- Email: [email protected]
Combining process and output indicators to evaluate participation and sustainability in integrated coastal zone management projects
Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Combining process and output indicators to evaluate participation and sustainability in integrated coastal zone management projects L. Ernoul* Tour du Valat and Université de Provence, Le Sambuc, F-13200 Arles, France
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 12 October 2010
Integrated coastal zone management has evolved in practice and in the literature to implicate and advocate for public participation. Public participation has been proposed to open debate, contribute to policy formulation, increase government accountability, build support for agency programs, reduce community tensions and increase the sustainability of the actions. This study analysed the success of three integrated coastal zone management projects based on 8 process and output indicators. Public participation does not seem to have had an impact on the overall project objective nor on the sustainability indicators. These results bring us back to the initial concept of ICZM based on horizontal and vertical integration, and suggest that projects promoting ICZM need to be adapted to each specific cultural and political context. Long-term sustainability and natural resource management will only be achieved when the projects and activities are adapted to meet the reality on the field. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.2. Participation in ICZM
1.1. Evolution of integrated coastal zone management
Active public participation is an essential component of the ICZM process and should take a priority in planning and coastal decision making [7e9]. This approach to ICZM has built upon community based conservation and co-management conservation aiming to integrate local communities throughout the project cycle. The beneficiaries of the projects gain an active voice in project design and implementation. The literature and policy concerning ICZM currently focus on community based and co-managed ICZM, calling for effective participation [10e12]. Community participation has been proposed to open debate, contribute to policy formulation, increase government accountability, build support for agency programs and reduce community tensions, however, the desired institutional outcomes are not always achieved [13e15] and participation remains as an ambiguous concept [16]. Participation as defined by the EU OURCOAST project is “the ways that the general public and interested stakeholders are being involved in ICZM implementation; it includes aspects such as sharing of information, transparent communication, consensus building, etc” [17]. One of the critics of ICZM has been a democratic deficit preventing the implementation, allowing little opportunity for public comment or local accountability. If ICZM is to become a reality on the political agenda, it will require accurately informed and continually engaged public, private and voluntary sectors [6]. However, difficulties arise as civil societies in many developing countries are still not fully accustomed to active participation in
In the 1990s, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development’s Agenda 21 urged sustainable development practices at an international level. As a result, coastal change and coastal management gained importance around the world [1]. This marked a change from pre-colonial and centralized conservation to community based and co-managed conservation [2]. Community based conservation and co-management have given way to integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), defined as a “dynamic process that brings together governments and societies, sciences and decision makers, public and private interests for the production and implementation of a program for the protection and development of coastal systems and resources” [3] (Table 1). Recent studies have shown a proliferation of coastal management around the world with over 380 cases reported in 92 nations [4]. Despite the increased prevalence of coastal management, Westmacott has demonstrated that ICZM is really only being fully implemented in 12% of the cases, while 50% are making essential steps toward ICZM [5]. This concedes with the first national stock takes produced in Europe, highlighting a wide variety of approaches to ICZM [6]. * Tel.: þ33 4 90 97 29 66; fax: þ33 4 90 97 20 19. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.001
712
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
Table 1 Facets of integration in integrated coastal zone management projects [32]. Type of integration
Definition
Vertical
Integration of institutions and administrative levels within the same sector Integration of various sectors at the same administrative level Necessity of ensuring that all the interactions and important issues are taken into consideration Actions that must be in harmony with the management objectives and strategies Integration of both terrestrial and marine aspects of the coastal zones Policies, strategies and plans for the development of the coastal region must be incorporated into more general policies, strategies and plans Integration of various disciplines Planning on different spatial scales should not have conflicting aims, objectives or strategies Coordination between plans and programs in the short, medium and long term
Horizontal Systemic Functional Spatial Political
Disciplinary Planning Temporal
public affairs and there are difficulties in mobilising it to contribute to and aid with the task of governing coastal areas [18]. The lack of stakeholder involvement has been continually found, having an implication on the engagement by the general public and leading to continued decision making without opportunity for public comment or local democratic accountability [19e21]. Exhaustive typologies exist describing the nature of participation, yet debate remains over what is preferable and possible for community involvement and participation in terms of integration [21,22]. This question is one factor limiting the use and acceptance of evaluation techniques in ICZM [13,23]. 1.3. Evaluation of ICZM projects The increase in ICZM projects and cases during the 1990s has raised debate due to the lack of common evaluation criteria [23]. In 1999, Cicin-Sain’s study found the expansion of ICZM throughout the majority of countries in Europe, but acknowledged the need for more critical evaluation of the management efforts [24]. Evaluation is “the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics and outcomes of programs for use by specific people to reduce uncertainties, improve effectiveness, and make decisions with regard to what those programs are doing and affecting” [25]. Evaluation has been neglected in much of the resource management policy and a substantial gap is emerging between theory and practice [22,26,27]. Frameworks and benchmarking tools have been developed including DEDUCE (in Europe), Environment Australia and the National State of the Environment report (South Africa). These tools share many common characteristics concerning the formulation of indicators; however, many overlook the social perspectives including process indicators for integration and participation [28]. To evaluate different models of natural resource management program implementation requires, in particular, a focus on program processes and activities rather than the outputs or tangible results of the program per se [22]. Additionally, ICZM programs are generally poorly resourced: relying heavily on federal funding, lacking substantial local or state governmental support. and limited by only short-term financing arrangements and work plans [6,22]. Their impact or outcomes take a considerably long time to be realised and may be visible only after the end of the project or evaluation [27]. Olsen et al. suggest that five to eight years are necessary to complete the first cycle of ICZM [1] and past experience from the United States has shown that sustained investments are required if the benefits of
integrated, participatory approaches are to be achieved [29]. The time constraints due to funding opportunities have also limited effective evaluation of ICZM projects; existing evaluations measure principally the project’s objectives rather than the ICZM long-term objectives. 1.4. ICZM in the Mediterranean basin The Barcelona Convention, signed in 1975, engaged 16 Mediterranean countries to begin taking action to counteract the increasingly devastating impacts of pollution in the Mediterranean Sea. In 2009, building upon the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and incorporating the orientations of sustainable development from Agenda 21, a new protocol was signed on ICZM for the Mediterranean basin [30]. The protocol is very precise, defining the coastal zone, coastal setback, natural hazards and reporting, but most importantly it establishes a common regional framework for ICZM [31]. This protocol will orient coastal management for all the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea and has a participative ICZM approach. Given the increased importance to ICZM in the region, it is opportune to analyse past ICZM projects in the Mediterranean basin to determine next steps forward. The objective of this study is to compare and evaluate the success of three ICZM projects focusing on process and output indicators related to participation, integration and sustainability. The results will open the debate over the importance and impact of participation in ICZM and make recommendations for future implementation and evaluation of ICZM projects. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Projects description The selection criteria for the projects studied were: ICZM projects located in the Mediterranean basin, projects that included conservation and development objectives, projects that were based on Cicin-Sain and Knecht conceptual framework [3] and projects with a participatory approach. In order to have a larger perspective, the three projects were chosen from three different countries within the region. The planned methodology for the three ICZM projects consisted of implementing a site diagnostic, stakeholder analysis, and putting in place a space for open dialogue and participative planning. The projects shared the same objective of developing and validating an integrated management plan. Despite the common initial orientations, the actual implementation of each project was modified given the different constraints and opportunities in each site. These modifications allowed the projects to overcome various obstacles while keeping the overall objective (i.e.: developing an integrated management plan). 2.1.1. The Verdier The Camargue is the Rhone River delta in southern France. The entire delta is a Biosphere Reserve from the Man and Biosphere program of UNESCO and one of the largest wetlands in the Mediterranean basin and as such it is of international importance for water bird breeding, staging and wintering [32]. In 2003, the Tour du Valat (TdV) developed a community based ICZM project aimed at conserving the wetlands of the Camargue and developing multiuse social and economic activities in collaboration with the residents of Le Sambuc, a rural community made up of 120 families (550 inhabitants). The multi-use approach allowed the community members to engage in a variety of activities (fishing, hunting, birdwatching, grazing) simultaneously, creating a synergy that was beneficial to wetland conservation. The project also aimed to reduce
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
the local social conflicts linked to discrepancies between conservation initiatives and local development by creating social opportunities to increase community interaction. The tangible output of the project is the implementation of an integrated management plan, validated in collaboration with the local community. The project was privately financed with some contributions from local and regional authorities. It is on going and the evaluations have shown positive results in terms of habitat conservation, local development, and community participation [14]. 2.1.2. SMAP III The TdV developed a project within the Short and Mediumterm priority environmental Action Program (SMAP) call for the preparation and implementation of ICZM plans of action in 2005, financed by the European Commission for the coastal regions of the Moulouya Estuary in Morocco and El Kala in Algeria. The objective of the 4-year SMAP III Moulouya-El Kala project was to launch an ICZM planning process using integrated management, consensus methodologies and sustainable development activities. The project focused on thematic issues through participative working groups, which provided information for decision makers at the local level. The principle output of the project was to define a moral contract, “Contrat d’Espace Littoral”, which would develop a common vision and management plan for the territory. 2.1.2.1. SMAP III Moulouya. The Moulouya estuary, located in the north east of Morocco, is a Site of Biological and Ecological Interest covering over 2700 ha of riparian forests, sand dunes, beaches and 400 ha of wetlands. It is the largest estuary ecosystem in the Maghreb region and home to dozens of threatened and endemic plant, animal, reptile and bird species. The estuary not only contributes to the ecological sphere for migratory birds but also plays a key role in supporting the livelihoods of over 43,700 inhabitants living in both rural and urban contexts [32]. The Moulouya River and estuary have undergone serious evolutions due to man-made pressures and changes in the region including the construction of dams, changes in agricultural practices, urbanization, sand extraction and the development of a large coastal tourist complex. The project site extended over 20 km of coastal zone including the Moulouya estuary. Over the last ten years, a multitude of local environmental associations have become active in the project zone. The project effectively puts in place seven thematic working groups made up of local associations, university professors and students and a variety of representatives from different professional groups. As a result of two years of collaboration, a synthesis of the seven different themes was developed and recommendations were submitted to local authorities. This work was combined with a socio-economic assessment and site diagnostic to create a proposal for an integrated management plan. The plan was discussed and debated in intersectorial meetings with key decision makers; however, the plan and moral agreement were not validated by the end of the project. 2.1.2.2. SMAP III El Kala. The National Park of El Kala is well known for its mosaic of terrestrial and marine habitats. Almost 6000 ha of wetlands within the protected area are classified as Ramsar sites, consisting of lakes and lagoons. The offshore bar, including sand dunes, shows a relative stability despite some uncontrolled sand extraction spots, and shelters rare plant species which need longterm protection measures. The National Park is inhabited by a population of about 114.000 persons and encompasses nine municipalities. The project site extended over 30 km of coast, made up of three municipalities and extended beyond the National Park’s jurisdiction.
713
The project was able to organize two thematic working groups made up of intersectorial, governmental authorities. These working groups met three times over a four-month period and as a result produced a management plan and moral agreement that was signed by each of the participants. 2.2. Methods Using the hypothesis that sustainable integrated management requires increased levels of participation at various levels, the analysis aimed to determine the success of each project using both tangible outputs and process indicators that evaluate participation levels of each project. Pickaver developed monitoring indicators to include the implication and participation of coastal communities in the management process [33]. Pateman further suggested five participation indicators including: self-efficacy, representation and access, information exchange and learning, continuity of participation and decision-making authority [34]. This study attempted to further develop these indicators in order to have a common ground for comparison between projects that was the least subjective possible. As a result, we identified eight indicators that can be classified in five categories. (i) Level of vertical integration Vertical integration is the integration of institutions and administrative levels within the same sector at local, regional and national levels. The GIZC protocol was signed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for each country; however the technical details and supporting units have included the Environmental, Tourism, Agricultural, Fishing and Development Ministries. Vertical integration could include any or every relevant sector involved in the protocol and/or the management of the area. Vertical integration is important to ensure the flow of communication between the different levels in order to guarantee the proper enforcement of national and international legislation, to provide essential information from the local level to establish adequate legislation, to facilitate financial and administration issues and to share experiences [35]. This indicator was measured as yes or no, if at least one sector was implicated at a local, regional and national level. (ii) Level of horizontal integration Horizontal integration is the integration of different sectors at the same administrative level. This type of integration allows for the integration of multiple dynamics and competing preoccupations to arrive at a collaborative management [35]. Horizontal integration can be measured with the following two indicators: ii.1. Number of intersectorial meetings ii.2. Number of sectors participating in working groups The number of meetings is a process indicator that establishes the effort made for horizontal integration. This indicator does not measure the quality of the exchanges, but we assume the more working groups’ meetings over a continued period of time, demonstrates a true engagement by participants and can signify increased exchanges and dialogue. The number of sectors participating in working groups is also a process indicator, demonstrating the level of horizontal integration. It is assumed that the higher number of participating sectors is indicative of increased collaboration between the sectors. (iii) Local community participation The level of participation of stakeholders in the process and activities reflects the active involvement of users in
714
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
ICZM. Active participation and satisfaction of stakeholders can improve the successes of ICZM by increasing ownership and sustained support. It also measures transparency and accountability of the decision-making process [36]. Assuming that active public participation is an essential component of the ICZM process and should take a priority in planning and coastal decision making [7e9], we attempted to elaborate participation process indicators that would demonstrate the level of participation. iii.1. Implication of civil society in the debate iii.2. Implication of civil society in the planning process Implication of the civil society in the debate and planning processes is not quantified quantitatively, but is measured with yes/no responses. Debate allows for a sharing of ideas, where as the planning process gives additional power to the decision-making process. (iv) Awareness campaigns Awareness-raising goes beyond a simple educational process and is defined by the Priority Action Program is a conscious policy instrument to support a common sustainable development path for coastal management [37]. This indicator was measured by the number of campaigns and target audience. (v) Post-project sustainability Sustainability can be measured from a variety of perspectives. In this study we assumed that post-project sustainability institutionalizes the process, maintaining outcomes and products from the project. We thus measured sustainability using the following two indicators: v.1. Installation of a post-project governing body v.2. Post-project funding assured The post-project governing body demonstrates the solidification of the institutional process. This was measured as yes or no; yes was further elaborated as established, organized and functioning at the end of the project. Post-project funding is essential for the implementation of the management plan. This indicator was measured according to the amount of funding guaranteed after the end of the project. We used several data sources to acquire the data including project working documents and final reports, interviews and field visits. The information was then compiled for each indicator and a comparative matrix was developed. Two of the projects (SMAP III El Kala and SMAP III Moulouya) were four-year projects and the evaluation was made ex-post, the third project (Verdier) is on
going and the evaluation was made seven years into the project implementation. 3. Results The comparative indicator matrix (see Table 2), synthesizes the three projects using both result and process indicators. Two of the three projects (Verdier and SMAP III El Kala) had positive outputs, achieving the planned final objective (a validated, concertated management plan). A management plan was drafted for the third project (SMAP III Moulouya), but it was not validated by the stakeholders at the end of the project cycle. Using this output indicator alone, only the SMAP III El Kala and Verdier projects would be given positive evaluations. Each project attempted to set up participative thematic working groups with the civil sector; however, only the Verdier and SMAP III Moulouya projects were able to have active non-governmental participation. Thus both SMAP III Moulouya and the Verdier were positive in terms of participatory process indicators. This participation in the SMAP III Moulouya project helped orient the proposed actions for the integrated management plan, but the participation and influence shifted to the governmental sectors for decision making and validation of the plan. In the SMAP III El Kala project, the civil society was almost non-existent or too weak to actively participate in the working groups, leaving the process strictly to the governmental sectors. SMAP III El Kala and the Verdier projects showed stronger results concerning the sustainability indicators. Contrary to the SMAP III Moulouya case, the implication of the same members during the working groups and validation helped accelerate the process and allowed the projects to achieve the objectives more rapidly. The El Kala and Verdier projects had the decision makers involved in the working groups and validation committees, this integration of decision makers also helped ensure post-project, public funding (although limited in the case of SMAP III El Kala). The three projects analysed in this study were pilot sites, aimed at testing methodologies and promoting ICZM beyond the sites. The vertical integration in the project design aimed to influence national policy and eventual replication beyond the project site. This integration was fairly successful in the SMAP III Moulouya project, with a strong implication of the National Coastal Cell in the project’s activities. The National Coastal Cell was able to share the Moulouya experience throughout the coastal zones in Morocco, increasing replication opportunities. SMAP III El Kala had very little
Table 2 Comparative indicator matrix using process and output indicators to evaluate three integrated coastal zone management projects. Project
SMAP III Moulouya
SMAP III El Kala
Verdier
Length of project Stage of Evaluation Level of vertical integration
4 years Ex-post Yes (implication of national, regional and local authorities)
4 years Ex-post
On-going > 7 years Progress
Yes
Yes (implication of 25 governmental and non-governmental bodies) 7 Yes (local associations, university)
No (implication of only local and regional authorities) Yes (implication of 11 different governmental bodies) 4 No
No Yes Proposed
No Yes Local coastal cell established
No No
Partially Yes, moral coastal agreement
Level of horizontal integration Local community participation
Number and type of actors Number of intersectorial meetings Open public debate Planning
Awareness Campaigns Post-project sustainability
Validated, concertated document
Installation of a local, post-project implementing body Funding assured after project
Yes 6 Yes (local association and residents) Yes Yes Local association established Partially auto financed Yes, integrated management plan
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
implication from the national authorities and although the project has developed new and innovative tools for the Algerian coast, the chances for replication outside of the project site remain limited. The Verdier project had limited implication of national authorities; however, the project’s implication in different national networks has helped to diffuse the methodologies and lessons learned beyond the project site. The length of project for the SMAP III Moulouya and El Kala projects (four years) is relatively short to put in place a real ICZM initiative [18,39]. The Verdier project has the considerable advantage of continued funding over a longer term, having already achieved seven years of project implementation and one complete ICZM cycle. This time constraint seems more apparent in the SMAP III Moulouya project where real participative approaches were developed. The time necessary to include the civil sector in the reflection and planning processes was very important, and a fouryear project scale did not allow adequate time to validate the propositions with intersectorial committees. 4. Discussions The literature concerning ICZM has evolved over the years to pass beyond vertical and horizontal integration and now puts a strong importance on participatory processes and public participation. Public participation has even been seen as one of the key points to ensure long-term sustainable actions [1,29]. Public participation can range from being the target audience in awareness campaigns to real implication through working groups and public planning. The three projects analysed in this study all used awareness campaigns to sensitize the larger public, but the real implication of civil society in the debate and planning processes varied greatly due to cultural and social difference in each project site. The projects used an occidental approach to ICZM, aiming at increased levels of public participation in the debate and planning process. The variation in participation levels in each project is most likely due to the cultural differences and the degree to which the civil society has developed in each country [38]. Although there was significantly less participation in the SMAP III El Kala project, this might have little bearing on the sustainability of the actions. The fact that the working groups evolved into intersectorial governmental working groups, might suggest that the project activities moved passed the conceptual model developed for the project into a more realistic and thus sustainable model fitting the project site. We hypothesized that public participation increased the sustainability of the actions; however, the results of our analysis do not show a direct correlation. One project showed high levels of participation and low levels of sustainability and on the other hand, another project had low levels of participation (civil society), yet it met the basic post-project sustainability indicators set in our analysis regarding post-project funding and the installation of a governing body. Although this study only analysis three case studies, it may support the doubts that Bellamy et al. have raised concerning ICZM approaches [22]: Although ICZM is conceptually appealing, it may not be the most effective or efficient approach for each situation. The comparative analysis between three distinct ICZM projects demonstrates the great variability between projects and raises questions about the relative importance of process vs. output indicators. Using participation as a transversal process indicator, we can conclude that only two of the projects were successful because they effectively involved a broad based civil society component in the projects. This success can be disputed given the lack of tangible outputs in one of the projects. The lack of outputs could eventually have a negative impact on the participation process. As seen in many cases throughout Europe, participatory approaches do not
715
succeed over time because stakeholders fail to see the results of their implication in the process [39,40]. This analysis raises the importance of sustained efforts in ICZM, highlighting the need to complete the ICZM cycle and to arrive at concrete results on the field [1]. Process indicators are thus important, but they cannot be used alone; a proper balance should be found in the evaluation framework to measure the processes, but not neglect the overall project objectives. Conservation strategies have moved toward ICZM in an attempt to have a longer term and more effective, positive impact on the environment. The analysis in this study focuses only on result and process indicators; it does not take into account impact indicators. Impact indicators should be added to this analysis to measure the bio-physical trends and thus the real impact of the projects on the environment. 5. Conclusions ICZM has evolved in practice and in the literature to implicate and advocate for public participation. This study analysed the success of three ICZM projects based on 8 process and results indicators. Public participation does not seem to have had an impact on the overall project objective nor on the sustainability indicators. These results bring us back to the initial concept of ICZM based on horizontal and vertical integration, and suggest that projects promoting ICZM need to be adapted to each specific cultural and political context. Long-term sustainability and natural resource management will only be achieved when the projects and activities are adapted to meet the reality on the field. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Patrick Grillas and Marc Thibault for their input and reflection. I am also very grateful to three anonymous reviewers whose comments and recommendation greatly contributed to the article. References [1] Olsen S, Christie P. Coast Manage 2000;28:5e18. [2] Christie P, White A. Coast Manage 2000;25:155e81. [3] Cican-Sain B, Knecht RW. Integrated coastal and ocean management; concepts and practices. Washington DC.: Island Press; 1998. [4] Sorensen J. Building a global database of ICM efforts. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press; 2000. [5] Westmacott S. Categorizing the impediments to tropical integrated coastal management from case studies of Curçao, Bonaire and Zanzibar. Second year report. New Castle upon Tyne: University of New Castle; 2000. [6] Shipman B, Stojanovic T. Coast Manage 2007;35(2):375e98. [7] United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio declaration on environment and development, Rio de Janeiro, 3e14 June 1992. [8] EC. Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament on integrated coastal zone management: a strategy for Europe. COM. 547 final. Brussels, 27.09.2000; 2000. [9] Santoro F, Soriani S, Zanetto G, Marcomini A. The effects of public participation in ICM projects. Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the Mediterranean coastal environment. MEDCOAST, 10e14 November, Sochi, Russia; 2009. [10] EC. Report to the European Parliament and the Council: An evaluation of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Europe, Brussels; 2007. [11] PNUE/PAM/PAP. White paper: coastal zone management in the Mediterranean, Split. Programme d’actions prioritaires; 2001. [12] EU. Protocol on integrated coastal zone management in the Mediterranean, Barcelona; 1995. [13] Clarke B. Soc Nat Resour 2008;21(10):891e907. [14] Ernoul L, Mathevet R, Beck N, Legeay L. Conserv Soc 2010;7(3):205e12. [15] Campbell L, Vainio-Mattila A. Hum Ecol 2003;31(3):417e37. [16] Lane M, McDonald G. J Environ Plan Manage 2005;48(5):709e31. [17] Pickaver A, Ferreira M, Veiga J, Steijn R, Czerniak P, Heinichen B, Volckaert A. OURCOAST e a European Initiative to Support ICZM. Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the Mediterranean coastal environment, MEDCOAST, 10e14 November, Sochi, Russia; 2009.
716
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
[18] Trumbic I. Mediterranean protocol on integrated coastal zone management: opportunities and challenges. Second International Conference State-of theArt of ICZM in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, October, Akyaka, Turkey; 2008. [19] Habermas J. The theory of communicative action. In: McCarthy T, editor. Lifeworld and system. The critique of functionalist reason-Trans, vol. 2. Cambridge: Polity; 1987. [20] Chess C. J Environ Plan Manage 2000;43(6):769e84. [21] Webler T, Tuler S. Hum Ecol Rev 2001;8(2):29e39. [22] Bellamy JA, McDonald G, Syme G, Butterworth J. Soc Nat Resour 1999; 12:337e53. [23] Chua T. Ambio J 1998;27:599e610. [24] Cicin-Sain B. Global trends in integrated coastal management. Presented at Coast to Coast 2000. Melbourne, Victoria; March 6e9, 2000. [25] Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage; 1986. [26] Bellamy JA, Walker D, McDonald G, Syme G. J Environ Manage 2001; 63:407e23. [27] Wallace MG, Cortner HJ, Burke S. Soc Nat Resour 1995;8:35e47. [28] Cordah Ltd. Indicators to monitor the progress of integrated coastal zone management: a review of worldwide practices, Scottland: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit; 2001. [29] Hershman M, Good JW, Bernd-Cohen T, Lee V, Pogue P. Coast Manage 1999;28:29e37.
[30] UNEP-MAP. Protocol on integrated coastal zone management in the Mediterranean; 2008. [31] PAP/RAC. Protocol on Integrated Management of Coastal Areas in the Mediterranean. Available from: http://www.pap-thecoastcentre.org/itlpublic.php? publicid¼24&lang¼en. [32] Ramsar. Ramsar information sheet. Available from: http://www.ramsar.org/ cda/fr/ramsar-documents-info/main/ramsar/1-31-59_4000_1; 1999. [33] Pickaver AH, Gilbert C, Breton C. Ocean Coast Manage 2004;47:449e62. [34] Pateman C. Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1970. [35] Bonnet B, Aulong S, Goyet S, Lutz M, Mathevet R. Integrated management of Mediterranean wetlands. MedWet/Tour du Valat., Le Sambuc, France; 2005. [36] A handbook for measuring the progress and outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO; 2006. [37] Shipman B. ICZM Mediterranean awareness-raising strategy: a framework strategy to support policy development and implementation. Split: Priority Actions Program/Regional Activity Center; 2008. [38] Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2001. [39] Billé R. Ocean Coast Manage 2007;50:796e807. [40] Barreteau O, Bots PW, Daniell KA. Ecol Soc 2010;15(2):1.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Combining process and output indicators to evaluate participation and sustainability in integrated coastal zone management projects L. Ernoul* Tour du Valat and Université de Provence, Le Sambuc, F-13200 Arles, France
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 12 October 2010
Integrated coastal zone management has evolved in practice and in the literature to implicate and advocate for public participation. Public participation has been proposed to open debate, contribute to policy formulation, increase government accountability, build support for agency programs, reduce community tensions and increase the sustainability of the actions. This study analysed the success of three integrated coastal zone management projects based on 8 process and output indicators. Public participation does not seem to have had an impact on the overall project objective nor on the sustainability indicators. These results bring us back to the initial concept of ICZM based on horizontal and vertical integration, and suggest that projects promoting ICZM need to be adapted to each specific cultural and political context. Long-term sustainability and natural resource management will only be achieved when the projects and activities are adapted to meet the reality on the field. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.2. Participation in ICZM
1.1. Evolution of integrated coastal zone management
Active public participation is an essential component of the ICZM process and should take a priority in planning and coastal decision making [7e9]. This approach to ICZM has built upon community based conservation and co-management conservation aiming to integrate local communities throughout the project cycle. The beneficiaries of the projects gain an active voice in project design and implementation. The literature and policy concerning ICZM currently focus on community based and co-managed ICZM, calling for effective participation [10e12]. Community participation has been proposed to open debate, contribute to policy formulation, increase government accountability, build support for agency programs and reduce community tensions, however, the desired institutional outcomes are not always achieved [13e15] and participation remains as an ambiguous concept [16]. Participation as defined by the EU OURCOAST project is “the ways that the general public and interested stakeholders are being involved in ICZM implementation; it includes aspects such as sharing of information, transparent communication, consensus building, etc” [17]. One of the critics of ICZM has been a democratic deficit preventing the implementation, allowing little opportunity for public comment or local accountability. If ICZM is to become a reality on the political agenda, it will require accurately informed and continually engaged public, private and voluntary sectors [6]. However, difficulties arise as civil societies in many developing countries are still not fully accustomed to active participation in
In the 1990s, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development’s Agenda 21 urged sustainable development practices at an international level. As a result, coastal change and coastal management gained importance around the world [1]. This marked a change from pre-colonial and centralized conservation to community based and co-managed conservation [2]. Community based conservation and co-management have given way to integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), defined as a “dynamic process that brings together governments and societies, sciences and decision makers, public and private interests for the production and implementation of a program for the protection and development of coastal systems and resources” [3] (Table 1). Recent studies have shown a proliferation of coastal management around the world with over 380 cases reported in 92 nations [4]. Despite the increased prevalence of coastal management, Westmacott has demonstrated that ICZM is really only being fully implemented in 12% of the cases, while 50% are making essential steps toward ICZM [5]. This concedes with the first national stock takes produced in Europe, highlighting a wide variety of approaches to ICZM [6]. * Tel.: þ33 4 90 97 29 66; fax: þ33 4 90 97 20 19. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.001
712
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
Table 1 Facets of integration in integrated coastal zone management projects [32]. Type of integration
Definition
Vertical
Integration of institutions and administrative levels within the same sector Integration of various sectors at the same administrative level Necessity of ensuring that all the interactions and important issues are taken into consideration Actions that must be in harmony with the management objectives and strategies Integration of both terrestrial and marine aspects of the coastal zones Policies, strategies and plans for the development of the coastal region must be incorporated into more general policies, strategies and plans Integration of various disciplines Planning on different spatial scales should not have conflicting aims, objectives or strategies Coordination between plans and programs in the short, medium and long term
Horizontal Systemic Functional Spatial Political
Disciplinary Planning Temporal
public affairs and there are difficulties in mobilising it to contribute to and aid with the task of governing coastal areas [18]. The lack of stakeholder involvement has been continually found, having an implication on the engagement by the general public and leading to continued decision making without opportunity for public comment or local democratic accountability [19e21]. Exhaustive typologies exist describing the nature of participation, yet debate remains over what is preferable and possible for community involvement and participation in terms of integration [21,22]. This question is one factor limiting the use and acceptance of evaluation techniques in ICZM [13,23]. 1.3. Evaluation of ICZM projects The increase in ICZM projects and cases during the 1990s has raised debate due to the lack of common evaluation criteria [23]. In 1999, Cicin-Sain’s study found the expansion of ICZM throughout the majority of countries in Europe, but acknowledged the need for more critical evaluation of the management efforts [24]. Evaluation is “the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics and outcomes of programs for use by specific people to reduce uncertainties, improve effectiveness, and make decisions with regard to what those programs are doing and affecting” [25]. Evaluation has been neglected in much of the resource management policy and a substantial gap is emerging between theory and practice [22,26,27]. Frameworks and benchmarking tools have been developed including DEDUCE (in Europe), Environment Australia and the National State of the Environment report (South Africa). These tools share many common characteristics concerning the formulation of indicators; however, many overlook the social perspectives including process indicators for integration and participation [28]. To evaluate different models of natural resource management program implementation requires, in particular, a focus on program processes and activities rather than the outputs or tangible results of the program per se [22]. Additionally, ICZM programs are generally poorly resourced: relying heavily on federal funding, lacking substantial local or state governmental support. and limited by only short-term financing arrangements and work plans [6,22]. Their impact or outcomes take a considerably long time to be realised and may be visible only after the end of the project or evaluation [27]. Olsen et al. suggest that five to eight years are necessary to complete the first cycle of ICZM [1] and past experience from the United States has shown that sustained investments are required if the benefits of
integrated, participatory approaches are to be achieved [29]. The time constraints due to funding opportunities have also limited effective evaluation of ICZM projects; existing evaluations measure principally the project’s objectives rather than the ICZM long-term objectives. 1.4. ICZM in the Mediterranean basin The Barcelona Convention, signed in 1975, engaged 16 Mediterranean countries to begin taking action to counteract the increasingly devastating impacts of pollution in the Mediterranean Sea. In 2009, building upon the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and incorporating the orientations of sustainable development from Agenda 21, a new protocol was signed on ICZM for the Mediterranean basin [30]. The protocol is very precise, defining the coastal zone, coastal setback, natural hazards and reporting, but most importantly it establishes a common regional framework for ICZM [31]. This protocol will orient coastal management for all the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea and has a participative ICZM approach. Given the increased importance to ICZM in the region, it is opportune to analyse past ICZM projects in the Mediterranean basin to determine next steps forward. The objective of this study is to compare and evaluate the success of three ICZM projects focusing on process and output indicators related to participation, integration and sustainability. The results will open the debate over the importance and impact of participation in ICZM and make recommendations for future implementation and evaluation of ICZM projects. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Projects description The selection criteria for the projects studied were: ICZM projects located in the Mediterranean basin, projects that included conservation and development objectives, projects that were based on Cicin-Sain and Knecht conceptual framework [3] and projects with a participatory approach. In order to have a larger perspective, the three projects were chosen from three different countries within the region. The planned methodology for the three ICZM projects consisted of implementing a site diagnostic, stakeholder analysis, and putting in place a space for open dialogue and participative planning. The projects shared the same objective of developing and validating an integrated management plan. Despite the common initial orientations, the actual implementation of each project was modified given the different constraints and opportunities in each site. These modifications allowed the projects to overcome various obstacles while keeping the overall objective (i.e.: developing an integrated management plan). 2.1.1. The Verdier The Camargue is the Rhone River delta in southern France. The entire delta is a Biosphere Reserve from the Man and Biosphere program of UNESCO and one of the largest wetlands in the Mediterranean basin and as such it is of international importance for water bird breeding, staging and wintering [32]. In 2003, the Tour du Valat (TdV) developed a community based ICZM project aimed at conserving the wetlands of the Camargue and developing multiuse social and economic activities in collaboration with the residents of Le Sambuc, a rural community made up of 120 families (550 inhabitants). The multi-use approach allowed the community members to engage in a variety of activities (fishing, hunting, birdwatching, grazing) simultaneously, creating a synergy that was beneficial to wetland conservation. The project also aimed to reduce
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
the local social conflicts linked to discrepancies between conservation initiatives and local development by creating social opportunities to increase community interaction. The tangible output of the project is the implementation of an integrated management plan, validated in collaboration with the local community. The project was privately financed with some contributions from local and regional authorities. It is on going and the evaluations have shown positive results in terms of habitat conservation, local development, and community participation [14]. 2.1.2. SMAP III The TdV developed a project within the Short and Mediumterm priority environmental Action Program (SMAP) call for the preparation and implementation of ICZM plans of action in 2005, financed by the European Commission for the coastal regions of the Moulouya Estuary in Morocco and El Kala in Algeria. The objective of the 4-year SMAP III Moulouya-El Kala project was to launch an ICZM planning process using integrated management, consensus methodologies and sustainable development activities. The project focused on thematic issues through participative working groups, which provided information for decision makers at the local level. The principle output of the project was to define a moral contract, “Contrat d’Espace Littoral”, which would develop a common vision and management plan for the territory. 2.1.2.1. SMAP III Moulouya. The Moulouya estuary, located in the north east of Morocco, is a Site of Biological and Ecological Interest covering over 2700 ha of riparian forests, sand dunes, beaches and 400 ha of wetlands. It is the largest estuary ecosystem in the Maghreb region and home to dozens of threatened and endemic plant, animal, reptile and bird species. The estuary not only contributes to the ecological sphere for migratory birds but also plays a key role in supporting the livelihoods of over 43,700 inhabitants living in both rural and urban contexts [32]. The Moulouya River and estuary have undergone serious evolutions due to man-made pressures and changes in the region including the construction of dams, changes in agricultural practices, urbanization, sand extraction and the development of a large coastal tourist complex. The project site extended over 20 km of coastal zone including the Moulouya estuary. Over the last ten years, a multitude of local environmental associations have become active in the project zone. The project effectively puts in place seven thematic working groups made up of local associations, university professors and students and a variety of representatives from different professional groups. As a result of two years of collaboration, a synthesis of the seven different themes was developed and recommendations were submitted to local authorities. This work was combined with a socio-economic assessment and site diagnostic to create a proposal for an integrated management plan. The plan was discussed and debated in intersectorial meetings with key decision makers; however, the plan and moral agreement were not validated by the end of the project. 2.1.2.2. SMAP III El Kala. The National Park of El Kala is well known for its mosaic of terrestrial and marine habitats. Almost 6000 ha of wetlands within the protected area are classified as Ramsar sites, consisting of lakes and lagoons. The offshore bar, including sand dunes, shows a relative stability despite some uncontrolled sand extraction spots, and shelters rare plant species which need longterm protection measures. The National Park is inhabited by a population of about 114.000 persons and encompasses nine municipalities. The project site extended over 30 km of coast, made up of three municipalities and extended beyond the National Park’s jurisdiction.
713
The project was able to organize two thematic working groups made up of intersectorial, governmental authorities. These working groups met three times over a four-month period and as a result produced a management plan and moral agreement that was signed by each of the participants. 2.2. Methods Using the hypothesis that sustainable integrated management requires increased levels of participation at various levels, the analysis aimed to determine the success of each project using both tangible outputs and process indicators that evaluate participation levels of each project. Pickaver developed monitoring indicators to include the implication and participation of coastal communities in the management process [33]. Pateman further suggested five participation indicators including: self-efficacy, representation and access, information exchange and learning, continuity of participation and decision-making authority [34]. This study attempted to further develop these indicators in order to have a common ground for comparison between projects that was the least subjective possible. As a result, we identified eight indicators that can be classified in five categories. (i) Level of vertical integration Vertical integration is the integration of institutions and administrative levels within the same sector at local, regional and national levels. The GIZC protocol was signed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for each country; however the technical details and supporting units have included the Environmental, Tourism, Agricultural, Fishing and Development Ministries. Vertical integration could include any or every relevant sector involved in the protocol and/or the management of the area. Vertical integration is important to ensure the flow of communication between the different levels in order to guarantee the proper enforcement of national and international legislation, to provide essential information from the local level to establish adequate legislation, to facilitate financial and administration issues and to share experiences [35]. This indicator was measured as yes or no, if at least one sector was implicated at a local, regional and national level. (ii) Level of horizontal integration Horizontal integration is the integration of different sectors at the same administrative level. This type of integration allows for the integration of multiple dynamics and competing preoccupations to arrive at a collaborative management [35]. Horizontal integration can be measured with the following two indicators: ii.1. Number of intersectorial meetings ii.2. Number of sectors participating in working groups The number of meetings is a process indicator that establishes the effort made for horizontal integration. This indicator does not measure the quality of the exchanges, but we assume the more working groups’ meetings over a continued period of time, demonstrates a true engagement by participants and can signify increased exchanges and dialogue. The number of sectors participating in working groups is also a process indicator, demonstrating the level of horizontal integration. It is assumed that the higher number of participating sectors is indicative of increased collaboration between the sectors. (iii) Local community participation The level of participation of stakeholders in the process and activities reflects the active involvement of users in
714
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
ICZM. Active participation and satisfaction of stakeholders can improve the successes of ICZM by increasing ownership and sustained support. It also measures transparency and accountability of the decision-making process [36]. Assuming that active public participation is an essential component of the ICZM process and should take a priority in planning and coastal decision making [7e9], we attempted to elaborate participation process indicators that would demonstrate the level of participation. iii.1. Implication of civil society in the debate iii.2. Implication of civil society in the planning process Implication of the civil society in the debate and planning processes is not quantified quantitatively, but is measured with yes/no responses. Debate allows for a sharing of ideas, where as the planning process gives additional power to the decision-making process. (iv) Awareness campaigns Awareness-raising goes beyond a simple educational process and is defined by the Priority Action Program is a conscious policy instrument to support a common sustainable development path for coastal management [37]. This indicator was measured by the number of campaigns and target audience. (v) Post-project sustainability Sustainability can be measured from a variety of perspectives. In this study we assumed that post-project sustainability institutionalizes the process, maintaining outcomes and products from the project. We thus measured sustainability using the following two indicators: v.1. Installation of a post-project governing body v.2. Post-project funding assured The post-project governing body demonstrates the solidification of the institutional process. This was measured as yes or no; yes was further elaborated as established, organized and functioning at the end of the project. Post-project funding is essential for the implementation of the management plan. This indicator was measured according to the amount of funding guaranteed after the end of the project. We used several data sources to acquire the data including project working documents and final reports, interviews and field visits. The information was then compiled for each indicator and a comparative matrix was developed. Two of the projects (SMAP III El Kala and SMAP III Moulouya) were four-year projects and the evaluation was made ex-post, the third project (Verdier) is on
going and the evaluation was made seven years into the project implementation. 3. Results The comparative indicator matrix (see Table 2), synthesizes the three projects using both result and process indicators. Two of the three projects (Verdier and SMAP III El Kala) had positive outputs, achieving the planned final objective (a validated, concertated management plan). A management plan was drafted for the third project (SMAP III Moulouya), but it was not validated by the stakeholders at the end of the project cycle. Using this output indicator alone, only the SMAP III El Kala and Verdier projects would be given positive evaluations. Each project attempted to set up participative thematic working groups with the civil sector; however, only the Verdier and SMAP III Moulouya projects were able to have active non-governmental participation. Thus both SMAP III Moulouya and the Verdier were positive in terms of participatory process indicators. This participation in the SMAP III Moulouya project helped orient the proposed actions for the integrated management plan, but the participation and influence shifted to the governmental sectors for decision making and validation of the plan. In the SMAP III El Kala project, the civil society was almost non-existent or too weak to actively participate in the working groups, leaving the process strictly to the governmental sectors. SMAP III El Kala and the Verdier projects showed stronger results concerning the sustainability indicators. Contrary to the SMAP III Moulouya case, the implication of the same members during the working groups and validation helped accelerate the process and allowed the projects to achieve the objectives more rapidly. The El Kala and Verdier projects had the decision makers involved in the working groups and validation committees, this integration of decision makers also helped ensure post-project, public funding (although limited in the case of SMAP III El Kala). The three projects analysed in this study were pilot sites, aimed at testing methodologies and promoting ICZM beyond the sites. The vertical integration in the project design aimed to influence national policy and eventual replication beyond the project site. This integration was fairly successful in the SMAP III Moulouya project, with a strong implication of the National Coastal Cell in the project’s activities. The National Coastal Cell was able to share the Moulouya experience throughout the coastal zones in Morocco, increasing replication opportunities. SMAP III El Kala had very little
Table 2 Comparative indicator matrix using process and output indicators to evaluate three integrated coastal zone management projects. Project
SMAP III Moulouya
SMAP III El Kala
Verdier
Length of project Stage of Evaluation Level of vertical integration
4 years Ex-post Yes (implication of national, regional and local authorities)
4 years Ex-post
On-going > 7 years Progress
Yes
Yes (implication of 25 governmental and non-governmental bodies) 7 Yes (local associations, university)
No (implication of only local and regional authorities) Yes (implication of 11 different governmental bodies) 4 No
No Yes Proposed
No Yes Local coastal cell established
No No
Partially Yes, moral coastal agreement
Level of horizontal integration Local community participation
Number and type of actors Number of intersectorial meetings Open public debate Planning
Awareness Campaigns Post-project sustainability
Validated, concertated document
Installation of a local, post-project implementing body Funding assured after project
Yes 6 Yes (local association and residents) Yes Yes Local association established Partially auto financed Yes, integrated management plan
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
implication from the national authorities and although the project has developed new and innovative tools for the Algerian coast, the chances for replication outside of the project site remain limited. The Verdier project had limited implication of national authorities; however, the project’s implication in different national networks has helped to diffuse the methodologies and lessons learned beyond the project site. The length of project for the SMAP III Moulouya and El Kala projects (four years) is relatively short to put in place a real ICZM initiative [18,39]. The Verdier project has the considerable advantage of continued funding over a longer term, having already achieved seven years of project implementation and one complete ICZM cycle. This time constraint seems more apparent in the SMAP III Moulouya project where real participative approaches were developed. The time necessary to include the civil sector in the reflection and planning processes was very important, and a fouryear project scale did not allow adequate time to validate the propositions with intersectorial committees. 4. Discussions The literature concerning ICZM has evolved over the years to pass beyond vertical and horizontal integration and now puts a strong importance on participatory processes and public participation. Public participation has even been seen as one of the key points to ensure long-term sustainable actions [1,29]. Public participation can range from being the target audience in awareness campaigns to real implication through working groups and public planning. The three projects analysed in this study all used awareness campaigns to sensitize the larger public, but the real implication of civil society in the debate and planning processes varied greatly due to cultural and social difference in each project site. The projects used an occidental approach to ICZM, aiming at increased levels of public participation in the debate and planning process. The variation in participation levels in each project is most likely due to the cultural differences and the degree to which the civil society has developed in each country [38]. Although there was significantly less participation in the SMAP III El Kala project, this might have little bearing on the sustainability of the actions. The fact that the working groups evolved into intersectorial governmental working groups, might suggest that the project activities moved passed the conceptual model developed for the project into a more realistic and thus sustainable model fitting the project site. We hypothesized that public participation increased the sustainability of the actions; however, the results of our analysis do not show a direct correlation. One project showed high levels of participation and low levels of sustainability and on the other hand, another project had low levels of participation (civil society), yet it met the basic post-project sustainability indicators set in our analysis regarding post-project funding and the installation of a governing body. Although this study only analysis three case studies, it may support the doubts that Bellamy et al. have raised concerning ICZM approaches [22]: Although ICZM is conceptually appealing, it may not be the most effective or efficient approach for each situation. The comparative analysis between three distinct ICZM projects demonstrates the great variability between projects and raises questions about the relative importance of process vs. output indicators. Using participation as a transversal process indicator, we can conclude that only two of the projects were successful because they effectively involved a broad based civil society component in the projects. This success can be disputed given the lack of tangible outputs in one of the projects. The lack of outputs could eventually have a negative impact on the participation process. As seen in many cases throughout Europe, participatory approaches do not
715
succeed over time because stakeholders fail to see the results of their implication in the process [39,40]. This analysis raises the importance of sustained efforts in ICZM, highlighting the need to complete the ICZM cycle and to arrive at concrete results on the field [1]. Process indicators are thus important, but they cannot be used alone; a proper balance should be found in the evaluation framework to measure the processes, but not neglect the overall project objectives. Conservation strategies have moved toward ICZM in an attempt to have a longer term and more effective, positive impact on the environment. The analysis in this study focuses only on result and process indicators; it does not take into account impact indicators. Impact indicators should be added to this analysis to measure the bio-physical trends and thus the real impact of the projects on the environment. 5. Conclusions ICZM has evolved in practice and in the literature to implicate and advocate for public participation. This study analysed the success of three ICZM projects based on 8 process and results indicators. Public participation does not seem to have had an impact on the overall project objective nor on the sustainability indicators. These results bring us back to the initial concept of ICZM based on horizontal and vertical integration, and suggest that projects promoting ICZM need to be adapted to each specific cultural and political context. Long-term sustainability and natural resource management will only be achieved when the projects and activities are adapted to meet the reality on the field. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Patrick Grillas and Marc Thibault for their input and reflection. I am also very grateful to three anonymous reviewers whose comments and recommendation greatly contributed to the article. References [1] Olsen S, Christie P. Coast Manage 2000;28:5e18. [2] Christie P, White A. Coast Manage 2000;25:155e81. [3] Cican-Sain B, Knecht RW. Integrated coastal and ocean management; concepts and practices. Washington DC.: Island Press; 1998. [4] Sorensen J. Building a global database of ICM efforts. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press; 2000. [5] Westmacott S. Categorizing the impediments to tropical integrated coastal management from case studies of Curçao, Bonaire and Zanzibar. Second year report. New Castle upon Tyne: University of New Castle; 2000. [6] Shipman B, Stojanovic T. Coast Manage 2007;35(2):375e98. [7] United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio declaration on environment and development, Rio de Janeiro, 3e14 June 1992. [8] EC. Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament on integrated coastal zone management: a strategy for Europe. COM. 547 final. Brussels, 27.09.2000; 2000. [9] Santoro F, Soriani S, Zanetto G, Marcomini A. The effects of public participation in ICM projects. Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the Mediterranean coastal environment. MEDCOAST, 10e14 November, Sochi, Russia; 2009. [10] EC. Report to the European Parliament and the Council: An evaluation of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Europe, Brussels; 2007. [11] PNUE/PAM/PAP. White paper: coastal zone management in the Mediterranean, Split. Programme d’actions prioritaires; 2001. [12] EU. Protocol on integrated coastal zone management in the Mediterranean, Barcelona; 1995. [13] Clarke B. Soc Nat Resour 2008;21(10):891e907. [14] Ernoul L, Mathevet R, Beck N, Legeay L. Conserv Soc 2010;7(3):205e12. [15] Campbell L, Vainio-Mattila A. Hum Ecol 2003;31(3):417e37. [16] Lane M, McDonald G. J Environ Plan Manage 2005;48(5):709e31. [17] Pickaver A, Ferreira M, Veiga J, Steijn R, Czerniak P, Heinichen B, Volckaert A. OURCOAST e a European Initiative to Support ICZM. Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the Mediterranean coastal environment, MEDCOAST, 10e14 November, Sochi, Russia; 2009.
716
L. Ernoul / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 711e716
[18] Trumbic I. Mediterranean protocol on integrated coastal zone management: opportunities and challenges. Second International Conference State-of theArt of ICZM in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, October, Akyaka, Turkey; 2008. [19] Habermas J. The theory of communicative action. In: McCarthy T, editor. Lifeworld and system. The critique of functionalist reason-Trans, vol. 2. Cambridge: Polity; 1987. [20] Chess C. J Environ Plan Manage 2000;43(6):769e84. [21] Webler T, Tuler S. Hum Ecol Rev 2001;8(2):29e39. [22] Bellamy JA, McDonald G, Syme G, Butterworth J. Soc Nat Resour 1999; 12:337e53. [23] Chua T. Ambio J 1998;27:599e610. [24] Cicin-Sain B. Global trends in integrated coastal management. Presented at Coast to Coast 2000. Melbourne, Victoria; March 6e9, 2000. [25] Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage; 1986. [26] Bellamy JA, Walker D, McDonald G, Syme G. J Environ Manage 2001; 63:407e23. [27] Wallace MG, Cortner HJ, Burke S. Soc Nat Resour 1995;8:35e47. [28] Cordah Ltd. Indicators to monitor the progress of integrated coastal zone management: a review of worldwide practices, Scottland: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit; 2001. [29] Hershman M, Good JW, Bernd-Cohen T, Lee V, Pogue P. Coast Manage 1999;28:29e37.
[30] UNEP-MAP. Protocol on integrated coastal zone management in the Mediterranean; 2008. [31] PAP/RAC. Protocol on Integrated Management of Coastal Areas in the Mediterranean. Available from: http://www.pap-thecoastcentre.org/itlpublic.php? publicid¼24&lang¼en. [32] Ramsar. Ramsar information sheet. Available from: http://www.ramsar.org/ cda/fr/ramsar-documents-info/main/ramsar/1-31-59_4000_1; 1999. [33] Pickaver AH, Gilbert C, Breton C. Ocean Coast Manage 2004;47:449e62. [34] Pateman C. Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1970. [35] Bonnet B, Aulong S, Goyet S, Lutz M, Mathevet R. Integrated management of Mediterranean wetlands. MedWet/Tour du Valat., Le Sambuc, France; 2005. [36] A handbook for measuring the progress and outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO; 2006. [37] Shipman B. ICZM Mediterranean awareness-raising strategy: a framework strategy to support policy development and implementation. Split: Priority Actions Program/Regional Activity Center; 2008. [38] Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2001. [39] Billé R. Ocean Coast Manage 2007;50:796e807. [40] Barreteau O, Bots PW, Daniell KA. Ecol Soc 2010;15(2):1.