Contents - Previous - Next

This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at

II. National experiences in institution building

Conscious of the limitations of traditional institutional arrangements and of the need to build some kind of organizational structure that would address in a more effective manner the tasks involved in coastal and ocean planning and management, an increasing number of countries have designed alternative institutional arrangements. Three major forces have driven these efforts:

- the need to formulate and implement comprehensive ocean policies;

- the experience acquired through the emergence of coastal area management programmes; and

- the challenge of integrating coastal and ocean planning under a single policy and governance system.

However, before examining the institution building processes that accompany these efforts, it should be clearly stated that conceptually, throughout this chapter, coastal area management (CAM) is considered to be an integral component of a national ocean policy. Thus, when referring to "ocean/coastal governance" it should be understood to include a coastal policy input into the overall national ocean policy-making process.

National efforts have led to a variety of institutional initiatives over the past two decades (see tables 1, 2, and 3). In examining, in depth, some of these cases, particular attention will be given to both the structural and functional aspects of the organizational arrangements as well as to the decision-making processes and the hierarchical relationships between the organizations involved. Criteria used for the selection of specific cases have been:

- information was available and clear;

- the case was representative of the mainstream of current institutional building efforts;

- the case was representative of a variety of institutional arrangements; and

- the institutional arrangements were of a distinctive character.

Table 1 Institution building initiatives for coastal area management (CAM)*

Country Date of establishment Institutional arrangement/Lead agency
China 1964 State Oceanic Administration**
Australia 1966 Port Phillip Authority***
United States 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act****
France 1975 Conservatoire de l'Espace Littoral des Rivages Lacustres
Costa Rica 1977 Instituto Costarricense de Turismo
Philippines 1977 Coastal Zone Management Committee
Thailand 1977 Office of Coastal Land Development
China 1978 State Council
Philippines 1978 Coastal Zone Management Task Force
Sri Lanka 1978 Coast Conservation Division
Philippines 1979 Coastal Zone Management Inter-Agency Task Force
China 1983 Working Group to prepare a Draft of a Coastal Zone Management Law
Sri Lanka 1983 Coast Conservation Department
Argentina 1984 Comisión Interdisciplinaria pare el Manejo Costero
Barbados 1984 Coastal Conservation Unit
Colombia 1984 Dirección General Marítima y Portuaria
Oman 1985 Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Philippines 1986 Regional office of the National Economic Development Authority
Grenada 1986 (?) Science and Technology Council
Indonesia 1986 Ministry of Interior and other institutions
Saudi Arabia 1986 Meteorology and Environmental Protection Administration
Singapore 1986 Science Council of Singapore
Brunei Darussalam 1987 Department of Fisheries and other institutions
Malaysia 1987 Department of Fisheries and other institutions
Thailand 1987 Office of National Environment Board and other institutions
Brazil 1988 Secretariat of the Interministerial Commission for Sea Resources (SECIRM)
Ecuador 1988 National Commission on Coastal Resources Management and other institutions
British Virgin Islands 1989 Coast Conservation and Management Advisory Committee to assist the Minister of Natural Resources and Labor
Philippines 1989 Department of Agriculture and other institutions
Antigua and Barbuda 1991 Historical, Conservation and Environmental Commission
Oman 1991 Ministry of the Environment
St. Kitts/Nevis N.A. Conservation Commission to advise the Minister who holds the portfolio for development

* The author regrets that some initiatives might have been omitted because the information was not available at the time of publication.

** The provincial Offices of Coastal Management are subordinate to the State Oceanic Ad ministration (SOA). The SOA Institute of Marine Environmental Research (Dalian) also works on coastal zone research.

*** Subsequent initiatives in coastal area management at the state level are not included in this list.

**** Individual initiatives at the state level are not included in this list.

However, a word of caution should also be said with respect to some of the cases under examination. First, with the exception of the Netherlands, Brazil, Hawaii, and Oregon, the institutional experiences examined have emerged as a result of international assistance projects. This particular circumstance should be taken into consideration when assessing the viability of current and sometimes transitional arrangements, within a long-term perspective. Second, it must be understood that most of the institution-building efforts have been under way for too short a time to permit an accurate assessment of their effectiveness.

Institutional arrangements for Ocean Management (OM)

Very few countries have attempted to design institutional arrangements for integrated ocean management, as for example the Netherlands.

Table 2 Institution building initiatives integrated ocean development*

Country Date of establishment Institutional arrangement/Lead agency
China 1964 State Oceanic Administration**
Japan 1971 Council for Ocean Development
Republic of Korea 1973 Korea Institute of Science and Technology
Brazil 1974 Interministerial Commission for Sea Resources
Portugal 1976-86 Ministerio do Mar
Netherlands 1977 Ministry of Transport and other institutions
New Zealand 1978 Auckland Harbour Board and Auckland Regional Authority
Sweden 1979 Swedish Marine Resources Commission
France 1981 Ministry of the Sea
India 1981 Indian Department of Ocean Development
Philippines 1981 Cabinet Committee on the Law of the Sea
Brazil 1983 National Maritime Commission
France 1983 State Secretary of the Sea
New Zealand 1985 Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Authority
Pakistan 1986 National Maritime Affairs Coordination Committee
Canada 1988 (?) National Marine Council
Ireland 1990 (?) Department of the Marine
Portugal 1991 Ministerio do Mar

* The author regrets that some initiatives might have been omitted because the information was not available at the time of publication.

** Prior to 1985 it was known as the National Bureau of Oceanography.

Table 3 Institution building initiatives for ocean management (OM)/coastal management (CAM)*

Country Date of establishment Institutional arrangement/Lead agency
United States (State of Oregon) 1987 Ocean Resources ManagementTask Force
United States (State of Hawaii) 1988 Ocean and Marine ResourcesCouncil

* The author regrets that some initiatives might have been omitted because the information was not available at the time of publication.

A variation of this type of arrangement is found in the States of Oregon and Hawaii in the United States which are attempting to integrate coastal area management and ocean planning and management under a common governance system. Despite the specific features that each case may present, there are commonalities among them. In all cases an inter-ministerial or interagency body, having advisory functions, or advisory and executive functions, has been designated at the top policy level. Implementation of the plan is, in general, delegated to line agencies.

In the Netherlands, the national government has the responsibility for the formulation of marine policies and the management of the Dutch part of the continental shelf. The institutional arrangements provide for wide participation and an effective decision-making system linking government, research institutions, and interest groups (see fig. 1). Efforts towards the formulation and implementation of an integrated approach to ocean management started in 1977 when the Minister of Transport and Public Works was appointed Coordinating Minister for North Sea Affairs. At the same time, the Cabinet established a Ministerial Board for North Sea Affairs composed of the ministers who were most involved in the formulation of North Sea policies. This Ministerial Board is advised by the Interdepartmental Commission for North Sea Affairs (ICONA) through the coordinating minister. Representatives of all ministries are members of this Commission, which has an independent chairman. In 1982, two elements were added to this institutional framework:

- a special commission of Parliament to discuss North Sea policies with the coordinating minister; and

- a non-governmental advisory council, with members from interest groups and from the scientific community, to make recommendations to the coordinating minister.

It was stated explicitly that the decision to establish this framework did not affect the existing powers of the ministries involved. No executive powers have been given to the coordinating minister or to ICONA. As a consequence, decisions on North Sea policies (prepared by ICONA) which affect the powers of the various ministers, can only be reached unanimously. (van Hoorn 1989) In this decision-making system the role of ICONA, the principal advisory body comprised of 13 senior officials appointed by their ministers and headed by an independent chairman, a former prime minister, is a crucial one. Another of the most interesting features of the Dutch approach are the two elements that were added in 1982 which, on the one hand, institutionalize the participation of non-governmental organizations, and, on the other hand, facilitate the policy-making process by maintaining a continuous dialogue with Parliament.

Fig. 1 Institutional framework for the development of North Sea policies in the Netherlands (van Hoorn 1989)

Two elements characterize the development of ocean resources management policy in the United States: the decisive role played in a few states by coastal area management (CAM) agencies and the designation of a high policy level mechanism. In Oregon, the Act that established the Oregon Ocean Resources Management Programme calls for the development and adoption of a comprehensive ocean resources management plan, as a needed improvement to the Oregon CAM programme. In this task, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCP) - the land use planning and coastal zone management agency - is designated as the primary agency for the coordination of the ocean resources programme.

The designation of a high policy level mechanism falls within the Governor's office in the case of Oregon. The Ocean Resources Management Task Force is composed of 21 members and is chaired by the Governor's Assistant for Natural Resources. It is charged with the responsibility of preparing:

- the Oregon Ocean Resources Management Plan - an overall plan for ocean resources and uses within the 200-mile US EEZ, including the Oregon territorial sea - which was completed in June 1990 and submitted for approval, as part of Oregon's coastal management programme; and

- the Territorial Sea Management Plan, a more detailed plan to manage resources in Oregon's territorial sea (3 miles), originally mandated to be completed and adopted by the State and Land Board by July 1991.

It has been stated that Oregon's approach, "a highly structured process to develop an Ocean Resources Plan and a Territorial Sea Plan, has been successful because of the effective use of state officials, local leaders and citizens activists in one forum." (Sorensen and Hershman 1990) The Task Force served:

both as an inter-agency discussion forum ... within a non-threatening decision-making structure that offers new opportunities for agency programme enhancement ... and as a useful sounding board for new ideas with the ocean user representatives, public members, academic representatives, and citizens who regularly attended task force meetings. (Hout 1990)

As a follow-up institutional arrangement, the Task Force recommended the establishment of an Ocean Policy Advisory Council composed of state agencies, ocean users, coastal local governments, and citizen representatives. This council would serve as a permanent mechanism to retain the values of a multidisciplinary, inter-agency, joint public-private approach to ocean planning, policy formulation and coordination.

In Hawaii, the designation of a high policy level mechanism falls within the Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council which is a cabinet-level body created to advise the Governor and the State Legislature. It is charged with formulating the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan which includes a unified set of ocean policies for the State while serving as a forum for multi-level government agency coordination and public participation. (Macdonald, Clark, and Shannon 1991)

A planning team composed of Council staff and consultants was organized to prepare a draft plan to be submitted for public input and comment. The plan recommends the establishment of an Office of Marine and Coastal Affairs in the Governor's Office. This Office would be the central authority to perform such functions as planning and policy development, inter-agency coordination, communication facilitation and conflict resolution. Two major implementation approaches are recommended: a regional approach that would not preclude or supersede existing State and County planning and management processes, but rather would be an extended component of these efforts; and a sector-specific approach with activities which would be evaluated and prioritized with designated lead agencies and coordinated with Federal, State, and County agencies. (Macdonald, Clark and Shannon 1991)

Institutional arrangements for Coastal Area Management (CAM)

The complexity of the process of CAM gives rise to important organizational considerations which are reflected in the institutional arrangements that have been designed for this purpose. This complexity derives from the fact that, contrary to ocean management where decision-making processes are highly centralized as they concern issues of prime national interest, coastal area issues require governance systems whose centre of gravity falls as much at the local level, where the problems are located, as at the national level, where broad policy priority-setting and financial decision-making is undertaken.

Between these two extremes of the administrative machinery, and depending on the nature of coastal issues and/or the relative degree of centralization/decentralization of the national planning system, other organizations such as regional planning bodies, other sectoral authorities and private entities are incorporated into the governance system (see table 4). Also technical organizations from various levels of government, such as national universities, as well as private research institutions, and international assistance groups provide support to the overall programme.

Table 4 Institutional arrangements for coastal area management in selected countries

  Brazil Malaysia Ecuador Philippines
Central government        
Interministerial/Inter-agency Committees X X X X
Key organization responsible for plan formulation and/or implementation     X  
Central Line Agencies X      
Provincial/State government        
Inter-agency Committee   X X  
Key organization responsible for plan formulation and/or implementation   X X  
Provincial Line Agency       X
Regional government        
Regional Steering Committee       X
Regional Planning Authority X     X
Regional Line Agencies       X
Local government        
Municipalities X   X X
Community participation X   X X
NGO's participation X   X X

Source: Adapted from White (1989).

A wide array of national experiences documents the above statement. In a number of countries where a CAM programme is in the process of being formulated or implemented, the institutional framework is based on executive agencies at middle or lower levels of the governmental hierarchy supplemented by inter-ministerial or interagency bodies located at a higher level. The functions of these bodies differ according to two distinctive planning approaches, better known as the top-to-bottom and the bottom-to-top approaches to planning, as do their associated decision-making processes through which:

1. broad guidelines for coastal management are formulated at the highest level of government, while responsibility for their implementation rests with authorities at lower levels of government as, for example, in the case of Brazil; or

2. the higher levels of government oversee the formulation of CAM plans which are developed by task-force groups at lower levels of government and later implemented by different organizations, at different levels of the implementation structure, as, for example, in the cases of the Philippines, Ecuador, and Malaysia.

This presupposes an interactive process between the central government and local/provincial/regional authorities. This process is facilitated by an array of intermediate mechanisms that perform a variety of functions.

In Brazil, the National Coastal Zone Management Plan (PNGC) was established in 1988 by the Inter-ministerial Commission for Sea Resources (CIRM) - a governmental agency headed by the Ministry of the Navy which includes representatives of 11 federal ministries. The programme, drawing on the participation of 17 coastal states, is supported by an elaborate institutional structure involving governmental agencies at various levels, scientific institutions, and non-governmental institutions. Recently, the PNGC was transferred to the Brazilian Institute of the Environment (IBAMA), linked to the President's Environmental Office.

The political/administrative structure of the PNGC is organized at three interactive levels. At the highest national level (federal government), CIRM's Secretariat - SECIRM - provides technical and financial support to the States, regional and municipal agencies, encouraging the creation of their own management plans according to a common methodology prepared by a Coordination Group comprised of a number of governmental agencies at the federal level. Consequently, the PNGC has a fundamentally decentralized character. The participation of the local governments and the community is the third level in the entire cycle of the political/administrative process, providing the feedback necessary for the revision of national priorities and guidelines. (d'Almeida Pires-Filho and Cycon 1987; Herz 1989)

Malaysia's coastal management efforts include most of the State of Johore's coastline and its offshore islands. In order to facilitate maximum participation for decision-making and coordination of plan formulation, two committees were established, both at the national and State levels. The National Steering Committee, composed of representatives of line agencies at the federal level and the Economic Planning Unit of the Johore State Government (EPUJ), oversee the overall planning process while the State Consultative Committee, which includes heads of relevant State and federal departments of the State of Johore, participates in the development of the plan.

A planning team, composed of a full-time resource planner and scientific officer, representatives from federal and State governmental agencies, leaders of task-force groups, and universities, formulate the CAM plan. Integration of all levels of government is ensured by the participation of both, State/district and municipal personnel at planning workshops. The EPUJ plays an active role in plan formulation. Resource/site specific plans are prepared at the executive office of the EPUJ. The Director of the EPUJ and his deputy sit in both the National and State Consultative Committees and also act as Secretary for the Johore Government State Planning Committee. All development plan proposals submitted to the State government are analysed and processed by the EPUJ. The plans will first be endorsed by the State and Federal Committees before being transmitted to the State government for approval. The EPUJ has been identified as the body to coordinate the implementation of the plan. (Ch'ng Kim Looi 1989)

A variant of this approach is seen in the Coastal Resources Management Programme of Ecuador. The Office of the Environment in the Ministry of Energy and Mines (DIGEMA) and the Coastal Resources Centre of the University of Rhode Island (USA) are responsible for the implementation of the project. The project is centred on six Zonas Especiales de Manejo (Special Management Zones ZEMs) established where there are conflicts that require issue-specific strategies and inter-agency coordination. The objective is the formulation of integrated development and management plans during a period of two years, after which a permanent institutional arrangement will be instituted for the implementation of such plans.

The current administrative structure of the project encompasses all levels of government and all interested parties. At the highest level of government the Comisión Nacional de Manejo de Recursos Costeros (National Commission on Coastal Resources Management) is an inter-ministerial group comprised of those governmental bodies with the greatest interests in coastal resources management, to provide high-level support to the project.

The Secretaria Técnica del PNRC (Technical Secretariat of the Programme), which administers the various components of the programme, is an entity appointed by the General Secretariat of the Public Administration, within the Presidency of Ecuador. It plays a critical role as a link in the development of the programme, as a facilitator of cooperation among all levels and organizations involved, and as a promoter of new ideas, while at the same time it provides technical support both at the policy level in Quito and to the executive committees of the Special Management Zones in their new coastal management activities.

The third most important institutional element of this project is the Unidades de Conservación y Vigilancia (Ranger Corps) comprised of the enforcement personnel from all the responsible agencies, operating out of the Port Captain Offices which act as coordinators of each team of Rangers.

The institutional structure is completed by:

(i) The Comité Ejecutivo de las ZEMs (Executive Committee of the ZEMs) representing the major national agencies involved in the identified conflicts or resource abuse that lead to the creation of the ZEMs. Technical groups in the areas of artisan fisheries, sanitation/water quality, tourism, geomorphology/coastal processes, and ecology are charged with responsibility for the design of management plans.

(ii) The Comité Asesor de las ZEMs (Advisory Committee of the ZEMS) to work with the Executive Committee of each ZEM, comprised of citizens representing the full range of interests in the area, as well as the appropriate local, provincial, regional, and national agencies with interests in coastal issues but not with sufficient regulatory authority to justify membership on the Executive Committee. (Ecuador 1988; Arriaga 1989)

Fig. 2 Organizational structure of CRM planning for the Lungayen Gulf, Philippines. NEDA - National Economic Development Authority; CRMP - Coastal Resources Management Project (Source: Chua 1989)

Two consecutive CAM-oriented plans were undertaken by the Philippines. The first one (1986-1989) focused on the Lingayen Gulf in Northern Luzon. The second (1989-current), on 12 priority bays, although plans will initially be implemented in 3 bays selected as pilot sites. As for the previous plans (Chua Thia-Eng 1989), the key organization responsible for plan formulation was the regional office at the pilot site of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA; see fig. 2). A Regional Planning Steering Committee was formed, composed of the two provincial governors of the Gulf, representatives of 18 coastal countries, the head of NEDA in this region, technical experts, and other provincial officials. The Committee's main function was to oversee the formulation of CAM plans and to recommend them to the Provincial and Regional Councils for adoption. A regional planning team hierarchically under the Regional Steering Committee, and composed of a consultant (leader) and other task leaders, developed general policy guidelines and a zoning scheme. The team also received reports and action plans from five task-force groups, each charged with the formulation of specific issue-oriented action plans. Each task-force group was headed by the Director of a provincial line agency or an expert from the region. The group, composed of representatives of line agencies, NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and the community, was supported by technical experts from a research team. Thus any action plan developed had to be channelled through:

- Task-force Group

- Planning Team

- Planning Steering Committee

- Provincial Development Councils

- Regional Development Council.

The adoption of the plans by the Regional Development Council meant that they were integrated into the regional development plans which then received national budgetary allocation for implementation. (Chua Thia-Eng 1989)

Contents - Previous - Next