3.3 Reflection on the Principles for ICZM
43
arrangements and improved decision processes as a major outcome of the CZMA.” The
second conclusion touches the quality and availability of data and information and the
further development of indicators to be able to adequately assess the effectiveness. The
third conclusion was the initialization of national outcome monitoring and performance
evaluation system.
3.3.2 Reflection on the Eight ICZM Principles of the EU
Recommendations
The assessment of the first period for the development of ICZM strategies and the respective Member States stock-take was conducted by Rupprecht Consult (2006). The
comprehensive assessment is based on literature reviews and intensive information collection phase as well as on interviews of responsible organizations and institutions as well as
several stakeholders. The distribution of the questionnaire was supported by certain coastal
associations in the Member States. Despite these high efforts the feedback was very limited so that a reliable statistical evaluation was impossible. The questionnaire contained
also open questions which provided valuable input for a qualitative assessment.
The following paragraphs summarize the main findings of the first assessment process
of the implementation of the EU ICZM Recommendation.
In late 2006, 18 of 24 coastal Member States delivered their national reports to be
assessed by the evaluation consortium. The overall impression of the status in 2006 was
that (Rupprecht Consult, 2006, p. 9):
• no country has implemented an ICZM national strategy as prompted by the EU ICZM
Recommendation
• in seven countries [. . . ] the implementation of an ICZM strategy is pending
• in six further countries [. . . ] documents considered as equivalent to an ICZM national
strategy have been developed, or coastal zone management strategies become (or planned to
become) an integral part of its spatial planning processes
• in eleven countries [. . . ] no ICZM equivalent policies are in advanced stages of preparation,
only fragmented tools are in place to address coastal issues.
Based on the interpretation of the qualitative part of the questionnaire and the interviews
some pros and cons were featured. Beneficial effects of the EU ICZM Recommendation
were, for example, “that new awareness and a high level of preparedness at the regional
level regarding long-term coastal challenges” (Rupprecht Consult, 2006, p. 10) have been
created. It also led to the revision of the traditional planning process to enable sustainable development. Furthermore, participatory action due to existing regulations already
applied received a boost by the execution of the EU Recommendation. It was also acknowledged and, thus, proven that “ICZM [. . . ] could become the instrument to link
terrestrial to marine legislation, especially on a Regional Sea level” (Rupprecht Consult,
2006, p. 10). Aspects which have to be improved were, among others, a better cooperation
43
arrangements and improved decision processes as a major outcome of the CZMA.” The
second conclusion touches the quality and availability of data and information and the
further development of indicators to be able to adequately assess the effectiveness. The
third conclusion was the initialization of national outcome monitoring and performance
evaluation system.
3.3.2 Reflection on the Eight ICZM Principles of the EU
Recommendations
The assessment of the first period for the development of ICZM strategies and the respective Member States stock-take was conducted by Rupprecht Consult (2006). The
comprehensive assessment is based on literature reviews and intensive information collection phase as well as on interviews of responsible organizations and institutions as well as
several stakeholders. The distribution of the questionnaire was supported by certain coastal
associations in the Member States. Despite these high efforts the feedback was very limited so that a reliable statistical evaluation was impossible. The questionnaire contained
also open questions which provided valuable input for a qualitative assessment.
The following paragraphs summarize the main findings of the first assessment process
of the implementation of the EU ICZM Recommendation.
In late 2006, 18 of 24 coastal Member States delivered their national reports to be
assessed by the evaluation consortium. The overall impression of the status in 2006 was
that (Rupprecht Consult, 2006, p. 9):
• no country has implemented an ICZM national strategy as prompted by the EU ICZM
Recommendation
• in seven countries [. . . ] the implementation of an ICZM strategy is pending
• in six further countries [. . . ] documents considered as equivalent to an ICZM national
strategy have been developed, or coastal zone management strategies become (or planned to
become) an integral part of its spatial planning processes
• in eleven countries [. . . ] no ICZM equivalent policies are in advanced stages of preparation,
only fragmented tools are in place to address coastal issues.
Based on the interpretation of the qualitative part of the questionnaire and the interviews
some pros and cons were featured. Beneficial effects of the EU ICZM Recommendation
were, for example, “that new awareness and a high level of preparedness at the regional
level regarding long-term coastal challenges” (Rupprecht Consult, 2006, p. 10) have been
created. It also led to the revision of the traditional planning process to enable sustainable development. Furthermore, participatory action due to existing regulations already
applied received a boost by the execution of the EU Recommendation. It was also acknowledged and, thus, proven that “ICZM [. . . ] could become the instrument to link
terrestrial to marine legislation, especially on a Regional Sea level” (Rupprecht Consult,
2006, p. 10). Aspects which have to be improved were, among others, a better cooperation