Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–86

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

http://d

n Corr

King Ge

Tel.: þ2

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Pathways of integrated coastal management from national policy to localimplementation: Enabling climate change adaptation

L. Celliers a,b,n, S. Rosendo c, I. Coetzee d, G. Daniels d

a CSIR, Natural Resources and the Environment, 359 King George V Avenue Glenwood, PO Box 17001, Congella, 4013, South Africab University of KwaZulu-Natal, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, King Edward Avenue, Scottsville 3209, South Africac Faculty of Social and Human Sciences (FCSH) of Nova University of Lisbon (UNL), Avenida de Berna, 26-C/1069-061 Lisbon, Portugald EnAct International, 70 Rossmead Avenue, Kenilworth, Cape Town 7708, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 3 September 2012

Received in revised form

10 September 2012

Accepted 10 October 2012Available online 30 November 2012

Keywords:

Integrated coastal management

Climate change

Institutions

Mozambique

South Africa

Governance

7X/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.005

esponding author at: CSIR, Natural Resource

orge V Avenue Glenwood, PO Box 17001

7 31 2422412.

ail address: lcelliers@csir.co.za (L. Celliers).

a b s t r a c t

Integrated coastal management (ICM) has been developing concomitantly with the realisation of the

severity of the potential impacts of climate change. The discourse on climate change and adaptation has

also included the awareness that adaptation must take place at all levels of government, particularly

local government. Climate change is expected to have significant impacts on the physical, social,

environmental and economic environments of coastal cities and towns, and in particular on the poor

and vulnerable communities within these cities and towns. The crucial role that local government can

play in climate protection and building cities’ and communities’ resilience to climate change is widely

recognised at the global level. This paper explores the legal and policy connexion between ICM, local

government and climate change in Mozambique and South Africa, two developing countries in Africa.

The state of institutionalisation of coastal management at national through to local government is also

examined. The authors contend that the state, character and maturity of the ICM policy domain can

create an enabling environment within which local government agencies can prepare for future

impacts of climate change. Conversely it can also limit, delay and hinder climate change adaptation.

The paper concludes with the identification of some key success factors for assessing the effectiveness

of the existing policy and legal frameworks to respond to the challenges of climate change. It also

identifies some key principles to be included in future legislative reform to promote ICM, cooperative

governance and greater preparedness for climate change at local government level.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Integrated coastal management (ICM) is steeped in the idea ofsustainable development [1]. The original concept was coined inthe early 1970s [2], and suggested that it was possible to achieveeconomic growth and industrialisation without environmentaldamage. The contemporary concept of ICM stems from the 1992Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro. The international policy regardingICM is set out in the proceedings of the summit within Agenda 21,Chapter 17. Broad and dynamic in its definition, ICM requires theactive and sustained involvement of the interested public andmany stakeholders with interests in how coastal resources areallocated and conflicts are mediated [3]. ICM provides a platformfor discussing local through to national and even regional issues.

All rights reserved.

s and the Environment, 359

Congella 4013 South Africa.

It also provides a means to negotiate a vision and managementobjectives for the use of the coastal area.

While the exact mechanism to achieve ICM continues to be thesubject of debate, integration remains a fundamental impera-tive [4]. One mechanism for implementing ICM relies on laws andregulations to achieve coastal management objectives. The lawoften defines the powers and duties of state and private organisa-tions in management and use of the coast and its resources [5].It also mandates government actions and activities which pro-mote, encourage and, sometimes, compel ICM. Bridge and Gilbertrefers to this state as ICM ‘‘fully woven into the fabric of policymaking’’ or institutionalisation [6]. Legislation can, however, bothencourage and hinder the progress towards ICM. The transition ofICM from one or several projects or programmes with differentobjectives, to an institutionalised state, governed by laws, is oftena slow and difficult process due to the inherent complexity of thecoastal environment, its various uses, and users [7]. The politicalcoalescence of interest groups remains a key challenge, amongstothers [8]. As a result, even in 2012, it is rare to see ICM as theobjective of a specific law. Some exceptions include the USA

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–86 73

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 or South African IntegratedCoastal Management Act of 2009. More often than not, ICM ispracticed using a combination of sectoral laws and regulationsthat precede the contemporary concept of ICM. Furthermore, as isthe case for European nations, a national policy vacuum leavesparticularly local government with little or no effective guidanceon how to deal with the many complex issues in an integratedmanner [7].

In the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region, the interest in ICMstarted in the 1990s through several regional and nationalinitiatives (e.g. Arusha process and Resolution, national work-shops), many of which were supported by multilateral organisa-tions and international donors [9]. Coastal management in theregion’s countries was, and largely remains hampered by a highlysectoral approach whereby different coastal resources and activ-ities fell under the responsibility of different agencies with littleor no coordination. At the time, governments in the regionshowed significant political commitment to the implementation ofICM as evidenced by the 1993 Arusha Resolution [10]; the 1996Seychelles Second Policy Conference on Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement in Eastern African and Island States and the 1998Maputo declaration from the Pan-African Conference on SustainableIntegrated Coastal Management [11,12]. Mauritius, Mozambique,Madagascar, Seychelles, Tanzania and later Kenya were signatoriesof the Arusha Resolution [9].

The potential role of ICM in climate change adaptation hasbeen recognised in the literature [13–16]. ICM is seen as a potentand balanced planning and management process [17]. The IPCCSecond Assessment [18] stated that improved management prac-tices embodied by ICM could constitute an important precau-tionary response, and facilitate successful adaptation to climatechange [18]. More recently, the Fourth Assessment Report [19]echoed the appropriateness of ICM to enable adaptation toclimate change, sea-level rise and other current and long-termcoastal challenges [19]. Tobey et al. suggested [20] that there is aconsiderable degree of overlap between the policy domains ofclimate change adaptation, as they relate to coastal zones, and theprocess of ICM. Both propose that improving the effectiveness ofcoastal management is a pre-requisite for addressing the multiplepressures on coastal zones, including those brought about by achanging climate. They also argued that many of the goodpractices of ICM can be transferred to climate change adaptation.These practices include, amongst others; the use of best availableknowledge to inform adaptation decisions; the inclusionary andparticipatory processes to ensure public support for adaptation;building linkages and improving coordination between differentactors and institutions at different levels; avoidance of functionalfragmentation and overlap; and the use of adaptive and strategicmanagement based on evaluation of outcomes [20]. Similarly,Falaleeva et al. suggested [21] that both ICM and climate changepolicy domains share a preoccupation with integration acrosssectors, administrative boundaries and scales of governance,subsidiarity and participatory decision-making, and the use ofadaptive governance. It has also been suggested that the ICM caneasily be grafted to mitigate disasters in the coastal areas throughongoing planning and implementing processes [22].

Government is an important actor in climate change adapta-tion, particularly in terms of planned adaptations, which requireinformed and strategic actions [23]. Key roles of government inthis respect include adapting their own policies and activities tothe impacts of climate change; facilitating adaptation amongcommunities and other stakeholders so they can develop theirown adaptation responses; and enacting legislation to reduce thevulnerability of people, ecosystems and activities [24]. Govern-ments must be foremost in adaptation, and as such they need toidentify the risks of climate change impacts to programmes and

service-provision areas; prioritise, minimise and adapt to risks.Concomitantly, governments must facilitate adaptation to climatechange by disseminating information risks; provide guidance onadaptation options; and enable adaptation by channelling fundingto various stakeholders. Finally, as legislator, government has animportant role in creating laws and regulations, for examplezoning legislation that restricts or prohibits development inhigh-risk coastal areas [24]. Currently, there is considerablevariation in the drafting of dedicated climate change legislationon the continent [25].

Many adaptation actions must take place at smaller scale andare often quite site-specific due to the different vulnerabilities oflocal communities and ecosystems. This is a function of theirexposure to particular climate risks and their capacity to adapt[16,26,27]. Local governments therefore emerge as importantactors in climate change adaptation. They must not only adapttheir own programmes and activities, but also facilitate adapta-tion at the scale they can influence, and apply legislation thatreduces vulnerability to climate change. Local governments aretypically responsible for planning for land-use, protecting theenvironment, and providing water, housing, amenities and otherservices to the citizens of the area under their jurisdiction. Manyof these, particularly on the coast, are at risk from the projectedimpacts of climate change. The role of local government alsoextends to building the adaptive capacity of local communitiesthrough various means, including provision of relevant informa-tion, leadership, advice, supervision and often, funding. Localgovernments are invariably subject to national or regional lawsand regulations when performing their mandated duties, butoften, they have to undertake actions not clearly stipulated bypolicy and law. The inclusion of climate change in policy and lawwould therefore assist local government action but the develop-ment of specific climate change legislation is slow [25].

This study examines the national ICM and climate changepolicy and governance domains of two developing countries inAfrica, Mozambique and South Africa. The state of institutionali-sation of coastal management at national through to localgovernment is also examined. The authors contend that the state,character and maturity of particularly the ICM policy domain, cancreate an enabling environment within which local governmentagencies can prepare for future impacts of climate change. ICMpolicy, and the governance institutions that it encourages, andoften creates, is therefore an influential enabler of adaptation.Then again, it can also limit, delay and hinder climate changeadaptation. The objectives of this study were therefore to analyseand evaluate the realised legal and institutional or governancepathways for the implementation of ICM, from national policy tolocal government, in Mozambique and South Africa. Secondly, thestudy describes the existing climate change policies relevant tothe coastal area of Mozambique and South Africa, and finally,identifies the gaps that future legal frameworks should address inorder to promote ICM and connect climate change policy to theICM pathways in Mozambique and South Africa.

2. Background to the study area

Since the regional acceptance of the Arusha Resolution,ICM has however progressed inconsistently in nations of theWIO. A study by Bille and Rochette [28] concluded that ICM isstill far from being the norm in most WIO countries, particularlyin terms of its institutionalisation in national policy and legisla-tion. These differences in the realisation of ICM are particularlyapparent when considering the cases of neighbouring Mozambi-que and South Africa (the latter not being a signatory of theArusha Resolution). Both countries were part of the 1990s global

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–8674

and regional interest in ICM [29,30], but since then the state ofICM implementation diverged significantly.

ICM policy development is often illustrated as a developmentcycle, consisting of five steps: (a) issue identification and assess-ment; (b) plan or programme preparation; (c) formal adoptionand funding; (d) implementation; and finally, (e) evaluation[31,32]. In Mozambique, ICM was initiated in the wake of sixteenyears of civil war. The war ended in 1992 and the first multi-partyelection was held in 1994. Coley and Torell [33] suggested thatthe initial post-war efforts to establish coastal management inMozambique have, by necessity, focussed on infrastructure devel-opment and the establishment of institutional frameworks formanagement. According to the same authors, at the time of theirassessment in 2000, Mozambique had only begun to consider thesteps of identification and assessment, and plan or programmepreparation [33]. The initial efforts to establish ICM in Mozambi-que resulted in a number of activities and outputs. These includedhosting an international workshop [12], national planning work-shops [29], draft strategies at various government levels [34,35],and even an academic journal paper [14]. Most importantly,however, was the creation of the Centre for the SustainableDevelopment of Coastal Zones (CDS-ZC) in 2003, a specific agencyof the Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs(MICOA) tasked with promoting and establishing ICM. In 2006, adraft version of a Strategy for the Integrated Management of theMozambique Coastal Zone (2007–2017) was prepared, but it wasnot subsequently finalised and approved by the Council ofMinisters. By 2011, it appears as if momentum for ICM has beenlost and at the time of this analysis ICM has a low priority on thenational agenda.

In sharp contrast is the evolution of ICM in South Africa.Already in 2000, Coley and Torell asserted that South Africahad completed the first three steps of the policy developmentcycle and were progressing with formal adoption and fundingimplementation [33]. This assertion was based on the continuedpromotion and development of ICM throughout the 1990sand 2000s, and the resulting Green Paper: Towards a SustainableCoastal Development in South Africa (hereafter referred to as theGreen Paper) [36] closely followed by a White Paper for Sustain-able Coastal Development in South Africa (hereafter referred to asthe White Paper) [37]. Subsequently, policy development pro-ceeded through several redrafts of a specific ICM Bill, andconcluded with the enactment of the Integrated Coastal Manage-ment Act (ICM Act, no. 24 of 2008, hereafter referred to as the ICMAct) [38,39]. Of the two countries, South Africa has emerged fromthe 1990s drive to develop ICM with a specific ICM Act, while theMozambican legal landscape is still dominated by a collection ofsector-based laws.

Global environmental change or climate change is expectedto raise sea-level and, in some areas, increase the frequencyand severity of storms [40]. Similarly, the WIO region is one ofthe most vulnerable to climate change. This will have consider-able impact on the numerous islands and low lying coastal areasin the region. Mozambique is one of the poorest countries in theworld and one of the most vulnerable to climate change [41].Large areas of Mozambique’s coastline are expected to be severelyaffected [14] and require communities to adapt [42,43].Similarly, the coast of South Africa is vulnerable to increasedstorm damage; damage to coastal infrastructure (including infra-structure such as breakwaters); threats to the erosion levels ofshorelines; and changes in the salinity levels of estuaries, whichwill affect breeding grounds of many marine species [44]. Asignificant proportion of South Africa’s metropolitan areas, aswell as numerous towns and smaller settlements, are situatedalong the coast, making them vulnerable to any dramatic sealevel rises.

3. Assessment

In order to achieve the objectives and develop a better under-standing of the policy domain enabling the contemporary path-ways of ICM, the authors undertook an assessment of existinglegislative frameworks and governance systems for managing thecoastal area in South Africa and Mozambique. The intention of theassessment was to outline and analyse the existing legal andinstitutional framework for coastal management in Mozambiqueand South Africa. This involved identifying and summarising themain laws and policies related to the management of the coastalzone and its resources including living coastal and marineresources; and coastal land resources. Also assessed was theextent to which the current legal and policy environment con-forms to the principles of ICM, such as integration, cooperativegovernance, the use of scientific multidisciplinary data, andsocietal participation.

Similarly, the climate change policy domain was assessed forthe extent to which climate change impacts on coastal areas arerecognised and addressed in government policies and evaluatesthe recognition of the role of ICM in adapting to climate change.This was guided by the extent to which the existing legal andpolicy frameworks promote (or hinder) proactive adaptation toclimate change; and the legal and policy landscape includes toolsor provisions to monitor and revise, if required, managementapproaches and their implementation. The analysis of writtendocuments was limited to the most important and relevantnational, provincial and local laws and regulations, operationalguidelines and project documents. The list of written materialthat was considered for this project is by no means exhaustiveand neither is so purported.

4. Results

This section provides an outline of the policy, legal andinstitutional landscape for ICM in South Africa and Mozambique.It starts by summarising the key policies and legislation that canfacilitate and promote ICM. It becomes clear that the twocountries have followed different paths to formalise coastalmanagement. South Africa has legislated an integrated approachto the management of coastal areas (formal ICM). Conversely,Mozambique relies on general principles contained in variousareas of legislation that are not specific to coastal areas butincludes environmental and land-use planning legislation(referred to as coastal management, not ICM). Next, the institu-tions for formal coastal management in the two countries werereviewed. Institutions can be defined as a complex of positions,roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of socialstructures and organising relatively stable patterns of humaninteraction in relation to fundamental aspects or issues affectingsociety [45]. Institutions, in this instance, refer to the socialorganisation of coastal stakeholders (government and civilsociety) in order to achieve the implicit or explicit goals of ICM.There is an important interdependence between laws and institu-tions insofar as law plays a critical role in constituting institu-tions, defining their responsibilities, power and norms ofinteraction. At the same time, existing institutions typically playa role in shaping, designing or amending any legislation orpolicy [5]. Finally, this section reviews selected policies andlegislation with potential to promote ICM, cooperative govern-ance and preparedness for climate change at the local level. Bothcountries have developed climate change policies but differ in theextent that local level adaptation to climate change impacts arelinked to coastal management. Neither Mozambique nor SouthAfrica has yet promulgated laws in response to climate change,

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–86 75

although there are several laws and legal provisions that canpotentially facilitate adaptation to climate change at the localgovernment level. Thus, one key factor becomes the creation ofinstitutions and capacity to implement such laws.

4.1. Policy and legislation for promoting and implementing ICM

Both South Africa and Mozambique enthusiastically respondedto the 1992 Earth Summit by initiating projects and processes todevelop a policy framework for ICM [4]. In Mozambique, theevolution of coastal management appears not to have achievedthe potential of formal ICM. Conversely, the evolution of coastalmanagement in South Africa was focussed, planned and compre-hensive. The result was a dedicated Act that formalised ICM. TheICM policy domains for the two countries show marked differ-ences as outlined below.

4.1.1. Integrated coastal management by facilitation—the case of

South Africa

Glavovic traces the development of ICM in South Africathrough four main eras spanning three decades starting in the1970s [30]. These eras were, as he explained, ad hoc sector-basedmanagement (1970s); coastal zone management and regulations,ecology and experts (1980s); participatory policy formulation(1990s); and people-centred, pro-poor ICM (2000). The develop-ment of ICM spans the turbulent years of Apartheid as well as thedemocratisation of South Africa in the 1990s. The policy devel-opment process of the 1990s resulted in a Green Paper [36], aWhite Paper [37], and concluded in the enactment of the ICM Actin 2009 [38].

The Green Paper provided possible legal and institutional arrange-ments and posed key questions at the start of an effective stakeholderconsultation process during the early 1990s. The Green Paper remainsa valuable guideline and information document but its importancewill probably diminish as ICM matures and the coastal area is shapedby its human population. The subsequent White Paper recognises theexecutive management role of the local sphere of government inrelation to coastal management. It also reflects on the limited capacityof local government, but emphasises the constitutional requirementto devolve responsibility to municipalities that are sufficiently capa-citated to perform coastal management functions. The White Paperalso outlines day-to-day management responsibilities, the need tobuild co-responsibility and managing of so-called local demonstrationprojects emphasising short- and medium-term outcomes. Post-enactment of the ICM Act, the White Paper remains the de facto

National Coastal Management Programme until such time as a newprogramme is developed and gazetted.

The evolution of coastal management culminating in the ICMAct remains an impressive feat of determination, even taken intoaccount that the conversion of the accepted ICM policy to a lawwas, in fact, delayed for nearly a decade. The enactment of theICM Act heralded a shift in the legal landscape of South Africa. TheICM Act manages to draw together many of the sector-based lawsunder the umbrella of the National Environmental ManagementAct (NEMA; Act 107 of 1998). ICM is now firmly entrenched as amanagement paradigm for the South African coastal area. Thishowever merely implies that the policy development cycle [32]has been shaped but is not necessarily indicative of an improve-ment of the state of the coast.

Key objectives of the ICM Act are to provide a regulatoryframework that supports the holistic integrated approach tocoastal management outlined in the White Paper; enhance theability of each sphere of government to perform their coastalmanagement functions; and enable the development of a coher-ent national coastal planning system to regulate the development

and use of the coast. The adoption of this management approachpromotes the conservation of the coastal environment, and seeksto maintain the natural character of coastal landscapes andseascapes. Importantly, the ICM Act recognises that the develop-ment and use of natural resources in the coastal zone must besocially and economically justifiable, as well as being ecologicallysustainable.

Furthermore, the ICM Act outlines the institutions that mustfacilitate co-operative coastal governance as well integratedplanning. It does not, however, provide specific detail in respectto the institutional structures required to perform the necessaryfunctions of the spheres of government (national, provincial andmunicipal). Other important characteristics of the ICM Act includea definition and delineation of the coastal zone (Chapter 2 and 3),the structure of institutions for ICM (Chapter 5) and the devel-opment of specific coastal management instruments such ascoastal management programmes, estuary management plans(Chapter 4 and 6), and how such instruments should interfacewith other statutory tools such as ‘Integrated Development Plans(IDPs)’ which local authorities are obliged to prepare in terms ofthe Municipal Systems Act (MSA) Act 32 of 2000.

Another key feature of the ICM Act, which is linked to theessence of ICM, is that it facilitates coordination, and reducesconflicts, between existing sector-based legislation. As a specificlegal instrument under the NEMA that deals with the coastalenvironment, it creates a mechanism for orchestrating a coordi-nated coastal management approach using diverse legal instru-ments. The coordinating function of the ICM Act is illustrated inFig. 1 and the detail of the most relevant laws and policydocuments are listed and described in (Appendix A).

4.1.2. Coastal management by proxy—the case of Mozambique

Mozambique does not have a specific legal framework to dealwith coastal management issues so coastal management happenslargely by proxy, i.e. using other legislation to achieve coastalmanagement objectives. Some of the legislation that is used forcoastal management is listed in Appendix B.

The bulk of policies and legislation relevant to coastal manage-ment in Mozambique emerged in the mid- to late-1990s. The1995 National Environment Policy (Resolution 5/95) demon-strates a strong preoccupation with promoting the managementof coastal and marine ecosystems. It explicitly recognises thesignificance of coastal and marine management to which itdedicates an entire section (Section 3.6). This policy also createdthe basis for the development of institutions for environmentalmanagement, namely strengthening the Ministry for the Coordi-nation of Environmental Affairs (MICOA), created in 1994 (Pre-sidential Decree 2/94); and creating a National Council forSustainable Development (CONDES) to promote coordinationbetween different sectors (set up under the 1997 EnvironmentalLaw, which then saw its composition and functioning defined in2000 by decree 40/2000). A Coastal Management Unit wascreated within MICOA in 1994, which later became the Depart-ment for Coastal Management, part of the National Directorate forEnvironmental Management. CONDES integrated the TechnicalInter-Institutional Committee for Integrated Coastal Management(denominated CTIIGIZC after its acronym in Portuguese), a bodycreated in 1996 to facilitate the interaction and coordinationbetween the various government ministries with regards tocoastal zone matters. The Environment Policy also envisaged thecreation of three decentralised centres within MICOA to under-take research and provide technical support to provinces anddistricts on matters concerning environmental management.These were called Centres for Sustainable Development. One ofthese was especially dedicated to coastal issues; the Centre for

Fig. 1. A graphical interpretation of the functional role of the ICM Act (no. 4 of 2008) of South Africa in creating an organised ICM policy domain by compelling

coordination between national legal instruments relevant to coastal management (See Appendix A). * denotes published policy documents, italics indicate linking keyword.

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–8676

the Sustainable Development of Coastal Zones, established in2003 (Decree 3/2003). The other two focus on urban areas andnatural resources.

Despite the emphasis given to coastal management in theNational Environmental Policy (1995), few other policy andlegislative developments specific to coastal zones followed suite.The Environmental Law of 1997 (Law 20/97) made variousprovisions for environmental protection in general. Few of thesewere specific to the coastal and marine environment. In 2006, twonew legal-policy instruments were introduced, namely the pub-lication of the Regulations on the Prevention of Pollution andProtection of the Coastal and Marine environment (Decree45/2006), and the release of a draft Strategy for Integrated CoastalZone Management for the period of 2007–2017 by MICOA. Thisstrategy did not reach the Council of Ministers for approval andtherefore has no legal standing. Another policy document thatmakes substantive reference to coastal management is the Envir-onmental Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Mozambi-que, particularly Section 3.1.3.1 which addresses coastal andmarine ecosystems and islands (approved in July 2007).

More recently, the Government Programme for 2010–2014includes the approval of a policy for the sustainable developmentof coastal zones (Paragraph 173/14). In 2010, the parties to theNairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Devel-opment of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the WIO, ofwhich Mozambique is a signatory, endorsed a decision tostrengthen ICM, which also includes the intention to develop aprotocol to lend support to its further application across theregion (Decision CP 6/3) [46]. Clearly, Mozambique recognises thespecificity of coastal zones and the need for specific policies,legislation and institutions to promote their protection andsustainable development. To date, however, no policy for the

sustainable management of the coastal zone has yet beenadopted, even though it has been referred to since the mid-1990s. The legal provisions for coastal management are mostlyscattered amongst a wide range of related legislation dealing withthe environment, land, territorial planning, water and forest andwildlife resources, and activities such as agriculture, fisheries,tourism, and mining that have a bearing on, and provide a basisfor, coastal management. The inter-relationships of the mainnational legal instruments relevant to coastal management inMozambique are shown in Fig. 2. It is not an exhaustive compila-tion of all applicable legal instruments, but it serves to highlightthat coastal management in Mozambique is based on a complexlegal framework.

The legal landscape in the two countries determines the institu-tional framework for ICM: in the case of South Africa, the ICM Actprescribes a very specific model for ICM. In Mozambique, the lack ofan ICM policy constrains the implementation of ICM. Efforts havebeen made to create an ICM model in Mozambique, but one which isonly partially supported by legislation. The next section describesthe institutional framework for ICM in the two countries.

4.2. Institutions for ICM

4.2.1. Institutions for ICM in South Africa

The ICM Act creates a statutory institutional framework forcoastal management in South Africa (Fig. 3). The Act makesprovision for the creation of coastal committees in the National,Provincial or Municipal spheres of government. Coastal commit-tees form the core of the institutional framework for ICM and theAct defines clear relationships and feedback mechanisms betweenthe coastal committees, thereby creating a nested coastal govern-ance system (see Olsen et al. [62]). In terms of the Act, the

Fig. 2. A non-exhaustive representation of the relationship of national legal instruments relevant to coastal management in Mozambique (see Appendix B). n denotes

regulations, italics indicate linking keyword.

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–86 77

establishment of a National Coastal Committee is optional andProvincial Coastal Committees is mandatory, whereas the estab-lishment of local coastal committees (that is within the localgovernment sphere) is again discretionary (optional). The mainobjectives of coastal committees include the promotion of ICMand its implementation within, and between the three spheres ofgovernment; and, the promotion of integration of coastal man-agement concerns and objectives into all relevant statutory plans.In other words coastal committees are there to monitor andpromote ICM through the realisation of all the responsibilitiesrequired by the ICM Act.

In addition to the institutions for ICM, the ICM Act makesvarious other tools available to facilitate integrated coastalmanagement of the coastal zone. These include coastal manage-ment programmes; estuary management plans; coastal planningschemes; coastal setback lines; and special management areas.One of the primary tools for ICM implementation is CoastalManagement Programmes (CMPs).

All spheres of government must establish and implementCMPs, and ensure that these CMPs align with each other. Thenational CMP must be a policy directive on ICM and provide for anintegrated, co-ordinated and uniform approach to coastal man-agement by organs of state in all spheres of government, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and local commu-nities. It must contain a national vision for coastal managementand the sustainable use of coastal resources; national coastalmanagement objectives; priorities and strategies to achieve thoseobjectives; performance indicators to measure progress with theachievement of those objectives; norms and standards for themanagement of the coastal zone; and an implementation frame-work for co-operative governance.

Similarly, provincial CMP’s provide policy direction for ICM at theprovincial level and must be consistent with the national CMP as wellas the national estuarine management protocol. Municipal CMP’s

applies to a particular coastal municipality and must be consistentwith the national CMP and that of the province in which they arelocated. All spheres of government have four years from the date ofthe commencement of the ICM Act to prepare and adopt CMPs.Beyond this period all coastal management decision-making willhave to be carried out in terms of adopted CMPs but until such time,the White Paper provides guidance as a ‘‘default’’ national CMP.

The Act further provides that statutory plans created bydifferent laws and that may be used for ICM such as Environ-mental Management Plans, Integrated Development Plans, Pro-vincial and Municipal Land Development Plans, the NationalBiodiversity Framework, Bioregional Plans must not only bealigned with (and comprise provisions of) relevant CMPs, butmust also give effect to any applicable CMP. The Act also makesprovision for regular reviews of CMPs.

4.2.2. Institutions in Mozambique

In Mozambique, coastal management has been driven by theMinistry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA).As mentioned previously, MICOA established a Coastal Manage-ment Unit in 1994 which later gave rise to a Department ofCoastal Management. This Department is institutionalised withinthe organisational structure of MICOA (the latest approved byMinisterial Diploma 265/2009) and is in charge of inter aliapromoting coastal zoning, implementing projects; and providingtechnical input to projects and other instruments to ensure thesustainable use of the marine and coastal resources (Art. 9). Inaddition, the Centre for the Sustainable Development of CoastalZones (CDS-ZC) was created in 2003 and was given a set ofresponsibilities directly related to coastal management. Thisincluded; coordination and formulation of processes of integratedplanning and implementation of good practices for the manage-ment of coastal, marine and internal waters environment; and

Fig. 3. Institutions created by the Integrated Coastal Management Act (no. 24 of 2008) of South Africa (Mandatory (M) and Discretionary (D)).

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–8678

providing technical assistance to governmental institutions andother organisations. The mandate of CDS-ZC also includesresearch, monitoring and collection of data on coastal manage-ment, awareness raising, training and building capacity of localcommunities for sustainable resource use. Unlike the ICM Act inSouth Africa which directs the establishment of institutions,Mozambique had to rely on a non-statutory approach to coordi-nate and facilitate horizontal integration across the variousministries, and vertical integration between the various levels ofgovernment, national, provincial and local. This structure ormodel is illustrated in Fig. 4. However, it has not been formallyadopted and does not appear in any policy. It is nevertheless theway the institutional structure for coastal management inMozambique has been portrayed by MICOA, for example at arecent training event on the integration of environmental aspectsin development planning for District governments as part of itsPoverty and Environment Initiative funded by UNDP and UNEP[47,48]. The unofficial state of the framework makes it vulnerableto individual and departmental politics.

At the national level, the coordinating body for coastal man-agement is the Technical Inter-Institutional Committee for ICM(CTIIGIZC) established under the National Council for SustainableDevelopment (CONDES). CONDES is an assembly of nationalministers and is chaired by the Prime Minister with the MICOAMinister as vice-president, and the various line ministers as itsmembers. The CTIIGIZC mirrors the composition of CONDES withrepresentatives from the different line ministries, research insti-tutions and MICOA’s Department for Coastal Management andCDS-ZC. NGOs and experts may also be invited to participate inthe CTIIGIZC’s sessions. In provincial government, there areProvincial Technical Teams (ETPs) formed by the institutionsrepresenting the various line-ministries at the provincial level,which are called provincial directorates. Common directorates

found in provinces include those of Environment, Agriculture,Fisheries and Tourism. As in the CTIIGIZC, NGOs may also beinvolved in the ETPs. At the local level (district and municipal)there are structures for collaborative management that involvelocal communities, private sector, NGOs and community-basedorganisations such as producers associations and co-operatives.

The CTIIGIZC broadly aims to ensure a coordinated approach tocoastal management involving all the relevant line ministries, andprovide information and guidance to the provincial level. The ETPs,in turn, are established to undertake integrated planning andimplementation with the input of the various sectors. In addition,the ETPs provide technical assistance to the districts and munici-palities in terms of integrated planning that also includes theconcerns of stakeholders, and draws on the expertise of the varioussectors involved. They are expected to work directly with districtand municipal governments and existing collaborative structures atthese levels, which are responsible for implementation of ICM plans.

Coastal management institutions in Mozambique are notprescribed by existing legislation. There is no law, policy andstrategy stating that coastal management must be organised inthis way and that defines the roles of each institution andestablishes how they should interact. For example, the CTIIGIZCis not institutionalised, it does not feature in the decree definingCONDES’s composition and functioning (Decree 40/2000).It operates mostly through existing institutions that were notcreated specifically for ICM (with the exception of the CTIIGIZC)and using the legislation in place. Because it lacks institutionali-sation in law or policy, it is difficult to predict the endurance ofthis structure, or to what extent it functions as depicted. At thetime of this study the CTIIGIZC was still reported to convene,although the periodicity of these meetings is unclear. ETPs havealso been formed in some provinces and have worked withdistricts and municipalities in preparing macro-zoning plans for

Fig. 4. Institutional framework for coastal management in Mozambique.

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–86 79

the coastal zone, facilitated by CDS-ZC with funding from inter-national donors [49–54]. However, ETPs are not permanentinstitutions that form part of formalised ICM. They were con-vened for the very specific purpose of preparing internationallyfunded macro-zoning plans. Once the plans were completed,there was no evidence of these teams continuing to promotethe objectives of ICM. It appears that their existence is highlydependent on donor-funding.

4.3. Climate change policy

This study also assessed the extent to which climate changeimpacts on coastal zones are recognised and addressed in govern-ment policies. It was also relevant to evaluate the recognition ofthe role of ICM in adapting to climate change. The underlyingproblem or challenge is the extent to which existing legal andpolicy frameworks promote or hinder proactive adaptation toclimate change; and whether or not the legal and policy land-scape include tools or provisions to monitor and revise, ifrequired, management approaches and their implementation.The sections below present the assessment of policy by country.

4.3.1. Climate change policy in Mozambique

In Mozambique the following policy frameworks serve topromote ICM, cooperative governance and preparedness forclimate change at local level:

4.3.1.1. National Adaption Programme of Action. MICOA adoptedthe National Adaption Programme of Action (NAPA) in 2007 [55]which identified the coastal zone, where 60% of the population

lives, as vulnerable. The main objective of NAPA is to contribute tothe sustainable development of the coastal zone through thereduction of socioeconomic impacts of climate change byintroducing ICM at community level, and strengthening theawareness of the State and community institutions regardingthe vulnerability of the coastal zone.

NAPA identifies the following as a long term result: adaptationto climate change adopted in the strategic plans and of localdevelopment, through the reductions or elimination of coastalerosion in the socio-economic development of the regions andwith positive impacts in the agriculture, water availability,sanitation, human settlements, protection of the coastline andbiodiversity. With that purpose in mind, it recommends theinvolvement of local communities and of the private sector inplanning and local development.

4.3.1.2. Environmental Strategy for Sustainable Development. TheEnvironmental Strategy for Sustainable Development (2007)describes Mozambique’s vision regarding the coastline as thepromotion of the sustainable use of the natural andenvironmental resources, in particular the marine and coastalresources, in order to reduce the levels of poverty of coastalcommunities and recognises the oceans, seas, islands and coastalzones as fundamental elements for food security and economicsustainability and prosperity. Insofar as the management of themarine ecosystems is concerned, the Strategy recommends theimplementation of Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 through integratedand sustainable management of the marine environment and ofclimate change, regional coordination and cooperation and

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–8680

sustainable development of the numerous islands located alongthe 2700 km Mozambican coastline.

4.3.1.3. Other policy frameworks. The recognition of climatechange at a more general policy level is broad and includes thefollowing references:

�

The Programme of the Government (2010–2014) establishes,as one of its programme objectives within the environmentalsector, the promotion of environmental quality as well aspolicies and strategies for adaptation and mitigation to climatechange (172); � The Strategy of Implementation of the Policy of International

Cooperation, approved by Resolution 34/2010 of 30/08/2010,foresees support for the implementation of programmes ofadaptation and mitigation to climate change as a way ofincreasing the technological and scientific capacity of theMozambican citizens (9.1);

� The External Policy, approved by Resolution 32/2010 of 30/08/

2010, highlights the importance of adaptation to climatechange considering the vulnerabilities of Mozambique whichare described under Section 6.9.6 of the policy;

� The Policy for the Conservation and its Strategy for Implemen-

tation, approved by Resolution 63/2009 of 02/11/2009, estab-lishes the following as one of the objectives for theconservation of the biodiversity: to ensure the implementationof activities is environmentally sustainable; and the effectivemanagement of conservation areas, with positive impacts inthe quality of life and climate change. It further seeks to ensurethat implementation is properly integrated in the territorialplanning policies of Mozambique and in its local, national andinternational development;

� The National Forest Policy (Resolution 8/97, of 01/04/1997) refers

not only to Agenda 21, but expressly refers to it being guided bythe principles of the Climate Change Convention; and

� The Mozambique Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PARPA II)

highlights [56] the following environmental priorities forMozambique: sanitation; territorial planning and prevention ofsoil degradation. It further considers the importance of environ-mental governance and recognises the link between poverty andenvironment is focused on environmental education, tourism,mines, fisheries, management of coastal and marine zones andthe vulnerability regarding natural disasters. It does not specifi-cally refer to climate change. However within its priorities itdefines the need to: prepare a plan to fight against naturalvulnerable anthropogenic situations (including floods anddroughts); decentralise the functions of the state at district levelin order to enhance local development.

The policy for the sustainable management of the coastal zonehas not yet been approved. It is, however, anticipated in theProgramme of Government (2010–2014). No drafts or preparatorywork for this policy have been found during the research under-taken for this assessment. It can however be concluded that thispolitical guidance to support adaptation to climate change isdirectly addressed in some of the policies assessed above, andindirectly though the sustainable use of natural resource forpoverty alleviation programmes.

4.3.2. Climate change policy in South Africa

The major policy frameworks that best promote cooperativegovernance and coastal communities’ preparedness for climatechange at local level are provided in the sections below. Somemunicipalities also have policy frameworks that address ICM,cooperative governance and climate change, for example the

eThekwini Coastal Management Strategy (unpublished). Howeverthis is currently only a draft and for this reason is not discussed inthis report. The City of Cape Town (CCT) has developed sustain-able coastal management plans (SCMPs, see http://www.capetown.gov.za/) aimed at managing the coastal zone in a sustainablemanner and providing for the co-ordinated management ofvarious sensitive coastal areas in Cape Town. The CCT has alsoadopted Coastal Zone Management Strategy [57] with the aim ofprotecting, optimising and enhancing the coastal zone. Thestrategy focuses on coordination and the implementation of theSCMPs but does not specifically refer to ICM or climate change.

Of the major policy frameworks listed above only a proportiondeal directly with climate change and these are briefly described.

4.3.2.1. National Climate Change Response White Paper (2011).

The government recognised the cross-cutting nature of climatechange impacts and responses and consequently prepared nationalpolicy to the challenge [58]. The Climate Change Response WhitePaper recognises that climate change is one of the greatest threats tosustainable development and, if left unmitigated, will undo manypositive advances in meeting development goals. Furthermore, itaccepts that South Africa will have to adapt to the unavoidableimpacts of climate change through the management of risk and thereduction of vulnerability.

The objectives are to contribute to the global effort as well as to ‘‘Effectively manage inevitable climate change impacts throughinterventions that build and sustain South Africa’s social, economicand environmental resilience and emergency response capacity’’;and to ‘‘make a fair contribution to the global effort to stabilisegreenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level thatavoids dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climatesystem within a timeframe that enables economic, social andenvironmental development to proceed in a sustainable manner’’.

In order to achieve its response objectives, the White Paper isguided by the principles set out in the South African Constitution,the Bill of Rights, the National Environmental Management Act(NEMA), the Millennium Development Goals and the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The WhitePaper acknowledges that ocean temperatures will increase, acid-ify, and that sea-level rise will negatively impact the coast andcoastal infrastructure. Estuaries will also be vulnerable to long-term sea-level rise. Flooding and coastal erosion, and the intensityand frequency of storms will further impact the coastal areas.The Climate Change Response White Paper provides a number ofresponses to these challenges, specifies the need for disaster riskreduction and management, and an approach to mitigation.

Interestingly, the White Paper acknowledges that the mandatefor local government to take on various specific climate change-related issues is not always clear, and that it may be useful toassign specific powers for mitigation and adaptation actions suchas coastal management. This provides a clear and direct linkbetween ICM, local and provincial government and climatechange in South Africa. It also provides a clear indication of theneed to empower provincial and local governments to respond toclimate change through the provision of incentives for adaptationand mitigation. The White Paper, if enacted, will be one of the firstspecific climate change laws in Africa.

4.3.2.2. National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD),

2011–2014 Strategic Plan for the Environmental Sector (sector

Strategic Plan); and National Delivery Agreement on Outcome

10. National Government recognises that climate change is asustainability issue and represents a major challenge to achievingsustainable development objectives and Millennium DevelopmentGoals. ‘‘Responding effectively to climate change’’ is the first of five

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–86 81

priorities in the NSSD and it specifically includes ‘‘improving climateresilience in communities’’ as one of the national goals forsustainable development [59]. The NSSD further identifies variousadaptation interventions that are relevant to, or specifically aimed,at coastal communities and in support of this goal. These includeinterventions such as introducing development restrictions incoastal and flood prone areas; maintaining ecosystems that offerprotection against natural disasters; improving disaster mana-gement systems; local level adaptation plans; and building ruralcommunities’ adaptation capacity.

The 2009–2014 Strategic Plan for the Environmental Sectorand high-level delivery agreement on Outcome 10 [60,61] bothidentify climate change as one of the four critical challengesfacing government today. The Sector Strategic Plan recognisesthat the development of appropriate responses to the challengesof climate change requires action across all government institu-tions and strong leadership, both from government and society asa whole, to implement such responses.

Similarly, delivery agreement on Outcome 10 recognisesclimate change as one of the critical elements that all organs ofstate in all three spheres of government must address. UnderOutcome 10 the focus falls on activities that will result in thereduction of greenhouse gas emissions; preparation of strategiesto cope with projected climate change impacts; and reversing therising trend in the release of pollutants into the atmosphere.Provincial environment departments, including representationfrom provincial departments responsible for rural developmentand agriculture, are identified as core delivery partners in achiev-ing this output.

The Sector Plan further emphasises that effective environmentimpact management is required to address climate changeimpacts such as sea level rise and natural disasters on marineand coastal systems and livelihoods and identifies the followingkey ways in which to achieve this:

�

developing and implementing integrated coastal planning andmanagement systems; � increasing control of unsustainable coastal developments; � implementing sustainable livelihoods programmes in coastal

areas;

� increasing research efforts to focus on increasing understanding

of the vulnerability of marine and coastal ecosystems to climatechange; and

� developing and implementing opportunities for sustainable

non-consumptive activities within coastal and marine areas.

The extent to which the policy frameworks described abovehave been implemented falls outside the scope of this paper andis therefore not dealt with.

4.3.3. Climate change in legislation: enabling adaptation

There is practically no provision or acknowledgement of climatechange in Mozambican legislation. Subsequently, there is currently nolegislation that directly enables and activates local government toprepare for climate change. However, there are various laws andplanning instruments required by law that could potentially be usedas a driver for climate change adaptation. These include the legalobligation of local governments to prepare local development plansand land-use plans, and take measures to protect the environment.Whether existing non-climate change laws facilitate adaptation toclimate change depends on the extent to which climate change isrecognised as a threat and measures to reduce vulnerability andenhance adaptive capacity are integrated or mainstreamed into howsome of these laws are applied, including the various planninginstruments they prescribe. Beyond effective mainstreaming there is

the issue of prioritisation of climate change adaptation and effectiveplan implementation.

The situation in South Africa is only marginally better.Although there is a plethora of legal instruments that can beused to promote ICM and cooperative governance, there is verylittle provision specific to climate change in legislation thatpromotes preparedness for climate change at local level. As inMozambique, several laws can be used to good effect by localgovernment though, and they include the National EnvironmentalManagement: ICM Act; Disaster Management Act; Local Govern-ment Systems Act; and Municipal Town Planning Schemes.

In terms of Section 9 of the ICM Act, the Minister (Department ofEnvironmental Affairs), with the concurrence of the Minister of LandAffairs, can acquire private land for the purposes of declaring it ascoastal public property. This can be done (among other reasons) toprotect people, property and economic activities from risks arisingfrom dynamic coastal processes, including the risk of sea level rise. Ifthe Minister were to decide to do this, he/she would need to eitherbuy the property or exchange it for other land. If no agreement canbe reached to do this he/she can expropriate the land.

The ICM Act also deals with issues of erosion and accretion(both of which can be due to climate change related changes), asthey affect ownership. If the high-water mark moves inland of theboundary line of your land unit, due to the erosion of the coast, sealevel rise or other causes, and remains inland of that line for aperiod of three years, the owner of the land loses ownership of theaffected portion and is not entitled to compensation (unless themovement of the high-water mark was caused by an intentional ornegligent act or omission from an organ of state and was reason-ably foreseeable). Alternatively, if accretion occurs, whether as aresult of natural causes (which would include climate change) orhuman activities, land which formed part of the seashore when theICM Act took effect, and land which subsequently becomes situatedinland of the high-water mark (as a result of a change in position ofthe high-water mark), remains coastal public property and there-fore cannot be privately owned. Also, private landowners cannotrequire the State to step in and take measures to prevent erosionon any private land that may be adjacent to public property that isbeing affected by coastal processes; nor can the owner erectanything to prevent the erosion (or accretion) of the seashore,unless specifically provided for in terms of the ICM Act.

5. Discussion

In South Africa, ICM was established as the ‘‘paradigm ofchoice’’ in national policy late 1990s. It has however only recentlybeen entrenched in law with the promulgation of the ICM Act in2008. Accordingly, adequate provision has been made for theintegration of ICM at national, provincial and local governmentsphere. This was done through the various statutory managementand planning tools provided for in the ICM Act and in municipalplanning tools such as IDPs. The ICM Act creates a nested systemof governance (see Olsen et al. [62]) that includes supportinginstitutions and management plans.

The ICM Act provides a clear legislative mandate for organs ofstate (including local authorities) in relation to coastal areas;allows for the devolution of powers and decentralised decision-making; and envisages the creation of coastal zone departments/divisions within the relevant authorities. The ICM Act alsoprovides the institutional framework (through the establishmentof Coastal Committees and involvement of communities forexample) to underpin cooperative governance in the coastal zone.The participation of interested and affected parties in policy anddecision-making is a key element of various planning tools andlegal instruments that regulate land use and resource utilisation.

Box 1–Key success factors for assessing the effectiveness of theexisting policy and legal frameworks to respond to the challengesof climate change.

� The flexibility provided in the law to enable local govern-

ment structures to perform the powers and functions

specified in the law, and accordingly to deliver the services

envisaged under the law to affected communities.

� The extent to which management structures, measures

and tools provided for in the law, depend on the

availability of capacity (competency) and resources (hu-

man and financial).

� The flexibility provided in the law to enable local commu-

nities to contribute indigenous and traditional knowledge

and practices to planning and decision-making processes.

� The existence of feedback mechanisms and extent to

which information exchange and consultation (about

needs, priorities, services etc.) between local government

structures and communities is encouraged and facilitated,

as opposed to alienating or dividing communities.

� The provision which is made in the law to develop and

implement programs to create awareness and to transfer

knowledge about ICM and climate change among local

communities.

� The extent to which land use planning, disaster manage-

ment and the regulation of natural resource use are

integrated with ICM as opposed to being ‘‘disconnected’’

and implemented in an uncoordinated manner.

� The nature of measures to facilitate the consideration of

community issues or concerns in planning and decision-

making processes and the structures that are established

to ensure this.

� The existence and nature of monitoring, enforcement and

reporting mechanisms and the extent to which these

involve local communities, as opposed to excluding them.

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–8682

As a result of the ICM Act, there is a proliferation of implementa-tion plans, programmes and strategies which include objectiveson mainstreaming ICM, addressing climate change at communitylevel (including the coast) and facilitating community participa-tion in planning and decision-making about land use and accessto and use of natural resources; and various policy instrumentsexist which recognise coastal communities’ vulnerability to cli-mate change and seek to address the potential impacts of climatechange on local communities (including coastal communities).

The case of Mozambique is somewhat different as there is alack of a coherent institutional framework (with clear competen-cies and mandates) for ICM. This has largely been overcome withthe constitution of the Unity of Coastal Management withinMICOA, and in 2003 by the creation of CDS-ZC which is asubordinate agency of MICOA. In reality there is only an informalinstitutional framework to address coastal management issues.Furthermore, the existing legislation in Mozambique remainsfragmented and specific policy on the sustainable managementof the coastal zone has yet to be approved (despite it beingenvisaged in the Programme of Government, 2010–2014). Be thatas it may, the policies reviewed indicate a shift towards greatercommunity participation in the decision-making process. Theimportance of traditional authorities and indigenous knowledge,as well as customary law, is acknowledged in the MozambicanConstitution and secondary legislation. Some guidance on adap-tation to climate change is provided directly by the NAPA [55] andindirectly by policies dealing with the management and sustain-able use of natural resources and environmental protection.However, it appears that implementation plans, human andfinancial resources and effective integration between the differentpolicies and existing legal framework is lacking. The approval ofthe policy for the sustainable management of the coastal zone,foreseen under the Programme of Government, is expected toprovide guidance in this respect.

Irrespective of the state of institutionalisation of coastal manage-ment, there are three critical elements that determine the effective-ness of existing policy and legal frameworks; and the extent to whichthese frameworks will be able to influence or shape management andpolicy decisions to ensure coastal communities’ preparedness forclimate change. Firstly, sufficient capacity must exist to ensure thatlocal communities have the requisite knowledge and expertise toparticipate fully in the mechanisms and tools provided in the variouspolicy documents and laws. In other words, the regulatory regimesand management models must be appropriate to the circumstanceson the ground and the capacity within affected communities.Secondly, comments made by interested and affected parties duringthe public participation processes must be taken into account andconsidered by the responsible persons or officials. The final element isthe existence of sufficient political will to respond to the threats andchallenges posed by climate change, especially where that responsemay be unpopular from a political point of view. Policy and legalframeworks must also be adequately funded and the necessarypriority afforded in implementation strategies and programmes.

Furthermore, policy, legislation and institutions essentially onlycreate the enabling environment within which decision-making,management interventions and planning take place. A formal ICMframework may determine principles to guide decision-making;establish institutions to perform certain functions; describe institu-tional arrangements to ensure coordinated action; determine pro-cedures for regulating activities; set objectives and standards forperformance; provide management and planning tools and mechan-isms; and determine compliance monitoring and enforcementmeasures. Apart from the three critical elements described in theprevious paragraph, the effectiveness of such measures will, how-ever, depend on various external factors and circumstances ‘‘onthe ground’’. These may include the availability and adequacy of

capacity and resources to implement; socio-economic factorsand trends; political influences and priorities; social structuresand networks; management, communication and extensionservices and systems; and differing management approachesand objectives.

Within the context of the objectives, the authors can merelycomment on what constitute ‘‘key success factors’’ for assessing theeffectiveness of the existing policy and legal frameworks, and theextent to which these frameworks will be able to influence or shapemanagement and policy decisions to ensure coastal communitiesare able to adapt to climate change (Box 1 below). The authors haverelied on their collective expertise and experience of the ICM andclimate change policy and legal environments and our interpretationof the existing policy and legal frameworks in South Africa andMozambique.

Insofar as the issue of adequate capacity at community level isconcerned, it would appear that in both countries, the capacity andability to implement the numerous mechanisms provided for in thepolicy and legislation is questionable. Some of the mechanismsenvisaged (particularly in the South African context) require sus-tained efforts at capacity building and considerable resources toimplement. It is common knowledge that local authorities (in SouthAfrica) are unable to meet service delivery objectives and manystruggle with inadequate budget allocations. Similarly, it is alsocommon knowledge that, while mechanisms for co-managementand public consultation exist, many communities feel disempoweredand complain about being excluded from decision-making and

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–86 83

priority setting processes. There is also ample evidence (in the form ofappeals and high court reviews) that community issues and concernsraised in the course of development processes are often ignored ornot properly considered. In South Africa, co-management of land andresources at community level is not wide-spread but limited toprojects, which to the best of our knowledge focus on protectedareas and resource use and not on the coastal zone or ICM per se. Forexample, the Wild Coast Project on Conservation and SustainableDevelopment [63] aims to contribute towards improving SouthAfrica’s network of protected areas on communally owned land alongthe Wild Coast of the Eastern Cape. While co-management asenvisaged in the small-scale fishing Draft Policy [64] focuses on thesustainability of coastal communities and the resources on whichtheir livelihoods depend, it is not primarily aimed at ensuring ICM orensuring that the affected communities are able to adapt to climatechange impacts.

Conversely, co-management appears to be more wide-spreadin Mozambique. The weak integration between disaster and land-use planning, inadequate budget constraints that many localauthorities and local communities face, and general tardiness inenforcing regulatory requirements are all indicative of an appar-ent lack of political will to mainstream ICM which would facilitatecommunity preparedness for climate change.

From the policy and legal analysis it is clear that the regulatoryand management models adopted in the two countries differ in thefollowing key respects: South Africa has a single, national law thatprovides for ICM across all spheres of government whereas inMozambique the legal framework is fragmented. The ICM modelprovided for in the ICM Act is comprehensive and addresses a widerange of management issues compared to the relatively simple andinconsistent model supported by Mozambican law. In South Africaintegration is entrenched in the law (in that ICM Act creates relation-ships between legislation that regulate development, land andresource use), whereas in Mozambique, integration is not legislatedand only addressed in policy and by informal institutions. Thequestion is not which is the better of the two, but rather which isbest suited to the specific circumstances and local governmentstructures.

Both countries have a proliferation of policies, programmes andlegal instruments that could be used to address coastal managementand climate change to a lesser or greater degree. These instrumentsprovide a policy and regulatory environment for adequate ICM andthe participation of coastal communities in planning and decision-making processes, that (on paper) appears adequate given theparticular socio-economic and political circumstances in which theyare implemented. In our view, a key issue regarding the effectivenessof these policy and legal frameworks lies not with the policies andlaws themselves, but with the ability and competency of theresponsible authorities to effectively exercise their mandates anddeliver the services required. It is important therefore to determinethe extent to which institutional failure and inadequacy affect theeffectiveness of policy and legal instruments. This clearly needs to betested at ground level.

In order to identify the gaps that future legal frameworks shouldaddress it is necessary to undertake a comprehensive legal auditwhich falls outside the scope of the study. Accordingly, the authorsprovide, within the limitations of this study, an indication of theprinciples that should be considered for inclusion in future legislationto enhance cooperative governance, promote ICM and ensure greaterpreparedness for climate change at community evel.

6. Conclusions

This study touched on a number of fundamental issues thatmust be considered when developing and implementing policyand legal instruments. These can be presented as lessons learnt.

The first lesson relates to deciding on the sort of governancesystem and management approach to be adopted. In this respect itis important to first identify and clarify what needs to be achieved;next determine whether there are gaps/problems; and then deter-mine how best they can be addressed. With respect to addressingclimate change it is important that consideration be given to whatthe particular threats/challenges are that make local communitiesvulnerable; and to determine what can be done to address thesethreats or challenges.

The most important lesson for replication purposes is to recog-nise that the particular system of governance, social structure,physical environment and local economy will determine what sortof regulatory regime, institutional arrangement and managementapproach is best suited. While many of the management instru-ments and mechanisms that are provided for in the South AfricanICM Act, and the integrated approach set out in it for coastalmanagement, can be used and repeated elsewhere, the particulargovernance system of each country must be taken into account inthe approach adopted so as to maximise integration. For example, inMozambique the multi-tiered organisational structure for fisheriesco-management (Commission of Fisheries Administration, CCG andCCP established under the General Regulation of Marine Fisheries) isa good example of how institutional arrangements have beendeveloped to ‘‘fit’’ the particular governance system: of communityinvolvement in the protection of coastal zones and the marineenvironment based in the principle of ownership of the resources bythe local communities.

Another important lesson is that the failure of policy and legalinstruments often lies in institutional failure due to inadequateresource (human and financial) allocation, skill and competencygaps and lack of political will. It is important therefore to addressinstitutional issues and consider institutional constraints andlimitations when designing legal instruments and governancesystems. A critical question to consider and address in this respectis what are the blockages to implementation, where do they occurand how can they be removed/minimised?

A fourth lesson is that a cross-sectoral approach must be adoptedto ensure that climate change considerations are taken into accountin all decisions or matters that may be affected by climate change.Furthermore, people must be provided with knowledge and infor-mation so that they can participate meaningfully and contribute toprograms, plans or policies relating to climate change.

Lastly, it is important that there are regular reviews of the policyand legal frameworks to ensure they remain relevant and appro-priate. In this regard consideration should be given to whatmeasures are in place to measure and amend existing policyframeworks and laws’ effectiveness in respect of, for example,addressing environmental and social impacts, cost effectiveness,distributional effects (including equity) and institutional feasibility?

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the WesternIndian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA) which fundedthis work through its Marine Science for Management (MASMA)programme, research Grant no.: MASMA/CC/2010/09. MicasMechisso is acknowledged for his insights into Mozambican politics.

Appendix A. Legislation used for integrated coastalmanagement in South Africa, and coordinated by theIntegrated Coastal Management Act (ICM Act, no. 4 of 2008)

See Table A1 for details.

Table A1

Legal instrument Description

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa

(Act 108 of 1996)

The ICM Act seeks to give effect to the environmental right in section 24 of the Constitution. Section 3 of the ICM

Act provides that in fulfilling those rights, the State must act as the trustee of the coastal zone and must take

reasonable measures to achieve the progressive realisation of those rights in the interests of every person.

National Environmental Management Act 107

of 1998 (NEMA)

Section 2 of NEMA stipulates the principles that apply to all actions that may significantly affect the

environment including the coastal environment. These principles form the basis for environmental management

and must guide all decision-making. It is this chapter that, for example, provides that development must be

socially, economically and environmentally sustainable, or that a risk-averse and cautious approach must be

applied in decision-making. Chapter 3 of NEMA deals with procedures for cooperative governance and

specifically requires the preparation and adoption of environmental management plans (EMPs) and

environmental implementation programmes (EIPs). The ICM Act requires all EMPs adopted under this NEMA to

be aligned with, and give effect to coastal management plans (CMPs) adopted under ICM the Act. Chapter 5 of

NEMA deals with environmental authorisations and is given effect to by section 63 of the ICM Act which

imposes additional requirements to the provisions of chapter 5 of NEMA. Chapter 7 of NEMA deals with

compliance and enforcement. This chapter comprises a ‘’duty of care’’ provision which imposes a responsibility

on any person who causes, has caused or may cause significant environmental degradation to take reasonable

measures to prevent such degradation, or, if such degradation is lawful or cannot reasonably be avoided, to

minimise and remedy the adverse environmental impact. To this end section 58 of the ICM Act provides that

section 28 of NEMA is applicable to any impact caused by any person which has an adverse effect on the coastal

environment. Chapter 4 of NEMA applies the resolution of conflicts arising from the implementation of the ICM

Act.

National Environmental Management: Protected

Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA)

The ICM Act is concerned with the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of

South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes. The ICM Act makes provision for the

so-called coastal protected areas. In the event that a protected area declared or regarded as such in terms of

section 84 of NEMPAA, falls within the coastal zone, such a protected area automatically becomes a coastal

protected area and forms part of the coastal protection zone, except where the provincial Member of the

Executive Community (MEC) has declared that the whole or any part of such area will not form part of the

coastal protection zone. A coastal protected area is mainly regulated under NEMPAA but is also subject to all

relevant the ICM Act provisions regulating its use and management. If a coastal protected has also been declared

for other specific purposes under ICMA such as a special management area, it will be managed as such under the

ICM Act parallel to NEMPAA.

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity

Act 10 of 2004 (NEMBA)

NEMBA is concerned with the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity and the protection of

species and ecosystems that warrant national protection 66. Section 38 of NEMBA requires the preparation of a

national biodiversity framework as well as bioregional plans in terms of sections 38 and 39 of NEMBA. Section

52 of the ICM Act stipulates that there must be alignment and consistency between these and CMPs.

National Environmental Management:

Waste Act 59 of 2008 (NEMWA)

Waste disposal is generally regulated by NEMWA save for specific circumstances where certain activities will

fall under other legislation, for example where waste disposal is likely to detrimentally impact a water resource,

it is regard as a ‘‘water use’’ under the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA) and it is dealt with under that Act

68. In similar fashion waste disposal that is likely to have a detrimental impact on the coastal environment is

subjected to the provisions of the ICM Act dealing with waste. The ICM Act regulates the discharge of effluent

into coastal waters, and incineration or dumping at sea. NEMWA is also relevant in the coastal zone. Section 26

of NEMWA prohibits and makes it an offence to dispose of waste in or on any land, water body or at any facility

or disposal of waste in a manner that is likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to health and well-

being. Section 16 of NEMWA requires a holder of waste to take all reasonable measures to avoid the generation

of waste and where it cannot be avoided, to minimise the toxicity and amounts of waste that are generated; and

to ensure that where waste must be disposed of, it is treated and disposed of in an environmentally sound

manner. These sections are applicable in the coastal environment.

National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA) The Minister (responsible for the ICM Act) may not issue a coastal waters discharge permit unless having

consulted the Minister responsible for water, if the discharge of effluent goes into an estuary. The definition of

‘‘water resource’’ in the NWA includes an estuary. Therefore the discharging of waste or water containing waste

into an estuary or disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on an estuary amounts to

‘’water use’’ under section 21 of NWA. This means that a person may be required to have both a water use

licence and a coastal waters discharge permit. The ICM Act requires that a national estuarine management

protocol must be established by the Minister (Department of Environmental Affairs) with the concurrence of the

Department of Water Affairs.

National Forests Act 84 of 1998 (NFA) NFA makes provision for the declaration of protected areas in the form of forest nature reserves; forest

wilderness areas; or controlled forest areas; etc. These protected areas may fall within the coastal environment

in which case they become subject to both the provisions of the ICM Act as well as NFA.

Maritime Zones Act 15 of 1994 (MZA) Some sections of the ICM Act are read in conjunction with the Maritime Zones Act. The ICM Act refers to coastal

waters, territorial waters, high-water mark, low-water mark, the exclusive economic zone, etc. which are

defined in terms of the MZA.

Local Government: Municipal Systems

Act 32 of 2000 (MSA)

The ICM Act provides that a coastal municipality may prepare and adopt its own CMP as part of an Integrated

Development Plan (IDP) and Spatial Development Framework (SDF) in terms of the Municipal Systems Act. In

doing so the municipality must follow the public participation requirements under the MSA. An IDP and SDF

must be aligned with, and give effect to, the national and provincial CMPs.

Land Survey Act 8 of 1997 (LSA) Section 14 of the ICM Act allows for a curvilinear boundary that extends to the high-water mark to be

substituted by a boundary of another character. That process must however follow the procedure prescribed in

section 34 of the LSA. When the national Minister, provincial MEC or a municipality determines or adjusts a

coastal boundary in terms of section 26 (1) or section 26 (2) of the ICM Act, the relevant Registrar of Deeds must

be notified of such exercise of power and included in that notification must be a description of the land involved.

Such notification must be accompanied by a diagram as defined in section 1 of the LSA.

Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937 As mentioned above, when the Minister, MEC or a municipality determines or adjusts a coastal boundary in

terms of section 26 (1) or section 26 (2) of the ICM Act, the relevant Registrar of Deeds must be notified of such

exercise of power and included in that notification must be a description of the land involved.

Expropriation Act 63 of 1975 The acquisition of private land by the State through the Minister, acting with the concurrence of the Minister of

Land Affairs, for the purpose of declaring that land as coastal public property may take the form of purchasing

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–8684

Table A1 (continued )

Legal instrument Description

the land; exchanging the land for other land; or expropriation of that land. In the event that the land is

expropriated such action must take place in accordance with the Expropriation Act.

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000

(PAJA)

PAJA seeks to give the right effect to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair which

allows everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action to be given written reasons.

The ICM Act makes provision in various sections for consultation and participation of all person affected and

concerned with the relevant proposed exercise of power by any person authorised to do so under the ICM Act.

National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (NHRA) NHRA is concerned with protecting and preserving the national heritage resources. NHRA defines a ‘’heritage

resource’’ as any place or object of cultural significance. One of the few considerations for a declaration of a

special management area in terms of section 23 of the ICM Act is its cultural conditions.

Planning laws All legislation that regulates the planning or development of land must apply with legislation in relation to land

use in the coastal protection zone in a way that gives effect to the purposes for which the protection zone is

established as set out in section 17 of the ICM Act. An organ of state may not authorise land within the coastal

protection zone to be used for any activity that may have an adverse effect on the coastal environment without

first considering an environmental impact assessment report.

Table B1

Legal instrument Description

The Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique

(approved in 22/12/2004)

The Constitution seeks to give effect to the environmental right established under Article 90

which states that every citizen has the right to live in a healthy environment, and has duty of care

and protection. For that purpose, it establishes that the State and local government, in

collaboration with other relevant associations, adopt policies for the protection of the

environment, and promote the rational use of all natural resources.

The Environmental Law (Law 20/97 of 07/10/1997) The Environmental Law establishes the following fundamental principles that guides all

environmental management actions, including those relating to the coastal zone:

a) Rational use and management of the environment with the aim of promoting a better quality

of life and the preservation of the biodiversity and ecosystems; recognition of traditions and

indigenous knowledge of local communities that contribute to the conservation of natural

resources and the environment.

b) Precaution.

c) Comprehensive and integrated vision of the environment as a set of interdependent

ecosystems, natural and constructed, which must be managed so as to maintain its functional

balance without exceeding its intrinsic limits.

d) Participation of citizens.

e) Equality and gender balance.

f) Accountability for actions that pollute or otherwise degrade the environment, coupled with the

obligation to repair or compensate for the damage arising of such actions.

g) International cooperation to achieve agreeable solutions to environmental problems.

The Territorial Planning Law (Law 19/2007, of 18/07/2007) One of the objectives of this law is the preservation of the ecological balance of; quality and

fertility of soils; clean air; protection of fragile ecosystems and habitats; forests; water resources;

and coastal areas and the waterfront, thus bringing together the immediate needs of people and

local communities with the objective of safeguarding the environment.

Regulation for the Prevention of Pollution and

Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment

(Decree 45/2006, of 30/11/2006)

This regulation aims to prevent and limit pollution, illegally discharged from vessels, platforms or

land-based sources, off the coast of Mozambique; and the establishment of a legal basis for the

protection and conservation of areas that are public domain (sea, lakes and rivers, beaches and

fragile ecosystems) in accordance with the objectives defined under Article 2.

Forest and Wildlife Law (Law 10/99, of 12/07/1999) Establishes fundamental principles that are relevant for the conservation of biodiversity; forest

and wildlife as part of the public domain managed by the State; balance between policies of

economic and social development; and of preservation and conservation of the biodiversity which,

in order to promote a sustainable development, must include the local communities, the private

sector and the civil society; liability for damage to forest and wildlife resources and the obligation

to pay compensation for the restoration of degraded areas and damages to third parties.

Water Law (Law 16/91, of 03/08/1991) Establishes prohibited activities, also relevant to coastal management, under Article 53:

a) Direct or indirect discharges that contaminate the water.

b) The accumulation of solid waste, waste or any substances that contaminate or create a danger

of contamination of water.

c) Any activities in the protection zones set out in the water development plans that involve or

may involve danger of contamination of public water.

Land Law (Law 19/97, of 07/10/1997) This law defines an ‘‘area of nature protection’’ as public domain for the preservation or protection

of certain animal or plant species, biodiversity, historical monuments, scenic and natural,

preferably under the management of local communities.

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–86 85

Appendix B. Non-exhaustive list of legislationused for coastal management in Mozambique

See Table B1 for details.

References

[1] Adams WM. The future of sustainability re-thinking environment anddevelopment in the twenty-first century—report of the IUCN renownedthinkers meeting, 29–31 January 2006; 2006.

L. Celliers et al. / Marine Policy 39 (2013) 72–8686

[2] United Nations. Report of the United Nations conference on the humanenvironment; 1972.

[3] IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts onthe Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP).The contributions of science to integrated coastal management; 1996. p. 66.

[4] Cicin-Sain B. Sustainable development and integrated coastal management.Ocean Coastal Manage 1993;21:11–43.

[5] Cullinan C. Integrated coastal management law: establishing and strengthen-ing national legal frameworks for integrated coastal management. Food andAgriculture Organisation; 2006.

[6] Bridge L, Gilbert C. Taking action on the coast: an introductory guide for localauthorities. Coastlink; 2001.

[7] Shipman B, Facts Stojanovic T. Fictions, and failures of integrated coastal zonemanagement in Europe. Coastal Manage 2007;35:375–98.

[8] Stojanovic T, Ballinger RC, Lalwani CS. Successful integrated coastal manage-ment: measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice. OceanCoastal Manage 2004;47:273–98.

[9] Ngoile MAK, Linden O. Lessons learned from Eastern Africa: the developmentof policy on ICZM at national and regional levels. Ocean Coastal Manage1997;37:295–318.

[10] Linden O. Proceedings of the workshop and policy conference on integratedcoastal zone management in Eastern Africa including the Island States.Manilla, Philippines: Coastal Management Center (CMC); 1993.

[11] Linden O, Lundin CG. The Journey from Arusha to Seychelles: successes andfailures in integrated coastal zone management in Eastern Africa and islandstates. In: Proceedings of the second policy conference on integrated coastalzone management in Eastern Africa and Island States. Seychelles: The WorldBank, Sida; 1996.

[12] UNESCO. Pan-African conference on sustainable integrated coastal manage-ment. In: Proceedings of the workshops: an integrated approach, (PACSI-COM), Maputo, Mozambique; 18–25 July 1998–2000; p. viiiþ341.

[13] Vellinga P, Klein RJT. Climate change, sea level rise and integrated coastal zonemanagement: An IPCC approach. Ocean Coastal Manage 1993;21:245–68.

[14] Chemane D, Motta H, Achimo M. Vulnerability of coastal resources to climatechanges in Mozambique: a call for integrated coastal zone management.Ocean Coastal Manage 1997;1:63–83.

[15] Norman B. Planning for coastal climate change: an insight into internationaland national approaches; 2009.

[16] Sales RFMJ. Vulnerability and adaptation of coastal communities to climatevariability and sea-level rise. Their implications for integrated coastal manage-ment in Cavite City, Philippines. Ocean Coastal Manage 2009;52:395–404.

[17] Christie P, Lowry K, White AT, Oracion EG, Sievanen L, Pomeroy RS, et al. Keyfindings from a multidisciplinary examination of integrated coastal manage-ment process sustainability. Ocean Coastal Manage 2005;48:468–83.

[18] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Second assessmentreport: climate change 1995 (SAR). Working Group II: impacts, adaptationsand mitigation of climate change: Scientific–Technical Analyses; 1995.

[19] Nicholls RJ, Wong PP, Burkett VR, Codignotto JO, Hay JE, McLean RF, et al.Coastal systems and low-lying areas. Climate Change 2007: impacts, adapta-tion and vulnerability. In: Change ML, Parry OF, Canziani JP, Palutikof PJ, VanDer Linden, Hanson CE, editors. Contribution of working group II to the fourthassessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 315–56.

[20] Tobey J, Rubinoff P, Robadue D, Ricci G, Volk R, Furlow J, et al. Practicingcoastal adaptation to climate change: lessons from integrated coastalmanagement. Coastal Manage 2010;38:317–35.

[21] Falaleeva M, O’Mahony C, Gray S, Desmond M, Gault J, Cummins V. Towardsclimate adaptation and coastal governance in Ireland: integrated architecturefor effective management? Mar Policy 2011;35:784–93.

[22] Wong PP. Rethinking post-tsunami integrated coastal management for Asia-Pacific. Ocean Coastal Manage 2009;52:405–10.

[23] Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ. Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change.Ambio 1999;28(2):182–7.

[24] Brooks M, Gagnon-Lebrun F, Sauve C. Prioritizing climate change risks andactions on adaptation: a review of selected institutions, tools andapproaches. Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative; 2009.

[25] Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa (AWEPA). Review ofinternational and African climate change legislation and policies; 2012.

[26] Smit B, Burton I, Klein RJT, Street R. The science of adaptation: a frameworkfor assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change1999;4:199–213.

[27] McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS. Contribution ofworking group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmentalpanel on climate change. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation &vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

[28] Bille R, Rochette J, Feasibility assessment of an ICZM protocol to the Nairobiconvention; 2010.

[29] Lundin CG, Linden O. In: Proceedings of the national workshop on integratedcoastal zone management in Mozambique, Inhaca Island and Maputo,Mozambique, May 5–10, 1996. Stockholm: World Bank; 1997.

[30] Glavovic B. The evolution of coastal management in South Africa: why bloodis thicker than water. Ocean Coastal Manage 2006;49:889–904.

[31] Olsen S, Tobey J, Kerr M. A common framework for learning from ICMexperience. Ocean Coastal Manage 1997;37:155–74.

[32] Olsen SB. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integratedcoastal management initiatives. Ocean Coastal Manage 2003;46:347–61.

[33] Coley C, Torell E. Advancing coastal management capacity: changing horizonsin East and South Africa. Coasts at the Millennium; 2000.

[34] MICOA. Estrategia de Desenvolvimento da Zona Costeira do Distrito deManjacaze; 1998.

[35] EARS 2-E-UNEP/FAO/PAP/MICOA. Xai–Xai District coastal area managementstrategy; 1998.

[36] Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). Coastal PolicyGreen Paper: towards sustainable coastal development in South Africa.Pretoria, South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism;1998.

[37] Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). White Paper forsustainable coastal development in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa.Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism; 2000.

[38] The Presidency of South Africa. National Environmental Management:Integrated Coastal Management Act; 2009.

[39] Celliers L, Breetzke T, Moore L, Malan DA. User-friendly Guide to theIntegrated Coastal Management Act of South Africa. Department of Environ-mental Affairs and SSI Engineers and Environmental Consultants; 2009.

[40] Dronkers J, Gilbert JTE, Butler LW, Carey JJ, Campbell J, James E, et al. Reportof the coastal zone management subgroup: strategies for adaptation to sealevel rise; 1990.

[41] Buys P, Deichmann U, Meisner C, That TT, Wheeler D. Country stakes inclimate change negotiations: two dimensions of vulnerability. Clim Policy2009;9:288–305.

[42] Artur L, Hilhorst D. Everyday realities of climate change adaptation inMozambique. Global Environ Change 2012.

[43] Patt AG, Schroter D. Perceptions of climate risk in Mozambique: implications forthe success of adaptation strategies. Global Environ Change 2008;18:458–67.

[44] Department of Environmental Affairs. South Africa’s Second National Com-munication under the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange; 2011.

[45] Miller S. Social Institutions. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall2011. Stanford University; 2011.

[46] United Nations Environmental Programme. The Conference of Plenipotenti-aries and the sixth meeting of contracting parties to the convention for theprotection, management and development of the marine and coastal envir-onment of the Eastern African Region. Nairobi, Kenya: United NationsEnvironmental Programme; 2010.

[47] UNDP-UNEP. PEI Annual Progress Report 2011; 2012p. 64.[48] U.N.D.P.-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative. Capacitac- ~ao das Estruturtas

Locais/Training on P/E mainstreaming into local planning (various districts),April/May 2010 (Mocimboa da Praia, Chiure, Nicoadala, Maganja da Costa,Guija Massangena & provinces of Cabo Delgado, Zambezia and Gaza); 2010.

[49] Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel das Zonas Costeiras (CDS-ZC). Minis-terio para a Coordenac- ~ao da Acc- ~ao Ambiental (MICOA). Avaliac- ~ao AmbientalEstrategica e Macro-zoneamento de Tofo, Barra Tofinho e Rocha; 2002.

[50] Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel das Zonas Costeiras (CDS-ZC), Minis-terio para a Coordenac- ~ao da Acc- ~ao Ambiental (MICOA). Macro-Zoneamento eAvaiac- ~ao Ambiental EstrategicaE do Distrito de Mocımboa da Praia. 2004.

[51] Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel das Zonas Costeiras (CDS-ZC).Ministerio para a Coordenac- ~ao da Acc- ~ao Ambiental (MICOA). Macro-Zoneamento e Avaiac- ~ao Ambiental Estrategica do Distrito de Palma; 2004.

[52] Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel das Zonas Costeiras (CDS-ZC).Ministerio para a Coordenac- ~ao da Acc- ~ao Ambiental (MICOA). Macro-Zoneamento e Avaiac- ~ao Ambiental Estrategica do Distrito Municipal deNacala-Porto; 2004.

[53] Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel das Zonas Costeiras (CDS-ZC).Ministerio para a Coordenac- ~ao da Acc- ~ao Ambiental (MICOA). Macro-Zoneamento e Avaiac- ~ao Ambiental Estrategica do Distrito de Mossuril; 2004.

[54] Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel das Zonas Costeiras (CDS-ZC).Ministerio para a Coordenac- ~ao da Acc- ~ao Ambiental (MICOA). Avaiac- ~aoAmbiental Estrategica e Macro-zoneamento do Distrito de Jangamo; 2004.

[55] Ministry for the Co-ordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA). NationalAdaptation Programme of Action (NAPA); 2007.

[56] Republic of Mozambique. Mozambique Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper(PARPA II); 2006.

[57] City of Cape Town. Coastal Zone Management Strategy; 2003.[58] Department of Environmental Affairs. National Climate Change Response White

Paper. Pretoria, South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs; 2011.[59] Department of Environmental Affairs. National Strategy for Sustainable

Development and Action Plan 2011-2014. Pretoria, South Africa. Departmentof Environmental Affairs; 2011.

[60] Department of Environmental Affairs. Strategic Plan for the EnvironmentalSector 2009–2014. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of EnvironmentalAffairs; 2009.

[61] Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). Delivery Agreement for Out-come 10: environmental assets and natural resources that are valued,protected and continually enhanced; 2010.

[62] Olsen SB, Page GG, Ochoa E. The analysis of governance responses toecosystem change: a handbook for assembling a baseline. Geesthacht: GKSSResearch Center; 2009.

[63] United Nations Development Programme. Conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity on the South African wild coast; 2005.

[64] Department of Agriculture. Forestry and Fisheries. Policy for the Small-scaleFisheries Sector in South Africa; 2012.