3.3 Reflection on the Principles for ICZM
41
To assess the procedural results NOAA (1979) listed the establishment of legal authorities and other organizations which are linked to CZM within the evaluation period. The
substantial results were assessed based on specific indicators (see NOAA, 1979, pp. 1951). The assessment was enhanced by interviews of several people that show a stake in
CZM. These interviews revealed that four aspects were important for the past successes
and failures and for the further enhancement of the (national) CZM process:
Comprehensiveness On the one hand, seen as a strength because it pays a tribute to
the multifaceted issues of coastal zones. On the other hand, apprehensions were mentioned that taking a lot of aspects into account may lead to “broad-brush” programs owing
not enough intention to specific issues. Another important point mentioned was that the
provided framework of the CZMA enables profound decision-making. But the individual
state programs may not contribute adequately to the overall national intention of, for
example, resource management in the entire US coastal zone.
Balancing Some interviewees felt that the CZMA has led to a more balanced decisionmaking process between, for example, environmental protection and economic development needs. Another strength mentioned was that short-term solution finding processes
which may compromise long-term developments were attenuated. But some representatives understood the CZM intentions as fostering and conservation of sector-specific
interests.
Costs-savings It was too early to assess the influence on costs neither on project implementation processes nor on administration permits. At this stage both ways cost
developments – either increased costs or the complication of processes or raise the
effectiveness of coastal decision-making processes – were likely to occur.
Public Awareness The awareness of the broad public increased by the involvement of
coastal inhabitants in planning and decision-making processes.
Finally, for the 5-year assessment was concluded that “encouraging signs are appearing
that coastal development is being managed more rationally than before, though much more
remains to be done in this area” (NOAA, 1979, p. 60).
In a certain period of time the efforts of development and enhancement of CZM efforts
drift apparent because of lack of support by the national CZM administration. The process
considerably damped down in the 1980s so that a new impulse seemed to be necessary
(e.g., see Archer and Knecht, 1987). In these years the role and the activities of the federal
program were perceived as inadequate. Recommendations had been suggested to integrate
an emerging broader scope for coastal management, that is, the integration of ocean and
marine management caused by the extension of the administrative borders at sea (see UN
Law of the Seas), and a revised role of the national CZM program administration (see
Archer and Knecht, 1987, pp. 109ff).
41
To assess the procedural results NOAA (1979) listed the establishment of legal authorities and other organizations which are linked to CZM within the evaluation period. The
substantial results were assessed based on specific indicators (see NOAA, 1979, pp. 1951). The assessment was enhanced by interviews of several people that show a stake in
CZM. These interviews revealed that four aspects were important for the past successes
and failures and for the further enhancement of the (national) CZM process:
Comprehensiveness On the one hand, seen as a strength because it pays a tribute to
the multifaceted issues of coastal zones. On the other hand, apprehensions were mentioned that taking a lot of aspects into account may lead to “broad-brush” programs owing
not enough intention to specific issues. Another important point mentioned was that the
provided framework of the CZMA enables profound decision-making. But the individual
state programs may not contribute adequately to the overall national intention of, for
example, resource management in the entire US coastal zone.
Balancing Some interviewees felt that the CZMA has led to a more balanced decisionmaking process between, for example, environmental protection and economic development needs. Another strength mentioned was that short-term solution finding processes
which may compromise long-term developments were attenuated. But some representatives understood the CZM intentions as fostering and conservation of sector-specific
interests.
Costs-savings It was too early to assess the influence on costs neither on project implementation processes nor on administration permits. At this stage both ways cost
developments – either increased costs or the complication of processes or raise the
effectiveness of coastal decision-making processes – were likely to occur.
Public Awareness The awareness of the broad public increased by the involvement of
coastal inhabitants in planning and decision-making processes.
Finally, for the 5-year assessment was concluded that “encouraging signs are appearing
that coastal development is being managed more rationally than before, though much more
remains to be done in this area” (NOAA, 1979, p. 60).
In a certain period of time the efforts of development and enhancement of CZM efforts
drift apparent because of lack of support by the national CZM administration. The process
considerably damped down in the 1980s so that a new impulse seemed to be necessary
(e.g., see Archer and Knecht, 1987). In these years the role and the activities of the federal
program were perceived as inadequate. Recommendations had been suggested to integrate
an emerging broader scope for coastal management, that is, the integration of ocean and
marine management caused by the extension of the administrative borders at sea (see UN
Law of the Seas), and a revised role of the national CZM program administration (see
Archer and Knecht, 1987, pp. 109ff).