3.0 Implementation 

3.1 Introduction 

The success of the MEMP relies upon the implementation of the objectives and recommendations identified in each of the action plans. This depends on gaining the support and participation of many organisations and individuals, from the national agencies to the local farmers and landowners.

In order to achieve this, the following are required:

  • a management framework;
  • resources;
  • mechanisms for implementing the action plans;
  • public and political support; and
  • monitoring and review.

3.2 Framework for Implementing the Medina Estuary Management Plan 

The implementation of the MEMP requires a management framework to co-ordinate, support and monitor the implementation of the Action Plans which necessitates the continued commitment of all parties to work together.

A good management framework demands high standards of:

  • communication;
  • leadership; and
  • direction.

The development of the management framework has been a key priority to ensure that the transition between plan development and implementation is smooth and effective.

3.2.1 Formation of a Medina Estuary Management Committee 

It was suggested that the Steering Committee's purpose and membership be carefully reviewed and that a Medina Estuary Management Committee evolves from the existing Steering Committee's membership (see Appendix A1). It is important that member organisations of the Management Committee have both the staff time and commitment to give to the project.

The Management Committee contains members from the following organisations as they have the statutory responsibilities for the control of planning and management

  • English Nature;
  • Environment Agency;
  • Harbour Authorities;
  • IoW Council;
  • Southern Water.

In addition, other key interests, for example, agriculture, commerce and recreation require representation (see section 3.5).

The Committee meets quarterly; user groups, voluntary groups and the private sector are in liaison with the partners to ensure all the estuary interests are considered.

3.2.2 Co-ordinating the Implementation Framework 

The co-ordination role should take on the following responsibilities:

  • co-ordinate the implementation of the recommendations set out in the Action Plans, through the liaison with individual partner organisations and Committees, as required;
  • act as a central point for correspondence;
  • provide administrative support for the MEMP's implementation; and
  • maintain an up-to-date database of contacts.

It is important that the co-ordination remains independent and impartial. Options for the provision of this support have been as follows:
  • employment of a dedicated Project Officer/Estuary Manager;
  • sharing a Project Officer/Estuary Manager with a similar/nearby project;
  • carrying out the co-ordinating role, on a rotating basis, in house within the organisations which make up the project Committee; and
  • one of the partner organisations take over the co-ordination function, though this may lack impartiality.

The appointment of a Project Officer/Estuary Manager was the preferred option and, after consultation within the Steering Committee, an Estuary Officer was appointed in February 1999. This is for an initial 3 year period with the post being partner funded by the Environment Agency, English Nature, Isle of Wight Council, Cowes Harbour Commissioners and Yarmouth Harbour Commissioners. Tasks include implementing both the Medina and Western Yar (Dec. 1998) Estuary Management Plans and co-ordinating the preparation of plans for other estuaries on the Isle of Wight.

3.2.3 Requirement of the Medina Estuary Management Committee 

The following tasks have been, and are an ongoing commitment to be undertaken by the Management Committee:

  • establish the appropriate means for co-ordinating implementation and facilitating links between interested organisations/individuals;
  • examine the financial resources required to support the implementation of the MEMP;
  • prepare and implement annual work programmes;
  • identify flag-ship projects for implementation;
  • identify evolving areas of concern and appropriate solutions;
  • promote awareness of the MEMP and estuary issues;
  • set up the mechanisms required to monitor the success of the plan.


3.3 Resources 

The implementation of the MEMP is dependent on the provision of adequate resources.

  1. Future resource requirements 

The following resource requirements are required for the implementation of the plan:
  • Project Officer/Estuary Manager salary;
  • travelling expenses;
  • funding to implement specific projects;
  • staff time;
  • publicity materials;
  • venues for meetings.

3.3.2 Sources of funding 

Some elements of the Action Plans involve certain organisations resourcing the specific actions/projects which come entirely within their remit. However, many of the other action programmes involve co-operation between agencies and organisations. One suggestion is for partners to contribute resources, both financial and in-kind, to a central resource holder which can then be used to fund projects involving several interest groups.

In the medium to long term, other opportunities for funding and resourcing need to be identified to diversify the funding base. Possible sources include:

  • European Funding (Atlantis II, Coastal Strategy etc. LIFE, Interreg III);
  • Lottery Funds;
  • Sponsorship; and
  • Estuary Users.

3.4 Mechanisms for implementing the action plans 

One of the most important aims of the implementation phase is to avoid duplication of effort and work towards the resolution of conflicts. Issue resolution and the implementation of recommendations should be steered by the Management Committee. There are several options for achieving this:



  • The Topic Groups should be reinstated following a review of their membership. They could agree and co-ordinate programmes to implement actions related to their interest, and a nominated leader of each Topic Group could report back to the Management Committee on progress. Continuation of the Topic Group approach may not be helpful in the long term as a single interest may perpetuate the compartmental approach to management rather than encouraging integration.

  • Issues or Action Groups could be established to focus on a specific issue with membership drawn from a wide range of interests including managers, users and the local community.

  • The responsibility for taking up and implementing the Action Plans could be left to the individual organisations

  • The Medina Management Committee could handle ongoing matters and oversee the formation of Issues or Action Groups to deal with specific issues.

During 1999 the last 3 of these methods for implementing the action plans have been used. It was decided not to reform the Topic Groups at this stage since individual involvement of members was used through direct liaison with the Estuary Officer.


3.5 Public and Political Support 

The preparation of the plan has achieved public and political awareness through consultation and the development of the Topic Groups. This involvement needs to continue to ensure that widespread support is maintained.

This can be achieved by:

  • keeping the public and political sectors informed about the plan's implementation;
  • involving the public and political sectors in the implementation of objectives and recommendations when deemed necessary;
  • increasing the profile of the MEMP to the public and political organisations; and
  • the formation of an Advisory Group for the Medina Estuary. With the announcement in 1999 from DETR of the forthcoming Trust Ports Review there is a requirement for all ports to have port/harbour advisory body. For the Medina, there would be merit gained if only one Advisory Group was formed which would advise Cowes Harbour as well as the Medina Estuary Management Committee. Representatives would be from the entire length of the estuary and would help identify action to be addressed by the Estuary Officer.

It is intended to continue the level of public involvement throughout the implementation stage of the Medina Estuary Management Plan.

3.6 Monitoring and review 

Management planning for the Medina Estuary is an ongoing process. In order to assess changes in the estuary, evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and identify new issues or conflicts, monitoring and review must be undertaken. Objective RM2 provides recommendations for monitoring and review.

Monitoring and review should include:

  • evaluation of overall progress;
  • review of annual work programme;
  • identification of areas which require additional research;
  • identification of new conflicts;
  • monitoring of how conflicts have been resolved;
  • review of funding.

Objectives and Action Plans may require modification following the completion of the review.

The monitoring of the EMP process can be achieved through ‘Best Value’. This is a Government framework for developing Local Services by establishing a process of continuous improvement and review, and to engage more closely with the public.



Page last updated on: 28/08/2001