Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e35
Contents lists available
Ocean & Coastal Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman
Assessing progress toward integrated coastal zone management: Some lessonsfrom Egypt
Hossam Samir Ibrahim a,*, David Shawb
a Faculty of Urban & Regional Planning, Regional Development Department, Cairo University, Ahmed Zewail Street, Cairo, EgyptbDepartment of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Available online 14 December 2011
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ201000890056, þ20E-mail addresses: [email protected],
(H.S. Ibrahim).
0964-5691/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.12.002
a b s t r a c t
The interface areas between marine and terrestrial environments encompasses some of the mostexploited and vulnerable ecosystems in the world. How these transitional environments can be effec-tively planned and managed has led to the creation of new planning instruments. Integrated CoastalZone Management (ICZM) has been widely promoted as a potential mechanism for effective and inte-grated planning and management of these areas. However achieving the aspirations for ICZM is complexnot least because of the many human activities and diverse regulatory regimes that exist in coastal areas,whose interest and concerns must be effective integrated into a single policy and implementationregime. Within the context of the developing world countries there have been few critical and analyticalevaluations of why ICZM experiments have failed. This paper seeks to begin to address this gap bysuggesting that Actor Network Theory (ANT) is an appropriate analytical framework to critically evaluatewhy ICZM initiatives in Egypt, at both the national and local level, have been relatively unsuccessful. Thecritical evaluation leads to some practical recommendations that could help to enhance the imple-mentation of ICZM in Egypt and other developing countries.
� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
During the last three decades, largely in response to growingrecognition of the problems impacting upon coastal zones, manycountries have introduced policies and programmes to try tomanage these critical assets in a more integrated and holisticmanner. Subsequently, Integrated Coastal Zone Management(ICZM) now forms an integral part of the strategy of the Interna-tional Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,and has been adopted as a policy priority by such internationalbodies as the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme, and many national governments and agencies. Like manyother forms of spatial, or collaborative planning instruments, ICZMholds the promise of being a tool for progressing sustainabledevelopment based on a participatory process that involves allstakeholders (Lane, 2006; Christie, 2005). ICZM should bea dynamic, continuous and iterative process designed to promotesustainable management of coastal zones through the participationof all relevant actors. Thus, the success of ICZM could be seen as
All rights reserved.
being dependant on the building of a cohesive network thatactively engages and gains the support of all interested actors.However, in practice operationalising and implementing ICZMprogrammes have proved to be extremely problematic, especiallyin developing countries that often suffer from both highly cen-tralizedand compartmentalized systems of governance and a lackof effective public or stakeholder participation, at any spatial scales(Olsen et al., 1999; Hale et al., 2000; Caffyn and Jobbins, 2003).Furthermore, much of the research which advocates the adoptionof ICZM have often been undertaken within the context of devel-oped countries (Belfiore et al., 2006). Therefore, there are gaps inthe literature associated with ICZM which tries to understand whyso many ICZM programmes, in developing countries, have failed(Caffyn and Jobbins, 2003). This paper seeks to begin to address thisgap by focusing on the experience of ICZM in Egypt using ActorNetwork Theory (ANT) as the analytical framework.
The paper is divided into five sections. First section develops ananalytical framework based on ANT. Then a brief description ofEgypt’s ICZM initiatives to date, at both the national and local levelsis provided. The third section evaluates Egyptian ICZM initiativesagainst the analytical framework. The data for this analysis is drawnfrom a detailed evaluation of all the ICZM projects in Egypt. Thisinvolved a combination of primary and secondary data collection.The secondary data collection involved reviewing all the
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e35 27
documentary evidence that were available in the form of meetingminutes, available policy documents and semi-independentreviews of the various ICZM initiatives. Primary data involvedobserving some of the recent coastal management meetings,particularly at the national scale and in depth semi-structuredinterviews with forty five different participants involved in theprocesses at both the national and local scales and involving ICZMinitiatives in both phases of activity (see Section 2). Multiplesources of evidence are therefore combined to create a picture ofwhat has been happening in practice following the ideas of Berg(2007) and Yin (2003). The penultimate section draws on thisempirical evidence base to identify why implementation of ICZM inEgypt has been failing before finally making suggestions as howICZM implementation could be enhanced, in this and other similarcontexts.
1.1. Developing a conceptual framework
ICZM by its very nature is both cross disciplinary and interdis-ciplinary in character and recognizing the diversity of interest andregimes that are involved in managing this complex and contestedinterface between land and sea is a necessary pre-requisite tounderstandwhy somany ICZM programmes have failed and then tosuggest how more effective ICZM practice may be implemented inthe future. ICZM scholars need to invest time and effort in crossingtheoretical borders in order to capitalize on progress made in otherdisciplines and fields of studies. Whilst there are many differentperspectives and lenses that could be used for evaluation purposes,in this paper, Actor Network Theory (ANT)has been considered asthe most appropriate conceptual framework to evaluate ICZMinitiatives.
ANT was developed in the early 1980s as a concept that allowsfor the exploration of the relationships among, and betweenvarious actors who create or modify a network in which all theactors agree that the network is worth building and defending(Mclaren Loring, 2007). Without such pre-conditions the networkcannot achieve its objectives and will not be effective (Duim, 2005).Indeed Law (1994), (cited in Woods (1998)), explains that ANT is anapproach that tells stories about the processes of ordering, thatgenerate effects. ANT therefore provides analytical tools for evalu-ating the processes by which networks are created and constantlyre-configured (Callon et al., 2001). Additionally, ANT investigatesthe complex composition of networks, seeks to understand hownetworks gain their strength and how they achieve their objectives(Duim, 2005). Thus ANT can be used to explore the interrelation-ships between a set of actors who have been successfully, orunsuccessfully enrolled by a dominant and powerful focal actor,and reflect on the relative achievements of the network. In thisregard the focal actor can be an individual, an institution ora combination of the two. It is argued that by working collabora-tively with other actors, the network is collectively able to gainstrength and act on its own, with or without the direct or indirectsupport of the focal actor (Morris, 2004). Paul and Amanda (1999)have gone further in arguing that ANT can be usefully applied toenvironmental management networks, as it allows the researcherto explore relationships between the actors, and the ways they arelinked together. Furthermore it can be used to exploring the effectof financial resources, institutional arrangements and legal frame-work on the actors interactions (Duim, 2005).
In actor network theory, the concepts of the actor and thenetwork are connected and one cannot be defined without theother. Most successful networks contain three components e
actors, intermediaries, and the focal actor or macro actor. Firstly, anactor can be defined as an entity (individuals, agencies andauthorities) able to associate with the other actors within the
network (Paul and Amanda, 1999). Actors take their form, andacquire their attributes, as a result of their relations with otheractors (Duim, 2005; Bill and Alan, 2002). Secondly, the intermedi-aries, can be defined as the mechanisms or tools (institutionalarrangements, legal framework and financial resources) thatconnect actors into a network. These help to define the respectiveposition of the actors within the networks and the levels of inter-action between them (Duim, 2005). Through intermediaries, actorscommunicate with one another, and hence translate theirperspectives and intentions to other actors (Duim, 2005). Finally,the focal actor is often the hero of the story who coordinates andleads the other actors, providing each with an identity, interest,a role to play, a course of action to follow and projects to carry out(Burgess et al., 2000). Moreover, there is a dynamism in theprocesses with the focal actor also being an actor whose activity innetworking between heterogeneous elements means that thenetwork is able to redefine and change its composition and purposethrough time (Duim, 2005; Bill and Alan, 2002).
Therefore the ANT approach provides a framework that can beused to analyze ICZM as a network of various actors. Indeed one ofthe main principles for successful ICZM implementation is havingone agency which takes the lead in initiating, guiding, shaping andimplementing the ICZM processing. Furthermore, ANT can help toclarify how the actors (including the focal actor) define (andredefine) their role and interactions with one another by evaluatinghow ICZM, as a network is formulated and proceeds, from a top-down or bottom-up perspective, or indeed a combination of thetwo. ANT can also be used to explore how the capacity of each actorin the network, including the focal actor, can affect the stability (orinstability) of the networks as they strive to achieve their individualand collective aims. From this perspective ICZM initiatives can beanalyzed as a network that contain various actors (public agencies,people, authorities, NGOs, etc.), an institutional and legal frame-work that helps to assign a role for each actor in the network andresources (financial and staff time) which are the main means ofimplementation. Furthermore, in order to ensure network stability,all the actors must understand their roles and participate with thefocal actor in building and maintaining the network. Thus notionsof participation and integration should be examined in order tounderstand the complex networking interactions involved in ICZMinitiatives. Finally, because the ANT approach is based on an actorand a network, each actor within any network can be a focal actorfrom another network. Hence the stability of any individualnetwork might be dependent upon, or compromised by, othernetworks that individual actors are engaged with.
An analysis of ICZM based on an ANT approach means evalu-ating the strategy adopted by the focal actor for initiating andsustaining the network (ICZM approach); exploring the capacity ofthe focal, and other actors, to manage their network (capacitydevelopment), understanding the significance role of intermedi-aries which facilitate the establishing and running the network(institutional arrangements and legal framework as well as thefinancial resources), and evaluating the interaction between actorsin the network (participation, integration and decentralization).
The next section describes the ICZM initiatives in Egypt in orderto provide a context for the evaluation.
2. Egyptian ICZM initiatives
Egypt enjoys a vital strategic location between three continentsgiving it a special significance from a biodiversity perspective.Egypt’s coastal zones are sensitive and diverse ecosystems (Abul-Azm et al., 2003) extending for some 3500 km along the Mediter-ranean Sea and Red Sea including the Suez and Aqaba gulfs (EEAA,2005). These coastlines are rich with a diverse range of ecosystems
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e3528
such as coral reefs, mangroves, sand dunes, sea grass beds, estuariesand coastal forests. Recognizing theses biodiversity assets requiresstrong protection mechanisms (Abd-Alah, 1999).
Yet at the same time the coastal zone of Egypt is both veryimportant for the country’s economy and one of the most denselypopulated regions in the (Middle East and North Africa) MENAregion (EEAA, 2005) with a significant percentage of the populationbeing dependent on coastal resources for their livelihood. Conflictsover resource use, particularly in coastal and marine areas, havebeen increasing due to rapid industrialization and urbanization, asa consequence Egypt’s coastal area characteristics range fromglobally significant coral ecosystems, in the Red Sea, to severelydegraded Mediterranean ecosystems. The coastal zones areexposed to many pressures. They suffer from intensive pressurefrom industrial, urban and tourist development, and agriculture.Some of the acknowledged major negative effects include theconsequences of pollution, shoreline erosion and flooding, deteri-oration of the natural resources and habitats and oil spills in theGulf of Suez and the Red Sea (ENPI, 2007; Alm, 2006; EEAA, 2005;Hanafy, 2000). These threats not only have deleterious effects onthe natural environment, but also adversely affect the national andlocal economy, and human well-being. The problems are multi-dimensional and multi-located, and the Egyptian government hastried to respond to these challenges by promoting and imple-menting ICZM.
Two coincidental pressure points (international and national)encouraged and persuaded Egypt to adopt ICZM to try to addressthese challenges. External pressure has been applied by the WorldBank and other international donors (notably the European Union)who have flagged the need for a national ICZM policy in order topromote the sustainable use of Egypt’s coastal areas, as well asmaking an important contribution toward the delivery of regionalobjectives within the Mediterranean Action Plan (World Bank,2005b). Internally there has also been a bottom-up regionaldemand for ICZM as an attempt to control haphazard developmentof different economic sectors (DAME, 2004; El-Ghorab, 2005).
Subsequently since the mid 1990s several attempts have beenmade to promote ICZM in Egypt (see Table 1), although none have,as yet, achieved their goal of having an effective ICZM plan inoperation at either the national or local level.
ICZM initiatives in Egypt can be divided into two phases. Thefirst started in 1995 when the National Committee for ICZM(NCICZM) was established. This led to the preparation of a nationalICZM framework and the development of two local projects. Thisphase lasted until 2001, when largely because of a lack of
Table 1Egypt’s ICZM initiatives.
Egypt’s ICZM initiatives
ICZM first phase initiatives From 1995 to 2005 National Level Settifor ICPrep
Local Level FUKAProgRedMan
ICZM second phase initiatives From 2005 until present National Level Re-eThe(LawPrepfor E
Local Level AlexManPlanof PoIntegbetw
international donor funding, combined with a lack of activitywithin the NCICZM, the experiment ceased (DAME, 2004; El-Ghorab, 2005). Following an amendment of the national environ-mental regulations the second phase started in 2005. The regula-tions enhanced the power of the Egyptian Environmental AffairsAgency (EEAA) by giving it the power to approve or refuse any new,or extension to projects, in the coastal zone, based upon the resultsof a required EIA (ENPI, 2007). About the same time but separately,three new local ICZM projects were started, supported by inter-national donor agencies actively promoting sounder and moresustainable development of Egpyt’s Mediterranean Coastal Zone inplaces that were under themost intense environmental pressure. In2007 the EEAA took a lead in trying to re-establish the NCICZM andstarted, in 2008, to prepare national ICZM strategy to providea framework for local action.
3. Evaluating Egypt’s ICZM initiatives
The paper now turns to evaluate Egypt ICZM initiatives usingANT as the conceptual framework. The analysis is based arounda comparison between the two phases of activity trying to under-stand what the potentials and constraints in applying ICZM inEgypt might be and whether there was any institutional learningbetween the two phases of activity.
3.1. Initiating ICZM in Egypt
The involvement of national governments and local groups inproviding the initial leadership for ICZM differs widely betweennations (Brachya et al., 1994). This section explores the extent towhich top-down or bottom-up approaches were responsible forinitiating ICZM activity in Egypt.
In Egypt, ICZM activities and coordination efforts were originallymanaged by central government (EEAA), and can thereforeprimarily to be regarded as a top-down approach to ICZM (Borhanet al., 2003). All of first phase ICZM projects in Egypt were centralistin character, starting with the establishment of a national coastalzone management committee (NCICZM). This was an exclusivelynational level committee with no organizational structure orrepresentation from the local level. The national ICZM frameworkwas prepared without having any significant reference to localpolicies, and the two pilot projects were conducted without anyreal participation from local stakeholders (EEAA, 1996b; Abul-Azmet al., 2003; World Bank, 2005a; World Bank, 2002).
Time line
ng up the National CommitteeZM (NCICZM).
Setup in 1995Stop working in 2001
aring a national ICZM framework Prepared 1996-Matrouh Coastal Area Managementramme (CAMP).
Started in 1993 Completed in 1999
Sea Coastal and Marine Resourceagement programme (RSCMRMP).
Started in 1994 Completed 2002
stablishing the NCICZM. Re-established 2007new environmental regulations9/2009).
Enacted 2009
aring the National ICZM Strategygypt.
Started 2008Not yet completed
andria Lake Maryut Integratedagement (ALAMIM).
Started in 2006 Completed in 2009
of action for an ICZM in the areart Said.
Started in 2006 Completed in 2009
rated Coastal Zone Managementeen Matrouh and El Sallum (MSICZMP).
Started in 2006 stopped end of 2007Not yet completed
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e35 29
Similarly the second phase initiatives were also based on a top-down approach. The re-establishment of the coastal managementcommittee at the national level had limited local input. Further-more Egypt started to prepare its national ICZM strategy withoutfeeding in local perspectives or taking into consideration of theoutcomes of local ICZM projects. Supporting this perspective one ofthe interviewees argued that “The proposed national strategy shouldbe a guideline for any future coastal management initiative. Howeverit does not reflect local coastal management practices”. Furthermore,three uncoordinated ICZM projects on the Mediterranean coastwere sponsored by foreign aid and were implemented at the locallevel, in Alexandria, Port Said and between Matrouh and El Sallum,without real participation from local stakeholders (EEAA, 2009c;El-Alfy, 2008; Ibrahim, 2009).
3.2. Capacity development
One of the most important factors that influences ICZM effec-tiveness is the capacity of the actors (Sonak et al., 2008). In Egypta lack of institutional capacity amongst all actors, not only the focalactor is a major impediment to effective implementation (Agrawalaet al., 2004; Nawar and Kashef, 2007; EEAA, 2009c). For instance,the EEAA was delegated by Law 4/94, and further complementaryacts, to be the focal actor in preparing and applying ICZM activities.However, the EEAA had limited or no institutional capacity topromote ICZM activities neither in terms of size of the institutionsitself nor the skill sets within the institution (El-Kady andElarabawy, 2008). Hence one interviewee remarked that “theCoastal and Marine Zones Management department within the EEAAlacks the capacity to coordinate and implement ICZM. The departmentis understaffed and the available staff, their mandates are not clearand they have conflicting priorities with ICZM being low on that list”.Hence new responsibilities were being given to already over-stretched Departments and the tasks were beyond their comfortzones. Hence despite having the responsibility for ICZM the staffplaced a low priority on this activity and hence it was marginalized.
Moreover, the local branches of the EEAA were even morestretched and had no dedicated personal to deal with the localcoastal zonemanagement issues (Kafafi, 2007; EEAA, 2009c). One ofthe interviewees, who reflected the views of many, claimed that“We understand the significance of the lead agency in ICZM and weknow that the EEAA is the main actorfor ICZM at the national level.However, it lacks the capacity to accomplish its role due to a shortage oftrained staff. In addition, there is no effective coordinating body at thelocal level due to a lack of capacity in the local branches of the EEA”.
Not only were there capacity issues within the focal actor(EEAA), but other coastal management actors also lacked theknowledge skills and responsibilities to promote ICZM activities.Participants at the first ICZM workshop held in May 1995 in Hur-ghada to help in the preparation of the first national ICZM strategywere unanimous that most of the institutions who were integral tosuccessful implementation. of ICZM initiatives suffered from majorhuman resource deficits. This was particularly true in the coastalgovernorates where there were no staff dedicated and specializedin coastal management (EEAA, 2009c). One of the intervieweeswho has participated in most of the ICZM projects in Egypt claimedthat “Egyptian authorities and organizations, particularly thosedealing with coastal management, lack the capacity to apply ICZM. Sothey need a lot of work to build their capacity before they can start toimplement an effective ICZM”.
Building on these concerns, there was a consensus amongst allthe coastal stakeholders in a second workshop held to help preparethe first national ICZM strategy, that there was an urgent need formore qualified staff in the field of ICZM to join all governmentinstitutions, including the EEAA, at national and local levels so that
a more sustainable ICZM process could be operationalized (EEAA,2009c; EEAA, 2009a).
Furthermore it was also recognized that there was no strategicplan or standardized training programme that could build thecapacity of actors to enhance the implementation of ICZM in Egyptat neither the national nor local levels. One of the intervieweesnoted that “It is obvious that there is no capacity in the coastalgovernorates to apply ICZM and we need to work on this issue in thefuture. However, we still have no plan or strategy for building thiscapacity ata national nor local level”. Whilst therewere some limitedattempts to address this, one interviewee noted that “Althoughthere were a few individual short training courses run by local ICZMprojects sponsoredby a variety of international donors, there was nocooperation and coordination in this field”, Hence whilst the lack ofcapacity was recognized as impediment to effective implementa-tion of ICZM there was no evidence that there was any effectivetraining or exchange of materials to address or build effectivecapacity (EEAA, 2009a; Borhan et al., 2003). This was because manyof the local projects operated in isolation from each other withoutany attempt or scope for collaborative learning.
3.3. Institutional arrangements and legal framework
The legal frameworks and institutional arrangements for ICZMshould be significant because they are supposed to provide theframework and arrangements for governing coastal management,ensuring and facilitating its implementation, and establishingmechanisms for administrative coordination and dispute resolu-tion (Sutherland and Nichols, 2006). It should be important that thelegal and institutional structure avoids overlapping responsibilitiesand jurisdictions and ensures that gray areas (nobody’s business)for any selected activity within the coastal zone are avoided.
3.3.1. Legal frameworkThe legal framework for ICZM in Egypt was vague and remains
limited. In 1994, the Egyptian Parliament approved a Law for theEnvironment (4/1994). According to this law, the EEAA was giventhe responsibility to coordinate national coastal managementactivities (Sowers, 2003). However, the law did not provide anydefinition of the coastal zone nor was it prescriptive in terms ofsaying anything in relation to the preparation of ICZM plans(national or local) (Egypt, 1994) In 2009 the environmental legis-lation was amended by law (9/2009), primarily to strengthenpenalties for any violations related to pollution and updated thelaw in light of Egypt’s ratification of various international envi-ronmental conventions (EEAA, 2009d). The amendments alsostressed the importance of ICZM as ‘a dynamic and iterative processinitiated, designed and implemented by government to resolveconflicts between different users of coastal resources’ (Egypt,2009). From this the role and importance of ICZM is seen as animportant potential mechanism to resolve coastal resource conflict,but it is seen as a process controlled and managed exclusively bygovernment at both a central and regional scale.
Whilst the importance of coastal management is mentioned inboth pieces of environmental legislation (4/1994 and 9/2009) it hasbeen given limited priority in comparison to other sectoral interestwhich impact on (World Bank, 2007; EEAA, 2009b) coastal areas,covering such activities as shipping, fisheries, general environment,conservation, transport and local government laws. etc. (El-Kadyand Elarabawy, 2008). Borhan (2007) has suggested that there arearound 200 separate laws and decrees in existence which areapplicable directly or indirectly to the coastal zones yet there is nomechanism for coordination and reconciliation of conflicts. Thismakes it difficult to identify which regulations have, or indeedshould have priority and precedence. One of the interviewees, who
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e3530
reflected the view of several others, suggested that “Although thelaws and executive regulations are issued after intensive discussions,consultations and deliberations, the interrelationships, connectionsand transactions bewteen the applicable laws are given less weight.Subsequently this leads to a conflictual (or at least) blurry situationduring the course of enforcement”. Moreover, whilst many of thoseinterviewed reported that the present legal tools were (to someextent) sufficient and could in theory fulfill the need for regulationand control, these regulations were not being applied in a coherentway due to a lack of coordination and inconsistencies in imple-mentation of the various legal provisions depending on scale andcontext of the issues. For example the major sources of pollution inLake Maryut are the enormous discharges of industrial, agriculturaland sewage waste into the lake. Three authorities (the EEAA, theMinistry of Health and the Ministry of Water Resources and Irriga-tion) are separately charged with protecting water quality andmonitor the levels of pollution in the lake. However there is nointegrating legislative framework and each of them effectivelydelegates the responsibilities to monitor and regulate pollutioncontrol to the others. The result is that water quality in the Lake hasdeteriorated and now its ecological integrity is being compromisedbecause of unregulated discharges (Helmy, 2007).Afinal concern foreffective environmental management is the enforcement of envi-ronmental regulations, and the World Bank (2005a) itself hashighlighted the fact that Egypt’s record in this area has not beenverysuccessful. Violations of environment-related laws go either unde-tected or are simply ignored and when enforcement is taken it islargely to kenistic or simply ignored. For example since 2005 therehas been a requirement, through a Prime Ministerial Decree (No1741) that all new and any modifications to existing developmentswithin the coastal zone should require an EIA and be subject toapproval by the EEAA (who could also refuse the development).Much construction ahs taken place within thsi strip without EEAAapproval and in 90% those cases that have gone to court and beenfound in breach of the regulations thefinehas amounted to less than120 Euros (Helmy, 2007). Similarly with violations of fishing regu-lations most know that if they are caught and successfully prose-cuted (and there are huge delays in court procedures) fines willamount to littlemore than 12 Euros, hardly a disincentive to complywith environmental regulations (El-Kady and Elarabawy, 2008).
3.3.2. Institutional arrangementsOne of the most important parts of any ICZM institutional
framework involves the clarification of theminimum pre-requisitesfor institutional coordination which assigns roles and responsibil-ities (Borhan, 2007; Boateng, 2006). In Egypt there are no perma-nent or operational institutional arrangements to facilitatehorizontal coordination either between the various sectoralministries at the national level, nor vertical mechanisms betweencentral and local government. This has characterized both phases ofICZM in Egypt and suggests that the lessons from phase one had notproperly been addressed (Borhan, 2007; Borhan et al., 2003; El-Kady and Elarabawy, 2008; Helmy, 2007; EEAA, 2009c). Forexample the EEAA is responsible for developing Egypt’s sea andcoastal zone policies, while different national ministries areresponsible for their implementation. The Ministry of Health, theMinistry of Water Resources and Irrigation and the EEAA are themain pollution control and monitoring agencies. The ShorelineProtection Authority is responsible for shoreline management andthis can conflict with EEAA’s proposals for the coastal zone whichextends beyond the shoreline. The Ministry of Transport isresponsible for shipping, The Tourism Development Authoritypromotes tourism in coastal areas (and until the recent troubles oneof Egypt major industries) and the Fisheries DevelopmentAuthority all set different priorities and have different expectations
as to how the coastal zone should be managed. No effectivecommittee or forum which created the space where a dialog,debate and identification of priorities between all these actors hasbeen created (Helmy, 2007; El-Kady and Elarabawy, 2008).
Attempts to address this dilemma have been tried but, to datefailed. In the mid 1990s, the EEAA, as a focal actor with supportfrom international donors and central government, created theNational Committee for ICZM (NCICZM). This body was tasked withpreparing the national ICZM framework. This should have providedthe necessary institutional coordination between concernedministries so that at least horizontal integration at the nationallevel could be achieved (EEAA,1996a). According to theWorld Bank(2005a) and El-Ghorab (2005) the NCICZM has not been able tofulfill its intended function. It has not developed any acceptablestrategy nor resolved coastal conflicts. In fact, the NCICZM has notbeen functional. “Although the NCICZM was set-up in 1995 it wasineffective. It held a few meetings until 2001 without any effectivecontribution to the coastal management. Then it became idle”.
The national committee in theory contained all the Ministriesand National Institutions who had an interest in the coastal zone(see Table 2) and who could engage in collaborative action.However, it held fewer than 10 meetings between 1995 and 2001and then became inactive (Borhan et al., 2003). In the second phaseof Egyptian ICZM the EEAA, as the focal actor, re-established theNCICZM, at the end of 2007, after almost seven years of inactivity.This was the first requirement before the EEAA, on behalf of theNCIZM could apply for funding from the Priority Action Pro-gramme/Regional Activity Centre (PAP/RAC), which was necessaryif a national strategy for ICZM in Egypt was to be prepared. Again,the national network contained almost all of the relevant ministriesnecessary to promote horizontal integration between ministries inrelation to coastal conflicts (George, 2007). Although re-establishedin 2007 byMinisterial Decree, which stated that the NCICZM shouldmeet once every three months, in practice, according to manyinterviewees the NCICZM has held one meeting from its setup inJanuary 2009 by which time the EEAA had acquired funding fromPAP/RAC to prepare a national strategy for ICZM in Egypt.Furthermore when the infrequent meetings were held, often thenominated individuals on the committee did not attend, but sentalternatives who had neither the power or responsibility to makedecisions. Hence at the national level the NCIZM was created onpaper, but failed to develop the legitimacy or momentum to makemeaningful progress.
Institutional arrangements are required at different adminis-trative levels (national, regional, and local) if ICZM policies andpractices are to be effectively delivered. However, the absence ofa clear institutional framework was not only a problem specific tothe national level. In fact, no institutional arrangements existed tofacilitate coordination between central government and localgovernment nor between actors at the local level (EEAA, 2009c). Inother words, coastal management practices in Egypt continue tosuffer from a fragmentation of responsibilities (in both horizontaland vertical directions) (El-Kady and Elarabawy, 2008). Forexample in the Red Sea Coastal and Marine Resource ManagementProject, set-back zones were expected to limit development to200 m from the shoreline as set by the Shoreline ProtectionAuthority. The Red Sea Governate who provided local constructionlicenses and the Tourism Development Agency (a national body)promoting tourism and resort activities issued construction licen-ses at variance with this regulation. A decree in 1984 gave theShoreline Protection Authority the responsibility not just to delimitthe set-back zones, but also issue licenses for developments inde-pendently from either national bodies (Tourism DevelopmentAgency) or local governorates. This resulted in the creation ofanother new body in 2006, the Shore Protection High Committee,
Table 2The members of the NCICZM.
Ministries/National institutions Title/position Role in the NCICZM
EEAA Executive Director Chairman of the CommitteeMinistry of Agriculture e General Authority for Fish Resources Development Head MemberMinistry of Agriculture e Agriculture research centre Head MemberMinistry of Water Resources and Irrigation, SPA Head of SPA MemberMinistry of Water Resources and Irrigation, Shore Research Institute Head MemberMinistry Transportation Head of the naval
transportation sectorMember
Authority of Harbours and Lighthouses Head MemberMinistry of State for Scientific Research, National Institute of Oceanography
and fisheryHead Member
Ministry of State for Scientific Research, National Authority for Remote Sensingand Space Sciences (NARSS)
Head Member
General Organization for Physical Planning (GOPP), Ministry of Housing, Utilitiesand New Urban Communities
Head Member
Ministry of TourismeTourism Development Authority (TDA) Head of the TDA MemberMinistry of Defence Chief of Naval Staff MemberMinistry of Planning Head of the Health, Social
and Presidential Service SectorMember
Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation EGPC, Ministry of Petroleum Vice-Chairman MemberBusiness private sector Representative to be selected
by the EEAA Executive DirectorMember
National ICZM expert To be selected by the EEAAExecutive Director
Member
NGOs To be selected by the EEAAExecutive Director
Member
EEAA, the Coastal and Marine Zones Management department Head Reporter
Source: (EEAA, 1996a).
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e35 31
which should have representatives from the three central govern-ment agencies and local governorates and is empowered, based ona monthly meetings to grant or refuse licenses in the set-back zone.This shows how there are overlapping jurisdictional competences,without effective mechanisms for coordinated action within theset-back zone, which takes many years to resolve. Similarly withLake Maryut, the Alexandria Governorate is responsible for thelake, but cannot manage it. The General Authority for FishResources has spent large sums of money in developing the fishingindustry in the lake, meanwhile water quality is because theAlexandria Company for Sanitary and Drainage, affiliated to theMinistry of Housing and Public Utilities discharges domesticsewrage and industrial waste water into the lake, and nobody ismonitoring lake quality or violations of discharge consents. One ofthe interviewees noted that “The existing institutional arrangementsshow [sic] clearly the sectoral character of the present system. It suffersfrom vagueness of responsibilities and insufficient co-operation amongdifferent state agencies on the one hand, and among central govern-ment and local government on the other”. Sanò et al. (2008) haveargued that in Egypt this fragmentation and lack of coordinationbetween the administrations particularly concerning coastalmanagement should be considered as a consequence of the lack ofa clear framework that defines the responsibilities of the differentgovernmental entities.
3.4. Financial resources
Financial resources are essential to initiating and supporting anyICZM process. Egypt, as a developing country, has limited avail-ability resources for what might be described as protecting andenhancing generic public environmental goods and services. Thelimited public resources that are available have been prioritised forsocio-economic development rather than for environmental issues(Mansour, 2006). Recognizing these financial limitations, Egypt hasestablished an Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) in order to tryto stimulate investment in environmental management, broadlydefind, as part of the pursuit of sustainable development. The EPFwas established, in 1994, as a funding mechanism that sat within
jurisdiction of the EEAA, yet it was not operationalized until June2000 (DAME, 2004; World Bank, 2005a). The income streams intothe EPF include revenues from entrance fees to designated sites ofnatural importance and fines from environmental violations(DAME, 2004). However, many of those interviewed reported thatthis fund has had limited impact due to the revenue streams notbeing effectively collected and then consumed in inappropriateways. It has already been noted that penalties against environ-mental violations are rarely enforced and if they are the fines arederisory. “The use of EPF instruments has been undermined due to thelimited capacity of EPF staff and the consumption of the limited fundsfor the salaries of the EEAA staff”.
As a result of limited national financial resources and the inef-fective use of EPF to support environmentally driven sustainabledevelopment activities, donor agencies have been the main sourceof financing support to coastal management initiatives in Egypt(DAME, 2004). Indeed, all the environmentally based national andlocal ICZM initiatives in Egypt have been reliant on internationalassistance (Ibrahim, 2009). Table 3 shows the sources of fundingand budgets of Egypt’s ICZM initiatives.
It is clear from Table 3 that many international organizationshave been/are involved in coastal zone management in Egypt andmost of the activities have been/are undertaken on a project byproject basis. It is also clear that the majority of the funding comesfrom external donors, both bilateral and multilateral agencies, withminor, often “in-kind” Egyptian governmental contributions.
Most of the funds available from international donors are for theinitial research and planning in specific problematic coastal zones.There are focused and time limited and there is no evidence of anyongoing international support for follow up with the imple-mentation of the development programme in its entirety or indeedfor individual components of a proposed programme (Coastnet,2008). Many types of economic instruments have been suggestedthat could be used in implementing ICZM plans, such as PublicPrivate Partnerships (PPP), Revolving Funds, Private Sector Funds,and Investment Funds (Cummins et al., 2004). However, there is noevidence that these economic instruments are being considered inEgypt to support the ICZM implementation (World Bank, 2005b;
Table 3The budget of the Egypt’s ICZM initiatives.
ICZM phases ICZM project/programme Egyptian government(in kind) %
International donors % Total budget
Phase 1 Preparing a national ICZM framework N/A DGIS and DANIDA N/A N/AFUKA-Matrouh Coastal AreaManagement Programme (CAMP).
25% METAP 75% $400,000
Red Sea Coastal and Marine ResourceManagement programme (RSCMRMP).
17% GEF 83% $5.73 million
Phase 2 Preparing the National ICZM Strategyfor Egypt.
N/A SMAP III N/A N/A
Alexandria Lake Maryut IntegratedManagement (ALAMIM).
23% SMAP III 77% V779,405
Plan of action for an ICZM in the areaof Port Said.
20% SMAP III 80% 1.8 million Euros
Integrated Coastal Zone Managementbetween Matrouh and El Sallum (MSICZMP).
N/A Spanish Agency forInternational Cooperation N/A
N/A
N/A: There is no available information about the total budget or the percentage of donors/Egyptian Government funds.Source: All Egyptian ICZM initiatives documentary data.
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e3532
World Bank, 2002; EEAA, 2009c). Thus ICZM in Egypt has beencharacterized by short term fund projects with no effective mech-anism to ensure any sustained continuity of progress once theexternal funding ceases (Trumbic et al., 1999; METAP, 2006; EEAA,2009b). Hence whatever limited capacity and impetus for action,which may be built up during a project, is lost through short termtime limited interventions.
3.5. Participation
From a western perspective public participation and stake-holder involvement are seen as necessary pre-requisites forproviding ICZM with some chance of success in both planning andimplementation. Egyptian ICZM practices largely ignore publicparticipation as an integral factor for success. Indeed this is notunique to ICZM. A lack of public participation has traditionalpermeated all spheres of decision making which could be seen asgeneric characteristic of Egyptian society (González-Riancho et al.,2009). Recent events however have shown public engagement canlead political change. Hence it should come as no great surprise thatTortell (2004) claimed that public participation was one of theweakest elements in the implementation of ICZM in Egypt. Forexample, in one of the first phase local ICZM projects in Egypt,CAMP Fuka-Matrouh, there was no system to encourage publicparticipation (PAP, 2005). Indeed public participation in this projectwas given no priority. The project did not even develop anymechanism to even inform local people about the project objec-tives, instead it was a technical exercise led by experts. Similarly theMSICZM project did not involve any local people nor NGOs in thegovernorate. The first phase of the project was carried out exclu-sively by the partners largely as a technical exercise (IH Cantabria,2007). “The MSICZM project has not developed any mechanism toencourage public participation or at least to enhance public awarenessabout ICZM”. Hence ICZM projects were designed and undertakenlargely as technical scientific exercises, externally driven, with littlereference to the local context. Where there was any publicengagement, this took the form of imparting information, by tellingpeople what had been decided as project came to an end.
Beyond the wider general public there has also been a lack ofmore general stakeholder involvement in ICZM projects. Borhanet al. (2003) highlighted the fact that there was inadequateinvolvement of stakeholders in formulating and implementingsolutions to coastal management problems in Egypt a view sharedby many interviewees, “There is no regular forum for stakeholderparticipation in coastal development at both regional and local levels”and another claimed that “ICZM efforts are in vain as a direct result ofthe absence of proper involvement of the various concerned actors”.
A lack of stakeholder participation in ICZM projects was, andstill is, an issue for all national and local initiatives. To be morespecific, most of the participants in the first workshop designed tohelp in the preparation of the national ICZM strategy emphasizedthe point that most stakeholders were an underutilized resource incoastal management projects (EEAA, 2009c, p. 3). Similarly El-Quosy (2009) claimed that a participatory approach was stillmissing between government officials, civil societies, privateinvestors and intellectuals. Even though the last workshop orga-nized to help prepare the first national ICZM strategy concluded, ashad the others, that engaging the concerned stakeholders in thecoastal management process was the only way to achievea successful ICZM outcome (EEAA, 2009b, p. 5). However, none ofthe three workshops proposed any clear system to enhancestakeholder participation or clarify how this could be broughtabout (EEAA, 2009a; EEAA, 2009c; EEAA, 2009b). Hence despiteacknowledging the need for stakeholder inclusion and engage-ment, it was clear that exploring the actual processes throughwhich this might be achieved was missing at both national andlocal levels. For example, although all relevant stakeholders shouldbe involved in NCICZM, there was no representative from theNational Centre for Planning State Land Uses (NCPSLU) which isresponsible for regulating the development of all parcels owned bythe state (George, 2007). At the local level a similar patternemerges. For example, the first phase of the MSICZM project wasprepared without the participation of the Tourism DevelopmentAuthority (TDA), Shore Protection Authority (SPA), and any localstakeholders (SPA, 2008; IH Cantabria, 2007). For the Port SaidProject, a review of project documents and the interviews high-lighted the fact that two of the main actors in coastal managementfor that area did not participate. Neither the EEAA, the main ICZMactor in Egypt, did not participate in the project through either itsnational or regional office nor did the SPA (Tahoun, 2007; IAS,2008; Interview No.19, 2009).
Hence at both national and local levels many key stakeholdershave been underutilized in coastal management projects. Thereasons for this are twofold. Firstly there is an absence of a clearstakeholder analysis, which has simply not taken place(Abdelwahab, 2009; IH Cantabria, 2007; EEAA, 2009c) andsecondly there is a lack of any effective mechanism or inducementto stimulate stakeholder participation in order that the projects cangain from their involvement.
3.6. Integration
It is clear from best practice in ICZM that integration across alldimensions should be an essential ingredient for effective ICZM
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e35 33
policy and practice (Jennings and Lockie, 2003; Courtney andWhite, 2000). This section evaluates the level (or perhaps moreaccurately the lack) of integration in ICZM initiatives in Egypt. Asone interviewee claimed “coordination between agencies in Egypt inthe field of coastal management is still ad hoc and based on no clearsystem”. The World Bank (2005a) shared this view in acknowl-edging that the motives for cooperation and integration in coastalmanagement in Egypt were very low.
Nawar and Kashef (2007) emphasize the fact that a lack ofadequate coordination between stakeholders hinders horizontalintegration. For example, the SPA without discussion and inputfrom any other actors having an impact on coastal management,have prepard shoreline management plans for many parts of theMediterranean Sea. These focus exclusively on the construction ofcoastal protection structures (SPA, 2008). Similarly there is a lack ofcooperation between decision makers and environmentalistsregarding the government efforts to further expand and developinternational tourism in Egypt (Ibrahim, 2009). The governmenthas offered tourism business activities a 5-year tax exemption on allprofits accrued during that period. This contradicts efforts to limitexisting and ongoing environmental damage in coastal areabecause hotel and resort construction has become a significantcontributor to coastal and coral degradation (Sherbiny et al., 2006).
At a local level, similar issues surrounding a lack of integrationare also evident. For example, with the Port Said project there wasa pre-occupation and almost exclusive focus with irrigation andagricultural run-off issues and the project did not engage withother threats or potentialities. For example Port Said offersconsiderable opportunities and capacity for tourism developmentin terms of its physical, environmental, natural, historical andcultural resources. The ICZM project has ignored these potentials(Abdelwahab, 2009). The General Organization for Physical Plan-ning (GOPP) has coincidentally prepared a development strategyfor the same area concentrating on supporting and acceleratingtourism development for Port Said. However, this was not evenacknowledged by the Port Said ICZM project. Furthermore GOPPhas had no involvement in the ICZM project (GOPP, 2008).
Not only are there problems in relation to institutional inte-gration, but also there are challenges in relation to the intersectionsbetween terrestrial and marine environments, this is what we termspatial integration. More particularly, most of the local ICZMprojects in Egypt concentrated almost exclusively on land resourcesand land based pollution to such an extent that the marine envi-ronment was ignored. For example, the Port Said ICZM projectconcentrated on the land based issues, especially water irrigationand agriculture, without considering any of the issues related toPort Said’s proximity to the sea such as sea level rise, tourismdevelopment and the implications of new container port formaritime transport (El-Quosy, 2009; IAS, 2008; Tahoun, 2007).
The previous examples reinforce the idea that Egypt is sufferingfrom sectorally or issue driven projects with a corresponding lack ofintegration between all dimensions. In this respect, El-Ghorab(2005) emphasizes that one of the main problems facing effectiveICZM implementation is the lack of integration between differentgovernmental agencies that are responsible for developing andmanaging coastal zones. This view was confirmed by several of theinterviewees who noted that “There is a lack of coordination betweenvarious kinds of institutions (governmental, non-governmental andprivate sector) which are working on, interested in, or affected bycoastal areas” and another who said “The mechanisms for coordi-nation with the EEAA, as the focal actor in coastal management, andwith other actors are unclear”. Indeed, the participants in the firstworkshop for preparing the national ICZM strategy agreed thatEgypt was, and still is, suffering from a lack of any kind of networkto help achieve the integration and coordination between the
stakeholders at national, regional and local levels (EEAA, 2009c).Regrettably, despite widespread acknowledgement of the long-standing nature of this problem there are no suggestions as to howthis can be resolved (EEAA, 2009b).
3.7. Decentralization
Decentralization of responsibility and decision making is ex-pected, in theory, to encourage more effective local participation asit allows civil actors to localize issues and find local solutions tolocal problems (Handoussa, 2004). This section discusses the extenttowhich decentralization of coastal management practices in Egypthave been effective.
Whilst Borhan (2007) claims that real decentralization in Egyptwill take decades before becoming a reality as a result of thedominant historical culture among officials, mistrust betweenofficials and citizens, the lack of personnel capabilities and theexisting institutional and legal frameworks, there have neverthe-less been a few ongoing efforts within the context of Egyptianenvironmental management to decentralize management respon-sibilities. Consequently at the regional level Regional Branch Offices(RBOs) of the EEAA have been created and at the local level, each ofthe governorates have created their own Environment Manage-ment Units (EMU) (EEAA, 2005). However, whilst these are morelocalized environmental management institutions (at least onpaper), with some responsibility for the coastal zones the precisefunctions, roles and responsibilities of either unit have never beenfully clarified. Often they each try to do the same job without anycoordination between them.
There are however two further challenges facing these newerbodies in delivering locally derived coastal management plans inpractice. First there remains an acute shortage of the in skill sets ofthe limited number if individuals assigned to these sub-nationalbodies and furthermore in reality there is reluctance to, in prac-tice, devolve responsibility to these bodies (El-Quosy, 2009). As oneof the interviewees, who reflected the views of several others,noted “the decentralization of coastal management functions requiressupport for the staff at the local level and increasing gradually [sic]their responsibilities with the assistance of local experts. However, theEEAA has no capacity to do this. Indeed, they have contracted newtemporary staff to prepare local ICZM projects in Cairo without anyinvolvement from the local stakeholders”. Furthermore, although thethree workshops for preparing the national ICZM strategy allconcluded that each coastal governorate should prepare its ownICZM plan, the EEAA has not developed any strategy to enhance thecapacity of the local governorates in order that this can take place(EEAA, 2009c).
4. Conclusions
In the previous sections, the Egyptian ICZM initiatives have beencritically evaluated and despite the best intentions of internationaldonors and recognition internally of the need for concerted action,the experiments in ICZM to date, have proved to be extremely timelimited and disappointing in their outcomes. Several structuralfactors can be identified in helping explain the shortcomings bothin terms of delivering effective outcomes on the ground andensuring ICZM programmes and projects become embedded inpolicy practice. These draw upon reflections on an idealizedscenarios as charactised by an ANT approach combined withreflections on the practice of ICZM in Egypt.
Using top-down approach: A top-down approach to coastalmanagement initiatives still predominates. This is despite the factthat it has been argued that top-down approaches are not
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e3534
appropriate for ICZM as they act as an obstacle to setting up durableICZM processes.
Lack of capacity: The capacity of the focal actor, the EEAA, and allits branches to carry out basic ICZM activities remains a challenge,both in terms of staff with a specific remit and priority to deal withcoastal issues and then their knowledge of the topic. Furthermore,at the local level, few actors have any knowledge about ICZM. Inother words, there is a great need for more qualified staff in thefield of ICZM to integrate the activities of all concerned stake-holders, at all levels into coordinating strategies which can beimplemented. However, the methods used for building capacity inthe field of ICZM in both phases were ad hoc, not structured, andlacked continuity.
Inadequate legal framework: There is no integrating legislation,in Egypt dealing with coastal zone issues. Many sectoral acts andregulations have been created to address specific activities incoastal areas, but there is a lack of coordination and major incon-sistencies in the implementation of these legal provisions.
Inadequate enforcement of any environment-related laws:Egyptian practice in relation to the enforcement of any environ-mental related law, including along the coast, is wholly inadequate,and if the law is enforced (albeit rarely) very weak penalties aresanctioned.
Fragmentation of responsibilities at national and local levels: Itis clear that coastal management in Egypt is being carried out ona sectoral basis. The EEAA has the formal leadership according tothe law. Nonetheless, no active institutional arrangement forcoastal management exists which can enable effective coordinationbetween all coastal actors at all levels of governance. Moreoverthere are often overlapping mandates and responsibilities betweennational and local authorities.
No adequate financial resources are being allocated, ona sustainable basis, for full implementation of the ICZM: TheEgyptian ICZM initiatives have failed to generate sufficientgovernment resources for effective implementation. This has led todependence on donor funding, which tend to be project specificand time limited. Once the funding stops the project collapses.
Lack of stakeholder involvement: ICZM suffering from keyorganizations taking unilateral decisions. There is a lack of stake-holder or public participation. Where there is stakeholder or publicinput, they are usually invited to receive information. This lack ofengagement affects local buy-in and undermines the long termcontinuity of projects.
Lack of integration: Egypt suffers from lack of integration in thefield of coastal management across all dimensions because thereare no effective mechanisms for all concerned parties, at any level,to engage in meaningful dialog to reconcile competing interest andobjectives.
Lack of effective mechanisms for decentralization: Egypt ingeneral still suffers from an overtly centralized system of gover-nance and despite the numerous decrees proposing a moredecentralized approach these ideas still need to be translated intopractice.
Lack of institutional learning: Clearly from the analysis of ICZMpolicy and practice outlined above Egypt has embarked on it’ssecond phase ICZM initiatives without considering any of thelessons as to why the first phase of ICZM initiatives failed to deliver.Many of the same mistakes are being repeated.
In conclusion implementing effective ICZM in Egypt has provedto be problematic and many challenges in comparison to best ofidealized practice as identified by an ANT framework can berevealed. For Egypt, like most developing countries, development isprioritized over environmental protection and sustainability.Although it may be possible to reconcile both objectives, currentlythe emphasis given to development often overrides and contradicts
environmental interest. Reconciling the demands for economicdevelopment, tourism and recreation, while protecting the naturalresources upon which these activities rely is a challenge thatplanners and managers must face. But this is only one perspective.There are numerous stakeholders with an interest in the develop-ment and management of coastal zones, each with differentagendas and often with conflicting goals. Thus, developing a prac-tical approach that enhances the implementation of ICZM isnecessary if the obstacles found through an evaluation of ICZMimplementation are to be overcome. Without learning theselessons many other ICZM experiments particularly in developingcountries are unlikely to have lasting impacts.
References
Abd-Alah, A.M.A., 1999. Coastal zone management in Egypt. Ocean and CoastalManagement 42, 835e848.
Abdelwahab, M.E., 2009. Pilot Actions Report. Plan of Action for an IntegratedCoastal Zone Management in the area of Port Said (Egypt). Ministry of WaterResources and Irrigation.
Abul-Azm, A.G., Abdel-Gelil, I., Trumbic, I., 2003. Integrated Coastal Zone Manage-ment in Egypt: The Fuka-Matrouh project. Coastal Conservation. 9, 7.
Agrawala, S., Moehner, A., Raey, M.E., Conway, D., Aalst, M.V., Hagenstad, M.,Smith, J., 2004. Development and Climate Change in Egypt: Focus on CoastalResources and the Nile. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment (OECD), Paris.
Alm, A., 2006. Integrated Coastal Zone Management e Egypt. MediterraneanEnvironmental Technical Assistance Program. World Bank.
Belfiore, S., Barbière, J., Bowen, R., Cicin-sain, B., Ehler, C., Mageau, C., Mcdougall, D.,Siron, R., 2006. A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes ofIntegrated Coastal and Ocean Management. UNESCO, Paris.
Berg, B.L. 2007. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, Boston,Pearson Education, Inc.
Bill, D., Alan, I., 2002. To reveal is to critique: actor-network theory and criticalinformation systems research. Journal of Information Technology 17, 69e78.
Boateng, I., 2006. Institutional Frameworks in the Administration of Coastal andMarine Space in Africa. In: Administering Marine Spaces: International Issues.The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Borhan, M.A., 2007. Egypt Legislation toward ICZM An Over View. Egyptian Envi-ronmental Affairs Agency.
Borhan, M.A., Farouk, M.A., Hamdy, T.A., 2003. Country Report on Egyptian ICZMExperiences with Special Reference to Sharm El- Sheikh-Southern Sinai.Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency.
Brachya, V., Juhasz, F., Pavasovic, A., Trumbic, I., 1994. Guidelines for IntegratedManagement of Coastal and Marine Areas with Special Reference to theMediterranean Basin. MAP-UNEP, Split, Croatia.
Burgess, J., Clark, J., Harrison, C.M., 2000. Knowledges in action: An actor networkanalysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecological Economics 35,119e132.
Caffyn, A., Jobbins, G., 2003. Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions inthe development and management of coastal tourism: Examples from Moroccoand Tunisia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11, 224e245.
Callon, M., Smelser, Neil J., Baltes, P.B., 2001. Actor Network Theory. InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Pergamon, Oxford.
Christie, P., 2005. Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable? Ocean and CoastalManagement 48, 208e232.
Coastnet, 2008. CoastNet’s Introductory Guide to Coastal Management in theMediterranean coasts of North Africa and the Middle East. CoastNet, Essex, UK.
Courtney, C.A., White, A.T., 2000. Integrated coastal management in the Philippines:testing new paradigms. Coastal Management 28, 39e53.
Cummins, V., Mahony, O., Connolly, N., 2004. In: CENTRE, C.A.M.R (Ed.), Review OfIntegrated Coastal Zone Management & Principals Of Best Practice. Environ-mental Research Institute University College, Cork, Ireland.
DAME, 2004. An Analysis of Co-Operation in the Environment Sector betweenFinland and Egypt. Department for Africa and Middle East.
Duim, V.R.V.D., 2005. Tourismscapes: an actor-network perspective on sustainabletourism development. Dissertation Wageningen University.
EEAA, 1996a. Egyptian Coast: Development and Challenges. Egyptian Environ-mental Affairs Agency.
EEAA, 1996b. In: Agency, E.E.A (Ed.), Framework programme for the development ofnational ICZM plan for Egypt. Ministry of State for the Environment, EgyptianEnvironmental Affairs Agency.
EEAA, 2005. In: AGENCY, E. E. A (Ed.), Egypt State of The Environment Report 2004.Ministry of State for the Environment, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency.
EEAA, 2009a. ICZM Priorities and Objectives Workshop. National ICZM Strategy forEgypt. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Cairo.
EEAA, 2009b. ICZM Strategic Objectives & A Roadmap Workshop. National ICZMStrategy for Egypt. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Cairo.
EEAA, 2009c. ICZM Vision Workshop. National ICZM Strategy for Egypt. EgyptianEnvironmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Cairo.
H.S. Ibrahim, D. Shaw / Ocean & Coastal Management 58 (2012) 26e35 35
EEAA, 2009d. News [Online]. Ministry of State for the Environment, EgyptianEnvironmental Affairs Agency (EEAA). http://www.eeaa.gov.eg/arabic/main/News.asp Available:(accessed 26.05.09.).
Egypt, 1994. Environmental law. In: Parliament, E (Ed.), 9/2009. Official Gazette.Official Gazette.
Egypt, 2009. Environmental law. In: Parliament, E (Ed.), 9/2009. Official Gazette.Official Gazette.
El-Alfy, A.E.-D.A., 2008. The environmental management of coastal areas in Egypt:strategy and urban development. In: Mohammed, M.E. (Ed.), ArchitecturalEngineering National Conference: Building Integration Solutions, September24e27 2008. ASCE, Denver, Colorado 45.
El-Ghorab,H.K., 2005. Towardsan integratedapproach forcoastal zonesmanagementin Egypt. Development and Tourism in Coastal Areas, Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt.
El-Kady, A.-K., Elarabawy, M., 2008. Action3: Intersectoral Analysis in Coastal ZoneAreas: Legal/Institutional Framework. Plan of Action for an Integrated CoastalZone Management in the area of Port Said (Egypt). Short and Medium-TermPriority Environmental Action Programme (SMAP).
El-Quosy, D.E.D., 2009. Water, Agriculture and Socio-Economic Aspects e FirstInterim Report. Plan of Action for an Integrated Coastal Zone Management inthe area of Port Said (Egypt). Short and Medium-Term Priority EnvironmentalAction Programme (SMAP).
ENPI, 2007. Egypt Country Strategy Paper 2007e2013. Country Strategy Paper.European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (ENPI), European Commis-sion, Cario.
George, M., 2007. 135/2007. In: Ministry Of State for The Environment, E.E.A.A.E(Ed.), Restabilising the NCICZM. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency(EEAA).
González-Riancho, P., Sanò, M., Medina, R., García-Aguilar, O., Areizaga, J., 2009.A contribution to the implementation of ICZM in the Mediterranean developingcountries. Ocean and Coastal Management 52, 545e558.
GOPP, 2008. Development strategy for Port-Said governorate. Developmentstrategy for Egyptian governorates. Organisation for Physical Planning (GOPP),Cairo.
Hale, L.Z., Amaral, M., Issa, A.S., Mwandotto, B.A.J., 2000. Catalyzing coastalmanagement in Kenya and Zanzibar: Building capacity and commitment.Coastal Management 28, 75e85.
Hanafy, M.H., 2000. Egyptian Red Sea Experiment. Pan-African Conference onSustainable Integrated Coastal Management. UNESCO, Maputo, Mozambique.
Handoussa, H., 2004. Egypt Human Development. In: Potter, G. (Ed.), The HumanDevelopment Project. United Nations Developmen Programme and The Insti-tute of National Planning, Cairo, Egypt.
Helmy, S., 2007. Legal and Institutional Analysis Report. Alexandria Lake MaryutIntegrated Management: ALAMIM Project. The Center for Environment andDevelopment for the Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE), Alexandria.
IAS, 2008. Project Achievements. Plan of Action for an Integrated CoastalZone Management in the area of Port Said (Egypt). Central Directorate ofIrrigation Advisory Service (IAS), Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation,Cairo.
Ibrahim, Z., 2009. Tourism Development and the Environment on the Egyptian RedSea Coast. Master of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo.
IH Cantabria, 2007. Cooperation in the Development of a Plan for Integrated CoastalZone Management between Marsa Matruh and El Sallum, Egypt. MSICZMP FinalReport for Phase I (2006e2007). Environmental Hydraulics Institute IH/UC ofthe University of Cantabria, Spain.
Interview No.19. 17/01/2-009 2009. RE: ICZM in Egypt.Jennings, S.F., Lockie, S., 2003. Application of stakeholder analysis and social
mapping for coastal zone management in Australia. Cooperative ResearchCentre for Coastal Zone, Estuary & Waterway Management & Centre for SocialScience Research, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton Qld 4702Australia.
Kafafi, A.G., 2007. Stakeholders Analysis Report. Alexandria Lake Maryut IntegratedManagement: ALAMIM Project. The Center for Environment and Developmentfor the Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE), Alexandria.
Lane, M.B., 2006. Towards integrated coastal management in Solomon Islands:identifying strategic issues for governance reform. Ocean and CoastalManagement 49, 421e441.
Mansour, B.E.-D., 2006. National Capacity Self Assessment Stocktaking and gapidentification report for the UNFCCC (Climate change). Egyptian EnvironmentalAffairs Agency (EEAA).
Mclaren Loring, J., 2007. Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark:factors influencing project success. Energy Policy 35, 2648e2660.
METAP, 2006. Cost of Environmental Degradation in Coastal Areas of Egypt.Strengthening of the Capacity in Selected METAP Countries to Assess the costsof Environmental Degradation in Coastal Areas. Mediterranean EnvironmentalTechnical Assistance Program (METAP).
Morris, C., 2004. Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a casestudy of England’s countryside stewardship scheme. Marine and PetroleumGeology 21, 177e191.
Nawar, M., Kashef, A., 2007. Action 2: Intersectoral Analysis in Coastal Zone Areas:Socio-Economic Aspects. Plan of Action for an Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement in the area of Port Said (Egypt). Short and Medium-Term PriorityEnvironmental Action Programme (SMAP).
Olsen, S., Lowry, K., Tobey, J., 1999. Coastal Management Report A Manual forAssessing Progress in Coastal Management. Narragansett, RI 02882 USA. TheUniversity of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School ofOceanography.
PAP, 2005. Detailed Project Information: Coastal Area Management Programme(CAMP) "Fuka e Matrouh". Available [Online]:. Priority Actions ProgrammeRegional Activity Centre (PAP/RAC), Split, Croatia http://www.pap-medclearinghouse.org/eng/page_frameset.asp?Page¼matroh.htm&IDLong¼1&IDShort¼46 (accessed 02.07.08).
Paul, S., Amanda, W., 1999. Local sustainability planning: from interest-drivennetworks to vision-driven super-networks? Planning Practice and Research14, 329e340.
Sanò, M., Fernandez, F., Riancho, P.G., Medina, R., 2008. GIS Implementation forICZM in the Mediterranean Coast of Egypt. Instituto de Hidráulica Ambiental“IH Cantabria”, Universidad de Cantabria.
Sherbiny, A.H.E., Sherif, A.H., Hassan, A.N., 2006. Model for environmental riskassessment of tourism project construction on the Egyptian red sea coast.Journal of Environmental Engineering 132, 1272e1281.
Sonak, S., Pangam, P., Giriyan, A., 2008. Green reconstruction of the tsunami-affected areas in India using the integrated coastal zone managementconcept. Journal of Environmental Management 89, 14e23.
Sowers, J.L., 2003. Allocaton and Accountability: State-Business Relations andEnvironmental Politics in Egypt. PhD, Princeton University.
SPA, 2008. Shoreline Management Planning e North-West Coast Hammam toSallum. Shore Protection Authority (SPA), Cairo.
Sutherland, M., Nichols, S., 2006. Issues in the Governance of Marine Spaces.Administering Marine Spaces: International Issues. The International Federa-tion of Surveyors (FIG), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tahoun, S.A., 2007. Notes on the ICZM Project of Port Said. In: Training workshop onhazard management 02 to 04 September 2007 Port Said, Egypt.
Tortell, P., 2004. Thoughts on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Egypt.PERSGA, Wellington.
Trumbic, I., Cocossis, H., Henocque, Y., Jeftic, L., Juhasz, F., Kalaora, B., 1999.Assessment of Integrated Costal Area Management Initiatives in the Mediter-ranean: Experience from METAP & MAP. Mediterranean Environmental Tech-nical Assistance Program (METAP), Split, Croatia.
Woods, M., 1998. Researching rural conflicts: Hunting, local politics and actor-networks. Journal of Rural Studies 14, 321e340.
World Bank, 2002. Egypt e Red Sea Coastal and Marine Resource ManagementProject (English). Implementation Completion and Results Report. World Bank,Water and Environment Department, The Middle East and North Africa Region.
World Bank, 2005a. Arab Republic of Egypt, Country Environmental Analysis(1992e2002). World Bank, Water and Environment Department, The MiddleEast and North Africa Region.
World Bank, 2005b. Investment Fund for the Mediterranean Sea LME partnership:Alexandria Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project. World Bank, Alex-andria, Egypt.
World Bank, 2007. Egypt Country Brief. Country Brief. World Bank.Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: design and methods, Thousand Oaks, Calif,
Sage Publications
