Legitimacy issues in public participation in coastal decision making processes: Case studies from Belgium and France

Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Legitimacy issues in public participation in coastal decision making processes: Case studies from Belgium and France An Cliquet a, *, Fabienne Kervarec b, c, Dirk Bogaert a, Frank Maes a, Betty Queffelec a, b a

Maritime Institute, Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium UMR-AMURE , 12 rue de Kergoat, 29238 Brest - France c ACTeon-8, place de la gare, 68000 Colmar, France b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 28 October 2010

Public participation is one of the central principles of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). However, within current public participation practice in coastal decision making there remain questions regarding whether or not the project leaders or participation processes can be considered legitimate. The paper explores the issue of legitimacy, examining case studies of coastal decision making processes from Belgium and France, focusing on the legal constraints for public participation including degree of formality and government style. It reveals that there are legitimacy issues in public participation related to the legal and institutional framework of the project, as well as to the knowledge base, and characteristics of the stakeholders and their interests. This study concludes that legitimacy issues in an ICZM process cannot be solved entirely through an institutional framework and associated legislation. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Legitimacy in public participation Public participation is one of the central principles of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). Indeed, the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2002 concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe states that all the parties concerned should be involved (economic and social partners, the organizations representing coastal zone residents, non-governmental organizations and the business sector) in the management process. This includes participation through agreements and based on shared responsibility [1]. Public participation can have many benefits, although there are still some controlling factors, such as different environmental values held by different stakeholders, and time and economic resources limitations [2]. It can also take various forms, ranging from information giving to shared decisions and empowerment [3]. More traditional techniques can be used, such as public hearings, or newer ones, such as Public Participatory Geographical Information System (PPGIS) as explored within the paper by Green (in this volume). Public participation can have a legal basis, or can be an

* Corresponding author. Maritime Institute, Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Cliquet). 0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.015

informal process. The question is to what extent this principle is already applied in coastal zone decision processes. To enable successful coastal decision making, legitimacy is important. Legitimacy, as noted in the paper by Green (this issue) can be defined as “the perceptions or assumptions that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate” [4]. Clearly, this means that the government conducting the policy related to ICZM needs legitimacy and, as Green notes, such legitimacy requires trust amongst all stakeholders as well as capacity to undertake a coastal zone decision making process. As Green also highlights, the legitimacy of the stakeholders involved is also relevant, particularly who is and is not involved as well as the extent to which each stakeholder is representative of their particular sector.

1.2. Approach This paper looks at legitimacy issues in public participation and their role in decision making in two case studies from northwest European countries, involved in the COREPOINT project. The first Belgian case deals with a legal process (the legal designations of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)). The second case, Mont-SaintMichel Bay in France, adopts a less formal process to build a shared vision for the territory as a result of a stakeholder based process. The paper focuses on an analysis of the legitimacy of the decision makers, the participatory process itself and of the various stakeholders engaged in the process. Each case study highlights

A. Cliquet et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

a specific aspect of public participation although both provide an analysis of the degree to which legal constraints impact on legitimacy issues, through consideration of the legal and policy perspective of each case. The analysis for the Belgian case study is based on primary legal sources and literature study. For the social analysis the policy arrangement approach, as described in Bogaert et al. [5], has been used. The French case study is informed by a literature review, stakeholders’ interviews and observation of fora and various events organized within the ICZM project taking place in the Mont-SaintMichel Bay from 2005 onwards. Whilst this paper does not contain a general review of literature on participation in (coastal) environmental management, it builds on the existing literature to provide an analysis of legitimacy in relation to the case studies. 2. Legal constraints on legitimacy in a public participation process In order to understand legitimacy issues in the French and Belgian cases, an overview of the characteristics of each case study is provided before the main discussion. 2.1. Belgian case study: public participation in the designation of Marine Protected Areas In Belgium the COREPOINT team (Maritime Institute, Ghent University) analyzed the process of the designation of MPAs [6], focusing on the question of participation. Belgium has a 65 km long coastline and a territorial sea and continental shelf of 3600 km2, thus being the smallest marine area in northwest Europe. Belgium has declared an exclusive economic zone by Act of 22 April 1999 [7]. Although the Belgian coastal zone is small, it comprises several marine and coastal habitats, such as shallow offshore sandbanks and sandy beaches [8]. In addition to this ecological diversity, there are many human uses that are frequently in conflict with each other for space, including recreation, shipping, fisheries, mineral extraction and offshore wind energy [5]. The governmental institutions responsible for the management of the coastal zone are vertically and horizontally fragmented [9]. Vertical competences are divided over three levels of government: federal (e.g. competent for marine nature conservation), regional (competent for matters such as fishing and dredging) and local. Horizontal competences are fragmented over several administrative departments and several ministers that are competent for marine and coastal issues. In 2003 the new federal government appointed a federal Minister for the North Sea. The competence for the designation and management of MPAs rests with the federal government. However, for the management of such an MPA, the federal legislation excludes the possibility of limiting any activity that falls under the competence of the Flemish government. Several important activities such as dredging and fisheries can only be regulated by the Flemish government [10]. As pointed out by Cicin-Sain and Belfiore (2005), fragmentation of jurisdictional, institutional and legislative frameworks is one of the primary obstacles to the effective implementation of MPAs and Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management [11]. 2.1.1. Legal framework There is no comprehensive legal framework specific for the whole of the Belgian coastal zone, nor for either the marine part (the federal level) or the land part (the Flemish level). For the marine part there is, however, federal legislation related to the protection of the marine environment (Act of 20 January 1999 on the protection of the marine environment, amended by Act of 17

761

September 2005 [12]). Although this Act aims at integrating all environmental matters in one piece of legislation, it cannot be considered a comprehensive law on coastal zone management, because it does not address any activities on the landward side and does not regulate any sea bound activities within the competence of the Flemish Region (e.g. dredging, coastal defence works, fisheries and piloting) [13]. This federal Act is the basic legal instrument for the designation of MPAs (within the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone). MPAs can take different forms such as marine reserves or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) [14]. While marine reserves are, in principle, the areas most strictly protected, SPAs and SACs give implementation to the EU Birds and Habitats Directives,1 respectively. After some failed attempts to designate marine reserves in the period 1999e2003 (see later), several SPAs and SACs were designated by Royal Decree of 14 October 2005 [15]. A Royal Decree of 5 March 2006 designated the specific marine reserve the ‘Baai van Heist’ [16] (see Fig. 1). However, the management measures are limited and, whilst mainly aimed at restricting future activities, this means that existing activities remain practically unaffected by the new measures. In February 2008 the Belgian Council of State annulled the designation of the SAC Vlakte van de Raan, following the complaint by the energy firm Electrabel. The main argument by the Council of State was the insufficient motivation for the designation [17]. It is yet unclear if the government will start a new procedure for the designation of the area as an MPA. The Act does not make any further provisions concerning the procedure for designating the MPAs. Whilst Belgian legislation does not provide procedural obligations with regard to participation in the designation of the MPAs, due to the amendment of 2005 of the Marine Environment Act an article was added to the Act to provide a legal basis for the user agreements. A user agreement is defined in the Act as “an agreement between the Minister and the users of a Marine Protected Area which supports measures for the protection of those areas”. Another new article provides a legal basis for the establishment of policy plans. The conditions of the user agreements and the policy plans are concisely developed in a separate Royal Decree of 14 October 2005 [18]. This Royal Decree also includes a procedure for the establishment of policy plans which provides for a public inquiry, a consultation meeting with representatives appointed by the users of the MPA and a public consultation meeting. 2.1.2. The process of designation of MPAs In the process analysis of the designation of Belgian MPAs three periods can be distinguished (the first: 1999; the second: 1999e2003; and the third: 2003e2006) [19]. 2.1.2.1. The first two attempts: a problem of government legitimacy. The first two attempts at MPA designation can be described as classical top-down approaches. The first was made shortly after the approval of the Act in 1999. During the establishment of the MPA proposals there was consideration of a supporting coalition of a limited number of actors from the nature conservation movement, the authorities (civil servants) and the academic world. However, this first proposal ran up against protest from all sorts of North Sea users (water sports enthusiasts, fishermen, ship owners.) and local politicians. At the beginning, the discourse used by

1 Council Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26/01/2010; Directive Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

762

A. Cliquet et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

Fig. 1. Map of designated Belgian MPAs in 2005 and 2006. SAC 2 has been annulled by the Belgian Council of State in 2008 (source: [10]).

the opponents focussed mainly on the prohibitions and restrictions which they associated with the setting up of MPAs. An important element in this protest was the lack of perceived legitimacy from the federal government. From the start, the designation process was seen as a top-down policy by which the ‘landlubbers’ (Brussels and the ‘Greens’) would erode the autonomy of the true inhabitants of the coast. This basic mistrust and lack of legitimacy, was fed by the authoritarian style used by the government. No form of consultation (not even in information) was used during policy preparation or during later phases of the designation process. Moreover, the discourse used by the authorities, based mainly on scientific opinion, did not relate to the discourse of the local actors. Nevertheless the authorities used scientific knowledge as an argument of power. However, the referral to European obligations with regard to MPAs by the government was perceived by users and local politicians not so much as an argument of power, but rather as an alibi for pushing through the policy of their own choice. The explanation for the government’s style reflects to a large extent the government’s limited capacity in this area. It neither had sufficient resources (including staff) nor experience. Consultation with users and local government officials was provided only as a reaction to protests. This first attempt at designation clearly exemplified that local actors wished to be involved in the policy process from an early stage. The top-down approach created issues of legitimacy (those who lived inland versus the coast), distrust of the federal authorities and the concept of MPAs. The second designation attempt (1999e2003) was characterized by a lack of continuity and, consequently, almost came to a halt between 1999e2002. The main explanation for this was the huge protest that had been produced by the first proposal, and the lack of explicit supporting coalitions at this time. Initiatives of the new Minister, responsible for marine environmental protection, lacked not only local political support but also that from colleagues in federal government. Even within former supporters, such as the nature conservation movement, a changing attitude also became

evident, partly resulting from political changes in federal government (from a socialist to a green party, with whom there was less of a tradition of cooperation), and concerns associated with proposals for near shore wind turbines. Respondents to research surveys suggested that the main explanation for the failure to designate marine reserves this second time, related not only to the considerable blocking power displayed by the North Sea users and local politicians, but also especially to the lack of political power and experience of those newly invested with responsibility for policy development and a similar lack among the staff in their ministerial offices. The lack of political priority led to a reduction in resources mobilised. 2.1.2.2. The third attempt: legitimacy restored?. In 2003 a new federal government came into power. For the first time, Belgium had a Minister responsible for the North Sea, who had the right to take the initiative in coordinating all matters relating to North Sea policy at ministerial level. The ministerial portfolio was taken over by an experienced politician who originally came from the coast and who had strong electoral support. There was also investment in ministerial office staff who were appointed to help realise the North Sea policy and designate MPAs. There was also an important shift in the way in which knowledge was provided and discourse was conducted by the federal government during this period. Scientific opinion was not used exclusively to justify policy, as non-professional know-how and laymen’s knowledge were also deployed in preparing policy. The federal government invested in bilateral consultation principally with the users of the North Sea, the environmental movement and local officials at an early stage of the policy process. In contrast to earlier attempts, scientists, civil society and market/private sector suggested that the federal government (the Minister) had provided them with information and consulted them. This bilateral consultation, therefore, not only marked a change of style from earlier attempts, but also an important shift in content and approach which largely rebuilt legitimacy and trust. However, some sections

A. Cliquet et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

of the market/private sector and civil society feared that the closed bilateral consultation led to backroom politics, with talk of a lack of transparency, particularly for the specialised administration and the actors who were not consulted, such as the port authorities. A lack of transparency was also mentioned with regard to earlier agreements relating to the offshore sand, gravel and wind sectors. At this time North Sea policy had a phased structure and the rules for MPA designation were linked to those of other North Sea sectors. In order to provide a master plan, spatial planning of the Belgian part of the North Sea was opted for, in which first zones were created for ‘heavy’ offshore economic sectors, namely sand and gravel extraction and wind turbine parks. The on-going legal procedures against earlier proposals and decisions relating to offshore wind turbine parks formed a real catalyst to this development. The rescinding of earlier concessions resulted in actors changing their respective positions with those who had, at the beginning, been opponents of MPAs, such as certain local officials, now positioning themselves as more moderate. In contrast, other actors, such as water sports enthusiasts and fishermen, became more moderate mainly as a result of the introduced consultation process. To a certain extent there was talk of a move from challenging to supporting coalitions, in which the most important opponents suspended their obstructive action. Alongside the above there was another important change: the existing Marine Environment Act was amended with provision being made for voluntary user agreements. Rather than strict prohibitions based on formal legislation and regulations, informal rules were now favoured (e.g. user agreements) and elements such as a voluntary approach, shared responsibility and trust were promoted. The potential consequences of designations and the likely measures involved were also made clear from the start. Although the voluntary character of the process was seen as an important advantage with an eye to creating support, respondents also saw this as a disadvantage. A key concern of the respondents remained the lack of clarity, especially for those not involved, as well as anxiety about the representativeness of the signatories and the familiarity of the user agreements amongst users. Research suggests that opinions are divided over whether the objectives of the MPA designation have been attained. Even though the international obligations have been fulfilled on paper, respondents from state, market/private sector, civil society and science question the management and enforcement of the MPAs. Various actors from the administration, science and civil society speak about a ‘watering down’ of the Marine Environment Act. Despite this the majority of the respondents feel that the designation is an improvement. They refer to the numerous knock-on effects that the full process has had, such as re-established trust between various parties involved, the insight that the North Sea cannot be used without limit and that designation should fit in a total vision for the use of the North Sea. Another important insight from the research has been the fact that it is clear that designation processes can no longer be initiated by top-down approaches, but, instead, require more interactive styles of governance. Whilst with the present designation of MPAs, the federal government has started to fulfill its international nature conservation obligations, it is not yet clear yet whether the more interactive approach has been successful in facilitating the future sustainable protection of the marine ecosystems in the Belgian part of the North Sea. 2.2. French case study: open public participation in the elaboration of Mont-Saint-Michel Bay perspectives Mont-Saint-Michel Bay stretches from Granville (Normandy) to Cancale (Brittany). This large territory is administratively complex

763

because it belongs to two counties2 and two regions. As a result the management of the Bay is difficult. Numerous economic activities take place in this area which include tourism (which is highly localized on Mont-Saint-Michel) as well as a range of other marine and land-based primary activities, such as shellfish-growing, fishing or water sports. As a consequence, user conflicts have arisen, with the maintenance of traditional activities a key issue. Due to its high natural and cultural value, there are major challenges in addressing the needs of all the various interests within the context of sustainable development. Moreover, the maritime project, dealing with the restoration of the Mont-Saint-Michel which started in 2006, has created further uncertainties for economic activities and stirred public debate (Fig. 2). An ICZM project has been conducted by the Association Interdépartementale Manche Ille-et-Vilaine (Intercounty Manche and Illeet-Vilaine Association) in Mont-Saint-Michel Bay since autumn 2005. Together, the French COREPOINT team (CEDEM-UBO and IFREMER) and this association form the local Expert Couplet Node (ECN) for this zone (see later). The ICZM project in Mont-Saint-Michel Bay aims to integrate management approaches at the Bay scale and has five key goals [20]: (1) to preserve the Bay ecosystem, including its maritime and land components; (2) to strengthen the Bay identity; (3) to implement an operational and shared project of a territory which is coherent in terms of landscape, history and ecological functionality; (4) to integrate existing objectives within planning; and (5) to create a cross-cutting coordination and monitoring structure, which goes beyond administrative borders to achieve coordinated management of land and sea. A further critical issue is to coordinate the project with other initiatives in the area including the Natura 2000 process, launched in 2006 for the entire Bay (and in 2002 for Chausey island). Consequently, the Intercounty Association works closely with the team in charge of the implementation of Natura 2000 in the Bay, sharing knowledge, networks and local offices. The methodology used to produce the document containing the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 site has also been discussed by the scientific committee of the Association. To promote a deeper understanding of the project by local stakeholders and to better take into account their concerns, the Intercounty Association developed a public participation approach, essentially by setting up “bay fora” and bilateral meetings with institutional stakeholders. These events have sought to involve both key actors and the wider public in the project including representatives of relevant administrations, local authorities, socioeconomic stakeholders, associations and citizens including individuals. 2.2.1. Legal framework In France, there was no comprehensive legal framework for conducting ICZM at the beginning of the project.3 However, a wide range of legislation already existed that applied to the coastal zone and that had to be taken into account in ICZM. Also, there was a legal framework for spatial management, including the schéma de mise en valeur de la mer, although this was not applied to the whole coast or within the Mont-Saint-Michel Bay project. Instead, the latter chose to use a sui generis organization, freely created by the Intercounty Association, to achieve its aims. Bound only by its

2 For the French case in this article, county refers to département, county council to conseil général and region to région. 3 French laws now establish the framework of ICZM. See Art. 35 Law n 2009-967, 3 August 2009 de programmation relative à la mise en œuvre du Grenelle de l’environnement and Art. L. 219-1 and following articles of the Environment Code.

764

A. Cliquet et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

to above, were invited to these fora based on their experience related to each theme. At this stage the COREPOINT local Expert Couplet Node5 provided an analysis of public involvement. This led to the identification of missing parties, including water sports professionals, who were subsequently invited to participate in the thematic fora.  Autumn 2006eWinter 2007: Ecoumène, an artistic and cultural project, was proposed to help the general public to take part into the project. It aimed to collect representations of the Bay from stakeholders including those specifically who are not usually well represented at meetings or conferences.  January 2007: The 2nd “Day of the Bay” aimed to let the general public (and more specifically the stakeholders involved in the process) know about and debate the results of the fora and the perspectives and potential actions associated with the project.

Fig. 2. Location of Mont-Saint-Michel Bay.

national funding contract,4 this pilot ICZM project focused on public participation. To ensure local participation and to encourage wide stakeholder debate, a number of fora were organized around the Bay. These sought to build a common project, resulting initially in a charter, and subsequently an action plan. Bilateral meetings with civil servants and meetings of the scientific committee of the association were organized to prepare and follow public participation events. With public participation at the core of the project, the Association organized most events to reach the general public. These included:  October 2005: 1st “Day of the Bay”. This major event aimed to launch the project and to inform the general public about it. It included, firstly, a conference which allowed scientists, working on different aspects of the Bay, to present their results. Walks in the field were also organized to better understand the place, its environment and its activities. With this first event, the project gathered key stakeholders (scientists, professionals, representatives.) so they could meet and share their view on the major issues that should be addressed in the Bay.  WintereSpring 2006: Geographical fora were established around the Bay in order to reach the general public at the very local level and to enable specific local issues to be raised. To complement these, public meetings were organized in nine different localities along the shores of the Bay. Based on these, the initial identification of issues, named territorial diagnosis, was drawn up.  Autumn 2006: Thematic fora. Three series of “thematic fora” were organized which dealt with four specific issues, namely: (1) landscape and urbanism; (2) quality in products and services; (3) land and sea inter-linkages; (4) maritime Bay uses. They aimed to complement the first territorial diagnosis by providing more operational perspectives. Participants, which included key stakeholders from the geographical fora referred

4 The Intercounty Association project gained a national funding as an example of an experimental ICZM project.

As well as promoting open participation in which every citizen is invited to participate from the outset, the Intercounty Association project had two further strengths. It was not limited by a sectoral approach. It also was able to freely determine the geographical scope of the project, unlike the Natura 2000 process which has its territory defined by ecological criteria6 [21]. As a consequence of this sui generis and very open organization, it should be recognized that final output from the process was a political commitment and not a binding regulation. Whilst a nonstatutory project has some major advantages, it also has limitations. Advantages include greater freedom to lead public participation, and to define the geographical and material scope of the project. However, there are limitations associated with uncertainty regarding the impacts of the process. For this reason, the Association changed from producing a mere charter to an action plan, which demonstrated clear, operational impacts and results. 2.2.2. Building a social legitimacy of the process The absence of a formal legal framework has made it necessary to create social and political legitimacy to the process. Such legitimacy, as perceived by the local stakeholders, is dependent on the perceived legitimacy of each participant to the process and especially to the perceived legitimacy of the project leaders. 2.2.2.1. Questioning the perceived legitimacy of the Intercounty Association. The legitimacy of a project leader and lead organization is obviously linked to institutional position, history and previous actions. Created especially for the ICZM project, the Intercounty Association had no such history prior to this initiative. Of course, its institutional position, as an association linking two county councils (Manche and Ille-et-Vilaine) from two different regions (Bretagne and Normandie), could be viewed as an advantage. However, its name was not known among the general public that it aimed to reach. In this context, the Association’s legitimacy had to be improved through the project, especially via a highly participatory process. However, reliant on the sole will of the stakeholders to get involved in the project, there are questions regarding the extent to which such conditions are able to build social legitimacy in this situation. 2.2.2.2. Social legitimacy of the process as depending on the stakeholders taking part in the project [22]. The Intercounty Association chose to create the conditions for a participatory process at a very

5 The local ECN was composed of the Intercounty Manche and Ille-et-Vilaine Association and the French Corepoint Team (CEDEM/UBO and IFREMER). 6 Judgment of the Court of 2 August 1993, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain Case C-355/90.

A. Cliquet et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

early stage of the project. Within such a participatory process, legitimacy can be perceived and built between the participants. It can also be reinforced through the representativeness of the stakeholders within their own profession or within a group of residents or users. However, it is possible that during the participatory process a specific stakeholder may exceed institutional representativeness: for instance, a farmer might be seen by other participants and by the project leader as representing his entire profession even though he might only be giving his own, unmandated opinions. Such issues make it difficult to articulate participatory democracy and representative democracy. The legitimacy between stakeholders also depends upon the participants’ perception of the different issues and uses. Indeed, issues and uses of the coastline may be viewed as more or less legitimate by different stakeholders. As strong pressure over natural resources and high competition for space can influence debates related to the legitimacy of activities in the coastal zone, it is crucial for actors to defend their legitimacy. Throughout any participatory process, consequently, stakeholders have to demonstrate the legitimacy of their interests in order to provide meaningful input to the development of any integrated, collective management process. Most of the private actors who wish to get involved in such a decision making process argue about the legitimacy of their interests as a key justification for their participation. Socioeconomic coastal actors often engage in a participatory decision making process under this perspective. This is especially true for representatives of traditional primary activities who may perceive that the place allocated to them and sometimes even the maintenance of their coastal activities are particularly likely to be threatened in future. The question of the legitimacy of the stakeholders involved in a participatory process must be raised by the project leaders and by the public policy decision makers who have the choice as to whether or not the decision making process should be open or not. Referring specifically to ICZM, project leaders have to consider the legitimacy of coastal stakeholders: should they choose a widely open participatory process or should they focus on specific stakeholders and issues? Other questions relate to whether or not to choose individual participants or collective interest representatives. The high number and diversity of coastal zone stakeholders and the variety of ICZM projects, however, makes it difficult to provide and adopt general rules to guide such a selection. In practice in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, the openness of the fora to the general public made it possible for willing persons to get closely involved in the project; it also offered an opportunity for the expression of dissident positions and unusual issues as the announcement and title of the events (including, for example “Which Bay do we want in the future?”) were very wide in scope. During the first semester of 2006, along with the initial identification of issues, two series of fora took place, each composed of nine fora spread all around the Bay. Table 1 shows the participatory process led by the local Expert Couplet Node, providing an indication of some of the successes and limitations of the participatory process [23]. Very interesting discussions and exchange of information occurred between participants during these fora. However, this approach raised questions regarding the global representativeness of the fora particularly in the context of people who were not attending. There were also concerns relating to how the various stakeholders (professionals of tourism, peasants, shellfish growers, representatives, inhabitants and other users of the Bay.) perceived the legitimacy of each other. The relevance (and legitimacy) of the initial identification of issues [24] rises questions. As a result of such a process, specific

765

Table 1 Participation in the first two series of fora. 1) General trends 269 people attended fora with some participants attending several  Average attendance: 21.3 per forum  Minimum attendance: 8  Maximum attendance: 57 2) Main categories of stakeholders  Local representatives: 15%  Environmentalists (members of NGOs): 15.7%  Other NGOs (mainly foot fishermen): 5% 3) Representation of socio-professional groups 50.6% of the participants provided details of their profession. These included:    

27.9% 18.4% 11.1% 10.5%

retired people primary sectora tourism sector teachersb

4) Stakeholders poorly represented    

Women (only 23.2% of participants) Leisure professionals or NGOs Civil servants Scientists

a 15% of the employees in the coastal zone of Manche and Ille-et-Vilaine belong to this sector (estimation from data INSEE, 1998). b Whereas only 3e5% of employment on the coastal zone of Manche and Ille-etVilaine belongs to the educational sector.

issues may go missing, especially those that depend on the presence of interested stakeholders in the participatory process. This risk can damage the representativeness of the project. Additionally, the project leaders also need to assess the risk that some of the participants exploit the process to advantage their sole interests. In the case of the ICZM project in the Bay, as mentioned above, some key actors were poorly represented during the fora, particularly civil servants, scientists, some professionals of water sports and women. Consequently, true knowledge integration (coming from a debate integrating the different sources of knowledge: scientific and others) was not able to occur. Moreover, several points, particularly related to leisure activities were missing in the diagnosis emanating from the first series of fora. However, some of the bias of the fora was retrieved, firstly by interviews with civil servants and then through the scientific committee of the Association and other strong links with scientists. The “thematic fora” also introduced new elements to the discussion. Moreover the additional project Ecoumène invited the inhabitants of the Bay to give their views and personal feelings about the identity of the Bay. First, public expressions were collected from people. These were then analyzed allowing the similarities and differences in peoples’ views to be highlighted. Such analyses were reported back to the public during the second “Day of the Bay,” thus allowing verification and discussion of findings. Consequently, through collection and exposition of statements of the public, Ecoumène helped open the ICZM process and raise awareness of the identity of the Bay among the local population. 2.2.3. Perspectives An Action Plan was drawn up by the Association based on the findings of the above participatory process. It provides a general framework for the Association to act as a coordinator for initiatives

766

A. Cliquet et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

linked to coastal issues and management in the Bay. This Action Plan was accepted by the Steering Committee of the Association in January 2008 and then translated into an Implementable Programme, which was approved by the General Assembly of the Association in April 2008. Currently, this Programme is being partially implemented, notably through a variety of communication and awareness actions. The Association is also providing technical support to local institutions to help implement coastal management. This includes advice to search for grants or to organise workshops in the field of coastal management. However, there have been various difficulties associated with the transition from the early participation stages to an effective decision making process. As noted above, political support for the Association, which has been variable since the beginning of the project,7 remains an issue. This is required now to ensure the implementation of the orientation programme, particularly as the Association is both financially and institutionally dependent on County Council support. Moreover, the financial context (which is currently bad for the French local administrations/county councils in general) is a major limiting factor and prevents more costly investments by the Association. 3. Discussion 3.1. Legal and institutional basis: legitimacy of the government In Belgium three attempts were made to designate MPAs in Belgian marine waters following the Marine Environment Act. The first two attempts (1999 and 1999e2003) can be described as classical top-down approaches, in which no or late and inadequate information was given. The proposals were based entirely on an expert approach, relying on scientific information and strict protection measures were proposed. However, both attempts failed: no MPAs were designated and there was a lack of trust towards the (federal) government. The third attempt (2003e2006) was markedly different and can be best described as a governance approach, using information, consultation and cooperation in the form of voluntary user agreements. The proposals were based on both scientific knowledge and laymen’s knowledge and whilst less strict rules were proposed, this attempt led to the designation of six MPAs. In France, besides some sectoral projects (such as Natura 2000 and the restoration of Mont-Saint-Michel maritime setting project), the ICZM project has brought the perspectives of the stakeholders together, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to express their opinions in order to define a common vision for the future of the Bay. Unlike the Belgian case, this project has been conducted informally, without a legal framework. The project has resulted in the formulation of an action plan and an implementable programme, both of which reflect political commitments to definite actions. The future legitimacy of the process, however, will be dependent on the capacity of the Association to implement these actions. Despite their obvious differences, both Belgian and French case studies show similar legitimacy issues. From an institutional point of view, the first two attempts for the designation of Belgian MPAs clearly revealed a problem of legitimacy of the federal government, the responsible government. In a top-down approach this central authority imposed policy decisions on local authorities and stakeholders without any form of consultation. It was, therefore, not

7 Repeated changes at the head of the Association linked to political changes following elections to county councils has led to uneven political support to the action of the Association.

surprising that this policy process reached a deadlock. Local authorities and stakeholders felt ignored and had the impression that their autonomy was compromised. The central authority was confronted with questions of legitimacy and a problem of lack of trust. The inadequate attention to participation can be explained by capacity problems due to a lack of resources and experienced personnel within the federal authorities. The government’s intention to complete the policy process quickly before its term of office was over was an additional contributory factor. Conversely, in the French case, a bottom-up approach was implemented. Stakeholders were involved from the beginning and they were invited to propose issues and actions. However, in this case, the Association responsible for delivering this process was unknown to the local stakeholders. As a result, it had to prove its capacity through building trust and respect in order to gain stakeholders’ support and to be in a position to implement agreed ICZM actions. 3.2. Expert knowledge versus laymen’s knowledge With regard to content, the initial policy in the Belgian case was almost exclusively based upon scientific knowledge. As noted above, the federal authorities hardly used so-called layman’s knowledge or did not do so at all. However, putting less effort into participation does not necessarily lead to saving time in the long run. The argument of ‘time’ could not be upheld since the opposition to the policy resulted in delaying and finally discontinuing the process. As a consequence of the exclusive attention to scientific knowledge, local stakeholders (state, market/private sector and civil society) were not able to identify with the intended policy. The almost completely scientific arguments of the federal authorities did not correspond to the layman’s knowledge of hands-on coastal experts and this contributed considerably to the protest against the proposed policy. Consequently, it is suggested that is advisable to attempt to better align policy arguments to those of the stakeholders. In Mont-Saint-Michel Bay, the fora could have provided an opportunity to integrate knowledge from scientists with that of other stakeholders, and to discuss the expert-based knowledge. However, both scientists and civil servants were mostly absent from these events although the scientific committee and the COREPOINT ECN fed some scientific advice to the project. However, such data were not discussed with the stakeholders during the fora. However, during the second “Day of the Bay”, there were some discussions between stakeholders and scientists, illustrating that some local stakeholders were keen to have their knowledge taken into account. 3.3. Legitimacy of stakeholders During the third attempt to designate MPAs in Belgium, there was a shift from a top-down government approach to more participatory governance. The federal government specifically used bilateral consultation with different stakeholders. This appeared to play a crucial role in depolarizing the MPA designation process. The stakeholders were approached with a request for information, instead of with an announcement. The choice of bilateral consultation seems to have one important advantage in particular in the context of polarized dossiers. Through bilateral consultation actors can more easily give up their often rigid positions and role patterns, which are inspired by all kinds of group dynamic processes. This is essential for restoring confidence and gathering information. From the analysis it appears that the most important disadvantage seemed to be the risk of loss of transparency in policy processes both with regard to the choice of participating actors as well as to

A. Cliquet et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

content. Criteria are needed for the selection of actors. What matters in bilateral consultation is not only ‘how’ this participation is achieved, but particularly also ‘who’ is involved or e even more important e ‘who’ is ‘not’. It is, for example, remarkable that there was preliminary bilateral consultation with ‘heavy economic’ sectors (sand and gravel and wind turbines) about zoning and concessions for their economic activities before the MPA designation process. Once there was clarity on this issue the process of MPA designation could proceed. The economic criteria played an important role, perhaps too important, in the selection of actors without being made more explicit. Therefore, it is advisable to make the criteria used more explicit. Bilateral consultation implies that the process is not transparent for people who are not involved. The dividing line between this kind of consultation and ‘backroom politics’ is often vague. It is, therefore, advisable to communicate more openly with everyone whether involved or not [25] in order to increase the legitimacy of the stakeholders involved. Conversely, in the French case, whilst every stakeholder could attend the fora some remained absent although, the strong participation of stakeholders in the fora, including large numbers of participants and key stakeholders, was important for increasing the legitimacy of the Association. However, to gain greater legitimacy, scientists and civil servants would have needed to more fully participate and share their views on the future of the Bay with the other participants. Of course, the key stakeholders were not absolutely outside the process. As mentioned above, the Association interviewed some, including civil servants. But the purpose of these interviews was mostly to help the Association to better understand the perspectives of the Bay. So, in contrast to the Belgian case, ‘backroom politics’ was never really so relevant here, particularly given the expected limited impact of the process. In this case, the process never intended to achieve binding decisions which could increase or limit the rights and freedom of stakeholders. 3.4. Legitimacy of interests In the evaluation of the Belgian MPA process it was observed that participants from civil society and the market/private sector emphasized their individual interests. Only representatives of nature conservation associations and some authorities invoked ‘the public interest’ as an argument in the participation procedures. In the MPA process it is clear that participation resulted in the adjustment of the initial objectives with some stakeholders referring to ‘the erosion of the plan objectives’ at the expense of the public interest. This confronts us with a paradox of extensive and public interest and also with questions such as ‘who can participate in what, in which phases of the policy process and within which limits?’. In Mont-Saint-Michel Bay, the question of who can participate did not arise, as the fora were open to everyone. However, two kinds of legitimacy issues appear. Firstly, there is a question relating to the extent to which someone attending a forum actually represents the view of its sector, or the association or syndicate it belongs to. The second issue is that some stakeholders attending participatory events view this as a way to claim legitimacy of their use at the coast. 3.5. Continuation of the process The designation of the MPAs in Belgium was only the first step in the process of the protection of marine biodiversity. The MPAs will have to be properly managed. In order to do this a policy plan must be formulated within three years after the designation of each site. In April 2008 a draft plan was prepared by the Federal administration for the marine environment. A public participation round

767

was held (including public meetings at the coast). The revised draft plan, which was finalized in July 2008 [26], was handed over to the federal Minister responsible for the marine environment. In addition to containing a description of the sites, a description of the different uses, an overview of existing measures and user agreements, the plan suggests several implementation measures [27]. These include the need to prepare a communication strategy, establish a local focal point for MPAs as well as increase cooperation with user organizations (through user agreements) and establish a scientific and a socio-economic advisory commission. Whilst the measures on communication and involvement of stakeholders are in line with the designation process that started in 2003, most of the proposed measures lack detail, being still in the planning phase. It will be important that the government remains its legitimacy and trust that was established during the third designation process, but without compromising the ultimate goal of the designation and management of MPAs, which is the conservation and restoration of marine biodiversity. The Association of Mont-Saint-Michel Bay decided to switch its output from the elaboration of a charter, to an action plan to highlight the operational impact of the process. Currently, there is a strong need for actions to occur in the near future. This is needed because:  $First, actions invite local/concerned people to react and, thus, to participate in the process.  $Second, there will be the opportunity to test the robustness of the ICZM process in the light of any set backs encountered.  $Last but not least, definite actions are necessary to legitimatise the Intercounty Association work since this is not required by legal obligations. Whilst a long process of participation at the outset of the project could be seen as useful in order for county decision makers to gain a better understanding of the project, a gap between consultation and the implementation of actions could be damaging. As many stakeholders who have been engaged in the process await results and actions, they may become disillusioned by the process and consequently become less keen to participate in future. 4. Conclusions From both the Belgian and French case studies, legitimacy appears as a cross-cutting issue in public participation in coastal zone decision making processes and it is clear that, despite their very different approaches, both cases share some common issues with respect to the legitimacy of the participation process. These are briefly summarized below. Firstly, the case studies have shown that public participation is essential to the legitimacy of a coastal zone decision making process. In the Belgian case a major reason for the failure of the first two attempts at MPA designation was the lack of public participation. In contrast in the French case, the Association focused on extensive public participation to help build its legitimacy. Secondly, the research has revealed that stakeholders can question various institutional aspects during a coastal zone decision making process. In the case studies stakeholders raised questions about issues such as the legal framework, or the absence of a legal framework, the authority of the project leader, the stakeholders involved and the knowledge used by the government. There seems to be no simple institutional model which can guarantee the legitimacy of an ICZM process. Both case studies suggest that focusing only on the institutional design of an ICZM process would be shortsighted since this does not encompass the whole question of the legitimacy of the ICZM process. Whilst the two

768

A. Cliquet et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 760e768

cases have very different institutional bases, both demonstrate that the legitimacy of the project leader was at stake. The French case lacked institutional strength and the legitimacy of the project leader was questioned due its limited history and its weak political and legal position. However, in the Belgian case, the strong institutional framework by itself was not able to bring legitimacy to the process as there remained issues relating to a lack of capacity, experience and public participation. Another element to be stressed in the light of these findings, is the need for “aftercare” following a period of intense participation during plan formulation. In the French case it is clear that the need for action was identified, whereas in the Belgian case further implementation on the management of the MPAs was needed. Thirdly, the discussion has shown that legitimacy amongst the stakeholders is crucial. Although the Belgian case study had its origins within a legal framework, the participation process itself was informal. The French case also employed an informal process. Such informality means that there is a lot of freedom for the government/project leader in setting up participation, both in terms of choosing who participate and the forms of participation. However, an element of arbitrariness in selecting the stakeholders was a significant disadvantage in the Belgian case. The need for transparency when conducting bilateral participation rounds was highlighted by stakeholders. In France, the project leader left the process open, which led to autoselection by the stakeholders themselves. Whilst this seems positive, it has a disadvantage in that it relies on the self-confidence of stakeholders to promote representatives. To conclude, the case studies have shown that an analysis of public participation in ICZM reveals many different aspects which influence the legitimacy of the process. Believing that legitimacy issues in an ICZM process can be solved through an institutional framework alone would be too simplistic. However, such frameworks can help to increase legitimacy since they support the expression of stakeholder’s interests and a better understanding of the knowledge basis. The most essential aspects to improve legitimacy, however, remain the discussions with and between stakeholders as well as the need for sufficient available time to present and integrate the complex and varied range of interests and knowledge relevant to the coastal zone. Acknowledgements The authors want to acknowledge Valerie Cummins, Rhoda Ballinger and Hance Smith for their valuable comments on a draft version of this paper. The French case study has been led through regular contacts with the technicians of the Intercounty Association. We would like to acknowledge them for their availability. References [1] Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe. Official Journal of the European communities 2002;L148:24e7. [2] Stojanovic T, Ballinger R. Responding to coastal issues in the United Kingdom: managing information and collaborating through partnerships. In: Ocean Yearbook. Leiden: Brill; 2009. p. 445e72.

[3] King G. The role of participation in the European demonstration projects in ICZM. Coastal Management 2003;31:137e43. [4] Schlossberg M, Shuford E. Delineating public and participation in PPGIS. URISA Journal 2005;16(2):15e26. [5] Bogaert D, Cliquet A, Maes F. Designation of marine protected areas in Belgium: legal and ecological success? Marine Policy 2009;33:878e86. [6] Bogaert D, Maes F, editors. Who rules the coast? Policy processes in Belgian MPAs and Beach spatial planning. Antwerpen: Maklu; 2008. [7] Act of 22 April 1999 concerning the exclusive economic zone of Belgium. Belgian Official Journal 10 July 1999. [8] Herrier JL, Thomas K. The Belgian coast: first steps towards an integrated coastal zone management. In: Healy MG, Doody JP, editors. Directions in European coastal management. Cardigan: Samara Publishing; 1995. [9] Cliquet A, Maes F, Schrijvers J. Towards integration and participation in coastal zone decision making for Belgium. In: Green D, editor. Delivering sustainable coasts: connecting science and policy, Littoral 2004, vol. 1. Aberdeen: Cambridge Publications; 2004. p. 205e10. [10] Cliquet A, Bogaert D, Maes F. The legal framework for marine protected areas in Belgium. In: Bogaert D, Maes F, editors. Who rules the coast? Policy processes in Belgian MPAs and Beach spatial planning. Antwerpen: Maklu; 2008. p. 21e56. [11] Cicin-Sain B, Belfiore S. Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of theory and practice. Ocean & Coastal Management 2005;48:847e68. [12] Act of 20 January 1999 on the protection of the marine environment, Belgian Official Journal 12 March 1999, amended by Act of 17 September 2005. Belgian Official Journal 13 October 2005. [13] Cliquet A. Coastal Zone Management in Belgium, Revue juridique de l’environnement, numero spécial, Aménagement et gestion intégrée des zones côtières; 2001. p. 85e106. [14] Cliquet A, Maes F. The new Belgian law on the protection of the marine environment. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 1998;3: 395e402. [15] Royal Decree of 14 October 2005 for the establishment of special protection areas and special areas of conservation in the marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction, Belgian Official Journal 31 October 2005, amended by Royal Decree of 5 March 2006. Belgian Official Journal 27 March 2006. [16] Royal Decree of 5 March 2006 for the establishment of a specific marine reserve in the marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction and for the amendment of Royal Decree of 14 October 2005. Belgian Official Journal 27 March 2006. [17] Rabaut M, Degraer S, Schrijvers J, Derous S, Maes F, Bogaert D, et al. Analysis of the ‘MPA-process’ in Temperate Continental Shelf Areas. The Belgian part of the North Sea as case study, aquatic conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2008;19:596e608. [18] Royal Decree of 14 October 2005 relating to the conditions, conclusion, implementation and termination of user agreements and the establishment of policy plans for the Marine Protected Areas in the marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction. Belgian Official Journal 31 October 2005. [19] Bogaert D, Cliquet A, De Waen D, Maes F. The designation of Marine Protected Areas in Belgium. An analysis of the decision making process. In: Bogaert D, Maes F, editors. Who rules the coast? Policy processes in Belgian MPAs and Beach spatial planning. Antwerpen: Maklu; 2008. p. 57e105. [20] Association interdépartementale Manche-Ille et Vilaine, Projet de GIZC en Baie du Mont-Saint-Michel, appel à projets DIACT-SG Mer; 2005. [21] Le Corre L. Réseau natura 2000 e Constitution. Régime de protection. Juris Classeur Environnement Juillet 2007;(3820). [22] Kervarec F, Queffelec B, Philippe M. La concertation, pour quoi faire? Jeux et regards croisés des acteurs de la gestion intégrée des zones côtières, Gestion concertée des ressources naturelles et de l’environnement, du local au mondial: Pour un dialogue entre chercheurs, société civile et décideurs. In: Actes du colloque GECOREV. Karthala; 2008. [23] Kervarec F. L’implication des acteurs dans le projet GIZC de l’Association. Interdépartemental., Manche-Ille-et-Vilaine en Baie du Mont-Saint-Michel, Document de travail AMURE D-24-2007; 2007. [24] Association interdépartementale Manche-Ille-et-Vilaine, Diagnostic de la phase 1 du Projet de GIZC en Baie du Mont-Saint-Michel; 2006. [25] Bogaert D, Maes F. Conclusions and recommendations. In: Bogaert D, Maes F, editors. Who rules the coast? Policy processes in Belgian MPAs and Beach spatial planning. Antwerpen: Maklu; 2008. p. 177e84. [26] Fod Volksgezondheid. Veiligheid van de voedselketen en leefmilieu e Dienst Marien Milieu. Ontwerp Beleidsplannen Mariene Beschermde Gebieden, Brussel, https://portal.health.fgov.be/; 2008. [27] Cliquet A, Bogaert D, Rabaut M. Implementation of Natura 2000 in the marine environment. A Belgian case study. In: Proceedings of the Littoral 2008 conference, Venice, Italy; 2008.