ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable?

Patrick Christie
School of Marine Affairs, Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington,
3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98105-6715, USA
Available online 23 May 2005

Abstract

This essay sets the parameters for the research papers within this theme issue by introducing
the Integrated Coastal Management Sustainability Research Project, providing socio-
economic and ecological background on study sites, and discussing the most current analysis
of factors influencing integrated coastal management success and sustainability. The factors
influencing sustainability span social, economic, institutional, bio-physical, and legal
conditions.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The growing published literature, conferences, and funding suggests considerable

interest and faith in integrated coastal management (ICM). Following UNCED,
donor contributions towards ICM dramatically increased [1]. For example, in the
Philippines, it has been estimated that approximately $25 million is spent annually to
support ICM [2]. ICM takes many forms depending on the context, but principally it
has focused on encouraging sustainable coastal resource use through an iterative
process of regulation and policy development, institutional coordination, and
education.
The following are two frequently cited definitions of ICM.

Tel.: +1 206 685 6661; fax: +1 206 543 1417.

E-mail address: patrickc@u.washington.edu.

0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 209

ICM is a process by which rational decisions are made concerning the

conservation and sustainable use of coastal and ocean resources and space. The
process is designed to overcome the fragmentation inherent in single-sector
management approaches (fishing operations, oil and gas development, etc.), in the
splits in jurisdiction among different levels of government, and in the land-water
interface. [3, p. 1]
ICM is a broad and dynamic process that . . . requires the active and sustained
involvement of the interested public and many stakeholders with interests in how
coastal resources are allocated and conflicts are mediated. The ICM process
provides a means by which concerns at local, regional and national levels are
discussed and future directions are negotiated. [4, p. 66]

These definitions emphasize distinct characteristics of the ICM process—on the one
hand, balancing development and conservation and ensuring multi-sectoral
planning, and, on the other hand, participation and conflict mediation. A central
purpose of ICM is to create conditions for ‘‘a sustained effort whose fundamental
goal is to reform the objectives, structure and processes of governance that control
how coastal resources are allocated,’’ the rates in which coastal resources are used,
and ‘‘how conflicts among user groups are resolved’’ [5, p. 618]. In fact, the concept
of ICM has distinct meanings to various stakeholders and, as a result, is in need of
critical evaluation. [2,6]
ICM employs a suite of tools including marine protected areas (MPAs), land-use
control, marine zoning and permit systems, conflict resolution, planning, and
fisheries management. Many of these tools are now at the center of lively debates
regarding their efficacy and appropriateness. These concepts are introduced
progressively and as necessary in many ICM programs. The following diagram
from the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center highlights the
iterative and progressively expansive nature of ICM (Fig. 1).
Externally funded projects generally have been the main means of implementation
of ICM within developing countries. The dependence on external financial and
technical assistance creates the potential for unsustainable institutions and policies as
projects are terminated and support staff and funding are withdrawn. For example,
in the Philippines, the majority of marine protected areas established with good
intentions are not maintained for appreciable amounts of time [7], a common
situation elsewhere in the region. One may be tempted to conclude that projects
merely have been inattentive to phase out activities. But comparative studies suggest
that such processes are more complex and success is dependent on multiple factors
interacting in complex environments [8,9]. While success and sustainability of ICM
and marine protected areas are likely interrelated, the relationship between these
variables is unclear.
Very little of the coastal management literature goes beyond raising concerns
about process sustainability to provide empirically grounded explanations. However,
concerns are being raised that considerable investments are falling short of high
expectations. To quote the Indonesian Minister of Marine Affairs and a veteran
practitioner of ICM,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
210 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

Fig. 1. Generalized ICM steps [5].

. . .[R]elatively few of these initiatives continue once direct funding via central
government agencies ceases. . . . [F]ew of these projects directly impact the quality
of life of coastal communities or quality of coastal ecosystems [10, p. 13].

In essence, rarely do ICM processes go through multiple cycles (Fig. 1), and most
progress ceases after the withdrawal of external financial and technical resources
[11].
Rigorous, time-series, and comparative post project evaluations of ICM would
help to identify model strengths and shortcomings. Many ICM projects conduct
internal impact evaluations, however it is not typically within project or donor
mandates to conduct detailed investigations into whether efforts were sustained
beyond a project’s termination. But this expectation should change.
Given the ICM efforts taking place around the world and the considerable
funding being expended on this work, it is time to conduct independent
comparative studies of ICM programs to measure their effects, both positive and
negative, intended and unintended. [3, p. 248]

The lack of such research is symptomatic of a relatively young field whose

literature and theoretical basis is at an early stage of development. To address this
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 211

practical and theoretical gap, a 3-year research project was launched to investigate
the dynamics of how ICM processes are sustained after formal project termination.
This theme issue summarizes the research project’s findings. This paper presents the
principle activities of this research project, background information on research sites
cited by other papers in this theme issue, and a review of relevant literature by
subject.

2. Overview of the ICM Sustainability Research Project

In January 2001 a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional research initiative was

launched. The ICM Sustainability Research Project (ICMSRP) investigated the
factors influencing ICM process sustainability in the Philippines and Indonesia,
countries with many innovative and varied approaches to ICM. The overarching
intent of this project was to contribute to the growing, and positive, trend toward
detailed evaluations of this field and its models [12]. This effort has three mutually
reinforcing sub-objectives.
(1) Applied evaluative research to identify factors and conditions, at various levels
of governance and in different contexts, which influence ICM process sustainability.
(2) ICM project assistance to provide policy recommendations and educational
materials to ICM initiatives regarding sustainability of coastal management
processes in the Philippines and Indonesia.
(3) Capacity development to improve human and institutional abilities to conduct
evaluative research and ICM by strengthening institutional linkages between
practitioner and research/educational institutions in the US, the Philippines, and
Indonesia.

2.1. Objective 1: applied evaluative research

A general operational definition of a sustainable ICM process for this context is as

follows:
A sustainable ICM process is an ongoing planning system and practice that
continues beyond the termination of an ICM project. It is adaptive and multi-
sectoral as appropriate and is supported by a stable source of financial and
technical resources as necessary.
It is important to note that ‘‘ICM projects’’ and ‘‘ICM processes’’ are not
synonymous terms for the purposes of this research effort. Projects are defined as a
suite of activities supported by external funding and technical advice, but that have a
predetermined termination point (frequently based on availability of funding). The
general intent of most ICM projects is to start iterative ICM processes that continue
beyond project termination.
This research focused on two countries, the Philippines and Indonesia, to improve
the understanding of context and so that generalized principles might be derived.
These countries were chosen partly due to their high levels of coastal biodiversity at
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
212 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

considerable risk [13]. Human reliance on these resources warrants the development
of innovative ICM strategies. Furthermore, the Philippines provide an opportunity
to study ICM in a context where many historic and current ICM initiatives have
been undertaken. Fewer examples of ICM exist in Indonesia, however increasing
numbers of programs are underway that could directly benefit from research efforts
in the Philippines.
When feasible, the research considered both historic and ongoing ICM projects
and the institutions that collaborate with these projects. The research was conducted
in five principal phases:

(1) literature review and focus group interviews of ICM researchers, practitioners,
and community leaders,
(2) intensive multi-method, multi-disciplinary quantitative field research to examine
and extend the initial propositions as described below,
(3) intensive multi-method, multi-disciplinary qualitative field research to validate,
contextualize, and explain the patterns uncovered by quantitative research,
(4) comparative, but geographically focused, field research in Indonesia that tested
the generalizeability and relevance of the findings from the Philippines field
research, and
(5) validation of research findings with informants and experts.

The research utilized the strengths of complementary social research methods such
as surveys, in-depth semi-structure interviews, participant observation, and focus
groups. To maximize coverage, while not compromising site-specific research, social
survey research was conducted in 9 sites (7 in the Philippines and 2 in Indonesia) of
which 3 sites (2 sites in the Philippines and 1 in Indonesia) were treated as detailed
case studies utilizing a broad array of methods. Since ICM projects have intended
environmental impacts, monitoring of ICM effects on fish populations and coral reef
conditions augmented social research [14].

2.2. Objective 2: ICM project assistance

As research findings were analyzed and written up, project researchers worked to
make this information available and relevant to ICM projects interested in
improving the sustainability of coastal management processes. This effort focused
on two levels: (1) at the project level (including government and non-government led
initiatives) and (2) at the national level by providing information that could help
guide the national-level coastal management policy development process currently
underway in the Philippines and Indonesia.
Linkages to ICM initiatives were made through a multi-faceted approach
involving printed documents, the Internet, and professional conferences. Thus far,
two theme issues in Silliman Journal and Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Marine
Resources (Jurnal Pesisir and Lautan), published and circulated within the
Philippines and Indonesia, helped insure that results are locally available. A project
website posted regular project newsletters, meeting minutes, and papers. Lastly,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 213

presentations based on research results were made at Coastal Zone Asia Pacific
(Bangkok Thailand, 2002), Indonesia Coastal Zone ’02 (KONAS, Dempasar Bali),
Coastal Zone ’03 (Baltimore), and the American Fisheries Society 2003 (Quebec
City), the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2004 (Seattle), the
International Coral Reef Symposium 2004 (Okinawa), and at a final results project
symposium for practitioners and donors hosted at the World Bank.
Research findings were translated into a mutually reinforcing educational
guidebook [15] and training module [16]. The guidebook is based on a published
review of available educational materials [17]. It utilizes hypothetical case studies,
themes (e.g., sustainable financing), a question and answer format, and a
‘‘sustainability scorecard’’ to encourage readers to consider issues that are likely to
directly affect ICM process sustainability. The 1-day training module utilizes
presentation and group activity formats designed to encourage planning focused on
improving ICM process sustainability. Rather than develop a set of prescriptive
recommendations, that may be inappropriate for varying contexts, both educational
tools utilize interactive exercises that pose provocative questions based on research
findings.
The most tangible link to ICM projects was through the direct participation of
ICM practitioners as co-investigators. These practitioners helped ensure that
research findings and recommendations were practical and grounded in the current
practice. It appears that findings have already begun to shape the formulation of the
next round of ICM projects in the Philippines [18].

2.3. Objective 3: capacity development

Capacity development to improve ICM planning and research capability

depended on participation of personnel in field research and analysis, incorporation
of findings in university-level classroom activities, and extension of results to ICM
project staff. Additionally, the development of collaborative and mutually respectful
working relationships between US and Asian colleagues and the opportunity for
joint authorship of articles has enriched all participating institutions. The periodic
intensive interaction of project personnel for planning events and writing retreats
were fundamental to progress and communication despite the physical distance
separating participants. The participation of junior researchers resulted in progress
on theses as well as likely long-term professional relationships. At least four masters-
level theses [19] and two Ph.D. dissertations are a direct outgrowth of this project.

2.4. Project staff

The research project involved 14 US, Philippines, and Indonesia-based academics

and ICM practitioners as principal investigators and 25 research assistants, a
number of whom are co-authors in this edition. The research team necessarily
consisted of people with a wide variety of academic backgrounds. Additionally, an
advisory group made up of non-governmental and governmental ICM practitioners
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
214 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

periodically reviewed research results and educational products to ensure that

recommendations were convincing and realistic.

2.5. Research sites

The Philippines and Indonesia share many Malay cultural norms and somewhat
similar historic trajectories (colonialism, dictatorship, democracy). They are also
similar ecologically, with extensive and diverse coral reefs and coastal ecosystems.
While these countries share some relevant characteristics, they are quite distinct, for
example, in their legal frameworks and their institutional structures. Therefore,
comparative research was conducted in each country with the intent of developing
generalized principles on factors influencing ICM sustainability that are relevant for
other countries.
To select particular study sites, a socio-economic, ecological, and project history
was compiled for 10 sites in the Philippines and 3 sites in Indonesia. Researchers
ranked sites with the intent of maximizing variability in geographic context (within
country and between countries), management model (community-based to large-
scale centralized), implementing agency (central and local government, non-
governmental), donor (foundation, multi-lateral), project goal (principally conserva-
tion or development oriented), coastal community conditions (ethnicity and
remoteness), and baseline data availability. Ultimately 7 areas in the Philippines
and 2 sites in Indonesia were studied. This theme issue provides results from 4 of
these sites with 2 sites from each country—Mabini (Batangas), Bais Bay (Negros),
Bunaken National Park (North Sulawesi), and Cilacap (Java). All sites (except
Cilacap, Java) have extensive coral reefs and marine protected areas. Reefs and
MPAs were emphasized by this research due to ICM project priorities in this region.
Joint planning mechanisms, alternative livelihood programs, fisheries management
were also studied. A preliminary review of projects in Indonesia and the Philippines
revealed that there were not many phased-out projects with baseline information
(Fig. 2).
The following is basic background information about the three sites where both
survey research [20,21] and qualitative case studies (all other papers in this edition)
were conducted. Only survey research was conducted in Cilacap, Indonesia.

2.6. Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines

The Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas case study site includes two coastal municipalities
along Maricaban Strait. The area has relatively narrow reef flats, dropping off to a
depth of approximately 200 m in the deepest sections [22]. Coral reefs cover much of
the area. Coral diversity is quite high with a total of 290 species and 74 genera of
hard corals found in the area [23]. Fish diversity is similarly high with 481 species in
53 families [24].
The area of Mabini, the municipality that defines the northern shore of Maricaban
Strait, is 4296 ha in area with an estimated population of 37,474 [25]. The following
communities, or barangays, are included in the study: San Teodoro (pop. 1557,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 215

Fig. 2. Case study research sites in the Philippines and Indonesia.

336.9 ha), Bagalangit (pop. 2057, 348.4 ha), Citio Balanoy (approximate population
600), and Solo (pop. 2626, 339.5 ha). With a 3.6% annual growth rate for the
southern Tagalog region, the highest in the Philippines, the population of the region
is expected to double in 19 years [26]. The municipality of Tingloy, the municipality
on Maricaban Island that defines the southern shore of Maricaban Strait, has a total
area of 1269 ha with a population of approximately [25]. Santo Tomas is the only
barangay (the smallest political unit in the Philippines or village) from that island
represented in this study (pop. 1663, 198 ha).
According to a socio-economic survey of the area in 1994, the average annual
income was PhP 53,478 ([27], current exchange rate is approximately 55 pesos to the
USD). This is significantly lower than the national average of PhP 83,161 in 1994
[28]. Currently the national average is approximately PhP 144,039, but this increase
is largely due to inflation [26].
The dive tourism economy is rapidly developing in this area. Presidential
Proclamation No. 1801 (1978) formally declared this area as a tourism zone. Based
on data from 1994, approximately 22,870 divers visited the Mabini area that year
[29]. The vast majority of the divers surveyed by the Haribon study were Filipinos
from Manila with an average age of 33 and a annual income of PhP 498,180
(significantly higher than the national average PhP 83,161 in 1994 [28]). These
relatively affluent professionals are interested in marine conservation, with 87% of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
216 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

them reporting a willingness to participate in a marine conservation projects and

97% of them willing to pay a divers fee to support coastal management activities
such as enforcement, education, monitoring, alternative livelihoods, and mooring
buoys [30,31].
Fishing continues to be an important, although declining, activity in the area. The
number of Mabini families directly involved in fishing on a full-time basis declined from
320 families in 1980 to 203 in 1994 [29]. Similarly, in Tingloy, the number of full-time
fishing families declined from 782 families in 1980 to 435 in 1994. While this may be an
overall trend in the area, some communities, such as Balanoy, remain as predominantly
fishing oriented communities. The gear type most widely used ;by small-scale fishers in
Mabini and Tingloy is hook and line closely followed by gillnets [22].
While the Mabini-Tingloy area serves as a major coastal tourism destination, the
nearby Batangas International Port also functions as a site to divert commercial
shipping traffic clogging the capital. Point source pollution can be seen in nearby oil,
chemical, and food processing industries located in Batangas Bay. The waste from
these industries is brought to Balayan Bay by water currents.
There have been four major ICM projects in the Mabini-Tingloy area between
1988 and the present. In 1988, the first ICM project began in the area when the
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources began working with
fishers, and later with resort owners, to establish three marine protected areas where
fishing was prohibited (Cathedral Rock, Arthur’s Rock, and Twin Rocks). After a
few years of management, some community members, with the assistance of
Haribon, also petitioned and won the support of the local municipal council to ban
recreational diving within these MPAs. Haribon also worked with resort owners to
establish ABBROA (Anilao-Balayan Bay Resort Owners Association), which served
as a vehicle for resort owners to collaborate on coastal conservation activities.
ABBROA later failed, reportedly due to mismanagement and lack of interest.
The second major ICM project began in 1997 when World Wide Fund For Nature
(the Philippine branch known as Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas or KKP) began to
support general conservation in the area. KKP has worked mainly with the government
and private sector to implement a variety of conservation initiatives. In 1997, Mabini
and Tingloy also became expansion areas of the Coastal Resource Management Project
(CRMP) supported by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). These municipalities received assistance from CRMP in the form of
educational materials and training on coastal resource management.
Sulu Fund (now Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc.), a
national NGO, led the latest ICM project beginning in 1999 and focusing exclusively
on Tingloy. This project has mainly worked with community members in Tingloy to
implement the national fisheries code, launch a bantay dagat (or fisheries warden
system), and establish a marine protected area.

2.7. Bais Bay, Negros Oriental, Philippines

The Bais Bay case study site is located 45 km north of Dumaguete City, the
provincial capital, on the eastern side of Negros Island (23190 E, 91340 N) facing the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 217

Tañon Strait in the central Philippines. There are four ecosystems found in Bais Bay:
soft-bottom, mangrove forest, seagrass beds, and coral reef. The soft-bottom area
comprises about 87% of the bay [32,33]. The soft-bottom areas are rich sources of
mollusks, crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Bais City has a relatively large and
intact mangrove area covering 344 ha. In 1985, this area was declared as the
‘‘Talabong Game Refuge, Wildlife Sanctuary and Tourist Spot.’’ Bais Bay is
estimated to have 14 species of mangroves. Bais Bay also has patchy seagrass areas
covering approximately 677 ha and 343 ha of coral reefs. Calumpong and Luchavez
[32] suggest that siltation might have caused the mortality of most corals in the area.
Two cities and one municipality surround Bais Bay: Bais City, Tanjay City, and
the Municipality of Manjuyod. A total of 16 coastal barangays surround this bay: 10
in Bais, 5 in Manjuyod, and 1 in Tanjay. Bais City has a total land area of 31,690 ha
with a population of 68,115 [25]. The following Bais City coastal communities are
included in the study: Barangay Capiñahan (pop.1535) and Barangay Okiot (pop.
3032). Manjuyod, the municipality that encompasses the northern part of the bay,
has a total area of 14,835 ha with a population of 37,863. The following barangays
are included in the study: Barangay Campuyo (pop. 2514) and Barangay Bolisong
(pop. 2521) [25]. Out of the 6013 households in Manjuyod, 5167 are farmers and 400
are fishers. None of Tanjay City’s communities were included in this study.
In 2000, the average annual income of the province of Negros Oriental was PhP
90,459 [34]. This was significantly lower than the national average of PhP 144,039
[25]. The tourism economy has been rapidly growing in the area. The rising
popularity of Bais City Tourism Council’s whale and dolphin watching tours in
Tañon Strait has helped Bais gain national and international recognition. From 1999
to 2000, there were a total of 3662 whale watchers recorded [35]. Despite the growing
economic importance of tourism, fishing continues to be an important, although
declining, activity in the area. Between 1992 and 1998, the number of full-time and
part-time fishers in the bay decreased from 3077 to 2491 [35].
There have been four major ICM projects in the Bais Bay area between 1984
and the present. The World Bank-funded Central Visayas Regional Project
(CVRP) (1984–1992) was the first ICM project in Bais Bay [19]. This was a pilot
project designed to test community-based rural development. In Bais Bay, CVRP
worked in Manjuyod to establish a marine reserve in Sitio Limayag and Barangay
Campuyo, establish a mangrove reforestation projects, and build artificial reefs
and fish aggregating devices. In 1991, the Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA)-funded Environment and Resource Management Project (ERMP)
was implemented in coordination with Silliman University. ERMP lasted only 1.5
years. Following this project was the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN)–Australia funded Coastal Living Resources Project (CLRP) (1990–1994).
This project focused on ecological studies in Bais Bay while engaging in a community
information drive and database management activities. In 1996, the USAID-funded
Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP) began. This project concentrated on
mangrove rehabilitation, enterprise development, and technical assistance. The latter
activity focused on enforcement of the national fisheries laws, formation of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resource Management Councils (FARMCs), and coastal planning.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
218 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

2.8. Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi, Indonesia

Bunaken National Park (BNP) is a 79,056 ha protected area located adjacent to

Manado, the provincial capital, on the northern tip of Sulawesi Island in the
province of Minahasa, Indonesia (less than 2.71N). The southern park unit covers
16,906 ha. The northern section of the park covers a total area of 62,150 ha and
encloses five islands.
Along with other Indonesian reefs in the Moluccas and the Lesser Sundas,
Sulawesi is a global hotspot for coral reef biodiversity [36]. To date over 450 species
of coral have been identified within the Indonesian Archipelago [37]. In Eastern
Indonesia, there are a total of 80 coral genera [38]. The area is also renowned for its
exceptional fish diversity. There are at least 3000 species of shore fishes belonging to
175 families [39]. The islands of BNP are fringed with approximately 8000 ha of coral
reef. North Sulawesi’s narrow continental shelf drops away steeply to deep oceanic
habitats.
The population of the Minahasa Province has been increasing at a rapid rate,
especially in and near the capital of Manado. A total of 21,600 people live within the
park’s boundaries [40]. Five islands comprise the northern section of BNP: Bunaken
(pop. 3100 including Siladen, 704.3 ha), Siladen (45.3 ha), Manado Tua (pop. 2239,
1040.6 ha), Mantehage (pop. 1716, 726.4 ha), and Nain (pop. 3032, 166 ha) [41]. The
majority of BNP’s island residents are Christian, as is nearly 98% of the larger
Minahasa region. However, there are over 2000 Muslim residents living on the
park’s islands. Nain, the most populated of the islands (possibly due to its success
with seaweed farming in recent years), is majority Islam. Increasing numbers of
Muslims are arriving in Minahasa as a result of unrest elsewhere in Indonesia.
Most fishers living within the park’s boundaries are small-scale producers. Despite
the importance of the fisheries sector to national welfare, small-scale fishers are
amongst the poorest in Indonesian society. While dive tourism is one of the main
economic sectors in the North Sulawesi area, only a small number of BNP residents
are employed in tourism as dive guides, boat operators, cottage staff, and food and
souvenir sellers on Bunaken Island. In a 1999 survey, it was found that out of 368
jobs in BNP’s tourism industry, only 24.5% went to native BNP residents [42]. While
dive tourism has been active in the area since the 1970s, the number of visitors has
greatly increased since 1993. According to records at the Manado Tourism Office,
approximately 13,361 Indonesian tourists and 7213 foreign tourists visited BNP
between March 2001 and March 2002. This is a dramatic increase from 2248 visitors
in 1985.
In 1980, Bunaken was declared as the ‘‘Manado Marine Tourism Development
Area’’ (North Sulawesi Governor Decree no. 224). By 1988, some initial manage-
ment attempts were made when the Ministry of Forestry divided BNP into
management zones. These zones were not enforced. Then in 1991, Bunaken was
declared a national park and the first integrated coastal management project in the
area, the Natural Resource Management Program (NRMP) funded by USAID,
began. One objective of this project was to develop a management plan for BNP. In
1997, the BNP Management Plan was approved by the Indonesian national
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 219

government. NRMP (also referred to as NRM1) ended in 1996, but by 1998 a

follow-up USAID-funded project began entitled the Natural Resource Manage-
ment/Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity
Contract (or NRM/EPIQ). This project ended by 2004. Both of these programs had
sites throughout Indonesia, one of which was Bunaken National Park.
NRM/EPIQ revised and developed many aspects of the 25-year management plan.
This project has succeeded in strengthening the park’s enforcement system,
establishing a visitor fee financing mechanism, and instituted a re-zonation process
[43]. Through collaborations with local organizations, such as the North Sulawesi
Water Sports Association (NSWA, www.bunaken.info/index.html), it also dimin-
ished some of the negative effects of dive tourism on coral reefs. NRM/EPIQ worked
to improve communication between certain stakeholders and encourage co-
management approaches to conservation through the establishment of multi-
sectoral management board, or Dewan. While neither the NRMP or NRM/EPIQ
efforts are self-described as ICM in their publications, they include activities—such
as multi-sectoral planning, livelihood generation, protected area establishment,
private–public sector collaboration, ecotourism development, education, zonation,
and enforcement—in coastal and marine areas that are the hallmark of other ICM
programs throughout the region.

3. Literature review

A literature review identified that legal, socio-cultural, economic, institutional,

bio-physical, project design, and underlying contextual variables are likely to have
considerable impact on ICM sustainability. The following is a summary and analysis
of that literature as relevant to ICM.

3.1. Legal

The creation an enabling legal framework emerges in the literature as fundamental

for success and sustainability. This entails establishing clear rights, responsibilities,
and authorities among stakeholders.
Legislation and policy for co-management (and community based processes) are
embedded in broader networks of laws, policies and administrative procedures at
both the national and local level. [44, p. 470]
Harmonization of laws from the international, to national, to local levels such that
laws at distinct levels are complementary, not contradictory, is likely to influence
policy implementation.
Laws regulating coastal resources and coastal development in the Philippines and
Indonesia are in a stage of rapid evolution. Most notably, the Local Government
Code of 1991 and the Fisheries Code of 1998 have created a remarkably
decentralized legal infrastructure in the Philippines. To some degree, this has been
contradicted by the passage of the National Integrated Protected Areas System
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
220 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

(NIPAS) Act in 1992 [45]. Indonesia, with passage of Act No. 22/1999, has followed
this trend toward governance decentralization [46].
Much of ICM and MPA implementation in the Philippines, and increasingly in
Indonesia, utilizes community-based and co-management implementation strategies
[47]. Ostrom’s comparative research [48], while not focused on ICM, highlights the
need for government agencies to support the rights of resource users to engage in
some form of self-governance. Similarly, McCay and Jentoft [49] suggest that the
principle of subsidiarity—the making of decisions at the lowest capable level of
social organization—should inform policy-making. But community-led processes
require external support [47]. Ostrom [48] concludes that local-level common pool
resource management regimes must be nested within wider, and supportive,
governance structures for such approaches to function properly. Supportive national
legal frameworks are frequently the result of policy making at higher levels
of governance, or one-half of what Olsen et al. [5] term the ‘‘two track’’ approach
to ICM.
Effective compliance or enforcement of laws is likely closely dependent on how
laws and the law-making process are perceived. The perceived legitimacy of laws
likely affects compliance [50]. McCay and Jentoft [49] suggest that exocratic policy
development, whereby laws and policies are imposed from outside a network of
resource users, are likely to be perceived as lacking legitimacy and encourage non-
compliance. Once laws and policies are developed, comparative research on factors
affecting success of community-based management on Pacific Islands demonstrated
that knowledge of relevant laws led to broader acceptance [8].
‘‘Corruption’’ is a term frequently utilized to describe rule-avoidance in Southeast
Asia. Mostly commonly, it is invoked to describe pay-offs between rule breakers and
authority figures—for instance, when illegal fishers pay off local officials. Lowe [51]
points out that this is an overly narrow analysis that limits the gaze of examination
to the least significant level rather than the level where more important collusion
exists between government institutions, businesses, and military systems. This raises
the question of when and upon whom are laws enforced (or not). This is a theme
raised by Eisma et al. [45].

3.2. Institutional factors

Formal institutions, such as government ministries and non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), and informal institutions, such as communities and families,
are engaged in ICM. As a planning process involving a broad range of institutions,
ICM relies on and attempts to facilitate effective interactions within and between
formal and informal institutions from various sectors of society.
The development and coastal management literatures provide insight into
institutional design principles that might support ICM process sustainability.
Commitment and accountability emerge as important themes to explain institutional
support for ICM. ICM requires long-term commitment from government agencies,
NGOs, donors, and other institutions [8]. The iterative and expanding nature of
ICM likely requires donor commitment on the scale of decades, not years [5,8]. The
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 221

balance between necessary long-term financial support and counterproductive

dependence on external financial support—that is frequently secured as loans—is not
extensively explored in the ICM literature, yet has considerable implications for ICM
process sustainability [2,11,47].
Factors that support the commitment of resource user communities to marine
protected areas or ICM have been studied in depth [8,9,21,52,53]. The importance
of ownership, meaningful participation, and influence within planning
processes emerge as key themes [2,5,44,54]. If ‘‘exocratically’’ developed policies
are imposed, these are unlikely to be perceived as legitimate by resource users,
especially in post-colonial/post-dictatorship contexts such as the Philippines
and Indonesia in which institutions frequently have not represented the public
interest [49]. Evaluations of ICM in Pacific Islands and Sri Lanka demonstrate
that government institutions should facilitate community-driven decisions and
effectively enforce relevant laws [8,55]. They can also foster collective action by
communities that is at the heart of community-based coastal resources management
[52–54,56].
The responsibilities and historic relations between institutions often influences
commitment to ICM. In the Philippines, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) are frequently in disagreement over policy issues. Similarly, there is likely to
be tensions when new institutions, such as the Indonesian Ministry of Marine
Affairs, emerge within an existing array of entities. The implementation of the Local
Government Code in the Philippines and Law 22 in Indonesia, which mandate
decentralized policy making, result in periods of institutional instability and inter-
institutional clashes. Similarly, the emergence of national and international NGOs as
central actors within coastal and environmental management in recent decades has
required a change in mindset amongst government institutions. The NGOs, with
considerable financial resources, expertise, and strong links to resource user
communities, have challenged the notion that ICM is necessarily a government-led
effort.
ICM is dependent on trust between individuals and cooperation between
institutions [57]. But it is also dependent on upward and downward accountability
[58,59]. Several researchers and practitioners of ICM [7,55] highlight the importance
of multi-party commitment by formal and informal institutions. As stated earlier,
common pool regime theory provides helpful design principles such as the need for
nested institutions providing support for locally led initiatives [48].
Institutions can play a variety of roles within ICM. They may provide funding,
education, technical assistance, community outreach, and legal support. The internal
capabilities and weaknesses of each institution necessitate that institutions
collaborate to provide a complementary array of support. Comparative studies [8]
suggest that external institutions should play the role of ‘‘honest broker’’ providing
technical assistance on demand and supporting existing institutions and processes.
ICM is a dynamic process requiring adaptive planning and flexibility within
institutions—processes that are not always supported when funding is tied to pre-
determined deliverables.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
222 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

The ability of institutions to play the role of technical advisors and ‘‘honest
brokers’’ depends in large part on human capacity. Hilderbrand and Grindle [60, p.
34] define human capacity as the ability to perform appropriate tasks effectively,
efficiently, and sustainably. ICM programs are advised to emphasize ‘‘capacity
building’’ or ‘‘the improvements in the ability of public sector organizations, either
singly or in cooperation with other organizations, to perform appropriate tasks’’
[60, p. 34].
The culture within any institution will undoubtedly affect its capacity to respond
to the changes posed by ICM [57]. Just as ICM necessitates an adaptive, iterative,
and dynamic process, a capable institution requires flexibility, participation,
teamwork, problem solving, shared professional norms, and a strong sense of
mission [60]. The placing of capable persons, who are both well trained and sensitive
to the dynamics and needs of a wide range of constituents, is fundamental for
success.
The fact that ICM processes are frequently established and led by ICM projects is
an important consideration for process sustainability. Increasingly the emphasis has
been shifted to instilling particular behavior patterns and societal conditions, as well
as fostering commitment within national institutions [7]. However, the unit of
intervention, the project, remains the dominant delivery mechanism. The focus of
attention remains relatively narrow involving a suite of institutions (fisheries and
environmental NGOs and GOs), communities (coastal not upland), and ecosystems
(coral reefs and mangroves). This may be due to the constraints within which
organizations and donors exist as well as biodiversity conservation priorities. While
expanding ICM to other sectors, issues, and ecosystems may seem appealing, it may
also become rapidly unmanageable. The ability for such approaches to address very
broad issues of inequity, market penetration, and climate change—which are
frequently root causes of coastal degradation—is under question by some [61].
In some countries, performance problems diagnosed at the organizational or
individual level may be so deeply embedded in economic, social and political
deficiencies that efforts to improve performance most focus primarily on these
conditions. [60, p. 33]
Much of the above considerations and opportunities depend, to a great extent, on
the general stability of institutions and civil society—what Hildebrand and Grindle
[60] term the ‘‘action environment’’. Thus, ‘‘political stability’’ is also a factor
markedly influencing ICM and process sustainability. Both the Philippines and
Indonesia are well known for recent and ongoing political upheavals. The
engagement of national agencies, national budgets, and political will are all affected
by political and institutional instability.

3.3. Socio-cultural factors

The community-level dynamics associated with the implementation of ICM or

marine protected areas has received growing attention [57,62]. The term ‘‘commu-
nity’’ is used, in this context, to refer to the coastal communities of resource users
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 223

that rely primarily on coastal ecosystems for their livelihoods and food. These
communities are heterogeneous, with complex histories, inter-group dynamics, and
resource-use patterns.
The level and implications of community participation in the formulation and
implementation of ICM programs is an important theme in the coastal and
environmental management literatures [3,47,52,53,63]. In many cases, these coastal
communities are engaged directly in the implementation of community-based ICM
activities (e.g., MPAs). The literature consists largely of case studies, but there are a
growing number of comparative studies available [8,9,64]. Whether communities
have influence and benefit directly from ICM (and MPAs) has been consistently
identified as central to program success [8,9,64].
The interaction between communities and formal institutions responsible for ICM
is sometimes characterized as contentious [65,66] and other times characterized as
collaborative [44,67]. Conflict and its resolution are clearly themes within ICM that
deserves more attention [68,69]. The potential for collaboration is influenced by how
ICM practitioners perceive ‘‘communities’’ and how they are engaged in ICM.

Implicit in this literature are (unexplored) assumptions about who has ‘rights’ to
use coastal resources, what constitutes a community, and how ‘homogeneous’
communities are. [55, p. 721]

While not frequently cited in the ICM or MPA literature, the interactions between
constituency groups is strongly influenced by power and class dynamics
[47,51,65,66].

Much of this literature is also silent about how power is distributed among
individuals, families and groups in communities, how management responsibility
is most effectively organized, and the incentives needed to engage community
stakeholders in collective efforts to manage resources. Also missing are
discussions about community ‘capacity’ to share in the management of resources,
the willingness of government agencies to share resource management responsi-
bilities, the conditions that foster ‘sustainable’ co-management and a host of other
considerations. [55, p. 721]

One of the challenges that ICM faces is that communities, even within the same
region, vary considerably in their history, stability, and receptivity to ICM. Jentoft
aptly characterizes this diversity when he describes some communities as ‘‘ideal’’
when they are ‘‘a social group possessing shared beliefs, a stable membership, the
expectation of continuing interaction, and a pattern of relations that are direct and
multiplex’’ [54]. Unfortunately, in a post-colonial, market-driven context fraught
with political and economic inequities, few communities in the Philippines and
Indonesia can be accurately described as ‘‘ideal’’ in Jentoft’s sense. Rather,
community members (frequently in collusion with authorities) are engaged in clearly
unsustainable resource extraction as a means of survival [70]. In many cases, coastal
communities harbor deep distrust for government agencies that have not represented
their needs or provided useful services [70].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
224 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

Pomeroy et al. [64] and Pollnac et al. [9,21] are identifying those conditions that
best allow for community-based or co-management practices to flourish in the
Philippines. Pollnac et al. [9] identified the following factors, based on a comparative
study of multiple sites within the Philippines, as the best predictors of community-
based MPA success:

(1) relatively small population size (of nearby communities);

(2) a perceived crisis in terms of reduced fish populations before the MPA project;
(3) successful alternative income projects;
(4) relatively high level of community participation in decision making;
(5) continuing advice from the implementing organization; and
(6) adequate inputs from the municipal government.

The community and ICM project characteristics that foster long-term sustainable
management have not been well developed but are gaining attention [21,71].

3.4. Economic factors

The economic value of coastal ecosystems, ranging from direct benefit to services
such as shoreline protection, is remarkably high and broadly underestimated [72,73].
This undervaluation and the perception that resources are inexhaustible have
fostered unsustainable practices. As a response, ICM is intended to balance
economic growth with sustainable resource use. But the desperate state of affairs in
many developing countries has tended to encourage the former over the latter. There
is a growing realization that economic growth and societal needs are based on a
healthy environment [74].
While not broadly considered in the ICM literature, the powerful economic forces
associated with globalization are clearly pre-determining the influence that ICM may
have. As a case in point, the live fish trade, largely reliant on cyanide fishing, mainly
serves foreign restaurant and aquarium business interests. The practice continues
despite its tremendously negative impact on ecosystems and human health, at least
partly since it earns hard currency and meets the immediate needs of destitute fishers
[73,75,76]. In contrast, the opening of tourism and global markets for some
maricultured products (e.g., seaweeds) is likely having a positive impact on national
and local economies and ecosystems.
The once remote corners of the Philippines and Indonesia are now subject to
globalization policies that call for the removal of trade barriers and free mobility of
domestic and foreign capital. Some [65] have argued that ICM is best described as a
globalizing mechanism allowing for market penetration in a manner that harms local
communities. In contrast to much of the ICM literature and stated goals of ICM,
Nichols argues that ICM regulatory regimes ‘‘facilitate the opening of coastal zones
worldwide to aggressive state and global capital investment’’ and ‘‘by asserting the
primacy of resource access for modern economic interests, ICM may introduce more
rather than less social conflict and ecological degradation’’ [65, p. 388].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 225

Partly in response to desperate economic conditions, alternative or supplemental

livelihood activities are frequently part of ICM and MPA programs [9,64,71,77].
These activities frequently take the form of consumer cooperatives, mariculture and
agricultural development, and, increasingly, eco-tourism development. The general
intent of such programs is to offset the sacrifices made by resource users while
engaged in conservation efforts. The emerging consensus is that eco-tourism and
conservation are mutually supporting. Clearly the social dynamics that emerge
between distinct constituency groups, for example tourism brokers and fishers, are
complex and not without pitfalls [6,66]. The links between these activities need
greater attention and benefit when analytic models are utilized allowing for
comparative research [62,78].
Implicit in the ICM model and program design is that coastal communities,
businesses, and NGOs will benefit economically from ICM implementation.
Communities could benefit from improved coastal resources and alternative income
programs. Coastal businesses, such as ecotourism ventures, could benefit
from improved coastal resources and improved zonation. Government agencies
and personnel directly benefit from project financial support and taxation
schemes. NGOs depend on project funds to maintain their staff and institutions.
It is plausible that buy-in from these various constituencies depends on the degree
of economic benefits or ‘‘resources’’ they secure [79]. These benefit streams will
change after a project is terminated and the ICM process cannot rely on external
funding.

3.5. Bio-physical factors

Many of the above-mentioned economic benefits are dependent on improvements

in bio-physical conditions in ICM sites. While the Philippines and Indonesia are
endowed with some of the most diverse and productive marine and coastal
ecosystems in the world [38], it is well know that Philippine and Indonesian
nearshore ecosystems and fishing grounds are under considerable strain [10,74,80].
Some forces, such as ocean temperature increases, are now negatively impacting even
remote coral reefs [13].
While environmentalist NGOs and donors make funding contingent on
demonstrable environmental improvements, the peer reviewed ICM literature
generally lacks accounts of whether ICM directly results in improved conditions
of tropical coastal ecosystems [14]. The bio-physical impacts of MPAs, one of the
favored ICM tools, is better document but is the subject of a lively debate. Some
maintain that a favorable scientific consensus is emerging for MPAs [81], while
others suggest that broader fisheries management and incentive systems are
fundamental to stock recovery [82]. In the context of gross overfishing and the
lack of effective fisheries policies restricting fishing effort, even successful MPAs that
result in initial environmental improvements are under considerable strain [83]. It is
likely that as fish stocks improve in one location, desperate fishers are moving from
sites of degraded fishing grounds to the periphery of MPAs. As a result, fish
populations inside and near MPAs are declining.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
226 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

The literature does not document whether improvements in the environment as a

result of active management motivates constituency support for ICM or MPAs.
Pollnac et al. [9] determined that a perceived environmental crisis motivated
individuals to support MPAs.

3.6. Project design factors

There has been considerable attention in the ICM literature to design principles
for ‘‘success’’ [84]. However, the issue of how to sustain success through project
design has not been well addressed [21,71]. Success and sustainability may be related,
but that is not certain in all cases. The following table (Table 1) contains some of the
most salient design principles for success and possibly for sustainability.
Enforceability of regulations has emerged as an important, and challenging, aspect
of ICM project design. As ICM and MPAs depend on rules determining how

Table 1
Review of papers with ICM sustainability factors

Author Design Principle (with relevant ICMSRP theme issue article authors)

Courtney et al. 2000 [85]
Jentoft 2000 [54]
Olsen 1993 [86]
Olsen et al. 1998 [5]
Olsen 1993 [85]
World Bank 1999 [8]
Complementary national and local institutional implementation plans
(Eisma et al., Lowry et al., White et al.)
Seek to embed co-management (behaviors, expectations) at community
level (Christie et al., Oracion et al., Pollnac and Pomeroy)
Work to build constituencies for improved resource management at all
levels of society (Oracion et al., Pollnac and Pomeroy, Pomery et al., Thiele
et al., White et al.)
Work at both the national and local levels, with strong linkages between
levels (Eisma et al., Lowry et al., White et al.)
Develop an open, participatory and democratic process, with
opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute to planning and
implementation (Christie et al., Oracion et al., Pollnac and Pomeroy,
Pomeroy et al., White et al.)
Utilize the best-available information for planning and decision-making
(de Leon and White)
Commit to building national capacity through short- and long-term
training (Lowry et al., White et al.)
Complete the loop between planning and implementation as quickly and
frequently as possible, using small projects that demonstrate the
effectiveness of innovative policies (Sievanen et al.)
Set specific targets, monitor, and self-evaluate performance (Christie et al.,
de Leon and White)
Work to build constituencies for improved resource management at all
levels of society (Oracion et al., Pomeroy et al., White et al.)
During project implementation phase provide assistance with technical
aspects of resource management on demand (Lowry et al., White et al.)
Degree of change sought should be commensurate with length of
commitment (White et al.)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 227

resources will be allocated and managed (in an increasingly difficult context),

enforcement is a logical aspect of any program. Increasingly, international NGOs
and donors are becoming involved in enforcement issues. Some observers are
concerned that ICM and MPA programs may overemphasize enforcement and that
collaboration and compliance with rules is a more effective and equitable approach
[51,65]. On the other hand, some would suggest that self-compliance and
community-led enforcement has little hope in deterring well-organized and violent
syndicates from rampant resource exploitation. The increased interest and
controversial subject suggest the need for further experimentation in design and
closer monitoring of impacts.
Similarly, sustainable financing for ICM warrants attention. ICM is generally
expensive and requires a regular stream of financial support. Sustainable financing
regimes that utilize various taxation schemes are being field tested [31] and ambitious
plans for a global fund have been proposed [87]. Frequently, divers fees, collected
from those visiting an MPA, are earmarked for enforcement since paying divers are
most interested in having these funds used for tangible activities that enhance their
diving experience and benefit coral reefs. Both enforcement and sustainable
financing are addressed in this study [45,71].

4. Conclusion: utilizing the literature review

Based on this review, the research project began by focusing attention on the
impacts of the following factors on ICM process sustainability: decentralization of
policy development, community-level characteristics and dynamics, the role of legal
consistency, ICM derived economic and bio-physical benefits (if they exist), ICM
project strategies for human and institutional capacity development, financial
mechanisms, and the use and management of information. Initial findings shaped
follow-up researching resulting in rich, multidisciplinary analyses.
This introductory analysis sets the stage for the papers contained within this theme
issue dedicated to ICM process sustainability. Two important conclusions should be
drawn from this introductory paper—that ICM process sustainability is a multi-
faceted issue and that there are no simple solutions to address non-sustainability.
While the research findings contained within this theme issue are grounded in
comparative research in a variety of sites, the ICM practitioner must contextualize
these findings to make them relevant to the issues they face. While adoption of
recommendations made in these papers is likely to improve ICM sustainability, not
all are appropriate for each context or issue at hand. In short, these papers do not
provide a ‘‘silver bullet’’ that works in all contexts. Rather, adopting them is likely to
improve the rate of success. They provide a departure point and guide for ICM
practitioners to evaluate their programs. To make critical education more feasible,
the researchers papers have been converted into educational materials (that are
available upon request) [15]. For the researcher of ICM, these concepts also provide
guidance for future research on coastal management.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
228 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible with the financial support of the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation (Grant no. 2000-14652) and National Science
Foundation (Grant no. DGE-0132132). The opinions expressed herein are those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation or National Science Foundation. The author would like to
express his gratitude to Joel Simonetti and Leila Sievanen who assisted with earlier
drafts of portions of this paper.

References

[1] Sorensen J. National and international efforts at integrated coastal management: definitions,
achievements, and lessons. Coastal Management 1997;25:3–41.
[2] Olsen SB, Christie P. What are we learning from tropical coastal management experiences? Coastal
Management 2000;28:5–18.
[3] Cicin-Sain B, Knecht R. Integrated coastal and ocean management: concepts and practices.
Washington, DC: Island Press; 1998.
[4] GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on
the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). The Contributions of Science to
Integrated Coastal Management. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 61, 1996. 66pp.
[5] Olsen SB, Tobey J, Hale LZ. A learning-based approach to coastal management. Ambio 1998;27:
611–9.
[6] Oracion EG, Miller ML, Christie P. Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism, and
solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/
j.ocecoaman.2005.04.013.
[7] White AT, Salamanca A, Courtney CA. Experience with marine protected area planning and
management in the Philippines. Coastal Management 2002;30:1–26.
[8] World Bank. Voices from the village, a comparative study of coastal resource management in the
Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series No. 9, Washington, DC, 1999.
[9] Pollnac RB, Crawford BR, Gorospe MLG. Discovering factors that influence the success of
community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Manage-
ment 2001;44:683–710.
[10] Dahuri R, Dutton IM. Integrated coastal and marine management enters a new era in Indonesia.
Integrated Coastal Zone Management 2000;1:11–6.
[11] Olsen SB. Assessing progress toward the goals of coastal management. Coastal Management
2002;30:325–44.
[12] Nickerson D, Olsen SB. Collaborative learning initiatives in integrated coastal management. Coastal
Management Report #2239, University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett,
RI, 2003.
[13] Burke L, Selig L, Spalding M. Reefs and risk in Southeast Asia. Washington DC: World Resources
Institute; 2002.
[14] Christie P. Observed and perceived environmental impacts of integrated coastal management in two
Southeast Asia sites. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoa-
man.2005.04.012.
[15] Milne N, Christie P, Oram RG, Eisma RV, White AT. ICM process sustainability reference book.
Cebu City, Philippines: University of Washington and the Coastal Resources Management Project-
Philippines; 2003. 55pp.
[16] Oram RG, Milne N, Christie P, Eisma RV, de Leon R. Integrated coastal management process
sustainability training module. Silliman University Marine Laboratory, Dumaguete City, Negros
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 229

Oriental, Philippines and University of Washington, School of Marine Affairs, Seattle, Washington,
United States, 2002. 77pp.
[17] Milne N, Wright R, Christie P. A review of integrated coastal management educational materials:
matching materials with needs. Coastal Management 2004;32:61–75.
[18] White AT, pers. comm. Team leader for the design of Integrated Coastal Resource Management
Project to be funded by the Asian Development Bank.
[19] Thiele M. Factors influencing the success and sustainability of integrated coastal management in the
Philippines: evaluation of the World Bank Central Visayas Regional Project (1984–1992). Masters
thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 2003.
[20] Pomeroy RS, Oracion EG, Pollnac RB, Caballes DA. Perceived economic factors influencing the
sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal
Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.010.
[21] Pollnac RB, Pomeroy RS. Factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management
projects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/
j.ocecoaman.2005.04.003.
[22] Salamanca A, Uychiaoco AJ, Aliño PM. Maricaban Strait and Batangas Bay. In: Aliño PM, editor.
The Philippine coral reef atlas. Coral reef information network of the Philippines. University of the
Philippines Marine Science Institute and the Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research
and Development, Manila, Philippines, 2002.
[23] Fenner D. Reef corals of Anilao, Batangas, Philippines. Report for World Wide Fund for Nature—
Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines, 2001.
[24] White AT, Christie P, Apurado J, Meneses AT, White EE, Tesch S. Coral reef monitoring for
conservation in Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines. Cebu City, Philippines: Coastal
Conservation and Education Foundation, 2001.
[25] National Statistics Office. 2000. Population census. www.census.gov.ph/census2000/index.html
[26] National Statistics Office. 2000. Quickstat. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/quickstat/index.html
[27] Telesis. A socioeconomic framework for the proposed Haribon/University of Rhode Island project in
Batangas Province, Philippines. Narragansett, RI, 1994.
[28] Commission on Population. The State of the Philippine Population Report. Statistical annex. B.
National Data. 2000. http://www.popcom.gov.ph/sppr/statistics/table7.htm
[29] Haribon Foundation for Nature, Unpublished data, 1994.
[30] World Wide Fund (WWF) for Nature-Philippines. Contingent valuation in estimating entrance fees
for divers at Mabini-Tingloy sites. Quezon City, Philippines, 2001.
[31] Tongson E, Dygico M. User fee system for marine ecotourism: the Tubbataha Reef experience.
Coastal Management 2004;32:17–23.
[32] Calumpong HP, Luchavez JA. Profile of Bais Bay Basin. Silliman Journal 1997;37(3–4):1–6.
[33] Yambao AC, White AT, Ablong WE, Alcala MR. Coastal environmental profile of Negros Oriental,
Philippines. Cebu City. Philippines: Coastal Resources Management Project, 2001.
[34] National Statistics Office. Family Income and Expenditures Survey. Income and Employment
Statistics Division, Household Statistics Department, Manila, Republic of the Philippines, 2000.
[35] Luchavez JA, Abrenica B. Fisheries profile of Bais Bay, Negros Oriental. Silliman Journal
1997;37(3–4):93–100.
[36] Boyer M. Marine biodiversity of Sulawesi sea: first report. Italian–Indonesian-Cooperation.
University of Ancona, Ancona, Italy, 2001.
[37] Kahn B, Fauzi A. Fisheries in the Sulu Sulawesi Seas—Indonesian Country Report: assessment of the
state of biophysical, socio-economic and institutional aspects of coastal and pelagic fisheries in the
Indonesian part of the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas. The WWF Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion Fisheries
Project, 2001.
[38] Tomascik T, Mah AJ, Nontji A, Moosa MK. The ecology of Indonesian seas, Part Two. Singapore:
Periplus Editions; 1997.
[39] Lieske E, Myers R. Coral reef fishes: Indo-pacific and Caribbean. London: Harper Collins Pocket
Guides; 1996.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
230 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

[40] Mehta A. Bunaken National Park: Natural History Book. Manado, Indonesia: Natural Resources
Management Program; 1999.
[41] Registrasi Penduduk Menurut Desa Tahun (Population Registration by Villages—1996). 1996. http://
www.jatim.go.id/index.php.
[42] Lee V. An assessment of ecotourism’s abilities to provide local benefits, Bunaken National Park,
Indonesia. Report for the Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI). Funded by the
Canadian International Development Agency, 1999.
[43] Erdmann M, Merrill PR, Mongdong M, Arsyad I, Harahap Z, Pangalila R, Elverawati R, Baworo P.
Building effective co-management systems for decentralized protected areas management in Indonesia:
Bunaken National Park case study. Jakarta: Natural Resources Management Program, 2004.
[44] Pomeroy RS, Berkes F. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine
Policy 1997;21:465–80.
[45] Eisma RV, Christie P, Hershman MJ. Legal issues affecting sustainability of integrated coastal
management in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoa-
man.2005.04.009.
[46] Patlis J. The role of law and legal institutions in determining the sustainability of integrated coastal
management projects in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Marine Resources Special
Edition 2003;1:73–94.
[47] Christie P, White AT. Trends in the development of coastal area management in tropical countries:
from central to community orientation. Coastal Management 1997;25:155–81.
[48] Ostrom E. Governing the commons, the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York:
Cambridge University Press; 1992.
[49] McCay B, Jentoft S. From the bottom up: participatory issues in fisheries management. Society and
Natural Resources 1996;9(3):237–50.
[50] Crawford BR, Siahainenian A, Rotinsulu C, Sukmara A. Compliance and enforcement of
community-based coastal management regulations in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Manage-
ment 2004;32:39–50.
[51] Lowe C. Sustainability and the question of ‘‘enforcement’’ in integrated coastal management: the case
of Nain Island, Bunaken National Park. Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Marine Resources
Special Edition 2003;1:49–63.
[52] Ferrer EM, Polotan de la Cruz L, Domingo MA, editors. Seeds of hope. Manila, the Philippines:
College of Social Work and Community Development, The University of the Philippines, 1996.
[53] White AT, Hale LZ, Renard Y, Cortesi L, editors. Collaborative and community-based management
of coral reefs: lessons from experience. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press; 1994.
[54] Jentoft S. The community: the missing link of fisheries management. Marine Policy 2000;24:53–9.
[55] Lowry K, Pallewatte N, Dainis AP. Policy-relevant assessment of community-level coastal
management projects in Sri Lanka. Ocean and Coastal Management 1999;42:717–45.
[56] Christie P, Buhat D, Garces LR, White AT. The challenges and rewards of community-based coastal
resources management: San Salvador Island, Philippines. In: Brechin SR, Wilshusen PR, Fortwangler
CL, West PC, editors. Contested nature—promoting international biodiversity conservation with
social justice in the twenty-first century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 2003. p. 231–49.
[57] Mascia MB. Social dimensions of marine reserves. In: Sobel J, Dalgren C, editors. Marine reserves: a
guide to science, design, and use. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2004. p. 164–86.
[58] Sabatier P, Mazmanian D. Policy implementation. In: Nagel, Stuart, editors. Encyclopedia of policy
sciences. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1983.
[59] Lowry K, White AT, Courtney CA. National and local agency roles in integrated coastal
management activities in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/
j.ocecoaman.2005.04.008.
[60] Hildebrand ME, Grindle MS. Building sustainable capacity in the public sector. In: Grindle MS,
editor. Getting good government capacity building in the public sectors of developing countries,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1997. p. 31–61.
[61] Vandermeer J, Perfecto I. Breakfast of biodiversity: the truth about rain forest destruction. Oakland:
Food First Books; 1995. 184pp.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232 231

[62] Christie P, McCay BJ, Miller ML, Lowe C, White AT, Stoffle R, Fluharty DL, Talaue-McManus L,
Chuenpagdee R, Pomeroy C, Suman DO, Blount BG, Huppert D, Villahermosa Eisma RL, Oracion
E, Lowry K, Pollnac RB. Toward developing a complete understanding: a social science research
agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries 2003;28(12):22–6.
[63] Kay R, Alder J. Coastal planning and management. New York: Routledge; 1999.
[64] Pomeroy RS, Pollnac RB, Katon BM, Predo CD. Evaluating factors contributing to the success of
community-based coastal resource management: the Central Visayas Regional Project-1, Philippines.
Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;36:97–120.
[65] Nichols K. Coming to terms with ‘‘integrated coastal management’’: problems of meaning and
method in a new arena of resource regulation. Professional Geographer 1999;51:388–99.
[66] Trist C. Recreating ocean space: recreational consumption and representation of the Caribbean
marine environment. Professional Geographer 1999;51:376–87.
[67] Christie P, White AT. Reef fish yield and reef condition for San Salvador Island, Luzon, Philippines.
Asian Fisheries Science 1994;7:135–48.
[68] McCreary S, Gamman J, Brooks B, Whitman L, Bryson R, Fuller B, McInerny A, Glazer R.
Applying a mediated negotiation framework to integrated coastal zone management. Coastal
Management 2001;29:183–216.
[69] Westmacott S. Where should the focus be in tropical integrated coastal management? Coastal
Management 2002;30:67–84.
[70] Lowe C. Global markets, local injustice in Southeast Asian seas: the live reef fish trade and local
fishers in the Togean Islands of Sulawesi. In: People, plants and justice: the politics of nature
conservation. New York: Columbia University Press; 2000. p. 234–58.
[71] White AT, Christie P, Lowry K, D’Agnes H, Milne N. Designing ICM projects for sustainability:
lessons from the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, this edition.
[72] Costanza R. The ecological, economic, and social importance of the oceans. Ecological Economics
1999;31:199–213.
[73] Cesar HSJ, Warren KA, Sadovy Y, Lau P, Meijer S, van Ireland E. Marine market transformation of
the live reef fish food trade in Southeast Asia. In: Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs.
CORDIO, Department for Biology and Environmental Sciences, Kalmar University, Sweden, 2000.
[74] Green SJ, White AT, Flores JO, Carreon III MF, Sia AE. Philippine fisheries in crisis: a framework
for management. Cebu City, Philippines: Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources; 2003. 77pp.
[75] Johannes RE, Riepen M. Environmental, economic, and social implications of the live reef fish trade
in Asia and the Western Pacific. Report to the South Pacific Commission and The Nature
Conservancy, Honolulu, 1995. 81pp.
[76] Barber CV, Pratt VR. Sullied seas: strategies for combating cyanide fishing in Southeast Asia and
beyond. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, and International Marinelife Alliance, Manila,
Philippines, 1997.
[77] Sievanen L, Lowe C, Pollnac R, Crawford B. Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches
in ICM: eucheuma farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, this
issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.015.
[78] Miller ML. The rise of coastal and marine tourism. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;20:181–99.
[79] Zald M. Looking backward to look forward: reflections on the past and future of the resource
mobilization research program. In: Morris AD, Mueller CM, editors. Frontiers in social movement
theory. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1992. p. 326–48.
[80] Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR), 2004. In
turbulent seas: the status of Philippine marine fisheries. Cebu City, Philippines: Coastal Resource
Management Project, 378pp.
[81] Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, Goodridge R. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent
fisheries. Science 2001;294:1920–3.
[82] Hilborn R, Punt AE, Orensanz J. Beyond band-aids in fisheries management: fixing world fisheries.
Bulletin Marine Science 2004;74:493–507.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
232 P. Christie / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 208–232

[83] Christie P, White AT, Deguit E. Starting point or solution? community-based marine protected areas
in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Management 2002;66:441–54.
[84] Chua TE. Enhancing the success of integrated coastal management. Proceedings of the international
workshop on ICM in tropical countries, Xiamen, China, May 24–28, 1996.
[85] Courtney CA, White AT. Integrated coastal management in the Philippines: testing new paradigms.
Coastal Management 2000;28:39–53.
[86] Olsen SB. Will integrated coastal management programs be sustainable: the constituency problem.
Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21:201–25.
[87] Olsen SB, Kenchington R, Davies N, Dutra GF, Hale LZ, Robles A, Wells S. A global network for
sustained governance of coastal ecosystems. In: Glover LK, Earle SA, editors. Defying ocean’s end.
Washington, DC: Island Press; 2004. p. 151–63.