X hits on this document





34 / 44

sub-regional level. For example the ICZM Progress Indicator18 developed at the EU level would be a useful tool for monitoring progress. Again some felt that existing monitoring regimes could be used to minimise duplication and expense.

    • 14.4

      A set of indicators to monitor the success of actions taken was generally regarded as helpful in the context of clear goals and objectives. As ICZM objectives will overlap with those of other plans, links would need to be made to, and support:

      • the outputs of the EU working group on coastal management indicators;

      • marine planning;

      • land-use planning;

      • River Basin Management Plans;

      • the environmental condition monitoring that is being undertaken for AONBs and National Parks; and

      • strategic environmental assessments being undertaken for local development frameworks.

    • 14.5

      One respondent suggested that there was a need to ensure base data was available for areas of the coast so that it could be used as a basis to inform and develop coastal research which took place in the future. Several respondents also felt that if were indicators used, they should be appropriate to monitor progress on objectives for specific environment types such as industrial/commercial waterfronts, social or domestic areas, undeveloped coasts or conservation interest sites (mudflats or saltmarsh).

    • 14.6

      Two respondents suggested that the progress of these indicators could look to such projects as ‘SAIL’19, which has produced the State of the Coast review for the Southern North Sea, and to the indicators adopted by the EU ICZM Expert Group that the majority of respondents thought useful and a good comparable indicator process across the UK and Europe. Likewise, all those that addressed this point felt it essential that we measure our progress against the principles contained within the EC Recommendation on ICZM20.

    • 14.7

      Many felt that State of the Coast reporting should include the development of guidance for national, regional and local indicators, encouraging UK- wide standards as well as local accountability. A standardised element to annual reports from coastal partnerships could be part of this process, linking into regional and national monitoring. One respondent suggested incorporating indicators on economic and social wellbeing and quality of life as well as environmental quality and character. However, there is a strong feeling among respondents that there is no point in monitoring ICZM in isolation from the issues to be addressed in the Marine Bill, questioning whether there should be any separate monitoring. Two respondents suggested the use of Marine Ecosystem Objectives with statutory underpinning through the Marine Bill to monitor whether policies

18 19 20

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/report final wgid.pdf http://www.sailcoast.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/home.htm#zone3


Document info
Document views148
Page views148
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 00:19:22 UTC 2017