Integrated Coastal Management in the East Asian Seas Region: A Reflection

The challenges of sustainable coastal development

Most coastal lowlands around the world are marked with increasing pressures of population growth, urbanization, multiple uses and intensive economic activities resulting in deterioration of natural habitats, environmental quality and natural resources. Policy and management failures have largely contributed to the current state of continued loss of ecosystem products and services. Ineffective legislation due to poor enforcement or legislative conflicts between sectors couple with functional overlaps or conflicts between line agencies continue to limit administration of effective management measures.

Evolution of coastal management approaches and practices

During the last 5 decades there were increasing international efforts to promote sustainable management of coastal and marine resources; largely focused on the prevention and reduction of land and sea-based pollution, the protection of marine resources especially the fisheries resources and the conservation of habitats including the setting up of marine protected areas. Most of these efforts are either sector, community or resource-focused whilst others focused on waste management, scientific research and scientific capacity development. The San Francisco Bay efforts in the sixties in developing strategy and action plans to managing multiple uses of the bay area contributed significantly to the understanding and rationale on the integrated area-wide management approach. This has led to the US Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 which served as the driving force for adopting coastal zone management in coastal states in the USA.
The US experience in coastal management was soon replicated in other parts of the world particularly in Asia largely through donor assisted initiatives. Since then thousands of coastal management initiatives were launched under different concepts, forms and practices around the world such as Coastal Resource Management (CRM) , Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Coastal zone Management, (CZM), Coastal Area Management (CAM), Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) , Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM), Ecosystem Management (ME) amongst others.
In 1993, the initiation of a Global Envronmental Facilty (GEF) / United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/ Partnerships in Envrnmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) project in the region provided the opportunity to develop, verify and demonstrate the effectiveness of ICM practices and the subsequent replication and scaling up throughout national coastline. The ability to continue such project operation over the last 20 years enabled a systematic analysis of the concept and practices of integrated coastal management in more than 30 local governments from 11 countries in the region under varied socioeconomic, political, cultural, and ecological settings. Through this process, the ICM concept and practices evolved and strengthened into a codified environmental management system--the ICM system, which allows a systematic, process-oriented, participatory, planning and management of the coastal areas towards achieving sustainable development goals (Fig.1).

ICM initiatives in Japan

The concept and practice of ICM gained the attention and interest of the relevant authority in Japan after the enactment of the Basic Ocean Policy in 2007 thanks to the persistent efforts of Mr. Hiroshi Terashima, the current Executive Director of the Ocean Policy Research Foundation (OPRF). In his pursuit to review coastal and ocean governance around the world, he visited PEMSEA's office in Manila in 2000. Since then he learned of PEMSEA efforts in promoting integrated governance and management of the coastal and marine areas in the East Asian Seas Region. He was able to witness the operational modality and outcomes of some of PEMSEA's ICM demonstration sites and the effectiveness of local governments implementing ICM in achieving the goal of agenda 21. Through his efforts and those of others, the Basic Plan on Ocean Policy of Japan was enacted in 2007. The Basic Plan recognizes the needs for integration and coordination in order to address the problems arising from conventional ocean management approach through vertically and functionally separate administrative ministries and encourages local authority to undertake comprehensive coastal and marine management in an integrated manner.

However, the first ICM pilot site, Shima City in Japan was only established in 2010 followed by 4 other local government initiatives in Obama City, Bizen City, Miyako City and Sukumo Bay. Shima City was admitted as a member of the PEMSEA's Network of Local Governments (PNLG) practising ICM and successfully organized the 2013 PNLG forum.These remarkable achievements would not be made without the support and efforts of the OPRF and the increasing interest of the central government in pursuing comprehensive coastal and marine management under the Basic Law on Ocean Policy. Although ICM practices in Japan is still in its infant stage, the positive and enthusiastic response amongst the stakeholders of the pilot sites in Japan instil much confidence and aspiration to those individuals and institutions who work very hard to ensure its success.

Some Concluding Remarks

1. Over the last two decades (1993-2014), the ICM working modality developed by PEMSEA has proven to be operational at the local level irrespective of socioeconomic conditions, political, religious or cultural affinity although differs in terms of effectiveness and outcomes depending on the level of political commitment, local capacity, availability of financial resources as well as stakeholders support and participation. The realization and needs for interagency coordination for resolving interagency conflicts, unclear responsibilities and accountability are compelling reasons for responsible government to begin clarifying and streamlining coastal and ocean related policy and administrative functions.
2. The evolved ICM system with defined operational methodology makes it possible for local government to adopt and implement ICM programs using the same approach and methodology. The monitoring and reporting format ensure periodic evaluation of ICM operation and outcomes. Certification using the ISO standards is certainly a necessary step to ensure measurable outputs and cost effectiveness. The ICM system can effectively operationalize several biodiversity, environment or sustainable development-focused international conventions such as Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Global Plan of Actions for Land-based Pollution (GPA), and Agenda 21. It is also an appropriate methodology to operationalize EBM, MPAs including the Sato Umi-Sato Yama approaches in Japan.
3. The successful implementation of ICM programs in the region is a testimony of the dynamic role of local government as the main driving force for change. Local governments involved in ICM implementation have proven their effectiveness in mobilizing local stakeholders' support and participation, guide interagency coordination and cooperation to resolve local concerns.
4. However, national ocean policy or legislation is critical for scaling up ICM practices. The Basic Plan on Ocean Policy of Japan (2007), the Coastal Management Act of RO Korea (1999), the Coastal Zone Management and Small Island Act of Indonesia (2007), the Sea space utilization law of Peoples Republic of China (1997), the Integrated Marine Resources Management and Environmental Protection Law of Vietnam (2009) and the national ICM strategy of the Philippines (EO 533, 2006) are certainly instrumental for streamlining ICM into national agenda.
5. Building individual and institutional capacity is fundamental to the successful development and implementation of ICM program underscoring the critical importance of capacity development especially at the local level. Past experience showed that ICM implementation is most effective and sustainable if it is developed, owned and implemented by the concerned local authority with the participation of concerned line agencies. The ICM process allows concerned local officials and agencies to build their capacity through “learning by doing?E
6. One of the major challenges, however, is the lack of adequate qualified ICM professional who can initiate, facilitate, coordinat, mobilize and lead the development and implementation of ICM programs. Existing marine affairs training in universities or special coastal governance courses are not adequate to produce the types of practical and dynamic ICM professional at all levels. Such ICM professional is one who can:
   a) Think like a scientist,
   b) Work like a manager and
   c) Speak like a diplomat.

ICM professionals are expected to handle a host of coastal and marine environmental management challenges and thus must possess the ability of a scientist to always adopt a scientific approach in analysing causes and impacts, formulating and testing out solutions, etc. He / she must also possess the skill of a manager who is able to work with various stakeholders; coordinate activities; facilitate interagency cooperation and also the skill to make decisions based on intuitive as well as scientific knowledge available to him. Best still, he/she should also possess the skill to mobilize human and financial resources. The next skill expected of an ICM professional is his ability to communicate diplomatically with people of all walks of life, from political leadership to the common citizen.