Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management

This paper discusses the potential contribution of indicators to assess the performance of the governance processes involved in integrated coastal management, focusing on the evaluation phase and the need to complement process-oriented indicators with outcomeoriented indicators to improve adaptive management and accountability. The example of integrated management of marine protected areas is used to propose a menu of indicators of global applicability. r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Governance and the policy cycle of integrated coastal management Governance is the process through which diverse elements in a society wield power and authority and, thereby, influence and enact policies and decision concerning public life and economic and social development. Governance is carried out by the state, as well as the private sector and civil society. With relation to integrated coastal management (ICM), governance refers to the structures and processes used to govern behavior, both public and private, in the coastal area and the resources and activities it contains. ICM refers to the process through which the use of specific resources or portions of the coastal area are managed to achieve desired objectives. While the coastal area governance system can apply to the conduct of a single activity (e.g., control of coastal erosion), what distinguishes ‘‘integrated coastal management’’ from ‘‘coastal management’’ or ‘‘coastal resource management’’ is the ability to create a governance system capable *Tel.: +1-301-713-3080 ext. 181; fax: +1-301-713-4263. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.N. Ehler). 0964-5691/03/$ see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00020-6 to manage multiple uses in an integrated way through the cooperation and coordination of government agencies at different level of authority and of different economic sectors. 2. Evaluating the performance of integrated coastal management: the role of indicators Given the complex nature of the governance processes involved, ICM is confronted with the challenge to establish measurement systems able to adequately track the progress of efforts. Greater emphasis on performance can help make ICM more oriented toward outcome-based results rather than on input-based accounting. Too often, the performance of ICM initiatives has been based on the level of investments, the number of permits issued for coastal development, or the number of laws and regulations adopted. These ‘‘input’’ measures may or may not be indicative of success. Actual success in both environmental and socioeconomic terms can only be judged ‘‘on the ground’’, as a matter of outcomes and impacts. Outcomes should be measured in terms of improved water quality, increased public access to beaches, decreased habitat loss, reduced coastal hazards, or increased employment in coastalrelated activities. Within the ICM policy cycle (Fig. 1), evaluation answers two major needs: accountability and adaptive management. In practice, evaluation results are usually used in more than one way. Information used by managers to improve the performance of their management strategies (adaptive management) can also be used for reporting (accountability) or lessons learned by others to improve future planning. In order to measure performance, ICM initiatives should be characterized by clear goals accompanied by quantifiable objectives. Examples of coastal goals, drawn from the US Coastal Zone Management Act 1972 are: * Protect, restore and enhance coastal habitats. * Maintain and improve coastal water quality. * Reduce the threat to and loss of life and property from coastal hazards. * Provide public access to the coast.