Difference between revisions of "Current status of public participation in ICZM"
Dronkers J (talk | contribs) (Created page with " This article reflects the status of public participation in Europe in 2007. An introduction to the topic of public participation in ICZM is given in the article Introductio...") |
Dronkers J (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 561: | Line 561: | ||
Legal support for public participation is mainly EU driven. Environmental legislation is good, while enforcement remains a problem. | Legal support for public participation is mainly EU driven. Environmental legislation is good, while enforcement remains a problem. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
'''Obstacles to the implementation of public participation''' | '''Obstacles to the implementation of public participation''' | ||
Revision as of 11:29, 1 August 2020
This article reflects the status of public participation in Europe in 2007. An introduction to the topic of public participation in ICZM is given in the article Introduction of public participation.
Contents
Methods
In order to measure public participation in different EU countries, EUCC put out a questionnaire to approximately 150 professionals in ICZM, with a focus on public participation. The questionnaire was based on the Eight levels of public participation by Sherry Arnstein. The questionnaire adapted the original 8 levels into 7 levels, since two of the levels were considered too similar for the purposes of the questionnaire.
Out of 187 questionnaires sent, 38 were returned. The number of returned questionnaires per country is shown in table 1.
| State | No. of returned questionnaires |
|---|---|
| Belgium | 4 |
| Canada: | 1 |
| Cyprus: | 1 |
| Germany: | 2 |
| Spain: | 2 |
| France: | 3 |
| Greece: | 2 |
| Ireland: | 4 |
| Italy: | 1 |
| Netherlands: | 3 |
| Poland: | 1 |
| Portugal: | 4 |
| Sweden: | 2 |
| UK: | 8 |
Table 1: Number of returned questionnaires per state. 150 questionnaires were originally sent out, each state had similar numbers of questionnaires.
The questionnaire had a total of 38 responses, 37 of these responses were from within the EU. There are 12 ENCORA project states represented in the responses. The obvious missing ENCORA state is Denmark, from which no replies have been received. Two replies came from Cyprus and Canada, states which are not part of the ENCORA project. The results from Cyprus and Canada are not included in the state of the art, but discussed separately. Although these results were not intended, they provide a benchmark for the ENCORA states. The questionnaire was sent to experts in public participation in ICZM. The majority of experts was selected by ENCORA national coordinators and some were added through the EUCC network. The experts are from a variety of backgrounds, including science, national authorities (including national research institutes), regional authorities, local authorities, consultancy, NGO's and various others. See table 2 for an overview.
| Background | No. of returned questionnaires |
| Science | 14 |
| National authorities | 7 |
| Regionalauthorities | 7 |
| Local authorities | 2 |
| Consultancy | 3 |
| NGOs | 2 |
| Other | 2 |
Since the questionnaire included feedback, several slightly different versions were sent out while the questionnaire was refined. These versions differed mostly in the phrasing and order of the questions. The results as shown below are a combination of different versions of the questionnaire.
The final version of the questionnaire consists of the following questions. The questions relate to stakeholder involvement, involvement of the general public, state of the art of legal instruments, good practices, current obstacles and level of public participation estimated by the expert.
- How are the stakeholders identified?
- What are the main ways to get stakeholders involved in the ICM process?
- What are the main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process in your country?
- At which stage of the ICM process do the stakeholders usually get involved?
- Is there a common vision for the future of the coastal zone in your country? If yes, were all stakeholders actively involved in creating this vision? If no, please explain why not.
- In your country, is the public generally considered to be a stakeholder or are they a separate group?
- Is the public aware of the importance of ICM in your country?
- What are the main ways to get the public involved in the ICM process?
- Is data, information and knowledge about ICM available to the public? How?
- According to you, what are the improvements that could be made when trying to inform and involve the public in ICM?
- Is ICM participation in your country mostly voluntary or defined by law?
- European law provides legislation, like the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention, that requires the member states to implement participation in environmental matters. Does your country implement these directives? How?
- What provisions are there in national legislation concerning environmental participation?
- Do you feel that participation in environmental issues is legally supported more by the national government, local or federal/regional government, or the European Union?
- Can you please name some examples of good practices concerning ICM participation in your country
- Can you please name any obstacles to the implementation of public participation in your country?
- What measures are taken in your country to make sure that effective public and stakeholder involvement is taking place?
- Can you please name some specific projects in your country that promote participation in the ICM process?
- Can you please complete the following table, which is based on the different levels of public participation put forward by Sherry Arnstein. Please mark the appropriate level for your country.
- Can you please complete the following table, which is based on the different levels of public participation put forward by Sherry Arnstein. Please mark the appropriate level for your region.
Current status (2007)
This section gives an overview of the current status of several aspects of public participation. It is based on data from the ENCORA public participation questionnaire and additional comments from within the ENCORA network.
Belgium
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders are identified on an ad hoc basis, through and for specific projects. There is no formal, unified method to identify stakeholders
Stakeholder involvement
For projects, public hearings and /or workshops, professional organisations, media and personal contacts are used to involve stakeholders.
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
The main groups of stakeholders are NGO's, Fishermen, Recreation, harbour authorities, shipping, government, consultants, academics, windmill developers, sand and gravel industry
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Stakeholders are usually involved from an early planning stage, or after administrative consultation
Visions and or strategies for the future
A long term vision is lacking, however there is legal & planning instrumentation such as EIA procedures and Natura 2000
The public as a stakeholder
The public is generally not seen as a stakeholder, but it is acknowledged that they should be involved. The extent of involvement of the public as a stakeholder is unknown.
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The public is seen as not very aware of the importance of ICM. Questionnaires show that most people do know something about nature protection, but terms such as sustainable development and integrated planning are much less known.
Methods to initiate public participation
The public is involved using the following methods: magazine `De grote Rede', brochures, exhibitions, workshops and conferences, educational activities and websites (www.vliz.be).
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
Both general information on ICM and specific information on the Belgium coast are easily available.
Main improvements for public participation
A permanent, structured, informal platform for consulting the public is needed.
Legal requirements for public participation in ICZM
Public participation in ICZM is not embedded in the legal system, but this situation is changing. The legal process is slowly catching up with the ideas quite generally supported by the government and academics.
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
The water framework directive is implemented on both national and regional scale. The Arhus convention is implemented, but in practice only a minimum is done.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
Environmental Impact assessments (EIA) are used in Belgium, and public participation is foreseen through a consultation process within these EIA's. Furthermore, all coastal nature reserves have advisory bodies where stakeholders are full (voting) members.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
The main legal support comes from the EU and local/regional level
Good practices concerning ICM participation
- Involvement of a nature conservation organisation (natuurpunt) in dune management
- involvement of stakeholders in steering groups for the re-arrangement of dune areas or nature reserves
- City of Ostend, which stimulates participation of inhabitants through local meetings every 3 months
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
- The federal structure resulted in a very complex structure of departments and competences that aren't that easily accessible, they also give rise to parallel processes both often seeking public participation. This means that different public participation processes take place in the same time
- Laws along the coastline are similar to our federal structure: very and complicated. Sometimes federal, regional and local laws are needed to tackle just one problem. This makes public participation more complicated.
- Belgian politicians did (do) not have a public participation mentality/tradition. Recent reorganizations of the federal and Flemish governments encourage public participation but also stress the need to maintain political power and responsibilities.
- Not all relevant stakeholders are involved in future plans of coastal harbours
Involvement of local inhabitants is sometimes lacking and could be increased.
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
This varies, but some organisations work towards that, ie: VLIZ, Schelde informationcentre.
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
Communication campaign on ICZM, Sustainable beach management campaign
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Belgium is considered to vary between level 2 and level 5
- 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
Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
There is only one region with a coast in Belgium, therefore the regional level is the same as the national level.
France
Stakeholders identification
Stakeholders are identified using different methods. Three methods are mentioned specifically: 1) Using a list, managed by regional authorities, of institutions working on the coast, 2) Through science or consultants studies or 3) Through known coastal conflicts.
Stakeholder involvement
These stakeholders are involved through a variety of methods. Forecast studies and focus groups are specifically mentioned.
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
Stakeholders include public authorities at national, regional and local level, scientists, fishermen, environmental organisations, agriculture, harbours, etc. Generally, anyone with an interest can participate. However, it has been proven more difficult to involve non-organized stakeholders. There are some permanent regional stakeholder groups, and a national coastal forum (Conseil national du Littoral), but not all regions have such a forum.
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Authorities try to involve stakeholders as early as possible, and cases have been known were other stakeholders have initiated ICM processes. This differs between projects. Some are very strict, involving only scientists, government bodies and some specific organized stakeholders. Others involve anyone with an interest in the coastal zone.
Visions and or strategies for the future A coastal zone vision is being developed by the national government.
The public as a stakeholder
The public is not seen as a stakeholder. To be a stakeholder, they have to be in a formal organisation. This is a potential problem. However, awareness amongst authorities is increasing that non-organized stakeholders need to be included in public participation processes.
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The general public has no awareness of ICM at all.
Methods to initiate public participation
The general public has little awareness of ICM, but this is improving slowly. There is a focus on concrete results in a short term perspective to maximize public interest.
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
In some geographical areas, there is specific information and knowledge available to the public, but not everywhere. Lack of awareness is generally seen as the bottleneck, not lack of information.
Main improvements for public participation
To improve awareness, it is important to show the practical benefits of ICM to the public.
Legal requirements for public participation in ICM
Public participation in ICM is voluntary.
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
The water framework directive and the Arhus Convention have been implemented, but one expert notes this is only for expert participation, not for the general public.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
There is limited legal instrumentation for public participation on a national level.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
Legal requirements for participation are limited to informing the public.
Good practices concerning ICM participation
DIACT appel a projets
Baie de somme project www.baiedesomme.org
Côte d'Opale, http://www.sm-cote-opale.com/
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
- Bureaucracy/regulations at different government levels
- Lack of public interest in ICZM
- Difficulty of sharing information between stakeholders
- Lack of interest by local authorities
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement DIACT: "appel a projets"
The regional agenda 21
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
Conseil de suivi de l'Estuaire
Territoires- littoraux www.territiores-littoraux.com/
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in France is considered to vary between level 1 and level 4
- 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;
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
In the regions, the level of public participation is considered to be between level 2 and level 5
- 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 is actually taken;
Germany
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders are identified by the authorities (at national and regional level) and in research projects by scientific experts. These stakeholders are generally asked to participate in advisory groups. In research projects there is cooperation with scientific stakeholders.
Stakeholder involvement
In research projects, the cooperation between different stakeholders ensures involvement. In other projects a regional forum is used to involve stakeholders.
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
Science, administration, business development and nature development are the main groups. For a complete list see: www.ikzm-strategie.de
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Stakeholders are usually involved in an early stage, but this varies between projects.
Visions and or strategies for the future
There is a national ICZM strategy (www.ikzm-strategie.de) and at least one regional ICZM strategy. But it is questioned whether this is also a national common vision of ICZM.
In your country, is the public generally considered to be a stakeholder or are they a separate group?
The public is not seen as a stakeholder, but as a separate group. However, it is expected that public involvement will increase with new EIA legislation.
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The public is not very aware of ICZM. Long term dissemination and education on this subject does not exist. As a result the public does not participate in the ICZM process.
Methods to initiate public participation
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
There is information available for the general public, mostly through websites and the EUCC-Germany newsletter. The availability of local or specialized information is unclear.
Main improvements for public participation
Further work on public involvement in ICZM should focus on an institute for continued ICZM dissemination and earlier and more involvement of the public in formal planning processes.
Legal requirements for public participation in ICZM
ICM participation is embedded in the national legal framework
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
Both the water framework directive and the Arhus Convention are implemented and ICZM is legally supported by the national government.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
The National government is the main legal support in environmental issues
Good practices concerning ICM participation
- Wadden sea forum (with the Netherlands and Denmark)
- National working group on ICZM and marine development
- Further good practices can be found in national iczm strategy (www.ikzm-strategie.de)
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
Lack of awareness by the general public
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
Wadden Sea Forum
Spatial planning for offshore windfarms in the EEZ and Coastal zone
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Germany is approximately level 4
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
Regionally, the level of public participation varies between level 3 and level 5
- Level 3 - informed but no channel for feedback;
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
- Level 5 - advisory role where advice is actually taken
Greece
Stakeholder identification
Greece follows UNET/MAP procedures to identify stakeholders
Stakeholder involvement
Stakeholders are involved through participation in local management bodies, but management is usually very top-down and ICM processes usually only occur near protected areas.
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
Stakeholders include tourism, agriculture, fisheries, NGOs, local authorities and national autorities, experts, farmers.
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Stakeholders are involved in various stages, depending on the project.
Visions and or strategies for the future
There is no common vision reported.
The public as a stakeholder
The public is considered to be a stakeholder in Greece.
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The public is not very aware of ICM.
Methods to initiate public participation
Raising public participation focuses on raising pubic awareness, using education campaigns.
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
Public access to information is poor, but some education/awareness raising is done. The public has very limited access to information. ICM principles are widely available to scientists, conservationists, policy makers, etc, but this information does not flow to the general public.
Main improvements for public participation
policy should involve the public at all stages of the ICM process At the same time, it is important to raise awareness among the public
Legal requirements for public participation in ICZM
There is no legal requirement for public participation in ICZM
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
unknown
National legislation concerning environmental participation
ICM is not a required tool in Greece, but there are various provisions in national legislation regarding public environmental participation. However, these are not enforced, mainly because of a highly centralized government system
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
The European Union is the main driver of ICM procedures in Greece
Good practices concerning ICM participation
- HENCORE
- MIO-ECSDE
- National marine park of alonissos-northern sporades
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
Lack of long term funding for national parks
Lack of enforcement of existing legal instruments
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
none
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
unknown
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
Regionally, the level of public participation varies between levels 1 and 2
- Level 1 - all decisions are taken by government;
- Level 2 - committees for the main purpose of engineering support
Ireland
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders are identified on an ad-hoc basis, depending on the project. Local projects are more ad-hoc than national or sectoral initiatives. These initiatives use more formal methods of stakeholder identification.
Stakeholder involvement
Some stakeholders are invited and newspaper, directories and other media are used to find additional stakeholders.
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
Stakeholders include authorities at national and local level, industry (ports), NGOs, academics and statutory bodies. These statutory bodies include those representing heritage, fishing, aquaculture, agriculture, islands, tourism.
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
In local projects the stakeholders are usually involved from the beginning, however as scale goes up, stakeholders tend to be involved later. However, generally, stakeholder involvement seems to be from very early stages.
Visions and or strategies for the future
Most experts agree that there is no common vision for the future of the coastal zone in Ireland. However, one expert points to the 1997 draft policy document on ICZM. This expert acknowledges that more is expected from the EU water framework directive than from the policy document on ICZM. Jurisdiction in Ireland is split at the high water mark, which hinders integrated management.
The public as a stakeholder
The public is considered a stakeholder in Ireland
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
There is limited awareness of ICZM among the public. People that live in coastal zones and/or have had experience in ICZM projects or coastal conflicts have more awareness.
Methods to initiate public participation
Local projects have had more success in raising awareness than others. EU projects have also had success, but training modules and other awareness raising results are often left floundering after the end of a project.
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
Generally, ICM information is available to the public, notably through websites available through research institutes (MIDA), project websites and EU project websites. A new development is the I-Co-Net (the Irish coastal network, part of the ENCORA initiative) digital newsletter, which plays an important role. A disadvantage is that the project websites generally only give information about the project area, more general information (nationwide) is scarce.
Main improvements for public participation
Improvements in public awareness include centralisation of available information, a framework for stakeholder involvement and higher political importance
Legal requirements for public participation in ICZM
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
The Water Framework Directive has and will have an important impact in Ireland. However this is still in an early stage. Both the WFD and the Arhus convention have been implemented formally, however as they are relatively recent, practical implementation has been debatable. Ireland has been devided into 7 river basin management districts, and there have been efforts at improved monitoring.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
ICM processes are not directly implemented in Irish law. There is a statutory requirement for public participation in the drafting of local authority county development plans. However, land spatial planning is becoming more integrated, requiring public participation. Marine development is less integrated, but has a public consultation aspect. The main national legislation consists of EIA legislation. Developments are open to public participation through the Planning and Development Acts for spatial planning, the Fisheries acts for aquaculture and other developments through the Foreshore Acts.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
Legal support for public participation is mainly EU driven. Environmental legislation is good, while enforcement remains a problem.
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
Jurisdictional and administrative uncertainties and gaps; current marine development control is sectoral and project led. Lack of core funding – all initiatives are project led, which leads to lack of continuity
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
Some legislation provides for statutory consultation but these are with other designated Government departments and agencies not ALL stakeholders.
There is legislation under the EIA, Habitats and Birds directives and also the decision making process for Aquaculture and Foreshore licences.
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Ireland is considered to vary between level 2 and level 4
- 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;
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
Regionally, the level of public participation varies between levels 3 and 4
- Level 3 - informed but no channel for feedback;
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
Italy
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholder identification differs between regions
Stakeholder involvement
It is difficult to involve stakeholders at local level in the ICM process; there are more conflicts of interest at local level and stakeholders apply a too confined approach that limits their possibility to assess priorities and choices.
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
coastal tourist operators
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Stakeholders are usually involved late in the process, after plans have been drawn up. Local stakeholders may have more say in the role of co-financiers of a development project.
Visions and or strategies for the future
There is absolutely no common vision in Italy. The national Environment Ministry attention to ICM (if present), cannot interact with local planning decisions.
The public as a stakeholder
The public is not seen as a stakeholder, but as a separate group
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
There is no awareness at all. Furthermore, the public has little regard for environmental issues.
Methods to initiate public participation
Public participation in this case needs to start with education, more diffusion of knowledge to the public
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
Not at all. The public lacks access to thematic geographic information. The only high level example is the Geo portal from Ministry of Environment but also in this case thematic information is scarce.
Main improvements for public participation
Fundamental: people should be able to address government strategies, to comprehend the cause and effect of choices, to perceive the real degradation of the environment compared to the past, but this can only be done if relevant knowledge is accessible and transparent
Legal requirements for public participation in ICZM
Public participation is voluntary, but not legally required
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
The legal framework is minimal, the water framework directive was implemented through the basin authorities, but this was undone again recently. The status of implementation of the arhus convention is unknown.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
National legislation seems to be non-existent.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
The EU is the main driver of ICZM legislation in Italy
Good practices concerning ICM participation
ICZM application among municipalities along the Adriatic seafront in the Emilia Romagna Region (Cervia Municipality coordinator)
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
- Lack of national strategy
- lack of public awareness
- Inefficient organisation of authorities at all levels.
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
None known
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
MASTER PLAN of Regional Po Plain
Master plan of Ravenna province
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Italy is approximately level 4
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Italian regions is also approximately level 4
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked
The Netherlands
Stakeholder identification
There is a combination of ad hoc and formal procedures to identify stakeholders. There are formal procedures at the provincial level, but for projects ad hoc methods are used
Stakeholder involvement
Stakeholders are involved through public hearings, an through procedures for sharing information during EIA and SEA processes
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
Stakeholders include environmental NGOs, the drinking water industry, energy sector, transport sector, tourism, waterboards (in charge of coastal defence), local, regional and national authorities. Note that stakeholders are almost always organized, members of the general public are usually not involved.
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Stakeholders are included from the initiation or planning phases of a project.
Visions and or strategies for the future
There is no common national vision, but some regional visions exist. Consultation for these visions have taken place, but the amount of input of stakeholders is unknown
The public as a stakeholder
Experts in the Netherlands disagree: some think that most people view the public as a stakeholder, other experts think that the public is generally seen as separate from stakeholders.
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The public is usually not familiar with the term ICZM. There is much public discussion on coastal issues, especially regarding safety issues. The public is also aware of the need to integrate sectors in the coastal zone.
Methods to initiate public participation
Both authorities and NGOs play an important role in informing the public, this is done using a range of media, from local newspapers to websites.
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
NGO's provide brochures, organize theme weeks, and are generally active in participation. However, this is usually not labelled as ICZM.
Main improvements for public participation
- More information should be available on a local level
- a national vision or strategy should be created distinct from existing planning procedures
Is ICM participation in your country mostly voluntary or defined by law?
Public participation is embedded in the legal framework, mostly in EIA and SEA procedures and other spatial planning frameworks.
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
The Water framework directive is currently being implemented, the Arhus convention has been implemented
National legislation concerning environmental participation
National legislation consists mainly of EIA and SEA procedures, And other legislation related to the spatial planning framework
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
Generally, European and national legislation seem to be similarly advanced. In the Netherlands, the regions (provinces) play an important role in spatial planning and therefore in ICZM. Two experts indicate that the provinces have the most important role in supporting participation.
Good practices concerning ICM participation
- Waddensea forum
- Rom-rijnmond
- Regional forums on the coast (POK)
- Project zwakke schakels (project weak links)
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
- Lack of horizontal integration: competition between departments in the national authorities
- Lack of public interest and public awareness
- People feel they have no power, decisions are already taken when they are consulted
- Current public participation leads to long and slow processes
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
- Simple legislation
- workgroups and active communication
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
- leven met water
- HarmoniCOP
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Belgium is considered to vary between level 4 and level 5
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
- Level 5 - advisory role where advice is actually taken;
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Dutch regions is also approximately level 4 to level 6
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
- Level 5 - advisory role where advice is actually taken;
- Level 6 - real negotiation between stakeholders and decision-makers;
Poland
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders are identified using a sectoral approach
Stakeholder involvement
There is a legal framework stipulating public consultations when an investment is planned in the coastal zone, for all projects an environmental impact assessment is obligatory. Investments in direct proximity to the shoreline (about 100-200m of coastal strip from shoreline) must also be approved by the Maritime Office
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
Local people show their interest when an investment is planned through the Maritime Office.
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Major stakeholders often initiate actions, e.g. upgrading a waste treatment. For large projects a contractor is obliged to consult other potential stakeholders (fishermen organizations, tourist lobbies, etc.) Local people are approached last, these public consultations are often just a formality, because the public has little confidence in the process and because they often come up with unrealistic demands often supported by ignorance.
Visions and or strategies for the future
This vision is currently being created. The national government is preparing an ICZM strategy for Poland, a draft version has been circulated among stakeholders; the final version will include their feedback information. This strategy will comply with regional strategies of development including major cities and municipalities.
In your country, is the public generally considered to be a stakeholder or are they a separate group?
It is beginning to be considered as a stakeholder by central, regional and local administration. On the other hand the public has insufficient relevant information and limited confidence in the good intentions of authorities
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The public is not very aware, although local inhabitants are beginning to realize that their living standards and job opportunities depend on a number of elements. They do not realize however, that these elements should be integrated.
Methods to initiate public participation
Existing EU regulations and legal framework enforce national regulations towards ICZM. This process will meet an obstacle of lack of public engagement, which will be overcome when they realize in full that their living heavily depends on their participation.
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
People have some knowledge of developments in their city/municipality. However, they do not know the concept of integrated management.
Main improvements for public participation
Public awareness should be created by press interviews with ICZM experts; first targeted to better educated and interested people (students, professionals), then to the general public.
Is ICM participation in your country mostly voluntary or defined by law?
It is obligatory by law; approvals of Maritime Offices, environmental impact assessment, consultations with the public and institutional users are all obliged by law.
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
Yes, e.g. to fulfil the Water Framework Directive, national environmental monitoring programs are executed.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
A new building project needs an environmental impact assessment. Moreover, regional development plans are available in municipal offices, so the public have access to this knowledge, including environmental matters. National legislation is compliant with EU regulations.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
In new EU member states, like Poland, EU legislation is a driver of changes in national/regional laws.
Good practices concerning ICM participation
- Consultations of issues related to the construction of marina in Sopot with the inhabitants and all interested institutions.
- Construction of underwater waste water discharge facility in Mechelinki near Gdynia combined with consultations with local fishermen and inhabitants and all involved institutions.
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
Lack of public awareness, interest and trust in authorities
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
Questionnaires on ICZM performance are distributed at professional meetings and conferences where stakeholders are present. Local press and media are approached to attract the general public by presenting elements of ICZM.
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
The 4-th Baltic Festival of Science where schoolchildren and students are informed about knowledge based society including environmental protection.
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Poland is considered to vary between level 3 and level 4
- Level 3 - informed but no channel for feedback;
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in the regions is similar to the national levels:
- Level 3 - informed but no channel for feedback;
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
Portugal
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders are identified principally through the judgement of the people leading a given coastal management initiative. There are no guidelines or rules in this respect and the practice so far has varied according to the different initiatives. Stakeholders are usually individuals or organizations with an interest in the coastal zone region.
Stakeholder involvement
There is no ICM public participation process at present in Portugal. There are plans and initiatives related to the coastal zone, but none of these set out an uniform way of involving stakeholders. Such involvement might vary from discussion groups to simple consultation as part of an EIA process, which is governed by law. The main method of involvement is through public consultation as part of EIA's
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
The main groups involved in the consultations leading to the numerous ICM proposals have been 1) public bodies that relate to the coastal zone; 2) representatives of economic sectors that use the coastal zone, including sectoral associations; 3) experts – from academia and the public and private sectors; and 4) the general public, although usually at the very last stages of the development of proposals.
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
groups 1), 2) and 3) of the previous question tend to be consulted in the earlier stages of proposal development, whereas the general public only at later stages. EU directives and/or national policies state that end-users should be involved whenever their interests are under discussion and/or under threat.
Visions and or strategies for the future
Yes, there is a national strategy for the Portuguese coastal zone. The document has been proposed at the Governmental level and submitted for public discussion. However, this may not constitute a national vision since there is a generalised lack of awareness for the process of developing a national ICM strategy, and because it is questionable that all relevant stakeholders have been adequately involved in the process.
In your country, is the public generally considered to be a stakeholder or are they a separate group?
Some experts see the public as a stakeholder, others do not. One expert indicated that the public can act as a stakeholder only at the municipal level.
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The public has limited understanding of ICZM. ICZM projects and coastal threats such as tourism, erosion and fishing increase the awareness of coastal issues and ICZM
Methods to initiate public participation
media advertisement and education, workshops, forums
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
There is little information available outside the community of ICM professionals for the general public. Specific data is available at the ministry for the environment and/or at regional institutions but this information is usually too technical for the general public. Broad range dissemination and education is a priority for public involvement as this is currently lacking.
Main improvements for public participation
- Broad range dissemination for the general public
- Education of respect for natural values in general
- Making technical information easily accessible for the general public
Is ICM participation in your country mostly voluntary or defined by law?
ICM is voluntary, consultation is defined by law through EIA procedures
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
The Water framework directive and the arhus convention have been transposed into national legislation and efforts have been made by governmental organisations (INAG, IPIMAR, CCDRs) and other authorities to implement these directives.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
ICM specifically is currently not regulated by Portuguese law. EIA procedures however, require public consultation.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
Experts feel that legislation in Portugal has matched European legislation, therefore, there is very little difference between legal support from the national government or the EU.
Good practices concerning ICM participation
- Sectoral plan for natura 2000 in the azores
- Regional icm forums
- INAG
- terra ICZM
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
- Lack of information
- Lack of awareness
- Pressure for urbanisation
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
- ENCORA and other EUCC projects
- LITOSOST, several projects of Fisheries and oceanography dept.
- PoCoast, EUCC portugal branch
- Coastal Zone Management Plan of Burgau-Vilamoura;
- Coastal Zone Management Plan of Vilamoura V. Real de Santo António;
- Coastal Zone Management Plan of Sines-Burgau;
- Algarve’s Regional Management Plan (it has a specific item for the conservation of the coast);
- Detail Plans for beaches (Ex: Praia da Rocha)
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Portugal is considered to be at level 4
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Portuguese regions is considered to be at level 4
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked
Spain
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders have been identified using a national survey under directive 413/2002/EC, identified stakeholders were asked to complete the list with missing stakeholders. Stakeholders were categorized per region.
Stakeholder involvement
The identified stakeholders are called to participate in the Master Plan for Coastal Sustainability (MPCS) that is the main ICZM initiative at the Spanish national level. Stakeholders are usually involved using workshops or seminars.
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
The stakeholder database has over 500 stakeholders, these include NGO’s, authorities, academia, businesses, ports, fisheries and tourism.
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Stakeholders are usually involved from a very early stage, even in the initiation phase.
Visions and or strategies for the future
There is no common vision for ICZM in the future. There is a strong contrast between the short term vision of the building industry for tourism development and the long term vision of NGO’s. Some authorities try to slow down the occupation of the coastal zone. There is a discussion on a common vision for the future of the coast between stakeholders.
In your country, is the public generally considered to be a stakeholder or are they a separate group?
In Spain, the public is seen as a stakeholder
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The public not very aware of ICM and few public administrations are aware of how integration can improve management practices in the coastal zone.
Methods to initiate public participation
The public is involved by asking them specific questions and problems
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
There is no or little information available but work is being done to change this. No examples are given.
Main improvements for public participation
First of all it is necessary to provide very clear information through indicator-objectives and thresholds.
Legal requirements for public participation in ICZM
Completely voluntary, however, the previously mentioned Master Plan for Coastal Sustainability (MPCS) is subject to the EAE directive
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
The Water Framework Directive and the Arhus convention are implemented.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
There’s no specific legislation for public participation but public participation mechanisms are applied to planning process and specific projects following the EIA law and the EAE directive.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
Good practices concerning ICM participation
Good examples:
- Regional forum in 2003 and 2004 with over 500 participants (name not given)
- The master plan for coastal sustainability (MPCS) process has generated discussion between stakeholders
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
- There is no consultation of other stakeholders in sectoral decisions.
- At local level, there is a focus on short term income from coastal development and tourism industry
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
Stakeholder participation is encouraged by the description of the advantages in political and monetary terms of the integration with the MPCS; public participation is encouraged through the definition of steps that need to be undertaken to participate in the whole planning process
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
Master Plan for Coastal Sustainability (MPCS)
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Spain is considered to vary between level 2 and level 5
- 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 is actually taken
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
Regionally, the level of public participation is also between level 2 and level 5
- 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 is actually taken
Sweden
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders are identified through lists of stakeholders, available at municipal and regional level
Stakeholder involvement
Stakeholders are involved through direct invitation from the planning authorities
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
The main groups of stakeholders are environmental, outdoor, recreation and other NGO's, associations of landowners, fishers, Central and regional governmental agencies are also involved in the planning process, owners of summer houses
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
At a very early stage, usually from the initiation or planning stages.
Visions and or strategies for the future
The Swedish government presented a national strategy in 2005 for the marine environment based on a parliamentary investigation, in which stakeholders had a say. In this strategy a vision is expressed. At the municipal level there is very little coordination. Some municipalities are actively working towards ICZM, others are not.
In your country, is the public generally considered to be a stakeholder or are they a separate group?
They are generally considered a stakeholder
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
Generally, the public is not aware of ICM. However, the awareness is increasing rapidly due to increased developments in coastal areas (wind energy plants, pipelines etc.)
Methods to initiate public participation
- Through various media
- Written information directly to households,
- Municipalities arrange hearings and information meetings
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
Information is available, but often it is not handed out directly, but the public has to actively search for the information. All spatial development plans have to be publicized before decisions are taken and during this period anyone can make comments to the plan.
Main improvements for public participation
More direct and active information for the stakeholders We should arrange information and awareness raising campaigns through the municipalities
Legal requirements for public participation in ICZM
Public participation is voluntary, not legally required
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
The Water Framework Directive is part of the Swedish environmental code. The status of the arhus Convention in Sweden is unknown.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
Information to the general public is an important component of physical planning according to Swedish national legislation The Environmental Code and the Planning and Building Act are connected with each other. developers must consider the need for an EIA.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
The national government is the main support for participation in environmental issues.
Good practices concerning ICM participation
- N19 Planeringsportalen – a common portal for geographical information for physical planning and sustainable development, where ICM is included. It is not yet public.
- Region Skåne
- County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland
- the Lysekil and Gävle municipalities
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
- Lack of public interest
- Lack of information. These days, too much information is circulating and it is difficult to grasp everything
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
A recent evaluation of what is happening to the Swedish coast was carried out by Boverket (The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning), with recommendations for the future
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
“Sustainable Archipelago. Environment and management program for the archipelago of Östergötland and Kalmar. Problems, goals and actions”. Carried out by the County Administrative Board of Östergötland and Kalmar in cooperation with organisations and the archipelago community in 1999
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in Sweden is considered to be approximately level 5 to level 6
- Level 5 - advisory role where advice is actually taken;
- Level 6 - real negotiation between stakeholders and decision-makers;
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
In the regions, the level of public participation is between level 4 and level 6
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
- Level 5 - advisory role where advice is actually taken;
- Level 6 - real negotiation between stakeholders and decision-makers
United Kingdom
Stakeholder identification
Through a variety of ad hoc methods. The following methods are mentioned: Local knowledge, publicity in the media, a local forum, through a research group, directory searches, through statutory and non-statutory responsibility, through regulatory involvement in the coastal zome and also through use of the coastal zone, educational or non-educational interest in the coastal zone, natural and historical protection of the coastal zone.
Stakeholder involvement
Stakeholders are involved through letters, questionnaires, workshops, stakeholder representation on steering groups, membership of local forum, nationally through jurisdictional professional involvement (statutory agencies) or through issue-orientated issues, regionally and locally through forums.
It is worth noting that stakeholder participation, and particularly public participation in local government has been a feature of the UK’s Modernising Government initiative. As a result of the Local Government Act 2000 local authorities have a well-being power which includes social well-being. To exercise this power, authorities have to produce community strategies – sounds great BUT these tend to focus on health and education and coastal issues rarely get a look in!
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process
NGO's, statutory agencies, local interest groups, land managers or owners, industry, elected representatives, borough councils, Royal Yachting Association, British Marine Federation, fisheries, ports, renewable energy, tourism, educational organisations, academic institutions, conservation bodies, recreational users, the general public
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved
Stakeholders get involved early, but stakeholders are usually involved later in national projects than in local projects.
Visions and or strategies for the future
DEFRA (the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) has produced a draft coastal strategy, however the strategy is presently out for review. Several other ‘Futures’ have been published, but these do not interlink or with the UK national ICZM framework. Several local visions have been produced as well.
In your country, is the public generally considered to be a stakeholder or are they a separate group?
A majority of experts see the public as a stakeholder. Other replies stress that although the public is an important group, they should be treated differently than organized stakeholders: The views of individuals need to be sought in a different way (consultation through various methods, including public meetings) to the organised groups (who can be involved in membership based structures). This is usually also done in practice.
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues
The public certainly have a heightened awareness of the importance of environmental management (climate change, floods and indeed the current water shortage in the UK). However, in terms of the specifics of the coast and of ICM, awareness is generally much lower.
Methods to initiate public participation
Involvement through dissemination of information and feedback
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects
Yes, through a variety of websites. However it is doubted by some experts whether the general public uses these websites to gather information.
Main improvements for public participation
- there should be better joint working on consultation arrangements with stakeholders on the different coastal plans required by European and national legislation. There is often a risk of consultation fatigue when different planning processes come back to ask similar questions at different times.
- better involvement of local authorities
- better education on ICM
Manage, where possible, the media as an important channel of public awareness and information Don't use terms such as ICZM, instead use practical issues and examples
Is ICM participation in your country mostly voluntary or defined by law?
Public participation is voluntary, not legally required
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention
Both the Water Framework Directive and the Arhus convention are implemented and used in practice.
National legislation concerning environmental participation
- Local Government Act 2000
- EIA and SEA legislation
- The Environmental Information Regulations 2004
- Local Authorities are audited (Audit Commission) on compliance on publication participation
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities
The national government and the EU are cited by experts as the main supporters of ICZM
Good practices concerning ICM participation
- North West Coastal Forum
- Sefton Coast Partnership
- Hamble Estuary Partnership
- River Hamble Streamlined Consents Group
- Solent Forum
- Hampshire County Council Key Area Working Groups
- Solway Firth Partnership, Moray Firth Partnership, Highland Council Atlantic Coast
- Project/ National –
- Wales Coastal and Maritime Partnership
Local examples:
- Ceredigion Marine Heritage Coast
- Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum
- Severn Estuary Partnership
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation
- Lack of resources
- Consultation fatigue
- Inability of experts and academics to communicate to non-expert audiences,
- Inconsistent consultation mechanisms urbanisation of population - lack of identification with local environment
- Lack of simple information for the general public
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement
Some projects are being discussed first by a group of key stakeholders (usually statutory) and then once the structure is confirmed wider stakeholder consultation is undertaken. This focuses discussion and enables informed discussion.
Work of non-government organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society in raising public awareness and participation, bodies such as the National Trust (and Friends of the National Trust) important in securing local involvement along coasts with extensive NT land. Information dissemination to the public is highly active. Good budget for ICM research and education.
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process
- ICREW, i-Marq, Bluewater, Durham Heritage Coast – ongoing activity funded by Durham County Council.
- COREPOINT – INTERREG III
- NE English stocktake (Countryside Agency)
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in the UK is considered to vary between level 4 and level 5
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
- Level 5 - advisory role where advice is actually taken
Average national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Regional level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3
The level of public participation in the UK at regional level is considered to vary between level 4 and level 5
- Level 4 - consultation i.e. opinions asked;
- Level 5 - advisory role where advice is actually taken
Conclusions
Stakeholder identification In most cases, stakeholders are identified on an ad hoc basis, either through local knowledge, through the network of others already involved in the project or through known organized stakeholders such as NGOs, networks, clubs and societies. Some states (France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK) use national, regional or local stakeholder lists, some nations have public invitations, for instance in local newspapers. Ad hoc stakeholder identification seems to be no better or worse than formal identification in terms of level of public participation. Several states (France, Germany and the UK mention this specifically) have a permanent forum on the highest level of appropriate organisation (usually national level, but for instance Belgium has one region (Flemish region) with a coast, so in this case the forum is at regional level).
Methods for stakeholder involvement Methods to involve stakeholders vary immensely between member states and most answers indicate that this varies widely within each member state as well. EIA procedures are often mentioned as well as work groups and forums. These are used in the process of public participation, but are in themselves methods to involve new stakeholders as well. Further information on methods used to involve stakeholder in an ICM process seems useful.
Main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process The main categories of stakeholders are similar throughout Europe. These are authorities at different levels (local, regional and national), environmental and/or conservation NGOs, academics, recreation and fishermen at the top of the list. Other stakeholders are: Harbour authorities, shipping, consultants, energy sector, sand & gravel industry, agriculture, resident groups, drinking water industry, general public, land owners and educational organisations. Italy has an exceptional answer, only coastal tourist operators are listed as stakeholders.
Stage of the ICM process where stakeholders usually get involved Most experts agree that the stage of stakeholder involvement differs per project. Several experts (in Ireland, Italy and UK) mentioned that stakeholders were usually earlier involved in local or regional projects than in national projects. Replies also indicated that different types of stakeholders were approached at differing stages. First, administrative bodies were consulted, then organized institutions from industry, academia and NGOs and last, the general public. Similarly, the level of involvement of organized stakeholders is greater than non-organized stakeholders. In the words of one expert “institutions are stakeholders, but stakeholders are more numerous than institutions”. Although ICZM experts generally realize that the public needs to be involved as a stakeholder, this is not always done in (government) practice. Especially at local level, informal stakeholders may have an unexpected influence and need to be included. Public participation tends to be greater in smaller projects, this is a trend that occurs in most states. As an example, only organized stakeholders are included in the creation of a national ICM strategy.
Despite these differences between local and national projects, organized and non-organized stakeholders and between types of stakeholders, there are significant differences between countries. Countries that have high levels of public participation also involve stakeholders earlier.
National strategies for the future France, Spain, Poland and Belgium indicate that national strategies are under development. Replies from the UK and from the Netherlands indicate there are no national visions, but there are one or more local or regional visions. Greece and Italy clearly indicated there was no national vision or strategy. Experts from the Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal and Germany indicated there was a strategy, but questioned the public basis (the amount of participation) of that vision.
The public as a stakeholder The public is considered to be a stakeholder in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and the UK. Poland is in transition, where the authorities are beginning to recognize the public as a stakeholder. The public is considered a separate group in Belgium, Germany, France and Italy. In the Netherlands 2 replies indicated that the public is not a stakeholder, the third disagreed. In Portugal this is reversed, 3 replies said the public is a stakeholder, one reply disagrees. There seems to be a gap between expert opinion and ICM practice however, as the public generally does not participate in the same way as organized stakeholders do.
Distrust from the public towards authorities on coastal matters is reported in Poland and Greece. In Poland the non-democratic and highly centralized past is explicitly cited as the main reason for low awareness and participation levels and for general distrust of authorities. The reason for distrust in Greece is unknown.
Public awareness of ICM and coastal issues Most experts (34 of 38) indicate that the public is not or only minimally aware of ICM. Only four experts from Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the UK mention more than minimal awareness. However, most experts agree that the importance of coastal issues are widely acknowledged, but that the public simply do not recognize it as ICM. In most countries, lack of awareness and/or lack of interest by the public is reported as an obstacle. This is the most commonly mentioned obstacle to the successful implementation of ICZM.
Several experts from the UK report consultation fatigue. This is an interesting point, that suggests that there is such a thing as too much consultation and participation for the public. Even though this is not an issue (yet) in most countries, this is an interesting point that needs further discussion.
Methods to initiate public participation The general public is usually involved in two ways. One is broad dissemination and education, using a variety of media. This raises awareness and hopefully participation on a broad basis. The other focuses on a targeted audience (locals) and specific, local coastal issues. This audience is then shown the importance of their input and hopes to involve the audience on these local issues.
Availability of information on ICM and coastal projects There are three types of information that can be distinguished that target the public: First, basic information on ICZM, the importance of ICZM, public participation, etc. This type of information is widely available on the internet, usually through ICZM projects and or coastal organisations. In Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden there is a focus on this type of public outreach. Second, detailed information on specific issues of one ICZM project. This information is usually targeted at a local audience and therefore not as broadly available outside the targeted audience. However, much information can be found online. Third, technical information such as technical maps, legal status, spatial plans, specific reports and future policy. This information is usually created and gathered by government institutions, at local level for local plans or at national level for larger scales. This type of information is not widely available. National laws on freedom of information exist, but government institutes are usually reactive in providing information instead of proactive. Furthermore, a wide gap is reported between legal obligations and practice. Information is technically available, but this is usually not accessed because access is not facilitated by the authorities. Information is too technical or citizens do not know that information is available. Experts from Greece, Italy, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal mention this specifically.
Main improvements for public participation Most answers focus on information dissimination, education, the use of the media, focusing on specific local issues and some on political will. Improvements per country can be found in the state of the art chapter.
Legal requirements for public participation in ICZM In Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and the UK, ICM participation is voluntary. Belgium and the Netherlands are in a transition, where parts of ICM participation is defined by law.
National implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Århus Convention Most countries have implemented these directives, although some experts indicate that implementation is not yet fully complete. Greece and Italy form exceptions; the status of these directives in both states is unclear.
National legislation concerning environmental participation All countries have implemented EIA and in some cases EAE procedures in some form. However, many question the effectiveness of the implementation. The problem lies with the way legislation is carried out; just the fact that the necessary legislation exists does not mean that it is implemented correctly. In practice, consultation is often minimal or not enforced. The Uk in particular seems to go further than other nations, while Greece and Italy seem to have minimal implementation.
There is some form of legal construction for public consultation for large coastal projects everywhere, usually in the form of EIA public participation meetings. Some countries, notably the UK, Sweden and Ireland, go further. In countries where participation is low, legislation is similar to other countries, but there seems to be a gap between coastal practice and legal instrumentation which implements public participation. The legal instruments are available, but these are rarely used in practice.
Legal support for participation in environmental issues from the authorities Most experts agree that the main driver of participation in environmental issues is the European Union, with a few exceptions. These are the Dutch regional governments (provinces) and the Swedish and English national governments.
Good practices in ICM participation Every country can name some good examples of ICZM, even though what exactly constitutes a good example is subjective. A list of good practices in ICM has been constructed using the replies from the survey, see appendix 1.
Obstacles to the implementation of public participation In most countries, lack of awareness and/or lack of interest by the public is reported as the main obstacle. This is the most commonly mentioned obstacle to the successful implementation of ICZM.
Lack of awareness and/or lack of public interest is most often mentioned (10 replies), other problems include lack of resources/funding (2x), lack of common policy/strategy (2x), problems with local or national governments (2x), lack of (good) communication from policy and/or science to the public (2x), bureaucracy, legacy of previous failed projects, inadequacy of political & technical communities. Several replies from the UK mention consultation fatigue.
The lack of public interest reported may be due to lack of awareness, but the consultation fatigue reported in the UK is an indicator that there is a limit to the amount of public interest, even when information is readily available. This means that either the quality of communication is lacking, or that the general public is simply not interested in the issue. A discussion on a maximum level of public participation for both policy makers and the public is needed as well as improved quality of communication.
Measures to ensure effective public and stakeholder involvement Responses from Greece, Italy and one response from the UK indicated that no measures were being taken. This response from the UK is exceptional; all other responses from the UK mention indicate that a lot of work is being done. Most other replies mention either a legal framework for participation or communication methods
Case studies that promote participation in the ICM process These case studies have been combined with good practices into appendix 1
Áverage national level of public participation, based on the levels of public participation as discussed in paragraph 1.3 Table 3 shows the level of public participation as perceived by the national ICZM experts. The levels are based on Sherry Arnsteins levels of public participation, as outlined in paragraph 3.3.
| Country | perceived level |
| Belgium | 2-4 |
| Germany | 3-5 |
| Spain | 2-3 |
| France | 1-4 |
| Greece | 1-2 |
| Ireland | 2-4 |
| Italy | 4 |
| Netherlands | 4-5 |
| Poland | 3-4 |
| Portugal | 4-5 |
| Sweden | 4-6 |
| UK | 3-5 |
The most striking the levels of public participation in the table are not very different between countries. All countries are in middle range of levels (levels 3 to 5), even though previous questions in the questionnaire indicated larger differences between countries.
In Europe, participation most often occurs at Level 4, generally seen as attitude surveys, neighbourhood meetings and public hearings. Whilst a valid step towards full participation, consultation alone means that there is no guarantee that “citizen concerns and ideas will be taken into account”. It is important to recognise that consultation is not full participation.
Only in some cases, full participation in ICM decision making exists, usually in the form of partnerships. These are especially common in the UK. In a partnership, the power is shared by “negotiation between citizens and stakeholders”. Planning and decision making tasks are carried out through bodies like “joint policy boards”, “planning committees” and other mechanisms that might enforce such a partnership. They work best with an “organized power base” in the region or community where meetings can be held, finances can be taken care of and where the group can do business with its employees (lawyers, technicians etc.). The key to effective partnership is good organization and planning.
Success factors
Promising strategies
Information dissimination to general public Public participation is most successful with an informed public that realizes the importance of successful coastal management. Information and awareness raising campaigns have been launched in most ENCORA states, but this is work in progress that needs to be continued.
Organised stakeholders as a first step of public participation For many authorities, organised stakeholders (such as sectoral organisations and NGO’s) are a much better participation partner than non-organised stakeholders (the general public and non-organised sectoral stakeholders). Organised stakeholders are generally more aware of the issues involved, have more resources to be part of the consultation process, and are easier to involve than non-organised stakeholders.
Targeted information campaign for relevant authorities The role of authorities at all levels in ICZM is twofold. First, they are a stakeholder, but their main role is to supervise the participation process. In this role, authorities are also often the initiator and main driver behind the participation process. Raising awareness in politicians and civil servants of the importance and specifically the advantages of public participation a factor for success.
Low level project more likely to involve public Several experts in the questionnaire indicate that small and local coastal projects often involve the general public more than large and national projects. Therefore it would be logical to start advances in public participation in small and local projects, before implementing those advances in larger projects.
Formalize participation in stages The state of the art shows that in practice, public participation is often divided into three different stages. First, (other) authorities are involved by the initiators. Second, organized stakeholders such as sectoral organisations and NGO’s are involved. Third, the general public is involved. Formalising these stages into legislation may be a way to streamline and/or focus public participation. More specifically, it is a method to efficiently govern public participation, it is also a method to prevent more unrealistic ideas from the public, as the authorities and organized stakeholders have given a framework of options to choose from.
Accept that there is a limit to participation Current conventions and legislation mentions public participation as a goal, but does not set a limit to the amount of participation. However, there is a natural limit as several replies from the UK report consultation fatigue. Apparently there is a limit to the amount of time and energy members of the public are willing to spend on participation. Although most states (including the UK) may not have reached this limit yet, this may be expected in the future.
Appendix: Level of public participation in EU member states
Question 1: How are the stakeholders identified? Generally, stakeholders are identified on an ad hoc basis, either through local knowledge, through the network of others already involved in the project or using known stakeholder such as clubs and societies. Spain is an exception with a stakeholder database, created under EU recommendation 413/2002/EC. Sweden has lists available at local and regional level.
Question 2: What are the main ways to get stakeholders involved in the ICM process? This varies widely between member states, and most answers indicate that this varies widely within each member state as well. EIA procedures are often mentioned as well as work groups and fora. Further information on methods used to involve stakeholder in an ICM process seems useful.
Question 3: What are the main groups of stakeholders involved in the ICM process in your country? Most replies are very similar, with authorities (local, regional and national), NGO's, academics, recreation and fishermen at the top of the list. Others are: Harbour authorities, shipping, consultants, energy sector, sand & gravel industry, agriculture, resident groups, drinking water industry, general public, land owners and educational organisations. Italy has an exceptional answer, it lists only coastal tourist operators as main stakeholders
Question 4: At which stage of the ICM process do the stakeholders usually get involved? Again the answers both between and within states varies, but most experts agree that the stage of stakeholder involvements depends on the project. There were several experts (in Ireland, Italy and UK) that mentioned that stakeholders were usually earlier involved in local or regional projects than in national projects. Several replies also indicated that different types of stakeholders were approached at differing stages. First, other administrative bodies were consulted, then organized institutions from industry, academia and NGO's and last, the general public.
Question 5: Is there a common vision for the future of the coastal zone in your country? If yes, were all stakeholders actively involved in creating this vision? If no, please explain why not. Again, professionals within several countries disagreed. France, Spain, Poland and Belgium indicated that these visions were under development. In Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal, experts disagreed. In this case, some experts said there was a national vision, others said there was no national vision. 4 replies and 1 from the Netherlands indicated there was no national visions, but there were several local visions. Clear replies from Greece and Italy indicated there was no national vision, Sweden had two replies, both of whom indicated there was a national coastal vision. Germany has a National ICZM strategy, but no vision.
Question 6: In your country, is the public generally considered to be a stakeholder or are they a separate group? The public is considered to be a stakeholder in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and the UK. Poland is in transition, where the authorities are beginning to recognize the public as a stakeholder. The public is considered a seperate group in Belgium, Germany, France and Italy. In the Netherlands 2 replies indicated that the public is not a stakeholder, the third disagreed. In Portugal this is reversed, 3 replies said the public is a stakeholder, one reply disagrees.
Question 7: Is the public aware of the importance of ICM in your country? Most nations (Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands) indicate that the public is not or very limited aware of ICM. The replies from different experts from Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the UK are conflicting, but most indicate that awareness is very limited. Of 38 replies, only 4 mention awareness of the importance of ICM.
Question 8: What are the main ways to get the public involved in the ICM process? The answers to this question vary wildly because of different interpretations of the question. Some experts discuss methods or process, other discuss strategies to get the public involved. Most replies focus on education and information, work groups and fora and/or stress the importance of focusing on specific, local issues. One notable reply indicates that threatening to remove coastal defences always seems to work. We imagine.
Question 9: Is data, information and knowledge about ICM available to the public? How? In Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden information is available to the public. The most common medium for information dissimination is the internet, numerous websites are mentioned. In Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal this information is not available. Replies from the UK differ. Note that usually information is technically available, but this is usually not accessed because access is not facilitated by the authorities. Information is too technical or citizens do not know that information is available. Experts from Sweden, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal mention this specifically.
Question 10: According to you, what are the improvements that could be made when trying to inform and involve the public in ICM? This question had a range of replies. As in question 8, most answers focus on information dissimination, education, the use of the media, focusing on specific local issues and some on political will. More detailed are provided in the appendix.
Question 11: Is ICM participation in your country mostly voluntary or defined by law?In Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and the UK, ICM participation is voluntary. Belgium and the Netherlands are in a transition, where parts of ICM participation is defined by law.
Question 12: European law provides legislation, like the Water Framework Directive and the Aarhus Convention, that requires the member states to implement participation in environmental matters. Does your country implement these directives? How? All countries indicate that these directives have been implemented at least minimally.
Question 13: What provisions are there in national legislation concerning environmental participation? All countries have implemented the EIA and EAE directives in some form. However, many question the effectiveness of the implementation. In practice, consultation is often minimal or not enforced. The Uk in particular seems to go further than other nations, while Greece and Italy seem to have minimal implementation.
Question 14: Do you feel that participation in environmental issues is legally supported more by the national government, local or federal/regional government, or the European Union? Most experts agree that the main driver of participation in environmental issues is the EU, but with a few exceptions. These are the Dutch regional government (provinces) and the Swedish and English national governments.
Question 15: Can you please name some examples of good practices concerning ICM participation in your country Examples of good practice in ICM
Question 16: Can you please name any obstacles to the implementation of public participation in your country? Lack of awareness and/or lack of public interest is most often mentioned (10 replies), other problems include lack of resources/funding (2x), lack of common policy/strategy (2x), problems with local or national governments (2x), lack of (good) communication from policy and/or science to the public (2x), bureaucracy, legacy of previous failed projects, inadequacy of political & technical communities. Several replies from the UK mention consultation fatigue. The public has become over-consulted.
Question 17: What measures are taken in your country to make sure that effective public and stakeholder involvement is taking place? Responses from Greece, Italy and one response from the UK indicated that no measures were being taken. This response from the UK is exceptional; all other responses from the UK mention indicate that a lot of work is being done. Most other replies mention either a legal framework for participation or communication methods.
Question 18: Can you please name some specific projects in your country that promote participation in the ICM process? examples of good practice in ICM
Question 19: Can you please complete the following table, which is based on the different levels of public participation put forward by Sherry Arnstein. Please mark the appropriate level for your country.(See also seven levels of public participation) Answers are discussed per country.
- Belgium: Varies, very high (1x), very low (manipulation)(1x), informing (1x)
- Germany: level 4(1x)
- France: level 4 (2x), level 3(1x) level 1(1x)
- Ireland: level 4 (2x), level 2(1x), level 3(1x)
- Italy: Level 4 (1x)
- Netherlands: Level 4 (2x)
- Poland: level 3(1x), level 4(1x)
- Portugal: Level 4 (4x)
- Sweden: level 5 (2x), level 6 (1x)
- UK: level 5 (3x), level 4 (2x)
Question 20: Same as the previous question, but for each region Answers are again discussed per country
- Belgium: Varies, very high (1x), very low (manipulation)(1x), informing (1x)
- Germany: level 3(1x), level 5(1x)
- Spain: level 2(1x), level 3 (1x)
- Greece: very low (2x)
- Ireland: level 4 (2x)
- Italy: level 4 (1x)
- Netherlands: level 4 (1x), level 5 (2x), level 6 (1x)
- Poland: level 3 (1x), level 4 (1x)
- Portugal: level 4 (3x)
- Sweden: varies, levels 4 to 6 (1x)
- UK: level 4 (1x), level 5 (2x)
Appendix: Answers to question 10
“According to you, what are the improvements that could be made when trying to inform and involve the public in ICM?”. The following answers were collected:
- Belgium: structured, informal platform for consulting the public
- Germany: Earlier and increased public involvement & ICZM dissimination among the public
- Spain: First of all it is necessary to provide very clear information through indicator-objectives and Thresholds.
- France: show the practical benefits of ICZM to public/define public as groups of stakeholders
- Greece: policy should involve the public at all stages of the ICM process / raise awareness
- Ireland: higher political will through local succes, education and dissimination/framework for stakeholder groups
- Italy: Fundamental: people can address the government strategies , can comprehend the cause effect of choices , can percept the real degradation of environments comparing the present with the past, if this knowledge will be accessible and transparent
- Netherlands: more info on local level/official ICM policy 2x/ involve public from early stage
- Poland: Public awareness should be awoken by press interviews of ICZM experts; first targeted to better educated and interested people (students, professionals), then to the general public.
- Portugal: broad range dissimination materials / first educate on respect for public and natural values / education / simplify the transfer of knowledge
- Sweden: More direct and active information from the stakeholders / We should arrange information and awareness raising campaigns through the municipalities
- United Kingdom: Don't use terms such as ICZM, instead use practical issues and examples / there should be better joint working on consultation arrangements with stakeholders on the different coastal plans required by European and national legislation. There is often a risk of consultation fatigue when different planning processes come back to ask similar questions at different times. 2x / Supporting framework / better involvement of local authorities 2x / better education on ICM / Manage, where possible, the media as an important channel of public awareness and information
Please note that others may also have edited the contents of this article.
|
