267
local authorities are increasingly creating their
own institutional arrangement for allowing a
cross-sectoral dialogue, but they are doing so in a
rather disorderly manner, without much consultation between them. One of the best examples is
the Sea Forum created by the Brittany Region
under its Coastal Areas of Brittany Charter where
the state is co-chairing the Forum. In other coastal
regions, various kinds of governance arrangement are gradually building up as well.
At a larger scale, the new national maritime
policy legal framework has set a new consultative
body at national level, the Coast and Sea National
Board which, under the chairmanship of the
Prime Minister, gathers representatives from the
local governments (elected offi cials), private sector (all maritime activities) and the civil society
(NGOs). The regional ramifi cation of this
national body is ensured through the setting up of
inter-regions Coast and Sea Maritime Councils
chaired by the State (Prefect of Region/Maritime
prefect) in charge of preparing the corresponding
interregional strategic plan. The latter will be
articulated with the region (sea and coast regional
strategy) and then with the local implementation
arrangements between municipalities and
departments.
3.1.2 Current State in Japan
In Japan, there have been a series of almost
simultaneous amendments of the River Act
(1997), the Coast Act (1999), the Harbour Act
(2000) and the Fishery Port Act (2001) towards
the inclusion of environmental conservation. In
2000, these amendments were completed by the
National Land Agency with the ‘Guidelines for
Integrated Coastal Management Plan’ addressed
to prefectures and municipalities.
The main principles put forward by these
guidelines were as follows: (1) participation and
cooperation, concerning stakeholder groups such
as the central and local governments (prefectures
and municipalities), private sector, non-profi t
organisations (NPO), fi shermen and local communities; (2) wide overview, giving full consideration to entire bays, inland seas and river
estuaries; (3) long-term view, setting a future
vision of coastal areas following natural cycle
analysis; and (4) continuous implementation,
based on the results of regular monitoring and
evaluation.
An Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Commission was planned as well at the level of
each coastal prefecture and/or municipality with
a representation of all stakeholder groups.
It seems that since then, there have been only
a few initiatives from local governments, most of
them coming from municipalities and almost
none from prefectures. There may be a number of
reasons to explain such a situation (Ebara 2000 ):
• The articulation between land use and urban
planning (municipal master plan) and the
coastal zone management plans is uncertain.
This has taken place mainly in the Seto Inland
Sea, in regard to reclamations, impact assessment and marine environment recovery, while
the development of non-coordinated sectoral
policies remained the rule.
• The articulation between the 48 predefi ned
coastal areas (which most of them correspond
to one or two prefecture boundaries) and the
bigger marine ecoregions that surround Japan
is currently unknown as the respective role of
local and central governments.
• The new coastal zone management plan has
no statutory basis contrary to other administrative plans (e.g. municipal master plans, prefecture, coastal management plan mainly
related to the coastline defence).
• Although some municipal governments have
tried to incorporate innovative methods for
promoting public participation in the planning
process, the average level of participation
remains limited, often reduced to the use of
passive channels such as written survey.
• There are many overlapping administrative
statutory plans which make the integration
process quite diffi cult to achieve and to
enforce.
• Users other than fi shers have a few legal channel to sue engineering projects like reclamation since most of them are considered of
‘public interest’ (Kobutsu) and therefore
entirely depend on the governor’s or administration’s decision.
In both countries, networking of local initiatives and governance arrangement to achieve it
need to be part of the ICM development strategy.
From Global to Local: A Comparative Ocean and Coastal Management Approach…
local authorities are increasingly creating their
own institutional arrangement for allowing a
cross-sectoral dialogue, but they are doing so in a
rather disorderly manner, without much consultation between them. One of the best examples is
the Sea Forum created by the Brittany Region
under its Coastal Areas of Brittany Charter where
the state is co-chairing the Forum. In other coastal
regions, various kinds of governance arrangement are gradually building up as well.
At a larger scale, the new national maritime
policy legal framework has set a new consultative
body at national level, the Coast and Sea National
Board which, under the chairmanship of the
Prime Minister, gathers representatives from the
local governments (elected offi cials), private sector (all maritime activities) and the civil society
(NGOs). The regional ramifi cation of this
national body is ensured through the setting up of
inter-regions Coast and Sea Maritime Councils
chaired by the State (Prefect of Region/Maritime
prefect) in charge of preparing the corresponding
interregional strategic plan. The latter will be
articulated with the region (sea and coast regional
strategy) and then with the local implementation
arrangements between municipalities and
departments.
3.1.2 Current State in Japan
In Japan, there have been a series of almost
simultaneous amendments of the River Act
(1997), the Coast Act (1999), the Harbour Act
(2000) and the Fishery Port Act (2001) towards
the inclusion of environmental conservation. In
2000, these amendments were completed by the
National Land Agency with the ‘Guidelines for
Integrated Coastal Management Plan’ addressed
to prefectures and municipalities.
The main principles put forward by these
guidelines were as follows: (1) participation and
cooperation, concerning stakeholder groups such
as the central and local governments (prefectures
and municipalities), private sector, non-profi t
organisations (NPO), fi shermen and local communities; (2) wide overview, giving full consideration to entire bays, inland seas and river
estuaries; (3) long-term view, setting a future
vision of coastal areas following natural cycle
analysis; and (4) continuous implementation,
based on the results of regular monitoring and
evaluation.
An Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Commission was planned as well at the level of
each coastal prefecture and/or municipality with
a representation of all stakeholder groups.
It seems that since then, there have been only
a few initiatives from local governments, most of
them coming from municipalities and almost
none from prefectures. There may be a number of
reasons to explain such a situation (Ebara 2000 ):
• The articulation between land use and urban
planning (municipal master plan) and the
coastal zone management plans is uncertain.
This has taken place mainly in the Seto Inland
Sea, in regard to reclamations, impact assessment and marine environment recovery, while
the development of non-coordinated sectoral
policies remained the rule.
• The articulation between the 48 predefi ned
coastal areas (which most of them correspond
to one or two prefecture boundaries) and the
bigger marine ecoregions that surround Japan
is currently unknown as the respective role of
local and central governments.
• The new coastal zone management plan has
no statutory basis contrary to other administrative plans (e.g. municipal master plans, prefecture, coastal management plan mainly
related to the coastline defence).
• Although some municipal governments have
tried to incorporate innovative methods for
promoting public participation in the planning
process, the average level of participation
remains limited, often reduced to the use of
passive channels such as written survey.
• There are many overlapping administrative
statutory plans which make the integration
process quite diffi cult to achieve and to
enforce.
• Users other than fi shers have a few legal channel to sue engineering projects like reclamation since most of them are considered of
‘public interest’ (Kobutsu) and therefore
entirely depend on the governor’s or administration’s decision.
In both countries, networking of local initiatives and governance arrangement to achieve it
need to be part of the ICM development strategy.
From Global to Local: A Comparative Ocean and Coastal Management Approach…