D5.1A CASES Reporting (10 Cases at End of the 5 Phases: Preparatory, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and Conclusions) Including Compar

D5.1ACASESreporting(10CASEsatendofthe5Phases: preparatory, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and Conclusions)

Pegaso Project including comparison amongst CASEs and relevance of People for Ecosystem based Governance CASEsinthewholebasin. in Assessing Sustainable development of Ocean and coast 5.1B Evaluation report on CASEs multi sector, multi administrativeandmultiscalework,Integratedapproach Funded by the European Union methodinCASEs. under FP7 – ENV.2009.2.2.1.4 Integrated Coastal Zone Management Dissemination Level* DPU PP RE CO

Specific Programme FP7 Collaborative Projects Project Acronym / number Large scale integrating Project PEGASO 244170

Project title People for Ecosystem based Governance in Assessing Sustainable development of Ocean and coast.

*PU: Public; PP: Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Servicies); RE: Restricted to a group specified by the Consortium (including the Commission Servicies); CO: Confidential, only for members of the Consortium (including the Commission Servicies).

Authorisation

Prepared Stefano Soriani, Fabrizia Buono, Marco Tonino, Andrea Bordin, Monica by Camuffo, Jonathan Rizzi (UNIVE). With the contribution of: S. Le Petit (PAP RAC) , Z. Skaricic (PAP RAC), A. Conides (HCMR), K. Kapiris (HCMR), D. Klaoudatos (HCMR), E. Ozhan (MEDCOAST), C. Lulier. (DDNI), E. Marin (DDNI), M. Mierla (DDNI), I. Nichersu (DDNI), I. Nichersu (DDNI), C.Trifanov (DDNI), A. Adidi (UM5a), H. Bazaïri (UM5a), A. Khouakhi (UM5a), N. Mhammdi (UM5a), S. Niazi (UM5a), O. Raj (UM5a), M. Snoussi (UM5a), I. El- Said (NIOF), S. Kholeif (NIOF), M. Abodagher (UOB), M.Nader (UOB), S.Konovaov (MHI), L. Ernoul (TdV), A. Guelmami (TdV), E. Antonidze (BSC PS), M.Ggvilava (BSC PS), A. Gigineishvili (BSC PS), Ç. Polat Beken (TÜBøTAK/MRC, SEAS-ERA), M. F. Osman (EEAA), O. E. Frihy (CORI), N. Abass (Egypt National centre for planning state land uses), A. El Din (Urban Planning Organization Egypt), S. Zaki (Shore Protection Organization/ Egypt)

Approved Françoise Breton on the 24th of March 2014 by

Disclaimer and copyright information The research leading to these results has received funding from the [European Union] Seventh Framework Programme ([FP7/2007- 2013][FP7/2007-2011]) under grant agreement n° [244170]. This document has been produced in the context of the Pegaso project. All information in this document is provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the European Commission has no liability in respect of this document, which is merely representing the authors view.

Project coordination Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona UAB / Spain www.pegasoproject.eu

Document Information

Project

Project Acronym PEGASO Grant agreement nº 244170

Project full title People for Ecosystem based Governance in Assessing Sustainable development of Ocean and coast

Funding scheme Collaborative large-scale integrating project

Project start date February 1, 2010 Project duration 48 months

Call topic ENV.2009.2.2.1.4 Integrated Coastal Zone Management

Web site www.pegasoproject.eu

Document

Deliverable number 5.1 a,b Due date M47 Submission date 24/03/2014

Deliverable title D5.1A CASES reporting (10 CASEs at end of the 5 Phases: preparatory, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and Conclusions) including comparison amongst CASEs and relevance of CASEs in the whole basin. 5.1B Evaluation report on CASEs multi sector, multi administrative and multi scale work, Integrated approach method in CASEs.

Authors Stefano Soriani, Fabrizia Buono, Marco Tonino, Andrea Bordin, Monica Camuffo, Jonathan Rizzi (UNIVE). With the contribution of: S. Le Petit (PAP RAC) , Z. Skaricic (PAP RAC), A. Conides (HCMR), K. Kapiris (HCMR) D. Klaoudatos (HCMR), E. Ozhan (MEDCOAST), C. Lulier. (DDNI), E. Marin (DDNI), M. Mierla (DDNI), I. Nichersu (DDNI), I. Nichersu (DDNI), C.Trifanov (DDNI), A. Adidi (UM5a), H. Bazaïri (UM5a), A. Khouakhi (UM5a), N. Mhammdi (UM5a), S. Niazi (UM5a), O. Raj (UM5a), M. Snoussi (UM5a), El-Said (NIOF),S. Kholeif (NIOF), M. Abodagher (UOB), M.Nader (UOB), S.Konovaov (MHI), L. Ernoul (TdV), A. Guelmami (TdV), E. Antonidze (BSC PS), M.Ggvilava (BSC PS), A. Gigineishvili (BSC PS), Ç. Polat Beken (TÜBøTAK/MRC, SEAS-ERA) ), M. F. Osman (EEAA), O. E. Frihy (CORI), N. Abass (Egypt National centre for planning state land uses), A. El Din (Urban Planning Organization Egypt), S. Zaki (Shore Protection Organization/ Egypt)

Work Package WP5 Collaborative applications at various scales and Integrated Regional Assessment for Mediterranean and Black Sea basins

Work Package Leader Stefano Soriani (UNIVE)

Lead beneficiary Stefano Soriani (UNIVE)

Dissemination level Public Report, 515 pages inc. cover

Tableofcontents 1.Introduction...... 4 2.CASEscoordination...... 7 3. CASEsdescription...... 12 3.1 Coastalissues...... 12 3.2 Tools...... 15 3.4Lessonlearnt...... 22 4. TheMediterraneanSeaBasin...... 26 4.1HumanPressure,StateandImpacts...... 26 4.2RegionalandGlobalGovernanceandRegulatoryInstruments...... 34 5.AlHoceimaCASE...... 37 6.BouchesͲduͲRhone(France)...... 62 7.NorthAdriatic(Italy)...... 103 8.CycladesArchipelago(Greece)...... 193 9.NileDelta(Egypt)...... 277 10.NorthLebanonCoastalZone(NLCZ)...... 316 11.KöycegizͲDalyanSpeciallyProtectedArea(Turkey)...... 350 12.TheBlackSeaBasinandICZM...... 428 Environmentalsetting...... 428 Governancearrangements...... 430 Programmesandprojects...... 432 ICZMexperiences...... 434 13.GuriaCoastalRegion(Georgia)...... 439 14.SevastopolBay(Ukraine)...... 467 15.DanubeDelta(Romania)...... 492 Listoffigures Figure1TheICZMPlatformforadaptivemanagement...... 4 Figure2:TheCASEs...... ¡Error!Marcadornodefinido.6 Figure3:TheFirstCASEsMeeting...... 7 Figure4:TheNiledeltafieldtrip...... 7 Figure5:OrganizationoftheVisioningworkshop...... 9 Figure6:Workinggroup...... 9 Figure7:Thepolimediatutorialvideos...... 16 Listoftables Table1:PhaseplanningofAlHoceima(period1)...... 8 Table2:CASEscoordinationactivities...... 11 Table3:Coastalissues...... 14 Table4:CASEsandTools...... 16 Table5CASEsresultsandcontributiontoSDIandIRA...... 20 Table6:CASEsresultsandcontributiontoSDIandIRA...... 21 Table7CASEsresultsandcontributiontoSDIandIRA...... 21

3 1.Introduction ThePEGASOprojectaimedattheconstructionofasharedIntegratedCoastalZoneManagement (ICZM)GovernancePlatformwithscientists,usersanddecisionͲmakerslinkedwithnewmodelsof governance. Within this framework, Collaborative Application SitEs (CASEs) play a key role as it emergesfromFigure1.Inordertoassessthesustainabilityofcoastalzonesandthestateoftheart in the development and implementation of ICZM processes, also with respect to the Mediterranean Protocol, 10 CASEs were considered. The CASEs were selected both in the Mediterranean Sea: Al Hoceima (Morocco), Bouches du Rhône (France), North Adriatic (Italy), Aegeanislands(Greece),DalyanͲKöycegiz(Turkey),NileDelta(Egypt),NorthLebanonCoastalzone (Lebanon) and in the Black Sea: Danube Delta (Romania), Sevastopol Bay (Ukraine) and Guria coastalregion(Georgia).

Figure1TheICZMPlatformforadaptivemanagement

InparticulartheCASEshadthepossibilitytotest,validateandfurtherdevelopthePEGASOtools (indicators,LandandEcosystemAccount(LEAC),participatorymethods,scenarios,socioͲeconomic valuation),ortodevelopandtestothersuitabletoolswhilesharingdata,experienceandlearning fromspecifictrainingprovidedbytheproject. CASEswereselectedinordertoberepresentativeofeachbasinandtoaddressthemainlanduses (coastal cities, harbours, and natural areas), maritime activities (tourism, fisheries, aquaculture, andprotection)andrelevantcoastalissues(impactsofclimatechange,ecosystemhealth,water

4 quality, urbanization growth) as well as different spatial scales: local (DalyanͲKöycegiz), subͲ national(NorthLebanon),andsupraͲnational(theAegeanSea,theNorthAdriatic).Furthermore, theywereselectedbecauseoftheirrelevancefor: x theICZMProtocol(Nationalcoastalinterface), x the ecoͲregions of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (e.g North Adriatic, Aegean islands), x transͲboundarymanagement(NorthAdriatic). Moreover,theywerechosenbasedontheirrepresentativenessofspecificcoastalvulnerableareas (wetlandsanddeltas,islands)andonthepossibilitytoprovidesupportinbetterunderstandingthe synergies between land and sea, especially in the case of cities impacts on gulf ecosystems (Bouches du Rhone and Marseille, Sebastopol bay). CASEs were also selected based on the differentexperienceinICZM. Thefollowingparagraphsdescribethecoordinationprocessofthe10CASEs,thecoastalissuesand tools selected. Furthermore, the main results achieved and lesson learned, also concerning integration,arepresented.

5 Figure2:TheCASEs(1AlHoceima(Morocco),2BouchesduRhône(France),3NorthAdriatic(Italy),4Aegeanislands(Greece),5DalyanͲKöycegiz(Turkey),6NorthLebanonCoastalzone(Lebanon),7NileDelta(Egypt), 8DanubeDelta(Romania),9SevastopolBay(Ukraine)and10Guriacoastalregion(Georgia).

2.CASEscoordination Ca'FoscariUniversity(UNIVE)hasbeeninchargewiththecoordinationoftheCASEsactivities;the overallaimofthecoordinationwastoassistthedifferentCASEsintheimplementationofICZM initiativesintheirsite,andtoprovidealinkbetweenthePEGASOtools,thecapacitybuildingand thespecificneedsoftheCASEs.InordertomanageandharmonizetheCASEsworkseveralactions have been carried out during the 4 years of the project. An introductory explanation of the coordinationactivitiesisherepresented.Finallyallthecoordinationactivitiesaresummarizedin Table2. Inordertogetanoverviewofthecharacteristics,coastalissues,expertiseandobjectivesofthe10 CASEs a questionnaire was circulated at the very beginning of the project in 2010. The questionnairewasalsoaimedatpreparingtheworkforthetestphasetobedoneduringthe2nd year.InOctober2010the“InceptionCASESWorkshop”wasorganizedinAlexandria(Egypt).The meetingaimedatgettingacommonunderstandingofthePEGASOCASEsandtools,andclarifying thelinkbetweenCASEs,implementationofecosystemapproachandtheICZMProtocol.Duringthe meetingafirstdefinitionofCASEsscopeandpreliminarydevelopmentofaworkplanwascarried out.

Figure3:TheFirstCASEsMeeting Figure4:TheNiledeltafieldtrip CASEs activities officially started the 1st of February 2011 and during the month of May the identification document (CASE ID) was finalized. By filling the CASE ID, the teams had the possibilitytodeepentheirawarenessinchoosingthecoastalissues,theobjectivestofulfillandthe endproducts.TheCASEIDwasalsomeanttohelpeachteamselectingthemaintoolsandtheir training needs. Moreover, team members clarified their role in the project, their expertise and needs.Itisimportanttohighlightthatthecoastalissuesandtoolschosenstronglyreflectedsince

7 the beginning the expertise that were present in the CASES team, as well as the previous experiencesmatured/developed/accumulatedintheICZMfield. In May 2011 UNIVE, in collaboration with PlanBleu and PAC/RAC, developed a template for the CASES workͲplan. The template aimed both at supporting CASEs in the organization and monitoringoftheirworkaswellastoprovideUNIVEwithhomogeneousstandarddataabouthow CASEswereproceeding,emergingproblemsandpossiblesolutions.Thetemplateconsistedoffour parts,namely:a)theCASEPlanningDocument,Phaseplanning,b)TechnicalSpecificationChecklist, c) Quality Assurance Plan and d) the communication plan. Each part was specifically addressing management, monitoring and evaluation of CASEs activities as well as communication of the results.Table1belowshowsanexampleofafilledCASEPhaseplanningoutlineoftheactivities duringthesecondyearoftheproject. Deliverable TaskNo. Taskdescription Person Applicable Deadline Dependencies No. Responsible Resources (between tasks – (for carrying helps determine outtask) timeline) 1.CASEID 1.1 FillingoftheCASE Bazaïri & CASEexperts 31.12.2010 ID Snoussi 2. Diagnosis 2.1Landuse Spatial data Khouakhi & GIS Software, 31.07.2011 2.2,2.3, 2.4,3.1 Analysis map collection Raji GISexperts 2.2 Environmental Mhamdi & Coastal 31.07.2011 2.1,2.3, 2.4,3.1 Environment (terrestrial & Niazi geoscientists aldiagnosis marine) data collection & analysis 2.3 Biodiversity and Bazaïri Marine 31.07.2011 2.1,2.2,2.4,3.1 Ecological Naturalresources Biologist diagnosis 2.4 SocioͲ SocioͲeconomic Adidi SocioͲ 31.07.2011 2.1,2.2,2.3, 3.1 economic data collection & economist diagnosis analysis 3. GIS 3.1 Georeferenced Khouakhi & GISExperts 20.08.2011 2.1,2.2,2.3, 2.4 database Data Raji 4. Final Synthesis Adidi, Bazaïri CASEexperts 31.08.2011 2.1,2.2,2.3, 2.4, Diagnosis &Snoussi 3.1 Report Table1:PhaseplanningofAlHoceima(period1) Thanks to the information received during the Second General Meeting (Tulcea Romania, July 2011),CASESwereaskedtorevisetheirworkͲplan.DuringthemonthsofSeptemberandOctober 2011,theactivitiescarriedoutduringthefirstphaseofwork(1stFebruary2011Ͳ31stAugust2011) wererevisedbyUNIVEandsummarizedintheInternalDeliverableInputtoD5.1A.Attheendof thesecondworkphaseinApril2012,UNIVEstartedcollectinginformationon: x theworkdone,themainresultsattainedandtheplannedactivitiesforthenextsteps; x therelationoftheseelementswiththeICZMprinciplesandapproachesand x thecommonproblemsencounteredbyCASES.

8 All the information was then posted within the document “CASEs evaluation summary” on the Intranet of the project (http://gstgis.com/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/a101d549Ͳb4a9Ͳ 4749Ͳa82aͲd376375684cb/CASES_evaluation_summary_22_12_11.pdf). UNIVE organized in Venice (Italy) the Second CASEs meeting (2nd and the 3rd of July 2012). The meeting aimed at discussing progress and problems encountered especially in relation to the PEGASO tools. By using the participatory method Open Space Technology (http://www.pegasoproject.eu/wiki/Open_space_technology) the meeting aimed at fostering cooperationbetweenCASEscoordinatorsandtheresponsibleforthedevelopmentofthetools. Furthermore, the meeting aimed at clarifying the relation between CASEs and the Regional AssessmentandthecontributionoftheCASEstotheVisioningExercise.

Figure5:OrganizationoftheVisioningworkshop Figure6:Workinggroup InMidͲSeptember2013,CASEsdeliveredthefinalEvaluationReport.Thequestionnairewasaimed atinvestigatingthesocioͲpoliticalandeconomicrelevanceoftheidentifiedcoastalissuesaswellas theirrelationwiththeICZMProtocolandPrinciplesimplementation.Thereport,onthebasisof thecollectedinformation,shedlightupontherelationbetweenthecurrentpoliciesaddressingthe selected coastal issues and the referring ICZM Protocol articles and principles. The contribution andrelevanceoftheworkcarriedoutinPEGASOfortheICZMprocesswasalsoaddressed.The secondpartofthequestionnaireaskedCASEScoordinatorstofocusontheprocessofstakeholders involvement within each CASE, the tools used and the main constraints faced. The main achievements and the lessons learned (both regarding the ICZM process and the project management)werealsoreported.Allthereportsareincludedinthisdocument. WithinthePEGASOprojectcapacitybuildingisstrictlyrelatedtothemainobjectiveoftheproject, namely:“Bridgingscienceanddecisionmaking,enablingpossibilitiesofthinkingtogether,sharing thedifferentknowledgefromthedifferentMediterraneanandBlackSeaexperiencesandcultures, tobuildasetofcommonknowledgeonICZMasgearedbytheICZMProtocol”.Inthisframework

9 capacitybuildingisnotonlyconsideredastrainingbutalsoasbuildingawareness,strengthening cooperation and integration, sharing knowledge and skills, and learning common technical capabilities. For this reason a specific space of the WIKI has been dedicated to the CASE (http://www.pegasoproject.eu/wiki). For each CASE the main characteristics are presented (coastal issues, ICZM phase, relation between the coastal issues and the ICZM protocol principles and articles,relevanceofthecoastalissues,objectives,endproductsandtools).Furthermore,inorder to share the experiences of the CASEs in attempting to bridge the gap between science and decisionͲmakers the CASEs experiences in stakeholders’ involvement and lesson learned were uploaded on the Coastal WIKI (http://www.pegasoproject.eu/wiki/Participation_in_the_NorthͲ Adriatic_(DSSͲDESYCO).

10 ActionandTime Objective Results Development, distribution, collection and analysis of the To gain information on CASEs characteristics and coastal CollectionofstandardizeinformationaboutCASEs questionnairesforthe10CASEs.(AprilͲJune2010) issues. Analysisofthequestionnaire TopresentinformationontheCASEs AnalysisofCASEScharacteristicsincludingdescriptionofthearea,main (JuneͲSeptember2010). issues,conflictsandlinkswiththeICZMprotocol. OrganizationofthefirstCASESWorkshop(September2010). To present to the CASEs the questionnaire analysis and ParticipationtotheWorkshop(6Ͳ8October2010,Alexandria,Egypt). guidelines for the implementation of a strategy for the activitiesdevelopmentandimplementation. SubmissionandcollectionofInput.(September2011) To gain main information regarding the evaluation of the 10reportscollected.ReportsareavailableintheIntranet. CASES after the first work period (1st February 2011Ͳ 31st D5.1A(10CASESattheendofthe5phases:preparatory,phase1,phase August2011). 2, phase 3 and conclusions) including comparison among CASES and relevanceofCASESinthewholebasin). Submission and collection of the Progress Report. Input to Tocollectinformationonactivitiesundertaken,mainresults 10reportscollected.ReportsareavailableintheIntranet. D5.1A.(AprilͲMay2012) attained, and planned activities, 2) relation to the ICZM principles. Submission to all the WP4 tool leaders of the report and TofostercollaborationbetweenWP4andWP5. MinutesavailableontheIntranet invitationtotheSecondCASEsmeeting.(May2012). CASEsparticipationtotheVIC02 OrganizationoftheSecondCASEsmeeting(2Ͳ3JulyVenice, TounderstandhowtheworkinCASESareprogressing,the MinutesavailableontheIntranet Italy) differentresultsandthecommonproblemsencountered; ToallowcomparisonofthedifferentCASES,andtolinkthe CASESworkwiththeRegionalAssessmentphase. Collection of information on CASEs participatory strategy To highlight CASEs strategy to bridge the gap between I.D5.1phase2.Bridgethegapbetweenscienceanddecisionsmakers (September2012) scienceanddecisionmakers. participatorystrategiesintheCASEs CollectionoffinalEvaluationReport TocollectcomprehensiveinputonCASEswork FinalreportsD5.1AandD5.1B Table2:CASEscoordinationactivities

3. CASEsdescription Inthischapter,basedontheanalysisofthereportscollectedduringthedifferentphasesofthe PEGASOproject,ananalysisofthemaincharacteristicsoftheCASEsisprovided.Firstlythecoastal issuesconsideredintheMediterraneanandBlackSeasitesarediscussed(paragr.3.1).Secondly, thetoolsappliedbyCASEsinordertocopewiththeselectedcoastalissuesaredescribed(paragr. 3.2). Finally in paragraph 3.3, basedon the comparative analysis ofthe final CASEs reports a synthesisoftheresultsoftheCASEsisprovided.

3.1Coastalissues Theselectionofcoastalissues CASEshaveselectedthosecoastalissuesthatwereconsideredthemostrelevantfortheareabut alsothatcouldbebetteranalysedaccordingtotheresearchteamexpertise.Thesecoastalissues wereproposedbythedifferentCASESteamsduringthepreparationphaseofPEGASOandthefirst year of activity of the project.Some coastal issues (Table 3) were common among CASEs, for example climate change impacts and water quality were considered of main concern in both basins. Nevertheless, the final objectives, tools and endͲproducts were different from CASE to CASEandreflectedlocalprioritiesandconditions. Theselectionwasmainlybasedontheavailableexpertiseandperceivedprioritiesoftheresearch teams. However, the CASEs of Bouches du Rhône, Nile Delta, Danube Delta and Al Hoceima selectedthecoastalissuesinaparticipativeway.TheBouchesduRhôneselectedthecoastalissues by the mean of keyͲstakeholders interviews, while the Nile Delta CASE organized specific workshops with the stakeholders for their identification. The Danube Delta, on the other hand, identifiedthemaincoastalissuesbyatwofoldapproach:firstafieldresearchregardingthemain coastalissuesafferenttoSulinaCASEandafterwardsaprioritizationwiththelocalstakeholders. Finally, the Al Hoceima CASE made a SWOT analysis to defined with the stakeholders the main coastalissuestoanalyze. Samecoastalissues,differentmanagement The selected coastal issues, as mentioned above, were sometimes shared by different CASEs. However,thewaysinwhichtheyhavebeenconsidereddifferdramatically.Asanexamplewehere refer to the different ways maritime transportation has been consider with respect to ICZM or territorial/environmental managementThis topic has been addressed by the Aegean Islands, BouchesduRhôneandDalyanͲKöycegizSpeciallyProtectedArea(SPA)CASEs.IntheformerCASE, maritimetransportationisthebasisforlocaldevelopmentbecauseitrepresentsthemainlogistic platformforpeopleandgoodsinterconnectingalltheeconomicactivitiesentailingalsoanegative

12 externality (risk) related to maritime accidents. For Bouches du Rhône, maritime transportation hasbeenidentifiedasoneofthemaincoastalissuebythestakeholdersbecauseofitsimplication forwaterqualityandriskmanagement.IntheCASEofDalyanͲKöycegizSpeciallyProtectedArea (SPA),ontheotherhand,transportationrepresentsthemainoriginofpressuresonecosystems duetotourists’boatssailingfromthetownofDalyantotheturtlebeachthroughtheriverandthe delta.ThereforeinthisCASEtheissueisstrictlylinkedtotheeffectivemanagementoftheSPA. Another coastal issue addressed in different way according to the CASEs specificity is nature conservationandhowitrelatestocoastalsystem’sdynamicsandmanagement.Forinstance,the North Adriatic CASE has investigated the existence of transboundary management network of MPAsamongItaly,SloveniaandCroatia.OntheotherhandtheCASEofBouchesduRhônehas studied how the different territorial units (the Calanque National park is one of those) share commonmanagementissuesandhowtheseissuesaremanagedbyneighboringunits. Again,itisimportanttostressthattheseproblemsandapproacheshavebeendefinedandchosen byCASEScoordinators,accordingtothespecificcharacteristicsoftheirCASE,previousexperiences inICZMmattersandexpertiseavailablewithintheteam. PartnershipamongCASEs TheCASEsofBouchesduRhôneandAlHoceima,duetosomecommoncoastalissues,decidedto sharetheirexperiencesincoastalmanagement.ForthisreasontheAlHoceimaCASEwasinvitedto attendthestakeholdersmeetingoftheFrenchCASE"AtelierdetravailduprojeteuropéenPEGASO ”(Marseille11thFebruary2013).

Al Bouches North Aegean DalyanͲ North NileDelta Guria Coastal Sevastopol DanubeDelta Hoceima du Adriatic islands Köycegiz Lebanon Region bay Rhone Coastal Urban Urban Urban Urban Urbansprawl sprawl sprawl sprawl sprawl Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Climate Climate Climate Climate change Climate change Climate change change change change impacts impacts impacts impacts impacts impacts Water Water Water Waterquality Waterquality Waterquality quality quality quality Nature Nature Nature Nature conservati conservati conservation conservation on on Maritime Maritime Maritime transporta transportation transportation tion Fishery Fishery Fishery Coastal Coastal Coastal resources Coastal Coastal resources resources resources and andhabitat resources and andhabitat andhabitat habitat degradation habitat degradation degradation degradation degradation Tourism Table3:Coastalissues

3.2Tools In order to assess the sustainability of coastal zones, PEGASO has developed 5 tools, namely: indicators, Land and Ecosystem Account (LEAC), scenario, participation and socioͲeconomic assessment.InordertosupportCASEsintheimplementationofthetools,trainingandtutorials werepreparedandprovided.Forwhatconcernsthetoolonparticipation,UNIVEorganizedwith PAP/RACandPlanBleutheonͲsite‘TrainingofTrainers’fortheCASEs.Theeventwastargetedto those CASES that expressed their interest and need in training on participatory tools and more specificallytothoseCASESteammembersthatwereresponsiblefortherealisationofparticipatory approaches.ThetrainingwasheldontheislandofSanServolo(VeniceͲItaly)fromtheOctober,31st to November, 3rd 2011. Only the CASEs of BouchesͲduͲRhône (France), Aegean Sea Islands (Greece), North Lebanon Coastal Area and Sevastopol Bay (Ukraine) declined the invitation to attendthetraining. Themainobjectivesofthetrainingcouldbesummarizedasfollow: x Topreparefacilitators. x To understand principles and tools for dealing with stakeholders (stakeholder management). x Toknowhowtoprepare,conductandfollowͲuponparticipatoryevents(inrelationtoCASE WorkPlanandstakeholderanalysis). x Topracticefacilitationskills. x Tocontributetocapacitybuildingforrealisationofparticipatoryapproaches. BesidestheonͲsitetrainingforparticipation,specificvideotutorialprovidinginformationonthe PEGASO tools were prepared and uploaded on the PEGASO website. Each video explains the objectives,datarequirementsandresultsofeachtool.InFigure6,ascreenshotofthe4tutorial withtherelatedlinktotheonlinevideoisprovided.

http://polimedia.uab.cat/#Inici http://polimedia.uab.cat/#Inici

http://polimedia.uab.cat/#Inici http://polimedia.uab.cat/#Inici Figure7:Thepolimediatutorialvideos Onthebaseoftheintendedobjectivesandavailableexpertise,eachCASEteamselectedthetools toadopt(table2).Itshouldbestressedthattheavailabilityofdatahasstronglyinfluencedthe selection of the tools; for example the lack of systematic monitoring of economic activities in coastal areas has strongly limited the possibility to carry out socioͲeconomic assessment in the majorityoftheCASEs.InothercircumstancesthespatialscaleoftheCASEhasbeenthelimiting factorfortheadoptionofaparticulartool(LEACandsomeindicatorsaboveall).Besidesthetools developedintheframeworkofPEGASO,CASEshavedevelopedandimplementedothertools,such astheVulnerabilityassessmentofclimatechange,DecisionSupportSystem,Modelformonitoring bathingwaterqualityandsystemmodellingforspatialplanninginitiatives. CASEs Pegasotools Othertoolsdeveloped Indicators Socio economic Participation LEAC Scenario Vulnerability DSS for Bathing Sketch assessment assessment Climate Water Match Change quality scenario Model (BHAM) Al X X X X Hoceima Bouches X X X duRhone North X X XX Adriatic Aegean X X X X X islands DalyanͲ X X Köycegiz North Lebanon Coastal NileDelta X X Guria X X Coastal Region Sevastopol X bay Danube X X X Delta Table4:CASEsandTools

16 Following,adescriptionoftheapplicationofthedifferenttoolsinthePEGASOCASEsisprovided. Foreachtool,aninformationboxdepictsthemaincharacteristicsofthetool. ParticipationandLEAC Participation In order to ensure good governance, provide and gain useful information, mitigate conflicts, and understanding the needs of local population, participation is essential. Accordingly, Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement(ICZM),dealingwithcontrastingperspectivesandinterestsincoastalareas,needsto embed participation as a pillar of the development and implementation of its strategy. As other environmental policies, ICZM requires different participation processes according to the aim, the availabletools,theprocessphaseandthelevelofinvolvement,interestandknowledgeofstakeholders. Within PEGASO, participation is a crossͲcutting issue and the basis for the integration of the tools developed(e.g.scenarios,indicators,LEACandeconomicassessment). The participation tool has been used both as a standͲalone tool and as the main mean for integration of data and information. For example, the Bouches du Rhône CASE has organized a workshopforpresentingtheresultsoftheLEACanalysistothestakeholders.Duringtheworkshop stakeholders’ suggestions were collected and afterwards included in an updated version of the LEACoutput.Furthermore,thecompletedtoolwastransferredtotheWaterAgencywhichwillbe responsibleforitsupdatinginthecomingyears. LandandEcosystemAccounting(LEAC) LEACisdesignedtoprovidemultiͲscale(hierarchical)outputs,tofacilitatetheassessmentofprocesses thatmanifestatdifferentlevelse.g.continental,country,regionandlocallevel.Thefollowingoutputs areexpected: x Assessmentofthequantityandqualityoftheexistingecosystemcapital. x Assessment of the quality and quantitative of the derived annual flows of related ecosystem servicesorfunctions. x Assessmentofthe‘balances’ofremainingnaturalcapitalinagivenyearandalsothepotentialsor trendsinlongerterm. On the other hand, in the North Adriatic CASE, and in particular in the framework of the developmentoftheBHAM(BeachHealthAdvisoryModel),theparticipationtoolhasbeenusedto collectinformationonwaterqualityissuesinaspecificsiteoftheNorthAdriaticcoast;whileinthe developmentoftheDecisionSupportSystem(DSSͲDESYCO)participationhasbeenusedtobetter addressstakeholder’sneedsintheDSSoutput.IntheDanubeDeltaCASEthetoolhasbeenusedto promotespatialplanninginitiatives.ForinstancetheCASEadoptedtheSketchMatchmethod:a participatoryruralappraisaltechniquewhichinvolvestheknowledge,theexperienceandthewill ofthelocalstakeholdersintheprocessofidentifyingthemaincoastalissues,possiblesolutionsor mitigationmeasuresOtherCASEs,suchasDalyanKöycegiz,AegeanIslands,NileDelta,AlHoceima haveorganizedspecificworkshopaimingatfosteringknowledgeonICZMandonspecificcoastal issues.

17 EnvironmentalTerritorialDiagnosis(ETD) EnvironmentalTerritorialDiagnosis(ETD) itisaninventoryonagiventerritorythatlistsproblems,strengthsandweaknesses,economicsocial and ecological issues, taking into account the diversity of stakeholders. It aims at providing explanationonthepastevolutionandassessmentofthefutureone.itallowsanalyzingstakeholders' behaviorsintermsofusesofsharednaturalresourcesforasite,accordingtotheinterestforthese resourcesfromaneconomicandecologicalpointofview. TheAlHoceimaCASEcarriedoutanEnvironmentalTerritorialDiagnosis(ETD).Thestudyallowed highlightinghowthemajoreconomicactivities(fisheries,agricultureandtourism)interactwiththe selectedcoastalissues(urbansprawl,coastalresourcesdegradationandcoastalvulnerabilityand climate change). The ETD showed how the degradation and decline of coastal resources have affectedthewellbeingofthelocalpopulationandledtoanincreaseofunemploymentandtoa largemigrationtoEurope.TheETDwasalsocarriedoutintheBouchesduRhôneCASEwiththe aimofidentifyingthemaincoastalusesandtheenvironmentalpressures,factorsandimpactsthat influencethecoastalzones. Indicators Indicators Indicatorsarequantitative/qualitativestatementsormeasuredͲobservedparametersthatcanbeused todescribeexistingsituationsandmeasurechangesortrendsovertime.Theirthreemainfunctions aresimplification,quantification,andcommunication.Indicatorscanbeusedeithertodefinethemain objectivesoftheICZMplan/projectbyidentifyingtheemergingissues,ortomonitortheprogressand theachievementsoftheICZMplan/projectobjectives. Inordertoassessthestateofcoastalresources,theSevastopolBayCASEselectedandcalculated severalindicators.TheCASEalsodevelopedawebportalwhichincorporatesdigitalatlasandGIS featuresas wellasa"trafficlight"index.Theindexwasapplied,forinstance,to assessaverage summerconcentrationsofammoniuminthesurfacelayerofwater.Insuchawaythetoolnotonly assesses the state of coastal resources, monitor spatial and temporal variations in the state of coastal environment and trace negative and positive trends due to changes in anthropogenic pressures or/and climate changes, but also it foster awareness regarding coastal issues among stakeholdersandcitizens. 18 BayesianBeliefNetworks Scenario Scenarios are “sets of plausible stories, supported with data and simulations, about how the future mightunfoldfromcurrentconditionsunderalternativehumanchoices”(Polaskyetal.,2011).Inlooking tothewayscenariosmightbeusedinPegaso,itisimportanttonotethatthereisnosingle‘rightway’ butthatadifferentapproachmightbeappropriateindifferentsituations.Thusitisapparentthatthere aremanyglobalorregionalstudiesthathavealreadydevelopedscenariosthatshouldbediscussedand updatedandevenextendedwithinPegaso. In a coastal zone context, the Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) is used to improve the quality of decisionͲmakinginregardstotheinteractionbetweenthemanmadeandthenaturalenvironment andtostudyandanalyzerelationshipsbetweenpeopleandtheirenvironment.TheLebanonNorth Coastal Zone implemented the BBN; the discussions focused on the objective of “controlling artificialization” on the coast of North Lebanon. The BBN tool was used to identify drivers and influences and their importance in “controlling artificialization”. Twenty two participants representing16institutionsweredividedintofivegroupscomposedof4Ͳ5individualseachand moderatedbyamemberoftheCASEteam. Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) for Koycegiz – Dalyan CASE with the theme of Preserving and EnhancingNaturalCapitalhasbeencarriedoutinDalyan.Threeworkshopswereorganizedwith the stakeholders for the BBN study. The first BBN meeting took place on 6 November 2013 in Dalyan and it was attended by 38 local stakeholders. The second meeting was organised on 17 December2013with19stakeholdersandlocalmediamembersandthelaston7January2014. 3.3CASEsresults EachCASEduringtheProjectlifespanattainedasetofresultsaccordingtotheselectedcoastal issuesandrelatedobjectives.Moreover,CASEshavecontributed,bydevelopinglocalgeonodes,to enrich the Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). In addition they have contributed to the Integrated Regional Assessment (IRA) by calculating specific indicators. The following table 5 and 6 and 7 summarisedthemainresultsachievedbyeachCASEencompassingalsotheircontributionintothe SDIandtheIRA. Foramoredetaileddescriptionoftheresults,pleaserefertothefinalreporteditedbyeachCASE teamandreportedinthenextchapters.

19 CASE Mainresults Contribution theContributiontotheIRA SDI (datapublished) x Analysisofsealevelriseonthecoastalzoneofthe YES xPopulation 1971Ͳ2011 and % AegeanIslands. change Aegean Sea x Indicatorscalculation. xPopulationoncoast,2011 Islands x Improvementofstakeholderscommunicationand xArelostissearises30cm awareness. xEnterpriseindex xAttractionindex1 x Set up ofa local end users steering committeeNO xChangedetection2 involvedintheindicatorsetdevelopment. x Implementationofaterritorialdiagnostic. Bouches de x ApplicationofLEACtodetectchangesintheland Rhone useofthearea. x Enhancement of the collaboration between the localstakeholdersandtheWaterAgency. x Elaboration ofphysical and socioͲeconomic YES xConservation condition of vulnerabilitymapsforthecoastalzone coastal and marine focal x Erosionandlandusechangemaps habitats and species in x Implementationofaterritorialdiagnostic. protectedareas. Al x Prospective analysis (choice of indicators and xArea of builtͲup space in the Hoceima scenarios)basedonaparticipatoryprocess. coastalzone. x EnhancementofawarenessontheICZMprotocol. xDensityofthepopulationliving x Involvement of local stakeholders in promoting inthecoastalzone. ICZMinitiatives. xArealextentofcoastalerosion. Table5CASEsresultsandcontributiontoSDIandIRA CASE x Mainresults Contribution theContributiontotheIRA SDI (datapublished)

x Setting of a GIS type interactive system for the YES Sevastopol Bay to make available information on stateoftheenvironment,ICZMdataandtools. Sevastopol x ApplicationofIndicatorsforICZM. Bay x Development of a local SDI geonode providing informationonthestateofmarineenvironment x Establishment of strong relations with local, national,andregionalstakeholders.

x The CASE has also calculated the following indicators: Hazard indicators, endangered wetlands, wetlands in good condition. wetlands polluted, protected Posidonia beds, bird fauna protected areas, NATURA 2000 areas, fisheries indicators, governance indicators, economic environmentindicators,socialstructureindicators,aging/youthindicators,literacyindicator,employmentindicators,povertylevelsindicators, renewableenergyproductionindicators. x Inparticularthefollowingaspectshavebeendetected:conversionofagriculturallandtourbanarea,conversionofnaturalorsemiͲnatural landtourbanarea,conversionofnaturalorsemiͲnaturallandtoagriculturalland,conversionofagriculturallandtoindustrialarea,conversion ofnaturalorsemiͲnaturallandtoindustrialarea,conversionofagriculturallandtotransportinfrastructure,conversionofnaturalorsemiͲ naturallandtotransportinfrastructure,conversionofagriculturallandtoportsandconversionofnaturalorsemiͲnaturallandtoports.

20 x DevelopmentofaspatialplanforthecityofSulina NO usingparticipatorymethodsandscenarios x Awareness raising among local people on ICZM Danube protocol. All the inputs and ideas of the 2 days Delta worksessionwithstakeholderscametogetherinto final sketches of problems, qualities and possible solutionstoidentifiedproblems. x Set up of local coastal foraand development of YES xCoastalwaterquality. landuseplans. xClimatechange(sealevelrise). NileDelta x Involvement of local stakeholders and awareness raisingonICZM x Development of a Decision Support System for YES x Area of builtͲup space in the climate change risk assessment for the coastal coastalzoneandsize. area. x densityofthepopulationliving x Development of a forecasting model for the inthecoastalzone. coastalwaterquality. x North x Analysis of the link between Marine Protected Adriatic AreasandICZMattransboundaryscale. x Analysis of ICZM implementation at the Italian subnationallevelintheNorthAdriatic. x Involvement of stakeholders both from management and scientific sector in different workshopsandfocusgroup. Table6:CASEsresultsandcontributiontoSDIandIRA CASE Mainresults Contribution theContributiontotheIRA SDI (datapublished) x Monitoring and autoͲanalysis of boat traffic in NO NO DalyanChannel. KöycegizͲ x ApplicationofaBBNmethodology. DalyanSPA x Increase stakeholder awareness on ICZM and coastalissues. x Elaboration of Coastal vegetation, Land use, NO NO Coastal evolution,, Currents and wave description,Bathymetry,Granulometricanalysis North x Analysisoffisheriesdata Lebanon x Setupofacoastalforumonindicatorsanddata CoastalZone gathering x ApplicationofaBBNmethodology. x Increase stakeholder awareness on ICZM and coastalissues. x Set up of the hydrological model for the YES NO catchment basin. Development of an ICZM progressmarkerinputtool. Guria x Participatoryassessmentandevaluationwiththe Coastal localcommunityoftheprogressofTskaltsminda Region ICZMplan. x Betteraccesstocoastalmanagementinformation bystakeholdersandthepublic. Table7CASEsresultsandcontributiontoSDIandIRA 21

3.4Lessonlearnt The experiences of CASEs in attempting to foster the adoption of Integrated Coastal Zone management has remarked the role of several key issues which still constrain its effective implementation.InparticularthefollowingkeyissueshaveemergedfromtheCASEswork: x theimportance(anddifficulty)ofbridgingscienceanddecisionͲmakers; x theneed(anddifficulty)ofpromotingorganizationalchanges; x thedifficultiesinvolvedinthedefinitionofthespatialscalethatisneededforeffectively representingproblems/opportunitiesaswellasforevaluatingsolutions; x theissuesrelatedtotheintegratedapproach; x theroleplayedbytheproblemsofensuringsustainabilityofICZMeffortsasbasicmain barriertoICZMdevelopmentandimplementation. Following,eachidentifiedkeyissueisdiscussed.Thetextboxesreportconsiderationsmadebythe CASEsasemergingfromtheirCASEreport. TheimportanceofbridgingscienceanddecisionͲmakers Itiswellknownthatdespitethewiderangeofavailablescientificinformationrelatedtocoastal areas,thecommunicationbetweenscienceandpolicystillrepresentsaneglectedaspectofICZM (Portman et al., 2012; Stojanovic et al. 2009; National Research Council, 1995).Against this background,CASEshaveunderlinedthefollowingissuesasthemainconstraintsfacedinbridging thegapbetweenscienceanddecisionͲmakers: x thepoorinvolvementofscientistsinthemanagementphaseofcoastalresources; x thelackofreliableinformationforplanningmanagementinitiatives; x thedifficultiesrelatedtothecommunicationofscientificfindingsandtheirapplicabilityfor decisionͲmaking; x thedifficultiesinthedefinitionandprioritizationofcoastalissuesandrelatedmanagement issues. x Despite, the strong interest of the decisionͲmakers to scientific tools, the integration of the resultsinthemanagementplansisnotguaranteedbecausethedecisionsareoftenmadefrom toptodown,withouttheinvolvementofuniversityscientists(AlHoceima). x ThedefinitionofobjectivesandstructureoftheICZMplansandprogrammesisproblematicas wellastheprioritizationofcoastalissues(BouchesduRhone). x NeedtoreachconsensusonthecauseͲobjectivesandissuesofthemanagement(Bouchesdu Rhone). x Lacks of physical, ecological and cultural information hinder effective coastal management (KöyceŒizͲDalyanSPA). x Data on costal resources has been traditionally summarized in the form of scientific studies leaving stakeholders and managers with the problems of data accessibility and utilization of dataofdifferentnatureforintegratedcoastalzonemanagement(SevastopolBay). x The lack of information and effective information collection and exchange systems, the insufficiencies in environmental awareness and the low public participation in almost all decision making levels constitute additional obstacles to resolving the problems and to 22 anticipatingandpreventingseriousconditionsinthefuture(Aegeanislands). Theneedofpromotingorganizationalchanges The conflicting uses and the plethora of uncoordinated legislation that distinguish coastal areas require the development of new governance models built on partnerships and participatory processes. ICZM seeks to coordinate the different policies affecting coastal zones by promoting integration and cooperation among the different interests and responsibilities of the actors involved. In order to go beyond sectoral policies, a radical change in the existing management practicesforcoastalareasshouldoccur;inparticularforwhatconcernthemediumͲlongtermscale perspectives of coastal measures in contrast with the shortͲterm perspectives of political and socioͲeconomicinterestsandthejurisdictionalandnaturalboundariesofcoastalareas(LeTissier and Hills, 2010). Within this context, CASEs remarked how unclear competences management framework hinder the coordination of management actions for coastal zones. Furthermore, the existence of strong centralized environmental policies competencies causes dramatic mismatch withthelocalscaleofmanagement.Toconclude,theexperienceofCASEshasalsohighlightedthat thegovernancechangeimpliedbyICZMisstillfarforbeingacommonreality. x The system of competences in coastal management (whoͲdoesͲwhat) remains unclear and poorlycoordinated(NorthAdriatic). x ICZMcontinuestobenotformallyacknowledgedwithinthepublicbodiesthathavejurisdiction andcompetencesoverthecoastalzone(NorthAdriatic). x There is an evident mismatch between national legislation and the specificity of local management(KöyceŒizͲDalyanSPA). x There is the need of improving governance in order to progress policies coordination (Al Hoceima). x On the administrative level, there is no mechanism responsible for the coͲordination and arbitration of initiatives and actions regarding coastal management. The coastal planning systemisfragmentedbetweennational,regionalandlocalbodies.Itischaracterizedbymany gapsandduplication,resultinginconflictsofjurisdictionindecisionmaking.Itisoftenoriented to addressing problems of the past and cannot foresee future needs and problems. The achievementofgovernanceandinterͲsectoralcoͲordinationinalllevelsconstitutesacondition fortherationalmanagementofcoastalareas(Aegeanislands). Thedifficultiesinvolvedinthedefinitionofthespatialscale. Environmental governance and the implementation of ICZM in particular, stress on the need of buildinginitiativesbasedonthespecificconditionsoftheareaofinterest.However,inthecurrent situation of global change, where several economic, social and environmental impacts are the resultsofglobalmechanismsthereistheneedofframingICZMinitiativeswithinstrongnational and regional management framework. CASEs have remarked the need of considering since the planning phase of ICZM initiatives the different organizational, scientific and management scale and at the same time they have highlighted the difficulties encountered in coordinating these differentscales.ItisimportanttohighlighthowtheBlackSeaCountriescallfortheadoptionofan overarchinglegalframeworkonICZM,inordertoaddressalltheinitiativesforthemanagementof coastalareas. 23 x Needtofindtheproperscalenotonlyfromascientificpointofviewbutalsofromanorganizational one(BouchesduRhone). x Needofcoordinatingplansandpoliciesofdifferenttypologyatdifferentscales(Aegeanislands). x Needofanoverarchinglegalframework(SevastopolBay). x Because the coastal system is complex and multidisciplinary, it needs an integrated approach at national level, as mentioned in the ICZM Protocol. However, a good coordination at local level is neededinordertogetaheadsectorialapproachesoftheRegionalandLocalgovernmentregardingthe coastalissues(AlHoceima). Theissuesrelatedtotheintegratedapproach IntegrationisthecornerstoneofanidealICZM(Portmanetal.,2012)butatthesametimeitisone ofthetrickiestdimensionstoachieveandmeasure.Integrationhasseveraldimensions:(1)spatial integration,(2)temporalintegration,(3)horizontal(amongdifferentsectors)andvertical(among levels of government) and (4) among disciplines, which should all be considered in the implementationofICZMinitiatives.DuringtheimplementationoftheiractivitiesCASEshavetried topromoteintegrationinseveralways(byinvolvingstakeholders,byintegratingdifferentsources ofinformation,byintegratingknowledgeandpointofviewsoncoastalissues,byusingdifferent PEGASO tools and promoting interdisciplinary topics). However, different remarks on the difficultiesconcerningintegration,suchasthecomplexityofachievingintegrationduringashortͲ timeproject,theimpossibilityofhavingverticalintegrationwherethereisapredominanceoftopͲ downapproacheswerereported. x Integrated management is a long process that cannot be limited to the length of a 3Ͳyear project. Efforts must be made at the beginning of the project to not only stimulate participation from local stakeholders, but to create local stakeholder leadership. This will ensurenotonlythemobilizationofthedifferentactorsthroughouttheprocessbutalsothe continuationaftertheendoftheproject(BouchesduRhone). x The implementation of a top down approach and the lack of political commitment do not allowintegration(Aegeanislands). x OneofthemostcriticalconstrainsinimplementingICZMprinciplesandtools,istoensurethe integration of all the components of coastal management within an effective governance system.Strengtheningthegovernancesystemisthemostchallengingtasks.Indeed,mostof theproblemsand conflicts encounteredprovedto be attributableto theinstitutional(nonͲ coordinationofsectoralactions,inflexibilityofprocedures,andabsenceofprospectivevision) andlegalaspects(obsoletetextsorunenforcedlaws,lackofcontrol)(AlHoceimaCASE). 24 ThesustainabilityofICZMeffortsrepresentsthemainbarrierstoICZM. ICZMprocessislargelystilldevelopedthroughtimelimitedprojects(MckennaandCooper,2006; Sorensen, 1993): this can lead to problem of funding, instability, and lack of commitment from statutoryagencies(projectscouldbeconsideredlessrelevantthanstatutorydrivers)(Shipmanand Stojanovic,2007).Therefore,thereisaneedtoenableafollowupofthepathandresultssetduring singleICZMprojects.CASEs,haveinmanyoccasionunderlinedthefactthatICZMinitiativesbased onprojectarenotenoughtoinvolveachangeinthegovernanceofcoastalresources;moreover, shorttimeinitiativesmaycausemistrustofstakeholdersinparticipationandICZMeffectiveness. x AweakpointoftheseveralICZMprojectscarriedoutintheregionisthelackofconsistencyand capitalizationofknowledge,aswellasthelackofintegrationbetweentheseprojectsandthe structuralelementsofplanningpolicies.Noneoftheseprojectshasactuallyimplementedthe identifiedactions.Infact,thechallengeofintegrationandtherealinclusionoftheseprojectsin thedecisionͲmakinginstrumentsofnationalpoliciesrarelyexceedthedeclarationofintent(Al Hoceima). x AshorttimeICZMinitiativerisksunderminingtrust,transparencyandstakeholderinvolvement (AegeanIslands) x Participation and ICZM are long term process and if activities are not sustained in the long periodeffortsandresultswillbelost(AlHoceima).

25 4. TheMediterraneanSeaBasin TheMediterraneanBasinencompassesanareaof2,085,292km2surroundingthesemiͲenclosed MediterraneanSea,with46,000kmofcoastline.Itincludes21countrieswhicharespreadacross3 continents. From west to east the Mediterranean Basin stretches around 3,800 km while the maximum northͲsouth distance is around 900 km. It also includes some 5,000 islands. The Mediterraneanisadeepbasin,withanaveragedepthofaround1,500m,composedoftwomain subͲbasins,westernandeastern,whichcommunicatethroughtheSicilianChannel. TheMediterraneanclimateischaracterisedbymild,wetwintersandrelativelyhot,drysummers. Thesefeaturesareassociatedwiththegreatpressuresystems:thepermanentAzoresanticyclone, thegreatcontinentalcycloneofEurasia,andthelowpressureoverthenorthAfricandesertand thetropicalAtlantic.Inspiteofthisgeneralisations,thetemperatureandrainfallcanvarygreatly throughouttheregion(from100mm/yeartoover4,000mm/year).Themainriversflowinginto the Mediterranean are Rhone, Po, Ebro, Drini, Neretva, Tevere, and Nil. Apart from Nile, these riversareallconcentratedinthenorthernrim.Riverbasinsaregenerallysmall.Overthepast40 years,waterinputsintotheMediterraneanSeahavedramaticallydecreased,duetodammingand irrigation. AlthoughtheMediterraneanSeamakesuplessthan1%oftheglobaloceansurface,upto18%of theworld’smacroscopicmarinespeciesarefoundthere,ofwhich25 to30%are endemic–an incrediblyrichbiodiversityforsuchasmallarea(BianchiandMorri,2000).Atotalofsome12,000 marinespeciesrecordedintheMediterraneanSeaisnotequallydistributed:itisgreaterinthe westernthanintheeasternpart.Themosttypicalassemblageofcommunitiesisrepresentedby Posidoniaoceanica. Flora and fauna diversity is outstanding: the Region is recognised as one of the first 25 Global Biodiversity Hotspots (Myers et al., 2000) hosting between 15,000 and 25,000 species, 60% of which are endemic. About one third of the Mediterranean fauna and a high proportion of Mediterraneananimalsareuniquetotheregion.TheMediterraneanisalsohosting253speciesof endemicfreshwaterfish.Moreover,millionsofmigratorybirdsfromthefarreachesofEuropeand AfricauseMediterraneanwetlandsandotherhabitatsasstopoverorbreedingsites.

4.1HumanPressure,StateandImpacts Coastal zones & urbanisation. One third of the Mediterranean population is currently concentrated in the coastal regions. Over the past 50 years, the population growth has been accelerated and it continues to expand, especially on the southern shores. In 2000, the stable population of the northern Mediterranean countries (193 M) has been overtaken by the population in the southern and eastern countries, which in 2000 totalled 234 M people, i.e. an 26 increaseof65M.AccordingtoPlanBleu(2009),thepermanentpopulationoftheMediterranean coastal states was approximately 460 M in 2008, with projection growth to 520 M by 2025. Projectionsforthecoastalregionsareapproximately186millionby2025.Theurbanisationratein 1995was62%,forecastedtogrowto72%in2025.However,theurbanisationrateintheNorthwill increasefrom67%to69%,whileintheSouthitisexpectedtobefrom62%to74%. Themigrationtothecoastalcitiesisaccompaniedbydrasticchangesintheregion,withsevere effectsonmarineecosystemdueinthefirstplacetothedischargeofwastewater.Eventhough,the biggest problem is not only continued growth in population, but also in infrastructure (urban sprawl).Infact,todaynearly40%ofthetotallengthofthecoastalareaisalreadybeingoccupied (Figure1).

Figure1.PopulationDensityandurbancentresintheMediterraneanbasin(SourceUNDESA,2011) Tourism.Owingtoitsfavourableposition,mildclimate,naturalbeauty,lavishculturalandbuiltheritage,the Mediterranean basin is the world leading destination in terms of international and domestic tourism,accountingin2011forathirdoftotalarrivalsworldwide.Tourismisanessentialeconomic activityinalltheripariancountries.AccordingtotheWorldTourismOrganisation,thetotalnumber oftouristsvisitingMediterraneanregionin2000was220M;in2011,therewere306Mvisitors, representing 215 billion euros in export earnings from international tourism. According to the latestestimates,thistrendwillcontinue,with10Mnewarrivalsayearperaverageupto2030 (Figure2). France, Italy and Spain are among the ten strongest marketͲdestinations in the world, with the highestnetincomegainedfrominternationaltourism.ThesearealsocountriesthathavelargeͲ scale domestic tourism. From 1990 to 2010, the 11 countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean recorded the highest growth rates of inbound world tourism. Since 2008, the economic performance was subject to various serious crises (political, financial and economic) which had no major impact on this growth, which confirmed the resilience of tourism in the southernandeasternMediterrenean.TheArabSpringbroughtthistrendtoanabrupthaltinearly 2011,butitmayresumeafter2014withthegradualdemocratisationprocess,despitetheeconomic slowdownoftheEuropeanUnionasitsmainmarket. 27

Figure2:Mediterranean:ActualtrendvsTourismVision2030(Source:WTO,2011) Agriculture. The Mediterranean area has been subjected to extensive farming, grazing and exploitation of forests. In the countries of northern and western coasts, there is an important decrease of arable land due to urbanisation and a strong increase of agricultural land under irrigation.Inthesouthandeast,whereagriculturalpopulationsgrewfrom61to71millionin40 years, cultivated surfaces expand at the expense of forest and grazing land. Agriculture in the Region, despite many different subͲclimates, is mainly rainͲfed. Cereals, vegetables, and citrus fruits account for over 85 % of the Mediterranean’s total agricultural production (Figure 3). Cultivation of other products, such as olives for olive oil and grapes for wine, also occupies a significantamountofagriculturalland(Leffetal.,2004). The issue of food remains central. Losses of arable land due to eviction from land and natural events,associatedwitharidity(winds,heavyrain...),areexacerbatedbyinadequatecultivationand pastoralfarmingwhichareresponsibleforerosion.Atthesametime,pressureonwaterresources andland(from0.55hapercapitain1960to0.30hain2005)inacontextofnegativeeffectsof climate change on agricultural production makes it more difficult to solve the issue of food security.

Figure3:AgricultureandpopulationintheMediterraneanbasin(Source:WorldBank,2011)

28 In Mediterranean regions in transition, agriculture remains the second largest source of employment, after the services sector. The income from these jobs is lower than for other economic activities and informal work is still of great importance. In North Africa, agricultural employmentaccountsfor80%oftheruralactivity.InTurkey,agriculturestillaccountsformore than65%ofemploymentinruralareasandtheworkforcecontinuestogrow.Organicfarmingis one way of tapping into agricultural added value whilst protecting the environment3. In the Mediterranean as a whole, the period 1990Ͳ2001 witnessed a drop in total use of pesticide of around30%,butstillagriculturalrunͲoffthroughriversisbyfarthelargestinputofpesticidesto themarineenvironment. Fisheries and aquaculture. Mediterranean fish catches represent a bit more than 1% of total catches worldwide. Nevertheless, this volume is significant given that the Mediterranean sea represents less than 1% of global oceans. It is estimated that total catches by Mediterranean countriescurrentlyrangesbetween1,500,000tto1,700,000tperyear,85%beingattributableto sixcountries(Italy,Turkey,Greece,Spain,TunisiaandAlgeria).TheMediterraneanhashighlyprized demersalfish,molluscsandcrustaceans.AccordingtotheGFCM,certainspeciesofeconomicand commercial importance are in an alarming state as a result of overͲfishing. The situation is particularlyalarmingregardingbluefintunaThunnusthynnus,whichiswidelyoverͲfished.Fishing isamajorcontributortohabitatdamageintheMediterraneanSea,mostlybecauseoftrawling operations. Aquaculture is the fastest growing food industry in the world, in the Mediterranean area it has grown tremendously since its inception, almost forty years ago (Figure 4). Total aquaculture productionhasincreasedfrom487,488tonnesin1995to1,228,457tonnesin2007.Moreover,the shareofmarinefishspeciesinoverallaquacultureoutputhasrisenfrom13percentin1995to36 percent in 20074. Fish farming development has been continouesly increasing and has led to obvious damages in the quality of the environment and priority habitats in the Mediterranean, especiallyregardingtheproliferationofnonͲindigeniousspecies.

3Source:CP/RAC 4FAOFisheriesandAquacultureDepartment,StatisticsandInformationService[FIPS],2009 29

Figure4:AquacultureproductionintheMediterranean(Source:UNEP/MAP,2009) Industry.Takingintoconsiderationtheworld's16mostimportantrawmaterial,theMediterranean countries production is higher than the world average. Generally, the gap in industrial developmentbetweenthenorthernandsoutheasterncountriesisconsiderable.Italy,Franceand Spaintogetherarepredominantwith87%overtherestoftheMediterraneancountries. Theoilandgasindustryisveryactiveintheregion,Algeria,Egypt,Libya,SyriaandItaly,leadingto a very busy industry in terms of trade and distribution, such as the establishment of many refineries,networksofpipelinesandportterminals.Twooftheworldoiltransitpointsarelocated intheMediterraneanregion:theStraitofIstanbul(Bosphorus)andtheSuezCanal.Apartfromthe metallurgyand(petrol)chemicalsectors,theothermainindustrialsectorsincludewastetreatment plants,paper,paints,plastics,tanneries(Figure5).

Figure5:NonͲrenewableenergyresourcesintheMediterranean(Source:ENVSEC,2009) IndustrycanbeconsideredasamajorsourceoflandͲbasedpollutantsoftheMediterraneanSea, especially of those known as toxic, persistent and bioͲaccumulative (TPBs). Less than a half of industrialwastewateristreatedbeforebeingdischargedintotheseaorrivers,contributingwith 410,000t/ytothetotalBODloadof805,000t/y.Thereisanumberof"hotspots"concentratedin thenorthͲwestpart. 30 Energy production. The Mediterranean region accounts for 10,2% of the world electricity consumption and 8,2% of the primary energy consumption. This primary energy consumptionͲ being overwhelmingly dominated by fossil fuels (80%, and only 6% renewable energies)Ͳ accountedforaround8%oftheglobalCO2emissionsin2006.TheMediterraneanstillholds5%of theworldoilandgasreserves,concentratedat98%intheSouth,andLibyaaloneaccountsfor69% of the proven oil reserves5. Moreover, the realcapacity inoil and gas supply of the Eatern and SouthernMediterraneanarerelativelyunderexplored,andrecentlylargescaleoffshorediscoveries intheLevantinebasinsince2009haveraisedtheexpectationsaboutthehydrocarbonspotentialin theEasternMediterranean.Shalegasresources,althoughbelievedtobewidespread,havenotyet beenquantifiedformostcountries. Since1971,sustainableenergyproductionhasincreasedsignificantlyinvolume(+88%),andhas been further stimulated since 2000 throughout incentives, policies and technological progress towardsrenewableenergies.Hydrolicpoweristhemostexploitedsource,reachingin2006,76%of the electric production based on renewable energy. The increase of solar and wind energy productionrepresentsapossiblebenefitfortheregion. Maritime traffic. It is estimated that about 220,000 vessels of more than 100 tonnes cross the Mediterraneaneachyear,accountingfor15%ofglobalshippingactivitybynumberofcallsand10 %byvesseldeadweighttonnes(dwt).Morethan325,000voyagesoccurredintheMediterranean Seain2007,representingacapacityof3,800milliontonnes(REMPEC,2009).Themajoraxis(90% ofthetotaloiltraffic)goesfromeasttowest,fromEgypttoGibraltar.Also,theoiltransportisthe main commercial link between countries of the north and south Mediterranean (Figure 6). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) shipments also make up a considerableproportion. On average, there are about 60 maritimeaccidents in the Mediterranean annually, 15 of which causeoilandchemicalspills.Between1977and2003,approximately304,700tofoilwasspilledas aresultofaccidents.Thedirectenvironmentalimpactisonbirdsandmarinemammals,lesssoon fish.Fromtheeconomicpointofview,themostdirectlyaffectedactivitiesarefishing,aquaculture andtourism. 5OMEdatabasebasedonOilandGasJournalandUSEnergyInformationAdministration,2012. 31

Figure6:MaritimetranspoortationroutesintheMediterrenean(Source:ENVSEC,2009)

Environmentalstate Fromtheavailableanalysisitisverydifficulttogiveanoverallpictureoftheactualstateofthe MediterraneanSea.Althoughdataonenvironmentalandpollutionparametersisratherscarsefor deepwaters,theirstateisconsideredtobegenerallygood.However,certaincontaminants,such as lead and cadmium, have been found in significant concentrations within the deep canyons borderingthecontinentalshelf,suggestingpossiblerisksoflongͲtermpollutantaccumulation. Because there are many differences (meteorology, geomorphology, water masses circulation, ecology,etc.)betweenthewesternandeasternsubͲbasin,theenvironmentalcharacteristicsand marinepollutionproblemsinthetwobasinsaretoalargeextentindependent.Thesameistrue fortheAdriaticSeavisͲàͲvisthecentralMediterranean,oragaintheAegeanvisͲàͲvistheLevantine Sea. Allharmfulsubstancesstemfromurbanisationandindustrialdevelopment.Thesesubstanceshave been used to evaluate the pollution "hot spots" or "coastal areas where the coastal marine environment is subject to pollution from one or more points or diffused landͲsources which potentiallyaffecthumanhealthinasignificantmanner,ecosystems,biodiversity,sustainabilityor economy” (UNEP/MAP, 1998). The presence of these "hot spots", typically located in semiͲ enclosed gulfs and bays near harbours, big cities and industrial areas, probably constitutes the major problem of the Mediterranean Sea. The main identified pollutants are: municipal sewage (including microͲorganisms), Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) including pesticides, PolychlorinatedBiphenyls(PCBs)andPolycyclicAromaticHydrocarbons(PAHs),heavymetals,oils, radioactive substances, nutrients and suspended matter. Focusing on human activities, 131 “pollutionhotspots”havebeenidentifiedbythecountriesintheframeoftheUNEP’sStrategic Action Programme (SAP) of 2006. These hot spots are point pollution sources or coastal areas, whichmayaffecthumanhealth,ecosystems,biodiversity,sustainability,oreconomy.Fromthese hotspots,26%areurban,18%industrialand56%mixed(urbanandindustrial). 32 Landoccupationandseapollutionnegativelyaffectthedistribution,diversityandsurvivalofflora andfauna,andthenaturalecosystemsingeneral.Inheavilydisturbedorpollutedareas,benthic communitiesdisappeartoagreatextent.WhenorganicenrichmentexceedsthepotentialforreͲ mineralisation by benthic organisms, anoxic zones are formed and the seabed is covered by bacterial mats with damaging consequences in cases in which the affected seabed is a critical habitatandnursery,suchastheseagrassbeds. One of the major manifestations of environmental degradation is habitat loss for certain endangeredspecies,duetohumanactivities.Asanexample,1,500kmofcoastlineintheEuroͲ Mediterraneanareaisconsideredtobeartificial,withharboursandportsconstitutingthemajor part (1,250 km). Wetland loss and degradation have also been identified as a serious threat to manyaquaticspecies,especiallywaterbirdspeciesnestingalongtheMediterraneancoastline. Theintroductionofneworganisms,intheformofexoticspeciesmaybethreateningtoagiven ecosystem.Itisestimatedthatabout80%ofspeciesintroducedintotheMediterranean(naturally, throughtheSuezCanalortheStraitsofGibraltar,oraccidentallyfromshipballast)donotaffect indigenous communities. However, certain species impact negatively, through changes in the naturalenvironmentandthepossiblegeneticdegradationofindigenousstock. WaterscarcityispartoftheMediterraneanhistory;waterisattheheartofeconomicandsocial development, and also a continuous source of conflicts between countries. The level of exploitationofwaterresourcesishigharoundtheBasinandthewaterstressisincreasinginmost ofthecountries,particularlyinthesouthandeastMediterranean.Exploitationratiosareover50%, or even nearing 100% in many parts of the Mediterranean (Egypt, Palestinian Authority, Israel, Libya, Malta, Tunisia, most Islands and the Eastern regions of Spain)6.Up to date 80% of the populationhasaccesstosafedrinkingwater,butitdecreasesto60%orlessintheruralareasof theSouth.Themajordeficits,inruralareasconcernthewatersupplysystems,sanitationservices. In cities, the main issue is the maintenance of the distribution systems, with important losses rangingfrom20to50%.Irrigationforagricultureisthebiggestconsumerofwater,withanaverage proportionof72%ofthetotalconsumption,exceeding85%insomeofNorthAfricancountries. Asinotherpartsoftheworld,potentialimpactsfromclimatechangeintheMediterranenainclude drought, floods, changes in soil erosion and desertification, storms, coastal erosion, changes in seawatertemperatureandsalinity,sealevelriseandbiodiversityreduction.Suchchangesoccurin a way that is likely to exacerbate the pressures on societies in constant development, and problemsthatalreadyexist,particularlyafflictingthenaturalwetlandsandcoastallowland.Inthe latest IPCC Report7 “Climate models have improved fidelity in simulating aspects of regional

6http://www.gwpforum.org 7WorkinggroupincontributiontotheIPCCFifthassessmentreportonCC2013:thephysicalsciencebasis,2013. 33 climatesoverEuropeandtheMediterranean,(...)thereishighconfidenceinmodelprojectionsof mean temperature in this region. It is very likely that temperatures will continue to increase throughoutthe21stcenturyoverallofEuropeandtheMediterraneanregion.”

Cultureandheritage The Mediterranean cultural heritage, both in its tangible (monuments, historical settlements, archaeological sites, etc.) and linguistic cultural expressions (languages, literature, traditions, customs,etc.),constitutesavaluableresourcefortheRegion.Certainother“assets”areequally significant:fromtheeraofAncientGreekcoloniestothoseoftheEtruscancentres,theRoman, Celtic and Muslim towns, the variety of landscape configuration, settlement systems and communication networks. One of the most visible monuments of cultural heritage are the manmadelandscapes,whichweretraditionallystructuredaroundthethreemainMediterranean components,encompassingthesea,thecoast,andthemountains.

4.2RegionalandGlobalGovernanceandRegulatoryInstruments Besides being a part of many international agreements including the UN conventions and EU policiesanddirectives,theMediterraneanRegionhasdevelopeditsowncooperationmechanisms andframeworks. BarcelonaConventionanditsProtocols.In1995,theActionPlanfortheProtectionoftheMarine EnvironmentandtheSustainableDevelopmentoftheCoastalAreasoftheMediterranean(MAP PhaseII)wasadoptedbytheContractingPartiestoreplacetheMediterraneanActionPlanof1975. At the same time, the Contracting Parties adopted an amended version of the Barcelona Conventionof1976,renamedConventionfortheProtectionoftheMarineEnvironmentandthe Coastal Region of the Mediterranean. Ten years later, in 2005, the Mediterranean Strategy for SustainableDevelopment(MSSD)wasadoptedtoconfirmthedeterminationofthe22Contracting Parties (21 Mediterranean states and EU) to protect the Mediterranean marine and coastal environment. The Barcelona Convention has given rise to seven Protocols addressing specific aspects of Mediterranean environmental conservation: Dumping Protocol / Prevention and EmergencyProtocol/LBSProtocol/SPAandBiodiversityProtocol/OffshoreProtocol/Hazardous WastesProtocol,andtheICZMProtocol.Signedin2008,theICZMProtocol'enteredintoforce'in March2011aftertherequired6ratifications.IntheICZMProtocol,nowratifiedby8countriesand theEuropeanUnion,wehavethefirstsupraͲstatelegalinstrumentintheworldaimedspecifically atcoastalzonemanagement. The MedPartnership. This programme is a continuation of the Large Marine EcosystemͲGEF ProjectrunbyUNEP/MAP(2002Ͳ2006)Ͳwhichdesigned/elaboratedtwoStrategicActionPrograms to address pollution from landͲbased activities (SAPͲMED) and for the Conservation of Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity (SAPͲ BIO). The two SAPs were formally

34 adoptedbytheContractingPartiesoftheBarcelonaConventionalongwithNationalActionPlans (NAPs)forSAPͲMED.Today,theMedPartnershipisbeingledbyUNEP/MAPandtheWorldBank andisfinanciallysupportedbytheGlobalEnvironmentFacility(GEF),andotherdonors,including theEUandallparticipatingcountries,throughtwolinesofactions:(i)technicalandpolicysupport led by UNEP/MAP; and (ii) project financing led by the World Bank. The project is being implementedincloseassociationwithotherrelevantregionalpolicies,EUpoliciesandDirectives, andcontributestothesustainabledevelopmentobjectivesoftheUnionfortheMediterranean8. H2020 CapacityͲbuilding/Mediterranean Environment Programme. The "Horizon 2020 Initiative" aimstodeͲpollutetheMediterraneanbytheyear2020bytacklingthesourcesofpollutionthat accountforaround80%oftheoverallpollutionoftheMediterraneanSea:municipalwaste,urban wastewaterandindustrialpollution.NowknownasH2020,theinitiativewasendorsedduringthe EnvironmentMinisterialConferenceheldinCairoinNovember2006andisnowoneofthekey initiativesendorsedbytheUnionfortheMediterranean(UfM)atitslaunchinParisin2008.9The ENPI Horizon 2020 Capacity Building/Mediterranean Environment Programme (H2020 CB/MEP) addresseskeyissuestosupporttheimplementationoftheHorizon2020InitiativeRoadMapand WorkPlanthroughcapacitybuildingandawarenessraisingactivities.

ProjectcarriedoutinthefollowingGEFeligiblecountries:Albania,Algeria,BosniaandHerzegovina,Croatia,Egypt,Lebanon, Libya,Morocco,Montenegro,Syria,Tunisia,TurkeyandThePalestinianAuthority. 9http://www.h2020.net 35 Bibliography Allen,H.D.(2001).MediterraneanEcogeography.EcogeographySeries.Harlow:PearsonEducation Limited.xxii+263p. Annarita Mariotti (2011).Decadal Climate Variability and Change inthe Mediterranean Region. NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Silver Spring, Maryland . Climate Program Office. BaraziͲYeroulanos, L. Synthesis of Mediterranean marine finfish aquaculture – a marketing and promotion strategy. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No.88Rome,FAO.2010:198p. Blondel, J., Aronson, J., Bodiou, JͲ.Y. and Boeuf, G. (2010) The Mediterranean Region: Biological DiversityinSpaceandTime.OxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork. Conservation International: Biodiversity HotspotsͲMediterranean Basin (September, 2011). http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/mediterranean/Pages/default.aspx European Environment Agency (1999). State and pressures of the marine and coastal Mediterranean environment. Environmental assessment series No. 5. Luxembourg: Office for OfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities.137p. IPEMED(2009).Mediterranean2030ͲAforesightprojectfortheMediterraneanregion. GWP(2000)“IntegratedWaterResourcesManagement”,TACBackgroundPapers,No.4. Plan Bleu (2005). A Sustainable Future for the Mediterranean: The Blue Plan's Environment and DevelopmentOutlook.EditedbyG.BenoitandA.Comeau.London:Earthscan.xiii+450p. UNEP(DEC)/MED(2003)StrategicActionProgramme,SecondreportonthepollutionHotSpotsin theMediterranean,Part1,countryresults,WG.231/5a. UNEP/MAPͲPlanBleu:StateoftheEnvironmentandDevelopmentintheMediterranean, UNEP/MAPͲPlanBleu,Athens,2009. UNEP(2005).ApplicationoftheEcosystemApproachtotheManagementofHumanActivitiesin the Marine Environment of the Mediterranean Sea: Definitions, Implications and Tentative Road Map.WorkingdocumentpreparedfortheMeetingofMEDPOLNationalCoͲordinators(Barcelona, 24Ͳ27may2005).38p. UNEP/MAP/MEDPOL(2005):TransboundaryDiagnosticAnalysis(TDA)fortheMediterraneanSea. Athens:UNEP/MAP.xvii+195p. WTO(2011).TourismintheMediterranean:Growth,competitivenessandsustainability.Euromed: CurrentCooperationandFuturePerspectivesinSustainableTourism.Brussels,Belgium

5.AlHoceimaCASE Section1:CoastalIssues Whydidyouselecttheidentifiedcoastalissues? The coast of Al Hoceima is being extensively developed following the socioͲeconomic opening up of the region. The bay experienced a coastal real estate boom including residential construction on fore dunes or on vulnerable cliffs.The combination of high populationdensity(5310inhabitants/Km²intheAlHoceimacity)andexposuretovarious coastalhazardsdonotpresageasecurefutureforcoastalpopulationsandstakes,especially inthecontextofclimatechangeandunsustainablecoastaldevelopment.Consequently,local authorities are faced with the increasingly complex task of balancing development, protectingbiodiversityandmanagingcoastalrisksespeciallycoastalerosionandflooding. Themaincoastalissuesselectedare: 1) Urbansprawlanddensificationofthecoast Residential and tourism development at vulnerable areas (not conducive to urbanization)poseseriousthreatstothesustainabilityofthebeaches,theNational Park,andtoagriculturallands.

2) Coastalresourcesdegradation: Beaches are lost due to the coastal squeeze and shoreline artificialization, river damming,miningofsandfromdunesaswellasfromtheNekorandGhisrivers.Bathing waters are contaminated by sewages and fertilizers. The coastal forest and other biological species are degraded. Fisheries are decreasing due especially to overfishing andillegalpractices. 3) CoastalVulnerabilityandClimatechangeimpacts:TheAlHoceimabayandtheGhisͲ Nekor coastal plain are lowͲlying areas and will thus be seriously affected by climate change and especially seaͲlevel rise and storm surges. The buffer zone will disappear putting the coastal resorts and infrastructures at risk of inundation and erosion. The coastalaquifersarealreadybeingsalinizedduetotheoverpumpingofgroundwaterbut likelyalsotoseaͲlevelrise.

a&b:Coastalerosion(photosAZIR);c&d:Inundationin2010(PhotosKhouakhi) Whatisthesocial,politicalandeconomicalrelevanceoftheidentifiedcoastalissues? Theterritorialdiagnosishashighlightedthatthemajoreconomicactivitiesintheareaare fisheries,tourism,andagriculture.Thethreeidentifiedissuesaresignificantforproductivity and sustainability of all these sectors. Indeed, the degradation and decline of coastal resourceshasaffectedthewellbeingofthelocalpopulationandhasledtoanincreaseof unemploymentandtoalargemigrationtoEurope.Thepredictiveimpactsofclimatechange andseaͲlevelriseislikelytoexacerbatetheseimpacts. Thefollowingfiguresshowthetrendofsomeeconomicresources.

(Source:NationalOfficeforFisheries) 38

Source:TourismObservatory

Source:NationalOfficeforPotableWater Have you developed selected or calculated indicators in order to depict the situation and the problemsyouplannedtoconsider? Theindicatorsselectedandcalculated(givenavailableandaccessibledata)arerepresented inthefollowingtable:

39 IndicatorsselectedanddevelopedinAlHoceimaCASE AlHoceimaCASEIssues Indicator D P S I RDatasources Comments Products Urbansprawlanddensificationofthe Area of builtͲup space in Topographical map of The%ofthebuilduparea Digitalmaps coast thecoastalzone 1966 and Google Erath is underestimated due to Excel file (% of urban Residential and tourism development mapof2011 the presence of several extension between at vulnerable areas (not conducive to scattered dwellings 1966&2011) urbanization) pose serious threats to imposed by the rugged the sustainability of the beaches, the natureoftheterrain. National Park, and to agricultural lands. Size of the population NationalCensus Population living in the Excelfile livinginthecoastalzone Coastal communes (1994 &2004) Density of the population NationalCensus Population living in the Excelfile livinginthecoastalzone Coastalcommunes National Monitoring Only2stationsfrom1993 Excelfile Coastal resources degradation:Ͳ Bathingwaterquality program&standards10 &2othersfrom2004 Beaches are lost due to the coastal Nationalstandards squeeze and shoreline artificialization, river damming, mining of sand from dunes as well as from the Nekor and Areal extent of coastal Aerial photographs of Diachronicanalysis GISmaps Ghisrivers. erosion 1958,1973and2003 Excelfile ͲBathing waters are contaminated by Erosionrate sewages and fertilizers. Fisheries are

$*RRGTXDOLW\IRUVZLPPLQJ FRPSOLDQW %$YHUDJHTXDOLW\IRUVZLPPLQJ FRPSOLDQW &0RPHQWDULO\SROOXWHG QRQFRPSOLDQW D: Polluted (non-compliant) 40 decreasing due especially to State of the main Data sourcesfrom the The indicator was Excelfile overfishingandillegalpractices. commercial fish stocks by National Office for calculatedatnationallevel % speciesandseaarea Fisheries (Moroccan Mediterranean)from2000 to 2012. It refers to 2Ͳ6 fishstocks. Conservationconditionof Data sources from the Indicator calculated both Table coastal and marine focal HCEFLD for the National Parc % habitats and species in of Al Hoceima and at protectedareas national level (the Moroccan Mediterranean) CVI based on the following variables: (a) GISmaps VulnerabilitytoseaͲlevelrise: Physical Coastal geomorphology/geology of the coastal area, (b) the Excelfiles TheAlHoceimabayandespecially Vulnerability width of the beach, (c) the slope and topography, (d) changes in the coastline (e) the distance to isobath of the GhisͲNekor coastal plain are 20m;(f)theexposureofthecoast,and(g)thedistance lowͲlying areas and thus very fromthebackbeachvegetation. exposed to (i) inundations due to seaͲlevelriseandstormsurgesand Vulnerability of the GALDITMethodforcurrentseaͲlevelandwith0,5mseaͲ GISmaps (ii) salinization of the coastal coastal aquifer to marine levelrisescenario. Excelfiles aquifers. intrusion Setbacks and Beach PredictedShorelinepositionin2050(withoutCC) GISmaps erosionpredictionsdueto PredictedShorelinepositionin2050withSLR Excelfiles sealevelrise DPSIR:DriversͲPressuresͲStateͲResponses

41 Section2:RelationsbetweencoastalissuesandICZMProtocolandPrinciples 2.1HowdotheselectedcoastalissuesrelatetotheICZMprinciplesandprotocol? ThefollowingarticlesandprinciplesoftheICZMprotocolarerelevantfortheissuesselectedin ourCASE: Issue Articles Principles Urban sprawl and Article6 (f)Theformulationoflandusestrategies,plansand littoralisation General Principles of programmes covering urban development and Integrated Coastal Zone socioͲeconomicactivities,aswellasotherrelevant Management sectoralpolicies,shallberequired. Article11 1. The Parties, recognizing the specific aesthetic, CoastalLandscapes natural and cultural value of coastal landscapes, irrespective of their classification as protected areas, shall adopt measures to ensure the protection of coastal landscapes through legislation,planningandmanagement. Article23 2.TheParties,whenconsideringnewactivitiesand CoastalErosion workslocatedinthecoastalzoneincludingmarine structures and coastal defence works, shall take particular account of their negative effects on coastal erosion and the direct and indirect costs thatmayresult.Inrespectofexistingactivitiesand structures,the Parties should adopt measures to minimize their effectsoncoastalerosion. Coastal resources Article6 (b) All elements relating to hydrological, degradation General Principles of geomorphological, climatic, ecological, socioͲ Integrated Coastal Zone economicandculturalsystemsshallbetakeninto Management account in an integrated manner, so as not to exceed the carrying capacity of the coastal zone and to prevent the negative effects of natural disastersandofdevelopment. (d)Appropriategovernanceallowingadequateand timely participation in a transparent decisionͲ making process by local populations and stakeholdersincivilsocietyconcernedwithcoastal zonesshallbeensured. Article9 1 (d) ensure that the coastal and maritime EconomicActivities economyisadaptedtothefragilenatureofcoastal zonesandthatresourcesoftheseaareprotected frompollution; (d)Tourism,sportingandrecreationalactivities, (i) to encourage sustainable coastal tourism that preserves coastal ecosystems, natural resources,

42 culturalheritageandlandscapes; (ii) to promote specific forms of coastal tourism, including cultural, rural and ecotourism, while respectingthetraditionsoflocalpopulations; (e) Utilization of specific natural resources, to regulate the extraction of sand, including on the seabedandriversedimentsorprohibititwhereitis likelytoadverselyaffecttheequilibriumofcoastal ecosystems; (iii)tomonitorcoastalaquifersanddynamicareas of contact or interface between fresh and salt water, which may be adversely affected by the extraction of underground water or by discharges intothenaturalenvironment. Article10 2.Marinehabitats Specific Coastal (a) adopt measures to ensure the protection and Ecosystems conservation,through legislation, planning and management of marine andcoastalareas,in particularofthosehostinghabitatsandspeciesof highconservation value; 3.Coastalforestsandwoods The Parties shall adopt measures intended to preserve or develop coastal forests and woods located, in particular, outside specially protected areas. 4.Dunes The Parties undertake to preserve and, where possible, rehabilitate in a sustainable manner dunesandbars. Climate change Article6 (i) Preliminary assessments shall be made of the impacts General Principles of risks associated with the various human activities Integrated Coastal Zone and infrastructure so as to prevent and reduce Management theirnegativeimpactoncoastalzones. (ii)toensurethatfishingpracticesarecompatible withsustainableuseofnaturalmarineresources; Article22 Within the framework of national strategies for NaturalHazards integrated coastal zone management, the Parties shalldeveloppoliciesforthepreventionofnatural hazards. To this end, they shall undertake vulnerabilityandhazardassessments of coastal zones and take prevention, mitigation andadaptationmeasurestoaddresstheeffectsof naturaldisasters,inparticularofclimatechange. 43 CrossͲcuttingissues Article14 1. With a view to ensuring efficient governance Participation throughouttheprocessof the integrated management of coastal zones, the Partiesshalltakethenecessarymeasurestoensure the appropriate involvement in the phases of the formulation and implementation of coastal and marine strategies, plans and programmes or projects, as well as the issuing of the various authorizations, of the various stakeholders, including: the territorial communities and public entities concerned; economic operators; nonͲ governmental organizations; social actors; the publicconcerned. Such participation shall involve inter alia consultative bodies, inquiries or public hearings, andmayextendtopartnerships. Article6 (d)Appropriategovernanceallowingadequateand General Principles of timely participation in a transparent decisionͲ Integrated Coastal Zone making process by local populations and Management stakeholdersincivilsocietyconcernedwithcoastal zonesshallbeensured. Article15 1. The Parties undertake to carry out, at the AwarenessͲRaising, national, regional or local level, awarenessͲraising Training, Education and activities on integrated coastal zone management Research and to develop educational programmes, training andpubliceducationonthissubject. 2.ThePartiesshallorganize,directly,multilaterally or bilaterally, or with the assistance of the Organization, the Centre or the international organizationsconcerned,educationalprogrammes, training and public education on integrated management of coastal zones with a view to ensuringtheirsustainabledevelopment. 3. The Parties shall provide for interdisciplinary scientific research on integrated coastal zone management and on the interaction between activitiesandtheirimpactsoncoastalzones.Tothis end, they should establish or support specialized researchcentres.Thepurposeofthisresearchis,in particular, to further knowledge of integrated coastalzone management,tocontributetopublic information and to facilitate public and private decisionͲmaking. Article27 Definecoastalmanagementindicators,takinginto Exchange of Information accountexistingones,andcooperateintheuseof andActivitiesofCommon suchindicators; Interest 44 Section3:PolicyissuesandICZMprinciplesandapproaches Sofar,howhavebeenthecoastalissuesaddressedbythelocal/regionalgovernment? Severalmanagementstrategiesandplanshavebeen/arecarriedoutbythelocal/regionaland nationalgovernment,inamoreorlessintegrativeandparticipativeway,toaddressthecoastal issuesofAlHoceimaBay.Sofar,thefollowingkeyactionshavebeenundertaken: Ͳ Liquid and solid waste disposals: In 2008, the government launched a large operation of cleaninguptheregionbybuildingawastewatertreatmentplantandacontrolledgarbagedump. ͲIntheframeworkofthenationalbathingwatersmonitoringNetwork,theMinistryofPublic WorksandtheMinistryofEnvironmenthavebeenconductingsystematicbathingwaterquality atanumberofstationsinseveralbeachesoftheCASE. Ͳ As part of Urban Development Plans (PDU), several structural projects were launched; the region is experiencing a significant dynamic in the housing sector, infrastructure and tourism development. However, this building is at the expanse of the agricultural lands and coastal buffer zones. Furthermore, for most of these projects, the economic benefits often outweigh theenvironmentalimpactonthecoastalzone.Inspiteofthepromotionofecologicaltourism, especially within the National Park, coastal developments still do not comply with the basic principles of the ICZM Protocol. To overcome these weaknesses, there is a further need to demonstratethebenefitsofICZMthroughgoodpracticesandsuccessstories. ͲConcerningfisheries,the“ProgrammeNationald’Aménagementdulittoral”(PNAL),addressed primarily to artisanal fisheries, has a major concern to integrate this sector into the socioͲ economic development through the establishment of basic infrastructure (landing points laid and fisherman's Villages) necessary for the stabilization of fishing effort, the valuation of fish productsandimprovedsocioͲeconomicconditionsofartisanalfishermen. ThePargoProject(2007Ͳ2009)aimedtoimprovecapacityandincreasetheincomesofartisanal fishermenofOuladAmgharMunicipalityandofAlHoceimaNationalParkthroughthecreation of a cooperative, improving the marketing of fishery products and the exploitation marine resources. ͲIntheframeworkoftheMEDMPAprogram,severalmanagementplansforthemarineareaof the Al Hoceima National Park have been elaborated in 2002 and in 2009 the Park has been declaredasSPAMI;howevertheconservationprinciplesarestilltobeimplemented. ͲClimatechangeissuesstillneedtobeaddressedandmainstreamedinnational/regionaland localagendas.

45 Atwhichspatialscale? From10kmtonearly200Km² Canyouassesstheresultsoftheimplementedpolicies?Whicharethemainresultsachieved? TherearenoquantitativeIndicatorstoassesstheresultsoftheimplementedpolicies.Insome cases, qualitative evaluation, based on expert judgment can be attempted. For instance: the wastewater treatment plant and controlled garbage dump had big positive impacts on the quality of coastal waters and air in the region. Capacity building and improvement of socioͲ economicconditionsofartisanalfishermenhaveincreasedtheirincomeandwellbeing. OnthebasisoftheICZMprinciples(astheyareexpressedbytheProtocol),doyouthinkthat the coastal issues were addressed with an integrated approach (in terms of organization, politics,tools,etc)? Despitetheimplementationofseveralgovernmentalplansandprojects,thesectoralapproach stilldominatesandaholisticintegratedapproachhasneverbeenapplied.Individualissuesare oftenaddressedoncaseͲtoͲcasebasis. Section4:RelevancewithNationalICZMprocess DoyouthinkthatyourworkisrelevantfortheICZMprocessofyourcountry?Whyandhow? Atnationallevel,therehavebeenseveralICZMprojectscarriedoutforvarioussegmentsofthe Mediterranean coast of Morocco (See Table below). One of the most significant outcomes of these projects was capacity building of the local stakeholders and the increase of their awarenessonICZMconceptandprocess.Ourworkcontributedtotheprogressinthisprocess, stressing on the importance of the participatory process. The use of a new informed set of indicatorsandtoolssuchasVulnerabilitymaps,setbacks…havebeenhighlyappreciatedbythe local stakeholders, who found them very relevant for the most critical issues of the region, namelycoastalresourcesdegradationandcoastalrisks. 46 Our work fits into national policies for sustainable management of resources, including: The Global National Charter for Environment and Sustainable Development; The Master Plan for Urban Development of the Central Mediterranean Coast; The Local Governance Project in Morocco; The National Program for Coastal development; the new strategy in the fisheries sector entitled "HALIEUTIS 2020"; the National Initiative for Human Development; the Vision 2020forthetourismsector,theMillenniumChallengeProgramandthelocalAgenda21.

NameoftheProject Objectives Duration Location To contribute to the socioͲeconomic development of the local 2008Ͳ2010 Central Rif(Al CAMPRifCentral population through protection and sustainable use of coastal Hoceima and resources. Chefchaouen ͲToassessnaturalandculturalassetsofthestudyarea Provinces) ͲTorecommendmeasuresforthemanagementandoptimalwaysfor abalancedandsustainabledevelopmentofthecoastalarea. DESTINATIONS SustainableTourism. 2007Ͳ2010 Al Hoceima (as onepilotsite) Helppromotedialogueandcooperationbetweenthegovernments 2008Ͳ2010 Municipality of Al TOURMEDEAU of both shores of the Mediterranean in order to improve Hoceima environmentalsustainabilityinurbanareasthroughamoreefficient public management of water services. “Sustainable water managementinMediterraneanareas,AlHoceima(Morocco)” OperationDELPHIS Marinemammalawarenessproject July2009 AlHoceima MEDMPA Elaboration of management plans for the marine areas of the 2002Ͳ2005 Al Hoceima NationalParkofAlHoceima,Morocco NationalPark PARGOPROJECT Strengthenthecapacitiesandincreasetheincomesoftheartisanal 2007Ͳ2009 Al Hoceima fishermenofOuladAmgharatAlHoceimaNatioanlPark. NationalPark BESTͲMED BusinessEcoͲSustainableTourismintheMediterraneanArea 2009Ͳ2010 AlHoceima Promotetheenvironmentalsustainabilityinthetourismindustryof MediterraneanArea.

47 Onthebasisoftheworkthatyouhavedone,whichareinyouropinion,themainconstraints in implementing ICZM principles and tools? What is missing? Where are the main gaps? Whereweshouldputmoreenergyandresourcesinthefuture? OneofthemostcriticalconstrainsinimplementingICZMprinciplesandtools,istoensurethe integration of all the components of the coastal management with an effective governance system. Strengthening the governance system is, in our opinion, the most challenging tasks. Indeed, most of the problems and conflicts encountered proved to be attributable to the institutional (nonͲcoordination of sectoral actions, inflexibility of procedures, and absence of prospectivevision)andlegalaspects(obsoletetextsorunenforcedlaws,lackofcontrol...). Inaddition,thelinkbetweenscienceandpolicyisoftenmissing.Despite,thestronginterestof the decisionͲmakers to our products (especially GIS maps), the integration of these results in theirmanagementplansisnotguaranteedbecausethebureaucraticprocessissoheavythatthe decisionisoftenmadefromtoptodown,withouttheinvolvementofuniversityscientists. Another weak point of the several ICZM projects carried out in the region is the lack of consistencyand capitalization of knowledge, as well as the lack of integration between these projects and the structural elements of planning policies. None of these projects has actually implementedtheidentifiedactions.Infact,thechallengeofintegrationandtherealinclusionof these projects in the decisionͲmaking instruments of national policies rarely exceed the declarationofintent. Inthefuture,wethinkthatmoreenergyandresourcesshouldbeputfirstandforemostinthe elaboration of the ICZM national strategy, on a large participatory and democratic basis, accordingtotheICZMProtocol.Concurrently,thelegalandeconomicinstrumentsandtoolsof ICZM should be improved. Finally, the link between science and decisionͲmaking should be strengthened. Stakeholdersinvolvement

Haveyouinvolvedthemainstakeholders? Identificationofstakeholdersatthelocallevel The main groups of local stakeholders are governmental agencies, academics, professional associationsandNGO's(Seethelistontablebelow).Foreachstakeholderidentifiedatlocaland regionallevel,wetriedtoidentifyaContactperson(seelistinAnnex).Thiswillservetoinvite peopletomeetings,updatethedatabase,validatetheresults,butalsotointegratetheminto theprocessofparticipationforthesuccessoftheactivitiesattheirlevel. Stakeholders were classified according to their importance, their power, their knowledge and theirattitudeandperceptionofcoastalzonemanagement. 48 Institution Importance Power Knowledge Attitude Wilaya(Province) 545MS UrbanAgencyofAlHoceima 525MS RegionalInvestmentCenter 524MS HighCommissionerforWaterandForests 5 3 5 MS Electedofficials 4 2 4 MS (Region,Province,Municipalities) ProvincialDelegationofTourism 314MS RegionalDirectorateofPublicWorks 324MS DirectorateofthePortofAlHoceima 324MS DirectorateofAlHoceimaNationalPark 3 2 4 MS Sectoral delegations (Fishing, Education, 2 1 2 N Health,Water,Electricity,etc....) ProfessionalAssociationofFishermen 214S NonͲgovernmentalorganizations 214S Importanceofstakeholdersisdefinedhereastheirabilitytoaffecttheimplementationofthepolicy.Theimportancevalues rangebetween1(low)and5(high). Poweristhecapacityorabilityofthestakeholdertoaffecttheimplementationoftheproject'spolicyduetothestrengthor forcehepossesses.Scale:1:fewresources,hardlymobilized;5:lotofresources,easilymobilized. Knowledge is the stakeholders' level of knowledge and / or degree of information related to coastal resources use and managementissues.Scalefrom1(lowlevelofknowledge)to5(highlevelofknowledge). Attitude refers to the stakeholder’s status as a supporter or opponent of the policy. Stakeholders who agree with the implementationofthepolicyareconsideredsupporters(S);thosewhodisagreewiththepolicyareconsideredopponents (O);andthosewhodonothaveaclearopinion,orwhoseopinioncouldnotbediscerned,areconsideredneutral(N).Those who express some, but not total, agreement with the policy are classified as moderate supporters (MS). Finally those who expresssome,butnottotal,oppositiontothepolicyshouldbeclassifiedasmoderateopponents(MO) Identificationofstakeholdersatnationallevel Thefollowinginstitutionshavebeenidentified: Ͳ Department of Environment/Department of Surveillance and Risk Prevention; ͲMinistryofHousing,PlanningandUrbanPolicy ͲMinistryofPublicWorksandTransport ͲDirectorateofPortsandMaritimePublicDomain ͲManagementofMarineFisheriesandAquacultureDirectorate ͲNationalOfficeforFisheries ͲDepartmentofFacilitiesandInvestments ͲDepartmentofTourism ͲInspectionoftheRoyalNavy Howhaveyouinvolvedthem(e.g.focusgroup,interviews,questionnaires…)? Stakeholdershavebeeninvolvedespeciallybyfocusgroupsandusinginterviews. 9 Athelocallevel,meetingshavebeenorganizedwiththeWalioftheRegion(thehighest authority in the region), with focus group (NGOs, professional associations, fishermen,…) 49 and the main institutional representatives in the region (Managers of the National Park, forests and water (HCEFLCD), Regional Investment Center, the representative of the DepartmentofEnvironment,officialelected…). 9 At national level, several individual meetings and interviews with stakeholders from the CentralAdministrationinRabathavebeenorganized:DepartmentofEconomicandGeneral Affairs, Directorate of Ports and Maritime Public Domain, Ministry of Equipment and Infrastructure,DepartmentofEnvironment,Departmentofterritoryplanning… TheobjectivesofthesemeetingsweretopresenttheprogressoftheCASEworkandcollectthe feedbacks and perceptions of the different stakeholders, in order to integrate them in our assessments. Whichkindofconstraintshaveyoufaced? Themostcriticalconstraintwastoengagepolicymakersintheprocess.Infact,someof thosewhoagreedtoparticipateinourmeetingswerenotalwaysthosewhohavethe powerofdecision,anditwasoftendifficultforthemtoadheretoourgoals. There is a significant lack of coordination mechanisms. Governance by a multitude of departmentsledtotheburstingofskillsandfragmentationofefforts. It was not easy to put on the same table the decision makers, Elected, and NGOs. Consequentlyourmeetingsbyfocusgroupcouldnottranslatethepotentialconflictsthat couldarisefromthediscussions. Themissionofsomeinstitutionsseemstooverlap.Arealisticactionplanmustrecognize thisoverlapandtrytominimizeitbyassigningspecificrolestoeachstakeholder. It was not easy to communicate with some of the stakeholders (still illiterates) and explainthemthevaluableinputofthePEGASOtools. ThemainchallengeremainedtosucceedinconvincingthedecisionmakerstomainstreamICZM intheiragendas. Tools

Which tools (indicators, LEAC, scenario, participation, economic assessment and social valuationorothers)haveyouusedduringtheactivitiesoftheCASES? AccordingtotheavailabilityofdataandinformationthetoolsdevelopedinAlHoceimaCASE are:TerritorialDiagnosis,Indicators,Vulnerabilityassessmentandparticipation. Whichhavebeenthemainconstraintsfacedduringtheapplicationofthetools? ͲAttheCASElevel,theproblemsweencounteredduringthisstudycanbegroupedintothree categories:

50 1) ProblemsrelatedtothenonͲavailabilityof/difficultaccesstodata,whichhasjeopardized theapplicationofthetoolsdevelopedinPEGASOtotheAlHoceimaCASE,especiallythe LEACandtheeconomicvaluation. 2) Problems related to the nonͲapplicability of many indicators proposed in the PEGASO projecttotheCASEscale. 3) Problemsrelatedtothemanyuncertainties,whendealingwiththefuture;indeed,itwas hardtoselectthebestandplausiblescenarios,easilyacceptablebythedecisionmakers. ͲAttheprojectlevel:timingbetweenthereadinessofthetools,training,andapplication. Mainresults

Achievements 1) DiagnosisoftheAlHoceimacoast EnvironmentalandterritorialdiagnosisofAlHoceimaCoasthasconsistedfirstlytoassessthe physical,ecologicalandsocioͲeconomiccomponentsofthestudyareaandtheirtrends,and secondlytoassessthegovernanceintheregionfromaninstitutionalandlegislativeanalysis. The declination of the priority issues has been made from a SWOT analysis, in consultation with the main local stakeholders. These issues are: Urban sprawl, Coastal resources degradationandClimatechangeimpacts. 2) DevelopmentandcalculationofIndicators Among the 51 indicators proposed by the PEGASO task team, only few of them have been calculatedduetothelackofappropriatespatialandtemporaldataandinformation. The approach consisted to firstly review existing indicator initiatives to measure the progress towards sustainabledevelopmentingeneralatnationallevelandincoastalzones atregional and local levels. Secondly, calculate the indicators, when the data are available, and in accordancewiththeidentifiedpriorityissuesandthepolicyneeds. Theindicatorscalculatedwerecategorizedasindicatorsofdrivers(D),pressures(P),state(S), impacts(I)orresponses(R)(SeetableinSection1,p.4). SizeandDensityofthepopulationlivinginthecoastalzone Thisindicatorwasevaluatedbycomparingthenumberofinhabitantspersquarekilometerin the coastal communes of Al Hoceima and Aït Youssef ou Ali compared to the number of inhabitants in the wider administrative areas, namely the Province of Al Hoceima and the RegionofTazaͲTaounateͲAlHoceima(AHTT). 51

Evolution de la population de la province d'Al Hoceima depuis 1960

60 000

50 000

Al Hoceima (Municipalité) 40 000 Senada Ait Youssef Ou Ali 30 000 Bni Boufrah Bni Gmil 20 000 Izemmouren

Démographie (Hab.) Rouadi

10 000

0 1960 1971 1982 1994 2004 Année

AreaofbuiltͲupspaceinthecoastalzone Lackingsufficientinformationanddataoveralongperiodtoshowtheprogressofchangesin land use, the increase in builtͲup area was evaluated from the comparison between aerial photographsof1966andsatelliteimagesfromGoogleEarthPro2012.

Arealextentofcoastalerosion MultiͲdate aerial photographs of 1958, 1973, 2003, and 2013 geometrically corrected and geoͲreferenced, have been used to demarcate shoreline positions. The rates of coastal erosion were performed using the Digital Shoreline Analysis System Statistical (DSAS) technique.

Bathingwaterquality Beaches&stations(S) Cala Souani Boussakour Calabonita Quemado Sfiha Isli Torres Iris Season S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 93Ͳ94 AA 94Ͳ95 BB 95Ͳ96 BB 96Ͳ97 BB 97Ͳ98 BB 98Ͳ99 BB 99Ͳ00 AB 00Ͳ01 AA 01Ͳ02 BB 02Ͳ03 AA 03Ͳ04 B B 04Ͳ05 B B B B 05Ͳ06 B B A A A 06Ͳ07 C D A B A A 07Ͳ08 C D B B 08Ͳ09 B C A A A 09Ͳ10 A A A A A A A A A A A 10Ͳ11 A A A A A A B A BB B 11Ͳ12 A A A A A A A A A B B A A 12Ͳ13 B B B B A B A A B B B A A S: Sampli ngStation A:Goodqualityforbathing(comply) B:Mediumqualityforbathing(comply) C:Temporarilypolluted(Notcomply) D:Polluted(Notcomply)

54 Conservationconditionofcoastalandmarinefocalhabitatsandspeciesinprotectedareas: Theindicatorwasevaluatedforthefirsttime,forboththeMoroccanMediterraneanandthe Al Hoceima National Park. It was calculated considering sensitive/ vulnerable species and habitatofconservationinterestintheMediterranean. MoroccanMediterraneaAlHoceimaNationalPark

50% 35% 14%

50% 19% 8% 17% Favourable SpeciesConservationStatus UnfavourableͲInadequate

UnfavourableͲBad 5%

28% 8% 56% 23% 11% 69% 0%

HabitatConservationStatus Stateofthemaincommercialfishstocksbyspeciesandseaarea Due to the lack of data at the local level of the CASE, the indicator was calculated at MoroccanMediterraneanlevel,from2000to2012,fromtotheNationalOfficeforFisheries data.Itrefersto2Ͳ6fishstocks. 160

140

120

100

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Numberofoverfishedstocks Commercialstockswithinsafelimits Stocknotassessed EvolutionofthecommercialfishstocksassessmentintheMoroccanMediterranean

6WDWXVRIWKHILVK VWRFNVLQWKH

6 0RURFFDQ 0HGLWHUUDQHDQ

Climatechangeimpactsissue PhysicalCoastalVulnerability

CumulativepercentofCVIvaluesforthe studyarea 56 Vulnerabilityofthecoastalaquifertomarineintrusion

VulnerabilityoftheRhisͲNekorcoastalaquifera:Currentconditionsb;with0.5mSLR

Percentageofareasbyclassesofvulnerabilitytoseawaterintrusion SetbacksandBeacherosionpredictionsduetosealevelrise

Setbackline Position

S0 Currentpositionoftheshoreline(Baseline2013)

S2050 Predictedsetbacklinefor2050(withoutclimatechange)

S2050a Predictedsetbacklinefor2050withacceleratedseaͲlevelrisescenario

PredictedretreatoftheAlHoceimabeacheswith0.59mSLRscenario(fromLabrèche;2012). Predictedlossinthebeachwidth(in%) Current beach Beachname Incaseof0.59mSLRscenario width(inm) Lowestimate Highestimate Quemado 40 14 44 CalaBonita 60 930 Isly 18 30 98 Sfiha 80 722 Souani 115 515 SouaniEast 80 618 Rhach&Hadid 80 722 Formoredetailsonmethodologies,dataandcalculationsofeachindicator,pleaseconsultthe IndicatorsofAlHoceimaCASEReportuploadedonthePEGASOintranet. DatabaseandSDI AsitwasnotpossibletosetalocalgeonodeatUM5A,VLIZofferedustocreateitandlinkitto thePEGASOSDI.Wethenpreparedthedatabaseandallthefilesneededforitscreation. 58 Participationinscientificconferences o InternationalSymposiumon“Mediterraneancoast:Past,present&futurestates”.10Ͳ 12thNovember2010,Larache(Morocco). o 3rdEuropeanMaritimeDay PresentationoftheCASEatthePEGASORoundtable,Gijon, 20May2010. o KickͲoffand1stRegionalMeetingon‘IntegratedMaritimePolicy’.Athens,5Ͳ6April2011 Presentation on “How better address the maritime and coastal dimensions of climatechangeintheMediterranean?” o Second Economic Conference of the northͲwestern Mediterranean "Territorial Cooperation in the Western Mediterranean" Presentation of the CASE at the PEGASO Roundtable.Barcelona,6et7June2011 o 12th International Coastal Symposium Plymouth University, 8Ͳ12 April 2013.Oral PresentationbyA.KhouakhionVulnerabilityassessmentofAlHoceimabay.

PublicationsinscientificjournalsandProceedings: o KhouakhiA.,SnoussiM.,NiaziS.,RajiO.(2013)VulnerabilityassessmentofAlHoceima bay (Moroccan Mediterranean coast): a coastal management tool to reduce potential impactsofseaͲlevelriseandstormsurges.JournalofCoastalResearchSpecialIssueNo. 65,2013 o AdnaniM,JanaN,NiaziS,KhouakhiA,RajiO.(2013):Analysedelacinématiquedutrait decôtedesplagesduParcNationald’AlHoceima:Calairis,TorresetBades,àl’aidedu couplage télédetection et SIG. Rencontres des Sciences Géomatiques, 8Ͳ9 Avril 2013, Rabat,Maroc. o M. Snoussi (2011):Howbetteraddressthemaritimeandcoastaldimensionsofclimate change in the Mediterranean? 1st Regional Meeting on ‘Integrated Maritime Policy’, Athens,5Ͳ6April2011. o M.Snoussi(2011):TheICZM:BetweenlocalpracticesandRegionalengagement:TheAl Hoceima CASE and the PEGASO Platform. IIème Conférence économique de la MéditerranéenordͲoccidentale“LaCoopérationterritorialeenMéditerranéeoccidentale” Barcelone,6et7juin2011. o M.Snoussi(2010):OverviewofMarineactivitiesintheMediterraneanCoastofMorocco and the need of a Maritime Spatial Planning. Second Working group meeting on IntegratedMaritimePolicyintheMediterraneanBrussels,07July2010

59 o M. Snoussi (2010): The PEGASO case studies to test tools and produce information at multiscales:TheCASEofMorocco.3rdEuropeanMaritimeDay,Gijon,20May2010 PhDstudents o Abdou Khouakhi:Contribution with scientific tools to ICZM in the Al Hoceima bay. Expecteddate:October2013. o LatifaFlayou:LandusechangesandcoastalevolutionintheMoroccanMediterranean. Otheractivities: o Participation to the “Preparatory Work for PEGASO Training on Participatory Methods” heldinVenice,ItalyͲ31OctoberͲ3November2011.Theaimofthecoursewastotrainthe facilitatorwhowillberesponsiblefortheparticipationactivitiesintheCASES. o Participation to the “Ocean Teacher Academy Marine GIS Applications using ArcGIS Training Course” organized by the UNESCO/IOC Project Office for IODE, Oostende, Belgium,19Ͳ23March2012.Thecourseprovidedanindepthoverviewoftheapplication ofGeographicInformationSystems(GIS)tothemarineenvironmentusingArcGIS. o Based on the knowledge gained from the training in Belgium, tuition was provided for students of the Master’ Module “Climate, Water and Coastal zone” at UM5A, Faculty of Science. o MedOpenͲTraining Course on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The MedOpen Advanced Course 2012started on14May 2012 and will be lasting about three months (untiltheendofJuly). o ParticipationtotheeͲlearningSDItrainingcourseorganizedbyWP3(UPOTeam). Lessonslearnt Strongpoints: - Meetings with local stakeholders helped networking, keeping upͲtoͲdate, exchanging informationandraisingissuesfordiscussion. - Earlyparticipationseemstobeanadequatetooltoensurethatstakeholdersareformally andearlyinvolvedintheICZMprocess. - The role of NGOs participation emerges as an important dimension of coastal management. - Attheprojectlevel:trainings,evennotenough,haveimprovedthecapacityoftheteam especiallyintermsofinnovativetools,suchasLEAC,VisioningandEconomicvaluation. - CrossͲworkshop with the French CASE was successful in terms of sharing experiences, exchangingviews,andraisingsuccessandfailures. Weakpoints: Weaknesses are somehow the problems we encountered and that have been listed above, especially:

60 Intermsofparticipationandcommitment: - Difficultytoengagepolicymakersintheprocess.Thelackofnationalpolicycreateda weakened and sporadic commitment. In fact, for more effectiveness, national support and guidance for ICZM should be executed by a management body, but influenced greatly by the needs of stakeholders, and the cooperation of decision makers and scientistsatthelocalplanninglevel. - LackoftimeforthetimeͲlimitedprojecttofullyembeditseffects. - No single mechanism for the achievement of the vertical integrationand absence of structuresforcommunicatingandagreeingsharedobjectivesforcoastalmanagement Intermsofotherscientifictools: - NonͲavailabilityof/anddifficultaccesstodata,whichhaslimitedtheapplicationofthe tools developed in PEGASO to the Al Hoceima CASE, especially the LEAC and the economicvaluation. - At the project level: Big timing gap between the readiness of the tools, trainings, and application. - Timededicatedtotrainingwasnotsufficienttostrengthenourcapacitytoapplyallthe tools,evenifwefoundthemveryinterestingandrelevantforourCASE.

61 6.BouchesǦduǦRhone(France) Section1Coastalissues 1.1Themaincoastalissuesconsidered Weselectedourcoastalissuesasaresultofkeyinformantinterviewswithlocalstakeholders. AccordingtoourinterlocutorsfromtheGeneralCouncil(ConseilGénéral)ofBouchesͲduͲRhône, therearemanyenvironmentalissuesfoundintheconcernedterritory,buttheyaremoreorless important according to specific areas. This same message was found repeatedly among the stakeholdersaseachwasconcernedwithasmallsectionoftheCASEareaasopposedtothe entireBouchesͲduͲRhonedepartment.Forexample,the“GrandPortMaritimedeMarseille”, there are no major issues, or at least, everything is done in the harbour perimeter so that environmental issues are the least important.Conversely, agents responsible for protected spaces(parcnatureldeCamargue,parcmarindelaCôteBleue,GIPCalanquesandtoalesser extentthe“ConseilGénéral”)havegivenmuchmoredetailontheircoastalconcernsandthe majorthreatstotheirproectectedareas. Giventhedisparityofresponses,wecouldonlycounttheissuesthatregularlyrecuramongst stakeholders.Thisledustofocusonissuesoflandcontaminationofmarinewaters(aproblem thatcoversdifferentformsaccordingtotheconsideredsector),maritimetraffic,theexploitation offisheryresourcesandconflictsofuse.Anotherimportantriskthatwasmentionedwasthe risk of oil pollution due to the project “Melrose Mediterranean Ltd” for natural gas or oil prospectionatseaapproximately30kmfromMarseille(zoneof9375km²). Finally,itshouldbestressedthatthetightercontrolsofbathingwaterqualityinthefuturewill certainlybetranslatedbymanydaysofclosedbeachesinthecomingyears.Theappreciationof thebathingwaterquality,currentlydefinedbythetranspositioninthepublichealthlegislation related to bathing and swimming pool of the European directive 76/160/CEE of 1975, has recently evolved because of a new European directive 2006/7/CE that provides an implementationofnewclassificationstandardsin2013.

62 Table n°1: Issues mentioned by the different stakeholders

Manmade Structure Land Soil coastal Erosion, “Land” “Maritime” Issues transport contaminati spaces, marine Harbour contamination contamination of on spaces submersion dredging of marine of marine hazardous (chemical reclaimed risks waters(a) waters(b) products substances) fromthesea

Direction InterͲ Régionale de la Mer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Méditerranée

Conseil Général X des BouchesͲduͲ _ X _ X _ _ Rhône (Marinas)

Martigues _ _ X _ X _ _

Marseille Provence _ _ X _ X _ _ Métropole

X Ville de Marseille (landscape _ _ _ X _ _ )

Grand Port Maritime de _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Marseille

Parc Marin de la CôteBleue _ _ _ X X X _

Parc Naturel X (pesticides Régional de _ X _ _ and _ _ Camargue fertilisers)

GIP Calanques (Parc national _ _ _ _ X(redmud) X X desCalanques)

63 Structure Fishery Useconflicts Issues Coastal sea Marine Wind power Coastaltraffic resource (coastal traffic debris (project) exploitation zone)

Direction InterͲ Régionale de la Mer _ _ _ _ _ _ Méditerranée

Conseil Général X (free X (PN des BouchesͲ _ _ _ _ _ duͲRhône access) Calanques)

Martigues _ _ _ _ X _

Marseille X Provence _ _ _ _ _ Métropole (Marinas?)

Ville de X (Fishing, _ _ _ X _ Marseille aquaculture)

Grand Port Maritime de X(freeaccess) _ _ _ _ _ Marseille

X (marina, ParcMarindela _ _ X(trawling) _ X CôteBleue diving)

Parc Naturel X (illegal Régional de X(freeaccess) _ _ X _ Camargue fishing)

X (professional GIP Calanques X (PN (Parc national X X(Marina) X and noͲ _ _ Calanques) desCalanques) professional fishing)

Remarks: (a) Pathogenic microͲorganisms, chemical substances, atmospheric fallouts; (b) accidental pollution, operatingspills. Key:Majorissuesinorange,issueswhoseimportanceisnotdeterminedyetorminorissuesinpaleyellow,threats in green. Dashes in blank boxes indicate issues unmentioned or only touched upon by stakeholders during interviews;theseissuesarenotnecessarilyregardedasunimportant. Whatisthesocial,politicalandeconomicalrelevanceoftheidentifiedcoastalissues? AllthecoastalzoneofthedepartmentofBouchesͲduͲRhôneiscoveredbyplanningdocuments and their study is instructive to identify environmental problems present on this territory. However,wecannotassesstheirprioritycharacteraccordingtothisprocessanditdealshere with measuring the degree of territorial transversality of identified issues. The documents 64 consulted, fourteen altogether, are recent (2006Ͳ2011), various (management plans, charters, territorial coherence scheme, water development and management master plan, etc.) and includeadiagnosisdescribingthestateofthecoastalandmarineenvironment. Haveyoudeveloped,selectedorcalculatedindicatorsinordertodepictthesituationandthe problemsyouplannedtoconsider? TheCASESsiteͲthecoastalzoneoftheBoucheͲduͲRhoneCountyͲisfragmentedandmadeup offourmain"subsites",eachofthesehavingitsspecificitiesintermsofpopulationdensityand characteristics, zone management schemes, urban area density and industries including refineries,petrochemicalandsteelindustries,seaport,marinas,tourismandfarming.Indicators have been collected from ministries, the national statistical institute and the seaport of Marseillestoassessthedemographicandeconomiccomponentsofsubsites.Theobjectivewas toassessthedevelopmentofthesecomponentsovertherecentyearsandtoidentifythedrivers of the main pressures on the site's marine environment, including urban areas and the rice industy in Camargue; port businesses and heavy industry in the Bayof Fos; population, residentialandtourismdensityonthe"BlueCoast";urbanareadevelopmentandmanagement aswellastourismandpleasureboatinginthecoastalzoneofMarseillesandofthe"Calanques" protectedarea.Finallytheobjectivewastoidentifyqualitativelinksbetweenpressuresandthe state of the site's coastal waters as measured by Ifremer sourced chemical and biological indicators.

65 Section2RelationsbetweencoastalissueandICZMProtocolandprinciples 2.1HowdotheselectedcoastalissuesrelatetotheICZMprinciplesandprotocol?When possibleandappropriate,refertotherelevantArticlesoftheProtocol. CoastalIssue ICZMprinciple

Land contamination of marine Article8:3(a)Strivetoensurethelegalinstrumentsincludeidentifyinganddelimiting waters urbandevelopment Article 9: 1 (c, d) Ensure respect for integrated water resources management and environmentally sound waste management and ensure that the coastal and maritime economyisadaptedtothefragilenatureofcoastalzonesandthattheresourcesofthe seaareprotectedfrompollution Article9:2(a)Guaranteeahighlevelofprotectionoftheenvironmentinthelocation and operation of agricultural and industrial activities so as to preserve coastal ecosystemsandpreventpollutionofthesea,water,airandsoil.

Maritimetraffic Article 9: 2 (g) Conduct maritime activities in such a manner as to ensure the preservation of coastal ecosystems in conformity with the rules, standards and proceduresoftherelevantinternationalconventions.

Fisheries Article9:2(c)Takeintoaccounttheneedtoprotectaquacultureandshellfishareaand regulateaquaculturebycontrollingtheuseofinputsandwastetreatment.

Conflictofuses Article 5 (a) Facilitate through the rational planning of activities, the sustainable development of coastal zones by ensuring that the environment and landscapes are takenintoaccountinharmonywitheconomic,socialandculturaldevelopment. Article5 (f) Achievecoherencebetweenpublicand privateinitiativesandbetween all decisionsbythepublicauthorities,whichaffecttheuseofthecoastalzone.

Oilpollution Article6(j)Damagetothecoastalenvironmentshallbepreventedand,whereitoccurs, appropriaterestorationshallbeeffected

Bathingwaterquality Article8:3(d) Providingforfreedomofaccessbythepublictotheseaandalongthe shore. Article8:3(c)Ensuringthatenvironmentalconcernsareintegratedintotherulesforthe managementanduseofthepublicmaritimedomain.

66 Section3.PoliciesissuesandICZMprinciplesandapproaches 3.1Sofar,howhavebeenthecoastalissuesaddressedbythelocal/regional/national government? The coastal issues have been addressed by a variety of local and regional government organizationsincludingtheWaterAgency,theConservatoireduLittoralandtheRegionPACA. Theseorganizationsrequirethecreationanduseofintegratedmanagementplansforeachof thesectorsandeachoftheselectedissueshasbeenaddressedaccordingly.Themanagement plansthanservebothasatooltomonitorthedifferentcoastalsectorsandtohelpfinancethe differentactivities. 3.2Atwhichspatialscale? Thespatialscaleforaddressingtheissueshasbeenmoreatthesectorlevelandtheideabehind thePEGASOBouchesͲduͲRhoneCASESwastohaveabroaderperspective.Astheactivitiesand actionsofonesectorcandirectlyinfluencetheneighboringsectors,moreinteractionandjoint planningwouldbeuseful.TheWaterAgencyandtheRegionworkintheentireBouchesͲduͲ Rhonedepartmentandhaveattemptedtohavethisoverallvisionforthecoast. 3.3 Can you assess the results of the implemented policies? Which are the main results achieved?Whicharethemainlimitsandremainingproblems? Thecurrentpolicieshavehadmanypositiveimpactsonimprovingwastewatercontamination, monitoring bathing waters and reducing other pollutants in the waters.It has also been effective in creating participative approaches in many of the different protected areas.The policiesseemtobelesseffectiveinintegratedthedifferentsectorstohaveaglobalvisionofthe coast. 3.4.OnthebasisoftheICZMprinciples(astheyareexpressedbytheProtocol),doyouthink thatthecoastalissueswereaddressedwithanintegratedapproach(intermsoforganization, politics,sectors/thematic,tools,etc)? Yes, most of the issues have been addressed by the ICZM principles.The large number of protected areas (national parks, natural parks), which are managed by local and national authorities,hashelpedtofacilitatetheprotocol.TheseauthoritieshaveincorporatedICZMinto theirdailyorganizationandtools.Despitetheimplementationoftheprotocol,therearestill manyrisksandthreatstothecoastalarea. Section4.PEGASOinrelationtoICZMprocesses&initiatives 4.1DoyouthinkyourworkisrelevantfortheICZMprocessofyourcountry?Whyandhow? At the present time, ICZM processes in European countries are overwhelmed by the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The MSFD requires MemberStatestoimproveexistingmeasuresandtoimplementnewmeasuresforachievingthe good ecological of coastal and marine waters. The preparation of the future Program of

67 MeasuresoftheMSFD,atbothnationalandlocallevels,shouldbebasedonthebestavailable knowledge.Inthiscontext,thework,whichhasbeencarriedoutbythePEGASOteaminthe BouchesduRhônestudysite,maybeseenasapotentiallyusefulcontribution: x itprovidesanenvironmentalterritorialdiagnosiswhichidentifiesthemainmanagement issuesastheyarecurrentlyperceivedbylocalstakeholders; x itprovidesasetoflocalindicatorswhichputtogetherinamoreintegratedanalytical framework most of the Pressure and Impact descriptors which were collected for the MSFDatalargerscale(FrenchMediterraneanSea). 4.2Onthebasisoftheworkthatyouhavedone,whichareinyouropinion,themain constraintsinimplementingICZMprinciplesandtools?Whatismissing?Wherearethemain gaps?Whereweshouldputmoreenergyandresourcesinthefuture? ICZM may encompass a very wide range of issues and involve a lot of stakeholders. ICZM initiatives are thus always at risk of embracingtoo much. In practice, the involvement of the research and science community into ICZM initiatives should be organized so that it may be moreuseful,whichmeanstohaveamorefocusedapproachoftheworktobecarriedout.This approachrequiresconsideringbeforehandsomeefficiencyconditions:willtheknowledgetobe producedbringsomethingnewandunderstandabletothestakeholders?doestheknowledgeto be produced apply toa management issue that the stakeholders arewilling andable to deal with?Arestakeholdersconfidentenoughinthemeaningfulnessofthetoolsthatthescientific communitymayproposetodevelop? Section5.Stakeholdersinvolvement 5.1StakeholderinvolvementͲHaveyouinvolvedthemainstakeholders?Canyoulistthem? The selection of stakeholders was an important consideration.We selected at least 1Ͳ2 stakeholdersfromeachgeographicalsectorrangingfromsitemanagerstolocaldecisionmakers. Atotalof10stakeholderswereinterviewedovera4monthperiodbetweenJanuaryandApril 2012andtheinterviewslastedbetweentwotofourhours. Theobjectiveoftheinstitutionalanalysisistostudythecurrentmanagementprocessincluding capacity, missions and means of the main territorial agents in coastal zone management to maintain,restoreorimprovethemarineandcoastalecosystemqualityandreduceuseconflicts. Twelveterritorialagentshavebeenmetforthispurpose.Theseexchangesallowedustohear their point of view on the difficulties faced to carry out their missions (institutional deadlock points)andtheenvironmentalproblemsforwhichtheyhavetointervene. 5.2Howhaveyouinvolvedthem(e.g.focusgroup,interviews,questionnaire)? Thestakeholderswereinvolvedinthreeprincipalways: x Individualstakeholderinterviews. x Participativeworkshops(atotalof2workshopswerecarriedout). x Interactivewebsitetoidentifyindicators. 68 5.3Whichkindofconstraintshaveyoufaced? Overallthestakeholderswerehappytoparticipateintheinterviewsandworkshops;butitwas verydifficulttogetfeedbackthroughemailortelephonecontacts.WereliedonthelocalWater Agency to help organize the workshops. This strategy increased the participation of the stakeholdersandaidedinthelogisticsoftheworkshops.Ontheotherhand,thecollaboration withtheWaterAgencyrequiredmoreinternalplanningandthemodificationofworkplansand strategies.The character (strong and influential) of the Water Agency Coordinator helped ensurethesuccessoftheparticipatoryprocess,yetthefinalresultswereheavilyinfluencedby hispersuasion. Section6.Tools 6.1Toolsapplied FortheCASESwehaveusedindicators,participation,territorialdiagnosticandLEACastoolsto promotetheintegratedmanagementofthecoast. 6.2,Whichhavebeenthemainconstraints,facedduringtheapplicationofthetools? Constraintsindicators: Regardingpopulationandeconomicindicators,threemajorcontraintshavebeenfaced.1)The limitednumberofavailableeconomicdata:thoughtherangeofcollecteddatacouldbeseenas sizeable,anumberofindicatorswerelackinge.g.intermsofcleaningandmanagementroutines and wasteprocessing at commune level; of tourism, bathing, pleasure and marina visits; and moreimportantly,ofheavyindustryandricefarmingwastes,whichremainlargelyconfidential for business interest reasons. 2) The limited resolution power of collected data: e.g. this was conspicuous in the case of local industryͲrelated data as collected by the National Statistical Institute (principally workforce as measured in full time equivalentsͲfte), many of which remained confidential in compliance with statistical dissemination rules when the number of productionunitspercommuneistoolow.Itwasthendifficulttohaveadetailedassessmentof certainaspectsofindustrydevelopmentͲespeciallythemanufacturingindustryͲinthecoastal communes of the site. 3) Linkages between economic and environmental indicators: this difficultydidnotresultfromthenatureofthecollecteddata;itisageneralproblem.Asbornout bychemicalandbiologicaldata,indicatorscharacterizingthestateofwatersandsedimentsare difficult to correlate with manͲmade pressures such as polluting emissions from industry productionunitsorurbanareas(thoughsomemassivepollutingeventsareeasiertoassessin terms of marine water components). It is more feasible and reliable to correlate long term trendsinthestateofwaterswithmaingroupsofpollutants(emittedbycommonsources)and longtermtrendsinpollutingemissions.Thisisamajorlimittoadetailedandlocalassessment ofpressuresonmarineenvironmentatthescaleoftheCASES.

69 ConstraintsLEAC: TheLandandEcosystemAccountingtechnique(LEAC)toolaimstoidentifyhowconflictingland use issues have evolved over the years and the consequences that this has on the site. Ecosystemaccountsrecordedthestateofnaturalresourcesandecosystemcomponentsinterms ofquality(e.g.landͲcover);quantity(e.g.volumeofbiomass,areaofcertainlandͲcover,number ofspeciesetc.)andchangesinqualityandquantityintimeandspace. SomeconstraintsoftheLEACtoolusedfortheBoucheͲduͲRhôneCASE,isthespatialresolution oftheCORINELandCoverdatausedfortheanalysis.Indeed,thegrid(1km/1km)useddoesnot allowtoobservechangesinsmallunits.Inadditiontothat,thetimeseriesused(1990,2001and 2006)allowustoseethemajortrendsintheevolutionofthelanduseandlandcover,butthe totalperiodofanalysis(about15years)isnotlongenoughtobeabletoshowwhethertherate ofthesechangesarespiritedtospeeduporotherwisetostabilize.Finally,onemajorconstraint of the LEAC used in this study is the CLC classification. Using this classification, it was not possibletoidentifywithprecisionsomehabitats(particularlycertainclassesofwetlands)and see and their evolution over the period of analysis particularly in terms of conversion to agriculturallandandurbanareas. Thetoolwasthenmodifiedbyincorporatingadditionaldataincludingstatusofprotectedareas inordertotakeintoaccountthedifferenceonlandusechangeratesbetweennaturalprotected andnonͲprotectedareas. Constraintsparticipationandterritorialdiagnostic: Themajorityofthestakeholdersthatweresolicitedrespondedfavorablytoparticipatinginthe interviews and workshops.The major constraint was that this approach was quite time consuming and much of the information could have been retrieved by telephone or email contact.Unfortunately, telephone and emails were much less effective as many of the stakeholders did not respond to the questions or give their opinions appropriately and in a timely manner.Individual interviews allowed the stakeholders to express themselves openly withoutjudgmentfromothercolleagues;however,thismethoddoesnotpromoteexchanges between sites and sectors and continues the same status quo of individual site planning and management. Section7.MainresultsofCASES 7.1Achievements Individualpartnersachievements Wehaveimplementedaparticipatoryterritorialdiagnosticandsharedtheresultswiththelocal stakeholders. We have applied LEAC to our CASES and shared the methodology and results to the local stakeholders.

70 We have developed a local end users steering committee which is actively involved in the indicatorsetdevelopment, Allofouractivitieshavebeenimplementedinaparticipatorymannerwithindividualinterviews andgroupmeetings. Disseminationactivities 2papersacceptedandpresentedatinternationalconferences(MedCoast2011and2013) 1presentationatanational(French)conference(Berlitz2012). 1paperwillbepresentedtotheFrenchManagersJournal(EspacesNaturels) 7.2Lessonlearnt x TheCASESwascoͲcoordinatedby3differentorganizations(TdV,IFREMERandUOBrest), thegeographicaldistanceandthedifferentinternalpoliticsofeachorganizationadded to the work in the CASES.In the future it would be preferable to have one CASES coordinatorwhoworksintheprojectzone. x The difference in timing for the tools and the CASES implementation made it very difficultfortheCASEStousetheworkproducedbythetoolsWPasitcameverylatein the project activities.In the future it would be beneficial to begin the work on the different tools in advance and use that work as a base to test or practice the methodologyintheCASES. x Theprocessofintegratedmanagementisalongprocessthatcannotbelimitedtothe lengthofa3Ͳyearproject.Greateffortsmustbemadeatthebeginningoftheprojectto notonlystimulateparticipationfromlocalstakeholders,buttocreatelocalstakeholder leadership. This will ensure the mobilization of the different actors throughout the processandalsoensureacontinuationaftertheendoftheproject.Thetoolsthatare used should be transferred in such a way that they can be used/maintained by the stakeholdersandarenotdependentuponexternalprojectfunding.

71 ApplicationofLEACintheBouchesͲduͲRhone Annex1

Environmentalaccountingmethodology

LEACisagenerictoolusefulforenvironmentalassessmentsandmonitoring.Inparticular,itcan provide spatial indicators for regional assessment of the status and degradation of natural capital due to the overͲuse of natural resources (Weber and al. 2003). LEAC also provides multiͲscale (hierarchical) outputs, to facilitate the assessment of processes that manifest on differentlevelse.g.continental,country,regionandlocallevel(Gómezandal.2005). Essentiallytheecosystemaccountsaimtoregisterpropertiesorthestateofnaturalresources and ecosystem components in terms of quality (for example type of landͲcover); quantity (volumeofbiomass,areaofcertainlandͲcover,numberofspecies,…)andchangeinqualityand quantity in time and space. The quantity and quality features are basically termed and accountedasphysical“stocks”,whilethechangefeaturesareaccountedas“flows”.Landcover stockistheareaofcertainlandcovertypewithinaunitofmeasurement,beitadministrative region,rivercatchment,acountry,etc.Inthis studycase,astockwas definedbythenatural capitalcalculatedusingCORINELandCover(CLC)maps.ThestockderivedfromCLCmapswere representedinthreehierarchicallevelsonEuropeanscales;levelthreebeingthemostdetailed containing44classes.Inthisstudy,flowsweredefinedbythelandcoverchangerates.

Spatialscaleofworkandtimescale. Ivanovandal.'s(2012)LEACapplicationprotocolwasusedforthisstudycase.Accordingly,a gridof1km²(cellarea)wasusedinordertoinputdataandcalculatestocksandflows.Thisgrid approach allowed for data from different times and/or geometries to be combined with continuous (such as CLC) and/or discrete data (e.g. species distribution). In other words, complexspatial,statistical,qualitativeandquantitativeinputsprovidedcomparable,meaningful outputs.TimescalesofworkwerecalculatedusingthreeCLCmappingperiods:1990,2000and 2006.Thesedatawereusedtodeterminethenaturalcapital(stocks)foreachperiod,andthe landcoverchangemapswerealsousedtocalculatechangesintermsoflanduseconversionand thelost/gainofnaturalcapitalbetweentwotimesteps.

72 Aggregationintoclassesofinterest. Once the land cover data was extracted from the CLC maps for each unit, habitats were aggregated to obtain different classes of interest based on the land use type that they cover (Table2). Table2:LEACclassesofinterest(BouchesduRhonepilotstudy) Classesoflandcoverofinterest CLCclasses Urbanareas 11,14 Agriculturalland 2 NaturalorsemiͲnaturalland 3,4,5 Transportinfrastructures 122,124 Industries,mines,dumps 121,13 Ports 123 The conversion rates were calculated for each class of interest as it is shown in the Table 3. Indicators were then identified using the type of conversion from Table 3 and changes were detectedbetweentwodatesevery1km²cell.Theunit,inorderofpriority,was: x Thesurfacehavingexperiencedsuchaconversion(haorkm²) x %ofchangeascomparedtothelandcoverclassofinterest Table3:LEACindicatorsfortheBouchesduRhonepilotstudy Typeofconversion From To Conversionofagriculturallandtourbanarea 2 11,14 ConversionofnaturalorsemiͲnaturallandtourbanarea 3,4,5 11,14 ConversionofnaturalorsemiͲnaturallandtoagriculturalland 3,4,5 2 Conversionofagriculturallandtoindustrialarea 2 121,13 ConversionofnaturalorsemiͲnaturallandtoindustrialarea 3,4,5 121,13 Conversionofagriculturallandtotransportinfrastructure 2 122,124 Conversion of natural or semiͲnatural land to transport 3,4,5 122,124 infrastructure Conversionofagriculturallandtoports 2 123 ConversionofnaturalorsemiͲnaturallandtoports 3,4,5 123

Results. FortheBouchesduRhonestudysite,theunitsforcalculatingtheLEACindicatorsweredefined bytheadministrativelimitsofthecoastalcommunesfromMarseilletotheSaintesͲMariesͲdeͲlaͲ 73 Mer(Figure1).Thoseadministrativeunitsasdescribedintheterritorialdiagnosticwerethen includedinto4geographicsupraͲunits(seeTable1). Theclassesofinterestwereaggregatedforeachofthreeperiodsanalyzed(e.g.intheFigure2 for 2000). This permitted the estimation of natural capital stocks available, and the determinationoftheevolutionofstocksovertime(Table4).

Figure1:ExampleofaggregationoftheCLChabitatsintoclassesofinterest(derivedfromCLCGDWD Table4:Classesofinterestchangesovertimefortheentirepilotstudyarea. 1990 2000 2006 Classofinterest Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Urbanareas 15225 8.78 15828 9.13 15978 9.21 Agriculturalland 50082 28.88 49621 28.61 49481 28.53 NaturalorsemiͲnaturalland 101363 58.45 96755 55.79 96691 55.75 Transportinfrastructures 715 0.41 743 0.43 743 0.43 Industries,mines,dumps 5155 2.97 5174 2.98 5228 3.01 Ports 885 0.51 802 0.46 802 0.46 Globallyforallunitsinthepilotstudy,therewerenosignificantchangesintermsoflanduse between1990and2006.However,giventheresultspresentedinTable4,therewasalossof naturalcapital(from58.45%to55.75%)fortheentiresurfacearea.Thislossisprobablyduetoa sharpincreaseoftheartificializationoftheterritoryduringthesameanalysedperiodinsome coastalzones.Urbanizedareasincreasedfrom8.78%to9.21%andindustrialareasincreased

74 from2.97%to3.01%.Changeswerealsoseenthroughtheconversionofnaturalhabitatsinto agriculturalareas.Itisimportanttonotethatalthoughthesurfaceareasremainrelativelystable in terms of used surface, it does not necessarily mean that there has been no evolution as naturalhabitatsmightbecompensatedbylossesinurbanizationforexample.Furtheranalysis tookintoaccountthedifferenttypesofchangespreviouslydefined(LEACindicators).

Figure3:LEACindicatorscorrespondingtodifferentlandusechangesbetween1990and2006. Takingintoaccountthedifferentmunicipalitiesconstitutingthepilotstudyarea(seeFigure3), the most important conversion rates were those of natural habitats to agricultural and built areas(urban,industryandports),aswellasagriculturalareasconvertedintobuiltlands(urban and/or industrial). Moreover, with this analysis, it was possible to identify some trends in economicpoliciesofeachadministrativeunitsoftheBouchesduRhonepilotsite.Forexample, thecommunitieswiththehighestrateofindustrializationintermsoflandcoverarethoseof MartiguesandPortͲSaintͲLouisͲduͲRhône,whichbothareinthegeographicunitoftheGulfof Fos. However, the municipalities where urban sprawl was the highest during the 16 years analysed,wereFosͲsurͲMer,MarseilleandSaussetͲlesͲPins(locatedrespectivelyinunitsofthe Gulf of Fos, Marseille and the Cote Bleue). These urban expansions may be due to strong demographicgrowth,whichitselfcouldresultfromaneconomicattractivenessoftheseregions between1990and2006(industrialandportactivities,agricultureandtourism).Finally,withthe LEACtool,itwaspossibletolocalizethechangesthroughmaps(Figure4).

Fos-sur-Mer

Figure4:LanduseandlandcoverchangemapinthemunicipalityofFosͲsurͲMerbetween1990and

Conclusion. Given the participants’ interest in the PEGASO tools, a final restitution was presented in a participative workshop to validate the results and to determine potential further uses.The participantsvalidatedtheterritorialdiagnosticandwereverymotivatedbythepreliminaryLEAC results.TheparticipantshighlightedtheirinterestintheLEACtoolandparticularlyappreciated the visual attractiveness of the maps.During the workshop it was mentioned that the maps allowed the stakeholders to visualise the evolution of the sites overtime and the interactions betweenthedifferentunits.Varioussuggestionswereofferedbytheparticipantstoimprove the LEAC tool. In order to keep the tool as userͲfriendly as possible, the only feasible recommendationwastoaddtheprotectedareaboundariestothemaps.Thecompletedtoolis now being transferred to the local Water Agency who will be responsible for updating the classes every five years (with the available CLC data).Using a participative approach for the LEACensuredanopendialoguebetweenscientistandlocalstakeholders.Thisdialogueproved successfulincreatingtoolsthatwillbeusefultothemanagementofthecoastalregionafterthe endofthePEGASOproject.

References. Gómez O., Páramo F. and Weber J.L.; 2005. Environmental Accounting Methodological guidebook:Dataprocessingoflandcoverflows.Internalreport.UniversitatAntònomade Barcelona.23pp. IvanovE.D.;WeberJ.L.;Spyropoulou;R.andR.HainesͲYoung;2012.Developinganaccounting methodforbiodiversityconservationinEurope.CEM,SchoolofGeography,Universityof Nottingham. Weber J.L., Paramo F., Breton F., HainesͲYoung R. (2003): Integration of geographical and statistical data in the environmental accounting framework; methodological developmentbasedontwocasestudiesAction2:Integrationofenvironmentalaccounts in coastal zones; case study of tourism Contract n° 200141200017 Report of the European Topic Centre on Terrestrial Environment, with the support of the European EnvironmentAgency,Barcelona,28February2003.

77 Environmentalandterritorialdiagnosis CASEBouchesͲduͲRhône Summary

The PEGASO project supports the Barcelona Convention and the "Integrated Coastal Zone Management" Protocol.The primary objective of the project is to propose tools to decision makersthatwillpromoteintegratedcoastalmanagementintheMediterraneanandBlackSeas. PEGASO aims to refine and further develop efficient and easy to use tools for making sustainability assessments in the coastal zone (indicators, accounting methods, models and scenarios).TheywillbetestedandvalidatedinamultiͲscaleapproachforintegratedregional assessment through a number of relevant pilot sites, including the BouchesͲduͲRhone in southernFrance. Thesubjectofthisreportistopresentthestateofprogressoftheenvironmentalandterritorial diagnosisforthecoastalzoneofthedepartmentofBouchesͲduͲRhône. Theenvironmentalandterritorialdiagnosisismadeupoftwodistinctandcomplementarytasks: firstly,aninstitutionalanalysisthatgivesanaccountoftheterritorialagentdiversityandtheir actions for the coastal zone management; and secondly, a multidisciplinary assessment (morphological, ecological, socioͲeconomic indicators) of priority environmental issues. This joint work describes the past evolutions and the current and future issues according to the environmentaldeterioration,associatedeffectsandanswersgiventodealwithit. Only the institutional analysis has been completed. This is a description of the current managementsystem,anidentificationofissuesfacedbyterritorialagentsinterviewedontheir management activities in the coastal zone, and an identification of the main environmental issues. The most common identified difficulty of the territorial agents consulted is to make managementissuescoincidebecausecontradictionsintermsofobjectivesoftenexistbetween differentprojects. Amongthemainenvironmentalissuesidentified,themostcitedbyagentswastheproblemof “landcontaminationofmarinewaters”.Thisproblemis,withthe“manmadecoastalspacesand spacesreclaimedfromthesea”,presentinthewholecoastalzoneofBouchesͲduͲRhône.Itis also,inregardtothenatureandgeographicalandhistoricaldimensionsofdataavailable,the only environmental problem that seems to be the subject of a spatiotemporal integrated assessment.

78 1.Theenvironmentalandterritorialdiagnosis

1.1Definition ThisenvironmentaldiagnosisidentifiestheusesfoundalongtheBouchesͲduͲRhônecoastand theirenvironmentalpressures,factorsandimpactsthatinfluencethecoastalzones.Giventhat coastal management aims to influence, reduce or eliminate these pressures, the diagnosis focused on identifying these pressures through interviews with local stakeholders (directly or indirectlyinvolvedincoastalmanagement). Theenvironmentaldiagnosisisthefirststepinmostmanagementprojects.Thisdiagnosiscan enhancethemanagementplans(schémasdecohérenceterritorialeͲSCOT,schémasdirecteurs d’aménagement et de gestion des eauxͲSDAGE, plans locaux d’urbanismeͲPLU) and other managementdocuments(Chartersfornationalandregionalparks). According to the Brundtland report (1987), sustainable development is “development that meetstheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeet theirownneeds”(CMED,1987).Thisconceptrepresentsaprocessofecologicallysustainable, economically effective and socially fair development.A territorial diagnosis of sustainable development aims to give an account of its implementation, taking into account these three dimensions. Concerningtheparticularcaseofinterfaceareasbetweenseaandland,thisdiagnosisisinserted intheprocessofIntegratedCoastalZoneManagement(ICZM),the“centralparadigmofcoastal sustainable development” (Billé, 2006). ICZM is defined in an additional protocol to the Barcelona convention for the coastal and marine area protection of the Mediterranean Sea againstpollutionas“adynamicprocessofdurablemanagementanduseofcoastalzones,taking simultaneously into consideration the fragility of ecosystems and coastal landscapes, the diversityofactivitiesanduses,theirinteractions,themarinepurposeforsomeofthem,andalso theirimpactsonmarineandlandparts”(UNEP/MAP/PAP,2008).Theprivilegedentrytomake the environmental and territorial diagnosis for the process of ICZM is centered on an environmentaldeteriorationinthecoastalzoneandtherepercussionsthatithasonthecoastal populationwellͲbeing. In this study, the environmental diagnosis is considered a preliminary step to create other quantitative management tools.It attempts to encompass the most important questions concerningcoastaldevelopmentandmanagement.Thefinalresultshavebeensubmittedtothe localterritorialstakeholdersinvolvedincoastalmanagement.Thesecondstepoftheprojectis tocreateanindicatorsetthatincludeseconomicandsocialindicatorsconcerningthecoastal zoneactivities.

79 1.2Thechoiceoftheterritorialunit

The study site is the coastal zone of the BouchesͲduͲRhône Department. The 2007 territorial developmentdirective(DTA)establishedthecoastalzonetoincludetwentyͲtwocountiesthat haveaMediterraneanSealineoracoastalongtheEtangdeBerre(lagoon).Thisencompasses over40%oftheDepartment.Atthebeginningoftheproject,itwasdecidednottoincludethe coastofEtangdeBerreintheprojectarea.Thisdecisionwasmadebecauseoftheextreme geographicdiversityofthecoastalzone,thelimitedtimeavailableduringtheprojectandthe needtotakeintoaccountthemarineareasinsufficientdetail. The depth of the coast area for the study zone depends on the uses and pressures that are analyzed.The extent of the coastal zone depends, in general on the uses and pressures to analyze.Itisusuallyconfinedto"thegeomorphologicareaeithersideoftheseashorewhere interactionoccursbetweenthemarineandtheterrestrialpartthroughecologicalsystemsand complexsystemsresourcesincludingbioticandabioticcoexistingandinteractingwithhuman communitiesandrelevantsocioͲeconomicactivities.Thecoastalzoneofthestudysiteisdivided intounitsthatdifferinlanduseandmainuses:theCamargue,theGolfofFos,theCôteBleue,la radedeMarseilleandtheCalanques(figure1).

Figure 1. Study site: the coastal zone of Bouches-du-Rhône

1.3.Pressuresandmanagementproblems Therearenumerouspressuresandmanagementissuesinthecoastalzoneofthedepartmentof BouchesͲduͲRhônegiventhatithasbeenhighlyindustrializedsincethe1970s.Thisreportis limitedtoenvironmentalpressuresconsideredmajorbyusersandlocalmanagers,andlinkedto actualdegradationphenomenaorrisksofdegradation.Forthisreason,itdoesnotaddressthe issueofaccessibilityofthecoast(primarilyasocialissue),theriskoffire(fieldofcivilsecurity) nor hunting. Pressuresconsideredherearetheactualandpotentialpressures(risksexertedonthecoastal zone uses and actual or estimated effects on the environment and the wellͲbeing of coastal communities. The study is based on interviews with local stakeholders and the revision of managementplans,blueprints,chartersandactionplanforthelandandmarineenvironments. Themanagementdocumentswereusedtosketchanoverviewofenvironmentalissuesandthe semiͲstructuredinterviewswereusedtoupdatetheknowledgeandunderstandingoftheissues concerninglocalmanagers.

1.4.Institutionalanalysisandevaluationofenvironmentalpriorities Theterritorialenvironmentaldiagnosisincludes,ontheonehand,aninstitutionalanalysisthat reflectsthediversityoflocalactorsandtheiractionsinthemanagementofthecoastalzone,and secondly,asummaryofcoastalusesandpressuresconsideredimportantinthemanagement documents.Thisinformationwillbesupplementedwithindicatorsof thestatecoastalzones and coastal waters, and economic and social indicators to assess the importance of uses and impacts of degradation. The objective is to analyze the factors and pressures, risks and responses implemented or considered necessary by the actors or planned management documents.

1.4.1.Institutionalanalysis

TheinstitutionalanalysisisanonͲexhaustiveinventoryof agentsactiveinthefieldofcoastal zonemanagement,tomaintain,restoreorimprovethemarineandcoastalecosystemquality and reduce use conflicts. The objective of this approach is to understand the current managementsystemandcollectthepointofviewofkeyagentsonitsfunctioning.Inaccordance with the structure adopted for the semiͲstructured interviews made with territorial agents betweenJanuaryandApril2012(annexn°1),itparticularlyconcerns: x Theidentificationofinstitutionalknowledge,i.e.statusandmissionsthattheyaregiven 81 andonwhichtheybuildtheirlegitimacyasaterritorialagent; x Thecollectionofpointsofviewonthemainenvironmentalproblemsintheintervention area; x Theidentificationofspecificobjectivesofenvironmentalmanagementpoliciesthatthey leadinthecoastalzone(managementtools,financialandhumanmeans,etc.); x And the definition of institutional deadlock points, i.e. pressures met by these agents that prevent them from fully achieving their objectives (problems of management measureacceptability,meansandknowledgenecessarytomaketheirmission,etc.).

1.4.2.Evaluationofenvironmentalpriorities

Theenvironmentalassessmentoftheissuesidentifiedasprioritiesseektogatherquantitative indicatorsrelatedtotheuseandenvironmentalpressuresonthestudysite:

x What are the economic, industrial, social and urban pressures observed on the study site? x Whataretheenvironmentalimpactsofthesepressuresandtheirconsequencesonthe usesdirectlydependentonthecoastalenvironmentandcoastalcommunities? x Can we estimate the cost elements and the effects of management measures (regulations,budgets,incentivestochangingusagepractices)? The general identification method of priority issues to elaborate indicators of “pressures/impacts”inthecoastalzoneissummarizedinthefollowingfigures(fig.2aand2b). Temporal and spatial indicators characterizing the state of the site in relation to major environmentalproblemswillbedefined.Theeconomicandsocial assessmentof coastaluses and their associated effects will be conducted using anthropogenic indicators(eg. length of artificialcoastlines)andeconomicandsocialimpacts(eg.annualnumberclosingdaysofbathing forhealthreasons).Theaimistohighlighttheinteractionsbetweenpressureuses,degradation ormodificationoftheenvironment,andsocialandeconomicimpactsontheseusersorother users.Theanswersgiventopreventorreducedegradationandassociatedimpactsarepartially addressed in the assessment of the costs of degradation (cf. Le Gentil et al. , 2011). Thesetofindicatorsistobedeterminedaccordingtotheirusesandpressuresonthecoastal environment.Syntheticindicatorsmustbedevelopedforpolicymakers,whiledetailedindicators mustbeusedbythescientificcommunity.

Fig. 2a and 2b: Analytical framework and methodology used for the sustainability issue assessment.

2.Institutionalanalysis

Theobjectiveoftheinstitutionalanalysisistostudythecurrentmanagementprocessincluding

83 capacity, missions and means of the main territorial agents in coastal zone management to maintain,restoreorimprovethemarineandcoastalecosystemqualityandreduceuseconflicts. Severalterritorialagentshavebeenmetforthispurpose.Theseexchangesallowedustohear their point of view on the difficulties faced to carry out their missions (institutional deadlock points)andtheenvironmentalproblemsforwhichtheyhavetointervene.

2.1.Themanagementdeviceandthepointofviewofinterviewedstakeholders 2.1.1.Thecurrentmanagementprocess

The management device applicable to the coastal zone of the BouchesͲduͲ Rhône includes severalmanagementplansandschemes.Thereare:Ͳ

x Documents which, like the DTA, the SDAGEs and PAMM apply to larger territories, including the study site at the department level, the watershed or maritime façade. Theseareeitherplanningdocuments,ordocumentsfortheconservationandrestoration of the environment and communities.Development oriented documents also include environmentalprotectionobjectives. x Documentsrelatingtospecificareasfortheirfragility,theirfunctionality(eg.transitional waters)ortheirremarkablefeatures(creeks,etc.).Thespatialscalesaremorelimited. These documentsͲSCOT, charters for natural parks, management plans, and Bay contractsͲfocusonconservingtheenvironment. x Inthehierarchyofmanyofthesedocumentsexpressestheprincipleofsubsidiary,taking intoaccounttheskillsofcommunitiesandtheirlevelsofintervention.

Spatialscaledocumentsintegratedintothestudysite x Water Development and Management Master Plan 2010Ͳ2015 (Schéma Directeur d’Aménagement et de la Gestion des Eaux or SDAGE: Rhône + Mediterranean basins): institutedbythewaterlawof1992,theSDAGEisaplanninginstrumentwhichestablishes fundamental directions of a balanced management of the water resource in the general interestandinlinewiththeprinciplesoftheWaterFrameworkDirectiveandthewaterlaw foreachwaterbody(pondsandlakes,baysandseas,stretchesofstream,estuaries,coastal waters, ground waters)” for each water catchment. The achievement of a “good state” in 2015isoneofthegeneralobjectives.Inthiscontext,theSDAGEdeterminestheplanning andmeasuresnecessarytoavoidfurtherdeteriorationandtheimprovementofthewater stateandaquaticareas,inordertoachieveenvironmentalobjectivespreviouslydefined. x Actionplanforthemarineenvironment(Pland’actionpourlemilieumarinorPAMM):The EuropeanMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD)establishesprinciplesonwhichthe

84 memberStatesmusttakeactiontoreachthegoodecologicalstateofallthemarinewaters forwhichtheyareresponsibleby2020.ThetranspositionofthesestrategiesintheFrench legislationismadebytheactionplanelaboratedforthemarineareapermarinesubͲregion (Article L. 219Ͳ9 of the environment code) that takes into consideration the following elements:1/aninitialassessmentofthestateofthemarinesubͲregion,2/adefinitionof goodecologicalstatusofthesubͲregion,tobeachievedin2020,3/settingenvironmental objectivestoachievethisgoodenvironmentalstatus4/monitoringprogram,5/program measures.ThefirstthreecomponentsweredevelopedinJuly2012andtheothertwowillbe developedin2014and2015respectively. x DirectiveTerritorialPlanning(DTA)oftheBouchesͲduͲRhone(2007).Itsetsoutthemain objectives of the State: a) for the location of major transport infrastructure and major equipment and preservation of natural areas, sites and landscapes, b) in terms of development and balance prospects for development, protection and enhancement of territoriesc)specifythedetailedrulesspecifictothecoastlineadaptedtolocalgeographic features.Itrequiresotherplanningdocuments:theSCOTandPLUmustbeconsistentwithits policies. Three principles are developed, focusing on the development and operation of Marseille City and County and the preservation and enhancement of spaces. On this last point,theDTAspecifiescoastallawenforcement.The main orientations of this framework are the conservation of large landscape units that constitute the identity of the coastline of the Bouches -du- Rhone, such as (for sites of this case study) the Camargue, the Calanques and Estaque, and the Gulf of Fos. The provisions of the Coastal Act that are not specified by the DTA remain applicable as provided by the Town Planning Code.

Documentsthatareappliedtopartsofthestudysite

x Territorial Coherence Schemes (SCOT). Established by the SRU law, this planning documentatthemunicipalities’levelensuresconsistencybetweenthesectoralpolicies of urban planning, housing, travel and commercial equipment in an environment preservedandenhanced.TheGrenelleIIlawhastightenedtheobjectives:SCOTreduces the consumption of urban space, preserves spaces used for agricultural and forestry activities,balancingtheterritorialdistributionofshopsandservices,improvingenergy efficiency, reducing obligations for travel, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancingtheconservationofbiodiversityandecosystems.Itisparticularlysubjectto theDTA,thechartersofregionalparksandSDAGEs(seebelow).Itiseffectiveagainsta set of decision documents, programs and development plans, local housing programs (PLH), urban transport plans (PDU) and local development plans (PLU). The SCOT that appliestotheCASEarethoseoftheurbancommunityofMarseilleProvenceMétropole (MPM),theWestBerreandArles.Notethatthefirsttwoapplytocommonareasoutside oftheCASE.

85 x CharteroftheRegionalNaturalParkoftheCamargue.ThePNRismanagedbyajoint union grouping communities that signed the charter, contract management and land development for a fixed term (12 years now). It is based on consultation with local stakeholders.Theobjectivesofthe2011Ͳ2022Charterare:managingthedeltaiccomplex incorporatingthepredictedimpactsofclimatechange,directchangesinthebusinessfor thebenefitofexceptionalbiodiversity,strengtheningregionalsolidarity,socialcohesion andimprovethelivingconditions,sharingknowledgeandopendeltatoMediterranean cooperation.Thecharterisalegaldocument:itisenforcedbytheFederalgovernment and is administered by local signatories within their skills and is binding on planning documents(SCOTandPLU).

x Camargue delta contract. The PNR and the water agency RMC took the initiative of a contract recommended by the Delta DTA of 2007, in consultation with users: local authorities,associationsofusersanddevelopers,protectionassociations,conservatoire dulittoral,andscientificresearchorganizations.Itisatoolfordialogueandincentives. Thecontract2012Ͳ2017hassixorientations:thefightagainstpollution,managementof water resources, conservation and restoration of aquatic environments, support the integratedmanagementofcoastalandmarineenvironment,andknowledgemonitoring oftheenvironment,supportlocalgovernanceandpublicawareness.Thecontractscope includesthezoneofthreenauticalmiles.

x BlueCoastMarinemanagementplan(ParcMarindelaCôteBleue):theobjectivesofthe “ParcMarindelaCôteBleue”drawitsinspirationsfromthePNR.Forthisreason,this organism has a management plan that has been made in partnership with different agents (elected representatives, State services and related, socioͲprofessionals) and is structured around six strategic objectives for which different actions are determined: reinforcetheknowledgeofthemarineandcoastalheritage;manage,protectandrestore marine and coastal natural areas; reinforce the value of fishery resources and ensure conditionsofsustainablecoastalfishing;betheintermediateoflocalpoliciestomaintain pollution, natural risks and development impacts; and respond to the information, awarenessandeducationofthepublicandlocalagents. x CharterCalanquesNationalPark."Anationalparkcanbecreatedfromlandorseaareas wheretheenvironment[...]presentsspecialinterestandimportancetotheprotectionin preserving degradation and damage likely to affect the diversity of composition, appearance and evolution." A regional project is enshrined in a charter defining the

86 modalitiesofapplicationoftheregulationintheheartofthepark.Itisestablishedfor fifteenyearsanddirectsthemanagementofthedifferentareasofthepark. x Management plan in the Roadstead of Marseille: “the Management plan in the RoadsteadofMarseille(PlandeGestiondelaRadedeMarseilleorPGRM)isaprocess madebythecityofMarseilletoelaborateanddevelopasustainableandcoherentpolicy ofoperationalactions,inordertoconserveanddeveloptheareasandresourcesofthe roadstead”.Thisterritorialprocessaimstocreateasharedvisionofthemainissuesand challenges concerning the maritime areas and the Marseille coast (institutional, socioͲ economic,associativeandscientificagents).Strategicobjectiveshavebeencollectively definedandanactionplanfortheMarseilleroadsteadmanagementwasproposed.

2.1.2.Elementstakenfromthemanagementdocuments

Thissectionsummarizesthediagnosticelementsthatemergedfromtheconsultedmanagement documents:theDTA,theactionplanforthemarineenvironment(PAMM),theSDAGEstheSCOT MPM,WestEtangdeBerreandArles,themanagementplanoftheharborofMarseilleandthe application of the Marseille Bay Contract, the charter of the PNR and the Camargue delta contract,themanagementplanPMCB,andthecharterfortheCalanquesNationalPark.These documents provide key elements to the environmental assessment or a state of the environment. This element of analysis should be compared with Directive 2001/42/EC whose transposition into French law requires water management and spatial planning documents includedintheenvironmentalassessment.Thislogicallyimpliesaformofinventory.Inaddition, certain provisions in the governing documents, particularly in the development and plans for sustainable development (PADD) integrated with SCOT, can be interpreted a contrario as diagnosticelementsindicatinggapsorpointstoimprove.

Thereareothermanagementdocumentsthanthoselistedabove:developmentplansandwater management(SAGE),localdevelopmentplans(PLU)andenvironmentalcontracts,forexample, in addition to the environmental management plan (NMP) the "largest seaport " Marseille (GPMM).Thisaside,thesedocumentsarecompatiblewithSDAGEs,amongothers.Theselected documentsarethereforesufficienttomakeageneralanalysisofmanagementproblemsonthe site,butmaynotprovidethehighestlevelofaccuracy.The«Energyterritorialclimateplans" including CFEP MPM and the WesternͲBerre and Martigues, can also provide diagnostic elementsincoastalareas,butrathermarginally,thesedocumentsareofalessdirectinterestin thissynthesis,sincetheyhaveveryglobalobjectives.

Thissummarywillbecompletedbytheviewsexpressedbymanagersduringtheinterviewswe hadin2012.Itseekstohighlightkeyaspectsoftheeconomicdevelopmentofthestudysiteand 87 theevolutionofthestateofitsenvironment,andhelptodefinerelevantindicatorstointegrate theindicatorsetfortheCASE. a) Coherenceofdifferentapproaches TheconsultationdocumentsshowanefforttocrossͲreferenceinformation.Otheraspectsthat shouldbehighlightedincludethat:thedocumentsarecompatible(SCOTarecompatiblewith the DTA and SDAGEs), the documents targeted more local information (management plans a subͲsitePLU),yettheyrefertotextsonagreaterspatialscale(DTASDAGEsparticular).TheDTA SDAGEs attempt to link up with other national regulations (coastal law, national Health and Environment2004ClimatePlan,lawsGrenelleIandII)andinternationalprotocolsratifiedby France.TheSDAGEsmakesspecificreferencetotheBarcelonaConvention.Referenceisalso madetoEuropeandirectives(eg.Water FrameworkDirective)andtheSDAGEsnowintegrate themanagementplanunderthelawof21/04/2004transposingWFDandotherenvironmental objectivesoftheDirective.Theachievementof"goodstatus"ofwatersin2015:coastalwater bodies, whose limit is a mile offshore is one example. Regardless operational management choices, there is a consistent effort to develop managementschemesthatarecoherentatlocal,nationalandEuropeanlevels. b) Generalapproachforthestudysite

The study site was subdivided into several subͲsites according to the dominant local characteristics of the coastal zone and the interactions between subsites. The planning documents consultedadoptneighboringapproachesatdifferentgeographicalscalesandthus allowfortheunderstandingofinteractionsofCASEwithamoreglobalperspective.Thus the DTAnotesthedepthextensionofthecoastofthedepartment,aroundtheEtangdeBerre(not studied here) and in the Rhone delta (the city of Arles, 40 km from the sea) is liable to the provisionsthecoastallaw.ItadoptsanapproachtointerͲregionalscaletransportinfrastructure (roads, rail and water to thin and massif traffic and communication between urban centers, industrialportandlogistics).Thelocaldocuments(SCOT,MPMandWestͲBerre,management planoftheharborofMarseilles,Baycharter)adoptan"inͲdepthapproach"fortheirdiagnoses, includingcoastalandhinterlandthroughwatershedsandtheirimpactonthequalityofcoastal waters, through pressures from urban, industrial and tourist traffic from and on neighboring areas. Theissueof"intermediate"spaceputsthesubdivisionintosubͲsites.Thus,thetownofPortͲ SaintͲLouisͲduͲRhôneislocatedintheCamargueandtheGulfofFos,Martiguesislocatedin theGulf,ontheEtangdeBerreandtheBlueCoast,theothertownsofthesameBlueCoastis

88 partoftheurbancommunityofMarseille.TheboundariesbetweensubͲsitesarenotstrictand accept spaces and common mixed characters. Subsites are studying according to their dependenciesbutalsothecharacteristicsoftheseintermediatespaces.

In each of the five subͲsites, land management projects are faced with the need to combine economic development and environmental protection of the most vulnerable areas. This is a generalproblemforalmostalllandrecords,asitdirectsthediagnosisofdocumentsconsulted and programs of measures, given the density of uses that have a strong influence on the environmentandwaterbodies.Theproblemisradicallydifferentinareasofindustrialorurban land (ZIP Fos, Marseille) and in areas used for agriculture and tourism, which are subject to environmentalprotectionmeasures.

Theliteraturestressestheneedtodevelopindepth.Onereasonistheneedtoimproveaccess, trafficandintercityconnections:theseareproblemstobeaddressedinadepartmental,interͲ regional and even national setting (see DTA). At the department coastal scale, the problems focusonintercityconnectionsandupgradingofroadandrailaccesstotheZIPFos.Thisaspect leadstoanintegratedenvironmentalinventoryofthecoastinabroadercontextinvolvingthe densification of housing and the creation of urban centers. This principle is particularly importantinacoastalareawhereshorelineaccessismademoredifficultbyurbansprawland growth.Anotherreason,istheinfluenceofwatershedsoncoastalwaterquality(pesticidesand heavymetals).ThemajorroleofwatershedmanagementshowstheimportanceoftheWFDand SDAGEs for analyzing problems of the marine environment. A third reason is due to land pressuresthataffectthemarineenvironment:impactsofpesticidesonriceintheCamargue wetlands,heavilymodifiedwaterbodiesintheGulfofFosasaresultofurbanpressuresandthe port:hencetheneedforadiagnosistakingintoaccountfactorswellinadvanceofthecoastline. c) EssentialproblemsforthesubͲsites IndicatorscanbegatheredonthestateofthecoastalenvironmentofCASE,fromdocuments consulted. This section is limited to major global indications. According to the documents consulted,themainissuesofenvironmentalinventoryareinthefollowingsections.Thelistis not exhaustive and the reader will find supplements in Appendix 1. Camargue TheareaiscoveredbytheCharteroftheRegionalNaturalParkandcontractdelta.TheSCOT Paysd'Arlesisalsotakenintoaccount.

Themainactivitiesareagriculture,tourismandfisheries;

89 x NRPCamargueincludesnonurbanizedpartandnonͲindustrial(excludingZIPFos)inPort ͲSaintͲLouisͲduͲRhônetothehandleandarrowCarteautheGracious,andthusincludes the SAN West Provence , it also includes SalinͲdeͲGiraud and the site of the former Salinièresactivities; x Agriculture (rice cultivation, cattle ranching, irrigated meadows, vineyards) is a major localactivity,ricefarmingalsoinfluencesthezonewithfreshwaterinflowsreducingthe riseofsaltwater; x Maintainingsmallcoastalfishingthroughtherichwatersofthedelta,butthereisalso overfishingandillegaltrawlingwithinthreemiles; x Rising sea levels combined with subsidence and the uncertainty of future flows of agriculturalwater,thesealevelisabovetheleveloftheponds(morethan200days/ yearin2008),managementthepondVaccarèsbecomesdifficult,needsacontractdelta andawaterchartertointegratefloodrisktomarinemanagement; x Significantcoastalerosion; x Emissions of rice pesticides in wetlands, but lack of monitoring of the quality of the lagoonwater; x Problems of emissions due to rain and the treatment of wastewater impacts bacterial pollutiononswimming,fishingandshellfish,shellfishareasclassifiedBbetweenVifand GrandRhôneRhône,CthearrowontheGraciuese,improvingthemicrobiologicalquality (REMI). x Presenceofheavymetalsinmoderateconcentrationinmarinewaters,oilpollutionof marinewatersandVaccarèsbyairandseaduetoindustryandrivertraffic,roadandsea (illegaldischarges),thepresenceofPAHsinVaccarèsandcontaminationoffish; x Urban pressure resulting in growth and multiplication of the facilities and tourist infrastructures,infrastructurestoreducefloodingrisksandtheartificialityofthecoast, needfordensificationoftheframe. GolfedeFos x Sea side : strong modification of water bodies and intake from port and industrial discharges(westbasinofthePortofMarseille),andnevertheless:thepersistenceofa smallcoastalfishingintheGulf,andmusselfarminthecoveCarteau; x Landward:ZIPextendedthemanagementofseveraltypesofusesincludingaccessand beach attendance; industrial safety, leading to outline of specific procedures for implementingtheCoastalAct(DTA); x Some densely populated coastal municipalities (Martigues , PortͲdeͲBouc); marinas, beaches and swimming areas surrounding the ZIP and the role of agriculture in periͲ

90 urbanareasandtheeffectsofextensiveagriculture(SCOTseeEPO).Attempttointensify ofurbanfabric(likeERA)topreservethenaturalenvironment; x Communal areas marked by logistics and freight associated with ZIP ThereportEgret(BRGM,March2009)focusesontheSANWestProvence,itshowsthe lack of widespread soil contamination across the territory but indicates point source pollution, certain wellͲdefined areas are strongly affected (industrial fallow land in particular); x MusselcoveCarteau(Coopaport,2500to3000tons/year)operatedinhazardousareaB (CfortherestoftheGulfofFos).

HarborzoneofMarseille

x ThepondsintheWestandZIPestablishoneofthefactorsofmodificationofthemarine environment,theyalsoestablishthescaffoldingofthezoneofemploymentofMarseilleͲ Fos and the economic engine of the WestͲEtang de Berre of Berre (cf. SCOT OEBͲ diagnosis); x TheprojectsofharborfacilitiesofMarseilleͲFosdependonthestrategyoftheGPMM andontheevolutionofmarkets:preservationofstrongcomponentbulkliquid,available infrastructures (SouthͲNorth) allowing the massification of the traffic; the growth of containertrafficdependsontheroad,railroadandriver,overdrawndevelopmentofthe logisticinfrastructuresandontransport. x Trendtowardthespecializationofpondstotransportpassengersandoncruises(thanks toEuroméditerranée),withoutanticipatingadisappearanceofthefreight; x Trend to the movement of the freight on ponds in the West; likely consequences and need to in strengthen transport and logistics infrastructure in Fos (which are already overdrawn); x Inthemaritimeplan:likelyincidencesontheuseofthechannelforpondsintheWest accordingtothestrategiesofeconomiesofscaleinthecontainerizedtransport;lower loadforships,butbiggersize;likelyevolutionoftheuseofthechannels,inparticular accordingtotheplaceofMarseilleonthecruisemarket. x GrowthlikelytobemodestintheshortͲmediumterm,liquidbulkportinfrastructure;3XL and 4XL provided in Fos for containers in the same area as 2XL; Continuation of the management plan of natural areas (NMP, 2007): maintenance of 3000haofnaturalareaslocatedintheZIP,followedbyspeciesͲspecificstudies,public reception, consolidation of the arrow of the Gracieuse; Draftforpiercingthedockuntil2CanalduRhoneatFos,registeredinCPER2007Ͳ2013.

91 CôteBleue(BlueCoast) x MarineParkwiththegoalofprotectingwaterqualityandtheenvironment,faunaand floraobjectivesachieved,maintainingasmallcoastalfishingcommunity,artificialreefs keeptrawlersatadistance;growthintourismandboatingfrequentation; x In addition to its management plan, the CDIP is framed by two SCOT (EPO MPM); Risk of overͲuse of boating and its potential impacts on the environment; Pressureonlandandtrendsforsaturatingthehabitat(numberofsecondhomesdown) undertheinfluenceofthenearbycityofMarseille. Marseille x Dense coastal uses: urban agglomeration of considerable size, scarcity of land, soil sealing,ZIPbasinsoftheport(sourceemissions),beaches,marinas,touristshuttles,an importantdevelopmentofcruiseindustry;increaseintourism. x Emission problems of urban wastewater: the poor state of coastal waters requires treatment at the watershed scale (Huveaune in particular) and improved storm water managementinthecityandintheeasternbasins:a)in2012,thestepofMarseillewas declared nonͲcompliant with the Directive ERU b) releases of Cortiou that discharges fromthestepandwaterdivertedfromHuveauneinduceadegradationoftheecosystem (see PRGM). c) direct discharges by Huveaune during rainstorms have impacts on the nearbycoastalareas; x ActionsMPMwere:organicextensionofthestep(Géolide)toreducethepollutionload discharges Cortiou; improved sludge treatment monitoring program of the marine environment; x Problems of bathing water quality due to episodes of rainstorms, the situation is problematic, according to the bay contract, facing the new regulations; Pollution from port origin: high local concentrations of heavy metal (identified in the Ifremernetwork),andchemicalpollution(REPOM); x Environmentexposedtooveruseduetoboating,scubadivingandinvasivespecies. Calanques x NationalParkrecentlysetup:oneofthefewsuburbanPNintheworld,theCharterof 2012 defines a land and sea center, optimal adhesion and an adjacent sea area, adherencetotheCharterandcommittedtomakingcompatiblewiththeSCOTprovisions (environmentalquality);

92 x ThediagnosisoftheChartertakesintoaccounttheSDAGEstheSCOTMPM,thePRGM andNatura2000objectives; x Oneofthereasonsforthispolicyistheincreasingattractivenessofthesite:theboomin tourismandfrequentationofthecoastalzone(swimming,boating,diving)aresignificant sincethe2000s. x Presence of commercial fishing (incl. trawlers) and a recreational fishing; ThemainproblemsofthesiteareoverͲuse,thequalityofwaterandtheblackdotsof emissionsandredmud; x OverͲuse is poorly measured, at sea, it is a factor of degradation of wildlife and the environment (anchors, illegal trawling, lost gear, turbidity) and disturbance of wildlife, theparkisworkingwiththeRegionin"Cleanports"operation; x Waterqualityisaffectedbysoilpollutionandthemarinewatersstormwatereffluent HuveauneandCortiouemissions,thebodyofwaterlocatedtotherightoftheoutfall, theSDAGEssetsthe2015deadlineforareturntogoodchemicalstatusandin2021for goodenvironmentalstatus; x The"redmud"folder:themostimmediateproblemisthereleaseofsuspendedsolids, whichmustceasebytheendof2015,technicalsolutionsaresoughtwiththeoperator RioTintotoreduceallreleases. d) CommonproblemsforseveralsubͲsites Some diagnostic elements apply to all subsites and highlight similarities and important differences. Agriculture AgricultureisimportantintheCamargue,periͲurbanandmarginalintheothersubsites.Ricehasa roleinthemanagementofCamarguewaters(freshwaterinflowslimitingtheriseofsaltwater)but isalsoafactorinpressures(emissionsofpesticidesinwetlands).IntheothersubͲsites,Greenbelt gardeninghelpstocuturbanization(includingMPM),theobjectiveistomaintaintheagricultural useofsettlementareas(DTA),butthesearebeingreducedbecauseofeffectofpressureonthe land. Ports Marinepollutionfromportoriginfortheentirecoastlineofthestudysite.Apartfromthespecific case of GPMM, municipalities are faced with the case of marinas. The "clean port" operation carriedbytheregionsisasourceofinformation.

Stormrains GeneraltoallMediterraneancities,theproblemisacuteinMarseille.AccordingtotheSDAGEs,the baycontractandPRGM,theproblemstartsearlierinthewaterbasin,anditwouldrequireawide managementofawatershedtohelpthisproblem.Thisdiagnosisisalsoverygeneral.

Coastal water Thecoastalwaterbodies(onemile)andthemassesofterritorialwaters(12miles)arerespectively masses subject to the WFD and MSFD whose objectives are ambitious in terms of good and chemical quality, as announced in the SDAGEs and PAMM, there are new and important requirements of environmentalmonitoringnetworks. Dataneeds Theyconcerntwomainareas:a)dataonthemarineenvironment,essentialtotheevaluationof conditionb)attendancedata,includingprotectedasPNCalanques(seeprojectFhuvel)sites. 93 2.1.3.Thepointofviewoftheterritorialagentsmet The agents involved in the coastal zone management are numerous and various. Ten coastal zonemanagementand/orcoastalenvironmentprotectionagencies(boxn°1)weremetduring themonthsofJanuary,FebruaryandApril2012. Boxn°1:ListofsemiͲdirectiveinterviews DirectionInterͲRégionaledelaMerMéditerranée:23/01/2012 MarseilleProvenceMétropole:24/01/2012 ParcMarindelaCôteBleue:25/01/2012 ConseilrégionaldeProvenceͲAlpesͲCôted’Azur:25/01/2012 GrandPortMaritimedeMarseille:25/01/2012 ConseilGénéraldesBouchesͲduͲRhône:26/01/2012 GIPCalanques:26/01/12 VilledeMarseille:02/02/2012 ParcNaturelRégionaldeCamargue:03/04/2012 MairiedeMartigues:04/04/2012 PréfectureMaritime:04/04/2012 Profileoftheterritorialagentsmet(tablen°1) All the persons met belong to public organisms whose missions differ significantly from one another. Territorialauthoritieshaveverydiversifiedcapacities(urbanism,socialaction,transports,etc.); however,theircapacitiesintermsofenvironmentalissuesarereducedtothemanagementof waters, discharges and natural spaces in the land zone. The environmental problems in the marineenvironmentaremanagedbystateservices(especiallyDIRM).Theseregionalservices are “file assistants” whose role is to establish a management project according to the specificationfromtheState. Public institutions such as mixed unions and marine parks have skills focused on the managementoftheenvironmentandthepreservationofheritage,andareintunewithusers throughouttheterritory.GIPCalanques,whichcouldbeclassifiedinthiscategory,hasaroleof 94 keeping the technical records and negotiation with users. Other public institutions aim for economicdevelopment,butatdifferentlevelsofintervention:thePACARegionalCouncil,the Urban Community of Marseille and the port of Marseille. The areas of expertise of these organizations also differ in the scale of intervention (the geographicalinfluence,theimportanceofreportingtothelocaleconomysectors)andmeans. Tablen°1:profileofthedifferentterritorialagentsmet. Organismname Status Mainaction(s) Ͳ Stateservice LeadtheStatepoliciesforsustainablemaritimedevelopment, la

marineresourcemanagementandmaritimeactivityregulation. Inter de Méditerranée Direction Régionale Mer

Service «Sea and coast» Within theSustainableDevelopmentand Territorial Strategies (SML) poleintheTerritoryDevelopmentDepartment,SMLcarriesout actions for the protection and enhancement of the coastline. Themajorissuesofthispolicyrevolvearoundthedevelopment of maritime activities and jobs, enhancement of cultural heritage,theanticipationofnaturalhazards(includingcoastal erosion), cooperation between regions bordering the Mediterranean and the management, conservation and

managementofcoastalandmarineareas.TheRegionsupports the program "Clean Ports in ProvenceͲAlpesͲCôte d'Azur." PACA Moreover, in the framework of the Regional Geographic Information Center ProvenceͲAlpesͲCôte d'Azur (PACA CRIGE) Régional

whose goal is to share geographic information and make it available to all, the region runs the business line sea and

Conseil coastline.

Territorial authority Social action, transports, education, economy, environment, Ͳ (department) roads, culture, etc. The only obligation of the CG 13 for the Rhône environmentismanagingthe“sensitive”areas. Ͳ Conseil Général des Bouches du Territorial authority (urban Economicdevelopment;communityspacedevelopment(road,

community) traffic...); collective interest service management (water, marina, discharges...); protection and development of the environment and lifestyle; social habitat balance of the

Marseille Provence Métropole communityland;citypolicyinthecommunity.

Territorial authority Urbanism, social action, education, cultural field, sports and de (commune) leisure, civil registrar, electoral function, maintenance of local roads,protectionofthepubliclocalorder. Ville Marseille

Territorial authority Urbanism, social action, education, cultural field, sports and (commune) leisure, civil registrar, electoral function, maintenance of local roads,protectionofthepubliclocalorder. Martigues

Public organization (Grand Economicdevelopment(withanapproachintermsofplanning

Port PortMaritime) atthescaleoftheGPMMareawheretheconservationistaken intoaccount). Grand Maritime de Marseille

Public organization (mixed Management, protection and revaluation of the coastal and

Côte association) marinenaturalareas;contributiontotheeconomicandsocial la development of activities linked to the sea, especially de professional and artisanal fishing; reception, information and public education; achievement of experimental actions in Marin precise fields below and contribution to scientific research

Parc Bleue programs. Public organization (mixed Managethedeltacomplexbyinsertingthepredictableimpacts de

association) of climate change; adjust the activity evolution for an

Naturel extraordinary biodiversity; reinforce the land solidarity; social

cohesion and improve the lifestyle; share the knowledge and

Parc Régional Camargue openthedeltatoMediterraneancooperation.

Public organization (public Lead and coordinate the actions of protection and interestgrouping) managementinordertopreservetheextraordinarynatureof theclassifiedareaoftheCalanques;preparethecreationofa

GIP Calanques (Parc national des NationalPark Pôle « Protection et The maritime prefect is the prime minister in the territorial aménagement durable de waters regulatory authority. It takes prefectural orders to l'espacemarin» organize activities at sea, limiting the speed setting of navigationchannels,prohibitingnavigationinhazardousareas etc..Inassociationwiththemayors,whoworkinthecoastal strip of 300 meters police swimming and beach activities, maritime prefect organizes security seaside activities through planned markup. The main areas of intervention are: safety of life at seaͲ maritimesafety,maritimetraffic,immigration,vigipirateplane

atseaandinportͲthefightagainstmarinepollution(MARPOL coordination).Underthepressureofincreasingimportanceof humanactivitiesoncoastalmarineband,themaritimeprefect Maritime receivedaresponsibilitytoregulatethesepracticessothatthey arecompatiblewithmaintainingthequalityofmarinefishing, dischargeofcuttingsdredgingofports,extractionofsandand

Préfecture gravelsailors,installationofwindturbinesatsea,etc. 96 Theinstitutionaldeadlockpoints The interviews have highlighted different difficulties concerning the achievement of their missions.We classified them according to the number of interlocutors that mentioned each difficulty. x The most frequently cited (three interlocutors) is the difficulty to make management issues coincide because there are often contradictions in terms of objectives between differentprojects. x A. Among the difficulties mentioned in terms of coordinated management, the most importantisinformationcirculationi.e.anaturalreluctancetoshareit,regardlessofthe agenttypes(adifficultymentionedbytwointerlocutors). B.Twoagentsalsocomplainedaboutthemultiplicityofstrategicaspectsandregulation pressures. For elected representatives, environmental regulations are, for example, mainlyseenasapressure(waterlawof1992,CoastalAct(coastallaw)etc.). C. Two of our interlocutors highlighted the risk that the economic crisis (and the simultaneous budget reduction) has an impact on the policies put into effect for environmentalmanagement,especiallyforproactivepolicies. x A.ThenewreorganizationoftheStatedepartmentsisasourceofdifficultiesintermsof implementation of some actions and “forced” partnership between State and Local authorities (difficult partnership: local authority as project initiator/ State as legal competencetoact:maritimeaspectsoftheSCoTforexample)(Difficultymentionedby oneinterlocutor). B.Finally,theproblemofthelackofcorrespondencebetweenadministrativelimitsand environmentalproblemsconsideredishighlightedbyonlyoneagent. 2.2.Impactsontheenvironment:theperspectiveoforganizationsmet InthedepartmentofBouchesͲduͲRhône,thepressuresonthecoastalenvironmentmentioned duringinterviewsdifferinnatureandintensitydependingonthesurveyedactorsandtheuses thattheirmanagementobjectivestendtofavor. Table 2 below selects the files mentioned most frequently. This is the case of terrestrial contamination of marine waters, tourism and yachting frequency, and professional and recreationalfishing.NB:thenationalandlocalgovernmentsmayhavetreatedsomeofthese issues,butnotnecessarilytheenvironmentalpressures.Thefilesaredeterminedonlegaltexts ratherthanpressureoruses.OnmattersrelatingtoSDAGEs,theWaterAgencyismostoften solicited. 97 Among the risks of environmental pressure raised: the forthcoming opening of Calanques NationalParkcouldresultinasignificantincreaseinattendanceattheshore.Questionsmust addresstheconditionsanddistributionoffrequentationonthecoast(potentialimpactonthe BlueCoast,forexample).Anotherriskidentifiedisthepotentialforoilpollutionthatcouldoccur withoffshoreexplorationpermitsheldbyMelroseLtd.(around30kmfromMarseille). Finally,itshouldbestressedthatthetightercontrolsofbathingwaterqualityinthefuturewill certainlybetranslatedbymanydaysofclosedbeachesinthecomingyears.Theappreciationof thebathingwaterquality,currentlydefinedbythetranspositioninthepublichealthlegislation related to bathing and swimming pool of the European directive 76/160/CEE of 1975, has recently evolved because of a new European directive 2006/7/CE that provides an implementationofnewclassificationstandardsin2013. Tablen°2:Issuesmentionedbythedifferentterritorialagentsmet Manmade Issues Erosion, Land “Land” “Maritime” Soil coastal marine transport of Harbour contamination contamination contamination spaces,spaces submersion hazardous dredging of marine of marine (chemical Structure reclaimed risks products waters(a) waters(b) substances) fromthesea

Direction InterͲ Régionale de _ _ _ _ _ _ _ la Mer Méditerranée

Conseil Général des _ X _ X(Marinas) X _ _ BouchesͲduͲ Rhône

Martigues _ _ X _ X _ _

Marseille Provence _ _ X _ X _ _ Métropole

Ville de X(landscape) _ _ _ X _ _ Marseille

Grand Port Maritime de _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Marseille

Parc Marin de _ _ _ X X X _ laCôteBleue

Parc Naturel X (pesticides Régional de _ X _ _ _ _ andfertilisers) Camargue

GIPCalanques (Parc national _ _ _ _ X(redmud) X X des Calanques)

Fishery Issues Coastal sea Use conflicts Marinedebris resource Windpower(project) traffic (coastalzone) Coastaltraffic exploitation Structure Direction InterͲ Régionale de _ _ _ _ _ _ la Mer Méditerranée

Conseil Général des X (free X (PN _ _ _ _ _ BouchesͲduͲ access) Calanques) Rhône

Martigues _ _ _ _ X _

Marseille Provence _ X(Marinas?) _ _ _ _ Métropole

Ville de X (Fishing, _ _ _ X _ Marseille aquaculture)

Grand Port Maritime de X(freeaccess) _ _ _ _ _ Marseille

Parc Marin de X (marina, _ _ X(trawling) _ X laCôteBleue diving)

Parc Naturel X (illegal Régional de X(freeaccess) _ _ X _ fishing) Camargue

X GIPCalanques (professional (Parc national X (PN X X(Marina) X and noͲ _ _ des Calanques) professional Calanques) fishing)

99 3.Synthesisofthemainenvironmentalissuesinthecoastalzone Thecontentanalysisoftheinterviewsandthecurrentplanningdocumentstudyallowedusto identifysomeissuesinthecoastalzoneofdepartmentofBouchesͲduͲRhône.Theissue,whichis the most regularly cited, and the most transversal, is the problem of land contamination of marinewaters.However,thisisnottheonlyimportantproblem,asmanmadecoastalspaces, coastalandmaritimetraffic,marinedebris,fisheryresourceexploitationanduseconflictswere alsoregularlycitedinthediscussionswiththeterritorialagentsandarementionedinmostof thestudiedplanningdocuments. We made an inventory of data that exist on the identified issues to determine the technical feasibilityofthesocioͲeconomic,morphologicalandecologicalassessmentofdeteriorationsand associatedeffectsinthecoastalzone(annex1). Itappearsduringthelastinventorythatitishardtousegeographicandhistoricdataforeach identifiedissue.Themostdifficultissuestocharacterizeintermsofquantity,spaceandtimeare thecoastalandmaritimetraffic,conflictsofuse,fisheryresourceexploitation(socioͲeconomic dimension)andmarinedebris.Inthiscontext,itshouldbequestionedifscenarioscouldfeasibly bedevelopedwiththelimiteddataavailability.Lastly,onlytheproblemoflandcontamination of marine waters seems possible to evaluate in regards to the contamination sources, environmentaldeteriorationsandassociatedimpactsforcoastalpopulations.

100 Bibliography

Agence de l’eau Rhône-Méditerranée et Corse (oct. 2009). Rapport d’évaluation environnementale du SDAGE Rhône-Méditerranée 2010-2015. Bassin Rhône-Méditerranée. Lyon : AERMC, 93 p.

Agence de l’eau Rhône-Méditerranée et Corse, DREAL Rhône-Alpes, Office national de l’eau et des milieux aquatiques (nov. 2009). Schéma directeur d’aménagement et de gestion des eaux 2010-2015. Bassin Rhône- Méditerranée. Vers le bon état des milieux aquatiques. Lyon : Comité de bassin Rhône-Méditerranée, 315 p.

Besancenot F. (2008), « Réalisation d'un diagnostic territorial de développement durable. Expérimentation dans le Bassin potassique alsacien », Développement durable et territoires [En ligne], consulté le 14 mars 2012. URL: http://developpementdurable.revues.org/6083.

Bureau de recherches géologiques et minières (mars 2009). Aigrette, phase 4. Investigations et résultats relatifs à la qualité des eaux sur le territoire du SAN Ouest-Provence. Rapport final. BRGM/RP-57278-FR. Marseille, Paris : BRGM, 205 p.

Groupement d’intérêt public des Calanques ( avril 2012). Charte du parc national des Calanques. Volumes 1 et 2. Marseille : GIP des Calanques, 152 p., 33 p.

INEA (mars 2009). SCOT Ouest-Etang de Berre. Etat initial de l’environnement. Sommières, France : INEA, 177 p.

Le Gentil E., Mongruel R., Raux P., Jacob C., Kalaydjian R. and Cadiou J. F., (2011). "A Socio-economic Approach for Coastal Zone Assessment" in Özhan E. (2011), Proceeding of The Tenth International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Environment, MEDCOAST 11, 25-29 October 2011, Rhodes, Greece, Vol. 1: 157-168.

MEDDE, préfecture maritime de la Méditerranée, préfecture de la région PACA (2012a). Evaluation initiale des eaux marines. Sous-région marine Méditerranée occidentale. Résumé à l'attention du public. Paris : MEDDE, juillet.

MEDDE, préfecture maritime de la Méditerranée, préfecture de la région PACA (2012b). Objectifs environnementaux et indicateurs associés. Sous-région marine Méditerranée occidentale. Résumé à l'attention du public. Paris : MEDDE, juillet.

Marseille-Provence-Métropole (oct. 2011). Schéma de cohérence territoriale de MPM. Synthèse. Marseille : MPM, Conseil communautaire, 8 p.

Marseille-Provence-Métropole (nov. 2011). Document d’orientations générales. Marseille : MPM, Conseil communautaire, 15 p.

Marseille-Provence-Métropole (déc. 2011). Projet d’aménagement et de développement durable. Marseille : MPM, Conseil communautaire, 29 p.

Nations unies, PNUE, Plan d'action pour la Méditerranée (2008). Protocole de la convention de Barcelone relatif à la gestion intégrée des zones côtières de Méditerranée. Madrid : Nations unies.

UNEP/MAP/PAP (2008), "Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean", Split, Priority Actions Programme, 124 p.

Parc naturel régional de Camargue (2010). Charte du PNR de Camargue 2011-2022. Rapport, volume 1. Arles: Syndicat mixte de gestion PNR de Camargue, 239 p.

Parc naturel régional de Camargue (2012). Contrat de delta. Dossier définitif 2012-2017. Arles: Syndicat mixte de gestion PNR de Camargue, 62 p.

101 Préfecture de la région PACA, préfecture maritime de la Méditerranée (déc. 2012). Plan d’action pour le milieu marin. Evaluation initiale des eaux marines. Marseille, Toulon : Préfecture de région, Préfecture maritime, 784 p.

Préfecture de la région PACA, préfecture maritime de la Méditerranée (juillet 2012). Plan d’action pour le milieu marin « Méditerranée occidentale ». Définition des objectifs environnementaux. Marseille, Toulon : Préfecture de région, Préfecture maritime, 19 p.

Préfecture des Bouches-du-Rhône (2007). Directive territoriale d’aménagement des Bouches-du-Rhône. Approuvée par décret 2007-779 du 10 mai 2007. JO, 11 mai 2007, 133 p.

Rouxel F., Rist D., (2000). "Le développement durable: approche méthodologique dans les diagnostics territoriaux", Lyon, CERTU, 147 pages.

Syndicat mixte du PMCB, BCEOM (2006). Plan de gestion du parc marin de la Côte Bleue. Phases 1 et 2. Etat des lieux et diagnostic. Carry-le-Rouet : SM-PMCB, 222 p.

Syndicat mixte du parc marin de la Côte Bleue (2011). Rapport d’activité 2010. Carry-le-Rouet : SM-PMCB, 16 p.

TNBE (déc. 2008). Schéma de cohérence territoriale Ouest-Etang de Berre. Diagnostic. Istres : Comité syndical du SCOT Ouest-Etang de Berre, 107 p.

TNBE, Eureca (oct. 2010). SCOT OEB. Projet d’aménagement et de développement durable. Istres : CS du SCOT OEB, 58 p.

Ville de Marseille, BCEOM (2007). Plan de gestion de la rade de Marseille. Diagnostic. Doc. ENS 70300Y. Marseille : Ville de Marseille, 126 p.

Ville de Marseille, Egis Eau, BCEOM (mai 2009). Plan de gestion de la rade de Marseille. Objectifs stratégiques et plan d’actions. Document V19. Marseille : Ville de Marseille, 88 p.

Ville de Marseille, communauté urbaine de Marseille-Provence-Métropole, Agence d’urbanisme de l’agglomération de Marseille (2012). Contrat de baie de la métropole marseillaise. Dossier sommaire de candidature. Marseille : Ville de Marseille, MPM, AGAM, 82 p.

UNEP/MAP/PAP (2008), "Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean", Split, Priority Actions Programme, 124 p.

102

7.NorthAdriatic(Italy) TheNorthAdriaticCASEisoneofthe10studycasesofthePEGASOproject.Astheother CASEs around the Mediterranean and Blacksea,isaimedatdevelopingICZM experiencesatdifferentscalesregarding different issues, applying in an integrated way tools provided both by the project partners and others developedbytheCASEitself. The North Adriatic CASE is situated in the upper basin of the Adriatic Sea, a subregional system of the Mediterranean sea, linked with it through the Strait of Otranto. The Figure8: TheNorthAdriaticCASEarea.ThisCASEisoneofthe Northern Adriatic is bordered by the 10PEGASOCASESaroundtheMediterraneanandBlackSea coastofItaly,SloveniaandCroatiaand itissouthwardslimitisrepresentedbythefictitiouslinelinkingtheItaliancityofAnconaand theCroatiancityofZadar. AsintherestoftheAdriatic,thereisacleardifferencebetweenthegeomorphologyofits westernpart,characterizedbysandy,flatanduniformcoastsinterruptedbylagoons,andthe easternpart,withrockysteepcoasts,channels,numeroussmallislands,promontoriesand bays. TheNorthernAdriaticisarelativelyshallowecosystemwithadepthnotexceeding100m. Thissmallvolumeofwatersreceivesabout77%ofitsfreshwaterinputthroughrivers,46%of whichcomesfromthePo(Marson,1996).AlthoughtheAdriaticisconsideredaoligotrophic sea,itsnorthernpartisoneofthemostproductivepartsofMediterranean(Notarbartoloet al.,2008;PérèsandGamulinͲBrida,1973) Accordingly, rivers discharges are responsible both for the high biodiversity and of the pollution and eutrophication of the North Adriatic waters. In spite of the impacts due to human pressures, the Northern Adriatic hosts a very valuable marine biodiversity and ecosystemsrelevantfortheirecological,economic,aestheticandculturalvalues.TheNorth Adriatic represents one of the highest fishͲproducing areas in the entire Mediterranean (Vidas, 2009) The North Adriatic basin represents a particular case with several direct sea uses,suchasmarinetransport,offshoreplatforms,submarinecables,hydrocarbonsurvey, fishing, aquaculture, scientific research and tourism, and indirect uses often conflicting amongthem(Soriani,2003).Therefore,duetopollutionandoverexploitationofitsnatural resources, this basin can be considered as one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world(Camuffoetal.,2011).

103 Despite to such a sensitive environment and threatened species, the three countries bordering the North Adriatic, namely Italy, Slovenia and Croatia, provide a protection for marine and coastal waters that is less than the 0,5% of theNorthernAdriaticsea The Italian Northern Adriatic Sea coast, comprises a very Figure 9. Left: Marine Protected areas in the North Adriatic sea (Author: Francois Morisseau). Right above: River Plume (Archivio precarious coastal MagistratoalleAcquediVenezia–ConsorzioVeneziaNuova).Right environment subject to below:Veniceflooded(ConsorzioVeneziaNuova) continuous morphological changes,appreciableevenovershortgeologicaltimescales(GambolatiandTeatini,2002). Moreover,erosionisafurtherthreatactiveinmanyareasbothonthecoastalseafloorand onthebeachsincethebeginningofthe20thcenturyandespeciallysincethesecondhalfof the last century (Bondesan et al.,1995).Subsidence, both natural and induced is also affectingmanyareasoftheItalianNorthAdriaticcoasts,particularlythoselocatedbelowthe meansealevellikearoundthePoRiverDelta(Pirazzoli,2005).Therefore,climatechangeand sea level rise are other relevant issues for the case study area considering both the vulnerabilityoffragileecosystemssuchascoastallagoons,aswellastheconcentrationof culturalandsocioͲeconomicvalues. Climate change, water quality, marine protected areas and the management policies regarding coastal zone are therefore all relevant issues for this basin. This CASE is indeed characterizedby4subCASEeachonedealingwithonethesedifferentcoastalissues,ranging fromlocaltotransboundaryscaleasshowninFigure3andsummarisedinTable1.Thefour subcasesaremorespecificallythefollowing: A) ThedevelopmentofaDecisionSupportSystemforclimatechangeriskassessmentfor thecoastalarea. B) Thedevelopmentofaforecastingmodelforthecoastalwaterquality. C) TheanalysisofthelinkbetweenMarineProtectedAreasandICZM. D) The analysis of ICZM implementation at the Italian subnational level in the North Adriatic. In the next section of the report each subCASE will be described according to the link betweenthecoastalissueandtheICZMprinciples,theprocess,thestakeholdersinvolvedin theprocess;finallyforeachSubCASEthemainresultsandlessonlearntwillbeoutlined.

104

Figure10.Theareawithinthesquarerepresentsthearea consideredforthesubCASEofmpas.TheItaliansideofthearea inthesquarerepresenttheregionsinvolvedintheanalysisof ICZMpolicies.Thedottedlinerepresentstheareainvolvedinthe subCASEoftheClimatechangeimpactsandfinallythecircle regardsthestudycasearearegardingtheissueofwaterquality.

SubCASE Coastalissues Scale Tools A) ThedevelopmentofaDecisionSupport Climate change impact Subnational Indicators Systemfor climate change risk riskassessment Participation assessmentforthecoastalarea. Decisionsupportsystem B) Thedevelopmentofaforecastingmodel Bathingwaterquality local Waterqualitymodel forthecoastalwaterquality. Participation C) TheanalysisofthelinkbetweenMarine The implementation of transnational Participation ProtectedAreasandICZM. ICZM principles in MPAsmanagement D) TheanalysisofICZMimplementationat The assessment of the subnational Indicator theItaliansubnationallevelintheNorth adoption of ICZM Participation Adriatic policies Table8:Summarytableofthe4SubCASEs

105 A)ThedevelopmentofaDecisionSupportSystemforclimatechangeriskassessmentforthe coastalarea Section1Coastalissues 1.1Themaincoastalissuesconsidered Climatechangeimpactriskassessments Within the North Adriatic case the main issue addressed by the PEGASO project is representedbyclimatechangewithaparticularfocusonthepotentialconsequencesonsea waterquality;moreover,someanalysiswereperformedinordertoevaluatetheanthropic pressureincoastalzones.Inordertoaddresstheseissues,severaltoolswereidentifiedand appliedwithintheproject: indicators; participatorymethods; Regional Risk Assessment(RRA) and DecisionSupportSystems(DSS). Sections2,3and4willdescribetherelationoftheselectedcoastalissueswithIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Protocol and Principles, highlighting the possible contributionoftheproposedtoolsinthedefinition ofa nationalICZMstrategy.Section5 resumestheprocessofstakeholders’involvementappliedintheNorthAdriaticregion;and finally,Section6and7provideadescriptionoftheselectedtoolsandoftheresultsobtained throughtheirapplicationinthecasestudyarea. 1.2Whydidyouselecttheidentifiedcoastalissues? Italiancoastsarecharacterisedbyahighbiodiversityandarehighlyvulnerableandexposed toclimatechangeandtoagrowinganthropicpressures,includinganincreasingpercentage of builtͲup areas. The North Adriatic coast, in particular, comprises a very fragile coastal environmentsubjecttocontinuousmorphologicalchangesthatcanbeappreciableevenover short geological time (Bondesan et al., 1995; Gambolati and Teatini, 2002). Many areas, particularlytheLagoonofVeniceandaroundthePoRiverDelta,arelocatedbelowthemean sealevelandaffectedbynaturalormanͲinducedsubsidence(Pirazzoli,2005).Furthermore, the municipality of Venice has been experiencing an increase of high tide events with consequentfloodingofthecity.Moreover,thehistoricalobservationsandfutureprojections ofisostaticandtectonicmovementsshowthattheNorthAdriaticcoast(particularlyVenice, GradoandMaranolagoons)isparticularlyvulnerabletofutureseaͲlevelrise(Bondesanet al., 1995; Gonella et al., 1998; Gambolati and Teatini, 2002; Lionello, 2008). Therefore, climatechangeandtherelatedconsequencesonseaͲlevelrise,storminess,coastalerosion

106 andchangesinwaterqualityareaprominentissueforthecasestudyareabothconsidering thevulnerabilityoffragileecosystemssuchascoastallagoons,culturalandsocioͲeconomic values. Moreover, urban centres, harbours, tourism activities and industrial zones close to thecoastlinerepresentthemainsourceofadditionalanthropicpressuresincoastalzones, whosenegativeeffectsareexacerbatedbyclimatechanges. Particularly,marineecosystemsareveryimportantintheregulationoftheclimate,andare verysensitivetoclimatechange(HoeghͲGuldbergandBruno,2010).Inrecentyears,climate changesareaffectingmarineecosystemsgeneratingimpactssuchalossofhabitatforming species(e.gcoralreefs,seagrasses)(ShortandNeckles;1999;HoeghͲGuldbergetal.,2007), decline in the productivity of the oceans (Behrenfeld et al., 2006; Polovina et al., 2008), changes in the geographic distribution of marine organisms (Perry et al. 2005; Last et al. 2011).Themaindriversoftheseimpactsaremainlygeneratedbytheincreaseofseasurface temperature, by the ice melting in the arctic regions (Wang and Overland, 2009) and by changesinthemarinecurrents,whichcauseschangesin otherwaterbiogeochemicaland physicalparameters(e.g.primaryproduction,pH,salinity)thatmayexceedthethresholdsof ecosystemtolerance,andthusleadtomarineecosystemsdegradation(HoeghͲGuldbergand Bruno2010,XiaJ.etal.,2010). ThecoastalissuesidentifiedintheNorthAdriaticcase(i.e.waterqualityvariationsdueto climatechangeandindicatorsofanthropicpressures)arealsotackledbyseveralEuropean legislationsandpolicies.Infact,theEuropeanCommissionundertookseveralactionsrelated totheprotectionofcoastalandmarineenvironments,suchastheIntegratedMaritimePolicy (IMP;COM(2007)574),theMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD;2008/56/EC),the Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC), the Flood Directive (FD; 2007/60/EC), the ReformoftheCommonFisheriesPolicy(CFP;1983)andtheRecommendationforIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM; 2002/413/EC). Among these, the WFD and the MSFD represent the umbrella used to address the ecological quality of coastal/marine water systems in Europe, in strict connection with the ICZM. The process of setting achievable environmental targets must also account for highly uncertain changes of the physical and biologicalenvironmentdrivenbyclimate(RothandO’Higgins,2010).Thisaspecthasbeen consideredalsobytheEuropeanCommissionwhopublishedtheWhitePaperonadaptation to climate change (EC, 2009). The main aim of the White Paper is to provide an overall framework to stimulate and guide national, regional and local adaptation measures and policies,includingsectorspecificdimensions,inordertoincreaseresiliencetotheimpactsof climate change (EC 2009). Emphasis is placed on the need for an integrated approach to increaseresilienceincoastalandmarineenvironmentsandinterrelatedhumanactivities,as wellastheneedtointegrateadaptationintosectorialpolicies(EC,2009a). 1.3Whatisthesocial,politicalandeconomicalrelevanceoftheidentifiedcoastalissues? The analysis of climate change impacts on marine ecosystems and the evaluation of the

107 anthropic pressure in the North Adriatic coastal zone can have negative consequences on severalsocialandeconomicsectorsandactivities. Fisheriesandaquacultureareanimportantsectorintheeconomyofthecoastalzonesofthe VenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiuliaRegions.Infact,despiteadecreasingtrendinthenumberof workersandinthenumbersofships,theNorthAdriaticseaisstillcharacterisedbyahigh productivity(Figure11)andbyahighnumberofcompaniesoperatinginthissector(Figure 12) compared to the MediumͲLow Adriatic sea. Variations in coastal waters quality can heavilyimpacttheseactivities,thusitisimportanttoestimatepotentialimpactsofclimate changeinordertoplanappropriateadaptationmeasures.

Figure 11.Hyctic production in the Adriatic sea in 2011; green: North Adriatic – purple: MediumͲLowAdriatic.Source:VenetoAgricoltura,2013.

Figure12.NumberofcompaniesrelatedtohycticprimaryproductionintheAdriaticseain 2011; green: North Adriatic – purple: MediumͲLow Adriatic. Source: Veneto Agricoltura, 2013. TheeconomyoftheNorthAdriaticSeaisalsobasedonthetourismsector.Infact,theNorth AdriaticcoastalareasareafavouredtouristicdestinationformanytouristscomingfromItaly andforeigncountries.Oneofthemainreasonsisthegoodqualityofbathingwaters,whichis higher than the average of the Adriatic Sea (Figure 13). A decrease of the water bathing qualitywouldnegativelyaffectthissector,thusitisimportanttopreventitsdegradationalso toavoidoratleastreduceconsequencesonthetourismsector.

108

Figure13.Qualityofbathingwatersin2013inItaly(left)andintheVenetoRegion(right); blue: % of sampling sites with excellent quality; green: % of sampling sites with good quality;yellow:%ofsamplingsiteswithsufficientquality;red:%ofsamplingsiteswith poorquality.Source:ARPAV,2013. Finally,theNorthAdriaticcoastalzoneischaracterizedbyahighrateofbuiltupareas,and byahighdensityofpopulationin coastalmunicipalities.Thepercentageofbuiltupareas closetothecoastlineis3to4timeshigherthanintheotherpartsoftheVenetoandFriuli Veneziaregionsandpopulationdensityisalmostthedoubleoftheothermunicipalities.The information about anthropic pressures in the coastal zone can be very useful to evaluate builtͲupareasandpopulationdensitytrends.Moreover,itcansupportinthedefinitionof urbanplanforcoastalzonesaimedatreducinghumanimpactsonthesezones,takinginto accountICZMprinciples. Section2RelationsbetweencoastalissueandICZMProtocolandprinciples 2.1 How do the selected coastal issues relate to the ICZM principles and protocol? When possibleandappropriate,refertotherelevantArticlesoftheProtocol. Climate change impacts assessment implies an interdisciplinary scientific research which aimstodefineappropriateindicators,toformulateICZMstrategies,toidentifyprioritiesand ecosystem management measures, involving all those stakeholders involved in the managementandprotectionofcoastalareas.Thereforeidentifiedcoastalissuesrelatethe followingICZM protocol articles: art. 22 (Natural hazards), art. 14 (Participation), art. 15 (AwarenessͲraising,training,educationandresearch),art.25(Trainingandresearch). Section3.PoliciesissuesandICZMprinciplesandapproaches 3.1 So far, how have been the coastal issues addressed by the local/regional/national government? Costal zones planning initiatives in Italy were usually sectorial (e.g. for tourism, industrial zones)andleadedbydifferentinstitutions(e.gmunicipalities,provinces,regions)withouta strong coordination. Several actions were carried on to protect coastal zones (e.g. many reforestationofcoastalzonesfromthe60’sormorerecentinterventionsfortheprotection fromcoastalerosion),butdespitetheseeffortsthereisstillalackofplannedactionsaimed

109 attheadaptationofcoastalzonestoclimatechangesandtotherelatedrisks.Onlyinrecent years, planning of coastal zone is carried on through coordinated initiatives involving differentinstitutionsandactuallythereareseveralinitiativesorientedtowardsICZM: TheGeneralDirectionfortheprotectionofthenatureandoftheseaoftheMATTM(Italian ministryfortheenvironmentalprotection)wasreorganizeddefiningaspecificdepartment withcompetencesonICZM; ImplementationofadatabasecontainingdatarelatedtotheItalian,terrestrialandmarine, coastalarea(Si.Di.Mar,SistemaDifesaMare).Thedatabasecontainsinformationrelatedto the ecological conditions and to human activities. Available data can be visualized on a webGISanddownloaded(http://www.sidimar.tutelamare.it/). Delivery of an updated report containing information about the knowledge of the Italian coastalsystem,inordertocoordinateongoingactivitiesrelatedtothesector. Implementationofcoastalprotectionprojects,suchasthe“CAMPItalia”project,aimedat thedefinitionofcoastalzonemanagementpilotprojectsalongtheMediterraneanSea. x Definition,updateandintegrationoflawssupportingtheenvironmentalprotection andmanagementofcoastalzones. Actually many Italian regions are defining tools for ICZM, while some are updating tools definedbefore2006. At the national level, MATTM is producing documents supporting the definition of a workplanforthedefinitionofanationalstrategyforICZM,incooperationwithregionaland localadministration. 3.2Atwhichspatialscale? InItaly,ICZMinitiativesarebeingaddressedatdifferentspatialscales.Generalguidelineare beingdefinedatthenationalscalebytheMATTM,whilethedefinitionofPlans,Policiesand Programsisdemandedatalowerlevels,mainlytheregionalone.Regardingmorespecifically theselectedcoastalissuesitisworthytonotethattheyareaddressedmainlyatNational LevelbythetranspositionofEuropeanDirectivesandtheirimplementationisusuallycarried outatregionallevel. 3.3 Can you assess the results of the implemented policies? Which are the main results achieved?Whicharethemainlimitsandremainingproblems? At regional levels, in Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia the coordination for the implementation of the ICZM protocol is substantially improved but not enough yet to developaregionalcoastalmanagementplan.Stepsfurtherhavebeendonethankstothe organizationofinterdepartmentaltechnicalboardsandtotheinvolvementofthedifferent GeneralDirectorateoftheAdministrationinproblemsrelatedtoICZM.However,theresults oftheimplementedpolicieshavenotbeenassessedyet. 3.4.OnthebasisoftheICZMprinciples(astheyareexpressedbytheProtocol),doyouthink thatthecoastalissueswereaddressedwithanintegratedapproach(intermsoforganization, politics,sectors/thematic,tools,etc)?

110 Atthemomentcoastalissuesareaddressedwithoutanintegratedapproach. 3.5IsthereanonͲgoingNationalICZMStrategyinyourcountry? AnactualItalianICZMNationalStrategyhasnotbeendefinedyetbutitiscurrentlyunder development.However,despitethelackof“adhoc”planningandprogrammingtools,there areseveralinitiativesaddressingtheconsideredcoastalissues,especiallyatRegionallevel. EmiliaRomagnaregionforinstancein2005developedguidelinesfortheimplementationof an ICZM regional strategy. For what concern those regions belonging to the area of the SubCASEͲVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiuliaͲalthoughtheystillhavenotelaboratedaregional strategy for coastal zones they are carrying out some activities mainly related to fishery management. Section4.PEGASOinrelationtoICZMprocesses&initiatives 4.1DoyouthinkyourworkisrelevantfortheICZMprocessofyourcountry?Whyandhow? The results obtained through the application of the three selected tools (i.e. indicators, participatorymethods,RRAandDSS)appeartobeusefulfortheimplementationICZMatthe national level. Particularly important in the whole process is the involvement of key stakeholders,becauseitfacilitatesthecommunicationbetweenscientists,experts,decisions makersandotheractorsinvolvedintheICZMimplementationprocess. Indicators appear to be a useful and effective tool as they can present results in different ways (e.g. maps, graphs, tables) according to stakeholders needs. Moreover, they can summarizeandcommunicateinasimpleandintuitivewaymanyinformation.Finallythey can allow the analysis of historical trends and the comparison of the same information betweendifferentregions. TheRRAmethodologyandtheDSScansupportthedefinitionofPlans,PoliciesandPrograms atdifferentlevels(i.e.fromthenationaltothelocalones)takingintoaccountthepotential impactsofclimatechange.Specificallytheycansupportinthedefinitionandprioritizationof areaswithhigherriskrequiringthedefinitionofadaptationmeasures.Moreovertheycan support decision makers and stakeholder in the definition of measures aimed at reducing vulnerability and increasing the resilience. Finally, the implementation of participatory methods can improve the results of the RRA methodology application taking into account preferencesofexpertsandstakeholdersandcansupportintheimprovementandextension oftheDSSaccordingtotheirrequirementsandsuggestions. 4.2 On the basis of the work that you have done, which are in your opinion, the main constraintsinimplementingICZMprinciplesandtools?Whatismissing?Wherearethemain gaps?Whereweshouldputmoreenergyandresourcesinthefuture? ThemainconstraintsfortheimplementationofICZMprinciplesandtoolsarerelatedonone sidetodefinitionofthecompetencesforthemanagementofcoastalzones,whicharestill too fragmented and split over many institutions at different levels (MATTM, regions, provinces,municipalities,Statepropertyoffice);ontheothersidearerelatedtothelackof datathatcansupporttheuseofeffectivetools.Dataisusuallyavailable,butoftenisnot

111 accessible and, thus, useless for the application of tool supporting the implementation of ICZMprocesses. Section5.Stakeholders’involvement 5.1StakeholderinvolvementͲHaveyouinvolvedthemainstakeholders?Canyoulistthem? Stakeholders’involvementwithintheNorthAdriaticcasewasmainlyrelatedtotheuseand extension of the DEcision support SYstem for COastal climate change impact assessment (DESYCO):thesoftwaretoolusedfortheapplicationoftheRegionalRiskAssessment(RRA) methodologytothecoastalareasofVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiuliaRegions.Theproposed methodologyisaimedattheidentificationandprioritizationofareasthatcanbeaffectedby changes in water quality due to climate change and thus requiring the definition of adaptationmeasurescompliantwiththeICZMprinciples,inordertopreventpotentialrisks. Within the North Adriatic case, the main stakeholders involved in the coastal zone management process (e.g. national governments, regional and local authorities and other relevant stakeholders like NGOs and representatives of economic sectors) have been identifiedandinvolvedinordertoevaluatetheproposedapproachandtakeintoaccount theirsuggestions.StakeholdersselectionswasdonethroughaStakeholderAnalysis,whose results are summarized in Table 9. A stakeholder analysis is a technique of systematically gathering and analysing information to determine whose interests should be taken into account throughout the implementation of an activity (e.g. the application of the DSS DESYCOtotheNorthAdricaticcase).Itidentifiestheinterests,expectations,andinfluenceof the stakeholders and relates them to the purpose of the CASE. It also helps identifying stakeholderrelationshipsthatcanbeleveragedtobuildcoalitionsandpotentialpartnerships toenhancethechancesofasuccessfulcompletionoftheworktobedone.Astakeholder analysisismainlycomposedbythreesteps. Identification of all potential stakeholders and relevant information, such as their roles, departments,interests,knowledgelevels,expectations,andinfluencelevels. Identificationofthepotentialimpactorsupportthateachstakeholdercouldprovide.Inlarge stakeholder communities, it is important to prioritise the key stakeholders to ensure the efficientuseofefforttocommunicateandmanagetheirexpectations. Documentation of the results in a stakeholder ‘register’ that contains the information obtained. Thestakeholders’analysisfortheNorthAdriaticcasewasperformedbyagroupofexpertof theUniversityCa’FoscariVenicewhoidentifiedthemainstakeholderstoinvolveintheNorth Adriaticcaseandattributedthemscoresrelatedtofourparameters(i.e.importance,power, knowledge,attitude).Table9showstheresultsofthestakeholders’analysisfortheNorth Adriaticcase.

112 Importance Power Knowledge Attitude Stakeholder Category 11 12 13 14 Ministry of Governmental 3 5 5 S Environment authority Regional Environment Regional governmental 5 5 5 S protectionarea authority Regional town and Regional governmental 5 5 5 S countryprotectionarea authority Governmental Provinces 4 4 4 S authority Governmental Municipalities 3 3 4 S authority PortAuthorities Publicauthority 2 2 4 S Regional Environment Environment public 1 1 5 S ProtectionAgency agency RiverBasinAuthorities Publicauthority 1 1 5 S WaterAuthorities Publicauthority 4 4 4 S Consorzio Venezia Privatecompany 2 3 4 N.A. Nuova Environment public ISPRA 1 1 5 S agency Table9.ResultsoftheStakeholdersAnalysis.N.A.:NotApplicable. 11Importanceofstakeholdersisdefinedhereastheirabilitytoaffecttheimplementationofthepolicy,denotes howcriticalthestakeholderistothesuccessoftheprojectandindicatestheprioritythatshouldbegiven tosatisfyingstakeholders’needsandintereststhroughtheproject.Inevaluatingimportanceweconsider whosesupportorlackofitmightsignificantlyinfluencethesuccessoftheproject.Theimportancevalues rangebetween1(low)and5(high).Stakeholdersofhighimportanceareconsideredthosewhoseactive andeffectiveinvolvementisbyallmeansneededsothatICZMcanbeimplemented.Oflowimportanceare consideredthestakeholderswhosesupportorlackofitwouldnotinfluencesignificantlythesuccessofthe project.TheirparticipationhowevercouldenhancetheprocessofICZM. 12Poweristhecapacityorabilityofthestakeholdertoaffecttheimplementationoftheproject'spolicydueto thestrengthorforcehepossesses.Themainsourceofastakeholder’spoweristheamountofitsresources, whichcanbefunds,law,propertyandexpertiseandtheabilitytomobilizethemfororagainstanICZM policy(SchmeerK.1999).Forfillingthestakeholdertableweconsidereda)thetypeofresourceseach stakeholdergrouppossesses,b)theamountoftheseresourcesandc)theabilitytousetheseresources. Eachofthesecharacteristicswasassessedinadifferentcolumn,andthenacombinedpowerindexwas assignedfollowingascalefrom1(fewresources,hardlymobilized)to5(lotofresources,easilymobilized). 13Knowledgeisthestakeholders'levelofknowledgeand/ordegreeofinformationrelatedtocoastalresources useandmanagementissues.Againeachstakeholderwasassignedavaluefollowingthescalefrom1(low levelofknowledge)to5(highlevelofknowledge). 14Attitudereferstothestakeholder’sstatusasasupporteroropponentofthepolicy.Stakeholderswhoagree withtheimplementationofthepolicyareconsideredsupporters(S);thosewhodisagreewiththepolicy areconsideredopponents(O);andthosewhodonothaveaclearopinion,orwhoseopinioncouldnotbe discerned,areconsideredneutral(N).Thosewhoexpresssome,butnottotal,agreementwiththepolicy areclassifiedasmoderatesupporters(MS).Finallythosewhoexpresssome,butnottotal,oppositiontothe policyshouldbeclassifiedasmoderateopponents(MO).

113 Selectedstakeholdersarethoseinstitutionsthathavecompetenciesoncoastalzonesdefined bylaworregulationsapprovedatdifferentlevel(e.g.nationalorregional)orotherpublic and private organization who have been involved in activities related to coastal zones management.Scoresforthestakeholders’analysisweredefinedforeachcriteriontakinginto accountthecompetencesofeachstakeholderandtheactivities,whichhavebeencarriedon, inrecentyearsinrelationtothemanagementofcoastalzones.Bytheresults,itemergesthat usuallywithintheNorthAdriaticcasethecompetencesarewelldefined(i.e.mainlyregional authorities);moreover,allconsideredstakeholders,evenifhavenotastrongimportancein theimplementationofICZM(e.g.ISPRA)haveagoodknowledgelevel. 5.2Howhaveyouinvolvedthem(e.g.focusgroup,interviews,questionnaire)? Basedontheresultsofthestakeholders’analysis,50institutionswereidentifiedaspotential stakeholdersfortheNorthAdriaticcase.Moreover,foreachinstitutionrelevantdepartments wereselectedandcontactpersonswereidentified(seeAnnex1).Theselectedstakeholders wereinvitedtoparticipatetoaworkshopheldattheUniversityCa’FoscariVenicethe29thof June 2012 (see Annex 2 for the list of participants and Annex 3 for the Agenda) and contributedtotheRRAmethodologyandtheDSSapplicationandimprovementansweringto a questionnaire (see Annex 4 for the questionnaire and Annex 6 for the questionnaire’s results).Thequestionnairewasaimedatunderstanding: UselfunessandeffectivenessoftheoutputoftheRRAandtheDSS; Improvementtobetteraddressstakeholders’needs. Thequestionnaireintegratedandextendstheresultsofapreviousquestionnaireaimedat evaluatingtheusefulnessofaRRAapproachandDSSsforcoastalzonemanagement(Santoro etal.,2013).Themainaimofthestakeholders’involvementprocesscanbesummarizedin thefollowingquestions. Whicharethemainquestionsthatdecisionmakersandtechniciansaddresstothescientific communityinrelationtothepossiblecontributionofdecisionsupporttools? How decision makers and technicians can contribute to the development of the DSS DESYCO? WhichcanbethecontributionofDESYCOintheICZMinitiativeswhichrequirestakeholders involvement? IstheoutputproducedbyDESYCOeffectiveandusefulfordecisionmakingprocesses(e.g. themapshaveappropriatescale,effectivelegendsandstatistics)? CantheoutputsandtheinterfacesofDESYCObeimproved?How? More specifically, the workshop was aimed at presenting and discussing with the stakeholderstheRegionalRiskAssessment(RRA)methodologyappliedfortheprioritization ofareasandtargetspotentiallyatrisktoclimatechangeimpactsandtheDecisionSupport System DESYCO which implements the RRA methodology. The workshop represented an

114 importantopportunitytobeincontactwithrelevantstakeholdersoftheNorthAdriaticarea inordertocreateaconnectionbetweenscientists,providingnewmethodologiesandtools supportingtheICZMimplementation,andpotentialendͲusers,whichcanusethesetools. During the workshop all these objectives have been achieved. The participants have describedtheirneedsandevaluatedtheproposedtoolssuggestingimprovementsoftheRRA andoftheDSSDESYCO’sinterfacesandfunctionalitiesasdescribedinmoredetailswithin Sections6.1and7.1. 5.3Whichkindofconstraintshaveyoufaced? TheparticipatoryprocessimplementedintheframeworkofthePEGASOprojectallowedto improveDESYCOanditsoutputsandtheworkshoprepresentedtheopportunitytoestablish apositiverelationshipamongresearchersandstakeholders.Theparticipantsshowedinterest during the presentations, willingness to learn, and contributed with several opinions. However,theparticipationratewasquitelowsinceonly8institutionsoutofthe50invitedto theworkshopattendedattheevent. Section6.Tools Within the North Adriatic case three tools were selected and applied: i) indicators; ii) participatory methods; iii) Regional Risk Assessment (RRA) and Decision Support System (DSS). The first two tools are among the PEGASO tools developed within the WP4 of the PEGASOproject,whileRRAandtheDSSaretoolsspecificallyappliedfortheNorthAdriatic case, improved and extended in the framework of the PEGASO project. The tools and methodsappliedinthecasestudyarepresentedinthenextparagraphswhiletheobtained resultsareshownanddiscussedinSection7. 6.1Toolsapplied IndicatorswereusedwithintheNorthAdriaticcaseinordertoaddressoneoftheselected coastalissues:anthropicpressureoncoastalzones.Specifically,twoindicatorswereselected amongthePEGASOindicators:AreaofbuiltͲupspaceinthecoastalzoneandSizeanddensity of the population living in the coastal zone. These indicators allow quantifying the how coastalareasareimpactedbyhumanpresenceandevaluatethetrendovertime. ThetwoconsideredindicatorsaremainlyrelatedtothreeofthepolicyobjectivesofICZM protocol,article6,whicharerelatedtodifferentICZMprinciples.Specifically: Preservethewealthofnaturalcapitalincoastalzone; FormulatelandͲusestrategies,plans,andprogrammescoveringallcoastalandmarineuses; Haveabalanceduseofcoastalzone,andavoidurbansprawl(thetrendofpopulationliving inariskareashouldbeidentified). Moreover, both the indicators are related to another policy objective of the Article 8 (Protectionandsustainableuseofthecoastalzone)whichisaimedathavingabalanceduse ofcoastalzone,andavoidurbansprawl.Thefinalaimistomaintainthenaturaldynamicsof

115 coastalareasandpreservecoastalecosystemsandlandscapes. Thesefactorshavealsoagreatinfluenceontheexposureandvulnerabilityoftheconsidered region to climate change impacts, and can increase the potential risks related to coastal hazardssuchasseaͲlevelrise,stormsurgeflooding,coastalerosion.Thedefinitionofnew policies,plansandprogramsaimedatachievingtheaforementionedICZMpolicyobjectives, shouldthereforetakeintoaccountthecurrentandpastsituationoftheregionrepresented by the proposed indicators and, as an extension, integrate thisinformation with future climatechangescenarios. AreaofbuiltͲupspaceinthecoastalzone(seeAnnex5.1fortheindicatorfactsheet;PEGASO Consortium,2013a) The increase in builtͲup areas has potential high impacts on the environment and on the naturalresourcesduetosoilͲsealing,todisturbanceresultingfromtransport,noise,resource use,wastedumpingandpollution,andothers.Theintensityandpatternsofurbansprawl andthebuiltͲupareaaretheresultofthreemainfactorsͲeconomicdevelopment,demand forhousing,andextensionoftransportnetworks. Although subsidiarity rules assign land and urban planning responsibilities to national and regional levels, several European policies have a direct or indirect effect on urban development. This indicator aims to monitor progress towards achieving the first goal for coastalsustainabilitysetoutintheEURecommendationconcerningtheimplementationof ICZMͲtocontrolfurtherdevelopmentofundevelopedcoastasappropriate.Theindicator hasonemeasurementͲthepercentageofbuiltͲupspaceonlandandatsea. TheindicatorattempttoidentifytheextenttowhichthecoastalzonehasbeenbuiltͲupover thepastseveralyearsbecausethiswillindicatethedegreeofpressureonthecoastandthe likelihood of further changes in the future. The final aim is also to know whether the developmentonthecoasthasbeengreaterandmoreintensethaninthewiderregion,and atwhichtrenddevelopmentinmarinewatersistakingplace.Itcanalsohelptounderstand patternsofdevelopmentandunravelcauseͲeffectrelationships. Within the North Adriatic case the wider region, referred also as reference region, is representedbythewholeVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiuliaregions.Resultsoftheindicator’s calculationwillbepresentedanddiscussedinSection7.1. Sizeanddensityofthepopulationlivinginthecoastalzone(seeAnnex5.2fortheindicator factsheet;PEGASOConsortium,2013b) Theaimoftheindicatoristoknowthedegreetowhichthepopulationofacountryora wider reference region is concentrated in the coastal zone. Tracking changes in the distributionofthepopulationofacoastalregionovertimewillhelpusassesstheamountof pressurebeingexertedoncoastalresourcesbythedemandforland,housing,employment, public services, transport and so on. We are especially interested in determining whether suchpressureisgeneralthroughoutthewiderreferenceregionorspecifictothecoastor specificcoastalareas.

116 Alsoforthisindicatorthewiderregion,referredalsoasreferenceregion,isrepresentedby thewholeVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiuliaregionsandresultsoftheindicator’scalculation willbepresentedanddiscussedinSection7.1. Participation AsalreadydescribedinSection5,participatorymethodswereusedinordertoinvolvemain stakeholdersrelatedtotheNorthinaPanelExpert.ThePanel,alreadypresentedinSection 5,wasattendedby21peoplecomingfrom8institutions(seeAnnex2forthedetailedlist): FEEM(FondazioneENIEnricoMattei), Venetoregion, ProvinceofVenezia, Poriverbasinauthority ISPRA, RegionalAgencyfortheEnvironmentalProtection(ARPA)ofFriuliveneziaGiuliaregion, MunicipalityofCavallinoTreporti, MunicipalityofVenezia, Theworkshopwasdividedintotwomainsessions(seeAnnex3forthedetailedagenda),the morning session, introducing to the PEGASO project and to the role of decision support systems and participative processes in the analysis of climate change and coastal zones issues;theafternoonsessionmoreinteractiveandrelatedtothespecificapplicationofthe RRAmethodologyandDESYCOtotheNorthAdriaticcase: ICZM,ClimateChangeandDSS ICZMandthePEGASOproject Contribution of DSSs to the analysis and assessment of problems related to coastal zone managementinrelationwithClimateChange DESYCO:methodology,structureandexamplesfromcasestudies ParticipationandinvolvementofdecisionmakersinthedevelopmentofDESYCO ExperiencesofcoastalzonemanagementintheNorthAdriatic:perspectivesandcriticalities. Stakeholders involvement and contribution of decision makers in future developments of DESYCOinICZMprocesses Selectionofimpacts,indicatorsandreceptorsusefulfortheDSSapplicationtocoastalareas ofVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiuliaregions. Customization of the results of the DSS DESYCO according the real needs of stakeholders fromVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiulia DESYCOandICZMforthecoastalzonesofVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiulia. Thequestionnaire(Annex4)waspresentedandfilledinby11stakeholdersduringandafter thesecondpartoftheworkshop.Themainaimsoftheworkshopandofthequestionnaire werealreadypresentedinSection5,whileresultswillbepresentedanddiscussedinSection 7.1.

117 Others–RegionalRiskAssessmentandDESYCO The Regional Risk Assessment (RRA) methodology proposed for the estimation of water qualityvariationsunderclimatechangescenariosisintendedtobeanaidfornationaland regionalauthoritiesinexaminingthepossibleconsequencesofclimatechangeonseawater ecosystems and defining possible adaptation measures. Moreover, it can represent a valid supportforthedifferentstakeholdersinvolvedintheimplementationofIntegratedCoastal ZoneManagement(ICZM). Traditionally, RRA aims at providing a quantitative and systematic way to estimate and compare the impacts of environmental problems that affect large geographic areas (Hunsakeretal.,1990).Inmoredetail,theRRAisdefinedasariskassessmentprocedure whichconsidersthepresenceofmultiplehabitats,multiplesourcesreleasingamultiplicityof stressorsimpactingmultipleendpoints(Landis,2005).TheproposedRRAapproachrequires theuseofGeographicInformationSystems(GIS)toolsandMultiCriteriaDecisionAnalysis (MCDA) that enable simultaneous consideration of stakeholder interests and technical evaluations,utilizingrigorousscientificmethodstoprocesstechnicalinformation(Gioveet al.,2009).Thefinalaimistoestimatetherelativerisksintheconsideredregion,compare differentimpactsandstressors,ranktargetsandexposureunitsatrisk,andselectthoserisks thatneedtobeinvestigatedmorethoroughly. ThemainoutputoftheRRAisthedevelopmentofGISͲbasedmaps.RRAmapsincludehazard maps representing the hazard against which a system operates (e.g., changes in physicoͲ chemicalandbiologicalparameterofmarinecoastalwaters),vulnerabilitymapsrepresenting thespatialdistributionofenvironmentalvulnerabilityfactorsandriskmapsidentifyingand prioritizingareasandtargetsatrisk.Thesemapsallowthevisualizationandprioritizationof impacted areas and vulnerable coastal receptors and the identification of more sensitive areasintheconsideredcoastalregion.Moreover,theyallowaneasyandflexiblevisualization of vulnerabilities and risks for stakeholders and decision makers, supporting the implementation of the ICZM. The RRA methodology proposed for the analysis of climate change impacts on coastal/marine water quality is based on four main steps, that will be described in the successive paragraphs: Hazard assessment, exposure assessment, biophysicalandenvironmentalvulnerabilityassessmentandriskassessment. Hazardassessment ThefirststepoftheRRAisthehazardassessmentthatisaimedatdefininghazardscenarios representing the physical phenomenon related to climate change (i.e. water quality variation)thathasthepotentialtocausedamagestothefishstock(e.g.lossofproductivity), including fisheries and aquaculture. This step requires the identification of hazard metrics (i.e. water biogeochemical and physical parameters) coming from the aggregation of the outputofachainofclimate,hydrodynamicandbiogeochemicalmodels(Figure14andTable 10)accordingtodifferentfuturescenariostobeinvestigatedintheanalysis(i.e.2070and 2100).

118 ThemodelschainappliedfortheNorthAdriaticcase(Figure14)isforcedbytheIPCCSRES A1B15 scenario (Nakiđenoviđ et al., 2000) that provides the input for the Global Climate Models (GCMs) and the nested Regional Climate Models (RCMs) representing the main atmosphereandoceandynamicsandcoveringlargespatialdomains(i.e.fromtheglobalto thesubͲcontinentalscale).TheoutputoftheRCMareuseddirectlytoconstructdownscaled climatehazardscenariosforthecasestudyarea(i.e.scenariosoftemperature,precipitation andwindvariations)andthenrepresenttheinputforthesuiteofmodelsrunningathigher resolution(i.e.fromtheAdriatictotheNorthAdriaticscale),representedbyhydrodynamic andwavemodelsandbyabiogeochemicalmodelthatareusedtoevaluatethewaterquality variationhazard. Theconstructionofamodelchainisaneffectivewaytosupplyrelevantinformationabout climateforcingandcascadingprocessesrangingfromtheglobal/subcontinentalscaletothe regional/localscale.AsshowninFigure14andTable10,theinformationprovidedbyhigh resolutionimpactmodelsisusedtoinvestigateclimatechangehazardsatasuitablespatial resolutionforimpactandriskassessment(i.e.from5kmto50m)andforafuturetemporal scenarios(i.e.theyears2070and2100). The model chain used for the definition of hazard scenarios related to the water quality variationimpactinclude: climatemodels(SXG,EBUͲPOM); oceanandseacirculationmodels(SHYFEM,ROMS,CALYPSO); awavemodel(SWAN); abiogeochemicalmodel(ADRI2BC). DetailedinformationaboutnumericalmodelscanbefoundinTable10,thatdescribesthe domainwherethemodelwasapplied,thespatialresolution,theinvestigatedtimescenario andthehazardmetricthatcanbeprovidedbyeachmodel.Theoutputparametersthatare used for the hazard assessment phase are the metrics highlighted in bold (i.e. sea temperature and salinity from the ROMS modes; primary production, dissolved inorganic nitrogen,reactivephosphorus,dissolvedoxygenandpHfromtheADRI2BCmodel). TheA1BscenariobelongstotheA1storylinefamily,whichdescribesafutureworldofveryrapideconomic growth.Inthispotentialfuture,globalpopulationpeaksmidͲcenturyanddeclinesthereafter,andnewand more efficient technologies are rapidly introduced. Moreover, the A1B scenario predicts carbon dioxide emissionsincreasinguntilaround2050andthendecreasing,anditassumesabalancedemphasisbetween fossilfuelsandotherenergysources.

119

Figure14.ThemodelchainfortheNorthAdriaticcase.

120 Spatial Time Name Category Domain Metrics resolution Scenario Air/sea Atmospheric temperature resolution Atmospheric 120km pressure SINTEX ClimateModel Global Cloudiness 2070Ͳ2100 G Oceanic Rainfall resolution Relativehumidity 200km Salinity Winds Air/sea temperature Atmospheric pressure EBUͲ Mediterranean ClimateModel 28km Cloudiness 2070Ͳ2100 POM sea Rainfall Relativehumidity Salinity Winds Bottomstress Salinity Ocean and sea North Adriatic 2.5 kmͲ50 Seatemperature SHYFEM Circulation 2070Ͳ2100 sea metres Submergedareas model Currentvelocity Waterlevels Waveenergy Ocean and sea North Adriatic From 5 to 2 Wavedirection SWAN circulation 2070Ͳ2100 sea km Waveheight model Waveperiod Bottomstress Ocean and sea Adriaticsea From 5 to 2 Salinity ROMS circulation 2070Ͳ2100 km Seatemperature model Watervelocity Integrated Primary ADRI2Ͳ North Adriatic From 5 to hydrodynamic production 2070Ͳ2100 BC sea 0.7km and Dissolved

121 biogeochemical inorganicnitrogen 2Dmodel Reactive phosphorus Dissolvedoxygen pH BottomStress Coastalandsea Adriatic Sea From 12 to Currentvelocity CALYPSO circulation and Lagoon of 2070Ͳ2100 0.05km Waterlevels model Venice Submergedareas Table 10. Description of the models included in the model chain supporting the constructionofhazard scenarios. Metrics inbold arethe parameters used inthehazard assessmentstep.[Source:adaptedfromTorresan,2012]. Table 11 shows the main stressors, which were selected for the water quality variation impact.Foreachstressorahazardmetricwasdefinedbasedontheinformationprovidedby thechainofnumericalmodelsavailableforthecasestudyarea(Table10). Primary Dissolved Sea Stressors Macronutrients pH Salinity production oxygen temperature Concentration Hazard Concentrationof Concentration Mean Salinity of C or ClhͲa MeanT(°C) metrics NandP(mg/L) (mg/L) pH (PSU) (mg/L) Table11.Listofhazardstressorsandrelatedhazardmetricsconsideredfortheconstruction ofclimatechangehazardscenariosappliedtotheNorthAdriaticcoasts. SelectedhazardmetricsweresuccessivelyaggregatedusingMultiͲCriteriaDecisionAnalysis functions. Foreachhazardmetric,datawereavailableonpointsdistributedoverirregulargridsinthe considered region (Table 10; Figure 15). For each point the value is represented by the averageofthevaluesofthreemonths(JanuaryͲMarch,AprilͲJune,JulyͲSeptember,OctoberͲ December).DataavailablefortheNorthAdriaticSeadidnotincludedVeniceandGradoand MaranoLagoons.Moreover,alldatawereprovidedasseasonalaverageforthesimulations offutureclimatescenarios(i.e.2070and2100)andforthereferencescenario(i.e.theyear 2005). The year 2005 was selected as reference scenario because data of the considered hazard metrics were available from monitoring campaigns and used as baseline for the implementationofthemodelchain.

122

Figure 15. Localization of points used by the different models providing hazard metrics. DIN:DissolvedInorganicNitrogen;OXY:DissolvedOxygen;pH:pH;PHY:Phytoplankton;RP: ReactivePhosphorus. Thehazardassessmentisbasedonthecomparisonoffutureandreferencetoleranceranges (i.e. chemical and/or physical thresholds that limit the existence, growth, abundance, or distributionofanorganism)thatweredefinedforeachhazardmetric.Ifthevaluesofoneor moreparametersareoutoftheseranges,manyimpactscanappearintheecosystem(e.g. timeofreproductionandgrowthvariations,changesinthedistributionandabundanceof the organisms). Within the North Adriatic case the hazard assessment was performed in homogeneousareascorrespondingtothewaterbodiesidentifiedbytheVenetoandFriuli VeneziaGiuliaregions(Figure15)fortheimplementationoftheWaterFrameworkDirective (i.e.6waterbodiesfortheVenetoregionand17waterbodiesfortheFriuliVeneziaGiulia region).Tolerancerangeswereidentifiedforeachhazardmetric,foreachperiod(i.e.each season)foralltheconsideredwaterbodiesusingdataofthereferenceyear(i.e.2005). Inordertoobtainanoverallhazardscoreforeachwaterbody,thecharacterisationofthe variationsofthebiogeochemicalandphysicalparametersfromthereferencetothefuture climate change scenarios was considered through the comparison of the range of each hazardmetricinthefuturescenariowiththereferencerange:thegreateristhevariationin thefuture,thehighercouldbethehazard.Valuesobtainedforeachmetricaresuccessively normalized and aggregated in order to obtain an overall hazard score ranging from 0 (no hazard)to1(maximumhazardwithintheconsideredregionforallseasonsandscenarios). Thefinaloutputsofthehazardassessmentarehazardmapsshowingwaterbodies’hazard scoreforeachconsideredseasonandforeachscenario.Mapsareclassifiedinto5hazard

123 qualitative classes (i.e. Very low, Low, Medium, High, Very high) using the equal interval method.TheproducedmapswillbepresentedanddiscussedinSection7.1. Exposureassessment Thesecondstepistheexposureassessmentaimedatidentifyingandselectingthereceptors (i.e.elementsatrisk)thatcanbesubjecttopotentiallossesduetochangesinwaterquality. Infact,exposurerepresentsthepresenceofpeople,livelihoods,environmentalservicesand resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets in places that could be adverselyaffected(UNISDR,2009;IPCC,2012).Fortheconsideredimpact,exposureincludes coastal waters and the related environmental resources (e.g. fish stock, fisheries and aquacultureplant)thatcouldbeadverselyaffectedbychangesinwaterquality. Specifically, the exposure for coastal waters is represented by the marine water bodies definedbytheVenetoandFriuliͲVeneziaGiuliaregionsaccordingtotheWaterFramework Directive(WFD,2000/60/EC).Waterbodieswereidentifiedbasedonthegeomorphological and hydrodynamic natural characteristics, using three macrodescriptors: geographical localization, geomorphological descriptors and hydrological descriptors. The output of this stepisrepresentedbyanexposuremapwhere0indicateabsenceofexposureand1indicate exposuretotheconsideredimpact,thatwillbepresentedanddiscussedinSection7.1. BiophysicalandEnvironmentalVulnerabilityassessment Vulnerabilityrepresentsthepropensityorpredispositionofacommunity,system,orassetto be adversely affected by a certain hazard (IPCC, 2012). Within the RRA methodology, the biophysicalandenvironmentalvulnerabilityassessmentisaimedatevaluatingthedegreeto which coastal waters could be affected by water quality variation impacts based on physical/environmentalsiteͲspecificinformation(e.g.presenceandextensionofseagrasses, adaptedEvennessindex,aquaculturetypology). Specifically,vulnerabilityiscalculatedasafunctionofasetofvulnerabilityfactorsthatare definedforcoastalwatersbasedonavailablesiteͲspecificterritorialinformation.Inorderto obtainanoverallvulnerabilityscore,factorsareaggregatedusingMCDAfunctions.Thisstep requires the classification and normalization of each vulnerability factor. This activity was supportedbyagroupofexpertsinenvironmentalriskassessmentwhodefinedclassesand scoresforeachvulnerabilityfactor.Normalizedfactors’scoresrangefrom0to1,accordingto thedegreeofvulnerabilityassociatedtoeachfactors’class:0representsnovulnerabilityand 1 represents the higher vulnerability class for the considered factor. Vulnerability factors identifiedfortheNorthAdriaticcaseandrelatedscoresarelistedinTable12.

124 Factor Source Legend Score 0.56Ͳ0.70 0.6 Speciesdiversityindexforfish AdriBlu,2006 0.71Ͳ0.85 0.8 ͲAdaptedEvennessindexͲ 0.86Ͳ11 Venetoregion,2009; Absence 0.4 Presenceofseagrasses FriuliveneziaGiuliaregion,2009 Presence 1 0Ͳ6.67 1 Venetoregion,2009; 6.68Ͳ13.34 0.75 ExtensionofseagrassesKm2 FriuliveneziaGiuliaregion,2009 13.35Ͳ20.01 0.5 20.02Ͳ26.68 0.25 Venetoregion,2009; Absence 0.4 Tegnùe FriuliveneziaGiuliaregion,2009 Presence 1 Venetoregion,2008; Musselculture 1 Aquaculturetypology FriuliveneziaGiuliaregion,2008 Fishfarms 0.6 Table12.Vulnerabilityfactorsselectedforthewaterqualityvariationimpactappliedtothe NorthAdriaticcoastalwaterbodiesandrelatedscores. The Adapted Evenness index is a measure of biodiversity which quantifies how equal the communityisnumerically.ThisindexisanadaptedversionoftheEvennessindexbecause available data included only species relevant for fisheries, and not all species living in the North Adriatic Sea. It is always represented by a number ranging from 0 (less variation in communitiesbetweenthespecies)to1(highvariationincommunitiesbetweenthespecies). Highervulnerabilityscoreswereattributedtoareaswithahigherindexvalue,aschangesin waterbiogeochemicalandphysicalparameterscaneasilymodifytheexistingequilibriumin theabundanceofthedifferentspecies.Seagrassessaremarinefloweringplantswhichare particularly important in coastal zones as they provide several ecosystem goods and ecosystemservices(e.g.fishinggrounds,waveprotection,oxygenproductionandprotection against coastal erosion). The maximum vulnerability score (i.e. 1) was attributed where seagrassesarepresent.Moreover,segrassesswithagreaterextensionarecharacterizedbya lowersusceptibilityscoreastheyareassumedtobelessvulnerabletoexternalperturbations (i.e. changes in water biogeochemical and physical parameters). Tegnùe are biogenic carbonate rocks built by marine organisms. They initially grow on existing hard bottoms formed by cemented sand. They have developed into natural reefs over the last 3Ͳ4.000 years.Theydifferfromtropicalcoralreefsbecauseherethemainbuilderorganismsarenot corals but calcareous red algae, called "Corallines". Areas where Tegnùe are present are characterized by the highest vulnerability score (i.e. 1). Finally, Aquaculture typology indicateswhetheraplantisdevotedtofisheriesormusselscultures;musselcultures,that are more sensitive to changes in water biogeochemical and physical parameters, are characterizedbyahigherlevelofvulnerabilitythanfishfarms. AllvulnerabilityindicatorsareaggregatedusingaMCDAfunctioninordertoobtainthefinal biophysicalandenvironmentalvulnerabilityscore. Thefinalvulnerabilityscorecanrangefrom0(novulnerability)to1(maximumvulnerability forthecasestudyarea).Theoutputisavulnerabilitymapidentifyingandprioritizingareas morevulnerabletochangesinwaterqualityparametersbasedon5qualitativeclassesfrom Very low to Very High vulnerability (i.e. 0Ͳ0.25; 0.25Ͳ0.5; 0.5Ͳ0.75; 0.75Ͳ0.99; 0.99Ͳ1). The

125 vulnerability map can support decision makers in the definition of measures aimed at boosting the resilience of receptors in the considered region (e.g. regulating fisheries and otheractivitiesincoastalzonesinordertopreserveseagrasess). Riskassessment The following step was represented by the risk assessment, aimed at quantifying and classifying potential consequencesof the considered hazard on the investigated areas and receptors (i.e. elements potentially at risk) combining hazard, exposure and vulnerability (Equation1).Itcanbeexpressedinprobabilisticorrelative/semiͲquantitativeterms(IPCC, 2012). Accordingly, this phase combines the information about each hazard scenario with receptors’ exposure and vulnerability assessment. Relative risk scores are values ranging between0(norisk)to1(higherrelativerisk). Equation1 Where: ; ; . The output of this step is represented by relative risk maps aimed at identifying and prioritizingareascharacterizedbydifferentlevelsofrisk.Arelativeriskmapwillbeproduced foreachseason(i.e.JanuaryͲMarch/April–June/July–September/October–December)of eachconsideredscenario(i.e.2070and2100).Theproducedriskmapsclassifytherelative riskscoresinfiveequalclassesbetween0(norisk)and1(higherrisk). The proposed regional risk classifications do not attempt to provide absolute predictions about the impacts of climate change, but are relative indices which provide information abouttheareas/targetswithinaregionlikelytobeaffectedmoreseverelythanothers.

Statistics AnotherimportantoutputoftheRRAmethodologyisrepresentedbystatisticsthatcanbe calculatedforthedifferentproducedoutputs(i.e.,hazard,vulnerabilityandrisk).Statistics (e.gsurfaceandpercentageofsurfaceonthedifferentriskclasses)providestakeholdersand decisionmakerswithadditionalsyntheticinformationthatcansupportinthedefinitionof Plan,PoliciesandProgramsinadaptationtoclimatechange.

TheDSSDESYCO DESYCO (DEcision support SYstem for COastal climate change impact assessment) is the computerizedtoolimplementingtheRRAapproachpreviouslydescribed.ItisastandͲalone software,aimedatsupportingtheapplicationoftheproposedmethodology,byfacilitating the procedures for integrating theoutputs of external numerical models and geographical vulnerabilityindicators,bymeansofGISfunctionsandMCDAroutines.

126 ThestructureofDESYCOiscomposedof4maincomponents:ageodatabaseforthestorage of bioͲphysical and socioͲeconomic data related to the study area; a multiͲscale scenarios moduletodealwithdataprovidedbynumericalmodelssimulationsortimeseriesanalysis;a RelativeRiskModel(RRM)thatintegratesMultiCriteriaDecisionAnalysis(MCDA)techniques fortheapplicationoftheRRAmethodology;andfinallyGraphicalUserInterfaces(GUI)that facilitatetheinteractionofthefinaluserwiththesystemandsimplifyresultsanalysisand understanding. The core of the system is the RRM that integrates climate change hazards analysis, based on the elaboration of output from climate, hydrodynamic, hydrological, hydrogeological and biogeochemical models, with exposure and vulnerability analysis of environmentalandsocioͲeconomicfeaturesoftheterritory.Inordertomakethesoftware easily extendable with a high level of flexibility and interoperability, DESYCO was implementedonamultiͲtierarchitecturecomposedofthreelevels:Datatier,Logictierand Presentationtier(Figure8).Thesoftwarewasdevelopedbymakinguseoftwoopensource librariesforthemanagementofgeographicdata,i.e.GDALandOGR,andprogrammedusing the Phyton and C# languages. The GDAL and the OGR libraries were selected taking into accounttheirwideapplicabilityandstability;theyrepresentthedefactostandardsforopen source GISͲbased applications. GDAL (http://www.gdal.org) is a translator library for the managementofrastergeospatialdataformats,whileOGR(http://www.gdal.org/ogr/),which isasubprojectofGDAL,isaC++libraryprovidingaccesstoavarietyofvectorfileformats. Thechoiceofusingopensourcelibrariesandapplications,whichadoptioniscontinuously increasingoverthelastyears,allowsDESYCOtobeindependentfromcommercial,andoften expensive, software. Moreover the number of people voluntarily supporting the development and maintenance of these libraries is rapidly growing following the general growthofopensourcesoftware(vonKroghandSpaeth,2007). Thefirsttierofthesoftwarearchitecture,theDataTier,isrepresentedbyageodatabaseand bysystemfolderscontaininginputandoutputdataelaboratedbythesoftware.Inputdata arerepresentedbyenvironmentalandsocioͲeconomicdatarelatedtotheareaofconcern and useful to represent pathway, attenuation, vulnerability, and value factors (e.g. coastal topography, geomorphology, presence and distribution of vegetation cover, location of artificial protection etc.). Moreover, input data include parameters provided by numerical models or time series analysis, representing hazard metrics in the RRA (e.g. temperature, precipitation,sealevelriseprojectionsetc.).Foreachcasestudyareaallinputdatamustbe homogenized before being loaded through the software’s GUI in order to have the same referencesystem,geographicalextensionandpixeldimension. Outputdataarerepresentedbyexposure,vulnerabilityandriskmapselaboratedduringthe applicationoftheRRAmethodology,bystatisticscalculatedattheendoftheassessmentand byareportshowingthemainresultsandalltheconfigurationparameters. TheLogicTier,correspondingtothesecondlevelofthearchitecture,isalibrarycomposedof basic and advanced functions implementing the RRA’s equations. The basic functions representbuildingblocksallowingtoperformsimple,general,operations(i.e.weightedsum, probabilistic or, weighted average) required by the RRA model. Such functions are then integrated into advanced functions (e.g. the equations supporting the implemented Multi

127 CriteriaDecisionAnalysis)allowingtoperformallthemorecomplexoperationsrequiredby theRRAmodel(i.e.hazard,exposure,vulnerabilityandriskfunctions).Basicfunctionswere programmed in Python, and make use of the open source libraries GDAL and OGR, while advancedfunctionswereprogrammedinC#. Finally,thethirdlevel,thePresentationTier,isrepresentedbytheGraphicalUserInterfaces (GUI).Thistiermanagesalltheinteractionsbetweenthesystemandtheuserandallowto dealwiththedifferentstepsoftheapplication.DuetothelayeredarchitectureofDESYCO,its GUIcanbeimplementedbothindesktoporwebenvironments.MorespecificallytheDSS can have desktop interfaces within stand alone applications (e.g. as a Java application executableindifferent operatingsystems)oritcanbeintegrated asa plugͲinwithinthird parties’ open source (e.g. QGIS) or commercial (e.g. ArcGIS) GIS software. The same also applies for web interfaces which can be standͲalone applications or integrations of new moduleswithinexistingwebapplications(e.g.p.mapper).ThefirstversionofDESYCOwas implementedasaC#standͲaloneapplicationwhichcanbelauncheddirectlyaswellasfrom the QGIS (Quantum GIS, http://www.qgis.org) open source software. Specific information about the interfaces of DESYCO and the typology of results that can be obtained from its applicationincoastalareasarereportedinthefollowingparagraph. TheDSSDESYCO hasbeenusedfortheapplicationoftheRRAmethodologytotheNorth Adriaticcaseandresultsarepresentedanddiscussedinsection7.1.Moreoverthetoolwas improved implementing new functionalities according to stakeholders’ suggestions that emergedduringtheorganisedworkshopandthroughthequestionnaire(Paragraph7.1). :KLFKKDYHEHHQWKHPDLQFRQVWUDLQWVIDFHGGXULQJWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHWRROV" Mainconstraintsduringtheapplicationoftheindicatorswererepresentedbydatagaps.The useoflongerandmoreupdatedtimeserieswouldallowperformingabetteranalysisofthe anthropic impacts through the two considered indicators. Specifically, for the indicator relatedtopopulation,dataofthepopulationcensusof2011werenotyetavailable,whilefor theindicatorrelatedtobuildings,mostupdatedinformationwerethelandusemapsofthe year2006.Moreover,forlandusemapsdatawithhigherlevelofdetail(e.g.thefourthlevel oftheCorineLandCoverlegend)wouldbeuseful.Moredetaileddatawasrequiredalsofora more accurate calculation of the adapted Evenness index and the commercial value of production. Finally, a higher number of vulnerability indicators is recommended to better evaluatethevulnerability. During the implementation of participative processes, the difficulties of involving stakeholdersrepresentedthemainconstraint.Despitethegreateffortmadeinordertohave a response from several stakeholders and have a good participation to the organised workshop,only8institutionsparticipatedtotheworkshop. Section7.MainresultsofCASES 7.1Achievements Indicators AreaofbuiltͲupspaceinthecoastalzone

128 As described in Section 6.1, the main aim of the indicator “Area of builtͲup space in the coastalzone”istoanalysetheextenttowhichthecoastalzonehasbeenbuiltͲupoverthe past several years in order to highlight the degree of pressure on the coast and the likelihood of further changes in the future. The indicator was calculated by applying the methodologydescribedinthefactsheet(Annex5.1). Withthispurpose,fortheNorthAdriaticcase,thisindicatorwascalculatedwithreferenceto fivegeographicalareas(Figure16): The reference area, represented by the whole Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia Regions (NorthAdriaticsea); Thecoastalmunicipalitieslocalisedinthereferencearea; ThenonͲcoastalmunicipalitiesinthereferencearea(aggregatedforProvinces); Abufferzoneof1kmofdistancefromthecoastline; Abufferzoneof10kmofdistancefromthecoastline.

Figure16.Thecasestudyarea According the indicators calculation instruction (PEGASO Consortium, 2013a), the area of builtͲupspace(urbanareas)isextractedfromtheCorineLandCoverlandusemapforthe years1990,2000and2006andselectingonlytheartificial areas,labelledaslanduse1.1 (urban fabric), 1.2 (industrial, commercial and transport units) and 1.3 (mine, dump and constructionsites).Figure17showsacomparisonofbuiltͲuplandintheyears1990,2000 and2006.

129

Figure17.BuiltͲuplandfromCLCintheyear1990,2000and2006. Figure17showsthecomparisonbetweenthepercentagesofbuiltͲuplandwithreferenceto thetotalarea(allland)includedinthecoastalmunicipalities,nonͲcoastalmunicipalitiesand into the entire reference area related to the Veneto and Friuli Venezia Regions (North Adriaticsea).ThebarchartreflectsaprogressiveincreaseofthebuiltͲuplandinthethree analysed areas (coastal municipalities, nonͲcoastal municipalities and the entire reference area)highlighting,inallthethreeperiods,thatcoastalmunicipalitiesarethemostbuiltͲup areas.

130

Figure 18. Percentage of builtͲup land within coastal municipalities, nonͲcoastal municipalities and for the entirereferencearea(VenetoandFriuliͲVeneziaGiuliaregions)forthereferenceperiodrelatedtotheCorine LandCoverdataset.

Figure 19 shows the comparison between the percentage of builtͲup land included in a bufferzoneof1kmand10kmofdistancefromthecoastlinewithreferencetothetotal area(allland).TheareaofbuiltͲupspace(urbanareas)isalwaysextractedfromtheCorine LandCoverlandusemap(CLCcodes1.1,1.2and1.3).

Figure19.PercentageofbuiltͲuplandinthe1kmand10kmbuffers.

Thebarchartshowsthatthecoastalareawithinthe0–1Kmbufferfromcoastlineisdeeply urbanized:fortheyear2006the25%ofthetotalarea(allland)isbuiltͲup.Thisoccurrence decreases considering the 0–10 Km buffer from coastline, observing a maximum value of 7,3%ofbuiltͲuplandwithreferencetothetotalarea(allland)intheyear2006. Thepreviousbarcharthasbeenmerged(Figure20)inordertocomparethe5studiedareas (theentirereferencearea,coastalmunicipalities,nonͲcoastalmunicipalitiesand1kmand10 kmbuffers).Thisnewbarcharthighlightsonceagainhowthecoastalareawithinthe0–1Km bufferfromcoastlineisthemosturbanizedlandinallthethreeanalysedperiods.

131

Figure20.PercentageofbuiltͲuplandinthedifferentconsideredregionandforthedifferenttimeframes.

SustainabilitytargetwithinICZMprotocolfortheMediterraneanSea AspecificfocusanalysishasbeenrealizedinordertohighlightthepercentageofbuiltͲup lands included in a buffer zone of 100m from the coastline using the same datasets previouslyselected(CorineLandCover1990,2000and2006).Infact,theArticle8ofthe ICZMProtocolfortheMediterraneanorderspartiestoestablishanoͲconstructionzonethat may not be less than 100 m in width, as from the highest winter waterline, and if the countrieshavestricterregulationstheyshouldkeepapplyingthem.Thecountriesmaymake exceptionstothebanofconstructionwithinthe100mzoneonlyfortheprojectsofpublic interest and in areas having particular geographical or other local constraints, especially related to population density or social needs, where individual housing, urbanization or developmentareprovidedbynationallegalinstruments. The previous results related to the buffer analysis (0Ͳ1 km an d 0Ͳ10 km buffer from coastline)werecomparedwiththeresultsgainedfromthe0Ͳ100mbufferanalysisasshown inFigure21.

Figure21.PercentageofbuiltͲupland/spaceby0Ͳ10km,0Ͳ1kmand0Ͳ100mbuffersforthereferenceperiodrelatedto theCorineLandCoverdataset(1990,2000,2006)

132 Thisanalysisshowsthataroundthe24%ofthetotalarea(allland)includedinabufferzone of100mfromthecoastlineisbuiltͲupinthethreeperiodsconsideredinthisanalysis(i.e., 1990,2000and2006). TheCorineLandCoverlandusemapdoesn’tsupplyinformationaboutthenatureofpublic orprivateinterestofeachbuildings,sowecan’tknowifthesebuiltͲupareaswithinthe0Ͳ 100mbufferzonearereallyofpublicinterestorhaveparticulargeographicalorotherlocal constraints. We can only distinguish between the three different urban areas typologies consideredinthisanalysisupfocusedonthebuiltͲspace: x 1.1:urbanfabric; x 1.2:industrial/commercial/transportunits; x 1.3:mine,dumpandconstructionsites.

Theresultsofthisanalysis,focusedontheurbanareastypologieswithinthe100mbuffer zonefromthecoastline,areshowninthefollowingpiecharts.

Figure22.Percentageofurbanareastypologieswithin0Ͳ100mbufferzonefromcoastline(CLC1990,2000and 2006)

The builtͲup space within the 100 m buffer zone from coastline is mostly divided in two urban typologies: urban fabric (data labelled as land use 1.1) and industrial/commercial/transportunitsandminesitesdata(labelledaslanduse1.2)forall thethreeconsideredperiods(i.e.1990,2000,2006).Morespecifically,analyzingtheCorine Land Cover dataset, the builtͲup lands classified as ‘industrial/commercial/transport units and mine sites’ are almost totally labelled as land use 1.2.3 (third level of land use classification)thatisrelatedtotheinfrastructureofportareas,sowecansupposethatthe mostparttheseurbanareasareofpublicinterest.Whereas,thebuiltͲupareasclassifiedas

133 ‘urbanfabric’arealmosttotallylabelledaslanduse1.1.2thatisrelatedtodiscontinuous urbanfabric(buildings,roadsandartificiallysurfacedareas,whichoccupydiscontinuousbut significantsurfaces),soit’simpossibletodefineiftheseurbanareasarepublicornot. Sizeanddensityofthepopulationlivinginthecoastalzone Theindicator‘sizeanddensityofthepopulationlivinginthecoastalzone’,asdescribedin Section6.1,isaimedatanalysingthedegreetowhichthepopulationofadefinedregionis concentrated in the coastal zone in order to balance use of coastal zone in the future planningtools,andthusavoidurbansprawl. Trackingchangesinthedistributionofthepopulationofacoastalregionovertimewillhelp in the assessment of the amount of pressure being exerted on coastal resources by the demand for land, housing, employment, public services, transport and so on. We are especially interested in determining whether such pressure is general throughout the referencearea(i.e.theVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiuliaregions)orspecifictothecoastal areas.Theindicatorwascalculatedbyapplyingthemethodologydescribedinthefactsheet (Annex5.2). With these purposes, this indicator was calculated with reference to three geographical areas(Figure23): x The reference area, represented by the whole Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia Regions(NorthAdriaticsea); x Thecoastalmunicipalitiesinthereferencearea(aggregatedforProvinces); x ThenonͲcoastalmunicipalitiesinthereferencearea(aggregatedforProvinces);

134

Figure23.Thecasestudyarea.

ThedatasetsusedtocalculatethisindicatorarethePopulationandHousingCensusof1991 and 2001 realized by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT; http://www.istat.it/it/censimentoͲpopolazioneͲeͲabitazi/). It was not possible to use the morerecentdataofthePopulationandHousingCensusof2011becausetheyarenotyet availabletothepublic. Following the calculation method (PEGASO Consortium, 2013b) the indicator has been calculatedforthethreeabovedefinedgeographicalareasandforthetimeseries1991and 2001 (ISTAT dataset) and then the results of the analysis has been compared in order to determinewhetherthepressurederivingfromhumanpresenceisgeneralthroughoutthe reference area or specific to the coast or specific coastal areas. The results have been aggregated for the provinces placed in the reference area (Belluno, Gorizia, Padova, Pordenone,Rovigo,Trieste,Treviso,Udine,Venezia,Vicenza,Verona)andwithreferenceto threegeographicalareasobjectofthisanalysis,inordertosimplifyresultscomparisonand identifyinwhichareathepopulationdensityishigher.

135 Figure24showstheresultsofthecomparisonbetweentheresultsrelatedtothe1991and 2001ISTATcensusdatasetinthereferencearea. Hab/Km2 Hab/Km2 PROVINCE 1991 2001 Belluno 56 62 Gorizia 469 400 Padova 373 371 Pordenone 177 146 Rovigo 131 130 Treviso 274 290 Trieste 1246 1150 Udine 105 97 Venezia 368 432 Verona 258 272 Vicenza 274 302 Figure24.Comparisonbetweenpopulationdensityof1991and2001forthereferencearea

ThedataofFigure24werevisualisedoveramapinFigure25.

Figure 25. Comparison between population density of 1991 and 2001 for the reference area. Classification methodappliedtothepopulationdensityvalues‘Naturalbreaks,algorithmofJenks’.

Asimilaranalysiswasperformedconsideringtheaveragepopulationdensityofthecoastal municipalitiesofeachprovince:Figure26andFigure27showtheresultsonagraph,atable andtwomapscomparingthetwoconsideredtimeframes.Intheconsideredprovincesthe averagepopulationdensityisverydifferent,butdespitethisheterogeneity,thepopulation densityofcoastalmunicipalitiesdecreasebetween1991and2001inallfiveprovinces.

136

Hab/Km2 Hab/Km2 PROVINCE 1991 2001 Gorizia 715 475 Rovigo 71 70 Trieste 1253 1172 Udine 97 90 Venezia 524 476

Figure26.Comparisonbetweenpopulationdensityof1991and2001forcoastalmunicipalities

Figure27.Comparisonbetweenpopulationdensityof1991and2001forcoastalmunicipalities.Classification methodappliedtothepopulationdensityvalues‘Naturalbreaks,algorithmofJenks’. Finally,thesameanalysiswasperformedalsofornonͲcoastalmunicipalitiesandresultsare showninFigure28andFigure29.Inthiscasethesituationislesshomogeneousamongthe differentprovinces:allprovincesarecharacterizedbysmalldecreasesorincrementsofthe average population density of non coastal municipalities between 1991 and 2001; only Veniceshowanincrementofaroundthe40%andTriesteshowsadecreaseofaroundthe 65%.

137

Hab/Km2 Hab/Km2 PROVINCE 1991 2001 Belluno 56 62 Gorizia 393 366 Padova 373 371 Pordenone 177 146 Rovigo 162 162 Treviso 274 290 Trieste 456 161 Udine 105 98 Venezia 279 393 Verona 258 272 Vicenza 274 302 Figure28.Comparisonbetweenpopulationdensityof1991and2001fornonͲcoastalmunicipalities.

Figure 29. Comparison between population density of 1991 and 2001 for nonͲcoastal municipalities. Classificationmethodappliedtothepopulationdensityvalues‘Naturalbreaks,algorithmofJenks’. Finally, results obtained by the previous analysis have been merged in order to compare populationdensityinthedifferentconsideredregions.AsitclearlyemergesfromFigure30, population density in coastal municipalities is almost the double of the other considered region. In the two considered timeframes the density in coastal municipalities decreased, while increased in non coastal municipalities and in the reference region (i.e. the whole Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia regions). It is important to underline that only two timeframeswereconsidered,soinordertodefineatrendmoredatawouldberequired.

138 Hab/Km2 Hab/Km2 1991 2001 Reference 217 223 area Coastal 430 390 municipalities NonͲcoastal 201 209 municipalities Figure30.PopulationDensity1991/2001forthewholestudyareaͲ'NorthAdriaticsea'

Results from participation and from the involvement of the stakeholders As previously described in Sections 5 and 6.1, stakeholder were involved through the organizationofaworkshopandthroughaquestionnaire. Theresultsofthequestionnairewillbepresentedinthenextparagraphandinthesuccessive 3paragraphwillbepresentedtheimprovementoftheDSSDESYCOthatweresuggestedby stakeholder during the workshop and through the questionnaire. Specifically the improvementsare:i)calculationofstatisticrelatedtotheproducedoutputs;ii)productionof report containing all parameters defined during the application; iii) connection of the DSS DESYCOwithQGIS. TheworkshopisnotthefirstinitiativeofcollaborationwithstakeholderandDESYCO’sendͲ users (i.e. a previous questionnaire was already done before the presented project and is presented in Santoro et al., 2013) and will not represent the endpoint; in fact the collaborationwillcontinueinthecomingmonths.

Resultsofthequestionnaire All the participants to the workshop answered to the proposed questionnaire. The first questionswererelatedtotheoutputpresentationanditscomprehension:colours,legend and scale were considered effective and adequate by most of the stakeholders. Main suggestionsfortheimprovementofthegraphicaloutputwererelatedtothescale:inorder to use them for a subregional level (i.e. for provincial or municipal administrations) more detailwouldberequired. In order to improve the outputs, several stakeholders suggested to produce different typologies of statistics, which can support a better understanding of the results of the application. Moreover, stakeholders suggested using both qualitative and quantitative legends and providing the possibility to easily print the produced map defining some templateofprintlayouts. Othersuggestionswererelatedtoabetterunderstandingofthewayresultsareobtained. Accordingly it is useful to explain in a simple and effective way how results are obtained

139 throughtheautomaticproductionofareportassociatedtoeachapplicationdescribingthe useddataandsetparameters,e.g.whichfactorswereconsidered,whichscoresandweights weregiventotheconsideredfactors. Finally,severaluserssuggestedthatitwouldbeusefultohavethepossibilitytointeractwith themapanddynamicallyvisualizethem.Accordingly,itisveryusefultointegratetheDSS withaGISsoftwareinordertoexploreresultsusingGISfunctionalities. SuggestionscomingfromstakeholdershavebeenconsideredandimplementedinDESYCOin ordertoproduceoutputmoreusefulfortheendusersandinordertomaketheresultsmore understandable by stakeholders. In the following paragraphs such improvements are explainedindetail.

DESYCOimprovementbasedontheworkshopandquestionnaireoutcomes Stakeholders participating to the workshop and answering the questionnaire gave several suggestions in order to improve the DSS DESYCO. The following paragraphs detail the improvementsofthesoftwarewhichhavebeenachievedduringtheproject.

Statistical elaborations Oneofthesuggestionscomingfromtheparticipantstotheworkshopisthatresultscoming fromtheRRAapplicationtroughtheDESYCOcanbeclearerifalsosomestatisticiscalculated and provided to decision makers. Accordingly, a specific function allowing statistics calculationhasbeenimplementedwithinDESYCO.StatisticscalculatedbyDESYCOshowthe surfaceandpercentageofeachsurfacethatbelongthedefinedhazard,vulnerabilityandrisk classes. Statistics can be calculate for the whole case study area, for each considered receptororforuserͲdefinedhomogeneousareas(e.g.administrativesunits). Inordertoallowthecalculationofthestatisticsandthesettingoftherelatedparameters,a newinterface(Figure31)allowstheusertoselecttheoutputforwhichstatisticsshouldbe calculatedanddefinetheclassestobeusedforthecalculation. Thenewinterfaceallowsalsothefollowingspecificfunctions: x possibility to customize the number of qualitative classes used for the different impacts; x possibilitytocustomizetheorderofthegeographicalunits(e.g.receptors)usedas geographicalbasisforstatisticcalculation; x possibilitytocustomizethelegend(colourandtext).

140

Figure31.DESYCOinterfaceforthecalculationofexposure,vulnerabilityandriskstatistics.

Figure32.ExampleofgraphproducedbyDESYCO.

Production of reports The main output of the DSS DESYCO is represented by: i) maps showing the spatial distributionofthehazard,vulnerabilityandriskovertheconsideredregion;ii)graphsand tables presenting the results of statistics calculations. Stakeholders suggested that this informationcouldbebetteranalysedandevaluatediftheusercanhaveaclearpictureof how these results were produced. Accordingly, DESYCO will provide an additional output representedbyareportcontainingthefollowinginformation: x listofvulnerabilityandvaluefactors; x valueofusedconstants; x classificationofhazardandvulnerabilityfactors; x weightsofhazardandvulnerabilityfactors.

141

Figure33.ExampleofreportproducedbyDESYCO.

ConnectionwithQGIS InordertoprepareinputdataandexploretheoutputofDESYCOaGISsoftwareisrequired. Itcanbeacommercialoropensourcesoftware.Involvedstakeholdersdonotusealwaysthe samesoftware,butallsuggestedtointegrateDESYCOwithinaGISsoftware.Inordertoavoid costsrelatedtolicences,ithasbeendecidedtointegrateDESYCOwithQGIS,anopensource software.Specifically,anewtoolbarwasaddedtoQGISinordertoexecutetheDSSandthe outputcanbevisualizeddirectlyinQGISfromtheDESYCOsoftware.

Definitionofprintlayouts Thediscussionwithstakeholdersallowedalsotounderstandhowfinaluserspreferhaving the RRA output. The possibility to visualize the map on a PC is fundamental, but also a printedversionofthemapwouldbeveryuseful.Accordingly,ithasbeenaddedaspecific functionabletoproduceprintlayoutoftheproducedoutput.

ResultfromtheRRAandDSS In the following paragraphs the main results obtained by the application of the RRA methodologythroughtheDSSDESYCOarepresented.Producedmapsarethenreportedin thefollowingparagraphsandinAnnex10.4.

Hazardmaps Hazard maps show a ranking of water bodies’ hazard scores. The higher scores represent water bodies where there is a higher increase/decrease of maximum/minimum hazard metrics’ values compared to the reference values. Hazard scores were calculated as describedinSection6.1withineachhomogenousarea(i.e.marinewaterbodiesdefinedby theVenetoandFriuliͲVeneziaGiuliaregions,Figure36). Figure34andFigure35showseasonalhazardmapsforthetwoconsideredfuturescenarios

142 (i.e., 2070 and 2100 respectively). The analysis of the produced maps shows that the southern part of the considered region (from Chioggia to the Po river delta) and the part from the Lido’s inlet to Bibione is characterized by higher hazard scores in all considered seasons and scenarios. In both the considered scenarios, the season where higher hazard scoresareforecastedisfromApriltoJune. A detailed investigation of the hazard metrics contributing to the definition of the final hazardscorewasperformedinordertobetterunderstandwhichmetricscontributemoreto theresult,showingthatthosecontributingmoretothedefinitionofthefinalhazardscore are salinity and temperature. Moreover, maps show that higher changes are registered in three water bodies in front of the Veneto Region (i.e. IT05CE1_1, IT05CE1_3, IT05CE1_4) locatedfromthePoriverdeltatotheChioggia’sinletandfromtheLido’sInlettoBibione. Theseasonwithhigherchangesinboththeconsideredscenarios(i.e.2070and2100)isthe springseason(i.e.fromApriltoJune).

Figure34.HazardmapofwaterqualityvariationsunderclimatechangefortheNorthAdriaticcoastalwater bodiesfortheyear2070.

143

Figure35.HazardmapofwaterqualityvariationsunderclimatechangefortheNorthAdriaticcoastalwater bodiesfortheyear2100.

Exposuremap Theexposuremaprepresentsthekeyreceptorsoftheanalysis(Figure36)andincludethe coastalwaterbodiesoftheVenetoandFriuliVeneziaGiuliaregions,definedaccordingtothe criterialistedinSection6.1.Withinthecasestudyarea23waterbodieswereconsidered(6 intheVenetoregion’scoastlineand17alongtheFriuliVeneziaGiulia’sregion’scoastline). The considered water bodies include also several aquaculture plants, key hotspots of the analysis,whichhavebeenhighlightedinredinFigure36

144

Figure36.ExposuremapshowingcoastalwaterbodiesofVenetoandFriuliͲVeneziaGiuliaregionsandfisheries andaquacultureplants.

145 Vulnerabilitymap Thevulnerabilitymap(Figure37)highlightsandprioritizeareasthatcouldbeaffectedmore severely that others by climate change impacts on water quality. Within the considered region, coastal water bodies are always characterized by a High or Very high vulnerability score. Higher vulnerability is identified in the area in front of the Venice lagoon (i.e. Malamocco’sandLido’sinlets)andinthenorthernpartofthecasestudyarea,fromCaorle toTrieste. Vulnerabilityfactorsthatmainlycontributedtothedefinitionofthevulnerabilityscoreare the adapted Evenness index, and those related to the presence of vulnerable targets, i.e. aquacultureplantsandtegnùe.

Figure37.VulnerabilitymapofCoastalwaterstowaterqualityvariationsunderclimatechangefortheNorth Adriaticsea.

Riskmaps Riskmapsidentifyandrankareasandtargetsthatcouldbeimpactedbychangesinwater quality. The relative risk map produced for the North Adriatic sea for the spring season (Figure 38 ), which is the worst season, shows scores varying from low to high. Higher relativeriskscoresareintheareaclosetothePoriverdeltaadNorthoftheLido’sinlets.The situationin2100isalwaysworsethanin2070. Theriskishighlyinfluencedbythehazardassessment.Infact,vulnerabilityscoresarequite homogenous across all the case study area, while hazard scores changes for the different water bodies across the studied region. Moreover water bodies with higher hazard scores havealsohigherrelativeriskscores(i.e.fromthePo’riverdeltatotheChioggia’sinletand

146 from the Lido’s inlet to Bibione, in correspondence to the water bodies IT05CE1_1, IT05CE1_3andIT05CE1_4).

Figure38.RelativeriskmapofwaterqualityvariationsunderclimatechangefortheNorthAdriaticsea.

7.2Lessonlearnt TheuseofindicatorsandtheapplicationoftheRRAmethodologycanbeimprovedbythe integration of participatory methods. In fact, the involvement of stakeholders and experts cansupporttheidentificationofappropriateindicatorsandrelateddataset.Moreover,itcan integratetheapplicationoftheRRAmethodologyinthestepsrequiringthecontributionof experts and stakeholders (i.e. in the identification of the vulnerability factors and in the attributionofscoresandweightstovulnerabilityfactors). The participation process allowed establishing a connection between scientists (i.e. the researchgroupintheuniversity)andseveralrelevantstakeholders,respondingtooneofthe mainaimofthePEGASOproject(i.e.bridgethegapbetweenscienceanddecisionͲmakers). The experience achieved in the framework of the PEGASO project is the starting point of cooperation between university and stakeholders/decisionͲmakers that will continue after theprojectconclusion. Finally,theapplicationoftheRRAmethodologyandoftheDSSDESYCOwasrecognizedtobe very usefulto support in the definition of Plans, Policies and Programs according to ICZM principles taking into account the potential impacts of climate change. The proposed approachallowsunderstandingthemaindriversofchangesinmarinewaterqualityandcan supportthedefinitionofadaptationmeasuresaimedatreducingconsequencesofclimate

147 changesinthefuture.ThemethodologyappliedtotheNorthAdriaticcasecanbereplicated inanyothercoastalregionoftheMediterraneanSeaandBlackSeausingsetofindicators anddatasetcustomizedforeachapplication. 6HFWLRQ3(*$626', WithintheNorthAdriaticcase,awebportalcontainingmetadataofthemapsusedwithin the described application was also developed. This web portal is part of a Spatial Data InfrastructureimplementedintheframeworkofthePEGASOprojectconnectingthedifferent implementedcasestudiesacrosstheMediterraneanseaandtheBlacksea. ASpatialDataInfrastructure(SDI)isagroupoftechnologies,politics,standards,servicesand humanresources,necessariesforthecompilation,manipulation,access,distributionanduse of geographic data in different levels. It is the basis for the discovering of spatial data, its evaluation and its use by different kinds of users, either from public, business, academic, governmentorcitizenssector.Conceptually,thedatainfrastructurehasthesamepurposeas theroadsandhighways:Improvingthecommunications,makingaccesseasier,etc. MaingoalsofthePegasoSDIare: x toimproveaccesstoandintegrateduseofspatialdataandinformation; x tosupportdecisionmaking; x topromotemultidisciplinaryapproachestosustainabledevelopment; x toenhanceunderstandingofthebenefitsofgeographicinformation.

ThePEGASOSDIiscomposedbyanetworkofgeonodesandincludeamaincentralgeonode, storingalldatarelatedtothePEGASOprojectandtothe10cases,andlocalgeonodesstoring dataofeachsinglecase.WithintheNorthAdriaticcasealocalgeonodewasimplementedto share data produced through the application of the RRA and data related to the used indicators. The geonode implemented in the framework of the North Adriatic case is hosted by the UniversityCa’FoscariofVenice–OfficesystemsandInfrastructures(ASIT)Ͳandisaccessible throughitswebsite(http://virgo.unive.it:8080/geonetwork/srv/eng/main.home).Itisbased ontheuseofGeonetworkOpensource(http://www.geonetworkͲopensource.org/),anopen source web application providing metadata editing and search functions as well as an embeddedinteractivewebmapviewer.

148

Figure39.ThemaininterfaceoftheNorthAdriaticcasegeonode. The North Adriatic case geonode contains metadata related to ** thematic layers. Specifically: Indicatorsmaps o **mapsrelatedtotheindicator“AreaofbuiltͲupspaceinthecoastalzone”; o **mapsrelatedtotheindicator“Sizeanddensityofthepopulationlivingin thecoastalzone”; RRAoutputmaps o **hazardmaps; o 1exposuremap; o 5Vulnerabilityfactorsmaps o 1vulnerabilitymap; o **riskmaps.

149

6HFWLRQ5HIHUHQFHV x ARPAV, 2013. Indicatore del mese – Maggio – 2013. Balneabilità. ARPAV – Servizio OsservatorioAcquemarineeLagunari.

x PEGASO Consortium, 2013a. Area of builtͲup space in the coastal zone. Methodological factsheet in support of comparable measurements and integrated assessmentincoastalzones.6p.inSantoro,F.,Lescrauwaet,A.K.,Giraud,J.P.,Lafitte, A., Pirlet, H., Verleye, T., and Breton, F. (eds.). PEGASO Core Set of Indicators for IntegratedCoastalZoneManagement.PEGASOProjectFP7.www.pegasoproject.eu

x PEGASOConsortium,2013b.Sizeanddensityofthepopulationlivinginthecoastal zone. Methodological factsheet in support of comparable measurements and integratedassessmentincoastalzones.5p.inSantoro,F.,Lescrauwaet,A.K.,Giraud, J.P., Lafitte, A., Pirlet, H., Verleye, T., and Breton, F. (eds.). PEGASO Core Set of Indicators for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. PEGASO Project FP7. www.pegasoproject.eu

x Veneto Agricoltura, 2013. L’ Adriatico a confronto. Veneto Agricoltura, Osservatorio socioͲeconomico della pesca e dell’acquacoltura.

150 Section10.Annexes

$QQH[ದ/LVWRILGHQWLILHGVWDNHKROGHUV Ente Ufficio Responsabile

1 RegioneFriuliVeneziaGiulia x Direzione centrale ambiente, energia x Direttorecentrale epoliticheperlamontagna x Serviziodisciplinagestionerifiutiesiti x RobertoDellaTorre inquinati x Direzione centrale infrastrutture, x SebastianoCacciaguerra mobilità, pianificazione territoriale e lavoripubblici x MassimoCapriotti x Serviziopianificazioneterritoriale x Strutturastabileperilcoordinamento delle attivita' volte a definire i valori da tutelare nell'ambito della pianificazioneterritorialeregionale 3 RegioneVeneto x Segreteria regionale ambiente e x MarianoCarraro territorio x RomeoToffano x Difesadelsuolo x DanielePiccolo x Sistemaidricointegrato x FabioStrazzabosco

4 ARPAVCentrometeoTeolo x AdrianoBarbi

5 ProvinciadiTrieste x Serviziotuteladelterritorio x FabioCella x Tutela della flora e della fauna, educazioneambientale

6 ProvinciadiGorizia x Ufficiopianificazioneterritoriale x Direzione sviluppo territoriale ed x FrancoLeonarduzzi ambiente

7 ProvinciadiUdine x Ufficio Servizio Difesa Suolo e x GabrielePeressi ProtezioneCivile

8 ProvinciadiVenezia x Ufficio pianificazione territoriale e urbanistica x Settoreambiente x MassimoGattolin

9 ProvinciadiRovigo x ServizioPianificazioneterritoriale x PaoloMarzolla

10 ComunediMuggia x Servizio ambiente e sviluppo x PaoloLusin energetico

11 ComunediTrieste x Areapianificazioneterritoriale x arch.MarinaCassin

12 ComunediDuinoAurisina x UfficioLavoripubblici x CartagineMarco

13 ComunediMonfalcone x Ufficiooperepubbliche x Geom.SergioMarconato x Ufficioambiente x dott.ssaLauraWeffort

14 ComunediStaranzano x Ufficiooperepubbliche x Geom.Bon

151

15 ComunediGrado x ServizioLavoripubblici x arch.AndreadeWalderstein

16 Comune di Marano x Ufficiotecnico x StefanoZampar Lagunare 17 Comune di Lignano x Ufficiolavoripubbliciepatrimonio x BaradelloGiorgio Sabbiadoro x Ufficioambienteeterritorio x MoraldoBredaschia

18 Comune di San Michele al x Urbanistica x arch.AlbertoGherardi Tagliamento 19 ComunediCaorle x Servizitecnici x EnzoLazzarin x demanio 20 ComunediEraclea x Ufficiolavoripubblici x Geom.MaddalenaFrara

21 ComunediJesolo x pianificazione x DanielaVitale

22 Comune di CavallinoͲ x Urbanistica x Arch.GaetanoDiGregorio Treporti 23 ComunediVenezia x DipartimentoGestionedelterritorioe attivitàautorizzativedicuifannoparte leseguentidivisioni x AnnalisaBiscaro x Direzione ambiente e sicurezza del territorio x DirettoreDott.OscarGirotto x Direzione sviluppo del territorio ed edilizia x Arch.AmbraDina x Pianificazionestrategica x MarcoFavaro x Osservatorionaturalistico

24 ComunediChioggia x Urbanistica Pianificazione del x Ing.ValandroMassimo territorio

25 ComunediRosolina x Assettodelterritorio x Geom.RomanoLunardi

26 ComunediPortoViro x Lavoripubblci x AndreaPortieri

27 ComunediPortoTolle x Ufficiotecnico x GiorgioPortesan

28 AutoritàPortualediVenezia x Direzionetecnica x Areapianificazione x Areaambiente

29 AutoritàportualediTrieste x Direzionetecnica x Sicurezzaeambiente x Pianoregolatore 30 ASPOMonfalcone x Ufficiotecnico

31 ASPOChioggia x Programmi Realizzazione Infrastrutture

152

x GestionePorto

32 Autorità di bacino dell’Alto x Areatecnica x FrancescoBaruffi(dirigente) Adriatico x Dorsoduro3593Ͳ30123Venezia

33 AutoritàdibacinodelPo x Serviziogovernodelbacino x AlessioPicarelli x Dott.Puma

34 Magistrato alle acque di x ufficio tecnico del magistrato alle x AlfredoRiondino Venezia acque x SanPolo19,30125Venezia

35 GenioCivilediVenezia x Unità di progetto Distretto Bacino x SalvatorePatti IdrograficoLagunaVenetoOrientalee Coste

36 GenioCivilediRovigo x AdrianoCamuffo 37 Genio Civile di Trieste delle operemarittime 38 GenioCivilediGorizia x Ing.FrancescoSorrentino

39 GenioCivilediUdine 40 Osservatorio dell’alto x c/oArpaFVG x LuisellaMilani adriaticofvg 41 Osservatorio dell’alto x c/oArpaVeneto x LucaTenderini adriaticoveneto 42 Area Marina Protetta di x RobertoOdorico Miramare 43 EuroregioneAdriatica x MauroStefani 44 ISPRAVENEZIA x Ing.MaurizioFerla

45 Protezione civile regionale x ClaudioLiva FVG 46 Venezia: Istituzione Centro x AlessandroTosoni Previsioni e Segnalazioni Maree 47 RegioneFriuli x Serviziogeologico x AntonioBratus VeneziaGiulia 48 ARPAOSMER x StefanoMicheletti

49 ARPAFVG x IsabellaScroccaro

50 ARPAFVG x PietroRossin

153 $QQH[ದ/LVWRISDUWLFLSDQWVWRWKHZRUNVKRS

154 % 7KHGHYHORSPHQWRIDIRUHFDVWLQJPRGHOIRUWKHFRDVWDOZDWHUTXDOLW\ 6HFWLRQ&RDVWDOLVVXHV 7KHPDLQFRDVWDOLVVXHVFRQVLGHUHG

Figure40TheSubCASEareofSottomarinadiChioggia (sourceGooglemaps) Water quality (Fig. 34) has a great relevance for tourism, fishery and biodiversity conservation in the North Adriatic. In particular, coastal tourism in the North Adriatic has beenaffectedbywaterqualityissuessuchaseutrophicationphenomena(especiallyduring the80sand90softhelastcentury)aswellastheexceedingofthelimitsoffaecalbacteria densitythatleadtobeachclosuresforhealthreasons.TheUpperAdriaticarearepresents only 0.4% of the Adriatic body volume, and this makes the area particularly sensitive to pollutionmatters.

The problem

MONITORING ENTEROCOCCI? FECAL COL.? NO

YES

sampling

t t0 t1 ? t2 t3 Ʃt=1 month Figure41.Schematizationoftheprocedureneededtodeterminebathingwaterquality

155 In order to support coastal municipalities in the management and monitoring of bathing waterquality,Ca’FoscariUniversitydevelopedashortͲtermforecastingmodelnamedBeach HealthAdvisoryModel(BHAM)whichreproducesthegeneralpatternofbacteriadispersion basedontimeseriesoflocalenvironmentalforces(rainintensity,solarradiationandcurrents amongtheothers)andbacteriacounts.ThemodelwasappliedtothePEGASOSubCASEof Sottomarinabeach(Fig.33),locatedsouthofVenice,ontheNorthͲeasternAdriaticcoastline, theareawasselectedasacaseͲstudyrepresentativeofmicrobialpollutioncausedbyhuman andfarmingactivitiesalongthenorthAdriaticcoastalarea 1.2 The social, political, environmental and economical relevance of the identified coastal issuesintheItalianNorthAdriaticcoast:afocusonthetourismsector16 TheNorthAdriaticzoneisatraditionalEuropeandestinationforseasidetourism(almost20 millionofinternationalarrivalsin2008ifconsideringalsoSloveniaandCroatia).TheNorth Adriatichasmanyfactorsofattraction,suchasnature,cultureandgastronomy.Seaqualityis extremelyimportantnotonlyfortheeconomicweightdirectlyrelatedtobathingtourism, butalsoforitscrucialroleinthewholeNorthAdriaticimageandtourismsystem(e.g.cruise sectoraswellasnauticaltourism).Italiannationalagenciesestimatedadailyconsumptionof almost 80 euro per tourist for sea destination. The same parameter for mountain, lake, culturalandgastronomictourismrangesfrom90to110euro.However,thegreaternumber ofpresencesmakesItalianseasidedestinationabletocompetewiththeculturalones(which are the most important in term of provided income). Data referring to seaside tourism performances,inthecontextoftheNorthAdriatic,areavailableonlyforEmiliaRomagnaand Veneto(seeTable6).Thesetworegionsrepresentrespectively21,6%and16.2%ofthetotal Italianseasidetourismpresences. Table13.EmiliaRomagnaandVenetoseasidetourismperformancesin2011 Presences Arrivals EmiliaRomagna 27,9million 5,5million Veneto 26,5million 3,9million Animportantindicatorforthetourismsectorserviceisthenumberofbedprovidedbyhotel andotheraccommodations.Thebelowtable7illustratesthesituationofVenetotourism districts.

16 Elaborationfromthe“OsservatorionazionaledelTurismo”,RegioneVeneto,OsservatorioturisticoEmilia RomagnaandCISETonISTATandBancad'Italiadata.

156 Table14.Venetomainseasidetourismdistrictssupply(bedsandregionalquotasofbed) BibioneͲCaorle 129.889(18,7%) JesoloͲEraclea 108.459(15,6%) Cavallino 55.603(8,0%) Chioggia 24.926(3,6%) Chioggia tourism district, the case study for the implementation of the Bathing Water AdvisoryModel(BHAM),experiencedin2011morethan261.500arrivalsandmorethan2 millionpresences(7.5%oftheseasideholidaysregionalquota).

Pollution issue: safe bathing conditions AccordingtotheparametersreportedintheItalianDecree116/2008andintheMinisterial Decree30/03/2010,nobathingcoastalwatersofVenetoregionarenowadaysbanned.The situationhasimprovedinthelastyears(nobannedzonesin2010andonlytwozonesbanned in2011)however,bathingprohibitionshavebeendeclaredrightupto2009. ThegraphinFig.35,producedbytheVenetoEnvironmentalRegionalAgency(ARPAV),shows themonitoringactivityoftenbathingtouristdistrictssince1997.Thevaluesrepresentthe percentage of the total monitored zones (several for each district) which did not met the required conditions. Chioggia district is the most affected by the issue of bathing water quality,andwiththeexceptionsof2007,2010and2011,everyyearatleastoneofitszones failedthewaterqualityassessment.Forinstancein2009,100%ofthedistrictwasbannedto bathing activities. Caorle and Rosolina are the second and the third most problematic districts with notable and repeated percentages of banned zones (33% of Rosolina district wasdeclaredbannedzonesin2009).Alsotheotherdistrictsshowednotablepercentagesof banned zones. Jesolo, Porto Viro, and Porto Tolle tourist districts, failed the tests at least onceduringthe15yearsofmonitoring.In2000,PortoViroexperiencedinsteadthepeakof 50%bannedzones,butitseemsanisolatedevent.

157

100 1997 90 1998 1999 80 2000 70 2001 60 2002 2003 50 2004 40 2005 2006 30 2007 20 2008 10 2009 2010 0 2011 Caorle Jesolo Chioggia Rosolina Porto Viro Porto Tolle

Figure42.Venetonegativebathingsuitabilitytestspercentagefrom1997to2011 Table15.Venetonumberofnegativebathingsuitabilitytestszonesfrom1997to2011 SITES 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Caorle 2 2 4ͲͲ 4 Ͳ 12ͲͲ1 1Ͳ 2

Jesolo Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ 1 ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ

Chioggia 9 6 1 4 5 9 4 6 4 3 Ͳ 7 11 Ͳ Ͳ

Rosolina Ͳ 1 2Ͳ 2 ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ3Ͳ Ͳ

PortoViro Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ 1ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ

PorteTolle 1ͲͲͲͲ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ͲͲͲͲͲ Table8illustratesthenumberofnegativebathingsuitabilitytestszonesfrom1997to2011. During15yearsofmonitoringChioggiasamplingzoneswereaffectedbybathingrestriction 69times(anyearlyaverageofalmost44%oftotalzonesnotsuitable),recordingtheworst waterqualitysituationofthewholeVenetoregion.

158 Section2RelationsbetweencoastalissueandICZMProtocolandprinciples 2.1HowdotheselectedcoastalissuesrelatetotheICZMprinciplesandprotocol?When possibleandappropriate,refertotherelevantArticlesoftheProtocol. Water quality assessment implies an interdisciplinary scientific research which aims to formulate ICZM strategies, to identify priorities and ecosystem management measures . ThereforetheidentifiedcoastalissuerelatetothefollowingICZMprotocolarticles: x Art.5(c)(Ensurethesustainableuseofnaturalresources,particularlywithregardto wateruse); x art.19(Monitoringandobservationmechanismandnetworks); x art.15(AwarenessͲraising,training,educationandresearch); x art.25(Trainingandresearch); x art.18(NationalCoastalstrategies,plansandprograms). Section3.PoliciesissuesandICZMprinciplesandapproaches 3.1Sofar,howhavethecoastalissuesbeenaddressedbythelocal/regional/national government? BathingwaterqualityisofparamountimportancefromthesocioͲeconomic,biologicaland epidemiological points of view. The control of pollution sources and the forecast of short pollutioneventsareofextremeimportanceinhighlytouristicareasliketheMediterranean especiallyduringthebathingseason.TheBathingWaterDirective76/160/ECisoneofthe firstpiecesof theEuropeanUnionenvironmentallegislation. Itaimedatprotectingpublic healthandenvironmentfromfaecalpollutionatbathingwaters.TheDirectivewasrepealed bytheWaterBathingDirective2006/7/EC. The Bathing Directive 2006/7/EC has been transposed in the Italian legislation with the Legislative Decree 116/2008 and Ministerial Decree 30/03/2010 which have substituted the previous Presidential Decree 470/82. The transposition of the Bathing Directive has introducedimportantelementsinthemanagementofbathingwatersuchthereductionof monitoringparametersfrom11to2,theintroductionofafixedcalendarformonitoringand the introduction of a new methodology for bathing water quality assessment. For what concernparticipationthenewlegislationhasimprovedtheroleofthecommunicationand informationandhasputstressontheneedoftransparentinformation.Interestingly,allthe waterclassifiedassufficient,goodandexcellentaredefinedasbathingwater.However,itis possibletoassumethatthedifferentclassificationwillhaveimportantconsequencesonthe public and on the tourism economic sector especially if considered the increased role of information.

159 3.2Atwhichspatialscale? The water quality issue is addressed mainly at National Level by the transposition of EuropeanDirectives.However,theimplementationiscarriedoutatregional,provincialand municipalitylevel. 3.3Canyouassesstheresultsoftheimplementedpolicies?Whicharethemainresults achieved?Whicharethemainlimitsandremainingproblems? The implementation of the bathing water Directive has involved drastic changes in the management of water resources. In particular the Directive has reduced the former 17 monitoringparameterstotwomicrobiologicalparameters:EscherichiacoliandEnterococci. Based on the Directive the assessment should be carried out each year at the end of the bathingseasonandbebasedonthemonitoringresultsofthecurrentbathingseasonaswell astheonesofthepreviousthree.Basedontheresultsoftheassessmentbathingwaterwill be classified as “poor”, “sufficient”, “good” and “excellent”. The first bathing water classificationwillbepublishedin2015.ForthisdateallEUbathingwatershouldbeclassified atleastassufficient. In 2012 96.6 % of Italian marinebathing water was compliant with the Directive, with an increase of 4.8% respect to the previous year17. However, it should be noted that the reductionofthemonitoringparametersstronglyinfluencetheclassificationofItalianbathing waterquality. 3.4.OnthebasisoftheICZMprinciples(astheyareexpressedbytheProtocol),doyou think that the coastal issues were addressed with an integrated approach (in terms of organization,politics,sectors/thematic,tools,etc)? TheDirective2006/7/ECfosterstheadoptionofanintegratedapproach,thecoherencewith theWaterFrameworkDirective(2000/60/EC)andtheimprovementofwaterqualitystatus. Also,theimportancegiventoparticipationandtheroleofinformationforthemanagement of bathing water quality highlights this approach. Furthermore, the Directive foreseen the preparationofbathingwaterprofiles,whicharethedescriptionofthephysical,geographical and hydrological characteristics of the bathing water, and of other surface waters in the catchment area of the bathing water concerned, that could be a source of pollution. A systemofbathingwaterprofilesisconsideredappropriatetoprovideabetterunderstanding ofrisksasabasisformanagementmeasures.

17Ministerodellasalute. http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/news/p3_2_1_1_1.jsp?lingua=italiano&menu=notizie&p=dalministero&id =1133

160 3.5IsthereanonͲgoingNationalICZMStrategyinyourcountry? AnactualItalianICZMNationalStrategyhasnotbeendefinedyet.NationalICZMactivityisin an“organizingphase”inwhichtheMinistryoftheEnvironment,theTerritoryandtheSea,in agreementwithRegionsandLocalauthorities,isdefiningtopics,timeͲlinesandactorsforthe elaborationofanationalICZMStrategy.However,despitethelackof“adhoc”planningand programming tools, there are several initiatives addressing the considered coastal issues, especiallyatRegionallevel.EmiliaRomagnaregionforinstancein2005developedguidelines fortheimplementationofanICZMregionalstrategy. For what concern the scale of the SubCASE of the Italian region of Veneto, there are no developedICZMplanorguidelinesbutsomelegalinstrumentthatshouldsetthebasisfor ICZMpolicies. The Regional law n. 15/2007 indeed promotes the protection, development of the coastal zone and the creation of Biological resources Protection Areas with the main objective of safeguarding the marine environment and fosters the repopulation of valuable fishery resources. Beside the focus on fishery Veneto Region has approved in 2012 a project18 relatedtothestudyandmonitoringofthecoastalareasinordertosetaseriesofaction against erosion. Since 2012, thanks to international projects like SHAPE, Veneto is also promotingthedevelopmentofamaritimespatialplanningpolicy. Section4.PEGASOinrelationtoICZMprocesses&initiatives 4.1DoyouthinkyourworkisrelevantfortheICZMprocessofyourcountry?Whyand how? ThedevelopmentoftheshortͲtermforecastingBeachhealthAdvisoryModel(BHAM)may supportcoastalmunicipalitiesinthemanagementandmonitoringofbathingwaterquality; the model reproduces the general pattern of bacteria dispersion under the scenarios characterizing local environmental forces (rain intensity, solar radiation and current velocities).Therefore,itcanrepresentausefultoolforthemanagementofthewaterquality issue,particularlyrelevantincoastaltourismsites. Furthermore, under the Bathing Water Directive, the competent authority have to adopt adequate management measures, including surveillance, early warning systems and monitoring,withaviewtopreventingbathers'exposure,bymeansofawarningor,where necessary,abathingprohibition. Section5.Stakeholdersinvolvement 5.1 Stakeholder involvementͲHave you involved the main stakeholders? Can you list them? Regarding the Beach Health Advisory Model (BHAM), the following 6 public body stakeholderswereactivelyinvolvedasstakeholders: x VenetoRegion,Departmentofwaterprotection

18 http://bur.regione.veneto.it/BurvServices/Pubblica/DettaglioDgr.aspx?id=244574

161 x VenetoEnvironmentalAgencyprotection(ARPAV)–inlandwateroffice x VenetoEnvironmentalAgencyprotection(ARPAV)–coastalwateroffice x MunicipalityofChioggia,Environment,Tourismandculturalactivitiesoffice x ChioggiaWatertreatmentplant x WaterBasinAuthority x Chioggiatourismassociations(onlyinasecondphase). 5.2Howhaveyouinvolvedthem(e.g.focusgroup,interviews,andquestionnaire)? ThestakeholdersidentifiedfortheBeachhealthAdvisoryModel(BHAM)wereinvolvedin two different occasions, first with direct interviews and then in a workshop. First stakeholders were contacted to start the consultation process. Out of six stakeholders contactedfiveacceptedtotakeparttotheinterview.Duetothesmallnumberofexperts contacted,thechoiceofthemethodfellonfacetofaceKeyStakeholdersemiͲstructured interviews.Theobjectivesoftheinvolvementofthestakeholderswerethefollowing: Ɣ togaincomprehensiveinformationregardingterritorialcharacteristics; Ɣ tovalidate/modifytheparametersconsideredwithinthemodel; Ɣ toobtaindataandfostercollaborationonfurtherdevelopmentofthemodel. The interviews started with generic questions aiming at gradually leading the discussion towards attitude about bathing water quality issues and perceived most affecting factors. Thequestionnaireprovidedalsoasetofclosedformatquestions,meanttoprobemoreon technicalaspectsrelatedtofactorsinfluencingthebathingwaterqualityofthestudyarea. Finally, the last part of the questionnaire was meant to ask for additional available data, furtherstakeholderstoinvolveaswellaswillingnesstocollaboratetothenextstepofthe modeldevelopment.Alltheinterviewswererecorderandtranscribed,theyrangedbetween 2hoursand30minutes. In order to show the results of the interviews and to discuss about the relevance and characteristicneededofforecastingmodelsforwaterqualityaccordingtopublicbodies,a workshop was organized in Chioggia on 26.10.2012. Within this workshop, opened to the public, the PEGASO project and the SubCASE of the waterquality forecasting model were presented. After the presentations an Expert panel was carried out with the stakeholders already involvedintheinterviewsandarepresentativeofalocaltourismorganization.Duringthe panel, the participants discussed about the role of a forecasting model and the needed featuresinordertobeausefultoolformonitoring. 5.3Whichkindofconstraintshaveyoufaced? The constraints faced during the meeting regarded the difficulty to set specific objectives relatedtotheinvolvementofthestakeholders.

162 If at the beginning the main objective was to gain more technical information to better developtheprototypeofthemodelBHAM,attheendduringtheworkshopthetopicwas extended to a general discussion on the role of forecasting models. Therefore, for what concerntheimprovementofthemodel,theparticipatoryprocesswasnotsuccessful,despite totheeffortsofcarryingondirectinterviews,analyzingthemandorganizingaworkshop. However,forwhatconcernsawarenessraisingandinformationobjectives,theworkshopcan beconsideredagoodresultsalsoconsideringthehighlevelofattendance.

Section6.Tools TheparticipationtoolhasbeenimplementedinthedevelopmentofthemodelBHAM.For further details aboutthe tool ofparticipation see Section 5. The BHAM model can be considered as an ad hoc tool developed in the subCASE. It includes four state variables, namelythenumberofparticleͲassociatedandfreeE.colicellsconcentrations,andnumber of particleͲassociated and free Enterococci cells concentrations. The most important processes represented in the model are summarized in Figure 36: these include transport processes,suchaslongshoretransportandturbulentmixing,andinactivationreactions. Currentlytwoindicatorsaredeterminingifacoastalbathingwatersarebannedornot19:,E. colicellsper100mL,andEnterococcicellsper100mL.However,accordingtotheliterature (Hipseyet al, 2005) it emerges that the interaction between faecal bacteriaand inorganic particlesinfluencestheinactivationprocessoftheformer. Methods – the model

Reaction processes: - inactivation (sunlight die-off) - reversible linear adsorption of fecal bact. on sediments - sediment deposition

Figure43.ThephysicalandchemicalprocessesrepresentedintheBHAMmodel 19AccordingtotherecentItalianlawD.Lgsn.116Ͳ30May2008andD.MinSanitàeAmbienteͲ30March2010, bothimplementingEUdirective2006/7/CE

163

Section7.MainresultsofCASES

7.1Achievements IntheSubCASEaaforecastingmodelprototypeforcoastalbathingwaterwasdevelopedalso withthecontributionofexpertstakeholdersgainedthroughinterviewsandaworkshop.The involvementofthestakeholdersallowedimprovingandextendingtheamountofinformation usefulandavailablefortheenhancementoftheBHAMmodelprototype. Theinvolvementofstakeholdersallowedalsotocollectinterestinginformationregardingthe relevance of forecasting model in the coastal management and other information site specificoftheSubCase,likethefactorsperceivedasmostaffectingthequalityoftheseaside

Figure44:FactorsperceivedasthemostrelevantindeterminingthequalityofthebeachofSottomarinadiChioggia are(Fig.37). 7.2Lessonlearnt Themodelprovedtobeapotentialusefultoolforforecastingpollutionevents,however,at present time it cannot be yet considered a predictive tool capable to support decision makersforthebathingwatermanagement,becauseofthefollowingissues: x Scarcity of data: the tuning of the model on a large scale would have required expensive and long input data collection. Such expenditure, proportional to the extensionoftheareatomonitor,couldnotbeafforded.Thedatacollectedbymeans ofdifferentmonitoringactivitiesandresearchprogramswerenothomogeneousand resultednotsuitableforthedevelopmentandcalibrationofthemodel.

164 x Implementation of public participation: The interviews and the meeting organized withthestakeholderscontributedtosharetheworkdoneinCa’FoscariUniversity regarding monitoring system. Moreover, the process raised the stakeholder awareness regarding their role and importance, (several stakeholders showed availabilityandinterestintheparticipationprocess)andprovidedusefulinformation for a further development of the model. The organized forum confirmed the importance of the monitoring activities and the need of stochastic models for forecastingandmanagingpollutionshortͲtermevents. However, both the interviews and the workshop have pointed out the relevance of the followingelementsinordertomaketheparticipatoryprocessfullyeffective: x Anearlierinvolvementofstakeholderssincethephaseofconceptualdevelopmentof the model: our exercise was rather organized in an episodic form, due to the difficultyinmatchingstakeholdersandresearchesavailability. x Moreover, it is worth to say that organising a participatory process is time consuming and resources demanding. During a research project the aims and structureoftheparticipatoryprocessshouldbeclearlydefinedandagreedsincethe beginningbetweentheresearchersandtheteamresponsiblefortheorganizationof participatoryprocess.Iftheseconditionsarenotmettheprocessandtheoutcome willnotbesatisfactoryforbothparts. References Hipsey,M.R.,Brookes,J.D.,Regel,R.H.,Antenucci,J.P.,Burch,M.D.(2005),“Insituevidence fortheassociationoftotalcoliformsandEscherichiacoliwithsuspendedinorganicparticles inanAustralianreservoir”,WaterAirSoilPoll.,170,191Ͳ209.

165 C)NetworkofMarineProtectedAreasandICZM Section1Coastalissues 1.1Themaincoastalissuesconsidered In order to improve the protection of natural resources and the individual ecological relevanceofaMarineProtectedArea(MPA),networksofMPAsareadvocatedasaneeded toolbyseveralinternationalagreementsliketheConventiononBiodiversity. TheNorthAdriaticisoneofthemostproductivefisherybasin,ithostshighbiodiversityand atthesametimeitisoneofthemostthreatenedecosystemworldwideduetopollutionand overexploitation of its natural resources (Camuffo et al., 2011); the North Adriatic sea representsaparticularcasewithseveraldirectseauses,suchasmarinetransport,offshore platforms, submarine cables, hydrocarbon survey, fishing, aquaculture, scientific research andtourism,andindirectusesoftenconflictingamongthem(Soriani,2003).Despitesucha sensitiveandthreatenedenvironment,ItalySloveniaandCroatiaprovideaprotectionfor marineandcoastalwatersthatislessthanthe0,5%oftheNorthernAdriaticsea.EightMPAs were identified in the North Adriatic among Italy Slovenia and Croatia. In order to understand if and how Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) principles are implemented in the MPAs management and how the 8 MPAs are collaborating and communicatingamongthem,Ca’Foscaricarriedoutasurveyaddressedtoaselectionof18 relevantstakeholders. Section2RelationsbetweencoastalissueandICZMProtocolandprinciples 2.1HowdotheselectedcoastalissuesrelatetotheICZMprinciplesandprotocol?When possibleandappropriate,refertotherelevantArticlesoftheProtocol. In this SubCase a survey was developed to investigate the two main issues of the developmentofatransboundaryMPAsnetworkandtherelationofICZMinthemanagement ofMPAs. The development of a transboundary MPAs network in the North Adriatic requires communication and coordination among MPAs managers, exchange of good practices, collaborationatdifferentlevelsconcerningtraining,researchandothercommonactivities, involvementofallthosebodiesandorganizationthatareinfluencedbyorinfluencingthe activities of MPAs. Therefore, the identified coastal issues relate to the followingICZM protocol articles: art. 7 (Coordination), art. 14 (Participation), art. 15 (AwarenessͲraising, training, education and research), art. 16 (Monitoring and observation mechanism and network),art. 25(Trainingandresearch),art.27(Exchangeofinformationandactivitiesof commoninterest)andart.28(Transboundarycooperation). For what concerns the part of the survey addressed directly to the MPA managers, the principlesofthefollowingICZMprotocolarticleswereadaptedtosetobjectivestoanalyse themanagementofMPAsasshownbelow:

166 x Economic activities (art. 9): how a MPA promote sustainable economic activities withinitsareaanditssurroundings. x Participation(art.14):Verifythelevelofinvolvementof Ͳtheterritorialcommunitiesandpublicentitiesconcerned; Ͳeconomicoperators; ͲnonͲgovernmentalorganizations; Ͳthepublicconcerned. x Awarenessraising,training,educationandresearch(art.15):analyzingthetypology ofactivitiescarriedoutbytheMPA. x Monitoring and observation mechanism and network (art. 16): the exchange of informationanddataamongMPAsandamongMPAsandotherstakeholders. x Coastal strategies, plans and programmes (art. 18): verifying the existence and applicationofamanagementplanorsimilardocumentandanalyzingthehindrances inapplyingit. x Training and research (art. 25): the participation of MPAs staffin training and researchactivities. x Transboundary cooperation (art. 28): investigation of the different level (subͲ national,nationalandinternational)ofinvolvementofMPAsinthedevelopmentof plansandprogrammesrelatedtoICZM.

Section3.PoliciesissuesandICZMprinciplesandapproaches 3.1Sofar,howhavebeenthecoastalissuesaddressedbythelocal/regional/national government? SofarthedevelopmentofnetworkofMPAsintheNorthAdriatichasnotbeenpromotedina sufficientwaybynationalgovernments.Theinterestindevelopingthesenetworksreliesat theinternationallevel(e.g.theConventiononBiodiversity,(CBD)andatEuropeanlevel(DG MarewithintheAdriaticIonianInitiative).Whileatopdowncommitmentisstillweak,from abottomuppointofview,thesettingupofthenetworkofMPAsmanagersnamedAdriapan hasallowedseveralMPAstojoinanetworkmainlyaimedatgainingexpertiseandfundsto applyforEuropeancallsforprojects. 3.2Atwhichspatialscale? ThedevelopmentofMPAsnetworkintheNorthAdriaticismainlypromotedbyagreements atinternationallevel(i.e.CBD)andattheEuropeanlevelsomedirectivesimplementedat nationallevel,regardtheprotectionofbiodiversity.TheBirdsDirective1979/409ECandthe HabitatDirective1992/43/ECarethemainEuropeantoolsforbiodiversityconservation.The Habitat Directive 1992/43/EC established the Natura 2000 network of protected sites and promotesthemaintenanceofbiodiversity,takingintoaccounteconomic,social,culturaland regionalrequirements.

167 3.3Canyouassesstheresultsoftheimplementedpolicies?Whicharethemainresults achieved?Whicharethemainlimitsandremainingproblems? TheCBDrequestofestablishingnewmarineprotectedareasinordertopreserveandprotect biodiversityintheNorthAdriaticseaisstillfartobefulfilled:only0,5%oftheNorthAdriatic seaisnowunderprotectionwhilethenewtargetof2020is10%.Atthemomentthereare just 8 marine protected areas in the basin while the fishery stock in the North Adriatic is currentlydepleting.MPAsaretoofewandtoosmalltoallowthemtoworkinsynergywith otherMPAstoefficientlyprotectthecoastalandmarineresources. 3.4.OnthebasisoftheICZMprinciples(astheyareexpressedbytheProtocol),doyou thinkthatthecoastalissueswereaddressedwithanintegratedapproach(intermsof organization,politics,sectors/thematic,tools,etc)? OneoftheaimofthisSubͲCASEisindeedtryingtoverifyifandhowtheMPAsintheNorth Adriatic are implementing the principles of ICZM in their management.Another result is relatedtotheanalysisofthelimitsofthedevelopmentofatransboundarynetworkofMPAs: the lack of interest from National Governmental level, the lack of coordination and communication with the management bodies are indeed considered by the stakeholders involved in the survey as the main hindrance for the successful development of a MPA network. 3.5IsthereanonͲgoingNationalICZMStrategyinyourcountry? In2002theEuropeanCouncilandParliamentadopteda Recommendationconcerning the implementationofICZMinEurope(2002/413/EC),invitingcoastalMemberStates,Accession and Candidate countries to develop national strategies to implement ICZM. At the Mediterraneanlevel,bytheendof2012,theICZMProtocol–requiringthedevelopmentof a national coastal strategyͲ was ratified by 8 Mediterranean countries: among them European Union, Slovenia, Croatia. Therefore the three North Adriaticcountries (including Italy as part of the EU) are all asked to develop an ICZM National strategy. Despite the RecommendationandtheProtocol,sofarnoICZMnationalstrategyisunderdevelopmentin anyofthethreecountries. Italy InItaly,whileatnationallevelanICZMstrategyisstillunderdevelopment,atsubnational levelseveralinitiativeshavebeencarriedonbysomeItalianRegions.Forwhatconcernsthe NorthAdriatic,themostnotableICZMexperienceisrepresentedbyEmiliaRomagna,thefirst Italian Region to set regional guidelines for ICZM in 2005, now extended to the marine environment. The integrated approach of the management of the coastal area in Emilia Romagnaregardsmainlythephysicalprotectionofthecoastfromthreatslikeerosionand subsidenceandthesafeguardofthenaturalresources.

168 Slovenia In Slovenia, the implementation of what is considered equivalent to an ICZM strategy is ongoing.SincethecoastallengthofSloveniaisjust40km,ICZMissuesareincorporatedinto theRegionalDevelopmentStrategyforSouthPrimorska,firstlydevelopedin2002andthen revisedin2007andintheCoastalAreaManagementProgrammeSlovenia(CAMPSlovenia). Severalspatialplanninglegalinstruments(e.g.2011SpatialPlanningAct,2002WatersAct) are in force concerning the coastal waters even though maritime spatial planning in not specificallyregulated. Croatia Atpresent,CroatiahasnotdevelopedanyICZMstrategyorasimilarspecificlegalframework regulatingcoastalzonemanagement.HoweverintheCroatianlegislation20,accordingtothe RegulationonManagementandProtectionoftheProtectedCoastalAreaadoptedin2004, theprotectedcoastalzonewasestablishedanditwasdefinedasanareaof1,000metres from the coastline landwards and 300 metres from the coastline seawards, including all islands. The new Physical Planning and Building Act (PPBA), in force since October 2007, incorporatedmostoftheprovisionsoftheRegulation. Still, there are several laws and regulations that sectorally deal with coastal zone management (e.g. Nature Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Maritime Domain and Seaports Act). For what concerns the strategies, among others there can be foundtheSpatialPlanningStrategyandtheProgramme,theNationalProgrammeforIsland Development, the National Strategy for Environmental Protection, the National Environmental Action Plan. Finally the Marine Protection Strategy is currently under preparation. Section4.PEGASOinrelationtoICZMprocesses&initiatives 4.1DoyouthinkyourworkisrelevantfortheICZMprocessofyourcountry?Whyand how? TheanalysisofthemanagementofMPAsunderthelensofsomeprinciplesofICZMcanhelp understandingwhetherMPAsintheNorthAdriaticcanreallybeconsideredalaboratoryfor ICZM implementation, underlying which aspects of the management have pursued the principles of the ICZM Protocol. The analysis therefore encompass the territorial competencesofasinglecountryandfocusonthethenetworkofMPAsinatransboundary scale. 4.2Onthebasisoftheworkthatyouhavedone,whichareinyouropinion,themain constraintsinimplementingICZMprinciplesandtools?Whatismissing?Wherearethe maingaps?Whereweshouldputmoreenergyandresourcesinthefuture? Accordingtotheopinionofthestakeholdersinterviewedthemainconstraintsarerelatedto 20http://www.iddri.org/Publications/PublicationsͲscientifiquesͲetͲ autres/121203_publi%20GIZC%20Mediterran%C3%A9e_Croatie_EN.pdf

169 thedifficultyinthetranslationofthegeneralICZMprincipleintorealtyofmanagement.It seemsthatICZMstillstandsatarhetoricallevelwithoutfindingaconfirmationinpractice. Sinceinthissubcasewehaveappliedonlytheparticipationtools,wehavenotreallyfaced remarkableobstacles. Section5.Stakeholdersinvolvement 5.1StakeholderinvolvementͲHaveyouinvolvedthemainstakeholders?Canyoulist them? For the SubCase regarding Marine Protected Areas, several stakeholders were involved includingMPAsmanagers,EnvironmentalMinistries,EnvironmentalNGOs,Internationaland nationalagencies,networkofMPAs.Theidentificationofthestakeholderwascarriedoutby applying snowball technique, involving those bodies and organisations that for their competencesandexperiencesarerelatedtotheissueofthenetworkofMPASintheNorth Adriatic,thereforenottakinginaccountthosebodiesthatareinvolvedjustwithoneMPA alone.Thefollowingtable9liststhe18stakeholdersinvolvedinthesurvey. Table16.StakeholdersinvolvedintheSurvey Name Description 1 TegnúediChioggia BiologicalresourcesProtectionArea(Italy) 2 Tegnúe di Porto BiologicalresourcesProtectionArea(Italy) Falconera 3 Miramare MarineReserve(Italy) 4 Debelirtiē(DR) NatureMonumentum(Slovenia) 5 CapeMadona(CP) NatureReserve(Slovenia) 6 Strunjan Naturereserve(Slovenia) 7 Brijuni NaturalPark(Croatia) 8 CresͲlosinj Specialmarinereserve(Croatia) 9 Slovenian Environment Slovenian Ministry of Agriculture and EnvironmentͲWater Ministry DepartmentofSlovenia 10 SINP CroatianStateInstituteforNatureprotection 11 DGMARE EuropeanDirectorateGeneralforMaritimeAffairsandFisheries 12 PAPͲRAC MediterraneanPriorityActionsProgramme/RegionalActivityCentre 13 SPAͲRAC MediterraneanRegionalActivityCentreforSpeciallyProtectedAreas 14 Adriapan The Adriatic Protected Areas Network of Marine Protected Areas managers 15 Federparchi TheItalianFederationofParksandNatureReserves, 16 IUCN TheInternationalUnionforConservationofNature 17 WWFMedPo WWFMediterraneanProgramme 18 SUNCE Croatian Association for Nature, Environment and Sustainable Development

170 5.2Howhaveyouinvolvedthem(e.g.whichmethodshaveyouused)?Pleaserefertothe guideParticipatorymethodsforICZMimplementation. StakeholderswereinvolvedbymeansofKeyStakeholderinterviewandtheywereselected alsoapplyingSnowballsamplingtechnique.InterviewsfollowedasemiͲstructuredformat: sixwerecarriedoutfaceͲtoͲfaceandtwelvecarriedoutoverthephoneorbyinternetcalls fromJanuarytoMay2013.Theinterviewsaddressed11questionstoallthestakeholdersand further14questionsonlytotheMPAsmanagers.Theaveragelengthoftheshortinterviews was40minuteswhilethelongestinterviewsrequiredaveragely90minutes. The11questionsaddressedtoallthestakeholdersweremeanttoinvestigatetheexisting communicationandcollaborationflowamongthestakeholdersandtheperceptionabout: x TherelevanceofanetworkofMPAsintheNorthAdriatic. x ThepossiblewaystoimprovetheMPAsefficiencyinthebasin. x Existingconstrainsthatcouldslowdowntheprocessoftheestablishmentof theMPAnetworkintheNorthAdriatic. x TheexpectedadvantagesofanMPAnetworkfortheNorthAdriatic. x The perceived usefulness of the Integrated Coastal Zone Managementfor MPAs.

Further14questionswereaddressedonlytoMPAmanagersinordertounderstandifand howMPAsinNorthAdriaticareapplyingthemainICZMprinciples.Theconsideredissuesfor thequestionsweretakenfromtheanalysisofthemorerelevantarticlesoftheICZMprotocol (UNEPMAP,2008)forMPAs.

All interviews, done both on site and on internet, were recorded and transcribed; finally transcriptions were asked for approval from the interviewees. The data gained from the interviewswereusedasaninputbothforasocialnetworkanalysis(FaustandWasserman, 1994)andacontentanalysis(Silverman,2006).

5.3Whichkindofconstraintshaveyoufaced? The constraints regarded mainly the difficulty in contacting stakeholders, especially at Ministry level. For reasons of lack of time and resources it was not always possible to interviewonsiteallthestakeholders.Whenfeasible,managersofMPAswereinterviewed directlyattheirworkplace.

Section6.Tools This particular subCASE consisted in a survey: therefore the only tool applied was the participation,describedindetailinSection5.

171 Section7.MainresultsofCASES

7.1Achievements The results of the survey are presented in this section. First the results regarding the knowledgeandperceptionofICZMareshownandthentheresultsofthesurveyexploring therelationbetweenICZMprinciplesandMPAsmanagementaredescribed. PerceptionofICZMofthe18stakeholders. As shown in Fig.38 the majority of 18 respondents (about the 61%) knows ICZM at least enoughandalowknowledgelevel(“onaverage”and“notatall”answers)ismainlyrelated tothepracticalapplicationofthetheoryofICZM.Itemerges,indeed,alackofconfidencein the applicability of the principles of this kind of coastal management, perceived as complicatedandhardtoreach.

Figure45.BarChartshowingtheknowledgelevelofICZMofthestakeholders WhenaskedabouthowICZMcanimprovetheefficiencyofMPAs,respondentssupplieda plethora of options (Fig.39). Implementing ICZM principles in MPAs management is seen mainly as an opportunity to ensure that coastal and marine resources are effectively protected; moreover ICZM can enhance the involvement of different stakeholders (public agencies,economicsectors,NGOs)inthedesignationandmanagementofMPAandinthe communication and collaboration process; finally implementing ICZM could rise the relevanceofMPAsandnatureconservationinthespatialplanning.

172

Figure46.BarchartaboutthewayICZMcanimproveMPAsefficiency ICZMandMPAmanagement This results regard the analysis of the link between a selection of ICZM articles and the management of MPAs in the North Adriatic. The seven MPAs management bodies of Chioggia, Porto Falconera, Miramare, Debeli rtiē (DR)and Cape Madona (CM), Strunjan, Briijuni,Losinjwereaddressedbyaseriesofquestionsaimingatverifyingwhetherandhow ICZM principles are applied in the MPAs management. The analysis of the answers, presented in bar charts and commented,refer to questions linked to the ICZM protocol article. Coastalstrategies,plansandprogrammes(art.18) The article about the development of a strategy, a plan and programmes was adapted to investigatethepresenceofaManagementPlanintheMPA.AsshownintheFig.40below,at present in the North Adriatic, over 8 MPAs, only Miramare has developed and applied a management plan. Brijuni and Strunjan are developing their plan while Chioggia (even thoughnotofficiallyaMPA)hasdevelopedasimilardocument.Therearenomanagement plansorsimilardocumentsinLosinj,Falconera,DRandCM.

173

Figure47.BarchartaboutthedevelopmentofmanagementplanintheMPA Fromthesurveyitemergesthatseveralobstaclesareholdingamanagementplanbacktobe developedorapplied.AsshowninFig.41,thelackofresources,bothhumanandfinancial togetherwiththelackofcommunicationamonglocalauthoritiesareconsideredthemain constrains.

Figure48.Barchartabouttheconstrainsaffectingtheimplementationofthemanagementplan Monitoringandobservationmechanismandnetwork(art.16) Article15wasadaptedtoMPAsmanagementfocusingontheaspectofthemonitoringand evaluation of the management plan. As shown in Fig.42 Activities carried outin the managementplanareevaluatedonlyinMiramareMPAwhileinChioggiathisactivityusedto becarriedoutinthepastbutnotanymore.InBrijunithemonitoringandevaluationofthe activitiesisforeseentobecarriedoutinthenextyears.

174

Figure49.BarchartoftheMPAsthatarecarryingonmonitoringandevaluationoftheirmanagementplan Participation(art.14) ParticipationisareallyrelevantissueforasuccessfulmanagementofMPA.Referringtothe article14oftheICZMProtocol,aseriesofquestionswereaddressedtotheMPAmanagers to understand: if stakeholders of the MPA have been identified and involved in the managementand/orotheractivitiesoftheMPA;whichparticipatorymethodswereusedto involvedthem;iftheparticipatoryprocessresultswereevaluated. AllMPAsoftheNorthAdriatichavecarriedoutastakeholderanalysis,mainlyinaformal way,oneinaninformalway(Falconera)andDRandCMonlyduringtheestablishmentphase (Fig.43).

Figure50.BarChartaboutthedevelopmentofastakeholderanalysisintheMPA ThestakeholdersidentifiedbyMPAmanagersaremainlyfishermen,localmunicipalities,Port captainoffices,divingclubsandHotelmanagers(asshowninFig.44) Among less frequently cited stakeholders (“other” in Fig.44) there can be found: EnvironmentalNGOs,Localbanks,tourismagencyandotherpublicbodies.

175

Figure51.BarchartofthestakeholdersinvolvedintheactivitiesoftheMPA. Stakeholders can be involved in different way, applying participatory methods or can be contactedandinformedbymeansofdifferentcommunicationtools. AsshowninFig.45MPAsaremainlyactiveincarryingoutinformationcampaigntosensitize thegeneralpublictotheissuesrelatedtothesingleMPA.Alsopublichearingsareorganised to spread the information together with education activities.In order to actively involve stakeholders,Focusgroupsaretheparticipatorymethodappliedthemost.

Figure 52.Bar chart about the communication and participatory methods applied in the involvement of stakeholders Participatory events are evaluated in a planned way just by 3 MPAs mainly by means of evaluationquestionnaires.In5managementbodiesofMPAsover7thereisstaffcompetent inparticipatoryprocessduetoatrainingorduetoexperiencegainedonfield.Stakeholder involvementisplannedwithinaprogrammeonlyinChioggiaandMiramareanditconcerns environmental educational activities; occasionally Miramare organizes information campaigns. Stakeholder involvement is not carried out by 2 MPA management bodies in SloveniawhiletheremainingMPAshardlyeverdoapplyastakeholderinvolvement(Fig.46)

176

Figure53.BarchartaboutthefrequencyofthestakeholderinvolvementinMPAs

Economicactivities(art.9) Several economic activities exist outside the MPA: the presence of the MPA can lead to conflictwiththeseactivitiesbutitcanalsorepresentabenefitforthem.Thesetwoaspects were therefore explored. As shown in Fig.47 the main economic activities representing a conflictwiththeobjectivesoftheMPAsareboatingandfishing.Inparticularartisanalfishing and recreational boating emerge as the most problematic ones. Building – often without planningpermissionͲaroundtheMPAsbordersrepresentalsoahindrance.

Figure54.BarchartaboutconflictingeconomicactivitieswithMPA. Economic activities can also profit from the presence of the MPAs (see Fig.48). Hotel managersarerecognisedasthecategorythatisgainingmorebenefitsduetotheproximity toanaturalprotectedareaperceivedasanaddedvaluebycustomers.Theimageofabetter

177 naturalenvironmentensuredbythepresenceofaMPAisalsoexploitedbyfarmersandtour operators.Divinggroupsarealsoprofitingfromtheexistenceofapreservedenvironmentas wellasthefisherysectorthatcangetanhighercatcharoundMPAs.

Figure55.BarchartabouttheeconomicactivitiesgainingbenefitsfromtheexistenceoftheMPA. Awarenessraising,training,educationandresearch(art.15) Thispartofthesurveywasmeanttoinvestigatewhatkindofactivitiesarecarriedoutinthe MPAsforwhatconcerntheawarenessraising,training,educationandresearch. AwarenesscampaignsarecarriedoutinalmostalltheMPAs.Awarenessactivitiesaremainly madethroughpublichearingsandthedistributionofleafletsandtheinstallationofboards. EnvironmentaleducationiscarriedoutthroughclassesoutsidetheMPAin4cases,namely Chioggia, Falconera, Miramare and Brijuni. Lectures are proposed within the MPA by Miramare,StrunjanandLosinj. For what concern the research, monitoring is the main activity carried out in 5 MPA managementbodiesover7. Training for internal staff regards mainly scuba diving courses and refreshing courses for guides.Just3MPAsofferatleastoneofthesekindoftraining. For what concern the training also open to an external staff or to the public, every MPA offers different solutions: a training for Scuba divers offered by Chioggia and Falconera, a trainingforMPAmanagementofferedbyMiramare,workshopsfortheidentificationoflocal species(Strunjan)andatrainingonbiologicalresearch(Losinj). Trainingandresearch(art.25) TrainingcanregardalsointernalstaffinvolvedincoursesoutsidetheMPA.Fromthesurveyit emergesthatwhenMPAstaffisbusyintrainingoutsidetheMPA,thisisdependingonthe

178 possibilitiesofferedbyspecificprojectthatoftenprovidetrainingondifferenttopicsrelated toMPAs.

Figure56.BarchartabouttheinvolvementoftheMPAstaffintrainingoutsidetheMPA

Transboundarycooperation(art.28) Transboundary cooperation was here intended as the the involvement of an MPA as a stakeholderinthedevelopmentofplans,strategiesandprogrammesrelatedtothecoastal zonesinwhichtheMPAislocated,atlocal,subnationalandinternationallevel. AllMPAsareinvolvedinsomeactivitiesregardingspatialplanningforthecoastalarea. Going into details, at subanational level, Chioggia and Falconera management bodies are involved in the Veneto "Sea commitee", a a public regional body aimed at the safeguard, protectionandrepopulationoffishingresourcesdefiningactionstobetakenoverfisheries andmarinetourismsectors,wasinstituted.FalconerahascollaboratedwiththeCoastaction Groups(GAC)21,andcoveredaconsultancyroleforthedesignationofabiologicalprotected area.MiramareistakingparttotheAdriaticIonianInitiative,aregionalcooperationofthe MinistryofForeignAffairsofthecoastalcountriesintheAdriatic.DRandCMtogetherwith Strunjanwereparticipatingtoaforumfortheplanningofagasterminal.Strunjanwasalso involvedinthedevelopmentofspatialplansoftwolocalmunicipalities.Brjiuniwasinvolved intheestablishmentofanewagencyforthenationalparksmanagementinCroatiawhile LosinjwasinvolvedintheestablishmentofaEcologicallyorBiologicallySignificantMarine Areas(EBSA)intheNorthAdriatic;InvolvedintheMediterraneanconservationgroup

/ocalpartnershipofMunicipalities,otherpublicagencieseanfisherysectorrepresentativesaimedatthe developmentofasustainablefisheryharmonizedwithothereconomicsectorsliketourismandthenatural resourcesprotection.

179

Figure 57. Bar chart about the involvement of MPAs in other strategies and programmes for the coastalzones.

7.2Lessonlearnt Weakpoints: x ICZM is still perceivedat a rhetorical level: it is known in theory but very little is appreciatedinitsapplicationinrealty. x Lackofresources:MPAsarefacingdifficultiesincarryingontheirdailyactivitiesdue tolackoffundsandhumanresources x Lack of implemented plans: management plans are not yet implemented in the majorityofMPAs,andstakeholdersevenifidentifiedarenotproperlyinvolvedinthe activitiesofMPAs. x Weakinterestatministrylevel:itemergesalackofcollaborationbetweenMPAsand nationalministrylevel. Opportunities: x CollaborationamongMPAs:therearemanybottomupinitiatives(manlycoordinated byAdriapannetwork)thatareworkingoncollaborationonprojectsfundedmainlyby theEuropeanUnion. x Other international experiences involving the Adriatic Countries like the Adriatic IonianInitiativesandtheAdriaticIonianMacroregioncanhelptheprocessoffinding common and shared transboundary policies for coastal zone management in the Adriatic

180 D)TheanalysisofICZMimplementationattheItaliansubnationallevelintheNorth Adriatic.

InthisSubCASEasurveywasaddressedtofourNorthAdriaticItalianregions(i.e.Marche, Emilia Romagna, Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia) stakeholders (Regions, Provinces, Land reclamationauthorities,RiverbasinAuthoritiesandcoastalmunicipalities)inordertoclarify whether and how Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is spreading in the Italian NorthAdriaticSea.ThesurveyͲconductedthroughanonlinequestionnaireͲwasmeantto observetheadoptionstageofaseriesofactionsinthecoastalzonemanagement. Section1.CoastalIssues: 1.1Whydidyouselecttheidentifiedcoastalissues? ICZMisconsideredtobeanintegratedapproachforthesustainablemanagementofcoastal zones.Asaprocessoforganisational,politicalandsocialchangeregardingthewaynatural resources are managed and different coastal uses are harmonized, it consists in a set of principles, approaches and tools aimed to contribute avoiding the problems caused by traditionalandshortͲsightedsectoralapproachesandpolicies. However,whilefromthetheoreticalpointofviewICZMcanberegardedasasetofprinciples and approaches more effective, compared to sectoral ones, in addressing the need for sustainabilityincoastalzones,fromapracticalpointofviewICZMriskstobeperceivedasa setofrecommendationsandsuggestionsthatareverycomplexanddifficulttobetranslated into practice. In this perspective, to consider if, and how, ICZM initiatives and efforts are adopted, and to clarify what are the most important conditioning factors in ICZM implementationremainsofbasicimportance.

Therefore, this particular PEGASO sub CASE aims to examine whether ICZM approaches, initiativesandplans/programsareprogressingintheItalianNorthAdriaticRegions(ranging from South to North, Marche, Emilia Romagna, Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia). For this purpose,therehasbeenaninvestigationofthelevelofadoptionofasetof“coastalactions”, thatrepresentthecoreofcoastalmanagementandreflecthowitevolvesovertime,through a webͲbased questionnaire aimedat measuring the “progress indicator”22. Essentially, this analysishastriedtoanswerthefollowingquestions: x in what ways the need for promoting ICZM is addressed in North Adriatic coastal regions?

Theresearchhasbeencarriedoutthroughadirectqualitativesurveybasedonthedocument“MeasuringProgressinthe ImplementationofIntegrated CoastalZoneManagementͲGuidancenotesforcompleting theProgressIndicator”bythe Working Group on Indicator and Data (WG.ID, 2004), which represents the guide for the realization of the “Progress Indicator”.Thisqualitativeindicator,producedbythesamegroupofexperts,aimstoprovidetheEUStateMembers(in accordancetotheRecommendation2002/413/EC)atoolforassessingthelevelofICZMimplementationinacertainplace andtime.

181 x WhatarethemainactionsthathavebeenrecentlyadoptedtosustainICZMefforts? x IsICZMimplementationimprovingintheconsideredarea? x What are the main conditioning factors that still hamper the process towards the adoptionofmoreintegratedapproachesincoastalmanagement? Therelevanceofthisissuereliesonthefollowingelements:firstly,theNorthAdriaticcoastal zoneisaverydelicateandfragilephysicalenvironment,duetoitsdistinguishingfeatures; moreover, it hosts coastal ecosystems which remain, in spite of XX’s century process of degradation,ofgreatecologicalvalue,likethethesystemofcoastallagoonsandwetlands (rangingfromGrado,FriuliVeneziaGiuliaRegion,toComacchio,EmiliaRomagnaRegion),the LagoonofVenice,thePoDelta,etc. Secondly, this coastal region is under immense socioͲeconomic pressure for development and exploitation, mainly for residential development, tourism, port and energy infrastructures. The framework of coastal and marine uses is therefore very complex, and manyconflictscharacterisethesocialcontext. Thirdly,incomparisontothecomplexityofthecoastalsystemdynamics,asresultingfrom interactions between natural and socioͲeconomic components (with the latter more and moredependentuponglobaltrends),theenvironmentalandterritorialplanningframework appearstobeextremelypoor:ontheonehand,integratedcoastalmanagementinItalyhas never found, from the National Government, the attention it required; on the other, the entirelegalandadministrativesystemwhichorientatesenvironmentalmanagementsuffers fromfragmentation,poorcoordination,conflictsincompetences.Infewwords,thesystem ofenvironmentalgovernanceisveryoftendrivenbythe“goodwillingness”ofmunicipaland regional authorities, suffers from shortͲsighted perspectives, and hardly can oppose successfullytheeconomicintereststhattendtooverexploitcoastalresourcesforshortterm benefits.

Section2.RelationsbetweencoastalissuesandICZMProtocolandPrinciples. 2.1HowdotheselectedcoastalissuesrelatetotheICZMprinciplesandprotocol? Thiscoastalissue,relatedtotheanalysisoftheimplementationofthepoliciesandinitiatives regardingICZMintheItalianregionsborderingtheNorthAdriaticreferstoaparticulararticle of the Protocol, namely Art. 18 “National coastal strategies, plans and programmes” in particularforwhatisstatedincomma4: “The Parties shall define appropriate indicators in order to evaluate the effectiveness of integrated coastal zone management strategies, plans and programmes,aswellastheprogrammesofimplementationoftheProtocol”. This subCASE indeed aims at assessing the progress of ICZM policies implementation by meansofthe“Progressindicator”,atoolelaboratedbyagroupofexpertsforassessingthe

182 level of ICZM implementation in a certain place and time in the EU State Members (in accordancetotheRecommendation2002/413/EC) Section3.PolicyissuesandICZMprinciplesandapproaches. 3.1Sofar,howhavebeenthecoastalissuesaddressedbythelocal/regionalgovernment? 3.2Atwhichspatialscale? 3.3Canyouassesstheresultsoftheimplementedpolicies?Whicharethemainresults achieved? Sofar,therearenoexamplesofassessmentofICZMpoliciesatlocal/regionallevel.However, at international level, in order to monitor the adoption by EU countries of the 2002 Recommendation regardingthe implementation of ICZM national strategies for coastal members23,twonationalcoastalpoliciesanalysiswerecarriedoutin2006and2011.

2002/413/EC,RecommendationoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof30May2002concerning theimplementationofIntegratedCoastalZoneManagement,OJL148of6.6.2002.

183

Figure58.ProgressinICZMnationalstrategydevelopment(source:Thetis,2011). According to the latter progress Report of 201124, only 4 countries (namely Germany, Portugal, Romania and United Kingdom) have developed an ICZM national strategy. In further 10 coastal members an equivalent strategy was adopted; in four other European countries an ICZM strategy is under development: Italy together with Bulgaria, Spain and Cyprus is part of this latter group. Finally three countries, namely Estonia, Ireland and DenmarkhaveshownnoICZMequivalentpoliciesinadvancedstagesofpreparation:only sectoraltoolsareinplacetoaddresscoastalissues. DespitetherequestoftheRecommendationof2002andtheratificationoftheEUofthe ICZM protocol of the Barcelona Convention, there are no implemented plans for the managementoftheItaliancoastatnationallevel. AnalysisofMemberStatesprogressreportsonIntegratedCoastalZoneManagementͲ(ICZM)FinalReport, Venezia.2011(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/Final%20Report_progress.pdf)

184 3.4.OnthebasisoftheICZMprinciples(astheyareexpressedbytheProtocol),doyou thinkthatthecoastalissueswereaddressedwithanintegratedapproach(intermsof organization,politics,tools,etc)? From the 2011 progress report it emerged that even in the EU countries were national strategies are already in place, several issues are limiting the success of ICZM. A difficulty exists in the translation of the theoretical principles of ICZM into management action; despitetotheincreasingneedincoastalmanagementforviable,understandablescientific information and tools, the existing gap between decision makers and scientists is still hinderingwhatitshouldbeasynergy.Moreoverthelackofproperparticipationstrategies, and the difficulties in the coordination among different management level and sectors representafurtherobstacleintheimplementationofICZM. Section4.RelevancewithNationalICZMprocess 4.1DoyouthinkthatyourworkisrelevantfortheICZMprocessofyourcountry?Whyand how? The survey developed in this SubCASES can help understanding how coastal management evolves:thisprovideafirstinsightonthe“stateofart”ofcoastalmanagementintheNorth AdriaticItalianregionsandanimportantcontributiontounderstandhowneworganisations and cultural paradigms are spreading over the territory and finally reͲorienting coastal management;moreover,theSubCASEcancontributetoposenewquestionstoresearchon, andcanhelpclarifyingwhatarethemainconditioningfactorsonwhichfocussinginorderto promoteICZM. 4.2Onthebasisoftheworkthatyouhavedone,whichareinyouropinion,themain constraintsinimplementingICZMprinciplesandtools?Whatismissing?Wherearethe maingaps?Whereweshouldputmoreenergyandresourcesinthefuture? ThegeneralpictureofthesurveycarriedoutintheNorthAdriaticSubCASEconfirmsthat relevant weaknesses in monitoring and communication practices are still present in the coastalzonemanagement:theelaborationofperiodicreportsonthestateofthecoastisfar from being a common practice; the economic values at stake continues to be poorly monitored; the system of competences in coastal management (whoͲdoesͲwhat) remains unclearandpoorlycoordinated.Althoughimprovementshavebeenrecentlyrecorded,the involvement of the economic sectors and of coastal communities to decisions concerning coastal management is far from being satisfactory. ICZM continues to be not formally acknowledged within the public bodies that have jurisdiction and competences over the coastalzone:asaconsequence,veryfewarethehumanandfinancialresourcesspecifically directedforsustainingICZMeffortsandinitiatives.ICZMeffortsintheconsideredareasuffer fromthelackingofanationalstrategicviewonthepossibleanddesirableevolutionofItalian coasts(lackingofanationalcoastalpolicy).Finally,resultsofICZMeffortsandinitiativesare veryrarelymonitoredandassessed.

185 Section5.Stakeholdersinvolvement 5.1Haveyouinvolvedthemainstakeholders? Since this SubCASE consisted in a survey, several stakeholders were involved. The general ideabehindthismethodologywas toaskICZMexpertsandpractitionerstoreportonthe level of implementation of ICZM, namely to report on a certain set of “actions” that representthebasisofanICZMprocess.Theideawastherefore“toleavethefloor”towhom has responsibility in coastal management, in order to understand whether, and how, the designandadoptionofICZMinitiativesareprogressing,ornot. The interviewees belonged to Regions, Provinces and Municipalities bordering the North AdriaticSeaandthereforehavejurisdictionoverasegmentoftheNorthAdriaticcoastline. Moreover,thesurveyhasalsoinvolvedtheAuthorities(publicorprivatebodieswithpublic regulationregime)thathavedirectorindirectinfluenceonthecoastalzone,bothintermsof specificcompetencesandinpracticaltermsthroughtheiractivitieswithintheriverbasins: these were the ARPA Agencies (Regional Agencies for the Protection of the Environment, which have important technical competencies, e.g. monitoring of water quality, technical consultingforenforcingenvironmentallegislation,control,etc.),RiverBasinAuthorities(with the task of managing the Water Framework Directive and other important provisions concerningthemanagementofriversandgroundwaters)andLandReclamationAuthorities (ConsorzidiBonifica:thesebodieshaveimportanttasksinthemanagementofthenetworks of artificial canals and of the land obtained by reclaiming wetlands and marshes for agricultureandotherdevelopmentsinthefirstpartoflastcentury).Theresultwasafinal sampleof100units25,belongingtothemunicipal,provincialandregionallevels. 5.2Howhaveyouinvolvedthem(e.g.focusgroup,interviews,questionnaire)? Thesurveyhasbeendevelopedthroughoutanonlinequestionnaire(Fig.52). ThefirstphaseofoursurveywascarriedoutintheperiodMayͲOctober,2012.Itwasaimed atmeasuringthelevelofimplementationofthe32actionsindicatedinTable10intheNorth Adriatic Regions in the years 2006 and 2011. It has been realized through a dedicated website,integratingboththeapplicationtocollecttheinterviewsandexplicativematerialon ICZM. When asked to answer if a given action was adopted, the interviewees had the ItisworthyofnotethatwithintheItalianpublicadministrationsystemveryrarelythereexistsaperson–or a team of persons – specifically in charge with ICZM. More often instead, ICZM programs or initiatives are devolved upon several offices of the bodies, like regional & urban planning, land and soil protection, environmental sectors, regional fishing department, transport infrastructures, nature preservation offices, marinestateproperty,etc.Asaconsequence,averyimportantpreliminaryphaseofthesurveyhasbeento identifythepersonwithineachcoastalterritorialunittoquestion.Onecontactpersonhasbeenidentifiedfor eachbody,throughpreliminaryphonecontactsaimedatestablishingthecommunicationwiththeorganization andatdefiningthemostappropriatepersontoanswerthequestionnaire.

186 possibilitytoanswerYES(Yes,theactionhasbeenadopted,NO(No,theactionhasnotbeen adopted/)orDONOTKNOW(DNK).The“progressindicator”correspondstothepercentage ofpositiveanswersonthetotal. IntheperiodJuneͲJuly2013thesecondphaseofthesurveywasrealized.Itconsistedofa set of “statements”, which were defined according to the results of the first phase. The referencepopulationwasthesetofbodies/organisationsthattookpart,withcompleteand validquestionnaires(53),inthefirstphaseofthesurvey.Validanswershavebeen29(55%). Two sets of “statements” have been prepared: the first, directed to all involved bodies/organisations,referredtothesituationofthewholeNorthAdriaticcoastalregion; the second, with different statements for each region, and directed only to the bodies/organisationsbelongingtothereferringregion.Asinthefirstphaseofthesurvey, theintervieweeshadtheopportunitytoanswer:agree(withthestatement),A,disagree,D, donotknow,DNK.

Figure59.ScreenshotofthehomepageoftheWebsitehostingthequestionnaire(www.iczm.it)

187 Table17.TheProgressIndicator(PI)Actionsdistributedin4Phases. TheProgressIndicator Action Description

Phase I: Coastal zone is managed in a traditional way and often with a sectoral approach 1 Regulatedusesofthecoastalzones 2 The interested bodies meet up on sectoral basis for discussing specific coastal and maritime issues. 3 Spatialplanswhichincludethecoastalzone. 4 Coastalandmaritimemonitoringprograms. 5 Monitoringandassessmentoftheeconomicalactivities. 6 Specialprotectionmeasuresforthecoastalzone.

Phase II: An ICZM process is under development also throughout organizational changes 7 Toolstunedandcombinedforthecoastalandmaritimemanagementandplanning. 8 Fundavailability. 9 Inventoryofthestakeholderandofthecompetences. 10 Councilandcommunicationtablesamongtheactorsinvolvedinthecoastalmanagement), 11 Joinedinitiatives. 12 Economicactorsparticipation. 13 Sustainabledevelopmentstrategieslinkingsocialandenvironmentalissues. 14 Guidelinesforthesustainabledevelopment.

Phase III: An integrated management and a planning system for coastal zones and the maritime side(even if not yet well defined)are in place. From an organizational point of view, specific agencies and funds for ICZM are in place. 15 Involvementofthemainstakeholders. 16 Reportonthestateandtheevolutionofthecoastalmanagement. 17 FormalandbindingICZMprogram. 18 StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment. 19 Informalstrategies. 20 Communicationchannelsamongdifferentlevelsofgovernment. 21 FormalassignmentoftheICZM. 22 SeamanagementincludedintheICZMstrategies. 23 Bindingplansfortheseauses. 24 NewinstitutionalorganizationfortheICZM. 25 Participationofthecostalcommunities.

Phase IV: ICZM strategy is positively influencing the activities of different organizations holding stakes and competences over the coastal area. ICZM is contributing to a more sustainable use of resources. 26 Constantandstablepoliticalsupport. 27 Strengthenedcooperationamonginstitutions.

188 28 ExhaustivesetofIndicators 29 Longtermfinancialcommitment. 30 Dataaccessibility. 31 Periodicalproceduresfortheassessmentoftheresults. 32 Themonitoringshowsbettersustainability. 5.3Whichkindofconstraintshaveyoufaced? Themethodologyoftheonlinequestionnaireappliedhasshownimportantweakpoints,that canbesummarizedasfollows: x Despitethefactthattheintervieweesareexpertsand/orpractitionersofICZM,the meaningofthequestionshastobeclarifiedasmuchaspossible,inordertoavoid misunderstandings:todoso,thequestionnairehastobeequippedwithguidelines, readingmaterials,examplesbasedonfieldexperiences,etc. x ICZMfindsveryrarelyformalrecognitionwithintheorganizationswithresponsibility in coastal management; in fact, ICZM embraces a system of functions and competencesthatcanbeperformedorpromotedbyvariousanddifferentsectorsof government,bothatlocal,regionalornationalscale.Thismeansthataverydelicate phaseofthesurveyistheidentificationofthepersonoftheteamwhosefunctions, withintheconsideredorganization,aresuitableforICZM;therefore,establishingthe communication channel with the ‘right’ expert/practitioner is a very important conditionforthereliabilityoftheobtainedresults. x ThesurveysaimedatmeasuringtheProgressIndicatorrecordinghowmanyactions areadoptedbythoseactorschargedwiththeresponsibilityincoastalmanagement: howeverthelevelofadoptionofeachactionshouldbecontextualizedbyconsidering that among the interviewees there are bodies and organizations with different powers,differentenforcementcapability,differentgeographicalcoverage(inItalyfor example, where the Regions are much more empowered with functions related to ICZMthananyotherlevelofthepublicadministration,itisclearthattheiractionisof basic importance for understanding whether ICZM is progressing or it is not). The actualimportanceofthetakenactioninanICZMperspective,therefore,isnotonly dependentuponthenumberofactorsthatadoptit(howmanyactors)butalsoupon therole,moreorlessimportant,thatagivenactorhaswithintheregulatorysystem. x Thesesurveystendtooverestimatetheimportanceoforganizationalprocessesand procedures, in terms of adopted actions, while less attention is paid to the results attainedthroughtheimplementationoftheseactions.Infact,thePImeasureshow manyactionsareadoptedbyagivengroupofactorsinvolvedincoastalmanagement, andthisisconsideredaproxyofthecapabilityofthelocal/regionalsystemtomove towardsintegratedcoastalmanagement.Howeveritdoesnotgiveanyinformation ontheeffectivenessoftheimplementedactions.Infewwords,itregistersprocesses and changes regarding organization and procedures but it does not provide any

189 insightneitheronthesuccessoftheadoptedaction,noronitssocial,economicand environmentalimplications26. Asaconsequenceoftheabovepoints,surveysaimedatreportingonICZMprogresscanbe considered only as a firstͲalthough importantͲ step in the direction of considering and assessing whether and how, ICZM is contributing to modify the way coastal zones are managed. Section6.Tools The only tool applied in the SubCASE is participation which has been described in the previouschapter. Section7.MainresultsofCASES 7.1Achievements ThesurveyhasconfirmedthatintheconsideredperiodthePI,withrespecttothewhole referencepopulationandtothewholesetofactions,hasincreasedby8,6percentagepoints, passingfrom27,2to35,8%.EmiliaRomagnaistheregionwiththehighestPIbothin2006 and2011;howeverthemostimportantprogresseshavebeenreportedbyVenetoandFriuli Veneziaregions.Phases1and2showthehighestvaluesofPIinalltheregions.Allthe4 phaseshavehoweverrecordedapositivevariationofthePI. Asregardsphase1,themostcriticalactionremainsaction5.Asregardsphase2,lowlevels ofadoptionarereportedbyactions10,12and9.Phase3isingeneralpoorlyadopted. TheimprovementofthePIinthisphaseislargelydependentontheverypositivetrendthat hascharacterizedaction18.Tonotealsothepositiveevolutionofaction19,thatconfirms the importance of the adoption of noͲstatutory initiatives in the considered geographical context.ActionswithalowlevelofPIareactions16,21,23,24and25.VerylowisthePIfor actions29and31. Thispictureisalsoconfirmedbytheresultsoftheanalysisatregionallevel.Themostcritic actions are actions 24, 29 and 31. Yet with different nuance, low level of adoption are recordedforactions10,11,12,25,26and,withtheexceptionofFriuliVeneziaGiuliaregion, action27.Itisworthnoticingthatthehighlevelofadoptionofactions9and16inEmilia Romagna,withrespectthelevelrecordedinotherNorthAdriaticregions. The above elements confirm that in the considered SubCASE ICZM remains, although a progressisrecorded,atitsembryonicstage.ExcludingMarcheregion,whereastatutoryplan has been issued, ICZM is sustained mainly through noͲstatutory and informal efforts and

An example illustrates very well the point: when an interviewee answers YES to action 17 (namely, “action 17 has been adopted it just means that “a statutory or formal integrated plan has been promulgated, issued or adopted by the reference organization”; however this does not mean that the statutory or formal integrated plan has been implemented or put into practice, or is in the process of being translated into practice. The methodology just records that the action has been adopted but it does not report on its effectiveness and results.

190 initiatives. Both in Emilia Romagna and Marche regions that can be regarded as the two differentreferencemodelsforICZMinthearea,intervieweespointoutthatadoptedICZM initiatives are far from being put into practice. The two actions that have undergone the mostsignificantprogressinthelevelofadoptionareactions18and7.Asregardsaction7, thesharpincreaseinitslevelofadoption,wouldappeartoconfirmthatatlocalandregional scale there exists a greater awareness about the vulnerability of coastal zones and the consequent need to promote new coordinated and integrate policies, but this greater awarenessarenotfollowedbyrelevantinnovationsinthewaycoastalzonesaremanaged

7.2Lessonlearnt It is clear, that to be effective in addressing coastal management policies, these kind of surveysshouldberepeatedperiodicallyandbecomeacommonpracticeofpublicinstitutions dealingwithcoastalenvironmentandplanning,insteadofbeingepisodicallyrealizedinthe contextofdemonstrative,researchand/orcooperationprograms,veryoftensupportedby EUfunds. Finally,itisimportanttoremindtherelevantlimitscharacterizingthemethodologyadopted forthissurvey.Asalreadycommented,surveysaimedatmeasuringtheprogressindicator recording the frequency of adoption of a certain set of coastal actions, but they do not provide insights on the effectiveness of the above actions; they concentrate above all on evidences of organizational/procedural changes, as confirmation that a process towards morecoherentandintegratedeffortsincoastalmanagementisinprogress. Thisproblemcanbehoweverreferredtothelargepartoftheevaluationexperiencesonthe success of ICZM plans and programs, that very often focus on organisational and process variables(suchas“anewforumfortheinvolvementofstakeholdershasbeendesigned”,“a newconsultancybodyforsustainingICZMhasbeenestablished”,“aformalplanhasbeen issued”, “a new webͲbased platform for improving the circulation of information and experiences on ICZM have been designed”, etc.), rather than concentrating on the effectivenessandresultsoftheadoptedICZMefforts27. In spite of the relevance of above points, the surveys aimed at reporting on the progress indicators can help understanding how coastal management evolves: these provide a first insightonthe“stateofart”ofcoastalmanagementinagivengeographicalcontextandan important contribution to understand how new organisation and cultural paradigms are spreadingandfinallyreͲorientingcoastalmanagement;moreover,theycangiveanoverview 27Toexplainthisattitude/pointJ.Sorensen(1997)hasadvocatedthefollowingreasons:torecordorganisational changes and formal political and administrative resolutions is much easier and costs less than assessing environmentalandsocioͲeconomicresultsofadoptedmeasures;toshowthatsomemeasuresareadopted iswhatthepoliticalandadministrativesystemsneedintheshorttimetolegitimatetheirstatusandpower; to monitor and assess the results of adopted ICZM initiatives is a very timeͲ and resourcesͲconsuming process, that hardly can be contained within the temporal limits of electoral cycles; on the basis of the complexity of coastal systems’ dynamic it is very difficult to explain and represent the causality links betweenICZMinitiativesandtheprogresstowardsenvironmentalsustainability.

191 of how coastal management is evolving, from a synchronic as well as a diachronic perspective.Insuchaway,thesesurveyscancontributetoposenewquestionstoresearch on, and can help clarifying what are the main conditioning factors on which focussing in ordertopromoteICZM.

192