integrated planning are
                           national economic planning and land use planning, also known in some
                           countries as town and country planning (both are discussed in Chapter 7).

                              The recent focus on integrated planning and management reflects the
                           growing awareness among developing nations that renewable natural resources
                           are the foundation needed to build economic and social development programs.
                           A 1979 report on environmental management in developing countries reinforces
                           this view (USAID, 1979).


                                                                      16







                                                                           Concepts and Definitions



                           For the principally agricultural societies that predominate in
                           developing countries, poverty and environmental degradation
                           are in fact two manifestations of the same phenomenon: the
                           unplanned, unmanaged impact of growing populations on a
                           fragile natural resource base whose productivity is measurably
                           diminishing in our own lifetime. If the material circumstances
                           of the world's poorer people arc ever to be improved over the
                           long-term, ways will have to be found to husband the fragile
                           natural resources upon which their well being depends.

                  Compared with inland environments, the coastal zone is more richly endowed
                  with renewable natural resources. These include productive fisheries, soil and
                  forests as well as the recreational values of coastal waters, beaches, and
                  shorelands.



                  2.9 Integrated Coastal Zone Management

                  A five day workshop was convened in July 1989 to bring together individuals
                  from all over the world who had been involved in coastal zone management
                  programs. There were 28 participants from 13 different nations. The purpose
                  of the meeting was to review progress in the last 20 years and consider the
                  future of the practice. Two of the most animated points of discussion were
                  the appropriate term to call the practice and a brief definition of the practice.
                  There was general consensus that best name for the practice was integrated
                  coastal zone management ("ICZM").       Alternative terms that have been used
                  over the years were considered, including; coastal area management and
                  planning, coastal zone management, integrated coastal resources management
                  and coastal management. The term, coastal management, was rejected because
                  it was considered to be too general.   This opinion is reflected in the definition
                  offered for this term in Section 2.2.

                     After considerable discussion the   participants of the July workshop    agreed
                  on the following brief definition of integrated coastal zone management;

                           a dynamic process in which a coordinated strategy is
                           developed and implemented for the allocation of environmental,
                           socio-cultural, and institutional resources to achieve the
                           conservation and sustainable multiple use of the coastal zone
                           (Coastal Area Management and Planning Network, 1989).

                  The workshop participants were in general agreement that an integrated
                  coastal management program would have all of the following five attributes:

                           0    It is a process that continues over considerable
                                time. ICZM is a dynamic program that usually will
                                require continual updating and amendments. ICZM
                                is not a one time project.

                           0    There is a governance arrangement to establish the
                                policies for making allocation decisions and, if the
                                program is implemented, a governance arrangement
                                for making allocation decisions.


                                                           17







                          Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                   0     The governance arrangement uses one or more
                                         management strategies to rationalize and systematize
                                         the allocation decisions.

                                   0     The management strategies selected are based on a
                                         systems     perspective     which      recognizes      the
                                         interconnections    among    coastal   systems.       The
                                         systems    perspective    usually    requires    that    a
                                         multisectoral approach be used in the design          and
                                         implementation of the management strategy.

                                   0     It has a geographic boundary that def ines a space
                                         which extends from the ocean environment across
                                         the transitional shore environments to some inland
                                         limit, Small islands may not have an inland limit.

                          The terms governance arrangement and management strategy are              explained in
                          the respective chapters devoted to these topics.

                             Many times it is difficult to determine whether a program is          an integrated
                          coastal zone management effort and or some other form of environmental
                          planning and management. For example, should a national program for the
                          planning and management of coastal parks and reserves be termed ail ICZM
                          effort or just a sectoral program?          Generally, a systems perspective and
                          multisectoral approach are the two key characteristics that serve to distinguish
                          ICZM from other types of environmental planning and management programs.

                            Making the distinction between what are and what are not ICZM programs is
                          critically important for conducting international or national comparative
                          analyses. If lessons are to be learned from the experience of past and present
                          ICZM programs, we must be able to define what we are looking for among the
                          myriad of approaches to environmental planning and management. Questions
                          will be continually asked on the number and location of ICZM efforts in the
                          world. The answer, of course, depends on how the term, integrated coastal
                          zone management, is defined.

                            In this book we use two terms as synonyms for integrated coastal zone
                          management.      These are coastal zone management and integrated coastal
                          management.



                          2.10 Ocean Management

                          Ocean management involves national direction and control of "ocean space"
                          including surface waters, the water column, the seabed, and the subseabed.
                          The area covered by ocean management can extend from the inland limit of
                          national jurisdiction (usually mean high or low tide) out to the ocean extent of
                          its most seaward claim. The Convention on the Law of the Sea (CLOS) allows
                          a coastal nation to claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ).                The coastal
                          nation may have exclusive use of the EEZ in order to exploit the resources off
                          its coasts -- particularly fisheries, oil, gas, and minerals.

                             Two different methods can be used to determine the oceanward boundary of
                          the EEZ; a coastal nation may use either or both methods. One method is to

                                                                     18







                                                                            Concepts and Deflnitions



                     measure 200 nautical miles oceanward from the coastal baseline (CB).         The
                     coastal baseline is delineated by a series of straight lines interconnecting the
                     nation's headlands, promontories, and islands. The other method is to use the
                     maximum extent of the continental margin (see Figures 2.2 and 3.1).           The
                     continental margin consists of the continental shelf, the continental slope,  and
                     the continental rise. In most places around the world the continental margin
                     is less than 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline.     In this case the
                     oceanward boundary of the EEZ is usually set at 200 nautical miles. In those
                     relatively few places where the continental margin exceeds 200 nautical miles,
                     the coastal nation may use the continental margin to set the oceanward
                     boundary of the EEZ.

                        There is a major exception to these two methods. The exception is nations
                     with a geographic boundary to one another of less than 400 nautical miles or
                     nations that are interconnected by the continental shelf.    In either of these
                     two cases, the oceanward boundary is usually a midline set at points half the
                     distance between the respective coastal baselines of the adjoining nations.

                        There is some semantic confusion in the literature regarding the distinction
                     between coastal and oceanic areas. Oceanographers with a global perspective
                     on the oceans generally consider all the area within the continental margin to
                     be coastal waters.   Coastal zone managers usually consider all areas beyond
                     the oceanward extent of the territorial sea (usually from three to twelve
                     nautical miles) to be oceanic.     The simplest way to distinguish a coastal
                     management program from an ocean management program is whether or not a
                     terrestrial zone is included within the program's jurisdiction. The terrestrial
                     area would be any lands inland of the mean high tide.

                        If this distinction is made, the multiple use zoning plans of the Great
                     Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) would constitute an ocean
                     management program. T1he Authority's jurisdiction extends from toe low tide
                     line to the edge of the continental shelf. The ocean boundary has been set by
                     five longitude and latitude points that are approximately 200 meters in depth.
                     The series of straight lines interconnecting the five points define a boundary
                     that varies in width from 40 to 150 nautical miles. The boundaries enclose an
                     area of 350,000 square kilometers, a jurisdiction larger in size than the United
                     Kingdom or two-thirds the size of France. The marine park is not a national
                     park in the conventional sense. The concept is that of a multiple use planning
                     strategy which provides for the management of the entire jurisdictional area
                     by zoning.

                        Ocean development or management plans are being considered, prepared or
                     implemented by Brazil, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and the Netherlands. According to
                     a recent publication only the Netherlands and the State of Hawaii -- in
                     addition to GBRMPA -- have developed ocean management programs (Vallejo,
                     1989).  Figure 2.1 shows the proposed or actual boundaries of several ocean
                     management initiatives.









                                                             19














                         3. DIFFERENCES AND COMMONALITIES AMONG COASTAL NATIONS




                       Our literature review reveals many geographic, environmental, social, and
                       economic similarities as well as differences among coastal nations.                  These
                       similarities and differences affect the likelihood that an integrated coastal
                       zone management program will be created in a given nation. A developing
                       nation's    coastal    characteristics     also    suggest    alternative      governance
                       arrangements and management strategies for        coastal programs.

                          The six main characteristics we found to be useful in distinguishing a
                       coastal nation's disposition to coastal resources management are presented in
                       this section.  These characteristics are:


                                0      geographic disparities (dimensions of coastlines and
                                       ocean claims);

                                0      coastal resource value (economic sectors linked to
                                       the coast, which influence the value nations attach
                                       to coastal resources);

                                0      concentration of development and population;

                                0      coastal orientation;

                                0      level of development; and

                                0      existing or potential government powers in the
                                       coastal zone.



                       3.1 Geographic Disparities

                       Coastal nations claim varying amounts of coastal and marine space within their
                       jurisdiction. Ocean Yearbook 3 presents a table with three coastal or marine
                       geographic measures for 155 sovereign nations and semi-sovereign states
                       (Borgese and Ginsburg, 1982). The measures are:

                                0      coastline in kilometers;

                                0      coastline/area    ratio   (expressed   as   coastline     in
                                       kilometers divided by total land area);

                                0      hypothetical area encompassed by a boundary
                                       extending to the 200 nautical mile exclusive
                                       economic zone or to the limits imposed by the
                                       exclusive economic zone of neighboring coastal
                                       nations.

                          Table 3.1 lists the five nations with the highest and lowest values for each
                       of the three geographic dimensions. Canada has by far the longest coastline,
                       over 90,000 kilometers, Indonesia is second with nearly 55,000 kilometers, and

                                                                   21







                                 Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments





                                  Table 3.1: Geographic Dimensions of Selected Coastal Nations



                                                                                                         Area to
                                                                         Coastline     Coastline/         200 nm
                        GREATEST LENGTH OF COASTLINE                       (km)        area ratio     (in 100 kms)
                        Canada                                             90,908           .0091          1,370.0
                        Indonesia                                          54,716           .0297          1,577.0
                        U.S.S.R.                                           46,670           .0021          1,309.0
                        Greenland                                          44,087           .0203             147.3
                        Australia                                          25,760           .0033          1,854.0

                        SHORTEST LENGTH OF COASTLINE
                        Monaco                                                    4       2.0                 NA
                        Gibraltar                                               12        2.0                 NA
                        Nauru                                                   24        1.4290              92.8
                        Tuvalu                                                  24          .9231            211.5
                        Jordan                                                  26          .0003             NA

                        HIGHEST COASTLINE              AREA RATIO
                        Macao                                                   40        2.5                 NA
                        Maldives                                               644        2.2                279.7
                        Monaco                                                  4         2.0                 NA
                        Gibraltar                                               12        2.0                 NA
                        Bermuda                                                103        1.9                 NA


                        LOWEST     COASTLINE         AREA RATIO
                        Zaire                                                   37          .0001                  .3
                        Iraq                                                    58          .0001                  .2
                        Jordan                                                  26          .0003             NA
                        Sudan                                                  853          .0003             26.7
                        Algeria                                               1,183         .0005             NA

                        GREATEST EXCLUSIVE E!CONOMIC ZONE
                        U.S.A.                                             19,924           .0021          2,220.0
                        Australia                                          25,760           .0033          1,954.0
                        Indonesia                                          54,716           .0287          1,577.0
                        Canada                                             90,908           .0091          1,370.0
                        U.S.S.R.                                           46,670           .0021          1,309.0

                        SMALLEST EXCLLJSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
                        Singapore                                              193          .3310                  .1
                        Iraq                                                    58          .0001                  .2
                        Togo                                                    56          .0010                  .3
                        Zaire                                                   37          .0001                  .3
                        Belgium                                                 63          .0021                  .8


                        KEY: NA = No measure given                 (Source: Borgese and Ginsburg, 1982)




                                                                      22







                                               Differences and Commonalities Among Coastal Nations



                     the USSR has a coastline of over 46,000 kilometers.       At the other extreme,
                     Monaco has a 4 kilometer coast, Gibralter's is 12 kilometers, and the island
                     nations of Nauru and Tuvalu each have 24 kilometers of coastline.

                        A more meaningful measure of the importance of the coast to a nation is
                     the ratio of coastline to total land area.    Small island nations or peninsula
                     nations have the highest ratio. Nations with high ratios are likely to depend
                     heavily on their coastal resources. Macao, the Maldives, Monaco and Gibralter
                     all have a coastline/area ratio ranging from 2.0 to 2.5.       Conversely, large
                     nations with short coastlines have a ratio of several orders of magnitude less.
                     For Zaire, the ratio is one kilometer of coastline to every 10,000 square
                     kilometers of land area. Low values are also indicated for Iraq, Jordan, Sudan
                     and Algeria.   Nations with low coastline/area ratios are unlikely to depend
                     heavily on coastal resources.

                        However, nations with comparatively short stretches of coastline usually
                     place a high value on their ocean access because it is a very limited and
                     scarce commodity. For example, Jordan, with a coastline of only 26 kilometers
                     on the Gulf of Aqabah (Red Sea), and a coastline/area ratio of .0003, has
                     developed a detailed management program for their small window on the
                     world's oceans. Within a 26 kilometer stretch, Jordan has to accommodate its
                     only ocean port, its navy, and its coastal tourism area. The argument can be
                     made that nations with a large amount of coastline (and a high coastline to
                     total land area ratio) and nations with very little coastline (and a low
                     coastline to total land area ratio) place a higher value on their coastal zone
                     than the vast majority of nations that comprise the middle of the range.

                        The U.S. claims the largest exclusive economic zone (ocean area to 200
                     nautical miles or to the limits imposed by other nation's EEZ) with a 2.2
                     million square kilometer claim. Australia has a 1.8 million square kilometer
                     claim, and Indonesia claims 1.57 million square kilometers.

                        The easy-to-measure quantity indicators presented by Table 3.1 indicate the
                     importance of the coast. A high coast/land area ratio, a large coastline or a
                     large exclusive economic zone are good indicators of the potential existence
                     and exploitation of coastal resources. The expected result is that the nation
                     would accord high value to coastal and ocean resource management. However,
                     area, length or shoreline/area ratios often do not     ref lect the value of the
                     coastal zone to a nation. For example, the polar ice   pack renders much of the
                     ocean claim for Greenland, Canada, and the USSR unusable for fishing, oil
                     exploitation, and shipping. Similarly, many tropical island nations have very
                     large ocean claims of relatively low fishery value due to limited productivity of
                     the waters. In the Near East and North Africa the      majority of the coastline
                     borders hot barren deserts, creating an environment    that precludes most types
                     of coastal development.



                     3.2 Coastal Resource Value

                     The best measure of the coastal zone's importance to a nation is the quality
                     or value of coastal resources within the nation's jurisdiction. The value that
                     nations attach to coastal resources is directly related to the economic
                     contribution of these resources.      We find this economic contribution is



                                                            23







                          Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                          typically, expressed with four measures, which are useful for most economic
                          sectors. These measures are:


                                  0     monetary value of coastal resource production;

                                  0     export earnings of coastal resource production;

                                  0     number of people directly or indirectly employed;

                                  0     the cultural value of the coastal resource to serve
                                        dietary, religious or social needs.

                             To firmly establish these values for a series of developing countries, a
                          review and analysis of statistical data would be required. Although such a
                          review is outside the scope of this book, Appendix A lists the data that would
                          be needed to derive such quantitative indicators of coastal value for several
                          sectors of the economy. As a first step we recommend that the availability of
                          this data should be assessed.


                             A team of economists (Pontecorvo et al., 1980) designed a conceptual and
                          statistical model for calculating the aggregate value of ocean and coastal
                          resources to the United States economy.             The analysts extracted the
                          information to make the calculations for this       "Pontecorvo model" from the
                          census and national income accounting system.

                                  Based on their model, the aggregate value of the U.S. ocean
                                  sector for 1972, the most recent year . . . data was available,
                                  [was] $30.6 billion, comparable to agriculture at $35.4 billion
                                  . . . since the total U.S. GNP for 1972 was $1,171.1 billion,
                                  the ocean and coastal sector contributed 2.6% of the total
                                  (Towle, 1985).

                          The Ocean Studies Program at Dalhousie University adapted the Pontecorvo
                          model to other coastal nations (Mitchell and Gold, 1982; Towle, 1985). The
                          analysts calculated that ocean-related activity accounted for 33% of St. Lucia's
                          GNP in 1978, 32% of Antigua-Barbuda's GNP in 1981, and 30% of Grenada's
                          GNP in 1982. The Pontecorvo model as adapted by Dalhousie quantitatively
                          compares and ranks the relative economic importance of ocean and coastal
                          resources among nations (Towle, 1985).

                             The four dominant economic sectors in the coastal zone are fisheries,
                          tourism, ports, and oil and gas extraction. Hard mineral extraction is a fifth
                          sector where the value of coastal resources is apparent.           Agriculture and
                          forestry are two other sectors which may derive a production benefit from a
                          coastal location.  Certainly the forestry yields from mangroves represent an
                          important economic sector in many countries.            Coastal hazards do not
                          represent a productive sector of the economy, but they can certainly exert a
                          significant economic impact. Thus, a nation that has sustained economic loss
                          due to flooding, wave damage, or shoreline erosion, may attach significant
                          value to the proper management of coastal resources and processes.           Control
                          or reduction of environmental hazards is usually a component of the public
                          health and safety planning.



                                                                   24







                                                 Differences and Commonalities Among Coastal Nations




                         Another indicator of the value of coastal resources to a nation is
                      government commitment to develop a particular sector of the economy that is
                      coastal-related. This might be evident in the creation of a special department
                      for coastal management, a legislative or executive act, a plan for resource
                      development, or the allocation of funds to implement sector development plans.


                      3.3 Concentration of Development and Population

                      A distinct measure of the importance of the coastal zone to a nation is the
                      relative concentration of economic development and population.           There is a
                      positive correlation between an increase in coastal zone resource values and an
                      increase in both the concentration of population and economic development.
                      These three indicators can also be measured separately. Population growth and
                      economic development can occur in the coastal zone without direct connection
                      to coastal resources.     Non-coastal related manufacturing and other basic
                      industries commonly occur in the coastal zones, to take advantage of
                      terrestrial resources, transportation and infrastructure networks, as well as
                      easy-to-develop land.

                         In most coastal nations, national capitols and their surrounding metropolitan
                      areas are within the zone that significantly affects coastal resources.          Such
                      capitols and their metropolitan areas usually originated as the nation's major
                      port and owe their early development to port and related transportation
                      functions. However, much of their subsequent growth is in the government
                      and finance sections and is not port-related.        The result is that the port
                      economy often becomes a secondary sector of the metropolitan region it
                      spawned.



                      3.4 Coastal Orientation

                      We have suggested several indicators to describe a nation's relationship to its
                      coast:  coastline length,    coast-to-area ratio, size of      ocean   area    claim,
                      contribution of ocean and coastal resources to the national GNP, awareness of
                      coastal hazards, institutional development for coastal-related sectors, and
                      concentration of development and population.           Some of these are better
                      indicators than others, but each at least suggests national interest.      We ref er
                      to the composite of these f actors as "coastal orientation."

                         Clearly, there are degrees of coastal orientation. At one extreme are the
                      small island states or nations, such as Bermuda, the Maldives, the Seychelles,
                      and Niue. In these nations, virtually no part of their environment or economy
                      is without coastal influence.     At the other extreme are nations with a tiny
                      fraction of coast/land area and little coastal development of coastal resources.
                      Examples of this second category are Jordan, Zaire, Sudan, Algeria, Iran and
                      Iraq. In these nations the coast is valuable because the multiple use demand
                      is great and the supply of coast is small.         A more precise accounting of
                      coastal orientation could be derived from a data base. organized around the
                      indicators listed above. In the absence of this data, we propose a descriptive
                      four-part typology which is outlined below.





                                                                25







                          Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                   1.    Small Island nations. All are coastal-    oriented, given
                                         their   large   coast     to land    area,    the   strong
                                         dependence of their economics on coastal resources,
                                         concurrent lack of inland economic base, and the
                                         concentration of their population along the coast
                                         (this conclusion is supported by the Dalhousie study
                                         (Mitchell and Gold, 1982) and Towle (1985)).

                                   2.    Large island nations. All are coastal-oriented, but
                                         usually not to the same degree as small island
                                         nations.   Large island nations almost always have
                                         capitols on the coast.    These nations typically have
                                         a coastal or island       resource base and a more
                                         dispersed population.     Coastal hazards are likely to
                                         be a strong concern in countries such as Sri Lanka,
                                         Japan, Great Britain, New Zealand, Indonesia, Cuba,
                                         Japan, Madagascar, and the Philippines.

                                   3.    Coastal-oriented continental nations. These nations
                                         are often characterized by strong fishing, ports,
                                         tourism, or offshore oil and gas sectors.             Most
                                         coastal-oriented continental nations have a strong
                                         concentration      of    population      and    economic
                                         development on the coast.            Often the major
                                         metropolitan area or the capitol city is in the
                                         coastal zone. The United States, Nigeria, Senegal,
                                         Uruguay, Tanzania, Argentina,            Libya, United
                                         Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, and Ecuador are
                                         examples.

                                   4.    The fourth category       Iis made up of continental
                                         nations which are not coastal-oriented.         Economic
                                         development     in    these  nations    is  directed     at
                                         terrestrial resources in the interior and the size of
                                         the coastal populations is less than that of the
                                         interior. The USSR, Kenya, Germany and Argentina
                                         are examples. Many continental nations have major
                                         ports (e.g. Poland, Belgium, Germany) and some have
                                         distant water fleets (e.g. USSR, Poland, Romania)
                                         but otherwise have relatively little involvement with
                                         the coastal zone.


                             The best test for characterizing a nation's coastal orientation would be to
                          apply the Pontecorvo-Dalhousie model to all nations. However, even if the
                          necessary economic data were available for all coastal       nations, which it is not,
                          the time and effort needed to make the calculations would be prohibitively
                          expensive.

                             It should be noted that the degree of coastal             orientation can change
                          quickly over time. International adoption of the 200 nautical mile exclusive
                          economic zone will produce an increasing coastal orientation of the nations
                          reaping large additional ocean and continental shelf area. Developing coastal
                          nations have altered their orientation with new multiple year national economic
                          plans significantly changing national investment in coastal and ocean resources

                                                                     26







                                               Differences and Commonalities Among Coastal Nations



                     development. An example is Uruguay's decision to develop its rich offshore
                     f isheries. In 1974 the annual tonnage f ished amounted to 12,000 tons.        An
                     ambitious multiple year fisheries development plan has increased the annual
                     catch to 150,000 tons -- of which 85,000 tons are for export (Uruguay,
                     Direccion Nacional de Relaciones Publicas, 1983).


                     3.5 Level of Development

                     International assistance organizations distinguish between developed and
                     developing nations to set priorities for providing technical and financial aid.
                     Several criteria have been used, such as GNP, annual per capita income, extent
                     and quality of infrastructure, literacy rates, and institutional capacity.     An
                     assessment of environmental management in developing countries proposed a
                     three part typology, dividing the world into developed nations, middle income
                     developing countries, and lower income developing countries (International
                     Institute for Environment and Development, 1981).

                        Developed nations have a per capita income per annum in excess of $1,000
                     and include 30% of the world's population (Riddell, 1981). In 1982 dollars, the
                     range of middle income nations is between $200 and $1,000. Fifteen     percent of
                     the global population inhabit the middle income nations. Fifty-five percent of
                     the world's population inhabit the low income nations where the        per capita
                     income per annum is below $200.        The income levels have been found to
                     reflect fundamental differences in (1) financial resources (or income  levels); (2)
                     economic and social infrastructure; and (3) available skills and knowledge
                     (International Institute for Environment and Development, 1981).             Some
                     international government analysts have altered the hierarchy of income levels
                     to create a discrete category for oil or mineral exporting nations which have
                     surplus revenues but are otherwise not fully developed. Thus, the following
                     four-part division is derived from the degree of development and surplus
                     revenues:


                              0    developed or advanced income nations;

                              0    middle income developing nations;

                              0    developing nations with surplus oil or mineral
                                   revenues;

                              0    low income developing nations.

                        These levels of development may be important in guiding a nation's choice
                     of strategies and institutional arrangements to establish coastal management
                     programs (this is discussed further in Chapter 8 and Appendix E).


                     3.6 Existing or Potential Government Powers in the Coastal Zone

                     While the geographic scope and degree of control exercised by government
                     authorities varies widely among nations, some general observations can be made
                     on the relation between types of ocean or coastal areas and the degree of
                     government control.     Figure 3.1 illustrates the relative degree of national
                     government influence for six different geographic areas: exclusive economic

                                                             27






                               Figure 3. 1: Extent of Government Control in the Management of
                                               Marine and Coastal Resources and Environments
             Territorial Total or Near Total Control by the Government           Predo-      Extensive        Less            Least
                                                                                                                                             CS
             Control                 of the Coastal Nation                       minant      Government       Extensive       Govt.          W
             by the                                                                          Control          Govt.           Control &
             Coastal                                                             Cont;ol                      Control         the Most
             Nation                                                                                                           Control
                                                                                                                              by the
                                    Exclusive Economic Zone                                                                   Private
             The Inter-
             National                  (to maximum extent                                                                     Sector
             Area"                        of 200 n.m.)

                                                           Territorial Sea --Mw,
                                                           (The oceanward
                                                           boundary varies
                                                           among nations)    CBi- MLT MHT


                                                                                             Shorelands        Coastal
                                                                                                               Uplands


                 Abyssal      Plain Contin-             Continental Shelf        01-
                 Plain        Rise    ental
                                      Slope
                             -ON-              Continental Margin*               00-4
                    Nn a number of places, the continental margin extends oceanward beyond 200 nautical miles. In these situations,
                    the oceanward boundary of the national jurisdictional claim can be the outer edge of the continental margin.
                    "The International area Is the seabed and ocean waters beyond either the continental margin or the
                    exclusive economic zone (whichever Is greater). Under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the International
                    Seabed Authority has some management authority, particularly with respect to marine mining.
                    tCB - The coastal baseline Is a series of straight lines that Interconnect coastal headlands and promontories.
                                                                                                                                             13
                    The CB Is the reference point used to map the oceanward boundary of both the territorial sea and the
                    exclusive economic zone.
                    MHT - Mean High Tide
                    MLT - Mean Low Tide







                                               Differences and Commonalities Among Coastal Nations



                    zone, territorial sea, continental margin, intertidal, shorelands, and coastal
                    uplands.    Within the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, total or
                    near-total government control is exercised. This control was reaffirmed by the
                    Convention on the Law of the Sea which adopted the concept of a two
                    hundred nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The national government
                    usually has most -- if not all -- of the powers to manage the exclusive
                    economic zone. Some authority is frequently delegated to coastal subnational
                    governments.

                        For the intertidal zone, the public trust is asserted, which in turn carries
                    predominant government, control. In many nations, the concept of the public
                    trust is the heritage of common law. In Mexico, for example, the seashore up
                    to the high tide line is "burdened with a right of commons quite similar to
                    [American]   . . .  tideland trust" (Dyer, 1972).      The Mexican concept of
                    "property of common use" (biencs) is equivalent to American public trust lands
                    and includes the seashore waters, fisheries, and riverbanks (Dyer, 1972).

                        The next area inland, the shorelands, are often subject to extensive
                    government control. Exclusion zones are sometimes imposed in this band (e.g.
                    Costa Rica) to prohibit private encroachment into wetlands, beaches, or to
                    guarantee unrestricted public access to the shore.        Prohibitions or strong
                    regulations also may be imposed to protect coastal views or maintain water
                    quality -- as discussed in Chapter 7, on management strategies.

                        For the coastal uplands, the tradition in most nations is to exercise less
                    control than in the more shoreward areas. Exceptions are nations with strong
                    programs for land use planning or town and country planning (e.g., Great
                    Britain), or nations with a major commitment to economic development in a
                    specific coastal region, such as France's development plan for the Aquitaine, or
                    Mexico's tourism plan and development of Cancun and the southern tip of Baja
                    Calif ornia.

                        Finally, areas which have traditionally enjoyed no government control with
                    respect to coastal resources are usually located inland of the coastal watershed
                    boundary or beyond the most oceanward jurisdictional claim.

                        The complexity of government in terms of sectors, functional divisions, and
                    number of levels usually increases in relation to the level of economic
                    development. In middle income developing nations authority is likely to be
                    distributed among several ministries, which may suggest formation of an
                    interministerial council to draw together existing bureaucracies.              The
                    alternative is to create a new institution (see Chapter 8). Central government
                    in the developing countries often has greater power to control land use and
                    private property.   Chapter 7 mentions two notable examples of a developing
                    nation's public control over land: Nigeria's nationalization of all land not in
                    productive use, and Costa Rica's shorelands restriction zone.

                        The characteristics of coastal nations presented in this section exert a
                    strong influence over the choice of institutional arrangements and management
                    strategies.  This relationship is developed in more detail in Chapter 8 and
                    Appendix E.





                                                             29














                         4. EVOLUTION OF INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT:
                                           FROM CONCEPT TO PRACTICE




                     Our review of integrated coastal zone management efforts indicates that
                     nations (and subnational units) follow a similar process in the evolution of
                     their programs.     These steps begin with an initial awareness stage and
                     culminate in program implementation and evaluation. Figure 4.1 diagrams this
                     general process.


                     4.1 Incipient Awareness (Stage 1)

                     Political recognition by a nation or subnational unit of the need for an
                     integrated coastal management program usually requires obvious coastal
                     resource damage or extensive destruction from coastal hazards. These events.
                     are compounded by the occurrence of intense conflicts among different coastal
                     use activities (e.g. recreation vs. oil refineries and power plants) and their
                     associated interest groups.   In other words, a nation's or subnational unit's
                     coastal resources and environments usually have to exceed some threshold of
                     resource degradation, natural hazard destruction, or conflict before government
                     will take action.

                         A catastrophic coastal event can catalyze public notice and government
                     consciousness of the need for integrated coastal resources management.        The
                     Torrey Canyon oil spill in 1967 taught France and other nations that
                     "institutional arrangements were . . . inadequate to deal with environmental
                     disasters of such magnitude" (Harrison and Sewell, 1979).          Similarly, the
                     well-publicized oil spill in 1969 off Santa Barbara, California from the blowout
                     of an offshore oil well did much to bolster the citizens' campaign to enact
                     state-wide coastal zone management legislation (Adams, 1973).

                         Degradation, destruction, and multiple use conflicts are nearly always
                     preconditions for consideration of integrated coastal resources management.
                     Descriptions of the genesis of coastal awareness in ten nations confirm this
                     observation. The ten nations are: the United States (Englander, Feldman, and
                     Hershman, 1977), England (Waite, 1980; Steers, 1978), France (Harrison and
                     Sewell, 1979), Greece (Camhis and Coccossis, 1982), the Australian states
                     (Cullen, 1982), Sweden (Hildreth, 1975), Ecuador (Ecuador, Armada y Las Naci
                     nes Unidas, 1983), Sri Lanka (Amarasinghe and Wickremeratne, 1983), the
                     Philippines (Zamora, 1979), and Thailand (Adulavidhaya et al., 1982).

                         Figure 4.1 indicates that awareness of prospects for ICZM has been
                     stimulated by the international travel of government, industry, and academic
                     representatives to national as well as international conferences. Visits by
                     foreign experts such as the Regional Seas survey teams, and international
                     assistance missions, advisors or consultants may also stimulate such awareness.
                     For example, the report of the United Nations mission to Sri Lanka in 1974
                     that recommended creation of a Department of Coast Conservation had a
                     marked impact on national policy (Amarasinghe and Wickremeratne, 1983).



                                                             31









                                 Figure 4. 1: Evolution of Coastal Management: From Concept to Practice

                                                                                                         BYPASS

                  STAGE 0                   STAGE I                           STAGE 2                    STAGE 3                 STAGE 4
               No awareness           incipient awareness                Growing awareness              National or
                                       National represent-               National conference             study                 New program
                                       atives participate                Workshops                                              creation
                                       In International                   Legislation                                            Enact legislation
                                       conferences                       proposed                                               or executive
                                       Catastrophic event                                                                        order
                                       and key elites express                                                                    
                                       concern about coastal                 Decision made that                                    Recommend no
                                        degradation                          CZM not appropiate                                 action be taken
                                                                                                                              Revision
                                                                                                                              existing programs                                                                                                                              (such
                                                                          BYPASS-                                       (such as Town and
																					Country Planning)
                                              STAGE 8                     STAGE 7                 STAGE 6                        ST
                                          continue CZM as               Program                                          Program
                                          separate program     -.a* r   evaluation     or Implement program         plan and/
                                              Abandon
                                    CZM absorbed Into
                                          other pr ograms                   BYPASS
                                               STAGE SA                  STAGE 7A              STAGE 6A                        STAge 5A
                                           Continue CZIV1 as              Program			Implement revisions
                                                                    evaluation_
                                                                    0
										BYPASS
										STAGE 7A
						Continue CZM as		Program			STAGE 6A				STAGE 5A
                                     component of           evaluation     or Implement revisions             Program revision
                                           another program

                                                    Abandon

                                           create separate
                 Back to Stage 4 CZM program







                        Evolution of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: From Concept to Practice



                     4.2 Growing Awareness (Stage 2)

                     National conferences, workshops or hearings are usually the next step in
                     program evolution.     Such meetings or informal dialogues may be convened by
                     government agencies, universities, industry associations or non-governmental
                     organizations.     Several nations have convened national conferences or
                     workshops to consider the creation of integrated coastal zone management
                     programs.    These include the Philippines (Zamora, 1979), Australia (Cullen,
                     1982), Canada (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, 1979),
                     Ecuador (Ecuador, Armada y Las Naci nes Unidas, 1983), France (Harrison and
                     Sewell, 1979), and Indonesia (Koesoebiono, Collier, and Burbridge, 1982).


                     4.3 National Study (Stage 3)

                     Conferences, workshops, or visits by international assistance missions often
                     lead to the preparation of national studies.       Such studies typically analyze
                     coastal resources, institutional arrangements, and management options.            The
                     following eleven studies or proceedings illustrate this step:

                              0     U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and
                                    Resources (Stratton Commission), Our Nation and
                                    the Sea, 1969.

                              0     Great Britain, Countryside Commission, The Planning
                                    of the Coastline: A Report of a Study of Coastal
                                    Preservation and Development in England and Wales,
                                    1970.


                              0     Sweden, Ministry of Physical Planning and Local
                                    Government, National Physical Plan: Management of
                                    Land and Water, 1971.

                              0     Ireland, Bord Failte Eireann and An Foras
                                    Forbartha, National Coastline Study, 1972.

                              0     France, Interministerial Committee for Regional
                                    Development and Planning, The Picard Report, 1972.

                              0     United Arab Emirates, Coastal Development Planning
                                    Study, 1976.

                              0     Ecuador, Armada y Las Naci nes Unidas, Ordenacion
                                    y Desarrollo Integral de las Zonas Costeras, 1983.

                              0     Philippines,   National    Environmental      Protection
                                    Council, Proceedings of a Planning Workshop for
                                    Coastal Zone Management, 1978.

                              0     Israel, Ministry of the Interior Planning Section,
                                    The National Outline Scheme for the Mediterranean
                                    Coast, 1978.




                                                               33







                           Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments




                                     0    Canadian Council of Resource and Environment
                                          Ministers, Proceedings of the Shore Management
                                          Symposium, 1978.

                                     0    Australia, House of Representatives, Report on
                                          Management of the Australian Coastal Zone, 1980.

                               Of course, some national or subnational units create new coastal programs
                           without     conducting     comprehensive     studies    or    convening     exploratory
                           conferences. Greece, Indonesia, and Thailand have taken this route.


                           4.4 New Program Creation (Stage 4)

                           At least five of the national studies listed in the previous stage initiated or
                           revised    their    coastal   zone    management      programs.        Findings      and
                           recommendations of the Stratton Commission report, Our Nation and the Sea,
                           prompted the drafting of the legislation that ultimately evolved into the U.S.
                           Coastal Zone Management Act (Zile, 1974).

                               The Countryside Commission Report lead to creation of the Heritage Coast
                           Program for conservation of natural areas with scenic attraction and
                           recreational opportunities for the public (Cullen, 1984). The literature on the
                           history of coastal management in England does not indicate whether national
                           land use policy makers at one point in time made a conscious decision not to
                           create a new and separate program for the integrated management of the
                           United Kingdom's coastal resources.          In any event, the United Kingdom's
                           arrangement for coastal governance consists of a number of revisions to
                           existing acts and programs -- most notably the Town and Country Planning
                           Act, the Local Governance Act, the National Parks Program, and the Natural
                           Area Preserves Program (Waite, 1980; Steers, 1978; Cullen, 1984).         We represent
                           this revision of existing programs for coastal zone management            as in Figure
                           4.1 as Stage 4A. The choice of program revision is distinct from the creation
                           of a new, separate program or the decision not to embark on any form of
                           integrated coastal zone management.

                               In Sweden, the National Physical Plan of 1971 lead to amendments to the
                           Building Act and the Nature Conservancy Act (Hildreth, 1975). The revisions
                           structured a new master (land use) planning process for all municipalities and
                           directed initial efforts to coastal areas and those inland lakes where pressure
                           for leisure home development was the greatest (Hildreth, 1975). The Swedish
                           response is another example of Stage 4A, marginal revisions of existing
                           programs.

                               The Picard Report of 1972 proposed that the French government take five
                           measures to secure "sound" coastal management:

                                    0     creation of the Conservatoire du Litteral;

                                    0     the protection of sensitive perimeters;

                                    0     the development of coastal bases for leisure and
                                          nature;



                                                                      34







                       Evolution of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: From Concept to Practice



                            0    the preparation of marine resource and sea water
                                 use plans;

                            0    the preparation of regional coastal plans (France,
                                 Ministry of the Environment, 1980) '

                       The latest report in English indicates that all five of these measures have
                    been implemented. The most "successful" measure to date has been the land
                    acquisition and management program of the Coastal Conservatoire (France,
                    Ministry of the Environment, 1980).

                       It should be noted that ICZM may be initiated first at the subnational
                    regional scale before going nation- or state-wide. One example of this "scale
                    up" process is the initiation of the    San Francisco Bay Conservation and
                    Development Commission seven years prior to enactment of the California
                    program, and another is the creation of the Port Philip Authority twelve years
                    in advance of Victoria's coastal program (Cullen, 1982).

                       All the existing national programs we have studied have followed the
                    process diagrammed in Figure 4.1, but two other avenues may emerge. Ocean
                    management programs spawned by the Convention on the Law of the Sea, such
                    as Brazil's ocean resources planning programs, as discussed in Section 2.10,
                    may spin off a coastal zone component as a separate program (Brazil, Comissao
                    Interministerial para os Recursos do Mar, 1980). The second avenue could be
                    evolution from a coastal and marine research coordination program. Colombia's
                    program for coordination of government and university marine research may
                    become an example of this avenue (Knecht, 1983).


                    4.5 Program Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (Stages 5 through 8)

                    We have reviewed solid information on coastal program development and
                    implementation for eight nations:       Australia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the
                    Philippines, Sri Lanka, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
                    Most literature covers the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act and the various
                    state programs (particularly California).   Costa Rica's coastal management
                    program was initiated by a new law in 1977.      Now, twelve years later, the
                    program is making steady progress in preparing and implementing regulation
                    plans at the local government level (Sorensen, 1990).      Sri Lanka's coastal
                    program dates from the 1981 passage of a law requiring the preparation of a
                    national coastal program by 1986.      The plan is now being implemented,
                    primarily by regulating development within the coastal zone which extends
                    from 2 km seaward to 300 meters inland (Lowry and Wickremaratne, 1989).
                    Ecuador is beginning to implement a national ICZM program (Olsen, 1987;
                    Ecuador Ministerio de Energia y Minas, 1988).

                       In 1978 Israel produced the National Outline Scheme for the Coast. The
                    plan defined a coastal zone and proposed uses for each section of the coast.
                    Various components of the plan were being implemented in 1984 and other
                    aspects of the plan required additional development if the effort was to fully
                    achieve its objectives (Amir, 1984).

                       What became of the national studies and planning initiatives in Ireland and
                    the United Arab Emirates is unknown. Further analysis should be undertaken

                                                           35







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                        to determine the fate and present status of all national or subnational ICZM
                        ef f orts. The successes and failures of past initiatives would be informative
                        both to countries considering ICZM and to countries engaged in ICZM
                        programs. International assistance agencies considering integrated coastal zone
                        management would also benefit from this information.



















































                                                               36














                                                     5. COASTAL ISSUES




                      We define issues here as the matters in dispute and the opportunities that
                      motivate the creation and implementation of a coastal resources management
                      program.      An effort to define and understand the nature of coastal
                      management issues is central to coastal resource management.                This will
                      become more apparent as we describe how issues drive the field of coastal
                      management in the following five areas:

                               0     program design;

                               0     program evaluation;

                               0     information exchange;

                               0     setting international assistance priorities;

                               0     defining the field of coastal zone management.

                          Issues must be understood to ensure that the institutional arrangement fits
                      the problems that the program is intended to solve. For'example, if the issue
                      is the impact of watershed practices on coastal                 resources, then     the
                      jurisdictional boundary should include the watershed area that generates the
                      problems and the institutional arrangement should include the agencies with
                      the appropriate watershed management authority. Different choices would be
                      suggested, however, if the major concern is the management of the immediate
                      shoreline area including issues such as coastal erosion, tourism development,
                      and public access.       In this case, a narrow jurisdictional zone would be
                      appropriate.     The organizational arrangement should consist primarily of
                      agencies that exercise control over shoreline uses.

                          The issues that motivated a nation to design a program are likely to
                      reappear as the criteria for program evaluation. (This is further discussed in
                      Chapter 8.) The essential question in evaluating a program is to what extent
                      it resolves the issues that motivated its creation.       The full-scale design of a
                      coastal zone management effort should contain an evaluation of program
                      implementation.     Moreover, international assistance agencies are increasingly
                      requiring program evaluation to assess the success of their investment.

                          The international exchange of information typically involves technology
                      development and application, such as dredging equipment or fisheries gear
                      (Kildow, 1977), as well as the issues to which the technology is applied.
                      Several international networks have already been established for information
                      exchange on coastal management issues.             For   example, the International
                      Geographical Union has formed a commission on the coastal environment to
                      exchange information on coastal geomorphology.           More recently, USAID, the
                      U.S. National Park Service, and cooperating universities have created the
                      Coastal Area Management and Planning Network (CAMPNET).                      There is
                      relatively   little  international    inf ormation   exchange,    however,    on     the
                      institutional arrangements of coastal management programs. The variation in
                      combinations of environmental, socio-economic, political and legal factors give

                                                                 37







                          Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                          a    particular  national    character   to   each   coastal   nation's    institutional
                          arrangement. As a result, opportunities are limited for international transfer
                          of information on a particular institutional arrangement.

                             International assistance agencies look for the transferability of experience
                          and products to other nations. In general, the more often an issue arises, the
                          greater the potential transferability.     International assistance agencies would
                          benefit from understanding the relative importance of issues in each nation.
                          Clearly, issues that are globally common and consistently high in national
                          priority warrant more attention from the international assistance community.

                             Coastal zone management lacks a disciplinary identity.           Clear distinctions
                          are lacking as to which issues are addressed by coastal zone management and
                          which are not. Generally, if a problem or opportunity arises from the use of a
                          coastal resource, it is a coastal zone management issue.              This dcf inition
                          includes a broad spectrum of issues.           The best approach to a universal
                          definition may be to compile a list of the coastal nations' concerns for the
                          management of their coastal resources.

                             Our literature review reveals a pattern among the issues. A few common
                          themes demonstrate how the issues provide an international structure to the
                          field of coastal management.        Virtually every coastal nation with a major
                          metropolitan area bordering an estuary has an estuarine pollution problem
                          which is usually the result of municipal sewage and industrial toxins. Estuary
                          pollution occurs in all coastal nations irrespective of the degree of
                          development or environmental and socio-economic conditions.              Nearly every
                          coastal nation that actively harvests its coastal fishery stocks has an
                          overf ishing problem.     In coastal nations with substantial mangrove acreage,
                          environmental analyses usually report stress from watershed practices,
                          pollut'lon, filling, and overharvesting of timber for fuel. Similarly, the litany
                          of institutional problems recurs in each discussion of a nations governance
                          arrangement.       Integrated coastal resources management appears almost
                          invariably to be motivated by inadequate information, lack of intergovernmental
                          coordination   and inadequate professional resources.



                          5.1 Need for a Global Issues Index

                          The need for a global perspective and the recurrence of issues suggests two
                          conclusions regarding the organization of the field of coastal management: (1)
                          there is a need for an international indexing system; (2) such an index could
                          be created rather simply.         Some systems to categorize issues have been
                          constructed for nations and ocean regions. Notable examples are:

                                   0     "Coastal Zone Problems:      A Basis for Evaluation,"
                                         (Englander, Feldman, and Hershman, 1977);

                                   0     Environmental Problems of the East African Region,
                                         (UNEP, 1982c);

                                   0     Marine and Coastal Area Development in the Wider
                                         Caribbean Area: Overview Study, (UNOETB, 1980);



                                                                     38








                                                                                              Coastal Issues




                               0      Man, Land and Sea, (Soysa, Chia, and Collier, 1982);

                               0      "Coastal Zone Management in Australia," (Cullen,
                                      1982);

                               0      Ordenacion y Desarrollo Integral de las Zonas
                                      Costeras, (Ecuador, Armada y Las Naci nes Unidas,
                                      1983).

                      However, our literature search did not reveal any attempts to construct a
                      global index of issues.

                         Our design for a global issues index builds on the six previous efforts
                      which have organized the broad array of issues into groupings.               Generally,
                      distinctions have been made between the following four types of issues:

                               0      impacts of one coastal area activity (e.g., tourism
                                      development or filling wetlands) on others (e.g.,
                                      decreased commercial fishing yields);

                               0      coastal hazards or impacts of natural forces (e.g.,
                                      shore erosion, river flooding, ocean born storms) on
                                      coastal use activities;

                               0      development    needs   or   sectoral   planning     (e.g.,
                                      fisheries development plan);

                               0      organizational   process    problems,   such    as    an
                                      inadequate data base or lack of coordination.

                      Each of the     issues is discussed below.     Appendix B presents a preliminary
                      global list of the issues for the first three groupings: impact issues, hazards,
                      and sectoral planning.


                      5.2 Impact Issues

                      Impact issues are the most difficult issues to define. Many environmental and
                      socio-cconomic causal relationships among coastal use activities form a web of
                      interconnections and untangling these impact issues requires the determination
                      of separate cause and effect chains (these are commonly discussed in the
                      literature as impact networks or trees).           In general, environmental and
                      socio-economic impacts are the end result of a four-step process:

                               0      coastal   land    or    water    use    (e.g.,   tourism
                                      development);

                               0      specific activity (e.g., filling of wetlands);

                               0      change In environmental or socio-economic condition
                                      (e.g., reduced estuary productivity);

                               0      Impact of social concern (e.g., decreased fisheries
                                      yield).

                                                                 39







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           For an issue to be perceived as a problem, the causal chain must evolve to
                        the f inal step in the sequence -- an impact on a social value, such as a
                        decreased fisheries yield. Appendix B assumes all chains culminate in impacts
                        on critical social values.

                           We have clustered the list of impact issues in Appendix B into the following
                        ten sets.  The number in parentheses indicates the number of more specific
                        issues contained in each set:


                                0     estuary, harbor and near shorewater quality impacts
                                      (14);

                                0     groundwater quality and quantity (2);

                                0     filling of wetlands (including mangroves) (5);

                                0     mangrove impacts (5);

                                0     coral reef and atoll impacts (9);

                                0     beach, dune, and delta impacts (5);

                                0     fishing effort (2);

                                0     access to the shoreline and subtidal area (2);

                                0     visual quality (2);

                                0     employment (2).

                           It is notable that the adverse impacts primarily relate to issues of water
                        quality, pollution, and ecosystem types (e.g., wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs).
                        There is some redundancy between two categories:        filling of wetlands and
                        mangrove impacts. Although mangroves are one type of wetland, the ubiquity
                        and importance of mangrove systems to most developing nations merits a
                        separate grouping.

                           Of the 48 separate impact issues listed in Appendix B, 27 of them concern
                        effects on fisheries yield and 17 of them concern effects on tourism and
                        recreation attraction (there is some double counting, and we combined similar
                        impact chains).    Fisheries conservation and the maintenance of tourism or
                        recreation quality clearly emerge as the two main arguments for integrated
                        coastal resources management. These two coastal uses are affected by almost
                        all of the other use activities listed.  The economic importance of fisheries
                        and tourism will strongly influence the extent to which developing nations will
                        want to initiate coastal resources management programs.       Mangrove f orestry
                        operated on a sustainable yield basis appears to be of secondary importance,
                        but is a significant coastal-dependent sector in several nations.    The greater
                        the value of coastal fisheries, coastal tourism, and mangrove forests to the
                        national economy and coastal populations, the greater the nation's interest in
                        coastal zone management.

                           The list of impact issues clearly illustrates the zonal nature of the coast.
                        Nineteen of the issue impacts occasionally or always originate in coastal

                                                                40








                                                                                        Coastal Issues




                     watersheds -- often far inland from the shoreline (DuBois, Berry, and Ford,
                     1985). On the ocean side, ten of the issue impacts can originate offshore and
                     move landward to adversely affect coastline or estuary environments (Hayes,
                     1985; DuBois and Towle, 1985). The many watershed-coast-ocean connections
                     clearly demonstrate that the coastal zone is where use activities which affect
                     renewable resources must be coordinated.



                     5.3 Hazard Issues


                     Hazard issues constitute a relatively clear set of concerns. We found that five
                     types of hazards were distinguished by coastal nations:

                             0     shoreline erosion (Hayes, 1985);

                             0     coastal river flooding;

                             0     ocean born storms;

                             0     tsunamis;

                             0     migrating dunes (DuBois and Towle, 1985).

                     All five hazards are naturally occurring phenomena. However, coastal erosion,
                     river flooding, and dune migration can be caused in some situations solely by
                     use activities, such as residential development. More commonly, these natural
                     phenomena are exacerbated by the additional effects of human use activities.

                        Our literature review shows that coastal hazards are another major
                     economic stimulus which initiate coastal resources management programs. This
                     leads us to the conclusion that prospects for development of a coastal zone
                     management program in lower income developing countries are strongest where
                     fisheries, tourism, or coastal hazards devastation are important concerns, or
                     where there is an infusion of international assistance funds and expertise.


                     5.4 Developmental Needs

                     Development needs are expressions of sectora,1 planning interest in response to
                     one or more problems or opportunities identified by the coastal nation.
                     However, coastal nations want information on these topics, and therefore
                     development needs should be included in an issue-based information system.
                     Eleven types of development needs emerged from the literature survey:

                             0     f isheries;

                             0     natural area protection systems;

                             0     water supply;

                             0     recreation development;

                             0     tourism development;


                                                             41







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                 0     port development;

                                 0     energy development;

                                 0     oil or toxic spill contingency planning (as a
                                       component of water pollution control plans);

                                 0     industrial siting;

                                 0     agricultural development;

                                 0     mariculture development.

                            Most coastal nations will prepare sectoral plans for fisheries, water supply,
                        natural areas, port development, industrial siting, and agriculture.                A
                        meaningful difference among coastal nations will be the priority each assigns
                        to the respective sectors.      For example, is fisheries development planning
                        higher on a nation's priority list than port development? The utility of the
                        list would be improved if a number of broad sectoral categories were
                        subdivided into more specific topics. For example, port development should be
                        subdivided into the primary types of port facilities needed (e.g., oil, bulk
                        container, general purposes, fishery, recreation marinas).


                        5.5 Organizational Process Problems

                        Analysts of program evaluation commonly distinguish between organizational
                        process problems and outcome problems.          We refer to outcome problems in
                        coastal zone management as impact issues and hazards (Appendix B).
                        Organizational process problems are procedures (or characteristics) that inhibit
                        an organization from attaining its goals and objectives.             A number of
                        organizational process problems are also discussed in Chapter 9, Program
                        Implementation and Evaluation.

                            An analysis of issues that motivated passage of the U.S. Coastal Zone
                        Management Program (Englander, Feldman, and Hershman, 1977) identified five
                        critical organizational problems:

                                 0     lack of coordination among public agencies;

                                 0     insufficient planning and regulatory authority;

                                 0     insufficient data base and lack of information for
                                       decision making;

                                 0     little understanding or knowledge about coastal
                                       ecosystems;

                                 0     resource decisions made primarily on the basis of
                                       economic considerations to the exclusion of
                                       ecological considerations;

                        Eight other issues turned up as secondary in the analysis:


                                                                  42








                                                                                                   Coastal Issues




                                 0     lack of clearly stated goals;

                                 0     lack of state and local government funds to manage
                                       the coastal zone adequately;

                                 0     primitive analytical tools and predictive
                                       methodologies;

                                 0     dominance of short-term management over
                                       long-range planning;

                                 0     complex, conflicting, and confusing laws;

                                 0     little awareness of or concern with coastal
                                       problems;

                                 0     lack of properly trained and educated management
                                       personnel;

                                 0     limited public participation in decision making.

                           Few    descriptions     of   coastal   issues    in   developing     nations     discuss
                       organizational process problems. Those that do usually identify problems such
                       as lack of coordination, an insufficient data base, lack Of personnel, lack of
                       clearly stated goals, and outmoded laws.           It appears that the same types of
                       organizational process problems will occur irrespective of the nation's level of
                       development.      For example, lack of adequate governmental coordination and
                       inadequate information for decisions are two problems inherent in almost all
                       comprehensive policy-making.

                           We can expect that nations will vary in the relative importance of each
                       institutional problem. Developing nations, for instance, have stressed the lack
                       of properly trained and educated personnel and complex, conflicting, and
                       confusing laws as obstacles to program development.                 However, these two
                       concerns were given a relatively low priority in the survey of U.S. problems.


                       5.6 National Listings

                       Based on our literature search, we list in Appendix B nations that have
                       expressed concern in published reports about each respective issue.                     This
                       provides a starting point for a complete             list of nations for each issue.
                       Individuals familiar with a nation's coastal zone could no doubt augment the
                       list with other issues that have arisen in that nation (in Appendix B we
                       explain five problems that contribute to gaps       on our list).

                           This national list could be improved by         the addition of priority rankings.
                       Englander, Feldman and Hershman's (1977)           article on U.S. coastal management
                       problems is one of few studies that indicates the relative importance of each
                       issue.


                           A cross-section of nations would be sufficient to ensure that the issues
                       confronting coastal nations are identified. The 30 coastal nations in Appendix
                       B with complete descriptions constituts such a cross-section of important

                                                                    43








                       Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                       variables. The sample broadly represents variations in *level of development,
                       global climatic zones, and continental locations.


                       5.7 Surveying National Issues

                       We e 'nvision that compiling a global index of coastal management issues would
                       be a two-step process.    The first step is to construct the initial list of issues
                       based on a review of national descriptions (Appendix B represents the product
                       of this first step).   The second step is to complete a global survey of all
                       coastal nations both to further refine the issues list and to complete the
                       national lists.  This task was beyond the scope of this study, but the process
                       for conducting the global survey is outlined in Appendix B.

                          Certainly coastal nations should be encouraged to conduct      their own survey
                       and ranking of coastal issues.       The Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, New
                       Zealand and Ecuador have defined national concerns by convening national
                       conferences or workshops and appointing task forces.          Most coastal nations
                       cannot be expected to go to this level of effort.      It is more likely that one
                       agency      such as the national planning office or an environmental policy
                       council    will compose a ranked list of coastal issues.

                          We do not expect that review of additional national descriptions or national
                       .surveys will add a significant number of new impact issues to the list. The 30
                       nations used as the basis for constructing the list in Appendix B are a
                       representative sample of the world's coastal nations.

                          Since we wanted to determine the consensus of developing nations, an issue
                       impact had to be   'identified by a developing nation to be included in our list.
                       However, further iterations of the issues index should also include issues that
                       are of concern only to developed nations. At a minimum, the list would help
                       document one of the differences between these two groupings of nations.























                                                                44













                                   6. MAJOR ACTORS IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT




                     If integrated coastal management efforts are to allocate scarce resources
                     among competing interests, then coastal managers must identify and work with
                     representatives of key interest groups. Table 6.1 suggests the array of actors
                     that may have an interest in resolution of many coastal conflicts.

                         As Table 6.1 indicates, stakeholders in coastal issues may be active at the
                     local, regional, national, or transnational level. They may be well organized or
                     poorly organized.     Among the well organized stakeholders arc government
                     agencies, parastatal corporations, and private industry, scientific, and
                     conservation organizations. Less organized groups of actors may include land
                     owners, ethnic groups, and social classes.     Of course, the latter groups may
                     become well organized in the context of political parties or other formal
                     organizations.


                     6.1   Well Organized Actors

                     6.1.1 Elected officials.


                     Elected officials may be important players in coastal resources management.
                     National political figures may champion a particular- development project or
                     conservation initiative.   For example, in Ecuador, President Febres Cordero
                     appointed the Comision de Alto Nivel para el Plan Maestro Galapagos (High
                     Level Commission for the Galapagos Islands Master Plan). Local and regional
                     officials may also be important actors in coastal management because of the
                     power they can exercise in the allocation of coastal resources or land use.


                     6.1.2 Political parties.

                     Although coastal resource policy is not often a major priority of a national
                     political party, parties may be the major sounding board for groups of affected
                     interests.



                     6.1.3 National and subnational agencies with sectoral responsibilities.

                     One major group of coastal actors include ministries, subministries, and other
                     bureaus with sectoral responsibilities. As shown in Table 8.1, a nation might
                     have over twenty important sectoral interests in the coastal zone. The coastal
                     zone-specific sectors include navy and national defense, port and harbor
                     development, shipping, fisheries, mariculture, tourism, research, and erosion
                     control. Many other sectoral activities are not restricted to the coastal zone,
                     but may depend on coastal resources in part, or may directly affect the coast.
                     Examples include agriculture, forestry, fish and wildlife management, parks,
                     pollution control, water supply, flood control and energy generation.

                         Sectoral interests are often represented by ministries or branches of the
                     executive branch, as well as by regional subdivisions and functional divisions.

                                                              45







                              Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments




                                                 Table 6.1: Potential Actors In Coastal Resources
                                                          Management in Developing Nations




                                                                                   Subnational                             Trans-
                                                                          Local       Reelon           National          National
                              WELL ORGANIZED ACTORS
                              Elected Officials                           0            0                   0               NA


                              Political Parties                           0            0                   0               NA


                              Government Agencies                         0            0                   0               0

                              Parastatal
                              Corporations                                0            0                   0               NA

                              Private Industries                          0            0                   0          e.g., MNCs

                              Industry or Labor Orgs.                     0            0                   0               NA

                              Lending and Aid                                                              0          e.g., UN,
                              Institutions                                                                            USAID, IBRD

                              Scientif ic                                 Local       State                           e.g., IGU
                              Community                             Polytechnic University

                              Conservation                                                               e.g.,        e.g., IUCN
                              Organizations                                                     NATMANCOMs            Greenpeace



                              LESS ORGANIZED ACTORS
                              Subsistence and
                              Artisanal Resource                          0     ----- Generally not organized         ------
                              Users


                              Coastal Property
                              Owners                                      0     ----- Generally not organized         ------

                              Ethnic    Groups                            --------- May become organized        -----------

                              Social Classes                              --------- May become organized        -----------



                              KEY:
                              0:          Grouping in Common
                              NA:         Not Applicable
                              IBRD:       International     Bank for Reconstruction and Development
                              IGU:        International     Geophysical Union
                              IUCN:       International     Union for the Conservation of Nature
                                          and Natural       Resources
                              MNC:        Multinational Corporations
                              USAID:      U.S. Agency       for International Development
                              NATMANCOMs: National Mangrove Committees

                                                                                46







                                                                 Major Actors in Coastal Management



                     Each sectoral division of government may have several functional divisions
                     (Figure 8.1). Examples of functional divisions are the power to levy charges,
                     formulate policy, construct new projects, and disseminate information. Even
                     within the same sectors (e.g. fisheries, or tourism), the staff charged with
                     implementing each specific function will have a specific agenda.


                     6.1.4 State owned enterprises and parastatal corporations.

                     In many nations, some part of a coastal-dependent sector may be nationalized.
                     For example, in Indonesia, the state owned oil company, Pertamina, is
                     important in the petroleum extraction sector.         In the Republic of the
                     Seychelles' tourism company, the Compagnie Seychelloise pour las Promotion
                     Hoteliere (Cosproh), and the Seychelles National Fishing Company (Snafic) are
                     important in their respective sectors.


                     6.1.5 Private industry.

                     The private industrial users of coastal resources parallel the government
                     sectors concerned with coastal resource use.     Examples are fishing, tourism,
                     ports, timber harvesting, oil extraction, lumber extraction, and salt harvesting.
                     Malaysia's Matang forest supports mangrove harvesting on a 30 year rotation
                     (Saenger, Hcgerl, and Davie, 1983).      Ecuador's shrimp mariculture industry
                     earns export revenues of 225 million U.S. dollars per year (Snedaker et al.,
                     1986).


                     6.1.6 Multinational corporations.

                     Certainly large multinational corporations (MNCs) are important private actors
                     in coastal resource allocation. In fact, a single multinational oil company or
                     mining consortium may have greater resources and greater political clout than
                     a national economic sector.

                        Bargaining between MNCs and developing nations has been taken up by a
                     number of political scientists.    A variety of conclusions has been reached,
                     ranging from the suggestion that major oil companies completely dominate the
                     notion of the best interests of nation, to the idea that nations and subnational
                     units can gain strength by establishing linkages with MNCs.

                        Some events suggest that a range of outcomes is plausible, depending on
                     the strength and economic diversity of the nation, and the resolve of its
                     political leaders. For instance, while MNCs exert strong influence in ad hoc
                     ocean policy for Indonesia and Malaysia, they have made concessions to
                     state-owned oil companies and local fishing interests (Klapp, 1984). In Aruba
                     (Netherlands Antilles), Exxon has unilaterally announced plans to close the
                     refinery that provides half the island's income.        With its economic base
                     shaken, Aruba has reconsidered its goal to attain autonomy and full
                     independence (New York Times, 1985). Clearly, Exxon would be a dominant
                     actor in any new scheme to integrate development planning across coastal
                     sectors for Aruba.




                                                             47







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           Smaller transnational entrepreneurs also have interests in allocation of
                        coastal resources outside their own countries. Japanese interests have funded
                        prawn trawlers in Malaysia (Klapp, 1984), while Ecuadorian investors are
                        beginning to acquire interests in mangrove habitats in the Dominican Republic
                        for rearing ponds. These private enterprises would have a stake in fisheries
                        sector development or the prospective designation of exclusion zones around
                        mangroves.



                        6.1.7 Assistance institutions.


                        Agencies of the United Nations and international assistance organizations are
                        becoming important players in coastal resource management in developing
                        nations. The United Nations, through its Secretariat and individual agencies
                        (UNEP, UNESCO) provides guidance and assistance on a variety of coastal
                        issues. The UNOETB (1982a) published a major book on coastal management.
                        The,, U.S. Agency for International Development has funded a series of
                        investigations on coastal resources management (Sorensen, McCreary, and
                        Hershman, 1984; Snedaker and Getter, 1985; Clark, 1985), and sponsored at
                        least a six year effort to assist coastal management programs in Ecuador, Sri
                        Lanka, and Thailand (University of Rhode Island and USAID, 1987).


                        6.1.8 Scientific community.

                        Scientific research is an important activity in the coastal zone of many
                        developing countries. In some nations, such as the Cape Verde Islands, most
                        researchers hail from foreign universities or institutions (McCreary, 1985).
                        Also, scientific groups often have their own agendas for coastal management.
                        In the Seychelles, the scientific community played a major role in the
                        redesignation of the island of Aldabra from a proposed airstrip to a research
                        preserve (Stoddart and Ferrari, 1983), and in the Galapagos Islands, the Darwin
                        Research Station is an important player in coastal resources management
                        because of the expertise of its scientists and the information base it has
                        amassed over the years (Broadus et al., 1984; Broadus, 1985).


                        6.1.9 Conservation organizations.

                        Conservation organizations concerned with coastal resources can be major
                        actors at the local, regional, national, and international level.       Grassroots
                        organizations such as Greenpeace, independent institutes such             as the
                        International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), and hybrid
                        organizations such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
                        and Natural Resources (IUCN) are all important actors. Many of these       groups,
                        like their scientifically-oriented counterparts, are often referred to as "non
                        government organizations" (NGOs), with the implication that they are neither
                        bureaucratic agencies nor private for-profit firms.

                           Initially, conservation NGOs had to struggle for participation.      Only one
                        NGO attended the meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in
                        1964; in 1980 there were 40 present. But NGOs have lobbied effectively at the
                        IWC and international fora such as the Convention of International Trade on
                        Endangered Species (CITIES), and the London Dumping Convention. In many

                                                                48







                                                                         Major Actors in Coastal Management



                        cases, conservationist NGOs were able to make their views known to national
                        elites or members of the aristocracy who favored conservation (Stoddart and
                        Ferrari, 1983).     Now, different types of NGOs are forming more intricate
                        coalitions and networks with consumer groups and other local interests to
                        increase their influence and bargaining power (Barnes, 1984).

                           At least four types of conservation NGOs are now active in developing
                        nations' coastal management programs:

                                  0     national level organizations concerned with a single
                                        resource;

                                  0     regional level organizations concerned with direct
                                        action for coastal resources conservation;

                                  0     global organizations concerned with direct action
                                        for coastal resources conservation;

                                  0     global   organizations concerned        with collecting,
                                        organizing, and sharing information to inform
                                        coastal management policy.

                            National Mangrove Committees (NATMANCOMs) which consist of qualified
                        persons from government agencies, exemplify conservation NGOs concerned
                        with a single resource. NATMANCOMs -- inspired by UNESCO -- have been
                        established in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and
                        Venezuela.      These NATMANCOMs serve as (1) a communication link to
                        UNESCO and other UN bodies; (2) an advisory group to government; (3) a
                        coordinator of in-country research and training; and (4) a conservation
                        watchdog. Since NATMANCOMs consist of a network of individuals who are
                        influential in their respective professions, they have become effective
                        spokespersons for coastal resource management in their nations.

                            Some NGOs have evolved from an adversarial posture to a collaborative
                        arrangement with a national government. Members of the scientific community
                        (including the British Royal Society) were instrumental in the re-designation of
                        Aldabra Island from a proposed airstrip to a reserve.             Now members of the
                        royal society and Seychellois President France Albert Rene serve on the board
                        of the Seychelles Island Foundation, whose mission is research and stewardship
                        of protected areas (Stoddart and Ferrari, 1983).


                        6.2    Less Organized Actors

                        6.2.1 Subsistence and artisanal resource users.


                        The coastal zones of virtually all developing nations support some level of
                        artisanal fishing, and other subsistence resource use or extraction.             Mangrove
                        forestry is both a source of subsistence and a commercial activity in many
                        parts of Southeast Asia (Cragg, 1982; Snedaker and Getter, 1985). In parts of
                        Africa and Asia, rice has been successfully cultivated for centuries on the
                        landward fringe of the mangrove zone (Hamilton and Snedaker, 1984), and in
                        India, mangrove forests support local honey gathering (Gentry,                        1982).
                        Subsistence-level resource users are often poorly organized, may have               limited

                                                                     49







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                        political influence, and may have       little access to information about the
                        interrelationships between coastal uses and environments.

                           Both national and international      organizations may take steps to assist
                        artisanal fishers, in effect creating   a more formal organization.       In Cape
                        Verde, a government run company,        the Sociedad Comercializado e apoio a
                        Pesca Artesenal was created to assist the nation's 3,000 artisanal fishers.



                        6.2.2 Coastal landowners.


                        Another grouping of actors with important interests are coastal landowners and
                        other coastal or inland residents. Often ownership of land is concentrated in
                        the hands of relatively few owners.      If national restrictions are imposed on
                        coastal development to preserve "national heritage," or to ensure the right of
                        all people to have access to the beach, individual landowners might see
                        themselves as "losers", while the benefits of the coastal protection accrue very
                        generally to other residents of the nearby coast or the hinterlands.


                        6.2.3 Ethnic groups.

                        Efforts to allocate coastal resources must often cope with longstanding
                        conflicts among ethnic groups.      The Indonesian land resettlement program
                        (Koesoebiono, Collier and Burbridge, 1982), oil exploration in Malaysia (Klapp,
                        1984), and Sri Lankan coastal management (Amarasinghe and Wickremeratne,
                        1983) all exemplify conflicts among ethnic groups as well as competition among
                        different economic sectors. Norton (1982) argues that:

                                the intensity and pervasiveness of these conflicts arises from
                                the compelling consciousness of social honor aroused by
                                appeals to ethnic distinction and efficacy of this status
                                ideology for organizing political solidarity and patronage.

                        Where ethnic groups disagree, simply adopting a regulatory program may not
                        resolve underlying conflicts that could frustrate implementation of a new
                        coastal management regime.



                        6.2.4 Social classes.


                        Virtually all social classes, from subsistence artisanal fishers, to middle class
                        merchants and bureaucrats, to members of the aristocracy and the international
                        jet set, depend on and affect the coastal zone. Social classes are not, strictly
                        speaking, coastal actors, but they could be differentially affected by a coastal
                        management regime. Gaining the involvement and cooperation of people from
                        all income levels in integrated coastal management may be a complex task.

                           Social class, like ethnicity, may be envisioned as a sort of overlay on the
                        other allegiances that coastal stakeholder users may have.      In many nations,
                        the strong separations between social classes could work against broad
                        participation in setting coastal resource policy.    This in turn may frustrate
                        program implementation. Yet, the class system may be a deeply embedded part
                        of the political culture, as it is in many Latin American nations.          Without

                                                                50







                                                                       Major Actors in Coastal Management



                      presupposing whether coastal management reinforces or helps rearrange
                      prevailing distributions of income and power, it is clear that coastal managers
                      must find ways to cope with the competing aspirations of classes.
                      Communication among disparate groups is essential, although the precise forum
                      and level of participation in decisionmaking will vary from nation to nation.

                          Negotiations within a class (i.e. agency heads, scientists, and members of
                      the "aristocracy") may be possible, while negotiations across class lines may be
                      much harder to arrange.             Given these constraints, one might envision
                      negotiations     among      ministries,    state-owned      enterprises,    and      major
                      transnationals   while artisanal fishers might be excluded.          Often, social class
                      ref lects ethnic  background, so dominant groups may exclude representatives of
                      other classes and ethnic groups.














































                                                                   51














                                            7. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES




                     This section examines 11 distinct strategies for management of coastal
                     resources and environments now in use throughout the developed and
                     developing world. Our literature review has not identified any one document
                     that defines and describes the full array of coastal management strategies.
                     However, our review of the planning and environmental protection literature
                     helped us identify 11 management strategies.        Each of the strategies is a
                     complex topic that could be dealt with at book length. For example, Biswas
                     and Geping wrote a book on environmental impact assessment in developing
                     nations (1987).   Excellent reviews of marine protected area management are
                     found in Salm and Clark (1985); and Silva and Desilvestre (1986). The book,
                     Managing Land-Use Conflicts, describes the process of special area planning
                     and presents eight case studies (Brower and Carol, 1987).

                        We do not assume that the management strategies we present constitute a
                     definitive list. There could be more or fewer strategies depending on how one
                     defines the terms "management strategy" and "coastal management."

                        Almost all developing nations are using two or more of the 11 management
                     strategies identified below. We note that aside from regional seas, none of the
                     management strategies is necessarily coastal zone specific.      They have been
                     used in inland as well as coastal areas. Shoreland exclusion, for example, has
                     been used for managing inland rivers and lakes. The 11 strategies are:

                             0     national economic planning;

                             0     broad-scope sectoral planning of coastal uses or
                                   resources;


                             0     regional seas;

                             0     nation- or state-wide land use planning and
                                   regulation;

                             0     special area or regional plans;

                             0     shoreland exclusion or restriction;

                             0     critical area protection;

                             0     environmental Impact assessment of coastal
                                   development proposals;

                             0     mandatory policies and advisory guidelines;

                             0     acquisition programs;

                             0     coastal atlases and data banks.




                                                             53







                         Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                            As Table 7.1 illustrates, these strategies are not mutually exclusive.        In
                         fact, they are usually mutually supportive. For example, France uses nation-
                         or state-wide land use planning        together with natural area acquisition
                         campaigns as principal strategies.       They are complemented by national
                         economic planning, participation in    the Regional Seas Program, special area
                         planning, shoreland exclusion, and     critical area protection.   In the United
                         States, all strategies are used to     various degrees, with the exception of
                         national economic planning and regional seas. Nation- and state-wide land use
                         planning under a broad federal framework is the principal strategy in the
                         United States. This strategy is reinforced with broad sectoral planning, special
                         area and regional plans, impact assessment, acquisition programs and a coastal
                         atlas and data bank. Shoreline exclusion and critical area protection are used
                         less of ten.


                            Sri Lanka uses nation-wide land use planning and regulation as its principal
                         strategy for coastal zone management supported by national economic planning
                         and impact assessment. Indonesia depends heavily on environmental guidelines,
                         reinforced with national economic planning, and is moving towards greater
                         dependence on regional or specialized planning together with a national land
                         use planning framework.

                            For each strategy, we define and describe the technique, cite examples of
                         its,use, and present important advantages and disadvantages.       In cases where
                         strategies are very similar, the distinctions are spelled out.    The discussion
                         also suggests which strategies are complementary in scope and purpose.


                         7.1 National Economic Planning

                         National economic planning involves setting prescriptive goals for each sector
                         of the economy, affecting the allocation of labor, investment capital and land
                         use. This style of planning occurs in both socialist countries and nations with
                         a mix of central economic planning and private markets.

                            In some cases, planning decisions arc centralized at the national levels; in
                         others, targets for production are established at the regional level or through
                         the intervention of central planning institutions and local authorities.       The
                         regional level is usually the prime focus for implementation of a national
                         economic plan.

                            The main vehicle of national economic planning is usually a long-term plan,
                         spanning a five year period.     Production targets are set in most important
                         sectors of the economy.     Production, as the central feature of an economic
                         plan, is then used to specify the size of the workforce, the type and quality
                         of land needed for a particular industry, and the amount of investment capital
                         needed to implement the plan. Besides striving to achieve production targets,
                         national economic plans aim to affect a fast growth of the economy, reduce
                         large disparities in income, and create employment.

                            Coastal sectors are fisheries, ports and shipping, transportation, agriculture,
                         tourism, and industry.    One potential strategy is to use national economic
                         planning for the integration of sectors to produce an integrated coastal
                         management program for a region.        In this way, sectors such as fisheries,
                         ports, and tourist development can be made mutually supportive. To some

                                                                 54








                                                                                 Management Strategies







                            Table 7.1: Strategies Used In Coastal Resource Management



                                                                                                       P
                                                                                                       H
                                                                                         S             I
                                                                                 N       R      T      L
                                                                                 D       I      H      I
                                                            F             G      0              A      P
                                                            R             R      N       L      I      P
                                                            A             E      E       A      L      I
                                                            N      U      E      S       N      A      N
                                                            C      S      C      I       K      N      E
                                                            E      A      E      A       A      D      S



                      National economic
                      Plannine                              x                    x              x      x


                      Broad sectoral
                      planning                                     x      x      x

                      Rep.ional seas                        x             x      x                     NA


                      Land use planning
                      and reeulation                        0      0      0      x       0      0      0


                      Special area or
                      reuional vlans                        x      x      x      0              0


                      Shoreline
                      exclusion                             x      SU     x      x              NA     X-

                      Critical area
                      protection                            x      SU     x      x              x      x


                      Imvact assessment                            x      x      x       x      x      x


                      Policies and guidelines                             x      0       x      x      x


                      Acouisition proerams                  0      0      x


                      Coastal atlases -
                      data banks                                   x      x      x       0      0      0

                      KEY:      0      Principal Strategy
                                x      Complementary Strategy
                                SU     Seldom Used
                                NA     Information Not Available



                                                              55







                         Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                         extent, the linkages between economic sectors will depend upon the resources
                         available to the nation.

                             Second, recognizing the value of coastal resources in the economy leads to
                         recognition of the impact of one sector on another. This in turn can foster a
                         strategy of avoidance of unintended negative impacts.

                             The expansion of agriculture and mariculture in Indonesia at the expense of
                         mangrove wetlands and estuarine habitats illustrates this point. In Indonesia,
                         an Interagency Committee on National Policy and Planning for Coastal Zone
                         Management provided policy ideas to the national planning agency to
                         incorporate in the economic development plan for 1984 to 1989 (Kux, 1983).

                             National economic plans create a degree of certainty about the coastal
                         frontage and adjacent land needed for development within a particular time
                         frame. This avoids more random patterns of proposals and demands on coastal
                         resources.    This certainty, in turn, provides more time to accomplish the
                         integration with other sectors and the avoidance of impacts described above.

                             However, five year plans may prove too rigid to take account of changing
                         coastal circumstances.      This rigidity may hamper a strong response to an
                         environmental perturbation, such as the crash of a fishery. National economic
                         plans have also been criticized for being too mechanistic and therefore
                         obstructive to innovation, an effect that could also be felt in efforts to
                         protect resources.    At the other extreme, altering economic plans in response
                         to every small perturbation in the economy is extremely disruptive for the
                         agencies and productive units responsible for carrying out the plan.


                         7.2 Broad-scope Sectoral Planning

                         Traditional sectoral planning combines forecasting and implementation for
                         capital investment, land use planning, and infrastructure needs for specific
                         sectors of a national economy. Sectoral planning shares several characteristics
                         with national economic planning (see Section 7.1), but places more emphasis on
                         issues other than the production of economic goods.

                             Those sectors with greatest economic relevance to coastal management in
                         developing nations are port planning, fisheries, and tourism. Given the close
                         dependency of each of these sectors on a vigorous natural resource base, a
                         consideration of habitat and environmental quality factors must be integrated
                         with other aspects of sectoral planning to make the effort successful.

                             Several nations, recognizing the importance of environmental factors, have
                         taken steps to include them in sectoral planning of a, broader scope.           In the
                         United States, fishery plans for specific species prepared by the National
                         Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the U.S. Fisheries Conservation and
                         Management Act are based on environmental system analyses that take into
                         account sustainable yields, recruitment rates, water quality, and habitat quality.

                             The U.S. program also includes a capital investment dimension. Seed money
                         has been granted to stimulate the organization of marketing cooperatives to
                         help stabilize the economic fortunes of individual fishermen and stimulate
                         fishery development of underutilized stocks. NMFS also tries to ensure that

                                                                    56








                                                                                Management Strategies



                     fishing does not interfere with other important marine resources. For example,
                     they have worked with Gulf Coast shrimpers to try to avoid unnecessary
                     mortality to endangered sea turtle species.

                        Given that most major ports are located in estuaries, port expansion is
                     likely to preempt fringing wetlands, pollute water, and destroy productive
                     benthic (bottom) communities.       In addition, industrial facilities conflict
                     spatially with public recreation or commercial fishing and preempt public
                     access to the shore.


                        Japanese port authorities operating under the National Ports and Harbor Act
                     and Ministry of Transport guidelines prepare comprehensive coastal management
                     plans for their land and water jurisdiction (Inoue, 1984).          The Japanese
                     transportation sector in Japan is concerned with port modernization plans and
                     urban development and environmental improvement programs.             The process
                     depicted by Figure 7.1 includes the preparation of an environmental impact
                     statement and review of proposed plans by a local port council consisting of
                     various interests including fisheries, recreation and citizens' groups (Inoue,
                     1984).

                        Successful tourism development requires a mix of attractive accommodations
                     and shops, a suitable infrastructure (clean and sanitary water, good roads) and
                     an accessible, relatively unspoiled environment. These goals can conflict with
                     each other and with the development plans of other sectors.

                        Seventeen years ago Yugoslavia pioneered a program to balance tourism
                     development on the Adriatic Coast, addressing both water supply and beach
                     area use as well as maintenance of cultural values (Shankland and Cox, 1972).
                     Oceanic island nations such as Western Samoa and Fiji recognize that tourism
                     development must be planned in a manner that neither threatens the
                     exceptional fragility of island ecosystems nor disrupts island societies (Towle,
                     1985).
                        In Brazil an'd Colombia broad sectoral plans have been 'completed for marine
                     and coastal research. Both nations have established coordinating organizations
                     linked to the national economic planning program to chart national programs
                     for marine and coastal research.      In Brazil, applied research objectives are
                     directly related to information needs of mariculture development and estuary
                     pollution control (Brazil, Comissao Intraministerial para os Recursos do Mar,
                     1980; Knecht, 1983).

                        Broad-scope sectoral planning represents a marginal change from the status
                     quo.    Since institutions tend to make only marginal adjustments when
                     confronted with a need for change, broad-scope single sector planning is the
                     most likely management strategy to be implemented.           Broad-scope sectoral
                     planning often serves as a transition to the integrated management strategies.
                     If an agency broadens its horizons to assess the full range of impacts
                     associated with its projects, and this wider perspective produces a net benefit
                     to the agency, this positive experience should make the agency more amenable
                     to taking the next step to an integrated management strategy.

                         The   major    disadvantage of broad-scope sectoral        planning    is   the
                     perpetuation of non-integrated, single purpose programs. Interest in integrated
                     planning may be diverted by broad-scope sectoral planning, even though the

                                                             57






                               Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                       Figure 7.1: Procedure of Port Planning and Implementation in Japan





                                       MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT                              PORT MANAGEMENT BODY


                                    NA T'ONA L                 BASIC                    PLANNING                 LOCAL
                                 COMPREHENSIVE                POLICY                                 -4- COMPREHENSIVE
                                   DEVE LOPMENT                                          POLICY                  PLANS
                                       PLAN                              I

                                                             PLANNING                                          INTEREST
                                                                                                              GROUPSAND
                                                           STANDARDS                                           AGENCIES




                                                                                         DRAFT
                                                                                         PLAN


                                                                                                                                     z
                                                                                                                                     z
                                    PORTS AND                                                                                        z
                                    HARSOURS                                                                  LOCAL PORT             0
                                    COUNCIL                                                                      COUNCIL


                                                                                          LOCAL
                                                            EV IEW AND                  OFFICIAL
                                                             P OV L
                                                        FAPR A                            PLAN

                                                                    IC                 APPROVED
                                                                    E                    PLAN
                              ff
                                       T'ONAL              FIVE-YEAR                              ON
                                       ONOMIC
                                       PLADN                  POLICY

                                                                                          DRAFT
                                                                                       FIVE-YEAR
                                                                                          PLAN




                                                                                                                                   1C
                                                                                                                                   M

                                    CABINET       -4-      NATIONAL                     ANNUAL
                                    MEETING                FIVE-YEAR                  WORK PLAN
                                    APPROVAL                   PLAN                                                                0
                                                                1                                                                  z

                                    ANNUAL                       UAL
                                APPROPRIATION     ---- 10'          G                       NTATI]ON
                                                                                                                  oc
                                               )E                                                                LREHI
                                                                                                                 PLAN
                                               T                                                           EP


                                 L









                                                               PUBLIC
                                                                    L
                                                              NOTIC7E





                                                                                        ANI'






                                                                                                               (Source: Inoue, 1994)

                                                                                     58







                                                                                   Management Strategies



                     latter approach would be more effective in resolving an issue.


                     7.3 Regional Seas

                     The institutional parent of the Regional Seas Program is the United Nations
                     Environment Program (UNEP). The program was created in late 1972, and is
                     an outcome of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment (Hulm,
                     1983; UNEP, 1982b).       UNEP's first governing council set the health of the
                     oceans as its foremost concern in 1973, and it remains one of the leading
                     issues today.

                        The Regional Seas Program was initiated by UNEP in 1974. The major
                     ocean concerns were trans-boundary pollution, ocean dumping, fisheries,
                     scientific research, and conservation.

                        Four regions were chosen for initial attention: the Mediterranean, Kuwait
                     and the Gulf Region, the Caribbean, and West Africa.            Over the next five
                     years, UNEP added four more regions: the East Asian Seas, the Red Sea and
                     Gulf of Aden, the South East Pacific, and the South Pacific.            In 1980, the
                     governing council expanded the program to include East Africa and the
                     South-West Atlantic.


                         UNEP's strategy consists of four steps (UNEP, 1982b):

                              0     an Action Plan setting out activities for scientific
                                    research and cooperation, including assessment and
                                    management;

                              0     a legally-binding convention embodying general
                                    principles;

                              0     technical and specific protocols to deal with
                                    individual issues;

                              0     f inancial  and    institutional   arrangements      that
                                    implement the f irst three steps.

                     Each nation    participating in a Regional Seas Program must adopt the Action
                     Plan before the process can move forward.

                        Regional Seas Action Plans contain four parts:         assessment, environmental
                     management, legislation, and support measures (UNEP, 1982b). Assessment, the
                     first priority, is geared to evaluate sources and effects of pollution, the state
                     of living and marine resources, and development practices.

                        Management projects help build the capacity of local officials to make
                     decisions and develop plans for coastal development.          The legislative section
                     includes regional conventions. Protocols may be adopted simultaneously, but
                     often there is a significant time delay.

                        The Mediterranean Plan is a leading success of the Regional Seas Program.
                     A companion agency to UNEP, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
                     provided the early impetus which was broadened in 1975 when an action plan

                                                               59







                         Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                         was adopted.      The European Economic Community (EEC) has joined all
                         Mediterranean nations, with the exception of Albania, in ratifying the
                         convention.     A "black list" of banned substances is identified by the
                         anti-dumping protocol. The substances include mercury, cadmium, DDT, PCBs,
                         radioactive wastes, some plastics, and lubricating oils. A -third protocol  '  against
                         land-based substances was signed by twelve nations in Athens in 1980.
                         Another protocol on protected areas, signed in 1980, is expected to increase
                         the 15 marine parks located in the Mediterranean to a network of 100.
                         Eighty-four marine laboratories participated in a first phase of water quality
                         testing; a second phase will run until 1991.

                             By early 1983, some $8 million U.S. dollars were     paid,into a trust fund for
                         Action Plan implementation by the 17 Mediterranean nations and the EEC.
                         Offices oriented to specific aspects of the Action Plan are being opened
                         around the region, consistent with UNEP's policy of delegating ultimate
                         responsibility to the participating nations.

                             The voluntary participation of coastal nations in the Regional Seas Program
                         helps to foster a sense of international goodwill, mutual benefit, and regional
                         self-confidence. The program is flexible enough to allow nations and regions
                         to concentrate on solutions that are most pressing, or for which there is
                         already common agreement. In this way, a political momentum is generated to
                         inspire efforts to address the more, contentious issues.      The requirement that
                         all nations adopt the Action Plan and subsequent conventions and protocols
                         helps to catalyze improvement in the environmental laws of developing nations.
                         Another strength of this program is the explicit multilateral participation of
                         scientists and scientific institutions.


                             A nation's participation in the Regional Seas Program may improve the
                         nation's institutional capability, data base, and financial support for the
                         following sets of transboundary issues:

                                  0     marine pollution;

                                  0     f isheries protection;

                                  0     marine    research    of   large-scale   oceanographic
                                        phenomena (e.g., ocean currents, upswelling, or
                                        storm forecasting).

                             The Regional Seas mechanism may also help nations deal with other joint
                         multinational interests, such as:

                                  0     tourism (particularly in the Caribbean and the South
                                        Pacif ic);

                                  0     mangrove conservation;

                                  0     protection of migratory marine mammals and birds.

                             Since UNEP acts only at the request of national governments to formulate
                         an action plan, the Regional Seas Program cannot respond quickly to resolve
                         conflicts. Adoption of the Action Plan by all affected nations must precede
                         f urther progress.    The series of steps -- Action Plan, convention, protocol,

                                                                   60







                                                                                            Management Strategies



                        implementation      -- can take several           years.      (For example,       the     latest
                        Mediterranean protocol to establish protected areas was signed five years after
                        the Action Plan was adopted.) Since most members of Regional Seas Programs
                        are developing nations, support measures for training, management and project
                        implementation must be provided. Funding has been problematic, but UNEP
                        has been fairly successful in "packaging" funds from UN multilateral and
                        bilateral   sources.     As the name implies, members of Regional Seas are
                        cognizant of major land-based pollution sources if they affect ocean quality.
                        However,    the program does not give special scrutiny to land use issues that
                        impinge    on coastal resources of a transboundary nature -- such as the
                        conversion of mangrove ecosystems for maricultural and agricultural purposes
                        and the consequent reduction of the regional shrimp fisheries.


                        7.4 Nation- or State-Wide Land Use Planning and Regulation

                        Land use planning and regulation specifies the type, intensity, and rate of
                        development and conservation for a particular area. In this strategy the land
                        use plans usually cover the entire coastal zone of the nation or state (or
                        province).     Broad goals and objectives are usually specified to direct the
                        planning effort.      Land use plans, consisting of both maps and policies, are
                        usually translated into guidelines and legally-binding rules such as zoning
                        ordinances. The earliest and still most common form of zoning is often called
                        Euclidean zoning. This approach relies on assigning a single use designation
                        (e.g., low density residential, central business district or heavy industry) to
                        each parcel of land.

                           More recently, several variations on the theme have been proposed and
                        implemented in some locations.             Overlay zoning is often used to protect
                        sensitive resources.        This technique involves the imposition of special
                        restrictions (e.g., requirements for setbacks or retention of wetland habitats)
                        in addition to the designation of permitted land uses. Incentives may also be
                        combined with land use designation by permitting greater density on coastal
                        frontage to encourage development of high priority facilities, such as
                        commercial fishing piers or other maritime commercial uses.

                           In the 34 countries that were 'Members of the British Commonwealth, land
                        use planning is termed Town and Country Planning.                  In the United Kingdom
                        the Town and Country Planning Act requires local planning authorities to make
                        careful surveys of their areas and to estimate needs over the next twenty
                        years for housing, schools, industry, and roads (Waite, 1980).                The authority
                        then draws up -a proposal showing how these needs will be met in land
                        allocations, and prepares maps of various scales, depending on whether the
                        subject is a town, a county borough or a county area.                    Town maps show
                        proposed areas where special powers for land acquisition may be sought. The
                        plan is supported by a written statement outlining the major proposals and a
                        program map illustrating the phasing of development. A public hearing is held
                        and an inspector -- a trained civil servant -- makes recommendations to the
                        Minister for Town and Country Planning who decides whether or not to
                        approve the plan.         After plan approval, planning permission for all but
                        relatively minor projects must be approved by local authorities.                          Local
                        decisions may be appealed to the Minister.



                                                                       61







                         Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                            In recent years, Town and Country Planning in England has delegated
                         authority to local units of government. Additionally, public participation has
                         been increased and administrative processes streamlined.

                            At least four countries have amended their Town          and Country Planning
                         programs to include a particular set of policies for land use control within a
                         delineated coastal area (UNOETB, 1982a). The Bahamas prepared "development
                         plans on- an island-by-island basis, treating the coastal area as a separate
                         planning entity." In Cyprus, under the Town and Country Planning Act "there
                         are detailed regulations governing streets, construction and alteration of
                         buildings  . . .  in coastal areas.ff    Jamaica prepared a plan for coastal
                         management which endorses "the evaluation of sensitivities and classification of
                         areas of environmental concern." In Mauritius,

                                  the coastal area is regarded for physical planning purposes as
                                  both a separate entity and a part of national planning. The
                                  coast is dealt with as an entity in respect to recreation. For
                                  planning purposes coastal areas begin from I km inland of the
                                  high water mark to the end of the coral reef (about 50 m)
                                  (UNOETB, 1982a).

                            Guatemala may be another example of special policies for land use planning
                         within a shoreland area. The coastal area of the country has been treated as
                         a separate entity with regard to zoning. The coastal areas extend 3000 meters
                         inland from the seashore. (UNOETB, 1982a).

                            In the United States, California's requirement that all coastal cities and
                         counties draw up a Local Coastal Program (LCP) is the basis for the most
                         ambitious of the United States' coastal management programs with land use
                         planning as its focus. Consisting of a land use plan and zoning regulations, an
                         LCP must reflect the state policies on public access, water and marine
                         resources, land environments, new development, ports, and energy facilities.
                         Within the general framework of coastal resource protection, local governments,
                         have discretion over which goals to emphasize. The State Coastal Commission,
                         the permit-letting agency for the coast, is responsible for reviewing all LCPs
                         to ensure consistency with the policies embodied in the California Coastal Act.
                         Following state approval, local governments are responsible for administration
                         of the land use plan and implementation of zoning ordinances. However, the
                         Coastal Commission still has oversight jurisdiction over sensitive habitats and
                         areas immediately adjacent to the shoreline.

                            A state requirement that local governments prepare coastal zone land use
                         plans is one of the most popular mechanisms used by coastal states to
                         implement coastal zone management programs funded by the U.S. Coastal Zone
                         Management Act. The arrangement has been termed state-local collaborative
                         land use planning (Sorensen, 1978).        To date, Alaska, California, Florida,
                         Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon,
                         South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin have adopted the state-local
                         collaborative land use planning model to implement their state coastal zone
                         management program.

                            In  Sweden the National Physical Plan empowered the government to define
                         a national interest in a particular area, and order revision or preparation of a
                         local master plan to address that national interest.             Additionally, the

                                                                  62







                                                                                  Management Strategies



                     government may order that the plan be legally-binding and declare a
                     moratorium on development while the plan is pending.              These steps were
                     motivated by the finding that environmental quality was being impaired in
                     many parts of the nation's coastal zone.        Industrial siting, "holiday houses,"
                     and public recreation needs were key issues (Hildreth, 1975).

                        Ireland also follows the model of a central land use planning authority cast
                     in the role of issuing guidelines for use by local land use authorities.          The
                     National Institute for Physical Planning and Construction Research has issued
                     guidelines for. use by local governments in amending Town and Country plans
                     for coastal areas (Mitchell, 1982).

                        Although Nigeria does not actively operate a strong national coastal
                     management program, it does have a Town and Country planning process. In
                     March 1978, the federal government issued a land use decree which effectively
                     nationalized all land not in productive use. "Theoretically, this makes possible
                     comprehensive national regulation of development in presently unoccupied
                     coastal areas" (Mitchell, 1982).

                        In Thailand, the government:

                              has perceived the coastal zone to be an area important to the
                              national economy, which can be extensively developed,
                              especially in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, industry, tourism,
                              and environmental conservation.        As a result, many initial
                              efforts to organize national coastal resource management
                              programs have been developed. The Coastal Land Development
                              Project was established in 1971 to facilitate proper planning
                              of multiple use and management of coastal resources. Coastal
                              land will be managed for eight types of use:                 coastal
                              agriculture, fisheries, animal husbandry, salt farming, mangrove
                              forest preservation, port construction, industrial zones, and
                              tourism. When this plan is finished, it is to be submitted to
                              the Coastal Land Development Committee for approval
                              (Adhulavidhaya et al., 1982).

                        Land use planning presents a mechanism to resolve use conflicts arising
                     either along the shoreline or at inland locations affecting the coasts.       In this
                     way the consequences of agriculture, watershed development and potential
                     filling of wetlands can be addressed in the context of coastal resource
                     management. When linked with strong zoning, land use planning provides clear
                     guidance and certainty about future development -- both in pinpointing the
                     precise location of future development and in specifying the types of uses
                     allowed.


                        Programs organized at the state-wide or nation-wide level provide an
                     opportunity to deal with multiple use conflicts in a consistent manner.
                     Lessons learned in one local area can be adapted to other locations.            Under
                     both the Town and Country Planning and state-local collaborative land use
                     planning arrangements described above, strong policies can be formulated by a
                     central authority and adapted to local conditions, with an oversight role to
                     ensure that the state or national interest is upheld.




                                                               63







                          Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                              Land use planning has of ten been criticized for its somewhat speculative
                          nature.   In most cases, plans are only as effective as the zoning ordinances
                          and use restrictions that implement the plan. These in turn are guided by the
                          integrity or political will of the government agencies responsible for plan
                          administration.       The    principal vehicle     for   plan   administration and
                          implementation is the issuance of development permits. In most cases, land
                          use plans alone cannot stimulate capital investment, nor        do they ensure that
                          development actually occurs on a specific plot of land.

                              For the developing countries, customs and traditions of opportunistic use of
                          land combined with uncertain land tenure may complicate efforts to implement
                          a clear, rational land use plan.           This is most clearly evident in the
                          proliferation of squatter settlements in most metropolitan areas.

                              Programs for land use planning instituted at the state or national level may
                          override traditional local authority. Objections to this "preemption" have been
                          registered in many locations, notably those U.S. states practicing statc-local
                          collaborations and Sweden.        Local authorities in Sweden have objected to
                          invasion by the national government of their traditional "planning monopoly"
                          (Hildreth, 1975).

                              To be successful, land use planning requires an extensive information base
                          consisting of data on a range of natural resource characteristics, historical
                          settlement patterns, and institutional and political concerns. The strategy also
                          requires the capability to interpret the data and fashion a single coherent
                          plan.    In most developing countries, the data base and the capability to
                          synthesize the data may not be available.          For example, in El Salvador a
                          professional planner observed that approximately eighty percent of the
                          essential information base is lacking.       What little information exists is not
                          adequate to support nation- or state-wide land use planning (UNOETB, 1982a).

                              Finally, land use planning does not provide a strong mechanism to cope
                          with issues at the land/water interface. Neither does it address water column
                          issues.   Obvious examples here are protection of mangroves, coral reefs,
                          submerged grass beds, or fisheries. The failure of land use planning to include
                          water areas has been noted by a number of planners in developing nations
                          (Baker, 1976; Beller, 1979; Amarasinglic and Wickremeratne, 1983; Nfitchell,
                          1984).


                          7.5 Special Area or Regional Plans

                          "Special area plans" or "regional plans" refer to a coastal land or coastal
                          resources use program that is larger than a local jurisdiction and smaller than
                          an entire nation.        The distinguishing characteristic of a special area or
                          regional plan is the geographic coverage.             The boundaries are usually
                          .delineated with two purposes in mind. First, they are intended to "capture"
                          national resource or economic development issues that cross the boundaries of
                          states or local governments. Such issues might include watershed management,
                          protection of sensitive habitats, or development of a regional transportation
                          network. Second, the boundary is drawn to encompass a significant natural
                          resource, such as an embayment, river basin, estuary, mangrove hydrologic
                          unit, or a littoral drift cell defined by shoreline erosion processes.


                                                                     64







                                                                                 Management Strategies



                       Special area or regional plans have a multi-sectoral perspective. They may
                    focus on a single issue (such as tourism development), but interconnections are
                    made with the other relevant sectors.         Special area or regional plans are
                    usually mandated by either a legislative body or a ministry of the nation or
                    state.


                       The French government engages in large-scale coastal resource development
                    programs acting through units of the special interministerial committee which
                    oversees land use planning (Harrison and Sewell, 1979; France, Ministry of the
                    Environment, 1980).      The principal tools of these units are extensive legal
                    powers and substantial budgets for planning and capital works construction.
                    The coasts of Languedoc and the Aquitaine region are the focus of efforts to
                    attract visitors from other heavily used resort areas. Some       of the early work
                    in the Languedoc region generated significant environmental impacts. A chain
                    of resorts extends along 125 miles of coast. Roads, hotels,       and marinas were
                    installed, wetlands filled, harbors and lakes deepened, and artificial beaches
                    created.    In contrast, the planning for the Aquitaine region has been
                    recognized as a model of sensitive coastal development            and conservation
                    (Mitchell, 1982).

                       In Greece, the most successful part of the national coastal effort has been
                    the development of regional coastal planning programs "which have contributed
                    to the mobilization of regional and national interests for cooperation in
                    [resolving] coastal issues" (Camhis and Coccossis, 1982).       Crete has been one
                    of the most active areas. The Chaind region of Eastern Crete was elected as
                    a pilot project for an in-depth examination of coastal management issues. The
                    purpose of this effort, besides solution of problems in the area, was to provide
                    information for program evaluation. The pilot program especially emphasized
                    developing an appropriate implementation strategy with the cooperation of local
                    authorities and the public (Camhis and Coccossis, 1982).

                       Indonesia's program for integrated coastal swamplands development in
                    Sumatra presents a good example of the regional planning approach in a
                    developing nation (Hanson and Koesoebiono, 1979). The principal goal of this
                    effort was to reduce the number of inhabitants in the densely populated
                    regions, which arc also the most productive lands for agriculture.                The
                    government policy was relocation in relatively underdeveloped areas in Sumatra.
                    However, most of these areas were of marginal value for intensive agriculture,
                    such as rice cultivation. This forced the government to make difficult choices
                    between settlements in erodible uplands and settlement in estuarine deltas with
                    productive forests and shrimp fisheries.

                       Given the large number of questions about the optimal use and management
                    of marginal lands in Sumatra, an integrated program was suggested for area
                    development and environmental management. Between 1969 and 1974, six pilot
                    projects were developed by the Ministry of Public Works (P.U.T.L.).             These
                    trial efforts led to a commitment in 1974 to open one million hectares of delta
                    lowland. Together with the finding that rice crops could be grown within one
                    year after swampland is directly connected to a river, an awareness grew of
                    the need to pay close attention to coastal zone environmental factors (Hanson
                    and Koesoebiono, 1979).

                       The Ministry of Public Work's Tidal Swamp Reclamation - The Second Five
                    Year Development Plan 1974/75 - 1978/79 urged that development planning take

                                                              65







                           Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           account of environmental factors and that resources be managed on a
                           sustained-yield basis.   Throughout the country, regional planning units have
                           been set up at the provincial and county level. A growing interest in impact
                           assessment in Indonesia has led University scientists to prepare tables and
                           matrices to evaluate likely consequences of development action and to transmit
                           them to decision makers.       Planning is complicated by two systems of land
                           tenure.   One arises out of adat law in which resource rights are vested in
                           village units; the second arises from national law. Further, Indonesian decision
                           making involves    multiple agencies with poorly defined channels of authority.
                           Hence, decisions  are often reached by a gradual process of consensus (Hanson
                           and Koesoebiono, 1979).

                              Some analysts have argued for a more formal set of agency responsibilities
                           to carry out the   conceptually sound regional planning approach (Hanson and
                           Koesoebiono, 1979). It was recommended that The Regional Planning Office
                           (BAPPEDA) became a focal point for impact assessment. A specialized unit for
                           resource management and protection was also recommended, to coordinate the
                           three agencies which have coastal zone responsibility,.

                              In the United States, one of the first regional planning bodies with an
                           effective implementation program was the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
                           Development Commission (BCDC). The agency was created in 1965 in response
                           to citizen and legislative concern over the alarming rate of peripheral filling
                           of San Francisco Bay and the consequent shrinkage of the Bay's size. Initially
                           the agency was endowed with limited permit granting authority for the Bay
                           shoreline and directed to report to the legislature on long-term regulatory
                           needs. The outcome was a Bay Plan and permanent mandate to approve or
                           deny projects that would fill bay bottoms or block public access within 100
                           feet of the shore -- a policy which still exists.        Decisions are made by a
                           commission comprised of a mix of local governments, agencies and citizens.
                           BCDC has virtually halted the net loss of wetland acreage and bay bottoms,
                           yet has permitted construction of needed port and airport facilities along the
                           Bay's edge by obtaining mitigation in the form of wetland restoration
                           (Swanson, 1975).

                              Australia established the Port Phillip Authority in 1966 to cope with major
                           issues confronting the state of Victoria -- notably coastal erosion, land-use
                           conflicts, and lack of coordination between public agencies (Cullen, 1977;
                           Cullen, 1982). Membership of the Authority is drawn from a mix of public
                           representatives and the pre-existing agencies concerned with aspects of coastal
                           development: the Departments of Crown Lands and Survey, Public Works, two
                           local government representatives, and two citizen representatives. Jurisdiction
                           extends 200 meters landward and 600 meters seaward. Responsibilities include
                           coordinating development in the Port Phillip area, preserving existing beauty
                           and preventing deterioration of the foreshore, and improving facilities for
                           public use in the Port Phillip area. The Authority was strengthened in 1980 to
                           improve its permit enforcement capabilities. Based on the general success of
                           the Port Phillip Authority, the Victorian government later extended many
                           aspects of the approach to the rest of the state (Cullen, 1982).        Recently the
                           Port Phillip Authority was terminated in order to form a comprehensive coastal
                           management program for the entire state of Victoria (Victoria, 1988).

                              The regional level of planning and analysis confers a number of advantages
                           which are absent from local and/or national level planning. At the regional

                                                                     66







                                                                               Management Strategies



                     level, it is possible to address and resolve resource issues confronting whole
                     ecosystems, such as siltation of an estuary as a result of development in its
                     watershed. Very often these issues cross a number of jurisdictions and cannot
                     be dealt with effectively without a regional geographic focus.            Coastal
                     management institutions organized at the regional level -- like BCDC and the
                     Port Philip Authority -- often present an opportunity for local government
                     authorities and officials with responsibility in various sectors affecting the
                     region to cooperate and resolve common problems. This trend was illustrated
                     by the examples drawn from Australia, California, and Indonesia.

                        By choosing a regional focus, national governments are able to concentrate
                     on the areas with the most pressing problems. At the same time, a regional
                     program can serve as a model which can be tested, modified and perhaps
                     extended to other regions. This was the approach used in Greece, Australia,
                     and California.

                        Most regional planning exercises have a predominantly landward focus and
                     do not explicitly deal with water-based issues such as fisheries management.
                     Either the regional agency does not have the regulatory authority for water
                     areas and resources, or it chooses not to exercise its authority in the "wet
                     side of the coastal zone."   BCDC, the California agency, has no significant
                     authority to manage bay fisheries. Similarly, the French planning exercises are
                     predominantly land use planning linked with capital works and resort
                     development (Harrison and Sewell, 1979). The Indonesian example, though still
                     at an early level of development, offers some promise to deal more specifically
                     with the "wet side" fisheries and wetland habitats.

                        The issue of local autonomy may arise during the creation of a regional
                     planning agency by a state- or national-level legislative body. This opposition
                     is the most significant where traditions of local government control are strong.
                     Consider the case in which a politically powerful city (such as the national
                     capitol and largest metropolitan area) is situated on an estuary.        If that
                     estuary is the object of a nationally-sanctioned regional planning effort,
                     conflicts could arise over the economic or port development goals of the city
                     and the regional need to preserve fishery, mariculture, tourism, and recreation
                     resources.



                     7.6 Shoreland Exclusion or Restriction

                     Shoreline exclusion or restriction refers to regulatory programs that prohibit
                     or significantly limit certain uses within a strip or band in the coastal zone.
                     The areas subject to shoreline restriction are typically landward of the high
                     water mark; they are rarely the intertidal zone or submerged lands because the
                     national government usually controls those areas under separate mandates. In
                     developing nations the shoreline exclusion strategy commonly arises from three
                     concerns: blockage of public access, degradation of views, and erosion of
                     shorelines. Residential development and tourist development appear to be the
                     primary targets of shoreline exclusion.    In some cases, exclusion zones and
                     land use planning boundaries for permit letting are mutually supportive and
                     may be integrated into a single program. Shoreline exclusion zones differ from
                     critical area management programs (see Section 7.7), in that they are coast-
                     wide and do not carry a special designation declaring the uniqueness of
                     particular types of areas.

                                                            67







                           Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                              There are two types of shoreland exclusion programs: (1)            those with fixed
                           upland and offshore dimensions; and (2) those based on the features of the
                           shoreland.    Shoreland exclusion zones vary in size.          Figure 7.2 displays the
                           inland extent of exclusion zones in 22 nations or states. The           22 examples we
                           identified are illustrative, and are not a definitive listing of       this management
                           strategy.   The extent of the zones depicted in Figure 7.2 vary from eight
                           meters to three kilometers.


                              The concept of public ownership of land along the shoreline is a historical
                           tradition in many countries. In Australia and New Zealand, a shoreland zone
                           of Crown Lands constitutes this public area. In both countries tradition has
                           not been maintained in some areas, and Crown Lands have been sold off
                           ("alienated") for development.        Some steps have been taken, however, to
                           preserve the public interest in Crown Lands through shoreline exclusions.
                           Since 1851, coastal subdividers in New Zealand have been required to set aside
                           esplanade or foreshore reserves for public open space uses. These foreshores
                           consist of strips of land 66 feet wide paralleling the mean high tide line
                           (Chapman, 1974).

                              In Latin America at least eight countries apply the concept of a zona
                           publica -- or public zone. Figure 7.2 indicates that Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
                           Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela have established
                           shoreland zones based on a specific setback from the shoreline @usually mean
                           high tide).   The figure depicts the considerable variation among these seven
                           countries in the width of the zona publica.              There are also considerable
                           international differences in both the uses that are allowed in the zona publica
                           and the extent to which the government forcefully plans and manages the area.
                           (Sorensen, forthcoming).       For example, in Uruguay the 250 meter zone is
                           designed to preserve natural resources and foster tourism, but only the mining
                           of sand and other beach materials is expressly prohibited by the law (Calvo,
                           1988)r

                              Costa Rica appears to have one of the most ambitious and comprehensive
                           shoreland    restriction   programs in       the   world     (Sorensen,   1990).       The
                           jurisdictional area is a   200 meter wide marine and terrestrial zone. The law
                           divides the zone into two components: the "zona publica"                 and the "zona
                           restringida" (restricted zone). The zona publica extends inland          50 meters from
                           mean high tide or the inland limit of the wetlands and the upstream limit of
                           the  estuaries as defined by salt or tidal influence. The zona restringida covers
                           the  remaining 150 meters inland. The zona publica is devoted to public use
                           and access, and commercial development is generally prohibited. Exceptions to
                           the  prohibition against commercial development are made for enterprises that
                           are  coastal-depcndent, such as sport fishing installations, port installations,
                           and  their infrastructure. In the zona restringida, development is controlled by
                           a permit and concession system that is based on a detailed regulation plan
                           formulated at the local level of government. A concession is a development
                           right on a specific parcel of land for a particular land use and fixed time
                           period.

                              In Greece, the National Coastal Management Program imposes "strict
                           controls" within a 500 meter band on both sides of the shoreline.                  Greece
                           departs from the general pattern and imposes controls both landward and
                           seaward of mean high tide (Carnhis and Coccossis, 1982).


                                                                       68







                                                                                  Management Strategies



                           Figure 7. 2: Shoreland Exclusion or Restriction Setbacks

                           COUNTRIES DISTANCE INLAND FROM SHORELINE*

                           Ecuador          - 8 m.

                           Hawaii           -- 40 ft.

                           Philippines      ----- 20 m.
                           (mangrove greenbelt)
                           Mexico           ----- 20 m.
                           Brazil           ------ 33 m.
                           New Zealand      ------- 66 ft.
                           Oregon           ------------ Permanent vegetation line (variable)
                           Colombia         ------------------ so M.

                           Costa Rica       ------------------ 50 M.
                           (public zone)
                           Indonesia"       ------------------ 50 M.

                           Venezuela        ------------------ 60 M.

                           Chile            -------------------- so M.

                           France           -----------------------  100 M.
                           Norway           -----------------------  100 M.
                           (no building)
                           Sweden           -----------------------  100m. (In some places to 300 m.)
                           (no building)
                           Spain            -----------------------  100 to 200 m.

                           Costa Rica       ------ 50 m. to -----------  200 m.
                           (restricted zone)

                           Uruguay          -----------------------------   250 m.

                           Indonesia**      -----------------------------------    400 m.
                           (mangrove greenbelt)

                           Greece           --------------------------------------    Soo M.

                           Denmark          ----------------------------------------     1-3 km.
                           (no summer homes)

                           USSR - Coast of the Black Sea       --------------------------    3 km.
                           (exclusion of new factories)



                           * Definition of shoreline varies, but It Is usually the mean high tIde.
                           Most nations and states exempt coastal dependent Installations
                           such as harbor developments and marinas.

                           "Indonesia has both a 50 m setback for forest cutting and a 400 rn
                           "greenbelt" for fishery support purposes (see text for explanation).



                                                                69







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           In the United States, a program to protect resources and guarantee public
                        access in the state of Oregon exemplifies a coast-wide exclusion based on the
                        configuration of natural features.   A state supreme court decision upheld a
                        century-old law requiring that the entire foredune area (to the inland line of
                        permanent vegetation) be kept free of construction and fencing to ensure the
                        continued right of access.     This restriction also confers the benefit of
                        protecting dune vegetation and associated wildlife (Oregon, 1976).

                           The Bahamas offer another   example of a shoreland exclusion determined by
                        the characteristics of the site. The government's Planning Guidelines for the
                        Control of Land Use and Development in the Commonwealth of Bahamas
                        (Bahamas, 1976) do not fix the setback requirement for building in the coastal
                        area, but require "a view f rom the sea," whereas, in the city, the limit is set
                        by distance (from 15 to 30 feet) from the street (UNOETB, 1982a).

                           Norway has both a f ixed and a variable setback. No building is allowed
                        within the first 100 meters, and second (vacation) home development is set
                        back as -far as necessary to control the adverse effects of residential
                        construction (UNOETB, 1982a). Denmark has a similar exclusion program for
                        beach protection. Its Conservation of Nature Act provides protection against
                        construction and landscape changes in a 100 meter coastal zone. Guidelines
                        drawn up by the Ministry of Environment prohibit building of summer houses
                        within a protected belt of one to three kilometers from the coast (UNOETB,
                        1982a).

                           Shoreland exclusion or restriction programs are administratively attractive:
                        they are inexpensive, geographically precise, and offer clear guidance about
                        prohibited uses.   This administrative simplicity provides a high degree of
                        certainty for both coastal management agencies and potential developers. Such
                        zones can be tailored to particular natural resource features such as dunes,
                        mangroves, or other wetland habitats, to ensure that they are protected
                        wherever they occur in the coastal zone.      Exclusion programs providing a
                        setback for public access and shoreline recreation are likely to enjoy wide
                        support from inland residents who don't own coastal property.          Shoreline
                        exclusion zones with specific dimensions provide consistency throughout a
                        nation or subnational unit.   In a situation where coastal resources are being
                        degraded at an alarming rate, exclusion or restriction zones arc a convenient
                        way to impose a moratorium on development until a more comprehensive land
                        use plan can be prepared and implemented.

                           This technique would complement a broader program of coastal land use
                        planning for a state or nation.      Exclusion or restriction zones can both
                        constitute the first thrust for the declaration of public trust and form the
                        core of a permanent system to limit modification where sensitive resources
                        occur, as well as allow development elsewhere on a permit basis.

                           In developing nations, the concept of the public right to gain access to and
                        along the coastline may be a persuasive political argument for coastal zone
                        management.    Costa Rica exemplifies this situation.   Exclusions providing a
                        setback for public access and shoreline recreation are likely to enjoy wide
                        support from inland residents.

                           Highly developed or urbanized coasts present difficult or impossible
                        circumstances for the use of exclusion zones. Imposition of an exclusion zone

                                                               70







                                                                              Management Strategies



                    would be opposed in political circumstances where native citizen private
                    property owners have enjoyed a high degree of discretion in implementing
                    their own development plans. Similarly, it is doubtful that exclusion programs
                    could be adopted without strong support from a nation's legislative body or the
                    chief executive.


                       The inland exclusion distance often is not great enough to address the
                    issues the strategy was established to resolve.   For instance, public access (or
                    view protection) may not be guaranteed by any boundary line that is seaward
                    of the public road nearest the coast.      Similarly, effective control of shore
                    erosion hazards may not be achieved unless the exclusion zone includes the
                    entire shore area that can be expected to erode during the lifetime of existing
                    or proposed development (e.g., 50-75 years). Without a complementary program
                    of land use planning or some other effective planning strategy (e.g., sectoral
                    planning), exclusion programs alone leave large gaps in a national effort to
                    achieve an integrated coastal management program based on a coastal systems
                    perspective, as outlined in Section 2.6.



                    7.7 Critical Area Protection


                    Critical area protection programs are enacted by state or national governments
                    to achieve one or more of the following purposes: (1) to conserve or preserve
                    a particular type of sensitive environment or natural area (such as mangroves,
                    wetlands, barrier islands, coral reefs, and endangered species habitats), (2) to
                    preclude development on selected eroding coasts, or (3) to restrict development
                    in a special flood plain.    In the context of the first purpose, critical area
                    protection is very similar to sectoral planning for wildlife protection. In the
                    second and third contexts -- hazard protection -- critical area protection is
                    very similar to exclusion zones.

                       Three features distinguish critical area protection as a management strategy.
                    First, a formal designation sets the stage for the program.       Of ten this is a
                    result of an inventory of resources and a screening of candidate sites, and a
                    recommendation from an agency staff person to a decision making body.
                    Second, critical area programs are not implemented on a coast-wide basis --
                    such as for all of the nation's mangrove forests.      Instead, they are selected
                    for specific geographic locations -- such as the mangrove forests bordering
                    Guayaquil Bay. Third, designated critical areas typically address the concerns
                    of more than one sector; they simultaneously serve the purposes of wildlife
                    protection, hazard area management, parks, and perhaps research.               The
                    strategy of critical area designations often represents an intermediate step
                    before the creation of wildlife refuges, parks, or hazard control zones. Area
                    designations for eroding coasts may precede a shoreland exclusion strategy.

                       The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
                    Resources (IUCN) has assisted nations to establish protected areas for habitat
                    preservation and conservation of genetic diversity. Both marine and terrestrial
                    areas adjacent to the shoreline are included in IUCN's global system of
                    reserves.


                       A commonly used technique to implement critical area programs is to
                    severely restrict development, usually in perpetuity. The mechanisms to ensure
                    that no development occurs may include some form of purchase, ministerial

                                                            71







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments

                                                                                            I



                        restriction, or condemnation.     Of ten an activities plan is prepared f or the
                        delineated critical area in order to     prevent use conflicts.     In some cases,
                        education or research programs are organized to take advantage of the
                        resources in the critical area (McNeeley  and Miller, 1983).

                            Land use planning for a "buffer zone" around the core resource area is
                        sometimes incorporated in critical       area programs.      In other cases, an
                        environmental assessment must      precede any project in or adjacent to the
                        critical area. Under Indonesia's    National Forestry Act, a 50 meter wide belt
                        of "protection forest" must be maintained along coastlines for mangrove
                        silviculture and a 20 meter wide   belt must be kept intact along river banks. A
                        complementary program involves reforesting upland areas to promote the goal
                        of sustainable yield.     A more speculative prospect is the reconversion of
                        marginally productive agricultural land to mangroves (UNOETB, 1982a).

                            In Queensland, shoreline erosion is addressed through the Beach Protection
                        Authority (BPA), which maintains a 400 meter jurisdiction.             Within this
                        jurisdiction, special Beach Erosion Control Districts have been created, within
                        which no development may proceed without BPA's approval. BPA can also
                        control sand removal or vehicle use within a Beach Erosion Control District
                        (Cullen, 1982).

                            The Barbados Parks and Beaches Commission Act prepares regulations
                        governing beach protection, sanitary conditions and practices for managing
                        public parks and beaches (UNOETB, 1982a).

                            Critical area management shows promise as a technique to help developing
                        nations avoid the consequences of urbanization in flood plains and agriculture
                        or forestry on steep erodible slopes, two common problems world-wide. This
                        management strategy enables a nation to concentrate funds and staff resources
                        on the most threatened or hazard-prone areas of the coastal zone. The very
                        term "critical area" alerts citizens and decision makers to the need for quick
                        action. Since many designated areas support more than one important resource
                        or hazard, the critical area strategy provides the flexibility to tailor a detailed
                        site plan or management approach to unique local conditions. Often this is
                        preferable to routine use of general environmental guidelines (see Section 7.9).

                            The designation strategy can also be used as a stop gap measure until a
                        more programmatic solution can be found through shoreland exclusion or
                        perhaps a more standard sectoral plan for parks, research or erosion control.
                        Administration is relatively simple, and overall costs are low.

                            Critical area designation, like acquisition programs (see Section 7.10), is
                        seldom a complete response to a resource issue.          It is likely to be more
                        comprehensive than acquisition alone, however, because critical area protection
                        usually has both a land use regulatory program and rules for guiding human
                        activities within the area. A critical area designation may, however, become
                        the focal point of intense political controversy.


                        7.8 Environmental Impact Assessment

                        A notable outcome of the Stockholm Conference on the Environment was the
                        international diffusion of environmental impact assessment ("EIA"). The term

                                                                 72







                                                                             Management Strategies



                    is used to describe both a governmental process and an analytic method. As a
                    process, EIA is usually imposed by government to force public agencies -- and
                    in some cases private developers -- to disclose environmental impacts, to
                    coordinate aspects of planning, and to submit development proposals for
                    review. As an analytic method, EIA is used to predict the effects of a project
                    or a program.     The three fundamental premises underlying environmental
                    impact assessment are:

                            0     cause and effect relationships can be determined
                                  with reasonable accuracy and presented in terms
                                  understood by policy makers;

                            0     prediction of impacts will improve planning and
                                  decision making;

                            0     the government can enforce decisions emanating
                                  from the impact assessment process.

                       The EIA process includes assessment of a proposed project's potential
                    effects on the sustained use of renewable coastal resources as well as the
                    potential effects on the quality of the human environment.       The process is
                    mandated by law or executive decree and generally involves a procedure that
                    requires the following information: (1) the characteristics of the project site;
                    (2) a description of the project; and (3) a description of the consequences or
                    impacts of a project for different dimensions of the environment. Usually it
                    also requires that alternatives to the project be identified and comparatively
                    assessed and spells out measures to avoid or mitigate impacts.

                       Typically, the procedure of impact identification and assessment of its
                    severity is combined with an institutional process requiring preparation of a
                    formal document or holding of a hearing in order to describe environmental
                    impacts and strategies to reduce them. A specific agency or ministry is given
                    responsibility for being the focal point of the EIA process. The outcome of
                    this process is often the imposition of mitigation measures as a condition of
                    project execution.   These measures may take the form of design changes,
                    shifts in project location, or changes in the order in which different portions
                    of the project are constructed.    For example, a resort development may be
                    redesigned to avoid destruction of dune vegetation and prevent interruption
                    with a natural sand supply, or construction of a pier may be timed to avoid
                    interference with the spawning cycle of a commercially important fish.

                       In this discussion, it has been noted that impact assessment is usually
                    focused on the project level.     Assessments may also focus at the program
                    level, such as for a river basin development initiative.     This programmatic
                    approach is less common in developing countries (Horberry, 1983).        Program
                    level assessment -- when done for a large geographic area -- is conceptually
                    similar to regional planning but does not include a mechanism to compel actual
                    plan making and implementation.

                       Three different standards of review are commonly used to decide whether
                    an EIA is needed. Depending on the agency and its mandate, the EIA process
                    may be invoked as follows:



                                                           73







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                 0    for all projects in the coastal zone or other
                                      sensitive  areas   (Greece's  coastal   management
                                      program has this requirement);

                                 0    for  any   project  likely   to  create  signif icant
                                      environmental impact (the most common situation);

                                 0    for any project of a specif ic type (e.g. major roads,
                                      large public works projects).

                           In the  United States, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
                        subsequent guidelines established the legal framework for impact assessment.
                        Its requirement that the environmental consequences of federal projects, and
                        their alternatives, be assessed extends to all U.S. supported international
                        activities with potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, including
                        projects funded by USAID. Special emphasis is to be placed on irreversible
                        impacts and on the cumulative effect of a project together with past and
                        future projects.

                           The World Bank also requires that environmental impacts of projects be
                        assessed. Most other regional development banks have recognized that good
                        investment policy requires an accounting of projects in terms of both economic
                        and environmental feasibility.    In fact, failure to consider environmental
                        impacts has been cited as the cause of major shortcomings in the success of
                        resource development projects -- particularly large-scale impoundments (World
                        Environment Report, 1982).

                           In the Netherlands, procedures for environmental impact assessment have
                        been regarded as a significant contribution to that nation's coastal management
                        effort (Wiggerts and Kockebakker, 1982). Greece requires an impact statement
                        on all projects within five kilometers of the shore (Camhis and Coccossis,
                        1982). In Sri Lanka, the environmental impact assessment is an integral part
                        of their coastal zone management program.          The director of the Coast
                        Conservation Department has the discretion to require a developer to submit
                        an impact assessment.    Figure 7.3 shows the impact assessment procedure in
                        Sri Lanka.


                           The European Community has proposed a Directive on Environmental Impact
                        Assessment that, once ratified, would bind all member states.     The proposal
                        calls for developers of certain types of projects to submit an EIA when
                        seeking project approval.     An open process is suggested, requiring the
                        responsible agency to coordinate with other agencies and to make the report
                        public before rendering a decision (Carnhis and Coccossis, 1982).

                           Developing nations with assessment requirements include Brazil, Thailand,
                        the Philippines, Indonesia, and India.         Since Sri Lanka requires an
                        environmental impact statement for all major development (Amarasinghe and
                        Wickremeratne, 1983),    USAID funded an environmental assessment in that
                        country for a major irrigation program of the multi-donor Mahaweli
                        Development Program.      The study evaluated land use changes, losses to
                        forestry and wildlife,   soil erosion, water quality changes, reduction of
                        wetlands,  ef f ects on  fisheries, and several    social  issues.     Extensive
                        recommendations were made on natural system management which were carried
                        forward in an action plan with special emphasis on animal migration corridors

                                                               74







                                                                           Management Strategies



                  Figure 7. 3: Sri Lanka Coast Conservation Department's (CCD)
                                Procedure for Reviewing and Issuing Permits



                                           Filing of Permit Application
                                                   with CCD
                                          P
                                             Initial permit review and
                                             elts vieI   CCD staff
                                             etermination of whether
                                                  EIA Is required


                              F                                                7
                      EIA not required                           F-        EIA required

                      quevt observations of                           Call for EIA from Developer
                      role ant agencies




                                                                  Review of EIA by CCD Ad
                                                                        Council and Public @@ry


                                                  Permit


                             OR


                      Conditionally granted       Appeal to Secretary
                         or not granted           Ministry of Fisheries




                        Permit Granted               Permit Denied            Conditiona
                                                                            I   Granted

                                                                         (Source: Sri Lanka, 1988)



                                                          75







                       Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                       and wildlife conservation. Horberry (1983) cites the case as unusual because
                       the impact assessment was carried forward into a specific environmental
                       planning program implemented by local authorities.

                          The UNEP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific reported that an
                       Environmental Impact Assessment    'on a deep sea port near the outlet of the
                       Songkhla    Lake basin influenced final port design (Horberry,              1983).
                       Documentation of the potential sedimentation of the lake from dredging and
                       construction and pollution from port operations caused a change in the site of
                       the.port to minimize mixing of water from the port and the lake.

                          Given the impetus of the U.S. 1969 National Environmental. Policy Act
                       (NEPA) and the 1972 U.N. Conference in Stockholm, impact assessment has
                       become one of the most widely used coastal management strategies in both
                       developed and developing countries (Horberry, 1984).      This wide usage and
                       relatively long-term experience means that the methodology for impact
                       assessment is well developed and commonly understood.         Impact assessment
                       procedures produce better information about both the host environment and the
                       project, and serve to define and separate issues.    Unlike broad-scale sectoral
                       planning, regional planning or national economic planning, impact assessment
                       focuses attention on the details of projects that cause use conflicts in the
                       coastal zone. Program level impact assessment can serve as an "early warning
                       system" to avert the worst consequences of large-scale efforts such as river
                       basin development plans and ensure that the ecological, hydrological,
                       geological, and social consequences are adequately addressed. Finally, a major
                       advantage of EIA is that it provides mitigation measures derived from an
                       environmental assessment.

                          Mitigation planning in a region, or the pooling of mitigation requirements,
                       is the next step beyond ElAs carried out on a project-by-project basis and
                       would be a useful way to build good integrated coastal resource management
                       principles into the development sector.     Thailand's National Environmental
                       Board (NEB), the administrator of the nation's EIA program, has developed
                       extensive guidelines on environmental assessments with particular reference to
                       coastal areas. The NEB is interested in using the EIA process to expand and
                       incorporate coastal management considerations both within its own agency and
                       other agencies (Kinsey and Sondhcimer, 1984).

                          Many nations have experience with impact assessment through their
                       involvement with international development banks and USAID. As a result of
                       this early exposure to the strategy, nations can often build on existing
                       mechanisms to develop and refine useful impact assessment programs.          This
                       seems a particularly fruitful area for collaboration between governmental
                       officials and academicians, as seen in the Indonesia example.

                          The strategy is relatively simple to execute and is not costly to administer.
                       EIA is appropriate for nations which have a strong commitment to rapid
                       economic development but lack other strategies with rigorous standards for
                       guiding new coastal development.     Impact assessment offers a way to make
                       changes in project design and location, thus avoiding the most serious use
                       conflicts without undermining the attractiveness of a project in economic or
                       social terms.




                                                               76







                                                                              Management Strategies



                       The most common objection to environmental impact assessments is that
                    they are only information reports or "report cards"; they are not decision
                    documents.   Their effect typically occurs late in the development process so
                    they accomplish only minor, and perhaps insignificant "fine tuning" of project
                    location or design.    Conversely, impact assessment has been criticized for
                    putting roadblocks in the way of timely project completion. These concerns
                    are most likely to arise where institutions invoke impact assessment as an
                    afterthought, or "add on", rather than an integral part of the planning process.

                       The identification and assessment of potential impacts is only as good as
                    the available data base. Experience in developing countries suggests that the
                    amount and quality of data is steadily improving but is still deficient in many,
                    if not most, areas. Collaboration of universities and government agencies may
                    be one way to overcome this deficiency.

                       Environmental impact assessment is fundamentally an analytic and
                    interpretive procedure; it is not a substitute for sound policies.    Without a
                    clear, straightforward translation of an assessment into a specific action such
                    as a change in project design, the EIA strategy is usually not meaningful but
                    only a cosmetic exercise.

                       A further vexing problem in EIA is the difficulty of assessing the
                    cumulative effects of environmental alteration.      Impact assessment is most
                    often conducted on an ad hoc or project-by-project basis. Few agencies have
                    found suitable procedures to predict and account for impacts of a series of
                    projects in a particular region or ecosystem over a period of time. A related
                    problem is the difficulty in identifying thresholds -- levels of change beyond
                    which irreversible damage occurs.


                    7.9 Mandatory Policies and Advisory Guidelines

                    Many --  if not most -- state or national coastal management plans are based
                    on a set of policies and guidelines. As the adjectives imply, the distinction
                    between  policies and guidelines is that the former requires compliance and the
                    latter is voluntary. In other words, the text of a policy can be identical to
                    the text of a guideline.    The difference is often only the verb "shall" or
                    "should". The institutional arrangement for voluntary guidelines is also usually
                    different from the arrangement for implementing mandatory policies. Policies
                    are used by government units that have the power to issue permits and
                    prepare specific land use plans. Advisory guidelines are issued by government
                    units that do not have authority for implementation. These government units
                    must depend on other government units to apply their guidelines in their
                    permit letting or plan making activities.

                       Policies and guidelines are formulated to provide a framework for issuing
                    permits as well as preparing land use or special area plans. These management
                    strategies were described in Sections 7.4 and 7.5.      Policies and guidelines
                    usually precede the preparation of land use and special area plans.        Unlike
                    land use plans and special area plans, policies and guidelines do not refer to a
                    specific geographic locations. If they did they would be land use or special
                    area plans. Policies and guidelines are usually organized according to types of
                    uses (e.g., tourism development, channel dredging, spoil disposal); or types of
                    environments (e.g., wetlands, mangroves).

                                                            77







                       Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           The coastal plans of California and Sri Lanka are two good examples of
                       mandatory policies.     The law that established the California Coastal Zone
                       Conservation Commissions in 1972 required submission of a plan to the
                       legislature in 1976. The enabling legislation provided very little guidance on
                       either the organization or the composition of a coastal plan.         In December
                       1975 the California Commissions published a 443 page plan. One hundred and
                       sixty two policies are the core of the California Coastal Plan (California
                       Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions, 1975). The policies cover every scale
                       and type of coastal development and conservation -- from the heating
                       swimming pools to the siting of nuclear power plants.           A set of regional
                       summaries and 1:125,000 scale maps for the entire coastline of California are
                       included in the Plan. The maps illustrate "the location and extent of coastal
                       resources, developed areas and other factors that influence coastal planning".

                           Although it was possible to get some idea of where many of the 162
                       policies would be applied, the California Coastal Plan was widely criticized for
                       being too vague. No one could read the set of policies, guidelines and maps
                       and predict how their particular interest in the coast would be affected. The
                       Plan proposed that predicability would be provided by each of the 15 coastal
                       counties and 54 cities preparing a local coastal program (see Section 7.4).
                       Also, the Coastal Commissions would continue to issue permits and use the
                       Plan's policies as its reference.       When the local coastal programs were
                       approved by the Commissions, most of the permit letting authority would be
                       relinquished to the respective local governments.

                           The law creating a coastal zone management program in Sri Lanka was
                       modeled on the California program. Like its model, the Sri Lanka Coastal
                       Zone Management Plan produced in 1987 is also a policy plan (Sri Lanka Coast
                       Conservation Department, 1988). There is little in the Sri Lanka Plan that is
                       geographically referenced. The policies are organized into three groups: types
                       of environments (e.g., estuaries, corals, mangroves, dunes); types of resources
                       (e.g., archaeologic, historical, scenic sites); and administrative procedures.

                           The major problem with policy plans is the uncertainty they create or
                       perpetuate.   In both the California and Sri Lanka coastal zone management
                       plans it is difficult to tell. how one's interests will be affected by the policies.
                       However, uncertainty does have its advantages.           Policy plans create less
                       opposition from pro-development interests than land use or special area plans.
                       No one in California can tell for sure how the policies will be applied to their
                       coastal land or resource. During the debate on the 1976 law to implement the
                       California Coastal Plan one particular phrase captured this dilemma:          "Is it
                       better to be vague and insidious or specific and outrageous?" If the Plan had
                       been a land use plan for the entire coastal zone, most of the people with an
                       economic interest in land or resources in the zone would have coalesced into a
                       large and vocal opposition force.

                           Advisory guidelines are usually multisectoral in scope; they may address a
                       range of project types and natural resources and social and cultural issues. In
                       this respect, they differ from broad-scope sectoral planning, a management
                       strategy which incorporates environmental considerations into planning for a
                       single sector of a nation's economy (Section 7.2). Guidelines are also similar
                       to the model of land use planning in which central authorities draft guidelines
                       for incorporation in plans prepared at the local level. However, the guideline


                                                                78







                                                                           Management Strategies



                   strategy, by definition, does not mandate preparation of a specific plan or
                   implementation measures.

                      Adoption of national guidelines is exemplified by the joint efforts of the
                   Indonesian National Committee on the Environment, the Indonesian Institute of
                   Sciences, and other leading universities to prepare "General Guidelines on the
                   Development and Management of Coastal Areas" (ASEAN, 1983).                 The
                   management guidelines were organized as follows:

                           0     inventory of natural resources;

                           0     human settlement;

                           0     land use and development allocation;

                           0     environmental considerations in project planning and
                                 the development of coastal resources;

                           0     food production and raw materials;

                           0     conservation and environmental protection;

                           0     recreation and tourism;

                           0     infrastructures and engineering works;

                           0     construction materials;

                           0     public health;

                           0     management of water resources;

                           0     institutional f ramework;

                           0     navigation, shipping and harbors;

                           0     security.

                      A review   copy of the guidelines was circulated to a variety of departments
                   and used f or six years.      The Of f ice of the Minister f or Development
                   Supervision and the Environment (the successor to earlier environment
                   agencies) plans to revise the document to ref lect both users' comments and
                   environmental laws. The book may also be translated into English for review
                   or use by ASEAN member countries (ASEAN, 1983).

                      An opposite response to the adoption of guidelines was exemplified by
                   Ecuador in 1981.     At that time the nation considered, but did not adopt,
                   coastal development and conservation guidelines. It was concluded that on a
                   nation-wide basis, conditions in the coastal zone and along the continental
                   shelf varied too greatly to apply uniform guidelines (Vallejo, 1987).

                      International assistance agencies have produced a considerable number of
                   guidelines for types of projects and environments -- many of which have
                   direct or indirect bearing on coastal management.        For example, UNEP

                                                          79







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                        produced a pamphlet on "Coastal Tourism" (Ahmed, 1982) as part of its
                        environmental guidelines series. Similarly, the UNOETB (1982b) produced a
                        manual on technologies for coastal erosion.

                           Guidelines can serve a valuable educational function.          They can of f er
                        general direction for project design and construction and raise the level of
                        awareness and understanding among agency and government staff. Drafting
                        and revising guidelines also serves as a vehicle for intergovernmental
                        communication as well as a forum for government agencies and interest groups
                        concerned with coastal management, as exemplified by the Indonesian
                        experience. Guidelines can sensitize planners and policy makers in different
                        sectoral or functional divisions to issues that require horizontal or vertical
                        integration of government efforts.       They have also been shown to be of
                        assistance to any  private sector that has an interest in development within the
                        coastal zone.      The guidelines should act as a handbook to provide
                        f oreknowledge of  the government's policies and concerns regarding the impacts
                        the proposal may generate. In some cases, advisory guidelines contain hidden
                        power because of the strength or influence of the agency issuing them. The
                        perceived threat   of formal imposition of guidelines by law may inspire
                        voluntary compliance by developers.

                           A survey of 92 environmental guidelines publications produced by_
                        international assistance institutions reached several conclusions relevant to
                        coastal resource management in developing nations:

                                 The fact that we found so little evidence of the systematic
                                 application of the existing guidelines suggests that either they
                                 have been tried and found useless or that agencies have not
                                 made sufficient resources and incentives available to sustain
                                 their use.   We suggest that some agencies never put some
                                 guidelines into operation because their function is to improve
                                 public relations or to provide educational material to the
                                 development community in general. In other cases, staff of
                                 agencies do not use guidelines systematically because the
                                 guidance is too general or incompatible with real tasks and
                                 problems. In many cases, staff do not use guidelines becau---.
                                 agencies do not require their use, nor provide the appropriate
                                 training and resources, nor establish any institutional penalties
                                 for failing to use them (Horberry, 1983).


                        7.10 Acquisition Programs

                        We refer to an acquisition program as an organized effort over several years
                        for systematic land purchase, which is distinct from a one-time acquisition
                        effort. In developed nations, acquisition is usually the single most reliable way
                        to secure the future of a sensitive resource or to ensure that land is available
                        for a specific type of development for public use, such as a port facility or a
                        park.    Acquisition programs may be carried out by the public sector,
                        non-government organizations dedicated to particular resource protection or
                        development purposes, or a partnership of public and private sectors.

                           In capitalist developed nations and some middle income developing nations,
                        acquisition of specific parcels often represents the final implementation of a

                                                                80







                                                                                Management Strategies



                      critical area protection program, as exemplified by the U.S. estuarine research
                      reserve program. It may also be used to implement portions of a land use plan
                      or as implementation for sectoral planning for parks and reserves.

                         France operates an acquisition program to implement "a land policy of
                      coastal protection respecting the natural landscape and ecological balance."
                      The Coastal Conservatoire is empowered to acquire land using preemption in
                      cases anticipated by law or through appropriation.             In addition, the
                      Conservatoire is allowed to receive legacies and donations and may enter into
                      covenants with individuals to secure protection of the shoreline.

                         Policies and priorities for land acquisition are set by the Conservatoire's
                      Administrative Council, a 34 member body comprised of elected officials and
                      representatives of agencies and associations.   Directions for action are based
                      on the information of seven shoreline councils: North Sea, Atlantic-Bretagne,
                      Mediterranean, Corsica, lakes, French shores of America, and French shores of
                      the Indian Ocean.       The Conservatoire can intervene in any shoreline
                      community of more than 100 hectares. A report indicated that 65 sites had
                      been acquired representing 10,000 hectares and 120 kilometers of coast. Goals
                      set in 1980 called for acquisition of 50,000 hectares in the following years
                      (France, Ministry of the Environment, 1980).

                         British experience with acquisition to achieve coastal protection dates back
                      to 1895, when the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest and National
                      Beauty was formed. A private organization, the Trust accomplished its first
                      acquisition on coastal cliffs at Dinas Oleu, near Balmouth, Wales.           Other
                      individual acquisitions followed and in 1962-1963, the Trust inventoried the
                      coast to identify suitable sites. In 1965, Enterprise Neptune was launched -- a
                      campaign for fund-raising and coastal acquisition. The government opened the
                      fund-raising with a 250,000 pound contribution. In two and a half years the
                      fund grew to I million pounds, with private contributions, and stood at 2
                      million pounds by 1978.      By 1976, 333 miles of coast had been saved by
                      acquisition or covenant. Stewardship activities complement the land purchase
                      work of the Trust (Steers, 1978). England's National Trust program has served
                      as a model for similar citizen-oriented efforts in New Zealand and Japan
                      (Chapman, 1974; Shapiro, 1984a).

                         Acquisition is seldom a complete response to a significant coastal resource
                      issue. There may be an erroneous tendency to assume that a problem is solved
                      once an acquisition transaction is complete. For example, a land acquisition
                      program for important wetland habitats can be frustrated by poor land use
                      practices in the surrounding watershed, causing excessive siltation in the
                      wctland basin.    Beyond the problem of managing adjacent land uses, the
                      acquisition must  be followed up by a vigorous program of stewardship to
                      ensure that the   initial acquisition objective is fulfilled.    This may mean
                      monitoring casements or covenants to guarantee a free, well-signcd public
                      right-of-way, or a well-protected endangered species habitat.

                         Though administratively cost-effective, acquisition is certainly one of the
                      most expensive coastal management strategies.       Unless a sustained flow of
                      funds can be assured and earmarked for exclusive use in acquisitions, this
                      strategy is not likely to prove effective.



                                                              81







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           At this time, major acquisition programs for coastal protection appear to be
                        concentrated in developed countries.          As development pressure begins to
                        impinge on the most sensitive resources in developing nations, acquisition
                        campaigns are likely to become more important.

                           The financial, legal, and administrative costs of acquisition programs should
                        be kept in mind by developing coastal nations. Many developing nations have
                        relatively rural, agricultural, or vacant shorelines. The generally undeveloped
                        nature of their shorelines -- particularly when combined with liberal
                        constitutional provisions for either the taking of land or restriction of private
                        property development -- provides the opportunity for ensuring public use of
                        shorelands, hazard control, and resources conservation through exclusion or
                        critical area strategies. Nigeria's nationalization of all land not in productive
                        use and Costa Rica's creation of an exclusion zone both illustrate the relative
                        ease with which many developing nations may impose restrictions or acquire
                        private property without full compensation to property owners. Obviously, a
                        developing nation's imposition of the exclusion zone or the critical area
                        strategy is far less costly than the acquisition strategy developed nations are
                        often forced to use as the only option available to achieve the same coastal
                        zone management objectives.



                        7.11 Coastal Atlases and Data Banks


                        A coastal atlas and data bank are systematic compilation, interpretation, and
                        display of information linked to a specific set of coastal issues, organized for
                        an entire state or nation.      The premise of coastal atlases is described in a
                        document prepared by the State of Texas:

                                 Through inventory and evaluation of coastal zone resources,
                                 environments, and land and water uses, programs can be
                                 established that will permit use of natural resources and
                                 maintenance 'of    environmental quality by adjusting use to
                                 resource capacity  (Brown et al., 1980).

                           Although simple data     or mapping for one site or several sites can assist the
                        policy making process, such an effort is not regarded as an atlas or
                        comprehensive data base. Rather, several features must be present to qualify
                        an information system as an atlas or data bank:

                                 ï¿½     inf ormation   collected   should    be    issue-oriented,
                                       designed to lay the foundation for policy making;

                                 ï¿½     information should be collected consistently for the
                                       same parameters, and preferably at the same scale
                                       -- on a nation- or state-wide basis;

                                 ï¿½     information should be compiled and synthesized in
                                       meaningful ways, using consistent weighing and
                                       scaling techniques;

                                 ï¿½     information should be easily retrievable.



                                                                   82







                                                                              Management Strategies



                       A coastal atlas meets the criteria outlined above and, in addition, includes a
                    reproducible set of maps prepared on a common scale. In some cases, the map
                    may represent the final output of the data base. In other cases, preparation
                    of a series of descriptive and interpretive maps may be part of the analytic
                    effort. For example, an initial round of maps might be prepared to delineate
                    biological, geographical and land use features on a stretch of coast. Next, a
                    second round of maps may be prepared. At this stage, a map of slope stability
                    could be prepared using maps of geological units, slope, and historical
                    landslides. At the third stage, a composite map of all geologic hazards could
                    be compiled, indicating levels of risk for new development and indicating areas
                    to be avoided.


                       The same approach could be used to combine maps of shellfish beds,
                    wetlands, and endangered species habitats into a single map of sensitive
                    biological resources. The resulting maps would give planners and policy makers
                    tools to guide the type and intensity of new development, or to choose
                    priority areas for protection or acquisition.

                       For coastal zone management purposes, a data base refers to a set of
                    information systematically organized around consistent geographic units. For
                    example, a data base could be keyed to parcels or townships of land, an
                    offshore tract, or a particular linear kilometer of coastline.    Often the data
                    base is conceptually organized as a table with information on a set of natural
                    resource parameters (geologic material, soil type, vegetation cover, prevailing
                    land use, agricultural suitability) keyed to each geographic unit. Alternatively,
                    a coastal pollution data base might be organized as a network of points
                    reflecting the location of monitoring stations for water quality.       With the
                    advent of reliable, low-cost computer automation, there is a pronounced trend
                    towards computer storage of data bases. This, in turn, allows easy updating of
                    information and completion of a variety of computations.

                       Several U.S. states have prepared state-wide atlases of their coasts as the
                    information foundation for their coastal management program.               Florida
                    launched a mapping effort in the early 1970's, and Texas followed a few years
                    later.  One of the more ambitious efforts was completed by the state of
                    Washington in collaboration with the University of Washington's Geography
                    Department.    Over 30 parameters are mapped for each coastal county, each
                    keyed to policies regulating shoreline development.

                       The European Commission recognized the need for consistent reliable
                    mapped data and in 1973 recommended a program be initiated for "classifying
                    the territory of the community on the basis of environmental characteristics"
                    (Briggs and Hansom, 1982). The role of "Ecological Mapping" in the coastal
                    zone was reiterated in the European Coastal Charter (Briggs and Hansom,
                    1982). Although a case study was carried out for the Basilicata area of Italy,
                    the proposed method does not evaluate the coastal zone as a separate entity.
                    Four specific applications of data base and coastal stages have been suggested
                    for the European Community: flood hazard mapping, erosion hazard mapping,
                    coastal pollution, and landscape and habitat evaluation (Briggs and Hansom,
                    1982).

                       The Philippines' Coastal Zone Program has undertaken a program of data
                    collection for selected areas via analysis of LANDSAT images (Zamora, 1979).
                    A national survey of coastal resource use is under way and a four volume

                                                            83







                       Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                       report has been prepared.        Approximately ten years ago, the Japanese
                       government collected 24 natural and social factors pertaining to the coastal
                       zone (Shapiro, 1984b). The data was computer-mapped for a band extending
                       one kilometer on either side of the shoreline.    A coastal atlas was prepared
                       for Osaka Bay at a scale of 1:25,000 (Shapiro, 1984b). The Osaka atlas was
                       prepared by university students, faculty, and citizens groups to influence the
                       government's coastal development policy making process.

                          Sri Lanka is preparing maps of the coastal zone with technical assistance
                       funded by USAID. Much of the work is being completed by students and
                       faculty of the Geography Department, Peridynia University (USAID, 1982).
                       New Zealand has compiled an Atlas of Coastal Resources. The announcement
                       for the Atlas proclaims:

                                It will be of interest to all those who use the coast to work and
                                play, and of particular value to students and teachers, engineers,
                                planners, scientists, fishermen, boat owners, divers, marine
                                farmers, and many others (Tortell, 1981).

                          The Eastern Caribbean Natural Areas Management Program (ECNAMP), a
                       non-governmental organization, has assisted in the preparation of a series of
                       island areas in the Eastern Caribbean. That effort drew heavily on the skills
                       and capabilities of island residents and included an integral training component
                       (Towle, 1985).

                          Coastal zone atlases and data bases can play a central role in facilitating a
                       more integrated and better informed approach to coastal resource management.
                       These strategies promote sound organization of the often fragmented
                       information existing for the coast. By drawing together data from different
                       aspects of the environment -- on mangrove location, shrimp production, and
                       land use designations, for example -- data bases emphasize the interaction of
                       specific components of the environment. Often a coastal atlas or data bank is
                       first used as a tool for problem identification, perhaps directing attention to
                       sites that need immediate attention.

                          Coastal atlas and data bank preparation has direct connections to the
                       Regional Seas Program for those nations that border on constricted ocean
                       areas. If the coastal zone issues are transboundary in nature, data banks and
                       atlas programs may have to be designed for two or more nations if the
                       products are to be effectively applied.    Regional preparation of an atlas or
                       data bank should also realize savings to be achieved by economies of scale.
                       To be effective as a management tool, as distinct from a problem identification
                       technique, coastal atlases and data bases must be linked to a prescriptive set
                       of policies and actions based on the assembled information.

                          Like the strategies of impact assessment and acquisition, a coastal atlas can
                       yield valuable educational benefits. The educational benefits are derived not
                       only from the product, but also from the compilation process.           This is
                       especially true if a,n open process is used involving all relevant government
                       agencies and non-governmental organizations. If the product is presented in a
                       clear, attractive format, maps of the coastal zone can also help convey the
                       need for regulation, acquisition, or capital investment. This in turn can help
                       generate support for coastal management policies among citizens, interest
                       groups, agency personnel, and elected officials.

                                                               84







                                                                             Management Strategies



                       Since atlases and data bases record the condition of the coast at a given
                    moment in time, they provide a valuable benchmark to be used as the basis for
                    future comparisons. In this way, rates and patterns of natural changes can be
                    measured and the effectiveness of a particular regulatory program can be
                    evaluated. Computerized data banks are especially suited to periodic updating
                    for tracking progress. A second technology that advances the case of atlases
                    and data banks is LANDSAT imagery, which is ideal at a gross scale for
                    preparing base maps and identifying resources and generates new data at
                    frequent intervals. Since academicians can often make valuable contributions
                    to data bases, a nation adopting this approach is likely to benefit from
                    collaboration between universities and environmental agencies.

                       The utility of coastal zone atlases and data banks is governed by several
                    constraints. First, these strategies are fundamentally tools for compilation and
                    synthesis of information. They must be linked to a process of interpretation
                    of findings, policy setting and intervention in the form of regulation
                    acquisition or capital investment and construction to be considered a
                    management strategy.    Many initial attempts to build atlases and data bases
                    arc not linked to a specific policy making process which spells out how the
                    findings are to be applied.    Without setting clear goals for the relationship
                    between data collection and implementation, nations that prepare atlases and
                    data bases may be disappointed with the result.         It is common f or the
                    information assembled to have only marginal application to the policy making
                    questions asked. By contrast, the environmental impact assessment strategy is
                    tied to the analytic process by formal institutional procedures. for report
                    preparation or project revision.

                       Second, it is clear that the value of a coastal data base or atlas is
                    critically dependent on the quality and quantity of raw information.           In
                    developing countries, the available data is often uneven with regard           to
                    accuracy and consistency of coverage. Third, the methods by which data is
                    compiled, scaled and aggregated have an equal impact on the utility of the
                    data base or atlas. This is especially evident in considering the map scales at
                    which data is obtained and reproduced.        For instance, maps compiled at
                    1:250,000 or 1:125,000 are useful for large-scale regional planning, but much
                    finer grain is needed (perhaps 1:24,000) for preparation of land use plans.
                    Even more detailed maps are needed for site plans of particular projects.
                    Fourth, atlases and data bases can quickly become obsolete, so there must be a
                    commitment to their timely use and continual updating. Finally, building an
                    atlas or data base is costly in dollar and staff terms.       It should not be
                    undertaken without a clear realization of both start up and maintenance costs.
                    Since the methods, contents and results derived from coastal zone atlases and
                    data banks vary so widely, systematic evaluation of these techniques should be
                    undertaken.



                    NOTE: Permit letting. One of the questions most frequently raised by the
                    first edition of this book was: "Why isn't permit letting listed as a management
                    strategy?" Our response is that permit letting is an integral component of at
                    least six of the 11 management strategies. Land use planning, special area or
                    regional plans, shoreland exclusion, critical area protection, environmental
                    impact assessment, and mandatory policies and advisory guidelines are all
                    undertaken to provide government units with policies and information for
                    making decisions on the issuance of the permits that are required (usually by

                                                           85







                      Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                      law) before proposed development actions can proceed to construction or
                      implementation. In most cases, permit letting presents a government unit with
                      four options.    The permit can be issued with, or without, any conditions
                      attached to the development proposal. Similarly a permit can be denied with,
                      or without, conditions attached to the resubmission of the development
                      proposal.

                         In both developed and developing nations, the government unit that carries
                      out the management strategy often does not have permit letting authority to
                      ensure that its decisions are adequately implemented.     In this situation the
                      government unit is relatively powerless and can only affect decision making by
                      making recommendations to the government units that do issue permits. This
                      is the case in the United States and Thailand with respect to environmental
                      impact assessment and impact statements. In Sri Lanka the impact assessment
                      law was amended in 1988 to give the Central Environment Authority the power
                      to require impact statements and deny proposals (Baldwin, 1988).     It is clear
                      that. the potential for adequately implementing a management strategy is
                      greatly increased if the governmental unit also has permit letting authority to
                      back up its decisions.







































                                                             86















                                           8. GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS




                     This chapter presents important concepts related to the development of
                     governance arrangements and reviews the major institutional arrangements
                     nations have used to manage their coasts.             We begin by examining the
                     complexity of national governance arrangements and explaining the need for
                     better sectoral integration.      Section 8.3 gives an overview of institutional
                     arrangements and supplements.        Some of the major choices nations face in
                     creating an    institutional arrangement are outlined in Section 8.4.             Major
                     institutional  arrangements to broaden the scope of sectoral planning are
                     described in   Section 8.5.    Then, Section 8.6 explains several supplements to
                     traditional institutional arrangements.

                         We define institutional arrangement as the composite of laws, customs, and
                     organizations established by society to allocate scarce resources and competing
                     values. Every coastal nation has established its own institutional arrangement
                     for managing coastal resources and environments. Five important components
                     of a society's institutional arrangement are:

                              0     legal and administrative authorities;

                              0     customs and traditions;

                              0     governance arrangements;

                              0     non-governmental organizations;

                              0     management strategies.

                        Society creates institutional arrangements to allocate scarce resources and
                     to resolve  conflicts among competing values. Accordingly, it is appropriate to
                     ask whether there are similar institutional arrangements across nations for the
                     resolution of coastal issues. If there are common types of arrangements, are
                     some more efficient or equitable in the way they help resolve coastal issues?
                     We describe the major types of governance arrangements in this chapter to
                     enable a comparison of institutional arrangements across nations.


                     8.1    Complexity of the National Governance Arrangement

                     As countries increase their level of socio-econo.mic development, their
                     arrangements for national governance become more complex. There are three
                     sources of complexity.        These are sectoral, functional, and hierarchical
                     dif f crentiation.   We explain these three factors to set the stage for a
                     discussion of alternative arrangements for managing the coast.


                     8.1.1 Sectoral and functional differentiation.

                     As governments specialize in a discrete policy area, sectoral differentiation is
                     the result.    Chapter 2, coastal management definitions, mentioned sectoral

                                                                87







                           Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           differentiation in the context of sectoral management or planning.                  In the
                           realm of coastal management, specialization tends to focus on policy areas
                           formed by coastal uses (e.g. fisheries, ports and harbors, water supply and
                           wastewater disposal, and tourism). Table 8.1 indicates that 15 to 25 sectors
                           may be represented in a nations' coastal zone.              Often, each of the sectors
                           listed in Table 8.1 has at least one responsible government agency.                      The
                           numerous sectoral divisions and corresponding government 'bureaucracies that
                           affect    coastal    uses,   resources,    and    environments       complicate     coastal
                           management.      (Other social policy areas such as criminal justice or public
                           education involve fewer government sectors.)

                              The potential for fragmentation of governmental responsibility and
                           duplication of effort increases with the number of sectoral divisions in a policy
                           area such as coastal management.              Figure 8.1 indicates that "horizontal
                           integration" describes efforts to coordinate the separate sectoral divisions and
                           thereby reduce fragmentation and duplication.

                              Each governmental sector is also divided by functional specialization and
                           dif f erentiation.  Functional divisions provide the structure f or governmental
                           intervention. Examples which commonly occur in the governance of coastal
                           resources and. environments are:


                                     0    generating and disseminating information (including
                                          research and education);

                                     0    levying charges;

                                     0    taxing;

                                     0    funding and/or constructing projects and programs;

                                     0    acquiring, managing, and selling property;

                                     0    long-range policy-setting and planning;

                                     0    regulating private development. and operations,
                                          particularly permit letting.

                              These divisions are listed in ascending order according to the relative
                           degree of government intervention.            Regulation is the greatest degree of
                           intervention.

                              Functional division of government sectors tends to create separate agencies.
                           For example, in Ecuador two different government units set fishing policy,
                           another two units are responsible for fisheries research, another unit
                           administers technical training for fishing, and still another unit funds fishing
                           enterprises (Vallejo and Caparro, 1981).

                              The differentiation and specialization of functions in each sector thus
                           increases the potential for fragmentation of responsibility and duplication of
                           ef f ort. Figure 8.1 indicates that vertical integration attempts to coordinate
                           the separate functional divisions of a government sector, such as fisheries.
                           The combination of functional and sectoral differentiation produces a matrix
                           arrangement of government organizations as illustrated by Figure 8.1. The

                                                                        88







                                                                               Governance Arrangements







                        Table  8.1: Sectoral Planning and Development in the Coastal Zone



                     Sectors that are often                     Sectors that are rarely
                     coastal zone or ocean                      coastal zone specific but
                     specif ic                                  have direct Impacts


                     1.    Navy and other national              1.   Agriculture - Mariculture
                           def ense operations (e.g.
                           testing, coastguard,                 2.   Forestry
                           customs)
                                                                3.   Fish and wildlife
                     2.    Port and harbor develop-                  management
                           ment (including
                           shipping channels)                   4.   Parks and recreation

                     3.    Shipping and navigation              5.   Education

                     4.    Recreational boating                 6.   Public health -
                           and harbors                               mosquito control & food

                     5.    Commercial and recrea-               7.   Housing
                           tional f ishing
                                                                8.   Water pollution control
                     6.    Mariculture
                                                                9.   Water supply
                     7.    Tourism
                                                                10.  Transportation
                     8.    Marine and coastal
                           research                             11.  Flood control


                     9.    Shoreline erosion                    12.  Oil and gas
                           control                                   development

                                                                13.  Mining

                                                                14.  Industrial development

                                                                15.  Energy generation












                                                                89







                           Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments


                           Figure 8. 1: The Arrangement of Government Organization
                                       in the United States for Selected Sectors

                     Functions             Port                     Pollution     Parke &          Marine
                     (functional           Devel-     Fisheries     Control      Recreation       Research
                     division)             opment-
                     Generate and          UNI           NMF          EPA        NPS    SPD     NSF     UNI
                     Disseminate           MA            SFG          Swo        FS     LG      FWS     NOA
                     Inf ormation          LPD           UNI          UNI        UNI            ONR
                     Levy Charges          LPD           NMF          Swo        NPS    LG          NOT
                                                         SFG          LG         FS     SPD     APPLICABLE      c
                                                                                                                0
                                        IRS          IRS              IRS            IRS            TAX
                     Taxation                  LPD         STB
                                        STB          SFG              STB            STS         EXEMPT         Im
                     Fund &/ or            COE           NMF          EPA                       NSF             C
                     Construct             EDA           EDA          Swo        NPS    SPD     FWS     NMF     -i
                     Projects &                                                  FS     LG              UNI     0
                                           LPD           SBA          LG                        ONR
                     Programs
                     Acquire,              GSA           GSA          GSA        NPS    LG      GSA     NOA     >
                     Manage &              CG
                     Sell Property         LPD           LG           LG         FS     SPD     UNI     FWS
                     Policy Setting     CG LPD       NMF SFO       EPA SWO       NPS    SPD     NSF     UNI
                                                                                 FS             FWS     NMF
                     & Plan Making      COE MA       SD            COE CG        LG     LG      ONR     NOA-
                     Regulation         CG LPD       NMF           EPA COE       NPS    SPD         NOA
                     (Permit Letting)   COE EPA      CG     SFG    SWO LG        LG     FS          FWS
                   -00                - FWS      HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION                             SFG   w-

                      ABBREVIATION KEY:
                      CG        U.S. Coast Guard
                      COE       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                      EDA       U.S. Economic Development Administration
                      EPA       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                      FS        U.S. Forest Service
                      FWS       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                      GSA       U.S. General Services Administration
                      IRS       U.S. Internal Revenue Service
                      LG        Local Government (City or County)
                      LPD       Local Port District
                      MA        U.S. Maritime Administration
                      NMF       National Marine Fisheries Service
                      NOA       National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
                      NPS       National Park Service
                      NSF       National Science Foundation
                      ONR       Off Ice of Naval Research
                      SBA       U.S. Small Business Administration
                      SD        U.S. State Department
                      SFG       State Fish and Game Department
                      SPD       State Park Department
                      STB       State Tax Board
                      SWO       State Water Quality Agency
                      UNI       Universities and Colleges



                                                                    90







                                                                           Governance Arrangements



                    matrix depicts the basic complexity of a nation's governance arrangement for
                    integrated coastal zone management. Agencies with involvement in each of the
                    sectoral functions are shown in the boxes produced by the intersection of the
                    two sides of the matrix. The agencies indicated in Figure 8.1 are only a few
                    examples drawn from U.S. national, state, and local government involvement in
                    coastal management.

                       If a coastal nation has 25 sectoral divisions that directly or indirectly
                    influence coastal uses and resources (such as those listed in Table 8.1) and
                    seven functional governmental divisions govern each of these sectors (as
                    illustrated by Figure 8.1), the product is one hundred and seventy-five separate
                    points of potential government involvement for a fully integrated coastal
                    resources management program.      In practice, however, not all functions are
                    performed in each sector.       An analysis and inventory of U.S. national
                    government involvement in coastal resources identified 83 different federal
                    units of government with responsibilities that affected coastal zone uses and
                    resources (Gamman, Towers, and Sorensen, 1974), half that of the hypothetical
                    total.

                       The matrix illustrates that an agency often performs many functions for a
                    particular sector (vertical integration). The Environmental Protection Agency
                    (EPA), for instance, was created to integrate all aspects of pollution control.
                    It is also common for one governmental unit to have the same or different
                    functional responsibilities across more than one sector (horizontal integration).
                    The matrix shows that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has
                    responsibilities in both the port development and pollution control sectors.
                    These consolidations of agency responsibility reduce the number of different
                    government units with functional responsibilities in sectors that affect coastal
                    management.     However, the consolidations are often more than offset by
                    governmental tendencies to further subdivide sectoral functions into both
                    geographic jurisdictions (such as regions) and activity jurisdictions (such as
                    dividing the regulation of port development into dredging permits and waste
                    water discharge permits).



                    8.1.2 Geographic and activity subdivisions.

                    A number of geographic subdivisions of sectoral functions in the United States
                    can be seen in Figure 8.1.     For example, the National Park Service (NPS)
                    provides recreation within the jurisdictional boundaries of its coastal parks and
                    the Forest Service (FS) provides recreation within the boundaries of coastal
                    forests. Figure 8.2 depicts the geographical division of New Zealand's coastal
                    zone prior to the 1990 Resource Management Law Reform (RMLR). The RMLR
                    is expected to streamline and consolidate the divisions illustrated by Figure
                    8.2. Regulation of fresh water and coastal pollution (under the Water and Soil
                    Conservation Act of 1967) is the responsibility of the Ministry of Works and
                    Development.    However, the geographic extent of this function stops at the
                    oceanward limit of territorial waters (three nautical miles). Coastal pollution
                    occanward from this boundary to the outer limit of the fishing zone (five
                    nautical miles) is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation.

                       The geographical division of the same sectoral function is a vexing problem
                    in coastal zone management, as Figures 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 illustrate. The

                                                            91








                                                         Figure 8. 2: Legislative Administration of the Coastal Environment of New Zealand

                                                                                                         .40                                                                                                                         Mining Act 1971                                                                                                           0-0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               12
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     (mining resources)                                                                                                        W
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Petroleum Act IS 3 7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         (Petroleum)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Coal Mines Act 1925
                                                                                                                                                                                                Iron and Steel industry Act 1959
                                                                                                                            -L-mlo- HarboOrs Act 1950 --- (mining of Iran sands)                                                                        3 miles Inland
                                                                                                                                         (harbouirs, reclamation)                                                               Timber Floating Act 1954
                                                                                                                            1-4110- N.Z. Po: to Authority Act                                                                                                                                                                                                  >
                                                                                                                                                                                    11       ':   14                                 Land Drainage Act 19 0 a
                                                                                                                                                                   1968
                                                   Continental $half Act 1964
                                                        (mineral @esourc*s)                                                                                                                                                          River Boards Act 19 0 8                                                                                                   to
                                                                                                         (a. S(2) regulations)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Swamp Drainage Act 19 18
                                                                                        Marin*Poilution Act 1974
                                                                                                     oil:                                                                                                                            (wetlands - rivers - streams)
                                                                                     (water P            ution control, Includes lnt*r@al waters)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Water and Soil Conservation Act 19 0 7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (natural water)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     (natural water and mail control)
                                                                                                                                                       :(Reclamation)
                                                                                                                                                                    -------------
                                                                                                                                     .........         .............          ----  ----------                                  Town and Country Planning Act 1983
                                                                                                                      (Sam* territorial L@A bounderi" extend past MHT)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Municipal Corporation Act 1954                                                                                            10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Counties Act 1950 and Counties Amendment Act 1961
                                                                                                                                                                 (a 10 7 reserve)
                                                                                                                                                               -----------------------------                                                  Land Act 1948
             %0                                                                                                               Marine Farming Act                1971                                                                       Sand Drift Act 19 0 8
                                                                                                                                                                                    00-: -.4                                                                                                                                             N1110-
                                                                                                                       (fauna, Includes Internal waters)                                                                             (within any specified area)
                                                                                                                         Marine Reserves hat 19 7 1                                                                                  Reserves and Domains Act 1983
                                                                                                                        1                                                     0)
                                                                                                                  (in    Was Internal watiers flora, faun                                                                            (scenic and flora reserves)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               W
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        National Park* Act 19 5 2                                                                                              :0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (scenic, flora, fauna)                                                                        Olm-
                                                                                                         @Whallng Industry
                                                                                                                            t
                                                                                                                       Ac 935
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WildliftAot 1953
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               U2
                                                                                                                                     Act 1908:                                                                                            The Forest Act 1949
                                                                                                         @-w Fisheries
                                                                                                         (fauna, includes Internal w@ptors)
                                                                                                                                                                        Public Worko Act 1928
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         J
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               fD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Crown Grants Act                1908 (seaward definition of land MHT)





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               to


                                                                                                                                                                                                        Sanddunea                                           Wetlands                                                   Hinterland
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (includes swamps, estuaries,
                                                                                                                                                              Foroshor* or                                                                  rivers, streams, water courses)
                                                                            Fishing Zone                        Territorial Water*                            Tidal Lands                                                                                                                                                                                      0
                                       Depth of                              (9 nautical                        (3 nautical miles)                       (includes mudflats)                                                                                                                                                                                   rA
                                       2 0 0 motors
                                                                                  miles)                                    HOIQ- Nari6our                                          No
                                                                                                                                     MLT     @@- internal waters                              MNT                                                                          (Source: UNOETB, 1982a)







                                                                            Governance Arrangements



                     Figure 8.3: Longitudinal Division of the Coastal Zone for Osaka Bay, Japan













                                 Coastal Water Arta
                                   (Osaka Day)

                                       MOT (surf ace)                             3
                                       MOC(bottom)
                                       MAFF(column)



                                                            ze





                                                                         Coastal Land Arta
                                                                         (Senshu District)









                                                               LEGEND

                                                                  Coastal Fishing Rights Area
                                100,         KA                    (MAY.F. Jurisdiction)
                                                                  Fishing Port Area(MAFF)

                                                                  Coastal Protection Area (MAF F
                                                           rmCommercial Port Area (MOT)

                                                                  Coastal Protection Area  MOT


                                                                  Coastal Protoction Area  MOC


                                                                  Coastline

                        Source: Osaka Prof ecture Coastal Jurisdictions Map Undated.




                                                                             (Source: Shapiro, 1984b)

                                                            93







                           Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                           shoreline often is the jurisdictional boundary for national or state laws.
                           Accordingly, government agency responsibility for the same sectoral function
                           often changes at this boundary (see also Figure 3.1).                    Moreover, the
                           geographic division of jurisdiction occurs lengthwise along the coast as well as
                           across the coastal zone divisions.         Figure 8.2 depicts New Zealand's cross
                           shore divisions and Figure 8.3 illustrates a longshore division of coastal area in
                           a metropolitan region of Japan.

                              To further complicate the institutional picture, different agencies are
                           frequently assigned different activities within the same sectoral function.
                           Figure 8.1 indicates that the Coast Guard (CG), Environmental Protection
                           Agency (EPA), and the Corps of Engineers (COE) all have some responsibility
                           for pollution control policy setting and plan making.              The Coast Guard's
                           jurisdiction is focused on oil spills and spillage of hazardous wastes from ships;
                           the Corps of Engineers' concern is dumping of dredge spoil.                            The
                           Environmental Protection Agency must consider all possible pollutants --                              I
                           including those that are the specific responsibility of other agencies such as
                           the Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard.



                           8.1.3 Hierarchical differentiation.


                           The foregoing discussion characterizes the complexity in only a single-level of
                           government involvement. Most nations have three or more hierarchical levels
                           of government:        national, state (provincial), and local (municipal).            The
                           functional and sectoral divisions depicted in Figure 8.1 can occur at any of
                           these levels.    To represent this complex picture, separate matrices could be
                           constructed for each level of government involvement.               An inventory and
                           .analysis of California state involvement in the coastal zones identified 42
                           different state units of government as i having responsibilities that affect
                           coastal zone uses and environments (Gamman, Towers, and Sorensen, 1974).

                              Generally, as one moves down the levels of government, the number of
                           sectoral divisions decreases.     Comparisons have commonly been made among
                           nations on the basis of the division and concentration of sectoral functions
                           among levels of government. Generally, developing countries are characterized
                           by strong national governments with relatively weak state and local
                           governments.      Metropolitan regions built around cities which are both a
                           nation's capitol and its major port are an exception to this pattern. Examples
                           are:    Lagos, Buenos Aires, Dar es Salaam, Jakarta, Rangoon, Kingston,
                           Colombo, Monrovia, Bangkok, Manila, and Dakar. These combined port-capitol
                           regions typically have much greater political influence than most subnational
                           units. Hierarchical differentiation also occurs within large-scale government
                           agencies.    Authority is divided into a series of levels.           Each upper level
                           controls and supervises the subordinate levels. For example, the U.S. Marine
                           Fisheries Service has both regional management offices and regional research
                           laboratories    that   are   subordinate    to   their   respective    headquarters     in
                           Washington.


                           8.2 Need for Sectoral Integration

                           The Interconnection of Important coastal-dependent economic sectors Is the
                           central reason for integrated coastal management In developing nations.

                                                                       94







                                                                         Governance Arrangements



                  Integration of fisheries, tourism, oil and gas development, and coastal hazards
                  regulation is essential because they share the same coastal zone as well as the
                  same environmental and public service systems.       For example, both fisheries
                  and tourism depend on a high level of environmental quality, particularly clear
                  coastal water. Both sectors receive spillover impacts such as pollution, loss of
                  wildlife habitat and aesthetic degradation from uncontrolled economic
                  development. Because fisheries require port services, while tourism depends on
                  construction of an infrastructure system for water supply, sanitation,
                  transportation, and telecommunications, they should be integrated with the
                  transportation and public works sector.

                      Figure 8.4 indicates important linkages between coastal-dependent sectors.
                  Positive and negative consequences of these linkages demonstrate the need for
                  integrated coastal management In developing nations.      For example, the need
                  for coastal management is evident where coastal zone oil and gas development
                  occurs in nations with a strong economic involvement in ports or fisheries.
                  Indeed, a developing nation pursuing port development may be less likely to be
                  concerned about integrated coastal management in the absence of a strong
                  fisheries or tourism industry.

                      Coastal natural hazards are usually addressed in sectoral plans for public
                  health and safety.    These natural processes cut across all coastal-dependent
                  economic sectors. Wind damage from a hurricane, inundation by a tsunami, or
                  rapid coastal erosion can disrupt tourism, the fishing industry, port operations,
                  public works, and transportation. Other sectors such as housing and industry
                  are also vulnerable. The devastating consequences of development in coastal
                  hazard-prone areas, together with the presence of any significant economic
                  activity that depends on coastal resources or coastal location, necessitate
                  integrated coastal management.

                      There is also strong evidence that the 30 or so developing nations in the
                  humid tropics with extensive mangrove forests should have a strong incentive
                  for integrated coastal resources management. IUCN's report, Global Status of
                  Mangrove Ecosystems, documents that all developing nations with extensive
                  mangrove forests are confronted with similar stresses which threaten the
                  existence of this renewable resource (Saenger, Hegerl, and Davies, 1983).
                  Conversion of mangroves to mariculture ponds or croplands is a particularly
                  destructive and pervasive problem, in which three renewable resource uses are
                  pitted against one another. The IUCN report recommends the preparation of
                  national mangrove plans to protect and enhance this ecosystem's resource
                  values. Such a nation-wide mangrove planning effort would represent a clear
                  example of integrated coastal resources management.

                      In many small island nations, agriculture and forestry commonly occupy
                  significant coastal upland areas where there is also strong pressure for
                  conversion of these lands to tourism, vacation home estates, and, in some
                  cases, housing for the resident population. Resolution of the conflicts arising
                  from the conversion of forests or agricultural lands to housing or tourist
                  facilities -- as well as the sedimentation impacts of forestry or agriculture
                  practices on fishery habitats -- will require an integrated resource management
                  approach.





                                                          95







                                Figure 8. 4: Examples of Positive and Negative Relationships Among Sectors

                                                                  SECTORS GENERATING POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS
                   SECTORS                                                                                                                                           Additional
                   RECEIVING               Ports and                                                                                                                 Sectors
                                                               Transportation          Public Works                  Fisheries                   Tourism
                   IMPACTS                 Shipping                                                                                                                  Can Be
                                                                                                                                                                     Portrayed
                                        Passenger liner        Airports and           Infrastructure           Conservation of
                                +       f aclilties            roadsto                for tourism              habitat areas vital to
                                                               tourist areas          development              both recreational and
                                                                                                               commercial species
                   TOURISM
                                        Ship pollution In      Encroachment           Encroachment
                                                                                                               Air & water pollution
                                        beaches and            of urban dev.          of urban dev.                                                                                      9
                                                                                                               from fish processing                                                      0
                                        swimming               produced by            produced by                                                                                        CS
                                                                                                               Industries & boats                                                        "0.
                                        areas                  roads                  public works
                                        Harbors and            Roadeand               Sewage from
                                +       processing             railroads to           processing                                              Sportf Ishing
                                        facilities             ship products                                                                  opportunities
                   FISHERIES -                                                        Wetland fill for                                      * Pollution from
                                                               * Wetland fill
                                         Ship pollution                               development                                             fish processing
                                                                                      prodi
                                         Wetland fill          * Estuary                    Liced by                                        * Fill of wetlands
      Ch                                                        fragmentation         provision of                                            for tourist
                                                                                      public works                                            facilities
                                        Docks & chan-          Roads &                Public works                                            Improvement In
                                        nels enabling          bridges for            such as dame &           Fisheries develop-             quality of public
                                +       evacuation             evacuation             revetments to            ment Increases both            water supply
                                        before storm                                                           amount & healthful-
                                                               before storm           reduce or ellml-                                        &/or sewage
                                                                                                               noes of product
                   PUBLIC               & flooding             & flooding             nate hazards                                            treatment
                   HEALTH
                                                               Provision of           Provision of                                            Development of
                   & SAFETY             Port deve-             transportation         public works             Water pollution from           tourist facilities
                                        lopment In             stimulates             stimulates                                                                                         'COS
                                        hazard-prone           development Of         development of           fish processing                In hazard-
                                                                                                               industries & boats             prone areas
                                        areas                  hazard-prone           hazard-prone
                                                               areas                  areas
                   Additional
                   Sectors Can Be                                                                                                                                                        19
                   Portrayed                                                                                                                                                             0

                                                                                                                                                                                         fill,
                   + Sector reinforces or has positive Impacts on another sector
                   - Sector has negative Impacts on another sector.







                                                                             Governance Arrangements



                    8.3 Overview of Institutional Arrangements and Supplements

                    At least three major, permanent institutional arrangements are available for a
                    nation-wide effort to broaden the scope of sectoral planning, and to create a
                    structure f or the resolution of coastal conflicts:

                             0     concentrate authority In a new centralized agency
                                   (e.g. Cullen, 1982 (Australia); Amarasinghe and
                                   Wickremeratne, 1983 (Sri Lanka));

                             0     expand the duties of an existing agency (e.g. Zile,
                                   1982 (United States));

                             0     create a permanent interministerial council or
                                   network to coordinate program management, policy
                                   making,   land    use  allocation, or     development
                                   (Zamora, 1979 (Philippines); Ecuador, Ministerio de
                                   Energia y Minas, 1988 (Ecuador)).

                       While adoption of these arrangements can advance the resolution of coastal
                    disputes (Section 8.4), there may be many barriers to creation of a new,
                    permanent institutional arrangement in some developing countries. First, key
                    political leaders may not support a new arrangement for coastal governance.
                    Second, strong sectoral agencies may express great reluctance at the potential
                    loss of autonomy that might coincide with broadening participation and sharing
                    of responsibility.   Third, the economic costs of creating a new permanent
                    bureau or council may be prohibitive. To respond to these difficulties, coastal
                    managers can create an interministerial council as a supplement to a central
                    agency (Amarasinghe and Wickremeratne, 1983 (Sri Lanka)). Such a council
                    could supplement either a new agency or an expanded agency, and could be
                    either temporary or permanent.

                       Still other supplemental arrangements are available to increase the
                    responsiveness of sectoral agencies and expand participation in decision
                    making. Such temporary strategies, usually invoked to set policy for specific
                    issues or to resolve site-specific conflicts, include the following:

                             0     create an ad hoe panel to guide polilcy or to
                                   organize a fact-finding process to clarify technical
                                   issues (IUCN, 1980; McNeely and Miller, 1983);

                             0     engage a facilitator and convene a policy dialogue
                                   among   key coastal actors to recommend specific
                                   policies or programs (McCreary, 1987);

                             0     engage  a mediator   to lead parties through a face-
                                   to-face negotiation of specific conflicts (Susskind
                                   and McCreary, 1985; Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987);

                             0     engage a minister or other respected Intervenor(s)
                                   (other than the courts) to arbitrate a dispute
                                   (Klapp, 1984; Zhung, 1985);



                                                             97







                         Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                 0     finally, there is usually the option of seeking a
                                       legal remedy through the judicial system. However,
                                       the judicial system is unlikely to formulate a
                                       complex remedy such as a coastal zone management
                                       program.

                            While a nation would normally have only one major institutional
                         arrangement at a time, this would not necessarily preclude supplementary
                         strategies. For instance, a nation that depends on traditional sectoral planning
                         might supplement this approach with a dialogue among key agencies on critical
                         national issues, such as estuary pollution or coastal erosion.    A nation that
                         creates a new agency might want to retain the option of organizing a mediated
                         negotiation process to settle a conflict between fishing and oil industries.


                         8.4 Elements of Choice in Organizing an Institutional Arrangement

                         Starting from the norm of fragmented, narrowly-focused sectoral planning and
                         development, it is important to stress that nations have a number of choices in
                         updating or augmenting their institutional arrangement.        The purposes of
                         revising institutional arrangements, as was established above, arc to integrate
                         development among sectors, anticipate and avoid negative impacts, establish
                         cooperative working relationships, share useful information, and create policies,
                         plans and projects capable of being implemented.       In short, the goal is to
                         create an organizational climate that can help anticipate, avoid, or resolve
                         conflicts that dissipate the value of coastal resources and environments. Three
                         dimensions of choice in designing a revised institutional arrangement are the
                         degree of permanence, the scope of participation, and the sharing of decision
                         making responsibility.


                         8.4.1 Degree of permanence.

                         Table 8.2 illustrates a continuum of permanence ranging from a one-time
                         dialogue, to an interministerial commission to write a plan, to a permanent
                         agency to implement the plan. Of course, even the structure of a "permanent
                         agency" may change substantially over five to ten years.


                         8.4.2 Scope of participation.

                         The question of who gets to participate is vital in conflict resolution. Table
                         8.3 represents a continuum of possible levels of participation. At one extreme
                         is reliance on a single executive to render a decision.    At the other end of
                         the spectrum is drawing on a broad set of representatives from private
                         industry, government industries, and non-governmental organizations. Choosing
                         an appropriate level of participation requires choices and tradeoffs. While the
                         quickest solution is to involve as few agencies or interest groups as possible,
                         this does not always produce an implementable or durable outcome. On the
                         other hand, a institutional arrangement that includes dozens of actors may
                         take years to reach a satisfactory outcome. Often a middle ground is arranged
                         to draw representatives from major agencies and key resource users.
                         Sometimes "tiers" of participation are an effective way to involve a broad


                                                                98







                                                                             Governance Arrangements








                    Table 8.2: Some Potential Elements of a National Institutional Arrangement
                            for Coastal Management Arrayed on a Continuum of Permanence



                    Single            Blue Ribbon             Interministerial             Permanent
                    Day               Panel                   Council                      Agency
                    Dialogue          to Resolve              to Formulate
                                      Panel Specif ic         Broad National
                                      Conf lict               Coastal Policy


                    Days              Weeks                   Months                        Years



                    Less                                                                       More
                    Permanent      ---------------------------------------------------------->Permanent












                                Table 8.3:, A Continuum of Participation in Institutional
                                      Arrangements for Coastal Conflict Resolution



                    Single            Single        Multiple         Multiple           Multiple
                    Executive         Agency        Agencies         Agencies           Agencies

                                                       or                +              Industry

                                                    Single           Resource           Subsistence
                                                    Agency           Users              Users

                                                    Key Resource                        NGOs
                                                    Users



                    Less                                                                     More
                    Participation     -------------------------------------------------->Participation






                                                             99







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                        group while relying on a core group of negotiators to accomplish most of the
                        work.



                        8.4.3 Sharing of responsibility.

                        .As used here, "conflict resolution" includes a range of applications.        One
                        element of coastal conflict resolution is identification and avoidance of
                        disagreements over broad policies for coastal resource allocation. At a slightly
                        narrower degree of specificity, conflict resolution could be focused on
                        resolving debates over environmental pollution standards or allocation of land
                        to different types of uses. A still finer focus might involve a conflict over
                        the details on the use of a specific site.

                           Participants in coastal conflict resolution might have a low, moderate, or
                        high degree of responsibility in the formulation of coastal policy. The lowest
                        level of responsibility would entail contributing information to an agency that
                        does not have adequate resources or authority for information collection and
                        analysis. The information contribution should enable the recipient to broaden
                        the scope of its sectoral planning.    A slightly higher level of responsibility
                        would involve giving secondary ministries or bureaus the opportunity to review
                        and comment on specific projects. A third level of sharing of responsibility
                        would be a stake in reviewing and commenting on policy for specific issues,
                        which would in turn guide decisions on a number of projects. The highest
                        level would involve sharing of responsibility for policy making or project
                        approval.

                           Table 8.4 illustrates a variety of possible institutional arrangements and a
                        range of responsibility.   The "+"'s indicate probable responsibilities for each
                        institutional arrangement.    The figure suggests that a moderate degree of
                        sharing of responsibility will be accomplished by the permanent institutional
                        arrangements. For instance, an existing agency might be willing to broaden
                        the planning process and offer opportunities to review and comment on
                        projects.  Temporary supplements shown in Table 8.4 are likely to involve
                        greater sharing of responsibility.


                        8.5   Major Institutional Alternatives to Broaden the Scope of Sectoral Planning

                        8.5.1 Create a new centralized agency.

                        Creation of a new agency can help set the stage for resolution of coastal
                        conflicts by bringing a new, broad perspective to integrated coastal zone
                        management.     Such an agency could pinpoint prospective conflicts between
                        development of important coastal-dependent sectors.    A new centralized agency
                        might also serve as a clearinghouse for efforts to assess and avoid harmful
                        environmental impacts of coastal area development. Although a new agency
                        could be beneficial, it should be understood that such a move represents
                        perhaps the highest level of effort and commitment     of funds of the strategies
                        discussed. Sri Lanka has adopted this approach, and    a careful analysis of that
                        country's experience will hold valuable lessons for other nations.

                           Under legislation enacted in 1981, Sri Lanka created the Coastal
                        Conservation Department (CCD), a problem-oriented agency that focuses its

                                                               100







                                                                              Governance Arrangements



                             Table 8.4: Sharing of Responsibility for Coastal Policy Making In
                             Permanent Institutional Arrangements and Temporary Supplements



                                                        Degree of Sharing of Decision
                                                     Making Responsibility Among Actors
                                              LOW    --------------------------------------------- > HIGH


                                                                            Policy        Policy
                                              Broaden         Project       Making        Making
                                              Planning        Review  &     Review  &     or Project
                                              Process         Comment       Comment       Approval



                      PERMANENT INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS


                      Existing Agency             +               +

                      Existing Agency
                      with Advisory               +               +
                      Council


                      Expanded Agency             +               +

                      Expanded Agency
                      with Advisory               +               +
                      Council


                      New Agency                                  +                +              +

                      New Agency
                      with Advisory                               +                +              +
                      Council


                      Interministerial
                      Council of Equals                           +                +              +




                      TEMPORARY SUPPLEMENTS


                      Ad Hoc Panel                                +                +              +


                      Facilitated
                      Policy Dialogue                             NA               +              +

                      Mediated Negotiation                        NA               +              +

                      Arbitration                                 NA               +              +







                                                              101







                        Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments




                        attention on the solution of specific coastal conflicts and coordinates its work
                        with other agencies responsible for guiding coastal development. The CCD has
                        a three-fold mission modeled closely after several state programs in the United
                        States.  These include preparation of an inventory of the coastal zone,
                        preparation of a national Coastal Zone Management Plan, and regulation of
                        specific development activities through a permit process.       The legislation
                        empowers the Director of the CCD to call for environmental impact
                        assessments of proposed development projects and provides for development
                        review.

                          Another provision modeled after the U.S. is that the CCD reviews projects
                        proposed by other agencies as well as by private developers. The CCD tries to
                        avoid conflicts with sectoral agencies by encouraging early meetings with
                        agency proponents of coastal development projects. It works with agencies to
                        "scope" necessary environmental assessments.    This linkage was designed to
                        avoid difficulties that would arise if action were delayed until a formal permit
                        application was forwarded to the CCD.

                          Close linkages were also created between the CCD and the Urban
                        Development Authority (UDA), which has jurisdiction in a one kilometer
                        coastal belt around the entire periphery of Sri Lanka. Development applicants
                        must gain the approval of both agencies.         The agencies, in turn, seek
                        reciprocal advice, and each contributes to the training of staff.

                          Specific policies of the Act are designed to prevent or avoid use conflicts.
                        Proposed development activities are not to cause any of the following impacts:

                            o discharge unacceptable levels of effluents;

                            o   reduce the quality of beaches,

                            o   dislocate fishing activities;

                            o   affect the ecosystem adjacent to a marine sanctuary;

                            o   preempt a wildlife reserve.

                          A recent review of coastal management in Sri Lanka provides a
                        comprehensive perspective on the program's history from its inception in 1981
                        to 1988 (Lowry and Wickremeratne, 1989). In the years since 1981 the Coast
                        Conservation Department (CCD):

                            has conducted a significant amount of research and has prepared a
                            Master Plan for Coast Erosion and a Coastal Zone Management Plan.
                            It also issued 764 permits [between 1983 and 1987] for development
                            activities, organized seminars and workshops on several aspects of
                            coastal management, and developed effective relationships with
                            agencies which have management responsibilities in coastal areas.


                          In the United States, the State of California created the State Coastal
                        Conservancy to help resolve coastal use problems which could not be resolved
                        through regulation. A companion to the strong regulatory Coastal Commission,

                                                              102







                                                                            Governance Arrangements



                   the Conservancy is empowered to help plan and fund projects that create
                   public access to the coast (Neuwirth and Furney-Howe, 1983), rebuild urban
                   waterf ronts (Grennell,    1988; Petrillo,   1988), preserve agricultural land,
                   consolidate existing platted lots into orderly patterns of new development, and
                   enhance streams and wetland environments (McCreary and Zentner, 1983;
                   McCreary and Robin, 1985). Although the Conservancy is a state agency, it
                   virtually never "imposes a solution."      Its staff works closely with affected
                   interests and peer agencies involved in coastal management.              Of ten the
                   Conservancy intervenes in a quasi-mediating role to try to f ind solutions
                   agreeable to private developers, conservation interests, and local and state
                   government (Susskind and McCreary, 1985). The agency has the authority and
                   capacity to retain technical experts as needed, and may undertake grants to
                   local governments, special districts, and nonprofit organizations.

                       The Conservancy is still unique in the United States, although other states
                   are expressing interest in adapting some of the Conservancy's techniques. The
                   major obstacles for transfer of this model among states appear to be (1)
                   gaining political acceptance for a public agency charged with "beneficial
                   development"; (2) resistance on the part of other existing agencies; and (3)
                   obtaining the necessary funds.


                   8.5.2 Expand the powers and duties of an existing agency.

                   Another possible institutional arrangement is to expand the powers of an
                   existing agency charged with some aspect of coastal resources management.
                   Possible advantages associated with expanding the powers and duties of
                   existing agencies are that the agency and staff bring a storehouse of expertise
                   and experience and a network of contact, and would be thus be more readily
                   accepted than a brand new agency.          This approach has been used in the
                   Philippines, where the National Environmental Policy Council (NEPQ is housed
                   within the Ministry of Human Settlements. The NEPC was the lead agency in
                   preparing a Coastal Zone Management Plan, using existing inventories of
                   coastal resources, issues, and institutions. However, the NEPC has fallen short
                   in gaining supportive legislation or a solid implementation structure for its
                   plan (UNOETB, 1985).

                       In 1988 a summary of coastal management issues, objectives, and options for
                   Ecuador   concluded that:


                            There are already in place sufficient laws and authorities to
                            properly manage coastal resources.          New laws are not
                            necessary     What is required is better coordination and
                            enforcement of existing legislation (Ecuador, Ministeric de
                            Energia y Minas, 1988).

                   Accordingly, the implementation of a national coastal program called more for
                   a strengthening of existing institutions than the creation of new institutions.
                   The proposed institutional arrangement has the following three elements:

                            0     An Interministerial Committee for the Management
                                  of   Coastal   Resources    to   provide     high-level
                                  government support to the program, to assure
                                  central, political and administrative backing to solve

                                                            103







                            Institutional  Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                           conflicts, to obtain international support for the
                                           program, and to promote interagency cooperation.

                                     0     Formation of a Ranger Corps for each of the Navy's
                                           seven Port Captain jurisdictions. The Corps will be
                                           comprised of enforcement personnel from all of the
                                           responsible coastal regulatory agencies in order to
                                           improve enforcement of existing statues throughout
                                           the coastal area.

                                     0     Formal designation of special management zones by
                                           Presidential decree.       Within these zones it is
                                           especially essential to improve coordination among
                                           government entities to deal with real or impending
                                           conflicts. An advisory committee would be created
                                           for each special management zone. The committees
                                           are to consist of citizens representing the full
                                           range    of   interests  in   the - area,   as   well    as
                                           representatives of appropriate local and regional
                                           government entities.

                               Costa Rica decided not to create any new governance arrangements for
                            administering the various aspects of its shorelands restriction law. The 1977
                            legislation vested the Institute of Costa Rican Tourism with primary
                            responsibility for developing and implementing a management program for the
                            marine terrestrial zone (Chaverri, 1989).


                            8.5.3 Create a permanent interministerial council.

                            Creation of a permanent interministerial council for coastal resources can
                            provide a structure to develop mutually beneficial working relations and
                            exchange views on pressing coastal issues. Other tasks that might be taken up
                            by such forums include discussion of broad policy goals and review of specific
                            development projects, review of proposed budgets, and identification of impacts
                            of projects or programs. Interministerial councils can also devote attention to
                            identification of gaps in information or expertise and opportunities for joint
                            support of applied research.        All of these accomplishments can create the
                            foundation for joint problem solving, thereby helping sectoral agencies to avoid
                            conflicts and to realize joint gains as they work towards their respective
                            missions.


                               Several developing nations have convened interministcrial councils to
                            accomplish broader scope scctoral planning or to guide regional plans for
                            coastal areas.    Often this action responds to the realization that no single
                            .agency has sufficient information, professional capacity, political support, or
                            authority to undertake integrated planning for coastal resources. Such councils
                            are usually convened by the national executive or his or her delegate.               The
                            success of such arrangements may depend on the administrative skill and
                            political support of the convenor, and the willingness of the convenor to allow
                            real give and take.

                               Indonesia and the Philippines have each organized interministerial councils
                            to formulate coastal resource policy (Koesoebiono, Collier, and Burbridge, 1982;

                                                                       104







                                                                              Governance Arrangements



                     Kinsey and Sondheimer, 1984). In Thailand, the prime minister convened an
                     interministerial committee to guide the Eastern Seaboard Development program
                     (UNEP, 1985). The Thai group was organized into five subcommittees, each
                     headed by a minister. They addressed industrial development, ports, education,
                     investment, and institutional development.

                        Some Latin American nations have also organized interministerial councils
                     both to broaden the scope of sectoral plans and to coordinate sectoral
                     planning and implementation efforts. In Ecuador, the Directorate of Maritime
                     Affairs of the Ecuadorian Navy (DIGEIM) played a leading             role in putting
                     together national institutions at an international seminar for       the purpose of
                     discussing Ecuador's coastal problems and alternative solutions      (Vallejo, 1987).
                     And as previously mentioned, an interministerial committee is        one component
                     of the governance arrangement to implement Ecuador's coastal zone
                     management program.        In Brazil, the Navy convened an           interministerial
                     commission for research. CIRM evolved into a national maritime commission
                     on security and international relations (Knecht et al., 1984). In Colombia, a
                     presidential decree created the Colombian Commission on Oceanography, a
                     coordination group of marine-related agencies to recommend ocean research.
                     In other nations, the Law of the Sea negotiations have motivated agencies with
                     coastal responsibilities to coordinate their activities.   For example, Cameroon
                     convened the National Commission on the Law of the Sea (UNOETB, 1985).

                        Although little evaluative information on interministerial councils is
                     available, it appears that they have enjoyed different degrees of success.
                     Brazil's CIRM recommended that research on maritime and coastal issues
                     receive $50,000,000 in funding.        The requested funding was subsequently
                     allocated. In contrast, the work of the Colombian Oceanographic Commission
                     has suffered because it lacked a close linkage to policy making or to allocation
                     of funds (Knecht et al., 1984).

                        Convening an interministerial committee has the overall appearance of
                     "doing something", but It does not necessarily produce results.            The most
                     frequent accomplishments of interministerial councils have been to collect
                     information, prepare inventories, and write guidelines.         Some agencies may
                     participate passively in interministerial councils just to "go along for the ride."
                     Some participants may hold the view that the problem, as defined, is not part
                     of the agency's mission. Close documentation of the stated agendas for these
                     groups, and their degrees of success or failure, should benefit the practice of
                     integrated coastal zone management.


                     8.6      Supplements to Major Institutional Arrangements

                     8.6.1    Create an interministerial council as a supplement to a central agency.

                     Another option is to create an interministerial council to provide advice to a
                     central agency and to represent the interests of important economic sectors
                     and major coastal actors.      Interagency councils can foster discussion across
                     coastal sectors and among professionals of different disciplines. Interagency
                     councils organized as supplements to central agencies can enable the
                     application of relevant experience without increasing the staff of the lead
                     agency.



                                                               105







                         Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                             In Sri Lanka, a 13-member council, the Coast Conservation Advisory
                         Council, was organized to assist the work of the Coast Conservation
                         Department.       Members of the Council include representatives from the
                         following ministries: Fisheries, Tourism, Shipping, Local Government, Home
                         Affairs, and Industry. Other members include representatives of the National
                         Aquatic Resources Administration (NARA), the Office of Land Commissioner,
                         the Urban Development Authority, and the Director of Irrigation. There are
                         also three non-government members, one representing the universities, one
                         representing voluntary organizations concerned with the coastal environment,
                         and one representing the fishing industry.             So far, staf f of the Coast
                         Conservation Department judge this institutional arrangement to be working
                         well (Wickremeratne, personal communication). This hybrid arrangement offers
                         the advantages of both centralized authority and well-defined responsibility, as
                         well as close interministerial advice-giving and consultation.


                         8.6.2 Create an ad hoc panel.

                         Creation of an ad hoc panel to investigate specific issues can be a useful
                         supplement to central agencies or interministerial councils.            Conf licts over
                         coastal resources may involve disagreements over technical issues such as
                         standing stocks of fish, the capacity of inshore waters to assimilate pollutants,
                         or erosion rates of a barrier beach. Often these competing scientific claims
                         can be addressed through a process of fact-finding by an ad hoc panel of
                         experts and other key interests. The objective of such a process is typically
                         to produce some consensus on or at least a greater degree of understanding of
                         the scientific issues.   Some of these processes stop short of offering a policy
                         prescription, while others are carried into policy recommendations.

                             Participation in ad hoc panels ii sometimes limited to scientific experts. In
                         their ultimate form, ad hoc panels can be organized as processes of "joint
                         fact-finding," with face-to-face interaction of scientists, decision makers, and
                         interest groups (Susskind and McCreary, 1985; Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987).
                         Some objectives of joint fact-finding are mutual efforts to define issues,
                         identify relevant information, explain cause-and-effect relationships, and design
                         a program of research or analysis.         Organizing such an effort may involve
                         substantial work to recruit credible scientific expertise.

                             Joint fact-finding offers decision makers an opportunity to ask questions of
                         scientific specialists and to understand the assumptions about methods and data
                         that underlie the conclusions they offer.          Such processes also foster direct
                         discussion between scientists and other interested parties.         Joint f act-f inding
                         may be a preferable alternative to the practice of pitting opposing experts
                         against each other to bolster the positions of one party at the expense of
                         another. Such "adversary science" is often the norm in scientific disputes, but
                         it may actually obscure the real technical issues rather than narrowing the
                         range of scientific disagreement.          Many developing countries have had
                         experience in organizing ad hoc panels for cooperative fact-finding or other
                         policy making purposes. Joint fact-finding may be a logical extension of this
                         experience.

                             Many developing countries have experience with scientific collaboration
                         designed to produce a common research agenda and protocols for sharing
                         results of scientific findings. Some observers believe that the most significant

                                                                    106







                                                                           Governance Arrangements



                    progress in international environmental cooperation appears to have been made
                    through multinational scientific investigations (Caldwell, 1985).

                       In Ecuador, an ad hoc group was convened to help scope out the work
                    program for the development of an integrated coastal management strategy.
                    The ad hoc panel is chaired by a designate of the Ministry of Energy and the
                    Environment.      Its members include the Subsecretary of Fisheries, the
                    Subsecretary of Forestry, and a representative of the Navy.      Other members
                    include representatives of CONADE, ESPOL, the University of      Esmeraldes, the
                    fisheries sector, the mariculture sector, and private conservation organizations.
                    The panel was expected to have a lifespan of about three years -- the period
                    required for initial program development (Olsen, 1987).

                       Another example of an ad hoc panel is the work of the International
                    Oceans Institute (101) and U.N. agencies to summarize the "state of marine
                    pollution in the world's oceans."   Interests affiliated with the FAO and the
                    Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP) proposed
                    the idea in 1969. A 1972 action plan urged GESAMP to "assemble scientific
                    data and provide advice on scientific aspects of marine pollution using an
                    interdisciplinary approach."    A leading scientist at Scripps Institution of
                    Oceanography coordinated the first report, The Health of the Oceans
                    (Goldberg, 1976). The first update was published by UNEP in 1982.

                       A 1982 IUCN meeting featured more direct interaction between scientists
                    and decision makers, as well as a more definitive policy outcome. The World
                    Congress on National Parks included several workshops to "provide managers of
                    protected areas in aquatic habitats with improved management principles" (Salm
                    and Clark, 1985). At the meeting, scientists and managers reached consensus
                    on a framework for protected areas, as well as future research needs (McNeely
                    and Miller, 1983).

                       The collaborative work of 101 and IUCN might be a useful model for more
                    extensive joint fact-finding for coastal resources within a given nation.
                    Experience with these and other joint fact-finding exercises deserve attention
                    as conflict resolution techniques.    Raiffa (1983) gives an example of fact-
                    finding under the aegis of a blue ribbon panel. He was asked by the Mexico
                    City Department of Public Works to evaluate two competing airport siting
                    proposals for Mexico City. The Ministry of Public Works, the Secretaria de
                    Obras Publicas (SOP), favored construction of a new airport, while the
                    Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) advocated modernizing the
                    existing airport in Mexico City. Both SOP and SCT had adopted projections
                    about how the two plans would address concerns such as airport capacity, land
                    costs, safety, noise, and effects on the military.   Each set of projections, of
                    course, supported the respective agencies' preferred alternative.

                       Although the analysts were asked to do impartial decision analysis of the
                    two alternatives, they proposed an alternative procedure to the prevailing
                    atmosphere of adversarial relations. They suggested that the president, Luis
                    Echeverria Alvarez, appoint an impartial panel to supervise the analysis and to
                    structure debate in a joint problem solving atmosphere.       Raiffa and Ralph
                    Kecny concentrated on the decision President Echeverria confronted during his
                    six year term of office. They argued that since future events will influence
                    airport planning, it was wise not to adopt a future master plan. The SOP was


                                                            107







                       Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                       persuaded to support a compromise proposal that would upgrade the existing
                       airport and only partly commit the government to building a new airport.

                          The analysts were able to defuse the controversy in part because they were
                       neutral third parties, capable of performing a thorough decision analysis. But
                       they also succeeded by introducing the idea that future decisions can be made
                       contingently.


                       8.6.3 Convene a facilitated policy dialogue.

                       Policy dialogues are carefully structured discussions (see Appendix F) on broad
                       topics (not specific disputes) among traditional adversaries or parties whose
                       interests are suspected to be in conflict (Susskind and McCreary, 1985;
                       Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987).         Before a specific dispute arises over
                       allocation of a resource or setting an environmental quality standard, a third
                       party helper can help work through      disagreements.   Trained facilitators can
                       sometimes intervene to create a forum for collaborative problem solving. Such
                       a forum is often termed a facilitated policy dialogue. The roles filled by a
                       facilitator include helping to structure an agenda, guiding discussion in an
                       orderly fashion, and perhaps recording major ideas put forward by members of
                       the group.

                          Policy dialogues can function as a research too! "for forecasting the
                       politically viable middle ground that will ultimately emerge" (Gusman, 1981).
                       An important question in structuring a policy dialogue is whether it must be
                       limited to describing areas of agreement, or whether it will provide a forum
                       for negotiating compromise positions. According to Gusman, if the agency to
                       ultimately receive the findings has a habit of ignoring study panel
                       recommendations, then participants would have little incentive to compromise.

                          If the participants in dialogue have adopted the rule of consensus, then
                       each party owns a veto power. Under these circumstances, a ministry might
                       choose to respect the dialogue participants as the action group to prepare
                       public policy. Similarly, the participants would have an incentive to negotiate
                       earnestly if they believe they will exert strong influence on public policy. If
                       the group formulates a policy not in the ministry's interest, then it can
                       effectively veto the outcome (Gusman 1981).

                          A facilitated dialogue may well be applicable to the    early stages of policy
                       formulation in developing nations.       A study by the OAS Department of
                       Regional Development (DRD) offered these conclusions:

                                . . .environmental issues must be dealt with as   early as possible
                                during planning to avoid unnecessary conflict in the development
                                process. "Environmental impacts" arising out of    development are
                                frequently conflicts between different resource users. Identifying
                                these potential conflicts early on and exploring alternative
                                development solutions to minimize or avoid the conflicts are
                                therefore important goals of DRD regional development studies .
                                . . Resolution of conflicts was far easier to negotiate during
                                Phase I when parties were "equals" than it would have been if
                                these conflicts have been discovered later after investments of



                                                               108







                                                                           Governance Arrangements



                            time, funds, and prestige had been made     . . . Also, at this stage,
                            positions of local interests have not hardened (Rodgers, 1984).

                       In Indonesia the task of establishing a setback in mangroves was
                   accomplished through a series of discussions among several agencies (Turner,
                   1985). A policy dialogue process could have been very helpful in arriving at
                   the setback. A facilitated negotiation could also be used to help identify the
                   most pressing coastal issues, choose appropriate management strategies, or
                   explore the terms of a critical area designation.

                       In the United States, facilitated dialogue and negotiation has been
                   especially successful in the early stages of policy formulation (Susskind and
                   McMahon, 1985). Agencies responsible for enforcing environmental law have
                   been active participants.     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
                   successfully organized two exercises in negotiated rule making, and is planning
                   a third. EPA's standard procedure for arriving at environmental regulations is
                   to depend on the judgments of agency staff, then publish the draft rule in the
                   U.S. Federal Register, whereupon comments are invited.       Often, proponents of
                   weaker or stronger rules sue the EPA and costly litigation ensues.

                       Several experiments in negotiated rule making have     been organized in the
                   United States to avoid the litigation that often accompanies setting
                   environmental standards. Representatives of key interest   groups concerned with
                   specific regulations engaged in facilitated discussion over the precise details of
                   rules.   In the rule making cases undertaken to date, the negotiating group
                   convened a one or two day meeting each month. The total negotiation lasted
                   from five to nine months, though longer       or shorter time frames are equally
                   probable. Industry, environmental groups, and state and federal agencies are
                   all represented. Subcommittees of the full    negotiating group may be formed as
                   needed to delve into specific issues and      report back to the full group.      A
                   foresource pool" is made available to help defray costs of attendance and to
                   underwrite the costs of retaining technical   experts to help clarify the issues at
                   hand (Schneider and Tohn, 1985).        Each  negotiator has an equal voice, and
                   each has a veto since the objective is to     secure a consensus from all parties.
                   Interviews of the participants in the EPA's first two negotiated rule making
                   efforts indicated a high degree of support for the process (Susskind and
                   McMahon, 1985).


                   8.6.4 Organize a mediated negotiation process.

                   If communication has broken down and ministries or resource users are frozen
                   into antagonistic positions, a neutral outsider acceptable to all sides can help
                   reopen discussions by serving as a go-between.        With appropriate technical
                   knowledge, mediators can help disputants invent ingenious solutions to
                   problems that make joint gains possible for all parties (Susskind and
                   Cruikshank, 1987).

                       Mediators typically take a more active role than facilitators.     While they
                   help to set agendas, run meetings, and record minutes, they may also meet
                   individually with key actors in a dispute to better understand the Interests
                   that underlie the positions each actor takes in the negotiation. Mediators may
                   propose packages of their own after hearing the interests of all sides.           A


                                                             109







                          Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                          mediator may also assist individual negotiators in presenting the outcome of a
                          mediated effort to their constituency or agency.

                             This has been the recent experience in site planning controversies over
                          Southern California wetlands and conflicts between fishing and oil interests in
                          Santa Barbara.     In a case involving local fishing interests and several oil
                          companies, a mediator helped the parties work through disagreements over
                          geophysical testing and the location of vessel traffic lanes.           One of the
                          outcomes was essentially an exclusion zone, which fishing interests agreed not
                          to enter at certain times (Susskind and McCreary, 1087).

                             Facilitated policy dialogues and mediated negotiation have each been used in
                          several coastal conflicts.   Appendix F delineates the steps involved in using
                          these processes.



                          8.6.5 Arbitration.


                          In some cases, when the normal administrative machinery fails to produce an
                          acceptable outcome, the intervention of a respected nonpartisan party (or
                          parties) may be useful.      Binding arbitration represents a higher degree of
                          intervention than facilitation or mediation, since an arbitrator generally has
                          the authority to impose a solution.       In Indonesia, the Minister of Finance
                          resolved a conflict between the state-owned oil corporation (Pertamina), other
                          industrial sectors, and the International Monetary Fund. The solution involved
                          restructuring Pertamina and cutting back the company's operations (Klapp,
                          1984).

                             In China, plans are underway to create an arbitration commission to resolve
                          coastal  management disputes, as part of the implementation of the Law of
                          Coastal Zone Management of the People's Republic of China. According to a
                          leading  coastal planner based in Nanjing:

                                   The commission is to arbitrate the disputes arising between
                                   the boundaries of the provinces and counties, and between the
                                   developing industries. The members of the commission should
                                   be experts from all spheres of life. They should be of special
                                   knowledge, justice, and high prestige among the masses. The
                                   commission will carry on its work in a certain democratic
                                   procedure. The arbitration has special superiority of its own.
                                   It is superior to the judgement in the court.         Because the
                                   arbitration commission [can] carry out the principles of
                                   equality, democracy and consultation, its decision is easily
                                   accepted by the two parties of the dispute. That will be of
                                   benefit to the solution of the dispute thoroughly (Zhung,
                                   1985).

                          Although the details of the Chinese Proposal are sketchy, it is noteworthy that
                          what appears to be a standing arbitration service is under consideration.







                                                                   110







                                                                           Governance Arrangements



                    8.6.6 Seek a legal remedy through the judicial system.

                    If the normal administrative machinery fails to produce an acceptable outcome,
                    major coastal actors may have the option to seek a legal remedy in the
                    judicial system.    Supplementary institutional arrangements, such as policy
                    dialogues and mediated negotiation, are often represented as alternatives to the
                    judicial system. However, in most nations, the judicial system remains the last
                    resort. In complex disputes over resource allocation the judicial system is not
                    likely to have access to the necessary technical information to render a wise
                    and well-informed decision. Another drawback of the judicial system is that it
                    normally deals with disputes with only two parties, while many coastal resource
                    conflicts involve multiple parties.


                    NOTE:      Our literature search has not produced any reports of coastal
                    management disputes in which two other approaches to dispute resolution--
                    mini-trials and non-binding arbitration -- have been used, but they deserve to
                    be mentioned to complete the list of available techniques.














                                              9. PROGRAM EVALUATION




                    Coastal managers need good information about the success or failure of
                    management strategies and governance arrangements.            Program evaluation
                    serves this goal. Implementation and evaluation are distinct, yet related steps
                    in the overall process of coastal management. Implementation is "the delivery
                    of specific objectives set forth in constitutionally adopted public policies"
                    (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1983).       Two conditions are required if program
                    implementation is to be evaluated: (1) an adequate post-implementation time
                    period to allow a program to reach maturity; and (2) a set of indicators for
                    measuring performance.

                        All evaluation studies seek to assess program performance, although they
                    differ markedly in the evaluative criteria employed. Two basic types of
                    evaluation can be distinguished. One type of evaluation focuses on the policy
                    making process (such as the number of permits issued), and the other type
                    focuses on the eventual outcomes (such as improvement in public access to the
                    coast). Of course, many evaluations measure both process and outcomes.

                        Process evaluation examines the means by which goals are achieved.
                    Process indicators include the clarity of goal statements and legislative
                    mandates, measures of the rationality of organizational structures and the
                    process and information flow, the adequacy of yearly budget allocations, the
                    number of permits issued, and the number of agreements executed to promote
                    interagency cooperation.

                        Outcome evaluation measures the extent to which the program's goals or
                    objectives are achieved.        Outcome indicators can be subdivided into
                    instrumental factors and environmental/socioeconomic conditions. Instrumental
                    indicators measure goals whose achievement is thought necessary to the
                    achievement of environmental and socioeconomic goals. These may include the
                    extent of the information base, the efficiency of permit review, and the extent
                    of public participation.    Environmental or socioeconomic conditions measure
                    such things as the extent of protected wildlife habitat or the number of jobs
                    created. Table 9.1 presents a list of indicators that have been use to evaluate
                    ICZM ef forts.


                        One of the first evaluations made of a coastal zone management program
                    used the outcome or goal approach to effectiveness assessment. This entails:

                             discovering what the organization itself has postulated as its
                             ideals, then . . . measuring organizational success by objective
                             observation of the degree to which the standard is reached. An
                             organization may thus be judged effective to the extent that it
                             achieves its goals (Swanson, 1975).

                        A myriad of environmental and socioeconomic outcome indicators can be
                    identified. Some environmental indicators are water quality, the amount of
                    protein derived from coastal fisheries, linear kilometers of the coast in public
                    ownership, and acreage of wetlands protected or restored.            Socioeconomic
                    indicators include lives and property lost due to coastal hazards, tonnage of

                                                            113







                      Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments




                            Table 9.1: Examples of Process Indicators and Outcome Indicators
                                    for Evaluating Coastal Zone Management Programs



                      PROCESS INDICATORS


                         ï¿½  budget allocation per year
                         ï¿½  number of permits issued, denied, conditional
                         ï¿½  consistency of law dealing with coastal
                               management
                         ï¿½  number of agreements or memoranda executed for
                               Interagency cooperation
                         ï¿½  availability of appropriately trained and
                               educated staf f
                         ï¿½  number of subnational programs initiated or
                               approved
                         ï¿½  quality of information used in program
                               development



                      OUTCOME INDICATORS


                         Instrumental factors


                         ï¿½  cost and length of time for permit review
                         ï¿½  number of procedures and steps eliminated
                               ("streamlining")
                         ï¿½  public participation -- number of
                               individuals and groups
                         ï¿½  geographic scope and issue coverage of
                               information base



                         Environmental or socioeconomic conditions


                         o  water quality (dissolved oxygen, nutrient levels)
                         o  fishery yields
                         0  protein component of diet derived from coastal
                               f isheries
                         o  number and linear distance of access ways
                         o  kilometers of coast in public ownership
                         o  number of recreation user days
                         o  number of coastal species on the International
                               Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
                               Resources (IUCN) endangered species list
                         0  acreage of wetlands protected or restricted
                         o  number of low and middle income housing
                               units provided within the coastal zone
                         0  tonnage and value of commodities handled in ports
                         o  employment derived from fisheries, ports and
                               tourism sectors
                         o  hazard impacts -- lives lost, property damaged



                                                           114







                                                                                           Program Evaluation



                       goods handled in ports, and employment generated by ports, fisheries, and
                       coastal tourism.



                       9.1 Outcome and Process Assessments of Coastal Management Programs

                       For developed countries, particularly the United States, there is an emerging
                       literature of coastal program evaluation. Coastal zone management programs in
                       the United States at both the Federal and state levels have been a testing
                       ground for many innovative and ambitious institutional arrangements and
                       environmental management strategies.               Passage of the Coastal Zone
                       Management Act in 1972 was the first nation-wide program in land use
                       management. The IS year track record and innovation of numerous federal and
                       state programs have induced scholars and environmental management
                       practitioners to conduct numerous evaluations.

                           In the outcome evaluations, goals are measured by various indicators.
                       Swanson's 1975 outcome evaluation described the effectiveness of the Bay
                       Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in preventing land fills,
                       increasing public access, and improving shoreline quality. McCrea and Feldman
                       (1977) reviewed Washington state's first three years of experience with the
                       Shoreline Management Act. The program was judged a success in minimizing
                       environmental       damage,     enhancing      public     access,    and      encouraging
                       water-dependent uses. Healy (1978) evaluated the impact of the first thirteen
                       months of the 1972 California Coastal Zone Conservation Act on beach access
                       and implementation, density and economic growth, wildlife habitat protection,
                       energy facilities development, aesthetics, and agriculture.

                           Sorensen (1978) examined a series of instrumental indicators for nine U.S.
                       states that have similar collaborative management arrangements between state
                       and    local   governments.        Under the collaborative arrangement, local
                       governments are required to prepare land use plans based on state guidelines.
                       The plans are then reviewed by the state coastal agency.               The instrumental
                       goals were: reduce uncertainty, develop an affirmative policy position, manage
                       resources of state or regional concern, manage resources that extend beyond
                       local government boundaries, accommodate local variation, and facilitate
                       accountable decision making.

                           Rosenbaum (1979) reviewed enforcement of and compliance with coastal
                       wetland regulations in several states including Massachusetts, New Jersey and
                       North Carolina. McCrea (1980) completed an evaluation of output indicators
                       for port planning for the State of Washington.              She specifically examined
                       conformance of port projects with the goals of the State Shoreline
                       Management Act.

                           Process evaluations, by contrast, do not assess whether goals have been
                       achieved, but rather whether the organizational structure and political process
                       will facilitate those goals. Cullen (1977) has reviewed Australia's Port Phillip
                       Authority with an emphasis on the intergovernmental conflicts that arose in a
                       particular site.      Sabatier (1977) reviewed permit procedures and policy
                       directives of the 1972 California Coastal Zone Conservation Act analyzing a
                       random sample of regional permit decisions appealed to the State Coastal
                       Commission. Decisions were analyzed in terms of the major issues discussed,
                       and the decisions reached by regional and state commissions on different types

                                                                   115







                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                        of development. The Conservation Foundation described the enactment of the
                        1972 California Coastal Initiative, its planning and permitting activities, and its
                        re-enactment in the Coastal Act of 1976 (Healy, 1976).

                           The U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) and its successor, the
                        Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), are directed by
                        Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to prepare annual evaluations
                        of each state's coastal program.         As with most government evaluation
                        directives, these "312" evaluations concentrate on process -- a simpler
                        evaluation than focusing on outcome.     Measuring input is almost always easier
                        than measuring output.      The 312 program evaluations typically emphasize
                        process indicators such as the number of programs approved and the funds
                        allocated to different functions. The    most recent Biennial Report to Congress
                        f or 1980 and 1981 (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                        1982), for example, highlights interesting or innovative program features, but
                        does not  assess the degree to which the goals of the program have been
                        .achieved.


                           It would be extremely useful to do program evaluations that would compare
                        nations or subnational units with similar coastal environments and different
                        levels of mandated coastal management in order to assess the impact of coastal
                        management programs on environmental and socioeconomic outputs.                  For
                        example, a useful comparison would be Georgia, with no coastal management
                        program, Florida, with a modest level of coastal management, and North
                        Carolina, with a concerted coastal management program. All three states have
                        similar coastal environments.    So far, there are no assessments that compare
                        the effects of varying levels of a program with the effects of no program.
                        Consequently, policy makers may draw erroneous conclusions about the impact
                        of a coastal management program.

                           There is also the problem of    causation. It is often difficult to determine
                        the extent to which improvements in coastal environmental indicators (such as
                        a decrease in water pollution) can be attributed to one governmental program.
                        For example, an analysis of federal responsibilities in state coastal programs by
                        the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General (1983),
                        documents a tendency by OCRM to attribute all improvements in coastal
                        environmental quality to programs administered by OCRK even though many
                        other agencies have programs that directly or indiiectly improve coastal
                        environmental and socioeconomic conditions. The EPA, for instance, may be
                        the key actor in cleaning up water pollution, despite similar efforts of the
                        national and state coastal management program.

                         . Costa Rica and Sri Lanka are the only two developing countries that have
                        ICZM programs with an implementation history.              Costa Rica's program
                        implementation dates from 1978 and Sri Lanka's implementation began in 1983.
                        Accordingly these are" the only two countries where evaluations have been
                        conducted on program implementation. A case study of Costa Rica's program
                        has just   been completed and will be published in Coastal Management
                        (Sorensen, 1990).

                           Lowry  and Wickremeratne (1989) concluded in a recent publication that:

                                 a detailed examination of Sri Lanka's program suggests that its
                                 strength and vigor are due in large part to (1) strong coastal

                                                                 116







                                                                                          Program Evaluation



                                orientation of the country; (2) widely shared agreement about
                                what the coastal problems are, what the causes of the problems
                                are, and to a lesser extent, what the appropriate roles of
                                government are in dealing with the problems; (3) a law that
                                provides a strong legal basis for management; (4) strong program
                                leadership; (5) adequate political support for planning and
                                management; and (6) an adaptive, incremental approach to the
                                development of the planning and management program.

                           Their chapter in Ocean Yearbook 7, from which this quote is taken,
                       provides partial support for this important finding. More extensive data and
                       analysis will appear in a book on the history of the Sri Lanka program. The
                       book is being prepared by the International Coastal Resources Management
                       Project at the University of Rhode Island and Sri Lanka's Coast Conservation
                       Department.

                           Few developing nations have evaluated either program process or outcome.
                       Public administration in developing nations has not adopted the concept of
                       program evaluation.      Also, in nations where authority is highly centralized
                       within the chief executive's office, program evaluation will not be practiced if
                       the results could be negative or critical. If program evaluation is to be both
                       an effective and efficient process, a "checks and balances" relationship must
                       exist among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
                       Since this authority relationship often does not exist within developing nations,
                       program evaluation will probably occur in rare and unusual circumstances --
                       such as when the action or inaction of a government agency causes an
                       unexpected disaster, examples of which would be catastrophic flooding or the
                       sudden crash of an important fishery.            Theref ore, pr 'actitioners of coastal
                       management evaluation in developing nations are unlikely to be within the
                       national government agencies.           They will come f rom the organizations
                       providing international assistance for coastal resources management such as
                       USAID, the World Bank, regional development banks,'and IUCN. International
                       assistance organizations should be motivated to conduct evaluations of coastal
                       management they have supported for the same two basic purposes motivating
                       all organizations that practice program evaluation: (1) to assess the efficiency
                       and effectiveness of the investment; and (2) to determine what improvements
                       should be made to the program.


                       9.2 Criteria to Assess Program Implementation

                       Two methods could be used to gather information for a process evaluation or
                       implementation assessment.        The first method is to review and synthesize
                       existing case studies of coastal management programs in developed and
                       developing nations. This is feasible for a mature public policy field where a
                       large data base exists.      In the absence of recorded case studies, new case
                       studies could be undertaken. Clearly, such an effort is outside the scope of
                       this   report.     The    second    method     for   determining     the    criteria   for
                       implementation is to review implementation analyses in other policy areas,
                       extract the relevant portions, and organize a framework for assessing coastal
                       management implementation.

                           We choose this second method given the sparse data on coastal management
                       in developing countries and the uneven data for developed nations. The most

                                                                   117







                            Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                            useful analytic framework was constructed by Mazmanian and Sabaticr (1983).
                            Their framework is derived from a study of five widely divergent policy areas
                            as well as the early experience of the California Coastal Commission.

                               Mazmanian and Sabatier list six preconditions for success:

                                     0     mandates are clear and consistent;

                                     0     mandates incorporate a sound theory identifying
                                           causal linkages to policy objectives; enabling act
                                           *gives implementing officials sufficient jurisdiction
                                           over target areas and points of leverage;

                                     0     enabling     legislation    structures      implementation
                                           process     to    maximize      the    probability      that
                                           implementing officials and target groups will
                                           perform as desired;

                                     0     leaders    of    the   implementing      agency      possess
                                           managerial and political skills and are committed to
                                           statutory goals;

                                     0     the program is supported by organized constituency
                                           groups and a few key legislators;

                                     0     priority of objectives is not undermined over time
                                           by the emergence of conflicting policies.

                            This list addresses all the organizational problems identified in Section 5.5 of
                            this report. The authors are realistic about applying the framework:

                                     In practice, of course, all conditions are very unlikely to be
                                     attained during the initial implementation period for any program
                                     seeking substantial behavioral change . . .         In short, the list of
                                     conditions can serve not only as a relatively brief checklist to
                                     account post hoc for program effectiveness or failure but also as
                                     a set of tasks which program proponents need to accomplish over
                                     time if statutory objectives are to be attained.             In f act, the
                                     appropriate time span for implementation analysis is probably
                                     seven to ten years.        This gives proponents sufficient time to
                                     correct deficiencies in the legal framework, and it also tests
                                     their ability to develop and maintain political support over a
                                     sufficient period of time to actually be able to bring about
                                     important behavioral or systematic changes.            It also gives the
                                     political system sufficient experience with the program to decide
                                     if its goals were really worth pursuing and to work out conflicts
                                     between competing values (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1983).

                               With these caveats, the Mazmanian and Sabatier framework is useful for
                            organizing a discussion of coastal management implementation. Some analysts
                            question the applicability of implementation evaluation criteria derived from
                            studies in developed western societies to the developing world.              In f act, we
                            find that the criteria posed by Mazmanian and Sabatier are congruent with
                            implementation principles derived from studies of developing nations (Esman,

                                                                        118







                                                                                       Program Evaluation



                      1978; Soysa, Chia, and Collier, 1982). Also, three companion case studies to
                      the first edition of this document (Towle, 1985; Turner, 1985; Hayes, 1985)
                      support one or more of the criteria.              The International Institute for
                      Environment and Development's review of          developing nations' environmental
                      management programs concluded that:

                               The most important prerequisites for effective operation seem
                               to be the mandate, the organizational structure and the level
                               of professional competence with which the institution is
                               endowed. Where an institution's success has been marginal, or
                               where it has failed, one can usually pinpoint the absence of
                               one or more of these factors (International Institute for
                               Environment and Development, 1981).

                         The difference in implementation assessment between developed and
                      developing nations is not in the nature of the criteria but in the relative
                      importance each plays in program achievement and failure. For example, the
                      size and competence of professional staff is usually cited as one of the major
                      implementation obstacles in developing nations.          By comparison, developed
                      nations usually do not rate staffing as a major problem. Conversely, developed
                      nations are commonly beset by constituency support problems and opposition by
                      target groups. These participatory process obstacles are seldom expressed as a
                      concern by developing nations.

                         Many of the examples used to illustrate the seven conditions for successful
                      implementation are drawn from California, either the San Francisco Bay
                      Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) or the state Coastal
                      Commission. This focus on California reflects the         more developed literature
                      for that state.    California's ambitious, innovative     and controversial coastal
                      management programs have made it the favorite case study for program
                      evaluations. Also, the comparatively long history of       BCDC (25 years) and the
                      California Coastal Commission (17 years) present an        opportunity to assess the
                      evolution of implementation -- an opportunity not present in other coastal
                      programs.



                      9.3 Clear and Consistent Policy Objectives

                      Rhetoric often clouds policy objectives in many environmental management
                      programs.     This problem is evident in both the Federal Coastal Zone
                      Management Act and several state acts in the United States.                    Because
                      mandates are the result of negotiated legislative compromise, they often avoid
                      making clear statements of priorities among apparently conflicting goals. In a
                      few cases, a vague mandate may be sharpened by rules and procedures adopted
                      subsequent to legislative authorization.

                         Swanson's review of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
                      (1975) showed that much of the agency's success could be traced to its
                      specif ic mission.   Clear rules were laid out for making decisions on three
                      issues:   bay fill, public access, and improving the visual quality of the
                      shoreline. He concludes that "BCDC owes much of its success to working for
                      clearly defined goals through the political process."



                                                                119







                            Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                In developing nations, vague and conflicting goals appear to be a common
                            problem in environmental management programs.                    The goals and objectives
                            emerge from the accumulation of laws over the years.                      Because outmoded
                            legislation has often been kept on the books, administrators must choose
                            among an array of vague and conflicting mandates (International Institute for
                            Environment and Development, 1981).


                            9.4 Good Theory and Information

                            This criterion argues for the availability of good information about the
                            consequences and opportunities for coastal development. Impact assessment is
                            well understood as a task of tracing impacts from uses and activities through
                            to biological/physical changes and social consequences.                 For instance, filling
                            shallow mudflats around a bay margin is likely to have a negative impact on
                            fisheries. Constructing buildings in a way that impairs public access will mean
                            diminished recreational opportunities, aesthetic appreciation, and possibly lost
                            tourism revenues. While the causal networks of environmental impacts such as
                            those outlined in Chapter 5 may be well understood, there is far less
                            understanding about the ecological function of a natural system or the analytic
                            tools needed to predict magnitudes of impact with certainty.

                                A major weakness of the Regional Seas program is the lack of data and
                            models to make persuasive cause and effect connections between the terrestrial
                            pollution sources and the degradation of the marine environment (Hulm, 1983).
                            Several analysts have commented on the importance and the difficulty of
                            achieving a sound technical data base for coastal management.

                                Clark (1978) assessed the recruitment of natural science expertise in the
                            preparation of the California Coastal Plan. He concluded that while scientists
                            who had participated in various phases of plan preparation felt that the
                            scientif ic   content     was    adequate,     there    were     many     areas     where     the
                            planner-scientist linkage could be strengthened.

                                During the course of his work, Clark interviewed a                    number of coastal
                            management specialists on the theoretical and informational basis for the plan.
                            One analyst observed:

                                       This data-rich situation is mandatory to the success of the
                                       planning program they've just adopted; otherwise it will be just
                                       a political judgement (Dickert quoted in Clark, 1978).

                                Another analyst suggested that lack of good technical information weakened
                            the Commission's ability to defend its jurisdictional boundary:

                                       Because the commission did not have good information about the
                                       dynamics of coastal systems -- the [coastal zone border] was
                                       often set too close to the coast, and in some cases too far back
                                       . . . Since the Coastal Commission does not have the scientific
                                       information to support the line for much of its length, it appears
                                       that the inland boundary in several locations will be moved
                                       coastward     during     this   session     of  the    legislature,     further
                                       compromising the Commission's ability to develop and implement a
                                       management strategy ... (Clark, 1978).

                                                                           120







                                                                                      Program Evaluation



                        McCrea and Feldman (1977) noted that implementation of the Washington
                    Shoreline Management Act was hindered during its first few years by lack of
                    information on natural systems upon which local government could make permit
                    decisions.   The same situation probably existed in all state coastal programs
                    during the first phase of implementation.

                        McCreary (1979) identified three series of barriers to the use of biological
                    information in California's coastal zone planning.          Some are generic to the
                    practice of biological research, a second set is common to any effort to inject
                    scientific information into environmental planning, and a third set is specific
                    to California's coastal planning. Despite the apparent chasm between scientific
                    information and the planning process in California, Mazmanian and Sabatier
                    (1983) gave the coastal program high marks in comparison to the other social
                    programs reviewed.

                        In the absence of good natural resource information, the tendency is to
                    base resource allocation decisions almost entirely on economic or political
                    considerations.    Analytic tools for quantifying values in monetary terms are
                    relatively well developed. Economic indicators (dollars invested, jobs created)
                    may have more meaning than measures of wildlife habitat acreage, catch per
                    unit effort, species diversity indices, or rates of runoff and sedimentation.
                    The U.S. experience strongly suggests that to be successful in coastal zone
                    management, programs in developing countries must incorporate a strong
                    knowledge of coastal processes along with the economic calculus.                     The
                    information should be expressed in concise policy terms.             When there is a
                    potential for two policies to conflict, such as developing marinas versus
                    protecting shellfish nurseries, clear decision rules should be laid down for
                    reaching an outcome (California deals with this by prescribing very narrow
                    conditions under which wetlands can be filled).

                        Reports on environmental management programs in developing nations have
                    consistently noted the lack of adequate data and maps for environmental
                    assessment and policy making (USAID, 1979).               Since coastal management
                    programs require an information rich base, we expect that data and map
                    limitations will be expected to be a major problem in program development and
                    implementation.


                    9.5 Sufficient Jurisdiction and Authority

                    Implementing officials should have sufficient jurisdiction over target groups
                    and other points of leverage to attain the coastal program's objectives. The
                    discussion in Chapter 5 identified insufficient planning and regulatory authority
                    as a major problem. To ensure that an agency has adequate authority, at least
                    three important decisions must be made about:

                               0   the geographic scope of the jurisdiction;

                               0   the types of projects and issues within the agency's
                                   jurisdiction;

                              0    the functional responsibilities (e.g., permit letting,
                                   advisory, review and comments, capital allocation,
                                   etc.) assigned to the agency.

                                                               121







                         Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                            The    respective geographic jurisdictions of        the San Francisco Bay
                         Commission (BCDC) and the California Coastal Commission present an
                         interesting contrast.   BCDC's jurisdiction extends just 100 yards inland from
                         the Bay margin. It excludes wetlands diked off from tidal action. BCDC's
                         narrow jurisdiction is conducive to a crisp focus on the issues of preventing
                         bay fill, preserving access, and reviewing designs for bayside structures.         In
                         these areas, it has a strong, proven record (Swanson, 1975).

                            This same narrow mandate has several shortcomings. Davoren (1982) points
                         out that the agency's pioneering effort to promote access (and block bay fill)
                         "never grew beyond the 1969 land use law and, more significantly, the one
                         agency that the public sees as controlling the Bay's destiny does not have
                         power over undeveloped shoreline use or Bay waters to exercise that control."
                         The California Coastal Commission, on           the other hand, has an inland
                         jurisdiction which varies in width from 200 feet landward of mean high tide in
                         urban areas, to five miles around important     estuaries and wetlands. Depending
                         on the section of coast, this has given the     Commission authority to intervene
                         in a wide range of issues that af f ect the     quality of the coast -- watershed
                         erosion, urban coastal design, traffic capacity on roads near the shore, and
                         offshore drilling in state and federal waters.      With these broad powers, the
                         Commission's attention is diffused by being drawn in many directions at once.
                         Unlike BCDC, the Coastal Commission cannot concentrate on a few issues in a
                         narrow geographic jurisdiction.

                            Functional responsibilities may be concentrated in a single agency or
                         divided among several agencies. Where responsibilities are divided, the lead
                         agency for coastal resource management must gain the cooperation of other
                         agencies -- a process that may prove slow and difficult, as suggested by the
                         experience of both developed and developing countries.

                            A new agency f or the coast will likely have to contend with a wide array
                         of existing institutions and agencies, both formal and informal. There may be
                         battles over jurisdictional "turf," budget, staff, political influence, and
                         organized constituencies.      An analysis of the relationship between the
                         California Coastal Commission and state agencies pointed out that the new
                         agency:

                                  joined one of the nation's largest and mok active state
                                  bureaucracies, a collection of commissions, boards and agencies
                                  noted for both professionalism and fierce independence (Banta,
                                  1978).

                            Banta found that the Commission did not assign a high priority to resolving
                         conflict with other state agencies.       Conflicts continually arose when the
                         Commission exercised its authority to review plans and permits of sister
                         agencies and when the Commission's tight deadlines necessitated making
                         decisions without formal consultation with the experts of other agencies in
                         fields such as water quality and fisheries biology. When the 1976 California
                         Coastal Act was drafted creating a successor agency, steps were taken to
                         improve interagency coordination (Banta, 1978). Similarly, a review of Costa
                         Rica's administrative alternatives for a coastal resources management program
                         (Blair, 1979) suggested that a new agency would be unwieldy, and would have
                         difficulty gaining cooperation from other agencies for sound resource
                         management.

                                                                  122







                                                                                       Program Evaluation



                        In Sri Lanka, the approach of building an interagency network for coastal
                     management has been quite successful.         The Coast Conservation Department
                     (CCD), a unit within the Ministry of Fisheries, has established effective
                     working relationships with three key agencies -- the Urban Development
                     Authority (UDA), the Tourist Board and the Central Environment Authority
                     (CEA). The four agencies share a commitment to incorporating environmental
                     and coastal   zone considerations into their decision making, and are mutually
                     supportive.  CCD has a permit authority for a zone 300 meters landward of the
                     mean water mark, UDA has permit authority over all development activities
                     within one kilometer of the shoreline, and CEA is an umbrella agency
                     responsible  for formulating environmental assessments and setting pollution
                     control standards. Until the CCD gained an independent permit authority, the
                     Tourist Board referred proposals for development of 50 units or more to the
                     CCD for guidance on necessary beach setbacks (Kinsey and Sondheimer, 1984).

                        Neither a broad jurisdiction nor a narrow jurisdiction is "right" -- both
                     have advantages and disadvantages. A developing nation must choose whether
                     to concentrate on a narrow jurisdiction at the risk of overlooking important
                     coastal issues, or gaining broad jurisdiction with the responsibility of resolving
                     numerous issues and perhaps dissipating its energies in numerous directions.


                     9.6 Good Implementation Structure

                     The implementation process should be structured to maximize the probability
                     that implementing officials and target groups perform in a manner to attain
                     the objectives of the coastal program.        The key ingredients for a successful
                     coastal resource management      program are an adequate budget, a sympathetic
                     and dedicated host agency,       and adequate political support.         According to
                     McCrea and Feldman (1977),       the commitment of the responsible state agencies
                     was critical to the successful achievement of the Washington State program's
                     goals.

                        Agencies that are created     as autonomous units who can control their own
                     staffing and budget process      have a greater likelihood of achieving program
                     objectives.   An example is      Sri Lanka's creation of the Coast Conservation
                     Department to administer the nation's coastal zone management program. It
                     was elevated to departmental level to provide the agency with budgetary and
                     administrative flexibility (Kinsey and Sondheimer, 1984).

                        By contrast, the Philippines has a weak implementation structure.                The
                     National Environmental Protection Council (NEPQ has established a coastal
                     zone management program that addresses such comprehensive issues as ports
                     and dredging, tourism development, and marine pollution.             There is also an
                     Interagency Coastal Zone Task Force with representatives from 22 different
                     agencies of government.      However, there seems to be little attention paid by
                     other agencies to either the Task Force or NEPC's coastal management
                     program. The critical elements of cohesive policy regarding coastal resources
                     and coordinated implementation among agencies to achieve these policies has
                     not been articulated (Kinsey and Sondheimer, 1984).

                        The state of Florida had a similar administrative problem to the Philippines.
                     The state had a very small coastal management agency. Authority for coastal
                     permitting and resource management was disbursed among several agencies.

                                                                123







                         Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                         The initial program activity in Florida, preparation of a coastal atlas, was not
                         initially linked to regulation or resource management and the implementation
                         process was not clear.

                            "Target groups" for coastal management arc numerous.               The groups
                         regulated by U.S. coastal management are primarily land developers,
                         industrialists, commercial recreation entrepreneurs, and others seeking to
                         extract or exploit resources.    Relevant groups may also include the fishing
                         community, which would benefit from the control of water pollution but which
                         might perceive catch restrictions as a disadvantage to them.          The tourist
                         industry would benefit from provision of beach access, control of water
                         pollution, and preservation of natural phenomena that attract visitors. Local
                         environmental interests represent a fourth type of target group.

                            Much of the early success or failure of coastal management programs in the
                         United States is due to the involvement of target groups. The early evidence
                         from developing countries also suggests that participation of target groups or
                         constituencies is crucial to program success.    The initial legislative mandate
                         creating the BCDC was successful in large part because a citizens' organization
                         mounted an effective public relations and lobbying campaign (Odell, 1972).
                         They were, in turn, encouraged and reinforced by the work of BCDC's
                         technical staff (Swanson, 1975).

                            Legislative support was as crucial to California's success with coastal
                         management as support from conservation interest groups.          The momentum
                         generated in the early days of the Commission carried through to strong
                         legislative support for the 1976 Act to create a successor agency and program.
                         The persistence of people who cared about coastal conservation was credited as
                         a key factor in the passage of the 1976 Act (Duddleson, 1978).                Final
                         negotiations included some successful bargaining with advocates of the building
                         trades, thus overcoming some of the major opposition to the legislation.

                            Maine's early experience with integrated coastal resource management, in
                         contrast to California's, was colored by the failure of state planners to create
                         a constituency of support among local citizens and communities (Lewis, 1975).
                         Even though several progressive environmental laws were already on the books
                         when the program was launched in 1972, the proposed state level intervention
                         did not have broad-based citizen support and opposition interests killed the
                         program.   Six years later, the program was resurrected by the state with a
                         greater   measure    of   citizen  involvement,    expanded    local    government
                         involvement, and greater emphasis on encouraging desirable economic
                         development such as shellfish harvesting.

                            Creation of a CRM program in American Samoa depended on involving
                         target groups in each step of program development and thereby building a
                         supportive constituency (Templet, 1986). Both instrumental goals (government
                         process) and outcome goals (resource protection and economic development)
                         emerged from a series of meetings with village councils. The next step was to
                         distill a list of specific management policies from the general goals. Existing
                         agencies with responsibility for some aspect of coastal management were
                         encouraged to participate in return for increased staff and outside technical
                         assistance.




                                                                 124







                                                                                   Program Evaluation



                        American Samoa had several statutes which, when combined, provided
                     sufficient authority to implement a coastal area management program. The
                     program was invoked by executive order based on existing legislation.
                     Consistent with traditional Samoan orientation to graphic presentation, the
                     first atlas of American Samoa was produced. This was both a valuable analytic
                     device and an educational tool complemented by courses on coastal resources
                     in the public schools. Consensus decision making, cooperation among agencies
                     and broad education were the hallmarks of American Samoa's coastal program.
                     The Samoan program benefitted from western techniques, but retained the
                     essence of traditional culture.

                        Turner (1985) and Towle (1985) have , suggested that involvement of
                     residents of coastal areas is a strong precondition for successful coastal
                     program implementation. Siddall, Atchue, and Murray (1985) have cited the
                     participation of a shrimp producers' association as a potentially important
                     factor in successful mangrove management.


                     9.7 Staff Competence and Commitment

                     Successful coastal management demands both executive skill and strong staff
                     level capabilities. Coastal issues span a wide variety of disciplines:      marine
                     and terrestrial biology, hydrology and hydraulics, engineering, site planning,
                     architecture, policy analysis, and economics. Often the skills of specialists in
                     these diverse fields must be brought together to bear on a single coastal
                     project. In developing countries, skills and expertise are often in short supply
                     so training programs are a crucial necessity. For example, Indonesian coastal
                     managers cited the lack of trained and experienced personnel in many fields
                     related to CRM including management/administration, policy analysis, data
                     gathering and research@ and enforcement (Kinsey and Sondhe@mer, 1984).
                     International assistance efforts to promote coastal management clearly need to
                     provide training in a series of disciplines and in techniques to bridge
                     disciplines to structure a team approach.

                        Leaders of the implementation agency should possess substantial managerial
                     skill and be committed to achieving the program's objectives. Without strong,
                     politically adept leadership, it is doubtful that a program for integrated coastal
                     management can pass its infancy, let alone grow into maturity. An excellent
                     example of the dividends paid by skilled political staff is the California coastal
                     program.    In its first incarnation after the 1972 initiative, the California
                     Coastal Zone Conservation Commission drew some of its key staff, notably its
                     executive director and the chairman of the Commission, from the BCDC. These
                     individuals had perhaps the most experience possible given the short history of
                     coastal zone management at the time. After the first Commission's Plan was
                     translated into legislation by the 1976 California Coastal Act, a new
                     complement of top staff arrived who had participated in drawing up the
                     mandate for the new agency. They were not just legal technicians, but were
                     politically seasoned by their experience with the first coastal agency and the
                     negotiations to secure passage of the 1976 Act. This legislative experience and
                     network of contacts has well served the Coastal Commission and a companion
                     agency, the California State Coastal Conservancy, in securing funding and
                     retaining jurisdiction.



                                                             125







                       Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                       9.8 Maintaining the Program's Priority on the Public Agenda

                       This condition for effective implementation can be compromised by a large
                       number of factors -- many beyond the control of an agency.         Most of the
                       state coastal programs in the United States have had to withstand an economic
                       recession and two "energy crises" with attendant pressure for accelerated
                       offshore oil and gas exploitation.    Dramatic shifts in a national economic
                       policy or a change in administration usually bring changes in priorities for
                       government intervention.      These pressures underscore the importance of
                       maintaining a strong organized constituency for coastal management, as
                       described in subsections 9.4 and 9.6.        In developing countries, coastal
                       management may depend on ensuring that sustained-yield of mangroves or
                       coastal fisheries stays near the top of the public policy agenda.

                          One strategy for keeping coastal management at the top of the public
                       agenda in a developing nation may be to forge strong liaisons with other
                       sectors of the government or national economy.        Templet's review of the
                       program in American Samoa tends to confirm this suggestion (Templet, 1986).


                       NOTE: Application of the evaluation framework to the Costa Rica program.
                       During 1988 and 1989 an evaluation was conducted of Costa Rica's shoreland
                       restriction program (Sorensen, 1990).   The evaluation started with a tour of
                       both coasts, reading the literature that pertained to the program, and
                       interviewing 23 persons involved with the process. Next, analyses were done
                       for each of the program's components. Process and outcome indicators were
                       then identified and measured. The final section of the evaluation applied the
                       eight criteria just described. The criteria worked well. They explained both
                       why the Costa Rica program was achieving its objectives and why it had
                       encountered implementation problems.




























                                                              126














                                                   10. RECOMMENDATIONS




                     Our recommendations are divided into two parts.                 The first part suggests
                     programmatic recommendations for international assistance organizations. The
                     second offers more specific guidelines for national coastal resources managers
                     and administrators.



                     10.1      Programmatic Recommendations for International Assistance Organizations

                         1.    Communicate the availability of a broad array of coastal resource
                               management strategies.

                               International assistance organizations should foster awareness that a
                               broad array of institutional arrangements and a broad array of
                               management strategies are available to help developing nations manage
                               coastal resources and resolve coastal use conflicts.



                         2.    Fund an array of coastal programs, using a variety of institutional
                               arrangements and management strategies.

                               No single prescription can be applied uniformly to every developing
                               country.     Management strategies must be tailored to reflect the
                               institutions, laws, and customs now in place.             Strategies must also
                               reflect the geographic extent and severity of issues, and the available
                               expertise and staffing.

                                     International assistance organizations should support programs
                               that represent each type of Institutional arrangement.                  Such an
                               investment     strategy    would recognize        that   there    is   no    "best"
                               institutional arrangement for managing coastal resources.              "Goodness"
                               in an institutional arrangement can best be judged by the effective
                               and efficient resolution of coastal use conflicts. In the near future,
                               coastal resources and environments in most developing nations will be
                               managed by fragmented sectoral planning and development programs.
                               Reversing reso   'urce degradation and improving management practices
                               (such as achieving sustained-yield in these nations) may only occur
                               with international assistance that is structured to work through the
                               existing sectoral planning programs.

                                     International support to broaden the scope of sectoral programs
                                   such as port development, offshore oil development, fisheries
                               development, and natural areas protection -- may yield more
                               environmental improvement than integrated planning in the short-term.
                               Similarly, assistance in non-integrative management strategies such as
                               critical area designation, shoreland exclusion zones, and environmental
                               impact assessment may pay immediate, low-cost dividends.                   Advice,
                               information, and financial support to accomplish these goals are
                               urgently needed.


                                                                  127







                            Institutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                3.    Demonstrate how Integrated coastal management Is linked to
                                      Improvement In socioeconomic conditions In order to build support f or
                                      improved and sustainable resources development.

                                      Coastal zone management programs are usually initiated as a response
                                      to a perceived use conflict. Launching a coastal program demands a
                                      clear motivation. Usually an event that dramatizes the importance and
                                      vulnerability of coastal resources is needed.         A severe decline in a
                                      resource or a devastating experience with natural hazards may trigger
                                      new initiatives.    Over the long-term, the socioeconomic benefits of
                                      coastal resources management must be evident in order for
                                      environmental quality and natural area protection to enjoy continued
                                      support.      Maintaining fisheries productivity,         Increasing tourism
                                      revenues, sustaining mangrove forestry, and avoiding the costs
                                      associated with natural hazard devastation are four compelling
                                      arguments for integrated coastal resources management.

                                            In less developed large islands or continental nations without
                                      fisheries, mangrove forestry, tourism, or natural hazard devastation as
                                      important national concerns, there may be little potential for the
                                      initiation and implementation of an integrated coastal management
                                      program.     An infusion of considerable funds and expertise from
                                      international assistance organizations may be needed.            Among these
                                      nations,   the    management      strategies    of   environmental       impact
                                      assessment, shoreland exclusion zones, or critical area designation
                                      might be excellent strategies to improve management of coastal
                                      resources and environments.



                                4.    Fund research to Identify the major obstacles and aids to successful
                                      Implementation     of   Integrated    coastal    resources   management        In
                                      developing countries In order to Inform effective design of future
                                      programs.

                                      Research is needed to clearly identify the obstacles that block
                                      effective coastal zone management. The set of conditions needed to
                                      ensure program success needs to be verified and refined. In the U.S.,
                                      successful program implementation depends upon clarity of goals,
                                      understanding of cause and effect relationships, and a strong
                                      constituency. Analyses of environmental programs in the developing
                                      world suggest that vaguely worded goals and lack of expertise are two
                                      serious obstacles to program implementation.                 Non-govcrnmental
                                      organizations, such as NATMANCOMS, the Eastern Caribbean Natural
                                      Areas Management Program (ECNAMP), and IUCN appear to be the
                                      most important expression of constituency influence on coastal
                                      resources management in the developing world. Research is needed to
                                      determine which conditions for successful implementation suggested by
                                      the U.S. experience should be emphasized in coastal management
                                      programs in developing nations.






                                                                        128








                                                                                          Recommendations




                       5.     Compile a global issues index to assist international assistance
                              organizations In setting program priorities and organizing integrated
                              coastal management projects, and to promote international Information
                              exchange.

                              The international practice of international coastal zone management
                              can be advanced by understanding the finite number of ways that the
                              world's development activities can have an impact on the world's
                              coastal resources and environments.       These impacts can be described
                              in terms of cause and effect linkages.        These linkages can, in turn,
                              provide the basis for a global listing of coastal issues. A structured
                              survey should be conducted to compile a national roster for each issue.
                              The survey should also rate the issues according to their importance
                              to each coastal nation and to international organizations. The format
                              presented in Appendix B is proposed as a framework for the global
                              issues index. Nations identified in connection with each issue could
                              form the basis of international networks for sharing information and
                              expertise. (The IUCN document Global Status of Mangrove Ecosystems
                              (Saenger, Hegerl, and Davie, 1983) represents a good model for a
                              compilation of issues related to one type of renewable resource.)


                       6.     Devise a common format to analyze a nation's existing institutional
                              arrangements in order to guide the creation of programs for integrated
                              coastal resources management.

                              Every coastal nation has established its own institutional arrangements
                              -- laws, customs, management strategies and organizations -- to
                              allocate coastal resources. A common analytic framework is needed to
                              clearly reveal the institutional complexity of coastal management.
                              Such a framework should reveal structural and functional divisions,
                              geographic and activity subdivisions, and levels of government.

                                   Over the last decade, many descriptions of national and state
                              approaches have been generated.            Many reports presenting such
                              descriptions are cited in this book and in articles in journals such as
                              Coastal Management and Ocean and Shoreline Management, and
                              conference papers have produced an important body of literature. To
                              promote    more    useful    comparative     assessments,   the    editors    of
                              professional journals, as well as convenors of future conferences,
                              should work to establish a consistent format to describe institutional
                              arrangements.      The format should be compatible with USAID's
                              environmental profile series in order to facilitate the incorporation of
                              coastal governance as a component in forthcoming reports.


                        7.    Organize forums for evaluation and exchange of experience on the
                              application of specific management strategies.

                              This   report    identif ied   I I  management      strategies   and     several
                              institutional arrangements which have been used to help resolve
                              coastal conflicts in developing nations.            Resource managers in
                              developing nations should benefit by direct communication with their
                              colleagues to explore and reflect on their experiences in formulating

                                                                129







                         Y.nstitutional Arrangements f or Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                 and applying the different management strategies and institutional
                                 arrangements.    Such a dialogue already exists among international
                                 practitioners of environmental impact assessment, and could provide a
                                 usef ul prototype and building block.


                            8.   Support the development of national technical capacity for coastal
                                 zone management.

                                 Coastal nations need a minimum information base, a set of analytic
                                 methods, and a cadre of professionally trained staff to conduct coastal
                                 area management. One element of such an information base is a set
                                 of maps or an inventory capable of graphically representing coastal
                                 environments, resources, and hazards.        Another element of the
                                 information base should consist of a review of existing conflicts and a
                                 forecast of future coastal use conflicts. The review should identify
                                 the causes and consequences of impacts and the major actors involved.
                                 A review of existing and potential conflicts should provide guidance in
                                 setting national priorities for future coastal research and data
                                 collection.



                           9.    Use consensual styles of decision making such as policy dialogues and
                                 mediated negotiation as supplemental arrangements for conflict
                                 resolution.


                                 Consensual styles of decision making such as policy dialogues and
                                 mediated negotiation may hold promise as supplementary institutional
                                 arrangements for conflict resolution. Policy dialogues, facilitated by a
                                 nonpartisan intervenor, can be useful in scoping the major issues to be
                                 addressed in coastal management and in helping to clarify areas of
                                 scientific disagreement. Face-to-face communication among scientists,
                                 policy makers, and other major coastal actors have been very helpful
                                 in policy making and conflict resolution.     Specific case studies are
                                 needed to test and document the application of these supplemental
                                 techniques in the developing world. A careful effort is also needed to
                                 forecast major constraints and opportunities for application of these
                                 dispute resolution techniques.


                            10.  Train coastal resource managers In negotiation and conflict resolution
                                 techniques.

                                 Succcssf ul policy making requires both the application of scientific
                                 talent and  wise methods of dealing with the major actors in coastal
                                 management. Many coastal managers have received specific training in
                                 environmental science and regional planning. International assistance
                                 organizations are providing additional training in cartography and
                                 other skills. To enhance the chances for implementation of policies
                                 and management strategies, managers should build their capabilities in
                                 negotiation and bargaining. Assistance organizations should supplement
                                 their programs with training in negotiation and dispute resolution.
                                 Training programs must be matched to the cultural, institutional,
                                 political and economic conditions of the respective developing nations.

                                                                130







                                                                                     Recommendations




                      10.2   Guidelines f or National Coastal Zone Managers and Administrators

                        1.   Tailor boundaries f or Integrated coastal management programs to
                             "capture" and enable resolution of the relevant coastal Issues. Simple
                             political jurisdictions or rigid "zones" may be Ineffective In promoting
                             successful integrated coastal resources management.

                             Coastal managers and administrators can choose f rom a broad array of
                             possible coastal zone boundaries (Figure 2.1).     Some boundaries are
                             quite narrow and are best suited to deal with use conflicts occurring
                             at the immediate shoreline. If watershed-generated impacts pose use
                             conflicts, then a coastal program boundary extending inland to the
                             ridge line of watersheds draining into the coast would be more
                             appropriate. The seaward side of the boundary should be adjusted to
                             reflect the economic significance of the fisheries and ports sectors and
                             the importance of inshore spawning and rearing habitats.


                        2.   The key characteristics of coastal nations, together with Important
                             coastal Issues, should guide the choice of coastal management
                             strategies for a nation.

                             Several factors must be considered in designing management strategies
                             for a nation.     These include the economic importance of coastal-
                             dependent sectors, the extent of prior governmental experience with
                             some aspect of coastal resources management, experience with the
                             destructive consequences of coastal hazards and the revenue available
                             for program implementation.


                        3.   Encourage broad participation In development and Implementation of
                             coastal programs and coastal zone management.         Artisanal resource
                             users, the scientific community, and NGOs should be recruited as
                             participants, along with representatives of key government bureaus
                             with a stake in coastal management.

                             Coastal zone management requires broad participation from groups
                             outside government.    NGOs, in particular, can represent key coastal
                             users, communicate government policies, assist in training resource
                             managers, and compile relevant information. In this way NGOs can
                             stretch the capacity of government agencies, provide realistic insights
                             into possibilities for effective program implementation, and broaden the
                             dissemination of important information.


                        4.   Spell out the causal relationship between policy goals or rules and the
                             protection and management of coastal resources. This Is likely to
                             Improve the chances for successful Implementation of an Integrated
                             coastal zone management program.

                             Government programs with ill-focussed goals are difficult for lay
                             people to understand and hard to administer.          Such concepts as
                             ecological cycles, food webs, and impact networks may not be well
                             understood by lay people, so the logic of regulatory or planning

                                                            131






                        Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments



                                 strategies is often not apparent.    Both the initial mandate and the
                                 implementation process should stress the links between resource
                                 management goals and the management strategy.         Clearly explaining
                                 the rationale for rules and regulations can help build support for a
                                 management program.


                           5.    Coastal managers and administrators In all nations can benefit from
                                 applying the strategy of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to
                                 projects affecting the renewable coastal resources.

                                 EIA can offer a flexible procedure to identify, evaluate, and help avoid
                                 the worst impacts of coastal development. This strategy can be a part
                                 of a larger integrated coastal resources management program or it can
                                 stand alone.    The technical quality of EIA can be strengthened
                                 through the incorporation of a coastal atlas or data bank as a source
                                 of information for the assessment.



                           6.    Resource managers from small island nations with important tourism
                                 and fisheries sectors are likely to benefit by developing and
                                 implementing programs for integrated coastal management.

                                 Almost every activity on small island nations is linked to coastal
                                 resources and environments.      These linkages strongly suggest that
                                 management strategies be adopted to identify and resolve conflicts
                                 arising from competing demands on a small resource base.

                                      Again,  the precise strategies used to integrate planning and
                                 management   across economic sectors should be tailored to local needs,
                                 capabilities, and traditions.     Strategies to accomplish integrated
                                 management could include broad-scope sectoral planning, special
                                 area/regional planning, or national land use planning. Preparation of
                                 an island-wide resource atlas covering watershed lands, shorelands, and
                                 submerged resources is likely to be a valuable investment in protecting
                                 critical biological and economic resources. Small islands may require
                                 external expertise.   The ECNAMP experience in preparing coastal
                                 atlases for 25 island areas in the Eastern Caribbean could provide a
                                 model because it combined imported skills with indigenous expertise.
                                 Middle income nations -- both large islands and continental nations --
                                 with a strong fisheries or tourism sector, or a recent experience with
                                 the effects of coastal hazards, are also strong candidates for
                                 integrated coastal resources management.


                           7.    Consider using management strategies such as shoreland exclusion
                                 zones and critical area designations as an appropriate first step
                                 towards integrated coastal management.

                                 Nations can cope with problems that occur in a limited geographic
                                 area, such as shoreline erosion, loss of coral reefs, estuarine spawning
                                 grounds, or encroachment on endangered species habitats using the
                                 strategies of critical area designation or shoreland exclusion.      Both
                                 strategies can be implemented on a site specific basis, commensurate

                                                                 132







                                                                                              Recommendations




                                 with available information, staffing, and expertise.            They can be
                                 reinforced with special area planning or broad-scope sectoral planning
                                 of a larger geographic scope. Combining estuarine or marine protected
                                 areas with more land-based strategies offers the possibility of
                                 managing an entire coastal ecosystem.

                                       Since critical area designations and shoreland exclusion zones are
                                 relatively inexpensive and simple to administer, these strategies can be
                                 especially appropriate for nations that are otherwise without a strong
                                 coastal orientation.



                           8.    Consider launching Integrated coastal management programs on a
                                 regional basis.    If this approach succeeds, consider expanding It to
                                 national land use planning.

                                 The regional level of focus allows resource planners to concentrate on
                                 the most severe problems. The regional focus also enables a nation to
                                 obtain experience with integrated coastal management, provides time to
                                 develop and recruit expertise, and presents an opportunity to make
                                 needed midcourse corrections. In this respect, the coastal programs of
                                 developing nations could follow the same evolutionary process
                                 documented in a number of developed coastal nations.

                                       In most developing nations, the coastal zone consists of several
                                 types of environments. The majority of the coastal zone consists of
                                 agriculture,    rural   settlements,   pristine    environments,     or    other
                                 undeveloped land. The remaining coastal zone usually consists of an
                                 urbanizing region surrounding the nation's major port and its
                                 associated estuary. Major port and estuary complexes are usually the
                                 locus of the greatest intensity and number of coastal resource
                                 conflicts, and the greatest environmental degradation.            As a result,
                                 national interest in integrated coastal management has usually focussed
                                 on the need for managing regions defined by the metropolitan port and
                                 estuary complex.

                                       Coastal    management      at   the   regional    scale   provides      the
                                 opportunity to test new concepts and approaches as a pilot effort
                                 before committing energy and political capital to a nation-wide effort.
                                 The risk and consequences of a failure are likely to be considerably
                                 less when a program is implemented on a smaller scale.                       The
                                 experience gained during the regional effort should increase the
                                 likelihood of success of a later nation-wide effort.















                                                                   133











                                                         APPENDIX A


                                 DATA NEEDED TO ASSESS THE VALUE OF A NATION'S
                                                   COASTAL RESOURCES




                            Sector                               Data-Needs

                      Coastal Fisheries         0     Linear    kilometers    of   coastline    or    square
                                                      kilometers of coastal zone known to function as
                                                      nurseries for finfish and shellfish

                                                0     Number of harbors for fishing fleets

                                                0     Number of existing mariculture facilities

                                                0     Number of potential sites for mariculture

                                                0     Estimated stock of commercial fin- and shell-
                                                      fisheries that are biologically-dependent upon the
                                                      nation's coastal zone

                                                0     Catch (in tons) of commercial finfish and shellfish
                                                      that are biologically-dependent upon the nation's
                                                      coastal zone


                                                0     Dollar value of total catch


                                                0     Dollar value of internal consumption

                                                0     Dollar value of export harvest

                                                0     Tax revenues generated by fisheries

                                                0     Relative contribution of fisheries to total GNP

                                                0     Number of fish-processing plants

                                                0     Dollar value added by processing plants

                                                0     Number of nationals employed directly or
                                                      indirectly by fisheries sector

                                                0     Relative proportion of nationals employed as a
                                                      function of the total workforce


                                                0     Relative contribution of fisheries as a fraction of
                                                      total worker earnings

                                                0     Commitment to development of fishery sector
                                                      indicated by (a) creation of a ministry; (b)
                                                      legislative  mandate     or   executive    order;    (c)
                                                      preparation of sectoral plans; and (d) capital
                                                      investment


                                                                135







                            Appendix A



                            NOTE: Data on the value of coastal fisheries is difficult to collect. First, the
                            coastal-dcpendency of a species may not be well studied. Second, species have
                            transboundary habits so it is difficult to attribute a standing stock to a single
                            nation. Finally, the possibility of foreign ownership of some portion of the
                            fishing fleet or fish-processing facilities complicates assessment of the actual
                            contribution of the fishery sector to a national economy.


                            Coastal Tourism            0     Number of linear miles of coast allocated to
                                                             coastal tourism development

                                                       0     Presence of swimmable beaches with excellent
                                                             offshore water quality

                                                       0     Presence of coral reefs, bird rookeries, reserves,
                                                             sanctuaries, and other wildlife-orientcd areas

                                                       0     Extent of public relations effort for coastal
                                                             tourism


                                                       0     Number of facilities built within 1000 meters of
                                                             the coast


                                                       0     Inf rastructure    devoted      to    coastal      tourist
                                                             development

                                                       0     Dollars     earned     by    coastal      tourist-serving
                                                             development

                                                       0     Tax revenues derived f rom coastal tourism


                                                       0     Relative contribution of coastal tourist facilities
                                                             to GNP

                                                       0     Number of nationals employed directly or
                                                             indirectly by coastal tourism sector

                                                       0     Relative proportion of nationals employed as a
                                                             fraction of the total workforce

                                                       0     Relative contribution of tourism as a fraction of
                                                             total worker earnings


                            Ports                      0     Number of major and minor ports (as defined by
                                                             the Ocean Yearbook)

                                                       0     Tonnage of imports and exports

                                                       0     Forecasted future exports

                                                       0     Number of ship and boat building facilities

                                                       0     Number of support facilities (e.g., chandleries)

                                                                        136







                                                                                         Appendix A



                                             0    Size of port hinterland served

                                             0    Dollar value of exports

                                             0    Dollar value of imports

                                             0    Tax revenues generated by ports

                                             0    Relative contribution of ports to GNP

                                             0    Number of nationals employed directly or
                                                  indirectly by port sector

                                             0    Relative proportion of nationals employed as a
                                                  fraction of the total workforce

                                             0    Relative contribution of port sector as a fraction
                                                  of total worker earnings


                     Hazards                 0    Geographic extent of hazard-prone areas

                                             0    Frequency of major disastrous events

                                             0    Frequency of events causing major damage to
                                                  lives or property

                                             0    Number of lives lost

                                             0    Number of injuries

                                             0    Number of structures damaged

                                             0    Dollar costs of reconstruction and relocation

                                             0    Dollar costs of service disruptions

                                             0    Insurance rate increases as a function of hazards

                                             0    Type and extent of architectural/engineering
                                                  standards for development in hazard-prone areas

                                             0    Type and extent of standards for siting structures
                                                  in hazard-prone areas

                                             0    Number of structures and dollar value built in
                                                  hazard-prone areas

                                             0    Amount of vacant/uncommitted land available in
                                                  hazard-prone areas

                                             0    Amount of vacant/uncommitted land available in
                                                  non-hazard-prone areas


                                                            137







                         Appendix A




                                                  0     Commitment to intervention in hazard sector
                                                        indicated by (a) creation of a ministry; (b)
                                                        legislative  mandate    or   executive    order;   (c)
                                                        preparation of hazard guidelines for siting new
                                                        development; and (d) preparation of architectural/
                                                        engineering    standards    for    development      in
                                                        hazard-prone areas




















































                                                                 138











                                                        APPENDIX B


                                                 GLOBAL ISSUES INDEX




                     This appendix presents a preliminary global list of important coastal resources
                     issues.   Three types of issues are included:         impact issues, hazards, and
                     sectoral planning concerns.     Under each specific category of issues, we list
                     nations where the issue has been documented to occur.

                        Part I of this Appendix presents a set of causal networks. Each one flows
                     from left to right. The sequence of events begins with the use of a coastal
                     resource, which involves human activities. These activities produce changes in
                     environmental or socioeconomic conditions, which in turn result in an impact
                     of social concern. For simplicity, we have compressed the cause and effect
                     sequence into three steps. This compression is achieved by combining uses and
                     activities.  Also, environmental and socio-economic condition changes often
                     progress through several cause and effect sequences before culminating as an
                     impact. For example, increased turbidity reduces light penetration, which in
                     turn decreases or kills coral growth. This produces the impact of decreased
                     yields from coral reef fishery stocks.         We have compressed sequences of
                     multiple condition changes into one step. Several are cross-referenced.

                        Parts II and III of this Appendix present hazards and sectoral planning
                     concerns, respectively, and Part IV contains additional comments.




                     USE OR         ------------ 10.  ENVIRONMENTAL           ------------ io, IMPACT OF
                     ACTIVITY                            CHANGE                      SOCIAL CONCERN



                     I. IMPACTISSUES



                     A. Estuary, harbor and Inshore water quality impacts.


                     1. domestic and                 estuary pollution,           decreased fish yields
                        industrial sewage            particularly adjacent
                        and waste disposal           to urban areas

                               (Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Brazil (Rio and Sao Paulo),
                               China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador (Guayaquil), Greece,
                               Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Korea,
                               Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan (Karachi),
                               Panama, Philippines, Senegal (Dakar), Spain, United Kingdom,
                               most states in the U.S., Venezuela)


                     2. domestic and                 estuary pollution            contamination of fish
                        industrial sewage                                         shellfish and water
                        disposal                                                  contact areas

                               (Ecuador,Japan)

                                                               139







                          Appendix B




                          USE OR         ------------ 10.   ENVIRONMENTAL            ------------ so. IMPACT OF
                          ACTIVITY '                           CHANGE                       SOCIAL CONCERN



                          3. tourism sewage               estuary pollution              decreased fish yields
                             disposal

                                   (Fiji, Jamaica)


                          4. domestic and/or              estuary and beach              decreased- tourism and
                             tourism sewage               pollution                      recreation attraction
                             disposal

                                   (Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad (Tobago))


                          5. flood control and/           increased estuary              decreased fish yields
                             or agricultural              salinity, decreased
                             development,                 estuary circulation
                             impoundments or
                             diversions of
                             coastal rivers

                                   (Australia, Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Senegal, Somalia, Sri
                                   Lanka, Tanzania)


                          6. coastal oil                  oil pollution of               decreased fish yields,
                             development,                 estuarine and                  tainted fish and
                             chronic release of           inshore waters                 shellf ish, decreased
                             oil and/or large oil                                        recreation or tourism
                             spills from accidents                                       quality

                                   (Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico,
                                   Nigeria, Oman, Trinidad (Tobago), Venezuela)


                          7. port development and         oil pollution of               decreased f ish yields,
                             shipping and/or off-         estuarine and                  decreased recreation
                             shore shipping of oil,       inshore waters                 or tourism quality
                             chronic release of
                             oil and/or large oil
                             spills from accidents

                                   (Bangladesh, Barbados, France, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Jamaica,
                                   Liberia, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Oman,
                                   Pakistan, Senegal (Dakar), Singapore, Thailand)







                                                                     140







                                                                                                  Appendix B




                      USE OR        ------------ P.    ENVIRONMENTAL             ------------     IMPACT OF
                      ACTIVITY                             CHANGE                       SOCIAL CONCERN


                      8.  agricultural                 toxic pollution of            decreased fish yields,
                          pesticides                   estuaries and                 f ish kills
                                                       inshore waters

                               (Bangladesh, Ecuador, Guyana, Mexico, Philippines, many U.S.
                               states)


                      9.  crop, grazing, mining        watershed erosion,            decreased fish yields
                          or forestry practices        estuary sedimentation
                          in coastal watersheds        and increased turbidity

                               (Brazil, Bulgaria, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Haiti, India,
                               Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mozambique,
                               Philippines, Surinam, Tanzania)


                      10. crop, grazing, mining        watershed erosion,            increased flood hazard
                          or forestry practices        f loodplain deposition
                          in coastal watersheds


                               (Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, India,
                               Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique,
                               Philippines, Surinam, Tanzania)


                      11. crop, grazing or             watershed erosion,            sedimentation of
                          forestry practices           increased sedimentation       navigation channels
                          in coastal watersheds        of bays, deltas, and          and berths
                          and inshore areas            port areas

                               (Kenya)


                      12. crop, grazing or             watershed erosion,            beaches covered with
                          f orestry practices          increased sedimentation,      unattractive sediment,
                          in coastal watersheds        changed deposition of         decreased recreation
                                                       sediments in bays,            and tourism attraction
                                                       deltas and inshore
                                                       waters


                               (Kenya)










                                                                  141







                       Appendix B




                       USE OR         ------------ 10.  ENVIRONMENTAL           ------------     IMPACT OF
                       ACTIVITY                            CHANGE                      SOCIAL CONCERN


                       13. agricultural                increased amount of          decreased fish yields,
                            development and            nutrients entering           fish kills
                            f ertilizer                estuaries,
                                                       eutrophication
                                                       pollution

                                (Japan)


                       14. coastal mining              increased sedimentation      decreased fish yields
                                                       and turbidity, change
                                                       in composition of
                                                       bottom sediments

                                (Jamaica)



                       B. Groundwater quality and      quantity.


                       15. agricultural                withdrawal of ground-        contamination of
                            development                water at rate greater        groundwater f or
                                                       than natural recharge,       domestic and/or
                                                       salt water intrusion         agricultural use
                                                       of aquif er

                                (India, Morocco, Mozambique, Oman, Thailand, Tunisia, United
                                States (Florida, California, North Carolina), many coral atolls)


                       16. tourism and                 withdrawal of ground-        contamination of
                            residential                water at rate great6f        groundwater for
                            development                than natural recharge,       domestic and/or
                                                       salt water intrusion         agricultural use
                                                       of aquifer

                                (Fiji, United States (Florida))



                       C. Filling of wetlands (including mangroves).


                       17. port development            filling of wetlands         decreased fish yields

                                (Australia, Fiji, Jamaica (Kingston), Japan, Korea, Nigeria
                                (Lagos), Singapore, Western Samoa)



                                                                 142







                                                                                               Appendix B




                      USE OR        ------------ 10.   ENVIRONMENTAL           ------------ o.  IMPACT OF
                      ACTIVITY                             CHANGE                     SOCIAL CONCERN



                      18. port development             filling of wetlands         decreased fishing or
                                                                                   mariculture areas


                               (Japan)


                      19. mining and soil              filling of wetlands         decreased fish yields
                          disposal

                               (Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand)


                      20. tourism development          filling of wetlands         decreased fish yields

                               (Fiji, Jamaica)


                      21. residential                  filling of wetlands         decreased fish yields

                          development
                          (particularly
                          canal estates)

                               (Australia, Jamaica, Nigeria, United States (Florida))



                      D.  Mangrove Impacts.


                      22. agricultural,                draining or diking          decreased fish yields
                          maricultural or              of mangroves
                          salt evaporation
                          development

                               (Australia (Queensland), Bangladesh, Ecuador, India, Indonesia,
                               Panama, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand)


                      23. agricultural,                draining or diking          reduction or loss of
                          maricultural or              of mangroves                rare or endangered
                          salt evaporation                                         endangered species
                          development

                               (Dominican Republic)






                                                                 143








                        Appendix B




                        USE OR         ------------  10. ENVIRONMENTAL             ------------w   IMPACT OF
                        ACTIVITY                             CHANGE                      SOCIAL CONCERN



                        24. mangrove harvesting          harvesting at rate           decreased fish yields,
                             for wood chips, fuel-       greater than                 decreased timber yield
                             wood and building           sustainable yield,           of successive harvests
                             materials                   decreased productivity

                                 (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand)


                        25. mangrove harvesting          harvesting at rate           reduction or loss
                             for wood chips, fuel-       greater than                 of rare or endangered
                             wood and building           sustainable yield,           species
                             materials                   loss of habitat

                                 (Dominican Republic)


                        26. mining (usually tin)         local removal of             decreased fish yields
                                                         mangrove forest

                                 (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand)



                        E. Coral reef and atoll impacts.


                        27. municipal and/or             coral reef pollution         decreased fish yields,
                             industrial sewage                                        decreased tourism and
                             disposal                                                 recreation attraction

                                 (Jamaica, Kiribati, Philippines, Sri Lanka, United States
                                 (Hawaii))


                        28. coral mining                 coral reef destruction       decreased fish yields,
                                                                                      decreased tourism and
                                                                                      recreation attraction


                                 (Indonesia, Sri Lanka)


                        29. coral mining                 coral reef destruction       increased shoreline
                                                                                      erosion


                                 (Indonesia, Sri Lanka)






                                                                  144







                                                                                                           Appendix B




                         USE OR           ------------ DO.   ENVIRONMENTAL               ------------ o@.   IMPACT OF
                         ACTIVITY                                CHANGE                          SOCIAL CONCERN



                         30. coastal or offshore             sediment and turbidity,          decreased fish yields,
                              mining                         pollution of coral reefs         decreased tourism and
                                                                                              recreation attraction

                                   (Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Western Samoa)


                         31. oilshipping                     oil pollution of                 decreased growth of
                              along of f shore               of f shore waters                coral reef, increased
                              international routes                                            beach erosion,
                                                                                              decreased tourism
                                                                                              attraction


                                   (Barbados, Jamaica)


                         32. dredging for                    sediment and turbidity           decreased fish yield,
                              construction materials         pollution of coral               decreased tourism and
                                                             reefs                            recreation attraction


                                   (Fiji, Western Samoa)


                         33. crop, grazing or                watershed erosion,               decreased fish yields,
                              f orestry practices            sediment and turbidity           decreased tourism and
                              in coastal watersheds          pollution of coral               recreation attraction
                                                             reefs


                                   (Indonesia, Jamaica,      Kenya, Philippines, Sri Lanka, United
                                   States (Hawaii))


                         34. fishing with dynamite           coral reef destruction           decreased fish yields,
                                                                                              decreased tourism and
                                                                                              recreation attraction


                                   (Barbados, Tanzania)


                         35. intensive, localized            harvesting at rate               decreased coral reef
                              fishing effort                 greater than                     associated fish yields
                                                             sustainable yield

                                   (America Samoa, Cook Islands, Tahiti, United States (Hawaii))







                                                                        145







                        Appendix B




                        USE OR         ------------ b.   ENVIRONMENTAL          ------------     IMPACT OF
                        ACTIVITY                            CHANGE                     SOCIAL CONCERN



                        F. Beach, dune and delta Impacts.


                        36. recreation and/or          trampling of beach           initiation or increase
                            tourism development        and dune vegetation          of shoreline erosion,
                                                                                    increased hazard

                                 (Australia, United Kingdom)


                        37. recreation and/or          trampling of beach           decreased tourism and
                            tourism development        and dune vegetation          recreation attraction

                                 (Australia, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, most U.S.
                                 states)


                        38. grazing of livestock       trampling and/or             initiation or increase
                                                       overgrazing of beach         of dune migration onto
                                                       and dune stabilizing         agricultural areas
                                                       vegetation                   or inf rastructure

                                 (Bangladesh, Kenya, Mozambique, Oman, Somalia)


                        39. mining beach sand          removal at rate              initiation or increase
                                                       greater than                 of beach shoreline
                                                       natural accretion            erosion, increased
                                                                                    hazard, loss of native
                                                                                    vegetation, wildlife
                                                                                    habitat and natural
                                                                                    amenities, decreased
                                                                                    tourism attraction


                                 (Australia, Dominican Republic, Comoros, St. Lucia, Western
                                 Samoa)


                        40. flood control and/or       decreased supply of          initiation or increase
                            agricultural               beach material to            of shoreline erosion,
                            development and            shoreline                    increased hazard
                            impoundment or
                            diversions of
                            coastal rivers

                                 (Bangladesh, Kenya, Mozambique, United States (California,
                                 Louisiana, Texas))




                                                                 146







                                                                                              Appendix B



                     USE OR        ------------ b.    ENVIRONMENTAL           ------------ b. IMPACT OF
                     ACTIVITY                            CHANGE                      SOCIAL CONCERN



                     G. Fishing effort.


                     41. intensive and               harvesting at rate           decreased fish yields
                         extensive f ishing          greater than
                         effort                      sustainable yield

                              (Greece, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco,
                              North Sea bordering nations, Peru, Thailand, most U.S. states)


                     42. competition between         harvesting at rate           decreased fish yields,
                         onshore and off-            greater than                 social conf licts
                         shore f ishermen            sustainable yield            between two groups
                         for same stocks

                              (Malaysia)




                     H.  Access to the shoreline and subtidal areas.



                     43. residential                 blocked or impaired          resentment among local
                         development on              public access to             inhabitants, increased
                         the shoreline               the shore                    recreation pressure on
                                                                                  accessible areas, site
                                                                                  deterioration, decreased
                                                                                  recreational quality

                              (Australia, Greece, Norway, Sweden, most U.S. states)


                     44. tourism development         blocked or impaired          resentment among local
                         of shoreline                public access to             inhabitants, increased
                                                     the shore                    recreation pressure on
                                                                                  accessible areas, site
                                                                                  degradation, decreased
                                                                                  recreational quality

                              (Barbados, Dominican Republic, Greece, Grenada, Jamaica,
                              Trinidad (Tobago), United States (Florida, Hawaii, California),
                              Virgin Islands)








                                                               147







                        Appendix B




                        USE OR         ------------ No.   ENVIRONMENTAL            ------------ io.  IMPACT OF
                        ACTIVITY                              CHANGE                       SOCIAL CONCERN



                        1.   Visual quality.


                        45.  residential                 decreased visual              decreased recreation
                             development                 quality of rural or           and tourism quality
                             (particularly               natural landscapes
                             second home)

                                 (Australia, Barbados, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, New
                                 Zealand, Norway, Seychelles, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom)


                        46. tourism development          decreased visual              decreased recreation
                                                         quality of rural or           and tourism quality
                                                         natural landscapes

                                 (Australia, Bahamas,    Barbados, Fiji, France, Greece, Jamaica,
                                 Israel, Mauritius, Poland, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tahiti,
                                 Tanzania, Togo, Western Samoa)



                        J.   Employment and cultural values.


                        47. tourism development          increased salaries in         loss of agricultural
                                                         tourism sector relative       workers, decreased
                                                        Ito other sectors              agricultural
                                                                                       productivity

                                 (Jamaica, Barbados)


                        48. tourism development          erosion of local              resentment and social
                                                         customs and cultural          problems among
                                                         values                        nationals

                                 (Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, Virgin Islands,      Western Samoa)




                        11. HAZARDS



                        1.   Shoreline erosion (naturally occurring)-

                                 (Australia, German Democratic Republic, Guatemala, Japan,
                                 Philippines, Spain, Sri Lanka, Togo, United Kingdom, USSR
                                 (Black Sea), most U.S. states)


                                                                   148







                                                                                       Appendix B



                   2.  Coastal river flooding

                           (China, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Malaysia,
                           Mauritius, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Tanzania, Togo,
                           United Kingdom)


                   3. Storms (wind, wave and water damage)

                           (all Caribbean Islands (particularly those where population is
                           concentrated on low lying shoreline), China, Fiji, Indonesia,
                           Mauritius, Mexico, all inhabited Pacific coral atolls, Pakistan,
                           Philippines, United States (Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Texas))


                   4. Tsunamis


                           (Ecuador, Indonesia, Pakistan, Venezuela, West Indies, United
                           States (Alaska, California, Hawaii))


                   5.  Migrating dunes (cover infrastructure and/or agriculture)

                           (Somalia)




                   III. SECTORAL PLANNING



                   1.  Fisheries development (particularly conversion of artisanal fisheries)

                           (Brazil, Cape Verde Islands, all islands of Commonwealth
                           Caribbean, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan,
                           Seychelles, Tanzania)


                   2.  Natural area protection systems (including marine parks)

                           (Argentina, Australia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia,
                           Ireland, Kenya, Tanzania, United Kingdom, all U.S. coastal
                           states)


                   3.  Water supply (often a function of overdrafting coastal aquifers)

                           (Cape Verde Islands, China (Pearl River Delta), Ethiopia,
                           Guatemala, Guyana, Israel, Morocco (desalinization), Pakistan,
                           Thailand, Togo, Windward and Leeward Islands)






                                                          149








                     Appendix B



                     4.   Recreation development (primarily for residents)

                              (Australia, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden,
                              United Kingdom)


                     5.   Tourism development (particularly potential areas and/or infrastructure
                          needs)

                              (Dominican Republic, Mozambique, Seychelles)


                     6.   Energy development (particularly ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEQ)

                              (Brazil, Chile, Fiji, Hawaii, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Western Samoa)


                     7.   Port development (particularly new ports)

                              (Cape Verde Islands, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, New
                              Zealand, Singapore, Western Samoa)


                     8.   Oil or toxic spill contingency planning

                              (Dominican Republic)


                     9.   Industrial siting (of'ten in conjunction with increasing employment in
                          depressed or impoverished areas)

                              (Finland, Greece, Japan, Nigeria, Sweden, most U.S. states)


                     10. Agricultural development

                              (Belize, Indonesia, Kenya, Surinam)


                     11. Maricultural development (particularly shrimp)

                              (Bangladesh, Ecuador, Indonesia, Mexico, Panama, Philippines,
                              Thailand)




                     IV. COMMENTS

                     The impact chains presented in Part I of this appendix are a reference list.
                     They are not intended to explain cause and effect relationships.        Impact
                     assessment analysts have documented cause and effect relationships in greater
                     detail.  However, such rigorous description often produces more information
                     than is needed f or an index.    Impact issues only need to be described in


                                                           150








                                                                                              Appendix B



                    sufficient detail to distinguish the multiple ways one use activity (whether it is
                    coastal or not) affects a coastal use activity.

                        We list 48 impact issues. We derived the impact issues from a review of
                    the literature cited in the references section. (A few impact issues known to
                    occur in developed nations were not listed because none of the literature
                    mentioned it as a concern. An example is the adverse visual impact of coastal
                    industrial development, such as port facilities and refineries.)

                        There are two important limitations in this list of nations.          One is the
                    number of national descriptions we located. Descriptions were found for only
                    76 of the coastal nations -- less than half the world's total.              A second
                    problem is the sketchy nature of the descriptions.         Adequate information to
                    draw conclusions about issues is available for only about 30 of the 76 coastal
                    nations.    Most information on the other 46 coastal nations listed in this
                    appendix comes from Coastal Area Management and Development (UNOETB,
                    1982a), "Coastal Zone Management" (Mitchell, 1982), Interregional Seminar on
                    Development and Management of Resources of Coastal Areas (Skekielda and
                    Breuer, 1976), Man, Land and Sea (Soysa, Chia, and Collier, 1982), and Marine
                    and Coastal Area Development in the East African Region (UNEP, 1982a).

                        Most lists of coastal issues were an analyst's opinion and were not
                    supported by systematic assessment (such as a review of national literature,
                    interviews, or concerns from a national conference).             In such cases one
                    analyst's list might differ from the opinion of another professional.              The
                    quality of a list of national issues will depend on the expertise, biases,          and
                    knowledge gaps of the individual or the group who makes the compilation.

                        Coastal resources issues may be very real without gaining a significant
                    place on a nation's political agenda. Many nations -- particularly the lower
                    income nations -- may experience adverse impacts on their fisheries yield or
                    community health without this condition being widely recognized. There may
                    be inadequate information about cause and effect relationships. As we use the
                    term, a problem becomes an issue when the government recognizes its
                    existence and places it on the public policy making agenda.

                        Determining the relative importance of issues requires that criteria be set.
                    This in turn raises the political question of who should set the priorities. Two
                    criteria commonly used to determine the degree of importance are the number
                    of people affected and the potential monetary benefits to be derived. Clearly,
                    the rating will depend on the perspective and biases of the evaluator.              For
                    this reason, an attempt should be made to control bias. One approach would
                    be to delegate the task to a national panel representing the spectrum of
                    coastal resource and environmental users, agencies, and scientists.

                        Setting priorities for national issues raises the additional question of
                    whether foreign interests should participate in setting the rating of national
                    issues.   For example, international conservation and scientific organizations
                    such as IUCN and the Pacific Science Congress, as protectors of the world's
                    natural resource heritage, have a legitimate interest in the environments and
                    fauna of all nations.      Both the issues identified and the ratings made by
                    conservation organizations are likely to be quite different from those of some
                    developing nations. For example, preservation of genetic diversity is not likely
                    to be a high priority issue on the public agenda of a developing nation.

                                                              151








                      Appendix B



                         If professionals in international coastal resources management agree that a
                      global coastal issues index should be prepared, the next step would be to
                      survey coastal nations to identify the issues and rank their relative
                      importance.   Several methods could be used to obtain this information, the
                      simplest being a further review of the literature.   Our literature search for
                      this report was not exhaustive. Many additional descriptions (particularly in
                      French and Spanish) of coastal nations' environmental programs are likely to
                      include discussions of coastal issues.

                         Conducting structured surveys is another way to identify and rank issues.
                      We suggest that our global issues list, with some modifications, could be the
                      basis for structuring the survey.    This index can serve as a checklist to
                      determine if a coastal nation has a specific problem or need for scctoral
                      development. Criteria and measures   should be used to assess the extent of the
                      problems.

                         Professional institutions such as Coastal Management Journal, the Coastal
                      Society, the Marine Technology Society, and the International Geophysical
                      Union could undertake a structured survey among their overseas members or
                      collegial counterparts. International assistance agencies -- particularly USAID
                      -- could survey their national missions. In USAID's case, it seems useful to
                      add a section on coastal management issues to the second phase of their
                      country environmental profile series. This has already been done for the first
                      published phase two report, The Dominican Republic Country Environmental
                      Profile, A Field Survey. We hope that this precedent will be continued. If it
                      is, future reports should indicate the relative importance of the coastal issues.

                         Some of the impact issues should be divided into more specific categories.
                      In this way, the effect of each use activity on each other coastal use could be
                      listed separately. For example, we combined port development and offshore
                      shipping of oil in impact issue no. 7.    In turn, the impacts of these issues
                      were combined (decreased fish yields and decreased recreation or tourism
                      quality). In a more thorough treatment, issue no. 7 could become four lists:

                              0    port development - decreased fish yields;

                              0    offshore shipping of oil - decreased fish yields;

                              0    port development - decreased tourism quality; and

                              0    offshore shipping - decreased tourism quality.














                                                            152











                                                  APPENDIX C


                                     AN OUTLINE FOR DESCRIPTIONS OF
                              COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS




                   Setting and Brief Historical Perspective

                           Major coastal environments.

                           Significant coastal resources, value of coastal resources to the nation.

                           Major, ongoing, coastal resource uses and activities.

                           Critical problems of coastal use and activity.



                   Governance Structure

                           Ownership of coastal areas (particularly relative rights of the public
                           and private sector).

                           Governance of coastal areas (legal powers, government organization
                           and procedures).


                   Decision Making

                           Who makes critical decisions?


                           What criteriaiand information are used?

                           What appear to be the major factors that influence decision making?

                           How are decisions implemented and enforced?



                   Evaluation

                           Critical problems being addressed.

                           Critical problems not being addressed.

                           Ability of governance structure and decision making process to address
                           problems.

                           Major implementation problems experienced or anticipated.

                           Prospects for change.








                                                         153










                                                         APPENDIX D


                                  NEED FOR ISSUE-BASED GOVERNANCE ANALYSIS




                     Chapter 8 presented basic concepts about the complexity of the governance
                     arrangements in a nation's coastal zone. This classification fills a void in the
                     literature on institutional complexity in the management of coastal resources.
                     Some literature touches on the factors that create complexity. However, most
                     documents simply list the problems caused by specialization and differentiation
                     in government: fragmentation, gaps in sectoral functions, and overlapping and
                     duplicate sectoral functions. Governance arrangements need to be defined and
                     analyzed more thoroughly by each coastal nation considering initiation of an
                     effort to mount an integrated coastal zone management program.

                         Many states participating in the U.S. coastal management program analyzed
                     their coastal governance arrangement as a first step in program preparation.
                     (This process is often called institutional stock taking.)             A number of
                     developed and developing nations such as the United Kingdom, Australia,
                     Canada, the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia, have conducted
                     institutional analyses.

                         Analyses of the governance arrangement should be issue-based.                  More
                     specifically, the analysis should focus on the most compelling coastal issues
                     that motivate and initiate a coastal management program. Therefore, analyses
                     of governance arrangements should be organized to reflect major issues
                     currently confronting the coastal nation.             For each issue, inputs and
                     intervening factors should be identified.


                     Inputs:

                               0    the laws and policies that affect the issues;

                               0    the   government units       that   are   mandated      to
                                    implement these laws and policies and their specific
                                    responsibilities.


                     Intervening Factors:       (characteristics of the above inputs which in turn
                                                influence the issue)

                               0    gaps in responsibility (e.g., either no government
                                    mandate or a mandate so vague that it cannot be
                                    implemented);

                               0    fragmentation of responsibility among different units
                                    of government;

                               0    overlaps and duplication of effort among competing
                                    units of government;

                               0    conflicts between units of government trying to
                                    achieve their respective mandates.


                                                                155






                        Appendix D



                           A standardized process would assist coastal nations in conducting issue-
                        based governance analyses.    Such an analytic process would also reinforce
                        USAID's program to prepare environmental profiles of nations eligible for its
                        assistance.   For example, the Dominican Republic environmental profile
                        (Hartshorn et al., 1981) presents a rich source of environmental information
                        about the Dominican Republic. However, the report does not clearly show the
                        relationship between the issues and the present governance arrangement for
                        the coastal zone.


                           The environmental profile offers numerous recommendations on various
                        improvements the Dominican Republic could make in laws, governmental
                        arrangements, and management strategies to resolve environmental problems.
                        The content and structure of the analysis, however, is not issue organized and
                        therefore it is difficult -- if not impossible -- to portray an overall set of
                        optional governance arrangements and management strategies that the
                        Dominican Republic could adopt to improve the regulation of its environment.







































                                                              156










                                                        APPENDIX E


                           CLASSIFICATION OF COASTAL GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS




                      There are 136 sovereign and 40 semi-sovereign coastal states. Does this imply
                      that   there   are  there   176 different governance        arrangements    for    the
                      management of coastal resources and environments? Although no two coastal
                      nations will ever have exactly the same governance arrangements, we can
                      identify some major similarities and differences. When governmental tiers and
                      the geographical divisions are added to the array of sectoral 'and functional
                      divisions, significant differences among nations are bound to occur. Organizing
                      governance arrangements into groupings defined by similar attributes should
                      help advance the international practice of integrated coastal zorle management.


                          Several analysts have suggested that national governance arrangements for
                      the management of coastal resources and environments should be classified
                      consistently (Mitchell, 1982; Englander, Feldman, and Hershman, 1977). There
                      are two persuasive reasons why the international assistance community should
                      formulate such a system of classification:

                                0    to provide a framework to comparatively assess
                                     national coastal management efforts;

                                0    to identify pre-conditions for adoption of prograim
                                     components that have met with significant success
                                     (Mitchell, 1982).

                          Our literature review identified just one proposed system for classification
                      of similar governance arrangements.          Mitchell's (1982) chapter in Ocean
                      Yearbook 3, "Coastal Zone Management: A Comparative Analysis of National
                      Programs," suggests three criteria to classify coastal programs:



                                1.   Focus:


                                     coastal-specific missions to deal with substantive
                                     systematic problems (Sri Lanka's approach is given
                                     as the example);


                                                             or


                                     coastal management as merely one task of an
                                     agency with broad functional responsibilities such as
                                     land use planning or national economic development
                                     (United Kingdom's approach is given as the
                                     example);


                                2.   Strength of national control:

                                     relatively weak national control; high levels of
                                     regional or local governmental control; variable
                                     program content and opportunities for public

                                                                157






                            Appendix E



                                          participation (the U.S. approach is given as the
                                          example);
                                                                   or --


                                          strong national control; use of formally specified
                                          management systems with mandatory components and
                                          limited public participation (the French approach is
                                          given as the example).



                                     3.   Orientation:


                                          policy orientation primarily to enhance economic
                                          development goals and mitigate national hazards
                                          (Japan's approach is given as the example);


                                                                 -- or --


                                          policy orientation toward environmental preservation
                                          and a tendency to stress amenity considerations (the
                                          United Kingdom's approach is given as the example).



                                Our literature review confirms that these dimensions are important factors
                            that shape coastal management programs.          They produce an eight division
                            classification as shown in Figure E.I.

                               The eight classes appear to be a workable set, and examples for most of
                            them can be readily identified. The real test of the classification is whether
                            all the world's coastal nations will readily fit into the category, "nations with
                            coastal specific programs."    In fact, the utility of Mitchell's classification is
                            limited. The vast majority of coastal nations do not have a "coastal specific"
                            program, so they do not fit into this framework.

                                We have identified about seven nations and 25 subnational units that have
                            established programs specifically designed to manage coastal resources and
                            environments in an integrated fashion. Our literature review confirms the fact
                            that a very great majority of the world's coastal nations either:

                                    0     do not have a national, state, or regional program
                                          with    particular    regard    for    the     integrated
                                          management of coastal resources or environments,


                                                                 -- or


                                    0     regard    the   integrated   management     of    coastal
                                          resources and environments as a component of
                                          another governmental program such as land use or
                                          environmental planning.

                               We propose a revised classification to reflect the reality that all coastal
                            nations manage one or more coastal resources. Our classification recognizes


                                                                     158






                                                                                                                                                           Appendix E



                                                    Figure EJ: Mitchell's Typology of Governance Arrangements


                                                                                                    1.          coastal specif 1c,
                                                                economic                                        strong national structure,
                                                    rw        orientation ---- o-                               economic orientation
                                                                                                                (e.g., France)
                                        strong
                              __10.     national
                                        structure                                                   2.          coastal specif ic,
                                                                environ-                                        strong national structure,
                                                    L*          mental                       ---- 10,           environmental orientation
                                                                orientation                                     (e.g., Sri Lanka)
                       coastal
                       specif ic
                                                                                                    3.          coastal specif 1c,
                                                                economic                                        weak national structure,
                                                    rp-         orientation ---- economic orientation
                                                                                                                (e.g., Philippines)
                                        weak
                                        national
                                        structure                                                   4.          coastal specif ic,
                                                                environ-                                        weak national structure,
                                                    Lo.         mental                       ---- b.            environmental orientation
                                                                orientation                                     (e.g., U.S.A.)


                                                                                                    5.          not coastal specific,
                                                                economic                                        strong, national structure,
                                                    ro,.        orientation ---- economic orientation
                                                                                                                (most developing nations)
                                        strong
                                        national
                                        structure                                                   6.          not coastal specific,
                                                                environ-                                        strong national structure,
                                                    Lo.         mental                       ---- b.            environmental orientation
                                                                orientation                                     (e.g., United Kingdom)
                       not
                       coastal
                       specif ic                                                                    7.          not coastal specific,
                                                                economic                                        weak national structure,
                                                    r-10-       orientation ---- i-                             economic orientation
                                                                                                                (e.g., Malaysia)
                                        weak
                                        national
                                        structure                                                   8.          not coastal specific,
                                                                environ-                                        weak national structure,
                                                    Ll.         mental                       ---- 10.           environmental orientation
                                                                orientation                                     (e.g., Canadian provinces)




                                                                                                                                     (Source: Mitchell, 1982)

                                                                                                       159







                           Appendix E



                           both the global paucity of programs for integrated coastal resources
                           management and      the ubiquity of non-coastal specific management programs.
                           This classif ication is illustrated by Table E.I.

                              A comparative    assessment of institutional arrangements should capture and
                           reveal the main    factors affecting the ability of the governance process to
                           achieve program objectives (e.g., maintain sustained-yield of a fishery or
                           reduce degradation of resources).

                              We posc this question:      Does the classification which sets out the eight
                           types of arrangements displayed in Figure E.1 meet this criterion? Our review
                           of the literature strongly suggests that the main features of coastal
                           governance are:

                                    0     divisions   caused    by    sectoral   planning    and
                                          development of coastal resources and environments;
                                          and

                                    0     integrated planning efforts to counteract the effects
                                          of sectoral divisions.

                              Type I   in our classification is sectoral planning and development with little
                           or no integration to connect the sectors.       Many developing nations fit into
                           this category.

                              Type 2 is an improvement: sectoral planning integrated by planning efforts
                           that do not single out coastal resources or environments for special attention.
                           The three most common strategies for integrated planning of this type are
                           national economic planning, land use or town and @ountry planning, and
                           environmental impact assessment.         Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
                           Poland, Sweden and Singapore exemplify the Type 2 institutional arrangement
                           in developed countries. Chile, Fiji, Mexico and Venezuela are examples of
                           developing nations in this category.

                              Type 3 consists of sectoral planning integrated by programs that do make a
                           special coastal distinction.   The strategies used to accomplish this integration
                           -- such as national economic development or land use planning and control --
                           include special policies, guidelines, or some other programmatic component to
                           address coastal resources or environments. Examples include ad hoc guidelines
                           for land use plans prepared for the coast or environmental guidelines for
                           projects along the coast. Examples of nations using the Type 3 approach are
                           Cyprus, France, Norway, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

                              A higher level of effort for coastal resources management is reflected in
                           Type 4: sectoral planning integrated by a coastal management program. A
                           formal coastal zone management program, designated by the appropriate
                           legislative authority, is the only major form of integrated sectoral planning.
                           States participating in the U.S. Coastal Zone Management program exemplify
                           this approach.

                              Finally, Type 5 consists of sectoral planning integrated by a coastal zone
                           management program, and reinforced with another management strategy, such



                                                                    160





                                                                                                Appendix E




                                       Table E.1: Coastal Governance     Arrangements

                                                             1.          2.            3.             4.


                                                                         Inte-          Inte-
                                                                         grated         grated
                                                                         Planning       Planning
                                                                         With No        With           Inte-
                                                                         Partic-        Partic-        grated
                                                          Sectoral       ular           ular           Coastal
                Types of                                  Planning       Regard         Regard         Zone
                Governance                                and            For the        For the        Manage-
                Arrangements                              Develop-       Coastal        Coastal        ment
                                                          ment           Zone           Zone           Program



                TYPE ONE


                Many, if not most,                           X
                developing nations


                TYPE TWO


                Most developed nations
                (e.g., Japan, Netherlands,
                New Zealand, Poland,
                Sweden, Singapore)                           X               X

                Many developing nations
                (e.g., Chile, Fiji,
                Mexico, Venezuela)



                TYPE THREE


                (e.g., Cyprus, France,                                                      X
                Norway, Thailand, the
                United Kingdom)



                TYPE FOUR
                                                                                                           X
                (e.g., United States)



                TYPE FIVE


                (e.g., Brazil, Costa Rica,
                Ecuador, Greece, Israel,                                     X                             X
                New South Wales, Queens-
                land, Sri Lanka, South
                Australia)




                                                               161






                        Appendix E



                        as national economic development. Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Greece, Israel,
                        New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Sri Lanka are examples.




































                                                                                                               I




















                                                              162










                                                      APPENDIX F


                                   STEPS IN A FACILITATED POLICY DIALOGUE
                                             OR MEDIATED NEGOTIATION




                     Facilitated or mediated dispute resolution processes are proccdurally complex,
                     yet the many steps in the process are intended to produce agreements that are
                     better informed and more fair, efficient, and durable than "solutions" that
                     might be imposed by a single agency.        Here, 11 steps are summarized that
                     might compose mediated negotiation or a policy dialogue (after Fisher and Ury,
                     1981; Susskind and McCreary, 1985; Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987).            Also
                     listed are some questions that may need to be addressed in designing a policy
                     dialogue or mediation process.


                        1.    Entry of the Nonpartisan Intervenor

                              How is "help" triggered?     Who should ask f or help?       Should the
                              convenor be an expert in mediation techniques, an expert in the issues
                              at hand, or both?    Should the nonpartisan party be appointed by a
                              high government official, or even the President or Prime Minister, or
                              should the third party come forward as a volunteer intervenor? Who
                              pays for the services of the third party?


                        2.    Choosing Representatives

                              Which parties should participate?      Only government agencies with
                              conflicting policy goals?       Users of coastal resources?          Non-
                              governmental organizations? Multinational corporations with interests
                              in coastal resources? Bilateral or multilateral lending institutions? By
                              what criteria are parties determined to have a legitimate stake in the
                              issues?  Which spokespersons should represent the interests?    In other
                              words, which interests, and which spokespersons should participate in
                              the process?


                        3.    Setting the Agenda

                              Which policy issues, regulatory standards, or site-specific use conflicts
                              should be discussed?    Is there a specific order in which these issues
                              should be taken up?     Are certain issues linked in such a way that
                              they should be considered together?       What's the schedule for the
                              discussions? Is there a deadline?


                                   What are the ground rules? Who convenes the meetings and who
                              chairs them? How are uncooperative parties dealt with? What kind
                              of communication is there between negotiators and their constituents
                              during the process?






                                                             163







                         Appendix F



                            4.    Joint Fact-f Inding

                                  What dimensions of the natural systems and technology are in dispute?
                                  What data and analysis might help clarify these issues? Do the parties
                                  each have the capability to understand technical material? How can
                                  unequal capability be addressed? Is a resource pool needed?


                            5.    Invention of Options

                                  What responses can be generated to the problems at hand?               Should
                                  contingent options be considered to account for different sets of
                                  future events? Should the mediator be asked to invent options?


                            6.    Packaging of Options

                                  Are there enough issues on the table to make trades possible?             Are
                                  there interdependent issues under discussion so bargaining can lead to
                                  a positive sum outcome? Are parties willing to give something up to
                                  get something else in exchange? Should the mediator invent specific
                                  compromise proposals?        Should parties develop entire competing
                                  proposals, or work on single text of an agreement and negotiate each
                                  portion of it?


                            7.    Signing a Written Agreement

                                  Can negotiators speak for their constituents? Are they willing to sign
                                  a negotiated agreement?


                            8.    Selling the Agreement Among the Constituency

                                  Did the negotiator for a given interest come away from the table with
                                  an agreement acceptable to the people he or she represents?           Will it
                                  have to be revised slightly to be acceptable "back home"?


                            9.    Ratif Ication


                                  Are some last-minute revisions needed to meet the requirements
                                  discovered in the previous step?          How can a written, but still
                                  informal, agreement be linked to more formal mechanisms?                 What
                                  legislation, contracts, covenants, or interagency agreements need to be
                                  signed?


                            10.   Monitoring and Evaluation

                                  How will parties be held to their written promises?           If there were
                                  contingent clauses in the agreement, did forecasted events materialize
                                  or not? Should the negotiators automatically reconvene after a fixed
                                  period of time?

                                                                   164







                                                                                     Appendix F




                       11. Remediation

                            Should an updated agreement be negotiated later if conditions change?














































                                                                                                       I





                                                         165










                                         REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY




                        Adams, J.    1973. Proposition 20:    A citizen's campaign.    Syracuse Law
                            Review 24(3):1019-1046.

                        Adams, T. 1964. First World Conference on National Parks. Washington,
                            D.C.: U.S. Department of Interior.

                        Aderounmu, A. 1976. Nigeria. In Interregional seminar on development and
                            management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                            Breuer, 213-217.  West Berlin:    German Foundation for International
                            Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                            Of f ice.


                        Adulavidhaya, K., Sanit, A., Chindai, S., Rowchai, S., and Rougrujipimon, C.
                            1982.  Thailand:    Use and development of mangrove and fisheries
                            resources. In Man, land, and sea: Coastal resource use and management
                            In Asia and the Pacific, edited by C.H. Soysa, C.L. Chia, and W.L.
                            Collier, 273-296. Bangkok: Agricultural Development Council.

                        Ahmed, Y., ed.      1982.   Coastal tourism.     Environmental Management
                            Guidelines Series. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Program.

                        Akaha, T. 1984. Conservation of the environment of the Seto Inland Sea:
                            A policy response under uncertainty. Coastal Zone Management Journal
                            12(l):83-137.

                        Al-Abbar, F. 1976. Kuwait. In Interregional seminar on development and
                            management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                            Breuer, 189-194.   West Berlin:   German Foundation for International
                            Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                            Of f ice.

                        Al-Gain, A., Clark, J., and Chif f ings, T.   1987. A coastal management
                            program f or the Saudi Arabian Red Sea coast.       In Coastal Zone '97,
                            Proceedings of the Fif th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management,
                            vol. 1, 1673-1681. New York: America Society of Civil Engineers.

                        Allen, T., and Cooney, S. 1973. Institutional roles in technology transfer:
                            a diagnosis of the situation in one small country.         Research and
                            Development Management 4(l):41-51.

                        Allen, T., and Meyer, A. 1982. Technical communication among scientists
                            and engineers in four organizations in Sweden: Results of a pilot study.
                            Working Paper WP 1318-82.         Cambridge, MA:        Sloan School of
                            Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

                        Alvarez, J., and Alvarez, S. 1984. Conceptos basicos sobre manejo costero.
                            Argentina: Instituo de Pulicaciones Naveales.

                        Alwis, L. 1982. River basin development and protected areas in Sri Lanka.
                            Paper presented at the World National Parks Congress, October 11-12,
                            1982, Bali, Indonesia.


                                                            167






                           References and Bibliography



                               Amarasinghe, S., and Wickremeratne, H.               1983.     The evolution and
                                  implementation of legislation for coastal zone management in a
                                  developing country: The Sri Lankan experience. In Coastal Zone '83,
                                  Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management,
                                  vol. 3, 2822-2841. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                               Amarasinghe, S., Wickremeratne, H., and Lowry, K.              1987. Coastal zone
                                  management in Sri Lanka 1978-1986 Appendix. In Coastal Zone 187,
                                  Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management,
                                  vol. 2, 1995-2006. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                               Amir, S.     1984.    Israel's coastal program:      Resource protection through
                                  management of land use. Coastal Zone Management Journal 12(2/3):189-
                                  224.


                               Argentina, government of, the Organization of American States and United
                                  Nations Environment Program. 1978. Environmental quality and river
                                  basin development:        A model for integrated analysis and planning.
                                  Washington D.C.: Secretary General, Organization of American States.

                               Armstrong, J., Bissell, H., Davenport, R., Goodman, J., Hershman, M., and
                                  Sorensen, J. 1974. Coastal zone management: The process of program
                                  development. Sandwich, MA: Coastal Zone Management Institute.

                               ASEAN Experts Group on the Environment. 1983. General guidelines on
                                  the development and management of coastal areas, Document no. 21.
                                  Sixth Meeting of ASEAN Experts Group on the Environment, March 22-
                                  24, Jakarta, Indonesia.

                               Ashbaugh, J., and Sorensen, J.            1976.     Identifying the "Public" for
                                  participation in coastal zone management.            Coastal Zone Management
                                  Journal 2(4):383-411.

                               Australia, House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Environment
                                  and Conservation.       1980.    Report on management of the Australian
                                  coastal zone. Canberra: Australia Government Publication Service.


                               Ayon, H.     1988. Grandes rasgos geomorfologicos de la costa Ecuatoriana.
                                  Ecuador: Fundacion Pedro Vicente Maldonado.


                               Aziaha, Y.     1976.    Togo.    In Interregional seminar on development and
                                  management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                                  Breuer, 235-242.      West Berlin:     German Foundation for International
                                  Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                                  Of f ice.


                               Bacon, P.R., Deane, C.A., and Putney, A.D. 1988. A workbook of practical
                                  exercises In coastal zone management for tropical Islands.                 London:
                                  Commonwealth Science Council.


                               Bahamas, government of. 1976. Planning guidelines for the control             of land
                                  use and development in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.                    Nassan:
                                  Government Printing Office.


                                                                       168







                                                                                    References and Bibliography



                            Baker, D. 1976. Barbados. In Interregional seminar on development and
                                management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                                Breuer, 39-61.      West Berlin:       German Foundation for International
                                Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                                Of f ice.


                            Baines, G. 1987. Coastal area management in the South Pacific Islands. In
                                Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
                                Ocean Management, vol. 1, 1682-1695. New York: American Society of
                                Civil Engineers.

                            Baldwin, M.F. 1988. Environmental laws and institutions of Sri Lanka. An
                                assessment for USAID, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

                            Banta, J. 1978. The coastal commission and state conflict and cooperation.
                                In Protecting the golden shore, edited by R. Healy, 97-131. Washington,
                                D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.


                            Barnes, J.     1984.   Non-governmental organizations:          Increasing the global
                                perspective. Marine Policy 8(2):171-197.

                            Beller, W., ed.      1979.   Transactions at the Conference on Environmental
                                Management and Economic Growth In the Smaller Caribbean Islands.
                                Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State.

                            Biney, C. 1987. Combating coastal pollution in Ghana. In Coastal Zone
                                187, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
                                Management, vol. 1, 960-969. New York: American Society of Civil
                                Engineers.

                            Bird, E., and Ongkosongo, 0. 1981. Environmental changes on the coasts
                                of Indonesia.       NRTS-12/UNUP-197.            Tokyo:     The United Nations
                                University.

                            Birke, P., and Roeseler, W.          1983.    State response to the Coastal Zone
                                Management Act of 1972.            In   Coastal Zone '83, Proceedings of the
                                Third Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 206-225.
                                New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                            Biswas, A., and Geping, Q., eds. 1987. Environmental impact assessment in
                                developing countries. London: Tycooly.

                            Blair, D.      1979.    Coastal resource management In the Gulf of Nicoya.
                                Seattle: Institute for Marine Studies, University of Washington.

                            Borgese, E., and Ginsburg, N., eds.            1982.   Ocean Yearbook 3. Chicago:
                                University of Chicago Press.

                            Boule, M., Olmsted, E., and Miller,            T.     1983.    Inventory of wetland
                                resources and evaluation of wetland        management in western Washington.
                                Prepared for the Washington Department of Ecology. Seattle: Shapiro
                                and Associates.




                                                                      169







                            References and Bibliography



                                Brazil, Comissao Interministerial para os Recursos do Mar. 1980. Politica
                                   nacional para los recursos do mar. Brasilia: Interministerial Commission
                                   on Ocean Resources.


                                Brazil, Comissao Interministerial para os Recursos do Mar.                  1981.     Ano
                                   setorial para los recursos do mar (1982-1995). Brasilia: Interministerial
                                   Commission on Ocean Resources.

                                Briggs, D., and Hansom, J. 1982. Potential role of ecological mapping in
                                   coastal zone management in Europe. Ekistics 293 (March-April): 114-118.

                                Broadus, J., Pires, L, Gaines, A., Bailey, C., Knecht, R., and Cicin-Sain.
                                   1984.    Coastal and marine resources management for the Galapagos
                                   Islands. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report WH01-
                                   84-43. Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

                                Broadus, J. 1985. Poor fish of Rendondo! Managing the Galapagos waters.
                                   Oceanus 28(l):95-99.

                                Brower, D., and Carol, D., eds. 1987. Managing land use conflicts: Case
                                   studies in special area management.            Durham, NC:         Duke University
                                   Press.


                                Brown, L., Brewtun, J.L., Evans, T.J., McGowen, J.H., White, W.A., Groat,
                                   C.G., and Fisher, W.L. 1980. Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas
                                   coastal zone: Brownsville-Harlingen area.              Austin, TX:        Bureau of
                                   Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin.

                                Caballero, H.        1976.     Monografia - de las costas de Honduras.                  In
                                   Interregional seminar on development and management of resources                    of
                                   coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B. Breuer, 119-133.                      West
                                   Berlin:     German Foundation for International Development and the
                                   United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology Office.

                                California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions. 1975. California coastal
                                   plan. Sacramento: State of California Documents and Publications.

                                California Public Resources Code Section 30000 et. s6q. The Coastal Act of
                                   1976.


                                Caldwell, L.     1985.    International environmental policy:         Emergency and
                                   dimensions. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

                                Calvo, G.     1988.    The coastal and marine areas of Uruguay.                  Master's
                                   thesis, Nova University, Dania, Florida.

                                Camhis, M., and Coccossis, H.           1982.   The national coastal management
                                   program of Greece. Ekistics 293:131-138.

                                Cambers, G. 1987. Coastal zone management programmes in Barbados and
                                   Grenada. In Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on
                                   Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 1384-1394. New York: American
                                   Society of Civil Engineers.


                                                                         170







                                                                                References and Bibliography




                          Canadian Council of Resources and Environment Ministers.                          1979.
                             Proceedings of the Shore Management Symposium, October 11-15, 1978,
                             Victoria, British Columbia. Toronto: CCREM.

                          Carlberg, E., and Grip K.         1982.   Coastal policy in Sweden:          Use and
                             protection of marine resources. Ekistics 293:137-142.

                          Center for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rhode Island. 1980.
                             Comparative marine policy:          Perspectives from Europe, Scandinavia,
                             Canada, and the United States. New York: Praeger Special Studies.

                          Chaguer, A. 1976. Morocco. In Interregional seminar on development and
                             management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                             Breuer, 201-211.      West Berlin:     German Foundation for International
                             Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                             Of f ice.


                          Chapman, V. 1974. Coastal lands management in New Zealand. Coastal
                             Zone Management Journal 1(3):333-348.

                          Chaverri, R. 1989. Coastal management: the Costa Rican Experience. In
                             Coastal Zone 187, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
                             Ocean Management, vol. 5, 5273-5294. New York: American Society of
                             Civil Engineers.

                          Chua, T., and Paw, J. 1987. Aquaculture development and coastal zone
                             management in Southeast Asia:            Conflicts and complementarity.           In
                             Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
                             Ocean Management, vol. 2, 2007-2021. New York: American Society of
                             Civil Engineers.

                          Clark, J.    1978.    Natural science and coastal planning:          The Calif ornia
                             experience.     In Protecting the golden shore, edited by R. Healy, 177-
                             208. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.

                          Clark, J. 1983. Paper on wetlands for the global Issues work group, draft.
                             Washington, D.C.:        U.S. National Park Service, International Affairs
                             Unit.


                          Clark, J., ed.     1985.   Coastal resources management:          Development case
                             studies, Coastal Publication no. 3., Renewable Resources Information
                             Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Agency
                             for International Development.

                          Clark, J. and McCreary, S.         1987.    Estuarine Sanctuaries.      In Managing
                             land-use conflicts: Case studies in special area management, edited by
                             D. Brower, and D. Carol. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

                          Clark, J., McCreary, S., and Snedaker, S.          1988. Prospects for Integrated
                             coastal resources management In West Africa. Miami, FL: University of
                             Miami.






                                                                  171







                         References and Bibliography



                             Coastal Area Management and Planning Network.                1989.    The status of
                                integrated coastal zone management:           A global assessment.        Summary
                                report of a workshop convened at Charleston, South Carolina,             July 4-9,
                                Rosensteil School of Marine Sciences, University of Miami.

                             Coastal States Organization.         1981.     Coastal management:          A sound
                                investment.     A position paper on future funding for the coastal zone
                                management program. Seattle: Coastal States Organization.

                             Comal, S.      1976.   India.   In Interregional seminar on development and
                                management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                                Breuer, 135-141.      West Berlin:     German Foundation for International
                                Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                                Of f ice.


                             Conservation Foundation.        1980.   Coastal zone management -- 1980:             A
                              I context for debate. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.

                             Cragg, S.    1982. Coastal resources and the UMBOI Logging Project:                 An
                                environmental impact study. Port Moresby, Papua, New Guinea: Forest
                                Products Research Center, Office of Forest, Department of Primary
                                Industry.

                             Craine, L.     1971.    Institutions for managing lakes and bays.             Natural
                                Resources Journal 11(3):523-546.

                             Cuenya, B. and Hardoy. J. 1981. Legal, regulatory, and Institutional aspects
                                of environmental and natural resource management In developing
                                countries: A country case study of Venezuela. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                                Agency for International Development and National Park Service Natural
                                Resource Project.

                             Cullen, P.     1977.   Coastal management in Port Phillip.            Coastal Zone
                                Management Journal 3(3):291-305.

                             Cullen, P.     1982.  Coastal zone management in Australia.            Coastal Zone
                                Management Journal 10(3):183-211.

                             Cullen, P.     1984.  The heritage coast programme in England and Wales.
                                Coastal Zone Management Journal 12(2/3):225-257.

                             Cullen, P. 1987.' Coastal resource management and planning. Australian
                                Planner 25(3):10-12.

                             Dalf elt, A.    1982.    The role of international assistance organizations
                                promoting effective management of protected areas. Paper presented at
                                the World National Parks Congress, October 11-12, 1982, Bali, Indonesia.

                             Davoren, W. 1982. Tragedy of the San Francisco Bay commons. Coastal
                                Zone Management Journal 9(2):Ill-153.

                             Dehart, G., and Glazer, M. 1980. Improved coordination for planning and
                                permitting in special areas: A report to the President for the Federal
                                Coastal Program. Second draft.

                                                                    172







                                                                              References and Bibliography



                         DuBois, R. 1985. Coastal fisheries management lessons learned from the
                            Caribbean. In Coastal resources management: Development case studies,
                            291-362.     Coastal Management Publication No. 3, NPS/All) Series.
                            Washington, D.C.:      U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Agency for
                            International Development.

                         DuBois, R., Berry, L., and Ford, R. 1985.           Catchment land use and its
                            implications for coastal resources conservation.          In Coastal resources
                            management:      Development case studies, 444-503. Coastal Management
                            Publication No. 3, NPS/AID Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National
                            Park Service and U.S. Agency for International Development

                         DuBois, R., and Towle, E.L.         1985.   Coral harvesting and sand mining
                            management practices. In Coastal resources management:               Development
                            case studies, 203-283. Coastal Management Publication No. 3, NPS/AID
                            Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Park Service and            U.S. Agency
                            for International Development

                         Duddleson, W.     1978. How the citizens of California saved           their coastal
                            management program.         In Protecting the golden shore, edited by R.
                            Healy, 3-64. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.

                         Dyer, D. 1972. California beach access: The Mexican law and the public
                            trust. Ecology Law Quarterly 2:571-611.

                         Ecuador, Ministerio de Energia y Minas. 1988. Structure and objectives of
                            a coastal resources management program for Ecuador and a manifesto In
                            support of the program.         Guayaquil:     Government of Ecuador, The
                            Coastal Resources Center at the University of Rhode Island, U.S. Agency
                            for International Development.

                         Ecuador, Armada y Las Naci nes         Unidas. 1983. Ordenacion y desarrollo
                            Integral de las zonas costeras. Proceedings of a seminar convened May
                            18-27, 1981, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

                         Elliott, H.   1974. Second World       Conference on National Parks. Morges,
                            Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
                            Natural Resources.


                         Englander, E., Feldman, J., and Hershman, M. 1977. Coastal zone problems:
                            A basis for evaluation. Coastal Zone Management Journal 3(3):217-236.

                         Esman, M.      1978.    Developing and managing institutions for industrial
                            development.      New York:        United Nations Industrial Development
                            Organization.

                         Ewen, L.     1981. Institutional problems in the future management of the
                            California coastal resource program. In Coastal Zone 183, Proceedings of
                            the Third Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 252-271.
                            New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.






                                                                173







                          References and Bibliography



                              Finn, D.     1983.    Conserving the coastal and marine resources of East
                                 Africa. In Coastal Zone 183, Proceedings of the Third Symposium on
                                 Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 2, 1823-1839. New York: American
                                 Society of Civil Engineers.

                              Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1981. Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

                              France, Interministerial Committee for Regional Development and Planning.
                                 1972. The Picard report. Paris.

                              France, Ministry of the Environment.              1980.    French coastal policy.
                                 Ekistics 293:128-130, translated from Notes Vertes No. 13, Actions
                                 Nouvelles (November 1980).

                              Gamman, J., and McCreary, S. 1988. Suggestions for integrating EIA and
                                 economic development in the Caribbean region. Environmental Impact
                                 Assessment Review 8(l):43-60.

                              Gamman, J., Towers, S., and Sorensen, J. 1974. Federal Involvement In the
                                 California coastal zone: A topical Index to agency responsibility. San
                                 Diego: Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California.

                              Gamman, J., Towers, S. and Sorensen, J. 1975. State involvement in the
                                 California coastal zone: A topical index to agency responsibility.              San
                                 Diego: Institute of Marine Resources, University of California.

                              Garnier, E.    1976.    Haiti.   In Interregional seminar on development and
                                 management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                                 Breuer, 113-117.      West Berlin:     German Foundation for International
                                 Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                                 Off ice.


                              Gentry, C.      1982.    Small scale beekeeping.        Peace Corps Information
                                 Collection and Exchange, Manual M-17.                Washington, D.C.:         U.S.
                                 Government Printing Office.

                              Goldberg, E. 1976. The health of the ocean. Paris: UNESCO.

                              Goodland, R.       1981.     Indonesia's environmental progress in economic
                                 development.       Bogor, Indonesia:         Center for Natural Resource
                                 Management and Environmental Studies, Bogor Agricultural University.

                              Goodland, R.       1982.    Environmental requirements of the World Bank,
                                 including wetland conservation. Paper presented at the World National
                                 Parks Congress, October 11-12, 1982, Bali, Indonesia.

                              Great Britain, Countryside Commission.            1970.     The planning of the
                                 coastline. A report of a study of coastal preservation and development
                                 in England and Wales. London: Her Majesty's Printing Office.

                              Grenell, P. 1988. The once and future experience of the California Coastal
                                 Conservancy. Coastal Management Journal 16(l):13-21.



                                                                     174







                                                                                      References and Bibliography



                            Gruppe, H., and Ofosu-Amaah, W. 1981. Legal, regulatory and Institutional
                                aspects of environmental and natural resource management In developing
                                countries: A country study of Ghana. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency
                                for International Development and National Park Service Natural
                                Resource Project.

                            Gruppe, H., and Ofosu-Amaah, W. 1981. Legal, regulatory, and institutional
                                aspects of environmental and natural resources management in developing
                                countries: A country study of Malaysia. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency
                                for International Development and National Park Service Natural
                                Resource Project.

                            Gusman, S. 1981. Policy Dialogue. Resolve Newsletter.

                            Gwynnc, M. 1982. The global environmental monitoring system (GEMS) of
                                UNEP. Environmental Conservation 9(l):35-41.

                            Hall, D. 1987. Maritime planning in New Zealand. In Coastal Zone '87,
                                Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management,
                                vol. 1, 30-44. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                            Hamilton, L. and Snedakcr, S.             1984.    Mangrove management handbook.
                                Honolulu: The East-West Center.

                            Hanson, A., and Koesoebiono.               1979.     Settling coastal swamplands in
                                Sumatra:       A case study for integrated resource management.                        In
                                Developing economics and the environment:                    The Southeast Asian
                                experience, 121-175. New York: McGraw-Hill.

                            Harrison, P., and Sewell, W.            1979.    Shoreline management: The French
                                approach. Coastal Zone Management Journal 5(3):61-180.

                            Harrison, P., and Parkes, M., cds. 1983. Theme issue: Coastal management
                                in Canada. Coastal Zone Management Journal 11(1/2):148.

                            Hartshorn, G., Antonini, G., Dubois, R., Harcharik, Heckadon, S., Newton,
                                H., Quesada, C., Shores, J., and            Staples, G.      1981.    The Dominican
                                Republic: Country environmental profile, a field study. Prepared for
                                U.S. Agency for International Development.                 Washington, D.C.:         U.S.
                                Government Printing Office.

                            Hayden, B., Dolan, R., and Ray, G. 1982. A system of marine biophysical
                                provinces for conservational purposes.             Paper presented at the World
                                National Parks Congress, October 11-12, 1982, Bali, Indonesia.

                            Hayden, W., and Dolan, R. 1976. Classification of coastal environments of
                                the world. Charlottesville, VA: Department of Environmental Sciences,
                                University of Virginia.

                            Hayes, M.        1985.     Beach Erosion.        In Coastal resources management:
                                Development case studies, 67-190. Coastal Management Publication No.
                                3, NPS/AID Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Park Service and
                                U.S. Agency for International Development


                                                                        175







                           References and Bibliography



                              Healy, R., ed.         1978.   Protecting the golden shore:          Lessons from the
                                  California Coastal Commissions. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation
                                  Foundation.


                              Hershman, M.        1980. Coastal zone management in the United States: A
                                  characterization.      In Comparative marine policy:            Perspectives f rom
                                  Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States,             57-64. New York:
                                  Praeger Special Studies.

                              Herz, R. 1987. A regional program on coastal monitoring and management
                                  of mangroves in Brazil. In Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fif th
                                  Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 2, 2262-2268. New
                                  York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                              Hewson, C., Malele, F., and Muller, P. 1979. Coastal area management in
                                  Western Samoa.         In Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal Area
                                  Development and Management In the Pacific, edited by M. Valencia, 113-
                                  115. Honolulu: East-West Center and the University of Hawaii.

                              Hildreth, R.      1975.    Coastal land use control in Sweden.             Coastal Zone
                                  Management Journal 2(l):1-29.

                              Hildreth, R.      1987.    EEZ governance in Australia, Canada, The United
                                  States, and New Zealand. In Coastal Zone 187, Proceedings of the Fifth
                                  Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 4, 3414-3429. New
                                  York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                              Hildreth, R., and Johnson, R. 1983. Coastal zone management on the west
                                  coast:   An evaluation.      In Coastal Zone '83, Proceedings of the Third
                                  Symposium on Coastal Ocean Management, vol. 3, 231-251. New York:
                                  American Society of Civil Engineers.

                              Hillary, A. 1987.        The International Network:           A solution for marine
                                  protected area management.          In Coastal Zone 187, Proceedings of the
                                  Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 3, 3601-3605.
                                  New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                              Holland, M.        1982.    Kuwait waterfront project:(           An interdisciplinary
                                  approach to design. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference
                                  of the Coastal Society, 53-60. October 11-14, 1981, Galveston.

                              Horberry, J.      1983.    Environmental guidelines survey.          Washington, D.C.:
                                  International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
                                  and the International Institute for Environment and Development.

                              Horberry, J.        1984.    Status and application of environmental impact
                                  assessment for development.             Draf t paper.         Gland, Switzerland:
                                  Conservation      Development       Center,     International    Union      for    the
                                  Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.


                              Horberry, J., and Johnston, B.             1981.    Environmental performance of
                                  consulting organizations in development aid.                    Washington, D.C.:
                                  International Institute for Environment and Development.


                                                                        176







                                                                                     References and Bibliography



                           Hulm, P.      1983. A strategy for the seas: The Regional Seas Programme
                               past and future. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Program.

                           Hultmark, E.         1982.     On effective coordination of marine resources
                               development within new areas. Working paper prepared for the Expert
                               Group Meeting on Institutional Arrangements for Marine Resource
                               Development. New York: United Nations.

                           lbe, A. 1987. Collective response to erosion along the Nigerian coastline.
                               In Coastal Zone 187, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
                               Ocean Management, vol. 1, 741-754. New York: American Society of
                               Civil Engineers.

                           Indonesia National Planning Agency and the Canadian International
                               Development Agency. 1988. Action plan for sustainable development of
                               Indonesia's marine and coastal resources. Jakarta:                Indonesia National
                               Planning Agency.

                           Inoue, S. 1984. Urban coastal zone and port development in Japan. Coastal
                               Zone Management Journal 12(l):57-83.

                           International Institute for Environment and Development.                     1981.     Legal,
                               regulatory, and Institutional aspects of environmental and natural
                               resource management in developing countries. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                               Agency for International Development and U.S. National Park Service
                               Project.

                           International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
                               1980.     World conservation strategy:          Living resources for sustainable
                               development. Commission on Ecology Papers, Number 3. Prepared in
                               cooperation with United Nations Environment Program.                              Gland,
                               Switzerland.


                           International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
                               1982. IUCN's contribution to the formulation of the Action Plan for the
                               Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of
                               the East Africa Region. Submitted to UNEP's Regional Seas Activity
                               Center, Gland, Switzerland.

                           Ireland, Bord Failte Eireann and An Foras Forbatha.                       1972.     National
                               coastline study, 3 volumes. Dublin: An Foras Forbatha.

                           Israel, Ministry of the Interior Planning Section.                 1978.     The national
                               outline scheme for the Mediterranean coast. Tel Aviv.


                           IUCN. See International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
                               Resources.


                           Juda, L.       1987.     The exclusive economic zone and ocean management.
                               Ocean Development and International Law 18:305-331.

                           Juda, L., and Burroughs, R. 1990. The prospects for comprehensive ocean
                               management. Marine Policy 14:23-35.


                                                                       177







                          References and Bibliography



                              Jakobsen, P., Tougaard, N., and Larsen, K. 1987. Copenhagen metropolitan
                                  region-coast erosion management. In Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of
                                  the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 2, 1659-
                                  1672. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                              Jayewardene, H. 1983. The National Aquatic Resources Agency: The Sri
                                  Lankan experience.         Working paper prepared for the Expert Group
                                  Meeting on Institutional Arrangements for Marine Resource Development,
                                  January 10-14, 1983. New York: United Nations.

                              Johnson, B., and Ofosu-Amaah, W.                   1981.     Legal, regulatory, and
                                  institutional aspects of environmental and natural resource management
                                  In developing countries: A country study of Sudan. Washington, D.C.:
                                  U.S. Agency for International Development and National Park Service
                                  Project.

                              Ketchum. B., ed. 1972. The water's edge: Critical problems of the coastal
                                  zone. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

                              Kildow, J.      1977.   International transfer of marine technology:             A three
                                  volume study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program
                                  Report, MITSG 77-20.           Cambridge, MA:         Massachusetts Institute of
                                  Technology Press.

                              Kim, S.       1979.     Current activities in coastal area development and
                                  management in the Republic of Korea. In Proceedings of the Workshop
                                  on Coastal Area Development and Management in the Pacific, edited by
                                  M. Valencia, 103-110. Honolulu: East-West Center and the University
                                  of Hawaii.

                              Kinsey, D., and Sondheimer, C.            1984. Country assessments of Ecuador,
                                  Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia anid Philippines. Prepared for the U.S.
                                  Agency for International Development and U.S. National Ocean Service
                                  Program on Coastal Resources Management in Developing Nations.

                              Kintanar, R. 1987. Coastal zone management of Puerto Galera. In Coastal
                                  Zone 187, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
                                  Management, vol. 1, 2925-2938. New York: American Society of Civil
                                  Engineers.

                              Klapp, M. 1984. A comparative analysis of autonomous state enterprises in
                                  oil-industrializing developed and less developed countries. APSA Annual
                                  Meeting.

                              Knecht, R.       1983.    Personal communication on Colombia's approach to
                                  marine and coastal resources management, September 16, 1983.

                              Knecht, R., Cicin-Sain, B., Broadus, J., Silva, M., Bowen, R., Marcus H., and
                                  Petersen, S.    1984. The management of ocean and coastal resources In
                                  Colombia:      An assessment.         Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
                                  Technical Report.         Woods Hole, MA:           Woods Hole Oceanographic
                                  Institution.




                                                                        178







                                                                                    References and Bibliography



                            Koekebakker, P., and Peet. G.               1987.     Coastal Zone Planning and
                                Management in the Netherlands. Coastal            Management Journal 15(2):121-
                                134.

                            Koesoebiono, Collier, W., and Burbridge, P.            1982. Indonesia: Resource's
                                use and management in the coastal zone.            In Man, land, and sea, edited
                                by C. Soysa, L.S. Chia, and W.L. Collier, 115-133. Bangkok: Agricultural
                                Development Council.

                            Kux, M.      1983. Memorandum on a proposed project on coastal resources
                                management in Indonesia, March 13-14, Jakarta, Indonesia.

                            League of Women Voters of Washington. 1983. Public perception of the
                                Washington Shoreline Management Act.               Prepared for the Washington
                                State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA: League of Women Voters.

                            Lemay, M.        1987.    Common priorities for the management of marine
                                protected areas: Perspectives and results from an international seminar.
                                In Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
                                Ocean Management, vol. 1, 3587-3600. New York: American Society of
                                Civil Engineers.

                            Lewis, S. 1975. Coastal plan runs aground. Planning 4 1 (November): 12-17.

                            Looi, C. 1987. Coastal zone management plan development in Malaysia:
                                Issues and problems.        In Coastal Zone 197, Proceedings of the Fifth
                                Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 4601-4615. New
                                York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                            Lowry, K. and Wickremeratne, H. 1989. Coastal management in Sri Lanka.
                                In Ocean Yearbook 7, edited by E. Borgese, N. Ginsburg, and J. Morgan,
                                263-293. Chicago: University of Chicago Piess.

                            Maembe, T. 1976. United Republic of Tanzania. In Interregional seminar
                                on development and management of resources of coastal areas, edited by
                                K. Skekielda and B. Breuer, 243-255. West Berlin: German Foundation
                                for International Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics
                                and Technology Office.

                            Mahmud, S.       1985. Impacts of river flow changes on coastal ecosystems.
                                In Coastal resources management:            Development case studies, 511-583.
                                Coastal Management Publication No. 3, NPS/AID Series. Washington,
                                D.C.:    U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Agency for International
                                Development

                            Marine Law Institute.         1988.   Guidebook to the economics of waterfront
                                planning and water dependent uses.               Portland, ME:        University of
                                Southern Maine.

                            Mazmanian, D., and Sabatier, P. 1983. Implementation and public policy.
                                San Francisco: Scott, Foresman and Company.




                                                                      179







                     References and Bibliography



                        McAlister, I., and Nathan, R. 1987. Malaysian National Coastal Erosion
                            Study.   In Coastal Zone 187, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on
                            Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 45-55. New York: American
                            Society of Civil Engineers.

                        McCrea, M.     1980. Evaluation of Washington State's coastal management
                            program through changes in port development.            PhD dissertation,
                            University of Washington.

                        McCrea, M., and Feldman, J. 1977. Interim assessment of Washington State
                            shoreline management. Coastal Zone Management Journal 3(2):119-150.

                        McCreary, S. 1982. Legal and institutional opportunities and constraints in
                            wetland restoration.     In Wetland restoration and enhancement In
                            California, edited by M. Josselyn, 39-47. La Jolla, CA: Tiburon Center
                            for Environmental Studies and California Sea Grant Program.

                        McCreary S.       1985.    The recruitment and application of scientific
                            Information In coastal and marine resources management: Analogs to the
                            Galapagos Islands.    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical
                            Report, WHOI 85-14. Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic
                            Institution.


                        McCreary, S. 1987. Facilitated dialogue produces consensus on tributyl tin
                            risks to the marine environment.      Environmental Impact Assessment
                            Review 7(l):89-92.

                        .McCreary, S.   1989.   Resolving Science Intensive Public Policy Disputes:
                            Lessons from the New York Bight Initiative. Ph.D. dissertation prepared
                            for the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts
                            Institute of Technology-

                        McCreary, S. and Adams, M. 1988. Prospects for transfer of the California
                            Coastal Conservancy model for habitat restoration to other coastal
                            states. Coastal Management Journal 16(l):69-92.

                        McCreary, S. and Robin, R. 1985. The California Coastal Conservancy
                            experience in wetland protection.     Proceedings of the First Annual
                            Conference of the Association of State Wetland Managers, September 21-
                            24, 1984, Gainesville, Florida.

                        McCreary, S. and Zentner, J.     1983. Innovative estuarine restoration and
                            management. In Coastal Zone '83, Proceedings of the Third Symposium
                            on Ocean and Coastal Resources, vol. 3, 2527-2551.            New York:
                            American Society of Civil Engineers.

                        McGoodwin, J. 1986. The tourism-impact syndrome in developing coastal
                            communities:   A Mexican Case.       Coastal Zone Management Journal
                            14(1/2):131-146.

                        McNeeley, J., and Miller, K. 1983. IUCN, national parks and protected
                            areas: Priorities for action. Environmental Conservation, 10(l):13-21.



                                                            180







                                                                               References and Bibliography



                          Moltzoff, S., and LiPuma, E. 1986. Tho social and political oconomy of
                              coastal zone management* Shrimp mariculture in Ecuador. Coastal Zone
                              Management iguraill 14(4);349-380,

                          Mitchell, C. and Gold, E.         1982.    The Integration of marine space In
                              national development strategies of small island states: The case of the
                              Caribbean states of Grenada and St. Lucia.              Halifax, Nova Scotia:
                              Dalhousie Ocean Studies Program.

                          Mitchell, J. 1982. Coastal zone management: A comparative analysis of
                              national programs. In Ocean Yearbook 3, edited by E. M. Borgese and
                              N. Ginsburg, 258-319. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

                          Mitchell, J. 1984. Written comments on draft of Sorensen, J., McCreary, S.
                              and Hershman, M., Institutional arrangements for Integrated coastal
                              resources management. February 1984.

                          Moran, J. 1976. Ordinacion of aprovechamiento de los recursos de la zona
                              costera de la Republica del El Salvador.          In Interregional seminar on
                              development and management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K.
                              Skekielda and B. Breuer, 39-61. West Berlin: German Foundation for
                              International Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and
                              Technology Of f ice.

                          Morris, M., ed. 1988. North-south perspectives on marine policy. Boulder,
                              CO: Westview Press, Inc.

                          Mumba, J. 1976. Kenya. In Interregional seminar on development and
                              management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                              Breuer, 177-181.     West   -Berlin:  German Foundation for International
                              Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                              Of f ice.


                          Myers, N.      1980.    The sinking ark:       A new look at the problem of
                              disappearing species. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

                          Nagao, Y., Kuroda, K., and Kanai, M. 1987. Port re-creation for coastal
                              zone utilization.      In Coastal Zone 187, Proceedings of the Fifth
                              Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 56-68. New York:
                              American Society of Civil Engineers.

                          Nanda, V., and Ris, W. 1972. The public trust doctrine: A viable approach
                              to international environmental protection.            Ecology Law Quarterly
                              5:291-303.


                          Neuwirth, D., and Furney-Howe, S.           1983. Coast effectiveness: A better
                              beach for your buck.        In Coastal Zone '83, Proceedings of the Third
                              Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 930-948. New
                              York: American Society of Engineers.

                          New York Times. 1985. April 28.





                                                                  181







                          References and Bibliography



                             Ngee, L. 1979. Coastal development in Singapore. In Proceedings of the
                                 Workshop on Coastal Area Development and Management In the Pacific,
                                 edited by M. Valencia, 89-93.         Honolulu:    East-West Center and the
                                 University of Hawaii.

                             Nir, Y. 1976. The Israel Mediterranean coasts. In Interregional seminar on
                                 development and management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K.
                                 Skekielda and B. Breuer, 159-166. West Berlin: German Foundation for
                                 International Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and
                                 Technology Off ice.

                             Norton, R.       1982.    The mediation of ethnic conflict:             Comparative
                                 implications of the Fiji case. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative
                                 Politics 11(3):309-328.

                             Obayomi, L. 1976. Benin. In Interregional seminar on development and
                                 management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                                 Breuer, 63-80.     West Berlin:      German Foundation for International
                                 Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                                 Of f ice.


                             Ochoa, E., Mac as, W., and Marcos, J.           1987.    Ecuador:    Perf il de sus
                                 recursos costeros.      Guayaquil, Ecuador:        Fundacion Pedro Vicente
                                 Maldonado.


                             Odell, R. 1972. The saving of San Francisco Bay. Washington, D.C.: The
                                 Conservation Foundation.


                             Olembo, R. 1982. UNEP and protected areas concerns. Paper presented at
                                 the World National Parks Congress, October 11-12, 1982, Bali, Indonesia.

                             Olsen, S., 1987. Report: A collaborative effort in developing the Integrated
                                 Coastal Resources Management Project for Ecuador. Coastal Management
                                 15(l):97-101.

                             Ongkosongo, 0. 1979. Human activities and their environmental impacts on
                                 the coasts of Indonesia.      In Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal
                                 Area Development and Management In the Pacific,'edited by M. Valencia,
                                 67-74. Honolulu: East-West Center and the University of Hawaii.

                             Oregon, Land Conservation and Development Commission. 1976. Oregon
                                 coastal management program. Draft. Salem, OR: Land Conservation
                                 and Development Commission.

                             Palaganas, V., Tambasen, V., and      Antonio, V. 1987. The role of the Marine
                                 Park Management in the Conservation of Philippine Coastal Resources.
                                 In Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
                                 Ocean Management, vol. 3, 3580-3586. New York: American Society of
                                 Civil Engineers.

                             Perez, E. 1988. Elementos legales y administrativos del maneJo de recursos
                                 costeros en la Republica del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Fundacion Pedro
                                 Vicente Maldonado.



                                                                     182







                                                                               References and Bibliography




                          Perez, E., Robadue, D., and Olsen, S. 1987. Controls on the development
                             and operation of shrimp farms in Ecuador.               In Coastal Zone 197,
                             Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management,
                             vol. 4, 4476-4487. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                          Petrillo, J. 1988. The conservancy concept. Coastal Management Journal
                             16(l):1-12.

                          Philippines, National Environmental Protection Council. 1978. Proceedings
                             of a planning workshop for coastal zone management, Manilla.

                          Pongsuwan, U. 1976. Thailand. In Interregional seminar on development
                             and management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda
                             and B. Breuer, 229-234.           West Berlin:      German Foundation for
                             International Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and
                             Technology Off ice.

                          Pontecorvo, G., Wilkenson, M., Anderson, R., and Holdowsky, M.                  1980.
                             Contribution of the ocean sector to the United States economy. Science
                             208:1000-1006.


                          Popper, F., 1981.       The politics of land-use reform.           Madison:      The
                             University of Wisconsin Press.

                          Pravdic, V.     1981.   GESAMP, the first dozen years.           Nairobi:     United
                             Nations Environment Program.

                          Raiffa, H.    1983. Mediation of conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist
                             27(2):195-210.

                          Ramirez, J. 1976. Monographia de Mexico. In Interregional seminar on
                             development and management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K.
                             Skekielda and B. Breuer, 195-200. West Berlin: German Foundation for
                             International Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and
                             Technology Of f ice.

                          Real Estate Research Corporation. 1977. Coastal management consequences:
                             Preliminary conclusions and evaluation approach. Prepared for the U.S.
                             Office of Coastal Zone Management and the U.S Council on
                             Environmental Quality.       Washington, D.C.:      U.S. Government Printing
                             Of f ice.


                          Reeson, P.     1976.   Monograph on Jamaica.        In Interregional seminar on
                             development and management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K.
                             Skekielda and B. Breuer, 167-176. West Berlin: German Foundation for
                             International Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and
                             Technology Of f ice.

                          Richmond, R. 1979. Fiji. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal Area
                             Development and Management in the Pacific, edited by M. Valencia, 103-
                             110. Honolulu: East-West Center and the University of Hawaii.

                          Riddell, R. 1981. Ecodevelopment. New York: St. Martin's Press.


                                                                 183










                              I
                        Ref etences and Bibliography



                            Ridgway, J.      1979.    Coastal area development and management in the
                                Solomon Islands.      In Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal Area
                                Development and Management In the Pacific, edited by A Valencia, 103-
                                105. Honolulu: East-West Center and the University of Hawaii.

                            Rodgers, K.     1984. Integrated regional development planning: Guidelines
                                and case studies from OAS experience.               Department of Regional
                                Economic Development, Organization of American States in Cooperation
                                with U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Agency for International
                                Development. Washington, D.C.: Organization of American States.

                            Rosenbaum, N. 1979. Enforcing wetlands regulations. In Wetland functions
                                and values: The state of our understanding. Minneapolis:                American
                                Water Resources Association.

                            Ruangchotivit, T.        1979.    A coastal land development project.               In
                                Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal Area Development and
                                Management in the Pacific, edited by M. Valencia, 101-102. Honolulu:
                                East-West Center and the University of Hawaii.

                            Ruddle, K.       1982.   Environmental pollution and fisheries resources in
                                Southeast Asian coastal waters.          In Man, land, and sea:           Coastal
                                resource use and management In Asia and the Pacific, edited by C.H.
                                Soysa, C.L Chia, and W.L. Collier, 16-37.             Bangkok:       Agricultural
                                Development Council.

                            Sabatier, P. 1977. State review of local land-usc decisions: The California
                                Coastal Commissions. Coastal Zone Management Journal 3(3):255-290.

                            Sadacharan, D. and Lowry Jr., K. 1987. Resolving fisheries conflicts in Sri
                                Lanka's coastal zone.      In Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth
                                Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 1982. New York:
                                American Society of Civil Engineers.

                            Saeijs, H., and de Jong, A. 1982. The ostirschelde and protection of the
                                environment. Ekistics 29S:150-156.

                            Saenger, P., Hegerl, E., and Davie, J.        1983.    Global status of mangrove
                                ecosystems.      Gland, Switzerland:          International Union for the
                                Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.


                            Salm, R., and Clark, J. 1985. Marine and coastal protected areas: A guide
                                for planners and managers. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for
                                the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.


                            Salm, R., and Dobbin, J. 1987. A coastal zone management strategy for the
                                Sultanate of Oman.        In Coastal Zone 197, Proceedings of the Fifth
                                Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 97-106.                    New
                                York: American Society of Civil Engineers.






                                                                    184







                                                                                    References and Bibliography



                           Sanchez, E.      1976.   Spain. In Interregional seminar on development and
                               management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda and B.
                               Breuer, 39-61.       West Berlin:       German Foundation for International
                               Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                               Of f ice.

                           Schneider, P. and Tohn, E.           1985.    Success in negotiating environmental
                               regulations. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5(1):67-77.

                           Schwartz, M., and Cambers, G. 1987. The Unesco-Lesser Antilles Coastal
                               Zone Management and Beach Stability Program. In Coastal Zone 197,
                               Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management,
                               vol. 1, 24-29. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                           Scott, J.   1983.   An evaluation of public access to Washington's shorelines
                               since passage of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.                        Olympia:
                               Washington State Department of Ecology.

                           Shapiro, H. 1984a. Written comments on draft of J. Sorensen, S. McCreary
                               and M. Hershman, Institutional arrangements                 for Integrated coastal
                               resources in management, March 9.

                           Shapiro, H.      1984b.     Coastal area management in Japan:              An overview.
                               Coastal Zone Management Journal 12(l):19-56.

                           Shapiro, H.       1987.    Still more of Japan's Inland Sea Coastal Citizens'
                               Movement.      In Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of Fifth Symposium on
                               Coastal and Zone Management, vol. 2, 2197-2208. New York: American
                               Society of Civil Engineers.

                           Silva, IvL, and Desilvestre, 1. 1986. Marine and coastal protected areas in
                               Latin America: A preliminary assessment. Coastal Zone Management
                               Journal 14(4):311-348.

                           Siddall, S., Atchue III, J., and Murray Jr., R.                    1985.      Mariculture
                               development in mangroves: A case study of the Philippines, Ecuador and
                               Panama. In Coastal resources management: Development case studies,
                               1-53.     Coastal Management Publication No. 3, NPS/AID Series.
                               Washington, D.C.:        U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Agency for
                               International Development

                           Simons, R.        1982.     Ten years later:         The Smithsonian international
                               experience since the Second World Parks Congress. Paper presented at
                               World National Parks Congress, October 11-12, 1982, Bali, Indonesia.

                           Skekielda, K., and Breuer, B., eds.               1976.     Interregional seminar on
                               development and management of resources of coastal areas. West Berlin,
                               Hamburg, Kiel, and Cuxhaven, May 31, to June, 14, 1976. West Berlin:
                               German Foundation for International Development and the United Nations
                               Ocean Economics and Technology Office.






                                                                     185







                          References and Bibliography



                             Snedaker, S. 1982. A perspective on Asia mangroves. In Man, land, and
                                 sea:    Coastal resource use and management in Asia and the Pacific,
                                 edited by C. Soysa, L.S. Chia, and W.L. Collier, 65-74.                    Bangkok:
                                 Agricultural Development Council.

                             Snedaker, S.       1983.     Personal Communication to USAID, Science and
                                 Technology, Forestry and Natural Resources Branch.

                             Snedaker, S., Dickenson, J.C., Brown, M.S., and Lahmann, E.J.                       1986.
                                 Shrimp pond siting and management alternatives in mangrove ecosystems
                                 In Ecuador. Miami, FL: U.S. Agency for International Development.

                             Snedaker, S. and Getter, C. 1985. Coastal resource management guidelines.
                                 Coastal Publication No. 2., Renewable Resource Information Series.
                                 Washington, D.C.:       U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Agency for
                                 International Development.

                             Soegiarto, A.     1976. Indonesia. In Interregional seminar on development
                                 and management of resources of coastal areas, edited by K. Skekielda
                                 and B. Breuer, 39-61. West Berlin: German Foundation for International
                                 Development and the United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology
                                 Of f ice.


                             Soegiarto, A. 1983. Marine sciences in Indonesia: Problems and prospects
                                 for national development. Paper presented at the Indonesia-U.S. Seminar
                                 on Science and Technology, October 3-5, 1983, Washington, D. C.

                             Sorensen, J. 1978. State-local collaborative planning: A growing trend In
                                 coastal zone management.            Prepared for the U.S. Department of
                                 Commerce,. Office of Coastal Zone Management.

                             Sorensen, J.      1990.    An assessment of Costa Rica's coastal management
                                 program. Coastal Management Journal 18(l):37-63.

                             Sorensen, J.     Forthcoming.      Comparative analysis of the zona publica in
                                 Latin America. First draft.


                             Sorensen, J., and Brandani, A. 1987. An overview of coastal management
                                 efforts in Latin America. Coastal Management Journal 15(l):1-25.

                             Sorensen, J., McCreary, S., and Hershman, M.                     1984.      Institutional
                                 arrangements for management of coastal resources. Coastal Publication
                                 No. 1, Renewable Resource Information Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                                 National Park Service and U.S. Agency for International Development.

                             Sorensen, J., and McCreary, S.          Forthcoming.      Resolution of coastal and
                                 marine use conflicts in the developing world.            In Coastal and marine
                                 multiple use conflicts, problems and approaches (title tentative).              New
                                 York: U.N. Of f ice of Ocean Af f airs and Law of the Sea.


                             Soysa, C., Chia, C., and Collier, W., eds. 1982. Man, land, and sea: Coastal
                                 resource use and management in Asia and the Pacific.                       Bangkok:
                                 Agricultural Development Council.


                                                                      186







                                                                                     References and Bibliography



                           Sri Lanka, Coast Conservation Department. 1988. Coastal zone management
                               plan. Columbo, Sri Lanka: Coast Conservation Department, Ministry of
                               Fisheries.


                           Steers, J. 1978. Saving the coast: The British experience. Coastal Zone
                               Management Journal 4(1/2):7-23.

                           Stoddart, R. and Ferrari, J.          1983.    Aldabra Atoll:       A stunning success.
                               Nature and Resources 19(1):20-28.

                           Suman, D. 1987. The management of coastal zone resources in Panama. In
                               Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
                               Ocean Management, vol. 1, 1130-1145. New York: American Society of
                               Civil Engineers.

                           Sumardja, E., and Wind, J. 1982. Nature conservation and rice production
                               in Dumoga, North Sulawesi.             Paper presented at the World National
                               Parks Congress, October 11-12, 1982, Bali, Indonesia.

                           Susskind, L., and Cruickshank, J. 1987. Breaking the Impasse: Practical
                               approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.

                           Susskind, L. and McCreary, S.             1985.    Techniques for resolving coastal
                               resource management disputes through negotiation.                   Journal of the
                               American Planning Association 51(3):365-374.

                           Susskind, L., and McMahon, J.                1985.     The theory and practice of
                               negotiated rulemaking. Yale Journal on Regulation 3(Fall):133-165.

                           Swanson, G.        1975.     Coastal   zone management from an administrative
                               perspective:     A case study of San Francisco Bay Conservation and
                               Development Commission.             Coastal Zone Management Journal 2(2):
                               81-102.

                           Sweden, Ministry of Physical Planning and Local Government.                            1971.
                               National physical plan:         Management of land and water.               Stockholm:
                               Government Printing Office.

                           Tauf ik, A.      1987.    Marine resource management in the Java Sea.                     In
                               Coastal Zone 187, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
                               Ocean Management, vol. 4, 4448. New York: American Society of Civil
                               Engineers.

                           Templet, P. 1986. American Samoa: A coastal management area model for
                               developing countries. Coastal Zone Management Journal 13(3/4):241-265.

                           Thailand, Office of Coastal Land Development. 1979. Establishment of a
                               technological     research     center for coastal         land    development and
                               management in Thailand. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal
                               Area Development and Management in the Pacific, edited by M. Valencia,
                               103-110. Honolulu: East-West Center and the University of Hawaii.




                                                                      187







                              References and Bibliography



                                  Thatcher, P., and Meith-Avcin, N.                1980.     The oceans:        Health and
                                      prognosis. In Ocean Yearbook 1, edited by E. Borgese and N. Ginsburg,
                                      293-339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

                                  Tolentino Jr., A. 1987. Philippine coastal zone management: Organizational
                                      linkages. In Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on
                                      Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 699-713. New York: American
                                      Society of Civil Engineers.

                                  Tortell, P.     1981.    New Zealand atlas of coastal resources.                 Wellington:
                                      Government Printing Office.

                                  Towle, E. 1985. The island microcosm. In Coastal resources management:
                                      Development case studies, 589-738. Coastal Management Publication No.
                                      3, NPS/AID Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Park Service and
                                      U.S. Agency for International Development

                                  Travis, W. 1980. Coastal program evaluation from a state perspective. In
                                      Coastal Zone '80, Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Coastal and
                                      Ocean Management, vol. 1, 451-469. New York: American Society of
                                      Civil Engineers.

                                  Trust Territory, Division of Lands.                  1979.      Coastal resources and
                                      environment: Trust Territory of the           Pacific Islands. In Proceedings of
                                      the Workshop on Coastal Area Development and Management In the
                                      Pacific, edited by M. Valencia, 77-81. Honolulu: East-West Center and
                                      the University of Hawaii.

                                  Turner, R.        1985.     Coastal fisheries, agriculture and management in
                                      Indonesia:       Case studies for the future.                In Coastal resources
                                      management:       Development case studies, 373-433.            Coastal Management
                                      Publication No. 3, NPS/AID Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National
                                      Park Service and U.S. Agency for International Development.

                                  UNEP. See United Nations Environment Program.

                                  UNESCO. 1980. Marine science and technology In Africa: Present state
                                      and future development.           Unesco Reports in Marine Science.                Paris:
                                      UNESCO.


                                  UNESCO and Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.                                  1979.
                                      Workshop on coastal area management in the Caribbean region,                   summary
                                      report. Workshop report, No. 26. Paris: UNESCO.

                                  United Arab Emirates. 1976. Coastal development planning study.

                                  United Nations.        1978.    Mediterranean Action Plan and Final Act.                   In
                                      Conf erence     of    the    Plenipotentlaries      of   Coastal     States     of     the
                                      Mediterranean Region f or the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea. New
                                      York: United Nations.






                                                                             188







                                                                                  References and Bibliography



                          United Nations.        1980.    Conference of the Plenipotentiaries of Coastal
                              States of the Mediterranean Region for the Protection of the
                              Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution from Land Based Sources.                      New
                              York: United Nations.


                          United Nations. 1982. Conference of the Plenipotentiarles on the Protocol
                              Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas. New York: United
                              Nations.

                          United Nations. 1983. Final Act. In Conference of the Plenipotentlaries
                              on the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the
                              Wider Caribbean region. New York: United Nations.

                          United Nations, Department of Technical Cooperation for Development.
                              1983. Experiences in the development and management of international
                              river and lake basins. Proceedings of the U.N. Interregional Meeting of
                              International River Organizations, Dakar, Senegal. New York: United
                              Nations.


                          United Nations Development Programme and the Government of Yugoslavia.
                              1968.     Physical development for the south Adriatic coast.                     Split,
                              Yugoslavia: Shankland, Cox & Associates and the Urbanisticki Zavod
                              Dalmacije.

                          United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee for Programme and
                              Coordination.      1983.    Cross-organizational programme analysis of the
                              activities of the United Natioas system In marine affairs. Report of the
                              Secretary General. New York: United Nations.

                          United Nations Environment Program. 1980. Declaration of environmental
                              policies and procedures relating to ec6nomic development.                    Geneva:
                              UNEP.


                          United Nations Environment Program.               1982a.    Marine and coastal area
                              development In the East African region. UNEP Regional Seas Reports
                              and Studies No. 6. Geneva: UNEP.


                          United Nations Environment Program. 1982b. Achievements and planned
                              development of UNEP's Regional Seas Programme and comparable
                              programmes sponsored by other bodies. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and
                              Studies No. 1. Geneva: UNEP.

                          United Nations Environment Program. 1982c. Environmental problems of
                              the East African Region: An overview. UNEP Regional Seas Reports
                              and Studies No. 12. Geneva: UNEP.

                          United Nations Environment Program. 1983. Action plan for the Caribbean
                              Environment Programme. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No.
                              26 (June). Geneva: UNEP.

                          United Nations Environment Program. 1985. The Siren: News from UNEPs
                              Regional Seas Program, No. 3.




                                                                    189







                            References and Bibliography



                                United Nations, Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
                                    Pollution (GESAMP). 1980. Marine pollution implications of coastal area
                                    development. Reports and Studies, No. 11. New York: United Nations.

                                United Nations, Ocean Economics and Technology Branch, Department of
                                    International Economic and Social Affairs.             1979. Marine and coastal
                                    area development In the wider Caribbean area: Overview study. Doc#
                                    E/CEPAL/PROY 3/L. New York: UNOETB.

                                United Nations, Ocean Economics and Technology Branch, Department of
                                    International Economic and Social Affairs.                  1982a.      Coastal area
                                    management and development. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

                                United Nations, Ocean Economics and Technology Branch, Department of
                                    International Economic and Social Affairs.               1982b.    Technologies for
                                    erosion control. Doc# SC/EFA/l 16. New York: UNOETB.

                                United Nations, Ocean Economics and Technology Branch, Department of
                                    International Economic and Social Affairs. 1985. Materials collected by
                                    the Of f ice of Ocean Af f airs and Law of the Sea.

                                United Nations, Of f ice of Ocean Af f airs and Law of the Sea. Forthcoming.
                                    Coastal and marine multiple use conflicts, problems and approaches (title
                                    tentative). New York: United Nations.

                                U.S. Agency for International Development.                 1979.    Environmental and
                                    natural resource management in developing countries:                   A report to
                                    Congress, vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State.

                                U.S. Agency for International Development. 1981. Report on the Coastal
                                    Zone Management Seminar-Workshop.                  November 5-6, 1981, Manila.
                                    USAID Mission, Philippines.

                                U.S. Agency for International Development. 1982. Potential strategies and
                                    target     countries     for    coastal     resources     management         activities.
                                    Washington, D.C.: USAID/S&T/FNR.

                                U.S. Agency for International Development and U.S. Department of
                                    Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.                         1987.
                                    Caribbean marine resources opportunities for economic development and
                                    management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.

                                U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. 1969. Our
                                    nation and the sea. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

                                U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General.                          1983.
                                    Opportunities to Improve federal oversight responsibilities of states'
                                    coastal zone management programs to assure more effective results.
                                    Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

                                U.S. Department of Interior. 1970. The national estuarine pollution study.
                                    U.S. Senate, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, Document 91-58.                  Washington,
                                    D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.


                                                                           190






                                                                              References and Bibliography




                         U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research.                   1983.
                            Status of the world's nations.          Washington, D.C.:      U.S. Government
                            Printing Off ice.

                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of international Activities.
                            1977. International environmental Issues: A preliminary resource guide.
                            Washington, D.C.: Office of International Activities.

                         U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Board on Science and Technology and
                            the Ocean Policy Committee.         1982. Working papers prepared for the
                            International Workshop on Coastal Resource Management, February 8-10,
                            La Jolla, California.

                         U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
                            Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1981. The
                            Federal coastal      programs review:          A report     to   the president.
                            Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

                         U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
                            Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management and California Coastal
                            Commission. 1981. Final environmental Impact statement: Tijuana River
                            National Estuarine Sanctuary.          Washington, D.C.:       U.S. Government
                            Printing Of f ice.

                         U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
                            Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1982. Biennial report
                            to the Congress on coastal zone management:              Fiscal years 1990 and
                            1981. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

                         University of Rhode Island and U.S. Agency for International Development.
                            1987. Coa@tal Resources Management Project: Prospectus. Kingston, RE
                            University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center.

                         UNOETB. See United Nation, Ocean Economics and Technology Branch,
                            Department of International Economic and Social Affairs.

                         Uruguay, Direccion Nacional di Relaciones Publicas. 1983. Government of
                            Uruguay. Brochure.

                         USAID. See U.S. Agency for International Development.

                         Valencia, M., ed.      1979.   Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal Area
                            Development and Management In Asia and the Pacific, Manilla.
                            Honolulu: East-West Center and the University of Hawaii.

                         Vallejo, S. 1983. El marco institutional para el desarrollo y ordinacion de
                            los recursos costeros y maTinOS:        Problemas y cxperiencias.         Working
                            paper for a marine resources planning seminar, May, 1983, Mexico City.

                         Vallejo, S.    1987.   Report:    Seminar on the integrated development and
                            management of coastal areas: A pilot experience. Coastal Management
                            Journal 15(l):89-97.



                                                                 191






                            References and Bibliography



                                Vallejo, S.     1989.    Development and management of coastal and marine
                                    areas:   An international perspective. Ocean Yearbook 7, edited by E.
                                    Borgese, N. Ginsburg, and J. Morgan, 205-222. Chicago: University of
                                    Chicago Press.

                                Vallejo, S., and Caparro, L. 1981. Preliminary Information on the resources,
                                    uses and problems of the Ecuadorian coastal area. New York: United
                                    Nations Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Ocean
                                    Economics and Technology Branch.

                                Victoria, Ministry for Planning and the Environment.                 1988.    A coastal
                                    policy for Victoria. Victoria, Australia.

                                Vicuna, F., ed. 1986. Preservaclon del medlo ambiente marino. Santiago:
                                    Instituto de Estudios Internacionales de la Universidad de Chile.

                                Wa  ite, C.     1980.     Coastal management in England and Wales.                      In
                                    Comparative marine policy:           Perspectives from Europe, Scandinavia,
                                    Canada, and the United States, 57-64.              New York:       Praeger Special
                                    Studies.


                                Warren, R., Weschler, L., and Rosentraub. 1977. Local-regional interaction
                                    in the development of coastal land use policies:                A case study of
                                    metropolitan Los Angeles. Coastal Zone Management Journal 3(4):331-
                                    362.


                                Wetterberg, G. 1982. The exchange of wildland technology: A management
                                    agency perspective.        Paper presented at the World National Parks
                                    Congress, October 11-12, 1982, Bali, Indonesia.

                                White, A., and Savini, G. 1987. Community based marine reserves: A
                                    Philippine f irst.      In Coastal Zone 197, Proceedings of the Fif th
                                    Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 2022-2038. New
                                    York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                                Wiggerts, H., and Koekebakker, P. 1982. Coastal planning and management
                                    in the Netherlands. Ekistics 293:143-149.


                                Wilcox, E. 1987. Marine park planning in the Third World: Haiti case
                                    study.    In Coastal Zone 187, Proceedings of the Fif th Symposium on
                                    Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 1, 3568-3579. New York: American
                                    Society of Civil Engineers.

                                World Bank.        1982.     Environmental requirements of the World Bank.
                                    Washington, D.C.: Office of Environmental Affairs, Projects Advisory
                                    Staff.


                                World Environment Report. 1981a. October 30.

                                World Environment Report. 1981b. November 30.

                                World Environment Report. 1982a. June 30.

                                World Environment Report. 1982b. December 30.

                                                                         192







                                                                    References and Bibliography



                      World Environment Report. 1983a. May 15.

                      World Environment Report. 1983b. June 15.

                      World Environment  Report. 1983c. June 30.

                      World Environment  Report. 1983d. October 30.

                      Zamora, P. 1979.  The coastal zone management program of the Philippines.
                         In Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal Area Development and
                         Management In the Pacific, edited by M. Valencia, 85-88.      Honolulu:
                         East-West Center and the University of Hawaii.

                      Zhung, G. 1985. On the implementation of coastal law. In Coastal Zone
                         185: Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
                         Management, vol. 2, 2320-2334. New York: American Society of Civil
                         Engineers.

                      Zile, Z.    1974.    A legislative-political history of the Coast, Zone
                         Management Act of 1972.       Coastal Zone Management Journal 1(3):
                         235-274.











































                                                        193










                                                   AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES




                        Jens C. Sorensen is Principal, Jens Sorensen and Associates, and Adjunct
                        Associate Professor in Marine Affairs at the University of Rhode Island. His
                        Ph.D. is in environmental planning from the University of California at
                        Berkeley. He has specialized in coastal management since 1968 and has carried
                        out numerous studies in the United States (particularly California), Australia,
                        Mexico, Costa Rica and South America and served as consultant to the United
                        Nations, the Organization of American States, the U.S. Agency for
                        International Development, and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                        Administration.

                           Dr. Sorensen is the author of 36 articles, papers and reports on coastal
                        management and impact assessment as practiced both in the United States and
                        abroad.    He has taught courses on ocean and coastal policy, regional
                        environmental planning and impact assessment at three campuses in the
                        University of California system, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and
                        the University of Rhode Island.

                           During 1988 and 1989, with support from a Fulbright Scholarship, he has
                        been assessing programs in Latin America for the sustainable development of
                        coastal resources and environments.




                        Scott T. McCreary completed his Ph.D. at the Massachusetts Institute of
                        Technology in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning and served as an
                        Associate of the M.I.T.-Harvard Public Disputes Program.      Presently he is a
                        Lecturer in Environmental Planning in the Department of Landscape
                        Architecture at the University of California at Berkeley. He has 12 years of
                        experience in coastal planning and marine resource management.                His
                        international work includes co-authorship of "Prospects for Integrated Coastal
                        Resources Management in West Africa" (USAID, 1988); research on
                        transboundary environmental problems; impact assessment for the Caribbean;
                        and training in environmental dispute resolution in the Caribbean, Canada, and
                        Australia and New Zealand. As consultant to the New York Academy of
                        Sciences, he mediated a complex negotiation to improve management of PCBs
                        in the New York Harbor Region.

                           Dr. McCreary earned his Master's degree in Landscape Architecture and
                        Environmental Planning at the University of California, Berkeley.           With
                        California's State Coastal Conservancy, he led the agency's work with non-
                        profit organizations to restore wetlands, streams, and watersheds, and he
                        launched the designation of the Tijuana River National Estuarine Sanctuary.
                        He has taught university courses in coastal management, land use planning,
                        environmental planning in developing countries, and dispute resolution and has
                        authored over 30 articles and papers on these and other environmental policy
                        topics.








                        *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990-271-104120528 194

























                                                                                 IIIINIIIIIIIIIIII
                                                                                  3 6-668 00000 1265