Even if some authors define these terms differently, they should really be looked upon as the same. The "zone" added in ICZM is pointing towards a more specific part of the geography where this management is supposed to take place. But this "zone" is also defined and used differently, depending on the different national acts and regulations.

Another possible discussion is how planning differ from management, cfr ICZP to ICZM. See:

http://www.unesco.org/csi/act/russia/intman4.htm

http://www.fisheries.no/resource_management/Area_management/Coastal_planning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_coastal_zone_management

I totally agree with Morten. Another possible discussion is how ICZM differs from Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). I guess that the first is more "coastal" and the second is more "off shore"or "marine"

A good example of MSP is the Belgian one. (http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/uploads/documentenbank/25ad8a7ad6fbb0a0bd07562e392c382f.pdf

The EU Water Resource Management Directive ask for management plans including  sea waters up to 1 Nautical Mile outside of the (coastal) Base Line. But (physical) spatial planning in the sea, anchored or hinged on a traditional Planning Act, is found only  - as far as I know  -  in Sweden, Iceland and Norway.

I would agree that both, ICM and ICZM, have the same goal in the coastal zone but not the same way to try to achieve it.

Olsen, Lowry & Tobey (1999) distinguish the meaning of management and governance as follows:

MANAGEMENT: The process by which human and material resources are organized to achieve a known goal within an institutional structure. Typically it refers to organizing the work routines of a unit , of something like an enterprise or environmental agency.

GOVERNANCE: The process by which policies, laws and institutions to face up to key issues (opportunities and problems) that a society worries about. Governance implies goals, structures and institutional processes that are in the base of planning and decision making to arrange man-man and man-nature relationships. Governance establishes the environment in which management is carried out.

I think it is a procedure difference that is worth to be considered to deal in more successful way with coastal issues.

Sorry, my question does not deal with MSP, but with ICM and ICZM.

Thank you Pedro, very interesting issue!!. From my point of view, ICZM also involves policies, laws and institutions. Barragan (2004, 2010, 2014) establishes a management decalogue to ICZM. It includes the followings: policies, strategies and operative tools, normative, responsibilities, institutions, economic resources, information & knowledge, formation & training, education, public participation. The aforementioned decalogue points towards building a governance framework for managing. So then, I agree with Pedro, management is not governance, but the point here is that management is not alone in ICZM, we are talking about integrated management (across sectors interests, institutions and government levels) and this is closer to governance than to management.

I agree with Morten and Juan Manuel. Both terms are reffering to the same thing. The only diference is that ICZM specifies the scope with more detail. In Spain we are using GIAL (Integrated coastal area management) because "area" in spanish is better translation than "zone". The last one implies in spanish (not in english) an administrative boundary in which each administration is responsible. As we are talking about the hole coastal area we prefer to call it integrated coastal area management when we are working in spanish. It´s hard, we need a glossary when we are working in networks, even in the same country. From my experience, it should avoid lots of misunderstandings.

Some other publications:

Barragán, 2010 (Ocean & Coastal Management Journal)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569110000438

IBERMAR ICZM network have worked using the decalogue to analyze ICZM in 13 latin american countries (three books, free download, only spanish version is available):

http://www.gestioncostera.es/ibermar/

I really like  Javier´s  contribution. It removes part of "the coastal mist".

But I am not completely ensured that  we all agree on the terms. For some people the coastal zone is only the "land part" (the beach and the nearest inland belt) .  In Norway  coastal zone management is also a matter of "integrating sea and land".  We use to state that "the coastal zone includes all sea area that might be influenced by the land, and all the land that might be influenced by the sea". That implies that in some parts of the coast the "zone" is many kilometres wide, in other parts only a few hundred metres.

CZM in practical terms, is depending on the national acts and regulations, whether local and regional authorities have in fact "police power" in the sea areas, or not. Is it possible to establish formal  local CZM, or has CZM to be  only "state business"?

Thank you Morten, for your kind words. I understand your concern. As far I understand, in Norway you have defined coastal zone in ecological terms. From this approach, of course you have to include sea and land as part of the coastal zone, and I think it is a good point of view. But there are lot of other criterias, for example, the Mediterranean Action Plan is been developed, among other tools, by the ICZM Protocol since 2008, as they realised they couldn´t manage sea areas from the sea because the majority of the pressures and pollution sources were located on land. That´s a reallity, this is not only about ecological connectivity, we can find also anthropogenic connectivity. How many activities do you know taking place on marine areas that have not related infrastructures and activities on land? From my point of view this is also part of ICZM, because marine activities are related with societies and economies taking place in coastal zones. We have to connect coastal management with marine management, and both as part of ICZM. Of course I´m not talking about open seas: what I think is that MSP should be concieved as a management tool under the approach of ICZM in "coastal waters" (marine waters where traditional maritime activities are taking place, for example, or as is defined in the millenium ecosystem assessment, as far as 50 meters deep). Other countries, as Australia, have defined coastal zones from the sea, because what they needed is to protect the great barrier reef. So for they, coastal zone is as far in land as it can affect the quality of the water in which the GBR is located. Finally, what I think is that we don´t have to focus all the efforts in defining what is and what is not the "coastal zone". Sometimes we waste a lot of time in this, and it is better to define the "issues of management" we want to deal with. That can be another approach to define the scope, as far as we need to face the issues of management. To sum up, I think the scope of ICZM (land and sea area) should depend on the context in which we are working. There is not a recipe to ICZM as this is a complex issue, so then we need flexibility, also in defining the scope, although I know this can be dangerous in some countries, like for example in Spain, as we don´t have a good governance framework and market criteria probably would be the final criteria. Initial steps should be done first in some places before starting an ICZM initiative.

Answering Morten question. From my point of view, ICZM, as coastal zones are critical areas in many countries (these areas concentrate population, tourism, activities, ...), should be object of general specific policy. But at the end, it is common that coastal zones are managed by regional (subnational) administrations or public bodies as the context (stakeholders, activities, culture, environmental problems...) of management can differ considerably from one to another coastal area, even in the same country. Thus, how can we separate small areas of coastal-marine management when mostly of the times we have lot of ecologic, economic and social connections between these areas? Is the same as if we answer how can we separate land-coastal management and marine-coastal management? In this way, we can have general goals for all the country and then we can develop that goals to our specific (mostly of the times, subnational but not local) scope of management, establishing another complementary, specific to our area, objectives. I only know some examples where CZM has appear in a bottom-up way. One of them is Cuba. Maybe Pedro can add some knowledge to this.

Good discussion! I understand that ICZM also involves policies, laws and institutions, but I think that it would be convenient to differentiate when a relevant government instance leads coastal management (ICM) from when government simply participates and support, coastal management (ICZM). Discussing what mean area or zone in Spanish and English, is indeed another interesting subject, but I am focusing in coastal management processes. I suggest that there are  two distinct processes that should be considered separate.

Indeed there is a great  proliferation of coastal managment option names and definitions .It is becoming quite redundant and overwhelming!  I would vote to keep the few best classic ones.

Best wishes to all

Maybe I am not right, buIt think thst occurrences in others areas, would not imply that some management processe need to be named differently. It would be good that someone make a registration and classfication of all known modalities of "integrated msanegment in coastal areas and classify them in groups according to their similar meaning and actions involved. This would lead to a reduction of process names taking into account itheir prioy in time  and clarity of their meanings. Maybe it would be worth.

Thanks for useful information and references. Due to rapid industrialization at the coast of the Namib desert and expansion of marine mining into the Benguela current with a significant fisheries industry, a number of gaps in the statutory and institutional framework become apparent. The main ones are: the seabed has no competent authority/regulator; dredging, exploration activities (e.g. seismic surveys) from ships and planes and effluents from land into the sea are all unregulated. Marine management issues are the lack of survey and demarcation of the dynamic boundaries between land and sea and therefore territorial/spatial  jurisdictions; inspections for compliance with existing regulations and EIA conditions as well as water quality monitoring in a highly dynamic environment; storage and accessibility of the spatial data obtained during (costly)monitoring.

I would be grateful for specific information on how the above issues are regulated, institutionalized and financed elsewhere, particularly in mid-income countries. 

Thanks for useful information and references. Due to rapid industrialization at the coast of the Namib desert and expansion of marine mining into the Benguela current with a significant fisheries industry, a number of gaps in the statutory and institutional framework become apparent. The main ones are: the seabed has no competent authority/regulator; dredging, exploration activities (e.g. seismic surveys) from ships and planes and effluents from land into the sea are all unregulated. Marine management issues are the lack of survey and demarcation of the dynamic boundaries between land and sea and therefore territorial/spatial  jurisdictions; inspections for compliance with existing regulations and EIA conditions as well as water quality monitoring in a highly dynamic environment; storage and accessibility of the spatial data obtained during (costly)monitoring.

I would be grateful for specific information on how the above issues are regulated, institutionalized and financed elsewhere, particularly in mid-income countries. 

 Dear Hein. In Norway those problems you mention are taken care of by different national acts. The national planning and building act (operating for all sea areas within 1 NM (nautical mile) outside of the Baseline) supplies strict regulations on the water prism (surface, seabed and water column). 

Outside the sea area mentioned above, the regulations under the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 NM) are taken care of most regulatory questions, including the seabed. 

Another state worth mentioning is Belgium and their Marine Spatial Planning system, see article by Douvere et al, links:

http://www.fisheries.no/resource_management/Area_management/economic_zone/#.VaDLn5Ptmko

http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/uploads/documentenbank/4196c93f0934d5d1decb5b1cdbf9bf87.pdf

My question was the one below, and I feel it has not been answered yet in spite of the many ones I have received so far, Indeed answers are good ones but not exactly relevant to my simple question. Se below, I will appreciate a relevant and concise answer. Thank you.

Are Integrated Coastal Management and Integrated Coastal Zone Management the same? Edit

Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) is considered as a governance process by Olsen, Lowry and Tobey (1999) and by Olsen and Nickerson (2003). However I realize and support the criterion that “Integrated Coastal Zone Management” (ICZM) is limited to a management process, not specifically a governance one. Governance addresses the values, policies, laws and institutions by which a set of issues are addressed (Olsen, 2003).

Pedro, you are asking a very RELEVENT question! I was also thinking about the differences existing between coastal MANAGEMENT and governance and mainly the LINKs  between those two elements.

I have found an interesting document on the governance of protected area (IUCN,2008), and in the first part they are defining some keys concepts:

Management :is about:

- what is done in pursuit of given objectives

- the means and actions to achieve such objectives

Governance :is about:

- who decides what the objectives are, what to do to pursue them, and with

what means

- how those decisions are taken

- who holds power, authority and responsibility

- who is (or should be) held accountable

You'll find attached the link of the document. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/governance_of_protected_areas___from_understanding_to_action.pdf

I was also asking the same kind of question this morning !: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gouvernance_and_integrated_coastal_zone_management_links_and_differences 

If you get some  other answer since 2015, please let me know.

Nawel

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/governance_of_protected_areas___from_understanding_to_action.pdf

Governance is "the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions.", according to one source. It is not that far from a general understanding of "management", only more widened.  What is important is the set of policies, "objectives" ("goals"), organizations, managerial tools, ("means"), participation set-up, and other form of interactions. It would be interesting to see what you find in a comparative study of French and Algerian practices, I would guess there are many similarities. 

Morten

Dear  Nawel, You just provided a clear explanation supporting the differences between management and governance that I posted here. Thank you.

Best wishes,

Pedro

Dear Nawel,

We both fully agree. I posted my answer to you below your intervention. Management for me is  part of the operative way by which governance is executed through a number of actions.

All the best,

Pedro

Morten, Thank you very much for your explanation and for the details of each term. Is it possible to give me the source of the citation bellow?: 

"the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions."

In my actual research project, a comparative study related to integrated coastal management in both Algeria and France is planned to be done. And I agree with you there are many similarities, and also good practices to learn from each others.

Pedro, also I would like to thank you for your clear response. It was for me very conforting to see that you asked this question. Since I am working on the global framework of my study (assessement of integrated coastal management process in Algeria), it is for me an important question to clarify.

Best regards,

Nawel

Not a very impressive source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance .

I guess there will be similarities due to "Code Napoleon".

Morten

Thank you! Wikipedia sometimes can be a good reference to start with. 

I saw that you made an interesting researct about  a comparative study on integrative coastal planning in 3 different countries; Do you have any advice to give me, since I'll be doing it between 2 countries ?