Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable?

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

0964-5691/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

�Tel.: +1 2

E-mail ad

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable?

Patrick Christie�

School of Marine Affairs, Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington,

3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98105-6715, USA

Available online 23 May 2005

Abstract

This essay sets the parameters for the research papers within this theme issue by introducing

the Integrated Coastal Management Sustainability Research Project, providing socio-

economic and ecological background on study sites, and discussing the most current analysis

of factors influencing integrated coastal management success and sustainability. The factors

influencing sustainability span social, economic, institutional, bio-physical, and legal

conditions.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The growing published literature, conferences, and funding suggests considerableinterest and faith in integrated coastal management (ICM). Following UNCED,donor contributions towards ICM dramatically increased [1]. For example, in thePhilippines, it has been estimated that approximately $25 million is spent annually tosupport ICM [2]. ICM takes many forms depending on the context, but principally ithas focused on encouraging sustainable coastal resource use through an iterativeprocess of regulation and policy development, institutional coordination, andeducation.The following are two frequently cited definitions of ICM.

see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.ocecoaman.2005.04.002

06 685 6661; fax: +1 206 543 1417.

dress: [email protected].

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

ARTICLE IN PRESS

P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 209

ICM is a process by which rational decisions are made concerning theconservation and sustainable use of coastal and ocean resources and space. Theprocess is designed to overcome the fragmentation inherent in single-sectormanagement approaches (fishing operations, oil and gas development, etc.), in thesplits in jurisdiction among different levels of government, and in the land-waterinterface. [3, p. 1]

ICM is a broad and dynamic process that . . . requires the active and sustainedinvolvement of the interested public and many stakeholders with interests in howcoastal resources are allocated and conflicts are mediated. The ICM processprovides a means by which concerns at local, regional and national levels arediscussed and future directions are negotiated. [4, p. 66]

These definitions emphasize distinct characteristics of the ICM process—on the onehand, balancing development and conservation and ensuring multi-sectoralplanning, and, on the other hand, participation and conflict mediation. A centralpurpose of ICM is to create conditions for ‘‘a sustained effort whose fundamentalgoal is to reform the objectives, structure and processes of governance that controlhow coastal resources are allocated,’’ the rates in which coastal resources are used,and ‘‘how conflicts among user groups are resolved’’ [5, p. 618]. In fact, the conceptof ICM has distinct meanings to various stakeholders and, as a result, is in need ofcritical evaluation. [2,6]ICM employs a suite of tools including marine protected areas (MPAs), land-use

control, marine zoning and permit systems, conflict resolution, planning, andfisheries management. Many of these tools are now at the center of lively debatesregarding their efficacy and appropriateness. These concepts are introducedprogressively and as necessary in many ICM programs. The following diagramfrom the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center highlights theiterative and progressively expansive nature of ICM (Fig. 1).Externally funded projects generally have been the main means of implementation

of ICM within developing countries. The dependence on external financial andtechnical assistance creates the potential for unsustainable institutions and policies asprojects are terminated and support staff and funding are withdrawn. For example,in the Philippines, the majority of marine protected areas established with goodintentions are not maintained for appreciable amounts of time [7], a commonsituation elsewhere in the region. One may be tempted to conclude that projectsmerely have been inattentive to phase out activities. But comparative studies suggestthat such processes are more complex and success is dependent on multiple factorsinteracting in complex environments [8,9]. While success and sustainability of ICMand marine protected areas are likely interrelated, the relationship between thesevariables is unclear.Very little of the coastal management literature goes beyond raising concerns

about process sustainability to provide empirically grounded explanations. However,concerns are being raised that considerable investments are falling short of highexpectations. To quote the Indonesian Minister of Marine Affairs and a veteranpractitioner of ICM,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Generalized ICM steps [5].

P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232210

. . .[R]elatively few of these initiatives continue once direct funding via centralgovernment agencies ceases. . . . [F]ew of these projects directly impact the qualityof life of coastal communities or quality of coastal ecosystems [10, p. 13].

In essence, rarely do ICM processes go through multiple cycles (Fig. 1), and mostprogress ceases after the withdrawal of external financial and technical resources[11].Rigorous, time-series, and comparative post project evaluations of ICM would

help to identify model strengths and shortcomings. Many ICM projects conductinternal impact evaluations, however it is not typically within project or donormandates to conduct detailed investigations into whether efforts were sustainedbeyond a project’s termination. But this expectation should change.

Given the ICM efforts taking place around the world and the considerablefunding being expended on this work, it is time to conduct independentcomparative studies of ICM programs to measure their effects, both positive andnegative, intended and unintended. [3, p. 248]

The lack of such research is symptomatic of a relatively young field whoseliterature and theoretical basis is at an early stage of development. To address this

ARTICLE IN PRESS


practical and theoretical gap, a 3-year research project was launched to investigatethe dynamics of how ICM processes are sustained after formal project termination.This theme issue summarizes the research project’s findings. This paper presents theprinciple activities of this research project, background information on research sitescited by other papers in this theme issue, and a review of relevant literature bysubject.

2. Overview of the ICM Sustainability Research Project

In January 2001 a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional research initiative waslaunched. The ICM Sustainability Research Project (ICMSRP) investigated thefactors influencing ICM process sustainability in the Philippines and Indonesia,countries with many innovative and varied approaches to ICM. The overarchingintent of this project was to contribute to the growing, and positive, trend towarddetailed evaluations of this field and its models [12]. This effort has three mutuallyreinforcing sub-objectives.(1) Applied evaluative research to identify factors and conditions, at various levels

of governance and in different contexts, which influence ICM process sustainability.(2) ICM project assistance to provide policy recommendations and educational

materials to ICM initiatives regarding sustainability of coastal managementprocesses in the Philippines and Indonesia.(3) Capacity development to improve human and institutional abilities to conduct

evaluative research and ICM by strengthening institutional linkages betweenpractitioner and research/educational institutions in the US, the Philippines, andIndonesia.

2.1. Objective 1: applied evaluative research

A general operational definition of a sustainable ICM process for this context is asfollows:

A sustainable ICM process is an ongoing planning system and practice thatcontinues beyond the termination of an ICM project. It is adaptive and multi-sectoral as appropriate and is supported by a stable source of financial andtechnical resources as necessary.

It is important to note that ‘‘ICM projects’’ and ‘‘ICM processes’’ are notsynonymous terms for the purposes of this research effort. Projects are defined as asuite of activities supported by external funding and technical advice, but that have apredetermined termination point (frequently based on availability of funding). Thegeneral intent of most ICM projects is to start iterative ICM processes that continuebeyond project termination.This research focused on two countries, the Philippines and Indonesia, to improve

the understanding of context and so that generalized principles might be derived.These countries were chosen partly due to their high levels of coastal biodiversity at

ARTICLE IN PRESS


considerable risk [13]. Human reliance on these resources warrants the developmentof innovative ICM strategies. Furthermore, the Philippines provide an opportunityto study ICM in a context where many historic and current ICM initiatives havebeen undertaken. Fewer examples of ICM exist in Indonesia, however increasingnumbers of programs are underway that could directly benefit from research effortsin the Philippines.When feasible, the research considered both historic and ongoing ICM projects

and the institutions that collaborate with these projects. The research was conductedin five principal phases:

(1)
literature review and focus group interviews of ICM researchers, practitioners,and community leaders,
(2)
intensive multi-method, multi-disciplinary quantitative field research to examineand extend the initial propositions as described below,
(3)
intensive multi-method, multi-disciplinary qualitative field research to validate,contextualize, and explain the patterns uncovered by quantitative research,
(4)
comparative, but geographically focused, field research in Indonesia that testedthe generalizeability and relevance of the findings from the Philippines fieldresearch, and
(5)
validation of research findings with informants and experts.
The research utilized the strengths of complementary social research methods suchas surveys, in-depth semi-structure interviews, participant observation, and focusgroups. To maximize coverage, while not compromising site-specific research, socialsurvey research was conducted in 9 sites (7 in the Philippines and 2 in Indonesia) ofwhich 3 sites (2 sites in the Philippines and 1 in Indonesia) were treated as detailedcase studies utilizing a broad array of methods. Since ICM projects have intendedenvironmental impacts, monitoring of ICM effects on fish populations and coral reefconditions augmented social research [14].

2.2. Objective 2: ICM project assistance

As research findings were analyzed and written up, project researchers worked tomake this information available and relevant to ICM projects interested inimproving the sustainability of coastal management processes. This effort focusedon two levels: (1) at the project level (including government and non-government ledinitiatives) and (2) at the national level by providing information that could helpguide the national-level coastal management policy development process currentlyunderway in the Philippines and Indonesia.Linkages to ICM initiatives were made through a multi-faceted approach

involving printed documents, the Internet, and professional conferences. Thus far,two theme issues in Silliman Journal and Indonesian Journal of Coastal and MarineResources (Jurnal Pesisir and Lautan), published and circulated within thePhilippines and Indonesia, helped insure that results are locally available. A projectwebsite posted regular project newsletters, meeting minutes, and papers. Lastly,

ARTICLE IN PRESS


presentations based on research results were made at Coastal Zone Asia Pacific(Bangkok Thailand, 2002), Indonesia Coastal Zone ’02 (KONAS, Dempasar Bali),Coastal Zone ’03 (Baltimore), and the American Fisheries Society 2003 (QuebecCity), the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2004 (Seattle), theInternational Coral Reef Symposium 2004 (Okinawa), and at a final results projectsymposium for practitioners and donors hosted at the World Bank.Research findings were translated into a mutually reinforcing educational

guidebook [15] and training module [16]. The guidebook is based on a publishedreview of available educational materials [17]. It utilizes hypothetical case studies,themes (e.g., sustainable financing), a question and answer format, and a‘‘sustainability scorecard’’ to encourage readers to consider issues that are likely todirectly affect ICM process sustainability. The 1-day training module utilizespresentation and group activity formats designed to encourage planning focused onimproving ICM process sustainability. Rather than develop a set of prescriptiverecommendations, that may be inappropriate for varying contexts, both educationaltools utilize interactive exercises that pose provocative questions based on researchfindings.The most tangible link to ICM projects was through the direct participation of

ICM practitioners as co-investigators. These practitioners helped ensure thatresearch findings and recommendations were practical and grounded in the currentpractice. It appears that findings have already begun to shape the formulation of thenext round of ICM projects in the Philippines [18].

2.3. Objective 3: capacity development

Capacity development to improve ICM planning and research capabilitydepended on participation of personnel in field research and analysis, incorporationof findings in university-level classroom activities, and extension of results to ICMproject staff. Additionally, the development of collaborative and mutually respectfulworking relationships between US and Asian colleagues and the opportunity forjoint authorship of articles has enriched all participating institutions. The periodicintensive interaction of project personnel for planning events and writing retreatswere fundamental to progress and communication despite the physical distanceseparating participants. The participation of junior researchers resulted in progresson theses as well as likely long-term professional relationships. At least four masters-level theses [19] and two Ph.D. dissertations are a direct outgrowth of this project.

2.4. Project staff

The research project involved 14 US, Philippines, and Indonesia-based academicsand ICM practitioners as principal investigators and 25 research assistants, anumber of whom are co-authors in this edition. The research team necessarilyconsisted of people with a wide variety of academic backgrounds. Additionally, anadvisory group made up of non-governmental and governmental ICM practitioners

ARTICLE IN PRESS


periodically reviewed research results and educational products to ensure thatrecommendations were convincing and realistic.

2.5. Research sites

The Philippines and Indonesia share many Malay cultural norms and somewhatsimilar historic trajectories (colonialism, dictatorship, democracy). They are alsosimilar ecologically, with extensive and diverse coral reefs and coastal ecosystems.While these countries share some relevant characteristics, they are quite distinct, forexample, in their legal frameworks and their institutional structures. Therefore,comparative research was conducted in each country with the intent of developinggeneralized principles on factors influencing ICM sustainability that are relevant forother countries.To select particular study sites, a socio-economic, ecological, and project history

was compiled for 10 sites in the Philippines and 3 sites in Indonesia. Researchersranked sites with the intent of maximizing variability in geographic context (withincountry and between countries), management model (community-based to large-scale centralized), implementing agency (central and local government, non-governmental), donor (foundation, multi-lateral), project goal (principally conserva-tion or development oriented), coastal community conditions (ethnicity andremoteness), and baseline data availability. Ultimately 7 areas in the Philippinesand 2 sites in Indonesia were studied. This theme issue provides results from 4 ofthese sites with 2 sites from each country—Mabini (Batangas), Bais Bay (Negros),Bunaken National Park (North Sulawesi), and Cilacap (Java). All sites (exceptCilacap, Java) have extensive coral reefs and marine protected areas. Reefs andMPAs were emphasized by this research due to ICM project priorities in this region.Joint planning mechanisms, alternative livelihood programs, fisheries managementwere also studied. A preliminary review of projects in Indonesia and the Philippinesrevealed that there were not many phased-out projects with baseline information(Fig. 2).The following is basic background information about the three sites where both

survey research [20,21] and qualitative case studies (all other papers in this edition)were conducted. Only survey research was conducted in Cilacap, Indonesia.

2.6. Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines

The Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas case study site includes two coastal municipalitiesalong Maricaban Strait. The area has relatively narrow reef flats, dropping off to adepth of approximately 200m in the deepest sections [22]. Coral reefs cover much ofthe area. Coral diversity is quite high with a total of 290 species and 74 genera ofhard corals found in the area [23]. Fish diversity is similarly high with 481 species in53 families [24].The area of Mabini, the municipality that defines the northern shore of Maricaban

Strait, is 4296 ha in area with an estimated population of 37,474 [25]. The followingcommunities, or barangays, are included in the study: San Teodoro (pop. 1557,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Case study research sites in the Philippines and Indonesia.


336.9 ha), Bagalangit (pop. 2057, 348.4 ha), Citio Balanoy (approximate population600), and Solo (pop. 2626, 339.5 ha). With a 3.6% annual growth rate for thesouthern Tagalog region, the highest in the Philippines, the population of the regionis expected to double in 19 years [26]. The municipality of Tingloy, the municipalityon Maricaban Island that defines the southern shore of Maricaban Strait, has a totalarea of 1269 ha with a population of approximately [25]. Santo Tomas is the onlybarangay (the smallest political unit in the Philippines or village) from that islandrepresented in this study (pop. 1663, 198 ha).According to a socio-economic survey of the area in 1994, the average annual

income was PhP 53,478 ([27], current exchange rate is approximately 55 pesos to theUSD). This is significantly lower than the national average of PhP 83,161 in 1994[28]. Currently the national average is approximately PhP 144,039, but this increaseis largely due to inflation [26].The dive tourism economy is rapidly developing in this area. Presidential

Proclamation No. 1801 (1978) formally declared this area as a tourism zone. Basedon data from 1994, approximately 22,870 divers visited the Mabini area that year[29]. The vast majority of the divers surveyed by the Haribon study were Filipinosfrom Manila with an average age of 33 and a annual income of PhP 498,180(significantly higher than the national average PhP 83,161 in 1994 [28]). Theserelatively affluent professionals are interested in marine conservation, with 87% of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


them reporting a willingness to participate in a marine conservation projects and97% of them willing to pay a divers fee to support coastal management activitiessuch as enforcement, education, monitoring, alternative livelihoods, and mooringbuoys [30,31].Fishing continues to be an important, although declining, activity in the area. The

number of Mabini families directly involved in fishing on a full-time basis declined from320 families in 1980 to 203 in 1994 [29]. Similarly, in Tingloy, the number of full-timefishing families declined from 782 families in 1980 to 435 in 1994. While this may be anoverall trend in the area, some communities, such as Balanoy, remain as predominantlyfishing oriented communities. The gear type most widely used ;by small-scale fishers inMabini and Tingloy is hook and line closely followed by gillnets [22].While the Mabini-Tingloy area serves as a major coastal tourism destination, the

nearby Batangas International Port also functions as a site to divert commercialshipping traffic clogging the capital. Point source pollution can be seen in nearby oil,chemical, and food processing industries located in Batangas Bay. The waste fromthese industries is brought to Balayan Bay by water currents.There have been four major ICM projects in the Mabini-Tingloy area between

1988 and the present. In 1988, the first ICM project began in the area when theHaribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources began working withfishers, and later with resort owners, to establish three marine protected areas wherefishing was prohibited (Cathedral Rock, Arthur’s Rock, and Twin Rocks). After afew years of management, some community members, with the assistance ofHaribon, also petitioned and won the support of the local municipal council to banrecreational diving within these MPAs. Haribon also worked with resort owners toestablish ABBROA (Anilao-Balayan Bay Resort Owners Association), which servedas a vehicle for resort owners to collaborate on coastal conservation activities.ABBROA later failed, reportedly due to mismanagement and lack of interest.The second major ICM project began in 1997 when World Wide Fund For Nature

(the Philippine branch known as Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas or KKP) began tosupport general conservation in the area. KKP has worked mainly with the governmentand private sector to implement a variety of conservation initiatives. In 1997, Mabiniand Tingloy also became expansion areas of the Coastal Resource Management Project(CRMP) supported by the United States Agency for International Development(USAID). These municipalities received assistance from CRMP in the form ofeducational materials and training on coastal resource management.Sulu Fund (now Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc.), a

national NGO, led the latest ICM project beginning in 1999 and focusing exclusivelyon Tingloy. This project has mainly worked with community members in Tingloy toimplement the national fisheries code, launch a bantay dagat (or fisheries wardensystem), and establish a marine protected area.

2.7. Bais Bay, Negros Oriental, Philippines

The Bais Bay case study site is located 45 km north of Dumaguete City, theprovincial capital, on the eastern side of Negros Island (23190E, 91340N) facing the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Tanon Strait in the central Philippines. There are four ecosystems found in Bais Bay:soft-bottom, mangrove forest, seagrass beds, and coral reef. The soft-bottom areacomprises about 87% of the bay [32,33]. The soft-bottom areas are rich sources ofmollusks, crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Bais City has a relatively large andintact mangrove area covering 344 ha. In 1985, this area was declared as the‘‘Talabong Game Refuge, Wildlife Sanctuary and Tourist Spot.’’ Bais Bay isestimated to have 14 species of mangroves. Bais Bay also has patchy seagrass areascovering approximately 677 ha and 343 ha of coral reefs. Calumpong and Luchavez[32] suggest that siltation might have caused the mortality of most corals in the area.Two cities and one municipality surround Bais Bay: Bais City, Tanjay City, and

the Municipality of Manjuyod. A total of 16 coastal barangays surround this bay: 10in Bais, 5 in Manjuyod, and 1 in Tanjay. Bais City has a total land area of 31,690 hawith a population of 68,115 [25]. The following Bais City coastal communities areincluded in the study: Barangay Capinahan (pop.1535) and Barangay Okiot (pop.3032). Manjuyod, the municipality that encompasses the northern part of the bay,has a total area of 14,835 ha with a population of 37,863. The following barangays

are included in the study: Barangay Campuyo (pop. 2514) and Barangay Bolisong(pop. 2521) [25]. Out of the 6013 households in Manjuyod, 5167 are farmers and 400are fishers. None of Tanjay City’s communities were included in this study.In 2000, the average annual income of the province of Negros Oriental was PhP

90,459 [34]. This was significantly lower than the national average of PhP 144,039[25]. The tourism economy has been rapidly growing in the area. The risingpopularity of Bais City Tourism Council’s whale and dolphin watching tours inTanon Strait has helped Bais gain national and international recognition. From 1999to 2000, there were a total of 3662 whale watchers recorded [35]. Despite the growingeconomic importance of tourism, fishing continues to be an important, althoughdeclining, activity in the area. Between 1992 and 1998, the number of full-time andpart-time fishers in the bay decreased from 3077 to 2491 [35].There have been four major ICM projects in the Bais Bay area between 1984

and the present. The World Bank-funded Central Visayas Regional Project(CVRP) (1984–1992) was the first ICM project in Bais Bay [19]. This was a pilotproject designed to test community-based rural development. In Bais Bay, CVRPworked in Manjuyod to establish a marine reserve in Sitio Limayag and BarangayCampuyo, establish a mangrove reforestation projects, and build artificial reefsand fish aggregating devices. In 1991, the Canadian International DevelopmentAgency (CIDA)-funded Environment and Resource Management Project (ERMP)was implemented in coordination with Silliman University. ERMP lasted only 1.5years. Following this project was the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN)–Australia funded Coastal Living Resources Project (CLRP) (1990–1994).This project focused on ecological studies in Bais Bay while engaging in a communityinformation drive and database management activities. In 1996, the USAID-fundedCoastal Resource Management Project (CRMP) began. This project concentrated onmangrove rehabilitation, enterprise development, and technical assistance. The latteractivity focused on enforcement of the national fisheries laws, formation of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resource Management Councils (FARMCs), and coastal planning.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


2.8. Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi, Indonesia

Bunaken National Park (BNP) is a 79,056 ha protected area located adjacent toManado, the provincial capital, on the northern tip of Sulawesi Island in theprovince of Minahasa, Indonesia (less than 2.71N). The southern park unit covers16,906 ha. The northern section of the park covers a total area of 62,150 ha andencloses five islands.Along with other Indonesian reefs in the Moluccas and the Lesser Sundas,

Sulawesi is a global hotspot for coral reef biodiversity [36]. To date over 450 speciesof coral have been identified within the Indonesian Archipelago [37]. In EasternIndonesia, there are a total of 80 coral genera [38]. The area is also renowned for itsexceptional fish diversity. There are at least 3000 species of shore fishes belonging to175 families [39]. The islands of BNP are fringed with approximately 8000 ha of coralreef. North Sulawesi’s narrow continental shelf drops away steeply to deep oceanichabitats.The population of the Minahasa Province has been increasing at a rapid rate,

especially in and near the capital of Manado. A total of 21,600 people live within thepark’s boundaries [40]. Five islands comprise the northern section of BNP: Bunaken(pop. 3100 including Siladen, 704.3 ha), Siladen (45.3 ha), Manado Tua (pop. 2239,1040.6 ha), Mantehage (pop. 1716, 726.4 ha), and Nain (pop. 3032, 166 ha) [41]. Themajority of BNP’s island residents are Christian, as is nearly 98% of the largerMinahasa region. However, there are over 2000 Muslim residents living on thepark’s islands. Nain, the most populated of the islands (possibly due to its successwith seaweed farming in recent years), is majority Islam. Increasing numbers ofMuslims are arriving in Minahasa as a result of unrest elsewhere in Indonesia.Most fishers living within the park’s boundaries are small-scale producers. Despite

the importance of the fisheries sector to national welfare, small-scale fishers areamongst the poorest in Indonesian society. While dive tourism is one of the maineconomic sectors in the North Sulawesi area, only a small number of BNP residentsare employed in tourism as dive guides, boat operators, cottage staff, and food andsouvenir sellers on Bunaken Island. In a 1999 survey, it was found that out of 368jobs in BNP’s tourism industry, only 24.5% went to native BNP residents [42]. Whiledive tourism has been active in the area since the 1970s, the number of visitors hasgreatly increased since 1993. According to records at the Manado Tourism Office,approximately 13,361 Indonesian tourists and 7213 foreign tourists visited BNPbetween March 2001 and March 2002. This is a dramatic increase from 2248 visitorsin 1985.In 1980, Bunaken was declared as the ‘‘Manado Marine Tourism Development

Area’’ (North Sulawesi Governor Decree no. 224). By 1988, some initial manage-ment attempts were made when the Ministry of Forestry divided BNP intomanagement zones. These zones were not enforced. Then in 1991, Bunaken wasdeclared a national park and the first integrated coastal management project in thearea, the Natural Resource Management Program (NRMP) funded by USAID,began. One objective of this project was to develop a management plan for BNP. In1997, the BNP Management Plan was approved by the Indonesian national

ARTICLE IN PRESS


government. NRMP (also referred to as NRM1) ended in 1996, but by 1998 afollow-up USAID-funded project began entitled the Natural Resource Manage-ment/Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite QuantityContract (or NRM/EPIQ). This project ended by 2004. Both of these programs hadsites throughout Indonesia, one of which was Bunaken National Park.NRM/EPIQ revised and developed many aspects of the 25-year management plan.

This project has succeeded in strengthening the park’s enforcement system,establishing a visitor fee financing mechanism, and instituted a re-zonation process[43]. Through collaborations with local organizations, such as the North SulawesiWater Sports Association (NSWA, www.bunaken.info/index.html), it also dimin-ished some of the negative effects of dive tourism on coral reefs. NRM/EPIQ workedto improve communication between certain stakeholders and encourage co-management approaches to conservation through the establishment of multi-sectoral management board, or Dewan. While neither the NRMP or NRM/EPIQefforts are self-described as ICM in their publications, they include activities—suchas multi-sectoral planning, livelihood generation, protected area establishment,private–public sector collaboration, ecotourism development, education, zonation,and enforcement—in coastal and marine areas that are the hallmark of other ICMprograms throughout the region.

3. Literature review

A literature review identified that legal, socio-cultural, economic, institutional,bio-physical, project design, and underlying contextual variables are likely to haveconsiderable impact on ICM sustainability. The following is a summary and analysisof that literature as relevant to ICM.

3.1. Legal

The creation an enabling legal framework emerges in the literature as fundamentalfor success and sustainability. This entails establishing clear rights, responsibilities,and authorities among stakeholders.

Legislation and policy for co-management (and community based processes) areembedded in broader networks of laws, policies and administrative procedures atboth the national and local level. [44, p. 470]

Harmonization of laws from the international, to national, to local levels such thatlaws at distinct levels are complementary, not contradictory, is likely to influencepolicy implementation.Laws regulating coastal resources and coastal development in the Philippines and

Indonesia are in a stage of rapid evolution. Most notably, the Local GovernmentCode of 1991 and the Fisheries Code of 1998 have created a remarkablydecentralized legal infrastructure in the Philippines. To some degree, this has beencontradicted by the passage of the National Integrated Protected Areas System

http://www.bunaken.info/index.html

ARTICLE IN PRESS


(NIPAS) Act in 1992 [45]. Indonesia, with passage of Act No. 22/1999, has followedthis trend toward governance decentralization [46].Much of ICM and MPA implementation in the Philippines, and increasingly in

Indonesia, utilizes community-based and co-management implementation strategies[47]. Ostrom’s comparative research [48], while not focused on ICM, highlights theneed for government agencies to support the rights of resource users to engage insome form of self-governance. Similarly, McCay and Jentoft [49] suggest that theprinciple of subsidiarity—the making of decisions at the lowest capable level ofsocial organization—should inform policy-making. But community-led processesrequire external support [47]. Ostrom [48] concludes that local-level common poolresource management regimes must be nested within wider, and supportive,governance structures for such approaches to function properly. Supportive nationallegal frameworks are frequently the result of policy making at higher levelsof governance, or one-half of what Olsen et al. [5] term the ‘‘two track’’ approachto ICM.Effective compliance or enforcement of laws is likely closely dependent on how

laws and the law-making process are perceived. The perceived legitimacy of lawslikely affects compliance [50]. McCay and Jentoft [49] suggest that exocratic policydevelopment, whereby laws and policies are imposed from outside a network ofresource users, are likely to be perceived as lacking legitimacy and encourage non-compliance. Once laws and policies are developed, comparative research on factorsaffecting success of community-based management on Pacific Islands demonstratedthat knowledge of relevant laws led to broader acceptance [8].‘‘Corruption’’ is a term frequently utilized to describe rule-avoidance in Southeast

Asia. Mostly commonly, it is invoked to describe pay-offs between rule breakers andauthority figures—for instance, when illegal fishers pay off local officials. Lowe [51]points out that this is an overly narrow analysis that limits the gaze of examinationto the least significant level rather than the level where more important collusionexists between government institutions, businesses, and military systems. This raisesthe question of when and upon whom are laws enforced (or not). This is a themeraised by Eisma et al. [45].

3.2. Institutional factors

Formal institutions, such as government ministries and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), and informal institutions, such as communities and families,are engaged in ICM. As a planning process involving a broad range of institutions,ICM relies on and attempts to facilitate effective interactions within and betweenformal and informal institutions from various sectors of society.The development and coastal management literatures provide insight into

institutional design principles that might support ICM process sustainability.Commitment and accountability emerge as important themes to explain institutionalsupport for ICM. ICM requires long-term commitment from government agencies,NGOs, donors, and other institutions [8]. The iterative and expanding nature ofICM likely requires donor commitment on the scale of decades, not years [5,8]. The

ARTICLE IN PRESS


balance between necessary long-term financial support and counterproductivedependence on external financial support—that is frequently secured as loans—is notextensively explored in the ICM literature, yet has considerable implications for ICMprocess sustainability [2,11,47].Factors that support the commitment of resource user communities to marine

protected areas or ICM have been studied in depth [8,9,21,52,53]. The importanceof ownership, meaningful participation, and influence within planningprocesses emerge as key themes [2,5,44,54]. If ‘‘exocratically’’ developed policiesare imposed, these are unlikely to be perceived as legitimate by resource users,especially in post-colonial/post-dictatorship contexts such as the Philippinesand Indonesia in which institutions frequently have not represented the publicinterest [49]. Evaluations of ICM in Pacific Islands and Sri Lanka demonstratethat government institutions should facilitate community-driven decisions andeffectively enforce relevant laws [8,55]. They can also foster collective action bycommunities that is at the heart of community-based coastal resources management[52–54,56].The responsibilities and historic relations between institutions often influences

commitment to ICM. In the Philippines, the Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources (BFAR) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) are frequently in disagreement over policy issues. Similarly, there is likely tobe tensions when new institutions, such as the Indonesian Ministry of MarineAffairs, emerge within an existing array of entities. The implementation of the LocalGovernment Code in the Philippines and Law 22 in Indonesia, which mandatedecentralized policy making, result in periods of institutional instability and inter-institutional clashes. Similarly, the emergence of national and international NGOs ascentral actors within coastal and environmental management in recent decades hasrequired a change in mindset amongst government institutions. The NGOs, withconsiderable financial resources, expertise, and strong links to resource usercommunities, have challenged the notion that ICM is necessarily a government-ledeffort.ICM is dependent on trust between individuals and cooperation between

institutions [57]. But it is also dependent on upward and downward accountability[58,59]. Several researchers and practitioners of ICM [7,55] highlight the importanceof multi-party commitment by formal and informal institutions. As stated earlier,common pool regime theory provides helpful design principles such as the need fornested institutions providing support for locally led initiatives [48].Institutions can play a variety of roles within ICM. They may provide funding,

education, technical assistance, community outreach, and legal support. The internalcapabilities and weaknesses of each institution necessitate that institutionscollaborate to provide a complementary array of support. Comparative studies [8]suggest that external institutions should play the role of ‘‘honest broker’’ providingtechnical assistance on demand and supporting existing institutions and processes.ICM is a dynamic process requiring adaptive planning and flexibility withininstitutions—processes that are not always supported when funding is tied to pre-determined deliverables.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


The ability of institutions to play the role of technical advisors and ‘‘honestbrokers’’ depends in large part on human capacity. Hilderbrand and Grindle [60, p.34] define human capacity as the ability to perform appropriate tasks effectively,efficiently, and sustainably. ICM programs are advised to emphasize ‘‘capacitybuilding’’ or ‘‘the improvements in the ability of public sector organizations, eithersingly or in cooperation with other organizations, to perform appropriate tasks’’[60, p. 34].The culture within any institution will undoubtedly affect its capacity to respond

to the changes posed by ICM [57]. Just as ICM necessitates an adaptive, iterative,and dynamic process, a capable institution requires flexibility, participation,teamwork, problem solving, shared professional norms, and a strong sense ofmission [60]. The placing of capable persons, who are both well trained and sensitiveto the dynamics and needs of a wide range of constituents, is fundamental forsuccess.The fact that ICM processes are frequently established and led by ICM projects is

an important consideration for process sustainability. Increasingly the emphasis hasbeen shifted to instilling particular behavior patterns and societal conditions, as wellas fostering commitment within national institutions [7]. However, the unit ofintervention, the project, remains the dominant delivery mechanism. The focus ofattention remains relatively narrow involving a suite of institutions (fisheries andenvironmental NGOs and GOs), communities (coastal not upland), and ecosystems(coral reefs and mangroves). This may be due to the constraints within whichorganizations and donors exist as well as biodiversity conservation priorities. Whileexpanding ICM to other sectors, issues, and ecosystems may seem appealing, it mayalso become rapidly unmanageable. The ability for such approaches to address verybroad issues of inequity, market penetration, and climate change—which arefrequently root causes of coastal degradation—is under question by some [61].

In some countries, performance problems diagnosed at the organizational orindividual level may be so deeply embedded in economic, social and politicaldeficiencies that efforts to improve performance most focus primarily on theseconditions. [60, p. 33]

Much of the above considerations and opportunities depend, to a great extent, onthe general stability of institutions and civil society—what Hildebrand and Grindle[60] term the ‘‘action environment’’. Thus, ‘‘political stability’’ is also a factormarkedly influencing ICM and process sustainability. Both the Philippines andIndonesia are well known for recent and ongoing political upheavals. Theengagement of national agencies, national budgets, and political will are all affectedby political and institutional instability.

3.3. Socio-cultural factors

The community-level dynamics associated with the implementation of ICM ormarine protected areas has received growing attention [57,62]. The term ‘‘commu-nity’’ is used, in this context, to refer to the coastal communities of resource users

ARTICLE IN PRESS


that rely primarily on coastal ecosystems for their livelihoods and food. Thesecommunities are heterogeneous, with complex histories, inter-group dynamics, andresource-use patterns.The level and implications of community participation in the formulation and

implementation of ICM programs is an important theme in the coastal andenvironmental management literatures [3,47,52,53,63]. In many cases, these coastalcommunities are engaged directly in the implementation of community-based ICMactivities (e.g., MPAs). The literature consists largely of case studies, but there are agrowing number of comparative studies available [8,9,64]. Whether communitieshave influence and benefit directly from ICM (and MPAs) has been consistentlyidentified as central to program success [8,9,64].The interaction between communities and formal institutions responsible for ICM

is sometimes characterized as contentious [65,66] and other times characterized ascollaborative [44,67]. Conflict and its resolution are clearly themes within ICM thatdeserves more attention [68,69]. The potential for collaboration is influenced by howICM practitioners perceive ‘‘communities’’ and how they are engaged in ICM.

Implicit in this literature are (unexplored) assumptions about who has ‘rights’ touse coastal resources, what constitutes a community, and how ‘homogeneous’communities are. [55, p. 721]

While not frequently cited in the ICM or MPA literature, the interactions betweenconstituency groups is strongly influenced by power and class dynamics[47,51,65,66].

Much of this literature is also silent about how power is distributed amongindividuals, families and groups in communities, how management responsibilityis most effectively organized, and the incentives needed to engage communitystakeholders in collective efforts to manage resources. Also missing arediscussions about community ‘capacity’ to share in the management of resources,the willingness of government agencies to share resource management responsi-bilities, the conditions that foster ‘sustainable’ co-management and a host of otherconsiderations. [55, p. 721]

One of the challenges that ICM faces is that communities, even within the sameregion, vary considerably in their history, stability, and receptivity to ICM. Jentoftaptly characterizes this diversity when he describes some communities as ‘‘ideal’’when they are ‘‘a social group possessing shared beliefs, a stable membership, theexpectation of continuing interaction, and a pattern of relations that are direct andmultiplex’’ [54]. Unfortunately, in a post-colonial, market-driven context fraughtwith political and economic inequities, few communities in the Philippines andIndonesia can be accurately described as ‘‘ideal’’ in Jentoft’s sense. Rather,community members (frequently in collusion with authorities) are engaged in clearlyunsustainable resource extraction as a means of survival [70]. In many cases, coastalcommunities harbor deep distrust for government agencies that have not representedtheir needs or provided useful services [70].

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Pomeroy et al. [64] and Pollnac et al. [9,21] are identifying those conditions thatbest allow for community-based or co-management practices to flourish in thePhilippines. Pollnac et al. [9] identified the following factors, based on a comparativestudy of multiple sites within the Philippines, as the best predictors of community-based MPA success:

(1)
relatively small population size (of nearby communities); (2) a perceived crisis in terms of reduced fish populations before the MPA project; (3) successful alternative income projects; (4) relatively high level of community participation in decision making; (5) continuing advice from the implementing organization; and (6) adequate inputs from the municipal government.
The community and ICM project characteristics that foster long-term sustainablemanagement have not been well developed but are gaining attention [21,71].

3.4. Economic factors

The economic value of coastal ecosystems, ranging from direct benefit to servicessuch as shoreline protection, is remarkably high and broadly underestimated [72,73].This undervaluation and the perception that resources are inexhaustible havefostered unsustainable practices. As a response, ICM is intended to balanceeconomic growth with sustainable resource use. But the desperate state of affairs inmany developing countries has tended to encourage the former over the latter. Thereis a growing realization that economic growth and societal needs are based on ahealthy environment [74].While not broadly considered in the ICM literature, the powerful economic forces

associated with globalization are clearly pre-determining the influence that ICM mayhave. As a case in point, the live fish trade, largely reliant on cyanide fishing, mainlyserves foreign restaurant and aquarium business interests. The practice continuesdespite its tremendously negative impact on ecosystems and human health, at leastpartly since it earns hard currency and meets the immediate needs of destitute fishers[73,75,76]. In contrast, the opening of tourism and global markets for somemaricultured products (e.g., seaweeds) is likely having a positive impact on nationaland local economies and ecosystems.The once remote corners of the Philippines and Indonesia are now subject to

globalization policies that call for the removal of trade barriers and free mobility ofdomestic and foreign capital. Some [65] have argued that ICM is best described as aglobalizing mechanism allowing for market penetration in a manner that harms localcommunities. In contrast to much of the ICM literature and stated goals of ICM,Nichols argues that ICM regulatory regimes ‘‘facilitate the opening of coastal zonesworldwide to aggressive state and global capital investment’’ and ‘‘by asserting theprimacy of resource access for modern economic interests, ICM may introduce morerather than less social conflict and ecological degradation’’ [65, p. 388].

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Partly in response to desperate economic conditions, alternative or supplementallivelihood activities are frequently part of ICM and MPA programs [9,64,71,77].These activities frequently take the form of consumer cooperatives, mariculture andagricultural development, and, increasingly, eco-tourism development. The generalintent of such programs is to offset the sacrifices made by resource users whileengaged in conservation efforts. The emerging consensus is that eco-tourism andconservation are mutually supporting. Clearly the social dynamics that emergebetween distinct constituency groups, for example tourism brokers and fishers, arecomplex and not without pitfalls [6,66]. The links between these activities needgreater attention and benefit when analytic models are utilized allowing forcomparative research [62,78].Implicit in the ICM model and program design is that coastal communities,

businesses, and NGOs will benefit economically from ICM implementation.Communities could benefit from improved coastal resources and alternative incomeprograms. Coastal businesses, such as ecotourism ventures, could benefitfrom improved coastal resources and improved zonation. Government agenciesand personnel directly benefit from project financial support and taxationschemes. NGOs depend on project funds to maintain their staff and institutions.It is plausible that buy-in from these various constituencies depends on the degreeof economic benefits or ‘‘resources’’ they secure [79]. These benefit streams willchange after a project is terminated and the ICM process cannot rely on externalfunding.

3.5. Bio-physical factors

Many of the above-mentioned economic benefits are dependent on improvementsin bio-physical conditions in ICM sites. While the Philippines and Indonesia areendowed with some of the most diverse and productive marine and coastalecosystems in the world [38], it is well know that Philippine and Indonesiannearshore ecosystems and fishing grounds are under considerable strain [10,74,80].Some forces, such as ocean temperature increases, are now negatively impacting evenremote coral reefs [13].While environmentalist NGOs and donors make funding contingent on

demonstrable environmental improvements, the peer reviewed ICM literaturegenerally lacks accounts of whether ICM directly results in improved conditionsof tropical coastal ecosystems [14]. The bio-physical impacts of MPAs, one of thefavored ICM tools, is better document but is the subject of a lively debate. Somemaintain that a favorable scientific consensus is emerging for MPAs [81], whileothers suggest that broader fisheries management and incentive systems arefundamental to stock recovery [82]. In the context of gross overfishing and thelack of effective fisheries policies restricting fishing effort, even successful MPAs thatresult in initial environmental improvements are under considerable strain [83]. It islikely that as fish stocks improve in one location, desperate fishers are moving fromsites of degraded fishing grounds to the periphery of MPAs. As a result, fishpopulations inside and near MPAs are declining.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


The literature does not document whether improvements in the environment as aresult of active management motivates constituency support for ICM or MPAs.Pollnac et al. [9] determined that a perceived environmental crisis motivatedindividuals to support MPAs.

3.6. Project design factors

There has been considerable attention in the ICM literature to design principlesfor ‘‘success’’ [84]. However, the issue of how to sustain success through projectdesign has not been well addressed [21,71]. Success and sustainability may be related,but that is not certain in all cases. The following table (Table 1) contains some of themost salient design principles for success and possibly for sustainability.Enforceability of regulations has emerged as an important, and challenging, aspect

of ICM project design. As ICM and MPAs depend on rules determining how

Table 1

Review of papers with ICM sustainability factors

Author Design Principle (with relevant ICMSRP theme issue article authors)

Courtney et al. 2000 [85] Complementary national and local institutional implementation plans

(Eisma et al., Lowry et al., White et al.)

Jentoft 2000 [54] Seek to embed co-management (behaviors, expectations) at community

level (Christie et al., Oracion et al., Pollnac and Pomeroy)

Olsen 1993 [86] Work to build constituencies for improved resource management at all

levels of society (Oracion et al., Pollnac and Pomeroy, Pomery et al., Thiele

et al., White et al.)

Olsen et al. 1998 [5] Work at both the national and local levels, with strong linkages between

levels (Eisma et al., Lowry et al., White et al.)

Develop an open, participatory and democratic process, with

opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute to planning and

implementation (Christie et al., Oracion et al., Pollnac and Pomeroy,

Pomeroy et al., White et al.)

Utilize the best-available information for planning and decision-making

(de Leon and White)

Commit to building national capacity through short- and long-term

training (Lowry et al., White et al.)

Complete the loop between planning and implementation as quickly and

frequently as possible, using small projects that demonstrate the

effectiveness of innovative policies (Sievanen et al.)

Set specific targets, monitor, and self-evaluate performance (Christie et al.,

de Leon and White)

Olsen 1993 [85] Work to build constituencies for improved resource management at all

levels of society (Oracion et al., Pomeroy et al., White et al.)

World Bank 1999 [8] During project implementation phase provide assistance with technical

aspects of resource management on demand (Lowry et al., White et al.)

Degree of change sought should be commensurate with length of

commitment (White et al.)

ARTICLE IN PRESS


resources will be allocated and managed (in an increasingly difficult context),enforcement is a logical aspect of any program. Increasingly, international NGOsand donors are becoming involved in enforcement issues. Some observers areconcerned that ICM and MPA programs may overemphasize enforcement and thatcollaboration and compliance with rules is a more effective and equitable approach[51,65]. On the other hand, some would suggest that self-compliance andcommunity-led enforcement has little hope in deterring well-organized and violentsyndicates from rampant resource exploitation. The increased interest andcontroversial subject suggest the need for further experimentation in design andcloser monitoring of impacts.Similarly, sustainable financing for ICM warrants attention. ICM is generally

expensive and requires a regular stream of financial support. Sustainable financingregimes that utilize various taxation schemes are being field tested [31] and ambitiousplans for a global fund have been proposed [87]. Frequently, divers fees, collectedfrom those visiting an MPA, are earmarked for enforcement since paying divers aremost interested in having these funds used for tangible activities that enhance theirdiving experience and benefit coral reefs. Both enforcement and sustainablefinancing are addressed in this study [45,71].

4. Conclusion: utilizing the literature review

Based on this review, the research project began by focusing attention on theimpacts of the following factors on ICM process sustainability: decentralization ofpolicy development, community-level characteristics and dynamics, the role of legalconsistency, ICM derived economic and bio-physical benefits (if they exist), ICMproject strategies for human and institutional capacity development, financialmechanisms, and the use and management of information. Initial findings shapedfollow-up researching resulting in rich, multidisciplinary analyses.This introductory analysis sets the stage for the papers contained within this theme

issue dedicated to ICM process sustainability. Two important conclusions should bedrawn from this introductory paper—that ICM process sustainability is a multi-faceted issue and that there are no simple solutions to address non-sustainability.While the research findings contained within this theme issue are grounded incomparative research in a variety of sites, the ICM practitioner must contextualizethese findings to make them relevant to the issues they face. While adoption ofrecommendations made in these papers is likely to improve ICM sustainability, notall are appropriate for each context or issue at hand. In short, these papers do notprovide a ‘‘silver bullet’’ that works in all contexts. Rather, adopting them is likely toimprove the rate of success. They provide a departure point and guide for ICMpractitioners to evaluate their programs. To make critical education more feasible,the researchers papers have been converted into educational materials (that areavailable upon request) [15]. For the researcher of ICM, these concepts also provideguidance for future research on coastal management.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Acknowledgements

This research was made possible with the financial support of the David andLucile Packard Foundation (Grant no. 2000-14652) and National ScienceFoundation (Grant no. DGE-0132132). The opinions expressed herein are thoseof the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the David and LucilePackard Foundation or National Science Foundation. The author would like toexpress his gratitude to Joel Simonetti and Leila Sievanen who assisted with earlierdrafts of portions of this paper.

References

[1] Sorensen J. National and international efforts at integrated coastal management: definitions,

achievements, and lessons. Coastal Management 1997;25:3–41.

[2] Olsen SB, Christie P. What are we learning from tropical coastal management experiences? Coastal

Management 2000;28:5–18.

[3] Cicin-Sain B, Knecht R. Integrated coastal and ocean management: concepts and practices.

Washington, DC: Island Press; 1998.

[4] GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on

the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). The Contributions of Science to

Integrated Coastal Management. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 61, 1996. 66pp.

[5] Olsen SB, Tobey J, Hale LZ. A learning-based approach to coastal management. Ambio 1998;27:

611–9.

[6] Oracion EG, Miller ML, Christie P. Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism, and

solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/

j.ocecoaman.2005.04.013.

[7] White AT, Salamanca A, Courtney CA. Experience with marine protected area planning and

management in the Philippines. Coastal Management 2002;30:1–26.

[8] World Bank. Voices from the village, a comparative study of coastal resource management in the

Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series No. 9, Washington, DC, 1999.

[9] Pollnac RB, Crawford BR, Gorospe MLG. Discovering factors that influence the success of

community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Manage-

ment 2001;44:683–710.

[10] Dahuri R, Dutton IM. Integrated coastal and marine management enters a new era in Indonesia.

Integrated Coastal Zone Management 2000;1:11–6.

[11] Olsen SB. Assessing progress toward the goals of coastal management. Coastal Management

2002;30:325–44.

[12] Nickerson D, Olsen SB. Collaborative learning initiatives in integrated coastal management. Coastal

Management Report #2239, University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett,

RI, 2003.

[13] Burke L, Selig L, Spalding M. Reefs and risk in Southeast Asia. Washington DC: World Resources

Institute; 2002.

[14] Christie P. Observed and perceived environmental impacts of integrated coastal management in two

Southeast Asia sites. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoa-

man.2005.04.012.

[15] Milne N, Christie P, Oram RG, Eisma RV, White AT. ICM process sustainability reference book.

Cebu City, Philippines: University of Washington and the Coastal Resources Management Project-

Philippines; 2003. 55pp.

[16] Oram RG, Milne N, Christie P, Eisma RV, de Leon R. Integrated coastal management process

sustainability training module. Silliman University Marine Laboratory, Dumaguete City, Negros

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.013




ARTICLE IN PRESS


Oriental, Philippines and University of Washington, School of Marine Affairs, Seattle, Washington,

United States, 2002. 77pp.

[17] Milne N, Wright R, Christie P. A review of integrated coastal management educational materials:

matching materials with needs. Coastal Management 2004;32:61–75.

[18] White AT, pers. comm. Team leader for the design of Integrated Coastal Resource Management

Project to be funded by the Asian Development Bank.

[19] Thiele M. Factors influencing the success and sustainability of integrated coastal management in the

Philippines: evaluation of the World Bank Central Visayas Regional Project (1984–1992). Masters

thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 2003.

[20] Pomeroy RS, Oracion EG, Pollnac RB, Caballes DA. Perceived economic factors influencing the

sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal

Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.010.

[21] Pollnac RB, Pomeroy RS. Factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management

projects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/


[22] Salamanca A, Uychiaoco AJ, Alino PM. Maricaban Strait and Batangas Bay. In: Alino PM, editor.

The Philippine coral reef atlas. Coral reef information network of the Philippines. University of the

Philippines Marine Science Institute and the Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research

and Development, Manila, Philippines, 2002.

[23] Fenner D. Reef corals of Anilao, Batangas, Philippines. Report for World Wide Fund for Nature—

Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines, 2001.

[24] White AT, Christie P, Apurado J, Meneses AT, White EE, Tesch S. Coral reef monitoring for

conservation in Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines. Cebu City, Philippines: Coastal

Conservation and Education Foundation, 2001.

[25] National Statistics Office. 2000. Population census. www.census.gov.ph/census2000/index.html

[26] National Statistics Office. 2000. Quickstat. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/quickstat/index.html

[27] Telesis. A socioeconomic framework for the proposed Haribon/University of Rhode Island project in

Batangas Province, Philippines. Narragansett, RI, 1994.

[28] Commission on Population. The State of the Philippine Population Report. Statistical annex. B.

National Data. 2000. http://www.popcom.gov.ph/sppr/statistics/table7.htm

[29] Haribon Foundation for Nature, Unpublished data, 1994.

[30] World Wide Fund (WWF) for Nature-Philippines. Contingent valuation in estimating entrance fees

for divers at Mabini-Tingloy sites. Quezon City, Philippines, 2001.

[31] Tongson E, Dygico M. User fee system for marine ecotourism: the Tubbataha Reef experience.

Coastal Management 2004;32:17–23.

[32] Calumpong HP, Luchavez JA. Profile of Bais Bay Basin. Silliman Journal 1997;37(3–4):1–6.

[33] Yambao AC, White AT, Ablong WE, Alcala MR. Coastal environmental profile of Negros Oriental,

Philippines. Cebu City. Philippines: Coastal Resources Management Project, 2001.

[34] National Statistics Office. Family Income and Expenditures Survey. Income and Employment

Statistics Division, Household Statistics Department, Manila, Republic of the Philippines, 2000.

[35] Luchavez JA, Abrenica B. Fisheries profile of Bais Bay, Negros Oriental. Silliman Journal

1997;37(3–4):93–100.

[36] Boyer M. Marine biodiversity of Sulawesi sea: first report. Italian–Indonesian-Cooperation.

University of Ancona, Ancona, Italy, 2001.

[37] Kahn B, Fauzi A. Fisheries in the Sulu Sulawesi Seas—Indonesian Country Report: assessment of the

state of biophysical, socio-economic and institutional aspects of coastal and pelagic fisheries in the

Indonesian part of the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas. The WWF Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion Fisheries

Project, 2001.

[38] Tomascik T, Mah AJ, Nontji A, Moosa MK. The ecology of Indonesian seas, Part Two. Singapore:

Periplus Editions; 1997.

[39] Lieske E, Myers R. Coral reef fishes: Indo-pacific and Caribbean. London: Harper Collins Pocket

Guides; 1996.




http://www.census.gov.ph/census2000/index.html

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/quickstat/index.html

http://www.popcom.gov.ph/sppr/statistics/table7.htm

ARTICLE IN PRESS


[40] Mehta A. Bunaken National Park: Natural History Book. Manado, Indonesia: Natural Resources

Management Program; 1999.

[41] Registrasi PendudukMenurut Desa Tahun (Population Registration by Villages—1996). 1996. http://

www.jatim.go.id/index.php.

[42] Lee V. An assessment of ecotourism’s abilities to provide local benefits, Bunaken National Park,

Indonesia. Report for the Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI). Funded by the

Canadian International Development Agency, 1999.

[43] Erdmann M, Merrill PR, Mongdong M, Arsyad I, Harahap Z, Pangalila R, Elverawati R, Baworo P.

Building effective co-management systems for decentralized protected areas management in Indonesia:

Bunaken National Park case study. Jakarta: Natural Resources Management Program, 2004.

[44] Pomeroy RS, Berkes F. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine

Policy 1997;21:465–80.

[45] Eisma RV, Christie P, Hershman MJ. Legal issues affecting sustainability of integrated coastal

management in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoa-

man.2005.04.009.

[46] Patlis J. The role of law and legal institutions in determining the sustainability of integrated coastal

management projects in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Marine Resources Special

Edition 2003;1:73–94.

[47] Christie P, White AT. Trends in the development of coastal area management in tropical countries:

from central to community orientation. Coastal Management 1997;25:155–81.

[48] Ostrom E. Governing the commons, the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York:

Cambridge University Press; 1992.

[49] McCay B, Jentoft S. From the bottom up: participatory issues in fisheries management. Society and

Natural Resources 1996;9(3):237–50.

[50] Crawford BR, Siahainenian A, Rotinsulu C, Sukmara A. Compliance and enforcement of

community-based coastal management regulations in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Manage-

ment 2004;32:39–50.

[51] Lowe C. Sustainability and the question of ‘‘enforcement’’ in integrated coastal management: the case

of Nain Island, Bunaken National Park. Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Marine Resources

Special Edition 2003;1:49–63.

[52] Ferrer EM, Polotan de la Cruz L, Domingo MA, editors. Seeds of hope. Manila, the Philippines:

College of Social Work and Community Development, The University of the Philippines, 1996.

[53] White AT, Hale LZ, Renard Y, Cortesi L, editors. Collaborative and community-based management

of coral reefs: lessons from experience. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press; 1994.

[54] Jentoft S. The community: the missing link of fisheries management. Marine Policy 2000;24:53–9.

[55] Lowry K, Pallewatte N, Dainis AP. Policy-relevant assessment of community-level coastal

management projects in Sri Lanka. Ocean and Coastal Management 1999;42:717–45.

[56] Christie P, Buhat D, Garces LR, White AT. The challenges and rewards of community-based coastal

resources management: San Salvador Island, Philippines. In: Brechin SR, Wilshusen PR, Fortwangler

CL, West PC, editors. Contested nature—promoting international biodiversity conservation with

social justice in the twenty-first century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 2003. p. 231–49.

[57] Mascia MB. Social dimensions of marine reserves. In: Sobel J, Dalgren C, editors. Marine reserves: a

guide to science, design, and use. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2004. p. 164–86.

[58] Sabatier P, Mazmanian D. Policy implementation. In: Nagel, Stuart, editors. Encyclopedia of policy

sciences. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1983.

[59] Lowry K, White AT, Courtney CA. National and local agency roles in integrated coastal

management activities in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/


[60] Hildebrand ME, Grindle MS. Building sustainable capacity in the public sector. In: Grindle MS,

editor. Getting good government capacity building in the public sectors of developing countries,

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1997. p. 31–61.

[61] Vandermeer J, Perfecto I. Breakfast of biodiversity: the truth about rain forest destruction. Oakland:

Food First Books; 1995. 184pp.

http://www.jatim.go.id/index.php

http://www.jatim.go.id/index.php





ARTICLE IN PRESS


[62] Christie P, McCay BJ, Miller ML, Lowe C, White AT, Stoffle R, Fluharty DL, Talaue-McManus L,

Chuenpagdee R, Pomeroy C, Suman DO, Blount BG, Huppert D, Villahermosa Eisma RL, Oracion

E, Lowry K, Pollnac RB. Toward developing a complete understanding: a social science research

agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries 2003;28(12):22–6.

[63] Kay R, Alder J. Coastal planning and management. New York: Routledge; 1999.

[64] Pomeroy RS, Pollnac RB, Katon BM, Predo CD. Evaluating factors contributing to the success of

community-based coastal resource management: the Central Visayas Regional Project-1, Philippines.

Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;36:97–120.

[65] Nichols K. Coming to terms with ‘‘integrated coastal management’’: problems of meaning and

method in a new arena of resource regulation. Professional Geographer 1999;51:388–99.

[66] Trist C. Recreating ocean space: recreational consumption and representation of the Caribbean

marine environment. Professional Geographer 1999;51:376–87.

[67] Christie P, White AT. Reef fish yield and reef condition for San Salvador Island, Luzon, Philippines.

Asian Fisheries Science 1994;7:135–48.

[68] McCreary S, Gamman J, Brooks B, Whitman L, Bryson R, Fuller B, McInerny A, Glazer R.

Applying a mediated negotiation framework to integrated coastal zone management. Coastal

Management 2001;29:183–216.

[69] Westmacott S. Where should the focus be in tropical integrated coastal management? Coastal

Management 2002;30:67–84.

[70] Lowe C. Global markets, local injustice in Southeast Asian seas: the live reef fish trade and local

fishers in the Togean Islands of Sulawesi. In: People, plants and justice: the politics of nature

conservation. New York: Columbia University Press; 2000. p. 234–58.

[71] White AT, Christie P, Lowry K, D’Agnes H, Milne N. Designing ICM projects for sustainability:

lessons from the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, this edition.

[72] Costanza R. The ecological, economic, and social importance of the oceans. Ecological Economics

1999;31:199–213.

[73] Cesar HSJ, Warren KA, Sadovy Y, Lau P, Meijer S, van Ireland E. Marine market transformation of

the live reef fish food trade in Southeast Asia. In: Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs.

CORDIO, Department for Biology and Environmental Sciences, Kalmar University, Sweden, 2000.

[74] Green SJ, White AT, Flores JO, Carreon III MF, Sia AE. Philippine fisheries in crisis: a framework

for management. Cebu City, Philippines: Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department

of Environment and Natural Resources; 2003. 77pp.

[75] Johannes RE, Riepen M. Environmental, economic, and social implications of the live reef fish trade

in Asia and the Western Pacific. Report to the South Pacific Commission and The Nature

Conservancy, Honolulu, 1995. 81pp.

[76] Barber CV, Pratt VR. Sullied seas: strategies for combating cyanide fishing in Southeast Asia and

beyond. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, and International Marinelife Alliance, Manila,

Philippines, 1997.

[77] Sievanen L, Lowe C, Pollnac R, Crawford B. Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches

in ICM: eucheuma farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, this

issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.015.

[78] Miller ML. The rise of coastal and marine tourism. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;20:181–99.

[79] Zald M. Looking backward to look forward: reflections on the past and future of the resource

mobilization research program. In: Morris AD, Mueller CM, editors. Frontiers in social movement

theory. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1992. p. 326–48.

[80] Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR), 2004. In

turbulent seas: the status of Philippine marine fisheries. Cebu City, Philippines: Coastal Resource

Management Project, 378pp.

[81] Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, Goodridge R. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent

fisheries. Science 2001;294:1920–3.

[82] Hilborn R, Punt AE, Orensanz J. Beyond band-aids in fisheries management: fixing world fisheries.

Bulletin Marine Science 2004;74:493–507.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


[83] Christie P, White AT, Deguit E. Starting point or solution? community-based marine protected areas

in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Management 2002;66:441–54.

[84] Chua TE. Enhancing the success of integrated coastal management. Proceedings of the international

workshop on ICM in tropical countries, Xiamen, China, May 24–28, 1996.

[85] Courtney CA, White AT. Integrated coastal management in the Philippines: testing new paradigms.

Coastal Management 2000;28:39–53.

[86] Olsen SB. Will integrated coastal management programs be sustainable: the constituency problem.

Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21:201–25.

[87] Olsen SB, Kenchington R, Davies N, Dutra GF, Hale LZ, Robles A, Wells S. A global network for

sustained governance of coastal ecosystems. In: Glover LK, Earle SA, editors. Defying ocean’s end.

Washington, DC: Island Press; 2004. p. 151–63.

Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable?

Documents

Transcript of Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable?