Implementation of ICZM: results of the EU Progress Indicator Case Study compiled for EU-COMET 2 project Dr Alan Pickaver EUCC – The Coastal Union

A short history  2002: The ICZM Recommendation  2002: 1st ICZM Expert Group meeting  establishment of the Working Group on Indicators and data (WG-ID)  : 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

The 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  The Progress Indicator now has 4 Phases and 31 Actions

The Progress Indicator – Phases 1 & 2 PhaseActionDescription I. Planning and management are taking place in the coastal zone 1Decisions about planning and managing the coast are governed by general legal instruments. 2Sectoral stakeholders meet on an ad hoc basis to discuss specific coastal and marine issues. 3There are spatial development plans which include the coastal zone but do not treat it as a distinct and separate entity. 4Aspects of the coastal zone, including marine areas, are regularly monitored. 5Planning on the coast includes the statutory protection of natural areas. II. A framework exists for taking ICZM forward 6Existing instruments are being adapted and combined to deal with coastal planning and management issues. 7Adequate funding is usually available for undertaking actions on the coast. 8A stocktake of the coast (identifying who does what, where and how) has been carried out. 9There is a formal mechanism whereby stakeholders meet regularly to discuss a range of coastal and marine issues. 10Ad hoc actions on the coast are being carried out that include recognisable elements of ICZM. 11A sustainable development strategy which includes specific references to coasts and seas is in place. 12Guidelines have been produced by national, regional or local governments which advise planning authorities on appropriate uses of the coastal zone.

The Progress Indicator – Phase 3 III. Most aspects of an ICZM approach to planning and managing the coast are in place and functioning reasonably well 13All relevant parties concerned in the ICZM decision-making process have been identified and are involved. 14A report on the State of the Coast has been written with the intention of repeating the exercise every five or ten years. 15There is a statutory integrated coastal zone management plan. 16Strategic Environmental Assessments are used commonly to examine policies, strategies and plans for the coastal zone. 17A non-statutory coastal zone management strategy has been drawn up and an action plan is being implemented. 18There are open channels of communication between those responsible for the coast at all levels of government. 19Each administrative level has at least one member of staff whose sole responsibility is ICZM. 20Statutory development plans span the interface between land and sea. 21Spatial planning of sea areas is required by law. 22A number of properly staffed and properly funded partnerships of coastal and marine stakeholders have been set up. 23Coastal and estuary partnerships are consulted routinely about proposals to do with the coastal zone. 24Adequate mechanisms are in place to allow coastal communities to take a participative role in ICZM decisions.

The Progress Indicator – Phase 4 IV. An efficient, adaptive and integrative process is embedded at all levels of governance and is delivering greater sustainable use of the coast 25There is strong, constant and effective political support for the ICZM process. 26There is routine (rather than occasional) cooperation across coastal and marine boundaries. 27A comprehensive set of coastal and marine indicators is being used to assess progress towards a more sustainable situation. 28A long-term financial commitment is in place for the implementation of ICZM. 29End users have access to as much information of sufficient quality as they need to make timely, coherent and well-crafted decisions. 30Mechanisms for reviewing and evaluating progress in implementing ICZM are embedded in governance. 31Monitoring shows a demonstrable trend towards a more sustainable use of coastal and marine resources.

Overview of Corepoint generated results NE EBEIE NE EBENW EIE NW ENE EIE National Regional Local

Belgium – all respondents

Grouped phases

Greek national results See separate Word document

Main 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.

ICZM Progress main trends (1) Phase2000 status2006 statusTrends 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.

ICZM Progress main trends (2) Phase2000 status2006 statusTrends and comments 3. Most aspect of an ICZM approach to planning and managing the coast are in place and functioning reasonably well Low developmentA 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 developedInitial developmentThe attainment of a real ICZM lies in this phase, which has to be the main objective for the next years.

Current 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, , 1969

The 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 advice actually taken; Level 6 - real negotiation between stakeholders and decision-makers; Level 7 - decision-making delegated. [

Results Country Perceived level CY2-4 BE 2-4 DE 3-5 ES 2-3 FR 1-4 GR 1-2 IE 2-4 IT 4 NL 4-5 PO 3-4 PT 4-5 SW 4-6 UK3-5 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.

Thank you Dr. Alan Pickaver EUCC – The Coastal Union Postbus EE Leiden, Netherlands Tel Fax