the coastal sustainability standard: a management systems approach to iczm

lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 336e349

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

The coastal sustainability standard: A management systems approach to ICZM

Anthony Gallagher *

School of Engineering, Construction and Maritime Studies, Faculty of Technology, Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southampton SO14 0RD, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 28 April 2010

* Tel.: þ44 2380319748; fax: þ44 2380319739.E-mail address: [email protected]

0964-5691/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.017

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents a systems-based appraisal methodology that has been designed specifically toconsider the effectiveness of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) initiatives. Since ICZM isdefined in terms of achieving sustainable development, any such initiative must therefore be capable ofmeeting the multiple and often conflicting objectives inherent in this ubiquitous concept. The meth-odology outlined here is designed to critically review ICZM in order to pinpoint areas of managementweakness and determine the likely ‘success’ of the process. It represents an example of a managementsystem, incorporates both qualitative and quantitative information, and is proposed as a ‘CoastalSustainability Standard’ (CoSS). Initial field testing of the methodology has proved successful and shownthat the approach holds some efficacy as a means of assessment.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Given that sustainability represents the dominant paradigm inenvironmental resource planning and management, and thatintegration is seen as a key attribute in achieving effectivemanagement, it should come as no surprise to find that IntegratedCoastal Zone Management (ICZM) is a process defined in terms ofsustainable development. Indeed, numerous definitions attest tothe fact, including inter alia GESAMP [1]; EC [2]; and, Cicin-Sain andKnecht [3]. This does not preclude individual organizationscurrently involved in the ‘sectoral’ management of the coast, bytheir words or actions, of also aiming to achieve sustainabledevelopment; merely that a distinction can be drawn, on the basisof the likelihood of ‘success’, between the ‘sectoral’ approach andthe more cogent and defined intent of ICZM. If ‘success’ for ICZMmeans sustainable development, then the question is how itattempts to achieve this, and, more specifically, how effectively itdoes so? Ehler [4] refers to “the challenge [for the governance ofIntegrated Coastal Management] to establish measurementsystems able to adequately check the progress of efforts”. Sucha system he argues would answer two basic needs of coastalgovernance: accountability and adaptive management. There isthus a requirement for a suitable mechanism to be developed bywhich coastal sustainability governance may be appraised.

The EC [5] identified two approaches available to carry out suchan assessment: one examining the status, parameters or conditionof the coastal zone; andone assessing the process andmethods used

All rights reserved.

in governance. In order to address these approaches, as in otherareas of resource management, indicators have been suggested asan appropriate methodology, with Morse et al. [6] stating thatthese [indicator sets] “are increasingly seen as important tools inthe implementation of sustainable development”. The EU WorkingGroup on Indicators and Data (WG-ID), set up in 2003 to advise onthe best way forward for indicator-based assessment of ICZM,has since recommended that both approaches be developed andoperated in conjunctionwith the national ICZM strategies, requiredof Member States as part of the EU ICZM Recommendation [7].

In terms of the first approach, examining the status of the coastalzone, on the basis of previous work by the Schéma d’AménagementIntégré du Littoral (SAIL), the WG-ID [8] recommended a list of 27indicators known as the ‘sustainable development indicators’. Thisset is already operating with data being collected and published inrelation to the coastlines and communities bordering the SouthernNorth Sea Area [9]. Though this data is undoubtedly useful andinteresting, it should be recognised that the use of indicators in thisway can be critiqued on the basis of reductionism; where reduc-tionism refers to the attempt to reduce real life phenomena to thelevel of single or simple values. This is a problem that is inherent inthe nature of indicators; and one that is particularly pertinent whenreflecting complex systems where there are multiple and conflict-ing objectives, such as is the case with coastal sustainability.For example, in considering the SAIL ‘sustainable developmentindicators’, how can one equate those ‘supporting a dynamic andsustainable economy’ with ‘protecting, enhancing and celebratingnatural and cultural diversity’, i.e. between the volume of porttraffic (indicator 13) with the effective management of designatedsites (indicator 9)? At times the outcomes of these indicatorsare likely to be mutually exclusive with regard to progressing

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09645691

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

A. Gallagher / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 336e349 337

sustainability. Reductionism therefore means that the use of indi-cators in this way cannot directly aid decision-makers to come upwith the most sustainable option. As Bell and Morse [10] state, “theidea of measuring sustainability in absolute, traditional, reduc-tionist terms, as with sustainability indicators, is non-viable. Itcannot be done because sustainability itself is not a single thing. Orbetter, it can be done but it will be done badly, oversimplifyingcomplexity and reducing a variety of relevant and legitimate viewsand understandings to the dominant mindset of the scientist.” Thisis not to say that the individual indicators have no value, becauseclearly they do both in terms of specific parameter analysis and asa means of communication, merely that they should be used verycarefully when inferring any meaning as to the state of sustainabledevelopment. This is a problem that faces all such sets of ‘sustain-ability indicators’ and leads one to the conclusion that such anapproach does not represent the best means of assessing ICZM.

The alternative identified by the EC [5], to assess the processand methods used in governance, is far more specific in itsreference to ICZM and would appear to offer greater efficacy in itsapproach. Though less work has been done in this regard,a number of process-orientated ICZM appraisal mechanisms havebeen suggested by Burbridge [11]; Henocque [12]; Olsen [13]; andPickaver et al. [14], with the latter’s ‘progress indicator’ beingdeveloped for, and adopted by, the EU WG-ID. A brief summary ofthe key elements of these mechanisms is identified in Table 1,along with a critique on what each has brought to the appraisal ofthe ICZM. Though they have merits in terms of either assessingthe quality of the process or the phase of the ICZM process inoperation, in total there are still evident weaknesses. Notably,some appear to lack detail whilst others lack a suitable mecha-nism with which to reduce subjectivity. On top of this, there is stillno fully established, implemented or validated way of assessingICZM initiatives. In order to address these gaps, this paperproposes the adoption of a more systems-based approach toassessment.

‘Systems’ thinking has become increasingly evident in manyareas of academic and practical endeavour over recent years, notleast in the field of environmental resource management, wherea systemmay be defined as “a set of elementsmutually related suchthat the set constitutes awhole having properties as an entity” [15].

Table 1Analysis of process-orientated ICZM appraisal mechanisms.

Mechanism and source Key elements

Generic Framework for‘Success’ (Burbridge, 1997)

� ‘Success’ defined in terms of sustainable developm� Demonstrates interrelationship of social, economand environmental objectives

� Simple holistic graphic representationProcess indicators

(Henocque, 2003)� Defined 7 indices against which to assign scoresdependent upon a series of questions

� Uses qualitative indicators to identify strengths aweaknesses in process

Framework for Progress(Olsen, 2003)

� Identified Orders of Outcomes leading to sustainaof coastal development

� Identified 5 steps and indicators to reflect progrethe ICZM policy cycle

� Data gathered is based on an ICZM self assessmeThe ‘Progress Indicator’

(Pickaver et al., 2004)� Identifies 5 continuous phases of progress and 26in relation to different geographic scales, over 2 t

� Activities are answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ by a range ofdependent on whether activity is taking place or

� Different colours for ‘yes’ or ‘no’ gives the outcomdescription

There are ways of thinking about and applying a systems approach,and Bell and Morse [10] have identified a number of holisticmethodologies that may be used in order to consider the concept ofsustainability. They argue that these can be differentiated accordingto whether the methodology is either more implicitly or explicitlysystemic; and more analytic or descriptive. However, the keycharacteristics of systems relate to structure and communication. Interms of structure, systems exist in hierarchies, where sub-systemsfit into larger systems, and where each level of system in thehierarchy has one or more emergent properties, i.e. propertiesunique to that level. In terms of communication, elements withinsystems, and between systems, are connected thus enablingcommunication and feedback to occur. Clayton and Radcliffe [16]state that the approach “provides a multidimensional frameworkinwhich information from different disciplines and domains can beintegrated”. In terms of this research, it means that such anapproach would allow for the development of joined up method-ologies and enable detailed assessments to be made relevant toeach system under review.

The efficacy of using a systems approach to consider ICZM is nota new idea and has been acknowledged by a number of authorssuch as inter alia Van der Weide [17]; and, Dronkers and de Vries[18]. However, with some exceptions such as Bell and Coudert [19];and Marin et al. [20], its application to assessment is still underdeveloped. For example, one approach that is common elsewherein environmental and resource management but missing fromICZM is that of management systems. Standardized systems such asthe EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and theInternational Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 series are nowwidely acknowledged and of growing importance in the decision-making processes of both government and business.

Other more specific standards include the WWF Standard forConservation Projects and Programme Management; the PortEnvironmental Review System; and those developed by theForestry Stewardship Council (FSC) and Marine StewardshipCouncil (MSC). These represent useful tools in the analysis andmanagement of their particular sectors and it is proposed that thedevelopment of such an approach would be similarly beneficialwith respect to ICZM. In particular, it would offer a means by whichindividual initiatives could be appraised and act as a focus for the

Critique

entic

� Best applied to individual ICZM initiatives� Graphic model e good for communication� Lacks comparability and detail

(0e3)

nd

� Proposes a Good Practice Guide� Individual indices offer a holistic perspective� Limited scope in scoring mechanism� No reference to ICZM progress but does allow forcomparability

ble forms

ss against

nt questionnaire

� Useful description of ICZM governance capacityin relation to indicators

� A conceptual and generic tool with the focus on progressbut the mechanism for comparability is unclear

ranked actionsime periods‘practitioners’note a visual

� Useful tool in relating different geographic andadministrative scales

� Identifies progress over time� Simple and visually effective� Lacks detail� Lacks clarity and objectivity in relation to itsmethodological approach

� Unclear as to the relationship between the ‘sustainabledevelopment indicators’ and the ‘progress indicator’

A. Gallagher / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 336e349338

assessment of strategic performance. This paper therefore proposesa ‘Coastal Sustainability Standard’ (CoSS).

2. The development of the coastal sustainability standard

The ‘Coastal Sustainability Standard’ was developed arounda framework of principles and criteria, identified as a result of aninductive survey of UK coastal practitioners who were asked as totheir understanding of the key theoretical constructs inherent insustainability. The methodology and results of this survey are dis-cussed elsewhere (Gallagher et al. [21]; Gallagher [22]) and hencewill not be reviewed here but textual analysis, using the qualitativesoftware package, Nud*ist 6, revealed six dominant constructswhich formed the basis for the development of the standard. The‘root diagram’, shown in Fig. 1, defines the textual associationsidentified through this analysis.

The CoSS is detailed in full in the Appendices of this paper.However, it will firstly outline the nature of the principles andcriteria used in the CoSS, prior to reviewing the scoring system; theguidelines that were designed in order to maximise the level ofobjectivity in carrying out the assessment; and the stages involvedin operating the mechanism. The outcome of operating the CoSS intwo case study coastal partnerships (CPs) will then be discussed.

2.1. Principles and criteria

The six constructs identified in Fig. 1 e planning; participation;communication; integration; responsibility; and, balance e weredefined as principles. The survey also informed the development ofa set of criteria for each principle; these being identified to fullyreflect the scope of the principle in question. It is against these

Acceptability

Trust

Transparency Futurity

Adaptivity

Reflectivity

Planning Participation Communication

Coas

Sustaina

Education &Awareness

Fig. 1. ICZM sustainabi

principles and criteria that an ICZM initiative could be assessedwith performance being determined on the basis of the aggregatecompliance with each the criterion. The ‘criteria’, though subject toiterative review, may be seen as generic and are not intended tochange from one coastal management initiative to another, therebyenabling the CoSS to assess coastal sustainability in a repeatableand equivalent manner. However, each criterion requires suitable‘performance indicators’ (PIs) to be assigned which are variable,and dependent on the nature of the area and management initia-tive in question, thereby enabling the system to be flexible.

The first principle, ‘planning’, represents the process by whichintentions are stated and detailed proposals made for achieving anend goal. The process is iterative and based on cyclical evaluation,system development, implementation, and monitoring and review.It involves reflection on past actions in accordance with definedgoals, enabling change to take place. ‘Good’ planning thereforeexhibits characteristics of self-regulation, and command andcontrol. It also develops the structure of the system, and affects thenature and impact of the system boundaries.

Given that the intention is for ICZM initiatives to be consideredand assessed against the principle of planning, it would seemevident that all of the ideas previously mentioned should in someway be reflected both in aworking definition of the principle and inthe criteria selected. The principle of planning was thus defined as“an iterative and detailed process aimed at enabling change throughactions developed from reflection and evaluation”. Specific criteriashould therefore reflect the following characteristics:

� Spatially specific;� Temporally related (considering both the past and future);� Objective;

Stewardship

Integration Responsibility Balance

tal

bility

Precautionary

Conservation& Resource Efficiency

ProblemSolving

ScientificEfficacy

Regulation

Holistic

Success

Quality of Life

Equity

lity root diagram.


� Performance based;� Testable; and� Adaptive and self-regulating.

The second principle, ‘participation’, refers to the democrat-isation of the coastal management system in that it relates to therole individuals, groups and organizations play in the decision-making processes. As Clark [23] states, “participation is not inten-ded to change the views [of participants]. nor is it a means to geta particular group or sector ‘aligned’ to the needs of another group.Participation serves to unite people in open discussion and sharingof needs and ideas and in the working of solutions”. It representstherefore a measure of the legitimisation of the process and, ifcarried out successfully, aids the implementation and enforcementof plans. In terms of the characteristics of systems, participation canbe seen as enabling feedback to take place within the system.

The EU ICZM Demonstration Programme [5] identified fivelevels of participation ranging from the giving of informationthrough to empowerment, where greater freedom of decision-making is facilitated and actions initiated by all stakeholders.Clearly, therefore any assessment of participation should includenot only the numbers of stakeholders within a process but alsothe quality of that involvement, and in particular the degree towhich empowerment is achieved. It should be acknowledged thatto be successful, this participatory process is one that is on-goingand with a consistently positive and proactive level of involve-ment. In terms of the CoSS therefore, participation is defined asrelating to “the role that individuals, groups and organizations in thedecision-making process in fostering trust and acceptance of thesystem”. Specific criteria should therefore reflect the followingcharacteristics:

� Diversity of stakeholders;� Sustainability of involvement;� Solution based; and� Transparent.

The third principle, ‘communication’, represents the general actof imparting information in such a way that understanding isachieved, thus ultimately enabling behaviour and attitudes tochange in accordance with the requirements of coastal sustain-ability. One of the lessons learnt from the EC’s DemonstrationProgramme on ICZM was that “good communication keeps peoplein the picture; provides opportunities for dialogue, for discussingand resolving problems; and helps to attract and sustain interest toget things done [5]. In order to communicate successfully, andthereby optimise the efficiency of the management system; careneeds to be taken in order to communicate the correct message ina language that is appropriate to the target audience since misin-terpretation may be difficult to remedy after the event (ibid.). Thetarget audience may also comprise a range of individuals andorganizations from planners, industrialists, and environmentaliststo community groups and other such interested parties. Theunderstanding of the technical issues involved may therefore varyand, as such, the language used be carefully considered. A decisionmay have to be taken as to whether a ‘common’ language bedeveloped with which to communicate with all these groups orwhether specific messages should be targeted to different groups.

In terms of assessing a management initiative against thisprinciple, communication can thus be defined as “a process enablingcapacity building to take place through the effective flow of informa-tion”. The operation of an up to date, formally organised system ofcommunication using a variety of techniques would appear to offerthe best chance of success in this regard. Specific criteria shouldtherefore reflect the following characteristics:

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

The fourth principle, ‘integration’, represents a unified andinterdisciplinary approach to understanding and management andinvolves an attempt to avoid fragmentation through achievinggreater ‘joined-up thinking’, and can also be described as being anattempt to operate a more holistic, systems-based approach tomanagement. In this way, as with participation and communica-tion, it represents a means of enabling feedback within the system.McGlashan [24] categorised the concept and recognised four inte-grative ‘directions’ that could be applied to management, namely:spatial; temporal; horizontal; and, vertical. Effective application ofthese directions to coastal management should therefore be seen asenabling a more effective management of coastal sustainability.This ‘imperative of integration’ [25] then is fundamental to ICZMand represents a yardstick bywhich it can be assessed [26]. In termsof the CSS, integration is defined as “a unification of understandingand management across boundaries and disciplines”. Specific criteriashould therefore reflect the following characteristics:

� Different forms of integration;� Co-ordination of different subject disciplines, i.e. science andmanagement in essence;

� Solution based; and� Systems-based.

The fifth principle, ‘responsibility’, refers to the management ofthe coast being enacted with all ‘due care’ and with the appropriateuse of practical tools and techniques to enable improvements incoastal sustainability. Examples of these include the use of bestpracticable means, environmental impact assessment (EIA), theprecautionary principle, life cycle analysis, and risk assessment andmanagement. The latter is used often in coastal zones in the contextof industrial developments and health and safety, but it might beenvisaged that this set of techniques could be operated usefully,and more broadly, in relation to ICZM and decision-making. Theincorporation of these tools and techniques, along with the centralideas of marine spatial planning and the delivery of a moreecosystem-based approach is currently the subject of debate. Inaddition to these, it is also considered that other existing tools suchas the polluter pays principle could be developed to have a widerapplicability and value for ICZM. For example, the scope of thiscould potentially be broadened to include any negative impactsassociated with developments such as a loss of access. Adaptingexisting tools and techniques in this way, and applying them morebroadly to ICZM, could therefore represent a novel and potentiallyvery beneficial approach. In terms of the CSS, the principle of‘responsibility’ is defined as “the management of the coast beingenacted with all ‘due care’”. In order to avoid any duplication withthe criteria of other principles, measures were taken to focus thisprinciple on the following characteristics:

� Legally based� Operate, apply and broaden existing management tools andtechniques

� Exhibit risk reduction and ‘due care’

The last principle, ‘balance’, is taken to mean the parallelconsideration of maintaining the integrity of the natural environ-ment, economic prosperity and an equal opportunity for all peopleto benefit from a better quality of life. Such a consideration isobviously based on a multitude of value judgements relative to


each scenario and is also conditioned by the attempt to achieveeither ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ sustainability [10]. As such, an assessmentof this principle should look for an effective process that weighs upsuch value judgements as well as identifying specific changes in thestatus of individual areas. In terms of the characteristics of systems,this principle reflects its equilibrium. For the CSS, balance istherefore defined as “management conducted in such a way as tolead to constructive relationships between environmental quality,economic prosperity and social welfare”. Specific criteria shouldreflect the following characteristics:

� Identify key status quality; and� Relationship focused.

2.2. The scoring system

In order to operate the CoSS, an ordinal scoring system wasdesigned, as shown in Table 2. Other scales were considered but itwas decided that 0e10 was the most appropriate since it reducedthe problem of inherent subjectivity, associated with a scale of0e100, whilst not being too limiting, as with a scale such of 0e3, forexample. Since sustainable development is a fuzzy concept open todegrees of interpretation, it was deemed that such a small scalewould be insufficient to allow for scoring judgement or scope incriterion evaluation. The 0e10 scale therefore appears to offerenough flexibility to allow for detailed accounting.

The scale has four prescribed and defined points of reference;namely 0, 3, 7, and 10, thereby enabling internal consistency. Fora specific case study, each criterion is assessed against this range. Ofthe two key threshold scores [shown in bold], a score of 7 denotesa mark of achievement either with respect to a specific criterion orfor the aggregated mark of the principle as a whole. This scoremeans that the required ‘standard’ has been met and that themanagement system is operating, in this regard at least, in sucha manner as to have a greater chance of fostering sustainabledevelopment. The overall requirement for the management systemunder assessment is to pass each principle, which thus requires thata mean aggregated score of 7 be achieved for all the contributingcriteria. A score of greater than 7 simply indicates the degree ofexcellence employed in that specific management area.

Given that a score of 7 represents the ‘standard’ being met,a score of less than 7 is obviously sub-optimal. However, this is notto say that such management is without value. Indeed, achievinga score of between 3 and 6.9 is seen as showing some evidence ofa proactive or positive approach to ICZM, with 3 representing thethreshold of such constructive management. Clearly, for anyparticular management system, aggregated principle scores fallingwithin this range might indicate just one or two elements per-forming poorly, thereby skewing the score to less than 7, or all of

Table 2Scoring system scale and meanings.

Score Meaning

10 Evidence of exceptional and well developed management technique987 Standard achievement mark6 Evidence of some constructive management in operation543 Threshold of constructive management2 Failure and requirement for corrective action10

the criteria performing sub-optimally. The implications of thesetwo situations are that an ICZM initiative is likely to find it easier toaffect corrective actions in the case of the former than in the case ofthe latter, where wholesale changes to its operation may benecessary.

A score of less than 3 is deemed a failure, with any such scoreautomatically highlighting the need for specific corrective action inthat area, whether with respect to a specific criterion or the prin-ciple as a whole.

2.3. Performance scoring guidelines and guidance notes

In order to maximise the level of objectivity in carrying out theassessment, a set of scoring guidelines were designed for each ofthe criteria with a guidepost for the four prescribed referencescores.

In terms of interpretation and assessment, clearly many of thecriteria, and associated PIs, are relatively straightforward. Forexample, the first criterion stated under the principle of planningsimply asks for evidence of proof as to a spatial boundary, which isthen related to natural processes. In other words, if a boundary isstated, does the management area fit in with such natural envi-ronmental management units as catchment areas, sediment cellsand ecosystems? The extent of consideration and relevance to thesenatural units thus determines the assessment score. Not all criteriaand PIs however are so straightforward and there is recognitionthat some may be seen as in need of further elucidation. This maycome through further iterative development. However, it alsoreflects the need for further definition and guidance, relating toboth the interpretation of what is meant and the evidence neces-sary to enable the assessment to take place. As such, to improveclarity and transparency, performance guidance notes have beenproduced though there is insufficient scope to detail these in thispaper. Suffice it to say that the guidance notes support theassessment with definitions, interpretation and the identificationof possible PIs.

2.4. Operational stages

The operation of the CoSS involves three stages, as follows:

2.4.1. Pre-assessment/scoping exerciseThis involves accessing background information on the nature of

the coastal management area; outlining the principles and criteriato the relevant authority; and, proposing suitable PerformanceIndicators (PIs) to apply to each criterion. These PIs may then bereviewed on basis of the nature of area, and their applicability.

2.4.2. Main assessmentThis involves accessing the data for the PIs, which may be either

qualitative or quantitative in nature, and analysing it in order toassign performance scores. A report can then be written on thebasis of the findings, including recommendations with regard tocorrective actions and improvements.

2.4.3. FeedbackThis involves feeding back the findings and outcomes of the

report to the appropriate individuals. The findings should be dis-cussed in order to enable agreement to be made on the finaloutcomes.

3. Results of operating the coastal sustainability standard

Having developed the CoSS, as shown in the Appendices, thenext stage of the research was to validate and critically analyze

Planning

Participation

Communication

Integration

Responsibility

Balance

Principle performance Standard acheivement

Fig. 3. TECF: Principle performance scores.


the mechanism through application to case study areas. As such,two coastal partnerships (CPs) in the UK, the Exe EstuaryManagement Partnership (EEMP) and the Tamar EstuariesConsultative Forum (TECF), were selected against which to carryout trial applications of the Standard. Each case study describedits aim and raison d’être as being to enable and foster a state ofsustainable development for their particular jurisdictional areasand, as such, represent suitable ICZM initiatives against which totest the CoSS. Each was audited against the Standard, involvingdetailed consultation with their respective Coastal Project Officers.It is not the purpose of this paper to give full accounts of theseaudits, merely to highlight the overall outcomes, with the resultsof principle assessments being shown in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively.Fig. 4 shows these scores comparatively. It should also be notedthat the results were deemed fair and appropriate at the time ofsurvey in 2005.

Given that the operation of the Standard requires that each ofthe six defining principles should be passed with a minimummeanscore of 7, a review of the scoring shows that both failed tomeet therequirements of the CoSS, with Table 3 showing the total meanscores for each CP. Only the EEMP managed to achieve a thresholdscore of 7, and that for just one principle; participation, a principleagainst which TECF also scored well. There is also a degree ofsimilarity in other areas of scoring also with perhaps the mostnoticeable being that the principle of responsibility scored lowestfor both CPs. These similarities can perhaps be seen as beingreflective of the nature of ICZM initiatives in the UK.

4. Evaluation

Since the CoSS has only been operated fully with respect totwo case studies, there is evidently still a need for further trials toallow for a fuller evaluation. That said however, the trials to datehave produced some interesting results. Given that neither of theCPs achieved the pre-requisite ‘standard’, a number of questionscan be raised as to the efficacy of the CoSS and its operation, aswell as to the nature of ICZM in the UK. In order to evaluate theefficacy of the Standard one must consider the mechanics of theCoSS in light of the poor case study performance. With this inmind, a brief evaluation identifies three propositions as beingpossible:

Planning

Participation

Communication

Integration

Responsibility

Balance

Principle performance Standard acheivement

Fig. 2. EEMP: Principle performance scores.

1. The Standard fails to accurately reflect ICZM and its stated aimof achieving sustainable development;

2. The scoring mechanism and analysis of the appraisal processare either incorrect or inaccurate; and,

3. There are inherent shortcomings in ICZM that impact on theability of CPs to achieve their aims.

That ‘the Standard fails to accurately reflect ICZM and its statedaim of achieving sustainable development’ can be refuted toa certain degree on the basis of geographical specificity. In otherwords, since the concept of sustainability is considered intensely‘geographical’ [27], and the inductive and normative survey uponwhich the Standard is based was focussed on those involved in UKcoastal management, i.e., was geographically specific; it can beconcluded that the methodology was appropriate to achieving theoutcome. Following on from this, it would clearly be useful if themethodology were trialled against ICZM initiatives outside of theUK in order to further consider this point.

In terms of the second proposition, that ‘the scoring mechanismand analysis of the appraisal process might be either incorrect orinaccurate’, is certainly a possibility. However, in order to minimisethis problem, guidance notes and guidelines have been produced,

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

EEMP 5.15 7.14 6.57 5.38 4.3 4.66

TECF 4.76 5.71 4.14 5 4 4.77

Planning Participation Communication Integration Responsibility Balance

Fig. 4. Principle scores for the case study coastal partnerships.

Table 3Mean scores of the case study coastal partnerships.

Coastal partnership Total mean score of the case study

Exe Estuary Management Partnership 5.5Tamar Estuaries Consultative Forum 4.7


including definitions of terminology, explanations of intent andexamples of relevant evidence. The iterative consultation processbuilt into the CoSS operating process is also intended to reduce theproblem, with scoring carried out in conjunction with relevantrepresentatives of the ICZM initiatives. On this basis, the scores areintended to be transparent, objective and repeatable. By enablingthe CoSS to have such ‘external consistency’ means that themethodology offers the potential for both comparisons over time aswell as between different CPs; the results of which can then berepresented graphically to enhance communication. Since there iscurrently no established strategic review process with which tojudge the detailed performance of CPs, this is seen as a key bene-ficial outcome of this research. However, it is acknowledged that inorder to fully evaluate transparency, objectivity and repeatabilitythere is a need for further trails of the methodology to be carriedout by independent operators.

Given the first two arguments, the third proposition is thatpoor performance must be a result of ‘inherent shortcomings inICZM that impact on the ability of CPs to achieve their aims’.Consideration of this identified shortcomings as related to boththe structural barriers facing ICZM, and an apparent lack ofresources necessary for the CP to operate successfully. In the caseof the former, the issues can be specifically seen as characteristicof a voluntary ICZM process, whereby there is no joint responsi-bility or collective liability incumbent upon the participantstakeholders to achieve the CPs’ aspirations. This lack of jointresponsibility could lead to any one of several outcomes, whichwould consequently act as barriers to success. These include thefollowing:

� That not all relevant stakeholder constituencies and jurisdic-tions are included within the ICZM process;

� That the necessary cultural changes within the stakeholderorganizations are not adequately developed; and,

� That appropriate individual contributions to the ICZM processare not encouraged sufficiently.

In the case of resource issues, the ‘hand to mouth’ fundingexistence of CPs in the UK might also be considered to be directlyresultant of the voluntary approach, with ICZM initiatives havingto focus a disproportionate amount of time on accessing financerather than on more specific ICZM aims and objectives. Sincefunding tends to be short-term, it also means that there isa disparity between achieving short-term and long-term aimswith funding tied more to achieving the former than the latter.As such, it can be concluded that ICZM in the UK currentlyexhibits a disjointed approach to achieving long-term goals asa result of its voluntary nature. With respect to the CoSS, there isan acknowledgement that operating such a Standard would alsoonly add to the pressures of time and resources facing CPs andwith this in mind it is considered likely that rather than being anannual event, the CoSS should be operated as part of a strategicreview of the CP. It is considered that an appropriate timeframefor such a review would most obviously relate to the manage-ment plan, and hence most probably be carried out every 5years. In this sense, the CoSS would act not only as a means ofassessment and comparison but could also as a guide for bestpractice.

The general issue of funding and resources is also likely tohave an impact on the performance of the CP in terms of affectingthe ‘professional skills’ available within the CP. For example, skillsrelating to such tools and techniques as management systems,risk assessment, life cycle analysis and auditing are employedwidely in environmental and resource management but have notbeen to any great extent been used in coastal managementinitiatives, with the result that their role in ICZM is still marginal.This is reflected in the results of the case study CPs, where boththe EEMP and TECF scored poorly against the principle ofresponsibility. The slow or non-existent uptake of these tools,techniques and approaches within the CPs might be explained bythe fact that they are not deemed useful or relevant to coastalmanagement. However, it is considered more likely that theirabsence results more from a lack of awareness, knowledge orskills amongst coastal managers, in addition to poor funding,rather than any perceived lack or worth. In highlighting thispoint, the research may be seen as helping to initialise a debaterelating to the professional skills and competencies required ofICZM.

5. Conclusion

The Coastal Sustainability Standard is designed to act as a stra-tegic review tool to assess the effectiveness of ICZM and is intendedto represent an approach to sustainability appraisal that is bothspatially and temporally repeatable, i.e. one that would enablea comparative audit to be taken and analyzed on a periodic basis fora variety of different coastal areas. Developed from a normative andinductive survey, the CoSS is based on a framework of principlesand criteria from which relevant performance indicators arederived, and for which both qualitative and quantitative informa-tion can be incorporated to enable a graphic representation of‘success’ against an agreed standard.

Though undoubtedly in need of further validation, the devel-opment and application of the CoSS have been shown to offer someefficacy as ameans of assessment and, given the number of relevantpolicy initiatives currently underway, contributes to the debateabout the way forward for ICZM appraisal. In addition, as anexample of systems thinking, it can be employed in conjunctionwith other relevant mechanisms, both vertically and horizontally;a characteristic that can be seen as being a major benefit of theapproach.

In testing the CoSS, the research to date identified a number ofweaknesses that are apparent in the voluntary approach to ICZM, aspractised in the UK. Notable amongst these are a potential lack ofcollective liability; poor funding; and a question as to the appro-priate professional skills and competencies required of ICZM.Assuming that ICZM is considered to be a beneficial approach tomanaging the coast, these areas would need to be addressed forlong-term progress to be made. In highlighting these generalpoints, the CoSS also offers the means to enable far more specificanalysis to be carried out and as such can add value to themanagement process of individual initiatives, not least as a guidefor good practice.

Acknowledgements

I would particularly like to thank Natasha Barker and MaeveNightingale, the Coastal Project Officers of the Exe EstuaryManagement Partnership and the Tamar Estuaries ConsultativeForum respectively at the time of survey, for the considerable timeand effort they put in during consultation, and for their support inthis research.

Appendix 1. The planning principle.

Scoring criteria Scoring guidepost 0 Scoring guidepost 3 Scoring guidepost 7 Scoring guidepost 10

Criterion 1: The management system is consistent with the nature and scale of the coastal areaIs the management system

clearly and spatially definedin relation to relevant naturalprocesses?

No specific or clearlymarked spatial boundaryexists or is considered.

The spatial area has beenconsidered though is not clearlydefined.

The spatial area is defined clearlybut is not fully relevant to all naturalprocesses.

The spatial area is clearlydefined and fully relevant to allnatural processes.

Criterion 2: The management system is consistent with the cultural context of the coastal areaIs the management system

clearly and spatially definedin relation to the relevantcultural context?

No specific or clearlymarked spatial boundaryexists or is considered.

The spatial area has beenconsidered though is not orclearly defined.

The spatial area is defined clearlybut is not fully relevant to thecultural context.

The spatial area is clearlydefined and fully relevant to thecultural context.

Criterion 3: The management system is clearly defined with individuals and organizations having clear lines of responsibility and interactionIs there a clear management

structure identifyingorganizations, individualsand responsibilities?

There is no clear orcoherent managementstructure in place.

Relevant individuals andorganizations are knownthough responsibilities andrelationships are not developed.

Individuals and organizations withmanagement responsibility havebeen defined including key areas ofresponsibility and interaction.

The management structure isclearly stated. Individuals andorganizations withmanagement responsibility areclearly defined including allareas of responsibility andinteraction.

Criterion 4: The management system operates with reference to a comprehensive range of relevant baselinesDoes the management system

operate with reference toa comprehensive range ofrelevant baselines?

The management systemdoes not have anunderstanding of therelevant baselines.

The management system basesits decisions and planning on anunderstanding of the area butbaselines are rarely considered.

The management system bases itsdecisions and planning on anunderstanding of the area. Baselinesare considered when available.

The management system basesits decisions and planning ona clear and comprehensiveunderstanding of the area. Alldecisions and planning arereferenced to appropriatebaselines.

Criterion 5: The management system takes a far-sighted viewDoes the management system

take a clear far-sighted view?The system does not havea far-sighted view

Long-term aims are implicitwithin the system.

The system contains clearly statedlong-term aims.

The system contains clearlystated long-term aims anda management ‘vision’ isexplicit.

Criterion 6: The management system contains short-term and long-term objectivesDoes the management system

clearly contain both short(operational) and long-term(quality) objectives?

No system objectives arestated.

Short-term objectives arestated. Timeframes may beinappropriate.

Short-term and long-termobjectives are stated.

A comprehensive range ofshort-term and long-termobjectives are stated in relationto appropriate timeframes.

Criterion 7: Objectives are focussed on the most significant issues facing coastal sustainabilityAre the objectives

systematically identified inrelation to their significance?

No system objectives arestated.

System objectives are notidentified using any clearmethodology and do not relateto significance.

System objectives are identifiedusing an appropriate methodologybut do not clearly relate tosignificance.

System objectives are identifiedusing an appropriatemethodology and clearly relateto their significance.

Criterion 8: Operational procedures exist for meeting objectivesAre procedures and

methodology clearly statedand appropriate to meetingthe objectives?

Operational procedures areneither stated nor in placeto meet objectives.

In order to meet the objectives,a range of procedures are statedthough not all are operating.

In order to meet the objectives,procedures are stated with themajority working effectively.

Procedures are clearly stated,comprehensive, appropriateand effective.

Criterion 9: Procedures are in place for measuring performance relative to objectivesAre procedures in place for

measuring performancerelative to the objectives?

No procedures are in placefor measuring performancerelative to objectives.

Procedures for measuringperformance relative to someobjectives are stated though illdefined. Information gatheredlacks detail.

Procedures for measuringperformance relative to allobjectives are clearly stated.Information gathered may lacksufficient detail.

Tested procedures formeasuring performancerelative to all objectives areclear and appropriate.Information gathered iscomprehensive and detailed.

Criterion 10: The management plan is clearly linked to a system of feedback and iterative reflectionDoes the management

structure include a system offeedback and reflectionrelating to performance?

There is no evidence ofa system of feedback andreflection.

A system of feedback andreflection is implicit, ill definedand ad-hoc.

A system of feedback and reflectionclearly exists but is ill defined.

A clear and well-defined systemof feedback and reflectionexists.

Criterion 11: The management process is adaptiveCan the management system

adapt quickly and effectivelyin the light of either changingevents or poor performance?

There is no evidence of themanagement systembehaving adaptively.

The system is slow to adapt tochanging events and poorperformance.

The system is adaptive with someevidence to show adaptationwithinreasonable timeframes.

The management system isevidently highly adaptive andresponsive to makingappropriate and comprehensivechanges.

(continued on next page)


Appendix 2. The participation principle.


Criterion 1: An appropriate range and diversity of stakeholders engage with the management processAre all the stakeholders

perceived as being relevantto the area included withinthe management system?

The management system doesnot include stakeholder groups.

A range of stakeholder groupsparticipate in the managementprocess.

All key stakeholder interestsengage fully with themanagement process.

All stakeholder interests engagefully with the managementprocess, including all keystakeholders.

Criterion 2: Stakeholders understand their role and responsibility within the management processDo stakeholders know their role

within the managementstructure?

Confusion exists amongststakeholders as to their rolewithin the managementsystem.

Some stakeholders are not fullyaware of their role andresponsibility within themanagement structure andmake a minimal contribution.

Most stakeholders, including allkey ones, are aware of their roleand responsibilities within themanagement structure and playan active role.

All stakeholders are aware oftheir role and responsibilitieswithin the managementstructure and play an active andconstructive role.

Criterion 3: The system of decision-making is transparentDo stakeholders fully

understand the planning anddecision-making process?

There appears to be no attemptmade to make the systemtransparent to stakeholders.

Some attempts have been madeto make the system transparentbut it is neverthelesscomplicated and has not beenfully achieved.

Proactive attempts are made toexplain the planning processand most individual decisions.These are understandable tomost stakeholders.

The system of decision-makingand planning is fullytransparent and easilyunderstandable to allstakeholders.

Criterion 4: There is a participatory process of conflict resolutionIs there an appropriate

mechanism for theresolution of disputes withinthe system?

There is no evidence to suggestthat attempts have been madeto resolve conflicts or developunderstanding.

A programme is beingdeveloped to fosterunderstanding and to allow forconflict resolution within thesystem.

There is a mechanism to fosterunderstanding and to allow forconflict resolution within thesystem. This has not alwaysacted successfully.

There is an appropriate andtested mechanism for theresolution of disputes betweenstakeholders. All stakeholdersfully understand and haveempathy for the points of viewsof others.

Criterion 5: There is minimal tension between ‘top-down’ decision-making and ‘bottom-up’ aspirationsAre there good working

relationships between thestatutory empoweredregulators and otherstakeholder groups?

Non-constructive relationshipsexist between ‘top-down’ and‘bottom-up’ approaches.

‘Difficult’ working relationshipsexist between the statutoryempowered regulators andother stakeholder groups withregard a number of keymanagement issues butattempts are being made inorder to foster improvements inthese.

‘Good’ working relationshipsexist between the statutoryempowered regulators andother stakeholder groups withregard all of the keymanagement issues.

‘Good’ working relationshipsexist between the statutoryempowered regulators andother stakeholder groups withthe regard all managementissues.

Criterion 6: There is an active system of stakeholder review and feedbackIs there a formal and explicit

process available by whichstakeholders can raise issuesor problems?

There is no system ofstakeholder review.

There is no explicit or formalsystem of stakeholder reviewbut stakeholders areempowered to raise issueswhen the need arises.

There is a formal and periodicsystem of key stakeholderreview.

There is a holistic and formalsystem of stakeholder reviewon a periodic basis. Allstakeholders are empowered toraise issues as and when theneed arises.

Criterion 7: Decision-makers are accountable for their actionsAre decision-makers

accountable for theiractions?

Decision-makers are notaccountable for their actions.

Decision-makers are implicitlyaccountable for their actions tokey stakeholders and thereforemake attempts to explainmanagement outcomes.

Decision-makers are explicitlyaccountable for their actions tokey stakeholders and makeregular attempts to explainmanagement outcomes.

Decision-makers are formallyand explicitly accountable fortheir actions to all stakeholdersand make regular attempts tojustify management outcomesto the wider public.

Appendix 1 (continued)


Criterion 12: The management system is effectively audited on a regular and periodic basisDo competent individuals audit

the management system ona regular and periodic basis?

The management system isnever audited.

The system is not audited butthere is consideration given tosystem effectiveness.

The system is audited in an ad-hocfashion.

Responsible and skilled personsaudit the system on a regularand periodic basis.

Criterion 13: The management has a commitment to continually improve performance in the light of sustainabilityDoes the system have

a commitment to continuallyimprove performance?

There is no evidence ofa commitment tocontinually improve.

The system has an implicitdesire to continually improveits performance.

The system is committed tocontinually improving itsperformance.

The system has a clearly definedcommitment to improve itsperformance.


Appendix 3. The communication principle.


Criterion 1: Stakeholders and the community at large have easy access and opportunity to relevant coastal information and educationIs there easy access to

relevant coastalinformation froma variety of differentsources?

No system of informationdissemination is in operation.

A system of disseminationusing either low tech or hi techmethods operates on an ad-hocbasis.

An effective system ofdissemination operates usingeither low tech or hi techmethods.

An effective and up to datesystem of disseminationoperates using both low techand hi tech methods.

Criterion 2: Information presented through the dissemination system is easily understood and interpreted correctly by different stakeholdersDo stakeholders

understand theinformation that is beingpassed to them?

No system of informationdissemination is in operation.

Some stakeholders do notunderstanding the informationthat is communicated to them.

Some stakeholders do notunderstanding the informationthat is communicated to them.However, there are accessiblemeans by which issues can beclarified.

All stakeholders clearlyunderstand the messages andinformation that is passed tothem.

Criterion 3: The general public are fully aware of the management process and see its relevanceIs the management process

known and understoodby the community atlarge?

The general public are notaware of the managementsystem.

The general public are awarethere is a management processat work but not specificallywhat it does, how it operates orwhat it tries to achieve.

The general public are awarethere is a management processat work and what it is trying toachieve.

The general public fullyunderstand the managementprocess and what it is trying toachieve and are supportive ofits efforts.

Criterion 4: A comprehensive range of stakeholders are fully aware of issues pertaining to coastal sustainabilityDo stakeholders

understand the coastalsustainability issuesrelating to the area?

Stakeholders are unaware of thegeneral issues relating tocoastal sustainability.

Stakeholders are aware of thegeneral issues relating tocoastal sustainability but do notunderstand them fully.

Stakeholders understand thegeneral issues relating tocoastal sustainability.

Stakeholders fully understandthe issues relating to coastalsustainability and how thisapplies to their local area.

Criterion 5: Indicators are used for presenting and interpreting information on environmental quality to a comprehensive range of stakeholdersAre sustainability indicators

used as a means bywhich information canbe presented to bothstakeholders and thecommunity at large?

No such information is eithercollected or presented.

Information is collected andindicators are presented on anad-hoc basis.

Information is collected andindicators are presented ona regular and periodic basis.Some but not all information isinterpreted.

Information is collected andindicators are presented ona regular and periodic basis, theimplications of which are fullyexplained.

Criterion 6: An outreach system of coastal sustainability education operates effectivelyDoes the management

process feed relevantcoastal information toa range of educationalgroups?

There is no attempt to educatethe wider community aboutcoastal sustainability.

There is an informaleducational input into a rangeof relevant groups andorganizations.

There is a formal educationalinput into a range of relevantgroups and organizations.

The process actively seeks todevelop educational material,operates its own educationalmechanisms and feeds formallyinto a range of relevant groupsand organizations.

Criterion 7: Communication is seen and operated as a two-way processIs the flow of information

seen and operated asa two-way process?

No active communicationprocess exists.

The system operates aneffective informationdissemination process.

The management viewscommunication as a two-wayprocess and disseminateseffectively but has no effectiveformal means of receivingresponses.

The management viewscommunication as a two-wayprocess, disseminating andreceiving information andresponses formally andeffectively.

Appendix 4. The integration principle.


Criterion 1: Interactive, problem-solving techniques are employed in the analysis of relevant issuesAre interactive, problem-

solving techniques employedwhen analysing relevantissues?

No analytical problem-solvingtechniques have beenconsidered or are employed.

Problem-solving is consideredas an approach but with littleevidence of its use.

Problem-solving techniques areemployed to analyze someissues.

Comprehensive problem-solving techniques areemployed to analyze allappropriate issues.

Criterion 2: The management of the coast takes into account the impact of decision-making on its boundariesDoes the management process

take into account the impactof policies and decision-making on its boundaries?

No consideration has beengiven to the relevance ofboundaries or to the impact ofpolicies and decision-makingon them.

Management takes into accountand reviews the impact of itspolicies and decisions on itsboundaries.

Management takes into accountand reviews the impact of itspolicies and decisions on itsboundaries and acts tominimise negative aspects.

Management takes into accountthe impact of all decisions on itsboundaries and actspurposefully to minimisenegative aspects.

Criterion 3: Vertical policy components fully accord with one anotherIs there a consistent accord

between vertical policies?There is no obvious accordbetween vertical policies.

Implied but not explicit verticallinks can be drawn betweenpolicies.

A variety of implicit and explicitvertical links can be drawnbetween policies.

All vertical links relevant tocoastal management areexplicit within policies.





Criterion 4: Horizontal policy components fully accord with one anotherIs there a consistent accord

between horizontal policies?There is no obvious accordbetween horizontal policies.

Implied but not explicithorizontal links can be drawnbetween policies

A variety of implicit and explicithorizontal links can be drawnbetween policies.

All horizontal links relevant tocoastal management areexplicit within policies.

Criterion 5: The ICZM process shows evident moves to develop a perceived and inherent equality between relevant disciplinesIs there a transparent and

strategic attempt to operateequality between differentmanagement units, Sectorsand disciplines?

There has been no attempt tooperate or develop equalitybetween the relevantdisciplines in the managementprocess.

Sectors are consideredindependently within themanagement process but witheffective communicationbetween them.

Sectors are consideredindependently within themanagement process but takesome transparent action tosynchronize their work towardsmeeting common objectives.

Formal and transparentmechanisms operate in whichdifferent Sectors are consideredand through which work issynchronized towards meetingcommon objectives.

Criterion 6: There is evidently a creative relationship between science andmanagement: between those who collect and prepare evidence and those who act and are responsible fordecision-making

Is science enabled and playingan effective role in achievingcoastal sustainability?

The system makes no attemptto enhance the role andcontribution of science inachieving coastal sustainabilityand there is no input from thescientific community into thedecision-making process.

The role of science is consideredin ICZM but with limitedevidence of success. Research isnot generated by the coastalmanagement needs.

The role of science is consideredin ICZM and there is clearevidence of cooperativeworking.

Management has a synergisticrelationship with the scientificcommunity. The scientificcommunity are advised as tomanagement needs and havea formal and constructiveinfluence on decision-making.

Criterion 7: Resources are focussed on facilitating greater integrationDoes resource allocation

enhance the potential forintegration?

There is no evidence ofresources being allocated toenable greater integration.

Resource allocation has notoperated explicitly to enablefurther integration but someenhancement has occurred.

Resource allocation has takensome explicit and transparentsteps to enhance integration.

Resource allocation is explicitlyfocussed on the enhancementof integration in all areas.

Criterion 8: There are continued improvements in integrationIs there evidence of continuing

improvements inintegration?

There is no evidence ofintegration occurring.

There is evidence of integrationoccurring but not that there ison-going or continualimprovement.

There is evidence of bothintegration occurring and thatthere is some continualimprovement.

Integration is a core focus of themanagement system and thereis strong evidence of on-goingimprovements taking place.

Appendix 5. The responsibility principle.


Criterion 1: The management system has a clear legal basisDoes the management system

have a clear legal basis?Themanagement system has nolegal basis and no evidence toshow legal compliance.

The management systemoperates legally but withoutbeing legally defined.

The management systemoperates legally and for someparticular issues operates asa legally defined entity.

The management systemoperates legally and operateswholly and comprehensively asa legally defined entity.

Criterion 2: The coastal environment is regulated effectivelyIs evidence available to prove

that the coastal environmentis being regulatedeffectively?

Information is not available. Information is available butinconclusive.

Information is available andshows some environmentalimprovements over the last 5years.

Information is availableshowing consistent andcomprehensive environmentalimprovements over the long-term.

Criterion 3: Organizations and institutions involved in ICZM promote stewardship and resource efficiencyDoes ICZM promote

stewardship and resourceefficiency?

Resource efficiency is notagreed as a driving principlebehind the managementprocess and there is no clearevidence to show its promotion.

Resource efficiency is animplied principle of themanagement process. There issome limited evidence of itsoperation.

Resource efficiency is agreed toas a driving principle of themanagement process and thereis some evidence of itsoperation.

Resource efficiency is agreed toas a driving principle of theprocess and there iscomprehensive and transparentevidence of its operation.

Criterion 4: The coastal management system uses the best practicable means with which to achieve its objectivesCan the management system

show evidence of operatingthe best practicable means incarrying out its actions?

The best practicable means isnot agreed as a driving principlebehind the managementprocess and there is noevidence to show its operation.

The best practicablemeans is animplied principle of themanagement process. There issome limited evidence of itsoperation.

The best practicable means isagreed to as a driving principleof the management process andthere is some evidence of itsoperation.

The best practicable means isagreed to as a driving principleof the management process andthere is clear evidence of itsoperation.

Criterion 5: The management system evidently employs a ‘precautionary approach’Can the management system

show evidence of operatingthe precautionary principle?

The precautionary principle isnot agreed as a driving principlebehind the managementprocess and there is no clearevidence to show its operation.

The precautionary principle isan implied principle of themanagement process. There issome limited evidence of itsoperation.

The precautionary principle isagreed to as a driving principleof the management process.Operational procedures existwhich can be used toimplement a precautionaryapproach.

The precautionary principle isagreed to as a driving principleof the management process.Operational procedures exist toimplement a precautionaryapproach and there is clearevidence of their operation.




Criterion 6: The management system evidently applies the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’Does ICZM show evidence of

operating the PPP in carryingout / enforcing its actions?

The PPP is not agreed asa driving principle behind themanagement process and thereis no clear evidence to show itsoperation.

The PPP is an implied principleof the management process.There is some limited evidenceof its operation.

The PPP is agreed to as a drivingprinciple of the managementprocess. Operationalprocedures exist to implementthe PPP and there is someevidence of their operation.

The PPP is agreed to as a drivingprinciple of the managementprocess. Operationalprocedures exist to implementthe PPP and there is clearevidence of their operation.

Criterion 7: The risks to sustainability associated with ICZM policies and decision-making is as low as reasonably practicableCan the management system

show evidence of carryingout risk assessments inrelation to its policies anddecisions?

Risk assessment is not agreed asa driving principle behind themanagement process and thereis no clear evidence to show itsoperation.

Risk assessment is an impliedprinciple of the managementprocess. There is some limitedevidence of its operation.

Risk assessment is agreed to asa driving principle of themanagement process.Operational procedures existwhich can be used toimplement risk assessment andthere is some evidence of theiroperation.

Risk assessment is agreed to asa driving principle of themanagement process.Operational procedures existwith which to carry out riskassessments and there is clearevidence of their operation.

Criterion 8: The management system gives due consideration to the life cycle and impact of coastal activitiesCan the management system

show evidence of carryingout life cycle analysis inrelation to its policies anddecision-making?

LCA is not agreed as a drivingprinciple behind themanagement process and thereis no clear evidence to show itsoperation.

LCA is an implied principle ofthe management process. Thereis some limited evidence of itsoperation.

LCA is agreed to as a drivingprinciple of the managementprocess. Operationalprocedures exist which can beused to implement LCA andthere is some evidence of itsoperation.

LCA is agreed to as a drivingprinciple of the managementprocess. Operationalprocedures exist which can beused to implement LCA andthere is clear evidence of theiroperation.

Criterion 9: There is a sufficient budget for the management system to operate successfullyIs there an appropriate resource

budget available for thesuccessful operation of themanagement system?

There is an insufficient budgetavailable for the operation ofthe management system toachieve relative success.

A budget is available for theoperation of the managementsystem that is sufficient toachieve relative success withrespect to its short-term goals.

A budget is available for theoperation of the managementsystem that is sufficient tosupport and achieve all itsshort-term goals.

A budget is available for theoperation of the managementsystem that is sufficient tosupport and achieve both itsshort-term and long-term goalssuccessfully in absolute terms.

Criterion 10: Management adopts an ecosystem approach to operatingIs there an attempt to adopt an

ecosystem approach tomanagement?

The ecosystem approach hasnot been considered in relationto the management of thecoastal area.

The ecosystem approach isbeing viewed in a constructivemanner but with little evidenceof its operation.

The ecosystem approach isbeing viewed in a constructivemanner. There is some evidenceof its operation.

The ecosystem approach isbeing operated ina comprehensive manner.

Appendix 6. The balance principle.


Criterion 1: ICZM conserves, protects and restores the health and integrity of coastal ecosystemsDoes coastal management

conserve, protect andrestore the health andintegrity of coastalecosystems?

ICZM has no commitmentto environmentalconservation or ecosystemrestoration.

ICZM has an implicitcommitment to environmentalconservation and ecosystemrestoration. There is somelimited evidence of itsoperation.

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto environmental conservation andecosystem restoration. Proceduresexist which can be used toimplement this and some evidenceof success in its operation.

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto environmental conservation andecosystem restoration. Proceduresexist which can be used toimplement this, withcomprehensive evidence ofenacting this commitment andsuccess in its outcomes.

Criterion 2: Environmental and economic policies and decision-making takes into account social ‘fairness’Does coastal management

have a commitment forenvironmental andeconomic decisions totake into account ‘socialfairness’?

There is no commitment toaccept social ‘fairness’.

ICZM has an impliedcommitment to social ‘fairness’.There is some limited evidenceof its operation.

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto social ‘fairness’. Operationalprocedures exist which can be usedto implement and consider social‘fairness’ and some evidence of itsoperation.

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto social ‘fairness’. Operationalprocedures and measures existwhich can be used to implementand consider social ‘fairness’ withcomprehensive and transparentevidence of enacting thiscommitment and success in itsoutcomes.

Criterion 3: ICZM protects and enhances optimum environmental quality with regard to its impact upon employment and incomeDoes coastal management

protect and enhanceoptimum environmentalquality with regard itsimpact uponemployment andincome?

ICZM does not considerenvironment quality withregard to its impact onemployment and income.

ICZM has an underlyingacceptance of this asa requirement in its actions andsome limited evidence tosupport its operation.

ICZM has a commitment to considerenvironmental quality with regardto its impact on employment andincome. Procedures exist which canbe used to implement this and someevidence of its operation.

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto consider environmental qualitywith regard to its impact onemployment and income.Procedures and measures existwhich can be used to implementthis, with comprehensive evidenceof enacting this commitmenteffectively.





Criterion 4: ICZM conserves and maintains cultural heritageDoes ICZM seek to maintain

the cultural heritage ofthe area?

ICZM has no commitmentto conserve or maintaincultural heritage.

ICZM has an implicitcommitment to conservecultural heritage. There is somelimited evidence of itsoperation and success.

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto conserve cultural heritage.Procedures exist which can be usedto implement this and there is someevidence of its operation andsuccess.

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto conserve cultural heritage.Procedures and measures existwhich can be used to implementthis, with comprehensive evidenceof enacting this commitmenteffectively.

Criterion 5: ICZM improves the equity of coastal communities and maintains development options and opportunities for generations to followDoes ICZM have

a commitment orintention to maintainand improve equity?

ICZM does not accept equityas a commitment.

ICZM has an implicitcommitment to intra and inter-generational equity. There islimited evidence of enactingthis commitment

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto intra and inter -generationalequity. Procedures exist which canbe used to implement this and thereis some evidence of its operationand success.

ICZM has an explicit commitmentto intra and inter -generationalequity. Procedures and measuresexist which can be used toimplement this, withcomprehensive evidence ofenacting this commitmenteffectively.

Criterion 6: ICZM optimises the ‘quality of life’Does ICZM attempt to

improve the ‘quality oflife’?

ICZM neither assesses norconsiders the ‘quality oflife’.

The ‘quality of life’ is implicitlyseen as an important aspect ofICZM but there is no system ofassessment

The ‘quality of life’ is an activeconsideration for the managementsystem and despite not beingregularly assessed, surrogateindications are consideredgenerally favourable

The ‘quality of life’ is regularlyassessed and showing relativeimprovements over time

Criterion 7: Temporal variations in the coastal system are effectively managedIs apparent seasonality

managed effectively?There is a highly markedseasonality in the coastalsystem but this is notconsidered by themanagement system.

The management systemconsiders some aspects ofcoastal seasonality and isconcerned with mitigating anynegative impacts.

The management system considerscoastal seasonality and is activelyseeking to redress any negativeimpacts. Some improvements areevident.

The management system considerscoastal seasonality and is activelyseeking to redress any negativeimpacts. This is evidentially andcomprehensively successful.

Criterion 8: Policies and decisions are made through negotiation with due consideration being given to the relative importance of environmental, social and economic interestsICZM considers and

negotiates theconsequent costs andbenefits forenvironmental quality,social welfare andeconomic growth?

ICZM makes no attempt toconsider or negotiaterelative costs and benefitsof environmental quality,social welfare andeconomic growth.

ICZM is empowered to considerthe relative costs and benefits ofenvironmental quality, socialwelfare and economic growth.There is some limited evidenceof success in achievingconstructively negotiateddecisions.

ICZM actively considers the relativecosts and benefits of environmentalquality, social welfare and economicgrowth. There is some evidence ofsuccess in achieving constructivelynegotiated decisions.

ICZM actively considers the relativecosts and benefits of environmentalquality, social welfare and economicgrowth, and elicits a constructivelynegotiated and aggregated decisionin a clear and transparent way.

Criterion 9: Stakeholders representing environmental, social and economic interests consider trade-offs to be appropriateDo stakeholders perceive

and understand thetrade-offs made withregard environmentquality, social welfareand economic growth?

Stakeholders are unawareof trade-offs between issuesof environment quality,social welfare andeconomic growth.

Stakeholders are aware oftrade-offs betweenenvironment quality, socialwelfare and economic growthbut do not fully understandthem.

Stakeholders are aware andunderstand trade-offs betweenenvironment quality, social welfareand economic growth.

Stakeholders are aware, understandand fully endorse trade-offsbetween environment quality,social welfare and economicgrowth.


References

[1] GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of marine environ-mental protection. The contributions of science to Integrated CoastalManagement. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 61, 1996.

[2] Commission of the European Communities. Towards a European integratedcoastal zone management (ICZM) strategy: general principles and policyoptions e a reflection paper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities; 1999a.

[3] Cicin-Sain B, Knecht RW. Integrated coastal zone management: concepts andpractices. Washington D.C: Island Press; 1998.

[4] Ehler CN. Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastalmanagement. Ocean and Coastal Management 2003;46(3e4):335e45.

[5] Commission of the European Communities. Lessons from the Europeancommission’s demonstration programme on integrated coastal zonemanagement (ICZM). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities; 1999b.

[6] Morse S, McNamara N, Acholo M, Okwoli B. Sustainability indicators: theproblem of integration. Sustainable Development 2001;9:1e15.

[7] Commission of the European Communities. Recommendation of the Europeanparliament and council concerning the implementation of integrated coastalzone management in Europe. Official Journal of the European Communities;2002. Brussels: European Commission.

[8] EU working group on indicators and data report of the working group onindicators and data to the EU ICZM expert group. Barcelona: European TopicCentre for the Terrestrial Environment; 2004.

[9] Schema d’Amenagement Integre du Littoral. Integrated coastal zonemanagement in the southern North Sea, http://www.sailcoast.org/index.shtml; 2004 [online]. Bruge: SAIL. Available from:.

[10] Bell S, Morse S. Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable.London: Earthscan; 1999.

[11] Burbridge PR. A generic framework for measuring success in integratedcoastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;37(2):175e89.

[12] Henocque Y. Development of process indicators for coastal zone managementassessment in France. Ocean and Coastal Management 2003;46:363e79.

[13] Olsen SB. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integratedcoastal management initiatives. Ocean and Coastal Management2003;46:347e61.

[14] Pickaver AH, Gilbert C, Breton F. An indicator set to measure the progress inthe implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe. Oceanand Coastal Management 2004;47:449e62.

[15] Checkland P, Scholes J. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: JohnWiley and Sons; 1990.

[16] Clayton A, Radcliffe N. Sustainability: a systems approach. London: Earthscan;1996.

[17] Van der Weide J. A systems view of integrated coastal management. Oceanand Coastal Management 1993;21:129e48.

[18] Dronkers J, de Vries I. Integrated coastal management: the challenge oftransdisciplinarity. Journal of Coastal Conservation 1999;5(2):97e102.

[19] Bell S, Coudert E. A practitioner’s guide to imagine: the systemic andprospective sustainability analysis. Blue Plan Papers 3. Valbonne: Blue Plan;2005.

http://www.sailcoast.org/index.shtml

http://www.sailcoast.org/index.shtml


[20] Marin V, Ivaldi R, Palmisani F, Fabiano M. Application of participatory methodfor beach management. MEDCOAST 07. In: Ozhan E, editor. Proceedings of theeighth international conference on the Mediterranean coastal environment.Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University; 2007. p. 283e94.

[21] Gallagher A, Johnson DJ, Glegg G, Trier C. Constructs of sustainability in coastalmanagement. Marine Policy 2004;28(3):249e55.

[22] Gallagher AW. Sustainability systems appraisal for integrated coastal zonemanagement. PhD thesis, Southampton Solent University and Nottingham-Trent University. 2006.

[23] Clark JR. Coastal zone management for the new century. Ocean and CoastalManagement 1998;37(2):191e216.

[24] McGlashan DJ. Coastal management in the future. In: Sheppard C, editor. Seasat the Millenium: an environmental evaluation, vol. 3. Oxford: Pergamon;2000.

[25] Cicin-Sain B. Sustainable development and integrated coastal zone manage-ment. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21(1e3):11e43.

[26] Firn Crichton Roberts Ltd and Graduate School of Environmental Studies,University of Strathclyde. An assessment of the socio-economic costs andbenefits of integrated coastal zone management. Luxembourg: Office forOfficial Publications of the European Communities; 2000.

[27] O’Riordan T. Connecting people to nature: Johannesburg and beyond. ECOS2003;24(1):5e9.

the coastal sustainability standard: a management systems approach to iczm

Documents