Facts, Fictions, and Failures of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe

Abstract

Nearly 40 years on since its first tentative steps in North America, this article considers whether Integrated Zone Coastal Management (ICZM) in Europe has grown to maturity as a form of governance. The article summarizes the findings of recent research concerning the levels of implementation of coastal management in Europe, with particular reference to the UK experience. A research framework is used to identify the different motivations behind the social actor groups involved in coastal management. The application of this framework reveals four major findings about gaps in implementation: (1) the complexity of responsibilities at the coast continues to prevent agencies from taking a "joined-up" approach; (2) a policy vacuum is constraining implementation from national to local scales; (3) informational obstacles are significant in preventing co-ordination between science and policymakers, and between different sectors; (4) a democratic deficit is preventing implementation in the working practices of coastal stakeholders, with little opportunity in decision making for public comment or local accountability, especially offshore. The article also explores different conceptualizations of the role of coastal management and planning held across Europe, providing an analysis using the Strategic Management literature and the experience of the EU Demonstration Programme on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (1996Management ( -1999. Recent arrangements, with the availability of priming funds from the European Commission and emphasis on "pilot" and "demonstration" methods, have tended to encourage a project-based approach to ICZM that may fail to realize long-term objectives. The article seeks to present an analysis of the behaviors of scientists, academics, policymakers, and practitioners, and will be of interest to all those seeking to establish ICZM within the wider system of governance, as supported by the Commission of the European Community (2000) Communication on ICZM (COM 547). Some technical solutions are also offered from the UK experience that will be of use to coastal project officers working at national and regional levels.

Improving integration for integrated coastal zone management: An eight country study

“…There is already great variation among countries subjected to the same or similar international directives. As an example, the Netherlands national "stocktake" has concluded that no new system for ICZM is needed but that it will form part of a national spatial planning strategy (Shipman and Stojanovic, 2007). At the same time, the French stocktake highlights the importance of intensifying the implementation of ICZM at the local level, including local capacity building, and the establishment of a national council for implementing ICZM (Shipman and Stojanovic, 2007).…”

“…As an example, the Netherlands national "stocktake" has concluded that no new system for ICZM is needed but that it will form part of a national spatial planning strategy (Shipman and Stojanovic, 2007). At the same time, the French stocktake highlights the importance of intensifying the implementation of ICZM at the local level, including local capacity building, and the establishment of a national council for implementing ICZM (Shipman and Stojanovic, 2007). We therefore conduct a qualitative comparative study of progress in ICZM focusing on integration achieved by the same mechanisms of ICZM implemented by different countries.…”

Integrated coastal zone management in Italy: a gap between science and policy

“…Actually, we live in a strange impasse because the efforts at research, planning and policy in ICZM achievement remain disjointed without any temporal and territorial consistency. The main obstacles, already envisaged for other Mediterranean countries (Shipman and Stojanovic 2007), to an effective ICZM implementation in Italy, are:…”

Scientific approaches to address challenges in coastal management

“…The various European Union (EU) policies and directives emerged as complementary instruments, the most important being (Borja 2006, Ducrotoy & Elliott 2006, Borja et al 2010 Table 1 shows a brief sample of the programmes adopted within the EU at 3 scales: (1) legislation and policies applied at the EU level, (2) programmes to be implemented at transnational level for joint management of European seas (not exclusively within EU member states), and (3) legislation mainly developed at the national level, not necessarily to address EU programmes. The individual EU member states have different approaches to coastal management with a variety of coastal management initiatives and legislations (Gibson 2003, Shipman & Stojanovic 2007. In Spain, for instance, complementary to the Coastal Law, several autonomous communities have specific regional programmes of action (Sardá et al 2005).…”

“…Hershman et al (1999) and Humphrey et al (2000) described the key features for its success and its shortcomings. Coastal management programmes on a European scale are more recent (Humphrey et al 2000, Shipman & Stojanovic 2007. The various European Union (EU) policies and directives emerged as complementary instruments, the most important being (Borja 2006, Ducrotoy & Elliott 2006, Borja et al 2010 Table 1 shows a brief sample of the programmes adopted within the EU at 3 scales: (1) legislation and policies applied at the EU level, (2) programmes to be implemented at transnational level for joint management of European seas (not exclusively within EU member states), and (3) legislation mainly developed at the national level, not necessarily to address EU programmes.…”