The Point of COREPOINT - University College...

The Point of COREPOINT

Rhoda Ballinger, Valerie Cummins, Anne Marie O’Hagan & Manuelle Philippe (eds.)

April 2008

Improving Capacity for Integrated Coastal Zone Managementin North West Europe

The Point of COREPOINT

April 2008

Funded under the INTERREG IIIB programme, the Coastal Research and Policy Integration project (COREPOINT) was a 4.2m Euro project with 12 Partners from Ireland, UK, France, Netherlands and Belgium. The project ran from November 2004 until April 2008 and was led by the Coastal & Marine Resources Centre in University College Cork. The Project utilised the expertise within the project consortium to attempt to progress the development and implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) solutions across the North West Europe (NWE) region.

For further information on COREPOINT and the full range of outputs from the project please see http://corepoint.ucc.ie

contents

i

ABBREVIATIONS III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 3

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN NORTH WEST EUROPE 3

1.2 THE INTERREG PROGRAMME FOR NORTH WEST EUROPE & ICZM 3

1.3 OVERALL AIMS OF THE COREPOINT PROJECT 3

1.4 AIMS OF THE COREPOINT DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 4

1.5 TARGET AUDIENCE 4

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 4

1.7 BACKGROUND TO THE COREPOINT PROJECT 5

1.8 THE COREPOINT APPROACH 6

1.9 CONTEXT FOR COREPOINT FOCUS ON LOCAL CAPACITY BUILDING 7

1.10 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDIES – COREPOINT EXPERT COUPLET NODES (ECN) 8

1.11 CLARIFICATION OF TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 9

REFERENCES 9

2 THE COAST OF NORTH WEST EUROPE 10

2.1 INTRODUCTION 11

2.2 THE COAST OF NORTH WEST EUROPE 11

2.2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 11

2.2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 12

2.3 COASTAL ISSUES IN NORTH WEST EUROPE 12

2.4 INTRODUCTION TO THE COREPOINT CASE STUDY LOCATIONS 13

REFERENCES 17

3 COASTAL GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS 18

3.1 INTRODUCTION 19

3.2 LEGAL, POLICY AND ORGANISATIONAL ASPECTS 19

3.2.1 LEGAL ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE 19

3.2.2 POLICY ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE 21

3.2.3 ORGANISATIONAL ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE 28

3.3 SPATIAL PLANNING 33

3.3.1 SPATIAL PLANNING: EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL DIMENSIONS 33

3.3.2 LAND USE PLANNING IN MEMBER STATES OF THE COREPOINT PROJECT 33

3.3.3 MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING 34

3.4 CONCLUSIONS 40

REFERENCES 42

4 THE COREPOINT APPROACH TO CAPACITY BUILDING 44

4.1 INTRODUCTION 45

4.2 REVIEW OF EXISTING CAPACITY FOR DELIVERING INTEGRATED PLANNING AND

MANAGEMENT IN THE COREPOINT ECN AREAS 45

4.3 TOWARDS OPERATIONALISATION OF THE ICZM PRINCIPLES OF BEST PRACTICE 49

4.4 LOCAL SOLUTIONS FOR MANAGING COASTAL INFORMATION 56

4.5 THE COREPOINT EXPERT COUPLET NODE (ECN) EXPERIENCE 60

4.6 COREPOINT ICZM TRAINING SCHOOLS 64

4.7 ICZM PROGRESS INDICATOR 67

4.8 CONCLUSIONS 69

REFERENCES 71

5 RECOMMENDATIONS 72

APPENDICES

I COMPLETE LIST OF COREPOINT OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS 76

II THE EUROPEAN ICZM PROGRESS INDICATOR 77

FIGURES

1.1 THE LOCATIONS OF THE NINE EXPERT COUPLET NODE STUDY SITE LOCATIONS

USED AS LOCAL CASE STUDY AREAS WITHIN THE COREPOINT PROJECT 8

2.1 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NORTH WEST EUROPEAN COAST 11

3.1 INSTITUTIONAL SCHEMAS FOR ALL COREPOINT PARTNER COUNTRIES AND

DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE UK 29

3.2 DIFFERENT USES OF THE BELGIAN PART OF THE NORTH SEA (2004) 37

3.3 ZONATION ACCORDING TO THE MASTER PLAN (DOUVERE ET AL. 2007) 37

4.1 THE FIVE CAPACITY BUILDING COMPONENTS OF COREPOINT 46

4.2 PRINCIPLES OF MOST RELEVANCE TO STAKEHOLDERS: BASED ON THE WIDER

STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 55

4.3 MODELLING THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS: AN EXAMPLE FOR COASTAL

GEO-HAZARDS, FROM THE COREPOINT SEFTON COAST LIS WORKSHOP 59

4.4 A TREE OF ICT TOOLS IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT, VALIDATED BY COREPOINT

PARTNERS 60

4.5 PHOTOMONTAGE OF SELECTED COREPOINT SCHOOL ACTIVITIES 64

TABLES

1.1 SUMMARY OF THE COREPOINT APPROACHES ELABORATED UPON IN THIS

DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 6

1.2 DETAILS OF THE COREPOINT PARTNERSHIP ORGANISED ACCORDING TO

THE NINE EXPERT COUPLET NODES CASE STUDY LOCATIONS 7

2.1 COASTAL ISSUES IN NORTH WEST EUROPE 13

2.2 SUMMARY OF THE KEY PHYSICAL, ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC

FEATURES OF THE COREPOINT CASE STUDY LOCATIONS 14

3.1 NORTH WEST EUROPE MEMBER STATE PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE EC ICZM RECOMMENDATION 22

3.2 ICZM STRATEGIES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FROM NORTH WEST EUROPE 24

3.3 KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING 34

3.4 PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING MSP IN NORTH WEST EUROPE 38

4.1 ICZM PROGRAMMES WITHIN THE COREPOINT EXPERT COUPLET NODE

AREAS, BASED ON RESPONSES TO THE COREPOINT PARTNERS QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY 47

4.2 KEY OBSTACLES TO ICZM DEVELOPMENT AT LOCAL COREPOINT ECN LOCATIONS 48

4.3 BENEFITS OF ICZM TO LOCAL COREPOINT ECN AREAS 49

4.4 SUMMARY OF ICZM EFFORTS AND THEIR ADHERENCE TO THE EC PRINCIPLES OF ICZM 50

4.5 UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF ICZM PRINCIPLES AMONG THE

WIDER STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY RESULTING FROM THE COREPOINT

PRACTITIONERS SURVEY 54

4.6 SEVEN KEY ACTIVITIES FOR GOOD PRACTICE IN IMPLEMENTING INFORMATION

SYSTEMS FOR THE COAST FROM THE COREPOINT LIS GUIDELINES 57

4.7 KEY STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS ASSOCIATED

WITH PARTICIPATION IN THE ECN 62

4.8 FINAL OVERALL STRUCTURE AND SEQUENCE OF COURSE CONTENT FOR

NORTH WEST EUROPE SCHOOL IN EXCELLENCE IN ICZM 65

II

Contents

III

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS

AGMACS ADVISORY GROUP ON MARINE AND COASTAL STRATEGY (UK)

DEFRA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (UK)

DOENI DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT NORTHERN IRELAND

ECN EXPERT COUPLET NODE(S)

EEA EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

EEZ EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

ESDP EUROPEAN SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

ESPON EUROPEAN SPATIAL PLANNING OBSERVATION NETWORK

GESAMP GROUP OF EXPERTS ON THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

GIS GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS

GPS GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

GRDP GROSS REGIONAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT

HA HECTARE

ICT INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

ICZM INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

LIS LOCAL INFORMATION SYSTEM

LOSC LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION

MSP MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING

NGO NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION

OJ OFFICIAL JOURNAL

OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST

ATLANTIC

SAC SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION

SIAGM SYNDICAT INTERCOMMUNAL D’AMÉMAGEMENT DU GOLFE DU MORBIHAN

SMVM SCHÉMA DE MISE EN VALEUR DE LA MER

SPA SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA

SWOT STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS

UK UNITED KINGDOM

UNESCO UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION

US UNITED STATES

VLIZ VLAAMS INSTITUUT VOOR DE ZEE

WG-ID WORKING GROUP ON INDICATORS AND DATA

WSSD WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDED CITATION

COREPOINT: BALLINGER, R., CUMMINS, V., O’HAGAN, A.M. AND PHILIPPE, M. 2008. THE POINT OF COREPOINT:

IMPROVING CAPACITY FOR INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN NORTH WEST EUROPE, COREPOINT REPORT,

81 PP.

IV

citation

V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

THE EDITORS OF THIS DOCUMENT WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL THE PARTNERS FROM THE COREPOINT PROJECT FOR

THEIR IDEAS, COMMENTS AND INPUT INTO THIS DISCUSSION DOCUMENT. IN ADDITION, THE EDITORS ACKNOWLEDGE

THE HELP AND WORK OF:

• JEREMY GAULT (CMRC) FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO COLLATING AND FORMATTING THE DOCUMENT;

• JEREMY ALDEN (CARDIFF UNIVERSITY) FOR HIS HELP WITH AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE SPATIAL PLANNING

SECTION;

• VICKI O’DONNELL (CMRC) AND ALUN ROGERS (CARDIFF UNIVERSITY) FOR THEIR WORK ON THE DESIGN AND

LAYOUT OF THE DOCUMENT.

acknowledgements

vi

[executivesummary ]

executive summary

1

executive summary

Executive summaryThe COREPOINT1 Discussion

Document on the Status of ICZM in North WestEurope is one of the strategic outputs of theCOREPOINT project, a partnership of researchcentres, local authorities and coastal networksfrom Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlandsand the United Kingdom. The project (2004 to2008), which was funded under the INTERREGIIIB programme, sought to strengthen linksbetween researchers and policy makers to helporientate relevant research towards problem-solving at the local level within the coastalzone. Relationships between local authoritiesand research groups formed the basis of theoperation of COREPOINT Expert Couplet Nodes(ECN) at nine study sites across North WestEurope.

After an introductory sectiondescribing the main characteristics of the coastof North West Europe and the status of ICZM,including the governance context for itsdevelopment within the region, the documentpresents some of the key outcomes from theCOREPOINT ICZM capacity building initiatives.The discussion highlights four key ways inwhich capacity can be strengthened andresearch-policy integration can be achieved,namely:

• local solutions for managing coastalinformation (through Local InformationSystems);

• the Research-Policy partnership approach(Expert Couplet Nodes);

• COREPOINT training schools; and

• assessing progress in integratedmanagement (Progress Indicators).

Recommendations evolving from theCOREPOINT experience are presented whichbuild on the innovative aspects of capacitybuilding activities undertaken in theCOREPOINT project. Some recommendationssupport existing approaches to ICZM, whichhave demonstrated clear ‘added value’ as partof the project. These include:

• continuing to advocate the use of ICZM asa means of bridging the strong land/seadivide. In particular, the North WestEurope INTERREG Secretariat isencouraged to maintain ICZM as aprogramme priority to facilitate effortstowards the sustainable development ofthe region’s coast;

• promoting the wider use of the ICZMProgress Indicator through widestakeholder involvement and repeatedassessment. It is suggested thatindicators become adapted to theobjectives of the relevant local level; and

• continued support for communication,coordination and collaboration betweenplanning and ICZM. It is suggested thatappropriate resourcing and guidance atthe North West Europe INTERREG,national and sub-national levels isrequired.

Other recommendations advocatenew approaches or material for consolidatingcapacity building for ICZM in North WestEurope. These include promoting,demonstrating and developing:

• the COREPOINT Expert Couplet Nodemodel to build capacity for bridging thegap between coastal researchers andpolicy makers in North West Europe;

• the Local Information System as a keytool for ICZM and use the CoastWeb portalas a platform for its development;

• the COREPOINT procedure for assessinglocal adherence to the EC ICZM principlesand for standardising evaluation of thewhole ‘principle package’ at local levels;and

• the COREPOINT ICZM professionaltraining model. The use of theCOREPOINT training material on theCOREPOINT website for capacity buildingfor ICZM within local authorities isrecommended as well as extending theCOREPOINT ICZM school approachedthrough ‘training of trainers’.

1

[ch 1introduction to thediscussion document ]

introduction

2

Chapter oneIntroduction to the

Discussion Document

1.1 INTRODUCTION TOINTEGRA TED COA STA L ZONE MA NA GEMENTIN NORTH WEST EUROPE

The coastlines of North West Europeare threatened by human activities and naturalenvironmental change. For example, intensiveexploitation of coastal resources and increasingcoastal development has resulted in thedegradation of coastal habitats and pollution.This degradation has negative environmental,social and economic consequences. Concernsfor such problems are shared by North WestEuropean coastal countries.

ICZM promotes the sustainablemanagement of coastal zones through co-operation and integrated planning,involving all the relevant players at theappropriate geographic level.

In 1996, as part of its Environmentalpolicy, the European Union launched theDemonstration Programme on IntegratedCoastal Zone Management (ICZM). One of theoutcomes of this programme was a set ofrecommendations on a European Strategy forICZM (Recommendation of the EuropeanParliament and Council concerning theimplementation of ICZM in Europe;2002/413/EC). Subsequently, there have beenvarying levels of engagement with this strategyacross North West Europe as a region.

To ensure a balanced approach toregional development and improved social andeconomic cohesion there is a need to bringNorth West Europe to a common level ofimplementation of ICZM. Despite themomentum generated by the ECRecommendation, a review conducted in 2007showed that there remains a high degree ofuncertainty among Member States about howto proceed with the implementation process,even though a high degree of theoretical work,good practice guidance and practicalknowledge has been accumulated acrossEurope over the last decade (RupprechtConsult, 2006).

1.2 THE INTERREG PROGRA MMEFOR NORTH WEST EUROPE & ICZM

The INTERREG programme is aEuropean initiative financed under theEuropean Regional Development Fund. Theaim of the programme is to stimulate inter-regional cooperation in the European Unionand to promote the development of theEuropean territories. INTERREG facilitates theimplementation of cooperation projects toenable exchange of experiences andknowledge, and improved economic and socialsustainable development. These projectsassociate a large diversity of partners withinpublic and private research, private companies,NGOs, public bodies and charities. INTERREGprojects provide opportunities to build cross-border (A), trans-national (B), or inter-regional(C) initiatives supported by the EuropeanUnion. The COREPOINT project was fundedunder the INTERREG IIIB programme, which istargeted towards trans-national co-operation inNorth West Europe.

1.3 OVERA LL A IMS OF THECOREPOINT PROJECT

The principle goal of the COREPOINTproject is to establish North West Europe as anInternationally Recognised Region ofExcellence in Coastal Management.

Trans-national co-operation wasused as a conduit to meet the following projectobjectives:

• to build European and local capacity toimplement integrated coastalmanagement programmes;

• to provide concrete solutions for currentproblems in the North West Europe regionusing current best practice approachesand to identify models for sustaining ICZMinitiatives;

• to promote social and politicalresponsibility for the coastal environment;

• to influence national spatial policydevelopment in response to the ECRecommendation on ICZM; and

• to develop an integrated coastalinformation management system forNorth West Europe.

Ch 1

3

1.4 A IMS OF THE COREPOINTDISCUSSION DOCUMENT

The COREPOINT project wasorganised according to five work packages tomeet the above objectives, which engaged thepartners in trans-national, collaborativeactivities. Multiple outputs arose from each ofthe work packages over the course of theproject, including Geographical InformationSystems (GIS) for conflict mapping,demonstrations of Virtual Reality approaches tocoastal planning and the CoastWeb portal forproject product dissemination. See Appendix Ifor a complete list of the outcomes andoutputs.

As the project evolved between 2004 and2008, it became clear that the key impactof COREPOINT could best be describedaccording to a number of innovative andimportant capacity building initiatives. As aresult, this Discussion Document focusesspecifically on increasing awarenesstargeted towards the COREPOINT objectiveof building capacity to implement ICZM.

Specific aims of the DiscussionDocument are to:

• reflect on the status of ICZM and spatialplanning in North West Europe in thecontext of coastal governance (Chapters2 and 3);

• promote awareness of the COREPOINTapproaches to capacity building toaddress the key issues that hinderprogress on ICZM in North West Europe,as outlined above (Chapter 4); and

• make recommendations on how research-policy integration can help to sustain bestpractice in approaches to coastalmanagement in North West Europe(Chapter 5).

1.5 TA RGET A UDIENCE

This Discussion Document is aimedat policy makers, planners, practitioners andresearchers with an interest in and knowledgeof ICZM. It is particularly aimed at decisionmakers that may influence the future strategicdirection of ICZM within Europe and withinNorth West Europe as a region (e.g. the EUICZM Expert Group and the INTERREG IIIBSecretariat respectively). However, asCOREPOINT focused on the local levelimplementation of ICZM, this document hasrelevance for decision makers working atnational and sub-national levels also.

While the document focuses onNorth West Europe as a region, lessons learnedmay be of interest and are transferable acrossEurope and other international divides.

An accompanying SummaryDocument has also been produced to promotethe key messages from the COREPOINTaudience to a wider, non-specialised audience.

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THEDISCUSSION DOCUMENT

The document is designed tofamiliarise the reader with the coast of NorthWest Europe (Chapter 2) and to make thereader aware of the governance context forICZM within the region (Chapter 3), beforefocusing on the key outcomes from theCOREPOINT ICZM capacity building initiativesin Chapter 4.

Throughout the report, the reader ispointed to supporting documentation producedwithin the project, which provides moredetailed context, evidence and justification forthe COREPOINT approach.

Recommendations are offered inChapter 5. These are targeted towards decisionmakers that may influence the future strategicdirection of ICZM within Europe and withinNorth West Europe as a region.

introduction

4

Ch 1

5

1.7 BA CKGROUND TO THECOREPOINT PROJECT

Following an exploratory workshop inLiverpool in 2003, facilitated by the INTERREGIIIB Secretariat, coastal management expertsfrom the COREPOINT partnership identified thefollowing five issues that needed to beaddressed to improve approaches to ICZM inthe region:

• Issue 1: Need for integratedplanning and management to achievesustainable development of the NorthWest Europe coastal zone:

Traditional land based spatial planningregimes are rarely linked to the administrativestructures and policies which govern activitiesin the marine environment. Managing thecoastal zone is further complicated by asectoral approach to coastal activities such asfishing, shipping and marine recreation. TheEuropean Spatial Development Perspective(ESDP) encourages “widening the horizonbeyond purely sectoral policy measures, tofocus on the overall situation of the Europeanterritory” (ESDP p.7). In addition, the ESDPrecognises the need for ICZM as a necessaryelement in achieving a balanced andsustainable spatial development policy (ESDPSection 4.7, p.45).

As mentioned, the European Commission hasalso issued a set of measures on ICZM to beimplemented by Member States by 2006.COREPOINT project partners recognised thatacting on the ESDP and the ICZMRecommendation at the local level could helpto meet policy requirements and to set out along-term vision for integrated spatialdevelopment as it affects the coastal areas ofNorth West Europe.

• Issue 2: Need for engagement andopen communication with stakeholders,including political representatives andthe general public:

Coastal regions support a wide range ofinterest groups, which include localadministrators, fishing, aquaculture, tourism,recreation and shipping industries. Oftenthere is a lack of trust and an absence ofcommunication between these differententities, resulting in poor planning, utilisationand protection of coastal resources.Engagement and communication betweenthese different interest groups are pre-requisites to realising balanced andsustainable development. Consequently,COREPOINT partners identified the need todevelop and implement frameworks tosupport better communication and jointunderstanding among groups of stakeholderorganisations.

• Issue 3: Need to improve linksbetween researchers and policy makers:

The need to connect science and policy toensure that scientific knowledge is transferredto policy makers has been acknowledged forover a decade as an important aspect ofIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)(National Academy of Science, 2005).Unfortunately, support for such an approachtends to manifest itself in principle rather thanpractice.

Despite significant progress in scientificunderstanding of complex coastalecosystems, there is still a systematic failureto incorporate scientific outputs into improvedcoastal management frameworks. Evidencefor this is provided in Europe’s coastal zone(EEA, 2006), where there has been a declinein coastal environmental quality due to factorssuch as urbanisation, wetland loss anddegradation, water pollution and resourceover-exploitation.

According to GESAMP (1996) collaborationbetween scientists and managers shouldoccur at all stages of the formulation,implementation and review of coastalmanagement policy and programmes. TheGESAMP task force recognised the need for aninterdisciplinary approach among scientists,including the involvement of natural and socialscientists to take a holistic view of coastalmanagement problems. Almost a decadelater, the COREPOINT partners prioritised thisobjective to test within the project.

• Issue 4: Need to sustain capacityand expertise for coastal managementwithin local authorities:

Because ICZM is often considered as a non-core or luxury activity within local authorities,it is dealt with on a project basis. Experts aretemporarily recruited to oversee andimplement specific projects. On completion ofthe project, this expertise is lost to theauthority.

COREPOINT partners identified a need toensure the long-term integration of ICZMwithin local authorities by strengthening thecapability of permanent staff directly involvedin the coastal management process (e.g.planners, engineers, conservation officers);and by achieving the support of local andregional politicians for the development andimplementation of ICZM initiatives. It wasrecognised in the development of theCOREPOINT project that ICZM must bechampioned from within local authorities tobecome a fundamental part of the spatialplanning process and that training has animportant role to play to fulfill this aim.

• Issue 5: Need to addressdisproportionate levels of progress onICZM in North West Europe:

While the coastal countries in North WestEurope were working towards the commonaim of meeting the requirements of the ECRecommendation on ICZM, the politicalclimate for progressing ICZM differed betweenMember States. This was evident in thedisproportionate levels of engagement andprogress in the development of national ICZMstrategies within the region. The COREPOINTpartners recognised the need to test theimplementation of the EU ICZM Progressindicator, which was under development at thetime, to enhance opportunities for promotingthis tool as a mechanism for helpingstakeholders to consider their approaches toICZM.

6

introduction

IssueCOREPOINT approach to addressing the issuedescribed within the Discussion Document:

1 LACK OF INTEGRATED PLANNING

AND MANAGEMENT

REVIEWOF LOCAL LEVEL ARRANGEMENTS FOR ICZM AND SPATIAL PLANNING IN NORTHWEST

EUROPE

ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL LEVEL ADHERENCE TO THE ICZM PRINCIPLES OF BEST PRACTICE

2 LACK OF STAKEHOLDER

ENGAGEMENT IN ICZM

DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS (LIS) AS A FRAMEWORK TO SUPPORT

BETTER COMMUNICATION AND JOINT UNDERSTANDING AMONGST A GROUP OF STAKEHOLDER

ORGANISATIONS

3NEED FOR IMPROVED LINKS

BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND

POLICY MAKERS IN ICZM

DEMONSTRATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NINE EXPERT COUPLET NODES TO HELP DELIVER

SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH A CLOSER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE, POLICY AND

PRACTICE

4LACK OF SUSTAINED CAPACITY

FOR IMPLEMENTING ICZM AT THE

LOCAL LEVEL

IMPLEMENTATION OF A TRIED AND TESTED, TRANSFERABLE AND HIGHLY INTERACTIVE ICZM

PROFESSIONAL TRAININGMODULE BASED AROUND THE ICZM PRINCIPLES OF BEST PRACTICE

AND ENGAGING CASE STUDIES

5DISPROPORTIONATE LEVELS OF

PROGRESS ON ICZM IN NORTH

WEST EUROPE

TESTING OF THE APPROVED EU INDICATOR TOMEASURE PROGRESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE

TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF THE COREPOINT APPROACHES ELABORATED UPON IN THIS DISCUSSION DOCUMENT

1.8 THE COREPOINT A PPROA CH

The COREPOINT project was fundedthrough INTERREG IIIB to address the fiveissues outlined above by strengthening linksbetween researchers and policy makers toorientate relevant research towards problemsolving at the local level within the coastalzone.

Table 1.1 provides a summary of theCOREPOINT approaches elaborated upon inthis Discussion Document. It should be notedthat this is not an exclusive list of COREPOINTactivities undertaken to address the projectobjectives. For a more comprehensiveoverview of the project outputs, the readershould refer to Appendix 1.

The COREPOINT modeldemonstrates the need to recalibrateinstitutional mechanisms to provide bettersupport for ICZM among policy makers andresearchers. The approach also addressed theissues of sustaining the institutional capacity oflocal government to deliver long term solutionsfor ICZM.

The COREPOINT partnershipconsisted of research centres, local authoritiesand coastal networks from Ireland, UK, France,the Netherlands and Flanders (Belgium).Relationships between local authorities andresearch groups form the basis of theoperation of the COREPOINT Expert CoupletNodes (ECN) at nine study sites across NorthWest Europe (Table 1.2).

1.9 CONTEXT FOR COREPOINTFOCUS ON LOCA L CA PA CITY BUILDING

Although science policycommunication can occur in coastalmanagement at a number of levels,COREPOINT focuses on an examination ofthese issues at the local level. The EUDemonstration Programme found that localauthorities take over 90% of decisionsregarding the management of European coasts(Doody, 2003). The EC Recommendation onICZM advocates the principle of subsidiarityand governments are urged to support theempowerment of local communities, includinglocal government, to secure sustainability ofthe coastal environment (EuropeanCommission, 2002).

Initiatives such as Agenda 21promote local sustainability partnerships,incorporating new arrangements betweengovernment, industry, academia and civilsociety. Researchers can play a critical role inthis process. However, these partnershipsreflect a relatively new form of engagement.

Although some progress is beingmade to replace traditional, top-downgovernance with more participatory approaches(O’Riordan, 2004), we still have much to learnabout the optimisation of interactions betweenthe various players (scientists, practitioners andpolicy makers) to achieve improved coastalmanagement, including the form and contentof sustainability science in ICZM.

COREPOINT examines a criticalelement in this governance for sustainabilitychain. It reflects on the relationship between aresearch group and a local authority as anexample of a refined coastal decision makingprocess, which should ultimately lead to moresustainable coastal zone management.

7

Ch 1

ECNLocation

Established Country Partners

CORK HARBOURESTABLISHED DURING

COREPOINTIRELAND

RESEARCH: COASTAL & MARINE RESOURCES CENTRE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: CORK COUNTY COUNCIL

MONT ST.

MICHEL BAY

ESTABLISHED DURING

COREPOINTFRANCE

RESEARCH: UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN BRITTANY AND IFREMER

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: INTER COUNTY COUNCIL ASSOCIATION (MANCHE-ILLE ET VILAINE)

GOLFE DU

MORBIHAN

ESTABLISHED DURING

COREPOINTFRANCE

RESEARCH: UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN BRITTANY AND IFREMER

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: THE INTERCOMMUNAL ASSOCIATION OF THE GULF (SIAGM: SYNDICAT

INTERCOMMUNAL D’AMÉMAGEMENT DU GOLFE DU MORBIHAN)

FLANDERSESTABLISHED PRIOR TO

COREPOINTBELGIUM

RESEARCH: MARITIME INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF GENT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: FLEMISH AUTHORITY: AGENCY FOR MARITIME AND COASTAL SERVICES

– COASTAL DIVISION

SEVERN

ESTUARY

ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO

COREPOINTWALES

RESEARCH: CARDIFF UNIVERSITY

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: SEVERN ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP

WESTERN ISLESESTABLISHED DURING

COREPOINTSCOTLAND

RESEARCH: ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: WESTERN ISLES COUNCIL

SEFTON COASTESTABLISHED DURING

COREPOINTENGLAND

RESEARCH: CARDIFF UNIVERSITY

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: SEFTON COUNCIL

DURHAM COASTESTABLISHED DURING

COREPOINTENGLAND

RESEARCH: ENVISION LTD.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DURHAM HERITAGE COAST

DONEGAL

BEACHES

ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO

COREPOINT

NORTH OF

IRELAND

RESEARCH: UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL

Cross-cutting Coastal Network Partners: EUCC, Netherlands and CoastNet, UK

TABLE 1.2 DETAILS OF THE COREPOINT PARTNERSHIP ORGANISED ACCORDING TO THE NINE ECN CASE STUDY LOCATIONS

1.10 INTRODUCTION TO THECA SE STUDIES � COREPOINT EXPERTCOUPLET NODES �ECN�

COREPOINT ECN address the issueof sustaining ICZM by building capacity forknowledge transfer between research centresand local government officials involved incoastal research and management respectively.The approach is aimed at the creation andsupport of a series of ECN in the study regionin North West Europe. While COREPOINToperates at a range of levels, the coupletmethodology is applied at the local scale, whichis deemed most appropriate for the delivery oftangible benefits to coastal communities(Cummins et al., 2004). The COREPOINTproject was constructed with the principles ofsustainability science in mind. The ECN,embedded within the project, aims to ensurethat a paradigm shift in attitude and behaviourtowards traditional science and managementpractices takes place.

Sustainability science invokes aco-produced approach to research involvinga shared participatory, policy-centredprocess between researchers andmanagers. COREPOINT applies theprinciples of sustainability science to ICZM.

Nine ECN are functioning in fourINTERREG IIIB countries: two in France, onein Belgium, two in Ireland and four in the UK.The organisation of these ECN is summarised inTable 1.2 and their locations are shown inFigure 1.1.

8

introduction

FIGURE 1.1 THE LOCATIONS OF THE NINE EXPERT COUPLET NODE STUDY SITE LOCATIONS USED AS LOCAL CASE STUDY AREAS

WITHIN THE COREPOINT PROJECT

1.11 CLA RIFICA TION OFTERMINOLOGY USED IN THE DISCUSSIONDOCUMENT

Region: The term ‘region’ is usedthroughout this document in a variety ofcontexts. A region may be international, forexample, as in the Regional Seas Programme.Region can also refer to the European Unionentirely or to a particular area within the EUsuch as those areas covered by the INTERREGprogramme. In addition a region may have adifferent meaning at a national level where itrefers to areas within a country that havecertain definable characteristics but notnecessarily fixed boundaries.

Generally regional arrangementsserve to implement policies which arenecessary in the interest of a specificcommunity of States and which can best betackled on a regional basis.

In this document the term region isprefaced by the words international, Europeanor national to ensure clarity.

References

Cummins, V., Ballinger, R., O’Mahony, C.,Dodds, W. and Smith, H. (2004). Coastal CommunitiesNetwork (CoCoNet): Final Report INTERREG IIIA. 51pp.

Doody, J.P. (2003). Information Required forIntegrated Coastal Zone Management: Conclusions fromthe European Demonstration Programme. CoastalManagement, 31, 163-173. Taylor and Francis.

European Commission. (2002). CouncilRecommendation of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementationof Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe,Brussels OJ L148-24.

European Consultative Forum on theEnvironment and Sustainable Development. (1999). TheEuropean Spatial Development Perspective, January,1999. Available at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/forum/spatreport_en.pdf

EEA. (2006). The changing faces ofEurope’s coastal areas. EEA Report No. 6 of 2006. EEA,Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at:http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_6/en/eea_report_6_2006.pdf

GESAMP. (1996). The Contributions ofScience to Integrated Coastal Zone Management.Reports and Studies No. 61. Food and AgriculturalOrganisation of the United Nations, Rome.

National Academy of Science. (1995).Science, Policy and the Coast – Improved DecisionMaking. National Academy Press. Washington D.C.,U.S.A.

O’Riordan, T. (2004). EnvironmentalScience, Sustainability and Politics. Transaction of theInstitute of British Geographers NS 29 234-247. ISSN0020-2754. Royal Geographical Society (with theInstitute of British Geographers), London.

Rupprecht Consult – Forschung & BeratungGmbH. (2006). Evaluation of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (ICZM) in Europe: Final Report - revisedversion 1/12/2006. Cologne, Germany. Available at:http://www.rupprecht-consult.eu/iczm/

9

Ch 1

[ch 2the coast ofNorth West Europe ]

n w Europe

10

Chapter twoThe coast of North West

Europe

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The coast of Europe is one of themost complex of its kind, in both physical andhuman geographical terms. The North WestEuropean coast is briefly described in thefollowing sections in terms of physicalgeography, socio-economic characteristics, andresulting regional patterns. Subsequentsections outline the key features associatedwith the COREPOINT case study areas,including the Expert Couplet sites.

For more detailed coverage of thecoastal characteristics of the COREPOINT casestudy sites, reference should be made to theCOREPOINT report by Carlisle et. al., (2007).For more information on the coast of Europe,reference should be made to the recent reportby the European Environment Agency entitled‘The Changing Faces of Europe’s Coastal Areas’(EEA, 2006), as well as relevant sections ofvarious EEA reports (EEA, 2005; EEA, 2003 andEEA, 2002).

2.2 THE COA ST OF NORTH WESTEUROPE

2.2.1 Physical characteristics

The geological andgeomorphological characteristics, together witha temperate climate, form the basis forcomplex meteorological and oceanographicconditions at the coast.

The physical geography of NorthWest Europe may be broadly defined in termsof three major regions, distinguishedfundamentally in terms of solid geology, buteach having specific sets of isostatic andtectonic inter-relationships, andcorrespondingly distinctive coastalgeomorphologies (Figure 2.1).

FIGURE 2.1 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NORTH WEST

EUROPEAN COAST

The coast is very young, having onlyreached its present configuration in the past10,000 years or so during the onset of thelatest interglacial in the Pleistocene Ice Age(Devoy et al., 2000). This is of specialimportance for the Northern region, and smallparts of the Central and Western regions whichwere successively glaciated during the previousglacial epochs. Consequently, seaward of theshoreline there are extensive shelf deposits ofglacial till and fluvio-glacial sands and gravels,which have been re-worked by the rising sealevel, and are associated with buried rivervalleys.

The Northern region is dominated byfjord and fjard coasts, with deep, shelteredinlets and rocky open coasts. Broadly speaking,sea levels have been falling due to isostaticuplift, but there are exceptions due to crustalflexing, with submerged shorelines the rule inthe Orkney and Shetland Islands, for example.The Central region has characteristically low,sandy coasts backed by extensive dunesystems and incorporating barrier islands andlagoons, most extensively developed in thesouthern North Sea. The Western region’scoast is characterised by shallow ria inlets2produced by isostatic submergence and opencoasts consisting of complicated mixes of cliffsand beaches.

Ch 2

11

2

2.2.2 Socio-economic characteristics

The long and complex culturalhistory of Europe, extending from the last inter-glacial to the present, is beyond the scope ofthis document, except to note that itconstitutes a valuable coastal heritage. Of moreimmediate interest are the stages of economicdevelopment which remain detectable inlandscapes, seascapes and related human usepatterns, and are of inestimable heritage value.These include the medieval period, the earlymodern period, and the series of four stagesbeginning with the ‘industrial revolution’ inBritain, Ireland and adjacent parts of mainlandEurope between 1780 and 1830. A strongmaritime and therefore coastal focus hasprevailed throughout these developmentstages.

The distinctive combinations andpermutations of economic, technological andcultural factors superimposed on the regionalphysical geographical patterns ensured theprimary role of Europe in the development ofthe global economy until the turn of thetwentieth century. It is likely that Europe is intransition economically from a fourth to a fifthstage; and similarly in a much broader longterm cultural transition between modern andpost-modern times, akin in scale andcomplexity to the transition between medievaland modern Europe half a millennium ago.

The economic development outcomerelated to the physical geography issummarised in Figure 2.1. There is a majorcore region with large urban-industrial areas,many of these coastal; and a vast peripherywhich also contains important coastal urbanindustrial areas (Ballinger et al., 1994; Smith,1997). The core region in particular containsmost of the large ports of North West Europesuch as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge andLe Havre, as well as London,Felixstowe and Southampton. Theperipheral coasts arepredominantly rural and relativelysparsely populated overall (exceptthe Belgian coast), oftenassociated with substantialemigration over long time periodsand corresponding regionaldevelopment problems. Theseinclude extensive stretches of thecoasts of North West Scotland,Wales and the West coast ofIreland.

However, within these areas thereare some significant areas of intensedevelopment related to tourism, aquacultureand port activities.

This urban-rural divide extends tothe intensity and complexity of sea usepatterns, inshore, in the realms of territorialseas, and beyond in the exclusive economiczones. The urban coasts exist, mainly thoughnot exclusively, in association with the differingtypes of inlets and estuaries described above.On the coast itself, there is a predominant mixof coastal engineering works includingharbours, marinas, coastal protection and flooddefence; waste disposal, shipping routes andconcentrations of marine and coastalrecreation. Because of the land and sea usepressures, these locations paradoxically alsoinclude many conservation designations. Incontrast, the rural coasts and seas areassociated with resource extraction: fisheries,fish farming, aggregate extraction, dredging,offshore oil and gas exploitation, militaryexercise areas and some major shipping lanesand arteries.

2.3 COA STA L ISSUES IN NORTHWEST EUROPE

As a result of the patterns of coastaldevelopment and usage described above, thereare many issues facing the coastal managersof North West Europe. A COREPOINT report onCoastal Issues and Conflicts in North WestEurope Framed within the Lisbon andGothenburg Agendas examines this subject ingreater detail (COREPOINT: O’Connor et al.,2007). For example, a range of issuesdescribed by Suman (2001) were assessedwithin the review according to their importanceto coastal stakeholders in the North WestEurope region (Table 2.1).

12

n w Europe

Coastal Issues

England

Scotland

Wales

Ireland

France

Belgium

Netherlands

LAND-USE PLANNING AND ZONING

ESTUARY MANAGEMENT

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

REDEVELOPMENT OF URBAN WATERFRONTS

REGENERATION OF TRADITIONAL SEASIDE RESORTS

PROVISIONS FOR TRADITIONAL USERS AND USES

NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION (MARINE/COASTAL)

FISHERIES

AQUACULTURE

COASTAL WATER QUALITY

LANDSCAPE QUALITY

COASTAL/MARITIME SAFETY

EROSION

FLOODING

SEA LEVEL RISE

CLIMATE CHANGE

DISASTER RESPONSE

ACCESS TO THE COAST

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN COASTAL PLANNING

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION (AT ANY LEVEL)

SECTORAL INTEGRATION

USER CONFLICTS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION

NATIONAL FUNDING FOR ICZM

High

Medium

Low

Variable

2.4 INTRODUCTION TO THECOREPOINT CA SE STUDY LOCA TIONS

The following section provides anintroduction to the case study locations, whilstalso indicating the diversity of coastal typesdealt with in the COREPOINT project. Thisdiversity, provided in more detail inCOREPOINT: Carlisle et al. (2007), reflects thegeneral characteristics of the coast of NorthWest Europe as a region as outlined in theoverview above. These COREPOINT case studysites are also the focal point for the ExpertCouplet Nodes described in greater detail inChapter 4.

The physical characteristics of theCOREPOINT case study sites range from highenergy, hard, rocky shorelines to low energy,soft, sediment-dominated shorelines. Some ofthe sites are primarily characterised by one

shoreline type. For example, the Belgian andSefton coasts are almost totally comprised ofsandy beaches, with associated dune systems.By contrast, Donegal and the eastern side ofthe Western Isles are predominantly comprisedof rocky peninsulas interspersed with smallsandy beaches or mudflats. Locations such asthe Severn Estuary and Baie du Mont St.Michel are more varied, with large areas ofshingle, sand and mud, but also with areas ofsea cliff and rocky shore platform. The coastof North East England has long sweepingbeaches but also areas of sea cliffs. The Golfedu Morbihan and Cork Harbour are all drownedriver valleys or rias, and so have verysheltered, muddy gravel subsea substrates,with very little sand.

Ch 2

13TABLE 2.1 COASTAL ISSUES IN NORTH WEST EUROPE, AS DESCRIBED BY SUMAN (2001), RATED BY THEIR PERCEIVED LEVEL

OF IMPORTANCE BY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE REGION [FROM: COREPOINT: O’CONNOR ET AL., (2007)]

14

n w Europe

All of the sites host a range ofecologically important habitats and species andmany include areas designated for theirconservation value under the EC Birds andHabitats Directives (Special Protection Areas[SPAs] and Special Areas of Conservation[SACs] respectively). For example, sites suchas Cork Harbour, Severn Estuary, Golfe duMorbihan and Baie du Mont St. Michel includeextensive inter-tidal mudflat systems importantfor waders and other over wintering migrantbird species. In areas such as Donegal and theWestern Isles, sightings of marine mammalssuch as whales, dolphins and seals arerelatively frequent. Turtles and basking sharksare also known to occur along these coasts.

As shown in Table 2.2 and Figure2.1, the character and level of developmentvaries considerably between sites. Some sites,notably those of Sefton, Belgium and theSevern Estuary, lie within the European ‘core’region, while others, particularly those of

Brittany, and the western British Isles, residewithin the North West European ‘peripheral’region (Section 2.2.2). The urbanised ‘core’coasts, not only include extensive port andassociated development, but also significanttourism and residential development. Incontrast, primary sectoral activities, includingfishing, aquaculture and agriculture, as well astourism, dominate along the more rural coasts,such as those in Ireland and western Scotland.

Significant economic regenerationand associated waterfront development occurswithin some sites and their hinterlands aseconomies undergo long-term restructuringand shift from traditional, heavy industry tomore service-based economies. The coasts ofMerseyside (Sefton), the Severn (notably theWelsh coast) and North East England, forexample have witnessed such massive change.Table 2.2 outlines the main socio-economicactivities associated with each of theCOREPOINT sites.

LOCATION KEY CHARACTERISTICS

CORK HARBOUR Physical: A large, sheltered, natural harbour environment.Surface water body of over 100km2. Estuarine influences. Diverseshoreline types including shallow cliffs, intertidal mudflats,reedbeds, shingle and rocky foreshores.

Ecological: Important ecological systems such as extensivemudflats and salt marsh. Protected habitats designated as SPAs,SACs and Ramsar sites of international wetland significance.Important fish spawning and nursery areas.

Socio-economic: Cork City is located in Cork Harbour. Withinthe Harbour there are also a number of densely populated coastaltowns and villages. The Port of Cork is a major economic driver inthe region. The Harbour is internationally renowned for sailing.Eight out of the ten top pharmaceutical companies in the worldare located there.

DONEGAL BEACHES Physical: Primarily characterised by rural, sandy beaches anddune systems – including 37 separate sand dune systems.Shorelines also include estuarine inlets, rocky foreshores andoffshore islands.

Ecological: Extensive areas of priority habitat e.g. grey dunes,machair and Atlantic dune systems. Home to marine mammalssuch as seals, dolphins and whales. Mud flats and salt marshes ofthe major estuaries provide important feeding grounds for bothwaders and migratory birds.

Socio-economic: Sparsely populated, peripheral area with ashift in population to the east, away from the coast over the last25 years. High unemployment with decline in agricultural andtextile industries. Tourism is promoted but remoteness and lack ofinfrastructure limit growth.

TABLE 2.2 SUMMARY OF THE KEY PHYSICAL, ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FEATURES OF THE CASE STUDY LOCATIONS.

15

Ch 2


SEVERN ESTUARY Physical: Britain’s second largest estuary which includes anextensive intertidal area (22,000ha) and boasts the second largesttidal range in the world. Severn is a large coastal plain estuary,providing an outlet for five major rivers; it is extremely diverse,supporting areas of open, low lying coast, salt marshes, tidal flatsand offshore islands.

Ecological: Protected habitats designated as SPAs, SACs andRamsar sites of international wetland significance. The estuaryincludes large areas of salt marsh and intertidal mudflats.Together these support extensive bird populations including over-wintering migratory waterfowl. The estuary boasts the only knownextensive subtidal reefs of the honeycomb worm, Sabellariaalveolata, in Britain and is internationally important for migratoryfish.

Socio-economic: The estuary incorporates large urban areasincluding the four major cities of Cardiff, Newport, Bristol andGloucester. Extensive industrial development (including chemicalprocessing plants and power stations), ports and port-relatedactivities are supported by excellent land and seacommunications. Tourism and recreation are important,particularly waterfront attractions and traditional resorts.

SEFTON COAST Physical: A soft sandy coast, which extends over 34km,characterised by extensive sand dune systems, beaches and saltmarshes. Sand dunes provide protection from the sea, butextensive artificial coastal defences are also in place. Two majorestuaries influence the coastal systems – the Mersey and theRibble.

Ecological: Important ecological habitats of marshes, beachesand dune systems. The entire coast is designated under Europeanlegislation. The area supports Sand Lizards and Natterjack Toads.The estuaries are important for the support of numerous birdspecies.

Socio-economic: Densely populated coastal zone: Thepopulation of the Sefton area is approximately a quarter of amillion. Tourism is a primary coastal sector. Other sectors ofhuman influence include agriculture, sand extraction and dumpingof material.

DURHAM COAST Physical: An extensive coastal plain influenced by a number ofriver valleys running eastwards towards the North Sea. Amagnesium limestone plateau concludes in 60m cliffs along theNorth East coast.

Ecological: A number of ecologically important habitats e.g.maritime cliffs, the unique grasslands of the Whin sill escarpmentsand Durham cliffs and the chalk cliffs at Bempton - home toEngland’s largest Gannet population. 13% of the area of theregion is covered by a number of international, European andnational statutory and non-statutory designations.

Socio-economic: Approximately 2.5 million inhabitants (70% inurban areas, while rural areas are sparsely populated). Significantemployers are agriculture, forestry and fishing (9.2% of ruralemployment). Rural tourism is increasing as an alternativeindustry following the decline in the coal mining industry.

16

n w Europe


WESTERN ISLES Physical: Rocky cliffs dominate the east coast, with the deepwaters of the Minch close inshore. Much of the west coast hasgently sloping sandy beaches and occasional salt marshes. Coastalplains of machair make up about 8% of further inland areas.

Ecological: Important habitats supporting numerous birdpopulations (machair, sea cliffs and peat lands). The islandsprovide for migrating land birds to and from their Arctic breedinggrounds and a refuge for windblown vagrants from America andnorthern Europe. Home to marine mammals such as whale,dolphin and porpoise.

Socio-economic: Sparsely populated density of 9 people perkm2. High reliance on agriculture, fishing and fish-farming.Crofting, a land use system unique to the Highlands and Islandsof Scotland, is the predominant form of land use. Tourism hasgrown in significance for the regional economy; contributing15.6% to GRDP in 2003.

FLANDERS COAST Physical: The coastal plain comprises beaches, dunes andpolders. No rocky shores/substrates are found. Human influenceresulted in the fragmentation and loss of natural dune systems.Artificial nourishment frequently occurs. Coastal defencestructures characterise the majority of the coastline length (in1994, about 70% of the total length).

Ecological: Major pressure on fragile ecosystems from humanactivities. The coastal hinterland mainly consists of polders, landpreviously reclaimed from the sea by systematic dyke constructionand drainage. Areas where the natural transition between dunesand polders is still intact have become extremely rare. There aretwo beach reserves and three nature reserves along the Flemishcoast.

Socio-economic: A densely populated, urban coastal strip.There has been a decrease in traditional agriculture and fishingindustries. Tourism is the most important economic activity in thecoastal region. Due to its geo-economic central location in theEuropean core, the coastal region forms the setting for transport,logistics and distribution e.g. ports of Zeebrugge and Ostend.

GOLFE DU MORBIHAN Physical: Primarily intertidal flats and salt marshes interspersedwith 30-40 small islands. The area also includes wetlands, smallsandy beaches and some rocky coast. Most of the seabed isshallow, <5m in depth. The channel opening on to the Atlantic,however, is relatively deep (up to 30m) and narrow which createsstrong currents.

Ecological: High ecological value ecosystem. Diverse andextensive bird populations including waders and migratory birds.The gulf is protected by a large variety of designations fromnational to international level (e.g. Ramsar and Natura 2000). Theeelgrass beds, which are a very important habitat for Brent geeseand sea horses, are currently in decline.

Socio-economic: Densely populated area: about 300inhabitants per km². Coastal sectors: Tourism - most importanteconomic activity (1.2 million tourists during summer time).Shellfish farming is a long-established traditional activity (200shellfish farms on 1650 ha). Agriculture is being reduced due tourbanisation.

17

Ch 2


BAIE DU MONT ST. MICHEL Physical: Primary shoreline type: Long flat beaches. Alsoincludes: dunes, cliffs, rocky coast, wetlands, salt marsh and saltmeadows. One of the largest intertidal zones in the world(250km²). Second largest tidal range in the world (15m).

Ecological: Large and complex ecosystem. Salmon spawningarea; important nursery habitat for juvenile sea bass and mudflatsfor over wintering waders. Home to marine mammals such asseals and dolphins. Tube worm accumulations, Sabellariaalveolata, form reefs that can be 1.5m high, cover 100 ha approx.

Socio-economic: Population: 40,000; sparsely populatedCoastal sectors: Tourism - 3.5 million visitors annually. Oysterfarming - ~5,000 tonnes/year. Fishing – angling & trawling(licences allow 60 trawlers to fish within 3 nautical miles).

COREPOINT Reference Material

Carlisle, M., Green D.R. and Ritchie, W.(2007). COREPOINT: Case Study Area Descriptions.May 2007. 37pp.

O’Connor, M., Mc Kenna, J. and Cooper, A.(2007). COREPOINT: Coastal Issues and Conflicts inNorth West Europe Framed within the Lisbon andGothenburg Agendas. February 2007. 22pp.

References

Ballinger, R.C., Smith, H.D., and Warren,L.M. (1994). The management of the coastal zone ofEurope. Ocean & Coastal Management, 22 (1), 45-85.

Devoy, R.J.N., de Groot, T., Jelgersma, S.,Marson, I., Nicholls, R.J., Paskoff, R. and Plag, H.P.(2000). Sea-level changes and coastal processes:recommendations. In: D. Smith et al. (eds), Sea LevelChange and Coastal Processes: Implications for Europe,pp. 1-8. European Commission, Brussels.

EEA. (2006). The changing faces ofEurope’s coastal areas. EEA Report No. 6 of 2006. EEA,Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at:http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_6/en/eea_report_6_2006.pdf

EEA. (2005). The European Environment –State and Outlook. EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark.

EEA. (2003). Europe’s Environment - theThird Assessment. Environmental Assessment ReportNo. 10. EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark.

EEA. (2002). Environmental AssessmentReport - Environmental Signals 2002 – Benchmarkingthe millennium. Environmental Assessment Report No.9. EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Smith, H.D. (1997). The management ofthe European coast: west and east. Cahiers Nantais,Nos. 47-48, 497-502.

Suman, D. (2001). Case studies of coastalconflicts: comparative US/European experiences. Oceanand Coastal Management, 44 (1-2), 1-13.

[ch 3coastal governancearrangements ]

coastal governancearrangements

18

Chapter threeCoastal Governance

Arrangements

3.1 INTRODUCTION

As recognised in Chapter 1, there isa need to bring North West Europe to acommon level of implementation of ICZM inorder to deliver a balanced approach toregional development and improved social andeconomic cohesion. Any changes tomanagement regimes much take account ofthe broader law and policy frameworks in whichthey have to function. For this reason it isnecessary to examine the governancearrangements in place for ICZM in North WestEurope. In this context, governance refers tothe entire decision-making framework formanagement, how such decisions are madeand enacted by government as well as otherrelevant mechanisms, institutions andstakeholders. Most ICZM initiatives are carriedout within broader international, regional,national and sub-national governancearrangements. A brief overview of these levelsof governance and their relevance to ICZM ispresented below. An extensive review ofEuropean legislation and policies as well asinternational approaches to ICZM was carriedout as part of the COREPOINT project(COREPOINT: O’Hagan et al., 2005a and2005b). These reviews were part of an initialwork package which aimed to determine theeffectiveness of current spatial policies forcoastal management. The resulting informationand discussion formed a basis from whichsubsequent activities of the project could buildupon.

Following an overview of governancearrangements for ICZM, key planning tools fordelivering this are summarised in recognition ofCOREPOINT’s objective to influence nationalspatial policy development in response to theEC Recommendation on ICZM. An outline ofterrestrial spatial planning systems is presentedalong with an overview of the more recentconcept of Marine Spatial Planning. Key driversfor Marine Spatial Planning in Europe areidentified and there is a brief discussion of therelationship between marine and land-basedspatial planning in realisation of the need formore integrated planning and management ofthe coasts of North West Europe (Section 1.7).To achieve this, the section concludes with anumber of key conclusions on the governanceand delivery aspects of ICZM.

3.2 LEGA L, POLICY A NDORGA NISA TIONA L A SPECTS

Integrated coastal management isimplemented through law, policy andadministrations which work at various scales.These are discussed briefly here. For furtherinformation reference should be made to thefollowing report: European legislation andpolicies with implications for ICZM(COREPOINT: O’Hagan et al., 2005b).

3.2.1 Legal aspects of governance

International and regional context:

Many international conventions andtreaties to which the EU is a signatory haveimportant repercussions for future coastalmanagement in Europe. These are described indetail in the COREPOINT report on Europeanlegislation and policies with implications forcoastal management (COREPOINT: O’Hagan etal., 2005b). This report notes how the ICZMprocess has received considerable prominencethrough various international legaldevelopments and prescriptions. Most of thesehave emphasised the value of the ICZM processas a means of promoting sustainabledevelopment. One of the most recent re-iterations, at the United Nations World Summiton Sustainable Development (WSSD) inJohannesburg in 2002, not only encouragedcoastal States to promote integrated,multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral coastal andocean management at the national level, butalso stressed the need to strengthen regionalcooperation and coordination among relevantregional organisations and programmes. Ofparticular significance to the future of ICZM arethe Law of the Sea Convention, the Conventionon Biodiversity, and at an international regionallevel, the OSPAR Convention.

The UN Law of the Sea Convention(LOSC) has been described as a constitution forthe oceans. The Convention covers areas suchas maritime jurisdiction, fisheries, protection ofthe marine environment and marine scientificresearch. In the context of North West Europe,some Member States have implemented theLaw of the Sea jurisdictional framework in amanner consistent with the Convention whilstother Member States have failed to enactlegislation asserting their maritime jurisdictionto the maximum possible extent permissibleunder international law.

Ch 3

19

20

While France, Belgium, theNetherlands, and Germany have proclaimedExclusive Economic Zones, neither Ireland northe United Kingdom has proclaimed such azone. This is all the more surprising as both ofthese States have significant maritime interestsas well as extensive sea areas under theirsovereignty and jurisdiction. As Long andO’Hagan (2005) point out the baselinelegislation of several North West EuropeanStates does not comply with the letter orindeed with the spirit of the LOSC. This hasimplications for European legislation whichrelates to this baseline. The implementation ofthe Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)in the marine environment as well as theMarine Strategy Directive (COM (2005) 505final) are, for example, linked to the baseline.In effect, this means that the LOSC and manyEuropean legal instruments which relate to themarine environment will not be appliedconsistently by Member States.

The Convention on BiologicalDiversity has a specific mandate on marine andcoastal diversity (Jakarta, 1995). Key featuresof this include the implementation of integratedcoastal and marine management as the mostsuitable framework for addressing humanimpact on marine and coastal biologicaldiversity (Article 6(b)), as well as theestablishment of marine and coastal protectedareas (Article 8(A)). At a regional level theseobjectives are being progressed both by theOSPAR signatories through various workprogrammes and in the European Unionthrough implementation of the Natura 2000network at Member State level. Both of thesedemonstrate how European legislationdevelops as a result of international action.

European context:

There is a profusion of Europeanlegislation and policies which have both directand indirect implications for ICZM. Over 50Directives were identified in the COREPOINTreview of European legislation and policies withimplications for ICZM (COREPOINT: O’Hagan etal., 2005b). Key Directives are the:

• Water Framework Directive(2000/60/EC);

• EIA and SEA Directives (85/337/EEC;2001/42/EC);

• Birds and Habitats Directives(79/409/EEC; 92/43/EEC); and

• Marine Strategy Directive (COM (2005)505 final).

However, the range and variety oflegislation applicable to the coastal zone notonly causes confusion but there is also theproblem of overlapping legislation andjurisdiction in practice. Legislation shouldfacilitate rather than impede the managementprocess. While recent history suggests that theEuropean Commission is hesitant to makecoastal zone management compulsory forMember States, this does not take away fromthe fact that greater integration and revision ofsome key European Directives and policies areneeded and would help achieve successfulmanagement. It is inevitable that themanagement of a complex environment suchas the coast will involve a multitude oflegislation and policy, but such legislationshould be mutually consistent and shouldfacilitate rather than impede the administrativeprocess.

Consolidation of all relevantlegislation into one Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement Directive, as previously suggestedby various European institutions (OJ C155,29/05/01, p.17), would be incredibly difficultgiven that the majority of these laws not onlyrelate to the coast but deal with a multitude ofother important Community issues.

As a result of this and, coupled withthe variety of legal systems operating atMember State level, a long term perspective forcoastal management cannot be adequatelytaken into account within the existing law andpolicy framework.

It is recognised that there arelimitations to the actions that the EuropeanCommission is able to take with respect tolegislating for coastal management due to thefirmly rooted principles of subsidiarity3 andproportionality4 in the European Treaty. It isimportant to remember, however, that theprinciple of integration requires environmentalconsiderations to be taken into account in thepreparation and implementation of all policiesthat impact on the environment. With respectto legislation, this principle of integration wasfirst introduced in the Single European Act in1987.

Since then, the Amsterdam Treaty,which entered into force in 1999, hasreinforced the principle with specific referenceto the duty to integrate. Article 6 states that“environmental protection requirements mustbe integrated into the definition andimplementation of Community policies andactivities referred to in Article 3, in particularwith a view to promoting sustainabledevelopment”.


Despite the obvious progress madein legislating for environmental protection andmaritime sectors (e.g. the Common FisheriesPolicy), the EU still lacks a coherent legalframework to ensure that the various sectoralpolicies which regulate shipping, the marineenvironment, marine scientific research,energy, fishing activity and international tradeare consistent with each other and achieve thesame goals. In particular, the EU does not haveinstruments similar to the United States CoastalZone Management Act of 1972 or Canada’sOceans Act of 1996 to unify the conflictingapproaches adopted by the Member States tocoastal and ocean issues. The currentlegislative focus of the European Union has,however, placed protection of the marineenvironment at the top of the political agendaand has a sophisticated institutional frameworkwhich is capable of policy development andconflict resolution (Long and O’Hagan, 2005).

At a more practical level, there is nouniform definition in European law regardingthe extent or the size of the coastal zone withno consensus on how far landward or seawardsuch a zone should extend. This is linked to themaritime jurisdictional zones contained in theLaw of the Sea Convention. It is entirelyforeseeable that the baseline required by it maybe used at some future date as the obviousdatum to measure such a zone. The blurring ofdefinitions and the absence of a consistentapproach to such a baseline will undoubtedlyundermine the ability of the Member States toimplement both ICZM in a uniform manner, aswell as various pieces of legislation such as theWater Framework Directive and the HabitatsDirective. The absence of such a definition alsocreates difficulties at the national and sub-national levels.

National and sub-national context:

As noted above, different legalsystems operate in different Member States.With respect to North West Europe, in Belgiumand Germany, for example, a federal systemoperates while in the United Kingdom there isa system of devolved Government. In addition,the diversity of coastal environments in thevarious Member States has, to an extent,dictated the legal approach taken tomanagement at national and sub-nationallevels. This results in a reactive rather thanproactive management approach. Specificlegislation relating to the coastal zone is largelyabsent from the Member States examined.

Of those Member States that dohave specific coastal legislation it tends to dealprimarily with planning issues and/or publicaccess, for example, France. Coastal planninglaws relate only to the terrestrial side of thecoastal zone and also tend to focus on

urbanised coastal areas. In France, however,the coastal zone law (Loi littoral) takes intoaccount, perhaps in a restrictive way, somemarine areas and natural zones5. Moreover, inmost Member States the power to makeplanning decisions is devolved to local planningauthorities which often do not have thetechnical expertise, finance or political will tofully embrace planning and management in thecoastal zone. In Ireland, for example, localauthorities also have responsibility for manyhard engineered coastal protection worksdespite the fact that only two Irish localauthorities employ maritime engineers.

3.2.2 Policy aspects of governance

International and regional context:

Most binding legal instruments tendto have their genesis in policy documents. Thisis particularly true of environmental legislation.Framework conventions, such as theConvention on Climate Change, can influencethe development of customary law as theyestablish use of, and support for, certainprinciples, such as the ecosystem approach andprecautionary principle. The policy of OSPAR inrelation to management of the water resourcehas been progressed by the EU, as a signatoryto OSPAR, by the Water Framework Directive.For this reason, it is essential to look at currentEuropean policies and also those underdevelopment as these will influence the futureof integrated coastal management. In addition,various international and regional organisationshave worked extensively on coastalmanagement, producing guiding policydocuments, principles and guidelines to helpguide the ICZM process and itsimplementation. These are presented inAppendix II.

21

Ch 3

European context:

To inform the development ofEuropean policy on ICZM and to learn frombest practice, the European Commissionlaunched a Demonstration Programme on ICZMbetween 1996 and 1999. From this, theCommission outlined a strategy for ICZM(Communication on ICZM: A Strategy forEurope: COM/2000/547 of 17 September,2000) and then, in May 2002, the EuropeanParliament and Council adopted aRecommendation (Recommendation of theEuropean Parliament and Council concerningthe implementation of ICZM in Europe;2002/413/EC). This forms the current policybasis for ICZM in Europe.

Chapter III of the Recommendationencouraged Member States to undertake astocktake to analyse applicable policy andlegislative measures which currently influencecoastal management. This stocktaking exercisehad to cover all administrative levels as well asinterested citizens, non-governmentalorganisations and the business sector. Basedon the results of the stocktaking exercise,Member States were encouraged to developnational strategies. The objective of these is toincrease the coherence between the manynational, regional and local regulations andinitiatives affecting coastal zones. Informulating national strategies and measuresbased on these strategies, Member States wereasked to follow the principles of good ICZM,contained in the Recommendation, to ensuregood coastal management and governance.

The current status of implementationof the ICZM Recommendation is presented inTable 3.1. Of the 20 coastal EU Member States,only 14 submitted official reports to theCommission (including 5 out of 6 in North WestEurope). Member States were required toreport to the Commission on theimplementation of this Recommendation 45months after its adoption.

The European Commission was alsoobliged to provide the European Council andParliament with an evaluation report and aproposal for EC legislation, if appropriate, byJanuary 2007. To inform this, an externalevaluation of the implementation of the ICZMRecommendation was carried out by RupprechtConsult and the International Ocean Institute(Rupprecht Consult, 2006).

22


Country Stakeholder Strategy Reporting

BELGIUM YES NO YES

FRANCE YES YES YES

GERMANY YES YES YES

IRELAND IN PROGRESS NO NO

THE NETHERLANDS YES NO YES

UNITED KINGDOM

• ENGLAND

• SCOTLAND

• WALES

• NORTHERN IRELAND

YES

N/A

N/A

N/A

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

YES

YES

YES

YES

N/A

N/A

N/A

TABLE 3.1 NORTH WEST EUROPE MEMBER STATE PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN ICZM RECOMMENDATION

These are:(a) a broad overall perspective (thematic andgeographic);

(b) a long-term perspective which will takeinto account the precautionary principle;

(c) adaptive management during a gradualprocess;

(d) local specificity and the great diversity ofEuropean coastal zones;

(e) working with natural processes andrespecting the carrying capacity ofecosystems;

(f) involving all the parties concerned in themanagement process;

(g) support and involvement of relevantadministrative bodies; and

(h) use of a combination of instrumentsdesigned to facilitate coherence.

The evaluation by Rupprecht Consultused a regional seas approach, considered themost effective for governance of Europeancoastal areas. The evaluation highlighted thesuccess and potential of the European ICZMRecommendation (Rupprecht Consult, 2006) infacilitating improved coastal management andrevealed that the ICZM principles have createda new awareness in some Member States. Theevaluation also found that many MemberStates have successful local ICZM projectsmany of which have created a strong pressureto increase participation in the decision makingprocess. Suggestions for improving theimplementation of ICZM within the evaluationincluded:

• improved regional cooperation withinexisting regional seas programmes;

• stronger and more effective exchange ofexpertise and information;

• improved stakeholder participation; and

• enhanced monitoring and review ofimplementation.

The evaluation states that an EU-wide implementation of ICZM would have asignificant economic and social impact(Rupprecht Consult, 2006, p.10). It alsorecognises that ICZM is a key instrument inlinking the legislation and policies of terrestrialand marine environments. This is intrinsic toany future actions taken by the European Unionin relation to an over-arching Maritime Policyand by individual Member States in relation toMarine Spatial Planning.

In response to the evaluation, theCommission issued a communication to theEuropean Parliament and Council in June 2007.This states that “while the prevailing approachis still sectoral, the national strategies shouldprovide a more strategic and integratedframework” (COM (2007) 308 final, p.5). Itviews the Recommendation as a valid basis tocontinue to support the integration processwhilst recognising that the implementation is aslow, gradual and on-going process. For thisreason and due to the fact that furtherdevelopments are expected through the MarineStrategy Directive (COM (2005) 505 final) andan over-arching EU Maritime Policy, theCommission considers that at this stage a newspecific legal instrument to promote ICZM isnot foreseen.

Other European policies ofrelevance:

The influence of other Europeanpolicies cannot be underestimated. Ofparticular note are the European SpatialDevelopment Perspective (ESDP) and theMarine Strategy Directive (COM (2005) 505final). The former aims to correct regional andspatial disparities across Europe throughproviding a framework for terrestrial spatialplanning, discussed in more detail below. Therecently adopted Marine Strategy Directive(COM (2005) 505 final) emanates from thestrategy on the protection and conservation ofthe marine environment (COM (2002) 539final). Under this Directive, each Member Statewithin a marine region will be required todevelop a strategy for its marine waters. TheDirective also stipulates that “Member Statesshall, where practical and appropriate, useexisting regional institutional cooperationstructures, including those under Regional SeasConventions, covering that Marine Region orSub-Region” (Article 5(1)).

The Marine Strategy Directive mustbe seen in the wider context of thedevelopment of the new EU Maritime Policy.Subsequent to widespread consultation on theGreen Paper on this, the Commission producedthe Blue Book – an Integrated Maritime Policyfor the European Union. This lays thefoundation for the governance framework andcross-sectoral tools necessary for an EUIntegrated Maritime Policy and sets out themain actions that the Commission will pursueduring the course of this mandate. TheCommission will:

• invite Member States to draw up nationalintegrated maritime policies, workingclosely with stakeholders, in particular thecoastal regions;

• propose in 2008 a set of guidelines forthese national integrated maritimepolicies and report annually on EU andMember States' actions in this regardfrom 2009; and

• organise a stakeholder consultationstructure, feeding into furtherdevelopment of the maritime policy andallowing exchange of best practices.

23

Ch 3

The Communication recognises thatan integrated governance framework formaritime affairs requires horizontal planningtools that cut across marine-related sectoralpolicies and support joined up policy making.Marine Spatial Planning and ICZM arerecognised as key approaches for sustainabledecision-making (Section 3.4.2).

National context:

While the vast majority of MemberStates of North West Europe have formallyreported to the Commission on their Stocktakerelatively few have developed specific ICZMstrategies (Table 3.2), many States, such asBelgium preferring to use existing policies andinstruments. The legal and institutionalframeworks operating in North West EuropeMember States have effectively prescribed theway in which the EC ICZM Recommendationhas been brought forward. Variations in theseframeworks produce different approaches tomanagement and profoundly affect any futureintegrated management regime.

24


DOCUMENT DETAILS

BELGIUM Strategy: No separate strategy document.

Reporting Documentation: North Sea and Oceans Steering Committee.2006. National Belgian report on the implementation of Recommendation2002/413/EC on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. North Sea andOceans Steering Committee, Belgium.

Comment: Report outlines the existing efforts relating to ICZM and is“intended to be a source of inspiration for the government to optimize itsintegrated policy for the coast and to provide information for all actorsinvolved who wish to acquire better insight into the efforts made so far onthe coast and current lines of thinking for the future” (op. cit., p.1).

FRANCE Strategy: The French strategy is detailed in the report made about theimplementation of the European recommendation on ICZM in France.

Reporting Documentation: DIACT-SG MER. 2006. Rapport françaisd'application de la Recommandation du Parlement Européen et du Conseil du30 mai 2002 relative à la mise en œuvre d'une stratégie de gestion intégréedes zones côtières en Europe, [French report on the application of theRecommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May2002 concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement in Europe], Paris, France.

Comment: The French process seems to be quite advanced in terms of thedevelopment of national dialogue and strategy. The institutionalarrangements for ICZM in France are discussed in greater detail in theCOREPOINT report on this (Kervarec, 2007). Nationally, the FrenchGovernment are making strong efforts to coordinate European policy, thenational strategy and the local application of the ICZM principles. Thegovernment in 2006 funded 25 projects all over the French coast in order tofacilitate and encourage usage of the ICZM principles and consequently helpdeliver a new governance regime.

TABLE 3.2 ICZM STRATEGIES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FROM NORTH WEST EUROPE

25

Ch 3

DOCUMENT DETAILS

IRELAND Strategy: None.

Reporting Documentation: None.

Comment: Ireland is lagging behind in terms of reporting on ICZMimplementation as well as strategy development. However, a stocktake iscurrently underway. Previous studies have indicated that the strong land /sea divide remains an impeding factor to integrated management (BradyShipman Martin, 1997).

THE NETHERLANDS Strategy: No separate strategy.

Reporting Documentation: Dutch Government. 2005. EURecommendation concerning the Implementation of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement in Europe - Report on Implementation in the Netherlands. TheHague.

Comment: The Dutch Government has decided not to develop a separateICZM strategy, but instead to follow the current practice for theimplementation of spatial planning and coastal management in theNetherlands as much as possible. Given that half of all the land in theNetherlands is below sea-level, the country has a long tradition of shorelinemanagement. The policy instruments in place, which includes decentraliseddecision-making at regional and local levels as well as horizontal exchangebetween relevant administrative bodies, seem to be sufficiently strong tosuccessfully implement ICZM.

UNITED KINGDOM Each devolved administration has developed its ICZM strategy independentlyalthough the UK reported on the implementation of the EC Recommendationto the European Commission.

Supporting documentation:Report from the UK: implementation of (2002/413/EC) Recommendation ofthe European Parliament and of the Council, of 3 May 2002, concerning theimplementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe. Availableat:http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/iczm/index.htm

ENGLAND Strategy: Under development. Being taken forward through the Marine Billprocess.

Supporting documentation: Promoting an integrated approach to themanagement of the coastal zone (ICZM) in England: a consultationdocument of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),June 2006.

Available at:http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/water/marine/uk/iczm/index.htm

Summary of responses to the consultation (Defra, June 2007)

Available at:http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/water/marine/uk/iczm/index.htm

26


DOCUMENT DETAILS

SCOTLAND Strategy: Yes.

Supporting documentation: Scottish Executive. 2005. Seas theOpportunity: A strategy for the long-term sustainability of Scotland's coastsand seas. Scottish executive, Edinburgh.

Available at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/26102543/25444

WALES Strategy: Yes.

Supporting documentation:Welsh Assembly Government. 2006. Makingthe Most of Wales’ Coast: the integrated coastal management strategy forWales, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.

Available at:http://www.countryside.wales.gov.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=797&n2=123&n3=952

NORTHERN IRELAND Strategy: Yes.

Supporting documentation: DOENI. 2006. An Integrated Coastal ZoneStrategy for Northern Ireland. Department of the Environment NorthernIreland, Belfast.

Available at:http://www.coastalmarineni.com/index/integrated_coastal_zone_management/the_ni_iczm_strategy.htm

Sub-national:

Below the national level, there isICZM activity at both regional and local levels.However, there is considerable variation in thedegree to which ICZM is progressed at theregional level (COREPOINT: Hills et al., 2008)with relatively few specific ‘regional’ ICZMefforts or ICZM initiatives which involveregional government as a key player apart fromthe North West Coastal Forum in England andthe Belgian ICZM Coordination Point,respectively (North Sea and Oceans SteeringCommittee, 2006).

At local levels there is considerableICZM effort although this is not evenlydistributed along the coasts of North WestEurope with a tendency to be focused on themore intensively used, urban estuaries andcoasts even within Member States with higherlevels of activity, such as the UK. Local ICZMeffort ranges from specific ICZM programmesto more sectorally focused local initiatives,which, through increasing use of partnershipand integrated environmental managementapproaches, actually help deliver many of thekey ICZM principles on the ground withoutbeing ‘labelled’ as ICZM per se. These includethe management programmes associated withheritage coasts, European Marine Sites (underNatura 2000) and shoreline management inEngland and Wales (Ballinger et al., 2004).Specific local ICZM efforts may be facilitated bylocal institutions including local governmentand harbour authorities in relation to specificlocal issues and priorities or, more commonlyacross North West Europe, may be linked tospecific national projects or Europeanprogrammes, such as INTERREG. As such, thelatter are frequently beset with problemsassociated with short-term funding andassociated commitment, and the former maybe hampered with over reliance on local‘champions’ (Cummins et al., 2004).

The partnership approach to localdelivery of ICZM is noteworthy and isparticularly well developed within the UK. Suchpartnerships seek to foster co-operationbetween a wide range of public, non-statutoryand commercial organisations with local coastalinterests and responsibilities, and generallyencourage a more coordinated approach tomanagement. Most focus on estuaries andfirths where sectoral management andadministrative overlap are pronounced. Thepartnerships usually produce some sort of‘integrating’ management strategy involvingwide public participation and involvement ofrelevant stakeholders. Examples include theSolway Firth Partnership in Scotland and

England and the Severn Estuary Partnership inWales and England. The partnership approachto management is discussed further in theCOREPOINT review of international approachesto ICZM (COREPOINT: O’Hagan, et. al., 2005a)and the dedicated COREPOINT report onpartnership working (COREPOINT: Lymbery, G.et al., 2008).

The COREPOINT project sought toadvance the implementation of ICZM at thelocal level in North West Europe through arange of capacity building initiatives involvingpartnership working. This approach isdescribed in detail in Chapter 4.

27

Ch 3

3.2.3 Organisational aspects ofgovernance

This section focuses only on theEuropean and national/sub-national levels. Thekey European institutions that have a role inICZM are the European Commission, theEuropean Parliament and the Council of theEuropean Union.

It is clear that the management ofthe coastal zones of North West Europe isprimarily carried out on a sectoral basis. Thisapproach, however, is generally not conduciveto integrated management. Even institutionsthat have roles in both the terrestrial andmarine environments can rarely take aninterdisciplinary approach due to their legal,sectorally-biased remit. However, there areefforts within some Member States toencourage non-statutory coordination andcollaboration between central governmentdepartments and other national stakeholders inrelation to coastal and marine matters. Forexample, the Wales Coastal and MaritimePartnership brings together a wide range oforganisations to discuss coastal and marineissues and to advise the Welsh AssemblyGovernment on relevant policy development.

The broadest role and responsibilitiesin coastal areas rest with localgovernment/local planning authorities.However, coordination across several tiers oflocal government (provincial/county andlocal/district/municipal councils) as well asbetween internal local governmentdepartments with coastal functions andresponsibilities is frequently fraught withdifficulty. This is exacerbated by complexorganisational structures, the differentbackgrounds of the personnel involved in areasas diverse as coastal engineering, tourismmanagement and land use planning as well asthe perceived peripherality of ICZM to dailyservice provision, which is largely based onsectoral legislative requirements emanatingfrom the national level (Ballinger et al., 2004).The regulation of significant coastal industriessuch as fisheries, oil and gas and marineaggregate extraction is primarily theresponsibility of central Governmentdepartments.

As a consequence, the managementof such industries tends to be far removed fromthe principles of good ICZM contained in theEuropean ICZM Recommendation. The broad,holistic approach which sub-national, regionalgovernment institutions can provide is also notcurrently being fully realised although theregional tier of government, particularlyassociated with the regionalisation of economicdevelopment and planning policy, is currentlygrowing in importance.

A detailed examination of individualMember States’ governance systems is beyondthe scope of this document. However, a briefoutline of their essential characteristics and keydifferences is presented graphically on thefollowing pages.

28


29

Ch 3

FIGURE 3.1A INSTITUTIONAL SCHEMA FOR BELGIUM

FIGURE 3.1B INSTITUTIONAL SCHEMA FOR FRANCE

30


FIGURE 3.1C INSTITUTIONAL SCHEMA FOR THE NETHERLANDS

FIGURE 3.1D INSTITUTIONAL SCHEMAS FOR IRELAND

31

Ch 3

FIGURE 3.1E INSTITUTIONAL SCHEMA FOR THE UK (DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATIONS FOLLOWING)

FIGURE 3.1F DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATION IN SCOTLAND

32


FIGURE 3.1G DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATION IN WALES

FIGURE 3.1H DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND

3.3 SPA TIA L PLA NNING

3.3.1 Spatial planning: European andnational dimensions

Since the early to mid-1990s therehas been considerable interest in, anddevelopment of, spatial planning within Europeat all levels as a means of promotingsustainable and balanced development whilstrespecting territorial cohesion, economiccompetition and the diversity of particular areas(Adams et al., 2006). Being a wider and morestrategic concept and activity than land-useplanning, spatial planning links land-useplanning with economic development policyand other policy areas, including social andenvironmental ones.

Of particular note in a Europeancontext, are the European Spatial DevelopmentPerspective (ESDP) and the supportingEuropean Spatial Planning ObservationNetwork (ESPON). The former has promotedbalanced and sustainable polycentric8development in trying to address the excessiveeconomic and demographic concentration inthe congested areas of the EU. The aims andprinciples of ESDP have been recentlysupported by the EU’s Territorial Agenda(2007). ESPON, a pan-European researchcommunity, supports policy developmentthrough increasing relevant knowledge andunderstanding as well as by developingintegrated tools and instruments to improvespatial coordination of sectoral policy.

Given spatial planning’s key role inthe delivery of sustainable development, itsability to recognise and address ‘wicked’ issuesand its particular focus on the ‘region’, it is animportant tool for ICZM. This is particularly sofor North West Europe where there has been asignificant renaissance in regional developmentand associated spatial planning strategies andgovernance structures over the last decade(Section 3.2.3).

Across the EU, there is clearrecognition of the importance of nationalspatial planning systems in providing a policyand procedural framework for managing landuse change, and relating this to widereconomic, social and environmental objectives.In unitary States like France, Ireland and the

UK, the national government generally makesthe law in relation to spatial planning which isthen applied throughout the country. However,since devolved government in the UK in the late1990s, there have been devolved spatialplanning powers for Scotland and Wales. Infederal States, power is shared betweennational and other tiers of government. In thecase of Belgium, power is shared with theregions, such as Flanders, therefore, play theprimary role in spatial planning.

3.3.2 Land use planning in MemberStates of the COREPOINT Project

The review of the characteristics ofthe planning systems of the Member Statesrelevant to the COREPOINT Project ExpertCouplet sites (COREPOINT: Alden, 2007)revealed that all six Member States have asimilar pattern of spatial and land use planningat national, regional and local levels. However,it revealed subtle differences between theplanning systems which are summarised in theseparate COREPOINT report (Ballinger andAlden, 2008). Such differences were alsohighlighted by the COREPOINT survey of localICZM experiences across North West Europe(COREPOINT: Ballinger et al., 2008).

At local level, local authorities haveprime responsibility for detailed plan making,within a framework set and supervised bynational or regional government. In the UnitedKingdom, such local planning systems, havebeen described as operating as the‘gatekeepers’ of development (Taussik, 2007).They are vital in determining the location anddistribution of development and land use,providing a context for the regulation of landuse and physical development9. As such theseplans shape the resultant character andassociated management issues of coastalareas, albeit their limited seaward jurisdictionallimit10. Given recent planning and institutionalreforms, it is a time of opportunity for coastalplanners and managers to communicate,cooperate and collaborate so that they canacquire a wider and better sharedunderstanding of coastal issues in order togenerate improved policy frameworks for bothICZM and planning (Taussik, 2000; PlanCoast,2008).

33

Ch 3

This is why the COREPOINT projectteam has worked with and included localplanners and why this section of the documentis so important, providing background to theCOREPOINT Expert Couplet sites and activities(Chapter 4). Indeed, the results of theCOREPOINT Partners’ Questionnaire Survey(Section 4.2) have indicated that there isconsiderable synergy between local planningand ICZM efforts. However, the findings alsosuggest a number of challenges to furtherintegration between the two systems.

3.3.3 Marine Spatial Planning

Whilst Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)is at an early stage of development acrossNorth West Europe, international experiencesuggests that it can facilitate sustainabledevelopment and strategic planning as well asmultiple use allocation and associated conflict

mitigation and reduction for offshore areas(UNESCO, 2006, Ehler et al, 2007). Being area-based, it can also provide a practical approachto long-term ecosystem-based management(op. cit.). As such it is an essential tool for thecoasts of North West Europe, particularly thosefacing increasing pressure from traditional aswell as emerging new uses within alreadycongested coastal space.

The different character of the marinenatural environment, the contrasting natureand patterns of land and sea use as well as thedifferent information and data requirements formarine and terrestrial environments, suggestthat Marine Spatial Planning systems may needto adopt a somewhat different approach tocurrent land-based spatial planning systems(Ballinger et al., 2005) as demonstrated inTable 3.3 below.

34


THE DIFFERENT CHARACTER OF THE MARINE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

THE DIFFERENT NATURE AND PATTERNS OF LAND AND USE

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

TABLE 3.3 KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING

Drivers for Marine SpatialPlanning (MSP) in Europe

Interest in MSP at both the Europeanlevel and national level has been triggered andsupported by a range of policy drivers. At theEuropean level the following have beenimportant:

• the 2002 Bergen Declaration (agreed atthe 5th North Sea Conference ofministers);

• the EU’s Natura 2000 network and thesecond Ministerial Meeting of the OSPARCommission Recommendation 2003/3 ona Network of Marine Protected Areas;

• the EC Recommendation on ICZM (2002);

• the EU Maritime Policy (COM 2006); and

• the Blue Book – an integrated maritimepolicy for the European Union (2007).

Development of Marine SpatialPlanning in North West Europe

In addition to the Trilateral WaddenSea Plan, the first European transboundarymarine spatial plan between the Netherlands,Germany and Denmark (2001), marine spatialplans are under consideration or in preparationby various individual Member States (Table3.4). These include national and regionalinitiatives in France as well as national efforts inBelgium and the Netherlands. The MSP processfor Belgium is particularly noteworthy. Theturbulent history and legal contests associatedwith this case illustrate the importance oftransparent, clear and extensive procedures forstakeholder involvement (Maes et al., 2005;Douvere et al. 2007). The Belgian experiencealso shows the merits in adopting a phaseddelivery to MSP implementation, adapting tochanging circumstances and benefiting fromnew, innovative planning and managementsolutions (op. cit. Figure 3.1).

Given the early evolutionary stage ofdevelopment of MSP alongside the differenthuman and physical characteristics of thecoastal waters of North West Europe, it is notsurprising that there are somewhat differentinterpretations and initiatives labelled as MSPat Member State level. However, despite thedifferent geographical scales of operation,status, tools and levels of constraint associatedwith MSP in the North West Europe region(Table 3.4), the planning efforts share acommon objective. They all attempt to providea strategic framework to organise offshoreactivities and uses in order to securesustainable and integrated development.

35

Ch 3

BELGIUM: A NA TIONA L CA SESTUDY IN MSP

Background

The Belgian Part of the North Sea(BPNS) is a small and intensively used sea areafacing increasing pressures caused by limitedavailability of space on land and offshore,including:

• new uses of the sea and sea bed,including installation of wind turbines;

• growing demand for laying cables andpipelines;

• growing demand for sand and gravelexploitation;

• increase in shipping traffic and recreation;

• need for establishing marine protectedareas; and

• increased pressure from land-basedactivities on sea-based activities.

The Master Plan for the BPNS

Priorities and objectives includedthe:

• delimitation of a zone for offshore windfarming;

• delimitation of a zone for marineprotected areas;

• elaboration of a policy plan for sustainablesand and gravel extraction;

• enhancement of financial resources forpollution prevention;

• mapping of marine habitats;

• protection of wrecks valuable forbiodiversity; and

• management of land-based activitiesimpacting on the marine environment.

Incremental implementation of theMaster Plan

Despite no legal basis for MSP, theMaster Plan provides a translation of currentand future objectives of various sectors into aspatial vision using a new cross-sectoral, multi-use approach11. It is being implementedincrementally in two phases.

First implementation phase:

Sand and gravel extraction

A diverse zoning system for sand andgravel extraction (2003) designates mostintensive exploitation as control zones alongwith a sequential rotation procedure forexploitation. Royal Decrees (2004) support this,introducing conditions and procedures forgranting concessions for the exploration andexploitation of mineral resources and othernon-living resource12 as well as setting outregulations for the environmental impactassessment of such activities.

Offshore wind energy

Designation of zones for offshorewind parks has had a short but very turbulenthistory, with various concession permitscontested in several legal procedures in court(Council of State) and finally being cancelled bythe Minister of the North Sea. A new approachforesees the establishment of two adjacentzones on Thornton Bank.

36


Second implementation phase:

Focusing on the implementation ofNatura 2000, three offshore SPAs and two SACsreceived legal status in 2005 with a furtherzone, the Bay of Heist, receiving protectedstatus in 2006.

37

Ch 3

FIGURE 3.2 DIFFERENT USES OF THE BELGIAN

PART OF THE NORTH SEA (2004)

FIGURE 3.3 ZONATION ACCORDING TO THE MASTER

PLAN (DOUVERE ET AL. 2007)

38


MEMBER STATE/

MARINE AREA

STAGE STATUS COMMENTS KEY REFERENCES

IRELAND D N/A RECOGNISED IN THE MARINE

KNOWLEDGE, RESEARCH, &

INNOVATION STRATEGY FOR

IRELAND 2007-2013 AS A KEY

OBJECTIVE.

MARINE INSTITUTE, (2007).

SEACHANGE: A MARINE

KNOWLEDGE, RESEARCH, &

INNOVATION STRATEGY FOR

IRELAND 2007-2013: PAGE 71

UK D THE UK REVIEW OF MARINE NATURE

CONSERVATION ESTABLISHED AN

IRISH SEA PILOT PROJECT (2002)

TO EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL FOR A

REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

TO OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT.

DEVELOPMENT OF UK MARINE

POLICY HAS LED TO FURTHER

CONSIDERATION OF MARINE

PLANNING. IT IS ANTICIPATED

THAT THE MARINE BILL (DRAFT DUE

SPRING 2008), WHICH WILL

INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED SYSTEM

FOR MARINE RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT, WILL INCLUDE

PROVISION FOR MARINE

PLANNING.

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT

SCOTLAND IS TO DEVELOP A

SEPARATE SCOTTISH MARINE BILL

AND IS CURRENTLY PURSUING A

RANGE OF PILOT PROJECTS ON MSP

AND IS INVESTIGATING THE INTER-

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MSP AND

ICZM.

UK:

MSPP CONSORTIUM (2006)

TYLDESLEY (2004A AND B)

DEFRA (2006)

SCOTLAND:

ADVISORY GROUP ON MARINE

AND COASTAL STRATEGY

(AGMACS; 2007)

SCOTTISH COASTAL FORUM AND

AGMACS SECRETARIAT (2007).

FRANCE I (LOCAL &

REGIONAL

LEVEL)

S (NATIONAL

LEGISLATION/

LOCAL

APPLICATION)

NS (REGIONAL

CHARTER)

AT LOCAL LEVEL, A MECHANISM OF

MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING

EXISTS. IT IS DEFINED BY

NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND

IMPLEMENTED LOCALLY (SMVM:

SCHÉMA DE MISE EN VALEUR DE LA

MER).

AT REGIONAL LEVEL, NON

STATUTORY SPATIAL PLANNING

EXISTS E.G. IN BRITTANY (CHARTER

FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT).

SMVM : ART L.122-1 ET

SUIVANTS DU CODE DE

L’URBANISME.

RÉGION BRETAGNE, 2007.

CHARTE DES ESPACES CÔTIERS

POUR UNE GESTION DURABLE

DU LITTORAL BRETON.

TABLE 3.4 PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING MSP IN NORTH WEST EUROPE

39

Ch 3

MEMBER STATE/

MARINE AREA

STAGE STATUS COMMENTS KEY REFERENCES

BELGIUM I NS MASTERPLAN NORTH SEA AND

GAUFRE PROJECT: 2003-2005

MAES ET AL. (2005)

DOUVERE ET AL. 2007

NETHERLANDS P TO I

DEPENDING

ON THE

AREAS

S-+ INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE NORTH SEA (2015)

INCLUDES CHAPTER ON SPATIAL

MANAGEMENT

INTEGRAAL BEHEERPLAN

NOORDZEE (2015) - IDON

(2005)

DE VREES (2006)

GERMANY D UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE

GERMAN EEZ.

VARIOUS STATES HAVE EXTENDED

PLANS OFFSHORE (MECKLENBURG-

VORPOMMERN: 2005; LOWER

SAXONY: 2006; SCHLESWIG-

HOLSTEIN: IN PREPARATION).

THE FEDERAL SPATIAL PLANNING

ACT WAS EXPANDED TO THE

GERMAN EEZ IN 2004. PLANNING

TARGETS AND PRINCIPLES FOR THE

EEZ INCLUDING THE DESIGNATION

OF PRIORITY AREAS FOR SPECIFIC

FORMS OF USE HAVE BEEN

DEVELOPED. A FORMAL

CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT

SPATIAL PLAN FOR THE EEZ WILL

TAKE PLACE IN 2008.

GEE ET AL. (2004)

SIEGEL (2007)

WADDEN SEA I NS TRILATERAL WADDEN SEA PLAN,

THE FIRST EUROPEAN

TRANSBOUNDARY INTEGRATED

MARINE PLAN BETWEEN THE

NETHERLANDS, GERMANY AND

DENMARK (1997). THE PLAN

INCLUDES COMMON POLICIES,

MEASURES, PROJECTS AND

ACTIONS.

DAMOISEAUX, M.A. (2003)

Key:

Stage:D-Under discussion / considerationP-Being preparedI-Being implementedStatus:NS-Non-statutoryS-Statutory

Marine Spatial Planning andICZM

Given the considerable interest andimpetus for the development of MSP bothacross Europe and at Member State level, thisis a time of considerable opportunity for ICZM,particularly given the similarity in aims,objectives and principles between MSP andICZM.

Exactly, how MSP will develop andhow it will interface with ICZM at the variouslevels, however, is still emerging although it isclear from the EC ICZM Recommendation thatthe Commission is convinced that MSP is a keyingredient for achieving ICZM (EC, 2002).Within discussions on the role of ICZM inproviding a linkage across the land/sea divide,the need to make adequate provision forplanning across this boundary is also a keyconsideration (Scottish Coastal Forum andAGMACS Secretariat, 2007; Atkins, 2004;Ballinger et al., 2005) along with considerationof the potential role of local coastalpartnerships/initiatives in MSP (AGMACS,2007).

The experience of Oregon Ocean-Coastal Management program (US) whichincludes land and sea-based programmes,undertaken as part of the State-wide spatialland use planning system, suggests that ICZMprogrammes can provide a ‘zip’ bringing landand marine systems seamlessly together (op.cit.). Given uncertainties regarding MSPdevelopment, MSP may need to be ‘shaped’ tocountry specific requirements, assisting withthe ICZM principle of ‘local specificity.’ This,however, is only likely to be achieved withsuitable administrative arrangements whichenable full engagement of relevant sectors andother key stakeholders including the ICZMcommunity.

3.4 CONCLUSIONS ON THEGOVERNA NCE A ND DELIVERY A SPECTS OFICZM IN NORTH WEST EUROPE BA SED ONTHE COREPOINT RESEA RCH

Legal Framework:

• Specific legislation for coastal zones islargely absent from the Member States ofNorth West Europe;

• In many North West Europe MemberStates, planning powers are devolved toregional or local government whosejurisdiction rarely extends beyond theMean High/Low water mark. This inherentinflexibility impedes integration across theland – sea divide;

• The lack of a uniform definition of thecoast undermines the ability of MemberStates to implement ICZM in a consistentmanner. It also makes implementation ofkey EC Directives inherently difficult asmaritime jurisdictional zones varybetween Member States; and

• Many of the international conventions andtreaties that the EU is a signatory to willinfluence the development of ICZM in theNorth West European region in the future.

Policy:

• The principle of integration in theAmsterdam Treaty reaffirms the EuropeanUnion’s commitment to sustainabledevelopment. ICZM, and its associatedtools for delivery, is a key way to achievesustainable development of coastal areas;

• The EC Recommendation on theimplementation of ICZM in Europe formsthe current policy basis for ICZM.However the development of stocktakesand strategies in response to this isvariable around North West Europe;

• In North West Europe the majority ofMember States have formally reported tothe Commission on their stocktakealthough relatively few of them havedeveloped specific ICZM strategies,namely France, Germany and three of thedevolved UK administrations. Belgium andthe Netherlands will progress ICZMthrough their respective currentinstruments while the approach of Irelandis still under debate; and

• Recent and forth coming developments atEuropean level in relation to an all-embracing maritime policy for theEuropean Union is likely to have an impacton future ICZM initiatives.

Organisational Aspects:

• Sectoral management of coastal areas stillprevails in North West Europe;

• There remains a strong land – sea dividein the management of coastal areas; and

• A variety of approaches to ICZM evidentat the North West Europe scale. There isweak horizontal integration betweensectors with legislation often effectivelypreventing cooperation. To circumventthis some Member States have favoureda non-statutory approach throughvoluntary ICZM initiatives andpartnerships.

40


Planning:

• The recent renaissance in regionaldevelopment and terrestrial spatialplanning provides a strategic context forICZM development in North West Europe;

• Local development planning is a long-established mechanism for influencing thedistribution of development within coastalareas which is generally under-utilised inICZM; and

• With an ability to facilitate sustainabledevelopment, strategic planning, multipleuse allocation, conflict mitigation andreduction, Marine Spatial Planning is anessential tool for the coasts of North WestEurope.

Implications for the COREPOINTproject:

It has been recognised that there isa need for integrated planning andmanagement to achieve sustainabledevelopment of the North West Europe coastalzone. To deliver this it is essential that the law,policy and administrative frameworks currentlyin operation are understood as these effectivelydictate how management is carried out.Current governance arrangements presentboth constraints and opportunities for the widermanagement process. With this in mind,COREPOINT is centred on local case studieswhich have provided an opportunity to explorethe implications of the institutional, social,natural and cultural heterogeneity of NorthWest Europe, to compare and exchange localICZM experiences and to benefit from suchexchanges.

The specificity of each case study, interms of its social context (uses andstakeholders) as well as its natural and culturalheritage (Chapter 2), alongside theinterweaving of these aspects with governanceand political dimensions, has provided a richand challenging context for the development ofthe COREPOINT project. Given that the humandimension is considered central to theimplementation of better management of thecoastal zone the project has chosen to favourthe relationship with local managers throughExpert Couplet Nodes, as discussed in Chapter4.

41

Ch 3

COREPOINT reference material

Alden, J. (2007). Appendix 3: Matrix Tableof Spatial Planning in Member Countries of COREPOINTProject. A paper produced as part of COREPOINTproject, 6pp.

Ballinger, R.C. (2008). COREPOINT:Partner’s Survey - Evaluation of local ICZM efforts, Areport prepared as part of the COREPOINT project, 59pp.

Ballinger, R.C. and Alden, J. (2008). Spatialplanning and ICZM in North West Europe, A reportprepared as part of the COREPOINT project, 20pp.

Hills, J. et al. (2008). COREPOINT: the roleof the regions, A report prepared as part of theCOREPOINT project, 28 pp.

Kervarec, F. (2007). ICZM in France: pointsof view; a summary of interviews carried out withrelevant institutions. A report prepared as part of theCOREPOINT project, 10pp.

Lymbery, G. (2008). COREPOINT: ICZMSurvey of Partner Countries. A report prepared as partof the COREPOINT project, 38pp.

O’Hagan, A.M., Ballinger, R., Stojanovic, T.,and Le Tissier, M. (2005a). COREPOINT: Review ofInternational Approaches to Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (ICZM). July 2005. 108pp.

O’Hagan, A.M., Ballinger, R., Ball, I., andSchrivers, J. (2005b). COREPOINT: European legislationand policies with implications for coastal management.April 2005. 142 pp.

References:

Adams, N., Alden, J., and Harris, N. (Eds.)(2006). Regional Development and Spatial Planning inour Enlarged EU; Ashgate 2006. (The book covers theSpatial Planning Systems in 5 of the 6 COREPOINTcountries i.e. Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, andFlanders).

Advisory Group on Marine and CoastalStrategy. (2007). Recommendations of the AdvisoryGroup on Marine and Coastal Strategy. A Follow up toSeas the Opportunity: A Strategy for the Long TermSustainability of Scotland's Coasts and Seas, ScottishExecutive. Available at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/08103826/0

Atkins. (2004). ICZM in the UK: a stocktake,Final Report, March 2004.

Ballinger, R.C., Taussik, J. and Potts, J.(2004). Sharing responsibility for managing coastal risk:lessons from the British Experience, Deliveringsustainable coasts: connecting science and policy,Proceedings of Littoral, 2004, the 7th InternationalSymposium, Aberdeen, UK, Sept. 20 – 22, 2004, p199 –204.

Ballinger, R.C., Taussik, J and Ball, I. (2005).Potential links between the Wales Spatial Plan, MarineSpatial Planning and ICZM, A report produced for theCountryside Council for Wales, 74pp.

Ballinger, R.C., Gubbay, S., Stojanovic, T.,Ball, I., Taussik, T and Smith, H.D. (2005). A review ofcoastal and maritime initiatives and pressures, Reportto the Wales Coastal and Maritime Partnership and theWelsh Assembly Government, 155pp.

Brady Shipman Martin. (1997). CoastalZone Management – A draft policy for Ireland.Government of Ireland, Dublin.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutzund Reaktorsicherheit [Federal Ministry for theEnvironment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety].(2006). Integrated Coastal Zone Management inGermany: assessment and steps towards a nationalICZM strategy. English version. BMU, Bonn, Germany.

Cummins, V., Ballinger, R., O’Mahony, C.,Dodds, W. and Smith, H. (2004). Coastal CommunitiesNetwork (CoCoNet): Final Report INTERREG IIIA. 51pp.

Damoiseaux, M.A. (2003). TheManagement Plan of the Wadden Sea and itsvisualisation, in Green, D.R. and King, S.D. (2003) Eds.Coastal and marine geo-information systems, Springer,Netherlands, 105 - 112.

de Vrees, L. (2006). Spatial managementon the (Netherlands part of the) North Sea, Presentationgiven at the International Workshop on Marine SpatialPlanning, UNESCO, Paris, 8-10 November, 2006.

DEFRA. (2006a). Report from the UnitedKingdom Implementation of (2002/413/EC)Recommendation of the European Parliament and of theCouncil, of 3 May 2002, concerning the implementationof Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe.Defra, London.

DEFRA. (2006b). Promoting an integratedapproach to management of the coastal zone (ICZM) inEngland. DEFRA, London.

DEFRA. (2006c). A Marine Bill, Aconsultation document of the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, March 2006,London.

DIACT-SG MER. (2006). Rapport françaisd'application de la Recommandation du ParlementEuropéen et du Conseil du 30 mai 2002 relative à lamise en œuvre d'une stratégie de gestion intégrée deszones côtières en Europe, [French report on theapplication of the Recommendation of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002concerning the implementation of Integrated CoastalZone Management in Europe], Paris, France.

DOENI. (2006). An Integrated Coastal ZoneStrategy for Northern Ireland. Department of theEnvironment Northern Ireland, Belfast.

Douvere, F., Maes, F., Vanhulle, A.,Schrijvers, J. (2007). The Role of Spatial Planning in SeaUse Management: The Belgian Case, Marine Policy, 31,182-191.

42


Dutch Government. (2005). EURecommendation concerning the Implementation ofIntegrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe -Report on Implementation in the Netherlands. TheHague.

Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. (2007). Visions fora Sea Change. Report of the First InternationalWorkshop on Marine Spatial Planning. UNESCO, Paris.

European Commission. (2007). The BlueBook – an integrated maritime policy for the EuropeanUnion. Commission of the European Communities,Brussels.

European Commission. (2002). CouncilRecommendation of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementationof Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe.Brussels OJ L148-24).

European Consultative Forum on theEnvironment and Sustainable Development. (1999). TheEuropean Spatial Development Perspective, January,1999. Available at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/forum/spatreport_en.pdf.

Gee, K. (2004). National ICZM strategies inGermany: A spatial planning approach. In: SchernewskiG, Löser N (eds), Managing the Baltic Sea, CoastlineReports, No. 2, The EUCC Coastal Union, Germany.

IDON. (2005). Integraal BeheerplanNoordzee 2015. InterdepartementaleDirecteurenoverleg Noordzee, Rijkswaterstaat Noordzee,Rijswijk.

Long, R. and O’Hagan, A.M. (2005). Oceanand Coastal Governance: the European Approach toIntegrated Management – Are there lessons for theChina Seas Region? In: Recent Developments in the Lawof the Sea and China; Nordquist, M., Norton Moore, J. &Fu, K. (Eds.), Martinus Nijhoff, pp:85-142.

Maes, F., Schrijvers, J., Van Lancker, V.,Verfaillie, E., Degraer, S., Derous, S., De Wachter, B.,Volckaert, A., Vanhulle, A., Vandenabeele, P., Cliquet, A.,Douvere, F., Lambrecht, J., and Makgill, R. (2005).Towards a spatial structure plan for the Sustainablemanagement of the sea (GAUFRE). Final report. FederalScience Policy, Brussels.

Marine Institute. (2007). SeaChange: AMarine Knowledge, Research, & Innovation Strategy forIreland 2007-2013. Marine Institute, Galway.

Marine Spatial Planning Pilot (MSPP)Consortium. (2006). Options for developing, implantingand managing Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) in UKcoastal and offshore water. Marine Spatial Planningliterature review (2005) and final report commissionedby DEFRA, London.

North Sea and Oceans Steering Committee.(2006). National Belgian report on the implementationof Recommendation 2002/413/EC on Integrated CoastalZone Management. North Sea and Oceans SteeringCommittee, Belgium.

OSPARCOM. (2006). General Report to theNorth Sea Ministers on the Follow-Up to the 2002Bergen Declaration, London.

PlanCoast. (2008). PlanCoast initiative, anINTERREG IIIB NP CADSES Project with the aim todevelop the tools and capacities for an effectiveintegrated planning in coastal zones and maritime areasin the Baltic, Adriatic and Black Sea regions. Availableat: http://www.plancoast.eu/

Région Bretagne. (2007). Charte desespaces côtiers bretons. 63pp.


Scottish Coastal Forum and AGMACSSecretariat. (2007). Further advice on the relationshipbetween Marine Spatial Planning and ICZM, PaperAGMACS (07)02, 4pp.

Scottish Executive. (2005). Seas theOpportunity: A strategy for the long-term sustainabilityof Scotland's coasts and seas. Scottish executive,Edinburgh. Available at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/26102543/25444

Siegel, G. (2007). Climate change andgrowing sea use pressure: solutions offered by MarineSpatial Planning, Presentation given at the PlanCoastmeeting, 16.11.2007., Berlin. Available at:http://www.plancoast.eu/php/plancoastmeetings.php?id=7

Taussik, J. (2000). Collaborative coastalzone management, Period. Biol., 102, Suppl. I, 193 –198.

Taussik, J. (2007). The opportunities ofspatial planning for Integrated Coastal Management,Marine Policy, 31, 611 - 618.

Tyldesley, D. (2004a). Coastal and MarineSpatial Planning Framework for the Irish Sea PilotProject. Report commissioned by DEFRA, London.

Tyldesley, D. (2004b). Making the case forMarine Spatial Planning in Scotland, Reportcommissioned by RSPB Scotland and RTPI in Scotland.

UNESCO. (2006). International Workshopon Marine Spatial Planning, 8-10 November 2006, Paris,.Available at:http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=33

Welsh Assembly Government. (2006).Making the Most of Wales’ Coast [working title]. WelshAssembly Government, Cardiff. Available at:http://www.countryside.wales.gov.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=797&n2=123&n3=952.

Wiebusch, M. (2004). On the road to aEuropean spatial planning system? Paper presented tothe European Council of Spatial Planners, Nov. 2004.Available at:http://www.ceu-ectp.org/inc/cgi/dd/dd20041125.pdf

43

Ch 3

[ch 4approach to capacitybuilding ]

approach tocapacity building

44

Chapter fourApproach to Capacity

Building - A Focus on the CoreActivities of COREPOINT

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The diversity of the ecological, socialand economic aspects of the coast of NorthWest Europe, the management issues thatexist, and the adequacy of contemporarycoastal governance arrangements forresponding to these challenges, have beendiscussed in Chapters 2 and 3. A commonmessage to emerge from these context settingchapters is the need for better implementationof ICZM in North West Europe to achievesustainable development goals.

The current chapter focuses thereader’s attention on the processes andoutcomes of COREPOINT project activities,developed to address this need at local levelsand particularly through the Expert CoupletNodes.

The COREPOINT project focused onbarriers to the successful implementation ofICZM within planning strategies for coastalzones in North West Europe. These weredescribed in the original COREPOINT projectproposal as:

• lack of integrated planning andmanagement to achieve sustainabledevelopment of the North West Europecoastal zone;

• lack of engagement and opencommunication with stakeholders,including political representatives and thegeneral public;

• poor links between researchers and policymakers;

• lack of sustained capacity and expertisewithin local authorities; and

• disproportionate levels of progress onICZM in North West Europe.

The COREPOINT project paidparticular attention to capacity building as a keymechanism to address these barriers. Thus,COREPOINT endeavoured to adopt a suite ofinnovative approaches to capacity building withan emphasis on delivering tangible benefits atthe local level across the North West Europeregion.

These approaches, whichsupplement a wider COREPOINT range ofcapacity building tools (see Appendix I), aredescribed in Sections 4.3 to 4.7 respectively as:

• operationalisation of the ICZM principlesof best practice – Building capacity forintegrated planning and management toachieve sustainable development;

• local Solutions for Managing CoastalInformation – Building capacity to supportbetter communication and jointunderstanding among a group of coastalstakeholder organisations;

• the COREPOINT Expert Couplet Node(ECN) Experience – Building capacity forcoastal research and policy integration;

• COREPOINT ICZM Training Schools –Building capacity to address lack ofsustained capacity and expertise withinlocal authorities; and

• ICZM Progress Indicator – Buildingcapacity to determine levels of progress inimplementing ICZM in North West Europe.

Figure 4.1 outlines the relationshipsbetween the five capacity building componentsof COREPOINT.

Ch 4

45

4.2 REVIEW OF EXISTINGCA PA CITY FOR DELIVERING INTEGRA TEDPLA NNING A ND MA NA GEMENT IN THECOREPOINT ECN A REA S

Methodology

An overview of the ICZM effortsassociated with the ECNs was provided throughthe analysis of a COREPOINT PartnersQuestionnaire Survey. The aim of the surveywas to obtain an insight into existing capacityand approaches to delivering integrated coastalplanning and management in the COREPOINTregion, taking factors such as spatial planninginto consideration. Reference should be madeto COREPOINT: Ballinger (2008) for a completepresentation and discussion of the results,covering existing ICZM initiatives andopportunities and barriers to ICZM, asidentified from the COREPOINT ECN partnerexperiences.

Key characteristics of existingICZM initiatives in the COREPOINT ECNareas

Table 4.1 summarises the range ofICZM plans and programmes related to theECN locations, where partners provideddetailed responses. This table shows all of theCOREPOINT Expert Couplet study areas havesome sort of non-statutory ICZM plan orprogramme in existence. Although Belgium hasno official plan, it has established theCoordination Point for Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement. This particular activity, howeverfocuses more on information disseminationrather than on the ICZM process.

The feedback showed a wide rangeof different types of ICZM effort, reflecting thedifferent scales, geographical foci and stagesof development of ICZM initiatives in NorthWest Europe (Table 4.1). For example, plans atearly stages of development are the ICZMproject for Mont St. Michel and the programmefor Cork Harbour. By contrast, the Sefton CoastPartnership Plan, which has gone through atleast one programme cycle, has been inexistence for well over a decade.

46


FIGURE 4.1 THE FIVE CAPACITY BUILDING COMPONENTS OF COREPOINT

The questionnaires revealed aconsiderable variety of themes within the ICZMefforts. However, all of the programmes havesustainable development as a key andoverarching aim. Surprisingly, given the focusof several programmes on protection of naturalareas, few of the programmes focus on natureconservation and shoreline managementtopics. The limited consideration of land useand spatial planning within the plans is alsosomewhat surprising.

Obstacles to ICZM and benefitsfrom its local development experiencedin COREPOINT ECN

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 summarise thekey obstacles to ICZM and benefits from itslocal development, based on the COREPOINTPartners Questionnaire Survey responses. Thefollowing sections provide a brief overview of

the key points from this report, providing ajustification for capacity-building and the LocalExpert Couplet approach, discussed in Section4.5.

Obstacles to ICZM development

Table 4.2 highlights the mainobstacles experienced by the respondents asinadequate, short-term funding and theassociated short-termism of decision-makersand politicians, exacerbated by short electoralperiods. Limited awareness of the ICZMprocess and its potential value is anothersignificant obstacle to full stakeholderengagement.

47

Ch 4

NAME OF ICZMPROGRAMME

SCALE OF ICZMPROGRAMME 13

CURRENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT COREPOINT PARTNERSRETURNING SURVEYS

DURHAM HERITAGE COAST

PROGRAMME

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION ENVISION

SEFTON COAST PARTNERSHIP

PLAN

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION SEFTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

CORK HARBOUR

MANAGEMENT

LOCAL PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF CORK

CORK COUNTY COUNCIL

ICZM PROJECT OF THE

INTERCOUNTY ASSOCIATION

(MONT-SAINT MICHEL)

LOCAL PROGRAMME AND POLICY

DEVELOPMENT

UNIVERSITY OF BREST

IFREMER

GOLFE DU MORBIHAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION UNIVERSITY OF BREST

IFREMER

SEVERN ESTUARY

PARTNERSHIP

REGIONAL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION SEVERN ESTUARY

PARTNERSHIP

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY

OUTER HEBRIDES COASTAL

MARINE PARTNERSHIP

STRATEGY

REGIONAL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY

NORTHERN IRELAND ICZM

STRATEGY

NATIONAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION,

MONITORING AND REVIEW

UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER

COORDINATION POINT FOR

INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE

MANAGEMENT

NATIONAL N/A UNIVERSITY OF GENT

TABLE 4.1 ICZM PROGRAMMES WITHIN THE COREPOINT EXPERT COUPLET NODE AREAS, BASED ON RESPONSES TO THE

COREPOINT PARTNERS QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

However, some respondents warnedover the difficulties and costs involved ingaining successful stakeholder and publicengagement in the ICZM process so thatexpectations are not falsely raised and no oneparticular single-issue group dominates theagenda. The lack of a national legal frameworkfor ICZM development along with the lowstatus of ICZM associated with its non-statutorynature were also cited as significant issueshampering ICZM development at local levels formany of the respondents.

Benefits of ICZM development

Table 4.3 highlights some of the keybenefits of the ICZM initiatives identified by therespondents in the local ECN study areas.Although many respondents noted clearimprovements in the quality of their coastalenvironment over the last decade, includingimproved beach and water quality, few of theseimprovements, unfortunately can be linkedexplicitly to ICZM. This is partly as a result ofthe relative infancy of the ICZM initiatives aswell as the lack of systems in place to makeenvironmental assessment in an ICZM context.The ‘added value’ associated with ICZM,however, is clearly associated with:

• improvements in public and policy-makersunderstanding and awareness of coastalissues;

• better organisational arrangements;

• more integrated policy development; and

• improved information provision andavailability.

The improvements were frequentlyseen to be associated with the outwardcommunication and partnership workingapproach taken by many of the ICZM efforts,engaging with a wide range of stakeholdersincluding the public and politicians. Given thetiming of the questionnaire survey, mid-waythrough the COREPOINT project, thecontribution of COREPOINT was particularlyclear, notably in relation to stakeholderinvolvement and information management.However, despite these improvements,respondents were keen to point out the needfor further improvement.

48


LEGAL, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

• LOW STATUS OF EUROPEAN ICZM POLICY (A

RECOMMENDATION RATHER THAN A DIRECTIVE)

HAMPERING ICZM DEVELOPMENT AT NATIONAL,

REGIONAL AND LOCAL LEVELS;

• LACK OF SPECIFIC NATIONAL LEGISLATION

RELATED TO ICZM;

• NEED FOR A NATIONAL CO-ORDINATING

PROGRAMMES TO FOCUS ICZM EFFORTS AND

PROVIDE SUPPORT;

• SOME WEAK LINKAGES WITH EXTERNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.

RESOURCE ISSUES

• INADEQUATE AND SHORT-TERM FUNDING OF

ICZM;

• LIMITED STAFF RESOURCES;

• LIMITED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF

SOME ICZM STAFF.

AWARENESS AND ATTITUDINAL ISSUES

• SHORT-TERM HORIZONS OF DECISION-MAKERS

AND POLITICIANS;

• ‘SILO’ (SECTORAL) MENTALITY OF MOST

STAKEHOLDERS;

• LIMITED AWARENESS OF COASTAL

MANAGEMENT AND ITS POTENTIAL BENEFITS BY

OPINION LEADERS.

OTHER ISSUES

• LONG-TIME SCALES FOR ICZM DEVELOPMENT

CAUSED BY THE NEED TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS;

• THE RELATIVELY LOW AND PERIPHERAL STATUS

OF ICZM.

TABLE 4.2 KEY OBSTACLES TO ICZM DEVELOPMENT AT LOCAL

COREPOINT ECN LOCATIONS

4.3 TOWA RDSOPERA TIONA LISA TION OF THE ICZMPRINCIPLES OF BEST PRA CTICE

Background

As explained in Section 3.2.2, theICZM principles are a central, defining featureof Europe’s approach to ICZM, enshrined withinthe EC Recommendation (2002/413/EC) andrecently endorsed by the Commission in itsCommunication on ICZM (COM(2007) 308final). However, the latter document hashighlighted the need to make the principles‘more operational and better communicated’(op. cit.) and the Rupprecht review of ICZM(Rupprecht Consult, 2006) has revealed asomewhat patchy adherence to the principlesat national levels across Europe.

Given the importance of the ICZMprinciples within the European context, therewas a need to have a clear understanding ofwhat these principles meant in a practical, localcontext, including an appreciation of how theyare being applied at local levels, from an earlystage in the development of the COREPOINTproject. It was suggested that this wouldenhance the COREPOINT partnership, enablingthe COREPOINT partners to develop a deeperunderstanding of the ICZM process, includinga clearer interpretation of the principles. This,it was anticipated, would provide useful lessonsfor the COREPOINT partnership as well ashelping to fashion the future evolution of thelocal ICZM initiatives and associated ExpertCouplet Nodes.

Given the heterogeneity of the casestudies in terms of their socio-economic,political, environmental and governancecharacteristics (Chapter 2) as well as thevarying characteristics of the ICZM initiatives,both in terms of their stage of developmentand their provenance (Section 4.2), it wasconsidered that the lessons from theCOREPOINT partnership would have a widerrelevance, particularly to the coasts of NorthWest Europe.

49

Ch 4

ATTITUDINAL / AWARENESS ISSUES

• IMPROVED PUBLIC AWARENESS AND

UNDERSTANDING OF COASTAL ISSUES;

• IMPROVED LOCAL POLITICIANS

UNDERSTANDING OF COASTAL ISSUES;

• IMPROVED SECTORAL POLICY-MAKERS

UNDERSTANDING OF MULTI-SECTORAL COASTAL

ISSUES;

• IMPROVED SECTORAL POLICY-MAKERS

UNDERSTANDING OF ICZM;

• IMPROVED LOCAL POLITICIANS

UNDERSTANDING OF ICZM.

ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS & POLICY

• IMPROVED LINKAGES BETWEEN

ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES;

• IMPROVED LINKAGES BETWEEN RESEARCHERS

AND POLICY-MAKERS;

• IMPROVED STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT IN ICZM;

• INCREASED ENGAGEMENT OF POLITICIANS IN

ICZM;

• IMPROVED SECTORAL COASTAL POLICY WHICH

TAKES ACCOUNT OF LAND/SEA INTERLINKAGES;

• IMPROVED SECTORAL COASTAL POLICY WHICH

TAKES ACCOUNT OF CROSS-SECTORAL

INTERLINKAGES.

INFORMATION AND DATA

• IMPROVED MONITORING AND INFORMATION ON

THE STATE OF THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT;

• INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY OF INFORMATION

ON THE STATE OF THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT

TO LOCAL POLICY MAKERS AND OTHER

STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDING THE PUBLIC.

TABLE 4.3 BENEFITS OF ICZM TO LOCAL COREPOINT ECN AREAS

Methodology

The COREPOINT PartnersQuestionnaire Survey completed for the plansand programmes listed in Table 4.1 (Section4.2) also included a series of questions relatingto the extent to which the eight EC ICZMprinciples of best practice (Section 3.2.2) wereaddressed by the local ICZM efforts. Questionswere framed to help map a relationshipbetween the characteristics of ICZM plans andprogrammes described by the respondents withthese principles. An objective and semi-quantitative approach was adopted.

In addition to the COREPOINTPartners Questionnaire Survey, a parallelPractitioners Survey (of the wider coastalstakeholder community) was undertaken togauge general stakeholder knowledge,understanding, use and perceived value ofeach of the principles. This web based surveyresulted in 68 responses. France, Ireland andScotland provided the best response rates.Even with a rather limited response the findingsprovide a rough indication of levels ofawareness and understanding across NorthWest Europe (COREPOINT: Lymbery, 2008).

Results

For a full discussion of the resultsreference should be made to the COREPOINTpartners’ survey report (COREPOINT: Ballinger,2008). Table 4.4 summarises the main findingsof the COREPOINT Partners QuestionnaireSurvey, providing a general overview of theextent to which each principle is being adheredto within the ICZM initiatives associated withthe COREPOINT ECN study areas. Qualitativejudgements based on an informed review ofthe responses rather than statisticallygenerated scores provided the information forthe greyscale shading system used in columntwo of the table.

The table indicates some of the keystrengths and weaknesses of the local ICZMinitiatives in being able to deliver the principles.In summary, and not surprisingly given thelocal and bottom-up nature of many of theICZM initiatives, those principles which werebetter addressed were those which related tolocal specificity and the support andinvolvement of stakeholders. In contrast, thoseprinciples providing the greatest challenge arethose which promote the broad holisticapproach, long-term approach and adaptivemanagement.

50


PRINCIPLE EVALUATION15 STRENGTHS OF

LOCAL ICZM

INITIATIVES

WEAKNESSES OF LOCAL ICZM

INITIATIVES

FURTHER COMMENTS

BROAD

HOLISTIC

APPROACH

• ALL ICZM

INITIATIVES

REVIEWED

INCLUDE

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT AS

A KEY AIM

• MOST

INITIATIVES

ADDRESS A WIDE

RANGE OF TOPICS

• BIAS TOWARDS CERTAIN TOPICS

WITHIN SOME INITIATIVES

• FOCUS TOWARDS

ENVIRONMENTAL RATHER THAN SOCIO-

ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ISSUES

• MOST DO NOT CONSIDER

REGIONAL CONTEXT SUFFICIENTLY

• LIMITED CONSIDERATION OF

LAND-SEA INTERACTIONS

• LIMITED CONSIDERATION OF

CROSS-BOUNDARY IMPACTS AND ISSUES

• VARIABLE CONSIDERATION OF

POLICIES FROM OTHER PLANNING

PROCESSES

• VERY POOR RECOGNITION OF

ICZM WITHIN LOCAL SPATIAL PLANNING

DOCUMENTS IN MANY AREAS

TABLE 4.4 SUMMARY OF ICZM EFFORTS AND THEIR ADHERENCE TO THE EC PRINCIPLES OF ICZM

51

Ch 4

PRINCIPLE EVALUATION15 STRENGTHS OF

LOCAL ICZM

INITIATIVES


INITIATIVES

FURTHER COMMENTS

LONG-TERM

PERSPECTIVE

• FEW AREAS HAVE UNDERTAKEN

OR EVEN YET CONSIDERED ICZM PLAN /

PROGRAMME REVIEW

• POOR OR LIMITED AVAILABILITY

OF LONG-TERM DATA SETS FOR ICZM

PLANNING

• PAUCITY OF DATA AND

INFORMATION ON SECTORAL TRENDS FOR

ICZM DEVELOPMENT

• THE LACK OF

LOCAL ICZM PLANS

AND PROGRAMMES IN

SOME AREAS AND

RELATIVE INFANCY OF

THE PLANS AND

PROGRAMMES

ELSEWHERE MAKES

EVALUATION OF THIS

ASPECT DIFFICULT

• THE SHORT-

TERM NATURE OF

ICZM INITIATIVES

AND THEIR FUNDING

NEGATE AGAINST

ADHERENCE TO THIS

PRINCIPLE

LOCAL

SPECIFICITY

• ALL

INITIATIVES

ATTEMPT TO

CONSIDER LOCAL

COASTAL

CHARACTERISTICS

AND IMPACTS

• MOST HAVE

MECHANISMS

ENABLING

INVOLVEMENT OF

LOCAL

ADMINISTRATIVE

BODIES AND

STAKEHOLDERS

• VARIABLE AND GENERALLY ONLY

PARTIAL ACCESS AND USE OF LOCAL

INFORMATION IN ICZM PLAN/

PROGRAMME PROCESS

• GAPS IN THE ACCESS AND USE OF

LOCAL INFORMATION RELATING TO

COASTAL COMMUNITIES.

• ATTEMPTS TO ACQUIRE LOCAL

KNOWLEDGE AND FACILITATE

PARTICIPATION ARE FREQUENTLY

INADEQUATE

52


PRINCIPLE EVALUATI

ON15

STRENGTHS OF LOCAL ICZM

INITIATIVES


INITIATIVES

FURTHER COMMENTS

WORKING

WITH

NATURAL

PROCESSES

• AIMS OF

PROGRAMMES CLOSELY

ALIGNED TO NATURAL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

• FOCUS ON NATURAL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

LIKELY TO LEAD TO STRONG

COHERENCE WITH THIS

PRINCIPLE

• INFORMATION

AVAILABLE FOR ICZM

DEVELOPMENT ON NATURAL

PHYSICAL PROCESSES

• EFFORTS WERE

PARTIALLY ABLE TO ACCOUNT

FOR THEIR IMPACT ON THE

EVOLUTION AND DYNAMICS

OF NATURAL COASTAL

PROCESSES, THE NATURAL

LIMITS OF THE COASTAL

ENVIRONMENT AND THE

NATURAL VARIABILITY OF

HABITATS AND SPECIES

• LESS FOCUS ON NATURAL

PROCESS-RELATED TOPICS

• RELATIVE PAUCITY OF

LONG-TERM AND MEDIUM-TERM

INFORMATION ON BOTH NATURAL

PHYSICAL PROCESSES AND

NATURAL VARIABILITY OF

HABITATS AND SPECIES

• LESS INFORMATION

AVAILABLE FOR ICZM

DEVELOPMENT ON NATURAL

VARIABILITY OF HABITATS AND

SPECIES

• FEW ICZM HAVE LINKS

WITH CATCHMENT AND SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT

• NATURAL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

FOCUS MAY LEAD TO

FALSE PERCEPTIONS OF

ICZM AS BEING TOO

ENVIRONMENTAL

• OPPORTUNITIES

FOR FURTHER LINKAGES

TO DEVELOP BETWEEN

ICZM AND RIVER BASIN

/CATCHMENT PLANNING

UNDER THE WATER

FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT

• ICZM EFFORTS

APPEAR TO BE SUFFICIENTLY

FLEXIBLE TO RESPOND TO

EMERGING ISSUES

• ALL INITIATIVES

RECOGNISE THE

UNCERTAINTIES AND

LIMITATIONS OF THEIR

INFORMATION BASE AND ARE

ATTEMPTING TO FILL

INFORMATION GAPS

• LITTLE CONSIDERATION

OF MONITORING AND REVIEW OF

THE ICZM EFFORTS

• SOME SIGNIFICANT

INFORMATION GAPS IMPEDE THIS

APPROACH

• RELATIVELY POOR LEVELS

OF INFORMATION AND USE AND

ACCESSIBILITY AT MOST OF THE

STAGES OF ICZM DEVELOPMENT

• RESPONSE MAY

REFLECT RELATIVELY

EARLY STAGE OF

DEVELOPMENT OF ICZM

INITIATIVES

COMBINATION

OF

INSTRUMENTS

• MOST USE A RANGE

OF INSTRUMENTS TO

IMPLEMENT ICZM

• INADEQUATE

PROCEDURES AVAILABLE TO

IDENTIFY THE MOST APPROPRIATE

SETS OF TOOLS AND TO ENSURE

CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TOOLS

53

Ch 4

PRINCIPLE EVALUATIO

N15

STRENGTHS OF LOCAL ICZM

INITIATIVES


INITIATIVES

FURTHER COMMENTS

SUPPORT AND

INVOLVEMENT

OF ALL

STAKEHOLDERS

• MOST STATE

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

AS AN OVERARCHING AIM

• WIDE RANGE OF

SECTORS REPRESENTED FROM

THE LOCAL AREA

• INADEQUATE

ENGAGEMENT WITH

NEIGHBOURING ADMINISTRATIONS

IMPEDING A STRATEGIC AND

COHERENT REGIONAL APPROACH

• MORE STAKEHOLDERS

INVOLVED IN THE EARLY PHASES,

PARTICULARLY IN PROGRAMME

INITIATION AND ISSUE

IDENTIFICATION

PARTICIPATORY

APPROACH

• REASONABLE LEVELS

OF CONSULTATION WITH

MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF

STAKEHOLDERS

• GOOD LEVELS OF

CONSULTATION OCCUR WITH

RECREATION GROUPS AND

NGOS

• LEVELS OF ACTIVE

PARTICIPATION GENERALLY

SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER FOR ALL

THE SECTORS

• INDUSTRY AND THE

BUSINESS SECTOR APPEAR

PARTICULARLY POORLY ENGAGED

IN ICZM

• PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION IS

GENERALLY MUCH

HIGHER DURING THE

EARLY STAGES OF

ICZM DEVELOPMENT,

PARTICULARLY

DURING ISSUE

IDENTIFICATION

• LONG-TERM

NATURE OF ICZM MAY

CAUSE DIFFICULTIES

MAINTAINING HIGH

PARTICIPATION

LEVELS

With respect to the parallelPractitioners Survey the responses indicatedless than 50% awareness of the principles frompractitioners most of whom spent 50% or moreof their time working on coastal issues and whocame predominately from the Planning andDevelopment or Conservation sectors. Despitethis, most of the principles appeared to be wellunderstood with adaptive management and acombination of instruments being theexceptions (Table 4.5). There were concernsexpressed about the implementation of some

principles. Such concerns ranged from resourceissues to problems associated with achievingcollaboration with other bodies. Although theprinciple related to working with naturalprocesses was understood there were someclear issues associated with the implementationof this principle and also some variation in theextent to which principles are seen to berelevant to stakeholders’ daily work (Figure4.2).

54


PRINCIPLE EVALUATION SUMMARY OF

RESPONSE

UNDER-STANDING

USE

BROAD, HOLISTIC

PERSPECTIVE ☺ ☺IT WOULD APPEAR FROM THIS THAT THIS PRINCIPLE IS WIDELY RECOGNISED,

UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED.

LONG TERM VIEW

☺ �IT WOULD APPEAR FROM THIS THAT THIS PRINCIPLE IS WIDELY RECOGNISED

AND UNDERSTOOD. THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME CONCERN OVER RESOURCE

AVAILABILITY TO APPLY TO IT AND THE POTENTIAL DOMINANCE OF CURRENT

ISSUES.

ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT � �COMMENTS COVERED A BROAD SPECTRUM AND WERE NOT CONSISTENT

IMPLYING LESS UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PRINCIPLE AND LESS APPARENT

USE OF THE PRINCIPLE.

LOCAL SPECIFICITY

☺ ☺RESPONDENTS APPEARED TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE AND CONSIDER

IT IMPORTANT. THE COMMENTS RANGED FROM SPECIFIC PRACTICE BASED

COMMENTS THROUGH TO THE MORE GENERAL COMMENT PICKING OUT THE

IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL AND CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS.

WORKING WITH

COASTAL PROCESSES ☺ �GENERALLY THERE APPEARS TO BE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THIS

PRINCIPLE ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME OVERLAPWITH THE TYPE OF EXAMPLES

THAT WERE QUOTED UNDER LOCAL SPECIFICITY. THERE WAS ALSO SOME

CONCERN ABOUT SOME COMMUNICATION ISSUES BETWEEN SCIENTISTS AND

PRACTITIONERS.

PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ☺ �THERE SEEMS TO BE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEED FOR THIS APPROACH BUT

VARIATION IN TERMS OF ACHIEVING IT WHICH APPEARS TO BE EITHER DUE

TO RESOURCES OR TO THE BODIES CONCERNED NOT BEING IDENTIFIED OR

WISHING TO BE INVOLVED.

INVOLVEMENT OF

RELEVANT

ADMINISTRATIVE

BODIES

☺ �THERE SEEMS TO BE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS PRINCIPLE

REQUIRES BUT FREQUENT CONCERNS ABOUT GETTING THE RELEVANT BODIES

INVOLVED WHETHER IT BE OBVIOUS STATEMENTS OR MORE SUBTLE

REFERENCES SUCH AS ‘WE TRY’.

COMBINATION OF

INSTRUMENTS � �THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME UNDERSTANDING FROM A LIMITED NUMBER OF

RESPONDENTS BUT IT WAS APPARENT THAT THIS WAS THE MOST POORLY

UNDERSTOOD OF THE PRINCIPLES.

TABLE 4.5 UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF ICZM PRINCIPLES AMONG THEWIDER STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY RESULTING

FROM THE COREPOINT PRACTITIONERS SURVEY

Discussion

Despite the heterogeneity of thecase studies, there was a remarkable similaritybetween the responses from all the casestudies involved in the COREPOINT Partners’Questionnaire Survey. Interestingly andpossibly not surprisingly, the ICZM initiativeswhich have been in existence for the longesttime, notably some of those in the UK, tendedto score most highly in relation to most of theprinciples, possibly as a result of the maturingof these initiatives. There were also clearsynergies between the research findings andthose reported within the existing literature,which are explored in more details in thesupporting report of the COREPOINT PartnerQuestionnaire Survey (COREPOINT: Ballinger,2008). For example, the results relating tosome of the key weaknesses associated withthe delivery of the principles, notably the poorland-sea interaction and the resourceconstraints of ICZM programmes, arecommonly cited as issues within the widerliterature.

A comparison of the COREPOINTsurvey findings with those of the Rupprechtreview (Rupprecht Consult, 2006) revealedsome interesting comparisons and differences,which are discussed in detail in the supportingreport (COREPOINT: Ballinger, 2008). In brief,there was most coherence between theresponses for those principles relating to localspecificity and stakeholder involvement,possibly as a result of the relatively simplemeans of evaluating adherence to theseparticular principles. The two surveys, however,found very different levels of adherence to theprinciples of holism and working with naturalprocesses. This may be explained by thecontrasting types of information used to assessadherence to these principles, but may also bea result of the different levels of focus of thetwo studies: the Rupprecht review wasparticularly interested in national compliance,whereas COREPOINT was more focused onlocal implementation. The difficulties associatedwith the varying availability of information andthe subjective impressions of regional sea andnational evaluators, is also recognised in theformer review (Rupprecht Consult, 2006).

55

Ch 4

FIGURE 4.2 PRINCIPLES OF MOST RELEVANCE TO STAKEHOLDERS: BASED ON THE WIDER STAKEHOLDER SURVEY

The COREPOINT study also revealedsome challenges associated with theassessment of local ICZM efforts against theICZM principles. These included difficultiesassociated with the:

• varying backgrounds of the COREPOINTquestionnaire respondents;

• varying levels of ‘interpretation’ requiredto unpack each of the principles in orderto assess Principle compliance; and

• focus on individual principles rather thanthe balance between all of them includingconsideration of linkages betweenprinciples.

With respect to the latter point, it issuggested that focusing on the evaluation ofindividual principles rather than the ‘package’of principles, could falsely indicate betteroverall compliance to ICZM. It is suggested thatthere needs to be a balance between theadoption of the principles as any one principle,taken to excess, might undermine adherenceto others . Some principles, it is also suggestedare probably more important than others inassuring sustainable development of ourcoasts. For example, in many natural coastalcontexts, unless an ICZM programme workswith natural processes, even if it complies withother principles, it will eventually result in anunsustainable situation. This may be significantfor some of the COREPOINT local areas wherethis particular principle was not well adheredto. There may also be questions regarding therepresentativeness of COREPOINT casestudies, as, indeed most of the these may beconsidered better practice examples, wherethere is a higher level of interest andengagement in ICZM than elsewhere in NorthWest Europe.

The wider stakeholder survey,though a relatively small sample, does providesome useful results in terms of theidentification of problems with respect to thelevels of understanding of some of theprinciples. However, it also identifies that thecomponents of many of the principles areunderstood regardless of awareness of ICZMlabelling of the principles as set out by theEuropean Union. There were, however, nationalvariations in the ranking and application of theprinciples which need further investigation.

4.4 LOCA L SOLUTIONS FORMA NA GING COA STA L INFORMA TION

A Local Information System (LIS) is aframework to support bettercommunication and joint understandingamongst a group of stakeholderorganisations.

Background

The application of Information andCommunication Technologies (ICT) in thecoastal zone is problematic because of thevariety of organisations and datasets involved.The current experience of stakeholders typicallyincludes:

• lack of awareness about datasets;

• need for collaboration with other sectorsdue to increasingly specialised knowledgeabout the coastal zone;

• frustration in getting access toappropriate data and information becauseof its custodianship by disparateorganisations;

• difficulty in dealing with informationoverload from the high volume of reports,projects, and datasets being produced;and

• a general project-by-project approachwhich sees data collated for specific tasks,rather than a systematic approach tomanaging information so that it can becollected once but used many times.

The COREPOINT project developeda methodology which attempted to deal withthe many technological, human andorganisational challenges in ICZM by mobilisinginformation and knowledge about coastalzones. The vision was for a Local InformationSystem to be implemented as a framework tosupport better communication and jointunderstanding amongst a group of stakeholderorganisations.

Approach taken by theCOREPOINT project

The Guidelines for ImplementingLocal Information Systems at the Coast(COREPOINT: Stojanovic et al., 2007) werecomposed by six COREPOINT partners incollaboration with over 100 local stakeholderswho engaged in a series of special LISworkshops – (Essex Estuaries, Sefton Coast,Severn Estuary, Fal Estuary, and Cork Harbour).Simulated applications were also brainstormedin France and Belgium. The Guidelines were

56


developed by COREPOINT partnersdocumenting their experience in establishingLocal Information Systems. These experienceshave been combined with techniques from thewider field of Information SystemsDevelopment to produce a genericmethodology which is applicable for the coastalzones of North West Europe (and worldwide).The findings were further developed at aspecial two day workshop in mid-Wales(September 2006) involving 13 delegates andseven external contributors with an interest inthe field. The resulting Guidelines containseven key actions which are based on theexperience from the case studies.

Results

Table 4.6 outlines the seven keyactions for good practice in implementinginformation systems for the coast.

One particularly important approachwas to get stakeholders to jointly model thestages of decision-making for their function inthe coastal zone. This provided a basis for ashared vision and also a framework for sortingand ordering the delivery of datasets. Figure4.3 provides a specific example for ManagingCoastal Geo-hazards which was put together bya group of coastal engineers when consideringthe different information needs that arose inthe Sefton Coast LIS Workshop.

57

Ch 4

1. JUSTIFY INFORMATION SYSTEMS

THERE ARE MANY IMPORTANT DRIVERS FOR IMPLEMENTING

INFORMATION SYSTEMS, SUCH AS THE NEED TO IMPROVE OUR

UNDERSTANDING OF COASTAL SYSTEMS, BETTER

INVOLVEMENT OF THE PUBLIC, AND MORE EFFICIENT

CUSTODIANSHIP OF DATA HOLDINGS

• LEGISLATIVE DRIVERS

• THE COST OF NOT KNOWING

• GOOD DATA CUSTODIANSHIP

• FREEDOM OF INFORMATION/ACCESS TO

INFORMATION

• IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION AND

ENGAGEMENT WITH PUBLIC

• BENEFITS OF GROUP LEARNING

2. HAVE CLEAR PURPOSES

IN ORDER FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO BE USEFUL IN

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE, THEY

SHOULD CLEARLY REFLECT FUNCTIONAL GOALS AND SUPPORT

MANAGERS IN THEIR DAILY TASKS.

• CONSIDER WHICH FUNCTIONS HAVE POLITICAL OR

ENVIRONMENTAL CURRENCY

• IDENTIFY THE KEY PARTNERS

• RELATE YOUR INFORMATION SYSTEM TO THE

GOALS OF MANAGEMENT

• THINK HOW AN INFORMATION SYSTEM COULD

SUPPORT MANAGERS

• CONSIDER AN ENABLING ROLE FOR ICZM

INITIATIVES

3. INVOLVE USERS

INVOLVING USERS IN THE DESIGN OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS

IS CRUCIAL FOR THEIR SUCCESS. THE TECHNIQUE OF SOFT

SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY (SEE FIGURE 4.3) IS AN IMPORTANT

APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE FIELD OF

INFORMATION SYSTEMS DESIGN.

• GET USERS TOGETHER IN AN INFORMATION

NETWORK

• IDENTIFY THE NEED FOR AN INFORMATION SYSTEM

• MODEL THE PROCESS OF INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT (THE TECHNIQUE OF SOFT SYSTEMS

METHODOLOGY IS PARTICULARLY HELPFUL HERE:

SEE FIGURE 4.3)

• DESIGN THE SYSTEM TO DELIVER INFORMATION TO

USERS AT THE APPROPRIATE STAGE OF DECISION

MAKING

TABLE 4.6 SEVEN KEY ACTIVITIES FOR GOOD PRACTICE IN IMPLEMENTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR THE COAST FROM THE

COREPOINT LIS GUIDELINES (COREPOINT: STOJANOVIC ET AL., 2007)

58


4. SOLVE TECHNICAL OBSTACLES

SOME OBSTACLES WHICH NEED TO BE SOLVED ARE RELATED

TO POLICY, SUCH AS THE USE OF MEMORANDA OF

UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TWO ORGANISATIONS TO

OVERCOME THE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS TO SHARING

INFORMATION.

POLICY ISSUES

• INFORMATION POLICY

• LEGAL CONSTRAINTS

• DATA SUPPLY CHAINS

• COST OF DATA

OTHER OBSTACLES ARE MORE TECHNICAL IN NATURE, SUCH

AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS WHICH WILL ALLOW

WIDER USE OF DATASETS. ONE OBSTACLE IS THE LACK OF

STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE MARINE AND COASTAL

ENVIRONMENT.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

• METADATA

• STANDARDS

• DATA DEFINITIONS

• DATA FORMATS

• INTEROPERABILITY

5. DEPLOY APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY

A GREAT VARIETY OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP COASTAL

PRACTITIONERS TO MAINTAIN THEIR KNOWLEDGE

NETWORKS.

SEE FIGURE 4.4 FOR AN OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGIES.

6. CHECK FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE

THERE IS A REQUIREMENT AND AVOID THE “RUBBISH-IN,

RUBBISH OUT” SYNDROME.

• ESTABLISH CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN DATA SOURCES

AND CUSTODIANS

• ENCOURAGE USERS TO LOOK AT IN-HOUSE

PROCEDURES FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE

• STANDARDISATION OF RECORDS, THROUGH

APPROACHES SUCH AS METADATA

• DISCLOSURE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DATASETS

• DISSEMINATION OF BEST PRACTICE

• PEER REVIEW AND RATING OF USEFULNESS OF DATA

SOURCES, UTILISING INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGIES

7. IMPLEMENTATION AND TRAINING

PROVIDING ‘HANDS-ON’ SUPPORT TO INDIVIDUALS AND

ORGANISATIONS IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE LIS

IMPLEMENTATION AND SHOULD BE FACTORED INTO THE

COSTS FOR THE PROJECT BRIEF.

• MECHANISMS SUCH AS WORKSHOPS, PERSONAL

VISITS, TELEPHONE LINE SUPPORT, USER FRIENDLY

INTERFACE DESIGN AND TRAINING SESSIONS.

Discussion

The seven step, user-led approachwhich evolved from the COREPOINT work, isvery different to the common current ‘data andtechnology led’ approaches. ‘Data led’approaches attempt to comprehensivelycatalogue all data sources, and ‘technology led’ones focus on the development of particulartools such as ‘Expert Systems’. Whilst suchapproaches are important, the lack of a ‘userled’ approach has been cited as the reason fordiscontinuation or failure of many ICT projectson European coasts (EU Demonstration

Programme). The COREPOINT Guidelines,therefore, are a clear response to this need.The Guidelines for Implementing LIS shouldraise capacity to apply the principles ofIntegrated Coastal Zone Management, inparticular reflecting the need for localspecificity. ‘This principle also implies a need toensure the collection and availability to decisionmakers of appropriate data and relevantinformation, including informal traditionalknowledge, concerning both the terrestrial andmarine components of the coastal zone inquestion’.

59

Ch 4

FIGURE 4.3 MODELLING THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS: AN EXAMPLE FOR COASTAL GEO-HAZARDS, FROM THE COREPOINT

SEFTON COAST LIS WORKSHOP

• Each stage has information needswhich are met by a variety of datasets

• For each stage there may be existinginformation resources of which usersare unaware- these can bedocumented as a group to disseminateawareness

• Each stage requires information to bedelivered in an appropriate format

• Each stage will require different formsof collaborative analysis

60


Figure 4.4 highlights the variety oftechnologies which can be applied at the coast.The Guidelines stress the importance ofidentifying the most appropriate technologiesto support decision-makers and makingimproved links between the existingtechnologies, so that there is a more integratedframework for managing coastal information.

FIGURE 4.4 A TREE OF ICT TOOLS IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT, VALIDATED BY COREPOINT PARTNERS

4.5 THE COREPOINT EXPERTCOUPLET NODE �ECN� EXPERIENCE

The Expert Couplet way of workinghelps deliver sustainability through a closerrelationship between science, policy andpractice. It is a mutually beneficial approach.

What is an Expert Couplet Node(ECN)?

Expert Couplet Nodes wereestablished in the COREPOINT project toaddress the issue of sustaining ICZM, bybuilding capacity for knowledge transferbetween research centres and local authorities

involved in coastal research and management.In other words, the ECN model equates to theimplementation of local level collaborativeenquiry targeted towards capacity building inICZM.

Methodology

Review of the ECN process andoutcomes

A questionnaire survey undertaken inJune 2006 was used for the dual purpose ofidentifying and assessing the ECN process andeffectiveness in each of the nine study sites.The results of this survey are used in Section4.3 to describe the operation and added valueof the ECN in more detail. Further informationcan be found in COREPOINT: Cummins (2006).An additional report (COREPOINT: Carlisle et al.2007) reports further on the outcomes of theECN, with site specific reviews of the issuesaddressed by each of the ECN models. Asummary of this information is provided inSection 4.3.

Results

The ECN process and itseffectiveness

• Longevity of the ECN:

Four of the couplets were in existence tosome degree prior to the COREPOINTproject (Donegal Beaches, SevernEstuary, Flanders Coast and Golfe duMorbhian). The remaining five ECN wereestablished by the COREPOINT project.Three of the four couplets that wereoperational prior to COREPOINT, statedthat their participation in the COREPOINTproject changed the nature of therelationship between the research groupand the local authority. The nature ofchange was associated with a closer andmore defined relationship and anopportunity for more strategic pursuit ofICZM.

• Frequency of interaction betweenresearchers and policy makers:

The majority of the ECN benefited fromclose physical proximity between researchand local government offices whichenabled regular face-to-face meetingsbetween the research and localgovernment partners. All of the coupletswith the exception of Flanders, met atleast every quarter, if not more frequently,to discuss their shared research agendaand project progress. Communication viaemail and telephone also occurredregularly.

• Issues addressed by the ECN:

Key areas addressed by the ECN included:climate change, coastal flooding anddefence, education and research,economic development, heritage,planning, tourism and recreation,community engagement, marine policyand a wide range of technologies includingcomputer-assisted aids to ICZM.

• Status of the ECN partners:

In some cases, for example for CorkHarbour, Severn Estuary and SeftonCoast, both the research group and thelocal government group were full partnersof the COREPOINT project. In other cases,only one part of the couplet was an officialpartner. The lack of official partner statusin some cases, however, had no impact onthe regularity of contact or the operationof the couplet.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunitiesand Threats associated with participationin ECN

The SWOT analysis revealed amultitude of issues associated with theoperation of the ECN, summarised in Table 4.7.The strengths listed showed a win-win scenariofor the participants. For example, benefitsaccrued for the research partners throughenhanced research profiles while localgovernment participants enjoyed benefits suchas access to scientific expertise.

A key weakness flagged by a numberof ECN was the difficulty of finding time toengage in participatory research, which is amuch more time consuming process than atraditional consultancy based approach.Despite this, numerous opportunities wereidentified as arising from the process, includingthe ability to build on the track record of thepartnership and to influence policydevelopment. The long term sustainability ofthe ECN can be threatened by insecure fundingarrangements, and progress can bejeopardised by staff turnover, among otherthings.

61

Ch 4

62


STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

PROMOTES GOOD WORKING

RELATIONSHIPS

TIME AVAILABILITY AND

MANAGEMENT

BUILD ON TRACK RECORD

FOR FUTURE

COLLABORATION

LACK OF CONTINUITY

FUNDING

RELEVANCE TO LOCAL

AUTHORITY NEEDS

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS INFLUENCE POLICY AND

INCREASED POLITICAL

SUPPORT

STAFF TURNOVER

SHARED GOALS AND

MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL

EXPERIENCE

LIMITED LOCAL AUTHORITY

REMIT FOR THE MARINE

ENVIRONMENT

OPTIMISE USE OF DATASETS CHANGING STATUS OF ICZM

ENHANCED RESEARCH

PROFILE

FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY UTILISE CHAMPIONS POLITICAL SENSITIVITY

ACCESS TO DATA &

INFORMATION – INCLUDING

SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE

DISTANCE DEVELOP INNOVATIVE

APPROACHES

TIME AVAILABILITY

PHYSICAL PROXIMITY OVER RELIANCE ON A SINGLE

INSTITUTION

USE OF NETWORKS POST PROJECT MOMENTUM

ADDITIONAL HUMAN

RESOURCES

ACADEMIC AIMS AT ODDS

WITH APPLIED RESEARCH

GENERATE PAPERS ON

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE IN

PRACTICE

CHANGING RESEARCH

OBJECTIVES

PROMOTES COMMON

UNDERSTANDING OF ICZM

LANGUAGE (W. ISLES) UTILISE CASE STUDIES FOR

RESEARCH INTO POLICY

ISSUES

DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE

PROCESS

GENERATES MATERIAL FOR

TEACHING

CONFLICT OF INTEREST SYNERGY WITH OTHER

PROJECTS

IMPLEMENTATION

DIFFICULTIES

STAKEHOLDER MEDIATION MULTIPLE LOCAL PROBLEMS

PROMOTES PARTICIPATION

FORWARD LOOKING

TABLE 4.7 KEY STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATION IN THE ECN

Key outcomes of the ECN

According to COREPOINT: Cummins(2006), the top three outcomes of the ECNwere their ability to facilitate:

1. Greater understanding of the needs oflocal authorities;

2. Improved coastal management; and

3. Better understanding of the principles ofICZM in local authorities.

The outcomes of each ECN aredescribed in detail in COREPOINT: Carlisle et al.(2007), but the following list offers arepresentative selection of key outcomes, bypairing the outcomes with local issues:

1. Examples of outcomes - Baie du Mont St.Michel:

a. The ‘Days of the Bay’ conference andexhibition organised through the coupletaddressed local economic concerns fromall sectors;

b. The ECN stimulated involvement of localauthorities in consideration of issuesbeyond their usual day-to-day remit whilealso engaging the UBO-CEDEM/IFREMERresearchers in more active participation inthe ICZM process.

2. Examples of outcomes - Flanders Coast:

a. The expert couplet addressed the issuesof a framework for Marine SpatialPlanning, coastal impacts of climatechange, and the sustainable developmentof the Belgian coastal zone;

b. The Belgian expert couplet was closelyinvolved with the National Advisory Bodyfor ICZM, the government ‘think tank’ onthe subject.

3. Examples of outcomes - Cork Harbour:

a. The Cork Harbour ECN worked together tofacilitate the development of anIntegrated Management Strategy for theHarbour;

b. Specific outcomes from the collaborativeenquiry process between the researchersand planners led to the implementation ofa study of the recreation carryingcapacity; a landscape characterassessment and a GIS tool for Harbourmanagement.

4. Examples of outcomes - DonegalBeaches:

a. The Donegal expert couplet facilitated theuse of soft engineering approaches tocoastal erosion, addressing both regionaland local scale coastal erosion, seadefence and effects of sea level rise.

5. Examples of outcomes - Golfe duMorbihan:

a. The kayaking activity model (GIS)produced by the Golfe du Morbihan expertcouplet helped address four issues,namely supporting the local tourismeconomy, dealing with regionalcumulative impacts relating to tourism,mediating use cohabitation andsupporting local wildlife conservation.

6. Examples of outcomes - Severn Estuary:

a. The Severn Estuary ECN supported thedevelopment of the Severn Estuary LocalInformation System related to theStrategic Environmental Assessment ofdevelopment plans around the Estuary;

b. The ECN has facilitated the establishmentof a Severn Estuary Research AdvisoryGroup which is focusing on climate changeissues around the Estuary; and

c. The ECN worked together to produce aMaritime Heritage Educational resourcefor the Severn Estuary targeted anddistributed to local secondary schools.

7. Examples of outcomes - Durham Coast:

a. The ECNs detailed stakeholderassessment of the status of ICZM in theregion addressed the two regional issuesrelating to co-ordination of regionalmanagement plans and development of acoastal strategy.

8. Examples of outcomes - Western Isles:

a. The Western Isles couplet’s work on pair-wise comparison supported theconservation of the local archaeologicalheritage, and its work on the risk-returnassessment for the island of Baile Searenabled the cultural as well as economicvalue of local agriculture to beincorporated into ICZM strategies.

9. Examples of outcomes - Sefton Coast:

a. Sefton’s LIS supported evidence basedpolicy/decision making by informing allmanagement aspects impacted by thefuture evolution of the dynamic coast.

63

Ch 4

Discussion

The issues pertaining to theoperation of the COREPOINT ECN, highlightedin Table 4.7, provide some insight into thereality of implementing a participatory researchor sustainability science process. TheCOREPOINT ECN approach cannot be deemedas a panacea for integrating research andpolicy. However, the COREPOINT ECN model issimple and flexible enough to deal withdiversity among the couplets; includingdifferent priorities in terms of local issues anddifferent origins in terms of operationaltimelines. It is important to assess the value ofthe process as well as the actual outcomes ofsuch partnerships. In this case, whenquestioned, all of the ECN agreed that theapproach adds value to existing research andmanagement operations. The COREPOINT ECNhave helped to initiate or consolidate a shift inattitude and behaviour towards traditionalscience and management practices in situationswhere new relationships between scholars andpractitioners have been formed and where afoundation for collaboration previously existed.

“All of the ECN agreed that the approachadds value to existing research andmanagement operations”.

There is a strong desire to use theECN model to structure new ICZM research anddemonstration activities. In some cases, newECN have begun to emerge e.g. betweenSefton Council and Edge Hill University; andbetween Aberdeen University and the FalEstuary. The INTERREG IVB programmeprovides an opportunity to harness science andtechnology for the sustainable development ofcoastal zones by rolling out refined versions ofthe ECN approach in the North West Europeregion.

4.6 COREPOINT ICZM TRA ININGSCHOOLS

Professional training is an important partof ICZM. The COREPOINT project hasdeveloped a tried and tested, transferableand highly interactive training modulebased around engaging case studies.

Background

Because ICZM is often considered asa non-core or luxury activity within localauthorities, it is dealt with on a project basis.

Experts are temporarily recruited tooversee and implement specific projects. Oncompletion of the project, this expertise is lostto the authority. There is a need to ensure thelong-term integration of ICZM within localauthorities by strengthening the capability ofpermanent staff directly involved in the coastalmanagement process (e.g. planners,engineers, conservation officers); and byachieving the support of local and regionalpoliticians for the development andimplementation of ICZM initiatives.

64


FIGURE 4.5 PHOTOMONTAGE OF SELECTED COREPOINT SCHOOL

ACTIVITIES

One activity of the COREPOINTproject, was to hold ICZM schools targetedtowards politicians, local authority employeesand coastal practitioners to increase theirknowledge of ICZM and the benefits associatedwith its implementation.

North West Europe School ofExcellence in ICZM structure

The purpose of the ICZM schoolswas to provide training to coastal managementpractitioners including local authority staff andcouncillors, delivered by a team of trans-national experts, with a focus on teaching theICZM principles of best practice. The aim of thetraining was to increase awareness andexpertise within local authorities towards ICZM.The intent of this approach was to promote theCOREPOINT objective of sustainablemanagement of coastal areas and to harmoniseunderstanding of the principles of best practicefor common implementation in North WestEurope.

The overall design andimplementation of the schools was managed byEnvision who organised a series of lectures andcase study presentations that drew on thewealth of experience from other projectpartners. This integrated, trans-nationalapproach to partnership working pooledexpertise in North West Europe to deliver astate of the art course with maximum relevanceand case study content for practitioners whosejob role includes elements of ICZM.

Over the course of the project, fourschools were held: Cork (March, 2005), Cardiff(July, 2005), Gent (February, 2006) andColeraine (June 2006). All were evaluatedimmediately post-delivery through a mixture ofscoring for Relevance; Content; Structure;Presentation style and Interest and Fun, as wellas specific comments on best and worstfeatures of the course and how the coursecould be improved. Scoring for all categories atall schools was well above a medium score andcomments indicated a high level of satisfactionfor the content and structure of the courses.However, assessment from within theCOREPOINT project and suggestions fromdelegates from each school led to a continuousprocess of evolution of the course structure andcontent between the first school, held in Cork,and the fourth school, held in Coleraine (Table4.8). This evolution led:

1. to a progressive reduction in formallecture-style content of the school and anincrease in opportunity for discussion anddelegate participation;

2. towards a more uniform and systematicstyle and structure to presentations – inparticular the case studies illustrating the8 ICZM principles of best practice; and

3. to embed the ICZM principles andEuropean perspectives of coastalmanagement within the context of thework environment.

65

Ch 4

TITLE COMMENTS

INTRODUCTION TO ICZM AND EUROPEAN APPROACHES PRESENTATION

BUILDING THE JIGSAW OF ICZM – AN INTERACTIVE EXERCISE

INCLUDING COFFEE BREAK

GROUP EXERCISE / DISCUSSION

IMPLEMENTING COASTAL MANAGEMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL:

THE MANAGEMENT OF SEFTON COAST

PRESENTATION DISCUSSION

CASE STUDY PRESENTATIONS – ICZM PRINCIPLES (X3) PRESENTATION / DISCUSSION

FIELDTRIP 1 – DEMONSTRATING ONE OF ICZM PRINCIPLES FIELDTRIP / DISCUSSION

CASE STUDY PRESENTATIONS – ICZM PRINCIPLES (X3) PRESENTATION / DISCUSSION

FIELDTRIP 2 – DEMONSTRATING ONE OF ICZM PRINCIPLES FIELDTRIP / DISCUSSION

IMPLEMENTING COASTAL MANAGEMENT AT THE REGIONAL

LEVEL

PRESENTATION / DISCUSSION

CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSION

TABLE 4.8 FINAL OVERALL STRUCTURE AND SEQUENCE OF COURSE CONTENT FOR NORTH WEST EUROPE

SCHOOL IN EXCELLENCE IN ICZM

Outcomes from the COREPOINTICZM Schools

Several months after the completionof each course, a questionnaire was sent to arepresentative sample of attendees to ascertainthe impact the school had had on both thelong-term perceptions and understanding ofICZM as well as enquiring as to whetherattendance had had any influence on long termwork practices. The full responses, discussed inCOREPOINT: Le Tissier (2007), are mostpromising. Attendees found the case studies inparticular, illustrating real examples of coastalissues, a useful experience, and theopportunity to exchange ideas and experiencesfrom across Europe beneficial.

Another interesting and key outcomewas a realisation that the principles andpractices of ICZM can be used and indeed havebeen used for other planning processes andmethodologies. Therefore, the responsesprovide a clear indication that the approach toprofessional training provision adopted withinthe COREPOINT project has had a distinctinfluence on attendees in three linked areas:

1. Personal understanding of ICZM in awork context – Attendees gained aninsight and have taken back to theirworkplace ideas of how principlesand practices of ICZM can:

a. help in finding workable solutions tocoastal issues, as an ICZM approach isrelevant to many existing managementprocesses;

b. demonstrate the need to work withnatural processes and inculcate strongconnections and links between marine-and land-based spatial planning, as wellas the need to recognise the intricate andinterconnected relationship betweenhuman and natural dimensions to coastalissues and activities; and

c. provide an awareness for the need of apolicy framework that explicitly includescombined marine and land spatialplanning in the context of ICZM withinclusion vertically and horizontally of allactors.

2. Influencing approaches to workpractices – Attendees found that theSchools had given them a betterunderstanding of the obstacles,conflicts and consequences of a lackof integration within managementefforts to address coastal issues. Inaddition, attendees found that theywere attempting to work in a moreinclusive manner across sectors anddepartments, and build new andmore inclusive local networks.

3. Understanding the opportunitypresented by ICZM principles andpractices – Discussion structuredaround the principles and practices ofICZM provides:

a. a strong mechanism for promoting amore open and clear need to wideninvolvement of all actors in activities;

b. a framework for providing advice andinforming others; and

c. a strong drive for adopting a longerterm perspective for planning.

All the participants found that theSchool would be relevant to other colleaguesand would be keen to participate in furthertraining opportunities in ICZM. Thisdemonstrates that there is a strong desire tolearn more about ICZM and that the ICZMapproach has been recognised as worthwhileby practitioners.

Example feedback from trainees (fordetails see COREPOINT: Le Tissier, 2007).

‘The most important thing I learned is that a goodand open communication with all the differentpartners that are involved in each project isneeded/crucial for the success of each project andthis from the beginning of each project’.

‘The networking opportunities were very useful,meeting others who are working in similar fields.The sharing of information was very useful. Theresources (field guides) provided have been usefulin developing my Coastal Education programme’.

‘The course was eye-opening with regards to thework ahead, the participative and integrativeapproach required and the urgency with which weneed to be making informed policy now’.

66


4.7 ICZM PROGRESS INDICA TOR

Further testing of the approved EUindicator to measure the progress in theimplementation of integrated coastal zonemanagement in Europe was carried out duringthe COREPOINT project.

Historical context

Following the adoption of the ECRecommendation on ICZM in 2002, an EU ICZMExpert Group was set up which agreed on aWorking Group on Indicators and Data (WG-ID)to develop an indicators-based assessment. Adocument describing an indicator to measurethe progress of ICZM implementation in thecoastal zone was presented by the WG-ID tothe second meeting of the Expert Group inJune 2003 (Pickaver, 2004). This ProgressIndicator allows Member States and AccedingCountries to determine the extent of theirnational implementation of ICZM and to assesswhether progress is leading to improvedsustainability of coastal resources.

The EU ICZM Expert Group agreed toadopt the Progress Indicator, to begin testingit, and to modify it according to the feedback.The COREPOINT project provided a platform totest the indicator in the UK, France, Belgiumand Ireland at local, regional and nationallevels, and to provide valuable insights into theapplicability of the Progress Indicator as acapacity building tool.

Methodology

A series of one day workshops wasorganised in each of the COREPOINT regionswhere the Progress Indicator was tested viz.Wales, North East England, North WestEngland, Flanders, Ireland and North WestFrance. The tests were conducted in English,French or Dutch (Flemish), using translationswhere appropriate. Theparticipants were coastal andmarine practitioners fromdifferent organisations andinterest groups who were askedto complete the table together.Between five and 25 peoplewere involved in each test.

The test in Wales, in July 2005, wasthe first to be submitted from the COREPOINTtest cases. It used the original ProgressIndicator as agreed by the 2nd EU ICZM ExpertGroup in June 2003. This indicator had 26Actions divided into five Phases. The resultsfrom Wales were used to complement a seriesof additional tests conducted outside of theproject, for example in Spain, Germany andPoland. Following an assessment of thefeedback, the WG-ID agreed to modify theIndicator in line with the critique given.

The revised Progress Indicator of 31Actions divided into 4 phases (Appendix II) wasadopted by the 5th Meeting of the EU ICZMGroup of Experts in September 2005.Thereafter, all workshops used the revisedProgress Indicator set. The specific results ofthe COREPOINT tests are given in Pickaver, (inPress): North West England, May 2006; NorthEast England October, 2005; Ireland, April 2007and Belgium, November 2005. The testsconducted in France in October 2006, weredeemed to be confidential, although the resultswere analysed and conclusions were drawnfrom them. The results from the latter tests willfurther influence decisions by the WG-ID withregards to the need for further modifications.

67

Ch 4

Outcomes of the COREPOINTtests

One of the main conclusions drawnfrom the testing was that, no matter where thetests were conducted or how they were done,there was very little difference in the generalcomments made following the application ofthe Indicator set to the local/regional ICZMprocess under discussion.

Within the tests conducted under theCOREPOINT project, there was a consistentfeeling that the process itself was of enormousbenefit in bringing together different, butrelevant, stakeholders to discuss the ICZMprocess. For example, practitioners dealing withICZM on a daily basis rarely have theopportunity to discuss ICZM issues withprofessionals from other departments or fieldsof work. This reinforced similar commentsmade during additional testing outside of theCOREPOINT project.

The methodology for implementingthe Progress Indicator was deemed to be aneasy methodology to apply. Although theresults can only be considered as semi-quantitative at best, there was often realagreement (or disagreement) about the Actionsunder discussion. However, in line withcomments received from tests conductedoutside of the project, there was also generalagreement that the binary scale, inherent in theapproach, was not sensitive enough, and thatsome sort of semi-quantitative breakdown (e.g.No = 0; Yes = 5), would be more appropriate.In fact, the original methodology for theProgress Indicator deliberately selected abinary response in order to commit people toanswering as honestly as possible. It was feltthat most respondents would be reluctant toprovide either a Yes or No answer, if providedwith a middle-of-the-road choice. At the veryleast, the COREPOINT test participants felt thata ‘Don’t know’ option was needed. Whenprovided with this option, other COREPOINTtest participants, still felt it to be an inadequateresponse, since it did not allow the multi-dimensional realities of ICZM to be fullyexpressed.

The test participants expressed aneed for some breakdown of the Actions, inparticular at the local level of assessment. Itwas recommended that support notes, and anexplanation on how to run the test, couldimprove its effectiveness. This was taken onboard for the revised Progress Indicator.Despite this, one of the groups observed thatthe new explanatory notes were not detailed orprecise enough to be useful and that aresponse to a question could still be interpretedaccording to an individual’s knowledge andbackground. Other participants expressed theneed for a new Action to be included, tofacilitate consideration of progress on issuessuch as the implementation of the WaterFramework Directive or Marine SpatialPlanning.

Sensitivity to the publication of theanswers became apparent during theCOREPOINT testing. For example, testparticipants from one region were reluctant tohave their answers published even if theiridentity was to remain anonymous. Somecountry-specific concerns also arose. Forexample, although the Progress Indicatorallows national, regional and local responses tobe compared, these administrative boundariesare not really applicable in France. The regionalbodies which are independent from thenational administration have limited legalcompetency in the coastal zone. Legalobligations are implemented by thePrefectures, who are state representativesoperating at the regional level. In fact, thereare two administrative levels between nationaland local: the Regional Councils (“Régions”)and the County Councils (“Départements”).

68


Conclusions from theCOREPOINT Progress Indicator tests

Within the wider context of the EUICZM Expert Group, the results from theCOREPOINT project have proven very useful.Although, a decision was made at the outset tokeep the Indicator as simple as possible (i.e. astraight “yes/no’’ answer), this was modifiedfollowing the Welsh test to include a “don’tknow’’ parameter. Following furtherCOREPOINT generated feedback, the EU ICZMExpert Group are now looking at the potentialto sub-divide some of the Actions even further.

The question of anonymity wasalways considered to be the most sensitivepoint of developing a Progress Indicator, as thepotential arises for league tables to bepublished, which could show some countries ina bad light. That this same concern arose in theCOREPOINT testing was not surprising. This islikely to remain an issue until the ProgressIndicator set is routinely used.

Despite differences in administrativeapproaches to ICZM within the COREPOINTpartner countries in North West Europe, theProgress Indicator was proven to be capable ofdistinguishing between differentimplementation levels at national, regional andlocal levels.

4.8 CONCLUSIONS

Overall conclusion on capacitybuilding

The implementation of ICZM at thelocal level depends on the capability of thestakeholders to understand each other, to sharetheir knowledge, to create mechanisms to worktogether, to integrate their competencies, toshare data and information, and to adaptmanagement to address the challengesinherent in the natural, social, and economicdimensions of the coastal system.

The COREPOINT project hasproposed or tested a range of capacity buildingapproaches to contribute to these aims. Whileall of the approaches have scope for furtherrefinement or adaptation, methods such as theLIS, the school, the progress indicators and theexpert couplet node model provide aninteresting framework to improve local ICZMimplementation.

The work in the COREPOINT studysites has shown us that each local case isunique. The success of an ICZM approachdepends strongly on a range of human andinstitutional factors. However, the approachesdescribed in Chapter 4 can contribute to theadvancement of ICZM. Opportunities to shareexperiences among European practitioners caninfluence how capacity building may beaddressed and ultimately how best practice willbe implemented.

The COREPOINT Partners’ QuestionnaireSurvey, which utilised ‘expert’interpretation and tapped into asubstantive evidence base, has provided aninsight into operational aspects of the ICZMprinciples of best practice in a practical,local context.

In particular, the survey revealed:

• difficulties associated with gaugingadherence to certain principles, as someare open to more interpretation and somewider in scope than others;

• the need to appreciate and understandhow principles should be interpreted andapplied in different local situations,recognising there is no one-size-fits-allsolution; and

• issues associated with assessingadherence to individual principles inisolation.

The COREPOINT PractitionersSurvey highlighted the fact that many of thekey elements of the principles are understoodalthough awareness of the principles with theirICZM labelling as set out by the EuropeanUnion is commonly not known.

69

Ch 4

The COREPOINT ECN experience hasshown that they can evolve to be effectivelong-term mechanisms which promoteenduring working relationships betweencoastal research and practice communitiesat local levels.

In particular, the ECN provide anopportunity to:

• develop better understanding and trustbetween coastal research and practicecommunities at local levels;

• realise mutual benefits;

• build ‘professional capital’ to help addressfuture challenges;

• harness relevant and appropriate sciencefor decision-making;

• deliver local level ICZM and the principlesof sustainability science; and

• bridge the gap between the ECRecommendation and local levelimplementation of ICZM.

The implementation of the schools withinCOREPOINT partner countries has provedto be a worthwhile exercise and aninvaluable two-way learning process forboth trainers and trainees.

The COREPOINT ICZM schools havealso revealed that there is a clear need andcapacity gap at local levels in relation to theinterpretation and practical application of ICZM:

• in particular, the schools have helpedpromote the ICZM best practice principlesas well as developing a more commonunderstanding of the ICZMRecommendation and its value as amanagement approach for Europe’scoasts at such levels; and

• the COREPOINT schools have alsodemonstrated the usefulness of theprinciples as an access point to ICZM andhave also shown the value of the course’strans-national delivery and content.

The COREPOINT testing of the ProgressIndicator suggests that the Indicatorprovides a tangible representation of ICZM,illustrates the status of ICZM at variouslevels and increases awareness ofstakeholders of the components ofprogression of the ICZM process.

In particular, it is considered that theIndicator is a:

• valuable process for stimulating debateregarding ICZM at local levels; and

• relatively easy tool to use although somefurther refinements may be required onscaling and specific actions to maximiseits potential.

70


COREPOINT reference material

Ballinger, R.C. (2008). COREPOINT:Partner’s Survey - Evaluation of local ICZM efforts, Areport prepared as part of the COREPOINT project, 59pp.

Carlisle, M., Green D.R. and Ritchie, W.(2007). COREPOINT: Case Study Area Descriptions. May2007. 37pp.

Cummins, V. (2006). COREPOINT: ExpertCouplet Node Questionnaire Report. A report producedas part of the COREPOINT project, 8 pp.

Le Tissier, M. (2007). COREPOINT: NorthWest Europe Schools of Excellence in ICZM - TrainingImpact Review. A report produced as part of theCOREPOINT project, 10pp.

Lymbery, G. (2008). COREPOINT: ICZMSurvey of Partner Countries. A report produced as partof the COREPOINT project, 38pp.

Stojanovic, T. (2007). COREPOINT:Guidelines for Implementing Local Information Systemsat the Coast. A report produced as part of theCOREPOINT project, 36pp.

References

European Commission. (1999). Lessonslearned from the European Commission’s DemonstrationProgramme on Integrated Coastal Zone Management(ICZM). Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg.

European Commission. (2007).Communication from the Commission: Report to theEuropean Parliament and the Council: An evaluation ofIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe.COM(2007)308 Final. Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities, Luxembourg.

European Parliament and Council. (2002).Recommendation of the European Parliament and of theCouncil concerning the implementation of IntegratedCoastal Zone Management in Europe (2002/413/EC). OJL148, pp.24-27. Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg.

Pickaver, A. H., Gilbert, C., and Breton, C.(2004). An indicator set to measure the progress in theimplementation of integrated coastal zone managementin Europe. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 449–462.

Pickaver, A. H. (2008). ICZM ProgressIndicators. In: Coastal Zone Management. Green, D.(Ed.). Thomas Telford Ltd. Publishers.


Shipman, B. and Stojanovic, T. (2007).Facts, fictions, and failures of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement in Europe. Coastal Management, 35, 375-398.

71

Ch 4

[ch 5recommendations ]

recommendations

72

Chapter fiveRecommendations

The following Recommendationshave evolved from the COREPOINT experience.They are based around the innovative aspectsof capacity building activities undertaken in theCOREPOINT project. As a result, theRecommendations promote a range ofsolutions for dealing with specific coastalmanagement issues.

The Recommendations either:

1. seek additional support for existingapproaches to ICZM, which have beendemonstrated to contain added value forcapacity building within the COREPOINTproject, (e.g. the role out of the ProgressIndicator and operationalisation of the ECICZM principles of best practice); or

2. advocate new approaches or material forconsolidating capacity building for ICZM inNorth West Europe, (e.g. LIS, ECN andProfessional Training School modules).

The Recommendations arepresented according to the issues addressed bythe COREPOINT project. The relevantsupporting sections are indicated in brackets.

Issue 1: Lack of integrated planning andmanagement to achieve the sustainabledevelopment of the North West Europecoastal zone.

Summary of the COREPOINT approach:

1. review of local level arrangements forICZM and spatial planning in North WestEurope; and

2. assessment of local level adherence to theICZM principles of Best Practice.

Recommendation 1.1: TheCOREPOINT project demonstrated a need forfurther commitment to communication,coordination and collaboration betweenplanning and ICZM. Support for this actionshould be provided through appropriateresourcing and guidance at the North WestEurope INTERREG, national and sub-nationallevels to: (Section 3.3)

� proceed with a much clearerunderstanding of marine and terrestrialspatial planning processes to ensurecoherency of policy for the coast as aresult of the continuum of naturalprocesses and human uses on land andsea;

� engage with the decision-making processfor spatial plans and local developmentplans at all levels; and

� share knowledge and understanding ofcoastal systems and governance with thespatial planning community.

Recommendation 1.2: TheCOREPOINT approach to the assessment oflocal adherence to the EC ICZM principlesshould be developed to: (Section 4.2)

� provide a standard procedure to enablelocal stakeholders to be able to interpretand understand the principles moreclearly and precisely within their localcontext; and

� provide methods to evaluate the whole‘principle package’ including ways ofobtaining a sustainable balance betweenthe principles.

Recommendation 1.3: As theproblems created by strong land/sea divisions,discussed in Chapter 3, have been immediatelyapparent throughout the COREPOINT project,the project partners advocate ICZM as a meansof bridging the divide. Thus, the North WestEurope INTERREG Secretariat is encouraged tomaintain ICZM as a programme priority, tofacilitate efforts towards the sustainabledevelopment of the region’s coast (Section4.5).

Ch 5

73

Issue 2: Lack of engagement and opencommunication with stakeholders,including political representatives and thegeneral public.


1. development of Local Information Systems(LIS) as a framework to support bettercommunication and joint understandingamongst a group of stakeholderorganisations.

Recommendation 2.1: It issuggested that there is further scope fordemonstration and development of the LIS asa key tool for ICZM and that there is anopportunity to use the CoastWeb portal as aplatform for its development (Section 4.4).

Issue 3: Poor links between researchersand policy makers.


1. demonstration of the effectiveness of nineExpert Couplet Nodes to help deliversustainability through a closer relationshipbetween science, policy and practice.

Recommendation 3.1: Promotethe COREPOINT Expert Couplet model to buildcapacity for bridging the gap between coastalresearchers and policy makers in North WestEurope. It is important that the model issupported as an effective means of deliveringICZM at the local level and that opportunitiesare provided for those involved in couplets toshare their experiences in delivering ICZM andfor new couplets to evolve within this field(Section 4.5).

Recommendation 3.2: To achievea wider uptake of the ECN approach, the ECNmodel will require a clear definition of theadded value of the process, including thebenefits for academic and local authorityinstitutional involvement. A suite of indicatorsshould be developed to help account for thebenefits of the process and the outcomes inany future initiatives of this nature (Section4.7).

Issue 4: Lack of capacity and sustainedexpertise for coastal management withinlocal authorities.


1. implementation of a tried and tested,transferable and highly interactive ICZMprofessional training module basedaround the ICZM principles of bestpractice and engaging case studies.

Recommendation 4.1: Promotethe uptake of the COREPOINT ICZMprofessional training model for capacity buildingfor ICZM within local authorities (Section 4.6).

Recommendation 4.2: It isrecommended that the COREPOINT ICZMschool approach be used as a way of makingcomplex coastal issues more accessible andextended through the ‘training of trainers’(Section 4.6).

Recommendation 4.3: It is hopedthat the availability of the COREPOINT trainingmaterial on the COREPOINT website willfacilitate the further use and development ofthis approach. However, in extending anddeveloping the COREPOINT school approachthere is a need to find innovative and policyrelevant topics which not only can act as a‘hook’ to draw in suitable participants, but canalso clearly demonstrate complex coastalissues.

Issue 5: Disproportionate levels of progresson ICZM in North West Europe.

Summary of COREPOINT approach:

1. further testing of the approved EUindicator to measure the progress in theimplementation of integrated coastal zonemanagement in Europe.

Recommendation 5.1: ProgressIndicators should be used more widely bydiverse stakeholders and repeated as a way ofassessing progress in ICZM (Section 4.7).

Recommendation 5.2: ProgressIndicators should be carefully prepared withthe stakeholders in order to build indicatorsadapted to the objectives of monitoring at therelevant local level (Section 4.7).

74

recommendations

75

Ch 5

[appendices]

appendices

76

A ppendix ILIST OF REPORTS PRODUCED A S

PA RT OF THE COREPOINT PROJECT. FORDETA ILS OF A LL COREPOINT PROJECTOUTPUTS SEE HTTP://COREPOINT.UCC.IE

COREPOINT: Ball, I. (2006). CoastalPartnerships and Research Strategy Development- A Review. October 2006. 41pp.

COREPOINT: Ballinger, R.C. and Alden,J. (2008). COREPOINT: Spatial Planning and ICZMin North West Europe. Spring 2008. 40pp.

COREPOINT: Ballinger, R.C. (2008).COREPOINT: Partner’s Survey - Evaluation of localICZM efforts. March 2008. 69pp.

COREPOINT: Bogaert, D., Cliquet, A.,and Maes, F. (2008). Who Rules the Coast?. ISBN:9789046602164. 190pp.

COREPOINT: Carlisle, M. and GreenD.R. (2006). A Guide to the Development of UseConflict Maps. February 2006. 33pp.

COREPOINT: Carlisle, M., Green, D.R.and Ritchie, W. (2007). COREPOINT: Case StudyArea Descriptions. May 2007. 98pp.

COREPOINT: Carlisle, M. and Muir, D.(2007). The Biodiversity Portfolio Approach toCoastal Valuation in ICZM. May 2007. 38pp.

COREPOINT: Carlisle, M., Green, D.R.and de la Fons, G. (2007). COREPOINT: ATemplate for Virtual Reality Simulations. June2007. 68pp.

COREPOINT: Carlisle, M. and GreenD.R. (2008). A Template for Human ImpactsEvaluation. April 2008. 70pp.

COREPOINT: Carlisle, M., Green, D.R.and Ritchie, W. (Eds.) (2008). Expert Couplets andCase Studies - Descriptions of physical, ecologicaland socio-economic context and of area-specificCOREPOINT activities. April 2008. 98pp.

COREPOINT: Carlisle, M. and Green,D.R. (2008). A Meta-Directory of Coastal ResearchActivities in North-West Europe. May 2008. 18pp.

COREPOINT: Envision. (2007).Prioritising Local Issues for ICZM. November 2007.17pp.

COREPOINT: Gault, J., O’Mahony, C.,O’Hagan, A.M. (2008). COREPOINT: Identificationof innovative fiscal models for mechanisms tointegrate spatial strategies for the coast. Spring2008. 8pp.

COREPOINT: Hills, J. and Le Tissier, M.(2005). COREPOINT: Quantification of theEconomic Benefits of Natural Coastal Ecosystems.May 2005. 37pp.

COREPOINT: Hills, J., Lymbery, G.,Ballinger, R. and Cummins, V. (2008).COREPOINT: the role of the regions. January2008. 28pp.

COREPOINT: Kervarec, F. (2007). ICZMin France: points of view; a summary of interviewscarried out with relevant institutions. March 2007.10pp.

COREPOINT: Kervarec, F. (2008). LaGizc en France - points de vue Synthèse réaliséeà partir d'entretiens auprès d'acteursinstitutionnels. April 2008. 14pp.

COREPOINT: Kopke, K., O’Mahony, C.,Cummins, V. and Gault, J. (2007). Assessment ofCoastal Recreational Activity and Capacity forIncreased Boating in Cork Harbour. November2007. 52pp.

COREPOINT: Le Tissier, M. (2007).COREPOINT: NW Europe Schools of Excellence inICZM - Training Impact Review. December 2007.10pp.

COREPOINT: Lymbery, G. (2008).COREPOINT: ICZM Survey of Partner Countries.January 2008. 39pp.

COREPOINT: Lymbery, G. and Holden,V. (2008). Report on the Salt Marshes atMarshside, Southport. March 2008. 44pp.

COREPOINT: Lymbery, G. and Holden,V. (2008). Report on the evolution of the RibbleEstuary, with particular reference to the northSefton coast. March 2008. 73pp.

COREPOINT: Lymbery, G. (2008). Aguide to collaborative working on the coast – “twoheads are better than one!” April 2008. 40pp.

COREPOINT: Lymbery, G., Stojanovic,T., Hills, J., Queffelec, B., and McKenna, J. (2007).Industry Links - Promoting the involvement ofIndustry in ICZM Partnerships. December 2007.15pp.

A ppendix I

77

COREPOINT: O’Connor, M., Mc Kenna,J. and Cooper, A. (2007). COREPOINT: CoastalIssues and Conflicts in North West Europe Framedwithin the Lisbon and Gothenburg Agendas.February 2007. 25pp.

COREPOINT: O’Hagan, A.M., Ballinger,R., Stojanovic, T., Le Tissier, M. (2005).COREPOINT: Review of International Approachesto Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).July 2005. 108pp.

COREPOINT: O’Hagan, A.M., Ballinger,R., Ball, I., Schrivers, J. (2005). COREPOINT:European legislation and policies with implicationsfor coastal management. April 2005. 142 pp.

COREPOINT: O’Hagan, A.M., Ballinger,R., Cummins, V., O’Connor, M., Le Tissier, M., DeWaen, D., and Philippe, M. (2007). COREPOINT:Status of ICZM in North West Europe. March 2007.47pp.

COREPOINT: Pettit, S.J., Beresford,A.K.C., Marlow, P.B. and Smith, H.D. (2008).Transport and Ports Policy in the European Union.April 2008. 26pp.

COREPOINT: Pickaver, A. and Ferreira,M. (2008). Implementing ICZM at sub-nationallocal level - recommendations on best practice.April 2008. 19pp.

COREPOINT: Queffelec, B. andPhilippe, M. (2008). La gestion des zones côtièresdans le golfe du Morbihan - regard du projetCOREPOINT. April 2008. 148pp.

COREPOINT: Reis, J., Smith, H.D., andBallinger, R.C. (2007). Stories of the Severn Sea -A Maritime Heritage Education Resource Pack.October 2007. 58pp.

COREPOINT: Stojanovic, T. (2007).Guide pour la mise en oeuvre d'un systèmed'information local littoral. November 2007. 27pp.

COREPOINT: Stojanovic, T. (2007).Guidelines for Implementing Local InformationSystems at the Coast. November 2007. 27pp.

78

reports produced

79

A ppendix II

A ppendix IIThe European ICZM Progress Indicator

PHASE ACTION DESCRIPTIONNATIONAL REGIONAL LOCAL

2000 2005 2000 2005 2000 2005

PLANNINGANDMANAGEMENTARETAKING

PLACEINTHECOASTALZONE

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.

AFRAMEWORKEXISTSFORTAKINGICZMFORWARD

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.

80

Euro ICZM progressindicator


2000 2005 2000 2005 2000 2005

MOSTASPECTSOFANICMAPPROACHTOPLANNINGANDMANAGINGTHECOAST

AREINPLACEANDFUNCTIONINGREASONABLYWELL

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.

81

A ppendix II


2000 2005 2000 2005 2000 2005ANEFFICIENT,ADAPTIVEANDINTEGRATIVEPROCESSIS

EMBEDDEDATALLLEVELSOFGOVERNANCEANDIS

DELIVERINGGREATERSUSTAINABLEUSEOFTHECOAST

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.

The Point of COREPOINT - University College...

Documents

Transcript of The Point of COREPOINT - University College...