www.dolphinfund.eu

Implementation of ICZM: results of the EU Progress Indicator

Case Study compiled for

EU-COMET 2 project

Dr Alan Pickaver

EUCC – The Coastal Union

www.dolphinfund.euA short history

2002: The ICZM Recommendation

2002: 1st ICZM Expert Group meeting establishment of the Working Group on Indicators and data (WG-ID)

2003-04: WG-ID works on the design of 2 sets of indicators

One measuring progress in implementing ICZM (ICZM Progress indicator)

A set of 27 indicators to measure sustainable development of the coastal zone (the SD indicators)

April 2004: The ICZM Expert Group accepted the ICZM Progress Indicator

www.dolphinfund.euThe Progress Indicator

The original Progress Indicator broke the GESAMP ICZM cycle into a workable number of pragmatic, component parts. Each component was termed an Action Level and these Actions were grouped into Phases. Following various tests using practitionners in England, Wales, Belgium, Holland and France changes were made and approved by the Expert Group in 2005. The Progress Indicator now has 4 Phases and 31 Actions

www.dolphinfund.eu

The Progress Indicator – Phases 1 & 2

Phase Action Description

I. Planning and management are taking place in the coastal zone

1 Decisions about planning and managing the coast are governed by general legal instruments.

2 Sectoral stakeholders meet on an ad hoc basis to discuss specific coastal and marine issues.

3 There are spatial development plans which include the coastal zone but do not treat it as a distinct and separate entity.

4 Aspects of the coastal zone, including marine areas, are regularly monitored.

5 Planning on the coast includes the statutory protection of natural areas.

II. A framework exists for taking ICZM forward

6 Existing instruments are being adapted and combined to deal with coastal planning and management issues.

7 Adequate funding is usually available for undertaking actions on the coast.

8 A stocktake of the coast (identifying who does what, where and how) has been carried out.

9 There is a formal mechanism whereby stakeholders meet regularly to discuss a range of coastal and marine issues.

10 Ad hoc actions on the coast are being carried out that include recognisable elements of ICZM.

11 A sustainable development strategy which includes specific references to coasts and seas is in place.

12 Guidelines have been produced by national, regional or local governments which advise planning authorities on appropriate uses of the coastal zone.

www.dolphinfund.euThe Progress Indicator – Phase 3

III. Most aspects of an ICZM approach to planning and managing the coast are in place and functioning reasonably well

13 All relevant parties concerned in the ICZM decision-making process have been identified and are involved.

14 A report on the State of the Coast has been written with the intention of repeating the exercise every five or ten years.

15 There is a statutory integrated coastal zone management plan.

16 Strategic Environmental Assessments are used commonly to examine policies, strategies and plans for the coastal zone.

17 A non-statutory coastal zone management strategy has been drawn up and an action plan is being implemented.

18 There are open channels of communication between those responsible for the coast at all levels of government.

19 Each administrative level has at least one member of staff whose sole responsibility is ICZM.

20 Statutory development plans span the interface between land and sea.

21 Spatial planning of sea areas is required by law.

22 A number of properly staffed and properly funded partnerships of coastal and marine stakeholders have been set up.

23 Coastal and estuary partnerships are consulted routinely about proposals to do with the coastal zone.

24 Adequate mechanisms are in place to allow coastal communities to take a participative role in ICZM decisions.

www.dolphinfund.euThe Progress Indicator – Phase 4

IV. An efficient, adaptive and integrative process is embedded at all levels of governance and is delivering greater sustainable useof the coast

25 There is strong, constant and effective political support for the ICZM process.

26 There is routine (rather than occasional) cooperation across coastal and marine boundaries.

27 A comprehensive set of coastal and marine indicators is being used to assess progress towards a more sustainable situation.

28 A long-term financial commitment is in place for the implementation of ICZM.

29 End users have access to as much information of sufficient quality as they need to make timely, coherent and well-crafted decisions.

30 Mechanisms for reviewing and evaluating progress in implementing ICZM are embedded in governance.

31 Monitoring shows a demonstrable trend towards a more sustainable use of coastal and marine resources.

www.dolphinfund.euOverview of Corepoint generated results

NE E BE IE   NE E BE NW E IE   NW E NE E IE

1                        2                        3                        4                        5                        6                        7                        8                        9                        10                        11                        12                        13                        14                        15                        16                        17                        18                        19                        20                        21                        22                        23                        24                        25                        26                        27                        28                        29                        30                        31                        

National Regional Local

www.dolphinfund.euBelgium – all respondents

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Belgium, all levels

Yes No Undecided

www.dolphinfund.euGrouped phases

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Belgium NW Eng NE Eng

Phase 1

Undecided

No

Yes

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Belgium NW Eng NE Eng

Phase 3

Undecided

No

Yes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Belgium NW Eng NE Eng

Phase 2

Undecided

No

Yes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Belgium NW Eng NE Eng

Phase 4

Undecided

No

Yes

www.dolphinfund.euGreek national results

See separate Word document

www.dolphinfund.euMain conclusions

Indicator is a legitimate methodology. The workshop as a mechanism to transfer knowledge on ICZM is highly recommended. However, other methods are valid. It de-mistifies ICZM. It allows bottlenecks to progress to be identified. It can compare regions/countries. This is stilla sensitive area. Presentations of results is highly flexible. It does allow progress (or otherwise) to be observed.

www.dolphinfund.eu

ICZM Progress main trends (1)

Phase 2000 status 2006 status Trends and comments

1. Planning and management are taking place in the coastal zone

Elemental actions have been taken, much. Sectoral plan exist, as well as monitoring .

This phase is completed in practically all the countries, even though sectoral is still preponderent

Good evolution

2. A framework exists for taking ICZM forwards

Only actions 6 and 9 are eventually put in place.

Actions 11 and 12 present more problems, but in general other actions are being implemented. Generally there are still sectoral, but with a view to go towards integration.

It is the phase which shows more progress during the period. Some countries have even begun clearly to work in the direction of integration. It is the case for France and Belgium. But the trends are general for all countries.

www.dolphinfund.eu

ICZM Progress main trends (2)

Phase 2000 status 2006 status Trends and comments

3. Most aspect of an ICZM approach to planning and managing the coast are in place and functioning reasonably well

Low development A number of positive answers are shown, even though different in every country.

Some progress, but very significant in quality as it shows a real interest in the construction of ICZM. Actions tackled depend on priority given by each country. Effort should be done during next years.

4. An efficient , adaptative and integrative process in embedded at all levels of governance and is delivering greater sustainable use of the coast

Not developed Initial development The attainment of a real ICZM lies in this phase, which has to be the main objective for the next years.

www.dolphinfund.euCurrent developments

Attempting to sub-divide the Actions and the Responses

e.g. Public Participation

7 levels of Participation*

Survey in CY, BE, DE, ES, FR, GR,

IE, IT, NL, PO, PT, SW, UK

*Arnstein, Sherry R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal American Planning Association 35, 216-224, 1969

www.dolphinfund.euThe seven levels of participation

Level 1 - all decisions are taken by government;

Level 2 - committees for the main purpose of engineering support;

Level 3 - informed but no channel for feedback;

Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;

Level 5 - advisory role where adviceactually taken;

Level 6 - real negotiation between stakeholders and decision-makers;

Level 7 - decision-making delegated.

[www.encora.eu]

www.dolphinfund.euResults

Country Perceived level

CY 2-4BE 2-4DE 3-5ES 2-3FR 1-4GR 1-2IE 2-4IT 4NL 4-5PO 3-4PT 4-5SW 4-6UK 3-5

Level 1 - all decisions are taken by governmental;

Level 2 - committees for the main purpose of engineering support;

Level 3 - informed but no channel for feedback;

Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;

Level 5 - advisory role where advice

actually taken;

Level 6 - real negotiation between

stakeholders and decision-makers;

Level 7 - decision-making delegated.

www.dolphinfund.euThank youThank youDr. Alan Pickaver

EUCC – The Coastal Union

Postbus 11232

2301 EE Leiden,

Netherlands

Tel. + 31 71 5122900

Fax. +31 71 5124069

Email: a.pickaver@eucc.net,

www.eucc.net