46
3 Status: Basics of ICZM
Finally, the report closes with the following directions to promote ICZM in Europe
(excerpt from EC, 2007, p. 9):
• To achieve a more coherent understanding and implementation of ICZM across Member
States, guidance needs to be developed to clarify the principles underlying sound coastal
planning and management and ways to operationalize them;
• given the high vulnerability of coastal zones to risks and possible impacts related to climate
change, strategies to adapt to these risks should be developed and implemented in full coherence with ICZM strategies and instruments dealing with specific natural or technological
hazards;
• more efforts are needed for comparative analyses and the communication and promotion
of good practices regarding ICZM, including between coastal regions. The gathering of
relevant data and effective information sharing and -use in policy and decision-making also
needs to be furthered. The development of common indicators and a framework to assess
the effectiveness and efficiency of ICZM will need to be continued.
A European Working Group was set-up in 2008 to discuss the performance of the EU
ICZM Recommendations (see EC 2009). The report of this Working Group provides a
condensed summary of beneficial and improvable aspects of the EU ICZM Recommendation and the process of reporting of Member States. It was their task to suggest a follow-up
of the ICZM Recommendation from 2002. Members of the Working Group came from different countries and from different levels of administration and institutions. The discussed
policy options as follow-up of the EU ICZM Recommendation were as follows (EC, 2009,
p. 7-8):
Revised Recommendation: “The Recommendation is likely to allow a more comprehensive and ambitious setting of the scope and objectives, compared to options based on
legally binding instrument. The lacking binding character may be a weakness though to
support effective implementation over a longer time-span.”
Framework Directive: “The Directive is binding upon each Member State as to the result
to be achieved but leaves to national authorities the choice of form and methods.”
Decision: “[. . . ] a form of programme at EU level, which could take the form of Decision
(e.g. 6th Environmental Action Programme). Emphasis in this option would be on collective actions and commitments to support ICZM, rather than a more detailed framework for
implementation of ICZM in and by Member States.”
Regional Sea Convention: “Working through [this instrument] may be an option to address in particular the different regional contexts. [. . . ] The type of instruments available
also varies among conventions (protocol, recommendation, action plan). This option
should therefore best be considered as a complement to the other options above.”
3 Status: Basics of ICZM
Finally, the report closes with the following directions to promote ICZM in Europe
(excerpt from EC, 2007, p. 9):
• To achieve a more coherent understanding and implementation of ICZM across Member
States, guidance needs to be developed to clarify the principles underlying sound coastal
planning and management and ways to operationalize them;
• given the high vulnerability of coastal zones to risks and possible impacts related to climate
change, strategies to adapt to these risks should be developed and implemented in full coherence with ICZM strategies and instruments dealing with specific natural or technological
hazards;
• more efforts are needed for comparative analyses and the communication and promotion
of good practices regarding ICZM, including between coastal regions. The gathering of
relevant data and effective information sharing and -use in policy and decision-making also
needs to be furthered. The development of common indicators and a framework to assess
the effectiveness and efficiency of ICZM will need to be continued.
A European Working Group was set-up in 2008 to discuss the performance of the EU
ICZM Recommendations (see EC 2009). The report of this Working Group provides a
condensed summary of beneficial and improvable aspects of the EU ICZM Recommendation and the process of reporting of Member States. It was their task to suggest a follow-up
of the ICZM Recommendation from 2002. Members of the Working Group came from different countries and from different levels of administration and institutions. The discussed
policy options as follow-up of the EU ICZM Recommendation were as follows (EC, 2009,
p. 7-8):
Revised Recommendation: “The Recommendation is likely to allow a more comprehensive and ambitious setting of the scope and objectives, compared to options based on
legally binding instrument. The lacking binding character may be a weakness though to
support effective implementation over a longer time-span.”
Framework Directive: “The Directive is binding upon each Member State as to the result
to be achieved but leaves to national authorities the choice of form and methods.”
Decision: “[. . . ] a form of programme at EU level, which could take the form of Decision
(e.g. 6th Environmental Action Programme). Emphasis in this option would be on collective actions and commitments to support ICZM, rather than a more detailed framework for
implementation of ICZM in and by Member States.”
Regional Sea Convention: “Working through [this instrument] may be an option to address in particular the different regional contexts. [. . . ] The type of instruments available
also varies among conventions (protocol, recommendation, action plan). This option
should therefore best be considered as a complement to the other options above.”