An indicator framework for assessing progress in land and marine planning in Colombia and Cuba

Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

An indicator framework for assessing progress in land and marine planning in Colombia and Cuba C.M. Botero a,∗,1 , L.M. Fanning b , C. Milanes c,1 , J.A. Planas d a

Joaquin Aaron Manjarres Research Group, University Sergio Arboleda, Calle 18 No. 14A – 18, Santa Marta, Colombia Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, P.O. Box 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Multidisciplinary Study Center of Coastal Zones (CEMZOC), Universidad de Oriente, Las Américas Avenue s/n, CP 90500 Santiago de Cuba, Cuba d Research Center in Solar Energy, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Micro III, District Abel Santamaría, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 31 July 2015 Received in revised form 1 December 2015 Accepted 3 December 2015 Keywords: Integrated coastal management (ICM) River basin management (RBM) Marine spatial planning (MSP) Land use planning (LUP) Planning instruments Indicators Effectiveness of ICM Cuba Colombia

a b s t r a c t Achievement of environmental management goals and objectives in coastal areas, including how to measure success, remains a significant subject for discussion among scholars and practitioners, meanwhile four distinct management efforts potentially converge within the coastal zone: land-use planning (LUP), river basin management (RBM), marine spatial planning (MSP) and integrated coastal management (ICM). This paper examines the general lack of attention being paid to overlapping spatial boundaries within the landward and marine areas and proposes an indicator-based framework to measure the effectiveness of the individual planning instruments, as opposed to specific initiatives, in achieving management goals. The six indicators used in the framework (planning; participation; communication; integration; responsibility and balance) are based on a modified version of the Coastal Sustainability Standard methodology described by Gallagher (2010). The framework provides for four scenarios of progress in three geographical dimensions (river, municipality and marine area) to be assessed. For this study, the Caribbean coast of Colombia and Cuba were identified as the areas to test the feasibility and relevance of the indicator framework to monitor progress in the different management approaches established to achieve coastal sustainability. Several key observations and lessons from the indicator-based framework are discussed in order to analyze the overlapping of the four space-based instruments, identify areas for targeted intervention and improve their integration. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The adoption of integrated coastal management (ICM) as an approach for addressing the challenges confronting coastal states, as a result of growing pressures in the terrestrial and near-shore coastal areas, was a significant output of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. After more than two decades, hundreds of ICM initiatives, thousands of scientific papers, national and multinational reports, the question surrounding the achievement of ICM goals and objectives, including how to measure success, remains a significant subject for discussion among scholars and practitioners alike (Olsen, 2003; Stojanovic et al., 2004; Bille, 2007; Tabet and Fanning, 2012; Jacobson et al., 2014; Maccarrone et al., 2014). Specifically, it has been remarked that “ICM evaluation remains

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +57 318 206 4824. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.M. Botero), [email protected] (L.M. Fanning), [email protected] (C. Milanes), [email protected] (J.A. Planas). 1 Member of the Iberoamerican Network of Integrated Coastal Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.038 1470-160X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

referred as an important issue, rather than being directly addressed” (Bille, 2007:797). Some authors have offered an explanation to this criticism by noting that the effectiveness of ICM is directly related with the rather broad set of objectives stipulated by clause 17.5, Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 (Anilkumar et al., 2010), while others have focused on the availability of suitable quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess them (Liu et al., 2012). Others have attributed the lack in evaluation progress to the plethora of terms related with management of coastal areas (e.g. integrated coastal management, integrated coastal zone management, integrated coastal and ocean management, coastal and marine spatial planning, marine spatial planning), the long time-frame needed to complete each ICM cycle (usually between 8 and 15 years), or simply the influence of economic interests over social, environmental and political objectives (Ferreira et al., 2014; Milanes, 2014). As noted by Bille (2007), the essence of ICM is to gradually integrate coastal areas under an appropriate management system, rather than specifically improving instruments to implement management initiatives. Furthermore, it has been argued that

182

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

Fig. 1. Boundaries of each space-based planning instrument applied in coastal areas. (a) River basin; (b) marine area; (c) municipal jurisdiction; (d) coastal zone; (e) overlapping of a + b + c + d.

when designing an effective management system, integration must address the need to reconcile current spatial planning efforts at multiple levels, particularly at the local level, as an essential prerequisite for success (Kerr et al., 2014). The need to focus on integrating efforts at the local level is illustrated by the multiple spatial planning efforts that occur within an area’s coastal and near-shore environments, leaving local governments to experience considerable difficulties in dealing with the plethora of authorities involved with coastal planning and management within their jurisdictions (Liu et al., 2011). As illustrated in Fig. 1, four distinct management efforts potentially converge within the coastal zone of a given area. These include land-use planning (LUP) and river basin management (RBM) on the landward side, marine spatial planning (MSP) on the seaward side and integrated coastal management (ICM) spanning both the landward and seaward areas. Given the potential for coastal management to integrate across the spatial boundaries associated with both the landward and seaward management efforts, understanding why there seems to be a disconnect among these planning approaches could shed light on the poor success rate achieved to date in improving coastal sustainability. An important contributing factor identified by some authors is the difficulty associated with defining the coastal zone (e.g. should it be issues-based, politically-based or ecologically-based?) and by extension, the challenge this poses in addressing overlapping spatial boundaries in the coastal area (Fanning and Burbidge, 2010; Kerr et al., 2014; Milanes, 2014). While studies highlighting nearshore marine and land linkages of coastal zones are more common, only a few include river basins in the landward side of the coastal zone (UNEP, 1999; Rasch et al., 2002; Coccossis, 2004; Maksimovic and Makropoulos, 2010; Cantasano and Pellicone, 2014; Santana and Barroso, 2014). Much less frequent is consideration given to include the extension of coastal boundaries beyond the territorial sea (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Furthermore, given the increasing role of municipal governments in decisions affecting coastal areas within their jurisdiction, particularly with respect to land use

planning, local governments have become an important additional component to involve in decisions affecting the coast at this level (Liu et al., 2011; Milanes, 2014). This paper examines the general lack of attention being paid to overlapping spatial boundaries within the landward and marine environments as a significant factor affecting the achievement of coastal sustainability, despite the promise of ICM to assist in accomplishing this goal. It discusses the need for a tool to evaluate the appropriateness of linkages across the different spatial planning efforts that are potentially found in coastal areas, namely LUP, RBM, MSP and ICM and tests the feasibility of an indicator-based framework to monitor the degree of integration across these approaches with experts and practitioners in Colombia and Cuba. 2. Current management approaches in coastal and marine areas Efforts to define spatial boundaries as management units in coastal areas have tended to limit boundaries based on hydrological criteria (e.g. river basins), administrative criteria (e.g. jurisdictional authority for land or sea use planning), and/or issues-based criteria. Within the coastal zone, these spatially defined management units have resulted in four distinct approaches despite their oftentimes overlapping boundaries. Two of these approaches (land use planning and marine spatial planning) are planning processes, focused on specific actions over a defined area, while the remaining two (integrated coastal management and river basin management) are governance schemes, with wider perspective than the former and less focused on a single instrument. A brief description of these four approaches found within a shared coastal area is provided. 2.1. Planning instruments Land-use planning (LUP) is the most often and oldest approach used for developmental and environmental planning in terrestrial areas, triggered by the industrial revolution at the end of the 19th

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

century (Douvere, 2008). Today, LUP is generally the responsibility of municipal level authorities and is practiced in both developed and developing regions of the world (Pomeroy et al., 2014). However, its integration with other planning instruments in coastal and marine areas remains barely explored. Kerr et al. (2014) suggest that a unified system for terrestrial and marine areas may be unattainable due to the amount of integration that would be needed. One of their assumptions is that land planning represents an intervention in the market and a restriction of the personal freedoms of landowners, something impossible in a common good such as marine areas. Others have argued that MSP is not radically different from spatial planning on land and the land use planning concepts and techniques could be easily translated to the marine environment (Kidd and Ellis, 2012). Marine spatial planning (MSP) is becoming the preferred tool to organize activities in the seaward side of the coast (European Commission, 2010; IOPTF, 2010; Gopnik et al., 2012). MSP is defined as “a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process.” (Ehler and Douvere, 2009:18). One of its main characteristics is the three-dimensional nature of marine areas, where different physical and legal rules applying to sea bed, water column, sea surface and even the over-flight space (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Moreover, MSP is viewed as a response addressing a number of issues in the marine environment. These include increased competition for marine areas, a general lack of a clear spatial vision for the future use of the sea and new options for economic development of marine resources (Douvere, 2008; Agardy, 2010; Ferreira et al., 2014; Kerr et al., 2014). Some authors argue that MSP has several differences with landuse planning (epistemological, natural, political, legal, operational) that preclude integration of land and marine management (Kerr et al., 2014). However, others note that all marine activities have effects on the adjacent land and communities (Liu et al., 2012) and that it is imperative for ICM to take maritime activities and MSP into account (Ferreira et al., 2014), despite the few examples of this occurring in practice (Douvere, 2008). Overall, the literature seems to conclude that the landward and seaward sides of the coastal zone are sufficiently interlinked to warrant an integrated approach to their management, as opposed to having separate planning process. 2.2. Governance schemes River-basin management (RBM) focuses on the “planning, development, management and use of land, water and related natural resources within hydrologic boundaries” (Watson, 2004:243). As an approach, its focus is primarily on managing the quality and quantity of fresh water resources, yet recognition is given to the linkages with coastal ecosystems and the sea (Pomeroy et al., 2014). Despite this, there is little to no integration between river basin management and other spatially based management approaches within coastal areas (Coccossis, 2004). This is exemplified in the case study on the management of the Fraser River Basin in British Columbia which empties into the Strait of Georgia on the Pacific coast of Canada but which makes no mention of other terrestrial or marine management efforts (Watson, 2004). Integrated coastal management (ICM) is defined as a process by which rational decisions are made concerning the conservation and sustainable use of coastal resources and space (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998). The process is designed to foster integration spatially across land, sea and air; vertically, from local to international levels; horizontally across sectors; and disciplinarily, spanning the science-policy divide. ICM seeks to achieve sustainable development that maximizes economic benefits from the coastal areas

183

while minimizing conflicts that might arise from the multiple users that benefit from coastal ecosystem goods and services (World Bank, 1993). As an approach, ICM defines a spatial boundary for planning purposes that spans both the seaward and landward sides of the coast and is the only approach among the four described to address both land and sea. Yet, integration of ICM with other space-based approaches, whether on land or at sea, is limited. It has been noted that ICM initiatives are not the only ones taking place in coastal areas and they usually are only one among many interventions (Bille, 2007). Indeed, on land, conventional urban planning is mainly centered on land use allocations, but planners of coastal cities do not generally consider coastal sensitivity while allocating uses on coastal lands. As a result, LUP and ICM have minimal interaction between them (Anilkumar et al., 2010). An exception can be found in the shoreline spatial plans in Portugal and Brazil where spatial planning and urbanism are better integrated (Ferreira et al., 2014). In addition, as noted above, river basin management remains even less integrated to ICM. In short, low integration of ICM, RBM and LUP is evident on the landward side of the coast, along with virtually no integration among ICM and MSP on the seaward side, despite the almost complete overlap of spatial boundaries in the marine environment (Milanes, 2014).

3. Framework for assessing integration across coastal space-based approaches The development of indicators to individually measure and assess the effectiveness of each of the management approaches implemented within a coastal area is a commonly shared component in LUP, RBM, MSP and ICM (Watson, 2004; Bille, 2007; Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Areizaga et al., 2012; Tabet and Fanning, 2012; Milanes, 2014). Indicators could be used as a monitoring tool to provide the feedback necessary to identify what has been done and as such measures progress toward stated management goals and objectives. In contrast, indicators used for evaluation provide insight into what should have been done and is therefore a measure of the effectiveness of the stated goals and objectives. These assessments are essential to adaptive learning within complex coastal systems as the findings may reveal information leading to a rerouting, rereading and reinterpretation of the stated goals and objectives (Bille, 2007; Botero, 2013; Botero and Milanes, 2015). Indicators are one of the most common tools to monitor and evaluate sustainability. UNESCO (2006) has proposed a set focusing on governance performance, ecological and socioeconomic indicators and a number of other authors have contributed valuable additions to the subject using a variety of categories including those that measure composite indicators to evaluate coastal health (Ehler, 2003; Pickaver and Gilbert, 2004; Ernoul, 2010; Anilkumar et al., 2010; Diedrich et al., 2010). However, while there are many frameworks and methodologies to construct indicators, these tend to provide limited detail on the development of the diverse set of indicators themselves, making them difficult to apply consistently. According to Quiroga (2009), environmental indicators must have a ‘methodological sheet’ or ‘guidance’ to include information regarding their identification, calculation and results interpretation. However, this guidance does not appear to be reflected in indicators related to coastal planning and may be the cause for criticism on the lack of organization apparent in some coastal indicators, such as those stated by Areizaga et al. (2012) for public participation. Nevertheless, having a clearly articulated set of indicators may not be as critical to evaluation as a clear understanding of what to measure (Bille, 2007).

184

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

Fig. 2. Conceptual diagram of land and marine planning indicators. RBM: river basin management; LUP: land use planning; ICM: integrated coastal management; MSP: marine spatial planning.

3.1. The conceptual framework The concepts underpinning the development of an indicatorbased framework to evaluate the progress of integration among the four space-based management approaches found in many coastal areas are illustrated in Fig. 2. The underlying proposition is that the subject of the coastal system (the subject), comprised of the natural and human subsystems, can be managed most effectively (the objective) by implementing the iterative ICM cycle which includes the four stages of initiation, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation in each iteration of the cycle (GESAMP, 1996; Barragan, 2003). In the extreme lower right of the figure, the expected interactions between the two terrestrially-based approaches (LUP and RBM) and the marine-based approach (MSP) converge around the ICM approach which potentially spans both land and sea. Each of the approaches are implemented through the use of planning instruments which are scoped according to geographical boundaries and assessed using a set of six three-dimensional indicators that measure progress in land and marine areas. These indicators are identified as principles by Gallagher (2010) and are listed as planning; participation; communication; integration; responsibility and balance. The planning indicator measures the presence of clear objectives, having an iterative and adaptive process, effective monitoring and continuous improvement. The participation indicator is based on common knowledge, interaction among stakeholders and contributions to the decision making process. The communication indicator refers to free access and easy understanding of information, quality of data and a two-way process. The integration indicator is related to interdisciplinary approach, complex understanding of coastal systems and coordinated decision making. The responsibility indicator highlights risk assessment and the effectiveness of the legal framework. Lastly, the balance indicator focuses tradeoffs made to achieve coastal sustainability. For this study, each indicator was further refined by summarizing the core concepts

and questions into one ‘framework scenario’ for each principle (Table 1). 3.2. Study area: the Caribbean, Cuba and Colombia Even though land and marine planning is an issue confronting all coastal states, any proposal for an indicator set to evaluate progress must be cognizant of the specific geographic context of the area in which the indicators will be measured. For this study, the Caribbean coast of Colombia and Cuba was identified as the areas to test the feasibility and relevance of the indicator framework to monitor progress in the different management approaches established to achieve coastal sustainability. The Caribbean Sea is a region composed of a diversity of countries and territories, approximately half of which are islands and half continental (Fig. 3), with Cuba representing the former and Colombia the latter. The two countries were selected as study sites based on a number of criteria. First, their generally large size (Colombia is the biggest country in the Caribbean Sea and Cuba the biggest island), capacity and multi-use coastal environment allow for planning approaches related to land and marine spatial areas to be more likely to be observed. Second, both countries share similar language and cultural history as former Spanish colonies. Third, the two countries play a dominant role within the region in terms of influencing coastal management approaches (Milanes et al., 2014). Cuba has 5980 km of coastline, and Colombia has a total of 3323 km, with 1694 km on the Caribbean coast (Milanes et al., 2014). Coastal and marine ecosystem goods and services are utilized by both traditional coastal communities and the productive sectors related to tourism, ports, sailing, fishing, and aquaculture, among others in both countries (Avella et al., 2009; Cabrera et al., 2009; Milanes et al., 2014). Both countries have a deep tradition of Roman Law, therefore their decision making process is strongly dependent on a legal framework, public institutions and state apparatus. A growing population density, increased industrial and touristic development, and the increasing degradation of the

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

185

Table 1 Framework of land and marine planning indicators. Indicator/principle

Definition of principle

Planning

An iterative and detailed process aimed at enabling change through actions developed from reflection and evaluation

Participation

The role that individuals, groups and organizations in the decision-making process play in fostering trust and acceptance of the system

Characteristics of principle

Framework scenario

Spatially specific Temporally related (considering both the past and future) Objective Performance based Testable Adaptive and self-regulating

Planning is a significant iterative and adaptive process, aimed at protecting natural, sociocultural and economic resources. It incorporates individual and organizational lines of responsibility and interaction, requires relevant baseline information, takes a long-term view and is focused on the most significant issues facing coastal sustainability. Plans are audited on a regular and periodic basis, and are committed to continually improve performance in light of sustainability.

Diversity of stakeholders

Sustainability of involvement Solution based Transparent

Effective integrated coastal management and planning requires each sector’s objectives and priorities to reflect a shared and clear understanding of the sustainability goals, using a common knowledge base and incorporating effective interaction among the stakeholders in the participative decisions making process so as to contribute to the best socioeconomic development and the environmental protection strategies and local programs

Diversity of techniques Awareness raising and education goal Effective use of ‘language’ Two-way process

Stakeholders and communities obtain all relevant and easily understood information about the management process Communication techniques are diverse and have clear educational goals, reflecting the use of effective language. An outreach system of coastal sustainability education operates effectively and as a two-way process.

Different forms of integration Coordination of different subjects and disciplines Solution-based Systems-based

The management system requires coordination across different sectors and disciplines and integrates scientific, administrative and policy analyses. Decisions made are based on multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary solutions, starting from a wider understanding of sustainability. Coastal zones are recognized as complex systems, with several links to other geographical areas.

Communication

A process enabling capacity building to take place through the effective flow of information

Integration

A unification of understanding and management across boundaries and disciplines

Responsibility

The management of the coast being enacted with all ‘due care’

Legally based Operate, apply and broaden existing management tools and techniques Exhibit risk reduction and ‘due care’

The management system has a clear legal basis and shows evidence of carrying out risk assessments in relation to its policies and decisions. Moreover, the coastal environment is regulated effectively and organizations and institutions involved in ICZM promote stewardship and resource efficiency.

Management conducted in such a way as to lead to constructive relationships between environmental quality, economic prosperity and social welfare

Identify key status quality Relationship focused

Coastal management has a commitment for environmental and economic decisions to take into account “social fairness”; to protect and enhance optimum environmental quality with regard to its impact upon employment and income and to consider and negotiate the consequent costs and benefits for environmental quality, social welfare and economic growth. Stakeholders perceive and understand the trade-offs made regarding environment quality, social welfare and economic growth.

Balance

Based on Gallagher (2010).

coastal (land and sea) environment are challenges confronting the main coastal cities in both countries (Milanes et al., 2014).

4. Methods 4.1. Design of the indicators set The coastal sustainability standard (CoSS) principles described by Gallagher (2010) were analyzed, updated and reformulated to suit the land and marine indicators set, in a coherent way for the planning instruments and socio-natural boundaries identified in the Caribbean countries. Each indicator has its ‘methodological sheet’, which in three sections describe in detail: (a) state of art (name of indicator, brief description of indicator, relevance of indicator, geographical scale); (b) calculation (method of calculation, variables, source of data); and (c) interpretation (scope, limitations, graphics).

In addition, each indicator was constructed to cover three types of socio-natural boundaries existing in coastal zones: river basin, municipal jurisdiction and marine area (Botero, 2013). As a consequence, the scoring established for each indicator has gradual scenarios of progress of land and marine planning, with three geographical dimensions. The scoring mechanism uses an ordinal scale ranging from zero to ten similar to that used by Gallagher (2010), with four points of reference to guide assessment of progress in a particular case: 0, 3, 7 and 10. The worst scenario is denoted with zero (0), although it does not necessarily imply ‘no progress’, as it could result from a lack of evidence about core concepts and characteristics established in the related ‘framework scenario’ of the respective indicator. A score of 10 is assigned to any indicator that completely addresses the CoSS principle. Intermediate scores show differing levels of progress with a value less than three (<3) signaling the need for corrective action; values between three and seven represent efforts in progress to coastal sustainability, although several improvements

186

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

Fig. 3. The Caribbean Sea (a); Caribbean coast of Colombia (b); South-East Cuban Coast (c).

are necessary; and values more than seven (>7) suggesting progress above the level of sustainability and close to ideal conditions. As the scoring is assigned for each planning instrument with its defined spatial boundary, information on the effectiveness of the different land and marine planning instruments as well as differences in the progress between each socio-ecological boundary is obtained. Following the refinement of the indicator methodology, three workshops were undertaken over a two-month period in 2014 in Colombia and Cuba to validate the indicators set. In the former, 16 experts assisted to the workshop from different governmental, private sector and academic institutions. In Cuba, two workshops were held with 21 and 19 experts respectively coming from several public sector and academic institutions related with coastal issues. The workshops outlined the development and relevance of the indicator set to the different planning approaches in the coastal area and asked small groups to provide feedback on the feasibility of the proposed indicators to monitor progress toward achieving coastal sustainability. Finally, the research team led a general discussion about each indicator with all participants of the workshop. The results of the three workshops were integrated in order to establish a final version of the indicator set. 4.2. Validation in Colombia and Cuba Initially, the workshop in Colombia highlighted some improvements needed with the indicator framework. These included: clarifying the terminology since many concepts seemed very similar; clarifying the boundaries and their interactions across the different planning approaches; clarifying the differences between the different CoSS principles, since some of them seemed very similar to the experts. This workshop was focused in the framework approach rather than the actual assessment of specific coastal and

marine management approaches in Colombia. As such, the output from the Colombian workshop allowed for an enhancement of the framework methodology and suggestions obtained were included in a new version of the indicators, which was applied in the two workshops realized in Cuba. The two workshops in Cuba were focused on the application of the six indicators to current land and marine planning instruments to determine their feasibility and relevance in monitoring progress toward coastal sustainability. Feedback from the experts in two coastal areas in the eastern part of Cuba led to the following recommendations: (i) the need to clarify the scoring system so as to better reflect the assigned level of progress for each indicator at the study sites and to better communicate how exactly to apply the indicator framework; (ii) the inclusion of a new indicator focusing on implementation of ICM to add to the list necessary to monitor progress. While the first recommendation was included in the final indicator set, the second recommendation was not included as it was not considered pertinent to the evaluation since specific ICM initiatives were not be being assessed but rather the planning instruments. As a general conclusion of the workshops, the majority of the participants considered the indicator framework a useful tool to assess land and marine planning instruments in both countries. Moreover, a general consensus was reached about usefulness of a tool to collectively measure the progress of ICM in a governancebased approach, in order to correct demands and create strategies for stakeholders interests in land and marine territory. These conclusions were also included in the methodological sheets of each indicator, although the majority of comments were focused on ICM and less in the other three land and marine planning instruments (LUP, RBM, MSP). Nevertheless, this bias to ICM reinforced our arguments about the lack of integration among these four space-based management approaches.

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

187

Table 2 Land and marine planning instruments in Colombia and Cuba. Country

Colombia

Cuba

*

Instrument

Spatial boundaries

Time period

Authority(es)

K.O.I.*

Legislation

Municipal land use plan River basin management plan Environmental coastal units management plan

Municipality

10 years

LUP

Law 388/1997

River Basin

10 years

Municipal (Planning Office); Environmental Environmental

RBM

Decree 1640/2012

Territorial Sea to 2 km inshore

20 years

Environmental

ICM

Decree 1120/2013

Province

20 years

LUP

Decree Law 21/1978

Municipality

10 years

LUP

Decree Law 21/1978

Municipality

10 years

LUP

Decree Law 21/1978

Coastal management special plan

Coastal zone

10 years

ICM

Decree Law 21/1978

General, partial and special land use schemes

River Basin

20 years

Regional (Physical Planning Institute) Municipal (Physical Planning Institute) Municipal (Physical Planning Institute) Municipal (Physical Planning Institute) and Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment National/Regional (Physical Planning Institute)

RBM

Decree Law 21/1978

Provincial land use plan General land and urban plan General urban plan

K.O.I.: kind of instrument; LUP: land use planning; RBM: river basin management; ICM: integrated coastal management.

5. Results 5.1. Land and marine planning instruments Research into the space-based coastal planning approaches currently in place in Colombia and Cuba identified both countries as having legislation, policies and institutions for managing coastal resources and activities but the pattern was slightly different between them. Furthermore, while both countries identified official planning instruments for river basin management (RBM), land use planning (LUP) and integrated coastal management (ICM), they did not have any specific legal or administrative framework for marine spatial planning (MSP) (Table 2). The relevant policy level and legal instruments pertaining to both countries are highlighted in Table 3. For RBM, both Colombia and Cuba have some legal requirements but with differing levels of detail. Colombia has a specific policy for water resources management and also a recent law specific for RBM, both less than five

years old. However, in keeping with its strong tradition of treating water resources management separately from coastal areas (DNP, 2005; Avella et al., 2009), there is little connectivity between the mentioned water resources policy and RBM law with the management of coastal areas. For Cuba, RBM is covered under a general environmental policy and a single umbrella law covering all issues related with the environment. As a result, in both countries, management of fresh water resources is undertaken without regard to whether these resources are located in coastal or inland areas. Regarding ICM, Colombia has two specific policies (dated 2000 and 2007) with the older one focusing only on environmental issues (Avella et al., 2009). Nonetheless, both policies were formulated with the overarching goal of sustainable development and their implementation has been very limited (Botero and Sosa, 2011; Milanes et al., 2014). In Cuba, there is a general environmental policy and a specific procedure for ICM application within which several coastal areas have been designated such as ‘zones under management’ (Milanes et al., 2014). In addition, both countries have

Table 3 Legislation and policy framework of river, coastal and marine planning in Colombia and Cuba.

Policies River basin planning and management

Coastal zone planning and management

Marine areas planning and management

Legislation River basin planning and management

Coastal zone planning and management

Marine areas planning and management

Colombia

Cuba

National Policy of Integral Water Resources Management (2010)

Environmental National Policy (2010) National Strategy of Environmental Education (2010–2015) Environmental National Policy (2010) National Procedure to evaluate and approve Integrated Coastal Zone Management process in Cuba (2007)

Environmental National Policy for Sustainable Development of Coastal and Insular Areas (2000) National Policy of Ocean and Coastal Spaces (2007) National Policy of Ocean and Coastal Spaces (2007)

Decree 1640 (2012) ‘river management’; Law 99 (1993) ‘environmental’ Decree 1120 (2013) ‘coastal management plans’; Law 99 (1993) ‘environmental’ Law 99 (1993) ‘environmental’

Environmental National Policy (2010) National Strategy for Environmental Education (2010–2015) Law 81 (1997) ‘environmental’

Decree-Law 212/2000 ‘coastal management’; Decree-Law 21 (1978) ‘Physical Planning’; Decree 299 (2012) ‘Physical Planning Institution’; Law 81 (1997) ‘environmental’ Law 81 (1997) ‘environmental’; Decree-Law 201 (1999) ‘coastal management’

188

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

Fig. 4. Preliminary application of land and marine indicators set in Eastern Cuba. RBM: river basin management; LUP: land use planning; ICM: integrated coastal management; MSP: marine spatial planning.

specific legislation for ICM, where in Colombia there is a specific decree-law for coastal management plans, and Cuba has one decree for all coastal zone management issues (coastal law). Moreover, in both countries there is a general environmental law which covers coastal areas as well. Finally, marine areas are explicitly included only as a policy in Colombia, while neither of the countries has a specific legislation for marine activities.

Fig. 4b illustrates the overall general assessment of each spacebased approach currently in place within the coastal area. In this example, the figure shows that ICM (+MSP) has the lowest score overall (3.58), RBM the medium value (5.92) and LUP the highest one (7.38). It is relevant to highlight that application of indicators for ICM (+MSP) in Fig. 4b refers only to an assessment of ICM since MSP is not yet developed in Cuba. 6. Discussion

5.2. Applying the indicator framework Using the amended framework that was enhanced with suggestions made in the Colombian workshop, the preliminary application of the indicator framework was undertaken in each of the two workshops conducted in Cuba. Fig. 4 shows two graphics, both obtained for the same measurement of indicators. Fig. 4a uses a kite diagram to illustrate the scores obtained for each of the six indicators set for each of the three spatially-based management approach present in the coastal area. Fig. 4b illustrates the results of all indicators together as one value for each spatially-based management approach, resulting in the three points of the triangle representing the assessed overall value of each one. The former shows progress in each indicator for a single evaluation of land and marine planning, where each line represents measurement in each space-based geographic dimension. As can be seen from Fig. 4a, in this example integration in RBM was assessed with a maximum value (10) and responsibility in the standard value (7). Meanwhile all three geographical planning approaches were assessed with a low value (3) for the balance indicator but showed considerable diversity in the scores assigned to each space-based approach for responsibility. Overall, Fig. 4a clearly shows that among the different management approaches, ICM (+MSP) was doing the poorest job in terms of progress toward coastal sustainability, especially when compared separately to RBM. This allows for targeted, prioritized interventions to be undertaken as might be deemed appropriate.

Analysis of land and marine planning using the indicator-based framework highlights several gaps related with planning instruments and management approaches, and also with geographical boundaries of coastal zones. Key observations are supported by an in-depth literature review of spatially-defined coastal boundaries that are implemented using different approaches in coastal areas and with respect to the study countries. 6.1. Key observations Firstly, there is great diversity among the planning instruments that are used to organize activities and interactions in coastal areas in the two Caribbean countries studied as well as other areas discussed in the scientific literature. Confounding this even further is the variation in terms used to define planning and management in coastal areas among the different management approaches found in coastal areas (Ferreira et al., 2014). The need for integration and consensus between the scientific community, first, and between decision makers and practitioners, second, is therefore needed in order to improve land and marine planning that can meaningfully address the uniqueness of coastal systems. A second observation worth noting was the scarcity in the literature of examples that explicitly included river basins as a part of coastal zone. Few exceptions were found (e.g. Coccossis, 2004), despite guidance documents from UNEP (1999) and the work on Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management (ICARM), in

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

1996 for the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements Habitat. This pattern to avoid or not include river basins within ICM was found also in Colombia and Cuba, where planning instruments were totally separated on the basis of the defined spatial boundaries for each approach. Similarly, there was almost no integration between marine areas and river basins, or MSP and RBM, in terms of their planning instruments, suggesting the separation in mindset regarding management efforts in these areas, despite their socioecological linkage. A primary goal for conducting the literature review on the four different management approaches (LUP, RBM, ICM and MSP) was to determine whether frameworks existed that could be used to measure progress in coastal management as a process, rather than outputs of specific planning initiatives or changes directly on the coastal system. This focus on process was guided by the deficiency identified by Bille (2007) and the value of the proposed indicator framework to practitioners in the selected study countries who are more often in contact with the decision-making process in land and marine areas than experts or stakeholders. This focus for the indicator set is different from the majority of approaches for assessing progress in ICM as it tends to be normally based on expert opinion (Areizaga et al., 2012). Following the detailed review of the literature and a workshop to discuss possible options, the CoSS methodology (Gallagher, 2010) was identified as being most suitable for adapting to a focus on progress regarding process rather that outputs from specific initiatives or quantitative changes in coastal conditions. An additional benefit of the methodology was the use of a scoring mechanism, which allowed for a relational measure as well as being more flexible and holistic (Kelly et al., 2011). Despite the similarities in criteria used for the study site selection focusing on Colombia and Cuba, there were noticeable differences in the planning instruments used to manage coastal areas between the two countries (Table 2). From an integrated perspective, Cuba’s Decree Law 21/1978 is applicable to both the landward and seaward side of the coast. In terms of landward planning approaches, the country has a clear and organized framework, steered by only one institution, with offices at the regional (province) and local (municipality) levels, accompanied by a complex structure of land use plans. This physical planning institute is also in charge of river basin and coastal plans, although in the latter case, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment has responsibilities as well. In contrast, Colombia has three distinct pieces of legislation, each one applicable to LUP, RBM or ICM. As a consequence, planning functions are shared among several authorities (regional/local; technical/environmental), which normally require significant coordination effort (Botero and Sosa, 2011). Additional challenges include the need for larger budgets to address coordination costs, increase potential for misunderstandings and conflicts arising from differing institutional priorities. 6.2. Lessons from the indicator-based framework A number of lessons can be gleaned from developing the indicator set to measure progress in managing coastal areas using a number of management approaches. First, despite the practice of defining separate geographical boundaries for each of the management approaches, these areas do overlap within the coastal zone and as such, share many similarities in terms of the planning process (Ferreira et al., 2014). This was exemplified during the development of the scenarios for assessing progress in river basin management in coastal areas (Appendices 1–6). Even though there were only a few references in the literature pertaining to the management of coastal river basins, this geographical area is recognized by some and in legislation as a spatially-define management unit. For example, Milanes (2014) supports her methodology to

189

delimit coastal zones in river basin catchments areas and Colombian legislation has a specific regulation related to their planning. Notwithstanding, the indicator set developed for coastal river basin management showed little difference in their text when compared to the other two geographical dimensions. This could be due to the fact that planning and management strategies are quite similar in different space-based areas. To sum up, the indicator set recognizes river basins as a specific planning area, but at the same time, having many similarities with respect to land uses and marine instruments. In contrast to the clarity surrounding coastal river basins as management units, it was a challenge to include municipal jurisdictions and their LUP process in the coastal indicator set, since this planning approach does not generally make a distinction between coastal and non-coastal areas. As a result, any CoSS principle could apply to municipalities but as the same time, there were no clear references to coastal particularities. Additionally, LUP has a long history as a planning approach at the local level, based on rural/urban uses and as such, rarely includes a specific coastal management process when land uses are being determined. In other words, coastal managers must adjust their decisions to include LUP since the reverse appears to be unlikely (Kerr et al., 2014). As a geographical boundary, coastal and marine areas are most quoted in the scientific literature. However, there are still significant gaps in terms of defining the spatial extent of the area for management. The review of Colombian and Cuban legislation and planning instruments showed the need to integrate coastal and marine areas into a single geographical boundary and to develop mechanisms for addressing the lack of consensus between natural and jurisdictional limits. However, this could be challenging given the rise of MSP as a dominant approach for exclusively managing marine spaces and use in other jurisdictions as it could undermine a more integrated approach to manage across the land-sea interface. Ultimately, the decision will center around the limits and particularities of each socio-ecological system and convenience to their management as a separate or unique planning area. Nonetheless, in developing the indicator framework, a decision was made to have the six indicators include both coastal and marine areas as an integrated and indivisible space. The development of the six indicator sets for each of the spacebased planning areas provided a number of insights related to the scoring system that warrant discussion (Appendices 1–6). As noted above, the purpose for developing the indicator framework was to measure the effectiveness of the process used to manage coastal areas rather than measuring outcomes (coastal sustainability) or outputs (ICM initiatives). This required a modification to Gallagher’s (2010) CoSS methodology to ensure the appropriate selection of core concepts for each principle and the correct application to each geographical boundary, in order to avoid confusion between outputs, outcomes, targets or goals, which are different concepts and should be assessed in different ways (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). It is worth noting that some of the qualitative criteria associated with the assigning of a score in the Appendices may be criticized as being somewhat vague (Gligo, 2007; Latchinian, 2014). However, rather than a deficiency, we see this as a deliberate and important component of the methodology of the proposed framework in which experts and managers knowledgeable with the instruments and approaches used in their geographic area first decide in a workshop setting on the definitions of ambiguous terms such as “significant”. This is important as it allows the specific context of the area for which the instruments and approaches are being assessed to be taken into consideration. For example, experts in the southeast region of Cuba may likely have a very different perspective for significance in terms of assigning a quantitative value for it than experts in Nova Scotia, Canada. As such, assigning a specific definition for these deliberately ambiguous terms a priori, may be

190

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

counter-productive to it use in diverse contextual settings. However, we fully agree that if the proposed framework is used without first getting consensus on the definitions of these ambiguous terms, it could lead to different interpretations of the scoring criteria as presented. Planning indicator – In terms of the benefits associated with this indicator for each of the different planning approaches, the development of the ‘scoring scenarios’ was relatively straightforward and easy to apply, given the strong tradition for planning established during the 20th century worldwide and the setting of objectives as a cornerstone of the planning process (Appendix 1). Additionally, this indicator includes a focus on continuous improvement and feedback as part of a planning system and is essential for adaptive management. The challenge arises from having the geographical boundaries in each kind of plan (RBM-LUP-MSP) being defined using totally different criteria. As such, practitioners may find it difficult to fully understand how to assess the results obtained from the indicator. Additionally, each kind of plan has its own tradition and history, thus adjustments will be more difficult in LUP than MSP or even RBM, due its long experience of application. Participation indicator – This indicator has the advantage from being constructed with solution-based approach in mind and assesses whether stakeholders are engaged in all stages of the decision-making process (Appendix 2). As such, it serves to inform on whether the stakeholder role is proactive or reactive, passive or active, thereby highlighting potential weaknesses in coastal partnerships (Kelly et al., 2011). At the same time, disadvantages of this indicator are its difficulty in assessing the diversity of stakeholders since it only assesses the number involved. This is a limitation as the opportunities for participation in the process varies, depending on the geographical dimension of the planning approach. Communication indicator – This indicator’s ‘scoring scenarios’ are based primarily on the coastal component of the planning approaches and has as one of its advantages the ability to assess the quality of information shared with stakeholders (Appendix 3). However, this indicator is not able to show differences within each stage of the iterative coastal management cycle. Integration indicator – Integration measures the variety of disciplines, management units and sectors within the management process (Appendix 4). Moreover this indicator reflects the complexity of coastal areas, framing systems analysis into uncertainty and the dynamics of complex coastal systems. At the same time, this indicator has the disadvantage of not being able to assess different kinds of coordination. Responsibility indicator – This is strongly related with the legal framework for coastal areas in RBM, LUP and MSP, making it easy to verify its progress (Liu et al., 2012) (Appendix 5). Nevertheless, some aspects of responsibility, such as risk assessment or stewardship, are more difficult to evaluate since they relate more to continuous activities rather than decisions or laws already made. Balance indicator – This indicator is the most innovative of the set in that it includes some concepts such as ‘social fairness’ or ‘trade-offs’ that are rarely found in the traditional environmental literature. However, this innovative characteristic makes it more difficult to measure its progress, despite the relative ease in designing ‘scoring scenarios’. 6.3. Validation of the indicator set in the study sites The validation of the indicator set at the workshops in Colombia and Cuba was essential to verify the feasibility of the indicators to measure progress in the process for managing coastal areas by the research team. It provided the additional opportunity to improve, clarify, simplify and ensure the relevance of each indicator and the scoring system. While this feedback was positive, additional opportunities to obtain feedback on the indicator framework are

needed to finalize each indicator and ‘scoring scenarios’ so that the assessment process can be fully understood by coastal area practitioners in the Caribbean countries. The three validation workshops demonstrated that practitioners were not familiar with progress measurement, perhaps because the two most common methods to evaluate ICM are through outputs (measuring achievement of specific initiatives) or outcomes (measuring the coastal state or pressures), the former generally being led by planners and the latter by scientists. In summary, only the iterative application of the indicator framework will show the usefulness and practicality of measuring ICM progress. Firstly, the workshop held in Colombia was used to identify core concepts of each Gallagher’s Principles and transform them into the progress indicators needed for this research. From this exercise, the qualitative description of the scoring criteria were improved and amended for testing in the workshops held in Cuba. The application of the indicator framework in Cuba showed the potential of the indicator-based framework results to be represented graphically showing two linked but separated process that could easily be understood by practitioners and decision makers. As illustrated in Fig. 4a, the visualization of the entire ICM process can be represented, thereby establishing intervention priorities as necessary. The second representation (Fig. 4b) allows for the geodimensional analysis within RBM, LUP and MSP approaches, and prioritizes adjustments in each planning instrument. In summary, the results obtained in Colombia and Cuba demonstrated that the proposed indicator framework and the presentation of the results were easy to understand by practitioners and decision makers who were knowledgeable of both the specific geographic area being assessed and the instruments and approaches currently in place for managing coastal and marine areas. Finally, a key learning extracted from the validation exercises was that even in countries as similar as Colombia and Cuba, the context surrounding the legal framework and scientific approaches can significantly affect integration efforts to manage coastal areas. Policies and legislation in both countries demonstrate the urgent need to recognize the coastal zone as a holistic geographical dimension that incorporates RBM, LUP and MSP approaches simultaneously. This awareness is even more important nowadays, as economic and environmental issues (e.g. climate change, tourism or international trade) become more global in nature. 7. Conclusions Although four distinct management instruments potentially converge within the coastal zone, low integration of ICM, RBM and LUP is evident on the landward side of the coast, along with virtually no integration among ICM and MSP on the seaward side, despite the almost complete overlap of spatial boundaries in the marine environment. This weakness contrasts with the fact that landward and seaward sides of the coastal zone warrant an integrated approach to their environmental management and could potentially avoid separate planning instruments. However, current LUP integration with other planning instruments in coastal and marine areas remains barely explored and there is little to no integration between river basin management and other space-based management approaches within coastal areas. As a consequence, despite the practice of defining separate geographical boundaries for RBM, LUP and MSP, their areas of influence do overlap within the coastal zone and share many similarities in terms of the planning process; in other words, coastal management must emerge from integration of land and marine planning instruments (RBM/LUP/MSP). Analysis of land and marine planning highlights several gaps related with planning instruments and approaches, geographical boundaries of coastal zones and effectiveness of coastal management process. Even though there are several proposals of

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

indicators framework to assess ICM, the majority of them have insufficient explanation of the underpinning conceptual framework and the process used to identify the selected indicators. Moreover a consensus between the scientific community, decision makers and practitioners remains needed to improve land and marine planning that can meaningfully address the uniqueness of coastal systems. The majority of the participants of the workshops in Colombia and Cuba considered the proposed indicator-based framework a useful tool to assess land and marine planning instruments. This acceptance could be due in part to the use of a scoring mechanism based on progress scenarios, which allowed for a relational measure as well as being more flexible and holistic. Nevertheless, the three validation workshops demonstrated that practitioners are only slightly familiar with progress measurement, perhaps because the two most common assessment methods being practiced focus

191

on outputs or outcomes of specific initiatives, rather than overall progress. Finally, the urgent need to recognize the coastal zone as a holistic geographical dimension that includes RBM, LUP and MSP approaches and the key role that ICM can play to improve their integration needs to be emphasized. Acknowledgements The authors want to acknowledge to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada for funding the project 2013LACREG-06 “Indicadores de efectividad en la planificación territorial, gobernabilidad y gestión integrada de la zona costera del oriente de Cuba y el Caribe colombiano” as part of its funding of the Canada-Latin America and the Caribbean Research Exchange Grants program. Appendix 1. lanning indicator

Indicator

Scoring guidepost – 0

Scoring guidepost – 3

Scoring guidepost – 7

Scoring guidepost – 10

Planning

RBM/LUP/MSP instruments lack clearly defined boundaries; have poorly specified objectives and scope and do not include key issues affecting coastal sustainability. Plans for RBM/LUP/MSP do not include adapting to current and emerging coastal conditions.

Boundaries of RBM/LUP/MSP instruments are defined but they are not reflective of the existing socio-ecological coastal systems. Some objectives and scope of RBM/LUP/MSP are defined, but they do not include significant issues affecting coastal sustainability. Plans for RBM/LUP/MSP promote adapting to current and emerging coastal conditions through feedbacks and iterative assessment but it rarely happens.

Boundaries of RBM/LUP/MSP instruments are clearly defined but they are not fully reflective of the existing socio-ecological systems. Some objectives and scope of RBM/LUP/MSP structure are defined, and they include some significant issues affecting coastal sustainability. Plans for RBM/LUP/MSP are occasionally improving with feedbacks and iterative assessment to adapt themselves to current and emerging coastal conditions.

Boundaries of RBM/LUP/MSP instruments are clearly defined and they are fully reflective of the existing socio-ecological systems. The objectives and scope of RBM/LUP/MSP system are clearly defined, and they include the most significant issues affecting coastal sustainability. Plans for RBM/LUP/MSP are continually improving with feedbacks and iterative assessment to adapt themselves to current and emerging coastal conditions.

Appendix 2. articipation indicator Indicator

Scoring guidepost – 0

Scoring guidepost – 3

Scoring guidepost – 7

Scoring guidepost – 10

Participation

Almost no stakeholder is aware or interested in coastal component of RBM/LUP/MSP; when stakeholders participate, they play a passive or reactive role in solutions to address pressures affecting coastal sustainability within the RBM/LUP/MSP area of influence; stakeholders avoid or never demand transparent participation and evaluation of RBM/LUP/MSP programs implemented in socio-ecological coastal systems.

Some stakeholders are aware of their role and responsibilities within the coastal component of RBM/LUP/MSP structure; they rarely play an active or constructive role in solutions to address pressures affecting coastal sustainability within RBM/LUP/MSP area of influence; they rarely promote or demand transparent participation and evaluation of RBM/LUP/MSP programs implemented in socio-ecological coastal systems.

Key stakeholders are aware of their role and responsibilities within the coastal component of RBM/LUP/MSP structure; in most cases they play an active and constructive role in solutions addressing pressures to coastal sustainability within RBM/LUP/MSP area of influence; they occasionally promote or demand transparent participation and evaluation of RBM/LUP/MSP programs implemented in socio-ecological coastal systems.

All stakeholders are aware of their role and responsibilities within the coastal component of RBM/LUP/MSP structure; they play an active and constructive role in solutions addressing pressures to coastal sustainability within RBM/LUP/MSP area of influence; they promote and demand transparent participation and evaluation of RBM/LUP/MSP programs implemented in socio-ecological coastal systems.

Appendix 3. ommunication indicator Indicator

Scoring guidepost – 0

Scoring guidepost – 3

Scoring guidepost – 7

Scoring guidepost – 10

Communication

Stakeholders have scarce and incomplete information about RBM/LUP/MSP process and its socio-ecological coastal systems; communication techniques are always similar and focus only on informing on decisions made; communication process is clearly one-way.

Few stakeholders are aware of socio-ecological coastal systems within river basin management; communication techniques are similar among them and rarely have educational or awareness raising goals; RBM/LUP/MSP is rarely recognized as a two-way process, with language comprehensible to the some stakeholders of coastal areas.

Majority of stakeholders are aware of socio-ecological coastal systems within RBM/LUP/MSP; communication techniques are diverse and have some educational and awareness raising goals; RBM/LUP/MSP is usually recognized and operated as a two-way process, with language comprehensible to the stakeholders of coastal areas being used most of the time.

All stakeholders are aware of the coastal component of RBM/LUP/MSP; communication techniques are diverse and have clear educational and awareness raising goals; RBM/LUP/MSP is recognized and operated as a two-way process, with language comprehensible to the stakeholders of coastal areas being used all of the time.

192

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193

Appendix 4. ntegration indicator Indicator

Scoring guidepost – 0

Scoring guidepost – 3

Scoring guidepost – 7

Scoring guidepost – 10

Integration

RBM/LUP/MSP in coastal areas is focused on a sectoral approach, with dominance in one or two disciplines; sectoral management units are unbalanced in decision making; solutions are proposed from a sectoral perspective, avoiding systems analysis and recognition of coastal complexity within the RBM/LUP/MSP area of influence.

RBM/LUP/MSP in coastal areas has some multi-sectoral or multi-level coordination actions; few disciplines have clear opportunities to influence decision making and sectoral management units are unbalanced in decision making; solutions are very rarely proposed from an integrated or interdisciplinary way, with little awareness of the complexity of the coastal component of the RBM/LUP/MSP area of influence.

RBM/LUP/MSP in coastal areas has multi-sectoral or multi-level coordination, but rarely both; there are several efforts for reaching equality of opportunities in the decision making to different disciplines and sectoral management units; solutions usually are proposed from an integrated and interdisciplinary way, although they are rarely based on systems analysis of coastal complexity of the RBM/LUP/MSP area of influence.

RBM/LUP/MSP in coastal areas has multi-sectoral and multi-level coordination; there is a clear equality of opportunities in the decision making to different disciplines and sectoral management units; solutions are proposed from an integrated and interdisciplinary way, based on systems analysis of coastal complexity of the RBM/LUP/MSP area of influence.

Appendix 5. esponsibility indicator Indicator

Scoring guidepost – 0

Scoring guidepost – 3

Scoring guidepost – 7

Scoring guidepost – 10

Responsibility

RBM/LUP/MSP has no legal basis for coastal areas; risk assessment of decisions is non-existent; socio-ecological coastal systems in RBM/LUP/MSP are not regulated; RBM/LUP/MSP organizations do not address stewardship and resource efficiency.

RBM/LUP/MSP has insufficient legal basis for coastal areas, carrying out superficial risk assessments of few of its decisions; few socio-ecological coastal systems in RBM/LUP/MSP are regulated; organizations involved in coastal issues of RBM/LUP/MSP are indifferent to stewardship and resource efficiency.

The legal basis for RBM/LUP/MSP include several aspects of coastal areas; RBM/LUP/MSP occasionally carry out risk assessments of its decisions; most socio-ecological coastal systems in RBM/LUP/MSP are regulated; organizations involved in coastal issues of RBM/LUP/MSP promote stewardship and resource efficiency.

RBM/LUP/MSP has a clear legal basis for coastal areas; shows evidence of carrying out risk assessments of its decisions; socio-ecological coastal systems in RBM/LUP/MSP are regulated effectively; organizations involved in coastal issues of RBM/LUP/MSP have stewardship and resource efficiency as core criteria.

Appendix 6. alance indicator Indicator

Scoring guidepost – 0

Scoring guidepost – 3

Scoring guidepost – 7

Scoring guidepost – 10

Balance

RBM/LUP/MSP in coastal areas is done without taking into account ‘social fairness’; environmental quality in coastal areas is assessed only from an ecological perspective, and analysis of costs and benefits are non-existent; stakeholders within RBM/LUP/MSP do not perceive the trade-offs stemming from management decisions in coastal areas.

RBM/LUP/MSP in coastal areas occasionally takes into account ‘social fairness’; environmental quality assessments in coastal areas rarely include economic perspective; if conducted, analysis of costs and benefits are focused on only one perspective (economic, social or environmental); few stakeholders within RBM/LUP/MSP perceive the trade-offs stemming from integrated management decisions in coastal areas.

RBM/LUP/MSP in coastal areas takes into account ‘social fairness’ in most of its decisions; decision making enhances environmental quality in coastal areas with regard to its impact on employment and income; RBM/LUP/MSP considers the consequent costs and benefits for socio-ecological coastal systems, and stakeholders perceive the trade-offs stemming from integrated management decisions in coastal areas.

RBM/LUP/MSP in coastal areas have a commitment to take into account ‘social fairness’; decision making protects and enhances optimum environmental quality in coastal areas with regard to its impact on employment and income; RBM/LUP/MSP considers and negotiates the consequent costs and benefits for socio-ecological coastal systems, and stakeholders perceive and understand the trade-offs stemming from integrated management decisions in coastal areas.

Appendix G. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015. 12.038. References Agardy, T., 2010. Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management More Effective. Earthscan, London. Anilkumar, P., Varghese, K., Ganesh, L., 2010. Formulating a coastal zone health metric for landuse impact management in urban coastal zones. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 2172–2185, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.05.021. Areizaga, J., Sano, M., Medina, R., Juanes, J., 2012. A methodological approach to evaluate progress and public participation in ICZM: the case of the Cantabria Region, Spain. Ocean Coast. Manag. 59, 63–76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman. 2011.12.007.

Avella, F., Burgos, S., Osorio, A., Parra, E., Vilardy, S., Botero, C., Ramos, A., Mendoza, J., Sierra, P., López, A., Alonso, D., Reyna, J., Mojica, D., 2009. Gestión del litoral en Colombia. Reto de un país de tres costas. In: Barragan, J. (Ed.), Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de cambio. Red Iberoamericana en Manejo Costero Integrado, Cadiz, pp. 175–209. Barragan, J.M., 2003. Medio ambiente y desarrollo en áreas litorales. Publicaciones ˜ Universidad de Cádiz, Cadiz, Espana. Bille, R., 2007. A dual-level framework for evaluating integrated coastal management beyond labels. Ocean Coast. Manag. 50, 796–807, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2007.01.002. Botero, C., Sosa, Z., 2011. Propuestas para la gestión litoral de un país con tres costas: Colombia. In: Barragan, J. (Ed.), Manejo costero integrado y política pública en Iberoamérica: propuestas para la acción. Red Iberoamericana en Manejo Costero Integrado, Cadiz, pp. 139–157. Botero, C., 2013. Evaluación de los esquemas de certificación de playas en América Latina y propuesta de un mecanismo para su homologación. Tesis para optar el título de Doctor Europeo en Gestión del Agua y la Costa. Universidad de Cádiz, ˜ Puerto Real, Espana.

C.M. Botero et al. / Ecological Indicators 64 (2016) 181–193 Botero, C.M., Milanes, C., 2015. Aportes para la gobernanza marino-costera: gestión del riesgo, gobernabilidad y distritos costeros. Fondo Editorial de la Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Bogota. Cabrera, J.A., García, G., Rey, O., Alcolado, P., Pérez, R., Martínez, J.M., Miranda, C., ˜ F., Martínez, D., 2009. Castellanos, M., León, A., Salabarría, D., Alfonso, A., Duenas, El manejo costero integrado en Cuba: un camino, grandes retos. In: Barragan, J. (Ed.), Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de cambio. Red Iberoamericana en Manejo Costero Integrado, Cadiz, pp. 91–120. Cantasano, N., Pellicone, G., 2014. Marine and river environments: a pattern of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Calabria (Southern Italy). Ocean Coast. Manag. 89, 71–78. Cicin-Sain, B., Knecht, R.W., 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concept and Practices. Island Press, Washington, DC. Coccossis, H., 2004. Integrated coastal management and river basin. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 4, 411–419. DNP, 2005. Visión Colombia II Centenario: 2019. Departamento Nacional de Planeación, Bogota. Diedrich, A., Tintore, J., Navines, F., 2010. Balancing science and society through establishing indicators for integrated coastal zone management in the Balearic Islands. Mar. Policy 34, 772–781. Douvere, F., 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar. Policy 32, 762–771, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.021. Ehler, C., 2003. Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46, 335–345. Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-By-Step Approach Toward Ecosystem-Based Management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme, Paris, IOC Manuals and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Ernoul, L., 2010. Combing process and output indicators to evaluate participation and sustainability in integrated coastal zone management projects. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53, 711–716. European Commission, 2010. Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU: Achievements and Future Development. Commission Communication COM, 771 Final of 17 December 2010. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Fanning, L., Burbidge, C., 2010. Towards a coastal area definition for Nova Scotia. Ocean Yearb. Online 24 (1), 239–267. Ferreira, M.A., Johnson, D., da Silva, C.P., 2014. How can Portugal effectively integrate ICM and MSP? In: Green, A., Cooper, J. (Eds.), Proceedings 13th International Coastal Symposium, Durban, South Africa. J. Coast. Res. Special Issue No. 70, pp. 496–501. Gallagher, A., 2010. The coastal sustainability standard: a management systems approach to ICZM. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53, 336–349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2010.04.017. GESAMP, 1996. The Contributions of Science to Integrated Coastal Management. Reports and Studies No. 61. Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, Roma. Gligo, N., 2007. Estilos de desarrollo y medio ambiente en América Latina, un cuarto de siglo después (parte I). Revista Virtual Redesma, 14–28. Gopnik, M., Fieseler, C., Cantral, L., McClellan, K., Pendleton, L., Crowder, L., 2012. Coming to the table: early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 36, 1139–1149. IOPTF, 2010. Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC. Jacobson, C., Carter, R.W., Thomsen, D.C., Smith, T.F., 2014. Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 89, 51–57. Kelly, C., Essex, S., Glegg, G., 2011. Reflective practice for marine planning: a case study of marine nature-based tourism partnerships. Mar. Policy 36, 769–781, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.023.

193

Kerr, S., Johnson, K., Side, J., 2014. Planning at the edge: integrating across the land sea divide. Mar. Policy 47, 118–125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01. 023. Kidd, S., Ellis, G., 2012. From land to sea and back again: using terrestrial planning to understand the process of marine spatial planning. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 14, 49–66. Latchinian, A., 2014. El ambientalista crítico. Fondo Editorial de la Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Lima. Liu, W.-H., Ballinger, R.C., Jaleel, A., Wu, C.-C., Lin, K.-L., 2012. Comparative analysis of institutional and legal basis of marine and coastal management in the East Asian region. Ocean Coast. Manag. 62, 43–53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman. 2012.01.005. Liu, W.-H., Wu, C.-C., Jhan, H.-T., Ho, C.-H., 2011. The role of local government in marine spatial planning and management in Taiwan. Mar. Policy 35, 105–115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.08.006. Maccarrone, V., Filiciotto, F., Buffa, G., Mazzola, S., Buscaino, G., 2014. The ICZM balanced scorecard: a tool for putting integrated coastal zone management into action. Mar. Policy 44, 321–334. Maksimovic, C., Makropoulos, C.K., 2010. Integrating river basin management and the coastal zone: the (blue) Danube and the (black) sea. Water Sci. Technol. 46, 187–194. Milanes, C., (PhD Thesis) 2014. Método integrado para demarcar y delimitar las zonas costeras (DOMIZC): estudio del caso de Santiago de Cuba. Universidad de Oriente, Santiago de Cuba. Milanes, C., Botero, C., Arenas, P., Cabrera, J., 2014. Integrated coastal management in Cuba and Colombia: a comparative analysis. Ocean Yearb. Online 28, 672–697, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004270589 023. Olsen, S., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46, 3–47. Pickaver, A., Gilbert, C., 2004. An indicator set to measure the progress in the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe. Ocean Coast. Manag. 47, 449–462, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.06.001. Pomeroy, R., Baldwin, K., McConney, P., 2014. Marine spatial planning in Asia and the Caribbean: application and implications for fisheries and marine resource management. Desenvolv. Meio Ambiente 32, 151–164. Quiroga, R., 2009. Guía metodológica para desarrollar indicadores ambientales y de desarrollo sostenible en países de América Latina y el Caribe. CEPAL, Santiago de Chile. Rasch, P.S., Ipsen, N., Morgensen, B., 2002. Linking integrated water resources management and integrated coastal zone management. Water Sci. Technol. 51, 221–229. Santana, S.E., Barroso, G.F., 2014. Integrated ecosystem management of river basins and the coastal zone in Brazil. Water Resour. Manag. 28, 4927–4942. Stojanovic, T., Ballinger, R.C., Lalwani, C.S., 2004. Successful integrated coastal management: measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice. Ocean Coast. Manag. 47, 273–298. Tabet, L., Fanning, L.M., 2012. Integrated coastal zone management under authoritarian rule: an evaluation framework of coastal governance in Egypt. Ocean Coast. Manag. 61, 1–9. UNESCO, 2006. A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management, UNESCO, Paris, IOC Manuals and Guides No. 46, ICAM Dossier No. 2. UNEP/MAP/PAP, 1999. Conceptual Framework and Planning Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management. Split Priority Actions Programme. Watson, N., 2004. Integrated river basin management: a case for collaboration. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2, 243–257. World Bank, 1993. Noordwijk guidelines for integrated coastal zone management. In: Distributed at the World Coast Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, November 1–5.