report final version - EUROSION · EUROSION - Revised Inception Report ... The advisor y group will...

EUROSION - Revised Inception Report – 31/05/2002 page 1 / 1

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT

Directorate B – Environment quality of Natural resourcesService contract B4-3301/2001/329175/MAR/B3

“Coastal erosion – Evaluation of the needs for action”

Inception reportFinal Version, 31 May 2002

Prepared by consortium Eurosion: Rijksinstituut voor Kust en Zee (RIKZ) EUCC – the Coastal Union IGN France International (IFI) Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB) Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM) Institut Français de l’Environnement (IFEN) EADS Systems & Defense Electronics (S&DE)


CONTENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................4

WORK PACKAGE 1 : PROJECT MANAGEMENT.............................................................................7

The overall objective ........................................................................................................................7

The implementing agency ................................................................................................................7

The Steering Group..........................................................................................................................7

The advisory group...........................................................................................................................8

The Technical organisation ..............................................................................................................8

WORK PACKAGE 2 : DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A EUROPEAN LEVEL DATABASE ON COASTAL EROSION ISSUES.......................................................................................................9

Objective and expected results.........................................................................................................9

Technical specifications....................................................................................................................9

Geographical extension....................................................................................................................9

Database structure .........................................................................................................................12

Strategy for data acquisition ...........................................................................................................12

Quality management ......................................................................................................................15

Data dissemination.........................................................................................................................15

WORK PACKAGE 3 & 4 : EMBEDDING LESSONS LEARNED FROM EXISTING LOCAL SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INTO DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES.....................16

Objective and expected results.......................................................................................................16

Methodological approach ...............................................................................................................16

Criteria for selecting cases studies .................................................................................................17

Documentation of case studies.......................................................................................................18

Compliance of selected sites with the selection criteria ..................................................................19

Review of existing models ..............................................................................................................21

Integration of information collected .................................................................................................23

WORK PACKAGE 5 : FORMULATION OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS...................................24


Methodological approach ...............................................................................................................24

Definition of Coastal Erosion ..........................................................................................................25

Level of Physical process ...............................................................................................................26

Policy level .....................................................................................................................................26

Technical and Engineering level .....................................................................................................27

Social, economical, and financial level ...........................................................................................27

Level of public perception and communication between stakeholders ............................................28

Level of information ........................................................................................................................29

WORK PACKAGE 6 & 7 : DISSEMINATION, NETWORKING, AND INVOLVEMENT OF END-USERS...............................................................................................................................................30


Communication strategy.................................................................................................................30

End user requirement survey..........................................................................................................30

Relations with other initiatives ........................................................................................................31

Composition of the Advisory Board.................................................................................................32


ANNEXES..........................................................................................................................................33

Annex 1 – Table of project deliverables..........................................................................................33

Annex 2 – Proposed composition for the Advisory Board ...............................................................33

Annex 3 – Project time-schedule ....................................................................................................33

Annex 4 – Implementation Plan......................................................................................................33


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

One quarter of the European Union’s coast is currently eroding despite the development of a wide range of measures to protect shorelines from eroding and flooding. The prospect of further sea level rise due to climate change and the heritage of mismanagement in the past imply that coastal erosion will be a growing concern in the future. This motivated the European Parliament in 2001 to initiate a project on developing coastal erosion policy recommendations and to request the European Commission to launch the call for tenders “Service contract concerning coastal erosion – evaluation of the needs for action” (ENV.B.3/SER/2001/0030). The contract was awarded in December 2001 to a project consortium under the lead of the National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (RIKZ) of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, and includes the NGO EUCC - The Coastal Union, the international branch of the French Geographic Institute (IGN France International) specialized in GIS and mapping engineering, the French Environment Institute (IFEN), the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), the European Information Technology EADS SD&E (ex-MATRA S&I), and the French Institute for Geological and Mining Research (BRGM). The project will implement seven (7) work packages: WP1 – Project Management WP2 – European Level Data Base WP3 – Guidelines for Developing Local Information Systems WP4 – Review of Experience in Erosion Management WP5 – Formulation of Policy Recommendations WP6 – Dissemination and Networking WP7 – Defining User Requirements and Feedback The project will provide a data base (WP 2) visualizing existing information which will complement and be compatible with related information systems developed or under construction. It will feature administrative information: terrestrial and marine administrative units, physical information: infrastructure, hydrographical features, elevation and bathymetry, land cover, coastal erosion, hydrodynamics and sea level, sediment flows from river basins and socio-economic information: population, economics, driving forces, and coastal reporting. In parallel, the consortium will develop guidelines for local scale information systems for coastal erosion management (WP 3). The work will initially focus on the analysis of existing data banks and management support systems developed for different types of coasts and regions of Europe primarily in the framework of the EU Integrated Coastal Zone Management demonstration programme. The consortium will then develop guidelines on indicators to be monitored, co-operation with the European database and data exchange mechanisms.


A report will be drafted summarizing and assessing existing measures (WP 4) applied in erosion control on a local and regional level. It will contain technical documentation on the maintenance and protection of eroding coasts and be complemented by a database of good practice examples. A study on policy measures for erosion management (WP 5) on higher administrative levels will be produced as well as a trend analysis (WP 5) to assess factors of increasing importance in the near and far future (e.g. of climate change and river dams). Based on the previous studies and guidelines as well as figures derived from the database, recommendations (WP 5) will be drafted for coherent policy measures to be undertaken at various levels. The role of socio-economical and ecological risk assessments, management options and damage prevention will be key elements. The European public will be informed (see WP 6) about the objectives and results of the project by a well-advertised and attractive website. Final results will be presented at an expert event in March 2004. The basic assumption of the consortium is that coastal erosion is a phenomenon that can never be completely controlled but can be managed in an economically and ecologically sustainable fashion. Management solutions will therefore be based on a holistic view and biased towards the integrated coastal zone management approach. A Steering Group, chaired by Directorate-General Environment of the European Commission, will have the responsibility to review and approve the project deliverables and provide guidance to the consortium all through the project implementation. The Steering Group is made of representatives from the following bodies:

- Directorate-General Environment - Directorate-General Regional Policy - Directorate-General Research - Directorate-General Information Society - Directorate-General Fisheries (associated, but active participation yet to be decided) - Joint Research Center (JRC) - European Environmental Agency (EEA) - Statistical Office of the European Commission (EUROSTAT) - Committee of Regions (CoR) - European Plateform of Regional Offices (EPRO) - Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPRM) - Specialized and academics Institutions

The Steering group will be assisted by a larger Advisory group comprising a wide range of professionals, experts, stakeholders involved in coastal erosion control and coastal zone management at all levels.

/ 6

FIGURE 1 - PROJECT SYNOPSIS

WORK PACKAGE 1

Project management administration,

and quality control

WORK PACKAGE 2 Inventory and collect relevant data for assessing coastal erosion status and trends throughout Europe and quantifying vulnerability of local areas to coastal erosion processes and risks of flooding.

WORK PACKAGE 3 Review decision-making processes at the local level – including planning, implementing, and monitoring erosion prevention and control measures – and provide guidelines for improving decision making through increased information sharing.

WORK PACKAGE 4 Provide a state of the art of current coastal defence practices in Europe, which balances : (i) their technical feasibility, (ii) their financial sustainability, (iii) their social acceptability.

WORK PACKAGE 5 Formulate recommendations in line with five (5) generic policy options, namely: (i) maintaining or changing the standard of protection, (ii) constructing new defences seaward the original ones, (iii) identifying a new line of defence and constructing new defences landward the original ones, (iv) working with natural processes to reduce risks while allowing natural coastal changes, (v) making no investment in coastal defence assets or operations.

WORK PACKAGE 7 Involve end users and potential beneficiaries in the project definition for increased ownership and shared responsibility, and provide feedback on the project deliverables.

• Classification of local area vulnerability to coastal erosion

• Needs for action

• Guidelines for improved governance at the local level

• Needs for action

• Pros and cons of ongoing actions

• Proposals

• Comments, adjustments and corrections

Practioners Network; Advisory group

Existing data providers; Existing initiatives (INSPIRE, GMES, ETC)

Pilot case studies; ICZM demonstration program

Existing experiences throughout Europe

Recommendations of IPCC

EUROSION – Revised Inception Report – 30/05/2002 page 7 / 7

WORK PACKAGE 1 :

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The overall objective The overall objective of the project, as stated in Service contract B4-3301/2001/329175/MAR/B3 “Coastal erosion – Evaluation of the needs for action” between the European Commission and the National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (RIKZ) of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, is : “To provide the European Commission with a package of recommendations on policy and management measures to address coastal erosion in the EU. These recommendations should be based on a thorough assessment of the state of coastline and of the response options available at each level of administration.” The implementing agency The project is implemented by a European consortium under the lead of the National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (RIKZ) of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, and includes the NGO EUCC - The Coastal Union, the international branch of the French Geographic Institute (IGN France International) specialized in GIS and mapping engineering, the French Environment Institute (IFEN), the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), the European Information Technology EADS SD&E (formerly MATRA S&I), and the French Institute for Geological and Mining Research (BRGM). The Steering Group As the consortium leader, RIKZ is in charge of the project overall management and external reporting to the Steering Group. The Steering Group, chaired by Directorate-General Environment of the European Commission, will have the responsibility to review and endorse the project deliverables and provide guidance to the consortium all through the project implementation. The Steering Group is made of representatives from the following bodies:

- Directorate-General Environment - Directorate-General Regional Policy - Directorate-General Research - Directorate-General Information Society - Directorate-General Fisheries (associated, but active participation yet to be decided) - Joint Research Center (JRC) - European Environmental Agency (EEA) - Statistical Office of the European Commission (EUROSTAT) - Committee of Regions (CoR) - Coordination Group of Regions (a network of regional liaison offices to the EU) - Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPRM) - Specialized and academics Institutions

The Steering Group is expected to meet after submission by the consortium of the following reports:

- Inception Report, May 2002. - First Interim Report, November 2002 - Second Interim Report, September 2003 - Final Report, January 2004


The meetings of the Steering Committee will review the reports submitted, conclude on report approval and, if so required, define specific parts to be revised and/or improved. This review function of the Committee is important in terms of safeguarding the professional quality of the output, as well as in contractual terms as the judgement of the Committee will provide an important input to DG Environment’s acceptance of the project’s deliverables and its clearance for payment. Timely conclusions are required for both aspects. The advisory group The advisory group will gather a wide range of professionals, experts, stakeholders involved in coastal erosion control and coastal zone management at all levels. This group – about seventy people – will review and comment the project deliverables and will act as a consultative body to document the steering group decisions. The advisory group will not meet physically, except at the end of the project for the final event (see Work Package 6), but will communicate using Internet-based facilities (web, e-mail, interest group, distribution list, etc.). The Advisory board will review the deliverables that are identified as ‘diffusible’ in annex 1, in accordance with the communication strategy (page 28). The Technical organisation The project is divided into seven (7) Work Packages – as described hereunder - , and whose specific objectives should help to achieve the above mentioned major outcome: • Work package 1 – Project management, under RIKZ responsibility • Work package 2 – European level database design and implementation, under IGN FI

responsibility • Work package 3 – Guidelines for developing local information systems, under UAB responsibility • Work package 4 – Review of experience in erosion management, under RIKZ responsibility • Work package 5 – Formulation of policy recommendations, under EUCC responsibility • Work package 6 – Dissemination and networking, under EUCC responsibility • Work package 7 – Defining end user requirements and feedback, under RIKZ responsibility Figure 1 provides a detailed synopsis of the project specific objectives and how the different work packages are intended to achieve the project overall objective.


WORK PACKAGE 2 :

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A EUROPEAN LEVEL DATABASE ON COASTAL EROSION ISSUES

Objective and expected results 50% of Eurosion budget will be dedicated to inventory and collect relevant data for assessing coastal erosion status and trends throughout Europe and quantifying vulnerability of local areas to coastal erosion processes and risks of flooding (Work Package 2). This objective will be achieved through the development of a Europe-wide GIS database. Technical specifications In line with its Terms of References (ToR), this database will be consistent with the following specifications. • Data type : Geo-coded vector data (GIS) • Delivery format : ArcInfo export • Expected accuracy : max. 20 meters (RMS radial error) / max. 15 meter for heights. Compatible

with scale 1:100,000. • Horizontal Reference system: European Terrestrial Reference System 89 (ETRS89) • Vertical Reference System: European Vertical Reference System (EVRF2000) • Metadata standards: ISO 19115 for metadata description Geographical extension Figure 1 presents the expected geographical extension for the database. Most of countries will be fully covered by the project, while EU ultra-peripheral regions and applicant countries will be covered partly (20% of the total coastline, chosen so as to be representative for the countries’ coastline).

Figure 1.


The database implementation also requires a more precise definition of the coastal area within European countries. While various definitions of the coastal zone - in terms of distance from the shoreline - can be found in the literature, none of them gives entire satisfaction. Considering the specific problem of coastal erosion, the project proposes to restrict the coastal zone to: • for the terrestrial part, the NUTS 5 level administrative units located, partly or entirely, at less than

10 km from the shoreline (see figure 3). NUTS 5 level units corresponds to Commune, Gemeinde, Ward, or Termino Municipal. NUTS 5 level units may be exceptionally replaced by sub-national level units for those countries whose NUTS 5 level units covers a too large areas (e.g. Sweden).

Figure 2—Coastal zone as defined for EUROSION project

• for the insular part, the project will only consider islands whose area exceeds 1 sq.km and

population exceed 50 inhabitants. • for the maritime part, the project will cover the maritime claims of EU member states as defined in

the table 1.

Sea

10 km

10 km

10 km

10 km limit from the shoreline

10 km

NUTS 5 level unit boundaries (“municipality level”)

Coastal zone as defined for EUROSION


Table 1--Maritime Claims of the EU Member States

State Territorial sea (nautical miles, n.m.)

Contiguous zone (n.m.)

Exclusive Economic Zone (n.m.)

Fishery Zone (n.m.) Continental Shelf

Belgium 12

Denmark 3 4 200 200m/EXP

Finland 12 12 200m/EXP

France 12 24 200 200m/EXP

Germany 12 200m/EXP

Greece 6/10 200m/EXP

Ireland 12 200

Italy 12 200m/EXP

Netherlands 12 200 200m/EXP

Portugal 12 200 200m/EXP

Spain 12 24 200 200m/EXP

Sweden 12 200m/EXP

UK 12 200 200m/EXP

Source: United Nations. Law of the Sea Bulletin 34 (1997).


Database structure The database will be divided into 21 different layers, detailed in Table 2. These layers are: (i) Shoreline (ii) Satellite images (iii) Administrative boundaries (iv) Elevation (v) Bathymetry (vi) Hydrography (vii) River basin boundaries (viii) Infrastructure (ix) Soils (x) Geomorphology (xi) Erosion trend (xii) Sediments discharges from river basins (xiii) Sea level (xiv) Hydrodynamics (xv) Land cover (xvi) Land cover changes since 1975 (xvii) Laws and decrees (xviii) Nationally Designated areas (xix) Socio-economical profiles (xx) Erosion management practices (xxi) Vulnerable areas Strategy for data acquisition In line with the ToR, the project will mainly take stock of existing data at the European, national, and local levels, but will also consider producing new data (see table 2). This makes data availability a critical aspect the project will have to cope with. Issues related to data availability are threefold:

- some data may exist neither at the European level, nor at the national/local level. - some data may exist under a format which is not adequate (e.g. paper format), and

conversion into a more appropriate format (e.g. digital format) would exceed the project goals, timeframe or budget limit.

- some data may exist under an appropriate format but their copyrights considerably limit their dissemination to a wide range of users

To cope with these issues, the consortium has developed the following strategy:

- In case data do not exist, the project will provide guidelines built on standards – including technical specifications, maintenance procedures, and data dissemination mechanism – to fill the information gaps. This will be done in close collaboration with such existing initiatives as INSPIRE and GMES. Production of such missing data is regarded as exceptional in the framework of the project.

- In case data exist in a non appropriate format, the project will provide metadata instead of data. Some format conversion may be considered if they are relevant for the project.

- In case data exist with copyrights restrictions, the project will negotiate with the data providers the most profitable conditions of use, which would allow a Europe-wide dissemination of the data. For example, some data providers have already authorized the consortium to disseminate without royalties any value-added information derived from their datasets.

The project will start with an inventory of existing datasets at European and national levels. This inventory will make it possible to identify and possibly anticipate issues mentioned above in the different countries of European Union, and in applicant countries as well.


Table 2.

Themes Technical Specifications Potential source of data Relevance for assessing coastal erosion in Europe

1. Shoreline Vector data at scale 1:100,000 To be determined. The project will assess which data source can provide the most acceptable digital shoreline representation. The project will especially assess 3 different options: (i) the global digital coastline database distributed by EPSHOM, (ii) the digitising the coastline from IMAGE 2000, (iii) the coastline representation of SABE distributed by EuroGeographics.

The project will adopt one single shoreline representation common to all the data layers, in order to enable GIS analysis afterwards. Geometry of all the data acquired during the project will be transformed in order to fit this common shoreline representation (e.g. CORINE Land Cover, CORINE Coastal Erosion).

2. Satellite images Raster data IMAGE 2000 (JRC) IMAGE 2000 would be used to assess geometrical accuracy of the different layers. It would also make it possible to map near-shore land cover - with a specific attention paid to dunes – as they are generally not featured by CORFINE Land Cover ( < 25 ha). Unfortunately IMAGE 2000 will give no information of inter-tidal areas.

3. Administrative boundaries

Vector data compatible with scale 1:100,000

SABE v.1997 distributed by EuroGeographics Administrative boundaries help determine the appropriate level of action and identify local stakeholders potentially concerned by coastal erosion. It will also provide the geometrical framework for geo-coding some other layers (e.g. laws and decrees, social and economical profiles)

4. Elevation Grid data with a 90 m resolution and 3 to 15 meter height accuracy

MONA PRO Europe © distributed by Geosys – wherever available - completed with Digital Elevation Models (DEM) existing at the national level

Elevation makes it possible to identify lowlands which are vulnerable to significant sea level rise and the risk of flooding.

5. Bathymetry Depend on the country National Hydrological Agencies Changes in the near shore bathymetry and the beach profile are the first visible effect of coastal erosion processes.

6. Hydrography 1:250,000 wherever EuroRegionalMap is accessible; 1:1,000,000 elsewhere

EuroRegionalMap © distributed by EuroGeographics; GISCO elsewhere

Suspended materials drained by watersheds are discharged at the level of river mouths, and contribute to increase the sediment budget near the river mouth (sometimes hundreds of kilometres if long-shore transport is important)

7. River basin boundaries

Vector data compatible with scale 1:250,000 – wherever available. 1:1M elsewhere

Euro-Landscape project (JRC) wherever available. Bartholomeuw elsewhere

Watershed area makes it possible to estimate the amount of sediments drained by the river basins and potentially discharged at the river mouth.

8. Infrastructure 1:250,000 wherever EuroRegionalMap is accessible; 1:1,000,000 elsewhere

EuroRegionalMap © distributed by EuroGeographics; GISCO elsewhere

Information of infrastructure makes it possible to estimate both capital at risk along the coast, and the capital invested to protect to protect the coastline.

9. Soils To be determined European Soil Bureau (JRC) Capacity of near-shore areas to resist coastal erosion processes depends inter alia of their soil composition. Soil parameter may also be useful to predict impact of coastal erosion to salt water intrusion.

10. Geomorphology Vector data compatible with scale 1:100,000

Update and extension of CORINE Coastal Erosion (EEA) Capacity of the near shore areas to resist to coastal erosion processes also depends the geomorphology of coastline materials. Geomorphological patterns may also help in predicting the erosion rate.

11. Erosion trend Vector data compatible with scale 1:100,000

Update and extension of CORINE Coastal Erosion (EEA) Erosion trends makes it possible to evaluate the ecological, economical, and human capital at risk in the near future and assess efficiency of capital invested to protect the


1:100,000 shoreline.

12. Sediments discharges from river basins

Tabular data with geographical links to river basin boundaries

Extension of NOPOLU model to major European rivers (rivers whose basin area exceeds 10,000 km2)

Amount of sediments discharged at river mouths contribute to the positive of negative sediment budget available on the coast.

13. Sea level Depend on the country To be determined. EC/MAST funded projects may provide a lot of information.

Sea level rise, as a consequence of climate change and meteorological events, increase both impact of coastal erosion and vulnerability to the risk of flooding. Sea level rise also facilitate salt water intrusion.

14. Hydrodynamics Depend on the country To be determined. EC/MAST funded projects may provide a lot of information.

Waves, current, and tides are the primary cause for coastal erosion at the very local level. At an aggregated level, long-shore current, sediment transport capacity, and history of meteorological events makes it possible to predict the amount of materials washed away on the shoreline.

15. Land cover Vector data compatible with scale 1:100,000

CORINE Land Cover (EEA) As a proxy of land use policies, land cover makes it possible to fine-tune both the estimation of capital at risk in case of advanced coastal erosion, and the natural resistance of the near-shore soils to erosion processes (e.g. vegetated area are more likely to resist to erosion processes than bare area)

16. Land cover changes since 1975

Vector data compatible with scale 1:100,000

Extension of LaCoast where non existing (JRC) Land cover changes since 1975 make it possible to measure the rate of invested capital growth.

17. Laws and decrees PDF and/or Word documents with geographical links to administrative boundaries

National, regional and local authorities Legal and regulatory frameworks, and their consequences on coastal zone development, are expected to impact positively or negatively capital at risk along the shore (e.g. a permissive law is likely to increase capital investment in the coastal zone)

18. Nationally Designated areas

Vector data (for SPA and SIC’s database) compatible with scale 1:100,000 (to be confirmed by ETC/NPB); Tabular data for CDDA database

Three (3) major sources:

• Special Protected Areas (SPA) database • Sites of Community Interest (SIC) database • Common Data Base on Nationally Designated Areas

database (CDDA)

Ecological capital at risk along the coasts

19. Socio-economical profiles

Tabular data with geographical links to administrative boundaries

EUROSTAT statistics Human population and economical capital at risk along the coast. Estimation of costs related to implementation of each oplicy option: (i) maintaining or changing the standard of protection, (ii) constructing new defences seaward the original ones, (iii) identifying a new line of defence and constructing new defences landward the original ones, (iv) working with natural processes to reduce risks while allowing natural coastal changes, (v) making no investment in coastal defence assets or operations.

20. Erosion management practices

Tabular data with geographical links to administrative boundaries

The project will inventory and document more than 50 experiences of shoreline management throughout Europe.

Existing shoreline management practices provide a knowledge base on successful strategies to protect the coastline against erosion, and their replicability elsewhere in Europe.

21. Vulnerable areas Vector data at scale compatible with 1:100,000

GIS analysis The project will delineate vulnerable areas as regards both coastal erosion and its consequences (risks of flooding, salt water intrusion, loss of habitats, destruction of assets invested in the near-shore area). This vulnerability assessment will be carried out through a GIS combination of the above mentioned data layers.


Quality management Quality management has to be considered carefully since the project cannot be responsible for the poor – or wrong - quality parameters of datasets provided by external providers. To prevent this risk, Eurosion consortium proposes a “Quality Chart” which would operate at three levels : • Level 1: The project will only guarantee the quality of data the consortium will produce (e.g.

extension of LaCoast and CORINE Coastal Erosion to applicant countries). To face this issue, the consortium will draft and implement a Quality Management Plan

• Level 2: For datasets the project will acquire from external sources, the consortium will carry out

quality tests and will document discrepancies between quality parameters as published by the data provider, and the results of our quality tests. But EUrosion will not improve the quality of these data.

• Level 3: The project will not guarantee at all the quality of datasets for which the project will

mention only metadata. We will nevertheless state very clearly that quality parameters as published in the metadata are those given by the data provider but where not controlled by EUrosion.

Data dissemination After the project completion, the European level database will be hosted by the GIS Unit of EUROSTAT (GISCO) which will be responsible for disseminating the different data layers to the public in accordance with the copyright arrangements agreed with data providers. In parallel, the project will also develop user-friendly tools to disseminate the data to those users who do not have GIS capacity. In that perspective, the project will build upon CoastBase experience which developed a technical architecture reducing time and efforts for sharing information through Web-based facilities and which already coped with technical issues raised by data availability (e.g. terminology, metadata model, interfaces, feedback procedures manipulation etc.). CoastBase builds on standards for terminology (GEMET), metadata models (CDS/GELOS/EDMED), and information exchangeability (XML).


WORK PACKAGE 3 & 4 :

EMBEDDING LESSONS LEARNED FROM EXISTING LOCAL SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INTO DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

Objective and expected results Objective of work packages 3 and 4 is to facilitate embedding of lessons learned from existing local shoreline management practices into decision-making processes and make this knowledge easily accessible to a wide range of local stakeholders. The focus will be on lessons learned from: • information management practices at the local level (work package 3) • coastal erosion models used at the local level (work package 3) • effectiveness of shoreline management techniques (work package 4) Methodological approach In the coming sections, descriptions of work packages 3 and 4 have been merged in order to highlight their complementary aspects. From a general point of view, methodology used in work package 3 and 4 is twofold: (i) Review and analysis , and (ii) Synthesis and recommendations.

Review and analysis Both work package 3 and 4 will work on the basis of case studies selected throughout Europe. work package 3 will review at least 12 local sites, the perspective of work package 4 will be broader and will review 50 case studies throughout Europe – including the 12 pilot sites of work package 3. A set of criteria has been established to select the case studies, and some relevant cases have already been identified. The methodology is as follows: • Step 1 – Documentation.

Document items of the different assesement levels (consistent with the scoping study WP5), e.g. the geo-morphological and hydro-dynamical patterns, the legal and institutional frameworks, the social and economical functions fulfilled by the coastal zone. Section “Documentation of selected sites” provides an extensive description of items which will document selected sites (common to WP3 and WP 4).

• Step 2 – Review.

For each case study, the project will review technical operations implemented at the local level and underline their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as regards both their assigned objectives and their undesirable short, medium and long term effects. (WP4) A review will be made of existing models – including hydro-morphological models, “capital at risk” assessment models, and ICZM models - commonly used in coastal erosion studies throughout Europe. The project will assess their pros and cons in terms of data requirements, needs for human skill requirements, as well as demand for equipment and funding demand. The project will also evaluate the applicability of these models in the different pilot sites of WP3 (WP3 .

• Step 3 – Analyse.

Identify the various stakeholders involved in the local management of the shoreline, their perception of the problem, highlight their respective responsibilities - as well as their interactions - in the decision-making processes, and analyse the strengths and weaknesses of information flows between these various stakeholders (WP3 ).


Synthesis and recommendations

• Knowledge accumulated in step 1 will be organized in a structured database. This database will

be linked to the European level database and accessible through Eurosion web site. • Based on the conclusions of Step 2 and 3, major information gaps between decision-making

practices “as they are” and decision-making practices “as they should be” will be highlighted and recommendations will be formulated to bridge these gaps. Recommendations will not only focus on technical specifications of missing data, but also on organizational procedures to update, store, exchange, analyse and disseminate these data, as well as human skills and funding resources required.

• These recommendations will be implemented within WP3 selected areas as prototypes of local

information systems for improved decision-making. These prototypes will be linked to the Europe-wide database (work package 2) and thus facilitate knowledge transfer between European regions.

While various definitions of information systems exist in the literature, the consortium will consider as an information system “a set of resources – including hardware, software, staff, methods, procedures, and funding – organized in such a way to make it possible to collect, store, share, process, update, visualize and disseminate information to achieve the objectives the information system is assigned to”. Applied to local shoreline management, the benefit of such a definition is twofold: (i) It does not restrict to technological devices only, but encompasses the human, institutional,

and organizational dimension of the system. It puts the emphasis on the distribution of responsibilities between the different stakeholders and how the different stakeholders interact to make decisions at the local level.

(ii) It also highlights the needs to clarify the goals the information system has been designed for, and also speaks out for .

Criteria for selecting cases studies The following set of criteria has been used for both work package 3 and 4. Because the number of sites considered in work package 3 does not make it possible to ensure a complete representativeness of all these criteria, the table below indicates priority given to each criterion.

CRITERIA GOALS FORESEEN WP concerned 1. Erosion problem All selected sites have to face an erosion problem which justifies

the needs for action

3 and 4

2. Physical types Selected sites have to be representative of the 4 major physical types of coast (a combination of the 3 coastal types and the most important geomorphological systems): (i) hard rock coast (with dunes and beaches), (ii) soft rock coast (iii) microtidal sedimentary coast (with dunes, beaches and/or river delta), (iv) macrotidal sedimentary coast (with intertidal systems like an estuarine and/or wadden system).

3 and 4

3. Policy options Selected sites have to be representative of the 5 major policy options available to manage erosion : (i) hold the line, (ii) move seaward, (iii) managed realignment, (iv) limited intervention, (v) do nothing

3 and 4

4. Social and economical functions

Selected sites have to be representative of the 56 major socio-economical functions of the coastal zones: (i) industry, transport and energy, (ii) tourism and recreation, (iii) urbanisation (safety of resident people and investments), (iv) fisheries and aquaculture (exploitation of renewable natural resources – including aquaculture), (v) nature ( conservation) and forestry.

3 and 4

5. Governance Selected sites have to highlight respective responsibilities of the 3 and 4


different level of administration, namely : (i) the national level, (ii) the regional level, (iii) the local level.

6. Willingness to participate Willingness of local stakeholders to provide information is a key criteria for selecting sites

Mainly 3

7. Innovative technical solutions

Selected sites have to be representative of existing shoreline management and coastal defence practices including pioneer and innovative technical solutions

Mainly 4

8. Geographical distribution Geographically distribution of the selected sites has to cover all the European Union member states.

Mainly 4

Documentation of case studies For each case study, the project will document the following 6 groups of items. While work package 4 will restrict this documentation to facts, figures, and brief overviews, work package 3 will carry out in-depth investigations and will provide detailed descriptions for each item. Information will be classified according to the following structure, fully consistent with other work packages :

ASSESSMENT LEVELS ITEMS TO BE DOCUMENTED

1. Physical process level • Coastal type/classification: both CORINE classification and the coastal typology for Europe (EUCC) n will be used.

• Morphology: topography and bathymetry, Sediment characteristics • Transport agents: Wind regime, wave regime, tidal regime, nearshore

currents, sea level rise • Type and rate of erosion: Acute or chronic, Horizontal movement of

coastline or eroding underwater system with risk of a collapsing sea defense.

• Cause : manmade or natural • Driving forces: Storms, decline of sediment, sea level change, shore

line processes • Impacts / effects: short term and long term, expected erosion, loss of

habitats

2. Policy level • Policy options: hold the line, move seaward, managed realignment, limited intervention, do nothing

• Distribution of responsibilities: International, EU, regional sea, national, regional, local

3. Technical and engineering

level

• Type of coastal defense: hard engineering (breakwaters, seawalls, groins, relocation of endangered structures or structures causing erosion), soft engineering (nourishments, dune, beach, foreshore management, etc.), mixed solutions (perched beach)

• Investment and recurrent costs • Cost-benefit analysis

4. Social, economical, and financial level

• Demography • Major functions of the coastal zone: social (food, water supply, energy

supply, housing, recreation, safety of investments, sewage waste and treatment, nature conservation),or economical ( tourism, transport, mining, industrial development, aquaculture)

• Land use conflicts • Assessment of capital at risk • Sources of funding • Impacts / effects

5. Public perception and stakeholder communication level

• Communication mechanisms between stakeholders • Role of public participation • Social acceptability

6. Information level • Availability • Accessibility • Accuracy and quality • Transparency • Representation and dissemination


Compliance of selected sites with the selection criteria

SELECTED SITES* SELECTION CRITERIA **

Country Local area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Belgium De Haan Yes Beach Hold the line Tourism Foreshore suppletion 2. Belgium

Zeebrugge / Knokke-Heist Yes

Beach Hold the line Tourism / harbour Regional

Revetments, groins

3. Bulgaria Burgas - Varna Yes Cliffs / Estuary Tourism 4. Cyprus* Lanarca Yes Soft rock cliffs /

beach Managed realignment

Agriculture / Tourism

National Yes

5. Denmark Lyngvig Yes Dunes/ Beach Dune suppletions 6. Denmark Skagen Yes Soft rock cliff Limited

intervention Nature Forestry

7. Denmark Skallingen (Wadden sea) Yes Beach Hold the line Tourism, nature conservation

Groins, palisades

8. Denmark Western Coast of Jutland Yes Cliffs

Hold line / managed realignment

Groins, breakwaters revetments and suppletions

9. Denmark Rojle Klint, Rosnaes, Helgenaes, Mons Klint Yes

Cliffs; Chalk and Mud

Slope stabilisation

10. Denmark Moen Yes Rocky coast 11. Estonia Talin Yes Cliffs 12. Finland Western coast (?) Yes Desolated 13. France* Cap Ferret to Lacanau (Aquitaine) Yes Macrotidal

sedimentary / dune, beach

Hold the line Tourism Regional Yes

14. France Coast of Normandy Yes 15. France Camargue (Alpes Provences Côtes

d’Azur) Yes

Tidal Marshes Nature conservation

16. France Sables d'Olonnes (Pays de la Loire) Yes Beach 17. France French Guiana Yes

18. Germany Arum, Norderoog, Suederoog (Isles Schleswig-Holstein) Yes Beach

19. Germany Seebad laboe Yes Rocky coasts / Beach Hold the line Tourism

20. Germany Elbe (Hamburg) Yes Estuary / Beach Hold the line 21. Greece Korinthia Yes Beach

22. Greece Messinia Yes Beach / rocky coasts

23. Ireland Tramore 24. Italy* Taormina (Sicily) Yes Rocky cliffs/ Beach Hold the line Tourism Regional Yes 25. Italy* Commune di Pisa – Commune di

Massa (Tuscany) Yes Rocky cliffs/ Beach Hold the line Harbour Regional Yes

26. Italy Po delta Yes Delta 27. Italy Sardinia Yes 28. Italy Veneto Yes Housing innovative 29. Latvia Gulf of Riga Yes Estuary 30. Lithuania Klaipeda Yes


31. Malta 32. Poland* West polish coast, municipalities of

Swinouiscie and Miedzyzdroje Yes Soft rock / Beach Hold the line Fishery

Harbour National Yes

33. Poland Oder Delta Yes Delta Harbour 34. Portugal* Espinho, Ovar, Aveiro and Porto Yes Rocky cliffs/ Beach Hold the line Fishery

Harbour Local Yes

35. Portugal Algarve 36. Portugal Azores Yes 37. Romania* Danube Delta Yes Microtidal

sedimentary / Delta

Hold the line Nature conservation

National Yes

38. Romania Mamaia Yes Beach Hold the line Tourism National

39. Slovenia Gulf of Trieste Yes Rocky cliffs Tourism / industry International

40. Spain* Sitges (Catalunya) Yes Rocky cliffs/ Beach Hold the line Tourism Local Yes 41. Spain Ebro Yes Beach Beach draines 42. Spain San Sebastian Yes 43. Spain Alicante Yes 44. Spain Canary Island - Santa Cruz Yes Beach 45. Sweden Falsterbo Peninsula Yes Beach 46. Sweden Ystad Yes Beach 47. The

Netherlands* Texel Island to Hoek van Holland Yes Macrotidal

sedimentary / Wadden/ Dunes, Beach

Limited intervention

Nature conservation

National Yes

48. The Netherlands Delta Yes Estuary

49. The Netherlands Wadden Sea Yes Estuary Limited

intervention Nature conservation National

50. United Kingdom Wash Yes 51. United Kingdom Coast of Holderness Yes Do Nothing 52. United

Kingdom* Essex estuary Yes Macrotidal

sedimentary / Estuary, mudflat, salt & grazing marsh, shingle

Managed realignment

Safety Nature, tourism, fishing

Local -

53. United Kingdom*

Isle of Wight – Ventnor Yes Soft rock cliffs limited intervention

Safety

Local Yes

54. United Kingdom Isle of Man Yes * indicates sites which will be also reviewed by wp3 ** Criterion 8 has not been represented Additional case studies (maximum 5) may be further added to improve representativity of WP4.


Review of existing models In the framework of work package 3, the project will review models used locally in Europe to manage the shoreline. For each of them, the project will briefly describes the requirements for these models to be used successfully and to which extent they could be applied to pilot areas of work package 3. Below is a preliminary survey of existing models. They were grouped in three categories : (i) hydrodynamical models, (ii) morphodynamical models, and (iii) management models.

NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION HYDRODYNAMICAL MODELS

SWAN

Simulating WAve Nearshore (SWAN) is a full spectral wave model suitable for wind generated waves and refraction in shallow coastal waters

Delft 3D – Wave (HISWA)

Wave module of Delft3D. Delft 3D is the Model System of the WL / Delft hydraulics where hydrodynamical, ecological and morphodynamical modules are integrated and is widely used all over the world.

DCSM The Dutch Continental Shelf Model is a large-scale water level prediction and storm surge forecasting model that encloses the North West European shelf, including the British Isles

MIKE 11 / 21 Quasi 2D unsteady hydrodynamic model. Developed by DHI (Denmark) TELEMAC Model developed by Wallingford EXTRAN Quasi 2D hydrodynamic model suited to modelling closed conduit and open

channel drainage networks.

REF/DIF Combined shoaling, refraction and diffraction finite difference model.

REFRACT Shoaling and refraction finite difference model for linear and non-linear waves.

ADFA1 Directional wave spectral finite difference model, able to simulate wave generation, shoaling, refraction, bottom friction, breaking and associated energy dissipation as well as non linear wave interaction.

MORPHODYNAMICAL MODELS

UNIBEST UNIBEST ( UNIform Beach Sediment Transport) is a generic term for a software package that computes sediment transport – both longshore and cross-shore - along a uniform sandy coast and the coastal behaviour during human interference or storm. Unibest can be used to model morphological changes on the timescale from months - decades, furthermore it is possible to model the effects of technical measures

PONTOS PONTOS is a physical coastline model, in which the coastal cross-section is schematised into several layers that display the sand mass. Accretion or erosion is being modelled per layer and caused by gradients in the longshore and cross shore sediment transport.

SBEACH Cross-shore sediment transport model.

GENESIS Shoreline change model, based on temporal and spatial differences in longshore transport caused by breaking waves.

Winkust 2000

WINKUST 2000 is a model that can compute the safety of dunes as a barrier for coastal defense and can assess coastline development

DUROS DUROS (TA) (DUne eROSion Time Averaged) are cross-shore dune erosion models and is to be used as a tool to check beach and dune safety as part of coastal protection. The models describe the dune erosion profile which is present after a storm surge. The amount of dune erosion is a function of: 1) the initial cross-shore profile; 2) maximum wave heigth and sediment characteristics; and 3) maximum surge level.

ESTMORF ESTMORF (ESTuary MORphology) is a physical model for tidal flow in a network of tidal channels (estuaries, tidal basins) , in which the area bathimetry and the tidal flow patterns can be simulated accurately.

ASMITA ASMITA is a morphological model to assess the influence of the sand demand of a


flood basin of the Wadden Sea on the behaviour of the North Sea coastal zone

MORRES MORRES is a conceptual sand balance model of a flood basin - outer delta system and gives an estimate of a disturbance in this system on the sand demand of the North Sea shore and the shoal area in the flood bowl.

MANAGEMENT MODELS SSWS The Dutch Storm Surge Warning Service has a national responsibility to alert the

relevant authorities concerned in the Netherlands whenever dangerous high water levels are expected. As an action-oriented tool, we think relevant to mention it here.

COSMO-BIO The COSMO-BIO model demonstrates the main steps in Coastal Zone Management planning, with special attention to biodiversity and sea level rise

HABIMAP

HABIMAP is a GIS-method developed for marine tidal waters to define ecotopes and habitats that occur there and to depict them into maps

LOV/EE The LeefOmgevingsVerkenner (LOV) or Environment Explorer (EE) is a spatial, dynamic model in which social, economic and ecological activities and land uses are modeled in an integrated way and has been developed in the GEONAMICA environment.

IMVULRES IMVULRES proposes a framework for efficient policy planning and decision-making at the local level. It is built upon the Retreat-Accommodate-Protect (RAP) approach of IPCC and focuses on the definition of montoring indicators.

DPSIR

The Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is widely used in Europe. It provides a framework for environment monitoring.

TARGETS A model that accounts for such societal interactions with the climate system is TARGETS (Rotmans and de Vries, 1997) is a highly aggregated model with simple relationships between social and economic development, resource use, environmental conditions, emissions, concentrations, climate, and impacts, which then lead to calculations of people and capital at risk in low-lying coastal regions.

ISO 14001 ISO 14001 is a best seller as regards environment management standardization and self improvement of environment performance. The scheme has been developed by the International Standard Organization and is used by many types of actors (private companies, public administration and local municipalities) as guidelines to implement efficient environmentally sound operations, and both monitor and adjust their impact.

EMAS

The overall objective of the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) is to promote continuous environmental performance improvements of economic activities by committing organisations to evaluate and improve their environmental performance and provide relevant information to the public. The scheme does not replace existing Community or national environmental legislation or technical standards nor does it, in any way, remove a company's responsibility to fulfil all of its legal obligations under such legislation or standards. It is widely used within European Union


Integration of information collected Information collected by work packages 3 and 4 will be made accessible through the European level database developed by work package 2. The integration process is briefly described hereafter.


WORK PACKAGE 5 :

FORMULATION OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Objective and expected results The objective of the work package 5 is to provide recommendations for a holistic and coherent approach to policy formulation in the fields of coastal erosion management. Such recommendations shall address all levels of administration - local, regional, national and EU - and shall ensure economically and environmental sustainable management of coastal erosion. Work package 5 is expected to deliver the following three outputs: • Scoping study. By addressing a number of questions among which the extent to which coastal

erosion is a natural process - along both rocky coasts and sedimentary coasts – and the extent to which this natural process may impact or may be impacted negatively by human activities, the scoping study mainly aims at defining the true issues related to coastal erosion and as a consequence, delineating the precise scope of investigations carried out by the project Eurosion. This scooping study is expected to mainstream the whole project and, as such, to provide guidance to other work packages.

• Trend analysis. With figures provided by the latest IPCC report and other recently published

studies, the likely effects of climate change - sea level rise, increased frequency and force of floods, strain on existing coastal defence measures - will be given full attention. Other issues of growing importance are e.g. river dams and other hydro-engineering structures that influence the flows of sediments, the degradation of coastal wetlands and other habitats that serve as natural storm defences due to rising recreation pressure, and the present trend towards a smaller number of larger ports in Europe. Natural processes such as tectonic movements and settlement of coastal sediments, including peat deposits and their contribution to relative sea level change will also be considered.

• Policy recommendations. Policy recommendations will incorporate results from all other work

packages. These recommendations are expected to address all levels of administration - local, regional, national and EU - and shall ensure economically and environmental sustainable management of coastal erosion.

Methodological approach The consortium proposes to adopt the approach developed the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which considers five (5) generic policies as a starting point for any policy–related assessment in the fields of coastal defence (see also figure next page). These five generic policy options are namely:

- Hold the line, by maintaining or changing the standard of protection; - Move seaward, by constructing new defences seaward the original ones; - Managed realignment, by identifying a new line of defence and constructing new defences

landward the original ones; - Limited intervention, by working with natural processes to reduce risks while allowing natural

coastal change; - Do nothing, by making no investment in coastal defence assets or operations.


Such an approach fully encompasses other traditional approaches such as the Retreat-Accommodate-Protect approach promoted by IPCC, while recognizing the ability of nature to repair itself (“do nothing”) or to provide cost-effective alternatives to hard engineering coastal defence solutions (“limited intervention”) The project will then assess to which extent each of these generic policy options have been successfully or un-successfully implemented in Europe so far and which conditions should be fulfilled to guarantee their success in the future. These conditions are grouped in six (6) levels:

- Physical process level - Policy level; - Technical and engineering level; - Social, economical and financial level: - Information level : - Public perception and communication between stakeholders - Information level :

The five generic policy options Definition of Coastal Erosion EUROSION will adopt the definition of UK’s Guide to Shoreline Management Plans: “The loss of land or encroachment by the sea through a combination of wave attack, and in the case of coastal cliffs, slope processes […] including the periodic reactivation of landslide systems [and] rock falls.”


Level of Physical process Erosion processes takes a variety of forms depending on the structure being eroded and its natural resistance. These can be grouped into two principle types - elevated cliff coasts, on the one hand, and sedimentary beaches and soft low-lying coasts, on the other hands. For both coastal types - elevated cliff coasts and sedimentary beaches and soft low-lying coasts - , work package 5 will review the major physical causes of erosion and the extent to which a bad understanding of under-going physical processes may lead to inappropriate policies. It will highlight the role of the structures themselves which, in the absence of human interference, may also provide protection for the hinterland, especially from flooding. Thus the erosion of a beach, sand dune or saltmarsh can lead to inundation of the land behind and this is a major consideration in many low-lying areas protected by sedimentary structures. Policy level Work package 5 will review CZM policy instruments available at different levels and the attention these instruments pay to coastal erosion. Table below provides a list of main policy instruments which will be reviewed during the project:

Policy level Policy instruments European Union Legislation and Regulations

• Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC • Habitats and Species Directive 92/43/EEC

Policies in Force • Sixth Environmental Action Programme • Integrated Coastal Zone Management: a Strategy for Europe • Common Agricultural Policy • Social Policy • Tourism Policy

Institutional Framework • DG Environment • European Environment Agency (EEA) • Joint Research Centre (JRC) • EUROSTAT

Strategic Studies and Programmes • The Europe ACACIA Report • EC Demonstration Programme for ICZM • Living with the Sea • European Spatial Data Infrastructure (ESDI) / INSPIRE • Global Monitoring of Environment and Security (GMES) • Future EU Policy Issues

Regional Seas programmes Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic (OSPAR) Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM) Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) Black Sea Environment Plan (BSEP)

Council of Europe The Council of Europe and coastal protection Model Law on Sustainable Management of Coastal Zone European Code of Conduct for Coastal Zones

Member States Legislation, policies and institutional framework

• Belgium • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany


• Greece • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • The Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom

International UN Programme on Climate Change / IPCC The American response to coastal erosion Technical and Engineering level Work package 5 and work package 4 will work in close collaboration to review coastal defence standards throughout Europe and provide an insight into the process of decision making on which coastal protection or management techniques are the most appropriate.

Distinction between “hard and soft” engineering techniques will be made (see description box). In a broad sense, hard engineering techniques involve the construction of solid structures designed to fix the position of the coastline. Soft techniques focus on the dynamic nature of the coastline and seek to work with the natural processes, accepting that its position will change over time. One of the main goal’s of this ‘softer’ approach is to allow systems to evolve proving opportunities for ecological conservation and more sustainable ‘natural’ coastlines.

Soft engineering approaches aim to work with nature by manipulating natural systems which can adjust to the energy of the waves, tides and wind rather than imposing controls. This approach can have economic benefits whilst at the same time helping to minimise the environmental impact of traditional engineering structures. The methods which are used include artificial nourishment, managed realignment and plantings of osier hedges and marram grass. (in Code of Conduct, EUCC 1999)

Some examples:

v beach nourishment

v dune building

v sand stabilisation

v saltmarsh re-creation

Hard engineering approaches continue an historical process which aims to resist the energy of the storms, waves and tides. Such structures include; breakwaters and seawalls designed to oppose wave energy inputs, groynes designed to increase sediment storage on the shore, and flood embankments and barrages designed as water tight barriers. (in Code of Conduct, EUCC 1999)

Some examples:

v seawalls

v breakwaters

v revetments

v groynes

v gabions

v offshore breakwaters

Social, economical, and financial level A number of socio-economic sectors have major implications on coastal erosion. The project will review status and impact of the functions entirely or partly fulfilled by European coastal zones: • Agriculture


• Fisheries and aquaculture • Forestry • Urbanisation and demography • Military defence • Energy • Industry • Tourism and recreation • Transport • Water management • Non economical functions

The project will also review existing models for assessing “capital at risk” – including both economical capital and natural and cultural capital - and will pay a particular attention to the cost-benefit analysis model developed by ECOPRO project. The project will particularly discuss the extent to which ECOPRO methodology may be used throughout Europe to assess the relevance of the 5 generic policy options in particular areas. This methodology consists of a three step approach:

Step 1 - Select a baseline condition against which costs and benefits can be compared. The benefits of protection schemes are identified in the losses that are expected to be prevented. The basic comparison tool is the ‘do nothing’ option. Depending on the circumstances, other baseline conditions may be more appropriate.

Step 2 - Estimate the cost of the protection of the management scheme. Three issues should be looked at:

Ø Calculation of prices of the works and maintenance. Taking in consideration opportunity costs is suggested.

Ø Cost appraisal. This is a fundamental issue. These costs are associated with maintenance and repair. These costs do not affect the current budget but they will appear in the future revealing to be quite substantial.

Ø Price levels should be us current as possible.

Step 3 - Estimate the benefit arising from the scheme. Benefits can be categorised in:

Ø Tangible benefits that can be better described as quantifiable in terms of money. They are subdivided in three categories:

o Property

o Infrastructure

o Transport

Ø Intangible Benefits that more difficult to assess for the reason that are related to quality of life. They can be broadly divided in:

o Community Concern

o Conservation Value

o Commercial Value Level of public perception and communication between stakeholders

Whilst security is definitely a key issue in coastal defence policies, public perception of security may considerably differ from the assumptions made in policy preparations as well as from statistical approaches to flood and erosion risks. Unfortunately, the importance of public perception, awareness and opinion on security and coastal defence policies has been hardly documented within existing studies. To compensate this lack of knowledge, work package 5 will mainly seek to integrate results from WP3 pilot studies, which will thoroughly address this issue.


Level of information

Policy makers and coastal managers all around Europe are regularly facing questions such as: “why does erosion occur here?”, “where can erosion occur in the future?”, “how is this problem dealt with in other regions?” and “who is in charge?”. Answers to these questions are usually not readily available, so for problems, however local they are, major efforts are often made to help addressing them.

Information plays a determinant role in the development of coastal erosion related planning and management strategies. While no real studies have been carried out on this, the “information” dimension probably stands for 10 to 20% of the total cost of coastal zone management – including coastal engineering - projects. The findings of the Thematic Studies of the ICZM Demonstration Programme, especially the Thematic study F 1 and the Thematic study C 2 provide a very important basis for an assessment of the data and information needs for coastal defence policies. The approach here present will take these documents as reference.

For coastal erosion management and policy making, the project will address a large number of issues related to access to structured, transparent and objective information, such as:

Ø current and future trends in coastal evolution and erosion at a local level

Ø the values at stake in areas at risk of erosion or flooding

Ø public perceptions and stakeholder positions

Ø cost-benefit analysis of the five generic coastal erosion management scenario’s Ø technical aspects of coastal erosion management (shoreline management) and of local

implementation of measures and techniques.

Ø trends in aspects of climate change: sea level rise and storm climate

Ø trends in availability of river sediments as a result of river basin management (land use, irrigation, dams) and climate change (precipitation / desertification in the catchments)

Ø coastal defence policies in the various European countries Ø technical and financial evaluation of measures and techniques.

The project will also take stock of WP3 recommendation on local information systems to support decision-making at the local level.

1 J.P. Doody et al, Information required for integrated coastal zone management. EC, 1999. 2 M. Capobianco, Role and use of technologies in ICZM. EC, 1999.


WORK PACKAGE 6 & 7 :

DISSEMINATION, NETWORKING, AND INVOLVEMENT OF END-USERS

Objective and expected results Both work packages 6 and 7 is to implement mechanisms for disseminating EUROSION deliverables towards a large audience, and receive feedback from it. These mechanisms will make an extensive use of Internet-based facilities which now offer cost-effective solutions to impact a wide range of people (work package 6). In parallel, an Advisory Board, composed of professional and potential end-users from sectors directly or un-directly related to coastal erosion, will be set up in order to review major deliverables and suggest improvements before their public dissemination (work package 7). Work package 6 and 7 are expected to deliver the following outputs: • Web-based communication tools, including a web site, quarterly newsletters, and an online

Shoreline Management Guide, which would incorporate results of WP4 • Printed communication tools, including leaflets, bookmarks and other paper materials • End user requirement survey • Advisory board • Final event in Brussels early January 2004 to present the conclusions of the all project Communication strategy The Steering Group adopted the following for approving diffusible deliverables before their dissemination towards the public :

- The project will distinguishes “internal” deliverables, whose main objective is to facilitate project monitoring by the project management unit, from “diffusible” deliverables meant to be widely disseminated among the public (see Annex 1). Internal deliverables will remain internal to the consortium.

- Diffusible deliverables, which are meant to be largely disseminated, should be sent first to the Advisory Board for review. Based on this review, the consortium will draft abstracts which summarizes the major comments and solutions proposed by the consortium.

- Only abstracts will be reviewed by the Steering Group, in addition to the Interim and Final reports.

The Steering Group also recommended that, once validated, the deliverables should be made accessible to a wide range of users, mainly at the regional and local levels, and focus on replicability of results elsewhere. In addition to the Internet-based communication tools proposed by the consortium, the Steering Group recommended an extensive use of existing networks to ensure a wide dissemination of the results. End user requirement survey As part of its strategy to involve end user in the project design and monitoring, EUROSION has been carrying out since early 2002 an end-user requirement survey. This survey will help to ensure the project will meet the different expectations, and give incentives to the various stakeholders in keeping data delivered by the project up to date. Preliminary conclusions of this survey made it possible to identify information needs which are not fully covered by the initial terms of reference, but which definitely represent critical information to assess and model coastal erosion trends on European


coasts. The two most significant information needs – not initially covered by the project technical specification – are the following : • Laws, decrees and other regulatory texts. The legal and regulatory framework is expected to

impact negatively or positively vulnerability of coasts toward coastal erosion. Through their direct involvement into land use planning, elaboration of building standards, land acquisition, and awareness raising, national and/or regional governments may significantly orient long term coastal erosion scenarios. While not mentioned in the initial Terms of Reference, this information have nevertheless been collected and integrated into the EUROSION database.

• Meteorological extreme events. History of severe storm surges and precise delineation of flooded

areas provides significant information on how severe and extended the impact of extreme events on coastal erosion have been in the past and may potentially be in the future. Although the consortium does not intend to collect this information in the coming 24 months, some indications on how such data may be collected and integrated into EUROSION database after the project is completed will be provided in the final report.

As the end-user requirement survey is still on-going, additional information needs are expected. Relations with other initiatives In line with the Terms of Reference, the project will build on existing projects and initiatives. Among these, the following initiatives have been identified during the end user requirement survey as highly relevant for EUROSION to achieve its objectives, and consequently prime cooperation partners: • The IZCM demonstration programme, operated from 1996 to 1999, whose objective was to

identify what practical conditions must be met if sustainable development is to be achieved in the European coastal zones in all their diversity. The Programme's aim was twofold: (i) to test co-operation models for the integrated management of the coastal zones and to provide the technical results needed to devise the projects to be set up; (ii) to establish structured dialogue between the European institutions and all the players with a stake in the development of the coastal zones. Many references will be made by the consortium to ICZM Demonstration Program either in the process of selecting the pilot sites or in the setting up of the advisory group.

• Activities of Topic Centers, designated by the European Environment Agency (EEA), to assist in

its work of collecting, analysing, evaluating and summarising information relevant to national and international policies for the environment and sustainable development. Among the five existing Topic Centers, the project will work more closely with the European Topic Center for Terrestrial Environment (ETC/TE), hosted by UAB, and with which a Memorandum of Understanding is under preparation. More particularly, Eurosion database (WP2) is expected to be compatible with TERRIS Information System under development within ETC/TE.

• Most of the data layers which have been identified as relevant for the Eurosion database (WP2)

are already been produced and are gathered into the Geographical Information System of the European Commission (GISCO). GISCO is hosted and maintained by EUROSTAT. To ensure a full compatibility between both databases, Eurosion data model and format will be widely discussed with EUROSTAT specialists. Also EUROSTAT stands a good chance to host and maintain Eurosion deliverable once the project is completed.

• The Environmental European Spatial Data Infrastructure Framework (E-ESDI/INSPIRE) which

aims at making available relevant, harmonised, and quality geographic information for the purpose of formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of Community environmental policy-making;

• The Global Monitoring of Environment and Security (GMES) which seeks to bring together the

needs of society related to the issue of environment and security with the advanced technical and operational capability offered by terrestrial and space borne observation systems;


Composition of the Advisory Board Annex 2 propose a revised list for the Advisory Board composition. This list includes representatives from European bodies, national and sub-national authorities, universities, professional associations – tourism, harbour, insurance, aquaculture –, and non-governmental organizations.


ANNEXES Annex 1 – Table of project deliverables Annex 2 – Proposed composition for the Advisory Board Annex 3 – Project time-schedule Annex 4 – Implementation Plan

report final version - EUROSION · EUROSION - Revised Inception Report ... The advisor y group will...

Documents

Transcript of report final version - EUROSION · EUROSION - Revised Inception Report ... The advisor y group will...