THE INFLUENCE OF EU POLICIES ON THE EVOLUTION OF COASTAL ZONES (Thematic Study ‘E’)

FINAL REPORT

Study Contract ERDF No. 98.00.27.049 ICZM Demonstration Programme

Submitted by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, London Dean Bradley House 52 Horseferry Road London SW1P 2AG +44 171 799 2244 + 44 171 799 2600 fax

12 November 1999

1 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Terms of Reference for the Study 4 1.2 The Questions to be Addressed 4 1.3 The approach of the Study 6

SECTION 2 - METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

2.1 The Nature of ‘EU Policies’ 9 2.2 Identifying Influence 9 2.3 The Direction of Influence 10 2.4 Policies in the Pipeline 11 2.5 Approach to the Research 11

SECTION 3 - THE INFLUENCE OF CURRENT EU POLICIES - EVIDENCE FROM THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

3.1 The Common Agricultural Policy 15 3.2 The Common Fisheries Policy 20 3.3 Structural and Cohesion Policy 24 3.4 Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) 28 3.5 Short Sea Shipping 31 3.6 The Habitats Directive 36 3.7 Renewable Energy 39 3.8 EU Enlargement 41

SECTION 4 - THE IMPACT OF FUTURE EU POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

4.1 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy 50 4.2 Reform of the EU Structural Funds 54 4.3 Structural Funds Guidelines 2000-2006 58 4.4 Draft Water Framework Directive 60 4.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment 64

SECTION 5 – THE FUTURE CONTRIBUTION OF EU POLICIES TO ADVANCING ICZM

5.1 Introduction 68 5.2 Contribution of sectoral EU policies to ICZM 68 5.3 Policies explicitly targeted at encouraging ICZM 73

2 SECTION 6 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General 78 6.2 A Future EU strategy for Coastal Zones – Recommendations 80 6.3 Recommendations in relation to specific EU policies. 82

ANNEXES

I Questionnaire to Demonstration Projects 87 2. List of Projects visited 90

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report is focused on evaluating the influence of EU policies on the evolution of coastal zones. It seeks to assess how far such EU policies contribute to, or detract from, the sustainable management of coastal areas, and to consider their implications for the advancement of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). It is the Final Report of Thematic Study ‘E’ of the EU’s ICZM Demonstration Programme.

2. Integrated Coastal Zone Management is a process which aims to secure the sustainable use of the resources of coastal areas, through seeking to integrate policy objectives and instruments applied at all levels of administration, across all policy sectors that have an impact on coastal development. EU policies are of key importance in relation to ICZM, both in terms of the direct impact that they can have on the physical environment of the coast, both maritime and terrestrial; and in respect of their influence on the scope for integrating separate sectoral policy measures.

3. The task of ensuring that the design and implementation of EU policies contributes fully to ICZM presents a formidable, multi-dimensional challenge. It requires that

• the overall objectives of sectoral policies as they are developed at EU level – and their subsequent implementation by the Member states in coastal zones - should take full account of requirements of each of the three ‘legs’ of sustainable development - ie protection and enhancement of the environment; economic development and social equity. Progress at EU level has been more rapid in establishing initiatives to integrate the environment into sectoral policies in comparison with economic, employment and social equity considerations; • the design of EU policies should reflect a greater sensitivity to territorial differences; • the maximum possible decentralisation to regional and local levels in the administration of EU policies should be introduced to enable horizontal integration to take place at a local level; • policies affecting land- and sea-based activities should take greater account of their mutual interactions; • greater opportunities should be incorporated into the design of EU policies for public consultation and participation in their local implementation.

4. Currently, there are a wide range of EU policies that to varying degrees influence coastal developments and their management. The report includes evidence from many of the ICZM Demonstration Programme projects in relation to the varying impacts of the following: • the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); • the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); • the Structural Funds, both ‘mainstream’ and Community Initiatives; • trans-European transport networks (TEN-T); • the Habitats Directive • renewable energy policy; • policy towards the accession of the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe.

5. Of these, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has had the most damaging impact on the physical environment in the demonstration project areas. Serious impacts have occurred

4 in respect of biodiversity, fishing and tourism, and the damaging effects of the CAP have run counter to the intentions of other EU polices. The Common Fisheries Policy, trans-European transport networks and the Structural Funds have also in some cases stood in the way of the sustainable management of coastal areas. In the administration of some EU policies, different degrees of centralisation of decision making have prevented the local integration of those policies.

6. However, the period of this thematic study has seen several EU policy reforms which should address some of the shortcomings of current EU policies. They include the Agenda 2000 package covering the reform of the CAP, rural development and the Structural Fund Regulations; the proposed Water Framework Directive; and the draft Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment. Elements in the 1999-2003 Action Plan to take forward the principles of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) could make an important contribution to advancing ICZM.

7. There is a need for the EU to develop a more explicit strategy to advance ICZM. This might follow one of two fundamentally different approaches:

• The development of further policy instruments explicitly designed to require or encourage Member States to establish systems of ICZM. These might include the development of a legal instrument requiring Member States to establish systems of ICZM. • A ‘bottom-up’ approach of ensuring that all existing and new EU policies with indirect effects on coastal zones and/or their management take greater account of the requirements of ICZM.

In practice, these approaches are not mutually exclusive, and an EU ICZM strategy should incorporate elements of both.

8. Securing agreement to a legally-binding Directive requiring Member States to establish national systems of ICZM would face considerable practical, legal and political difficulties. Therefore, the time and resources that would need to be devoted to securing a legal instrument on ICZM could be better used through alternative avenues.

9. The major contribution to advancing ICZM at EU level should come from explicit steps to ensure that the EU’s sectoral and other spatially-significant policies fully respect the environmental and economic needs of coastal areas, and the importance of more integrated approaches to their management. The Commission should develop a strategy based upon • identifying the implications of integrating the needs of sustainable development (as opposed to environmental considerations only) into the development and local implementation of EU policies; • integrating a greater regional dimension into EU policies, and ensuring the maximum possible level of regional decentralisation in their administration; • better screening, monitoring and evaluation by the Commission of the implementation of decentralised EU policies; • ensuring that the mutual implications EU policies focused on terrestrial and marine areas are fully co-ordinated; • extending opportunities for public participation in the implementation of EU policies; • improving information and awareness in coastal zones of EU policies and administrative structures for implementing them.

5

10. At the same time, a strong political steer from the top in the form of a Council Recommendation encouraging Member States to develop systems of ICZM - possibly agreed by a joint formation of the Council – would represent an important statement of commitment.

11. Other EU measures explicitly targeted at advancing ICZM should be developed:

• INTERREG III will become the principal source of EU finance supporting cross-border, cross-national and inter-regional co-operation in the field of ICZM. Greater representation of projects focused on coastal management could be secured through the establishment by the Commission of indicative allocations between priority areas within the three ‘strands’ of the programme, to encourage more project submissions in this field.

• An EU-wide ICZM Observatory should be established to act as a focal point for the collection and dissemination of good practice and advice in relation to ICZM, and to maintain the momentum of the ICZM Demonstration Programme.

• The proposed Water Framework Directive will form the most important legal stimulus at EU level for integrated planning, both coastal and inland. To exploit the full potential of this measure for ICZM, the Commission should produce detailed guidance for Member states indicating how policies relating to coastal zones and their management should be incorporated into river basin management plans.

6 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Terms of Reference for the Study

Following its 1995 Communication on Integrated Management of Coastal Zones (ICZM)(COM [95] 511), the European Commission launched an ICZM Demonstration programme to identify the actions required to secure the implementation of sustainable development, integrated management and spatial balance in coastal areas. The key components of the demonstration programme - supported by three directorates-general (DGs XI, XIV and XVI) - are 35 demonstration projects, and six cross-cutting thematic studies. One of these thematic studies - Thematic Study ‘E’ - is focused on evaluating the influence of EU policies on the evolution of coastal zones, and has been undertaken by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, London (IEEP).

Thematic Study E is based on the recognition that a number of current and proposed Community policies have or will have a significant impact on the economic, social, territorial and environmental developments in coastal zones. This influence may be direct, indirect or induced. IEEP was commissioned to assess the importance of such EU policies for coastal areas, and consider their implications for the advancement of ICZM.

1.2 The Questions to be addressed

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is a process which aims to secure the sustainable use of the resources of coastal areas, through seeking to integrate policy objectives and instruments applied at all levels of administration, across all policy sectors that have an impact on coastal development. EU policies are of key importance in relation to ICZM, both in terms of the direct impact that they can have on the physical environment of the coast, both maritime and terrestrial; and in respect of their influence on the scope for integrating separate sectoral policy measures.

There are a wide range of current and developing EU policies that to varying degrees influence coastal developments. They include:

• the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); • the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); • the Structural Funds, both ‘mainstream’ and Community Initiatives; • spatial planning initiatives such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP); • many items of EU environmental policy; • trans-European transport networks (TEN-T); • climate change and energy policy; • policy towards the accession of the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe.

Towards sustainable development of coastal areas?

Article 2 of the Amsterdam Treaty sets as a key objective of the European Union ‘to promote throughout the Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities..’ while Article 6 requires that ‘environmental protection requirements must be

7 integrated into the definition and implementation of Community policies and activities... in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development’.

Some Community policies make a clear contribution towards the more sustainable use of resources in coastal areas. For example, several items of EU environmental policy have been effective in reducing water pollution; and there are many examples throughout the Community of the use of EU finance through the Structural Funds contributing to the construction of new water and waste management infrastructure, or the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

However, at the same time - despite the requirements of the Treaty - it is still the case that some Community policies have inflicted actual physical damage to coastal environments. For example, high Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) support prices have resulted in the intensification of production which in turn has produced eutrophication, pesticide pollution and damage to biodiversity and landscape features. The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has failed adequately to tackle overfishing, threatening the long-term sustainability of the industry and in some localities inflicting damage to marine and avian biodiversity. Moreover, the Structural Funds have frequently supported environmentally damaging development, as well as securing environmental improvements.

Towards integration of policy measures?

The extent to which the objectives and measures of the various EU polices affecting specific coastal areas can be locally co-ordinated, both between themselves and with policies developed by lower tiers of administration, is significantly dependent on the extent to which their application is decentralised and can take account of local priorities. Article 159 of the Amsterdam Treaty states that

‘the formulation and implementation of the Community’s policies and actions and the implementation of the internal market shall take into account (the need to strengthen economic and social cohesion) and shall contribute to their achievement.’

Environmental policy, specifically, is required to take account of ‘the economic development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions’ (Article 174 (3)).

In comparison with the Treaty requirement to integrate the environment into sectoral policies, the above obligation to take account of the regional dimension has been neglected. Several EU policies with impacts on coastal areas are currently highly centralised and are therefore incapable of being regionally sensitive. Those EU policies which offer least scope for regionalisation include CAP price support regimes; the Common Fisheries Policy and Trans European Transport Networks (TEN-T).

However, in the case of other EU policies, there is already considerable scope for differentiated regional implementation, providing at least an opportunity for integrating them at regional/local level. Examples include the Structural Funds; agri-environment schemes; identification of nitrate vulnerable zones; and regional and urban energy management schemes. The proposed Water Framework Directive will also require the identification of ‘regional’ (river basin, including coastal) environmental objectives and pressures and the development of plans to address these. Moreover, the Agenda 2000 reforms to the CAP now

8 offer greater scope for local differentiation through direct farm income supports, coupled with the application of environmental conditions.

However, the decentralisation of EU policies is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for integration between policies in coastal areas. Opportunities may be available for greater synergy which in practice are not taken up by local practitioners.

Some EU policies go further and make an active rather than merely a passive contribution to integration. The requirement in the Structural Funds Regulations for programming and partnership has in some Member States (for example, the UK and Ireland) provided a significant stimulus towards the creation of a spatial planning system (which seeks to integrate at regional level all sectoral policies with spatially-significant impacts) rather than a narrowly focused land use planning system. In England, for example, this will be given concrete expression in the regional economic strategies produced by the nine new Regional Development Agencies. Policy co-ordination across national boundaries has also been an explicit objective of the INTERREG IIA and IIC Community Initiatives, which are to be reinforced during the 2000-2006 programming period.

1.3 The approach of the Study

Thus the potential scope of a study on the influence of EU policies on the evolution of coastal zones is very wide. A very large number of EU policies affect coastal areas in a variety of ways, which are determined both by the objectives and structure of the policies themselves (as discussed above) and the geographical, economic and ecological characteristics of particular coastal regions. A selective approach is clearly necessary since not all EU policies have significant impacts in all coastal areas.

Moreover, EU policies are dynamic, so that new policy proposals with new implications for the coast are continually under development. During the period of this study, a number of policy reforms of particular significance for ICZM have been under development, including reforms to the CAP and the Structural Funds, the development of the proposed Water Framework Directive, and the finalisation of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). What constitutes EU ‘policy’ in this context is not unproblematic, and this is discussed with other methodological issues in Section 2 of the report.

Section 3 presents empirical evidence from selected ICZM project areas of the impact of those EU policies which locally are most significant.

Section 4 describes key future EU policy developments which will undoubtedly have important implications for coastal management, even if the precise impacts on the ground cannot yet be described in detail.

9 Section 5 puts forward the key elements of a future EU strategy in relation to coastal zones and ICZM;

Section 6 is a summary of Conclusions and Recommendations.

10

SECTION 2

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

11 SECTION 2 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

2.1 The nature of ‘EU policies’

Only a relatively small number of EU policies with a direct influence on coastal zones are both formulated and implemented by the EU’s institutions centrally in Brussels. They include, for example, common agricultural policy (CAP) commodity support prices; trans-European transport network (TEN-T) guidelines and priorities; most of the common fisheries policy (CFP); and EU assistance to the accession countries of central and eastern Europe.

However, most EU policies incorporate varying degrees of decentralisation in their application. For example, most items of EU environmental legislation take the form of Directives, which set objectives but allow Member States discretion in deciding how to achieve them. The deployment of the Structural Funds is possibly the most decentralised of all Community policies, with a high degree of decision-making devolved to regional partnerships and Monitoring Committees. Other Community policies are permissive rather than compulsory, allowing - but not obliging - Member States to introduce certain measures. The agri- environment Regulation 2078/92 is an obvious example.

The result is that most ‘EU policies’ as they are experienced on the ground in the Member States are actually the result of a collection of linked decisions taken jointly by the EU institutions, Member State governments, sometimes regional or local authorities, and sometimes individual citizens, industrial installations or farmers. Therefore, where the degree of decentralisation - or ‘subsidiarity’ - is high, the impact on the physical environment of a particular EU measure will differ between Member States and even regions within Member States, and will owe more to decisions taken at Member State level, rather than to the intentions of the EU institutions. This is clearly the case with the Habitats Directive, where all Member States have been very slow to identify their proposed SACs, or the Nitrates Directive, which has also not been implemented fully by most Member States.

Similarly, where there is a failure of co-ordination between two or more decentralised Community policies in a coastal zone (for example, between Structural Fund interventions and the effective implementation of the Birds or Habitats Directives), reponsibility will normally lie with the Member State’s central and/or regional administrations rather than with the European Commission.

In this situation, recommendations for policy and administrative reform need to be directed more towards national, regional and local levels of government, rather than at the EU’s institutions (although the Commission has the final responsibility for ensuring that effective monitoring, reporting and evaluation systems are in place).

2.2 Identifying Influence

Geographical and economic differences between coastal areas mean that the impact of EU measures will vary accordingly: the common fisheries policy affects only those coastal areas with a significant fishing or fish-processing industry; EU measures to conserve biodiversity have less relevance in highly-urbanised areas; and the EU’s Structural Funds are explicitly territorially-differentiated. In these cases, EU influences (or lack of them) are relatively clear-

12 cut. However, in other cases influence may be difficult to discern: it may be gradual and long- term, and may not be explicitly recognised by practitioners. There are limits, therefore, to how far ICZM demonstration project teams can be expected to have a clear view on the impact of a number of EU policies whose effects may be subtle.

The problem varies with different categories of policy instrument: for example it is normally easier to identify the impact of EU legislation, although even here EU influences may be obscured. When EU legislation takes the form of a Directive, it does not apply immediately it is agreed but is transposed into domestic law (either in the form of new primary legislation, or more usually through statutory instruments). It is this domestic legislation that administrative bodies on the coast are required to apply, and its European origins over time may be obscured or forgotten. For example, in the UK almost 40 implementing Regulations and 30 guidance documents have been issued since 1988 in respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337. The practice of environmental assessment has become so embedded in the UK planning system that it is easy to forget its EU parenthood.

Tracing the influence of non-legislative EU initiatives can be even more problematic. One example is EU activity in the field of urban policy, which, since the publication in 1990 of the Commission's Green Paper on the Urban Environment, has focused on research and the exchange of experience. The work of the Urban Environment Expert Group has been disseminated to planners across the EU through good practice guides and two international `Sustainable Cities' conferences. Ideas generated through this process during the 1990s have been absorbed - often imperceptibly - into approaches to urban planning throughout the EU.

2.3 The direction of influence

Different Member States vary considerably in the extent of the development of their national policies. In the Cohesion countries, relatively less-developed national environmental policies have been greatly influenced by EU environmental policy, whereas in the northern European Member States domestic legislation may pre-date EU initiatives, or set higher standards. This is clearly so in respect of environmental impact assessment legislation in the Netherlands and Denmark, which pre-dated the EU’s 1988 Directive by some years, and therefore has not been significantly influenced by it.

However, in other cases it is difficult to establish precisely who has influenced whom. Where the EU and Member States share legal competence in particular sectors (as they do in respect of spatial planning, environmental and regional policy), national and EU policy measures may often be developed in parallel, and may influence each other during the course of often protracted negotiations in the Council of Ministers. Member States may sometimes (quite legitimately) claim that a new EU measure is based on existing domestic policy, and that the EU has therefore had no distinctive impact at all. This claim is easy to argue when domestic legislation precedes in time similar EU legislation on the same subject. However, even in this instance the direction of causation may not be clear, since domestic legislation may in fact anticipate known future EU requirements.

2.4 Policies in the Pipeline

EU policies in all sectors are under continuous development. By the time the impact of a particular EU measure has become apparent on the ground, it can often be on the point of major

13 revision within the Commission. If ‘policy’ is defined in terms of intentions as well as concrete outputs, then Commission proposals should be regarded as equally important indicators of ‘EU policy’ as measures on the ground.

The period of this thematic study has seen the development of a significant number of EU policy proposals with very important implications for the future development of coastal zones. They include the Agenda 2000 package covering the reform of the CAP, rural development and the Structural Fund Regulations; the proposed Water Framework Directive; the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP); the draft Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment; and the development of EU policy towards the accession countries of central and eastern Europe. A number of these proposals - particularly in relation to the CAP and the Structural Funds - seek to address many of the shortcomings of current EU policies which are identified in Section 3. It is for this reason that they are described in some detail in Section 4.

2.5 Approach to the Research

In the light of the wide definition of ‘policy’ discussed above, it was considered important to examine the impact both of current EU measures, and the likely influence of policy proposals in an advanced stage of development. The research therefore was based on a combination of empirical and desk research. The empirical research involved the analysis of responses to a questionnaire, reinforced through visits and interviews with project staff and local officials.

• Questionnaire to Demonstration Projects

On the basis of a ‘scoping’ review of all EU policies designed to identify those with significant potential influences in coastal areas, IEEP drafted a questionnaire to each of the leaders of the ICZM Demonstration Projects (see Annex I). This aimed to identify in detail the local impact of 19 significant Community policies within each of the Demonstration Project areas, and the extent to which the Project Leaders were taking advantage of opportunities to participate in the local administration of Community policies (eg the Structural Funds).

The quality of the responses was mixed. The person(s) completing the questionnaire was not always the Project Leader; some of the projects clearly knew considerably more about EU policies and their local implementation than did others. For this and other reasons, it was apparent that the use of a questionnaire of this sort could only be one of several means necessary for securing detailed information about the impact of EU policies. The information derived from the questionnaire was accordingly amplified in face to face interviews with project staff and local practitioners. A list of project visits can be found in Annex II.

14

• Responses

The majority of the respondents accepted that most of the identified EU polices had some impact in their areas. There was a widespread consensus that the EU policy with the worst impact was the common agricultural policy, whilst Directives on environmental impact assessment (EIA), Bathing Water, Birds and Habitats were perceived as having the most beneficial impacts. There was a consensus among projects which answered this question that better mutual co-ordination was needed between CAP, and/or the common fisheries policy on the one hand, and EU wildlife legislation and the operation of the Structural Funds on the other.

As regards the familiarity of the projects with the content of EU policies, this was generally best in respect of land-use related measures eg EIA, Birds, Habitats, but less good in relation to pollution control measures, such as the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. Not surprisingly, knowledge of EU policies was least well developed in Latvia and Lithuania.

Opportunities for public participation in the local administration of EU policies varied widely. One good example was the Wadden Sea project, whilst the Cyclades, Strymonikos, Algarve-Huelva and Bantry projects all indicated that opportunities to participate were poor. As regards the participation of the ICZM project staff themselves in the administration of EU policies, some projects reported extensive participation (eg Magnesia), while in others, participation was very limited (eg Cyclades and Bantry Bay). Only three projects enjoyed direct representation on Structural Funds Monitoring Committees (Storstrom, Down and Magnesia), although other projects has good contacts with members of the Monitoring Committees (Devon and Cornwall, Storstrom).

Most projects failed to respond to the question on cross-border co-ordination of EU policies affecting the coast. Surprisingly for a tri-lateral project, the Wadden Sea reported good co- ordination in respect of EIA and wildlife and habitats protection, but poor in relation most other policy areas, including the Structural Funds. Latvia complained of very poor cross- border co-ordination with Lithuania in respect of policy development.

• Visits to Demonstration Projects

Visits were undertaken by IEEP staff and correspondents to a number of projects which appeared to offer good illustrations of the impact of specific EU policies. The lessons arising from these field visits are described in detail in Section 3.

• Future EU policy developments

A detailed analysis was undertaken of the implications for coastal areas of a number of key EU policy proposals in the course of development during the period of the research. These included reforms to the CAP and the Structural Funds; the draft Water Framework Directive; and the draft Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment. By the end of the research, the revised CAP and ‘mainstream’ Structural Fund Regulations had been formally agreed. The draft Water Framework and SEA Directives were expected to be considerably modified in further negotiations, although in the case of the former, the main features of the measure

15 were not expected to change significantly. These key future measures are analysed in Section 4.

16

SECTION 3

INFLUENCE OF CURRENT EU POLICIES - EVIDENCE FROM THE ICZM DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

17 SECTION 3 INFLUENCE OF CURRENT EU POLICIES - EVIDENCE FROM THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

1 COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY (CAP)

1.1 Introduction

Of all EU policies, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has had the most damaging impact on the physical environment in the demonstration project areas. In several of them, high support prices have encouraged over-production, which in turn has led to the over- application of pesticides, excessive use of nitrogenous fertilisers, and over grazing of pastures. This has resulted in the pollution of surface, coastal and groundwaters by pesticides and through eutrophication, together with the destruction of cultural landscapes. Serious impacts have occurred in respect of biodiversity, fishing and tourism.

The damaging effects of the CAP often run counter to the intentions of other EU polices. Measures to encourage tourism supported by the Structural Funds are less effective when the consequences of intensive agriculture deter tourist visits. Similarly, the EU’s Drinking and Nitrates Directives have been introduced partly to offset the consequences for water quality of pollution from agriculture encouraged by the CAP.

Regulation 2078/92 establishing a Community agri-environmental has done little to offset the damage caused by CAP production support. Agri-environment measures are voluntary for farmers, who have little incentive to enter schemes when commodity support is so much more financially attractive.

Examples of the damaging impact of the CAP could be taken from many of the project areas. The cases of Rade de Brest, the Wadden Sea and Storstrom are examined below.

1.2 Rade De Brest

Brittany is the most important region in France both for agriculture and the agri-food industry. Farming constitutes the backbone of the regional economy. All interviewees in the project area stressed that the CAP has been a major contributory factor to the environmental problems encountered in the area, but not the sole factor. They claim that the CAP has encouraged intensification of agricultural production, thereby accelerating the environmental impacts discussed below. However, without the CAP price support system, such large-scale intensification would not have taken place.

Maize growing and its impact

The CAP price support system has boosted maize growing in the area, particularly during the period 1970-79 (144% increase). Between the period 1979 and 1988, there was a 20% increase in maize cultivation and between 1988 and 1993, the increase was 13%1. Maize is the main arable crop grown in the area, predominantly as fodder for pigs and poultry. The boom in maize cultivation has put enormous pressures on grasslands (temporary and

1 &RQWUDWGHEDLHOD5DGHGH%UHVWHWVRQEDVVLQYHUVDQW(WDWGHVOLHX[HWGHVPLOLHX[, April 1997 (p.138)

18 artificial grasslands and land permanently under grass) with the result that in the period 1970- 79, there was a 37% decline in land permanently under grass while temporary grasslands declined by 29% between 1979 and 19882. This decline is due to EC measures introduced to control milk production (milk quotas, reduction in herd sizes) and the intensification of fodder crop growing (mainly maize). Beef cattle farmers have cut out a large proportion of their temporary grasslands from their cropping patterns, replacing them with maize.

Maize cultivation involves the heavy use of pesticides (most notably atrazine, simazine and lindane) which has led to pollution in surface waters (by rainwater runoff) and groundwater (by leaching). A total of 96 different pesticides are used in agriculture in the area. It was also estimated that atrazine, mecoprop and lindane are the most used pesticides in agriculture, with respective annual quantities amounting to 54.7, 15.8 and 14.9 tonnes3.

Tests carried out by the département Directorate for Health and Social Affairs (DDASS) during the period 1991-95 indicate that simazine, lindane, and above all, atrazine are the pesticides that have been detected the most frequently and in the highest concentrations in surface waters and groundwater. The tests also highlighted numerous exceedances of the maximum allowed concentration of these pesticides (100 ng/l) in the Elorn, Aulne and Penfeld rivers4 which flow into Brest Bay. Consequently, high concentrations of the pesticides have also been detected in the waters of Brest Bay, particularly atrazine which occurs in variable quantities depending on the season and the location. Tests carried out on samples of water from Brest Bay in 1993-94 show that concentrations of atrazine are 140 times the toxicity thresholds in certain parts of the Bay5. The increasing concentrations of pesticides measured in the rivers creates problems for drinking water production (it should be borne in mind that some 75% of drinking water in Brittany comes from surface waters6) and causes malfunctions in ecosystems. The latter phenomenon is also true for the waters in Brest Bay itself.

Pig Farming

A second major problem is intensive pig farming, which although not directly supported by the CAP, is encouraged and maintained through the financial support provided for maize growing. During the period 1970-79, the number of pigs in the area under study rose by 89% and during the period 1979-88, the figure was 23%. At the same time, there was a progressive reduction in the number of pig farms, with the result that the existing farms were highly concentrated. More than half the total number of pigs in France are located in Brittany (55% of the total national production in 1994) in off-land farms. In 1993, the stocking density in Finistère was estimated to be 550 livestock units for 100 ha of useable agricultural land (and 390 for Brittany as a whole), with the highest density being in the Elorn catchment area : 1 026.

The development of intensive animal (particularly pig) farming has undoubtedly had serious consequences on the physical environment of the Brest Bay catchment area. Nine of the 15 cantons (districts) located in the Brest Bay catchment area have been classified under national

2 op cit (p.140) 3 &RQWUDWGHEDLHOD5DGHGH%UHVWHWVRQEDVVLQYHUVDQW(WDWGHVOLHX[HWGHVPLOLHX[, April 1997 (p.246) 4 See Annex VIII (p 247) 5 &RQWUDWGHEDLHOD5DGHGH%UHVWHWVRQEDVVLQYHUVDQW(WDWGHVOLHX[HWGHVPLOLHX[, April 1997 (p.252) 6 M. Charles Touffet, Department of Water and the Aquatic Environment, DIREN, Brittany.

19 legislation as structural surplus zones (zones d’excédent structurel), i.e. that nitrogen inputs via manure from pigs, cattle and poultry are in excess of the physical capacities of the soil and crops to eliminate them.1 i.e. above 170 kg N per hectare.

Large quantities of pig slurry are spread as fertiliser on arable farmland, particularly maize. Through rainwater runoff, this in turn has led to high inputs of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) in the rivers that flow into Brest Bay. Excessive nutrient levels have led to high concentrations of nitrates and phosphates in surface waters; nitrate flows into Brest Bay more than doubled between 1975 and 1992. Although nitrate pollution in Brest Bay is also of industrial and urban origin, it is estimated that 85-90% is caused by agriculture1.

Excessive nutrient inputs have had two major impacts. Firstly, ecosystems have been disturbed by eutrophication, e.g. chronic eutrophication of the Canal de Nantes in Brest during the summer months. In recent years, this has led inter alia to the occurrence of green algae (Chlorophyceae) mainly in the northern part of Brest Bay (two locations off the Plougastel peninsula, on the beach at Moulin Blanc and, to a lesser extent, in Daoulas Bay). This phenomenon is accelerated by the fact that many of the innermost parts of Brest Bay are closed and highly sheltered, with little current. The algal blooms disturb inshore fishing activities (it gets caught up in the nets) affects tourism (puts bathers off) and can affect industry (blocks pipes). It also causes the oxygen levels of the water to drop, adversely affecting marine fauna and flora. Secondly, excessive nutrient inputs into surface waters has also caused serious problems for the production of drinking water given that some 75% of drinking water in Brittany comes from surface waters. Thus, drinking water production has become a more complicated and more costly operation. The EC limit value of 50 mg/l is regularly exceeded. Nitrate levels occurring in the rivers of the Brest Bay catchment area are still on the increase today.

Two further impacts of the CAP in the Rade de Brest are the loss of biodiversity and deterioration of landscape quality caused by the intensification of agriculture in the study area. Wetlands have been drained on a considerable scale, mainly in the 1960s and 1970s. However, this was not only due to agricultural, but also to urban and industrial pressures. Hedgerows were also destroyed on a massive scale: out of around 350 000 km of hedgerows that existed in Brittany as a whole, prior to World War II, between 150 and 180 000 km have since been destroyed.

1.3 Wadden Sea

Agriculture is a major source of pollution and the high nutrient loads of North Sea tributaries which increases the eutrophication problem in the Wadden Sea. Agricultural production was also one of the reasons behind most embankment schemes in the region since World War II. Agricultural intensification processes, driven forward by the CAP, have led to considerable losses in biodiversity and landscape values on agricultural land on the islands and along the coast, particularly in wetland areas. Sheep headage payments are likely to be one of the factors behind too high grazing densities on coastal salt marshes, which appear to be a particular problem in Germany.

At the same time CAP agri-environment schemes have been employed in recent years to dampen the negative environmental effect of intensive agriculture. Examples are

20 - the Küstenuferrandstreifenprogramm in Schleswig-Holstein, which was used to achieve a much more conservation effective management of coastal salt marshes; - a meadow bird scheme on the Dutch island of Texel - agri-environment programmes for Danish coastal wetlands, e.g. in Danish Varde Å estuary.

The participation rate in several of these schemes is limited due to competition of scheme payment rates with mainstream agricultural programmes such as arable crops direct area subsidies or milk quota allocations.

1.4. Storstrom.

The southern Danish islands of Lolland and Falster are areas of intensive sugar beet production, encouraged by the high prices offered by the CAP sugar beet regime. The effect on biodiversity and the landscape is immediately obvious. Hedgerows and woodlands have been uprooted to create very large prairie-type fields, which are often ploughed right up to roadsides. The application of high levels of fertilizers has resulted in severe eutrophication of lakes and the shallow coastal areas.

Much of this fertilizer is animal manure and sewage sludge, resulting in pervasive, unpleasant odours throughout the countryside.

The bare, unattractive landscape, limited biodiversity and sewage odours mean that attempts through the Structural Funds Objective 2 and 5b programmes to develop tourism in the area - particularly ‘green’ tourism - face considerable obstacles. This is a classic case of two major Community policies working against each other. Some progress in tackling eutrophication of surface water is beginning to be felt as a result of the application in Denmark of the Nitrates Directive 91/676, where the whole of the Danish territory is identified as a nitrate vulnerable zone.

Agri-environment measures under EU Regulation 2078/92 are voluntary, with farmers encouraged to participate through payments graduated according to the level of environmental obligations they undertake to fulfil. A major problem in implementing agri- environment programmes is that incentives provided by high prices for commodity productions, and for set-aside, act as a deterrent to participation; and the management of programmes by central rather than regional governments has proved too insensitive to local conditions.

1.5. Cyclades

Agriculture in the Cyclades is declining. Apart from few products that have high added value due to their originality or local identity, such as wine and cheese all other products are unable to compete in continental markets.

Overall, EU agricultural policy appears to have had a negative effect on the natural environment in the Cyclades: because it has required the agriculture of a particular and fragile ecosystem to turn its focus on new products and enter competitive markets. This has resulted in a transition to a capital intensive and input intensive production model.

21 The side effects of this process were the loss of jobs in the inland and the migration of people to the coast, where higher and easier incomes could be gained from tourism. In addition it led to the abandonment of traditional farming practices that were crucial for the maintenance of the landscape and habitats (orchards, terraces, small scale water storage, use of less productive but adapted species with lesser needs for inputs). The subsequent pressure on resources such as soil and water has created serious impacts including salination of aquifers and soil erosion and desertification.

On the other hand, the agri-environmental measures of the CAP, first expressed through the Leader Initiative, and later on also through Regulations 2078 and 2080 have had a very positive effect counteracting the problems mentioned above, and allowing the creation of income and employment at a local level for island farmers. Many examples of such establishments exist in the Cyclades islands, especially those with a lower pressure for mass tourism schemes.

22 2. COMMON FISHERIES POLICY (CFP)

2.1 Introduction - Dorset Coast

About 300 vessels based in Dorset’s ports and harbours hold permits to fish commercially within the Southern Sea Fisheries District, which includes the waters off Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight out to the 6 mile limit of exclusive UK fishing rights. Within this District, bye-laws limit the maximum size of a fishing vessel to 12 metres.

The fleet targets a mixed fishery offshore, with crabs, lobsters and shellfish being of particular importance.

Many of the fleet fish beyond the boundaries of the District. Between 6-12 miles, they share rights to fish with other UK fishermen and those with traditional access: in this area, only the French. Beyond 12 miles the waters are available to all EU countries.

None of Dorset’s harbours are classified as major, but Poole and Weymouth host over 100 and over 80 vessels respectively. Poole is the UK’s largest fish exporting port. Mudeford, Swanage, Portland, West Bay and Lyme Regis also support local boats.

Onshore fisheries-related employment derives from landing facilities, fish merchants, fish processing, and service industries to maintain vessels and equipment. The total employment dependent on fishing in Dorset is difficult to estimate, as most fishermen are self employed. The total numbers are probably between 500-800 full and part-time jobs.

Regulatory arrangements for fisheries are highly complex, and in Dorset involve a range of overlapping administrative responsibilities at several levels. However, the principal framework for fisheries management in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The policy is developed in Brussels and applies EU-wide, with a range of regional variations. CFP decisions are determined largely by political bargaining between Member States, and as such are regarded as very remote from the local level where they take effect.

The principal impact of the CFP off the Dorset coast has derived from: • measures to reduce overfishing of threatened stocks; • the temporary access restrictions which apply within the 6 and 12 mile limits.

CFP measures to reduce fishing effort

The future of Dorset’s fishing industry depends on continued self-sustaining populations of fish. The CFP seeks to prevent overfishing of many stocks by reducing fishing effort through reductions in fleet sizes, days at seas and the application of national quotas on catch. The CFP also imposes minimum landing sizes and restrictions on fishing gear.

However, some of Dorset’s significant fisheries are not regulated by the CFP. Minimum landing sizes for crabs and lobster, for example, are set by national legislation. Moreover, within the six mile limit, regulations are derived from the Southern Sea Fisheries Committee - notably the limit on the size of vessels.

23 Where the CFP does apply, its effectiveness in limiting over-fishing has been constrained by the absence of adequate monitoring at local level. Vessels over 10 meters are required to make a catch return to MAFF for all quota species landed, but there is no requirement on smaller vessels to report. Widespread under-reporting of catch is recognised as a problem, and it has been estimated that the total national reported landings in the UK could represent less than half of the actual catch. Routine inspections of the catch are made at the largest fishing ports, but are less regular at minor ports.

Thus the impact of the CFP in limiting over-fishing off the Dorset coast has been hindered by inadequate enforcement. Within the six-mile limit, this task is the responsibility of the SSFC, with five full-time fisheries officers and a variety of patrol craft. Beyond six miles, regulatory responsibilities lie with the Royal Navy’s Fishery Protection Squadron.

The view of local fisheries managers in Dorset is that effective and sustainable management of the fishery requires better monitoring and research, neither of which has been secured so far within the framework of the CFP.

The 6- and 12-mile limits

In principle, the EU's fisheries conservation and management regime (Regulation 3760/92) provides all EU fishing boats equal access to stocks in EU waters. There is one major derogation to this rule, namely the temporary access restriction, which effectively excludes the 6 and 12 mile territorial waters from the equal access rule.

In creating this derogation, the intention was to protect local fisheries-dependent communities from competition from other fleets. The restriction has provided a useful framework for fisheries conservation and management within the 6 mile limit, as well as potentially serving broader environmental objectives and local economic interests within this area. However, for the limits to continue, the EU needs to make a positive decision during 2002. The Dorset Coast Forum has agreed that the limits are essential to maintaining some local management of Dorset’s coastal fisheries and has written to the Commissioner to propose that the limits should be adopted on a permanent basis, and that a decision should be taken as quickly as possible.

However, there is also widespread debate about whether the current restriction of access should be developed into a more extensive tool for delivering social and environmental objectives. Even within the 6 mile limit, the current restriction is only a basic instrument with which to pursue sustainable management of inshore fisheries. For example, it does not prevent increased fishing effort, competition for markets from offshore fisheries, nor protection of biodiversity. All it provides is an opportunity for locally appropriate management within each Member State.

For the future, a number of options present themselves, including:

• A specific reference to social, environmental and economic sustainability could be added to the objectives of a new Regulation, this would ensure that its purposes were transparent.

24 • The Regulation could require codes of conduct to be elaborated and implemented at the national or local levels, aimed at setting out acceptable standards for fisheries management in inshore waters.

• Member States could be obliged to develop sustainable inshore fisheries management strategies as part of the Regulation. These could include zonal plans and possibly be set within the context of integrated coastal zone management programmes

• A new provision could be added to the Regulation, offering payments to encourage sustainable patterns of fishing in inshore areas, for example, to support low impact fishing in sensitive areas, to help adoption and implementation of collective management schemes to ensure fishing effort is not increased or damaging gear types or fishing methods are not used, etc. Payments could be used alongside regulatory measures, to help encourage take- up and acceptance of more stringent environmental measures.

• The restriction could be extended, so that Member States were given full rights to manage fisheries up to 12 miles. This would extend the benefits of the restriction, and would enable Member States to manage these fisheries in line with obligations under the Habitats Directive. However, this would have to be on the condition that ‘foreign’ vessels were treated fairly and existing fishing rights respected, and that vessel owners be involved in the management process.

The adoption of such an approach would be to encourage local diversity. A flexible regulation would allow measures to be tailored to local and regional needs and opportunities. In addition, it would encourage the involvement of local fishers and communities (including foreign vessels) in the policy process.

During 1998/9, DGXIV invited comments from interested parties on the 2002 review of the CFP, and organised a series of consultation fora throughout the EU. The submission by the Dorset Coast Forum on the need to retain the 6-mile exclusion zone was a part of this process. The review itself is expected to be drafted towards the end of 1999.

2.2 Cyclades

The intensification of fishing in the last decades due to the change of diet and the increased numbers of tourists, became an important issue for the Cyclades.

The Common Fisheries Policy has not influenced fisheries towards sustainability. The support it provided for the decommissioning of vessels in effect subsidised the growth of medium fisheries (trawlers and purse seiners) and the reduction of the coastal fisheries. This lead to an increase in fishing effort and the adoption of higher technology and increased horsepower. Although the stocks in Greece have not been systematically monitored, indication of decline can be deducted from the reports of landings and the behaviour of species that feed on fish stocks (Monk Seals in particular).

Another important aspect of the Common Fisheries Policy in relation to the Cyclades is the development of aquaculture. Greece, in the last two to three decades has become one of the most important producers of farmed fish and is currently among the greatest net exporters of farmed flatfish (sea bass and bream) in Europe. The effect of such an explosive development,

25 besides being felt on the market prices in the recent years, has created significant environmental problems. Some of these are pollution and eutophication of closed gulfs where sea farms are located, deterioration of the landscape and conflict with other potential uses, and interbreeding of escaped farmed fish with native species, thus deteriorating the gene basis of the local breeds.

26 3. STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICY

3.1 Introduction

The EU’s Structural and Cohesion Funds account for more than one-third of the EU’s entire budget. Such high levels of expenditure clearly can have significant impacts on the physical environment of eligible coastal areas - both harmful and beneficial. Moreover, the requirement for integrated programming and regional partnerships in the Structural Funds Regulations, if fully applied, help to reinforce these key elements of ICZM.

However, the EU’s Structural and Cohesion Policy is the most decentralised of all Community policies, and it is therefore impossible to generalise on their impact in coastal areas. Eligible areas are provided with opportunities to use EU co-finance in an integrated and sustainable way, but often these opportunities are not taken up, or inadequately implemented. Screening by the Commission of draft regional development plans, and their application on the ground, has also not been as effective as it might.

As a result, there have been many examples of the insensitive use of Structural Fund finance in coastal areas. In the Ria de Aveiro project area, for example, ERDF finance has contributed to the construction of hard coastal defences intended to prevent beach erosion, which has simply displaced the problem further along the coast. But equally, it is possible to point to the many examples of Structural Fund support for water and waste treatment facilities essential for the development of tourism and the improvement of the local quality of life. In Objective 5b areas in particular, ERDF and EAGGF finance has also been used to support nature conservation projects in innovative ways, as in Devon and Cornwall.

Similarly, although the requirement for programming in principle should encourage local effort to integrate sectoral policies into a coherent development strategy, this has often not happened in practice. It is sometimes the case that separate operational programmes within a single regional development plan can work against one another. The experience of Bantry Bay (below) serves as an example.

Moreover, many of the demonstration projects themselves have not taken advantage of the opportunities provided for influencing local development priorities by seeking representation on Structural Fund Monitoring Committees or their working groups. Some have - Devon and Cornwall and Storstrom can be cited as good examples.

3.2 Bantry Bay - Structural Fund support for aquaculture and tourism

Since 1989 Ireland has been in receipt of substantial structural funding from the EU. The whole of Ireland was classified as an Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999 period, and under the existing programming period (1994-99) some IR£4.6 billion is allocated to Ireland under its Community Support Framework (CSF). In addition, IR£1 billion was allocated under the Cohesion Fund, and another IR£368 million under various Community Initiatives.

The mid-term evaluation of the Irish CSF is unequivocal about the success of the Structural Funds in Ireland:

‘The Irish CSF represents a notable success story. Funds have been deployed

27 effectively to support and enhance what has been a remarkable economic recovery’ (Honohan, 1997).

Despite the apparent success of EC funded regional development programmes, conflicts between Operational Programmes are also highlighted by the mid-term evaluation and were cited during the case study interviews. Cases are cited where there has been conflict between aquaculture projects which have detracted from marine scenic views and the overall tourist value of the area.

The conflicts which have arisen between tourism and aquaculture may not have been caused by regional development funds. However, the lack of internal consistency between different parts of the CSF would appear to have played a role in the disputes. Problems have been exacerbated by limited integrated strategic planning at the national and regional level, especially planning within a spatial context. Operational programmes therefore have tended to focus on national economic objectives of the sector which they are designed to promote.

Ireland’s Tourism Operational Programme 1994-1999

Within the Irish Community Support Framework (1994-99), the tourism sector has been targeted as a major source for economic development. The stated aim of the tourism Operational Programme (1994- 1999) is to double tourist visitors by the year 2010. The physical and cultural environment is clearly a prominent asset for the tourism sector, and achieving the target will depend on the ability to ensure that Ireland’s assets continue to be attractive.

Ireland’s high quality environment has traditionally benefited from relatively low economic development and peripherality compared to the rest of Europe, rather than sustainable economic development policies. Given the intensified efforts to modernise and expand the tourism industry, a systematic approach will be needed to ensure that EU funded tourism takes account of the carrying capacity of the environment, not least to ensure the sector’s continued survival.

However, there appears to be poor co-ordination between funding programmes and local plans or designations. Evidence is cited that ad hoc developments have affecting adversely proposed SACs under the Habitats Directive. The level of infrastructure is often unable to cope with tourism demand during periods of peak activity, with water and waste treatment facilities becoming overloaded. This is thought to have resulted in local pollution incidents, in turn affecting the use of marine resources for aquaculture, recreational and tourism purposes.

Although the environment OP may provide funds to mitigate water and waste problems, money is not always available until after pollution problems have arisen, or may be limited to projects unsuited to the local area. It is clearly preferable for pollution problems to be treated at source, and considered as part of the tourism Operational Programme. While attempts are being made to improve co-ordination, there is continued pressure for sectoral ministries to meet their economic development targets. Even where appropriate decisions are made, there are limited resources to control and enforce planning decisions.

This top down, sectoral approach appears to have been only marginally modified as a consequence of the Community Support Framework process. Whereas structural funding programmes in most other Member States have been developed on the basis of discrete sub- regions, and thus supported a more integrated regional approach to economic development

28 programmes and administration, the national nature of the Irish CSF has not given the same encouragement for regional integration.

Some attempt was made to improve coordination and integration between planning authorities in 1994 by creating eight Regional Authorities (RAs). These were established on a statutory basis and include the South West Regional Authority which covers County Cork (including Bantry Bay) and County Kerry. The RAs were given a specific mandate to promote co- ordination of public authority business at the regional level, and to monitor and advise on the implementation of EU funding in the regions. Each RA also has a special Monitoring Committee, representative of a range of interests (although the ICZM demonstration project is not represented on it).

Aquaculture Operational Programme 1994-1999

The EU’s aquaculture policy, as with Irish national policy for this sector, is poorly defined. Key development objectives and indicators are set out in the aquaculture Operational Programme. These focus primarily on growth and expansion, and aim to increase the value of the industry’s gross output, creating some additional 220 jobs. In relation to shellfish specifically, production was planned to increase from 15,960 to 43,890 over the period 1992 and 1999. Much of this increase is to come from more isolated regions, where alternative employment opportunities are particularly limited.

Within the Bantry Bay project area, the aquaculture sector is dominated by shellfish and is considered to be a low-input, high value added sector. Inputs tend to be locally sourced, and the sector is labour intensive. Final products are sold at premium prices. The sector has developed largely in response to high unemployment resulting from the 1979 disaster and subsequent closure of the Bantry Bay oil terminal. Mussels, oysters and scallops are now cultivated. While there is some finfish farming involving salmon and turbot, intensive mussel farming is the main focus of activity in the area. Indeed, Bantry is one of the principal locations for intensive mussel farming in the whole of Ireland, with mussels cultivated on ropes which are suspended from floating barrels. A number of conflicts have arisen as a result of the sector’s expansion, including the following:

• farms are essentially seen as having ‘privatised’ distinct areas of the Bay; • the mussel lines are seen as obstructing the activities of the smallest inshore vessels, by ‘colonising’ certain areas obstructing movement between different parts of the Bay; • while there has been financial investment in farms and processing, little funding has been made available to the inshore fleet; • objections to visual impact of blue barrels from which mussel ropes are suspended, as well as other structures which impact on land/seascapes; • lack of suitable facilities to handle waste arisings.

Broader environmental concerns are also raised, such as the limited carrying capacity of the Bay, the impact of sedimentation, the contribution of aquaculture to the local ‘red tide’ problem, and encroachment upon natural and semi-natural habitats. Problems are exacerbated by the fact that public funding has been used to expand the industry, in the absence of a suitable national or regional strategic framework.

Although some efforts have been made to introduce a stronger regional dimension, particularly through the regional Monitoring Committees, the Operational Programmes themselves continue to be centrally determined, and vertically implemented. As such, they are taken forward by

29 relevant regional sectoral bodies, with little reference to the regional or local planning authority. This can lead to local conflict between sectoral departments, or between departments and the local planning and environmental authority.

3.3 Cyclades

The Structural Funds have been one of the central levers supporting the development of the different sectors in the Cyclades. The Structural Funds mechanism itself has been poorly adapted to the need for integrated, environmentally sensitive planning that was necessary for the sustainable management of a Coastal Zone such as the Cyclades. As a result, many projects have had negative effects, some of which can be considered permanent in the medium term (landscape degradation, aquifer contamination etc).

On the other hand, a series of important projects for the management of wastewater and (to a much lesser extent) of solid waste, have been implemented through the Cohesion Fund. Although there are many points that could be criticised as to the planning, size, and operation of such works, the overall effect is positive for the environment of the Cyclades.

The construction of harbour walls or roads near the coastline increased erosion and accretion of beaches. Through many inappropriately planned constructions normal flows of water are disturbed and often make coastal erosion a considerable problem.

Tourist development of the past few decades and increased funding for such infrastructures has deteriorated the situation in Cyclades. There are more people now than ever before attracted to the coastal areas and the Greek islands, consequently more people are investing there and the pressure on the landscape has increased. There is no adequate EU framework for tourism, both as regards mass tourism and eco/rural tourism. Most available measures are general and refer to tourism only partly. The development of the sector was in many ways the result of unregulated initiatives, influenced by a heterogeneous array of national and EU policies. The effect of this lack of an overall framework has been the haphazard development of the sector as regards land use and environmental impacts, with the exception of the basic environmental rules (EIA, emissions etc). For the successful implementation of ICZM in the Cyclades, an improved strategy will need to be developed.

30 4. TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORKS (TEN-T)

4.1 Impact of the TEN-T programme in Denmark

The Oresund bridge and tunnel linking Malmo in Sweden with Copenhagen in Denmark is due for completion in the summer of 2000. The 16 km-long Link will reduce the journey time by car between the two cities to just 15 minutes, or 45 minutes by train - to be reduced even more when the Malmo rail tunnel is ready. The construction of the fixed link has been hailed as the starting point in the building of a new and coherent cross-border Oresund Region, the unofficial ‘capital of Scandinavia’, and a central distribution node for eastern and northern Europe.

The Oresund Fixed Link is one of fourteen priority TENS projects identified by the Essen European Council in December 1994. It has received a 1.8 billion euro loan from the European Investment Bank - some 40 per cent of the total cost.

Despite its importance in the framework of the EU’s trans-European networks, the Link is a good example of the difficulty, in attempting to assess the influence of EU policies, of identifying the direction of causation. The Swedish and Danish Governments bilaterally agreed to go ahead with the Link in 1991, some three years before the EU agreed to support the project financially. Nevertheless, EU support is likely to have ensured the completion of the project, probably within a more rapid timetable.

The EU’s support for the project reflects a strategic desire on the part of the Commission and Member States to establish a physical link between Sweden and Finland on the one hand, with the rest of the Community on the other. However, the improvement in physical communications between Member States encourages the movement of goods and people when the principle of sustainable development demands a reduction in transport demand. Moreover, the encouragement to greater cross-border movement of people runs counter to innovative ‘distance working’ schemes currently being encouraged under the INTERREG IIA Oresund programme.

4.2. Development pressures arising from the completion of the Oresund fixed link.

The completion of the Fixed Link will generate development pressures on both sides of the Oresund Sound:

• In Denmark, there are plans to develop a new urban area ‘Orestad’ between the airport and the city.

• Investment is expected to be attracted across the Link from Denmark to Sweden. Sweden has an exceptionally low corporate tax (although personal income taxes in Sweden are higher than in Denmark). Property prices in Malmo are low in comparison with Copenhagen. The Skane region (which includes Malmo) is already Sweden’s fastest expanding region. Plans include a big redevelopment of the West Harbour of Malmo - a declining ship-building area - into an attractive waterside quarter, complete with canals, a Central Park, and a new science park.

31 • Some companies already established elsewhere in Sweden - such as Mercedes Benz and Bayer - are relocating to the Malmo area.

• There will also be opportunities for developing tourism on both sides of the water, even beyond the 20 million tourists who already visit the Oresund region annually. Again, this could particularly affect Malmo, where hotel capacity is greater than in Copenhagen.

The long-term environmental consequences of these pressures along the Danish and Swedish coasts are unclear. The Oresund Consortium responsible for the construction of the Fixed Link have undertaken a comprehensive environmental impact assessment of the immediate environmental effects of the construction of the bridge and tunnel, including the impact on the Special Protection Area for birds on and around Saltholm Island. However, there appears to have been no comprehensive study of the longer-term environmental and economic effects on the Swedish and Danish coasts of development pressures created by the opening of the Link. Some research has been undertaken only on the economic impact on the Helsingborg and Helsingor areas further north, which will be hit by a significant reduction in car ferry services between the two countries.

On a wider perspective, plans are in progress for a new road/rail track - called the European Corridor Project - running from Stockholm to Hamburg, via the Oresund Fixed Link. This would necessitate the construction of a second fixed link between Rodbyhavn in the Storstrom ICZM project area, and Puttgarden in Schleswig-Holstein in Germany. This link has already been identified in the 1996 Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (Decision 1692/96 - OJ L228 9.9.96), and would be welcomed by the International and Economic Development Offices of Storstrom County.

However, the impact along the Storstrom coast of construction of this further fixed link would be likely to include: • enhanced pressures from German tourists along the south-west coast of Lolland; • a decline in passengers using the ferry between Gedser and Roscoff; • increased passenger and freight transport by road across Storstrom, creating significant

noise and CO2 emissions.

4.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment of TEN-T

Further research needs to be undertaken by the European Commission (DG VII) to assess the economic and environmental impacts - both local and along the entire transport corridor - of cross-border transport links such as these. DG VII is proposing to publish a Transport Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) best practice Manual, drawing on five pilot SEAs of TENS transport corridors, which are currently being supported by DGVII in conjunction with the Member States concerned. However, the methodology of SEA is not well developed, and technical difficulties with some of the pilot studies is delaying the publication of the best practice manual.

The pilot studies do not, however, include an analysis of the impact of the Stockholm- Hamburg route. 4.4 The effect of transport links on communication between coastal regions

32 Away from larger ports coastal regions are often poorly communicated to their hinterland and between each other. This is particularly the case where natural barriers such as wetlands or large rivers impede an easy geographic connection. The communication barrier between two regions is particularly strong where such structures also demarcate state borders. A lack of communication between adjacent coastal regions can impede ICZM where they share common marine resources or are exposed to the same economic, environmental or social pressures on their coastline.

Such a case can be observed across the Spanish-Portuguese border in the TERRA project region Algarve-Huelva. The coastal areas on both sides of the border share very similar economic, environmental and social characteristics. Traditional agriculture is in strong decline and partly replaced by intensive horticultural production based on irrigation. The outward emigration of earlier decades has been stopped by a development process that focuses nearly exclusively on (mass) tourism. This has brought economic growth but also strong environmental pressures in terms of waste management, water resources and coastal habitats of Community importance. The important wetlands of Coto Doñana (Huelva) and Ria Formosa (Algarve) face strong pressures from tourism development and large visitor numbers.

Traditionally there was very little contact between both regions due to the natural barrier of the Guadiana river that also forms the border between the two countries. No rail links between both regions exist and the first bridge across the river is located nearly 100 km upstream of the coast. Thus, the only connections between Algarve and Huelva until the beginning of the 1990s was a ferry service across the Guadiana. Inhabitants of both regions confirmed that these poor transport connections also contributed strongly to a lack of direct contacts between both coastal areas. This phenomenon could be observed at the level of people, the administration and the economic sector.

The construction of better road links and of a bridge across the river strengthened the link between both regions tremendously since the use of private cars or buses is the most important means of transport in the coastal areas. Better transport communication led to a large increase of visitors between both countries, increasing economic integration, stronger personal ties and to much easier contact between local and regional administration on both sides of the river. The greater ease of communication has facilitated joint projects at environmental, economic and social levels, financed under the Interreg II programme and other EU funds.

The positive experience arising from the transport link provided by the Guadiana bridge has also stimulated local politicians and administrators in demanding further transport connections based on a rail link and road bridge at a medium distance from the coast. While the closer physical communication link between both coastal regions has not yet led to an integrated coastal planning in the regions concerned it has widened the horizons of local representatives beyond their immediate surroundings or particular country. This more open thinking has already facilitated the creation of a first cross-border ICZM initiative (the TERRA project Algarve-Huelva).

33

5. SHORT SEA SHIPPING (SSS)

5.1 Introduction

The promotion of environmentally friendly modes of transport and their effective integration in multi-modal transport chains and networks is a central objective of the Union’s transport policy. Short sea shipping, or intra-European shipping, can play a positive role in achieving this objective. It offers several advantages over other modes of transport such as lower energy consumption, reduced environmental impacts and greater cost-effectiveness of investments.

European geography offers a huge and currently under-used network of sea and river routes. It is expected that exploitating this potential would relieve congestion in other forms of transport. However, despite the increasing turnover in European ports, intra-European maritime traffic has not yet been able to demonstrate a distinctive increase in its market share vis a vis that of road transport, which is on the rise. So far the EU measures only encourage and promote short sea shipping. In the words of the Economic and Social Committee ‘It is practical solutions which are needed, not more declarations’. In order to relieve traffic congestion, specific measures on short sea shipping are needed.

Any policy will need to be sensitive to the environmental and economic tradeoffs of short sea shipping expansion. Growth is likely to bring many more jobs to coastal zones for ship building and administration. Proper design of policy can help to encourage measures that limit harmful effects of growth on the environment by, for example, encouraging new technologies and techniques. In many cases economic savings can be achieved at the same time as environmental ‘savings’ – a ‘win-win’ situation.

5.2 Cyclades

In small islands social and economic life depends to a large extent on sea transportation. Through the Transport and Energy Networks TENs policy, the EU has supported the establishment of marine transport infrastructure in many of the Cyclades islands. Although this was an absolute necessity from a socio-economic standpoint, its environmental effects have been rather poor.

The design and construction of port facilities has often created serious problems in disrupting the physical parameters of the marine and coastal environment, resulting in coastal erosion, sedimentation of the facilities themselves, and the disruption of important habitats. A lot of these side effects are due to the lack of an appropriate tool for environmental planning compatible with the needs of ICZM.

In addition to the infrastructure problems, the operation of an increasing number of vessels in the region seems to be the source of many environmental problems. Emissions in water and air, disturbance of coastal and marine habitats and the risks of accidents at sea are some of them.

34 5.3 Environmental impacts

Maritime transport has a much higher energy efficiency than other modes of transport with lower NOx and CO2 emissions than say, road and rail. SO2 emissions, on the other hand are significantly higher – a major problem which needs urgent attention. The death rate of maritime transport is also many times lower than for other forms of transport and shipping is virtually free of other detrimental effects such as traffic congestion and noise pollution. These benefits will be felt most by coastal zones where this results in reduced road traffic and road construction in and around coastal areas since roads often follow coastal plains.

Even where the benefits of a switch to short sea shipping are felt far from coastal zones, it is worth accounting for the global warming benefits of an increased use of short sea shipping. In an indirect way this will bring benefits to coastal zones which are the areas most vulnerable to global warming.

When assessing the environmental benefits of short sea shipping the environmental impacts of the initial and final legs of the journey should also be factored in and when feasible, priority should be given to intermodal co-operation with other environmentally benign modes – such as rail and inland waterways.

Aside from air pollution, ship-sourced pollution also includes accidental spills of fuel oil or cargo, oil and other waste products, leachates from anti-fouling paints and the introduction of alien species. In addition, port authorities have the power to dredge channels for navigation purposes, which can result in habitat loss. Also, ports frequently require substantial areas of land for berths and handling facilities, which also can claim land of high conservation interest.

However, there are ways in which habitat loss can be avoided. Better strategic planning and the introduction of new technologies or working practices can decrease time individual ships spend in ports thereby reducing the need for larger berths. Some ports are currently operating at under-capacity and hence the expansion of shipping activities may not incur any additional impacts.

Where significant expansion of port facilities is required, an effective hub system can minimise environmental impact. The establishment of hub ports and the use of short sea shipping could mean that ports would not have to keep expanding and dredging even deeper channels. Increased use of inland waterways from hub to heart of the market could be a solution. But greater use of inland waterways would be likely to lead to increased demand for inland port facilities.

5.4 Barriers

The major barriers to the effective uptake of short sea shipping are:

• Lack of adequate infrastructure and efficiency in and around ports Turnaround delays, infrastructure constraints and non-transparent charges in some ports are a problem for SSS that need to be addressed. Member States should be encouraged to offer specialised services to SSS such as dedicated ports and to promote their usage, especially by promoting links with a combined transport network.

35 • Cumbersome administrative procedures Documentary and administration procedures are a barrier to better uptake of SSS. A study by the Commission found that in all cases the documentation required by road transport was less than in shipping. Procedures vary in Member States and the Commission should develop proposals to standardise these.

• Lack of fair competition between sea and land transport modes Short sea shipping needs to be able to compete on equal terms with other modes. This would be achieved through the internalisation of the external costs of land transport.

• Inadequate information and publicity about short sea shipping SSS can still be competitive within a considerable market segment, which would increase proportionally if it were used for shorter distances. The image needs to be changed. SSS should be perceived to offer speed, reliability, flexibility, regularity, frequency and cargo safety to the highest degree. A lot of potential users are insufficiently aware of the services available.

• Need for advanced technologies Special attention must be given to new types of ship technologies for rapid loading/trans- shipment in ports; and electronic data interchange.

Most of these issues have received attention by the Commission through support for pilot projects and research programmes, which are listed in the Box below, but there is a need for concrete policy measures to move things forward. These projects can provide the lessons necessary for policy making. Short sea roundtables or corresponding consultative structures have been or are about to be set up in most Member States having a coastline. They constitute a forum in which practical problems affecting short sea shipping and ports can be identified, addressed and solved. The Commission supports the efforts of the maritime industries, in particular within the structure of the Short Sea Panel, to further develop these roundtables.

5.6 Conclusions

Shifting goods transport from land to sea is a complicated task that will require a concerted effort and the backing of policy measures. To this end, the Commission needs to introduce measures that will liberalise intra-European sea transport and abolish excessive administrative requirements imposed on SSS. Short sea shipping can be promoted by balancing the price advantages and subsidies enjoyed by road and rail transport and by eliminating obstacles and hindrances which render SSS more costly and/or more time consuming.

The suggestions for action made by the Commission need to be translated into policy, which will provide short sea shipping with the backing it requires. In the meantime the EU should be giving greater emphasis to SSS in the Trans-European Networks Programme. Any policy needs also to differentiate between Member States needs, recognising that some Member States stand to benefit more than others from short sea shipping development.

36 Description of the EU programmes and studies

Short Sea Shipping in the specific Transport Research Programme under the 4th Framework Programme for Research and Development

Priorities are: • the improvement of direct information and communication links between the different participants in the transport chain; • the improvement of the efficiency of ports as interfaces between land and sea transport; • fast waterborne transport; • new potential short sea trading routes; and • development of the cargo ‘black box’ to be used for the tracking and tracing of vessels and cargo to facilitate administrative procedures.

Short Sea Shipping in Other Commission Research Programmes under the 4th Framework Programme for Research and Development

The Brite/Euram programme in the 4th Framework Programme created six thematic networks focused on technologies for fast ferries and different aspects of fast, efficient, safe and environmentally friendly shipping technology.

Projects Relating to Short Sea Shipping Supported under the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT) between 1995 and 1998 Projects undertaken in various ports, focus on: • improving facilities for multi-modal transport, including conducting feasibility and viability studies; • initiating new routes; • forging new partnerships.

Short Sea Shipping Feasibility Studies Supported with DG VII Co-Financing

Studies for establishing for example: • sea-river links; • improving short sea services; • investigations into market potential in several EU Member States.

Relevant EU Legislation and Initiatives

• The freedom to provide international maritime transport services in the Community is laid down in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) 4055/86 (OJ L378, 31.12.86, last amended by OJ 030, 31.01.87, OJ L93, 07.04.87, and OJ L117, 05.05.88)

• Council Regulation (EEC) 3577/92 removes legal constraints which have prevented competition for maritime transport services within EEA States.

• The Commission adopted in 1997 a Communication on intermodality COM((&)243 final, 29.05.97. The Communication aims to develop a framework for better integration in intermodal transport chains and better management of supply chains.

• The Commission adopted in 1997 a Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure which aims at better integrating ports in the intermodal transport chain as well as guaranteeing free and fair competition in and between ports.

37 38 6. HABITATS DIRECTIVE 92/43

6.1.Introduction

The Habitats Directive is a good example of an EU policy whose impact on the ground has been determined principally by the action (or inaction) of Member States or regional authorities. Firstly, it effectiveness in protecting species and habitats has so far been limited by the failure of all Member States to respect its timetable for the designation of candidate SACs - and especially marine SACs. However, it is clear that a start has been made in tightening the protection of species and habitats, and the Wadden Sea provides examples. But it is also arguable that the design of the Directive is at fault in so far as the requirements of the Directive in relation to balancing social, economic and environmental considerations are not clear, leaving scope for inappropriate national and local interpretations of the role of environmental protection in achieving sustainable development.

6.2 Wadden Sea

The Habitats Directive, together with the Birds Directive, together have potentially a very important influence on the management of fisheries in the Netherlands. Both Directives are steering development into a more habitat-friendly direction, e.g. with regards to tourism development. A study for the Waddenvereniging (1997) reports two cases where engineering projects have been stopped in Administrative Courts based on Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive. These set out procedural and substantive safeguards to be applied whenever a proposed plan or project poses a potential threat to the ecological values of a Natura 2000 area. In case 1 the Administrative Court in Oldenburg (FRG) decreed that the strengthening and raising of the seawall between Cäciliengroden and Dangast (in the Jadebusen) should be stopped because the project proponents did not demonstrate ‘an imperative reason of overriding public interest’ (June 1996). In case 2 the Administrative Court in Leeuwarden (NL) suspended a project for large-scale gas drilling because the EIA performed with respect to the project did not meet the criterion of ‘an appropriate assessment’ found in the Habitats Directive.

The European Commission has taken the Dutch Government to the European Court of Justice for alleged infringements of the Habitats Directive resulting from the current fisheries management system in the Dutch Wadden Sea. If the case is upheld, there could be serious consequences for (shell) fishing and its management in the Wadden Sea. It would force the Dutch government to impose much stricter fishing regulations, which would have to be policed heavily; and it could negatively affect the willingness of the fishers to enter into new co-management systems. It might also have repercussions in the other two Wadden Sea countries where (shell) fishing restrictions might have to be tightened up.

The limitations of the Habitats Directive as regards the balance between environmental protection and economic development is well illustrated in the Isle of Wight.

39 6.3. Isle of Wight

Article 2(3) of the Habitats Directive asserts that

‘Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements, and regional and local characteristics’.

The significance of this provision is not clear, and there is some dispute about whether it should influence not only the decision-making process in relation to the management of SACs once they are designated, but also the process itself of designating SACs. The Isle of Wight Council claims the latter, and has opposed the extent of English Nature’s (the government nature conservation agency) two proposed marine SACs around the Island. Proposed SACs, and SPAs under the Birds Directive, cover most of the coastline of the entire island.

English Nature, with the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, argues that following the July 1997 ECJ case relating to the designation of an SPA at Lappel Bank in Kent, it is clear that socio-economic considerations cannot be allowed to influence the designation or boundaries of an SPA - only, in restricted circumstances, subsequent management arrangements. (However, this was a judgement in relation to the Birds Directive and not the Habitats Directive: the two differ in their treatment of socio-economic factors).

The UK Government has also gone further than the Habitats Directive explicitly requires in requiring any SAC proposed to the Commission (but not yet formally accepted by the Commission) to be treated as though it were already an SAC. English Nature has adopted what the Isle of Wight Council considers an inflexible attitude in opposing even minor developments within the boundaries of the two proposed marine SACs, and there is great concern that this could affect the future economic development of the Island, one of the poorest parts of the UK. In effect, the lack of clarity concerning Article 2 (3) has enabled English Nature to override normal UK land-use planning rules where planning decisions are made by balancing all material considerations. This has alienated many coastal interests in the Isle of Wight and Solent and appears to be contrary to the need for an integrated approach to coastal zone management.

6.4 Kent - Thanet coast.

More positive steps towards the integration of the needs of nature conservation and economic development are being taken in the Isle of Thanet, Kent, with the financial support of the Thanet Objective 2 programme.

The District is one of the most economically backward in England, despite its proximity to London. The primary concern of the local administration is to boost economic development, particularly through the development of the tourism base. However, The Thanet Coast is an important natural resource for geological features, unusual assemblages of marine plants and animals associated with the chalk reefs and cliffs, and large numbers of overwintering coastal birds, as well as populations of breeding little tern. Parts of the coast are designated as an SPA under the Birds Directive, and a Wetland of International Importance under the RAMSAR Convention. Moreover, it is a candidate marine SAC under the Habitats Directive on the basis of the richness of marine life associated with chalk caves and cliffs. The SPA

40 and SAC overlap geographically and form a single marine site stretching for 28 miles along the coast and approximately 2-4 kilometres out to sea.

Using financial support from the ERDF under the Thanet Objective 2 programme, the Kent Team of English Nature has launched a ‘consensus building’ exercise with key local stakeholders in order to reach agreement on a future statuary management scheme for the European marine site. The objective is to ensure that the maintenance of features of European importance is integrated with socio-economic and cultural factors so that the coast can be used in a sustainable way.

41 7. RENEWABLE ENERGY

7.1 Introduction

The 1997 Commission White Paper A Community Strategy and Action Plan: Energy for the Future:Renewable Sources of Energy (COM(97) 599) set an indicative target of 12% for the contribution of renewable sources of energy (RES) to the EU’s gross inland energy consumption by 2010. Currently the figure is about 6 %. In the UK and the Netherlands, it is as low as 0.06%.

The White Paper proposed that this target should be reached by:

• legal regulation, to create favourable market conditions for the development of RES; • increased funding for RES under national and EU programmes.

The Commission’s proposed strategy was endorsed by EU Energy Ministers in June 1998, when they described the 12% indicative target as ‘reasonable and achievable’. It has thus become an EU policy commitment.

The importance for coastal zones of an expansion of RES lies principally in the development of offshore wind power. Large-scale offshore windfarms are already being sited off the coast of Denmark, adjacent to protected biodiversity sites (see below). In other locations, noise and visual intrusion may interfere with the development of the tourism industry. On the other hand, the construction of wind turbines creates important employment opportunities. It is therefore important that the development of wind power is carefully integrated with other potentially conflicting policies along the coast.

The full impact of the EU’s support for RES has yet to be felt in the Member States, for detailed EU measures to take the strategy forward are still under development. A draft framework to co-ordinate EU, national and private sector funding for large-scale renewable energy projects was launched in May 1999 in an internal Commission Working Paper Campaign for Take-Off. The campaign seeks to boost total investment in renewables to 30 billion euros by 2003 as a contribution to reaching the EU target of 12% by 2010. One-third of this sum is targeted at wind energy, for which an indicative target of 10,000MW of new wind turbine capacity has been set for 2003. Other targeted sectors are solar energy and biomass.

Most of the funding (23 billion euro) is expected to come from the private sector, 6 billion euro from Member States, and the remainder from EU sources, including the Structural Funds, research and development funds, and the ALTENER II programme. The Commission is also to launch a programme to assist 100 local communities to become 100% reliant on renewable sources.

Member States are expected - but not obliged - to reflect the indicative sectoral targets in national strategies for encouraging renewables. However, the setting of obligatory national minimum shares for renewables has also been proposed by the Commission as part of a separate draft Directive on the liberalisation of the EU electricity market. The draft Directive would create a new framework of rules for renewable energy support in the Member States. This is controversial and the subject of intense negotiation.

42

7.2. Storstrom

The EU’s policy in support of RES has therefore had little impact so far in coastal areas. However, its influence is likely to grow, and current experiences in Storstrom, Denmark are possible pointers to the future.

In April 1996, the Danish Government published an energy action Plan entitled Energy 21. This proposed that wind power should provide 50 per cent of Denmark’s electricity needs by 2030 with a total capacity of 5500MW - a huge increase from the 1996 share of only 3.7%. A draft parliamentary bill published in early May 1999 aims to encourage the development specifically of offshore wind energy by combining competitive bidding for generation licences with an indirect subsidy through a ‘green certificate’ market.

By 2008, an additional 150MW of offshore turbines will be built in each of five marine sectors to explore the ‘environmental, technical and economic perspectives’ of their potential for exploration. One of these sectors is west of Lolland, where there is already a significant offshore wind farm. The expansion of this wind farm could threaten Naksov Fjord, where there are several Special Protection Areas for birds. The indirect pressure for expansion of wind generation in this area is also increased by the Objective 2 Structural Fund programme for Lolland, which supports the manufacture of large windmills in the declining shipbuilding town of Naksov itself. A key challenge in west Lolland, therefore, is to ensure that the future expansion of offshore windpower is managed and sited so as to cause minimal harm to biodiversity, and to local tourism. Tourism initiatives are also supported through the Objective 2 programme, together with the Objective 5b programme for the Danish Islands.

The threatened conflicts in Lolland between offshore wind power, biodiversity and tourism spring from the policy of the Danish Government rather than that of the EU, since Danish policy in respect of RES is considerably more advanced than the EUs. However, conflicts such as this along other coastal areas in the EU are likely to increase in future if a Directive is agreed which sets minimum national targets for RES.

43 8. EU ENLARGEMENT

8.1 Introduction - Latvia and Lithuania

The Latvian and Lithuanian projects are the only two in the ICZM Demonstration Programme to be undertaken in Accession States. EU legislation therefore does not apply in these countries, and so cannot yet have a direct effect on their coastal areas. However, both countries are recipients of projects funded by the EU’s PHARE programme or by other international donors, many of which are focused on encouraging the pre-accession approximation of Latvian and Lithuanian legislation and administrative arrangements towards those of the EU. The ICZM projects themselves are financed through the PHARE programme and the World Bank.

From the point of view of EU policies, key considerations are:

• the extent to which EU-supported approximation activities in Latvia and Lithuania have taken account of the needs of integrated coastal zone management; • the extent to which the ICZM projects themselves have taken account of the future requirements of EU legislation as it affects the coast.

The desire for accession in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe gives the European Commission some considerable leverage in respect of future policy developments. For example, there is considerable scope for ensuring that the future transposition and implementation of particular items of EU legislation in Latvia and Lithuania are mutually consistent and integrated as they apply to the coast. For example, the costs of implementing the Bathing Water and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives could be reduced, and their effectiveness enhanced, by considering their implementation together. Similarly, the future implementation of the Habitats and the Nitrates Directives could each be made more effective by considering their application in tandem.

A further reason for reviewing these projects from the point of view of EU policy is that they are one of only four sets of projects out of 35 which are transboundary i.e. they are physically linked, at the Latvian/Lithuania border at Rucava/Butinge. An important feature of ICZM is the need, where necessary, to integrate policies affecting common coastlines across national boundaries, and therefore experience across the Latvian-Lithuanian border is instructive.

8.2 Approximation and ICZM

There has been no co-ordinated study within either project of EU requirements or of the relationship of the projects to the approximation programmes in Latvia or Lithuania. Some EU requirements are mentioned in passing in the project reports, but this discussion is not developed and approximation is not made the focus of the overall plan. The future relevance to ICZM of a number of key EU Directives is examined below.

44

• Bathing Waters Directive

Little consideration has been given to the details of the Bathing Waters Directive within the projects. There is no overall analysis, for example, of how bathing water quality compares to EC standards nor of the levels of resort usage in Latvia and Lithuania which would require them to be designated as bathing waters under the Directive. The pattern of bathing resort use is quite different between the two countries. Lithuania has a small coastline and much of the resort use is concentrated into the major town of Palanga. This draws many visitors from the whole country (and increasingly again from Russia). The Latvian coast, by contrast, is very long and the main resort area, Jurmala, is situated close to Riga in the centre of the Gulf of Riga, and outside the area of the coastal zone project. Important resorts do exist on the Baltic coast (e.g. Liepaja), but these do not, and would be unlikely ever to, receive the levels of usage common in the neighbouring Lithuanian resort.

It is clear that there are some problems with bathing water quality on both the Latvian and Lithuanian coasts. For example, bathing was suspended recently in Liepaja due to high microbiological contamination, e.g. in 1996 E. coli counts exceeded EC limit values. Bathing is also generally suspended within the Curronian Lagoon in Lithuania (although this does not deter all bathers) due to the presence of a range of contaminants. Where local microbiological contaminants are a problem solutions are likely to be found with the recent and proposed constructions of tertiary waste water treatment facilities (see below). However, this may not be sufficient for the Curronian Lagoon receiving water from the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia.

The Latvian government has recognised the need for action to consider EC requirements for bathing resorts. The Ministry of the Environment and Regional Development has proposed two projects (one within the area of the coastal project at Ventspils) to ensure that the resort qualifies for “ blue flag” status. It is also preparing a directory for enforcement and planning authorities to improve bathing water resort conditions entitled “ Arrangement and Running of Bathing Resorts According to EU Regulations” . A similar objective of achieving “ blue flag” status is set out in the Lithuanian plan for Karkle.

• Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

The discharge of poorly treated waste water to the Baltic coast of Latvia and Lithuania has been of concern for many years. The patterns of discharge are, however, significantly different between the two countries. Each has coastal towns which provide important point sources. However, the quantity of discharge from receiving catchments varies. The Latvian coast (as defined in the project) only discharges water from small rivers (Abava and Venta) with a catchment covering western Latvia and north-west Lithuania. However, the Lithuanian coast is the recipient of discharge from the River Nemunas (into the Curronian Lagoon) which runs the length of Lithuania from northern Belarus (with significant tributary rivers) collecting waste water from Vilnius and Kaunas and forming the northern border of Kaliningrad. About 35 towns and cities with a population greater than 10,000 occur within the catchment in Lithuania and the project plan makes specific reference to the need to improve treatment facilities within specific towns in the inland catchment area.

45 Neither of the project reports refer to the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It is also clear that implementation of this Directive is potentially extremely demanding of financial resources. Implementation requires both an efficient means of collection of waste water and the appropriate means of treatment. In general waste water collection is more comprehensive in Latvia. This is largely due to infrastructure investment before World War II. However, both countries suffer from the effects of a highly dispersed rural population with poor waste water facilities. These are not themselves covered by the Directive, but could be important in some areas.

There are few towns and cities on the coast which are large. Indeed, in some areas population is declining. However, the following towns are of sufficient size to be considered relevant in implementation of the Directive for potential tertiary treatment:

Latvia: Liepaja: 115,000 inhabitants Ventspils: 44,000 inhabitants

Lithuania: Klaipeda: 202,000 inhabitants Palanga: 22,000 inhabitants

National and bilateral investments to improve waste water treatment has been extensive and rapid, and it is likely that on accession, both countries will comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in terms of direct coastal discharges. However, problems arising from poor waste water treatment may persist due to unimproved conditions in Kaliningrad or, in the rivers, from possible discharges in Belarus. The project sets objectives for seeking agreements with Russia on pollutant discharges. Currently a national agreement exists between Kaliningrad and Lithuania and also an agreement between Kaliningrad and Klaipeda County. These cover issues such as co-operation, co-ordination and nature protection. While Kaliningrad is responsive to the need for interaction, there are problems with implementation.

• Nitrates Directive

The projects do not provide a consideration of this Directive, although it is under discussion at government level. However, it is important to note that nitrate pollution is a general problem within the Baltic Sea and, more specifically in the Curronian Lagoon.

The degree of fertiliser use by agriculture has declined markedly in Latvia, Lithuania as well as in Kaliningrad and Belarus. This has been due to the break-up of the large Soviet state collective farms, and the closure of many large intensive cattle farms which often allowed ingress of dung into nearby water courses. However, algal blooms still occur in the Lagoon and environmental problems are not solved. Other parts of the Baltic Sea coast also receive high inputs of nitrogen, e.g. the Baltic coast of Latvia received 13,610 tonnes of nitrogen in 1995.

Any consideration of the future implications of the Nitrates Directive would require an examination of the origins of nitrogen pollution in the coastal waters. This would need to take account of the benefits of waste water treatment improvements and transboundary

46 impacts from Kaliningrad. The potential effects of resuspension of nutrients from sediments within the Curronian Lagoon would also need to be considered.

• Birds and Habitats Directives

These two Directives set specific requirements for the establishment of protected sites based on detailed criteria contained within them. These have not been transposed into laws in Latvia or Lithuania and any provision to do so would require amendment of the annexes to take account of habitats and species of European importance that exist within these countries (along with those in other accession states). However, it is clear that the areas within the coastal projects contain important nature conservation resources which deserve and receive significant protection.

A large number of protected areas occur on the Latvian coast. In some pagasts (local administrative units) these may take up a large proportion of the land area and so may, in future, pose significant constraints on development planning. At present there is no environmental protection policy aimed specifically at the coast and the protected areas fall within a national framework. While Latvia is still establishing protected areas, those within the scope of the coastal project have been completed. The protected areas include specifically coastal habitats (e.g. dune systems) as well as inland habitats, especially some forested sites. It is also important to note the nature conservation importance of the low-intensity agriculture of the area and the threat posed by potential agricultural decline. The coastal plan has recognised action in two areas. Firstly there is a need to establish management plans for sites and criteria for threat management. Secondly there is also a need for public education on their importance and ways of linking this to economic development. This integrates nature protection into wider management concerns.

Given the small size of the Lithuanian coast it is important to note that a large proportion of it is protected for nature, landscape and cultural reasons. Thus 65 km of the 92 km of the outer Baltic Sea coast (i.e. not including the Curronian Lagoon) has a protected status. The importance of the coastal habitats was recognised in Lithuania’s 1998 Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan. The Curronian Spit and Lagoon is one of the most important nature conservation sites in the Baltic Sea. The Spit contains extensive and dramatic dune systems linked to important cultural assets. The Lagoon contains important wetland areas (Nemunas delta, including the polder system) and is an important site for migrating birds. Between Klaipeda and Palanga lies another important area of woodland and coastal habitats. This is a reversion from farmland during the German period and benefited from the presence of Soviet military forces which excluded other human activity. Part of it is a strict nature reserve. Monitoring protocols and management plans are being developed. Given the pressure on the Lithuanian coast it is not surprising that it is here that pressure on nature conservation sites is most acute. Some occurs within sites (e.g. erosion of fragile dune systems from the pressure of visitors), although more obvious pressures also exist. For example, the beach to the north of Klaipeda is designated for recreation and it is under threat from proposals to extend the port. The beach is, however, also an important site for migrating birds and loss of the beach might push visitors onto more sensitive sites within protected areas. This issue has yet to be resolved. It is also not clear what effect the pollution of the waters of the Curronian Lagoon has had. While ecological changes have taken place, many of these may have been due to over-fishing. Discharge of pollutants has certainly decreased and it is interesting to note the return of the white-tailed eagle to the area, a species

47 known, from Swedish studies, to be particularly sensitive to certain types of environmental pollution.

• Proposed Water Framework Directive

The proposed Water Framework Directive has not yet been adopted by the EU (see section 4.2). However, because of the far reaching consequences of some of its provisions, some comments may usefully be made about the potential impact of the proposal in Latvia and Lithuania in relation to coastal management.

The proposal requires action to be taken to achieve environmental quality objectives. Without detailed in situ assessments it is difficult to estimate what this might mean for the Baltic coast. However, it is currently unlikely that the water in the Curronian Lagoon would be classified as achieving “ good status” as defined in the proposed Directive. While some of the burden for dealing with this problem would fall to Lithuania, much of it would also require international action by agreement with the Kaliningrad Oblast.

The main consequence of the proposal would be to reassess administrative arrangements. While the proposal requires an integrated approach to river basin management, the implications for coastal management are less clear. Coastal activities affecting water quality would need to be addressed in any plan, but integrated coastal management should additionally consider non-water issues. The proposed Directive also links planning for coastal waters with river basin planning. This would be particularly helpful in Lithuania where the Nemunas basin is strongly linked physically with the Curronian Lagoon and activities within the catchment may affect coastal water quality. It should be noted that in Lithuania the Law on Protected Areas recognises the importance of catchments as a reason for site designation in its own right. The proposal also addresses the issue of river (including coastal) basin districts crossing national borders. There is no obvious physical reason that the northern Lithuania Baltic coast and the western Latvian Baltic coast could not be part of the same river basin district. However, for integrated coastal planning purposes (given the different land use patterns and national policy context) this may not be appropriate.

8.3 Transboundary issues

Despite the geographical contiguity of Latvian and Lithuanian projects, little consideration has been given to transboundary concerns.

It should be noted that most concerns would be likely to be expressed by Latvia over developments in Lithuania. The prevailing water current passes northwards along the coast from Lithuania to Latvia. At times concern has been expressed about discharges from Lithuania affecting marine water quality in Latvia. Most concern has been expressed over the development of the Butinge oil terminal in Lithuania, close to the Latvian border in relation to safety and management of potential accidents.

Given the tourist pressure on the Lithuanian coast and the relatively unspoilt nature of much of the Latvian coast it is surprising that little attention has been paid to the potential for tourist pressure to spread into Latvia. Planners in Klaipeda recognise the need for discussion with Latvia at a local planning level over issues such as the Butinge terminal and border tourist developments and suggest that a further level of working, i.e. a joint Latvian/Lithuania

48 experts group, would have been or could still be desirable. This could be facilitated by EU assistance.

8.4 Other developments in accession countries

No other ICZM projects have been included within the demonstration programme and they are not, therefore, included in the analyses presented here. However, it is important to note that other developments are taking place in accession countries which are relevant to ICZM.

The Government of Bulgaria has produced a draft Water Law, which is currently proceeding through the legislative processes of the country. The draft Water Law follows, to some extent, a French model for water management and proposes a management framework based on river basins (including the coasts), which may aid integrated coastal management more generally.

The draft Water Law defines waters to include ‘the waters of river outflows’ and ‘the internal marine waters and the territorial sea’. As with the French system and as with the proposed water framework Directive, management of coastal waters is included in river basin management units characterised by river catchments.

Three key principles are given for the adoption of river basin planning in Bulgaria:

• ‘The river basin is determined as the main unit for common management of the surface and ground waters, according to quantity and quality, in order to achieve sustainable water use and protection of the waters and water ecosystems; • Observing the principle of solidarity and the common social interest, through ensuring co- operation at all levels of management; • Application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle and other economic regulations during the use and protection of waters.’

Six river basin districts are proposed in the draft Water Law for Bulgaria. Two of these cover the entire coast:

Northeastern District. This centres on the town of Varna, containing the water catchment areas of the rivers in the Dobrudzha plane and Ludogorie, flowing into the Black Sea from the cape of Emine to the northern border, including the internal marine waters and the territorial sea.

Southeastern District. This centres on the town of Bourgas, containing the water catchment area of the River Tundzha, flowing into the Black Sea from the Cape of Emine to the southern border, including the internal marine waters and the territorial sea.

This development is also interesting in that it represent an approximation development (towards the proposed water framework Directive) which has distinct benefits for ICZM.

8.5 Conclusion

The Latvian and Lithuanian coastal projects have been successful in bringing together divergent issues representing national and local interests and formulating coherent integrated

49 coastal plans. This is especially difficult in newly independent countries undergoing enormous social and economic transition.

However, the projects do not address (except occasionally in passing) EU legislation or approximation to it. This reflects the important objective to establish locally based objectives covering all relevant coastal issues and not be deflected by considering the selective agenda which the EU environmental aquis would produce. However, it is now important for the products of the coastal planning projects to be fed into the approximation programmes in these accession countries.

A number of approximation programmes currently exist. These may have different funding sources (e.g. DISAE or World Bank) and co-ordination between these is not always satisfactory. It is also clear that the national Ministries find the value of the approximation programmes varies enormously, especially in relation to the ability of the national participants to steer the programmes to meet their own specific requirements. Approximation programmes should take the opportunity to seek to revise laws more generally within an entire sector rather than simple approximation to individual items of EU legislation. This is particularly important in the Baltic States which have been building up their own national laws ab initio since independence. General approximation strategies are being formulated. These would be more beneficial if linked to wider regional strategies, including those related to the coast.

Approximation is, understandably, focused heavily on the EU legislative acquis. The strategy in this regard is to increase the efficiency of approximation by linking items in the acquis together within approximation tasks. This is usually in a sectoral context, but may also take other forms.

The European Commission should take a more active role in promoting the objectives of sustainable development, not just in its own institutional reform, but in the major detailed activities of approximation. In particular non-binding policies, such as integrated coastal zone management, which aid sustainable development, require to be brought closer to the centre of consideration in approximation strategies, screening, etc. Such activities are more able to build on the good practices that do exist in the accession states, which is not always the case with the EU acquis, and may result in integrated environmental, social and economic policies which more clearly meet the requirements of these countries.

In the move to enlargement it is important for the accession states to establish policy frameworks, institutional arrangements, public involvement, etc, which will more clearly reflect the future objectives of the EU and not just the legislation which, by its nature, has been developed in older policy frameworks. This is not an easy task to achieve, but requires some flexibility and imagination on all sides which take a long term view of policy objectives in the enlarged EU alongside that of the ‘winning post’ of the date of accession itself.

50

SECTION 4

THE IMPACT OF FUTURE EU POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

51 SECTION 4: THE IMPACT OF FUTURE EU POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

4.1 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy

Introduction

EU Heads of government reached a political agreement on the Commission’s proposed Agenda 2000 package of reforms to the CAP and the Structural funds at the Berlin European Council on 25 March 1999. As regards the CAP, final Regulations still remain to be agreed by Agriculture Ministers, but the main features of the reform are clear. It is likely to make a significant contribution to the more sustainable development of agricultural coastal areas, for the following reasons:

• Phased cuts in support prices for cereals, oilseed, beef and dairy products should eventually reduce eutrophication and pollution in coastal waters through reductions in the application of fertilizers and pesticides;

• Environmental conditions are to be attached to all direct payments to farmers offered under the commodity regimes;

• Under the proposed Rural Development Regulation, for the first time co-ordinated, rural development programmes will apply throughout the EU’s territory;

• Also under the Rural Development Regulation, the coverage of ‘less favoured areas’ (LFAs) has been extended to include areas where environmental restrictions apply, and within these areas, payments may be made to farmers to compensate them for obligations imposed by EU environmental measures such as the Habitats, Nitrates and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directives.

However, considerable discretion is left to Member States over whether and how they take advantage of the new opportunities under the Rural Development Regulation, and so at this stage it is difficult to predict the precise impact on coastal zones.

Reductions in support prices

In the arable regime, the cereal price will be cut by 15% in total in two equal steps in the first two years, rather than by 20% as was agreed by Agriculture Ministers earlier in March. As a result, there could be problems of oversupply in cereals, so the ‘normal’ compulsory set-aside rate is to be set at 10% for the full six-year period. Oilseed payments will be cut to the same level as those for cereals, over three years. A new premium for grass silage will be available to those northern Member States who do not grow maize silage.

In the beef regime, there will be a phased 30% price cut, and compensation paid in the form of increased direct payments per head for beef cattle and suckler cows, plus a new slaughter premium and a revised exensification payment. A proportion of the beef sector compensation is to be paid as a lump sum ‘national envelope’ to Member State governments, for them to target as they wish within the beef sector.

52 In the dairy regime, the previously agreed phasing-in over three years from 2003, of a 15% price cut with partial compensation and a 1.5% across the board increase in quota for Member States, has been postponed to start in 2005. However some additional ‘special’ quota increases for a few Member States will be given in 2000.

Environmental conditions

Under the CAP ‘Horizontal’ Regulation, Member States are required to attach ‘appropriate’ environmental conditions to all direct payments offered under the commodity regimes, bearing in mind their particular environmental situation and the need to encourage farming which is compatible with environmental requirements. They also have the option of using ‘modulation’ - limiting payments in relation to farm size, farm profitability or farm labour use - to make savings from commodity payments, which can be reallocated to any of the new ‘accompanying measures’ in the rural development Regulation (i.e agri-environment, forestry, early retirement and Less Favoured Area supports). The precise effect of these provisions in coastal areas is impossible to predict, however, since a large measure of discretion is left to Member States and the Commission is not expected to insist on any minimum level of implementation. It is also important to recognise that environmental conditions cannot apply to unsupported farm sectors such as pigs, poultry and horticulture, where some of the most severe environmental risks are concentrated.

Rural Development Regulation

A key feature of the Agenda 2000 reform proposals is the establishment of integrated rural development as a ‘second pillar’ of the CAP, alongside traditional price supports and direct aids to farmers. The proposed Rural Development Regulation is a ‘hybrid’ measure which brings together a number of agricultural structures Regulations with Regulations on the CAP ‘accompanying measures’ (agri-environment, forestry, early retirement)and on Less Favoured Areas (LFAs). Member States will be required to put these measures together for the first time in territorially-based seven year plans, which in one form or another for the first time will cover the entire territory of the EU. Member States will have considerable flexibility in how they choose to implement the Regulation, and the geographical basis of such plans will vary.

However, in the new Objective 1 areas, rural development measures other than the new ‘accompanying measures’ (ie excluding early retirement schemes; less-favoured areas; agri- environment measures and afforestation) must be fully integrated into Objective 1 programmes. Where an Objective 1 area includes stretches of the coast, the programming approach should give considerable impetus to more integrated management, across separate administrative levels and sectors. In Objective 2 areas, Member States may if they wish integrate rural development measures other than the new ‘accompanying measures’ into their Objective 2 programmes.

Outside Objective 1 and 2 areas, rural development programmes will be put in place at the ‘appropriate’ geographical level, to be decided by each Member State. Each such geographical area should preferably be covered by a single rural development plan, but Member States are given the discretion of establishing several plans in each area, covering different sorts of measure.

53 Public participation in establishing rural development initiatives that affect the coast will be enhanced in Objective 1 areas through the application of the ‘partnership’ approach set out in the proposed Structural fund ‘framework’ Regulation (see section 4.2). Where rural development programmes are not integrated into either Objective 1 or 2 programmes, the formal partnership requirements set out in the Structural Funds framework Regulation do not apply. Nevertheless, consultation is required with ‘competent authorities and organisations at the appropriate territorial level’, as well as the economic and social partners.

Less-Favoured Areas and areas with environmental restrictions

EU measures such as the Nitrates, Habitats and IPPC Directives, which are in part designed to offset some of the damaging effects of agriculture, could be made more effective if farmers received some compensation for the costs they incur in implementing them. Indeed, Article 8 of the Habitats Directive holds out the prospect of some Community co-financing in acknowledgement that the burdens of habitat protection on agricultural land are unevenly distributed throughout the Community - but without indicating the source of such finance.

Additional compensation for farmers in areas suffering from specific agricultural handicaps has been available for some time under the Less Favoured Areas (LFA) Regulation. Now under the proposed Rural Development Regulation, the definition of LFAs is extended explicitly to include ‘areas with environmental restrictions’, within which farmers may receive compensation for assuring environmental requirements. In addition to this legal ‘horizontal’ provision, one of three specific categories of LFA - ‘areas affected by specific handicaps’ - is defined as those ‘where farming should be continued in order to conserve or improve the environment, maintain the countryside and preserve the tourist potential of the area or in order to protect the coastline’.

Under the Rural Development Regulation, the total combined area in any Member State of (a) LFAs designated due to specific handicaps and (b) areas designated for environmental restrictions may together amount to as much as 10 per cent of a Member State’s territory. This is a considerable increase compared with the current situation. In the EU as a whole, only 2 per cent of LFAs fall into the ‘specific handicaps’ category, and only 0.004 per cent in, for example, the UK. Some Member States (eg Denmark) currently have no designated LFAs but could well now designate areas where environmental restrictions apply.

However, it is not yet clear whether uniform criteria for the classification of ‘areas with environmental restrictions’ will be defined at EU level or left to individual Member States. This will have an important bearing on the precise impact of the new LFA provisions on sensitive coastal zones.

54 Timetable

Detailed implementing Regulations, including one for the Rural Development Regulation which explains how programmes must be put together and will be assessed, were agreed in mid 1999.

Member States then have until the end of 1999 to put together their proposals for territorial programmes for Rural Development, including agri-environment, forestry, early retirement, LFA and other rural development aids (eg training, diversification, village restoration, tourism and crafts, farm improvement and marketing and processing aids), for approval within six months by the Commission and the STAR Committee of Agriculture Ministry representatives from the Member States.

Member States also have until 1 January 2000 to consider and put in place their chosen mechanisms for implementing all other discretionary elements in the CAP package, including cross-compliance, modulation, national envelopes and beef extensification premia.

55 4.2 Reform of the EU Structural Funds

Introduction

The draft Structural Fund Regulations proposed for the period 2000-2006 reinforce the principles embodied in the 1988 and 1993 reforms - ie concentration on a limited number of priority objectives; partnership between key stakeholders; integrated programming; and additionality of Community assistance. A ‘horizontal’ requirement applying to all three of the new Objectives is that ‘the Community shall contribute to the harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, the development of employment and human resources, the protection and improvement of the environment, and the elimination of inequalities and the promotion of equality between men and women.’ Therefore, where eligible Objective 1 and 2 regions include coastal areas, the principles and provisions in the new draft Regulations should reinforce approaches towards integrated coastal zone management.

But the precise extent to which the new Structural Fund Regulations will in practice contribute towards ICZM clearly depends on how far coastal areas will be included in the new Objective 1 and 2 areas. Moreover, there is a high degree of subsidiarity in the new Regulations, and so the application of principles such as partnership and integrated programming, and the selection of specific projects, will ultimately be the responsibility of national and regional authorities.

Eligibility of Coastal Zones

Coastal zones are not explicitly recognised in the draft regulations as priority areas. Objective 1, to which almost 70 per cent of the total Structural Funds budget will be devoted, is focused, as now, on the poorest of the EU’s Member States and regions, with a GDP per head less than 75% of the EU average.

Objective 2 will cover four types of areas facing particular structural difficulties, as follows:

• areas suffering from socio-economic change in the industrial or service sector; • declining rural areas; • urban areas in difficulty; • depressed areas dependent on fisheries.

In each case detailed criteria are set out for determining eligibility, among which levels of unemployment are especially important.

Almost all future Objective 1 areas include significant coastal areas. As regards Objective 2, coastal areas per se, and islands in particular, rarely fall neatly into any one of the Objective 2 categories set out in the general ‘framework’ Regulation. However, several Member States will be given considerable discretion in identifying eligible Objective 2 areas because of the so-called ‘safety net’. This is the provision that the population in any Member State covered by Objective 2 should not be allowed to fall to less than two-thirds of the coverage during the 1993-1999 period. Some coastal areas - such as declining seaside towns, naval ports and islands - are therefore likely to be included, even if they do not satisfy precisely the detailed criteria set out in the Regulation.

56

Eligible Projects

The ERDF draft Regulation allows a wide variety of environment-related projects to be funded. Article 1 (‘Tasks’), states that ‘the ERDF shall...contribute to promoting sustainable development and the creation of jobs’. Article 2 (‘Scope’) develops this further. Included among the varieties of eligible measure is

‘the protection and improvement of the environment taking account of the principles of precaution and of preventive action in the support to [sic] economic development, and the fostering of clean, efficient utilisation of energy and the development of renewable energy sources’ .

As regards the Agriculture Fund (EAGGF), a variety of eligible measures ‘related to farming activities and their conversion, and to rural activities’ (our emphasis) is set out in Article 33 of the draft Rural Development Regulation. This wording makes it clear that, for the first time, they are not restricted to farmers. Measures potentially relevant to the management of coastal zones include:

- basic services for the rural economy and population; - renovation and development of villages and protection and conservation of rural heritage; - agricultural water resources management; - encouragement for tourist and craft activities; - protection of the environment in connection with land, forestry and landscape conservation.

The draft proposal on Fisheries Structural Measures defines specific measures which are to be eligible for aid under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and the EAGGF. Although similar in many ways to the existing Regulation, the proposal pays greater attention to environmental aspects and small-scale fisheries. Categories of eligible projects include:

• Protection of marine resources in coastal waters, aquaculture, fishing port facilities and processing and marketing - providing capital investment in production and management. In the area of ‘protection of marine resources in coastal waters’, aid can be offered for installation of fixed and mobile facilities to enclose protected underwater areas and scientific monitoring of projects.

• Among Other measures are:

a) collective schemes to promote and search for new markets for, and uses of, fish products, eg product labelling. Priority will be given to schemes, which inter alia, promote products obtained using environmentally friendly methods.

b) collective schemes undertaken by operators in the sector. These must be of a limited duration and can include management of fishing effort, implementation of technical conservation measures and promoting selective fishing gear and techniques.

57 c) specific schemes for the recovery of a species threatened with depletion (as established by scientific evidence).

Programming

Under the new Regulations, the principle of programming has been reinforced. In Objective 2 areas, ‘as a general rule’ Plans should cover NUTS level II regions, and include in one Plan measures relating to all four of the priorities described above - declining industrial, rural, urban and fisheries areas.

Moreover, for the first time, rural development measures will need to be put together in integrated plans and programmes. In Objective 1 areas, most rural development measures will need to be integrated into Objective 1 Plans. In Objective 2 areas, they ‘may’ be so integrated (see section 4.1). As a result, Structural Funds plans and programmes should resemble - even more than now - integrated spatial development strategies, bringing together measures across several sectors and levels of administration.

There is a danger, however, that operational programmes which are focused on spatial areas other than the coast (urban, rural areas etc) will not take adequate account of the specific requirements of coastal zones. One possible means of avoiding this is to include in Objective 2 plans an additional number of OPs which explicitly seek to link measures proposed in respect of industrial, rural, urban and fisheries areas, along alternative geographical or thematic lines.

Ex ante evaluation

In order to ensure that development strategies supported by the Structural Funds are compatible with the needs of sustainable development, an ex ante evaluation of the environmental situation of the region concerned will be required as a basis for preparing plans and programmes. The ex ante evaluation is to:

• describe - quantitatively as far as possible - the existing environmental situation; • assess the impact of the strategy on the environmental situation; • outline the arrangements for ensuring the integration of the environment into Structural Funds measures, and how far they fit with existing short- and long-term national, regional and local objectives; • describe the arrangements for ensuring compliance with Community rules on the environment.

This is an important provision of the Regulations designed to ensure that measures supported by the Structural Funds contribute to, rather than detract from, sustainable development. During the 1994-1999 programming period, ex ante environmental assessments were generally of a poor quality (if they were undertaken at all). For the next programming period, the Commission will need to be vigilant in ensuring that Member States take this requirement seriously.

Partnership and transparency.

58 The new draft Regulations include strengthened arrangements for participation in drawing up regional development plans and implementing Single Programming Documents. As the Commission notes in an Explanatory Memorandum, participation has so far been ‘very patchy’. As a result, in Objective 1 and 2 areas, both official and non-governmental environmental organisations should now be able to play a greater role in the use of the Structural Funds.

The partnership is to cover the preparation, financing, monitoring and evaluation of assistance in Objective 1 and 2 regions, and should include the Commission, the Member State, regional and local authorities, the economic and social partners and ‘the other competent bodies’. It is the responsibility of the Member State to identify the most representative organisations as partners, but the draft Regulation stresses that there should be as wide an association as possible, ‘including bodies active in the field of the environment and in equal opportunities’. A new requirement is that each of the partners will be required to give a formal opinion on the content of the draft regional development plans submitted by Member States to the Commission, which the Commission will take into account in negotiating CSFs and SPDs with the Member State.

Publicity and access to information

Requirements for publicity and access to information concerning the operation of the Funds have been strengthened. Monitoring Committees are to ensure that:

• adequate publicity is given to development plans; • potential final beneficiaries, trade and professional bodies, economic and social partners, bodies promoting equality between men and women, and NGOs are informed about the opportunities open to them under the SPD; • the general public is informed about the EU’s role in the assistance package; • the results of the ex ante evaluation is made available to the public on request.

Accessible information is a pre-requisite for participation, one of the essential planks of ICZM.

59 4.3 Structural Funds Guidelines 2000-2006

Guidelines from the Commission to Member States setting out the Commission’s priorities for how the Structural funds should be applied in the period 2000-2006 lend some indirect support to the elements of ICZM7. The Guidelines, first published in draft form in February 1999 are intended to steer national and regional authorities in the preparation of their Objective 1, 2 and 3 plans and programmes. They are to be published as a formal Commission Communication immediately following the recent publication of the new Structural Fund Regulations. They have no direct legal force, although Article 10(3) of the General ‘framework’ Regulation requires Objective 1,2 and 3 Plans to ‘take account’ of the Guidelines. What impact this imprecise requirement will have in practice depends both on the good will of the Member States and the political determination of the Commission to apply the Guidelines.

A further weakness of the Guidelines is that they focus on often imprecise objectives, rather than on the practical means to attain them. Thus, for example, emphasis is placed on ensuring the ‘synergy’ of the different Structural Funds in order to guarantee the effectiveness of their combined impact - without defining ‘synergy’ or how precisely it might be attained. There is therefore a danger that their impact on practice in the Member States will be limited.

Relevance to Coastal Zones

The draft Guidelines contain only one brief, explicit reference to ‘sensitive and coastal areas’. This says only that Structural Fund, and other sectoral, programmes are to ‘ensure the sustainable development of such areas’. Priority actions include reduction of pollution and rehabilitation of degraded areas; control of beach fronts, excavations and other activities altering water basins and the sea floor, and the conservation of natural habitats.

Although there is no explicit reference to integrated coastal zone management, the Guidelines support a number of elements contained within that concept.

• Support for sustainable development is identified as one of two ‘horizontal’ principles that should apply to all Structural Fund measures. ‘This means that environmental considerations, and in particular compliance with community environmental and nature protection legislation, must be incorporated into the definition and implementation of measures supported by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund’. Specific illustrations cited throughout the Guidelines include:

- priority assistance for compliance with environmental standards established in the relevant Community Directives, in particular with regard to water and waste management; - the requirement for Member State to put in place strategies for achieving sustainable transport systems; - an emphasis on support for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects;

7 The Structural funds and their Co-ordination with the Cohesion Fund: Draft Guidance for Programmes in the period 2000-2006 tabled by Mrs Wulf Mathies in agreement with Mr Flynn, Mr Fishler and Ms Bonino. Working Paper of the Commission , 2 February 1999.

60 - support for the development of ‘sustainable, quality tourism’, which ‘takes into consideration the carrying capacity of the site with regard to environmental, social and economic impacts’.

• The need for ‘integrated strategies for development and conversion which make the greatest possible use of synergies between the priorities and measures to realise a coherent vision..’ • The creation of a decentralised, effective and broad partnership, designed to increase the commitment of all involved at regional and local level.

In contrast to the cursory treatment given to coastal zones, an entire section of the Guidelines is devoted to urban and rural development and their contribution to balanced territorial development. Structural Fund programmes should include integrated urban development measures for the main urban areas in the region; and rural development strategies, complemented by help from LEADER+ aimed at developing new rural development models.

This emphasis on urban and rural development strategies poses a potential problem for integrated coastal zone management. Coastal zones are themselves either urban, rural or both, but at the same time encompass also marine areas. Thus there is a danger that development strategies for urban and rural areas on the coast might preclude or contradict ICZM approaches.

61 4.4 Draft Water Framework Directive

Introduction

The proposed Water Framework Directive (COM(97)64, COM(97)614, COM(1998)76 and COM(1999)271) provides the basis for an overall management framework for surface (including estuarine and coastal) waters and groundwaters. The proposal has some of the most far reaching implications of any item of EU environmental legislation, and it is likely that it will form one of the major legal stimuli to integrated planning, both coastal and inland.

The preamble to the proposed Directive emphasises its importance in stimulating dialogue with other Community policy areas - especially agricultural policy, regional policy and fisheries policy - on a sustainable water policy. An integrated and comprehensive view of ecological quality should provide a stronger basis for assessment of the relationship of ecological quality with other policy areas, which is not possible under the fragmented environmental legislation currently in place in respect of coastal waters.

The preamble also notes that the planning framework required by the proposal will 'bring an important contribution to implementing the main principles and objectives of the European Spatial Development Perspective'.

The proposal is currently under intense debate within Community institutions. Proposed amendments have been extensive within both Council and Parliament. It is not practical to consider all the consequences of different amendments, so this section focuses on the implications of the Commission proposal itself. Its main focus on ecological quality for coastal waters and the use of integrated management plans is, however, not controversial.

Objectives

The purpose of proposed Directive is set out in Article 1:

‘to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface water, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which: a. Prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystem directly dependent on the aquatic ecosystems; b. b. promotes sustainable water use based on a long term protection of available water resources; bb. aims at enhanced protection of the aquatic environment through specific measures for the progressive reduction of hazardous substances based on prioritisation of those of greatest concern; c. contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.’

In respect to coastal zone management, the key elements of the proposal are:

• Establishment of River Basin Districts (including estuaries and coastal waters); • Characterisation of River Basin Districts by ecology, geology, hydromorphology, demography, land use, economic activities, etc; • Identification of historical trends in water quality and use;

62 • Assessment of water quality, quantity, status and monitoring; • Identification of point and diffuse sources of pollution and other anthropogenic influences; • Meeting the requirements of Protected Areas; • Developing a programme of measures to achieve objectives in each River Basin District.

The environmental objectives are set out in Article 4:

'Member States shall draw up and make operational within a comprehensive River Basin Management Plan the programmes of measures envisaged as necessary, in order to: a. prevent deterioration in status of surface waters and - restoring surface waters with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 31 December 2010.....’

Surface Water

The proposal divides surface waters into a selection of categories. Two are inland (lakes and rivers); the remainder relate to the coast. These are:

• Estuaries (which are sometimes referred to as 'transitional waters', based on an assessment of the halocline); • Coastal waters; • Territorial waters (likely to be deleted in any final adopted text); • Marine waters (likely to be deleted in any final adopted text).

The specific definitions for estuaries and coastal waters are as follows:

Article 2(4): '"Coastal water" means water on the landward side of a line every point of which is at a distance of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate in the case of watercourses, up to the outer limit of the estuary.' COM(97)49.

Article 2(5): '"Estuary" means the transitional area at the mouth of a river between surface fresh water and coastal waters. The outer (seaward) limits of estuaries shall be defined, as necessary, by Member States. The inner (upstream) limit shall be the fresh water limit.' COM(97)49.

Coastal waters are defined using a universal distance calculated from the shoreline. ‘Estuaries’ are defined more vaguely and this is largely left up to Member States. This is, perhaps, necessary given the wide variety of estuary morphologies and the need to take account of their relationships with either rivers or adjacent coastal waters.

River basin planning

The basic management unit to meet the requirements of the proposed Directive is the River Basin District. This is defined as 'the administrative area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with their associated groundwaters and coastal waters'. The structural focus for river basin planning are inland river basins. Coastal waters will be assigned to the nearest or most appropriate River Basin District.

The proposal does not, therefore, envisage entirely separate River Basin Districts for the coastal zone. However, the proposal allows the administrative division of a River Basin

63 District into sub-basins. Some regions of the coast may be most practically (and also in terms of achieving environmental objectives) administered as part of river catchments - particularly where rivers discharge into large estuaries and related coastal areas. However, other regions of the coast may be more practically administered, separately, as sub-basins.

Each River Basin District is to produce a River Basin Management Plan. These plans are required to provide a range of information for the District. The following are relevant to coastal zones:

• Geographical and geological characteristics; • Hydrological characteristics; • Demographic information; • Land-use and economic activity; • Point sources of pollution; • Diffuse sources of pollution; • Other anthropogenic influences; • Economic information (values, prices, costs, including historical trends, investments and forecasts divided by households, industry and agriculture) for collection and discharge of waste water; • Register of protected areas (EC, national and local designations), covering sensitive waters (e.g. nitrates, bathing waters, etc.) or nature conservation; • Details of monitoring regimes for ecological and chemical characteristics and for protected areas.

Some of these characteristics are already covered by existing Directives (eg identification of protected areas). However, it is the linking together of a wide range of environmental issues with economic activity to provide an integrated management plan which is the radical departure for this proposed Directive.

Administration

A competent authority has to be identified by each Member State as ultimately responsible for delivering the overall objectives of river basin planning. However, the role of such an authority may vary from having a geographicaly specific responsibility limited to the co- ordination of existing administrations, to being a major centralised national agency. At the very least, there will be a need for close co-ordination between river basin management plans and

• Regional/local land-use plans • EU Structural Fund plans and programmes • Rural development plans and programmes • SAC management plans under the Habitats Directive.

In most member States, these are (or will be) the responsibility of different agencies and levels of government; are developed according to separate timetables; and involve the participation of different sets of stakeholders.

64 For the coastal zone, river basin management planning should stimulate greater co-ordination between relevant authorities and interests. It is possible in some Member States that administrative reform may result, thus aiding integration.

Conclusion

The proposed water framework Directive would not result itself in the introduction of integrated coastal management. However, it would certainly integrate some elements of coastal planning and could stimulate further consideration of the issue of integration.

The planning implications of the proposal will largely be determined by the type of competent authorities that a Member States chooses in relation to the coastal zone. If river basin management is divorced from local government and its land use planning responsibilities (eg by being undertaken by national agencies), it may not stimulate further integration. Co-ordinated action by a range of institutions could, however, stimulate integration.

65 4.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a procedure that attempts to assess systematically the environmental impacts of decisions made at the level of policies, plans and programmes (PPP). Its aim is to ensure the proper integration of environmental considerations at an early stage in the development of PPPs, and that key decisions are not taken which pre-empt subsequent environmental impact assessments (EIA) of projects which implement such PPPs.

The European Commission has proposed the establishment of a system of SEA at EU level in its Proposal for a Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (COM(96)511; COM(99)73). The proposal would establish only a general framework which would leave considerable discretion to Member States. Nevertheless, it is controversial and has yet to be discussed by the Council, even though it was formally proposed three years ago. However, if it were eventually to be adopted it would represent a significant contribution to integrated coastal zone management.

The proposal applies only to plans and programmes - and not policies, which are considered too general to be subject to assessment. It would require public authorities in the Member States to give more systematic consideration to the environmental impacts of public sector plans and programmes with a spatial dimension, and - crucially in the context of coastal zones - their ‘cumulative’, ‘synergistic’ and transboundary effects. Moreover, consultation of the public, environmental authorities and other relevant bodies at an early stage in policy making would be enhanced in all Member States. In this respect, the draft Directive would implement related provisions of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, signed at Aarhus in June 1998.

The proposal applies to public sector plans and programmes in spatially-significant policy areas which set the framework for future development consents for individual projects. Areas covered would include:

• transport (including transport corridors, port facilities and airports); • energy; • waste management; • water resource management; • industry (including extraction of mineral resources); • telecommunications; • tourism; • town and country planning or land use.

Note that agriculture, forestry and fisheries are not explicitly included, although they might be included in the ‘industry’ category.

The proposal would affect plans and programmes at Member State level and below. EU legislation and programmes are excluded, although national programmes prepared to implement relevant EU legislative obligations would be covered. Environmental assessments of all Commission proposals with significant effects on the environment are, however, promised in a Declaration attached to the Amsterdam Treaty.

66

Generally, ‘competent authorities’ responsible for developing plans and programmes in the above sectors would be required to carry out an environmental assessment before their adoption or submission to parliament.

The environmental assessment would comprise four stages:

• the publication of an environmental impact statement; • the consultation of environmental authorities and the public; • notification of the environmental authorities and the public of the adoption of the plan or programme; • an explanation of how the impact statement and consultations have been taken into account.

Environmental Statement

The environmental statement would include the following:

- the contents of the plan and its main objectives; - a description of the ‘zero option’ and any other reasonable alternatives; - the environmental characteristics of any area likely to be significantly affected, including designated areas such as those under the Birds and Habitats Directives; - any existing environmental problems relevant to the plan or programme and its reasonable alternatives; - the likely significant environmental effects of implementing the plan or programme, (including secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short- medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative) on human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage - as well as the interaction between these factors; - any alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan or programme which have been considered, and the reasons why they were not adopted; - measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and if possible offset any adverse effects of implementing the plan or programme.

Consultation and Participation

A copy of the draft plan or programme, and of the environmental statement, would be made available by the competent body to the environmental authorities, other relevant bodies, and to the public. Sufficient time would be provided for comments before the adoption or submission to parliament of the plan or programme.

It would be the responsibility of each Member State to:

- define the public, ‘taking into account the stage of the plan or programme in the decision-making process’; - identify the environmental authorities and other bodies to be consulted; - establish detailed practical arrangements for information and consultation.

67 It should be noted that in some cases public participation could be limited to discussions with major NGOs and interest groups, or to established local partnerships. Moreover, consultation would begin not at the initial stages of plan/programme development, but only after the competent authority had already chosen its preferred option.

The precise contribution of a future SEA Directive to ICZM would depend on the interpretation by Member States of these and several other discretionary provisions, including:

• Member States may decide, in advance, the types of plans and programmes which they intend to submit to SEA. They must communicate this list to the Commission, but the Commission would have no right in the Directive to demand its extension. • ‘Minor modifications’ of existing plans and programmes would require an environmental assessment only if Member States considered that they were likely to have ‘significant negative environmental effects’. The phrase ‘minor modifications’ is notoriously difficult to define. • Similarly, plans or programmes determining the particular use of ‘small areas at local level’ would only require environmental assessment where Member States considered that were likely to have ‘significant negative environmental effects’; • The level of information in the environmental statement need be ‘in such detail as may reasonably be required taking into account the level of detail in the plan or programme, its stage in the decision making process, and the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in that process’.

Unlike the proposed Water framework Directive, the draft SEA Directive is unlikely to be adopted in the near future. Despite the wide discretion it leaves to Member States, it is possible that some Member States will not lift their reservations to it unless it is downgraded from a Directive to a Recommendation. This would have no legal force.

68

SECTION 5

THE FUTURE CONTRIBUTION OF EU POLICIES TO ADVANCING ICZM

69 SECTION 5

THE FUTURE CONTRIBUTION OF EU POLICIES TO ADVANCING ICZM

1. Introduction

In seeking to encourage the further application of ICZM, the EU could choose to pursue one of two fundamentally different approaches. These are not, however, mutually exclusive, and an EU ICZM strategy might well incorporate elements of both.

The two approaches are:

• A commitment by the EU institutions and the Member States to ensuring that all existing and new EU policies with indirect effects on coastal zones and/or their management take greater account of the requirements of ICZM. At the very least this should mean that EU policies do not act as a positive barrier to ICZM, although in respect of several policies a more positive contribution could be expected.

• The development of policy instruments explicitly designed to require or encourage Member States to establish systems of ICZM. These might include the development of a legal instrument requiring Member States to establish systems of ICZM, either in relation to the entirety of the EU’s coastal zones, or selected parts of it. In addition, the EU’s financial support mechanisms might make the establishment of ICZM a more explicit priority.

The implications of these two approaches are examined below.

2. Contribution of sectoral EU policies to ICZM

2.1 Introduction

A significant contribution to advancing ICZM can be achieved by ensuring that the EU’s sectoral and other spatially-significant policies fully respect the environmental and economic needs of coastal areas, and the importance of more integrated approaches to their management. The task of ensuring that the design of EU policies and their implementation in the Member States contribute to, rather than detract from, the sustainable spatial development of coastal zones is a very large one, involving the simultaneous consideration of several dimensions.

A key element of ICZM is the need for the horizontal and vertical integration in coastal zones of spatially-significant policies. In respect of EU policies, this means that

• the overall objectives of sectoral policies as they are developed at EU level should take full account of requirements of each of the three ‘legs’ of sustainable development - ie protection and enhancement of the environment; economic development and social equity;

70 • the implementation of those policies by Member States in coastal zones should also - reflect the requirements of sustainable development, and - be integrated horizontally at the local level. This requires

• decentralisation to regional and local levels in the administration of EU policies, to enable horizontal integration to take place.

In addition, the key importance for ICZM of engaging the participation of a wide range of stakeholders requires that

• further opportunities should be sought in the design of EU policies to ensure greater consultation and participation in their local implementation.

Finally, the specific characteristics of coastal zones require greater consideration to be given to

• the differential spatial impact of EU policies; • the impact of land-based policies on the sea, and vice versa.

This is a very big agenda indeed. For this reason, it needs to be addressed through a conscious strategy, rather than be means of an ad hoc, policy by policy, approach. The ingredients of such a strategy are examined in more detail below.

2.2 Integrating the needs of sustainable development into EU policies

Article 6 of the Amsterdam Treaty has reinforced the obligation to integrate environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities. Considerable progress has been made in applying this principle through the so- called ‘Cardiff’ process begun at the European Council in Cardiff in June 1998. A number of ‘sectoral’ Councils are required to develop their own strategies for integrating the environment into future EU policies and to identify targets, timetables, and indicators for monitoring progress. Strategies from the agriculture, transport and energy Councils are to be presented to the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, with a further six to be presented in 2000 (including Fisheries) and in 2001.

The integration of the environment into EU and Member States’ sectoral policies would also be facilitated by early agreement to the proposed Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, and the implementation of the Declaration attached to the Amsterdam Treaty committing the Commission to undertake environmental impact assessments of proposals with significant environmental implications.

At Helsinki, EU Heads of Government are also likely to ask the Commission to develop an overarching EU-wide Sustainable Development strategy. However, little practical recognition has so far been given at EU level to the fact that integrating the environment into other EU policies is not necessarily the same as integrating the needs of sustainable development into those policies. Sustainable development requires equal consideration to be given to economic and social factors, as well as the environment. In this respect, Article 159 of the EU Treaty has been given less attention than Article 6. Article 159 requires that

71 ‘the formulation and implementation of the Community’s policies and actions and the implementation of the internal market shall take into account the objectives set out in Article 158 [ie reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas] and shall contribute to their achievement.’

Sometimes ‘win-win’ situations can be identified in which economic development, social equity, and environmental enhancement can be secured simultaneously – but sometimes there needs to be a trade-off. The debate concerning the implementation of the Habitats Directive on the Isle of Wight in the UK (see section 6.3 above) is concerned with whether and how such a balance can be achieved. The extent to which environmental requirements have to be compromised depends on whether a ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ definition of sustainability is adopted (‘strong’ sustainability sets overarching environmental objectives which other sectoral policies are required to respect).

The new President of the European Commission, Sr Prodi, has established a new Commissioner group, chaired by himself, on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment and Sustainable Development. Among the first tasks of this Group should be to:

• consider whether the Cardiff sectoral strategies for integrating the environment take sufficient account of the wider needs of sustainable development; • ensure that a future EU Sustainable Development Strategy takes forward the approach set out in the European Spatial Development Strategy of developing integrated spatial development strategies for securing the sustainable development of environmentally- sensitive areas such as coastal zones.

2.3 Integrating the regional dimension into EU policies

The objectives of Article 159 quoted above are reinforced in the case (for example) of environmental policy by Article 174 (3), which states that the EU’s environmental policy

‘shall take account of, inter alia, the economic and social development of the Community as a whole, and the balanced development of its regions’.

The implications of both these Treaty articles have yet to be operationalised for environment policy, as indeed for several other sectoral EU policies. Examples include the common fisheries policy and trans-European transport networks. The possible incorporation of greater spatial differentiation into the design of EU policies to take account of the needs of particular areas such as coastal zones requires first of all a comprehensive review of the territorial impact of all EU policies. This is currently being undertaken by the Commission in association with Portugal in the framework of the ESDP. It should include coastal zones, but its geographical focus will need to extend beyond the ICZM Demonstration Programme projects.

To complement this review, the Commission should further develop the methodology of Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA), ensure that coastal zones are included as one of the spatial categories to be considered, and pilot it in the first instance to all Commission proposals with significant territorial impacts.

72 The incorporation of an element of spatial differentiation into the design of EU policies needs to be accompanied by an analysis of the scope for greater decentralisation in the implementation of those policies. As a number of the case studies show, some EU policies such as Trans-European Transport Networks and the Common Fisheries Policy are decided principally at EU level and provide little opportunity for coastal managers to integrate them into a coherent local strategy. By contrast, future opportunities for greater local decision making in the CAP have been provided by the Agenda 2000 reforms.

A review of the scope for greater decentralisation should focus on:

• whether greater decentralisation is possible for all or only some EU policies; • where decentralisation is theoretically possible, how this might be done - for example, whether decentralisation to a regional level should be compulsory or merely permissive for Member States, and the criteria on which regional boundaries should be decided. (Differences in regional boundaries, and the timing of the development of programmes, for different EU policies would not be conducive to greater horizontal integration in coastal zones of separate sectoral policies).

2.4 Integrating terrestrial and marine dimensions

The focus of the great majority of EU policies inevitably is terrestrial, since it is on land that most human activity occurs. As a result, the implications of these measures for developments beyond the low water mark has not received adequate attention, to the detriment of attempts to establish more integrated approaches to coastal management. Similarly, the on-shore implications of marine EU policies, such as those relating to fisheries and short sea shipping, have only recently begun to be given consideration. A continuing criticism of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) is its neglect of the marine dimension.

The problem has two aspects:

• there is a need for greater clarity in the design of EU legislation in respect of its applicability to the marine environment. Difficulties have arisen in relation to the geographical scope of both the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the habitats Directive. The contested question of whether the Habitats Directive applies out to the 200-mile limit has considerable implications for offshore oil and gas exploration, and related on-shore economic development.

• the impact of marine policies on land, and vice versa, needs to be given greater consideration in the development of EU policies. In the approach to the 2002 review of the Common Fisheries Policy, the question whether the temporary exclusion of territorial waters to the 12-mile limit from the equal access rule should be made permanent goes considerably beyond the exploitation of marine resources alone.

Initial steps towards greater terrestrial-marine integration have been taken with the requirement in the revised Structural Funds Regulations to co-ordinate support under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) with the structural instruments. The inclusion of coastal waters in the proposed Water Framework Directive will also require the greater co-ordination of land and sea-based policies in river basin management plans.

73 However, the practical implementation of these measures will require considerable guidance from the Commission.

2.5 Improved screening, monitoring and information/awareness programmes by the Commission

The decentralisation of Community policies is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for horizontal policy integration in coastal zones. In several of the demonstration project areas, the opportunity to seek to co-ordinate the local administration of those EU policies which already enjoy a measure of decentralisation (agri-environment measures; Structural Funds) has not been pursued.

This is partly a consequence of some lack of awareness in coastal zones of the local impact of Community policies, how they are administered, and what opportunities exist for local participation in their administration. The Commission should mount an information and awareness campaign on the significance of Community policies for coastal zones, possibly through the proposed ICZM Observatory referred to at 3.2 above.

In addition, in coastal areas eligible for support from the Structural Funds, the screening of draft SPDs by the Commission, and the monitoring of their subsequent implementation, should ensure that all opportunities to integrate national and local sectoral policies, and Community policies and programmes into a coherent spatial development strategy, have been pursued. The requirement for integrated development strategies has been included in the Structural Funds Regulations since 1989, but Member States have often not taken this seriously, nor has the Commission always had the capacity or will to ensure its application. Indeed, the Bantry Bay case study indicated that even some Operational Programmes financed by the Structural Funds can be mutually inconsistent. In the ESDP Action Programme 1999-2003, Member States have now agreed to incorporate ESDP guidelines relating to horizontal and vertical integration into Objective 1 and 2 SPDs, and the Commission should ensure during the screening process that they do.

2.6 Extending Participation

A fundamental feature of ICZM is that it should involve the active participation of all relevant stakeholders. EU policies could make a major contribution to extending participation in respect of measures affecting coastal zones, but there is currently a lack of consistency in the approach of EU legislation to this question.

The Structural Fund Regulations have played a major role in the EU’s eligible areas in extending participation by requiring plans and programmes to be developed by a broad partnership of relevant stakeholders, many of whom are given representation on Monitoring Committees. Although the implementation of this requirement has varied between Member States, nevertheless participation in the application of the Structural Funds in coastal zones as elsewhere has generally been greater than otherwise it would have been, and in some Member States (such as the UK) has contributed to the extension of the partnership approach in other areas.

The draft Water framework Directive requires Member States actively to encourage public consultation on draft river basin management plans. The EIA and IPPC Directives also

74 require the public to be given an opportunity to comment on, respectively, environmental assessments and applications for permits. However, these are exceptions, for most other items of EU legislation contain no requirement for public consultation beyond the simple provision of information (let alone active participation) in relation to proposed programmes or designations made by Member States in the implementation of EU measures.

The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Arhus Convention), which has been signed by the EU and all Member States apart from Germany, emphasises the importance of full public participation from the outset of the decision-making process, especially in relation to energy, metal production, mining, chemicals, waste management, large wastewater treatment facilities, intensive agricultural operations – categories which have a significant impact on coastal zones. In the light of the Arhus Convention, the Commission should initiate a horizontal review of all environment-related legislation with a view to including in such legislation requirements for Member States to make provision for the greatest practicable level of public participation.

3. Policies explicitly targeted at ICZM

3.1 An EU legal instrument?

Securing agreement to a legally-binding Directive requiring Member States to establish national systems of ICZM would face considerable practical, legal and political difficulties. The current approaches taken by different Member States to developments affecting the coast vary considerably, so that any Directive would need to be couched in the most general terms to secure agreement. This would inevitably reduce the practical impact of such a measure.

In addition, it is not clear which Treaty article could be used to agree a Directive on ICZM. The objective of securing the sustainable management of coastal zones, which seeks to integrate economic well-being, social justice and environmental objectives while encouraging greater public participation, goes beyond the scope of Article 175 (2) (formerly 130s (2)) – which makes reference to ‘measures concerning town and country planning, land use..and management of water resources’; and of Article 158 (formerly 130e) - which refers to the strengthening of economic and social cohesion. Article 2 (which establishes as one of the objectives of the Community the promotion of ‘a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities’) is a statement of general principles only and includes no reference to which legislative procedure should be adopted to advance the concept of sustainable development. (More generally, this will make it difficult to agree an EU-wide sustainable development strategy with legal status comparable to that of a future Sixth Environmental Action Programme).

Finally, Member States’ sensitivities on the question of subsidiarity have grown since the early 1990s, and the EU’s role in land-use and spatial planning remains contested. The continued opposition of some Member States to the principle of the Commission’s 1996 proposed Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is indicative of the likely reaction a proposed Directive on ICZM would meet.

In the circumstances, therefore, the time and resources that would need to be devoted to securing a legal instrument on ICZM could be better used through alternative avenues.

75 However, a strong steer from the top would still be a useful signal. This might be in the form of a Council Recommendation encouraging Member States to develop systems of ICZM, possibly agreed by a joint formation of the Council.

3.2 Interreg III

The encouragement of ICZM through the provision of EU financial support appears likely to be a more effective approach than seeking to develop a dedicated legal instrument. For the period 2000-2006, the principal instrument available for this purpose will be the INTERREG III Community Initiative focused on the development of cross-border, cross-national and inter-regional co-operation on aspects of spatial planning. The integrated management of coastal zones is only one of several priorities under INTERREG III, but it is given particular emphasis under Strand A (Cross border co-operation), to which between 50-80% of the INTERREG III budget is to be allocated (Euro 2423-3896 million). Under Strand C (Inter- regional Co-operation) further support is available to establish networks for the exchange of experience and good practice, and again, co-operation between coastal regions is highlighted.

INTERREG III will therefore be the principal source of finance supporting the follow up to the ICZM Demonstration Programme.

The co-ordination of coastal management policies across common borders should be given particular encouragement through a strengthened requirement for neighbouring regions and territories to produce joint strategies (‘spatial visions’) and programmes, implemented by joint administrative structures. Such strategies involving Member States situated around common seas (North Sea, Baltic, ArchMed, Atlantic Area etc) should encourage greater consideration of the interaction of currently separate management systems for maritime and land-based resources. A further advance on INTERREG II is the greater emphasis on encouraging wider participation by socio-economic actors, NGOs and academics in the development and management of joint programmes.

However, the following additional steps would help ensure that the potential of INTERREG III for advancing ICZM is fully realised:

• The final pattern of expenditure under INTERREG is ultimately dependent upon the nature of the proposals submitted by Member States and designated regional authorities. Greater representation of projects focused on coastal management could be secured through the establishment by the Commission of indicative allocations between priority areas within Strands to guide project submissions.

• In view of the innovative nature of INTERREG III, greater resources should be allocated in each programme to the publicity and dissemination of results, both among officials responsible for spatial and sectoral planning, and among the general public.

• An EU-wide ICZM Observatory should be established to act as a focal point for the collection and dissemination of good practice and advice in relation to ICZM, and to maintain the momentum of the ICZM Demonstration Programme. This could be established independently either under Strand C, or as a dedicated unit within the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON). Its relationship with the EEA’s Coastal and Marine Environment Topic Centre would need to be clarified.

76 3.3 Proposed Water Framework Directive

Although the EU’s proposed Water Framework Directive is not exclusively directed towards the establishment of systems of ICZM in Member States, it is included in this section since it will be one of the most important legislative stimuli in the EU to integrated planning, both coastal and inland. The main purpose of the measure is to prevent the further deterioration of water quality and aquatic ecosystems through the introduction of river basin management plans for river basin districts. Coastal waters will be assigned to the nearest or most appropriate river basin district, although they may be administered separately as sub-basins.

When the Directive is eventually agreed, it should enable a significant advance towards ICZM through:

• the requirement for integrated planning of all sectoral activities affecting water quality; • the establishment of a competent authority to facilitate such integration; • an extension of public consultation in relation to river basin management plans; • the requirement for cross-border management plans in relation to river basins that cross national frontiers.

The main driving force for the horizontal and vertical integration of policies affecting river basins (and associated coastal areas) is the river basin management plan. This must include a programme of measures to secure water quality objectives, and should include measures to implement a number of EU Directives covering water quality, industrial pollution and nature protection, and ‘supplementary’ national, regional or local measures. It should also include a register of any other plans and programmes within the river basin district covering particular areas, sectors, issues, or water types.

The production of river basin management plans should encourage better co-ordination between the local administration of separate items of EU legislation, and between other plans and programmes, including territorial development plans, Structural Funds SPDs, SAC management plans etc.

Several EU Member States have experience of river basin planning, but there is limited experience of including coastal zones within such systems (an exception, for example, is France). In particular, measures will need to be included in river basin management plans that regulate marine activities that could have a damaging effect on the ecological quality of coastal and estuarial waters. For any particular coastal zone, these might include the construction of coastal defences; dredging; aquaculture; inshore fishing; water-borne recreation; thermal discharges from power stations etc. To facilitate the implementation of the Directive, the Commission needs to produce detailed guidance to Member States - well before the deadline for submission of their river basin management plans - indicating how coastal zones should be treated in such plans, and the types of measures that will need to be included. Such guidance might be produced on the basis of a demonstration project financed under LIFE III in relation to ‘the development of Community environmental policy through new actions in this field (COM(1999)305, proposed Article 4.1(b)).

77 SECTION 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

78 SECTION 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. GENERAL

Evidence from the ICZM Demonstration Programme projects and from other sources indicates that EU policies have influenced coastal zones and their management in a variety of ways. These influences have varied between policies, and between different coastal areas. They have included:

• actual damage to the physical environment; • contributions to positive environmental enhancement; • inadequate co-ordination at EU level between policy objectives, both between sectors and between land- and sea- based policies; • insufficient scope for regional differentiation in the implementation of policies; • failures of implementation of EU policies by Member States.

Impact on the physical environment

In relation to the impact of EU policies on the bio-physical environment of coastal areas, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy have had the most negative influences. In relation to the CAP, this is confirmed by experiences in the Rade de Brest, Wadden Sea and Storstrom project areas, while the failure of the Common Fisheries Policy to arrest overfishing and damage to biodiversity has affected Community waters generally. The Structural and Cohesion Funds have in the past been responsible for financing environmentally-damaging infrastructure projects – for example, motorways and large water management projects – particularly in the southern Member States.

The beneficial effects of agri-environment measures financed under the CAP have been limited by their voluntary nature and their lack of attractiveness in comparison with high CAP support prices. And although many environmental infrastructure projects have been financed through the Structural Funds, so far comparatively few projects have been supported which seek to develop synergies between nature conservation and job creation.

However, at EU level, the situation has now improved with the Agenda 2000 reforms in relation to agriculture and the Structural Funds. With regard to the CAP, phased cuts in support prices may eventually reduce eutrophication and pollution in coastal waters through reductions in the application of fertilizers and pesticides. Environmental conditions can be attached to all direct payments to farmers offered under the commodity regimes. Under the Rural Development Regulation, the coverage of ‘less favoured areas’ (LFAs) has been extended to include areas where environmental restrictions apply, and within these areas, payments may be made to farmers to compensate them for costs arising from obligations under EU environmental measures as the Habitats and Nitrates Directives.

The new Structural Fund Regulations have reinforced requirements in relation to partnership and the environmental screening of projects, while extending the range of projects that may

79 be financed. In other policy areas, an important advance has come with the so-called ‘Cardiff’ process requiring for the first time that all sectoral formations of the Council develop their own strategies for integrating the needs of the environment and sustainable development into their future policies, and to report regularly to the European Council.

Inadequate implementation by Member States

Often the negative impacts of Community policies in coastal areas – or the failure of those policies to achieve their objectives - are a reflection not of the design of those policies, but of failed or insensitive implementation by national or local competent authorities. Examples include the very slow designation of candidate SACs under the Habitats Directive, and the failure of many Member States to develop Action Plans under the Nitrates Directive.

However, ultimately it is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure the proper legal and practical application of Community policies, and in some sectors (such as ensuring the full application of environmental procedures in the Structural Fund Regulations), it has not devoted sufficient resources to this task. In the future, the success of the Agenda 2000 reforms to the CAP and the Structural Funds will depend on more rigorous screening by the Commission of programmes submitted by Member States, and their subsequent careful monitoring and evaluation.

Barriers to integrated management of EU policies

Inadequate co-ordination at EU level of the objectives of some policies, and the differing degree to which their implementation is decentralised, poses considerable problems in relation to attempts at integrated management. For example, decisions in relation to the nature and location of trans-European transport networks (TEN-T) are made at EU level, beyond the influence of coastal managers. As the experience of southern Denmark demonstrates, this may potentially stand in the way of the development of integrated strategies for the coast.

In other areas, such as the more vigorous encouragement of short sea shipping as a sustainable alternative to road transport, the EU’s potentially beneficial role has not been adequately developed.

However, the development of a more integrated approach is being encouraged in those coastal areas eligible for support from the Structural Funds by the requirement for the submission by Member States of integrated regional plans and programmes. These should now take the form, in effect, of integrated spatial development plans.

80 Failure to grasp existing opportunities for greater integration

However, even where there are potential synergies – as between local decision-making in respect of the Structural Funds, agri-environment measures, and the management of SACs – these opportunities may not in practice be exploited on the ground. This may be partly a reflection of a lack of awareness of EU policies and their implementation structures on the part of local officials and stakeholders, which needs to be addressed.

Elements of an EU strategy for tackling these issues are presented in section B below, while section C contains recommendations in respect of specific EU policies.

2. A FUTURE EU STRATEGY FOR COASTAL ZONES - RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The task of ensuring that the design and implementation of EU policies contributes fully to ICZM presents a formidable challenge. It requires that

• the overall objectives of sectoral policies as they are developed at EU level – and their subsequent implementation by the Member states in coastal zones - should take full account of requirements of each of the three ‘legs’ of sustainable development - ie protection and enhancement of the environment; economic development and social equity; • the design of EU policies should reflect a greater sensitivity to territorial differences; • decentralisation to regional and local levels in the administration of EU policies should be introduced to enable horizontal integration to take place at a local level; • policies affecting land- and sea-based activities should take greater account of their mutual interactions; • greater opportunities should be incorporated into the design of EU policies for public consultation and participation in their local implementation.

2. In confronting this major challenge, the EU could choose between two different strategies:

- the development of policy instruments – including legislation – which are explicitly focused on encouraging the application of ICZM by Member States;

- a more incremental approach of ensuring that all existing and new EU policies with indirect effects on coastal zones, and their administration, take greater account of the requirements of ICZM.

In practice, the EU needs to adopt elements from both approaches, but with the emphasis on the second.

3. Securing agreement to a legally-binding Directive requiring Member States to establish national systems of ICZM would face considerable practical, legal and political difficulties. The time and resources that would need to be devoted to securing agreement to such an instrument could be better used through alternative avenues.

81 4. However, a strong political signal from the top in favour of the application of ICZM is necessary. This might be in the form of a Council Recommendation encouraging Member States to develop systems of ICZM, possibly agreed by a joint formation of the Council.

5. An EU-wide ICZM Observatory should be established to act as a focal point for the collection and dissemination of good practice and advice in relation to ICZM, and to maintain the momentum of the ICZM Demonstration Programme. This could be established independently either under Strand C of INTERREG III, or as a dedicated unit within the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON). This could act to transfer knowledge between projects. Some funding for administration of projects in Mediterranean states may also be beneficial to improve effectiveness.

6. The Commission should mount an information and awareness programme targeted at stakeholders in coastal zones on the significance of Community policies for coastal zone management, possibly through the proposed ICZM Observatory.

7. With regard to INTERREG III, greater representation of projects focused on coastal management could be secured through the establishment by the Commission of indicative allocations between priority areas within Strands, to encourage project submissions in this field.

8. The Commission should ensure that sufficient resources are allocated in each INTERREG III programme related to coastal management to the publicity and dissemination of results, both among officials responsible for spatial and sectoral planning, and among the general public.

9. The EU’s proposed Water Framework Directive will be one of the most important legislative stimuli in the EU to integrated planning, both coastal and inland. The Commission should produce detailed guidance to Member States - well before the deadline for submission of their river basin management plans - indicating how coastal zones should be treated in these plans, and the types of measures that will need to be included.

10. The newly-established Commissioner group chaired by President of the European Commission, Sr Prodi, on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment and Sustainable Development should as a priority

• consider whether the strategies being developed following the European Council in Cardiff in June 1998 by different formations of the Council for integrating the environment into EU sectoral policies take sufficient account of the wider needs of sustainable development; • ensure that any future EU Sustainable Development Strategy takes forward the approach set out in European Spatial Development Strategy of developing integrated spatial development strategies for securing the sustainable development of environmentally- sensitive areas such as coastal zones.

11. The integration of the environment into EU and Member States’ sectoral policies would be facilitated by early agreement by Member States to the proposed Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, and the implementation by the Commission of the Declaration

82 attached to the Amsterdam Treaty committing it to undertake environmental impact assessments of its proposals with significant environmental implications.

12. The comprehensive review of the territorial impact of all EU policies, currently being undertaken by the Commission in association with Portugal in the framework of the ESDP, should include coastal zones as a priority focus of study. Its geographical focus should extend to coastal areas beyond the current ICZM Demonstration Programme projects.

13. To complement this review, the Commission should further develop the methodology of Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA), ensure that coastal zones are included as one of the spatial categories to be considered, and pilot it in the first instance to all Commission proposals with significant territorial impacts.

14. EU policies terrestrial and marine policies should reflect better mutual co-ordination. There is a need for greater clarity in the design of EU legislation in respect of its applicability to the marine environment. Moreover, the impact of marine policies on land, and vice versa, needs to be given greater consideration in the development of all relevant EU policies.

15. The Commission should undertake a comprehensive review of the scope for greater regional decentralisation in the implementation of EU policies, which would lay the foundations for greater horizontal policy integration in coastal zones. Such a review should consider • whether greater decentralisation is possible for all or only some EU policies; • where decentralisation is theoretically possible, how the boundaries for regional administrative units should be established, and by whom.

16. In the light of the requirements of the Arhus Convention, the Commission should include in all new environment-related EU legislation or revisions to existing legislation requirements for Member States to make provision for the greatest practicable level of public participation.

3. Recommendations in relation to specific EU policies

The strategy outlined above that the EU should adopt for ensuring that EU policies make a greater contribution for advancing ICZM has at its core a systematic review of all EU policies in respect of their compatibility with the principles outlined in paragraph 2.1. However, in anticipation of such a review, several key recommendations already emerge from experience in the ICZM Demonstration Programme projects, and from recent policy revisions which have yet to be fully implemented. These are summarised below.

1. Common Agricultural Policy

The Agenda 2000 reforms to the CAP now offer significantly improved opportunities for integrating environmental considerations into agricultural support measures, both through the attachment of environmental conditions to direct payments to farmers, and through the extension of less-favoured area payments to compensate for costs arising from EU environmental measures. The Rural Development Regulation should also give a boost to integrated rural development, which in coastal rural areas should provide impetus towards the establishment of systems of ICZM.

83 However, considerable discretion is left to Member States in the implementation of these measures. The Commission should report regularly on the implementation of the Agenda 2000 reforms on the basis of quantitative indicators, and produce guidance for Member states on good practice.

2. Common Fisheries Policy

The review of the Common Fisheries Policy due in 2002 should incorporate sufficient flexibility to allow measures to be tailored to local and regional needs and opportunities. It should also encourage the involvement of local fishers and communities (including foreign vessels) in the policy process.

Key changes should be:

• a specific reference to social, environmental and economic sustainability could be added to the objectives of a new Regulation, this would ensure that its purposes were transparent: • the Regulation should require codes of conduct to be elaborated and implemented at the national or local levels, aimed at setting out acceptable standards for fisheries management in inshore waters: • Member States should be obliged to develop sustainable inshore fisheries management strategies as part of the Regulation. These might include zonal plans set within the context of integrated coastal zone management programmes; • A new provision should be added to the Regulation, offering payments to encourage sustainable patterns of fishing in inshore areas. This could include - support for low impact fishing in sensitive areas - adoption and implementation of collective management schemes to ensure fishing effort is not increased nor damaging gear types or fishing methods used; Payments could be used alongside regulatory measures, to help encourage take-up and acceptance of more stringent environmental measures. • Member States could be given full rights to manage fisheries up to the 12 mile limit. This would enable Member States to manage these fisheries in line with obligations under the Habitats Directive. However, this would have to be on the condition that ‘foreign’ vessels were treated fairly and existing fishing rights respected, and that vessel owners be involved in the management process.

3. Structural Funds

As with the Agenda 2000 reforms to the CAP, the revised Structural Fund Regulations – in relation both to mainstream activity and to INTERREG III - provide considerable opportunities for advancing ICZM in eligible coastal areas, both through the provision of financial support for environmental projects, the strengthened requirement for environmental assessment and monitoring; and reinforced provisions on integrated programmes and participation. The opportunity in eligible coastal areas to integrate the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) with the other Structural Funds is particularly welcome.

However, the Commission needs to take greater efforts during the screening of draft Single Programming Documents (SPDs) to ensure that Member States abide by the principles of the revised Regulations, and take practical advantage of new funding opportunities.

84 In coastal areas designated under Objectives 1 and 2, the Commission should ensure that SPDs include specific support for the establishment of structures and training to advance integrated approaches to coastal management.

4. Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T)

• Recent studies have indicated that Trans-European Transport Networks, especially road construction, may not necessarily contribute to regional economic development; or may give rise to development that is not necessarily desirable; and is likely to have significant environmental costs8. A fundamental review of the approach to TEN-T is therefore needed.

• The natural, spatial, social and economic characteristics of a region should be assessed before expanding transport infrastructure can be established as the best choice for public spending to promote regional development.

• A Strategic Environmental Assessment of both the TEN-T and TINA networks (in relation to central and eastern Europe) should be a prerequisite for further investment.

• It is essential that TEN-T developments are compatible with existing EU legislation, notably the requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the setting up of the Natura 2000 network.

• Transparency and further consultation and public participation in the review of the TEN-T guidelines and general TEN-T policy are urgently needed.

5. Short sea shipping (SSS).

Shifting goods transport from land to sea can contribute both to the economic development of coastal zones, and to environmental protection. The Commission needs to introduce measures that will liberalise intra-European sea transport and abolish excessive administrative requirements imposed on SSS. Short sea shipping can be promoted by balancing the price advantages and subsidies enjoyed by road and rail transport, and by eliminating obstacles and hindrances which render SSS more costly and/or more time consuming.

6. Renewable Energy Sources (RES)

The commitment in the Commission White Paper A Community Strategy and Action Plan: Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy (COM (97) 599 to increase the contribution of renewables to EU gross inland energy consumption by 12% by 2010 – with a particular emphasis on the contribution of wind power and biomass – should be subject to both a strategic and a territorial impact assessment.

8 Hey C, Pfieffer T and Topan A (1996) The Economic Impact of Motorways in the Peripheral Regions of the EU – A Literature Survey for Birdlife International, EURES, Freiburg.

85 While the encouragement of renewable energy sources could be more easily integrated into strategies for the sustainable development of coastal areas than large scale traditional energy infrastructure, the Strategy and Action Plan could at the same time have a significant negative impact on the biophysical environment in coastal areas.

7 EU enlargement

• Better co-ordination should be sought between EU-financed projects supported by different finds (INTERREG III, PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD) in accession countries which have significant effects on the environment of coastal areas, or the management of coastal resources;

• The Commission should ensure that approximation strategies being developed by the accession countries should incorporate the integrated implementation of groups of related EU Directives affecting coastal zones, to reduce costs and encourage synergy;

• Closer cross-border collaboration on coastal management should be encouraged through all the EU’s financial instruments between accession countries (and with Member States) sharing a common coastline.

86

ANNEXES

87 ANNEX I THE IMPACT OF EU POLICIES ON COASTAL ZONES QUESTIONNAIRE TO LEADERS OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Question

1. Please look down the list of EU measures in the attached table. How much do you feel you know about the detailed legal requirements and/or funding opportunities of each of these measures? For each measure, grade your answer 1 to 5. [1=No knowledge; 2=A little knowledge; 3=Moderate knowledge; 4=Good knowledge; 5=Excellent knowledge]

Mark your answer in column 1

2. As far as you are able, please tick (√) all those EU measures that you consider have a significant impact (good or bad) on the environment in your project area.

Mark your answer in column 2

3. Of the measures you have identified in Question 2, please tick the one EU measure that has had the WORST environmental impact in your area.

Mark your answer in column 3

4. Please tick the one EU measure that you feel has had the BEST environmental impact in your area.

Mark your answer in column 4

5. How much opportunity is there for public participation in the local administration of the EU measures in the table? For each measure, grade your answer from 1 to 5. [1=No participation; 2=Limited participation; 3=Moderate participation; 4=Good participation; 5=Excellent participation]

Mark your answer in column 5

6. Are you, or a representative of the project, a member of any committee responsible for the local administration of an EU measure (e.g. Structural Fund Monitoring Committee)?

Please tick each EU measure to which this applies.

Mark your answer in column 6

88 7. The aims of some EU measures may conflict locally with the aims of the other EU measures. Please tick any EU measures that you feel require better local coordination between themselves.

Mark your answer in column 7

8. If your project area is near the border with another Member State, how good is the cross-border coordination of the administration of the measures? For each measure, please grade you answer from 1 to 5. [1=No coordination; 2=Little coordination; 3=Moderate coordination; 4=Good coordination; 5= Excellent coordination]

Mark your answer in column 8

9. Are there any new measures that you think the EU should adopt to contribute to the sustainable development of your project area?

Please describe your proposal(s) briefly in Box 9

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION

89

IMPACT OF EU POLICIES ON COASTAL ZONES

Questions

EU Directives (D)/Finance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Environmental Impact Assessment (D) 2. Birds (D) 3. Habitats (D) 4. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - Product regimes 5. CAP - Agri-environment measures 6. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (D) 7. Waste Framework (D) 8. Urban Waste Water Treatment (D) 9. Bathing Water (D) 10. Shellfish Waters (D) 11. Nitrates from Agricultural Sources (D) 12. Common Fisheries Policy 13. Structural Funds (Mainstream) 14. Structural Funds - Community Initiatives (e.g. INTERREG; LEADER etc) 15. Cohesion Fund 16. LIFE 17. Trans-European Networks 18. Regional/Urban Energy Agencies 19. EU Research Programmes 20. Other (please specify) Question 9

90 ANNEX II

During the course of the Thematic Study, IEEP staff or associates visited the following ICZM Demonstration project areas:

• Kent, UK (TERRA Coastlink) • Devon and Cornwall, UK (TERRA Coastlink) • Isle of Wight, UK (LIFE) • Southern Coast of Finland (LIFE) • Latvia Coast (PHARE) • Lithuanian Coast (PHARE) • Ria de Aveiro, Portugal (LIFE) • RICAMA, Abruzzi, Italy (LIFE) • Wadden Sea (LIFE) • Bantry Bay, Ireland (LIFE) • Forth Estuary Forum, UK (LIFE) • Rade de Brest, France (LIFE) • Meeting of TERRA Project Leaders, Naples, Italy • Storstrom, Denmark (TERRA Coastlink) • Algarve-Huelva, Portugal and Spain (TERRA Coastlink) • Cyclades, Greece (LIFE).

91