i

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................12. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................7

2.1. General presentation of coastal zone management in the Mediterranean ................72.1.1. National level.................................................................................................................. 82.1.2. International level ........................................................................................................... 92.1.3. Gaps to more effective ICAM ......................................................................................... 9

2.2. Experience learnt from other regions......................................................................103. JUSTIFICATION FOR A REGIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENT ...........................................13

3.1. Technical justification as regards the state of the coastal environment and itsongoing deterioration despite MAP.........................................................................133.1.1. Existing conditions and pressures on the Mediterranean coastal areas...................... 133.1.2. Anticipated changes..................................................................................................... 143.1.3. Coastal issues and need for ICAM............................................................................... 15

3.2. Activity reports, recommendations and white papers: the expression of asignificant requirement on the part of the States.....................................................163.2.1. Within the framework of the Barcelona Convention..................................................... 163.2.2. Within the Euro-Mediterranean context........................................................................ 163.2.3. At the subregional level ................................................................................................ 163.2.4. Guidelines .................................................................................................................... 163.2.5. Results of regional seminars and workshops .............................................................. 17

3.3. Legal justification as regards national legislation ....................................................173.4 Legal justification as regards community laws ........................................................183.5. Legal justification as regards international law........................................................21

3.5.1. Legal justification for a regional legal instrument on coastal zones with regard tointernational environmental law and to the international law of the sea ...................... 21

3.5.2. Legal justification for a regional legal instrument on coastal zones with regard to theBarcelona Convention and its protocols ...................................................................... 26

3.6. Justification with regard to the application of the Barcelona Convention andrelated Protocols ....................................................................................................283.6.1. From a technical standpoint ......................................................................................... 283.6.2. From a legal standpoint................................................................................................ 29

4. RISK OF A STATUS QUO ................................................................................................305. THE RANGE OF POSSIBLE LEGAL INSTRUMENTS......................................................32

5.1. Soft Law Instruments..............................................................................................325.2. A Binding Instrument ..............................................................................................33

6. PRESENTATION OF PROTOCOL OPTIONS...................................................................367. ASSESSING THE RELEVANCE OF THE OPTIONS PROPOSED ...................................48

7.1. Assessment Criteria ...............................................................................................487.2. Criteria Applied to the Three Options......................................................................51

7.2.1. Criteria applied to the general contents Protocol ......................................................... 517.2.2. Criteria applied to the detailed Protocol option ............................................................ 517.2.3. Criteria applied to the intermediate option ................................................................... 52

8. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SUGGESTED OPTION..........................................................539. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................55

9.1 A much needed and timely instrument....................................................................559.2 An innovative instrument ........................................................................................569.3 A flexible protocol ...................................................................................................579.4 A substantial and negotiable protocol .....................................................................57

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................59RELEVANT BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................61

ii

1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background for the Feasibility Study1. The Mediterranean Action Plan is thefirst regional programme of UNEP, developedwithin the framework of the Convention onthe protection of the Mediterranean Sea orBarcelona Convention. The Regional ActivityCenter for the Priority Actions Programme(PAP/RAC) in Split has been selected toundertake reflection and promotion of theconcept of “integrated coastal areamanagement”. This has resulted in extensivework on guidelines, white papers, bestpractices, experimental programmes,seminars, workshops. These activities anddocuments have been useful toMediterranean States in better understandingthe concept and requirements of ICAM andhave contributed, although still insufficiently,to control the development of coastal areas.2. Coastal areas, as a shared vulnerableand threatened heritage, are an issue ofnational interest for all Mediterraneancountries, having multiple internationalimpacts, in terms of the land-based marinepollution and as regards the protection ofbiological diversity and coastal landscapes.Coastal areas are of particular interest assites favoured by constantly greater masstourism and impacted by significant increasesin permanent populations. This is whysustainable development of coastal areashas now become a priority for all StatesParties to the Barcelona Convention, and apriority topic for the MediterraneanCommission on Sustainable Development(MCSD).3. The inclusion of the “marineenvironment” concept in the Convention onthe Law of the Sea in 1982, establishing theinterdependence between the sea and thecoastal areas, and the international charactergranted to the issue of ICAM in Chapter 17 ofthe Rio Agenda 21 in 1992, the amendmentsto the Barcelona Convention and protocols in1995, have extended the scope of applicationof the Convention and related protocols toinclude the coastal areas. The title of theConvention has been changed to:Convention on the protection of the marineand coastal environment, leading the Statesto “promote” integrated coastal areamanagement. In view of these modifications,

the 12th meeting of the Contracting Parties tothe Barcelona Convention, held in Monaco onNovember. 14-17, 2001, approved arecommendation (II-C-4) to prepare afeasibility study “concerning a regional legalinstrument on the sustainable managementof coastal areas”.

Justification for a regional legalinstrument4. The study demonstrates the need for aregional legal instrument, at both thetechnical and environmental levels, as well asfrom a legal standpoint, under the conditionthat the instrument in question should be abinding one, rather than a “soft” instrument,since it would be more appropriate thansimple status quo.

a) Environmental justification5. In view of the most recent diagnostics, itappears that the state of coastal areas in theMediterranean is particularly alarming:erosion and desertification, water pollution(100 black spots identified in 2001), waste,decline of renewable resources, loss ofbiological diversity, disappearance ofwetlands, destruction of landscapes. Causeshave also been identified: tourism, increasedpopulations, intensive agriculture, landpressures, absent or unapplied planning.New risks must be highlighted, such as:higher sea levels, floods, tornadoes, changesin water temperatures and saline content.6. Despite partial and very local efforts inICAM, under the leadership of MAP, of theEuro-Mediterranean partnership and of theEU, and despite numerousrecommendations, guidelines, white papersand seminars on ICAM, coastal states remainpowerless to face current evolutions.Regional cooperation is also limited by thelack of data, of relevant indicators, of regionalstrategic vision of the future of coasts, ofmeans to convince States to comply with theobjectives and principles laid out in “soft”documents, of monitoring procedures for therecommendations of the MCSD task force onICAM.7. This situation requires more than justawareness enhancement and information onICAM. It requires the “promotion” of

2

integrated management, based on foreignand international initiatives (often incompleteand devoid of legal framework), where theappropriate methodology has beendeveloped. This stems from the Council ofEurope and its model law in 1999, from theOECD and its recommendation in 1992, fromthe EU and its recommendation in 2002. Theobjective is the implementation of coastalzone management, which is environmentallysustainable, socially responsible and adaptedto cultural realities. Any strategy must includethe marine and land components of thecoasts, based on a global rather than asectorial vision, supported by coordinationmechanisms for institutions and decisions.This implies governance based on theinformation and involvement of allstakeholders, on impact assessment studiesof plans and works impacting the marineenvironment and the coastal areas, regularmonitoring of progress, analysis of successesand failures, and close cooperation betweenlocal authorities and the State, demonstratingthe common determination of MediterraneanStates. The challenge involves a new form ofmanagement applied to complex andvulnerable territories. Can a regional legalinstrument contribute new elements and thusbecome a value-added component?

b) Legal justification8. All reports and assessments on ICAMinitiatives unanimously agree on thesignificant absence of legal framework in thisfield. While legislation covering coastal areasexists in many States, only a few have thelegal instruments adapted to integratedmanagement at the territorial (breaking thebarriers between land and sea) andinstitutional levels, as well as from thestandpoint of global strategy and programmedevelopment and decision-making.Community law, which applies to marine andland coastal areas, is itself dispersed indifferent sectors, while the 6th actionprogramme encourages ICAM, withoutproposing any new or specific legalinstruments. This is why the EuropeanParliament and Council made arecommendation in May 2002, to stimulatethe implementation of an ICAM strategy. Aregional legal instrument for theMediterranean would allow the legalformalisation of the good intentionsexpressed by stakeholders and wouldconstitute a decisive step towards the

protection of the globally acceptedinterdependence of marine and coastalecosystems. It is to be noted that theEuropean Community, Party to the BarcelonaConvention, has accepted the 1995amendments to the Convention in its decisionof October 22, 1999, thus acknowledging thelegal basis for a protocol and the resolve infavour of the inclusion of coastal areas to thefield of application of the BarcelonaConvention.9. Coastal areas have regularly been takeninto account in the international law of thesea, in particular since Chapter 17 of the RioAgenda 21 (1992) has emphasised thepositive contribution of such territorialintegration to sustainable development.10. Finally and essentially, the Conventionitself serves as legal basis for the formulationof a regional legal instrument on coastalareas. The Convention amended in 1995,bears on the protection of the marineenvironment and the coastal areas,considered therein as undissociable, and theStates must comply with the generalobligations stated under article 4, whichinclude “the obligation to promote ICAM”.Paragraph 5 of article 4 establishes the legalbasis for the adoption of protocols, ensuringthe application of the Convention. Therefore,a protocol on coastal areas would in fact onlybe, from a legal standpoint, the manifestationof compliance with the Convention. and morespecifically, the legal expression of itsimplementation.

c) Choosing a regional legal instrumentover a new Recommendation11. Since the adoption of Phase II of MAP in1995, coastal areas are at the heart of thepolicies put forward to the Contracting Partiesof the Barcelona Convention. These policiesare translate into many guidelines,recommendations, action plans, and whitepapers, which are only in fact “soft” laws, notbinding for the States. Such instruments arecharacterised by their simplicity and flexibility.They can be adopted and modified withoutspecific procedures. But they remain optional,and their application is voluntary andunbinding for States. They often precede theconclusion of an international agreement.12. It appears obvious that no real progresswould be achieved in the field with new ICAMrecommendations or guidelines alone, since

3

these would only be repetitions of whatalready exists, close to stagnation orregression, highlighting once again the lackof effectiveness and implementation ofadopted documents. Only specialists areaware of these documents and everythinghas already been written on these issues.Time has now come to take one further step,ensuring more effective application in thefield. To this end, the only truly viable legalinstrument is the adoption of a legally bindingregional legal instrument. This involves aspecific and more official procedure, coveredin the Convention. e.g. a diplomaticconference convened at the request of 2/3 ofthe Contracting Parties and entry into forceafter the remittal of at least 6 instruments ofratification, acceptance or approval.13. The adoption of a new regional legalinstrument would confirm the concrete,scaleable scope of the Barcelona system,that has always been a precursor in its field.A regional legal instrument for coastal areaswould be an innovation in international law, inview of the fact that there have beenunsuccessful attempts, but no ipso factoprecedent of regional initiatives. Theimplementation of such a completely novellegal instrument for international cooperationwould carry obvious political weight for theMediterranean and could serve as a modelfor other regional seas.14. After years of research and case studies,this would be synonymous with theinstitutionalisation of mechanisms to ensureimplementation by the Contracting Parties,and would stimulate the States and localauthorities to better apply existing rules.Once the ICAM policy becomes official and ispublished, it will then become real for civilsociety, scientific communities and economicplayers.15. Finally, the adoption of a regional legalinstrument must not necessarily beconsidered as a constraining framework. Thecontent of international treaties can be moreor less specific and flexible. In States whereadvanced coastal area legislation exists,there will be no need of further measures; theother States are invited to include in theirlegislation a limited number of principles,objectives and instruments for integratedmanagement. This flexibility is particularlyrequired for the Mediterranean, in view of thedifferences in development between Statesand expertise attributed to local authorities.

This is why the feasibility study describesthree options, as concerns the content of thefuture regional legal instrument.

d) The drawbacks of status quo16. The choice of a regional legal instrumentrather than that of a new recommendationwould also demonstrate the political resolveto establish means to combat coastaldeterioration. This choice presupposes doingaway with the worst scenario, i.e. lack ofaction. The decision to do nothing for coastalmanagement would be disastrous in the shortand long term. It is utopia to wait for States tovoluntarily adopt guidelines for ICAM in theirnational legislation, although this solution ismore comfortable in the short term. It is wellknown that rapid deterioration of coastalareas is an on-going process, despite pilotinitiatives and projects which have alwaysremained quite local. Protected areas are notunder threat, but the unprotected areas (sanddunes, estuaries, wetlands, deltas, coastallandscapes) are submitted to the most direpressures.17. If new collective and global measuresare not taken, to set shared protectionobjectives for all States, deterioration willcontinue, and will impact the long termeconomic and social development of theregion as a whole. Without clear regionalstrategies, uncontrolled competition will leadto increased pressures on some areas,encouraged by the inertia of authorities andgeneralised laissez-faire. Chaotic,uncontrolled development would triggerirreversible situations in the Mediterraneanenvironment. In the long term, the cost of theabsence of mandatory rules and controlwould be much higher, making all talk ofsustainable development useless.

The three options of a future protocol18. Considering the above, it is obvious thata regulatory framework is necessary. This iswhat is called, in generic terms, a protocol.The protocol appears as the best-suited legalinstrument, both in form and substance. Insubstance, it would be a new step in thecontinuous evolution of the Barcelonasystem. “Soft” law instruments(recommendations, white papers, ...) havealready lost their illustrative and pedagogicalimpact and their modification would have noconcrete bearing. In the form, the BarcelonaConvention is by nature an evolving and

4

operational system. ICAM is one of thegeneral obligations for the Parties to theamended Convention, and the developmentof a protocol is the normal legal route toensuring the application of the Convention.19. There is no single model for a protocol,particularly in the highly complex field ofcoastal areas. Thus, three options areproposed in the feasibility study:

A. a protocol with general minimal contentor framework protocol;

B. a more complete and detailed protocol,to better cover the issues;

C. an intermediate protocol.These options are not mutually exclusive anda combination of all three can be examined.The drawbacks and advantages of theseoptions are covered below.

A. Protocol with general minimal contentor framework protocol20. This protocol should examine thetargeted objectives, as well as the generalprinciples of integrated management. It couldbe completed at a later date or supported byannexes, for further specification. It will givemore extensive definitions of coastal areasthan those found in the amended Convention.or protocols, bearing in mind that art. 1-3 ofthe amended Convention stipulates that anyprotocol can extend the targetedgeographical scope of application. Theinstruments for integrated management willbe explained in detail, giving States thenecessary breadth for adaptation to theirrequirements (inter-institutional coordination,global planning, information and involvementof all stakeholders). The protocol will alsocover some specific fields of action, such asmanagement of natural resources, erosion,risks. It will develop the principle of ad hoctrans-border cooperation and monitoring andassessment mechanisms.21. The extreme flexibility of such a protocolmakes it very attractive. It will serve to pavethe way for ICAM, without adding moreconstraints, and without requiring extensivemodification of national legislation. Theadded value of the protocol is self-evident,since it officially promotes integratedmanagement within a binding instrument. Thecost of implementation is minimal and Statesretain their freedom to adapt it at their ownpace. More specific elements could beformulated in optional or less stringent terms

by using expressions found in the frameworkConvention, such as: as far as possible, orwithin a reasonable timeframe.22. However, there is a risk that the addedvalue of this option may only be limited to aformal level. If the content is too vague andflexible, and if it is limited to principles for fearof the hostile reaction of some States, it maybe considered as a recommendation,disguised as a protocol, and the substance isthen closer to that of a “soft” instrument. If theprotocol does not take into accountoperational instruments, it will be insufficientto trigger the required stimulation. The cost,complexity and solemn character of itsadoption would then be out of proportion withrespect to its real added value in improvingthe current status.

B. A more complete and detailed protocol23. This option is not geared towardsreplacing the existing national legislation.International cooperation, in this case, isgeared towards the materialisation of existinginternational directives, by clearly determiningthe targeted objectives, the applicableprinciples, and the monitoring mechanisms todevelop. The definition of coastal areas willbe more explicit and include minimalgeographical scopes and their potentialextensions by the States, on the basis ofcriteria listed in annex. Although thedelimitation of coastal areas is theresponsibility of each State, the Parties willbe required to proceed with it and inform theOrganisation. The delimitation will bepublicised to enhance awareness of thepublic and stakeholders as to the specificfeatures of the territory involved. Inventorieswill be mandatory and renewed every fiveyears, to globally cover the coastal areas andassess evolutions on the basis of specificindicators. These inventories will be the toolsapplied to national and regional strategies.24. The Parties will be expected to commit tocooperating in the development of regionalstrategies, in setting sustainable developmenttargets for marine and land coastal areas.They will also be required to approvesustainable tourism development strategies.The implementation of these strategies willbe facilitated by action plans and supportprogrammes, based on the mechanismshighlighted in art. 15 of the amended Protocolrelative to the protection of the Mediterraneansea against pollution from land-based

5

sources and activities. The directives ofregional strategies will be materialisedthrough national global plans for sea and landuse.25. The protocol should lead the States toimplementing national structures favourableto integrated management, throughintersectorial institutional coordination andthrough cooperation between marine andland authorities. The States will be requiredto seek the best level of coordinationbetween State institutions and territorialcollectivities. The impact assessment studywill be applied to coastal area plans and tothe activities impacting coastal areas. An adhoc scientific mechanism, shared by theParties, will ensure the relevance ofassessments and be useful to the authors ofthe impact studies. As regards trans-borderimpact studies, cooperation between Stateswill be based on specific mechanisms.Finally, specific provisions shall be used todetermine free access to shores, protectionagainst erosion, use of natural resources,protection of wetlands and dunes, protectionand management of coastal landscapes,prevention of natural risks and pollution,protection of the subaquatic cultural coastalheritage. Other provisions will stipulate theinformation and participation conditionsrequired for the implementation of newgovernance, as well as the control,monitoring and assessment mechanisms, toensure proper compliance with theobligations included in the protocol.26. In drafting the protocol, special attentionmust be awarded to avoiding replication withthe provisions of other protocols. However,risks are limited in so far as the terms used inexisting provisions are general and willbenefit from the more specific and extensiveterms of the coastal area protocol.27. States may initially consider this protocolas too ambitious and detailed, which may bedetrimental to its implementation. Applied to apart of the territory only, such a treaty wouldbe exceptional. This is not the case however,as similar treaties already exist, forspecifically delimited and vulnerable areas,such as the Alpine Convention of 1991,where it must be noted that 4 Parties out of 8are also Parties to the Barcelona Convention.The cost of the implementation of the coastalarea protocol will be far from negligible, but itmust be compared with the social andenvironmental cost of the absence of

protocol. Its application will entail undeniablenational legislative and institutional reforms,but these will be variable according to thestatus of integrated management in eachcountry.28. It seems, however, that a detailedprotocol is the ideal solution. It optimises andgives legal scope to the internationallyassessed methods for ICAM, by satisfyingthe repeated demands for more stringentlegal frameworks. The complexity of coastalareas requires equally complex standards.This is very probably the prerequisite foreffectiveness, under the condition that Statesare convinced of the urgent need to act infavour of sustainable coastal areadevelopment. The economic advantage ofsuch a protocol is quite certain, in so far asthe development in the area involved couldthen be better controlled and its existencepreserved, particularly as concerns tourismand marine activities. The domino effect ofthis protocol would induce all States to modifytheir legislation and local practices. Thisinstrument would allow more consistentpolicies, now that the negative impact offragmented actions has been highlighted.The protocol could then become the logicalextension of the past efforts of the Barcelonasystem in ensuring real sustainabledevelopment.

C. The intermediate protocol29. This option can, by definition, beconsidered as a combination of options A andB, described above. The difference is in themore or less detailed formulation applied toits content. Without going into details at thisstage, it can be considered that this optioncovers the provisions of the frameworkprotocol, considered as minimal provisions,while it does not require the inclusion of allthe provisions stated in the detailed protocol.Some degree of flexibility will be included soas to obtain acceptance of a commonprotocol by the largest number of States,without jeopardising the operational contentof the text. The general justificationsdescribed also apply to this option.30. Presented as a compromise, this optioncould be considered as the most practicalsolution. It might seem contradictory toaccept the principle of a legally bindingprotocol, requiring that the States take moreseriously into account the threats on thecoastal areas, while refusing to fully

6

implement the envisaged measures. Ofcourse, there are risks in choosing thisoption, essentially due to the fact that thisintermediate solution is a reduced version ofthe detailed protocol, considered heretoforeas the most adequate. But, keeping in mindthe socio-economic and political situation inthe region, the choice of the intermediatesolution could weaken the impact of theprotocol, by limiting the effectiveness of theintegrated management process and itsdynamics. If the mechanism which isconsidered today as the most appropriatesolution is covered at length, the protocolmay be depleted of its potential, and this mayhave a negative effect on the synergies withother Conventions and protocols.31. As a conclusion to this summary:

• A protocol on integrated andsustainable coastal area managementin the Mediterranean is now anecessity and the time has come toapply it.

• It should be as detailed as possible toestablish the legal framework for themethodological requirements ofintegrated management for thecomplex sea-land area.

• This protocol is a legal requirement topromote complete and efficientimplementation of the BarcelonaConvention and its protocols.

• This protocol is a novelty and must becarefully drafted to take into accountexisting Conventions and protocols,assessments of the different initiativesand national legislation.

• The content of the protocol may bemore or less flexible, while remainingbinding.

• Nonetheless, the content must besubstantial enough to allow concreteapplication and to stimulate theParties and all social and economicstakeholders.

In view of the above, the C option, i.e., theintermediate protocol, seems to be the mostfeasible at this stage.

7

2. INTRODUCTION

The 12th meeting of the Contracting Parties tothe Barcelona Convention and its Protocols,held in Monaco from November 14 to 17,2001, approved recommendation II-C-4,inviting the Parties to “work on a feasibilitystudy of a regional legal instrument onsustainable coastal area management”. Thisinitiative is a follow-up to a large number ofinitiatives, activities and recommendations,underscoring the need to take into accountthe vulnerability of coastal areas in thesustainable development policies of theMediterranean, by taking note of the multipleand complex issues encountered by theParties to the Barcelona Convention and itsprotocols in the field of coastal areamanagement.This initiative also legally prepares theimplementation of the commitment of theContracting Parties of the BarcelonaConvention, as amended on June 10, 1995.At the time, the Parties stressed thesignificance of granting special status tocoastal areas in their reports on theprotection of the Mediterranean againstpollution. The title of the Convention. wassignificantly modified to read: “Convention onthe protection of the marine environment andcoastal areas”, and furthermore, art. 4-3-e ofthe amended Convention states new specificobligations for the Parties to “commit topromoting ICAM, by taking into account theprotection of areas of ecological andlandscape interest as well as the rational useof natural resources”.Differences in terminology can beimmediately observed between the text of theamended Convention and that of therecommendation adopted by the Parties inMonaco. These differences are not inthemselves an issue, they are simply theexpression of the various wordings used todescribe new ideas. The mandate selected inMonaco mentions “sustainable” managementrather than “integrated” management, but it iswell-known that integrated management mustnecessarily be sustainable, and managementcan only be sustainable if it is integrated.Both concepts are necessarily linked. Forpurposes of clarity, the text of this report willrefer to the expression used in theConvention itself, i.e.: integratedmanagement.

As regards the area covered, the Convention.alludes to “coastal areas”, whereas theMonaco recommendation uses the terms“coastal zones”. Here again, this is a minordifference which can probably be explainedby the translation nuances between Frenchand English. The term “coastal zone” will beused, based on the undifferentiated use ofthe two expressions in the conventionalBarcelona system1 and in view of the globaluse of “coastal” in the English text2. Theusual terminology for the Council of Europeand for the European Community is “coastalzone”. MAP and PAP/RAC also use “ICAM”,a wording which will be applied in this case3.

2.1. General presentation of coastalzone management in theMediterraneanCoastal areas, throughout the Mediterranean,face severe pressures and problems whichthreaten coastal resources and underminethe viability of economic activities. Thesignificance of the coastal areas is widelyrecognized as well as the need to act in theimmediate future since pressures on thisfragile environment are becoming more andmore intense. Population growth in the southshores, changing agricultural productionsystems towards more intensive andresource demanding uses in the north butalso lately in the south, industrialdevelopment and expanding transportinfrastructure but mostly expanding tourismlead to increasing concentration of populationand economic activities in coastal areas. As aconsequence, Mediterranean coastal areasexperience:

• Coastal urbanization, mainly as a resultof population concentration, uncontrolledtourism development and growth of

1 “littoral” in the title and in art. 1-2 and 4-3-e of theamended convention; “coastal zone” in articles 2-1, 5-1and 9-1 of the protocol on specially protected areas2 with slight differences however as to the qualificationof the coastal space under consideration which, inEnglish, is “region” in the title of the amendedconvention, “areas” in art. 1-2, and becomes “zones” inart. 4-3-e3 or the French abbreviation GIZC, which correspondsto the English “integrated coastal area management”(ICAM) or to “integrated coastal zone management”(ICZM). ICAM will be used in this study.

8

recreational activities (secondaryhouses). This is evident in most of thecountries of south Mediterranean butalso of the north, like Greece and Italy.The uncontrolled and rapid landdevelopment coupled with landspeculation has detrimental effects onthe coastal environment and landscape.It has encouraged the abandonment andloss of agricultural land and therefore oftraditional activities, while it contributedto increased pressures on the ecosystemleading to habitat loss. Reduction ofscarce coastal resources like water hasbeen another impact of this process. Soilerosion and desertification is already arather acute problem for the majority ofthe Mediterranean countries.Furthermore the destruction of naturalshoreline defenses and the reduction ofriver sediment supply relate to rapid andextended urban development.

• Pollution is also a critical problem. Lackof appropriate infrastructure has resultedto severe localized pollution problems.According to the recently publishedWhite Paper (PAP/RAC, 2001a) “around100 priority hot spots have beenidentified in 19 Mediterranean countries”.Industry and urban centers are the mainsources of pollution. Taking into accountthe very slow seawater renewal time, it isunderstood that the uncontrolled disposalof solid waste will continue to impact thearea in the very long future.

• Decrease of renewable and non-renewable resources and in certaincases loss of non-renewable resources,coupled with alteration of key ecologicalprocesses represent a critical problem, ifnot a threat for the sustainabledevelopment of the area. Fish catchesare decreasing due to overexploitation.Water resources are limited, oftenoverexploited so as to satisfy increaseddemands in water consumption foragriculture or tourism. Overexploitationand consequent salinization ofunderground water aquifers is a commonpattern throughout the Mediterraneanbasin, particularly in the south and inmost, if not all islands. This has alsoresulted in the dramatic decrease ofwater inputs into the Mediterranean Seaand consequently in the dramaticreduction of sediment load. Deforestation

has also played a significant role in themodification of the hydrological cyclewhich constitutes a major problem in theregion.

• Increasing environmental and other risksdue to climate change and sea level riseand consequently increased occurrenceof droughts, floods, storms, changes insoil erosion and desertification process,coastal erosion, changes in seawatertemperature and salinity and biologicaldiversity reduction.

• Increasing threats to cultural identity,heritage and diversity of the area due toexternal (e.g. globalization) and internalfactors (e.g rapid urbanization of coastalareas with consequent impacts ontraditional socio-economic structures).Natural and man-made landscapes havedeteriorated significantly in severalplaces.

The above issues need to be considered inthe broader socio-economic and institutionalcontext of the area.

2.1.1. National levelControl of coastal development is a majorissue in the Mediterranean basin, since inmost of the countries a high percentage ofpopulation lives on the coast and manyeconomical activities are located there. Insome countries there is specific legislation tocontrol coastal development. Several actionscan be evidenced such as Coastal ZoneManagement Plans, special Agencies for theprotection and management of the coastalzone, surveillance and monitoring systems,tourism development controls – includingeconomic instruments for the promotion ofalternative forms of tourism.However, the burden for integrated coastalarea management, from an institutionalperspective, worldwide, falls at the nationallevel in spite of the fact that many problemsmight be regional or local in character.Responses vary on the basis of theparticularities of the development stage,institutional context andenvironment/development issues. It is evidentthat there are more than one ways to ICAM.There are few examples of comprehensivecoastal management policies at the nationallevel in the Mediterranean and even fewerapplications. Yet, problems in coastal areasstill persist. National coastal policies in

9

Mediterranean countries are typically moreprescriptive than facilitative. They rely ontraditional roles of government vs.governance. Process rather than outcome-oriented approaches and participatorymanagement could offer a way forward.In our times of globalisation, nationaladministrative systems, in spite of theirfundamental regulatory role, are more andmore seeking partners at sub-national orlocal levels (or even Regional) that offerspecific competitive advantages. At locallevel a variety of initiatives exist (CAMPs, etc)with varying performances, successes andfailures. It is necessary that Mediterraneancommunities develop and function as strong,co-operative and inventive partners in thedecision-making processes of coastalmanagement. Although many problems ofcoastal areas are highly localized there isstrong ground to support shared action.Shared action requires a common frameworkso it is necessary to develop a vision of thefuture for the Region.

2.1.2. International levelAmong other world Regions, theMediterranean is probably the mostadvanced in terms of developing cooperationin ICAM. Collaboration is established on thestrong basis of the Mediterranean Action Planand recently in the context of other fora,especially the Euro-MediterraneanPartnership. So the regional level is veryimportant in the Mediterranean and is likely toremain so in the future.During the past years, ICAM has beenpromoted in a systematic way throughvarious national and international initiatives inthe context of the Mediterranean Action Planand the Mediterranean Commission onSustainable Development, the MediterraneanEnvironmental Technical AssistanceProgram, the European Union and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. CAMP projectsand EU Demonstration projects on ICZM aresome of the attempts to implement suchinitiatives.These concerns have led to the preparationof “Guidelines for Integrated Coastal AreaManagement in the Mediterranean” (UNEP,1997), “Formulation and implementation ofCAMP projects: Operational manual”(UNEP/MAP, 1999), and “Assessment ofIntegrated Coastal Area Management

Initiatives in the Mediterranean: Experiencesfrom METAP and PAP” (MAP/METAP, 1998).Similar initiatives have been also undertakenin the European context as presented in“Towards an European Strategy for ICZM”and “Lessons from the European CommunityDemonstration Program in ICZM”.

2.1.3. Gaps to more effective ICAMIntegrated Coastal Area Management is adynamic and continuous process, whichfacilitates dialogue among interested partiesand supports co-operation, which is the basisfor the co-ordination of actions. Co-operationamong regional partners on ICAM has beenestablished. In addition there are severalactivities promoting ICAM but this does notnecessarily mean that they are coordinated.Overall although the Mediterraneancooperation at a Regional level is advancedin many respects as compared to other worldregions in terms of breadth and longevitythere are still hindrances to more effectiveICAM. These gaps can be identified in alldifferent steps of the ICAM process, startingfrom data and information management,planning, management, decision-making,monitoring, evaluation and implementation. Inparticular:

• In spite of an early concern with coastalareas in the Mediterranean and aqualitative approach in outlining suchdynamics, there is no accurate basis forestimating the extent of the problems asa basis for regional level policy making.

• ICAM related indicators are notdeveloped and there is no mechanism orestablished process to utilize them in apolicy-making process taking a long-termperspective.

• A strategic view of the Mediterranean isstill missing. ICAM still lags behind not interms of general goals and intentions butin terms of effective interventions giventhe importance of coastal areas in theMediterranean and the complexity oftheir problems.

• In spite of advanced state of cooperationin defining goals and principles there areno mechanisms of pursuing nationaladministrations to adopt them except inthe form of very formal andadministratively cumbersome procedures(as is the case with Protocols).

10

• Within the regional level, there are nomechanisms to ensure follow-up bycontracting Parties of therecommendations on integrated coastalarea management.

• In spite of regional level relativeconsensus there is little evidence ofcorresponding concerns at national andlocal levels.

2.2. Experience learnt from otherregionsICAM has become a major subject of interestin land development and environmentalprotection policies. The European CoastalArea Charter, adopted in Crete on October 8,1981 states: “the existence of politicalborders separating the elements of a naturalcoastal area is in itself justification for thecoordination of development plans”. It adds:“cooperation should be mandatory in thecase of the impact assessment studies onlarge implantations in border regions”4. Thereis obviously no distinction between marineand coastal environments in the case ofmarine and land pollution. This geographicaland ecological aspect is the basis for nationalpolicies and international initiatives. Thetrans-border character of coastal areas isself-evident to the stakeholders and explainsthe need for a legal framework on theinternational scale.There are several initiatives at the strictlynational level as well as the internationallevel. These are, for the most part,incomplete and unsatisfactory, in view of thefact that the related legal framework isusually insufficient, which serves to furtherreinforce the need for the Mediterraneanregion to establish an innovative and adaptedlegal scheme.At national level, Sorensen, in 1990, hadidentified over 140 examples of ICAMprojects (Sorensen, 1993). In theMediterranean, PAP/RAC has identified over70 initiatives, albeit limited in scale. Wepresent hereafter an example of a projectundertaken in France, and the lessons learnt

4 European Coastal Area Charter, as adopted by theplenary Conference on peripheral marine regions of theEEC, with the representatives of the institutions of theEuropean Community and of the Council of Europe andapproved by resolution of the European Parliament, onJune 18, 1982.

by the Council of Europe in its model nationallaw. In France, since 1983, legislationinvolves a territorial planning document,bearing on the marine area and adjacent landareas5, and optimisation of the sea use. Thefirst of these integrated coastal zone planningdocuments refers to the Mediterranean. Itwas approved by decree on April 20, 1995 forthe area of the Pond of Thau and its marinearea. It covers the salty pond of Thau, theport and city of Sete, nine neighboringcommunes and a marine area spreading to3,000 nautic miles at sea. Based on thedetermination of the purpose of the differentareas in question and on the examination ofthe compatibility of usage between theeconomic and social stakeholders in theregion, the scheme, legally applied inmunicipalities, makes recommendations andestablishes the framework for some of thelocal activities. This has entailed lengthynegotiations and consultation meetings withthe public and private stakeholders involved.It is an interesting example of territorialintegration between sea, rivers and land,which makes it possible to ignore the internallegal and administrative boundary betweenthe public marine domain of the State and theprivate territory of the local collectivities.However, this is limited in time. Furthermore,a recent official report has alerted the publicauthorities to the fact that: “coastal areas area threatened national heritage, and if we arenot careful, non renewable assets andresources will be wasted. Indeed, the brutalityand amplitude of social changes along ourcoasts are triggering many conflicts of use.They are also jeopardising the social, culturaland economic identity of the coastal areas.They highlight the democratic deficit inprotecting this environment...”6. This is a lucidobservation which could apply to almost allMediterranean States.Drawing on the lessons learnt from thedifficulties national authorities encountered inICAM, the Council of Europe in 1999,

5 article 57 of the law of January 7, 1983, relativeto the sharing of expertise between communes,departments, the regions and the State, toestablish “sea optimisation schemes” See J.M.Lannuzel, “sea optimisation as an experience inintegrated coastal policy, L’Harmattan, Paris1997, p.816 Report of the National Council on Land Planning andDevelopment by M. Alduy and Ms. Bersani, Paris, July9, 2003 (See Le Monde, July 10, 2003, p.11)

11

developed a model law on sustainablemanagement of coastal areas and aEuropean code of conduct applicable tocoastal areas (Council of Europe, 1999). This“soft” instrument should be a source ofinspiration for national legislation. It specifiesthe legal content of the ICAM concept, byemphasising the legal content of integrationat territorial and institutional levels, as well asat the level of planning and decision-makingauthority. The document covers a wholerange of fundamental issues: knowledge anddelimitation of coastal areas, financialincentives and instruments, land ownership,free access to shores, leisure activities,protection of vulnerable ecosystems andnatural space, fight against erosion andpollution, public information and involvement.Art. 17 and title 17 as well as art. 80 to 83 arededicated to international cooperation ontrans-border coastal areas. Trans-bordercoastal area management plans arerecommended, through the association ofpopulations, in compliance with the principleof equal access and non-discrimination. Theneed for international actions in this field hasbeen requested for many years by theCouncil of Europe and the OECD.In its Resolution of October 26, 1973 (73-29)relative to the protection of coastal areas, theCommittee of Ministers of the Council ofEurope considered the need for “internationalconcerted action, at universal and regionalscale, in view of the solidarity of the marineenvironment” and in point 16, invited theStates to:

“closely cooperate when they shareadjacent coastal areas so as to:

• harmonise regulations andcoordinate actions in the protectionof sites, flora, fauna and pollutionprevention

• to undertake wherever appropriate,common actions such as themanagement of international parksor sharing means of surveillance andpollution prevention”.

The OECD, in its Recommendation C(92)114of July 23, 1992 on ICAM (OECD,1992)expressed its wish that:

“international cooperation on issues ofshared or common coastal areamanagement must be reinforced by theexisting international coastal area

management organisations or byorganisations with extended authority,by developing and ensuring theapplication of an integrated action plan,compatible with other initiatives in thisfield”.

On the international scale, we could mentionthe case of the sea of Wadden and thedemonstration programme of the EU.The Sea of Wadden is a marine and coastalarea, extending from the Netherlands,Germany and Denmark. These three Stateshave established cooperation since 1978 witha tripartite conference, a shared secretariatand working groups7. Operating on the basisof relatively informal intergovernmentalagreements, they adopted in 1997, anintegrated management plan for the Sea ofWadden, setting common objectives. But thisis only a political agreement. Priority actionsentail: landscapes and culture, water andsediments, wetlands, beaches and dunes,estuaries, marine areas (up to 3 nautic milesfrom base lines), rural zones, birds, marinemammals. Since 1999, there exists aninternational draft convention to transformthis plan into sustainable and legallyguaranteed action; this would be the firstregional convention on ICAM.On the basis of a resolution of the Council ofthe E.U. dated May 6, 1994 to develop acommunity strategy for ICAM, the EuropeanCommission launched in 1996, a wide-ranging demonstration programme. Thisprogramme was based on 35 local andregional projects, which were mostly national,but sometimes trans-border, and thereforeinternational. Amongst these, 12 programmesinvolved the Mediterranean. The followingpractical observations were drawn from thesecase studies:

• insufficient and inadequate informationon the state of coastal areas and on thereal impact of human activities on theecology of coastal areas

• insufficient coordination between theauthorities and administrations involved

• insufficient participation and consultationof stakeholders

The European Community was able todevelop a European strategy for the future,

7 web site: http://www.irwc.ribeamt.dk

12

on the basis of this experience, which gaverise to a Recommendation by the EuropeanParliament and Council, dated May 30,20028. Concerted European action plansseem necessary if ICAM is to be properlyimplemented (point 14). This is now urgent inview of the increasing pressures on coastalresources, the growth of coastal populationsand the development of infrastructures closeto the coastal areas (point 15). The targetedobjective covers sustainable developmentgoals:

“It is essential to implement ICAM in anenvironmentally sustainable,economically fair, socially responsibleand culturally adapted format, topreserve the integrity of this importantresource, while taking into accounttraditional local activities and usage,which do not represent a threat to thesensitive natural areas and to the stateof conservation of the wild flora andfauna species of the coastal areas”.

The strategy is based on the approach toecosystems and sustainable management ofthe natural resources of marine and landcomponents in coastal areas, while improvingthe coordination between measures taken tomonitor the sea-land interaction, which is thekey to integrated territorial management.According to the Recommendation, theStates must proceed with a full nationalinventory prior to developing one or severalnational strategies, according to theprinciples listed in Chapter II.Chapter V of the Recommendation isdedicated to cooperation and usefullycontributes to preparing the Draft Protocol tothe Barcelona Convention. It expressly invitesMember States to implement the existingconventions with non-Member States locatedalong the coasts of the same regional sea, toderive the best coordination mechanisms fortrans-border measures. This constitutes aspecific reference to the Mediterranean Sea,as a regional sea covered by an internationalconvention, where the European Communityand 4 of its Member States are Parties. Theexisting conventions, including the BarcelonaConvention, are covered in paragraph 2 ofChapter V. They are considered as the bestmeans to establish cooperation with the

8 Recommendation relative to the implementation of anICAM strategy in Europe, May 20, 2002, JOCE, L148,June 6, 2002

Community institutions and with the interestgroups, to develop a common approach onICAM.The aim of this Community Recommendationwas not standardisation since, as we will seein Section 3 hereafter, community law coversthe coastal areas through several communitydirectives on both the land and marineenvironment. The purpose of thisRecommendation is therefore to suggestmethodological orientations to assist Statesin the development of their nationalstrategies. This is why the decision made byParties to the Barcelona Convention, whichinclude the European Community itself, todevelop a regional legal instrument oncoastal areas, appears to be both theimplementation of the obligations stipulated inthe Barcelona Convention for the coastalareas, and the implementation of Chapter Vof the Recommendation dated May 30, 2002,on regional seas. The future Protocol willnecessarily have to be based on theprinciples of the above Recommendation.

13

3. JUSTIFICATION FOR A REGIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENT

There exists ample justification for a regionallegal instrument dedicated to ICAM,examined hereunder:3.1 Technical justification as regards the

state of the coastal environment and itsongoing deterioration despite MAP.

3.2 The success of activity reports,recommendations and white papersrepresents the expression of significantrequirements on the part of the States,but these instruments are no longersufficient.

3.3 Legal justification as regards nationallegislation

3.4 Legal justification as regards communitylaws

3.5 Legal justification as regardsinternational legislation

3.6 Legal justification as regards theapplication of the Barcelona Conventionand Protocols

3.1. Technical justification as regardsthe state of the coastal environmentand its ongoing deterioration despiteMAP

3.1.1. Existing conditions and pressureson the Mediterranean coastal areasOver centuries of civilization, countries havedeveloped intensive and complex patterns of

exchange and development, concentratingtheir populations and their economic activitiesin coastal towns along the Mediterraneancoastlines.The development of human activities on theMediterranean coasts generates long-standing waste, causing pollution. It isexpected that the substances discharged atsea over the last decades in specific areas,will pollute both the surface and deeperwaters over a long period of time. Pollutioncan often be highly concentrated in someareas. Approximately 101 priority hot spotshave been identified by 19 Mediterraneancountries. Although there are still manypolluted sites in the Mediterranean, the hotspots are the most heavily polluted bydomestic or industrial contaminants.Pollution from domestic or industrialcontaminants has a negative impact onmarine areas and is responsible for thedeterioration of marine ecosystems, the lossof biological diversity and the depletion ofliving marine resources. Disappearance anddeterioration of wetlands (from 3 millionhectares in the Roman era down to 200,000hectares by 1994, i.e. a shrinking of 93%) areconsidered as serious threats to many waterbird species, particularly those found alongthe Mediterranean coastline.

Features Unit Data

Coastline total length thousand km 45.0Coastline island length thousand km 17.7MEDITERRAEAN coastal region, surface million km²/million sq m 1.5/0, 579Urbanisation % of the coastline 65Coastal population, total Mediterranean, 1980 million inhabitants 84.5Coastal population, total Mediterranean, 2000 million inhabitants 123.7Coastal population, total Mediterranean, 1980/2000increase

% 46

Population pressure, 2000 (residents and tourists) thousands per coastline km 5,700 to 6,600Population pressure, 2025 (residents and tourists) thousands per coastline km 11,000 to 12,200Power plants: existing/planned/total – Mediterranean no. 112/43/155Power plants: existing/planned/total – north no. 60/4/64Power plants: existing/planned/total – south no. 52/39/91

14

Today, the long-term natural and human-induced changes in the hydrological cycleare a region-wide issue for theMediterranean, seriously jeopardising theenvironment-development balance,especially as regards the importance ofwater resources in many countries. Theissues are the degraded water quality, due toincreased saline content and depletion ofunderground water resources; the reductionin river sediment supply, contributing tocoastal erosion; the destruction of naturalshoreline defences –such as sand dunes andcoastal ridges – by coastal urbandevelopment and the overpumping ofgroundwater which may cause enhancedsubsidence due to the lowering ofpiezometric surfaces of confined aquifersand compaction. In addition, associated risksof drought and/or flooding cause damages tocoastal development.Coastal urbanisation is representing the bulkof population growth and hence economicactivity in the Mediterranean region withimportant consequences. The general resultis spatial imbalance in development betweenstrong coastal areas, heavily populated andcharacterised by high intensity of land useand consumption and abandonment ofweaker inland areas with lower density and aless dynamic economy. A spatial “re-equilibrium” phase of the Mediterranean canbe probably evidenced in an embryonicstage around the basin leading to spread ofdevelopment from coastal urban centres tohinterland rural areas. Emerging neweconomic activities such as aquaculture areresponsible for the deterioration of thecoastal environment. In most cases theseactivities are in conflict with existing or futureactivities, as for example the tourism andrecreation. Coastal urbanization is alsorelated with intensive use of land in coastalareas leading to land-use conflicts but alsoincreasing artificialization of theMediterranean coastline.Most of the above issues are interrelated,providing for a rather complex grid ofrelationships. However one may identifycoastal urbanization as a rather criticalprocess, responsible to a great extent for thedeterioration of the coastal environment bothof the terrestrial and the marine part of thecoastal areas and for the increased conflictsoften observed. Urbanization is however arather complex socio-economic process

requiring early action through planning andcareful land-use management.

3.1.2. Anticipated changes“Futures for the Mediterranean Basin: TheBlue Plan”, published in 1989, presents a setof basin-wide “scenarios” on possibleprospects until 2025 for population andurbanization, for five economic sectors(agriculture, industry, energy, tourism andtransport), and for interactions with naturalresources and the environment (soil, forests,water, coastal regions and the sea).The key points of the different scenarios are:

• A reference tendency scenario T1,basically reflecting the extension of thecurrent situation.

• A first scenario less favourable than thereference one, called aggravatedtendency T2, reflecting the slow growthof the world economy and affectingpractically all sectors. There would belittle funding for environmental protectionresulting in late and insufficient individualmeasures within a framework of poorly-applied regulations with delays at everylevel. Population and urban growthwould attain their maximum level, withtowns suffering from poorly-run servicesand serious sanitary conditions. In sucha scenario, it is likely, if not certain, thatsocial or geopolitical disruption wouldresult well before the year 2025, asindicated by certain events today, and areorientation of policies and behaviour,i.e. a change in scenario would benecessary.

• A second scenario, called moderatetendency T3, reflecting an economicrecovery at a global level. Although thelegislative and financial means and thetechnical tools for environmentalprotection would be more easilyavailable, this scenario proved to be themost threatening for the environmentbecause of the increased level of activityin all economic sectors and the delay inapplication of measures, which willrather aim to fight pollution than preventit. In this type of development lackingenvironmental concern, pressure on thecoastal zone would be particularlyserious since the majority of activitieswould be concentrated there, creatingserious conflicts of uses. Serious

15

economic breakdown and irreversibleecological damage could result fromsuch a situation (UNEP/MAP/BP, 1989).

These two extreme scenarios showdevelopment problems, particularly for thecountries to the south and east of theMediterranean Basin, in an internationallycompetitive climate. Both result in unstablesituations, either by the increasinglydeteriorating socio-economic conditions in acertain number of countries, thusencouraging geopolitical instability in theMediterranean Basin, or by acceleratingdegradation of the environment and naturalresources.To break up these tendencies, it is obviousthat international cooperation is necessary Inaddition to international cooperation, thealternative scenarios are also distinguishedby a completely different approach toenvironmental problems such asinternalisation of protection costs anddecision-making, less centralisation butbetter coordination of activities, greaterinvolvement of local communities in decision-making and management, etc.

3.1.3. Coastal issues and need for ICAMIt is evident that the Mediterranean coastalareas face complex social, economic andenvironmental problems which demandspecial attention. They require long-terminterventions and mobilization at all levels ofadministration.In the Mediterranean it became apparentearly that problems of environmental qualityin the marine environment are linked to thehuman activities many of which areconcentrated along the surrounding coastalareas. So, environmental protection waslinked early to the control of human activitiesin coastal areas. Integrated Coastal AreaManagement (ICAM) has been widelyrecognized as a coherent framework toorganize actions for managing coastal areas.It is obvious that almost all coastal areasproduce or support multiple products andservices. Also, coastal resources cannot beused exclusively by any interest group.Furthermore, sediment, sea and air cantransfer local impacts to wider areas creatinga complex of spatial, economic, social andenvironmental relationships. As a result,sectoral solutions are inadequate and usuallytransfer the problem between resources,

products and services, different communitiesand adjacent areas. As pressures increase,problems and conflicts must be addressedproperly and effectively. Mechanisms,adapted to the complexity of coastal areas,have to be created within specific economicand social systems to ensure that allenvironmental costs are incorporated indecision-making and not passed on to otherareas or to future generations. In otherwords, there is a great need to bring thesectoral activities together in order to achievea commonly acceptable coastal managementframework. In spite of MAP pressures, it didnot encounter a great success until now.The complex and close interdependence ofactivities and resources explains why thesectorial approach has not proved efficient inmanaging coastal areas. What is perceivedas effective and appropriate in some casesmay well be detrimental in others. Therefore,it has been recognised that the effectivemanagement of coastal areas should bebased on the analysis of individual activitiesand their impacts on the environment, butalso on the combined cross-effects and theirinfluence on coastal resources.ICAM is a continuous, proactive and adaptiveprocess of resource management forenvironmentally sustainable development incoastal areas. The overall objective ofintegrated coastal management is to providefor the best long term and sustainable use ofcoastal resources and for perpetualmaintenance of the most beneficial coastalenvironment. Resource management andenvironmental conservation, which providethe motivation for ICAM are not incompatiblewith economic growth. In fact, enhanced longterm economic development can and mustbe the overall driving force of ICAM.Specifically, ICAM aims to:

• Strengthen sectoral co-operation, i.e.through training, legislation.

• Preserve and protect the productivityand biological diversity of coastalecosystems, through preventing habitatdestruction, pollution andoverexploitation.

• Promote rational development andsustainable the relationships betweencoastal resources, their uses and theimpacts of development on economyutilisation of coastal resources.

16

Fundamental to ICAM is a clearunderstanding of the relationship betweenthe society and the environment. Sincecoastal resources can be used at the sametime by various economic sectors and socialactors, the clarification and comprehensionof all their uses and relationships is essential.Also for ICAM to succeed, a broad context ofinvolvement of major actors and interestgroups is essential. The participatory processmust focus on facilitating horizontal andvertical dialogue, agreements andcompromises between all parties and actorsinvolved in the harnessing and exploitation ofcoastal resources, in a comprehensive andintegrated manner.ICAM is not a matter of governments alonebut a complex process of concerted actioninvolving many actors with different roles andresponsibilities. Within this context newmodes of governance need to be introduced.In this sense appropriate collaborativemechanisms need to be established, alongwith role assignment, monitoring of progress,etc. NGOs, associations and other agents,private sector actors are among the keyactors that need to participate in ICAM.

3.2. Activity reports,recommendations and white papers:the expression of a significantrequirement on the part of the StatesDue to increasing concentration ofpopulations and activities in the coastalareas, the 1992 UN Conference onEnvironment and Development held in Riopointed out to coastal areas as areas ofspecial concern, promoting new integratedapproaches to coastal and marine areasmanagement (see Chapter 17.1. A).In accordance with the Riorecommendations, the Mediterranean statesadopted important instruments which arebased on the experience within the Blue Planand especially the Priority Action Programe.Those instruments define objectives ofintegrated coastal area management in theMediterranean and bring recommendationsand guidelines for their realisation.

3.2.1. Within the framework of theBarcelona ConventionThe Contracting Parties to the BarcelonaConvention and Protocols, have adopted or

approved the following instruments onintegrated coastal area management (ICAM):

• The Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP)Phase II (UNEP/MAP, 1995);• para.1.4;• Annex I – Barcelona Resolution on

the Environment and SustainableDevelopment in the MediterraneanBasin, para.13;

• Annex II – Priority Fields of Activitiesfor the Environment and Developmentin the Mediterranean Basin (1996-2005), para.3.

• Recommendations on the Integrated andSustainable Management of CoastalZones (UNEP/MAP, 1997), theMediterranean Commission forSustainable Development (MCSD);

3.2.2. Within the Euro-MediterraneancontextIn the framework of the environmentalcomponent of the Euro-MediterraneanPartnership (EuroMed), established inBarcelona in 1995, the Short and MediumTerm Priority Environmental ActionProgramme – SMAP (EuropeanCommission, 1999) was adopted by the theEuro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conferenceon the Environment, held in Helsinki in 1997.The relevant Declaration describes theSMAP in more detail (para. 1.2 – introductorypart, and para.2.2., Annex I, ad 4 and AnnexB.).

3.2.3. At the subregional levelAt the subregional level, the Adriatic ActionPlan should be mentioned. It was adopted atthe meeting of the Ministers for theEnvironment within the framework of theAdriatic and Ionian initiative, held in Zadar(Croatia) on 6 june 2003. (para. 4, point 4)(Ministry of Environment, Croatia, 2003).

3.2.4. GuidelinesAlthough not pertaining directly to thecategory of instruments adopted or approvedby the Contracting Parties to the BarcelonaConvention and related protocols, importantdocuments devoted to the topic of integratedcoastal area management, elaborated underthe auspices of the PAP/RAC should also bementioned. Those documents analyse theexisting global, regional and national

17

documents and instruments, offer possiblestrategies and develop in detailrecommendations contained in theinstruments adopted or approved by theContracting Parties to the BarcelonaConvention and related protocols. The mostimportant of these documents are thefollowing:

• Guidelines for Integrated Managementof Coastal and Marine Areas withparticular reference to MediterraneanBasin (UNEP, 1995);

• Conceptual Framework and Planningguidelines for integrated coastal areaand river basin management (PAP/RAC,1999);

• White Paper: Coastal Zone Managementin the Mediterranean (PAP/RAC, 2001);

• Good Practices Guidelines for IntegratedCoastal Area Management in theMediterranean (PAP/RAC, 2001);

3.2.5. Results of regional seminars andworkshopsSeveral meetings and seminars wereorganised by PAP/ RAC and other MAPcomponents, to inform and explain integratedcoastal area management to the ContractingParties:

• Workshop on policies for sustainabledevelopment of Mediterranean coastalareas, Santorini Island, 26-27 April 1996;

• Seminar on territorial prospective in theMediterranean and the approach byactors, 7-9 November 1996, SophiaAntipolis;

• Coastal Areas Management Programme:Improving the Implementation, Malta, 17-19 January, 2002;

• Legal and management instruments forthe conservation of the Mediterraneancoasts, Mallorca, 6-8 June 2002.

This last seminar reached, inter alia, theconclusion that: “it would be desirable to adda Protocol to the Barcelona Convention,relative to integrated coastal areamanagement” (UNEP/MAP, 2002, p.5).In spite of the advanced stage reached indefining goals and principles of integratedcoastal area management in the instrumentsadopted or approved by the Contracting

Parties to the Barcelona Convention andrelated protocols, there are at present nomechanisms which would ensure that theywill be applied at national levels by theMediterranean coastal states. Thoseinstruments are only of recommendatorynature, pertaining to the category of the “softlaw” instruments and not obliging the stateswhich adopted or approved them. Therefore,they are of limited value in enhancing thelevel of national regulation and inharmonizing national legislation.Thus, at present a set of detailed guidelinesexist, which reflect the useful experiencegained in the projects within theMediterranean Action Plan. Even if they mayhelp and guide States and other interestedentities to implement ICAM at the domesticlevel, they have no official status and lack ofeffectiveness and of follow up. At this stage there are three possibilities forfurther action. The first is a betterimplementation of existing guidelines onintegrated coastal area management on avoluntary basis. The second is the adoptionof a new “soft law” instrument in which theexisting as well as new guidelines andrecommendations, elaborated in accordancewith the latest practical experience, would bebrought together. The third possibility is theadoption of a binding (“hard law”) instrumentin which the content of the existing guidelinesand recommendations would beincorporated. The advantages andshortcommings of these options areelaborated in chapters 5, 6 and 7.

3.3. Legal justification as regardsnational legislationDespite the complexity and seriousness ofthe coastal area problems in theMediterranean, the overview of the nationallegislation of the Mediterranean coastalstates shows that the complex coastal issuesare not sufficently addressed in the legalarea (UNEP/MAP/PAP, 2000).Most Mediterranean countries havedeveloped basic legislation which only refersto regulations applicable to one segment ofcoastal area only, i.e. public maritimedomain, with some additional provisions onland use and urban planning. Most nationallegislations reveal the same weaknesses: asectorial approach to regulation which leadsto sector overlaps, too many stakeholders

18

involved in implementation and nocoordination of efforts or cooperation acrosssectors.Even in the few countries where specificlegislation exists for coastal areamanagement issues, it does not encompassthe integrated view of coastal areamanagement. There are no legal codes orregulations dedicated to the different aspectsof coastal area management and the existinglegal framework is applied indiscriminately toeach aspect (public maritime domain, landuse and urban planning, ports, fishing,pollution prevention, etc)9. Thus, nationallegislation is in fact only a partial response tothe complex problems of coastal areas whichis often inadequately implemented.There are at present numerous obstacles toeffective legal regulation of integrated coastalarea management at national level.One of the general obstacles is limitedinfluence of environmental concerns indevelopment planning in manyMediterranean coastal states in whichprimacy is given to development needs.Generally, there is no adequate data oncoastal activities and processes, theirinteraction and impact on the environment.Although all Mediterranean coastal statesregulate land use planning, these plansrarely comprise the marine part of the coastalarea. In general it could be said thatinteraction of land and sea, coast andhinterland is not sufficiently addressed in thenational legislation.Numerous human activities which take placeat the coast are traditionally taken asseparate in legal regulation and no“horizontal integration” exist.Distribution of responsibilities amongcompetent national ministries is not adequateand planning and administrative levels arenot integrated and coordinated.Despite recommendation on the publicparticipation contained in the amendedBarcelona Convention, in most

9 Law 2003-346 dated April 15, 2003 is an innovation,as it leads to the establishment of an environmentallyprotected site along the coasts of France, where therewill be no exclusive economic area and where theauthority of France in the field of marine environmentprotection and conservation will be maintained,according to international law.

Mediterranean countries national legislationdo not contain adequate incentive toenhance the level of public participation inthe issues related to integrated coastal areamanagement.The level of cooperationbetween civil society, government andprivate sector is not satisfactory.Although the coastal area management isprimarily concern of the Mediterraneancoastal states, coastal area managementproblems do not have only nationalsignificance but also have a strong regionaldimension. Having in mind importance ofcoastal area management for the wholeMediterranean region, especially as far asprotection of sites of ecological andlandscape value are concerned, regionallevel action is essential. It should promote aregional instrument which would requirebasic common content for the subsequentnational legislation.Having in mind diversity of national coastalareas and policies, such regional instrumentmust offer flexible framework which wouldtake into account specific national situations.At the same time, it should ensure thatminimal, regionally agreed, requirements forsuccessful integrated coastal areamanagement are satisfied in the nationallegislation.Consequently, it would be essential that theregional incentive ensures that nationallegislation of the Mediterranean countriescontain adequate definition of the coastalarea, and that all relevant activities which arecarried out in coastal areas are comprisedwithin the integrated coastal areamanagement. Of equal importance is toensure “vertical” integration betweengovernmental levels (local, provincial,national) as well as “horizontal” integrationbetween governmental sectors responsiblefor different activities. Regional instrumentsshould also set forth the basic objectives ofintegrated coastal area management, identifythe fields of priority actions, and envisagemeans of prompt response to criticalsituation. Issues of transboundarycooperation and public participation shouldalso be adressed.

3.4. Legal justification as regardscommunity lawsCommunity laws already apply to coastalareas, through the legal provisions on the

19

environment and fishing activities, in so faras the scope community law application isnational, and covers inland and territorialwaters. Within the framework of the commonfishing policy, community waters extend toinclude the exclusive economic zone.However, Spain is the only Member State tohave created a fishing zone.The scope of the area depends greatly onthe specifics of the related policies (Blanquetand de Grove-Valdeyron, 2001). In the caseof fishing, 12 nautic miles are often the limitassociated to “coastal area”10, while manyother regulations are applicable to the areasover or under 12 miles. Annex 1 to regulationn° 3760/92 establishes the communityframework for fishing and fish-farming anddetermines geographical areas for eachMember State, where free access isrestricted to between 3 and 12 nautic miles11.Regulation n° 4028/86 deals with theprotection of coastal areas through the use ofartificial structures to restore the halieuticpopulations12. Decisions made on that basislink the issue of fish-farming to that of coastaldevelopment, by refering to the conflicts ofusage in coastal areas:

“the development of fish-farming ishindered by constraints related tospace and particularly by the fiercecompetition for coastal land; policiesmust be developed to identify the sitesbest-suited to this naturally integratedactivity, and to undertake coastal areatreatment projects.”13

As concerns water policies, the frameworkDirective on Water, dated October 23, 200014

gives a fairly restrictive definition of coastalwaters, as waters “located below a line fromwhich all points are distant by one nautic milebeyond the point closest to the basis lineused to measure the width of the territorialwaters and which extend, in some cases, tothe outer limit of transition waters”; transitionwaters are “massive volumes of surfacewaters, near river mouths, partially saline

10 For fishing within the 12 mile coastal area(Regulation n° 894 /97 - April 29, 1997, JOCE n° L 132May 23, 1997, p.1)11 regulation n° 3760/92 - December 20, 1992, JOCEn° L 389 - December 31, 199212 regulation n° 4028/86, JOCE,n° L 376 –December31, 198613 decision n° 92/71 of the Commission - December 20,1991, JOCE n° L 29 - February 5, 199214 JOCE n°L 327 - december 22, 2000

due to their proximity with coastal waters, butwhich are fundamentally influenced by freshwater”. The hydrographic district defined bythe directive clearly establsihes the linkbetween land and sea, since it is describedas “a land and sea zone, comprising one orseveral hydrographic basins as well asunderground waters and associated coastalwaters”. It must be stressed that theframework directive on Water was expresslydeveloped to assist the Community and themember States to fulfill their obligations, asstated in the Barcelona Conventionand in theAthens Protocol on land-based pollution.(point 21).In more general terms, the EuropeanEnvironment Agency stipulates that thepriorities of the European Observatorynetwork should include “the protection ofcoastal areas and the marine environment.”15

While the community directives have, bydefinition, a bearing on the territorial seas,with some exceptions, the effects of somedirectives target more directly the coastalareas. This is the case of the directives onbathing water16; on the control of thedischarge of substances in the water, tobetter protect the sea and coastalenvironment17. This also includes thedirective relative to quality requirements forconchylicol water18, which applies to “coastalwaters and brackish waters defined by themember States as in need of protection andimprovement to ensure that shellfish live andgrow”.Protection of species and habitats is closelylinked to the protection of coastal areas,through the directives on wild bird species,dated April 2, 197919 and in the Natura 2000directive of May 21, 1992 on theconservation of natural habitats20. In the1979 directive, the issue was the protection

15 Regulation n° 1210/90 - May 7, 199O modified inRegulation n° 933 /1999 - April 29, 199916 directive n° 76/ 160 - december 8, 1975, JOCE n° L031 –february 5, 197617 directive n° 76/464 – May 4, 1976, JOCE n° L 129 -may 18, 1976 on pollution from dangerous substancesdischarged in the marine environment of theCommunity18 directive n° 79/923 – october 30, 1979, JOCE n° L281 - November 10, 197919 directive n°79/409 – April2, 1979, JOCE, n° L 103 –April 25, 197920 directive n° 92/43 – May 21, 1992, JOCE n° L 206 -July 22, 1992.

20

of migrating species, amongst which thewater birds, “in the geographical area at seaand on land” of its application (art. 4-3).Furthermore, article 4-2 of the directive refersthe Ramsar Convention on wetlands andunderscores the importance of wetlands,particularly those of internationalsignificance. The directive on habitats and onthe establishment of a European ecologicalnetwork is geared to apply to both the“terrestrial and aquatic zones” (art. 1-b) andlists the Mediterranean among the fivebiogeographical zones. The zones of theNatura 2000 network, considered ofcommunity interest 21, must therefore belocated in the coastal areas of the memberStates, both on land and at sea. The annexto the 1992 directive on habitats, lists whichtypes of habitats are considered as being ofcommunity interest, such as “coastal habitatsand halophic vegetation” under 23categories: marine water and tidalenvironments, estuaries, large creeks andshallow bays, reefs, cliffs, etc. The annexalso includes “sea dunes”, such as “themobile dunes of the coastline”. Coastalzones are indeed one of the priorities of theNatura 2000 network. In compliance withthese dispositions, a British court has judgedthat the 1992 directive applies quitenecessarily and naturally to the continentalshelf within the 200 nautic miles whereas theEnglish transposition act only covered the 12miles of territorial sea. It is the nature of theprotection of cetaceans which convinced theCourt to create an ecologically viableterritory, in confomity with the spirit of thehabitats Directive 22. In parallel, the threatson coastal wetlands were the subject ofcommunications from the Commission,based on which the European Parliamentadopted a resolution inviting the Commissiontake “all necessary measures to protectcoastal wetlands, submitted to strongdestructive pressures, to honor itscommitment to protect ecologically sensitivecoastal zones against potential pollution fromoil tankers or vessels transporting otherdangerous substances”23.Coastal areas are also covered in thedirective on major accidents, where it is

21 Specially protected areas under the Bird Directiveand special zones of conservation under the habitatsdirective22 Queen’s bench division, 199923 JOCE n° C 20 - January 20, 1997, p. 179, point 11

stipulated that the Commission be informedof such occurrences, which may havesignificant or long-term damaging effects onsurface water or marine habitats, both at seaand in coastal areas. Annex VI of the SevesoII directive describes as havingenvironmental impact any significant or long-term damage to zones located at a distanceof 2 km or more from a delta or at a distanceof 2 km or more from a coastal area or fromthe sea24.Coastal areas are also mentioned indocuments on waste, concerning the choiceof dumping sites, which must take intoaccount the existence of coastal waters or ofprotected natural areas25.The need to seriously take into account theenvironment was highlighted in the directiveon the impact assessment of private andpublic works and projects26. This importantdirective necessarily applies to the coastalzones where projects are scheduled (listed inannex), such as merchant ports, marinas,fishing ports, fish-farming, coastal and seaworks, extraction of underwater minerals.Before establishing impact study applicationthreshholds and criteria, Annex 3 of the 1997directive strongly emphasises the need totake into account the sensitivity of thegeographical areas which will be impacted bythe projects, as well as the load capacity ofthe environment. This is why specialattention is given to “wetlands and coastalareas”.Article 3 of the Treaty of the Creation of theEuropean Community sets legal obligation toinclude the environment in all communitypolicies. It is therefore not surprising thatcommunity law as a whole is concerned withthe vulnerability of coastal zones. Within theframework of communication on thereinforcement of the EU’s Mediterraneanpolicy, the Committee of Regions demandedthat greater attention be paid to theenvironmental impacts of human settlementsand of the excessive concentration, in spaceand time, of tourist flows27. This 24 annex VI of directive n° 96/82 - December 9, 1996,JOCE n° L 10 - January 14, 199725 annex 1 of directive n°99/31 - April 26, 1999, JOCEn°L 182 - July 16, 199926 directive n° 85/337 - June 27, 1985 modified bydirective n° 97/11 - March 3, 1997 (JOCE n° L 175 -July 5, 1985 & n° L 73 – March 14, 199727 proposal of November 15, 1995, JOCE n° C - April29, 1996, p.12

21

preoccupation, specific to the Mediterranean,further pleads in favour of a new legalinstrument for this regional sea, to supportand strengthen the existing sustainabledevelopment systems. It seems that the EUcan only support this initiative as it hasexpressed its favourable position asconcerns the sustainable use andmanagement of land and sea, as per point14 of the 6th Community Action Programmefor the Environment28.The 6th action program was approved underarticle 175 para. 3 of the Treaty of theCreation of the European Community, and ismuch more binding than past programs, as itgrants specific 10-year status to coastalareas (until 2012). The coastal areas areincluded in the strategies regarding theenvironmental objectives laid out in article 3of the décision of July 22, 2002. Article 3-10recommends:

“promoting best practices forsustainable land development, to takeinto account specific regionalconditions for the best implementationof ICAM, and promoting best practicesand supporting networks conducive toexchanges of experience in sustainabledevelopment, particularly for urbanareas, the sea, the coasts and thewetlands.”

As regards the four objectives and priorityfields of action, coastal areas are listed under“nature and biological diversity”. Article 6-2-gof the decision of July 22, 2002 states theneed to:

“promote sustainable use of seas andthe conservation of marineecosystems, including sea beds,estuaries and coastal areas, throughspecial attention to the implementationof ICAM in the areas most valuable forbiological diversity.”

This priority objective shall be reached byapplying existing global and regionalconventions and strategies as well as by thecomplete implementation of the relevantcommunity instruments.The 6th action program is thus theconfirmation of the determination expressed

28 decision n° 1600/2002 of the European Parliamentand Council - July 22, j 2002, JOCE n° L 242 -september 10, 2002

under the Recommandation of May 30, 2002relative to the implementation of ICAM inEurope. A regional legal instrumentspecifically designed for the Mediterraneanwould then be a model and an illustration ofthe concrete application of the best practicesmentioned above. The legal formalisation ofbest practices in coastal area managementthrough a regional legal instrument would bean important step towards ensuring theprotection of the interdependent marineenvironment and coastal areas.This new step would be the logical result ofthe approval by the EU of the amendmentsto the Barcelona Convention of June 10,1995, by decision of the Community onOctober 22, 199929. The fact that theEuropean Community approved the 1995amendments gives further legal justificationfor a regional legal instrument on ICAM, tocomply with the objectives stated in article 4-3-e of the amended convention.

3.5. Legal justification as regardsinternational law

3.5.1. Legal justification for a regionallegal instrument on coastal zones withregard to international environmental lawand to the international law of the seaWhile a treaty specifically dedicated tointegrated coastal area management (ICAM)would be an innovative step, there areseveral provisions in internationalinstruments relating to the environment orthe sea which provide a basis for a normativeaction related to the coastal area. Somerelevant instances are hereunder presented.

a) The Rio and Johannesburg InstrumentsAction Programme “Agenda 21” (Rio deJaneiro, 1992) calls for new integratedapproaches to coastal area management atthe global, regional and national levels. InAgenda 21, integrated management ofcoastal and marine areas is considered asone of the main components of the conceptof sustainable development. It is a tool whichcan both enhance the welfare of coastalcommunities and maintain ecologicalintegrity and biological diversity (paras. from8.2 to 8.12 and from 17.3 to 17.17).

29 See JOCE n°L.322 - December 14, 1999.

22

The Implementation Plan of the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development(Johannesburg, 2002) again stresses theneed to promote the implementation ofAgenda 21 “through its programme onintegrated management and sustainabledevelopment of coastal areas” (para. 30, b).States are invited to “implement integratedcoastal area management plans, includingthrough the promotion of sustainable coastaland small –scale fishing activities and, whereappropriate, the development of relatedinfrastructure” (para. 30,g). They should also“strengthen regional cooperation andcoordination between the relevant regionalorganizations and programmes, the UNEPregional seas programmes, regional fisheriesmanagement organizations and otherregional science, health and developmentorganizations (para. 30, f).To face thedangers posed by land-based activities,States are also requested to draw upstrategic plans for the sustainabledevelopment of coastal and marineresources, with particular emphasis on areaswhich are subject to acceleratedenvironmental changes and developmentpressures (para. 33, c).A number of partnership initiatives describedin the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment relate to oceans, coasts andislands. Particularly relevant for theMediterranean are A21 (Adriatic Sea Forum -Local Agenda 21 for Adriatic Sea Region), ledby the city of Ancona, Italy, and involvingmunicipalities from Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Sloveniaand Serbia-Montenegro, and ADRICOSM(Adriatic Sea Integrated Coastal Areas andRiver Management System Pilot Project), ledby the Italian Ministry of Environment andTerritory and involving 19 research andacademic institutions from Croatia, France,Italy and Slovenia (Cicin-Sain et al, 2002,p.26).

b) Treaties Relating to the EnvironmentConvention on WetlandsUnder the Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance Especially asWaterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971) theboundaries of wetlands to be included in theList of Wetlands of International Importance“may incorporate riparian and coastal zonesadjacent to the wetlands, and islands orbodies of marine water deeper than six

metres at low tide lying within the wetlands”(art. 2, para. 1). The Parties are required toformulate and implement their planning so asto promote the conservation of the wetlandsincluded in the List (art. 3, para. 1).The Conference of the Parties is competentto make recommendations regarding theconservation, management, and wise use ofwetlands and their flora and fauna (art. 6,para. 2). In 2002, the Conference of theParties adopted the “principles andguidelines for incorporating wetland issuesinto integrated coastal zone management”(resolution VIII. 4).Convention on Biological DiversityThe Parties to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) are bound to“develop national strategies, plans orprogrammes for the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity” and to“integrate, as far as possible and asappropriate, the sustainable use of biologicaldiversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies”(art. 6). Plans or other managementstrategies are to be developed to rehabilitateand restore degraded ecosystems andpromote the recovery of threatened species(art. 8, f). The concept of “biological diversity”covers terrestrial, marine and other aquaticecosystems.In 1995, the Conference of the Parties to theConvention adopted Decision II/10 onConservation and Sustainable Use of Marineand Coastal Biological Diversity. Itencourages Parties “to establish and/orstrengthen, where appropriate, institutional,administrative, and legislative arrangementsfor the development of integratedmanagement of marine and coastalecosystems, plans and strategies for marineand caostal areas, and their integrationwithin national development plans” (para. 3).The use of integrated marine and coastalarea management is seen as “the mostsuitable framework for addressing humanimpacts on marine and coastal biologicaldiversity and for promoting conservation andsustainable use of this biological diversity”(para. 2). Decision II/10 invites internationaland regional bodies responsible for legalinstruments, agreements and programmes,including secretariats of regional agreementsfor the conservation of the marineenvironment, to develop new actions which

23

promote conservation and sustainable use ofmarine biological diversity (para. 13). Thisinvitation may well cover also a futureMediterranean regional legal instrument onICAM. Annex I to the Decision specifies thatthe crucial components of integrated marineand coastal area management are relevantsectoral activities, “such as construction andmining in coastal areas, mariculture,mangrove management, tourism, recreation,fishing practices and land-based activities,including watershed management”.In 1998, The Conference of the Partiesadopted Decision IV/5, containing a multiyear programme of work for the conservationand sustainable use of marine and coastalbiological diversity. The programme includes,as one of its four elements, theimplementation of integrated marine andcostal areas management.Convention on Climate ChangeRecognizing in the preamble that countrieswith low-lying coastal areas are particularlyvulnerable to the adverse effects of climatechange, the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (New York,1992) provides that all Parties shall “developand elaborate appropriate and integratedplans for coastal zone management, waterresources and agriculture” (art. 4, para. 1, e).Convention to Combat Desertification

The United Nations Convention to CombatDesertification (UNCCD) is aimed at thosecountries experiencing serious droughtand/or desertification, particularly in Africa(Paris, 1994) includes among the generalobligations of the Parties the duty to “adoptan integrated approach addressing thephysical, biological and socio-economicaspects of the processes of desertificationand drought” (art. 4, para. 2, a) and to“strengthen subregional, regional andinternational cooperation (art. 4, para. 2; e).The Convention provides a broad definitionof “land”, wich is intended to mean “theterrestrial bio-productive system thatcomprises soil, vegetation, other biota, andthe ecological and hydrological process thatoperate within the system” (art. 1, e), andconsiders “soil erosion caused by windand/or water” as an aspect of landdegradation (art. 1, f).Annex IV to the Convention is specificallydevoted to regional implementation for the

Northern Mediterranean. It lists among theparticular conditions of the NorthernMediterranean the “unsustainableexploitation of water resources leading toserious environmental damage, includingchemical pollution, salinization andexhaustion of aquifers” (art. 2, f) and the“concentration of economic activity in coastalareas as a result of urban growth, industrialactivities, tourism and irrigated agriculture”(art. 2, g). Art. 4 of the Annex binds affectedcountry Parties of the NorthernMediterranean region to “prepare nationalaction programmes and a, as appropriate,subregional, regional or joint actionprogrammes”. Other annexes to theConvention relate to Africa (Annex I) andAsia (Annex II). Both continents include alsoMediterranean countries.The conclusion can be reached that thenegotiation and adoption of an instrumentrelating to ICAM in the Mediterranean is alsoa way to abide by the obligations arising fromthe UNCCD.European Convention on LandscapeThe European Convention on landscape(Florence, 2000) includes in its scope ofapplication land, inland water and marineareas (art. 2). The Parties undertake, interalia, to establish and implement landscapepolicies aimed at landscape protection,management and planning (art. 5, d). Theyalso undertake to co-operate in theconsideration of the landscape dimension ofinternational policies and programmes and torecommend, where relevant, the inclusion inthem of landscape considerations (art. 7).Transfrontier cooperation on local andregional level and the preparation andimplementation of joint landscapeprogrammes is encouraged (art. 9).Landscape is certainly an importantcomponent of any integrated coastal areamanagement strategy. The amendedBarcelona Convention mention the protectionof areas of landscape interest as an elementto promote for the integrated management ofthe coastal zones (art. 4, 3, e). Landscape isalso mentioned in several BarcelonaProtocol: Emergency (art. 1, d. IV “aestheticvalue of the area”; Land- based Sources(Annex II, E, 1, c) “impact on aesthetics”;Protected areas and Biological Diversity (art.4,d,”sites of aesthetic interest”), (art. 6, i,“safeguarding the landscape”), (art. 8, 2,

24

“sites of special interest at the aestheticlevel”); Exploration and Exploitation of theContinental Shelf and the Seabed (Annex III,E, 1,c,” pollution impact on aesthetics”).

c) Treaties Relating to the SeaThe United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (Montego Bay, 1982; so-calledUNCLOS) focuses on the problems of oceanand sea spaces and does not specificallyaddress issues related to the coast. Art. 194,para 5, of the Convention, according to whichthe measures taken to protect and preservethe marine environment “shall include thosenecessary to protect and preserve rare andfragile ecosystems as well as the habitat ofdepleted, threatened or endangered speciesand other forms of marine life” has a generalscope of application. It applies to any kind ofvulnerable marine and coastal ecosystems,wherever they are located. UNCLOS alsocovers coastal areas, such as estuaries (art.1-4), river mouths (art. 9), bays (art. 10),ports (art. 11), land-based pollution (art.207). The expression “coastal area” is foundin art. 211-1 et 211-7 and art. 221. Thearticle on pollution from sea carriers definesthe “marine environment” concept asincluding the “coastal area” which mayimpact “the related interestss of coastalStates”. The purpose of UNCLOS is theprotection of the marine environment, as isspecified in the Preamble on the ecologicalunity of the marine environment and theneed for a global strategy which states:“Aware that the issues here are closelyrelated and require global coverage”.More than by the UNCLOS, the needs ofcoastal areas are taken into consideration bya number of conventions applying to someregional seas. The UNCLOS does notprejudice the specific obligations assumed bystates under special agreements concludedpreviously which relate to the protection andpreservation of the marine environment. Nordoes it prejudice agreements which may besubsequently concluded in furtherance of thegeneral principles set forth in the UNCLOSitself (art. 237, para. 1).Besides the Barcelona Convention and itsProtocols, the following regional or sub-regional instruments, not applying to theMediterranean, may be recalled as being ofsome interest for the coastal zonemanagement.

1) The HELCOM Commission, managingcomponent of the Helsinki Conventionon the Baltic Sea (1974), is directly incharge of dealing with the issues ofcoastal areas through severalRecommandations (e.g., that of October22,1996 on specific planning for coastalareas).

2) The Protocol Concerning SpeciallyProtected Areas and Wildlife in theWider Caribbean Region (Kingston,1990), concluded with the framework ofthe Convention for the Protection andDevelopment of the Marine Environmentof the Wider Caribbean Region(Cartagena de Indias, 1983), applies notonly to the marine environment within200 n.m. of the Atlantic coasts of theParties, but also to “waters on thelandward side of the baseline from whichthe breadth of the territorial sea ismeasured and extending, in the case ofwatercourses, up to the fresh water limit”and to “such related terrestrial areas(including watersheds) as may bedesignated by the Party havingsovereignty and jurisdiction over suchareas” (art. 1, c). A specific provision(art. 6) is devoted to the planning andmanagement regime for protected areas.

3) The Protocol Concerning ProtectedAreas and Wild Fauna and Flora in theEastern African Region (Nairobi, 1985),concluded within the framework of theConvention for the Protection,Management and Development of theMarine and Coastal Environment of theEastern African Region (Nairobi, 1985),applies to the marine and coastalenvironment falling within the jurisdictionof the Parties and to their coastal areasand internal waters related to the marineand coastal environment (art. 1, a).

4) The Convention for the Protection of theMarine Environment and Coastal Area ofthe South-East Pacific (Lima, 1981),applies to the belt of sea and the coastalarea within the 200-mile maritime area ofsovereignty and jurisdiction of theParties and, beyond that area, the highseas up to a distance within whichpollution of the high seas may affect thatarea (art. 1). The Convention binds theParties to adopt all appropriatemeasures to prevent, reduce and controlthe erosion of the coastal area resulting

25

from the activities of man (art. 5). Withinthe framework of the Convention aProtocol for the Conservation andManagement of Protected Marine andCoastal Areas of the South-East Pacific(Paipa, 1989) has been concluded. TheProtocol also applies to the coastalzone, “where interaction between land,sea and the atmosphere is ecologicallyapparent”, as determined by each Partyin accordance with the relevant scientificand technical criteria (art. I).

5) The Convention for cooperation in theProtection and sustainable developmentof the marine and Coastal Environmentof the Northeast Pacific (AntiguaGuatemala, 2002) provides that theParties shall, inter alia, “encourage theintegrated development andmanagement of coastal areas andshared water basins, taking into accountthe protection of areas of ecological andscenic interest and the sustainable useof natural resources “(art. 5, para. 6, d).The parties are bound to adoptmeasures aimed at “improvement asnecessary of their environmental impactassessment of installations and activitiesthat it is thought may affect marine andcoastal areas” (art. 6, para. 2, b), “theapplication of prevention and precautioncriteria to the uses and development ofactivities that may affect the marine andcoastal resources of the region” (art. 6,para. 2, e), the identification of marineand coastal areas that are vulnerable tothe action of the extreme naturalphenomena or events and a rise in sealevel” (art. 6, para. 2, f) and the“identification of marine coastal areasvulnerable to man-made activities” (art.6, para. 2, g)A specific provision (art. 7) is devoted toerosion of coastal areas. Another ratherdetailed provision (art. 10), composed offive paragraphs, addresses the issue ofintegrated management and sustainabledevelopment of the marine and coastalenvironment (CNP, 2002).

6) The Black Sea biological diversity andLandscape Protection Protocol (Sofia,2002) to the Convention on theprotection of the Black Sea againstPollution (Bucharest, 1992) applies tothe Black Sea waters, the seabed and itssubsoil up to the freshwater limit and to

the coastal zone designated by eachContracting Party, including wetlands.Under art. 7, the Parties “shallencourage introduction of intersectorialinteraction on regional and nationallevels through the introduction ofprinciples and the development of legalinstruments for integrated coastalmanagement, seeking ways to ensuresustainable use of natural resources andpromotion of environmentally friendlyhuman activities in the coastal zone”. Anadvisory group on the development ofcommon methodology for integratedcoastal zone management is establishedas a subsidiary body of the Commissionon the protection of the Black Seaagainst Pollution (art. 10, para. 2).

Treaties applying to the Mediterranean butnot belonging to the Barcelona System7) On the sub-regional level, the

Agreement between Italy and formerYugoslavia on Co-operation and combatagainst pollution of the Adriatic SeaWaters and coastal zones (Belgrade,1974) is presently applied by Croatia,Italy and Slovenia30. It provides for thesetting up of a Commission which isentrusted with a broad range of technicaland advisory competences. In the lastyears, the Commission has devoted itsattention to a number of main topics,including the elaboration of a “MasterPlan” for the Adriatic Sea, whosepurpose is to identify proposals anddirectives for the ecologically sustainabledevelopment of economic activitiesconcerning the Adriatic Sea, with specialregard to ports and tourism.

8) Again on the sub-regional level, theAgreement between France, Italy andMonaco on the protection of the watersof the Mediterranean shore (Monaco,1976; known as the RAMOGEagreement) applies to the territorial seasand marine inland waters locatedbetween two specified meridians alongthe continental shore of the threecontracting Parties. The Agreementestablishes an international commissionhaving the authority to carry out research

30 Another sub –regional instrument is the Agreementbetween Greece and Italy on the Protection of theMarine Environment of the Ionian Sea and its CoastalZones (Rome, 1979).

26

activities and studies, provide advice andsubmit proposals to the governments ofthe Parties on any question relating tomarine pollution, and promotecooperation between the competentadministrative entities of the threecountries. The Parties are presentlystudying the possibility to amend theRAMOGE Agreement in order, inter alia,to extend its application to the coastalland zone, as defined by each of them.Decision on the proposed amendmentsis expected to be taken in june 2003.

9) Under the Agreement on the Conservationof Cetaceans of the Black Sea,Mediterranean Sea and contiguousAtlantic Area (Monaco, 1996; so-calledACCOBAMS), the parties shall, inter alia,“endeavour to establish and managespecially protected areas for cetaceanscorresponding to the areas which serve ashabitats of cetaceans and/or whichprovide important food resources forthem” (Annex II; art. 3) 31.

3.5.2. Legal justification for a regionallegal instrument on coastal zones withregard to the Barcelona Convention andits protocolsThe so-called “Barcelona legal system”,composed of the 1976 Convention and itsProtocols, is a notable instance of fulfillmentof the international obligation to co-operatefor the protection of the marine environmentin a regional sea. In the last decade, theBarcelona legal system underwent importantchanges in several of its components. TheConvention and some of its protocols wereamended in 1995 and 1996. New protocolswere adopted to either replace the protocolswhich had not been amended or cover newfields of cooperation.

Coastal Management in the ConventionThe teams who amended the Barcelonalegal system were fully aware of Agenda 21and the importance of coastal area and

31 One specially protected area for cetaceans wasestablished by the Agreement on the Creation of aMediterranean Sanctuary for Marine Mammals, done in1999 in Rome by France, Italy and Monaco. Thesanctuary includes waters which have the status ofmarine internal waters, territorial sea and high seasand are located between the continental coasts ofFrance, Monaco and Italy and the islands of Corsicaand Sardinia.

coastal management. It is not by chance thatthe words “Coastal Region” were added tothe name of the Convention itself(Convention for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment and the Coastal Region of theMediterranean).The Convention provides that, besidescovering the maritime waters, its application“may be extended to coastal areas asdefined by each Contracting Party within itsown territory” (art. 1, para. 2). It alsostipulates that any protocol to the Convention“may extend the geographical scope of thatparticular Protocol” (art. 1, para. 3). Neitherof these provisions existed in the original textof the Convention. In particular, art. 1, para.3, can pave the way for a future regionallegal instrument on ICAM, applying to boththe coastal waters and the coastal land belt.In the updated Convention, the provision ongeneral obligations of the Parties (art. 4) hasbeen completely redrafted. Among theactions to be carried out by the ContractingParties to protect the environment andcontribute to the sustainable development ofthe Mediterranean, the Convention now setsforth an obligation to

“commit to promoting integratedmanagement of the coastal zones,taking into account the protection ofareas of ecological and landscapeinterest and the rational use of naturalresources” (art. 4, para. 3, e).”

Because the promotion of the integratedmanagement of the coastal zones is listedamong the general obligations of theConvention, it ensues, under art. 4, para. 5,of the Convention (“The Contracting Partiesshall cooperate in the formulation andadoption of Protocols, prescribing agreedmeasures, procedures and standards for theimplementation of the Convention”), that aspecific instrument on this subject is not onlyallowed, but also envisaged as a logical stepforward within the Barcelona system.Coastal Management in Some Protocols

1) The geographical coverage of theProtocol Concerning Specially ProtectedAreas and Biological Diversity in theMediterranean (Barcelona, 1995), whichhas replaced the previous protocol of1982, has been enlarged to encompass,inter alia, “the terrestrial coastal zonesdesignated by each of the Parties,

27

including wetlands” (art. 2). It is clearlystated that the Protocol aims atsafeguarding “representative types ofcoastal and marine ecosystems” (art. 4,a), as well as the “biological diversity andthe sustainable use of marine andcoastal biological resources” (art. 3,para. 4), which shall be integrated intothe relevant sectorial and intersectorialpolicies. The coastal belt as a naturalunity is covered in art. 7, para. 4. Itprovides that “when specially protectedareas covering both land and marineareas have been established, the Partiesshall endeavour to ensure thecoordination of the administration andmanagement of the specially protectedarea as a whole”.Parties making proposals for inclusion ofan area in the List of Specially ProtectedAreas of Mediterranean Importance (theSPAMI List) shall submit an introductoryreport, including the management planof the area (art. 9, para. 3). Theexistence of an integrated coastalmanagement plan is considered as afavourable factor for the inclusion of thearea in the SPAMI List (Annex I, para. B,4, e). Other specific requirementsapplying to planning are specified inpara. D of Annex I.At the XIIth Meeting of the ContractingParties (Monaco, 2001) the first twelveSPAMIs were inscribed in the List,namely the island of Alborán, the seabottom of the Levante de Almería, capeof Gata-Nijar, Mar Menor and theoriental coast of Murcia, cape of Cresus,the Medas islands, the Coulembretesislands (all proposed by Spain), Port-Cros (proposed by France), the Kneissislands, La Galite, Zembra andZembretta (all proposed by Tunisia), andthe French-Italian-MonegasqueSanctuary for marine mammals (jointlyproposed by the three Statesconcerned). With the exception of thesanctuary, which mostly covers highseas areas, all of the SPAMIs arelocated along the coast or in or aroundislands.

2) Art. 1, para. 3, of the Convention,allowing the extension of thegeographical scope of any protocol, hasbeen used in the case of the Protocol forthe Protection of the Mediterranean Sea

against Pollution from Land-BasedSources and Activities (Athens, 1980;amended in Syracuse in 1996). Inaddition to marine waters, the Protocolalso applies to the “hydrologic basin” ofthe Mediterranean Sea Area (art. 3), thisbeing “the entire watershed area withinthe territories of the Contracting Parties,draining into the Mediterranean SeaArea”(art. 2).The Protocol takes into account theobjectives laid down in the Globalprogramme of Action for the protection ofthe Marine Environment from land-Based Activities (GPA), adopted inWashington on 3 November 1995 by aUNEP intergouvernemental Conference.The GPA aims at preventing thedegradation of the marine environmentby land-based activities, as well asfacilitating its recovery, by assistingStates in taking actions individually orjointly within their respective prioritiesand resources. Marine areas consideredas vulnerable include, inter alia, criticalhabitats, wetlands, seagrassbeds,coastal lagoons, habitats of endangeredspecies, shorelines, coastal watersheds,estuaries.

3) Under the Protocol Concerning PollutionResulting from Exploration andExploitation of the Continental Shelf, theSeabed and Its Subsoil (Madrid, 1994),the Parties “may also include in thescope of the Protocol, wetlands orcoastal areas of their territory” (art. 2,para. 2). The Protocol requires thatoperators in charge of installations fallingwithin the jurisdiction of a ContractingParty have contingency plans to combataccidental pollution (art. 16, para. 2).

4) The Protocol Concerning Cooperation inPreventing Pollution from Ships and, inCases of Emergency, CombatingPollution of the Mediterranean Sea(Valletta, 2002), which is intended toreplace the previous 1976 protocol, aimsat preventing or combating pollutionincidents which pose or may pose athreat to the marine environment, thecoastline or related interests. The“related interests” are broadly defined asconcerning, among others:

28

“(i) maritime activities in coastal areas,in ports or estuaries, including fishingactivities;(ii) the historical and tourist appeal ofthe area, including water sports andleisure activities;(iii) the health of the coastalpopulation;(iv) the cultural, aesthetic, scientificand educational value of the area;(v) the conservation of biologicaldiversity and the sustainable use ofmarine and coastal biologicalresources” (art. 1, d).

One of the main obligations of the Parties isto maintain and promote contingency plans,either individually or through bilateral ormultilateral cooperation, (art. 4, para. 1). Inparticular, pollution emergency plans arerequired for ships flying the flag of Parties, aswell as ports, handling facilities and offshoreinstallations located under the jurisdiction ofParties (art. 11).In conclusion, not only the internationalinstruments relating to the law of the sea orthe environment, but also the Barcelonasystem itself pave the way for the drafting ofa new protocol on ICAM. Such a newinstrument could both comply with the legalrequirements of the Barcelona Conventionand meet the actual need for a coherentsustainable development of theMediterranean region. In fact, ICAM, which isnow regulated in a fragmentary way inseveral among the instruments of theBarcelona system, deserve to be dealt in aspecific and comprehensive manner.

3.6. Justification with regard to theapplication of the BarcelonaConvention and related Protocols

3.6.1. From a technical standpointThe MAP, adopting the MCSDrecommendations on ICAM in 1997, hasoutlined the major steps that can be taken,namely to:

“Strengthen or establish legislativetools, regulations and propertymanagement leading to controllingurbanisation and protecting the mostprecious natural sites. This entails:

• providing plans for landdevelopment and management for

coastal areas subjected to strongpressure,

• avoiding generalised urbanisationtoo close to coasts and the buildingof roads parallel and close tocoastlines that promote this kind ofurbanisation

• identifying the most remarkablecoastal sites (such as wetlands,sand dunes, and so forth) andimplementing measures that ensuretheir protection.”

It is necessary to adopt Integrated CoastalArea Management widely across theMediterranean and in that respect, specialefforts at the Regional, national and locallevels are needed. Although in principle thereis consensus on this issue, effortsaccomplished are not commensurate withthe speed of change and the severity of theproblems. The rapid transformation andincreasing complexity of the Mediterraneancoastal areas impose the need for furthereffort.Integrated Coastal Area Management(ICAM) thus involves a range of coastalplanning, day-to-day coastal resourcesmanagement and support activities (appliedresearch, monitoring, education, law,institutional capacity building and finances)that must be coordinated in order to addressissues of real concern. The process ofcoastal management involves policy(programme or plan) formulation,implementation, result monitoring andevaluating, and, where appropriate, revisingboth the policy and the implementationmeasures to ensure that the issues ofconcern are effectively addressed.The development of an integrated coastalarea management approach will require abinding framework, and will need successiveproject generations.Attention to the issue of coastal managementis the first step and a wareness on thesubject must then be enhanced. Dialogueneeds to be fostered amongst stakeholders.Co-operation can then be promoted, followedby co-ordination of activities. Finally,integration can become reality. Theimplementation of this process requires aframework, which can only stem from abinding Protocol.

29

3.6.2. From a legal standpointCoastal urbanisation in the Mediterraneanhas entered a phase of rapid expansion,reaching a state of hyper-development, dueto increasing population growth,industrialization and other kinds ofuncontrolled economic development,including tourist activities. Especially after theadoption, in 1995, of MAP Phase II (ActionPlan for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment and the SustainableDevelopment of the Coastal Areas of theMediterranean), coastal areas have becomethe central pillar of most policiesrecommended to the Contracting Parties ofthe Barcelona Convention in their effortstowards achieving sustainable development.The focus of MAP has gradually shifted froma sector-based approach aimed at pollutioncontrol to integrated coastal area planningand management, considered as key infinding adapted solutions. In MAP Phase II,“Integrated Coastal Area Management” isone of the main components of sustainabledevelopment in the Mediterranean, targetingclear and specific objectives (para. I.1.4). Tothis end, the enactement of the relevantlegislation at the national and sub-nationallevel is envisaged, inter alia.While integrated management of the coastalarea takes place at the national and sub-national levels, it also has a Mediterraneanregional dimension. In several cases, thequestions to be addressed through ICAM arenot confined within the political boundariesset forth by neighbouring countries. Coastalareas in a regional sea are a commonnatural and cultural heritage that should bemanaged and preserved for the sake ofpresent and future generations. Withoutinterfering with established national and sub-national competences, the need to developand adopt a coordinated regional policywithin the framework of a legal instrumentseems hardly questionable.As already stated, it appears that manyaspects of ICAM are already addressed,although in a rather fragmentary way,through existing legal instruments of theBarcelona legal system. Some of theobjectives of ICAM, as set forth by MAPPhase II, are already covered by specificProtocols. For instance, “preservation of thebiological diversity of coastal ecosystems”falls under the Protocol on specially

protected areas, while “prevention andelimination of pollution from urban, industrial,tourist, agricultural and aquaculture sources,solid and liquid waste” mostly falls under theLand-Based pollution Protocol, but alsounder other instruments, such as theProtocol on pollution from ships, the Protocolon seabed, the Protocol for the Preventionand Elimination of Pollution of theMediterranean Sea by Dumping from Shipsand Aircraft or Inceniration at Sea(Barcelona, 1976, amended in 1995) and theprotocol on the prevention of pollution of theMediterranean sea by TransboundaryMovements of Hazardous Wastes and theirDisposals (Izmir, 1996).What is however lacking is a specific legaltool to address in a coherent way the issue of“coastal planning to resolve the competitionbetween urbanization, industrialization,tourism, transport, agriculture andaquaculture, and the preservation ofecosystems for future generations”. Such aninstrument could fill the still existing gaps (forexample, as regards sustainablemanagement of coastal areas not fallingunder the regime of protected areas orprotected landscapes). It could alsoharmonize and develop in a systematic way,without however changing their substance,all the provisions having a bearing onsustainable coastal management which arescattered in the sectoral protocols.In fact, in the case of the Mediterraneanbasin, the drafting of a legal instrument onsustainable coastal management can beconsidered as a physiological developmentof an already advanced system ofenvironmental protection in a regional seaarea.

30

4. RISK OF A STATUS QUO

To take into account coastal areas into theBarcelona system not being something new,one of the future options could be to rely onexisting means at the regional level towardsintegrated coastal area management. Theseinvolve the Guidelines for ICAM and anumber of pilot actions such as CAMPs. Thiswould imply that essentially it is up to theStates (Contracting Parties) to adopt theguidelines in national level policy (speciallegislation, planning or environmentallegislation or guidelines, etc.) or specialprogrammes for the coastal areas (national,regional or local).This “voluntary” basis of promoting ICAM hassome advantages, in the sense that it is aflexible way to adjust to the institutional andpolitical particularities of each State/coastalarea. It allows for different paces of adoptionand different interpretations in the sensevarying emphases on the principles,mechanisms and tools employed. This anapproach to minor adjustments rather than tomajor restructuring of institutionalarrangements. Politically it is acceptable, inthat it does not disrupt existing patterns.However, the status quo solution mightproduce extremely negative environmentaleffects on the Mediterranean coastal areasfor several reasons:

• The coastal areas in the Mediterraneanare rapidly deteriorating as the existingmechanisms of coping with theircomplex problems become lesseffective. The socio-economic forceslead to an increasing concentration ofactivities, population and infrastructurealong the Mediterranean coasts –including rapid artificialization of thecoastline- and the prospects are thatsuch processes are likely to becomemore intensive in the future (both fromthe tourism sector forecasts and theanticipated urbanization in general). As aconsequence the impacts on the naturalenvironment are likely to be particularlyadverse, evidenced in terms of pollution,biotope losses, resource degradation(i.e. water, etc.), etc. It is not so muchthe areas for special protection whichare at stake since these are likely to beprotected anyway, although the counter

pressures might be stronger, but it ismostly the non-protected areas, openspaces, nature sites (i.e. sand dunes,estuaries, river deltas, sea shorelandscapes, etc.).

• The structure of national and localeconomies (dependence on intenseagricultural development, industry andmass tourism) encourages to a greatextent intensification of the use of naturalresources. This coupled with planningdeficiencies; inexistent infrastructure andweak implementation of regulation willfurther encourage deterioration ofcoastal ecosystems and resources. Thepromotion of organic farming is stillmarginal, while the development of theservice sector (with the exception oftourism) is still weak.

• An eventual worsening of conditions inthe Mediterranean coastal areas is likelyto affect eventually their prospects fordevelopment as well, since much ofdevelopment opportunities around theMediterranean are much relying on thegood state of the environment andnatural resources (clean beaches, etc.).So leniency, which could result from thestatus quo option, is likely to undermineeconomic and social developmentopportunities at the national and regionallevel.

• This would put a lot of pressure at thenational level to cope with suchproblems as most Mediterranean coastalareas are competing for the same typesof markets (i.e. agriculture, tourism,transport, etc.). Overall, in the absenceof regional level special arrangementscompetition is likely to lead tointensification of pressures in someareas, eventual relaxation of guidanceand control systems at the national levelto cope with economic and socialdevelopment challenges. Environmentalconditions are likely to worsen further.Already most Mediterranean States arenot exemplary in terms of enforcementand implementation of laws.

• Addressing to an eventual worsening ofconditions in the Mediterranean coastalareas is likely to increase the pressures

31

on the States to cope with suchproblems and most MediterraneanStates or regions are not ready to dothis. The costs of non-regulation orlimited enforcement are much higher inthe end. The financial resources neededexceed the capacities of most Statesand international/national donors areonly interested in some aspects ofinvestments (normally with someeconomic return) not necessarilycovering several management activitiesof the coastal areas.

• In addition, the political power ofenvironment Ministries in relation tomore traditional line Ministries (such asAgriculture, Public Works, etc.) is weakerand since much of the task to adopt andimplement ICAM guidelines will fall onEnvironment Ministries, prospects arenot high for convincing the others. This isa general weakness in the Region and isone of the major causes of concern as tothe existing arrangements for ICAM,through voluntary adoption. It might beeasier on very narrow tasks easilyconceivable from every Ministry, such asnature protection or pollution control, butfor cross cutting policy areas such asICAM this is almost an impossibility. Oneof the basic reasons for that is thatsectoral Ministries do not necessarilyallow such infringement (regulatingeconomic activities which is theirestablished domain)..and there is a lot ofinertia in that, even at the highestpolitical level.

• Another important issue is the political-administrative culture in Mediterraneanareas where there is a reliance at thecentral administration (top-down,command and control type). That leavesall the burden on States (centraladministrations) to cope with issues such

as ICAM in which other world regionsbenefit from the presence and initiativesof lower level administrations as well,sharing the burden. In mostMediterranean coastal areas all theburden is on the shoulders of the Stateadministration and States do not havethe human, organizational or financialresources to cope alone with suchissues. The situation worsens if onethinks of the tremendous diversity ofenvironment-development problemsacross the Mediterranean coastal areasunderlining the necessity for fine-tuningpolicies and mobilizing differentstructures for different problems. Thiswould mean that certain areas aroundthe Mediterranean would be moresuccessful than others but this would notnecessarily be better overall.

• It is not only a matter of the willingnessor the capacity of the States which is atstake but also the absence of the civicsociety which internationally has a keyrole in supporting ICAM. In mostMediterranean States there are strongpressures from the bottom-up againstregulation and enforcement, a realitywhich if combined with the limitedeffectiveness from the top-down leads toa chaotic uncontrolled developmentmostly felt where the pressures arestronger: the coastal areas. It is ratherunlikely that such a “deadlock” is likely tobe resolved by adopting on a voluntarybasis regional level guidelines.

Overall the risk of status quo is the mostlikely to lead to a serious decline inenvironmental conditions and reduction ofdevelopment prospects in the long-term inthe Mediterranean Region.

32

5. THE RANGE OF POSSIBLE LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

In the legislation of several Mediterraneancountries, the issue of ICAM is alreadyclearly identified and actions are proposedand carried out. In view of the existing solidbasis of experience, research, planning, andlegislation, it appears that the moment hascome to adopt a regional legal framework inwhich common standards for theharmonisation of national actions aredeveloped and the essential elements ofICAM identified (such as definition of coastalarea, objectives of ICAM, activities to beincluded, coordination between responsibledomestic authorities, means of financing andimplementation, etc.).From a legal perspective, a regional legalframework for ICAM in the Mediterraneancould take the form of:

• recommendations, guidelines, actionplans or other type of “soft law”instruments;

• a binding (“hard law”) instrument, havingthe status of an international treaty.

The existing guidelines could be incorporatedand further developed in both of theseinstruments (UNEP, 1997 and PAP/RAC,2001b). But the choice of the mostappropriate form should be based on carefulconsideration as to the feasibility of theaction and the aims to be achieved.

5.1. Soft Law InstrumentsAt both the national and international level,soft law approaches are based on voluntaryand non-binding commitments, as analternative to instruments which set forthbinding obligations. To speak about soft lawseems a contradiction in terms, as it is withinthe very nature of a legal framework to beboth authoritative and prescriptive (Birnieand Boyle, 1992). Nevertheless, soft lawinstruments, however they are designated(recommendations, declarations, resolutions,codes of conduct, guidelines, commoncriteria, standards, etc.), are commonplace ininternational law, given the lack of asupranational body with legislative andenforcement authority.Soft law instruments can be adopted bygovernments or international organizationsmore quickly than international treaties and

can be revised or amended withoutcumbersome procedures. In principle, themain advantages of this approach aresimplicity and flexibility. There are howeverserious weaknesses, given the lack ofmechanisms and legal guarantee that Stateswill comply.Soft law instruments have a written form andare articulated in a set of abstract norms. Butthey leave a broad margin of discretion onhow and when to conform to theirrequirements. While treaties, once they havebeen ratified and have entered into force, arebinding in their prescriptions, States retaincontrol over the degree of their commitmentto soft law instruments. By adopting certainsoft law instruments, States may be led tosubscribe principles that they would haverejected if laid down in a treaty context.Declarations of principles (such as the 1992Rio Declaration) and broad policyinstruments (such as Agenda 21 or theMediterranean Action Plan itself) are amongwell known instances of soft law instruments.Due to their flexibility, this kind of instrumentsare frequent in the field of internationalenvironmental law, where regulation mayhave a burdensome impact on economicactivities and consumption patterns (thisseem to occur in the specific case of ICAM).Resort to a soft law instrument may also takeplace where States are not yet convincedthat scientific evidence is sufficient to supportprecise legal commitments (this does notseem the case of ICAM).In some cases, soft law instruments adoptedat the international level are also addressedto entities different from States (localauthorities, the private sector, the public ingeneral, etc.). Where commercial actors areinvolved, the level of effectivenessunderstandably depends to a certain extenton self-interest. Hence, decision on whetherto utilise soft-law might be the result of:

• identification of the affected groups;

• determination of their perception of theirself-interest with regard to the matters onwhich voluntary co-operation is sought,and

• evaluation of the extent to which agreater understanding of the long-term

33

values of sustainable use andmanagement of coastal areas andresources can change that perception(Young, 2003).

The use of a soft law instrument may be afirst step in a process leading, in due time, tothe formalization of broad principles throughthe conclusion of an international treaty. Butnot all soft law instruments necessarilybecome hard law.The amended Barcelona Convention allowsfor the adoption of soft law instruments. TheParties are bound to “individually or jointlytake all appropriate measures (...) to prevent,abate, combat and to the fullest possibleextent eliminate pollution of theMediterranean Sea Area and to protect andenhance the marine environment in that Areaso as to contribute towards its sustainabledevelopment” (art. 4, para. 1). They are alsorequired to “adopt programmes andmeasures which contain, where appropriate,time limits for their completion” (art. 4, para.4, a). Both this provisions, due to theirgeneral wording, give a broad margin ofdiscretion in choosing the most appropriateways and instruments to reach the objective.The meetings of the Contracting Parties,which can be either ordinary or, wheredeemed necessary, extraordinary, is theappropriate forum to consider and undertakeany action that may be required for theachievement of the purposes of theConvention and its Protocols (art. 18, para.2, vi).Soft law instruments can also be adopted bythe Mediterranean Commission onSustainable Development, established underMAP Phase II as a forum for open dialogueand consultation with all relevant partners onpolicies for promoting sustainabledevelopment in the Mediterranean basin.The Commission is entrusted with the task ofadvising on activity programmes andformulating the necessary recommendationsfor Contracting Parties.However, after careful consideration of all therelevant aspects, it does not seem that resortto a soft law approach would be the best wayto achieve the objective of addressing thesubject of ICAM within the Barcelona legalsystem and to “upgrade” the principlesalready outlined in PAP/RAC guidelines tothe level of an official governmentalinstrument.

The effectiveness of a soft law approach isquestionable due to a number of factorswhich play a role in the case of theMediterranean coastline, namely:a) the high level of degradation combined

with the growing risk of losing bothvaluable natural components and socio-economic opportunities;

b) the need to provide a clear legalframework to avoid divergent andinconsistent actions that could be takenat the national and local levels;

c) the opportunity to offer effectiveincentives to private stakeholders;

d) the low probability of self-compliance byeconomic interests which can in theshort term be affected by the introductionof an effective ICAM policy.

In consideration of these factors, it followsthat the adoption of a soft law instrumentcould only be envisaged as a first andtransitional steps towards a hard lawinstrument, if it were ascertained that a moreadvanced solution is not immediately feasiblefor political considerations.Models of integrated coastal managementhave been developed by MAP for manyyears and critical mass of experience,reflected in detailed, but perhaps “toothless”guidelines, has been gained. The adoption ofanother soft law instrument, mostlyincorporating existing guidelines, would bringlittle progress, especially as far as the criticalquestion of implementation is concerned. Itcould even be said that a further soft lawinstrument would be perceived as a phase ofstagnation or mean a step backward, beingthe evidence of the lack of political will to setforth effective tools of implementation.Through any soft law instrumentexpectations would be created withoutoffering means for their realization.

5.2. A Binding InstrumentTo envisage the adoption of a treaty, whichunder the Barcelona legal system is likely totake the form of a protocol to the Convention,seems a more appropriate way to addressthe subject of ICAM. A number ofconsiderations lead to this conclusion.A. A binding instrument which provides for

mechanism to ensure its implementationby Contracting Parties, would be a more

34

appropriate solution and would probablybe seen as a natural step forward in theMediterranean legal system. After yearsof research, discussion and experiences,a legally binding instrument on ICAMcould promote coherent standards ofpolicy and implementation at thedomestic level. The governments ofMediterranean countries and, dependingon their responsibilities, the relevantlocal authorities, would be stimulated toenact new implementing legislation andplanning or revise the existing rules andprogrammes.

B. There is a widespread perception, notonly among officials of States and localentities, but also within the scientificcommunity and the civil society,including non-governmentalorganizations active in the field of theenvironment, that ICAM needs to beaddressed in an effective way and undera robust legal and uniform framework.For example, the participants to theSecond Seminar on Legal andManagement Instruments for theConservation of the MediterraneanCoast, convened by UNEP/MAP(Mallorca, Spain, 6-8 June 2002)reached, inter alia, the conclusion that “itwill be desirable to adopt a Protocolrelated to the Barcelona Convention onIntegrated Coastal Area Management”(UNEP/MAP, 2002).

C. An important reason towards the choiceof a protocol is the fact that alsointernational treaties can have a broadand flexible content. They can providefor general commitments in the form ofcommon uniform standards that theParties are bound to reach. While theContracting Parties which already havefollowed advanced models in theirdomestic legislation are not required totake further action32, the Parties whichstill need to proceed on the way of ICAMare required to introduce in their legalsystems a number of minimum standardprovisions. This kind of approach mayprove to be particularly suitable in the

32 It is however obvious that these Parties are boundnot to repeal the advanced legislation they haveadopted. This is explicitly provided for in severalinstruments belonging to treaty law or EuropeanCommunity law.

case of the Mediterranean coastal area,where different types and level ofenvironmental legislation coexist and thecompetences granted to local entitiesvary from one country to the other.

D. The recent updating of the Barcelonalegal system shows that the Partiesconsider it as a dynamic body capable ofbeing subject to re-examination andimprovement, where appropriate. Eachof the instruments of the updatedBarcelona legal system containsimportant innovations and shows acertain degree of legal imagination infinding innovative approaches toaddress common concerns. To a certainextent, the Mediterranean instrumentshave anticipated possible legaldevelopments and trends of cooperationin other marine areas where regionalseas programmes have beenestablished under the UNEPsponsorship. To enter into a completelynew field of legal cooperation and toaddress the concern of sustainablecoastal management, which is shared inmany areas of the world, could becomean attractive step also from the politicalpoint of view. It could set forth a model ofintegration that, originating within theMediterranean area and theMediterranean countries (with theimportant addition of the EuropeanUnion), has the potentiality of beingfollowed, mutatis mutandis, also in otherregional seas and areas.

Yet, the minimum common standards to beembodied in a future Mediterranean bindinglegal instrument on ICAM should not belimited to the stage of banalities and shouldhave a sufficient degree of legal precision tobe distinguished from a mere list ofrecommended objectives. Although wordedin more or less flexible terms, the aim of ahard law instrument is to set forth a numberof obligations and corresponding rights thatthe Parties consider suitable to reach acommon goal.As regards the most appropriate type ofinstrument, only two possibilities may bereasonably envisaged: either an annex or anew protocol to the Barcelona Convention (itis evident that any amendments to thealready existing instruments of the BarcelonaConvention could not specifically address theissue of ICAM with the required specificity).

35

The adoption of an annex to the Conventionis not the usual way to deal with substantiveadditions to the Barcelona legal system. Theonly annex to the Convention adopted so far(and at the same time as the Conventionitself) is devoted to the procedural subject ofarbitration. As regards the procedures foradoption, an annex to the Convention is tobe considered as its integral part (art. 23,para. 1). The adoption of a new annex issubmitted to a procedure (art. 23, para. 3),which requires, inter alia, a three-forthsmajority vote by the Contracting Parties (thatmeans 16 out of 21 Parties). It enters intoforce for all Contracting Parties which havenot notified the depositary that they areunable to approve it.Like other regional seas programmes, alsothe Barcelona legal system is composed of aframework instrument (the Convention) andadditional protocols (six for the time being)which elaborate in detail and at theappropriate time the general obligations setforth by the Convention. As stated in art. 21,the Contracting Parties may adopt additionalprotocols, at a diplomatic conferenceconvened by UNEP at the request of twothirds of them. The adoption of a seventhprotocol on ICAM would better fit into thebasic structure of the Mediterranean legalsystem.Under art. 33, para. 3, a protocol enters intoforce, except if otherwise provided, followingthe deposit of the sixth instrument ofratification. This could lead to a relativelytimely entry into force of a future ICAMProtocol, with respect to those States whichhave ratified it33.

33 For example, the Protocol Concerning SpeciallyProtected Areas and Biological Diversity in theMediterranean, signed in 1995, entered into force in1999.

36

6. PRESENTATION OF PROTOCOL OPTIONS

It appears therefore that a Protocol is themost appropriate legal tool for reasons ofsubstance and form. As regards substance,the protocol will allow going one step furtherin the effectiveness of the many documentsdeveloped until now in the Barcelona systemas concerns ICAM. The white papers andrecommendations are no longer as potent anillustration or pedagogical instrument as theywere in the past, and their redrafting orupdating may only remain a pointlessexercise, devoid of any real effect to combatthe increasing threats to the Mediterraneancoastal areas, if not linked to a more potentlegal instrument such as protocol. As far asform is concerned, the Barcelona Conventionis the most appropriate operational tool todeal with current issues. Integrated coastalarea management is one of the generalobligations of the Parties to the amendedConvention (art.4 para. 3-e). This leads tothe fact that the preparation and adoption ofa Protocol constitutes the obvious legal routetowards ensuring the application of theConvention, as specified by its art.4 para.5.The choice of a protocol which firmly justifiesthe need to include Mediterranean coastalareas in all protection programs for themarine environment is not necessarily limitedto one option. Indeed, although binding, aninternational agreement may be draftedaccording to several potential scenarios,depending on the position taken by MemberStates to detail or not the correspondingmeasures, procedures and standards. It istherefore quite conceivable that a Protocolon the integrated management of coastalareas is viable, even if the content is thecombination of several options.Three options will be examined:A. The framework Protocol or general

content Protocol listing a certain numberof principles and rules, but serving toessentially demonstrate the existence ofthe actual determination to contributelegal strength to the current guidelinesand recommendations on ICAM.

B. The more detailed version of saidProtocol, with more extensive andprecise content than the first example,while still limited to the concerns of

integrated coastal area managementand conservation goals.

C. An intermediate Protocol, formulating themain principles and only covering themost important measures.

These three options are presentedseparately for purposes of clarity, but can becombined in a fourth option.

A Protocol with general contentUnder the option of a protocol with generalcontent (or framework Protocol), the Partiesare required to comply only with the coreelements of ICAM. This kind of instrumentshould set forth the basic principles andpriority objectives of ICAM and identify anumber of measures to be taken by all theParties, taking into account that States maybe hesitant to undertake burdensomeobligations relating to their territory and tointroduce completely new principles in theirdomestic legal systems. Such a protocolshould be flexible enough to be adapted toall the various and specific situations existingalong the coasts of the Mediterraneancountries. Nevertheless, Parties shall be leftfree to establish in their national legislation34

standards that are more advanced orstringent (as regards the level of protection ofthe environment) than those resulting fromthe Protocol.The core elements of ICAM can bedetermined as follows. This does not excludethat other elements are also envisaged in theframework Protocol, although in the form ofrecommendations or objectives to beachieved in due time35.

1. General Definition of Coastal AreaThere is no common practice among theMediterranean countries as regards thedefinition of the coastal area. Nor does art. 1,para. 2, of the Barcelona Convention providea definition of the “coastal areas” to whichthe application of the Convention may beextended.

34 The term national legislation should be intended in abroad sense, including European Communitylegislation.35 In this case, the conditional mood should be used indrafting the relevant provisions.

37

As a consequence of the influence oftraditional land-use planning, which does notapply to the sea, the present measures ofnational planning mostly focus on theterrestrial part of the coastal area. Thisusually includes a narrow coastal strip,consisting of the seashore up to the high tidalwaters, where a strict regime of use applies(public maritime domain). However, thegeographical coverage of the ICAM Protocolmust be broader, in order to reflect the closeconnections existing between the land andthe marine portions of the coastal belt and tostress the need of integrated planning andregulation of all activities related to this beltas a whole.Among the possible options, it would bepreferable to set forth rules on thegeographical scope of the protocol, todetermine how far landward and how farseaward it will apply. On land, the limits ofapplication should be determined by theParties at the time of ratification. The Partiesshould take into account both the coastal andmarine areas (estuaries, marshes, etc.) anda series of criteria could be specified in anannex to the Protocol36. The possibility of anextension of the ICAM Protocol to riverbasins should be excluded, as it wouldenlarge its application to areas too remotefrom its specific and primary aim.At sea, the Protocol should include both themaritime internal waters37 and the wholeextent of the territorial sea, including theseabed, up to the maximum limit of 12nautical miles38. Certain oceanic countriesmight consider that the coastal area extendsas far as 200 n.m.. from the shore,corresponding to the external limit of theexclusive economic zone. However, thegeographical characteristics of theMediterranean lead to the exclusion of sucha broad concept of coastal area, which would

36 The experiences drawn from the CAMP projectsshould be taken into account in the formulation of thecriteria. 37 The United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea (Montego Bay, 1982) provides that “waters on thelandward side of the baseline of the territorial sea formpart of the internal waters of the State” (art. 8, para. 1).The criteria for the drawing of the baseline arespecified in arts. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. 38 Most Mediterranean countries (but not all of them)have established a 12-mile territorial sea.

cover the whole extent of Mediterraneanwaters39

2. Main Principles of ICAMWhile a definition of some key concepts,such as ICAM, is required, not all conceptsneed to be defined, especially in the case ofa framework Protocol40. In general, theexpression ICAM describes a regulatoryframework for all activities inthe coastalareas. It is not a substitute for sectorialplanning, but focuses on the relationsbetween specific activities, to establish morecomprehensive goals. The Protocol couldinclude an explanatory definition of ICAM.The framework Protocol should also set forththe basic objectives of ICAM, as a system ofcoastal governance which relies on broadprinciples, such as approaches tosustainable environmental development andecosystem protection41.

3. Inter-Institutional Co-ordinationIn most countries, authority is shared byministries, based on the traditional distinctionbetween terrestrial (land-use planning, publicworks, agriculture, etc.) and maritime(navigation, fisheries, etc.) affairs. Localauthorities within regions, provinces ormunicipalities are also entrusted with anumber of competences, especially in thefield of urban planning.The framework Protocol will not specifywhich national authorities are in charge ofICAM or how authority is shared betweencentral and local entities42. It will however seta general obligation to the Parties to clearlyidentify the role of the public authoritiesinvolved and to ensure a high level of inter-

39 There is no point in the Mediterranean which islocated more than 200 n.m. from the nearest land orisland. 40 In the case of definitions, the old maxim omnisdefinitio in iure... periculosa est (Digesta, book 50, title17, fragment 202) should be remembered. A glossaryhaving an explanatory nature could be added as anannex to the ICAM Protocol. 41 See, for instance, the principles listed in Chapt. II ofthe Recommendation of the European Parliament andof the Council of 30 May 2002 concerning theimplementation of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement in Europe (Off. Journ. Eur. Comm. No. L148 of 6 June 2002). 42 It is even doubtful whether a full-scale Protocol couldprovide these specifications either, as they belong tothe sphere of domestic jurisdiction of the ContractingParties.

38

institutional coordination to avoid sector-based approaches and the risk of overlaps orgaps.The building of the institutional capacity andthe provision of the human resourcesnecessary to respond to the interlinked andsometimes conflicting elements of ICAMshould also be mentioned as an aim to beachieved in a reasonably short term.Attention could be also given to thepossibility to convene periodic national andlocal conferences on the results of ICAM,where experiences can be shared andinformation exchanged by the competentpublic authorities.

4. Sea and Land Use Planning andControlWhile almost the entire Mediterraneancoastline is covered by land-use plans, themarine part of the coastal zone is seldomintegrated in such planning. The frameworkICAM Protocol would require that integratedprogrammes and plans be prepared for thewhole coastal zone in order to address boththe marine and terrestrial areas of coastalzones together. Programmes and plansshould be adopted at different levels, startingfrom a national strategic plan, and approvedby authorities at levels above those whomake the plans.The main components of planning, includingenvironmental impact assessments orstudies and strategic environmentalassessments, and the main activitiesinvolved (such as prevention of pollution fromall sources, coastal erosion, protected areas,water resources, natural disasters, carryingcapacity of coastal areas, fisheries, transport,agriculture, aquaculture, tourism, recreation,marinas, mining on land and offshore,archaeological areas, urbanization, industrialareas, waste management, artificialplatforms, coastal landscape, etc.) should bespecified in the framework Protocol or, as itseems preferable, in one of its annexes.Freedom of access to the sea by the publicshould be considered as a rule. Partiesshould also be bound to define a narrowcoastal belt where new constructions ordevelopments are prohibited. Localtraditional activities that do not present athreat to sensitive natural areas should bemaintained and promoted, especially if they

belong to the national intangible culturalheritage.

5. Natural Resources ManagementCoastal zones possess a rich biologicaldiversity. The framework Protocol will ensureplanning and control on the use of coastalresources and monitoring about the extent ofhuman pressure on them. Means fordiverting pressure from the coast to thehinterland should be envisaged. Fields ofpriority actions could also be identified (forexample, as regards areas subject to severaland actual conflicting uses or zones ofenvironmental, economic or socialsignificance, like islands, deltas, wetlands,dunes, etc.).

6. Nature ProtectionThe ICAM framework Protocol will provide forthe inclusion in national planning andlegislation of provisions on the protection ofsites of ecological and landscape value andon the preservation of the biological diversityof coastal ecosystems. Critical habitats forliving marine resources should be animportant criterion for the selection of marineand coastal protected areas. As required byart. 7, para. 4, of the 1995 MediterraneanSpecially Protected Areas Protocol, “whenspecially protected areas covering both landand marine areas have been established, theParties shall endeavour to ensure thecoordination of the administration andmanagement of the specially protected areaas a whole”.A recent workshop has stressed the need tofind better means to address the linkagesexisting between marine protected areas andICAM:

“If managed in isolation, individualcoastal and marine protected areas willremain vulnerable to natural resourcedevelopment and exploitation occurringoutside - in particular overfishing,alteration and destruction of habitats,and water pollution. Therefore,protection of coastal and marine areas- species, habitats, landscapes, andseascapes - needs to be integrated intospatial development strategies forlarger areas, under the umbrella of ICM[= integrated coastal management],that should incorporate a specificstrategy for nature conservationcoordinated with other actions for

39

intergovernmental and intersectoralcoordination. The ICM framework itselfshould be conceived as part of anational strategy 7for sustainabledevelopment” (Cicin-Sain and Belfiore,2003, p.30).

7. Risk ManagementParties will be bound to draw up specialplans (so-called contingency plans) to facethe risks of natural disasters and to integratethem in the general planning for the coastalzone. The risks should cover a broad rangeof issues, such as the effects of potentialclimate change and sea level rise, thedangers of environmental degradation ofanthropogenic origin (land-based pollution,spills of oil and other harmful substances,etc.), increased coastal erosion, flooding.Means of prompt intervention should be putin place, taking advantage, whereappropriate, of existing internationalinstruments, such as the 2002 Protocol onpollution from ships.

8. Public ParticipationAs also provided for by art. 15 of theBarcelona Convention, Parties to the ICAMframework Protocol shall give to the public,including non-governmental organizations,appropriate access to information on thestate of the coastal environment, activitieslikely to affect it and measures taken inaccordance with the Protocol. The publicshall also be given the opportunity toparticipate in decision-making processesrelevant to ICAM through instruments suchas public enquiries, hearings orconsultations.Means of participation by the general publicand its various associations can onlystimulate a sense of civic responsibility infacing of the challenges of ICAM. However,given the various content of different nationallegislation applying in this field, a specificprovision on the right of individuals to bringcourt actions to oppose planning decisionsshould only be included in the full-scaleProtocol.

9. Transboundary Co-operationA specific provision will call the States tocooperate for the planning in coastal areaslocated in the vicinity of an internationalborder to establish mechanisms for better

coordination of responses to cross-borderissues.

10. Technical and Financial Co-operationAs also envisaged by art. 13 of theBarcelona Convention, the ICAM frameworkProtocol shall include provisions oninternational cooperation, either directly orthrough international organizations, in thefields of exchange of data and scientificinformation, training, financial and technicalassistance, carrying out of pilot projects, withpriority to be given to the special needs ofMediterranean developing countries.

11. Monitoring and ReportingUnder the framework ICAM Protocol, Partieswill establish appropriate means to assesscompliance with ICAM requirements, such asmonitoring, inspection and reportingprocedures. Their results should be open topublic scrutiny. At the international level, theParties to the ICAM Protocol should bebound to periodically submit reports at themeetings of the Parties.

12. Other Elements to be ConsideredBesides the elements which constitute itscore, it is open to discussion whether and, ifso, to what extent an ICAM frameworkProtocol should regulate other aspects whichcan perhaps find a more appropriate place ina full-scale Protocol. Among such aspects,the use of the so-called economicinstruments for the private sector (marked-based measures, financial incentives and taxreductions or exemptions, subsidized credits,voluntary agreements) or the public sector(eco-taxes, user fees) should be consideredas an alternative or an addition to traditionalcommand-and-control methods43.

B Detailed ProtocolThe close link between sea and coastal areaprotection described in Chapter 17 ofAgenda 21 implies a whole series of actionsto cover the development of all potential

43 In some of the literature on economic instruments forenvironmental management there is a general viewthat economic instruments are by definition better thancommand or control measures. Such a blanketstatement cannot be accepted, since the efficacy ofinstruments depends, in broad terms, on a series offactors, such as the political will of the nationalauthorities, the economic policy of the country, itsinstitutional capability and socio-economic setting.

40

activities which may impact coastal areas.The issue here is not that an internationalagreement should in any way replace thenational legislations, and internationalcooperation will only serve to highlight thedirections to set the measures to apply, andthe required controls.It is obvious that the content of the detailedprotocol will be integrally covered within theframework Protocol. There will be nospecification, in this feasibility study, on theexact wording to be used, particularly asconcerns verb forms to describe the degreeto which the Parties to the Protocol shall belegally bound (i.e., must, should, could...).

1. General Definition of the coastal areaA Protocol on coastal areas should be usefulin coming to a common definition whichentails neither a standard nor an internationaldelimitation. The States remain free todetermine which coastal surface falls underthe Convention and Protocols. However, aprotocol dedicated to coastal areas mustinclude precise definitions, on the basis ofpre-selected criteria and impose a basicscope of application for the member States.The definition of the coastal area must helpin determining the geographical stakes of thenew regional policies to implement, and thescope of territorial application of the Protocol.Integrated coastal areas means both landand sea, along the coasts, including saltymarshes and wetlands in contact with thesea.Option A must necessarily include inlandwaters and the territorial seas.On land, the existing legislation refers to the“public maritime domain” which must becovered by the Protocol. But the coastalfringe is not limited to the coastlinesthemselves, they must at least extend tocomprise seaside communes andencompass all activities and territorieshaving direct impact on the marineenvironment. The relevant criteria will beselected according to specific geographical,ecological and economic factors, and listedin annexes to the Protocol. This should allowthe States to also define the additionalcoverage of territories adjacent to seasidecommunes, so as to include the communitiesestablished near estuaries and deltas,located downstream from transition waters.The monitoring body should be informed of

such extensions, and will assess whether thecriteria in annex are properly taken intoaccount. It could be decided that the surfacecovered inland must in all cases, extend atleast over 2 km, measured from the high sealine. Beyond that distance, the Parties couldinclude catchment areas in the scope ofapplication of the Protocol.Experience acquired within the framework ofCAMPs reveals that such integratedmanagement projects cover highly variablecoastal area surfaces according to thespecific issues to tackle. In some instances,the surfaces of coastal areas areconsiderable (10 to 20 km in Egypt, 60 km inAlgeria, 12 to 25 km in Tunisia,approximately 10 km in Albania, 8 km inLebanon). It therefore seems veryreasonable to take into account theassumptions relative to seaside communesof limited size.

2. Principles and objectives of ICAMThe wording used in the definition ofintegrated management should highlightsustainable development and use andinclude the protection of biological andecological balance in the coastal areas andlandscapes.A preamble to the Protocol could clearlyestablish the Mediterranean coastal areas asthe natural and cultural heritage of theregion’s populations, without anydiscrimination towards any of the culturesthis may involve. Traditional generalprinciples could also be recalled, such asprevention, precaution, polluter-pay,integration of the environment anddevelopment, information, participation.Other principles, more specific to coastalareas could be developed, such as: equalsharing of resources by local populations, in-depth development, accounting for thedifferent uses of coastal areas, giving priorityto sea-related activities, free access toshores, etc.These principles should be supported by thedescription of the objectives of the Protocoland of the regional strategy chosen by theParties within the framework of internationalcooperation for ICAM. The economic,environmental, social, cultural and touristicimportance of coastal areas must beemphsasied.

41

The so-called “principles” found in chapter IIof the Recommendation of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council dated May 30,2002 relating to the implementation of anICAM strategy in Europe may apply, whenthey effectively correspond to actualprinciples, and not only to simple directionsfor action.

3. General ObligationsA detailed Protocol should describe theobligations of the Contracting Parties intaking the required legislative andadministrative measures to implement ICAMand reach the global objectives, as set forthin the Protocol. The obligations of Statesinclude preventive environmental protectionand close monitoring of the marine andcoastal environment44.International cooperation will be mademandatory for States, in the case of suchactivities as inventories, regional strategies,research, exchange of legal, scientific andtechnical information, transbordercooperation, particularly as concerns thepreparation of sustainable development andmanagement plans or programs, monitoringactivities and networks, defining commoncriteria. International cooperation betweencoastal stakeholders will also beencouraged.

4. Delimitation of coastal areasThe delimitation of coastal areas may fallunder the authority of national bodies, butParty States must comply with the provisionsof the protocol on the determination of theland and sea surface covered. Thisdelimitation could be the subject of apublication, and the Organisation (asunderstood under article 2-b of the amendedversion of the Barcelona Convention) andlocal collectivities informed so as to enhancethe awareness of the population and localstakeholders to the existence of aninnovative and concretely identifiable space.It would also be advisable that thedelimitation is included in the general andsectorial development plans as the territorialtemplate for all projects in the coastal areas.

44 According to the European Court of Justice, thisobligation is an essential mission for the State, case C-343/95, decree of March 18, 1997, Diego Cali& Figli, I.1588

5. InventoryThe States must be required to draw up anextensive global inventory of the coastalareas listing economic and culturalestablishments, natural spaces, landscapes,whether protected or not, the stakeholders,the institutions and the legislation, thecategories of which are specified in an annexto the Protocol. This inventory would be quiteuseful in gaining further knowledge on thecoastal areas and would facilitate thedefinition of regional and national strategies.It should cover all territorial levels, andinvolve the following: fishing, fish-farming,transport, energy, resource management,protection of species and habitats, culturaland historical heritage, employment, tourism,leisure activities and sports, industries,mines, agriculture, waste, education. Theinventory must be drawn up over the nextfive years and be updated every five years.The Protocol will set the framework for theestablishment of networks between nationalorganisations in charge of the inventory, soas to improve knowledge on the coastalareas and facilitate monitoring. The conceptof the inventory is included in theRecommendation of the EuropeanCommunity of May 30, 2002 relative to theintegrated coastal area managementstrategy.(chapter III, national inventory).

6. Implementing institutional coordinationAs indicated above, it is not the responsibilityof a protocol, no matter how detailed, todetermine which local or national authoritiesare competent in the field of integratedcoastal area management. It should,however, lead the States to implementnational integrated management structuresand to establish institutional integration. Anobligation should be given to the States toestablish institutional coordination betweenland and sea authorities, with the support ofintersectorial coordination capacities, via anad hoc body or through coordinationmissions entrusted to the Ministry for theEnvironment. The States will be free tochoose State or local coordinationmechanisms, according to theiradministrative and territorial systems oforganisation. These mechanisms will greatlyserve sustainable development by preventingcontradictory decisions, replication, purelysectorial approaches, by promoting manyinitiatives and by involving all stakeholders. It

42

could also be suggested that there be onlyone entry point to authorisations andmonitoring of coastal areas.The coordination bodies will be supported bya multidisciplinary advisory group of scientificand university experts specialised in landand coastal issues, to advise the decison-makers. To further assist the success of suchcoordination, it should be mandatory thatStates institute an advisory body, competentin matters of ICAM, at national or local level,involving all public and private stsakeholdersin ICAM projects.

7. Participation of territorial collectivitiesWithin the institutional framework of eachState, and according to the principles ofsubsidiarity and local autonomy, the Protocolshould incite the States to seek the bestpossible form of cooperation andcoordination between State institutions andterritorial collectivities, located within thescope of the geographical implementation ofthe Protocol. It is indeed necessary to growsynergy and to involve all entities playing apart in the development and implemenationof ICAM policies. Integrated management willalso be further facilitated by encouraginglocal collectivities to partake in general orspecific development and managementprojects.

8. Regional ICAM Strategy in theMediterraneanThe States commit to cooperating on thedevelopment of the regional ICAM strategy,which will set the sustainable developmenttargets for both terrestrial and maritimecoastal areas in the Mediterranean. TheICAM Secretariat or specialised Centers willbe responsible for preparing and monitoringthis regional strategy.The regional strategy must be approved bythe meeting of the Parties. The Parties willhave the obligation to adopt and apply allaction plans, programs and measuresrequired for the implementation of theregional strategy, as stated in article 15 ofthe amended Protocol on the mechanismsdedicated to the protection of theMediterranean Sea against pollution fromland-based sources and activities.Coastal environment indicators will also bedeveloped, to set the targets of national

planning activities and to monitor activitiesand processes in coastal areas.

9. National Strategies and Plans for thedevelopment and use of land and seaspaceThe Parties will prepare national strategiesand plans for the development and use ofcoastal areas, as covered in the Protocol,within their legislative and regulatoryframeworks. The integrated managementplans will stem from the regional strategy,and be adapted to give a more formalcharacter to CAMPs. They will need to coverboth land and sea, and the Parties willdecide whether thay are to be developed bythe State and/or by local collectivities. Theymust however always include all decision-makers, whatever the administrative levels.As global plans, they will cover all fields ofactivities in coastal areas, as determined inan annex to the Protocol, and determinezoning of the coastal areas to better spreadactivities and uses. These documents shouldbe manadatory for all national and localauthorities, as well as to private individuals,concerning conditions for land use and otheractivities or projects.National strategies will take into account therecommendations of Chapter IV of theEuropean Community Recommendation ofMay 30, 2002.

10. Environmental impact assessmentstudiesThe environmental impact assessmentstudies are value-added tools for preventionand sustainable development and will haveto play a key role in the protocol. They will becarried out before strategies and relateddocuments are prepared, for general regionalstrategies; for regional strategies onsustainable tourism in the Mediterranean;and for national plans on the developmentand use of coastal areas, at sea and on land.The environmental impact assessmentstudies will also apply to all projects andactivities listed in annex to the Protocol,which may significantly impact theenvironment, in specially protected areasand buffer zones.The Protocol will set forth the minimalcontent for environmental impactassessment studies, according to thecommunity directive of 1985 modified in1997, to the 2001 directive on impact studies

43

for plans and programs, and according to theKiev Protocol of 2003 on trans-border plansand programs.An ad hoc mechanism, common to PartyStates, could be created, to ensure thescientific monitoring of impact studies, uponrequest from the Secretariat, from theProtocol steering Center, from a State, froman NGO serving as observer for the BC. Thiscould lead to the obligation to complete ormodify the impact study concerned, thusmaking it impossible for the States to makelegal decisions during the revision period.The scientific monitoring team could alsoassist Parties in undertaking the impactstudies, whenever necessary.The environmental impact assessmentstudies will have to carry out in-depthanalysis of the vulnerability of ecosystems incoastal areas and meet the objectives ofsustainable coastal area management.Frontier States will be invited to concludebilateral agreements specifying transborderconsultation and participation procedures.

11. Free access to coastlinesFree access to coastlines will be organisedthrough the appropriate national legislationand regulations. Passage rights forpedestrians could be applied. Localderogations could be granted, in the case oftopographical particularities, or for reasons ofenvironmental protection, existingconstructions or more stringent publicinterests. The traffic and parking of engine-powered vehicles are prohibited on dunesand beaches selected by the nationalauthorities, according to the results of priorscientific studies on the vulnerablesurroundings.

12. Incentives and financial instrumentsSustainable coastal area development will beencouraged through financial instrumentsand other incentives to support public andprivate initiatives at local level. Thequalitative improvement or rehabilitation ofexisting zones of activities will be preferred tothe creation of new ones. Such incentiveswill be granted if the management plans areproperly implemented. The impact studieswill be assessed by the ad hoc bodydescribed under point 10.

13. Protection of sea shoresThe conservation of the coastal fringe andthe natural state of shores will be of specialinterest. The States will be required toprohibit in their legislation the building ofdams, use of stones, drainage andartificialisation of dams, and encroachment ofthe coastal areas, of the public maritimedomain, of marshlands and wetlands, exceptin cases where the mandatory impact studiesdeem such projects as justified to protectagainst sea movements, erosion, publicsafety or maintenance of existing works.In order to protect biological diversity andlandscapes in coastal areas, the States willprohibit construction, other works or roadnetworks over a minimum distance of 100 minland and at sea, measured from the highestpoint at sea. This measure will also apply totemporary and transportable constructions aswell as to trailers and camp grounds.In some cases, when the impact studiesdemonstrate that there is a requirement forpublic safety or for public services, therelated constructions may be exceptionallyauthorised.

14. Management of natural resourcesThe use of natural resources, such as sand,gravel, seaweed, shells, etc. will need to takeinto account the ecological requirements ofthe environment and be preceded by animpact assessment study.Particulalrly sensitive areas can be classifiedas such by the States (deltas, dunes;wetlands, wooded areas) and will fall underspecial conservation measures againsterosion, uncontrolled use or deterioration.The public authorities may impose measuressuch as the protection of land cover orreforestation, to maintain soil stability.

15. Protection of coastal wetlandsCoastal wetlands will be protected as per theRAMSAR Convention. Their purpose will notbe modified, except when environmentalinterests are at stake.

16. Protection of dunesThe States will need to take protection andconservation measures for the dunes, bycontroling access and through soilstabilisation projects.

44

17. Natural spacesExisting natural spaces must be protected,either as protected areas under the Protocolon specially protected areas, or through theirintegration in development projects, such asleisure parks or urban green spaces.Both on land and at sea, these naturalspaces will be covered by integratedmanagement to maintain sustainableprotection of coastal areas and biodiversity.Teams in charge of managing andmaintaining these natural spaces must beinvolved in the preparation of plans,programs and decisions which may impactboth these sites and their surroundings.

18. Protection and management oflandscapesState legislation and regulations will need tospecifically take into account the landscapevalue of coastal areas, regardless of whetheror not they are listed as protected areas.Under article 4-3-e of the amendedConvention and different protocols, theintegration of landscapes is an obligation forthe Parties. The protocol on coastal areaswill specify the objectives and means toensure the implementation of effectivecoastal and marine landscape protection andmanagement, on the basis of the EuropeanConvention on Landscapes of 20 octobre2000. This implies that landscapes will beintegrated into coastal development plans,and objectives will be set to assiststakeholders in maintaining the quality of theareas. The impact studies will be required toassess impacts and when impact studies arenot a requirement, they will be replaced bylandscapes evaluation studies.Landscape policies in coastal areas willentail procedures to involve the generalpublic, the local and regional authorities, aswell as other stakeholders particularly in thecase of activities in tourism, sports andleisure.

19. TourismTourism is one of the main resources of theMediterranean coastal areas and it seemsfitting that the Protocol set the objectives anddetail the instruments favorable tosustainable tourism. This constitutes anopportunity to give legal scope to existingdeclarations and charters on sustainabletourism and to make the Mediterranean the

very first mass tourism site to apply legalobligations, as stated, for instance, duringthe Quebec summit and resulting declarationon ecotourism of 22 may 2002 (QuebecDeclaration, 2002).The Parties will be called upon to developand approve regional sustainable tourismstrategies, by seeking and facilitating theinvolvement of all stakeholders, in particularthe local populations. These strategies willserve as basis for the national policiescovering sustainable development initiativesin coastal areas.A certification and ecolabel system in theMediterranean should be established in orderto encourage tourism professionals and localcollectivities in their efforts towardssustainable coastal tourism, based oncommon international criteria.All activities and projects on coastal tourismwill be examined within the framework ofenvironemental impact assessment studies,as per a specific list of tourism-relatedactivities, in the annex described under point10.A national body will be in charge ofcoordinating and controling the balancebetween the development of tourism and thecarrying capacity of coastal areas. Tofacilitate this task, all projects in this field willbe covered in the carrying capacityassessment (CCA) section of the impactstudies.

20. Protection against natural disastersAs regards the combat against risks offloods, erosion, landslides, increase of sealevel, emergency plans will have to bedeveloped, bilaterally in transborder areas.

21. Protection against pollutionThe Protocol should impose a certainnumber of obligations to support the Statesin their control over risks of pollution. In somecases, the Protocol should require specificprograms or measures, or refer to existinginstruments, such as the Protocol onpollution stemming from land-based sourcesand activities. In this instance, the Protocolwill serve as the framework establishing thelegal basis for potential future involvement ofthe Organisation, if required in the future bythe States.

45

Programs or measures are particularlyimportant for sanitation networks andtreatment plants. The Protocol should includeprovisions to prohibit the discharge at sea ofuntreated household and industrial waste.National measures, reinforced by stringentsupervision, are necessary to protect thecleanliness of beaches and the quality ofbathing water.Non-dangerous household and industrialwaste shall be covered under eliminationprograms, to be collected, sorted andrecycled. But, in this instance, the protocolcan only make suggestions to the localauthorities in charge.In the case of dangerous waste, article 5-2 ofthe Izmir Protocol of 1 October 1996 relativeto the prevention of pollution in theMediterranean from transborder transportand elimination of dangerous waste, includesa provision on the general obligation toreduce to the minimum or even cease allproduction of dangerous waste. Specificrules could be drafted as regards temporaryand definitive storage in the coastal areas.

22. Protection of the subaquatic culturalcoastal heritageBased on the UNESCO Convention of 6November 2001 on the protection of thesubaquatic cultural heritage, the Partiesshould take the most appropriate measuresto protect this heritage, entrusting theOrganisation with the adoption of therelevant programs and measures.The Parties could also decide to draftspecific agreements on the issue, at regionalscale, a position which is encouraged inarticle 6 of the UNESCO Convention

23. Participation of the general public andaccess to courtsThe participation of the general public iscovered in the Barcelona Convention and itsProtocols, but should be further reinforced inthe protocol on coastal areas, since it appliesmore to land than to sea and is therefore atopic of greater interest to land-basedpopulations. Reference could be made to theprinciples and mechanisms laid out under theAarhus Convention.After having examined 35 draftdemonstration programs, the EuropeanCommission concluded that: “participation in

integrated coastal area development is anessential element. Projects havedemonstrated the value of such participationin the improvement of coordination andconsultation activities. Authorities, NGOs andthe public should benefit from individualtraining, capacity building and institutionalreinforcement. Participation requires supportfrom institutions at all levels” (Graham,2001).The general public, and NGOs, should begiven appropriate access to information, soas to partake in the development andmonitoring of the regional strategies,described under point 8 and 19. Suchparticipation in the decisions of theOrganisation would be a legal innovation inconformity with international practices andthe recommendations of the AarhusConvention.Participation should also be an obligation atnational level, in the case of decisionsrelative to plans, programs, projects andworks. Procedures shall be prepared to allowpublic participation in the impact studies.In compliance with the Aarhus convention,public participation in environmental activitiescan only be allowed, if there are proceduresgranting access to administrative or legalrecourse. Such recourse must appear in theProtocol, to give the general public controlover all stages of ICAM.

24.Transborder cooperationTransborder cooperation in coastal areas isextremely limited. (Council of Europe, 1998).The Protocol will include provisions tofacilitate transborder cooperation forintegrated planning of coastal areas, mainlybetween local collectivities, according to theFramework Madrid Convention of the Councilof Europe on transborder cooperationbetween collectivities and territorialauthorities, of 21 may 1980. The Protocol,subject to a provision allowing oppositionfrom the States if need be, could then serveas a legal document having value ofagreement between States, to facilitatefuture ICAM agreements between localcollectivities.Transborder cooperation should includeparticipation and information sharing andexchange as regards environmental impactassessment. It will be organised on the basisof the Espoo Convention of 1991 on

46

transborder impact assessment studies andof chapter V of the Recommandation of theEuropean Communities of 30 may 2002.

25. Technical and financial cooperationA provision will be included in the Protocol aswas the case in the Framework Protocol, oninternational technical and financialcooperation, with special emphasis on theneeds of the developing Mediterraneancountries. It should be further strengthenedfor coastal areas through the specific dutiesattributed to the Protocol monitoring Center,which could be the PAP/RAC, alreadyinvolved in this field. The Center would beresponsible for the collection anddissemination of information, in cooperationwith NFPs and with European EnvironmenetAgency, for multidisciplinary training,technical and financial assistance, pilot andtest projects.

26. Control, monitoring, assessmentThe implementation of an ICAM strategy inthe Mediterranean will require specificprovisions in the protocol on control,monitoring and assessment. The States willregularly report to the organisation. An expertcommittee should be given visiting rights toexamine the reports on site, as is the casewith the permanent committee of the BernConvention, and should make theirobservations to the Parties.The reports will include specific informationon the ecological state of the coastal areasand an assessment of the strategies, policiesand legal measures implemented andapplied, having direct or indirect impact oncoastal areas. And according to Chapter Viof the Recommendation of the EuropeanCommunities of 30 may 2002, they will alsoentail the assessment of the potential impactin the future of the strategy or strategies onthe state of coastal areas.The examination of observations could leadto specific assistance being granted to Statesfinding difficulties in complying with theirobligations.The reports and observations are available tothe general public.

27. Institutional MechanismsEach party State will name a national focalpoint or correspondent for coastal areas, incharge of relations with the organisation that

will appoint an Activity Center for coastalareas (PAP/RAC).A scientific advisory committee will becreated, specialised in inventories andimpact assessment studies.The parties will entrust all secretariat dutiesto the Organisation.

C Option for an intermediate protocolBy definition, this option can be envisaged asa compromise between the frameworkprotocol and the detailed option. This is whythe more or less precise wording ofprovisions will make the difference.It does not seem necessary at this stage, torepeat the provisions detailed above, and wewill only mention those provisions which willbe discarded, since all the provisions of theframework protocol would apply to theintermediate protocol.

1. General definition of the coastal areaIt is only optional to extend the scope ofapplication to the territories near seasidecommunities.

2. DelimitationThere exists no institutional procedure onthis issue.

3. Institutional coordinationThis requirement applies in all cases, but thecreation of an advisory body composed of allICAM stakeholders could be made optional.

4. National strategies and developmentand use plans for marine and land spaceThe plans would not be considered asmandatory for the States.

5. Regional Mediterranean Strategy forcoastal areas

6. Environmental impact assessmentstudiesEnvironmental impact assessment studieswould only be considered as one of thegeneral obligations, as shown in article 4-3-cof the amended Convention, without precisewording in the protocol as regards the list ofactivities and plans under study. There willbe no description of the detailed proceduresfor transborder impact studies or mention ofthe specific conditions relative to publicparticipation.

47

7. Strategic environmental assessment

8. Free access to the coastlineProclamation of the free access principle incoastal areas, without mandatory supportmeasures. Regulations limiting the circulationof vehicles along the shores are notmandatory.

9. Incentives and financial instrumentsNo regulations apply to the granting offinancial aid based on the respect for theenvironment if supported by the positiveresults of impact studies.

10. Protection of seashoresThe protocol would only list generalprinciples, without mentioning legalprohibition of projects impacting theseashores or wetlands. It would not formallyrequire that States prohibit construction on aspecifically chosen surface area of 100meters, but would only encourage them to doso.

11. Management of natural resourcesNo obligation to create specific zones for theprotection of natural resources.

12. LandscapeNo direct obligation to set landscape qualityobjectives, and no requirement to presentlandscape studies in the absence of impactstudies.

13. TourismNo specific regional strategy for sustainabletourism. It would be a part of the overallregional strategy for sustainable tourism. Noecolabel for tourism in the Mediterranean.

14. Combat against pollutionThe protocol would only highlight generalprinciples, without formal constraints orobligations.

15. Public ParticipationThe protocol would not impose on States theneed to grant access to recourse on issuesin coastal areas.

16. Transborder CooperationAlthough encouraged, transbordercooperation would not grant localcollectivities the authority to conclude localICAM agreements.

17. Control and monitoringUnder the intermediate protocol, reports andassessments are mandatory, but this wouldnot entail the creation of an ad hocmechanism or of an expert group to makeobservations to the States confronted withdifficulties in complying with their obligations.

48

7. ASSESSING THE RELEVANCE OF THE OPTIONS PROPOSED

7.1. Assessment CriteriaThe options to be considered are:1. Protocol with general contents or

framework protocol2. Protocol with detailed contents or

complete protocol3. Intermediate protocolThese options represent the pessimistic, theoptimistic and the realistic/middle groundsolution, respectively.While it is not possible, in view of the shorttimeframe and in view of the essentially legalexpertise of the consulting team, to proceedwith a full and rigorous scientific assessmentof the probable impact of these three types ofprotocol, we shall nonetheless proceed witha general appraisal of the relevance of thesethree options.There are some key criteria of appreciationwhich can be used as a framework ofevaluation for each option. These relate toadded value (to MAP, internationalenvironmental treaties and synergy withother treaties or instruments), contribution toenvironmental protection, economic impacts,political and social acceptability:

1. Added value as to:a. the Barcelona Convention system

including MAP objectives. Elements of theICAM approach are to a certain extentintroduced to the existing system(Protocol Concerning Specially ProtectedAreas and Biological Diversity in theMediterranean, Protocol for the Protectionof the Mediterranean Sea againstPollution from Land-Based Sources andActivities, the Protocol ConcerningPollution Resulting from Exploration andExploitation of the Continental Shelf, theSeabed and its Subsoil, and the ProtocolConcerning Cooperation in PreventingPollution from Ships and in Cases ofEmergency Combating Pollution of theMediterranean Sea). The adoption of aProtocol for ICAM (particularly of acomplete one) will provide significantadded value to the MAP system, renderingit a pioneer in regional cooperation forenvironmental protection and sustainabledevelopment. Since the adoption of such

a Protocol will require significantmobilization of resources while it will, nodoubt, encourage some restructuring ofthe national systems (e.g so as to ensurethe promotion of the integration conceptwhich is a key element of ICAM) MAP candraw significant benefits, strengthening itsrole, upgrading its structures, gainingsignificant benefits at the international fora.

b. international environmental treaties. Thepossibility of introducing institutionalprovisions regarding ICAM in theMediterranean region will no doubt have apositive impact at international andnational levels as well. So far, treatiesrelated to the environment, such as theConvention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance Especially as WaterfowlHabitat (Ramsar, 1971), Convention onBiological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992)or the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (NewYork, 1992) address mostly thematicissues, independently of their significance.Through the implementation of aninstitutional framework for ICAM(particularly of a complete Protocol) in theMediterranean, a thematic (actually across-thematic) issue will be addressed,and the promotion of ICAM at theRegional level will encourage cross-sectoral cooperation. All issues addressedin the existing international environmentaltreaties are essential components ofICAM, since the protection of naturalareas and the combat of sea level risedue to climate change are among the keychallenges for all coastal nations. Withinthis context the formulation of an ICAMpolicy framework in a form of a Protocolwill undoubtedly strengthen internationalenvironmental governance but also theabilities of countries in the Region tocomply effectively in a coordinatedmanner with their internationalenvironmental obligations.

c. synergy with other treaties/instruments(international): Synergy with other (notexclusively environment-related)international treaties and otherinstruments would be also significant. Inan analogous manner with internationalenvironmental governance, the existence

49

of a coherent framework of ICAM is likelyto provide benefits for the Region and theContracting Parties individually toimplement other agreements of internationalsignificance, as for example in marinetransport, trade, etc. ICAM has a cross-sectoral focus ensuring the harmonizationof sector-specific actions capturing thecomplementarities and synergiesinvolved. In this respect the existence ofan agreed framework (Protocol) couldprovide a sound platform of action (andimplementation of agreements) in multi-sectoral and cross border issues

In a synthetic view, what would be the addedvalue in the existing system, limited so far tobroad and specific Guidelines for IntegratedCoastal Area Management? The three abovecriteria refer not only to the “image” (symbolicvalue) of each option within MAP and acrossthe Regional Seas and other Internationalinitiatives of ICAM, but also as a horizontalactivity which could provide synergies forfulfilling already undertaken obligations andactivities. This essentially reflects the differentopportunities across the various scenarios tocoordinate MAP activities and improvesynergies and effectiveness, because ofICAM. Such synergies can be also sought interms of other international conventions andobligations of Mediterranean states.

2. Contribution to EnvironmentalProtectionThis criterion reflects the opportunity lossesfrom anticipated developments (conflicts,problems of environmental deterioration,resource losses, etc.) as a consequence ofeach option. Essentially this criterionaddresses the necessity to look into thesystem from a long-term sustainabledevelopment perspective. Of particularinterest are the environmental impacts ofeach option. Which one of these wouldsucceed in slowing down and eventually -hopefully in the near future- leaving offenvironmental deterioration? Environmentalimpacts will no doubt have in all casessignificant socio-economic repercussions. Aneffective adoption of a complete Protocol willprobably have more positive impacts since itincludes specific provisions for the protectionof a critical zone, of natural resources, ofsand dunes, natural areas, landscapes, etc.as several of the problems/issues faced havea regional or cross-border character and their

confrontation is greatly facilitated by acommon framework of commitments.

3. Economic ImpactsThis reflects the eventual benefits andopportunity costs in terms of developmentincurred by the adoption of a commonplatform for ICAM. Across sectors theremight be negative externalities involved froma sectoral perspective, either in terms ofconflicts over the use of resources and theimpacts on the environment in general orgaps and lack of coordination. As ICAM is amulti-sectoral activity it enables the buildingof complementarities and synergies amongactions in various sectors therefore leadingto lesser costs and the realization of benefitsfrom coordinated action. By contrast the lackof a coherent framework could lead to anintensification of conflicts at the expense ofsectoral development reducing theopportunities for overall development. Theweak option is obviously worse off ascompared to the other two options in thiscase. Economic impacts of not introducingany policy measures for ICAM also need tobe carefully considered. The economicimpacts of a ‘laissez faire’ scenario need tobe carefully evaluated vis-a-vis the costs ofadopting politically demanding measures.

4. Political AcceptabilityThis criterion refers to the anticipatedreactions at a political level towards eachoption. What could be the politicalacceptance for each one of the alternatives?This will highly depend not only on theexisting pressures for problem solving incoastal areas (a kind of a bottom-upprocess), but also on the ‘nature’ of thepolicy and decision making process aroundthe Mediterranean. With regard to the former,the pressure is mounting but there are nocritical issues – or even perceived as critical– which could drive towards a hardersolution. Regarding the latter, policy-makingsystems throughout the Region are highlycentralized at the nation-state level resultingin top-down decisions (with some exceptionof the EU member states which experimentdecentralization and devolution of centralsystems, not always in a consistent manner,strengthening the role of the regions).Regional-level decisions are implemented ina slow manner, as evidenced by theadvancement in recent Protocols.Experience demonstrates low response in

50

implementing binding decisions at theRegional level, which are expected to haveconcrete impacts on the national regulatorycontext (e.g. the amended BarcelonaConvention is still to be ratified and beactually implemented by several states,which are reluctant although they havesigned the Convention in the first place). Itshould be noted though that there is a longexperience of cooperation at the Regionallevel, as well as of acceptance of variousdecisions aiming at the protection andmanagement of common and valuableresources. This can serve as an idealplatform to promote further cooperationamong Regional partners. Within this contextthe adoption of a more ‘formal’ decision, ofthe type of a complete Protocol or even anintermediate Protocol, which could built onthe Guidelines need not be excluded.Furthermore the criterion of politicalacceptance will highly depend on thefollowing criteria (requirements foradaptation, requirements for implementationand financial requirements). Increasedrequirements will only inhibit politicalacceptance of the ‘harder’ solutions, unlessbenefits are clearly stated, evenly distributed,arising not only in the longer run but also onthe short term.

5. Social AcceptabilityEven if political acceptance were secured inthe first place, what would be therequirements for such an adaptation not onlyat national but also at regional levels? Howdistant could be the threat of the abolition ofthis acceptance in practice? Are theprerequisites too many indicating a long-lasting process of the implementation of sucha Regional decision? In all cases there areseveral factors that need to be considered.The absence of key stakeholders, particularlyfrom the private sector and theenvironmental sector (NGOs) whoseparticipation would be essential in all cases,will undoubtedly have a negative effect,especially in cases where suggestedactivities are more on a voluntary base.Furthermore local communities are in mostcases unable to undertake the task of ICAM,that is implementing planning andmanagement guidelines at the local level toachieve the sustainable development of theircoasts. Administrative and organizationalstructures at local, and even at higher levelsare rather weak. Adaptation may be

requested at a regional level, as the existingstructures may not be sufficient. Last but notleast, pressure for coastal development,mostly from local communities and generallyfrom land owners, who see landdevelopment as the only option towardsimmediate economic prosperity, is expectedto continue, complicating, as a result, theimplementation of any decision foreseeingrestrictions for land development. Thereforethe adoption of a framework Protocol can bea more realistic solution while it can serve as apreparatory step towards the implementationof a ‘full-scale’ ICAM process.In addition to the above axes of appreciationthere could be other considerations includedto reflect the Conditions associated withpursuing one option versus another. Asnoted already, coastal management has sofar been mainly implemented through land-use planning and provisions forenvironmental protection. Could thesuggested option be integrated within theexisting approaches so as to maximizeimpact? What would be the necessaryinstitutional arrangements in that case? Asregards the central-level systems, eachoption has different prerequisites in terms oforganizational requirements, meaning theease of adapting to new tasks or the marginswhich are available within administrations(Environment or Planning Ministries to copewith the demanding tasks of mobilization,coordination, concertation, etc. of ICAM) Inaddition this criterion reflects also thecapacities (weak) of the EnvironmentMinistries to stimulate other ministries tocope with the demands generated by one ofthe options. Given recent developments inthe European institutional framework(adoption of EIA and SEA, adoption of theFramework Directive for Integrated WaterResources Management, theRecommandation of the EuropeanParliament and the Council on IntegratedCoastal Zone Management), one may arguethat the adoption of a complete Frameworkby those partners who are also members ofthe EU cannot be excluded.The most important consideration, however,in this context is the necessity to develop aMonitoring and Evaluation mechanism topursue implementation. Each option is moreor less demanding than the others on theMAP system. So there are seriousimplications for the MAP system across the

51

various options, implications/requirementswhich need to be carefully assessed in termsof the internal capacity of the system (giventhe existing structure and constraints) to fulfillprovisions. A step-by-step approach(adoption of a Framework or an intermediateProtocol in the first place, while introducingchanges that could support theimplementation of a complete Protocol in asecond phase) may be more advisableallowing for necessary restructuring, giventhat the rhythm of environmentaldeterioration will slow down.Furthermore, financial issues can also beincluded. What would be the cost ofimplementation of each alternative? Wouldthat cost be relatively evenly distributedamong partners? If not, what would be thecompensation measures to be adopted? Theburden of each option is not equal onnational/regional/local systems. This is ageneral condition which would certainlyweigh against one option or another.Guidelines are “lighter” in general since theyare mostly voluntary. Other options will needconsiderations of financial assistance whichhas to be sought within MAP or each one ofthe Mediterranean States.

7.2. Criteria Applied to the ThreeOptions

7.2.1. Criteria applied to the generalcontents ProtocolIn the task of drafting an ICAM Protocol, anumber of political and economic factors wouldsuggest to follow a less ambitious strategyleading to the adoption of a frameworkinstrument instead of a full-scale one.Some States might be hesitant to undertakeburdensome obligations relating to animportant portion of their territory, to enterinto the delicate field of inter-institutionalcoordination and to introduce new principles(such as the notion of integration) in theirdomestic legal systems. Most perplexitiesmay be overcome if the proposed model oflegal instrument is broad enough to allowmargins of discretion, and flexible enough toleave room for adequate time-frames.Also a framework Protocol, while not being afully satisfactory solution from an abstractpoint of view, would bring an added value toboth the UNEP/MAP legal system, whichcommits the Parties to promote the

integrated management of the coastal zone(see Art. 4, para. 3 e, of the BarcelonaConvention), and the system of treaties forthe protection of the marine environment ingeneral, where such a kind of instrumentwould fill an obvious gap. It will establishevident sinergies with other internationaltreaties45 and will implement one of the mainlong-term objectives of sustainabledevelopment within MAP Phase II, whereICAM is included among the maincomponents of sustainable development inthe Mediterranean, and its objectives areclearly set forth.The long- and short-term costs of aframework Protocol will be lower from thepolitical, organisational and social points ofview. There is little doubt that this factorwould determine a stronger politicalacceptability of such an instrument.However, the simple consideration that,whenever possible, it is preferable to draw upadvanced instruments should also be takeninto account when making a choice about thecontents of the Protocol to be proposed toMAP Parties. Mediterranean coastal Statescould only benefit from an internationalsupport which would stimulate thedevelopment of their national legislation andpolicy towards the establishment of anadvanced and effective system of ICAM. Thiscould suggest the solution that theframework Protocol model be enlarged toinclude some elements that, while taken froma full-scale Protocol model, are expressed inthe form of recommendations or objectives tobe achieved as appropriate and within areasonable time.

7.2.2. Criteria applied to the detailedProtocol optionStates may, in a first instance, consider thisdetailed option as superfluous andinappropriate for coastal areas. The existingguidelines and sift law instruments could besufficient to allow the States to organiseICAM, if they wish. Furthermore, legislationon coastal areas varies greatly from country tocountry, and entails such complex institutionalmechanisms that is seems utopic to attemptto apply common rules through a protocol.

45 See above, the paragraph on “Legal Justification fora Protocol on Coastal Zones with regard toInternational Law of the Sea and International Law ofthe Environment”.

52

In reality, as we have seen under Part 3,there is a strong ground for justification of aprotocol, insofar as ICAM is a concept whichhas already been included in the amendedConvention as one of the overall obligationsof the States. It is not possible to separatethe marine objectives of the Convention andProtocols from the issue of coastal areas:they are closely linked.Furthermore, the complexity and vulnerabilityof coastal areas are such that they requiresophisticated and detailed instruments, ratherthan the simple repetition of the existingguidelines. The protocol must be seen bothas an opportunity to implement and improvethe instruments for integrated management,and as a means to further complete andspecify them. This is the only way to slow thepace of deterioration of the Mediterraneancoastal areas. The longer we wait beforetaking the required measures, the costlier, oreven impossible it will be to prevent theimpending disaster or irreversibledestruction.Synergy with other conventions is obviousand has already been underscored.However, the real justification for theProtocol on Coastal Areas is in the legalsystem of the Barcelona Convention. Withoutsuch a protocol, the existing rules wouldremain insufficient. If the BarcelonaConvention and its protocols (which partiallycover coastal area issues: speciallyprotected areas, land-based pollution,dangerous waste, emergency situations) areto be effectively applied, they must absolutelybe reinforced by protocols dedicated toactions of the States in coastal areas, withoutoverlaps with existing instruments.Since it is not traditional, either on aninternational scale or in the precedents of theBarcelona system, to adopt frameworkprotocols, this designation being reservedmore specifically for Conventions, a detailedprotocol can be considered as a normalprotocol targeting complete coverage ofissues at hand.With regard to international cases ofvulnerable areas, such as mountains, it isobvious that European States have reacheda consensus on a Convention for theProtection of the Alps, supported by manysectorial protocols. There are 8 Parties tothis Convention, four of which are parties tothe Barcelona Convention (France, Italy,

Slovenia, the European Community). Theinitial legal issue is the significant differencein legislation between EU Member Statesand those outside the EU. These States areready to comply with the obligationsconcerning local authorities and landdevelopment, nature and landscapes, andtourism. The issue of the coastal areas in theMediterranean may in that sense appearsimpler to treat, since these areas arealready integrated in specific legal frameworksand fall under the regulations of internationalconventions: sea and coastal areas. Thecomplementary features of these areas aresignificant assets that the draft protocol mustexamine from the perspective of policyintegration and sustainable development.The economic advantage of this protocol isobvious, as it draws attention to zones ofeconomic expansion, through tourism andsea-based activities. A strong legal frameworkwould protect these assets for the future.

7.2.3. Criteria applied to the intermediateoptionTheoretically, an intermediate option seemsto be the most acceptable. Politically, thiscould be the ideal solution in so far as itemphasises mutual trade-offs. In reality, theoption C is only an improved version of theoption A and a limited version of option B.However, it would bring more flexibility to thenegotiation process, and more easily lead toan acceptable legal framework. However,ICAM implies global coordination of policies,since without support at the internationalscale, integration and protection initiativeswill fail.It can be seen as contradictory to accept aprotocol which makes it legally binding forthe States to take better account of coastalareas and to maintain all ongoing pilotinitiatives, while refusing to grant fullapplication of the recommended measures.This may lead to a limited commitment onthe part of the States. However, a decisivefactor would be the capability to create anappropriate framework in such a protocol.While the mechanism under study isunanimously considered as indispensable, ifit is not fully applied it will deprive theprotocol of its potential and of the inherentsynergies with other conventions andprotocols. This would probably reduce the riskof weakening the commitments of the Stateswhile safeguarding the effects of synergies.

53

8. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SUGGESTED OPTION

The legal analysis above leaves the choicebetween the three options open. Whateverthe choice, it will certainly constitute aprogress, in line with the existing initiativesundertaken by the Contracting Parties to theBarcelona Convention. The options differ indegree, not in nature. In all instances, thefact that the States have acepted the idea ofa protocol is the demonstration of their newresolve to make progress in the combatagainst the ongoing deterioration of coastalareas and of the observation that soft lawinstruments, as well as directives and otherwhite papers are no longer sufficient topositively affect the state of the coastalenvironment.We have also seen that if nothing is done, orif status quo is maintained, as presented inChapter 4, the impact will be highly negative,and may lead to regression.For all these reasons, the authors of thisreport have clearly opted for theversion C,the intermediate protocol. Their choice isexplained hereafter:

State of emergencyThe European Environment Agency hasdeclared that the coastal areas of Europewere facing pronounced on-goingdeterioration. There is an urgent need forappropriate monitoring and support systems,which are ecologically sustainable,economically fair, socially and culturallyacceptable, and require a specific protocol toface all related challenges.Real added valueThe framework protocol is limited toprinciples, but it does not contribute addedvalue versus what exists, except from aformal standpoint. If the content is tooflexible, it remains a soft-law instrument. Onthe other hand, the detailed option protocol isprobably too ambitious for the present socio-economic and political situation in theMediterranean, and could be to a certainextent counter-productive. Intermediateprotocol, however, provides a step furthertowards a fully operational instrument in thefuture. It would certainly be a positive move.Moreover, it will offer a certain level offlexibility, which could be used during thefuture process of negotiation about the final

form of the protocol, the step that will allowfor optimal answers to the needs of theMediterranean states.Strong legal framework

International reports, by the EU, FAO, UNEP,OECD or the Council of Europe, areunanimous in declaring that a strong legalframework is needed to support ICAMinitiatives. States need assistance inimposing the indispensable coordinationmechanisms and in overcoming the nationaladministrative inertia and traditions. Soft-lawinstruments are no longer enough; it servesno purpose to multiply the number ofguideline documents devoid of any realscope, optional and known to a limited groupof experts alone.A new driver for sustainable developmentThe Barcelona Convention hasdemonstrated the significant role it plays asdriving force in the combat against pollution,in environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment in the Mediterranean, asconfirmed by the evolution in the collectiveefforts of the Contracting Parties, coastallocal communities and NGOs. A protocoldedicated to coastal areas will furtherstrengthen this situation, through the legaland political scope granted to ICAM in theMediterranean. The solemn character of theprotocol makes it a mandatory legalinstrument, and one that is recognised andpublished in the Official Law Journals of eachState, making it accessible to all national orlocal private and public stakeholders.Many new instruments for integratedgovernance of coastal areasThe Protocol is not limited to describing theprinciples of action covered in the whitepaper: its purpose is to specify and reinforcethem. It adds particular provisions for coastalareas not protected under the SpeciallyProtected Areas Protocol, which may need tobe preserved for future generations. Itenhances awareness of the coastallandscapes that are not yet protected; itimposes procedures for strategic impactstudies and for impact studies on works ingeneral; it reinforces participation; it imposesthe establishment of a surface whereconstruction is prohibited (already exists in

54

some States). It makes official the freeaccess to the coastline; it encouragesgreater involvement of the local communities,in partnership with the State, for moreintegrated governance of coastal areas; andit imposes regional strategies for theMediterranean coastal areas, comprisingobjectives and action plans to guide theStates.A unique and innovative example of ocean-coastal area integrationIt has been observed and regretted thatinternational conventions and organisationsfor oceans and coastal areas lackcoordination and are showing increasingfragmentation in their application(Mabudafhasi, 2001). The adoption of aProtocol on ICAM in the Mediterraneanwould prove otherwise: it would be thedemonstration of the strong political impactthat the MCSD has always considered itspriority. By choosing an intermediate, albeitfairly complete and detailed protocol oncoastal areas, the Mediterranean States willdemonstrate that they favour thecoordination within the Barcelona system,and show the world their spirit of innovation

and progress, through the first legalframework for the geographical andecological integration of sea and land coastalareas in a regional sea.Strengthening and encouraging nationalinitiativesThe Mediterranean States have always beeninnovative in choosing solutions. After fifteenyears of study and experience on thefundamental future challenges facing coastalareas in the Mediterranean basin, theadoption of a protocol is a logical result. Theprotocol may, in the case of some States, beonly an official document comprising theexisting rules and practices, while for others,it will serve to reinforce and encouragerecent or ongoing legislative reforms, as wellas experience in demonstration programs(European Community, MAP). In any case,the Protocol will enhance national legislationand motivate administrations, localcollectivities, private stakeholders and NGOsto better apply the regulations in coastalareas, in the spirit of sustainabledevelopment and integrated management.

55

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1. A much needed and timelyinstrumentIn conclusion to this feasibility study, it is nowobvious that a protocol on coastal areas is anecessity for several reasons:

• From the legal standpoint, as anindispensable tool for the implementationof the new contractual obligations of theParties, as adopted in 1995, when theBarcelona Convention was amended,consisting in “promoting ICAM” andinserting the words “coastal areaprotection” in the title of the Conventionitself.

• From the environmental standpoint, in sofar as all scientific diagnoses haverevealed ongoing deterioration of coastalareas, through uncontrolled land-basedpollution, through the destruction oflandscapes and biodiversity resultingfrom concentrated tourist activities andoveruse of vulnerable natural resources,as an instrument to help mitigate marineand coastal pollution.

• From the economic standpoint, while theimportance of environmental quality isincreasing, too much leniency can, in theshort term, lead to stagnation orregression in tourism, due to excessiveartificialisation and growing quantities ofwaste.

• From the social standpoint, as localstakeholders are increasinglypreoccupied with the threats hoveringover coastal areas, as the consequenceof climate changes, and ofoverpopulation in some of these coastalareas. It is now acknowledged thatisolated, sector-specific policies are nolonger compatible with sustainabledevelopment. New forms of localgovernance, protecting many legitimateinterests, provide the necessary supportfor initiatives, with emphasis onparticipation and consultation, byfavoring recourse to procedures, underthe coordination of local and nationalauthorities.

• From the political standpoint, theconsiderable progress accomplished inthe Mediterranean Basin by the

components of the Convention as wellas by the MCSD, and the systematicintegration of the issues of coastal areasin the implemented strategies andinitiatives, are leading towards a newstep in the integration of coastal areasinto the Barcelona system, through aspecific protocol.

The very idea of choosing a binding legalinstrument rather than simplerecommendations or white papers, is boththe result of research, study and regionalmeetings on ICAM undertaken in the past,and the natural conclusion of theassessments of the scope and effectivenessof soft-law instruments.The unanimous conclusion of the pilotinitiatives and reflections on ICAM has beenthat strong legal support instruments werenow required. It would clearly set theobjectives of general strategies, andcoordinate stakeholders and legalinstruments. Further evidence of this can befound in the bibliography (FAO, UNEP,OECD, World Bank, UNESCO, Council ofEurope) and in the conclusions of thedemonstration program of the EuropeanCommunity.Initially, these instruments should be part andparcel of national legislation, but we haveseen that these legislations are quitedifferent and all too often not well-adapted tointegrated management initiatives.Sustainable management of coastal areas ina region like the Mediterranean todayrequires more than mere “quick-fix” solutions.The States are now aware of the fact thatprogress can only come from internationalpressure, not to replace nationalmechanisms by international ones, but tosupport and strengthen current or schedulednational reforms, for the improvement ofintegrated management. Coastal areas arenow a common theme for the ContractingParties to the Barcelona Convention, and thetime has come to create a legal frameworkfor the guidelines and directions given untilnow. In this regard, the development of aregional ICAM strategy is a priority. TheDeclaration of the Contracting Parties to theBarcelona Convention, during their meetingin Monaco, November 14-17, 2001, prior to

56

the Johannesburg Summit, confirms that“action is required” at international andregional levels, to facilitate ICAM. The Statesmust demonstrate a shared resolve toimplement the new instruments. This willrequire negotiating a protocol on ICAM in theMediterranean.The States have become familiar with thenew strategy of ICAM through the initiativesfor coastal areas, organised by MAP andPAP/RAC, to implement the guidelines givenin Chapter 17 of the Rio Agenda 21 of 1992,which had highlighted the need to closely linkissues of the marine environment to those ofcoastal areas. But no matter how relevantthese documents may be for theenvironmental management of complex andvulnerable territories, they could only lead tothe current changes in the practices of theStates and their local authorities. The workundertaken over the last 10 years and more,will have entailed information, education,awareness enhancement and experience inICAM.Today, the concept of ICAM and the relatedinstruments greatly warrant a legalframework, at the international and nationallevels. In chapter V of the Recommendationof the European Parliament and Council of30 May 2002, ICAM strategies are the mainissue in the implementation of existingconventions among the countries sharing thesame regional sea. As shown above, theprotocol on coastal areas is indeed the directimplementation of the amended BarcelonaConvention.Today, the idea of a treaty on coastal areasappears to be the most sensible choice, andshould not be viewed as strange as it oncewas. In this regard, it is possible to mentionthe proposals for an international conventionon coastal areas, as put forward during theConference on the Adriatic Sea (Kiss, Amatoand Norberg, 1995). During this meeting, theGeneral Director for the Environment of theCouncil of Europe, F. Albanese,declared: ”we are short of a bindinginstrument to promote sustainabledevelopment policies in the Mediterraneancoastal areas”. A report in 1995 by AdalbertoVallega, in his capacity as vice-president ofthe International Geographic Union, alsoexamined the conceptual and technicalbases for a protocol on coastal areas, insupport of the amended BarcelonaConvention. And a report of the Council of

Europe in 1996, following an inventory ofinternational and national initiatives, clearlyconcluded that “we are short of a bindinginstrument” (Council of Europe, 1999).A protocol on coastal areas must beprepared in view of the upcoming entry inforce of the amended Barcelona Convention,enhancing the urgent need for a legalinstrument to comply with the obligationsunder article 4-3-e. Allowing for the time toprepare the protocol and to holdnegotiations, it could be signed in 2006.It has clearly been demonstrated that thesolution of maintaing the status quo, asdescribed in part 4, must be rejected. Thiswould be akin to violating the political andlegal commitments made by the States forICAM, and would disappoint manyMediterranean countries, in the South inparticular, which expect support from theBarcelona Convention in managing thecommon Mediterranean heritage of theircoastal areas, under the best possibleconditions for sustainable development.Furthermore, in view of the alarmingobservations on the state of the coastalenvironment, it would be impossible to besatisfied with just another recommendation inthis field.

9.2. An innovative instrumentThe ICAM protocol now seems inevitable,and its many innovative features should bedescribed.The territorial integration between land andsea is still not present in all nationallegislations, in the form of strategies, plans orprograms, or other decisions, although it isencountered more and more frequently. Itappears much more systematically ininternational law, and it is significant toobserve how, gradually, all conventions onregional seas have extended their scope ofapplication to inland waters, then towetlands, then to land coastal areas, and tocatchment areas.There is nothing original per se in aninternational convention bearing on terrestrialspace or on a part of such space: this is thecase with all environmental conventions. Wehave mentioned the case of the complex andvulnerable territory covered in the AlpineConvention of 1991 and its many protocols.The actual scope of application is set as anobligation by the Convention and not left to

57

the discretion of the Parties. What is moreoriginal is that the law of the sea has nowpenetrated inland whereas traditionally it waslimited to the sea, and that the same legalinstrument should have a bearing on bothland and sea. Although the BarcelonaConvention and its protocols cover territorialintegration as a prerequisite for ICAM, it stillremains symbolic. As evidenced in theProtocol on Specially Protected Areas, whichautomatically applies to “terrestrial coastalareas”, these areas must be clearly definedby the Parties. And it is well-known that, withone exception, this clear definition has beengiven. The scope of territorial application ofthe future protocol will have to be specifiedand imposed in the provisions of the textitself.However, a protocol dedicated to coastalareas is an innovation, as no such documenthas ever existed on the international scale.The most recent trend is the reinforcement ofprovisions on coastal areas, within the maintext of the convention on regional seas, asdemonstrated by the 2002 Convention on theSustainable Protection and Development ofthe Marine and Coastal Areas of the North-Eastern Pacific, comprising 10 articlesimposing the measures required for ICAM(despite the fact that there is no cleardelimitation included in this text) (CNP,2002). Furthermore, there are severalprovisions on ICAM in the 2002 Protocol onthe Protection of Biodiversity andLandscapes in the Black Sea.By deciding to dedicate a protocol to coastalareas, the Mediterranean States will act aspioneers and inspire other conventions onregional seas.

9.3. A flexible protocolThe institutional and legal complexity whichcharacterises coastal areas requires extremeflexibility in the protocol contents, which iswhy an à la carte feasibility study isnecessary. But the flexibility we describemust not be understood as undermining thevalue of the instrument as legally binding forthe States. The contents of such a bindinginstrument, whether it is a treaty or aprotocol, can be more or less specific, suchas in the case of framework conventions,which, under international law, lay downgeneral but mandatory standards. Thespecifics and technical complexity of coastallegislation require flexibility. This is all the

more justified by the fact that integratedmanagement is an overall concept and mustnot interfere with such specific matters asurbanisation, which can not by definition beinternational. This does not preclude thatprinciples of development serve as directinspiration or framework for nationalregulations. An international document, suchas regional strategies for coastal areas,serves as basis for purely local decisions.The feasibility study presented here haspurposely been realistic, to ensure theadaptibility and flexibility of the contents ofthe protocol, to constitute progress in anapproach favorable to common sustainabledevelopment in the North and SouthMediterranean.

9.4. A substantial and negotiableprotocolThe three options selected, to allow theConference of the Contracting Parties tochoose according to their objectives andambitions, are the following:A. General Contents Protocol (or

framework protocol)B. Detailed Contents ProtocolC. Intermediate ProtocolSeveral assessment criteria have beenapplied to determine the advantages anddrawbacks of each option. However, theassessment can not be considered asextensive for public policies, as this wouldhave entailed the contribution of a scientificgroup of multidisciplinary experts, and wouldhave required more time than the timeframealloted.These three options are not mutuallyexclusive: the detailed option applies tocertain issues, while more general contentscould be useful in other cases. This shouldallow for greater flexibility in negotiations onthe contents, under the express conditionthat different provisions are not incontradiction with or in opposition to theoptions retained. The compatibility ofprovisions will need to be clearly covered inthe drafting of the protocol.After the application of evaluation criteria, itis proposed to the Contracting Parties thatthey accept the intermediate protocol optionand develop it to its final version through theconsultation process at various levels of the

58

Mediterranean Action Plan in the followingyears.There are two major reasons to choose theintermediate option:

• It is probable that the content of existingrecommendations, white papers andguidelines highlight sufficientsuggestions for progress, and that theStates have necessarily and implicitlyapproved. These documents determineprinciples of conduct in ICAM and cantherefore be considered as equivalent toa framework protocol. The general, albeitsoft, contents of these documents havemet with political consensus, which mustbe kept in mind when preparing a morebinding instrument. This explains why webelieve that the drafting of a generalprotocol would only serve to formaliseand enhance the value of ideas thathave already been largely accepted.

• Furthermore, mentalities have changedand the results yielded by many ICAMinitiatives are a new step in the rightdirection, either through the adoption ofa formal protocol or through theenhancement of the contents of thestandards. The recommended option toadopt a substantial protocol signifies thatits contents are not just the legaltranslation of guidelines and whitepapers, but represent a fundamentalprogress towards more effective andsustainable integrated management. Itseffectiveness will be both the result ofbinding contents and of contents legallyaligned with the practical and institutionalrequirements of ICAM.

59

REFERENCES

Birnie and Boyle. 1992. International Law and the Environment, Oxford.Blanquet, M. and N. de Grove-Valdeyron. 2001. Coastal areas et droit communautaire, Revuejuridique de l’environnement, n° spécial 2001.Cicin-Sain, B. and Belfiore, S. 2003. Linking Marine Protected Areas to Integrated Coastal andOcean Management: A Review of Theory and Peactice, Paper presented at the Workshop“Integrating Marine Protected Area Management with Coastal and Ocean Governance: Principlesand Practices (Baltimore, 12-14 July 2003).Cicin-Sain, B., P. Bernal, V. Vanderweerd, S. Belfiore and K. Goldstein. 2002. Oceans, Coasts andIslands at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and beyond – Integrated Managementfrom Hilltops to Oceans, 2nd ed., Newark.CNP. 2002. Convention for co-operation in the protection and sustainable development of theMarine and Coastal environment of the Northeast Pacific (Antigua Guatemala, 18 of February2002).Conseil de l’Europe. 1998. Exemples et possibilités de coopération transfrontalière entrecollectivités ou autorités territoriales dans les zones littorales maritimes, coopérationtransfrontalière en Europe n° 6, StrasbourgConseil de l’Europe. 1999. Modèle de loi sur la gestion durable des coastal areas et Code deconduite européen des coastal areas, ed. du Conseil de l’Europe, Sauvegarde de la nature n°101, Strasbourg.Déclaration de Québec. 2002. Déclaration de Québec sur l’écotourisme, Sommet mondial del’écotourisme (Ville de Quebec, 22 mai 2002).European Commission. 1999. Short and Medium Term Priority Environmental ActionProgramme (SMAP), Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on the environment, (Helsinki,1997).Graham, K. 2001., Résumé sur “participation aux processus d’aménagement intégré descoastal areas: mécanismes et procédures nécessaires”, Hyder consulting,www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/iczm.Kiss, A., Amato, A. et Norberg, L. 1995. La protection des espaces côtiers de la mer Adriatique,colloque du Conseil de l’Europe à Tirana (Albanie) les 27-29 octobre 1994, rencontres del’environnement n° 23, Strasbourg.Mabudafhasi. 2001. Closing remarks: Towards Johannesburg 2002, Closing speech to theglobal conference on “Oceans and Coasts at Rio + 10”, (Paris, Unesco, Dec. 3-7, 2001)MAP/METAP. 1998. Assessment of integrated coastal area management initiatives in theMediterranean, experiences from METAP and MAP (1988-1996), Washington, DC, The WorldBank.Ministry of Environment, Croatia. 2003. The Adriatic Action Plan, Meeting of Ministers for theEnvironment, (Zadar, 6 june 2003).OCDE. 1992. Recommandation de l’OCDE sur la gestion intégrée des coastal areas (23 juillet1992).PAP/RAC. 2000. National legislation and proposals for the guidelines relating to integratedplanning and management of the Mediterranean coastal zones. Split, PAP/RAC.PAP/RAC. 2001a. White paper: coastal zone management in the Mediterranean / Livre blanc:gestion des coastal areas en Méditerranée. Split, PAP/RAC.

60

PAP/RAC. 2001b. Good practice guidelines for integrated coastal area management in theMediterranean/ Principes de meilleures pratiques pour la gestion intégrée des coastal areas enméditerranée. Split, PAP/RAC.Parlement Européen. 2002. Recommandation du parlement Européen et du Conseil du 30 mai2002 relative à la mise en œuvre d’une stratégie de gestion intégrée des coastal areas enEurope, (30 mai 2002, JOCE, L 148 du 6 Juin 2002)Sorensen, J.C. 1993. The international proliferation of integrated coastal zone managementefforts, in Ocean and Coastal ManagementUNEP. 1997. Guidelines for integrated management of coastal and marine areas with particularreference to Mediterranean basin, Nairobi, UNEP.UNEP/MAP. 1995. Mediterranean Action Plan, Phase II.UNEP/MAP. 1997. Recommendations on the integrated and sustainable management ofcoastal zones, adopted by the MCSD.UNEP/MAP. 2002. International seminar on legal and management instrument for the protectionof the Mediterranean coast, Junta de Andalucia, Sevilla.UNEP/MAP. 1999. Formulation and Implementation of CAMP projects – Operational Manual.Athens, UNEP/MAP.UNEP/MAP/BP. 1989. Futures of the Mediterranean Region. Economica, Paris.Young, M.. 2003. Developing a Legal Strategy for High Seas Marine Protected Areas, Paperdistributed at a Workshop on “High Seas Marine Protected Areas” organised by IUCN and WWF(Malaga, 15-17 January 2003).

61

RELEVANT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amato, A. 1995. Nécessité d’élaboration d’une convention sur la protection des espacescôtiers:quelques propositions, in la protection des espaces côtiers de la mer Adriatique, Conseilde l’Europe, rencontres environnement n° 23, Strasbourg.Beckman, R. and Coleman, B. 1999. Integrated Coastal Management: the role of law andlawyers in The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 14 n° 4.Bower, B., Ehler, C., Basta, D. 1994. A framework for planning for integrated coastal zonemanagement. NOAA/ NOS Office of ocean resources conservation and assessment, SilverSpring, Maryland.Boelaert-Suominen, S. and C. Cullinan. 1994. Legal and institutional aspects of integratedcoastal area management in national legislation. Rome, FAO, Legal office.Bonnot, Y. 1995. Pour une politique globale et cohérente du littoral en France, Rapport auPremier minister, La Documentation Française, Paris.Cataldi, G. 2002. The Mediterranean and the law of the sea at the dawn of the 21st century.Bruylant. Brussels.Chua, T. E. 1993. Essential elements of integrated coastal management, Ocean and CoastalManagement (21).Chua, T. E. 1996. Enhacing the success of integrated coastal zone management:good practicein the formulation,design, and implementation. GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for theprevention and management of marine pollution in the East Asian Seas. MPP-EAS Technicalreport n° 2.Chung, Ch. 1995. La gestion des coastal areas: les politiques intégrées, in La protection desespaces côtiers de la mer Adriatique, Conseil de l’Europe, rencontres environnement n° 23,Strasbourg.Cicin-Sain, B., 1993. Sustainable development and integrated coastal management, in Oceanan Coastal Management, 21-1/3.Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht R.W., 1998. Integrated coastal and ocean management:concepts andexperiences. Washington DC, Island Press.Cicin-Sain, B. and al. 2002. A guide to oceans, coasts and islands at the world summit onsustainable development, Center for study of marine policy, Newark, Delaware.Clark, J. R. 1996. Coastal zone management Handbook. Boca Raton FL: Lewis PublishersClark, J. R. 1992. Integrated Management of Coastal Zones, Fisheries technical paper, FAO, n° 327.Conseil de l’Europe. 1996. Etude sur la faisabilité d’élaborer un instrument européen pour lagestion intégrée des coastal areas, Direction de l’environnement et des pouvoirs locaux, PE-S-CO (96) 3, Strasbourg.GESAMP (group of experts on the scientific aspects of marine environmental protection). 1996.Report of the task force on integrates coastal management. Rome. FAO.Ghezali, M. 2000. La gestion intégrée des coastal areas: l’approche statutaire de la Côted’Opale et du Littoral, Université de Boulogne s/ mer, France.Henocque, Y., Denis J., Gerard B., Grignon l.C., Brigand, L., Lointier, M., Barusseau, P. 1997.Methodological guide to integrated coastal management, manuals and guides IOC, n° 36, Paris,UNESCO.Holtus, P. 1999. Sustainable development of oceans and coasts: the role of the private sector,UN Natural resources Forum, 23, Pergamon.

62

Hong, S.Y. and Chang, Y.T. 1997. Integrated coastal management and the advent of newocean governance in Korea, in The international Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (12).IGBP/LOICZ. 1993. Land-Ocean interactions in the coastal zone. Science Plan, Stockholm.Kiss, A. 1995. Les conventions internationals concernant les côtes applicables à la merAdriatique et autres exemples: vers une convention internationale des espaces côtiers in Laprotection des espaces côtiers de la mer Adriatique, Conseil de l’Europe, rencontresenvironnement n° 23, Strasbourg.Lessons from the European Commission’s demonstration programme on integrated coastalzone management (ICZM) April 1999, (on line: europa.eu.int.).Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement, France. 1997. La défense descôtes contre l’érosion marine, pour une approche globale et environnementale, Paris.De Marffy – Mantuano. 1998. La gouvernance des mers, Annuaire du droit de la mer, T. II,Pedone, Paris.OCDE. 1993. Coastal Zone Management Integrated Policies, Paris.Post, J.C. and Lundin, C.G. 1996. Guidelines for integrated coastal zone management,Environmentally sustainable Development studies and monographs, Series n° 9, World Bank.Prieur, M. 1995. La conservation des coastal areas en droit comparé, in La protection des espacescôtiers de la mer Adriatique, Conseil de l’Europe, rencontres environnement n° 23, Strasbourg.Revue Juridique de l’environnement. 2001. Aménagement et gestion intégrée des coastal areasen droit comparé, n° spécial, Limoges, France.Romero, O. and Maria, J. 2002. Progress on coastal legislation in the Mediterranean countriesand MAP coastal areas management plans, UNEP/ MAP seminar (Palma de Majorca, June 2002).Sorensen, J.C. 1997. National and international efforts at integrated coastal management.Coastal Management 25 (1).UNEP. 1990. An approach to environmental impact assessment for projects affedting thecoastal and marine environment, UNEP, regional seas reports and studies, Nairobi.UNEP. 1996. Workshop on policies for sustainable development of Mediterranean coastalareas, Santorin island, MAP technical report series n° 114, Athens.UNEP. 2000. Minutes of the seminar on territorial prospective in the Mediterranean and theapproach by actors, MAP technical report series n° 127, Athens.UNESCO. 2001. Commission océanographique intergouvernementale, Manuels et Guides n°42, des outils et des hommes pour une gestion intégrée des coastal areas – Guideméthodologique vol. II.UNESCO. 2001. Global Conference on Oceans and Coasts at Rio+10 (Paris, 3-7 December 2001).