Article

Regulatory Challenges in Realizing Integrated

Coastal Management—Lessons from Germany,
Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa
Gabriela Cuadrado Quesada 1,2,*, Thomas Klenke 2 and Luis Manuel Mejía-Ortíz 3
1 IHE-Delft, Institute for Water Education, Westvest 7, 2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands
2 Centre for Environment and Sustainability Research, COAST, University of Oldenburg,
Ammerlaender Heerstr. 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany; [email protected]
3 Luis M Mejía-Ortíz, Research Group Aquatic Natural Resources Management, Sustainable Division,

University of Quintana Roo-Cozumel, Av. Andrés Quintana Roo s/n Col. San Gervasio, 77600 Cozumel,
Mexico; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +31-629592944

Received: 24 August 2018; Accepted: 4 October 2018; Published: 18 October 2018

Abstract: Integrated coastal management (ICM) has been considered worldwide to be a suitable
approach to realizing comprehensive schemes to protect or develop coastal regions. A complex
regulatory system stretching from international to local levels provides a framework for ICM
practices. This raises the question whether and to what extent ICM practices have been supported
by legal and policy frameworks at the international and national levels in different settings in both
developed and developing countries. This paper examines four case studies in Germany, Costa Rica,
Mexico and South Africa. Two research methods were used. First, a document-based analysis was
conducted in two parts: a literature review of the content of ICM, and a policy and law analysis of
the jurisdictions of the four case studies and at the international level (i.e., treaties and declarations).
Second, a qualitative analysis was conducted based on in-depth interviews involving 21 decision-
makers representing all the case studies. With a view to enhance the effective use of international
and national legal and policy instruments and their implementation in a more local site specific
context, this study considers four principles currently guiding ICM practices: (i) incorporation of
international instruments’ principles in national legal and policy frameworks, (ii) participation, (iii)
sustainable development and (iv) monitoring. An I-P-S ((I) incorporation of international
instruments’ principles in national frameworks, (P) participation (S) sustainable development)
diagram is used for an integrative assessment of ICM and indicates directions for further
improvements at the case study sites. The embeddedness of ICM into national legal and policy
frameworks is a success factor for ICM, however, it is often limited due to a lack of implementation.
Furthermore, ICM can easily be jeopardized if ICM is allocated a marginalized position.

Keywords: sustainability; participation; implementation; policy; law; comparative study

1. Introduction
All around the globe, fragile coastal environments are undergoing pressure and change. Among
the main challenges are: massive tourism, unsustainable fishing, unplanned development, water
shortages, deforestation, degradation of the terrestrial and marine ecosystems, pollution, extinction
of several marine species, and social inequalities [1–6]. Due to this constant pressure, management
actions, policies and legislation need to ensure the protection of this unique environment.
Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) is a recognized science-driven management approach
based on participation [7–9], capacity development [10] and sustainability [6,9,11]. For the purpose

Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772; doi:10.3390/su10103772 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 2 of 21

of this paper, ICM is understood as ‘a dynamic process by which actions are taken for the use,
development and protection of coastal resources and areas to achieve national goals established in
cooperation with user groups and regional and local authorities’ [12].
ICM involves a continuous integrated approach to planning and management that takes all
sectors, policies, laws and individuals into account [9]. ICM should address various aspects such as
economic, social, cultural and environmental issues [13]. Such processes will depend on the particular
characteristics of the coastal areas as a multidimensional entity that consists of the physical reality,
institutions, knowledge, perceptions, paradigms and economic and cultural values [14,15].
ICM as a management cycle with multiple steps starts by collecting information, after which it
focuses on planning, decision-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation [16], which leads
again to planning for optimizing the planned approaches. These steps have to cope with the
ambivalent nature of ICM with respect to participative processes and, at the same time, its
embeddedness in complex legal settings as part of formal processes.
Although according to the ICM definition coastal zones with nature conservation areas are
facilitators of ICM and currently the prime focus of ICM in practice, it is important to understand the
different contexts and challenges (e.g., environmental conditions, regulation, policy and institutions)
that different countries face [17–20]. For example, in developing countries the decline in ecosystem
qualities is much more rapid than in most developed nations [21], and in developing countries a large
proportion of the coastal population depend on their immediate environment for their survival and
have few options or alternative means of supporting themselves when such local resources fail [9].
This article investigates challenges and opportunities (i) in incorporating ICM principles
recognized in international instruments into national policy and legal instruments and (ii) the
effective implementation of regulations based on such ICM principles in practice. The main
international instruments that will be discussed in this paper are: the Convention of Wetlands of
International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitats [22]; the Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter [23]; the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora [24]; the Convention on the Law of the Sea
[25]; the Convention of Climate Change [26]; the Convention of Biological Diversity [27]; Agenda 21
[28]; and the 2 Paris Agreement [29].
This study explores transposition and implementation challenges and opportunities in four
different countries that exhibit diverse socio-economic and environmental conditions and levels of
maturity of policies and laws. The featured countries are Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South
Africa. In particular, this article aims at answering the following research question: To what extent
are ICM practices supported by international instruments (i.e., conventions and declarations) and
national policy and legal frameworks?

2. Material and Methods

In order to operationalize the investigation of the research question of this study, two research
methods were used. First, a document-based analysis was conducted, and subsequently, a qualitative
analysis was undertaken. The document-based analysis was divided into two parts: a literature
review of the content of ICM, and a policy and law analysis in the jurisdictions of the four case studies
and at the international level (i.e., conventions and declarations).
The first part of the analysis was developed through a compilation of scientific documents that
elaborates the theoretical framework of coastal zones, their inherent problems and the ICM approach.
In this study, the reflection on both context and management was based on elements of four
principles currently guiding ICM practices, namely: (i) incorporation of international instruments’
principles in national legal and policy frameworks, (ii) participation, (iii) sustainability and (iv)
monitoring. These are explained in Table 1. These key principles provided the focus of the analysis
of this research. The principles have a strong relevance for ICM practices in coastal regions that
include marine nature conservation areas. Adherence to these principles calls for a comprehensive
perspective in order to cater adequately to a given socio-ecological context and to design and execute
inclusive management approaches.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 3 of 21

Table 1. Integrated coastal management (ICM) key principles used in the analysis taken from the
literature review and the international instruments’ analysis.

Key Principles of an Main International and Regional Legal

References
ICM Practice and Policy Frameworks
International
 Paris Agreement
Incorporation of  Law of the Sea Convention
International  CITES Convention
Instrument’s  Biological Diversity Convention
[2,9]
Principles into  Agenda 21
National Policy and Regional Treaties
Legal Frameworks (European Union Conventions)
 Water Framework Directive
 Marine Strategy Framework Directive
International
 Paris Agreement
 Agenda 21
Participation [7–9]
Regional Treaties
(European Union Conventions)
 Water Framework Directive
International
 Paris Agreement
 Ramsar Convention
 CITES Convention
 Climate Change Convention
 Biological Diversity Convention
Sustainable
[6,9,11,26]  Agenda 21
development
Regional Treaties
(European Union Conventions)
 Water Framework Directive
 Fauna Flora Habitat Directive
 Marine Strategy Framework Directive
 Maritime Spatial Planning Directive
International
 Paris Agreement
 Agenda 21
Regional Treaties
Monitoring [9,16]
(European Union Conventions)
 Water Framework Directive
 Fauna Flora Habitat Directive
 Marine Strategy Framework Directive

The second part of the analysis consisted of a policy and legal analysis, which was conducted
first at the international level and then at the national level in the countries of the selected case studies.
The analysis of the international instruments covered the four guiding principles previously
identified in the literature review as drivers of ICM practices. The analysis of the legal and policy
instruments conducted at the national level and the international instruments’ principles were linked
to socio-economic and environmental conditions (discussed in detail in Section 4).
The qualitative analysis was completed by using four case studies in Germany, Costa Rica,
Mexico and South Africa. The four selected countries represent comparable and contrasting
situations. Comparable conditions included the ratification of international conventions, such as the
Convention on the Law of the Sea, together with the design and implementation of domestic policy
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 4 of 21

and legal frameworks. Contrasting elements included factors such as developed versus developing
countries and problems relating to institutions in different multi-layered administrative systems.
Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa were the focus of this research, since they illustrate
an important development of regulatory frameworks with respect to ICM; at the same time, they
offer an overview of remaining challenges and opportunities (discussed in detail in Section 4).
Consequently, this research used multiple case studies in order to promote the generalizability of the
findings in comparable contexts. Furthermore, using multiple case studies enriches the contribution
to the literature and can explore the effects that different features and variables have on ICM. Results
from multiple case studies were considered more powerful than those derived from a single case
study [30].
During this research, 21 in-depth interviews were conducted. Those involved were identified
and selected on the basis of specific predetermined selection criteria (e.g., decision-makers at
governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)). Appendix A shows the interview
protocol crafted for this research. The interviews were analyzed using the Adaptive Theory, which
facilitates the adaption and development of concepts and insights of ICM literature to evidence
gathered from the analysis of interviews [31]. The following steps were taken to analyze the
interviews of this research: (i) transcribing the interviews and storing them in an electronic format;
(ii) coding and data reduction, done by selecting, abstracting and transforming data in order to extract
the main topics; (iii) data display by presenting the information in a form suitable for conclusions to
be drawn (interview matrix); and (iv) determining what explanations emerge from the data analysis
and how they can be verified.
An I-P-S-triangle diagram was developed for an interview-based assessment of the current
status of ICM and to indicate directions for further improvements at the pilot sites. The triangle
considers three dimensions of assessment based on the four ICM principles highlighted/featured in
this study, i.e., (I) incorporation of international principles in national legal and policy frameworks,
including regional regulations and an implementation of effective schemes, (P) participation and (S)
sustainable development, which was considered in combination with monitoring of ICM processes
in the diagram. Relevant information was taken from the interview matrix and classified into four
categories. Each category was given a weight. Categories and weights are as follows: ‘no relation or
impact’: 0; ‘minor relation or impact’: 1; ‘significant relation or impact’: 2; and ‘major relation or
impact’: 3. In order to calculate values for the I-P-S diagram, all weights per diagram dimension were
totalized for every pilot separately. The total numbers were aggregated based on the number of
interviewees. The relative proportion of the resulting numbers per dimension was plotted in the I-P-
S diagram.
It is important to acknowledge that there were other methodological approaches used in the
analysis and diagnosis of socio-ecological systems, which have looked at the implementation of
policies and regulation. In this sense, it is important to mention Ostrom’s general framework for
analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems [32], and more recently, the integrated territorial
investment (ITI) of the Mar Menor [33]. However, the discussion of such methodologies is outside
the scope of this paper.

3. The Case Studies

This research is based on four case studies summarized in Table 2. Marine-coastal regions with
nature conservation areas were selected in Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa to allow
for an evaluation of ICM practices under comparable, as well as contrasting situations with respect
to environmental and societal conditions. Key management and protection instruments used in the
selected case studies are mentioned in Table 3. These case studies provide a basis for analyzing
whether and to what extent ICM practices are supported by international and national legal and
policy frameworks:
The coastal region studied in Germany is Langeoog Island, which is located in the central part
of the Wadden Sea National Park. The Wadden Sea stretches from the Netherlands to Denmark along
the barrier islands of the Dutch, German and the Danish coasts. It is the largest unbroken system of
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 5 of 21

intertidal sand and mud flats in the world, with natural processes undisturbed throughout most of
the area. It is also a hot spot of human activities as it is one of world’s most frequented shipping lanes
and one of the prime tourist destinations in Germany. Shipping, oil and natural gas exploration, off-
shore wind energy, maritime tourism and flood and nature protection infrastructure together form a
complex and overlapping pattern of uses in this coastal region [34–36], which makes it an ideal case
study for analyzing ICM practices both in Germany and Europe.
In Costa Rica, the coastal area under examination is the Marino Ballena National Park, which is
located in Osa Peninsula in the South Pacific, at the foot of the communities of Uvita and Bahía
Ballena. It was one of the first national marine parks declared in Latin America in 1989. Marino
Ballena National Park, as most of the marine-coastal zones in Costa Rica, is of great economic,
recreational, ecological and physical importance. Among the marine species protected in the park are
coral reefs, crabs, worms, lobsters, algae, fishes, sponges and molluscs. However, pollution and
degradation persist as key problems [37,38]. Such characteristics make the case study highly relevant
for the examination of ICM practices in Costa Rica and Latin America.
The Mexican case study features the Cozumel Reefs Marine National Park, located in the
Caribbean Sea. Its waters are the home of an important number of marine species, such as coral reefs,
algae, echinoderms, fishes, crustaceans, worms, molluscs and turtles. Inaugurated in 1996, it is also
one of the pioneering marine national parks in Latin America. In the past decades the island of
Cozumel has seen a large increase in tourism, and nowadays, it hosts the most important cruise
harbor in the Mexican Caribbean. The island of Cozumel, like many other marine-coastal zones in
Mexico, faces increasing problems with pollution and pressure on the environment due to economic
activities such as tourism, oil extraction, fisheries, maritime routes and harbors [39–41]. All these
features make it extremely pertinent to analyze ICM practices at this site, both in Mexico and Latin
America.
In South Africa, the case study under examination is the Sundays Estuary, which is located 30
km north-east of the city of Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape. The Sundays Estuary represents a core site
for conservation of estuary biodiversity. It is also an important nursery habitat for line fish, including
overexploited species. It plays an important role as a roosting and feeding area for marine-coastal
birds and it is an important source of nutrients and sediment to the nearshore marine environment
[6,42–44]. Overall, the Sundays Estuary is a large and biologically diverse estuary which, even though
it faces a number of environmental threats such as pollution, is in an environmentally healthy
condition. It represents an important focal point of South Africa’s conservation efforts, which makes
it a pertinent example to examine ICM practices.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 6 of 21

Table 2. Key issues, number of interviewees and locations of the 4 case studies.

Case Langeoog Island, Wadden Sea National Marino Ballena National Sundays Estuary—Republic Cozumel Reef National
Studies Park—Germany Park—Costa Rica of South Africa Park—Mexico
Tourism is the main
Tourism and important Traditional uses, such as
economic activity on the
conservation efforts (mainly subsistence harvesting of
Tourism and marine-coastal protection island. Important
Key issues inside the limits of the shellfish and religious
of the island. Small-scale communities. conservation efforts inside
park). Small-scale ceremonies. Tourism. Small-
Cozumel Reef National Park.
communities. scale communities.
Small-scale communities.
4—public employees (3) 5—public employees (4) and 7—public employees (5) and
Interviewees 5—public employees (4) and NGOs (1).
and NGOs (1). NGOs (1). NGOs (2).
Located in the central part of the Located in the South Pacific
Located 30 km north-east of
Wadden Sea National Park in the of Costa Rica, in the
the city of Port Elizabeth, in Located in the state of
German State of Lower Saxony. The province of Puntarenas.
Location the Eastern Cape. The estuary Quintana Roo in the
Wadden Sea is an extended tidal It belongs to the
discharges into Algoa Caribbean of Mexico.
marine-coastal system of the North Conservation Area of the
Bay/Indian Ocean.
Sea/NE Atlantic. Osa Peninsula.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 7 of 21

Table 3. Synopsis of the management and protection instruments of the four case studies.

Langeoog Island, Wadden Sea

Marino Ballena National Park Sundays Estuary Cozumel Reefs National Park
National Park
Key instrument of the Wadden Sea
management are state laws on the
Main instrument is the Maritime
establishment of national parks.
Terrestrial Zone Law. In addition, The most important instrument
No German law for integrated
there are several environmental laws is the Sundays Estuary
coastal management exist. A key management instrument of the
(i.e., Forestry Law, National Parks Management Plan. The
European Union Integrated Coastal Marine National Park Cozumel Reef is
Law and Conservation of Wildlife Integrated Coastal Management
Zone Management (ICZM) the national law on the Establishment
Law). Act (ICMA) is of additional
National Strategy. of Marine National Parks.
The management of the Marino relevance.
In addition, several EU-driven The Mexican government and
Management Ballena National Park involves The management of the Sundays
regulations complement ICM environmental NGOs aim to channel
multiple stakeholders, such as public Estuary involves a network of
Management lies with three Federal their input into an international
institutions, communities and NGOs. institutions representing
States (Länder) in line with the context of environmental and climate
The National Strategy for Integrated different sectors and levels.
hierarchically designed German protection, as well as sustainable
Management of Marine and Coastal Various institutions are involved
subsidiary administrative system. development.
Resources is of additional relevance. in ICM on national, provincial,
Trilateral Wadden Sea Secretariat
Coastal Regulatory Plans in the regional and local levels.
set up to implement the Danish-
maritime terrestrial zone.
Dutch-German Trilateral Wadden
Sea Plan.
In 1986, the Wadden Sea Area was In 2000, South Africa drafted its In Mexico, there are several laws to
Marino Ballena National Park was
declared a National Park. National Policy on Integrated protect marine biodiversity; in
inaugurated in 1989.
In 1993 the park became a UNESCO Coastal Zone Management particular, there is the Wildlife General
Strategic purpose is to protect
biosphere reserve. (White Paper). Law.
important natural marine habitats.
In June 2009, the Dutch and The Integrated Coastal Related laws are: the Official Mexican
Protection Main provisions of the Maritime
German Wadden Sea Conservation Management Act (ICMA) was Norm on the Protection of Endangered
Terrestrial Zone Law (No. 6043 of
Areas were listed as a World designed in 2009 to and Vulnerable Species, the Ecological
1977), which covers two hundred
Nature Heritage by UNESCO. The operationalize the White Paper. Equilibrium and Environment
meters (50 m public zone and 150 m
Danish part was added to the site in In addition, Estuary Protection Law and the Climate
restricted zone).
2014. Management Plans are in place. Change Law.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 8 of 21

4. Results
This section turns to the results of the four case studies and explains to what extent ICM practices
are supported by international instruments (i.e., conventions and declarations) and national legal and
policy frameworks. The analysis involved (i) examining the principles identified in the literature as
enablers of ICM, (ii) assessing the implementation of the principles in the case studies and (iii)
identifying their effectiveness through the analysis of available laws, policies, by-laws, plans and
other existing regulatory frameworks. This process was extended by qualitative research, conducted
via in-depth interviews with decision-makers.

4.1. Incorporation of International Instrument’s Principles into National Legal and Policy Frameworks
Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa have signed and ratified key international
conventions related to ICM. Table 4 summarizes the main features of these instruments.
In general, the main environmental principles and goals of these treaties have been incorporated
into the legal frameworks of Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa.
There is a visible relationship between the international instruments and the domestic
legislation. Therefore, it could be argued that the countries featured here have ensured that they meet
the treaties’ objectives and obligations. Policies, laws and management plans are undoubtedly a
significant first step to promote ICM practices and awareness. However, Costa Rica does not have a
comprehensive ICM law; ICM is governed mainly by the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, which does
not refer to the principles and goals recognized in Agenda 21, such as participation and sustainability.
Therefore, there is a need to design an ICM law that incorporates those principles. Even though there
is a policy on ICM, it has never been implemented [29]. As one participant put it: ‘There has been no
proper development of specific mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of regulations on ICM
in Costa Rica’ [45].
Mexico is similar to Costa Rica, in that despite of the existence of several laws to protect and
preserve natural resources and biodiversity, there is no ICM law or policy. Among the most
important laws that regulate the marine-coastal zones are the Wildlife General Law [46], the Official
Mexican Norm on Protection of Endangered and Vulnerable Species [47], the Ecological Equilibrium
and Environment Protection Law [48] and the Climate Change Law [49]. Additionally, the General
Law of National Goods [50] offers a definition of the coastal zone. According to this law, the littoral
is the patrimony of national citizens, and private owners cannot obstruct free access to the first twenty
meters of the coastline. The findings of this case study show that despite the existence of these legal
frameworks, effective implementation is still limited. As one interviewee explicated, ‘ICM is desired
and some steps have been taken to implement it… However, up until today the implementation of
the regulations to move from an indiscriminate exploitation to a regulated and planned use of natural
resources in the coastal zones is still in its infancy’ [51]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 9 of 21

Table 4. Key features of international instruments that need to be considered in national policy and legal frameworks.

Instrument Topic Approach Management Fields

Integrated coastal zone management and sustainable Participation and
Agenda 21 New path of action
development integration
Specific jurisdictional limits (12 mile
Law of the Sea Prevention, reduction and
Management of living resources in the sea territorial sea and the 200 mile exclusive
Convention control
economic zone)
Ramsar Conservation and
Creation of wetlands Preservation of ecological equilibrium
Convention protection
London Prohibition of dumping of certain
Protection of the marine environment Control and prevention
Convention hazardous materials at the sea
Protection of endangered species of plants and Regulation of the trade of species and
CITES Convention Cooperation and protection
animals prohibition of trade of endangered species
Climate Change Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the Prevention of dangerous anthropogenic Conservation and
Convention atmosphere and adaptation measures interference with the climate system adaptation
Biological The sustainable use of biological resources
Precautionary, common
Diversity Sustainable development and the fair and equitable sharing of the
concern of humankind
Convention benefits
Sustainable development, holding the increase in the
Strengthening the global response to the Equity and common but
Paris Agreement global average temperature to below 2 °C, above pre-
threat of climate change differentiated responsibility
industrial levels
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 10 of 21

Similarly to Costa Rica and Mexico, Germany does not have an ICM law; nonetheless, it has a
well-defined ICM policy. Germany has designed and adopted specific regulations in order to
implement its ICM policy and to fulfill the goals and compromises declared in international treaties
and European Union Directives. As mentioned by an interviewee: ‘I don’t think Germany needs a
law to improve ICM; what it needs is to conduct more monitoring and improve the coordination
among governmental institutions’ [52]. Additionally, all of the interviewees mentioned that the
national ICM policy is considered a weak instrument for framing and legitimizing informal initiatives
with a view to either managing local problem-driven processes or to embedding the National Park
into the even larger Biosphere Reserve. The latter assignment is progressing only slowly.
South Africa illustrates a successful example of designing legal and policy frameworks based on
international principles and commitments. There is an evident correlation between the vision and
principles stated in the international instrument and the ones incorporated in the South African legal
and policy frameworks, such as the White Paper [53] and the Integrated Coastal Management Act. In
South Africa [54], the development of regulations to protect the marine and terrestrial ecosystems has
been steadily improving and consolidated (e.g., through the creation of national parks and marine
reserves). However, there is still scope for a more comprehensive policy alignment and the
integration of coastal management and uses. At a management and operational level, coastal
management remains fragmented, unsustainable and less prioritized. Additionally, some remaining
challenges in South Africa in the development of laws and policies are evident, such as the lack of
involvement of new users (i.e., local subsistence and small-scale fishermen) and the lack of conflict
management mechanisms. As stated by a participant, ‘The responsible authorities are not adaptive
enough to respond to challenges, and the shift of responsibilities within departments has increased
these challenges’ [55]. Some scholars recently identified a general lack of coastal management
knowledge among officials and the need for capacity-building in the provincial governments [6]. The
political will to deploy and dedicate duties and resources to effective implementation also remains
an uncertain but critical factor [44].

4.2 Participation
The requirement of participation in environmental issues—of which ICM forms one key
aspect—has long been recognized in international instruments. As stated in Principle 10 of the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development: ‘Environmental issues are best handled with the
participation of all concerned citizens, at all the relevant levels’ [28]. For the purpose of this article,
participation is understood broadly as the active involvement of interested parties in ICM.
Participation, as defined in Rio Principle 10, have been incorporated into and developed by a
number of subsequent binding international instruments [56], as well as in a number of domestic
jurisdictions, including those of Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa. The importance of
having participative processes is to build a good foundation for an effective implementation of
policies, laws and management plans. It has been shown that governments that involve the public in
making decisions regarding natural resources use and management will be in a better position to take
adequate measures and that decisions taken will gain greater support [38].
In Costa Rica, the institutions responsible for ICM have, to date, failed to develop participative
processes. However, this approach has started to change, and recently there has been a growing
tendency to develop and implement more participation in decision-making [37]. The findings of this
research show that in Costa Rica, government agencies continue to be the most powerful actors in
decision-making in ICM. This continues to be a challenge for other stakeholders to correct the current
power imbalance.
However, in the case study of the Marino Ballena National Park, efforts were found to develop
and implement more participative processes. An example of such efforts is the work done by the
Interinstitutional Coastal Marine Commission of the Conservation Area of Osa Peninsula (ACOSA).
This work has been the result of the coordination of actions of different government institutions,
NGOs, small private businesses and community associations interested in marine-coastal
management in the Osa Peninsula. Respondents suggested the government organization and
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 11 of 21

distribution of information about ICM had been transparent. Respondents also suggested the
meetings were open and that the government was willing to engage in discussion and to aim for a
rough balance of interests when defining how to develop the coastal zone.
An example of a close to effective implementation of participation is provided by the German
case study. Here, there were many interested stakeholders involved in the decision-making
processes. These include, in particular, the Lower Saxony State Agency for Water Management, the
Marine-Coastal Defence and Nature Conservation (NLWKN) and the National Park Authority of
Lower Saxony at state level, as well as the municipality level, represented by the Major and formal
and informal interactions with individuals and local institutions. Respondents affirmed that their
interests were included in the decision-making, and that they were satisfied with the outcomes of the
meetings and discussions on how to better implement marine-coastal management in the area.
The case study in South Africa revealed a clear inclusion of the participation criterion in laws,
policies and management plans related to marine-coastal management. For example, the Sundays
Estuary Management Plan establishes the need to implement participative processes in decision-
making. The findings of this case study also revealed that the plan itself was created through a
participative process; considerable time was dedicated to stakeholders, and thus, created an
environment of trust. This factor has helped implement the Sundays Estuary Management Plan.
Nevertheless, government agencies continue to be the most influential actors in decision-making in
an ICM, with the participation of other stakeholders (e.g., fishermen) still limited.
The Mexican case study appears to have achieved only a limited level of participation with
regard to ICM. The fact that Mexico has a top-down approach to ICM affects participation on the part
of other relevant stakeholders, such as communities. Additionally, the case study discloses diverse
factors that hinder the achievement of participation in ICM, including a lack of inclusiveness of non-
governmental stakeholders. However, participation in ICM in Mexico seems to be increasing. As
highlighted by an interviewee: ‘Participation has increased in the past years… it has been shown that
participation has become a necessary foundation for an effective implementation of ICM’ [57].
Another participant added that: ‘With respect to participation, it is important that people understand
that we all have a role and responsibility in environmental issues… and the only way to have people
participating is through awareness and education’ [58].

4.3. Sustainable Development

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report, also known
as ‘Our Common Future’, concisely articulated the concept of sustainable development as
‘Development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs’ [59]. The United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil back in 1992, recognized, by general
consensus, the concept of sustainable development as an essential goal of the international
community. Since that time, the term has been used with great regularity in international instruments
of an environmental, economic and social nature and has been invoked by various international
courts and tribunals [60]. Consequently, it has been introduced into a number of national legal
instruments related to coastal management including in the jurisdictions of Germany, Costa Rica,
Mexico and South Africa.
The inclusion of the overarching goals of sustainable development in European Directives, as
well as corresponding aims and regulations in current German law-making, are documented in local
management plans such as that of Langeoog. The Langeoog case study showed the most elaborated
example of the implementation of a sustainable approach in management practice. Germany and the
specific case study of Langeoog display an effective approach to achieving sustainable development
in marine-coastal zones. The case study identified initiatives to protect marine ecosystems such as
salt marshes and wetlands, and terrestrial ecosystem of the national park such as coastal dunes.
Additionally, Langeoog has a particular regulation that protects urban areas and provides benefits
to the people who live there. Additionally, the case study revealed that clear efforts were being made
to implement sustainable tourism. As one participant affirmed, ‘Buildings (e.g., houses and hotels)
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 12 of 21

in Langeoog have a maximum of two floors and cars are not allowed on the island… most of the
accommodation facilities consist of small and locally owned bed and breakfast houses, which
supports sustainable tourism and at the same time improves the welfare of the people who live on
the island’ [61].
In Costa Rica, even though there is a clear inclusion of the concept of sustainable use of natural
resources in a number of environmental laws such as the Organic Environmental Law [62], the
Conservation of Wildlife Law [63] and the Forestry Law [64], this does not apply to the Maritime
Terrestrial Zone Law [65]. Unfortunately, the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law is the key instrument
regulating activities in the coastal zones in Costa Rica. As mentioned by an interviewee: ‘Even though
Costa Rica has done a remarkable job in protecting marine-coastal areas inside national parks such
as Marino Ballena…Costa Rica is failing to use its overall marine-coastal areas in a sustainable
manner…’ [66]. All the interviewees in Costa Rica agree that Costa Rica has made important
achievements in protecting natural resources in marine-coastal zones inside national parks and other
protected wildlife areas such as Marino Ballena National Park. However, marine-coastal zones in the
rest of the country have consistently failed in achieving sustainable development. A lot of work still
needs to be done, starting with updating the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law and applying pressure
on the government to implement a more integrated approach to the sustainable use of natural
resources in marine-coastal zones.
In the case of South Africa, it can be argued that the goals and compromises declared in
international treaties on sustainable development have exercised an important influence in shaping
laws and policies. South Africa seems to have made important achievements in recognizing and
incorporating the value of sustainable development in its laws and management plans. Nevertheless,
South Africa lags behind on the enforcement of such laws and plans. The enforcement of Estuary
Management Plans, such as that of the Sundays Estuary, has been instrumental in tackling the huge
task posed by the sustainable development agenda. As stated by a participant: ‘We are on the right
track…with the development of policy and regulatory frameworks to implement sustainable
development… but we are not quite there yet’ [67].
In the Mexican case study, even though there has been an important influence of international
instruments on the development of domestic legislation on sustainable development, it is not possible
to conclude that an effective implementation has been achieved. The case study of Mexico showed a
myriad of problems, such as limited implementation of legal frameworks to protect and conserve
marine-coastal zones. Therefore, it is common for marine-coastal zones to have a high level of
pollution alongside many economic activities such as tourism, oil extraction, fisheries, maritime
routes and harbors, which have put substantial pressure on the environment [68,69]. Cozumel is only
one example of this and unfortunately such scenarios are common in many other marine-coastal
zones in Mexico and in many other countries in Latin America. As highlighted by an interviewee:
‘More enforcement and compliance are needed in Mexico in order to improve the natural conditions
of the marine-coastal areas’ [70].

4.4. Monitoring
An essential element of the ICM approach is obtaining feedback on the successes and failures of
current management, and using that information to improve future management endeavors [9].
Hence, responsibility for monitoring would need to be explicitly assigned and appropriate resources
allocated. The overall monitoring includes the status and changes in the respective marine-coastal
socio-ecological system from a sustainable development perspective.
The findings of the Costa Rica case study showed that Costa Rica has made important efforts to
measure success in protecting marine-coastal zones. Nonetheless, most of these efforts have been
concentrated only inside national parks and protected wildlife areas, leaving the rest of the marine-
coastal zones unmonitored. An example of such efforts is the Marino Ballena National Park, where
the Interinstitutional Coastal Marine Commission of ACOSA has implemented a monitoring system
through different strategies, such as the deployment of marine rangers who have worked on
controlling illegal tourism activities and illegal fishing. However, in Costa Rica overall, the
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 13 of 21

fragmented approach to monitoring coastal management is in need of reform; every involved

institution has worked on its own and focused its attention solely on a single aspect of ICM (e.g.,
tourism development in the coast) without any alignment with the work of other institutions [37].
Moreover, without taking into consideration the marine part of the coastal zones, one source of
conflict is to be found in the main coastal planning tool the Coastal Regulatory Plan controlled by the
Costa Rica Institute of Tourism (ICT): the coast is seen primarily as an opportunity for tourism. This
leads to the exclusion of other uses and key players in the development and coastal management,
and fails to address the key problems facing the coastal zone. As stated by an interviewee: ‘The main
lessons learned are that we have to strengthen and consolidate inclusive planning processes…,
allocate appropriate budgets…, include real participation of stakeholders, improve inter-agency
coordination and enable informed decision-making based on technical studies’ [71].
Germany represents an example for significant progress regarding the monitoring of successes
but also failures of ICM strategies and schemes. In Germany, the Integrated Coastal Zone
Management National Strategy comprises a synergy between European Directives and Federal Laws.
The latter in particular call for significant efforts to monitor the status and the ongoing processes of
National Parks and marine-coastal areas and to constantly reflect on improvements. Besides the
implementation of legal and policy frameworks, these include the participation of community
stakeholders, as shown in the case study of Langeoog. Additionally, practitioners report positively
on the inclusion of the whole marine-coastal area: ‘To include territorial waters into State Planning
has been acknowledged in the region as a step towards managing the integration of the new off-shore
renewable energies sector. The stakeholders have established some procedures and forums to
exchange views on goals and problems of marine-coastal management’ [72].
Mexican practitioners reflect on difficulties in ICM processes encountered from a variety of
perspectives, ranging from monitoring exercises to the still prevailing need for better participation
and adaptation to site-specific needs. As one participant pointed out: ‘The main problem is the
existence of many different laws that do not consider the Mexican context… and the different actors
involved’ [73]. It seems that a major challenge for Mexico is to incorporate the rationale of ‘context
matters’ when designing laws and policies to regulate and manage coastal areas. Until this first step
is properly resolved, the success of ICM will continue to be limited. The Cozumel case study provided
some proposals to improve the management of the island. Interviewees repeatedly called for a shift
from focusing solely on tourism to paying attention to nature protection, especially through the
development of Natural Protected Areas (NPAs). Despite this, there is still a need to work on
implementing local regulations in order to preserve and conserve NPAs.
Finally, in South Africa, there has been little monitoring regarding ICM. In an interviewee’s
words: ‘The main lesson learned is the importance of developing robust policies and laws in order to
promote more sustainable ICM practices... however, there is a lack of monitoring of strategies and
schemes’ [74]. Although the development of a robust national legal framework that recognizes the
importance of international ICM principles was the first step taken by South Africa to initiate ICM
practices, monitoring is still lacking. Nevertheless, some limited efforts have been made on
monitoring the implementation of such frameworks. In the case study of the Sundays Estuary, the
little monitoring done showed that the Sundays Estuary Management Plan was being implemented
by many stakeholders. These stakeholders have played a role in protecting this unique place (i.e.,
maintaining estuary health, supporting the sustainable livelihoods and creating a powerful
institutional governance structures).
Additionally, the little monitoring done in South Africa, Mexico and in Costa Rica showed that
there is still a need to improve enforcement of current laws, policies and management plans and that
there is also a lack of leadership by government agencies. The most relevant challenges relate to a
lack of a clear strategy or coordinated approach on the part of central government and at local
managing authority level to embrace the livelihoods of the users in a fair manner and protect marine
living resources. Coastal management continues to lack the resources (human, financial and
technical) needed to develop, support and manage the marine-coastal system in a sustainable
manner. Continuous monitoring is a success factor of ICM if applied within a framework of
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 14 of 21

participatory engagement of local/regional communities and in a setting capable of adapting to

changes. This factor leads to the more positive situation in Germany than in the other countries.

5. Discussion
The key ICM principles have been considered and assessed at the local level to examine whether
and to what extent international instruments and national legal and policy frameworks are
supporting ICM practices. The integrative view on ICM in the four cases reveals a differentiated
situation in the assessments of the interviewees (Figure 1). The positive view on the current status of
ICM in Germany is confirmed in the I-P-S diagram. For the case studies in the other countries it is
evident that the legal and policy frameworks are not considered to constitute a major barrier for
further improvement in ICM. The lack of participation of relevant stakeholders and lack of
coordination/cooperation between public institutions have been identified as the major challenges.
Locally adapted improvements in that field of action are likely to also benefit an even better
enforcement of regulations and more sustainable development.

Figure 1. I-P-S triangle diagram of the current status of ICM and directions for
improvements at the four case study sites. Mapping of the achieved realization of ICM, according
to the dimensions I, P and S, based on the assessments of the interviewees at the four case studies in
Costa Rica (C), Germany (G), Mexico (M) and South Africa (S). A harmonized implementation of ICM
with an equal balance of three dimensions would appear at the center of the green zone (optimum).
The situation in Germany is represented close to the optimum. To balance ICM more equally, ICM
practitioners should prioritize actions to adjust the local ICM portfolio at the other case sites as
indicated by the arrows. The length of an arrow is double the distance from the plotted value to the
optimum and indicates the efforts needed in future ICM practice. The direction of the arrow also
points to the fields where the interviewees have identified the most urgent deficits.

In general, the four case studies analyzed in this article demonstrated to some extent that
international instruments have supported the implementation of ICM in line with the four ICM key
principles. However, all of the case studies show different levels of implementation and effectiveness
(Table 5).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 15 of 21

Table 5. Design and implementation of lCM legal and policy frameworks in Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa.

Design of Design of Design of

Integrated Coastal Integrated Coastal Protection and
Implementation of
Zone Management Zone Management Conservation Laws Main
Country the Law and Policy Major Challenges
Law According to Policy According to According to Achievements
as Practices
International International International
Treaties Treaties Treaties
Germany No Yes Yes Significant progress Implementation Integration/coordination
Limited but Protection and
Participation,
Costa showing progress conservation
No No Yes implementation,
Rica within protected through protected
integration/coordination
areas areas
Participation,
Mexico No No Yes Limited Awareness implementation,
integration/coordination
Development of Participation,
South
Yes Yes Yes Limited policy and legal implementation,
Africa
frameworks integration/coordination
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 16 of 21

Germany witnessed significant progress in implementing national policy and legal frameworks.
For example, in the case study of Langeoog the implementation of some of the key principles of the
ICM (e.g., participation) was demonstrated convincingly. This is mainly due to the extent of
committed funding and multi-level collaboration among stakeholders, including governmental
institutions dealing with coastal management such as the Lower Saxony State Agency for Water
Management, the Coastal Defence and Nature Conservation Agency (NLWKN), the National Park
Authority and Langeoog Municipality, as well as non-governmental organizations and individuals.
However, an ongoing struggle was detected among government institutions with respect to
integration and coordination, which reflects challenges in adapting management to changing societal
conditions.
In Costa Rica, there is still a need to change the fragmented way in which ICM practices have
been developed, whereby each government institution has worked on its own without attempting to
engage other relevant institutions and also without involving non-governmental stakeholders (e.g.,
communities, fishermen, etc.) in the decision-making process. According to the findings of this
research, the support of ICM practices gained from international and national legal and policy
frameworks has been limited. Costa Rica needs to review and update the Maritime Terrestrial Zone
Law and review the role of the ICT in the overall development of coastal zones. Nevertheless, the
findings also showed that the international and national legal and policy frameworks have facilitated
the consolidation of marine-coastal protected areas, such as the Marino Ballena National Park.
South Africa is taking significant measures to facilitate ICM practices. However, it is confronted
with enormous challenges, which include the legacy of the dismal history of colonialism and
apartheid, in which all ‘non-white’ South Africans were deliberately and systematically denied access
to political power, justice and law enforcement mechanisms, and actively dispossessed of their land
(including the coastal zones) [43]. In the past few decades, South Africa has started to address most
of these problems. Regarding ICM, South Africa has developed a robust ICM policy and legal
frameworks based on international principles, which have been a first step forward, recognizing, for
example, the principle of non-discrimination. Additionally, some efforts have been made to
implement concrete ICM practices, for example the development and implementation of the Sundays
Estuary Management Plan.
Similarly, in Mexico, a number of challenges were detected that relate to implementing ICM
practices. First, Mexico lacks adequate legal and policy frameworks for ICM and struggles with the
enforcement of existing polices and laws intended to promote ICM practices [69,70,75]. Thus, in
Mexico, designing and implementing a robust policy and legal framework for ICM must be a priority.
The findings of the Cozumel case study reaffirmed those of scholars who have demonstrated that the
Mexican ICM policy is at an early stage of execution and of low priority on the political agenda, if
included at all [20].
Both the presented results and scientific concepts relevant in modern ICM (Table 1) suggest that
ICM practices are supported by international instruments and national legal and policy frameworks.
The manifestation differs in the local ICM frameworks, despite the presence of the three general
components that some scholars call for in any successful legislative framework for ICM, namely:
policy goals, legislative provision and decision-making bodies [76].
Transnational agreements can be supportive but are likely to have mostly limited impacts on
domestic coastal law development [77]. European law exerts a unifying influence on aspects of coastal
management although being limited by the legal principles of subsidiarity and proportionality [78].
This entails a more effective ICM implementation in local site-specific contexts. This has been
mentioned as a decisive field of future ICM action by the interviewees and is a result of the integrative
evaluation (Figure 1).
It has been proposed that quality in ICM practices would benefit from the establishment of
formal directives [19], and that the lack of consistent political foresight is the primary reason
regulations fail [75]. Improvement of the implementation of regulations, therefore, needs careful
consideration and resolute action. The embeddedness in formal and informal management settings
is an additional success factor. ICM depends on powerful settings and can easily be jeopardized if
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 17 of 21

ICM is allocated a marginalized role. Most of the examples have shown ICM to be fragmented and
lacking in the promotion of participation, integration and sustainability. Poor cooperation between
different government institutions and the absence of monitoring programs hinder proper
implementation of sectoral strategies and political priorities that comply with ICM [20]. Harmonized
amendments of regulatory action and management practice depend on continuous reflection on the
specific socio-ecological framework. Actors in ICM have to acknowledge this framework better in
order to identify crucial processes or results that indicate positive or negative management activities.

6. Conclusions
This research allows the following generalizable conclusions and legal and policy
recommendations: (i) it is a pressing issue for governments in developed and developing countries
to reflect on how to merge policy and law regimes and related regulation rooted in either the marine
or the terrestrial realm to meet the needs of an amphibic and ambivalent coastal zone where land-sea
interactions have to be managed; (ii) governments in developed and developing countries need to
allocate adequate financial resources and other relevant means to support the task at hand, which is
vital to tackling coastal zones problems and ensuring effective organization and implementation
process. This greater support includes a review of the budgets of government agencies dedicated to
coastal zone management, as well as adequate capacity building and training of personnel working
in such agencies; (iii) it is essential to promote participation and inclusion of local stakeholders in
ICM issues because this leads to better outcomes. In order to promote this, there is a need to provide
capacities to non-governmental stakeholders in ICM, such as what is done by the Interinstitutional
Coastal Marine Commission of ACOSA in the Marino Ballena case study. Local stakeholders also
need support to understand legal stipulations, policies and plans that give people the right to
participate and to demand accountability in order to control and supervise government decision-
making in ICM; (iv) recognizing and managing the interfaces between coastal zones, marine zones,
national parks and infrastructure such as tourism development. Here, there is the need for practical
approaches to implementing ICM into existing regulatory planning, pollution control, natural
resource management and biodiversity conservation frameworks. Recognizing such interconnections
is a prerequisite for the (successful) blending of all relevant components of ICM; (v) finally, the
findings suggest that acknowledgment of the vulnerability and potential risks in coastal zones tends
to ultimately enhance sustainable development in these areas.
In conclusion, this article looked at different parts of the world to provide further insights and a
better understanding of ICM in practice and the role of international and national legal and policy
frameworks in supporting such practices. Evidently, the support of such instruments is still limited,
though continues to grow around the world.

Appendix A
Interview Protocol
General Questions
1. Do you think there has been an influence of International Conventions like the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), or any other, in the development of coastal zone management laws
and policies in your country?
2. In your opinion, what are the most important laws and policies that have influenced coastal zone
management in your country?
3. In the development of the laws and policies that regulate coastal management, which have been
the most relevant conflicts, challenges and lessons learned?
4. Concerning the implementation of coastal management which are the most relevant conflicts,
challenges and lessons learned?
5. Could you mention and explain some remarkable examples of implementation of integrated
coastal management?
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 18 of 21

6. What do you think are the further steps needed in order to improve what has been done related
to the development of laws and policies that regulate coastal management?
7. What do you think are the further steps needed to have actual implementation of integrated
coastal management?

Specific Questionnaire
1. What are the most important regulatory and policy instruments that have influenced coastal
management in this specific case study? Are they the same than those at the national level?
2. Concerning the implementation of coastal management in this case study, which are the most
relevant conflicts, challenges and lessons learned?
4. Could you mention and explain if you consider that in this case study there has been an
integrated coastal management approach?
5. What are the most relevant actors and institutions involved in coastal management in this case
study?
6. What do you think are the further steps needed in order to improve integrated coastal
management in this case study? Are they the same than those at the national level?

Authors Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing—Review & Editing, Visualization,

G.C.-Q. and T.K. Validation, Formal Analysis and Investigation: G.C.-Q., T.K. and L.M.M.-O. Writing—Original
Draft Preparation and Funding Acquisition G.C.-Q.

Funding: Parts of this study were co-funded both by the German DAAD project ‘Developing Sustainability—
DevSus’ and The Netherlands Fellowship Program (NFP). The work of Gabriela Cuadrado-Quesada is also
funded by the IHE Delft COFUND EWPFP, a fellowship of Marie Curie Actions (FP7-PEOPLE-2013-COFUND).

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the regional experts who
took part in this study.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Tsamenyi, M.; McIlgorm, A. International Environmental Instruments: Their Effect on the Fishing Industry;
University of Wollongong: Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 1999.
2. Olsen, S.; Christie, C. What Are We Learning from Tropical Coastal Management Experiences? Coast.
Manag. 2000, 28, 5–18.
3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007.
4. Martínez, M.L.; Intralawan, A.; Vázquez, G.; Pérez-Maqueo, O.; Sutton, P.; Landgrave, R. The coast of our
world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 254–272.
5. Sale, P.F. Management of coral reefs: Where we have gone wrong and what we can do about it. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 2008, 56, 805–809.
6. Goble, B.J.; Lewis, M.; Hill, T.R.; Phillips, M.R. Coastal Management in South Africa: Historical Perspectives
and Setting the Stage of a New Era. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 91, 32–40.
7. Allmendinger, P.; Barker, A.; Stead, S. Delivering Integrated Coastal-zone Management through Land-use
Planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 2002, 17, 175–196.
8. Yates, K.L.; Payo-Payo, A.; Schoeman, D.S. International, Regional and National Commitments Meet Local
Implementation: A Case Study of Marine Conservation in Northern Ireland. Mar Policy 2013, 38, 140–150.
9. Ramsey, V.; Cooper, J.A.G.; Yates, K. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and its Potential Application
to Antigua and Barbuda. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 118, 259–274.
10. Reis, J.; Lowe, C. Capacity development of European coastal and marine management-gaps and bridges.
Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012, 55, 13–19.
11. Saffache, P.; Angelelli, P. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Small Islands: A Comparative outline of
some islands of the Lesser Antilles. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 2010, 10, 255–279.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 19 of 21

12. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Integrated Coastal Management Law: Establishing and
Strengthening National Legal Frameworks for Integrated Coastal Management; FAO LEGISLATIVE STUDY 93;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006.
13. United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP). Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Human Well-
Being: A Synthesis Report based on the Findings of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2006. Available
online: http://www.lme.noaa.gov/ (accessed on 3 June 2018).
14. Cicin-Sain, B.; Knecht, R.W. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concept and Practices; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
15. Drunkers, J.; de Vries, I. Integrated Coastal Management: The Challenge of Transdiciplinarity. J. Coast.
Conserv. 1999, 5, 97–102.
16. Calado, H.; Quintela, A.; Porteiro, J. Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategies on Small Islands.
Coastal Research. In Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium (SI 50), Gold Coast, Australia,
2007; pp. 125–129.
17. Patlis, J.M. The Role of Law and Legal Institutions in Determining the Sustainability of Integrated Coastal
Management Projects in Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2005, 48, 450–467.
18. Portman, M.E.; Esteves, L.S.; Lec, X.Q.; Khna, A.Z. Improving Integration for Integrated Coastal Zone
Management: An Eight Country Study. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 439, 194–201.
19. Stottrup, J.G.; Dinesen, G.E.; Janßen, H.; Gillgren, C.; Schernewski, G. Re-visiting ICM theory and practice:
Lessons learned from the Baltic Sea Region. Coast. Ocean Manag. 2017, 139, 64–76.
20. Nava-Fuentes, J.C.; Arenas-Granados, P.; Martins, F.C. Coastal Management in Mexico: Improvements
after the Marine and Coastal Policy Publication. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 137, 131–143.
21. Christie, P.; White, A.T. Trends in Development of Coastal Area Management in Tropical Countries: From
Central to Community Orientation. Coast. Manag. 1997, 25, 155–181.
22. United Nations Convention of Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitats
(adopted 2 February 1971, entered into force 21 December 1975). Available online: http://www.un-
documents.net/ramsar.htm (accessed on 22 May 2018).
23. United Nations International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matters, Washington, 1972. Available online:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/Documents/LC1972.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2018).
24. United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
Washington, 1973. Available online: https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php (accessed on 22 May 2018).
25. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 1982. Available online:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf (accessed on 20 May
2018).
26. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21
March 1994). Available online: https://unfccc.int/process/the-convention/what-is-the-convention/status-of-
ratification-of-the-convention (accessed on 24 May 2018).
27. United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity (adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force on 29 December
1993). Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2018).
28. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development I (1992) UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1.
Agenda 21. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
(accessed on 19 May 2018).
29. United Nations Paris Agreement within the Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted on 12
December 2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
(accessed on 24 May 2018).
30. Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.
31. Layder, D. Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998.
32. Ostrom, E. General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 2009, 325,
419–422.
33. García-Ayllon, S. The Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) of the Mar Menor as a model for the future in
the comprehensive management of enclosed coastal seas. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, in press.
34. Schernewski, G. Integrated Coastal Zone Management from European Strategy to Practice in Germany; First
German-Chinese Joint Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Engineering: Rostock, Germany, 2002.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 20 of 21

35. Enemark, J. The Wadden Sea Protection and Management Scheme—Towards an Integrated Coastal
Management Approach? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2005, 48, 996–1015.
36. Jay, S.; Klenke, T.; Janßen, H. Consensus and Variance in the Ecosystem Approach to Marine Spatial
Planning: German Perspectives and Multi-actor Implications. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 129–138.
37. Morales-Ramírez, S.-B.M.; González-Gairaud, C. La Gestión Integrada de la Zona Costera en Costa Rica:
Experiencias y Perspectivas. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico.
Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán, J.M., Ed.; Red Ibermar, Universidad de Cádiz y Programa Iberoamericano
de Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo (CYTED): Cádiz, Spain, 2010.
38. Rodríguez-Chaves, M. Conservando los Recursos Marino Costeros en Costa Rica: Áreas Marinas
Protegidas y Otras figuras de Aprovechamiento Sostenible. Revista Parques 2011, 1, 1–14.
39. Fenner, D.P. Some Leeward Reefs and Corals of Cozumel, Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1988, 42, 133–144.
40. Dikou, A. Ecological Processes and Contemporary Coral Reef Management. Diversity 2010, 2, 717–737.
41. Melbourne-Thomas, J.; Johnson, C.R.; Perez, P.; Eustache, J.; Fulton, E.A.; Cleland, D. Coupling biophysical
and socioeconomic models for coral reef systems in Quintana Roo, Mexican Caribbean. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16,
23.
42. Glavovic, B. The Evolution of Coastal Management in South Africa: Why Blood is Thicker than Water.
Ocean Coast. Manag. 2006, 49, 889–904.
43. Glavovic, B.; Boonzaier, S. Confronting Coastal Poverty: Building Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods in South
Africa. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2006, 50, 1–23.
44. Taljaard, S.; van Niekerk, L. How Supportive are Existing National Legal Regimes for Multi-use Marine
Spatial Planning?—The South African Case. Mar. Policy 2013, 38, 72–79.
45. Government official No. 11, (Conservation Area of Osa Peninsula, Uvita, Costa Rica). Personal
Communication, 2012.
46. Diario Oficial de la Federación 2000. Ley General de Vida Silvestre 3 de junio de 2000. Available online:
http://www.profepa.gob.mx/innovaportal/file/5779/1/ley_general_de_vida_silvestre.pdf (accessed on 10
June 2018).
47. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2010. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección
ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones
para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. 30 de diciembre de 2010. Available online:
http://www.profepa.gob.mx/innovaportal/file/435/1/NOM_059_SEMARNAT_2010.pdf (accessed on 10
June 2018).
48. Diario Oficial de la Federación 1998 Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al ambiente 28 de
enero de 1998. Available online: http://www.profepa.gob.mx/innovaportal/file/
1133/1/ley_general_del_equilibrio_ecologico_y_la_proteccion_al_ambiente.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2018).
49. Diario Oficial de la Federación 2012. Ley del Cambio Climático. 06 de Junio de 2012. Available online:
http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LGCC_130718.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2018).
50. Diario Oficial de la Federación 2004. Ley General de Bienes Nacionales. 20 de Mayo de 2004. Available
online: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/lgbn.htm (accessed on 10 June 2018).
51. Government official No. 16, (Natural Resources and Environment Secretariat (SEMARNAT), Cozumel,
Mexico). Personal communication, 2015.
52. Government official No. 3, (Coastal Defence and Nature Conservation, Langeoog, Germany). Personal
communication, 2012.
53. White Paper for Sustainable Coastal Development in South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism: Pretoria, South Africa, 2000.
54. National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, Act 24 of 2008. Government
Gazette of the Republic of South Africa 524: 31884, 11.02.2009:1.
55. Government official No. 7, (South African National Parks, Cape Town). Personal communication, 2012.
56. Razzaque, J. Human Rights to a Clean Environment: Procedural Rights; Fitzmaurice, M., Ong, D.M., Merkouris,
P., Eds.; Research Handbook on International Environmental Law: Edward Elgar: Cheltenham and
Camberley, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2010.
57. Government official No. 17, (Natural Resources and Environment Secretariat (SEMARNAT), Cozumel,
Mexico). Personal communication, 2015.
58. Non-government organization No. 21, (CYMAC, Cozumel, Mexico) Personal Communication, 2015.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3772 21 of 21

59. United Nations, General Assembly, A/RES/42/187, Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development, Our Common Future (1987). Available online:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm (accessed on 20 May 2018).
60. Sands P. Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, CA,
USA, 2003.
61. Government official No. 1, (Municipality of Langeoog, Langeoog, Germany). Personal communication,
2012.
62. Ley Orgánica del Ambiente Nº 7554 del 13 de diciembre de 1995. Available online:
https://www.cne.go.cr/cedo_dvd5/files/flash_content/pdf/spa/doc385/doc385-contenido.pdf (accessed on
01 June 2018).
63. Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre Nº 7318 del 7 de diciembre de 1992. Available online:
http://sirefor.go.cr/Documentos/Legislacion/7317.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2018).
64. Ley Forestal Nº 7575 del 16 de abril de 1996. Available online:
http://www.dse.go.cr/es/02ServiciosInfo/Legislacion/PDF/Ambiente/Forestal/L-7575%20Foresta.pdf
(accessed on 1 June 2018).
65. Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, No 6043 del 17 de febrero de 1977. Available online:
http://www.canatur.org/docs/6043.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2018).
66. Non-government organization, (Marviva, San José, Costa Rica), Personal communication, 2013.
67. Government official No. 8, (South African National Parks, Port Elizabeth). Personal communication, 2012.
68. Yáñez-Arancibia, A.; Day, J.W. The Gulf of Mexico: Towards an Integration of Coastal Management with
Large Marine Ecosystem Management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2004, 47, 537–563.
69. Yáñez-Arancibia, A.; Day, J.W.; Sánchez Gil P. Ecosystem Functioning: The Basis for Reforestation and
Management of a Coastal Tropical Lagoon, Pacific Coastal of Mexico. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 65 88-100.
70. Government official No. 18, (Natural Resources and Environment Secretariat (SEMARNAT), Cozumel,
Mexico). Personal communication, 2015.
71. Government official No. 15, (National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), San José, Costa Rica).
Personal communication, 2013.
72. Government official No. 4, (Lower Saxony National Park, Wittmund, Germany). Personal communication,
2012.
73. Government official No. 19, (Natural Resources and Environment Secretariat (SEMARNAT), Cozumel,
Mexico). Personal communication, 2015.
74. Government official No. 9, (South African National Parks, Port Elizabeth). Personal communication, 2012.
75. Neal, W.J.; Pilkey, O.H.; Cooper, J.A.G.; Longo, N.J. Why Coastal Regulations Fail. Ocean Coast. Manag.
2018, 156, 21–34.
76. Makgill, R.A.; Rennie, H.G. A Model for Integrated Coastal Management Legislation: A Principled Analysis
of New Zealand’s Resource Management Act 1991. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 2012, 27, 135–165.
77. Bille, R.; Rochette, J. The Mediterranean ICZM Protocol: Paper Treaty or Wind of Change? Ocean Coast.
Manag. 2015, 105, 84–91.
78. Gibson, J. Integrated Coastal Zone Management Law in the European Union. Coast. Manag. 2003, 31, 127–
136.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).