Coastal Governance - Coastnet The Edge - Summer 2007

The edge The ma g azine of CoastNet

Summer 2007

Coastal governance

Head to head – debating coastal access

Pirate fishing and governance

Governance around the world

Contents 3

Editorial

4

News

6

Head to head: 'Should there be a legal right of access on foot to England and Wales’ coastal areas, to open up more of the coast for the

CoastNet – breathing new life into coastal matters Summer 2007

public to enjoy?' David Fursdon, President of the Country Land

Coastal goverance

and Business Association and Kate Ashbrook,

6

Chair of the Ramblers’ Association go head to head on the issue.

The edge is a quarterly magazine, sent out to all CoastNet members. CoastNet is an international networking organisation that works with all coastal interests to promote the exchange of ideas, information and expertise to find long term solutions to coastal problems that benefit all. Our mission is to safeguard the world’s coast and those communities of people and wildlife that depend upon it for their future.

8

To catch a thief There’s no issue more complicated than that of pirate fishing to test governance to the full. Lesley Smeardon takes a look at the issues and talks to Cliff Morrison about the role of fish processors in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Editor: Lesley Smeardon [email protected] Designed by: Cottier & Sidaway Printed by: Swan Print

11 Governance around the world International readers give their views on the major coastal governance issues in their country and how, if at all, they are being tackled.

Submissions To submit an article for publication, please email to the editor saving your submission as a word document. Alternatively, send to the address below. Letters can be sent to the editor but we are unable to acknowledge receipt. The editor reserves the right to edit submissions.

12 Jamaica

13 Belgium CoastNet: The Gatehouse, Rowhedge Wharf, High St, Rowhedge, Essex, CO5 7ET. Tel/Fax: 01206 728644 Email: [email protected] Web: www.coastnet.org.uk CoastNet is governed by an independent Board of Management and serviced by a Secretariat. Registered charity no 1055763 Registered as a company limited by guarantee, company no 3204452 The opinions expressed in the magazine are not necessarily those of CoastNet. © CoastNet, 2007

2

The edge Summer 2007

14 South Africa

15 Hong Kong, China; Karnataka State, India; British Columbia, Canada

10

14

Editorial Coastal governance In this issue on governance, we hear of the issues, regulations and procedures from around the world. I am not surprised that the issues are so familiar – good coastal management is universally difficult, whatever the status and capacity of the State. We hear of the lack of public involvement, of poor enforcement undermining good legislation. We hear of a lack of political interest hampering progress, and of the insidious pressure of urbanisation and industrialisation on coastal systems. This highlights for me a long-held belief – that good coastal governance is as dependant upon individuals as it is upon good legislation. I say this because I think that legislation can only go so far in resolving any issue. It provides a framework, it enables things to be done, it even requires things to be done. However, whether things are done, or whether they are done well or

badly, is entirely down to individuals: the decision-maker, whether politician or civil servant, who decides a course of action; the technocrat making an assessment of a proposal; the user, abiding or not by the conditions of a licence. To what extent do these people understand the system of which they are a part? Do they work in sectoral confines, or do they have a broader perspective that allows them to take an integrated approach? Do they make that extra effort to talk to a colleague or another organisation to fill in that final piece of the information jigsaw that will form the basis of their decision, or do they just make do with what they have to hand at the time? Do they encourage others to make that extra effort, or just shrug their shoulders and accept second best?

It is for these reasons that CoastNet is committed to networking. We believe that our work in connecting people, our work in improving the flow of information (through the web and publications, and at events), our work in enabling people to understand the ‘big picture’, is as important to the realisation of good governance as are the legal measures that provide the basis of it. So, my message to you is to take a personal responsibility for integration and to carry on networking to discover new friends, colleagues and perspectives.

Alex Midlen, Strategic Director

The edge Summer 2007

3

News CoastNet Board of Management 2007 CoastNet has recently made new appointments to its Board of Management, completing the line up to provide a hugely experienced, qualified and varied team to steer CoastNet. CoastNet warmly welcomes all new appointees as well as thanking existing members for their continued commitment to the aims of the organisation.

Peter Burbridge CoastNet Chair Professor Peter Burbridge holds the Research Development Chair in Coastal Management at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Details of Peter’s work was featured in last issue’s news pages (p4)

Martin Budd Director of Peterborough Advice Group, Environment Division, Royal Haskoning Martin has over 10 years of research and commercial experience of coastal and marine impact assessment. He is an experienced Project Manager of EIAs and SEAs, and has a background in Coastal and Offshore Resource and Environmental Management. Currently, Martin is group manager for 25+ environmental scientists in Peterborough and is providing the technical lead on two dredging and reclamation EIAs in Dubai and Bahrain, and is also working on a major port EIA in Wales.

Rhoda Ballinger Senior Lecturer in the School of Earth Ocean and Planetary Sciences, University of Cardiff Rhoda lectures in coastal and environmental management and policy at Cardiff University. Over the past decade she has undertaken

4

The edge Summer 2007

research on various aspects of coastal and marine policy for a variety of clients, including UK government departments, agencies, WWF and others. Recently, she has been involved with several European INTERREG projects on Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) including COCONET and COREPOINT.

Steven Fletcher Senior Lecturer in Coastal and Marine Affairs, University of Bournemouth Steve contributes through research and teaching to the MSc Coastal and Marine Management course. He has interests in all aspects of coastal and marine policy, but in recent years has been particularly involved with partnership approaches to ICZM both from an academic perspective and as a practitioner, through chairing both the Hamble Estuary Partnership and the Solent European Marine Site Stakeholder Group. At the national level, he chairs the Coastal and Marine Working Group of the Royal Geographical Society which facilitates the production and dissemination of coastal and marine research. Steve has also conducted consultancy work for a variety of UK institutions including the Crown Estate, RSPB, coastal partnerships and Defra and has conducted research widely in Europe, plus Russia, Turkey, Cuba, United States, Japan and Australia.

Caroline Salthouse Regional Coastal Project Officer, North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) As well as coastal policy work for the NWRA (the Regional Planning Body), a major part of Caroline’s role is providing the Secretariat for the North West Coastal Forum, a multi-sector partnership working together to promote and deliver ICZM in the North West of England. Caroline has extensive experience of coastal issues in the North West at both local and strategic levels. In addition to sub-regional experience gained previously while working as Manager of the Mersey Basin Campaign's Mersey Strategy, she has taken an active part in steering several European-funded projects including the Interreg IIIC West CoPraNet (Coastal Practice Network) project, where she led the work on beach management and coastal erosion, and the Interreg IIC Sustainable Port Cities project.

Tim Chapple CoastNet Company Secretary A qualified architect, designer and planner, Tim has worked in the not for profit sector for 20 years. He is currently self-employed working with a range of clients including the Lea Rivers Trust, CABE and UNESCO.

Anthony (Tony) Clayton Anthony retired from the University of Greenwich at the end of 2002, after holding the post of Dean of Faculty before being appointed to direct the University’s Natural Resources

News Institute (NRI). The NRI has been providing sustainable solutions to alleviate poverty in the developing world, particularly in Africa and Asia, for over 100 years. Since retirement he has taken on a number of voluntary appointments including Chair of the Medway Swale Estuary Partnership, Chair of the Board of Directors of a Performing Arts College and is a Trustee of the Chatham Maritime Trust.

Cliff Morrison Chartered Scientist CSci, Fellow Inst. Food Science and Technology FIFST Cliff is currently the Technical Adviser to Young's Bluecrest Seafoods Ltd and is also the Chair of the Food and Drink Federation Seafood Group, which represents most of UK processor.In addition to this he is: – Vice president of the European Seafood Processors Association – A member of the EU DG Fish Aquaculture and Fisheries Advisory Committee – A member of the NW and NSea RACs, either on executive or general assembly – A Representitive on various Defra/FSA stakeholder and/or advisory committees, including Codex Fish - Member of the Marine Stewardship Council’s Technical Advisory Board An interview with Cliff on the subject of pirate fishing can be found on p8 of this issue.

EU Maritime Policy With the consultation process finally ended on the EU Maritime Policy Green Paper, we asked those who contributed their views what they consider the key issues to be. To see the responses, please log on to our website at www.coastnet.org.uk.

I love this beach... CoastNet member, Fiona-Fraser Smith The only way you can get to my favourite beach is to walk along a wild and relatively remote stretch of the North Devon coastline not too far from Hartland. It’s not a beach with miles of golden sand and dune grass waving in the onshore breeze but one exposed to the storms of the Atlantic Ocean, covered in round grey pebbles, wobbly stones and large angular boulders that have fallen from the cliffs above. The cliffs are a geologist’s paradise, high and rugged, curving wildly with anticlines and synclines. The rocky shoreline is heaven for a rock hopper like me as I explore the hidden sea life in pools and crevices. At low tide the remains of a wreck are revealed, massive chunks of the ship including its boiler, anchor and drive shaft lie welded to the rocks. It’s a permanent reminder of man’s presence on this remote and rocky coastline where smugglers used to abound. Fiona receives a copy of the BBC book Coast: t h e j o u r n e y c o n t i n u e s. Tell us about your favourite beach and receive your own copy. Send to [email protected]

Partnership Forum 2007 The 5th Annual Partnership Forum, organised by CoastNet and supported by Defra, took place in April this year. Working with objectives set by Defra regarding the Marine Bill and the role of partnerships in this process and the business case for financial support for coastal partnerships. A lot of information was gathered (see picture 1) and a lot of discussion took place (pic 2) which led to recommendations on the role of partnerships in developing Marine Spatial Plans put together in a report by CoastNet and submitted to Defra. The report will be publicly available shortly but for further information, please contact Theresa Redding: [email protected]

Climate Change conference a huge success The June CoastNet/Corepoint conference on climate change at the coast was one of the most successful ever run with presentations really encouraging delegates to consider the knock-on effects of climate change on coastal systems and to think ‘outside of the box’. All presentations can now be found on our website (www.coastnet.org.uk) and a full report will be available shortly.

Photo (from left to right): Professor Dianne Edwards, Head of the School of Earth Ocean and Planetary Sciences; The Right Honourable, The Lord Mayor of Cardiff, Councillor Gill Bird; The Minister for Sustainability and Rural Development, Jane Davidson; and Alex Midlen, Strategic Director, CoastNet.

The edge Summer 2007

5

‘Should there be a legal right of access on foot to England and Wales’ coastal areas, to open up more of the coast for the public to enjoy?’ David Fursdon As an organisation that represents rural businesses, encouraging more visitors to the countryside or the coast can be a good thing. However, when most people visit the coast, in a similar way as to when they visit the countryside, they like somewhere to park, a cup of tea and a simple route that takes them back to where they started. That is why the CLA has always questioned the need for a blanket approach to coastal access provision by introducing a legal right of access. It will not necessarily increase visits to the coast, as we have seen from the implementation of the legal right of access to access land – the ‘right to roam’ –≠and it certainly won’t make it easier for people to get there which is quite often half the problem.

Kate Ashbrook We cannot assume everyone who visits the coast wants exactly the same experience. Some people may just want a short walk from the car park and a cup of tea as David suggests, while others will want longer walks linked with public transport, and yet others may just want to wander freely in a coastal location. They all need to know what their rights and responsibilities are, and a legal right of access with a clear code of conduct will provide that certainty. And it’s not necessarily the numbers visiting the coast, but the quality of those visits which matter. An access corridor, with clear rights to walk combined with protected and enhanced landscapes, will provide an unforgettable experience.

L-R: David Fursdon, Kate Ashbrook and David Milliband (previously Environment Minister) enjoy the coastal landscpae

6

The edge Summer 2007

David Fursdon, President of the Country Land and Business Association and Kate Ashbrook, Chair of the Ramblers’ Association go head to head on the issue.

Any walk in the countryside, even if it involves walking down a footpath can be an unforgettable experience and that’s something we would agree with. Our experience however is that people are keen to follow defined routes rather than wander freely as Kate suggests. These routes can be provided in a way that does not interfere with the other legitimate activities that take place on coastal land if they are provided as a result of negotiation. Otherwise, in a free society, the owners of land and businesses would need to be compensated for that interference and the financial impact that results. So why don’t we take the common sense approach which is to create local solutions to local access problems, rather than simply creating a right which is impossible to implement sensibly on the ground and where people have no desire to go?

DF

People vary in their requirements and desires. While some may want to follow a route, others like the psychological and physical freedom of knowing that they can step off the path at their whim. This was one of the great benefits brought by opening land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. A dedicated public highway around the coast would be too expensive and complex to create. A permissive path can be withdrawn or blocked at any time, and no one has a duty to maintain it. And any route would be likely to fall into the sea as the coast is eroded, which is likely to accelerate with climate change.

KA

David Fursdon

In contrast a coastal corridor, created by legislation, within which there is a public right to walk, provides a cheaper, more certain and long-term solution, with the additional benefits of landscape restoration. It could be created a set distance from the cliff edge or shoreline so that it is flexible against erosion. A responsible right of access would also benefit landowners by bringing more visitors to rural businesses, as well as increased funding for signage and management. Sensible restrictions and the code of conduct will ensure people do not interfere with landowners’ legitimate activities. We would be in agreement that any way forward must be good value for money but we are also keen that the implementation and the management of any new access must be adequately allowed for in budgets. As we saw from the ‘right to roam’ the lack of money available for access management was not good enough and it was obviously an add-on expense rather than something that had been taken into account during the project planning process.

DF

Inevitably, in any argument put forward for increased access, the focus is on the responsible user. For the land manger or business owner it can only take a few irresponsible users to cause significant loss or lasting damage. In any debate about access, there has to be a balance between the desires of users, the wider public good and the legitimate expectations and needs of existing businesses and owners. Now we have

Kate Ashbrook

seen the public consultation document from DEFRA and have noted their ‘presumption against paying compensation’ we will continue to push the point that not paying compensation for new rights going across private land is a dangerous precedent to set for all householders in England. What’s to stop this being extended to the building of new roads or airport runways? We want more people to enjoy our coast but we fear that this consultation will end up being about taking rights without compensation and nothing more. There is a huge difference between creating a public right to walk on someone's land, and building a new development there. The latter removes the landowner's ability to use his land as he pleases, and so there is a reasonable case for compensation. But public access on foot will not conflict with the owner's ability to manage his land, he loses nothing and therefore there is no case for compensation. Indeed, if he has any entrepreneurial flair, he stands to gain financially by giving the public a warm welcome. As the Secretary of State for Environment, David Miliband said, at the launch of the coastal access consultation on 19 June: 'this is about what we think of British people. If you think people will exercise rights responsibly, you'll like this. It's about trusting people.' The Ramblers' Association trusts the British people, and visitors to our island, to behave-it's disappointing that the Country Land and Business Association has such a short-sighted view.

KA

The edge Summer 2007

7

To catch a thief To find an issue that tests governance to the full, you need look no further than to pirate fishing says Lesley Smeardon. Cast the net wide and discover the complexities of governance-related measures in attempts to stamp out the trade of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

P

irate fishing is big business. According to UK Fisheries Minister, Ben Bradshaw, the trade of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is “….driven by sophisticated criminal gangs who don’t care what or who they damage in the pursuit of easy cash.” Estimates put its value at around $9 billion a year, often largely at the expense of developing countries. The African countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea for example are estimated to lose $150 million between them every year through pirate fishing. What makes this ‘industry’ all the more difficult to govern is that it doesn’t respect national boundaries nor international attempts to manage high sea resources. At just about every step in the process, once the boat is licensed and in the water, to getting the fish on our plates, loopholes and stealth tactics are successfully employed to maintain the plunder of fish stocks and evade apprehension. With proposed new EU regulations to combat this illegal trade, due for consultation soon, what are the priorities for preventing IUU fish entering the EU? CoastNet board member and Chairman of the UK Food and Drink Federation (FDF) Seafood Group, Cliff Morrison says “One of the big issues for the EU is that 58% of all fish consumed in the EU comes from third countries. For white fish it’s nearly

90%. Add to this the fact that illegally and legally caught fish may be mixed at any stage in the supply chain, and it

representative body at AIPCE, the European Seafood Processors Association, Morrison is all too

becomes hugely complex to identify

familiar with the need to have in place

illegally caught fish in the market

effective monitoring processes. He was

place. Regulations need to look at how

involved in the development and

to certify fish coming in to the EU

implementation of the industry’s

from the original vessel. This would

traceability system to responsibly

involve a system to develop full chain

source cod which is now informing

traceability back to the boats wherever

new proposed EU regulations to adopt

possible.”

a tracing system. But these proposals are full of challenges and the scale of

Perhaps one of the best documented cases of illegal fishing is that of Barents Sea cod (the largest cod fishery in the world). According to estimates by the Norwegian Coastguard, between 100,000 and 166,000 tonnes of cod is fished illegally here, representing up to 40% of the Russian catch. “Cod is transhipped onto reefer (transport) vessels and shipped in Europe and onwards to China,” adds Morrison. “As imports from third countries have increased, exporters have wanted to maximise the value of their fish and now undertake a degree of semiprocessing themselves or send the fish for semi-processing to countries independent of both fishing nation and EU importer, eg China. If a company buys from China, then without full traceability, there is often a good chance that an element of it could be IUU cod. This is an area for concern and chain of custody information is essential.” (See page 9, Chain of Custody). As Chairman of the UK FDF Seafood Group which is also the UK

the regulations simply mind boggling. “Take the developing nations for instance,” says Morrison. “If fish is coming from one of these countries, they may not have the infrastructure or resources to monitor and trace from boat. So they’ll lose even more business unless the EU commits to helping them out. That’s why the recent announcement from DFID of a £15 million scheme in Sierra Leonne to help fishermen stamp out illegal fishing is a positive step forward.” Of course traceability is just one element of the IUU fishing problem. The issues begin even before a single fish has been taken from the sea. A hotchpotch of binding and nonbinding agreements with different geographical and legal reaches provides many a loophole to exploit (see box, Governing the seas). Take the issue of flags of convenience, for example which allow vessels to license to any country rather than the country of ownership. This enables that ship to fish according to the rules Continued on Page 10

8

The edge Summer 2007

The chain of custody Fish stocks IUU fishermen do not abide by rules designed to protect the wider marine ecosystem. As a result, seabirds, marine mammals and sea turtles are all adversely affected by the trade.

Ship and crew As WWF points out, IUU fishing is truly global. A vessel may be owned by a company in the Caribbean, that is itself owned by someone in Spain, with a Russian captain and a crew from the Philippines and flagged to

Transhipping One of the main ways in which IUU fishing can remain undetected is by vessels transhipping their catch at sea. By transferring catches onto transport ships (reefers) IUU vessels never need enter ports. The AIPCE has recently announced that it will no longer buy products that have been transhipped at sea.

Monitoring of vessels The lack of a single global database providing information on fishing vessels helps perpetuate IUU fishing. The UNFAO proposed database aims to share information across national and regional waters. Similarly the proposed database under new EU regulations will use and share existing information on blacklisted vessels from and across RFMOs.

Secondary processing With an increasing amount of secondary processing occurring in third countries, such as China, it is difficult to ensure legitimate catches are not mixed with IUU fish.

Consumers and labelling Labelling schemes such as that set up by the Marine Stewardship Council give consumers confidence that the fish they are buying comes from a sustainable source. The MSC scheme is an UN FAO compliant certification scheme for sustainable fisheries, which is also linked to chain of custody from catch to final sale with an ecolabel. Currently more than 6% of the world’s catch is MSC certified.

Aid to developing countries IUU fishing is estimated to be worth around $9 billion a year, often at the expense of developing countries. Proposed EU regulations aimed at full traceability of fish could impact developing countries further due to a lack of resources to enforce. That’s why international support for developing countries such as. DFID’s £15 million scheme to help Sierra Leonne stamp out illegal fishing is vital.

Flags of convenience (FOC) Approximately 15% of the world’s large scale fishing fleet is either flying FOC or the identity of the flag is unknown. (WWF). Many international organisations including the Environmental Justice Foundation are now calling for the elimination of flags of convenience.

Port authority controls Transhipping aside, regulating access to port facilities can be an effective way of controlling IUU fishing. New procedures that came into force in May this year by the NEAFC, tighten up port authorisations, forcing flag states to confirm that the vessel was authorised to fish, and verifying information provided in a declaration from the master of the vessel. Without such information, no landing can be made.

Processors Fish processors are now joining forces in attempts to stamp out IUU fishing. The FDF Seafood Group for example has set up tracing schemes for cod and committed to support a fish monitoring system in new European legislation currently being drafted.

Supermarkets Support for traceability, monitoring and ecolabelling schemes help keep IUU fish out of the food chain. Sainsbury’s, for example, along with the FDF and Seafish were part of a EU funded Tracefish project which developed a European standard for traceability from boat to final sale. Tesco and Marks and Spencer‘s have also given their support for a fish monitoring system in new European legislation currently being drafted.

NEAFC = North East Atlantic Fisheries Comission RFMOs = Regional Fisheries Management Organisations IUU = Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated

The edge Summer 2007

9

Governing the seas The present system of high seas governance has been built on the foundation established by the UN Convention of the Sea, 1992. What has resulted is a complex mix of binding and non-binding instruments with different geographical and legal reaches and different levels of participation.

UN FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT – 2001 Sets out principles for conservation and management of fish stocks. Only about third parties to Law of Sea ratified it.

UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION FAO In 2001 adopted Int ern a t i o n a l p l a n o f a c t i on o n I U U f i sh i n g, a voluntary instrument endorsed by 110 countries to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. Along with Australia, New Zealand and the UK it proposed a g l o b a l d a t a b a s e o f f i s h i n g vessels to give importers and processors help in identifying vessels likely to have fished illegally.

EU of the flag country rather than the country of origin. Flag licenses can even be bought via the internet for just a few hundred dollars making it easy for vessels to re-flag (‘flaghopping’) several times in one season to confuse monitoring authorities. Then there is the issue of regulating port facilities to control IUU fishing and clamping down hard on so-called ‘ports of convenience’ such as Las Palmas in the Canary Islands that provide services to IUU fleets. Add to that transhipping (transferring catches onto transport ships, (reefers)) to avoid the need to enter ports, effective communication of blacklisted vessels across the world, and two tier markets that can be created between legal and illegal fish, and the subject becomes so insanely complex that it’s little wonder IUU fishing continues in almost pandemic proportions. But there is progress being made. As Morrison explains: “IUU fishing is all about profit. If you can make the operations unprofitable you can stop it in its tracks. Recently, eight IUU trawlers were found fishing just outside Icelandic waters. All were putting fish on a mother reefer vessel

10

The edge Summer 2007

which was being followed by EU officials. When it tried to land in an EU port, it was rejected. It then went off the European coast, headed to Morocco, went west through Panama and tried various ports but nobody would take it in. Eventually the fish was offloaded in Hong Kong as there was no agreement in place there to stop it. But, the cost to offload was so much that ultimately it was not worth doing. The great news is that some of these eight trawlers are now actually being scrapped.” Ben Bradshaw, UK Fisheries Minister, in a recent statement said: “We all have a responsibility and a duty to make sure there is adequate governance and enforcement in place to stop illegal fishing and to block illegal produce entering the food chain.”

Proposed EU regulations are likely to include a c o m m u n i t y register of vessels e n g a g i n g i n I U U f i s h i n g which would include vessels on regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOS) blacklists and a p ro p o s a l o n e c o - l a b e l l i n g .

REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS These are affiliations of nations which coordinate efforts to manage fisheries in a particular region and make up for the absence of a binding supranational authority. T h e N o r th-Ea st A tlant ic Fisher ies C ommission (NE AFC) launched procedures for new port state controls in May 2007.

HIGH SEAS TASK FORCE Set up in 2003, the Task Force is a small group of fisheries ministers and NGO leaders that promote practical solutions to the challenge of IUU fishing on the high seas.

NATIONAL GOVERNANCE Under the International Plan of Action on IUU Fishing, all parties were required to set up and implement National Plans of Action on IUU fishing. The The UK Action Plan came into force in 2005.

FISH PROCESSORS This governance that Bradshaw speaks of must be the responsibility of all those legitimately involved at each step in the ‘chain of custody’ to ensure illegally-caught fish has nowhere to go; no country to license to, no port to unload at, no processors to sell to, and ultimately – no trade.

The AIPCE (European Seafood Processors Association) is based in Brussels and has membership across most of the original 15 EU member states with fishing interests and now also includes Poland.

NGOs Some NGOs, notably WWF, Greenpeace and the Environmental Justice Foundation have been very vocal on IUU fishing. They are able to provide political pressure on governments, fish processors and retailers.

PORTS Strengthening port state controls may deter IUU fishing and improve enforcement. Necessary domestic legislation must be in place as well as cooperative mechanisms.

Coastal governance around the world Belgium

Canada

China Jamaica Hong kong British Colombia India

South Africa

What are the main coastal governance issues around the world? Our international readers give us their views on the major coastal governance* issues in their country and how, if at all, they are being tackled. *Coastal governance here is interpreted as policy and legal processes by which our coasts and seas are managed by public authorities and the arrangements in place for participation by communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders. Please note all contributions in this article are the professional opinions of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of those organisations they are affiliated to.

The edge Summer 2007

11

Jamaica By Dr David Smith (Director), Christopher Daly,. (Civil Engineer) of Smith Warner International Limited (Kingston, Jamaica)

Overview of policy

Key issues

Coastal governance in Jamaica is backed by a number of policies and legal processes. Of these, the Beach Control Act (1956) is the most important piece of legislation. The Act seeks to ensure proper management of Jamaica’s coastal and marine resources and protects the rights of the foreshore and sea floor by prohibiting the use of these without permission from the local environmental regulatory body. This body, the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), is responsible for reviewing license applications for the construction of docks, wharves, jetties, breakwaters, marinas and for issuing licenses for the construction of such structures. The Act is currently undergoing substantive review in order to address more contemporary legal and management issues. A number of relevant regulations and policies are also in place. The 1992 Natural Resources (Marine Parks) Regulation established marine protected areas for the conservation of marine resources. The Montego Bay, Negril and Ocho Rios are three marine parks to which these regulations apply. These areas are Jamaica’s primary tourist destinations. The 1997 Coral Reef Protection and Preservation Policy and Regulation and the Policy on Seagrass Beds are also two important regulations. The aims of these polices are first to ensure the conservation of coral reefs in order to sustain their ecological and socio-economic functions and second, to facilitate the control of practices which could result in the destruction of sea grasses. The document Towards A Beach Policy For Jamaica (2000) specifically addresses the controversial issue of beach access, and issues relating to oil pollution, sewage pollution, solid waste disposal, beach erosion, coastal water quality, mariculture and wild life protection. The document has undergone a process of public consultation and is now with the Ministry of Lands and the Environment for completion of the policy development process. Despite the existence of legislation and regulations that govern how coastal developments, environments and issues are dealt with, they are not fully enforced. This leads to major deficiencies that have serious consequences in critical areas of coastal governance.

Control of pollution of coastal waters The informal disposal of domestic, industrial and agricultural waste directly affects the water quality of coastal waters in Jamaica. This problem occurs both in some inland areas, where waste discarded into rivers eventually end up being discharged in the sea; and also, directly from developed coastal areas of the country. Kingston Harbour, the seventh largest natural harbour in the world, is an example of an extremely polluted water body. The problem is exacerbated by nonenforcement of water quality and effluent discharge standards and the malfunctioning of some sewage treatment plants.

12

The edge Summer 2007

Monitoring of coastal resources Beach erosion and the underlying causes and effects are not monitored to a great extent. One of the foundations upon which Jamaica’s tourism sector is built on is the promise of beach, sun and sand. Without healthy beaches, the country’s economy would be in greater turmoil than it already is. Coral reef protection is also an ongoing issue. Many reefs are destroyed as a result of tourist activities, and poor water quality (excessive nutrients) is also one of the primary reasons for overgrowth of algae on coral reefs that can suffocate them. These coral reefs act as a sand source, and their destruction ultimately leads to losses in sediment production and the net erosion of beaches. In addition, they frequently function in the role of natural breakwaters, providing shelter to the shorelines in their lee.

Lime Cay, Jamaica

Guidelines for coastal development and resulting effects The recent spate of tourism-related developments along the coast of Jamaica has raised the issue of creating specific guidelines and limitations. Some resorts are highly dense, offering hundreds of rooms to overseas visitors. This puts a burden on the coastal environment, as larger beach areas are required or existing ones are being overutilised. The Beach Control Act does not specifically refer to limits of beach utilisation. The attendant socio-economic impacts are also considerable, as basic infrastructure, such as utilities and healthcare facilities are not available or able to cope with the increased numbers of informal settlements that typically spring up to house the service workers for these developments. Tackling the issues The issues above get little attention until serious problems occur. Apart from having appropriate legislation in place, not much preventative action or enforcement takes place. Other private groups, such as marine parks, play important roles in supporting the protection of the environment, and carry out frequent checks and assessments on the health of a particular area. The scale to which this is carried out, however, is small and confined to only a few select areas of our coast, such as prime tourist and fishing areas.

Belgium By An Cliquet, Dirk Bogaert, Frank Maes and Dino De Waen, University of Ghent

Delwaide Dock, one of the largest docks at Antwerp Harbour Belgium is the smallest state bordering the North Sea with a 66 km long coastline and a territorial sea and continental shelf of 3,600 km2. Although small, it comprises several types of coastal habitat, which are important for a variety of flora and fauna and accommodates many human activities including recreation, shipping, fisheries, industry and mineral extraction (Maes et al, 2005). Such a small and intensively-used area needs an integrated policy but several elements make this a difficult proposition.

Key issues Complex institutional landscape Since the creation of the Flemish government in 1980, the Belgian state has undergone several steps in its federalisation process, resulting in a shift in competences from the federal to regional governments. For the coastal zone this has resulted in a fragmentation of the governmental institutions responsible for its management. Most of the competences are now divided between the federal government (the marine part of the coastal zone) and the Flemish Region (most matters on the landward side of the coastal zone and some matters at sea). The division between the federal and the regional competences is formed by the baseline, which is the lowwater line along the coast as marked on the large-scale charts officially recognised by coastal states (Cliquet, 1996). However, divergent laws can assign jurisdiction at sea to the Flemish Region. At the different government levels, several administrations are involved in coastal zone policy including the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Defense and the Federal

Public Service Environment . On the political level, several ministers are also competent for marine issues with a Minister for the North Sea appointed in 2003. And, finally, at the level of the Flemish Region, the Administration for Waterways and Seaways, the Administration for the Environment, the Administration for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Administration for Spatial Planning all have responsibilities in the coastal zone. These Flemish administrations are subdivided in departments. While there is no single integrated coastal policy, some coordination exists for some specific issues in the coastal zone, including a steering group on seas and oceans that deals with coordination on the planning level but is limited in scope and does not include participation of all institutional levels (such as the local level), nor information and participation for the public. Another coordination structure on a specific issue is a cooperation agreement between the federal government and the Flemish Region on dumping of dredged material at sea. Lack of participation A second issue hampering the governance of the Belgian coast is a lack of public participation. Decisions within the coastal zone allowing for public participation can be indirect and direct. Indirect participation can be obtained through several advisory bodies, such as the Flemish Environmental Council (MINA-Council) and the provincial advisory body on spatial planning (PROCORO). Direct participation is included in several procedures, eg building permits or environmental permits. These permits must

be made public, after which everyone can express objections. For certain coastal projects these forms of participation are apparently inadequate. This was the case for the first attempt to establish marine protected areas in 1999. Several user groups felt they had not been involved in the process and finally the federal government halted the attempt due to their protest. The first planning of offshore windmills close to the Belgian coast created a similar problem. In more recent attempts, the federal government has learned from the negative experiences in the past and in both procedures for offshore windmills and marine protected areas, much effort is given to informal participation rounds, starting form the very beginning of the process. Tackling the issues These two issues are intertwined with the lack of a global and integrated policy and cooperation. There are tools that could mediate problems concerning the institutional complexity and lack of participation. Most drastically, all competencies related to the coast could be transferred to either the Flemish or federal government. Alternatively, one could opt for a comprehensive legal framework for integrated coastal zone policy for the Belgian coastal zone. Less stringent than the above, cooperation agreements between the federal and regional governments could set up a formal cooperation structure for integrated coastal zone policy with different options for institutional linkages having already been considered (Cliquet et al, 2002). While many key representatives are in favour of a formal cooperation agreement, to date, no political decisions have been taken to formalize this agreement. The main reason that this issue has not been brought on the political agenda, is a lack of political interest for integrated coastal zone policy at both federal and Flemish level. It therefore remains uncertain what the future will bring for an urgently needed integrated Belgian coastal zone policy. For more information, see: http://www.westvlaanderen.be/jahia/ Jahia/site/kustbeheer_en

The edge Summer 2007

13

South Africa By Louis Celliers, Fiona Mackay, Sean Fennessy, Oceanographic Research Institute

Key issues Delay in promulgation of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Bill This Bill was intended to be the legal instrument that would be the mainstay of coastal management in South Africa (obtainable from http://www.gov.za). The process of creating this important legal instrument started very encouragingly with a broad public participation process and quickly resulted in the publication of a Green Paper, that was soon followed by an excellent White Paper. At the time, it was generally accepted that the White Paper was a fair reflection of firstly, the public participation process and the opinions and suggestions solicited through this process, and secondly, it appeared to have widespread acceptance insofar it encapsulated the real coastal management issue in what was then the post-apartheid fledgling democracy. After the White Paper was published, it was easy to believe that the Bill was one short step away from promulgation but now, nearly eight years later, three different environment ministers (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism), and more than five drafts, the Bill was promulgated. Better late than never, but at this point the Bill is not readily recognisable as an iterative product of the White Paper, which then raises serious transparency issues in terms of the process that was started in 1997. Even so, the promulgated Bill is a positive step to achieving

Atlantic Beach, Cape Town

14

The edge Summer 2007

sustainable coastal development and will be the framework for future coastal governance. Furthermore, the Bill is supported by other advanced environmental legislation but often the process to full implementation and effectiveness is hampered by factors relating to monitoring and enforcement, and a weakened legal system. A specific but parallel issue, even within the new Bill, is the lack of a comprehensive legal framework to manage ‘transitional waters’, such as estuaries. There also appears to be a discontinuity between terrestrial and estuarine water management policy and legislation. The current legal framework does not implicitly resolve departmental responsibility for waters in the coastal zone that is not riverine, or of the marine nearshore or offshore environment. The Coastal Management Bill makes provision for establishing coastal governance structures in all spheres of government. Many of these structures have already been created, most notably a National Coastal Committee, as well as Provincial Coastal Committees. In some instances district Coastal Working Groups have also already been created to represent the local sphere of government. These structures, which have been attended by members on a voluntary basis, will become compulsory according to a specific terms of reference, specified by either the national Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism or the Member of the Executive Councils of the respective coastal provinces.

Lack of human capital Delivery of services and management effectiveness of all spheres of government is severely impeded by a lack of human capital. There is no question that the current and advanced South African legal framework supports sustainable environmental and coastal development. However, the ability of the state to translate this advantage into real and long-term benefit for coastal communities and the rest of civil society, while maintaining ecosystem integrity, is limited due to a lack of suitably qualified staff and high staff turnover, which in turn leads to a lack of continuity and understanding of coastal issues by coastal managers. This is particularly evident in the local sphere of government where many of the policies and legal instruments implemented directly affect coastal communities. Politicising of coastal management and inappropriate profiteering The limited ability of mid-level managers to effect change due to high-level political agendas is reducing the effectiveness of the legal and policy framework. The pervasive influence of politics in South Africa is evident through all levels of civil society, probably as a result of the policies of the apartheid era and the subsequent prioritisation of redress. This extends to coastal management as opportunities for coastal development have significant shortterm financial and political benefits. A lack of strong moral leadership that reflects the constitutional framework of South Africa is the cause for serious coastal governance issues across the three spheres of government. An example of the effect of these last two coastal issues, is that from the fairly narrow perspective of management of harvestable marine resources, the national authority responsible for these resources has lost much of its research capacity to manage them, and, because of political agendas, is proving extremely slow to replace this capacity. This loss of capacity means that their response to concerns and communications from stakeholders (industry, communities, NGOs,) is very poor, and also means they are failing to meet some of their obligations to international agreements.

Regional in-country perspectives Hong Kong, CHINA By Dr Kerrie MacPherson, University of Hong Kong It wasn't until 1975 that urban planning and the marine environment 'met' in the Colony Outline Plan (renamed the Hong Kong Outline Plan) and the setting up of the environment branch in government. This was a time of rapid demographic and economic growth and a rapid decline in the urban environment. The usual clutch of problems included insufficient sanitation and sewerage, water supplies, inadequate housing, squatter areas and so on. In 1995, the Marine Parks Ordinance was passed, providing for the designation, protection and management of ecologically important marine sites. This landmark legislation however is essentially the extension of urban zoning (or restrictive) land-use and control to specific marine and coastal areas of scientific interest. However laudable such legislation has been, Hong Kong's 6.9 million people inhabiting a highly urbanised area of 1,650 sq km, share a fragile ecosystem strained by industrial and urban development, pollution, landfills and reclamation all of which impact negatively on the marine habitats. Furthermore with the inception of China's open-door policy and the rapid economic, industrial and urban development in south China, human pressures on marine resources and the environment are unprecedented. Even before the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, there have been attempts to address common cross-border environmental problems with the establishment of the Hong KongGuangdong Environmental Protection Liason Group. In the same year as the passage of the Marine Parks Ordinance in Hong Kong, China promulgated the China Ocean Agenda 21 and initiated ICZM pilot projects in Guangdong and elsewhere. The Hong Kong -Guangdong group established a series of technical subgroups to monitor water quality, pollution control, white dolphin (Sousa Chinensis) conservation, fisheries management, aquaculture and red tide monitoring. The speed of Chinese legislation and policy frameworks devised belies the continued degradation of the marine environment due to rapid urbanisation and a sectoral approach to the environment. WWF (and others) have urged the Hong Kong

government to ban trawling in Hong Kong's territorial waters, establishing 'no-take' zones, or instituting a licensing/permit system based on actual assessments of fish stocks. But the restructuring of marine activities and the complex regulatory regimes, differing customary and statutory legal systems between Hong Kong and China, will have to be addressed before the 'one country, two systems' become one.

Karnataka State, INDIA By Dr A M Ramesh, Planning Commission of India

Key issues Coastal erosion Beach erosion is serious in certain areas along the Karnataka Coast and becomes acute during monsoon season, when the sea is virtually roaring. Short term remedial measures are being taken in the State-funded Anti Sea Erosion Schemes. However, sea wall construction by dumping huge stone blocks has created more problems than benefits especially deepening of the sea. Urbanisation and industrialisation The coast of Karnataka is increasingly becoming an industrial hub with large numbers of industries setting up along the Mangalore coast. These range from petrochemical, fertiliser, iron ore palletising, pigments & paints, power generation, fish processing plants and small scale industries. Urbanisation is also increasing with unplanned housing growth to accommodate the industrial workforce. As a result, large quantities of untreated domestic sewage are being released into the coastal waters along with industrial discharges. These effluents impact on the already stressed coastal ecosystem with frequent occurrence of blooms in the waters – an indicator of over nitrification. It is clear that there is a need for a planned approach to the expansion of coastal cities/ towns. Identification of critical coastal habitats Along the coast of Karnataka, sparse mangrove vegetation occurs. The total area of mangroves was 60 sq km in 1989 (MoEF), which had drastically reduced to 25 sq km by 2001 (KSRSAC and SAC). This alarming reduction is mainly due to reclamation of the area for construction of brackish water aquaculture ponds and saltpans. Depletion in mangrove ecosystem is considered as one of the causative factors for erosion increase in the estuarine mouths.

Tackling the issues Law for coastal protection To protect and conserve the coastal environment, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), has declared a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) which includes the coastal stretches of seas, bays, creeks, rivers and backwaters that are influenced by tidal action (landward) up to 500 m from High Tide Line (HTL) and the land between LTL and HTL. Some activities, such as construction, mining, reclamation. have either been prohibited or restricted. There are also environment protection, and prevention and control of pollution laws which have provisions for protection of marine biodiversity.

British Columbia, CANADA Association for Responsible Shellfish Farming

Key issues •

Siting of shellfish tenures which interfere with other stakeholders and lack of environmental assessments prior to siting The coastline of British Columbia is being littered by obstructive and noisy aquaculture farms and the debris that is washed up on the beaches from these farms. Although the government has guarded against damaging areas where eelgrass exists, the net result is the destruction of natural habitat where beach leases exist and unknown damage to the environment from extensive licensing of deep water leases in areas with little tidal movement. • Lack of proper testing for heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury and publication of results and warnings to the public regarding consumption of shellfish containing high amounts of these metals. Tackling the issues The issues have been ignored by government and licensing agencies in its quest to expand the aquaculture industry without adequate scientific study. Further, the establishment of a Farm Practices Board has also left concerned community groups, NGOs or individuals without further redress. NGOs, such as the Suzuki Foundation and the Georgia Strait Alliance have addressed some of these issues but government continues to ignore them.

The edge Summer 2007

15

CoastNet welcomes new corporate members Join the Ramblers’ Association and get 20% off For over 70 years, we have been working on behalf of walkers everywhere, promoting walking, safeguarding the beauty of the countryside, maintaining paths and increasing access to Britain’s beautiful landscapes. As a registered charity, our work is funded almost entirely by subscriptions and donations from people like you. Join now and you get 20% off Ramblers membership • Single annual membership – £19.20 (normally £24) • Joint annual membership – £25.60 (normally £32) (2 adults at the same address) Visit www.ramblers.org.uk/offer and enter the code EDE or call 020 7339 8500. NB This offer is not available to existing Ramblers members and expires on 31 Dec 2007.

Registered charity number 1093577

Leading the way in environmental consultancy

Royal Haskoning is a highly experienced and renowned international consultant which is able to provide a comprehensive range of skills for clients in the coastal zone. From ICZM and EIA, to discrete ecological surveys in terrestrial, intertidal and marine habitats, we are able to assist in ensuring sustainable development and adherence to the complex suite of environmental legislation that currently exists in the UK and abroad. If you would like further information please contact: Dr Martin Budd [email protected] www.royalhaskoning.com

CoastNet emails: Alex Midlen; [email protected] Theresa Redding; [email protected] Lesley Smeardon; [email protected] Manuela de los Rios; [email protected] Christine Punter; [email protected] Events; [email protected] General; [email protected]

This publication is partially funded through the Corepoint project under the Interrreg 3B Programme. Corepoint aims to establish North West Europe as an internationally recognised region of excellence in coastal management by encouraging full implementation of ICZM, highlighting best practice, providing education by influencing national spatial policies – for further details please see http://corepoint.ucc.ie