1 / 17

Effective Implementation of ICZM: Results of EU Progress Indicator Case Study

This case study compiled for the EU-COMET 2 project by Dr. Alan Pickaver presents the history and development of the ICZM Progress Indicator. Created in 2004, the Progress Indicator evaluates the sustainable development of coastal zones through 31 Actions grouped into 4 Phases. The Indicator methodology has been tested and refined, allowing for the observation of progress and bottlenecks in ICZM implementation. The study discusses the benefits of utilizing workshops for knowledge transfer in the field of ICZM, as well as the importance of public participation levels in decision-making processes. Corepoint-generated results from various countries are presented, highlighting national trends and insights.

william-osborn
Télécharger la présentation

Effective Implementation of ICZM: Results of EU Progress Indicator Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. A short history • 2002: The ICZM Recommendation • 2002: 1st ICZM Expert Group meeting  establishment of the Working Group on Indicators and data (WG-ID) • 2003-04: WG-ID works on the design of 2 sets of indicators • One measuring progress in implementing ICZM (ICZM Progress indicator) • A set of 27 indicators to measure sustainable development of the coastal zone (the SD indicators) • April 2004: The ICZM Expert Group accepted the ICZM Progress Indicator

  3. The Progress Indicator • The original Progress Indicator broke the GESAMP ICZM cycle into a workable number of pragmatic, component parts. • Each component was termed an Action Level and these Actions were grouped into Phases. • Following various tests using practitionners in England, Wales, Belgium, Holland and France changes were made and approved by the Expert Group in 2005. • The Progress Indicator now has 4 Phases and 31 Actions

  4. The Progress Indicator – Phases 1 & 2

  5. The Progress Indicator – Phase 3

  6. The Progress Indicator – Phase 4

  7. NE E BE IE NE E BE NW E IE NW E NE E IE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Overview of Corepoint generated results National Regional Local

  8. Belgium – all respondents

  9. Grouped phases

  10. Greek national results See separate Word document

  11. Main conclusions • Indicator is a legitimate methodology. • The workshop as a mechanism to transfer knowledge on ICZM is highly recommended. However, other methods are valid. • It de-mistifies ICZM. • It allows bottlenecks to progress to be identified. • It can compare regions/countries. This is stilla sensitive area. • Presentations of results is highly flexible. • It does allow progress (or otherwise) to be observed.

  12. ICZM Progress main trends (1)

  13. ICZM Progress main trends (2)

  14. Current developments Attempting to sub-divide the Actions and the Responses e.g. Public Participation 7 levels of Participation* Survey in CY, BE, DE, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, NL, PO, PT, SW, UK *Arnstein, Sherry R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal American Planning Association 35, 216-224, 1969

  15. The seven levels of participation Level 1 - all decisions are taken by government; Level 2 - committees for the main purpose of engineering support; Level 3 - informed but no channel for feedback; Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked; Level 5 - advisory role where advice actually taken; Level 6 - real negotiation between stakeholders and decision-makers; Level 7 - decision-making delegated. [www.encora.eu]

  16. Results Country Perceived level CY 2-4 BE 2-4 DE 3-5 ES 2-3 FR 1-4 GR 1-2 IE 2-4 IT 4 NL 4-5 PO 3-4 PT 4-5 SW 4-6 UK 3-5 Level 1 - all decisions are taken by governmental; Level 2 - committees for the main purpose of engineering support; Level 3 - informed but no channel for feedback; Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked; Level 5 - advisory role where advice actually taken; Level 6 - real negotiation between stakeholders and decision-makers; Level 7 - decision-making delegated.

  17. Thank you Dr. Alan Pickaver EUCC – The Coastal Union Postbus 11232 2301 EE Leiden, Netherlands Tel. + 31 71 5122900 Fax. +31 71 5124069 Email: a.pickaver@eucc.net, www.eucc.net

More Related