Download Design and implementation of a coastal eco

PILOTING THE INTEGRATION OF
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
AND CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION IN TOBAGO
(TT-T1034)
(COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SPECIALIST)
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COASTAL ECOSYSTEM BASED CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PLAN
AND GUIDELINES FOR INCORPORATING AN
ECOSYSTEM BASED APPROACH (EBA) TO ADAPTATION
INTO A NATIONAL INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT POLICY
November 2014
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the
incorporation of an Ecosystem Based
Approach (EbA) into an Integrated
Coastal Zone Management Policy
Prepared by Jonathan McCue
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
“Ecosystem Based Adaptation – adaptation powered by nature”
Ecosystems are complex and interconnected. They are naturally adaptable and resilient- up to a point. When
ecosystems are healthy, they can better adjust to the effects of climate change and related disasters. Sustainablymanaged ecosystems reduce the vulnerability of people to climate change impacts and hazards. Ecosystem
maintenance and restoration can be a very important part of climate change adaptation, and communities can play
a central role in the process, but the evidence base needs strengthening.
Ecosystems are natural safeguards that are often more effective and cheaper to maintain than physical engineering
structures, such as dykes or concrete walls. For instance, planting trees to improve water infiltration and replenish
underground water sources is often cheaper and more sustainable than building a new water supply system.
An EbA approach is now needed, tested for as a Pilot for South West Tobago, to help deliver the Trinidad and
Tobago ICZM Policy Framework and from this, help to mainstream sustainable intervention measures, policies and
actions for the future at a national level for Trinidad and Tobago. This report now provides a Guide towards
embracing EbA into future ICZM policy and planning for the coasts of Trinidad and Tobago.
PLATE 1: KILGWYN MANGROVES AND WETLAND, SOUTHWEST TOBAGO (TAKEN BY J MCCUE SEPT 2014)
Page ii
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
Executive Summary
Jonathan McCue (on behalf of Sustainable Seas Ltd) was contracted by the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) to
complete the project entitled “Design and Implementation of a Coastal Ecosystem based Climate Change
Adaptation Plan and Guidelines for incorporating an Ecosystem Based Approach (EbA) to Adaptation into a
National Integrated Coastal Zone Management Policy”. This represents a key component of the larger IADB
funded project entitled “Piloting the Integration of Coastal Zone Management and Climate Change
Adaptation in Tobago (TT-T1034)”.
The objective of this consultancy (circa 5 calendar months in duration) is to design a climate change
adaptation response plan (CCARP), and identify and prioritize ecosystem based adaptation (EbA) options in
the context of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). The successful implementation of the project is
expected to contribute to the development of tools for decision-making, as well as an approach for the
development of a future National Coastal Zone Management Plan (NICZMP) for Trinidad and Tobago (T&T)
that aims to ensure the integration of climate change adaptation (CCA) within its structure and delivery
approach.
The report outlines a series of guidelines for the incorporation of an EbA into an ICZM Policy for T&T. This
work shall be integrated with a separate report that clearly develops a methodology for the mainstreaming
of climate change considerations into coastal zone management. It outlines the approach being taken to
prepare the Guidelines for EbA and their inclusion within future ICZM policies and planning. Appendix F
outlines the background to the principles of EbA and ICZM and how planners need to understand the
synergies, links and differences between the two approaches. It also identifies how climate resilience can (and
should) be included into the design of EbA approaches at a national planning level and on the ground
interventions. It then provides clarity on how to apply EbA principles into ICZM policy framework for T&T. The
body of the report (Section 3) presents a logical stepped approach to help decision makers to incorporate
EbA principles into ICZM and CCA decision making. It also identifies a series of “Courses of Action” that make
the EbA principles more meaningful and digestible for all stakeholders (national decision makers to local
community leaders etc.). This is then used to focus specifically on Southwest Tobago using the outcomes of
recent work (e.g.: Halcrow 2014) to identify a series of Coastal Behaviour Units (CBUs) which then are
assessed against future climate predictions and social vulnerability understanding to help identify the most
appropriate Adaptation Responses (identified within the Climate Change Adaptation Response Plan for each
CBU (taking into consideration EbA as appropriate).
This Guidance concludes that a simple approach towards linking EbA principles with ICZM Policy Objectives is
needed. This has been achieved by recommending a screening process that asks 5 simple EbA related
questions that relate directly to the internationally accepted Convention of Biological Diversity EbA Principles.
The outcome of this process is that EbA principles have been used to demonstrate which adaptation responses
are the most appropriate to employ and implement. In addition, the principles of EbA need to be used to
shape climate change adaptation options plus also the delivery of ICZM policy. A goal of an ICZM policy is to
promote and facilitate cross-sectoral actions to mainstream the integration of adaptation issues into ongoing
policy processes and so the principles of EbA can be used to provide guidance to structure the integration of
different sector responses that ensure collective responses meet both the principles and goals of ICZM and
how climate change adaptation techniques can be mainstreamed into decision making (Sustainable Seas
2014c). The guide also concludes that every effort is made to make the intended outcome clear for all
stakeholders. The risk of “losing” stakeholders in the process, due to a lack of clarity of ultimate message is
very high in T&T if this simple message is not adhered to.
Page iii
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
The user is reminded that this guidance is not intended as a standalone resource. Rather, it provides an overview of
a decision making process that aims to synthesise current thinking about good practice adaptation and good
practice EbA. It is intended that the guidance be used as a tool that links to the separate CCARP (Sustainable Seas
Ltd 2014b) and is also used for training and capacity building to all stakeholders in T&T. It should also be seen as a
‘living document’ that will be updated and enhanced during field-testing.
.
Page iv
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Report Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Climate Change Adaptation, EbA and ICZM ...................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Guidelines to Incorporate EBA into ICZM and CCA .......................................................................................... 3
1.4.1. Applying EbA criteria to Adaptation Response options ................................................................................. 4
SECTION 2: INCORPORATING EBA INTO THE TOBAGO CCARP .............................................................. 11
2.1 Establishing Coastal Behaviour Units for Southwest Tobago ..........................................................................11
2.2. Coastal Behaviour Unit Assessment......................................................................................................................17
2.2.1 Coastal Behaviour Unit A – Great Courland Bay to Rocky Point ............................................................18
2.2.2 Coastal Behaviour Unit B – Rocky Point to Pigeon Point; ..........................................................................20
2.2.3 Coastal Behaviour Unit C – Pigeon Point to Crown Point; .........................................................................22
2.2.4 Coastal Behaviour Unit D – Crown Point to Canoe Bay; ...........................................................................24
2.2.5 Coastal Behaviour Unit E – Canoe Bay to Lowlands (Petit Trou Lagoon); .............................................26
2.2.6 Coastal Behaviour Unit F – Lowlands to Rockly Bay ..................................................................................28
SECTION 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 30
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 31
APPENDIX B: PRACTICAL STEPS FOR APPLICATION OF AN EBA AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE EBA
PRINCIPLES. SOURCE (SHEPHERD, 2004). ................................................................................................. 32
APPENDIX C: ADAPTATION REPONSES (HARD AND SOFT MEASURE INTERVENTIONS) ........................ 33
Hard and Soft Measure Approaches (Erosion Mitigation Measures) ....................................................................33
Hard and Soft Measure Approaches (Island Access Infrastructure) ......................................................................35
Hard and Soft Measure Approaches (Measures to mitigate land shortage and coastal flooding) ...............37
Hard and Soft Measure Approaches ‘Quick fix’ measures (short-timeframe).....................................................38
APPENDIX D: TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DRAFT ICZM POLICY OBJECTIVES ............................................ 41
APPENDIX E – BACKGROUND PAPER FOR GUIDELINES TO INCORPORATE EBA INTO ICZM AND CCA 42
Page v
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Report Overview
This report provides a series of draft Guidelines and “on the ground” advice to better incorporate Ecosystem
based Adaptation (EbA) into Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and Climate Change Adaptation
(CCA) planning with specific reference to Trinidad and Tobago (T&T). The report links together the findings
presented in the project Work Plan and Methodology (Sustainable Seas Ltd 2014a) Climate Change
Adaptation Response Plan (CCARP) (Sustainable Seas Ltd 2014b) and the Climate Change Mainstreaming
Report (Sustainable Seas Ltd 2014c)
Section 1 provides an overview of the project area (Section 1.2) followed by a summary of the relationship of
EbA to CCA and ICZM (Section 1.3) and a background to how EbA has been incorporated into approaches of
ICZM to achieve CCA (Section 1.4). The main EbA guidelines for Southwest Tobago are presented in Section
2.Section 3 provides a series of recommendations and interim conclusions.
A more detailed background paper covering the subject matter addressed in Sections 1.3 and 1.4 is
provided at Appendix E.
1.2
The Study Area
The pilot area for the project focuses on Southwest Tobago (see Figure 1.1). The study pilot area is the most
concentrated area of Tobago whilst being topographically the lowest lying area (see landslide susceptibility
ranking in Figure 1.2 demonstrating the low lying nature of SW Tobago.
Pollution remains a problem that is on the rise throughout the island. The main water pollutants are urban,
domestic and industrial waste, untreated sewage; solid and toxic agricultural products and waste, sediments,
waste from fishing vessels, ships, tourist facilities and yachts (Ramlogan 2014). A fragmented institutional
framework, poor public awareness and stakeholder participation in watershed and coastal zone management
make the problem worse. This is, of course, directly attributable to limited resources and prioritisation in
allocation of said resources. It is for this reason that this study on ICZM and CCA is crucial for Southwest
Tobago, especially in light of the eco-tourism thrust being pursued by the Tobago House of Assembly (THA).
FIGURE 1.1 (LEFT): STUDY AREA AND THE COASTAL REGIONS OF SOUTH-WESTERN TOBAGO (FROM HALCROW 2014)
FIGURE 1.2 (RIGHT): LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY IN TOBAGO (TAKEN FROM CIMNE 2013”)
Page 1
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
1.3
Climate Change Adaptation, EbA and ICZM
ICZM represents a public planning process for achieving the goals of EbA with increased efficiency through
rational, objective spatial planning for future sustainable uses. EbA aims to avoid badly planned engineering
solutions for adaptation that could work against nature by constraining regular ecological cycles, which may
lead to mal-adaptation and increased social vulnerability. A number of different agencies have produced
definitions of ICZM, EbA and their principles, but the most often cited and ‘up-to-date’ definitions are those
provided by the Mediterranean “ICZM Protocol” of the Barcelona Convention, adopted by 22 Mediterranean
countries and the European Community (EC), and the CBD (that has been adopted by 194 Parties).
The ICZM Protocol defines ICZM as follows (key terms underlined in bold text):
“a dynamic process for the sustainable management and use of coastal zones, taking into account at the same
time the fragility of coastal ecosystems and landscapes, the diversity of activities and uses, their interactions, the
maritime orientation of certain activities and uses and their impact on both the marine and land parts.”
The CBD defines the Ecosystem Approach as:
“a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and
sustainable use in an equitable way. It is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused
on levels of biological organization which encompass the essential processes, functions and interactions among
organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral
component of ecosystems.”
What frames the relationship between ICZM and EbA, for this project, is that functional coastal ecosystems
are critical to the integrity and viability of terrestrial and marine systems and the wellbeing of coastal
communities who are dependent on the goods and services provided by the coastal ecosystems: ICZM and
EbA both provide a robust framework to determine strategies and measures for climate resilience. These
relate to the first 2 steps of the USAid process of climate change adaptation (USAid, 2009) (see Figure 1.3),
namely, “Assess Vulnerability” and “Select course of action”.
FIGURE 1.3 “5 STEPPED APPROACH” FOR ADAPTING TO COASTAL CLIMATE CHANGE (USAID 2009)
Climate change has added another layer of complexity to coastal management to which ICZM and EbA are
relevant instruments because of their focus on identifying and quantifying coastal hazards and impacts to
assess coastal vulnerability. EbA offers a valuable solution for assisting climate change adaptation and
disaster risk reduction in Tobago. The principles of EbA can be used as follows:
a) to structure societal responses into new and emerging issues that are relevant to T&T.
b) to help coastal communities to adapt to climate change through management interventions that lead to
ecosystems being more resilient to climate warming, sea level rise, and changes in ocean acidity.
Page 2
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
c) to help focus management effort on habitats that are actually “capable” of buffering human
communities from climate change impacts.
d) To help the development of “green economies”, by pointing public and private sector investment at
maintaining and enhancing natural infrastructure and renewable energy.
e) To make a significant contribution to climate change adaptation.
Management practices to implement EBA should recognise that the design of intervention measures needs to
address:

An emphasizes the protection of ecosystem structure, functioning and key processes;

“site specific” actions (local) focusing on a specific ecosystem and the range of activities affecting it;

The interconnectedness within systems, recognizing the importance of interactions between many target
species or key services and other non-target species;

Integration of ecological, social, economic and institutional perspectives, recognizing their strong
interdependences.
1.4
Guidelines to Incorporate EBA into ICZM and CCA
T&T (through the Institute of Marine Affairs – IMA) has drafted an ICZM Policy Framework (April 2014) that
identified 11 defined objectives to achieve balance between development and conservation by managing
human activities within the coastal zone, and addressing conflicts amongst different resource users and uses
(see Appendix D). New economic policies, aimed at diversifying the T&T economy, would see new investments
in the delivery of sectoral developments such as tourism, agriculture, aquaculture and maritime sectors, all of
which depend on a healthy coastal environment. Successful achievement of these sectors in the long term is
potentially threatened by climate change impacts.
It is important to provide a pragmatic and practical method to provide practical assistance to apply EbA to
the design of management interventions designed to deliver the T&T ICZM Policy Framework in a way that
also provides adaptation to climate change. The IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) has
produced a guide to cluster subsets of EbA Principles into a logical sequence of 5 steps (Shepherd, 2004 - see
Appendix B) to structure the application of EbA within an ICZM framework. The 5 steps can be re-phrased as
a series of “questions” that provide a means to ensure that principles of EbA are used within the framework of
ICZM to identifying approaches to climate change adaptation as follows:
Ecosystem Based Adaptation “Steps or “Questions”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Who are the main stakeholders and ecosystems, and what are the relationships between them?
What is the structure and function of the ecosystems, and are means in place to manage and monitor them?
What are the important economic issues that will affect the ecosystem and its inhabitants?
What are the likely impacts of the ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems?
What are the long term goals and have flexible ways of reaching them been determined?
Section 2 tests these 5 questions on the Southwest Tobago pilot project area.
In the context of Southwest Tobago, a recent report has identified shoreline vulnerability and risk (Halcrow,
2014) that threaten natural, social and economic assets in the coastal zone. Deliverable 2 of this International
Page 3
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
Consultants contract produced a Climate Change Adaptation Response Plan (CCARP) that identified 7
possible Adaptation Responses to alleviate the pressures on natural, social and economic systems from
shoreline change (see Table 2.2). The management challenge is for any given stretch of coastline, which
adaptation responses are most appropriate to implement? A further question is if an adaptation response is
deemed appropriate what are the aims and objectives that should shape its design and implementation? The
responses to the above 5 EbA questions provide a means to determine how the shoreline vulnerability and risk
(identified by Halcrow) affects ecosystems and social and economic features of the coastline in order to
identify which adaptation responses are most appropriate for any given length of coastline, and how they
should be actioned.
1.4.1. Applying EbA criteria to Adaptation Response options
Any “course of action” or “measure” that is introduced to deliver an Adaptation Response must comply with
the overarching T&T Draft ICZM Policy Objectives for ICZM (see Appendix D). This is because coastal
adaptation in T&T must be “tailored” to the local context through an inclusive process that matches the climate
change issues with the technical capabilities and the capacity of the institutions and community stakeholders of
the place. Section 2 demonstrates on this matter in more detail. When deciding which of the 7 Adaptation
Responses to best implement (as identified in the CCARP – see Sustainable Seas Ltd 2014b), it is important to
acknowledge differences among both coastal areas and any current governance and management
arrangements that exist or vary along the coast. In addition, it is also important to be able to clearly
demonstrate transparency towards the selection of appropriate “courses of action” which could be introduced
to help with building coastal resilience into the Tobagonian community. It is important to stress that the 7
Adaptation Responses identified within the CCARP will not ‘operate’ in isolation from each other and in
practice resilience will result from a combination of responses. For example, allowing the Petit Trou mangroves
or Kilgwyn wetlands in Tobago to migrate inland (Adaptation Response A) will not only maintain mangrove
ecosystems, but could also directly address the Adaptation Response for maintaining water quality
(Adaptation Response G). It is also important to note that some Adaptation Responses may contribute to the
protection of human infrastructure, while causing detrimental effects to natural systems. For example, shoreline
hardening (Adaptation Response E) could adversely affect wetlands by preventing sediment transport
(Adaptation Response B) essential to that ecosystem.
The combination of EbA Adaptation Responses and draft ICZM Policy Objectives for T&T can now be used to
structure implementation strategies and resulting “courses of action” for each Adaptation Response (set out in
the CCARP). Some of the courses of action could incorporate EbA principles in engineering scope, planning
design or community response (see Appendix C for engineering scope options). With regard specifically to
introducing EbA thinking into the coastal engineering profession, the following are presented as key issues that
often need to be considered by private developer contractors and in particular, coastal management
planners:

Can “new build” hard structure approaches be designed with EbA principles in mind? (if not,
why and what “knowledge” or information is needed to achieve this?);

Can “new build” soft structure approaches be designed with EbA principles in mind? (if not, why
and what “knowledge” or information is needed to achieve this?);

Can “new build” hard structure approaches be designed in parallel (or in conjunction) with soft
measure approaches to improve EbA principle implementation (if so, which measures are most
complimentary and achievable in a T&T context and why?);
Page 4
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy

What non engineering “courses of action” are needed to create the necessary enabling
environment for the implementation of improved engineering resilience to climate change? (and
over what time-scale is this likely to be achieved in i.e.: 0-5 years and 5-25 years).

Linked to the above, can dual-use infrastructure schemes be designed? (and what studies or
research is needed to achieve this?)
To address some of the above issues, it is proposed that an “EbA” resiliency “score” is provided for each
engineering course of action (see Appendix B and also CCARP Adaptation Reponses D and E) to give an
indication of the CURRENT technical resiliency of the specific structure to climate change (i.e. how the structure
is currently being designed and built ad can EbA techniques be introduced into the scheme design etc). This
score is recommended to be categorised as follows:

low EbA resiliency – regardless of cost, the design has limited capacity to accommodate EbA
approaches in the short term due to increasing coastal hydrodynamic energies (waves/current) without
significant design alterations or re-engineering needs and materials commonly used in its design have
limited ability to be “adapted” to accommodate change in climatic conditions/seasonal sediment
movement patterns with relative ease.

moderate EbA resiliency – the design has potential capacity to accommodate increased coastal
hydrodynamic energy increases (waves/current) by introducing some EbA techniques or without
significant design alterations or re-engineering needs and materials commonly used in its design have
limited ability to be “adapted” to accommodate change in climatic conditions/seasonal sediment
movement patterns with relative ease.

high EbA resiliency – regardless of cost, the design is easily able to accommodate increased coastal
hydrodynamic energy increases (i.e.: waves/current) through the introduction of EbA techniques and
materials . The structure has the ability to be “adapted” to accommodate change in climatic
conditions/seasonal sediment movement patterns with relative ease (i.e.: more material to increase
defence crest level or floor “build” levels”.
Figure 1.4 outlines a summary version of the following sub-sections to provide the reader an overall idea of
the purpose if its structure and intended outcome. It shows a sample 6 separate coastal protection techniques,
and provides an indication of its current EbA resiliency score. Symbols are also provided to provide a
strategic consideration of the techniques environmental resilience (likely long term impacts)) and its estimated
cost for construction.
In Appendix C, a series of “courses of action” that address Adaptation Responses D and E (taken from the
CCARP) are presented. Within that table a column is introduced to declare how easy it could be to adapt its
design (as an individual scheme or as part of a collective scheme of a few techniques) to improve the EbA
resiliency “score” (i.e.: from a “red” to “amber” score etc). To achieve an improved “score”, this may be
achieved through adopting one of the following “courses of action” as follows:

Approach 1: Modification of individual hard or soft structure design (i.e. pre-construction) to improve
individual structure performance (i.e.: focus on the structure design prior to construction) by introducing
EbA techniques where possible;

Approach 2: Modification (retrofitting) of existing adjacent hard or soft structures (that are already in
situ) to improve overall scheme performance by introducing EbA techniques where possible;
Page 5
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy

Approach 3: Using EbA specific measures to help modify existing adjacent structure strategic design to
improve overall coastal protection performance (i.e.: focus on merging hard with soft measures as part
of an integrated scheme);

Approach 4 – Modification and review of land use planning (i.e.: focus on accommodation measures,
strategic placement of key features on an island and to reduce key infrastructure in “at risk” locations).
These 4 approaches are specifically defined and developed further with conceptual examples as part of the
following two CCARP Adaptation Response options:

Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures; and

Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
Table 1.1 is produced to purposely link the 7 Adaptation Response options as set out within the Climate
Change Adaptation Response Plan (CCARP) which has been specifically defined for T&T. It is also
recommends that the courses of action identified in Table 1.1 are considered in terms of the following time
scale epochs that are realistic and meaningful in terms of planning time scales in Tobago: 0 -5 years (short
term to urgent action required); 5-25 years (longer term planning for islands such as Tobago). Section 2
considers these timescales in more detail for a series of Coastal Behaviour Units (CBUs) that have been
defined for the study area. Table 1.1 is produced to purposely link the 7 Adaptation Response options (see
Table 2.2) as set out within the Climate Change Adaptation Response Plan (CCARP) which has been
specifically defined for T&T.
FIGURE 1.4 – INDICATIVE RESILIENCE “SCORES” FOR 6 INDICATIVE COASTAL PROTECTION MEASURES.
NB: Due to a lack of information produced on social and ecological risks (as part of the recently produced Halcrow
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment report – September 2014), there is no detailed discussion on how to implement
Page 6
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
the remaining 5 Adaptation Responses, though for completeness, these will need to be considered as part of a more
strategic Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) approach.
Page 7
TABLE 1.1. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EBA COURSES OF ACTION TO THE ADAPTATION RESPONSES IDENTIFEID IN THE T&T CCARP (SEE SUSTAINABLE SEAS LTD 2014B).
EbA Course of Action
Description of the Course of Action
Relevance to CCARP Adaptation Response Option (From CCARP – see
Deliverable 2)
COURSE OF ACTION PRIMARY PURPOSE: FUNCTIONING AND HEALTHY COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS
Coastal wetland
protection and
restoration
Provides nursery habitats for fisheries, ecosystems services for communities and their
livelihoods; serves as a natural water filter, buffer against coastal ecosystems. Climate
change mitigation and adaptation measure and acts as buffer against extreme weather
events, storm surge, erosion, and floods; limits salt water intrusion.
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove
ecosystems;
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality.
Marine conservation
agreements
Formal or informal agreements between parties to exchange benefits, take or refrain
from certain actions, transfer certain rights and responsibilities in order to restore and
protect fragile coastal and marine ecosystems. Improves the resilience of coastal
ecosystems to climate change and improves the economic and social conditions of
coastal communities.
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove
ecosystems;
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality.
Marine Protected
Areas (new
designations or
extensions to existing
MPAs)
Intertidal or sub-tidal terrain areas, their waters, flora, fauna, and cultural and historical
features, of which part or all is protected. An overarching management approach or
strategy that can be used to bundle a series of measures. Maintains healthy and
resilient coastal habitats and fisheries productivity; acts as “refugia” and critical sources
of new larval recruits.
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove
ecosystems;
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality.
Payment for
environmental
services
Financial instruments under which beneficiaries of ecosystem services compensate the
suppliers as a means to fund sustainable environmental management policies and
actions. Provides incentives to protect critical coastal habitats that defend against
damages from flooding and storm surges as well as coastal erosion.
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
No Active Intervention
(NAI)
This course of action is a stakeholder agreed approach for no investment in coastal
interventions or operations that arises for a coast that needs to be allowed to develop
naturally. Typically, it may be that coastal erosion of a frontage is providing sediment to
other sections of the coast. It may, therefore, be important that the coast is allowed to
continue to erode if sustainable intervention is to be achieved elsewhere.
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove
ecosystems;
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
COURSE OF ACTION PRIMARY PURPOSE: BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS LESS EXPOSED
Climate Proofing
land use and
The intent of this course of action is to review and/or adopt new planning tools to enable
the coast to accommodate sea level rise and storm surge inundation events. This is not an
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
infrastructure
planning
engineering option, but represents a very important planning option to help coastal
communities adapt to climate change. Climate proofing infrastructure such as road
construction standards (raising road levels, “climate proofing” property, introducing
evacuation route construction) are all of relevance under this course of action. NB:
Instilling EbA principles into the planning policy of the above can be undertaken following
review of current regulatory and permitting procedures.
infrastructure);
Building standards
(in the defined
coastal zone)
The intent of this course of action is to review and/or adopt new planning tools (such as
“buffer zone” creation or the use of development set back techniques to enable the coast
to accommodate sea level rise and storm surge inundation events). This Approach is not
an engineering option, but represents a very important planning option to help coastal
communities adapt to climate change. By incorporating climate considerations (e.g.
effects of flooding, waves and wind) in building design, it reduces damages and human
safety risks from climate change impacts, including extreme events, sea level rise, and
flooding. Delineates the minimum technical and safety requirements for the design and
construction of residential and commercial structures as a means to promote occupant
health, welfare and safety.
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Set distance from a coastal feature (e.g.: beach vegetation line) within which all or
specific types of development are prohibited; often includes a buffer. Useful within an
overarching coastal management programme. Reduces the infrastructure losses and
human safety risks of sea level rise, storm surge, and erosion.
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove
ecosystems;
Coastal development
setback distances
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
Living shorelines
Techniques
(ecological /
biological
interventions)
Often involves the introduction (where possible) of ecological/biological management
practice involving strategic placement of plants, stones, offshore oyster “reefs”, sand fill
and other materials to achieve the dual goal of long-term
protection/restoration/enhancement of shoreline habitats and the maintenance of
natural processes. Mitigates erosion and protects people and ecosystems from climate
change impacts and variability in low to medium energy areas along sheltered coastlines
(e.g. estuarine and lagoon ecosystems).
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove
ecosystems;
Soft Engineering
Techniques
The intent is to maintain the current level of defence using “soft” structure techniques
such techniques may allow the shoreline to move backwards or forwards, with
management to control or limit movement (such as reducing erosion or building new soft
structures on the landward side of the original defences). Renourishment is an example of
“soft engineering” which often involves planting grasses and native vegetation. Level and
rate of nourishment can be adjusted to adapt to rising sea levels. Soft structure
approaches maybe used where there is a need for continued intervention to achieve a
specific outcome. It may arise from a series of different circumstances. The overall aim is
that management of the shoreline would be improved by either allowing or creating the
conditions for the coast to realign. Techniques often protect shores and restores beaches;
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove
ecosystems;
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality.
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality.
Page 9
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
serves as a “soft” buffer against flooding, erosion, scour and water damage.
Structural shoreline
stabilization (Hard
Engineering)
The intent is to maintain the current position of the coast and the level of defence using
hard structure techniques. This does not necessarily mean that the hard defences would
be maintained in exactly the same form as they are at present. There may be a need to
adjust the local alignment in the future or to replace or add to structures e.g. constructing
cross shore or shore-linked structures, such as groynes or breakwaters. Its sets the intent
to maintain the current position of the coast in an appropriate manner, which will differ
depending on the specific local issues. Longer term intervention “buffer” against the
impacts of erosion and flooding caused by factors such as sea level rise, storm surge, and
wave attacks. NB: This is not an EbA strategy, but instead relates to a course of action that
(where possible) would be designed with a degree of ecosystem enhancement
possibilities. Instilling EbA principles into the design of Hard Approaches can be
undertaken during early stages. It is more costly and challenging to retrofit EbA
techniques into a Hard Approach after the structure/technique has been built).
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
Page 10
SECTION 2: INCORPORATING EBA INTO THE TOBAGO CCARP
2.1
Establishing Coastal Behaviour Units for Southwest Tobago
Analysis of coastal dynamics and evolution is often difficult on many small islands (such as Tobago) due to
both the range of spatial and temporal scales over which coastal changes occur, and the complex interactions
that result in shoreline responses of varying, non-linear and often unpredictable nature. There is also interdependence between different geomorphic and habitat features that make up the natural ecosystem, such
that the evolution of one particular element of the coast is influenced by evolution in adjacent areas. Often
these influences extend in a number of directions, thereby further complicating the task of assessing change. It
is also important to understand how the coastal zone functions on a wider scale both in time and space. Within
coastal adaptation delivery, there is a strong focus upon littoral processes and this approach is frequently
used as a basis for analysing coastal change and assessing future policy options and impacts. Whilst the
littoral cell concept is a valid approach, it is only one aspect of coastal system behaviour and other factors
also need to be taken into account when assessing future shoreline evolution.
The Southwest Tobago study area demonstrates some clear coastal geomorphological changes which may
have an impact on littoral dynamics and hence need to be considered for coastal adaptation implementation
purposes. The variance in shoreline characteristics (for the Pilot area) is presented in Figure 2.1 (taken from
IMA 2014).
FIGURE 2.1 COASTAL CLASSIFICATION MAP OF TOBAGO (STUDY AREA INSET BY RED SQUARE) (ADAPTED FROM IMA 2014)
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
Table 2.1 displays the results from beach profile analysis (2009 to 2013) undertaken from IMA. Results are
based on monitoring results from 26 beaches and 42 beach profiling stations around Tobago. That work has
concluded that all beaches are recorded to be in dynamic equilibrium except for the following beaches.
Eroding Beaches in the Study Area
Accreting Beaches in the Study Area
Pigeon Point west
Pigeon point north
Mt. Irvine east
Mt. Irvine west
Little Back Bay west
Stone Haven west
Little Rockley Bay
TABLE 2.1: ERODING AND ACCRETING BEACHES IN THE PILOT STUDY AREA (2009-2013): ADAPTED FROM IMA 2014.
To complement the information presented in Table 2.1, Figure 2.2 provides an overview of the IMA beach
profile monitoring results. From this work, five indicative “beach volatility” groupings or “cells” are identified
below by the International Consultant:
FIGURE 2.2: BEACH PROFILE VOLATILITY IN THE STUDY AREA (FROM IMA 2014).
It is of note that the IMA findings above, for the Buccoo Bay area (which declare “dynamic equilibrium”) in
particular, are different to the recent predicted model findings presented by Halcrow (see Figure 2.3)
whereby erosion is anticipated should existing coastal protection measures (offshore reef at Store Bay and
defences at Buccoo Reef itself) be taken away.
Page 12
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
FIGURE 2.3: EROSION POTENTIAL IN STUDY AREA (FROM HALCROW 2014).
The recent Halcrow work has also classified flood inundation risk vulnerabilities that are calculated to affect
the study area (see Figure 2.3). In a similar way to that adopted in Figure 2.3, four key “flood hazard”
groupings or “cells” are identified below by the International Consultant.
FIGURE 2.4: FLOOD INUNDATION RISK TO THE PILOT AREA UNDER VARIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTION SCENARIOS (HALCROW 2014)
Page 13
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
For these conceptual assessments, the International Consultant has taken into consideration the findings of the
IMA (Figure 2.1) and the Halcrow VA work (Figures 2.2 to 2.4), to deduce conceptual “Coastal Behaviour
Units” that best capture the work completed to date. It is therefore proposed that 6 general Coastal
Behaviour Units (CBU) are established for review as demonstrated in Figure 2.5. The titles of the 5 CBUs are
as follows:

Coastal Behaviour Unit A – Great Courland Bay to Rocky Point;

Coastal Behaviour Unit B – Rocky Point to Pigeon Point;

Coastal Behaviour Unit C – Pigeon Point to Crown Point;

Coastal Behaviour Unit D – Crown Point to Canoe Bay;

Coastal Behaviour Unit E – Canoe Bay to Lowlands (Petit Trou Lagoon);

Coastal Behaviour Unit F – Lowlands to Rockly Bay.
FIGURE 2.5: INDICATIVE LIMITS OF COASTAL BEHAVIOUR UNITS FOR SOUTHWEST TOBAGO.
Deliverable 2 of this International Consultants contract produced a Climate Change Adaptation Response Plan
(CCARP - Sustainable Seas Ltd 2014b) that identified 7 possible Adaptation Responses (Table 2.2) to
Page 14
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
alleviate the pressures on natural, social and economic systems from shoreline change. The management
challenge is for any given stretch of coastline, which adaptation responses are most appropriate to
implement? The following section now uses the principles EbA thought processes onto the Pilot Project area in
order to determine which adaptation responses could be appropriate to implement. For each Coastal
Behaviour Unit a table is produced that presents the EbA analysis followed by a further table that interprets
the appropriateness of each of the CCARPs for that Coastal Behaviour Unit. Information is used from a variety
of sources to populate the tables, though the purpose is NOT to produce a detailed “CCARP” for each CBU,
but instead to demonstrate the process which is something that in time could be applied to the whole of
Trinidad and Tobago as part of a National ICZM Strategy Plan. (NB: the evaluation focus is placed on coastal
“communities” and “habitats” as opposed to “coastal ecosystems” per se. This is because the former are more
tangible to identify and assess and (due to a lack of data of ecosystem interactions) are thus far easier to
propose management “actions” on for this Pilot Project).
TABLE 2.2. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION RESPONSE PLAN (CCARP) ADAPTATION OPTIONS CAN BE APPLIED TO COASTAL BEHAVIOUR UNITS.
SOURCE: DELIVERABLE 2 OF PRESENT CONTRACT.
Adaptation Response Measure
Description
Adaptation Response A:
Maintain/restore wetlands and
mangrove ecosystems
Adaptation options for maintaining/restoring wetlands and
mangrove ecosystems that primarily focus on facilitating wetland
migration through changes in legislation and regulations (e.g.,
rolling easements) and prohibitions on shoreline hardening.
Protection for existing wetlands and mangroves in SW Tobago
from development, pollution, and habitat changes that may be
exacerbated by sea level rise could consider developing
legislation or modifying land use rules (e.g., zoning) to facilitate
wetland migration inland. Programs that are not constrained by
existing institutions or policies could focus on prohibiting bulkheads
and allowing mangroves to migrate inland.
Adaptation Response B:
Maintain sediment transport
Adaptation options that maintain sediment transport in order to
reverse changes that have already occurred or changes that will
continue to occur. Combined with other actions, these adaptation
options may work to prevent loss of coastal habitats and enable
habitats (reliant on sediment supply such as mangroves) to accrete
at a rate consistent with sea level rise.
Adaptation Response C:
Preserve coastal land/
development (including
infrastructure)
Adaptation options that preserve coastal land and development
focussing on land use planning and management, land exchange
and acquisition programs, and changes to infrastructure. These
adaptation options primarily aim to preserve coastal land on
which development is planned or already exists.
Adaptation Response D:
Maintain shorelines utilizing
“soft” measures
Approaches for maintaining shorelines in the face of sea level rise
include both “soft” measures and “hard” measures. Each of these
approaches or some combination of them may be appropriate
depending on the characteristics of a particular location (e.g.,
shore protection costs, property values, the environmental
importance of habitat, the feasibility of protecting shores without
Page 15
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
Adaptation Response Measure
Description
harming the habitat).
Adaptation Response E:
Maintain shorelines utilizing
“hard” measures
Shoreline protection through hardening techniques such as
constructing bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, and breakwaters, or
reinforcing dikes and headlands. Adaptation options that use
hardening techniques are often preserving existing development
(e.g., homes and businesses) and infrastructure (e.g., sewage
systems, roads), or protecting land available for future
development or infrastructure.
Adaptation Response F:
Preserve Habitat for
Vulnerable Species
Adaptation options to preserve habitat for vulnerable species that
involves actively increasing coastal ecosystem boundaries or
removing barriers that prevent habitat expansion or migration.
Actions to increase ecosystem boundaries could include purchasing
upland development or property rights and expanding the
planning horizons of land use planning to incorporate longer-term
climate predictions.
Adaptation Response G:
Maintain water quality
Sea level rise and changes in the timing and intensity of
precipitation can affect the water quality of coastal receiving
waters. Protecting existing infrastructure and planning for impacts
to new infrastructure can help reduce vulnerability to these
impacts (e.g., sizing drainage and sewer treatment systems to
accommodate changes in flow). Other options for maintaining
water quality of mangroves and wetlands include preventing or
limiting groundwater extraction from shallow aquifers and
protecting land subject to flooding by plugging canals.
In Appendix C, a series of “courses of action” that address specifically Adaptation Responses D and E are
presented. Within that table a column is introduced to declare how easy it could be to adapt its design (as an
individual scheme or as part of a collective scheme of a few techniques) to improve the EbA resiliency “score”
(i.e.: from a “red” to “amber” score etc). To achieve an improved “score”, this may be achieved through
adopting one of the following “courses of action” as follows:

Approach 1: Modification of individual hard or soft structure design (i.e. pre-construction) to improve
individual structure performance (i.e.: focus on the structure design prior to construction) by introducing
EbA techniques where possible;

Approach 2: Modification (retrofitting) of existing adjacent hard or soft structures (that are already in
situ) to improve overall scheme performance by introducing EbA techniques where possible;

Approach 3: Using EbA specific measures to help modify existing adjacent structure strategic design to
improve overall coastal protection performance (i.e.: focus on merging hard with soft measures as part
of an integrated scheme);
Page 16
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy

Approach 4 – Modification and review of land use planning (i.e.: focus on accommodation measures,
strategic placement of key features on an island and to reduce key infrastructure in “at risk” locations).
These 4 approaches are specifically defined and developed further with conceptual examples as part of the
following two CCARP Adaptation Response options:

Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures; and

Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
2.2. Coastal Behaviour Unit Assessment
In addition to the above, the courses of action identified in Table 1.1 are considered in terms of the following
time scale epochs that are realistic and meaningful in terms of planning time scales in Tobago: 0 -5 years
(short term to urgent action required); 5-25 years (longer term planning for islands such as Tobago). The
reader now learns about the most suitable course of action based on vulnerability (socio-economic and
physical as appropriate) for each CBU designated for Southwest Tobago. Appendix C presents in more detail
the course of action approach and applicability.
(NB: the evaluation focus is placed on coastal “communities” and “habitats” as opposed to “coastal ecosystems”
per se. This is because the former are more tangible to identify and assess and (due to a lack of data of ecosystem
interactions) are thus far easier to propose management “actions” on for this Pilot Project.
Page 17
2.2.1 Coastal Behaviour Unit A – Great Courland Bay to Rocky Point
Coastal Behaviour Unit A – Great Courland Bay to Rocky Point
Guideline EbA “Questions”
Discussion Points (Observations)
Who are the main stakeholders and
ecosystems, and what are the
relationships between them?
Turtle Beach Resort (owners/guests/employees), Black Rock and Last holiday apartment owners and guests,
community of Black Rock, Grafton Beach Resort (owners/guests/employees), home owners along Stonehaven
Bay. Relationship between them is the importance of a healthy coastal environment to continually attract
tourists to the CBU to ensure economic livelihoods. Topographic low areas add flood risk management needs
for this CBU.
What is the structure and function of
the ecosystems, and are means in
place to manage and monitor them?
Embayed between Courland Pt. in the north and Black Rock/Hawk’s Bill headland in the southwest. Backshore
consists of alluvium which is very susceptible to erosion. Erosion between Black Rock River and the southern
headland, Black Rock/Hawk’s Bill. Beach monitoring takes place (IMA).
What are the important economic
issues that will affect the ecosystem
and its inhabitants?
Approx 13 houses located within dynamic beach zone at Great Courland. These houses interrupt areas of
erosion. 2. Fishing facility. 3. Turtle Beach Hotel 4. Coastal Road, 5. Beach houses and apartments, 6. Beach
Bar, 7.Arts and craft and dive shops at Stonehaven Bay. Road runs along coastline very near the beach
along the whole CBU and this could be affected by coastal erosion. Development on the coast impacting on
turtle nesting sites north of Black Rock River, at Little Back Bay and Stonehaven Bay. Black Rock River was the
site of sand mining operations resulting in erosion of the south western section of the beach (O’Brien- Delpesh
1997).
What are the likely impacts of the
ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems?
Unknown until more targeted information is captured through the future ICZM Strategy Plan process for T&T.
Halcrow VA (2014) needs to be updated to assess social and ecological vulnerability.
What are the long-term goals, and
have flexible ways of reaching them,
been determined?
Long term goals for the CBU have not been set. These are most likely to be created as part of the future
ICZM Strategy Plan process for T&T. Stakeholder engagement processes, in tandem with support from GoTT
and THA will be pivotal in defining these long term goals. These, as a result, cannot be set within this table.
Vulnerability & Adaptation
Response Need (H/M/L)
High to medium
According to the Halcrow
Coastal Vulnerability Index
(2014), flood risk likely to
increase in the future. A number
of Adaptation Response options
are likely to be needed to
address manage the
stakeholder vulnerability.
Based on the outcome of the above table, the following table outlines the most likely Adaptation Responses which apply to this CBU. Possible “courses
of action” (as outlined in Section 3.3 and Appendix C) are also presented for consideration.
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Coastal Behaviour Unit A – Great Courland Bay to Rocky Point
Adaptation Response Title
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove ecosystems;
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Years 0 – 5 (2019)
X
N/A
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality
X
N/A
sediment supply within Great
Courland and Stonehaven Bays is critical
maintain sediment supply within
Great Courland and Stonehaven Bays
part of a future ICZM Plan that
identifies clear setbacks policies etc
Longer term land acquisition
programs.
X
short term “pilot” projects required
to learn successes
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
Years 5 - 20 (2034)
short term asset protection
implementation of short term
“pilot” projects into the longer term within
the CBU
X
long term asset relocation
Turtle nesting protection
Turtle nesting protection
Important for tourism sector
Important for tourism sector
Existing Coastal Defences
Vulnerability (people)
Current status
Seawalls (concrete and wooden columns),
gabion baskets, rock revetments (Great
Courland Bay).
Preferred Adaptation Responses (see CCARP for possible “Courses of Action”
or refer to Appendix C for engineering based interventions).
B, C, F G
E (short term); D (long term)
St Patrick Parish = 14,733 (2011 Census).
No detailed breakdown exists for
communities/villages within this CBU.
Page 19
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
2.2.2 Coastal Behaviour Unit B – Rocky Point to Pigeon Point;
Coastal Behaviour Unit B – Rocky Point to Pigeon Point
Guideline EbA “Questions”
Discussion Points (Observations)
Who are the main stakeholders and
ecosystems, and what are the
relationships between them?
Mt Irvine beach facility and golf club users, surfers, Grange Bay recreational users, Buccoo
community residents (and visitors/guests houses etc). Relationship between them is the importance of
a healthy coastal environment to continually attract tourists to the CBU to ensure economic
livelihoods. Topographic low areas add flood risk management needs for this CBU around the Mt
Irvine hinterland and the whole of the Bon Accord Lagoonal area hinterland.
What is the structure and function of
the ecosystems, and are means in
place to manage and monitor them?
Mt Irvine Bay has a fringing reef offshore in western end of bay. Buccoo Bay has a low lying
backshore, with dense vegetation, mangrove low limestone cliffs at the eastern and western ends of
the bay. Sheerbirds Point is a sand spit located at eastern end with coral reef/seagrass offshore.
Bon Accord mangrove forest along the east, south and west side towards Pigeon Point. Beach
monitoring takes place (IMA).
What are the important economic
issues that will affect the ecosystem
and its inhabitants?
Mt Irvine has residential properties, Golf Course, Hotel, Beach Facilities, Fishing Facility south of
beach facility and the Coastal Road. Buccoo Bay has Buccoo Integrated Facility, Jetty for reef tour
boats and Guest Houses, restaurants and shops. Road access from south is a key economic feature
to the south of Bon Accord Lagoon. Road runs along coastline very near the beach along Mt Irvine
Bay and this could be affected by coastal erosion and flood risk. The road infrastructure in Bon
Accord Lagoon is positioned away from flood risk areas on the whole.
What are the likely impacts of the
ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems?
The health and integrity of the wetland system in this CBU comprising the Sheerbird’s Point
seagrass, Buccoo Reef and the Bon Accord mangrove forest are linked to human habitation,
development and water quality (in addition to tourist pressure and overfishing issues). The likely
impact is unknown until more targeted information is captured through the future ICZM Strategy
Plan process for T&T. Halcrow VA (2014) needs to be updated to assess social and ecological
vulnerability.
What are the long-term goals, and
have flexible ways of reaching them,
been determined?
Long term goals for the CBU have not been set. These are most likely to be created as part of the
future ICZM Strategy Plan process for T&T. Stakeholder engagement processes, in tandem with
support from GoTT and THA wil be pivotal in defining these long term goals. These, as a result,
cannot be set within this table.
Climate Change Vulnerability
Adaptation Response Need (H/M/L)
Low to Medium
According to the Halcrow Coastal
Vulnerability Index (2014), whilst flood
risk likely to increase in the future to the
Bon Accord lagoon areas and hinterland,
the risk to communities and business is
ranked as low to medium, so long as
inappropriate future development does
not occur in flood risk areas.
A number of Adaptation Response options
are likely to be needed to address
manage the stakeholder vulnerability.
Based on the outcome of the above table, the following table outlines the most likely Adaptation Responses which apply to this CBU. Possible “courses
of action” (as outlined in Section 3.3 and Appendix C) are also presented for consideration.
Page 20
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Coastal Behaviour Unit B – Rocky Point to Pigeon Point
Adaptation Response Title
Years 0 – 5 (2019)
Years 5 - 20 (2034)
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove ecosystems;
wetland health and integrity within
Buccoo Bay is critical
longer term wetland health and
integrity within Buccoo Bay is critical
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
sediment supply within Mt Irvine
Bay is critical
longer term need to maintain
sediment supply within Mt Irvine Bay is
critical
part of a future ICZM Plan that
identifies clear setbacks policies etc
Longer term land acquisition
programs.
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
short term “pilot” projects required
to learn successes
implementation of short term
“pilot” projects into the longer term within
the CBU
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
short term asset protection at Mt
Irvine Bay only
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality
X
long term asset relocation at Mt
Irvine Bay
Reef and mangrove conservation
programmes for marine species protection
longer term reef and mangrove
conservation programmes for marine
species protection
Important for tourism sector and
for the integrity of the wider marine
ecosystem
Important for tourism sector and
for the integrity of the wider marine
ecosystem
Existing Coastal Defences
Current status
Failed rock and concrete seaward
sloping concrete wall at Grange bay
Preferred Adaptation Responses (see CCARP for possible “Courses of Action”
or refer to Appendix C for engineering based interventions).
A, B, C, D, F, G.
E (short term – Mt Irvine only);
Vulnerability (people)
St Patrick Parish = 14,733 (2011 Census).
No detailed breakdown exists for
communities/villages within this CBU.
Page 21
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
2.2.3 Coastal Behaviour Unit C – Pigeon Point to Crown Point;
Coastal Behaviour Unit C – Pigeon Point to Crown Point
Guideline EbA “Questions”
Discussion Points (Observations)
Who are the main stakeholders and
ecosystems, and what are the
relationships between them?
Pigeon Point local vendors (within the Heritage Park), visitors, water sport recreational users, Coco
Reef hotel and visitors, Conrado Beach Resort, Crown Point Beach Hotel, Tropikist Beach Hotel,
Sandy Point Beach Club, Fort Milford beach facility users, Store Bay beach facility users, Crown
Point Airport industries/facility users/businesses. Relationship between them is the importance of a
healthy coastal environment to continually attract tourists to the CBU to ensure economic livelihoods.
Topographic low areas to the north of the CBU (north of Coco Reef towards Pigeon Point) adds the
need for flood risk awareness issues within this section of the CBU.
What is the structure and function of
the ecosystems, and are means in
place to manage and monitor them?
Low lying, depositional feature at Pigeon Point with the spit at the northern section. Store Bay is a
sandy beach backed by limestone cliffs and controlled by adjacent limestone cliffs coastline. Patch
reefs only within this CBU away from Bon Accord Lagoon. Mangrove forest behind sand spit (Bon
Accord). The health and integrity of the beach systems in this CBU comprising Milford Bay and Store
Bay are very important to tourism in this CBU. Beach monitoring takes place (IMA).
What are the important economic
issues that will affect the ecosystem
and its inhabitants?
Pigeon Point Heritage Park and all associated facilities (including Pigeon Point Jetty), Hotel / Bars,
Fishing Facility, Arts and Crafts Shops, Coastal Access Road, Start Landing Strip, for airport. Road
runs along coastline very near the beach northwards to Pigeon Point and this could be affected by
coastal erosion and flood risk in the future. The road infrastructure to Pigeon Point has been
improved, though sections may need to be re-positioned away from flood risk areas. New
developments are still taking place on Pigeon Point with minimal thought to coastal setback needs.
What are the likely impacts of the
ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems?
Unknown until more targeted information is captured through the future ICZM Strategy Plan process
for T&T. Halcrow VA (2014) needs to be updated to assess social and ecological vulnerability.
What are the long-term goals, and
have flexible ways of reaching them,
been determined?
Long term goals for the CBU have not been set. These are most likely to be created as part of the
future ICZM Strategy Plan process for T&T. Stakeholder engagement processes, in tandem with
support from GoTT and THA will be pivotal in defining these long term goals. These, as a result,
cannot be set within this table.
Climate Change Vulnerability
Adaptation Response Need (H/M/L)
Medium to High
According to the Halcrow Coastal
Vulnerability Index (2014), whilst flood
risk likely to increase in the future to the
Pigeon Point /Milford Bay hinterland, the
risk to communities and business to the
north of the CBU is ranked as low to
medium, so long as inappropriate future
development does not occur in flood risk
areas.
Vulnerability is ranked high in the Store
Bay area where key economic tourist
assets are situation (Coco Reef/Store Bay
Facilities etc). The risk at this location is
driven by potential erosion, and tidal
inundation, however in reality (depending
upon assumptions made by Halcrow
2014) the erosion would likely be
managed by the presence of the
breakwater structure. The reduction or
removal of this erosion hazard through
continued coast protection provision would
significantly reduce this risk.
A number of Adaptation Response options
are likely to be needed to address
manage the stakeholder vulnerability.
Based on the outcome of the above table, the following table outlines the most likely Adaptation Responses which apply to this CBU. Possible “courses
of action” (as outlined in Section 3.3 and Appendix C) are also presented for consideration.
Page 22
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Coastal Behaviour Unit C – Pigeon Point to Crown Point
Adaptation Response Title
Years 0 – 5 (2019)
Years 5 - 20 (2034)
wetland health and integrity within
the backing wetland area to Pigeon Point
is critical for wider ecosystem resilience
longer term wetland health and
integrity within the backing wetland area
to Pigeon Point is critical for wider
ecosystem resilience
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
sediment supply within Milford and
Store Bays is critical
maintain sediment supply within
Milford and Store Bays
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
part of a future ICZM Plan that
identifies clear setbacks policies etc on
Pigeon Point in particular
Longer term land acquisition
programs and “no build” policies are
required that are linked to national
building codes.
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove ecosystems;
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality
X
to learn successes
possible soft schemes to be
implemented within the Pigeon Point area
of the CBU.
short term asset protection on
Pigeon Point and Store Bay (using EbA
design principles – see Appendix B)
long term asset relocation on
Pigeon Point and Store Bay using EbA
design principles – see Appendix B)
X
X
short term “pilot” projects required
N/A for this CBU
N/A for this CBU
Important for tourism sector
Important for tourism sector
Existing Coastal Defences
Vulnerability (people)
Current status
Rubble /stone revetment (Store Bay);
Offshore rock reef (Coco Reef); rock
groynes (Store Bay).
Preferred Adaptation Responses (see CCARP for possible “Courses of Action”
or refer to Appendix C for engineering based interventions).
A,B,C,E,G
E (short term); D (long term)
St Patrick Parish = 14,733 (2011 Census).
No detailed breakdown exists for
communities/villages within this CBU.
Page 23
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
2.2.4 Coastal Behaviour Unit D – Crown Point to Canoe Bay;
Coastal Behaviour Unit D – Crown Point to Canoe Bay
Guideline EbA “Questions”
Discussion Points (Observations)
Who are the main stakeholders and
ecosystems, and what are the
relationships between them?
Owners of Cochrico Inn, all flight visitors/users to Tobago (Crown Point Runway), Canoe Bay Nature
Resort. Beach Resort Facility users at Canoe Bay. Relationship between the stakeholders is the
linkage between development needs and the low lying wetlands of Kilgwyn CBU to ensure
economic livelihoods. Topographic low areas to the north of the CBU (north of Coco Reef towards
Pigeon Point) adds the need for flood risk awareness issues within this section of the CBU.
What is the structure and function of
the ecosystems, and are means in
place to manage and monitor them?
Kilgwyn seagrass beds (extensive) and Mangrove Swamp forest. La Guira Bay is bounded to the
west by limestone cliffs. Immediate backshore slopes seaward. Offshore Reefs occur further
offshore. The health and integrity of the wetland system at Kilgwyn within this CBU is very important
to ecosystem integrity. Beach monitoring takes place (IMA) at Canoe Bay.
What are the important economic
issues that will affect the ecosystem
and its inhabitants?
Critical infrastructure located to the eastern point of the Crown Point runway. Beach Resort Facility
at Canoe Bay. Crown Point airport runway itself. Agriculture land at Friendship. Site of an Ecoindustrial development site and also a Gas-pipe landing (Cove – Lowlands). Coastal erosion
(flanking) has been occurring at the western end of the rock revetment. In western section of Canoe
Bay, low lying man-made beach bounded by a short groyne to the west and headland, Columbus
Point to the east.
What are the likely impacts of the
ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems?
Unknown until more targeted information is captured through the future ICZM Strategy Plan process
for T&T. Halcrow VA (2014) needs to be updated to assess social and ecological vulnerability.
What are the long-term goals, and
have flexible ways of reaching them,
been determined?
Long term goals for the CBU have not been set. These are most likely to be created as part of the
future ICZM Strategy Plan process for T&T. Stakeholder engagement processes, in tandem with
support from GoTT and THA will be pivotal in defining these long term goals. These, as a result,
cannot be set within this table.
Climate Change Vulnerability
Adaptation Response Need (H/M/L)
Medium to Low
According to the Halcrow Coastal
Vulnerability Index (2014), whilst flood
risk likely to increase in the future to the
Kilgwyn wetland area, the risk to
communities and business in the CBU is
ranked as low except for the.
A couple of Adaptation Response options
are likely to be needed to address
manage the stakeholder vulnerability.
Based on the outcome of the above table, the following table outlines the most likely Adaptation Responses which apply to this CBU. Possible “courses
of action” (as outlined in Section 3.3 and Appendix C) are also presented for consideration.
Page 24
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Coastal Behaviour Unit D – Crown Point to Canoe Bay
Adaptation Response Title
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove ecosystems;
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Years 0 – 5 (2019)
Years 5 - 20 (2034)
Important for ecosystem health and
resilience
Long term Important for
ecosystem health and resilience
X
X
though Canoe Bay integrity will need
though Canoe Bay integrity will
sand supply
need sand supply
part of a future ICZM Plan that
identifies clear critical infrastructure
development and protection (setbacks
policies etc)
.part of a future ICZM Plan that
identifies clear critical infrastructure
development and protection (setbacks
policies etc)
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
initiate wetland protection and
management systems (see Appendix C)
initiate wetland protection and
management systems (see Appendix C)
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
short term critical infrastructure
asset protection
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality
wetland /mangrove protection
Important for mangrove/wetland
protection and tourism sector (Canoe Bay)
Existing Coastal Defences
Current status
Rubble revetment at La Guira Bay
constructed to protect reclaimed land upon
which airport runway was constructed
Preferred Adaptation Responses (see CCARP for possible “Courses of Action”
or refer to Appendix C for engineering based interventions).
A, C, D, F G
E (short term)
X
long term critical infrastructure asset
relocation
wetland /mangrove protection
Important for mangrove/wetland
protection and tourism sector (Canoe Bay)
Vulnerability (people)
St Patrick Parish = 14,733 (2011 Census).
No detailed breakdown exists for
communities/villages within this CBU.
Page 25
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
2.2.5 Coastal Behaviour Unit E – Canoe Bay to Lowlands (Petit Trou Lagoon);
Coastal Behaviour Unit E – Canoe Bay to Lowlands (Petit Trou Lagoon)
Guideline EbA “Questions”
Discussion Points (Observations)
Who are the main stakeholders and
ecosystems, and what are the
relationships between them?
Magdalena Hotel, golf course, private accommodation/apartments etc in the Petit Trou area.
Higher percentage of private sector stakeholders in this CBU. Relationship between the private
sector stakeholders is the linkage between private development needs and the low lying wetlands
of Petit Trou to ensure a balance between coastal swamp and wetland integrity to act as a natural
flood store area and resilience for economic, social livelihood development. Topographic low areas
covering this whole CBU adds the need for flood risk awareness issues.
What is the structure and function of
the ecosystems, and are means in
place to manage and monitor them?
Low bluff cliffs to the west of Petit Trou mangrove system. Mangroves along coastline with coastal
swamp (Petit Trou). The health and integrity of the wetland system at Kilgwyn within this CBU is very
important to ecosystem integrity. Monitoring of mangrove condition is undertaken by IMA.
What are the important economic
issues that will affect the ecosystem
and its inhabitants?
Agricultural plots (west of Petit Trou wetland system. Recreation (golf), tourism (Magdalena Hotel)
and real estate development represent the main economic factors of this CBU. Poorly planned
development that does not consider EbA approaches to development close to wetlands will increase
flood risk to communities and business and reduce the integrity of the swamp system at Petit Trou.
What are the likely impacts of the
ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems?
Unknown until more targeted information is captured through the future ICZM Strategy Plan process
for T&T. Halcrow VA (2014) needs to be updated to assess social and ecological vulnerability.
What are the long-term goals, and
have flexible ways of reaching them,
been determined?
Long term goals for the CBU have not been set. These are most likely to be created as part of the
future ICZM Strategy Plan process for T&T. Stakeholder engagement processes, in tandem with
support from GoTT and THA will be pivotal in defining these long term goals. These, as a result,
cannot be set within this table.
Climate Change Vulnerability
Adaptation Response Need (H/M/L)
Medium to High
According to the Halcrow Coastal
Vulnerability Index (2014), the potentially
high risk areas include the developments
at the southern end of Little Rockley Bay
(including the Magdalena Grand Resort
complex), and a number of other larger
hotel complexes around the coastline that
are located very close to the shoreline
edge.
A number of Adaptation Response options
are likely to be needed to address
manage the stakeholder vulnerability.
Based on the outcome of the above table, the following table outlines the most likely Adaptation Responses which apply to this CBU. Possible “courses
of action” (as outlined in Section 3.3 and Appendix C) are also presented for consideration.
Page 26
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Coastal Behaviour Unit E – Canoe Bay to Lowlands (Petit Trou Lagoon)
Adaptation Response Title
Years 0 – 5 (2019)
Years 5 - 20 (2034)
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove ecosystems;
Important for ecosystem health and
resilience
Important for ecosystem health
and resilience
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
sediment supply within Petit Trou
mangrove system is critical
sediment supply within Petit Trou
mangrove system is critical
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
part of a future ICZM Plan that
identifies clear setbacks policies etc within
the Petit Trou wetland and mangrove area
Longer term land acquisition
programs to be considered for the Petit
Trou wetland and mangrove area
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
initiate wetland protection and
management systems (see Appendix C)
initiate wetland protection and
management systems (see Appendix C)
X
X
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality
N/A
mangrove species protection
Important for mangrove system
and tourism sector
Existing Coastal Defences
Current status
Preferred Adaptation Responses (see CCARP for possible “Courses of Action”
or refer to Appendix C for engineering based interventions).
N/A
long term asset relocation
mangrove species protection
Important for mangrove system
and tourism sector
Vulnerability (people)
St Patrick Parish = 14,733 (2011 Census).
No detailed breakdown exists for
communities/villages within this CBU.
A, B, C, D, F, G
Page 27
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
2.2.6 Coastal Behaviour Unit F – Lowlands to Rockly Bay
Coastal Behaviour Unit F – Lowlands to Rockly Bay
Guideline EbA “Questions”
Discussion Points (Observations)
Who are the main stakeholders and
ecosystems, and what are the
relationships between them?
Magdalena Grand Beach resort (owners/visitors), Sugar Mills Suites, golfers, Hampton Inn, Shore
Things (café and craft business), community and businesses of Lambeau. Relationship between the
private sector stakeholders and the community of Lambeau is the linkage development needs, the
integrity of Little Rockley Bay as a visitor and recreational asset and the low lying wetlands of Petit
Trou (later is to ensure a balance between coastal swamp and wetland integrity to act as a natural
flood store area and resilience for economic, social livelihood development). Topographic low
areas of the immediate hinterland on Little Rockly Bay do NOT extend flood risk to the community
of Lambeau.
What is the structure and function of
the ecosystems, and are means in
place to manage and monitor them?
Low lying backshore, bounded between low, limestone cliffs in west and large headland (Lambeau
Village) in the north. Entire CBU is vulnerable to coastal erosion. Beach monitoring takes place (IMA)
at Little Rockly Bay.
What are the important economic
issues that will affect the ecosystem
and its inhabitants?
Residential properties; Hotel and Guest houses; Fishing Facility. Poorly planned development that
does not consider EbA approaches to development close to eroding coastline will increase erosion
and flood risk to communities and business.
What are the likely impacts of the
ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems?
Unknown until more targeted information is captured through the future ICZM Strategy Plan process
for T&T. Halcrow VA (2014) needs to be updated to assess social and ecological vulnerability.
What are the long-term goals, and
have flexible ways of reaching them,
been determined?
Long term goals for the CBU have not been set. These are most likely to be created as part of the
future ICZM Strategy Plan process for T&T. Stakeholder engagement processes, in tandem with
support from GoTT and THA will be pivotal in defining these long term goals. These, as a result,
cannot be set within this table.
Climate Change Vulnerability
Adaptation Response Need (H/M/L)
Low to Medium
According to the Halcrow Coastal
Vulnerability Index (2014), whilst flood
risk likely to increase in the future to the
immediate coastal strip of Little Rockley
Bay and hinterland, the risk to communities
and business is ranked as low to medium,
so long as inappropriate future
development does not occur in flood risk
areas.
A number of Adaptation Response options
are likely to be needed to address
manage the stakeholder vulnerability.
Based on the outcome of the above table, the following table outlines the most likely Adaptation Responses which apply to this CBU. Possible “courses
of action” (as outlined in Section 3.3 and Appendix C) are also presented for consideration.
Page 28
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Coastal Behaviour Unit F – Lowlands to Rockly Bay
Adaptation Response Title
Adaptation Response A: Maintain/restore wetlands and mangrove ecosystems;
Adaptation Response B: Maintain sediment transport;
Adaptation Response C: Preserve coastal land/development (including
infrastructure);
Adaptation Response D: Maintain shorelines utilizing “soft” measures;
Years 0 – 5 (2019)
X
N/A
Adaptation Response F: Preserve Habitat for Vulnerable Species;
Adaptation Response G: Maintain water quality
X
N/A
sediment supply within Little Rockly
Bay is critical
sediment supply within Little
Rockly Bay is critical
part of a future ICZM Plan that
identifies clear setbacks policies etc
Longer term land acquisition
programs.
X
short term “pilot” projects required
to learn successes
Adaptation Response E: Maintain shorelines utilizing “hard” measures;
Years 5 - 20 (2034)
short term asset protection
at mouth of River Lambeau
(mangrove protection for marine species)
implementation of short term
“pilot” projects into the longer term within
the CBU
X
long term asset relocation
at mouth of River Lambeau
(mangrove protection for marine species)
Important for tourism sector
Important for tourism sector
Existing Coastal Defences
Vulnerability (people)
Current status
Seawall and rock revetments and rubble
dumped at some sites. Mangroves at
Lambeau River mouth.
Preferred Adaptation Responses (see CCARP for possible “Courses of Action”
or refer to Appendix C for engineering based interventions).
B, C, F, G
D (long term); E (short term).
St Andrew Parish = 16,209 (2011
Census).
Page 29
SECTION 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The challenge that faced this consultancy is the unenviable task to attempt to combine EbA, ICZM and CCA.
Although the terms are much used and often in conjunction with each other, there has not been an attempt to
prepare clear guidance on how the different approaches and principles can be operated together. There are
many examples in the literature of EbA Guidelines, CCA Guidelines and ICZM “how to do it” guides, but
nowhere has a nation attempted to amalgamate all three principles.
The key message for the delivery of ICZM for T&T is that whatever principle, approach or concept is to be
pursued, that every effort is made to make the intended outcome clear for all stakeholders. The risk of
“losing” stakeholders in the process, due to a lack of clarity of ultimate message is very high in T&T if this
simple message is not adhered to.
This Guidance concludes that a simple approach towards linking EbA principles with ICZM Policy Objectives is
needed. This has been achieved by recommending a screening process that asks 5 simple EbA related
questions that relate directly to the internationally accepted Convention of Biological Diversity EbA Principles.
The outcome of this process is that EbA principles have been used to demonstrate which adaptation responses
are the most appropriate to employ and implement.
In the context of this consultancy it is the intent that the principles EbA are not only used to shape climate
change adaptation options but also the delivery of ICZM policy. The task here is how EbA can provide a
framework to help structure application of a climate “lens” to cross-sectoral planning to enable adaptation
that targets the most vulnerable social, economic and environmental areas of coast. A goal of an ICZM policy
is to promote and facilitate cross-sectoral actions to mainstream the integration of adaptation issues into
ongoing policy processes. The principles of EbA can then provide guidance to structure the integration of
different sector responses that ensure collective responses meet both the principles and goals of ICZM and
how climate change adaptation techniques can be mainstreamed into decision making (Sustainable Seas
2014c).
The user is reminded that this guidance is not intended as a standalone resource. Rather, it provides an
overview of a decision making process that aims to synthesise current thinking about good practice adaptation
and good practice EbA. It is intended that the guidance be used as a tool that links to the separate CCARP
(Sustainable Seas Ltd 2014b) and is also used for training and capacity building to all stakeholders in T&T. It
should also be seen as a ‘living document’ that will be updated and enhanced during field-testing.
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
Brooks, N. (2003). A conceptual framework Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A conceptual framework (p.
20pp).
Forst, M. F. (2009). The convergence of Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the ecosystems
approach. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(6), 294–306. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.03.007
GIZ. (2009). Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA). A new approach to advance natural solutions for climate
change adaptation across different sectors.
Haines-Young, R. and M. Potschin (2011): Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the Ecosystem
Approach. Deliverable D2.1, PEGASO Grant agreement nº: 244170. CEM Working Paper No 7, 17pp.
Shepherd, G. (2004). The Ecosystem Approach. Five Steps to Implementation (p. 39pp).
Sustainable Seas Ltd (2014a) “Design and Implementation of a Coastal Ecosystem based Climate Change
Adaptation Plan and Guidelines for incorporating an Ecosystem Based Approach (EbA) to Adaptation into a
National Integrated Coastal Zone Management Policy”. Work Plan and Methodology
Sustainable Seas Ltd (2014b) “Design and Implementation of a Coastal Ecosystem based Climate Change
Adaptation Plan and Guidelines for incorporating an Ecosystem Based Approach (EbA) to Adaptation into a
National Integrated Coastal Zone Management Policy. Climate Change Adaptation Response Plan (CCARP)
Sustainable Seas Ltd (2014c) “Design and Implementation of a Coastal Ecosystem based Climate Change
Adaptation Plan and Guidelines for incorporating an Ecosystem Based Approach (EbA) to Adaptation into a
National Integrated Coastal Zone Management Policy. Mainstreaming Climate Change into ICZM
TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers (p. 210pp).
USAid. (2009). Adapting to coastal climate change. A guidebook for development planners (p. 148pp).
Page 31
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
APPENDIX B: PRACTICAL STEPS FOR APPLICATION OF AN EBA AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP TO THE EBA PRINCIPLES. SOURCE (SHEPHERD, 2004).
Organising Step
Step A Determining the main
stakeholders, defining the
ecosystem area, and
developing the relationship
between them
EBA Principle
1.
7.
11.
12.
Step B
Characterizing the structure
and function of the
ecosystem, and setting in
place mechanisms to
manage and monitor it
2.
5.
Step C Identifying the important
economic issues that will
affect the ecosystem and its
inhabitants
4.
6.
10.
The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of
societal choice.
The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and
temporal scales.
The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information,
including scientific and local knowledge, innovations and practices.
The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and
scientific disciplines.
Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.
Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, to maintain ecosystem
services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.
Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.
The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and
integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.
Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to
understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such
ecosystem-management programme should:
i) reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;
ii) align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and
iii) internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.
Step D Determining the likely impact 3.
of the ecosystem on adjacent
7.
ecosystems
Step E
Deciding on long-term goals,
and flexible ways of
reaching them
7.
8.
9.
Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their
activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.
The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and
temporal scales.
The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and
temporal scales.
Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize
ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the
long term.
Management must recognize that change is inevitable.
Page 32
APPENDIX C: ADAPTATION REPONSES (HARD AND SOFT MEASURE INTERVENTIONS)
Hard and Soft Measure Approaches (Erosion Mitigation Measures)
Measure Type
Low cost Seawall/bulkhead
Adaptation
Response
Heading and
Number
Adaptation
Response
E:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“hard” measures
Key
Purpose
Resiliency Implication (0-5
years)
Resiliency Implication (5-25
years)
Armourin
g
structure
Assessment
of
overtopping
frequency (averaging 0.5 – 1m
above high tide) and from this,
maintain standard of protection
levels as dictated by the backing
land use or assets at risk.
Immediate actions may include
engineering a crest splash wall of
circa 0.3m height.
Likely upgrade to the
standard
of
protection
afforded by the structure
(increase crest level height –
circa 0.5m). Possible re-setting
of sheet piles if being
undermined.
Yes – but
vertical
structures will
impact
on
beach levels.
Depending on material used
for breakwater. Rock being
more resilient to wave energy
than nylon bags). Possibly
removal, relocation or redesign of the structure to
better afford protection to
assets at risk. Possible
sediment
recycling
/redistribution if structure is
proving too effective in
accreting sediment volumes.
Geo-bag
(nylon
bags)
revetment most likely to be
upgraded with new bags.
With no formal design
criteria, there is a high risk of
toe failure within this time
period and so structure
resiliency is predicted to be
weak and in need of structure
re-build. Crest height will
need re-designing to counter
water level fluctuations and to
improve performance. Whilst
structure can be designed to
be robust, its wider impact on
sediment
dynamics
over
longer time scales makes this
not a preferred option form
climate
resilience
unless
properly constructed and
designed at the outset.
Possible –
however
installation of
breakwaters
would be
required
along the
entire length
of the coastal
line.
Foreshore Breakwater (rock,
concrete filled barrels or
nylon geo-bags)
Adaptation
Response
E:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“hard” measures
Shore
stabilisati
on
Possible increase in crest height
(usually designed to be circa +2m
in crest height) which may be an
extra level of geo-bag or rock.
Decision likely to be based on an
assessment of the sediment
accretion volumes generated by
the structure and whether
accreted sediment is making the
structure more robust (i.e.: part
buried etc).
Near shore breakwater
Adaptation
Response
E:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“hard” measures
Shore
stabilisati
on
Commonly used in high energy
zones. As a result, short term
resiliency is dependent on
material used for construction
(geo-bag, rock, coral boulder,
sand cement plastered bags etc).
Mesh
likely
to
require
replacement on coral boulder
breakwaters on ocean side (within
5 years), less on (circa 10years
on lagoon side). Design impacts
on wider hydrodynamic regime
make this structure poor in terms
of wider resilience to the coastal
environment.
Adaptation
Response
F:
Preserve Habitat
for
Vulnerable
Species
Resiliency
“Score”
impact on
island
dynamics
Cost
Judgement
for Tobago
Possible – if
does
not
impact
on
reef dynamics
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Coral Block (Sand) Revetment
Adaptation
Response
E:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“hard” measures
Armourin
g
structure
Sand cement bag revetments will
need
constant
maintenance.
Concrete interlocking “S” or “Z”
block revetments are more
modular in their design and hence
more resilient to accommodate
change. Maintaining standard of
service is dependent upon
revetment
material
being
available on island (resiliency of
structure may therefore be
jeopardised as a result if material
is needed via importation).
Shore
stabilisati
on
Depending upon material used
for construction, short term
resiliency can be accommodated
into
regular
maintenance
programmes. The initial groyne
field spacing strategy is most
likely
“ad-hoc”
and
not
strategically planned on any
island. Short term beach volume
impacts are most likely the result
of poor groyne field placement
on most islands.
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“soft” measures
Coral Rock Groynes
Adaptation
Response
E:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“hard” measures
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“soft” measures
Adhoc Reclamation
Adaptation
Response
E:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“hard” measures
Erosion
control/p
revention
Continued use of solid waste or
reclamation “spoil. Often this is
never consolidated and is easily
dispersed by high tides. Not a
resilient coast protection option
Coral Rock Gabions
Adaptation
Response
E:
Maintain
shorelines utilizing
“hard” measures
Erosion
control/p
revention
Filling of wire baskets with local
coral rubble material. Often
design to be a vertical faced wall
which acts to scour fronting
beaches.
Modular
“block”
type
revetments (not made of coral
boulders or sand) are more
durable and robust and hence
more resilient to climate
change. Increasing slope
angle or crest height may be
required in this time epoch
depending on fronting beach
condition. Replacement of
geotextile membrane likely
(see image opposite) within
this time epoch. Lack of “side”
protection will reduce the
resiliency of any revetted
structure and hence will
require
engineering
intervention at some time in
the future (if not present at
the start).
Coral boulder groynes can be
re-designed to capture more
sediment transport around
islands by extending their
length into the house reef
area. Availability of material
is dependent upon this
strategy. The longer term
impact of this approach is
likely to result in down-steam
beach erosion especially if
sediment budgets are in a net
loss phase. Sand (moveable)
groynes are less resilient to
storms, but provide a better
“shoreline
management”
resilient approach.
No
inherent
resilience
associated with this option
long term.
Yes
–
however may
interfere with
sediment
processes if
not designed
well.
Also
significant
wave height
data
is
needed
to
help
with
appropriate
design
parameters.
Not resilient to high wave
energy and often result in
basket failure and defence
failure
Possible
–
only
applicable on
lagoon sides
of islands and
Possible
–
most
likely
impact
on
adjacent
shorelines
resulting
in
beach erosion
on
small
islands.
No – not a
recommended
approach.
Formal
reclamation
procedures
should
be
followed and
not
ad-hoc
approaches.
Page 34
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
not on open
ocean sides
of islands.
Hard and Soft Measure Approaches (Island Access Infrastructure)
Measure Type
Quay Walls
Adaptation
Response
Heading
and
Number
Adaptation
Response E:
Maintain
shorelines
utilizing
“hard”
measures
Key Purpose
Resiliency Implication (0-5 years)
Resiliency Implication (5-25
years)
Access
infrastructure
As this structure is built purposely for
access needs, issues surrounding short
term resilience have to be directly
linked to maintaining its standard of
service to wave overtopping. In the
short term, this refers to regular
maintenance of the structure and any
engineering modification needed to
ensure its performance (to continually
ensure island access) is maintained.
Their impact on wider island
geomorphological
processes
(exacerbating coastal erosion) has to
be
understood.
Methodological
“standards” taking forward more
strategic
shoreline
management
should be implemented prior to its
construction.
As a structure (in this time
epoch) it is likely to be resilient
to climate change, assuming
this is made of robust
materials
that
can
be
replaced/added to as part of
a
regular
maintenance
schedule. The fact that it is a
“fixed” feature, also equally
makes this of “low resilience”
to climate change. Its resilience
as a strategic measure to
counter wider climate impacts
is questioned. Methodological
“standards” taking forward
more
strategic
shoreline
management
should
be
implemented prior to its
construction.
As a structure (in this time
epoch) it is likely to be resilient
to climate change, assuming
this is made of robust
materials
that
can
be
replaced/added to as part of
a
regular
maintenance
schedule. The fact that it is a
“fixed” feature, also equally
makes this of “low resilience”
to climate change.
Its resilience as a strategic
measure to counter wider
climate impacts is questioned.
Methodological “standards”
taking forward more strategic
shoreline management should
be implemented prior to its
construction.
As a structure (in this time
epoch) it is likely to be resilient
Harbour Breakwater
Adaptation
Response E:
Maintain
shorelines
utilizing
“hard”
measures
Access
infrastructure
As this structure is built purposely for
access needs, issues surrounding short
term resilience have to be directly
linked to maintaining their standard
of service. In the short term, this refers
to regular maintenance of the
structure and any engineering
modification needed to ensure its
performance (to continually ensure
island access) is maintained. Their
impact
on
wider
island
geomorphological
processes
(exacerbating coastal erosion) has to
be
understood.
Methodological
“standards” taking forward more
strategic
shoreline
management
should be implemented prior to its
construction.
Entrance Channel Protection
Adaptation
Response E:
Access
infrastructure
As this structure is built purposely for
access needs, issues surrounding short
Resiliency
“Score”
Impact on
Island
dynamcs
Cost
Judgement
for Tobago
Yes – helpful
for many “ship
to
shore”
programmes,
however, hard
quay
walls
need to be
correctly
designed
to
ensure
no
erosion
downdrift.
Yes – helpful
for many “ship
to
shore”
programmes,
however, hard
quay
walls
need to be
correctly
designed
to
ensure
no
erosion
downdrift.
Yes
–
however, their
Page 35
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Maintain
shorelines
utilizing
“hard”
measures
Adaptation
Response B:
Maintain
sediment
transport
term resilience have to be directly
linked to maintaining their standard
of service. In the short term, this refers
to regular maintenance of the
structure and any engineering
modification needed to ensure its
performance (to continually ensure
island access) is maintained.
to climate change, assuming
this is made of robust
materials
that
can
be
replaced/added to as part of
a
regular
maintenance
schedule. The fact that it is a
“fixed” feature, also equally
makes this of “low resilience”
to climate change.
Its resilience as a strategic
measure to counter wider
climate impacts is questioned
though has to be understood.
Impacts on nearshore reef
habitats
(footprint
of
protection placement) etc are
most likely impacted upon
over the longer term.
impact
on
wider island
geomorpholog
ical processes
(exacerbating
coastal
erosion) has to
be understood.
Methodologica
l “standards”
taking
forward more
strategic
shoreline
management
should
be
implemented
prior to its
construction.
Page 36
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Hard and Soft Measure Approaches (Measures to mitigate land shortage and coastal flooding)
Measure Type
Land Reclamation
Bridge / causeway
Adaptation
Response Heading
and Number
Adaptation
Response E: Maintain
shorelines
utilizing
“hard” measures
Adaptation
Response E: Maintain
shorelines
utilizing
“hard” measures
Resiliency Implication (0-5 years)
Resiliency Implication (5-25 years)
Actual engineering effort to make land
higher is relatively simple, assuming
appropriate materials are available at
suitable costs.
However, unless formal “protection”
measures are provided to the newly
reclaimed land, the resiliency of the
operation (even in the short term) is likely
to be reduced (ie: edge treatment works
etc).
Assuming protection measures are
provided to the land reclamation
area (i.e. measures identified in
Section 3.3.2) then the resiliency of
the land reclamation exercise (to
climate change) is high. Otherwise, the
short term epoch implication will be
reduced.
Assuming causeways are built to enable
water flow (i.e.: on piers/with ducts) then
the short term resiliency of the structure
AND the impact on adjacent islands is
reduced (though not classified as “low”).
If the causeway is solid, thus impacting on
natural hydrodynamics, then the ability to
engineer resilience basically means the
causeway is built to a higher crest level,
though at major negative impact on the
natural water flow around the island.
Assuming causeways are built to
enable water flow (i.e.: on piers/with
ducts) then the short term resiliency of
the structure AND the impact on
adjacent islands is reduced (though
not classified as “low”). If the
causeway is solid, thus impacting on
natural hydrodynamics, then the
resiliency of the structure is low (as
per the short term epoch outcome).
Resilienc
y score
impact
on island
dynamics
Cost
Judgement
for Tobago
Possible
but
expenseive
and high
environmen
tal impact
(if a solid
structure).
No – not
financially
viable for
most
Tobagonia
n atolls.
Page 37
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Hard and Soft Measure Approaches ‘Quick fix’ measures (short-timeframe)
Measure Type
Beach replenishment
Adaptation
Response Heading
and Number
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain shorelines
utilizing
“soft”
measures
Adaptation
Response B: Maintain
sediment transport
Resiliency Implication (0-5 years)
Resiliency Implication (5-25 years)
Very popular and often effective short
term measure. Its resiliency in the short
term is linked to the sediment budget of
the island in question. If the island
experiences a net negative sediment
budget, then even short term renourishment programmes can have wider
impacts on island dynamics.
As re-nourishment programmes often
last up to 10 seasons (ie: circa 5
years), the resiliency of the approach
has to be proven during the first time
epoch (ie: a demonstrated success). If
the island experiences a net negative
sediment budget, then even short term
re-nourishment programmes can have
wider impacts on island dynamics. If
sediment budgets are “neutral”
though sediment recycling is adopted
(accreting areas replenishing eroding
areas), then resiliency of the
approach can be high so long as no
other dredging or man induced
activity takes sediment out of the
sediment budget “system”.
These structures play no role in
providing a long term resilient
defence approach. It is common for
such structures to have a residual life
of possibly 2 seasons (1 year).
Bolstering sand bagged seawalls with
concrete or placing a sand/concrete
mix within sandbags may enhance the
residual life of such structures, though
the failure of the nylon bags (cheaper
than geotextile) often results in
structure
failure
during
storm
conditions.
Yes
–
coupled
with beach
recycling
from
accreting
sites, this
method is
considered
applicable
but using
coral
gravel in
many
instances,
Preserving
existing
“green
belt”
vegetation is a clear resilient measure to
adopt on islands that have enough littoral
space and are large enough to
accommodate this. It is not a resilient
measure if the island is too small to retain
a suitable natural vegetation line. It
becomes a good resilient measure in the
short term if a natural vegetative
zonation is present on an island. Pioneer
vegetation is only likely to initially “take
hold” during this time epoch (fetau trees
“beach mahogany”).
Maintaining the necessary landforms
for sustained vegetation growth is
paramount over the long term. Linking
this to ridge maintenance is key is
resiliency of this option is to occur. It is
more useful in “high exposure” islands
and undertaken in tandem with other
soft engineering schemes.
Yes – a
low
cost
and
environmen
tallt
sensitive
solution in
many outer
atoll
situations
This technique inherits best practices of
natural resiliency with regards to “using
Longer term planning to design
artificial “ridge crests” may be
Yes
gravel
See reference to the “national Sediment
Engine Strategy – SES” in Section 7.2 of
this report.
Sand container seawalls and
groynes
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain shorelines
utilizing
“soft”
measures
Adaptation
Response B: Maintain
sediment transport
Coastal vegetation retention
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain shorelines
utilizing
“soft”
measures
Adaptation
Response
A:
Maintain/restore
wetlands
and
mangrove
ecosystems
Coral Gravel Ridge Maintenance
Adaptation
Response
D:
The temporary nature of these structures,
coupled with the fact there is no formal
design model to follow, renders the
structures of being of low resilience to
climate change in the short term. Despite
this the “ad hoc” nature to these structures
makes then able to be quickly built to
address an urgent or immediate need.
Resilienc
y “Score”
impact
on island
dynamics
Cost
Judgement
for Tobago
Yes
(designs
are most
appropriat
e).
–
Page 38
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Maintain shorelines
utilizing
“soft”
measures
Adaptation
Response B: Maintain
sediment transport
Artificial reefs
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain shorelines
utilizing
“soft”
measures
Adaptation
Response F: Preserve
Habitat
for
Vulnerable Species
Coastal structures on stilts
Submerged sand filled geotextile
tubes
Adaptation
Response
G:
Maintain
water
quality
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain shorelines
utilizing
“soft”
measures
Adaptation
Response E: Maintain
shorelines
utilizing
“hard” measures
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain shorelines
utilizing
“soft”
measures
nature” to enable natural coastal
geomorphological ridge formation to
develop. Short term resiliency measures
may include artificially bolstering storm
ridge integrity.
introduced in areas to improve the
longer term resiliency of the ridge.
This is likely to involve sediment
recycling or re-nourishment operations
in addition to vegetation planting
programmes (see above). This
technique needs to be promoted more
on inhabited islands for long term
implementation.
Establishing the platform and environment
to create artificial reefs can be relatively
simple. Using pre-cast units (i.e.: Reef
Balls – see image) is one effective way
of setting this approach up (though
expensive). Their resilience to storms
depends on how they are anchored to
the seabed.
Longer term resilience of artificial
reefs depends on the water quality
conditions to enable reef colonisation
to occur on the platform used (or precast units). It is often not considered as
a long term solution to dealing with
erosion on islands due to poor
strategic planning and commitment to
monitoring and adaptation of design.
The lack of design guidance regarding
pile distance and crest design heights
makes short term resilience difficult to
quantify, however, assuming initial
structure height is appropriate, then
resilience to climate induced storms in this
time epoch is deemed as high.
The lack of design guidance
regarding pile distance and crest
design heights makes long term
resilience difficult to quantify,
however, assuming initial structure
height is appropriate, then resilience
to climate induced storms in this time
epoch is deemed as high. Should
design height not be appropriate,
then retrofitting the height of the
construction is challenging and hence
its resilience to climate change is very
much dependent upon its original
design.
With no formal design criteria, there
is a high risk of toe failure within this
time period and so structure resiliency
is predicted to be weak and in need
of structure re-build. Crest height will
need re-designing to counter water
level fluctuations and to improve
performance. Whilst structure can be
designed to be robust, its wider
impact on sediment dynamics over
longer time scales makes this not a
preferred option form climate
resilience unless properly constructed
and designed at the outset.
Commonly used in high energy zones
(ocean side of islands). As a result, short
term resiliency is dependent on material
used for construction (geo-bag, sand
cement plastered bags etc). Geotextile
bags (poor quality) may require
replacement in high energy wave
environments within 5 years). Design
impacts on wider hydrodynamic regime
make this structure poor in terms of wider
resilience to the coastal environment.
coral
barrier
defences
need to be
considered.
as
a
possible
national
strategic
option
Yes – a
possible
national
strategic
option
Adaptation
measure as
opposed to
a coastal
protection
technique
Yes – a
possible
national
strategic
option
Page 39
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Mangrove planting
Adaptation
Response
D:
Maintain shorelines
utilizing
“soft”
measures.
Adaptation
Response
A:
Maintain/restore
wetlands
and
mangrove
ecosystems
Short term resiliency is dependent upon
the level of protection that is given to
enable the growth of the seagrass or
mangrove seedlings. The main factors to
consider when planting mangroves are
the spacing of the propagules, number of
propagules planted together, time of
year when propagules are planted,
handling of propagules prior to planting
and the frequency of inundation. Often
sand bag structures/defence blocks are
needed to ensure that suitable protection
is afforded to the newly planted
mangrove propagules.
Long term resilience of this approach
is dependent upon the long term
maintenance and management of the
“protection”
afforded
to
the
propagules in the short term epoch. If
this
is
undertaken,
and
mangrove/seagrass
beds
are
encouraged in suitable quiescent
locations, then this has a good longer
term resilient potential.
Yes – a
possible
national
strategic
option
Page 40
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation
of EbA into an ICZM Policy
APPENDIX D: TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DRAFT ICZM POLICY
OBJECTIVES
The following is taken from Section 6 of the 2014 Draft ICZM Policy Framework for T&T.
Page 41
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation
of EbA into an ICZM Policy
APPENDIX E – BACKGROUND PAPER FOR GUIDELINES TO
INCORPORATE EBA INTO ICZM AND CCA
Overview
ICZM is a widely accepted mechanism for the governance, management and planning of coastal
zones. Its origins emerged from ideas in the 1930s in the US, where integrated, multiple‐objective
approaches to environmental management were being discussed. These developments were
heavily influenced by “systems” thinking and the environmental movements of the 1960s and
1970s. Thus a decade later these are now better refined and articulated in the form of ICZM. In
parallel to these developments, EbA has also emerged as a topic of discussion in the late 1980s
and early 1990s amongst the research and policy communities concerned with the management of
biodiversity and natural resources. It was argued that a new focus was required to achieve robust
and sustainable management and policy outcomes at a landscape‐scale and achieve the balanced
use of ecosystem services for people.
ICZM and the EbA have therefore had similar origins, and the ideas that have shaped them have
been derived largely from the same sources (Forst, 2009; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2011).
Indeed, interest in both strands of thinking was heavily reinforced and stimulated by the outcomes
of the Rio Conference in 1992 and the drafting of Agenda 21. The relationship between ICZM
and EbA is that together they provide planners and stakeholders with a science-based and
transparent means of matching emerging human uses to appropriate ocean and coastal areas in
ways that minimize conflicts and impacts, while ensuring sustainable benefits. Built on a foundation
of sustaining ecosystem services, ICZM represents a public planning process for achieving the goals
of EbA with increased efficiency through rational, objective spatial planning for future sustainable
uses.
The 2010 Conference of Parties (COP-10) of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) held in
Nagoya, Japan, identified that EbA to adaptation may include sustainable management, as well
as conservation and restoration of ecosystems, as part of an overall adaptation strategy that
takes into account the multiple social, economic and cultural co-benefits for local communities. In
particular EbA should avoid badly planned engineering solutions for adaptation that could work
against nature by constraining regular ecological cycles, which may lead to mal-adaptation and
increased social vulnerability.
Principles of ICZM and EbA
Principles of ICZM and EbA have evolved separately and, confusingly, one is often cited as a tool
to deliver the second. However, it has been argued that they provide mutually reinforcing sets of
ideas and not competing frameworks (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2011) (Table 2.1). The principles
of ICZM emphasise the way they help to shape the goals of policy and management, and lead to
design of the governance processes needed to deliver them. The principles of EbA seek to
encourage an understanding of how ecosystems function, how ecosystem integrity is important for
sustaining the output of ecosystem services, and how ecological thresholds and limits need to be
considered. They also emphasise the need to identify the multiple benefits that ecosystems can
provide to people, and the importance of assessing the value of these benefits so that they can be
reflected in decision making in order to adapt to environmental change.
A number of different agencies have produced definitions of ICZM, EbA and their principles, but
the most often cited and ‘up-to-date’ definitions are those provided by the Mediterranean “ICZM
Page 42
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation
of EbA into an ICZM Policy
Protocol” of the Barcelona Convention, adopted by 22 Mediterranean countries and the European
Community (EC), and the CBD (that has been adopted by 194 Parties).
The ICZM Protocol defines ICZM as follows (key terms underlined in bold text):
“a dynamic process for the sustainable management and use of coastal zones, taking into account at
the same time the fragility of coastal ecosystems and landscapes, the diversity of activities and uses,
their interactions, the maritime orientation of certain activities and uses and their impact on both the
marine and land parts.”
The CBD defines the Ecosystem Approach as:
“a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes
conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. It is based on the application of appropriate
scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization which encompass the essential
processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that
humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems.”
ICZM is sold essentially as a “planning process” that explicitly identifies EbA as an instrument (see
ICZM Protocol 3-Figure E.1) towards delivering sustainable development through the application
of appropriate methodologies, techniques and/or interventions. EbA therefore provides a set of
principles that frame the objectives of ecosystem management to secure provision of ecosystem
goods and services within the context of a governance framework shaped by ICZM. The
application of EbA within an ICZM framework is aimed to ensure that management and planning
processes are implemented to protect, conserve and sustain ecosystem function and services.
What frames the relationship between ICZM and EbA, for this project, is that functional coastal
ecosystems are critical to the integrity and viability of terrestrial and marine systems and the
wellbeing of coastal communities who are dependent on the goods and services provided by the
coastal ecosystems: EBA provides a set of principles that frame the objectives of ecosystem
management to secure provision of ecosystem goods and services. In parallel, ICZM provides the
governance framework to ensure that management and planning processes are implemented to
protect, conserve and sustain ecosystem function and services. This is reflected in Figure E.1 which
shows how application of EbA principles will ensure ICZM is implemented to cover the conservation
and renewable use of resources, and the sharing of benefits derived from natural resources
throughout society. The close coupling of social and environmental systems is also stressed in the
EbA, which emphasises that decisions about policy and management are essentially a matter of
societal choice. The EbA principles also recognise that decisions have to be grounded on a
scientific understanding of biophysical limits that constrain ecological processes and the spatial
and temporal scales at which they operate. The final outcome to ensuring EbA is included within
the implementation of ICZM is that it helps focus decision makers on longer‐term, more sustainable
perspectives rather than on shorter‐term fixes that may ultimately fail to deliver lasting,
cost‐effective socio‐economic and environmental benefits.
Page 43
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into an ICZM Policy
FIGURE E.1. THE PRINCIPLES OF EBA ARE BUILT INTO PRINCIPLES OF ICZM THROUGH EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH IDENTIFIED AS ICZM PRINCIPLE 3. THE EBA PRINCIPLES
EFFECTIVELY PROVIDE A SERIES OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT PROVIDE A ‘FEEBBACK’ LOOP TO THE ICZM PRINCIPLES TO ENSURE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT THAT OPERATES
ACROSS SOCIAL AND NATURAL SYSTEMS. SOURCE: THE ICZM AND EBA PRINCIPLES ARE THOSE FROM THE ICZM PROTOCOL OF THE BARCELONA CONVENTION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN AND FROM THE
CONVENTION FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (SEE HAINES-YOUNG, R. AND M. POTSCHIN (2011)). THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ICZM AND EBA IS THE AUTHORS.
Page 44
Building Climate Resilience into ICZM and EbA
ICZM and EbA both provide a robust framework to determine strategies and measures for climate resilience.
These relate to the first 2 steps of the USAid process of climate change adaptation (USAid, 2009) (see Figure
E.2), namely, “Assess Vulnerability” and “Select course of action”.
FIGURE E.2 “5 STEPPED APPROACH” FOR ADAPTING TO COASTAL CLIMATE CHANGE (USAID 2009)
As stressed in above, ICZM plays an important role in shaping coastal ecosystem management policies, as
well as improving and co-ordinating local activities with EbA providing the principal criteria to underpin the
design of intervention measures. Climate change has added another layer of complexity to coastal
management to which ICZM and EbA are relevant instruments because of their focus on identifying and
quantifying coastal hazards and impacts to assess coastal vulnerability. In the current assignment where EbA
frames CCA in the context of an ICZM policy, ICZM addresses the policy direction of climate change
adaptation while EbA directs the “management practices” for adaptation in response towards delivering
coastal resilience.
EbA offers a valuable solution for assisting climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Tobago.
This is because embedded within EbA is the concept of resilience and maintenance of ecosystem function.
Resilience is the ability to return toward a previous state following a disturbance – whether that disturbance is
natural, as in a hurricane/storm event, or whether it is human-induced, such as the physical destruction of a
reef or ill-informed coastal protection structures. This is especially important for coastal systems that are
particularly susceptible to the challenges of climate change and which are critical to sustainable development
to meet coastal community needs.
The principles of EbA can be used as follows:
f) to structure societal responses into new and emerging issues that are relevant to T&T.
g) to help coastal communities to adapt to climate change through management interventions that lead to
ecosystems being more resilient to climate warming, sea level rise, and changes in ocean acidity.
h) to help focus management effort on habitats that are actually “capable” of buffering human
communities from climate change impacts. The protection of mangroves, for example, can help buffer
inland areas from severe storm impacts.
i)
To help the development of “green economies”, by pointing public and private sector investment at
maintaining and enhancing natural infrastructure and renewable energy.
j)
To make a significant contribution to climate change adaptation through the following characteristics:

EbA promotes multi-sectoral approaches;

EbA operates at multiple geographical scales;

EbA integrates flexible management structures that enable adaptive management,
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy

EbA minimizes trade-offs and maximizes benefits with development and conservation goals to
avoid unintended negative social and environmental impacts;

EbA is based on the best available science and local knowledge, and should foster knowledge
generation and diffusion;

EbA is about promoting resilient ecosystems and using nature-based solutions to provide benefits
to people, especially the most vulnerable;

EbA must be participatory, transparent, accountable, and culturally appropriate, while actively
embracing equity and gender issues.
Applications of these EbA characteristics, coupled with the management and governance framework provided
by ICZM, can address unsustainable land development practices in the watersheds, land use, and resource
allocation conflicts in the coastal zone that have undermined the role of ecosystems in protecting each other.
Management practices to implement EBA should recognise that the design of intervention measures needs to
address:

An emphasizes the protection of ecosystem structure, functioning and key processes;

“site specific” actions (local) focusing on a specific ecosystem and the range of activities affecting it;

The interconnectedness within systems, recognizing the importance of interactions between many
target species or key services and other non-target species;

Integration of ecological, social, economic and institutional perspectives, recognizing their strong
interdependences.
The challenge, as for so many of these ideas, is being able to mainstream these principles into political and
developmental thinking that spans beyond political timescales.
Guidelines to Incorporate EBA into ICZM and CCA
T&T (through the Institute of Marine Affairs – IMA) has drafted an ICZM Policy Framework (April 2014) that
identified 11 defined objectives in order to achieve balance between development and conservation by
managing human activities within the coastal zone, and addressing conflicts amongst different resource users
and uses (see Appendix D). New economic policies, aimed at diversifying the T&T economy, would see new
investments in the delivery of sectoral developments such as tourism, agriculture, aquaculture and maritime
sectors, all of which depend on a healthy coastal environment. Successful achievement of these sectors in the
long term is potentially threatened by climate change impacts. Therefore, EbA is an appropriate vehicle to
ensure that the application of ICZM (within a fully compliant and endorsed Policy Framework) would help to
maintain a healthy coastal environment that is resilient to the impacts and challenges that climate change is
likely to present.
The largely academic origins of ICZM and EbA, coupled with a number of revisions to the articulation of their
‘Principles’, can paint a confusing picture. Therefore it is important to provide a pragmatic and practical
method to provide practical assistance to apply the 12 Principles of EBA to the design of management
interventions designed to deliver the T&T ICZM Policy Framework in a way that also provides adaptation to
climate change. The IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) has produced a guide to cluster
subsets of EbA Principles into a logical sequence of 5 steps (Shepherd, 2004). These steps can be used to
Page 46
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
structure the application of EbA within an ICZM framework to address the challenges of climate change
adaptation. The 5 steps can be re-phrased as a series of “questions” that provide a means to ensure that
principles of EbA are used within the framework of ICZM to identifying approaches to climate change
adaptation that are designed to reduce the vulnerability and risk to coastal systems and increase the
resilience of coastal communities; these 5 EbA questions are as follows:
Ecosystem Based Adaptation “Steps or “Questions”
6. Who are the main stakeholders and ecosystems, and what are the relationships between them?
7. What is the structure and function of the ecosystems, and are means in place to manage and
monitor them?
8. What are the important economic issues that will affect the ecosystem and its inhabitants?
9. What are the likely impacts of the ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems?
10. What are the long term goals and have flexible ways of reaching them been determined?
Section 3 tests these 5 questions on the Southwest Tobago pilot project area.
FIGURE E.3. THE APPLICATION OF EBA STEPS TO FRAME THE APPLICATION OF ICZM TO THE ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN COMPONENTS OF
ADAPTATION MEASURES FOR CCA.
The above questions are now proposed and which may be asked of any management action to help provide
checks and indicators to monitor EbA implementation. The purpose of monitoring is to anticipate whether the
intervention is likely to lead to activity that will successfully address the coastal issue in a way that will deliver
Page 47
Deliverable 3: Guidelines for the incorporation of EbA into
an ICZM Policy
ICZM goals and provide robust adaptation to make nature and society more resilient to climate change. The
application of the above 5 questions is now recommended for national adoption within T&T. They are
designed to help focus the diagnosis of “root issues” in terms of coastal climate change impacts, trends, and
vulnerability, and the relationship of the resultant stresses and threats to coastal areas from current
development pressures and weaknesses in management.
In the context of Southwest Tobago, a recent report has identified shoreline vulnerability and risk (Halcrow,
2014) that threaten natural, social and economic assets in the coastal zone. Deliverable 2 of this International
Consultants contract produced a Climate Change Adaptation Response Plan (CCARP) that identified 7
possible Adaptation Responses to alleviate the pressures on natural, social and economic systems from
shoreline change. The management challenge is for any given stretch of coastline, which adaptation responses
are most appropriate to implement? A further question is if an adaptation response is deemed appropriate
what are the aims and objectives that should shape its design and implementation? The responses to the
above 5 EbA questions provide a means to determine how the shoreline vulnerability and risk (identified by
Halcrow) affects ecosystems and social and economic features of the coastline in order to identify which
adaptation responses are most appropriate for any given length of coastline, and how they should be
actioned.
Page 48