« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
REVIEW OF INTEGRATION AMONG PLANS FOR THE COAST IN SCOTLAND: Analysis of the SCF Coastal Plans Inventory
CHAPTER EIGHT RESEARCH FINDINGS
Relationship Between Plans
8.1 The study suggests that the level of integration amongst the first rank plans (coastal management initiatives, structure and local plans, nature conservation plans, planning guidance and advice, SAC management schemes and shoreline management plans) is substantial. However, some of this is the result of the hierarchical system that statutorily requires interdependence, e.g. Structure to Local Plans, these plans to NPPG 13. Integration across other plans is more difficult to ascertain, cross-referencing is often haphazard and the timing of plan preparation cycles lacks any overall co-ordination. The planning cycle is not required to be synchronised, but ideally should be as far as possible if overall integration is a goal. This will be more and more important when river catchment management planning under the Water Framework Directive is introduced. It is also noted that planning is but one tool of management. Integration needs to be sought on political, economic, community and social levels also to deliver ICZM.
8.2 The study also suggests that all parties appear to subscribe to the concept of sustainable development, however, if the sampling of reports and studies emerging from the case studies is typical, the effort toward sustainable development is primarily driven by the environmental side of the balance sheet. This is reflected in the proliferation of Biodiversity Plans, Nature Conservation Management Plans, Archaeological and Landscape assessment plans and so forth that have been prepared or are in preparation. These all feed into the Structure Plan element of the system, even if their influence is not always easy to identify. Subject plans, tourism and recreation plans, sectoral plans (such as the fisheries management plans) are poorly represented for coastal areas, although there is, here and there, reference to the intention to produce such plans.
8.3 Basically the co-ordination of most policies and plans/strategies takes place through the Structure Plans. There is evidence of cross-referencing amongst structure plans, local plans, NPPG 13, BAPS and LA21 plans within a given region, however cross referencing of other planning strands such as the various port management plans, subject plans, is not so obvious.
8.4 The dearth of plans, strategies, or studies relating to the economic and social dimension or to sectoral development of the coast is particularly noted. Whilst some such plans undoubtedly exist (e.g. internal documents of Scottish Enterprise and Local Enterprise Companies), and whilst the Structure Plans have sections dealing with the different sectors of activity, there is little evidence to suggest that these sectors are formally engaging in the ICZM strategic planning process. This could be seen as a weakness in delivering ICZM.
Co-ordination in the Coastal Zone
8.5 Integration in plans requires a co-ordinated effort across all sectors with an interest in the coast. It has already been noted that in some case studies, there is a lack of community participation in some plan preparation. This could be contributing to an apparent limited awareness of the work of the fora and a lack of interest in the efforts of the fora. The local community can be important in delivering ICZM on the ground. The current work in ICZM does appear to have limited incorporation of the 'social' element of sustainable development.
8.6 Local Authorities are leading the movement toward integration on the ground. The documents reviewed indicates that the local authorities are involved in some capacity in coastal planning/management activity and in some instances actively promoting activity.
8.7 Overall it is difficult to discuss the level of integration achieved without some baseline. However, there is ample evidence that all authorities and agencies are striving toward integration of plans and strategies relating to the coast and that all are conscious of the need for co-ordination and meaningful participation across all sectors. In short we would conclude that the level of integration across plans is relatively high and is likely to continue to improve in the future.
8.8 Nevertheless, ICZM in Scotland would benefit from a greater effort being made to highlight efforts to include the various perspectives of all the interested parties, including being transparent about the process. As yet, a good number of the plans examined had not detailed how the plan was prepared and who was consulted in the process.
Extent of Influence of the Coastal Initiatives
8.9 There are several factors which influence the integration of plans for the coasts, which includes the number of sectors and organisations involved in the coastal environment, the implementation of NPPG13 and the mechanisms used to obtain views and participate in the plan preparation process. For the case studies where a coastal fora is absent, there does appear to be a more fragmented approach to ICZM, where there is less evidence of plan integration.
8.10 The coastal fora are therefore an important influence on coastal policy where they are present. The review has shown that the co-ordination of policy requires a wider perspective that is brought by the fora, and in particular they can be successful in identifying the key issues from all the sectors represented in their boundary. Where they are absent, any coastal initiative tends to be inclined towards either the protection of the environment or development planning only.
8.11 The coastal fora would also appear to be essential both in order to facilitate the participatory process and to provide a mechanism for focussing on a long term strategic vision for the coast. Where they are absent the system tends to focus only on the short term and to be somewhat inward looking.
8.12 It is suggested that there is a real need for involvement of the voluntary coastal initiatives, particularly in relation to the development of a longer term and wider 'vision' for the coast in the future. It is also suggested that there is a need for up front public consultation and possibly use of techniques such as 'planning for real' in the preparation of coastal plans.
8.13 This would be the gap to which the ICZM plan should ideally fit. Priority should be given to ICZM to fulfil this co-ordinating role. The ICZM plan has a wider remit than the 'environment', and the study has concluded that ICZM plans are key in delivering integration between policies and plans. The ICZM plans however need to take a more strategic role than is currently the case.
8.14 In addition, the EU ICZM Principles and best practice are still some way from being fully understood. The more recent ICZM plans have acknowledged the principles, but in those areas with no fora or specific coastal strategies, there is a risk that the efforts at the EU level will not filter through to the management on the ground. It may be that a national coastal strategy can include guidance on the interpretation of the EU Principles for local implementation.
Linkages and Mechanisms
8.15 The Structure Plans, as co-ordinating documents for development planning are lacking in ICZM terms because their remit is restricted to matters relating to land-use. Integrated management of coastal areas needs a co-ordinating plan that brings together those policies that deal with the marine, transportation, economic and social dimensions with equal weight. This mechanism is required to draw these strands together.
8.16 For the coastal zone, NPPG 13 is a core document and most authorities rely on this for guidance on definition/classification of the coastal zone. The other aspects of NPPG 13, such as guidance on sustainable development in the coastal zone, are potentially being overlooked. It is difficult to evaluate how successful NPPG 13 appears to be as a mechanism to deliver an element of ICZM, as the level to which it has been implemented is varied. In addition, the use and value of the coastal classification shows a wide variation between development plans, and only an analysis of planning approvals on the coast would potentially demonstrate its success or otherwise. However, undoubtedly its presence has put coastal issues to the fore in some regions, with some local authorities developing coastal strategies, which are highly beneficial to the development of ICZM initiatives.
8.17 Statutory Development Plans are important because they take a strategic and global view as do BAPs, LA21 plans and NHZ plans albeit from a selective perspective. This is allied to the observation that the majority of the rest of the plans reviewed produced little evidence of a long-term strategic view being taken to either development/conservation or to integration. Few of the documents reviewed look beyond the 10-year horizon and even those that do, in the main the ICZM plans, end up focusing on short-term action.
8.18 Agencies, local authorities and key players are all operating to different time scales and cycles for plan preparation and publication. There is little evidence of any level of conscious synchronisation of the different plans or their cycles and until this begins to happen integration of plans and strategies will continue to be spasmodic. ICZM plan authors in particular should also consider the preparation cycles of those plans which they seek to influence when determining the review cycles of their own plan. The introduction of further management plans under the Water Framework Directive will be a further factor to consider in building up an overall process that encourages integration.
8.19 ICZM plans should therefore consider the time scale of the overall vision for the strategy and of the period over which the plan applies. The time scales would depend on each individual area, as, for example, the coastline may be particularly dynamic or economic conditions may change more quickly. Differences in time scales may also apply to different topics covered by the plan, as circumstances change due to national events, and may lead to updates required on a more regular basis than others.
8.20 The report has identified topics for indicators to the success of integration across plans, and the mechanisms used to try to achieve integration. It is recognised that the 'search areas' identified in this study generate only qualitative indicators of the level of integration, however this would represent an advance on the present situation and would possibly provide a platform for the formulation of quantitative indicators in the future. As noted, an effective baseline is also required to measure against, and this would require further study. It is noted research is currently being undertaken of current state of the art ICZM mechanisms which may contribute further to this aim.
8.21 If the difficulty in accessing the various documents and plans encountered by the study team is an indication of their general availability to the public, there would seem to be an important opportunity to increase dissemination of information on coastal areas and, as a possible consequence, increasing the participation and involvement of the community at large. Similarly, integration would appear to require that plans and policies are comprehensible to the lay person, as people from lots of different backgrounds are involved in plan preparation. This does not suggest a 'dumbing down' of reports, but more use could be made of non-technical summaries and explanatory text, detailing the purpose and main issues, and explaining the target audience of the main report.
Conclusions
8.22 In retrospect it is clear that the objectives that were set at the commencement of the study were challenging, not least in seeking to obtain evidence from the reading of a sample of relevant documentation. The constantly changing situation regarding the status of development plans, (and therefore redundancy of some of the documents reviewed) and the absence of a proper baseline against which to measure progress combine to make an exercise of this sought a snapshot of the current situation. Nevertheless, a number of important conclusions can be drawn to inform further work.
8.23 Scotland is currently sitting on the boundary between a voluntary approach and statutory led integration. Some of the case studies show a more fragmented approach and the coastal fora have an important role to play in assisting with integration delivery, which needs to be developed and nurtured. The national coastal strategy could set a context for this.
8.24 The coastal strategy should also consider the role it would have in dissemination of the EU principles, providing practical examples, and best practise. This would have the benefit of developing holistic ICZM that is not skewed towards economic or environmental issues. Current research on the state of the art ICZM systems would also inform in developing a 'baseline' or 'ideal' ICZM framework for Scotland.
8.25 Given the diversity of start and review dates and the absence of committed review dates in some cases it is concluded that there is a need for direction for the synchronisation of coastal management activities across the nation.
8.26 It is concluded that there is a need for further guidance from the national level on the management of the coasts. Each of the case studies and the individual fora appears to be operating as if they were island regions with no consideration of influences outside their limited geographic scope. There is little evidence in the documentation reviewed that cross boundary issues (both in terms of geography and sector) are being tackled and there is evidence that there has been duplication of effort in some areas. The need for a national coastal strategy for ICZM is warranted both as a co-ordinating mechanism and as a means of guidance in regard to methodology, particularly in regard to participation/consultation on coastal management issues.
]
« Previous | Contents | Next »