Evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in ...

Evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe – Final Report
Status Main achievements Main shortcomings
Finland
Germany
Latvia
(II)
(II)
(IV)
• An ICZM strategy has been formulated,
adopting a cross-sectoral framework. It
defines six development areas where
ICZM specific development goals and
recommended actions are presented.
• There are many national and regional
projects that have a strong ICZM
dimension.
• ICZM strategy is formulated as an
informal strategic voluntary long-term
mission and process statement.
• It shall penetrate all national planning
and decision-making bodies while at
the same time being an instrument for
an integrated identification of development
and conflict potentials and their
possible solutions.
• Current legislative framework is
capable of meeting most of the ICZM
principles, however further legislative
adaptation and optimisation of governance
instruments are encouraged by
the national ICZM strategy
• ICZM strategy initiated a high dialogand
communication degree and with
strong efforts on public participation on
the national level.
• ICZM strategy is considered as part of
the National Spatial Planning. Latvia is
not in favour of creating new institutions
to coordinate ICZM.
• Evaluation studies on the quality and
implementation of the spatial plans of
the municipalities and districts have
been carried out on a regular basis.
• The legislative basis relevant to coastal
management is in place and in line with
EU Directives.
• No clear actions have emanated from the
strategy yet.
• The link to maritime planning is weak. An
improved involvement of stakeholders is lacking.
Effective cross-sectoral cooperation has not
been observed.
• Separation of “coastal” and “inland” issues
hampers an effective handling of run-off problems.
• Dominated by two contrasting ICZM perspectives
on the national level which have not yet
been satisfactorily clarified. On the one hand,
ICZM is seen as approach that supports sustainable,
integrative horizontal and vertical
spatial planning. On the other hand, ICZM is
seen as an ecological driven approach with
strong emphasis on the state-of-theenvironment.
• The German strategy falls short to address
important economic and social dimensions.
• Federal structure of Germany holds the risk that
each of the coastal states of Germany will
pursue its own ICZM plan without the essential
consultation and cooperation among each other
(e.g. lack of exchange between Baltic and North
Sea regions)
• The Report does not analyse the influence of
various sectors.
• Economic and social impact of ICZM not
assessed
Lithuania
(IV)
• No National ICZM report has been
submitted.
• ICZM and marine affairs do not seem to be on
the list of priorities.
• There are very little administrative resources
and funds at the county level administration.
• The hinterland is not taken into account and
does not go deep into the sectoral conflicts and
their solution along the coastal zone
• Lack of public awareness.
• Some elements of ICZM have been incorporated
and implemented, but they don’t have the
character of a national strategy.
• Sector integration, participation of all stakeholders,
and coverage of socio-economic and
ecological issues remain uncertain.
• Lack of financial resources and political changes
seem to be the reason behind this lag.
Poland
(IV)
• The National Strategy has not been
developed yet. The national stocktaking
has not been conducted either.
• Some solutions very much in line with
ICZM have been incorporated in Polish
law and improved upon.
• Public consultation is ongoing to
evaluate current state of ICZM and
implement ICZM progress indicator.
Sweden
(IV)
• No formal process is in place to
develop and implement ICZM. The
main Planning and Building Act is being
revised to include ICZM issues. The
traditional approach to coastal man-
• The existing ”Planning and Building Act” is very
focused on environmental and to some extent
social aspects, whereas economic sector dimensions
are weak.
• Very limited involvement of stakeholders from
18 August 2006 81