Applying Indicators to Aspects of Coastal Management
In Ireland
Cathal O’Mahony
Coastal and Marine Resources Centre
Beaufort Marine Socio-Economic Workshop – Marine Institute – November 3rd 2009
Outline of Presentation
• Some Background to Indicator Use in Coastal
Management – including European Dimension
• Examples of indicator suites developed for aspects of
coastal management.
• Some Observations – Issues and Recommendations
Indicator Use in Coastal Management
Indicators have been applied to (Integrated) Coastal Management
for the purposes of:
• Providing a Framework for Learning (e.g. Olsen et al., 1997).
• Assessing Compliance with International Agreements (e.g. OSPAR
Convention – Protection of Marine Environment of North East
Atlantic).
• Measuring improvement / lack of.
a) Progress Towards Implementation of ICZM –
“progress indicator set”
b) Sustainable Development of the Coastal Zone –
“sustainability indicator set”
Indicator Use in Coastal Management – European Story
2002 – Recommendation on the Implementation of ICZM in Europe.
2002 – ICZM Expert Group for Europe established.
2003 – Working Group on Indicators and Data (WG-ID) set up.
2004 – Finalisation of Progress and Sustainability Indicator Sets.
2004 – Trialling and Testing, including:
•Projects
•Workshops
Indicator Use in Coastal Management – European Story
2002 – Recommendation on the Implementation of ICZM in Europe.
2002 – ICZM Expert Group for Europe established.
2003 – Working Group on Indicators and Data (WG-ID) set up.
2004 – Finalisation of Progress and Sustainability Indicator Sets.
2004 – Trialling and Testing, including:
•Projects
•Workshops
Progress Indicator [1]
Recognises that the cyclical ICZM process can be broken down into a
series of discrete, ranked actions.
Methodology uses 26 actions as a means of measuring progress.
A straightforward, step-wise methodology passing from situation with no
ICZM to one where the technique is being implemented fully. Grouped
into a series of five discrete, ordered and continuous phases.
Phase I:
Phase II:
Phase III:
Phase IV:
Phase V:
Non-integrated (often sectoral) coastal management is taking place which can lay
the basis for the introduction of ICZM [5].
A framework for ICZM exists [6].
Vertical and horizontal integration of administrative and planning bodies exists
within an ICZM programme [10].
An efficient, participatory, integrative planning exists [3].
There is full implementation of ICZM [2].
• Approach is interview-based, targets different administrative scales, can be
re-visited, and presented as a binary response.
Pickaver AH, Gilbert C, and Breton F. (2004). An indicator set to measure the progress in the
implementation of ICZM in Europe. Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 47, 449-462.
Aspects of coastal
Progress Indicator
[2]
management are taking
place
Action
National
2005
1995
Yes
Yes
Yes
2
No
Yes
3
No
Yes
2005
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
7
Yes
Yes
A formal
‘state
of Yes
the coast’Yes
Noreport
No has been
No written
No
withNo
No
No
No repeating
No
No
the intention
of
the
exercise
every
10 years
No
Yes
No 5 or
Yes
No
8
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
9
No
No
No
10
No
No
11
No
12
National
1995
2005
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
17
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
18
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
19
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
20
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
21
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
22
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
23
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
24
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
13
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
25
No
No
No
No
No
No
14
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
26
No
No
No
No
No
No
5
6
No
2005
15
No
16
Local
2005
No
1995
Regional
1995
4
2005
Action
Local
1995
1
1995
Regional
ESF-COST Workshop [1]
Expert Workshop on Sustainability Indicators for the
Coastal Zones of Europe – Howth, Dublin; 2005
Objectives:
•Identify a suite of usable Sustainability Indicators for use in the Coastal
Zone – add to to work of WG-ID.
•Identify key projects (model projects) developing and/or testing the
applicability of Sustainability Indicators for use in the Coastal Zone.
•Identify data issues that must be addressed in order to make
sustainability indicators more usable by the coastal practitioner
community.
•Identify the main issues (methodology/science, data and application) that need to be
solved in order to have a suite of robust and user-friendly Sustainability Indicators for
Coastal Zones.
•Outline the core issues to be addressed, with related possible methodologies, to solve
the above in order to deliver such Sustainability Indicators.
ESF-COST Workshop [2]
Workshop Findings (Limited to Data):
•Sustainability indicators are only as good/accurate as
the data upon which they are based.
•The issue of scale must be taken into consideration in
the collection and subsequent analysis of data.
•Practitioner involvement in the testing process should be
complemented by the involvement of a scientific
network, tasked with the rigorous assessment of the
proposed procedures.
•Furthermore, practitioner involvement will facilitate the
identification and development of user-friendly
approaches.
Coastal Practice Network – CoPraNet [1]
The overall aim of CoPraNet was two-fold:
To develop a network of coastal stakeholders to
exchange information and examples of best practice,
this will support local and regional efforts for integrated
planning of coastal areas. Intention of network to
bridge the gap between planners, managers and the
research community throughout Europe; and
To support inter-regional exchange of information on
best practice in sustainable tourism, and coastal
erosion and beach management through an integrated
approach.
For sustainable tourism this entailed………………………
Coastal Practice Network – CoPraNet [2]
Supporting the inter-regional exchange (21 partners representing
Europe’s regional seas) and sharing of good practices in
developing guidelines for tourism quality milestones (TQMs) and
sustainability in coastal regions and towns, including islands and
seaside resorts;
Identifying principles, guidelines and operational milestones for
quality and sustainability of tourism and recreation in coastal
regions and towns;
In other words…… develop an operational indicator set for sustainable
tourism, suitable for pan-European application – termed QualityCoast.
Coastal Practice Network – CoPraNet [3]
Partners established a provisional set of 30 TQMs
(indicators), compiled under the thematic headings of
nature, carrying capacity, water and environmental quality,
socio-economics, and other;
Partners were then requested to trial a subset of the TQMs
in their areas to asses operational potential and any need
for amendment and refinement;
In QualityCoast - emphasis was placed on the availability
of information – did sufficient data exist at each site to
allow users of the indicator set to make informed decisions
about sustainable tourism in a particular coastal location?
Coastal Practice Network – CoPraNet [4]
Irish Study Site: Cork Harbour
Summary:
Harbour has a number of visitor
attractions, accommodates a
range of coastal recreational
activities, beach environments not
present
Trial:
10 TQMs tested – all thematic
areas covered
Coastal Practice Network – CoPraNet [5]
Findings from Cork Harbour QualityCoast Exercise:
•Data availability and accessibility varied for each TQM – for example, data for the
categories of Nature and Environmental and Water Quality were more available than
those for other thematic areas – often linked to associated regulatory regimes and
compliance requirements / often environmental bias.
Data not always collected with (sustainable) coastal tourism in mind – reliance on
surrogate data.
•Difficult to obtain data for some TQMs at a local level - due to the data not being
recorded /absent in the first instance, or as a result of the regional amalgamation of
datasets whereby the local identity is lost.
Datasets vary in spatial and temporal extent – difficult to scale up/down data, and
implications of using a short time series data set.
• Study site not defined by jurisdictional boundaries – is area of interest always an
administrative unit?
Issues
Outputs of QualityCoast corroborate the findings of many other studies
looking to use indicators for tourism and other activities in coastal areas. To
summarise the key issues:
Scale
How local is local? How local is your data? Do we possess
an adequate time series
Semantics
Are we communicating a clear, common message? Language
and interpretation need to be considered, particularly when
used for policy / decision support.
Standards
Data collection and metadata.
Scrutiny
Indicator sets should be seen as dynamic – much like the
environment they are trying to represent; regular scrutiny
should be encouraged.
Important that user audiences are made aware of the above considerations.
Indicators for Integration
•Indicators successfully used
management, for example:
for
elements
of
•Blue Flag – Bathing Water Quality
•Fisheries Assessments
•EU Water Framework Directive (“elements”)
•OSPAR (Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme)
•However, national application of indicators
for integrated coastal management remains
elusive, possibly due to absence of policy /
regulatory regime.
•Use of indicators in this context is limited to
research and project-based initiatives – the
outputs of which provide valuable insights.
coastal
Some Recommendations
•A lot can be achieved by (simple) standard, cost effective surveys –
addressing data poor environments need not involve excessive cost.
•There is a wealth of practice to draw upon – research projects,
international programmes, etc.
•Challenges for coastal management and planning remain – emerging
challenges such as climate change will require robust data collection
for monitoring of impacts – clear role for indicators.
•Also wealth of existing data – Marine Institute, Environmental
Protection Agency, Central Statistics Office – bring organisations into
discussion on where data collection is adequate / requires amendment
– create links, networks to address common problems.
•Opportunities exist for closer collaboration across scientific disciplines,
and between scientific, practitioner and policy communities
….today for example!
Thank You
Cathal O'Mahony,
Research Scientist,
Coastal & Marine Resources Centre,
Environmental Research Institute,
University College Cork,
Haulbowline Naval Base,
Cobh,
Co. Cork,
Ireland.
Tel: +353 21 4703111
Fax: +353 21 4703132
e-mail: c.omahony@ucc.ie
Website: http://cmrc.ucc.ie/
Beaufort EAFM programme
7 year project with following principal elements
•Area Definition and Baseline Info
•Interactions between fisheries and marine ecosystem
•Ecological Modelling
•Governance – resolving fisheries problems more likely through
improved governance than improved ecosystem knowledge
•Synthesis and Development of Ecosystem Management Plans
Beaufort EAFM programme – Governance tasks
•Global review of EAFM governance best practice
•Review of current legislative, policy and institutional
frameworks applying to Irish fisheries
•Conduct conflict analysis for Irish fisheries
•Conduct Stakeholder Mapping
•To develop decision support tools to facilitate effective
stakeholder participation in and understanding of EAF
PhD elements - Fisheries Co-Management
•Complex systems approach – integrating human and
biological ecosystem components.
•Common Fisheries Policy currently under review – new
policy due for start of 2012.
•EU Green Paper on CFP reform has opened the door to
the possibility of co-management arrangements
•Co-management is the sharing of responsibility and
authority for the management of resources between
government and stakeholders.
•Main question is – Where should the balance of power
between government and stakeholders lie?
•Looking at Irish possibilities for more participatory
approach with stakeholders.
PhD elements - Rights based management (RBM)
•CFP has created a “race-to-fish” system with perverse
conservation incentives – e.g. overcapitalisation and discards
•Most fishermen facing the dilemma that “its hard to go Green
when you’re in the Red”.
•RBM approach treats fishing entitlements as a property right
•Previous research has shown that RBM approach can act as an
incentive for sustainable behaviour.
•Can be controversial and divisive – possible individual gain at
social cost.
•Current debate narrowly focussed on denying opportunities for
foreign purchase of Irish fishing rights.
•Research will examine RBM possibilities in Irish context – in
particular looking at balancing economic efficiency with social or
community objectives.
For further information please contact:
Mike Fitzpatrick.
Coastal and Marine Resources Centre,
University College Cork,
Naval Base, Haulbowline,
Cobh, Cork,
Ireland.
Email: mike.fitzpatrick@ucc.ie
Phone: 021 4703112
Web: http://cmrc.ucc.ie