3.3 Reflection on the Principles for ICZM
45
the development in the coast are usually planning instruments that have a physical preponderance and little room for needs of integration of different sectors and participation of
stakeholders.
Besides the investigations on success factors and shortcomings of the respective ICZM
strategy in each Member State (and the concentrated summary per Regional Sea) in the
evaluation report reasons for the differences in the progress of the implementation process
were mentioned. Nevertheless, the obstacles and barriers were obvious, but a few aspects
have been found that ICZM delivers also an added value in the context of policies and
legislation.
Finally, it was discussed whether an incentive approach or a Directive should be
taken to foster and improve the implementation of ICZM in the EU, “[. . . ], this evaluation concludes that the potentials of the current EU ICZM Recommendation are not
fully exploited, and that an incentive-based approach will be more effective on the EU
level” (Rupprecht Consult, 2006, p. 19). The following list indicates the themes where
improvement shall be achieved: strengthen the European dimension of ICZM based on a
Regional Seas approach, raise the profile of ICZM and enhance its integration with sectoral policies, elaborate the strategic approach of ICZM (oriented at a balanced ecological,
social, economic and cultural development) and address major long-term risks: vulnerability to disasters and climate change, endorse awareness, guidance, training and education,
enhance stakeholder coordination and participation, perform a mainstreaming of European
policies, harmonize monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and improve the knowledge
basis for ICZM.
In 2007 the European Commission reported to Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of ICZM in Europe (EC, 2007). This report was based on three different sources;
amongst them one was the assessment report of ICZM. “A key achievement of the EU
ICZM Recommendation has been to codify a common set of principles that should underlie sound coastal planning and management. While the evaluation confirms the relevance
of these ICZM principles, the implementation of the EU ICZM Recommendation also reveals varying interpretations and understanding of ICZM across Europe. To foster a more
coherent and effective implementation of ICZM, the principles need to be more operational
and better communicated” (EC, 2007, p. 5–6).
Further descriptions are touching the different results and findings such as the need
for joint action in monitoring or the necessity for improved cooperation and knowledge
exchange between Member States, especially in Regional Sea areas. Furthermore, it is
stated that the EU has to support the existing and emerging efforts of ICZM by a variety
of instruments: “The Commission will continue to endeavor that these policies and instruments are coherent, so that the implementation at the lower local level of governance
is facilitated. Since 2001 [. . . ] the Commission has implemented a range of structured
measures to improve openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence
in decision making and implementation of EU policies” (EC, 2007, p. 8).
45
the development in the coast are usually planning instruments that have a physical preponderance and little room for needs of integration of different sectors and participation of
stakeholders.
Besides the investigations on success factors and shortcomings of the respective ICZM
strategy in each Member State (and the concentrated summary per Regional Sea) in the
evaluation report reasons for the differences in the progress of the implementation process
were mentioned. Nevertheless, the obstacles and barriers were obvious, but a few aspects
have been found that ICZM delivers also an added value in the context of policies and
legislation.
Finally, it was discussed whether an incentive approach or a Directive should be
taken to foster and improve the implementation of ICZM in the EU, “[. . . ], this evaluation concludes that the potentials of the current EU ICZM Recommendation are not
fully exploited, and that an incentive-based approach will be more effective on the EU
level” (Rupprecht Consult, 2006, p. 19). The following list indicates the themes where
improvement shall be achieved: strengthen the European dimension of ICZM based on a
Regional Seas approach, raise the profile of ICZM and enhance its integration with sectoral policies, elaborate the strategic approach of ICZM (oriented at a balanced ecological,
social, economic and cultural development) and address major long-term risks: vulnerability to disasters and climate change, endorse awareness, guidance, training and education,
enhance stakeholder coordination and participation, perform a mainstreaming of European
policies, harmonize monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and improve the knowledge
basis for ICZM.
In 2007 the European Commission reported to Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of ICZM in Europe (EC, 2007). This report was based on three different sources;
amongst them one was the assessment report of ICZM. “A key achievement of the EU
ICZM Recommendation has been to codify a common set of principles that should underlie sound coastal planning and management. While the evaluation confirms the relevance
of these ICZM principles, the implementation of the EU ICZM Recommendation also reveals varying interpretations and understanding of ICZM across Europe. To foster a more
coherent and effective implementation of ICZM, the principles need to be more operational
and better communicated” (EC, 2007, p. 5–6).
Further descriptions are touching the different results and findings such as the need
for joint action in monitoring or the necessity for improved cooperation and knowledge
exchange between Member States, especially in Regional Sea areas. Furthermore, it is
stated that the EU has to support the existing and emerging efforts of ICZM by a variety
of instruments: “The Commission will continue to endeavor that these policies and instruments are coherent, so that the implementation at the lower local level of governance
is facilitated. Since 2001 [. . . ] the Commission has implemented a range of structured
measures to improve openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence
in decision making and implementation of EU policies” (EC, 2007, p. 8).