COMBINING PROJECT-BASED AND

NORMATIVE APPROACHES FOR ICZM

IMPLEMENTATION.
LESSONS FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN.
London, 21 September 2010
Littoral 2010
Session 4A: Coastal and marine policy and planning

Raphaël Billé and Julien Rochette, IDDRI

Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales

27 rue Saint-Guillaume – 75337 Paris Cedex 07 - France
www.iddri.org
Outline

Introduction: ICZM implementation, a global nightmare?

The project approach at the heart of ICZM literature and implementation

Recent developments of the normative approach

Combining project and normative approaches to overcome upscaling issues

in ICZM

Littoral 2010 2
Introduction
S. Olsen’s 1996 nightmare on ICZM

“I have been suffering from a recurring nightmare. It is of a major international conference

sometime early in the next century, perhaps 2002. The topic is “Integrated Coastal
Management, What Have We Accomplished?” and the conclusions are grim.

The conference documents that much money has been spent by national governments, the
donor community and NGOs. It catalogues an extraordinary proliferation of projects,
programs and supporting initiatives that range across scales from local, national, regional
and global initiatives — all justified as integrated coastal management.

But it becomes painfully clear at the conference (…) that efforts have been conceived and
implemented in unnecessary isolation, and that despite all the activity, (…) the
measurable successes in reducing the problems that ICM programs individually and
collectively have been designed to address is pitifully small.

Where successes are real and well-documented in 2002, the scale is tiny compared to the
magnitude of the problems (…).”

Littoral 2010 3
Introduction
Is there a problem?

Significant resources and efforts put in ICZM implementation over the last
decades
• With some successes and failures

Coastal zones still degrading in most regions / countries

Disconnection between successes and failures of ICZM initiatives and the

state of the coasts?

To some extent S. Olsen’s 1996 nightmare is becoming reality

Littoral 2010 4
An upscaling issue

Not about projects failures...

But about failures of successful projects!

• Successes do not reach the magnitude they should

Why? Why do success stories remain isolated?

How to overcome such shortcomings?

• To make ICZM the rule
• To sustain successes over time
• To upscale ICZM projects outcomes

Littoral 2010 5
Hypothesis

Many possible levels of explanation and strategy

• Unsustainable funding
• From projects to programmes
• Replication
• Sharing experiences
• ...

What we submit to discussion:

• Primacy of the project approach to ICZM implementation
• Recent and more limited use of the normative approach
• Combining ICZM projects with norms is not obvious
• If done appropriately, it can contribute to getting away from the nightmare

Littoral 2010 6
Outline

Introduction: ICZM implementation, a local nightmare?

The project approach at the heart of ICZM literature and implementation

Advantages and drawbacks of the project approach to ICZM

Recent developments of the normative approach

Combining project and normative approaches to overcome upscaling issues

in ICZM

Littoral 2010 7
Projects and programmes
(Turner & Muller, 2003)

What is a project?
• An endeavor in which human, material and financial resources are organized
in a novel way
• to undertake a unique scope of work, of given specification
• within constraints of cost and time
• so as to achieve beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative
objectives

--» A project is a temporary organization designed to deliver a specific set of

change objectives

Littoral 2010 8
Questions raised

Questions:
• As a temporary organization, is a project an appropriate form of action for
ICZM?
• What about « innovation islands »?
• How to change routine management at larger scales?

We suggest:
• Not by replicating pilots – an infinite task (time, money)
• But by combining projects with law instruments

Littoral 2010 9
ICZM Projects pros and cons

Pros Cons

Simple framework for action  Sustainability

Bypass bureaucratic procedures  Long timeframe of social changes

Flexible  Sensitivity to changes in conditions

Results-based  Fragmenting the policy framework

 “They create a need for integration”!! (T&M,
Favors innovation 2003)
Learning by doing  Islands of innovation in oceans of
Awareness raising oldschool management


 Replicability usually questionable
To put ICZM on the agenda
 Favourable local conditions
 To convince reluctant stakeholders
 Technical assistance
 Transaction costs covered by external
funder...

Littoral 2010 10
Outline

Introduction: ICZM implementation, a local nightmare?

The project approach at the heart of ICZM literature and implementation

Recent developments of the normative approach

Combining project and normative approaches to overcome upscaling issues

in ICZM

Littoral 2010 11
Recent developments in the normative approach to ICZM

National legal systems have long regulated the coastal zone only incidentally:
• Protection established by legal texts on species / ecosystem protection, urban
and regional planning...
• Applicable throughout the national territory
• Coastal areas thus indirectly governed by these laws

In recent years, development of specific legislations for coastal areas:

• From general laws applying to coastal zones to coastal laws
• Creation of legal tools and relevant institutional arrangements
• Establishment of the coastal zone as a legal object of its own
• Algeria, Israel, Croatia, Spain, France, South Africa, Turkey…

Latest development: international law and ICZM protocols to regional seas

conventions

Littoral 2010 12
Pros and cons of the normative approach

Pros Cons

 Regulation of sectoral activities  Coordination not automatic

 Planning  Compatibility between sectors cannot
be decreed
 Homogeneity
 Legislative inflation
 Safety net against sudden moves
backwards  Contradictions

 Formal set up of ICZM bodies  Gap between the adoption of a

legal text and its effective
 Support & legitimating of intersectoral application
work and actors
 Control
 Penalties
 Citizen’s right to an administrative or
judicial appeal

Littoral 2010 13
Outline

Introduction: ICZM implementation, a local nightmare?

The project approach at the heart of ICZM literature and implementation

Recent developments of the normative approach

Combining project and normative approaches to overcome upscaling issues

in ICZM

Littoral 2010 14
Some good news

The project and normative approaches to ICZM have complementary pros

and cons:

• Flexible / rigid
• Innovation / homogeneity
• Focus on implementation / focus on formal set up
• Focus on delivering results / focus on providing tools
• Irremediably short timeframe / Intrinsically long timeframe
• ...

Littoral 2010 15
Complementarities
ICZM projects often make a
difference when:
They aim at and contribute to
setting up a new normative
framework
Or
Aim at and contribute to
implementing a normative
framework that lacks application
Normative tools often make a
difference when:
They translate an entrenched
concern/concept
Their implementation has been
piloted/tested
They benefit from a momentum
for implementation
 Projects can be instrumental in
favouring implementation
(demonstration, technical
assistance...)
Littoral 2010 16
Key messages to take away

Unjustified prevalence of the project approach to ICZM implementation

Not suited to the fundamental strategic question:

• What form of intervention is most appropriate in a specific context, taking into
account objectives, available means and anticipated resistances?

Our aim: to contribute to the reduction of this strategic deficit

Projects may facilitate:

• The emergence of an adequate normative framework
• Its effective implementation

Not new in practice, but too often ignored or forgotten

Littoral 2010 17
Thank you!

Dr. Raphaël Billé

+ 33 1 45 49 76 64
raphael.bille@iddri.org

Dr. Julien Rochette

+33 1 45 49 76 72
Julien.rochette@iddri.org

Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales

41 rue du Four
75 337 Paris (France)
Littoral 2010 18