Latin America and the Search for a Coastal Law: Lessons from the Legislative Procedure in Colombia
1
School of Law, University Sergio Arboleda, Santa Marta 050022, Colombia
2
GeMarc and GESSA Research Groups, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla 080001, Colombia
3
Department of Marine and Environmental Science, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668, USA
4
Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Ambientales, University of Cádiz, 11510 Puerto Real, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(9), 5168; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095168
Submission received: 10 March 2022
/
Revised: 11 April 2022
/
Accepted: 17 April 2022
/
Published: 25 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic From Coastal Engineering to Integrated Coastal Zone Management)
Abstract
:In 2009, a network of scholars identified the legal framework associated with coastal management in eleven Latin American countries. They found an important lag in several countries, including Colombia. According to many scholars, a clear regulatory framework is of the utmost importance for integrated coastal management; however, the hurdles to reaching this goal have been poorly analyzed. This article aims to illustrate the challenges and barriers to legislate on coastal and marine issues in Colombia. The methodology and analysis used in this study can serve as an example to other Latin American countries. We combined comparative, documentary, and analytical research techniques to describe the current Latin American state-of-the-art legal framework. Additionally, from 16,224 gazettes (official records of the Congress of Colombia) we identified 80 bills concerning coastal and marine activities for a period of 17 years. However, only 2.1% of those bills addressed marine or coastal issues from the perspective of planning and management procedures. Instead the majority focused on social uses and economic activities. This research identified the difficulties that could be faced by a country in regulating its coast from an integrated perspective. These findings could support future procedures to approve coastal laws in Latin America and other countries on the world.
1. Introduction
A coastal law is critical for effective management of marine resources and associated communities [1]. The United States of America established the first coastal law fifty years ago in 1972 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Zone Management Law of 1972, as amended through the Energy Policy Law of 2005 (1972)). Coastal laws have subsequently been established by several other nations, such as South Africa (in 2009 [2]), Spain (in 1998, updated in 2013 [3,4]), and Cuba (in 2000 [5]). Other countries, mainly those with federal governments, have developed specific coastal regulations according to each state, such as Australia and the United Kingdom [1,6]. However, a coastal law should be clearly differentiated from coastal policies.
In general terms, a law is a set of objective rules that govern society by enabling and supporting social interactions [7], whereas a policy is a wider instrument that delineates the intentions and decisions of governments in addressing perceived problems. Policies often precede the establishment of pertinent laws. Sometimes, policies are developed with the intention of reducing the strength of existing law. In comparison to laws, policies are more difficult to enforce, may be non-binding, and consequently have less effect and as such, are more easily approved by governing bodies than laws that run counter to the interests of powerful political entities. Policies often encounter little legislative resistance, in part because they can be unenforceable, which can result in limited effectiveness in addressing the issue of interest. The prevalence of weakly enforceable policy over meaningful laws is frequently the case in Latin America. For example, in Colombia, coastal and marine policies [8,9] and a strategic planning initiative called “CONPES 3990” approved in 2020 have proven insufficient to compel appropriate actions by coastal stakeholders [10]. This example serves to illustrate how laws are required to force the implementation of coastal policies.
The research on coastal legislation is limited. While the first legislative studies appeared in the juridical scientific literature in the 1970s [11], few journals have a scope that includes research on the legislative issues for coastal and marine areas. There is, however, a growing literature on the subject. Recent papers related to coastal legislation have focused on analyzing the efficacy of the legal framework to several topics, such as the protection of marine ecosystems [12,13] or resources [14], land use planning inside integrated coastal zone management [15], harmonizing with urban planning [16,17], coastal boundaries [18], coastal zone management in a small island developing state [19], benefitting local stakeholders [20], and improving environmental impact assessment [21]. Few papers have addressed legislative procedures. An important exception is Neal et al. [22], who focused on the reasons why coastal regulations fail in the U.S.
Starting in the second half of the 20th century, several instruments have been created to support planning and to regulate activities from an integrated perspective. Land-use plans are of almost universal implementation and constitute an effective complementary tool for managing coastal zones [15,23]. Institutional programs that involve Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) are other important instruments. However, they do not clearly recognize coastal and marine territory with the same importance of continental areas (e.g., Land-Use Planning) [24], minimizing the importance of the interaction between social uses and economic activities in coastal and marine areas. To illustrate this, one of the ICZM legislation approaches defined by Cullinan [25] is called the “Extended Land-Use Planning Approach”.
The nature of planning and management tools highlights the relevance of differentiating the three realms on the maremtory area, a term which Botero [23] uses to refer to marine, terrestrial, and coastal areas. The first covers the three-dimensional space from the territorial sea border (24 nautical miles) or the “depth of closure” [26] to the border of the economical exclusive zone. The second realm includes the inland area extended from the limit of the coastal realm to a local municipal border; the purpose is to make these boundaries compatible with the decision-making process. Finally, the third realm is the most inaccurate and flexible [27] because it is located between the other two realms. However, the border between coastal and terrestrial realms can be fuzzy and may change according to the perspective of delimitation [28,29]. Prior work notes that borders defined by law are the most relevant; however, there is not a consensus about what constitutes the terrestrial-coastal border in national legislations, which use static lines (i.e., 50 or 100 m from the highest tide point) or geographical characteristics such as changes in vegetation cover or land-use [28]. Despite uncertainties and potential inaccuracies, previous demarcation lines are key elements for enforcing any law or policy.
A coastal regulation is expected to align with the pertinent interactions of coastal socio-natural systems [2]. Accommodating the complexity of such systems requires the establishment of a structure of coastal and marine territory. Although several different categories have been proposed to classify human activities on coastal areas, the scheme initially proffered by Barragán [30] and later adjusted by Botero [31] is the most pertinent [31]. This scheme differentiates between two different groups of categories: one group includes six social uses and is focused on social wellbeing, while the other group includes five economic activities, i.e., reflects a profit interest in the coastal and marine zones (Table 1). Therefore, a coastal regulation should recognize this structure of social uses and economic activities in order to align with legal principle of general interest. A classification of this type further facilitates various instruments, such as the Coastal Interactions Matrix initially proposed by UNESCO [32] and later adapted by Botero et al. [33].
Recognizing the importance of legal codification for adequate implementation of ICZM and MSP, this research aims to illustrate the challenges and barriers to the approval of a coastal law, using the legislative procedure in Colombia as an example. Additionally, this paper seeks to foster discussion of coastal law and policy in Latin American countries, where coastal regulations are in many cases non-existent, fragmented, or obsolete. Additionally, this paper seeks to analyze coastal regulations from a new perspective, namely, the legislative procedure within a Congress or Parliament, where the logic of politics works in very different ways than in technical institutions of the Executive power.
Colombia as a Case Study
Colombia is located on the northwest corner of South America, with access to the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. The Colombian coastal zone extends 3882 linear km [34] and has been delimited by several public policies in three large oceanic and coastal regions: the Continental Caribbean Region (CCR; 1642 km), the Insular Caribbean Region (ICR; 52 km), and the Pacific Region (CPR; 2188 km). Inside these regions, ten Coastal Environmental Units have been delimited: five in the CCR, one in the ICR, and four in the CPR [7]. Furthermore, delimitations have been made inside these units to create Units of Integrated Management. Therefore, a clear hierarchy for management can be identified, although only coastal policies [8,9] and regulations from the executive power recognize this geographical structure [35]. Currently, the administrative hierarchy lacks the strength of legislative authority. Colombia traditionally approves coastal policies and strategies instead of laws [9]. The Environmental Policy for Coastal Areas [8], for example, which included several innovations for managing the coastal zone (such as the aforementioned Coastal Environmental units), was approved at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century. The Colombian Oceanic Commission approved the National Policy for Oceans and Coastal Spaces [36] in 2007, and it was updated in 2017 [9]. This national coastal policy includes social, economic, and institutional aspects in its content. The National Planning Department [37] approved a strategic planning document called “CONPES 3990” in 2020. This document updated the existing aforementioned coastal policies and established a route for Colombia to become a “Bioceanic Power” by the year 2030.
Each country has a particular legislative procedure according to its political system (e.g., Presidential, Parliamentary), and different steps to approve laws [11]. In Colombia, the legislative procedure is regulated by the Organic Law of the Congress (Law 5th of 1992), which defines eight steps to convert a bill into a law [38]. This organic law defines the reasons a bill may be denied or archived, the constitutional commission which is to debate each bill, and several other features of legislative procedure. Because Colombia is a centralized country, only the Congress can process a law. Therefore, the scope of the topics legislated or not by this institution foretells the future of coastal regulation in the country.
2. Materials and Methods
This research was carried out in two-stages (Figure 1). Initially, we conducted a wide diagnosis of thirteen countries, stemming from the legal aspects of the ICM Decalogue defined in 2009 by the Latin Ibero-American Network for Integrated Coastal Management—IBERMAR [39]. In addition, we updated the exhaustive comparison done by Milanés [40] between each legal framework in fifteen Ibero-American and Caribbean countries. These inputs were integrated in the analysis carried out by the authors, as is shown in Appendix A.
We differentiated national regulations of each country according to the manner of implementation. Those regulations that aimed to prioritize ecosystem protection over economic benefit were categorized as ‘environmental approach’. Similarly, all laws that prioritize the development of economic activities/infrastructures, such as ports, tourism, or fishing, were categorized as ‘economical approach’ because the focus on the economic growth of the country.
The second stage was focused on the legislative procedure in Colombia, as a case study useful to the development of legislative procedures in other middle-income countries [41]. Considering the scarcity of methods for investigating legislative procedures, the legislative procedure in Colombia was studied with exploratory, documentary, and analytical research techniques. The main sources of information were the Official Gazettes of the Colombian Congress in which every proposal for a bill and corresponding debates must be published.
In total, 16,224 gazettes were identified, although only 2.1% (n = 336) contained materials that had a direct, indirect, or probable relationship with marine/coastal issues. To identify all bills related to coastal/marine issues, information of the bill(s) published in each gazette was recorded onto single cards. Record cards had information about each bill such as the title, authors and their party, commission, legislative period, the President of the Republic, and the last legislative step reached.
Conducting a legislative inventory required organizing each gazette in order, identifying, and correcting overlapping information, and identifying, and filling when possible, information on procedure gaps that was not available in the gazette. Bills were organized according to their closest coastal/marine use or activity (CMU/A), although the bills could occasionally be allotted to more than one group. To complete this task, the Library of the Congress was visited several times to directly consult the gazettes in print version and to resolve concerns and questions with public servants working there.
3. Results
An overview of the situation of Latin America helped to frame the case study within the region and to identify issues specific to Colombia. Almost half of the countries in Latin America have not approved a regulation to clearly delimit their coastal zones and define specific management actions (Table 2). In 1977, Costa Rica became the first country in the region with specific regulations for coastal zones. Only five other nations in the region subsequently approved similar coastal legislation.
Despite often-absent coastal legislation, almost every Latin American country has a law for environmental issues. All except for Puerto Rico have laws for sectoral aspects (e.g., ports, tourism, housing, etc.). It is important to note, however, that Puerto Rico remains under the US legal framework. We were unable to find documentation on environmental and economic legislation related to coastal areas for Nicaragua and Venezuela. For most of the nations, the common trend is regulation with a fragmented perspective, i.e., issue by issue rather than within a holistic framework. Additionally, few of the nations in the region update their coastal regulations to match advances in the field.
In the case of Colombia, a review of 336 gazettes allowed us to reconstruct the legislative process for 80 bills. Of these, 52 were directly related to marine/coastal matters, while 28 had an indirect connection. The 52 bills with CMU/A links covered a wide range of issues. The Colombian Senate has seven constitutional commissions, according to specific themes (Table 3); three commissions concentrated on 77% of all bills (1st, 2nd, and 5th), and two commissions debated bills relevant to almost all CMU/A (2nd and 3rd). This illustrates the dispersed way in which coastal issues are processed in the Colombian Congress.
Although our research identified eighty bills with a relation to the CMU/A or land-use planning, none of the bills fulfilled the characteristics of a true “Coastal Law”. One third of the bills were about land-use planning, and 21% were about extractive or primary activities such as mining, fisheries, and oil exploitation. Maritime trade was the third most frequent topic covered by the bills, mainly related to the harbor business. Human settlements and tourism were analyzed in the same number of bills (8%), while the other seven topics were not considered in a bill during the last 17 years.
Another key finding is the very low success rate of the legislative process, with less than 20% of total bills converted into law (Figure 2). Half of the bills analyzed were archived because of a procedure called “transit of legislature”, which is established in the Bylaw of the Congress (the 5th Organic Law of 1992): “a new bill must have its first debate in the same legislative period it was submitted (20 July to 20 June) and three other debates and a conciliation procedure must be in the following legislative period; otherwise, the bill must be archived” [38]. Other reasons for a bill being archived were a negative decision of the commission (13%) and the removal of the bill by the author prior to debate (11%). In sum, only one-fifth of bills became laws: three bills about land-use planning, one bill about social uses, and six bills about economic activities. Although the aforementioned causes reflect the specific case of Colombian legislative procedure, these results show that the approval of a law is not an easy and simple procedure. On the contrary, many obstacles exist. For example, when two bills with similar scope are presented, the most recent is archived ‘by accumulation’, as illustrated in Figure 2.
In addition, we found that the success rate of bills linked to CMU/A was low when their genesis was legislative as opposed to executive, which is consistent with other research related to the legislative procedure in Colombia (e.g., [42]). After 2005, only one bill has been approved as a law, evidencing an important loss of interest in Congress with respect to coastal and marine issues. Further evidence of weakening interest is that after 2006 the executive power presented only two bills, while Congress presented 29 bills in the same period without any success; the last bill with a legislative origin that became a law dates to 2004.
4. Discussion
There is no scientific consensus about what exactly should be included in a coastal law. While the most relevant framework was established by Cullinan [25], this only centered on ICM-related concerns. In the case of Latin American countries, a coastal law usually is understood as a regulation to delimit common areas (public goods and services) on the shore which, according to each country, belongs to the Nation/State [43]. This jurisdictional perspective is particular to certain countries, and in those with different legal traditions, such as the U.S. or Canada, the shore could be private property [22]. Consequently, one of the bases of coastal regulation in countries with a civil law system is to hand over public jurisdictions to private owners. The Spanish coastal law of 1988 [3] is one a clear example; it defines in Articles 3, 4 and 5 which areas and elements are part of the maritime public dominion. Cuba has adopted a similar approach; Article 4 establishes the limits of the coastal zone and the extent of protected areas [5,19,40].
Almost all countries studied have regulations for environmental and sectoral issues, although most lack laws for effective coastal management. Within the countries of Latin America, only Argentina lacks an environmental regulation for coastal areas, confirming the diagnosis made by the IBERMAR network in 2009 [39]. Similarly, every country except Puerto Rico has a kind of regulation for coastal economic sectors. This pattern could be explained by the economic interest in coastal zones by national governments, which recognize the importance of integrating coastal natural resources into the economy [2]. Overall, our findings show that most Latin American countries have been more interested in regulating the economic use and environmental protection of coastal resources as independent entities rather than establishing a binding framework to harmonize them into an integrated approach [44].
We found that Colombia has exhibited a pattern consistent with the broader Latin American context. In this country, a strong focus on a sectoral system by the Congress is evidenced over the integrated or holistic approach suggested by several academic studies on coastal and marine areas [45]. Although Colombia has extensive and diverse marine and coastal areas which provide a broad range of ecosystem services, the country has not approved a coastal law. Current environmental degradation could be a consequence of the predominance of uses and activities with an absence of consistent coastal regulation [46]. The two current coastal and marine policies appear to be insufficient to achieve the sustainable development goals, indicating that a law is necessary for enforcement.
Notably, the Colombian bills about human coastal settlements are contradictory. Colombia has more than 1300 human settlements on the coast, 26% of which are luxury condominiums [21], which implies the need for stricter regulation to prevent transferring public lands to private owners. Several bills have sought to address tourism, and recreation, and safety on beaches, two with almost identical content. The underlying emphasis on tourism is challenged by the lack of legislation on sustaining the health of coastal systems and keeping them attractive to wealthy visitors. The impacts of tourism on coastal zones are very well known [47,48]. In the absence of appropriate legislation, tourism often degrades the natural and cultural heritage of coastal zones, as has often been the case in Latin America. As a result, beaches are often privatized, and sensitive ecosystems lost [49].
An appropriate legislative framework is essential to effective implementation of any policy, including those related to coastal and marine issues [50]. Despite the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of marine areas belonging to Colombia and the presence there of almost all social uses and economic activities [21], only four bills have addressed topics under the structure of CMU/A during the time period circumscribed by our analyses. Despite their potential importance in Colombia, various topics received no attention, including five social uses (natural areas, infrastructure and facilities, dumping grounds, defense, local traditions) and two economic activities (basic and industrial). All of these activities are commonly regulated in other countries [2].
Legislative failure can result in the health of the land–water interface not receiving suitable attention from public institutions, society in general, and lawmakers in particular [31]. Consequently, coastal systems may suffer from poorly regulated development and construction practices, resulting in increased erosion and land speculation [51,52]. Additionally, marine areas and even coastal zones have been excluded from the vast majority of proposed bills and other scientific programs related to land-use planning. Indeed, reliance upon the single term “land planning” is evidence of institutional bias against insular and continental coastal zones.
A coastal law for Colombia should include a geographical perspective that links the terrestrial environment with the adjacent coasts and seas [7,53]. The Congress has the potential to process a bill that connects the marine and terrestrial realms in a single legal instrument that regulates social uses, economic activities, and jurisdictional lines in coastal areas. Such a coastal law could be developed with consideration of the failures of similar efforts in other countries, i.e., [21,22,52], in order to avoid mistakes.
Note that the analysis presented here did not differentiate between bills by length, scope of action, or perceived depth of political support. Certainly, such elements contribute to the fate of legislative efforts; yet, the primary driver of legislative success is clearly the origin of the bill, which must have its genesis in the executive branch to have any chance of becoming law. Considering this, it is imperative that the executive branch provide the initiative for developing a meaningful coastal law for Colombia.
5. Conclusions
While regulating coastal and marine areas, uses, and activities has been a priority for many countries throughout the world, only half of Latin American nations have legislation on this topic. Many countries, including Argentina, Chile, and Mexico, have legal frameworks for economic use and environmental protection of coastal and marine areas; however, these fail to harmonize the CMU/A into an integrated approach.
Despite the bills processed within the last two decades, Colombia lacks a law to regulate its coastal and marine territory. This can be traced back to a challenging legislative process, a low degree of technical knowledge about coastal and marine issues in the Congress, and individual interests in maintaining legal loopholes. In fact, several bills with the same text were found, demonstrating the difficulty of processing a law despite the interest of individual legislators. Moreover, while a persistent interest in land-use planning was identified, the only law approved in the period of analysis does not mention the coastal environment, which effectively limits the attention paid to coastal zones. In sum, a bill that covers all the complexity of coastal and marine territories continues to warrant consideration; despite there being several bills defined as coastal laws, these are merely improvements of current decrees.
During the last two decades, the legislative power in Colombia has been co-opted by the executive branch. However, if the country desires an effective coastal law, leadership from the legislative power will be necessary. The current analysis of the legislative procedure is a first step to understanding why a country such as Colombia lacks an integrated coastal law, and thus can serve as guidance for other countries with similar legislative patterns.
Author Contributions
C.M.B. and C.B.M.—formulation of the general idea of this research and its coordination; review and validation of the methodology for the analysis of 16,224 gazettes (official records of the Congress); organization, development, and analysis of information, visits to the congress of the republic, and interviews with senators. C.B.M., C.M.B., G.A. and B.C.—article writing, and methodological review. B.C.—English language style check. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Partial financial support for this research was provided to the first author from Sergio Arboleda University within the IV internal research announcement “La Sergio 4.0”. The second author thanks Universidad de la Costa for supporting her Post-Doctoral Project INDEX No.INV.1106-01-007-12, named “Resilient cities: minimizing vulnerabilities when facing extreme meteorological phenomena and climate changes at coastal communities”. This work is a contribution to the PAI Research Group RNM-328 Andalucía, Spain.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable. The study did not involve humans or animals.
Data Availability Statement
Data are confidential.
Acknowledgments
The authors want to express their gratitude to the Honorable Senators Ivan Dario Agudelo and Andres García and former Senator Alvaro Ashton, who supported this research with valuable information. The authors want to express their gratitude to the members of the PROPLAYAS Network, as well as members of the Cathedra “Stephen Olsen”, of which several authors are part. Finally, we want to thank the useful, proactive, and in-depth comments of the reviewers, which highly improved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Comparative analysis of the status of regulatory and legal coastal frameworks in Iberoamerican countries.
Table A1.
Comparative analysis of the status of regulatory and legal coastal frameworks in Iberoamerican countries.
| Country | Legal Coastal Framework | Objective |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico [54,55,56] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Costa Rica [57] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| Panama [59] |
|
|
|
| |
| Cuba [19,60] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| ||
| ||
| Dominican Republic [61] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Puerto Rico [62] |
|
|
|
| |
| Colombia [63,64,65] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Chile [66] |
|
|
| Argentina [67] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Uruguay [68] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Brazil [69] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Portugal [70] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Spain [3,4,71] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| [4,72] |
|
|
| Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [40,74] | Law of Coastal Zones, 2001. |
|
| Nicaragua [40,75] | Decree N° 78-2009, Regulation of Law N° 690, “Law for the Development of Coastal Zones”. |
|
References
- Harvey, N.; Clarke, B. 21st Century reform in Australian coastal policy and legislation. Mar. Policy 2019, 130, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taljaard, S.; van Niekerk, L.; Weerts, S.P. The legal landscape governing South Africa’s coastal marine environment—Helping with the ‘horrendogram’. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 178, 104801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BOE. Law 22/1988 of Coasts Developed by Regulation (Royal Decree1471/1989); State Official Newsletter: Madrid, Spain, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- BOE. Law 2/2013, of 29 of May, the Protection and the Sustainable Coastal Use and Modification of the Law 22/1988, of 28 of July, of Coasts; State Official Newsletter: Madrid, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- GORC. Decreto-Ley 212. Gestión de la Zona Costera. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Cuba. 8 August 2000. Available online: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/cub23215.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Terry, A.; Lewis, K.; Bullimore, B. The impact of the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) on Welsh inshore fisheries and marine management. Mar. Policy 2019, 99, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Donnel, T. Coastal Lawscape: A framework for understanding the complexities of climate change adaptation. Mar. Policy 2021, 129, 104532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MMA. Política Nacional Ambiental Para el Desarrollo Sostenible de los Espacios Oceánicos y las Zonas Costeras e Insulares de Colombia PNOACI; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente: Bogotá, Colombia, 1 December 2000. [Google Scholar]
- CCO. Comisión Colombiana del Océano, Política Nacional del Océano y de los Espacios Costeros—PNOEC, Vicepresidencia de la República de Colombia (1 March 2017). 96p, Bogotá, Colombia. Available online: https://cco.gov.co/cco/publicaciones/83-publicaciones/383-politica-nacional-del-oceano-y-los-espacios-costeros-pnoec.html (accessed on 12 December 2021).
- Botero, C.M.; Hurtado, R.; Rodríguez, S.L. Reporte del Avance del Manejo Costero Integrado en Colombia 2009–2019. Rev. Costas 2020, 1, 43–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrillo, Y. Régimen Político y Calidad de las Leyes en Cuba. In Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Distrito Federal, México, 2010; pp. 623–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramesh, R.; Banerjee, K.; Paneer Selvam, A.; Lakshmi, A.; Krishnan, P.; Purvaja, R. Legislation and policy options for conservation and management of seagrass ecosystems in India. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 159, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, K.; Boon, P.I.; Branigan, S.; Duke, N.C.; Field, C.D.; Fitzsimons, J.A.; Kirkman, H.; Mackenzie, J.R.; Saintilan, N. The state of legislation and policy protecting Australia’s mangrove and salt marsh and their ecosystem services’. Mar. Policy 2016, 72, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gourlie, D.; Davis, R.; Govan, H.; Marshman, J.; Hanich, Q. Performing “A New Song”: Suggested Considerations for Drafting Effective Coastal Fisheries Legislation under Climate Change. Mar. Policy 2018, 88, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milanés, B.C.; Perez, O. An Inquiry into Land-Use Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management: The Cuban Experience. In 28 Ocean Yearbook Magazine; Dalhousie University, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Truro, NS, Canada, 2012; pp. 509–532. [Google Scholar]
- Falco, E. Protection of coastal areas in Italy: Where do national landscape and urban planning legislation fail? Land Use Policy 2017, 66, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, N.; Smithers, S. How close to the coast? Incorporating coastal expertise into decision-making on residential development in Australia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 157, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milanes, B.C.; Suárez, A.; Botero, C.M. Novel method to delimitate and demarcate coastal zone boundaries. J. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 144, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milanés, B.C.; Pereira, C.; Botero, C.M. Improving a decree law about coastal zone management in a small island developing state: The case of Cuba. Mar. Policy 2019, 101, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKinley, E.; Ballinger, R.C. Welsh legislation in a new era: A stakeholder perspective for coastal management. Mar. Policy 2018, 97, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, C.; Botero, C.M.; Correa, I.; Pranzini, E. Seven good practices for the environmental licensing of coastal interventions: Lessons from the Italian, Cuban, Spanish and Colombian regulatory frameworks, and insights on coastal processes. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 73, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neal, W.J.; Pilkey, O.H.; Cooper, J.A.G.; Longo, N.J. Why coastal regulations fail. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 156, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botero, C.M.; Arrizabalaga, M.; Milanés, B.C.; Vivas, O. Indicadores de gobernabilidad para la gestión del riesgo costero en Colombia. Rev. Luna Azul 2017, 45, 227–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botero, C.M.; Fanning, L.M.; Milanes, B.C.; Planas, J.A. An indicator framework for assessing progress in land and marine planning in Colombia and Cuba. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 64, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cullinan, C. Integrated Coastal Management Law Establishing and Strengthening National Legal Frameworks for Integrated Coastal Management; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Pranzini, E.; Cinelli, I.; Cipriani, L.E.; Anfuso, G. An Integrated Coastal Sediment Management Plan: The Example of the Tuscany Region (Italy). J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vallega, A. Fundamentals of Integrated Coastal Management; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 1999; Volume 49, ISBN 978-90-481-5284-1. [Google Scholar]
- Batista Milanes, C. Coastal Boundaries. In Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, 2nd ed.; Finkl, C.W., Makowski, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 414–426. Available online: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-48657-4_74-2 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Batista Milanes, C. Coastal risk. In Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, 2nd ed.; Finkl, C.W., Makowski, C., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 524–534. Available online: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-48657-4_408-1 (accessed on 24 October 2018).
- Barragán, J.M. Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo en Áreas Litorales; Universidad de Cádiz: Cadiz, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Botero, C.M. MAREMTORIO: Descubrimiento de una Colombia Invisible; Serie Exposiciones Geográficas N° 17; Sociedad Geográfica de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019; ISBN 978-958-521-0219. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Exit from the labyrinth. In Integrated Coastal Management in the Kandalaksha District, Murmansk Region of the Russian Federation; Coastal region and small island papers 21; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Botero, C.M.; Tosic, M.; Calderón, H.; Niño, D. Ordenamiento del golfo de Cupica (Pacífico colombiano) como ejemplo de gestión costera integrada a escala local. Bol. Cient. CIOH 2014, 32, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, D.; Sierra-Correa, P.; Arias-Isaza, F.; Fontalvo, M. Conceptos y Guía Metodológica Para el Manejo Integrado de Zonas Costeras en Colombia; Manual 1: Preparación, caracterización y diagnóstico; Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas: Santa Marta, Colombia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- MADS. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Decreto 1120 de 2013. Por el cual se Reglamentan las Unidades Ambientales Costeras -UAC-y las Comisiones Conjuntas, se Establecen las Reglas de Procedimiento y Criterios Para Reglamentar la Restricción de Ciertas Actividades en Pastos Marinos, y se Dictan Otras Disposiciones del 31 Mayo 2013. Available online: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/col150081.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020).
- CCO (COMISIÓN COLOMBIANA DEL OCÉANO). Política Nacional del Océano y de los Espacios Costeros—PNOEC; Documento Oficial; Editorial Serie de Documentos Generales No.19; CCO, Comisión Colombiana del Océano: Bogota, Colombia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- CONPES. Colombia Potencia Bioceánica Sostenible 2030; CONPES 3990; Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social de la República de Colombia, Departamento Nacional de Planeación: Bogotá, Colombia, 31 May 2020; p. 91. Available online: https://cco.gov.co/cco/publicaciones/83-publicaciones/794-conpes-colombia-potencia-bioceanica-sostenible.html (accessed on 30 August 2020).
- Sepúlveda, J.A. Procedimiento Legislativo Colombiano; Fundación Domopaz: Bogota, Colombia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Barragán, J.M. Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un diagnóstico; Necesidad de Cambio; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; 380p. [Google Scholar]
- Celene, M.B. Método Integrado Para Demarcar y Delimitar las Zonas Costeras (DOMIZC): Estudio del Caso de Santiago de Cuba. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Oriente, Santiago, Cuba, 2014. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Celene_Milanes_Batista (accessed on 10 December 2021). [CrossRef]
- Pereira, C.I.; Carvajal, A.F.; Milanés, C.; Botero, C.M. Regulating human interventions in Colombian coastal areas: Implications for the environmental licensing procedure in middle-income countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 79, 106284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milanese, J.P. Relaciones Ejecutivo-Legislativo en la Actual Coyuntura Política Colombiana, un Análisis Desde la Lógica del Veto Players; 2 documentos de Políticas Públicas; Universidad Icesi: Cali, Colombia, 2011; pp. 2–24. [Google Scholar]
- Sanz, J. La reforma de la ley de costas o la apertura de la caja de pandora. Rev. Aranzadi Derecho Ambient. 2013, 25, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
- Barragán Muñoz, J.M. Progress of coastal management in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 184, 105009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallega, A. Coastal Management: The Integration Principle. 2002. Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=R2OGAgAAQBA (accessed on 10 December 2021).
- Alam, M.W.; Xiangmin, X.; Ahamed, R. Protecting the marine and coastal water from land-based sources of pollution in the northern Bay of Bengal: A legal analysis for implementing a national comprehensive act. Environ. Chall. 2021, 4, 100154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervantes, O.; Espejel, I. Design of an integrated evaluation index for recreational beaches. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2008, 51, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, E.; Tejada, M.; Almeida, F.; Cabello, J.; Cortes, R.; Delgado, J.; Fernandez, F.; Gutierrez, G.; Luque, M.; Alvarez, G.; et al. Carrying capacity assessment for tourist destinations. Methodology for the creation of synthetic indicators applied in a coastal area. Tour. Manag. 2011, 33, 1337–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urrea-Mariño, U. Privatization of the Mexican Coast, the Case of the Municipality of Solidaridad, Quintana Roo from the Perspective of the Public Administration and Everyday Life Practices. In Beach Management Tools—Concepts, Methodologies and Case Studies; Botero, C.M., Cervantes, O., Finkl, C.W., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shamsuzzaman, M.M.; Islam, M.M. Analysing the legal framework of marine living resources management in Bangladesh: Towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal 14. Mar. Policy 2018, 87, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sowman, M.; Malan, N. Review of progress with integrated coastal management in South Africa since the advent of democracy. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 2018, 40, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frohlich, M.F.; Smith, T.F.; Fidelman, P.; Baldwin, C.; Jacobson, C.; Carter, R.W. Legal barriers to adaptive coastal management at a coastal erosion hotspot in Florianópolis, Brazil. Mar. Policy 2021, 127, 104436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos, A.; Guerrero, D.S. El Suelo Costero; Procuraduría General de la Nació: Bogota, Colombia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Rivera Arriaga, E. La Política para el Desarrollo Sustentable de los Océanos y Costas de México. JAINA Bol. Inf. 2006, 16, 28–29. [Google Scholar]
- SEMARNAT. Estrategia Nacional Para el Ordenamiento Ecológico del Territorio en Mares y Costas; Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: Mexico City, Mexico, 2006; 38p. [Google Scholar]
- Tovilla, C.; Pérez, J.C.; y Arce, A.M. Gestión litoral y política pública en México: Un diagnóstico. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 15–40. [Google Scholar]
- Álvaro, M.R.; Margarita, S.B.; Carmen, G.G. La Gestión Integrada De La Zona costera En Costa Rica: Experiencias Y Perspectivas. In Manejo Costero Integradoy Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR(CYTED): Cadiz, Spian, 2010; pp. 43–70. [Google Scholar]
- Cajiao, M.V.; Salazar, R.; Valverde, M.; Naranjo, I.; Arauz, R. Régimen Legal de los Recursos Marinos y Costeros en Costa Rica; Fundación AMBIO, IPECA: San José, Costa Rica, 2003; 192p. [Google Scholar]
- Pedro, A.G.; Humberto, G.B. Diagnóstico de la Gestión del Litoral en la República de Panamá. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 78–90. [Google Scholar]
- Alfredo, C.J. El manejo integrado costero en cuba: Un camino, grandes retos. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR(CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 93–119. [Google Scholar]
- Felicita, H.L. Manejo Integrado Costero Marino en la República Dominicana. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cádiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 123–140. [Google Scholar]
- José, S.B.; Pablo, N.L. Gestión del litoral y política pública en Puerto Rico:un diagnóstico. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 145–174. [Google Scholar]
- Francisco, A.; Andrés, O.; Elizabeth, P.C.; Sandra, B.; Sandra, V.; Camilo, B.; Amparo, R.; Jair, M.; Paula, S.; Ángela, L.; et al. Gestión del litoral en Colombia. Reto de un país con tres costas. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 175–210. [Google Scholar]
- Arenas Granados, P.J. Manejo Costero Integrado y Sustentabilidad: Un Análisis Propositivo de Políticas Públicas en las Dos caras Atlánticas (España-Portugal y Colombia-Panamá). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Cádiz, Cadiz, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Parra, E. Ordenamiento Territorial Costero en el Caribe Colombiano. Las Directrices del Estado en los Casos de Estudio de Coveñas y San Andrés. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Colombia sede Medellín, Medellin, Colombia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Consuelo, C.A.; Claudia, A.B. La gestión del litoral chileno: un diagnóstico. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 213–234. [Google Scholar]
- Dadon José, R. Manejo costero en la república Argentina. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR(CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 237–260. [Google Scholar]
- Mónica, G.E. Los asuntos claves para el manejo costero integrado en Iberoamerica: Uruguay. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 263–290. [Google Scholar]
- Marinez, S.; Manuel, S.; De Negreiros Dora, H. Gestão das zonas costeiras e as políticas públicas no brasil: Um diagnóstico. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain; pp. 293–330.
- Filomena, M.; Albuquerque, H. Gestão do litoral e polítca pública em portugal: Un diagnóstico. In Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio; Barragán Muñoz, J.M., Ed.; Red IBERMAR (CYTED): Cadiz, Spain, 2010; pp. 232–353. [Google Scholar]
- García Sanabria, J.; García Onetti, J.; Barragán Muñoz, J.M. Las Comunidades Autónomas y la gestión integrada de las áreas litorales de España. In Proyecto Red Española de Gestión Integrada de Áreas Litorales (REGIAL); Fundación Biodiversidad y Universidad de Cádiz: Cádiz, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Garrido, M.A.; Bedoya, A.M. Revising the limits of the coastal area in the regulations of the iberoamerican region. Are they appropriate for risk management and adaptation to climate change? Ocean Coast. Manag. (Artic. Press) 2019, 181, 104912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batista Milanes, C. Coastal flood hazard mapping. In Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, 2nd ed.; Finkl, C.W., Makowski, C., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 181, pp. 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaceta Oficial N° 3.734; Ley de Zonas Costeras: Caracas, Venezuela, 2001; p. 13.
- Certificación No. 005-690-CDZC-2011. La Gaceta No. 83, 9 May 2011; 17.
Figure 1.
Methodological scheme followed to investigate the legislative procedure in Colombia. Caption: senado.gov.co/index.php/az-legislativo/gacetas accessed on 15 February 2022.
Figure 1.
Methodological scheme followed to investigate the legislative procedure in Colombia. Caption: senado.gov.co/index.php/az-legislativo/gacetas accessed on 15 February 2022.
Figure 2.
Bills directly related with CMU/A.
Table 1.
Structure of coastal and marine territory (coastal and marine uses and activities—CMU/A). Caption: Marine (M): activities developed completely in the sea; Coastal (C): activities developed on the interface land-sea; Terrestrial (T): activities developed on land.
Table 1.
Structure of coastal and marine territory (coastal and marine uses and activities—CMU/A). Caption: Marine (M): activities developed completely in the sea; Coastal (C): activities developed on the interface land-sea; Terrestrial (T): activities developed on land.
| Category | Social Uses | Location | Category | Economic Activities | Location | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | C | T | M | C | T | ||||
| Natural area | Public natural protected area | X | X | X | Extractive or primary | Oil exploration | X | X | X |
| Civil society natural protected area | X | Extraction of molluscs and bivalves | X | ||||||
| Human settlements | Low density residential | X | Coastal mining (sand, salt) | X | |||||
| High density residential | X | Offshore mining | X | ||||||
| Low density second residence | X | Trawling fishing | X | ||||||
| High density second residence | X | Artisanal fishing | X | ||||||
| Palafittic settlements | X | Industrial fishing | X | ||||||
| Luxury residential | X | Basic | Aquaculture | X | X | ||||
| Local traditions (cultural heritage) | Public cultural protected area | X | X | X | Commercial agriculture | X | |||
| Artisanal handicrafts | X | Low scale agriculture | X | ||||||
| Ancestral areas | X | X | X | Poultry farming/Pig farming | X | ||||
| Ceremonial zone | X | X | X | Commercial wood extraction | X | ||||
| Infrastructure and facilities | Beach nourishment | X | Low scale wood extraction | X | |||||
| Road infrastructure | X | Livestock | X | ||||||
| Electrical installations | X | X | X | Mariculture | X | X | |||
| Public docks | X | Industrial | Power generation (tidal) | X | |||||
| Coastal defense works | X | Power generation (wind) | X | X | X | ||||
| Walks and ridges | X | Power generation (waves) | X | ||||||
| Pipelines (gas/oil) | X | X | X | Power generation (thermal) | X | X | |||
| Railways | X | Manufacture | X | ||||||
| Maritime signaling (canals, buoy) | X | Shipyard industry | X | X | |||||
| Coastal signage (lighthouses, signs) | X | Steel industry | X | X | |||||
| Airports | X | X | X | Maritime trade and transport | Internal Maritime Transport | X | |||
| Submarine cables | X | Internal maritime transport | X | ||||||
| Dumping ground | Marine outfall | X | International maritime transport | X | |||||
| Waste incinerator | X | Megaports (HUB) | X | ||||||
| Desalination | X | Ports of general merchandise | X | ||||||
| Landfill | X | Ports of solid bulk | X | ||||||
| Defense and security | Military installations on land | X | Multipurpose ports | X | |||||
| Naval military installations | X | Ports of liquid or gaseous bulk | X | ||||||
| National or local police facilities | X | Container ports | X | ||||||
| Fishing ports | X | ||||||||
| Tourism and recreation | Nature tourism | X | X | X | |||||
| Nautical Tourism | X | X | |||||||
| Sun, sea and sand tourism | X | ||||||||
| Cruise Tourism | X | X | |||||||
| Whale Watching Tourism | X | ||||||||
| Adventure trip | X | X | X | ||||||
| Urban recreation | X | ||||||||
| Sport fishing | X | ||||||||
| Golf courses | X | ||||||||
| Recreational diving | X | ||||||||
Table 2.
State-of-the-art of coastal regulation in Latin American countries (Further details in Appendix A).
Table 2.
State-of-the-art of coastal regulation in Latin American countries (Further details in Appendix A).
| Country | Coastal Management (Year) | Environmental Approach | Economic Approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | NO | NO | YES |
| Brazil | YES (1988) | YES | YES |
| Chile | NO | NO | YES |
| Colombia | NO | YES | YES |
| Costa Rica | YES (1977) | YES | YES |
| Cuba | YES (2000) | YES | YES |
| Dominican Republic | NO | YES | YES |
| Mexico | NO | YES | YES |
| Panama | NO | YES | YES |
| Puerto Rico | YES (1972) | YES | NO |
| Uruguay | NO | YES | YES |
| Nicaragua | YES (2009) | NO INFO | NO INFO |
| Venezuela | YES (2001) | NO INFO | NO INFO |
Table 3.
Bills according to the Constitutional Commission of the Congress (LP: Land Use Planning; HS: Human Settlements; EX: Extractive or Primary; MT: Maritime Trade; TR: Tourism and Recreation).
Table 3.
Bills according to the Constitutional Commission of the Congress (LP: Land Use Planning; HS: Human Settlements; EX: Extractive or Primary; MT: Maritime Trade; TR: Tourism and Recreation).
| Legislative Commission | Commission’s Topics | LP | HS | EX | MT | TR | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | Territorial organization; public administration; peace; intellectual copyright; ethnic affairs | 12 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 16 |
| Second | International affairs; national security; foreign trade; ports and harbors | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 11 |
| Third | Taxes; financial, saving and insurance activity; central planning | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| Fourth | Public budget; industrial copyright; internal trade; public institutions | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Fifth | Agriculture and livestock; environmental affairs; land use planning; marine resources; energy and mining | 2 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| Sixth | Technology and communication; disasters; public services; scientific research; transport and public works; tourism; education and culture | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Seventh | Public management; worker’s unions; social security; sports and recreation; sanitary affairs; housing; civil society organization; woman and genre | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Botero, C.M.; Milanes, C.B.; Cuker, B.; Anfuso, G. Latin America and the Search for a Coastal Law: Lessons from the Legislative Procedure in Colombia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095168
AMA Style
Botero CM, Milanes CB, Cuker B, Anfuso G. Latin America and the Search for a Coastal Law: Lessons from the Legislative Procedure in Colombia. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095168
Chicago/Turabian StyleBotero, Camilo M., Celene B. Milanes, Benjamin Cuker, and Giorgio Anfuso. 2022. "Latin America and the Search for a Coastal Law: Lessons from the Legislative Procedure in Colombia" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095168
APA StyleBotero, C. M., Milanes, C. B., Cuker, B., & Anfuso, G. (2022). Latin America and the Search for a Coastal Law: Lessons from the Legislative Procedure in Colombia. Sustainability, 14(9), 5168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095168
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
