Coastal Governance - CoastNet The Edge - Summer 2007

8/14/2019 Coastal Governance - CoastNet The Edge - Summer 2007

1/16

TheedgeTh e m a ga z i ne o f C oa st Ne t

Head to head debating

coastal access

Pirate fishing and

governance

Governance around

the world

Summer 2007

Coastal governance


2/162 The edge Summer 2007

CoastNet breathing new

life into coastal matters

Summer 2007

Coastal goverance

The edgeis a quarterly magazine,

sent out to all CoastNet members.

CoastNet is an internationalnetworking 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. Ourmission is to safeguard the worlds

coast and those communities ofpeople and wildlife that depend

upon it for their future.

Editor: Lesley Smeardon

[email protected] by: Cottier & Sidaway

Printed by: Swan Print

Submissions

To submit an article for publication, please

email to the editor saving your submission

as a word document. Alternatively, send tothe address below. Letters can be sent to the

editor but we are unable to acknowledge

receipt. The editor reserves the right to editsubmissions.

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 byguarantee, company no 3204452

The opinions expressed in the magazine are

not necessarily those of CoastNet. CoastNet, 2007

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

public to enjoy?'

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.

8 To catch a thief

Theres 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.

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.

12 Jamaica

13 Belgium

14 South Africa

15 Hong Kong, China; Karnataka State, India;

British Columbia, Canada

Contents

6

10

14


3/16The edge Summer 2007 3

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 allowsthem 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 theirshoulders and accept second best?

Editorial

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 forintegration and to carry on

networking to discover new

friends, colleagues and

perspectives.

Alex Midlen,

Strategic Director

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-heldbelief 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

Coastal governanceIn this issue on governance, we hear of the issues, regulations and

procedures from around the world.



News

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.

CoastNet Board of Management 2007

Peter Burbridge

CoastNet Chair

Professor Peter

Burbridge holds the

Research

Development Chair

in Coastal

Management at the University of

Newcastle upon Tyne. Details ofPeters work was featured in last

issues 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 amajor 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

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 andCOREPOINT.

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 MarineWorking 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 partof Carolines 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 SecretaryA 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

Universitys Natural Resources



NewsInstitute (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 andTechnology 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 AdvisoryCommittee

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

Councils Technical Advisory Board

An interview with Cliff on the subject

of pirate fishing can be found on p8

of this issue.

Partnership Forum 2007The 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]

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.

Climate Change conference a huge success

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. Its 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 geologists 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. Its

a permanent reminder of mans presence on this remote and rocky coastline

where smugglers used to abound.

Fiona receives a copy of the BBC book Coast:

the journey continues. Tell us about your

favourite beach and receive your own copy.

Send to [email protected]

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 Oceanand 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.



Kate AshbrookWe cannot assume everyone who visits the coast wants

exactly the same experience. Some people may just want ashort 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 its

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.

David FursdonAs 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 wont make it easier for people to get

there which is quite often half the problem.

Should there be a legal right of

access on foot to England and Wales

coastal areas, to open up more of thecoast for the public to enjoy?

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


7/16

The edge Summer 2007 7

DFAny walk in the countryside,

even if it involves walking down

a footpath can be an unforgettable

experience and thats something wewould 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 dont 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?

KAPeople 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.

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.

DFWe 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 expenserather than something that had been

taken into account during the project

planning process.

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

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. Kate AshbrookDavid Fursdon

seen the public consultation document

from DEFRA and have noted their

presumption against paying

compensation we will continue to pushthe point that not paying compensation

for new rights going across private land

is a dangerous precedent to set for all

householders in England. Whats 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.

KAThere 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 entrepreneurialflair, 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.


8/16

90%. Add to this the fact that illegally

and legally caught fish may be mixed

at any stage in the supply chain, and it

becomes hugely complex to identify

illegally caught fish in the market

place. Regulations need to look at how

to certify fish coming in to the EU

from the original vessel. This would

involve a system to develop full chain

traceability back to the boats wherever

possible.

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 semi-

processing 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

8 The edge Summer 2007

Pirate 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

dont 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

doesnt 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 its nearly

representative body at AIPCE, the

European Seafood Processors

Association, Morrison is all too

familiar with the need to have in place

effective monitoring processes. He was

involved in the development and

implementation of the industrys

traceability system to responsibly

source cod which is now informing

new proposed EU regulations to adopt

a tracing system. But these proposals

are full of challenges and the scale of

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 theyll lose even more

business unless the EU commits to

helping them out. Thats 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 non-

binding 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

To catch a thiefTo 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.

Continued on Page 10



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.

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.

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.

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 worlds catch isMSC certified.

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.

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. Thats why

international support for developing countries

such as. DFIDs 15 million scheme to help

Sierra Leonne stamp out illegal fishing is vital.

Flags of convenience (FOC)

Approximately 15% of the worlds large scale

fishing fleet is either flying FOC or the identity ofthe 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 thatthe 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. Sainsburys, 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

Spencers have also given their

support for a fish monitoring systemin new European legislation

currently being drafted.

NEAFC = North East Atlantic Fisheries Comission

RFMOs = Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

IUU = Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated



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 (flag-

hopping) several times in one season

to confuse monitoring authorities.

Then there is the issue of regulating

port facilities to control IUU fishingand 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 its 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 justoutside Icelandic waters. All were

putting fish on a mother reefer vessel

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 tostop 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 illegalfishing and to block illegal produce

entering the food chain.

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 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 2001Sets out principles for conservation and

management of fish stocks. Only about

third parties to Law of Sea ratified it.

UN FOOD AND AGRICULTUREORGANISATION FAOIn 2001 adopted International plan of

action on IUU fishing, 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 global database of fishing

vesselsto give importers and processors

help in identifying vessels likely to havefished illegally.

EUProposed EU regulations are likely to

include a community register of vessels

engaging in IUU fishingwhich would

include vessels on regional fisheries

management organisations (RFMOS)

blacklists and a proposal on eco-labelling.

REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENTORGANISATIONSThese are affiliations of nations which

coordinate efforts to manage fisheries in a

particular region and make up for theabsence of a binding supranational

authority. The North-East Atlantic Fisheries

Commission (NEAFC)launched procedures

for new port state controls in May 2007.

HIGH SEAS TASK FORCESet 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 GOVERNANCEUnder 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 PROCESSORSThe 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.

NGOsSome NGOs, notably WWF, Greenpeace

and the Environmental Justice Foundation

have been very vocal on IUU fishing. They

are able to provide political pressure ongovernments, fish processors and retailers.

PORTSStrengthening port state controls may

deter IUU fishing and improve

enforcement. Necessary domestic

legislation must be in place as well as

cooperative mechanisms.

Governing the seas



*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.

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

around the world

South Africa

Belgium

India

Hong kong

China

Canada

Jamaica

British Colombia



JamaicaBy Dr David Smith (Director), Christopher Daly,. (Civil Engineer)

of Smith Warner International Limited (Kingston, Jamaica)

Key issuesControl 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 non-

enforcement of water quality and effluent

discharge standards and the malfunctioning

of some sewage treatment plants.

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

Jamaicas tourism sector is built on is the

promise of beach, sun and sand. Without

healthy beaches, the countrys 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.

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 over-

utilised. The Beach Control Act does not

specifically refer to limits of beachutilisation. 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 takesplace. 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.

Overview of policyCoastal 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

Jamaicas 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 Environmentand 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 Jamaicas

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. Lime Cay, Jamaica



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

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 aspecific 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 ofparticipation. 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 beenconsidered (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.west-

vlaanderen.be/jahia/

Jahia/site/kustbeheer_en

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 issuesComplex 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 low-

water 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

Delwaide Dock, one of the largest docks at Antwerp Harbour



South AfricaBy Louis Celliers, Fiona Mackay, Sean Fennessy, Oceanographic Research Institute

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 transitionalwaters, 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 maintainingecosystem 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 short-

term financial and political benefits. A lack

of strong moral leadership that reflects the

constitutional framework of South Africa is

the cause for serious coastal governanceissues 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.

Key issuesDelay 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 andquickly 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



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 Kong-

Guangdong Environmental ProtectionLiason 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 policyframeworks 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, INDIABy Dr A M Ramesh, Planning Commission

of India

Key issuesCoastal 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 industrialisationThe 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 coastalecosystem 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 alarmingreduction 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 issuesLaw 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 lawswhich 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 aquaculturefarms 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 ofshellfish 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 governmentcontinues to ignore them.


16/16

CoastNet emails:

Alex Midlen; [email protected]

Theresa Redding; [email protected]

Lesley Smeardon; [email protected] 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 coastalmanagement 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

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 Britains

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.

Join the Ramblers Association

and get 20% off

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

Registered charity

number 1093577

CoastNet welcomes new corporate members

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	coastnet
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Coastal Governance - CoastNet The Edge - Summer 2007

Documents