Coastal Planning and Management - Chapter 3 doc

Chapter 3

Concepts of coastal planning

and management

Development of specific coastal planning and management initiatives is a

common response by government to the many issues discussed in the

previous chapter. These issues will only be effectively resolved if managers

are guided in their decision making and can plan to avoid future problems

by taking a proactive approach. This chapter provides a conceptual

framework for decision making and a common understanding of terms

and definitions. Tools for tackling individual problems are discussed in

Chapter 4 and coastal planning approaches are analysed in Chapter 5.

The chapter has five main sections. First, the most important terms and

guiding statements for coastal management and planning are outlined.

Second, the development and application of overreaching concepts are

discussed, with examples of how they have been interpreted and

implemented by governments. Third, coastal planning concepts are

described and analysed. Fourth, choices in the design of administrative

arrangements to implement coastal management and planning

programmes are discussed. Finally, the monitoring and evaluation of coastal

programmes are described and analysed.

3.1 Terminology

One of the difficulties of writing about a process of management is

that many of the words which form the vocabulary of management

are hopelessly overworked. Words of common usage have been taken

and given a specific meaning by different authors: unfortunately they

have not all been given the same interpretation. The result is a problem

of semantics, which can act as a barrier to a common understanding.

(Hussey, 1991, p. 38)

A review of the words used by coastal managers and planners reveals

that the same terms are frequently given different meanings. In most cases

Copyright 1999 Taylor & Francis Group

it is clear what is intended by their use, but it nevertheless makes

comparison of coastal programmes from different parts of the world

difficult. Three areas of terminology used in coastal management and

planning are discussed in turn below, and standardized terminologies

are developed for use in later sections. These three groups of terms focus

on the difference between coastal planning and coastal management; the

meaning of integration; and statements which provide guidance to coastal

programmes.

3.1.1 What is coastal planning, what is coastal management and

what is the difference?

As with many widely used words, ‘planning’ and ‘management’ can have

various meanings depending on the context in which they are used. Here

we briefly discuss their various interpretations and subsequently define

the terms ‘coastal planning’ and ‘coastal management’ as they will be used

in this book.

Everyone, every day, undertakes some form of planning. Deciding what

to eat for lunch, or what time to go fishing, requires planning. So ‘planning’

is usually taken in everyday language to mean the process of charting future

activities. To ‘have a plan’ is to be in possession of a way of proceeding. In

this context planning has two components: first, the determination of aims

for what is to be achieved in the future; and second, clarifying the steps

required to achieve these aims. These two components may be viewed as

common to all plans and planning exercises. However, different types of

plans and planning initiatives may interpret these two components in

contrasting ways.

There are perhaps as many types of plans as there are planners attempting

to classify them. Businesses produce business plans, management plans,

corporate strategies and so on. Some governments have a Department of

Planning which, as the name suggests, has as one of its core activities the

production and administration of formalised systems of planning—usually

land-use planning and/or economic planning. However, despite the large

number of plans and different approaches to planning, the vast majority of

plans and planning initiatives can be characterized as either strategic or

operational. Those that do not readily fall into either of these categories

generally combine both strategic and operational components (Hussey,

1991).

Strategic planning is the highest order of planning; it attempts to provide

a context within which more detailed plans are designed to set and achieve

specific objectives. Strategic planning sets broad objectives and outlines

the approaches required to achieve them; it does not attempt to give detailed

objectives, or to give a step-by-step description of all actions required to

achieve the objectives.

Copyright 1999 Taylor & Francis Group

There are two main types of strategic planning initiatives relevant to the

management of the coast: geographic focused (integrated area plans); and

sector-based strategies (focusing on one subject area or the activities of one

government agency). Each of these types of strategic planning is described

in Chapter 5.

In contrast to strategic planning, operational planning sets the directions

and steps to achieve on-ground management actions. As the name suggests,

operational planning dictates localized operations—such as the

rehabilitation of a mangrove area, or the building of walkways through

dunes. They have to detail exactly where, and how, operations will be

carried out. Contents of typical operational plans include details such as

site designs, costings and schedules of works.

‘Manage’, like planning, also has a number of meanings. It can mean

the ability to handle a situation (as in ‘yes, I can manage’), or it can indicate

control or the wielding of power. Managers in business circles are people

who are in control of the organization.

Thus ‘coastal management’ could be interpreted to mean directing the

day-to-day activities occurring on coastal lands and waters, or it could

be used to mean the overall control of the government agencies

(organizations) that oversee these day-to-day activities. Both of these

interpretations appear to be valid. As is the case with planning,

management can be divided into strategic and operational management,

the former being the processes of being in control of an organization’s

affairs with respect to the coast, the latter being the activities of controlling

on-the-ground actions.

In this chapter the terms coastal planning and coastal management are

taken to be inclusive of both strategic and operational components. This is

partly for ease of use, and partly because the overall concepts of coastal

planning and management described later in the chapter apply to both

strategic and operational processes. Also, most of the literature describing

the conceptual framework for coastal management and planning does not

distinguish between operational and strategic planning or management,

from which we may infer that the authors included both in their analyses.

Where either operational or strategic planning and/or management is being

explicitly described, the relevant prefix is used; the implications of the use

of the terms are explained more fully in Chapter 5, where the division of

both planning and management into strategic and operational components

provides a very useful framework for the analysis of different styles of

coastal management plans.

3.1.2 Placing an emphasis on ‘integration’

Many governments and international organizations choose to include the

word ‘integrated’ as a prefix to describe their efforts in bringing together

Copyright 1999 Taylor & Francis Group

the various parts of their coastal planning and management initiatives into

a single unified system. Others choose to use ‘coordinated’ or similar words,

while yet others opt for no specific word to describe such efforts. Hence

the description of many of the world’s coastal management initiatives as

‘integrated coastal management’. Use of ‘integrated’ in this way has been

popular for many years, but has expanded greatly since its adoption in

Agenda 21, where the introduction to the chapter on ocean and coastal

management describes the need for new approaches to marine and coastal

area management and development which ‘are integrated in content’

(UNCED, 1992)

Interpretation of the word ‘integrated’ (Box 3.1) can have a bearing on

whether governments choose to attach it to their programme descriptions.

For example, in much of the Pacific and south-east Asia the use of

‘integrated’ has become widespread because many have found that it

conveys an appropriate policy goal, is culturally and administratively

appropriate and is widely understood. In contrast, Australian governments

have chosen not to use it because of the inference that it could be interpreted

to mean the amalgamation of different levels of government —an extremely

sensitive political issue in that country. This sensitivity is reflected in the

difference between integration and coordination as defined by Kenchington

and Crawford (1993, p. 112):

an integrated system is complete or unified although it will generally

have subordinate components. A coordinated system involves

independent, generally equivalent components working to a common

purpose.

Another way at looking at the use of integrated, coordinated and other

descriptors of coastal management programmes is outlined by Cicin-Sain

(1993) who has set up a continuum of terminology describing the degree

to which coastal programmes bring together disparate elements (Box 3.2).

There are clear similarities between the various approaches adopted by

Cicin-Sain (1993), Kenchington and Crawford (1993) and Scura (1994) to

the use of integration and other words implying bringing together. All

approaches stress the amalgamation of disparate elements into a single

coastal management system. The various words to describe this

amalgamation concentrate on its degree and to a certain extent the

mechanisms by which it is achieved. Finding ways to achieve this

amalgamation is a key theme of this book, and hence will be visited many

times in the following Chapters. However, the above discussion shows

that the term integration has been used in such a variety of contexts that its

strict meaning has become confused. So, to avert confusion, we deliberately

avoid attaching any prefixes to the term coastal management unless

Copyright 1999 Taylor & Francis Group

Box 3.1

The meaning of ‘integration’ in coastal management

An interesting discussion and definition of ‘integrated management’ is

provided by Scura (1994) in her work for the United Nations Development

Programme on integrated fisheries management. Her discussion has wide

application to overall coastal management.

The term integration is used differently by various disciplines. For

example, at the micro production level, integration can focus on production

technologies such as byproduct recycling and improved space utilisation.

Integrated farming also uses the term in a predominantly technical sense,

where the focus is on the use of an output or byproduct from one process

as an input into another process. In a more macro sense, an integrated

economy is one which is organised or structured so that constituent units

function cooperatively. In a sociological or cultural sense, integration

pertains to a group or society whose members interact on the basis of

commonly held norms or values.

A broad interdisciplinary definition of integration is adopted here,

which incorporates several disciplinary and sectoral concepts. Integrated

management refers to management of sectoral components as parts of a

functional whole with explicit recognition that human behaviour, not

physical stocks of natural resources such as fish, land or water, is typically

the focus of management. The purpose of integrated management is to

allow multisectoral development to progress with the least unintended

setbacks.

quoting original sources. The terms ‘coordinated coastal management’ or

‘integrated coastal management’ will therefore only be used when referring

to its use by other authors, or in Chapter 5 to described the integrated style

of coastal management plans.

3.1.3 Guiding statements for coastal management and planning

Fundamental to the success of coastal programmes is the use of statements

which clearly enunciate the purpose, directions and expected outcomes of

the programme. Well planned coastal programmes therefore carefully

consider such guiding statements so that stakeholders know exactly what

ends they are working towards. Various terms are used to describe these

direction setting statements—such as mission, vision, goals, principles,

objectives, targets, expected outcomes and actions.

Copyright 1999 Taylor & Francis Group

The choice of guiding statements depends on the particular coastal issues

being considered, political imperatives and management scale. The choice

will also be influenced by local languages and cultural settings: some

English words are more readily translated or locally understood. However,

being clear about the purpose to which these phrases are to be put is more

important than what they are to be called. Whether the overall direction of

a coastal programme is articulated by a mission statement, vision statement

or goal will matter little as long the purpose of using such a statement is

clear. As will be shown in Chapter 5, the processes by which these statements

are derived is also important. A major exception to this is if guiding

statements are to be used in legislation or other formal documents, where

there may be tight legal requirements for the use of particular words to

describe direction-setting statements, and reasons why others should not

be used.

Despite differences around the world in the use of particular terms,

there is general agreement that planning and management should use a

Copyright 1999 Taylor & Francis Group